Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 45-minute session, Geshe Pema Tsering opens with a vivid image: close your eyes and visible objects become “ignorant” to you — the same way we remain blind to the four noble truths, karma, and the nature of phenomena. He then works through a classic inter-school debate on whether ignorance and the view of transitory collections — the mind that grasps at a solid, self-sufficient “I” — are identical or distinct, contrasting Candrakīrti’s Madhyamaka position against Asaṇga’s Mind Only view, illustrated by the rope-mistaken-for-a-snake analogy. He covers deluded doubt and all five types of deluded views before a Q&A that distinguishes the nominal self, which travels from life to life, from the non-existent inherently-existing I. The session ends with a story of a monk who fled in terror from a leafy bush — a wry illustration of how mental labeling conjures false appearances.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 02 LR 2002 07 02.mp3
UUID: c706ca25-608f-4287-b061-ba91f97fe8e8
Teacher: Geshe Pema Tsering
Collection: Lam Rim 2002 Bodhisattva Deeds (Geshe Pema Tsering)
Date: 2002-07-02
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 45.2 minutes
Words: ~3,281
So this is the word the translation was given: ignorance for the word ma rigpa. So its reality is unseen. For example, when you close or when one does close their eyes, like eyes wide shut And the form is unobscured, unseen, you know. Once one’s eyes shut, know, can’t see the object, so called the form. And that means the form becomes like ma rigpa — ignorance — to the eye.
So likewise, in all the the objects or furnitures are ignorant at the time in the darkness. When there is no light in the room, everything is dark. One can’t see anything. So this is called the. Got it.
Got it. In terms of this, then we see so we are ignorant because we don’t see the qualities of the four noble truths, the cause and effects as well as qualities of the Triple Gem or Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha. So those are the qualities which at this stage are unseen for us. So we are ignorant. So and So and from the and also, like, for this stage, we are ignorant because because we don’t see all those good qualities as well as we don’t see the the nature of the phenomena, the the mode of existence of the phenomena, the lack of inherent existence or free of inherent existence, emptiness nature of the phenomena at this stage for us that we are ignorant.
We don’t see those realities of the phenomena. So excuse me. So so the so the yeah. So so ignorant is is like is the is the root of all the disturbing emotions. And speaking of this ignorance, in that there are different types different schools of tenets, Buddhist schools of tenets having different assertions or different views which some assert that ignorance and so and the so called view of transitory collections are one.
Synonyms, they are one. And and some asserts they are not one, they are different. For example, the middle way consequential school that the Prāsaṇgika system of Mādhyamika school, they said that the view of transitory collection and ignorance are one. Whereas in the Mind Only school — the lineage or systems called the great practitioner, Asaṇga and so forth — the Mind Only school asserts that ignorance and the view of transitory collections are separate.
Mhmm. So how it differentiates? For example, the schools of tenets which which describe the which assert that ignorance and the view of transitory collections are different. And how they describe this, for example, like when one mistaken the rope as a snake and at that moment the conceiving or seeing that rope as a snake is not the ignorant and it’s the, what is called, By seeing that rope as a snake is the is is the view of transitory collection. But but at that moment, like a darkness or a fog, you know, it’s pretty dark, which obscures one to see the rope as a rope.
So that the unclear situation — like a dark fog and so forth — like a darkness which obscures one to see the rope as a rope, is like ignorance. Whereas seeing the rope as a snake is the view of transitory collection. Can you see the difference? Yep. So the the one So the one which assert, Candrakīrti asserts they are one — the ignorance and the view of transitory collection are one.
And which so that the because it’s, you know, the the theory or we have asserted they are one asserted by Candrakīrti, so that becomes the Consequentialist Middle Way school, the Prāsaṇgika school. And whereas the other is asserted by Asaṇga — that they are different. Ignorance and the view of transitory collections are different. Therefore, they are asserted in the school of mind only school. So and so in terms of ignorance, dividing dividing ignorance, there are many ways of ignorance.
It was classified into two, so called the ignorance of not seeing, ignorance towards the law of cause and effect, the karma, and ignorance towards ignorance on suchness or emptiness. And then also it’s different. There are two types of ignorance, so called ignorance towards the the the selflessness of the person and the selflessness of the phenomena. And so therefore the ignorance is the root of the cyclic existence, which we say the root of the cyclic existence, and that is the ignorance ignorance of towards or ignorance of selflessness selflessness of the person and the selflessness of the phenomena. Speaking of this, now when we say ignorance towards the selflessness of the phenomena and the selflessness of the person, which means that one is ignorant, obscured, but one does not see the reality or so called mode of existence of the phenomena or the selflessness of the person and the phenomena.
So which is called the the the ignorance. The the so the ignorance of self so So ignorance of self-cherishing attitude which is which is called which is the root of the cyclic existence and what it means here is ignorance towards or not seeing the true nature or a mode of existence of the of the true selflessness, which is the person and the phenomena. Got it. Got it. So So when we speak of the root of the cyclic existence, the ignorant of self self grasping attitude, and and then called ignorance — the first of the twelve links of interdependent origination — the beginning from the ignorance.
