Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. Completing the final verses of the Eight Stanzas of Thought Transformation, Geshe Pema Tsering turns in this 45-minute session to wisdom as the foundation for all the method practices covered in earlier classes. He explains the “three circles” — doer, action, and recipient — and why clinging to any of them as inherently existent is itself an obstacle to Buddhahood, illustrating the point with a memorable example: how we perceive the Dalai Lama, or a person named David, as a solid independent entity standing apart from body and mind rather than a mere label applied to causes and conditions. The Q&A that follows is unusually wide-ranging, moving from politicians as objects of compassion to the distinction between tainted and untainted virtue, and closing with why great compassion must extend to every realm of suffering, not only the visibly destitute.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 06 TT 2004 08 31.mp3
UUID: 04af286f-7e9f-416a-a6c0-3aea9d9884e4
Teacher: Geshe Pema Tsering
Collection: DB Thought Transformation (Geshe Pema Tsering)
Date: 2004-08-31
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 45.2 minutes
Words: ~3,506
It’s the process of giving and taking and seeing others as teachers and so on. All of these things should be done with the right motivation. And the right motivation is this idea that we should be single pointedly concentrated on developing bodhicitta and not be distracted by the eight worldly dharma. So that is we shouldn’t be doing whatever it is we’re doing so that we will be liked and not disliked, have gain and not have loss, have praise and not experience blame, have fame and not experience disgrace. If we’re motivated by any of these wantings four of these and not wanting the other four, then the practice we’re doing isn’t the isn’t the right practice.
So if we are doing any of these practices, any of the other practices that were described in the other seven verses of the of the prayer, but we’re doing them with the idea that through doing these, we’ll become famous or renowned for being such a good practitioner and such a kind person. Then they aren’t actually practicing Dharma really. If we’re doing anything with any of this kind of motivation, then what we’re doing is a worldly action. It falls into the realm of worldly action. It doesn’t become a cause for us to achieve Buddhahood or liberation from Samsāra.
It just becomes another worldly action. So the thing that we need to to keep in mind then is that every action that we should do should actually be for the benefit of others. We shouldn’t be doing it for our own benefit. So the last two the the last two lines and where it says, then by understanding all phenomena as like illusions, as it will be released from the bondage of attachment. Now that actually referred to the the wisdom aspect of practice.
Practice. All of the other verses that we’ve been through, all of the other seven and a half verses, are actually referred to the method aspect of practice, so how to develop compassion, how to develop bodhicitta and so on. The last two refer to, wisdom, the wisdom of emptiness. So with regards to this wisdom aspect of the practice, the view, what we need to remember is that ourselves, the people who are doing this practice no. Sorry.
What we need to remember is when we’re doing this practice, that compassion itself, the person who is developing compassion, and the beings that we are developing compassion for are all like an illusion, and they are illusory things. They don’t inherently exist. We definitely need to understand this when we are doing these kind of practices, this practice of developing compassion. Now these things are what’s called the three circles. The three circles or the three spheres, the doer, the doing and the recipient are said to be the three spheres of activity.
And so these all three spheres of activity, we need to recognize as being illusory. If we do things with the idea that what we are doing is an inherently existent act performed on an inherently existent being by an inherently existent person, then our actions don’t accord with the the wisdom of emptiness. So what we need to do is to remember that these three things are not inherently existent. They don’t exist the way that they appear to us to to to, and they they are merely labeled. We definitely need to have an understanding of this when we are engaged in these practices.
And in actual fact, if there was a person who was developing compassion great compassion in this way, trying to develop bodhicitta in this way, And they thought that bodhicitta itself was an inherently existent thing, and the beings to which the being who was developing bodhicitta was an inherently existent person. And the beings to which they were developing the beings for in whose through whose inspiration they were developing bodhicitta were, in fact, inherently existent sentient beings. And this state towards which they were working, that being Buddhahood, was an inherently existent state towards which they were working, then that perception of all of these things as being inherently existent and not empty of inherent existence. This perception, this misperception is actually an obstacle to the attaining Buddhahood. You can’t attain Buddhahood with the holding on to this idea that everything is inherently existence existent.
