Attachment Controls Us

Today, the Dharma I will talk about is the Commentary on the Awakening Mind. The Commentary on the Awakening Mind is a text which presents the view of the ultimate awakening mind and the conventional awakening mind. So, for instance, using the method of exchanging and equalizing with others—on the basis of this technique—you generate the conventional mind. This is what’s presented in this text. In short, the two types of Bodhicitta are mainly presented. 

When we talk about the two types of Bodhicitta, how do they come about? It’s by way of practicing the path. On the basis of practicing, then these two minds can be generated. That being the case, when we talk about the basis, about the path, about the result—these three aspects of Buddhism—that’s like the framework of everything. And on the basis of that framework then if we practice the two truths, if we practice the two Bodhicittas, then we get a complete sense of Buddhism. 

If we just look at Bodhicitta itself, if we just kind of take it out of context, we don’t get a sense of everything. Therefore, in the Commentary on the Awakening Mind, it basically explains the two types of Bodhicitta. But it’s also important to understand the basis of Buddhism, and on the basis then what is the path? And then what is the result? We need to understand. So, in practicing the path, what is the result in terms of the two kayas that we can attain? We need to understand this. We need to have that kind of general understanding in order to really understand the two types of Bodhicitta. 

If we want to know the Dharma, we are different from those people who have no faith, who don’t want Dharma, who are not interested in any spiritual system. We are those who are religious. We are interested in the Dharma, and on that basis, as such a person interested in the Dharma, we should have an interest in what is the Dharma. What is it that we want to practice? What is the exact Dharma? So, we need to study; we need to reflect and meditate on the Dharma.

Why are we practicing?

What is that Dharma? What is it exactly? What is it that we need to practice? That’s important to understand, and that needs to become clear to us. Why are we practicing? That’s also something we need to understand. Now, when we talk about the Buddhadharma, where does the Dharma come from? Well, it’s based on the fact that we want happiness, and we don’t want to suffer. That’s why the Dharma came into existence. And it’s true that we don’t want to suffer and that we want to find happiness; we want to find satisfaction. That is true for all sentient beings. Any kind of living being, such as an animal—any being that has a mind—shares this. We all share this fact that we wish to be happy, and we don’t want to suffer. 

On top of having this wish, we also try everything we can to eliminate suffering, to overcome problems. Up until now, we’ve been doing this. However, up to this point, we’ve not been able to find this happiness. We didn’t find this lasting happiness, this real happiness. It hasn’t happened so far, has it? That being the case, with regard to the methods for generating happiness, either the methods we’ve applied so far have been mistaken or the methods we’ve applied so far have not been complete. These are the only possibilities. Because so far, until this point, we’ve not been able to generate this lasting happiness and overcome suffering. 

So, we need a method. It’s important to have a correct kind of method that doesn’t lack in anything. For many, many millions of years, we’ve experienced this predicament of just having problems and so forth, which is why it’s now the time to make some changes. And when we talk about happiness as living beings, what is the kind of happiness? What is this happiness? We have this natural question: what is this happiness? Is our happiness sufficient? The kind of happiness that we do experience, is that sufficient? 

The importance of subduing our mind

For us as humans, this question arises sooner or later. And that being the case, what did the Buddha say? “Happiness can only come if we subdue our mind.” If we don’t subdue our mind then we’ll suffer; we’ll have problems. That’s what the Buddha himself has said. So, when we say happiness and suffering, what is the difference? Well, the difference is based on whether we subdue our mind or not. That’s what the Buddha has said. Therefore, what is the meaning of the main cause? Subduing or not subduing our mind is the main cause of happiness or suffering. This shows us that in terms of how we overcome suffering and find happiness, it’s very different from the ordinary way of how we look at removing suffering and generating happiness. 

For instance, in the Western countries in particular, you have a lot of gadgets. The technological progress is impressive. There have been so many developments. If we compare the modern world now to the past, there has been an incredible change. Also, education has really advanced, has progressed greatly. So, on the basis of the external conditions having improved so much, in terms of progress and development, especially when it comes to the different gadgets, technology and so forth, we can say that this is incredible what has happened in the West. 

Also, in terms of our educational advancement, in terms of all the abilities and all the possibilities we have, then the happiness of people should become stronger. For instance, our happiness should increase due to our scientific understanding and so forth. But actually, that’s not the case. It’s not like our suffering has really decreased. Despite this development, this material progress, our happiness has not become stronger. We haven’t really found lasting happiness and satisfaction. That being the case, we can see that the mental afflictions, the delusions, have not actually decreased as a result of the material progress. 

Our aversion, our attachment and so forth—none of those have really decreased. Our greed has become stronger. And also our faith in one another, our belief in one another, has decreased. There are more people who suffer from different illnesses. When it comes to our mind, our mind has not really advanced. Our mind has not really developed in a positive way. Despite this material progress, despite the incredible education people have in the West, that doesn’t mean that the afflictions have decreased. In fact, they’ve actually become stronger. We can probably say that they’ve increased; they’ve become stronger. So actually, our attitude has degenerated. Our views have degenerated with regard to certain aspects. 

In a lot of the modern, well-advanced countries, if we look at the relationship people have with one another, those have weakened. Those have degenerated in comparison to the past. A lot of people commit suicide nowadays in the modern world; they take their own lives. And we harm each other. There’s a lot of racism—being partial towards some—and so forth. In that way, there are a lot more social problems that have developed. So, it’s due to the kindness of the Buddha that we now know we need to subdue our mind. Unless we subdue our mind, we’ll have suffering. This is really the basis. 

That’s what we should think about—that happiness comes from subduing our mind. If we don’t subdue our mind, then no matter what the external circumstances are, no matter how advanced the material progress, no matter how strong and developed everything is, our problems as humans will continue. And our problems will not only remain, they will become stronger. If we look at modern society, it’ll become clear.

Afflictions cause problems for everyone

There are many different afflictions, such as aversion, attachment, ignorance, and so forth. There are all these different afflictions as they are described in the text—the root afflictions, the secondary afflictions. There are so many different types that are described. The stronger they are in our mental continuum, the more our mind will be disrupted. The stronger they are in a sentient being’s continuum, the stronger the confusion of that person, the unhappiness of that being. When our mind is confused, when our mind is disrupted and disturbed, then also the people we live with will be affected by that. The society we live in will be affected by our own disturbed mind. 

