Dalai Lama Talks

# HH Dalai Lama at Harvard 10a

**Collection:** Rinpoche Recordings — HH Dalai Lama – Australia 2002
**Duration:** 50.6 minutes
**Words:** 3,543
**Model:** Deepgram Nova-3
**Corrections applied:** 0
**Transcribed:** 2026-03-01 05:41

—

This now begins Friday morning. Hey, hon. What is wrong with attachment? I feel I would deny my humanity if I practice non attachment. What happens to my special love for my family?

One needs to make a difference between afflicted desire and desire. With respect to attachment, when one identifies Attachment is difficult to understand exactly what’s meant by the English word attachment. When one feels I need such and such, I doubt that this necessarily involves an afflicted type of attachment. This is always a mere recognition. This is good, I want this, this is useful.

That sort of is a feeling. Generally, there are three types of feeling or Three types of apprehension. One is an apprehension within the context of having conceived the object to inherently exist. One is an apprehension within the context of having conceived the object not to inherently exist. And then there’s a mode of apprehension that is not qualified either by the objects existing inherently or not existing inherently.

We have the two types, apprehension of objects within conceiving them to inherently exist, and apprehension that doesn’t involve either conceiving them to inherently exist or not to inherently exist. And among those who have realized non inherent existence but have not yet completely overcome the conception of inherent existence, they would have all three types. Thus, in our own continuums, any and all types of discriminations that this is such and such and that is such and such does not necessarily involve the conception of inherent existence. Although to all of our types of consciousnesses the objects appear as if they inherently exist, we don’t necessarily agree with that appearance conceiving them to inherently exist. But in any case, whether you call it attachment, desire or whatever, there will be many cases of our understanding that such and such is needed without being within the conception that the object inherently exists.

And such consciousnesses are conventional valid cognizers. All sentient beings have a sense of wanting happiness. Or we say, all sentient beings from seeing that which is pleasant have a sense of wanting happiness, and this is valid. It is within the context of such valid cognition that we speak about generating a love for all sentient beings, wanting all sentient beings to have happiness. Actually, you see, that sort of feeling or desire is unbiased.

You see, now, therefore, it covers all sentient beings. Now our own limited attachment, only your own friends, own, you see, children’s like that, that is actually, generally speaking, influenced by attachment or, how to say, ignorance or emotional. So therefore it is, in fact, in reality it is limited, unbiased, biased. But when one generates this, what do say, reasoned form of this type of love, then one can spread this love to all of humanity. Thus I doubt that if one becomes more detached, one becomes less humane, rather one becomes more humane.

Buddhist teachers seem always to be able to laugh heartily. What within Buddhism opens the way for this warm humor? This it’s not necessarily so that all Buddhist teachers are always laughing heartily. Langri Tangpa. You see, there was one great saint who always crying.

You see? You see, he always had been thinking about the suffering nature of all sentient beings and he remained always crying, so he got named that, how say, Tangpa. That he had a very gloomy face. Gloomy face. Yeah, yeah.

What is the reason for prostration and the vast number of repetitions of refuge and so forth? When one bows down, one stretches oneself out on the ground, and since the ground is the lowest place, considered the lowest place, this helps to reduce pride. So one is prostrating to a higher object and to do so is assuming a lower posture. The seven branches individually act as antidotes to states in one’s own continuum. And prostration acts as an antidote to pride.

The giving of offerings counteracts miserliness. And the disclosure of ill deeds counteracts wrong views. This is because one is disclosing ill deeds within the context of having realized that there are effects to one’s actions. Seeking the turning of the wheel of doctrine counteracts past forsaking of the doctrine, abandonment of the doctrine. It’s like that.

How does the conception of a self of persons arise from a conception of a self of phenomena? As Nāgārjuna said, as long as one has misconception of the aggregates, so long does one have a, from that, a misconception of the person, the self. This is because the aggregates are the basis of designation of the person. Even the lower systems of tenets assert that the person is imputedly existent. Even the non-Prāsaṇgika schools assert that the person is imputedly existent.

