Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 46-minute session, Geshe Pema Tsering traces Je Tsongkhapa’s breakthrough into the view of emptiness — his visions of Vajrapāni, Mañjuśrī, and Buddhapālita, through whom he finally grasped the consequence-school understanding of the middle way and went on to compose the Praise of Dependent Arising. The talk then pivots to direct doctrinal instruction, anchored in Āryadeva’s three-stage verse: “first reverse your meritless state, next refute the self, finally the one view refutes all.” Geshe-la introduces the primary reasoning — any object is neither truly one nor truly many, and is therefore empty of true existence — illustrating it with a vase on the table and fielding student questions on whether it applies equally to awareness and to oneself. He closes by urging practitioners to keep this analysis alive at sleep and waking.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 02 2001 10 25 Stages of the path.mp3
UUID: 3d88f16f-3047-48bc-8dae-29695212569b
Teacher: Geshe Pema Tsering
Collection: Stages of the Path (Geshe Pema Tsering)
Date: 2001-10-25
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 45.8 minutes
Words: ~3,316
However, begged him to abandon this plan. And then by using this great adept, this meditation master Namkha Gyaltsen as an intermediary, then Tsongkhapa asked vajrapani questions on a view. Tsongkhapa realized that this particular lama had a vision of vajrapani and so therefore requested this particular lama to ask questions on his behalf of Vajrapāni, his great bodhisattva. Vajrapāni then was able to successfully answer his questions. And this was put down in the form of a text called the Rosary of Supreme Healing Nectar.
So even having the answers from vajrapani through the intermediary, this particular person, his doubts in fact grew and they didn’t lessen. Lessen. So his doubts grew, Je Tsongkhapa’s doubts grew even on the advice he had from Vajrapāni. So then he made petitions of his actual meditation deity, Mañjuśrī. And he worked for a long time to accumulate merit and to purify himself through a variety of different types of meditation and practice.
And then in dependence on these practices, he had a direct vision of Mañjuśrī. So as the text mentions, as Pabongka Rinpoche mentions, that in general, there are three types of vision. Here in fact, a vision of Mañjuśrī was finally did appear to, Je Tsongkhapa. He had a vision of Mañjuśrī. And as Pabongka mentions, there are three types of vision.
One is seeing an hallucination of the deity themselves. This is experienced experienced when the energy winds enter the energy channels. So this is the first type of vision that is possible. Then there’s another type of vision where the deity appears to the mental consciousness. And this is also experienced in meditation.
And lastly, is a type of vision where one actually sees the deity and is able to converse with the deity face to face because it’s on a level of sense consciousness. Yeah. So the type of, vision that, Je Rinpoche, Je Tsongkhapa had, is said to be the third type. He was actually able to put, questions to Mañjuśrī. What the advice was from Mañjuśrī was that he should in fact, rely on another lama called, Jetsün Rendawa, and that if he were to rely on Rendava, then all his doubts would be pacified.
They’d be eliminated. So then this he did. And then later, by the virtue of his accumulations and the purification of obscurations, he had a vision of Buddhapālita, this great Indian scholar who lived around the third century AD. The in dependence on, having a vision of Buddhapālita, he was able to, comprehend the final, the final mode of existence. He was able to comprehend emptiness itself.
So this was done through the the inspiration and the instruction of Buddhapālita. So therefore, Je Rinpoche, through the accumulation of a vast amount of merit through his various practices and having gained a vision of Mañjuśrī and Vajrapāni and so forth, he was able in the end to gain insight into the nature of emptiness and thus ascertain the highest view. And so he in the end, he didn’t need to go to India. So Je Rinpoche developed an understanding of the highest view, the view that properly expresses the nature of emptiness. And then at this period in his life, he also had visions of many Indian pandits and adepts, but really he didn’t pay a great deal of attention to them.
