Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. The mountain analogy anchors this 141-minute Lam Rim session: just as “over there” exists only relative to “here,” self and other are mere labels with no inherent existence — and that insight makes the practice of exchanging self and other logically coherent rather than impossibly demanding. Geshe Pema Tsering works through two main obstacles: treating self and other as categorically distinct entities, and the objection that others’ suffering need not concern me since it does not harm me directly. Both are refuted through the youth-and-elderly and hand-and-foot analogies. A detailed Q&A then explores how cherishing others eventually makes their suffering unbearable, the philosophical puzzle of self and other being “merely posited in relation,” and whether a merely imputed I can still meaningfully benefit others. For practitioners already engaged with Lam Rim mind training.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 19 2009 08 06 BP.mp3
UUID: c47f0f84-896a-4478-8df4-a0d3fed91fb3
Teacher: Geshe Pema Tsering
Collection: Middle Lam Rim (Geshe Pema Tsering)
Date: 2009-08-06
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 140.9 minutes
Words: ~7,548
Thinks the other person is me, and his or her eyes and so forth are my eyes and so forth. Rather, it is to exchange the rank of the two. The mind that cherishes oneself and the mind that completely forsakes and neglects others, and to generate the mind that cherishes others like we do ourselves presently and neglect ourselves like we do others. I guess I was just saying, and and that’s already very difficult. So I think I shall proceed.
Is also why it was thought that one’s happiness and others suffering should be exchanged. Through looking at self-cherishing as our enemy, we will stop considering our own happiness to be a priority. Through looking at the qualities of cherishing others, we will stop neglecting the suffering of others and it will become a priority to eliminate it. So, again, we have a very difficult task at hand. So, again, we’re being we’re being told that what we have to do is is stop or arrest the mind that cherishes oneself, the self-cherishing mind.
And at all times, we should try to stop it, and and we should, at all times, cultivate the mind that cherishes others instead. And, again, this is a very difficult task because we have been habituated with with this attitude of cherishing oneself and neglecting others since time immemorial, since beginningless time. And but nonetheless, again, through by the same means of habituation, of familiarization, again, we we are we’ll be able to do this. We are able to do this exchange. In any case, I was just explaining again, how we have to arrest, to negate this this mind that cherishes oneself, again, because it is it is based it is founded on a fundamental distortion, a fundamental misconception of of of grasping onto a true self, a truly existing self.
So because the self self does not actually exist truly, so then negating the self-cherishing mind and actually neglecting the self, forsaking the interest of the self as we’ve been told to do, will will not actually do any harm to that self because that self that we are talking about is a false self. So so it is it is proper for us to it is reasonable. It is for us to do that, to negate the self-cherishing mind, to arrest the self-cherishing mind. And then on the other hand, it is also having arrested. If we are able to then to arrest the self-cherishing mind, then the cultivating bringing giving rise to the mind that cherishes others will be possible.
It’s made possible by that. And then we and and we ought to cultivate this mind that cherishes others because this attitude, this fundamental attitude of cherishing the happiness of others is is the the the real, the actual cause of real, actual happiness. Short, we will act for the sake of removing the suffering of others without concern for our own happiness. I’m just saying, again, so what we what we are being told to do, the way that we’re being told to train our minds, our thoughts, is that we should we ought to think of of of the interest, interest, of the happiness of others, being being focused, being intent on accomplishing the happiness of others and without having concern for ourselves. But then this is not what we actually do.
What we actually do is the exact opposite of that. That’s what we are habituated with. So we are we are concerned with our own happiness alone, and and we we think of of the things that will have whatever happiness or pleasure or confidence we accomplish, we think of it as being our own doing. You know, I have accomplished this happiness for myself. I have earned it and so on and so on.
And that’s how we actually think. So we are we are being we are being told to reverse completely reverse this this way of thinking. So then, again, we move on to the next topic, removing the obstacles impeding it. And we have, again, two topics to that, removing the obstacle of considering oneself and others as distinct individuals, and then removing the obstacle of thinking. As the suffering of others does not harm me, I need not make an effort to remove it.