Those ignorance are called ignorance of not seeing the true mode of existence of the phenomena. So speaking of ignorance and when of the twelve links of interdependent origination and so forth, the ignorance from those twelve links which means not seeing the true mode of existence of the phenomena, but in generally ignorance which we you can use it in all the terms like ignorance which things which are unseen or obscured to oneself is oneself is the ignorant towards those objects. So so briefly speaking that whatever is known or seen to oneself is not ignorant. And once things which are not seen or unknown to oneself is the ignorant. And neither of them is called the doubt.
And now to the fifth root delusion, that is the deluded doubt. And here the deluded doubt is doubt towards the existence of the Buddhist teachings like Four Noble Truths, the law of cause and effect, the karma, and the existence of the Triple Gem — the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha. So the doubt is a very bad thing, which pushes one away from collecting virtuous actions. Because doubt is towards, for example, existence of the law of cause and effect. Because in terms of law of karma and effect, there are things to be abandoned and things to be things to be practiced or cultivated.
And it’s like, you know, ten non virtues to be abandoned and ten virtues to be practiced and ten virtues action to be cultivated and so forth. So doubt is towards the doubts of the existence of those actions and and which put oneself in the middle, which is thinking, do they or not, you know? Some the doubters call the the the mind with the two heads. So the great master, the first Dalai Lama, was making a praise to the Tārā saying seeking protection that that the doubt which is which runs towards ignorance or the confusion and ceases and the, yeah, which stops us stop one or do not let one to strive for the happiness of liberation or or which makes one feel hesitant to cultivate or attain the happiness of liberation and the enlightenment so forth. And so therefore please protect me from that enemy of enemy from the enemy of the doubt or yeah.
The doubt. The doubt towards the law of the existence of the law of cause and effect, the karma, that is having that that doubt will will cause one harm harm to oneself for attaining the the higher rebirths. So yeah, so we all have this doubt what’s the cause and effect. So in order to get rid of those doubts, you know, it’s very important for one to practice and read numbers of texts and listen to the teachings. And now to the sixth root delusions, so called the deluded views.
And there’s different ways of saying the saying, the sixth root delusions comes desire, anger, hatred, pride, ignorance, deluded doubt, and deluded views. And then comes the five views and five non views. And speaking of that, then the five non views are desire, anger, pride, ignorance, and deluded doubt. And there are five deluded views — the sixth root delusion has five types of deluded views, so called the the view of transitory collections, extreme views, and holding false views as supreme and holding false ethic and the conduct as a supreme and call the first one is the view of transitory collection, which is the one we were talking earlier that some assert the view of transitory collection is the same as ignorance, and some say no. So that is the view of transitory collection, seeing the the you know, that yep.
Perceiving that rope as a snake is the view of transitory collection. So the view of transitory collection is the one which mistakenly — it’s a mind that out of the ignorance they conceive depending on the objects by seeing not seeing the true reality or true nature, the mode of existence of the phenomena and dividing it into many groups by saying as on the basis of the object by saying I or mine or other or you. So that is the that is the mind that so called the the the view of transitory collection. Right. So for example, I’ll give a chance to recollect here.
When in general, innately this within us one was thinking, you know, if somebody gave a praise to self and thinking being happy and, you know, criticize or complaints, you know, you feel down. So there is the innate I, which is the view of transitory collection of innate I, you know, which naturally comes there. And you know, “I am happy” and so forth and down. And the mind which perceives the existence of that self — feeling up and down — is called the view of transitory collection. So all this happens because of that view of transitory collection — grasping at self or I, the innate I — and having that obstructs us from seeing the true nature, the real mode of existence of the self.
And due to this, then we create all these actions, you know, like happy and down and always thinking, you know, I and you, so forth. All this happens because of that view of transitory collection of innate I. So in terms of the view of transitory collection of innate I, there is the view of transitory collection of the innate I and the mine.
Now the two types. Right? Okay. So in terms of speaking now, ignorance and the view of transitory collection are one. So therefore, the view of transitory collection is the root of the cyclic existence.
So when you can understand and what you can see in there is I always with us and, you know, innately or in all the time in listening, I’m happy and down and so forth. And we all accept yep. The yep. Perceived the I and all the time, I, I, I. And if one really examine or investigate or find that I, and there is no such I the way I which we exist which we perceive or yeah.
So in a sense, you know, the the the I itself is so called a mistaken it’s it’s conceptual thought or is it the mistaken mind, you know, the mind which calls or, you know, always, yeah, call I I I or acceptance of self I, existence of I itself is mistaken or conceptual mind. Right? Okay. We’ll stop here and take a couple of questions. K.
