Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. Structured around eleven written exam questions distributed to students on their final night, this 81-minute session is Geshe Pema Tsering’s closing class on the Three Principal Aspects of the Path, devoted entirely to correct view. He opens by explaining why only wisdom realizing emptiness — not renunciation or bodhicitta — can directly uproot self-grasping: just as you must go back into the room and look at what you called a snake, you must examine the actual basis of fear, not meditate around it. He covers coarse and subtle selflessness, explains dependent arising at both levels, and traces how innate self-grasping drives afflictions, karma, and cyclic suffering. He works through Tsongkhapa’s verses 10–13, showing why dependent origination and emptiness are complementary rather than contradictory, and what completing the analysis of the view actually requires: both realizations arising simultaneously. He closes with a note on gendered language in Tibetan texts and direct personal advice to avoid intoxicants and redirect attention from the objects of anger or attachment to the afflictions themselves.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 11 The Three Principle Aspects .mp3
UUID: c03d3c12-2806-402f-816c-7dc778527057
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: 81.0 minutes
Words: ~7,238
Do guys have the the questions for the exam? Yeah. So please look at those while Geshe-la’s teaching. This is the last night, so there’s no time except for tonight. So we have to go a bit quickly over this material.
In the past, we’ve covered both renunciation and bodhicitta. Not only did Geshe teach it, but did the exams were given and and returned to us and so on and so forth. So now for the past few weeks, we’ve working on the correct view. And in the past few weeks, Geshe-la is confident that we’ve been able to at least give a very rough introduction to the object of negation. That is the object which is negated by emptiness.
What is what things are empty of, to say it in the shorthand. So in any case, Geshe-la has written eleven questions, which you have on this on the sheet. So listen to this evening’s teachings and think about what have been taught over the past few weeks, and then try and respond to the best of your ability, yet to the limits of your knowledge. The recognition, of course, is is that we don’t have as much time as we would like to cover these subjects. Everybody have?
Computer. What? Does everybody well, I suppose does everybody have questions? The the exam? You have?
Yeah. Not everybody. Those people are doing the exams. Yeah. Oh, yeah.
If there are any extras, maybe it’d be good to just distribute them for the evening and then collect them again at the end. Maybe this. Maybe maybe maybe Maybe. Guess I guess I was just concerned if you if some of you have the questions in front of you and others you don’t, then maybe it’ll be difficult to follow the teaching. Okay.
Then So, yeah, so those of you who are not do not plan to actually take the exam and write the answers, then please be sure to return the exams at the end of the evening. Okay. If you like, then keep it. Yeah. Okay?
You have oh, yeah. Are you? So tonight. Only tonight. Can I have a copy?
You have a question? The the first question is, what are the reasons one needs to meditate on the correct view? Or what is what are the reasons one needs to cultivate the correct view? I forgot what I wrote the other day. As you notice, it states that this question can be rephrased.
What are the reasons we need to cultivate the wisdom realizing the mode of existence? Mode of existence also being referred as the nature of things. The reason why Geshe-la offered this alternative phrasing of the question is in order to help you realize that the correct view and the wisdom realizing the mode of existent the, yeah, the mode of existence are the same thing. The reason we need to meditate upon the correct view or cultivate the wisdom realizing the mode of existence or the nature of things is because we need to abandon suffering and its causes. We need to abandon Samsāra and attain liberation.
And the root of saṃsāra, the root of suffering is self grasping. The topics which have been covered earlier, renunciation and bodhicitta, do not have the capacity to act as direct antidotes to self grasping, and thus, they cannot act as direct antidotes to eliminate the root of suffering. Mhmm. Only the correct view can, and thus, we need to meditate upon it. We have this technical term which is known as the mode of apprehension.
To rephrase it, it means the way in which one apprehends things. How wisdom realizing the mode of existence or the nature of things, let’s just call it the nature of things for the sake of yeah. Just to make it easier. Yeah. So the way the the wisdom realizing the nature of things excuse me.
