Student questions on translation

Ken: Okay. This evening we’re focusing on verses 31 to 34.

If you don’t go into your own confusion,
You may just be a materialist in practitioner’s clothing.
Constantly go into your own confusion
And put an end to it—this is the practice of a bodhisattva.

You undermine yourself when you react emotionally and
Grumble about the imperfections of other bodhisattvas.
Of the imperfections of those who have entered the Great Way,
Don’t say anything—this is the practice of a bodhisattva.

When you squabble with others about status and rewards,
You undermine learning, reflection, and meditation.
Let go of any investment in your family circle
Or the circle of those who support you—this is the practice of a bodhisattva.

Abusive language upsets others
And undermines the ethics of a bodhisattva.
So, don’t upset people or speak abusively—this is the practice of a bodhisattva.

37 Practices of a Bodhisattva, Tokmé Zongpo, verses 32-34

Okay, as we’ve done before, translation, or points about the meaning, anything you’d like to ask about. John?

John: I’m confused about the kind of confusion that you asked for the energy to let it subside on your own and the one that you’ve got here.

Ken: They’re the same.

John: They’re one and the same?

Ken: They’re one and the same confusion. [Laughs] In one of the prayers that’s used for guru yoga in the Kagyu tradition ‘khrul ba rang sar zhi bar byin gyi brlabs (pron. trul wa rang sar zhi war hin gyi lab). Give me the energy for confusion to subside on its own is one of the things you’re praying for. And a similar line is found in what are known as the four teachings of Gampopa, [reads in Tibetan and then translates] You pray for confusion to arise as pristine awareness. And here Tokmé Zongpo says, If you don’t go into your own confusion, you may just be a materialist in practitioner’s clothing.

There is actually a translation point here. The Tibetan says, if you yourself don’t examine your own confusion, you may be a non-practitioner, a non-dharmic person in the form of a dharma person. That’s what it says, literally. Or if I were to translate this as well—I suppose I did actually—the way Trungpa might’ve rendered it: You are a spiritual materialist in practitioner’s clothing.

When I asked Trungpa what the Tibetan was for cutting through spiritual materialism, he said in a very high pitched voice. “Well, spiritual materialism is not dharma, so it’s chos min (pron. chö min), which means not dharma. gcod pa (pron. chö pa) means cut, so cutting through spiritual materialism.”

All right. [Laughs] You look at the Tibetan and only Trungpa would translate it that way. That was part of his genius. What are some of the other translations you have?

Student: Errors and mistakes.

Ken: Mistakes, and if you don’t examine. Right?

Student: Right. And analyze.

Ken: Analyze yes, that’s right. Now, what do you do when you analyze something? Catherine, what do you do when you analyze something?

Catherine: Distort it, blow it up. Make it more than it is.

Ken: What kind of activity do you engage?

Catherine: I think.

Ken: You think, exactly. Okay.

Catherine: Big problem. So that’s why you didn’t use the word analyze.

Ken: That’s why I didn’t use analyze or examine.

Catherine: You had me in mind.

Ken: I always have you in mind. [Laughs] Now, I thought about this because there are two words which are used over and over again, rtag (pron. ta(k)) and dpyad (pron. jé), which basically mean analyze and examine, and they’re linked to logic and philosophy. So there is an association of cognitive activity connected with them. But in practice terms, that approach, as we all know, is actually quite limited.

And those of you who are philosophically inclined, probably recalled Descartes’ famous, “I think, therefore I am”, which ushered in the Age of Reason, that human being was ultimately a rational being. And that reason triumphed over emotion, and so forth, and so forth.

Well, not only is this not true, but the contemporary research in how the brain actually works shows also that it is not true. That the brain is actually not a thinking organ. It is essentially a feeling organ. And as I’ve long felt, the reasoning capacities in us are actually always in service to the emotions and deeper level structures within our personality.

So, I did not want people to get the idea that they had to think about or analyze their confusion. And the word for confusion, I translate as confusion, it is often translated as error, bewilderment, and so forth. I think error is not really the right word. It definitely has the idea of being confused or bewildered, not seeing things clearly.

There are other words for making an error. You’re just going in the wrong direction is one of them, for instance. So I felt confusion was better. Now, what do we do? Or, what should you be doing when you’re “examining your confusion or bewilderment”? It means at the very minimum, looking into it. And really going into the experience, not with a view of getting lost or being carried away by it. That’s not particularly helpful, which is actually how we live our lives. Most of the time we just get carried away and swept away by it. But going into our experience with attention, and that is the essence of Buddhist practice, bringing attention into our experience.

And since much of our experience is a form of confusion, we don’t see things as they are, then it involves going into that experience with as much attention as we’re able to. So that’s the essential approach here. And unless we’re willing to do that, then the next line comes in. You may just be a materialist in practitioner’s clothing. Now it says in the form of a practitioner, but I decided to use an English idiom, which I think is fair.

