Transform Your Mind & Change Your Life Retreat - 7-Point Mind Training from Atisha (part 42)

· · · silence, 1 minute

0:38 So we better make some progress. So let's move on to the next aphorism. Under this category of transforming adversity into the aid for spiritual awakening, independence upon relative bodhicitta. So then we have the next aphorism, being blame everything on one culprit. And that one culprit, rather than being of course another person or political part or anything like that, is called self-grasping. Report an error in the passage at 0:38 Highlight the passage at 0:38

1:05 So there's two terms here. It's good to get into very sharp focus if one wants to engage in such practice. Self-grasping, self-centeredness. And they're not the same, and if they're not the same, they're not interchangeable. So self-grasping is, to put it in modern parlance, philosophical, is reification of oneself. Report an error in the passage at 1:05 Highlight the passage at 1:05

1:25 And that is grasping onto oneself as someone who's really here, existing by one's own characteristics, from one's own side. There's a real person here, and this real person has a body and has a mind, and it's really me. And that's self-grasping. It is the reification of the self as existing by its own inherent nature, one's own inherent nature, which means if that were true, then there would be an absolute divide between oneself and others. Report an error in the passage at 1:25 Highlight the passage at 1:25

1:50 Because everybody would come as a self-contained package, and there would be space in between. And so it's fundamentally alienating, alienating oneself from all other sentient beings, but also the whole universe. Because one is here, self-enclosed, a single unit in and of oneself. Report an error in the passage at 1:50 Highlight the passage at 1:50

2:10 And this is not simply a point of doctrine or this is Buddhist belief. But rather, there are two propositions here. One is that we do have such a sense. We didn't need to learn this from parents or religion or philosophy or anything like that. The notion of grasping onto oneself, reifying oneself, we're born with it. Report an error in the passage at 2:10 Highlight the passage at 2:10

2:31 So there's said to be different types of mental affliction. Some are conate, we're born with them. Can't blame anybody else on them. We came in with them. And then there are other mental afflictions like racism or sexism and so forth. Nobody's born that way. You have to learn how to look upon a gender as inferior or people of different color as inferior. Report an error in the passage at 2:31 Highlight the passage at 2:31

2:51 So those are learned or acquired mental afflictions. Religious dogmatism is a mental affliction that's acquired. Nobody's born with it. But self-grasping is something we came in with. Just a sense of I am as something real. So there's one statement, that we're born with it and we do have it, this grasping onto self. And then you can check for yourself. Report an error in the passage at 2:51 Highlight the passage at 2:51

3:14 Does that refer to anything in your experience? Do you know what they're talking about? But then the second point here is that it is delusional. And that is if you actually look for the self that you're identifying with, grasping onto yourself as some kind of an autonomous, self-existent person, ego, entity. Report an error in the passage at 3:14 Highlight the passage at 3:14

3:35 That has a body, has a mind, is in charge of them. Do you ever find such? Or is it a figment of your imagination? Simply a concoction? And to grasp onto it as real then is complete delusion. So again, we could spend days on that point. It's enormously important. So we just have to focus on that. But it is experiential. It's not a point of doctrine simply or dogma. Report an error in the passage at 3:35 Highlight the passage at 3:35

3:56 Do you have it? And if so, have you checked out to see whether there is such a person when you examine your body, your mind? We make this very practical, relate this back to the Dzogchen teachings. We tend to grasp onto ourselves. I'll just speak about myself. I tend to grasp onto myself as a sentry being. Report an error in the passage at 3:56 Highlight the passage at 3:56

4:14 I take myself pretty seriously as a sentry being. Recognizing, well, we have a large database too. And that is, look, do mental afflictions arise in my mind stream? Yeah, they do. Sorry, but they do. And just dualistic grasping and so forth. Do I have all the earmarks? Am I a fully qualified member? of the community of sentient beings, yowza, you know, so yeah. Report an error in the passage at 4:14 Highlight the passage at 4:14

4:34 So, yeah, I really take it very seriously. But then, and of course it's true, am I a sentient being or not? Yeah, I am. Okay, so we're finished. But then if I look for that sentient being, well, I don't find it anywhere from the hair down to the brain and any of the internal organs. I mean, maybe it's a silly place to look, but some people do think you are a brain. Report an error in the passage at 4:34 Highlight the passage at 4:34

