Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 39-minute commentary, Geshe Pema Tsering stays with a single word in the Heart Sūtra’s title — “Paramita,” going beyond — tracing three meanings before settling on the central one: transcending ignorance through wisdom. He then compares how different philosophical schools define that wisdom. The Mind Only school receives extended treatment: subject and object are not substantially distinct because both arise from one latency within the mental continuum, a claim illustrated through perception, memory, and why two people observing the same object see it differently. The Autonomous Middle Way’s subtler position — objects are mind-imputed yet also exist from their own side — is then contrasted, with the Prāsaṇgika view deferred to a later session. Karma as the mechanism that plants latencies through intention closes the discussion. Best suited to students already familiar with Buddhist philosophical schools.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 02 2001 11 01 HS.mp3
UUID: aea70fcf-38f6-4147-abd6-8647a92af76d
Teacher: Geshe Pema Tsering
Collection: Heart Sūtra (Geshe Pema Tsering)
Date: 2001-11-01
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 39.5 minutes
Words: ~2,630
So there’s a reason why the verses, the lines, the syllables, so forth are counted in a particular text to make sure and the reason is to make sure that there aren’t later additions or subtract subtractions made of the text to try and keep the text as pure as possible. So here also we have in the title of the text, we’re still dealing with the title, which is, I think everyone has ‘Discourse in the Essence of the Wisdom Gone Beyond’ or the ‘Ārya Heart of the Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra’. Within that, we also have this term Paramita, which means which is translated as perfection, but it generally means going beyond. And here in the commentary, there’s three different meanings of going beyond. Firstly, beyond a common being.
Going beyond a common being is an Ārya being. And going beyond the conventional is the ultimate or going beyond the a relative truth is ultimate truth. And going beyond saṃsāra is nirvana. And But here, the particular meaning of going beyond, is going beyond ignorance, going beyond ignorance to wisdom. So here, perfection or going beyond refers to just that, transcending ignorance.
Also, the mind only school have their own particular assertion in relation to what wisdom is or the wisdom of the nonduality of subject and object. And that particular assertion about wisdom is somewhat different from the assertions of others. Here in the for the mind only school, here they assert particular type of wisdom, which is the wisdom of non duality of subject and object. Here the subject refers to awareness itself. Object refers to the object of that awareness.
They assert that there is a non duality between subject and object. In other words, they’re asserting that the subject and object are substantially nondistinct. This type of wisdom is a little bit different than what is asserted by the higher schools. But for them, for the mind only school, this refers to the Sugata or the one who goes to bliss, possesses this type of awareness and achieves that result. Is that understood?
Is that easy to understand? What? Oh, that. Oh, yeah. Here, what’s asserted by the mind only school is a type of wisdom that understands non duality.
And non duality there refers to two entities not being dualistic. And the two entities not not regarded as dual are the what’s called the the subject and the object. And the subject is the awareness which grasps object, and object there just means the object itself. So we tend to see the awareness and the objects of awareness as not being related, as being quite distinct. For the mind only school, they regard the subject and object or awareness and the object of awareness as being substantially one.
So in fact, the mind only school, they they regard the object. I say the object of sense awareness and the awareness itself as being of the same substance. So since they’re of the same substance, they’re regarded as being free of being distinct substances. Therefore, in understanding that they’re empty of being separate substances, one understands that they are of the same substance. So this is the assertion of nonduality made in the mind only school.
Is that is that okay? Okay. Everyone understand that? Oh, so here, being empty of being distinct substances means they’re of the same substance. Regard all objects as being of the same nature as the mind itself.
So there’s a particular assertion of the mind only school. So here for the mind only school, we’re engaged in observing objects all the all the time. No matter what we look at the wall or another person and so forth, the reason why we observe another being or we see any object is that a latency, a seed within our mental continuum has awakened, which has allowed us to do this. So here from one latency that exists within the mental continuum, when it’s awakened, it’s as if it splits in two, and half becomes the object and half becomes the subject. So in fact, the subject and the object are really coming from the same latency.
And because of that, they’re asserted, therefore, to be of the same substance. This is the assertion here of the mind only school. Is that okay? Everyone understand? This one.