The opposite of a dharma practitioner is a materialist. The materialist here, or the way I’m using it here, doesn’t mean it’s someone who is after money, or fame, or things like that. It’s someone who believes these things are actually true and real, who you might say believes in the appearances that arise in experience. “This is what life is,” and doesn’t look any further. That’s the antithesis of a spiritual practitioner.

A spiritual practitioner is engaging the question: What is this? What is this experience we call life? Not accepting it at face value. And you can’t question it unless you’re willing to go into your confused experience of it, and experience for yourself how it is confusion.

Now, we’ve done this many, many times, in many ways. Where is the experience of seeing? or, at face value, you say, “I see a white piece of paper.” But to go into your confusion, you say, “”I’ see a white piece of paper.” Where is the “I”? What’s my experience of “I” going into that experience? What happens when you go into that experience? Anybody? What happens when you go into the experience of “I”?

Student: You can’t find it.

Ken: You can’t find it. Okay. What happens when you go into the experience of seeing? Where does the seeing take place?

Student: You can’t find it.

Ken: You can’t find that either. And what happens when you go into the experience of the object? You can’t find that either. So here we have these three things which we ordinarily take for granted and we can’t find any one of them. What’s going on here? And that’s the basic question that we consider. What is this experience? When it appears one way, but when we look for it, we can’t find any of it.

So when you don’t do that, you just believe things as they appear to you. That’s how I’m using the word materialist. I think that’s clear. Constantly go into your own confusion and put an end to it. Now the Tibetan here for put an end to it, how is it translated?

Student: Rid yourself of it.

Ken: Rid yourself of it. What else?

Student: I’ve got a lot here. Abandon them.

Ken: Right.

Student: Remove them.

Ken: Okay. Now let’s take a look at these. Have any of you successfully removed your own confusion? [Laughter] No. How many would like to abandon the confusion? Okay, any success there? How about just giving it up? “I’m not going to be confused anymore!” That work? So this is one of the reasons I moved away from all of those translations. How do you put an end to it? Molly?

Molly: You would go into it.

Ken: But how does that put an end to it?

Molly: Well, if you experience it …

Ken: And how does that put an end to it?

Molly: Well, it dissipates.

Ken: Why? I don’t get it. I mean, you go into it. What about going into it and experiencing it causes to dissipate? It doesn’t make any sense to me.

Molly: Because you realize that there’s no validity to the confusion or there’s nothing there anyway.

Ken: So you end up experiencing nothing.

Molly: Yeah.

Ken: Nothing at all?

Molly: Yeah.

Ken: How can I function?

Molly: A lot better.

Ken: Now I’m really confused. Can you put an end to my confusion please? [Laughs]

Molly: What is this, Ken?

Ken: That is the microphone. And it won’t record you unless you actually speak into it.

Molly: Where is the microphone, Ken?

Ken: It’s in your hand.

Molly: Where’s the seeing of the microphone?

Ken: Where is the seeing of the microphone? That’s a good question. Where is the seeing?

Molly: Right there! [Laughter]

Ken: Not bad. Now I’m going to push you a little further. What were you pointing me to?

Molly: Your own experience.

Ken: I want you to be more explicit because you weren’t pointing me to my own experience. You were pointing me to a very particular experience. What were you pointing me to?

Molly: I was trying to ask you to experience that openness of not knowing.

Ken: Okay, very good.

How often do we recognize open awareness?

Ken: So this is the point. When you go into your own confusion with attention, which is exactly what Molly was having me do, you reach a point where the cognitive processing falls away. The emotional processing falls away. And if you go far enough, all of the habituated forms of interpreting experience fall away.

And there’s a moment where you just experience things as they are. Most people experience this frequently, probably 100 times a day. How often do you catch it? Well, if you’re well-trained, maybe once or twice. Very, very rarely because at that moment it feels like nothing at all. So it never registers. It’s only after you’ve trained, you’ve been pointed out that you can recognize that. “Oh, that’s naked knowing,” to use one phase, “That’s original mind,” to use another. Yeah.

Student: Doesn’t that go away the minute you name it? The minute that recognition happened, there’s thought, and you’re no longer in it?

Ken: Not exactly. The minute you say to yourself, “Oh, I experienced this.” That’s when you’ve moved back into the habituated functioning. But in the moment of recognition, if you can just stay in the moment of recognition, recognizing it doesn’t end it. It is objectifying it that moves you back into ordinary way of relating to the world. That clear? Okay.

So, that is the end of confusion. And so that’s why going into it puts an end to it. Now, this is something you do over and over and over again. When you look at the other translations, you often get the idea that, “Oh, if I do this, then I’m rid of it forever.” Well, it’s possible through consistent practice that you begin to stabilize your relationship with that open state of mind. But as Milarapa says, “To glimpse the nature of ultimate reality is pretty easy. To stabilize it is a lifetime’s work.” Molly.

