Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. Whether downloading cracked software counts as stealing — or whether a juror voting “guilty” in a capital case shares the executioner’s karma — are among the live questions that drive this two-hour Lamrim commentary with Geshe Pema Tsering. He works methodically through three of the ten non-virtuous actions (killing, stealing, and sexual misconduct), applying the classical four-part analysis of basis, intention, performance, and completion. The killing section distinguishes carefully between targeting a named individual and indiscriminate intent — illustrated by setting a forest on fire wishing harm on whoever is inside. The stealing section ranges from tax evasion and toll-dodging to intellectual property and pirated software. Sexual misconduct receives the same structural treatment, with attention to which discriminations make an act a complete path of action. Suited to practitioners following a Lamrim text with a teacher.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 36 2008 10 09 BP.mp3
UUID: 9b11c7ca-1bc1-41d3-91fc-8afec6d92313
Teacher: Geshe Pema Tsering
Collection: Lam Rim (Geshe Pema Tsering)
Date: 2008-10-09
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 125.1 minutes
Words: ~8,071
So So the Geshe-la then is asking us to give us a good motivation and again with the intention of establishing all sentient beings in enlightenment and we ourselves must attain enlightenment so with that conclusion that we are going to study this text on the stages of the path, the practice accordingly. And with this motivation in mind, we start with the preliminary prayers, we start with the Heart Sūtra again, but adding to that the wish that we may may find a a suitable house for Buddha house, for for our activities. And like with this in mind, we start with the Heart Sūtra. Thus did I hear one time, the Bhagavan was dwelling on Vulture Peak mountain in Rajagriha together with a great community of monks and a great community of Bodhisattvas. At that time, the Bhagavan was absorbed in the concentration on the categories of phenomena called profound perception.
Also at that time, the Bodhisattva Mahāsattva Ārya Avalokiteśvara said this to the venerable Śāriputra. Śāriputra, any son of the lineage or daughter of the lineage who wishes to practice the activity of the profound perfection of wisdom should look upon it like this, correctly and repeatedly beholding those five aggregates as empty of inherent nature. Form is emptiness. Emptiness is form.
Emptiness is not other than form. Form is also not other than emptiness. In the same way, feeling, discrimination, compositional factors, and consciousness are empty. Śāriputra, likewise, all phenomena are emptiness without characteristic, unproduced, unceased, stainless, not without stain, not deficient, not fulfilled. Śāriputra, therefore, in emptiness, there is no form, no feeling, no discrimination, no compositional factors, no consciousness, no eye, no ear, no nose, no tongue, no body, no mind.
Those surrounding their entirety rejoiced and highly praised that which was spoken by the Bhagavan. Then we move to the dispelling of hindrances. I and also around the sentient beings go for refuge to the Buddha, go for refuge to the Dharma, go for refuge to the Sangha. We prostrate to the great mother Prajñāpāramitā surrounded by all the children, by the assemblies of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas of the ten directions. By depending on my prostrations to all of you, may these words of truth be actualized.
In the past, the deva king Indra dispelled the madras by reflecting on the profound meaning of the wisdom gone beyond and reciting the profound words in daily recitation. In that same way, I also reflect the profound meaning of the great mother, Prajñāpāramitā, recite the profound words in daily recitation. May all diseases, spirit possessions, bad conditions, all the negative forces, that which happens due to past karma and immediate conditions, may all these be dispelled, may become nonexistent, may be pacified. So, again, we move on. We’re still on the actions and the results, and we move on to the next topic, the determination of actions and the results.
This topic has three parts. The first one, the negative actions and their results, the positive actions and their results, and third, indication of of other divisions of actions. As for the first one, the negative actions and the results, we have again three divisions, the actual negative paths of action, the differences in weight, and the indication of their effects of results. So, again, as for the first one of those, the actual negative paths and of action, again, we have two two divisions, the actual paths of action and the distinction between action and path. Distinction between action and path then as for the the the first topic which which is the actual paths of action we have the ten non-virtues of killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying, divided speech, harmful speech, meaningless speech, covetousness, harmful intent, and wrong views.
And then the first one is killing. And for killing, we have, again, the basis, the attitude or the intention, the performance, and the completion, the conclusion. So, Geshe-la was going through the killing, and as for the basis, again, Geshe-la was following the text. As for first one the basis of killing is another another sentient being and then whatever it may be you know sheep or goat or whatever it may be another sentient being and then we have the intention or the thought, the intention, which is has four divisions to it. It has three divisions to it.
