Lam-rim 54: Suffering of Never Being Satisfied

Last time, we discussed the first of the six general sufferings of samsara, the suffering of having no certainty. We have no certainty regarding the situations that we will be reborn in, the relationships that we will have with various other beings, and so on. There is no need to repeat that. 

[2] Suffering of Never Being Satisfied

Today, we will start with the second one, the shortcoming of having no satisfaction. This is a very important point: Why is it that we are attracted to samsaric rebirth, our uncontrollably recurring rebirth? It’s because we think that the happiness we can get on this samsaric level is ultimate happiness. This is what we hope: to achieve real, lasting happiness through the ordinary things that we enjoy in this lifetime. 

There are many things that we enjoy. We enjoy friendship, love, good food, good music, sports. There are many, many different things that we enjoy and feel that we gain happiness from. But the thing is, we are never satisfied. No matter how much we have, it’s never enough. We never get to the point where we say, “OK, I have had enough. I don’t need any more. Now I am happy, and that happiness is going to last.” That’s something to really think about. Is this really how I want to spend eternity – trying to get more and more happiness that won’t last, that won’t satisfy? 

Let’s think about this point. What is it that we consider happiness? What is it that we are trying to find, and is it ever possible to be satisfied with it once we find it? Are we satisfied with someone telling us just once, “I love you,” or hugging or kissing us just once? Is that enough? Or eating a good meal just once? How much is enough? Is there ever satisfaction? Are we ever satisfied? And try to think of it in terms of your own experiences. 

[meditation]

What do you think? 

Participant: A teacher at Kopan monastery always called it the “if only syndrome.”

Dr. Berzin: “If only I had this; if only I had that.” I think that’s one aspect of it, certainly – always thinking, “If only I had more,” or, if we don’t have something, thinking, “If only I had that.” 

As Long as We Have Craving (Thirst), Nothing Will Ever Satisfy

I was thinking about this point in another way. You know I like to play with words, so I was thinking that, actually, what this point is saying is that nothing is ever satisfying. It’s not necessarily that we are not satisfied: it’s that nothing is satisfying. For instance, we could be relatively content. Contentment is something we try to develop with Dharma methods: “If I have a lot, if I have a little – same, same.” That’s certainly something that we try to do with Dharma practice. It’s not gaining liberation, but it’s certainly a way of dealing with things. However, even if we are relatively content, the problem, I think, is that whatever it is we pursue, our thirst for more can never be satisfied. “I am fairly content with what I have, but I would certainly like more” – this type of thing. That’s a subtler thing, isn’t it? So, even if we have relative contentment, we still have the suffering of our normal, worldly pursuits – for more food, more money, more love, more friends, and so on, which, just by their very nature, are never satisfying. There is no way to satisfy that thirst. We have to get rid of the thirst. 

Participant: Then the thing is that things don’t last. 

Dr. Berzin: Things don’t last. And not only do they not last in the sense that friendships are always changing, the person is always changing, circumstances are always changing, the food we eat is always changing – it doesn’t continue to fill our stomachs, and the good taste isn’t continually being renewed – they also don’t last in the sense that if we have too much of what we want, the good feeling that we get from these things turns into annoyance. It becomes annoying; it turns into suffering. If our loved one were to say “I love you” over and over and over again for an hour we would get quite annoyed, wouldn’t we? “Enough already!” We don’t want to hear it only once, but we also don’t want to hear it a hundred times in an hour, do we? So, what does that say about “I love you”?

Participant: But if you change your whole view of yourself and of things and you develop real contentment, then no matter how anything is, it can make you happy… sometimes. It’s not that things have an innate quality of not being able to make you happy.

Dr. Berzin: Well, yes. If we take the discussion to a deeper level, we see that, of course, objects don’t have an innate quality of not being able to satisfy anyone or to make anyone happy. Also, if we were to gain true contentment, we wouldn’t have this thirst and so on. Then, we would be happy or have equanimity about whatever we experience. That’s true. 

