Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. “What does it mean to search for anger and not find it — and how does that help when you’re already gritting your teeth?” That audience challenge gives this nearly two-hour talk by Geshe Pema Tsering its sharpest focus. Delivered at Buddha House as part of a Lam Rim series, the session traces anger’s root to self-grasping — the innate sense of a solid, independent “I” — which generates attachment, then anger when obstructed. Geshe Pema walks through the analytical meditation: searching for the “I” in body and consciousness, finding nothing, concluding it exists only as a conventional label. He applies the same search to anger itself, citing a verse from Lama Tsongkhapa on emptiness and dependent arising, before an extended Q&A covers whether happiness dissolves under the same logic, what the physical sensation of anger actually is, and when temporary antidotes — loving kindness and patience — are the more practical tool.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 2008 05 30 Anger and Emptiness 30-05-08.mp3
UUID: 0b2d478c-30d6-405b-bffd-c5cf083235a0
Teacher: Geshe Pema Tsering
Collection: z Unallocated multiple years (Geshe Pema Tsering)
Date: 2008-05-30
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 119.6 minutes
Words: ~8,477
Info. If we don’t give rise to good motivation, then they they will lose all their meaning. They won’t carry any meaning forward. So so we need so we need to give rise to a good motivation. And the and the the best motivation, the one motivation to to which there is none better is the motivation of the mind of enlightenment, so called bodhicitta.
And bodhicitta, what is the mind of enlightenment? It is that mind that wishes to accomplish the welfare and the benefit of all sentient beings. And in order to accomplish the welfare of all sentient beings, it must accomplish its causes, the cause of the benefit and welfare of all sentient beings. And in order to accomplish these causes we study, we practice and so forth. If we give rise to this motivation in this way, then we will be accomplishing not only the causes of enlightenment itself, but we’ll also be accomplishing the causes by accomplishing the causes of enlightenment, we also accomplish the causes of good future rebirths as humans and gods.
And even we accomplished the cause of happiness for this life, for this very life, without even thinking about it. Explaining that in order to accomplish enlightenment itself, we we must accomplish that as in high rebirths as humans and gods. So if we accomplish the causes of enlightenment, then we also have guaranteed also the causes of future rebirth or high rebirth in humans and gods. So then when we engage in any activity, we do not need to contemplate, we do not need to wish for the happiness of higher rebirth in future lives or definitive certain liberation for oneself because by wishing for enlightenment alone, accomplish that automatically. So we give rise only to the mind of enlightenment without thinking about one’s own liberation and one’s, how to say, fortunes rebirth in the future.
So then in this way we determine that I must attain enlightenment and in order to accomplish that enlightenment I’m going to engage in the preliminary prayers, reading the Heart Sūtra, refuge prayer, and mandala offerings and so forth. So then bearing this in mind, then we start the preliminary prayers. Yeah. But, yes, the book is halfway page seventy nine. Otherwise, it’s in the little player book.
If you see that your neighbor doesn’t have the Heart Sūtra, please share. So Geshe-la was asked then to to teach about anger and its antidotes, specifically the antidote of emptiness, which is emptiness. So, Geshe-la, just briefly saying, okay, anger is a mind state, a mental state, which is pretty bad, it’s pretty harmful, and it’s something which we ought to watch out for and guard our minds against. So Geshe-la is explaining to us that anger originates from that sense of from that conception of I that has existed since what we call beginningless time or time in memorial. Since a very long period of time, we have been holding on to the conception of I, to that self-cherishing attitude.
And then out of that conception of I, then on top of that comes the conception of mine and my car, my things, my objects, my friends, my enemies, and so forth. And that’s the fundamental origin of anger. And Geshe-la was saying, then from that notion of I, from that self-cherishing, from that notion of the self grasping I, comes comes the wish not to have any suffering and to have every happiness, to experience every happiness. So that that I, from that notion of I, we wish we have that desire to have every every happiness, every happy experience, everything. And then and and then also we have the desire not to have any suffering.
Geshe-la was saying that is based fundamentally, that is what we call attachment. The desire to have of experience is called attachment. So then when we are in that state of attachment, and then something comes in between us and the desired object that we’re trying to get hold of, or the experience that we’re trying to get hold of, when something or someone obstructs that, then we get angry. So then those things or those people who obstruct the happiness, the happy experience that we want to obtain and we get angry towards them and also those people or things that help those undesirable experiences to come about, also we get angry with them. So then this is the way that anger comes about, isn’t it?
