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 (Skt. Dharmarakṣita). 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 (Skt. Yamāntaka), 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.
Harming the Needy and Abusing Others
In the text, we are looking at two versions: the version that I prepared and translated back in 1974, which was a poetical loose translation of it; and then the one that I prepared last year, which is much more literal. Let me read the old translation. In the old translation the numbering is verse 80:
When someone requests us to do something for him, we are never obliging, but think up instead clever devious methods to do him some harm. When others concede and agree with our viewpoint, we do not acquiesce – we argue still more. Trample him, trample him, dance on the head of this treacherous concept of selfish concern. Tear out the heart of this self-centered butcher who slaughters our chance to gain final release.
In the new literal version, verse 79:
When asked to do something (for others), we don’t listen, but rather covertly try to cause (them) harm. When we’re agreed with, we don’t bow (and accept), but rather distance ourselves and seek to argue on. Crash, really crash down, right on the head of (this) ruinous concept! Deal the death blow to the heart of this butcher, a “true self,” our foe.
The first half it is referring to situations where other people ask us to do something for them and we don’t listen to that. In other words, we don’t actually do it for them, but we get angry with them for bothering us and asking us to help them and instead of helping them we harm them. How would you harm them? You could yell at them, for example; you don’t necessarily have to go hit them. But someone says, “Could you do this for me, could you do that for me?” and then we get very annoyed, and we say, “Don’t bother me, leave me alone. Stop bugging me. You’re always asking me to do things for you.” So, in that sense we cause them harm. “Covertly” means that we don’t directly punch them in the face, but we could say things that hurt them. I think that’s what it’s referring to. Are you familiar with that type of thing? We get really annoyed when somebody asks us to do something for them, we can’t be bothered.
I’m very busy working on my website and then somebody sends me something else and says, “Can you work on this, can you work on that.” This type of situations, I think, arise quite commonly: we’re busy and we don’t want to be bothered, and you feel like really punching somebody if they ask us to do something.
Why is that? Now we have to get to the point of this verse, which is that this comes from thinking of this solid “me:” “I am busy. I can’t be bothered helping you.” We’re thinking “me, me, me,” and “my work,” and “my time.” On the basis of thinking of that solid “me,” then we become very emotional about it and reject the other person that’s trying to bother me, as opposed to just being very calm and saying, “I’m very sorry, but I really don’t have time. This is something that surely you can find somebody else who can do. I’m not the only person qualified to do this.” If we are the only person qualified to do it, that’s something else. Then you see if there is a real necessity for it or if it’s something very trivial. If there is a real necessity for it, then we try somehow to fit it into our schedule – it’s a matter of priorities, if it’s possible. If it’s not possible, you just have to say, “I’m sorry, it’s not possible.” But the point is not to get angry and reject the other person and want to hurt them, either physically or hurt their feelings. We see that if we weren’t thinking in terms of that solid “me,” then we wouldn’t get upset and want to hurt the other person back for asking us to help. It’s especially true when we are supposedly following the Mahayana (Skt. Mahāyāna) path. Many of us practice the Dharma; we think that we’re following the Mahayana path; we recite these things – “May I become enlightened for the sake of all beings” and “May everybody be happy,” and so on, but as soon as somebody asks us for their help – forget it. “No time, I’m busy, can’t be bothered” or “I don’t particularly like you so I don’t want to help you. You’re annoying, always asking me to do things” – whether it’s housework, whether it’s taking out the garbage, whatever it might be.
Let’s think about this from our own experience and see how, if we smash that concept of a solid “me,” when somebody asks us to do something for them, it wouldn’t be a problem. Even if we don’t have time and can’t help them, we wouldn’t get upset. Especially, think in terms of whether, when people ask us to do things – and many people ask us to do things – we start to freak out and say, “I can’t handle it, it’s too much”– that’s really an indication of belief in the solid “me.” If we’re practicing the bodhisattva path, then we would be very happy if people asked us to help them. That’s in fact what we’re training to do, what we want to do. Shantideva, the great Indian master who wrote about the Mahayana path in Engaging in Bodhisattva Behavior, said that the bodhisattva is not happy unless people ask him to be of help. That really is the cause of a bodhisattva to be happy – that he can be of help.
Then the second part of this verse: “When we’re agreed with, we don’t bow (and accept), but rather distance ourselves and seek to argue on.” When you’re having a disagreement or a discussion with somebody and they finally agree to our position, then sometimes what happens is that we don’t even listen to them, and we just argue on and on. I find this is very true not only if there’s a dispute, but I know this happens very much with one friend of mine. He wants to convince me of something – usually it’s in terms of a policy to take with my website – and after he explains it to me, I accept and say, “Yes, I’ll do that,” but then he goes on and on for 10 or 15 minutes, continuing to try to convince me to accept it. I’ve said, “Yes, I accept it,” but he doesn’t accept that I have accepted it and just goes on and on and on. So, I have that example in which it’s not a dispute even. The question is why? Why does one do that? We have to see that this comes from this misconception of a solid “me” – “I want to talk. I’m not really interested or listening to what you’re saying. I’m just selling, I’m the salesman.” You have new stuff to say and new reasons and so I have to say it because I want to express myself.