To summarize, we will experience loss; others will experience loss. We will be harmed; others will be harmed. That’s reality. That’s how things really are. So, even if the scientific progress is not great, if our education is not that great, as long as we subdue our mind, we’ll experience inner peace. And not only will we be more happy ourselves, but also beings around us, the other people we engage with, will also be happier. We will benefit society, which means that subduing and not subduing the mind—leading to happiness or leading to suffering—if we think about it, is actually really profound. Not only is it profound, but also if we understand this, it will really benefit us. 

On top of that, what is it that’s responsible for our mind being unsubdued? It’s the afflictions. And what does it mean to have a subdued mind? Well, it means to reduce the afflictions and instead generate love, compassion, wisdom, concentration, the attitude that wishes to benefit others and so forth. If these types of minds are increased, then our disturbed mind will be pacified. Our unsubdued mind will transform into a subdued mind. It will transform into a correct mind, a mind that is in accordance with reality. The stronger our wisdom, the stronger, the wider, our attitude is. We’ll be able to think of everything. We take on a different perspective that takes in all aspects, one that is not narrow-minded. 

Widening our view

This is actually in contradiction to society. There are so many problems in our society, so many conflicts. Usually the problem is that we only think of our own kind of concern, our own situation; that’s the problem. We’re so narrow-minded that we don’t see the whole situation. In the Lamrim Chenmo, for instance, when talking about the perfection of wisdom, and in the Great Treatise on the Stages of the Path of Enlightenment, when talking about the six paramitas, especially about the quality of wisdom, Lama Tsongkhapa says that we can see all virtues as non-contradictory. 

Also, we come to realize that our society is such that we contradict each other all the time, that we only see our own kind of situation and so forth. Even within one day or even within two days, we see lots of contradictions. We act in a contradictory way. For one day, we feel this way, and on another day we act in a different way. There are so many contradictions in our life, in our thoughts, in our attitudes. So, even if the situation makes sense in actuality, even if there is no contradiction in reality, we still have a lot of contradictory views. 

For instance, when we speak to a person today and then again tomorrow, it’s not the same person because the person has changed. The person changes from day-to-day. Therefore, when we talked to a person yesterday, that same person is changing. If we talk to them today, they’re different. But we don’t really realize that kind of change. We think, for instance, “Oh, yesterday they said such and such, and today they said something else.” We feel like this person has been lying, because they’re different from day-to-day. But that is not surprising, because people do change. So, we don’t really think of the person itself. We just think of the words and think, “Oh, these two are contradictory.” Our way of thinking is too narrow-minded. In actuality, there is no contradiction. The person who spoke these words is not the same person. The situation has changed for them. Therefore, it’s important, as part of generating our wisdom, to see that things are not contradictory, to understand that in reality there is no contradiction. 

We can think of this when it comes to the way phenomena exist. So actually, when we talk about God or no God, a creator God or not a creator God, actually, it’s contradictory when we hear about this. When we think about these words “Is there a creator or is there no creator,” some people will say there is a creator God and others will say there is no creator.  Actually, there’s no contradiction. The person who says there is no creator, they have the sense of “Okay, I have to take responsibility for my well-being, for my suffering. So, if I’m sick, I have to go to the doctor. There’s no God who helps me.” The person who doesn’t accept this creator God really has to work hard. But even a person who believes in a creator God still also has to take care of themselves. Because there’s no God that is obviously helping them—in the sense that they still have to go to the doctor. So, there’s not that much of a difference. 

Or for instance, if you have a person who plants a seed, whether there’s a God or not, a farmer still has to plant the seed, so the action doesn’t really change. It’s not like God comes down and plants the seeds and takes care of the garden. So, in the end, our actions don’t really change. A person who also believes in a creator God, they’re not saying that God will actually do the farm work, etc. We still need to do everything ourselves, basically. We need to plant the seed, etc. So, they don’t say that God will come down and do everything. 

They think, for instance, “If I need to build a house, I need someone like an architect, or I need someone who can help me to build the house.” And then the world basically is our home. It’s like our house, or it’s our home. The world is actually that place. We get food from this world. We get drinks. We get everything we need from this world. So, actually, when we think about this environment—for instance, the trees and the mountains and so forth—it’s much greater than what humans can make. So, they have this sense that there needs to be someone who’s created this world. That’s the idea. 

That’s why a lot of people believe in a creator God. Because it’s like thinking, “Well, unless someone built my house, I wouldn’t have a house.” Likewise, unless someone has designed this world, I couldn’t have this world. That’s kind of the basis for the belief in a creator God. That’s basically the logic. So, for example, with the sun and the moon, it seems like some being put them there. It’s just like how we have a light in a house, just like how someone installed the electrics in the house. Likewise, someone must have installed the sun and the moon. And also, the distance between the sun and the earth are just right; they’re not too close and not too far away. So, there must have been an intelligence that basically created our environment, our world. On that basis, people come to the conclusion that there must be a God. In that sense, we can understand why this view arises. There is some logic behind it. There’s some reason behind it. So, it’s not that contradictory.  

When we generate more wisdom and we have more wisdom, then we see the situation much better; we more clearly understand everything else around us. This narrow mindedness that we usually adopt, that confuses our mind and so forth, will decrease. Therefore, if we can subdue our mind then wisdom, patience, love, compassion—all these positive states of mind—can arise. If, on the other hand, our mind is not subdued, that means afflictions control us. And when the afflictions control us then we cannot really be peaceful. There’s an immediate effect when the afflictions arise.

Letting go of attachment

What the Buddha says is really profound. Taking rebirth, for instance, comes due to attachment and desire, craving, etc. They are responsible for our birth. And on the basis of our birth then there is aging, sickness and death. So, once we have this body, there’s nothing we can do. The sufferings of aging, sickness and death will arise. Once there’s birth, all the other sufferings arise. Also, when we get sick, we have the suffering of sickness. Think of just the suffering that comes with having a body: we have the suffering of getting hungry; we have the suffering of getting cold; we have the suffering of getting dirty and so forth. This is just natural to having this body. Once we have this body then this will definitely happen. All the different problems of being cold, of suffering from hunger, etc.—all of these arise just because we have this body. 

