Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. The parent whose child is cured by a surgeon feels pure gratitude — not “he’ll send a bill” — and from that image Ven Jampa Gendun builds a 47-minute case for equal dependence on friends, strangers, and even enemies. He cites the Dalai Lama’s gratitude toward the Chinese as the extreme test, then uses death as equalizer — prisoners filing into a gas chamber, their attachment and aversion suddenly meaningless. Moving to the ultimate level, friend and enemy are mutually dependent labels, no more fixed than which bank of a river is “near.” A Tibetan folk story — a woman adds a cow, goat, and chickens to her crowded home, then removes them — illustrates how perception shifts with comparison alone. He closes with Śāntideva’s argument that suffering has no inherent owner and simply must be eliminated.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 04 3 PA 1989 10 21.mp3
UUID: abef1caf-2d6a-4997-aa74-2c24de283189
Teacher: Ven Jampa Gendun
Collection: Three Principal Aspects of the Path 1988-1990 (Ven Jampa Gendun)
Date: 1989-10-21
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 47.1 minutes
Words: ~6,146
From the side of others, that others are completely equal in their needs and their wants. You know, we’re all you know, no matter how well things may be going on for us materially, on the outside, we’re all pretty much beggars holding out our hands, all equally in need, all equally in want. This is our human condition. It’s very much pervasive to all of humanity. And this from our own side.
So this is from the side of others, the the equality from the side of others. Now there’s the equality from our own side, from the conventional point of view. That is to say, our dependency upon others is equal. Equal whether it’s a friend, whether it’s an enemy, whether it’s a stranger. We’re dependent upon all of them equally, ultimately for our happiness.
It’s not easy to see this. It’s easy to see this in the case of our friends, those we love, those who treat us kindly. We develop our happiness. Our feeling of well-being, being loved by significant people. Feeling secure, warm.
It’s quite readily seen that we’re dependent. Our happiness arises from our friends, those we love. But it’s much more difficult in the case of strangers and enemies. We looked at this, you know, this fact that we used, for example, an image of the general kindness of others, the very fact that we overlook this, we devalue this, we don’t appreciate all the benefits that we’re gaining from the vast majority of people we call strangers, to whom we have a feeling of indifference to, a feeling of unconnectedness. We use the image of someone, a parent for example, whose child is deathly ill rushes this child to the hospital.
The doctor operates, cures the child, comes out and says, It’s okay. Your child’s going to be well. The instinctive response of a healthy mind is gratitude and thankfulness. It’s not this, The fact is that this doctor is going to send you a bill in a few weeks. The fact is that this hospital is going to send you a bill in few weeks.
But the instinctive response at that moment is that you got what you wanted. You got what was most important in the world to you at that moment the health of your child. What it cost you that doesn’t even arise in your mind at that moment. All you know is, I got what I want, and I feel gratitude and thankfulness. So just think if we weren’t getting what we wanted in almost every moment of our lives sitting here, the fact is we wouldn’t be sitting here.
But we don’t appreciate it. We say, Oh, they get paid for it. They’re working for it. But also that doctor, you know, who knows what his motivation is? He might be just a hard-nosed accountant businessman.
Quite possible, most of them are perhaps. That doesn’t matter from our side. We got what we wanted and we appreciate it. We can appreciate it over and above what the other person’s intentions are. We don’t have to be bound by the other person’s intentions and how we respond.
Which is a more healthy type of response? Which is a more valuing type of response? An accountant mentality or a feeling of gratitude and thankfulness? The fact that we sit here, that this building has been built, that we ate today, you know, that we didn’t grow that food properly, we didn’t weave our clothes, we didn’t sew our clothes, we didn’t build this building. So we can develop an appreciation that we’re getting what we wanted, what we need, in the kindness of others, the kindness, in this case, of strangers.
People we feel completely unrelated to, in fact, again and again consistently bringing us, fulfilling our needs and our wants. So we can develop an appreciation, some sort of thankfulness and some sort of gratitude and a feeling of connectedness, with strangers. Then there’s the most difficult, that is the enemy. We talked about the value of an enemy. And this takes a trained mind, doesn’t it?