4:54 Well, they're wrong. And so, no, you don't find a sentient being in the body, neither in the whole body or in any cell or any organ. But we didn't really expect to find it there. But then, okay, do you find this self, this person? Do you find this in the range of states of consciousness, consciousness itself, mental impulses, memories and so forth? Report an error in the passage at 4:54 Highlight the passage at 4:54

5:14 Is there a self anywhere to be found? This really self-existent entity of me. Do you find that sentient being? That's the real point. That's why it gets interesting to me. Do you find that sentient being that you're so convinced that you are? And I've checked, repeatedly. And you can look for something and simply not find it. Like you can look for your keys and not find it. And the conclusion is, I don't know where they are. Report an error in the passage at 5:14 Highlight the passage at 5:14

5:40 Not that they don't exist, I just don't know where they are. That's one possibility. But you can also look for something and then discover that it's not there. And that's a discovery. It's not finding, it's finding that it's not to be found. And that's a discovery. So as you examine yourself, if you probe inwardly, trying to seek, for example, the observer. Remember doing that? We just did a flyby on that one. You, am I the observer? Report an error in the passage at 5:40 Highlight the passage at 5:40

6:07 Yep, that sent you being. That's me. I'm the observer. Good. Who are you? Have you ever found yourself? What is that? Are you an agent? Do you do things? Yes, I do. Good. Do you identify yourself? Can you find yourself as some independent agent who's in charge of your body and mind? And so one may look and look and not find, and then if you look more deeply, You may very well find that it's not to be found, and then you recognize the emptiness of yourself as an autonomous, self-existent sentry being. Report an error in the passage at 6:07 Highlight the passage at 6:07

6:37 But that means you're not really a sentry being, in which case you have some wiggle room there. You're not locked into that category. So this grasping to the self is to blame everything on one culprit. Well, we're talking about root delusion. When we speak of delusion craving hostility as being the three poisons, It's fundamentally this, the grasping to oneself as something real, self-existent and so forth. And that is said to be the root of all of the mental affliction of craving, greed, attachment, that whole spectrum. Report an error in the passage at 6:37 Highlight the passage at 6:37

7:12 There are desires that are not afflicted at all, of course, like just desiring a glass of water if you're thirsty. There are desires that are noble and sublime. Nothing wrong with those. But attachment by definition. It is a toxic or an afflictive type of desire, and it's always rooted in the delusion of grasping to the self, the reification of self. Report an error in the passage at 7:12 Highlight the passage at 7:12

7:36 It always is. So again, when I say something like that, everything here is actually open for investigation. But when you can see, when you can distinguish between, this is merely a desire, which is fine, I have desires, what's wrong? But then this is attachment. This is clinging, this is grasping. If you can see why this is not toxic and why this one is, this is not a mental addiction, this is. When you can clearly identify, you know, like a scientist of your own mind, and you say, I see, I have attachment for this person or this place or this object, and you can identify it as the mental addiction of attachment, then ask yourself, can you find the root? Report an error in the passage at 7:36 Highlight the passage at 7:36

8:14 Does that trace back to reification of self, of I and mine? So you can do that. Likewise, when the mental affliction of anger, hostility, hatred arises, it's not the same as aversion, but the mental affliction, then the assertion here is it's always rooted in the self-grasping. Always rooted there. And that goes for all the other mental afflictions. Pride, jealousy, and so forth and so on. So that's why he's saying blame everything on one culprit. Report an error in the passage at 8:14 Highlight the passage at 8:14

8:43 That is, whenever you encounter some unhappiness, encounter adversity, what you regard as adversity, Trace it. And as Shantideva says, if all the harm, fear and suffering in the world occur due to grasping onto the self, what is the use of that great demon to me? And so he's kind of like symbolizing this is like a demon. This is what is always harming me. The root of all my suffering is always this grasping to self, grasping to self. Report an error in the passage at 8:43 Highlight the passage at 8:43

9:11 And so whatever adversity arises, see if you can trace it to that. That's the real source of the problem. Not the people, not places, not political parties, nothing else. It always traces back to this. So basically recognize who your real enemy is. So that's one. I said there were two. There's self-grasping, that's it. It's more in the mode of misknowing, mis-knowing, mis-apprehending. Report an error in the passage at 9:11 Highlight the passage at 9:11