So we understood that anger mainly comes about because of attachment. And attachment mainly comes about because also of that worldly view holding to an eye, and then the view that holds to my or mine. Isn’t it? So we have these three main So then if we to rid ourselves of anger, and Geshe-la was then saying, so if we are to completely uproot anger, then we have to get rid of these three roots of ignorance. And that is because if we get rid of the cause, then we get rid of the result.
We understood already that anger is the result, is the result of attachment, that sense of I, and the sense of my or mine. So if we get rid of these three causes, then we get rid of anger. So then Geshe-la. Did you — is that okay? So it’s attachment.
Then there is the the view that holds to I or mine, that conceives of I or mine. And then there is the the self-grasping view of an I that holds to an I. Is that correct? Do do do you want to explain, do you like to explain that to them? So so Geshe-la was saying, so basically, one what is the difference between that view that holds on to an I in dependence on the psycho-physical collection?
And what is that other view of my or mine that holds on to a my or mine? Geshe-la was saying, so then: I. My or mine. Is that okay?
That’s fine. That’s fine, isn’t it? Thank you. One is the view Geshe-la says, nah. Every time Gestrela is saying, nah, it’s translated in English as I.
It’s the first person pronoun, I. Gestrela was saying, that view is the self grasping, which is very fundamental. Geshe-la was saying, it always comes very naturally and spontaneously within our continuum. It just appears all the time. We never we never have the sense of he or she.
It never comes strongly. It’s very very strongly coming to our own mental continuum. I, as Geshe-la was saying. It’s very strong, that sense of I. That’s what it is.
And on top of that, then from that sense of I, from that self grasping, then there is this this wish then to have every happiness and this desire to have every happiness and to avoid any painful or suffering experience. And and from that, we have what develops is that is that my or mine, my car, my father, my mother, my friend, my enemy, and so forth. Can you you see the difference? Is that okay, I guess, Lai is explaining again from giving a bit more depth to it. So then first first of all comes that sense of I.
Right? A very strong sense of I. And then after that, on top of that, comes the the the sense of my or mine. And Geshe-la was saying that that sense of I, that’s what is called self grasping. Self grasping is short for grasping to an inherent existing self.
Geshe-la was saying we hold on to that self as being inherently existent, then on top of that comes the sense of my or my. So I guess I would say, if we can get rid of that fundamental sense or view of the self, of that self grasping. If we can get rid of that, then we can get rid immediately, we get rid of everything that follows from that, which is that sense of my or mine, which is that sense of my or mine. And then after that, we get rid of following from that, we get rid of of attachment, and then we get rid of anger. So then we need to get rid of that I, right?
That sense or notion of I. What is it? How is it that we get rid of it? What is it that we need to get rid of it? We need something that directly opposes it in order to be able to get rid of it.
So, Geshe-la is giving an analogy to us. So for example, if it too hot, then what is it that we do, that we need in order to alleviate that heat? We have something cold. In the same way, if it is too cold, we need something hot. So then, and cold, they are just direct opposites.
So in the same way, for that sense or notion of I, in order to get rid of it, we need something which is at its opposite, its opposite. So Geshe-la, was then saying, so then we need to get rid of that I. And that I is then that sense that we have of a self existent I which doesn’t depend on anything or anyone else, which governs itself is all independent and free and and and, I say, not dependent on anything or anyone else. So we have that notion of I, which is conceived as being inherent existence or truly established from its own side. Geshe-la was saying.
So we need something. We need to conceive. How can I say that? With that investigative mind that is trying to figure out, to find out if that self does exist or does not exist. When we find out that it doesn’t, then we get rid of that notion and the sense of self.
So have that when we we need to rid ourselves of that notion of I, that the I exists in the way that it appears to exist as as as inherent existence. And when we realize that mind which realizes its nonexistent in this way, it’s noninherent existent in this way, that it doesn’t exist in the way it appears to exist, then that’s the the mind that directly opposes it. When we realize when the mind realizes it doesn’t exist, that rids us of it, so it realizes how the notion of I as being inherently existent is is wrong, is incorrect, is is is a distorted notion. So we need then to to take that that strong sense of I that we have, which is very strong within us, and we need to investigate and see how is it that it exists, see if it does exist or not. And we have to search for it, Geshe-la was saying.
We say, where is this I? And then when we search for it if we search for it, then we we don’t find it. So then some people say that it’s that I is is in the head. Some people say it’s in it’s in the body, some people point out to others and say he or she and say, we’re thinking it. They have an I there.
So when we look in all those parts of the body, look in the head and we look and so forth, we don’t find it, we see this emptiness, this lack of of the I. I guess I wasn’t saying if there was an I, then by the time how do you say? Geshe-la was saying if there was to be an I, then by the time we die, we see the whole body, don’t we? Geshe-la was saying, but still, there is no I there. Or when somebody else dies, again, we see their entire body, and still we don’t see he or she there.
