Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 43-minute commentary on the Sublime Continuum, Geshe Pema Tsering tackles a puzzle central to the text: are the naturally abiding Buddha potential and the developing Buddha potential one thing or two? Drawing on Asaṇga and Tsongkhapa’s Golden Garland, he shows they are not mutually exclusive — once someone enters the path, the two coincide exactly. He then examines why some Mind-Only school thinkers denied that all beings have Buddha nature: they defined it as virtuous seeds in the mind stream rather than as emptiness being the nature of mind, and so read Maitreya’s verses on the “essence of the thus-gone ones” as pointing to something else entirely. A tree-and-seed metaphor closes the doctrinal section — Buddha potential is the seed, meditation and virtue the conditions, all good qualities the branches. Lively student questions, including a pointed aside comparing limited-scope thinking to Marxism, run throughout.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 06 2005 06 09 (2) SC.mp3
UUID: 5debc205-aa24-48e0-ab24-0be4a9dd754a
Teacher: Geshe Pema Tsering
Collection: Sublime Continuum (Geshe Pema Tsering)
Date: 2005-06-09
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 43.3 minutes
Words: ~3,474
Mhmm. Alright. So, the other thing to remember is that from Okay. So the the presentation in that The presentation that, some people have this idea of, the, the two things as being separate. The, inferior that sorry.
That there’s the naturally abiding lineage and that’s one thing. And then there’s the generating lineage and that’s another separate, is not accepted in Asaṇga’s, the guy who wrote this text, his own presentation. So he says to sum up or to finish off, then we should know that the abiding potential and the naturally present potential and the developing potential are not contradictory or they’re not mutually exclusive. Those who haven’t entered the paths have only the, naturally abiding lineage. Those who have, developed paths have the, developing lineage, but once someone has entered the path, their developing lineage and their naturally abiding lineage are exactly the same thing.
And Asaṇga said this in his, text on this parts of the on the grounds of the hearers, and also, Tsongkhapa said this in his text called the, Golden Garland. And then I said, so why was he saying it, Geshe-la? If there was, like, it’s not true, why he say it? And he said, to confuse you. You have a good question.
Well, I have a question around that. Alright. Yeah. Could it be saying Alright. No.
No. Because what You can’t talk about the difference between the two of them from the perspective of ultimate and relative. Okay? And what, if someone doesn’t have potential that’s manifested at the time, then that would be the developing potential as oppose to the naturally abiding potential. So, ultimately neither exist because it’s they’re not inherently existent, and relatively they both exist.
Okay. But, the Geshe-la said, which he actually said before, and I was so confused I forgot. So here’s my confession time. The reason that Maitreya said this in this section is because the Buddha said it in a sūtra. And the and that Maitreya is giving an overview of the Buddha’s teachings on these on these, questions.
And so he, in some sections, says what the Buddha says in one section, and in other sections, he says what the Buddha said somewhere else. And the and the Buddha taught in response to people to the students that he was teaching. So he you know when Maitreya is actually making a point or something if he keeps repeating it, or if he says, these are my words and I say this and yeah. Yes, Hidro? I’d like to just justifies why my only school says, you know, Okay.
I’m talking about I’m gonna talk about the opposite thing. Yeah. Okay. I’m gonna justify it as well as that’s wrong. Okay.
And I like to hear Geshe’s You want Geshe’s do it or you’re gonna do it? No. No. I like to hear Geshe-la’s opinion about what What you have to say? Mhmm.
Okay. So you gotta say it first then. I think you know, about people who when people making a negative karma, that’s absolutely backward. Uh-huh. But only after that when they realized that’s wrong.
Uh-huh. Then, you know, they could use the negativity as a part party like Yeah. Then it became a you know, a Buddha quality or Okay. Of potential. So you think that they’re saying that because they’re just making they’re make they’re doing everything wrong and they’re going backwards that they don’t have the Buddha potential.
But in actual fact In in the time. In the time. Yeah. When they are doing negative Negative when they’re creating negative karma. Then time is When they realize this, they can actually use the negative karma they’ve created as fertilizer to propel them somewhere better, like to Buddha would, then they get Buddha nature back?
Then Or or is the mind only school only talking about the time when they are doing negative things and going backwards, and then the other school is looking at a bigger picture and saying sometimes they’re gonna go backwards, but then they can go forwards again. Depends on how we perceive Okay. Things. Right. So if we’re looking at them when they’re going backwards, we’re like, man, no hope.
