Lam-Rim 68: Disturbing Emotions – Unawareness

Initial Scope

To go through this quite briefly, we started the initial level motivation with the precious human rebirth, appreciating what we have – namely, that we have a temporary respite or freedom from the worst states in which we wouldn’t be able to develop ourselves at all. We looked at the causes for such a rebirth, realized how rare and difficult it is to attain and that it will be lost very easily and for sure at the time of death. We can never tell when death will happen, and when we die, nothing is going to be of help except the preventive measures (or Dharma) that we have taken to avoid a worse future. 

We looked at the worst states that could follow – the hell realms, the realm of the clutching ghosts (or the hungry ghosts), and the realm of the creeping creatures (or animals) – and we developed a strong dread and healthy sense of fear that this is really not what I want. But it’s not a paralyzing type of fear with which we feel that nothing can help and that we are hopeless. Rather, we see that there is a way to avoid worse rebirths and suffering. This is going in the safe direction of Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha – in other words, taking refuge. 

We looked at what that means. And that means, on the deepest level, going in the direction of achieving true stoppings of all problems and their causes and achieving the true states of mind, or paths, that bring these stoppings about – as are present in full on the mental continuums of the Buddhas and in part on the mental continuums of aryas (highly realized beings). To go in that direction, the first thing we need to do is to avoid worse rebirths and for that, we need to refrain from destructive behavior. So, that brought on the whole discussion of karma. 

Intermediate Scope

Then, we went onto the intermediate level of motivation and saw that, even if we are able to avoid worse rebirths and gain one of the better rebirths, still, we have a great deal of problems. 

This is involved with what is called the suffering of change, or the problem of change, which are our ordinary forms of happiness that never last, never satisfy, and that change into suffering and unpleasant situations – like, if we are eating our favorite food, at first, it brings pleasure, but then it brings pain if we eat too much. So, there’s that level of suffering and the deeper one, which is the suffering of uncontrollably recurring rebirth. This is the all-pervasive suffering. That’s the basis for having the suffering of pain (or suffering of suffering, it’s sometimes called) and the suffering of change, our ordinary happiness. 

We then looked at the general sufferings of samsara and also at the sufferings particular to each of the better states, those of the humans, the anti-gods, and the gods. 

The Causes of Suffering – The Disturbing Emotions and Attitudes

Then we started our discussion of the causes of suffering, which are the disturbing emotions.  Out of the six root disturbing emotions, we have gone through three of them: (1) longing desire or attachment or greed, depending on what we are desirous of. If we don’t have it – that’s longing desire; if we have it and don’t want to let go – that’s attachment; and, if we have it and feel that we want to get even more and more – that’s greed. Then we looked at (2) anger or hostility, trying to get rid of something that we don’t like and to harm it in one way or another. Last time, we looked at (3) pride and arrogance, all the forms of that. 

So, today, let’s look at the fourth one, which is unawareness, or ignorance (ma-rig-pa, Skt. avidyā). According to Asangha and Vasubandhu, the main two abhidharma authors, it is an obfuscating mental factor – in other words, it obscures the mind and prevents it from knowing (1) behavioral cause and effect and (2) the true nature of reality. It is equivalent to naivety or closed-mindedness (gti-mug; Skt. moha). So, it’s not just that we don’t know these things; it’s that we have a mental block, you could say, that prevents us from knowing. It is a disturbing state of mind, one that causes and perpetuates uncontrollably recurring samsara. So, this is not like not knowing somebody’s name or not knowing your mathematics tables.  

[1] Unawareness of Behavioral Cause and Effect

So, what do we have a mental block about and so we don’t know and are naïve about? We don’t know what the effects of our behavior will be or what the causes of what we are experiencing now were. But not knowing the effects of our behavior is, I think, the main emphasis. It is what causes us to have the suffering of suffering, so more specifically, it is dealing with not knowing and being closed-minded to knowing the results of our destructive behavior. And because we are naïve and don’t know that acting destructively will produce suffering for ourselves, we act in destructive ways. 

The Unawareness of Cause and Effect Only Accompanies Destructive Behavior, Not Constructive Behavior

According to both Vasubandhu and Asanga, unawareness doesn’t accompany constructive behavior. So, what does that mean? It doesn’t mean that we know the result of constructive… Well, let’s put it another way. First of all, acting in a positive way, like helping somebody or doing something nice, is not the main type of constructive behavior that’s discussed here. The type of constructive behavior discussed implies that you know in general or have a vague sense of what the results of your behavior will be. It’s not that you don’t know at all. So, that really underlines really well what’s meant by constructive behavior in Buddhism. 