This is the basis that is responsible for all these problems of aging, etc. And aging is so difficult. This is just an example. All these sufferings only arise because we have this particular body. We have to eat. We have to wear clothes. We need a house. We need a place we can stay. We need so much because of everything our body needs and all the sufferings that could arise dependent on our body. That’s why we have so many problems, why we have to work so hard. Then, of course, we also have family, we have relatives, etc. On the basis of that, a lot of problems arise. 

And, of course, we have this mind that is affected by the afflictions—a mind that is envious, a mind that is greedy, and so forth. Due to having this body, having this mind, there are so many problems. From the moment we were born there were afflictions, and because of the afflictions there are so many problems in our life. The body comes because of our attachment; it comes from our desire. Actually, the fact that we were conceived is because of desire—our parents having had desire, us having had desire when we died in our previous life, and so forth. So, desire was very much involved in our process of coming into existence. Therefore, it’s important to remove these afflictions, to stop these afflictions. It’s important to stop the anger, to stop the attachment, to stop ignorance and so forth. If we can eliminate this kind of uncontrolled situation then we won’t take a rebirth again. If we don’t have attachment, we won’t be reborn. So, not appropriating a new existence is what it means to be liberated. Liberation really means that there’s no longer any attachment that is now responsible for us to be reborn. That is liberation. 

Basically, if we don’t take anything as mine then we would just think of it like “This is others’. This body and this mind is not mine.” If we don’t have that attitude that “This is mine,” then we can let go, and we’d be liberated. If we understand that taking a body like this only leads to problems then the situation is different. But right now, we don’t have this freedom to say, “I don’t want to take on a body.” We have attachment, and therefore, there’s no way we can actually overcome this situation right now. We cannot be without a body. So, it’s our own attachment that binds us to this body. Whatever we see, if it benefits us then there’s attachment. If it doesn’t benefit us then there’s attachment to be separated from it. In that sense, our mind always gets stuck to these objects of attachment. Our mind is basically immersed in these objects. And based on the objects of our attachment we continue to exist in samsara. 

That being the case, to overcome attachment, we have to overcome our grasping at a self. If we understand that “If I’m attached to this, all these problems arise,” then based on overcoming self-grasping and so forth, we can actually overcome attachment and attain this freedom, which is freedom from attachment—that state of liberation. In the text, it says that liberation is this non-appropriating. Appropriating means appropriating a body, appropriating certain things, getting attached to certain things. So, to not appropriate means liberation. 

Once we’ve appropriated—so taking on a body, taking on objects and things and so forth—then there’s no limit. Of course, once we take on things anyway, we have to leave them behind at some point as well. Therefore, when we say subduing the mind, well, that’s what it means. It means that we get happiness. We find happiness. It comes from subduing the mind, subduing the afflictions, and then subduing attachment, which leads to liberation. That’s what the Buddha explained in terms of subduing and not subduing the mind. And this is very profound if you think about it. 

Looking at our present situation, if we can reduce our self-grasping and our attachment, the weaker our attachment is then to that degree our happiness will be greater. The Kadampa Geshes say that if we have no attachment then that’s kind of the final state—in the sense of being the greatest happiness we can experience. It’s important to think about this again and again. If we don’t have this attachment then in our mind there will be more freedom. But there’ll be natural mental freedom based on understanding reality, based on the mind. So, if we really understand how things actually exist, based on our reduced attachment, our understanding of reality will increase. And if we understand reality better then there’ll be a natural increase in our well-being, in our happiness. 

Usually, when we have strong attachment then we’re basically just controlled by all our wishes: “I want this. I need this. I can’t. I don’t want this, etc.” When there’s strong attachment then there’s a lot of greed, and there’s a lot of need. There’s a lot of attachment in the sense that there’s no end to it. If we have a lot of attachment, the attachment will just get stronger. Even if we get the objects of our attachment, there’ll be new objects that we desire. So, there’s no end to it. It’s not like if I get my object of attachment, I’ll think, “Okay, now I’m satisfied. I got what I wanted.” There’s no satisfaction; there’s no contentment. “I’m okay. I got what I wanted”: that’s unfortunately not going to happen when we have attachment. There’s no end. 

If I have desire, and I was able to fulfill my desire today, tomorrow my desire will be stronger. There’s no limit to the objects of attachment—what we attach to, what we desire. In history, for instance, it talks about Kings who were very greedy. So, in history, very greedy kings got what they wanted. Were they satisfied the next day? No, they never were; they were never satisfied. History tells us that. Therefore, it’s important to reduce our attachment, our desire. 

It’s important to reduce it because that’s the only way to find that satisfaction. So, if we analyze this, it will lead to greater happiness. And only we can do that. Actually, it’s not that we control our attachment, but that our attachment controls us. We have very natural attachment, but it’s important that even though we have this natural attachment right now, we apply our wisdom when we become aware of our attachment. When attachment arises in our mind then we have to apply wisdom. Should we be controlled by this attachment? Or should we control our attachment? We can make that decision. Sometimes we want something really badly, and we don’t get it, and we’re really unhappy because we didn’t get it. We need to think about this. Is the solution to get the object, or is it more about working with our own attachment?

Selflessness in the text

This is kind of the basis in terms of reducing an affliction, subduing our mind. When we talk about subduing our mind, there are two ways to do so. There is one way to subdue our mind on the basis of wisdom, and then there’s another way of subduing our mind based on faith, based on aspiration. There’s one way of applying wisdom, and the other way is based on faith. And wouldn’t that be nice? It’s based on aspiration, on that kind of faith that believes it’s important. So, on that basis, we can also subdue the mind. But actually, it takes both of these two ways of doing it. 

There is a difference between just believing that subduing the mind is good versus really understanding it. Of course understanding it is more efficient; it’s much more effective. For instance, self-grasping is always with us. We always have a sense of “I will do this. This year we’ll do this. Next year we’ll do that.” We’re always concerned; we’re always grasping onto a self. The self-grasping mind is ever-present. It’s always with us. So, now we analyze the object. Is our view correct or not? If we analyze that which we desire, will it really give us happiness? When we reflect upon the impermanence of the object—ourselves and so forth—and we apply wisdom in such a way, then we come to understand that everything is actually impermanent, that nothing remains the same. 

