Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. A student’s pointed question — why spend three countless eons accumulating merit for Buddhahood when a lesser vehicle path achieves enlightenment in just three lifetimes? — opens this 45-minute session from Geshe Pema Tsering’s series on Buddhist tenet systems. He answers by explaining how the Buddha taught different views to suit beings of varying predispositions, with each later school progressively refining the lower presentations, the Sūtra School correcting the Great Exposition, Mind Only correcting the Sūtra School, and so on up to the Consequentialists. The talk then works through the Sautrāntika system in detail: its definition, its two branches (followers of scripture and of logic), the two truths, non-affirming and affirming negations with uncompounded space and emptiness as worked examples, and finally the three-part definition of valid awareness — new, non-deceptive, cognition — with each component shown to exclude a specific faulty cognitive state. Suited to students already working through the tenet curriculum.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 04 Tenets 2001 10 23.mp3
UUID: 5cb3ca5d-4a81-45ce-8364-30a645716370
Teacher: Geshe Pema Tsering
Collection: Principles of the Tenets (Geshe Pema Tsering)
Date: 2001-10-23
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 45.3 minutes
Words: ~3,287
The the different types of enlightenment are differentiated mainly by merit. But in the higher schools not by view, but in the higher schools, there’s a difference also in view that’s asserted, as well as a difference in merit. Sorry, and you I was just asking that in the high school or in many of our prayers, we pray for the perfection of the two accumulations. From this this school’s point of view that that, you know, how does that fit? Are we perfecting that accumulation or have we got a lesser accumulation of merit there?
For the hearer enlightenment? Yeah. For hearer and the solitary realizer enlightenment. It’s true. In this presentation, there is actually a difference in the amount of merit that’s accumulated.
The basic view or the wisdom that’s employed is the same in all three vehicles. It’s the wisdom of subtle selflessness. The wisdom understanding subtle selflessness is the same, but the amount of merit that’s accumulated in each of the vehicles is different. And because of that, then there is they’re differentiated as one is small and one is intermediate, one is great. And that’s predominantly to do with the way that not wisdom is accumulated, but merit, and therefore, way that one engages in, you know, like doing prostrations or collecting, you know, various other virtuous activities.
So there’s a difference in the terms of the accumulation of merit. So therefore, there’s a different difference in the three types of enlightenment. In the higher vehicle vehicles, for instance, the wisdom comprehending emptiness is associated there with the accumulation of merit. And by the union of those two, merit here specifically dealing with the bodhicitta, through the union of the wisdom, understanding, emptiness, and the motivation of bodhicitta, then the two accumulations are established and the result of a Buddha is obtained. In this particular view, bodhicitta is not accepted.
And what differentiates the three vehicles for this school is the accumulation of merit. Also, because they don’t assert emptiness, here they regard their view as being the view of selflessness, subtle selflessness. So enlightenment is differentiated in on that basis. What? What?
Can I ask? Yep. Why would somebody take a long time to accumulate a lot of merit to become enlightened if you could do it by accumulating a small amount? And it it seems like you’re paying a million dollars for a piece of gold when you could buy it for, It appears that way when one observes the presentation of the great exposition school that, in fact, it’d be far easier just to establish enlightenment after three lifetimes instead of waiting for a hundred great eons or three countless eons and so on. It appears that way in the presentation, Although, this presentation is not the actual way things are, so we don’t have to accept the literal presentation of this school as representing the actual way the results of these individual paths actually are.
But just in the way that it’s presented, it seems as if there’s no difference, and it would be, therefore, foolish of us to spend three countless eons to obtain something that we could otherwise spend three lives obtaining. Here, in fact, because the Buddha is skilled in the states of the disciples in their predispositions, predispositions, their capacity, and so forth, then the Buddha would teach in a way that appeals to different beings in order to encourage them to practice and so on. And therefore, these presentations arise. But it doesn’t mean to say that these presentations represent the final presentation of the Buddha. In fact, because the Buddha is has skill in means, then he teaches various methods that are suitable for various people at various times, at different times.