So, what constructive behavior means is that when you have an impulse to act in a destructive way – let’s say, to say something nasty, to yell at somebody or whatever – you realize that that’s going to produce suffering and problems; therefore, since you want to avoid that, you refrain from yelling. That’s constructive behavior. So, it implies that you have at least some understanding of cause and effect. You might not know the specific results – that’s not necessary – but you have a general idea. So, this makes it very clear what’s meant by constructive behavior. With destructive behavior, on the other hand, you don’t know “I didn’t know that this was going to produce problems.”

Dharmakirti defines unawareness as a misknowing mental factor that, by its own force, knows things in an inverted, or reversed, way. So, we have these two definitions here. For Vasubandhu and Asanga, unawareness is not knowing the results of our destructive behavior or not knowing how we exist and it is due to being close-minded; for Dharmakirti, it is not knowing how we exist due to knowing it incorrectly and underlying it is being close-minded and having a mental block preventing us from knowing it correctly.

So, I think the first thing to think about is this difference between constructive and destructive behavior. Do we ever actually act constructively by the definition of Buddhism? And how strong is that? The type of example that we might be able to recognize in our behavior is being angry with somebody and about to say something really nasty or cruel to them, but then we shut up. We just don’t say it because we realize that it’s just going to produce a big argument and make things even worse. I think that’s probably, for some of us, an example that we can think of. But can you think of anything else in your own behavior?

Participant: I want to go out and get drunk, but then I don’t do it because I know it’s going to produce suffering.

Dr. Berzin: Right. Or it could be taking some drugs, looking at pornography or whatever. 

Think of the ten destructive actions. We have killing, taking the life of others. Do you ever refrain from killing a fly or a mosquito? And why? 

It’s quite interesting because we can have two motivations here. One is with respect to ourselves – that we don’t want to produce suffering for ourselves. I would tend to think that most of us don’t even think of that. We think more in terms of a Mahayana thing: “This fly might have been my mother.” But even if we don’t think in such a radical way as that, we respect the life of this thing. And that would be a second level reason, a second motivation, not to kill. From a Buddhist point of view, we would need to have both: “I don’t want to produce suffering for myself, and I don’t want to produce suffering for the fly.” 

What about stealing, taking what was not given? Do you refrain from that because of thinking in terms of cause and effect? 

Participant: Well, it’s the same thing. I don’t steal because I think it also causes suffering for others.

Dr. Berzin: Right, we don’t steal because we think it causes suffering for others. So, this is…

Participant: If you steal, you try to hide it because maybe you can get away with it.

Dr. Berzin: Well, yes. But the types of problems or sufferings that Buddhism speaks about don’t necessarily come in this lifetime. 

Actually, I think it’s very hard to really think of cause and effect, behavioral cause and effect, in the way that Buddhism speaks of it – namely, as something that affects your future lives. You’d have to believe in future lives to start with in order to refrain from destructive behavior. So, are we ever not unaware? Are we ever really aware of behavioral cause and effect? Or do we only think of it in a very superficial way and not the fullest form in which Buddhism is talking about it? 

Participant: What would be wrong with refraining from stealing because you think the other person would suffer?

Dr. Berzin: There’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. Absolutely nothing. However, that motivation all by itself doesn’t build up the strongest positive force because Buddhism… What is always explained is that you never know what the result of your action is going to be on the other person. The only thing you can be certain about is the result on yourself. So, yes, to have the motivation not to hurt somebody because you don’t want to hurt them is great. That’s fine. But is it without this unawareness? I think you could still have this unawareness. 

I think the point is really that if we’re going to act in constructive ways – which doesn’t mean just doing nice things but to refrain from doing negative things – we can think in terms of what the effect might be on somebody else, but to really make it strong, we need to think what the effects on us would be if we were to act in those destructive ways. And that, for most of us, is not the way we usually look at it, except in these examples of not going out and getting drunk or not saying nasty things because we know it’s just going to produce more of a problem. 

So, think about that. 

[meditation]

When it comes to killing and stealing, it’s quite normal to think, “I don’t want to harm the other person.” But what about inappropriate sexual behavior? What about lying? What about using divisive language, harsh language (well, harsh language could hurt somebody else), idle gossip, let alone the destructive actions of thinking – covetous thoughts; malicious thoughts, or distorted, antagonistic thinking? Do we really think, “I’m not going to speak in divisive ways, always criticizing others and saying nasty things about others to other people because the result of that is that I’ll always be separated from friends and people won’t stay with me. If I’m constantly chattering and so on, nobody’s going to take my word seriously, and people are going to interrupt me all the time”? 

