Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this brief 9-minute seminar discussion, Ven Jampa Gendun works through a pointed argument from Śāntideva’s Bodhicharyavatara with a small group of students: if anger arises from causes and conditions — just as smoke arises in space without space “intending” it — can we really hold someone responsible for getting angry? The group debates what “intention” even means in this context, with students questioning whether anger itself carries any intent. Gendun clarifies that anger’s defining quality is precisely a specific aim: to remove whatever obstructs one’s desires. He closes by noting that how this intent is expressed — from restraint to smashing a plate — varies with social and cultural conditioning. Suited to students already reading or studying the Bodhicharyavatara.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 04 Bod 1997 03 30.mp3
UUID: 9d6c4d93-dd54-4ce2-89c5-7eb9a138fc78
Teacher: Ven Jampa Gendun
Collection: Bodicaryavatara (Ven Jampa Gendun)
Date: 1997-03-30
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 8.9 minutes
Words: ~654
Every moment according to interpretation, every moment of consciousness is accompanied by intention. Every So, yeah. Well then that puts makes all this of you just nonsense. How’s that, Joe? Well, you had a point.
Did you have a point, Rob? So the space the space didn’t I mean, space, we’re talking about the other space now. The space didn’t intend for the smoke to arise, did it? Certain causes and conditions occurred and space arose within it. So this the point that’s being gotten out here is due to certain causes and conditions coming together, anger arose.
The person didn’t intend to become angry. They didn’t they didn’t have that they didn’t come to a decision decision. Now I’m going to become angry. So that’s his point. That’s right.
Yeah. I agree with that. Okay. Then what then what don’t you disagree with it. What what an intent to harm if the if the very thing that The anger itself The very anger itself Is the intent The anger no.
The anger itself is an intent to harm. The anger itself is an intention to harm. I want to hurt that person, There’s an intention to harm, anger itself. No. But is there a person possessing the anger?
Yeah. Because it’s happening within a particular space. Alright. I merely label self. There’s nothing more than that.
That’s right. Exactly. So Because it’s because because you’re sitting on that cushion, we say Joe’s sitting on that cushion. Because Joe’s anger has arisen in the continuum of of that particular body-mind continuum and say Joe is angry. But Joe didn’t intend to come angry.
Certain conditions arise and anger arose within that particular continuum. So how can I get angry at Joe? But I am getting pretty uptight. Just what are you getting at? I’m getting at.
I hear you say what you’re getting at. So anger is justified. I think it was used. Maybe maybe it was used in wrath. Wrath?
So is this particular point that Śāntideva is making that’s been refuted? No. No. I agree with Śāntideva’s point. I disagree with the word intention because I don’t think anger itself has any particular intention.
What is the nature of anger? It’s a state out of control. A state out of control. Like New South Wales or something. Very clever, but not answering my question.
A state a state of mind out of control. Out of You said like Victoria, I think. What do you mean by out of like Victorio? How is that how is that relevant to what to tell me how to respond? Out of control.
Out of control. In what way is it out of control? Well, for instance, you can get angry and throw something at the wall and smash it. Decision. This this plate is no longer worth being in existence.
You know? It’s it’s done. No. I think I think anger is a wish one of the in this context, one of the qualities would be the intent to do away with the object. What that which is obstructing your desire in some way.
Either get him out of your sight or get him out of existence. I think that’s the intention. You’re obstructing my desire. Get out of my road. That’s my intention to get you out of my road.
That’s the intention of anger. Get out of my way. I’m not getting what I want. Get out of my way. There’s an obstructor to what you want.
And the intention is to get rid of that obstructor. So that’s the intent of anger. How that’s expressed could be due to various conditioning factors. Social conditioning, all kinds of cultural conditions. It takes throwing a plate against the wall in order for this person to say, I’m sorry, I’m not gonna do it again, okay.
You’ve gotten rid of your obstructor.