LTF 40: Discriminating Awareness, the Root of All Happiness

We’ve been going through this wonderful text that Nagarjuna wrote as a letter to his friend the king in which he outlines the major points of the Mahayana path. First, he speaks about the necessity of having confidence in the path – confidence, meaning total belief that what the Buddha taught is actually true; it doesn’t mean blind faith because it’s based on understanding. Then, he speaks about the six things always to keep in mind as a support for following the path: the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha, the objects of refuge, then being generous toward others, having ethical discipline, and keeping in mind the gods as an example of cause and effect, of what constructive behavior brings.

Then Nagarjuna speaks about the essence of the path with a little introduction, followed by a discussion in full of the six far-reaching attitudes. We’re speaking about the sixth of these, discriminating awareness. We have covered the brief account, and now we have the detailed explanation, which has two verses showing that discriminating awareness is the root of all happiness in samsara and nirvana. Then Nagarjuna gets into the main explanation.

Now, showing that discriminating awareness is the root of all happiness in samsara and nirvana begins with verse 47.

Verse 47: Without a Correct View of Karma and Voidness, Good Deeds Will Not Be Enough

[47] If you desire higher rebirth status or liberation, make into a habit a correct view. For persons having a distorted view, even good deeds will all have unbearable ripened (results).

If we want to gain higher rebirth, which is the aim of the initial scope of motivation, we need to have a correct view concerning karmic cause and effect. If we engage in destructive behavior, it will lead to worse rebirth states. If we act in a constructive way, which basically means refraining from acting destructively based on understanding what the results of that would be and wishing to avoid those results – so, exercising that self-control and restraint – it will act as a cause for a higher rebirth status, which can be as a human, as one of the asuras (the would-be divine, or anti-gods) or as one of the gods. Specifically, we would want to aim for a human rebirth, but not just a human rebirth in general – we’d want to aim for a precious human rebirth with all the liberties and enrichments that would enable us to follow the Dharma.

And if we want to gain liberation, which is a short way of saying the state of “definite goodness” (that’s the technical term for liberation or enlightenment), then we need to have a correct view about reality. We need to understand that not only we ourselves but all phenomena are devoid of existing in impossible ways. And each of the different tenet systems of Mahayana philosophy explains that impossible way slightly differently.

So, we need to have a correct view, basically, of cause and effect (karma). And if we want to aim for liberation, which is the aim of the middle scope of motivation, or enlightenment, which is the aim of the advanced scope of motivation, then we need to have the correct view, or understanding, of voidness. That’s the root of all happiness – this discriminating awareness. It’s the root of all happiness in samsara (so, one of the higher rebirth states) or in nirvana (so, liberation).

Thinking with a Distorted View

But what’s the opposite of that? It’s “for persons having a distorted view, even good deeds will all have unbearable ripening (results).” This is speaking about what the disadvantages are of not having this correct view. Here, we’re basically talking about having a distorted view or, more specifically, the karmic action of thinking with a distorted view. A distorted view, or outlook, is itself a disturbing attitude. But when we speak in terms of the presentation of karma, we’re speaking about the action of thinking with a distorted view.

Thinking with a distorted view is a very complex phenomenon, a very complex action. And what I’d like to do is to start off this evening by explaining what actually is involved in thinking with a distorted view. Then, I think, we can appreciate what Nagarjuna saying, “even good deeds done with that distorted thinking will have unbearable ripening results,” could possibly mean.

Distorted view, here, is referring to a distorted view of either cause and effect, behavioral cause and effect, or of reality. It’s a process of thinking, an action, that is a close-minded, ignorant state of mind in which you stubbornly think to repudiate, or deny, something. “Repudiate” means to negate something, to say that there is no such thing, to deny it. It’s a very stubborn state of mind. And it entails a whole line of actively thinking in this way.

The Four Factors That Make Thinking with a Distorted View a Complete Karmic Action

[1] The basis, the object of the thinking, is something that is true, something that is always the case, or that is some good quality. So, what we’re thinking to do is to deny that. And what needs to be there is that we don’t know that we’re wrong; we think that we’re right in denying it. We think that the correct view of what is true is wrong. It’s not that we know it’s right and that we want to deny it just to be cute or just for the heck of it.

[2] The distinguishing that’s involved is to see, to think, that our denial is correct. Like, sometimes, we can have a criminal who thinks that what he’s done was right and thinks to fight in the court to oppose it. Or it could be somebody who has done something wrong, but they think it’s right, so they’re going to sue the other person in court. This type of way of thinking. OK?

[3] The motivation involved is (a) the intention to repudiate, or deny, it, and (b) a disturbing emotion, which can be any of the three major disturbing emotions. So, it could be attachment – attachment to our own incorrect view, to our own side, our own opinion. Or it could be hostility to the other person’s opinion who’s thinking something that’s correct. Or it could be the close-minded ignorance and naivety of feeling that nobody can tell us what’s correct – so, we’re closed in that way; we think we’re right. So, very naive in this sense.

