Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 82-minute session, Geshe Pema Tsering introduces the third principal aspect of the path — correct view — anchored by a vivid analogy: fear of a snake under the bed vanishes only when you examine the coiled rope and find no snake in it, just as self-grasping collapses only by investigating what is actually being grasped. He argues that renunciation and bodhicitta assist liberation but cannot by themselves cut saṃsāra’s root, which is innate self-grasping. Working through the tenth root verse, he covers two levels of selflessness — no independent self, and nothing established from its own side — using the examples of the “I” imputed onto body and mind, and “temple” imputed onto walls and doors. He closes by explaining the infallibility of cause and effect and how realizing emptiness destroys the aspect of grasping itself.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 10 The Three Principle Aspects .mp3
UUID: ec2f9c3a-b7d9-413e-a822-f2126543c942
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: 81.8 minutes
Words: ~7,154
Of the three topics, renunciation, bodhicitta, and the correct view, then Geshe-la’s already finished teaching on the first two, renunciation and bodhicitta. Geshe-la is very pleased by the fact that we were able to study and then do exams on the first two subjects of renunciation. bodhicitta. So not just having listened to the teachings here, but having gone home and thought about the teachings and meditated on the teachings. And by doing so, we we come closer to abandoning suffering, and we come closer also to attaining the final goal.
Our final goal of course is to attain a state in which we possess ultimate wisdom, compassion and capacity. In other words, to state that another way, the final goal is to achieve a state in which our own well-being is perfected, and we have the capacity to effortlessly and spontaneously accomplish the well-being of others as well. So in doing the study and listening to teachings and meditating on them and taking the exams and so forth, we draw closer to this attaining final goal and thus Geshe-la says thank you. This is the final or ultimate goal which you strive for, but there are also temporary benefits as well. For instance, it’s obvious to all of us that if we were to exercise and look after our physical well-being, then we experience physical health as a result, and thus the physical physical happiness and pleasure we experience is greater.
But we can then infer on that basis that if we were to train the mind in causing it to move in a more positive direction, if we were to train the mind in more positive things, then as a result, we would experience greater happiness and mental happiness and pleasure as well. We’re just deceiving ourselves if we turn to sleep or drugs or alcohol as a way to alleviate our our problems and difficulties. For instance, if when you’re when you feel unhappy if you were just to go to sleep then you’re deceiving yourself if you think that that’s going to you know to eliminate this this mental unhappiness because once you go to sleep yeah maybe you want your mind is disturbed so you can’t even fall asleep maybe you fall asleep but then when you wake up the mental unhappiness or difficulties just returns. Similarly with taking drugs and alcohol, they cloud the mind, render the mind unclear and thus they are not they they do not serve it as a method for eliminating this the unhappiness. So whereas if we were to employ a positive mind or positive ways of thinking, then we make it difficult for the unhappiness or the difficulties to return.
In other words, by employing positive ways of thinking, and we there is a benefit in preventing such unhappiness from returning. So training the mind, giving the mind a bit of exercise is very important. Now did what we discuss here, bodhicitta and renunciation and so forth, of course, are teachings which come from the Buddhist text, but it’s certainly possible that such teachings are found in other religious traditions as well. So it’s it’s excellent. In fact, it’s very good if we can find it’s very good that other teachings exist, thus which involved teachings which involve a correct view, a non mistaken view, a view which is not wrong.
So the questions the exam on bodhicitta has already been distributed, and in fact, we’ve already collected the answers for those. So we’ve moved on to the next subject, which of course is the correct view. How well, begin to speak about the correct view. We begin to speak about the Buddhist view, which is to say the view of dependent arising. Now in terms of the view of dependent arising then, there are also many more subtle views which we can go into.
But just taking the view of dependent arising, and Geshe-la would would suppose that this is that the view of dependent arising is a view which is shared in common with other religious traditions as well. This I questioned Geshe laan, and he says, says, Well, he doesn’t know, he doesn’t know English, and he’s never really studied any other religious traditions. So those of you who know about other religious traditions, please excuse him. Don’t hold him accountable if he’s wrong. Just hopes that the view of dependent arising is one which should be shared amongst other religious traditions as well.
