Question: Rinpoche, having compassion is very important, but when we translate having compassion into action, for many of us it means being nice to people. Is there such a thing as a wrathful aspect of compassion?
Rinpoche: You have to buy wrathful compassion from a supermarket. I’m joking.
In regard to karma, or action, there are two aspects to consider. First of all, karma is defined as intention. Intention is an omnipresent mental factor that arises at the same time as the principal consciousness; it accompanies the principal consciousness.
Generally speaking, there are six principal consciousnesses. The Mind Only school talks about a seventh and eighth consciousness, but six consciousnesses are generally mentioned. Besides this, there are fifty-one mental factors. The mind is a colorless, shapeless, formless phenomenon; the body has form, has color and shape. The body and the mind is the basis to be labeled I.
There are five omnipresent mental factors that always accompany the principal consciousness. For example, while consciousness simply sees the aspect of an object, remembrance, intention, recognition, and the other mental factors then have particular functions in relation to that same object. Remembrance performs the function of not forgetting, or remembering, the object. Because the mental factors have different functions, they are labeled different names as they focus on the same object of consciousness.
The five omnipresent mental factors that always accompany the consciousness have five similarities to the principal consciousness. They focus on a similar object. They have a similar sense basis. They have a similar time. This means that the consciousness and these five accompanying mental factors all arise together, exist together, and then stop together. They have a similar aspect. This means that when the principal consciousness focuses on the color blue, the accompanying mental aspects are also mental factors of the color blue. And they are also similar in nature, or substance. If the consciousness is of the desire realm, the omnipresent mental factors, which exist together with the consciousness, are also of the desire realm. So, the five omnipresent mental factors are similar in five ways to the principal consciousness.
Intention is one of the five omnipresent mental factors. Intention, which always accompanies the consciousness, is the definition of karma. It can be said that intention arises from the principal consciousness, but the full explanation is that it is an omnipresent mental factor that always accompanies the principal consciousness. This is the definition of karma.
Karma is the mental factor of intention. Our own karma is our own mind, the mental factor of intention. Karma, or intention, arises from the principal consciousness. Briefly, there are two types of karma, or action: the action of the mind, the intention, and the intended action. When we perform an action, there are two motivations: the causal motivation and the motivation of time. First of all, the action of the mind, the intention, is the causal motivation, the motivation we have before we do an action. Every day before we go to work, we have a motivation for doing our job. If we are doing our work for the happiness of this life, which is worldly concern, this is a nonvirtuous motivation. If we are doing our job with the motivation to obtain the happiness of future lives, this is a virtuous motivation; this is Dharma. If our motivation for doing our work is to achieve liberation for the self, this is a more virtuous motivation. And the purest motivation is to do our work to achieve enlightenment, great liberation, for the sake of sentient beings. That is the purest motivation because it is unstained by the selfish mind.
The causal motivation comes before we act and is the purpose for acting. From the causal motivations that are positive and beneficial, the best one is the motivation to achieve enlightenment for the sake of sentient beings and thus be able to perfectly guide sentient beings, freeing them from all their suffering and its causes and leading them to full enlightenment. A less positive motivation is one to achieve liberation for the self. And a less virtuous causal motivation than that is one to achieve the happiness of one’s own future lives.
The other motivation, working only for your own happiness, is not a virtuous motivation. It is a causal motivation, but not a virtuous one. A motivation of attachment to this life is nonvirtuous, and since any work done with this motivation is nonvirtuous, it results in only suffering. As far as rebirth, the ripening aspect result, it brings rebirth in the hell, hungry ghost, or animal realms. Besides that, it results in other problems.
Before you do an action, you have some reason for doing it, and that reason is the causal motivation. That is the intention, the action of the mind. The motivation of the time is the one that is there while you are doing the intended action.