However, Mañjuśrī had told Je Rinpoche that a highly realized lama, which was probably a lama called Lama Umapa, who acted as an intermediary for the deity that he should heed those visions, the visions that he had of other great Indian masters. For this would be most beneficial for others and himself if he were to depend on their texts, their treatises that they had also composed in the past. So it would be beneficial if Je Rinpoche could employ those texts in his explanations. So then Je Rinpoche, in coming to realize the undistorted view, of the middle way, then the faith faith in the in the Buddha’s teachings and the followers of the Buddha, increased greatly within him.
And he developed a great faith in the law of dependent arising. And so he composed a particular work called in praise of dependent arising or the brief essence of eloquence. So Je Rinpoche then composed this particular text called Tendrel Toepa in Tibetan, which means in praise of dependent arising. And having therefore written this particular text, he would occasionally recite it. And then one day, a particular beggar called Chogle Namgyal, who came from the Badong region, heard a nearby beggar on a pilgrimage singing this poem.
And at first, Namgyal thought it was the work of Nāgārjuna or perhaps that of Candrakīrti. But then he heard the author at the end of the work discuss how he had depended on the classics of Nāgārjuna and Candrakīrti in his composition of this praise. So from that, then this Namgyal, this practitioner called Namgyal, understood that he could not have that those two beings, that is Nāgārjuna or Candrakīrti, could not have written the poem. So he asked the beggar, and the beggar replied, this poem was written by the great Tsongkhapa. Then Namgyal, this Chogle Namgyal developed great faith in the author of the work in praise of dependent arising, having heard it.
And, then he set off to meet this particular author, to meet Je Rinpoche. But then he discovered that Je Rinpoche, Je Tsongkhapa, had already passed away, and he’d gone to the pure field, pure fields for the sake of other beings. Unable to see him, Namgyal then prayed that they would meet, and he threw pieces of gold and silver into the air as an offering. And these landed in the grounds of Ganden monastery. And this and other wonders were talked about in the biography of Je Rinpoche.
So also Je Rinpoche not only composed the praise of dependent arising, but he also composed many other works such as Lamrim, the great Lamrim and the other varieties of Lamrim. He also composed what is called the Tsawa Sherab, the great commentary to the Madhyamaka Karika or the root of wisdom by Nāgārjuna. And he also composed a commentary to the work of Candrakīrti called Clear Words and many other commentaries. So there’s a vast body of works that were composed in the lifetime of Je Rinpoche. So in fact, here, therefore Je Rinpoche established that the lineage, coming from Nāgārjuna should be followed, of commentary here of emptiness itself should be followed through, Buddhapālita, who lived not long after Nāgārjuna.
And then from Buddhapālita, it should be followed through Candrakīrti, and then on to the works of, that occur in Tibet, and specifically of Candrakīrti. And Candrakīrti is regarded as the path breaker of the consequence view. So therefore, the one that actually explicitly explained the meaning of what consequence was. And therefore, his texts, especially the text Madhyamakāvatāra and the Prasannapada and so forth, are therefore followed as the final presentation of view of the consequence school. So therefore, we should rely on the commentaries by Je Rinpoche, who’s commenting primarily on Candrakīrti and so forth, their works, and then engage in in study, contemplation, and meditation on the meaning of those texts.
Now we start with the the fourfold division of the first point, which it was the point of discerning the non existence of a self of person. And in that, there are the four points. The first is ascertaining or determining the object to be negated. This Oh, So this then also is taught by Āryadeva’s four hundred verses. An indication there of the object of refuted is given.
Firstly, it states, first, reverse your meritless state. Next, refute the self. Finally, the one view refutes all. He who knows this is skilled. So there, Āryadeva is giving a three stage practice that we should follow in determining what is to be refuted.
So this accords with the instructions concerning the order in which we should should carry out our practice. In the small and medium scopes, we must first refute, such views as regarding cause and effect as nonexistent and so forth. So which is we therefore refute our or reverse our meritless state. Next, we must refute the personal self, which, is in the second line of that verse, refute the self. And finally, we refute the self of dharma, the subtlest level.