But they don’t assert that whatever exists is necessarily imputedly existent, for they claim that some phenomena are substantially existent. They assert that the basis of any imputed existence is necessarily substantially existent. Thus, they assert that the mental and physical aggregates are substantially existent. They say this because the person must be designated independence upon the mental. In dependence on the mental and physical aggregates in the sense that for the person to appear as an object of the mind, first the mental and physical aggregates must appear.

That’s the way the non-Prāsaṇgika systems assert it, whereas the Prasangikas say that whatever exists is necessarily imputedly existent. However, what is to be understood by the term imputedly existent in those two systems is different in that the first is grosser and the second is more subtle. The person is imputed independent upon a basis of imputation or basis of designation. And if one conceived the basis independence upon which the person is imputed, if one conceived that basis, the mental physical aggregates, to be inherently existent, then one would necessarily be drawn into considering the person which is designated in dependence upon that basis to be inherently existent. That’s why Nāgārjuna has said, as long as one misconceives the aggregates, so long does one from that misconceive the person.

So thus, in terms of the stages of their production, first one generates a conception of the inherent existence of the mental and physical aggregates and then from that generates a conception of the person as inherently existent. But when one realizes emptiness, one realizes the emptiness of inherent existence of the person first due to certain features of the basis of that emptiness, the person, and then realizes the selflessness or emptiness of phenomena. A question comes with regard to this: Is the realization of the non inherent existence of the person a realization of the non inherent existence of the mental and physical aggregates? And if it is, then it would have certainly followed that these two realizations were not separate, but were one. But if it is the case that the consciousness that realizes And there is no way in which one consciousness can realize simultaneously both the What do you say?

That one consciousness could realize both of this. There is It is said that the what do you say? That through understanding the emptiness of one thing, such as the person, one can understand the emptiness of all phenomena. This means that one realizes the absence of inherent existence with respect to one phenomena, one can extend this to two other phenomena. Now what’s being talked about here is that the one single consciousness that realizes non inherent existence with respect to the person as its subject does not realize the of inherent existence of other phenomena as its subject, since it’s not taking If just that consciousness which realizes the emptiness of inherent existence of the person realizes the emptiness of inherent existence of the mental and physical aggregates, then it would absurdly follow that one consciousness was doing both of these realizations.

However, it is said that without There is another scripture, however, that appears to contradict that, in that it says that without realizing the non inherent existence of the aggregates, there is no way that one can get rid of the misconception of the person as inherently existent. As an answer to this, it is said that the consciousness that realizes the non-inherent existence of the person can, without depending on any other consciousness, remove all superimpositions of the conception of inherent existence with respect to the mental and physical aggregates. As an example, it is said that a consciousness that realizes the non existence of a child of a barren woman can, without depending on any other consciousness, remove any possibility of false superimpositions of the conception of the existence of the eyes of the child of a barren woman. Eyes of a child, eyes of a child of a barren woman. Now we, as our favorite examples for The common examples for non existent things are the child of a barren woman, the flower of the sky, the horns of a rabbit, and the hair of a turtle.

So I am thinking that maybe you wouldn’t understand what was said because of the sudden use of this term the child of a barren woman. Until one has, what do you say, reversed or gotten removed? Until one has discarded that consciousness which misconceives the mental and physical aggregates. Until one has left behind or discarded that consciousness which misconceives the mental and physical aggregates to be inherently existent. There is no way that one can generate a wisdom consciousness that realizes the person to be without inherent existence.

That’s not his own Is special insight necessarily an intellectual logical analysis, or can it be achieved intuitively? One couldn’t realize or gain special insight without using any reasoning. I mentioned the other day that when one arrives at a certain developed point, one can, through the practice of highest yoga tantra, achieve special insight through stabilizing meditation. But prior to that time, one has engaged in a great deal of analysis. But here in highest yoga tantra there is another special technique whereby one can, without engaging analysis, have all of the force of engaging in analysis.

