Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. If a bag has no books, it cannot contain three — Geshe Pema Tsering uses this image in this 45-minute session to anchor Lama Tsongkhapa’s preferred argument for emptiness: if one thing cannot exist from its own side, nothing can. He equates the selflessness of person and phenomena, recommends meditating on personal selflessness first as a stepping stone, then walks through the four key points of the “no self of one, no self of many” reasoning. A Q&A covers whether the Three Jewels are themselves empty, the link between the five aggregates and five elements, and what makes a label valid — illustrated by asking whether calling a student “Angus” or Geshe claiming to be Australia’s prime minister are equally valid designations. For practitioners with some grounding in Buddhist philosophy of emptiness.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 16 LR 2002 10 15.mp3
UUID: 0b88d101-c533-4d0f-a802-b3a4f705dc32
Teacher: Geshe Pema Tsering
Collection: Lam Rim 2002 Bodhisattva Deeds (Geshe Pema Tsering)
Date: 2002-10-15
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 45.0 minutes
Words: ~3,316
Phenomena and the selflessness of the person because both these, selflessnesses come about because there is nothing that inherently exists there, and the only things that do exist there is the things that we, label on that that are are stuck on top of the different aggregates. So therefore, we can’t differentiate and say, okay. This is the way that the selflessness of phenomena works, and this is the way that the selflessness of the person works. They both operate in the same way. Okay.
So even though this is the case, the selfless the selflessness of a person becomes an easier thing for us to concentrate on. Because once we’ve concentrated on the we’ve gotten rid of the self the concept of the self of person, then it is easier for us to get rid of the concept of the self of phenomena so therefore the order that we should do things is in the beginning to look and to analyse the selflessness of the person then once we’ve analysed it and then to turn our thoughts away from the self, like, to stop the thought of the self then after that to meditate on this lack of self and then after the meditation to achieve the insight into the selflessness of the person and when we’ve done that we repeat the process with the selflessness of phenomena so that is we analyze, we stop it, stop the thoughts when they come up, and then we meditate, and then we achieve the idea that phenomena is selfless. Does everybody understand? He said, they get it? He said, don’t worry too much because this is emptiness we’re talking about, so it’s difficult.
Do you get it? Do you understand? Yeah. I’m. Then that’s okay.
Okay. So then there’s three different types of what they call arguments that you convince yourself with about emptiness. The first one is called the argument that looks at the components of a chariot in seven ways. Arguments based on mutual independence, interdependence, and the third one being the argument that if there is no self of one thing, then there is no self of many things. So from amongst these, Lama Tsongkhapa and most of his followers actually choose the the argument if there is no self of one thing, there is no self of many things as their their tool for trying to understand emptiness, because they decided that for most people, especially beginners, then this is the easiest way for us to understand emptiness.
And so Geshe-la says, even though this is supposed to be easy easier for beginners, he still doesn’t understand it. So but what he can do is rely on the text, which he he says explains it clearly. And then by relying on the text, he can probably put across some understanding of it. He said, I don’t have a clue about this stuff. So first of all, had to make a point to anyone who’s following in the translation.
I think it’s by Michael Richards. He’s actually translated this, according to Geshe-la anyway, incorrectly. He translated it, I think, as the argument of the self being neither one or different from the basis of imputation that is the aggregates. And it actually is something more like if there’s no self of one thing, then there’s no self of many. That’s my dodgy translation, so I don’t know if that’s clear.
But the the example was that if there’s not one book in the bag, there’s not gonna be three books in the bag. So if we understand ourselves as being empty, then we understand that there’s not there’s everything else is empty is the idea. And then after that there’s four key points in this argument that if there’s no self of one thing there’s no self of many things and the four key points are we need to know what is being refuted, We need to know what are the full set of possibilities that we can come into contact with. We need to know how the self and the aggregates cannot be truly the same, and we need to know how the self and the aggregates cannot be truly different. So what we’re trying to understand here is that the aggregates themselves don’t exist from their own side.
They exist because we put labels on them. And we ourselves don’t exist from our own side. We exist because we’ve put a label on ourselves. Therefore, even though it is an existent, a thing that exists, it is not something that is truly existent. It’s true.
It’s a truth, but it’s not something that is truly existent. Something that is truly existent comes about by its own power. Something that’s truly existent exists because it has the capacity to make itself exist. Right? So this doesn’t exist in that way.
It exists because of causes and conditions. So therefore, it comes about by causes and and we label it as something. So this labelling process is what we’re talking about in this argument that establishes emptiness. So if there’s not if if not one thing exists because it can establish itself by its own side, if everything exists because we label it as opposed to it appearing in front of us, is it appearing from its own side in front of us, if everything if one thing if if one thing exists that way, then then everything has to exist that way. So therefore, if if one thing is empty of true existence, if one thing is is is nature is emptiness, then everything has to have that as the same nature.
So if we can only understand one thing, then we can expand this this knowledge to all phenomena. Have to ask you a question. So I have to ask you a question. There was if there’s a bag and the bag has no books in it no. If the bag has one book in it hang on.