So removing the the obstacle of considering oneself and others as distinct individuals, we have, again, first topic, the actual topic itself. Geshe-la was going through the text, most of the text again, by separating the two, oneself and others. The basis of one’s own and others’ happiness happiness and suffering into distinct entities, like blue and yellow, which are different, Geshe-la was saying, they are held to be established in this way. Then with respect to the happiness and suffering based on them, you think since is mine, it should be accomplished or removed, the happiness or the suffering. Since it is others, it is to be neglected.
It is to be forsaken. So therefore, as an antidote to these, you one should think myself and others are not separate entities by nature. Looking at each other, the mind other is generated in me, whereas the mind I is generated in the other person. The mountain over there and the mountain over here. And then it to us that this this reasoning comes down to source of this of this way of thinking is comes down from does not have any existence from its own side, does not have any inherent existence because other also only exists as a mere imputation, as merely imputed, and does not have any existence from its own side.
Again, because because of this reality, which is common to I and other, because of the view that pertains to I and other, to the imputation of I and other, then we we do understand that that the mere imputation, that these distinctions are not real. They are not inherently existent. And that’s why this reasoning is being given to us. Alright? So, again, so, again, for for instance, although from this perspective, with respect to the mountain over there, the mind then the which thinks the mountain over there is generated.
When you go to the mountain over there, the mind that thinks the mountain over here is generated. And Geshe-la was then just making the distinction again. So if you think of here and there, again, if you are here and you speak of the mountain over there, that is only a mere label. Because when you go there, then there become what was there becomes here, and what was here becomes there. And in the same and and this and so we can see how there is a mere labels, a mere imputation, and the same applies to I and others.
And that’s how this antidote is applied. And going for that last sentence again, therefore, this is not the same as the fact that by looking at the color blue, the mind of just blue is generated, whereas the mind of another color is not generated. Alright? And Geshe-la is then just — Geshe-la was reading this that that last sentence, and he was saying that that sounds a bit strange because it is possible to to have this happening, to have something which is blue, and we are being then we are told, we are informed, or we are in that is yellow. The label of that, the imputation of that is yellow.
And the same with the yellow, we can be told that this is blue. So there is a possibility. It is possible for that to happen, even though it is saying here that that is not the case. I think what I mean is that when you see blue, that not at the same time, the the the the thought of yellow is generated. The thought of yellow is not generated.
Right? When I see somebody, the the thought of other is generated on dependence on the eye. Yes. But if I see blue, not simultaneously the thought of yellow is generated. And I think that is what is meant then.
Yeah. I thought so. So so So I guess I’m say, yes. That that’s that’s right. That is correct.
It is what what is being said, what happens with here and there, that when we are here and we we label something as over there, but when we go there, it it we label it here, and what was here, we label it there. So that that exchange does not happen when we are apprehending again something the color yellow or the color blue. When we apprehend the color yellow, that the mind that thinks blue does not appear. When we apprehend the color blue, the mind that thinks yellow does not appear. So it is not it is not the same as here and there.
What what’s happening is not the same as in the case of here and there. Okay. Okay. So I was having I was having trouble to understand what Geshe was was saying. So, again, in the same vein that we have the mountain here and the mountain over there, again, in the same vein, I guess, was saying what is being taught about is that the same happens with regards not to — not with the self and the other, not with the label self and other.
Because those are we could say we could because those those involve two Mes. No matter where you go, no matter where you are, you will always be I, and the other will always be other. So that is not with but that that doesn’t happen then with the the I and the other, the labels of I and other, as in the mountain over here and the mountain over there. That happens with the the self-cherishing mind and the mind that cherishes others or the mind that that neglects others. So that’s the the one thing that we can change from from our own perspective, the perspective of of the individual.
Individual. This is the one thing that we are being told to change, that that we’re being asked to change in the same manner, to to look at it in the same manner as we see the mountain over here, the mountain over there. The same can happen with the self-cherishing mind that we have to arrest or have to stop and then cultivate the mind that cherishes others instead. Produce the mind that cherishes others instead. So in the same way that when you see yellow, the thought doesn’t occur of the thought blue doesn’t occur to oneself.
