Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 44-minute session, Geshe Pema Tsering brings a survey of Buddhist philosophical schools to a close, naming dependent origination as their shared final word. He unpacks emptiness as the middle way — things are not inherently existent from their own side, yet they do exist through the power of labeling — and briefly situates this within the five paths from accumulation to no more learning. A lively Q&A then uses George Bush as a live test case: how is a person established through labeling rather than physical form alone? The discussion extends to uncompounded space, distinguishing it from visible sky and showing how even permanent phenomena depend on their parts. Suited to students following the full Introduction to Buddhism series.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 12 ItB 2003 03 31.mp3
UUID: efe3439e-7d0f-4fb1-92fb-6d171ed25923
Teacher: Geshe Pema Tsering
Collection: IB Introduction to Buddhism (Geshe Pema Tsering)
Date: 2003-03-31
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 44.8 minutes
Words: ~3,615
All truly exist from themselves. So, things don’t come, they don’t exist from their side. They exist based on causes and conditions. They don’t exist inherently from their own side. Empty of their own inherent existence and what actual ability happens is that we label them from our side.
We label the causes and conditions as something from our side. Because they are dependent on other things, that is causes and conditions to come about, then we say that they are what is called dependent origination, which means that their origin is dependent on other things, namely causes and conditions. So that’s like the final word from Buddhist philosophy not even if you look at it from any of these different schools point of view the final word is that all phenomena dependent arising or have a dependent origination that is dependent on causes and conditions to come into existence there’s what is called the final the final way of looking at things from the view point of view which is this and is the final way of looking at things from the behavior point of view which is the mind that doesn’t harm so those are the two bits that are the most important or considered the most important in Buddhist philosophy, the view of dependent origination and the behaviour of non-harmfulness. So we went through all the different schools of Buddhist philosophy there. Did you understand it?
So, is like the the most important thing about Buddhist philosophy or Buddhist practice is these two concepts. And a lot of the times, people don’t actually so much like these ideas of dependent origination or dependent arising. They like the word emptiness. They think emptiness is alright. So emptiness means nothing is there and that’s okay.
I like emptiness. Emptiness is a good concept. But they don’t concentrate so much on the the definitions of emptiness which this dependent origination and dependent arising. So, but in order to understand emptiness, in order to understand the true nature of reality, then that is dependent on looking correctly and applying logic and reason to dependent origination or dependent arising the concept of this. So in order to develop this understanding of emptiness, to develop this understanding of the complexities of reality, then what you actually need in order to meditate on this and to see it correctly is bodhicitta, the mind seeking to achieve enlightenment for the benefit of all sentient beings.
If you don’t have this mind, then it’s very difficult to get a fine understanding of the other things we’ve been talking about. So in order to develop bodhicitta, what we first need is renunciation. We need to be able to turn our mind away from Samsāra. We need to be able to see Samsāra pleasures for what they really are, which is another form of suffering and not find our mind being drawn towards any of them. If we don’t have any concept of turning our mind away from saṃsāra, then we can’t try and develop bodhicitta.
So in order to understand any of these things, then we have to concentrate on dependent origination or a dependent arising now in order to understand that we have to understand everything comes into play or comes into existence because of causes and conditions or if it’s something like uncompounded space and we can’t see how uncompounded space which is permanent came into causes and conditions we came about because of causes and conditions then we need to look at the different parts of uncompounded space uncompounded space is defined by its areas so for example if we have uncompounded space in the sky we have the northern part of uncompounded space the southern part of uncompounded space, and then we have uncompounded space which is in a house and things like that. And then it comes together by all the different parts of it by reliance on its parts, it is dependent arising. It depends on its parts to arise. So the definition of uncompounded space is that which doesn’t stop or inhibit movement or inhibit seeing, it doesn’t inhibit touch, it doesn’t inhibit smelling or anything like that. It doesn’t actually have any definition to itself apart from the absence of something.