Molly: So there’s a time limit on our confusion, because as bodhisattvas, we can’t be in it for more than two hours, right? Collectively in one day is that?

Ken: I think you’re confusing or bringing together two things. Ideally yes, you live in that direct knowing all the time. But when we were talking last time about rejecting a sentient being or falling into despair, it was staying in those states of mind for more than two hours.

Molly: Which is different from confusion?

Ken: Well, those are states of confusion. Those are very particular states of confusion. And the bodhisattva vow is not to indulge or stay in those particular states of confusion to the point that they begin to solidify. And two hours is about the length of time that it’s felt that you solidify your relationship with them. Okay?

Molly: Thank you.

Not speaking about other’s imperfections

Ken: Okay, the next verse:

You undermine yourself when you react emotionally and
Grumble about the imperfections of other bodhisattvas.
Of the imperfections of those who have entered the Great Way,
Don’t say anything—this is the practice of a bodhisattva.

37 Practices of a Bodhisattva, Tokmé Zongpo, verse 32

Now, this principle of not saying anything is one of the precepts in the monastic code that monks and nuns follow. Many of you met Thanasanti when she was here about a year ago, right? If you asked Thanasanti about a teacher who she didn’t think was a good teacher, and you said, “Well, what do you think of so-and-so?” She would say nothing. And then you say, “Well does that mean you don’t like them?” She would say nothing. And that’s the actual vow in the vinaya, the monastic code. You say nothing. Now, don’t forget, the vinaya or the monastic code is concerned with explicit actions. So you’re not saying anything bad about a person. Michelle?

Michelle: The immediate picture I had when you said that was when I call people’s references and ask what they thought of someone, and they say nothing because they’re worried about EEOC laws. And so they won’t objectively tell me, but then the implication from their silence or their very generic answer is that you don’t want this person.

Ken: Yeah.

Michelle: So is this any different?

Ken: In the monastic code, the emphasis is on not doing anything unwholesome. You aren’t trying to modify your behavior to take into account how other people may interpret it. These are just ways you have resolved to approach your life. So people take it the way they take it. That’s not your concern.

Michelle: So like so many things, it comes down to intention?

Ken: Yes. And your intention isn’t to communicate through silence. Your intention is not to say anything bad. That’s what you’re promising to do when you take that ordination. It’s actually a pretty good principle. Taking it out of the monastic framework, I was once told about this Scottish woman, whom it was told, had never said anything bad about anybody. And some wag said, “And what would you be thinking of Satan?” And she said, “Aye, he’s probably busy.” [Laughter]

There are a lot of effects of never saying anything negative about somebody else. One is that people actually like to be around you and they trust you. That’s one of the effects of that. What’s important here is when you are grumbling about another person who has formed this aspiration of awakening mind, what are you doing to yourself?

Student: Elevating yourself.

Ken: Well, you’re elevating yourself. What else are you doing? It’s in the first line here.

Student: I was going to say, hurting yourself.

Ken: And how are you hurting yourself?

Student: You’re bringing in negative, bad energy.

Ken: Yeah, you’re acting on your emotional reactions. What does that do to the emotional reactions?

Student: Makes them stronger.

Ken: It makes them stronger. It habituates them. And the main reason we don’t go here, is because it actually has a harmful effect on us, and further clouds and confuses the mind, and delays our own awakening. So it takes it longer for us to help others. So not only are we hurting ourselves, we’re causing sentient beings to suffer longer, because we’re going to take longer to get to the point that we can actually help them. So just following the logic here, it’s a really bad thing to do.

Student: If we weren’t emotional, we wouldn’t say anything in the first place.

Ken: Well, this is the kind of thing that I want you to check out in your own experience. What’s your experience with that?

Student: It seems true. If I were neutral and feeling present, then I wouldn’t have a need to say something against someone else, unless I was feeling jealous or irritated, or angry, or one of those things. One of those wonderful emotions.

Ken: Okay. I’m going to pose a hypothetical situation, which is coming up all the time. You know that a certain teacher has a long history of seducing his young female students.

Student: A young woman asks you to the ashram to see this person. What do you do?

Ken: Exactly, you’ve got the point.Thank you.

Student: Ken? [Laughter]

Ken: I’m encouraging not reliance on the teacher right now.

Student: That’s hard because morally I would feel—

Ken: Well take a moment and think it through. Just take a moment.

Student: I feel emotional about it.

Ken: I’m sure.

Student: Yeah.

Ken: What do you do? What would you say to the person? I’m thinking of going over to India and going to this person’s center because he’s a really wonderful teacher and I’m just really inspired by his talks.

Student: Yeah, you wouldn’t say anything. You’d just make a lot of motions. [Laughter]

Ken: You’re saying something with your hands! Okay?