There’s no he or she there. So, Geshe-la was saying, so we see the entire body. Right? And still, the I or he or she is not there. Right?
So we we Geshe-la Benedes, so we see that the that I is not in the form, what we call form, the aggregate of form. It’s not in form. So then we realize that the I is not to be found in the form. In some ways, that’s relatively easy to understand. It’s not difficult.
Then we think that I exists in the consciousness, in the in the mind. And again, Geshe-la was saying, if we if we look for it, if we search for it in consciousness, in mind, again, we won’t find it. It doesn’t exist there either. Geshe-la was saying, if it was to exist, then it would have to exist in one of the sense consciousness or in one of the five sense consciousness or in the mental sense consciousness. If it was to exist in the five sense consciousness, I guess I wasn’t saying, we would have five I, five selves.
It would have to be five selves. If have five sense consciousness, then we would have five I’s or five selves. So then we can conclude that the I does not exist in the five sense consciousness, and then we think then so it exists in what is called the mind sense consciousness or mental sense consciousness. And again, if we think that of the I existing in mind sense consciousness, again, doesn’t exist there. And you help me here if I’m wrong on this one, Geshe-la was saying, if the I was to exist in this mental sense faculty, Geshe-la wasn’t saying, then when we were thinking, because because the mind is is unobstructed.
It’s completely unobstructed. Nothing obstructs the mind. It goes it it it can go everywhere. When we are thinking of Geshe-la was saying, we’re thinking of of India or when we are here. We are here right now.
We’re thinking of that house over there, then we should we should be able to go there too. If the mind goes to India, if the mind goes to that house over there across the street, or the mind goes here and there, then we should go too. But the the I, the person, doesn’t go. That is that all okay? And then so then we see if we if we search for the eye in this mind sense faculty, this mental sense faculty, we won’t find it.
And again, if we say that if if we say that it exists, also if the eye is there in in the whole of the sense faculties, and then, again, when Geshe-la was saying the consciousness, the whole of it, Geshe-la was saying there’s there’s a many different sense factors. There is feelings. There is discrimination. There is compositional factors, and then there is general consciousness. So there is there is attachment.
There is anger, so forth. So if if if the I, that self was the whole of it, it will be every one of those things. The I will be anger, be attachment, be feeling and so forth. So we wouldn’t have one I. We would have many, many, many I’s, many selves.
So, Geshe was so again, this I, this very strong sense of self that we have, that we all have, Geshe-la was saying, we all have that, a very strong sense of I. Again, if we search for it, we won’t find it. It’s nowhere to be found. It’s not in form, it’s not in consciousness, and and and nowhere to be found. So now if if we look for it, if we search for it, and if we if we do not find it, if we don’t find anything, then it doesn’t exist.
Right? So Geshe-la wasn’t saying so then we see that the I does not exist in the way that appears to us to exist. So it doesn’t exist. We don’t find it. And still, is it to say that it doesn’t exist at all?
No, it is not the case that it doesn’t exist at all. It still exists. Exist at all. When we search for it, we don’t find anything. But it still exists.
So how is it that it exists? So Geshe is saying, order to realize the emptiness, again, search for it. We do not find anything. And Geshe-la says, it’s not to say that it doesn’t exist at all. So how is it that it exists?
It exists conventionally. Geshe-la wasn’t saying it exists as merely imputed. Or can I say merely labeled? Is that okay to say something like that? Merely labeled.
So, again, Geshe-la Wenze. So when when we we search for it, we we don’t find it. It doesn’t exist. It It doesn’t exist at all? No, it still exists.
For the mind which is not searching for it, for the mind which is not investigating or analyzing it, then it still exists, exists as merely labeled. So, again, it doesn’t exist. When we search, it doesn’t exist in the way that it appears to exist. We find out that it doesn’t exist in the way that it appears to exist. It doesn’t exist in that way.
It doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist at all. It still exists for that mind. Again, for the mind which is not investigating the way that it exists, it still exists as labeled, as merely labeled. Geshe-la was emphasizing, previously emphasizing the particle merely, that translates as merely labeled, luskala. So then, that mind which, how do say, conceptually imputes the I, Gerstlau was saying, is a mind which is not searching or investigating the way that the I exists at all.
So again, that mind which is conceiving, that sense, when we have that strong sense of I coming forth, Geshe-la was saying, that mind is not investigating that I. It’s not searching for the way that that I exists, if it exists or doesn’t exist. On the other hand, when we search for it, we don’t find it. For that mind which is searching for it, which is investigating the way that it exists, then it doesn’t exist. So for that investigating mind, it doesn’t exist.
