Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. The single word “mere” — added to the formula “the I imputed on the five aggregates” — is where Geshe Pema Tsering locates the Consequence School’s key departure from lower Buddhist schools. In this 45-minute commentary on a Tenets text, he first defines ultimate truth as the object of the awareness comprehending emptiness and explains why the truth of cessation is itself emptiness. He then unpacks “mere”: it refutes inherent existence and rules out identifying the I with mental consciousness, a move lower schools cannot make. He moves to epistemology — all sense perception is necessarily mistaken, yogic perception can be either, and subsequent awareness counts as valid here but not in lower schools — then closes with the two selflessnesses classified by basis rather than object of negation, and the shared reliance on emptiness across all three vehicles despite their differing abandonments. Suited to students with a grounding in Buddhist philosophical categories.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 11 Tenets 2001 12 11.mp3
UUID: f6c02081-b914-45a1-9006-3adca0ec1ede
Teacher: Geshe Pema Tsering
Collection: Principles of the Tenets (Geshe Pema Tsering)
Date: 2001-12-11
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 45.1 minutes
Words: ~3,202
So initially, we should set our motivation. So here, at the beginning of any action that one engages in, one should set one’s motivation, establish a positive motivation and therefore that sets the tone of one’s subsequent actions. There are different levels of motivation such as the motivation of a small scope, intermediate, and a great scope. So here, because we’re examining and studying a text of a great vehicle, initially, we should establish the motivation of a great scope. So initially, therefore, we meditate to develop the motivation of great scope, which is focusing on all sentient beings without exception and developing the aspiration that we ourselves attain the state of a Buddha in order to free all sentient beings without exception from all suffering.
So, this motivation we need to meditate on initially. So here there are various motivations by which we can engage in study. For instance, the motivation that we comprehend, say emptiness, or the that we comprehend the method of calm abiding, and so on. But here the central motivation that we should establish in order to study this particular teaching is the motivation that is conjoined with bodhicitta, that is motivated to establish the state of bodhicitta. So, here in order to study this particular text which is also teaching the nature of emptiness, we developed the motivation of bodhicitta itself.
So here we should meditate on this initially for a few minutes. So here now, we’re dealing with the the consequence school section. So here we’re dealing with page number twenty three. So the definition of that which is an ultimate truth. So the definition given by Jetsün Chökyi Gyaltsen here is the object found by valid awareness distinguishing the final limit where valid awareness distinguishing the limit becomes valid awareness distinguishing the final limit with respect to just that object.
So here the final limit is emptiness. So it’s really talking about awareness which is comprehending emptiness. So also the terms ultimate truth, emptiness, selflessness of dharma and so forth, these terms refer to the same thing. They’re equivalent. So the Buddhist term ultimate ultimate truth here is described, but ultimate also refers to a type of mind itself.
So the mind that perceptually comprehends emptiness is regarded as an ultimate mind. So here, an ultimate truth is that which is comprehended by an ultimate mind. So the object of an ultimate mind therefore is ultimate truth. So therefore it’s that object which is discerned by the equipoise of an ārya being perceptually comprehending emptiness. In other words, it’s the determined object of the ārya equipoise awareness comprehending emptiness.
So here, ultimate truth really does refer to emptiness itself. And what emptiness is is the the non-affirming negation, which is the mere absence of true existence. So the classification of ultimate truth is similar to that of the advocates of mind only. So therefore, in the mind only section is the division of emptiness into sixteen or into eighteen or into twenty and so forth. So it’s similar to the division that’s given there.
But as it says here, in this context, so here the context of the consequence school, the truth of cessation is necessarily ultimate truth. Or the truth of cessation is necessarily emptiness. So here the truth of cessation is just that cessation obtained by eliminating the objects to be abandoned on the path of seeing and on the path of meditation. So that absence of the object to be abandoned on the path of seeing or on the path of meditation is the truth of cessation. That absence is, in fact, this lack of also the lack of true existence of the lack of object to be abandoned on that level.
