Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. Using a sprouting seed as his central illustration, Geshe Pema Tsering opens this 45-minute session by showing how dependent origination proves emptiness: because a sprout requires seed, water, warmth, and manure to arise, it cannot exist independently. He cites a sūtra requested by a king and Nāgārjuna’s Root of Wisdom to show this logic cuts both ways, ruling out both inherent existence and nihilism. An extended Q&A covers why the Buddhist self cannot be mapped onto a Judeo-Christian soul; whether a Buddha’s mind remains impermanent at enlightenment (it does — each moment still arises from the previous); how Buddhas perceive causes and conditions where we see coincidence; and how three philosophical schools — Sautrāntika, Cittamātra, and Prāsaṇgika — differ on what carries consciousness between lives. Suited to practitioners with some grounding in Buddhist philosophy of emptiness.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 14 TT 2004 10 26.mp3
UUID: b92b9147-885c-4608-a3f6-e4f096473008
Teacher: Geshe Pema Tsering
Collection: DB Thought Transformation (Geshe Pema Tsering)
Date: 2004-10-26
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 45.5 minutes
Words: ~3,368
Everything. Okay so if we’re going to take as an example of this process looking for a sprout all right? Now, we try and establish a sprout. First of all,, in order for us to understand how a sprout exists, the way a sprout exists, we need to look at the way that we instinctively grasp at a sprout. Now, the way that we instinctively grasp at a sprout is as if it is a solid entity that exists by itself as an independent thing. We don’t think, Oh, there’s a sprout that came into being based on causes and conditions and now I have merely labeled it thus.
We think sprout, right? So the way that it appears to us as ordinary beings is what we need to refute. This is not the way it actually exists. The way that it appears to us as existing isn’t the way that it actually exists. So this in an intuitive sense no, sorry, instinctive sense that we have of a sprout as existing by its own its own means without coming into being based on causes and conditions is what we actually need to refute and the way that we can refute it is by saying that it is a dependent origination.
It is an instance of dependent origination that is the sprout comes into being based on a different set of cause and conditions, and hence it can’t exist by itself. It can’t exist in the way that we instinctively react to it. So this our sprout and if our sprout was an inherently existent thing, it would be able to exist in isolation. If it wasn’t dependent on causes and conditions to come into existence, it wouldn’t need anything supporting its existence. It would exist in one way forever.
It wouldn’t change. It would exist in a certain way without changing. But if we examine a sprout, then we know that this isn’t the way that it exists. Sprouts don’t come into existence from nowhere and they don’t stay in a certain way forever and they don’t come into existence without a can you say conflagration? Okay.
Conflagration of causes and conditions. I’m trying to get the idea of yes. So in order for sprouts to come into existence, we need a seed, we need water, we need manure, we need warmth, we need moisture, and so on and so on. Because we need all of these things for a sprout to come into existence, then we have to say that a sprout, for its existence, needs to depend on other circumstances, and therefore it has to be an instance of dependent origination. It has to be dependently originated.
It can’t be originated from itself and therefore it can’t be inherently existent. When we say then that a sprout has to be dependently originated or come from causes and conditions merely by being able to prove this, we are then able to prove that it is empty of an inherently existent self. So in this way, then we can see that the logic or the argument of dependent origination or interdependent origination proves that things don’t inherently exist by themselves they don’t exist independently. In this way, we’re proving emptiness. If something doesn’t exist independently, then it is empty of an inherent self it is empty of a truly existent self.
This means that by using the argument position of interdependent origination or dependent origination, we can exclude or rid ourselves of what’s called the extreme of substantialism. That is the extreme of thinking that things exist inherently, that is the way that they appear to us instinctively as ordinary beings. If a seedling or a sprout were able to be established by its own nature, then it wouldn’t need any causes or conditions to come into being as we were saying earlier. But this would also mean that the nature of that seedling or the nature of that sprout wouldn’t change. It wouldn’t grow.
It wouldn’t change into anything different. It would stay the same. In order for something to change, it has to not be inherently existent. It has to be going through a process of change based on causes and conditions. But because it’s not established by its own nature and because it doesn’t exist by its own power conditions.