It doesn’t even have to be in the realm of the ten destructive actions. We have many examples in Wheel of Sharp Weapons or in Shantideva’s text. For instance, if I take on more things than I can manage and start things but never finish them and so on, I’ll never be able to finish anything; it will just become a stronger and stronger habit. So, we want to avoid that. This is what’s involved in getting rid of this unawareness. With this unawareness, we just act destructively. 

Mental Factors That Accompany Unawareness

What does unawareness do? According to the Indian commentaries to Vasubandhu’s text, it produces distorted certainty (certain about something that is incorrect) and indecisive wavering or complete befuddlement (being completely confused, in a daze). In other words, unawareness makes us stubborn in our certainty about something that’s incorrect: “It’s OK to lie,” or “It’s OK to express my anger to you,” and stuff like that. We become very stubborn, and we can become very set in it and don’t want to hear anything different. Or with indecisiveness, we’re insecure. We’re unsure of ourselves and don’t know what we’re doing, and we’re possibly stressed, but we’re not open to learning what is correct,

Think about that. If we act in destructive ways, and if we’re unaware of the effects, the negative effects, of our destructive behavior on ourselves… Let’s use this example of going out and getting drunk (you don’t even have to go out). We’d be quite stubborn in our distorted certainty: “This is fun. This is good. This will make me feel better.” Right? That’s there. And it says “indecisive wavering” – so, a little bit insecure. Are we insecure or unsure of ourselves? I don’t know. Does that go together with being stubborn in our distorted certainty?  I mean, this is an either/or situation. Either we’re very stubborn – “I know that this is good for me, and this is what I want to do” – or is there some insecurity there, some indecisive wavering. What would that be?

Participant: For example, I have work with somebody, but I cannot work with him because I have strong feelings against that person, or I simply feel that I cannot get along with them. But then, I might know that that’s not right, and so, I work with him because…

Dr. Berzin: Well, he’s saying that when we’re working with somebody, we might think that…

Participant: Or in a relationship.

Dr. Berzin: Or in a relationship. You feel that you can’t get along with this person – that it’s not going to work. How is indecisive wavering there and not being aware of cause and effect?

Participant: Maybe I have the feeling that it would be beneficial if I could resolve, for example, the issues between us, but something holds me back.

Dr. Berzin: So, it’s indecisiveness. You think, “Maybe I should resolve the issue with this person, but I’m indecisive; I’m insecure about it. So, that holds me back.” Your example is a good example, but it doesn’t exactly fit in the category of the destructive behavior. But it illustrates, I think, that if we don’t know the effects of our behavior… You see, this is a different type of not knowing the effects of our behavior: “If I try to resolve it with you, maybe it’ll work, but maybe you’ll just misunderstand, and it won’t work.” There’s insecurity there and indecisiveness, so you don’t actually engage in trying to resolve the problem. Well, that’s a good example, but I don’t think it actually illustrates this point.

Participant: I think I brought it up because you also were speaking about a sense of fear or… not fear but maybe… What was the word for it?

Dr. Berzin: “Insecure,” not being sure about yourself.

Participant: Insecurity. So, maybe I know that I need to do more to resolve things. But at the same time, I cannot do it, so it causes me some insecurity about the situation. That’s why I was thinking about…

Dr. Berzin: Right. So, he’s saying, “I know what I should do, but I’m not doing it. So, it makes me feel insecure. Therefore, I’m indecisive: should I do it, should I not do it? So, unawareness produces this indecisive wavering. If we were aware of cause and effect, we wouldn’t hesitate. Being unaware causes us to hesitate: should I yell; should I not yell?

Participant: This, I would say, is an example: When I’m angry with somebody and I think this other person needs to be corrected, I know that if I shout at this person or use harsh words, it will cause problems. So, what to do? In one way, I think I have to correct his behavior and to use harsh words, but I know harsh words will make things worse or offend the person. 

Dr. Berzin: Right, so we could be angry with somebody and feel that we need to shout harsh words, but  we don’t know, “Is it going to make it worse? It might cause me problems. I don’t know quite what to do.” So, we’re indecisive and insecure in that situation.

Participant: Yeah. Would that be an example?

Dr. Berzin: I don’t know. I mean, we’re trying to work out what this actually means and to analyze it. Distorted certainty is easy to understand: “I’m convinced that I should go out and get drunk every night. This is the best thing to do.” 