It’s not really the point that you accept it or not – maybe it is also that – but first I want to do my whole routine. I think what’s behind it is that everybody thinks, “How wonderful I am.” So, when giving some sort of report in school or something like that, we have to go on and on and repeat ourselves and say it in different words and so on, so that we really express ourselves – in other words, so that others will appreciate that “me.” That’s a similar type of phenomenon. If we’re not thinking in terms of the “me” and, “I have to sell,” “I have to present everything,” “I have to show how wonderful I am,” “I have to win, in a sense, if it’s a argument” – or you’re trying to convince somebody of something or sell something, sell some idea to somebody – then it’s not enough to win. “I have to really win.” It’s no fun if the person after two sentences agrees and says yes – that’s no fun.
We need to examine ourselves to see if we have that type of problem sometimes – that we don’t know when to end the argument. We don’t know when to end the discussion; we just repeat and go on and on and on and don’t really let go. It could happen, for instance, in an apology. You apologize to the other person and they accept our apology, but then we go on and on and continue to apologize and repeat and repeat, until the other person gets really annoyed. It defeats the whole purpose. But this is probably because of a feeling of guilt and we don’t want to let go of that feeling of guilt if the other person accepts our apology. We still think, “I’m the guilty one,” and so we hold on and the whole idea of guilt arises. The whole concept of guilt arises because of thinking of a solid “me” who is the bad one, who is guilty. Do you recognize that one? It’s the same thing: if we didn’t hold on to this concept of a solid “me,” then if somebody accepts our apology – it’s finished. That’s it.
So that was the verse:
When asked to do something (for others), we don’t listen, but rather covertly try to cause (them) harm. When we’re agreed with, we don’t bow (and accept), but rather distance ourselves and seek to argue on. Crash, really crash down, right on the head of (this) ruinous concept! Deal the death blow to the heart of this butcher, a “true self,” our foe.
Getting Offended and Easily Upset
Now the next verse, numbered 81 in the old translation:
We do not pay attention to what others tell us; we’re a trial to be with; we strain other’s nerves. Our feelings are hurt at the slightest remark and we hold grudges strongly – we never forgive. Trample him, trample him, dance on the head of this treacherous concept of selfish concern. Tear out the heart of this self-centered butcher who slaughters our chance to gain final release.
In the new translation, verse 80:
We get mentally upset at (others’) advice and then always have difficulty in being friends. Things that cause us offence are aplenty, yet our holding on (to them) is always tight. Crash, really crash down, right on the head of (this) ruinous concept! Deal the death blow to the heart of this butcher, a “true self,” our foe.
The first part of this is that we get mentally upset at others’ advice and then always have difficulties in being friends. Others give us advice – our friends, they give a suggestion as what to do – but we get upset at anything that they say and we get hurt. This relates to the second part of the verse as well and we’re very difficult to be friends with because the other person always has to be very careful with what they say; and even if they give us advice, we don’t take it well. This is what it’s referring to. Do you know that type of syndrome? Where does it come from? Again, it comes from thinking of this solid “me,” “Ooh, you said that to me,” “You don’t love me” – this type of thing. Any type of advice or criticism we see as a rejection. That’s interesting how we take it so personally – personally in the sense of the solid “me” as opposed to “personally” meaning it’s talking to me and not to the dog. There is a difference in terms of how we take things personally. In terms of the conventional “me:” yes, they’re giving me advice about any sort of habit that we have, in terms of let’s say keeping our room or our house cleaner, or eating properly: “Don’t eat so much, you’re fat, you’re overweight. Try to go on a diet.” We can get very mentally upset about that. “You don’t love me, you don’t think I’m pretty, you don’t think I’m blah blah blah” – all these sorts of things. Well, we need to take it as personal advice and then we pay attention to the advice and consider, is this good advice or is it not good advice; but don’t take it as a personal insult to this solid “me.” Because if we do, then it’s very difficult for anybody to really be our friend.
If we get upset at other people’s advice and then we have difficulty in being friends with others because we get so upset, this is due to this grasping for the solid “me.” This is similar to what’s said in the second half of the verse: “Things that cause us offense are aplenty.” Our feelings are hurt at the slightest little thing and our holding on to them is always tight. In other words, we hold a grudge: “You said that to me.” I mean, I remember that happened in my family. Although my mother was a very forgiving woman in many ways, she always would bring up what her sister-in-law said 20 years ago on this or that occasion. So, you get offended, and you hold on – this type of thing. This is another good example of grasping on to this solid “me.” “You hurt my feelings” – “me” – and then you hold on to it for years; “I was hurt.” That, of course, gets into the whole topic of forgiveness, which is a very complex topic. This text is indicating in the previous verses that if others do forgive us, accept it and finish. Don’t hold on to this sort of guilt.
So that was our verse:
We get mentally upset at (others’) advice and then always have difficulty in being friends. Things that cause us offence are aplenty, yet our holding on (to them) is always tight. Crash, really crash down, right on the head of (this) ruinous concept! Deal the death blow to the heart of this butcher, a “true self,” our foe.