For that non investigating mind, it does exist. So then, for that mind which is not investigated, it exists merely labeled. It exists, how do say, merely labeled by So then that I then exists is merely labeled by mind, merely imputed by mind, by the conceptual mind. Is trying to convey the meaning of this it’s more expressions. I’m I’m I hope I can get across it.
Is is something like the. Is to label, to impute, and is merely. And Geshe-la was saying, so if it is merely labeled or merely imputed, then it is not consciousness, it is not form, and it’s not anything else. It merely imputed by the conceptual mind. So Geshe-la was then just emphasizing, Pa is there, tak is imputed, and some merely.
So it is only an imputation. You remember the verse? It’s a it’s a it’s one of the final verses of the three principal aspects of the path of Lama Tsongkhapa where Geshe-la was saying when it’s it’s a beautiful verse, actually. Very profound. Let’s see if we can get the translation.
It’s gonna it’s certainly going some better than my my translation. When for you, I used to know that. It’s one of the last verses. When emptiness and appearance come together, when emptiness and dependent arising come together, when for you, there is no there is no more seeming contradiction between emptiness and dependent arising. Oh, yes.
I’m come together, and when we realize that they come together, as Geshe-la was explaining, so the the emptiness of of the self. Then when for you, this the emptiness and appearance or emptiness and dependent arising do not appear contradicting anymore, but they come together. When you see them as as as as as one thing to both sides of the same thing, one side two sides of the same thing, then you have realized emptiness. You remember? Yeah.
That sounds a little bit funny how you say it. But the two realizations exist simultaneously without alternation and when from all we see dependent arising as infallible, definite knowledge destroys the mode of apprehension of perception of inherent existence. Then the analysis of the view of emptiness is complete. That’s it. So, basically, Geshe lah was then saying, so then what you realize emptiness when you understand that when you look for it, when you’re searching for it, it doesn’t exist, but that it still exists as merely imputed by the conceptual mind.
And that is the full realization of emptiness. So, Geshe-la, I was gonna say, so the whole point is when we realize in this way that the I or the self does not exist in the way that it appears to exist, then we have realized what is sometimes translated as selflessness. I prefer to consider it as no self. And we realize no self, and then we then rid ourselves of that wrong conception of the self, of that wrong sense of self that we have, of I. And then we read ourselves automatically of everything that originates from it.
So we read ourselves of that view that holds to my or mine, and then we rid ourselves of that view that holds to everything that obstructs our desires, the things that we want, that we desire to obtain and everything that hinders the attainment of our desires or that propels the undesirable things. So we get rid of attachment and hatred also. Is that okay? So again, if we get rid of that false sense of I, Geshe-la wasn’t saying we get rid of anger, but not only anger, we get rid of every other afflictive emotion and conception. And then, Geshe-la was saying, then also So right now, we we we went through abandoning the cause of the cause of anger, and then for abandoning the cause of anger, we abandon anger.
And Geshe-la was saying, we can also search for anger itself. We can also see where does that anger exist, where is the essence of that anger. So where is it that it comes from? It either comes in dependence on ourselves, on our minds, or it comes in dependence on our friends and loved ones, or our enemies, or in dependence on the things that we possess. I’m confused.
Geshe-la was saying, it is that which helps us get the things that we desire and whatever it is that to say, obstructs the things that are undesirable, then we consider that to be good. Usually, Geshe-la wasn’t saying, we usually think of anger as being good in that way, in that we think that it helps us obtain those things or avoid those other things. And Geshe-la wasn’t saying, but we hold on to be good whilst, in fact, it destroys our roots of virtue. It destroys our friendships and everything. So it is very harmful to us, but we do not understand that it is harmful, that anger is harmful, and we hold on as something which is beneficial, is benefiting us, which is helping us to accomplish the things that we desire.
So then basically, the whole point is of what everything that Geshe-la was saying is even though it is harmful, it is something that harms us, we hold on. We conceive of it as being good and beneficial to us. And then we allow ourselves to get angry with other people and things. And then when we get angry, our minds get disturbed. They get they get disturbed and they get agitated, and then we start considering causing harm to another.
So when we get angry in this way, the person with whom we are getting angry at, that person does not get harmed in any way. We are the ones who get harmed. Our roots of virtue are destroyed. Whatever virtue that we have accumulated, whatever positive energy that we have accumulated, they get destroyed by by that anger. And then on top of that, everybody everybody else will dislike us.
So we ruin our friendships and so forth, our relations and so forth. And it will harm us not only in dislike, but it will harm us all the way into future lives, all the way it will hinder our attainment of enlightenment and so forth. So then, when we get angry then, when that anger arises, when the anger is born, then we have to search for it. We to look for it. Just like when we were looking for the eye.
