Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. The puzzle Geshe Pema Tsering poses mid-session gives this 71-minute seminar its sharpest moment: if homogeneous causes produce later moments of the same type, what is the homogeneous cause of the very first moment of great compassion? The answer — every being already carries an innate wish to be free from suffering — anchors the broader discussion. The class works through three of six cause types from an Abhidharma text: action cause (everything other than a thing that does not impede its arising — a classification, not a real cause); simultaneously arisen cause (the four elements, chocolate and its sweetness); and homogeneous cause, the one genuine cause of the three. A closing Q&A uses soldiers going to war to illustrate why anger routinely overpowers compassion: deluded minds mistake anger as profitable and dismiss compassion as a burden.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 34 2006 04 06 G and P (2).mp3
UUID: 1f991ad6-094c-4981-aaae-5920ff29a810
Teacher: Geshe Pema Tsering
Collection: Grounds & Paths (Geshe Pema Tsering)
Date: 2006-04-06
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 71.2 minutes
Words: ~4,051
Okay? Yeah. Topics. And then I was just reading through the division of causes as six. So the first one being action cause.
The first one. First one, the action cause, the second being simultaneously arisen cause, then homogeneous cause, the third. And fourthly, concomitant cause or cause sharing similarity, then pervasive or all pervasive cause and lastly, fruition or ripening cause. So then Geraint is reading for the next line of the text, which is saying that even though generally, action cause does not have a definition to it, does not have defining characteristics. So that’s the sentence of the text, Miguel is then explaining.
So then generally speaking, action cause does not have a definition or defining characteristics to it. But if with respect to particular objects, to particular particular basis, then respect to VAS, a pillar and etcetera, then there be a definition of the action cause of VAS, action cause of pillar, etcetera. So then the text goes on to then the following sentences are explaining giving an illustration. So then something which is of different substance from VAS, a different substance from VAS, but that’s but which is a concurrent base, so to speak, that does not, how to say, obstruct or stops the arising of the vase, the production of the vase. Is that making clear?
Is that clear? And then I was then giving an example. So such would be a pillar, for example, which is a different substance from the vase and does not obstruct, does not stop the arrival of the vase. So that’s the defining characteristic of the action cause of VAS. So then I was asking Gendün, so then all of us are action causes of VAS.
Is that right? And then Gendün said, yes, that’s right. Everything every phenomenon, which is according to the definition, which is a different substance from VAS and does not impede or does not obstruct obstruct the arise of the birth, the production of the vas is an action cause of vas. Let me see if I have from that, which is a different substance from from vase and does not hinder the production of vase. Is that okay?
That’s for for my teacher. The term action doesn’t seem to make sense in that. No. The term action. Yeah.
Because are not acting in any way. There’s a name that is given to that, which is a different substance from that which is being produced and does not stop that which is being produced from being produced. So then that is called, which is was translated in English, is the verb to do, right? So it was translated as action cause. Produce, the verb is kyepa, which can be translated in a huge amount of ways.
But this kyepa is usually two main translations of this word is to has to do with birth, to be born. Yes. Some people translate as production when it’s talking about using the of cause and effect, some people refer to translate as production instead of birth. Yes, yes, of course. Of course.
That’s that’s okay. I just ask if it’s alright. Everything that’s not the vase is the cause of the It’s the action cause. The action The action cause. Of the vase is coming into existence.
So then this is something interesting because Miguel was then saying again that so then again, every phenomena, every functional thing. So Miguel previously, Miguel was saying, so then even the space. And Gela corrected himself, space is permanent. It’s permanent phenomena. So it is not impermanent.
It’s not a functional thing. So permanent phenomena does not have substance to it. So it is not according to the definition. So everything that has substance, which is different from VAS, everything and does not impede or stops the production or the rise or the birth of the VAS, then everything is an action cause of the VAS. So every functioning thing, which is not the VAS.
And again, even oneself Gala was then saying, even oneself, everything that is different substance from oneself and then and does not stop the arise or the birth of oneself is an action cause of oneself and so forth. And then Gala was saying, now this is called action cause that which is called action cause is not a real cause. That’s very interesting. Gala was just saying right now, that is not a real cause, Okay? And then the tax now is going to give a division of action cause, okay?
And then the division that we have of action cause that I probably do not have here or have yes, I have. Again, divisions of action action cause are that which has the potential that which has the potential to to be an action cause or or that which has the potential of action cause. And secondly, that which does not have the potential of action cause or the ability, the ability to act as action cause. And that which does not have the power, the ability or the potential to act as action cause. And then an example, an illustration of the first, then is given the first one is every functional phenomena, every functional thing is the first one, which has potential to be an action cause.