9:35 It's not just ignorance. It is grasping onto oneself as being fundamentally separate, which means unrelated. If I'm really over here, then you're really over there, which means there's nothing in between, which now you become irrelevant to me. I mean, that just immediately follows. Literally irrelevant, because we're not related. If things were anything, an atom or a person, actually did exist by its own inherent nature, it would be unrelated to anything else. Report an error in the passage at 9:35 Highlight the passage at 9:35

10:01 It would be one of those little Newtonian billiard balls just floating through absolute space and time, all by its lonesome. And that in physics has been refuted more than a hundred years ago. Then we have self-centeredness. Literally, it's rancinzin, which is self-cherishing. To cherish oneself, to love oneself as one loves others, that's fine. So I don't go for a literal translation there, but as I said earlier, the second one. Report an error in the passage at 10:01 Highlight the passage at 10:01

10:29 The first one is, we call it epistemic, that it has to do with misknowing, misapprehending. The self-centeredness. It's not simply a way of knowing, it's a matter of prioritization. I mentioned it earlier today, that prioritization of regarding one's own well-being, or more broadly speaking, my side. Report an error in the passage at 10:29 Highlight the passage at 10:29

10:48 My side. We Caucasians. We Buddhists. We men. We people of six foot and older and higher. Whatever that category is. We tall people. Whatever. We silver-haired people. And so forth. Having that said, my side. And this has greater priority. We should win and the others should lose. Whenever there's Olympics, watch out all the self-centeredness coming in. Report an error in the passage at 10:48 Highlight the passage at 10:48

11:15 Oh, it's an Australian? Oh, good. Yay. Oh, it's an American. I got one more. Who cares? Just one really sweet thing. I was in Singapore when the Singaporean swimmer won the first gold in all the history of Singapore. And I was in a group of Singaporeans and I postponed my Dharma talk. Literally. We had a big screen television. They said, Alan, he's coming on at 10.07 and you're starting at 10. Report an error in the passage at 11:15 Highlight the passage at 11:15

11:43 Would you mind? I said, no problem. So we all sat around this big screen television and they watched him win and beat Michael Phelps. I must say, I was just jubilant. He got two more later, I think, anyway, Michael Phelps. But this little Singaporean guy. When he went across the finish line, this room just exploded. It was just exploded with joy. You could not help but have empathetic joy in that. Report an error in the passage at 11:43 Highlight the passage at 11:43

12:09 It was so, so happy. So that was a nice way to start a Dharma talk. As I point and say, you're all practicing soul charity. Report an error in the passage at 12:09 Highlight the passage at 12:09

12:20 I didn't actually say that. I didn't want to be a sports board. But it is, you know, there it was very innocent. There was no harm to anyone. So, you know, we just rejoice. I'm so glad you, you know. Report an error in the passage at 12:20 Highlight the passage at 12:20

12:33 But if we look at roots of suffering, The sense that my side, well, number one, me, but then those people we most closely identify, my family, not your family. What's that family coming into our neighborhood for? I'm not sure I like the looks of them. They might be damaging my family. Maybe they should leave. Report an error in the passage at 12:33 Highlight the passage at 12:33

12:53 Maybe we should scare them. Maybe we should throw eggs at their windows. My family, my family, my neighborhood, my business, my county, my city. Report an error in the passage at 12:53 Highlight the passage at 12:53

13:06 I heard from a Melbourne... Melbourne is actually a much better city than... were very strong. He really came back to the theme again and again. I'm glad to get that straight from an objective perspective. Report an error in the passage at 13:06 Highlight the passage at 13:06

13:41 It can crop up between cities, right? Los Angeles and San Francisco, etc., etc. It's everywhere. Boston and New York City. It's just everywhere. My side, yours. And on the one hand, it's playful and it's just fun competition. No harm in that at all. But then sometimes it's war. And all you can tell, are you wearing a green uniform or a gray uniform? Report an error in the passage at 13:41 Highlight the passage at 13:41

14:03 If it's a gray uniform, kill as many as possible. If it's a green uniform, sacrifice your life for them. That's the history of warfare, right? That's why we wear different colors. So you know who are the other side and who's your side. And so this is a source of all human distress. The grasping to I and mine is inherently real. And then prioritizing. See, they're not the same. Prioritizing my side, me and mine. Report an error in the passage at 14:03 Highlight the passage at 14:03

