Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 13-minute commentary, Ven Jampa Gendun uses a vivid everyday image to ground a philosophical point: the ring finger is long beside the little finger but short beside the middle, meaning it has no fixed length from its own side. Friend, enemy, and stranger, he argues, are exactly like this — relative, not inherent. He first shows that attachment and aversion depend on treating relationships as permanent, yet a friend can become an enemy overnight, which exposes the false premise beneath both emotions. Drawing on Śāntideva’s Bodhicaryāvatāra, he then introduces the ultimate relativity of these categories: without enemies there are no friends, and without strangers neither category has meaning. Part of the ongoing Heart and Mind of Awakening series, the session closes with a dedication prayer.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 11 HMA 1997 02 19.mp3
UUID: 05550e11-42f1-4b59-ad75-843f5f264017
Teacher: Ven Jampa Gendun
Collection: The Heart and Mind of Awakening 1996-1997 (Ven Jampa Gendun)
Date: 1997-02-19
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 13.4 minutes
Words: ~1,786
That friend, enemy, and stranger are subject to continual change. So, again, this is calling in the question whether things exist the way they appear or not. Okay. So if these three categories of people existed the way they normally appear to ourselves, the way they always appear to ourselves. We can say that.
Not normally. Always. To to us, then a friend would forever, unchangingly remain a friend. You know, we’re trying to under undermine this conviction, this absolute belief in appearance with regard to friend and and stranger. If the friend existed the way the friend appeared, they would forever be our friend.
The stranger would forever be stranger. The enemy would forever, always, constantly, continually be an enemy, unchangingly so. But we know from our own experience that this is not the case. You know, our best friend can can by means of a you know, can become our worst enemy overnight. And likewise, our worst enemy, you know, just a few words of reconciliation, a kind gesture on their part, A small you know, can they can become quickly become a good friend.
We all know this. We’ve all experienced this many times. But we fixate on one or the other. We fixate on the friend as if they were forever going to remain constantly our friend. We fixate upon the enemy as if they were forever constantly going to remain our enemy.
And the stranger is forever going to remain a stranger, and we develop it. So as as a basis and this is the internal logic of ignorance. If this were the case, then it would make sense to to develop attachment, hatred, and indifference. It it it there would be some we could make a legitimate case for it, perhaps. But fixating on their friend as if they’re always going to be your friend, we go on to develop attachment.
You know, if the mind which is understanding impermanence of its object cannot develop attachment toward that object. Object is based upon a fixed I an idea on a premise that this object is gonna remain unchanged, constant. If if that basis is not there, this this this holding is grasping for permanence, then attachment cannot arise. So if we can keep in view that the of the impermanence of the object, attachment would not arise. Now who who who are we to who who are we to have attachment to?
You know, we’re talking about how we fixate upon these categories as if they’re always going to be like that. Now who who are we to be attached to, and who are we to have aversion towards? Someone you know, someone who slapped our face yesterday and gave us a gift today, or someone gave us a gift yesterday and slapped our face today. You know, how would what would it be our present reaction to them? Though the actions of the two people are exactly the same, the only difference being in terms of time, we will fix it upon one as a friend and the other as an enemy.
And we will correspondingly react with attachment and aversion. And in the meanwhile, we totally forget about, you know, the the the stranger’s gift that was given to us three days ago as if it never happened. So, you know, if if the point is that if we can step back from the trees, you know, this the trees of friend, enemy, and stranger and gain some perspective on the forest of our relationships, you know, in which we in which we live our lives, we’ll be able to appreciate the the tenuous nature of our relationships and not grasp so tightly to them as if we were always going to be like this, if if grasp to the permanency of this the nature of our present relationship, then we can develop a more fluid and open way of relating. You know, we’re we’re relating which allows for fluctuations in the nature of our relationship, which which which allows for change and does not preclude alternative ways of relating with and feeling toward this person. You know?
We’re open. We’re open minded as it were. So this I’m having a dilemma. This third third point would I guess I could just begin. I could just I could just mention it, then we can go into it in detail next week.