Participant: Maybe I have an example. My example is that the destructive behavior is the feeling of not being exactly satisfied, for example, when I’m eating. It has to do with pleasure. But sometimes it’s that I have to work and I know I’ll be hungry, so I think that I should eat more. But it actually has to do with having to feel satisfied, a satisfaction that actually…

Dr. Berzin: Right. So she points out something, let’s say, with eating – perhaps eating too much. We’re unaware that if we eat too much and overeat all the time, we’re going to become obese and get sick and so on. We have a mental block about that. But you have this idea, “But then I’m not going to be satisfied, so should I eat more?” And you’re feeling insecure, even though you’re actually full. That’s more like having a wrong understanding.

Participant: Yeah, but sometimes it’s not that I’m going to eat too much. Maybe it’s something else that is really good. Maybe it’s something small. But it’s just this always not getting… “OK, that was it.”

Dr. Berzin: Right. It could be something small and not necessarily overeating. But you’ve had your meal, and you’re full; you’re satisfied. But there’s dessert. “I haven’t really had dessert, and the dessert looks so good.” But there’s a doubt. There’s an indecisiveness: should I eat it, or should I not eat it? Insecurity.

Participant: Yeah. “Is it really bad for me or…”

Dr. Berzin: “Is it bad for me? A little bit won’t hurt.” This sort of thing. 

Or I have this sometimes. It’s a terrible mentality, and I know it. It’s like, subconsciously, I’m afraid that I’m not going to get my next meal, so I better eat a lot now just in case there won’t be anything available. Do you ever have that? You eat more than is absolutely necessary because you’re afraid that maybe you’ll get hungry later and won’t be able to have… you know, “I have so much work to do. I’m not going to be able to have dinner until really late,” or “I’m not going to be able to have lunch until really late. So, I will eat even more in the breakfast,” not knowing, being unaware, that it actually is going to make me really full and sluggish and that this is ridiculous. But there’s this insecurity and indecisiveness there.

Participant: It’s that indecisive about what is really good for me because, in this moment, you think that it will be good.

Dr. Berzin: Right. And you think it will be good for you. Or going to a buffet, which is horrible torture. You can eat as much as you like, and there are so many different things that are there. And there’s the feeling, if you’re insecure, that “If I don’t taste everything that’s there, take a little bit of everything that’s there, I’m not going to get my money’s worth, or…”

Participant: The best.

Dr. Berzin: Yeah, “I’ll miss the best one.” This sort of thing. And you don’t realize that, again, it’s going to make you overfull and obese and so on. “Should I taste a little bit of this? Should I go back for seconds?” 

Participant: Thirds.

Dr. Berzin: It’s allowed. I could get thirds. I can get as much as I want. How many of us can really exercise self-control in that situation? It’s very difficult, especially when there are five or six desserts and they all look good.  

Participant: My question is, what would be the real cause of suffering if you don’t go through a point that you really feel bad, even if it’s a salad that someone didn’t want and “OK, I’m going to have this little salad,” but you don’t need it? So, what is the cause of suffering then in this no stopping?

Dr. Berzin: What is the cause of suffering if there’s no stopping in terms of, “Well, there are leftovers, and why throw it away? I’ll eat it,” this type of thing?

Participant: Even if it doesn’t cause you…

Dr. Berzin: Even if it doesn’t cause us pain? It is, in a sense, greed and attachment. And what, of course, underlies it is this feeling of a solid “me” – that somehow, I have to have this. So, it’s the destructive behavior of just eating more and more and more when it’s not necessary. It’s a difficult one for a lot of us. For a lot of us. 

Or it could go the other way around: anorexia, not eating. That’s a good example of not knowing cause and effect plus what we would call incorrect consideration – that no matter how thin you are, you still consider yourself fat. 

Anyway, unawareness can produce distorted certainty or indecisive wavering. The third thing it can produce is complete befuddlement. Complete befuddlement would be, “I just don’t know what I’m doing.” Somehow, you’re just out of control. Like, when you get angry, you really don’t know what you’re doing. You could yell, break things. You could do all sorts of things. That would be complete befuddlement. And it’s a stressful state of mind; it’s a state of tension. Remember our definition of a disturbing emotion or attitude is it causes us to lose peace of mind and self-control. 

OK. So, that’s the first kind of unawareness, the one about behavioral cause and effect. Anything further on that?

Participant: I feel that there’s a sense of inactivity or something that doesn’t take us fully to do something, like, for example, with this drinking example. So, I need not to do it in order to do something constructive.

Dr. Berzin: Right. This is part of it. He’s saying that in order to do something constructive, you need to refrain from destructive behavior, which means inactivity – in other words, just not doing it. Yes, absolutely. Shantideva puts it very nicely. He says that when we’re about to do all sorts of negative things, “Just remain like a block of wood” – basically, to do nothing. 

