Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. What makes a $100 bill worth a hundred dollars? Geshe Pema Tsering uses this image to anchor the central topic of this 45-minute session: the Buddhist understanding of emptiness — the idea that things, including the self, exist only as labels, not as inherently solid entities. Building on earlier sessions covering the Four Noble Truths, he works through the third and fourth characteristics of the truth of suffering — emptiness and selflessness — distinguishing a gross sense of self (permanent, autonomous, singular) from a subtler one (substantially self-existent). He surveys three Indian philosophical schools that explain emptiness with increasing precision, ending with the Consequentialist view. He then walks through an analytical meditation on the five aggregates — body, feelings, discrimination, formations, consciousness — searching for a locatable “I” and finding none. Pitched at students new to Buddhist philosophy.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 05 2004 05 24 P and M.mp3
UUID: ef1d607a-bed7-41fa-b111-6f5fc790c103
Teacher: Geshe Pema Tsering
Collection: IB Philosophy and Meditation (Geshe Pema Tsering)
Date: 2004-05-24
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 45.0 minutes
Words: ~4,388
I do know other times. Oh, yeah. Okay, so we have talked about, in this introduction, what’s called the ten non virtuous actions, the basic ethics of Buddhism, and also the basic concept of refuge, what is refuge and how having refuge makes someone a Buddhist or without refuge you are not a Buddhist. Then we also started to go through what’s called the four noble truths, the first teaching that the Buddha gave. And we were going through the Four Noble Truths in terms of the aspects of the Four Noble Truths.
So, for each of the Four Noble Truths, there are four aspects or four different characteristics. And we talked about the first two characteristics of the first Noble Truth, right? So, it’s like imagine a graph. The first two aspects of the first Noble Truth, that is, the truth of suffering is, by its nature, impermanent and it is also suffering. So we talked about different types of suffering.
Now, the third aspect the third and fourth aspects or third and fourth characteristics of the truth of suffering are difficult to understand. They are what’s called the emptiness of the truth of suffering and the selflessness of the truth of suffering. Let me talk about the first noble truth, the truth of suffering. What we’re dealing with is, in fact, instances of this truth, examples of this idea. An example of this idea is actually our physical being or our emotional beings that comprise us.
That’s like what we say is an example of the first noble truth. It’s an instance of suffering. It’s by its nature suffering. Our beings are by their nature suffering. Means that our beings are by their nature impermanent, that we die, that these things dis disintegrate.
They are suffering and that they cause suffering and bodies cause suffering. And then the third and fourth ones we’re talking about now is that they are empty and they are selfless. Now, when we talk about something being empty in in this instance it means that they are they are empty of being a singular, autonomous and permanent, which is the way we tend to view ourselves as being a permanent thing, as being an autonomous thing, that means in power, in charge of our own stuff, yeah, and also as being a singular entity okay now that isn’t actually the way that things exist that’s not actually the way that we exist but it’s the way that we perceive that we exist alright so we perceive that we are an individual entity who is in control of their own affairs and is permanent right so that’s what’s called gross self that’s like a grasping in a gross self so that isn’t actually the way that things are but that’s the way that we perceive them to be. Okay. This third characteristic of our being, our bodies and feelings and so forth, is by its nature suffering or truth of suffering is that it is empty of this gross form of self.
The third characteristic which is called emptiness is emptiness of this gross form of self. The fourth characteristic is also called selflessness so there’s another is empty of another kind of self but this self that is empty of in this instance is more subtle than the previous one. The third characteristic is it’s empty of this gross sense of self. The fourth one is empty of a more subtle sense of self. Now, this more subtle sense of self is the instinctual idea we have that we are substantially existent so we’re made of substances and that’s it and we exist from our own side that there is something inherently in us that makes us exist so the way that we perceive this is in that we are inherently like we exist inherently from our from our own side from our own power so there’s this a substantially like made of substance thing that exists from its own power okay when in actual fact what we’ve done is a whole group of causes and conditions like reasons and karmic causes and conditions have come together to create something that we would then put a label on and say, Okay, that’s me.
So obviously, to understand this or trying to perceive this is very difficult. Okay. So so we have this idea of ourselves being a substantial self existent, coming into existence from our own side, and therefore being solid in the way that we are. It’s difficult for us to understand that, but if we understand one of these things then we get the others so for example if we understand that we’re impermanent then by reasoning we can’t be inherently existent because we don’t exist forever so once we understand our own impermanence then we understand that we are coming together of causes and conditions. We’re not an inherently existent thing because an inherently existent thing that exists from its own power wouldn’t die.