Eventually it can grow from being a sprout to a seedling and then into a mature plant and go through all of these different changes in the process. When a plant is going from being a seed to being a fully developed plant, it goes through a whole process of changes depending on the causes and conditions around it. It grows in all different kinds of ways. At the end of when we have a fully developed plant then it usually can be used. That plant can be used by all sorts of humans and animals and they can all use it.
But if we look at the way that the process of this plant is growing and how it changes depending on the causes and conditions that govern it, then we can also see how interdependent origination negates the extreme of nihilism as well. Because no one is saying the plant doesn’t exist at all. We all interact with the plant, we all experience the plant, and the plant appears to us. But this argument or this philosophy of dependent origination shows that the plant can exist and not exist as an inherently existent thing. So in this way, then, the argument or the philosophy of dependent origination also negates the extreme of nihilism.
In a sūtra requested by the king, the Buddha said anything produced through circumstances is not self produced. So this means that anything that comes about based on causes and conditions isn’t inherently existent. The next line says: It does not have the nature of production. That means that it can’t produce itself. Any object that comes about when causes and conditions come together and is dependent on those causes and conditions can’t by nature produce itself.
Therefore, it says that anything that is the outcome of circumstances is empty, and he who understands emptiness is rigorous or has put in a lot of effort. To say that things come about depending on circumstances is another way of saying that they’re empty, because what we’re saying they’re empty of is the ability to exist independently, as autonomous things. Okay. Well, but there’s no there’s no oh, I keep doing this when I stress. There’s no words in Tibetan for soul.
Oh, okay. So if you can think of another way can say it, Sorry? I’m sorry. No. It’s okay.
If you can think of another way to say it, then we can Okay. So, and then this is again explained by Ārya Nāgārjuna in the Root of Wisdom where he says: If there are no phenomena that exist without having interdependent origination, then there are no phenomena that exist without having emptiness. So this is again showing how these two things, emptiness and interdependent origination, are actually interdependent as well, because the existence of one depends on the other and the existence of the other depends on that. So I can stop there and have questions. I really can’t translate that question, because the whole concept of a soul is like a Judeo Christian concept, and it’s just not in Buddhism at all.
So so there’s things you can say, maybe that’s kind of like a soul, and you can say, maybe this isn’t kind of like a soul, and but you can’t actually transplant one concept from one religion into another. Fair enough. Do do you know what I mean? So I can’t actually translate. Thanks.
No problem. Yep. Even some certain things would ever change the family way, like, Yeah. But that’s not so. It’s not the same word.
Yeah. So this very subtle consciousness, because it’s a consciousness, because it’s a mind, it’s a knowing thing, is a thing. That means it comes into being based on causes and conditions. So causes and conditions need to be present for that self to exist. What’s called the governing condition of a moment of consciousness is a previous moment of consciousness.
The mind is made up of many, many moments of consciousness, the mind stream is made up of many, many moments of consciousness, you can’t say that it inherently exists as something it’s dependent on the previous moment of consciousness for it to exist. This stream of consciousness has existed since beginningless time and goes on to achieve Buddhahood, especially in its most subtle form. But you can’t say that any point of that consciousness, any moment in time of that consciousness, is inherently existent and it makes up the mind. What happens once you reach Buddhahood? Happens reach Because it doesn’t change anymore, is that then inherent?
Is that then permanent? Did everyone hear that question? Yes. Okay, I’m gonna say it again. And now you can test to see if I actually understood you.
So what happens then when you reach Buddhahood? Because the nature of the mind doesn’t change once you become a Buddha, it keeps going on in the same way. Does that mean that it becomes permanent? Does that mean it becomes inherent existent? Okay.
So the continuum of a Buddha’s mind is said to be still impermanent. It’s just that it doesn’t improve and it doesn’t get worse. It constantly stays as good as it can get. But as every moment of a Buddha’s consciousness comes into being, it’s in dependence upon the previous moment of consciousness of a Buddha’s consciousness. So, it’s like one Buddha consciousness leads to the next Buddha consciousness, and there’s a stream of things.