Do nothing doesn’t mean that you become totally inert and never do anything. It just means that you don’t act on that negative impulse. “Self-control,” we call that, which is part of discipline. So, when we are doing our work and the impulse to ignore our work and go surfing on the internet or whatever, not to be so naive as to think that this isn’t destructive and that it won’t bring about negative results in me. And because I want to avoid that, I’m not going to surf. This type of thing. 

OK. So, that’s the first type of unawareness, which is the cause of worse rebirths. 

[2] Unawareness of the Nature of Reality, of How the Self Exists

Then, the second, deeper type of unawareness is the unawareness of reality. And for everybody except the Gelug version of Prasangika, this refers just to the unawareness of how the self exists, how “I” exist. For Gelug Prasangika, it also includes the unawareness of how all phenomena exist. So, either we don’t know because our minds are closed and prevented from seeing how things actually exist, or, in addition, we know in an incorrect, inverted way (that’s Dharmakirti). 

Perpetuating Samsara

Let’s think of the more general view unawareness, which is that, due to closed-mindedness, we are unaware of how we exist. According to Vasubandhu, that doesn’t necessarily mean that we have some incorrect, distorted view of ourselves. That would be a separate mental factor. With unawareness by itself, we are close-minded so we just don’t know and have a mental block about knowing. That would accompany all destructive types of behavior and that’s what perpetuates samsara. 

So, how do we understand this? Any ideas?

Participant: For example, I might think, “I’m the center of the universe, the most important thing in the world.”

Dr. Berzin: Right, we might think, “I’m the center of the universe. I’m the most important thing in the world. Everybody should love me. Everybody should pay attention to me.” Well, but this is thinking in the opposite, or reversed, way. 

Let’s try to think of it just in terms of not knowing. “I don’t know that I’m not the center of the universe. “I don’t know that I’m the same as everybody else.” I think it’s pretty hard to think, “I don’t know that I’m the same as everybody else” without thinking, “I’m special.” That’s a difficult one, isn’t it? Could we think that?

Participant: It always takes some effort.

Being Unaware That We Grasp for a Solid “Me”

Dr. Berzin: Well, also I think it’s just not knowing. So, we’re not thinking about our attitudes toward ourselves, how we regard ourselves. I think that’s probably more like it. Most of the time, when we act, whether we’re acting nicely or not, whether we are refraining from destructive behavior or not, we’re not thinking in terms of the “me” and that there’s a grasping for a solid “me” and stuff like that. Are we? If I’m yelling at you, I’m not thinking of this solid “me” that I have to protect and so on. I’m not even aware of an attitude that I have about myself. Or if I’m acting nicely toward someone, I’m not even thinking, “Well, I may be doing this because I want the other person to like me,” or “I want to feel needed,” or “It makes me feel good.” We’re not even thinking in terms of that. But it’s underlying there. In a sense, it’s unconscious, as we would say in the West. 

Is this perhaps what it’s talking about – the mainstream view of not knowing rather than knowing incorrectly? And would that fit with what this produces, namely, this distorted certainty? Well, distorted certainty – that’s hard with not knowing, isn’t it? It's like we had with drinking: we didn’t refrain from it because we didn’t know that it was harmful. Or smoking – “I didn’t know that it was harmful.” Can we be stubborn in not knowing?

Participant: You yell at somebody, and you think, “I’m right. You need some yelling at.”

Dr. Berzin: Right, when you yell at someone, you think, “I’m right.”

Participant: “This is necessary.”

Dr. Berzin: Right. “This is necessary.” So, it’s not that we are thinking, “I’m so solid,” and things like that. We just don’t know that we are thinking in terms of a big, solid “me.”

Participant: We don’t know that we are stressed.

Dr. Berzin: We don’t know that we are stressed.

Participant: If we were not stressed, we wouldn’t think, “I have to go and drink. I have to…”

Dr. Berzin: Right. If we weren’t stressed, we wouldn’t think that I have to go drink, I have to yell at somebody, I have to stuff my face with chocolate, or whatever.

