Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 45-minute session, Geshe Pema Tsering works through two dense topics in his Seventy Topics series: the completely pure path of meditation, defined as an uncontaminated Mahāyāna subsequent clear realizer that establishes the imprint of the wisdom truth body of a Buddha, distributed across nine non-conceptual paths spanning the bodhisattva grounds; then the four core types of knower of bases, focusing on the first — the type that ceases the extreme of saṃsāra by eliminating grasping at the selflessness of persons. A student question then opens an extended comparison of the Autonomous and Consequentialist philosophical schools on emptiness: the Autonomous holding that things exist through characteristics plus labeling, the Consequentialists insisting that labeling alone constitutes existence, illustrated by asking whether suffering and happiness would persist if we stopped labeling them as such. For practitioners already grounded in Mahāyāna Abhidharma frameworks.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 08 ST6 2003 07 03.mp3
UUID: 0e964b24-4235-4651-9fcd-a39885eb7144
Teacher: Geshe Pema Tsering
Collection: Seventy Topics (Geshe Pema Tsering)
Date: 2003-07-03
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 45.0 minutes
Words: ~2,865
Okay. So the next one, the completely pure path of meditation. Now it’s based the idea of this is based around the quote from the Pure Ornament of Realization, which says, the extremely pure, these activities are the path of meditation the knower of paths of Mahāyāna Bodhisattvas is explained as such the definition of a complete pure path of meditation is an uncontaminated Mahāyāna subsequent clear realizer that establishes the imprint of the final abandonment, which is the object of attainment. Right. Now the yes.
I think that’s right. Yeah. Okay. So the bit where it says an uncontaminated Mahāyāna subsequent clear realizer is the same as in the path of meditation of achieving. So because this is actually something that’s synonymous with the path of meditation of achieving so an uncontaminated Maya and a subsequent clear realizer is also another way of saying that is a non conceptual path of meditation That establishes the imprint of the final abandonment.
Final abandonment is truth is is the final cessation. The final and that’s a this that’s synonymous with the wisdom truth body of a Buddha. So what this is saying is it establishes 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 non-conceptual. Okay. So the way that this is divided so talking about nonconceptual minds in the path of on the path of meditation.
The way that it’s divided is that there’s nine compute 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 nonconceptual 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 Yeah. 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 he said, like he said, that it goes from the first ground to the ninth ground. And then he said that because the 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 the second ground up until the tenth ground because the first ground isn’t actually on the path of meditation. 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 meditation. How come? He say so he’s got doubts about which one it is. Is this something he was thinking? It could be that way or it could be that way.
You know what I’m saying. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. He’s just checking the c f s seventy 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, but there’s just nine of them. So so yeah.
Because there’s ten grounds, but there’s nine different clarities 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 what the knower of paths, and we’re up to the nine topics of the knower of basis. Geshe la said, so before we said a while ago the definition of a knower of basis was and I don’t remember it, but I’ve got it here now the definition of knower of basis 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 being on the a Mahāyāna being who has these understandings of the 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 noes of bases.
And I’m like, there’s nine. No. 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 nora is like a base.
The like a base. Base. I only counted three now. Right. Okay.
It’s the end of the sixth 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, the resultant 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 paths not abiding in cyclic existence through knowledge, knower of paths 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 paths not abiding in cyclic existence through knowledge’ the definition of this is a mahayana superiors exalted knower abiding in a type of realiser that ceases the extreme of cyclic existence relative to a conventional base it’s a synonym with something that we did earlier, which was called knower of paths that knows hearer’s 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 just saying that it’s a mind that ceases the extreme of cyclic existence what that refers to is that this is a mind that has the cessation that includes within it the cessation of self grasping. So it’s the mind that comes into existence when 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 bit confusing. Anyway, yes. So where were we up to?
A conventional relative to a conventional base. Okay. The reason that it says relative to a conventional base is that it is talking about the getting rid of self grasping with refer reference to an individual being. We’re talking about the self of persons here. Within the autonomous school, they refer to, both the self of persons and Okay.
Right. Got it. Now the that ceases the extreme of cyclic existence relative to a conventional base’ means that we’re talking about the selflessness of persons. Within the autonomous school, they talk about two selflessnesses, but refer to selflessness of phenomena and the selflessness of persons. You need to get rid of both of those in order to get rid of grasping its true existence.
Here, when it says relative to a conventional base, they’re talking about the cessation of self grasping, which relates to the selflessness of persons. Both of those are said to be the root of saṃsāra, the selflessness of the person, 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 self of phenomena. Anyway. Yeah.
So you can have as you can have a realizer that ceases the extreme of cyclic existence relative to a a a true a true base. So here we’re talking about the conventional base because it’s the self of persons. So so there’s two of these ceasings of the extreme of cyclic existence. The one relative to a conventional base and one relative to a true base or true existence. Because we’re talking about the conventional base here, we’re talking about the cessation of self grasping and of grasping at the true existence of phenomena.
So this is a these these minds is synonymous with the knower of paths that knows hearer’s paths. So we’re talking about things here like the understanding of impermanence and other types of minds that are usually included with the in the within the hearer vehicle, the category of minds relative to the hearer vehicle. Okay. So there’s three different divisions of this knower of paths is that knower of paths is 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 the 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. Yeah. So stop there. I did it. Geshe-la said, did you understand, or were you sleeping?
He said it’s hard. Yeah. The emptiness and the differences? Okay. Okay.
Yes. Apart from the obscure quote from some obscure text, I think I got it. Alright. So 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. It 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 Prāsaṇgika 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 are merely labeled from the side of the mind observing them. Is that okay? He said, yeah, he thinks it’s really difficult to understand too, because 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 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 or consequentialist 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 emptiness as suffering and happiness, we label suffering 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 the feeling Uh-huh. Important details. Uh-huh.
Okay. That’s the same word. I was paraphrasing. No. Feeling or sensation.
You don’t mean feeling or sensation because feeling and sensation are the same thing. Yeah? That’s right. Yeah. Right.
Okay. Okay. So the feeling wouldn’t exist or the thing wouldn’t exist? Didn’t you not say that it didn’t label Yeah. Whatever it is you’re Suffering or happiness.
Yeah. Yeah. But the sensation of happiness, the relation, or whatever, or suffering Uh-huh. Is still there. Is it not?
It’s just not like 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 ceases to exist completely. Therefore, suffering and happiness as we know them are dependent on their labels. Yeah? 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. Can I ask the question about the why they use the word autonomous? Because autonomous, as I understand Yeah. Yeah.
The characteristics plus the labeling. Plus the labeling. Yeah. It’s two things. Yeah.
Come together. 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 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.
What it’s talking about in this case is not talking about the fact that there is a label coming out from the being and 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 refer 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. Comparing it to the Consequentialist school, there is autonomy there because the things 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 Yogacharins and things like that. So when they’re talking about it from that point of view, for us in 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 consequential school in its stead. I’d like to understand this the meaning of labeling something with an nonconceptual mind because 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 labels? Have you ever heard it translated as anything else? Like, apart from merely labeled or