It means that the mind of a Buddha is still an impermanent thing. It just never changes. It just never gets any better, it never gets any worse, because there is no better to get. One moment creates the next moment creates the next moment, and they’re all moments of the same type of mind. They’re all moments of the same type of consciousness.
They’re just Buddha consciousness. That’s what Geshe-la says. And if you’re going read in different books, in different Tibetan Buddhist books, you’ll find different explanations, so don’t get too confused. This is the point of view which he’s teaching from. Okay.
If you are able to perceive the self to be refuted and the self refuted, right, then after that, you recognize that that which is creating karma and that which experiences the results of karma is the merely labelled self or the merely labelled I. If, however, you haven’t perceived this, then the way that you interact with the self is as an inherently existent thing, then that perception of the inherently existent thing that is self is what creates negative karma and positive karma. It’s kinda like splitting the question in half. Yes. Correct.
What you mean emptiness? Perception perception of emptiness. Okay. So the absolute bodhicitta is not just the perception of emptiness. It’s the perception of emptiness that is realized on the path of seeing of Mahāyāna.
So you can’t have absolute bodhicitta without relative bodhicitta. The two things come together, so you can actually develop a wisdom perceiving selflessness and develop a wisdom perceiving emptiness and still not have relative bodhicitta. This is what happens on the Hīnayāna path, and when people become arhats and achieve personal realization. So absolute bodhicitta isn’t just the perception of emptiness. Absolute bodhicitta is the perception of emptiness conjoined with relative bodhicitta.
Continuum? Contingency. Contingency. What does that mean? Well, I mean, I know what it kinda means, but Necessity.
Necessity. Yeah. Don’t know. I’ll say what? Contingency.
Necessity. Necessity, I understand. Because contingency doesn’t mean like something that isn’t essential, but can act as a backup, it’s like an alternative. So a contingency wouldn’t be the opposite of a necessity then. It would be something that isn’t a necessity, but isn’t necessarily the opposite of a necessity.
What can you do when you test it? Yeah. So Accident or a challenge or something, you know, something Fall back on. Yeah. You’re desperate.
Yeah. Yeah. So I don’t think he wants the opposite of necessity. Is that what you’re saying? The opposite?
Yeah. So hang on, mate. Alright. Alright. Yeah.
So give me the example. There’s a girl on the floor dancing and Oh, come on, hero. I just said, yeah, like, it was just trying to figure out the idea of necessity and girls dancing on a floor. Yeah. And I was just explaining to Geshe-la.
I’m a little confused. Uh-huh. Sorry. What’s Coincidence. Coincidence.
Coincidence. So something necessarily happens, and also is this there an idea of coincidence, things just happening Yes. For no reason. Yeah. It’s coincidence.
It’s like people alive because of other people. Right? Or, you know, you know, where where we are in the Yeah. existing world. Right.
Maybe in the Well, there’s no such a a I think it’s coincidence. Okay. I can kinda ask that question. I’m gonna have to, like, tweak it a little. Alright?
Beta. Well, the way I was gonna kind of put it together was like, things happen that we don’t know why they happen. Alright? And if you were like a Buddha, would you know why things happen? Or could you see the reasons why things happened?
Yeah. The coincidence. Coincidence is happening when we don’t know why they happened. Yeah. Because Or thing conditions coming together, but we don’t know why.
No. No? They’re coming. Not a. Things happening at Things coincide.
That’s yeah. Things things are. Yeah. Yeah. Which is sometimes quite coalescing.
I’m getting, I mean. Yeah. But that’s what that’s what it’s like. Things coming together, but we don’t know why they’re coming together. Inside.
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I’ve got yeah.
That was yeah. But but but so from from our perception, we don’t know why. You know, things happen, and we don’t know why. Right? But is it if you were a Buddha, could you see why things happened?
Or is it just an acceptance? Or is this that things happen, and we don’t know why? I I don’t know. I’ll I’ll try and get something out. Okay.
