Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 91-minute commentary, Geshe Pema Tsering turns to the third principal aspect — the correct view — arguing that without wisdom realizing emptiness, even mastery of renunciation and bodhicitta cannot cut the root of saṃsāra. He works through a formal syllogism: the “I” is not established from its own side because it is a dependent arising, like a car. He unpacks dependent arising at two levels — coarse (arising from causes and conditions) and subtle (arising in dependence upon the basis of imputation) — and uses a rope mistaken for a snake to illustrate how grasping at inherent existence generates all suffering. A practical instruction stands out: moments of strong anger or pride are exactly when self-grasping becomes manifest and can be observed directly. The session closes with Q&A on the meaning of “grasping” and whether this innate tendency has a traceable beginning.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 09 The Three Principle Aspects .mp3
UUID: e96a113e-ddbe-4b48-b3eb-66044cf8afcb
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: 91.0 minutes
Words: ~7,773
Naturally, all humans have the thought that I want to experience happiness, that what I seek is happiness. In fact, this isn’t only limited to humans, but also this can be said to apply to animals as well. humans and animals is like all all seek happiness. As offshoots of that, then we have basic two different we can think we can identify two different types of thoughts. One one in which a person thinks, I myself want a perfect type of happiness, a pure type of happiness.
And then others can have that type of thought, but also infer that on that basis that just as I want a pure type of happiness, a perfect type of happiness, then others also probably want a pure type of happiness. And on that based on that understanding then, they give rise to a thought that may not only myself, but others as well experience a perfect type of happiness. So we have two basic offshoots of the the basic thought which which all sentient beings have. And we could probably we can say quite simply that these apply these two two attitudes apply to renunciation and bodhicitta, can’t we? Because if one is seeking a perfect or pure type of happiness, then underlying that understanding is that if one want really wants to experience a perfect pure type of happiness, then we should not be attached to the pleasures of saṃsāra.
In fact, because because pure or perfect happiness is happiness which is not stained by attachment. And thus, someone with such a thought thinks, may I attain a type of happiness which comes about not through attachment? May I attain a perfect type of happiness? Thus, this fits in well with the description of renunciation we were giving you before, in which the happiness one seeks is the happiness which lacks the attachment towards the pleasures of saṃsāra. Now in relation to the second one then, if you were to explain this second type of attitude, bodhicitta, in accordance with the explanations you find in Buddhist texts, and, of course, you begin to speak about the desire to attain Buddhahood for the benefit of all sentient beings and so on and so forth.
There’s particular vocabulary which is employed. But, basically, if we were to get down to the real heart of what is being conveyed by the statement, may I attain Buddhahood for the benefit of all sentient beings. One is saying, may myself and all others attain a perfect type of happiness. And thus, these two offshoots of the basic desire for happiness can be described as renunciation and bodhicitta. Okay?
So Geshe-la says, thank you for coming here and doing doing some study in relation to these points of as they relate to renunciation and bodhicitta. So we have those two, renunciation bodhicitta, then what’s the third element in all this? It is of course the correct view. Well, in both renunciation and bodhicitta one is seeking to attain perfect or pure type of happiness whether it’s for oneself or not only for oneself but also others as well. What is this pure or perfect type of happiness?
It can be described as a happiness which is without suffering, a happiness which is not stained or sullied by suffering. That is perfect happiness. And so how does one attain perfect happiness? Happiness which lacks suffering? In order to attain that, it’s necessary for one to identify or it’s necessary for one to eliminate suffering.
In order to eliminate suffering, one has to eliminate the causes of suffering. Thus, one has to identify what the root and the causes of suffering are in order to eliminate it so that one may bring about this goal of happiness without suffering. So, the correct view is actually required both renunciation and bodhicitta. In these terms, the cause or the root of suffering is identified as grasping at the self or grasping at true existence. Having identified the cause of suffering as being grasping at the self or grasping at true existence then, one needs to employ methods which arrest these roots, which turn back or stop these roots.