I think, you know, as the Dalai Lama, as I mentioned in my example, you know, the Dalai Lama appreciated the communist Chinese because, dependent upon them, they developed strength, that they actually had to put into practice the Dharma in a very real sense, that they were becoming very soft in Tibet. Now they’ve had to develop courage and really practice what they were teaching, really put it into use to keep their sanity. So he was thankful. He had gratitude toward the Red Chinese, who were in fact, did and still are committing genocide on the Tibetan people. A million Tibetan people were slaughtered when the Chinese invaded.
Yet the Dalai Lama can appreciate them, can show them gratitude and thankfulness. He may not have liked what would happen, I’m sure he didn’t, but he can appreciate the enemy as a source of growth and not an obstacle to happiness. Know, in dependence upon the enemy, we can develop strength, we can develop courage, we can develop patience. You know, it’s the enemy who teaches us what love is really about, what compassion is about. You know, Christ said, Love your enemy.
And that’s the real type of love, which he wanted people to develop that ability. It’s quite easy to love those who are kind to you, who treat you well when the sun is shining. You know, it’s the enemy who shows you where you’re really at. You know, if you’re interested in developing yourself psychologically, spiritually, then the enemy is going to be the one who’s going to show you at what level you’re actually at, not what level you might think you’re at when things are going well. In this sense, if our ultimate spiritual development is very much bound up in the enemy, it’s dependent on the enemy that we’re really going to grow.
In fact, it’s our enemy which forces us to grow more than those people who we have attachment to, who are always treated as kindly, always saying nice words. So ultimately, our final happiness is dependent upon enemies. In this way, from our own side, all sentient beings are equally kind to us. They’re all showing us, all helping us, bringing us happiness. All three, friend and stranger.
Then we talked about the great leveler of death. It’s nice this too, this guy, the great leveller. It makes all people equal in the face of death, with high people, low people, rich people, ugly people, poor people. It doesn’t matter. In the face of death, they all become equal.
Death is a great equalizer. And we use the image of a Nazi concentration camp where the individuals are in line going into a gas chamber. All these people, they’re walking in the door slowly, the line is shortening. They’re coming to that door. Once they enter that door, you’re never going to see them again.
It’s over. What, at that moment, you’re entering that door, is the use of your attachment? What is the use of your hatred? What is the use of your indifference at the moment when you’re walking in that door? What is the use of clinging?
What is the use of your aversion, of uncaring, at the moment when they’re walking in that door, when in their eyes they’re completely equal, they’re full of fear, all they want is happiness, they don’t want to walk in that door, they don’t want to suffer. You know, it’s completely meaningless in the face of death to try to cling to others, to have aversion for others, and completely negate others as if they didn’t exist. This is equalizing from the conventional point of view from our own side, from the point of view of death, seeing others as equal, the meaninglessness, the inappropriateness of our attachment, of our aversion, and of our difference in the face of death. Now we’re going to discuss equalizing self and others from the point of view of the ultimate. The ultimate point of view.
One aspect of this we have touched upon when we talked about the development of equanimity as the foundation of the sevenfold cause and effect instruction. The arbitrary and changeable nature of the labels that we’re constantly habitually applying to others. These labels, in this case, of friend enemy and stranger. Friend and stranger. Friend enemy and stranger, they appear to exist from their own side objectively.
That is to say, independent of our labeling, of the way we view them, independent of our thoughts about them. From their own side, there’s something really repulsive about that enemy. There’s something really attractive about that friend, and there’s something blah about that stranger. That’s their qualities, like oozing out of their skin, something like that. Objectively there for all to see.
We’re not creating that friend, we’re not creating that enemy, we’re not creating that stranger. They exist from their own side. This is the way they appear. This is the way they appear to the mind. Not the I I consciousness, but to our mental consciousness.