And the first one being discrimination. And as for discrimination attitude, the attitude or the intention has three points. The first of which is discrimination, which again has four points. Again, following the text with regard to the basis being the discrimination of it as such, whatever a being may be again, a sheep or goat or whatever it may be. Discriminating that there is a being that one wants to kill.
The discrimination of it as not a being. And Geshe-la was then also interpreting that sentence in the Tibetan as meaning the discrimination of it of it being another a different sentient being, or if even you want to eat a a sheep, but you end up killing a goat. So Geshe-la made mention to that in the in the with regards to the Tibetan version of the sentence. So in the discrimination of it as not a sentient being, third, the discrimination of what is not a sentient being as a and the discrimination of it as as a being. And English, I was reading the first part of the of the the the sentence that follows.
The first and the third discriminations are mistaken. So the first one is discriminating a sentient being as such as being a sentient being. And then the other one discriminate discrimination of what is not a sentient being as not a sentient being and those are are unmistaken and that is to say again the one is when identify identifying a basis for the actual killing a sentient being or identifying something which is not a sentient being. Again, if they are mistaken, Geshe-la was explaining that, and that they will make for an make for one’s action to comprise a natural fault because there is there is a basis for the act. And then, Geshe-la was in saying so again, and the the the second and the third discrimination is they are mistaken.
So, again, discriminating what is what is a sentient being is not being a sentient being, and discrimination of what is not a sentient being as being a sentient being. And, again, again, Geshe-la was explaining the first the first one of those two, there is there is still a fault in the in the act of killing. The third the the fourth discrimination. The last one is discrimination, which is discriminating one is not a sentient being as being sentient being. Again, Geshe-la was just saying, one will not have the actual basis for the act of killing, but one still incurs a fault because one still has the intention.
One still has the thought of killing, and that that is still generates a partial fault. And the text goes on to say for that is if you have the motivation, for instance, thinking of killing Devadatta alone, but when it comes to the performance of the action of killing, again, you mistakenly kill There is no negativity to do with the actual basis since for that, a nonmistaken discrimination is necessary. So I was asking, Geshe-la, but still still we we killed some somebody even though we didn’t kill the person we intended to kill, we killed somebody else. And Geshe-la wasn’t saying yes. But still you haven’t killed you haven’t killed the person you were intending to.
So you have you you still incur a great negativity, but it’s slightly of lesser less strong than if you if you had actually performed the the act of killing with the actual basis of your intention. So you you had the the intention to kill, but you accidentally kill somebody else. And so you have performed the action and all that, but it is slightly less how can I say? Less strong. Is that okay?
So, again, and the the the test goes on to say, however, if at the time of the performance of the action of killing, you have the general motivation of thinking to kill whoever is at hand, an unmistaken discrimination of the basis not necessary. And Geshe-la was saying again, so in this case, because of the motivation, it doesn’t it doesn’t we do not need a nonmissing discrimination of a particular basis for the act of killing. Take for example, if we were to burn, to set fire on a forest, thinking, you know, whoever is in the forest, you know, ought to die or something like that so whoever or whatever is in the forest again if it dies then you accumulate the negativity for having killed death so if there is a human being in the forest, if you have performed that action with that motivation in mind, then you you accumulate the negative for having killed a human being. And again, if there are animals and there are many, then again you accumulate the negative of having killed many animals. Awesome.
Is that okay? Is that making sense? In in that case, you would that would be still considered the same as an an unmistaken discrimination? Because it’s indiscriminate? That Because it’s indiscriminate.
You know, because you’re indiscriminately saying I want to, you know, whoever’s in that forest, you know, take them out, but you don’t know who it is exactly. Is it the same as? Do you know what I mean? Well, we are just making a distinction here. It is not the same as because there are the two illustrations here in the text, right?
The mistake and discrimination is like I’m gonna kill such and such and I accidentally kill you. Know, that’s that’s that’s the mistake and discrimination which I did, and I performed. The performance that came wrong. If I say, you know, I’m gonna set fire in this place, and whoever is inside dies. So if you guys are inside, I’m gonna accumulate the negativities of all of you dying.
Do you understand what a mistake in discrimination and the non necessity of having a mistake in discrimination, do you know what is what is making reference to? So there is a there is a distinction that is being made made in the at the time of of the developing the intention. So for example, I’m gonna kill him. He is there, and I’m gonna kill him. I know that he’s there.
