Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 57-minute Sublime Continuum commentary, Geshe Pema Tsering opens with a counterintuitive point: Buddhas do not have Buddha nature, since Buddha nature is a potential — a cause for Buddhahood that ceases once fulfilled, like a seed with no remaining potential once the fruit appears. He explains why it is so hard to find: layers of self-grasping bury it like gold underground. When a student suggests Buddha made it difficult, Geshe-la corrects this — we created the obscurations ourselves through beginningless self-grasping, though problems can be reframed as blessings through mind training. The session then turns to emptiness: mind and its objects dissolve when directly investigated, and understanding that gap between appearance and findability is the entry into emptiness. He closes by distinguishing compassion from emptiness — vital as method, inseparable from wisdom in tantric practice.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 10 2005 07 14 (2) SC.mp3
UUID: 5e2ed137-1fef-4100-9902-d82b635d1ca2
Teacher: Geshe Pema Tsering
Collection: Sublime Continuum (Geshe Pema Tsering)
Date: 2005-07-14
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 57.9 minutes
Words: ~3,677
Oh, Geshe-la said that he remembers I was trying to explain to him which which person had the heart operation. Yes. And said, you said it was a large man that sits at the back, but there’s three of them. Which one is it? So he said, none of them.
Well, Bruce already had his. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. He’s fine.
He went very, very sort of didn’t. They’re they’re they’re bigger than Joe, he said. Joe’s not very big compared to them. Okay. So he’s but so he was trying to figure out who it was.
Yeah. Yeah. But he’s yeah. He’s what? Because guess he’s so worried.
So who is it? He was trying to figure out who it was. Nice. But I I should say that in Tibetan culture, it’s good to be big. So I guess he wasn’t saying it rude.
He was like, you know, the, like, the big guys is good. I’ll be tasty. Yeah. That’s sometimes hard to translate because people say, oh, you look really good. You look really fat.
And then in our culture, like, people go, and in same culture, it’s really good. It’s going through other people that aren’t here wondering which one was really sick. Yes. If I translate it as Buddha potential, would it make more sense? Okay.
No. So Geshe said Buddhas don’t have Buddha nature. Alright? In other words, in this word that they translate as as Buddha nature in some instances, is sometimes also translated as lineage, Buddha lineage, or Buddha potential. It means potential.
So Buddhas don’t have Buddha potential because they fulfilled their potential. Yeah? No. Because this hang on. So it’s if the potential is fulfilled, the potential isn’t there anymore.
Yeah. So the definition of Buddha nature is the the uncontaminated minds of beings that acts as a cause for them to develop the the body of union, the Svabhāvikakāya. Yeah? So if something is a cause for for them to attain Buddhahood, when they’ve attained Buddhahood, it ceases to exist. The results are there, not the cause.
So Buddha nature is the cause of Buddhahood. So, it’s the potential for Buddhahood. So, once you’ve fulfilled your potential, that potential no longer exists. This actual so Geshe actually said, it is a bit strange though in terms of the words because the word that they use for Buddha nature is sometimes translated as lineage or sometimes translated as type. So the Buddha type.
We’ve all got the Buddha type. You know, we’ve all So we’ve got something that links us to the Buddha, the lineage of the Buddhas or the type of Buddhas. And it also means like a family tree. We’ve also got the Buddha family tree, a Buddha family trait, maybe maybe. So in other ways, when you use this word, it doesn’t separate out.
So, we say human nature, humans have human nature. Yeah? But you can’t say Buddhas have Buddha nature in the same So, it is it is strange because even in Tibetan it comes off as a bit strange to say Buddhas don’t have Buddha nature because it the same they use the same word to say human nature, and humans are the only ones with human nature. But because of its definition in that it’s a potential, that it’s a cause, you can’t say that Buddhas have it. Yes.
You don’t have that potential anymore? Yes. Yes. Doesn’t really translate that idea. But, anyway, guess to say it’s a bit different because What about the?
Yeah. That one works. But I think it was mainly because of the language because you don’t say in Tibetan, a child becomes an adult. You say a child grows up. Changes into something else.
Geshe-la said they’re still a human the whole time. You don’t distinct you don’t make a distinction between a child and an adult. You say a child grows up, but you don’t say they’re an adult then. You say they’ve grown up. Does that make sense?
So yeah. Okay. So a seed has the potential for fruit in it. Yes? And when the seed grows, there’s not just the fruit that comes about from the seed, there’s also a trunk and leaves and everything like that.
