Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. The butterfly’s-wing example — does eye awareness hold each color patch as a separate subject, or just the whole pattern? — anchors the central debate in this 45-minute session by Geshe Pema Tsering. After framing proper motivation (from aspiration for full Buddhahood down to securing a good rebirth), he maps how renunciation, compassion, and bodhicitta build on one another as the method side of the path. The doctrinal core is a close analysis of the Mind Only school: its definition (no external objects; awareness and its objects are one substance), its two main branches — True Aspectarian and False Aspectarian — each with their own subdivisions, and the school’s three categories of existence: other-powered, imputed, and thoroughly established. He closes by tracing the view to a key Buddha-sūtra and the doctrine of karmic latencies stored in a substratum consciousness. Best suited to practitioners already following the tenet series in sequence.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 07 Tenets 2001 11 20.mp3
UUID: 12cb90db-4479-4707-8605-488e6d7a5a9d
Teacher: Geshe Pema Tsering
Collection: Principles of the Tenets (Geshe Pema Tsering)
Date: 2001-11-20
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 45.1 minutes
Words: ~3,207
So then, in listening to the explanation of tenets, one should have a proper motivation. Here, mixed with compassion. In fact, one should strive to attain through these teachings this state of Buddhahood itself, highest enlightenment. That should be one’s, foremost aspiration. If that is not possible, then one should have the aspiration to attain, certainly liberation.
And if that also, is difficult, then one at least should have, as the least level of motivation, be thought to attain a human rebirth, a proper, fully qualified human rebirth in one’s next life. So in brief, one should be well motivated, have a proper motivation in listening to these teachings. So here, the supreme, our motivation should be directed towards attaining the supreme state of omniscience, this all knowing state of a fully enlightened Buddha. Oh, sorry. So in order to attain a state of omniscience, one requires both method and wisdom.
And then in developing method and wisdom, one needs to develop listening or hearing contemplation and wisdom on these top topics of method and wisdom. In terms of method, of course, is talking about bodhicitta and in terms of wisdom, then the different presentations of the ultimate state of reality, or emptiness. And here, we’re studying tenets which gives the presentation of, the ultimate state of reality and emptiness from different perspectives. It’s this that, we’re training with this text. So then here in this text, this presentation of tenets, there are four modes, four methods of illustrating the nature of ultimate reality.
And here, we’re following the highest presentation, the presentation of the prasangika, and their, explanation of the wisdom comprehending, emptiness. So we seek, to attain an understanding of their presentation. To understand their presentation, one is really relying on earlier presentations, such as the presentation of the, the Svatāntrika or the autonomous, of the mind only, the Cittamātra, then the Sūtra and the Vaibhāṣika schools and so forth. So these lead, to an understanding of the highest presentation. Then in terms of the method aspect, then one needs to develop bodhicitta, also in order to progress.
And in order to develop bodhicitta, one, initially needs to develop great compassion. And prior to the development of great compassion, then one needs the development of, immeasurable compassion, and then prerequisites also are required for developing, immeasurable compassion. All of these things must be, brought together and assembled in order to generate a fully qualified method. So here, what bodhicitta is is the aspiration to attain the highest state of enlightenment in order to free all sentient beings from suffering. So that’s the, the measure of fully qualified bodhicitta.
Therefore, one seeks to attain that state of enlightenment, in order to liberate beings, one must therefore understand initially, what the conditions of beings are, what their suffering is. Without understanding what the sufferings of beings is, then it’s not possible, to develop bodhicitta. So then also as the foundation for these two, one needs to develop renunciation. And in order to develop renunciation, one needs to understand, the sufferings of saṃsāra. Without understanding the sufferings of saṃsāra and without giving up aspiring for the pleasures of saṃsāra and so forth, then it’s not possible to develop a fully qualified renunciation or an uncontrived type of renunciation.