In the case of wrathful actions, when peaceful methods don’t help other people to stop their negative thoughts and actions, and they are continuously harming other sentient beings and thus continuously harming themselves, creating the cause of problems for themselves, you then use wrathful actions of your body, speech, and mind, because it is the only way to benefit those people, to stop their negative thoughts and actions and bring them peace of mind. But in the depths of your heart, your original motivation is compassion. Your causal motivation, your motivation before acting, is purely compassion. Your intention is purely to guide those people away from problems and the causes of problems. While you are acting, you show a wrathful aspect, since that is the only method with which you can benefit them. You could also have a wrathful mind, but this wrath is not the same as your usual anger, which does not involve any benefit at all to sentient beings. What is the nature of anger? Anger is the intention to hurt another sentient being. Usually in our daily life, when we get angry, our intention is purely to hurt the other being; we have no thought at all to benefit them.
In this case, in front there’s a wrathful mind involved in the action, but in the back there’s the thought to benefit that sentient being. So, even though there is a wrathful mind while you are acting, since your original motivation is one of compassion, the result of your action is great benefit in the long run. Even though there is some hurt now, the result is long-term benefit. The main result is great benefit.
When tantric practitioners, or yogis, work for sentient beings, they use wrathful actions of body, speech, and mind when peaceful means don’t benefit and only wrathful actions can. They act in a wrathful way, but behind this is great compassion, cherishing that evil, suffering sentient being much more than they cherish themselves. The motivation behind their action is renouncing the self completely and cherishing only that other sentient being. The causal motivation is great compassion.
Of course, you need wisdom to know whether to use a peaceful or a wrathful method. A good heart is the most important thing, but the other thing we need is the wisdom to be able to discriminate what type of action can benefit a particular sentient being.
Question: From what you have said, wisdom is very important if we want to use wrathful means, but I think wisdom is an element that we lack at the moment. Does this mean that it’s safer for us to stick to peaceful means and not use wrathful ones? We need wisdom, but how do we know whether we have the wisdom to use wrathful means and whether we are using them with wisdom?
Rinpoche: That is not easy. Sometimes it’s easy to judge that we can benefit more with wrathful methods, but in other cases it may not be easy.
One point is that you need clairvoyance. Generally speaking, to help other sentient beings, you have to understand the minds of others and the various methods needed to guide them. For that, you need clairvoyance. As Lama Atisha mentions in the lamrim teaching, The Lamp for the Path to Enlightenment, you need to achieve clairvoyance to work for other sentient beings. You especially need the reliable clairvoyance that is achieved from shamatha, or tranquil abiding, meditation, which involves the completion of nine stages. You can also achieve clairvoyance through the Highest Yoga Tantra path. Achieving clairvoyance is not the main aim of practicing the path—it happens incidentally. Such things gradually develop when you practice the second stage, the completion stage, of Highest Yoga Tantra. Reliable clairvoyance is a byproduct of those meditations. We need to become enlightened because we then have omniscient mind, which can see all past, present, and future existence. When we are enlightened, we are able to see everyone’s mind and karma, as well as all the methods to guide them.
Even arhats, who are free from all suffering and its causes, karma and delusions, cannot perfectly guide sentient beings. They can still make mistakes because they cannot see the subtle karma of other sentient beings. Arhats cannot see the secret actions of a buddha nor the subtle karma of sentient beings. They cannot see things that happened an incredible length of time ago or at an incredible distance. Arhats have removed all their karma and delusions, and even the seeds of them, but they still have subtle imprints left by the disturbing thoughts. That subtle imprint is the cause of the four unknowing minds. Arhats have incredible qualities, qualities as infinite as space. They have psychic powers, clairvoyance, and miraculous powers, such as the ability to make huge mountains as small as atoms, but they don’t have omniscient mind because of the subtle imprint left by the delusions. Therefore, they still cannot perfectly guide sentient beings.
A tenth-bhumi bodhisattva, the highest bodhisattva, is close to achieving enlightenment, or omniscient mind. They have no gross obscurations, no disturbing-thought obscurations, but they are still removing the subtle obscurations. Since a tenth-bhumi bodhisattvas still has subtle imprints left by delusions, even they cannot perfectly guide sentient beings. Since they still have faults, they can make mistakes.
