Bodhisattvacaryavatara, 20 February 1989, part 3

The verse by Śāntideva, the author of Engaging in the bodhisattva Deeds in which he says that precious mind of enlightenment or the awakening heart, whether it’s generated or developed in the mind of a human or even animal, that when such a being generates the awakening heart, he is worthy of respect and praise of all beings, humans and gods, and that he automatically becomes a child of the Buddha. This precious awakening heart, it is the most valuable thing in all the world. If we have this one quality and we possess no other qualities besides this, then we still simply by the force of this one quality, we’re worthy of respect and praise by all. That if we can simply begin to come to an understanding of the value and preciousness of such a mind and develop a faith in this mind and even this faith of aspiring to such a mind, we create a great deal of positive merit or energy.

So considering the preciousness, the value of such a mind, the awakening heart, then anything which impedes the awakening heart, the development of it, is a great obstacle, our real enemy. And therefore Śāntideva devotes an entire chapter in his text to eliminating that one thing which impedes our awakening heart the most, that is anger. And so it is through the elimination of anger, it serves as a development of patience as a method for developing an awakening heart. Beginning where we left off in the last teachings, So we begin by coming to an understanding that no matter what types of harmful, unpleasant words another person might in fact say to us, that those words can, in actual fact, cannot harm us either in this life or in future lives. So towards such a person, we should not generate dislike but in fact this is we should forbear because this is simply a consequence, a result of our previously created negative karma that having spoken in this way to others, now it’s coming back to us.

So in response to unpleasant words spoken to us by others that initially we should think that this is simply a consequence of negative karma or actions that we’ve created before speaking harmfully back to others. But we don’t think in this way. We don’t exercise patience, but we think in such a way that, Oh, this person’s talking badly about me. That in fact if other people hear about him speaking to me in such a way that I get a bad name, a bad reputation, people think I’m a bad person, then maybe another person who was going to do something very kind to me, who looked upon me very favorably, perhaps he was going to give me a gift, that him hearing these words about me, this would act as an obstacle to him being kind to me or this third person acting favorably toward me. Do you understand that so far?

Thinking in this way that because of being called bad names, spoken unpleasantly by the second person that this third person will act as an obstruction to receiving gifts, this third person acting favorably toward us and therefore we think it’s quite right that we feel justified in becoming angry because our desire for gifts or whatever being looked upon with favor is being obstructed. But this is not justified because simply by experiencing not receiving gifts, though it might be a slight suffering, the negativity that we create by generating hatred or anger is out of proportion to our loss of a gift or some small favor. To experience this small suffering compared to the great suffering that we’re going to have to experience through the karma that we create by generating anger and hatred makes no sense. But we might answer, Well, you know, if I don’t receive these gifts, these presents from others whether it’s food, clothing, whatever, then this is really a great you know, I should try to get rid of this person because they’re causing me a great loss. Also, is such a way of thinking is quite unreasonable.

That by generating anger at not having gotten the gifts or possessions that thought that you should be receiving, that the second person act as an obstacle by putting you down and causing others to think badly of you that you generate anger and hatred toward this person. But we should think that even if I were to receive all this favor and gifts of others, at best this would give me some slight pleasure for a short time. Perhaps, maybe at most, these possessions can only last me this lifetime. But in the negativity that I create by getting angry and generating hatred towards this person is not only going to harm me presently, but it’s going to continue to harm me for a long time even in future lives. You know, being creating a great deal of negativity in order to get some small gift as compared to being willing to forego a gift in order that one not create such a type of negativity.

And you know that we can think of these types of activities that however much negativity you might create in order to get that gift, can think of these activities as if in a dream that in the same way when you wake up from a dream that it’s finished. How much was it worth in all the anger and hatred that you created in order to get this gift after you’ve woken up? So as in the same case when in the dream of someone who’s asleep that no matter whether that we may dream that we had experienced happiness for one hundred years or that we only experienced, we dream that we experienced happiness for one moment, when we wake up they’re both the same. At the moment of waking up there’s no difference between having experienced happiness for one hundred years or one moment in a dream. So in the case of someone waking up from a dream, whether in his dream he experienced one hundred years of happiness or one moment of happiness, it’s simply in both cases, it’s merely a memory at that point.