So we actually need to stop perceiving things in this way. When we’re meditating on compassion, we need to stop perceiving things as being inherently existent objects towards which we are developing inherently existent solid compassion, and we are an inherently existent person doing We need to stop this and recognize that the object to which towards which we are working towards Buddhahood for the sake of the beings which with which with our inspiration, none of these things are inherently existent. They are all like an illusion. When it says like an illusion, what it means is that the way that they actually exist is not in accordance with the way that they appear to us as existing. We need to remember that in this way, are like an illusion, and this perception of this them being like this will stop us seeing them as being inherently existent.
So when we perceive start to perceive things as being not inherently existent, it’s not as if they we see something that was we that something that was there ceases to exist. It’s not as if they were if things were inherently existent, and we stop them from being inherently existent anymore. What is happening, in fact, is that we are is we’re fixing up a mistake we had about our perception of the way that things are. So things never inherently existent existed. We mistook them as being inherently existent.
So when we start perceiving things as being dependently originated and not inherently existent, then we’re actually starting to see things the way that they are. We are actually fixing up our mistake as opposed to stopping something as changing the way that something is. So there is nothing that ever was inherently existent. There’s nothing that was solidly independently existent. But be but because of our ignorance, we perceive things to be inherently existent.
You know, they appear to us as being inherently existent even if they aren’t. So the way that they appear to us as being inherently existent, and therefore we take things as being solid independent phenomena, means that we then go on to develop that we become caught or engaged with this this idea of inherently existent things and therefore develop negative states of mind such as attachment and aversion based on our misperception. So this means that and then So in this this commentary that we have here, the Dalai Lama says that this means that the people who are sitting in front of him when he is giving this talk, right, will look at him and say, oh, there’s a Dalai Lama. The Dalai Lama appears to them as being independent thing even of his body and mind. They see something that appears to them as a Dalai Lama, and they don’t think that there is a combination of a mind and physical form that they are labeling Dalai Lama.
They see a Dalai Lama as being an inherently existent thing that’s in front of them. So so that you can either think about the Dalai Lama like this or you can think about yourself like this. Now the person in this commentary’s Tibetan commentary’s name is Punsok, and the English version I have now is called David. Right? So someone called Poonsok or David or you, whoever.
Anyway, because I was it was like, there’s two different I’m going Poonsok. That must be David. I don’t I’m not sure that Poonsok is Tibetan is Tibetan for David, but anyway. So there’s this idea that comes about that this this being called Punsok or David or you is in charge that there’s a becomes David or Punsok’s body and and Punsok or David’s mind. And and the name Punsok is attached to that, or David is attached to that body and mind and becomes like the boss of that body and mind.
So it’s not as if that you see conditions and causes coming together in the form of this group of the five aggregates and then think that is labeled something as Poonsok or David, it seems as if there is a being called David, and and that being is in charge of the body and mind. There is a separate entity who is in is is the boss of both of them that we see as an individual character. So if you say that, for example, the Dalai Lama if say about the Dalai Lama that he is a monk, is a person, he is a Tibetan, and you’re saying all these things, it’s not as if you’re talking about a mind or a body. It’s as if you’re talking about something that is quite separate from the mind and the body, and some other entity that owns the mind and the body that is these things. It isn’t as if the mind and the body appear to us as something that we label, but that there is something quite separate from these two things that we are calling Dalai Lama.
So so that’s not to say that things don’t exist. Things do exist. They do exist. Beings do exist, but they don’t exist the way that they appear to us as existing. They they they exist because they’re terminologically designated such.