Student: Yes, because I’ve taken a vow. I think I would be really in a bad place here.

Ken: So anybody else? John

John: You might actually enjoy it. [Laughter] Bring your condoms, something.

Ken: I don’t think you’re making yourself very popular here, Peri?

Peri: You could say, “So are you just sharing this information with me, or were you asking me a question?” And maybe if they said, “Well, I’m asking you a question.” I could say, “Well, what are you asking me?” And maybe if they were asking me, “Well, would you go?” I could say, “I would not go,” and leave it at that.

Ken: Okay. Let’s take a look at this. Is there any reason why, according to this, you couldn’t say “I don’t think you should go there?” Okay. It’s the follow-up question that you can’t answer.

Student: And tell them to talk to someone who hasn’t taken a vow. [Laughter]

Ken: And do you know in the mind training teaching what that’s called? Basically it’s putting the burden of the horse onto the pony.

Student: That woud be a problem?

Ken: Yeah. Or the burden of the ox onto the cow. So you’re just giving somebody else the dirty work. No, you don’t get to do that. That’s not the practice of a bodhisattva.

Student: So when the person says, “Why?” then what?

Ken: You practice noble silence. Jessica, Robert, Michelle, whomever.

Robert: I don’t read this verse the same way that you have so far.

Ken: How do you read it?

Robert: Well, I’m looking at the very first line. You undermine yourself when you react emotionally. That’s the key.

Ken: That’s true.

Robert: And asking does not mean that you have to react emotionally to that response, or to that question, or if you want to tell somebody something, or you’re concerned. If you’re not reacting emotionally about it, it’s only when you react emotionally that you have to maintain your silence.

Ken: Well, I don’t buy it. I understand your logic. But the second sentence says: Of the imperfections of those who have entered the great way, don’t say anything. And this means anybody who has given rise to the same aspiration. And so it’s not linking it to the reacting emotionally. That’s the first couple of lines.

Robert: Well, it’s also saying of the verse you just said, of the imperfections of those … imperfections is a point of view. So I think one of the things it’s pointing to is judgment.

Ken: Right. Well it can be, or it can be an actual failing, in the case that I cited.

Robert: Well, but an actual failing still is a point of view, is it not?

Ken: So then it comes down to maintaining the silence again.

Robert: Well, unless there’s no point of view about it. Simply this is just what’s so.

Student: That’s actually exactly what I was going to say too. I was going to say, maybe this is naive, but what is negative about saying, “This person is known to be a very good teacher and also known to have a history of sleeping with his students”? Presumably if he’s doing this, he understands that he’s putting his behavior out there.

Ken: Well, in my experience, there are blind spots operating in a lot of teachers, quite serious blind spots in many cases. Personally, I don’t have a problem with that. In terms of what Tokmé Zongpo was saying, he’s saying that’s going too far. You just stay quiet.

Student: Okay. What about if there were minors involved?

Ken: Pardon?

Student: What if there were minors involved, as we’ve seen with these scandals in the Catholic church? I mean, do you not have actually a moral obligation to protect others?

Ken: Well, here we are under some waters, which have a lot to do with cultures actually, and how things are expressed. In our culture, or in American culture, things have to be expressed very, very explicitly. And the legal system weighs in if they aren’t. And that’s what you’re talking about. In many other cultures, there were subtler forms of communication, which communicated things very clearly, but not in the same explicit way that we’re used to. So when you have the law weighing in like this, that complicates the situation.

There’re been many instances where I’ve been asked exactly this question, and it’s a problem. And the Catholic Church runs into this problem, because for me to speak badly about another teacher is a problem. And how I’ve usually handled it is to make it very clear that I’m not recommending it at all. I may say things like, “I think you would do better studying with such and such a person,” and point them in very explicit ‘nother direction.

And if the person says, “You mean I shouldn’t go to this person?” I will simply say the same thing again. And usually people get the point by that. Now, whether that would hold up in court, probably not.

So your point about protecting minors, and so forth, I think is very valid. And there are ways in which, and this is always the case, the ethical principles which we operate under may conflict with actual legal situations. And we’ll have to work out an accommodation in those situations.

Student: I was thinking it was more than legal. When you’re dealing with people who are minors, you cannot make the same assumptions about their own sense of responsibility as you can with somebody who’s a grownup. And that’s the whole point.

Ken: Yes. So what would you do?

Student: I would say the duty of care is with the minor, is for the minor.

Ken: And what would you do? I understand your principle. What would you actually do? A 13 year old girl comes to you with this question. What would you do?

Student: I suppose I could say to her what you suggested. I could also say what you suggested to her parents without elaborating.

Ken: Yes, and that would be one way. I have gone as far to say, “If this kind of situation emerges, walk away.”

Student: Run.

Ken: If he asks you to do X, Y, or Z, like come and see him after hours, leave the center. And I’m giving them a straight instruction.