But in the case of in our waking life, if we were to in order to gain happiness, if we create a lot of negative actions and a lot of negative karma, then as opposed to experiencing, seeking to experience only small types of happiness, at the moment of death, then the memory is still the same, but the consequence will be greatly different. So thinking from the point of view of death and what is the use, what is the benefit of all the great negativities that we create in pursuit of finding and gathering together our possessions. It’s when in fact at the moment of our death we have to go empty handed destitute no matter how many possessions we may have gathered about us. That it’s like a thief walking down a path and being jumped upon by some bandits who strip us clean of all our possessions and we just walk away naked. That is the use of all this great negativity that we’re creating in order to get these possessions when we can’t take them with us?

But someone may question this and they say, Well, you know, I need lots of possessions. I need material things in order to sustain myself so that I can pass my life, even practicing by purifying various negativities and gathering together lots of positive energy, you know, positive potential. In order to do that I have to have possessions. I need lots of things, material things. So there ensues a debate between Śāntideva and, let’s say, a materialist.

So the materialist is saying that I need lots of things to sustain my life in order that I can have a long life. And during this lifetime, you know, even if I were to create negativities, I can purify those negativities and in the meanwhile I can also create lots of positive potential. But if we conduct our life in such a way that for the sake of material gains that we exert so much effort that we make such a struggle so hard to gather together various possessions. But in the course of this struggle all we do is create negativity that those who are obstacles to our gathering together our possessions that we become angry, we generate hatred, hostility, that in fact regenerate a great deal of negativity and we don’t we exert our time in gathering possessions but spend no time in creating any positive potential, then it’s better that we don’t live a long time if that’s the type of life that we’re going to lead. So that’s the, you know, Śāntideva answers this materialist in this manner.

So this person who Śāntideva is debating with is trying to justify anger in some way that it’s somehow appropriate. So in this case, it presents well if some people have some faith in me or some confidence in me, they look up to me and this other person is putting me down saying bad things about me, then because this person’s confidence or faith in me is going to be degenerated, surely that justifies my becoming angry at this person who’s putting me down. They’re debating. There’s lots of debate back and forth in this way. Then this is, then Śāntideva answers back, Well if this is the case you feel justified in becoming angry at someone that’s putting you down because others are going to lose confidence in you, that they’re going to lose faith in you, They’re not going to hold you as highly.

Then why is it that when somebody else is being put down, that someone else, that another person is deprecating or speaking badly of another person, then why is it that you don’t become unhappy about this situation? Why is it that you don’t become angry seeing that this other person is being put down? Other people are going to begin to lose confidence, to lose faith. They’re going to not look up to this other person, but in fact you most always usually go along with this. You don’t become angry at this person who’s putting this third person down.

So, the point which is being made is that it’s unreasonable to become angry at mere words that in fact mere words, no matter how harsh they might be, can in fact not harm you or cannot really hurt you. Then another point to make that toward those who in some way speak badly or deprecate, for example the Buddhas or the Dharma or that even we go so far as to destroy a reliquary, a stupa, that even to become angry at such a person would not be justified since in fact the Buddha and the Dharma and the reliquaries, the stupas cannot actually be harmed. They’re not actually hurting the Buddhas in doing this. But on the contrary to such a person who speaks in such a way, for example, putting down the Buddhas, putting down the Dharma, speaking badly of it, not only should we not generate anger or hatred for them, but in fact we should have compassion toward them since they are creating a great deal of negativity and they have it all has its source in their lack of understanding. Likewise towards those who in some way speak harshly, put down ones, for example spiritual teachers or ones speak badly about one’s relatives and friends that it’s not reasonable to become angry at them.