So, to say that the you’re more like saying the seed has the potential for fruit. But once the fruit has come and gone, you don’t say that the leaves have the potential for fruit as well or something like that. So you the seed in that case, the fruit still has fruit as its nature, but it has the ability to flower and to bring forth fruit. But once it’s done that, you don’t say the whole thing has the potential for fruit, the same way as a seed had. Okay.
Yes. So said there’s a problem with that because most fruit has seeds in it. So that that was a bit I was getting confused with. But he said that but when a seed has a potential for to bring forth fruit, once it’s brought forth that fruit, it no longer has the potential to do that. It’s because it’s already done it, so the potential has been replaced with the actual thing.
Yeah. But it doesn’t quite work in analogy because seeds have fruit fruit has seeds in them. The seeds inside of fruit aren’t fruit, they are potential fruit. Okay. Right.
Yes. Mhmm. On top of it. Should it be it should be easier. Damn it.
Okay. Guess I said, it’s not easy to find because we have laid so many habitual obscurations on top of it. We’re so controlled by our habits that we don’t recognize our true nature. Right? And he said, you wouldn’t walk over you wouldn’t expect yourself to be able to find gold way under the ground, easily.
Yeah. So if there’s a lot of on top of gold, you don’t go, oh, it’s easy to find that gold. Alright? So in the same way, because we have so many habitual obscurations on top of our Buddha nature, very difficult for us to see. Because the obscurations we’re talking about are afflicted states like attachment and aversion and ignorance.
Yeah. And because those gross of mind, those gross things are how we experience our mind, we are so caught up in those that we can’t see past them, to see what the true nature of our mind is. So all we experience of mind are these gross levels of, afflicted states, and we can’t get past them until we get rid of them. Yeah. Mhmm.
Mhmm. Mhmm. So everything that exists is what you know. Concepts. Concepts.
Yes. This is why Milarepa said forget it. Go into a cave. Uh-huh. Uh-huh.
Yes. Which is why we have puja. Alright. No, we can’t deal with any of our knowing, our kind of discriminatory thought. Yeah?
With reason or with figuring things out. That’s not how you can understand the nature of the mind because every time you have a distraction like that, you haven’t understood it. But, without using it, we can’t get there. Without using our intellect, without using our discrimination, we can’t actually develop the wisdom that we can use to pierce through the levels of our mind and realize the nature of our mind. Before we can do placement meditation on emptiness, which is not something we can understand through a conception or through figuring it out, we have to have analyzed it so thoroughly that we can understand it at that level, and then meditate on it until we see it.
And If it wasn’t there, if it was nothing, we couldn’t realize it. Alright? So it’s not that it’s nothing. It’s just nothing that we know. Yeah?
It’s not nothing that appears to us, nothing that we experience. But, we can use what we experience to develop an understanding of it. Yeah? So, we can, use what we experience and look at how what we experience is dependently originated. And if we focus on how what we experience is dependently originated, then that leads us to an experience, realization of emptiness.
So by looking at, by using our intellect and our intelligence to understand how things are dependently originated, then the flip side of that is we develop an understanding of how they’re not intrinsically existent. And when we realize that they lack that intrinsic existence, then we’re able to understand something that is permanent, that is beyond our normal conceptions of things. Yeah? So, the way we come to understand it is by looking at the things that appear to us. Yeah?
Then we realize something that wouldn’t necessarily appear to us from our usual perceptions. But it it does exist, he said. It is there. It’s not a Uh-uh. Uh-uh.
Uh-uh. Uh-uh. Uh-uh. Uh-uh. Uh-uh.
Uh-uh. So, if we think about the mind, the mind isn’t something that we can find when we look for it. It’s something that we know is here because we experience it, but it’s not something that we can actually find when we look for it. It’s not something that we can isolate and define. So, because we experience it, it’s something that exists.
Because we can’t find it, it’s not something that exists inherently. So once we develop an understanding of the lack of its inherent existence, then we’ve become to understand a permanent, non-dual thing. Uh-huh. But there’s other But there’s other things that really don’t exist. Like, if you go and try and find horns of a rabbit, apart from on the Internet, then they don’t exist.
Right? And it’s not as if they appear and then they don’t exist when you look for them. They don’t even appear in the first place. So that’s what a non existent is, something that doesn’t even appear in the first place. Maybe.
But It’s not an external thing. My question is Why can’t we find it? It’s difficult to find that one. So you think it’s because Buddha loves us so deeply that we can’t find it? Yeah.
I do. I’m just okay. This is a purpose, you know, the reason why everything is so difficult. Because if it’s easy, no one cannot achieve. Buddhahood.
