WSW 42: Guessing about the Teachings, Generating Distorted Views

Verses 84-85

Recap

We have been working with this text, Wheel of Sharp Weapons by Dharmarakshita, which is one of the earliest, if not the earliest text, in the tradition of lojong – mind training or attitude training. This type of text is in the Mahayana tradition. What it is dealing with is overcoming, initially, our self-cherishing attitude, our selfishness, with which we are preoccupied with only ourselves and getting our own way. Then it’s about going deeper than that and working on overcoming the grasping for the true existence of the self, which is the basis for our self-cherishing attitude. The first half of the text, which we’ve covered already, dealt with the self-cherishing attitude and taught us the tonglen, or giving and taking practice, in order to overcome that self-cherishing. Now we’re in the second part of the text, which is dealing with overcoming this misconception that we have about a so-called “true self.” 

We have to understand this word, “true self,” a little bit more clearly, because we could get confused. The true self is actually the false self that we think is true. We all have a conventional “me:” the conventional “me” is what the word “me” refers to on the basis of an individual stream of continuity of experiences. As a way of putting that all together, we can refer to it as “me,” and “me” is what that word refers to. So, there’s actually a conventional “me” but what happens is that because of our habits of unawareness of how we exist, because of the habits of our confusion, our mind projects onto this conventional “me” a conception of the false “me” – what is called in the text and in the literature a “true me” – which is one which is self-existent, all by itself, static, never changing, not affected by anything and which doesn’t have any parts. It’s a monolith and it’s something which can be known all by itself and exist by itself like in a vacuum. We think that this “false me,” which is the center or the focus of our self-preoccupation and our self-cherishing, is true and that’s why it’s called the “true self.” But keep in mind that what we think is the true, “real self” is not the self at all; that doesn’t refer to anything real – although that doesn’t mean that we don’t exist. Of course we exist. I’m sitting here, I’m speaking with you and you are listening, so we are existent. 

Now, each of the verses that we have been covering in this section presents something that we do that causes problems to ourselves or others and it is indicating that behind it is this concept of a “true self” that we are projecting and believe in and that’s what’s causing this problem. Because these problems and misconceptions are so deeply ingrained in all of us, then we need a very strong force to be able to smash it or overcome it. That strong energy or force is represented by the Buddha figure Yamantaka. Yamantaka represents the forceful aspect of Manjushri and Manjushri represents the discriminating awareness of all the Buddhas – in other words, the clarity of mind and ability, with that clarity of mind, to discriminate between what is true and what is false. In a very forceful way, when we insist on grasping and clinging to what is false – which is namely this concept of a “true self” – then that energy smashes through this false conception and helps us to burst the bubble of our fantasy of what’s impossible. 

So sometimes we have to call on this strong energy and it is most helpful to think of this strong energy as the part of the potentials of everybody’s minds in terms of Buddha-nature. In Tibetan Buddhism, often we speak of peaceful and forceful aspects of energy that we all have. Sometimes the energy can be very gentle and calm, and this would be appropriate in a certain situation; at other times, we need very strong energy. Often that is translated by the words “wrathful energy” or “wrathful deities,” but I don’t find that terms so helpful because “wrath” is a word that, at least in English, is usually associated with a jealous, omnipotent god that smites others with his wrath. It’s like righteous anger and we’re not talking about that. We’re talking about, out of compassion, utilizing a very strong energy to smash through misconception and help us to break our negative habits. There is no anger behind it at all. 

Guessing about the Teachings and Getting Distorted Views

Now we are up to verse 85 in the old translation and 84 in the new translation, since the numbering system is different. In the old poetical translation that I did back in 1974, the next verse here is 85: 

We have poor education and limited knowledge; whenever we speak we’re unsure of ourselves. Our learning in scriptural texts is so meager, when hearing new teachings we doubt they are true. 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, more literal translation, verse 84: 