The point that I was trying to make was that the problem is our thirst. Objects can never satisfy that thirst. It’s not that they have some sort of quality of not being able satisfying us; it’s that they lack any quality of being able to satisfy us, to satisfy the thirst. The thirst is something that can never be satisfied. This is the point.

Participant: But it is interesting to think whether there is something in objects that makes them not satisfying or whether there’s something in me – my thirst – that makes me like a big black hole that never gets filled up.

Dr. Berzin: What do you think?

Participant: The second one.

Dr. Berzin: The second one. 

So, objects themselves, I think, are neutral. Whether something is able to satisfy our thirst or not depends on the thirst, doesn’t it? 

Let’s take the example of being hungry. Eating a meal can never satisfy that hunger forever because the hunger will come back. However, if I never had hunger, then it would be irrelevant whether a meal could satisfy my hunger or not. A meal is just a meal. I can experience it with happiness, but, still, that meal does not have the ability to satisfy hunger forever. So, there’s a difference here. I can enjoy things. Right? Enjoying things is not the problem. The problem is my thirst, my hunger, for more and more. As long as I have that, nothing will ever be satisfying. If I don’t have that – if it’s irrelevant whether an object can satisfy my hunger – I can be happy with the object. Will that happiness last forever? Not really, because it’s not renewed. 

For something to last, there has to be an immediate cause that is renewable moment to moment to moment. If that cause ceases to be there, then the product of that cause degenerates and eventually ends. We can enjoy a meal as long as we are eating it, but when we’ve finished eating it, the pleasure is not renewed. Or listening to a song – the pleasure of listening is not renewed. It’s renewed while the song is playing, but after it has stopped playing, the pleasure is not renewed; it wears off. Or the pleasure of being with somebody – same thing: it wears off. 

The happiness that we get from some regular object can never be a lasting happiness. The only happiness that is everlasting is the happiness that comes from gaining a true stopping of the causes of suffering. Because that true stopping lasts forever, the happiness of being free of suffering and its causes lasts forever. It’s renewed moment to moment. There’s a big difference, isn’t there? Think about that. 

[meditation]

I think it is very clear from the way that Tsongkhapa presents this list that what we’re talking about is the first two noble truths, suffering and its causes. When we look at these sufferings, we have to look at them in terms of their causes. It’s not the objects themselves but the causes within us that produce the suffering. So, for instance, the suffering of no certainty – as long as we and everybody else are subject to rebirth and are under the influence of karma, there will be no certainty as to what type of rebirths we will have and how everybody else will be reborn in relation to us. The cause of that is this uncontrollably recurring rebirth and the karma that’s responsible for the different types of rebirths and relations with others that we will have. 

So, here, with the suffering of no certainty, the problem is our craving. The word that’s used in the 12 links in Sanskrit literally means “thirst” (trshna). That’s why I was using the word “thirst.” We thirst for happiness. We want to get it, and when we get it, we don’t want to let go. But that happiness is never going to be enough; we’re always going to want more. The reason, then, for never being satisfied with anything and never finding anything satisfying is the craving. So, the cause of the suffering is not the object: it is the craving, the thirsting. 

Relationships

Let’s try to use an example that, perhaps, is relevant to many of us, which is looking for the ideal partner or, if we have already found one, missing our partner and wanting to be with them – for example, when we are away at work or are parted in some other way. What’s involved here? Are we ever going to be satisfied? Will we ever have found the ideal partner? Well, we can analyze that and say that nobody’s ideal. But even if we find somebody and are content with them, we still want to be with them when we are away from them. Is there ever enough of being with them? 

We might say, “I don’t want to be with them all the time. Sometimes I need to be alone.” However, my point is that I would like us to analyze this suffering of never being satisfied, of never finding anything satisfying, in terms of our relationships with others. Does it apply? What’s your experience? Is this suffering of no satisfaction relevant to your experience of relationships in which you are really attached and always wanting to be with the person? And has that experience changed from the way it was in the beginning? 

