Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. A police officer asks which way a fleeing criminal went — telling the truth would get the man killed. Geshe Pema Tsering raises this dilemma midway through his analysis of lying in this 113-minute Lamrim session, which works through all seven speech and mental non-virtues. He examines lying, divisive speech, harsh words, and idle talk using a consistent four-part framework of basis, intention, performance, and completion, pausing to observe that idle talk — the smallest fault of the ten — causes the greatest self-harm simply because it never stops. Covetousness, harmful intent, and wrong views follow, with particular stress on wrong views: unlike anger, which damages accumulated merit, wrong views shut the door to all future virtue entirely. A live Q&A closes the session, probing the subtle philosophical distinction between karma as intention and the mental non-virtues as mere parts of action, worked through with a goat-killing example.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 37 2008 10 16 BP.mp3
UUID: fd872ede-bb62-47f0-a384-a0189ec6698c
Teacher: Geshe Pema Tsering
Collection: Lam Rim (Geshe Pema Tsering)
Date: 2008-10-16
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 113.7 minutes
Words: ~4,855
Yeah. Oh, yeah. The first verbal, you know, non-verbal speech, lie. And as for the basis, we have then the two individual, the basis of expression and the object that is comprehended. So as far as the first one, the basis of expression, Among the two bases of lines, the basis of expression is the four, that which one has seen, heard, distinguished, or become fully aware of, as well as the four opposites.
So I was just going through the whole of these four things here. What that which one has seen, that which one has heard with and I was just saying in Tibetan, again, putting it in a very colloquial way, that which one has seen with one’s eyes, that which one has heard with one’s ears, that which one has distinguished with one’s mind, that which one has become fully aware of with one’s intention, the performance, and the completion. So we have gone through the basis, the basis of expression, and the the comprehension, now the attitude. And the attitude has those three divisions. Again, among the three aspects associated with the attitude, the discrimination, consists in making something that one has seen into something that one hasn’t that one has not seen or that that has not been seen and etcetera.
Again, one something that one has heard into something that one has not heard and so on, distinguished and become fully aware of and the opposite. The mental affliction is any of the three poisons, and the motivation consists in the wish to say something through changing the discrimination. And then as for the performance, we have the actual performance, and then we have another topic which is clearing up doubt. As for the actual performance, the performance consists in indicating something by saying it, by making sure not to say anything, or through body language. The doubt that it depends on the purpose, that the lying depends on the purpose.
Again, moreover, in the scriptures, it says that it is the same whether you say it for your own or someone else’s purpose. Then again, one incurs a fault. The three approaches concerning the distinction between the actual path of action being incomplete, if you enjoin someone else to do it, then the first approach is that which comes from the treatises on the grounds. Again, here, it is stated that with respect to lying, divisive speech, harsh words, even though you enjoin someone else to do them, these three will come about. So and then even if you enjoin someone to do it, you need to make someone do it, you don’t do it yourself. You still incur the whole fault.
Then again, as for Vasubandhu’s approach, in the in the Treasury of Knowledge, in the root text, in his commentary, he is explaining that all four associated with speech become parts of action through enjoining downfalls. I mean, because I was reading in the Vinaya, they stated that in order to produce a complete downfall, you yourself must speak this lie. Geshe-la was explaining, so this is, again, from the point of view of incurring a downfall of discipline. And it’s not to say that there is no fault involved in it, Geshe-la was explaining. If you if you’re enjoying someone, I mean, there is fault.
And then as for the completion, again the last part of the act, again the actual completion. The completion is that it is understood by the other person. So then, again, when somebody else understands what’s what’s been said, then, again, that marks the completion of the action of of of negative. Okay. And then the second topic of the completion, which is clearing up doubts.
Like in the commentary on the treasure, explains that if it is not understood, if the lie is not understood, it becomes merely idle talk. So again, so if if it is understood, then if it is lying, but if if what is being said is not understood, then it becomes not lying or idle talk. And the same applies for devised speech and harsh words harsh words also you know, a hypothetical situation. For example, if there was if there was a case of a law where a robber, someone who has robbed, should be killed, and you you are aware of that. And then someone has performed a robbery, run away and passed by you.
And the police was going after the robber, again, stops and asks you, did you see such and such a person passing by here? I guess, what do you do? If you tell the truth and say the person went that way and the robber will be killed. And if you if you don’t tell the truth, then you’re lying.