No. I’ve got it wrong. Okay. If there’s a bag and a bag has three books in it, does that mean that there’s one book in the bag? Okay.
I’ll do that. Does that mean that there has to be one book because there’s three. Right? So in the same way, if there’s no books in the bag, yeah, then there can’t be three books in the bag because there’s none. Yeah?
So in the same way So in the same way, if there’s many people in Buddha house, there necessarily has to be one person in Buddha house. Right? But if there’s nobody in Buddha house, there can be many people in Buddha house. So, therefore, if one thing it’s the same way. If one thing can’t exist from its own side, then we have to have to stretch the logic out to mean that no things can exist from their own side.
Okay. So this is the argument that we’re using to establish emptiness. And therefore, this is what we have to keep trying to concentrate on and going over and over again in heads and thinking on is this idea that if if there’s one thing if one if there’s one, there has to be many, be able to be many. And if there’s none, there can’t be many. So this argument is supposed to suggest a system that we avoid the extreme of nihilism because we’re labeling something, and we avoid the extreme of eternalism because it doesn’t exist from its own side.
So when we have the idea that I’m going to work, I’m going to eat, I’m going to do this, I’m going to do that, This idea that we have isn’t a really label idea. This is the idea we think that we exist naturally. Naturally, we come about, and our existence is a natural thing. This isn’t what we’re trying to get our minds around. We’re trying to get our minds around the idea that it’s just a label that we are putting out there to describe something.
So we have to stop this idea that we come about we have, like, a naturally existing being. We have to stop our thoughts from forming that pattern. So the thing that we have to try and establish in our mind when we’re stopping this idea that we come about and we are naturally existent is that what we actually are is not natural existence and, in fact, a merely labeled thing or a merely labeled concept. So when we get when we get this idea that we don’t come about natural our existence doesn’t come about naturally and that we are, in fact, just a a concept that we’ve labeled, then this is when we start to understand emptiness. This is by definition what emptiness is.
So therefore unless it has a quote from the Bodhicaryāvatāra which says that if we can’t if we can’t understand if we can’t reach an understanding of what the actual thing we’re labeling is then we can’t we can’t destroy our self grasping at that thing we’re let at that thing. So if we can get an understanding of of this thing that we’re grasping at as being us and this thing that we’re label labeling as being us, if we can get an understanding of what that is, then we have the opportunity to to to stop our grasping at that. But if we don’t understand what it is we’re actually talking about, we don’t understand what we think we are, then we can’t stop thinking that. What? No.
We can stop here. He said, so has anyone got questions about emptiness? Yeah. So he says there is no such thing as something that truly exists. Therefore, the the Three Jewels are themselves are are themselves empty and can’t truly exist.
So everything is merely labeled and nothing truly exists. So therefore, the Three Jewels themselves even are in nature emptiness do not truly exist and are merely labeled. This is the same in the essence that neither of them exist truly exist. But they’re different in the fact that if we label phenomena or one aggregate, yeah, then that becomes the selfless that’s a merely labeled phenomena. But if we’re talking about collection of the aggregates and the thing that we call I or they on top of that then that becomes the selflessness of the person or a merely labeled I.
So the senses, we have a blind person. It doesn’t really depend on those senses. If they have a thought saying I am I, then it’s that thought that’s labelling themselves. So it’s this thought that’s going perpetuates the idea of a self, which is what we should focus on when we’re talking about selflessness. So it actually doesn’t have to be all five aggregates that we can put a label and say that’s I. Because, for example, in the Formless Realm, there isn’t all five aggregates.
There’s only the aggregate of consciousness. So it it can only be one of the aggregates that we’re labeling and saying that’s I. Yeah. Yeah. He said that, yeah, there’s a really strong connection between the two.
For example, the first of the elements is earth and the first of the aggregates is form and then so on. If you go up from those, the five aggregates and the five elements fit together really well. And not only that, but the way that we our bodies come into being and our beings come into being is dependent on the way that we relate to elements. So therefore, if one element isn’t as strong in us, they’re now like, for example, if the air element isn’t as strong, then our consciousness won’t be strong. And if the earth element isn’t as strong, then our bodies won’t be strong.
Oh, Okay. The aggregate of form has its relation the element of earth. The aggregate of feeling has its relation the element of water. The aggregate of I think it’s usually called compounded factors, compositional factors, has its its the element of fire, consciousness no. Discrimination has its element wind or air, and consciousness has space.
Okay. Right. So this consciousness that goes from life to life is very subtle. Geshe-la says it’s actually reliant on a very, very subtle wind for its consciousness that takes the consciousness from one life to another. It’s and this is in itself the mere is a merely labeled I.
It is what we talk about when we talk about the merely labeled I. And in terms of the idea of eternal that comes about, this is the consciousness that has been there since beginningless time and is also the consciousness that that sometime in the future becomes Buddha. That it is Buddhahood, but it’s still merely labeled. Yeah. Even at the point of Buddhahood, it is still merely labeled.
