Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. Halfway through an ongoing commentary on the Sublime Continuum, Geshe Pema Tsering opens this 54-minute session with a student question about two easily confused concepts: dormant afflicted ignorance and the imprints past actions leave in the mindstream. An onion sealed in a cup — the smell outlasts the onion — illustrates how imprints breed habitual tendency. He then works through the text’s four metaphors for the three poisons in latent versus outburst form, before turning to Buddha nature. He distinguishes the natural abiding lineage (the emptiness of the mind’s positive states, suitable to transform into a Buddha’s nature body) from the developing lineage (the virtues cultivated on the path), arguing that emptiness is precisely what enables change and therefore Buddhahood. He closes with the Prāsaṇgika view that no sentient being can ever exhaust all virtue or permanently lose Buddha nature. For students already working through the text.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 16 2005 08 04 (2) SC.mp3
UUID: 25be72d4-e2cc-4e9e-aa19-07a4499a7de3
Teacher: Geshe Pema Tsering
Collection: Sublime Continuum (Geshe Pema Tsering)
Date: 2005-08-04
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 53.6 minutes
Words: ~3,819
Tashi Delek. Uh-huh. I have a question about latency before. Did you look at latency or latent? Like, so it was subsisting.
Yep. Yep. It’s something that’s not manifest. Okay. So for example, we’re sitting here and there’s things that we don’t know, but we’re not concentrating on what we don’t know, and what we don’t know may not necessarily be interfering.
Some of the things that we don’t know may not necessarily be interfering with what we’re doing. That’s latent ignorance. So ignorance and the ground of latent ignorance are different. Ground of The ground of latent ignorance. No.
So we’re dealing with two different things. The first Alright. So would there was nine different types of ignorance nine different, sorry, afflicted states. Nine different afflicted states that we’re dealing with. The the third of these was something that’s called latent ignorance.
So that latent ignorance or dormant. Do you know the word dormant? Dormant’s a good one. Dormant. It’s maybe dormant is better than latent.
D o r m a n t. Yeah. Dormant. Sleeping. Yes.
Wait. Wait. Wait. I haven’t finished. So the the one of them that we’re talking about was dormant afflicted ignorance.
So that is perceiving things as being inherently existent. Yeah? And that affects what we do, but it’s not necessarily manifest all the time. The other type of ignorance is what’s called this ground of what was it? Ground of the imprints of ignorance.
Ground of is that what they call it? Ground of the imprints of ignorance? Ground of imprint of ignorance. Hang on. Hang on.
What they said there illustrates the level of the latencies of ignorance. So this is, the word they translate as latencies is sometimes also translated as imprints. Yeah? Tendencies. Tendency.
So maybe latency is a bit confusing there. Try tendency or imprint. Like a footprint. It leaves a mark. Yeah?
So that, yes, so I said that is what you call afflicted ignorance, or it’s an ignorance that’s an afflicted state of mind. The other one isn’t an afflicted state of mind. It’s just not knowing something. Sorry. Yeah.
So if you say tendency, sounds like the human nature subsisting when we are born. Alright. So what an imprint is Uh-oh. Uh-oh. It’s a bit it’s a bit like getting footprints in our mind.
Yeah? So when you walk along a beach, you leave a mark behind when you’ve walked there. There’s a footprint. Yeah? So when we perform an action, there’s like a mark or a ten or a latent something that’s left behind in our mind stream, from that action.
Yes? Let me finish before I forget. So, the the thing that’s left behind then has potential. Yeah? It usually has potential to, to act like a habit, a tendency.
So if you have a tendency towards doing something, it means that once you’ve done something once, you have a tendency to do the same thing in that way. Tendency we’re using tendency in that way. So once we’ve left a mark on our mind or a print on our mind, an imprint on our mind, we then have the tendency to perform a similar action. So the way the imprints come is that, for example, if we put onions, onions? No.
