Lam-rim 83: The Order & Causes of Disturbing Emotions

The Three Levels of Motivation

Initially, we are aiming to have better rebirths, specifically precious human rebirths, because we fear that we could be reborn in a worst rebirth state in which we wouldn’t be able to continue on our spiritual path. We wouldn’t be able to help ourselves in any way, so this is something that we certainly want to avoid. Therefore, we aim for one of the better rebirths. 

On the intermediate stage, we see that achieving one of the better rebirths is not satisfactory. We are still under the influence of disturbing emotions, karma and so on that bring on all sorts of suffering that just continues to recur. We want to get out of that completely. So, here, we are aiming for liberation. And what is driving us to achieve that is renunciation. We are completely fed up and disgusted with all this ongoing suffering. It’s completely boring, and we want to get out. Hence, we develop that determination to be free. 

On the advanced scope, we realize that everybody else is in the same type of situation. We are completely interconnected, so it would be unreasonable for us to work just for ourselves and to ignore everybody else. We aim to achieve the enlightened state of a Buddha so that we can be of best help to others. For that we need to know what all the causes of their problems are and what the results or effects of anything that we teach them would be. In other words, we need to achieve the omniscient state of Buddha’s enlightenment in order to be able to help everyone completely. Our minds are aimed at our individual enlightenments, which we have not yet attained but that we can attain on the basis of Buddha-nature. We are moved by bodhichitta, accompanied by love and compassion, to make this extraordinary resolve to help bring everybody to enlightenment, even if we have to do it all by ourselves. 

Initial Scope

We have covered the initial scope. With the initial scope, we started with the precious human rebirth, appreciating what we have. We have a respite, which means a temporary freedom, from the worst states – whether we’re speaking of worse rebirth states or worse human situations – in which we would have no leisure or opportunity to work on ourselves. Our lives are enriched with all sorts of opportunities, both in terms of our own personal situations and the social situation, namely, that Buddhas have come, they have taught, their teachings are available, there are people who are supporting them and making them available and so on. This is wonderful. 

We looked at how rare and difficult it is to create the causes for obtaining such a rebirth. We then looked at the fact that we are going to lose this precious life at the time of death. Death will come for sure, but we can never tell when. The only thing that can be of any help at the time of death is having taken the preventive measures to avoid worst rebirths. In other words, we need to have built up the positive habits that will help to ensure that we will attain better rebirths and avoid worse ones.

We looked at the worst rebirth states that we could be reborn in if we haven’t taken any preventive measures. Remember, “preventive measure” is the translation of the word “Dharma.” It’s something that holds us back from future experiences of suffering. We looked at the sufferings of being reborn as a trapped being in one of the hell realms, as a clutching ghost, and as an animal, some sort of creature that is constantly being hunted and eaten alive by other creatures and so on. How awful that would be. We develop a healthy sense of fear of that, which is not the usual paralyzing state of fear in which we feel helpless and hopeless. Instead, it’s a healthy sense of really not wanting this to happen. We see that there is a way out, so that is a healthy state of fear. We know that there is a way to avoid something. Here, it pushes us to avoid the causes of these worst rebirth states. 

The way to avoid the worst rebirth states is to put a positive direction in our lives, what I call “safe direction,” which is refuge. It’s going in the direction of Buddha, Dharma and Sangha. We can look at Buddha, Dharma and Sangha in terms of the actual Buddhas and all their qualities, the teachings, and the community of highly realized beings who support them and help us to follow the path. We can also look at the deeper meaning of the Three Jewels. The deepest meaning of the Dharma Jewel has to do with the actual true stoppings and true pathway minds. These are the states of mind in which all suffering and the causes of suffering are gone forever and also the states of mind, the understandings and so on that bring those stoppings about and that result from those stoppings. These stoppings and true pathway minds exist in full on the continuums of Buddhas and in part on the mental continuums of the Arya Sangha. That is the direction that we want to go in in order to gain liberation. We are also, of course, aiming for enlightenment. However, refuge, or safe direction, is something that’s shared in common with both Hinayana and Mahayana, so the aim, then, is liberation. 

