Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. A failed analogy between DNA and Buddha nature opens this 41.5-minute Q&A from Geshe Pema Tsering’s Sublime Continuum series. The translator attempts to explain Buddha nature through genetic blueprints; Geshe counters that scientists focus only on matter, and that unlike DNA, Buddha nature is identical across all beings and never harms. The discussion shifts to emptiness: what exactly is being negated, why the lack of inherent existence is nonetheless an existent perceivable by the mind, and how realisation of emptiness can regress infinitely. A sustained stretch unpacks affirming versus non-affirming negations, grounded in Tibetan grammatical distinctions and illustrated with simple examples. The session closes with the definition and permanence of the dharmakaya. Suited to practitioners with some prior philosophical grounding.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 08 2005 06 16 (2) SC.mp3
UUID: 5ded86e8-3c7a-41a4-a125-b88191c58b1c
Teacher: Geshe Pema Tsering
Collection: Sublime Continuum (Geshe Pema Tsering)
Date: 2005-06-16
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 41.5 minutes
Words: ~2,598
Geshe thinks that’s clever. Yeah. But when your genetics can’t just be destroyed when you die? We do with the body and the environment we brought up here then Sure. Affect that, but that’s like the basis for it.
But it’s the basis for it, so you can have and you can have some effect on it. Do you know how to say genetic blueprint in Tibetan? Okay. Oh. It’s what?
No? None of you got Thanks for that. I have to start with scientists say, and he’s laughing at me, and I’m just saying, scientists say. Was like, I’m so used to this now. Okay.
Right. So I have first of I have to say that as I was trying to explain a genetic blueprint, I had to use the example of DNA and how everyone had individual DNA. Yeah? That you can find out, like policemen can find out who’d been at scenes from whose DNA was there. Yeah?
So I guess after I’ve I’ve told him that’s it, then the analogy doesn’t work because the Buddha nature of a there’s no difference between everyone’s Buddha nature. And he also said that Buddha nature never harms us and our genetic makeup may harm us. Maybe it may mean that we have deformities or we may have a disposition to an illness and the Buddha nature isn’t like that because it never harms us. So he said that there’s no differentiation out. It’s not like you can say one person’s, Buddha nature is better than another’s because there’s no difference even between Buddha’s the emptiness of a Buddha and the emptiness of a sentient being.
Yeah. Uh-huh. I said, does that mean that Buddhas have Buddha nature in he in this school? And he said, no. But the emptiness of a sentient being’s mind and the emptiness of a Buddha’s mind are indivisible.
Alright? You can’t say one’s one and one’s the other. They have the same exactly the same. And he said, the difference is that in one one being you have stains and the other one you don’t. So when the stains are there, it’s called Buddha nature, the potential to become a Buddha.
And once you’re a Buddha, the stains are gone. The emptiness is still the same. Stains are gone and you’re You don’t have Buddha nature anymore. You have Buddha. Does that make sense?
That was just like, genetic blueprint. I said I I said, actually, you tend to roll your eyes every time I say, ‘scientists say’, because people will just throw things out there and go like this, and I’m like, okay. And then I have to start the question with to Geshe-la by saying, scientists say, and then try to explain what the word they used was. And every time I say that, he just laughs at me. And then I and I says, you laugh at me every time I start translating a question what scientists say.
And he said, yeah, because scientists say lots of things, but they don’t seem to get past matter. He he said they’re only focused on matter. So if they’re only focusing on matter, then not many of their analogies are going to be relevant. And I said, but in this text, uses the analogy of gold, and gold is matter. And it said, yes, but it’s only using one quote one aspect of gold as an example or a note, not an example, as a metaphor.
Oh, here we go. You’re trying to do my head in, aren’t you? Understanding my non-affirming negations in an object. So am I, Joe. No.
I’m serious because I just been reading, a refutation of Tsongkhapa’s position on non affirming negatives saying that you can’t say it’s a negative. So this is gonna be fun. Anyway, go on. I’m not gonna argue with Geshe-la. I refuse.
Suggest that if something’s non affirming of negation Yes. Yes. I agree. Do it. But observe.
Yes. I mean, unless unless the terms are not being translated. No. But there have been many people who have criticized his position for the same reasons as you just did. But so it isn’t the terms, but I’m fascinated to hear Geshe-la’s answer.
Mhmm. Mhmm. Alright. When you are coming to a realization of emptiness, what you are refuting, the object of negation, yeah, is the Okay. So sorry.
