by Dalai Lama
Anger is based on distorted attention that exaggerates or projects defects onto people and things. Our minds create many reasons to validate our anger and give us a false sense of power in situations where we feel afraid or hurt. Anger has many forms, and several other afflictions are derived from it, including irritation, annoyance, frustration, hatred, rebelliousness, belligerence, resentment, vengeance, spite, cruelty, violence, and jealousy.
Behind each episode of anger are many stories — conceptualizations proliferated by our minds — in which we impute motivations to people that they do not have, interpret actions from our own standpoint, and favor our own concerns while ignoring or demeaning the concerns of others. Although we may try to justify, rationalize, or deny our anger, the truth is that we are unhappy when our minds are overcome by anger. Sometimes we vent our anger to friends, hoping that they will take our side. (If they didn’t, how could they be our friends?) Other times we speak or act in ways that harm others. Here we can see the relationship of attachment and anger: the more distorted attention has exaggerated someone’s good qualities, increasing the strength of our attachment, the more distorted attention exaggerates that person’s bad qualities when he or she doesn’t meet our expectations. We become discontent, and this mental unhappiness inflames our anger, resulting in aggressive behavior that breaks the trust of the people we care about the most. Anger is a mental state, it is not the behavior. While some of us may not think of ourselves as angry because we don’t throw things or scream at others, inside our anger rages. In these cases, ignoring the other person or refusing to have anything to do with them may be considered harmful behavior. We should not be fooled into thinking that passive behavior like withdrawing from a situation and refusing to communicate indicates a lack of anger.
Anger may also be a reaction to fear. When fearful we usually feel powerless, whereas anger gives us a false sense of power by sending adrenaline coursing through our body. Although anger may sometimes seem to make us courageous, our behavior when angry seldom remedies the problem and usually makes it worse.
Arrogance
Arrogance is a mental factor that, based on the view of a personal identity that misapprehends how the I or mine exists, strongly grasps an inflated image of ourselves. It functions to prevent us from learning and increasing our virtue and causes us to disrespect or denigrate others. Vasubandhu mentions seven types of arrogance:
1. Arrogance thinking, “I am superior” in relation to someone who is “inferior.” In this and the next two forms of arrogance, we compare ourselves with others in terms of wealth, looks, knowledge, social standing, athletic ability, fame, and other factors.
2. Arrogance thinking, “I am superior” in relation to someone who is our equal.
3. Arrogance thinking, “I am superior” in relation to someone who is better than us.
4. Arrogance that regards our aggregates and thinks, “I.” This is also called the conceit of I am (asmimāna). Based on self-grasping, we believe ourselves to be inherently existent and very important.
5. Arrogance that thinks we have good qualities that we don’t have.
6. Arrogance thinking we are just a little bit inferior to someone who is really wonderful. We may think, “In this group of esteemed people, I am the least qualified,” implying that although we are less than those who are experts, we are definitely better than the majority of other people. It also claims status by being associated with someone who is better than us: “I am the disciple of a truly great spiritual master.”
7. Arrogance thinking our faults are virtues; for example, an ethically degenerate person thinks he is upstanding and righteous.
In the Precious Garland Nāgārjuna (RA 407–12) delineates seven types of arrogance in a slightly different way, although the meaning is generally the same as above. The one exception is the arrogance of inferiority. Here Nāgārjuna describes it as the arrogance of disparaging ourselves and thinking that we are useless and incapable. The Pāli tradition agrees with Nāgārjuna’s gloss.
(1) Concerning these, the [first] is called arrogance;
it is where one thinks of oneself
as even inferior to the inferior, equal to the equal,
or greater than or equal to the inferior.
(2) It is presumptive arrogance for one to presume
that one is equal to someone who is better.
(3) If one presumes oneself to be
even better than one’s betters,
this is arrogance beyond arrogance;
thinking oneself to be even loftier than the lofty.
It is excessively bad,
like developing sores on top of one’s boils.
(4) The five empty aggregates
are called the [aggregates] subject to clinging.
