Recap
We have been dealing with this text, Wheel of Sharp Weapons, which is a text in the style of an attitude training or lojong text, which was written by Dharmarakshita, an Indian master – at least ascribed to him – and this text is dealing with how we overcome the big obstacle to being able to help all others and to gain enlightenment ourselves and that’s our self-cherishing attitude. Self-cherishing attitude is the attitude with which we think primarily of ourselves. We are completely preoccupied with our own needs, our own wants and trying to satisfy those as if we were the center of the universe and with that type of attitude we ignore the needs of others. In fact, for us others don’t really seem to have the same type of existence or importance as we have and what we want to do is to be able to change or exchange the position of those two attitude and instead of being primarily concerned about ourselves to have our primary concern be about others and instead of ignoring other people’s concerns, other people’s needs, to put our own needs second, to ignore those. Of course, to ignore our own needs doesn’t mean that we drive ourselves to the point at which we can no longer deal with anything. We need to know when to take a rest, of course. As Shantideva says, if a servant or employee is doing their work well then, of course, you have to pay them. You have to give them food and whatever it is. So, likewise, if we are working for the benefit of others primarily, then of course we need to take care of ourselves in order to have the strength and energy, both physically and mentally, to be able to continue helping others. But our primary focus is on taking care of other’s needs, both emotionally, materially, whatever way that we possibly can.
The first part of this text is dealing with a practice which is known as giving and taking. The text is going to come back to this practice very soon from where we are now, but in the beginning it talks about various types of sufferings or difficulties that we might be facing and it points out the karmic cause for it, in other words, the type of behavior that we might have been doing or that we were doing in previous lifetimes. Whether or not we’re doing it now as well might not be so obvious, but in most cases it will be there to a certain extent that we’re continuing a certain pattern and so it points out the suffering or the problem that we have, the cause of it in our type of behavior and then we decide very strongly that we’re going to stop that pattern of behavior and act in a more constructive way in order to avoid that problem, that difficulty that would come from it. And then we open up our hearts and our concern not just with ourselves having this problem and its cause, but we look at everybody else who is suffering from the same difficulty, and we practice what’s called giving and taking, which means to take on the problem of everybody, that same problem. In other words, not just think of it as being my problem alone and nobody else has this problem but it is a wide problem that everybody faces. And so we take responsibility to take care of it for everybody and then the change in behavior or the solution that we give we give it not just to ourselves, but we give it to everybody and we imagine that we give it to everybody, that we help them to change their pattern of behavior as well and so this is a practice of giving and taking. And the first part of the text goes through many, many different situations of problems we have and causes for it in our behavior and how to change that pattern to a more constructive one.
The second part of the text speaks about the attitude which is underlying that self-cherishing attitude, and this is the false concept that we have of ourselves, of me. We think that there is a me which is existing all by itself, that can be known by itself – the so called solid me – and because of our belief in ourselves existing in this way as if there were some entity inside us that was living inside our head or our body and controlling it, using the mind to understand things and then the body to get what we want and so on. Based on that we become very defensive. We need to prove ourselves. We become aggressive to assert ourselves and so on. We try to grasp for things to give that self-security and we reject other things that we feel are threatening to that self and we put up various walls to protect that self so that we don’t have to deal with things that are threatening. And based on that type of false view of ourselves then what happens is we get self-cherishing: I want all sorts of things for myself. We are only concerned about ourselves. So, what we need to do is to break through this false concept of me. Now, that doesn’t mean that when we break through this projection or inflation of me that we’re left with nothing – this is a false view of Buddhism. Some people think that Buddhism does not assert any type of me, that it says there is no me whatsoever, there is no self whatsoever, but that’s not the case. There is a me. When we talk about the absence of impossible ways of existing with respect to a me that implies that there is a me that doesn’t exist in impossible ways; there is a basis there. And so that basis is the conventional me and there are many ways of describing that conventional me, but basically: “Here I am.” “I’m sitting here.” “Here I’m talking.” “We are listening.” “We are eating.” “I’m sleeping.” and so on. So, there is a me that’s doing all these things, but that me doesn’t exist as some sort of solid entity.