I’m so sorry. I was just spent like three days reading a refutation of everything Geshe was saying, so I’m trying to block it out of my head and just translate. He said, when you are negating something, yes, when in when you’re developing perception of emptiness, when you’re negating something, you have to be very careful about what it is that you’re negating. Now, the object of negation is the inherent existence or the true truly established existence of that object. Alright?
That’s what you’re negating. When you are able to do that, what you’re left with is the lack of that, and you’re able to focus on the lack of that. And because you’re able to focus on the lack of it, then it has to be in existence because you’re able to perceive it. If you’re able to perceive the lack of it, then it has to be established as an existence. Okay.
So Okay, if emptiness was a non existent, yeah, then it would never be able to be perceived. But the thing that isn’t existent, the thing that is a non existent is the inherent existence. Right? So the inherent existence is something that isn’t existing. The lack of inherent existence is perceivable, so it is in existence.
Yeah. Then you can perceive the image of that So you’re looking at the lack of something. Okay. So, if you analyze emptiness, so you’ve the lack of something and you’re saying that that’s in existence because you’re able to perceive it. Examine if you examine that object, you can find its emptiness and you can keep going with that process to infinity.
Yeah? Of finding the emptiness of emptiness. You know, that it’s an infinite regress. But in order to get in, you need to create a lot of merit.
So, I tried really hard, but Geshe-la made a demeaning comment about me, I had to refute it. Yeah. He agrees with that. Right. Yes.
And that non affirming he says that that non affirming negation is an existent. In Tibetan. Okay. Okay. Okay.
So, it is an existent. The lack of something, right, is never an affirming negative. Alright? An affirming negative is if I say, this book isn’t a cup. That’s an affirming negative because I’m affirming it’s a book at the same time as saying it’s not a cup.
Alright? If I say there is no book, it’s always a non affirming negative. And there’s no word in Tibetan that actually means non affirming negative, and there’s no word in Tibetan that actually means affirming negative, it’s just that they divide their negations into two. There’s one that’s called an existential negation and there’s one that’s called a negation of identity. Alright?
So if I say something isn’t there, you use one set of verbs. And if I say something, isn’t that, you use another set of verbs. And this is in everyday speech as well. Alright? So, the way that they say it is the negation that uses me and the negation that uses my yin.
Alright? And one of those is an identity negation and the other one is an existence negation. Okay. So that’s so we’re using the wrong terms. No.
I think that non affirming negation works. An affirming negation works. By saying it’s not that, you’re affirming it’s something else. Alright? By saying it’s not By saying this isn’t an elephant, this book isn’t an you’re affirming it’s a book.
So it’s an affirming negation. By saying this book isn’t there, I’m not affirming anything. That’s a non affirming negation. Did you use bigger words? Said, said, Geshe-la, I just said to them, this book is not an elephant.
That’s a non affirming that’s an affirming negation, and this book isn’t there now in the space Okay. Sorry. Said I had be more Okay. Geshe-la said I had to be clear that it’s not the book that I’m talking about that’s negation, it’s the thought. Alright?
So if I say, this book isn’t this book isn’t an elephant, the idea in your head, it’s not an elephant, yeah, is the affirming negation. Yeah? And if I say there is no elephant, the thought you have that there is no elephant is the non affirming negation. Okay. Who said that you have the same sort of process going in your mind because your mind is like seeing something’s not there.
But the words in Tibetan are and non affirming negative. Affirming negative. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
So is to negate. Yeah? And is not there. Alright? So it’s Of course.
That’s why one of the reasons it’s a good idea to learn it. He doesn’t know what jumping in and says. Yeah. So he said Mhmm. So if you say to someone, this isn’t this book isn’t an elephant.
Right? You’re stopping the idea of them thinking it’s an elephant. Yeah? That’s a not that’s an affirmative. So you’re you’re stopping the idea of them thinking it is an elephant by saying it’s a book.
Yeah. So if you Mhmm. Okay. So if I say, this isn’t an elephant. I’ve stopped.
Alright? Because there’s two words in Tibetan. It’s me and gak. Gak means to stop. Cessation.
The cessation of something. Yeah? So that’s what they mean by the negation or the cessation of something. Yeah? And if I say, this book isn’t an elephant.
Alright? I’m just saying I’m saying stopping the idea of it being an elephant, of of it being an elephant, of its identity as an elephant. If I say there is no elephant, I’m stopping the idea of the existence of the elephant. Alright? So there’s no elephant here.
So I’m saying there is no elephant. I’m stopping the idea of existence of the elephant. So that’s a non affirming negative. But an affirming negative, you’re saying this, which exists, isn’t a book. I mean, sorry, isn’t an elephant.