And the second one, every permanent is the second one that which does not have the potential to be an action cause. Then I was just saying, so then every functional thing that as for the permanent phenomenon, they fulfill the second part of the definition of an action cause. So every permanent phenomena, they do not stop the arrival of the part of the vase, for example, the birth of the vase, but they do not share they do not fulfill the first part of the defining characteristic, which is that it is not the case that a permanent phenomenon has a different substance from the vase. So that so then because of that, they are called this that which does not have the potential to be to function as action cause. So then then the next sentence is a very condensed sentence, which is saying everything order from So then the sentence is I’m trying to figure out how to put it in English.
Then another no, that which is another one from how do you say that? It is to say that I’m trying to find out to pronounce how to say that, the difference which is different that which is different from this is the cause the action cause of this. Is this making sense? So just to say, for example, if So then that which is different from one’s self is the action cause of one’s self. So then if one is the is a VAS, then everything else is the action cause of the VAS.
Every phenomena will be either as Gala was explaining, every phenomena would either be action cause as something that which has a potential to be an action cause or that we just which does not have the potential to act as an action cause of debt. So every other phenomena will be an action cause of that in this way, will fall into these two divisions. Is that making sense? So then if you have two different vases, they are the action cause of each other. Every other phenomenon, which is not that one, will be the action cause of that.
I wouldn’t know how to translate moral implications. Would try to think of irresponsible for being responsible for everything. So it is just how can I put It is just a way of because action cause is clearly understood not to be a real cause? It is just a way of categorizing the universe, the phenomena around yourself. A way of Categorizing.
Categorizing. Categorizing. Categorizing. So then I was asking, so Anthony is the action cause of everything, everyone else here in the everything that is a different substance from Anthony, everything that is not Anthony. And you do not stop the birth of whatever phenomenon it is, then you are said, you are called the action cause.
So then you are the action cause of that piece of paper there. How do I again, Gela was just repeating the defining characteristic of action causes. Gela was just saying, so then an actual cause is not a real cause. It is not an actual cause. And then everything else, which is a different substance from oneself and does not stop the birth of oneself or everything else to which we are a different substance and that we do not stop the birth or arise of that, then we are the action cause of that.
And everything else which is a different substance from ourselves and does not stop the rise of ourselves, the birth of ourselves is an actual cause of ourselves. That’s called and that was I said, that is called that. If it fulfills these characteristics, it’s called that. Okay? So then again, Gala was repeating the defining characteristics of the actual cause of debt, that stand for any particular functioning thing.
And then I was saying, then that which is a different substance from that phenomena, and then which does not stop the birth, the production of that phenomena. And then I was making mention to one word in the very end of this definition in Tibetan. So is Chitumba. So then something which has both these characteristics, a different substance and does not stop the arise of the production of that. It has both these characteristics, then it’s called action cause.
So then again and then I go we go to the second one of those six, right? The second one, which is the so then the defining characteristics of simultaneously arisen cause are that which exists at the same time as a different substance and does not hinder and do not hinder each other’s production. Okay? Does it make sense in English? Yes, sure.
That which exists at the same time as different substance and do not hinder each other’s production. So that is again, it is not a real cause. I was just saying, again, this one is not So then Gendün explained the first part of the defining characteristics of simultaneously arisen cause, which is saying that which exists at the same time as a different time substance. So then again, I was then giving the example, the illustration of chocolate and the sweetness of the chocolate. Then again, they exist at the same time, and they are different substance.
And then again, I was going say something, for example, the chocolate. The chocolate has to eat the substances, the elements, the four elements, so then water, wind, earth and fire. And then so again, those four elements exist simultaneously at the same time in the Chocolate. And then so then they and they are different substances. So they fulfill the first of the character defining characteristic.
And secondly, each one of them does not hinder the production of the order. Then it’s different because first you build the wall wall and then later on, you paint it. So then that’s which is which comes about in the same simultaneously. So if you come simultaneously, then yes. So then, yes, that’s an example, that’s an illustration.
But some opponents, some other from other philosophies or other philosophy schools, they would say that first, the flower rises and then the only later the scent comes about. But yes, generally, is a valid illustration. Yes. But then this is then let’s talk about the chocolate bars that he knows of. Yes.