The the the way in which the wisdom realizing the nature of things apprehends things is stands in contradiction to the way in which self grasping apprehends things. Their modes of apprehension are contrary to one another, and thus, by developing the wisdom realizing the nature of things, one can eliminate the mode of apprehension of self grasping, thereby allowing one to eliminate suffering and the causes of suffering in saṃsāra. Okay? As Geshe-la gave an example earlier, if for instance, you walk into your room and you think, oh, that’s a snake coiled up under my bed. You get scared, and you experience the suffering of being scared.
If you then walk out of the room and go in the next room and meditate on on renunciation and bodhicitta, that meditation of renunciation and bodhicitta is not going to eliminate the suffering of being scared that this is there’s a snake in your room, is it? You’ve gotta go in there and look at the basis. Look at this thing which has been designated snake. Look at this thing which you are apprehending as a snake and perceptually realize that this indeed is not a snake. And by perceptually realizing that is the case, then you can dispel the the apprehension that this is a snake, the fear that comes from that apprehension, and the suffering which comes from that fear.
That is the way to eliminate the suffering which comes yeah. Suffering, not by meditating on renunciation of bodhicitta. That that does not have the capacity to bring that about. Mhmm. So we’ll assume that’s sufficient for the answer to the first question.
Mhmm. You’ve gotta write something like that. Because you’ll actually already taught on the second and third questions. The second question reads, the selflessness of persons is the person’s is the person’s mode of existence. So we speak about the selflessness of persons.
Now, it’s not only Westerners, but also some Tibetans who draw a wrong understanding from this statement, the selflessness of persons. They think when they hear selflessness of persons, they think that, oh, there is no person. But if you don’t investigate more closely what is actually being communicated by this statement, then you might indeed gain this wrong understanding. By saying that selflessness of persons, we’re not saying that no self exists. Rather, one is trying to identify a particular type of self which does not exist.
So in identifying the this self which does not exist or the non existent self, we identify coarse and a more subtle level. On a coarse level, when one speaks about the selflessness of persons, one is saying that the person is not established as a self sufficient, substantial person. On a more subtle level, one is saying that the person is not established from its own side. Mhmm. So to say selflessness of persons, one is saying that the self is, on a course level, not self sufficient and substantial.
And on a more subtle level, it is not established from its own side. Okay. In brief, yeah, the person does not exist as it appears. The fourth question is, what is the meaning of dependent arising? Dependent arising being, of course, the Buddhist view.
Well, at least on a course level, we can say that the Buddhist view is dependent arising. On a more subtle level, we say that the Buddhist view has to do with the view of selflessness. So because this is an important aspect of the Buddhist view, Geshe-la is asked, what is the meaning of dependence arising? Okay. Dependent arising or it can also be described as dependent origination or dependently related even, can be explained or can can has two different aspects.
The first of which applies to or excuse me, compound compounded phenomena, phenomena which are compounds of other things. So compounded phenomena arise dependent upon their causes and conditions. To speak about dependent arising in relation to compounded phenomena means to say that compounded phenomena depend upon the causes and conditions. One could also say that they arise in dependence and in relation to their causes and conditions, which is to say, if one did not have their causes and conditions, one would not have this compound of phenomena. Without the causes and conditions which allow and lead to the arising of a particular phenomena, this phenomena could not exist.
Okay? In relation to this course level of dependent arising, karma and its effects becomes very important, and thus, one must pay very close attention to cause and effect. This relates to things such as happiness and suffering, in fact, all things. Whether we’re speaking about the suffering or pleasure of the body or suffering or pleasure of the mind. Suffering and pleasure arise dependent upon causes and conditions.
As that is the case, then utilizing particular causes and conditions, one can bring happiness about. Utilizing particular causes and conditions, one can eliminate suffering. So this is a very important point. One can adopt certain causes and conditions and abandon others, thereby bringing about happiness and eliminating suffering. Cause and effect, therefore, is a very important topic in relation to course dependent arising.