So, on that basis of understanding impermanence, that can actually help us to weaken our self-grasping. This is similar to when we switch on the light: darkness will disappear. Likewise, if we are able to apply wisdom, that will serve as an antidote. For instance, If we apply analysis to attachment, we question, “Based on that attachment, will I find satisfaction if I get the object of attachment and so forth?” If we really reflect upon that, it can serve as a powerful antidote to reducing attachment. It can reduce our affliction.

Wisdom—understanding how phenomena really exist—is so important. This analysis is so precious in the sense that it gives us a very wide view and helps us to understand how the self exists and so forth. Usually, we’re very much obsessed with the self, with self-grasping and so forth. But actually, when we talk about wisdom—in particular the wisdom realizing selflessness—there’s no greater wisdom. To understand selflessness, we need wisdom: the different reasonings, the different aspects that describe that. All that is very important. 

Even today, when we talk about the Commentary on the Awakening Mind, it’s also important to understand selflessness. Selflessness is also explained in this text. In the beginning, it talks about selflessness. It talks about the fact that all sentient beings wish to overcome suffering, and that which overcomes suffering is the overcoming of attachment. We have to overcome attachment, and we can overcome attachment. Buddha himself has said this, so we have to overcome our attachment. That can only be done when we generate wisdom. 

When we talk about the non-Buddhists, for instance, even those who didn’t accept a creator God understood that our suffering comes from the afflictions, that the suffering we don’t want comes from attachment, etc. And even though many of them asserted a creator God, they also asserted that suffering comes from the afflictions. And they also understood it has to do with the self. Many of the non-Buddhist systems analyze, “What is the self?” Because if there’s no self, then there’s no one who experiences happiness and suffering. So, that’s the conclusion they came to. The Buddha himself and also those systems who don’t accept a creator God or the non-Buddhist systems, they very, very much held this view that the afflictions are the main problems. And then that our afflictions come from the self. All these systems understood that. 

The Buddha in particular talked about no self. In this Commentary on the Awakening Mind, we also talk about no self. In that sense, we refute the non-Buddhist systems that assert a self. For instance, a self-sufficient, substantially existent self or a permanent, partless independent self: all these selves are refuted. It also refutes that there is an external phenomenon that exists by way of its own character of like phenomena—external atoms and so forth that exists by way of their own character. They’re also refuted. For instance, the Cittamatra school talks about there not being any external phenomena, but that the mind exists truly. In the Madhyamaka system, that is also refuted. There’s no truly existent self or anything that exists truly. All that is refuted. All phenomena are equal in that they lack true existence. So, here’s selflessness. Selflessness is the main topic of the Commentary on the Awakening Mind. Selflessness as it’s described in the Madhyamaka school is what’s described here. And then at the end, it also talks about the conventional bodhicitta—how we generate bodhicitta on the basis of equalizing and exchanging self with others. So, anyway, this is just a short kind of summary of what to expect overall.

Overview of the text

Okay, I came from far away, and I didn’t even find a good copy of A Commentary on the Awakening Mind. A friend of mine sent me this commentary around five o’clock today. So, now I have a commentary, and based on that, I’m going to read this text now. I will explain this text as best as I can, and I’ll read through it first. You probably all have the text, the Commentary on the Awakening Mind. 

First, I will say a little bit about the different sections to kind of divide up the text a little bit, to give you a rough overview. At the beginning, it says:

Devoid of all real entities;
Utterly discarding all objects and subjects,
Such as aggregates, elements and sense-fields;
Due to sameness of selflessness of all phenomena,
One’s mind is primordially unborn;
It is in the nature of emptiness.

This is actually from the root Tantra of Guhyasamaja. The Guhyasamaja Tantra is basically the source text of the Commentary on the Awakening Mind. This text describes conventional and ultimate bodhicitta. There are some verses that describe the conventional bodhicitta and others that describe the ultimate bodhicitta. So, there are different kinds of quotes in here. 

What is the background on A Commentary on the Awakening Mind? Some attribute this text to Nagarjuna. Whether Nagarjuna really taught this text or not, it’s a very precious text. It’s a really great text. The text actually starts with bowing to the glorious Vajra holder. The first verse contains the homage and the promise to compose the text. So, these are really the words from Nagarjuna himself: bowing to the glorious Vajra holder who embodies the awakening mind. And then the second verse says:

The Buddhas maintain the awakening mind 
to be not obscured by such conceptions
As consciousness of “self,” “aggregates,” and so on;
It is always characterized by emptiness.

That describes the ultimate bodhicitta. That’s what ultimate bodhicitta is; that’s the entity of ultimate bodhicitta. That’s what the second verse describes. And the third verse:

It is with a mind moistened by compassion
That you must cultivate the awakening mind with effort.
The Buddhas who embody great compassion
Constantly develop this awakening mind.

This third verse seems to describe the conventional bodhicitta. (Translator: Rinpoche hasn’t looked at the commentary yet, but it seems that’s what it describes. Because the main subject matter of this text are the two types of bodhicitta, so this is almost like a summary.) 

So, for instance, The Ornament of Clear Realization describes 70 different topics. This is similar. In the beginning of the Ornament of Clear Realization, you find a kind of a summary of the different topics of the eight realizations that will be described in the text. Likewise, you have a summary at the beginning of this text. 

So, in the very beginning of the text, we had this quote coming from the Guhyasamaja Tantra, saying one’s mind is devoid of all real entities, and so forth. Then in verse four, the views by the extremists or the non-Buddhist philosophers, are refuted. That goes all the way up to verse 21. (Translator: In the original Sanskrit, the verses are always divided into four lines. But it seems that the version of the text that Yangten Rinpoche is using does not divide the verses up this way. So, it seems that something is missing in the sense that in one verse you have five lines, but in another verse you have three lines. So actually, it seems like maybe there’s something missing or something is a little bit odd. Rinpoche says he’s not sure whether there’s an omission or not.) 