Okay. Oh, yeah. So in fact Being empty. Yeah. So being empty of, being substantially different is in fact a non affirming negation, and that is regarded by the mind only school being emptiness itself.
For ourselves, we tend to observe the awareness and the object of the awareness as being distinct in substance, but they’re being emptier of being distinct in substance is emptiness for the mind only. So here is the assertion by the mind only school of nonduality. And nonduality really refers to ‘not two’. So the two that are referred to is the subject and the object, and those two not being substantially distinct is nondual. Is that okay?
So here for the mind only school, that is asserted to be emptiness. This assert within the middle way school also, there’s other schools such as the the autonomous and the Prāsaṇgika. The autonomous middle way view also is divided up into those that are similar to the sūtra and those similar to the yogacharians or the mind only. Those yogacharian autonomous middle way school advocates also assert a similar system of nonduality, a somewhat similar system. It’s not exactly the same because they also assert non-true existence, but they do have an assertion that in a way parallels what the mind only school, lower mind only school had asserted.
So the, the autonomous schools, refute that, for them, emptiness is refuting that there is a that there is something findable within its basis or that that emptiness is really negating true existence of the object. So there’s similar there’s the sūtra autonomous sutric autonomous than the yogic autonomous, these two. And they both assert that here, in a sense, emptiness is a lack of true existence, which is a subtler presentation than the mind only school. So here for the for the autonomous school that they asserted is an accumulation of two factors that are required in explaining how objects exist. But in fact, objects are imputed from the side of the person or the subject, but they also exist from their own side as well.
And the accumulation of being imputed by conception and existing from their own side explains just how objects exist and function. So in fact, therefore, all objects are a combination of two things being imputed by conception or being imputed by awareness and then existing their own side. Here for the autonomous school. And the status of any object therefore is combination of these two factors. But the factor of awareness imputing the object there needs to be a correct or a valid type of awareness.
It can’t be just any type of awareness. Otherwise, there’s a danger that one is asserting something that doesn’t exist. So the type of awareness that’s required in order to establish the two factors for, again, establishing the existence of any object, that type of awareness is either conceptual or perceptual. If it’s perceptual, it should be non mistaken. If it’s conceptual, it should be a correct or Yeah.
If it’s conception, it must be an authentic type of conception, meaning that the object of that awareness must exist. As for ourselves, the normal way that we interact with objects is is that we don’t consider that there is an aspect of us imputing or as or a subjective element in explaining how objects exist. For us, what appears is that objects simply seem to be established from their own side alone. So therefore, for the autonomous school, they assert that the object to be negated is that type of object, which is not imputed by awareness to exist there, but is only established there from its own side. That, is the central object to be negated or refuted.
So here for the autonomous, the fact that asserting that the object is not imputed there by awareness, but exists from its own side is the object to be refuted. The emptiness of that is the object to be established. So therefore, for the autonomous school, the fact that, the object is empty of being not established by the imputing mind, but existing from its own side through its own inner essence, that is the object to be refuted. The emptiness of that is emptiness itself. The wisdom comprehending that is the wisdom, which is regarded as the or the one gone to bliss.
So therefore we have this section in the commentary here, which talks about how the firstly, how the mind only school assert what the Sugata is or the one gone to bliss is. Has everyone found that section? It’s about halfway down page number one forty eight, I think. It’s sort of wedged in another section there. So firstly, what’s given there is the mind only explanation of what sugata means.
Then now we’ve just talked about what the autonomous or the middle way autonomous school asserts to be what the Sugata or the one gone to bliss actually refers to. So here, in fact, there is two two different versions of the meaning of or gone to bliss actually actually means. So the first one we have actually explicitly in the text, which is stating that in the continuum of a Buddha, the wisdom comprehending nonduality, that is the wisdom comprehending that the subject and object are not substantially distinct. In the continuum of a Buddha, that is what is referred to as the Sugata, the one gone to bliss. If we take a slightly higher view of what that is, that is we refer not to the mind only school, but to the autonomous school, then for them, an object existing not established by the mind imputing it to be there, but established from its own side, by its own essence and so forth, is the object to be refuted.
