Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. A frank clarification about the English word “guilt” — and why Freudian connotations have distorted its meaning — opens this lively 36-minute Q&A session with Geshe Pema Tsering on the Sublime Continuum. The conversation moves into the three Buddha bodies (emanation, enjoyment, and truth body), with sustained attention on the Tibetan concept of Tulku: the difference between emanation bodies of fully realized Buddhas and bodhisattvas who return by choice rather than by karma. Geshe Pema Tsering then clarifies the definition of a Buddha — one who has purified all obscurations — and explains why Buddha nature does not automatically make the mind a Buddha. The session closes with Nāgārjuna’s four arguments refuting inherent existence, distinguishing ultimate from conventional reality. The tone is informal, with spirited back-and-forth between teacher and translator.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 14 2005 07 28 (2) SC.mp3
UUID: 894872da-b95f-46d3-9a9c-13496fbaf97c
Teacher: Geshe Pema Tsering
Collection: Sublime Continuum (Geshe Pema Tsering)
Date: 2005-07-28
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 36.3 minutes
Words: ~2,688
Judy, I just wanted to quickly say before the questions that that thing about guilt. Right? I figured it out that it wasn’t actually that they don’t have a word for guilt in Tibetan, but we misuse the word guilt to mean a guilt complex because we’re all freuded out. In English, we misuse the word guilt. Okay.
Oh. Yes. First question, am I stupid? No. Hero.
Transformation body. Okay. Can you translate to Sanskrit and tell me what it is? You don’t have Sanskrit in your dictionary? What are the other two bodies then?
Because I don’t know which one that is. I have a feeling it’s Sambhogakāya, but I’m not sure. Actually, this is a different Sambhogakāya body or or What’s the suit body? There’s the Nirmānakāya, which is like the emanation body. And there’s a Sambhogakāya, which is the the enjoyment body.
Enjoyment body. Yeah. But that I that could be called a transformation body, I guess. And then the third one is Dharmakāya, the truth body. Yeah.
Yeah. Truth or law. Yeah. Yeah. What did they say for both of them?
Uh-huh. As in beings? Beings. Yeah. To for let other surface to the across the ocean.
Uh-huh. But that’s what all three of them do. That’s what all three of them do. Maybe it’s the emanation body then. Okay.
I think it’s probably the is it Anyway, the Buddhist body, the transform It could be yeah. There could be emanation as well. Okay. That’s probably the
Yeah. Probably. Uh-uh. Uh-uh. Yeah.
I guess so that think that it has to be the emanation body because they can’t see the other three. Emanation body. Emanation body. And that would make sense to call it transformation body. Okay.
Every being. Yeah. Sure. Sure. No.
It’s only Buddhists that have emanation bodies or transformation bodies. No. No. No. I’ve been having this argument with Geshe-la for three years.
So if you have it within that stiff, that’s good. Someone else’s turn. They call us. But don’t worry. There’s whole whole reams of enlightened beings who agree with you here.
Okay. Okay. According to Geshe-la okay. I have to say this because it feels very strange for me to say it. That the definition of a Buddha is someone who has purified their mind stream of all obscurations.
Right? So if a being and he said, look into your head, you’ll know that you have obscurations. Right? That you know you have things that you don’t understand and you know you have things that right? And he said, so if someone has those in their continuum, then they’re not a Buddha.
Yeah? So the nature of the mind can’t have obscurations, but it can be mixed with obscurations. So according to Geshe-la, as long as something is mixed with obscurations, it’s not Buddha. Okay. So the the the there is this potential to transform into a Buddha.
But in order to transform into a Buddha, you have to go through the the different paths, the the three paths of the five paths of the three vehicles. Yeah. Or or and particularly to become a Buddha, you need to follow the paths of the Mahāyāna. So by following those, by getting rid of the obstacles or the obscurations to the Buddha nature, then you’re able to transform the mind from being contaminated mind into being the the Buddha’s mind. So the reason that you’re able to do that is because you have emptiness.
You have the Buddha nature. Without that without having a mind that was empty of inherent existence, you wouldn’t be able to do that. Without the clear the luminous clarity of mind, you wouldn’t be able to do that. But it doesn’t become a Buddha until that transformation is completed. That’s why all these that’s why all these Okay.
So we’re we’re in So we’re in the process of getting rid of all of the obscurations that are caused by the afflicted states of mind. So all of the obscurations that are caused by jealousy and ignorance and the others. Attachment, aversion, all of them. Yeah. And pride.
Okay? So we in this text, it actually starts to go through how you get rid of the obscurations in order to let the Buddha nature shine forth or wake it up. It says both of these. Was wondering what Patricia says. I can’t understand.