So what do you do? And you have to engage in ways I said I said, you lied. Geshe-la said, no. No. No.
You don’t. You have to engage in ways to to for the person not to be killed and for you not to lie. So we shall it said two things. One thing, you could just not answer the question. Just remain silent.
Another Another thing you can say, look. I’m late. I have to go. I don’t have time for this. Another thing and if I wasn’t saying, another thing that you could say is say, look.
I have not seen an ultimately existent person. Mhmm.
Because that’s that’s I think that’s not easy. Okay. So you could say that, and you wouldn’t be lying. So you have to engage in ways, whatever way, so that you don’t lie and the other person is not harmed. Mhmm.
I think this one. We’ll move on to divisive speech as far as the basis of divisive speech. The basis of divisive speech are sentient beings who are in agreement with each other and those who are in disagreement with each other. Okay. So, again, it could be friends.
So and then you could say engaging in divisive speech, saying anything in order to bring them apart. Or if they are already enemies, and again, you you could say anything to keep them them apart or to make them even further apart, further away from bring them further away from each other. And, again, the vice versa could be anything. It could be pleasant words or unpleasant words, anything that has the ultimate goal of bringing them apart or And then as for the attitude or the intention, again, among the the three aspects associated with the attitude, the discrimination and the affliction are as above. The same as above.
So you have mistaken discrimination and and and so forth and the truth. And you have the truth. As for the motivation, consisting the wish to divide sentient beings in agreement, to divide sentient beings which are in agreement and the wish that those sentient beings which are in agreement do not be reconciled. Okay? As for the performance, the performance consists in expressing either pleasant or unpleasant subject matter with either true or untrue words and to say them for either one’s one’s own or other’s purpose or purpose.
So again, I guess I was just going through the words again, which is when I say pleasant or unpleasant words or true or words which are not true, and then I was just stopping and saying, so if you say some questions, I’m sure you’re lying. And if I say, yes. And then you if you’re doing that, if you’re bringing engaging divisive speech and using lying, and then you have accumulated two negativities at once. I mean, you’re not only divided speech, but also line on top of it. And so it goes and you can accumulate many different negativities like that.
Because one can also say harsh words also in in the process. And then as for the completion, again, completion consists in the divisive words that were expressed being understood. So when the people involved understand what what is being said, then that marks the completion of the act of the act of divisive speech. And then again, Geshe-la brings it to our attention that, again, if the words are not understood, on the other hand, then, again, the same applies as what has as what happens to lying, then the words are not divisive speech. They’re not called divisive speech, then they become just idle talk.
And then we move on to the next topic, harsh words, harsh speech. The basis of harsh speech, I mean, the basis of harsh words is a sentient being who has become the basis for the arising of a hostile attitude of harmful intent. For those beings which are the basis for the arrival of harmful intent, think I was gonna say it could be that there’s a whole variety also. It could be somebody who who one has not has disliked from the very beginning or somebody who is one is friends with, but has done something unpleasant to to to to one’s dislike, and then one has developed this attitude towards Is that okay? Yeah.
So, again, the just because the word that I was using is the same word that is used in in in another one of the non-virtues. The word Tibetan that is used in which is just explaining. And then there’s and and so it’s the same word in Tibetan. So again, you can see this what is it? What is it?
The basis of harsh words is a sentient being who has become the basis for the arising of a hostile attitude. The hostile attitude is constant Tibetan which is people translate as hostile attitude or harmful intense or ill will also. And it’s one of of the ten non-virtues. It is one of the three non-virtues of mind, of thought. And just because I was it was mixed here in the Tibetan, I was saying in English, and I was just just clarifying.
It is it is actually harmful intent itself that is being referred to. Okay? The discrimination and deflation are as above, the same as above. The motivation is the wish to speak with harsh speech. As for the performance, the performance consists in speaking unpleasantly by means of either the truth or untruth about the person’s lineage of extraction, of body, ethical discipline, or behavior, or any other such thing that might fit the bill.
And then the completion, the completion consists in in the one to whom it was said, understanding the meaning. And again, the same applies as before with the the other, non-virtues of speech. If the meaning is not understood, then again, becomes idle talk. This one. And then we move on to the next, non virtue of speech, idle talk.