When one apprehends them as I,
this is called the conceit of thinking “I am.”
(5) To presume that one has attained a result
that one has not attained is to have conceited arrogance.
(6) The wise know that boasting
about one’s negative deeds is erroneous arrogance.
(7) Deriding oneself, thinking,
“I cannot manage,”
is the arrogance of inferiority.
Such are the seven forms of arrogance, in brief.
Arrogance blocks us from gaining new qualities; when we believe we are already top-notch, we are not receptive to learning. Instead we remain complacent, or even smug, without endeavoring to cultivate virtuous qualities. Arrogance due to our Dharma knowledge or accomplishments does not plague beginners; at that time we are aware of how little we know and how much we need to learn and practice. But after we have studied and practiced for a while, arrogance can easily set in and arrest our spiritual growth.
It is important to discriminate between arrogance and self-confidence. Arrogance is often a cover for insecurity, whereas self-confidence acknowledges our abilities without inflating them. Self-confident people have no need to boast of their achievements. Self-confidence, an essential factor on the spiritual path, should be nurtured. Having the thought “As I progressively practice the path, I’ll be able to accomplish all the bodhisattva activities” is a helpful and necessary attitude; it is not arrogance. Awareness of our potential boosts our enthusiasm to engage in Dharma study and practice. Similarly, rejoicing at our virtue with a sense of satisfaction, thinking, “I feel good because I kept my precepts in a challenging situation,” is not arrogance, it’s a way of reinforcing our virtue.
Ignorance
Ignorance is an afflictive state of unknowing brought about by the mind’s lack of clarity regarding the nature of things such as the four truths, Three Jewels, and karma and its effects. It functions as the basis and root of all other afflictions and the afflictive actions and rebirths they produce. This is a general definition of ignorance accepted by all Buddhist tenet systems. However, each system has its own unique definition as well. Furthermore, the meaning of ignorance differs according to the context; some of these meanings are explained below. Unless otherwise noted, they accord with the Prāsaṅgikas’ view, which may or may not be shared by other systems. As we delve into the correct view of emptiness later in the series, the meanings of ignorance in the various schools will be clarified. Ignorance (avidyā) is often, but not always, synonymous with confusion (moha).24
1. Ignorance that is a mental factor is ignorance as defined above.
2. Ignorance of selflessness, in the meaning common to all Buddhist tenet schools, does not understand the selflessness of persons.
3. Ignorance of the ultimate truth does not know the mode of existence of all persons and phenomena. This meaning is accepted by the Cittamātra and Madhyamaka schools. When this ignorance gives rise to afflictions that produce karma, which in turn projects rebirths in saṃsāra, it is ignorance that is the first link of dependent origination (see #6).
4. Ignorance of karma and its effects underlies all destructive actions, especially th
ose that lead to unfortunate rebirths. It is not simply not knowing about karma and its effects, but either strong disbelief in it or temporary disregard for it. This ignorance cannot discern virtuous from nonvirtuous actions, does not accept that happiness comes from virtuous actions and unhappiness from nonvirtuous actions, or does not fully believe this. For example, under the influence of this ignorance we don’t see the faults of engaging in business deals that deprive others of what is rightly theirs. We may generally believe in karma and its effects, but when given the opportunity for personal gain, we justify lying to obtain what we like (see #5).
5. Ignorance that is one of the three poisons of ignorance, attachment, and animosity is one of the three basic factors spurring the creation of destructive karma. This is ignorance of karma and its effects. Often translated as “confusion,” it accompanies all nonvirtuous mental states and is a cause of unfortunate rebirths.
6. Ignorance that is the first link of dependent origination starts a new set of twelve links that leads to rebirth in saṃsāra. Tenet systems have different assertions about this ignorance. According to the Prāsaṅgikas, it grasps our own I and mine as inherently existent, which is based on grasping our aggregates as inherently existent.
7. Self-grasping ignorance grasps persons and phenomena as inherently existent. It first grasps the aggregates as inherently existent, and on that basis grasps the person to be inherently existent. Self-grasping ignorance is synonymous with ignorance grasping inherent existence, ignorance grasping true existence, ignorance grasping things to exist from their own side, and so on. Sometimes when used loosely, “self-grasping ignorance” may refer to grasping a self-sufficient substantially existent person.