Please give us some practical advice for distinguishing Oh, sorry. Mixing languages. Please give us some practical advice for distinguishing love from desire. Could a love of natural beauty, for instance, be free of attachment? This is pretty much the same as before.

You probably understand it through the earlier answer. If the prasangikas assert that things are without inherent existence even conventionally, then in what way do things exist in the conventional mode? Are they merely misconceptions or phantoms of the mind? How are we to avoid the extreme of nihilism? This will be explained a little later on today.

An engineer who is a Buddhist recently wrote a book in which he said that a robot or a computer might have a Buddha nature. Do you agree with this? The Buddha nature is explained in terms of living beings. But if you think of the Buddha nature as just, say, emptiness, then even a vase would have a Buddha nature. If you could develop a computer that actually had a consciousness, then I’m not quite sure what the case would be.

But otherwise, now, is it useful or possible for people of one race or tradition to follow a different tradition, or the tradition of a different race. Need to make a difference here between religion and culture. As I usually expressed, the religion is something that belongs to everybody. There’s no boundary. So now, you see, main question is: Is it suitability according to your own mental disposition?

That is the main, I think, main factor. Cultural side is something related with your own native, you see, environment and your past, how say, generations, see, heritage. So that may be different. So I usually So you see, now for example, Buddhism. Actually Indian religion but that went other countries.

So since the cultural side is something related with India, so when Buddhism went different country then the Buddhism meeting with their own culture then become, say, Tibetan Buddhism or Chinese Buddhism or Japanese Buddhism. That means essentially same Buddhism, yet as it were, some sort of happy marriage with the local, how to say, cultural heritage. So, it becomes something special for that country. So, we call Tibetan Buddhism or Japanese Buddhism, Chinese Buddhism, like that. So, I see, usually I I’d say I express gradually the European Buddhism as well as American Buddhism may come.

So now, Christian itself, let’s say, actually belong to Middle East. But it’s abroad in Europe as well as in America, also in Asia, in India, in The Philippines, in Japan, I mean, everywhere in China, even in Tibet also, there are Christian communities. For this, I believe. What need is there for meditation if freedom from ignorance comes through logical analysis? What need is there for meditation if freedom from ignorance comes through logical analysis?

To get rid of ignorance, it’s not sufficient just to understand that the object being conceived by an ignorant consciousness actually does not exist. The mind has to undergo a transformation, a change. Since it is the case that the ignorance that misconceives the nature of phenomena, the ignorance that misconceives things as inherently existent is of two types: artificial or learned from systems of tenets, from mistaken systems of tenets, or innate, what inborn and unlearned, which is unlearned from systems. Since it is of these two different varieties, although the first variety can be overcome by understanding understanding the non inherent existence of things well. The second one, the innate form of it, cannot.

Therefore one has to meditate again and again and again on the profound meaning of emptiness in order to overcome the innate version. Yesterday we were speaking about the altruistic intention to become enlightened. Now we’re up to the description of training the mind by way of equalizing and switching self and other. As Śāntideva says, everyone equally wants happiness and doesn’t want suffering. He says that, for instance, just as every part of your body is equally to be protected from suffering, so all sentient beings are to be protected from suffering.

The reason why one wants to keep from suffering is merely one’s own thought, that one does want to be free from suffering. There’s no other reason. It is because one has the wish to be free from suffering that one feels this. There is no other greater reason. And each and every sentient being has this.

So then what is the difference between self and other? There’s a great difference in number between self and other. So you see, you, whatever you are, important person, you just, as I mentioned earlier, the other day, you see, you are just only a single man. Now, for example, it’s my own case, I’m just a humble Buddhist monk, that’s all. So, you see, the other people is infinite.

Even, you see, you may not count the other planets. Even this world alone, the others is limit, how to say, infinite. Several billions. What? Really.