And when you see blue, the thought yellow doesn’t occur to oneself. So in same way, when you see another, the thought I doesn’t occur to oneself. And then when you see I, the thought another doesn’t occur to oneself. So that’s that’s that’s the relationship. So what what changes?
What is what is susceptible to this way of of thinking is the self-cherishing. This is the self-cherishing that we can change into cherishing others. That’s the one thing that that can be changed in this in the manner of this analogy that we are being given. Alright? Just emphasizing that in the context of this teaching, the main thing that is being talked about in exchanging self and others, again, is not exchanging the self and the other, but exchanging the attitude that cherishes oneself, that holds oneself as as supreme and forsakes others, changing that into forsaking oneself and cherishing others as supreme.
Cherishing others is the most important thing. And so in the same way, when we see another, when we see other, the thought that occurs is the thought of self-cherishing, cherishing that cherishes oneself and neglects the other. And this is what we are being told to change. So when we see other, then we we are we are asked to to neglect our own self cherish, to neglect ourselves, and to cherish others in the same way that we cherish ourselves right now. So, I guess, I was going for the the next topic.
Again, the scriptural source. In this manner, the Compendium of All Trainings from Śāntideva, again, also teaches that self and other are not established by their own nature, but are merely posited in dependence on the point of view. So, again, through familiarizing with the equality of self and other, the mind of enlightenment becomes stable. So self and other are relative, as fictitious as over there and over here. And, Geshe-la was again just pointing out that this the same way that here and there are fictitious, are not real.
In the same way that, again, the self-cherishing and and the mind that cherishes oneself and the mind that neglects others are fictitious, are not real. And this is what we’re being told to change. And again, Geshe-la reads the next verse again, that mountain over there is not over there from its own side. Depending on the perspective, it becomes over here. If other is not established in itself, depending on the perspective, it becomes self.
And, again, here, Geshe-la explains this verse then as indicating that there, over there, again, it it is it is established in dependence on over here. And the same way over here, established in dependence on over there. They don’t have any existence independent existence from its own side, and the same, again, applies to self and other. Again, self is established in dependence on other. Other is established in dependence on self, they do not have any independence exist any independent existence from their own side.
So if there was no there, there wouldn’t be here. If there wasn’t no here, there wouldn’t be there. If there was no self, we couldn’t posit other. If there was no other, we couldn’t posit we couldn’t label self. So again, and based on this understanding, Geshe-la is saying, so that’s why we should endeavor to free all sentient beings from every suffering and and and and then work to establish them in every happiness.
And at the same time was have take onto onto ourselves every suffering there is. Let’s put up with every suffering there is, not paying any regard to it, completely neglecting. And this is what we’re being told when we talk about in the text here in the translation. We talk about neglect. We talk about forsaking.
Forsaking our own interest. Forsaking our own happiness. This is what we’re talking about. So whatever suffering occurs to us, we say that’s alright. That’s alright.
We we don’t care about it, and and and we keep on working for the welfare of all this. And I was just quoting a verse in which this particular attitude becomes more evident in which an actual bodhisattva is saying, you know, may for the sake of of the welfare of one being, for the sake of the enlightenment of one being, I I I’m willing to go to the hell realms for thousands of years, and and I’m I’m I’m willing to go to to to to put up with all the suffering of all beings in order to establish all beings in enlightenment. And that’s where this this attitude of forsaking one’s own happiness becomes this is one verse which in which this attitude of forsaking one’s own happiness, forsaking one’s own interest becomes apparent. And Geshe-la is just explaining again, and this is the this is what one an actual bodhisattva, somebody who has already accomplished bodhicitta. This is how they would think.
You know? They they they’re really willing to go to hell. And this is not, you know, this is not our case. We are training to develop bodhicitta. We are we are just studying the training to develop bodhicitta.