14:33 That if there's something good out there, we should get it. I should get it. And the other side should lose. And all suffering, all of suffering boils down to... These two, self-grasping and self-centeredness. I think it's very powerful. And so then we see the ultimate antidote to self-grasping is ultimate bodhicitta. Report an error in the passage at 14:33 Highlight the passage at 14:33

14:55 And the perfect antidote to self-centeredness is relative bodhicitta. So you have the two great antidotes and the two fundamental causes of suffering. And I don't know, maybe I'm just kind of so crazily immersed in Buddhism I can't see straight. But it just seems to me this is flat out true. I mean, these are core themes of Buddhism. There's just no question about it. Ultimate relative bodhicitta, you don't find that terminology in Christianity and Socrates and so forth and so on. Report an error in the passage at 14:55 Highlight the passage at 14:55

15:25 But it just seems to me true that these really are the roots of suffering. The self-grasping, first of all, and now that I've grasped unto myself, then I know who's more important, me and my side. So it just seems that's true. Here's root causes of suffering for which all the mental afflictions and all the evil in the world comes forth. That just seems to be true. And then there are all kinds of various antidotes that might ameliorate or soften the blow a little bit. Report an error in the passage at 15:25 Highlight the passage at 15:25

15:52 But if you're looking to cut the root so it never comes back in all lifetimes, well, it's going to be a realization of emptiness, a realization of rigpa. What else could do it? And if you want to cut the root of self-centeredness, well, what else would it be besides where I'm going to put it? That just completely demolishes it. Shantideva, I think he speaks of these, is the cultivation of realization of emptiness, the realization of bodhicitta. These in terms, he specifically speaks of relative bodhicitta as being like the conflagration at the end of an eon that incinerates everything. Report an error in the passage at 15:52 Highlight the passage at 15:52

16:27 Like when the sun goes supernova and just incinerates everything in the neighborhood and there's just nothing left. He said in a similar way in terms of the burning off of negative karma and the burning off of obscurations and mental afflictions. That is, bodhicitta is just like the conflagration at the end of an eon. It just burns up everything, burns up the inner causes of suffering. Report an error in the passage at 16:27 Highlight the passage at 16:27

16:50 And there are two, and one cannot prioritize one over the other. Realization of emptiness or going right down to realization of rikpa. There is a great conflagration. Cultivate a relative bodhicitta to the point that it's spontaneously arising, just flowing continuously. Both of those are massively transformative. Report an error in the passage at 16:50 Highlight the passage at 16:50

17:09 And get right to the two roots, the two fundamental tap roots of all suffering. So, you can kind of tell I'm a believer here. I think it's just true. It's not just Mayana Buddhism or something like that. Then we move to a very deep one. It can be very cheesy. And then you look into depth and there's nothing cheesy or kind of superficial or saccharine about it. Meditate on everyone as being kind. Well, this is Atisha's writing. Report an error in the passage at 17:09 Highlight the passage at 17:09

17:38 He's no dope. And so we know there are a lot of unkind people. You can look on Boko Haram, you can look on ISIS, you can look on mass murderers and swindlers and so forth and so on. Everybody's kind. Well, face-to-face, we're just in stupidville. He's not stupid. He never becomes stupid. Whatever a teacher was, stupid was not one of his attributes. Report an error in the passage at 17:38 Highlight the passage at 17:38

17:59 And so what does it possibly mean? Well, you can look at the notes for yourself. But again, come back to the center of the mandala. And are there people out there who are hateful, malevolent, people who are torturers and so forth and so on? Of course there are. There's no news there. And are there some people out there who are very kind, very compassionate? Report an error in the passage at 17:59 Highlight the passage at 17:59

18:20 And are people out there just trying to get by? Not malevolent and not particularly kind, but just trying to live decent lives and just get by. So of course that's true. It's not even called into question. But what we're seeking to do now is not simply observe what anybody can see. Because what anybody can see and viewing reality in that way is what perpetuates your saṃsāra. Just the same old, same old. Is there a perspective from which oneself in the center of one's own mandala could view everyone as kind to oneself? Report an error in the passage at 18:20 Highlight the passage at 18:20