And the methods by which one can stop or eliminate the roots of suffering is is by means of the correct view. The view which realizes the actual mode of existence of things. That is to say that the way to eliminate the cause of suffering is to is to employ It is the method, excuse me, the method which must be employed in order to eliminate the causes of suffering are the methods of wisdom which realize the ultimate nature of phenomena. Now, one can also say one can also describe this method as the wisdom which realizes emptiness. As we have just looked at, and the correct view is required for both renunciation and bodhicitta because mere because in order to eliminate this root of suffering, one needs the correct view.
Eliminating the root of suffering is the very means by which one brings about perfect happiness, whether that perfect happiness is sought for oneself or others. And thus, if one seeks happiness for merely for oneself, then one needs the correct view. However, if one is not content with mere happiness for oneself, but also seeks perfect happiness for others as well, one needs both bodhicitta and the correct view. Okay? So this evening, and Geshe-la will be speaking about the correct view.
Correct. We can say the correct view. We can speak about the view of emptiness. We can speak about the view which realizes the final mode of existence of things or the the view which realizes the final nature of things. All of these are synonyms for one another, so we should understand that.
This is what will be the topic of this evening’s teachings. If you look at the root verses then, the ninth root root verse reads, you may master renunciation and the wish. That is, of course, the wish to that that is bodhicitta. But unless you have the wisdom perceiving reality, you cannot cut the root of cyclic life. Make effort in ways then to perceive interdependence.
It says quite clearly here that if one if one lacks the wisdom which realizes the the final nature of things, then even if one is thoroughly familiarized with renunciation and bodhicitta, one will not have the capacity to cut the root of conditioned existence. Geshe-la has been speaking about renunciation and bodhicitta here over the past number of weeks and so we’re assuming here that we understand the practice of renunciation bodhicitta and we know how to apply it and so on and so forth. But these practices in and of themselves are not enough to cut the root of Samsāra. Here, in the translation, it calls it the root of cyclic life. This can also be called the root of the root of conditioned existence or as to use the terms Geshe-la was just using in the previous previous bit, root of suffering, the causes of suffering, the root of saṃsāra or conditioned existence.
These are these are the same things. It is grasping at true existence Mhmm. Grasping at the self. And the view, the correct view is required in order to cut this. Why?
And excuse me. And thus, in order to cut this root and thereby gain the capacity to to bring an end to suffering and saṃsāra, one is encouraged to make effort in the methods which allow one to realize dependent arising. So in here, in the translation it says interdependence. This is more commonly translated as dependently related, which is a synonym for dependent arising. So you you may be more familiar with this term because it’s more commonly used in Buddhist context.
This is gonna maybe I’m going too long, he says, for for too long. Just try and shorten up the bits. Follow me. Yeah. It’s a in the Tibet in the there’s a word in the Tibetan.
It says, and in this in the English translation, it’s it’s translated as reality. More close literal translation of it would be the mode of existence or the way of existence. That is the way in which things exist. So perhaps we should look at this this word, mode of existence. We can speak about persons or we can speak about the I.
Right? Yeah. I mean, Geshe-la was saying, yeah, when we you think about persons, primarily you think about yourself. You think about the I. Yes.
I. I. I. I. I.
Me. Me. Me. Me. This.
This. And that. You know? If something’s not right with with me that’s the most important important thing. But actually persons, every single person has an I.
There is an I for every single person. In fact person and I have basically the same connotation don’t they? In any case, we don’t speak much about he or she, we speak mostly about the I. So if we look at the way in which this I exists, if we look at the I’s mode of existence and we can identify an ultimate mode of existence and a relative mode of existence. The ultimate mode of existence of the I is that it is not inherently established, that it is not established from its own side.
Yet actually, yes. Excuse me. Now we should understand this in relation to the last last sentence in this verse in which it states, make effort in ways then to perceive interdependence or dependent origination or dependent arising, dependent relations. Because the relative mode of existence of the I is that it is dependently related to things, that it is it arises in dependence on things. This is its relative nature.
Returning then to the to its ultimate nature, its ultimate nature is that this the I is not inherently established. Yet we do not recognize this. Rather, we have the tendency to grasp at the eye as being inherently established. In fact, this is the very root of saṃsāra. This is the cause for suffering.