This is the way, the feeling tone, our attitude that we have. Not only do they appear this way, but we assent to that appearance as true. So they appear to exist from their own side objectively, and we say, Ah, yes, that is the way they exist. We accept this appearance as true. in dependence upon accepting, assenting to that appearance as true, we react to the friend, react with attachment, to the enemy we react with hatred, aversion.
And to the stranger, we react with indifference. So we’re setting up this mode of relating. You know, we think this, Okay, I’ll try to control my anger toward this enemy. That sounds very good, and this is one level of working with the situation. But the fact is we’ve already created the enemy.
We’ve decided this is an enemy. If we go a little bit deeper, would try not to even create that enemy, so there’s no need to try to control my anger. But we’ve decided this is an enemy, we ascend to that appearance, and we react with anger, hostility. We decide, know, that is to say, we label unconsciously, habitually, condition to view in a certain way this person as a friend, and we react with attachment. So we’re setting up these ways of these different modes of relating, these inequalities, these biases.
So, know, these inequalities that we’re setting up, these bias, these prevent us from developing an unconditional positive regard for, in this case, these three individuals, for all individuals. All of these modes of relating, you know, all of our modes of relating with others in general are simply expressions of various ego states, of one ego state or another. They’re simply based on projections of one kind or another. There’s a quote, If only I could throw away the urge to trace my patterns in your heart, I could really see you. Only I could throw away the urge to trace my patterns in your heart, I could really see you.
When we see others, more than not, we are seeing our own projections, our own needs, our own wants, our own insufficiencies. That’s what we’re seeing. Others are very much simply a mirror for our projections, creating the various objects and assenting to that appearance. You know, if friends and enemies existed the way they appear, if they objectively existed that way, and that is to say, in their own right and not depending upon our labeling, the way we view them, then a friend would always remain a friend forever, forever, unchangeably a friend. An enemy would always remain an enemy, unchangeably.
But we know this isn’t the case. This is not true from our own experience. You know, our best friend can even in one night, one day, become our worst enemy. And someone who is our worst enemy, just a simple gesture, a few words, can become a friend, a good friend. So these qualities of friend, enemy are changeable, but more than that, they do not exist objectively as they appear.
This friend appears as if they’re always going to be our friend. No, we may not be aware of that. Our enemy appears as if they’re always our enemy, or always permanently our enemy. That’s the way they appear to us, and we ascend to that. We doggedly refused to acknowledge the changeability of these labels that we’re applying, that we could, within a matter of moments, change radically the way that we relate with this person, this enemy or this friend.
We cling to the friend as if they’re forever going to be our friend. So, the question arises, who are we to have aversion for? Who are we to have attachment to? We can take the idea of someone slapped your face yesterday, and today they gave you a gift, a present. And someone gave you a gift yesterday, and today they slapped your face.
Now, which one are we to have aversion for? Which one are we to have attachment to? Which one is our friend? Which one is our enemy? They both did exactly the same actions toward us, the same activities.
They both gave us a present. They both slapped our face. The only difference is from the point of view of time. But we’re going to fixate. We’re going to relate with one of them as a friend and one of them as an enemy.
And dependence upon that, we’re going to have aversion for one and attachment toward the other. These two people did exactly the same thing. No difference. The only difference being in time. The insight to be gained is that ultimately these two, that friend and enemy are dependent upon the way we see them, the way we view them, by seeing them as such.
You know, if they that they don’t exist the way they appear. If they existed the way they appeared, then this person For example, you have someone who you generally are in agreement on. You have very like ways of thinking, very like ways of thinking about the same things, tastes, for example. And you have a good friend, because this is your friend number A, and you have another friend B, and B is also your friend. He’s a very likable person, lots of good qualities, fine person.
You like to be around him. And you say to A, What do you think of my friend B here? And he says, Oh, I can’t stand him. He said, Nothing. I don’t even like to be around him.
Well, how can you stop him to be around a guy like that or a woman like that? What do you mean? Look at him. He’s a very likable person. He’s got fine qualities.