And then if they turn around, then we can say they got a hope. They’re both talking about a different Aspects. Aspects. Different perceptions. Alright, so, Geshe-la said, yeah, that’s the case.
They’re only looking at a certain aspect of that person’s behavior, and they’re saying, well, can’t They don’t have any potential for Buddhahood, they’re not doing anything right. They’re doing all the causes to end up in hell. And if they end up in hell, there’s not gonna be very much chance for them to create virtue. So if we look at what they’re doing now, it doesn’t make any sense that we can say they have the Buddha potential. Yeah?
Or they have the because this word they’re translating as potential actually means like the lineage of the Buddha or the they’re not of the Buddha type. Yeah? They’re not the Buddha type. That’s it. Anyway, so, if they’re looking at them in that time, they’re gonna say, well, they’re not the Buddha type.
They’re not gonna end up as a Buddha. Yeah. Look at them, they’re going to hell, right? They’re not speaking from the perspective of their mind, the nature of their mind. They’re speaking from the perspective of their actions and what they’re looking at in that period of time and what they’re doing in that period of time.
They’re not speaking from the perspective of the mind. So from that point of view, so from that point of view, they don’t have the Buddha nature. From the perspective of they don’t have the the type that’s gonna that that they’re not the type of person that’s gonna end up a Buddha. Right? In that time, in that frame, they’re be the type of person that ends up in hell.
Okay? But if we look at it from the ultimate perspective, they’re pervaded by emptiness and they have a Buddha nature. So it’s a different usage of this of what this Buddha nature means. Yeah. And because I know Well done, hero.
I like Well, you answered the question for me anyway. Colour me a Tiro, Hansel. Also, Geshe-la just said something very cool. So he said, it’s like they don’t have it then. It’s like they don’t have the Buddha nature then.
It’s as if they don’t have it then. That’s not so different from what I was trying to say. Isn’t it? Well, I probably shouldn’t have used that word. Sorry.
Because Okay. Yeah. Okay. I meant it in terms I didn’t I didn’t use I should choose my words more carefully. I was trying to give the idea of because it’s not a matter of whether it’s conventionally existent or ultimately existent.
That’s a totally different thing. And, I meant in terms of when I was like, ultimately, was shouldn’t have said it, but I meant in it’s in terms of time. Alright? So at that specific time, and when I say ultimately, I meant I should have said, but in terms of three times, they do have it. Okay.
So I said said Yeah. And I think the reason I got confused was Geshe-la also said because, like, the nature of their mind is emptiness. And if their nature of their mind is emptiness, then they have the Buddha potential. Yeah. So this is the reason why this is the reason why they do that they do have the Buddha’s potential.
But these people that are saying they don’t have that don’t have a understanding of that, that the nature of the mind is emptiness. Alright? So from their perspective, if you don’t have an understanding that the nature of the mind is emptiness, you see people doing bad things all the time, then you’re not gonna say that to Buddha nature. Alright? The problem with what you said, Joe, and when was translating it to back to Geshu, was like, wait a minute.
You can’t say that, can you? He’s like, no. No. Alright. You’ve used the wrong term.
Yeah. Because as soon as I translate it and say, from the ultimate perspective, the the Buddha nature, you can’t say that. No. Because the there is no Buddha nature from the ultimate sector perception from the ultimate perspective, sorry, because there’s only non affirming negative. Long term, you can say that.
Yeah. If you it’s like in the big picture. Yeah. And that’s where I was using ultimately as well, which was wrong. Yeah.
Well, it’s not wrong in English, but if we’re trying to be specific in terms of terms, it is. Like, big picture. Maybe the mind only school, talking about a short term It’s not the mind only school. It’s some people in the mind only school. Mind only that the people that got yeah.
We focus on to a short term life, the other one is more Broad. Long term or holistically. Holistically. Yeah. Yeah.
Okay. Yes. But I didn’t say holistically. I just realized when I was saying it that Alright. So this gets a little bit confusing because I said hang on, Gesela.
Isn’t the Tathāgatagarbha, right, which is the essence of the thus gone ones, the same thing as emptiness? So couldn’t you say that that that exists ultimately because it’s the same thing as emptiness? And he said, yes, but you wouldn’t say it exists ultimately because in essence, it’s a it’s a negation. But you still can’t so you can’t say it exists ultimately or that it is ultimately, but it is synonym of, ultimate truth. And then sorry.