Student: Not to take this too far, but …

Ken: Never know what you’re going to hit. [Laughs]

Student: What about if you know someone is conducting, consistently, activities that are damaging people,

Ken: Like stealing money, taking their money?

Student: Whatever it would be

Ken: Beating them up?

Student: So where’s your role in, I know this is happening. It’s hurting people.

Ken: Oh, what I do, if this comes up frequently, is I seek to meet with the teacher.

Student: Wow. Then?

Ken: I say, “This is what I’ve heard.” I mean, that’s a responsibility. I may inform the teacher, and I have done this. “I’m letting you know that this is coming up. If I hear of it again, I will not defend you.” I’m putting them on notice.

Student: I’ll not defend you?

Ken: Yeah.

Student: This isn’t referring just to teachers though. Anyone who has entered the way.

Ken: Right.

Student: I like what you just said about presenting it with the teacher in that scenario. But one of the things I love about Buddhism is how fluid it is about what’s appropriate in one situation may not be appropriate in another situation. And the way I read this was don’t gossip. But there’s a huge difference between gossiping and protecting, giving someone else the information they need in order to be appropriately informed.

Ken: And there was, some time ago, a couple of my students were going to a retreat with someone who I knew. And so I sat down with them and said, “This kind of situation could emerge. This is what you should do.” And that was how I handled what I felt was a moral obligation on my part to protect them, or to give them the information they needed to take care of themselves without infringing on this principle. Okay. Peri?

Peri: I was trolling around on the internet the past couple of days and came across a site essentially that was sort of informing on a teacher. And it was kind of interestingly done, where essentially this teacher had come out, essentially saying, he went into a three-year retreat with a consort who was one of his young students, who is the manifestation of Vajrayogini in his life. And that’s how he’s put it forth. And they essentially put out that letter, and the letter he sent to his teachers, and the responses that he got from teachers, and the lack of responses he got from teachers. And they just laid out how things are, and let you come to your own conclusion. And I thought that was relatively skillful.

Ken: Okay. Next verse. Unless there’s any comment, further comments? Okay.

Isabelle: What about just plain gossip? I love to tell bad stories about people that have done awful things to me. [Laughs]

Ken: Yes, well, Isabelle, we all have to give up something.

Isabelle: No fun!

Student: Apropos, I just wanted to add, I forget where it was said that we never know who is a bodhisattva. So this actually can be expanded to everybody.

Ken: That’s right. Yeah.

Let go of your emotional investment

When you squabble with others about status and rewards,
You undermine learning, reflection, and meditation.
Let go of any investment in your family circle
Or the circle of those who support you—this is the practice of a bodhisattva.

37 Practices of a Bodhisattva, Tokmé Zongpo, verse 33

Now, you may have noticed some differences in the translation here. I took a few liberties. The first two lines are pretty straightforward. I just like the word squabble. It has the right feeling because often it’s translated as fight or something like that. And how many of you have actually had a fight? But how many of you have squabbled? We all squabble over stuff. The Tibetan for investment is usually translated as attachment. Is that what you found?

Student: Every one said attachment.

Ken: Yeah. Well, attachment is this wonderful word that is used to translate everything in Buddhism. And so I wanted to dig a little deeper in, what are they talking about? Well, just the way we go about our lives, we form associations, and we become invested in a particular group. We rely on a certain group of supporters, and so forth. And it’s an emotional investment. And I think this gets the quality of that.

We all know how an emotional investment in certain relationships or certain groups can skew our sense of what is appropriate, or not appropriate, in a given situation. And this is basically a way of saying, let go of those emotional investments so you can see the situation clearly and do what is appropriate. One of the ones that commonly operates in nonprofit organizations is the more you donate, the more privileges you get, the more benefits you get. Quid pro quo.

Well, from a Buddhist point of view, this completely undermines the act of generosity. There are many stories about this throughout the ages, but a relatively recent one, which occurred in the latter part of the 20th century was the Chinese patron of a certain monastery had just made a very large donation to the monastery, which is endowing a new wing of the monastery, or something like that. And was sitting with the abbott of the monastery clearly waiting for the abbott to express some appreciation. And the abbott just went on about his business. And after a couple of hours he turned and the Chinese man wasn’t going anywhere.

He said, “If you’re waiting for any words of thanks or appreciation, just forget it. You’re the one who really benefits from this donation. So what are you waiting for? Get out of here!” [Laughter]

And I know from my own experience in teaching, one of the reasons that I moved away from the traditional dharma center—where you have people who donate large sums of money and people who donate small sums of money—is that I didn’t want to get into the management of patrons. I wanted the conditions in which I could treat everybody equally, as equally as I’m capable of doing so. That was a very conscious decision. I didn’t want large patrons because they always expect something, and it skews the way things work, particularly when you become reliant on those. And that’s a lot of what he’s talking about.