So I gave this example, and I don’t know if it fits. But I was strolling through the city today, and I ran into Nick. And I didn’t even notice Nick until he went, oi, and he was that far away from me. Right? And I was just walking down doing my business, I hadn’t planned to see him, and he was just strolling the other way and hadn’t particularly planned to run into me.
But we we met on the street. Yes. So there was like a the the the two actions of us doing things coincided. Yeah? But there was no plan, which is, oh, what are you doing here?
Right? Okay. Now from our point of view, there was there was no planning. There was no we wouldn’t necessitate that situation. It just happened.
Right? So Geshe said from the Buddha’s point of view, from our point of view, it’s because of our ignorance, we don’t know why, right? But from the Buddha’s point of view, the Buddha would know why we were walking down that road, like down to fine detail, why the road was built, why the what created the situation for me to be on the road, all of the conditions and causes that came together for that action to happen. And then he’d also understand the and why also why Nick was walking down that road. Yeah.
Why particularly he was walking down that road, why the road was there, everything. And then they’d also understand that time in terms of the fact of the moment of the bumping, like seeing each other was that moment. They would understand the moment as well as all of the conditions that have come into place. So from the Buddha’s point of view, there are no coincidences. Everything’s clear.
They understand the causes and the conditions and the timing for everything. So from our point of view, it’s all confusion and we don’t know what’s happening. From the Buddha’s point of view, there are causes and conditions and reasons for everything. I don’t know if that helped or not, but think. You can have a think.
If I got it totally wrong, can use the thing, and we’re gonna have some more words. Okay. So from the Buddhist perspective, there is no beginning. Because every time you have a beginning, then you have to have a moment before that beginning. So everything the Christian idea, they have this idea of a permanent God that created the universe.
And from the Buddhist perspective, if you had a permanent God, there would have to be some reason why that permanent God was there. There would have to be causes and conditions for that being there, or there would have to be parts to the God, or it would to be established in some way. You can’t establish something from the Buddhist position without there being reasons for that. So we’d have to say, Well, then, who created God? So forth, and all of these arguments.
So from the Buddhist perspective, there is no beginning, because every time you posit a beginning, you have to say, Well then, what happened before that beginning? So all beings, all continuums, are said to be beginningless, to not have a moment where they began. And then the other thing that comes into this idea is that time itself is a thing, and time itself is a construct, is a label, is an idea that we put onto things. So time itself doesn’t inherently exist. So time only exists relatively to now exists, to before, and so on.
To have the idea of a beginning, you need an end, or you need a moment after that beginning, and then time doesn’t inherently exist. If time doesn’t inherently exist, there cannot be any beginning to time. Yeah. Yeah. Okay.
At the time of death, all of the aggregates dissolve. Now depending how much of these aggregates dissolve how much of these aggregates you dissolve depends on which philosophical schools position you’re coming from. Okay, from the position of what’s called the Sautrāntika school or the Yogachara school, then what goes from one life to another is a very subtle consciousness. A very subtle consciousness that carries the tendencies towards certain actions that would facilitate the development of these in the future not the actual aggregates themselves, but the tendencies towards those things that would develop in the future. That’s from the Sautrāntika point of view.
From the Cittamātra point of view and Mind Only school’s point of view, what goes from one life to another is what’s called the alaya vijnana, the mind basis of all, which is a very similar thing, subtle levels of mind from which other minds develop. That carries over from one life to another. From the prasangika point of view, which is the consequentialist school, which is one Geshe-la’s favorite, they say nothing goes from one life to another apart from the merely labeled self. So he said, you know, when we were talking earlier about what is left when you’ve realized emptiness, the illusory like self that is merely a label, Yeah. And that is the only thing that goes from one life to another in the Prāsaṇgika consequentialist school’s position.
We have these, like, discussions because that’s not my favorite philosophical school. And he goes, you don’t have to accept. I didn’t say you have to accept it. Because anytime that you like because the mantra is called the six-syllable mantra of Chenrezig. So if you’re trying to focus on Chenrezig when you’re dying, you think that that would be very beneficial.
You’re the last one because I think we’re out of time. Okay. Oh, well, then you can write it down and come back next week. Okay.