Already spoke about the more subtle level of dependent arising as well. Now this more subtle level of dependent arising refers to the fact that all imputed exist in dependence upon the basis of designation or the basis of imputation. Now, of imputation or basic designation is the thing which forms the basis for designating imputing or labeling a particular phenomena. Now all imputed phenomena exist in dependence upon the basis of designation or imputation, which is to say that imputed phenomena are mere designations which are given to a particular basis without which we could not have this imputed phenomena. Imputed phenomena are dependent arisings because the imputed phenomena do not exist from the side of the basis of imputation, but rather are imputations or designations given to that basis of imputation.
This is the subtle level of dependent arising. The fifth question is, how is it that the realization of dependent arising acts as a method for realizing selflessness? Now Geshe-la asked this question particularly because the ninth verse composed by Lama Tsongkhapa states, you may master renunciation and the wish to attain enlightenment, that is bodhicitta, for the benefit of all sentient beings. But unless you have the wisdom perceiving reality, you cannot cut the root of saṃsāra. Therefore, make effort in ways to perceive dependent arising.
Thus, Lama Tsongkhapa says that realizing dependent arising acts as a method for realizing selflessness. And so we have selflessness. We spoke about both the course level and a subtle level. Set aside the course level. This is this the fact that the that no no self sufficient and substantial self exists.
That’s that’s clear. That’s obvious. That’s easy. Let’s look at the more subtle level of selflessness, which is to say that the self is not established from its own side, or the self isn’t is not or excuse me, that the self is not established from its own side, but rather the self is established in dependence upon its basis of imputation. Uh-huh.
Now now how is it that the the real realizing dependent arising can act as a method for realizing selflessness? Well, by realizing that the self is not established from its own side, but rather it’s established in dependence upon its basis of imputation, one comes to realize that that particular self does not exist. Hence, it is there is no hence, it is selfless. The fact that the self exists in dependence upon its basis of imputation indicates that it is a dependent arising. The fact that it is a dependent arising and thus exists in dependence upon its its basis of imputation and therefore is not established from its own side indicates selflessness.
Hence, dependent arising acts as a method for realizing selflessness. I, self, person, these are all synonyms for one another in in Buddhist terms. I, self, and person. They mean this they they refer to the same thing. So we look at this.
What is the basis for imputing self? What is the basis for designating the self? Designating the self? It is the body and the mind. All of us have a body and a mind.
Correct? Yeah? So the basis for imputing self, the basis for designating self is the body and the mind. It is stated that the eye is not established from the side of the basis of imputation. If the eye were established from the side of the basis of imputation, that would mean of course that the eye must be established from the side of the body and the mind.
Body or the mind. If if if that’s the case, then look at it. If the I were established from the side of the body, that would mean that the body would have to be the I, but it’s not. If the I were established from the side of the mind, that would mean the mind would have to be the I, but it’s not. So we see that the I is not established from the side of its basis of imputation.
In fact, it is it is it is imputed in dependence upon its basis of imputation. Being existent from the side of the basis of imputation and being being imputed in dependence upon the basis of imputation are contrary. They are contradictory. You one something cannot be both established from its from the side of its base of imputation and establish in dependence upon it. Mhmm.
Okay? This clear. Mhmm. The next question, the sixth question is, how is it that self grasping is the root of saṃsāra? Self grasping is identified as the root of saṃsāra, the root of suffering.
How is it that self grasping acts as the root of saṃsāra or the root of suffering? Looking into this question is very important because all sentient beings, those of us who study, those of us who don’t study, animals that live up in the mountains, all sentient beings have an innate self grasping in their continuum. This innate self grasping then acts acts as the root of saṃsāra or the root of suffering. And therefore, to try and recognize the fact that indeed we have an innate tendency to to grasp at the self. There is innate self grasping in our continuum is very important.
How is it that we can come to recognize that we do indeed have innate self grasping? We do so by watching what occurs in moments of great anger pride or great great jealousy. Well, look what happens when the afflictions arise in a very strong way. When you become very angry or very prideful, the I and the the sense of I arises, and the I seems to exist without depending upon anything else. The I doesn’t seem to rely on anything else, but rather seems to be independent and free.
So look at what happens when you become angry or pride or jealous or jealous, and you will see that we have this innate innate grasping at a self which is held to or seems to exist without depending upon anything else. Now, this innate self grasping leads to the the generation of other afflictions, whether they be anger or pride or jealousy. By giving rise to anger, pride, or jealousy, we accumulate karma. We act out. We accumulate karma, and thus, we continue to cycle within saṃsāra.