18:52 Not kind to each other. We don't even raise that question because it's ridiculous. You know, the selling of women in the Boko Haram and all of the atrocities that were committed there. I think I still are. There's just no question. There's no kindness there. It's complete brutality, manipulation. So we're not going to say anything more. They're all worthy of compassion. Those people are so deluded that they do that to other people. And the poor people who are victims of that, they're all worthy of compassion. Report an error in the passage at 18:52 Highlight the passage at 18:52

19:16 But now what does this have to do, how can, from my perspective, how can I regard that, that atrocity there, or this very kind person here, or this person who is just trying to make enough money to pay the rent, how can I view them as kind with respect to me, for me in the center of my mandala? That's the question. Report an error in the passage at 19:16 Highlight the passage at 19:16

19:35 Because I'm not asking whether everybody's kind to each other, because of course they're not. All varieties, right? But if one's aspiration, it always comes back to this, what do you want? What is your aspiration? Are you really practicing this because you'd like to achieve an awakening? Is bodhicitta your aspiration? If it is, then when you read the news, this is a major reason I read the news every morning and sometimes multiple times in the day, is I'm reading about atrocities. Report an error in the passage at 19:35 Highlight the passage at 19:35

20:02 Then, for me, it is helpful. To know this is going on and to not just respond with anger or contempt or disdain or just becoming weary and saying, I can't take anymore, but keep on rising to it. And the hatred is going this way and the brutality is going this way and then there's a natural catastrophe this way. And whoever sent you being out there, whatever they're doing to each other, for me, this is helpful. Report an error in the passage at 20:02 Highlight the passage at 20:02

20:29 It deepens compassion, deepens empathy, arouses perhaps some insight into emptiness. Arouse his virtues, as I tend to, from the perspective of practicing Dharma, then even seeing evil in the world. There's no kindness in their motivation, there's no kindness in their interaction, but it's helpful to me. Report an error in the passage at 20:29 Highlight the passage at 20:29

20:50 As I told you the story in the first day, Gumabhashi saying, for me, the invasion of Tibet by the Chinese communists, they were very kind. And he is, as I told you, he is a very intelligent man. He is not suggesting that even one... The Chinese Communist soldiers and so forth came in and had a benevolent motivation. Let's really try to help these people as they machine gun them down. He's not even one. Report an error in the passage at 20:50 Highlight the passage at 20:50

21:14 Maybe there were some. They're probably not all malevolent. They're following orders. That's what soldiers do. But he said, for me, they were all very kind. Because for me, this deeply enhanced and deepened and purified my own spiritual practice. Had it not been for them and their impact on me, then I would still have a relatively complacent practice. Report an error in the passage at 21:14 Highlight the passage at 21:14

21:35 Therefore, they help me. And people who help us are called our friends. That's just normal. If you help me, oh, thank you, you're my friend. Thank you for being so friendly. Thank you for acting as my friend. I appreciate that. So the Chinese commented, there didn't even have to be one who had a motivation, let's help Kumobashi. Report an error in the passage at 21:35 Highlight the passage at 21:35

21:55 There probably wasn't one. Let's help this aristocrat. Probably not even one. But from his perspective, it didn't matter what their motivation was. You could be sure of malevolence, or just try and make a living, send money home to the wife. That's probably most of them right there, just trying to take care of their families. Report an error in the passage at 21:55 Highlight the passage at 21:55

22:11 And they're following orders. If they don't, they'll be shot. Because that's what happens to soldiers, any kind of soldiers. British Army, American, Chinese, dissipate orders, you get shot. So what are you going to do? Well, unless you're extremely courageous, you will follow orders. But for him, for him, I regard them as kind. Report an error in the passage at 22:11 Highlight the passage at 22:11

22:31 And that's what this is talking about. He practiced this. So he could say that sincerely. No resentment, no anger, no hostility, no contempt for me. And that was direct impact on him. So whether we see the evil in the world going this way out there, as I attend to the suffering, the evil that occurred in Tibet, this happens deep in my compassion. Report an error in the passage at 22:31 Highlight the passage at 22:31