And one needs to develop this type of uncontrived spontaneous, fully characterized, renunciation to serve as a basis for the development of the other two. So here, renunciation, is really, like this mind of bodhicitta that’s simply, focused on one’s own purpose. So it’s the aspiration for oneself to be free, from the sufferings of saṃsāra. In a way, it’s like bodhicitta turned, inwards focusing on oneself. When it focuses when renunciation focuses on other beings, it becomes like bodhicitta.
It’s the aspiration that other beings be free of the suffering of saṃsāra. And when one focuses on the state on a resultant state of enlightenment with the aspiration to attain that state of enlightenment in order to free all sentient beings from suffering, then it becomes fully qualified bodhicitta. So, therefore, retaining the meaning of bodhicitta in mind, that is, this aspiration to attain the highest state of enlightenment for the sake of all sentient beings, in order to, eliminate all the sufferings of all sentient beings, establishing that to be the very nature of, bodhicitta itself, then we should reflect on this and meditate on this, for a minute or two. So we just meditate on that for about a minute or two. So here, then dealing with the mind only system, then we have seven divisions as before: definition, classification, etymology, method of asserting objects, method of asserting object possessors, method of asserting selflessness, and the explanation of the principles of grounds and parts.
So there are those seven, aspects. So then, firstly, the definition, a person advocating great vehicle tenets, who’s does not accept external objects and asserts truly established self cognition is the definition of an advocate of mind only. So here, they don’t accept external objects. In fact, they assert that, objects and awareness are holding those objects are substantially the same. And they also assert truly established self cognition for the mind only school because awareness itself is regarded to be truly established.
So also self cognition, which they also assert, they assert that to be truly established as well. So also there, a person who advocates great vehicle tenets. So from the two types of tenets, great vehicle tenets and, lesser vehicle tenets, they assert great vehicle tenets. So this, if one flicks back, one can see with the definition of the Great Exposition, a person advocating lesser vehicle tenets who asserts truly established external objects, but does not assert self cognition is almost the reverse, of the definition here given of an advocate of mind only. So here we need to take note, of what is asserted to be, what is asserted in the definition of the different, tenet systems, especially what’s asserted to be truly established or not truly established, what’s asserted to exist or not to exist.
So this, we need to take note of. So here we need to take note of the different definitions for each of the tenet systems. Then also, an advocate of mind only, and an advocate of cognition and a yogic practitioner are equivalent terms, are interchangeable. So then if classified, there are two types of mind only advocate. That is, firstly, mind only true aspectarian and a mind only false aspectarian.
So then the definition of the first, that is the mind only true aspectarian, is an advocate of mind only, to start with, who asserts that the latencies of ignorance do not corrupt the gross appearance of form to sense perception holding form in the continuum of an ordinary being. The definition of the second is an advocate of mind only who asserts that latencies of ignorance do corrupt the gross appearance of form to sense perception holding form in the continuum of an ordinary being. So really the issue between these two groups is whether these latencies of ignorance do corrupt or don’t corrupt the appearance of gross form. So here there’s a dispute or there’s an issue regarding, the appearance of gross form for these two, particular, subsets of the mind only school. And here they’re talking about the type of sense awareness that exists for an ordinary being, for beings like ourselves.
And in one school, the false aspectarian, they’re saying that, latencies do corrupt the appearance of gross form. Therefore, we can’t accept gross form to appear in a way that does appear. Whereas for the true aspectarians, they’re saying that the latencies of ignorance do not corrupt, the appearance of gross form. In fact, gross form appears, in just that way. It’s not a corrupt or a deceptive type of appearance.
So one accepts gross appearance, in other words, and the other doesn’t accept gross appearance. So here for the true aspectarians, they do assert that gross form is established by the assembly of partless particles. So form itself can be established to exist in a way it does appear to exist in a gross manner. So this is the presentation of a true aspectarian. So the false aspectarian says that if that were the case, then if gross form did exist in the way it appeared to exist, then that would establish the existence of particles that would form form would be externally established.
