Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. Starting from verse six’s declaration that “renunciation can never bring the total bliss of matchless Buddhahood unless it is bound by the purest wish,” this 87-minute session with Geshe Pema Tsering centres on a question posed to the class: why is bodhicitta necessary to attain Buddhahood? Through sustained dialogue with students, Geshe-la builds the answer — Buddhahood requires ultimate compassion, which can only develop in relation to all beings, not oneself alone. He then maps the full sequence of prerequisites: equanimity, a mind drawn to all sentient beings (using siblings as the model of closeness), great compassion, the highest intention, and finally bodhicitta itself, defined as a mind carrying two aspirations — freeing all beings from suffering and attaining Buddhahood for their sake. The session closes with a lively exchange about whether plants and fish qualify as sentient beings.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 05 Three Principle Aspects.mp3
UUID: c754d24d-7ed7-4328-8fcb-7a8ede7198f5
Teacher: Geshe Pema Tsering
Collection: The three principal aspects of the Path (Geshe Pema Tsering)
Date: 2002 (exact day not recorded)
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 87.1 minutes
Words: ~6,894
Geshe-la’s Friday night visits to Lam Rim Teachings typically don’t don’t involve any any seated meditation. The reason that there’s no meditation on these Friday evenings is not because Geshe-la doesn’t regard as being something which is unimportant. Rather, Geshe-la has studied for a number of years and therefore he has a greater familiarity with the subjects which he is teaching. That is a familiarity which is greater than that which we have. So he thought that if in place of introducing us to these these ideas through his commentaries, if we were to spend the time seated quietly meditating, then perhaps it might be a waste of time.
It wouldn’t be as good a use of the time as as we could have. So it’s not because meditation is something which is unimportant. Rather, meditation is something which we can do on our own or if we would like to come together for a special session, that is also possible. Okay. So you need to meditate.
Okay. You will rarely hear in Tibetan Buddhism any teachings which say, Okay, this is the beginning aspect of meditation, or, This is the initial part of meditation. Rather, what’s always said is, You must meditate on this. In fact, whether you’re meditating or whether you’re studying, the beginning is the same. The beginning of both activities begins with the establishment of one’s meditation.
So this is an important point for us to us us to keep in our mind keep in mind that the beginning of meditation is the establishment of motivation. Mhmm. Understand? If you’re going to study, then it would be good if you could begin by first establishing your meditation excuse me, first establishing your motivation, and then spending a bit of time in meditation, and then going on to read a book or whatever activity comprises your study, continue on there. In any case, it’s important to remember that meditation always begins with the establishment of meditation, establishment of motivation.
Okay. This text which we have is known as the three principles aspects of the path, and it is contained within the the literature known as the stages of the path or Lamrim in Tibetan. Lamrim literature really begins with the contemplations in which one thinks about the leisures and endowments, the meaningfulness of having these this opportunity and the difficulty of finding the leisure and endowments. So the Lamrim, although the first subject which might often be taught is the proper way to rely upon a spiritual teacher, actually is said to begin with the contemplations on the leisures and endowments, its meaningfulness, and the difficulty of achieving such of obtaining such an opportunity. So it’s important that we exert ourselves so that we may generate realizations of this precious opportunity, its meaningfulness, and finally, it’s the difficulty in finding it.
At what point can we say that the that putting Dharma into practice begins? Well, typically, one says that one begins to put Dharma into practice with the teachings on the results of karma. First, we contemplate the leisures and endowments and and contemplate upon death and impermanence. But then the next subject which is taught basically karma cause and effect or more literally the results of karma, it is at that point that one actually begins to put the Dharma into practice because it is in context of those teachings that one is advised to refrain from non virtues and practice virtues. Thus, the the putting of Dharma into practice begins with topic known as results of karma.
So Geshe-la has taught up to the sixth verse. So the point which we’ll pick up this evening begins with the sixth verse, which is found on the back of the first page. It reads, renunciation can never bring the total bliss of of matchless Buddhahood unless it is bound by the purest purest wish, and thus the wise seek the high wish for enlightenment. The reason that this statement is made is because the primary thing which we are striving for is, of course, Buddhahood, yet renunciation alone cannot carry us or lead to the attainment of such. Last week in the or in the preceding weeks, Geshe-la was explaining what renunciation is.