Truths within the four noble truths, we can we speak about the true origins of suffering and true suffering. The true origins of suffering has two components. We can speak about karma and the afflictions. As we have just seen, grasping at the self acts as the root which leads to the afflictions, which leads to the accumulation of karma, which, when it ripens, leads to the experience of suffering. And hence, we have the true origins of suffering leading to true suffering.
And it is in this way through it is in this way as just described that grasping at the self acts as the root of suffering, the root of saṃsāra. If you notice the seventh and eighth and a couple more questions, just say write an explanation of the tenth verse or the eleventh verse or the thirteenth or fourteenth verse. Now the reason Geshe-la came up with this was because he was thinking, well, you know, maybe maybe it’ll be easier for you guys if rather than having rather than have to address a specific question, you can write an answer, basically a commentary to each of these particular verses explaining the limits of your knowledge, explaining all that you know on this particular subject. I mean, yeah, we could also mention the fact that it makes it quite easy for Geshe-la to write the questions. But anyway, because it’s easy for him yes.
Yes. Because it’s easy for him, it’ll probably be easier for you than Geshe-la has just said. Write an explanation to the tenth, eleventh, and so on, and these different verses. So Geshe-la is going to comment upon these verses and listen closely. And then, please and when you come to take the exam, try write write an answer which reflects the limits of your knowledge.
The tenth verse reads, a person’s entered the path that pleases the Buddhas when for for all objects in saṃsāra and beyond, which is on saṃsāra and nirvana, he sees that cause and effect can never fail. And when for him, they lose all solid appearance. Mhmm. And we were speaking about how last week how rather than say, and when for him, they lose all solid appearance, rather, it might be better if we say that, and when for him, the conceived object when all when all conceived objects are destroyed. It says here that when for all objects or phenomena in the cycle or beyond, one sees that that all those that oh, okay.
It says that a person’s entered the path that pleases the Buddha when when he sees that all phenomena in Samsāra and nirvana are infallible cause and effect. This is another way of saving this. Here, we have all phenomena in Samsāra and nirvana. nirvana refers to liberation, the state which is literally translated as beyond sorrow. All phenomena fall are either included within saṃsāra or included within nirvana.
Another way to say this is that all phenomena are either contaminated phenomena or uncontaminated phenomena. We can speak of two, two cycles, two two two directions. One is the direction of saṃsāra, the direction which which is with this contaminated realm. And they all the So we can say the realm of saṃsāra then has as its root grasping at the self. So grasping itself acts as the root and leads to the afflictions and and and contaminated karma and so forth, and one circles within cyclic existence, hence, saṃsāra.
Then we also have the side of liberation or nirvana. The wisdom realizing selflessness acts as the root of this cycle and thus through through accumulating the uncontaminated or or through the uncontaminated phenomena belong to this cycle of liberation. So we have basically two. All phenomena fall into either one category or the other. Yet, regardless of whether it’s samsaric phenomena or whether it’s the phenomena of nirvana, in neither case are those phenomena beyond or not or exempt from cause and effect.
This is illustrated quite well by an analogy from the external environment, the external world, a subject which you are all more knowledgeable about than Geschila. Whatever you you pay you some of you like gardening, right? Well, you put a plant seed in the ground, and the plant which grows up from that seed is necessarily going to be a plant of similar type. In fact, it’s impossible to plant a seed and in place of that particular type of plant growing up to have some completely different type of plant grow, isn’t it? Yeah.
It’s completely impossible. We all know that. So just, you know, if the if this type of cause and effect in the external world infallible, then the same is obviously true for how could it not be true for internal cause and effect? Thus, this is the understanding which which we must gain from this, that all phenomena, whether they be contaminated or uncontaminated, whether they belong to the cycle of saṃsāra or the cycle of nirvana, none of them are exempt from cause and effect. And then we have and when for him, they lose all solid appearance, or as I’m suggesting we we we say, that when all conceived objects are destroyed.
