Audio recorded at Tibetan Buddhist Institute, Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 90-minute teaching on Śāntideva’s Bodhisattvacaryāvatāra, Geshe Jampa Gyaltsen explains the practice of exchanging self with others, a foundational technique for generating authentic bodhicitta. He opens with the principle that all genuine spiritual practice—whether tantric or sūtra—must rest on the three principles of the path: renunciation, bodhicitta, and correct understanding of emptiness. Geshe-la then walks through why self-cherishing is the root of suffering and how recognizing the mutual interdependence of self and other creates the psychological ground for the interchange practice. Using historical examples (Atisha’s twelve years in Sumatra, Geshe Langri Tangpa’s unmoved equanimity) and everyday logic, he deconstructs the belief in independent, inherently existing self and other. He addresses common doubts, clarifies that the interchange involves retraining the mind’s attachment rather than physical swapping of body parts, and examines the relationship between self-grasping and self-cherishing. The session concludes with commentary on four verses from the Thirty-Seven Practices of the Bodhisattva on hardship, fame, enemies, and desire, and a student Q&A on signs of realization and the stages leading to bodhicitta. Suited for practitioners with existing familiarity with Buddhist philosophy and committed to bodhisattva training.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 37 BP 110828 000 – KR.mp3
UUID: baa02a2b-0597-4a2d-8222-4262c11fba4d
Teacher: Geshe Jampa Gyaltsen
Collection: Bodhisattvacaryāvatāra
Recorded at: Tibetan Buddhist Institute, Adelaide
Words: ~3,950
At present, please meditate for two minutes to generate the motivation to benefit all mother sentient beings as vast as space progressing incrementally through the stages of the beings of three scopes. Irrespective of whichever of the three tantras we rely upon for our main practice, whether it is Guhyasamāja, Heruka Chakrasamvara, or Yamāntaka, this practice must be conjoined with the practice of the three principles of the path, which are renunciation, bodhicitta and the correct view of emptiness. As is said in the quote, having practiced the common or shared path, bless me at present to engage in the peerless path of tantra. Any practice which is not conjoined with the three principles of the path, specifically practices of highest yoga tantra which are not conjoined with the three principles of the path, merely act as a cause for rebirth in cyclic existence through enhancing desire and so forth. Therefore, the practice of the three principles of the path has to be taken into the practice of the beings of all three scopes as well as of the tantric vehicle.
And this is the crux of Atisha’s instructions in his Bodhipathapradīpa. Now Atisha himself most probably received all the oral transmissions and instructions which could be received at the period in India. And yet, when Atisha himself wished to engage in the practice of Hevajra under the aegis of his teacher, Rahula of the Black Mountain, who had over and again seen Hevajra face to face in direct visions. Rahula of the Black Mountain said to Atisha, Worn indeed, the practice of Anuttara Yogatantra is profound, and practices such as propitiation through mantra repetition and so forth are profound. Profound.
Nonetheless, they do not bear fruit without the three principles of the path. And it is difficult within the context of mantra alone to generate the three principles of the path. Therefore, it is important for you to engage in this practice of the interchange of self and others to give rise to bodhicitta. And I recommend to you to take as your tutelary deity Avalokiteśvara, who is the living embodiment of bodhicitta, and to keep him as your deity until you attain full enlightenment. And the question which arose at that point was whether these instructions on the interchange of self and others existed.
It would seem that they did not exist at the period in India. And therefore, after examination, Atisha resolved to travel to Sumatra, where under the aegis of guru Suvarnadvipi Serlingpa, he received the oral instructions of the interchange of self and others and studied for some twelve years before himself attaining uncontrived, in other words spontaneous, bodhicitta. So even though Geshe-la has already explained the practice of the interchange of self and others, and it is explained elaborately in the greater stages of the path of Je Tsongkhapa and liberation in the palm of your hand of Pabongka Rinpoche, nonetheless, Geshe would like to re explain it because it is a difficult topic, and he will be quite forceful in his explanation of it. Therefore, listen carefully. As Śāntideva said in this famous stanza of the Bodhisattvacaryāvatāra, referring to interchange of self and others. He who puts himself in the stead of others and others in his own stead is practicing the great secret instruction.