Yeah. Yep. He’s translating in different words, affirming. He’s using a completely different word as affirming. He’s it’s a word that’s usually translated as manifest.
The lack of an elephant in this room is a non affirming negation. And I actually think he was using the word for manifest to mean affirming because you could in some by being if you could translate it that way. Yeah. It’s not actually talking about him. It’s talking about another.
Another another. Uh-huh. Sorry. I keep getting these stages like, oh, no. How do I translate that?
Okay. So anyone who prays a lot to gods, for, bounty in this life is a Devadatta. Alright? Anyone who makes lots of offerings is a Yeah. I don’t remember how you’d say that.
The last bit’s still -datta, but I don’t know how you say offerings. I don’t think Mhmm. Okay. Okay. So and when it says in the text, Devadatta, it’s not talking about necessarily about Buddha’s cousins.
It’s talking about all beings who practice by lots of worshiping by requesting. And there’s another one which I’m guessing is like Pujyadatta or something like that. I don’t know how you translate into Sanskrit, which means all beings who make offerings. So there’s one that’s asking for something and others that are giving. Yeah?
So there’s two different types of being. So it means the people who are asking for things, they’re requesting things, those are Devadattas. Right? So anyone it doesn’t necessarily just mean they’re Buddha’s cousin. So it’s not only him that’s being picked on.
Is that okay? It’s on what you’re gonna do. Your explanation. It is straightforward. It’s everyday colloquial Tibetan.
You know? He said they’re easier to and I said, yes, they’re supposed to be easy. In colloquial Tibetan. People use them all the time. He said, They’re easy to use, they’re not as easy to get in your head.
So, yeah. So in Tibetan, I say my name is Ruth by saying Ruth Yin. Yeah? So that’s like my Yin. Yeah?
And if I say I’m not here, I say I’m not here. So you use me, which is the non affirming negative, and in ordinary conversation. And they make that distinction between things. There’s no cup on the table as one. The cup in a book is another.
You use another verb. So it’s very clear for them, I guess. But yes, I said, not clear for them to understand. Did you have a question? Uh-huh.
Why it’s about emptiness. It’s focusing emptiness. So if you’re focusing on emptiness, that’s a good answer to obstacles. Simple question. Simple?
Simple. Very simple. Okay. That sounds ominous. I I I actually think it is quite simple, but it’ll be okay.
But I love the way he says stuff. You’re top hero. Sorry. He said, he thought you were saying, the way you say I’ve eaten in Hindi is kaya. Yeah, you say kana kaya.
It means I’ve eaten food. And he knows dharma is dharma, yeah? So Geshe says, tell him it means I’ve eaten dharma. Alright. The reason that it’s called the dharmakaya or the sorry.
I don’t get it wrong again. It doesn’t mean we’re eating things. The dharmakaya is because it’s the Dharma jewel in the continuum of a Buddha. The Dharma jewel is the true paths and true cessation. Yeah?
So the true paths and true in the continuum of a Buddha is the Dharmakāya. Does that make sense? The embodiment of the Dharma jewel. Definition of Dharma jewel, true paths? True.
True paths? Yeah. So realizations. True realizations and true cessation. And also, my dictionary says, some sort of eternal thing.
Yeah. Eternal or permanent? What’s this, the dharmakaya? My dictionary says. Dharmakāya is permanent, does it?
Laws of nature in this universe. That’s the That’s the time. Yeah. Mhmm. Dharma, though.
Yeah? Mean, this exists forever or or to realizing this the order of things or these sort of things forever. Is that talking about dharma or dharmakaya? Because dharma is an eternal law. Yeah.
I’m talking about dharmakaya, but my dictionary says dharmakaya is the the the the Oh. I know what you mean. The order of The order of things. The eternal order of things. Yeah.
He realizes that. This is your last question, isn’t it? Good. It’s simple? The you’re not that one is not.
The last one was okay. Yeah? The last one was simple. Why is it? This one’s a bit hard.
Alright. Geshe-la said the final outcome the final outcome of the So there’s there’s one meaning of dharma which means the laws of nature, basically. So, Geshe-la said the final outcome of the laws of nature. Yeah? So, the final end is the Dharmakāya.
So because because the final outcome of the laws of nature is to have gotten completely rid of obstructions. So so and it’s permanent. Yeah. The is permanent. Buddha has a dharmakaya, but you can’t sum up Amitābha by saying he is a dharmakaya or he or she is a dharmakaya.
Had them yeah. Their mind inseparable from emptiness is the dharmakaya of Amitābha Buddha. Okay. Okay. Oh, okay.
Okay. Yeah.