So dependent arising, which some sometimes called dependent origination, refers to the fact that that things arise in dependence upon others, other conditions, other factors. So can say that for the most part, all things arise in dependence upon causes. But then we take into consideration those things which are permanent. Those things which are permanent or that is to say, unchanging and still can be said to be dependent arisings because they they exist in dependence upon their parts. They exist in dependence upon a basis of imputation.
So whether we’re speaking about impermanent things which are subject to change or permanent things which are not subject to change, they are all considered dependent arisings because either they arise dependent upon causes or they arise dependent upon their parts and their basis of imputation. Okay? So this is the point is the point which Geshe-la feels that we that that other religious traditions would also agree to, the fact that things arise dependent upon others, causes and conditions and so on and so forth. Now the root verse we were looking at was read out last week. It’s the tenth root verse, and it reads, a person’s entered the path that pleases the Buddhas when for all objects in in the cycle or beyond, he sees the cause and effect can never fail, and when for him they lose all solid appearance.
I guess I thought it’d be very good if he could complete the questions for the emptiness exam by this week, but because we’re quite busy up at Chenrezig with the BSP and everything, we didn’t get an opportunity to do so. But if we can look at this tenth verse and what is it that this ten verse tenth verse teaches? What is it that is indicated by this tenth verse? What is taught by this tenth verse is the the reason why one needs to one needs the correct view. The reason why one needs to do study in regards to the correct view.
As Geshe-la said last or in in previous weeks in relation to renunciation and bodhicitta, both renunciation and bodhicitta act as methods which assist in the the elimination of suffering and its causes, but they do not function as the direct eliminators of such. In fact, the thing which directly or the thing which actually liberates one from suffering and its causes is the correct view. Renunciation and bodhicitta only act as conditions which assist the liberation from such. Oh, yeah. Okay?
So it’s already been determined that the first question in the exam is going to be, what are the reasons why one needs to meditate upon the correct view? We need to think a great deal about these issues. We need to really take them to mind. In relation to this point, then we speak about self grasping. Before we look at self grasping, then we should we should take into consideration the issue of the self or the I.
There’s no need to doubt the existence of the self or the I. In fact, in general, we say that the self does indeed exist. There is a conventional self or a conventional I whose existence does not need to be doubted. Yet we speak about selflessness and so or the non-existent self. And thus, the issue which we need to investigate in great detail is what is the self which is said to be nonexistent?
Conventionally, there’s the conventional self which says to exist, but then there is a self which we say does not exist. What is the self, and how is that related to the self self grasping? Last week, Geshe-la spoke a great a great deal about this. And now in relation to this point of selflessness, we see the self the self which does not exist is is the self sufficient self, a self which whose existence does not depend upon others. So we can speak about an independent self or a self sufficient self, yet yet we speak about them.
These are the selves which are which are said not to exist. Despite the fact that the self that the self does not excuse me. Despite the fact that a self which does not exist which does not depend upon others or rely upon others does not exist, it seems to exist to us. For instance, in moments of great anger or pride or jealousy. The self seems to be something the I seems to be something which does not rely upon other things.
It seems to stand alone and be self sufficient. And, thus, we operate under that assumption that the I or the self exists in the way that it seems to exist to us in moments of great anger. And based on that, we accumulate karma, which leads to the experience of suffering. Now so in terms of the self selflessness, we can speak about coarse selflessness and subtle selflessness. The core selflessness involves involves negating the what is known as the object of negation.
Now in this case, the object of negation for coarse selflessness is an independent self, a self which does not rely upon others. The word object of negation carries the connotations of the thing which is to be disproved, the thing which is to be negated. And thus, the thing which is to be disproved is a self which stands alone, self which is self sufficient or independent. That type of self does not exist. Oh, that’s right.
Yeah. Yeah. Geshe-la says he’s a bit confused here. What what he taught up there, what he taught down here, it’s all kind of blending together. We have these two terms, the self sufficient self and the independent self.
Now to look at the what the what is to sell a self sufficient self, for instance, an elder elderly person cannot stand alone without the assistance of, for instance, a cane. Correct? They need a cane to be able to stand up, and thus that old elderly person can said in some sense said to be said to depend upon the cane for for its yes. Well, similarly, the self or the I exists or remains in dependent upon the body and the mind. We are humans.