It’s the lack of it existing by its characteristics or inherently. So also it refers to emptiness. So in this context, the truth of cessation therefore also refers to emptiness. So then we have the fifth division, which is the method of asserting object-possessors. So here, the method of asserting object-possessors, they assert that the mere I, so here the consequence school asserts that the mere I imputed in dependence on the five aggregates, is the instance of the person, and a person is necessarily a non associated composite or a non concordant composite.
So here for the consequence school, they assert that the mere I imputed in dependence on the five aggregates is the instance of the person. In the lower schools, they assert this to be the definition. The I imputed in dependence on the five aggregates, is also asserted in lower schools to be the definition of person. But what is added here is mere, mere I. And in this presentation, we’re giving the instance of the person as that mere I.
Really in the lower schools, such as the autonomous and so on, they assert that the eye imputed in dependence on the five aggregates is the person, the definition of the person. The difference here is the addition of this term mere. So by adding the term mire, it differentiates the assertion of the consequent school from that of the lower schools. So here, the addition of mere establishes that the I is merely imputed and its status is being merely imputed there by conception. So this is the particular assertion of the consequence So also this term mere here refutes the assertion of the lower schools such as the autonomous who assert inherent existence, so that mere refutes inherent existence.
It also refutes that the I is the mental consciousness itself. And this mere I, which is the instance of the person, is necessarily a non associated composite or a non concordant composite. So what this is saying is that the mere I is impermanent, but it’s not awareness and it’s not form. So then discernment has two types. So firstly, it has valid awareness, and secondly, nonvalid awareness.
And invalid awareness again has two types as before, valid perception and valid inference. So initially, it’s stated that the advocates of consequence don’t assert self perception. So then as it says, the sense perception, the continuum of a sentient being, is necessarily mistaken awareness. So that’s true also, not only for aryas sentient beings, but also for ordinary sentient beings. So that sense awareness, which is either of the five types of sense awareness, is necessarily mistaken for those beings.
Then mental awareness and yogic perception are both mistaken and non mistaken. So for each of those two instances, mental awareness and yogic perception, there are instances of mistaken awareness and non mistaken awareness, both. So what this means is that then for our awareness itself, the conceptual awareness we have, the mental perception we have and so forth, all of this is mistaken awareness necessarily. And the yogic perception also can be either mistaken or non mistaken. The yogic perception which is perceptually comprehending emptiness is non mistaken, but other types of yogic perception are not necessarily non mistaken.
Just as, therefore we have these mental awareness and yogic perception both have mistaken and non mistaken instances. Yogic perception itself again has two instances. So again, the yogic perception, is not mistaken, is something like the perceptual comprehension of emptiness of an ārya. That is yogic perception and it is non mistaken perception. Instances of yogic perception which are mistaken are for instance, an aryas perception of impermanence, a yogic perception which comprehends impermanence, that is mistaken yogic perception.
Also, an aryas yogic perception of the fact that a being is free of, or a person is free of being permanent, single, partless and so on, that type of yogic perception is mistaken because its object is a relative truth or a concealer truth. And so therefore necessarily, it is mistaken. And then valid perception has two types. Firstly, conceptual valid perception and non conceptual valid perception. So then the first one, conceptual valid perception.
The instance given here is therefore the second moment of inference comprehending sound is impermanent and the recalling awareness authentically recalling blue initiated by sense perception holding blue. So they’re both instances of conceptual valid perception. So the instance of the second one that is non conceptual valid perception is sense perception holding form. So here it talks initially about conceptual valid perception. So here it’s talking about conceptual awareness itself.
That is a type of conceiving cognition which holds its object through the union or the potential union of generic sound and generic image that is using a generic image itself. So it’s a type of perception which is in a sense fused with conception. So valid perception is not necessarily perception because there are instances which don’t conform with that. So, valid perception is not necessarily perception because, for instance, there are instances like the second moment of inference comprehending sound as impermanent and recalling awareness authentically recalling blue initiated by sense perception holding blue, which are valid perception, but they’re not regarded as perception. So in fact, here, all instances of conception, and specifically the instances given here in the text, that is the second moment of inference comprehending sound is impermanent, and recalling awareness authentically recalling blue initiated by sense perception holding blue are regarded as not being perception.