Participant: You don’t know that you have really a really solid “I.” “I’m right and…”

Dr. Berzin: Right. We have a very solid “I,” and we just don’t know it. We’re unaware that we even have that. But it’s there. It makes us stressed. It makes us… does it make us indecisive? This indecisiveness and this befuddlement are things that I always think of in terms of being insecure. There’s insecurity there. “What am I? Am I this? Am I that?” Insecurity is a very funny thing, but it always seemed to me that insecurity was the emotional flavor of this unawareness. You grasp for a solid “me”… 

Grasping for a Solid “Me” Is Not the Same as Being Unaware of How the “Me” Exists

By the way, grasping for a solid “me” is not the same as this unawareness. Grasping for a solid “me” interpolates; it projects something about the “me” – that I am static, not affected by anything, always the same and this type of thing. So, it interpolates; it projects something. That’s grasping. Unawareness, this mainstream unawareness, doesn’t interpolate anything; it’s just that you just don’t know. 

Think about it a little more. 

[meditation]

An example that comes to my mind is boasting to someone. We’re showing off, saying, “Oh, I did this,” and “I know this person,” and “I know that person,” and so on, and we don’t even know that we’re showing off. 

Participant: [Inaudible]

Dr. Berzin: So, there’s not knowing “me” – not knowing that underlying this is that we’re really very confused about the “me” that’s thinking that we’re so great, which is why we’re boasting. And when we boast and so on, there usually is a feeling of uncertainty inside – and a little bit of indecisiveness: “Should I say this? Should I not say this?” We’re a little bit unsure. We’re trying to show off in a sense. Even if we are trying to help somebody, giving them knowledge, showing them something, teaching them something, it could be with this attitude of showing off. And with that, we’re unaware of how “I” exist. 

What do you think? Is that an example? Mind you, according to the texts, we have this all the time. Every moment of the time we have this. So, we need to really be able to identify it.

Participant: We have the indecisive wavering all the time?

Dr. Berzin: No, we have this unawareness all the time. So, what this is saying is that, all the time, no matter what we’re doing, we don’t know how we exist. And because we don’t know how we exist, the grasping for true existence of “me” acts. See? So, these work in combination. This unawareness is just the mental factor of not knowing. Now, it goes together with grasping for a truly existent “me.” So, these two things are differentiated here. You see how it works? I don’t know how I exist, so I’m befuddled, I’m in a daze. I really don’t know what I’m doing in life, and I tend to be quite stubborn in my ways or insecure and indecisive about what I’m doing. And that leaves the space for this grasping for a solid “me” to affect what I’m doing. I think that’s how it works. Think about it.

Participant: Why would a person with a very strong sense of direction not be able to have a big ego and also a lot of grasping for a truly existent…

Dr. Berzin: “Direction” meaning safe direction, refuge? 

Participant: No, no, worldly direction.

Dr. Berzin: Worldly direction. “I’m going to be a big business success.”

Participant: And at the same time, having a big ego and, also, because of that, having this grasping for true existence. So, I don’t see why only this other combination can work together.

Dr. Berzin: So, if somebody has a very strong ambition – “I’m going to be a big business success” – and behind that is grasping for a big ego, and so on, would they have unawareness of how “I” exist? Sure they would. Why not? They’re unaware – so, confused about themselves. And then they’re stubborn in their wrong view of themselves. I think that you have to consider that this unawareness accompanies all the other disturbing emotions and attitudes, although it can also occur by itself.

Participant: It’s the root, no?

Dr. Berzin: It’s the root, whether it is defined and used as Vasubandhu and Asanga do to mean a disturbing mental factor that blinds the mind to knowing correctly and that accompanies destructive minds only, or as Dharmakirti does as the disturbing attitude of a deluded outlook or view of a transitory network and which accompanies all minds. For Dharmakirti, this deluded view is a subcategory of the unawareness that blinds the mind; it based on and accompanied by that unawareness. So, for Vasubandhu and Asanga, unawareness and this deluded view are two separate mental factors, whereas for Dharmakirti, this deluded view is a subtype of unawareness.  And the subcategory is naivety, which goes together with destructive behavior. Nevertheless, when either Vasubandhu and Asanga or Dharmakirti talk about the three poisonous states of mind – longing desire, anger, and naivety – this naivety is the basis unawareness of a mental block blinding the mind.

I always used to think, in my earlier Dharma days, of translating this naivety as “close-mindedness,” putting up the walls and so on. But then I thought that was a mistake. But now (in 2026), I have gone back to using close-mindedness. What do you think? 

What is close-mindedness? The model that I used to use was that you have a strong grasping for a “me.” With longing desire, it’s that “If I could just get things to it, it will make it secure”; with anger, it’s that “If I could just get things away from it, it will make it secure”; and with close-mindedness, it’s that “If I just put a wall around it, I’ll be secure.” Now, that certainly is a disturbing state of mind, but I wonder which one it is. Certainly, there’s unawareness of how “I” exist – as if there were something you could put a wall around.

Participant: What would be the current model?