What I am trying to do here, in the way that I am presenting this material, is to get us to develop our analytical abilities. The teachings state that never being satisfied is one of the fundamental sufferings of samsara. So, now we look at our own experiences. For most of us, the one that is the most emotionally charged is being in a relationship. It’s not so much being attached to a meal. So, how does it apply? Think about it. What does being satisfied mean in a relationship? 

[meditation] 

Any comments?

Participant: As long as you have attachment, which is due to ignorance, and you are projecting good qualities, you are not going to be satisfied.

Dr. Berzin: So, as long as we have attachment, which is based on ignorance (unawareness), and are projecting good qualities that the other person doesn’t have or exaggerating qualities that the person does have, we are going to have suffering, and we’re not going to be satisfied. Why?

Participant: Because you haven’t cut through the root of ignorance.

Dr. Berzin: But can you explain that? That is the textbook answer. But what does it actually mean? 

Participant: If I project onto my partner things he can’t fulfill…

Dr. Berzin: Right. If we project qualities that the person can’t live up to, we are, of course, never going to be satisfied. OK, that’s a good explanation.

“I Need” 

The thing that I was thinking of was need. As long as we feel that we need something, we will never feel fulfilled. “As a child, I didn’t have enough affection from my parents; therefore, I need somebody who is going to be affectionate. I need affection,” or “I need attention,” or “I need company; I can’t be alone. I need somebody to share my life with.” That I need, I need, I need is something that can never be fulfilled. As long as we feel that we don’t have something or don’t have enough of something and expect that an object or a person is going to be able to fulfill that need, we won’t be satisfied. It doesn’t work. “I need you. Don’t ever leave me” never works, does it? Usually, the reverse happens: it chases the person away.

Participant: Actually, even if all these needs are fulfilled, the feeling of “I need” is suffering in itself.

Dr. Berzin: That’s because, even if we get what we feel that we need, there will always be something else that we need. What we get is never enough. Of course, that “I need” is based on a feeling of a solid “me.” Another way in which we experience that is as insecurity. We’re always insecure. No matter what the other person gives us, we are always insecure. Aren’t we? 

Participant: I’m wondering whether the only thing that’s involved here is greed, which is something that comes from my side only, or whether there is…

Dr. Berzin: Co-dependence?

Participant: Well, you have these teachings, like the three marks of existence – that everything is void, impermanent, and dukkha, which is translated sometimes as “suffering” but other times as “unsatisfactoriness” or “never satisfying.” So, there must be something in the interaction between the outside and me.

Dr. Berzin: Oh, I see what you are getting at. So, we are not talking about co-dependency. I was thinking that you were saying that not only do I need, you need as well, meaning that we get a co-dependent type of thing. But what you’re wondering is whether this dissatisfaction is coming just from our side or whether it’s also coming from some characteristic of things themselves – that they are void (without an impossible self), impermanent, and in the nature of suffering. So, is there is something on the side of the object, some characteristic…

The Characteristic of Being “in the Nature of Suffering” – Where Does It Reside?

That’s a very interesting point: What does it mean that all phenomena are in the nature of suffering, that that is a characteristic of phenomena? I’d have to look a little bit more carefully at the Tibetan. Objects themselves – are they in the nature of suffering? Or is it our attitudes towards the object that bring about the suffering? Suffering is a mental factor. So, they bring about suffering. Well, they can bring about the suffering of unhappiness or the suffering of worldly happiness, the happiness that changes and never lasts. They can also bring about a numbness of feeling. A numbness of feeling, which is a feeling that is without any trace of happiness or unhappiness, is something we experience when we attain the fourth level of mental constancy in meditation – the fourth dhyana. However, just becoming numb to all feelings of happiness or unhappiness about anything by going into a deep concentration is not the solution either. That, too, is suffering because that never lasts. I think that maybe that’s what is meant by saying that the object is unsatisfactory. It’s referring to a mental state with regard to the object.