Since our listening (to teachings) is negligible, we must scratch around and guess about everything. Since the extent of our scriptural knowledge is tiny, we generate distorted views about all. 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 text is speaking here about how, when we study the teachings, specifically the Buddhist teachings, it’s very important to learn a great deal. In order to integrate and practice the Buddhist teachings, we have to learn the Buddhist teachings. If we don’t have correct information about the teachings, then what are we actually practicing? We have to learn, which means studying the teachings, listening, reading, hearing explanations and so on. But if we haven’t heard many teachings then, as it says here, “We have to scratch around and guess about everything.” In other words, we don’t really know what the Buddhist teachings say about this issue or that issue, whether or not the question comes up in our own minds or somebody else asks us a question. We don’t really know what the answer is in Buddhism and so we just have to guess, which is, of course, not a very satisfactory situation. It’s not satisfactory for others, when others ask us; and it certainly isn’t very satisfactory for ourselves. If we have to guess what the teachings are, what the instructions are in a meditation practice – if this happens or that happens – then we are in trouble. If we’re trying to figure out how to deal with a difficult situation in our life and how to apply the Dharma teachings, if we don’t have information about those Dharma teachings, we’re at a loss, we don’t know what to do. 

It’s very important to listen to many teachings and not to have this attitude that often is found in Western learning –more modern Western learning – which is that you don’t have to really remember anything; you just have to remember where to look it up. That also can be a bit of a problem because if we don’t have the material available to look up, if you don’t have your books, if you don’t have the internet to do a Google search for the answer, then we are stuck. So, it’s important not to be dependent on these other materials but to try to remember at least something. The Tibetans, of course, memorize everything and because they memorize everything, then it’s at their fingertips. Any problem that comes up, they can remember: what did Shantideva say about this? What did this author, or that author, or this text or that text say about it? They remember, they know and this is called the wealth of teachings – having a wealth of teachings, of information, available. That’s very important. Otherwise, we have to guess; and if we have to guess, then we of course are uncertain about the answer; and if you’re uncertain about the answer, it’s very hard to concentrate on that answer. 

Let’s say we’re doing a visualization; what does this figure hold in his or her hands? What does it look like? We don’t really remember and so we guess. Now, if you guess, then you’re really not sure, so how can you put your full heart into it and really concentrate on it and really integrate it? So having a clear understanding based on a good knowledge of the teachings is very essential. If we don’t have that, in other words, we go off. We want to practice, we want to meditate, we want to even teach based on knowing very little – why would we do that? Obviously, the main reason for doing that would be as a big ego trip: “me, me, me, how wonderful I am. I’m the great white guru” type of thing that doesn’t know anything. This is really very sad. Many who teach are on big ego trips and don’t really know the teachings very well. If they knew the teachings very well, then they wouldn’t act like that.

We need to not only know the teachings but realize the teachings. His Holiness the Dalai Lama pointed this out very nicely at one of these meetings of the senior Western Buddhist teachers, when we were speaking about the various cases of really very well known, famous teachers, both Asian and Western, who had been involved in sexual abuse cases with their students. Often, the excuse is given that they are so highly realized, they have crazy wisdom and whatever the guru does is an enlightened activity and who are we to question the wisdom or the crazy wisdom of these lamas. His Holiness pointed out very clearly that if they had a realization, even if it’s crazy wisdom realization, they wouldn’t act like this. The fact that they do act like this, hurting other people, is a clear indication that their realizations aren’t very stable and that they really haven’t understood the Buddhist teachings on cause and effect – basically on karma. 

One of the bodhisattva vows in the secondary vows is not to do anything that would cause others to lose faith in the Buddhist teachings and so. If a teacher or if we as practitioners act in a very abusive, horrible way and other people know us as Buddhist practitioners, it gives a very bad fame to Buddhism: “Look how they act.” If we cause others to have a negative attitude toward the Buddhist teachings, that really is very heavy. It’s important to be a proper representative of the teachings and not have to guess all the time what the teachings are, but to actually study and learn the teachings as much as is possible. Now, a lot of people have a very common problem which is, “I’ve listened to so much that I’m full and I need time to digest it.” That’s a common thing, isn’t it?

