Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. The philosophical puzzle at the heart of this 36-minute talk — if nothing is self-powered, who practices tolerance? — gives Ven Jampa Gendun’s commentary on Śāntideva its distinctive shape. He opens by refuting the Vaisheshika school’s claim to a permanent self, using space as his touchstone: anything truly unchanging cannot act on or be affected by conditions. He then draws the practical implication: since everyone operates under causes and conditions rather than free choice, blaming others makes no more sense than blaming a stick for striking you. He faces the apparent contradiction head-on — if no one is in control, how can practice help? — and answers that anger’s dependence on conditions is precisely what makes it workable. A Q&A on accountability versus blame closes the session.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 16 Tce 1991 04 03.mp3
UUID: 7b6d15f7-71b7-4211-b3f3-0f8287067ca0
Teacher: Ven Jampa Gendun
Collection: Tolerance (Ven Jampa Gendun)
Date: 1991-04-03
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 35.8 minutes
Words: ~3,953
If we do experience differences, if we undergo various experiences, different types of experiences, then this would refute that there is an independent self, a permanent self, unchanging self. Because the unchanging self would eternally be going through the same experience always. It would not be affected by conditions or circumstances or what we met with. If it’s affected, then it’s changing. It’s not unchanging.
If it’s not unchanging, it’s not permanent. If it is affected, if it goes through various experiences, then it’s not independent. It’s dependent. It’s dependent upon causes, conditions. This way, Śāntideva goes on to refute the existence of this nature, this primordial kind of matter out of which everything is created, and also an independent self.
Then there was another Indian school of philosophy, what is called the Vaisheshikas, and they assert the existence of a permanent self. They the three areas which we must come to an understanding of, the areas of our investigation, the world around us, the nature of the self and the way that the self is to relate with the world around us. So it’s rather important to investigate the nature of the self. Out of this investigation many different assertions, many different philosophies arose. And according to the Vaisheshikas, the self was permanent, that is to say unchanging.
And Śāntideva goes on to say, And surely if it were permanent, the self would be inactive, just like space. Even if it were to meet with other conditions, how would they be able to act upon something immutable? So it’s futile to assert a self which is permanent, like space. Space is an unconditioned phenomenon. It doesn’t change.
By unconditioned space, that is the type of space which everything resides within. Whether there is something residing there or not, the space remains the same. It’s not affected, it’s not conditioned by that which resides in it, within it, or doesn’t reside within it. Space is one of the few examples of what we call permanent phenomena unchanging phenomena. If the self were permanent or unchanging, it would have to be just like space.
It wouldn’t be able to perform any actions. For something to perform an action, it has to change. It has to go through some kind of transformation, produce some kind of effect. But this self doesn’t. It’s unchanging.
But the Vaisheshikas, this Indian school of philosophy, they say that though the self is permanent, it still performs actions when it meets with various conditions, various circumstances. But this also is impossible because to be permanent is not to be affected by conditions. You know, just like space, no matter whether there is something there or not something there or if there is something there, whatever that something is doesn’t make any difference. The space remains exactly the same as it was before. It’s not affected by any condition.
This is what it’s meant by permanent. Therefore, if the self is permanent, it would not act in any way according to various conditions because various conditions would not affect it in the least. It would be unaffected by all the various circumstances. Śāntideva goes on to say, For even when they act, it would remain as before. So how could such actions affect it in any way?
And how could that which acts upon it ever be related to it? So if the self were permanent, then it would remain unchanged no matter what conditions arose, no matter what situations, Whatever context it was involved in, it would remain unchanged. Whatever it met with. And nothing which produces effects can remain unchanged. Anything which produces an effect must go through a transformation.
If I, you know a candle gives off light, the flame gives off light, produces an effect. The candle is undergoing a transformation, it’s burning down, it’s changing. Anything which gives an effect must undergo a change. Śāntideva goes on, Hence all things are under the power of something other, something else. The only reason that Śāntideva diverts our attention for a while through a couple of verses is because he keeps insisting over and over again and it’s very important in his critique, to show that everything whatsoever is not self powered, but is under the power of other factors than itself.
And so he has to go on to refute these two other possibilities where people assert a permanent self or some kind of primordial substance which is permanent unchanging which affects, brings about the world but in itself exists independently. It’s self powered. So he has to divert the attention to completely establish the fact that everything whatsoever is other power. It doesn’t exist independently, though we think it does. Hence, all things are under the power of something else.
Since are so empowered, they have no power of their own. So this becomes important. And we use the conventions of control yourself. Don’t act that way. We may be in fact simply doing great violence to ourselves through this process.