But in fact as was previously explained, that such types of being, that type of way of being spoken to was a consequence or result of these objects having created negative actions, the negative karma, the negative actions of speaking harshly to them previously, that this is simply having created this karma in the past. This is their karma returning to them and therefore it’s not reasonable for us to generate anger or hatred toward them speaking in this way. So then another argument is presented from the point of view that becoming angry at beings who harm others, that this is somehow justified. But in fact, if beings are harmed by two objects in general, they’re harmed by sentient objects and non-sentient objects, that is beings and things. That why is it that since they’re harmed by both of these objects, why is it that we only generate anger and hatred toward beings and we don’t generate anger toward things when in fact sentient beings are being harmed by both?

So if we’re going to be consistent, should also generate anger at just things that harm sentient beings. But in fact, this isn’t the way we generally act. That we are able to forbear with things when they hurt us, when they hurt others, but we can’t forbear in the same way with people when they hurt us or hurt other people. But we extend this patience that is willing to forbear with things to people or beings when harm ourselves or others. So if we take an example of someone who hits you on the head with a stick and it causes you a lot of pain on your head, Generally, we get angry at the person.

We say that this person caused my pain, therefore I feel justified in getting angry at this person. But why is it that we don’t get angry at the stick? That is actually the stick which is causing which is hit us on the head which is causing the pain. Why isn’t we don’t get angry at his hand which held the stick in the same way that the thought doesn’t even arise to get angry at the stick, which in fact is just as much as the cause of the pain as the person, then likewise we should take the same attitude and extend it to the person himself or herself that is willing to forbear as we do with things, not getting angry at them, likewise with people. So likewise, we can extend this to the person or the being themselves.

We say, Well, I get angry at some people because they hurt me. That is when we examine, Well, who is it? Do you always get angry at any person who hurts you? Well, I get angry. Some people hurt me because out of a mistake there’s some type of misjudgment.

Perhaps they some obscuration, then they cause me harm. Such type of people when they aren’t motivated to harm me, I don’t get angry at them. But somebody who’s angry, who is motivated to bring me harm, then I get angry at them. Likewise, we wish to extend the same type of forbearance that we have toward those beings who hurt us, but in fact, they both beings have harmed us. Both beings have hurt us, but we don’t get angry at one, but we get angry at the other simply because from our point of view one had the motivation or not.

So we are able to forbear with hurt from one being. Well, why can’t we extend that to the other being just as well? So it’s not the mere fact of it being a being that we get angry at, but in fact, their motivation, but we can extend this from one being who we don’t get angry at, the forbearance and one type of hurt to the second type. Then, you know, further we oftentimes someone who we remember are acts of harm committed to us by others. So we remember the harm caused to us by others, but we don’t remember the harm that we cause others.

So we constantly keep in mind and churn over in our mind the harm caused to us by others, but we tend to forget we don’t remember the harm that we’ve caused others. So this, forgetting the harm that you caused others and remembering the harm that others caused you is a great mistake. Why is it a great mistake? Because if we have not harmed others, then we will not be harmed in return. This is within the Buddhist context, operation of the law of cause and effect.

So thinking in this way that I haven’t harmed this other person but they’ve harmed me back is not to have conviction in the law of cause and effect. We can be sure that whatever difficulties, whatever suffering that we experience is simply a return for the difficulties and the suffering that we’ve caused others. This is the operation of law of cause and effect that in accordance with the types of actions that we create, there’s a reaction back toward ourselves, the same type of having the result which is in keeping with the cause that we created. In the case of any type of suffering that we undergo, we can be assured that it’s simply a reaction from the suffering that we’ve caused others in the past. So, you know, whatever it might be that we experience, whether even a slight amount of happiness, a slight amount of cheer or feeling good, then we can be sure that this is even a slight amount is simply a reaction, a consequence of some positive karma that we’ve created in the past.

And likewise, any type of suffering that we experience, even a slight pain of a toothache, we can be sure that is a consequence of some negative action that we’ve created in the past. So, whatever harm that others may bring us, it arises from the harm that we’ve caused others in the past that these other people are simply a condition whereby our karma, the latencies of past actions are being ripened and therefore it is ourselves that are causing our own suffering. Therefore it’s completely unreasonable to bear any malice towards the other person considering that we’ve created the causes for this pain. So we take an example of if we were to eat some food and due to having eaten this food, we get sick, we get maybe diarrhea and we think, Oh, I have this diarrhea because of my lunch, that food I ate. But in fact, the food is not the cause of your diarrhea.