Participant: That’s why I used the word “interaction.”

Dr. Berzin: Is it an interaction?

Participant: A stone doesn’t suffer – that’s obvious. But there’s something in how I experience…

Dr. Berzin: Right. So, is there an interaction with the object? Sure, there’s an interaction with the object. If there were no objects… well, there are objects. It’s pointless to say, “If there were no objects,” and to speculate about that. So, sure, it’s our interaction with the world that we’re talking about. 

Participant: Here, we’re speaking a lot about objects. But I’m wondering, when I’m satisfied with something, if it’s more because of the quality of it, not the quantity – how many or how much I have. For example, when I listen to a song that is of great quality and that satisfies me, maybe that feeling of satisfaction is something like the residue of the song, something that sort of makes something closer, that touches me. I’m trying to think of something that is coming from objects.

Dr. Berzin: So, you’re wondering whether there’s something that comes from the object, like a residue from the object. For example, you listen to a song, and there’s a residue of the song or something like that, like the aftertaste of a meal, that goes on in your mind. How does that relate to being satisfied or not satisfied?

Participant: I think that if I crave something, a friendship or whatever, I cannot really be satisfied. But if I have a good friend and can enjoy meeting this friend, even if it’s not so often, but without craving to be with them, I can be satisfied. It is like I gain something from that friend that lasts after I’m with them. 

Dr. Berzin: Isn’t that a memory? But is just a memory enough? As long as we have the need to be with this friend, we’re not going to be satisfied. If we don’t really need the person – “I like to be with you, but I can be perfectly happy without you. It might be nicer to be with you, but it’s OK if I’m not” – then we don’t suffer so much. We can enjoy being with the person, and when we’re not, we don’t suffer. That’s true.

This all has to do with our state of mind – and, as I said, a feeling of security. If we grasp for a solid “me,” an impossible “me,” we feel insecure. And nothing can make us feel secure. So, if we stop conceiving of ourselves as this “poor, little me” that has to be made secure, we can just enjoy the friendship, the good meal or whatever while it lasts. And when it’s finished, it’s finished. We go on to something else. We don’t feel insecure. We don’t need to have something. It might make life much less exciting, of course. It takes the magic out of being with somebody. But the magic of being with somebody also has the flip side – its dark side – of suffering when we are not with them. 

Participant: What I think we need to differentiate is being satisfied for the moment – like when listening to a song, being with a friend or eating a meal – and being satisfied permanently. I might be satisfied for the moment and feel very content and happy, but this won’t last. I will want to be with this friend again sometime later or listen to the song sometime later. So, it isn’t enough to listen to a song just once and never to listen to it again. 

Dr. Berzin: This is a crucial point: We can be temporarily satisfied having eaten a good meal, listened to a good concert or song, or had a nice time with a friend, but the contentment or happiness that we get from those things is not something that lasts forever. We will want to have a meal again. We will want to meet our friend again. We will want to go to another concert again or listen to another song or the same song again – which of course we’ll never enjoy exactly the same way as we enjoyed it before. It’s like the first time making love with somebody or the first falling in love – we never experience it in quite the same way again. Anyway, is once enough? Well, maybe it is for a few people. 

Participant: If something is nice, then somehow deep inside, you want to repeat it.

Dr. Berzin: Certainly. Think of sex. I think that’s the most compelling one. Who would ever be satisfied with having sex or an orgasm only once and never have it again? Of course, you want it again. This, I think, is the strongest craving. Or an itch. An itch is a perfect one. “I’m only going to scratch it once. And even if it comes back, I’m not going to scratch it again.” Come on! The itch will return.

Participant: It’s like Mark said, the problem starts with a solid “me.” With the solid “me,” we separate from the world outside. Then we need to reconnect and need to have whatever it is – like junkies.