The first thing that we want to do to go in that direction is to avoid worst rebirths. For that, we have to avoid destructive behavior, the cause of worse rebirths. That led us to the full discussion of karma, which we went into in great detail. In the end, we make a strong resolution to avoid destructive behavior. Even though we might feel like acting destructively, we can stop when that feeling comes up. And even when the urge that would actually bring us into the action arises, we can stop. We understand that acting on the feeling or the urge would cause a tremendous number of problems – for us. It’s self-destructive. Whether it hurts somebody else is an additional difficulty that would likely come, but that’s not for sure. We can never tell what the effect on somebody else will be. But for sure, it will be self-destructive. We want to avoid that; therefore, we will refrain from acting on the feeling or urge to act in a destructive manner. 

Intermediate Scope

On the intermediate scope, we looked at these so-called better states of rebirth. We saw that they have a lot of suffering as well. In addition, we looked at the general problems and sufferings of samsara, uncontrollably recurring rebirth. We saw that there is not only the suffering of suffering but also the suffering of change, which is our ordinary happiness that doesn’t last and is never satisfying. If we have too much of it, it turns into discomfort. We also looked at the all-pervasive suffering, our uncontrollably recurring rebirths that act as a basis for experiencing these ups and downs. This is the noble truth of suffering, the first noble truth. 

Then, we got into the discussion of the second noble truth, the causes of suffering. If we want to get rid of the sufferings, we need to recognize their causes and work to eliminate them. That is the Buddhist path. The deepest causes are the disturbing emotions. We went through the discussion of the root disturbing emotions and attitudes and the secondary ones. There is no need to go through that list again. We have covered them in many, many classes, basically talking about desire, greed, attachment, hostility, anger, unawareness or ignorance, pride, indecisive wavering and the disturbing attitudes. Now, we are ready to go on.

The next topic that’s discussed is the order of the disturbing emotions. Order, here, does not mean the temporal sequence but rather the dependency order – which of the standard list of ten disturbing emotions and attitudes is like the ground that the other nine depend on in the sense of what they grow from and stay connected with, like a plant and the ground. To get to the root of the disturbing emotions and attitudes, we need to see the dependency order so that we can trace these disturbing states of mind back to their root. For example, to actually pull out a plant, we have to destroy its root; otherwise, it will grow again. Therefore, the dependency order is very important. 

There are several presentations of this, as is always the case. Tsongkhapa, in his Lam-rim chen-mo, says that if ignorance and the deluded outlook or view toward a transitory network are taken as distinct from each other, then only anti-knowing is called ignorance, and not misknowing, and it underlies all the disturbing emotions and attitudes, including the deluded outlook. But when ignorance and this deluded outlook are considered the same, then the deluded outlook toward a transitory network underlies all of them. How to understand this?   

Remember, there are two definitions of unawareness or ignorance. The first is what we find in both Vasubandhu’s and Asanga’s abhidharma texts: anti-knowing. It’s a darkness, an obfuscating mental factor that prevents us from seeing either reality or behavioral cause and effect. However, here, we are talking specifically about not seeing reality: we just don’t know reality because of being close-minded. Close-mindedness (moha), what I sometimes call “naivety” in the list of the three poisonous mental states, is a synonym for anti-knowing. The second meaning, which is what Tsongkhapa prefers, is the meaning that we find first in Dharmakirti’s text and then repeated by Chandrakirti, which is misknowing – knowing things in an inverted way. It’s not simply not knowing how things exist; it is knowing incorrectly how they exist. It refers to the deluded outlook toward a transitory network 

The question of the dependency order of anti-knowing and misknowing arises because both are called “ignorance.” In the list of the ten disturbing emotions and attitudes, anti-knowing is a disturbing emotion without an outlook, without a view. Calling this “ignorance” is the most general usage of the term. Misknowing, as a deluded outlook toward a transitory network, is with an outlook, it is with a view. Calling this “ignorance” is considered a special usage of the term “ignorance.” Something with a view and something without a view, however, cannot be identical. 