The whole point of practicing Dharma, of meditating on the path and transforming our mind into the path, is to achieve omniscient mind so that we can perfectly guide all sentient beings, freeing them from suffering and leading them to enlightenment. It is for that reason we are doing many forms of practice to purify negative karma and to accumulate merit. That is why we recite mantras, meditate on deities, do prostrations, practice the seven limbs, make offerings to the Triple Gem, practice morality, charity, patience, and the rest of the six paramitas, and do all the other practices.
To be able to perfectly benefit other sentient beings, without any mistakes at all, we have to complete training our mind in wisdom and in loving kindness, compassion, and bodhicitta, the ultimate good heart. We can develop this capacity only by practicing Dharma, only by meditating on and actualizing the path.
For example, even if you have the wisdom to know that only a wrathful action can benefit someone, if you don’t have a good heart, you cannot transform that wrathful action into virtue. Without a good heart, your action becomes nonvirtuous, and it then becomes dangerous to you yourself. It becomes an obstacle to you. Instead of benefiting, it harms.
To accomplish great benefit for sentient beings we need to develop both compassion and wisdom, but the first, most important thing is to develop compassion, which transforms our actions into virtue. The second thing is to develop wisdom. Completing the training of our mind in compassion and wisdom comes only from Dharma practice. There’s no other way.
The more realizations of the path we achieve, particularly of the Great Vehicle path, the more compassion and wisdom we develop. Our compassion and wisdom have to developed year by year, life by life, to be able to bring more and more benefit to other sentient beings. It is something that requires a lot of patience.
Question: What is the relationship between the mind, or consciousness, and buddha nature?
Rinpoche: When we think about the mind, or consciousness, it looks as if there is a real mind, a real consciousness, existing from its own side. It looks as if there is an unlabeled mind, an unlabeled consciousness. However, that mind, or consciousness, from its own side doesn’t exist at all. First of all, the mind that normally appears to us and that we normally apprehend doesn’t exist at all. Not even the slightest atom of that mind exists.
Now, what is the consciousness? It is the phenomenon that is formless, colorless, shapeless, is clear in nature, and performs the function of perceiving objects. Because such a phenomenon exists, it is believed that there is a mind. Because of the existence of this particular phenomenon, it is believed that there is a mind. When this phenomenon meditates on the path, on loving kindness, compassion, patience, and so forth, it is believed that the mind is meditating.
The consciousness of the eye, in dependence upon the sense base of the eye, focuses on just the form aspect of an object; it perceives just the aspect of form. So, the phenomenon that perceives just the aspect of the form of an object is called “the consciousness of the eye.”
It is because of the consciousness that today we can remember what we saw yesterday, and we can remember what happened last year or in past lives, and we can see the future. The consciousness that carries the imprints left by karma and continues from life to life is the consciousness of the mind. Because such a phenomenon exists, it is believed, or merely imputed, that there is a consciousness of the mind. It is believed that the consciousness of the mind carries imprints and continues from life to life.
Mind is merely imputed in dependence upon the existence of the shapeless, formless, colorless phenomenon that is clear in nature and able to perceive objects. In dependence upon this particular phenomenon, mind is merely imputed. Mind is just a concept; it’s merely imputed. The way the mind exists is being merely imputed by the mind in dependence upon this particular phenomenon. Therefore, when we hear about the mind or think about the mind, we are labeling “mind.” At that time our mind is labeling that particular phenomenon, “mind,” and we then believe that there is a mind.
Therefore, there is no unlabeled mind; there is no mind existing from its own side at all. That is completely empty. A real mind, an unlabeled mind existing from its own side, is completely empty. So, that is one meaning, the real meaning, of the clear light nature of the mind. That is the absolute, or ultimate, nature of the mind. This clear light, the ultimate nature of the mind, is buddha nature.
By developing the wisdom that realizes buddha nature, the ultimate nature of the mind, we are then able to completely cease our obscurations, both the disturbing-thought obscurations and the subtle obscurations. The subtle obscurations definitely have to be ceased with the skillful means, or method, of the Great Vehicle, bodhicitta, and with wisdom. When, by developing wisdom possessed by the skillful means of bodhicitta, you are able to cease even the subtle obscurations, the continuation of this consciousness then becomes omniscient mind. The omniscient mind, or full enlightenment, means cessation of all the faults of the mind and completion of all the realizations. At that time the continuation of consciousness becomes the actual holy mind of a buddha, an enlightened mind, the Bodhimind, the dharmakaya.