That is though because we call them what they are. And by calling them what they are, they become the what we think they are, but they don’t exist inherently the way that they appear to us as existing. Really. So there was only a little bit left in the commentary that we’ve got here, but there we’ve actually finished going through the the root text of the, eight stanzas of thought transformation. We can stop here.
So does anyone have any questions? Yep. Sorry. Your first Anthony said you no. He’s he’s lost it.
Come. He’s lost the So Geshe-la said that you have to remind yourself that these are beings who are working for the benefit of a lot of other beings. And I said, I don’t think many people will believe that, Geshe-la. And he said, well, whether they believe it or not, then you have to just look at the situation. I said, they tell lots of lies.
And he said, yeah. They may tell lots of lies and they may be very strongly motivated by their own their own benefit. How do they benefit themselves? But that’s not all that’s in their mind. Alright?
They they could choose to do other things. They could choose to do other work where they’re not doing they’re not working for country, but they chose to work for the country. And in working for the country, they’re working for a lot of people. So they may have a lot of self grasping. They may have a lot of trying to get things for themselves, thoughts in their mind.
But at some some point in their mind as well, there is this idea of working for the country and working for the benefit of the country and putting in a lot of effort so that their vision of how the country can be benefited comes about. In that way, there is something to respect there and admire there as well. In this way, they they you should have compassion for people who are really working that hard in order to to to benefit the country and a lot the older people that live in there. And if you think about it, if there’s no one doing this job, if there’s no one running the country, we’d be in a lot of trouble. Right?
We wouldn’t have jobs. We wouldn’t have a house. We wouldn’t have things to do. And and, you know, and they have to, like, fly all around the country and go to all the different meetings to to get things done. And so they do actually have to put in a lot of work to to make thing to for things that we take for granted as well.
So we should think of how kind they’ve been to us. So I said it’s difficult for us to believe because they do so many bad things. And he goes, yeah. But they there’s a lot so many ways that they’ve been really kind to us as well. Like, there’s so much work that they do that that helps us.
And and they may not do everything well, but there is a big thing that they’re working towards, the running of a country. If they don’t do any of the little things, then the big thing doesn’t get done. They may be doing all sorts of things, but there is a big reason behind it for the country to keep running. So whether we think they’re helping us or not, they are actually helping us in in one way because they’re getting things done that benefit us. Yeah.
Okay. So it depends on which perspective you’re talking about it from. So if you are practicing generosity with the motivation to benefit yourself in this life or in future lifetimes, then the result of that practice will be that you become rich, for example, in future life. The practice of generosity means that you can become rich. Through practicing generosity, if you become rich, then you experience the happiness of being rich.
That happiness that you experience is what’s called tainted happiness, and the virtue that you accumulated in order to experience that result is also tainted virtue. The reason it’s tainted is because it’s samsaric happiness. Samsaric happiness is, by its nature, actually suffering the suffering of change. So if you want to experience, it is virtuous and it is a result of virtuous action, but it’s a result of tainted virtuous action. If you want to experience nirvana, if you want to get out of saṃsāra, then you have to give up the things of saṃsāra that you would normally consider good.
They’re all to be abandoned. Striving for wealth, which would be considered good from the context of saṃsāra, isn’t good if you’re striving for liberation. In the context of striving for liberation, great wealth and things like this and the attachment to them do become poisonous. They’re what stops you from achieving liberation. Even though achieving wealth may be a good, virtuous no.
Even though achieving wealth may be the outcome of generosity in temporary sense, it is contaminated happiness and it was done with it is created through contaminated virtue. If we want to actually achieve true happiness, then we have to get out of saṃsāra to experience that too. We have to accumulate an uncontaminated virtue, which is virtue focused on liberation from saṃsāra and Buddhahood and not virtue that’s based on trying to feel happy in saṃsāra. Yeah? So there’s these two things.
You have two choices, basically. There’s two different paths you can go down. You can try and work towards Buddhahood and liberation. All right? And in that case, you don’t strive for samsaric happiness.