As humans, then we have both a body and the mind. The I is imputation or a designation which is given to the collection of body and mind, and thus the basis of imputation or the basis of designation for the I is said to be the body and the mind. Without the body and the mind, the I or the self could not remain. Without depending upon the body and the mind, the self does not cannot exist. So similar to an elderly person who needs to depend upon a cane, the eye depends upon its basis of imputation, the body and the mind, without which it cannot remain.
So while we necessarily depend upon the excuse me. While the I necessarily depends upon the body and mind, in moments when the afflictions arise in a very strong manner, such as the instance in which one feels great anger, then the self appears to exist without relying upon anything else. It appears to exist independent of other things. The eye does not appear to exist as a mere imputation on given to body and mind, but rather it appears to be self sufficient. Instance, order to take a person as an object of mind, then you necessarily need to take that person as an object of mind in dependence upon the aggregates which act as the basis of imputation for that person.
So if you take myself, Bob, for example. And in order for Bob to arise as an object of mind, you whether whether you’re you think of him or whether you see him, you know, whether you’re you whether you just remember that he exists or something, it that that taking of Bob, that conceptualizing of Bob necessarily occurs in dependence upon the aggregates, which act as the basis of imputation. So yet despite the fact that that in in order to take a person as an object of mind, one necessarily does so in dependence upon the aggregates which act as the basis of imputation. It seems to us that there is a person or a self which is independent of those aggregates. So in a sense, there’s a former and latter involved that first first, the aggregates must be taken to mind and only then can the person such as Bob be taken as an object of mind.
Yet despite the fact that there is former and latter and a dependent relationship between the two, on the level of the way things appear or seem to exist to us, such a distinction is not recognized. Mhmm. So yet, in terms of the way things appear to us or the way things seem to exist to us, and it seems as if it appears as if that per there is indeed a person who exists which does which is not reliant upon or dependent upon those aggregates. Okay? Without apprehending the aggregates which act as the basis of imputation for the person, the one cannot take that person as an object of mind.
Yet, still it seems to us that there that that we can. We it it seems to us that there is an independent self which can be taken as an object of mind without depending upon the the aggregates. And the fact that there seems to be such a self with the fact that there seems to be a self which we can take as an object of mind without depending upon the aggregates which act as the basis of imputation is a sign that in our continuum, there is an innate self grasping. Okay. All samsaric beings, that is all beings which exist within saṃsāra, from the smallest creatures on up, such as dogs and cats and so forth, all have this innate self grasping in their continuum.
Okay. This innate grasp this innate self grasping is identified as the very root of Samsāra or cyclic existence. And then this innate self grasping acts as a condition so that we grasp at the self and in dependence upon that give rise to anger and pride and jealousy and the other afflictions, which leads to the accumulation or excuse me. Yes. Which leads to the accumulation of karma.
Which leads to the accumulation of karma. And this is what continue this is what keeps us in this continuous cycle of saṃsāra. The root being self the innate self grasping. That acts as a condition for the rising of the afflictions, which results in karma, and thus we cycle within So that when we encounter something which is good, something yeah. Something which is good, then we grasp due to this innate grasping at the eye, due to the innate self grasping which exists in our continuum, we we grasp at this good object as being something which is an independent entity, which strengthens the attachment we feel towards something which is good, or if we feel anger towards a particular person.
And we we hold that person to be independent, or we hold that person to be to to not depend upon other factors. And thus, the anger we feel towards them is very strong. In fact, due to this innate self grasping, we we hold that them as being an independent entity or something who whose existence is not dependent upon others so strongly that even we feel that other than eliminating them altogether, there’s no way that we that this person is gonna change. As if we it’s almost like this innate grasping of itself makes us think that there can be no change which could come from the side of that person, and thus we think that the only way to the only way to go about changing the situation would be to eliminate them. Teaching on equanimity, so please consult the tapes which have the teachings on equanimity for further guidance on these points.
He explained these topics to the best of his ability. In explaining these topics then he went into the way in which we give we give basically pseudo reasons. Yeah. False false reasons for why we generate anger, why we generate attachment, and we must look at these what are really false or pseudo reasons for generating these generating attachment and anger and so forth. So please pay attention to those if you’re interested.
Okay. So on a course level, we have we have a grasping of the self in which we grasp at the self as being independent or not dependent or reliant upon others. If we take this to a more subtle level, then we can we there is a grasping at the self which is established from its own side. And thus, this more subtle level of selflessness is identified as the the the self which is not established from its own side. When if you remember last week, put forth a logical syllogism.
