Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. Whether suffering and happiness cease to exist when we stop labeling them — and what that reveals about the nature of emptiness — is the live question at the heart of this 45-minute commentary from Geshe Pema Tsering on the Seventy Topics. He builds toward it through careful scholastic groundwork: first resolving a puzzle about whether the nine non-conceptual paths of meditation span grounds one through nine or two through ten, then introducing the four types of knower of bases and unpacking the first in detail — a mind that eliminates self-grasping relative to a conventional base. The session’s extended classroom exchange then contrasts the Autonomous school’s view that objects exist through their own characteristics with the Prāsaṇgika position that labeling alone establishes existence. For students already working through this literature.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 06 ST6 2003 07 03.mp3
UUID: b5b3fffa-af1b-40ae-b27f-8a132b0cd87f
Teacher: Geshe Pema Tsering
Collection: Seventy Topics (Geshe Pema Tsering)
Date: 2003-07-03
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 45.0 minutes
Words: ~2,729
Is also another way of saying that is a non-conceptual path of meditation. Or the “that establishes the imprint of the final abandonment” — final abandonment is, that is, the final cessation. And that is synonymous with the wisdom truth body of a Buddha.
So what this is saying is it establishes the the cause or establishes the imprint of this wisdom truth body of the Buddha, which is the object it is working towards because it and the wisdom truth body of the Buddha are both nonconceptual. Okay. So the way that this is divided so we’re talking about non conceptual minds in the path of on the path of meditation. The way that it’s divided is that there’s nine completely pure paths or the nine non conceptual paths of meditation and on the nine levels. This is referring to the first ground up until the ninth ground.
It’s not referring to the tenth ground, and in fact, it’s only talking about some types of non conceptual thought that the beings on the path of meditation have. So even though it’s a division, it’s not a it’s not a com it’s So Geshe la has two ideas where there’s there’s it’s talking about nine levels, and there’s ten different grounds. The first one, said, like he said, that it goes from the first ground to the ninth ground. And then he said that because the a path of the first ground is on in the main on the path of seeing, and we’re talking here about the path of meditation that perhaps they’re talking about from ground the second ground up until the tenth ground because the first ground isn’t actually on the path of meditation. So because there’s nine and they’re talking here about nine levels and there’s ten grounds, so we have to chop one off from the top or the bottom, one of the two.
And so perhaps it’s better to chop it off from the bottom from a different perspective because the people on the path of seeing can’t get rid of any of the afflictions or the things that need to be abandoned on the path of meditation because they’re not ready for that. As soon as they start doing that, then they enter the path of meditation. Because here we’re talking about the different levels of realization on the path of meditation, then it would make more sense that we start with the second ground because there’s only one instance of the first ground on the path of meditation. How come He say so he’s got doubts about which one of these. Is this something he was thinking?
It could be that way or it could be that way? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. He’s He’s just checking this here.
He said in the in the translation which which ground was gotten rid of. So he thinks it could be either way. Okay. So now he’s come up with another idea. Because the boundaries are that it exists from the first ground through to the tenth ground, that he thinks that there’s they they go all the way through the different grounds, that there’s just nine of them.
So yes. Because there’s ten grounds, but there’s nine different completely pure paths or nine different pure parts. Because it says that this is on there are some of these on the first ground, and then some of them on the tenth ground. So they have to go all the way from the first ground to the tenth ground. Okay.
So we finished the knower of paths, and we’re up to the nine topics of the knower of bases. Okay. Geshe la said, so before we said a while ago the the definition of a knower of bases was, and I don’t remember it, but I’ve got it here now. The definition of knower of bases was an exalted wisdom abiding within a lesser vehicle class of realizations conjoined with the wisdom directly realizing emptiness in the continuum of the person who possesses it. So it’s a Mahāyāna being who has these understandings of the Hīnayāna paths in their mind stream.
It is an exalted wisdom within a superior’s continuum abiding within a lesser vehicle class of realizations. Sorry about that. Geshe was saying, okay. So there’s four knowers of bases. And I’m like, there’s nine, Noah.
There’s four. What are you talking about? And this went backwards and forwards. But I found out what he was talking about eventually, and that is that there are four what’s called — there are four different types of bases. Right?
So what we’ve done up until now has been about the different types of bases. So the exalted knower of aspects is like a base. The knower of paths is like a base. The knower of bases is like a base. I only counted three now.
Right. Okay. It’s the end of the semester, isn’t it? Okay. No.