The wisdom realizing the emptiness, or ultimate nature, of the mind, this buddha nature, then carries you to enlightenment. It makes you go beyond the obscurations, beyond samsara, to enlightenment.
Also, in emptiness there is no my mind and Buddha’s mind; there’s no emptiness of my mind and emptiness of Buddha’s mind. In emptiness, there is no this and that. Everything is of the same taste.
Having buddha nature is what makes it possible to achieve enlightenment. Because the mind is a dependent arising, dependent on cause and conditions, because mind exists in dependence upon its base and the thought labeling it, mind is empty of existing from its own side. So, this is the ultimate nature of the mind, and this is buddha nature.
Question: How do we go about training our mind in wisdom?
Rinpoche: I would like to talk about one point. We call the leg and other pieces of the body “body,” but there is also a body in general. Body is the general name that we give to the head, the trunk, and the limbs. In dependence upon the group of all of them together, we label “body.” There is this general body.
The other point is that when we hurt our leg or have a headache, a stomach ache, or a toothache, we say, “My body is sick.” But it doesn’t mean our whole body, every single part of it, is sick. When we have a pain in our stomach, we label, “My body is sick.” We also label “body” on the parts of the body, as well as on the whole body in general.
In a similar way, when we talk about the body and the mind, we can talk about a general mind. We can label “mind” on the six consciousnesses and the fifty-one mental factors as a whole, but we can also label “mind” in dependence upon particular things, such as renunciation, wisdom, remembrance, and compassion.
Now, the formless, colorless, shapeless phenomenon that is clear in nature and is able to perceive objects is not the mind. Why isn’t this the mind? Because it is the base to be labeled “mind.” The base that you label and the label have to be different; those two cannot be one. There is no way that those two can be one. The base and the label “mind” are not one.
We should analyze our perception of the mind. What makes us to decide upon the name “mind”? What makes us make up the label “mind”? We focus first on this particular formless phenomenon that is clear in nature and can perceive objects. After first focusing on this, we then decide upon the name “mind.”
At times this formless phenomenon, which is not the body, experiences happiness; it experiences a pleasant or satisfied state. First of all we think of the nature of this phenomenon, then we make up the label, “My mind is happy.” At other times this formless phenomenon is depressed or upset. We first focus on the nature of this phenomenon, then we make up the label, “My mind is unhappy.”
What makes us decide upon these labels? There has to be a reason. Before you apply any label, there has to be a reason that causes you to make up a particular label. The reason is the base. It is because you first see the base. In dependence upon the kind of base you first see, you then make up a label. You first see the base, and the label comes second. Since the label comes afterwards, the base is never the label. The formless phenomenon that is clear in nature and able to perceive objects is not the label “mind.”
It is the same with particular mental phenomena, such as anger, attachment, compassion, and so forth. We first see the nature, or characteristics, of this phenomenon called “anger.” After that, we then label, “My mind is angry.” When we are experiencing attachment, finding it difficult to separate from an object, after seeing this particular phenomenon and recognizing it, we then label, “My mind is attached.” We label “mind” in dependence upon its base, and then apply the label “attached” to its particular function. And it is the same with compassion and so forth.
The base comes first, and the label then comes later. Therefore, the base is not the label. The base is not one with the label, because in that case they would come together. The point to understand is that even though the base is not the label “mind,” it doesn’t mean that the mind doesn’t exist. Mind exists. The base is not the mind, and on this base there is no mind, but it doesn’t mean that the mind doesn’t exist. Mind exists. What is the reason that the mind exists? It is simply that this formless phenomenon that is clear in nature and able to perceive objects exists. It is simply because of that. And it is the same with anger, attachment, compassion, wisdom, and all the other specific minds.