Whatever. Anything that smells. I thought he was gonna say garlic, but he said onions. I don’t know. Do onions leave a smell?
Yeah. Alright. Anyway, because I thought they soaked up some anyway, put onion in a cup. Close the cup up. Yeah.
Leave it there for a while. Take your hand off. Take the onion out. Put it somewhere else. The cup’s still gonna smell like onion.
Yeah? So it’s the same thing that happens in our mind. When we do something, we may not necessarily be doing it anymore, but there’s still the imprint of that action. There’s still the smell of that action in our mind stream. And that leads us to have the tendency to do it again.
Now you can speak. Smell actual smell is No. It’s a simile. It’s not saying there’s a smell in our mind. It’s saying it’s like that process.
Could you say there’s a tendency to eat? Yeah. Because you have ignorance, you’re more likely to be ignorant. Because There’s many types of ignorance. There’s ignorance of emptiness.
So you have everything from not realizing emptiness directly to not knowing what’s behind you. We got a lot. Yeah. A lot. Yeah.
We got a lot. Perhaps that not enough discrimination. Uh-huh. Who who doesn’t have enough discrimination? Yeah.
This word discernment. Yeah? Usually, they use it in, you know, it’s used in Buddhist teachings. When someone’s translating in a Buddhist teaching or trying to do teach something in Buddhism, they use the word discernment to refer to a very specific Tibetan word and Sanskrit word, which means to say this is this, it’s not that. To discern what which is which.
Yeah? So I asked Geshe-la if if if we that’s what was causing ignorance, a lack of that. And he said, no. Alright? No.
He said, in order to discern something, that’s the opposite of knowing, but he of not knowing. But he said, a way to think of ignorance is just to think it’s the opposite of knowing. You either know something or you don’t. If you know it, you’re not ignorant of it. If you do not if you don’t know it, you’re ignorant of it.
So it it it the English word ignorant means not knowing. Yeah? And the Tibetan word is the like, the means to know. Means not to know. Not know.
Even in English, ignorant is that you could You No. I think that’s a misuse of the word ignorance and it’s a misuse of the Tibetan word I’m translating. Even in English. Even but in English, I don’t think that that’s you’re Okay. Because that bit there or I or ego, but the prefix, whatever it is, I can’t remember, means not, and the other means, I think it was like or something, as in gnosis, means like not knowing.
Are you sure? Two ways of expressing that. I’m gonna look it up and get back to you on that. But anyway, so the Tibetan word, right, we’re translating here is very specific. It means not knowing.
So I say, Geshe-la, is it thinking something is, inherently existent? Yeah? Or is it not knowing that it’s not inherently existent? And he said it’s not knowing it’s not inherently existent. Does that make sense?
Also, not knowing because we don’t we haven’t had an experience. Because we don’t think. We don’t think, he said. We don’t think. And we don’t think of that.
To think of that means also this is non experience. So if we started thinking about it a lot, we’d come to know it. Alright. Mhmm. You know, Mhmm.
So I can look at this and say, this is a cup. Alright? And I can understand it’s a cup. So I don’t have the ignorance of not understanding it’s a cup. Yeah?
What I do have the ignorance of is not understanding the cup is impermanent in a direct way. I can only I guess just that I have to keep figuring that out. Yeah? Eventually, should be able to see it as being impermanent in a direct way. At the moment, it’s something I have to process.
Alright? So, I don’t have the ignorance of knowing this is a of not knowing this is a cup. I do have the ignorance of not knowing that this cup is impermanent. Yeah? Just a question on number four, similarly.
It’s the outbursts of the first three. Yeah. Alright. The the he said, yes. You’re right.
If you get rid of the three poisons, you wouldn’t have violent outbursts. Right? But sometimes you can have the three poisons and not have a violent outburst or a intense outburst. So they’re a little bit different in their character. Alright?