The the ones that he knows of, and he doesn’t know how chocolate is made or anything. But isn’t that the same thing as, like, coming in and you see the wall and it’s already painted? No. This would it’s just it’s just that for example, Geshe-la doesn’t know that there are, for example, chocolates, which are not. So then for example, I was explaining to Geshe some chocolates are not sweet.
And then Geshe-la said, so then some chocolates are bitter, isn’t it? And then so again, that chocolate and that the bitterness of that chocolate, they arise simultaneously. And then the chocolate which is sweet and the sweetness of that chocolate, which is sweet, again, it come about the final product comes about simultaneously. So when you’re talking about So it’s produced at the same same time. So the same with sunlight and heat?
Sunlight and heat. So then, again, the sun and the lights of the sun, and again, I’m sorry, the the the sweetness of the white sugar and the whiteness of white sugar. For example. The suggestion, yeah, again, the light of the sun and the heat. And then so then again, I was reading you for the text.
And then so the next so then those were the defining characteristics of simultaneous the arising cause. And then as an illustration of that, the text is giving the four elements, which are simultaneously arisen causes. And then as for the four elements, again, to take as an illustration the four elements. As for the four elements, they are also each one of the four elements is also simultaneously arisen result of the other, okay? They also the result of one another, simultaneously arisen result of one another.
Is that okay? Okay. So then homogeneous cause, so then the defining characteristic of homogeneous cause is that which produces its later moments of similar type to itself. The first moment of a flower and the second moment of a flower. And the same with every phenomenon.
The first moment and every moment that follows each other of of every single phenomenon. So then, Gala is then saying, so then the first two causes that were explained, then action cause and simultaneously a reason cause, they are not real causes. But then this one, homogenous cause, it is a real cause. It is an actual cause. And then I just ask, so then it is a homogenous cause is it a direct cause as we have in the last lesson, had a direct cause and the lesson is no, it can be direct cause, it can be indirect cause, it can come in can be many different things.
But it is an actual real cause. Mommy. Oh. Mommy. So then, guys, I’m saying so then every functioning phenomena, every phenomena, which is not permanent phenomena, is some homogenous cause.
But and then I was giving one specific illustration. So the last moment of the butter lamp. So then the very, very last moment, I was in sense of that moment where the butter lamp after that moment, it ceases to be, ceases to exist. So then that last moment of the butter lamp, it is not a homogeneous cause. So then we arose we were produced from a previous moment of ourselves.
So oneself arose from a previous moment of one self. And then from that this present moment of one self, the next moment, again, the same type of one self will be produced. And in this way, with every phenomenon functioning. And then, I was then giving also as an illustration, as an example, then the mind of renunciation, the mind of enlightenment, the realization of emptiness, all these minds or this consciousness. Then each previous moment will produce a later moment.
And then the more we meditate, then they become the, I’d say, increase, they become improve more and more until until they become what is called an uncontrived. Yeah. That’s it. Until they become uncontrived. Is that okay?
Yeah. Yeah. And this way and this way and then one goes to the, again, to the five paths, then the path of accumulation, preparation, path of seeing, etcetera. And this also has to do, again, was gonna say, also has to do with that. Homogeneous cause. How can this be applied? this reason can be applied?
So then Gendün is saying, then he’s explaining the etymology of the word Kawanamba. And then again, so then it’s just saying meaning that, that which is of the same type. I don’t know of another word to translate that, the same type of oneself. Yes. This goes in this way.
That’s a good question. I cannot figure out. So then we have great compassion. So then what is the homogenous cause of great compassion? And then I was trying to figure out what is it again I was trying to ask him.
Gelab explained was explaining. So then the seven-point cause and effect meditation, when we start recollecting all sentient beings as our mothers, and then we think of repaying their kindness and so forth. So then all these steps lead forward. And the we future. And asking us all of us, what is then the homogenous cause of the mind of great compassion?
Previous moment of compassion. So then yes, well, you can say that, but what is the homogenous cause of that very first moment of the mind of compassion? So it is not the mind that recollects all sentient beings as one’s mother, it’s not the mind that wants to repay their kindness, it is not the mind of equanimity, etcetera. It’s none of those. What is the homogenous cause of the first moment of the mind of your compassion?
So then, Gendün is explaining. So then what we have to pause is that. So it’s quite a very good answer, actually. So we exist since what is beginning this time, time immemorial. So then and within our mind streams, there has always been within the mind streams of everything, sentient beings, there has always been that mind, which wishes to be free from suffering, oneself and others to one level, to a certain measure, right, oneself and others wish to be free from suffering.