Due to the fact that we grasp at the I as being inherently established, we give rise to suffering and saṃsāra and so on and so forth. Thus, we need to realize that the I does not actually exist in this way in order to turn back this root of saṃsāra. Yet rather than say, the root of saṃsāra or the root of cyclic existence, the root of conditioned existence is the tendency to grasp at the self and therefore apply yourself in the methods which help you to realize that the self is not inherently established, Lama Tsongkhapa says, apply yourself in methods which will help you to realize dependent arising. Dependent arising is the relative nature of the I whereas the lack of inherent existence is ultimate nature of the I. And so why is Lama Tsongkhapa encouraging us to to apply ourselves in the ways which will help us to realize the dependent arising the nature of dependent arising of the I as opposed to its ultimate nature?
It is because realizing the dependent dependent arising, realizing the dependent relations of the eye and other things is the method by which we realize it’s fine the eye’s final nature. So perhaps it would help if we explain this in the context of a logical proof. Yeah? A syllogism. In Buddhist logic then, there are three parts to a logical proof.
There is the subject, there’s the predicate, or another way to say that is the thing which is trying to be established to prove, and then the reason one states to prove that. So in this case, let’s look subject take it as the subject, the eye. The thing we are trying to prove or assert or look at is that it is not established from its own side. And the reason one states to prove that it is not established from its own side is that it is dependent arising. So if we were to state it all together, then we would say take the I as the subject.
Established or excuse me. It is not established from its own side. Why? Because it is a dependent arising. And then traditionally, one would give an example of another thing which conforms to the same system of logic.
In in the past, great Indian masters such as Nāgārjuna stated, this is like a chariot because there were lots of chariots going around in India at that time. So they would say, just as the I is not established from its own side because it is a dependent arising, the same is true with the chariot. But there’s not a lot of chariots around here, we can say talk about cars. So we can say that the eye is not established from its own side. Why?
Because it is dependent arising like a car. Now, dependent excuse me, not being established from its own side and being dependent arising are to the mode modes of existence of the eye. The eye’s ultimate mode of existence or we can say nature. It’s a lot easier, but perhaps less literally accurate. The eye’s ultimate nature is that it is not established from its own side.
The eye’s relative nature is that it is a dependent arising. The fact that it is a dependent arising establish establishes that it is not established from its own side. Okay. Now in approaching this logical proof, first one needs to establish that the eye is a dependent arising. Because if one first understands that the eye is a dependent arising and one understands that dependent arisings are not established from their own side, then one will very easily realize that the I is not established from its own side.
The first step in approaching this then is understanding very clearly how it is and why it is that the I is a dependent arising. A dependent arising can can be spoken of in coarse terms and also in subtle terms. So we can speak about dependent arising on a coarse level and a subtle level. On a coarse level, dependent arising to be dependent arising means to arise in dependence upon causes and conditions. So if something arises in dependence upon causes and conditions it is called a dependent arising.
On a more subtle level, dependent arising means that something arises in dependence upon its basis of imputation. And either of these cases, the coarse or the subtle, dependent arising literally, it in its in its means to arise in dependence upon and exist in relation to. So thus, the meaning of dependent arising should be understood in this context. So first, we need to understand what dependent arising means, and then we need to understand how the eye fulfills the categories of being a dependent arising or the eye fulfills the the basic criteria, excuse me, for being a dependent arising. Okay?
Is this clear? Two, arise in dependence upon causes and conditions means that if there were no causes and conditions, it wouldn’t arise. It wouldn’t be existent. It wouldn’t exist. What the hell?
That’s what the to arise in dependence upon causes and conditions means that if there were no causes and conditions, that thing wouldn’t exist. Yeah? More, all phenomena arise dependent upon the basis of imputation or the basis of designation. All phenomena have a convention, a term, a name which they are given. Correct?
In fact, there’s there’s no there’s no phenomenon which which lacks a name. If we give we give names or conventions to to certain things, certain things. Or we well, we give names names and conventions to everything. Right? Now, the giving of a name then involves having a basis.
It involves having something which which upon which the name is given. Right? You have to have something to name. And so the thing which is named excuse me. Yes.
So so this is this the basis, that which acts as the basis for the giving of the name is known as the basis of imputation or the basis of designation. Furthermore, we need a valid basis of imputation or a valid basis of designation designation in order to give a name. As Geshe-la was pointing out that this this is a mug. But mug really is just a name. It’s a convention, isn’t it?