And because this has been explained by way of similes, then the simile that you use to describe a violent outburst of one of these or intense experience of one of these afflicted states or one of these poisons is going to be different to the simile you’d use to describe a latent negative state. So when you’re talking about things by way of metaphors, you wanna have a metaphor that fit that fits the experience. So the metaphor that fits the experience of having a violent experience of anger or attachment or ignorance is going to different to the latent versions of the same things. So it usually talks about being angry, be really angry. Uh-oh.
Uh-oh. So you can most of the time when we talk about these intense outbursts, it usually takes the form of some kind of anger or violence or something like that. So you can get very angry because of desire. You can get very angry because of aversion. You can get very angry because of ignorance.
Alright? But the anger or the the intense emotion that comes about is a different experience to the latent poisons that are in the mind stream. Like, for the metaphor of the latency, it’s like angry bees He said that’s because you haven’t come across the same as him. So the point of the bees is that they hurt themselves and others. That’s why it’s talking about aversion and hatred.
It’s not necessarily that they’re getting agitated. It’s that being having being agitated, they’re going to do something that kills themselves and hurts others and is totally pointless. So that’s why it’s used as a metaphor for anger. Alright? It’s not necessarily the agitated state.
It’s what they do then, what the nature of anger is. It hurts others, it hurts yourself, and it’s pointless. Okay. The point of the fourth metaphor is that you can’t see something. And then you can’t notice your the point of the fourth fourth metaphor is that you the violent outbursts are like rubbish in that when you have violent outbursts, that stops you from seeing your Buddha nature by covering it with rubbish.
That’s the point of that metaphor. Uh-uh. Uh-uh. Uh-uh. Uh-uh.
So the idea is that you can’t see. It’s not necessarily the part the part of the metaphor that it’s focusing on is the idea that you can’t see. Yeah? We haven’t he said, we haven’t even got to that. Okay.
So impurities isn’t isn’t the impurities is rubbish or rags. It’s sticky bits. Yeah. And some yeah. Just as the impurities of sperm and ovum.
Uh-huh. Because yeah. Okay. Alright. So Oh, great.
You did have to bring this up, didn’t you? Now I’m looking forward to next week. The sorry. The idea is the impurities isn’t dirty rags or rubbish as it seemed to be beforehand. It’s impurities as in eggs and sperm or the real that which is released.
I shouldn’t say eggs. That which is released in copulation. Yeah? And it’s saying just as people who have overcome the desire don’t release sperm or whatever it is that women release in ovulation ovulation. What am I talking about?
Copulation. Then the violent outbursts don’t happen in those who haven’t got the three poisons. That’s the metaphor. And we haven’t reached it yet in more than one ways. Yes.
There are no stupid questions except the ones Joe asked. I’m joking. The latencies, the dormant latencies? Yes. You can’t have latencies that aren’t dormant.
I think they’re a bit synonymous. Okay. Mhmm. There nature is the nature of the latencies? Mhmm.
Yeah. Okay. No. That’s not the Buddha nature because it’s something that you wanna get rid of in order to become a Buddha. So the the Buddha nature thing you wanted to develop is the positive things that you accumulate on the paths and the grounds and the realizations, and the afflicted states and the imprints and things or things you wanna get rid of.
So you wouldn’t say that Buddha nature. Okay. So the nature of Buddha the Buddha Buddha nature is is luminous clarity. Right? But it’s not the the nature of Buddha nature is luminous clarity.
Buddha Buddha nature is luminous clarity, but it’s the luminous clarity of the unstained parts of the mind. Yeah. The the yes. It’s hang on. There’s a problem because I said always there, and I and I said always there in colloquial say permanent, and that doesn’t work, does it?
So the nature of the mind, the clear luminous clarity is the nature of the mind never goes away. It’s impermanent. The Buddha nature, which is the luminous clarity of the parts of the mind that go on to develop and become Buddha is is also permanent and never disappears as well. I didn’t write down the I’ve got these sheets with all the different. I’m trying to find you a definition of of Buddha nature because there is one in here somewhere.