But somebody who has developed bodhicitta, an actual bodhisattva has this attitude in their hearts. They’re really willing to go to hell and and and to to free beings from suffering. And and even though they they are willing to do so, it it doesn’t even happen that way. If even if a bodhisattva ends up in hell, it is going to bounce up like a ball bouncing on the floor by the force of of his or her bodhicitta. The merit is so powerful that it just bounces.
Even if even if he or she goes to hell, it’s just gonna bounce and then come back up. And then again, Geshe lah is saying, the mind that cherishes oneself is the one thing that we should throw every suffering upon. We should throw every suffering upon this mind that cherishes oneself. Because every suffering that we have ever experienced came, in dependence, only since time immemorial, every suffering that we have experienced comes, has come in dependence on this attitude that cherishes oneself above all else.
So this is really the one thing upon which we should throw every suffering. There is And even Naugesla says if we are not able to to arrest this attitude that cherishes oneself, this this self-cherishing mind, then again, the doors to enlightenment will remain closed to us. So again, we can see how it is the this self-cherishing mind is the actual enemy, and this is really the one thing we should get rid of. This is this is reason why we should perform this exchange of exchanging cherishing oneself or cherishing others. So again, the title of this practice, exchanging self and others, exactly what we are talking about is exchanging the self-cherishing attitude for the attitude that cherishes others instead.
This is what we are exchanging here. And if we are not able to perform this exchange, then again we won’t be able to have a pure, fully characterized bodhicitta, mind of enlightenment. And Geshe-la is just saying how, again, how difficult it is for ordinary beings. This is something which is exceedingly difficult. Again, for Bodhisattvas, they have already accomplished that, so they are already living it out.
But for ordinary beings, this is a monumental task. Whoever whoever it may be, Geshe-la says, for every ordinary being there is this is a monumental task. It’s a very difficult task. And and and this is why this is one of the reasons this instruction is said to be a secret instruction. As in the Bodhisattva way of life, there’s a verse that says, this is a secret instruction because it is so difficult.
It sounds so impossible that people usually most people will usually resist that idea. And we think, oh, that could never happen. I could never do that. And yet, as difficult as it may be, we ourselves should not give in to such type of this type of thinking, this defeatist type of thinking, and we should endeavor on it as much as we are able to because if we don’t, then we really have no chance. If we don’t practice, if we don’t turn our minds, then we’re really the doors remain closed.
Emphasizing again, difficult as it may be, as difficult as as it may look or sound, again, we shouldn’t give in to such defeatist thoughts. We we have evidence, plenty of evidence that it is possible to do so. There are many buddhas, and and we don’t even need to mention buddhas. There are very many bodhisattvas who have done so, have accomplished this training. So we have to we really have to pray or make aspirational prayers that we may be able to accomplish this just like they have done, may I be able to do so too.
And this is very if we can make this wholehearted prayers in this manner, this is very powerful. This is very beneficial because we then leave very strong imprints that will make it possible for us in the future to accomplish it. So again it is important that we don’t give in to such this type of thinking. We think, oh, I won’t be able to do that. This is too much.
And so we should shouldn’t think like that, we should exert ourselves in making aspirational prayers that we may be able to do so. Because, again, by not engaging, by just giving up on it, then, again, we we leave a very negative imprint, a very damaging imprint in our mindstreams. It’s a it’s a very it’s a very great negativity that’s gonna make it difficult for us in the future to engage with with it again. So, again, we need to understand So we need to understand this situation. Again, if we if we just give up, if we turn our backs to this training of this this mind that is that is an exchange of self for others, if we turn our backs to it, if we give up on it, if we think I don’t wanna do it, I’m not able to do it, and so on, we are just making ourselves further away from it.
And there’s a there’s a very big danger here. This is the big danger there is. So by by by denying it, by forsaking it, by giving up on this on this training, we just make ourselves further away from it, from from this from accomplishing it and in this life, in the future life. So there’s a huge damage to our practice in this manner. And this is why the the because there is such a great danger, again, this is why this this practice is said to be a secret practice.