Essentially, renunciation is to to view the shortcomings or failings of Samsāra. That is to say that to not be attached to the pleasures of Samsāra and strive for the the pleasures of liberation. This is renunciation. So how is it that renunciation can be sustained by bodhicitta? After all, because in order to attain enlightenment, renunciation alone is not enough.
Rather, it must be sustained by bodhicitta. The way in which this occurs is, first of all, one must meditate so that one cultivates renunciation as just described. And then one meditates so one cultivates and generates bodhicitta. Then after some time through familiarizing oneself with this, even without meditating especially or excuse me. Even without making a particular point of meditating upon renunciation, merely through the power of meditating on bodhicitta, renunciation is strengthened, and thus renunciation is said to be sustained by bodhicitta.
Perhaps it’s important that first we gain an understanding what bodhicitta itself is. Now in the text, bodhicitta is described as a mind with a twofold aspiration. Another way to say it is a mind with two aspirations. Now sometimes these aspirations are called a causal aspiration and an assisting aspiration. In fact, in in terms of the function or the way in which they act, be both assist the mind, but they’re given the names separately, a causal aspiration and a assisting aspiration.
In any case, what are these two aspirations? First, the first aspiration is that one must have the desire to free sentient beings from their suffering through one’s own actions. So the first aspiration is to think, yeah, may I free all sentient beings from suffering? The second aspiration is, in order to do so, may I attain the state of Buddhahood? These are the two aspirations.
A mind which possesses these two aspirations is identified as bodhicitta. Okay? bodhicitta is a mind, whereas the two aspirations are mental factors. That’s once again the two two aspirations being, may may I free sentient beings from their suffering? And second of all, in order to do so, may I attain Buddhahood?
These aspirations. Aspirations these two aspirations are mental factors. As mental factors, they must accompany the main mind, which is bodhicitta. Geshe-la has explained at many points in the past that anger, pride, jealousy, attachment, these these are all mental factors. Those are not minds.
The same can be true about positive aspects of of positive mental states, such as loving kindness, compassion, the desire to practice generosity, the desire to practice ethical discipline, and so on and so forth. These are all mental factors. They are not mind. As mental factors, they are adventitious or temporary. They come and they go.
Whereas mind is something which is continually present. The desire to for oneself’s actions to act as a way to free suffering sentient beings from suffering is an aspiration. It is mental factor. And as a mental factor, then it is adventitious. It comes and it goes.
In this context, it acts actually as a cause because before generating bodhicitta, which is a mind, one must have the cause, which is a desire to freeze sentient beings from suffering. That’s Then the second aspiration is in order to bring that about, in order to do so, may I attain Buddhahood? That aspiration actually arises simultaneous to the arising of or not so much the arising of bodhicitta, but but the the becoming the mind’s becoming bodhicitta. The reason that that can be said to be simultaneous is because when one has the cause, the desire to free suffering free sentient beings from their suffering, when one gives rise to the second aspiration that in order to do so, may I attain Buddhahood, at that point, the mind which is associated with or which accompanies both of these mental factors is given the name bodhicitta. Hence, we have two aspirations.
One is a necessary cause or preliminary for the generation of bodhicitta because without it, the mind one that mind cannot be identified as bodhicitta. Whereas the arising of the second aspiration occurs simultaneous to the what is what is known as bodhicitta because it is the combination of the and the assembling together at one time of these two aspirations, which leads to one calling that mind bodhicitta. Okay? So are you clear about bodhicitta? The aspiration in which one seeks to free some in which one seeks to assume responsibility oneself for the freeing sentient beings of suffering is known as excuse me.
The aspiration in which one seeks to assume responsibility oneself for alleviating the suffering of sentient beings is known as the highest intention. The highest intention precedes the development of bodhicitta. The highest intention itself is preceded by necessarily preceded by the generation of great compassion. Oftentimes, compassion will be preceded by great loving kindness, but it is not necessarily the case. A necessary prerequisite for the development of great compassion is a is the development of a mind which feels drawn to others.