We’ll get further into what is this false concept of a me as the course continues. There are many more and more subtle levels of what the impossible me is like, but all of them are false concepts. They’re projections. And in the second part of the text, we want to smash through this false concept, this concept of what’s called grasping for a me or self-grasping. This is really our enemy because this is what causes us to act in all sorts of selfish ways and produce problems for not only others but especially for ourselves. So, the second part of the text is speaking about various types of negative ways of behaving that we have, in other words, we might have great positive aspirations to act in all sorts of wonderful ways, but in fact we don’t. And why don’t we? It’s because of this self-grasping attitude which is behind of this belief in a solid me. Therefore, what we need to do is to smash through that false concept and because we’re so accustomed to this projection, false way of thinking and it’s not something which is just intellectual, but it feels like that. That’s what’s so terrible: it feels as though there is a solid me sitting inside me. It’s the one that’s talking in my head – there must be somebody there. So, it actually feels like that, but we have to refute that. We have to negate that. We need to realize that this is not referring to anything real. So, we need a lot of energy to be able to do that and that energy and courage and strength is represented by a Buddha-figure which is called Yamantaka. Yamantaka is the forceful aspect of Manjushri. Manjushri embodies the wisdom or discriminating awareness of all the Buddhas to be able to discriminate between what is correct and what is false, between how things actually do exist and how they don’t exist. This Yamantaka figure although some people might look at it as an external figure, nevertheless, if we look at its deepest meaning its referring to this ability within ourselves, this strength within ourselves, the underlying deep awareness, that will allow us to smash through all these misconceptions. And this figure is very strong looking, has flames and is holding all sorts of weapons and so on that represent breaking through the false concept.
Now we are in the section that deals with this and actually we’re up to the last verse of that section and then we’ll go on to a summary type of section that follows next with a big emphasis on, again, this practice of giving and taking – what’s called tonglen in Tibetan. So, let’s turn to the text.
Acting Improperly
We are looking at the text and looking at two versions of the translation that I had done. One version is the old translation from, I think, 1976, which is a loose translation but in a very poetical form that a lot of people have become quite used to. Then recently I did a new translation, which is a much more literal and accurate translation, which is better actually for commentary and explaining. In the old version, we’re up to verse 91:
All the things we should do, we do not do even once, for improper behavior takes up all our time. 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 90:
What’s proper to have been done, we don’t do even once. But what’s not fitting to be done, we do them 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.
In the Buddhist terminology, when we are dealing with this false self, the self that doesn’t exist, it is called the “true self,” which is sometimes confusing. But what that means is the self that we think is truly us but actually is not. So, it’s called the “true self, but it is a so-called “true self” – the so-called self that we think we are. This is the butcher – “butcher” here means a slaughterer – that kills our chance for gaining liberation and kills our chance for really being of benefit to others.
What is this speaking about? It’s speaking about how there are many things which are very proper and appropriate for us to do in terms of helping others, in terms of actually learning the methods to be able to overcome our shortcomings – overcome the obstacles that prevent us from helping others – and not only studying them but putting them into practice. That it, not only learning them, studying them, thinking about them, practicing them, meditating and so on – and it says that we don’t do that even once. But what’s not fitting to be done – which means everything else, we do that all the time – and that’s really, I think, very true.