There’s this essential solid individual thing and then there’s also this idea that’s like the solid that’s the gross version of the way we hold ourselves and then there’s a more subtle version of the whole way we hold ourselves which is that we are self existent and substantial. So the other one we were talking about was permanent individual and oh yeah, autonomous, right? So that’s the more gross sense of self. This other one is that we are substantial and we affect our own self into being. So that s a more difficult one to understand.
So so the The first thing we need to realize is that we are not permanent, individual or independent. Once we realize one of these, we can realize the other things. Once we have that understanding, we need to move on to the more subtle understanding of the way that we exist and this is what’s called selflessness. This selflessness which is the fourth characteristic of our being is defined as being non substantial and we think are generated by ourselves, We come into being by our own power. Now, to understand this, to understand the lack of that type of self that we think exists, that appears to us as existing, then we have to analyze it like this.
We have to see that, in actual fact the thing that we consider to be ourselves is a collection of all different things and that we put a label on that collection to say is ourselves So from one point of view we have this idea that we have characteristics, there are certain things that characterize ourselves and there are certain conditions and there are certain results of causes that bring ourselves into being and there’s a whole bunch of different things that we put into one lump, and then we say, okay, that’s me. Right? But in actual fact, there is just a whole bunch of different things, and we label it as us. So that isn’t to say that things don’t exist at all, that they disappear into nothingness because they aren’t inherently there right and it because we label a whole group of things as something right so whether it’s ourselves or whether it’s any any phenomena any object we see a group of things that have come together and we label it something so in this way they do exist because they exist as a label we have an idea of self we have an idea of something else and that exists as a label it doesn’t mean it disappears completely into nihilism but it only exists in terms of all of those things coming together and then labeled as something.
So from this this description of emptiness then, we have two things happening. We have a collection of different things coming together which have their own characteristics right they they have certain characteristics that we can recognize so when those groups of things come together then we stick a label on that as something so this is the way that existence is. We have a collection of things grouping together to form an instance of something that we then label as something as opposed to them that thing inherently existing as a solid entity, a group of things are together that we label. And this is the the way that things actually are according to one philosophical school. The note on the door gives the introduction to Buddhist philosophy, didn’t it?
So, have to bear with this. That perspective that we’re just talking about here, where you have a whole bunch of stuff that gets a label put on it, and that’s how things exist is according to one philosophical school of Buddhism which is called the autonomous school. Okay? It’s an ancient Indian philosophical school. There was another ancient Indian philosophical school that was called Cittamātra or mind only school.
Now, mind only perspective is totally different. So there’s all these different explanations of the way that things actually are. They’re all Buddhist, but they don’t necessarily link up. Okay? So there’s different philosophies of Buddhist philosophy.
Anyway, okay. So in the mind only or the Cittamātra view, what you have is all phenomena, all things that can exist are divided into three. Yeah? We have we have labeled phenomena, then there is thoroughly existent phenomena, and then there is other reliant phenomena. According to this school then, anything that is a concept that exists as a permanent, that is anything that is the lack of something is said to be what’s called a labeled phenomena so it’s not inherently existent.
It doesn’t exist truly. It exists as a concept so this is things like lack of an elephant in the room and so on, right? Permanent and therefore they’re labeled thing. Then we have the next type is what’s called objects. And they’re called other dependent because they’re dependent on a concept and so they’re dependent on mind and they said to be inherently existent and the emptiness of those things which is thoroughly established phenomena the emptiness of those objects is the third type of phenomena.
So, there’s all these different philosophies, right, and all these different explanations of how things are. What actually is going on is that these explanations get more subtle and more subtle and more subtle, and the subtlest view is actually said to be what’s called the consequentialist school or the prasangika school. But in order to understand that school, you have to understand all the other philosophies. So, you understand one philosophy which is a more gross and less particular philosophy and then, once you’ve understood that, you get on to understanding a more subtle philosophy, a more subtle philosophy and so forth until you the highest or the most precise philosophy, which is this consequentialist school or Prāsaṇgika philosophy. The others seem to be like preparations or branches of this higher school, so you go through one after another and after another until you understand the most difficult to understand and the most precise, which is this consequentialist school.
According to this school, according to this philosophy that’s said to be the most precise and difficult to get at philosophy of Buddhism, then this is the way that things actually are. They say that everything, all phenomena, all things that can exist are divided into two groups. We have persons, which is all beings, and other phenomena. So for example, that means everything that isn’t a being is a other phenomena is a phenomena. I feel like one of Muppets.
So there’s a is a is an object that’s apart from being a person. We have a human and then we have other phenomena. Now, both of these things are said to be to lack a inherent self that is a person doesn’t have a and something that is an inherently existent solidly established self and neither the phenomena. Alright? So anything any like anything, any concept, any any feeling, anything like that is not inherently existent.