I got that wrong. Scrap that thing about the four things. Right. Now okay. Because there wasn’t enough numbers in this.
Right. Now we have done, knower of aspects, knower of paths, and we’re now up to knower of bases. Now although there are nine topics within the knower of bases, there are actually only four different types of knower of bases. Okay. So that is the first four that we talk about here.
Knower of bases that are not abiding in cyclic existence through knowledge, knower of bases not abiding in peace through compassion, knower of bases distant from their resultant mother, and knower of bases close to the resultant mother. So they are the four divisions of the knower of bases. The other things, the other five topics that come in, the nine topics of the knower of bases are all synonyms with one of these four. Alright? So the four basic ones that we’re dealing with here are the the first four we’re talking about, and it’s not the other three because they just sound exactly the same, but it’s not them.
Right? Okay. So the first one of these nine topics of the knower of bases is called a knower of bases not abiding in cyclic existence through knowledge. The definition of this is a mahayana, superiors, exalted knower abiding in a type of realizer that ceases the extreme of cyclic existence relative to a conventional base. It’s synonymous with something that we did earlier, which was called knower of paths that knows hearers’ paths.
Okay. So in this definition where it says, a Mahāyāna superior is exalted knower, so that we know, abiding in a type of realizer. What that means is it’s just a type. It’s it’s a it’s just saying that it’s a mind that ceases the extreme of cyclic existence that that what that refers to is that this is a mind that has is the cessation that includes within it the cessation of self grasping. So it’s the mind that comes into existence once self grasping has been eliminated.
Yeah. There’s a mistake in there. Oh, wait. I’m not allowed to say mistake. There is a they’ve written something else in the in the text we have, so it gets a bit confusing.
Anyway yes. So where were we up to? A conventional relative to a conventional base is where we’re up to. Okay. So the reason that it says relative to a conventional base is that it is talking about the the getting rid of self grasping with refer reference to an individual being, so we’re talking about the self of persons here.
Within the autonomous school, they refer to both the self of person and Okay. Right. Of course. Now, the ceases the extreme of cyclic existence relative to a conventional base means that we’re talking about the selflessness of persons. So within the autonomous school, they talk about two selflessnesses, but they refer to, the the selflessness of phenomena and the selflessness of persons.
You need to get rid of both of those in order to get rid of grasping at true existence. Here, when it says relative to a conventional basis, it’s talking about the cessation of self grasping, which is the selflessness of persons. Both of those are said to be the root of saṃsāra, the selflessness of the person, the selflessness of phenomena. They’re both different types of what’s called grasping at true existence, which can be even more subtle than the grasping at the the self of phenomena. How is that?
Yeah. So you can have a realizer that ceases the extreme of cyclic existence relative to a conventional base, and you can have the realizer that ceases the extreme of cyclic existence relative to a true base. So here, we’re talking about the conventional base because it’s the self of persons. Right. So so there’s two of these ceasings of the extreme or cyclic existence.
The one relative to a conventional base and one relative to a true base or true existence, a base of true existence. So because we’re talking about the conventional base here, we’re talking about the cessation of self grasping, cessation of grasping at the true existence itself. So this is a these these minds is synonymous with the knower of paths that knows hearers’ paths. So we’re talking about things here like the understanding of impermanence and other types of minds that are usually included within the hearer vehicle, the category of minds relative to the hearer vehicle. Okay.
So there’s three different divisions of this knower of bases not abiding in cyclic existence through knowledge. There’s that which is the path of seeing, that which is the path of meditation, and that which is path of no more learning. So the boundary of this is that it exists from the Mahāyāna path of seeing through to the Buddha ground. So stop it there. I did it.
I guess I said, did you understand, or were you sleeping? He said it’s hard. Yeah. Of emptiness. And the differences?
Okay. Okay. Yes. Apart from the obscure quote from some obscure text, I think I got it. Alright.
So there was the this is the autonomous school. Yeah? The autonomous school’s view of emptiness is that there is nothing that is truly existent. The way that things are established is that the mind labels something, and the object actually exists in dependence on its characteristics. So therefore, it has characteristics.
Doesn’t truly exist, but it has characteristics. So when those characteristics are labeled, by our mind, yeah, then the thing comes into existence. But they say it’s not truly existent, and it’s not inherently existent. Yeah. That’s the autonomous school’s version.