Ideally, in addition, we would think about what we have heard, what we’ve read and try to remember it. Now this is where our system in the West, in most Dharma centers, is not so efficient. Tibetans would have to debate in the monastery what they had listened to. Lay people, of course, don’t have any opportunities, which is a shame, but the monks and nuns would debate from their lessons. That’s a process of trying to understand and digest what they have learned. In some centers in the West, although not very many, people have to pass an examination – it’s like in school – and they have to learn the teachings before they can get more teachings. I think this depends on the audience and on the teacher – whether or not you could pull it off in a sense, whether the students would accept that. I think different cultures are different in terms of that and whether or not the teacher feels comfortable being like a schoolteacher. It’s a very American thing. 

The way that I was trained and the emphasis that my teachers gave, was that part of the training is for the student themselves – for you yourself, to develop the discipline, the interest, the enthusiasm, the perseverance, the patience to actually learn the teachings and if you’re not interested enough to do that, that’s your problem. The teacher gives you the information; it’s up to you to work with it. Otherwise, if the discipline is always given from outside – you didn’t develop it yourself. Now mind you, in a monastery there’s monastic discipline which is imposed – there are the vows – but it’s internal in that you practice it yourselves. But there’s also the daily schedule of the monastery and you could say that’s imposed externally, but to actually understand the teachings and work with the teachings themselves – that’s not part of the monastic discipline. I mean, you have to do it yourselves. Part of the monastic rules might be to memorize the pujas so that you can attend without having to read your book and if you don’t do that, you can’t come. If you go to the pujas, that’s where you get free tea and food so there’s big incentive to memorize the text and to be able to attend the pujas with everybody else. But for digesting the teachings, for working with the teachings, for going home and meditating yourselves and so on, I think – at least from my own training – that that’s the responsibility of the students themselves. Whether you do it or not – that’s up to you.

The second part of the verse is that – it fits together with this – “Since the extent of our scriptural knowledge is tiny, we generate distorted views about all.” In other words, because we really don’t know the teachings, not only do we guess or have to guess but we just make up anything. Why would we make up something? Usually because of a big “me:” “I don’t want to admit that I don’t know.” Again, it’s an ego trip for somebody else. If somebody asks you a question and you don’t know the answer, you just make up something. Making up teachings is a very heavy thing. Often, people do that not only because you want to impress others – so it’s a big ego trip, so we need to smash that – but another aspect of the ego trip is that we don’t like certain parts of the Dharma teachings because it goes against some of the things that we really would like to do – some of the more naughty things that we would like to do. Buddhism says that certain things are very heavy. For many of us, it comes into the area of taking intoxicants or various aspects of inappropriate sexual behavior. So, we bend the teachings and make up something or leave part of it out because we don’t want it. 

This is very dangerous. If there is a part of the teachings that we ourselves are not able to accept and follow – just be honest about that; don’t deny that this is part of the teachings. I think the healthiest attitude is to say, “Okay, these are the teachings, maybe I don’t really understand the meaning behind it; in any case, I’m not quite ready yet in my development to be able to follow this” – period. So, you have respect for it but say, “I’m sorry, I can’t follow it at this point, I’m not ready. I hope in the future I’ll be able to follow it.” But don’t have the distorted view of this being the teaching. What’s also an aspect of this particular verse is that often we don’t know about a Dharma teaching – let’s say we’ve only studied in one tradition with one lama from one set of textbooks and then we hear teachings from another Buddhist tradition. Because our knowledge of Dharma is so small, we say, “That’s not the teaching of the Buddha, that’s not the Dharma. My lama said blah blah blah.” This is very common. That’s just based on ignorance. When we hear something that is new, that explains things from a very different position and we hear that it comes from somebody who supposedly is a reliable source from another tradition – well, say, “Oh, I’m glad to learn that there’s another point of view. I’ll have to study that more and learn about that and check out what it is.”