If one does not develop a mind which feels drawn to others, then it will be impossible impossible for one to develop great compassion, and hence, one will not develop the highest intention or bodhicitta either. Now there are different two different basically, two different paths or methods by which one can give rise to a mind which feels drawn to others. One can do so first of all by contemplating and coming to see that all sentient beings have acted as our mothers. One continues by rererecalling their kindnesses and seeking to repay their kindnesses. That is the first method by which one can come to develop a mind in which one feels drawn to others.
The second method one may use to develop this type of mind is by contemplating the shortcomings of self-cherishing and the advantages or the benefits of cherishing others. So basically, have these two paths or these two methods which will allow one to generate a mind which feels drawn to others. The development of bodhicitta is necessarily preceded by, of course, great compassion. And then but in order to generate that, have seen we have to develop this mind, which it feels drawn to others. And either of these two methods may be used.
So it is not necessarily the case that every single person will contemplate both methods because either method suffices for the development of this type of mind. Yeah. It’s clear. Perhaps Geshe-la has to say So if we look at the first method in which one gives rise to a mind, feels drawn to all sentient beings by contemplating or by doing contemplations which lead to the recognizing of the fact that all sentient beings of acted as our mother. Basically, it or can it can be actually be explained in in other terms.
Coming to see all sentient beings as one’s mother is just an example of the type of mind or attitude which we are supposed to be cultivating. It’s like an instance of the type of mind. In fact, what we are being encouraged to cultivate is a mind in which we see all sentient beings as a close friend or a close relative. For instance, as Geshe-la was saying, a brother or sister who is dear to our heart. So it doesn’t necessarily have to be that one is coming to see all sentient beings as one’s mother.
That is just an example of the type of closeness or affinity one is trying to cultivate by engaging in this series of contemplations. At this point, then Geshe-la had mentioned that he ought to mention the He ought to mention that developing this term, a mind which feels drawn to others, understood in a very particular way. Here, it means close to one’s heart. Yeah? Young people especially might have all sorts of ideas what it means to feel drawn to something, feeling drawn to the other sex and feeling drawn to this and that.
This case that’s not what it refers to, it means close to one’s heart in the same way that one’s brother or sister or relative or close friend is close to one’s heart. One is trying to develop a mind in which one in which all sentient beings are taken to be close to one’s heart. Now, the development of this type of mind is necessarily preceded by the development of equanimity. Because if one does not first develop equanimity, then one will be unable to maintain a balanced attitude towards friends, enemies, and strangers. Rather instead of being feeling balanced or equal towards all, one will fall prey to feelings of closeness and distance.
So before developing a truly a mind which takes all sentient beings as close to one’s heart, one must develop equanimity. Okay. What is it? Oh, that hurts then. It’s important that from time to time we meditate on the way in which bodhicitta is generated in the reverse order.
And then having done so, what’s also important that we meditate on the way to bodhicitta generate bodhicitta in the forward order as well. So the reverse meditating on the way to generate bodhicitta in reverse order begins with bodhicitta itself. One meditates upon bodhicitta and then comes to think that without developing the highest intention, one cannot rise to bodhicitta. The highest intention, of course, must be preceded by great compassion. Great compassion must be preceded by the generation of a mind which feels drawn to to all sentient beings.
That is to say that one must generate a mind in which all sentient beings are seen to be close to one’s own heart. And before one generates that type of mind, one can either meditate upon these three stages we’ve mentioned just now, seeing all sentient beings to be one’s mother, recalling their kindness, seeking to repay their kindness, or by meditating on the other method, which in a simple phrase is identified as the method of equalizing and exchanging oneself and others. Now, one develops or excuse me, before one engages in the methods by which one can give rise to a mind which feels drawn to all others, one must meditate upon equanimity. This goes for either method one uses to develop such a mind. The way to generate bodhicitta then can be traced back to in both cases the meditation upon equanimity.
So the way one meditates upon the excuse me, the the way one meditates first of all then is by meditating on it in reverse order. Then having gained a feeling for that, one meditates upon it in the forward order, is to begin with equanimity, move on to either one of two methods which lead to developing a mind which feels drawn to sentient beings, and so on and so forth. In any case, if one repeatedly meditates in this way, it functions as a form of exercise, and you know, once you exercise your mind in gaining familiarities with these points, after some time, you will gain an understanding of what is described. Okay? The commentary has describes or it says excuse me, the root text says quite literally that one cannot attain Buddhahood merely by means of renunciation.