The term secret here does not refer to secrecy in the context of secret mantra. It refers however to a transmission to which is limited to practitioners of sharp capacities as opposed to practitioners of dull capacities who will find it very difficult to engage in this practice. And the preliminaries for the practice of the interchange of self and others are initially understanding that self-cherishing is akin to the key which opens the door to all faults. For cherishing others is akin to the key which opens the door to all qualities. It is on this basis and this basis alone that it is possible possible to practice the interchange of self and others.
And we can see, for instance, that self-cherishing arises spontaneously within our mind when we encounter or for that matter merely reflect about an enemy and in dependence on it, anger arise. Now, reflecting on the practice of the interchange of self and others, some doubts can arise. One of them is the following. One might think, my body, my physical are my very own and those of others are different. Why should I interchange my own benefit with that of others?
For that matter, since our bodies are completely different, what interchange can there be? In this case, one should reflect in keeping with the stanza of Śāntideva in his Bodhisattvacaryāvatāra, our body accrued through the semen and blood of father and mother, that our body actually is a body which arises in depend in dependence on the spermatozoa from the father and the ovum from the mother. And this in turn accrues in a beginningless sequence from the spermatozoa in the ovum of one’s parent. Now, if we take our present situation, one might wonder whether practicing the interchange of self and others within this temple with each other means that, for instance, if we were to take our bodily parts, our eyes, our nose, and so forth, we would swap bodily parts as it were, and take upon ourselves the eyes or nose, the tongue of another person, and give them ours. This is not at all what is meant here.
What is meant when one speaks of the interchange of self in others is interchanging the mind which is attached to one’s own self with the mind which is attached to another person, and swapping their places. And therefore here, what should one practice? One should, on the one hand, eliminate this self-cherishing which cherishes oneself, and replace it with that with cherishing others. Or on the other hand, that mind which at present discards, abandons the welfare of others should be replaced with a mind which discards or abandons our own wheel. Practicing this way, and taking as it were a battle axe to the foundation of self-cherishing, nay as well to the foundations of the apprehension of the self as inherently existent.
They are slightly slightly different, but here both are to be eliminated, practices in this way. Then, if one proceeds in this way, one can progressively move upwards in one’s practice, understanding that the object of negation here is simultaneously self-cherishing, and that mind which apprehends the self as inherently existent. In dependence on the reasonings, which is given very clearly in Lamrim Chenmo, which states the self is not inherently existent. It is not existent by its own characteristics. It is not existent by its own nature because it is interdependent.
We can progressively put an end to both self grasping and self-cherishing through clearly understanding that we and ourselves on we and others are not independent. We are actually profoundly related. We basically see self and other as independent, whereas in practice, self and other are mutually constructed. The self is imputed in dependence on others, and others are imputed in dependence on the self. The process of a arising of self-cherishing is through an initial innate apprehension of self and other being inherently existent, being existent by their own nature, being existent by their own characteristics.
In turn, a strong sense which apprehends self and other as inherently existent arises. The so called apprehension of the self as inherently existent. in dependence on this, in turn, a strong sense of self-cherishing and a strong sense which discards others arise. Therefore, the greater the innate self-cherishing, in turn, the greater self-cherishing and the greater sense of discarding others. And therefore, the fundamental line of reasoning which has to be applied in this context is it is necessary to interchange self and others because self and others are interdependent.