Yeah. This this reasoning in which in which in order to prove that things, for instance, the self are not independent. And as a reason, he stated that because they exist upon others. And in giving this this syllogism then, we looked at how if something is dependent upon others, it cannot be in the it’s it cannot be independent. Now when when when looking at in trying to prove that that the self does not exist from its own side, we use the same reasonings.
Why is it that the self is not established from its own side? Because it is dependent upon others, because it is a dependent arising. Okay? What now let’s look at what what we’re saying when we say that something that that functioning things are not established from their own side. Oh, yeah.
Functioning things is a is a technical term. So functioning things necessarily have basically, we can just say things. Right? Things necessarily have a basis of imputation. For instance, the eye.
Yeah? What is the basis of imputation for the eye? It is the collection of body and mind. Yeah? What about for this building?
What’s the base of imputation for the building? The windows, walls, doors. So when we say that things are not for instance, the eye is not established from its own side, we’re saying that the I and things are not established from the side of the basis of imputation. Now if, for instance, the I were established from the side of the basis of imputation, then the I would have to be established from side of either the body or the mind. But the I is not in fact established from the side of the body or the mind, is it?
In fact, it’s it’s one cannot posit the I as existing from the side of the body or mind. So if indeed the established from the or excuse me. If indeed the eye were established from the side of the basis of imputation, then the eye would have to be established from the side of either the body or the mind, in which case the eye would have to be either the body or the mind. But the eye is not the body nor is it the mind, and thus we say that the eye is not established from the side of its base of imputation. This one.
Is it clear? We could apply this example to the the this building, this temple as well. So if we were to say for instance that this if you were to say that this temple is established on the side of its basis of imputation, you would have to say that the that the temple is established from this from the side of either the windows, the walls, or the doors. In which case, you would have to be able to point to the windows, walls, and doors and provide an instance of temple. Temple.
But you find that when you look at the you you but you find that that is not the case. Because when you you if you were to say, yeah, take this door for instance. It follows that that is the that is the temple, but that’s not the case. Take the walls. Walls.
It follows that these walls are the temple, but that is not the case. So you we see that you cannot find the the temple in the basis of imputation. You cannot find the temple in the windows, the walls, or the doors. Mhmm. So you you will never find, for instance, temple in the basis of imputation.
You can’t find it, can you? Maybe two. Love. Two. So maybe under the throne somewhere?
So you see that whatever anything, any phenomena it necessarily does not exist from the side of its basis of imputation, but rather is an imputation which is given to the basis of imputation. Yeah. In other words, all things are mere imputations. They are imputedly existent. So with in a sense, I preempted the next thing which Geshe was saying because the way Geshe-la presented it, he said, we when we when we investigate, we come to see that things do not exist from the side of the basis of imputation.
So how is it that they exist? They exist as imputed things which are given to its basis. For instance, we have the body and the mind. The body and the mind are the basis of imputation. The I is an imputed phenomenon, which is designated on top of the body and the mind.
Or we can take the temple, for instance. The windows, walls, and doors are the basis of imputation. The temp temple temple is imputed phenomena. Thus, temple and I and all all things are imputedly existent. Their all existence is that of an impute an object which is imputed onto the basis of imputation.
However, things from however, the eye and the temple and other things do not appear to exist in this way. Things do not appear to be mere, or excuse me. Things do not appear to be imputed phenomena. Things do not appear to be imputedly existent. So we see that the way things appear to exist and the way things actually exist do not accord.
Okay. Understand? Clear? Sitting there with wide open eyes, it seems it seems to be an indication that you don’t really understand. In fact, the eyes seems to us to be something which is separate from body and mind.
We are never able to cause our conception of I to arise in such a way that we see it to be in imputed phenomena. We never see the I to be just a mere imputation given to body and mind. And thus, we see we yet yes. So so we never see the eye. The eye never appears to us or never arises to us as a mere imputation, merely an imputed phenomenon which is designated on top of the body and the mind.
We have a statement which is said that the I does not exist as it appears. To say that the I exists as it appears would be to say it is established from its own side because that’s the way the eye seems to exist to us. If we appreciate, however, that the eye does not exist as it appears, then we appreciate that the eye is not established from its own side. Once again, the way the eye appears to exist to us is if it were established from its own side, but it does not exist in that way, and thus we say that the I is not established as it appears. Perhaps it helps if we think about something a little bit strange.
