Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. The Buddha’s deliberately shocking instruction to a king who had murdered his father — “it is good to kill your father, it is good to kill your mother” — anchors the Q&A in this 41-minute commentary, where Geshe Pema Tsering unpacks it as an injunction to destroy karma and affliction rather than literal kin. The main exposition works through the Mind-Only school’s eight-fold classification of consciousness, dwelling on foundation consciousness as the basis for karmic maturation and on the afflicted mentality that grasps at a truly existent self. Geshe Tsering then contrasts the two Mind-Only sub-schools: true aspectarians, who accept gross form as it appears, and false aspectarians, who deny that gross appearance reflects reality — tracing how that single divergence shapes each school’s positions on particles, external objects, and valid perception. Suited to students already familiar with Buddhist philosophical categories.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 08 Tenets 2001 11 20.mp3
UUID: 5f82e975-268f-4bf8-9b1a-021a23e8a673
Teacher: Geshe Pema Tsering
Collection: Principles of the Tenets (Geshe Pema Tsering)
Date: 2001-11-20
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 41.5 minutes
Words: ~2,403
Therefore, they assert foundation consciousness and the latencies supported by foundation consciousness now awakened on the basis of the foundation consciousness. Other systems assert that the latencies exist within the mental latencies upon the mental consciousness itself, but here it is specifically the foundation consciousness. So we, therefore know that, we’re here talking about the type of mind only proponent, who asserts eight types of consciousness. So then according to the two, according to the two aspectarians, those five objects such as form etcetera are not external, they are accepted as being grossly established. So this conforms with the actual definition of the two aspectarians as previously stated.
So then according to the false aspectarians, the five objects such as form are not grossly established because if grossly established, they must be externally established. So according to, now the next section is the five, the fifth method of asserting object possessors. So according to two aspectarians, the collection of eight consciousness is accepted because as well as the six fold collection of consciousness, accepted by other advocates of tenets, they assert that the eight fold collection of consciousness exists adding foundation consciousness and afflicted mentality. So then instances are given of those, two of the seventh and eighth types of, consciousness, which are added to the six, basic types of consciousness. So firstly, we have foundation consciousness.
And as it said, it is asserted therefore to be a consciousness other than the six types of consciousness, so that is the, from, eye consciousness up to mental consciousness, which does not rely on a sense power as its empowering condition. The other types of consciousness all rely on having an empowering condition such as the eye sense base or the ear sense base or the mental sense base and so But this type of awareness, foundation consciousness, does not rely on a sense power as its empowering condition. So the second here is asserted to be consciousness focusing, on the foundation consciousness, which holds that to be a self, a truly existent self and substantially existent I. So it possesses that function, this afflicted mentality. It’s a type of awareness therefore which holds the I, and it is something which is abandoned, when one enters the ārya paths and is progressively and by the time one becomes an ārya, an arhat, it is eliminated.
So here, foundation consciousness is also asserted to be the instance of the person, and therefore it is the basis for karma and result, the maturation of the results of karma. The maturation of whatever karma is, engaged in by a particular being, is established on that basis of the person, established, therefore on the instance of the person, on the foundation of consciousness. Other systems, give a different instance for the person, such as the five aggregates or the collection of five aggregates and so on or the mere I and so on. Here, in the mind only school, it’s foundation consciousness, which is given as the instance of a person. So it’s also asserted that here the afflicted mentality, which is actually of the nature of grasping at itself, grasping at the I, in its purified form.
When it is purified, it has the nature of mirror-like primordial awareness, whereas the foundation consciousness itself becomes the primordial awareness dharma body. Then according to false aspectarians, the six fold collection of consciousness is asserted. And then the instance of the person for them as the basis of karma and result is the sixth consciousness that is the mental consciousness itself. So then also for valid cognition, two types of awareness are asserted. Like the earlier schools, they also have a similar presentation.