It’s very dangerous in this way also. Is going for the next next topic. Again, removing the obstacle, thinking as the suffering of others does not harm me, I need not make an effort to remove it. So removing the obstacle of thinking that this because the suffering of others do not harm me, I do not need to make an effort to remove it. We have four parts to it.
The first one, the refutation in terms of the actions of a youth and an elderly person. And, Geshe-la was just saying regarding this attitude. Again, he was using the first person, he was saying, you know, I know I have this attitude in me, so I I should think that you you also have it too, don’t you? And then so the refutation refutation in terms of the actions of a youth and an elderly person. If these were the case, there would be no need to accumulate wealth when young out of concern for the sufferings of old age as the sufferings of the elderly person would not harm the youth.
So again, when we are young, we work hard saving money for our retirement so that we can bear with the hardships of old age. Yet if this reasoning that we have as the suffering of others does not harm me, I do not need to make an effort to remove it. If this suffering was correct, then again there is no reason there will be no reason for us to work so hard to save money for old age because the suffering of old age is not harming us right now. So we don’t need to make any effort to remove it. So again, in the and in the same vein, Yashallah was gonna say, so again, tomorrow’s hunger, tomorrow I’m going to be hungry.
But because and so and what we do usually is that we we stock up on food. And yet, if this reasoning applies, again, tomorrow’s hunger is not harming me today, so I don’t need to do anything about it now. And then again, the next topic is, again, the refutation in terms of different parts of the body in different times. So again, they just said, likewise, the hand will not remove the sufferings of the foot because they are other. And again, we we again, we are told this is then a mere illustration, and but this reasoning can also be applied to the sufferings of the morning and those of the evening and so on and so on.
So, again, we don’t need to to worry about the sufferings of the of the evening because we are not suffering in the morning and so on and so on and so on. And Geshe-la was going for the next topic, the doubt that these analogies are not the same as self and other since they deal with the same continuum or the same collection, the same aggregation. So if you think the two, self and other, are not the same since the elderly person and the youth are of the same continuum while the hand and the foot are of the same collection, the same aggregation. So continuum and collection are designated on many instances, on a combination of many parts. They lack an autonomous entity.
Since your own self and others self must be posited on a continuum or collection, they are not established by way of their own entity, which is that self and other are not merely posited in relation. So again, if one says that this analogies do not apply because self and other are different whilst we’re talking about the youth and the elderly we’re talking about the youth of the other of one of the continuum of one person if you’re talking about the hand and the foot we’re talking about the hand and the foot of the aggregation of the aggregates of one person. And here, self and other is talking about two different persons, two different aggregations or continuous. And Geshe-la was saying, well the reason the answer to that is the reply to that is saying this reason does apply because again aggregates and continuums are again just mere labels they are imputed upon a collection of instances or a collection of of parts and they do not have any inherent existence from their own side. Again, aggregations and continuums, an aggregation or a continuum, these labels are imputed in dependence on other things.
They do not have any existence from their own side. And the same again, applies to self and others so again self is labeled in dependence upon or is established in dependence on others, others establish in dependence on the self. And again, the same for the hand and the foot, they are posited. They establish in dependence on one another. The same for different points in time.
Again, they establish in dependence on one another. None of them have any inherent existence from their own side. They are all of them only exist as merely labeled. They only have exist as mere labels. And then again we move on to the next topic, which is saying by the power of familiarization, the mind cherishing others can also develop.
So again, Geshe-la has explained the mind that cherishes oneself has been developed by force of familiarization. So in the same vein, we can develop the mind that cherishes others by the force of familiar ization. And Geshe-la was going through the text again. Nonetheless, since by the power of familiarizing with with it from beginningless time, your own suffering is unbearable, is made unbearable, unbearable, so too, if you familiarize with cherishing others, then their suffering will also become unbearable. Alright.
And Geshe-la is pointing out how how this is actually possible, how this is a a a and how we we have evidence that it it is actually possible to cultivate this mind and resolve. In the same way that when we when we have a child, and again again, by the force of our familiarization, we we start to cherish that child more and more until that that cherishing becomes very great, becomes second nature. And then we can extend that again to close relatives, dear friends, and so on. So this all has happened by the force of familiarization, and we can extend that eventually to all those human beings. So it is possible.