Now, there’s no mind on that formless phenomenon that is clear in nature and able to perceive objects, but there is a mind. There is a mind abiding with this body, because this body is abiding with the base of mind. That phenomenon, the base of mind, is in this body; therefore, there is a mind in this body. But there is no mind on that base, on that phenomenon. Mind is nothing other than what is merely imputed in dependence upon this phenomenon that is clear in nature and able to perceive objects. In dependence upon that, mind is merely imputed by the mind. That’s all it is. Mind exists; there is a mind. But it is nothing other than what is merely imputed. There is no mind other than that. There is no mind other than what is merely imputed by the mind in dependence upon that base.
So, what is the mind? There is no such thing as a real mind existing from its own side. The way the mind exists is extremely subtle.
It is the same with the I. The group of the aggregates, the association of body and mind, is not the I, and there is no I on this at all. But this doesn’t mean that there is no I at all. There is an I. There is an I because I experience happiness, I experience suffering, I can create the cause of happiness, I can stop the cause of suffering, I can give harm, I can help, I experience samsara, and the continuation of the I that experiences samsara can achieve liberation and enlightenment.
This group of five aggregates, this association of body and mind, is not the I. If this association of body and mind is not the I, then what is the I ? It becomes extremely subtle, extremely fine. It is nothing other than what is merely imputed by the mind. The I is merely labeled by the mind. Other than that, there is no I, no self. The I that appears to us and in which we believe is a hallucination. Any I that we apprehend other than that is a hallucination; it doesn’t exist in reality.
Any I other than that would have to be an independent I. Concentrate on what would happen if the I were independent. When we are asked what we are doing, we reply “I am listening to a teaching” or “I am talking” or “I am sitting.” We label “I am sitting” for no other reason at all except that the aggregates, the body, is sitting. In dependence upon that, we merely impute “I am sitting.” In dependence upon the aggregates engaging in speech, we merely impute “I am talking.” In dependence upon the mind listening, we merely impute “I am listening.”
It is just believed “I am sitting,” because the body is sitting. Because the body is talking, it is believed “I am talking.” As the mind is listening or meditating, it is believed “I am listening” or “I am meditating.” So, “I am sitting,” “I am talking,” and “I am listening” are dependent arisings. They are merely imputed. The I is merely imputed in dependence upon the existence of the aggregates, and the functions of the I are merely imputed in dependence upon the functions of the aggregates, upon what the body and mind do.
Therefore, the I is dependent. The I is a dependent arising, dependent upon the aggregates and the mind that labels. The I exists in dependence upon those two, the base and the mind that labels. So, the I is a dependent arising. In the same way, the actions of the I—listening, meditating, talking, sitting—are also dependent arisings, dependent upon the actions that the body and mind do.
If the I were independent, unlabeled, and not merely imputed by the mind, it would mean that the I would have an existence from its own side. In that case, we are now sitting, but when we stood up, at that time the I would still be sitting. When the body is standing, the I would still be sitting in the same place. When the aggregates left this building and got in a car and when they were at home, the I would still be sitting here. When the body is eating lunch at home or in a restaurant, the I would still be sitting here listening to or explaining the teaching. If the I were independent, this is what would happen. When these aggregates were in America, India, Tibet, or some other country, the I would still be here in this room in Singapore doing the actions of sitting and listening to teachings or meditating in this room. This mistake arises if the I is independent, if the I exists without depending on the aggregates and the mind labeling.
So, this is not our experience. Our experience is that when we stand up, the I that is sitting doesn’t exist at that time; it is stopped. When the aggregates stand up, we then label “I am standing up,” and at that time the I that is sitting doesn’t exist.
What the I does is labeled according to what the aggregates do. Since the I is merely imputed in dependence upon the aggregates and the actions that they do, the I is dependent, the opposite of independent.
So, what is the I? It’s extremely subtle, extremely fine, almost as if it doesn’t exist. For the whole of our life, for twenty-four hours every day, we talk or think about the I, and we are concerned that something will happen to it. Now, if we really analyze what the I is, it is not nonexistent, but it is as if it were nonexistent. It’s so subtle, so fine, that it’s as if it doesn’t exist. It is not that it doesn’t exist; it exists, but it’s extremely subtle. The I is never the way we normally think of it. The I that exists, the I that experiences suffering and happiness, works, sits, walks, sleeps and can achieve enlightenment, is never the I that normally appears to us and that we believe in. It is never the I that we normally think it is. The reality is something else completely. It is extremely subtle.