In fact, the final presentation of the Buddha is represented by the consequence school, by their presentation. And other presentations such as this one, great exposition, are therefore non final. And as they’re presented in a way that they’re presented and so forth is we don’t necessarily have to accept that they are a representation of the final thought of the Buddha. In fact, here, the Sūtra School are a later development and a great exposition, and their particular presentation refutes much of what exists within the great exposition or the or the Vaibhāṣika school. And similarly, the mind only, which arose again later than the sūtra school, refutes a certain amount of what exists within the sūtra presentation and so on.
So the later schools tend to refute propositions and tenets that exist within the lower schools on good ground that they do this as well. So in fact, here the Buddha taught the different tenet systems in relation to the different predispositions of beings, understanding that beings had a different capacity, different predisposition, different interests and tendencies. For that reason, the four different schools and the subdivisions of those schools were set out in in different teachings. This is because of the Buddha had great skill in means, and he, in a way, he factored in all these the different views that beings could adopt to these teachings. And so there is a variety and and so forth.
There is a present different presentations of selflessness and different presentations of of motivation and method and so forth. But this was done through the desire to help beings and beings in their various predispositions and so forth. So, therefore, we should, in fact, examine the four basic tenet systems that are set out because they’re all teachings of the Buddha. In fact, in the great monasteries, in the three great Gelug monasteries, here the four tenet systems are studied in the course of the curriculum so that one initially starts off with, say, the Sūtra school and studies in great depth the the Sūtra presentation, and then the mind only presentation, for instance, of logic and so forth. And then the the middle way presentation as it exists in the perfection of wisdom or in the middle way.
Mādhyamika studies, one studies the prasangika view and so forth. So there is a progression through the different the four different tenet systems within the curriculum. So the way that philosophy Buddhist philosophy is studied within the three great Gelug monasteries. Do you understand? Is that okay?
Is that okay? Should we move on at this stage to the Sūtra system? So here in the sūtra presentation, the second system of tenets that’s explained is the system of the sūtra. It’s on page number eight. And again, there are seven as with the earlier system.
There is definition, classification, etymology, the method of asserting objects, the method of asserting object possesses, the method of asserting selflessness, and explaining the principles of paths and grounds. So there are these seven divisions again. Do you remember firstly, do you remember the definition of a Vaibhāṣika or an advocate of the great exposition? Does anyone remember that from last week? So here, in fact, the definition is given back on page number four.
A person advocating lesser vehicle tenets who asserts truly established external objects but does not assert self cognition is the definition of an advocate of the great exposition. So the definition is given as a person advocating lesser vehicle tenets who accepts both self cognition and external objects, and that is the definition of a sutrist given here. So here, in fact, the sutrist is a person who advocates lesser vehicle tenets who accepts both self cognition and external objects. So both two things they are asserted which were not asserted before. That is self cognition and external objects.
So is that definition okay? So that is the definition of person advocating lesser vehicle tenets. Now, again, that is similar to the previous definition, a person advocating lesser vehicle tenets. But along with that, this particular group also accepted both self cognition and external objects. So is that definition clear?
So here, cognition is also asserted. So Sautrantikas and exemplifiers are equivalent. So in fact, sometimes they’re called sutras or Sautrāntika. Other times, they’re called exemplifiers. So So then there are also two types of Sautrāntika, the followers of scripture and the followers of logic.
So the an example of the first the followers of scripture are followers of Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakośa. Then there’s the followers of logic, and there, for example, the followers of Dharmakīrti’s seven treatises on valid awareness. So those are the two types of Sautrāntika that are accepted. So then their etymology, the third section here is why are they called Sautrantikas? So here, Jetsunpa states that they’re called Sautrantikas because they advocate tenets through following the sutras of the Bhagavan or the Buddha.
And they’re also called exemplifiers because their subtle dharmas are to be taught by means of example. So then we have the fourth section here, which is the method of asserting objects. So observed by valid awareness or that observed by valid awareness is the definition of existence. So existence here is that which is observed or that which is comprehended. So here, observed by valid awareness or that observed by valid awareness is the definition of existence.
