Recap
We are working through this text, Wheel of Sharp Weapons by the Indian master Dharmarakshita, which is the earliest text in this particular genre of literature called lojong – the attitude training or mind training. With this, we work to change our attitudes so that we can transform negative circumstances into positive ones and, in this way, make all circumstances conducive for our practice to reach enlightenment. This text speaks about two basic problems: the self-cherishing attitude and what underlies that, which is the grasping for a solid “me” – the so-called “true me” or what we consider to be a “true me,” which doesn’t exist at all. The self-cherishing attitude is the attitude with which we are only concerned about ourselves and about our own happiness – getting what we want – and ignoring other people’s welfare, ignoring what could be beneficial to them. It’s a very selfish type of attitude and it’s the cause of acting under the influence of disturbing emotions like greed, selfishness, anger, jealousy, arrogance and so on. This we how we build up karma – depending on whether we act in a destructive way or a constructive way – under this influence of “me, me, me.” We can be nice to somebody just in order to get something for ourselves from it – so that they like us and so on – and this produced all sorts of problems.
The text speaks about various problems that we all experience and the karmic causes for it: the type of behavior that we might have done under the influence of self-cherishing that would have caused that as its karmic result. Then we try to change our behavior. We do this through the practice of not just making the strong decision to change our behavior but also through the process of tonglen – giving and receiving. In other words, we think, “This is not just my problem; everybody else has this problem,” and we want to solve it for everybody and change that way of behaving for everybody. We take on everybody’s similar problem, the same problem, assuming responsibility for that; and give then the with for them to be able to change their behavior as well. We send out our new behavior – our more constructive behavior – to them. This tonglen practice helps us to overcome the self-cherishing with which we’re only obsessed with ourselves and “me” and “my little problem.” If we are thinking of everybody else, it is also extremely helpful in general in dealing with problems – to not just think in terms of “me, me, me” and then get all depressed about it.
The second part of the text talks about the grasping for a solid “me” which is underlying this self-cherishing attitude. Because we conceive of ourselves as being some solid, independent entity, on the basis of that we cherish ourselves and want to make that entity – this solid “me,” the so-called “true self,” what we consider to be the true “me” – secure and to get its own way. We think of that “me” as being totally separate from anything about ourselves. I think the clearest illustration for that is, we would want somebody to love us: “Love me for myself, for me. I don’t want you to love me for my body or my intelligence or my possessions or my money or anything like that; just love me” – as if there was a “me” that that was some sort of solid entity separate from all of this. This is the myth that we have and on the basis on thinking of a solid, independent “me,” we have self-cherishing.
We looked through many verses at how that belief in a solid “me” – that concept and belief in this concept of a solid “me” – basically sabotages everything that we try to do. It causes things not to work out – to work out the opposite of what we would want – because we’re thinking just in terms of “me.” Again, we can practice tonglen to overcome that, but basically in the text what we do is call upon the forceful energy within all of us which is represented by Yamantaka: the forceful aspect of Manjushri, the embodiment of the wisdom or discriminating awareness of the Buddhas. We call upon this inner wisdom, this inner understanding and strength, to just forcefully smash through our belief in this false concept. We call upon it to smash through this absurd way of thinking, which we’re so familiar with that it just comes up automatically again and again and again without us even knowing it. Without us even being conscious of it, it just is there all the time, and we think in terms of “me, me, me.” “You didn’t call me?” “Why can’t I accomplish this?” “Why does this always happen to me?” It’s there in all our thinking and it’s a real problem. It’s not that we don’t exist; of course we exist, but we don’t exist in this impossible way. So, we smash through that.
Then, the text goes on with a reaffirmation of this tonglen practice of giving and taking and then a reaffirmation of the understanding of voidness, which is the only thing that will really eliminate this false view that we have. Voidness is referring to an absence: something is totally absent and what is totally absent is this impossible way of existing. Nothing exists in that way, just by itself, by its own power, independent of everything else – whether we’re talking about “me,” whether we’re talking about “you,” whether we’re talking about objects or situations – it’s all the same, all of them are equally of existing in this impossible way. Of course, there are many different levels of what’s impossible and, as we progress in our meditation and understanding, we eliminate deeper and deeper misconceptions that we have about ourselves, others and the universe around us.