If for instance, in a moment of anger, then another were to say something nasty or harsh to us. Excuse me. So if another person in a feeling of anger were to say something nasty or negative to us, and it appears to us that an independent person, a person which is not dependent or reliant upon others for its existence is saying those nasty things to us. And of course independence, yeah, that acts as a condition for our becoming angry at them them as well. Now you see that it seems to us that an independent or yeah, not dependently existent person is saying these nasty things to us.
So you see So do do you see what is being said that it appears to us when this person is saying something negative or nasty to us that it isn’t that they are doing so from within a state of independence, which is to say that they appear to be independently existent. They appear to yes. They appear to be independently existent. And it is thus this independently existent person who is causing us harm. Yeah.
But that’s how it seems to be at least. Okay. So the mistake we make is this to hold that this person is independently existent. In fact, an independent person does not exist, does it? Why is it the independent persons does not exist?
Because they, a person necessarily exists in dependence upon other factors. So the mistake we’re making is to hold that this is an independent person but that’s not it. In addition to that then this person is angry and is imputed in dependence upon anger. Yeah. This person is angry and out of anger they have come to say something nasty or negative to us, correct? So this person who has said something nasty to us is not only not independent as we hold it to be, but also they are a person who has imputed in dependence upon the anger. For without that anger, this type of person which appears to us would not exist. So is Geshe-la saying that the that that it it does the does the person appear to be in dependence upon their anger? Although we could we would understand if we thought about it a little bit, this person we cannot cause this person to appear to us as as being controlled by their anger, which in fact they are.
Yeah? They are under the sway of the anger, which we could come to understand if we thought about it a little bit. But we but without doing so, then the person appears to be independent. And so thus, Geshe-la Yeah. This Geshe lah says, if we thought about it, we could understand that they are not independent.
They that they are in or that they are being controlled by their anger and thus, this is why they’re being made to act in this way. But we that does not that does not occur to us. The difference between being able to appreciate that a person is controlled by anger or not comes down to patience. That is whether one has patience or not. Yeah.
Someone with patience will be able to make the distinction that we should not become angry with this person because this person itself is controlled by the anger which is making them act in this way. So being able to identify or not being able to identify this point comes down to patience. Are you do we have at least a rough understanding then of what it means to be established from one’s own side and not established from one’s own side. Okay. Yeah?
What? I was just wondering, considering that we are, am I correct to say, understanding that will get angry? Or is it just con is it completely dependent on what other aggregates, including what Geshe-la said, with, you know, affection and. And if such is the case, then how can one overcome the self grasping if it is something of an innate or even an instinctual and some others? Is I’m not sure I understand the question.
I suppose, basically, how does one overcome self grasping then? How does one overcome self grasping? The way to overcome self grasping is to realize that the object which is conceived is not existent. There’s an object we call it object of conception. To realize that what is being conceived, that is an independent self, does not actually exist is the way to overcome self grasping.
There’s another technical term which is used and that is the object of the mode of apprehension. Now, the mode of apprehension refers to the way in which we grasp at or apprehend a particular thing to exist. The object is the aspect which this mode grasping assumes. And so in this context grasping at this, the mode, the object of the mode of grasping is the independent self. Yeah, it’s basically independence or being established from one’s own side.
When we realize that that is not actually the case, that that does not exist, we are able to overcome self grasping. So for instance, if I I don’t know the proper word in Tibetan, but in English we have fool’s gold, seems to be acceptable. So how is it that we overcome the conception that fool’s gold is gold? Mhmm. Well, first one needs to study about what what actual gold is.
Yeah? Having first come to understand what actual gold is, then you can investigate this this fool’s gold to and determine that it is not actual gold. Yeah. Thus first we need to do a bit of study about not being established from one’s own side. And then, in the process then we take into consideration that if something were established from its own side, it would have to have these characteristics qualities.
If something were established from its own side, this would have to be true about it. Basically have to realize that the qualities of what it is to be established from one’s own side and recognize that that is not the case. Okay. Understand? When I say recognize that that is the case, I mean, that’s perhaps a rather ineloquent way of saying it.