Shall I said something? So so? Well, so now the thing is when we speak of ignorance and the self, we we do not say that the the the self or I is not it’s not a nonexistent. When we’re saying the I, which we we when we, yep, see our existence of the self, There is an existence of the I which is called the nominal existence. What we’re saying is non existence of the I is that that such I that is is that the I doesn’t exist the way we perceive it, the way we, yep, acknowledged it.
And and how so so speaking of that, you know, it does not that I does not exist in the way we we see them or the way we, yep, see them, but but the or the way it appears to us. But there is a existence so called the existence of nominal self because because there should be a basis for the law of the causes and effect, for example, like the karma. So without having that nominal I, you know, there is no such base for the karma. So there is I which is called the nominal I, but or a mere I, but do not there is not an I that which exists in the way it appears to us. This is the two types of I we’re speaking.
And because now they therefore there is an I but it’s nominal I but so which whenever someone criticizes or rebukes the person, one should not retaliate. All you have to do is maintain patience at that moment. So when we speak of nonexistent I, some people get misunderstanding or misunderstood by thinking there is no I at all. What we’re speaking here, there’s two types of I. The one comes out of the view of transitory collection and that is the I which does not exist.
But in terms of nominal existence there is an I which nominally exists but it’s not the I which is projected out of the view of transitory collection. Yes, please. So when we say So when we speak of the the nominal I, so nominal I is so called the I which is projected or labeled to us on the basis of any of the five aggregates. This is what we say. So and then you can say that that I is the one, the nominal I which travels from one life to the next life as well.
For example, like the one mistakenly sees the robe as a snake in which there is a mind which sees it’s a snake but and that mind which labeled the snake name to the rope, but now the rope — the rope ran off. But but but on but such such a snake is not there. It’s like an I. Because on its basis that rope will never be a snake at all. And and that appearance of snake to that consciousness do not exist the way it appears because that is mistaken one, but it gives the mind which labels the snake to the rope.
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So it’s it gives the label. So likewise, you know, the I which is labeled on on any of the five aggregates is called the nominal I, and that is the subtle mind or subtle I that it’s a consciousness, you know, which travels subtle mind, that consciousness travels from one life to life.
So likewise, you know, there is no such the I which are projected by the the the view of transitory collection, which is but there is a nominal I which has been labeled. So that is the I that comes from from the very beginning and still continues from life to life. The five F that’s So that actually goes through. Now we are investigating where is that I. The nominal I exists, which is conceptually labeled.
So at the time of the death, you know, like the nominal I which is called the I labeled of any of the five aggregates and at the time of the death the five aggregates comes into dissolution, right? And one see now where is the I now? Where is I? This is how it’s it’s been nominal I existence. So which is called that when you look for it, it’s unfindable.
But there is an I. So to end, actually, the nominal I or the labeled I which travels from the life to life. So speaking of this and it comes into the existence of nominal I but when one look through it, it’s unfindable. This is how the theory comes. Is that I? So it’s a translation terms because in Tibetan word comes and You know, it comes with with so you’ve got to have a different translation for the different sound, you know, like, you’re hearing different sound and translate it saying only one word, you know.
So tang nyam, which is called the nominal I — which we translate — and then nyer len, which we translate as a mere I. But in they are all synonyms to one. The reason why the word some some uses the that cuts that I, the I, whichever the I, you know, that doesn’t exist by its own, been labeled, you know, without labeling. This it doesn’t exist. This is how it cuts the self sufficient existence of the particular I.
So mere I, nominal I, so forth, when you hear, these are all same within the synonyms because of the different words. Yeah. So So everything do not exist by its own. You know? They all exist on the basis of mental labeling or fabrication.
And speaking of this, Geshe-la reminds a story. It’s a true story that the late Geshe Shakya Tsultrim who was my teacher and Geshe-la’s housemate. And he is usually very coward in a lot in terms of like ghosts and so forth. And and once in the monastery and around, like, the bit of a moonlight’s there, and then it’s pretty dark and moonlight’s a little bit.
And and we go to toilet at that time, all time. So you go up in the field, know, open space, mark your territory, and we go there, you know. So Geshe-la was there and this Geshe Shakya Tsultrim went down doing his business down there. And then because it’s like a bit of moonlight there, he turns and saw a ghost, right? And quickly finished his business and just ran straight back home and called out to Geshe Tsultrim — one of Geshe-la’s housemates, Geshe Tsultrim, who is an American now these days, and who would say, Man, I’m so scared, you know.
They were very brave. So then, Come on, come on, come on, there’s a ghost on this. What? There’s a Hindu ghost, you know. So bending down a little bit and like a bald head and so forth, you know?
And so I said, sure, sure, there it’s there. And so Geshe Tsultrim accompanied Geshe Shakya Tsultrim. They walked down to this, like a field. And then Geshe Shakya Tsultrim was staying in the distance whereas Geshe Tsultrim walked past by near the bushes. And then said, There! Why?
And Geshe Shakya Tsultrim said, No, no, don’t go. It’s right next to you. Right next to you. And is the is it this one?
Yes. Yes. And what? So it just cut down some kinda like a little tree with a quite a big leaf. And