We were searching for the eye. Where is the eye? Again, we search for that anger. Where is the anger? Is it in the person where I’m getting angry with?
Or is it me? If it’s in me, where is it? It’s in the body, it’s in the mind. Where is it? And again, if we search for it, then we won’t find it.
There’s nothing to be found. And Geshe-la was just saying, what is this of it doesn’t exist? I am angry. We say, isn’t it? I am angry.
There is anger. I am angry. So how can you say that it doesn’t exist? And though we say, I am angry, again, that I, if we search for it, it doesn’t exist. Again, that anger, that angry, again, we look for it, we search for it, and it doesn’t exist.
We don’t find it. It’s not it’s nowhere to be found. And Geshe-la was saying, so for the sake of of of an illustration, Geshe-la was pointing out to the to the little vase with with the flowers and saying, well, we don’t we do not only get angry with people. We can get angry with with things also. So suppose Geshe was angry with the flowers or I was angry with the flowers, and Geshe-la was saying, if we look, where is the anger?
Is the anger in the vase with the flowers? No. But it’s not there. There’s no the anger is not there, obviously. And then we we think, so where is it?
Is it is it in the body? And we don’t find it. Again, we think, is it in the mind? No. But it’s not in the mind because in the mind, is also love and kindness and compassion and many other many other minds.
So it is not in the mind. So it is not body. There is no mind. It is not outside. So in this way we come to understand, if we act in this way, we come to realize the way that anger exists, in which way anger exists, the way that it exists.
We, Geshe-la was going to say, if we search for it, it is something which is in existence. It falls under the category of being in existence. So if it is in existence, we search for it, and we do not find it, but it still exists conventionally as as merely labeled again. So again, Geshe-la was saying, when we look for it, we do not find it, and it’s just merely labeled. It’s just like in the television.
So just like in in the television, when we see we see things in people on the television, and but we we realize they do not they do not exist for real. They’re not for real. And, again, the same with this anger. We realize that it doesn’t exist in the way it appears to exist. And then when we realize that, we come, oh, it doesn’t exist in that way.
It doesn’t exist from its own side, it appears to exist again, and then that anger then dissipates. Did you did you the first one is dreams. What what is the the other the other three that he said? Echo. So I guess I want to say it is like a dream.
It is like an echo. And then what was the other ones? And we have all these metaphors, so then it is like a dream, it’s like an echo, it’s like a reflection in the all pointing out to the fact that it does not exist from its own side. Okay? So then again, we can if we realize that this anger does not exist, does not have any here existence from its own side, then we rid ourselves of anger.
So then this is one way of ridding ourselves of anger. Again, we can get rid of the causes of anger. We can get rid of the sense of I. And again, we can get rid of the causes of anger. Again, there’s another way to get rid of anger.
So we can realize the existence of the self. We can realize the existence of of anger itself. And in this way, we can get rid of anger. So then that’s realizing then the emptiness or the existence of anger and then realizing the emptiness of self, existence of the self, then again we can completely rid ourselves of anger even even its, how to say, the imprints, habitual imprints of anger. So then for this realization of of this realization of emptiness, we can completely uproot anger.
Now on a on a temporal on a temporary way, we we can get we can arrest anger with with such contemplations as loving kindness, compassion, compassion, or patience. And these these minds, they do not completely uproot anger, but they can arrest anger by by changing, by turning our minds away from it and into something else, into into love compassion, or patience. So Geshe-la is in a sense, by gaining knowledge of these other minds of loving kindness, compassion patience, and so forth, then we can arrest anger when it arises, whenever it arises. So I guess I was saying because we do not have realization of emptiness, then we ought to exercise, we ought to arrest anger whenever we can by using these other minds, and by turning our mind away from anger anytime it arises. Think of something else, we’re saying.
Immediately, we think of something And I guess I was saying, again, also the the full development of loving kindness, compassion and patience is relatively difficult to accomplish. And the easiest the easiest thing to do is is is to when anger arises, we immediately turn our minds away from it and think of something else. That’s the easiest the easiest way to to handle anger. So we probably now have some questions. If you like to I’m sorry.
I’m not sure if I follow. Okay. In the in the discussion about the attachment itself, look to yourself, and you can’t find the, I mean, the conception that you’ve got. Yes. I’m happy with that.
You’re happy with that? Quickly in your own mind and in your own emotional reactions to certain things. I’m perfectly happy that it’s probably not in the vase. It might be in my response to white flowers, shapes of vase or whatever, and that’s gonna be inside whoever or whatever I think I am. Mhmm.
