Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 27-minute Lamrim session, Ven Jampa Ignyen uses a deceptively simple framework to unlock a fundamental practice: he asks us to watch how we habitually sort people into friends, enemies, and strangers—then move them between categories as self-interest shifts. This seemingly mechanical observation is the gateway to immeasurable equanimity, the foundation he argues must precede all compassion practices. Using concrete examples—the three-strikes friendship demotion, the mental landscape as Himalayan peaks and troughs—he shows this habitual division is impermanent and trivial. He then introduces Dharmakīrti’s philosophical argument for rebirth: mind arises from mind, as apples come from apple trees. Finally, he outlines the six-cause method: recognizing all beings as one’s mother, contemplating their kindness, and cultivating the wish to repay it. He stresses these steps must unfold in strict order.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 04 2001 08 02 LR.mp3
UUID: 8fede823-a5c0-4104-8161-9f2418c70328
Teacher: Ven Jampa Ignyen
Collection: Lam Rim 2001 Month 07-09 (Ven Jampa Ignyen)
Date: 2001-08-02
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 27.0 minutes
Words: ~3,064
We look at we look then we then look into what our grievances are and think over their cause. Yet these people have harmed us, in other words. Next, we meditate on how nothing is certain as discussed in the above section on thinking about the general sufferings of Samsāra. So that was done before. We contemplate how our enemies how these enemies have been dear to us in many past lives, and this will stop us from being hostile towards them.
Maybe not immediately, but this will tend to stop us from thinking in this way. But it’s interesting, it doesn’t go away immediately. You know, when we think we’re starting to develop some equanimity, then this thought comes up, oh, that person said that to me. Might have been twenty years ago, but it’s still there. So this practice of equanimity is really designed for just those occasions when we remember what’s happened in the past.
We experience involuntary happiness towards those we now take to be our friends. Then we examine so we’re using this field of friend, enemy, stranger. We just examine each of these fields and how our feelings arise in relation to these three different groups. And we examine the reasons for why these feelings arise. To the friends, a positive feeling, enemies, a negative feeling, indifferent neutral feeling.
And we take this as obvious. Of course, that’s the case. But here, what we’re trying to do is investigate a little bit beneath the surface why this comes about. Then we examine the reasons for why we treat them in this way, and that they now We see that those who we’re friendly with at present are those that treat us in a pleasant way. They give us things and so on.
But then we reflect that these friends that we have now, being attached to them, holding them near is holding them near for those reasons are quite shortsighted. They’re quite trivial. And our attachment to them is really not something that’s standing on a firm basis, because in the past they’ve been our enemy. Similarly, we look at our enemies and we see that just to hold them as our enemies in the present is not really a very authentic thing to do or a valid thing to do, because the reasons that we’re doing this, holding them as enemies, are very short term. And we’re not really looking on the long term, when in the past these beings have been our friends countless times over.
But this, in a way, this is exactly our workplace. This is where all our work is. We got these three groups, friend, enemy, stranger. And much of our energy day by day, morning, midday, afternoon, night, even in our dreams, we’re dealing with this division into friend, enemy, stranger. And how much energy we put into maintaining it, separating ourselves from our enemies, maintaining our friends, being indifferent to those we don’t know, actively in a way disregarding what and who they are.
So a lot of energy goes into this. But it would be ironic if all the energy we put into that is wasted. Because in fact, there’s nothing fixed whatsoever about this category. Although we tend to have a feeling that it does it will remain fixed, or that there is some purpose in maintaining it. That by maintaining this division in the friend enemy stranger in accordance with how others treat us, it’s gonna benefit us in some way.
We’re fully convinced of this. We’re so fully convinced that it doesn’t we don’t even think it needs to be thought about. However, here, Pabongka is suggesting that we just examine what’s under the surface here. Whenever we think about others, we should be aware of where we’re placing that person, friend, enemy, or stranger. And then the reasons for why.
Oh, good. That I’m slotting that one into the friend section. Okay, why? Oh, that’s right, they smiled at me, you know, six months ago. Last time I saw them, I got on really well with them.
Oh, that’s okay. Before that, I was pretty much indifferent to them. Now, taking them out of that section. I put them into the friend section over here. Then previously, this friend here, then they ignored me the other day.
Well, they’re on probation now. They’re in the stranger. I’ll just wait. You know, if they do it, I’ll give them, you know, two, maybe three three chances. If they, you know, mess up the next time, then definitely, they’re right on the border there of the enemies.
And the third time, third strike, you’re out, bang, you’re into the enemy section, and I’ll distance myself then from that person. If I see them coming down the road, I will move to the other side of the road, or I’ll if they come in the front door, I’ll leave out leave the back door, or if I have to go near them, I will be talking with someone else, or I’ll be looking at my watch, or I’ll be I will try and distance myself from them. So if we’re trying to put distance between ourselves and another person, it’s an indication that they’re probably in the enemy section. So this we’re so fully conversant with, this divisions into friend, enemy, stranger. And not only is it in the present, we’ve got a beginningless past of these divisions that also exist for us.