The emptiness of that or that object being empty of that sort of status is emptiness. The wisdom of the the Buddha comprehending that is the wisdom comprehending emptiness that is referred to or labeled Sugata or the one gone to bliss within the autonomous school. There’s a further there’s a further one for the Prāsaṇgika school. They also have their own version of what Gone to Bliss or Sugata actually mean. But that will be left for later.
In fact, actually, the this particular Sūtra, the Heart Sūtra, is only, what, twenty five verses. It’s not it’s very short. But actually, meaning in it is incredibly extensive. And, course, if one goes into detail But if in fact, one were to fully explain or to explain in a little bit of detail the various aspects that are taught in the sūtra, then it can be incredibly extensive. Perhaps, Here, it’s really a seed within the mental continuum giving rise to awareness in the object.
Here from the mind only school, of course, that occurs. We have awareness of other beings. If we have awareness of another being, it indicates that from a latency in our own mental continuum, we have awareness and the aspect of that awareness, the object itself arising. Similarly, the other person, if they’re aware of us, they have a a latency in their mental continuum, which gives rise to awareness of us, and it also gives rise to the object. Here, refers Here, Sugata generally refers to an Ārya Buddha, refers to the Buddha themselves.
Here, they’re extending the meaning of Sugata to also refer to the wisdom comprehending emptiness within the continuum of of Buddha. So here referring here it’s talking still about the title and the title is referring to the perfection of wisdom and the the finest, the highest, the most developed wisdom or perfection of wisdom is that which exists within a Buddha. So that’s what’s being talked about here, that type of wisdom. And that’s also called Sugata or gone to bliss. Sugata means ‘su’ is bliss.
‘gata’ is gone. Gone to bliss. Referring to a Buddha. Is that okay? It’s in the Tibetan.
It’s the Tibetan for. It’s the Tibetan form. In the title we have, if we look, it’s got Prajñāpāramitā, Bhagavati in Tibetan is with the meaning of that has been explained in brief. Here from the mind only school, the object and the awareness observing that object are not substantially distinct, but they are distinct.
They’re distinct, but not substantially distinct. Because certainly, for awareness, awareness is awareness, and the object is distinct from that awareness. One is form. For instance, if you take eye awareness, we have eye awareness, which is awareness. Eye awareness, which is awareness, and the object that it observes is form.
So those two things are distinct. And in fact, they’re they’re distinct, but not substantially distinct. And that is because they’re emerging from one latency within the mental continuum. Is there any difference in that? Yeah.
Here for the mind only school, whether, for instance, you have a eye awareness focused on your son or whether you’re remembering your son with conceptual awareness, Both of those two types of awareness are observing your object through the awakening of a latency within your mental continuum. Both equally are dependent on latencies within the continuum. And for as many types of awareness as we have, for instance, of our son or whoever, they’re developed from latencies that exist within the continuum. Then also we have common objects that different people observe. But then when we look at the situation of a common object that a number of different people are observing, actually different people are observing that object through different latencies maturing or awakening within their mental continuum.
And what different people see is not exactly the same as well. So therefore, common and uncommon objects are therefore established in that way. Also, it’s clear that at times, even though we’re observing the same object, one person has a good opinion of the object, another person has a bad opinion of the object. So it’s really coming from latent Can I go back to that? So this is a a tenet of the mind only school.
What is it? So here, the way that latencies are formed is just through one’s intention. It’s through karma, in other words. And what karma is is the mental factor of intention. And just in the course of a day, we lay down many imprints or latencies within the mental continuum in accordance with our intention.
If we sit there and think about something positive, then already that intention has made an effect, made an imprint on the underlying consciousness. If we think negatively, then similarly we have negative imprints and later they awaken again to produce a result. So in the course of a day, one has countless, absolutely countless numbers of imprints and so forth being arising within the mind or being laid within the mind itself. In fact, in order to make a latency, we don’t have to actually, you know, manufacture something or engage in some technology. So in fact, yeah, it’s not as if, it takes any, you know, effort on our side to manufacture something.
It’s almost there in the first moment of having the intention. So is that okay? Did everyone understand well what the topic was on tonight? So if possible to discuss the issues does help a great deal and does make it easier to understand. Okay.
Okay?