I mean, it sounds our society accepts it. Our culture seems to it’s a difficult issue, isn’t it? Because it comes up in many, many, many different areas of law, for example. Someone we can put someone in prison for life, but the moment they say they’re not under their own control, we say, Oh, we’ll put him in a mental institution and we’ll help him. And we say, The person who commits the crime, it’s as if under their control, we punish.
If they’re not under their own control, put it in mental institution. But what does it mean to be under our own control? The question has to be raised. And Buddhism is saying that we’re not under our control. But still we have to be held accountable, don’t we?
It’s difficult, isn’t it? I mean, someone we have to be held accountable. And we act as if people are under their control. And the moment we become aware that someone isn’t, we immediately react to them quite differently. You know, when I’m talking to someone.
If someone’s giving you a hard time and you start, you know, this happens. It’s good and nice. They start to give you a hard time and you start getting a little bit uptight, a little bit angry. And then you realize, oh, they’re a little bit, strange in the head. It’s, oh, shoo, you know.
They’re not under control. They don’t know quite what they’re doing. That happens, doesn’t it? So Śāntideva is just saying that none of us are quite under control. Why get uptight with anybody?
None of us have that supposed control that we keep projecting upon ourselves and other people. That everything is other power. And therefore, don’t get uptight with yourself or other people. Just work with the conditions and situation, the circumstances, the causes, and don’t get uptight with yourself or other people. Hence all things are under the power of something else.
Since they are so empowered, they have no power of their own. When this is understood, do not be angry with such arrays of illusion-like objects. All affects arise from causes and conditions. And these two, and all causes arise from previous causes, and those causes arose from previous causes. Nothing exists independently.
Though things appear that way, things appear as if they existed independently, as if they were self created, as if they were self powered under their own control, as if they didn’t depend upon fluctuating circumstances, causes, conditions. That’s the way they appear to us. But this is a mistaken appearance. And that which is mistaken, when something doesn’t exist the way it appears, we say it is false. We also say it is an illusion.
And from the point of view of Buddhism, everything about us is an illusion, simply because things do not exist the way they appear. They exist because they perform functions, but they don’t exist the way they appear. They appear to exist independently, self powered, not dependent upon causes and conditions. That’s why we can place blame. That’s why we get uptight, because this person is under control and they’re hurting me.
They choose to hurt me. We think that, And we get distressed and we get angry. But this person is under the power of something else other than himself. He’s under the power of his anger, and his anger is under the power of previous moments of anger, his condition. He’s been conditioned.
He’s under the power of his culture, of his, you know, I’m part of, for example, a men’s group. We talk about fear that men have and having to deal with the way we’re conditioned to deal with one another as men and how we are trapped into situations where we’d rather not be, but they have arisen that way. And how we conditioned to have to act out violence, in our own choosing. We would rather not, But it was as if men are forced to in that position. They are out of power.
So in a way they aren’t to be blamed. They have been conditioned. So, you know, don’t get uptight with men so much. They can’t help but the poor buggers. Operates, Same holds true for women.
Everything is under the power of something else. What is it? Everybody I want that Bob Dylan song. Everybody’s got it. Everybody’s got everybody.
Everybody’s got a oh. It’s one of the early Bob Dylan songs. Everybody yes. Had the line in, I’ve been McNamaraed and everybody’s got to pay their dues or something, everybody oh, know. Don’t mind me, I’m underpowered, I can’t help it.
And so if we can remember to look at things in this light, this is what we mean by looking at situations in terms of dharma, higher orders of causation, then it becomes difficult when difficult situations occur, then there will appear no solid concrete something or someone to get angry at, to blame, as if they are obstructing by means of their own intention, their own power from us realizing our desires. We won’t blame it. We have as much of a tendency to blame this person, this thing for frustrating our desires, for preventing us from realizing our desires. And our mind can remain undistressed. Won’t not to say that we’re going to like this situation, but we won’t compound it by becoming distressed about it.
This is what we mean by tolerance in terms of higher orders of causation. Maybe I’ll try to oh, maybe I won’t. If we can get through with this section, it would be nice. We’ll begin a new section next week. Śāntideva goes on: But wouldn’t it then be absurd to overcome anger?
Ah, good question. But wouldn’t it then be absurd to overcome anger? For who would be overcoming that? Yet it is not as if we could control it. So Śāntideva says, if he is saying, control your anger.