This is an incarnation of. Yeah. Incarnation of. Yeah. Emanation or incarnation.
Emanate. A physical form of it. Emanate. Emanate. Not really.
But it incarnation means to take physical form. An incarnation, I understand it is a Buddha or god god Yeah. Flesh. Born in a form. Born with form.
To do it to do that again and again and again. Reincarnate is born as a Buddha or born as a No. No. No. Born again and again and again.
Again and again and again. Re means to do something again. So to incarnate is to to take form and to reincarnate is to do that again. Okay. So the word for this emanation body in Tibet Alright.
So the word for this in Tibetan is hang on. I’m trying to it in an Australian accent now. Tuk do you say reincarnate myself? Tulku. Tulku.
Tulku? Yeah. Thanks for the accent. Is in Tibetan is the word for emanation body, or like, is also this word that’s used for emanation body, tulku. Yeah?
And there so the first part of that means to be able to emanate. Right? So this what they mean by emanate is means to take birth at will as opposed to by karma. Right? So if you can, incarnate because you want to incarnate, as opposed to being forced into incarnating because of your karma, then it’s said that you’re a Tulku.
Yeah? An emanation body. A body that comes into being through the person’s will as opposed to their karma. I Hang on. Hang on.
I haven’t finished. Otherwise, I’m gonna forget. Alright. So in Tibetan, when they talk about Tulkus, yeah, you have two different types of Tulkus. You have Tulku that is the emanation body of a Buddha, and then you have a Tulkus that is someone who has chosen to come back as a bodhisattva to help beings.
Yeah? So the Tulkus that are Buddhas are different to the Tulkus that aren’t Buddhas. Right? And Geshe-la said you can also have Tulkus that are, beings who have perceived emptiness but have not developed bodhicitta. They can also be Tulkus.
Yeah? So like, Hīnayāna Arhats. So they’re able to come back without the force of karma. They’re able to come back as they desire as they deign as they as they want. Right?
So this idea of emanating means to make a choice to appear somewhere. To to make the choice to take physical form as opposed to being forced into it because of your karma. So One is voluntary. Two, Yes.
There’s a reason for it. Yes. And the other one is the just other is just like us. Without Yes. Okay.
So our our bodies come into being because of karma and delusions. The body of a Tulku comes into being because they want to do something to help beings. So there two there are two types of But there’s two types of Tulku. There’s a there’s beings who have realized emptiness. Yeah?
And Buddhas. Okay. So Geshe said you have three different things happening here. Right? So he said, you have a fully realized Buddha who emanates as a emanation body, a Nirmānakāya, which in Tibetan is a Tulku.
Yeah? Okay. Then you also have beings who have realized emptiness and either have bodhicitta or don’t have bodhicitta, so therefore they choose to come back to help. And because their bodies are also emanation bodies, they’re called Tulkus. Yeah?
Right? Not but they’re not Buddhas. Yeah? It’s just that they are because they’re able to emanate their body, they’re also called an emanation body. But they’re not the Nirmānakāya of a Buddha.
They’re just an emanation body. Right? Then Geshe-la said, you also have people that people say there’s a they’re a Tulku and they’re probably not. Alright? He says, so for example, if you take my monastery, there’s lots of people that are running around that are called Tulkus.
And he said, are they? I don’t know. I don’t think so. Some of them. Yeah?
Yes. Uh-oh. I’ll probably help the students, not necessarily because of. Okay. No.
Because Okay. You can be someone who is working for the benefit of countless beings. You can be someone who’s working for the benefit of millions and millions and millions of beings and not be a bodhisattva. Alright? You’re only a bodhisattva if you have this idea of working for the benefit of every single being without exception.
Everyone’s going like this. What’s that? Yes. It would be. No.
Okay, Joe. Do you wanna ask your question then? Well, I got I’ve got You’ve got other questions? I’ve got my book. There is no cause and no effect.
Wednesday, you say this on Tuesday? Yeah. Okay. Yes? Wait a minute.
Joe. Joe. Joe. Joe. Joe.
You can’t say that. You can’t say at the time of the entity of something. If you’re talking from ultimate nature, there is no entity. Mhmm. Is that is that what Not coming for either means.
I I’m shaking my head at you. You can be stupid. I know. You don’t get called stupid. That’s not fair.
Alright. The reason that it doesn’t come from both and I’m not saying I said, he’s stupid he’s questioning me stupid English. He’s like, no. No. The reason it says it doesn’t come from both is because causes don’t inherently exist.
Yeah? Results don’t inherently exist and things don’t spontaneously happen. Yeah? That’s why not from neither comes about. Yeah?