So, in order to say that it is dependent, it comes about because of dependent arising or we say that it is, it comes about because of relying on its different parts. So, for example, there is Australia, if we talk about Australia’s uncompounded space so Australia’s uncompounded space will be cut up into Adelaide’s uncompounded space Sydney’s uncompounded space Melbourne’s uncompounded space and the spaces in between these in order to say in order to these different parts And then from these different parts, in reliance on these different parts, could say that we that there is then Australia’s uncompounded space. So there’s these two different ways that things can come into existence, you know, because of dependent arising. The first one is dependent arising based on causes and conditions phenomena that comes into being because of the causes that were planted for it to be coming to being and because of the conditions that helped it come into being then there is things that come into being because of a dependence on part and they are dependent arising dependent on parts so therefore a combination of a whole different bunch of parts created something into existence but the way that they’re they actually exist in is that we label them as such so we label the court the result of the causes and conditions as something we label the combination of parts as something and it’s this labeling process that goes on that actually creates the thing, makes it into an existence.
So so what could happen as well is that we could go through this idea of okay it doesn’t nothing really exists because it’s not it’s not truly existent and it doesn’t come about from its own side so therefore it doesn’t exist at all it’s meaningless we may have this thought in our mind nothing means anything it’s all meaningless it’s not it’s not truly existent and this is what’s called the extreme of nihilism now the way to get out of having that mind state is to realize that things do exist they exist because we label them as such so by the power of our labeling but and they are merely labeling something by labeling yeah just the mere power of that label then something does exist it doesn’t exist from its side but it does exist from the labels that we put on it so therefore we avoid the two extremes we don’t see something is existing inherently we don’t see something is truly from its side thoroughly established but we do we don’t see something as sorry and then we don’t see something as existing as not existing at all right so because we have this label going out from us and then we understand that it does exist and because it doesn’t exist from its side then we understand that this doesn’t exist the way that we assume it does the way that we believe it does and that’s like the definition of emptiness difficult to get our mind around that even conceptually, let alone to actually embed it in and make it pervade our consciousness.
So this is what’s called the path of the middle way. The path of the middle way in that we understand things don’t exist the way that we see them as existing, which is as in an extreme of eternalism. Accept inherent we accept naturally that things exist from their own side they’re inherently existent they’re actually there the way that we perceive them to be that’s the extreme of eternalism so we abandon that concept and then we abandon the concept of nihilism of things not existing at all as well because we understand that they do exist in terms of our terminological and conscious labeling of them so that that gets rid of that extreme and the path between these two is what’s called the path of the middle way. So first of all we have like a conceptual mind of this we go through the process in our mind of exactly how emptiness exists put in a lot of work and study to understand how this philosophy comes together and get it straight and then we get like a conceptual idea of it then we get what’s called an inferential subsequent knower so we were relying on a sign the sign of our knowledge then we get like a an idea from it that’s like if we see smoke on a pass we understand there’s fire so relying on the the idea that’s presented we get a conceptual understanding of it sorry no subsequent non conceptual understanding of it then if we keep meditating on again and again and again and again this understanding becomes we see it directly we understand it directly without any relying on any signs without relying in any theories, relying on any of our concepts to bring it into being.
And when we understand emptiness clearly and directly, that’s when we say that it’s an Ārya being or a superior being. So this is also what’s called the truth of the path. When someone has this realization in their mind stream, that’s what’s called the truth of the path. It’s called a path, but it’s also called a direct realization and two other things. Sorry.
It’s called an achievement, and it’s also called a awareness. Yeah. So this this first one, this first path that we have, the first Ārya path, path where we see things directly as being empty of true existence and as being dependent arisings, that’s what is also the first of the truth of cessation, because there’s this cessation of seeing things as being truly existent now after that there becomes further truths of cessation if you like there is the Arhats or the Foe Destroyers they completely obliterate suffering so they have the cessation of suffering also on the path of no more learning and the Bodhisattvas they have completely obliterated the obscurations of afflictive emotions so therefore that is also a truth of the path no sorry truth of cessation and also when people are liberated from saṃsāra achieve nirvana then that’s actually a truth of cessation as well. Okay. So there’s also the truth of the path is usually divided into five.