It’s not the cause of your discomfort. It’s simply a condition, a cooperative condition. The actual main cause or the substantial cause is your karma, the negative karma or the negative action of which this is a result of the potency to become sick and experience discomfort. That this karma that you created in the past, this negative action that you created in the past coming together, combining with this cooperative condition of the food, by the force of this, you actually experience diarrhea. You experience discomfort.

If in fact the discomfort were to arise only from the food, then there would be a suffering which did not arise from a karmic cause. And this contradict the law of cause and effect. On the other hand, if we were to eat some delicious food and we experience pleasure from this, that this pleasure in fact does not arise, that the food acts as a condition for the experience of pleasure. The cause of the pleasure was the positive action that we created in the past which has a consequence of pleasure, has the potency whereby we’re able to eat food and experience happiness. That it’s due to our karma or past negative action coming in contact with their proper condition and these two together give rise to a pleasurable sensation.

If in fact the pleasurable sensation would come about only by way of the food, then we would have a happiness without a karmic cause and this would contradict the law of cause and effect. So within the Buddhist context, it is said that all conditioned phenomena, that all things arise through a combination of causes and conditions. Simply, they cannot arise in dependence upon a cause without conditions or in dependence upon conditions without the cause. It is a combination of causes and conditions which gives rise to all conditioned phenomena. And if we take a simple example of the way causes and conditions operate together, in the case of a flower, in order to develop a flower, we have to have both causes and conditions.

The cause of the flower is the flower seed. in dependence upon the flower seed coming in contact, coming together with the correct conditions such as water, soil, fertilizer, warmth, etc. Then the seed germinates and a flower will eventually develop. If on the other hand, we had the seed and we had no cooperative condition, we didn’t have any fertilizer, didn’t have any soil, then this seed could remain for hundreds of years and it would never develop into a flower. So if we engage conviction in this relationship between causes and effects, the karmic causes and their consequences, that we can begin to apply it to our daily life in the sense that we’re thinking, well, this body and mind which I possess and all the happiness and joy that I experience, that they arise from causes and what types of causes that they arise from.

They arise in dependence upon positive actions or positive karma, constructive actions. And therefore thinking this way, wanting to extend, develop and increase one’s happiness and joy, you are motivated to engage in very positive types, constructive types of actions in order to find the happiness that we are looking for. On the other hand, considering our body and mind, the various experiences that these two factors undergo, the sufferings of sickness of the body and the sufferings of depression, etc, that we experience within our mind, that we can question, well, these also arise, these experiences also arise in dependence upon causes and types of causes. And these are dependent upon negative actions that we’ve created in the past. Is destructive activities, destructive non virtue.

And therefore seeing this as the case, being motivated to begin to lessen, decrease, and eventually abandon all types of negative and destructive actions that we engage in. These types of actions are as if a thief stealing all our happiness from us and bringing us only suffering. So even in the insignificant case of insect bite, which causes some kind of discomfort, that this discomfort arises has as its main cause past negative action that’s created in the past. The insect itself is simply a cooperative condition and it in dependence upon this main cause that we created in the past, this destructive action, negative karma coming into contact with this condition, this negative experience arises, this discomfort. So the great master Vasubandhu said that all the varieties of objects in the world arise in dependence upon karma, actions.

Now whatever it might be, whatever good there is in the world, rises in dependence upon constructive actions that we’ve created in the past. Whatever bad there exists in the world, it rises in dependence upon destructive actions that we’ve created in the past, down to even a pebble that everything is dependent upon actions. But we might think, well, know, we’re constantly talking about karma, about actions. And we see that the entire world arises in dependence upon actions. But this is only Buddhism which talks about karma.

It’s only within Buddhism that karma applies. So we can discuss how does karma arise, actions. So karma is accumulated or actions are accumulated by doing activities or work. So there’s three types of activities of body, speech, mind. And if we take an example of physical action, of body, bodily action, then we can take a killing, for example, taking as a basis some other sentient being.