Obviously, most of us have to work; we have to work to make a living. That’s one thing; but what else do we do with our time? Well, many of us need to raise a family. That also takes a lot of time and a lot of energy. Both of those activities, though, we can use as opportunities to try to grow as human beings. In other words, we can learn methods for developing more patience, more perseverance, more tolerance for children – our own children when they act naughty – more tolerance for our various colleagues at work when they act a bit naughty and we have difficulties with them, tolerance for the difficulties in our work – tolerance for difficulties in just dealing with life. We can develop more generosity, a more open attitude, a more sensitive attitude. There are so many things that we can develop and our work situation, our family situation, our home situation are great opportunities for being able to do that. If we’re just living by ourselves in isolation and are in meditation all the time – well, we have a lot of inner obstacles that come up anyway, but what really the challenge is is to be able to apply all these methods in daily life. That’s what it’s all about. But we don’t do that, the verse is saying. Why don’t we do that? What do we do instead? We go out and we are seeking all sorts of entertainment and diversions. As one of my teachers said, we’re experts at being tourists of samsara – just travelling around, trying to gain this and that experience – which in the end doesn’t really amount to anything. So, why then, we would analyze, do we do what it says here in the text? We don’t do things that are proper to be done – “proper” meaning what is of benefit to do; and things that are not beneficial or which are trivial – we do them all the time.
Why? We are thinking in terms of a solid “me,” and we want to find what would be nice for “me” – “That’ll be nice for me;” “This will be entertaining;” “I am tired;” “I need this;” “I need that. Or we can think, “Poor me, I have such a difficult life. Nobody loves me. Nobody understands me,” and then we get all depressed. Or we get very frustrated and angry and therefore we act in very unpleasant ways, making very unpleasant scenes for other people, complaining all the time. People who are complaining all the time are thinking about “me,” aren’t they? A solid “me.” Or if they’re complaining about politics, or the weather, or something like that, they are also in a sense thinking of a solid “me.” Perhaps they are identifying with a situation or whatever. They think, “Me – I’m outraged by what’s going on in this part of the world or that part of the world.” That’s the problem. If we were thinking more in terms of others and not thinking so strongly in terms of the strong “me” – the strong sense of a “me” – that would improve things very much.
We act in this way because we still believe in the eight worldly concerns. The eight worldly concerns are basically perishable things in the world – things that are transitory, that don’t last. We’re really concerned about them. For instance, praise: we want to get praise. We want people to like us and we feel all excited and happy about that, and we get very depressed and very unhappy when people criticize us – these are two. Or we get all excited when we get things, we gain things – whether that’s material things or whether it’s attention – and we’re concerned about that. We want to get that, obviously, because of a solid “me;” and when we don’t get that – when people ignore us or we lose things – then we get very upset. Then there’s also hearing good news: we want to hear good news, pleasant things. We don’t want to hear bad news. We don’t want to live in a very loud, noisy place – this type of things. And we want things to go very well: we’re very happy when things go well, and we don’t like it when things don’t go well or we don’t get what we want and so on.
Although there are eight things that can be specified, there can be many more things like that. The point is that we are looking for things that are going to pick us up and we get all excited about that. It’s based on a solid “me” – and we get all depressed and we want to avoid things that are going to put ourselves down. That’s very true. Now, of course, none of this stuff is easy to get rid of. Nobody is saying that it’s easy to get rid of, but we need to somehow see that we’re acting like this because of a false idea, a false concept. We believe that this is truly “me” – that by doing all of this, that’s going to somehow benefit “me,” and it doesn’t. When we act very selfishly, we think that that’s for our own benefit and that’s going to make us happy, but in the end it doesn’t really. Nobody likes us and we ourselves are very closed off and very limited in our outlook and scope of how we think.
Then let’s think about this verse. I’ll read it again:
What’s proper to have been done, we don’t do even once. But what’s not fitting to be done, we do them 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.
Try to think of our own lives; how much do we actually do in terms of working toward helping others, working toward lessening our false concepts, lessening our selfishness, working toward liberation and enlightenment? How much do we do of that and how much do we do of things that really are fairly meaningless, or selfish, or destructive?
Calling on Yamantaka, Destroyer of Self-Grasping
Then the text goes on. We’ve finished this section of the text, and it now goes on to summarize and give a stronger confirmation to what we need to overcome – this selfishness – and the type of practice that we need to do to overcome it – giving and taking.