But I not self powered. I am other powered. What are we to do? For who would be overcoming what? Yet it is not absurd to maintain that in dependence upon doing that suffering could be brought to a stop.
So if everything is just other powered, everything is of the power, everything arises independent of causes and conditions, there’s nobody in charge as it were who’s running the show, then who is there that should practice tolerance? Who should try to see these situations in terms of Dharma? Who should restrain what anger? This seems inappropriate for there is no independent self to be carrying on this difficult job that we’ve set up for ourselves. But this is not correct.
Though all things lack independent existence, still they function, and still suffering is experienced. Know bringing into experience of suffering is based upon our efforts to decrease and eliminate the ineffective and inappropriate afflictive emotions, these afflictive patterns such as anger, such as attachment, such as ignorance. Bringing to an end to our experience of suffering is based upon decreasing, lessening, eliminating these ineffective mental patterns which govern us, such as attachment, anger, and ignorance. And it is because such emotions arise in dependence upon causes and conditions And it makes sense to make effort to eliminate them. The factors which are causing us our problems are these disturbing patterns within our mind.
These patterns arise in turn in dependence upon the causes and conditions. Therefore, it makes sense to work with those causes and conditions such that these patterns will not arise. If they did not arise in dependence upon causes and conditions, there would be nothing we could do about them. They would be a permanent part of ourselves. They would exist there would be no way we could get at them.
They wouldn’t depend upon anything other than any other thing. We couldn’t affect them. We couldn’t change them. But it’s because they do rely upon causes and conditions that we can work with them, that we can begin to diminish them by diminishing the causes and conditions which bring them about, then it makes sense. We’re not saying we’re overcoming anger, but if we can begin to work with the causes and conditions due to which anger arises in the mind, then this is the same thing as controlling anger.
But in a more meaningful it makes more sense to speak of it in this way. It makes not even more sense, it makes sense. The other way perhaps doesn’t make sense at all when you think about it. If they existed independently, if somehow watch out, I’m an aggressive person. Don’t Don’t push my button.
Like there is some entity within ourselves which we had no control over, which could overtake us at any moment. You know, we’d have to I imagine a lot of people live a rather paranoid life just waiting for these terrible emotions to take overtake one as if they existed objectively as independent entities, things within their mind just waiting to the opportunity to overwhelm them. We would just have to live with that and suffer. And we wouldn’t have any choice. But they do arise in dependence upon cause and condition, all of these factors of mind.
And therefore there’s a workability about them because we can work with the causes and conditions. By making effort to cease the causes for anger to arise, we can cease the arising of anger and thereby the suffering results of anger. So Śāntideva goes on, Therefore, if I notice a friend or an enemy doing something wrong, I can remain at peace through recognizing how such actions proceed from conditions. You know, when we are harmed by an enemy or even those times when we are harmed by a friend, if we can reframe the situation thinking they act that way because they are under the control of their anger, which has arisen in their own mind. And they simply aren’t free to choose exactly how they would want to act.
People are not free to choose exactly how they want to act in every situation. We don’t have that control. Everything arises in dependence upon conditions. Our mind, if we can begin to view the situation from that context, from that frame of reference, then our mind can begin to remain relatively unstressed. And thereby anger is going to arise less often and less forcefully.
And finally Śāntideva says in this section, if life were based upon what we liked, then not a single one of us would suffer because nobody would want, nobody wants to be in pain. If everything in life arose according to our choice, then no one would suffer. Because no one wants to suffer, everybody wants to be happy. But the fact is that things do not happen according to our choice. Things arise dependent upon the appropriate causes and conditions.
They may not be what is the saying? A wise man who is one who who is one whose wants accord with his needs. A wise person is one who wants what he has. That you know, sometimes our situations arise according to our choices. That’s very that’s wonderful.
But perhaps but how much how much a part did our choice play in that arising of that whatever it was? But in fact everything arises in dependence upon causes and conditions. Whether no one would choose those types of causes and conditions which would bring one suffering, but we aren’t able to control that situation. It’s simply not a matter of our choice. But we can work with the causes and conditions.
If things only happened because of our choice and our volition, who would choose to suffer? No one would. Who would choose to experience suffering? So an angry person is in distress. An angry person is suffering at that very time.
If he or she had a choice, they would not choose anger because they would choose not to suffer. They would choose achieving their end, achieving the object of their desire, not anger. They haven’t chosen to become angry. They would not choose anger. They would not choose to suffer.
But they do not possess a choice. They were under the power of anger. And anger arose under the power of distress, of frustrated desires, of causes and conditions. They identified perhaps you as someone who was preventing them from gaining the object of the desire. And they become distressed.