Dr. Berzin: This is a very good way of putting it. When we grasp for a solid “me,” we, in a sense, encapsulate and isolate ourselves. We separate ourselves from everything else. Then we want to connect again. “I need you,” “I need love,” “I need attention,” “I need…” whatever. The problem is this underlying, encapsulating “me” that isolates me from everything else. True. Once we’ve done that, we can never be satisfied.  

Can We Ever Be Free from Need while in Samsara?

Participant: You talked about being free from needing, but this is impossible. I think that with the samsaric type of body we have, it’s not possible to be really free from need. Everyone needs society, for example.

Dr. Berzin: You have a very good point. Having the samsaric type of body we have, could we ever be fully free of needs? I think that, no, we can’t. You point out that we need society, that we’re social animals. There are people who are hermits who live in solitary mediation retreat for the rest of their lives, but before that… 

Participant: Such hermits don’t need any contact with society. Milarepa lived on nettles that he collected himself.

Dr. Berzin: Yes, but I’m talking about the grosser level – that with this samsaric body, we need to eat, we need to drink, we need to sleep, and we need to go to the toilet. And it’s not that we need to go to the toilet only once, to eat only once or to sleep only once – that that’s enough. That’s why, to become liberated from samsara, we need to become liberated from rebirth with this type of body. Does having a human rebirth, or even an animal rebirth, necessarily mean that we are social animals, that we need affection, love and care of others? Yes, certainly. That’s been shown biologically. A baby needs affection, it needs human contact – adults also. Although we can live without human contact, without physical contact, it’s much better for our health if we have it. That’s looking at it purely on a biological level. 

So, your point is getting to the much deeper level of what the determination to be free really means. We have to be determined to get free of this kind of rebirth as well, get free of this kind of body that, just by its very nature, has and will continue to have needs that can never be fully satisfied. 

Participant: And it’s falling apart.

Dr. Berzin: And it’s falling apart as well. And it gets sick. And if you bang it, it hurts. 

Do We Need Beauty?

Participant: I just want to see whether I understand correctly. We’ve been speaking about the needs of the body – that this samsaric body needs to sleep and so on. Relationships are part of that as well, as I see it. But there’s also satisfaction that comes from seeing a ray of sunshine on a nice autumn day or seeing a leaf falling on the sidewalk – things like that. This is not a need, really, but it is also satisfying.

Dr. Berzin: So, we have been talking about the needs of the body, like food, sleep, the need to have social contact and so on, but what about – if I could put what you said in a larger category – the need for beauty? It’s autumn here now, so the leaves are starting to change color. What about the need to see things like that? Do we need beauty? Well, are we ever satisfied by it? Is there ever enough? “I’ve seen one beautiful sunset. That’s enough.” Well, no. It’s an interesting point: Do we need beauty? I suppose that’s a philosophical question, something that I don’t imagine is really discussed in Tibetan Buddhism at least. The emphasis on beauty as a virtue seems to be something we find more with the ancient Greeks.

Participant: Isn’t beauty an experience?

Dr. Berzin: I suppose it is. I don’t know. 

I lived with the Tibetans for so many years. When I first moved to India, I lived with a Tibetan monk. This was only ten years after the Tibetans came out of Tibet. I lived on top of a very high hill, and I used to go out to watch the sunset. The sunsets were extremely beautiful – so many beautiful colors and so on. Once, when I was watching it, the monk came over to me and asked, “What are you doing?” I said, “Looking at the sunset.” And he said, “Why?” And I said, “It’s beautiful.” He thought I was completely crazy. He could not understand at all why I would want to look at this every evening. So, wanting to see something beautiful, valuing that – even having such a variable as beautiful/not beautiful – is really a cultural thing. It’s not that the Tibetans don’t have a word for beauty, but beauty is not held up as a virtue.

Participant: Maybe, in this case, it’s because beautiful sunsets were such a part of their lives. They lived in this beautiful place and were never separated from beauty. 