So then there’s valid cognition and non-valid cognition. And then valid discernment has two types, valid perception and valid inference. And then for perception, there are four types. And self-cognizing perception and yogic perception are necessarily non mistaken. It is asserted by this particular school.
So then also it said that sense perception and the continuum of an ordinary being is necessarily mistaken. So the reason for this is that all sense perception, whether it’s sense perception holding form or sense perception holding sound or aroma and so forth, it has the appearance of those physical entities existing externally, external to it, to the awareness holding, the sense object. So for that reason, necessarily all sense awareness is mistaken. On the other hand, for mental perception, in the continuum of an ordinary being, there is both mistaken and non mistaken awareness. Then for mental perception, perception, in the continuum of an ordinary being, is both mistaken and non mistaken awareness.
So here, an example, for instance, of the mistaken type of awareness that can be asserted is, for instance, conception that exists in a continuum of an ordinary being, which is actually mistaken. Otherwise, for non mistaken mental awareness, So then for the non mistaken, we can therefore something like mental perception holding form or holding a color blue. Perception also is said to be not necessarily valid perception because, for instance, mental perception holding form in the continuum of an ordinary being exists. However, valid perception of holding form in a continuum does not. And that is because this mental perception holding form, which does exist in the mental continuum, is an inattentive type of awareness because they are still ordinary beings.
And being inattentive awareness, it exists, but it cannot be valid awareness because it’s inattentive awareness. Further, self-cognizing perception, experiencing mental perception holding form and the second moment of sense perception holding form in their continuum are not valid awareness. So then yogic perception has four types. So the four types of perception that they accept, then yogic perception is either yogic perception perceptually comprehending subtle impermanence or gross selflessness of the person or subtle selflessness of the person or the selflessness of karma. So there are four types of yogic perception.
So we just stop there, and there’s a time for some questions on the material covered. So here, this this side and the other side. And so this side here refers to the side of saṃsāra, while the other side refers to the side of liberation. So one who doesn’t see liberation perceptually is therefore regarded as this side. About the Prajñāpāramitā.
Correct. Yeah. So here, it was taught the fact of the Prajñāpāramitā texts and so forth were taught in the context of just separating out some of the disciples of the Buddha. And in fact, those who are capable of being a target audience for the literature or teachings are those of great faculty or sharp faculty, great intelligence. And to those beings, if the perfection of wisdom is taught, they’re able to comprehend in the words as they’re stated, the meaning of emptiness.
They’re sharp faculty. They’re capable of entering understanding of the words just as they’re stated. The mind only school advocates or those of that predisposition are not able simply on the basis of those words to comprehend the meaning of emptiness. They need, something more. They need, further instruction.
So for those disciples who are not as sharp in faculty as the advocates of the middle way or the those who are the target audience of the middle way, then the mind only presentation is made, such as in the Samdhinirmochana Sūtra, that particular series of texts. Those who are even duller faculty are taught the Sutric presentation, and those of duller faculty again are taught the great exposition presentation of ultimate truth and so on. So in fact, the Buddha has the capacity to see what the internal conditions of beings is and therefore make statements that are appropriate for the different levels of being. And so the Buddha teaches in that way, seeing exactly where a particular target audience is, exactly what they need to hear, will help them to develop and mature. And for that reason, at times, the Buddha has made such statements as that it’s good to kill one’s father, it’s good to kill one’s mother, because the target audience for those words exists, and it’s a benefit, for instance, to say those words at that time.
So we don’t have this capacity. We look at others. We’re not too sure what, where they are and what they need to hear. But a Buddha does have this capacity. So where the statement of it’s good to kill your father, it’s good to kill your mother came up was that there was a king at the time of the Buddha called Ajatashatru, and he had killed his father.
And he in great remorse, he’d come to the Buddha. And the Buddha’s seeing the state that he was in. And what would be a benefit to mention, to tell him at that point, he said, it’s good to kill your father and it’s good to kill your mother. Although the Buddha stated those words explicitly, his underlying meaning was that it’s good to destroy karma. It’s good to destroy affliction.