It exists as a label that exists as a name. So the name is the way that exists. It exists by a label, not by any solid identity. So just because so the way we’re saying that they don’t exist apart from being labeled as something, so it’s like the label gives them is the only way that they exist is in terms of the way that we perceive them, in terms of terminology we use, is the only way that something actually exists. It doesn’t mean that things cease to exist completely because they do exist as a concept, that we have an idea of something, so therefore it exists as our idea of that.
It doesn’t mean that it’s something that did exist and then we think, Well, there’s nothing inherently existing in that it’s just a bunch of stuff that’s come together that I’ve labeled something. It doesn’t mean that it ceases to exist. It exists because we perceive it as existing as something. A lot of the time in Buddhism, there’s lots of books or there’s lots of instances where people go on about perceiving emptiness directly and understanding emptiness or understanding shunyata, understanding shunyata. There are all these different words for this experience or this perception.
It’s a very difficult thing to understand. There’s always this general idea of, oh, then you perceive emptiness, but they don’t actually explain what it is you actually have to understand, let alone perceive. So, in order to understand emptiness, you need to be able to understand this Prāsaṇgika view. And before you can understand that, you need to understand all the other types of views. In order to understand the consequentialist school, which is this most complicated, precise philosophy, you need to understand the ones that come before that, and there’s all these different ones.
So lots of times in different instances, in books, in different teachings and everything, they always talk about emptiness. So that’s the general idea of what emptiness is. And, because it’s difficult to understand, Geshe-la said his explanation, then it’s gonna be understand difficult to realize it more so. So there’s these two things in Buddhism that are considered pretty famous. They’re said to be emptiness, which is this idea we’ve been talking about, a different way of looking at the way that things are, and another one is what’s called bodhicitta, or the mind of enlightenment.
So they’re the two things that people tend to focus on and we need to develop understandings of. Both of them may be very famous, but that doesn’t mean that they’re very easy to understand. So the way that in Buddhism, the way that it talks about is that we need to develop an understanding of this emptiness or this different way of looking at reality. We need to understand bodhicitta or the mind of enlightenment as well. This isn’t something that comes about easily.
What we need to do in order to develop this understanding is to do a lot of analysis what’s called analytical meditation that is doing a meditation where we go through in a logical manner different things and different processes. And then we need to do what’s called placement meditation where we try and rest our minds in one situation focused on one thing. Then, in order to develop these kind of understandings, we need to go backwards and forwards, backwards and forwards a lot. We start off with doing some analytical meditation, move on to placement meditation, back to analytical meditation, and then placement meditation backwards and forwards and backwards and forwards until we’re able to do both at one time and understand and realize things. So the way that we do analytical meditation or what the way we analyze it is in a in a meditational way or in a concentrated way.
We then think, Okay, what is the I? What is the Self? What is the Self that I need to analyze? So then we’re thinking, we have this idea of I or I or me. We think, What’s I?
What’s me? And we try and get an idea of what I or me is We think about what we are. And then once we have established this idea of I or me, then we think, okay, where is this I or me? And then we have to think, is this I or me linked to or somehow included within these five groups of things? Are we within our form feeling discrimination consciousness and formations, the formations we have in our minds?
We our body and our mind? If we’re not that are we something separate to that are we something separate to our body and our mind is this we that we consider highly to is that something separate from my body and mind right and then if we go looking for these things we can’t actually find a an eye that is separate from body and mind, and we can’t actually find an I in body and mind. So we have to come to the conclusion that this I that we consider so highly and refer to so frequently doesn’t exist. So we have to investigate to see where this self is. The first thing that we tend to naturally do is to associate ourselves with our physical being.
We think of ourselves as being our physical being. But if that were the case, when we died then our physical being would be our corpse, but we don’t consider people’s corpses to be them. There has to be something other than the physical being which is us or someone else. There has to be something other than that. And then if we go and we think about it in terms of, Okay, is it consciousness then?
So the definition of consciousness is said to be clear and knowing, clear and knowingness, which is the idea of mind. So is ourselves our mind? So we have to go and see is ourselves part of our mind. So if we are going to be as if we need to be a if we’re looking for ourselves, we have to have something that’s very much linked to a physical body. If we have a sense of self that’s related to being a human, then we need a human body to develop this sense of self.
If we think of ourselves as being human, then we need a human body. If we recognize, for example, if a dog has a sense of self, where the dog’s sense of self is related to its dog ness, its dog body, right? So, the sense of self has to be intimately related to a physical body, So as a human or as a dog or whatever it is. Okay. So we’re looking for ourselves in any one of these, what I call, five groups of things that make us up.