It’s something which is given to that white porcelain basis. That thing over there acts as the basis for designating mug. Now mug does not at all exist from the side of that basis, does it? Rather, mug is a name which is given in dependence upon that basis. Thus, with a valid basis for designation or a valid basis for imputation, imputations, designations, names, conventions are given, and thus all phenomena are said to be designations which arise in dependence upon the basis for that designation or imputation.
Okay? Meditating on coarse dependent arising has great benefit for us. Meditating on the fact that all things arise in dependence upon causes and conditions have great benefit for us. This refers to happiness, suffering, friends, enemies, strangers. This particularly because we meditate upon loving kindness, compassion, and bodhicitta, that this coarse dependent arising has great benefit for us because as Geshe-la has said in the past, that an enemy is an enemy in dependence upon the relationship you have with that person.
Correct? A friend is a friend, in dependence upon the relationship you have with that person. Happiness, yeah, comes about in dependence upon the causes for such. Suffering comes about due to the causes and conditions which lead to that. And so coarse dependent arising or meditating on coarse dependent arising, meditating on the fact that all things exist in relation to one another or arise dependence upon others, or arise in dependence upon causes and conditions is very beneficial to help us understanding these points.
So then if we return to this logical proof that has been established or that has been stated then take as our subject the I, it is not established from its own side, why? Because it is a dependent arising. First, we must understand dependent arising and let’s we must understand either its coarse level or subtle level in order to make progress. If one understands very clearly both coarse and subtle levels of dependent arising, then one can come to see quite clearly that a dependent arising is not established from its own side, and when this is applied to the eye. If one sees quite clearly that the I is a dependent arising, then one will see clearly as such it is not established from its own side.
Now there are basically two connotations to this assertion or two meanings to be drawn, two things which one can understand. First of all, if something is established from its own side, that means it is not established in dependence upon another. Is right? If something is established from its own side, that means that it its existence or its establishment does not rely upon other things. These are two different things.
To to exist in dependence upon other things and to exist in one’s own right are two different things. To use more literal terms than to be established from one’s own side and to be established in dependence upon other are two different things. So that’s the first if one understands that dependent arisings, yeah, are to be a dependent arising means to be established in the in dependence upon others, one clearly see comes to see that that means it’s not established from its own side. Second of all, if we can we the excuse me. The second understanding goes a little bit deeper.
It’s on a little slightly more subtle level, and it employs the logic of the middle way consequence school. One looks to see whether or not a phenomena or thing is established from the side of the basis of imputation. According to this philosophy, this point of view, if something is established from the side of the basis of imputation, then there must be something in that basis of imputation which you can point to or pull out and point to and say, this is an instance of the phenomenon. There must be something you must be able to search that basis of imputation and find something which is an instance of the phenomenon. So if we apply that to the car, Look search the basis of imputation for car.
What is the basis of imputation for car? It’s the tires, the doors, the windows, the seats, the windshield. Where is the car? Is the car the door, the windshield, the the walls, the tires? When you search the basis of imputation, you do not find a particular instance of something which you can point to and say, that is the car inside in that basis of imputation.
The same is true with the eye. Look at the basis of imputation of the I and point and try and and look for an instance of the eye. Look for something which you can point to and say, this is the eye. When one but the fact that one does not find car in its basis of imputation or one does not find eye in its basis of imputation is an indication according to this philosophy that it is not established from the side of the basis of imputation. Mhmm.
The base of imputation for I is the body and mind. Correct? Mhmm. Okay? Thus, we must come to a very firm resolution in regards to this point that things are not established from their own side.
We can look at it on a coarse level or a subtle level. On a coarse level, we say that things are not established from their own side because they are established in dependence upon others, other things, other conditions. And on a more subtle level, we say that things are not established from their own side because they’re not established from the side of the basis of imputation, which is to say that when you search the basis of imputation, you do not find it. You do not find something which you can take and point to as being it. We must come to a very firm resolution in regards to this.
