Sun Radiance: Thought Transformation, 29 August 1989, part 2

Then from the ultimate point of view, why it is inappropriate to have the relationship of love and attachment. The Enemies and loved ones are merely imputed by name. They do not exist from their own side, that they are projected by awareness. If in fact enemies and loved ones were to exist from their own side, that is to say independently, then the Buddhas would see them in this way. But the Buddhas in fact do not see any being as an enemy.

They see all beings exactly the same as loved ones. Therefore, the enemy does not exist from their own side but is merely projected by awareness. So for those who have faith in the Buddha, the example of the enemy and loved one in which there is one person who is rubbing or massaging the Buddha on one side with fragrant oils like sandalwood oil very smoothly on the one hand. On the other side there is someone who is chopping away his arm with an axe. Then if in fact the enemies and loved ones existed then the Buddha should have liking for one and dislike for another.

But in fact he doesn’t. He sees these two beings, his response to these two beings is exactly the same. So, Dharmakīrti in his text entitled Commentary on Dignāgā’s Compendium of Valid Cognition has a quotation describing the Buddha as the one who had equality of sandalwood and axe. And this is where this example comes from, that this demonstrates that the Buddha is completely divorced of attachment and hatred because he sees these two beings as exactly the same. So the situation of the sandalwood and axe where there is one individual who has great faith in the Buddha and is massaging the Buddha with the sandalwood oil.

On the other hand, the other being has great hatred, great anger toward the Buddha and therefore is cutting the Buddha’s arm with an axe. But the Buddha does not respond differently toward these two. He holds both exactly the same. He holds them both in love equally. Now why does the Buddha respond with love toward this person who is harming him, who is angry at him?

This is a there is a verse by Āryadeva in which he says that it is not the being, it is not the anger which is, it is not the being who is the enemy, but it is the anger which is the enemy. That is to say that this person is not under control, is not, does not have is not free. This person is not free. They are under the control of anger, of their afflictive emotion. Therefore the person is not the enemy.

It is the anger which controls the person which is the actual enemy. And therefore since the person has no power, since the person is not free but is at the mercy of the anger then the person themselves is to be the object of our compassion and their anger is the actual enemy. So the analogy is drawn in the way in which the Buddha looks upon sentient beings. It is like a mother whose child has become temporarily mentally ill. And due to this child’s illness, that this mother loves the child a great deal.

But due to this child’s illness, the child treats the mother very badly. In fact, the child actually beats the mother, hits the mother. But the mother doesn’t respond with anger. She understands that this child is out of control, and she only responds with more and more love for the child in response to the harm that child is bringing her. Child harming her actually calls upon more and more love because it reminds her how much her child is out of control.

Likewise, the Buddha understands that sentient beings are out of control. They’re under the power of attachment and hatred, and therefore all the harm that they in fact may afflict upon him only calls up more love, more compassion, and in no way can he express anger toward them. Do you think the mother would get angry at the child? Should we take a vote? So instead of anger, you would have love for the child?

So in respect to the Buddha it’s the same. He has love for all sentient beings. He does not see any being as an enemy, but holds them all as loved ones. Then the second reason from the ultimate point of view is that enemy and loved one are established only by conception, that they do not exist from their own side. If they existed from their own side, they would be permanently the way they appear.

They would be unchanging. The enemy would always be an enemy. The loved one would always be a loved one. But we understand that they do change and it’s dependent upon this reason that we can understand that they do not exist from their own side. If in fact they did exist from their own side then they would be constantly, unchangingly an enemy or constantly unchangingly a loved one.

For example, you know last year someone might have been our friend and this year they become our enemy. Last year someone might have been our enemy and this year they become our friend. That is to say these positions change. Therefore we can understand this from this very fact that enemy and loved one do not exist from their own side but are merely established by conception. So, you know, someone, a friend or an enemy, you know, they don’t exist from their own side.

It’s quite changeable. You know, we understand that just by the way someone looks at us, if they look at us in a very poor way we think of them as an enemy. If they look at us in a very pleasant way we think of them as a friend. If they say nice beautiful words to us, pleasing words to us, then we see them as a friend. If they say harsh words to us we see them as an enemy.

And this happens to us. This is our experience. There are cases where someone might have been our enemy last year. You know, to see them made us angry, or just to hear the sound of their voice made us angry. And there are cases where people would want to kill them, eat their flesh, to drink their blood.

