Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. A vase is not just a vase — in this 44-minute commentary, Geshe Pema Tsering explains why the Consequence school holds that even ordinary conventional objects are in a strict sense false, because nothing exists the way it appears. Working through the school’s formal definition and key figures (Buddhapālita, Candrakīrti, Śāntideva), he unpacks why Consequence school thinkers rely on stating mere consequences rather than correct reasons to establish understanding in debate — a distinction that sharply separates them from the Autonomous school. He then covers the classification of objects as hidden or perceptible, and the surprising claim that “perception” extends to perceptible objects themselves, not just awareness. A lively Q&A closes the session, with students pressing on the logical meaning of “consequence” and the puzzling equivalence of perception and perceptible. Suited to students with some background in Tibetan Buddhist philosophy and debate.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 10 Tenets 2001 12 04.mp3
UUID: 65b1c336-7acc-4636-8bc5-dcdbdc8084ec
Teacher: Geshe Pema Tsering
Collection: Principles of the Tenets (Geshe Pema Tsering)
Date: 2001-12-04
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 44.3 minutes
Words: ~2,560
So then then progressing to the the system of the consequence school. So, as before, there are seven divisions, that is, the definition instances, etymology, the method of asserting the method of asserting objects, and the the method of asserting selflessness and explaining the principles of grounds and parts. So there are these seven divisions. So firstly, definition that’s given for an advocate of consequence school is an advocate of the middle way by means of proclaiming mere consequences known to others who doesn’t assert truly established phenomena even conventionally. So here, within the definition of states, advocate of the middle way by means of proclaiming mere consequences known to others.
So for a consequence school advocate, then they assert that the understanding of a thesis can be established in the mind of another being by simply proclaiming a consequence. One doesn’t have to proclaim the correct reason in order to do that. Further, they don’t assert truly established phenomena even conventionally. So when it’s asserted that they don’t assert truly established phenomena even conventionally, it means that they don’t assert anything to be truly established anywhere at any time in the least. And in the instances of an advocate of the consequence school is, for example, the masters Buddhapālita, the master Candrakīrti, and the master Śāntideva.
So then, you know, for the etymology of the term, then he said, we’ll take the master Buddhapālita. It follows that there is reason for calling him an advocate of consequence because he asserts the generation of inference comprehending the thesis in the continuum of an opponent through stating a mere consequence. So here, in terms of the etymology, there are two elements that come up here in terms of the opponent. So here we have a proponent and an opponent. So for someone like a Buddhapālita, they assert that in the mind stream of an opponent, that is the respondent in a debate then merely stating a consequence of their particular view is enough to establish comprehension of a thesis in their continuum.
So here, in terms of generating understanding in the continuum of an opponent or a respondent in a debate, then it’s sufficient simply to state a consequence of their views. And that without actually stating a correct reason, simply stating a consequence of their views is sufficient to generate comprehension of a thesis in their continuum. So this is asserted by the consequence group. So then we have the method of asserting objects and there are two types, the hidden and the perceptible. So here the hidden are there explained underneath.
So what hidden is objects which are necessarily comprehended by depending on reasons. So those which comprehended through depending on reasons are posited as hidden. So if what we need to comprehend is only comprehended by applying various reasons and the reasoning process to it, then it is something which is hidden. So therefore, the instance of the first is like impermanence and selflessness and so forth. And then also within hidden objects, there are those which are slightly hidden and those which are extremely hidden.
So here, a slightly hidden phenomenon, slightly hidden entities are those which are comprehended by extensively applying reasoning and thinking about reasons to understand them. Extremely hidden entities are those that, we cannot apply the same, process to. In fact, the only way that we can, develop conviction is through relying on the word of the Buddha about these issues because they are simply so subtle, so hidden that it’s not possible to understand them in the same way as the slightly hidden entities. So then the second one there is the perceptible and the perceptible here are therefore stated to be objects which are ascertainable by this side. So this side is someone like ourselves on this side.
So objects ascertainable by this side is through the strength of experience without relying on reason. So those objects are posited as perceptible. Yeah. So in the instances given, the instance of the first is sound being permanent and sound being empty of being truly established. So those two instances are instances of the slightly hidden.