I’m gonna kill him. And this is one way is is it to call the so called unmistaken discrimination. This is the The person is there, I distinguish everything. Or you have the other motivation saying I’m gonna set fire in this house and I’m gonna kill everyone who is inside this house. Every being who is inside this house.
And then if there are people inside the house and people die then I’m accumulating for example if there is one person inside the house I’m accumulating the negativity is the same. So that is considered a mistaken discrimination? No, No. The discrimination is different. Okay.
The discrimination is different. We have are making distinction here at the time of the motivation. Yeah. Right? So the time of the motivation, I’m saying, you know, I’m gonna set fire on this house, and whoever is inside, I’m gonna may they all die.
Whoever, whatever is inside. Discrimination is different. But if there’s people inside and people die, then the the result is the same as of me having made a nonmistaken discrimination. I say, he is in this house, and I’m gonna kill him. Yeah.
That’s a nonmistaken discrimination. I That was what I was trying to understand. Yeah. Sorry. You have to understand it.
You have to read the third one. The third one is a discrimination of what is not a sentient being as not being a sentient being. This is not a mistaken one. And then the the the fourth one is based on that, the discrimination of it, which is not a sentient being, as being a sentient being. Is that making sense?
Yeah. Yeah. So how you have to understand this? For the the first one with regards to the basis, a sentient being, the discrimination of it as such. A sentient being, discrimination of a sentient being, as being a sentient being.
The second one, the discrimination of it, a sentient being, as not being a sentient being. Uh-huh. Okay? Yes. Thirdly, the discrimination of what is not a sentient being, as not a sentient being.
Again, this is an unmistaken discrimination. And then lastly, discrimination of it that which is not a sentient being as being a sentient being. Where does it say that which is not a sentient being as a sentient being? On the third one, the third line. The third discrimination.
The discrimination of what is not a sentient being as not a sentient being. And the discrimination of it. And it is making reference to the former sentence. Okay? That makes more sense.
Yeah. I’m sorry. The translation is not really clear, but I’m but that’s that’s what it means. Okay? That’s the pronoun there.
It is making reference to the former sentence. It’s beautiful English grammar. And again, have the last sentence here with regard to the topic. You should be aware of this rule also with regard to the remaining nine non virtuous actions as appropriate. Okay?
So the same principle applies to all the other non virtuous actions of stealing, sexual misconduct, and so forth. Then as for the mental affliction, mental affliction is any of the three poisons, you know, attachment, anger, and ignorance. And then we have lastly the motivation itself, which is the motivation consists of the wish to kill. Again, so as for the performance, again, we we have three parts to it. The performer for which is saying then it is the same whether you yourself do the performance or whether you cause someone else to do it, to perform the action.
Okay? It’s the same thoughts, the same And then on top so then the the the fault of the of killing is the same. But for you who has caused if you have caused somebody else to kill, again, you know, that that person also incurs the fault of having the negativity of having actually killed somebody else, which is that’s very evil, very mean, very bad also. And Geshe-la was giving you illustration of how could how do you call that? Not a lawyer.
How do call that? A judge a judge who then sentences sentences people to death. And the judge is saying, you he is sentient beings people to die. He’s not actually performing the actual the actual deed itself by sending some delegating it to somebody else, but he he accumulates all the negativity as much as the person who is actually performing the killing or the per the people who are actually performing the killing. So if if he sentenced five people to to death, and, again, he perform he gets the same negativity as the person who has actually performed the action of killing.
Is that okay? Geshe-la was saying for us, for example, we ourselves, we do not have we don’t incur the danger of killing somebody or killing a human being. We we wouldn’t we wouldn’t do that. It doesn’t occur to us to kill a human being, but we do kill many insects, for example. Well, all of us, we do kill many insects.
And then, also, even though we there might be instances where we do not kill it ourselves, we also tell other people to kill when we have infestations of some sort, again we hire someone to kill and so forth. So again we incur the same negativity. How can I say election? Mhmm. I forgot how to say to elect.
So I was just checking. So I was just checking. I was just asking if, look, we have elected this this governors for for us, to govern for for our country for us, and and and they wage wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan and all that, and they send send the troops to kill people. Do we incur any fault in that? And Geshe-la is saying, look.
We didn’t elect John Howard or Kevin Rudd thinking, wishing that they would go to war. You know, please go to war and kill people. We didn’t do that. We said, please govern our country. They they they have the intention to wage war.