And the same thing with families. There are things that we excuse in the behavior of our families that we would never excuse in anybody else. Why do we do that? And that’s a question that’s interesting to explore. Why do we actually do that? We make it all, “Well, they couldn’t help themselves,” or whatever. But we wouldn’t stand for that behavior with anybody else. So something to examine there.

Student: When you say that, it reminds me back to where somebody takes your head off, just say the best things you can about them, and then if somebody else steals from you, give them everything you have, blah, blah, blah. So I just had to be the devil’s advocate there.

Ken: Peter?

Peter: Also, doesn’t your family have the goods on you?

Ken: Well, that’s a very interesting question, Peter. What are you trying to protect? Of course, they have the goods on you. And so just calling things the way they are, they’re going to expose everything about you. Well, now you’ve just got some good material to work with in your practice.

Peter: Excellent. [Laughs]

Ken: Joe.

Joe: We’re still on this one?

Ken: As long as you want to be.

Joe: Okay. I work with this woman whose main field or language has to do with attachment theory, psychological.

Ken: Yes. The four kinds of attachments, and so forth.

Joe: So I found myself trying today to find out in my mind where that kind of attachment, and I don’t know the theory very well, but as I understand it, attachment in that way of thinking can be healthy or unhealthy. And people usually have one main attachment, emotional attachment, and that can be healthy or unhealthy. I was trying in some way to bring that into accord in my mind with the idea of attachment that we talk about.

Ken: This is the same word. They’re used in two completely different ways. In the attachment theory you’re talking about, there are four kinds of attachments: secure attachment, diverse attachment, ambiguous attachment, and chaotic. This is psychology speak for relationship dynamics.

And it’s about how the experience of relationship you have very early in your life, influences how you experience relationship for the rest of your life. And they’re using attachment to point to that. It doesn’t mean attachment in anything like the term in Buddhism. When we talk about attachment, we mean something you cannot let go of, something you’re holding onto in some way, some investment.

Now, there’s a connection between these two, but the word is really being used in very, very different ways. It’s one of the reasons why I tried to move away from attachment and find a synonym or something that is more appropriate for that particular situation. That’s why I used investment here. So when you’re reading psychological terms, and you come across terms in psychology, don’t ever think that they mean the same thing as the terms in Buddhism.

Ego is a wonderful example. Ego in psychology refers to particular ways in which the psyche functions, and people make it into an entity, but it doesn’t really refer to an entity. It refers to a set of functions in psychology, particularly psychoanalytic theory. Whereas in Buddhism, ego is the translation of the word self, which is better understood as a sense of self, a sense of being something that is independent, unitary and permanent. And so those two words are used very, very differently. And there’s a whole bunch of others. So that’s something one has to be careful of here.

Joe: And is there some suggestion in attachment theory’s psychological side, that we can get our emotional needs met?

Ken: Well, one of the better books I’ve read recently on this subject is Dan Segal’s, The Developing Mind. And he has a long chapter about emotional regulation, which has to do with being able to move from feeling an emotional pull as a need—in which case we feel our survival is at threat—to being something we’d like to have. And when you make that adjustment, then a lot of room opens up.

Joe: So, you said, in other words I’ve heard before, moving from an addiction to a preference.

Ken: Well, yeah, I haven’t heard that terminology, but that would be saying something similar. Right.

Joe: Okay, thanks.

Student: I have a question about the business about forgiving things in your own family. When I think of Asian or Indian families that I know, that would certainly be true. In our culture, it seems to me that I see people all the time blaming their parents and their siblings for doing things to them that they would be completely forgiving of in their friends. So it’s almost the reverse.

Ken: Okay, that’s fine.

Student: Same phenomenon. Just reverse.

Don’t upset other people


Ken: Just in the other direction, which just means there’s another pattern operating. Okay, 34:

Abusive language upsets others
And undermines the ethics of a bodhisattva.
So don’t upset people or speak abusively.

37 Practices of a Bodhisattva, Tokmé Zongpo, verse 34

If you recall the mind training instructions, there’s a number in the guidelines: Don’t go for the throat. Don’t speak harshly. And it’s saying very similar things. Why? Well, when you speak abusively, it does upset others. It also means you’re upset, and you’re not clear in your upset. You’re reacting out of your confusion. So as we’ve been talking about before, it reinforces your own confusion, and that’s why it undermines the ethics of a bodhisattva. So there’s the effect out there, and there’s the effect in here—both reasons. Now, people may read that next line and say, don’t upset people. Well, what about that, Ken? You are upsetting people all the time. [Laughter]

The people I “upset” are the people I have a teacher-student relationship with, and there’s a contract there. And the contract is, I am allowed to cut into the operation of their reactive patterns, because they know that I’m not doing it for my own gain. I’m doing it to help them. Now, that may take them a day or two to realize that sometimes. But if that contract isn’t present, then it’s just abuse. A second thing, and this has to do with my own evolution, or some would argue, maturation as a teacher.