And remember, it’s not just denying something that’s true; it can also be denying that certain things are good qualities or denying the value of good qualities – something like that.

[3] The method implemented to bring the action about is planning what and how we’re going to tell others that what they think is wrong, or plotting to sue the other person who was actually in the right – this type of thing.

[4] The action is completed (the finale reached) when we decide for sure that we’re going to deny or repudiate this object. We’re going to speak out about it or do something about it – like having a protest or something like that as was just done in Iran; they had a conference to deny that the holocaust took place. This type of thing. So, planning it and deciding to do it.

That’s thinking with the distorted view. OK? So, it’s not just disbelieving a fact or not knowing a fact. It’s really a very active state of mind.

The Five Additional Attitudes That Make the Action Complete

For the action to be complete, there need to be five additional attitudes together with it.

One is blindness from not knowing how some noble thing is true or is the case. We just don’t know, and we’re blind. We don’t even want to know. We don’t know what is true or what is a positive thing.

The second one is a contentiousness coming from a perverse sense of enjoying being negative. In other words, there’s a certain enjoyment in being negative and arguing with other people and spoiling other people’s beliefs.

The third one is an attitude of being thoroughly imbued in our distorted thinking from having decisively analyzed some phenomenon with incorrect consideration. That means that we’ve thought about it, and we’ve analyzed incorrectly some sort of situation, and we’re totally convinced that we’re right. So, we have a firm belief that the wrong view that we hold is correct because we’ve thought about it, we’ve analyzed – but we’ve analyzed incorrectly.

The fourth one is complete meanness from repudiating the value of charity, philanthropy, good actions, or spiritual practices. What is involved with thinking in a distorted way is wanting to deny the value of spiritual practice, wanting to deny the value of being a kind person – “Why should you be a kind person? People just take advantage of you. You should go out and make as much money as you can and exploit others as much as possible.” So, it’s a completely mean, nasty state of mind.

The fifth one is a headstrong attitude (that’s a very stubborn attitude) of wanting to get the better of somebody and not having any shame about being antagonistic and refuting others’ beliefs and not having the slightest recognition that this is a fault or that we should determine to be rid of it. We have no shame about spoiling other people’s beliefs. When they’re correct, we repudiate it. We don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. And we certainly intend to continue because we want to win. We have to give our opinion; we can’t just leave it alone that the other person thinks in a different way from the way that we do. It’s almost like going on a weird, distorted crusade. This type of thing.

But all this is thinking that way. It’s another destructive action to actually do it. That would be speaking with harsh words and so on. OK?

So, do you have some idea of what we’re talking about? It’s a pretty heavy action. That’s why, in the Buddhist teachings, they always speak about thinking in this distorted way as the heaviest of all the destructive actions. It’s not just, “well, I don’t believe in rebirth.” It’s much, much stronger than that, much heavier than that. OK? So, think about it for a moment and see if you can come up with an example.

Examples of Thinking with a Distorted View

What kind of examples can you come up with?

Participant: I was thinking of the Chinese government always repudiating the Dalai Lama who is always telling the world that he doesn’t want independence for Tibet. But they don’t believe him. And they always blame him for working for the breaking up of China or something like that, although they know that the media and the European Parliament have said otherwise.

Dr. Berzin: Right, the Chinese government thinks to repudiate the Dalai Lama, to deny that the Dalai Lama is sincere when he says that he’s not seeking independence for Tibet but just a meaningful autonomy within the People’s Republic of China. They think to deny that, to repudiate that – to say that he doesn’t mean that at all. And they actually do believe that, based on their faulty analysis. I think that’s a good example.

They think that their denial is correct. They fully intend to bring about any type of obstacles, like telling different governments not to invite His Holiness or to speak with him. There’s a great attachment to their own view. They’re hostile to the Dalai Lama. And the Tibetan situation – they’re completely close-minded. Nobody can tell them anything; they don’t want to listen to anybody. They think to spread false propaganda; so, they’re always wanting to spread false information about him. And they have certainly made a decisive decision to think like that and to carry out that policy. They are blind; they just don’t know and don’t want to know what the Dalai Lama’s real position is. And they, in a sense, enjoy being negative and perverse about it. They’re totally convinced that they’re correct. They’re completely mean in terms of giving any credit to the values that His Holiness believes in. And they have no shame about what they’re doing. So, it’s a very good example, isn’t it?

Participant: I think you can transfer this to almost all politics and politicians.

Dr. Berzin: Right. Well, I was actually thinking of some political situations that are very similar to this.

Participant: The war in Iraq.

