Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 45-minute talk, Geshe Pema Tsering opens with a live meditation on the four constituent parts of any action — basis, motivation, preparation, and conclusion — illustrated through examples that range from the act of killing to performing prostrations to generating bodhicitta. He then moves into Pabongka’s Lamrim section on insight, drawing a sharp contrast between mundane insight (absorption states accessible to non-Buddhists as well) and the transcendent wisdom comprehending emptiness that actually severs the root of saṃsāra. Quoting Tsongkhapa’s warning that renunciation and bodhicitta alone cannot eradicate existence, he explains that even a doubt tending toward emptiness is enough to shatter self-grasping, and surveys the four philosophical schools’ progressively subtler accounts of selflessness — from the Great Exposition School to the Prāsaṇgika position that all phenomena are merely imputed by conception. The session closes tracing the lineage of interpretation from Nāgārjuna through Candrakīrti to Tsongkhapa himself.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 01 2001 10 25 Stages of the path.mp3
UUID: 726f3674-49ae-46f3-8de8-e5b8b4dc4137
Teacher: Geshe Pema Tsering
Collection: Stages of the Path (Geshe Pema Tsering)
Date: 2001-10-25
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 45.5 minutes
Words: ~3,194
So as the the Buddha has mentioned previously in his discourses that from virtue, happiness and other positive states arise. So because of that we should engage in the practice of virtue And by doing that, then we establish causes for happiness in future. So here we need because we seek happiness, we need to establish the causes of happiness which is our virtue. And establishing, virtue itself, we need to establish the four, parts of an action. So the four parts of an action are the basis of the action, then the motivation by which the action is done, then the preparation, then the conclusion of the action.
In fact, if all of these four parts are assembled, then the action, if it’s a virtuous action, is full and complete. It becomes a powerful cause to establish virtue in future or to establish happiness in future. So just as the four parts of an action are necessary, for a virtuous action, similarly similarly also for non virtuous actions, those four parts need to be complete for the action to be strong. For instance, in the action of killing, firstly, for the basis of the action, then that refers to the object here, say, the object to be killed, such as a sheep, a goat, a cow, and so on. And then on having established the basis, then the motivation, the second of the four parts, and the motivation there is to kill to kill that particular, say, animal or being.
Then the preparation, the third part is taking a knife or a weapon of some type and applying that that weapon. And the fourth part, the conclusion, is the fact that the that being, that basis dies. When those four are complete and the action is complete and powerful and produces an appropriate result. So also for, virtue, then these four parts of the action should be also complete for the virtuous action also to be strong. So here, in fact, firstly, for instance, with a positive action such as doing prostrations, then firstly, the object, needs to be determined.
And in terms of prostrations, the object here, is, say, the Three Jewels, or one’s teacher, say, the texts, or any other suitable object to which one, would offer prostrations. Then the motivation, again, is the thought to actually engage in prostration, to do this virtuous action, I would say prostrating. The preparation, the third part, is that one engages in actions of body and speech that are the actual prostration itself. And the fourth part, the conclusion, is then thinking to oneself that I’ve actually made this prostration, and the, joy or the satisfaction thinking I’ve completed this action, is the actual conclusion. And that particular, virtuous action will then be a strong action because it’s complete in all four parts and therefore produce a result.
So also at the beginning, of a a discourse and so forth, then what one should engage in is generating the mind of bodhicitta. So also in generating the mind of bodhicitta, since it’s virtuous action, also has the four parts. It has the basis. Here also it has the second part, is the motivation. Then it also has the preparation and the conclusion.
So these four parts should also be complete. So here, also with the mind of bodhicitta, one needs to reflect on the four parts of the action. So initially, we have the first part, which is the basis. So the basis here is the mind of bodhicitta itself. So here we’re meditating in order to generate bodhicitta.
So bodhicitta becomes the basis. It’s the actual object that we seek to generate within our continuum. Then the second part is motivation. So here we’re motivated to actually cause the arrival of that object, bodhicitta. So we’re motivated therefore to generate it.
And the preparation is engaging in those actions which will generate it such as sitting on our cushion, engaging in meditation, doing recitations and so forth, those actions that actually lead to the generation of bodhicitta, then the conclusion of the action is then having completed the initial three, then to think, well, I have meditated well. I’ve generated some degree of or some experience of bodhicitta. I have that in my continuum and so on. So these four also need to be complete when generating one’s motivation at the beginning of a session or at the beginning of a discourse. So with that in mind, we should now seek to establish the four parts of the action.
And here, bodhicitta is that aspiration which seeks to attain the state of enlightenment, seeks for ourselves to attain the state of enlightenment for the sake of all sentient beings. So here we should engage in the comprehending the basis, the motivation, preparation, and the conclusion. Was that a good meditation? Did you complete the four parts of the action? The basis, motivation, preparation, and conclusion.
So tonight we’re continuing with the Lamrim and last week we looked at calm abiding or Shine and then the Shine section leads into the section on insight. So tonight we’ll do, something on the, Pabongka’s insight section of the Lamrim. So this actually comes as the second part of the the two, calm abiding and insight. And the second part itself has three, three subheadings, which are determining or ascertaining the nonexistence of the self of person and ascertaining the nonexistence of the self of dharma, and then the way to develop insight itself. So then the first one there, which is ascertaining the nonexistence of the self of person, again is divided into two.