Also, this means that comprehended by valid awareness is what is meant by existence. And if classified, there are two types of existence. That is concealer truth or relative truth and ultimate truth. So the definition of the first here, concealer truth, that which is ultimately incapable of function. So here, ultimately capable of function is the definition of ultimate truth.
And ultimate truth, truly established phenomenon produced impermanent compound substance and real are equivalent. So here, something like So for instance, an example of an ultimate truth here for the Sūtra School would be a vase. And a vase, therefore, is an ultimate truth. It’s truly established. It’s a phenomenon.
It’s produced. It’s impermanent. It’s a compound. It’s a substance. It is real, and so on.
In fact, all of these terms are completely interchangeable. And so whatever impermanent object we have, it will fit all of those terms that are listed there. So that which is ultimately incapable of function is the definition of a concealer truth or relative truth. So concealer truth falsely established, permanent, abstract are equivalent. In fact, when we think about the previous school, the Vaibhāṣika school, they had a presentation of permanent phenomena and impermanent phenomena.
And for them, because existence and phenomena were the same thing. And here, their presentation of permanent phenomena would be similar to a concealer truth, and their presentation of an impermanent phenomena would be equivalent to the ultimate truth. Because with the the presentation of the great exposition school, permanent phenomena is equivalent to that which is not momentary and that which is permanent. Impermanent phenomena is equivalent to what is impermanent. That would therefore be the equivalent here of ultimate truth, whereas permanent phenomena would be the equivalent of concealer truth.
So, again, if existence is classified, there are two negation and affirmation. So here, in fact, there is a definition given of negator, which is that comprehended by means of the discernment holding it, eliminating its object of negation. And the definition of an affirmer, which is on the next page, is that comprehended by means of a discernment holding it, not directly eliminating its object of negation. So then again, negator has two types, non affirming negation, and the instance of that is uncompounded space, the truth of cessation, and emptiness. So, again, the non-affirming negation, which is the first of those two types, has as its instance, uncompounded space, and so forth.
So these instances such as uncompounded space are negators because they are comprehended by means of the discernment holding it directly eliminating its object of negation. So in fact, here, uncompounded space, because it’s a negator, it holds to the definition, which is that comprehended by means of the discernment holding it directly eliminating its object of negation. So the object of negation for uncompounded space is the fact of obstruction, obstructive contact. So that is what is negated here. So space, therefore, is negated because it holds to that definition, and what is negated is obstruction.
Space is defined as the non affirmative negation, which is the mere absence of obstruction. So So here, for this uncompounded space is the non-affirming negation, which is the mere lack of obstruction. So by eliminating the object to be eliminated, which is obstruction, then space is understood. Also, selflessness is similar. The truth of cessation and so forth is similar because here the self or is negated.
And there is a mere absence of a self, which is the nature of the truth of cessation. And then also, therefore, we have uncompounded space, the truth of cessation and emptiness as instances of the first of non affirming negation, and they all follow the definition there and are comprehended by means of negating the object to be negated. Then for an affirming negation, the instance given is the opposite of not a phenomenon, the appearance of the opposite of not a vase to the conception, holding a vase, and so on. These are instances given. So therefore, the opposite of not a phenomenon and the appearance of the opposite of not a vase to the conception holding a vase are in fact affirming negations.
And so these are, again, objects which conform with the initial definition of a negator given there, is that comprehended by means of the discernment holding it directly, eliminating its object of negation. Does does that make sense? Is that easy to understand, the presentation? These it’s not this particular topic is certainly not easy to understand, and it takes some time to grasp the meaning of what a negation is. Without contemplating this issue for some time, then it’s really not possible to understand what a negator is and what an affirmer is.
And, again, if classified, existence has two types. First one is one, and the second is distinct. Previously, we had a firmer, a negator, and so forth. Now, a further classification is given into two, one and distinct. So then one, again, has two types.