But I don’t I don’t understand why you’d say you can’t find it. So now do I understand it? I I’m not sure. I think I do. We look for the we look for the anger.
And Geshe says: when you look for it, you cannot find it. You can’t find it in the body, you can’t find it in the mind. But this person has a feeling: I do find it in the mind. So obvious, isn’t it? It’s just so obvious, isn’t it?
I am angry. I’m really angry. Is that what you mean? Yeah. What I’m saying?
How can I deny it? I am angry. Right? Yes. That’s way and the way we normally deal with anger is to look at why I’m angry.
What what is it that I’m responding to? One way we deal with it. Yes. I I will try my best here. Okay?
I I cannot guarantee. I have to apologize for this. This is one of the deficiencies of my interpreting. It’s very hard for me to translate colloquial English into colloquial Tibetan. Is something that is more difficult than interpreting the teachings itself.
So I will say what Geshe-la said, and hopefully that will address your question. So, I I want to say, first of all, the cause of anger. The cause of anger is the self grasping, is that notion that we have of our self, of our inherent existent self, and that self then wants happiness and pleasure for it itself and and wants to avoid every pain and suffering. And out of that, we get angry when we do not get the happiness that we want or when we end up getting getting pain and suffering. And whoever obstructed the happiness and whoever helped the suffering, then we get angry with that object.
So this this is the main cause of of anger. There’s no question about that. This is the main cause of anger. So we realize selflessness. We realize no self, and we get rid of anger.
Now and then you and then I say, so what about searching for anger when we are angry and then not finding it? So then now one thing is when you are angry and you’re not questioning how is it that this anger exists? What is the ultimate way of existence of this anger? How where is this? If if you are angry, if you’re just angry, and you’re not questioning these things, you’re not thinking about where is the anger?
How does it exist? If you’re not questioning these things, if you’re not searching those things, if you’re just angry, and you just go on with it, that anger exists, and it is there. Now if you if you search for it, if you search for where is that anger, how is the the the way that in which way that anger exists, then you you search, you will not find it. Right. A word.
Can I adjust a word? Yes. Yes. For a non investigative non analytic awareness, anger exists. For for that for that awareness, which is not investigating, it exists.
But it doesn’t exist for investigator awareness. You could say that anger exists, but it’s baseless. No. No. It it it’s anger for a broad consciousness or awareness, which is not So Geshe-la is saying, well, you said that you do understand that when we talk about searching for the I, or how is it that the I exists?
And then when we search for it, we do not find it. I understand. You understand that? So so in the same way, when we talk about anger, when you search for the anger, search for the anger, where does it exist? How does it exist?
For that mind, like as Geshe-la was saying, when you are searching for it, for that mind which is searching for it, which is analyzing the way that it exists, for that mind, it doesn’t exist. That mind will not find anything. So you’re back to thinking that a concept would have permanent, separate existence, which I don’t even understand why That’s exactly what we did not say. Again, Geshe-la Wan is saying: We think of the anger as we think of everything else that exists.
Okay? You understand that? Everything that exists, we think of it as existing in the way that appears to exist. We think of it as existing from its own side, as having inherent existence from its own side. And we think of the anger in the same way.
We consider the anger as existing from its own side, as existing the way that it appears to exist. Now when you get angry, and you get all red and tense, and how do you call that when you do that? Gritted teeth. Grit your teeth. Then at that moment, you search for the anger.
Where is the anger? Where is anger? Is it in my body? Is it in my mind? When you search for it in this way, and if you really do it all the way to the end of it, you don’t find it.
It doesn’t exist in here. It only exists as merely imputed by conception, by a conceptual mind. I see it as a response to a thought as an ever changing mind stream. Whereas the actual thing, it’s just a thought. And then because of that thought, you get all but the next minute, a thought might be something else.
It’s all the time changing. But there’s actually no anger. It’s just your response to a thought that’s probably gone. Sorry. I’m not I’m not sure if I Yeah.
The in in a the anger is is not wandering around on the street, and you can say, oh, there’s an anger. Just to cover my body, isn’t it? Yeah. It’s just, and then you oh, and then it’s gone. So, again, I have trouble translating that, but And then And then again, Geshe-la said to all I tried to explain what you said, which is difficult for me.
But Geshe-la was saying, So yes, all these minds, all these thoughts that come all the time, they are all merely imputed, merely labelled by mine. All of them. Please, Heather. So then and then on the other hand, and see if that helps, Kathy. Again, if if anger were to exist inherently from its own side, if it was to have inherent existence from its own side, it wouldn’t it wouldn’t have any causes.