That’s a brief summary of what we have been doing. Last time, we had the verses that speak about totally absorbing ourselves on this understanding of voidness, with which we just focus completely on this understanding of “no such thing” as existing independently of everything else. There’s no such thing, that’s impossible and what we want to do in our focus is to just cut it off – no such thing – and focus on that absence. That’s what’s called voidness or, as many people translate it, “emptiness.” It’s just absent, no such thing – never was, never will be. As we explained last time, that’s not so easy to focus on, but we can think in terms of simple examples. These are not quite the same but let’s say, with an object, you can start with an object like chocolate. You look throughout your house trying to find chocolate – there is no chocolate; you look everywhere where it could possibly be – there is none. You just focus on “there isn’t any.” What is that like to just focus on “there isn’t any?” When you focus on that, basically nothing appears in your mind; you’re still seeing the floor and the wall in front of you, but there isn’t any object that is appearing. It’s just that there isn’t any. The more and more you absorb your concentration into “there isn’t any,” the less focus you have on the floor and the wall in front of you. In this way, gradually you get deeper and deeper sunk into this understanding of voidness: no such thing.
We’re not dealing with here something that exists, like chocolate: it could be there, it’s just that we’re out of it and you just have to go to the store. We’re talking about something that doesn’t exist at all, that never existed. There’s no monster under the bed: you look, you put on the light, you look everywhere – there is no monster, there never was a monster. You focus on the absence of something that’s impossible, that never existed. Here we’re talking not about an object that never existed but a way of existing that never existed, that never was possible, so it’s more subtle, but the general way of focusing on it is similar.
Understanding Dependent Arising: Causes and Conditions
Now, we are up to verse 104 in the literal translation and 105 in the poetical, old translation. Here, we have the next phase in the meditation, which is the subsequent attainment or subsequent realization. Some people translate it as “post-meditation” but that’s really not accurate because you can still be meditating, or it could be when you’re not meditating – it could be either situation, and it is what you understand subsequent to that. It has to be immediately afterwards. What you understand after that is that nevertheless, things do exist, but how do they exist? They exist like an illusion. It’s like an illusion in that an illusion appears to exist in a way that it doesn’t. It appears to exist as something solid, but it doesn’t exist that way at all. That’s the point of the analogy. I look at you and think, “There’s Silvia, sitting over there.” It seems as though there is a solid, independently existing Silvia there, but obviously that’s like an illusion because there is a body sitting there and the person is moving and nodding her head, and something is going on in her mind and consciousness and so on – we’re just labeling “Silvia” on all of that. But, nevertheless, it appears to me that “there’s Silvia.” So, it’s like an illusion.
The verse reads, first in the poetical, old translation:
O mind, understand that the topics discussed here are interdependent phenomena all; for things must rely on dependent arising to have an existence: they cannot stand alone. The process of change is alluring like magic, for physical form is but mental appearance, as a torch whirling round seems a circle of flame.
In the new, literal translation:
Hey, those like me! All of those are things that dependently arise and what relies on dependently arising cannot be self-supporting. Changing into that over there and changing into this over here, their false appearances are an illusion. They are reflections that (merely) appear, like a whirling firebrand.
This gets into how are things like an illusion; in other words, how do they actually exist? They exist as something which dependently arises on other things – it’s called dependent arising. This is a very big topic. We can discuss dependent arising on two levels: we can discuss it from the point of view of conventional relative truth and from the deepest point of view. From the conventional relative point of view, we need to speak about how functional phenomena – that’s things that do things, that change and so on and are affected by things – arise dependently on causes and conditions. Nothing arises all by itself, not based on causes and conditions. That is something that we need to understand: things that function, things that change, that are non-static, that are changing all the time, arise dependently on causes and conditions. Because they arise dependently on causes and conditions, they change all the time so they’re not going to last.
For instance, “I am unhappy, I’m depressed.” Well, it seems as though that unhappiness is just sort of sitting there as some sort of dark cloud over our head, as if it were establishing itself, all by itself. But if we analyze, we can start to deconstruct it and see that this unhappiness is something which arose from causes and conditions. Why am I unhappy? There are many levels of course on which we can understand why I’m unhappy. It could be that we just heard bad news; it could be that we missed a phone call; it could be because the train is late; it could be for all sorts of different reasons. Often, we’re unhappy because we have expectations that weren’t fulfilled, that weren’t met. “I expected you do this and that and you didn’t do it,” and so we are unhappy. Or we have to go to the dentist or something like that; we’re sitting in the dentist’s chair, we’re not too happy. There’s a circumstance, there’s a reason for that.