It takes time to familiarize ourselves with the technical language, the Dharma language, that each of these different traditions uses. We’re not talking about learning Japanese or Chinese but just the way in which they speak about the Dharma. The method is also very different and so the more we learn, the better it is. Even if we don’t have time to really study because our lives are so busy – we don’t have time afterwards to go through the teachings, to think about them, to reorganize our notes, to discuss it with others – I think it is beneficial to continue to go to teachings. Don’t feel that “I’m full,” because just sitting there, listening, you do get new ideas, new understanding. I think it is very important to take notes – this is very much a Western custom. Occasionally, you’ll see some Tibetans take notes but very rarely. His Holiness writes little notes on the side of texts and so on – that I’ve noted – but not so many Tibetans do. Maybe they have a fantastic memory – I don’t know. But Serkong Rinpoche was very tough on me. I was trained at university and even before university to takes notes with everything and to take very thorough notes and I developed my own shorthand and so on so; I can take pretty good notes. Serkong Rinpoche, when he would teach me or when I was translating for him when he was teaching others – he wouldn’t let me take notes. “No,” he said, “you remember what I said and afterwards you can write your notes when you get home.” 

Then he would give me all sorts of other things to do so that I wouldn’t be able to write my notes until the end of the day when I went home, or to my room, if we were travelling together and write it down. And then he would make it even more difficult because he was teaching me other things privately – Kalachakra, for example, he always taught me privately. In the middle he would be teaching something about another tantra system or something else to a group of people and I was translating and then he would just sort of interrupt what he was teaching and tell me what the Kalachakra version of that was, which I was very interested in and then not give me a moment to think about it or digest and go immediately back to the other teaching. Again, I could only write it down at night at the end of the day. One time I made the mistake of asking him a question about what a certain word means that he was using, and he said, “I explained that word to you seven years ago. I remember explaining it to you, why don’t you remember?” He was great. But that’s how you have to train.

In my case, I had a very good memory and so in my case it was very good, very helpful. I always felt he was training me as a gift for being able to serve his Holiness and I remember one occasion when I was so thankful for this training. I was with His Holiness in Holland and there was some sort of press conference, and His Holiness was doing it in English – perfectly fine – and I was just sort of there on the side in case he needed any help. One of the journalists – it wasn’t really a journalist, I don’t think – said that he was going to Nepal, and he was going to meet the Tibetan refugees in Nepal – some group – and could His Holiness on a tape recorder please give a message for them. His Holiness gave a message in Tibetan, he spoke for a few minutes, and I’m just sort of standing there while His Holiness was talking – off duty as it were. Then the press conference continues and all of that and then at the end of the press conference and this meeting, the person asked His Holiness, “What did you say in Tibetan?” His Holiness turned to me and said, “Berzin, after everybody is gone, tell him what I said,” without being able to listen to the tape. So, in that I was very thankful for the training that Serkong Rinpoche had given me, because that’s exactly what that training is for. I don’t know if I could do this now at my age, but at that time I could do it.

That’s this verse:

Since our listening (to teachings) is negligible, we must scratch around and guess about everything. Since the extent of our scriptural knowledge is tiny, we generate distorted views about all. 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.

We can think about it for a moment and examine our own attitude toward the teachings and toward listening to the teachings, reading about the teachings and so on – do we have this attitude that “I’ve had enough?” What would be behind that feeling that I’ve had enough? What are the consequences of it when people ask us questions, or questions come up in our own practice, or dealing with situations in our life? 

One thing that came to mind here is that one has to watch out for the clever mind. If you have a clever mind, particularly a Western clever mind, the main characteristic of that mind is that it’s able to see patterns, put things together – that’s what we’re trained in in the West. This is, from the five types of deep awareness, the equalizing awareness – to put things together and see the patterns. This is when the great scientists find new discoveries – they discover a new physical law, or an equation or whatever – that’s seeing a pattern, making sense out of a lot of things. If you have a clever mind, you read various things in the Dharma, learn various things and then the mind makes up and sees a pattern in it and makes sense out of it. A clever mind can make sense out of any garbage – that’s my personal experience. You can see any sort of garbage pattern in garbage and put it together and see a nice pattern – that doesn’t mean that that’s correct, what you’ve seen, how you put it together. So, the only way to correct that is to get more teachings and to ask and so on. One has to be a little bit careful of being too anxious to see the pattern and put things together before you have enough data, as it were – enough information. You have to have enough data so that the conclusion that you make is based on a sufficient amount of data. If you have only a little bit of data, you can find anything in it. I mean, you’re a scientist, you can use the same data to prove almost anything.