They have an intention to eliminate those individual destroy the individuals they are seeking, and they are the ones who send the troops to perform the action. So they are the ones who actually incur the negativity. We do not. But but Geshe-la is warning us, if if during this process, if for example, Laden is killed, during this process, we capture Bin Laden, our troops capture Bin Laden, we rejoice, and we take joy in that, then we incur a very great negativity. So we do not incur the actual the negativity of the actual act of killing because those are for the troops who are actually killing, for the prime minister who has order, or whoever is in the chain of command who has ordered that.
But if we if we rejoice in that fact, then we incur a great negativity. Okay? And then so then we have as for the performance again, the performer, which it is the same whether you yourself do the performance or whether you cause someone else to do it. Secondly, the entity of the performance. The entity of the performance is that it can be done by means of either a weapon, poison, or mantra, or kung fu or something like that.
So which is so it is it is is basically any way, any means that you can perform the act the action of killing in this in this instance. Oh, yeah. This one. And then as for the completion, the conclusion, then again, the completion consists in the death of the other being due to the condition of the performance at that time or at another time but before you yourself die. So, again, we have we have we have gone through the the basis, the intention, the the the performance of the action, and the conclusion, the performance of the action and the conclusion, the completion of the action again so we have gone through these four steps of the karma, the action itself and if all these four instances are present then one has a full package of karma and if one performs the act of killing in this instance, when one performs it’s a great negativity and the whole negativity.
And again, Geshe-la was going back to the to the completion. I can say that if, for example, we have performed we have developed the intention and so forth. We have performed the act of the action with the intention to kill something or someone, but before the object of our action has died, we have by means of a disease or a illness or whatever it may be, died ourselves, then we do not get the full karma. We do not have the part of the full karma because we haven’t we die before the completion of the karma of the of the whole act. So we still have the karma of having performed, having intended, having performed it, but we do not have the whole lot.
So then, again, we will go to stealing or taking what is not given. And, again, we have the four divisions. Again, the basis, the attitude, or the intention, the performance, and the completion. As for the basis, again, the basis of stealing is any substance or anything that is thoroughly held or possessed by someone else, something that belongs to someone else. Someone else.
Mhmm. The the intention, again, is for the the attitude or the intention among the three, which we have, again, the discrimination, the mental affliction, the motivation. Again, the discrimination and the mental affliction are as above. So, again, as for the discrimination we have the mistaken discriminations, right? And then we have the unmistaken discriminations, right?
So again the same applies in here, the discrimination is mistaken then one does not incur the whole lot of the karma because one has does not have the actual basis present. If the discrimination is unmistaken, then one has the whole lot of it. And as for the mental affliction again, attachment, aversion, and ignorance. Again, I guess I was making reference to the expression in Tibetan. So I that was this how to say?
So, Geshe-la was making reference to the Tibetan expression, which is saying that somebody who is holding on or who possesses, who says I possess this. I I own this. If if there is somebody who possesses the the thing in question, the object in question, again, then we incur and we steal it, then we incur the whole lot. But if the person is dead, for example, and if there is nobody to say, I possess this, I own this, and we take it, then we do not incur the lot, the fault. Okay?
That’s the the the illustration how it goes. And also, Geshe-la was saying there’s a lot that can be said about it. Many instances can be given. And Geshe-la was giving the illustration of, for example, a a garden or a forest. And even even though there is not one person, for example, who says, again, this forest belongs to me, this forest is mine, it is illegal, it belongs to the country, it belongs to the local government or whatever, and it might be illegal to take anything away from the forest, from that property or whatever it may be.
So again, if one takes a tree or a plant away from that, one is still stealing, one is taking where it’s not giving a steal. So there are many different instances. And Geshe-la is saying that also, for example, when one is how can I say that? Having to how do you say that in English? Have to go through Toll.
Toll. Toll. Toll. Toll. Toll.
One has to go for a toll. Again, for example, one is walking or driving or whatever it may be, one has to pass through a toll, but there’s nobody there. And, again, you know that you have to give them money. That’s that’s how it goes. There’s nobody there.
You just go without giving the money. Again, still you’re taking what you’re not giving. The same goes for you know boarding a plane, a train, a boat, a car. Again, if you have to give the money and you board without giving it, and then the subways and the big cities just like that. Maybe here in with the with the trains here, we can do that maybe.
If you don’t give the money when you’re supposed to give, then again, you’re stealing. Again, the same for taxes. Again, we we’re supposed to give a certain amount of money to the government every year. And, again, if we do not give that money, again, we are taking what is not given and so forth. Okay.
Yes? Some ideas. You’re not plagiarizing. No. It’s a it has to be a thing.