Rather, in order to attain Buddhahood, bodhicitta is necessary. So do you have any ideas about the the reason why bodhicitta is necessary to attain such a goal? Any thoughts? What you wish is what you wish for another. So what you wish for yourself is what you wish for another.
So if you have bad intent for your attainment in your spiritual life, it’s actually what you’re wishing for others, so for your spreading bad thoughts or bad news. You know what I mean? Like, and that that’s the vibe you’re doing, and that’s ultimately what you’re preaching or speaking as well. So the purest thought is also gonna lead to the purest action. Whereas if your thought is slightly contaminated, it leads to contaminated action.
So So I’ll try and rephrase that. Correct me if I’m wrong. The Buddhahood would be identified as the purest state. In order to attain the purest state, you need the purest mind. If you are if you have self interest without, you know, a negative intent towards others, that could not be considered the purest mind.
That’s right. That’s And to wish for pure Buddhahood is also the wish for pure Buddhahood. So Uh-huh. Yeah. Okay.
And and secondly for who’s ever in the next room translating? To wish for pure Buddhahood is to wish for pure Buddhahood for for others as well as oneself. Any ideas? bodhicitta. Why is bodhicitta necessary for attaining Buddhahood?
I’ll try now. If what you have to say resembles what she just said, that’s that’s fine. I mean, if you have if you’d like to add something to it also, that’s fine. Yeah. Your child Jubilee.
Is it is your say that the the state it’s impossible to attain that state without having everybody else with it. Mhmm. So can we say that bodhicitta or excuse me, Buddhahood, state of ultimate liberation represents a state in which there is no distinction between self and others. Is that what you said? Yeah.
By that meaning that I assume that one is not cherishing oneself over others. And therefore, in order to attain a state in which that is the case, then one must have an attitude which embraces others as much as it does oneself. Another nice answer. Yeah. People are thinking.
It’s a good answer. People are thinking. Yeah. Anyone else? Cheerful to bed.
Renunciation seems very much about a self motivator, but looking at Samsāra it’s a motivation for ourselves to be free, but to be repulsed. Mhmm. Turn against it. And I think by fully realizing that of how bad it is and how unreliable and there’s no real pleasure in it, then we can develop compassion for everybody else as well, and think, well, I’m suffering because everybody else does what’s needed to return, what makes the world for everybody else. Mhmm.
So renunciation is a method which one can motivate oneself. Yeah. Inspire oneself to engage in the practice by coming to recognize that we, you know, we exist in a state of suffering. Once you fully understand that you exist in this state, then you develop you can you can develop compassion for others because you see that they also exist in this state. So so what you say is true, but can you then go on to illustrate more clearly how it how or why it is that compassion is necessary to attain Buddhahood?
Yes. It’s true. By fully realizing renunciation, one gives rise can begin to give rise and compassion for others for being in that state. And then, why is that compassion necessary to attain Buddhahood? Yeah.
Before Mhmm. You understand clearly what the what the two people before you said. Correct? Yeah. Mhmm.
This Carlos said, Do you think what they said was true? The compassion is that we need to take all the others with us. Is that what you’re saying? All the others. In fact, both of what you said was quite similar to one another, and what they were getting at was Buddhahood is a state in which one is cherishing others.
And so in order to attain such a state, it’s necessary to have that type of attitude. Because obviously without that type of attitude, you don’t attain a state in which you possess that attitude. Seems quite obvious, right? But yeah. So there’s a meaning to be drawn from that, isn’t there?
Now what you said is true and the the illustration which or the way in which you’ve described how renunciation can lead to one renunciation serves as a basis for compassion and so forth is correct. But what you didn’t express very clearly was how or how or why that such compassion is necessary to attain Buddhahood. Because now if you were to give a reason why that is the case, then Buddhahood can only be attained by striving with attitude in which one cherishing others. Merely by having an attitude in which one is cherishing oneself does not lead to the attainment of Buddhahood. Thus, compassion or an attitude of cherishing others is required to attain Buddhahood.
