Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. Equanimity — why no rational basis exists for holding some beings close and others at distance — is the sole focus of this 49-minute talk by Khensur Rinpoche. He works through nine analytical sections spanning conventional and ultimate levels. Conventionally: all beings are equal in wanting happiness yet lacking it; strangers benefit us through the labor behind roads and buildings; enemies benefit us by making tolerance possible. At the ultimate level, enemies don’t exist from their own side — the real adversary is the afflictive emotion, not the person — illustrated by a mother who responds with compassion when her bile-sick child strikes her. He closes by turning to the next meditation: self-centeredness as the root of all faults, other-centeredness as the basis of all excellent qualities.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 37 3PA 1993 11 09.mp3
UUID: ef1ad531-5d9c-4360-b23c-0a8d01af7b1a
Teacher: Khensur Rinpoche
Collection: 3 Principal Aspects of the Path (Khensur Rinpoche)
Date: 1993-11-09
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 49.1 minutes
Words: ~2,949
So we’re discussing the method to generate the precious awakening heart. And the two means are the seven cause and effect instruction and equalizing and exchanging self with others, making an integrated method of fourteen parts. We have discussed the first three of the seven cause and effect instructions The first three, that is to say, recognizing all living beings as one’s mother, remembering their kindness, and developing a gratitude which wishes to repay that kindness. Then the this is specific to the seven cause and effect instruction. The parts of exceptional resolve and the development of exceptional resolve and mind generation are common to both meditative traditions, seven cause and effect instruction and equalizing and exchanging self with others.
That leaves eight parts which need to be explained. So mind generation is the awakening heart, that is the results. And the previous thirteen are the the method for developing this result. We’re going to discuss the equanimity as it is presented in the context of equalizing and exchanging self with others. Previously, the previous equanimity that we discussed was that within the context of the seven cause and effect instruction.
That equanimity which was previously discussed was developing a sense of equanimity in terms of not holding some close and others at a distance. That it’s having an even minded attitude toward both enemy and those we hold dear. But the equanimity which is explained in terms of the equalizing and exchanging self for others tradition is the holding that all living beings one are the same in wanting happiness and the same in not wanting to suffer. They’re they’re all equal in that respect. They’re all the same.
So today we’re going to discuss the equanimity or the equality within the context of equalizing and exchanging self with others. So with respect to this equanimity within the context of equalizing and exchanging self for others, it is divided into two parts in terms of conventional equanimity and ultimate equanimity. Then again, conventional is divided into two parts, that from the side of others and from one’s own side. So we have a it is divided into nine parts, totally, nine sections. So, in meditating this tradition, first we begin with the conventional equanimity from the point of from the in terms of other.
I mean others than oneself. So in terms of others this has three parts. So from conventional equanimity in terms of others has three parts. First is that we the equanimity which is the understanding that which is positive from the point of view that all others are the same in wanting happiness and the same is not wanting to suffer. So the equality of others in terms of wanting to be happy and not wanting to suffer.
So then the second part to this first section is that though others are the same in wanting to be happy, in fact, they are all similar in not having happiness. They all are bereft of the happiness that they all wish to have. So there’s therefore we have no reason to discriminate amongst them in terms of liking and not liking, in terms of closeness and distance. All of these beings are similar in not having the happiness that they all wish for. For example, if there were some people who were starving, extremely in pitiful condition, they were all begging for food.
And if we were there, we would have no basis for discriminating to whom we should give and to whom we should not, one we should like and one we we should not like. There would be no reasonable basis for us discriminating since they were all the same in in in their need. Then the third part of this first section is though all living beings are the same in not wanting to suffer, yet but moreover, they are the same in being tortured by suffering. Though they don’t want to suffer, they are all similar in being tortured by various types of suffering. Therefore, there’s no reasonable basis for discriminating amongst them in terms of who we’re going to hold closely and who we’re going to hold at a distance.
And the metaphor which is used is that if there were ten patients in a hospital and they were all in a very sickly condition, there would be no reasonable basis for it, since they were all in the same pitiful condition for us to discriminate of who we’re going to care for and who we’re not. So from the side of others, there’s no basis for our of having attachment for some and aversion for others. That they’re all very much in the same situation. And therefore, there’s no basis for us to developing a sense of caring for one and a disdain for the other, holding some close and others at a distance from their own side, from the side of others. So, in this first section, we’re considering that from the side of others, there’s no reasonable basis for us to hold some close and others at a distance.