There was one more thing that you said. You have this stained mind that isn’t a Buddha, but the fact that that stained mind is empty of inherent existence means it has the potential to become a Buddha. Yeah. So did these individuals who had Chittamatrans and had this particular view Mhmm. Did they really believe it, or were they just using it as a teaching tool?
Right. Did everyone hear that? Yeah. And did the tape pick it up? Oh, sorry.
Was more through. Oh, what sort of a monitor are you? So did these people who had this view I’m saying it for the tape and I feel like an idiot. Did these people who had this view really believe it or did they use it as a teaching tool? And Geshe-la said that he thinks they believed it because they read it in a text.
Right? So so the thing is that you can read all sorts of things in the text, in the scriptures, and you have to have the ability to analyse it and to find things that are consistent through the different texts and to find out what they actually mean by the text because if you take some things at face value, you’re gonna be confused about them. The point is to argue through things, to process through things to find out the, definitive meaning. But that doesn’t make sense. Further on, Okay.
They didn’t because they didn’t accept emptiness per se, or the way that we look at emptiness, then when they said that they reinterpreted that in a different way, and said that when Maitreya was saying this, he wasn’t really saying that all beings have Buddha nature because they didn’t accept he was he was talking about emptiness. So if if you remember then the definition of the, Buddha Nature from the perspective of the, mind only school was the potential, for, the potential from the seeds of positive action in the mind stream. Alright? So when Maitreya when Maitreya was talking about emptiness, they didn’t actually think that he was talking about the he’s talking about the seeds of emptiness. He’s not talking about the Buddha nature.
So their definition of the Buddha nature is different to the definition of the Buddha nature that comes about from this idea of having emptiness as nature of the mind. Right? So because they didn’t accept that that was the definition of Buddha nature, then they’re not going to Okay. So they don’t think that the Tathāgatagarbha, right, the essence of the thus gone ones is Buddha nature. The definition of Buddha nature is the positive potential.
The potential potential from positive seeds in the mind stream. Yeah. So it’s only in the, Mādhyamika text and and that you had come up with this idea of it being emptiness. Yeah. So if they’re not accepting that, then when Maitreya is talking about emptiness, they’re not going to, relate it to the Buddha nature.
Yeah. So, yeah. I’m more happy now because it made sense. Oh, he said, yeah. If you keep examining, examining, he says, Yeah.
Sorry. I said, I think the problem I was having was this idea of Buddha potential, Buddha nature, because I’m so used to teachings where they say that it’s a synonym of, the Tathāgatagarbha or the essence of the thus gone ones. When we got to this bit, I was like, what’s wrong with them? It says it’s there. And then but they’re not gonna read those two verses in the same way.
They’re gonna read one that’s talking about Buddha potential, and the other one is talking about, the essence of the thus gone ones, which is not the same thing for them. You’re The Mādhyamika schools, yes, and some of the what Geshe-la called the pucker. Well, he didn’t say pucker, but the good the good mind only school. Yeah. That I’m getting things wrong like these dudes.
They say that the the the empty nature of the mind, yeah, is the Buddha potential. Yeah. Yeah. But these guys aren’t saying that. Right?
Their definition of Buddha potential is the potential from white seeds of virtue in the continuum of sentient beings. Right? So they’re not looking at it to find out about emptiness. So when Maitreya in another section says that all beings are pervaded by all beings are pervaded by the essence of the thus gone ones. Yeah?
They don’t look at that and go, oh, he’s talking about Buddha nature because they don’t think that that’s Buddha nature. So what are they thinking that he’s saying? It’s not saying it’s just beings are empty, but that’s not necessarily Buddha nature. But they’re not they’re saying that’s not Buddha nature. Their emptiness isn’t Buddha nature.
It’s the positive potential. Yeah. Sorry. Okay. So what you have is if you have a definition of Buddha nature as being the positive potential the positive potential of white Dharma or virtuous Dharma in the mind stream, then you basically have got some Chittamatrans who are saying that everybody has some potential for virtue.
And there’s some that are saying people don’t have them. But neither of them are saying it’s the essence of the thus what go on ones. Oh, he said that’s possible. And it just depends on the view of what you’re defining it as and stuff. Yeah.
Yeah. When Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And, you know, branches and roots grow Yeah.