Finding Fault in Others
Next is verse is 82 in the old translation:
We always are jealous of those of great status; we feel holy gurus are threats to avoid. Overwhelmed by attachment and ruled by our passions, we spend all our time lusting after young loves. Trample him, trample him, dance on the head of this treacherous concept of selfish concern. Tear out the heart of this self-centered butcher who slaughters our chance to gain final release.
In the new translation, verse 81:
Our put-down of high ones is heavy; we hold holy beings to be our foes. Since our lust is enormous, we eagerly take on young people (as partners). Crash, really crash down, right on the head of (this) ruinous concept! Deal the death blow to the heart of this butcher, a “true self,” our foe.
This verse is dealing with thinking that we’re so great, we’re so wonderful and because we think “I’m so great,” which is obviously based on the concept of a solid “me” who is so wonderful, then we put down high ones – as in the commentary, the teachers or anybody who is more successful than we are, or more learned than we are, or something like that. We put them down. We’re always criticizing them, finding fault with them and so on, because “I’m so much better.” “We hold holy beings to be our foes,” because they threaten our position if we accept that they are more highly developed than we are, that they know more than we are, that they’re more experienced than we are. So, in that sense we put them down: we criticize them, we find fault with them and think that they are a threat to us. Similarly, when it says here, “Our lust is enormous, we eagerly take on young people (as partners)” – in a sense, what it’s referring to is thinking, “I’m so great, so I’m so attractive, I’m such a sexy person.” Even if we are much older, we’re always looking for young, attractive partners, because in a sense that reaffirms how beautiful we are and how sexy we are – we could be a dirty old man as well, or a dirty old woman. So, both of these come from thinking, “I’m so great, I’m so attractive, I should have a young person as my partner.” Especially if you have the experience of being an older person and you start to think that a young person is going to find you attractive, sexy – if you think about it, it’s weird. It’s very self-aggrandizing. It’s the same type of thing as thinking, “I’m so much better.”
When I was in grammar school – nine, 10, 11 years old – I always used to correct the teacher and that made everybody hate me. There’s a big arrogance that’s there and it’s, in a sense, being jealous of the teacher. “Why should the teacher be in such a great position? I know more than the teacher.” You’re jealous of the attention that the teacher gets and the position that the teacher gets and then you show off – “Look, I know better.” You’re showing off. It’s similar with seducing younger people – especially if you’re an old person, which is what it’s referring to here; I don’t know, I don’t think it’s referring to a 20-year-old seducing an eight-year-old, but if you’re trying to seduce the young people, you’re jealous of other young people. I’m 62 and let’s say I try to seduce somebody who’s 22 and so I would be jealous of that 22-year-old having other 22-year-old partners. “I want you to find me sexy, I don’t want you find somebody of your own age sexy. I want you to be attracted to me, so I’m jealous.” You could look at both situations in terms of showing off or both situations in terms of jealousy.
What is behind all this is, how do we deal with people who are in higher positions and lower positions, as you said? How do we deal with that situation of arrogance and jealousy and so on? We have a solid concept of our self: “I know what is best, so any teacher can’t possibly know anything better than me or more than me. So, you can’t tell me anything.” We have this solid concept of ourselves and so we find the teacher is a foe and we put them down. We have this solid concept of ourselves, and I can tell you from my own experience as an older person that it certainly is true that as an older person you continue – until your body says otherwise – to have a mental concept of yourself of still being young and attractive like a young person. You look in the mirror and you don’t really want to accept that, but that’s what you look like and that’s what people see when they look at you. You don’t see yourself; you’re not looking in the mirror all day. So, it’s very hard to relate to the fact that when people look at me, this is what they see. That’s not how I imagine it. Even if you don’t think that they’re seeing me the way that I looked forty years ago, you still think, “Well, they’re just seeing me, they’re not seeing a gray-haired older person that’s overweight.” This I think is a very, very common experience. It’s certainly my experience. Just as when you were 22 years old, you wouldn’t find somebody who’s 60 sexy, likewise when you’re sexy, you don’t find somebody who’s 60 years sexy. It’s not that, all of a sudden, another 60-year-old looks sexy to you. You sort of accept it because nobody else will go with you, but your concept of what’s sexy stays the same. This is this holding on to a solid “me” that doesn’t change; it’s always the same and so, “I should still be attractive to young people, because they’re what’s attractive to me and I know best, nobody can tell me anything.” You see?
Let’s think about that for a moment. With regard to the first point of this verse, what we’re thinking about is whether we feel threatened by people who are more successful than we are – more intelligent, more learned, more whatever – and therefore, because we feel threatened, we pick fault with them.
So that was this verse:
Our put-down of high ones is heavy; we hold holy beings to be our foes. Since our lust is enormous, we eagerly take on young people (as partners). Crash, really crash down, right on the head of (this) ruinous concept! Deal the death blow to the heart of this butcher, a “true self,” our foe.
Dedication
Let’s end here then for today. We think, whatever understanding, whatever positive force has come from this, may it go deeper and deeper and act as a cause for reaching enlightenment for the benefit of all, for everybody to reach enlightenment.