It is the same with this table. I often use the example of a table, probably because it is the nearest object that I see in front of me....
The parts of the table are not the table, and even the whole group of the parts gathered together is not the table. It’s the base of the table; it’s the base to be labeled “table.” Even the whole group of the parts of the table is not the table because it is the base to be labeled “table.” The base is not the table. If the base were the table, we would have no reason to label “table” on the table. If we were to label “table” on something that already is table, the process would be unending.
If we call a child Wang, if the aggregates of the child were already the label “Wang,” there would be no reason to label “Wang,” because what you are labeling is already Wang. There’s no reason to label “Wang” on Wang. In that case, you would then have to label “Wang” on top of that Wang and then label “Wang” on top of that Wang. The process would become endless—there would be numberless names.
This, recognizing the object to be refuted, is the first logical reasoning in the four-point analysis. The second point is that if anything exists, it has to exist either one with the aggregates or separate from the aggregates. It has to be pervaded by this reasoning. If the I is one with the aggregates, this is the first mistake that arises.
When we give the name “Wang” to a child, the base on which we label “Wang” is not Wang. It makes sense to give the name “Wang” to something that is not Wang. When we give a name, we give the name to something that is not that.
We label “table” in dependence upon this, which is not table. Table exists in dependence upon this, but there’s no table on this. You cannot find a table anywhere on this. Nothing of this is table, and even the whole group of the parts of the table are not table. When you search for it, you cannot find the table anywhere. If you were able to find the table, it would mean that the table is truly existent. Where is the table? Wherever you point to is a part of the table. So, there is no table on this, but that doesn’t mean that the table doesn’t exist. A table exists in this room. There’s no table on this, but there is a table in this room. The table exists in dependence upon this base. Simply because this base is here in this room, there is a table in this room. The only reason that there is table in this room is that the base of the table is here in this room. That’s all. Just because of that, it is believed that there is a table in this room. We label “table” and believe that there is a table in this room simply because its base is in this room.
The point is that the table is empty, completely empty of existing from its own side. That is the ultimate nature of the table. And the I is completely empty of existing from its own side. That is the ultimate nature of the I. And the mind is completely empty of existing from its own side. That is the ultimate nature of the mind.
The table, the I, and the mind that we talk and think about are never the way they appear to us. They are the complete opposite. What is the table? What is the I? What is the mind? When we really analyze, it is very subtle. It is empty of existing from its own side. It is not that it doesn’t exist, but what it is is extremely subtle. It is never what normally appears to our hallucinated, ignorant mind and what we apprehend, or believe. It is never that. It is something else.
Anything that appears to us as being other than merely imputed is a hallucination. This wrong concept, the concept of true existence, is what ties us to samsara. Apprehending things as real, concrete, truly existent, is what keeps us in suffering, in samsara. This is what creates samsara. And this is what we have to eliminate in order to achieve liberation and full enlightenment for sentient beings.
The reality is that, from morning until night, everything is empty. From birth until death, everything—happiness and suffering, good and bad—is empty. This is the reality. It is like this with everything, including enlightenment. Suffering, true cause of suffering, liberation, the path—everything is empty of existing from its own side. What exists, that which is merely imputed by the mind, is very subtle.
This concept of true existence, holding everything as real, or concrete, is the main suffering, and it’s what keeps us in suffering. All our problems come from there. All the karmas that create samsara are produced by this ignorance, the concept of true existence. Therefore, we need to develop wisdom. By ceasing the concept of true existence, we are able to cease karma and then cease all the delusions and all the sufferings. That is how we achieve ultimate liberation. By ceasing the subtle obscurations, we then achieve enlightenment.
I hope this morning’s discourse might help those who are not familiar with the subject of emptiness, or shunyata, to get just a small idea of how things exist, of how things are empty.
Please dedicate the merit to generate bodhicitta and to achieve enlightenment in order to lead all sentient beings to enlightenment as quickly as possible.
Tomorrow is the day for Guru Puja, so I thought we could do the puja a little shorter and still go over a little on karma.
Thank you so much.