If only anti-knowing and thus only close-mindedness is called “ignorance,” then it underlies a deluded outlook toward a transitory network and all the other disturbing emotions and attitudes. With the close-mindedness of anti-knowing, we are blinded to reality. We have a mental block preventing us from understanding the correct view and that opens us up to accepting and stubbornly holding on to deluded, wrong views. Underlying anger is likewise being blind to reality. Because of that, with anger we exaggerate the shortcomings of someone or something, project negative qualities that they don’t have and are blinded to their good qualities. Thus, the close-mindedness of anti-knowing is the root of samsara. 

When both anti-knowing and the misknowing of the deluded outlook toward a transitory network are called ignorance, then this deluded outlook, this misknowing, is taken to be the root of samsara. It underlies all the other disturbing emotions and attitudes. This is because it focuses on the self and makes a strong distinction between oneself and others. You become attached to what belongs to the self and hostile toward what belongs to other. Focusing on the self as if it were a solid thing, you inflate it and so you develop the extreme deluded view of it lasting forever. Tsongkhapa writes that whether we take ignorance to be anti-knowing or misknowing, the antidote for ignorance is the discriminating awareness of selflessness. 

We need to review what this deluded outlook toward a transitory network is. Does anybody remember what it is? 

Participant: Seeing the aggregates as “me” or “mine.”

Dr. Berzin: That is one way of formulating it.

Participant: It doesn’t have to be the aggregates.

Dr. Berzin: According abhidharma, the deluded outlook toward a transitory network focuses on the aggregates and regards them in terms of “me” or “mine.” However, Tsongkhapa follows Chandrakirti who disagrees with that and says that this deluded outlook focuses on the self. In Engaging in Madhyamaka, Madhyamakavatara (VI.120), Chandrakirti wrote:

Seeing, with the mind of discriminating awareness, that all disturbing emotions and faults originate from the deluded view of a transitory network and that the self has been taken as the object on which (this deluded view) has been focusing, the yogi refutes (as non-existent) the self.  

A false self is an interpolation on the conventional self which, in turn, is an imputation on the aggregates. The false self is, specifically, a self-established “me.” So, the deluded view is focused on the conventional self, thinking of it as being a false self that is either identical with the aggregates as “me” or is the possessor of the aggregates as “mine.” When this disturbing view is taken as being focused on the aggregates, it thinks of them in terms of the false self as being either “me” or “mine.” 

When we are talking about the aggregates, we are not just talking about the body. We are also talking about the objects of cognition that are forms of physical phenomena. For instance, our computer – we could think, “Me, I am the possessor of this.” That’s equivalent to saying, “This is mine.” 

Remember, deluded outlooks occur only in conceptual cognitions. In that context, what this deluded outlook does is that it “seeks and latches onto its object” and cognizes it through a view – the view or concept of “me” as identical with the aggregates or the concept of “me, the possessor” of the aggregates as “mine.” Furthermore, conceptual cognition always is accompanied by grasping for self-established existence. This grasping interpolates or projects self-established existence onto the self being viewed as “me” or as “me, the possessor,” and the mental factor of incorrect consideration that also accompanies this conceptual cognition takes to mind the conventional “me” as actually being a self-established “me” or “me, the possessor.” 

Like this, Chandrakirt states that the deluded outlook toward the transitory network is the root of all our problems. This is taking the deluded outlook itself to be unawareness, ignorance.  

Participant: It sounds less fundamental, somehow, than ignorance, or unawareness.