There’s, like, the path of accumulation, the path of preparation, the path of seeing, the path of meditation, and the path of no more learning. But the first two are what’s called like similes or facsimiles of the truth of the path because their emptiness isn’t being perceived directly or the different types of emptiness depending which path you’re on. So they’re not considered two truths of the path, they’re considered facsimiles of truths of the path and the top three, the path of seeing, the path of meditation, the path of no more learning are considered the true truths of the path. But there’s also three different vehicles that you can travel on on each of these five paths, that makes up to five paths altogether. And each one of these has a different definition of what it is to perceive emptiness.
So there’s six of these facsimiles of the path, which is on each of the three vehicles there’s two facsimiles and then there’s nine actual truths of the path which are the top three paths of the each of the three vehicles. So along with every one of these truths of the path every one of these consciousnesses that sees something directly or understand something there comes along with that in an abandonment truth of cessation that goes along with it so when you see something about the nature of reality directly then along with that comes an abandonment of seeing the non truth or mistaken mind you get rid of that mind so that becomes a truth of cessation. Oh, yeah. I do. Yes.
Don’t do the fact that I have. Oh, dear. So that’s the end of the the description of the four noble truths, and if anyone has any questions. So when George Bush is born, he comes together as George George That’s fine. Yeah.
Yeah. Okay. So when George Bush is born, he comes together as the result of all his parts. Right? And then Parts.
Yeah. Isn’t that the the Causes and conditions. Causes and conditions. Yeah. Yeah.
Alright. So he’s conceived, and he’s born as a human. Yeah. Alright. So cause and conditions, he comes together.
He’s labeled George by his parents. Mhmm. And on that basis of designation, he’s come to be known as George Bush the person. Yeah? Is that right?
Yep. Yep. Okay. So I’ve got to put my hand in there. I’m so sorry to get that part right.
Oh oh, So the valid cognition of George Bush is the human form. Is that right? One of them. Okay. So that’s my first part.
Is the valid cognition of George Bush the human form? You mean the eye consciousness seeing a human form? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah?
Yes. Is that what Geshe means by valid cognition? Right. Okay. So George Bush is a human, not a form.
So his seeing his physical form and then labeling it George Bush is not a a valid cognition of George Bush because he’s valid a valid cognition of George Bush relies on a labelling as person not as form alright so his parents when he was born said his name is George Bush and they labeled him George Bush. So therefore, they were the that was the valid cognition that that labeled his George Bushesness. Yeah. So when they said when his parents said George Bush, his name’s George, we’ll call him George, that was the terminological valid. That was a valid terminology that was applied to him.
And then after that, when people related to him as this, as is according to this name, when they saw him or heard him or had an image of him as this being that was called George, then every time that they did that, that was labeling him as a valid that was validly cognizing him as George and validly labeling him as George. So there’s a discrepancy between form and the human. I I’m because I’ve always missed this point in. So his George Bushesness comes comes from the form of that particular person, but not from the humanness of him. Is that what I mean?
Not the Physicalness. Yeah. So because George Bush just isn’t something physical, there’s actually a being there, then how we establish George Bush is that I’m getting sick of saying his name. How we establish him is that we have a concept and we label that onto this collection of causes and conditions as a being called George Bush and that labeling and that terminological labeling and the the labeling our consciousnesses do is what is called is how George Bush is established. So it’s much easier if we don’t talk about George anymore.
And we actually think about ourselves and say, okay, am I my physical form? Am I this? Am I that? And when we can’t find exactly what it is that we are we can’t define ourselves by any one thing that’s when we understand that we’re a combination of different elements different causes the results of different causes and conditions He said, yeah. Everybody has a different opinion of what what Bush is.
Yeah. So he therefore, he doesn’t really exist. He’s only merely labeled. It’s not based on causes and conditions. It’s permanent. Yeah.