People also translate it as. The basis of idle talk is a meaningless topic. Meaningless topic. That’s basically how we just define. Although with regards to discrimination, nothing has been stated other than it is a discrimination of the topic as that topic, here it is to talk having discriminated the very topic that one wishes to express as that.
Because for this, there is no need for someone’s understanding. And here, again, the mental affliction is any of the three poisons. Again, attachment, aversion, and ignorance. And the motivation Is the wish to talk disconnectedly and randomly? I mean, I did I did.
I’m just I’m just just mentioning how how much we do that. And then I guess the performance the performance consists of setting about uttering the idle talk. And the completion the completion is to finish uttering the idle talk. So I can maybe finish finishing saying the main meaningless thing they wanna say, that the marks the completion of the action of. There is no need for somebody else to understand what is being said.
Of the ten non virtues. Idle talk is the one is the is the is the the smallest fault there is. Mhmm. But in terms of the harm that it causes us, it is the greatest one of all. And I was asking, so how is fault.
Is not even though it might not harm others, causes great harm to ourselves because it happens so very often. It happens all the time. We are always engaging in idle talk, meaningless talk, grasping and so forth, endless talk, in this way, because it happens so very often, and it wastes Okay. Results and what was that? Correspondence to the cause in terms of behavior.
Oh, in terms of experience and in terms of behavior. Yeah. So, Geshe-la, I was asking, so what is the result of idle talk? Because we’re engaging it so much, all of us. So, you know, what will be the the results?
And Geshe-la was saying, generally speaking, look, results in terms of behavior is that one, again, one will be prone to engage in idle talk even more often. And then the results of experience is that one will be immersed in a lot of suffering. One experience a lot of suffering. You’re gonna pass this on to me. What is it?
Harsh speech. Senseless speech. Again, the result corresponding to the cause in terms of experience that you undergo an experience that is similar to the experience you caused by your previous action. The result of idle talk in terms of experience is that other people do not listen to anything you say. You’re not taking serious.
And the environmental results, again, is also inauspicious living in a barren place without fruit and pleasant features. Thank you. That’s lovely. Not the results, but the fact that you have the same idea. This one.
The whole point is it is it is a non virtue. So the whole point is that there’s nothing but suffering falling from it. That’s what it comes down to. This one. And then we move on to the next topic, covetousness.
The basis of covetousness is a possession or property that belongs to someone else. As for the attitude, among the three aspects associated with the attitude, the discrimination consists in the discrimination of that basis as that. Again, that’s whatever it may be, you know, it could be a car. And if I wasn’t just saying, oh, that is a nice car that the person has or, you know, it is a nice house or very easy. It is a nice motorcycle that the person has and so forth.
And then again, the affliction is any of the And this is what was saying again. There’s another difficult one. This is covetousness. Again, all these faults, all these shortcomings of cyclic existence, all these things that we revere, that we hold dear to us, that we like so much. Again, all these things we have we have covetousness.
We feel covetousness towards all of these things that are actually. And then very interesting, in the performance then, the performance consists in making an effort for the object of one’s thoughts. I was just clarifying. So the so then for the meaning of the thought, making an effort for the meaning of the thought, in in the sentence in English, makes makes it seem like we’re making physical action. I was asking you this.
Is you engaging mentally in that, oh, I must have that. I must do this and that to engage or get it and so forth. It’s like you really make a mental effort. The completion is is the thought. May that thing become mine as a conclusion.
May that be mine resolution. Okay? This one. Then we move on to the next, affliction, which is harmful intent. I mean, the basis, as for the basis and the attitude, I mean, the base of discrimination and the affliction of harmful harmful intent are similar to those of harsh harsh words.
And again, we can go back to harsh words. Again, the basis of harsh words is that the sentient being has become the basis for the arrival of a hostile attitude. And the attitude, again, the discrimination and the affliction are as above, and the motivation is the wish to speak harshly. And then And then as the motivation is the wish to hit and so forth, thinking how nice it would be if this person were to be killed or bound or if his or her resources were to decline by themselves or through someone else’s actions and so forth. And as for the performance, the performance consists in applying oneself to these thoughts, to all these thoughts, you know, of, you know, may the person be killed or may the person may the the possessions be exhausted and so forth.