It’s saying that that is to say that one has to recognize that those characteristics or qualities are not fulfilled by the object we’re taking into our investigation. As was mentioned before, if you were to ask someone who has done a bit study on these issues, is the self established from one’s own side? The response you’re gonna get is, no, the self is not established from one’s own side, which is merely an indication that they do not have an intellectually acquired self grasping, which is merely to say that they do not hold to an intellectually acquired self grasping. In this context, imputed means that that’s not one of their philosophical beliefs. Yet despite the fact that, whereas if you were to ask a person who has never done any study in regards to these issues, is the self established from its own side?
The response you’d likely to get is, I don’t know. Yet, even if someone who’s never done any study in regards to this or somebody who has done study in regards to this lacks an imputed self grasping, they along with all sentient beings have an innate self grasping in their continuum. And this is the point, not the imputed self grasping, but the innate self grasping, which exists in the continuum of all sentient beings, regardless of whether or not they on a philosophical or intellectual level, they assent to such a view. This is the root of saṃsāra. Mhmm.
This conception or this grasping with in which grasps at things as, for instance, being established from its own side is the root of saṃsāra. Now if one were to say, tell me what the coarse root of Samsāra is or the root of Samsāra on a coarse level, one would say that it is the conception which which grasps at the self as being substantial and self sufficient. If one were to ask then, how is it that Samsāra comes into existence? How is it that Samsāra is formed? Is that innate self grasping acts as the root and then from time to time we give rise to anger, from time to time we give rise attachment, and as a result of these we accumulate karma, and thus the karma leads to suffering and the continued cycling within existence.
Which is why in the text that it states that unless you have the wisdom perceiving reality, you cannot cut the root of saṃsāra. Okay. For that, it continues on by saying that for that reason then exert yourself in the methods of dependent arising. More more particularly, it says exert yourself in the methods for realizing dependent arising. And in these lines then we have basically three questions, don’t we?
Okay. The first question which comes up is, what are the reasons for the need to meditate on the correct view? Mhmm. And it said that without this correct view, one cannot cut the root of saṃsāra. And so the second question is, what is the root of saṃsāra?
What is the root of conditioned existence? So the second second question is, what’s the root of conditioned existence? Conditioned existence being a synonym for saṃsāra. Yeah. So the root of condition existence is of course, innate self grasping.
And then as one recognizes that without the correct view, without realizing the true nature of things, without realizing their true mode of existence, one cannot cut the root of saṃsāra. One cannot eliminate the innate self grasping. We are encouraged to exert ourselves in the methods by which we may realize dependent arising. So dependent arising is like the methods, is like the method by which we may realize the ultimate nature of things. Another way to say that is that dependent arising is the reason which we posit in realizing emptiness.
The reason in this case refers to a reason in a syllogism which Geshe-la was saying that things are not that if you take a particular subject and it says and you you make the assertion that it is not established from its own side. Why? Because it is a dependent arising. So because it is a dependent arising is the reason which is posited in order to realize emptiness. So this is like the third question.
What is dependent arising? So once again, the the root text reads, a person’s entered the path that pleases the Buddhist when for all objects in the cycle or beyond, he sees that cause and effect can never fail. And when for him, they lose all solid appearance. The text states that all phenomena all phenomena of saṃsāra and nirvana. Oh, in the in the English translation, just says in the cycle or beyond.
And the cycle refers to Samsāra. Beyond refers to nirvana, a state beyond sorrow. We can identify two types of cause and effect. The cause and effect which leads to one continuing within Samsāra, and the type of cause and effect which leads ones along the path to liberation. That is the type of cause and effect which leads one to be liberated from Samsāra.
Whatever the case may be, both types of cause and effect are infallible in the sense, yeah, which Geshe-la will explain. Basically, we have two types of cause and effect that which contributes to our continuing within saṃsāra and that which leads to liberation from saṃsāra. Understand? To explain it in brief, we’re one we’re speaking about the four truths, the four noble truths. We have at the root of the first type of cause and effect, that cause and effect which contributes to cycling within Samsāra, the true origins of suffering.