Dr. Berzin: However, the more fundamental one is anti-knowing, close-mindedness. When we speak of this deluded outlook as misknowing, then the question is: if it’s knowing incorrectly, what’s the incorrect way in which we know things? The antidote, then, to knowing incorrectly would be knowing correctly. Well, thank you very much. But everybody in Indian philosophy would say that, and they would have their own version of what is correct knowing.

Participant: You have to define it.

Dr. Berzin: We could take this deluded outlook toward a transitory network as viewing what we perceive in general terms of a false “me.” Such an attitude could be based on a non-Buddhist concept of a false “me.” For instance, according to some of the Hindu philosophies, we are one with Brahma; we are undifferentiated. The ignorance, then, would be to think that there can be a separate “me.” We could imagine that the source of our problems is this attitude, thinking, “I am separate, not one with Brahma.” That’s why in some presentations, the deluded outlook toward a transitory network is specified with such precision. According to how it’s defined in Buddhism, it is based on and is accompanied by grasping for an impossible soul. That’s the type of false concept with which this deluded outlook views things. Do you follow?

Participant: Yes, but you said something before that I didn’t get. Tsongkhapa says this is equivalent to….

Dr. Berzin: He said there are two presentations. One is that if ignorance and this deluded outlook are considered distinct from each other, then ignorance as anti-knowing is the root. If they are not considered distinct, but both are called ignorance, then the deluded outlook is the root.

Participant: When ignorance is the root, it is not necessarily in relation to “me” or “mine.”

Dr. Berzin: We need to clarify something. We are talking about ignorance as the first link in the twelve links of dependent arising. That refers specifically to ignorance about how the self of persons exists. We need a presentation of ignorance about the self of persons that is valid for all the different tenet systems of Hinayana and Mahayana. Remember Tsongkhapa said that grasping for an impossible self underlies both presentations of ignorance – anti-knowing and misknowing. Vaibhashika and Sautrantika, the Hinayana systems only present grasping for the impossible self of persons. The Mahayana systems of Chittamatra and Svatantrika accept the Hinayana presentation of grasping for an impossible self of persons and assert grasping for the impossible self of phenomena as different from it. The former, grasping for the impossible self of a person, prevents liberation. Grasping for the impossible way of existing of all phenomena prevents omniscience. Gelugpa Prasangika asserts that grasping for the impossible way of existing of all phenomena, in the way that it defines it, prevents both liberation and omniscience. 

In terms of the twelve links, the first link is just grasping for the impossible way in which a person exists, not the impossible way a cup exists, even if that impossible way is the same for both. Aryadeva said that if we understand the voidness of impossible existence of one phenomenon, we have understood it for all phenomena. In terms of practice, though, we need to narrow it down to the voidness of the impossible existence of persons. 

There are two impossible ways of existing: coarse and subtle. Regarding the self of persons, according to the non-Gelug non-Prasangika Buddhist tenet systems, the coarse one to be refuted  is doctrinally based on the non-Buddhist Indian systems. It asserts a self of a person that is a static, monolithic entity, an atman that exists independently of a body and mind. The subtle one is a self-sufficiently knowable self and it automatically arises. For Gelug Prasangika, the coarse false self is a self-sufficiently knowable self of a person. It is either doctrinally based on the non-Buddhist Indian systems or on the Vaibhashika Buddhist system, both of which assert such a self, or it automatically arises. The subtle one is a self-established self of a person, which Gelug Prasangika asserts as being what truly established existence means. There are also doctrinally based and automatically arising variants of it. One variant is doctrinally based on the assertions of the non-Gelug non-Prasangika Buddhist tenet systems and the other automatically arises. 

Understanding the Absence of True Existence – Deconstructing the Self before Deconstructing All Phenomena

Let me give an example: We are angry with somebody, a dear friend, say, who has disappointed us. One way of working with it is by deconstructing our projection of the true existence of that person. We analyze: “They are changing every moment; their aggregates are changing every moment and all of that. So, who am I angry with?” We can deconstruct it that way.