Anyway, verses 10 to 21 describe the Svatantrika view and the Vaibhashika view, for instance, that assert external existence. In particular, it describes the Svatantrika view that talks about phenomena existing externally. You have the Svatantrika and Vaibhashika view that is refuted. So, this is now the Cittamatra view, and in order to refute the Cittamatra view it first has to be presented. Verses 10 to 21 present the Cittamatra view, which refutes the Vaibhashika and the Svatantrika that assert that phenomena exist externally. I just want to give you a rough overview of this text, but maybe I’m wrong about the specific verse numbers. I have to look at this text again, but I can always make adjustments later on. I’m just giving you a sense now that this is what I think the text means, but once I get more into it, I may have to make adjustments and tell you I was wrong. Anyway, verses 22 to 42 refute the Cittamatra school. The text has 112 verses total; this is a long text actually. 

And then from verse 43 the system of the Madhyamaka is presented. So, this is our own system that teaches that there is no inherent generation; there’s no inherent growing; there’s no inherent arising, etc. All this is explained. So, until the last line of 56 and the first line of 57, the two extremes here are overcome or are refuted. (Translator: The numbering is a little different in the text Rinpoche is using. I think it’s 58 in the version we have.) One speaks of emptiness and so forth, and so the two types of extremes are eliminated. Then verse 61 (Translator: or in our text 62), begins to look at how we are born in samsara, how we exist in samsara.

Then from 62 until 68 (Translator: Rinpoche says 67, but it’s a little different), it talks about karma, how karma works. And it describes the two truths. How do they exist? How do the two truths exist? That is explained. Are they of one nature? Are there different natures? That is also explained. Then line 70 answers the questions: How does samsara come into existence? How is liberation attained? So, these two aspects are explained—liberation and samsara. It discusses how these two come about but not just that. It’s also understanding that emptiness is the only way to overcome samsara. We can overcome samsara only if we understand emptiness. Without an understanding of emptiness, we won’t be able to overcome samsara. 

Then verse 71 (Translator: or 72 probably in our case) describes conventional bodhicitta. This is especially bodhicitta based on the technique of equalizing and exchanging self with others. It’s very clearly explained here. This goes from 74 until 85 (Translator: or maybe a little bit more in our case). Then from verse 87 onwards it talks about understanding that bodhicitta is so incredible. It’s amazing and so forth. It’s talking about how bodhicitta is so incredible. On the basis of the mind realizing selflessness, we can overcome the afflictions. But that doesn’t mean that a practitioner will overcome samsara. They will continue to be reborn in samsara for the benefit of sentient beings. And then in verse 89 it talks about bodhisattvas remaining in samsara for the benefit of sentient beings, and then also the reason for that is given. (Translator: Rinpoche says this goes until about verse 92) 

Once we generate bodhicitta, we aspire to Buddhahood. Actually, there are two types of goals. Of course there’s liberation and there’s Buddhahood, but is it a final vehicle or not? It’s actually not true that there are two final vehicles. This is what’s discussed in Verse 93. (Translator: The verse number is different in our case). In the verses that follow, they say that this is only interpretative—that there are two final vehicles. Because there’s only one final vehicle, actually. So, it’s important to understand that just overcoming the afflictions is not a final kind of goal. It’s not a final aim. There’s a different final aim, which is Buddhahood. That is explained in the following verses. 

Then verses in 96 (Translator: in Rinpoche’s copy of the text), Nagarjuna discusses why if there’s only one final vehicle, one final aim, that the Buddha talked about two aims. Nagarjuna gives the reason for why. Why did the Buddha also teach the vehicle of liberation? Why did he describe it as if it were a final vehicle, like a final goal? The reason is given. So, again, there’s just one final vehicle actually. There’s only one final goal, which is Buddhahood. But there was a reason why the Buddha taught another vehicle, and that’s described here. 

Around the end of verse 102 there’s an explanation about the fact that the bodhisattva aim is the real aim. That’s what we should be aiming for; that’s the final kind of vehicle that takes us to Buddhahood. This is described. On the basis of that, a practitioner reaches the state of non abidance: not abiding in samsara, not abiding in nirvana. It’s the state of Buddhahood. It also describes the incredible qualities of a bodhisattva. And then at the very end, you have a verse of dedication, and that’s the end of it. That’s the end of this particular text. So, this was just to give you an overview of the 112 verses. I may have made some mistakes in terms of the way I divided this text, but I can adjust that when I continue to teach. Is it a little bit clearer? I hope it’s not too much and that I didn’t confuse you. That was just a quick overview.

Explaining the homage

Now I will go through the text in detail. The Sanskrit title is Bodhicittavivarana, and then the Tibetan title is Byang Chub Sems Kyi ‘Grel Pa, or in English, A Commentary on the Awakening Mind. And then it says:

Homage to glorious Vajrasattva! 

So, what’s the root sutra or text here? The root text coming from the Buddha is a tantric text, a root tantra. It has a great connection to tantric literature, which is why here homage is paid to glorious Vajrasattva. If the source text of a particular treatise is a sutra then we pay homage, for instance, to the Buddha. We take refuge in the Buddha and so forth. But when the root text is based on tantra then we talk about Vajrasattva or Vajradhara. In this case, it’s Vajrasattva. 

In the Guhyasamaja Tantra, there’s a lot of explanation for the word “glorious.” What is the meaning of glorious? Excellent, it’s excellent. There are these different qualities of being excellent. (Translator: Rinpoche says here that Dorje Sempai translates it as Vajradhara.) What is Vajradhara? Here, Dorje or Vajra means this inseparability of method and wisdom, and also the inseparability of body and speech. This inseparability of the true truths—of the two bodies and so forth—that’s unique in the tantric system. The subtle clear light mind is in the nature of the body, and the body is in the nature of that mind. So, this inseparability is very unique to the tantric system—the body, speech and mind being inseparable. The clear light mind is the mind, and then the subtle winds on which the clear light mind rides, that is the body. Then the actual radiance or the actual sound of these two—the clear light mind and the subtle wind—that is the speech. So, body, speech and mind, in that case, they’re inseparable. And that is Vajradhara.