Dr. Berzin: Exactly. That was the thing that I was thinking of – to overthrow Sadam Hussein and invade Iraq, based on believing that there are weapons of mass destruction and that they’re going to destroy the United States or Western civilization. They’re thoroughly convinced that that was correct. They’re being absolutely blind to anybody who says anything different. They think to spread all sorts of propaganda and to act on that basis. And also, in a sense, they’re enjoying being negative – having no shame about it. In fact, they think they’re on a holy war and so on. That’s a classic example.

Participant: Maybe one can’t be very sure that everybody was blind to the facts. Colin Powell, for instance, may have had some idea or some doubts. But he presented it as “This is the truth.”

Dr. Berzin: Right. So, there are some people – maybe like Colin Powell – who had a little bit of doubts about the truth of this, but for political reasons, explained like this. So, that’s not fully, fully this act, but it’s like ninety percent of it because – what’s the motivation? For political gain? So, that makes it even worse, in a sense.

Also, how about denying that there is any benefit to welfare programs and social programs for the poor? “Let’s just let the rich get richer, and everybody should make as much money as possible.” They’re denying any value to helping the poor or the unemployed or the sick, totally believing that they are correct, and thinking to wage all sorts of political battles against anyone who supports social welfare. That also is an example.

Participant: The story of Robin Hood may be an example because he’s doing good by stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, but actually, it’s a bad action.

Dr. Berzin: Right. So, this is also a good example – of Robin Hood stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, thinking that what he was doing was ethically correct, whereas it was, in fact, stealing… and being hostile to anybody who said anything different.

Well, this gets into what Nagarjuna was saying – that with this distorted way of thinking, even if you do a positive thing like help the poor by stealing from the rich, the positive results from helping the poor are not going to be terribly strong at all. So, that’s a good example.

Also, what about sectarianism in which we’re thoroughly convinced that my brand of Buddhism is correct and that your brand of Buddhism is no good, and we think to put it down as much as possible and say all sorts of bad things about it to you?

Participant: “We have the pure Dharma.”

Dr. Berzin: “We have the pure Dharma.” Right. “We are the holy ones.” This type of view. Thinking that way is also distorted. And they’re usually quite convinced that they have the holy, correct view, that they have the right way. It’s based on ignorance; they have no idea what the other view actually is, what the other schools are actually saying. And they’re not even interested in learning – especially if you think in terms of branding it the “work of the devil.”

Participant: What do you mean?

Dr. Berzin: I’m thinking not just of Buddhism but of the general world view. There are a lot of people that think that God is on their side and that any view that is different from theirs is the view of the devil.

Any other examples? What about examples in our own personal daily lives? We might not have the sorts of examples that we’re talking about.

Participant: I knew some people who would dispute with each other. They enjoyed battling each other with discussions, but they never really had a point. They just wanted to confront you all the time. Whatever you said, they confronted. They always opposed your view, and they just went in circles.

Dr. Berzin: Right. There’s the example of people who just like to be negative and to argue, especially in a relationship. They’re constantly bickering with each other, and the arguments just go in circles. I had an aunt and uncle like that. My uncle will say, “It’s blue,” and my aunt will say, “No! You’re an idiot. It’s dark blue.” And then they’ll have a whole argument about whether it’s blue or dark blue, which is absolutely absurd. And there is sort of a perverse enjoyment of arguing that they have with each other.

Participant: What about debating in the Buddhist schools?

Dr. Berzin: Debating in the Buddhist schools? It could become like that. But in theory, no, it’s not like that because the whole point is to train and help the other person. First of all, they see it as great fun. If you take it personally, you can’t survive in the debate monastery. So, you have to take it as great fun. And everybody laughs. It is to train people to be able to think logically and to hold a consistent view because the point of the debate is to get the person to contradict themselves. You can argue from any point of view; it doesn’t matter whether your view is correct or not. So, I don’t think it’s like thinking with a distorted view.

But I was thinking of the example of a divorce, a breakup, in which each side thinks that they’re right. They think it’s the other person’s fault. They absolutely refuse to see that any of the fault lies in themselves, and they just think to poison the mind of the children against the other partner, always to say nasty things about the other one, and to deny that the other person has any value. I think that’s a classic example, isn’t it? “It’s all your fault.”

Participant: “The only fault I made was marrying you.”

Dr. Berzin: Right, “The only fault I made was to marry you.”

Any other type of example?

Often, I think that we say something – let’s say, in our office or in school – and what we say is wrong. And when we get challenged, we become very defensive. And not only defensive, we maybe become offensive and attack the other person. We don’t want to admit that we were wrong, that we made a mistake.

Participant: Another example is certain newspapers in Germany and maybe all over the world. They really contradict themselves in one issue. They try to slaughter people or harass people who are just different from somebody else. So, they really try to make up a story from something, and make it very emotional in some way. And it doesn’t matter in which direction they go in – whether it’s a judgement thing or anger thing or whatever.