Now this demonstration demonstration of the necessity to interchange self and others because they are interdependent is rooted in the fact that the self is not inherently existent because the self is inherently, is not, because the self is independent arising. This instruction of the interchange of self and others was transmitted secretly from Atisha all the way down to Geshe Chekawa, for this very reason. It is only after Geshe Chekhawa’s time that it became a a public instruction. Until then, it was restricted to trainees of extremely sharp faculties and was never taught to trainees of dull faculties, simply because when trainees of dull faculties heard that the actual mode of existence of phenomena was different from their mode of appearance, and that whole phenomena from the standpoint of the mode of appearance appeared as inherently existing, nonetheless from the standpoint of their actual mode of existence, they were non inherently existing. Such trainees of dull faculties would easily give rise to the misunderstanding that in that case neither self nor other existed.
If neither self nor other existed, then no phenomena existed, the very foundation of ethics, which is karma and causality collapsed. Therefore, these teachings were restricted to trainees of sharp faculties. And if we analyze more carefully how self-cherishing arises within our minds, we can see that self-cherishing arises through the reason of wishing for one’s own happiness and not wishing to suffer oneself. That reason, it is appropriate for me to experience self-cherishing because I wish to be happy and I do not wish to be unhappy, is a reason which can be deconstructed if we reflect on the fact that our mother of this life, who has been most kind to us, has an equal self-cherishing for herself as we have for ourselves. Then, in the light of that kindness of our mother of this life for ourselves, it is appropriate, it is actually requisite for us to generate a cherishing for her, which is as strong as our self-cherishing for our self.
Therefore, a wish that she herself be free of suffering and that she herself have happiness. And therefore, self and other, oneself and others are established merely nominally, or they are established merely in terms of designation. They do not exist inherently or from their own side. There is an example rooted in Śāntideva’s Bodhisattvacaryāvatāra, which is very helpful in this matter, it is the analysis of being here as opposed to something or someone being over there. Geshe-la himself, from his own standpoint, is here, and Chris is over there.
However, at the very moment when Geshe-la goes to where Chris is, Geshe-la actually is here at Chris’s place, and where Geshe-la used to be is over there all of a sudden. This indicates clearly that here and over there are mutual mutually arising phenomena. And if we analyze somewhat more the relationship between self-cherishing on the one hand and apprehending the self as inherently existing on the other hand, we can see that more they are spoken about in a very similar way in the treatises, actually in an identical way, as the root of suffering. On the other hand, their nature is somewhat different. The nature of self-cherishing is the wish not to discard one’s own advantage.
On the other hand, the nature of the conception or the nature of the apprehension of inherent existence is the apprehension of the self as inherently existing. And if we enter at present any more detailed analysis of the actual relationship between self grasping on the one hand and self-cherishing on the other hand. This is intimated without being clearly explicated in both Lamrim Chenmo and liberation in the palm of your hand. And the question which can arise is, is it definite that someone who has self-cherishing in his mind has also necessarily self grasping? And is it definite that that someone who has self grasping in his mind has also necessarily self-cherishing?
Actually, the answer to both of these questions is no. There are four logical possibilities between self-cherishing and self grasping. There are beings who have both self-cherishing and self grasping, such as ourselves, ordinary beings. There are beings who have neither self-cherishing nor self grasping, such as eighth ground bodhisattvas. There are beings who have no self grasping in the sense of a grasping at a self of persons, or they have self-cherishing.
And this would be the case, for instance, of hearers of the hearer vehicle. And there are beings who have no self-cherishing, yet still have the grasping at a self of persons, and these would be Bodhisattvas below the eighth ground. In other words, Bodhisattvas in the paths of accumulation and of preparation. And to give one a sense of what is meant by the interchange of self and others in the attainment which can be reached by great beings who engage in this, there is an anecdote about the author of the eight verses of mind training, Geshe Langri Tangpa. It is said that when Geshe Langri Tangpa was teaching a large assembly of disciples, a young girl who had just given birth was incited by the enemies of Geshe Langri Tangpa to go with her newborn babe, put it on Geshe Langritampa’s lap in front of the entire audience and says, this is yours.