Bodhicitta and emptiness

It has been stated that the text begins with one’s mind being devoid of all real entities. So here, what is “entities”? When you say “entities,” it doesn’t mean the self. It refers to like substances. Usually it refers to things. It doesn’t really mean the self. However, in Sanskrit sometimes “entities” can also mean the self. It can refer to the self, based on the Sanskrit language: the nature of something, the self. 

What is this inseparability of body, speech and mind when it comes to the tantra? This is devoid of all real entities. Here, external phenomena, an external kind of self, is devoid of all real entities; it’s utterly discarding all objects and subjects. So, when we talk about the external existence, here it refutes the external existence. There’s no external, independent kind of existence—external existence, such as aggregates, elements and sense fields. This is based on the Cittamatra: the view that the subject and objects are not different substantial entities. It’s based on that view. So, because objects and subjects are not different substantial entities, therefore mind must be truly existent. But this Cittamatra view is also refuted here. 

When we say consciousness, consciousness doesn’t exist inherently, doesn’t exist truly. When it says:

Due to the sameness of selflessness of all phenomena,

It’s saying that whatever exists—all phenomena, whether external or internal—is free from a self. Whether it’s the I or that which belongs to the I, all of these are selfless. They don’t exist inherently. They don’t exist truly. There’s not a speck of true existence to all these phenomena. It all has to do with the mind. All phenomena depend on the mind. It says in the text that the world has arisen from the mind. But on a basic level, do phenomena exist truly or not? Well, if someone has that question, when we analyze that, the basis for that analysis is the mind. It’s mainly the mind that analyzes this. But even the mind is primordially unborn. It doesn’t exist inherently. Therefore, everything is in the nature of emptiness. This is worth saying. This is what has been stated at the end of this verse in Tibetan. It says that this is what’s been stated in the Guhyasamaja root tantra. So, Nagarjuna quoted this from the Guhyasamaja Tantra. 

And then it follows that all the teachings of the Buddha can be included in the two types of bodhicitta. Everything can be included in the two types of bodhicitta, or in bodhicitta and the mind realizing emptiness. Everything can be included in these two, because as long as we’re in samsara, what are the main causes for us to be in samsara? Well, the main causes are the root ignorance—the root misconception that perceives inherently existent self—plus our self-centered attitude, our self-cherishing mind. Those are the main causes for our troubles. We have so many problems, so many difficulties. The main causes of these two are our self-cherishing mind or our root misconception of reality. And what is the opposite to that, or what is the antidote to those two? It’s the mind realizing emptiness and bodhicitta. So, these are kind of the main aspects of Buddhist practice.

Exploring the text’s introduction

Then the text says:

Just as the blessed Buddhas and the great bodhisattvas have generated the mind of great awakening, I too shall, from now until I arrive at the heart of awakening, generate the awakening mind in order that I may save those who are not saved, free those who are not free, relieve those who are not relieved, and help thoroughly transcend sorrow those who have not thoroughly transcended sorrow.

This is kind of like the ritual we go through to generate the mind of enlightenment. This is the way to think to generate conventional bodhichitta. Then it goes on to say:

Those bodhisattvas who practice by means of the secret mantra, after having generated awakening mind in terms of its conventional aspect in the form of an aspiration, must then produce the ultimate awakening mind through the force of meditative practice. I shall therefore explain its nature. 

This basically means generating the mind that focuses on all sentient beings without differentiating. So, it’s not differentiating between sentient beings but generating a kind of compassion that is all-encompassing, that kind of compassion that is impartial, that is unconditional and so forth. And it says we’re doing this so that one may be able to liberate all sentient beings who have not been liberated, free those who are not free, relieve those who are not relieved, and help thoroughly transcend sorrow those who have not. So, basically here there are four aspects: saving, freeing, relieving, and helping to transcend. This is based on the Sanskrit terms: may I save sentient beings who are not saved. This is based on particular Indian sources, Indian Buddhist source text. “Saving” here refers to the two obstructions: afflictive and cognitive obstructions. So, all those who are not saved from the two obstructions, may I be able to save them. This is what saving here refers to. 

Then when it says “freeing those who are not free,” what is it not being free from? It’s probably ignorance. Those who are under the control of ignorance, who are not free, I will free them from the darkness of, or the fold of, ignorance. Then it says “relieve those who are not relieved.” In Tibetan it actually says, “giving those breath who can’t breathe, helping those to breathe who can’t breathe.” So, “relieving those who are not relieved” means to lead those who are not liberated to liberation. There are so many, so I have them to breathe so they can overcome the afflictions. Leading them to lasting happiness, that’s relief here. 

And then it says “Helping thoroughly transcend sorrow, those who have not thoroughly transcended sorrow.” When we talk about bodhisattvas, we talk about them having the goal of Buddhahood. Buddhahood is the state where you abide in neither liberation or nirvana nor samsara. You don’t remain in either of these two states: liberation or nirvana, nor samsara. So, for bodhisattvas, that’s their goal. They want to overcome the cognitive obstructions, that’s their main goal. Their goal is to overcome these obstructions. That’s what bodhisattvas aim for. They aim for overcoming the cognitive obstructions. 

Their goal is not just the hero liberation, or the solitary realizer’s liberation. Actually, that kind of liberation is an extreme. It’s the extreme; it’s the kind of nihilistic nirvana. Bodhisattvas overcome samsara. Of course, they also overcome samsara in the sense of this uncontrolled samsara. They do overcome that. So, they want to reach that state of Buddhahood, which is free from the extreme of nirvana, which is the extreme of nihilism in the sense of overcoming samsara. But they also want to overcome uncontrolled samsara. They want to overcome samsara and nirvana. These are seen as extremes, and this is what is so thoroughly transcended. “Thorough” here refers to attaining that state of Buddhahood. So, it’s kind of like a promise to help those who have not attained Buddhahood to attain Buddhahood. 

Then the text says:

Those bodhisattvas who practice by means of the secret mantra, after having generated awakening mind in terms of its conventional aspect in the form of an aspiration, must [then] produce the ultimate awakening mind through the force of meditative practice. I shall therefore explain its nature.