Dr. Berzin: The current model (in 2011) is just what I was saying – that we’re just… Why is naivety one of the poisonous ones? Because… well, that’s a difficult one. I haven’t really thought it out. If we use this model for desire and anger, that of getting something to me or getting something away from me, then naivety (in the context of acting destructively) is “I just don’t know what the effect will be.” Yes, you just let yourself loose; you just let yourself act under the influence of disturbing emotions, of destructive impulses. So, it has nothing to do with putting up walls. It’s acting; it’s not exercising any self-control.

But it certainly is a neurotic syndrome to put a wall up around yourself. And we certainly do that. People do that, don’t they? They put up the barriers. They think that there are barriers. They’re shy or whatever. It’s a defense mechanism. So, there certainly is unawareness of how “I” exist. But I think it involves some mechanism (although it’s not described as such in the texts) of making that solid “me” really solid with a wall around it, making this clear boundary. 

So, we have to be a little bit careful when we translate and try to understand these terms because, although we could come up with something that’s very descriptive of how we are in terms of this close-mindedness (that certainly is a problem), we lose sight of what they’re actually talking about, which is a very subtle state of “I just don’t know what’s going on. All the time, I’m not aware of how I exist.” Then, because we just don’t know, all sorts of other things can come in. Self-preoccupation, selfishness and all sorts of things can come in on that basis. Because the opposite of it is knowing – and knowing correctly, obviously. 

OK. With Madhyamaka-Prasangika, according to the Gelugpa presentation of it, we also have the unawareness of how everything exists. So, it’s not just the unawareness of how “I” exist. We also don’t know what’s going on in the world. It’s not just that I don’t know what’s going on with me. 

Differentiating the Conventional “Me” from the Basis for Labeling “Me”

Now, it’s interesting, when we are unaware of how we exist, we have these two levels: conventional level and ultimate, or deepest level. But I’m thinking of this whole thing of “Who am I? I want to find my identity and establish my identity“ – this thing of establishing the conventional “me,” trying to figure out who I am. This is quite a classic thing, isn’t it? Is that a futile effort? “Who am I? I want to get to know myself.” (“Futile” means pointless.) Can we get to know ourselves? Let’s forget about the dualism that underlies that: there’s a “me” and then a “myself” that I can get to know. Is this what it is talking about – that I don’t know myself? I don’t think so.

Participant: I think it’s sometimes good to see if there are reoccurring mistakes that I make.

Dr. Berzin: Right. So, are there reoccurring mistakes we need to be able to identify? That’s why I’m saying that I don’t think this unawareness means that I don’t know myself because we need to know our conventional self in the sense that there’s the “me” that’s labeled on the habits… 

Well, this is the interesting thing: when we say, “I want to get to know myself,” actually, it’s not the self that we want to get to know. What we want to get to know are the habits, the personality traits, talents and so on. But the “me” is labeled on that, and we have no idea that the “me” is labeled on that. We think, “That’s me.”

So, we’re not talking about not knowing the basis for labeling “me.” That’s something that is very beneficial to understand – what my habits are, what my problems are, and all these sorts of things. That we need to know in order to be able to deal with it. But we certainly don’t know the “me” that is labeled on that. In fact, we have an incorrect view of that, which is this grasping – that I am my personality, or I am my body, or I am my intelligence, or whatever. So, we have to be quite clear what actually we’re unaware of when we’re talking about what underlies each moment and what perpetuates our samsara. 

You want to think about that? Do you follow? 

[meditation]

I think that, all the time, unless we are really, really trained in voidness meditation, we are totally unaware of “me” in terms of how the “me” actually exists. We’re just acting; we’re just doing. And if anything, we’re just thinking in terms of a solid “me”: “I’m so great,” or “I’m so terrible,” or “what should I do now?” But we’re totally unaware of the “me” that is labeled… what the label “me” refers to on the basis of the aggregates. We’re totally unaware that the “me” is what the word “me” refers to when labeled on the body, mind, personality, emotions, talents, etc. – and simply that. Unless we’re doing super strong meditation, we’re never aware of that. We’re never thinking of that – let alone non-conceptually. We are not thinking of it conceptually, and we certainly are not thinking of it non-conceptually (if we can use the word “thinking” in that sense). 

So, it really is worthwhile, very much, as Tsongkhapa emphasizes over and again, to try to recognize what these very crucial, basic states of mind are – the object to be refuted, he says – such as this unawareness and this grasping for true existence, because this unawareness is there every moment. And if we can’t recognize it as being there every moment, we’re never going to be able to get rid of it. So, it’s important with this unawareness of how we exist, not to think that it’s only sometimes. It’s not like the unawareness of behavioral cause and effect, which is only there when we are acting destructively. It’s there all the time.