This one. Is it it is not a thing, but how can I translate that into better ideas? It’s special one. Chashi. Chashi?
Maybe I can do that. Because we have we have something like copyrights and patent Lying. It’s like saying that this is your work. Yeah. It’s not.
We have the whole thing with the patents and the copyrights. It’s very hard to explain. Intellectual property. Do have that intellectual property. Again, if if if if if if you steal something which is somebody else’s intellectual property, then you’re stealing.
Yes. And that is an idea. Right? Intellectual property is an idea. Right?
So in this instance, yes. Absolutely. The This is difficult, very difficult to convey in Tibet. So again, this is very interesting point. And again, and I just apologize, but it’s very interesting that we go through that.
Geshe-la was saying, yes, if it is, this is how we work in the West. We have intellectual property. We have copyrights. We have patents.
So if you use my idea and this patent and this copyright, then you should be paying me or or or or, you know, asking me for my permission or whatever, and you haven’t you haven’t asked, you have just taken it and used it, then, yes, you’re performing the negativity. But the only thing is that we do not have of the four, the basis, the attitude, the performance, and the completion, we do not have the basis. We do not have a real basis because we’re talking about thoughts. We’re talking about minds. We’re not talking about object as a basis, a real thing as a basis.
So we still have the negativity, but it’s not the complete action. That okay? Yes. What about downloading a cracked version of the Microsoft program? You know the answer.
It’s the same. Sorry. It’s the same. It’s taking what is not given. It’s unfortunate.
We all do that. Okay? I mean Internet. Internet. I don’t know how to start software.
Have you have a word for software? That’s lovely. You got a dictionary, a contemporary dictionary in a sense. So then the whole point is if it is illegal, if you break in the law, then you’re taking what is not given. Boys down to that.
It’s unfortunate, isn’t it? Not if you make software. Not if you make software, you can make your own. This one. So Geshe-la again went through the whole thing.
Again, the the attitude or the intention. Intention. Again, as for the attitude among the three, the discrimination and mental affliction are as above. The motivation consists in the wish to take some some something away from another person without it having been given. Okay?
Then as for the performance, again we have the performer which is as regards to the performer. Performer is as was explained above, you do it yourself or if you make somebody else do it. Then secondly, the entity of the performance, again as for the entity of performance, it is the same whether you take some something by force or steal it sneakily. So robbery still. In addition, being deceitful with respect to a debt or a trust, and using other fraudulent methods also constitutes stealing or taking what is not given.
Also, whether it is done for one’s own or someone else’s purpose or to harm someone and so forth. It is all it all comprises taking what is not given. So Geshe-la was just noting again for the last bit. Again, also whether it is done for one’s own someone else’s purpose or to harm someone, etcetera. It is all, which is taking what is not given.
So again, Geshe-la, I was just noting how how dangerous it is, how there are instances when we might say that we are taking something, but it is for somebody else, it is for for that person, to help that person and so forth. Still, if you’re taking what is not given, still we’re incurring the same for the same negativity. So it is up to us, to each one of us to think carefully about the actions that we are performing if it is and make sure that we’re not contradicting, you know, that we’re not performing any of these actions. And again, as for the completion, again, completion consists of in the arising of the thought that one has obtained it has obtained the object in question. However if you have caused someone else to rob or steal, it is enough for that thought to arise in the person you have caused to rob for you.
This is like when someone kills someone else due to one’s order. And even without one’s knowledge, when the latter dies, the negativity of the actual path of action befalls the one who gave the order to kill. Okay? So again in the instance that we have here in the text, the text is saying when we obtain whatever it is that we wanted to take and we think oh now I have it, I have obtained it and when the thought arises, that thought arises then that’s the completion, that marks the completion of the action. But there is the instance when we have to pay taxes for example and we don’t say we do not say now I have obtained it or I have I have attained it.
We say I have I have not lost any money or I I I did not have to give any money. And when that thought arise, again, marks the completion of this action in regards to such examples as taxes and so forth. Okay? This one. So, again, we move on to the next topic, the sexual misconduct, and we have, again, the four basis attitude, performance, and completion.
As for the basis, again, we have one, the persons you should not have intercourse with. Among the four basis of sexual misconduct, misconduct the first is those you should not have intercourse with your mother, your siblings, your cousins and close relatives and so forth. Then women under the care of other mothers and you can read the footnotes also they will complement our understanding here all men and again when we read the footnotes we have again a proper knowledge of this because the text was addressed to men but in the case case of woman, it applies also to to all woman, to woman readers. And eunuchs and ordained woman. And in your case, ladies, ordained men.