Yet still they conform with the definition of being valid perception. So therefore, as it’s said here, valid perception is not necessarily perception because conceptual valid perception is not necessarily perception. And the reasoning that’s underlying that assertion is that perception and the perceived object are equivalent. So because perception and perceptible are equivalent, therefore, not all instances of valid perception are perception. So in this particular system, subsequent awareness is necessarily valid perception.
In the lower schools, then subsequent awareness is necessarily not valid perception. But in this system it actually needs to be, it is necessarily valid perception. And it’s valid perception because it is non deceptive to its object. It’s awareness which is non deceptive in relation to its object. So therefore, it’s a valid perception.
So subsequent awareness is necessarily valid perception, but it’s not necessarily perception. And that again goes back to the former reason that perception and the perceptible are equivalent. But then within valid or within subsequent awareness, there’s various types of awareness. Those which are valid awareness, those which are non valid and so forth. Now the second one here is valid inference.
So valid inference is classified. There are four. Inference by the power of fact, inference through renown, inference assessing examples, and inference through conviction. So as it said here that inference through renown and inference assessing examples are included in inference by the power of fact. So they’re all subsumed in that first one.
So inference assessing examples is really through, stating various examples in relation to a particular, thesis, then the thesis, is comprehended. But that type of inference and the inference above that, that is inference through renown, are in fact examples, are really subsumed by inference by the power of fact itself. So then also it said, if it is valid awareness, it is not necessarily non mistaken to its conceived object. And that is because comprehending sound as impermanent is mistaken awareness to its conceived object. So here, in fact, it’s valid awareness in relation to sound is impermanent because it’s comprehending sound is impermanent.
But it’s mistaken to sound is impermanent because it’s comprehending sound is impermanent, through a generic image appearing to that awareness. So because, it is comprehending through a generic image here it is regarded as a mistaken awareness, even though it’s comprehending that object. And then also they assert that if it is awareness, it necessarily comprehends its assessed object. So as I said, if it’s awareness, it necessarily comprehends its assessed object. So this is true, of course, without awareness and then for all other states of awareness as well, even when they’re mistaken and so forth.
So therefore, for that reason, the generic image of a rabbit with horns is the assessed object of conception holding a rabbit with horns. In other words, the conception that holds a rabbit with horns is actually awareness which comprehends its assessed object. And that’s because this type of conception, the conception holding rabbit with horns, actually comprehends the generic image. Further it states that the generic image of sound is impermanent, the assessed object of a conception holding. A sound is permanent, the assessed object of a conception holding sound is permanent.
So also, that type of awareness comprehends its assessed object. So here it means that there is a conception that holds sound to be permanent, actually comprehends its assessed object because here its assessed object is the generic image. Sound is impermanent and that is comprehended by that conception. Next we have number six, the method of asserting selflessness. So here, a person empty of being self-sufficient and substantially existent is asserted to be gross selflessness of a person.
So that is the gross instance of selflessness here. Yeah. On the other hand, the person empty of being truly established is asserted to be the subtle selflessness of the person. Then in this school, the gross form accumulated from partless particles and valid awareness holding that being empty of substantial difference is posited as the gross selflessness of dharma. And so the aggregates, here the five aggregates, act as the basis of imputation of a person, those aggregates being empty of being truly established is posited here by the consequence school as subtle selflessness of dharma.
So then further, both selflessnesses are classified by means of the basis, which is empty. And so they’re classified by means of the basis which is empty. So in other words, if the basis itself is a person, and that understanding that person to lack true existence is therefore understanding the selflessness of the person. Understanding a dharma that is something which exists which is other than a person, to be empty of true existence is understanding the emptiness or the selflessness of dharma. So both selflessnesses therefore are classified by means of the basis which is empty.