How can you say that about him? I don’t know what you see in him. If they existed objectively, if those likable qualities were objectively existent, then your friend A should be able to see them, because that’s the way he really is or she really is. Objectively exist, and they look and see that this is a fine person. But that’s not the case, is Two people can have radically different views of the same person.
Ultimately, of the qualities inheres in the person. All the qualities that we think are out there, that this person has, that we feel that they do have this, that this is who they are. In feeling this way, feeling that these qualities are objectively existing and inhering in this person, that this is your friend, objectively your friend, likable, lovable person, we develop attachment. We assent to that appearance. This is the way it appears to us.
And likewise, the contrary for the averse would happen toward the enemy. Upon this, the feelings of inequality toward these two would arise. This feeling of inequality, of aversion, attachment, and also indifference is based on misconceptions, misconceiving the actual nature of these people. Another aspect of this from the ultimate point of view It’s set forth in another text by Śāntideva. The basic text that we’re that the exchange of equalizing exchange of self for others is a text by Śāntideva, Bodhicaryāvatāra.
In another text, a text called the Compendium of Training, he makes two statements. The first is, Both self and others are dependent, like this side and that side. Further down he goes on to say, If one does not establish the self, then in reliance upon what can other come about? This begins to be part of an unsolvable puzzle of relativity, a dualistic puzzle of relativity. Both self and others are dependent like this side and that side.
If one does not establish the self, in reliance upon what does other arise? Yet does the other come about? This is the trap in which we’re very much ensnarled in relative existence. Self and others are merely a way of speaking. Self and others as merely handy references, as conventions.
They don’t ultimately exist. Self and others do not ultimately exist. When you say, I’m going to the store, it becomes an easy reference when you say, I. Ultimately, this I doesn’t exist. Without self there’s no other.
Without other there’s no self. They’re just references to help us to keep track of who’s going to the store. You know, this is true of all dualistic all the dualism that we begin to set up, the nature of thought consciousness. You know, we have far and near. We have good and bad.
We have long and short. You know, for example, I hold up my three fingers: little finger, ring finger, and middle finger. We say, Well, is my ring finger Is that long or short? Well, now what are you going to say? Is that long or short?
Anybody? Well, compared to my little finger, it’s long. My ring finger, compared to my little finger, is long. Compared to my middle finger, it’s short. Which is it?
Is it long or short? It doesn’t have its own self existent longness or shortness in itself. It only exists as long or short relative to something else. The moment that we have no way of conceiving of long independent of short or short independent of long or good independent of bad or bad independent of good. It’s only in comparison, it’s only relative to something else that one thing is long and another is short.
This is the dualistic puzzle of relativity that we’re very much caught up in. You know, we can talk about the far side and the near side. You know, like you’re on this side of the river, and so there’s the near side of the there’s a near bank, and across the river there’s the far bank. As you begin to maybe you swim across the river and as you begin to approach that, if that were really objectively independently existing far side of the river, then you would never reach the other side. No matter how much you swam, it would always be the far side.
But slowly the far side of the river begins to become the near side. And what was the near side of the river becomes the far side. It’s just a manner of speaking, a type of reference point. The side that’s closest to me, I’m going to call the near side. So this is also in the case of self and others.
Likewise, enemies only exist in relationship to friends. They’re posited by a comparing dualistic mind. To this person, this person is my friend. Compared to this person, this person is my enemy. They do not objectively exist from their own side as either friend or enemy.
Only relatively, not ultimately. Only in comparison. We have a continuum. I have three people, and this is my best friend, this is my medium friend, and this is my lowest friend, for example. If you lost your best friend, then this person’s going to move up and this is going to be your best friend.
This whole thing’s going to begin to shift. But if you’ve more and more friends on this higher end, more and more best friends, then pretty soon this person who is the lowest type of your friend will eventually be conceived of as your enemy, simply in relationship to your best friend. In this sense, friend and enemy only relatively exist. If we had no friends, we’d have no enemies. If we had no enemies, we’d have no friend.