Participant: How could we live this life with this awareness?

Dr. Berzin: How could we live this life if we had this awareness? Well, it would be like an arhat or a Buddha. We wouldn’t create any problems for ourselves. We wouldn’t perpetuate samsara. We wouldn’t have any disturbing emotions. This is the thing that one needs to recognize – that this unawareness underlies all disturbing emotions… besides grasping for true existence, which also underlies them. But as I said, I think we need to see these two in combination with each other. If I weren’t unaware of how I existed – which means that I would be aware of how I existed – then I wouldn’t have to prove anything. I wouldn’t be insecure because there’d be nothing that would need to be made secure. It’s absurd to try to make something that’s nonexistent secure – a solid “me.” And I wouldn’t need to prove anything – how wonderful I am or anything like that. So, depending on whether or not you had the motivation to benefit others, you would lead your life one way or another.

Participant: I was thinking that an action being destructive or constructive really depends on the motivation because you cannot say that it depends on whether or not there is grasping for a solid body or a solid “me.” If you yell at someone or if you refrain from yelling at someone when you want to, I think both actions can be done with grasping for a solid ‘me.”

Dr. Berzin: Exactly. Whether we yell at somebody or we refrain from yelling at somebody, we could still have unawareness and grasping for a “me”: “I’m so wonderful: I didn’t yell.”

Participant: And then you keep thinking it.

Dr. Berzin: Right. Or you just… I mean, this is the interesting one: I don’t yell because I think that it’s right not to yell, and I refrain from yelling without really understanding why. Well, is there an unawareness of a “me” and a grasping for a “me” behind that? I think there is. You just don’t know. You’re just acting, in a sense, out of… out of what? Habit, in a sense.

Participant: Duty, or…

Dr. Berzin: Duty.

Participant: Convention.

Dr. Berzin: Convention. “I want to be a good person; I want to do what is right.” But there’s still a “me” behind it, a solid “me.” And it makes me feel good that I’m a good person. These sorts of things. So, when we talk about this unawareness and this grasping, we’re talking about something very, very subtle, very basic. And whether you act destructively, whether you refrain from acting destructively, whether you’re helping others, whether you’re just sitting in a cave meditating, it’s there.

Participant: The same all the time? Or it could be sometimes stronger?

Dr. Berzin:  Well, all these disturbing emotions have a spectrum of strong or weak. 

Participant: [Inaudible]

Dr. Berzin: Well, but if you think in terms of not knowing, either you don’t know or you know. In between is indecisive wavering: “Maybe it’s like this; maybe like that.” Or you have a… I mean, this is interesting: “I have a vague idea. It’s not quite correct…” No, but this is not knowing. We’re talking about not knowing. How can you half not know? Maybe you could. I don’t know. That’s a weird one. 

When you have… I mean… you have the tenet systems. So, whether we have no understanding whatsoever and we don’t know the deepest view, or we have a Vaibhashika understanding, but we don’t know the Madhyamaka understanding, is there any difference in not knowing? We’re not talking about what we know; we’re talking about what we don’t know. So, from that point of view, I don’t think that there are grades of not knowing.

Participant: For example, we don’t know that we are changing from moment to moment. Sometimes we might think everything is terrible, and “I’m awful,” and it seems very stable. Sometimes it’s less stable, this feeling.

Dr. Berzin: Right. So now he’s talking about that the feeling of “I’m unaware of impermanence” (which is not quite in this definition, but anyway). So, I’m unaware of impermanence – that I’m changing all the time and so on – and I think that I’m a terrible person. And sometimes it’s stronger; sometimes it’s less strong. That’s the mental factor of certainty – how much certainty there is, how decisive it is. That’s a different mental factor. Then there’s the factor of attentiveness – how attentive you are to this. 

So, again, when we look at the analysis of the mind and mental states, there’s always a combination of many, many different mental factors. And the importance of that is that then you can identify very precisely what the mental factors that you have to work on are in order to overcome suffering (without making it just a whole big mess), because each mental factor – to improve it or get rid of it, if it’s something that is destructive – has its own opponent forces.

OK. So that brings us to the end of our discussion of unawareness. This is a very important topic. It’s not a very easy one. We certainly haven’t been conclusive about it in this session; but it takes a lot of work to really identify it. But anyway, you get the idea of how to start thinking about it. And that’s the whole point of what we’re doing here. It’s how to start thinking about it, not just hearing or reading this word in the text and saying, “OK,” but not really delving into it.