Dr. Berzin: You’re right. For the Tibetans, beautiful scenery – beautiful mountains, sunsets and stuff like that – was just totally ordinary. So, they wouldn’t make anything special of it. But we are sort of separated from all that. We live in cities where there is smog, where there are lots of lights and stuff like that. 

Participant: I also think that historically, let’s say four or five hundred years ago, nobody was romantic about nature. It was more of a frightening thing. Nobody would have said, “Oh, yeah. It’s so nice to be able to see these beautiful things.” Instead, they would have said, “Don’t go into the forest – it’s dangerous!” and that sort of thing.

Dr. Berzin: Worshiping nature is a culturally and historically specific thing. But let’s not go off on a tangent here. 

Participant: What we think of as beauty may differ culturally over time. Even so, I think that beauty can give temporary satisfaction.

Dr. Berzin: Right, that’s the point. Whatever we value, whatever we feel we need… I think it comes back to that: “I need beauty,” “I need a beautiful situation,” “I need everything in order,” “I need to be in control of everything. I need for things to be perfect.” Things can never be totally under our control because that’s impossible. There are too many variables involved. Can everything be totally in order, totally perfect? Well, maybe in a Buddha land. But Buddha – his teachings – is dealing with samsaric people. And samsara is certainly not perfect, is it? So, this need is the problem.

Participant: I don’t think that I need beauty. Still, it gives flavor to life. 

Dr. Berzin: Well, yeah, I don’t need spice in my food, but it makes it more interesting. But then what? What is the consequence of that?

Participant: You said you need beauty, and I don’t think that’s true. I think there are things that you actually do need, things that you can’t live without. 

Dr. Berzin: Right. There are things that we really need, like food. But other things, like beauty, we could live without, though they would certainly make life a little more pleasant – for some. For others, something like beauty might not make life more pleasant. I’m thinking of poor people in India. Do they have any interest in beauty? Beauty, I think, is a luxury. They just want food and shelter. They don’t care what it looks like. 

Participant: I was thinking that enjoying something like beauty or a relationship can be very constructive as long as we do not have the intention to get this deep satisfaction from it.

Dr. Berzin: This is very true. What she is saying, in slightly different words, is that we can enjoy things, relationships or whatever, if we don’t need something from them and don’t expect that we’re going to get something from them. That gets back to what you said earlier about not projecting onto the object qualities it doesn’t have and then expecting that object to fulfill some need that you have. 

Participant: Whether it is a sunset or a person.

Dr. Berzin: Whether it’s a sunset or a person or a meal – or a sexual encounter, for that matter.

Participant: On a very basic level, we need to be safe. In the Middle Ages, for example, it was not like that – that you could be safe. So, it’s not only beauty or something like this that we need.

Dr. Berzin: We also need a sense of safety. Certainly. And it was not just in the Middle Ages that it was unsafe to go outside. Look at the people in Afghanistan or Iraq or any of these places where it is very, very dangerous just to go the store because there might be a bomb or something.

Participant: When I was coming here, I was very surprised because there were two old men who were having an argument on the street, right here on the corner. One of them had his back against the railing, and he was hitting the other one. The other one was a little bit younger, and he was kind of holding himself back. It’s a kind of scene that, nowadays, is really so strange to see. It’s unusual to see people being aggressive. 

Dr. Berzin: Now we’re getting into need and a little bit further and further away from our topic of the suffering of no satisfaction. Do I need revenge? Do I need to defend myself? Do I need to assert myself? Do I need to find myself? Do I need to prove myself? I think the problem is need. 

Participant: I wanted to come back to this point that was made about listening to a song and seeing a leaf falling from a tree. I think that things like a sunset that are outside and that one does not own are things that one has less attachment to. And because one has less attachment, one can enjoy these things in a different way. I think that attachment is still there but that it’s subtler. So, experiencing these things feels more satisfying because one has no grasping for them. A leaf is just a leaf. I don’t grasp for the leaf. So, it’s more satisfying than when one is holding onto something.