Many years ago, I heard of a comment by Maezumi Roshi when someone had talked about how powerful a certain Zen teacher was, who was really strict, and very harsh with the students and drove them. And Maezumi Roshi’s comment was, “It’s quite easy to teach harshly. It’s much harder to teach gently.” And that comment has always stayed with me. And I like to think—though I’m not sure that I’m going to get a lot of feedback on this in about three seconds probably—that I found other more skillful ways.

Because for the most part, and this isn’t always the case, but generally speaking, when you speak really bluntly or harshly to someone, even if they get it, a kind of wall goes up. And I found it much better to learn how to engage a person, and bring them in touch with their reactive patterns, without actually triggering the reactive pattern, or a reactive pattern.

There’s usually a deeper experience, which often takes them by surprise because they just find themselves there. So, I found these lines quite helpful. And even when there is a great deal of injustice and abuse in the world, this is something that I take to heart and try to work with myself very much. Peri.

Peri: Kind of ties the two together, the two parts there. As a teacher, seeing that you clearly have a contract with a student, isn’t there a distinction between speaking harshly, which I think you’ve clearly pointed out is not the most skillful way to go, and speaking reactively and abusively? Isn’t that a big distinction? Ideally, isn’t the teacher speaking out of awareness?

Ken: Yes. What I’m saying is that even if you’re speaking out of awareness, it may not be the best method. However, the other thing is, whatever works. To take a very extreme example, I can’t remember the name of this Zen teacher, but whenever you asked him a question, he held up one finger. It didn’t matter what question you asked him.

One time a young monk happened to be in his presence and he asked him to do something and the young monk went [Ken holds up one finger]. So the teacher asked him the same thing. When the young one went this [holding up one finger] he cut off his finger with a sword. And the monk woke up right then. I’ll let you digest that one. [Laughs]

Student: Tough love.

Ken: Yeah. There we go. Okay?

Student: Molly, be careful when you bait Ken next time.

Ken: [Laughs] Yeah, there are all kinds of stories down from the ages of where teachers have done seemingly very harsh things, but with the successfully implemented intention of waking up. There’s no record of all the ones that didn’t work.

What I find operates in me when I hear these things is I’m always looking for the wiggle room. Oh, I can speak harshly if this is what’s going on. And I found engaging that wiggle room is just a really slippery slope. And if I can find a kinder way, often it is a clearer way, because I have to work through any vestigial, or sometimes rampant confusion in me, which I may not be aware of. Can I say it another way? And sometimes I don’t find another way, but other times I find myself, oh yeah, I’m actually just frustrated now. Let me work with that frustration and see what comes out of that.

And often, when I see where to point the student, and I can’t think of any way to say it except really harshly, one of the things I now do is look at the student and say, “What’s your view of this?” And they’ll do all the work for me right then and there. It’s great!

Student: Therapy 101.

Ken: Well, okay, some of us are just perpetual beginners.

Student: If I may relate one of those incidences in your teaching. At one of the film meetings, I made a comment. It was a joke. And you waited until I got my laugh before saying, “Gee, you’ve been thinking that way for about three years, haven’t you?” And I really appreciate you waiting until I got the laugh before making me think about what I had said and done.

Student reflections on verses 31-34

Ken: Okay. How was it reflecting and meditating on these four verses? What’d you run into? Nothing, clear sailing all the way. Right?

Student: Maybe I’m getting ahead of the question. I’m not sure, but my experience working with them, I remembered an instruction you’d given in the past about to go out and steal or lie or do something to see if you could stay present while doing something like that. And I kind of had that in the back of my mind when I was working with, not all of these, but 32, 33 and 34, because, and you spoke to it earlier, it adds to your own confusion. When you do these things, it is hard to stay present or almost impossible to stay present.

Ken: Actually, it is impossible.

Student: Just like stealing is.

Ken: You have to check out.

Student: So it made me wonder. And then 31, it sort of all kind of came together about if you’re engaging in these things, then you are also missing the opportunity to go into your own confusion.

Ken: That’s right. Anybody else? Oh, come on. You practiced this. You didn’t experience anything? Nava, I know what I experienced when I practiced this. What do you experience?

Nava: Not to say anything, [laughter] I couldn’t. There was an occasion that I had to say something about once a month. I have a friend who drives me nuts, and it’s almost a joke. It’s not emotionally deep or anything. So I can work on that. And I decided I’m not going to say anything this time. And I started to steam inside. So working with that bubbling, and then I actually did say something. And while saying something, it’s hard for me to say what happened exactly. Okay, there are a few things. First of all, saying, even though I know, I don’t want to say. So that was a struggle.