22:55 But then when there's incoming, incoming, incoming, somebody robs me or abuses me or... Whatever. Something negative coming in. Of course, the easy thing is, oh, I wish that person wouldn't do that. This is adversity. Why are you thinking so badly? I didn't do it. I don't think I deserved it. Then that should be spin on saṃsāra. But if we can shift the motivation and say, I see what's coming in, and this is really helping me to deepen my compassion and empathy and not just be defensive or respond with retaliation and so forth. Report an error in the passage at 22:55 Highlight the passage at 22:55

23:28 So that's what he's getting at. It's something very deep. But it does, by shifting your attitude, then you can actually view. It's not just a meditation you pick up and put down. It's learning to view all those around you as nurturing, helping in one way or another, regardless of their motivation, helping your practice, helping you find greater well-being, helping you proceed along the path. Report an error in the passage at 23:28 Highlight the passage at 23:28

23:51 One of the Shantideva, the largest lojong we have, I think, and probably the most widely studied, a guide to the Bodhisattva way of life. That's all lojong. Start to finish. It's the mother of lojongs. Or mind training. But there's one verse I remember especially, I remember a lot of his verses, my wife and her translated the text. Report an error in the passage at 23:51 Highlight the passage at 23:51

24:08 And that is, as you're just walking along the street in downtown Sydney, and they're strangers and they're just all walking, you know, walking here, cell phones here, air jacks here, and so forth. As you simply attend to them, what Shantideva says, as you attend to all these people on the street, just view them. View them thinking independence upon such beings like this. Report an error in the passage at 24:08 Highlight the passage at 24:08

24:29 I'm able to practice Dharma. That is, I have enough to eat, but I didn't grow my food. I have clothing, and I didn't make it. I have transportation, I didn't make it. I have a house, a place to live, and I didn't make it. And it's because exactly people like this, this is a sampling, this is a pool. Here are all sentient beings on this street in Sydney. Report an error in the passage at 24:29 Highlight the passage at 24:29

24:50 Here's all sentient beings. And they're tall, short, and this and that and that and that. They're all variety. And then it's on exactly such beings as this. Then I'm able to flourish hedonically, that I'm not starving to death or anything like that. If you ever try to eat money, I don't think it tastes good at all. Somebody has to give you something for the money, and that means they have to be at work. Report an error in the passage at 24:50 Highlight the passage at 24:50

25:11 So in dependence upon them, I'm able to practice Dharma and realize my heart's desire. And therefore, attending to them, they're all kind, and they probably don't know who I am. And they don't need to. That's what he's getting at here. So that was short, to the point. Report an error in the passage at 25:11 Highlight the passage at 25:11

25:29 But you can imagine that would really change everything, if you can even view those who feel malevolent towards you, and you view them right back. As one friend of mine said, I see that you're giving me your anger, but I choose not to accept it. We don't have to. We don't have to. You can simply see another person kind of bubbling over. Remember the boiling water, the pool of water that's struck by anger, just boiling, boiling, boiling? Report an error in the passage at 25:29 Highlight the passage at 25:29

26:01 If you look at a person who's really, really angry, and maybe they're boiling over, you look and you see just boiling water, like fumes and bubbles, all steam arising. And you see them when they're in the grip of anger. Report an error in the passage at 26:01 Highlight the passage at 26:01

26:18 It doesn't really matter whether anger is directed. It's turning to Angela or to Ben or to me. That's all secondary. It doesn't really matter. But the fact that this person is now, right now, suffering, enraged, in the grip of hostility and aggression and so forth, it's so painful. So painful. And nothing good will come from it. Report an error in the passage at 26:18 Highlight the passage at 26:18

26:38 It's a mental addiction. Whatever this person says, probably negative consequences. Whatever the person does out of anger, probably negative consequences. And it doesn't matter whether it's directed to me. It's going to be directed to somebody. Maybe I just happened to be an innocent passerby. What do they call it? Collateral damage. Oh, I was here. Report an error in the passage at 26:38 Highlight the passage at 26:38

26:57 Wham! You direct your anger to me. That kind of doesn't matter one way or another. But you see somebody really in the group of anger. Report an error in the passage at 26:57 Highlight the passage at 26:57

27:08 This is where really observing one's own mind and experiencing one's own mental addictions, facing them. Really being very aware of them. Not running away, not trying to immediately slam them, but just, well, this is a mind that's really upset and angry. And it's so unpleasant. Report an error in the passage at 27:08 Highlight the passage at 27:08