So therefore, you see, now if we think the which is more important, the majority benefit of majority and the benefit of single minority. If we think that line, then there is no argument, there is no question to argue that the benefit of the majority is much more important than the single yourself. Now, as reason showing that everyone equally doesn’t want suffering, That all other sentient beings from their own side just do not want suffering. They equally want happiness. For instance, if there were 10 destitute people, you couldn’t single out one of them who was more deserving of getting rid of suffering and getting happiness.

All of them equally want happiness. And all of them equally do not want suffering. Among the 10 ill persons, all of them equally have illness, thus one can’t cite any reason why one among them should be You are biased, you see. Just select a few out of 10. There is no reason all 10 equally suffer by illness and wanting and get rid of that suffering.

Now from our side, from my side, also. From your own side. And then from one’s own point of view, all sentient beings, in terms of their connection with oneself, have in the past helped oneself and in the future will help oneself. Thus, one can’t find any reason from one’s own side to be kind to some of them and to give a hard time to the others. And then also if one considers the nature of both parties here, both have a nature of suffering, have a nature of impermanence, Once all of us have this nature of suffering, there isn’t any sense in singling out certain people and giving them a hard time.

It’s not worthwhile. For example, a group of prisoners, who are going to kill. Going to be executed. While they remain in the prison together, all of them are going to finish. But while they are remaining for, you see, a few more days, there is no reason to quarrel with each other.

Something like that. You see, all people in the nature of suffering, in the nature of impermanent, in nature of conquered by ignorance, and under such circumstances, you see, we both same condition. So, you see, there is no reason to fight with each other. If we are something complete pure and some other thing, other beings are impure, then there may be one reason to look down. But that is not the case.

So, you see, that also one reason to think equally. Now, again, you see, We have this bias of considering some people to be enemies and some friends. You see, if that is true, you see, enemy is always remain enemy, and friends always remain friend, then there may be some reason, you see, to hate for a certain part, to love for a certain part. But again, that is not the case. As I mentioned yesterday, yesterday and the other days, you see, because never never.

There’s no definiteness. So now you see conclusion, then another thing, you see. If we hate we hate anger, other people, result, you see, others as well as myself, you see, no good reason. Nothing comes from it, nothing helpful comes out of it, just anger. You see, anger, they ultimately not going to harm others, but really, you see, hurt yourself.

It’s true anger. When you are in good food, no taste. When you are very angry, I would say, you see, I am a good food, you may feel irritated. Now you see, your friend, your husband or your wife or your children, when you become angry, even these beautiful faces also give you irritation. Not because these are bad, but your own attitude is something wrong.

It’s very clear. So you see, using common brain or common sense, what is the usefulness of anger and hatred? And then, if we think these lines, there is absolutely no reason to be angry. Now, is there something, certain, is there unfortunate thing happen? Now, in order to face that problem or that tragedy, without anger we can handle better, better way.

Right? Mhmm. So you see anger, usefulness of anger is almost none. Almost none. Now, as I mentioned yesterday and the other day, in some cases, you see, the immediate motivation may involve anger.

That anger is something different. The type of upset that comes within friendliness or within affection, and the type of upset that, what do you say, or strong words that comes within hatred are entirely different. So you see, the anger which sometimes is the immediate cause, for the immediate cause, some anger necessary. That and that type of anger is this one, you see, with deep love motivation, compassion motivation. Now, because of that love, because of that, you see, so much concern for that particular person.

And that particular yet the particular person becomes stupid. Now there is no other way. You see, in order to stop that, you see, stupidly or badly behaved. Now sometimes you need a harsh word and, you see, a bit of angry. But that angry comes from love, not hatred.

So you see that the other anger which is hatred, now that is at all has no use. It has no purpose at all. It has no purpose at all. And also, you see, my usual, you see, the reason we human beings, we always talk, the human body or human being is higher being. So the others are animals, small insects, small mammals.

They could not think as human being can think. So you see, we have the one gift or gifting is human brain. Now the anger attachment, these, even animals, can also very well practice. Now you see, the only human being can think is judging or reasoning. So that is real human quality.

And infinite love. You see, the animals, their love is limited.