Yet despite the fact that things do not exist from their own side, that we, along with all other sentient beings, from small birds and ants on up, have this innate tendency to grasp at things as existing from their own side. We can also say that we have an innate tendency to perceive things as being established from their own side. Now that’s getting a little liberal with the translation, but it’s perhaps conveys a bit of what’s being communicated. So it is stated that all sentient beings have this innate tendency to grasp at things as being established from their own side. This acts as the basis for suffering, as the basis for karma.
Because grasping at the eye is being established from its own side, then we give rise to thoughts such as things are not alright from that’s not okay with me. I don’t like that. This is not good. That happened to me. And on that basis then, we perform particular actions.
We accumulate karma. And thus, this innate tendency to grasp this subtle innate tendency to grasp at the eye is being established from its own side, acts as the basis for suffering and karma. Although we might have we might identify both a coarse and a subtle consciousness or awareness, which is, you know, this refers to whether one understands course and subtle levels of dependent arising and so forth. The object which is being grasped at is the same, and that is that the the inherently established eye or the eye which is established from its own side. So this is important to know that in either case, the object is the same.
Now this subtle innate tendency to grasp at things as existing from their own side infects the our mind. It infects our awareness. It infects the way we perceive things. To say that it infects it is to say that it obscures it. It obscures our mind.
It obscures our awareness. It obscures our perception. And thus, this innate tendency to grasp at things as existing from their own side obscures us from seeing the actual nature of things. It obscures us from seeing the final nature of things. So that when we find ourselves in a situation with another person, this tendency this innate tendency to grasp at I or he or things as being established from their own side obscures us or prevents us from seeing their their true nature.
It also obscures us from seeing the way in which we actually exist, the in which I actually exist as well. And in the intervening space, is created by this this by this grasping at him as being established from his own side and I being established from my own side and all other things being established from their own side, we give rise to anger. Grasping at these things as existing from their own side not only creates the space in which your anger or creates the space in which anger arises, but it also inflames the anger. And it is for this reason that the innate tendency to grasp at things as existing from their own side is said to be the cause or the basis for suffering and karma. This tendency which obscures us from seeing the way things actually are, this tendency which obscures us from seeing the nature of things.
Okay? Perhaps we have to look at the the existence of the innate tendency to grasp the things, the eyes being established from its own side. Because if unless you think about a lot of reasons or a lot of illustrations or things which which demonstrate to us that we do have this tendency to grasp at the I is established on its own side, then we will not appreciate it very easily. In fact, it’s not at all an easy thing to recognize. Yeah.
Once again, it’s not easy to recognize that we do have this innate tendency to grasp at the eye and things as being established from their own side, unless we really take it into consideration and think about various reasons which demonstrate that such is the case. Perhaps the best way to do this is by thinking about our own experience. Think about it. In moments of great anger, a very strong sense of the I arises, doesn’t it? Also the same is true in moments of very strong attachment and pride and jealousy.
A very strong sense of the I arises. I appears to us. There there is an I which seems to exist that moment, isn’t there? The strong sense how is it then that this strong sense of I appears to exist to us? Does the I which arises in moments of great anger seem to be an I which is a mere imputation on the collection of body and mind?
Or does the I which arises in moments of great anger seem to be an I which is which is capable of existing on its own, which does not depend upon body and the mind? Does the I which arrive does this sense of I which arises when you’re greatly attached to something, when you’re very proud, when you’re very jealous or great very angry, does this seem to be established by on its own without without depending on body and the mind, or does it does it see does it does it appear to merely be an imputation given to the collection of body and mind? It it’s quite obvious to us that in moments of great anger, the sense of I which arises appears to be capable of existing on its own. It doesn’t appear to us as being a mere imputation given to the collection of body and the mind. And this is an indication that we have a very subtle tendency, a very subtle innate tendency to grasp at the I as being established from its own side.
And it’s in these moments in which the afflictions arise very strongly that we have to investigate the situation. When we feel great anger, attachment, pride, or jealousy, we have to look at the way things at the way the eye appears to exist to us. Take the opportunity to look and say, how does the eye see how does the eye appear to exist now? What does what does the eye what what type of eye is it that is arising from me? Yeah?