It is possible to do that. So, again, the whole point being that we we have to then to train in exchange itself for others. We have to train in developing this attitude. Thank you. Because then we can because it’s by developing this attitude that we can develop bodhicitta.
If we do not develop bodhicitta, we cannot attain enlightenment. So, again, it is only we can only attain bodhicitta by accomplishing this exchange of self and others. And that’s why it is is essential that we engage in such training. You you wanted to ask a question? Yeah.
Can you explain how familiarizing cherishing others make their suffering unbearable? He said in so too, if you familiar so called the cherishing others, their their suffering becomes unbearable. I For you? For me. So because because right now right now okay.
I’ll I’ll just I’ll just you I know you understand. It’s I know you understand, but I’m gonna ask the Geshe because this is good anyway. You don’t like this topic. Where is it? Sorry?
How did you ask the question? I just read the text and asked him to clarify the meaning of all of the Yeah. Whenever we experience suffering or discomfort, right, or pain or sickness or a newness or any kind, then we immediately we start complaining. We say, oh, yes. This is very bad.
This is uncomfortable, and, you know, I cannot bear it. And immediately, we start working to relieve that, to relieve ourselves from it, from the suffering, the discomfort, the illness, or whatever. We start doing whatever it is that we can to get rid of it. So so again, so right now, as we are, right, so if we are experiencing suffering, we cannot bear our own suffering, and we immediately engage in ways to relieve ourselves from this suffering. When we see another suffering, we just couldn’t care less.
Right? So what we are being told is that we have to familiarize ourselves in such a way that we cherish others as the most precious, most important thing, the most precious thing, the most dear thing to us to the point that when we see them suffering, we cannot bear to see them suffering. We immediately engage in ways to relieve them from suffering and take them to the hospital, give them medicine, whatnot. And on at the same on the same vein and to completely ignore our own suffering in the same way that we are presently ignoring the suffering of others. Yeah.
My my perception that is that their suffering will increase. It is my suffering becomes unbearable knowing that they are suffering. I thought that their suffering will increase. No. It doesn’t increase.
Oh, yeah. So I I don’t understand. Maybe that’s language. But on page number fifty six, under c Yes. It says, since you your own self, another’s self must be posited on a continuum or collection Yes.
And not established by way of their own entity Yes. Which is that self and others are not merely positive in relation. In relation. What is the continuum? What is the collection loss?
Yeah. And if they and it says they’re not merely positive in relation. Relation? They they are posited on something else? Or Let’s let’s let’s clarify this one.
And so first first, with regards to what is the continuum and what is the the aggregation, right, of this collection. So, for example, the continuum is is is a label that is given to a a continuation of moments. So, again, from from there’s a continuum of the person that exists from today until tomorrow and the after tomorrow and so on and so on. So there is this continuation of time of of of of of moments, one moment after the next, and this is what is referred to as continuum. And as for the the aggregation, it’s the aggregation of of parts.
We have a collection of parts, the the parts of the body or the different aggregates themselves. And so the collection of that is called the aggregation or the or the collection, that is. And what we are being told is that these these parts, these continuums and these collections, again, they lack any autonomous entity or you know, the the definition of of of the self in the lower schools of thought, is that independent, substantially existent entity. So the word is the same — an independent entity or a single entity that exists from its own side. So there’s no such these these continuums and these collections do not have that.
They do not have this independent autonomous entity. They are not such an independent autonomous entity. And and the same vein, the the the self and the other also are not such much more so because the self and the other are labels that are imputed upon continuums and collections, which are not such themselves. So self and other cannot be also cannot have any existence from their own side. They cannot have any independent autonomous they cannot be an independent autonomous entity themselves.
And But but it says the hand and the foot are from the same collection. Yes. And then they talk about the self and the others. And it is almost like you have to posit somewhere a collection for self and others being of one collection. But that’s not the case, isn’t it?