So either the basis of person or the basis of a dharma which is not a person. If one establishes the emptiness of that basis, then it is either the selflessness of the person or the selflessness of dharma, depending on the actual basis itself, which is understood to be empty of truth. In the lower schools they assert that there is a difference in subtlety between the selflessness of a person, the selflessness of dharma. But here, there is no difference in subtlety asserted between those two. So as it’s stated, that both selflessnesses are classified by means of the basis which is empty, not by means of the object of negation, which is the case in lower schools.
Because negating the object of negation, the truly established on the basis of the person, is subtle selflessness of the person. Negating the object of negation, the truly established, on the basis, the aggregates, etcetera, is subtle selflessness of dharma. So therefore, because of that, both self graspings are classified by means of focus, not by means of the referent object. Actually, in the autonomous schools and below, the grasping, which is grasping of the self of person, or the grasping which grasps of the self of dharma, are differentiated by means of the object. But here they’re not differentiated by a referent object, they’re differentiated by means of focal object.
And that is because grasping a true existence through focusing on the basis of the person is self grasping a person. And grasping at true existence through focusing on the basis of imputation, the aggregates, grasping at the self of Dharma or Dharma self grasping. So then the seventh category here is explaining the principles of grounds and paths. So here we have two divisions, abandonments, and actual explanation of the principles of grounds and paths. So firstly, in terms of what is to be abandoned, gross and subtle self grasping and their seeds, as well as attachment, etcetera, derived from those and their seeds is regarded as afflictive obscuration.
And since that is afflictive obscuration, it is posited as the obscuration mainly interrupting the liberation. So then the latency of grasping a true existence, as well as all mistaken images of dualistic appearance derived from that, is regarded here as knowledge obscuration. So this refers to all, concealer appearance or relative appearance, and all, all appear everything that appears to be truly existent. All of those here are appearance of true existence and so forth is regarded as knowledge obscuration. And that is knowledge obscuration since it is here posited as the obscuration mainly interrupting the attainment of omniscience.
And further, there is no difference of superior or inferior regarding the object of meditation of persons of the three vehicles because those three are similar in taking subtle selflessness of the person and subtle selflessness of Dharma as their main objects of meditation. Here the reason given for the fact that they’re not divided into superior or inferior is that there is no difference in their objects or main objects of meditation which are subtle selflessness of the person and Dharma. So when one talks about subtle selflessness of the person and Dharma, one is talking of emptiness itself. So in fact, here for the hearers, in order to attain the result of their path, they meditate on subtle selflessness of the person, which is emptiness. And by doing that, then they abandon the obscurations to be abandoned, the afflictive obscurations to be abandoned and their seeds and attain the result of their path.
Also for the solitary realizers, they similarly meditate on emptiness, subtle selflessness of the person. And by meditating on the subtle selflessness of the person, person, they overcome the obscurations they need to overcome in order to obtain the result of their path. And so bodhisattvas also, in meditating on the subtle selflessness of Dharma, overcome the obscurations that they need to overcome, the knowledge obscurations and so forth to obtain ultimately the result of their path. So therefore, for the three types of being following the three paths, they need to meditate on emptiness in order to attain the result of their path. However, though there is no difference in the main object of meditation of the three vehicles, still there is a difference in the main abandonments because hearers and solitary realizers take both self graspings with their seeds as their main abandonments.
But bodhisattvas take the latencies of those as their main abandonment. So here, beneath that, then we have this presentation of nirvana with remainder. In general, there’s two types of nirvana, with remainder and without remainder. So, thusness differentiated by abandoning. That type of thusness which is differentiated by abandoning both self graspings and their seeds in a continuum of hearers and solitary realizers and equipoise is nirvana without remainder.
On the other hand, thusness differentiated by abandoning both self graspings and their seeds, the continuum of hearers and solitary realizers in post-meditation is regarded as nirvana with remainder.