Now here, conceived object refers to the the objects conceived by self grasping. In fact, the self does conventionally exist. We can speak about a conventionally existent self. Yet rather than conceive of a conceptually existent self, we conceive of or grasp at a self which is established from its own side. So we can say that the focus of self grasping is indeed the self, conventionally existent self.
Yet the aspect which self grasping takes is to grasp at that self as being established from its own side. And thus the conceived object of self grasping is self which established from its own side. So thus, one must cultivate the view to the point where the conceived object self grasping is completely destroyed. That is, one must one must destroy the the grasp the self which is held to be established from its own side. Thus, by realizing that the object conceived by self grasping the self which is established from its own side or the eye which is established from its own side is nonexistent, then one can destroy that conceived object.
Thus, one must do this in order to realize that yes, one must do this in order to one must do this. Excuse me. Now, by cultivating both the understanding that of selflessness, which has destroyed the conceived object of self grasping, along with the understanding that cause and effect is infallible, then one enters the path one enters the correct path of the Buddhas, as it says here, the path which pleases the Buddhas. So Geshe-la will write an answer to this question and he’ll send we’ll get it to Lhundup quite quickly and you can read the Geshe-la’s answer to this question Okay. Or his commentary to the verse.
This quest or the tenth verse is, of course, related to the eleventh verse, which reads, appearances are infallible dependent origination. Voidness or emptiness is free of assertions. As long as these two understandings are seen as separate, you have not realized the intent of the Buddha. Now here, it’s speaking about emptiness or being empty of something. In fact, what is it empty of?
Empty of being established from its own side. That is phenomena are empty of being established from its own side too. So we have on the one hand, the statement emptiness is free of assertions. And on the other hand, we have appearances are infallible dependent origination. Appearances, those things which appear to us, they are identified as dependent origination.
These two are not at all contrary to one another. They are not at all contradictory. Yet sometimes or for for some people then, when they when they think of appearances are infallible dependent origination. When sometimes when people try and establish or understand that appearances are infallible dependent origination and voidness is free of assertions in relation to one particular basis, one particular object, they find some difficulty. Now here, emptiness is free of assertions.
Emptiness is not established from own side. That’s what we identify we’re saying, right? Phenomena are not established from their own side, which is to say, as Geshe-la was saying earlier, that they arise dependent upon causes and conditions. So, the two statements are: Appearances are infallible dependent origination and emptiness is free of assertions, which is to say that phenomena are not established from their own side, in fact they arise dependent upon causes and conditions. When trying to apply this to one basis or one object, some people have difficulty thinking if something is not established from its own side, how could it then be dependently arisen?
Or taking it the other way, when someone thinks, if something is dependently arisen, then how could it not be how how could it not when something is dependently arisen, how could we one then say that it is not established from its own side? Positing these two in relation to one thing becomes difficult. But as long as one is unable to apply both of these understandings to one particular basis, one has yet to realize the full intent of the Buddhist teachings. Because in fact, these are not contradictory, but or contrary to one another, but in fact complementary. This clear?
In the past, Geshe-la has illustrated this point by using the analogy of the temple or a building. The temple has both a relative nature and an ultimate nature. The relative nature of the temple is that it is a dependently arisen phenomena. The ultimate nature of the temple is that it is not established from its own side. Let’s take a look at the relative nature.
That is that it is dependently arisen. The temple is established in dependence upon the windows, walls, and doors. The windows, walls, and doors act as the basis for temple. Having the windows, walls, and doors then, we may establish temple. Thus, it is dependently arisen.
It arises in dependence upon its parts. Yet, the temple is not established from its own side. Now unless one can apply that that being its ultimate nature excuse me. Now unless one can understand how the relative nature applies to this one basis, that is the temple, and their ultimate nature, that is that it is not established from its own side, applies to the same phenomena, the temple, one has not as long as one cannot help understand how these both apply to the temple, one has yet to complete the analysis of the view. If one cannot realize the complementary nature of these two assertions, then one has yet to develop the correct view.