And this is what she did. She put her newborn child on his lap and said, you made this. This is yours. Geshe Langri Tangpa’s face did not change at all when she did this, and he said, so be it. Then she was quite astonished by his behavior, and when she left reflected that she herself had accumulated a very great sin through humiliating such a holy being in public.
And she returned, took the child from his lap in public, and said, actually this is not yours, it is mine alone. Geshe Langri Tangpa’s face again did not change. He said, so be it. Now this is a level of practice of a being who has completely interchanged self and others, and who has no attachment to his own happiness, and no fear for or from his suffering. Regarding a question which was asked last time on the meaning of Kadampa, Geshe-la would like to develop here a little bit.
Kadampa has two syllables in Tibetan, ka, which means speech, and dam which means instruction. Kadampa is those who take the speech as an instruction. Actually, it means taking even one word of the scriptures of the conquerors as an oral instruction enabling one to attain liberation or full enlightenment. And now passing to the root text, the thirty thirty seven practices of the Bodhisattva, verse 17. Verse 18, excuse me.
Even if they have a poor livelihood, are always insulted by people, and are afflicted by a very dangerous illness or evil spirits, it is still the practice of Bodhisattvas undauntedly to take on the ill deeds and suffering of all living beings. So here’s the first verse, even if they have a poor livelihood, refers to bodhisattvas who, unlike us, do not have enough to eat or to drink, and yet do not generate any desire for this. Even if in addition to this, they are ill, nonetheless, these Bodhisattvas undoubtedly, in other words, without fear, with courage, take on the ill deeds and sufferings of all beings. Geshe-la says in Tibet, there is a proverb, which clearly illustrates a behavior we should avoid. The proverb runs as follows.
Practice. When hardship occurs, we give it all up. This is exactly what one should avoid, and actually it is when hardship occurs that one should have more mental fortitude and practice even harder. So Geshe-la would like here to speak from his own experience regarding the first of us, even if they have a poor livelihood and are always insulted by people. When he was six years old in Tibet, his father died.
He became an orphan, and he and his family were destitute. They lived in a very small hut. It’s not a house like what you call in Australia a house made of mud bricks, maybe the size of the first third of this temple with in front an area for cattle and animals, as well as the horses, and two tiny rooms for his mother, himself, and an older relative. They had very little to eat, and after his father’s death, they were ostracized by the community. Everyone said, they have some sort of disease, that’s why the father died.
Therefore, nobody came to visit and nobody brought any food. Food. Then, as his family was very poor, when they went to the hospital to seek for treatment, they were neither examined nor treated because they had no money. This is what is meant by when one has a poor livelihood and one is insulted by others. In stanza 19, even if they are famous, respected by many people, and have attained wealth like Vaishravana, having seen there is no essence in the glory and wealth of worldly existence, remaining without pride is a practice of Bodhisattvas.
Here Bodhisattvas realize that worldly wealth is here today and gone tomorrow. It is transient and ephemeral and is not worth being attached to. And the final stanza, stanza 20. If outer enemies are destroyed, for not restraining the enemy of one’s own anger, enemies will only increase. Therefore, it is a practice of bodhisattvas to conquer their own mind with the powerful army of love and compassion.
Here it is a direct experience for all of us that the angrier we are, the more enemies we have. They just multiply in number, and, it is impossible to conquer them all. In this context, there’s a very good, example given in Śāntideva’s the two stanzas which read, who could conquer one’s enemies which are as vast as space? For instance, were the earth to be covered with thorns, brambles, and stones, it would make no sense to cover the entire earth with leather when covering one’s own feet with leather suffices. So these two stanzas refer precisely to the situation.
The first stanza indicates it is impossible to overcome all of one’s foes, and it is much better to tame the inner anger within one’s mind stream through the twin forces of love and compassion. And the second stanza points out that even if the entire earth was covered with brambles and stones and we tried to scatter leather around to protect our feet, it would be impossible. It is however quite feasible to wear hardy shoes. And the fourth verse is verse 21, as sensual pleasures. Here you have to correct the Tibetan a bit.