Verse 92 in the old version:
Oh mighty destroyer of selfishness-demons. With body of wisdom unchained from all bonds, Yamantaka, come brandish your skull-headed bludgeon of egoless wisdom of voidness and bliss. Without any misgivings, now wield your fierce weapon and wrathfully swing it three times round your head.
In the more literal version it says, verse 91:
(O Yamantaka), endowed with a Blissfully Gone (Buddha’s) Dharmakaya, destroyer of the demon, the view of a “true self” – oh, wow – (o you,) with strength and force and possessing a skull-headed bludgeon – the sharp weapon of your actions of no “true self” – circle it three times round your head, with no indecision.
This is a very strong verse. It is bringing in the whole image of this Buddha figure, Yamantaka, which is embodying the strong forceful aspect of understanding, or wisdom, or discriminating awareness, to cut through this false concept of this so-called “true me.” And so it says, “O Yamantaka.” Yamantaka – his name literally means “the one that puts an end to Yama,” the lord of death. In other words, what is it that is causing the death of our ability to help others? What’s causing the death of our chances to get free from our own problems and get enlightened, so that we can actually help others? It’s this selfishness and a self-cherishing attitude and the grasping for the so-called “true me.” Yamantaka is the one that puts an end to that.
It says Yamantaka is “endowed with a Blissfully Gone (Buddha’s) Dharmakaya.” Dharmakaya is a technical term in Buddhism. It refers to the all-knowing or omniscient mind of a Buddha that encompasses everything. A Buddha is someone who is able to know all the causes for why each individual being is acting the way that they’re acting and has the disturbing emotions, disturbing attitudes, problems and so on that they have now. A Buddha knows what all the things are that have causally affected that, going back to no beginning – Buddhism talks about no beginning, so going back forever – so that is, obviously, very huge. A Buddha is likewise aware that if he were to, he or she were to teach this person this or that, what the effect of that would be all the way into the future and the effect that that would have on everybody else that this person interacted with as a result of what the Buddha taught them. In this sense a Buddha has a Dharmakaya – something which encompasses all of this, knows all the methods to help others, knows everything in terms of benefitting others.
The verse talks about a “Blissfully Gone Buddha.” There are many epithets, which are different terms for referring to a Buddha and one of them is a “sugata.” “Su” means “happy” or “blissful,” and “gata” means gone. A Buddha is someone who has reached the stage of Buddhahood or gone to Buddhahood through blissful methods – in other words, not through self-torture but through methods that bring more and more happiness. When you look at the teachings on karma in Buddhism, constructive behavior or beneficial behavior is that behavior which brings happiness as its result. If you’re constantly acting constructively to benefit others, naturally you’re going to experience happiness as a result of that. It’s a path to Buddhahood which is blissful, which is happy. You become happier and happier rather than becoming more and more miserable.
The state of Buddhahood itself is one which is a blissful state, because it is blissful in the sense of being free of all the problems and limitations and obscurations that produce problems. There is a certain bliss that you get, almost like relief. It’s like if you’re wearing very tight, hot shoes all day long and you finally, at the end of the day, are able to take them off. There is that great blissful, happy feeling of relief that you are free from a certain type of suffering and limitation. Like that, if we could become free of all our mental limitations – all our mental tight shoes, as it were – then we would feel even more blissful. So, there are many different levels on which we can understand “Blissfully Gone,” a sugata, like that. Yamantaka is endowed with that. Yamantaka has a mind which encompasses everything, which is able to understand everything; and remember: we are capable of that as well. We have the seeds; we have a mind. The mind is able to understand things and if the limitations were removed, we could understand everything like a giant mirror and also become blissful. That is something that we can achieve.