Okay. So from the consequentialist point of view or the prasangika point of view, then they say if something exists, it’s it’s exists dependent on its characteristics. So if something has characteristics, that means it truly exists. So therefore, they refute the idea of something existing on its characteristics, and they say that there is only the labeling that happens. That’s the only reason that something exists.
So things don’t exist inherently. They don’t exist in dependence on their characteristics. They don’t exist truly, and they there’s another one. They don’t exist by way of their entity. They merely they’re merely labeled from the side of the the mind observing them.
Is that okay? He said, yeah, he thinks it’s really difficult to understand too because you think if it’s only existing from me labeling it, then it doesn’t really exist. But it’s they’re saying that makes it exist, so it’s difficult to understand. So you can’t say it doesn’t exist because it exists because it’s being labeled, but saying that it but saying that it is hang on. I’ve lost myself.
So, yeah, you can’t say it doesn’t exist because it exists, but it only exists because of the label that’s put on it. Yeah. Okay. So the way that the school puts it is that if you don’t analyze or if you don’t examine, then you think that something exists. And if you analyze and go through the way you’ve labeled it, then you realize it doesn’t exist.
Right? But the other thing to remember is this when we talk about labeling, we’re not just talking about conceptual minds labeling. We’re also talking about nonconceptual minds labeling. So eye consciousness can label things and so forth. So a way for us to try and understand this is if we use, for example, emptiness, and use sorrow and happiness or suffering and happiness.
We label sorrow and happiness. Therefore, they exist. If we didn’t label them as suffering or happiness, then they would cease to exist as that. So that’s one way we can try and understand it. Yes.
Giving them the feeling. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Okay. That’s the same word.
Just paraphrasing. Feeling or sensation. You don’t mean feeling or sensation because feeling and sensation are the same thing. Yeah? Oh.
Yeah. Right. Okay. Okay. So the feeling wouldn’t exist, or the thing wouldn’t exist?
Did you not say that it didn’t label Yeah. Whatever it is you’re Suffering or happiness. Yeah. But the sensation of happiness, the relation, or whatever, or something Uh-huh. Is still there.
It’s just not right. Yeah. Did everybody hear that? No. Okay.
So if you cease to label suffering and happiness, then they cease to exist. Right? But does that mean that the phenomena of suffering and happiness is still there, or does that mean that that doesn’t exist either anymore? Or or is it just because we’re not labeling it? Okay.
Right. So if you do not label it as such, it ceased to exist completely. Therefore, suffering and happiness as we know them are dependent on their feelings. Feeling is one of the five aggregates. It’s a secondary mind or a mental mental factor.
So if we don’t have those mental factors, if we don’t label something as feeling and suffering, then we don’t have that mind experiencing them as feeling and suffering. So, therefore, they cease to exist. The thing yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
The characteristics plus the labeling. Plus the labeling. Yeah. It’s two things Yep. That come together.
So why why autonomous? Why autonomous? Okay. Right. And it works with English too.
Alright. Okay. So what they’re actually referring to here is that the the the Tibetan literally translated, right, would be as it’s like established by their own characteristics. Yeah? And but it says established or no.
Established by their own cause or established by their own stream or existence. Yeah? Now what it’s talking about in this case is not that it’s not talking about the fact that there is a label coming out from the being and a the characteristics established from the side of the object. It’s talking about merely the fact that they establish characteristics from the object. Yeah?
Because it’s referring to it from the point of view of the Prāsaṇgika school or the consequentialist school, which doesn’t have that establishment from the side of the objects. So comparing it to the consequentialist school, there is autonomy there. Alright? Because the things do exist on the basis of their characteristics. So it’s pointing out the difference from the from the consequentialist school, and that’s why they say the autonomous school or defined by its own characteristic school.
It just points to the difference. Because the thing is, most of the time, the autonomous don’t call themselves autonomous. They call themselves Yogacharyas and things like that. So when they’re talking about it from the point of the Prāsaṇgika school, they say autonomous. So so I guess, as I said, if you understand the if you understand the autonomous school properly and you look at it closely, then you’ll see that you’ll if you understand it closely, then the idea of something existing by its own characteristics will fade away, and then you’ll be left with the the idea of consequentialist school in its stead.
When normally when we use that term Yeah. Yeah. We’re referring to using a word Yeah. Which is a conceptual process. Yeah.
So therefore, how can a nonconceptual mind like an eye consciousness label? Have you ever heard it translated as anything else? Like, apart from merely labeled or