Mental actions, thoughts. And I think for the completion, the completion consists in the decision to hit and so forth, to hit, to kill, and so forth. So again, we’ll move on to the next, the last of the ten non-virtues, which is wrong views. Again, the basis, the attitude, the performance and completion. As for the basis, the basis of wrong views is an object that exists.
It’s an existing phenomenon. There is no wrong view, which I was explaining, with regards to nonexistent phenomenon. As for the attitude, among the three aspects associated with the attitude, the discrimination consists in discriminating the object that is denied as true. Now the translation is the object that is denied. So again, choice of words in the translation is maybe not not the best.
The is it means to deprecate or or if I wasn’t giving you illustrations of what it refers to. So you discriminate something which is being denied as being true. And you can always explain what is is believe that the the laws of cause and effects are not true or do not apply or in the they they do not exist. So the the does not exist. The the dominant is not exist and so forth.
And you believe that those things are true. Is it is it making sense? The motivation is the wish to deny the object. And and then, again, as for or to deny or to deprecate the object. Again, as for the performance, we have the actual performance and the division.
The actual performance, if I was going through the test again, the performance consists in setting about applying oneself to such thoughts. And as for the divisions, we have the denying denying causes in regards to divisions, are four divisions. First, the cause. Denying the cause consists in the view that excellent conduct and faulty conduct do not exist. Because I wasn’t saying, these virtuous of those two do not exist.
So I mean, the ripened effects of virtues of good conduct and bad conduct and the migrations that result from them do not exist. And then again, as for denying activities, denying activities has three points. First, denying the activity of planting and retaining the seed consists in the view. There is no planting of a seed by the father and no retaining of a seed by the mother. Of coming and going consistently.
There is no coming from a former existence and to this one, and no going from this to a future one again and not believing in past and future lives. Then have the denying existing things. Denying existing things consists in the view that arhats do not exist. Then we have then lastly, the the the conclusion, the completion of the action. Completion is certainty with respect to one’s denial, And I guess I wasn’t saying again with regards to wrong views, it’s a very, very, very bad non-virtue.
Because I wasn’t saying, you know, we we say that anger can destroy all our roots of virtue, and there are other people or other systems or the schools who say that wrong views is the most evil of the non-virtues that destroys all roots of virtue. I’m gonna say, look. They’re both very extremely bad anger and wrong views. They’re both extremely bad. And it’s important to understand that wrong views is extremely, extremely harmful.
Again, if one has wrong views, one do not have a chance to produce one single virtue whatsoever. I was saying with anger, the harm that it does to our collections of virtues, that it harms the collections of whatever virtues we have accumulated up the point of that anger. It harms the results that the positive of virtue that we have accumulated. Right? So but anger does not cause any harm to the results of the causes that we have not accumulated yet, that we will accumulate in the future.
Right? Does that make sense? Now, as for wrong views, it not only harms the results of the cause that we have already accumulated, it also closes the door to the accumulation of any future virtue. So it is really, really evil. It’s really bad.
So again, closes the door to virtue, to virtue’s actions. And if it closes the door to virtue, it closes the door to every happiness. And that being so, it is extremely evil, extremely bad. Then we move on to the next topic, the distinction between actions and parts of actions. Among them, the intention in the mind what is it?
The intention in the mind is. So among them, the intention, which is a mental factor. Right? The intention in the mind is an action, but not a path of action. And this is important to understand. The word that’s been translated as action is lei.
It’s karma. Okay? So the karma is the intention in the mind. Intention in the mind is the karma, but it’s not a path of action. Okay?
So then the text goes on to say, what is it? Again, the seven non-virtues of body and speech are actions as well as parts of action; they are also the basis of operation for the intention, that is, the mental factor of intention. And the three — covetousness and so on — are parts of actions but not actions since they are not the basis for I’m I’m I’m confused here. I do understand what they’re saying. I do hear what they’re saying, but I’m I don’t understand the meaning.
So if someone is saying, so le, action, is the mental factor of intention. So so the the three non-virtues of thought, covetousness, ill will, and wrong views, they are they are parts of action, parts of of le, but they are not le. They are not actions. That’s what is being said. But I don’t fully understand.
Covetousness, harmful ill will, and wrong views, they are the basis for the operation of intention, but they are not intention itself. Is that making sense? So again, dependence on those three, covetousness, ill will and wrong views, again, one then engages in, how do you say, in negative actions, in intention, develops intentions towards negative actions. So it is the other then the parts parts of actions, but not actions themselves. So so there’s still negativity because, you know, need something.