Dr. Berzin: Right. That’s also a good example. He’s giving the example of what we would call “scandal” newspapers. They’re trashy newspapers. The people who write them or publish them are just thinking, “How can we destroy this celebrity or this political figure or that political figure? How can we find some trash about them in order to sell our newspapers?” So, it’s out of attachment, wanting to make money off of it. And they probably are convinced that the trash that they find out or that they make up is true.

You see, that’s part of this thing: you have to believe that you’re right. You’ve analyzed it, and you think you’re correct. Then, you’re going to argue with anybody that wants to disagree with you. So, it’s also thinking that making that type of newspaper is worthwhile, is a good thing to do. So, the publishers and writers probably think it’s a great thing to do.

Participant: They argue, “We have like six million readers.”

Dr. Berzin: Right, “We have six million readers, so what’s wrong with that?”

So, it’s this type of thinking.

Examples of Good Deeds Done with a Distorted View – Being Naive about Cause and Effect

Then, what Nagarjuna says here is that for people “having a distorted view, even good deeds will all have unbearable ripening (results).” Now you’re doing good deeds, but even the good deeds that you do will have an unbearable ripening. The distorted view could concern either cause and effect or reality, how we and/or all things exist.

The example that I was thinking of was this thinking to overthrow Sadam Hussein and invade Iraq. Well, to overthrow a dictator who is torturing people is, in a sense, a positive deed – to liberate the people from oppression. So, what’s the distorted view here? The distorted view is not only thinking that there’s nothing wrong with it, that this is the correct thing to do, and blah, blah, blah, but also not believing in cause and effect – that “Well, we’ll do this, and then everybody will welcome us. It’ll be wonderful, and there’ll be no negative effects. And now the entire Middle East will turn to American-style democracy.” So, that’s being completely naive about cause and effect with respect to what they’re doing, which is overthrowing a dictator. “Even good deeds will have unbearable ripening results.” And we can see, even immediately, the results of the type of invasion that was done in Iraq.

Participant: What comes to my mind is the death penalty, for example. They think they’re doing the right thing to take this person out of life so he can’t do anything more. But actually, they do a very destructive thing killing people.

Dr. Berzin: Right. The death penalty – thinking that that’s good, that that’s helping society by removing a threat. So, it’s a little bit similar to removing the threat of so-called weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But in fact, it is killing.

I haven’t come up with a better example, but maybe, from the examples that you’ve given, we can come up with a more obvious good deed that’s done on the basis of this type of distorted thinking.

Do you have an example?

Participant: If you are a social worker, and you haven’t cleaned up your own mind, so to speak. You’re not one hundred percent stable, but you’re very motivated. You go to a very cruel place, and you want to help people. But you cannot look at cruelty, and you’re unstable looking at it as well. So, your intention is a good one: you want to help. But you’re not able to help because you’re not free from your own suffering.

Dr. Berzin: Yeah, that’s a good example. This is somebody who is a do-gooder who is very, very naive and wants to help severely disturbed people or criminal people or schizophrenics or whomever. They really don’t know what they’re doing. They deny that they’re not capable of helping them. So, they think to deny that these people are really dangerous and need professional help. Then they go in, and they do supposedly good deeds, but in fact, they cause much more damage than good. So, they deny cause and effect; they’re naive about the cause and effect of their actions. They also have a distorted view about reality because they deny at least the conventional truth that the other people are sick and need more professional help.

Participant: Maybe if you give money to a drug addict or to a drunk on the street, you just help them to buy even more drugs.

Dr. Berzin: Right. That’s another one – thinking that it’s good to give charity; so, you give charity to the drug addict by giving them money, which they will use to buy drugs. You’re naive; you refuse to believe that they’re going to use it to buy drugs. And you would argue with anybody who says, “Well, maybe this isn’t the wisest course of action.” But giving money to somebody and helping them is an act of generosity – maybe an unwise one in this case.

Participant: If you’re going to Third World countries in the context of helping the people there, and you bring them goods that you think would help them, those goods could turn out to be not helpful, even destructive in some way. You have good intentions to help somebody, and you put energy in, but you just missed some part in cause and effect. So, you’re actually creating some suffering.

Dr. Berzin: Right, the example of bringing some Western thing into a Third World country. The example that comes to my mind is bringing Walmart into Mexico, Latin America – now they’re bringing it to India – with the idea that this is going to help the people make cheaper goods available for everybody. Mind you, there’s great greed behind this motivation as well, but at least on the surface, they think that they’re doing good by helping the people. But it will put all the small businesses and family businesses out of business and cause economic disaster in the country – as it’s been causing in Mexico and will definitely cause in India as this goes ahead. And these people completely think to oppose anybody who would try to prevent Walmart from going in. But they are providing cheaper things to people. They are providing more goods to the people. So, on the surface, it does look as though it’s a good deed, but they’re completely naive about cause and effect. And they could have a distorted view because they think, “We are the good guys.”