That’s the problem with the clever mind. The clever mind has this ego trip behind it, which is, “Oh, how beautiful this pattern is and that pattern is.” You are in a sense hypnotized by the beauty of the own patterns that you create and that you see and think, “How wonderful I am that I’ve seen this.” So, there are these two sides here. You were speaking before about someone who is a bit foolish and not so bright and so they use as an excuse that “I’ve heard enough.” There is a bit of laziness behind that and some pride, but then also there is the other side of the clever mind that says, “Now I’ve heard enough. I’ve understood it and here’s the pattern. I’ve got it, I got 100 at the exam.”

Acting with Desire, Anger and Envy

Then we go on to the next verse. The next one in the old translation, verse 86:

By making a habit of anger and passion, we come to despise everyone that we meet; and by making a habit of jealous resentment, we ascribe fruits to others, disclaiming their worth. Trample him, trample him, dance on the head of this treacherous concept of selfish concern. Tear out the heat of this self-centered butcher who slaughters our chance to gain final release.

In the new version, verse 85:

Since we’ve habituated ourselves to attachment and anger, we berate all our opponents. Since we’ve habituated ourselves to jealousy, we libel and discredit others. 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 going further in the area of debate and discussion. When we have strong habits of attachment and anger – attachment to our own position and anger toward anybody who disagrees with us – then we berate our opponents. Here, according to the commentaries, it’s specifically about the Dharma, but it could be some discussion with the people that we live with, about anything. We’re not able to have a calm discussion because we are very accustomed to attachment and anger. We’re very attached to our position and get very angry with anybody who disagrees with us. This is a very common pattern in any discussion between two people, isn’t it, where there is a disagreement. It could be on the debate ground in a Buddhist context or it could be in our homes, it could be in our office. Why can’t we have a calm discussion even if we disagree?

We identify with the argument, we get very defensive, we have to attack because we feel that we’re personally being threatened. We protect the “me.” If there’s a political discussion, people get very heated up as if they were personally threatened by the other person’s views. But again, it could be about anything, the disagreement and often it can be about things that really don’t matter. “Which restaurant should we go to tonight?” “What movie should we rent at the video store?” We don’t have the capacity to listen when we are too involved with “me.” There are so many people that you have a discussion with, and they just want to hear themselves talk and they don’t listen at all to what you say. It requires a great deal of training to listen to the other’s position and to not immediately respond with a “no.” Very often in a discussion, we find that automatically the first word that comes out in response to anybody is “no.” Do you think it’s possible to have a calm disagreement, a calm discussion? Not just like in the House of Parliament or something where it’s all hidden behind polite talk: “the right honorable gentleman from blah blah blah, he said this and that, but I disagree with the right honorable gentleman.”

It’s very important in any discussion to be willing to revise what we said, to examine what we said, to admit if we’re wrong that we’re wrong – and also for the other person to be willing to explore as well: is their position correct or not correct? But you can’t guarantee that, you can’t influence that. Then it’s important to examine, what is our objective in the discussion? Is it to learn something? Is it to just validate our own point of view so we just want the other person say, “Yes, yes, most assuredly, Socrates, you are so wonderful, you’re so correct, you’re so smart” – or what is it? Is it to just attack the other person? To make them lose face, to embarrass them? What’s our objective in any discussion? I think we also have to take this not only on the level of a debate, but also within the home or the office. What is the objective? If we are partners and we decided to live with each other and we love each other – I mean, we might even be married – and we have a disagreement about this, so what’s the objective? Is the objective to get you to agree with my side, or for me to agree with your side, or is it to come to some sort of resolution, some sort of compromise, so that we can continue to live in harmony? I would agree but that’s difficult, as you get into a disagreement to say, “Oh, wait a second, what are our objectives here? What’s the aim? What’s the end product that we would like to come out of this discussion?” That basically you give up and agree with me or that we come to some peaceful solution, whatever that might be?