They’re all equal from their own side. And we’re looking at others and from their side that considering their condition there’s no reasonable basis discriminate in which would be expressed in holding some close and others distant since they’re all equal. But when we if we look at it from our side, not from the side of others, but from our own side looking at them, it seems to us that our positions of holding some at a distance and others close to ourselves is reasonable because we have a sense that some benefit us, some harm us, and some are neutral. It seems reasonable, these positions that we take with respect to them from our side. From our own side, there’s really no basis for holding some close and others at a distance because none of these beings have, in fact, harmed us.
On the contrary, all of these all living beings have only benefited us. They have benefited us in the past and they will benefit us in the future. Therefore, attachment inversions are completely inappropriate. But I think we would think to ourselves, you know, all these living beings that there are very few occasions when they actually benefit me. And there are many occasions when they harm me.
And even many more occasions when they do neither, when they’re more or less neutral with respect to myself. But if we begin to analyze, we can see that in fact there have been numerous occasions when all of these living beings have been a benefit to ourselves. You know, the first is obvious when we agree that there are few occasions when they are directly beneficial to ourselves. But even when we have a sense where they’re neutral with respect to ourselves, they’re neither benefiting nor harming us. Even at those times, though they might not be directly benefiting ourselves, they in fact indirectly benefiting us.
If we take as an example, you know, this room that we’re all sitting in at present where we can carry on our practice of Dharma, comfortably. We can meditate and have teachings that this all came about through this the benefit of the laborers who were involved in building this house, that they expended a great deal of effort. Though the this was not a direct benefit to ourselves, but their work brought about an indirect benefit to ourselves. Due to their indirect benefit to ourselves, we now are able to meditate, we can sit here comfortably. So this is the indirect benefit to our ourselves.
All the food that we eat, the clothes that we wear, what we drink, these all come about through the hardships of other living beings. And though it might not be have been directly beneficial ourselves. It was indirectly so. So even when they appear to be neutral, they’re in fact bringing us about indirect benefit. So, you know, the roads that we travel on, the cars and the planes that we travel in, all these various means of transport whereby we can go where we want quite comfortably.
These all came about through the work of others and that though they might not have been of direct benefit to ourselves. But even at those times when these all these beings beings who did that work appear to be as in a neutral position to with respect to ourselves, in fact, even at that time, they’re indirectly benefiting ourselves. So even those neutral individuals are a benefit to ourselves. Even those who those strangers, those who we feel as if they were in a neutral relationship to ourselves are benefiting ourselves. But even enemies are benefit benefiting us.
In reliance upon our enemy, we we can carry on a practice of Dharma. And it is by means of in reliance upon the enemy that we can practice to its highest extent in terms of the development of tolerance without, you know, it’s in dependence upon people who bring us harm that we can practice tolerance. If no one harmed us, there would be no way that we could cultivate tolerance. And therefore we could not bring about the perfection of tolerance. And therefore we cannot attain Buddhahood.
In fact, the enemies are extremely kind to us, even those who harm us. You know, someone says a harsh word to you, and dependence upon being spoken to in that way, then you can cultivate a tolerance, you can accumulate the collection of a potential, you can perfect tolerance. And it is in dependence upon such a person that an enemy that we are able to be benefited in terms of our Dharma practice. So all three individuals, those who we hold dear, strangers and enemies, are the same in benefiting ourselves from our own side. And therefore so this is the second section in which from our own side how all living beings are equal in benefiting ourselves.
So the third part of the second section from our own side in establishing that others are equal in terms from our own side is that that we are all ourselves and others are all born under the force of karma that we’re other powered in this sense. And that we’re we’re all born into a rebirth which is in the nature of suffering. So we’re all equally involved in the situation of suffering and that we all, both oneself and others, are experiencing suffering and we’re all impermanent. We all are going through this momentary process of production and disintegration. And therefore, since from the point of view that we’re all impermanent, that we’re all going to die, we’re all equally the state state which is in the nature of suffering, then there’s no reasonable basis for us to discriminate amongst others, that we’re all equally in this process together without any distinction.
And from the ultimate point of view, There are again three parts. Firstly, that the enemy appears to us to exist from its own side, to be established from its own side. It appears to us exist enemy and the harm that they bring to ourselves appears to exist objectively as such that this individual appears to be an objectively existent enemy. But in fact enemies do not exist from their own side. They do not exist independently of our own minds.
If they did exist in dependence upon their own side objectively, then Śākyamūni Buddha would see them as such. But in fact Śākyamūni Buddha does not see an independently existing enemy. That there can be two individuals. One who is massaging, you know, with great devotion, sandalwood oil on his right arm. And another individual very painfully cutting his flesh.
He would look upon both of those equally without seeing either as an enemy. So, you know, this individual who is cutting Śākyamūni’s arm with great anger, slicing into his flesh with a knife, that a Buddha would not look upon the person as being the fault. They would see that the fault is the afflictive emotion within the person’s mind. That because of that afflictive emotion of anger, the person acts the way they do, that they have no freedom, that they are under the power of the afflictive emotion of anger. Therefore, it is not the person who is at fault.
It is not the person who is the enemy, but it is the afflictive emotion of anger. To illustrate what is being spoken of here is that a mother and child, they usually have a very loving relationship between them, speaking of a particular mother and child. But this child becomes very ill with a particular disease, bile, which makes one very angry. And so because the child is ill and under the influence of this bile making the child very angry, it hits out at its mother with great anger and actually hits her. But the mother doesn’t become upset with the child, getting angry at the child.
In fact, she thinks, Oh, the poor thing, the poor child. It’s very sick. Increases her compassion for the child. She doesn’t see the hitting out as being the fault of the child, but she understands it as being the fault of the bile. It’s the condition which facilitates this anger and causes the child to act so.
The child has no freedom. It is under the control of this illness. And she understands that and has compassion for the child. So even if, you know, another person were to become angry at us and, you know, to use harsh words, abusive words toward ourselves, you know, they’re under the influence of their anger. They simply don’t have any freedom in the matter.
And it would be inappropriate for us to retaliate against the person since the person is as if powerless the view of their anger. The real enemy is the afflictive emotion. Even if everyone were to harm us, they wouldn’t be our enemy. They would be the afflictive emotions within their minds. So that’s the first part of this third section on the ultimate point of view.
The second part is that those who we hold close and we hold at a distance that is they are our dear ones and our enemies are continually changing places that those who are our enemies in the past in a past life are dear ones in the in the present life and can become our enemies in the future life. Those who are who are dear to us in a past life or enemies present can become dear to us in the future. Individuals, those we hold dear and our enemies are continually changing places. One enemies become dear, dear ones become enemies. Moment by moment, they’re they’re they’re transforming into one another.
Therefore, you know, don’t exist from their own side as dear ones or enemies. If they did, then an enemy would always be an enemy. If they existed from their own side objectively, then a dear one would always be a dear one. But they don’t. They don’t exist from their side.
They don’t ultimately exist as a dear one or an enemy. They’re continually changing. And thirdly, second was that the enemy and dear ones do not ultimately exist as such because they are continually transforming, changing one into another. Then thirdly, in terms of that they are dependent arisings and therefore do not exist as such. That they are mutually related to one another.
That it is only in dependence upon the degree of harm or degree of benefit that we assign these labels of enemy or a dear one. That if someone slightly benefits us, then we look upon them as being a dear person. If someone slightly harms us, then we look upon them as an enemy. So we these enemy and and dear one are merely being designated in terms of the degree of benefit or harm that they bring to us. They don’t ultimately exist that way, but only in terms of being designated as such, in dependence upon the degree of harm and benefit which we experience from them.
So they do not they are dependent arisings in that manner. They do not intrinsically exist as as dear one or enemy. They do not truly exist as such. They do not ultimately exist as such. Therefore, you know, at these nine parts, this is through cultivating these nine parts, we can see it is an extensive method for developing a sense of equality amongst all living beings and developing equanimity.
So whosoever the person might be. So very briefly, in abbreviated fashion, simply most, that all living beings are the same in wanting to be happy, not wanting to suffer. And therefore developing the attitude of not holding some close and others at a distance and developing equanimity toward them, a sense of equality. So having through the cultivation of equality of self and others through the method outlined within the equalizing exchanges of self with others, developing a sense of not looking upon others in terms of attachment and aversion. We then go on to develop look at the faults of self centeredness and the advantages of other centeredness, trying to understand that all feelings whatsoever, that self centeredness is the basis of all faults, of all that unwanted in our lives. Its basis is self centeredness on the one hand, and all that is excellent — other centeredness is the basis for all excellent qualities.
Other centeredness is the basis for all excellent qualities.