It’s like self and others are independent entity. They No. But what is they’re not saying it’s not saying here that the self and others are from one correlation. They’re saying that the self and others are positive. Say that self and others or the hand and the foot, you know, the hand is concerned with the suffering of the foot because they are from the same collection.
Yes. It’s almost positive as a reason. And then they start talking about self I’m talking about the same collection, but you can’t post them being of a same collection, self analysis. No. No.
No. But that’s not what you’re saying here. No. I know that it’s not I can read that now, but I don’t understand why it is used there in the first place. What is it?
Who Is is it I’m not For is it written here? Since your own self and others self must be personal, continual collection, they are not established by way of their own entity, which is that self and other are not merely personal relation. I don’t understand this last sentence, though. Doesn’t make any sense. So first thing that came to mind, I put what you just said, so again the hand and the foot, they are from the same collection but the self and the other are not and Geshe-la wasn’t saying no yes it is the same collection depending on the perspective can be posited labeled as the self or I and other.
So from one’s own perspective, this one’s own collection is is one gives the label I. But from someone else’s perspective, this collection is given the label In the oscillation, I was using the word the collection. Right? In the sense that we also have a collection of human hands. Right?
So if if if you if have a collection of of human beings or human bodies, we talk about human hands, I can we can give this the label to this hand. My hand here is a human hand, and also his hand is also a human hand. And and everyone’s hand here is a human hand. So and we have this collection then of human hands like a like a set. Like So again, all these all these collections, all these sets, they are only, again, given they are merely labeled.
They have no inheritance from their own from their own side. They’re not defined in any way by the from their own side. And then I see you have you’re not clear, isn’t it? And then and maybe translation is is this is not this translation is not correct. Let let me which is that, the self, and the other are not merely positive relation, which is wrong.
The last sentence is saying that Okay. Okay. Okay. So So the translation is not is not very good. This expression is saying that Aside from being merely posited in dependence, in relation to one another, the self, the I and the other.
Right? The self and the other have they have no existence. They have no existence from their own side aside from that. The only existence that they have is that So then I should say, which is that self and other are only merely posited in relation to each other. The established they are not established by way of their own entity from their own side, which is that self and other.
Yes. This this construction in English didn’t came quite right. But what Geshe-la was in Geshe-la was it’s it’s a complex sentence. In Tibetan, it comes the the other way around. Yeah.
So it is a it’s a sentence that comes like this is self and other aside from being merely So aside aside from this from being merely positive in dependence on one another in relation to one another, have no existence from their own side. I’m having a problem of thinking of a better way, a more eloquent way to put it in in English, but that’s exactly what what it means, what it is saying. Now I do understand that. But then then why does it come with them? They must be posted on a continuum.
You know? No. The the the self the labels self and the label others are given a label upon a continuum or a collection. But they’re talking about two completely different things, isn’t it, in one sentence? One is that self and others are just labeled upon a continuum, and then the other is that they have a relationship with each other.
No. No. Saying that aside from from being mere labels, which have which exist in dependence on each other, they have no existence from the other side. That’s what I’m saying. This translation is is is not is really not a good translation, this very end here.
If we take out not, does that make it easier? So are merely in relation to one another. In relation to one another, maybe if you add that. They’re not established by way of their own identity. They are established they are they are are merely posited in relation to one another.
They are merely labeled or or or imputed in relation to one another. They are merely posited in relation to one another. Sharper than other. Is that is that does that help? Well, that clarifies that part.
But the reason why why why this part comes up is because you want to remove the doubt that analogies are not the same as Salvador’s, and this does not help me to remove that out. Well, we’re saying, they’re saying that the continuum and collection are not the same as self and other. And the text is saying, yes, they are. Because self and other are posited on continuums and collections. They’re saying that continuums and collections are not the same as self and others.
Right? And what we are saying is that they are very much so because self is posited on continuums and collections. Other is posited on continuums and collections. They are not different. Continuous and collections.