Sometimes we can’t understand any reason: “Why do I feel unhappy? I just feel unhappy.” It seems to us that I feel unhappy for no reason at all. But from a Buddhist point of view, happiness or unhappiness – these are feelings; what’s called “feeling” in Buddhism is referring to just happiness and unhappiness – are defined as how we experience the ripening of our karma. If we have acted destructively in the past, then that’s going to ripen in unhappiness and that unhappiness could accompany any experience, any other thing that we’re doing. We can be unhappy while being with our closest friend; we can be unhappy while eating our favorite food; or we can be unhappy when being served something that we don’t like at all.
That happiness or unhappiness isn’t directly dependent on the object that we are encountering in that particular moment – seeing it, hearing it, tasting it, smelling it, touching it, thinking it. That unhappiness is something that has arisen dependently and because something has arisen dependently on a cause, then when that cause is no longer present, or other causes and conditions are present, then something else will arise. Therefore, it’s not going to last, and this is the whole point here. It seems as though it’s going to last – that there it is, standing all by itself – but that’s like an illusion. The example used in the text is a firebrand that’s whirling round. Or let’s say a flashlight: if you circle that round with your hand, then it looks as though there is a solid ring of light, which obviously there is not. That’s an illusion; it appears to be a solid ring, but it is not: it doesn’t exist the way that it looks, that it seems. Similarly, that unhappiness appears or seems to us to just be there, all by itself, for no reason and that it’s going to last. “Oh, I’m depressed, I’m unhappy and I’m going to be unhappy forever. Poor me.” But because it has arisen dependently on causes and conditions and because new causes and conditions are coming into our life every moment, then it has to change, because the new causes and conditions will bring about something else that will arise. It’s clear. That is the simplest level, the conventional level, of dependent arising. But it has to do just with things that change.
Let us then take a moment to just think about that and try to think of it in terms of examples in our own life. Unhappiness can be one example here; another example could be a relationship with somebody. That relationship has arisen for causes and conditions – it’s not just there – and it is affected by causes and conditions, therefore it’s changing. The causes and conditions for maintaining it could be finished and then people go their own way. It’s not something to be taken for granted: “Here is our relationship and it’s going to last forever, the same.” We could also analyze this in terms of a problem. “I have a problem.” Well, what’s the problem? “Oh, it’s a horrible problem” – whatever the problem might be, that also has arisen from causes and conditions. “I have a problem at school;” “I have a problem at work;” “I have a problem with my parents;” “I have a problem with my children” – whatever it is, it has arisen based on causes and conditions and those causes and conditions will change all the time, because the world doesn’t exist as a snapshot, a still photograph: “There it is and nothing’s even going to change.” It’s constantly changing, like a movie, so no problem stays the same. Whatever arises based on causes and conditions is going to change and eventually come to an end. So, the problem will come to an end. “It’s never going to change,” “I’m stuck with this problem, it’s going to be forever” – this is the level that we’re working on. “I have a problem with you” – that comes up in relationships – “We have a problem with each other about this or that,” as if it was just there; it was inherent in our relationship that we have this problem: “I come from this culture, you come form that culture” or whatever; “I come from this kind of family, you come from that kind of family” – but that obviously has arisen on the basis of causes and conditions. Therefore, if we add more factors into the relation – more understanding, more consideration, we give each other more room or we spend more time together, whatever it might be – then that changes the situation, it’s no longer the same. But it we think, “We have a problem no matter what,” then it’s hopeless.
This is the first level of deconstruction: things are based on causes and conditions and because they’re based on causes and conditions, they will inevitably end, whatever the situation. They will end, because the causes and conditions that are generating them will change. It’s like they say that the cause of death is birth. That’s the cause of death – if you’re born, you will die, inevitably. So, actually the cancer or the car accident is just the circumstance; the underlying cause is that you were born. Like that, the underlying cause for the problem to end is that it arose; because it arose it will end, which sometimes is not so nice. Because the relationship started, it will end. We don’t like to hear that one. It will end either by death – that’s the bottom line – or it will end by some sort of circumstance before that. This is not so easy. But when we understand that, that helps us to not cling so much; it helps us to be able to deal with things when they end, but still be involved with the person. That allows us to be a little calmer, which would enable us to analyze what the problem is and what its cause is, so that we can perhaps actively change what’s affecting the situation so that the problem isn’t so strong. There are many levels here of what we need to work with and the whole point is to avoid and minimize and eventually get rid of suffering. Because we suffer and, when we have this fixed view of our experience in life, it incapacitates us from helping others.