Yeah. The correct view for that person cannot be developed unless they understand how these are not contradictory but rather complementary. So the next question as you see is what is the meaning of completing the analysis of the view? If you look at the twelfth verse, it reads, when these two realizations are simultaneous and concurrent from a mere sight of infallible dependent origination comes certain knowledge that destroys all modes of mental grasping. At that time, the analysis of the profound view is complete.
This is the meaning of the question. What is the what is the meaning of completing the analysis of the view? This verse speaks of a time in which one’s realization of the relative nature of things that they are dependent of arisings and that they and the ultimate nature of things that they are not established from their own side. It speaks of a time when these realizations are simultaneous and concurrent. So as long as one’s realization of these two is sporadic or one arises and at that time one has difficulty causing the other to arise and one has yet to complete the analysis of the profound view.
Rather, one needs to have these two understandings be mutually complimentary. Then one needs to assist one so that when someone says, Oh, that’s dependently existent. Things, Oh, that the fact that that’s dependently existent is in fact a sign that it is not established from its own side. When someone says that, oh, that arises in dependence upon its causes and conditions, or that has been established in dependence upon its basis of imputation, one who has completed the analysis of view will then automatically or very naturally think, Ah, that means that it is not established from its own side. And vice versa, for such a person who has completed the analysis of the view, when someone says that when someone takes something and understands that that is not established from its own side, one thinks, Oh, that’s an indication that it has arisen in dependence upon other factors, other causes and conditions.
And thus, these two, one must work and one must continue to engage in the analysis of the view until these two understandings are mutually complementary. Okay? The next question as you see is write an explanation of the thirteenth verse. Yeah. Yeah.
We all become very busy. So if we don’t make things a little bit easier, then we never finish them. It’s Geshe-la said he wrote these questions late at night a couple evenings ago. Thirteenth verse reads, appearances clear away the extreme of existence. Emptiness or voidness clears away the extreme of nonexistence.
When you understand the arising of cause and effect from the viewpoint of emptiness, you are not captivated by either extreme view. We have here the extreme of existence and the extreme of nonexistence. So first, have to look at what these extremes are. Well, take the first one for instance, the extreme of existence. Extreme of existence is inherent existence or establishment from one’s own side.
So if one grasps at the extreme of existence, one is grasping at the I or the self as being established from its own side. It’s also known as the view of permanence. Now, the view of nonexistence is to is to hold that the self does not exist even conventionally, to think that the self does not exist at all. And so if one holds to the view that the self does not exist at all, it does not even have conventional existence, one has fallen to the extreme of nonexistence or nihilism. Whereas if one were to hold that the self is established from its own side, then one would one would have fallen prey to the extreme of existence, the extreme of permanence.
So these are the extremes of existence and nonexistence. Is everyone clear about the two extremes? Mhmm. Mhmm. So the holding that the self is established from its own side.
Geshe-la is pointing out that if you talk about the extremes, you’re actually talking about yeah. Well, anyway, there’s distinction between grasping at the extremes and the extreme itself. And so k. So the extreme of existence or the extreme of permanence is the self which is established from its own side. The extreme of nihilism or the extreme of nonexistence is a totally nonexistent self, not even conventionally existent.
So if one holds to either of these extreme views, one is either grasping at the self as being established from its own side, or one is grasping at the self as being as nonexisting at all. Mhmm. Okay. Yeah. Just to see a person dispels the dispels the extreme of thinking that they do not exist.
If you see them, you think, oh, they exist. And thus, the extreme which holds that self not or that person not to exist at all is eliminated. Yeah. And that would be to say that appearances dispel the extreme of nonexistence because the person appears, and hence, you think, ah, they exist. Thus, appearances dispel the extreme of existence Oh.
Or nonexistence. Excuse me. And then we have the statement that emptiness dispels the extreme of existence. So if you think about it and you read some books and you receive teachings, you and you come to understand that, ah, the self is not established from one’s own side. And you come to dispel the extreme of existence, which holds that the self is established from its own side.
Now that’s a very typical presentation. Generally, one would say appearances dispel the extreme of nonexistence and emptiness extremes excuse me, dispels the extreme of existence as we have just seen. But rather than phrase it in a typical way here, we actually have it reversed. And so they say that appearances clear away the extreme of existence Oh. And emptiness clears away the extreme of nonexistence.