But and I’ve got these sheets, and I only did all the ones and the ones, and I can’t find where I did the What’s impermanent? What what what is impermanent? The mind is impermanent. But the mind’s nature is not impermanent. Momentarily changes.
Right. The mind is impermanent. The nature of the mind isn’t impermanent. Yeah. But the bits of the mind that supposedly go on to But it’s not the bits of the mind.
Let me find the definition first. Yeah. Pardon? Actually, emptiness of the virtue. Okay.
So the nature of the nature of an affliction is is a luminous clarity and is emptiness. The nature of a positive mind is a luminous clarity and is emptiness. But the positive states are are the Buddha nature, and the negative states aren’t the Buddha nature because the negative states are things you get rid of. And so there can’t be something that that that is a Buddha nature or something you get you get rid of in order to become a Buddha. So the the luminous clarity of the positive states, and I’ve got a definition, what are the Buddha nature.
The luminous clarity of positive states. So here the definition says Is this much a major definition? Yeah. But don’t write it down because it’s gonna be dodgy because I’m just doing it on the top. I’ll work out a good definition, because I don’t think it’s in the translation.
I bet this guy’s got it. Okay. So in general, you have to say that virtues are permanent because within the group of virtues, you have things that are permanent like true paths and true cessations. It’s the lack of something. Yeah?
But at the virtues in our mind, we generally say aren’t permanent. Yes? But their nature, which is the Buddha nature, is permanent. Their nature is emptiness. Their nature is luminous clarity.
Yeah? So their nature is permanent, and it goes on to stay something permanent. Is that alright? Yes. The nature of everything is permanent.
Because the nature of everything is is emptiness. Okay. It’s it may be permanent. The nature of everything may be permanent, but it’s not necessarily Buddha nature because it’s not necessarily that which is gonna lead you to become Buddha. He said, how can all virtues be in one person’s mind, even Buddha’s?
He said, your Buddha your virtues don’t visit me. Like, they don’t come into my mind. Hang on. I I’m sure that there is a Where is it? Oh, I remember that.
It was Oh, damn. Okay. Eighty seven. It said there’s a there’s a definition for this in the back of the book. Have a look.
Remember. It’s on page weird, some weird number in the back of the book. Why it’s not in the front nature of the book? I don’t know. In the front nature.
I’m saying nature all the time now. Did you We went through definition. Yeah. It’s in his book somewhere. Okay.
Alright. So the Okay. So the nature the mind stream has, adventitious, stains. Yes? The mind stream has as adventitious stains.
But if you take the mind without adventitious stains and its emptiness, that which goes on to become the wisdom body. Sorry. The mind without adventitious stains is that which goes on to become the wisdom body and its, emptiness, its luminous clarity, is the Buddha nature. So minds that have that. No.
That’s a That’s a nonexistent. Dear. Oh, there is there’s gotta be it’s anyway, I’ll find it. Oh, it would help, wouldn’t it? Sorry for making you bored.
It’s just that this definition is in here somewhere. And if I try and translate it, I’m just making a hash of it. The definitions of natural and developed potential are given on page a hundred and fifty one. Woo hoo. That is my point.
Yeah. Like, why? Why why page a hundred and fifty one? That’s good for me to put it. The definition of the natural potential.
Right? You ready? Is the emptiness of a mind with taints which is suitable to transform which is suitable to into a nature body. So the emptiness of a mind with taints which is suitable to transform into a nature body. So anything that is suitable to transform into a nature body is a virtue.
No. Not any dharma. Any mind. Yes? Because any dharma is like all phenomena.
Phenomena is dharma. Dharma is phenomena. It’s a synonym. No. It’s not even a synonym.
It’s a translation. So any virtue anything that’s suitable to transform into the nature body is any virtue. Right? And the definition of a developed potential is a Buddha potential which is suitable to transform into a Buddha’s body. So that’s the thing the virtue you’re creating.