So that’s one way of expressing reasons. Correct? If I can express once more clearly what this line of reasoning is, is that first one understands that Buddhahood cannot be attained by cherishing oneself alone. One must necessarily cherish others in order to attain Buddhahood. Hence, compassion or cherishing others is required.
Now, it’s important that you explicitly state this. It’s not enough merely to just have an intimation that that is the case or have it in one corner of your mind that, yeah, compassion is important because, you know, yeah. Because there’s a, yeah, there’s a reason why one needs to express it, state it explicitly, and that is because, instance, if you’re writing an exam, in order to get full marks, need to state explicitly the full the answer in full. Yeah. You can’t just you can’t just allude to an answer and expect that that that is going to be enough.
And in fact, by being capable of explicitly stating it or writing it down very clearly, then Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it’s not, excuse me, I was setting it up as if it were a reason, but it’s not. It’s just a statement that it’s not enough merely to have an intimation of it. If you’re writing it, you need to be able to write it clearly.
If you’re speaking about it, you need to be able to express it clearly. Compassion is an extremely general term, isn’t it? I mean, one can have compassion for humans but not animals. One can have compassion for animals but not humans. I mean, in fact, compassion can be very partial and not necessarily be applied to all.
Now, when Geshe-la has explained this, the preliminary for the development of bodhicitta, he actually mentioned great compassion. Because great compassion is necessarily an attitude in which one cherishes others, whereas compassion doesn’t necessarily have the same connotations. So here it’s important that one understands that it’s not just compassion is required because one can have compassion for people who are ill or or animals or something. In fact, it one needs a type of compassion which is pervasive, and that that type of compassion is known as great compassion, and it is characterized, of course, by an attitude in which one cherishes others. We still haven’t struck upon a very clear explanation of why bodhicitta is absolutely required in order to attain Buddhahood.
If you want to state the most simple way or the most simple reason why bodhicitta is necessary to attain Buddhahood, one could say it like this. In order to attain Buddhahood, yeah, one must necessarily have the desire to attain Buddhahood. That’s why bodhicitta is necessary. Yeah, one aspect of bodhicitta is, of course, striving for, wanting to attain Buddhahood. It’s like we spoke about this in terms of renunciation.
Yeah. In order to develop renunciation, one must have the desire to or strive for the pleasures of liberation. Correct? Similarly, in order to attain Buddhahood, one must have a mind which strives for Buddhahood, which is, of course, one aspect of bodhicitta. Furthermore, striving for Buddhahood oneself is not sufficient.
In fact, it’s mistaken. Yeah? One only correctly strives for Buddhahood when it is for not only oneself, but in fact, for the benefit of all beings. So, this is the most simple reason, or the most simple explanation of the reason why bodhicitta is required for attaining Buddhahood. Now one begins to think about then why is it insufficient to strive for Buddhahood only for oneself?
Yeah. What are the reasons? Why is that insufficient? Well, Buddhahood is a state in which one possesses or has developed ultimate wisdom, ultimate compassion, and ultimate capacity. Yeah?
Ultimate compassion must necessarily be generated by focusing upon other beings. Yeah? Merely by having compassion for oneself, one cannot develop ultimate So striving for Buddhahood oneself strictly for oneself does not result in the development of ultimate compassion, and hence, it is not possible. Thus, one needs bodhicitta. One needs to be striving for Buddhahood for the sake of others as well as oneself in order to develop one of the primary characteristics of Buddhahood.
Now this the development of ultimate compassion, of course, is preceded by the development of great compassion, and great compassion itself must be preceded by a mind in which one feels drawn to others in equanimity. If equanimity in a mind in the development of a mind which feels drawn to others does not proceed the development of great compassion, then the compassion which results is not great compassion, but rather a partial type of compassion, which you were alluding at before. This it it’s a type of compassion which is which one feels for some, but not all, and hence, it cannot be considered great compassion, and hence cannot be something which develops into ultimate compassion. So, the next step one, one begins, one, excuse me, the next process which one, the next contemplation which one, which one takes on is the contemplation in which one considers. Why is it necessary to strive for Buddhahood for the sake of all others and not just oneself?