He he says you’re sitting there thinking, what is space? Yeah. And lots of times we think when we look around and we’re looking at the sky or we’re looking around the room and we see space that we think that’s what space is. No. No.
You don’t think that? I’m not. It’s not that. Okay. So that is like that is sky or something that is Tibetan words like sky in front of you that you can actually see and experience and it moves with the wind and everything like that.
So that isn’t what we mean by uncompounded space. So something we can’t see is see uncompounded space. Uncompounded space is the lack of something. It’s lack of obstruction it’s the space other things take up so it’s the lack of something so therefore it’s something we can’t see with our eyes or experience with our senses We don’t need to label something in order for it to exist. Somebody needs to understand it in order to label it to exist.
It doesn’t have to be one person. But if some if there is a being that understands what uncompounded space is, then it’s labeled. So therefore so if you can understand what uncompounded space is there then you can label it as such if you can understand their concept of the mere absence of something and then something filling need because something needs space to exist in then you can label it as such but if you’re thinking of the sky or you’re thinking of the spaces in between different human beings and things as uncompounded space then you’re not labeling it properly because you don’t understand it properly. So you’re seeing the space in between things and saying that’s uncompounded space, and it’s actually compounded space. So therefore, you’re mislabeling it and not labeling it properly.
So that’s not uncompounded space. So once you know what uncompounded space is really well, then you can label it. Reason relates to meaning. Reason relates to meaning. Uh-huh.
There’s no such thing as material world in Tibetan. Okay. Okay so no the thing that binds the material world together is our eye consciousness seeing it what the the mental world is almost bound together by by the concept of uncompounded space because we need to have the idea of the lack of something in order to have something to fill it so there’s no like such concept as material world world so the way I translate it was this: the sense realm like this this the physical sense realm that’s the closest thing I could think of to material world so the mental sense realm is is kind of bound together if you like or it’s brought together because of uncompounded space because we need to have a space for it to exist in But the physical world is come is bound together by our eye consciousness. He’s he’s in because it’s not you can’t see it. It’s not the uncompounded space.
He’s saying he can’t see it. It’s not uncompanied space. It is. Yeah. Yeah.
It’s the same word. Yeah. Is. It’s yeah. It it is.
When you’re talking about the way that things all come together, then it’s the same as ether, whatever that means. Yeah. Oh, man. It does have volume in the sense that there is no place where there isn’t uncompounded space, but you could only ever say that its parts have volume because it is all pervasive. So you could say there’s the uncompounded space that is the place where your fist is.
Alright? If there was nothing that was uncompounded there, then there would be nowhere your fist to go. And the molecules that are in the air are being pushed aside. Alright? So there’s the uncompounded space that’s the size of where your fist is that your fist is actually taking up the space off.
So you could say that that has volume. So so your hand itself is formed, and when you go like this, so therefore the uncompounded space of the hand actually goes with the hand. Alright it’s not the space that’s out there it’s the like the lack of the uncompounded space of the hand where the hand is taking up space there had to be something that gave way for that space to go into so if there was no uncompounded space there there would be no place for the hand to go. So if you do this, then the space where the table is taking up stops your hand from going there, but the uncompounded space doesn’t stop your hand — the table stops your hand, this table abiding in another uncompounded bit of space stops your hand going through it As a what? No.
It was like we’re talking about Okay. So the if you said that uncompounded space is understood by mind by our mental consciousness it’s not understood by any of the five sense consciousnesses So understood by the six or mental consciousness. If you’re talking about dividing it into whether it’s earth, fire, water, air, then it’s ether. And there was something else. I mean it.
Because the definition of uncompounded space is the mere absence of obstruction. So that’s how you define it. The mere absence of obstruction is uncompounded space. No. It is not.
No. It’s not. Ether isn’t ether isn’t a is in a physical element. So the other four are material or form objects, but ether isn’t a material or form object. Yeah.
It’s just like India. Yeah. Whereas India would have been gone off an hour ago. He says sometimes seven it goes off, sometimes six. Okay.
It looks like very light headed question.