Yamantaka is a “destroyer of the demon, a view of a ‘true self’.” A demon is a representation of something that causes problems, causes troubles – in the Tibetan context it’s always sort of personified as a demon – and so this is the view of a “true self,” of this solid “me.” This is the one that causes all the trouble and Yamantaka is the one that destroys it. So, here, a “destroyer of the demon, a view of a ‘true self’.” It says, “oh, wow” – it gives a very strong word. Terms like this in the Tibetan – that makes one think that this had to have been written in Tibet and not actually translated from Sanskrit, although it could have been based on Sanskrit teachings.
Then, “(o you,) with strength and force” – so this understanding, correct understanding of reality, has much more strength and force than confusion. Confusion, a wrong view, a mistaken view – the more that you investigate it, it has nothing behind it to hold it up. You investigate: is this true, is there some solid “me” inside? Well, where is it? You can’t really find it. None of the false views of a “me,” of a solid “me,” make any sense; and not only that but when we believe in it, this false “me,” it just causes more and more suffering, more and more problems. So, it has no strength to it really, whereas the correct view is supported by logic. It’s supported by reason and the more that we think in that way and act in that way, the happier we become and the more we are able to help others and so this has great strength and force. It’s like what we were saying earlier in class: if you’re only thinking of “me,” and “poor me,” and “my problems,” our energy is very weak and low; whereas when we think with compassion of others, then we get the strength of courage and the force of courage to be able to deal with it.
Then it says, “possessing a skull-headed bludgeon” – again, this is an image. A bludgeon is a club, like a stick with some big ball at the end that you can smash things with – that’s a bludgeon. The thing at the end of it is in the shape of a skull, a human skull. We often have this type of images in this type of Buddhism and what does that represent? What that represents is putting an end to, or killing, this false concept; it represents a death, it represents getting rid of the skin and all those things. It takes the life of this false concept and so that’s represented by this club with a skull at the end. It is an image of the understanding of voidness. Voidness means the absence of all impossible ways of existing and the understanding of that absence of what’s impossible, with a blissful state of mind – it’s very liberating to understand this.
“I believed in Santa Claus” or “I believed in Prince or Princess Charming.” This is the prince or the princess on the white horse who is going to come and be the perfect one – the perfect partner. “I thought that you were like that” – “I thought you were the princess” or “I thought you were the prince.” Then we realize that that was impossible – nobody exists like that; our projection onto this person was not referring to something real. When we understand that there is no reference to our misconception, to our projection, that absence of a real reference is what voidness is talking about. It’s absence – this is what the word voidness means: something that is not there and it never was there. It’s not that it was there, and it went into the next room and is going to come back. It was never there. There was never a Prince Charming. There was never a Santa Claus. This person was dressed like a Santa Claus and looked like a Santa Claus, and I might have believed that it really was Santa Claus, but actually it wasn’t. It was just a person who looked like Santa Claus. So, my projection that there was a real Santa Claus there was false and that absence of a real Santa Claus corresponding to what I believed – that’s voidness.
Similarly, we have these false concepts about “me” – that there is some solid little “me” sitting inside at the control booth, pressing the buttons, taking in the information on the video screen through my eyes and then deciding what to do and talking in my head. This is absurd. That’s Santa Claus. That’s not referring to anything real. All that’s happening is that in each moment there’s information and there is feeling and there is consciousness and there are emotions – “happy” and “unhappy” and all these things. In each moment there is that – based on previous habits and based on intellect and based on judgment and all sorts of things. Then life proceeds, the next moment follows. We can say “me” and “I’m doing this” but there is no solid “me” there that’s doing this. But it’s “me” who’s doing it; it’s not “you” who’s doing it and it’s not nobody who’s doing it. This is, obviously, not so easy to understand, but the skull-headed bludgeon represents smashing through that – so killing this false concept of a solid “me,” and doing this with a very blissful, very liberating, state of mind. This is called “the sharp weapon of your actions of no ‘true self’.” In other words, Yamantaka represents acting in life with this understanding that there is no “true self.”