In the particular view that we’re following here, which is the view of the prasangika or the consequence school, there’s no difference in subtlety between the self of person and the self of dharma. But in terms of the basis, there is a little bit of difference, the basis upon which that selflessness is established. But those two types of selflessness, which negate the self of person and the self of dharma, are not differentiated by the degree of subtlety. They’re both equally subtle. Still, in terms of, the two types of selflessness, that is the selflessness of the person, the selflessness of dharma.
The selflessness of the person is just the selflessness of the I as it exists at present. And the selflessness of dharma can be therefore posited as the selflessness of the, for instance, the aggregates which act as the basis of imputation of the I. Even though they’re equally subtle, still it’s a little bit easier to understand the selflessness of the person than the selflessness of the aggregates which exist as the basis of designation of the person. So to that extent, there is said to be a difference in the ease of comprehending the two types of selflessness, even though they’re of the same subtlety. So here in fact, for the reasoning which does establish emptiness, then there are five or six different types of reasoning that are set forth, such as the reasoning of the self being neither one with nor different from the aggregates, and so forth, the king of reasoning, the reasoning of dependent arising, and so forth.
There are many, five or six different types, and these are engaged in order to progressively establish clearly the nature of emptiness. So as it said here in this particular text that the easiest type of reasoning to begin with is the reasoning which is the argument that the self being neither one with nor different from its basis of imputation. So therefore, because that is accepted, that the reasoning which is refuting truly existent one or truly existent many is the easiest point to begin from, then it’s that particular reason that is expanded into four points. So here, starting with the the point of refuting the object to be negated. This is all part of the process of ascertaining this first type of reasoning.
So this particular type of reasoning, the reasoning refuting being truly existently one or many, is a very often debated type of reasoning, and it’s often expressed in this form. We take a subject of ours. It’s not truly existent because it’s not truly existent only one or not truly existently many. So in establishing that the vase is not truly existently one, nor truly existently many, then we can establish that it’s not truly existent. And this then, this reasoning can be applied to any other basis or any other subject.
So in fact, it’s quite simple that we take any type of subject there such as a vase, and we take the vas as a subject. It’s not truly existent because it’s not truly established as one or it’s not truly established as many. And simply that reasoning by itself can establish the thing is not Is it difficult? In fact, this reasoning is something that we should keep in mind at all times because it is a basis upon which we can generate an understanding of emptiness. So here, in order to develop an understanding of the view, then we apply, as is suggested here, the first of the five or six types of reasoning.
So which is this reasoning that’s refuting objects as being truly existently one or truly many? When we are seeking to develop bodhicitta, we are using a different method. We are actually contemplating the fact that all sentient beings are suffering, and then we seek to attain the state of enlightenment in order to free all beings from that suffering. So in a way, meditation on bodhicitta is simpler. It’s easier to, to grasp the elements of the meditation.
When we’re meditating to understand emptiness, then we’re really starting from this point of this, interdependence, this reasoning, which is, refuting truly existent one or many. And so then we apply it in this form. We take the subject. It’s not truly existent because it doesn’t truly exist as one or truly exist as many. There’s also So this first type of reasoning we should initially engage in and it’s something that we should remember and not forget.
Also, there’s another type of reasoning called the king of reasonings or the king of logic, which is also applying the same subject and predicate. Take a vase, it’s not truly existent. And the reason there is because it’s a dependent arising. That also can be applied. It’s really those two types of reasoning, that we should mainly keep in mind and reflect on and contemplate.
That is that firstly, the object is not truly existently one, not truly existently many, or that object is a dependent arising. When we contemplate whether it’s truly existently one or many, there we’re, the one part that is easy to understand. We’re just thinking about one. Many there is from two onwards. So including every possibility other than one.
So any object is not truly existently established as one or many, meaning two or more. So that type of reasoning is applied in that way. So here, when we contemplate a particular subject like a vase and seek to establish that it’s not truly existent, then we apply this reasoning that it’s not truly existently one or truly existently many. When we establish that it’s not truly existently one, then the only other possibility is that it could be truly existently many or exist in that way. But having established that it’s not one, it’s not difficult then to refute it being many, being two or more.