We have this example with Iraq: “We are the good guys,” and the other exists as the devil, a truly existent devil, and we are truly existently with a truly existent God on our side. That’s a very distorted view about reality as well as cause and effect. They’re giving all that money, which is just going to go into the pockets of corrupt officials, both the local officials and the Western contractors, and being naive, thinking that that’s really going to help.

Participant: How about the missionaries of whatever religion that go to another country? You think you have the solution – the one God or whatever it is – and you try to recruit people into your system.

Dr. Berzin: That’s a very good example. Although we can’t say that all missionaries are like this. Some missionaries actually do do very good work – Mother Teresa and so on. I don’t know if you call her a missionary, but certainly she has done excellent work.

But I’m thinking of the example of Mongolia where the missionaries go and give people money to go to church. They bribe the government so they can teach English in the schools with all the books that have Christian propaganda. They have a television station and a radio station with all the gospel songs and things like that. They think that they’re helping the country, but what they tell the people is that your problems are all not just because of Communism but because of Buddhism – that’s why you’re backward. And if you want to become a modern country, then you need to become Christian like us. They thoroughly believe that. They thoroughly believe that they’re saving the souls of these people. It undermines any sort of feeling of self-confidence or national pride or anything like that. Anything that they’ve done, from the point of view of the missionaries, was stupid and a waste of time and destructive. So, not only was the Communist period a stupid and destructive waste of time, but so is the whole culture of being Buddhist. Yet, the missionaries think that they’re saving these people. They do bring a certain amount of economic help to the country – so, in a sense, doing good.

Participant: What are the results of that?

Dr. Berzin: The results are devastating in the long term.

Participant: Also, maybe socialist revolutionaries like Mao or other social revolutionists. When they first start up, they say, “We can bring some change, and we can share opportunities.” So, everybody had a good idea, but it turned out to be not that successful.

Dr. Berzin: Right. Well, this is a little bit more complicated example. The various Communist leaders in the beginning were certainly convinced that they were bringing a utopia to the people. But they were naive about how it would work. And it didn’t work out at all as they had hoped. But there, again, you can argue, was there something wrong with the theory or something wrong with the people who put it into practice? That’s a more complicated issue.

Participant: Mao was a good example of that. Mao had a flaw in his character. He was not the person to bring about the change.

Dr. Berzin: So, Mao was not the person to bring about change, Andreas says. So, the fault was with the person as well.

Participant: What about experiments on animals?

Dr. Berzin: That’s a good one. Experimenting on animals – medical experiments – in order to bring about medical advances for human beings with the distorted thinking that, “Well, a fish doesn’t feel any pain; these animals don’t really have feelings. So, what does it matter if we give a mouse AIDS? So what? It’s only a mouse.” Yeah. But here you’re mixing doing something good by using a method that is destructive. That’s also a situation that one has to consider. But just doing good, in a sense, like helping the drug addict by giving him money – that’s just being naive about what the person’s going to do with the money. There’s no actual mental action that’s negative there.

Distorted Thinking Destroys the Ability of a Positive Action to Give Rise to the Positive Results It Would Otherwise Have Given Rise To

Now, when it says, “Even good deeds will have unbearable ripening results,” again, one has to separate the action from the motivation. Being motivated by this distorted thinking, distorted view, and so on will have very serious negative consequences. What’s explained is that you destroy the ability of that positive action to give rise to the positive result that it would have given rise to if you hadn’t had that distorted attitude and distorted thinking. So, it’s not going to bring about the pure benefit that it could have done. That’s completely destroyed. It would maybe have another benefit because it’s a positive action, but it would be very, very small. It might come much later, and it might be very, very trivial.

We’re just looking now at short-term results. There is a benefit of getting rid of Sadam Hussein in the sense that he’s no longer dropping poison gas on the Kurds, for example – which he wasn’t doing recently anyway; it was in the past. But anyway, his torture camps and prisons are no longer functioning. Still, that’s a much smaller benefit than if they had used means other than invading (and causing unbelievable sectarian chaos) to get him to stop.

Participant: How about if you’re a Buddhist, or you think you are a Buddhist teacher, but you don’t have the qualities? For example, you’re just a student, and you start giving lectures and teachings, and you’re supposed to be positively motivated. The results won’t be as good as if you were a fully realized teacher.

Dr. Berzin: Right. Well, that’s a good example. How about a Buddhist teacher who is not qualified but who believes that they’re qualified (they have to believe that they’re qualified), and they start teaching? Maybe they’ve set up a cult and have set themselves up as a great white guru and so on. Well, they may be giving valid teachings. They may not be. But let’s say, even if they are giving some valid teachings, it will certainly not have the same benefit as if they were really qualified and weren’t mixing everything with some ego-trip motivation. They could be very hostile and antagonistic to anybody who challenges them. In fact, often, they’re very paranoid and attack everybody else, even when others are not attacking them, because they think that everybody is against them. That usually goes together with setting oneself up as the great white guru – paranoia.