It’s very difficult to dissociate ourselves from the discussion so that we become like the arbitrator: we are above the thing and able to look at it more objectively. That’s why in a lot of disputes, it is very helpful to have an arbitrator, a third party. It helps to facilitate the discussion. This is in the paper that I wanted to show you about contextual therapy and relational ethics, which is that what is most important for an arbitrator is to give a fair hearing to both sides. Not only is it best if each side explains their own position, but that they explain what the effect is of the other person’s position on them. “You don’t want me to go out with my friends. You want me to stay home all the time” – well, what is the effect of that on me? It really hurts my friends, it makes me feel claustrophobic, whatever it is – so the other person knows what effect it has and acknowledges that. Likewise, you hear from the other person what the effect is of your behavior, and you acknowledge what the effect of that is. Then there is more understanding on both sides and it helps to make a decision. Even if we don’t have an arbitrator, if you can dissociate yourself, not take the things so personally, then you explain to the other person what the effect of their behavior is on you. And you ask them, “Tell me, what’s the effect of my behavior on you?” so that we can see the whole picture. But as it says here, if we have a strong habit of attachment and anger, we can’t do that because even the simplest discussion – as in which restaurant should we go to tonight – can get into a really heavy argument and ultimately it doesn’t matter. There are many discussions where ultimately it doesn’t matter which option we do but, out of principle you think, “I have to have my way.” If you think like that, then you really get problems.

That’s the first part of this verse: “Since we’ve habituated ourselves to attachment and anger, we berate all our opponents.” Let’s think about that. How do we approach any type of discussion – not just a philosophical debate about religious issues, but even our discussions at home or in the office? 

One point came to mind about the previous verse where, as part of our discussion of it, we were saying that, in the West, a lot of people feel that they’ve heard a little bit too much and they’re full and need time to digest it. What I found to be helpful – although I must confess that I don’t always do it – is, when teaching to a Western audience, after you’ve made a certain point, to pause for a minute or two and let the people think about it and digest it rather than just speaking nonstop for the whole time. This I found that people appreciate very much. As I said, I’m not always mindful enough to do that, but that helps with that problem of Western people not having so much time to be able to spend working on the teachings outside of class and so on. It’s difficult enough to make time in their busy lives to come to class, let alone have more time. So, this can be helpful. Also, I think people appreciate – if they do look at it properly – teachings by His Holiness or other great lamas when they’re in Tibetan because in between the translation, when they don’t understand Tibetan, they have time to reflect on what they’ve heard and this is quite good. This is quite helpful.

Let’s just do the last part of this verse before we have to end for this evening: “Since we’ve habituated ourselves to jealousy, we libel and discredit others.” Again, we’re having a discussion and the other person is right but we’re jealous; we don’t want them to be right, we don’t want them to have the last word and so we have to put in the last word. Even if they’re right, we have to say that they’re wrong and say “but” and give our opinion again – this type of thing. But it’s interesting that the way it’s described here is as jealousy. You’re jealous, you don’t want to have the other person to have the last word, you don’t want the other person to be right.

In this case, give the victory to the other: if they’re right, they’re right – “Thank you very much, I agree.” I love the way it’s phrased in the translation of the I Ching: “The gentleman yields.” Just say: “Yes, you’re right. Thank you very much.” I think you were speaking, Annika, about this problem of always having to put in the last word. Again, what’s the mentality behind that? The big “me:” “I have to have the last word; I’m not going to let you get the last word; I’m not going to let you be the one that’s right – even if you are right, I don’t care.” So the big “but” comes up, the big “no.” It’s very common, isn’t it? These are the points here in the verse. Let’s take a moment to think about it and then we’ll end the class.

Since we’ve habituated ourselves to attachment and anger, we berate all our opponents. Since we’ve habituated ourselves to jealousy, we libel and discredit others. 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 with the dedication. We think whatever positive force has come from this, may it act as a cause to reach enlightenment for the benefit of all.

Top