So the father representing karma, mother representing affliction. By doing that, the mind of Ajatashatru was brought to a conducive or a positive state whereby he was able to gain an understanding of dharma and he actually became an arhat. So below the great exposition school is ourselves. And then below ourselves then then there are animals and hungry ghosts and hellbeings. Also, even below ourselves, there are those who don’t actually even understand language.
There are humans that don’t understand language. We actually think carefully about this, then we see our situation is very fortunate. So in fact, when we think about how fortunate we are, we see that there are those around us who don’t experience the fortunate conditions that we have. And even amongst those who are very famous and so on, you know, like an an American president and so on, or even like the Taliban, like Osama bin Laden, who has killed many humans and so forth and has created a lot of negative karma, we can see that we ourselves are fortunate. So here, we need to think about the the common state of beings and just, you know, what other beings have and what their fortune and or otherwise lack of fortune and so forth.
We need to, therefore, appreciate how fortunate we ourselves are in the the broader field of beings that exist. So when we look at this broad field of beings and we see those that are greatly fortunate and those that are intermediate fortunate and so on, we see that we’re not too badly off. We’re our situation is not too bad. Made it? For the true aspectarians, they do assert particles established or form is established by the collection of particles.
And they do assert that awareness itself is of the same substance as those external or as form itself, which is established by particle. But that they both emerge from a one from a single latency that, is awakened. And for that reason, they’re asserted to be substantially the same because they emerge from one latency. But it doesn’t mean that the awareness has to be established by particle. Yeah.
So here, it’s the, this instance of, the latency giving rise. In a sense, one can say half the latency gives rise to the awareness, half the latency gives rise to the object of that awareness. The latency itself is, this potent, element that exists within the within the one’s continuum, which when awakened gives rise to both the the subject and the object, therefore being of the same substance. No. So for the false aspectarian, of course, they don’t assert that, there is gross form.
They don’t assert that form is composed of particles. In fact, similarly, they assert that from one, latency, one has awareness and the object of awareness. And in fact, if they asserted that, form was composed of particles, then it would become external form as asserted by other schools. So the form is not composed of particles. It exists, but it’s not composed of particles.
So, therefore, for the two aspectarians, they assert that gross form exists, but it doesn’t mean to say that, external objects need to exist. The other says that if gross form exists, then external objects must exist. So there is a slight difference in their presentation, the true aspectarian and the false aspectarian. It’s okay. Did you understand?
Actually, for the false aspectarian, they, they do actually assert that, particles, perform particles do exist. And form being established by particles do exist. But what, and in fact that needs to be established because there’s certain matter. Right? But, here, to understand the difference between the false aspectarian and the true aspectarian, one needs to examine their different presentations of how gross form exists or does not exist.
Really the difference between these two doesn’t hinge on whether form is established by particles or not. It is it depends on whether, gross form exists or not. So here, as with the definition of the true aspectarian and the false aspectarian, the true aspectarian simply accepts form to exist as it appears in its gross state. And that’s what a true aspectarian is. They just accept it that that’s how it exists.
But the false aspectarian is not accepting the gross appearance of form to be how it actually exists. So they diverge on this point whether they gross form to exist in the way it appears or not. That’s the real that’s the differentiation, the way of differentiating between a false aspectarian and a true aspectarian. Here, it really depends on their presentation of gross appearance. And for the false aspectarian, and they say that if gross appearance exists in the way it appears to exist, then external form would, one would have to accept external form to exist.
So therefore, form is separate from or not of the same substance as awareness. But the true aspectarians don’t accept that. So the difference between the two really hinges on whether they accept, gross form or not in a way it appears. Is that do you understand that? Yeah.
So this is a a point about, how the gross is established and how it is not established and how they differ on that point.