And it’s in these moments that we can recognize this innate tendency to perceive the eye or see the eye as existing from its own side. Mhmm. Yeah? When we’re relaxed without and and and are not experiencing one of these great afflictions, then we can’t we can’t very well identify or recognize the sense of I which seems to exist on on it from its own side. Many of you will remember the advice Geshe-la has given on numerous occasions in which when we become very angry, rather than be focused upon the object of our anger, we should turn our attention inwardly to the anger itself.
Generally speaking or typically, when we become very angry, all our attention is focused upon the person the the person or object which inspired the anger, which invoke the anger. Yeah? We’re focused entirely upon them. And because we feel such anger towards them, we they they appear to be some very unpleasant or unappealing to us. But rather than be focused upon this unappealing, unpleasant object or focus of our anger, we ought to look back at the anger itself, and this will help in regards to the points Geshe-la has just been making.
Because when you look back at the anger itself, you begin to consider how is it that this anger arose anyway? The way that this anger arose is there’s a sense that I have been hurt in some way. Looking back at the anger, you come to see that the sense that I have been hurt lies at the root of the anger. So this is the advice which Geshe lah has given on different occasions in relation to dealing with anger, but it’s also to be applied in relation to coming to see that we do indeed have a very subtle and a tendency to grasp at an ‘I’ which appears to exist from its own side. It is said in Buddhism, it is said that the moment in which one comes to clearly see or recognize this innate tendency to grasp grasp at the I is the moment in which one clearly comes to see that liberation can indeed be attained.
Because because the innate tendency to grasp at the I or the self is in fact a wrong awareness. What one is grasping at doesn’t actually exist and as such it’s a wrong awareness. And so if it’s a wrong awareness it can be eliminated and liberation is a state in which one has eliminated this innate tendency to grasp at the self. When one comes to completely eliminate the tendency to grasp at the self, the I, one comes one comes to eliminate the root of suffering and the root of saṃsāra. And thus, when one comes to see clearly, recognize the innate tendency to grasp at the Self for what it is, that is the moment in which one gains confidence and liberation.
That is the moment in which one comes to see that it can indeed be attained. So we don’t have a lot of time. So we can only can only perhaps give us one example of this. Let’s say that we in our bedroom, there is a coiled up rope sitting in the middle of the floor. And we look in there, and we see a snake.
And so we we don’t Looking out, it looks like some of you think actually that the snakes are quite beautiful. And they, you know, oh, yeah. It’d be nice to have a snake to rub against my cheek, kids. Assuming that, you know, one is a person who’s scared of snakes and wouldn’t rest easily in their bedroom there was a snake in the floor on the middle of the floor. One one one looks in and sees a snake and doesn’t dare go into the room.
Yeah. In fact, you experience a bit of hardship, some suffering. Yeah. Due to the fact that you can’t go into your room because for fear of a snake. But if you can maybe take a long stick or something and you poke it and you unravel it and you see that it’s not moving at all.
Maybe a dead snake. Yeah. Can move it. No. It’s not a snake at all.
It’s a rope. It looks just like a snake though. It’s coiled up and it has the same coloring and everything, but it’s not actually a snake. So once you determine that this, oh, that’s a rope in the middle of my floor. That’s not a snake.
And you see that clearly that there is not a single atom or molecule of snake in that rope, that snake was just something that, yeah, in fact, that you designated to that, then you can go and relax in your room without the fear of a snake. Coming to see very clearly that there is not there is not a single molecule and in the slightest bit snake existent from the side of that rope, then, yeah, eliminates the suffering of that you experienced from the fear of that snake, and you become very relaxed. Like that, it is said that all of our suffering is created in dependence upon this innate tendency to grasp at the I is established from this as it being established from its own side. Grasping at others is being established from their own grasping at all phenomena, in fact, for is being established from their own side. By grasping at ourselves, others, and all phenomena is being existent or established from their own side, we create all of our suffering.
Yet if we were able to recognize very clearly that in fact things are not established from their own side, and all of these things which we create on top of that are just that creation is given to something which is not established from its own side, then we become quite relaxed. We become quite easygoing. Mhmm. Mhmm. Suffer these the suffering which come which which comes about due to not understanding this point is eliminated, isn’t it?