So, having generated the conventional bodhicitta, they must then produce the ultimate awakening mind. They have to meditate now on the ultimate mind, on the ultimate bodhicitta. How do we generate it? Well, we generate it through meditation, and then I shall therefore experience nature. I must then produce the ultimate awakening through the force of meditative practice. I shall therefore experience nature.

Exploring the actual commentary

That’s kind of an introduction to the actual text, and then the actual text, the actual Commentary on the Awakening Mind starts with verse one. It starts with the verse of homage and the promise to compose the text, bowing to the glorious Vajra holder who embodies the awakening mind. Here the awakening mind is the two bodhicittas, so he’s kind of the one who embodies the two minds of bodhicitta, who embodies compassion, who lives compassion. He’s the entity of bodhicitta. He’s an entity of that; he’s inseparable from it. The Tibetan word used means “immersed,” so he is immersed in the two minds of bodhicitta. He is immersed in compassion; he’s kind of an embodiment of those. It’s that entity that lives these two. 

Therefore, the Buddha’s mind is really the entity of method and wisdom. So, it’s the ultimate mind: the combination of method, compassion and wisdom—the realization of emptiness, of the ultimate nature of all phenomena. The two types of mind are combined in the Buddha’s meditative continuum. And he says he will explain the meditative practice of awakening mind that destroys cyclic existence. 

Anyway, there are different ways of explaining this and also when it comes to the awakening mind, etc. They’re like great excellences. And why is he a vajra holder? Why here is it Vajradhara? Because in his hand he holds the Vajra. So, being an entity that is inseparable when it comes to body, speech and mind, Nagarjuna is bowing to the glorious Vajra holder who embodies the awakening mind. 

And then comes the promise to compose the text. He says I shall explain here the meditative practice of awakening mind that destroys cyclic existence. So, I will describe the two types of awakening mind, the two types of bodhicitta, the mind that is able to overcome the extremes of samsara and the extreme of nirvana. When it says “nirvana” here, it’s referring to nirvana that is attained for one’s own benefit, not for the benefit of all sentient beings. “These types of bodhicittas that overcome these two extremes of nirvana and samsara, that’s what I will explain here. That’s the promise I’m making here. This is what I will explain.”

Questions & Answers

Audience: I had a question about the four aspects: saving, freeing, relieving, and the fourth aspect. I wonder what the fourth is. Are these the four aspects of all-encompassing compassion? I wasn’t sure what they were the four aspects of. 

Yangten Rinpoche: It’s probably in one of Lama Tsongkhapa’s texts: “May I save those who are not saved.” Here he talks about the two obstructions, so “May I be able to save those from the two obstructions.” What is it that one is being saved from: the two obstructions. That’s the first one. The second one is to free those who are not free. What is it that one is not free from? It is ignorance. It is the confusing mind, or it is the confusion of ignorance, the misconceptions. It’s being controlled by ignorance, so here it means freeing beings from being controlled by this self-grasping ignorance. That’s the second one. Then the third one is relieving those who are not relieved. Here, what is the relief? It’s basically not being able to breathe. It’s the three types of suffering. The three types of suffering, that’s also one type of relieving. That’s the third type. And then the fourth type is “Helping thoroughly transcend sorrow those who have not thoroughly transcended sorrow.” What is the transcended sorrow here? It’s the two extremes of samsara and nirvana. So, that’s Buddhahood. The sorrow here is the two extremes, the state of not having reached Buddhahood. It’s abiding in the extremes of samsara and nirvana. 

We are in samsara. We are controlled by our afflictions, so we abide in the extreme of samsara. And then those who attain self-liberation, they exist in the extreme of nirvana. Buddhahood is the state we want to reach. To thoroughly transcend sorrow means to attain Buddhahood. Buddhahood is the state of transcending the two extremes of nirvana and samsara. What is the sorrow here? Sorrow here are the two extremes of samsara and nirvana, and thoroughly transcending that is not abiding in the two extremes, which is another word for saying Buddhahood. So here, bodhisattvas or even buddhas still remain in samsara, but it’s a controlled samsara. It’s samsara that they remain in purposely. That has a connection with compassion. This is all connected to compassion here. So, in that sense, as you asked, this is all connected to bodhicitta, to compassion, to all-encompassing compassion. 

Audience: I have a limited view of how Nagarjuna is held in the Tibetan tradition. How is he considered in the Tibetan tradition? And could you also give some context: where does this text fit in the Tibetan view of the path? Is it a text that people use a lot or look to a lot? Just some context for me would be helpful. Thank you. 

Yangten Rinpoche: Actually, when we speak about certain texts, we actually talk about the author first; it’s a custom to do it this way, a tradition to do so. I was thinking about this, but then I thought, “Okay, we know about Nagarjuna; everyone knows about Nagarjuna.” Also, in the big monasteries, we don’t really speak about the biographies and so forth because they can be read in private. So, that’s just my kind of habit, which is why I did think about talking about Nagarjuna but then dismissed it because I thought it’s not necessary. 

Anyway, based on the short summary I gave, it should become obvious how important this text is with the two types of bodhichitta being so important. From that point of view, they’re so important. Therefore, we can say the subject matter is so important, but it will also become clearer based on how the two types of awakening mind are presented. It will discuss how we should reflect on it, how we should apply this subject matter. There are so many beautiful explanations that are very beneficial, so you’ll find out as we go through the text. But in general, as Buddhists, as those who practice bodhichitta, we need to practice this. It’s important to practice this text. How should we think? How should we practice? How should we think about this? I think it’s really beneficial to practice bodhichitta. There are so many different explanations given that will inspire us to practice effectively. In this sense, this text is extremely important. 

Regarding Nagarjuna, there are different explanations. For instance, in the Tibetan lineage or the Chinese lineage, Nagarjuna is extremely important. After Buddha taught the Dharma then the Dharma went to Sri Lanka and different countries. It was spread to different countries. In particular, the vinaya tradition was taken. The Pali tradition very much spread to different countries. This is how the Dharma spread, basically, in Asia. 

This is based on the three trainings—the three baskets if you like, or the three collections: the vinaya, the Abhidharma, and the sutra collections. But actually, the Perfection of Wisdom Sutras were spread based on Nagarjuna’s efforts. The different texts—the six collections of reasonings that Nagarjuna composed, for instance—explained the Perfection of Wisdom Sutras. They spread very much based on the explanation Nagarjuna gave. Then the understanding of bodhichitta and so forth, that spread widely. So, Nagarjuna was like a pioneer in that sense. 