So the first one is how to pursue the absorption resembling space or the equipoise resembling space. And when not in equipoise, how to pursue the attitude, or the motivation that things are like an illusion. So the first one there is how to develop the absorption or the equipoise like space or space like equipoise. Equipoise. So this again is divided into four parts, and the first part is, they’re determining or the point of determining what is to be refuted or the object to be refuted.
And the second is the point of determining the pervasion. And the third is how the self and the aggregates cannot truly be one. And the fourth point is the point of how the self and the aggregates cannot be truly different. So there are these four points in the section of how we develop the space like equipoise. So having discussed last week the nature of calm abiding, then we see that in developing calm abiding it’s possible then to enter the states of absorption.
And that is by having first established calm abiding, then one views the desire realm as being gross or coarse and the form realm and so forth as being subtle and fine. And by generating such meditation, then one can overcome the gross states of the desire realm. But this itself is an ordinary path. It’s a mundane path. And this path is a path that, non Buddhists and Buddhists both, are to enter.
But this type of path, this mundane, path that views the desire realm as course and the form realm as subtle, is not a transcendent path, but it is included within the mundane paths. So therefore, what is said here is that there is a type of mundane insight. Here we’re dealing with a section on insight having, dealt earlier with calm abiding. But there is a type of mundane insight that can be developed by both outsiders and Buddhists alike, and this mundane or ordinary or worldly insight, views the desire realm as being gross or coarse, and experience within the desire realm as being coarse on the basis of establishing calm abiding, and then also reviews the form realm as being fine and free of the faults of the desire realm. That type of analysis or that type of insight does generate the absorptions.
It does generate form realm mundane states. But it is not an object here that we would seek to cultivate or attain because it is a mundane path. It is a mundane type of insight. So in fact, if we aspire to liberation, which is the essence of the Buddhist path, then really to cultivate a mundane type of insight insight based on calm abiding is not going to be sufficient. In fact, we need initially to aspire to attaining liberation.
And in attaining liberation, we need a type of insight that actually is able to eliminate the root of saṃsāra. And in that sense, it’s a transcendent type of insight that overcomes the root of saṃsāra, which is grasping itself. So we need, therefore, a wisdom which comprehends, selflessness, which overcomes self grasping and therefore the root of saṃsāra. So that type of transcendent insight we need, not a mundane insight. So we need a type of insight that’s comprehending selflessness, because it’s that type of, insight that’s overcome that’s able to overcome, all the, obscurations that prevent, liberation from being generated.
So here we need the type of wisdom, insight, that therefore comprehends selflessness and is able to achieve elimination of all obscurations to liberation. So for that reason, then the Buddha has stated, in the text called the Praise to the Praiseworthy, that although peep people who follow your your doctrine do not gain the actual planes, they prevent their rebirth existence while Mara looks on helplessly. And what that refers to is that those who are Buddhist, those who follow the doctrines of the Buddha, that Dharma, do not actually seek the mundane insight which enables one to progress to the dhyana states, that is the absorption states of the form realm. They do not seek to enter the form realm. Instead, they seek to develop transcendent insight that prevents their rebirth existence, and that is achieved by understanding selflessness.
And if, they achieve that state, then they achieve liberation which is beyond the grasp of Mara. And Mara then looks on helplessly, unable to delude such beings. So initially then, we must ascertain the meaning of emptiness and the meaning of selflessness. Here, we must settle the meaning or resolve what emptiness actually refers to. By doing this, then it’s possible for ourselves to develop that type of insight, which leads to a transcendent state.
And this state, is the state that is elucidated by the victorious ones, and it’s not, a state that is accessible to those who grasp at self and so forth. So in fact, in order to attain the state of enlightenment, like a bird requiring two wings, then both method and wisdom are required. So not only do we need compassion and bodhicitta, but along with bodhicitta we also require insight which is the wisdom comprehending emptiness. So in that regard, Je Rinpoche, Lama Tsongkhapa himself, has said, if you do not have the wisdom that understands the way things exist, you cannot eradicate the roots of existence despite your acquaintance with renunciation and bodhicitta. Thus, work hard at the means to realize, the interdependent nature of things.
So also it said that even if we’re able to develop doubt tending to the fact, in relation to emptiness, then that is sufficient to tear to shreds our grasping at self. It’s also said to be like a hailstorm flattening crops. So simply having a doubt in relation to emptiness, but a type of doubt that tends to the fact of emptiness itself is sufficient to overcome the potency of grasping at itself. In fact, it’s a tear to shreds our grasping at self. So here, in fact, we need to generate such doubt, doubt tending to the fact, in relation to emptiness itself.
So this, in order to develop such a doubt, doubt tending to the fact, in relation to emptiness, then we need, to also generate a lot of merit. We need a foundation of merit that will allow us to contemplate these issues. So initially, engage in a collection of merit. And then at our leisure, we contemplate contemplate emptiness itself, and selflessness using various reasons, and logic and so forth. And then we go back to collecting merit, actually engage engaging in such practices as making prostrations, giving mandala offerings, then also making prayers and petitions to our teachers, to, our root guru, and so forth, engaging in many different types of practices in order to generate merit.