Because Buddhahood is a state in which one possesses ultimate compassion. The development of ultimate compassion necessarily occurs in dependence upon all sentient beings, not just on oneself. Does it understand? A little bit clear? Oh, yeah.
Great compassion. Great compassion. Do you understand great compassion? Great compassion. Great compassion is impossible without equanimity.
Geshe-la thought actually that the way in which he’d introduce this subject is first by introducing to us very clearly the reasons why bodhicitta is necessary to attain Buddhahood, and then next week focus upon the actual stages which one follows in developing that bodhicitta. And as for the actual stages for developing bodhicitta, they begin with equanimity and then they go on to realizing all sentient beings are one’s mother, calling their kindness, seeking to repay their kindness, developing great loving kindness, great compassion, the highest intention, finally bodhicitta. And then if Geshe-la was able to go through this process in a complete manner, then he thought he would go on explain the second method of developing a mind in which one feels drawn to all others, the process of equalizing, exchanging self and others. So of course within this presentation, which Geshe-la was thinking of actually giving next equanimity and so on and so forth. As it stands, we feel attached towards the ones whom we are close to.
We feel averse or even angry towards the people whom we are whom we dislike, and we neglect or yes, we neglect those whom we neither dislike or like. How to stop attachment towards those whom we are close to, stop aversion towards those whom we dislike, and stop this neglectful attitude towards those whom we have no particular type of relationship with, and develop a balanced or equanimous attitude towards all beings is equanimity. Okay? What I’m translating here is the neglectful attitude can also be described as an attitude of indifference. In any case, one in stopping anger or excuse me, attachment, aversion, and indifference, or neglect, one then replaces those attitudes with another attitude.
So stopping attachment towards those whom we are close to, and we replace that attachment with compassion. We stop the aversion towards those whom we dislike and replace that with loving kindness. And we stop the indifference we feel towards those whom we have no particular relationship with and replace that with an attitude in which we cherish others. So the way in which we ought to live our lives is by stopping attachment, aversion, and indifference, and replacing those or cultivating in their place compassion, loving kindness, and an attitude in which we cherish others. How do we conduct ourselves now?
How do we live our lives? Yeah, with attachment, aversion, and indifference. And look at all the problems that causes. Life are full of problems. Yeah.
But what if we were to be able to stop these and in their place, replace these attitudes with compassion, loving kindness, and an attitude in which we cherish others? Imagine how many of the problems which we experience would would be stopped as a result of that. Yeah. Oh, that’s it. You know, I keep it.
Mhmm. Yeah. Even in this lifetime, it it would be very pleasurable, be very happy. Are you getting the feeling that without bodhicitta there’s no way to attain Buddhahood? You think?
Yeah. I was thinking maybe because we’re talking about compassion and how we have compassion, and I was wondering if if you can’t treat Great compassion. Yeah. Yeah. Because if if you can’t treat someone else with compassion, how do you expect to treat yourself with compassion when you need compassion?
Mhmm. Yeah. So I don’t know. Sometimes I feel like I’m So so you you would say that an an essential step in developing compassion for others is having compassion for oneself. Yeah.
Mhmm. If you can’t do it for someone else, how can you do it for yourself? Mhmm. Yeah, it’s true. What did you what did you Have you studied this before?
I mean, is that your own idea or did you learn about this in another place? Yeah. Where? Where? I haven’t read that much.
Because Geshe-la is saying, he hasn’t seen you around for very long. I yeah. Gave you a letter in the orange envelope, but I don’t know if you read it or if you had time to, but I I put a list of the books that I’ve read, but I’ve only read some Hare Krishna books and a couple of trivial books that you’d like to pick through. The only reason Geshe-la asked you this question is because, I mean, basically, know, you phrased something a presentation we find in the Tibetan tradition in a very easy to understand, easily comprehensible way. So Geshe-la says, Yeah, maybe you were Tibetan in your former life, you know?
I mean, you’ve expressed something, you know, in a very simple way, but at the same time, the the way, you know, you’re expressing it in a way which conforms greatly to the presentation we have in this tradition. Discussing amongst yourselves is very important because it’s possible that by discussing these points with one another, point things become very clear and easily understood. Sometimes we find that although we’re using the terminology and maybe even expressing the meanings in a correct manner, Still, the actual points are difficult to understand. Whereas other times when we may be simplifying things a bit and not necessarily sticking to the traditional presentation, yet we find it easy to understand. So actually, discussing with one another back and forth is very important because in addition to knowing the terminology and the correct, you know, and the meaning and so forth, you know, and the general presentation and so forth, it’s important that we are able to understand what is being said as well.