In the same way the Buddha Buddhist community in the past, then we’re gonna achieve it in the future. Yes. And so it may not be quickly though in this life and in future lives and we keep trying in future lives and we get better and better and better and then eventually we can achieve Buddhahood. So there’s actually different bodies of the Buddha. They talk about the different bodies of the Buddha, and one of those is is its its emptiness aspect and the other parts of it’s like enjoyment body and its physical body of a Buddha, but it’s all merely labeled.
So Buddhahood itself and being a Buddha is merely labeled as well. There and he said there isn’t anything that isn’t merely labeled. Alright. Yeah. See the stuff Yeah.
Yeah. Okay. Mhmm. Angus Angus He didn’t know Angus. He goes, look at Angus.
But it’s not actually achieving the middle scope, but it’s what we should be training in when we’re a person of the middle scope. So you do mind training in the fact that you don’t really exist. So it’s like because Angus is merely labeled. Right? So it’s a mere label.
So therefore, if you start training your mind in this way, then you’re training in the aspect of the middle scope. But it doesn’t it’s not actually achieved. So it isn’t just about saying, Angus isn’t really Angus, because Angus is label for something that’s you. So it’s not just in the label that it comes about. It’s because we also have this, what they call, correct consciousnesses that comprehend Angus that aren’t necessarily related to the the the name Angus.
So it’s not just about your name. It’s also about your being and the way that your eyes see you and things like that. So there’s, like, a much finer consciousnesses that come into account as opposed to you just thinking, I’m not Angus. I mean, Angus doesn’t really exist. So it’s like you look at your hand and your mind is going your eye is going Angus’s hand.
Right? You know, it’s going hand, you know, but it’s not thinking it because it’s an eye. But yeah. So even at that level, that’s still that’s still So there’s these two things come about. There’s one that’s like a it’s a valid mind saying that people, like, label you Angus, everyone goes, oh, that’s Angus.
Right? So that’s like a valid mind. But along with that comes this concept that I really exist because I’m Angus, or I really exist as Angus. So it’s these different things that come along together with that concept, and it’s a matter of separating them all out. So it doesn’t just come down to us labeling ourselves.
It has to be like something is is a what they call a valid, yeah, like a a pramāna or a valid consciousness. So Geshe-la says Angus is Angus because his parents called him Angus when he was born. His parents gave him his name when he was born. They said that’s Angus. But Geshe says if he walks around and starts going, I’m the president of Australia or the prime minister of Australia, that’s not a valid consciousness.
If he walks around and says, I’m Geshe Pema Tsering, then that’s valid consciousness. That’s valid label. But it has to be applicable. It has to be it it can’t just be just from what we label something. It has to be a valid label as opposed to a wrong label as well.
Yeah. But I don’t know if that answered anything. So the actual the labeler isn’t necessarily just you. This is what the connection is. The labeler isn’t just you saying, I’m me, I say they’re there.
It’s every single mind that you have is a labeler. So therefore, if if if it’s a mind seeing something, the seeing consciousness says, like, well, sees something as something. It labels something something. So every single mind we have is a labeler. It’s not just a person labeling.
It’s every different mind that comes into being is labeling something. Does that make sense? So we’re being forced to make those choices? Forced to. They were not being forced into making these labels.
We just naturally do it. It doesn’t come about from our and necessarily even our, calmer and afflictions. It’s just something that that that naturally happens. So if you see someone that’s a good kid, for example, he said then you say, wow. That’s a good kid.
And that doesn’t necessarily come about from your your karma and delusions. It’s just something that you do. And if we see someone, we can say, oh, that’s them. So we’re not necessarily saying that’s them by the power of anything else. We’re just saying it.
Yeah. No, no, no. That was me not being a this is me being a baby translator probably. It was valid for Geshe-la to say, I am Geshe Pema Tsering, for Geshe-la to say that. And but it wasn’t valid for him to say, I’m the prime minister of Australia because he was the only one labeling himself as prime minister of Australia, and that wasn’t something that was a valid thing to say.
But if he said, I’m Geshe Pema Tsering, then that was a valid label even though it was still a label. It didn’t exist inherently but it was a valid label. I thought it was a valid label. No. He was saying that Angus’s parents labelled him, but for Geshe-la for example to say I’m the Prime Minister of Australia wouldn’t be valid.
Yeah sorry. Yeah? No. Different minds in in one continuum. There’s all different minds all that come in different ways and within our minds within our mind stream, there’s different minds at every moment, and they all the different minds come into our mind stream.
So if we actually sit down and watch as if our mind, our mind stream, then we will notice that all different kinds of minds coming come up. And and there’s, like, a big he says, like, a huge variety of different things that we can see if we sit down and watch our mind stream. So different minds like craving and and liking or not liking things or hatred or all these different types of mind can come up in our mind stream. But we don’t usually pay any attention to these because we’re usually caught up in what we’re doing in everyday life, So we don’t pay attention. But if we sat down and paid attention, then we’d notice a whole plethora of different minds that come up in our mind stream.
No. No. It’s it’s like they don’t talk to each other. He said what happens is like one mind will see say see something, one mind will