It wouldn’t come out of existence. It wouldn’t cease to be, and it wouldn’t be born. So it wouldn’t there would be no cause or reason to be angry, and there will be no basically, there would be no change. You wouldn’t get more angry or less angry, or anger wouldn’t disappear at all. And all anger you know, if it were to exist from its own side, if it was to have inherent existence from its own side, and then when you search for it, you will be able to find something also.
And I guess that I was gonna say, so we we there are times when we when anger is there, and there are times when we are not angry. Anger not there. Right? And that is because it it depends on causes and conditions. When all the causes and conditions are there, anger arises.
When the cause all the causes and conditions are not there, anger is not present. So and that points out again to the fact that it doesn’t it does not have any inherent existence from its own side. Something that comes from causes and conditions is still something we need to deal with. So I don’t see how accepting that it has no independent existence helps you deal with it at all. Ah, Okay.
Okay. Can can you help me translate that into Tibetan, please? Do do do you want to answer the first part? It is not easy to understand. And let’s not pretend that we’ll be able to understand it today.
So coming from there, Geshe-la was saying, look, once you understand that it does not exist in the way that it appears to exist, it appears to exist as something real from its own side. That’s the way we hold on to it. Once we understand that it does not exist in that way, that it does not have any existence from its own side, then we’ll find no reason anymore to be angry. There is no solid foundation. There’s no substance.
There’s no real reason for us to be angry. And then furthermore, at the end now, Geshe-la was saying, then we will realize it is just like a dream. In the same way that we don’t get real attachment or real anger to the things in the dreams, we don’t hold on to them desperately. We wake up in the morning. It’s all gone.
It’s fine. We don’t get involved with them. In the same way, when when you realize the emptiness, this emptiness, again, you relate to these things, anger and so forth, as as if it were dream things, and you you won’t get caught up on them. And then once you realize that, they just dissipate from by themselves. Let’s let’s start with with the gentleman there.
I’ll try to be as precise as I can. I know it’s a misconception, or I believe it’s a misconception, but when I when I feel angry or let me start with anger. When I feel angry, I have a physical sensation Yes. In my chest. Yes.
Automatically, when I meditate on that, it’s that feels like the I. That feels Yes. The anger. What would be the best way to overcome that misconceptual? The best way to draw attention away from that if that is not the anger, if that is not the eye.
Does that make any sense? If that physical sensation is not It’s not real? It’s not. Okay. So were you asking if that physical feeling itself is either anger or the I?
Is that it? I believe that’s misconception. I’m not sure. Yes. I guess that’s one question.
That’s that’s is that the question? Yeah. The other one is how to steer. How to steer away from it. Do you do you want you got to So, essentially, Gesheva says that physical feeling is not a consciousness, and anger is a consciousness.
Anger is a mind. It’s mental thing. So what is that feeling? So then so then anger itself is mind, but it affect the body. It does affect our body.
Relation to its intensity, it will affect bodies in different in different degrees. But in itself, anger is not the body, and it is not that is just a consequence, a result of of anger. So, again, in the same way that anger is mind, is consciousness, is a mind sense faculty, and it affects our bodies in this bad way. You know, have all this heaviness, intention, and all that. In the same way, in the same vein, loving kindness and compassion, they are also mind.
And when we can produce them, they will affect our bodies in a positive way. Bodies become smooth and relaxed. So, Geshe-la was saying, this of the sense faculties, we have the five physical sense faculties and the mental sense faculties faculty. And Geshe-la was saying, mind the mind is is is very powerful. It has a great power, and it influences all the other sense factors.
It influences the body, sense faculty, and so forth. Influences the body and so forth. All the other sense factors are like the servants or slaves of the mind. That’s how we understand that relation. Is that okay?
The second part of this, actually. What was the second part? What was it? How turn away. Second part?
What was that? How turn away from that misconception? Is that it? Basically there are two ways, as Geshe-la has been teaching us, there are two ways to get rid of anger. So one is a temporary way which is by cultivating loving kindness compassion and patience and so forth which we can temporarily arrest anger.
Or otherwise we we realize emptiness. We realize the lack of self. We like we realize that lack of inherent existence of self. We have to investigate and analyze how is it that the self exists, we get rid of causes of anger, and we get rid of all these misconceptions all at once. Is that is that making sense?
Is that okay? Did that did that answer your question? I hope so. Do you want to ask a question? Yeah.
Yep. That’s alright. So if we accept that anger is an afflictive emotion, happiness is also an emotion. Can it not be arrested in the same manner if we don’t if we accept that there is no self, then can there also not be happiness as a result? That was my question.