Once you understand that things are not established from their own side. Just as Just Geshe-la says he can explain he can say this quite clearly, and that is just as all of the suffering which comes about due to not understanding that this that this is a rope and not a snake is eliminated when you come to see clearly that snake does not at all exist from the side of this object. Similarly, all of the suffering which comes about due to not understanding that things are not established from their own side is eliminated when you come to see that that is the case. Root text reads once again, You may master renunciation and bodhicitta, but unless you have the wisdom perceiving reality, that is the true nature of things, you cannot cut the root of cyclic life or saṃsāra. Therefore, make effort in ways to perceive the dependent arising.
Yeah. So this was these this is the paragraph or the the verse in which the wisdom realizing the nature of things, the mode the mode of existence of things is explained. Is that okay? Clear? Not yet.
So Geshe-la says that perhaps we will leave it the commentary there for this evening. To recap what has been covered this evening, we looked first at the the logical proof, which is take the I as one subject. It is not established from its own side. Why? Because it is dependent arising.
For instance, that is like a car. Then in in looking at this So then in look Mhmm. So and then in looking at this proof then, we see that both the ultimate nature and the relative nature of the eye is explained or is mentioned. That the eye is not or it’s yes. That the I is not established from its own side is the ultimate nature or mode of existence of the I.
That the I is a dependent arising, that their I arises in dependence upon and in relation to others is its relative nature, its relative mode of existence. So we must understand those two points, and finally, that the relative nature and the ultimate nature are related to one another, that these have a very close connection. Okay. Now if you’d like proof that that Mhmm. If you’d like if you’d like a proof that the I is dependent arising, then you could state it you could give another reason saying that because it’s existent.
The eye is dependent. The eye is dependent arising. Why? Because. Mhmm.
Because why? Is it dependent or rising? Because it’s existent. What’s that? Because it’s an established base.
Yeah? Which probably doesn’t mean a lot to you guys. Well, just we yeah. Yeah. Can I just ask just the use of the word grasp again?
I just wanted this the same as taking it seriously or believing in its reality. That just as accurate to say that? Are you asking I mean, second aspect of the question is clear, but would you also like Geshe-la to address what it is that’s grasping at the eye? Yeah. So it’s a two part question, really.
Yeah. Yeah. I mean, you know, this word grasping is often used. Sure. Sure.
I’m always having trouble with grasping. Okay. So so first of all, the word grasping is used oftentimes. Are so you suggested two possible alternatives in order to suss out if that’s what’s being communicated, that’s what’s being gotten at. The first is is that taking seriously.
Does grasping mean to take seriously? Or does grasping mean to to believe in the exist in the reality of, you say? Maybe I can ask you what you mean by reality before I ask the question. So Richard has asked asked a question about the word the word grasping, and as in all and as as a way to get get at what this really means, he’s he’s suggested does or he’s asked, does it mean believing in the reality of something? In response to which, I asked if you could speak about reality what you mean by reality.
That wasn’t so much addressed, but anyway, I think I have an idea of how how to ask Geshe-la the question. So just for the other people in the room, I repeat it. So our first the first issue which says is, in fact, in Tibetan, rather than say in the basis of imputation, the word is actually on top of. Whether this, you know, these prepositions make a difference to you in English, I don’t know. I mean, to me, it sounds funny to say that a mug exists on top of the basis of imputation.
You but it perhaps inside or in conveys conveys the the point more more clearly in English. Anyway, the Geshe-la first first of all, wanted to make that distinction clear. Second of all, he asked he asked a question back to you. I mean, is it not the fact that that a car exists on top of the basis of imputation? Or the in the base of imputation?
Yeah. Exists inside. No. I don’t think anybody thinks Okay. Okay.
Is just convenient. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, what is that?
So first of all, Geshe-la likes to say that, yeah, we we have to be very precise in the way we we use language here because we do say that that car exists on top of the basis of imputation or in the basis of imputation if you prefer. What we say though is that car is not established from the side of its basis of imputation. The car is not established from its own side.
What that means then is that car does not exist from the side of the door. Car does not exist from the side of the tire. Mhmm. Car does not The car is, excuse me, is not established from the side of the door. Car is not established from the side of the tire.