Dr. Berzin: I would agree that we can enjoy the beauty of nature – the leaves falling in the autumn, a sunset and so on – without so much attachment because it’s not owned by us. And of course we know that the falling leaves will end when the season ends and that the sunset is going to end when the sun goes down. But when it comes to things that we could possess, could have as mine – so, again, it comes back to the me, me, me – we are never satisfied because that “me” can never have enough. 

That’s very true. This is part of the suffering of samsara in general: that as long as we have the feeling of a solid “me,” we can never be satisfied. That “me” is always going to want more. And part of the suffering of change is that the type of happiness that we get from our ordinary things is never going to last. And we will want more. We may put up with not getting more, but we would like more. 

Feeling That We Have Never Done Enough Dharma Practice

Now, it’s interesting, on the other hand, that when it comes to Dharma things, it’s said that we should never feel that we’ve had enough – had enough teachings, enough insight, enough meditation or that we’ve built up enough positive force and, therefore, that we don’t have to help anybody any more. So, in this case, is never feeling that we’ve had enough disturbing or not? What’s the difference between never being satisfied with the amount of meditation practice that we do and never being satisfied with the amount of love and attention that we receive? Is there a difference in terms of the emotional feeling? 

Participant: It’s the same.

Dr. Berzin: I think it can be the same. Well, I wonder. One could feel, “I haven’t done enough meditation.” On the other hand, if one is starving, one could also feel, “I haven’t eaten enough.” Anyway, analyze. 

Participant: I think the difference lies with the power of the object. One has the power to bring you out of samsara and the other does not.

Dr. Berzin: So, you say that the difference is with the object – that one type of object, like meditation practice, building up positive force or gaining more and more insight and understanding, has the power to bring us out of samsara and that the other type, like receiving love, attention, or food, doesn’t have the power to bring us out of samsara. 

How Serkong Rinpoche used to put it that was that one has an end goal; the other doesn’t have an end goal. Dharma practice can bring us to a goal. Samsaric pleasure, on the other hand, can never bring us to any goal because it never satisfies and we can never have enough.

Participant: I think it depends on the type of relationships we have. A relationship with someone can also bring you a kind of liberation and give you some kind of pleasure that is not connected to the object. You can enjoy without being in doubt or being stuck.

Dr. Berzin: So, a relationship could also work in the sense that we could work together without being attached to each other and just enjoy being with each other – so, in a sense, be free from disturbing emotions. Is that what you were saying?

Participant: Yes. And this is something that we could carry over into other areas of life. 

Dr. Berzin: I wonder. This is the philosophy of, “I have samsaric problems; you have samsaric problems. We will work things out together. Somehow things will work, and we’ll make it all better.” It’s hard to find two people who are equally committed to that and are equally capable of doing that.

Participant: No, sorry, I wasn’t talking about relationships. I was just trying to say that there can be a similarity between… what was it that were we comparing?

Dr. Berzin: We were comparing not being satisfied with having practiced enough, meditated enough, and not being satisfied with having made enough money, for example.

Participant: I was just trying to say that we can also get this feeling of liberation from seeing a sunset, having a relation with a teacher, or anything else.

Dr. Berzin: What do you mean by “liberation” here?

Participant: I mean having some kind of pleasure and feeling satisfied without wanting more and without wanting to make whatever it is ours.

Dr. Berzin: Definitely we can. But is that the goal? I think that is the question. Is that the final goal? Or is that just an intermediate goal, though one that we definitely need to reach? But do we need to go further? 

I think that, from the Buddhist point of view, we need to go further. In other words, if we are looking to reach that level where we are content – not demanding anything from anybody, not expecting anything from anybody, not making a big deal out of anything, and enjoying whatever comes our way – that’s very good. However, there are other problems that are going to be there. We’re always going to have to eat. We’re always going to have to sleep. We’re always going to have to make enough money to pay the rent. There are other things that we are going to have to deal with.