Okay. So is this easily comprehensible to you? Why is bodhicitta necessary to attain Buddhahood? Because Buddhahood is a state in which one has ultimate compassion, ultimate wisdom, that is the wisdom realizing emptiness developed to its utmost extent and ultimate capacity. Furthermore, without great compassion, bodhicitta cannot come about, cannot be developed.
This clear? Yeah. Okay? So this is the response, the correct answer to this is the answer to the question Geshe-la asked earlier. Okay.
So, Geshe-la has given you the answer. He said that this is the answer to the question I asked. And we’re all sitting there going, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, I mean, that’s not enough, right? We need to think about this, we need to contemplate this point until we really feel from our own side, yet we genuinely develop the feeling that, Yeah, there’s no way to attain Buddhahood unless we develop bodhicitta.
The only way to develop this state, which is called Buddhahood, which is actually a state in which one has developed ultimate wisdom, ultimate compassion, and ultimate capacity, is by first developing great compassion, and then developing bodhicitta, and only then can we gain this attainment. If you if you dislike even one being or if you’re even indifferent to even one being, the development of great compassion is impossible. Understand? Is this clear? Understand?
Yeah. Go ahead. What are you guys saying? Yeah. When we talk of Buddhahood, we are talking about a state where one has developed from what you said ultimate compassion.
So In fact, in a Buddhist presentation that the development of ultimate compassion speaks about developing compassion to its utmost extent, and it is directed towards sentient beings. Things which may grow but are inanimate would not be considered sentient beings. They lack the basic quality, which is to possess mind or consciousness. What seems to be underlying your question is the assumption that dogs and cats are not sentient beings. Yeah.
That’s it. But in fact, according to Buddhist presentation, they are. Yeah. Where is the dividing line? Okay.
So what’s the dividing line between a sentient being and a non-sentient being? That which has a mind yet has not attained Buddhahood. That’s dividing line between what is a sentient being and what is not. Geshe-la mentioned that the a set about mind becoming bodhicitta. Mind becoming Right.
Right. bodhicitta. Yeah. He explained what he means by mind. And then is bodhicitta of the same is that the same term?
Is that the same as ultimate compassion? And we put it for the mind? So, three questions, yeah? What is mind, basically? When we speak about mind, yeah, what is mind?
Second of all, is I’m sorry, what was your second question? Is bodhicitta the same as ultimate compassion. Is bodhi Chita the same as ultimate compassion? And finally? Would you describe Buddhahood as the same?
As a mind. What Geshe-la often speaks about is mind and mental factors. Correct? Is this clear? Is this clear?
What this what mind and mental factors Mind and mental factors different. Is that this understand clear? Yes. Okay. So mind is an awareness which is not a mental factor.
Anyway, that’s, I suppose, what we might call a negative definition. But to explain it in another way, the nature of mind is that it has come come to us. Yeah. It excuse me. The nature of mind is that it exists in a beginning beginningless continuum.
Yeah? Yeah. Whereas mental factors are adventitious, that is to say that they’re temporary. They come and they go. They’re not beginningless.
You can say, oh, arose, arose, Yet at the same time, presence of mind necessarily means that there is also a presence of mental factors. There is never a time in which one has mental not mind without mental factors nor vice versa. Yeah? Is this clear? Yeah.
This everybody clear? I’ll tell you. Taj, won’t you just say this? I just said it. Now, bodhicitta is an an instance of mind.
It is an example of one type of mind. Yeah, one mind. Okay. bodhicitta is mind. Is a mind.
A mind. Okay. This is clear? So yeah. So bodhicitta, which is a Sanskrit term, which literally means mind of enlightenment is a mind.
Yeah. Now as for the second question, I believe you actually said ultimate compassion, but I think perhaps what you meant was great compassion. Is that because we spoke about how great compassion is necessary for bodhicitta. In any case, what Geshe-la has said, just perhaps this will answer your question, yeah, hopefully. The question which Geshe-la has addressed at least is, Is bodhicitta great compassion?