So, actually, Geshe-la says, no. That’s not it, Bob, in a very nice way. He says, if car is established from its own side. If car is established from it the the side of the basis of imputation Mhmm. Yeah, then there has to be then excuse me.
That one of the parts of that has to be car. Mhmm. One of the parts which make up the basis of has to be car if car is established from the side of the basis of Similarly, yeah, if the eye is established from the side of the basis of imputation, then either the body or the mind has to be the eye. Because yeah. Because the the collection of body and mind is what make which is what serve as the basis of imputation for the eye.
So if indeed the eye is established from the side of the basis of imputation, either body or mind has to be eye, but neither is the case. But your question is a very good one. Yeah? I mean, in fact, in fact, anybody who’s done any bit of study is not going to isn’t going to hold to the position that that the eye is established from its own side. And, you know, I mean, if you ask somebody who hasn’t done any study, then they might say, don’t know.
But anybody who’s done a little bit of study, anybody who studied or contemplated, considered these subjects is probably going to say, no. The eye isn’t established from its own side. Yeah? That’s not the issue. Yeah?
Yeah. Whether whether it’s you know? In fact, within Buddhism, there are certain schools, certain lower philosophical schools, which due to the philosophical tenets, do indeed assert that the eye is established from its own side. So certain people will, due to the influence of philosophical ideas or particular philosophical views, due to the influence of that, then they will hold that that is the case. But your average person and somebody who’s and and and somebody who’s done a bit of study will not hold that.
Yeah. That’s recognized. Yet despite the fact that we do not, yeah, on, yeah, on a philosophical level assert that that is the case, yeah, we have innate tendency to hold that that is the case on an on an innate level. That’s things appear to exist in that way. Mhmm.
We on a we we do despite the fact that we do not, yeah, hold the such philosophical points of view, we do indeed We, as well as all sentient beings from the smallest on up, have an innate tendency to grasp at the eye. Okay? So says that yeah. But it’s a little bit strange when you apply this statement. Yeah.
We all sentient beings, even even animals, you know, small birds and so forth, have it have this innate tendency to grasp at the eye because yeah. Very similar to the point you’re bringing up because, yeah, those birds don’t don’t grasp. Yet they have they have something innate. Okay? So the I mean, basically, is seizing upon the same points which you are before, and that is that in Tibetan, in fact, the same the word, yeah, grasping or literally, which can also be translated as apprehending.
Apprehending. Yeah. Apprehending. Stop. What’s that?
No. No. No. No. Like apprehending like apprehending an object, apprehending that that is the case, apprehending that the color is blue.
So the distinction which Geshe-la has just made then is this. The I is not the one doing the apprehending. It’s this innate tendency. So do you see a distinction there? Yeah?
I mean, we have this innate tendency. We have an innate tendency. It grasps at the eye. So we’ve got two players on the stage here. Mhmm.
They’ve got the eye There yes. Indeed. You’re right. There are two. Yeah?
In our continuum, yeah, there is a grasper. This innate this just this subtle innate grasping. This is like it’s hidden. Hidden. Hiding.
And sometimes sometimes sometimes Mhmm. Mhmm. Yeah. Sometimes it’s dormant. Sometimes it’s manifest.
Sometimes it manifest. Manifest? Strong anger or jealousy. This time then, So it is when such strong anger or pride or jealousy arises, and it becomes manifest that we need to be able to recognize it. Does that answer both of your questions?
Yes. Thank you. Yep. Mhmm. So Oh.
Yeah. Time is finished, so we’ll leave it there for this evening. I just wanted to know what causes this this shadow or this innate tendency to grasp? And I’m going to preempt Geshe-la’s answer here. I don’t know.
He might say it’s fundamental ignorance. And if that’s the case, then what’s the cause of that? So the question is, is what causes this innate tendency to grasp at the eye? Yeah. If the answer is fundamental ignorance, yeah, what causes fundamental ignorance?
The cause of the innate tendency to grasp grasp at the eye is in fact a continuum of similar type. It is the previous moment in a continuum which is of the same type of innate this innate grasping. So, I mean, the very moment we were conceived in our mother’s womb, up until now, we have exist there has been a continuum of grasping at the eye. In fact, it precedes that, even that. One can posit no beginning for this innate grasping.