It’s kind of a frustrating situation, isn’t it? Mean, people they want everybody to like them. They want everybody to be their friend. But if everybody was, they wouldn’t have no conception of what a friend was, would they? Because that’s dependent upon knowing enemies.
So it’s impossible, isn’t it? Logically impossible to have everyone be your friend. But we try. It’s a frustrating situation. But we misconceive the nature of our friends and enemies and hold very strongly that this is a friend and that enemy exists from their own right and their own side, that they’re not dependent upon one another.
That this friend is only a friend in comparison as to how he treats me in comparison to this person I call my enemy. He treats me better than him, so he’s my friend, he’s my enemy. If he weren’t here, this person could easily become my friend because he’d teach me a little better than my worst enemy. They’re constantly shifting. It’s only a matter of comparing relatively existing.
We grasp them as absolutely existing, as ultimate existing friend and enemy. in dependence upon grasping an independently existing friend, we create an enemy. In turn, grasping at an enemy, we create friends. We generate grasping at this person as my enemy, we generate aversion, hostility, hatred, anger. Anyway, I can tell you A story, a joke.
Some of you I may tell this I’ve told this before, but I don’t think some of you have heard it. It’s the type of story which is used to exemplify this idea of relativity. It takes place in Tibet. There’s this woman, a village woman, she’s living in a small home, small house, with a rather extended family. There’s her husband and his mother and father.
And then there’s her mother and father and her grandfather. And then there’s his children and there’s an uncle on her cousin’s side. Then there’s her brother’s who was a half brother, a couple of half brothers from a different orientation. There are some nieces and uncles, and there are some people they don’t even know. Anyway, they’re living in a very crowded little house in Tibet, She’s just starting to get very uptight.
The situation is intolerable. It’s just too crowded. One day she just says, I can’t stand any longer. She runs out onto the street screaming through the village, I can’t stand it, I can’t stand it! She’s running, and her lama, her spiritual teacher sees her, and he waves like this.
She sees him, she says, Come, come. And she says, Oh, mama, mama. She says, Tears are coming down from her eyes. She’s really upset. Relax, relax.
What’s wrong? What’s wrong? She says, I can’t stand it any longer. There’s so many people. There’s not a moment of quiet.
It’s dirty. There’s this confusion, turmoil. There’s not a moment of peace. I can’t stand my house. I’m running away.
I’m going to another village. Never going to go back. It’s okay. It’s okay. It’s going to be all right.
And she’s sobbing and he says, Now, I want you to do what I said. And then she had a great deal of faith in this teacher. And he said, Do you have a chicken? Yes, yes, I guess. I want you to take your chickens and put them in the house.
She had a lot of faith, and so she didn’t quite know what he was up to, but she said, Okay, I’ll try it. So she went home and she put all the chickens in the house. You know, chickens. And then they’re flying all around, their feathers are flying, floor is filthy and they’re up on the rafters and their feathers are floating down into the noodle soup and it’s getting worse. In the middle of the night they’re What do chickens do?
Squawking. They’re doing their chicken thing. It was just worse than it was before. Said, can’t stand it. The next morning she runs out and she’s running down the street, can’t stand it.
The Lama waves to her, and she says, Lama. She comes up with tears down her eyes and says, What’s wrong? He said, It’s worse than it was before, Lama. I’m sorry. I can’t sit.
I can’t stay. It’s gonna be okay. Don’t worry. It’s gonna be okay. Do you have a cow?
I said, Yeah. Yeah, I have a cow. I want you to take the cow and put it in the house. Obviously, this girl had faith. She went back and she put the cow in the house.
Now the cow’s in the house. And it’s mooing, it’s eating the mattresses, the floor is a mess. It’s this intolerable situation. It stinks, it’s noisy, and it’s ten times worse than it was before. So the next day she’s the same thing, running through the streets, screaming, running away from her home, and again the Lama.
And she comes in tears. Her hair is all messed up, and she looks like she’s been sleeping in a gutter for weeks. She’s really in bad shape. And he says, How are things going now? I said, I can’t I’m never going to go back again.