Once I said it, while I was talking about it, I was examining what exactly are the strings between her and me that cause me to react and to do something. And I couldn’t find anything. I couldn’t find anything I can touch, I can see, I can hear. So there were no strings. There was nothing there between her and me. And that was it. That was the moment where it was fully my reaction, and it was totally a waste of time. So that was it.

Ken: So you saw it differently this time? Very good.

Student: Sorry, I lost you.

Nava: Talking about it. It was a waste of time, and it was the wrong thing to do, but there was a process of having had to say it, and while saying it, actually seeing what’s happening there.

Ken: So you brought attention into the action itself, and you saw, oh, it felt like it did something, but it actually doesn’t do anything.

Nava: Nothing. She didn’t do anything to me. So in that case, it was a small case.

Ken: But this is what, the third line we started with today is referring to: Constantly go into your own confusion, which means going into the experience, which arises when you’re in those situations, ’cause then you are in confusion, you go into it. And in the beginning, when you do this, you’ll still feel compelled to do the same action. But because you’re putting your attention into it, you’re going to experience doing that action in a different way, and that’s going to open up other possibilities. Very good. Anybody else?

George: As I go into my confusion in the form of anxiety, or feeling of foreboding, or sense of judging myself or others and feeling uncomfortable, I see that by experiencing it, that I begin to experience everything. I don’t lose the feeling of foreboding, but I also am experiencing other things at the same time. I also see how that was shutting me off from my experience. I can’t say that anything’s really resolved, but it’s much better. It’s a kind of weird contradiction.

Ken: But that’s actually how it is. And what you’re describing is you’re more in your actual experience. And so, in the same way that Nava is describing, it doesn’t bite and pull on you in the same way, even though in another way nothing’s actually changed.

George: No, the only thing that’s sort of changing is it’s like ice breaking apart, but there’s still some ice.

Ken: Keep going. Deborah.

Deborah: Regarding verse 34, I was considering a situation where there’s someone who pushes my buttons. And it occurred to me that if I engage reactivity, then I trigger reactivity in that person. And that’s another reason not to do that, because I’m harming that person in a karmic kind of way if I do that.

Ken: Yeah, be careful about taking too much responsibility here, but that’s right.

Deborah: But it’s a trigger. Yes, there’s some responsibility there.

Ken: I want to emphasize here, don’t adopt these as dictums about how to behave, ’cause that’s inevitably going to lead to suppression. In the way that Nava and George have been describing—where you bring your attention into the experience of the action—then you see yourself, the uselessness or the futility of a certain way of behaving, which you thought was effective and efficient before.

And your experience tells you, “Oh, this doesn’t work,” at a very fundamental level. And that is how you disengage your investment. It isn’t simply from just saying, “Oh, this is what it says here, so I’m just going to follow those precepts.” That I find is a helpful approach in that you do less harm in the world, but it is not that helpful in terms of deepening our understanding and our ability actually to be present. Whereas when the way Nava was describing, “Okay, I got to say this,” and then just seeing, “Oh, this doesn’t do what I thought it would do.” When I really look at what’s going on here, in fact, and as Deborah described, actually, when I do this, it just keeps making things worse. This really doesn’t make any sense. And getting that knowledge from your own experience at not an intellectual level, but at a visceral level, is what leads to change. So that’s very important. Okay. Susan.

Susan: Related to what you were just saying, in general with these practices, and maybe even most of them, I’ve discovered it’s much easier to practice on the cushion than in daily life. Honestly, it’s like constantly reminding oneself, bringing myself back into attention in order to bring some kind of awareness into what I’m doing, is hard.

Ken: What’s hard about it?

Susan: Sometimes the pull is so strong that either I don’t catch it till it’s over, or I’m catching it while I’m doing it. Well, like today. And I knew I was doing it, then I did it anyway and just felt guilty.

Ken: Well, that’s helpful.

Susan: It was the gossip one.

Ken: Okay.

Susan: It just depends on what it is.

Ken: A tool that I found useful—and you find this in a lot of different traditions, and it comes up in Carlos Castaneda as well, and is very much in tune with the warrior path—is absolutely everything you do and say, absolutely everything you do and say, ask, “Why am I doing this?”

Susan: But you even have to have a certain amount of attention to even ask that question each time.

Ken: You make that a practice. So that everything you do, you never do anything, you get up in the morning and you ask, “Why am I getting up?” Go to the bathroom, say, “Why am I going to brush my teeth?” And you’re going to find it’s going to bring an intentionality. It doesn’t take very long. It’s not going to significantly slow you down. Most of the time you’ll know exactly why you’re doing it. Of course. Then you say, “Why am I driving to work?” And you go—

Student: I dunno.

Ken: And your life changes. But those things happen. [Laughter] Somebody says something, and before you say anything, “Why am I going to say this? Why am I even answering?” And it’s a way of bringing attention to one’s intention in each moment, and it’s very effective. All right, we’re on time. Can we have the dedication please?