“I’m unhappy,” “I’m depressed,” “I’m bored,” “I have a problem with you,” “I have a problem at school,” “I have a problem at work,” “I have a problem at home” – conventionally there may be a problem, a difficult situation. But that doesn’t exist in the way that our mind projects onto it as some sort of monster that’s crippling us. Here’s the situation, objectively; it’s going to change because it’s affected by conditions and causes; let’s see what’s affecting it; and let’s see what we can do to change it – taking into consideration that if it involves somebody else, we’re not the only person involved. Inevitably, since we don’t exist as the only being on this planet, our situation is affected by others, either actively by what they’re doing or by their not-doing something, which really bothers us – not paying attention to me, not calling me, not cooperating, not understanding me.
We have to understand that the problem is changing moment to moment, the situation is changing moment to moment, because we’re not the only one involved. We’re existing in the universe and things are happening around us in other aspects of our life and in the world in general and that affects us and affects whatever we’re experiencing. It’s impossible that there can be a “me” that’s in control of absolutely everything in the universe, of what happens. That’s impossible. But many unconsciously believe that we could be in control, and we think that we are not totally in control then we freak out because we think of a solid “me” who’s out of control. “Out of control, I can’t do anything” – which is also impossible; we can add just a little bit to what’s happening. Whether we are afraid of change or welcome change, change is going to happen anyway – this is the issue.
“I’m in a bad relationship, we’re always fighting, but I don’t want to change it and get out of the relationship because then what? At least I have contact with somebody” – so we don’t do anything to change the situation; “I’m afraid to say something because it might make things worse.” That is a typical situation, isn’t it? “There’s a misunderstanding, there’s something going on here, but I’m afraid to say anything because I might say the wrong thing.” In that situation, it may be appropriate not to say something or it may not be appropriate. Why? Because the situation is affected by other causes and conditions – not just what I say, not just saying something or not saying something. It might be the wrong time to say something to the other person because they are upset about something else that’s going on in their life. After all – which is a hard pill to swallow – I’m not the center of the universe and the only thing that is happening in this other person’s life and the only one that this other person is involved with. That’s almost never the case. So, maybe this is not the time to say something even though something needs to be said. But we have to understand that whether we say something or we don’t say something – that is an action. Not doing something is an action that affects the situation. As I say, often it makes it worse but sometimes it’s better not to say something because it isn’t the right time. If somebody else wants to say something to us – if we’re on the other side of this – and it’s not the right time because we’re really upset about something else, then it requires the maturity to say to the other person, “I agree we really need to discuss this, but this is not a good time for me to discuss this. There’s something else that is going on in my life now that really is difficult.” That’s not always so easy and the other person might not understand. It’s difficult getting along with other people. One has to accept that – unless we’re a Buddha and even if we’re a Buddha, not everybody liked Buddha or cooperated with him. So, what can we expect? It’s a very helpful thought.
Let us take a moment to think about this fact that things arise dependently on causes and conditions and try to think of it in terms of our own life.
Understanding Dependent Arising: Parts
The next level of dependent arising is things arise dependently on parts. Not only things that change all the time but also things that don’t change are dependent on parts. It’s a larger, encompassing idea of dependent arising and this is the level that comes in with the analysis of problems: problems have parts in the time sequence. There’s this moment of all, that moment of it, this instance of it, that instance of it – it’s not the same. It’s not solid; it depends on parts. It arises dependently on parts. There was a whole conversation and an interaction – well, there was each word of it, each moment of it and the problem arose dependently on all those parts put together, which means that you can add more parts that will again affect it. Things don’t exist all by themselves; they arise dependently on all these parts. “You messed up fixing something” – well, that arose in terms of parts, because you did this and you did that, and you did this and you did that and now it doesn’t work. Of course, there’s causality involved but there’s also all the different parts that are involved as well, so that helps to de-solidify the whole thing.