That’s why. Okay. I’m not going to answer. I’m just gonna translate. Okay.
Geshe-la doesn’t quite agree. Okay. So Geshe-la said he agrees with you that trying to find Buddha nature is difficult, and that we have trouble doing that. But he doesn’t agree with you that Buddha has created that difficulty for us. He says, we’ve created the difficulty for ourselves and Buddha is working to eliminate that difficulty for us.
Yeah? And the reason that we created that difficulty for ourselves is that since beginningless time, we have been saying me, me, me, me, me, me. Yeah? And by saying me, me, me, me, me, yeah, we end holding onto that idea of me, we have developed very strong negative habitual patterns that obstruct us and they are what stops us from perceiving our Buddha nature. The Buddha is constantly working to develop our Buddha nature, to clarify our mind so we can see it, but we’ve created the problems.
So he said, you can’t say it’s Buddha, it’s us. Behavior, you know, pulling us to more, you know, get into more this type of attitude. That our problems are actually things that we can use to improve ourselves. Problems are actually things that we can use to improve ourselves. Yeah.
What he’s saying is it’s exactly right. Yes. I agree with you. And that’s the reason why I’m saying this Mhmm. Is to make fun of this.
Yeah. Yeah. So sure. Yeah. Sure.
Sure. There is a similar way of thinking that’s part of the Buddhist practice of mind training, and it’s called bringing difficulties into the path. Yeah? And the way that you approach problems when you’re doing this practice is to think every problem that comes to me is the Buddha’s blessing. It’s the Buddha giving me an opportunity to grow.
Every problem I have is a blessing because it gives me the opportunity to develop myself. So that attitude can be incorporated and it can be very helpful. That’s good. Yeah. Yeah.
It when they talk about mind training, that’s one of the methods that’s used. So in general, you can’t say generally that the Buddha creates our problems for us. Right? That is can’t say that. Yeah.
But, what you can do is train yourself to see the problems you experience as being an opportunity that is created by the blessings of the Buddha for you to develop yourself. Yeah? For us to develop ourselves, for us to either take on the sufferings of others or develop our patience or other things. So, there’s this idea, I’m sick, if I’m sick, may my sickness alleviate the sickness of others. If I recover, may that recovery be the recovering of everybody else.
And so you can use the negative situations that you have in order to develop yourself. Alright? That’s a way of training your mind. But generally, you can’t say that the Buddha creates all our problems for us. Okay.
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. They called you this this It’s it’s good to start And he said taking problems on stuff is good. That makes you a Mahāyāna being.
Mahāyāna being. Mhmm. Mhmm. Sure. Mhmm.
Mhmm. Yeah. Yeah. You are a secret Hindu, aren’t you? Yep.
Okay. Because that sounded it really did sound like Ātman. Again, Okay. You can’t say that phenomena come from emptiness. Yeah?
You can’t say that that they arise that they are created by emptiness. Yeah? There’s this Geshe-la said, you say that their nature is emptiness. So, when you say things are rising in the sphere of emptiness, you’re talking about the fact that they don’t ever stop being empty. Yeah?
You’re not talking about them coming from emptiness. So, he doesn’t think that this idea of emptiness can be aligned with the concept of a created God or anything like that ever, no matter which God it is, whether it’s the God of Christianity or whether it’s a Shiva or whoever it is. What he thinks you can align with the concept of a created God is the idea of karma. Because it’s through karma that everything’s created in Buddhism. Alright?
So, this, this law of cause and effect is something that you can actually ease more easily align with the idea of a creator god. Yeah. Yes? Oh. Close.
Just as said, if you can’t find your mind, can’t find objects of your mind. Okay. So Geshe-la said, if you start looking for your mind, yeah, and you’re trying to you’re trying to find it, that it’s impossible to find it. Yeah? And if you start looking for the objects of your mind, alright, the way that you experience your mind, if you look into those objects, you can’t find it either because they disappear as soon as you look into them.
Yeah? So, the lack of that the lack So, hang on. Let me get get it right. So then, then, when you’re not looking into them, they come back. Yeah?
And then when you start looking into it, even if you have an object of your mind, if you can hold onto an object of mind, start investigating it, you can’t find it. It disappears. There’s parts to it. There’s different things that constitute it. Right?
You can’t find anything solid there. So if you are taking, for example, a mug or a or a or a vase as your thing you’re you’re looking at and that’s what you’re experiencing in your mind at that moment, whether you look into the object itself or whether you look into the mind perceiving the object. The When you look into it, it just disappears. It it apart. But when you don’t look, you experience it.