Then on that basis, again, we enter contemplation on the nature of emptiness and selflessness. And then by contemplating in that way, we are able gradually to develop a clearer and clearer idea of what emptiness is. So in fact, here we need a great store of merit in order to be able to, meditate on emptiness, contemplate contemplate emptiness. So here the the essential practices that we should concentrate on, therefore the developing the thought of bodhicitta, the mind of bodhicitta, then also of great compassion and of love. Then also along with that, then thinking about, our relationship with other beings, exchanging ourselves for others and so forth.
Also, rejoicing the merits of others, rejoicing in our own merits. All these practices we need to engage in in order to, develop our base of merit. If we don’t have a basis of merit, then it’s not possible for us, to comprehend emptiness. And in fact, also we can relate this back, to the teachings on tenets, where it’s possible to see that, the merit is required in order to attain the different states of enlightenment and that merit does make difference on the type of enlightenment one attains. So we should contemplate these issues, in relation to generating merit.
As for ourselves, we hold that the highest view here is the consequence view or the view of the Prāsaṇgika. So therefore, on a grosser level, for those that really have difficulty in approaching selflessness to begin with, then the Buddha himself has taught the existence of a self to such to such beings. And then to those who have more capacity, such as the advocates of the great exposition school and the sūtra school, then the Buddha has taught a gross form of selflessness suitable for their interest and capacity. So here to the advocates of the great exposition and the sūtra schools, then this selflessness, this gross type of selflessness is taught. That is the selflessness of a person being empty of a self arisen substantially existent self.
Then to those with greater capacity than those two schools, then the mind only view is taught. And the mind only view here, really is, involves the three types of characteristics. And the three types of characteristics are the, the thoroughly established, the other powered, and the imputed. And within those three, then two are regarded as being truly established. That is the emptiness itself, the thoroughly established, and the other powered.
Both of those are regarded as being truly existent in a mind only presentation. And then for those with the greater capacity again, then the view is taught or the autonomous view is taught. There, beings of that capacity accept that objects are not truly established, but they are inherently established. But this is a subtler view than that of the mind only. And then for those of greatest capacity, then the consequence view is taught.
The Prāsaṇgika view is taught. And in that particular view, then all objects being free of inherent existence or free of existing by their own characteristics or existing from their own side and so forth was established in relation to all objects in the universe. And here they affirm then that objects are merely imputed by conception, merely imputed there by conception. And that particular view is referred to as the consequence view. So in fact, even though we don’t really comprehend what the middle way view is, still we take it, we have a strong conviction that it’s the middle way view that is the highest view and the prasangika view within that is the highest view.
So we hold that to be the most consistent and the, the central view that is taught, and that’s the one we aspire to comprehend. So here, in fact, we need to contemplate the nature of this view very consistently and for a long period. And by that by doing that, then we establish the the foundation. We establish the imprints for comprehending the middle way view. But this comes in time over a long period.
So in fact, here in ascertaining what the ultimate view is or what the the view expanded by the Buddha himself was then, for us, we’re unable to really discern this by looking at the Buddha’s teachings himself themselves. He would rely on the guidance of latter scholars, especially he would rely on Nāgārjuna. And Nāgārjuna was this great being who lived some hundreds of years after the Buddha and was even himself prophesied by the Buddha, where the teacher himself said the most famous and glorious monk born in the land of the south of India who was named Naga and destroys nihilism and overcomes the two extremes. This was a prophecy of Nāgārjuna himself, and we rely on Nāgārjuna to interpret, which is the the definitive view from within the Buddha’s teachings. Therefore, we rely on Nāgārjuna to differentiate the consequence view.
So then after Nāgārjuna had written various treatises establishing what the middle way view actually taught, interpreting what the Buddha actually intended, Then various other scholars were born in India and taught in India, and so there were many different views, different interpretations of what the highest view were. Many great scholars also arose such as Acharya Bhaviveka, and various other teachers such as Buddhapālita and then Candrakīrti and so forth. And then commentaries on those beings’ works and what was in fact and commentaries that would interpret which was the way or which was the particular what other scholars that we should follow, that we should accept as authentically interpreting, the ultimate view. So this occurred in India over a long period. And then even in Tibet after the arrival of Atisha, then with the, birth of Je Tsongkhapa, there were also doubts, that arose then about, which commentary should be followed in order to, correctly comprehend the intention of the Buddha.
And, therefore, even in the life of Je Tsongkhapa, he thought at one stage to visit India so that he could question Indian scholars himself. And therefore, by that gain, an understanding of which were the actual commentaries to be followed, which were the actual modes of explanation that should be followed. So Je Tsongkhapa was therefore, of the view that he should visit India in order to establish what the actual interpretation of the teaching should be, and so that he set off. Then he met a particular teacher called Acharya Nagabodhi. He set out to meet Acharya Nagabodhi in India, the great adept Maitripa and so forth, the great adept Lodrak Namkha Gyaltsen.