So yes, it’s true that causes don’t exist at the same time as their results, but neither the cause nor the result is inherently existent. They’re both merely labeled. Yeah? So it’s different. He said, so all of the reason that none of these exist is because they’re all merely labeled.
They don’t have any essence. The cause doesn’t have any essence. A result has doesn’t have any essence, and an entity has no essence. None of them have any essence. Yeah?
So is that okay? So if the The key so they so they so they arise and they go, but they don’t rise inherently. So when it’s saying it doesn’t come from neither, it means they don’t spontaneously appear. He said, what did he say? Okay.
So you just said, you wanna make sure that you get the two different things settled. Right? You’re talking about on a relative level, you have things happening because of cause and effect, but you don’t have that happening on an ultimate level. Yeah. So what Nāgārjuna’s four things refer to is that things may arise and fall, but none of them exist inherently.
Inherently. None of them exist on an ultimate level. So then his four reasonings apply to the ultimate level, not the relative level. Things appear and exist conventionally, but when he’s refuting things, he refutes them from the ultimate level. So the first thing he refutes is that things arise from themselves.
Yeah? And then the other next thing he refutes so so it’s something that does have the ability doesn’t have the ability to generate itself. The second thing he refutes is that things have arise from something else. Yeah. So that another something that is other than them can’t cause them to come into being.
So this is refuting the idea of a creator god and so on. And the third one is that things can’t arise from both. So if you’ve refuted both of those, then you can’t say it’s both. You can’t say it arises from themselves and other, both, when you’ve already refuted. It can’t arise from itself, and it can’t arise from other.
The fourth one where it says it doesn’t arise from neither, says it doesn’t arise spontaneously without reason. That’s what it’s referring to. So that’s ultimately. So when it talks about these four things that it’s not, it’s talking about its ultimate existence. It’s not talking about its conventional existence.
Uh-uh. Uh-huh. So it’s not So by these four arguments, it’s showing that things don’t exist inherently. Inherently. Things don’t have an ultimate existence.
It’s not saying that things don’t exist conventionally. So it’s refuting the idea of a self, for example, that exists by itself or from another cause or from a combination of those or just comes into being spontaneously, which is the fourth one. It’s refuting that self. It’s not refuting a conventional self. Alright.
Sorry. I was just double check. Said, is it like this? Existence at all? He’s talking he’s saying he’s refuting a position that was held by the materialist that things just exist.
They exist spontaneously. So he’s talking about ultimate existence. In those four things, he’s never talking about conventional existence. None of those four arguments talk about conventional existence. Yeah?
So the Lokayatas, I don’t know how you say it, the hedonists, they said things don’t exist from other causes, they don’t exist from themselves, they just are. Yeah? And he said that’s He was refuting that idea. So And they said ultimately things exist like that. So when he says they don’t exist from nothing, means that they don’t just come into spontaneous existence from themselves, but they just are.
And he’s being really nice to your question. He said, George’s question was very intelligent. The reason I didn’t call him stupid because we didn’t ask him. Yeah. Yeah.
Guess you said that’s it. And he said, women are stupid. And I said, alright, so we should all leave. He goes, women are stupid because I’m a man and I know better. And I said, oh, would that be your self-cherishing?
And said, yes. He said, I’m speaking shit. Literally, translate. Now he’s gone from the other extreme. He’s like, you’re not stupid.
You’re a great translator, and he’s taking the piss out of me. Maybe this is how it goes. It’s if it goes through separate. Yeah. It’s going somewhere different.
No. No. I he he does it all he’s been doing it all the time I’ve been here. Said I said what you said that arrogance in men is widespread. And he said and he so I said, therefore, having a male rebirth is more dangerous than a women’s rebirth because you’re more likely to develop arrogance.
And Geshe said, I’ve met arrogant women. And he said, there you go, I’m a woman. I’m fantastic. I can give birth. You can’t.
Pardon? I didn’t say that. I said, the nature of my mind was a Buddha. I didn’t say I was enlightened. Pardon?
He said that’s fine. He’s not getting into that argument again. I said I didn’t make up this idea of the nature of the mind being the Buddha. You know? They said in, like, a lot of different texts and, you know, every other tradition apart from this one.
And then Geshe-la said, that’s because I haven’t looked at the words properly. He said, so for example, when it’s it’s when it says in that thing, the victor that isn’t separated from afflictions, they go, well, that means that the the nature of the mind is Buddha. And guess what? They haven’t thought about it. How can the nature of the mind be Buddha?
Anyway, hmm. They’ve been arguing about it for how long? Six hundred years. They’re not gonna sort it out tonight. I know.
Still don’t accept what he said, but that’s so funny. So the reason you think it is because you looked at that and went, oh, I’m a Buddha at once, and you haven’t looked at what it actually means.