And then we have we do we have then the inappropriate body parts. Inappropriate body parts are those other than the entrance to the womb, such as the mouth. Then we have inappropriate places. Again, again, inappropriate places are the vicinity of lamas, places with stupas, temples, and so forth. Times.
Again inappropriate times are pregnancy, whilst, someone is abiding in the one day vows, and so forth. Then we have then the intention or the attitude. And we have three positions of scholars on regards to this discrimination. Again, among the three aspects of attitude with respect to discrimination, have these three positions. The first position is that of the Compendium of Knowledge, which states that the discrimination of that as that must be must be unmistaken.
Okay? Does that making sense? Everybody following? Okay. Then second, the position of in the Vinaya that states that with regards to the defeat of impure conduct and that is making reference.
Defeat, what’s the word in Tibetan for that again? So the second position is that the Vinaya and again the Vinaya is a text on how can I explain the Vinaya correctly it’s the text on I moral conduct but it’s on the vows of ordained people and also lay vows and so forth? So it states that with regards to the defeat of impure conduct and defeat here parajika is making reference to breaking one of the root vows one of the root monastic vows is a complete defeat is completely breaking your vows by engaging in sexual conduct. So again, it is the same way that the discrimination is mistaken or non mistaken. So it doesn’t make any difference if a monk or nun is engaged in a sexual activity and is breaking the vow, then it doesn’t it doesn’t matter.
Negativity is gonna be the same. The defeat is going to be the same. And then we have the last. Mhmm. The third position is that the commentary on the treasurer explains that if you approach someone else’s wife, discriminating her to be yours or husband in the case of the ladies, this will not constitute the path of action on the discussion.
And that there are two ways in which getting involved with someone else’s wife or husband through discriminating her or him to be the wife or husband of someone else may or may not constitute such a path. Okay? And this one. I’m not sure if I got it. Did you follow that?
Take a second. If it’s if if it’s your wife, but you think it’s the other guy’s wife, then you have sex. Then it is the actual, but you still incur the negativity. Even it’s your wife. Even though it’s your wife, because you have an intention.
It’s Whatever that may be, so it it is not. Right? It is not my wife. It’s not my partner, but I am convinced. I’m I’m I think I discriminate I discriminate her as being my partner.
And if I engage in relations with with with her then, having discriminated her as actually being my partner, then then I do not incur would not incur the fault. Does that make sense? Time of the motivation. At the time of the motivation. Okay?
So, again, so, again, it’s not that we do not perform the negative. Negativity. We do not accrue that part of the whole process of negativity. Right? We have the basis, the attitude, the performance, and the completion.
Right? And we’re talking about one aspect of the attitude. So we do not have the discrimination. When we do this that we’re just talking, all that we are not performing is that the discrimination. But if we do engage in the action and so forth, have all the other aspects of the negativity.
So we still perform in negativity. Okay? Again, that’s and that’s again, you have the mental affliction. The mental affliction can be any of the three points that we know that. The motivation is the motivation is the wish to have intercourse by means of impure conduct.
Again, we know that. We understand that. I’m sorry. Then the performance, the performance consists of endeavoring for the sake of that. Okay?
That’s we we can all understand that. And the completion, the completion consists in the coming together of the two by the two. Okay? Oh, yeah. And, Geshe-la was just saying, you know, how we we the way we think, right, with regards to this is that, you know, if if it is somebody that we dislike, then it doesn’t matter if they die or not, if they are robbed or not, or we don’t care.
And then if we you know, if it is for for our sake, you know, if we enjoy them, we engage in in sexual misconduct, we because it’s pleasurable and all that. And that’s the way we usually think about these things. I guess I was just saying that this we we think of these things in this way, you know, with regards to the people that we dislike and so forth, and we we think of it as being happiness. But we are being told here, we’re being explained that they are not actually happiness. Those things are actually the cause of suffering.
They have continuous they have brought us continuous suffering all the way from the past up to the present and they will keep on bringing suffering causing us suffering in the present all the way to the future. Our thinking them, of these things, of these actions as being happiness is just our own confusion, own distortion, our own distorted minds. Okay? And Geshe-la was explaining, with regards to the word the word, which is what we translate as afflictions or afflictive afflictive emotions or afflictive conceptions. Geshe-la was saying, it is all those all those things that will bring faults to us, will bring suffering to us.