That’s good. If the negative That’s the thing is is the the words how can how can I start with that? You want to do that? So the the empty the awareness which realizes emptiness is a correct aware correct consciousness. It the to all wrong consciousness.
So the the awareness realizing emptiness acts as an antidote to all wrong consciousnesses, such as all the various afflictive emotions and so forth. But on the other hand, it it does not act as an antidote to correct consciousnesses. For example, compassion and so forth. The realization that this actually enhances correct consciousness if they develop higher and higher, such as compassion and others.
And this is a trick with words also that we have to bear in mind when we’re talking about emotions and consciousness. In Tibetan, we have one word, which is nyon mong. And that refers to what we Westerners would call emotions or mental states. And there are mental states which are wrong. They are incorrect.
They are distorted. They are deluded. So then anger, attachment, pride, pride, all that. And the root of all of that, Geshe-la was saying, is ignorance. And when we when we can get rid of ignorance as fundamental wrong view or conception, then we get rid of everything that follows from it.
And then I’m just just complement this. And it’s like this. And then suffering, the cause of suffering comes from all the afflictive emotions and conceptions, from anger, pride, jealousy, and so forth, and ignorance, which is the root of all of that. And then and all these minds, are wrong minds, distorted minds, distorted mental states or emotional states, whatever it is that you want to call it, they cause us suffering. When you get rid of ignorance and you get rid of all these negative emotions, you get rid of all the causes of suffering.
You don’t experience any more suffering. And happiness is caused by virtues, virtues which mainly come about originate in correct minds. And then so when you realize emptiness and you get rid of all the wrong minds from ignorance up, all you have left is the correct minds. All you have left is causes of happiness. Is that making sense?
It’s a lot to take in, yes. So, basically, happiness is is caused by correct minds, let’s say correct minds, and suffering is caused by wrong minds or distorted minds. Let me say again, happiness is caused by virtues, virtues which are simply speaking are something which is good, and they come about out of correct minds. And then, again, suffering is caused by non virtues, which are which are the bad and which are caused by wrong distorted minds. Is that okay?
So Geshe-la wasn’t saying it is difficult. It is difficult. There’s a lot to take in. It is difficult to understand. But, Geshe-la was saying, briefly, our lives, what we experience is basically, all that we experience in our lives is happiness, suffering, or something which is neutral, which is neither happiness nor suffering.
Then every happiness of our experience comes about in dependence on a correct mind. Every suffering of our experience comes about in dependence on a wrong distorted mind. And every neutral feeling that we experience, every neutral experience that we have, comes about on the mind which is neither one nor the other. So again, all the happiness, the suffering, and the neutral experiences that we have in this life, they come about as a result, as results as results of virtues, non virtues, or neutral actions that we have performed previously, that we have accumulated previously. So if now you accumulate, if you practice or engage in only virtuous actions, then you will experience happiness.
If you engage in non virtuous actions, experience suffering in the future. If you engage in neutral actions, again, you experience neutral results in the future. So then the ultimate correct mind is the mind that realizes selflessness, the lack of inherent existent self. Again, the root of all wrong minds is the opposite of that, which is a mind that grasps to a self. So if you realize the direct opposite of this mind that grasps to a self, to a inherent existent self, if you can eradicate that root of all wrong minds, then you eradicate all the causes of suffering also.
Geshe-la was giving us again the analogy of the heat and the cold. Again, so if you want to get rid of the heat, you get in touch with something which is cold. If you want to get rid of the cold, get in touch with something which is hot. In the same way, if you have that mind that realizes selflessness or no self, then, again, you don’t you do not have the wrong mind which conceives of self that won’t be present. And again, but right now, as it is, as we are right now, we have a very strong mind that conceives of inherent existence itself.
It’s present. It’s very much present in us right now. Oh yeah. This one? I just wanted to ask, If an investigative mind looks for happiness So again, as for everything we can say exists, the I and everything else, also happiness.
If you search for it, you won’t find it. So then, if search for it, we search for everything. We have searched for the way that everything exists. Have searched for everything, and we haven’t found anything. And we think nothing exists.
That’s our conclusion, right? Nothing exists then. So we still we think, oh, there’s nothing that exists. And still, it’s not that they are entirely non-existent. Things still have existence.
They they do exist still in a way. So again, we search for it, we do not find it. But still, it’s not to say that it doesn’t exist at all. It still exists. How is it that it exists?
It exists. Things exist in dependence on other things. And that’s So when we come to fully understand, to fully realize that when you search for it, it doesn’t exist. We don’t find anything. But there still exists in dependence on other things, interdependently.
When you realize these two things, these two aspects, then you have realized emptiness. Wanted to any any more questions? Is that okay? Is that okay?