From one cause. Yeah. That’s what he says. Yeah. Yeah.
One cause perhaps A seed? No. I’m just joking. What? He said that one cause creates, you know, the Leaves and the branches smells and everything.
Yeah. Is that perhaps faith or trust or either follow a path? The bit the the wanting to follow a path? Uh-huh. He’s actually talking about Buddha nature.
Buddha nature. Yeah. Or Buddha potential. Buddha potential. That’s the So both the naturally abiding potential that we all have, most of us think we all have.
And then or or the developing potential. That’s the cause that create leaves in the Yeah. Yeah. All all qualities. All qualities come from that.
All positive things. Yeah. Not not only one cause. I mean These are also the causes for the tree. What causes What causes what tree?
The witch tree. The which, the tree. It’s the it’s the it’s the is the seed, is the cause. I said, guess what the same thing I said? So what’s the cause of the tree?
He goes, it’s seed. So it’s so it’s a metaphor for developing all the good qualities that we basically that we can. Yeah. And so it’s saying that the the cause for all of our good qualities is Buddha nature or is Buddha potential. In the same way that a cause for all of the bits that come on a tree is its seed.
Right? But then if you have from the seed, you develop a good root system. Yeah? And that’s saying that that is like the combination of both the developing Buddha nature and the naturally abiding Buddha nature. The strength of the root system means that all the it can sustain the rest of them.
After the tree? Sprouts. Sprouts. Mhmm. Yeah.
Lots of things affect the tree growth. Oh, okay. Conditions. Conditions. Okay.
Then. Then, so hard. I know it’s like trying to say something in a different language. Very hard. Okay.
Alright. So all the fertilizer and all of the water and all of the sunlight, all of the conditions that cause a tree to grow are analogous to our meditation, our creation of virtue, our contemplating, meditating. So all of those things are like the conditions that cause the Buddha nature to sprout Right. So to develop. That’s better if you’re good.
It’s good. It’s better if you’re good. He wants to know if you are a boy or a girl. Oh, are you a grown person? Do you have children?
No. I don’t. Yeah. Yeah. Okay.
Yeah. One of the things that it sort of strikes me that the these Cittamātra people who believe this view must be quite depressed because one of the things that makes me very happy knowing that every being has good nature. Uh-huh. That everyone has a potential. Yeah.
Yeah. So how can they not be depressed? Uh-huh. Geshe Geshe said, and this is a direct quote, I don’t think that they’re unhappy because I don’t think that they think thought a lot. Yeah.
Said, sounds like they didn’t think they only thought a little bit. Because Geshe-la said it reminds him a little of the Marxists, because if they had a limited scope for what they’re focused on, then they’re only going to be, looking at, things within that limited scope. So if you don’t accept past and future lives, if you don’t accept past and future lives, if you don’t accept materialism or radical materialism, then, you’re not going to bother about anything outside that scope. You’re not gonna think about anything outside that scope. Yeah.
But it’s interesting, isn’t it? Marxism was very interesting development in No. Because I had to explain the context because because Geshe-la didn’t necessarily know where Marxism came from. So yeah. So I was saying it didn’t come from China.
It came from Western Europe. And where good. Yeah. I said so I said Geshe-la said, I didn’t say I wasn’t particularly mean, though. I spent anyone who doesn’t think of through in terms of long term consequences and next lives and everything.
And I said, yeah, but I think the reason he said it was because the person who had to come up with the idea of communism in the first place, there was a lot of reasons why and he had must have thought something. You know, he must have, you know, did bring up a lot of things for us to deal with them in the west. And Geshe-la said, yeah. They thought, we’re poor, they’re rich, they should give us stuff, as if that’s gonna happen. Yeah.
Guess they said, yes, the same thing that’s happening in Nepal Yeah. Because there’s a lot of very, very rich people and a lot of very poor people. So the poor people no. Not so many really rich people, but there’s a lot of very poor people who see rich people and so they’re fighting there. And I said, yeah, well there’s more of a difference between the poor and the rich in Nepal than it said to be anywhere else in Asia.
And if you have that kind disparity, you have those kind of views. And Geshe-la said, yeah. You don’t have many Marxists in Australia, do you? The time will come. Oh.
So he was just talking about the people in it’s like, I saw on the news there’s more defectors from China. Oh, no. Because it was the second one came out. Yeah. I understand.
That is Okay. Okay.