So, again, if it is against the law, if it is if it contradicts the law, then the result is we are going to be prosecuted, we are going to be arrested, are going to be put in prison, sent to jail, and so forth. And, again, the same for the afflictive emotion conceptions and those negative actions again. If we perform those actions, again, the result is suffering, is is fault, is a shortcoming, and so forth. And that’s why they are called faults, that’s why they are called or afflictive emotions, afflictive conceptions, or afflictions. And again, these faults are faults because of fundamental erroneous mind, this mistaken erroneous mind that we have.
Because the mind is is mistaken, because the mind is wrong, fundamentally wrong, again, has this distortion. And things that which is not to be done, it thinks of it as to be done, that which is bad as being good, that which one must not do as something that one must do, and so forth. And then in this way, it’s always wrong, it’s always distorted. Okay. With regards to the ten non virtuous actions we usually usually people we we think these these actions can give me happiness, can can bring me happiness, in actuality, they do not.
Okay? Geshe-la was wondering if you have any questions. I’m just curious why that was not, like as opposed to stealing your mom. Why is there no basis for the intellectual property given that from the point of view of emptiness, anyone’s inherently There is no physical there is no physical substance. That’s that’s only because of what is defined.
It’s defined like that. But you must have a physical substance. Money, something made of plastic, some gold, some valuable object. Those are the proper basics for the act of stealing. As time goes by, two thousand five hundred years later, we have developed into the age of information, and we have intellectual properties.
Both intellectual properties do not consist of physical matter, so they do not consist on actual basis according to this definition. So this instance, according to this definition, one is not engaging in the whole of the act of stealing because one does not have the actual basis, but one still has the intention, one has the action, one has the completion, and so forth. Still, it’s a lot of a lot of bad karma there. Plenty. Nothing to worry about.
Just because you’re missing the basis, you still get a lot of bad karma. Don’t worry about it. Pay your taxes. If my son downloaded movie and I watch watch the movie with him, I still share the Okay. Let me think.
Computer. Computer. Computer. Do you have an idea? Okay.
Okay. Can I ask can can we talk about DVDs? Yeah. Because he knows DVDs. DVD DVD, right?
Mhmm. DVD Do are you listening? No. If you had sent your son to steal the movie Mhmm. And he’d done and he’d done it, then, yes, you would be, you know, enjoying the whole negative package.
If he stole it without your knowledge and you did not know about it, then no. The negative is all his to stay. Even not to keep it together. It doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter.
It doesn’t matter. Even if you know it. Even if you stolen. Yeah. And in case I said there’s no negativity to watch.
Yes. Because he is the one who stole it. But he’s wondering if it’s against the law. Is it against the law for you to watch it? It’s not We do not know.
But maybe it is against the law. If if you steal something and and you’re watching something which is love to watch a pirated movie. That’s a good good point. That’s a good point. If it is against the law to watch a pirate movie, then maybe you partake in some of the negativity of watching a pirate movie, but not of stealing it.
You know what I mean? Again, and if you rejoice in the fact that your son has stolen it, you say, very well done, my son, and all that, then again, that’s a negative you’re having rejoiced on that. But not the negativity of stealing it. Not the negativity of downloading a pirate movie. No.
You didn’t download it. You didn’t intend it. You don’t partake on any of it. Okay? Clear?
Clear. Crystal clear? Yes. Cool. Let’s let’s give them a chance.
Does it has an effect on all of humanity? You know? Does it benefit all humanity? Is that could I say that? Is that what you what you mean?
Can you do you Is it the translation or what? How am I asking about this? It’s a bit of both. It’s a bit of both. The translation I’m going to have to use is the enlightenment of the Buddha.
Was the enlightenment of the Buddha an effect that caused effects that give rise to I will I will try. I will try. I will try my best. That’s it. No.
No. You’re laughing at me right now. Let’s try. Let’s try. Geshe-la is saying, well, the enlightenment of the Buddha, and Geshe-la was then saying, isn’t it?
It’s not only Śākyamūni Buddha, but there are innumerable Buddhas. It does indeed the happiness that we experience is due to the enlightened activities of the Buddhas, innumerable Buddhas. Is that correct? Is that right? What is the translation? Was going to of what?
Enlightened activities. Did you hear that? Light activities within the continuum of Of the wisdom. Result, wisdom dharmakaya to respond. Wisdom to respond.
You get that? Yeah. Did everybody get that? Can we repeat it one more time, please? All positive ripened results.
All positive ripened results? Helping condition. So can we go again for that slowly? Continuum wisdom truth body. Enlightened activities within the continuum of the wisdom dharmakaya.