The agent is a person who is committing an action and then there’s the activity itself. So, when we talk about karma, action, in example, the activity of killing, taking the life of another person is the karma of killing or the action of killing. And these actions, this type of activity, have certain consequences. For example, that one will experience a short life, one will have many illnesses. So, you know, we take another physical action.

For example, within physical action there are three types which are generally spoken of three destructive types of actions of killing, stealing, and sexual misconduct. And taking another example of stealing, the basis of the action of stealing is another person’s possession. The agent is, for example, a thief and the activity is actually taking the possession of another without their permission. And this has consequences or results. And one of the results of stealing is being poor.

So the idea which is being gotten at here is not that karma or actions are somehow simply a Buddhist idea, that these activities of taking someone else’s articles, that being a thief, that being a killer taking someone else’s life, no matter whether understand these aren’t particularly Buddhist types of activities. Therefore, the idea of karma or action simply does not apply only within a Buddhist context because these apply everywhere, that there are people who take others things and people who take other lives. So they’re engaging in karma. They’re engaging in activities which are going to have certain types of consequences. Extend this to the third type of physical destructive action that of sexual misconduct.

Taking a partner who is committed to another partner in some socially accepted manner in a sexual relationship as a basis, actually engaging in a sexual relation which brings some type of bliss as the activity. And this would be an example of an activity of sexual misconduct. So these are all physical actions killing, stealing, and sexual misconduct. These are just activities that everyone engages in, that they are particular to people who have belief in karma or don’t, or to Buddhists or not. And we term these as destructive actions.

Know, actions can be either of two types, constructive or destructive. And these types are particularly termed destructive because they harm oneself and they harm others and this is the determining standard which we’re using as a method to distinguish destructive and constructive actions. Destructive actions have a negative consequence, that is suffering. Constructive actions have a positive consequence, that is happiness. So these activities have an ethical value and have an experiential consequence of happiness and suffering.

So what is the reason in the context of these examples that we gave in which we term them as destructive actions? Why should they bring us some suffering in the future? It’s because all of these types of actions that we just listed as examples of killing, stealing, sexual misconduct in some way are going to bring harm to others. They’re bringing suffering to others and consequence of causing others suffering is that oneself experiences suffering as a reaction. So, this has a cyclic effect, this reactive effect.

And bringing harm to others, oneself is harmed. In bringing happiness to others, oneself has brought happiness. If we take the contrary example of those types of actions which bring happiness, if the circumstance arose that we were going hunting and we were going to kill some type of animal. And that just as you were about to kill the animal, you began to consider what you were about to do. In fact you developed compassion for this animal, that this animal doesn’t want to suffer, that it has feelings, that it perhaps in the past life was actually your mother or your father that was a sentient being in the past.

The scene that this being in front of you doesn’t want to be hurt. It experiences feelings just as yourself. And therefore developing compassion, the thought not to harm it and developing the attitude of this development of compassion will act as it will prevent the mind which intends to bring harm from arising. And then one abandons the attitude of seeking to hurt this being but in fact determines that I’m not going to engage in this action. And this becomes the action of abandonment of killing, which is a constructive action.

So in abandoning the intention to kill and actually engaging in the constructive action of giving life. That rather than shortening the life of another being, rather than causing harm to another being, then in fact one that you actually give happiness, you allow this being to remain, to live out its life. And this has the consequences in giving life that one’s own life in the future as a reaction will be longer and that one will not undergo the suffering of having harmed others in the past, but in fact the consequences will be happiness for oneself. So out of motivated by compassion, the abandoning of the intention to kill, in fact giving life is a constructive action and this will have a happy effect or positive effect. And the same applies to the destructive action of stealing, taking others’ possessions.

By taking others’ possessions that we deprive them of having things, that in fact they have no things, have no material possessions, and they also have to incur the suffering of having the loss, the worry, which is brought about by losing their things. So on the other hand, if we were to reverse from that, then in fact we forego, abandon the intention to steal, but then in fact commit the opposite. The consequences of that stealing would be in keeping with the negative activity that we’re engaged in, causing others not to have things. We in the future will not have things. We will be poor.