Now Geshe-la has said that great compassion is necessarily preceded by equanimity and the development of mind in which one feels drawn to all others. Without those, one cannot give rise to great compassion. Furthermore, bodhicitta must be present must be preceded by the development of great compassion. Without great compassion, one cannot develop bodhicitta. But that is not to say that great compassion is bodhicitta.
Rather, bodhicitta is necessarily accompanied by or associated with the mental factor which is known as great compassion. Now, you actually said Buddhahood, but the term Geshe-la has chose to comment upon is Buddha. So is Buddha mind? Well, in fact, the word Buddha in has many meanings. One can speak about an Ārya Buddha, which is a person.
We can speak about the bodhicitta in the continuum of an Aryabuddha. That is also Buddha. Great compassion in the continuum of an Aryabuddha is also Buddha. So the term Buddha, yeah, actually can be any number of things. It can be an instance of mind when it’s in the continuum of an Aryabuddha, or it could be referring to a person, in which case one will oftentimes, but not always, append the word ārya, which indicates that, oh, ārya Buddha, that must be referring to the person as opposed to an instance of mind or something.
I think it is more than that. Buddha being. Buddha being is a person. And Buddha’s mind, Buddha’s body, Buddha’s speech, and Buddha’s hand. This all Buddha.
Therefore, like Buddha, just not necessarily person. This is not really clear. Not clear. We normally talking about Buddha beings or Ārya Buddhas. Buddha being necessarily So when Geshe-la uses the word clear, perhaps what he’s really meaning is precise.
Yeah? When we the general usage of the word Buddha is not very precise because actually as we have seen, Buddha can refer to any number of things. In typical usage, we can say that most times the word Buddha is used in the context of a teaching, it’s referring to a Buddha being. In other words, an Aryabuddha. Buddha beings are necessarily Ārya Buddhas, Ārya being a Sanskrit term meaning superior and carrying the connotation of being a person, being a being.
Geshe-la says to use it precisely or more clearly, yeah, we ought to say Buddha being or Ārya Buddha when we’re speaking about the persons, that which possesses a continuum. Okay? It’s clear? Alright. Then we other dog, cats, and birds, and fish, all these sentient beings.
Okay? And trees, flowers, this not sentient beings, we say. Because not I have mind, these things. The Tibetan word for sentient being is possessor of mind. Thus, being which is sentient.
This need to be clear. Oh. How does how does the Tibetan tradition know that the plants don’t possess mind? How is that discovered? So how is it known that the plants do not possess mind?
Yep. Well, we know because they don’t have suffering, do they? They? If they had suffering, then they would definitely exhibit the signs of having suffering. I mean, just as you see with any other being, you know, if that being is experiencing suffering, we see the signs of it, whether through writhing or wriggling or dog, cat, and peach, everything.
I mean, yeah, we’re not relegating it to the signs of a human, but rather dogs, cats, fish, all of those will exhibit signs of experiencing suffering. If a fish experiences suffering substantially differently, at least if a fish, for example, exhibits its suffering in quite a different way to a human exhibiting suffering, then by extension we can, we hypothesize that plants might well experience suffering in a way that we can’t identify, in which case we don’t know whether there’s something happening. The point Martin is making is that fish exhibit signs of suffering in a much different way than that of humans. And on that basis then we can infer that the same is true for plants. Plants exhibit signs of suffering perhaps, right?
Perhaps Plants exhibit signs of suffering much different from that of a fish or a human. Yet I think the point you’re missing is that we can still observe signs of suffering in a fish, and hence, know, without saying that they’re the same as humans, correct? Yeah, but I’m interested about being able to assume then, because about our inability to actually observe potential suffering, and that they do not suffer. How do we make that extralogical leap? Well, I mean, okay.
If a fish is threatened, it goes away. It swims away, doesn’t it? I mean, if a fish feels like it’s just about to be, you know, eaten by a bigger fish, then it tries to escape just as a human would do, wouldn’t it? I mean, that’s exhibiting a sign of suffering quite like a human, isn’t it? Just one sec.