Even in this lifetime, we’ve got so many enemies and friends of the past that, you know, that are are still you know, we suffer from being separated from those that we really like ten, twenty, thirty years ago. We wanna see them again. And also, when we think about others that are enemies, that really makes us unhappy, what they did, and so on. So what we’re doing here is examining the underlying reasons. Where do these feelings come from, which are a condition for us to put them into those categories.
Are those feelings trustworthy? Because we know, of course, that even now we shunt them around. A person acts well towards us, we put them into the friend section, they act badly towards us. They we put them into the enemy section. We know that these sections are impermanent.
So this we need actually, just this section here needs a lot of discussion because it’s so strong strongly imprinted for us. And we we spend so much time and energy involved in this process that we need to identify it firstly, just to see, oh, yeah. That’s what is happening. I’m doing that. Everyone else around me is doing the same thing.
And then just to be mindful to see if it’s valid, whether even just in this one life whether it’s valid, let alone going back into past life. So this is a very this is the basic meditation that we’re starting with, this meditation on immeasurable equanimity. In fact, we should spend the rest of the year just on this one, immeasurable equanimity. But, of course, we don’t have time or the luxury to do this. But, actually, if one is able to meditate on equanimity, then the others are much then they become easier to generate.
Because we don’t meditate enough on equanimity, it becomes harder for us to then meditate on the topics that follow from this one. But establishing all the downstream ones depends on establishing this one. Otherwise, our what love and compassion we do generate is always gonna be biased. Not gonna have a firm level, what, basis. You know, as the politicians are always telling us, we have to generate a level playing field.
We have to do the same thing. We need a level playing field internally for our own benefit, for what? Generating these six causes and one result. They can’t be generated without a level playing field. At present, our playing field is, you know, a bit like, you know, the Himalayan ranges.
Peaks and troughs, peaks and troughs. So anything we try and build on that sort of a basis is going to be a bit lopsided, know, a bit closer to some and a bit further away from others. So it’s not going to be that beneficial ultimately for us. So we do need, therefore, to level the playing field. In other words, we need an even mind, an even mind towards others.
Now, what also we needed to talk a little bit about, but we’re not gonna maybe we can bring this up a later again. There are really three types of equanimity. This also comes up in Lorik, and the three types of equanimity we can say are the feeling of equanimity, This comes up towards the end of Lorig, and Pabongka points it out. But in various other texts also, it it comes up. Then there is composite equanimity.
And composite equanimity is one of the eleven virtuous mental factors. Don’t worry too much about that. It actually, this. And then the third one is immeasurable equanimity. So, anyway, we should be just aware that there are different types of equanimity.
There’s a feeling of equanimity, isn’t there? We have positive feeling, negative feeling, in between feeling, which is called equanimity, which is neither positive nor negative, sort of middle of the road. With that sort of feeling, we tend to go to sleep and so on. But that’s the feeling of equanimity. On the higher levels, it’s a very high it can be a very subtle and pure type of feeling.
But there’s a feeling of equanimity. That feeling of equanimity is feeling. Then we have another type of equanimity, which is one of the eleven virtuous mental factors, which is not feeling. But but which is this mind that this type of mental factor which is described as being doesn’t have desire for the separation from physical and mental discomfort, nor does it have the desire for association with mental or physical bliss. It’s a type of it’s a mental factor that has equanimity.
Now the third one here is immeasurable equanimity, and this is the one we’re talking about. This one is one of the four types of equanimity, aren’t there? There’s four oh, sorry. Four types of immeasurable. Where are the four immeasurables?
No. We recite them at the beginning. Immeasurable okay. We got page number one. Everyone’s got a prayer book there.
So this equanimity here is the fourth of the on page number on the contents page, page zero. The four immeasurables. May all beings have happiness and the causes of happiness? That’s immeasurable love. First one, immeasurable love.
May all beings be free of suffering and the causes of suffering? Immeasurable compassion. May all beings never be separated from the happiness that knows no suffering, immeasurable joy. Fourth one, may all beings abide in equanimity free from attachment and anger that holds some as close to another’s distance, that is immeasurable equanimity. So this is the state that we’re seeking to generate here.
Anyway, there’s three types of equanimity. There’s probably more than three actually. But what we should understand here is we’re not talking about the feeling of equanimity, although that may be present. Here, we’re talking about this attitude, even attitude towards others, and even attitude towards all sentient beings, not leaving out anyone. So therefore, it’s immeasurable.