So that mind that every sentient being has that wishes for oneself or for oneself and others or for oneself and all sentient beings to be free from suffering. That is the mind that is posited as the homogenous cause. It gives rise to its same type. And then Gendün, so then by meditating on compassion, then one gets this mind improved improves more and more until it becomes great compassion. So then what is the mind of great compassion?
It’s the mind that wishes for all sentient beings to be free from suffering. So then that mind, which exists from that all beings have, I was going say, all beings have a mind that wishes to be free from suffering. And that mind, which wishes to be free from suffering is the homogenous cause of that because it produces it is of the same type the mind of compassion, it is of the same type of that mind, okay? Even mind omniscience of a ārya being of ārya Buddha, then that also came arose from homogeneous cause. And then, again, I was just saying, every consciousness, every mind comes out of of a homogeneous cause.
Comes out of a homogenous cause. Can somebody has a pencil? Pencil, Pencil, yes. Can I want to stop here today? It’s okay.
Yes, thank you. Okay. Yes. That’s it. Yeah.
So then if you have questions, go ahead. So is that doing then?? Yeah. Of course. I mean, if, you know, the every has already has that one already.
So the evilness we see from the view we perceive is a mistaken view as well as the those who provide up evil activity. They that’s that’s that’s not comes from what I want to say is, you know I such an evilness. So so then Evilness is our mistaken view as well as even they could people who providing evil activity is I will this I will ask something to underline with respect to your question that I hope I think will make it clear you don’t. So then it’s like this here. So I was asking what is so then everybody has a mind, which wishes does not wish to experience suffering.
So then and that is a mind of compassion, right?? So then Gala was explaining, but that mind of compassion is not strong enough. So to develop great compassion, one has to practice, meditate a lot. So again, I was going say, so then instead, we engage in all sorts of activities whilst overpowered by attachment. Attachment comes, the mind of attachment comes, then we immediately we do whatever it is that attachment tells us to do.
And then when anger comes, then immediately we do whatever it is that anger tells us to do, and we engage in all sorts of activity. But we still cannot cannot that mind of compassion that we have is not strong enough to commend us. So then, for example, with respect to war, again, let’s talk about it. With respect to war, so then all those soldiers, for example, they are going to war. So then all of them, they have compassion.
They have the mind of compassion within themselves. But because they have a very strong self grasping mind, then that self out of that self grasping mind comes anger. And then they becomes the servants or the slaves of that anger. And then the mind of compassion that they have within themselves, it is not strong enough to make them their servants. It’s to make them its servants.
So then because they do not understand the faults, the shortcomings of anger, and they do not understand the benefits of compassion. So they immediately, they are overruled by anger, and they are not overruled by So then, Gendün is saying, again, not knowing one does not people do not understand the shortcomings of anger, and they do not see the benefits of compassion. Instead, they think that anger is actually beneficial. Instead, they believe that anger is beneficial and they think that anger is going to through anger, they’re going to derive profits, they’re going to gain profit and they are going to, for example, destroy their enemies and then be happy and derive profit. And then compassion, on the other hand, they think, oh, no, compassion is not going to give any profit.
One has to help another person instead, and one has to go through hardships, and they think compassion is not beneficial. So the the negative activity is not a matter of the infliction. The prism? The prism. The prism.
The prism. The light goes through the glass. Refraction. Refraction. Refraction, isn’t it?
Refraction. Refraction? Refraction. Yeah. Refraction.
So so my question is that our different subject, which is stronger. Anger. Anger. Alright. I understand what you’re saying here perfectly, but I cannot translate, for example, cannot translate refraction.
But what I can ask is that the anger that we see, the violence that we see is because anger is stronger than compassion, right? So then, yes. So then because one is stronger than the other, then one is overpowered by anger instead because one does not see one believes that anger is actually going to benefit is beneficial to oneself and one does not believe that compassion is of any benefit, so then anger is stronger than compassion. And one then becomes overpowered by anger instead of being overruled by compassion. Again, I was just saying, then every So then, Gendün, since then, because every every consciousness, every mind of an ordinary being is mistaken mind.
It’s, I would say, upside down, inside out. So then because it is because every every mind is comes out of this mind of self grasping, which is a mistaken mind itself. So then every other mind of of an ordinary being is a mistaken mind. So it’s it’s it’s confused or deluded mind. So then because it is a confused or deluded mind, it does not see the faults of anger and it does not see the qualities of compassion.
That’s what I mean by refraction. We cannot see straight. That’s what I mean by Distorted. Yes. Those con different consciousness.
We