Negating Two Types of “True Self”
Here the commentary is talking about two types of “true self” that we have to negate; we have to realize they’re not referring to anything real. One is in reference to persons and the other is in reference to not only persons but to everything. Here we start to get a little bit more subtle about what is impossible. What’s impossible with regard to persons? Well, there are many different views of that. There’s one that there is a solid “me” that is unchanging, not affected by anything, always the same – this type of “me.” “I went to sleep last night, got up this morning here it is me again, the same me” – and we tend to identify that “me” in terms of something about our bodies or our minds and we get stuck. For example, we have this self-image of ourselves as always being very young. Even when we’re old, we can’t quite accept that, when we look in the mirror, that that’s “me,” that that’s really how I look like, because in our minds we’re still young. Or it could be an image that we’re fat. No matter how much weight we lose, we’re still fat in our minds – this type of thing. Or that we’re so smart or we’re so stupid. We can identify with things as being mine and base our identity on what we possess – our money, our possessions, our children, our car, whatever it might be; our profession, what we do.
We can have this type of concept of ourselves that is false because, obviously, we’re changing all the time. We’re not the same as our body, for instance. If we were identical with our body, then if you lose a hand, it’s no longer “me.” So, we can’t be totally identical with the body and yet we’re not completely different from the body. If we burn our finger, we say, “I burned myself.” If the “me” and the body were completely separate, then burning the fingers shouldn’t have anything to do with “me.” That doesn’t make any sense either, so we get to this understanding that a solid “me” isn’t the same as the body and it isn’t different from the body. There is no solid “me.” What is the “me” then? The “me” is just something which can be labeled onto the continuity of the body and the mind. It’s like a movie: you can label the movie on top of the continuity – the continuum of the moments of the movie. You have a movie like Star Wars and Star Wars isn’t the same as any one moment of it. It’s not different from any one moment of it. It’s what can be labeled onto the continuum of all the moments of the movie. Star Wars is also not the name. It’s not just a name – a word, a label; but it’s what that refers to – the actual movie. But where is the movie? The movie isn’t in any one moment of it, but it’s not different from that either. You can’t see the whole movie in one moment, but nevertheless there is a movie. So, the “me” is something very similar to that. “Me” isn’t just one moment of our life and it isn’t the same as that moment or anything in that moment, but it’s not different from it either. And “me” isn’t just the word me – that’s a word – but the word refers to something: that’s “me.”
So, when we feel annoyed about somebody, is it only a movie? First of all, when we use the image of a movie, that’s just an analogy. It’s not that everything is a movie. There is a big difference between a movie and real life. Please bear that in mind. It’s like the image of a dream. Everything is like a dream, but killing somebody in a dream and killing somebody in real life are very different and have different karmic consequences. But in terms of seeing, when somebody is angry with us, or we’re angry at them, that it’s like a movie – it’s very helpful to view it that way because, what is it? It’s one moment after another moment. When somebody is angry and yells at us, they’re only saying one word at a time, aren’t they? So, it’s saying one word and then saying another word and another word and the volume and the tone of voice and these things are not steady. It changes and similarly our response to it is going to be slightly different in each moment; and you take the whole stream of it and then you label it as an angry scene, but there is nothing solid in there at all. It was all changing moment to moment.
If you think about it, it really starts to become very amazing how we put things together in our minds. Do you never wonder how you could possibly understand the meaning of a sentence? You don’t hear a sentence all at once. You hear the first syllable, then the next syllable, then the next syllable; then maybe that’s a word; and then you hear another syllable and another syllable and it’s another word; and when you’re hearing syllable number three, you’re certainly not hearing syllable number one or two anymore and yet we’re able to put that all together and understand something. That’s extraordinary, that really is. You put it together in your mind and you label it and you get meaning and so on, but that whole sentence never happens in one moment. There’s nothing solid there, yet it functions and communicates. It’s like looking at somebody walk. Actually, like a movie, every one moment is like a still picture – a whole series of still pictures. So, where is the walking? It’s put together, mentally labeled, with parts. If you can deconstruct, de-solidify, the most difficult situations that you’re facing, then it becomes not so frightening anymore. There’s nothing really solid there. It’s only when you solidify it in your mind that it becomes like what the text calls it – a demon.