Right. Now from there, we progress to the to the first of the six causes. And the first of the six causes is or recognizing all beings to be one’s mother. Now, if everyone has actually probably read this section anyway. So here, Pabongka Rinpoche goes a little bit into the Pramānavārttika, a text by Dharmakīrti, which deals with the proof for rebirth.
Because recognizing all sentient beings to have been one’s mother depends on their being rebirth. If there’s no rebirth, then of course, this can’t be proven. So in a sense, Pabongka Rinpoche then is touching on the proof for rebirth. And the proof for rebirth, he’s using one quotation from this great Indian master called Dharmakīrti, who stated, when someone has been reborn reborn, how absurd it would be for his breathing organs and mind to have developed from the body alone and not in dependence on things of their own class. Now this particular statement is very profound, is really directed at even the science of today.
We tend to think, and even the science as it stands at present, to assert that everything that even our physical body and the processes that occur in relation to our physical body are actually derived from the body alone, as it says. How absurd it would be for the breathing, the organs, and mind to develop from this body alone. It’s absurd to try explain our current body and all its processes in the context of just this body alone because, actually, this body and the processes, the being and so forth, are developed in dependence on objects of their own class or own type. So what does that mean? What it means is that when we go into the causes for things, we notice that things are generated from causes within their own substantial type.
It’s true, isn’t it? Apples come from apple seeds, apple seeds come from apple trees, apple trees come from apple seeds or cuttings, and so on. All the same type. One can’t get an apple growing on a tree without the apple tree being there. That apple tree either comes from a cutting or it comes from the seed of an apple tree.
Therefore, an apple is generated from causes of a similar substantial type to itself, isn’t it? We accept that without without any real reservation. Similarly to the mind, everything that occurs in the mind is coming from similar from causes of similar type in the past. And as Dharmakīrti says, it’d be absurd to try and explain the mind outside of the causes of the same substantial type as the mind itself. Anyway, this type of reasoning is not easy easy to for us to comprehend.
In other words, what he’s saying is the mind itself must be generated by the mind. Attitudes are generated by attitudes. They’re not the attitudes or the instincts of a a being, even when they’re newly born, are not coming from their genes. Those attitudes are coming from prior attitudes that being had. Their capacity to do anything on the level of emotions, awareness, and so forth is coming from prior emotions, awareness and so forth.
Because it’s absurd to try and explain the existence of impermanent entities outside of this substantial continuum. Anyway, this particular verse is debated at great length, and so it should be. But the reason why it’s debated at great length is to shed light on the possibility of rebirth. And if we come to a conviction about rebirth, then we can see that just as we have been reborn in the past, all other beings have been reborn in the past. And then in fact, as we investigate, we see that we’ve had not just one previous birth, we’ve had many.
In fact, we can’t come to the beginning of our previous rebirth. So from that point of view, every being has been our mother. It’s good to get a superficial idea of this, and then to gradually reflect on this, and try and deepen one’s understanding of this. But this does take time. It’s not easy for us to see all other beings as having been our mother in the past.
And one of the reasons for this is that we have some doubts about rebirth, about the nature of the mind itself. We it’s hard for us even to understand what the mind is in the present, let alone what it was like in the previous moment, and the moment before that, and the moment before that, and so on, and therefore establish rebirth. So we do have doubts in this regard. But by reflecting on this, on the nature of the mind and the continuum of the mind, we can establish rebirth and the fact that every being has been our mother countless times over. But that has to we have to realize that for it to be established as a cause.
It’s something that we have to understand. Otherwise, it doesn’t become a cause. It simply is something that we’re working on. And then the second two of the six causes then follow really from that, that if we establish all beings as being one’s mother, and then we reflect on the kindness of our mother in this lifetime, we can establish also the kindness of every other being to us, the immeasurable, inestimable kindness of all other beings. But that also depends on reflecting on the kindness of one’s mother in this lifetime, establishing that.
And it’s not always easy to do. Often we have a few unresolved issues with our mother. Maybe several unresolved issues with our mother. And if we can’t comprehend, if we can’t appreciate the kindness of our mother in this lifetime, that’s not something we can then extend to other beings. So we need to think about the kindness of our mother in this lifetime.
And that probably we don’t do enough of. This is something we really need to think about at great length as well. So it’s the second cause. Third cause is just follows from that. If we understand the kindness of our mother in this lifetime, then repaying that kindness to our mother in this lifetime emerges quite automatically.
It’s just obvious and automatic. And similarly, if we’ve then extended our understanding of the kindness of our mother in this lifetime to the kindness of every other sentient being in our past lifetimes, then of course we seek to repay that automatically. Automatically. But this depends on establishing serially these causes, and these causes only can be established serially in this way. First, need equanimity, immeasurable equanimity, then recognizing all beings to be one’s mother, then understanding their kindness, remembering their kindness, and then repaying their kindness.
Okay. We’ll just have a break there, and then we’ll come back for some discussion.