It’s the qualities of desire, like salt water increase, it is not desire but craving, no matter how much they are enjoyed. The practice of Bodhisattvas is immediately to abandon all objects that generate a desire, obviously, within them and not towards them. So here it is evident that all of the sense objects, which give rise to desire, give rise to desires which are insatiable. In other words, as they are satisfied, new desires arise which are even greater in power, in the same way as drinking salt water, never slakes thirst, it just makes thirst more acute, and therefore it is the practice of Bodhisattvas to abandon desires. Bodhisattvas in the morning utter the prayer to refresh their vows, which is as all Buddhas and Bodhisattvas in past lives have striven for full enlightenment.
I likewise will strive for full enlightenment and dedicate all of my roots of virtue three times for this. The import of this prayer is similar to that of this paragraph. So we have finished the teachings for today, and you might become a bit discouraged of the fact that none of us in this room has bodhicitta, but we have to take the long view in this matter, and practice life after life, in the same same way as Atisha traveled thirteen full months to reach Sumatra. And after reaching Sumatra, studied, meditated some twelve years under the aegis of Guru Suvarnadvipi Serlingpa. Atisha very possibly had already entered the path at that point.
He had already become a bodhisattva. There is no necessity or there is no necessary correlation between practicing the interchange of self and others and actually becoming a bodhisattva. And yet Atisha himself practiced with this energy. So Geshe-la from his side hopes we will do the same. So the first question is, what are the signs of success in the practice of giving and taking?
The signs of success, Geshe-la says, are when the wish to take on the suffering of others arises spontaneously when one sees suffering beings at any time of day. It’s a sign of realization of Tonglen. Now, this wish arises in meditation naturally, but that is not what we are talking about. We’re talking of the spontaneous arising of that wish. The next question is, what is the difference between the great thought or and bodhicitta?
So says within the context of the sevenfold cause and effect instruction, there is a major difference between the great thought and bodhicitta. In as much as the great thought and bodhicitta in a cause effect relationship, the great thought is the cause of bodhicitta. So the cause of the great thought is great compassion. Great compassion is the wish to free all sentient beings without exception, not just from suffering in general, but from all pervasive suffering. It remains, however, just that, a wish.
When that wish becomes a resolve, it turns into the great thought or the great resolve. This is a resolve to free all sentient beings from all pervasive suffering without having, however, knowing what the means to do so are. Then when one realizes that oneself is unable to do so and ask oneself who can do this, it is actually the fully enlightened Buddha in the four bodies and takes this as one’s goal to become a fully enlightened Buddha the sake of all sentient beings, this is bodhicitta. Are there other questions? Yes.
I learn what it is? Yes. It’s the same thing. In other words, basically, if beings of dull capacities hear advanced Prāsaṇgika teachings, they can give rise to the view of nihilism. For this reason, they should not be taught these teachings.
They are taught actually initially the simple teachings of the Sautrāntika. And once they have ascertained these, then the teachings of the Cittamātra of the non-duality of the mind and observed objects are taught. And then once they have ascertained these, if they have the capacity to understand them, at that point, the advanced Prāsaṇgika teachings are taught. Basically, because the great practitioners of the period saw greater benefit in being made public at that point than in its being kept secret secret. It was a question of ratio of benefit for the practitioners.
As long as it was obvious that a large number of practitioners would be unable to practice would go to the lower realms, then these teachings were not given. Then when the teachers felt that a fairly large number of practitioners could practice, they taught these. The same thing is true for Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā. They should only be taught, their intended trainees are only practitioners of sharp capacities. But Pamela’s question, actually I requested the root verses from Khensur Rinpoche Khensur Rinpoche refused.
He told me he had only taught because his holiness explicitly requested it, but it was not appropriate to teach Madhyamaka here. So this is very much a standard position.