Participant: Isn’t it even a bodhisattva vow not to teach to people who are not capable of understanding or who could understand in a wrong way?

Dr. Berzin: Well, yes. But that’s another aspect. We’re talking about the teacher not being qualified. Daniel is mentioning the bodhisattva vow to not teach voidness to those who would misunderstand it. Basically, one should only teach things to others that actually suit them. But most of the time, we have no idea, unless we’re Buddhas, what really is going to be of benefit. That’s why it’s very important when one is in a teaching situation to admit, “I don’t know. I don’t really know what’s the best thing to teach you, but I will try. I’m not a Buddha.” Somebody asks our advice – “Well, I can’t guarantee that my advice is going to be correct.” So, don’t set oneself up as the almighty guru or the Almighty God. We’re all human.

Now, there are certain situations in which being totally honest about that and saying that we don’t really know is not beneficial. I’m thinking of the example of a doctor. It’s very important that the patient has confidence in the doctor. If the doctor says, “I don’t really know what’s wrong with you. Why don’t you try this? Maybe it’ll help. I don’t know,” it doesn’t give us great confidence in the doctor, and it doesn’t help in the curing process. Or I’m thinking again of my great example of Star Trek and Next Generation, when Captain Picard said, “A captain of a star ship can’t tell the crew, ‘Well, I don’t really know what to do, so let’s try this.’” You have to give the impression that you know what you’re doing so that others will cooperate and follow.

I think it depends very much on our position, our relation with the people we’re advising or teaching. It’s important that a Dharma student have confidence in the teacher, especially in terms of a teacher of advanced topics like tantra. In that case, it is necessary that the teacher be qualified and not pretend that they’re qualified when they’re not. That, actually, is a very distorted way of thinking – thinking, “I am greatly qualified; I’m the great master or great practitioner" when we’re not. “I’m the great bodhisattva,” “I’m the great professor,” “I’m the great worker” or whatever.

Same thing with being a mother. You can’t tell a small child, “Well, I don’t know what to do. Try this.” The child has to have trust and confidence in the parent. So, these are complex issues.

So, that’s verse 47:

[47] If you desire higher rebirth status or liberation, make into a habit a correct view. For persons having a distorted view, even good deeds will all have unbearable ripened (results).

Then,

Verse 48: The Disadvantages of Not Having Correct Discriminating Awareness – The Four Close Placements of Mindfulness

[48] Know that people, in actuality, have no happiness, are not permanent, do not have a self, and are not clean. Those not having (these four) close placements of mindfulness regard (people) in the four reverse (ways) and (thereby) are devastated.

So, this is again referring to disadvantages of not having correct discriminating awareness. As it says here, “People” – referring not just to people but to beings in general – “have no happiness, are not permanent, do not have a self, and are not clean.” These are, you remember, that if you don’t think in those ways, you think in reverse ways. Those are the four distorted ways of embracing the first noble truth, true sufferings, which we had discussed before:

Holding what is unclean to be clean
Holding what’s suffering to be happiness
Holding what’s nonstatic (impermanent) to be static (permanent)
Holding what is not established as an impossible soul, or “me,” to be an impossible soul, or “me.”

“People, in actuality, have no happiness, are not permanent, do not have a self, and are not clean.” This is referring to the four close placements of mindfulness. It says that if you don’t have the close placement of mindfulness – seeing that people are not like this: happy, clean, etc. – you are going to be devastated, in other words, have a lot of sufferings. So, you need discriminating awareness to discriminate that people are not clean when they think they’re clean, not happy when they think they’re happy, not permanent when they think they’re permanent, and have no self when they think they have a self.

The Four Close Placements of Mindfulness

Now, that brings us to the topic of the four close placements of mindfulness. That’s what in Pali is called “satipatthana” (placement of close mindfulness). So, this is on the body, the feelings, the mind, and all phenomena. These are connected with the four noble truths as well.

[1] We start with the close placement of mindfulness on the body. What we do here is to contemplate that the body is unclean (impure) rather than clean (pure).

So, what do we reflect on? We reflect on what the causes of the body are – sperm and egg – and that we consider that particularly clean or nice. The nature of the body, it’s insides, is that it is a machine factory for manufacturing urine, excrement, vomit and mucus. It’s, basically, a perfect factory: you put in nice food, and it produces shit. And what the result of the body is, is that it becomes a rotting, smelly corpse. So, while we’re alive, the body is the basis for sickness, for physical injury, for pain, and for old age. It requires a tremendous amount of hard work to take care of it. Plus, we have to make money in order to clothe it and feed it. Then we have to be the servants of the body: we have to clean it, put it to sleep, cut its hair, cut its nails, and brush its teeth. We really are slaves. So much of our time is taken up in taking care of the body.