It makes it a little bit more difficult. This indicates something very special, in fact, fact, that by merely appearing, the extreme of existence is dispelled. So merely by the fact that this arises in dependence upon its causes and conditions. The fact that it is established from its own side is dispelled or the now merely by existing in dependence upon other things or be it’s not being established in the in dependence upon its basis of imputation, dispels the extreme of existence that it is established from its own side. And thus by merely appearing, by merely understanding that things that things arise in dependence upon the causes and conditions or arise in dependence upon the basis of imputation, that has the capacity to dispel the grasping which holds things to be established from their own side.
Okay? And then we have the statement that emptiness dispels dispels the extremes of non existence, which is to say that because something is not, because a particular phenomena is not established from its own side, that shows that it arises in dependence upon causes and conditions. That shows that it arises dependence upon its basis of imputation. One thinks then that because this particular phenomena is not established from its own side, it’s reasonable then to say that it is dependently arisen. And the understanding, of course, then being that it would not be reasonable to say that this arises in dependence upon its basis of imputation if it were established from its own side.
And therefore to say that emptiness dispels the extreme of nonexistence is to say that the very fact that it is not established from its own side demonstrates or proves that it arises in dependence upon causes and conditions, that it arises in dependence upon its basis of imputation. Mhmm. One understands that the that that emptiness dispelling the or excuse me. One understands that the fact that things are not established from their own side makes the presentation of relative existence reasonable. Things being established from their own side would render this explanation of relative existence unreasonable and thus what this contributes to or this is what is being referred to in stating that emptiness dispels the extreme of nonexistence.
And it says that when you understand when you understand the arising of cause and effect from the viewpoint of emptiness, you are not captivated by either extreme view. And thus, until one, until one develops the understanding and in until for one appearances clear away the extreme of existence and emptiness clears away the extreme of nonexistence, one must continue to study about emptiness. One must continue to familiarize oneself with emptiness because it is only after the familiarity of emptiness becomes so great that appearances actually clear away the extreme of existence and emptiness clears away the extreme of nonexistence that one that one will reach a point in which one is not captivated by either extreme view. And then continuing on. When you’ve grasped as well as I the essential points of each of these three principal paths explained, then go into isolation, my son.
Make mighty efforts and quickly win your ultimate wish. Thus from now until we die, we must make effort in trying, in practicing and applying the Three Principal Aspects of the Path, renunciation, bodhicitta, the correct view to our mental continuum. The meaning of isolation can be understood in outer and an inner way. Outer isolation refers to the racket or the noisiness and confusion one experiences amongst people. Thus one should not, without becoming confused and so forth by the racket noise of mankind, one must go into isolation.
That is in an external its outer meaning. Inner isolation is to be isolated from the afflictions, and thus one must isolation can either be understood as being isolated from the inner inner inwardly in terms of the afflictions or outwardly from the confusion which comes from sometimes from contact. Okay. Congratulations.
Here we have the statement, then go into isolation, my son. Make mighty efforts quickly in your ultimate wish and so forth. Well, this might actually give rise to various preconceptions or ideas which we have, like superstitions and so forth about sexism and so forth. Well, two things should be said in relation to this point. First of all, Je Tsongkhapa had many different many many different students, and it might be that that this teaching of the Three Principal Aspects of the Path was directed particularly towards a male student of his, and thus, it’s phrased in the way it is, the son.
But even though I mean, maybe that’s the case, but even if it isn’t, one should not understand this this word in Tibetan poo to only refer to males. I mean, if it expresses the word male or son, it of course applies to male and females equally. For instance, we have a term called, which is typically or generally translated as son of the conqueror. But Geshe-la has said on many occasions, if one is a Bodhisattva, one is necessarily a Gyalse, which is translated as son of the conqueror, sometimes translated as child of the conqueror. As if you were to ask a Tibetan, well, I mean, Tibetan who maybe Tibetan who doesn’t know anything, they might say, they say, they might answer in the wrong way.