Then the instance of the second is a vase or a woolen cloth. So here in fact, we can comprehend these objects just by looking at them without formulating reasons and so forth if they’re obvious. So these therefore are perceptible objects. From the consequence school point of view, perception and perceptible are equivalent. Then again, there is ultimate truth and concealed truth which are presented by the consequence group.
So, here the definition of concealer truth or relative truth is first given and that is the object found by valid awareness distinguishing conventions where valid awareness distinguishing conventions becomes valid awareness distinguishing convention with respect to just that that object. So here, initially, we have valid awareness distinguishing convention. So valid awareness distinguishing convention relates to the awareness comprehending relative truth or concealer truth. And as it says, where valid awareness distinguishing convention becomes valid awareness distinguishing convention with respect to just that object. So here, we’re talking about the object found by valid awareness distinguishing convention or comprehending concealer truth.
And then in relation to that particular awareness itself then in relation to that particular awareness itself, that which is established in relation to it is concealed truth. So then So here it stated that it is unreasonable to differentiate concealer truth as true, correct concealer truth and wrong concealer truth. In fact, in the lower schools such as the autonomous, they do differentiate concealer truth as to correct concealer truth and wrong concealer truth. Correct concealer truth would be objects like a vase and woolen cloth and so forth. Whereas a wrong concealed truth would be like the image in a mirror, the reflection of oneself in a mirror.
But here, it’s unreasonable to differentiate concealer truth as those two because correct concealer truth does not exist for the consequence group. And this is because even that which is asserted to be a correct concealer truth by the lower schools such as a vase and so on, in fact, since it doesn’t exist in the way it appears to exist anyway, it cannot really be established as a correct concealed truth. And then that is because if it is a concealed truth, it is necessarily not correct. Because if it is a concealed truth, it must be wrong. It must be false because it’s not established in the way it appears.
So therefore, for instance, vases and so on, because they’re not established in a way they appear to establish established, therefore, they’re false. They’re wrong. They they cannot be asserted to be correct. So here, when it’s a concealer truth, concealer here refers to the fact that there is something which is false in relation to that type of truth. Being false, therefore, it cannot be correct or true.
So here, to apply correct to conceal the truth is not accepted by the Prāsaṇgika school. However, underneath that, it’s stated that it is reasonable to differentiate concealer truth as either correct and wrong for mundane awareness because So here, that’s stated because form is correct for mundane awareness and so on. So here, when it’s stated that when mundane awareness is stated, it’s talking about the awareness of a this-sider. So we’re beings like ourselves. So for us, form is correct for our mundane awareness or the awareness we have as a this-sider.
So, therefore, in terms of mundane awareness, then it is possible to establish or to accept the presentation of correct and incorrect or wrong concealer truth. And that is because form itself, ordinary form is correct for mundane awareness and the reflection of a shape in a mirror is wrong for mundane awareness. So in other words, as it said, if it is correct for mundane awareness, then it is necessarily wrong. So in fact, if it is correct for mundane awareness, then it doesn’t exist as correct. In fact, it necessarily is wrong because it is only it is a concealer truth.
So therefore also, if it is correct for mundane awareness, it does not have to exist. Also, form being truly established is correct for mundane awareness. So we just leave the text there. And if there’s any questions that have up over the area so far So everyone understood the method of differentiating the three turnings of the wheel and how to differentiate, interpret, and definitive sutras. We did have the definition of the third turning of the wheel.
So which is a sūtra accepted by the it’s not in the stairs. It’s not in the text here. So what the third turning of the wheel is is the the speech that’s accepted by the Mind Only school who accept how that speech differentiates the three characteristics into characteristics into whether they actually exist by their characteristics or not and whether they’re true or not. So the speech that has those characteristics is regarded as the third turning of the wheel. So it’s true.
Wherever that’s wherever there is speech that conforms to that definition, that is that it is speech which does teaches and differentiates the three characteristics in accordance with the assertions of the Mind Only school, then that is regarded as speech of the third turning of the wheel. So there is there are various instances of the third turning of the wheel. Speech, which is the third turning of the wheel, but the main instance cited is a particular chapter of a text called the Saṃdhinirmocana, which is the the explanation of the intention of the Buddha in teaching the divisions of sūtra. There’s a particular sūtra called that. So that is regarded as the source sūtra for the third turning of the wheel.