In that case, having great wealth isn’t a great thing. It doesn’t help in any particular way. If you are, on the other hand, working towards a positive rebirth as a god or a human, then in that case, you’ll be working towards things like wealth and so on. Right? But if you’re working towards that outcome, you can’t be working towards liberation.
And so you either abandon liberation, nirvana and Buddhahood, or you abandon wealth, and there are positive outcomes of So this is why recognizing what suffering is is actually very difficult. Recognizing what saṃsāra is is actually very difficult because most of the things that we consider to be happiness, most of the things that we consider to be pleasurable for example, the wealth and happiness of God and human realms are actually suffering by their nature. It’s difficult for us to recognize this because we perceive them as happiness. In order for us to really understand directly what suffering is, we need to recognize wealth and all of these things that we’re attached to as suffering, and we don’t do that at the moment. The if we want to create the causes for getting out of saṃsāra, this is what we need to do, but it’s very difficult.
So Geshe-la says if you’re anything like him, that it’s very difficult to focus on developing doing a virtuous action and hoping that that is a cause for a liberation or Buddhahood because the new mind is very caught up in Samsāra and the things that you would consider to be happy in Samsāra, like different experiences of happiness. Most of the time, that’s what we tend to be motivated by. So what happens then is that you’ll if you dedicate what you’re doing to liberation dedicate the practice of generosity to liberation, that it means that you will achieve liberation and be rich the whole time until you do. So it all depends on motivation. So if you give the if you give, you get rich.
So is it any any or the and so there’s the three ones that we did remember there, the protection from fear, the giving of dharma, and the giving of material offerings. And I said, so that brings us back to being difficult thinking about politicians because they don’t seem to wanna give and Geshe-la said no, but they’ve got the same motivation as us. You don’t necessarily have to think, oh, it’s all politicians. He said, everybody wants to be happy, doesn’t wanna experience suffering. They they don’t know how to do it in the long term, so they’re focused focused on this lifetime, and they’re trying to create the causes for experience happiness even if they don’t know the the the whole story.
And and they also could be Bodhisattvas for all we know. So we can’t say. Yeah. I said it, and then I eventually, I just say, I don’t think she likes him very much. Okay.
So the any experience that they may be having at the moment, you know, whether it is not having food or water or whatever it is, has to have come about through karma, has to have come about through being the result of our negative actions that they’ve done in past. In fact, there are other realms which are much more difficult than the human realm, where people are starving in their preta realms and ghost realms, people are experiencing intense craving and suffering much more intensely than anyone in the human realm. There are all these different realms people can be born into and experience that. If you do not practice generosity, you do not practice patience and things like that, you experience the results of those in difficult situations like this in other lifetimes. This doesn’t mean, however, that we can sit there and say, This is their karma.
They did something negative in the past, and they’re experiencing the results of it now. That’s just their karma. These beings have, at some stage in the past, been our mother and father and shown us incredible kindness. It’s not as if we can sit there in judgment on these people. In fact, it’s our responsibility to do as much as we can to relieve the suffering of as many beings as we possibly can.
It’s our responsibility to work for other beings in this way and to recognize that we’ve been in situations like this as well. If there is cause and effect, the situation has to be the result of cause and effect, but we also need to do everything can to try and relieve anyone suffering that we can. So the whole idea of compassion, especially the whole idea of great compassion, is focused on the wish that all sentient beings be free from suffering. This includes the people in Africa, but it doesn’t just include the people in Africa because there are actually different situations that people can be born in where they experience suffering a lot more than those people, Africa, like being born as an animal or being born in a hell like state and things like that, where they experience a lot more suffering than there. They have to experience a lot more starving and everything.
The focus for developing great compassion is sentient beings, that all sentient beings be free from suffering, that all sentient beings have the causes for happiness. It has to include everybody, not just those beings that have firsthand knowledge of suffering. That’s probably it.