“My back hurts” – well, you can analyze the causes: my age, my posture, this and that. That’s one level of analyzing and seeing that things arose dependently on causes and conditions – not just thinking, “Oh god, my back hurts.” It’s reasonable that my back hurts. Then, it’s also dependent on parts: this bone is connected to that bone and that bone is connected to that bone. Which part is it? There’s the muscle and there’s the tendon – all these different parts. It is arising dependently on that, isn’t it? There’s not just some solid thing because all these parts are interacting with each other, and this makes up this back pain. It’s not something solid. You can see that there are all these different parts interacting with each other. Naturally, something painful could arise because there are so many different factors, so many parts that are involved here.
So, we have things arising dependently on causes and conditions – that’s functional phenomena; and things arising dependently on parts – that is everything. That’s all dealing with the conventional level of things. On the deepest level, things arise dependently on mental labeling. We only have five minutes left so I’ll introduce it but go into this in more detail next time. Basically, when we talk about dependent arising on mental labeling, we’re saying, what establishes that there’s a problem? What establishes that there’s a problem is the concept and name and work “problem.” There are all these different interactions, every moment – all these causes, every word that was said and so on – and we label it “a problem,” because we learned that word from the dictionary: “problem.” So, we call it that. Now, there is nothing on the side of all these different moments – all these different parts and causes – that establishes it as a problem. What establishes it as a problem is the word “problem.” We don’t have to actively call it a problem for that to establish that it’s a problem. How do we know it’s a problem? It’s a problem because there’s a word, “problem,” and it can be labeled onto this thing.
It may be accurate that there’s a problem; it may be accurate that this is a correct labeling as a problem. You can also label it other things: this is an opportunity to grow, this is a challenge, an adventure – there are many different label you can give it. But calling it a problem can be useful because then you try to solve it. But to think that the problem is just there – sitting, establishing itself – this is false, this is impossible. Then you think, “Ah, yeah, there’s really a problem, it’s inherent in the situation.” It’s not; but it’s a convenient way of referring to it and it does refer to something. When we understand that, then we can deal with it: “Okay, now, how can I solve this, where did it come from” and so on; or, “This is a challenge, this is something that I can learn from,” and then you approach it that way. So, it functions, it’s helpful.
“I think I have a problem with you, I think it’s your problem” – but the other person might not have a problem at all. “I think you don’t love me anymore” – well, that’s how I label the way you are acting; from their side, they may still love us very much, they just haven’t said it to us as many time as we would like to or demonstrated it as many times as we would like to. But still, they love us. So, it’s not a valid labeling that, “You don’t love me.” I may experience that and feel incredible pain but that’s based not only on believing that it’s established from its own side – that, “You don’t love me” – but it’s also based on the wrong label: an incorrect labeling of the situation. You always have to check what’s going on.
What’s unhappiness? There’s a whole spectrum of feeling and every moment that we experience what we would call “unhappiness” is different. We have a concept that a certain range of feeling – that’s unhappiness. It’s just feelings. But we make it: “Well, when I feel like that” – that’s called ‘unhappiness. It says so in the dictionary – there it is, from this point to that point, that’s unhappiness. From this point to that point, that’s happiness. Then we make a big deal out of it: “Oh, I’m so unhappy.” It’s just a label that we have put on many different experiences and it’s usually quite subjective because what I experience as unhappy might not be what you experience as unhappy. What I experience as unhappy now, today and what I experience tomorrow as unhappy, can be totally different. What establishes that it’s unhappiness? It’s the concept “unhappiness.”
Concepts and words are necessary for communication, they’re necessary for understanding, but things don’t exist encapsulated in boxes like the dictionary would imply. “Here it is, item number 11,423 in the dictionary, there it is, the box – unhappiness; and there’s another box – happiness,” fitting into this category, this word in the dictionary. Things arise dependently on mental labels – words, concepts – but they do conventionally exist; it’s like an illusion.
Dedication
That brings us to the end of the class. We’ll end here with the dedication. We’ll go a little bit more into dependent arising in terms of mental labeling next time because it is a very important topic in Buddhism and it deserves more time. We’ll end with a dedication. We think whatever understanding, whatever positive force has come from this, let it go deeper and deeper and act as a cause for reaching enlightenment for the benefit of all.