When we get the insight that it’s not clean and beautiful and perfect but that it has all these downsides, these faults, our attachment to our bodies declines. We’re less obsessed with it and less worried about it, and we understand that the body is an example of the first noble truth, true suffering. But of course, nevertheless, we need this precious human body in order to gain liberation and enlightenment. So, it’s not that it is totally useless. But the point is not to have incorrect consideration of it by considering what is unclean as clean and beautiful and perfect – the so-called worship of The Body Beautiful.

OK? So, that’s the close placement of mindfulness on the body. Let’s take a few moments to reflect on that. This is obviously a very major meditation that one needs to do when it comes to working with the four noble truths – contemplating how we consider our bodies and how we consider somebody else’s body, for that matter, and working to have a realistic view of it.

Try to keep in mind that when we have incorrect consideration, when we don’t have correct discriminating awareness (all this is dealing with discriminating awareness, discriminating that it’s unclean rather than clean), we’re devastated. In other words, it causes unbelievable problems for us. Geshe Dhargyey always used to give this lovely Tibetan example, which is “no matter how much you wash a piece of shit, you can never make it clean.” Good Tibetan example.

[2] The second close placement of mindfulness is on the feelings.

“Mindfulness,” by the way, means “mental glue.” So, we hold on to an understanding, or we hold on to analyzing and trying to see, to discern, that the body is like this and not like that and that the feelings are like this and not like that. So, mindfulness means to keep it in mind, to hold our attention on it with mental glue.

Here, we observe all the feelings, observing that they’re in the nature of suffering. Pain is obviously a problem of suffering, but happiness is the problem of change: it never lasts, it’s never satisfying, and we never know what’s coming next. Neutral feelings characterize the all-pervasive problem that all our experiences, when they’re mixed with confusion, perpetuate our samsaric existence. So, this contemplation counters the incorrect consideration that suffering is happiness. In other words, when we experience our ordinary happiness, we think that it really is true happiness and don’t recognize that it’s the suffering of change, that it’s always unsatisfactory. So, that’s what we focus on with this close placement of mindfulness in order to overcome this wrong view. It connects with the noble truth of the cause, or origin, of suffering. The way it does that is through the understanding of the twelve links of dependent arising.

Understanding Feelings as a Cause of Suffering, the Second Noble Truth, by Understanding the Twelve Links of Dependent Arising

Within those links, the seventh one is feeling – feeling a level of happiness. So, we’re talking about that here. Based on feelings of happiness or unhappiness, etc., we get the link of craving (thirsting), the eighth link. Craving is a strong longing desire to be parted from pain, not to be parted from pleasure, and for the neutral feeling you get in the absorbed concentration of the fourth dhyana and above not to decline (like when you’re asleep, you want to stay asleep – this type of thing). The craving link leads to the next link, the obtainer link, which is a set of four disturbing emotions and attitudes that help to obtain continuing samsaric rebirths for us.

Craving is often translated as “grasping,” but that doesn’t really fit the definition or the meaning here. Instead, it’s the emotions or attitudes that will obtain for us a further samsaric rebirth by activating the throwing karma. This is a whole collection: (1) an obtainer desire for desirable sense objects, (2) an obtainer deluded outlook (like denying cause and effect), (3) an obtainer attitude of holding deluded morality or behavior as supreme, as what’ll bring liberation, (4) an obtainer deluded attitude that regards various aspects of our aggregates as “me” or mine. Anyway, there’s a whole list of obtainer attitudes, and they’re based on these feelings.

So, you have these feelings. You crave to be parted from pain, not to be parted from happiness, and for neutral feelings not to decline. Then we identify with a solid “me” that is doing this, feeling this – “I don’t want to be parted from pleasure; I want to be parted from pain,” this type of thing – and that activates the throwing karma for a continuing samsaric rebirth. So, in that sense, feelings are related to the second noble truth, the cause of suffering.

OK? This is the second placement of close mindfulness – observing the feelings. Here, we’re not talking about sensations. Sensations have to do with the body. Instead, we’re talking about happy and unhappy, or nothing – feeling neutral, which, actually is very interesting to to do a meditation on. If we’re just sitting there for a long time, our sensations may change quite a lot. And I suppose happy and unhappy is based on that. If our knees start to hurt, we feel unhappy. But generally, if we’re just sitting there, we’re going to feel neutral, neither happy nor unhappy, a lot of the time. And we’re quite satisfied with that; we want that not to decline – “I don’t want my knees to start hurting or my head to start itching.” This type of thing.