One which is false and one which is true. So, in fact, the one which is false is something like object of awareness or the abstract. And also the abstract. These two things are, in a sense, they’re false single entities. So for instance, something which is permanent is regarded as false.
Then one which is true, an example here is phenomenon or impermanence. And also, similarly, distinct has two types, distinct which is false and distinct which is true. So distinct which is false is something such as both the isolate of a vase and the isolate of a pillar. So the meaning of isolate here is not so easy. So for instance, if we ask what is the isolate of a vase, it is the vase itself.
So if we ask what is the isolate of a vase, then it is the vase itself. But the isolate of a vase is not a vase. And that is because the isolate of a vase is permanent. So a vase is impermanent, and the isolate of a vase is permanent. So if we ask what is the isolate of a vase, then we have to give the illustration of the vase itself.
It’s also said that the isolate of anything which exists is permanent. But still if we ask what to show the isolate of something, then it depends on what the object itself is. So then we have distinct. So distinct which is true, such as both a vase and a pillar is given as the instance there of distinct which is true. So therefore, both the past and future are permanent, and the present is equivalent to phenomena is a further assertion of the sūtra school.
So previously in the great exposition presentation, it was was stated that the past of the vase exists, the present of the vase exists, and the future of the vase exists and so forth. They’re all substantially established. But here we have a different assertion by the sūtra school, which is both the past and future are permanent and the present is equivalent to phenomena. So here we have the fifth division, which is the method of asserting object possesses. And for Sautrantikas, they assert that both the continuum of the aggregates is the instance of the person, or the mental consciousness is the instance of the person.
So in fact, there’s two assertions by the Sūtra School here. The first is held by the followers of Abhidharmakośa, and the second by the followers of the seven treatises of valid awareness. So in fact, this division of the Sūtra School into two was established before the followers of scripture and the followers of reason or logic. And here they appear again. So they have different assertions.
Those two different subdivisions of the sūtra school have different assertions in relation to the person. So then again, clarity and cognition is the definition of mind. So discernment is classified in two, valid discernment and nonvalid discernment. So new nondeceptive cognition is the definition of valid awareness. So, in fact, in the definition, there are three components or three parts, new, non deceptive, and cognition, those three.
So there’s a purpose for having these three components because those three features eliminate certain states. And that is because by stating new in the definition, then subsequent awareness is eliminated as being valid awareness. That is because subsequent awareness is regarded as a nonvalid state of awareness. And that’s because it’s not new. It’s not newly generated.
So stating new there is really for the purpose of eliminating subsequent awareness as being valid awareness. So subsequent awareness So subsequent awareness is they defined as cognition cognizing the comprehended or comprehending the comprehended. So therefore, it’s it’s it’s not new cognition of the object. So, in fact, subsequent awareness there is within the continuum of comprehension of the object, but it’s not the first moment. It’s not a new comprehension of that object.
It’s a subsequent comprehension of the object. It’s subsequent awareness. And by stating new here, it eliminates subsequent awareness as being valid awareness. Yes. So then just then stating nondeceptive eliminates correct belief as being valid awareness.
So here, in order to be valid awareness, it must actually comprehend its object. But correct belief is it doesn’t comprehend its object. It’s a deceptive type of awareness. So therefore, stating nondeceptive eliminates correct belief as being valid awareness. Because here, what is required is awareness which comprehends its object.
So again, Nondeceptive is stated, therefore, to eliminate correct belief. So then stating cognition eliminates the physical sense powers as being valid awareness. So the sense powers themselves are in fact physical states, their form, their matter. So by stating cognition, it eliminates the sense powers from being. So therefore, for the Sūtra School, those three must be must be assembled for something to be properly qualified as valid awareness, is new, non deceptive, and cognition.
Are there any questions? Is it difficult, the text on tenets? In fact, these topics are difficult, and they take a lot of investigation, debate, and discussion similar to what happens in a in a monastery. In fact, those that have studied, say, at the at Sera and so forth, engage for long periods debating these particular topics. So it does take a lot of discussion to come So as soon as we start saying that something is like that or not like that, then many thoughts arise, many doubts and so forth.