Mhmm. And I’m going to put a mark. So that’s like Okay. So the the developed potential is then the the non emptiness bit, basically. It’s got it’s the it’s the virtue that the virtue itself that acts as a cause for the development of the Buddha bodies of bodies of a Buddha.
Alright? So the natural abiding lineage is of the of the Buddha nature. The natural abiding part of the Buddha nature is the emptiness, and they abide the developing lineage or the developing potential is the actual things that you do in order to become a Buddha. The actual virtue that you create in order to become a Buddha. So when it says the bodies of the Buddha, it means the compounded bodies of the Buddha.
Okay. So if you wanna have a general general definition of the Buddha’s body and not divide it into sorry. A general definition of the Buddha nature and not divide it into that which is a naturally abiding lineage, which is what we’ve been focusing on, and that which is a expanding or developed lineage, then you can just say that which is suitable to transform into a Buddha’s body. Buddha’s bodies. That which is suitable to transform into Buddha’s bodies.
So the emptiness of our minds, the the non afflicted parts of our mind has the potential to be transformed into the emptiness of a Buddha’s mind. So, the emptiness of our minds is this is suitable to be transformed into emptiness of a Buddha’s mind. But in terms of our minds, yeah, the states of mind that we have, there’s two types. There’s that which we should practice, and we should abandon. Yeah?
And that which we should abandon, we can’t say is the Buddha nature because it’s what we get rid of in order to become a Buddha. So we can’t say that something that we’re getting rid of in order to become a Buddha is the Buddha nature. Alright? So that which we develop, that which we should practice in order to become a Buddha is the Buddha nature. And the reason that I spent so much time talking about emptiness, emptiness being a natural abiding lineage and talking about something transforming into the nature body of a Buddha is that without emptiness, there is no Buddha nature.
There is no capacity for change. So the key to the Buddha nature is the emptiness that allows the capacity for change. He said, you know, emptiness is is a funny one. Sometimes I think without emptiness, you know, I wouldn’t get old. That may be good.
Yeah. He said without emptiness, you wouldn’t learn more. You wouldn’t forget things. You’d just be exactly the same all the time. Okay.
I said so. Alright. So I said, so So I say look. So I guess, like, we have a rough definition of the Buddha nature and say that it was the emptiness, the the, naturally abiding lineage, one we’re looking at now, the one we’re doing the, things for, say, it was the emptiness of the positive the the emptiness of the objects to be cultivated in our mind. And he said, no.
Because if you get angry, you can lose some of the objects that you’ve cultivated, the objects that you the the positive things you’ve cultivated, and they don’t go on to become a Buddha. Right? So getting angry, you can lose positive potential that you’ve already created. So, the Buddha nature is that which goes on to become a Buddha. I said, so there has to be one positive thing in every being’s mind that will continue with them until they become a Buddha.
And he said, hopefully, more than one. So there’s nobody who doesn’t have any virtue, and that’s where the basis of the Buddha nature comes. There’s no who doesn’t have any virtue. No sentient being that doesn’t have virtue. It’s not possible to get rid of them.
But the But remember we did in the Cittamātra section, we did that they posited that there were some beings who didn’t have it anymore. They lost it. Yeah. So in from the from the prasangika perspective, there is no being that doesn’t have any virtue. So people can spend their whole life angry and get rid of big stores of merit, big stores of positive potential, but they can’t get rid of all of it.
Yeah. We talked about eighteen. No. He’s just quoting from the from the book we did did where was the, Cittamātra, and I don’t know what he’s saying properly. But he said what it means is that, the, they say there are those who have gotten rid of the Buddha nature by spending eons and doing negative things, but, the Prasangikas don’t accept that.
They say all beings have Buddha nature. If they practice, Yeah. I’m gonna oh, sorry. Otherwise, it’ll just get very complicated. And it’s ten past nine.