But for someone who has thought a little bit about it and knows a bit, if you were to ask a Tibetan, Is a Bodhisattva necessarily a male? They would say, No, I don’t accept that. And if a Bodhisattva is not necessarily a male and a Bodhisattva is necessarily a child of the conqueror, son of the conqueror, then we conclude that son of the conqueror does not only refer to males, but refers to male and female as well. So a Tibetan would say, Yeah, of course. I mean, this term Gyalse, which is sometimes translated as son of the conqueror, has to include females as well because females can generate bodhicitta, females can attain Buddhahood.
There’s no reason this has to be understood to only apply to one one sex. So please don’t have any preconceptions or ideas about the language that is utilized in these particular texts. It might be that that text was actually directed towards a particular student and perhaps it was a male. But even if that’s the case, it applies to male and females both, just as we see that Bodhisattvas can be male and female even if they the convention one of the conventional terms used to express that is a masculine term. There’s this, impact in Tibetan.
There’s a the the term for for a girl and the term or we can say the term for female and term for male have the same root, and that root is. Yeah. So female is and Where yeah. Whereas the the the word for male could be one one word for male could be said to be. So you see they have the same root.
Yeah? So saying that so saying poo doesn’t actually exclude it from being a female at all. I mean, in fact, that’s one that’s the root of for the word for female as well as for the word for male. So hence, it’s really like a neuter term as opposed to being exclusively a masculine or feminine term. So if in English, the word son only communicates or gives indications of one particular sex, well then the English translation is wrong.
So you in fact, we should look into whether or not poo should actually should even be translated as as son. There’s a as Geshe-la was saying, just as Geshe-la said, there’s a good case for translating them as child as opposed to son. Oh, yeah. Okay. As you see, number twelve reads, please write a brief account of your experience studying the Three Principal Aspects of the Path and the feelings you have regarding it.
In addition, and please write your name and a brief account of yourself. Geshe-la has the hope that by doing so, we can then later collect them all and transfer them onto another medium, then put it out as one. Thus, maybe this will act as like advice or inspiration, you know, spurring onto people to engage in study. This is at least the hope. As Geshe-la always says that ignorance is the root of suffering, ignorance is the root of Samsāra, whereas wisdom is the root of happiness and freedom from Samsāra.
Wisdom is likened to the sun or a sun, whereas ignorance is likened to darkness, and it’s very important that we do not engage in activities which obscure the sun and which cloud our mind and rob it of its clarity. So Geshe-la would ask, please, don’t drink alcohol without limit or you know, shoot up or smoke dope. Don’t take drugs and alcohol which are going to cloud your capacity and prevent you from taking advantage of this, of your discriminative powers as a person, as a human being. As a human being, we have this capacity for discrimination, which allows us to eliminate problems, to think about and then eliminate and address our problems when they arise. Wisdom or this capacity to discriminate also allows us to avoid becoming too overly inflated by experiences of happiness and thereby preventing obstacles to that happiness.
So please, once again, yeah, don’t take intoxicants or overdo it on alcohol. Otherwise, you’ll be eliminating your ability to bring about happiness and eliminate suffering. We have to be careful not to become too inflated or too deflated, and wisdom and clarity of mind can help us in this regard. Okay? And so and when anger and pride and attachment and so forth arise, don’t just welcome them immediately, but see if in fact, rather than welcome them, you can actually gain control over them.
See if you can in fact rein them in. Rather than be focused upon the object of anger, the object of attachment, and and be exaggerating either their positive or negative qualities, see if you can if you can’t turn your mind back on the anger and the attachment itself, thereby gaining control of it. Now, Geshe-la gives us this advice because this is the last time and we’re not going to see each other for a long time. So please, rather than fall prey to anger and attachment, see if you can’t direct your mind at the anger and attachment itself and bring it under control. Okay.
Thank you. Yes. So Mhmm. So, yeah, please, when you finish with your exams and you have the answers written and everything, please ask please return them to Lhundup, and they will have the answer keys available as well. So we can look into what we ought to study first next year then and hope with the eye on really making this course of study continuous one.
Okay.