Now, of course, we can go more subtle than this. There’s an automatically arising type of misconception about persons – ourselves and others – which is that you could know a person, yourself or others – separate from the basis for labeling them. For instance, I could say – and think and believe – that I know Vanya, or I know Daniel, or I see Vanya, or I’m speaking to Vanya on the telephone. Well, can I see Vanya without seeing the body of Vanya that’s labeled Vanya? No. Can I smell Vanya, or speak to Vanya, or hear Vanya on the phone? No, I hear a voice. I hear sound. Now, the telephone is even weirder if you think about it. It’s a vibration of some sort of membrane inside a metal box and I call that not only the voice of Vanya, I call that Vanya himself. That’s really weird. It really becomes funny: you look for your car, you park your car and then you see the car over there and you say, “There I am,” as if that’s “me.” That’s really strange. So, this comes up automatically: “I know myself.” “I’m expressing myself as if there were a “me” separate from...” – what? I don’t know what it is. This comes up automatically. Even dogs have that. Animals have that. How could we know somebody separate from a basis, even if it’s just on the basis of a name? A name is just a collection of sounds, after all.
We’re now in the beginning now of the real Buddhist teachings on voidness. This is how it begins. When you think about that, I think what’s important is to realize the problems that we get into when we think like this. “I’m so angry with you” – well, what am I angry with? The body? Am I angry with the voice? What is it that I’m angry with? “I want so much to be with you. I love you so much” – what? Your nose? Or what? When we have that misconception, it leads to all sorts of problems and suffering. So, this is very important to try to recognize when we get into this state of mind of “I want this.” “I want;” “I need;” “I don’t want;” “I don’t like;” “I like;” “I’m hungry” – who’s hungry? The stomach is hungry. Is the stomach hungry? What’s hungry? But we think in terms of the solid “me” and then: “My supper isn’t ready, where is my supper? Why are they taking so long to prepare my food at the restaurant?” “Me, me, me” – and we get angry and then we start to yell and then everybody feels bad. It’s based on this misconception.
Then we can go deeper and deeper and deeper in terms of what is mistaken, what is false. We might think that on a deeper level there is something special inside me that makes me “me,” that I have to find – “I have to find myself;” and something special in you that makes you the special one. What? What can you find? Now, it’s true that I’m me. I’m not you. But is there something on my own side that makes me “me?” What makes me “me?” What makes you “you?” Your genetic structure or what? That could be altered. That could be changed so you’re no longer you. You can see that there are deeper and deeper levels, and we tend to think mistakenly on all these levels. We have to go as deep as is possible in order to get rid of this misconception. These deeper levels concern not only us, but they also concern everything. What makes this a table? This unique thing that makes it my table, or a good table, or a bad table. Is there something on the side of a table that does that, or is it just that I’m labeling them based on judgment, based on comparison to other things and so on?
Everything is relative. His Holiness the Dalai Lama uses a very nice example. He says, look at your fourth finger. Well, would you say that the fourth finger is a short finger or a long finger? It’s short compared to the middle finger, but it’s a long finger compared to the small finger (the last finger). So, there is nothing on the side of that fourth finger that makes it long or short. It’s only in relation to something else that it’s long or short. So, what things are is in relation to other things; it’s not based just on itself in isolation. That’s true about people. That’s true about anything – it’s true about “me,” it’s true about you. “This person is a kind person” – well, in relation to whom? In relation to the Buddha? In relation to a mass murderer? In relation to who? Everything is in relation to other things. Yamantaka helps us to smash through this misconception, because it’s this type of misconception that, when we believe in it, causes us all our problems.
Dedication
Let’s end here for today. We think whatever positive force there is from an understanding we’ve gained from this, may it go deeper and deeper and act as a cause for reaching enlightenment for the benefit of all.