However, we would not be getting to the actual root of the problem, which is the “me” who is angry. We need to deconstruct that. Dharmakirti, in Pramanvartika, says, “Once you conceive of a truly established self, then you also discriminate that from a truly established other. Based on that faulty discrimination, you get attachment and hostility.” We only get the concept of “you” – “You disappointed me. You acted so horribly” – on the basis of grasping for the “me.” The “you” is different; it’s not “me.” This is why it is important to understand the order of their development. 

First, we would start with the unawareness that is misknowing, knowing in an incorrect, inverted way. What is the incorrect way in which we know? It is having the false concept of the truly existent “me” as being the real “me,” accompanied by incorrect consideration, which considers that perfectly correct. Now, what derives from that is seeing a truly existent “you” as being different from this truly existent “me.” Then, when it comes to our aggregates, we have, for example, the seat that we are sitting on: “Me – I am the possessor of this seat,” and “You – you shouldn’t sit in my seat. You just sat on my seat.” When we deconstruct the other person, thinking, “Well, they came from this or that cause, and they didn’t know that it was my seat and so on, so I shouldn’t be angry with them,” we are still left with the deluded outlook that views everything in terms of “me” or “mine.” This is very, very important to understand. 

Why don’t we take a few moments to digest that? Try to think of it in terms of being angry with somebody. What is it that we really have to deconstruct? It doesn’t mean that we don’t deconstruct the other person as well; it’s just that we don’t start with that. 

[meditation]

Emotionally, it is much easier to deconstruct the other person who is the object of our anger than to deconstruct ourselves. We put up a big block to that. 

Participant: That’s because I have a right to be angry.

Dr. Berzin: Or if we are very attached to somebody, we might work on visualizing their intestines or their skeleton – so, taking all sorts of temporary measures to make that object less attractive. We might even meditate on the voidness of that person. Still, we are left with attachment. We just deconstructed one object of it. It’s like getting rid of a heroin addiction and then turning to cigarettes. Or we get rid of the cigarette addiction and then turn to something else that we become addicted to. 

Participant: When it comes to the order, applying the voidness of the self is easier to understand.

Dr. Berzin: That’s why it’s presented first.

Participant: It’s not different from Prasangika.

Dr. Berzin: Right, but the manner in which the false existence of a self exists is the same for all phenomena, even though the object is different. So, what object do we start with in our analysis? There are different ways of working with this. 

The voidness of the self, they say, is easier to understand than the voidness of all phenomena. Once we have understood the voidness of the self, then we would meditate first on the voidness of the basis for imputation of the self, which would be whatever phenomenon that we were cognizing as an object of cognition included in our form aggregate. Then we would meditate on the voidness of the “me” that is an imputation on that phenomenon. But to start with, we need to understand that the self is an imputation on the aggregates but without there being some marker of the defining characteristic of a self that findable within the aggregates as a support for the self. The self is devoid of being established by such a findable mark because there is no such thing as such a marker. Being established by such a marker is what is known as self-established existence, sometimes called inherent existence.

Participant: When I meditate on the voidness of the self, what do I do? What is the difference to what you just explained? 

Dr. Berzin: Let’s give an example. What is the false self? That’s the question that we start with. We have to recognize the object to be refuted, the false self. The false self has three levels. There’s the self, or “me,” that is static, partless, and independent of the aggregates. Such a self is logically impossible. There’s the self-sufficiently knowable “me.” That, we also have to work with: “Here I am. I am getting angry. Well, what is this ‘me’? Is it the ‘me’ that’s angry? Can that ‘me’ be known separately from the anger? How is the ‘me’ connected to the anger? The ‘me’ is not the same as the anger, and it is not different from the anger. So, then, who is angry?” So, we go like this, and we see that this whole concept of a self-sufficiently existent “me” is ridiculous. Then, we can go further in terms of thinking, “Is there some findable characteristic marker of “me” within the basis of imputation, anger, that will allow for validly saying ‘I am angry’?’ We would deconstruct that. 