Out of that arises anger. Out of that their anger wishes to harm in order to remove their pain of their own distress. They aren’t under their own control. When causes and conditions come together, pain arises. No one chooses that pain to arise.
It is the nature of our situation. So, you know, what is the use of getting upset with a collection of causes and conditions that have no intention to hurt you whatsoever? You may receive harm but they have no intention. It’s completely impersonal. You can be sort of just working within the context of the situation to change those causes and conditions when they’re not to your liking, when they’re not to your choice.
The expression rather than cursing the darkness, light a candle. So that’s the section on the practice of tolerance in terms of Dharma, Seeing the situation in terms of higher orders of causation. I wish I could think of that Bob Dylan song. Everybody’s Everybody, everybody’s got to, it’s like everybody has to work for somebody. Oh well.
No, this was about, this was seventy, seventy one. Probably before you were born. So what’s the difference between accountability and blame? Anybody? Accountability and blame?
Accountability and blame. Well, I think people have we have to society has to be protected from individuals who aren’t willing to live within the norms of that society. It’s not to say that they may be out of power than whatever, but still Buddhism is very much concerned with the welfare of majorities. Hopefully not at the cost of individuals but at times the majority interest has to take precedence over individuals. The most good for the most people.
So I don’t know in that context. You know, if someone is going around killing people then he’s, we’re all essentially somewhat insane. But we’re all not causing great harm to one another. But when you take it back to the men’s group and you say there’s no point point in blaming because Come on! Because of what?
Because we’re all acting under Yeah, there’s no use in blaming. That’s not to say that you become fatalistic and leave it at that. You still work with those conditioning factors. Still try to Where does accountability fit into that one? Like, for example?
Like, for example, I call people to account every day. So do banks. So is that Why? I don’t know, there’s something dodgy about accountability fitting into that scenario in which there is no accountability. The only accountability is of the causes and conditions that aggregate to come up with whatever it is, whatever the thing to be accounted for is.
The word accountability just struck me as being quite incongruous in that. Accountable. Accountable. Accountable. Because you said something like, you know, something about we Yeah.
But how do you make that judgment upon yourself when, in fact, it’s causes and conditions. It’s not yourself. It’s causes and conditions that aggregate to come up with whatever it is. Then I feel dependent upon I don’t know if jumping on this, but what degree of intervention consciousness gives us and how far we may be We we surely the the stick is not to be blamed. The anger which is propels the stick is not to be blamed.
Does the head have any choice about where it’s placed? Are we so powerfully fated that the head cannot avoid the stick? Is there some degree of consciousness which can affect the progress of this, affect the outcomes? Let’s get realistic. Yeah, that’s understandable.
Yeah, that’s quite a different reality. Quite a different view. I think you have to I always remind someone said that when Christ threw the money changers out of the temple, was a very forceful act, he threw them out with great compassion. He was doing it for their own good. But he did say, he acted very decisively.
I don’t know, the ideal blame, I think we begin to there’s some affective quality about that. Effective, A And there’s some, I I think we begin to see something more than perhaps is actually there. That there is some independent individual who as as if it were had complete choice and free will. Which which they don’t which no one has. But isn’t that the same as what we get to with accountability?
It’s as if we were an individual with No, I find that accountability. I think it might just mean that we have to remove this individual from a situation where we could continue to bring harm. We have to make him accountable. Accountability sounds more Okay, I don’t know the terminology. But I’m just kind of just a sense that we have to differentiate between the sense and notion of those two.
Just that neither of them sounds like it settles with the question of, in the ultimate scheme of things, there is obviously there is no motivator, there is no there is nothing other than the causes and conditions that, as one says, aggregate. So how can accountability even No, it’s a convention of our society. We don’t have to say anything more than that. We don’t have to make it any more than that. It’s not absolute.
There’s no reason why we can’t have conventions like that. That people can be held accountable even though is causes and conditions aggregating. There’s no reason why we can’t do that. So the Premier can just settle it. It’s just some causes and conditions.
I understand. Yeah. But according to our Conventions of Right Society, you go to jail for those particular aggregations. Everybody’s gotta serve somebody. As well be the Lord.
That’s a good one, isn’t it? Everybody’s got their power so we might as well get in the power of something worthwhile. May I quickly become an awakened spiritual teacher and lead each and every sentient being to enlightenment through these skillful actions through these skillful actions. May the supreme jewel of the awakening heart that has not arisen arise and grow. And may that which has arisen never diminish, but increase more and more.