But that very same person, this year we can’t stand to be separated from them. You know, this change actually occurs. This is possible. So I mean, Rinpoche knows of one example where at Sera Monastery where there were two monks and previously when they were in Tibet the one monk he couldn’t if he was able he would have killed this other monk. He couldn’t stand him.

And then when they left Tibet and moved to India they were placed side by side and over time they began to develop a liking for one another until it got to the place where they couldn’t be separated. Enemy and beloved do not exist from their own side. They are dependently established. They are dependent arising. When relatives benefit us, our friends benefit us, our children benefit us, our wife benefit us, dependent upon their benefiting us in this way, then they are our loved ones.

On the other hand when other people, enemy, benefit, harms us, when our relatives harms us, dependent upon them harming us they become our enemy. That these enemy and beloved arise dependently. They are established dependently. They do not exist from their own side. If we understand emptiness, if we understand that things are not truly existent, they do not exist objectively, then we will not have attachment and hatred.

So this is the mode of cultivating equanimity. From the conventional point of view, from the side of others, there were three points. From one’s own side, there were three points. From the ultimate point of view, again there were three points. It is in this way that we develop an equanimity which is without attachment and hatred.

This is the way, the method of cultivation. But mainly, it is from the equanimity is founded on the understanding that self and others are equal and wanting happiness, not wanting to suffer. So that’s the explanation of the development of cultivating equanimity. We have about ten minutes to if you have questions. You mean indifferent?

So, it should be understood that in cultivating equanimity we are not cultivating indifference. We have an equanimity which holds all sentient beings as beloved equally. Equally, all sentient beings are equally beloved. So from the conventional point of view, from the side of others, the first point is that all sentient beings are equal and wanting happiness and not wanting to suffer. Then the second point was that the one in happiness, they are equal in wanting happiness.

The third is that they are equal from the point of view of not wanting suffering, but in fact are tormented by suffering. Then from one’s own side, that the attachment from one’s own side attachment and hatred are not appropriate. The first reason being that from one’s own side that all sentient beings have benefited you equally in the past, present and future. And the second from one’s own side is that understanding that from the first point it was stated that all beings equally benefited us in the past, present and future and then a qualm arises, a doubt arises in the fact that this is the second point that in fact do all sentient beings benefit us presently and that we understand that beings in fact benefit us indirectly in their various ways and that even our enemy benefits us, those who we see as bringing us harm, but because in return to their anger by generating compassion, generating patience we purify negativities and create the necessary accumulations.

That’s the second point. So they’re all equal. All the present beings are equal and benefiting us. Even neutral people and enemies. And the second, the third point, the third point is that beings are not under their own control just like myself.

That you know from my point of view that just like I am under the control of afflictive emotions likewise others are also under the control of afflictive emotions. And that also we are all impermanent, that we are changing from moment to moment, we are rising and disintegrating momentarily, and therefore to to like some and dislike others is inappropriate. From the ultimate point of view, the first reason is that enemy and beloved are merely imputed by conception. They do not exist from their own side. If in fact they existed from their own side, then the Buddha should see them in this way and that he should hold some as enemy and others as beloved because this is the way in fact they exist.

But as was pointed out in the example of sandalwood and axe, this is not, in fact, not the case. Then the second is that the enemy and friend are merely imputed, not existing from their own side. If they did exist from their own side then they would be unchangingly enemy, unchangingly friend. But we understand that last year’s friend can be this year’s enemy and last year’s enemy can become this year’s friend This is the sign that they do not exist as enemy and friend from their own side and are merely imputed. And the third reason is that enemy and friend are dependently established.

That because an individual benefits oneself, one’s relatives, or one’s friends, dependent upon that we see them as a beloved. On the other hand, an individual who harms ourselves, our relatives, or our friends, dependent upon that we see them as our enemy. That they do not exist from their own side as such, but merely dependent upon how they relate to us. That they are our dependent arising. That they do not truly exist as enemy and friends.

If we cultivate this understanding of the non true existence of enemies and friends then there’s no way that we can hold we can have attachment and aversion. So the Buddha would not stop him because the Buddha would not get very angry. So the point of that example is that the Buddha would not angry, would not be angry at such a person. So we don’t know if this actually happened, but if it were to happen, this would be the Buddhist response. So I mean you should stop your son from biting you, but the point of this story is not that what the Buddha did, it’s what he didn’t do.

If this were to happen, he wouldn’t become angry. This quotation from Dharmakīrti, it’s saying this is what he would not do if this situation arose. It doesn’t say what he would do. He would not become angry.