Recap
We’ve been studying this text Wheel of Sharp Weapons or, more literally, Throwing Star Weapon, which is the earliest text probably in this genre of lojong, mind training or attitude training. It was written by Dharmarakshita. We are dealing here with basically the topic of overcoming our self-cherishing. In general, lojong, this attitude-training, is helping us to change negative circumstances into positive circumstances. The negative circumstances all come about from our self-cherishing attitude of selfishness – thinking only of ourselves. This is based on grasping for ourselves to exist in some impossible ways as some sort of true, solid, independent “me.” When we want to transform negative circumstances into positive ones, we want to do it in such a way in which we attack, in a sense, this self-cherishing attitude. That brings us to the practice of tonglen, which was emphasized in the beginning of the text, which is giving and taking. So, when we have a problem that arises from self-cherishing – a negative circumstance – we think that this isn’t my own problem exclusively, but everybody else also suffers from this type of problem and we take on the responsibility onto ourselves to try to eliminate that problem from everybody – not just from ourselves. In that way, we think to take on the problems of others onto ourselves, take that responsibility onto ourselves and in fact even take the problem itself onto ourselves and then solve it and give them the happiness that would result from being free from that problem. In that way, when we have that negative circumstance, by doing this tonglen practice we change it into a positive circumstance for making progress toward liberation and enlightenment, because we’re using it as an opportunity to overcome our self-cherishing.
The first part of this text explained all sorts of different troubles, the negative circumstances that we’re experiencing. It explains the causes for these in terms of previous actions that we might have done; in other words, it presents the difficulties that we face in terms of the first and second noble truths: suffering and the causes for suffering. Here’s the cause of the suffering – the negative karmic action; and then we resolve to change our behavior and act positively instead in an opposite way and then we think to give that solution to everybody.
In the second part of the text, which is where we are now, we are working on the deeper level to overcome this false concept that we have, this misconception that we exist as the “true me:” “I can find myself” and, “I have to express myself” and, “I want you to love me for me” – this whole concept that there is some sort of solid “me” that is separate, independent from our body and our minds and our personalities and our possessions and everything else. “Love me for me not for my accomplishments, or my body, or my intellect, or my beauty, or whatever, but love me for me” – that type of “me.” When we have that misconception and believe in it and view ourselves in that way and feel that we exist in that way, that becomes the basis for being self-centered and thinking only of ourselves – self-cherishing – and wanting always to get our way. So, we are working here in the second half of the text on this misconception. In order to overcome that misconception, we need the discriminating awareness, the wisdom of voidness (sometimes called “emptiness”). Voidness is a total absence of this impossible way of existing – here more specifically with reference to ourselves – the understanding that there’s no such thing. We discriminate between what actually exists and what doesn’t exist and what doesn’t exist never existed: this impossible “me.” By cutting off that belief in this impossible “me” – if that goes deeply enough within us and really sinks in – then we won’t act on the basis of that misbelief.
Now, what does exist is the conventional “me.” It isn’t that I don’t exist at all. But what is the conventional “me?” All you can say is that it’s what the word “me” refers to – the actual “me” – on the basis of what is labeled on. It’s labeled on what’s happening in each moment of experience. We have individual continuities of experience, of sitting and walking and seeing and thinking and feeling and all these sorts of things and on that basis, we can say “me”: “I’m sitting,” “I’m thinking,” “I’m talking,” and so on. That’s a convention of how we can refer to all of this and that word “me” that we use here is referring to something, but we can’t actually find that “me.” It’s not inside our body, somewhere in our head; it’s not somewhere inside our minds, it’s not equal or identical to only our body, or only this, or only that aspect; and it’s not something which is totally separate from it either. So, what can we say about it? What establishes that there is such a “me?” The only thing that establishes it is that there is a word that validly refers to it; it’s what a word refers to. We have that concept – it’s how we put things together – and the concept refers to something. It’s not like a concept of “chicken lips” or something that is totally non-existent. So, when we cut off this belief, this misconception, then we are left with what does exist. We call on a very forceful energy, represented by Yamantaka, to smash this misconception, because our belief in it is so deeply rooted and is so strong that it’s very difficult to overcome it.
The question is, who is it that is able to listen to and meditate and understand and realize everything that I’ve just explained? That would be the conventional “me.” But that conventional “me” isn’t some solid little thing inside your head. In other words, what is happening is that there is a listening – listening is occurring. There is a subjective experience of listening and a subjective experience – individual – of thinking about it, understanding, meditating and so on. There is that subjective experience; there’s a continuity of subjective experience – that’s all that’s happening. Now, if we wanted to refer to that – put it together in a sense – we would say “me,” “I’m doing that.” In a sense, that’s true – that’s the way that we conventionally think; it’s not somebody else doing it. But that “me” is not some substantial, solid entity. The only thing that you can say about that “me” is that it’s that what that word “me” refers to. There’s nothing else you can say about it. There is a word and there is a concept, and it refers to something, but that something can’t be located, or found, or anything like that.
Obviously, that’s not easy to understand; if it were, we would all be liberated and enlightened very easily. The problem is that it feels as though there is some sort of solid “me” because there’s a voice going on in our head and we think, “That’s me talking,” as if there was somebody in there talking. But all it is is conceptual thought in the form of words; that’s all it is. That’s all that’s happening. That is happening, but there is nobody sitting behind a microphone talking. Okay? I mean, it’s pretty weird. But the way that we approach it here in the text is to look at the problems that arise from believing in this misconception and trying to understand that if we overcame that misconception, those problems wouldn’t arise. I think that’s the main thing that we need to consider with each of these verses. The more examples of problems that come from believing in this misconception and the more we understand how the problems arise from that misconception, the more convinced we’ll become that this misconception is something that I want to get rid of. The more we understand that when we are rid of it, the problems don’t arise, the more we’ll be convinced that it’s just complete nonsense – what we believe about how we exist. Now, of course, we’re very attached to “me” – self-cherishing – and so we don’t want to give up this concept of a solid, substantial “me,” and that’s why we call on this very strong force of Yamantaka to smash it.
There is a concept of “me,” but the concept refers to something – this is the point. It’s not that the concept refers to nothing. I could have a concept of “chicken lips,” but it doesn’t refer to anything because there is no such thing as chicken lips. Likewise, I can have a concept of a solid, substantial, findable “me,” but it doesn’t refer to anything real. Whereas just the concept “me” – the conventional “me” – does refer to something. But what does it refer to? You can’t actually pinpoint it and say, “There it is.” All you can say is that it’s what the word refers to. Use an example: what is happiness? Can you point to happiness and say, “This is happiness? That’s happiness. There it is, sitting right there, that’s happiness?” You can’t say that but there is the word, and the word refers to something. We all agree that it refers to something. But you can’t actually pinpoint that happiness. It’s not some substantial thing sitting somewhere, is it? Also, please keep in mind that what we’ve just described is true not only with respect to how I exist – with respect to “me” – but also with respect to “you,” the other person as well. In fact, it’s the case in terms of absolutely everything – how everything exists.