Likewise, we’re causing others suffering by depriving them of their things, because through losing their things, we are going to experience suffering in the future. On the other hand, if we do the opposite, we engage in generosity, in giving, then this would be a cause for us to have things in the future and to have the happiness which is associated with having things. So if we just kind of state this briefly, then the Buddha has said that whatever actions that we create, we will experience result in accordance with it. That if today we if presently we engage in the actions of harming others, then in the future that harm is going to return to us. On the other hand, if presently we engage in actions of abandoning and harming others and further than that seek to benefit others, then in the future that benefit will come back to us as a reaction.

Harmful activities are termed destructive actions, negative actions, negative karma, whereas beneficial activities are termed constructive actions, positive karma, positive actions. So, however much we benefit others, to that same degree we ourselves will be benefited. However much we harm others, to that same degree we ourselves are going to be harmed. So we have to think about what we want to experience in the future and act in accordance, practice in accordance with that determination. So this is, if they’re actually experiencing suffering, this is a sign that they really aren’t great lamas.

This is a sign. If in fact they are, you know, we achieve arhat, once we become arhat, we become a Buddha, once we achieve buddhahood, then we don’t experience any of the suffering. We don’t have any negative consequences to suffer. So this would be a sign of a real accomplished master. What can I say?

So whatever we experience, whatever suffering we may experience, we have created a cause for that. And everyone has created that. So this, I’m using the best word I can for deserve. I’m using the word something like proper or reasonable. Appropriate.

It’s appropriate. Whatever is being any harmed sentient being is undergoing is appropriate to that being. So one spiritual teacher was talking to one of his students and this student was undergoing some suffering, some sickness, and this student was very upset about it as if he didn’t was worrying about it as if he didn’t deserve it. And the teacher simply said that what you’re experiencing now is quite appropriate to the actions that you have created in the past. Therefore, why worry about it that you’re getting exactly what you, keeping to the actions that you’ve created in consequences of, As a consequence of positive actions, we experience happiness. As a consequence of negative actions, we experience suffering. This is quite appropriate. So why worry about it?

Just accept it as a consequence of some action that you’ve created in the past. So it’s said that in the case of, for example, the Buddha, when Śākyamūni Buddha was passing into parinirvāṇa, that he displayed signs of becoming ill, the signs of suffering, and finally displayed the signs of dying, of death. But in fact, from his own side, he wasn’t actually experiencing any of these processes. That this was only from the side of his pupils and only for their benefit to show them the consequences of negativities and the consequences of as a teaching on impermanence. From his own side he wasn’t actually experiencing it.

So it was just a show. The buddha was really a great lama If I were to eliminate suffering, prolong, So aside from the only way a a person can help another person to eliminate their suffering is, for example, in the case of a Lama, a teacher who explains to the student that they have accumulated a great deal of negative action in the past and they’re going to experience this negative action unless they do something about it and help them or her to apply the antidotes to these past negative actions that they’ve created. That is to say that they created the cause and they should try to eliminate the causes for the experience of future sufferings. Other than that, there’s no way that we can eliminate another person’s suffering. In this case, when giving medicine to another person, we’re eliminating the conditions for their suffering.

Yeah? You wanna follow that up? You mean like lessen the suffering? So less So we say lessen? So we can only help others by alleviating the conditions which are bringing about their difficulties, their suffering.

In the same way, we talked about the example of food, that developing diarrhea or sickness from food, eating some kind of bad food. The cause of the diarrhea, of the experience of suffering is the actions, one’s karma, one’s created. The condition which gives which ripens, activates that karma is this bad food. Now we could alleviate that person. We could remove that food from that person.

We could give them medicine and this would separate them from that condition of the bad food. And they might get better. But still the cause, the common cause might be there. One day they might get better and the next day they might eat the same bad. They eat their bad food.

We still have to help people. We can help people through eliminating the conditions which cause their suffering, but the meanwhile, they have to be so we can help them by eliminating the conditions which cause them to suffer, but in the meanwhile they have to work on the karma that they’ve created in eliminating the basis of the suffering, the cause of their suffering. So we help them by helping to eliminate the conditions and they themselves must help themselves by eliminating the karma or the actions which are causing the suffering.