It would not be of the same substance as awareness itself. And so that would tend to even disqualify an advocate of that type of system as being a practitioner of mind only. For them, there is no, gross, existence of form in the way it appears, because of this reason that it’s asserted to be of the same substance, as the awareness which views that form itself. So if classified, true aspectarians have three types. Firstly, is the advocates of an equal number of subject and object, half-eggists and non pluralists.
So there are these three fundamental groups. So firstly, we have the advocates of an equal number of subjects and objects. So here, the example of the first is given. Advocates of an equal number of subject and object assert that when an eye awareness holds the pattern on a butterfly’s wing, it is directed to each different aspect such as blue and yellow, etcetera, from the side of the object. And also, the awareness is generated in its true aspect to the aspect of each different part of the pattern such as blue, yellow from the side of the subject itself.
So here, the meaning of equal number of subject and object is that, for each aspect, that exists within the object itself that we become aware of or a being becomes aware of, they have that many, subjects also, being aware of those different aspects. There’s an equal number of, therefore, states of awareness to the, to the objects which awareness is holding. Then the second one here is half-eggists. So half-eggists assert that at the time of holding that pattern, our eye awareness is directed to each different aspects such as blue, yellow, etcetera, from the side of the object. And eye awareness is generated without aspect, to each different aspects such as blue, yellow, etcetera, from the side of the subject.
So therefore, they differ from the first group. There are as many aspects on the side of the object, but here, because awareness is truly established, they’re asserting that awareness itself is not generated in separate aspects in relation to each object objective aspect. Then the third, type there is the non pluralist. So non pluralist assert that at the time of holding that pattern, eye awareness is not directed to each different aspect such as blue, yellow, etcetera, from the side of the object, but is directed to the mere pattern, itself. Eye awareness also is not generated, without aspect to each different aspects such as blue, yellow from the side of the subject, but is generated without aspect to the aspect of the mere pattern.
So in fact, here there is to the mere pattern itself, then mere awareness is just holding that mere pattern. And then the second, is the false aspectarian. So false aspectarians themselves have two types, tainted false aspectarians and untainted false aspectarians So then if classified, there are two: tainted and untainted false aspectarians and that is stated in relation to the, the mode of holding, or the mode of holding subject and object to being substantially distinct or nondistinct, being tainted or untainted by holding them to be distinct. Then we come to the etymology of mind only. So why are they called advocates of mind only?
That is because they assert dharmas to be the mere nature of the mind. And since they assert the dharmas to be the mere nature of cognition, therefore called advocates of, cognition. Then if objects and awareness are classified, there are two types, ultimate truth and concealer truth. So the definition of the first, definition of ultimate truth is, firstly, that comprehended by valid perception, perceptually comprehending it through the subsidence of dualistic appearance is the definition of ultimate truth. So this, is talking about, the perception itself which comprehends emptiness.
And in comprehending emptiness, then all dualistic appearance subsides. Dualistic appearance here refers to relative truth or concealer truth. On the other hand, the definition of concealer truth is that comprehended by valid perception, perceptually comprehending it through dualistic appearance. So then we have ultimate truth, suchness, sphere of dharma, and final mode of abidance are all equivalent terms. They have the same meaning, and they’re all equivalent to emptiness here for the mind Then if we classify ultimate truth, there are two types, subtle selflessness of phenomena and subtle selflessness of the person.
So both of those subtle states are regarded as ultimate truth. If subtle selflessness of dharma is classified by means of the basis which is empty or the empty basis, there are twenty. And abbreviating that, there are fewer. So then there are twenty forms of emptiness that are set forth, and abbreviating that, there are eighteen. If we abbreviate that further, there are sixteen, or or they can be abbreviated down to four.
But in fact, there are limitless types of emptiness that do exist. So then the instance is given, for the selflessness of dharma. And that is firstly the emptiness empty of form and valid awareness holding form being substantially different. The second instance there is that emptiness, which is empty of form, as the engaged basis, engaged by the sound expressing form, being established by its own characteristics. So those two are instances, of subtle selflessness of dharma.