We are not taking as a basis, here, the person we are angry with. We are taking as the basis of our analysis the false “me.” When we have become accustomed to that, then we could go on to analyze, “Well, everything is an imputation on a basis – for instance, its parts. Nothing has truly established existence.” 

But we have become sidetracked. The main thing at this point in the lam-rim is to understand this deluded outlook that goes around latching onto everything in terms of “me” or “mine.” It’s from that “me” that we get “you.” Then, we get attachment, repulsion and all these other things. Correct understanding comes later in the lam-rim. Now, we just want to see the dependency order of the causes for suffering.  

[meditation]

Dharmakirti shows the dependency order of the five deluded outlooks. Thinking in terms of me, me, me, underlies thinking that the “me” must be static, permanent, or that it doesn’t continue after death, which is the extreme view. Holding either of these extreme views underlies holding a deluded outlook as supreme, which means that we believe that our extreme view is the supreme view. We think, “This is the greatest.” Based on believing that, then to purify ourselves of obstacles to understanding that, we have an outlook of holding deluded morality or conduct as supreme – for example, holding as supreme self-detrimental practices such as extreme asceticism. We think that we can purify ourselves by standing on one leg in the sun all day long. Then we get the distorted outlook, which is the view that Buddhist teachings about no self are wrong and so on. This is how Dharmakirti gives the dependency order of these disturbing attitudes with an outlook.  

Think about that again.

[meditation]

If we didn’t have this attitude, always thinking in terms of me, me, me, how could we have the attitude that this “me” is never going to change, that it’s unaffected by anything. “The body might get old, but not me.” Then, we think, “If I just eat organic food and exercise every day, I’ll live forever,” as if this is the type of behavior that’s going to bring us liberation. “I’ll be a vegetarian, or I’ll be a vegan. That will purify me.” What’s going to be purified? Maybe our bodies, but is that “me?” It’s looking at the body as being identical to “me.” 

[meditation]

Of course, this doesn’t mean that we don’t take care of our bodies. That’s beside the point. Any comments? 

Participant: If things are constantly changing, how can we grasp on to a “me” that’s static?

Dr. Berzin: “Everything is changing in my experience, everything but me. I am always the same.” It’s like we are observing all of this. It’s like a movie. The movie is always changing, but the “me” that is sitting in our heads, observing all of this, pushing the buttons and making the responses… well, that’s static, even though it is doing these various things. It is a logical contradiction. Nevertheless, we think the “me” is unaffected by what’s going on. 

Now, maybe we can just start a little bit of the next topic, which is the causes of the disturbing emotions. This basically refers to the conditions that cause the disturbing emotions to come up. There are six that are listed. 

A Dependent Basis

The first one is the dependent basis, literally. That refers to the tendency for the disturbing emotions, like having a bad temper or being a very insecure person. This word “tendency” is the same word as “seed” and is usually translated as “seed.” So, we have a certain tendency. And of course, we identify with it. Based on the tendency to get angry easily, for example, we say, “I have a bad temper. That’s me.” Having that tendency is a condition for that disturbing emotion to arise. Or it could be a tendency to be an insecure person. It is very important to try to identify in ourselves what our various tendencies are, what we would call personality traits in terms of emotional difficulties. 

Let’s examine ourselves. We can see that when we have a tendency to get angry that tendency would be a cause or condition for our bad temper. It’s hard to get very technical here, but to be specific, a tendency is actually listed as a type of cause, not a condition. Wanting to please everyone – so, acting in a certain way with a certain type of disturbing emotion – is based on insecurity. That could cause attachment to arise, an attachment to getting approval, for example. We can tie that in with attachment to getting approval, but approval for what? We are thinking in terms of me, me, me, wanting approval for that “me.” Who is the one that we want to be approved, to be loved, or to be paid attention to? That tendency is referred to here as the dependent basis, the basis that the disturbing emotion depends on. 