Right? So physical form. We’ve established it. We may have a deep connection to that physical, form but it can’t be us totally because corpses aren’t us or aren’t us when we die. Then in terms of the other parts of us are all mental.
They’re all mental aspect. The definition of anything that’s a mental aspect is this knowingness, a clear knowing. A clear knowing is a definition of mind. Now the concept I isn’t knowing, it’s a label that we’ve come up with. It’s a grasping at something that is a label so because it doesn’t fit the definition of mind and it can’t be considered to be part of mind.
So in this way we can go through all of these things. Can see that we aren’t our physical being. We can see that we aren’t our feelings. We can see that we aren’t our ability to discriminate between one thing or another. We can see that we aren’t our the way that things form in our minds and we can see that we aren’t our fully developed consciousness, which is our ability to perceive things, see or hear or whatever.
So we can go through all of these and see that the I doesn’t exist in any of those groups of things. So we can’t find this thing anywhere, but we’re very, very attached to it. We’re very, very we consider it very highly. We spend most of our time thinking about it. We spend most of our time trying to make the I happy and we are apart as well as that we have a distinct bias towards our I as opposed to anybody else’s I and we are prejudiced towards their own sense of self as opposed to anybody else’s sense of self.
We may not be able to find where this thing is and we may not be able to label it properly to be sorry but to be to to find it as a concrete thing anywhere. But we spend all that time and we spend all that time focused on it and trying to make it happy and perceive other as being separate from self and so on. And because in the same way that we can’t find ourselves, in the same way that we when we start looking for the thing that’s self within our makeup. Yeah? We can’t find it in the same way as that.
We can’t find the the ness of any other object that we’re after as well, any other object that we come into contact with any of the that we desperately need or want and the ones that the things that we spend so much time striving after in the same way that we don’t have an inherent or an I that we can find. They don’t have a an an essence or a a beingness that we can find either. So this means that these things don’t exist apart from the label that we put on them. They don’t exist apart from the way that we perceive them as being something we label them as this or label them as that. And this also means that there’s nothing inherent in those things that are bliss or happiness or suffering.
The idea of happiness and suffering is something that we put onto these experiences, that we put onto these things that we want or the lack of not having them, the experiences or the things or whatever it is. The ideas of it being happiness or not is only a label or an idea that we have about these things. It doesn’t exist in them as an inherent thing. The same with us, with all objects and all experiences, the way that they exist is as this idea we have of them. So, that doesn’t mean that they cease to exist completely though because we do have ideas.
It’s not as if we don’t have an idea about things. It’s not as if we don’t label things as one thing or another. We do and we have to experience them as being real in that way, but to think of them as being a solid object that exists inherently that way is where we mistaken in our perception. Okay. So a good example of this is, for example, money.
Right? Now, there’s nothing inherent in a hundred dollar note that makes it a hundred dollar note. And so the idea of people come up with it, this is a hundred dollar note and with this hundred dollars, you can do this and you can do that, you can buy this and you can buy that. But in actual fact especially the American dollars if you look at them the hundred dollar looks pretty much the same as the one dollar except that the government has indicated that one is worth a hundred dollars and the other one is worth one dollar alright but it’s not the the piece of paper itself that makes it like that it’s that has been labeled that way. It has been the the government has made it that way, has indicated that this one is a hundred and this one’s one.
There’s nothing in the paper that makes it a hundred. It’s it’s the it’s a label that’s been put on it. So there’s this one piece of paper that gets called a hundred, and there’s another piece of paper that gets called one, and so there’s nothing inherently in the paper that makes one a hundred and another a one, but because everyone decides that one’s worth a hundred and the other one is worth one, it means that you can’t buy as much for the one. You can’t do as much with the one as you can with the hundred. But, if they decided that there was something different happening there, then that would change the label that’s put onto that piece of paper.
You could say, for example, that we decided one isn’t going to be one. It’s gonna be something else. But they decided that the hundred is gonna be a hundred and then one is gonna be one, and they work on that basis. It’s not something inherently exists that way. Did I?
Oh, well. You know what I mean. Oh, sorry. No. No.
No. Sorry. But you know what I mean. Right? Sorry.
But I do worse than that sometimes. It’s possible. They may have changed it around. It’s tricky. But the whole concept of a lot or a little depends on something else.
So you’re comparing two things. So you say that one’s a little and that one’s a lot. So that’s like another label we we put on to things. So so this idea that one is worth more than the other and the other is worth more than the one, means that it’s an idea that we put on that paper. It’s like, Okay, this one’s worth more, this one’s worth less, this one is a hundred, this one’s one.
It doesn’t mean that the paper itself is worth a hundred or is worth one. It’s the idea that we put on. It’s the label that we put on there. So it’s not just the hundred