So again, so self is a label that is given to the continuum of a person, a person’s continuum. Other is a label that is given to a person’s continuum or a person’s collection of the aggregates or and so that that’s what it says. Is that alright? Yeah. I understand all that, but I just I just aggregates and you to that, you you give the label I.
And to this collection of aggregates here, you give the label Rodrigo, other. Other. And that’s what he’s referring to. So that’s what we’re saying. The the continuum and the collection, the the doubt is they are different than the self and other.
What we’re saying, no. They’re not different from self and other. Self is a label that is given on continuums and collections. Collections. Other is a label that is given on continuums and collections.
And then and then to that to to to analyze continuum and to analyze collection of aggregates, of which you to which you give the label I and and you and you you hold that in high esteem as you cherish you cherish highly. Again, that cherishing of that I that that is imputed on this collection, continuum of annular, then, again, we you have to we we are being told to arrest that, stop that, get rid of that. And then when you think of the other that is that is that is labeled upon some another beings, another person’s aggregate. Again, you you meant to develop to cherish that instead. And again, we are told that we are able to do perform this this training because this eye and this order again lack all this in existence from their own side.
They are mere labels in the same way that, again, continuums and collections are also mere labels. They do not have any existence on their own side. That’s what we’ve been told. So I’ve been told that we we are able to produce this this attitude that cherishes others. When we when we see other, when we see an other, we are able to produce a mind that cherishes other in the same way that we have produced a mind that cherish self by means of mere familiarization.
Alright? This one. This one. Is that okay? Yeah.
Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Yeah.
Yeah. So does that mean there’s no such I benefiting others? That doesn’t mean not benefiting others. Or there’s no such I experiencing suffering. That doesn’t mean there’s no suffer.
Is that the point? I’m I’m not sure if I understand you. You know, there’s no such I. There’s no such I. Right.
But it’s I benefiting others because that’s the point, isn’t it? No I. Is that I’m not sure. And then the rest of the question? You know, eye imputed eye is on experiencing suffering.
Imputed I? Mhmm. Is experiencing Suffering. Yeah. Suffering.
Yeah. So therefore, there’s no such I benefiting others. Doesn’t mean no benefiting others. No. Does it mean we cannot benefit others?
We think I benefit others. Don’t impute I. I benefit others. Okay. Okay.
But because we impute I, therefore, we think I benefits us. But there’s no real I. No So no real I. In that case, there’s no such I benefit even when I am thinking. Yes.
I think I do. I think I do here. I’ll try to say that. So meaning — if there is no I, either I benefit — there is no I that benefits.
Okay. I’ll try to I’ll try to say that. So so what what we are being what we are saying so, Geshe-la was so I was saying I I said what you just said, right, in Tibetan. And he says, no. No.
No. It’s not quite like that. We do benefit. The there is no inherently existent self. There’s no inherently existent I benefiting others.
But there is a merely labeled, the merely imputed I, which is benefiting others. There is a merely imputed I, which benefits merely imputed others, which then does merely imputed benefits to others. So things exist. The I and the the the others and the benefits and the sufferings, they exist merely imputedly, but they they they exist. They don’t exist inherently.
So there is the the the suffering that we experience is merely imputed. The benefit that is done is merely imputed. The others are merely imputed. So, yes, so there is one does benefit. Yes.
One does accomplish benefit. Mhmm. Yeah. That’s what I mean. Yeah.
Therefore, there’s no such I experiencing suffering. Doesn’t mean there’s no suffering. There is no inherently there is no inherently existent I experiencing suffering. Yeah. But there is yeah.
So there is no inherent existent I that experiences any inherent existent suffering. And yet, there is an I that does experience suffering. There is a merely imputed I that does experience merely imputed suffering. The similar things written in the. And yet, Geshe-la was saying, we have to realize the fact that phenomena are merely labeled because we do not have this realization as it is.
We do not understand that. We do not realize that yet. In order to be able to realize that, we have to realize emptiness. Okay. Yeah.
Is that alright? Is that yes. Nine o’clock. It’s past nine. Is that alright?