So instance of subtle selflessness of the person is a person is the emptiness empty of a self or is the emptiness empty of a substantially existent person. And in fact, all below the, autonomous, including the autonomous, they assert the subtle selflessness of the person. So then again, the definition of a concealer truth is, that comprehended by valid perception, perceptually comprehending it through dualistic appearance. And if classified, there are two subsumed by concealer truth, that is, other powered and imputed entities. So the first is equivalent to compounds and the second is equivalent to uncompounded dharmas.
So the second is equivalent to uncompounded dharmas other than emptiness or other than ultimate truth itself. So that includes space and isolates of various entities or, the opposite of not being something and so on. So there are various instances of uncompounded other than emptiness. So the mind only mind only school assert that there are three, types of entity which included, which include all entities for them, and that is other power, which is mentioned here, then imputed, and then thoroughly established, entities which refer to emptiness. So in fact, all phenomena, all entities, all existent entities are included within the three characteristics.
So the three characteristics here are other powered, entities, imputed entities, and thoroughly established entities. So, the imputed are not regarded as being truly existent, but other powered and thoroughly established are regarded as being truly established. So here, other power entities are regarded as truly established because they’re generated by causes. So then for thoroughly established entities, then they regard it as ultimately existent. That is emptiness.
And emptiness itself is the final object of focus or observation, of all objects. For that reason, they are regarded as being thoroughly established and truly established. Truly established because emptiness itself is, therefore the final mode of focus of the path. And that, in fact, is the essential meaning of thoroughly established, that which is the final the pure final object of focus. So here, these three characteristics that form the three elements that are asserted to exist within the mind only school, that is other power, then thoroughly established entities and then imputed entities.
For other power, they’re regarded as being truly established because they’re derived from causes and conditions. Then emptiness itself is regarded as being truly established because it’s the final the pure final object of focus. Then the third category there is, the imputed entities, and they’re not regarded as being truly established because neither are they, established by causes and conditions. Here, when when we talk about the imputed, we’re talking about permanent entities which are not emptiness. So they’re not established by cause and condition.
They’re not the pure final, object of focus. So for that reason, they’re not regarded as being, truly established. So in fact, this, the system of the mind only school, is sourced to various, teachings given by the Buddha, in particular the, the Samdhinirmochana Sūtra. And this was, this particular Sūtra was spoken by the Buddha and within it, it delineates clearly the three characteristics. And the mind only school uses this as a source, for the assertion of their particular view, which is based on the three characteristics.
So that has its source in the teachings of the Buddha himself. So in fact, here this text called the Samdhinirmochana Sūtra is mainly stated for those of mind only predisposition, for those who are advocates or those who have the potential advocates of their mind only position. On the other hand, the one hundred thousand verse, the eighteen thousand verse, the eight thousand verse, etc. Prajñāpāramitā text was stated for those with the predisposition to become followers of the middle way school. So there is a distinction in the the target audience for those different teachings?
So then it stated that advocates of mind only accept that all phenomena are the common basis of the truly established and the false. So in fact, here, they’re regarded as being false entities. So here, because they’re not established as being substantially different than the awareness holding them, they regard it as even though they appear to be that way, they regard as false. So here, all suchness is the common basis of the truly established and the false. But this is talking about emptiness itself.
All non compounds other than suchness are the common basis for the falsely established and the false. So they’re they have both attributes being falsely established and also being false. So if it is suchness, it is necessarily a non affirming negation. And the instances of other non affirming negations, etcetera, are similar to those asserted by sutrists. So So here also the five objects such as form, etcetera, are generated from the substance of internal consciousness in dependence on placing common and specific karmic latencies upon the foundation consciousness.
They are not established as external objects. So this here represents the, really the final presentation of the mind only school where they regard external objects as being nonexistent and simply a product of the awakening of latencies, within the mental continuum giving rise to both the object and the subject simultaneously. And those two are not substantially distinct. So here it said that specific and common latencies upon the foundation consciousness. So this is an assertion of the true aspectarians.
Specifically, they assert the eightfold collective