8. Ignorance of the four distorted conceptions grasps the impermanent as permanent, that which is duḥkha by nature as pleasurable, the unattractive as beautiful, and that which lacks a self as having one. This description is accepted by all tenet systems.
9. In the Pāli tradition ignorance is explained as not knowing the four truths — the aggregates, their origin, cessation, and the way to that cessation (SN 22.135) — past and future lives, and dependent origination. In specific contexts, it is described as not knowing the impermanent nature of the aggregates (SN 22.126); not understanding the gratification, danger, and escape with respect to the five aggregates (SN 22.129); and so forth.25 In all these cases, true knowledge — the mind that understands these clearly, as they are — is the opposite.
Vasubandhu states that ignorance (see #1) accompanies all afflictions.26 Prāsaṅgikas assert that self-grasping ignorance provokes coarse afflictions but does not accompany them because the two have different functions. Self-grasping ignorance grasps its object as inherently existent, while attachment craves an object seen as attractive and desirable. Self-grasping ignorance arises first and attachment follows. Because they perform different functions and do not occur at the same time, Prāsaṅgikas say self-grasping ignorance and attachment do not share the same primary mind and do not accompany each other.
However, they say that self-grasping ignorance can accompany subtle afflictions because subtle attachment and anger have an element of grasping phenomena as inherently existent. Subtle attachment grasps its object as inherently desirable and craves to possess it. Subtle anger grasps its object as inherently undesirable and craves to be separated from it. These subtle afflictions are obstacles to attaining nirvāṇa, but do not necessarily hinder having a good rebirth. The lower schools do not consider subtle afflictions to prevent liberation because they assert inherent existence.
According to Prāsaṅgikas, ignorance (see #3, 7) grasps persons and phenomena as inherently existent. Grasping the self as self-sufficient and substantially existent is also a form of ignorance, but is not the ignorance that is the root of saṃsāra. The ignorance grasping inherent existence arises first, followed by the ignorance grasping the self as self-sufficient substantially existent. The former does not accompany the latter, because they grasp their object differently and do not occur simultaneously: the former grasps the self to be inherently existent, the latter grasps the self to be self-sufficient substantially existent. Similarly, in cases when grasping a self-sufficient substantially existent person causes anger to arise, it does not accompany anger due to the different ways these mental factors grasp their object.
Technically speaking, self-grasping ignorance and self-grasping are not the same. Self-grasping ignorance refers to the mental factor of ignorance that grasps inherent existence, while self-grasping refers to the entire mental state — the primary consciousness and its accompanying mental factors that include self-grasping ignorance. In other words, when ignorance grasping inherent existence accompanies a mental state, all aspects of that mental state grasp inherent existence.
However, sometimes self-grasping and self-grasping ignorance are used interchangeably. In this case, the speaker’s purpose is not to distinguish the mental factor from the entire mental state, but to identify inherent existence and how we grasp objects and people to exist in this way.
As you can see, the topic of ignorance is complex and we need a lot of wisdom to understand it!
Deluded Doubt
Deluded doubt is a mental factor that is indecisive and wavers toward an incorrect conclusion concerning important spiritual topics such as the ultimate nature of phenomena, the four truths, Three Jewels, and karma and its effects. Keeping us in a constant state of uncertainty about what we believe, which path to follow, and what to practice, deluded doubt immobilizes and prevents us from going forward spiritually. Doubting ourselves, the path, and the result, we spin in circles and spend days, months, and years stuck in indecision. Deluded doubt is compared to trying to sew with a two-pointed needle: we accomplish nothing. It has only an acquired, not an innate, form.
Deluded doubt differs from doubt inclined toward the correct conclusion or doubt wavering in the middle. It differs from curiosity, which propels us to ask questions and learn more until we come to a sound conclusion.