It’s ten times worse than it was before. It’s filthy, it stinks, it’s noisy, it’s confusion. I can’t stand it. I said, Okay, it’ll be okay, okay. Do you have a goat?
She a little bit of hesitation, but okay. She goes back. She puts the goat in the house. Now the goat is eating the rest of whatever’s left of the mattresses. There’s all this the floor is filthy.
It’s jumping up. They can’t even sleep at night. The goat is jumping up on their bed. And now she’s she’s about ready to flip out, you know, a psychotic episode. And she goes running down the street again and completely in panic, completely confused.
And he sees him, waves. And she comes over, I can’t go back. Don’t ask me to do anything more, Lama. Can’t do it. Have great faith in you, but I’m at my limit.
I can’t handle it anymore. And he says, Okay, go home and take the goat out of the house. Okay. Okay. I’ll I’ll try that.
I’ll try. She goes home, takes the goat out of the house. And next day, sees her walking down the street. He waves her over. How is it now?
Oh, it’s a little bit better than it was before. Isn’t that quite so bad? At least, you know, I can get to sleep at night, the goat’s not walking all over me. Okay, now take the cow out of the house. So as she goes home, she takes the cow out the house.
The next day she’s walking down the street and the Lama waves her over. How is it now? Oh, it’s getting much better. Know, I can sleep at night and the floor is getting much cleaner now. I can clean it up and keep it clean.
And it’s not quite as noisy as it was. It’s not too bad. He said, Okay, take the chickens out of the house. So she goes home, she takes the chickens out of the house. And the next day he sees her and he says, Well, how’s it now?
Oh, Lama, it’s really nice. You know, it’s very peaceful in there. It’s so clean and it’s quiet. I don’t know why everyone would leave in the first place. The message in that long story is that it was completely her, what she conceived of as confusion, intolerable situation, is only based upon some past memory of more clear situations, of more peaceful types of situations.
But now, her present situation, even though it has essentially not changed in the least compared to what it was with the cow and the chickens and the goat inside her house, it’s much more peaceful, much more pleasant, much more quiet, much cleaner. So, in dependence upon that memory, the situation is quite acceptable. What was an intolerable situation is now a pleasing situation. And this is the relative dualistic puzzle that we’re trapped in very much. This is the way we relate with others enemies and friends and strangers very much.
By grasping at an independently existing self, we create an independently existing other. This other has developed in dependence upon conceiving of self. You know, then once we conceive of self, we create other. Once we create other self and other, you know, then all that ensues from our usual way of relating with others, way that selves and others usually relate, you know, the feelings of isolation from others. And we created others now we feel isolated from them.
We feel alienated from them. We feel defensive about them. We feel threatened by them. We feel in conflict with them. All the unskillful ways that we relate to them, to those others, those things out there we call others, unknowingly we actually created these others, independence of our conceiving of self.
Why are you unhappy? Because ninety nine point nine percent of everything you think and everything you do is for yourself, and there isn’t one. Ultimately, in the great vehicle, the question of whose suffering does not even arise. Ultimately, relatively conventionally, it’s a very important question. But ultimately it doesn’t.
You know, here we can begin to see how wisdom supports compassion. There is just suffering, because it does not ultimately belong to anyone, though it conventionally exists. Suffering is to be eliminated since no one wants to suffer. If there is suffering in the world, it must be eliminated. But whose suffering it is is not brought into question, since ultimately there is no owner.
In the final analysis, to demand to know who suffering is, is to misunderstand the nature, the ultimate nature of our situation that we exist in. There is simply suffering which is to be eliminated. Even I began and talked about what is the essential insight to be gained by equalizing self and others, and I said it was to work, to seek others’ happiness and their separation from suffering to the same degree that we work, that we seek our own happiness and our separation from our suffering. But in this speaking, it’s only applicable to the relative world, the conventional world. Ultimately, has no meaning since ultimately there is no owner of suffering.