The need to always be in control… that’s a good one. It’s not as though things could be in control, as though there were a “me” that could control things. We can have a strong tendency to be like that. That tendency is built up by having repeatedly experienced this state of mind in this and past lives. We can even see these tendencies in tiny babies. Some of them have very short tempers. 

So, that’s the first one, a dependent basis.

A Focal Object

The second one is the focal object that causes the disturbing emotions to arise. This refers to the appearance of an external object onto it, and we project mental appearances, such as a disapproval of “me” onto a frowning face or “sexy” onto a person. In English, to frown is to look disapprovingly at someone. But the person could be frowning for other reasons. They could have a headache or whatever. 

Participant: Can you repeat that?

Dr. Berzin: It’s the appearance of the external object. It doesn’t have to be external, actually, because it could also be an internal appearance, like a dream or imagination or pornography or something like that. So, it refers to the appearance of an object onto which we project mental appearances. Appearances are neutral, even pornography. It’s just a naked body. So what? But we project “sexy,” “I have to have it,” etc. 

Of course, we find the advice, like in the thirty-seven bodhisattva practices, that when various objects tend to cause our disturbing emotions to arise, we just avoid them. When we meet a certain object – whether it’s a sound, a sight, a taste of food, or whatever – either as an external object or in a dream or in our imagination, it could be a cause for a disturbing emotion to arise, right? For some things, though, this advice could be quite difficult. With pornography, for example, we just don’t look at it. We don’t watch it, don’t buy the magazines or go to these websites. But let’s say it’s our mother or our father that are the object. For some reason, we always get angry when we are with them. We think that they are disapproving of us, that they’re trying to control our lives or whatever. Do we avoid them? 

Participant: We can try to see them as our teacher.

Dr. Berzin: That requires a great deal of strength and patience.

However, if we are in an unhealthy relationship in which we are always getting angry with the person and so on, we might need to break off that relationship. Of course, when we break off a relationship, it’s important not to end it with hating the person but with, “It just isn’t working. I wish you well, but it’s just not working between us.” 

What about our parents? That’s much more difficult.

[Participant comment]

Dr. Berzin: We can’t generalize here because everything obviously is individual and experienced in different circumstances. Like in Asia, even if we are married, we still live with our parents. Or if we are a woman, we live with the husband’s parents. At least that was traditionally the case in India. We have to really work to recognize that we are projecting some kind of appearance onto this person.

It’s very interesting. Think about it: You are always getting annoyed with your father, for example. He is always telling you what to do, being disapproving of what you do and trying to control your life. Who is he trying to control? “Me.” What’s underlying that? It’s thinking in terms of me, me, me, like how they are trying to control “me” and telling “me” what to do. “How dare you tell me what to do? I am not a baby anymore.” 

I think it’s very important to connect this with the topic that we were just speaking about. What is the source? What is the order in which these disturbing emotions arise? That’s why I say this is a little bit more like a circumstance, though technically, it is included as one of the six types of causes. 

Certain objects we can avoid, like pornography and violent movies. And eventually, of course, we would be immune to them; we wouldn’t project anything on them. But there are other things that we can’t just avoid. We have to learn to deal with them and recognize what is actually causing the problem. As some Buddhists say, “If somebody gives you a gift and you don’t accept it, who does it belong to?” It still belongs to the person who is trying to give it to us. So, if someone is acting in an unpleasant way, insulting us or whatever, and we don’t accept it, they are just saying nasty words, unpleasant words. That’s all.

Again, it’s in terms of me, me, me. Then we have a big catcher’s mitt, and we catch all the garbage. “Here, throw the garbage on me. I’ll take it.” Don’t accept the garbage. Or what’s a little bit more mature is to see if any of what’s in the garbage is true, especially when it is criticism.

OK, these are the first two of the six causes for the disturbing emotions: a dependent basis and a focal object that acts as a cause for them to arise.