27:25 You know, there's a lot of debate among people I deeply respect about whether anger can be constructive, whether it's always destructive. And I see it going on. And I see both sides. I see some people saying, no, it's always toxic. And others saying, no, there are occasions when she can be actually quite constructive. And I see, I see. Report an error in the passage at 27:25 Highlight the passage at 27:25

27:46 But then I go back and I observe instances. And I've done this. Have I ever, again, I've just observed it, have I, of course I have. Those instances when I felt anger, irritation, grumpy, irritant, anguish, you know the words. Have I ever enjoyed it? Have I felt, boy, this is so preferable to being serene? I really like being grumpy and tight and grimacing. Report an error in the passage at 27:46 Highlight the passage at 27:46

28:13 Never. And it doesn't matter whether I'm angry or upset about it. It doesn't matter whether it's some severe social injustice. You know, there are, of course. Or some atrocity or something that was really wrong and wrong. And so many, you know, self-righteous indignation, self-righteous anger. But I have a right to be angry because this was wrong. Report an error in the passage at 28:13 Highlight the passage at 28:13

28:34 And I know one woman quite famous, she was kind of in a constant state of rage against landmines. Landsmines. And it's awful. What she was criticizing was, Report an error in the passage at 28:34 Highlight the passage at 28:34

28:45 What's the word for it? Just leaving landmines for little kids and goats and so forth, blow themselves up when they're trying to run after a ball. So she was really hitting America and all the other superpowers that are still using them and still justifying it. And she's just pointing out this is atrocity. And she's always angry. I just can't help but wonder, is that the most effective way? Report an error in the passage at 28:45 Highlight the passage at 28:45

29:09 Maybe it is. And I don't know. If you want to bring about legislation so that, I don't know, I have no idea, I'm not asking. Does Australia authorize the use of landmines? And if it does, what's the most effective way? Just say, take those off. Like, we don't use chemical weapons, you don't use biological weapons. Very few do, among the so-called civilized countries. I always ask, what's the most effective way? Report an error in the passage at 29:09 Highlight the passage at 29:09

29:36 And maybe if the people are right, well, sometimes anger really shakes things up and gets the job done. But I know, first-person perspective, I think it's, I've really checked, I don't think I've ever enjoyed being angry, ever. For any reason, no matter how justified it might be. Can't remember ever enjoying it. It's always a disturbance, a malformation, a tightness, an imbalance of the mind. Report an error in the passage at 29:36 Highlight the passage at 29:36

30:00 And if I haven't, I think people who live on that, they're really worthy of compassion. Because I don't think their anger feels any different than mine. And likewise, greed. I've experienced greed too. You know, craving, grasping for this, that, or that. It's always uneasy. It's never relaxed. It's never... Report an error in the passage at 30:00 Highlight the passage at 30:00

30:20 It's never like that. It's all like that. And that's not comfortable. And then, of course, I'll be depressed if I don't get it and anxious if I do. And anxious if I don't. That's just not pleasant. Or having big ego. Big ego, a sense of being superior. Superior to other people. It's scary. It's scary being egotistical. Report an error in the passage at 30:20 Highlight the passage at 30:20

30:49 You know why? Because nobody agrees with you. I think I'm superior to everybody and I don't find anybody who agrees with me. Which means I'm outvoted everywhere I go and nobody agrees with me, which makes me kind of feel maybe I'm wrong. Report an error in the passage at 30:49 Highlight the passage at 30:49

31:04 So these mental fixings, they're no fun. They really are no fun. They are called mental fixings because they afflict, afflict. And so when we witness other people in the grip of jealousy, arrogance, hatred, greed, the first thought as we look through the outer unpleasant manifestation and their behavior, which makes sense. Report an error in the passage at 31:04 Highlight the passage at 31:04

31:26 Horrendous. We look right through it and we just say, this person is worthy of compassion. Report an error in the passage at 31:26 Highlight the passage at 31:26

31:35 It's 12. So then we'll go on. Good. So after the break we'll go on to deep waters. Very deep waters. And that is, transform the adversity into an age of the path independent upon ultimate bodhicitta. That'll get interesting. Let's come back and do that at 2 o 'clock. Enjoy your lunch and I'll see you too. Report an error in the passage at 31:35 Highlight the passage at 31:35