True origins of suffering being the karma the afflictions. One due to the karma and the afflictions, one accumulates karma and as a result, is certain to continue within Samsāra. Whereas if one were to meditate upon true paths, that meditation on true paths is certain to result in the attainment of true cessation, if that occurs is certain to lead to liberation from saṃsāra. So cause and effect are infallible in the sense that when one act when one accumulates karma due to due to the afflictions, one is certain to remain within Samsāra, whereas when one develops the true cessation as a result of having meditated upon true paths, one is certain to be liberated from saṃsāra. Okay?
For instance, if we were to plant in our garden the seed of a medicinal plant, it’s definite that any seed any plant which grows up from that seed is going to be a medicinal plant. Similarly, if the seed we plant in our garden is for a poisonous plant, it’s certain that any plant which grows up from that seed is going to be a poisonous plant. It is infallible in that sense that Okay. This one. Clear?
This is the infallibility of cause and effect. So that’s the first important point to to understand in relation to this verse. The next important point is where it says that when for him, they lose all solid appearance, which is actually quite a unsatisfactory translation. In fact, it’s more literally something like, the aspect of all, excuse me, and one’s focal object and all of one’s focal objects are destroyed or collapsed, which relates to your question earlier that One focuses upon the self or the focus of innate self grasping is of course the self, but then the aspect which this grasping takes is that the self is established from its own side. And thus, if we were to understand that the self is not established from its own side, then the aspect of this grasping that it is established from its own side is destroyed or collapsed as a result.
We have the focus, which is the self, and then the aspect with the grasping at that focus assumes. The aspect is that it is established from its own side. By realizing that it is not, that that focus or the excuse me, that the the aspect of that focus collapses or is destroyed. If you remember last week, Geshe-la spoke about about the fear that that arises when you think that there’s a snake underneath your bed. For instance, there might in fact be just a coiled up rope, thin rope, which is underneath your bed.
But when you look at it, if you see it to be a snake, if you grasp it as being a snake, then you might feel some fear as a result. Yeah? Yeah? Where does that fear of the snake arise from? It arises from?
Yeah. So as a result of the fear, one experiences some suffering. Where does the suffering of fear come from? It comes about in dependence upon the conception that or the grasping that the rope is in fact a snake. The basis the basis of imputation is this coiled up rope.
Correct? Yeah. Yourself have have imputed or designated that as a snake a snake on top of that. How is it that you can eliminate the fear? Yeah?
You can’t eliminate you can’t eliminate the fear by just screaming or making a scene, can you? You have to investigate the basis of imputation. And by coming to find that there is not even the smallest particle of snake in this basis of imputation after having investigated this coiled up rope, then you can destroy the suffering which comes about due to the fear and the fear itself. Yeah? It’s only by investigating the basis of imputation and coming to see that what you grasp at does not actually exist that you can eliminate that fear though.
So the focus of the mind which grasp at at there being a snake is actually the rope. What one’s mind is directed towards or focused on is in fact the rope. The aspect the aspect of the focus, however, is snake. Yeah. Basically, you you grasp at that rope as being a snake.
You assume that there is a Yeah. The the aspect of the focus is that the rope is a snake. By realizing by realizing that the the no snake exists from the side of the rope, the bay its basis of imputation, and you destroy the aspect of one’s focus that is that it is a snake. Okay? Mhmm.
Is the same as what yeah. This this same thing can be applied to understanding of the I and its lack of inherent existence. If you if one realizes the lack of inherent existence, then the aspect of grasping at things as being inherently existent is destroyed. It will collapse. Mhmm.
Postman said, it is time. It’s nothing time. We’re not finished. Just say, We have two methods, two points which have been covered. The first is that cause and effect is never deceptive, that it is infallible.
The second is that by realizing the lack of inherent existence of things, or by realizing that things are not established from their own side, we may destroy the aspect of grasping at the self. In this case, remember what aspect means. It means we may destroy, yeah, what is being grasped at and self grasping. By engaging these two methods, then we may enter into the path which pleases the Buddhas. Okay.
So this weekend Geshe-la will finish making the questions and then I’ll translate them into English and if but if some of you feel that oh you need the questions very quickly and so then speak with Miffy and give her your information and Miffy can contact us and we’ll take it from there. Okay. Thank you. That’ll be it for this evening though. So as Geshe-la was saying in the beginning, exercise or practice, training of mind is something which is very important.
So please take that into consideration and continue studying and contemplating meditating at home. And let us not forget the final goal and may we all, please, everyone work, try as hard as you can to bring this about.