So when you develop an understanding that you are experiencing something, but it isn’t it doesn’t really exist the way you are experiencing it. So, you’re looking at the object for what it is, that is empty. Yeah? As opposed to the way it appears to you, which is not that, then that lack of inherent existence is an understanding of emptiness. So, if you experience an objective mind and that’s how you relate to your mind, you’re not looking at those objects then.
If you only experience these objects, what you need to do is look at the objects as well, and then they’ll disappear as well. Does that make sense? So there there can’t be anything that you can find. Things appear, but we can’t find the things that appear to us when we look for them. So when we understand that the lack of the nature of what appears to us, then we understand emptiness.
Yes. Sorry. I just thought of something else and forgot to translate. Was just like, I just had a thought about your question, because there’s a school of Hindu philosophy called Advaita that say they kept getting accused of being Buddhist, because they had this something Had an idea that was very, very close to the idea of Buddha nature. But they said that What they said was Buddha nature Sorry.
They said it wasn’t Buddha nature, it was actually Brahman. Yeah? And that was our true nature, it was Brahmin, which was the creator of the universe. So, comparing the idea of, god in that instance with with that school worked. So they said that something that was very similar to our Buddha nature was Brahman.
And Geshe-la said, well, that can happen if someone is looking at the nature of the mind, is looking at potential, but doesn’t accept the idea of emptiness. Then they could get to something that subtle and understanding that subtle and go, oh, that must be God. Right? But the difference with Buddhism is that it doesn’t ever stop there. It never stops at some point and goes, that’s the ultimate.
Right? Because as soon as you stopped that’s not it. It doesn’t say the definition I have to pull you up there. It doesn’t say the definition is love. It says God is love.
There’s a different difference. Yeah. Because this is there’s a difference between giving a definition and saying, like, God’s because it could talk about God’s characteristic as being love. Sorry. Mhmm.
It’s a lot of similar things. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay.
Alright. The reason that compassion and loving kindness are said to be so important in the Buddhist tradition is because of what they lead to. It’s through meditating on loving kindness and compassion that one develops bodhicitta is able to then go on and realize emptiness and become a Buddha and lead sentient beings out of suffering. It’s because of the result their results that they consider to be very important. Not because they have any truly existent value of their own.
It’s for what they can do to lead sentient beings out of suffering. Ultimately, there is nothing that exists. When we don’t investigate them, we have compassion and loving kindness, and they’re considered to be very important. But ultimately, there is nothing that exists inherently. Yeah?
So you can’t have loving kindness if you don’t have a sentient being to start off with. And you can’t have loving kindness if you don’t have an object. Right? So when you have no form and no no sensations and so on that exist ultimately, you can’t have anything. There is no being and there is no object.
So but this isn’t the experience. This isn’t the way that things appear to us. The way that things appear to us is as separate entities. So in that instance, until we have hang on. Alright.
Sorry. Okay. What something means when we say something is an ultimate existent, we mean it doesn’t have the ability to generate itself. Right? So if you’re a Buddha, if you’re not a Buddha, who whoever you are as a being, loving kindness and compassion are very important.
Why they’re not ultimately existent is that they don’t have the ability to generate themselves. If they did have the ability to generate themselves, they would exist outside of conditions. And you can’t have loving kindness and compassion without a thing or a person to have loving kindness and compassion towards. So that means that they’re dependent on causes and conditions. That’s why they can’t exist ultimately, but they’re always important.
Mhmm. Mhmm. Not compassion the compassion and and emptiness aren’t said to be the same thing. Non dual they’re not said to be non dual. The thing that’s said to be non dual is bliss and emptiness.
But the practice of meditation that you you do in Tantra uses both bodhicitta and emptiness in the same instance, method and wisdom at the same time. Alright? So you combine the two of those in a non dual way in the practice. Alright? So you use a mind that is a combination of meditating on wisdom and bodhicitta.
So in that way, then you try and meditate on them as being inseparable, not non dual. Does that make sense? Yeah. Inseparable. That you meditate on them inseparably in the in the meditation, but it’s a bodhicitta and emptiness.
Because that’s method and wisdom. Combining it’s a practice that combines method and wisdom. And so that’s when you do, like, deity practices in union and you have one representing method and the other was So so so you have you have on the basis of a calm abiding mind, you meditate on the union of method and wisdom as part of, like, a tantric practice usually represented in the highest yoga tantras by deities in union, and that leads to the result of results of wisdom and bliss. Okay.