So so first point is that friend, enemy, and stranger do not, in truth, exist the way they appear. We’re trying to see that for ourselves in terms of these images that we see them through, the filter through which we view them. And secondly, that that there is uncertainty with regard to a friend and an enemy stranger and that these relationships are subject to continual change. So not holding to them so tightly and fixating upon this mode of relating as the way it’s always going to be. Then the third point, the final point, is the relativity of friend, enemy, and stranger.
The relativity of friend, enemy, and stranger. And this again is from an ultimate point of view. The main textual source for equalizing and exchanging self for others is the Bodhicaryāvatāra. He wrote another important text, is called Compendium of Training. And in this, he states, both self and others are dependent like this side and that side.
And another point in the text, says, if one does not establish the self, then in reliance upon what can other come about? So here again, we’re trying to break down our misconceptions about the nature of what exists out there, but we’re always talking in terms of friend, enemy, and strangers. We have to say people and our nature of our relationship with them. This is the area which we’re concerned with here. But this is a it it is a type of ultimate analysis which we’re going to make when we come to the awakened mind.
Self and other are distinguished by means of conventions. They do not ultimately exist as such. They do not exist from their own side as friend, as enemy, as stranger. All do but this is the case with all dualities that we perceive. It’s the case with everything.
But here, we’re we’re focusing upon the nature of the relativity of friend, enemy, and stranger. You know, for example, far and near, short and long, high and low, good and bad. The the existence of one entails the existence of the other. They exist interdependently, one upon the other. If one didn’t exist, the other couldn’t exist.
And if if, for example, if the far side existed, the far side, like the far side of a river, only exists in relationship to the near side. It only relatively exists. It does not ultimately exist. Only relatively so. If it ultimately existed, if it absolutely existed, and if the far side absolutely existed as the far side, then no matter how no matter how close we approached it, it would always be the far side.
That that is its ultimate nature. That’s its absolute nature. If the far side absolutely existed from its own from its own power, in its own right, So no matter how close we approached it, it would always be its far it would always be the far side. It could never be anything other than that because that is its very nature for on the basis of which it exists. It doesn’t exist in relationship to anything other than itself, outside of itself.
That’s its inherent nature. You know, you know, I’ve used this example before, you know, like the ring finger. You know, is the ring finger short or long? Well, relative to the little finger, it’s long. Relative to the middle finger, it’s short.
In itself, absolutely, independently, it’s neither. It’s neither long nor short. Meaningless then to talk about it being long or short in itself. It only relatively exists as long. It only it is relatively exists as short.
It only exists that way in relationship to a comparing, dualistic, discriminating awareness, which we make use of. There’s nothing other than that. It doesn’t ultimately exist as such, only relatively so. So what we’re going to do is to begin to break down the notion that friends, enemies and strangers exist inherently, exist ultimately as as the way they do from their own right, in in their own right. That that, you know, that you know, in fact, you know, just like the fingers, this person compared to this person is my friend.
The same person compared to this person is my enemy. You know? If if if if we didn’t have any friends, we wouldn’t have any enemies. They they they initially exist interdependent just like far and near, high and low. If if we didn’t have any enemies, we wouldn’t have any friend.
If we had no friends and enemies, there’d be no strangers. That’s kind of a hard concept to maybe to get your mind around. You know, the the if there were no strangers, if there were no enemies, there’d be no friends. There would just be these people out there that you related with in a particular manner. But we it wouldn’t be a sense of category of friends.
That category wouldn’t exist. It would be meaningless to talk about friends without these other two categories. If all our friends died tomorrow, then those people who were our acquaintances would move up the, you know, would move up would move up the continuum. Oh, I didn’t realize how much I liked you. You are my friend.
After all, I discovered a new thing. So anyway, we’re kind of breaking down this fixation that we have on this categories, our friend, enemy, and stranger from an ultimate point of view. So he has quite a lot to say about this, so we’ll investigate that next week. So let’s dedicate the positive energy that we’ve created. In the land encircled by snow mountains, you are the source of all happiness and well-being.
All-powerful, remain to the end of cyclic existence. May you quickly become an awakened spiritual master and lead each and every living being to that awakened realm through these skillful actions. May the supreme jewel of the awakened heart that has not arisen arise and grow, And may that which has arisen never diminish, but increase more and more.