The lineage that you find in Tibet and the lineage you find in China is described as the Mahayana, or the universal vehicle. This is because of Nagarjuna. Nagarjuna came in the first or second century. Nagarjuna was born after the Buddha, so in the first or second century. At that time, he basically spread the Perfection of Wisdom Sutras. He was a trailblazer in that sense. He was a pioneer. The different teachings that were available in India, a lot of them degenerated. A lot of degenerations took place. Some teachings got lost, or they were brought to different places and so forth. So, 400 years or so after the Buddha’s death and parinirvana, in the first or second century B.C., Nagarjuna was born, and he basically reintroduced these teachings on the Perfection of Wisdom Sutras, on bodhicitta and so forth. He clarified all these teachings. 

So, he’s considered to be extremely important in terms of what he’s done, for being such a pioneer in that sense. When we say the universal vehicle—Mahayana or universal vehicle, whatever you use—it’s basically the root. He established the root of the universal vehicle. He reintroduced this and made it available.

Audience: Rinpoche, I don’t fully understand why, in order to realize emptiness directly, you must first choose a vehicle, whether that’s arhatship or the Bodhisattva vehicle. Can you explain that? 

Yangten Rinpoche: If there were other choices we could choose, we could do that, and there could be other choices theoretically. That’s if there were, but there aren’t. In reality, there are only these two choices. There’s only samsara and overcoming. In general, the basis is either we stay in samsara or we don’t. Those are the two choices. That’s just from a worldly point of view. Then when we overcome samsara, when we go beyond samsara, then there’s only liberation. If we talk about overcoming samsara, there are two choices: it’s either only liberation or Buddhahood. There are only just two. That’s in actuality; there’s no other choice. There’s nothing more. We just want to overcome samsara, so that’s renunciation. Wanting to overcome samsara is our situation right now. That’s renunciation: the aspiration to do so. “I want to go somewhere else. I want to reach a different state. I want to overcome samsara. I want to overcome my afflictions.” If I’m saying I just want to overcome affliction, that’s liberation, that’s nirvana. If that’s all we want then that’s the fundamental vehicle liberation. It’s the self liberation of a hero and a solitary realizer. That’s one goal. 

But I might not choose that, because I understand my relationship between myself and others: that I’m very much connected to other sentient beings, that I’m interconnected with everyone else. Based on that understanding, I have to rely on other sentient beings. Based on that understanding, I might feel that this goal is too narrow: “I want to just become liberated, but if I only become liberated, that’s very narrow and I can’t benefit others most effectively. Instead, I want to become a Buddha.” That’s how we get to aspiring towards Buddhahood. Therefore, we aspire to realize emptiness, because there need to be certain goals. There need to be certain goals. When we ask, “Why do I want to realize emptiness?” then those are the true reasons. So, there are only these two choices.

What is the main method to realize emptiness directly? The main method is the wisdom, or the union of calm abiding and special insight. Without a union of calm abiding and special insight, without generating that kind of mind, we cannot realize emptiness directly. To work so hard to generate that mind, to develop that mind, we have to have an aspiration. We have to have a certain wish. It takes such a long time. It’s so difficult. So, we must ask, “Why am I doing this?” To just conceptually understand emptiness—not even having a direct realization of emptiness—I need to have an interest in emptiness. And why do I have an interest? Why do I want to know about emptiness? Because I understand my afflictions are a problem; I understand that my aversion, my attachment and so forth are a problem. 

How can these afflictions give rise to suffering? How do they harm me? This means to understand that all my suffering comes from the afflictions, and the afflictions come from my self-grasping mind. So then I need to analyze what is wrong with the self-grasping mind. So based on understanding that it’s a wrong mind, I can come to understand selflessness. The better my understanding of selflessness, the more I’m able to understand that self-grasping is a poison, that all my trouble, all my problems, come from the self-grasping mind. That’s the main poison that’s responsible for all my difficulties. 

To give an example, consider that there’s always someone who causes a lot of trouble. In my whole life, they always steal stuff from me. They rob me of things. They torture my parents, my father, my mother, my children. Imagine someone who always tortures me, always gives me difficulty, always troubles me. If this is so, then I’m wondering, “Is there someone behind this person? Is there someone who tells this person to torture me?” I understand that it’s not this person who’s directly coming into my home and beating my parents and so forth; that’s not the main perpetrator. The main perpetrator is this person behind this perpetrator. Then I understand, “Oh, this is what I need to focus on. It’s not the person who directly harms me, but the person who controls the whole situation.” 

Similarly, the afflictions directly cause me problems, but the main cause, the root cause, is this misconception. After I understand the afflictions, after I understand how harmful they are, then I look at the root cause. What is it? They’re the main perpetrator. They’re that which really causes me all my problems, etc. And everything, all my trouble, comes from that. So, this is why I work to understand this self-grasping mind. This is what I need to overcome. That’s what I need to remove. I come to understand that. And I understand that I can only overcome it if I realize selflessness, if I realize emptiness directly—only then. Then I can remove the self-grasping mind. I can remove ignorance. And in that way, I can remove all the other afflictions.

Based on that understanding then we want to overcome it. And then we generate renunciation, which is the wish to be free from just that. That’s what renunciation is. It’s nothing more than wanting to overcome the root cause of all the afflictions, wanting to overcome ignorance. So, what is the fold of samsara? It’s the fold of the afflictions. The afflictions cause samsara. Renunciation means seeing that as faulty, seeing that as something I don’t want to experience and then generating the wish to overcome samsara. It’s wanting to really overcome samsara, to overcome being controlled by the afflictions, to overcome being controlled by ignorance. Wishing to overcome that is what renunciation is all about.

 But, of course, we don’t need bodhicitta; bodhicitta is different. I can directly realize emptiness without having bodhicitta. But without renunciation, we cannot realize emptiness directly. It’s impossible. There’s no way to realize emptiness directly without renunciation. This is my understanding.

Part 2 in this series:

Refuting a permanent self