Okay. So it’s hard to judge whether people have understood the subject matter and really have no doubts because they’ve understood or whether in fact So that’s the first possibility, completely understood. The second possibility is that for not having a question is of course not having understood the subject matter. So having a suggestion, there is any doubt about which alternative. Here for the Prāsaṇgika school, the consequence school, they assert that everything actually exists conventionally.
It exists through the strength of convention. Right? And in order to exist, it must exist in that way. But when if something doesn’t exist conventionally, it means that it’s nonexistent. In fact, they when it says that they don’t assert truly established phenomena even conventionally, it simply means that they assert that phenomena do not are not truly established.
It’s just that we can just change it slightly the definition and understand it in that way. But the important point there is that all existent entities exist conventionally. That’s that is a very important In the definition of word consequence, does that mean cause and effect? What in fact does it mean? Is that the question?
So here, in fact, the word consequence relates to a particular presentation within logic. We have reasons and we have consequences. And a reason is, for instance, something like, take a vase. It’s not truly established, because it’s a dependent arising. So within that, there is a that is the presentation of a correct reason.
For this particular school, assert that in order to generate the comprehension of a thesis, for instance, a vase is not truly established, One doesn’t have to formulate it in that way. One can simply present a consequence itself which is sufficient to generate understanding of the thesis. So a consequence for instance such as it is not really established because it exists. Follows it doesn’t it is not really established because it exists. Because it has follows there, that’s the mode of presentation of a consequence.
You have another question? All intuitive. Emptiness through impermanence. Right. And that wasn’t wasn’t possible.
Yeah. That Yeah. I know. This area is just talking with Geshe-la before. Unless one has studied this area of logic, it becomes very difficult to understand what is meant by consequence and correct reason.
And without having some grasp of that presentation, it does sound a little bit confusing. That question does come up, of course, in this context of the definition of the consequent school where it talks about what? An advocate of the middle way by means of proclaiming mere consequences known to others. So here, that’s a particular type of consequence also that they’re asserting their consequences known to others. So that also has a very specific meaning.
And this whole differentiation between the consequence school and the autonomous school does arise in relation to assertions of the autonomous about the nature of correct reasons. Even why this definition is presented in this way really arises because of the debate that occurred between the consequence and the autonomous school. It’s not referring back to the mode of understanding emptiness or impermanence. Right? They’re understood by presenting a correct reason.
Right? And that also the consequence school does accept. But here in the definition, they’re more talking about how you differentiate the consequence field from the autonomous, and that’s why they’re presenting it in that particular way. It’s getting to that. It’s even in Tibetan, it’s not easy to understand.
Here, in fact, they have a broader understanding of this word perception than simply referring, to awareness itself, which is the case for lower school. In fact, broadening the meaning of the word perception to include perceptible, the object. In fact, for the autonomous and the mind only school and so forth, all of those schools below, they take perception, to be only awareness. What is the meaning of perception therefore for the consequence school? Yeah.
Perceptible. Yeah. Well, for them, the word perception is broader than just awareness itself. So here in fact, really when it says they’re equivalent, it means that anything which is perceptible is perception. So therefore, it has to be understood that sounds and colors and shapes and so forth are also regarded as perception in this school.
It’s not easy actually to understand this view because for the autonomous and below perception always refers to awareness. Certainly at this point of doubt does arise, what can this mean? That everything that’s perceptible, that’s obvious is also perception. So, is good to have that doubt and to think a little about that. So, in terms of or the different types of perception that exist, for instance, the different types of perception like yogic perception, all of those need to be awareness.
But here in general, perception does, exceed the limits of awareness. Yeah. So whether we go out of the room or stay in the room, it doesn’t make much difference, actually, there. Still means that perception and perceptible are equivalent. Leaving the room doesn’t actually help.
So this is stated by the consequence school. It’s there in black and white. Are you serious? You want me to translate that? No.
That’s yeah. If they were crazy, then they wouldn’t know how to write or compose these texts. So if you think about this and develop some doubts, then it’s good. It’s useful. There’s possibility of developing comprehension of these.
It looks like everyone is finished with questions.