Dominant or the governing condition dominant condition? The are the dominant condition for all positive ripening results. Okay? And Geshe-la briefly mentioned. Geshe-la then after he said that we were trying to translate, Geshe-la was saying, we think that the way we think is I have done it.
I have accomplished. And, you know, he has helped me. Maybe she has helped me. But we never think of of the enlightened activities of the Buddhas. But the fact is that, yes, the enlightened activities of the Buddhas is helping also.
It’s the dominant condition or government condition. Okay? Cool? Yes? Yes.
Yes. First part, would the government at that time also be responsible for maintaining or creating a law that forces people to be killed or murderers to be killed if they’re found guilty. The second part, if you’re on a jury, especially if you’re a Buddhist, you have to hear the evidence and if you’re convinced someone has murdered, which you know they’re guilty, if you say guilty and if you say not guilty, you’re lying, What did I think? Looking for words. Juror, jewelry, So if the lawmakers, the people who made the law, what is it, the death sentence law, if if they are dead, then no.
According to what we have seen today, if they died if if the if the this death sentence was created a hundred years ago, and these people the the people who made the death sentence, created death sentence are dead already, and they are not incurring any fault by the people who are being killed by by means of their death sentence today. Okay? If they are still alive, then, yes, they incur negativities with that. And then the jewel. It’s not it’s not what I was making reference to.
I’m mistaken discrimination. So there is this distinction that was made here before, and Geshe-la was making remember, in the in the act of killing in the act of killing, there was a distinction made of having a non mistaken discrimination or a mistaken discrimination. But then there was the distinction made of if if you put I guess I was giving you the sense that if you put set fire on the forest, thinking, you know, whoever or whatever is in the forest may die, you know, then you do not need the the exact discrimination of the single don’t don’t to single out the object of your killing. So the lawmaker has has this distinction in the whole The whole negativity, the whole creation of the negativity, there is a distinction made at the time of the discrimination. Right?
So the lawmaker does not have a singled out person in mind. He said, any person who contradicts this law should be killed. So this is general idea. Every time that there is a person who is being killed because he contradicted the law, that lawmaker is accumulating that negativity. Because alive.
He’s alive, he’s alive. And then the judge who is implementing the law, he is incurring the negativity only with regards to this person that he sentences. And then he has a non mistaken basis here, or either mistaken or non mistaken basis. He’s singling out a person to be sentenced to death, to be killed. So there’s this difference.
Okay? So the lawmaker is worse off than the judges. And now it’s the jury, the jury. We have time for the jury, it’s late. Should we go home?
How do I explain that? They have courts in Tibet to preach on Lord knows. Well, that that that explains it, doesn’t it? Look. It is this is very it’s very difficult to explain because I don’t know how to explain how a court So you as the juror, you’re not deciding if the person’s going to be killed or not, if that’s going the person’s going to be punished or not.
You’re not you’re not deciding the punishment. Right? It’s current. But there is a but there is a punishment sequence. There is they they they go on to decide.
Are they going to decide? Can vote for it. They can vote for the defendant. They decide if they are or not guilty. Pardon me?
Judge sentence. The judge sentence. Right? That’s how it goes? Evidently in Australia, capital punishment.
Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So we do not even know how how the whole capital punishment works. But the whole point is, if even if you know, if you are aware that if you’re by telling the truth, a person is most likely going to be sentenced to death if you were in Texas or whatever.
Mhmm. Still, if you if your motivation is not that, if you’re not wishing, oh, may that bastard be dead, you know? If if you’re not wishing for that, if you’re just saying, look, yeah, you know, according to the evidence, that person is guilty, then you do not partake of the negativity. Okay? Now, if you are the juror and you say, you know, after all the evidence, I have figured out that that bastard is a mean creature and must die.
And and and you say he’s guilty, and I wish the judge will send him to death. Then, yeah. Then then you Whole lot. Okay? You just have to look again, you just have to look at what we’ve been going to today.
For every one of those actions, there is the basis, there is the attitude, there is the performance, and there is a completion. So you have identified the person who wish to be killed. You have developed the attitude, the wish, the motivation that that person be killed. You have performed the action. You have engaged in ways to to accomplish the killing of that person.
You say the person is guilty. You know? And then lastly, the person dies before you die because of what you said, because of what you have done. So here. Okay?
Now it’s really late. This is half past nine. Shall we go for the dedications? This one. This one.
Oh, yeah. Okay. Yeah. Yeah.