REFLECTION
1. Review each of the five afflictions above, one by one. Think of at least three instances when each affliction has arisen in your mind.
2. What were the bare facts of the situation that sparked it? What did distorted attention add on to these bare facts, for example, by imputing qualities onto the object or person?
3. What effect did that affliction have on your mind? How did it influence your deeds and words?
4. Which Dharma points or teachings would help you to subdue that affliction?
Afflictive Views
The above five root afflictions are non-views, whereas the sixth, afflictive views, includes five erroneous views. These five erroneous views are forms of corrupt intelligence that either grasp the I to exist inherently or, based on that, develop further mistaken conceptions. They act as the basis for all problems caused by afflictions and all other mistaken outlooks and create turmoil in our lives. Wisdom is their antidote.
Saying these views are “corrupt intelligence” (T. shes rab nyon mong chan) means they are incorrect speculations or conclusions reached by incorrect analysis. They are unreliable minds that lack a realistic foundation. They are called intelligence (prajñā) because they distinguish their object and know its qualities; they are corrupt (kleśa) because they misapprehend their object. Although afflictive views are numerous, these five are prominent: view of a personal identity (satkāyadṛṣṭi), view of extremes (antagrāhadṛṣṭi), view holding erroneous views as supreme (dṛṣṭi-parāmarśa), view of bad rules and practices (śīlavrata-parāmarśa27), and wrong views (mithyādṛṣṭi).
View of a personal identity
According to all Buddhist schools except the Prāsaṅgikas, the view of a personal identity is a corrupt intelligence that, referring to the mental and physical aggregates, grasps them to be either a self-sufficient substantially existent I or mine. According to the Prāsaṅgikas, it is a corrupt intelligence that, observing the nominally existe
nt I or mine, grasps it to exist inherently. Of the two self-graspings — of persons and of phenomena — view of a personal identity is included in self-grasping of persons. However, self-grasping of persons includes grasping all persons as inherently existent, whereas the view of a personal identity grasps our own I and mine as inherently existent.
The aggregates are collections of many moments or many parts; they are transitory, perishing in each moment. Translated literally, the Tibetan term for satkāyadṛṣṭi — ’jig tshogs la lta ba — is “view of the transitory collection” or “view of the perishing aggregates.” Specifying that they are transitory or perishing shows they are not permanent; saying “aggregates” indicates they are plural, not unitary. The term itself eliminates the possibility of a permanent, unitary person based on the aggregates.
Whereas the I is imputed in dependence on the collection of aggregates, view of a personal identity holds it to exist as an independent entity. All Buddhist schools refute the belief in a permanent soul or self that is asserted by non-Buddhists. According to the lower Buddhist schools, view of a personal identity observes the aggregates and mistakenly believes them to be a self-sufficient substantially existent I and mine — a person that controls the aggregates and a person that owns the aggregates. Here the observed object (ālambana, T. dmigs pa) is the aggregates, and the apprehended object (muṣṭibandhaviṣaya, T. ’dzin stangs kyi yul) and conceived object (T. zhen yul) are a self-sufficient substantially existent person. The view of a personal identity is mistaken with respect to its apprehended and conceived objects because it believes the aggregates to be a self-sufficient substantially existent person, although they are not.
According to the view unique to the Prāsaṅgikas, view of a personal identity observes the mere I and mine — the I and mine that exist by being merely designated in dependence on the aggregates — and erroneously grasps them to be inherently existent. Here the observed object is the mere I and mine, and the apprehended and conceived objects are an inherently existent I and mine. This view is erroneous with respect to its apprehended and conceived objects because it mistakenly grasps the mere I and mine to exist inherently, as an independent entity unrelated to any other factors. To Prāsaṅgikas, grasping a self-sufficient substantially existent I and mine is a coarse grasping. It is not an actual view of a personal identity, but is only imputed as such. The subtle view of a personal identity that grasps the I and mine to be inherently existent is the actual view of a personal identity. This has ramifications for the meditation on selflessness, because realizing the selflessness that is the absence of only a self-sufficient substantially existent I and mine will not free us from saṃsāra.