Participant: I’m sorry that this comparison was… 

Dr. Berzin: No, what you say is very important. How do we deal with this samsaric situation? How can we find satisfaction, given that as long as we have this kind of body and this craving, we will always have needs that can never be fulfilled and will always crave more? So, OK, we try to gain contentment. That is something that we try to achieve – to feel content with what we have. But, still, there are basic needs, things that we need.

Participant: Sorry, I didn’t want to compare. It’s just because we were trying to…

Dr. Berzin: No need to apologize. You brought up a good point.

Participant: It’s just that I understood you to say that the two were always going in different directions, and I think that, no, they’re not always going in different directions.

Dr. Berzin: You are right. Going after worldly pleasure and going after the pleasure of liberation is going in two different directions. That’s true. However, as you say, trying to gain contentment dealing with the worldly pleasures is a step along the way to gaining liberation. Definitely. That’s correct.

Participant: I thought the word “more” might be a bit misleading. Sometimes it’s that I want more – to have a bigger car or whatever. But quite often it’s that I just want to have it again.

Dr. Berzin: Definitely. 

Dhamma-Chanda

Participant: What you brought up about never getting enough Dharma teachings and so on makes me think of the Pali term, dhamma-chanda, “longing for the Dharma,” which is supposed to be a good mental state. 

Dr. Berzin: Dhamma-chanda? That’s interesting. “Chanda” means “intention.” So, there’s a strong intention or wish for the Dharma. Longing is feeling, “Oh, I can’t live without it,” exaggerating and so on. There is, however, a strong striving toward that goal, definitely. 

Participant: It’s a good mental state, unless we have the Dharma as an object of consumerism, like with….

Dr. Berzin: What is it called? Spiritual materialism. If we have that attitude toward the Dharma, of course we’re never going to be satisfied.

Participant: Last week, Dagyab Rinpoche said that, before we go to teachings or initiations, we should ask ourselves, “Do I really need this teaching, and would I actually practice the kind of initiation that I am going to get there?”

Dr. Berzin: I think this is really very relevant, especially when going to a tantric initiation – to ask ourselves before we go to a teaching, “Do I really need this, and am I going to practice this?” Absolutely. People go just to collect initiations. It’s like bird watching – “How many birds have I seen”: “How many initiations have I gone to?” That’s very true.  

There is one more point. Can we feel satisfied with an accomplishment? 

Participant: Temporarily.

Dr. Berzin: Temporarily. “I’m satisfied that I did a good job.” I think that is another meaning of satisfaction, one that is more like rejoicing. “I feel very satisfied that I did my best,” and so on. “In the future, I might be able to do even better, but I’m satisfied that what I did was to the best of my ability.” 

Participant: That doesn’t last either.

Dr. Berzin: Right. But when it comes to Dharma practice, I think it’s important not to be heavy on ourselves: “Oh, I am not good enough. I didn’t do enough. I have to do more.” This is, I think, a very neurotic way of practicing, a very unhappy way of practicing. If we have sincerely done our best in terms of helping others (practice doesn’t necessarily have to be sitting and meditating), it’s important to rejoice in what we’ve done and not to feel badly that we haven’t done even better. So, striving to go further and further in our practice and to gain more and more insights shouldn’t be at the expense of valuing ourselves and what we’ve been able to accomplish so far. To feel we haven’t done or accomplished enough doesn’t necessarily mean we have to feel badly about ourselves. Let’s digest that for a moment, and then we’ll end. 

[meditation]

But feeling satisfied that we have done our best doesn’t mean that it’s OK to get lazy. We could always do more. So, there’s a very delicate balance there. 

Participant: This is how learning is.

Dr. Berzin: Right.

Participant: One is always stimulated by more profound meaning.

Dr. Berzin: But without thinking that we’re stupid because we haven’t gone further.

Participant: So, we feel satisfied and then do more.

Dr. Berzin: We feel satisfied, rejoice, and then go further. Right.