But relatively there is suffering and the suffering is to be eliminated. In dialogues between Christians and Buddhists, some Christians have been understandably attracted to the doctrine of no self. While the doctrine may call into question classical notions of a substantial self, it nevertheless seems to support traditional emphasis on the primacy of self sacrificial love. It offers a way of affirming that we can love our neighbors as ourselves because it reveals that within the depths of our existence we have no substantial self by which to be ontologically isolated from our neighbors in the first place. This is a dialogue that’s going on between the Christians and the Buddhists, and they’re beginning to see that when Christ said to love your neighbor as yourself, that it’s actually conceivable from the point of view that we have only created this sense of isolation of other in dependence upon a misconceiving the nature of self.
Know, Śāntideva, in his Bodhicaryāvatāra, takes up this argument of the necessity to dispel the suffering of others. Although there are many different parts and aspects such as the hands, as a body that is protected they are one. Likewise, all the different sentient beings in their pleasure and their pain have a wish to be happy that is the same as mine. The suffering that I experience does not cause any harm to others but that suffering is mine because of my conceiving of myself as I. Therefore it becomes unbearable.
Likewise, the misery of others does not befall me. Nevertheless, by conceiving of others as I, their suffering becomes mine. Therefore, it should be hard to bear. Hence, I should dispel the misery of others because it is suffering just like my own, and I should benefit others because they are sentient beings just like myself. When both myself and others are similar in that we wish to be happy, what is so special about me?
Why do I strive for happiness alone? When both myself and others are similar in that we do not wish to suffer, what is so special about me? Why do I protect myself and not others? Then there’s someone comes in, a troublemaker comes in, and wants to dispute with Śāntideva. But why should I protect them if their suffering does not cause me any harm?
He presents a logical argument. Why protect them? Doesn’t do me anything. It’s not hurting me at least. Then why protect myself against future sufferings if it causes me no harm now?
Why take out a superannuation fund? It doesn’t do you any good now. Why take out insurance? It is a mistaken conception to think that I shall experience the suffering of my next life, for it is another person who dies and another person who will be reborn. Then this disputant comes back and says, Surely whenever there is suffering, the sufferer must protect himself from it.
Surely, whenever there is suffering, the sufferer must protect himself from it. That sounds quite logical and legitimate, doesn’t it? But the suffering of the foot is not that of the hand. Why then does it protect it? You know, you’re walking along and get a thorn in your foot, and the hand reaches down and takes the thorn out of the foot.
Now, the hand doesn’t say, Hey, that’s not my suffering. That’s not hurting me in the least. You take care of your suffering, I’ll take care of mine. Quite naturally, we simply reach it down and pull the thorn out of the foot. Why?
In the same way as the hands and so forth are regarded as limbs of the body? Likewise, Okay, so why does a hand take the thorn out of the foot? Because they’re part of the same whole. They don’t consider themselves the hand does not see itself as in isolation from the foot. They’re part of the same whole.
Suffering exists, it is to be eliminated. Likewise, why are embodied creatures not regarded as limbs of life? Why aren’t all creatures considered all part of a whole, the whole of sentient life? Being no inherent owner of suffering, there can be no distinction at all between that of myself and others. Thus I shall dispel it because it hurts.
Why am I so certain that I shouldn’t eliminate the suffering of others? But since neither the suffering nor the sufferer truly exist, why should I turn away the misery of all? This is no ground for argument. For if I prevent my own suffering, surely I should prevent the suffering of all. If not, since I am just like other sentient beings, I should not prevent my own suffering either.
From the ultimate point of view, we’re trying to break down this notion, this partiality by which we relate with others. We have this notion that somehow the way that we’re presently relating with others is justifiable. The way I relate to a friend and the way I relate to an enemy is reasonable. Since of these two, a friend and enemy, one of them really is my friend, one of them really is my enemy objectively. And I’m not creating them as my enemy.
One is my friend. They really are like that. They deserve the way I treat them. They deserve to be treated this way. And I’ll be damned if I’m going to treat them any other way.
So we’re trying to