So again, just to reiterate, again, the three covetousness, ill will, and wrong views, they are parts of actions, but they are not actions. Then the three the seven, sorry, non virtues of of body and speech, they are both actions and parts of actions. And then actions themselves are intention, but intention is not parts of action, a part of action. Okay? Yep.
Sorry. I understand that consciousness and ill will and wrong views is not the mental factor intention. And in that sense, you could say it is not the action itself. But if I think about the physical action of killing, then I think that physical action of killing is I cannot see that that is the mental that that was an action in the sense that that is a mental factor. So if you have the three, the ill will and the wrong view and the covetousness, they are part of action, but are not intention.
Right? Yes. Technically, I understand that. Yes. That they are not mental factors.
That they are not the mental factor intention. They are not intention. But the physical action or the the verbal action, they say that is was also intention. That was also action. I don’t I don’t see any difference here between.
So this is what was saying. Without without having the intention to speak, to engage in the in the harsh words, then one will not engage in the harsh words at all. One will not create the harsh words at all. So, guess I was explaining, yes, arguing without the intention, again, the actions cannot follow from without if one does not have intention first. And this was we’re asking about killing.
So, again, first of all, you discriminate the bases and, again, and the and the and the attitude. Again, So there is that goat that I must kill, I must kill that goat. Right there and then, one has already accumulated the action, the karma. Then one engages in the action and and concludes, completes the action and say, okay. It’s done.
I killed the goat. That’s great. One one might and then one if one does that, and goes for the basis, the attitude, the performance, and the completion. Then one gets the whole karma, but right at the beginning when one says I must kill that goat, right at the beginning one has already accumulated the karma even though one might not have performed or one might not even perform the other steps, so to speak, again one has accumulated the karma. The desire to kill is the action of killing.
Yeah. So that intention. That intention. The the the physical carrying out Yeah. Is the is The performance of the action to kill.
Performance. It’s just the execution of the actual karma of killing is the intention to kill. Yes. That’s the actual that’s the actual that’s what The actual Yes. But if somebody has a nice possession and I think I would like to have that position possession, then it says that it’s just a part of action.
Then I think what is the intention? Because that needs an intention too, isn’t it? You cannot have any That’s a different Any part of action without intention. I I tried to understand that. So action is intention.
Yes. But part of action is not intention. Not necessarily. So how can you have a part of action without intention? So let’s say covetousness is a part of action, but it’s not intention itself.
Parts of actions, and the word is le. Okay? Actions, karma. The parts of actions are those which lead to the engagement Yeah. In the action.
So could you then say that the action of the actions of body and a speech, they are the part of actions, So I was just when I was reading here, the text is saying, they are those seven non-virtues of body and speech. They are parts of action, and they are actions. Whilst the three non-virtues of thought, they are only parts of actions, but not actions. And that means if they are not actions, then they are not intentions. Or they are not the mental factor of intention.
Now I’m going to ask what you just asked. Oh, I interpret the words. Alright. Yes. Okay.
It’s shall we shall we shall we end? It’s almost done. Is there do you have any more questions? Yeah. Would exaggeration, elaboration, or embellishing facts be If I am if I I was giving an illustration here.
Okay? If I have a a dirty old motorbike, and I’m trying to sell it, and I’m saying it’s a great motorbike. It’s clean. It’s running wonders. I’m embellishing.
I’m doing everything that you did, and I’m really lying. So it can be. We do that all the time also. We We see all we our attachment and so forth. We’re always seeing things which are not good as good, which are not as beautiful, which are not, you know, and so forth, which are not pleasant as as pleasant and so forth.
Other hand, we could do we could depreciate also the thing, whatever is the obvious question. You say, oh, because the motorbikes, know, it’s a it’s a stinky motorbike that cannot go around the corner. It was good for nothing and so forth. We could also be doing that. So there’s the the exaggeration, and there is the also the depreciation.
So if it if it if it it has good qualities and we say it doesn’t, then it is depreciating. If it does not have such good qualities and we say it does, then we are exaggerating. And so two Tibetan words we use pretty often, actually, with afflictions and mental distortions and so forth. Okay?