So in that way, by refuting both possibilities, one comes to an understanding that true existence cannot be established at all. And so one establishes the understanding of non true existence. So in establishing that a truly existent single entity or one entity doesn’t exist, and establishing that a truly existent multiple entity can’t exist, then there is no truly existent entity possible at all. So, is there something established as truly existently one? Is that possible?
Is it something which is truly existently one? What do you think if if we talk about something being truly existently one? Do we think it exists or it doesn’t exist? So here, in fact, nothing is truly existently one. Also there’s nothing that is truly existently many.
Or there’s nothing which is truly existently two or three or four and so forth. So therefore there is is nothing which is truly existent. In fact, everything is empty of true existence. So in fact here, when we say that something is not truly existent, also mean that it’s empty of true existence. Similar to that vase, there’s not a person in the vase.
So we say it’s empty of a person, there is no person there and so forth. Similar here, we say that things are not truly existent, they are empty of true existence. So if we say that something is not truly existing, then it means that it’s empty of true existence. So in fact, if something is not a vase, then it’s empty of a vase. If something is not a cup, it’s empty of a cup.
If something is not a human, it’s empty of being a human and so forth. So we use these terms also in terms of true existence. If something is not truly existent, it’s empty of true existence. So we should So we should understand what empty of true existence is and then in fact that it means not truly existent. So in fact, something being empty of true existence means is the meaning of emptiness itself.
It means that emptiness is established in relation to that object. It’s not truly existent. It’s empty of true existence. So understanding emptiness here is not easy. It’s not truly existently one.
Because there is no true existence. So that excludes it. The possibility of it being one. So, in fact, here, there is nothing which is truly existently one or established as truly one. And in fact, that’s because everything lacks true existence.
And in fact, the lack of true existence in relation to a particular object is its emptiness. And so that can be applied to any particular basis. Its lack of true existence is its emptiness. So this needs to be established. So that particular vase, the clear vase on the table there is not truly existently one, it’s not truly existently many.
And by establishing both of those then its non true existence is established. In fact, we have the appearance of things being truly existent. Things being truly existent appears to us when we observe objects. But in fact, there is nothing there that is truly existent and we need to establish this non true existence in relation to all objects. And that non true existence in relation to a particular object is its emptiness.
So this is what we need to establish. So this is not easy to comprehend. It’s not easy to develop that within our minds, understanding of that within our minds, is it? Space would be an object as well. Yeah.
Okay. But that’s a question. Does it apply to every object, every existent object? Nonphysical objects, like awareness and so on. Physical.
This type of reasoning, of course, is applied to all objects whether they are physical or non physical. So, of course, we apply them to physical objects, then other objects such as awareness which is non physical, it also equally applies. And then other subtle types of physical objects like the wind or the sound of the wind and so forth, anything we wish to establish the nature of, then we can apply this reasoning, say the sound of the wind is not truly established, because it’s not truly one, it’s not truly many. And that is equally pertinent or applicable also to awareness or any other object in the universe. Yes.
Here in fact object refers to everything or anything which exists in the universe is regarded as an object. It doesn’t mean to say though that if it exists as an object that it also exists as an object possessor. But that’s another, that’s something a little bit different. But everything which exists in the universe is an object. It’s an object of awareness.
Yeah. You would be. You exist. You’re not. Yeah.
Because, actually, you are aware of yourself, and therefore, you’re an object of your awareness of yourself. Of course, yes. That that is my yep. Yeah. Because you’re also an object, then that reasoning also applies to yourself.
So it applies to everything in the universe, ourselves. So also this type of reasoning can be we can reflect on it at the time of going to sleep at night or the time of when we arise in the morning or at any time. These objects are not truly existently one nor many. So this type of reasoning we should become very familiar with and be able to apply easily and accurately. So there anything which is too