The point is to notice that whatever type of feeling that we have – happy, unhappy, neutral –that is the basis. Having craving and the attitude that identifies with a solid “me” experiencing that feeling is the basis for identifying the cause of suffering, especially when we’re thinking in terms of experiencing happiness and really not wanting to be parted from it. “It’s so nice being with my friends or eating my favorite food,” or whatever it is that we like. That’s just going to perpetuate samsara – craving not to be parted from it and identifying with a big, solid “me” that craves like that. OK? So, we need the discriminating awareness that all the various types of feelings, particularly happiness, is not true happiness, but, actually, it’s a form of suffering.

OK? Let’s think about that for a moment.

This doesn’t mean that we don’t enjoy anything, just as recognizing that the body is not clean doesn’t mean that we don’t value having a precious human rebirth. So, similarly with feelings, there’s nothing wrong with enjoying being happy or enjoying being with friends or enjoying a nice meal. The point is not to exaggerate it – to realize that of course it’s the suffering of change, of course it’s not going to last, of course it’s not going to satisfy. But within those limitations, enjoy it for what it is.

[3] The third close placement of mindfulness is on the mind, which refers to the six kinds of primary consciousness – seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, feeling physical sensation, and mental consciousness. Here, we focus on the conventional nature of mental activities. This is not an easy one.

A primary consciousness refers simply to that aspect of our cognition of something that focuses on its essential nature, which refers to what kind of cognitive object it is. So, it simply experiences that this is a sight, this is sound, this is smell, this is taste, this is physical sensation, this is thought. To use the computer as an analogy, the way that it processes information, or data – which, after all, is just going to be binary code (zeros and ones) – is to be “aware” that this is text information, this is image information, this is audio information, and so on. It’s just “aware” of what kind of information it is. That’s primary consciousness. And if we can focus on the conventional nature of this mental activity – that it’s just the arising of a mental hologram of the information and the awareness of what it is – and we can focus on it with close mindfulness, we can experience that it’s naturally free of disturbing emotions and attitudes. So, we can understand that any disturbing or positive emotion that arises is impermanent, is nonstatic.

Here, what we are seeing is that our mental activity is changing all the time. And realizing that it is nonstatic, that it’s changing all the time, that there’s no solid “me” there or anything like that, enables us to see that liberation is possible. That connects with the noble truth of cessation (true stopping) – that the state in which the disturbing attitudes are stopped, are not there, is possible.

So, this is the connection here with the third noble truth – seeing that mental activity is not static, not permanent, and seeing that the channels that we’re on change from moment to moment. And there’s no solid “me.”

See, the difficulty here is this no solid “me.” Sometimes, it connects, according to some explanations, with the third placement and sometimes with the fourth placement. So, that’s a little bit tricky. In any case, we can focus here on it changing all the time. That means that there’s no basic disturbing emotion that’s always there, that doesn’t change from moment to moment. So, in that sense, we realize that a true stopping is possible. So, it connects with that.

We don’t have so much time, so no need to spend a moment to think about this third one because it’s very difficult in any case. On this basis, by the way – realizing that a true stopping is possible – we develop renunciation.

[4] Then the fourth one is the close placement of mindfulness on all phenomena – in other words, focusing on all the other aggregate factors, which are the various emotions and these sorts of things.

By focusing on that, we come to understand that there are certain mental factors and behaviors to get rid of and other ones to adopt. And that leads us to understanding the noble truth of the true path (true pathway mind).

Again, we can connect this one with seeing that the various mental factors, positive and negative ones, are changing all the time. So, again, we can apply the understanding of these phenomena as not being permanent but impermanent. We can also apply the understanding of there being no solid “me” there either.

So, these last two factors – being impermanent and lacking a true self – aren’t so fixed in terms of them being correlated with the third and fourth noble truths, but with the third and fourth, we cover them. OK?

Summary of the Four Close Placements of Mindfulness

Focusing on the body– that it is not clean. The mistaken view is discriminating the body as being clean rather than unclean, which will cause us a lot of problems. So, we have close placement of mindfulness on the body as unclean. It connects with the noble truth of suffering.

Focusing on feelings. If we think of our feelings of happiness as true happiness rather than discriminate that even our ordinary happiness is suffering, we’ll have a lot of problems because that produces craving for that happiness and an obtainer attitude – “‘Me’ – I want to be happy all the time” – which perpetuate samsara. So, that’s the true cause of suffering, the second noble truth.

Focusing on the nature of just the primary awareness – whether seeing, thinking, hearing, etc. We see that that changes all the time and that there’s no solid “me” there. That leads us to understand that there can be a true cessation because none of these disturbing emotions and so on are part of the nature of that mind. So, that’s the third noble truth, true stopping.

Focusing on all phenomena. So, we focus on all the various, other mental factors – emotions, concentration, and all these things. They’re also changing all the time, and also, there’s no solid “me.” But here, we understand the fourth noble truth – that there are some things to be abandoned and other things to adopt. In this way, we can actually develop the pathway mind that leads to liberation and enlightenment.

So, these are the four placements of close mindfulness. And that is this verse: