Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 31-minute session, Khensur Rinpoche turns on one striking claim from the instructions: all blame — every unwanted experience — traces to a single source, the self-cherishing thought. Using vivid analogies (a flawed acquaintance one eventually can’t bear, a fabric seen as dirty), he shows how seeing this clearly produces a natural wish to abandon self-cherishing altogether. The remedy — cherishing others — is then traced as the source of all virtue, from immediate benefit through to enlightenment. He clarifies that “exchanging self and others” means redirecting toward all beings the intensity of care long fixed on oneself, and argues the shift is genuinely possible: “I” and “other” are not rigidly fixed by nature, the way hot and cold are. Cups, rooms, and shifting friendships ground the point concretely. Suited to practitioners following a Lamrim sequence.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 13 GS 1994 Easter.mp3
UUID: 68bc758e-fb2c-4c3a-8854-007c190964a8
Teacher: Khensur Rinpoche
Collection: The Great Scope (Khensur Rinpoche)
Date: 1994 (exact day not recorded)
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 31.2 minutes
Words: ~2,155
Śāntideva says if one does not exchange the suffering and happiness oneself with others, then there will not be accomplishment of Buddhahood. Even in Samsāra, there will be continued suffering. Yesterday, so far, the topics of the generation covered was equanimity, remembrance, recognition of all beings as one’s mother, remembrance of their kindness, special remembrance of their kindness grouped into one, repaying their kindness, following which one thinks about the point that like myself, others equally do not want suffering, they want happiness, which becomes the special equanimity. In the instructions, it is said that all blame lies on one single thing. All blame lies on one.
What that means is whatever unwanted experiences, encounters we experience completely are to be blamed on self-cherishing thought, because whatever unwanted that happens to us, they come from the source self-cherishing thought. In this way, we can think all that is to be blamed at, we can blame it completely or all on self-cherishing thought. When one thinks in that way, one would see that self-cherishing thought is extremely destructive. The word used is “evil” without its pejorative connotation — meaning destructiveness. So one would see the self-cherishing as extremely destructive.
When one sees it as extremely destructive, then that naturally will produce within one’s mind to wanting to discard away, wanting to forsake this. For example, if you meet a person and in the first place, in the beginning, you seem to like the person. But as you associate with the person over a long duration of time, then gradually, gradually, as time goes, you started finding faults, more faults, more faults in the person. Then there will come a point whenever the person is thought about or when the person appears, you wish that you need not see or stay with such a person. At that point, you are seeing the person completely with all forms, a very completely faulty person, defective person. When that happens, then you would wish to be away, thinking I really want to be away, separate from this person.
That’s a process how when something is seen faulty, there is the wish to be away from that process as it happens. Another thing we can look, say, a very nice, good material fabric. But if one sees that the fabric has picked up certain or due to one’s distortion in the vision, if one sees the fabric is somehow dirty, then one would see the fabric very defective and would not wish to have the fabric. Similarly, any nice object, whatever value or how attractive it may be, the moment one sees there is a fault. And when that intensifies, then it is similar that one would eventually feel like not wanting to have the object.
These are similar examples. Cherishing others is a path through which one receives virtue, meaning one benefits in this present life in the temporal sense and in our present life. Also in long term, cherishing other brings about virtue or benefit benefit to one’s self. It is the source of virtue for others. In brief, ultimately, it brings about the state of enlightenment, accomplishment of enlightenment.
Therefore, when one thinks about the thought of cherishing others, the thought considering others dear, having such a benefit through whatever angles one may look at it, that it is really the source of all virtue, all benefit, then one sees that it is extremely precious thought. When one sees it as extremely precious thought, then one wishes to develop one wishes to have such a thought developed within one’s mind. Through such way of thinking, when one sees with self-cherishing, there’s all fault, whereas with cherishing others, there’s all virtue of quality, then this produces within one the wish, strong wish to exchange the two within one’s thought, but to replace the self-cherishing with the thought of cherishing others. It would be so urgent that one feels one must have it, to such a point that one would feel even a moment’s delay in exchanging is too late. A moment’s delay in this practice of exchanging is too long; one wishes to have the exchange done in the first moment rather than the second moment.
There is such urgency even in terms of a moment or a second difference in the time lapse. Therefore, it seems even as instructions and practice goes that that is very true, that there will be a strong wish to exchange as soon as possible. Well, when there’s mention here in the instruction, the phrase exchanging oneself with others, it does not mean that I become the others and others become I. That is not the sense that the person themselves shifts from one to other. Instead, it is to be understood as the self-cherishing thought which one has had for so long is to be replaced by the thought cherishing cherishing others.
How that happens is that’s the meaning. Now how in our present state how things happen is that we so far have held so strongly oneself as dear, cherishable, precious, in the sense dear, and have not thought about others in the same way. This then here now has to be replaced by thinking that others, which means all sentient beings are more dear, they are cherishable. So the very intensity with which one has held oneself so dear, cherished, so dear, so far should be shifted towards others and then replacing within oneself by a thought which cherishes others, all other sentient beings as dear. Well, it might be wondered, is it actually possible to do the replacement that self-cherishing be replaced by cherishing others?
Yes. As an answer, it is possible. Because let’s look at a normal way how things from one’s attitude changes dramatically. Say, a person who one, in the past, held with such contempt and hatred that not to talk about the person actually meeting face to face. Even the near hearing of name of the person irritates you so much.
You feel like you don’t want to even hear the person’s name. Now, to such a person, later on somehow through circumstance when you had no choice but to deal with that person, then through that, if a certain acquaintance formed, and gradually if the tension and so forth eased, and you seemed to pick up some liking for the person, then it could come to a point that this previous person, you didn’t even want to hear the name. Now, they come so much a likable person, you can’t even stay easily, comfortably without the person being at hand. So that’s where the laughter was — that you really feel restless the moment the person is away. Now that sort of thing happened.
And the emphasis then, again, back with bit of laughter was that previously, even when the person’s name when you hear, it irritates you so much. Sometimes you feel sick wanting to vomit. Now such a person can become so cherishable — and here again there was laughter — that later on, you will consider that person more important than yourself. So it is extremely true that that is the fact and how it happens because after all, it is the way in the shift in the or it is in a way a shift in the thinking, a shift in the way one thinks. So it is a manner of thinking that the changes happen.
And in that way, therefore, coming to the point, it is possible to replace self-cherishing with cherishing others. For example, again, let’s look at our body. We consider it so important based on self-cherishing thought and ego grasping that if a person even slightly pinches you, you really shout and scream as demonstrated. And similarly, if a person even pierce a needle very slightly, you still scream. And there is also not only screaming, intense anger.
In that way, there is, due to intense ego grasping and self-cherishing, such reaction. Well, it is because of the thought that such reaction of intense sensitivity happened. And in the case of the body, that’s how the reaction happens. But if we we look at it, the body is not ours. It is what we acquired from what we got from our parents.
It is not our body. If thinks in in what if one thinks carefully, and then it is not one’s body. Body. And do that. To that.
Nurture it. For example, when out of cherishing to the body, when we think it is getting cold, we wrap it with clothing. When we out of cherishing to eat, when we think it is getting thirsty, we offer drinks, tea, and so forth. Similarly, when the weather is extremely bad, either hot or cold, then we try to shut our body by having a house or place to go into. Similarly, when the sun is cautiously hot, again, we try to protect it from shade.
And when traveling in cars, trains, and so forth, we try to best maintain, try to retain it and nurture, sustain it in that way. So there’s a very strong considering that it is extremely like a dear way of thinking. So there is such clinging attachment to one’s body based on self-cherishing thought. So look at an example, the cup here. Maybe it is the host host facilitator’s cup.
Because of that, you think it is someone’s cup and there’s not much attachment. And the moment someone gives this cup to you, you think it’s mine, and you have so much attachment, and you will consider it extremely valuable or precious. Let’s look in the case of a room you occupy in any situation. Let’s say you are next to another room, and one is where you stay temporarily. And time you live start living in that room, you think it’s my room.
And whereas the other room, which someone else was staying in, you don’t think it is mine. And due to that, you think your room is very precious, valuable, and you don’t have that attitude towards the other room. So that’s what happens. But after some time, if you are somehow asked to swap the room and you had to go into the next room, then that very moment, you would think it is my room. So we start considering it is cherishable, it is precious, and so forth.
Now how cherishable, how precious you look at it — this would be demonstrable in this way. The moment you occupy the room, you think it is mine. You think it is valuable. You hold on to it. And when someone tried to damage the room, either by throwing stone at it or in any vandalism.
You really feel angry at such happening, thinking it is being done against something you own. So there’s a very strong feeling of it’s mine, I, I associated thing. So that happens. And in the short case, we can say that it is only due to the familiarity with the thought and the thinking or way how one thinks that the attachment, the preciousness, so that’s what comes about. Whereas in the actual fact, there’s really not much to think about.
There’s really not much to think as a big deal. The whole thing is made by one’s own shift of thought. Well, it is only in the manner of thinking that there is the difference. Whereas, really, there is not much in actual rigidity of things if there is to be too unchangeable. It is not like that.
It is just in the manner of one’s thinking. Now let’s say in the case of I and others, it is something also in the way of thinking. Also, it is not rigidly there. It is not rigidly there because from the relative reference, one can establish the same person as being designatable as I and other. For example, in my case, in reference to myself, I am I, whereas you and others are in the designation others.
But in your perspective, you would see me as in the label others. So I am I and other as well. Similarly, you are you all are I and others as well. There’s really no rigid I and other in that way. There is therefore no contradictory contradiction in nature like the contradiction in the nature of hot and cold because self and others, I and others, they are not rigidly contradictory in nature.
It is therefore possible to think in a flexible way. Whereas in the case of hot and cold, they are contradictory in nature like that — because it is hot, it cannot be cold at the moment when it is hot, and because it is cold, it cannot be hot. They are contradictory in their very nature.
Contradictory in their own nature that it is like that.