"On Denying Defilements" by Ven. Thanissaro

fivebells

I transcribed this talk a few days ago because I thought it would be useful to some friends. Might be useful to some one here, too. MP3 file is here. Corrections welcome, there are a couple of places where his meaning wasn't totally clear to me, though I did some light editing where I thought it improved readability. (Actual transcription in next comment, because it's too long to fit in this one.)

fivebells

Here's the transcription:

Thanissaro said:

When you listen to dharma talks in Thailand, it's rare to hear one in which there's no mention of defilements. The fact that greed, aversion, delusion defile the mind is a constant theme, and that the practice is all about cleansing the mind of those defilements, doing battle with the defilements, finding ways to not fall for their tricks. As Ajahn Lee says, "To study is to know the texts, but to practice is to know your defilements," the purpose of which is to know them and let them go, eventually, go beyond them.

But if you listen to Dharma talks in the West you never hear about this, the word is never mentioned. It's interesting. There's some aspects of the traditional teachings that modern Western teachers like to brag about, saying that they're going to drop this or drop that, they're gonna drop karma, they're gonna drop rebirth, they don't even mention the word defilement. You would never know that it was part of the Buddha's teachings. There's a passage that they like to quote which says that the mind is luminous, and they stop there; to give the impression that your mind is basically pure and clean and there's no real problem there; just realize that you're already pure and clean, and that's it. But the whole passage says a lot more. It says the mind is luminous, but it is defiled by visiting defilements. And if you don't notice, there's no training of the mind. Then you look at the Buddha's teachings, and one of the basic analogies that he uses is that the practice is a kind of cleansing, it's a kind of purification. So if you don't appreciate the importance of the defilements, you can't really train the mind.

So exactly what is defilement and what's defiled? And how do you cleanse it? One of the Buddha's most basic teachings on cleansing is the one he gave to Rahula when Rahula was just seven years old. You look at your actions in terms of your thoughts, your words and your deeds. Before you do them, you ask yourself, "Is this going to cause any affliction, either to me or to anyone else?" And if you see that it's going to, you don't do it. If you don't expect any affliction, you go ahead and do it. While you're doing it you watch to see what the actual results of that action may be, and if you run across any affliction, you stop. If not, you carry on. And finally when the action is done, you look at the long-term consequences, and if you realize you caused any affliction to yourself or others, you resolve not to repeat it. If it was an action, something you said, you go and you talk it over with someone who you trust in the path. Firstly, so that you develop this ability to admit your mistakes; you don't try to hide them. And then secondly so that you can benefit from the other person's knowledge. If it was just a thought, you simply say OK, I'm ashamed of that thought, I don't want to do it again, it's beneath me. If you see that the action didn't cause any long-term affliction, then you take joy in the fact and carry on in the practice. And as the Buddha said, everyone in the past who has cleansed their thoughts words and deeds has done it this way. Any everyone in the future who's gonna cleanse their thoughts, words and deeds will do it in this way. And in the present, anyone who cleanses his or her thoughts, words and deeds will do it in this way. There's another passage where the Buddha talks about cleansing, and basically it's following the ten guidelines: you don't kill, steal, have illicit sex, you don't lie, you don't speak divisively, you don't speak harshly, you don't engage in idle chatter, and finally in terms of the mind, you try to abandon any overweening greed, any ill-will, any wrong views. So when you look at the way the Buddha talks about cleansing, he's not saying the mind is basically defiled in its nature. He's saying it's the actions that are defiled. And what's defilement? It's this ability to cause affliction. It's even though you should be acting for the purposes of happiness, you turn around and act for the affliction of yourself or others or both. That's the defilement.

And as for the luminosity of the mind, it's your ability to see that. OK, you have caused affliction and you can do something about it. It's not that there's an innate bad nature to the mind or an innate good nature. As the Buddha said, thinking "I am bad" or "I am good", either one of those is simply and expression of craving or clinging. You want to look at your actions. And he's right, if your actions are causing this kind of affliction, the actions are dark and they darken the mind. They make it more difficult to see what you're doing, and if you do see what you're doing and you try to pretend that you didn't cause any affliction, that's darkness as well, that's denial.

When you think about why people don't like to hear about defilement in the West, it may involve a lot of things, but one of them is certainly that we're told by Western psychologists that if you have low self-esteem, if you think you're basically bad, it's unhealthy. And then of course our economy basically depends on greed, aversion and delusion to keep going, and so the media keep encouraging it. You [should] be proud of your greed, proud of your anger and delusion, basically, proud of your defilements. If you don't want to admit them, what is that but another big defilement? Because when the Buddha's talking about defilement, he's talking about this ability we have to cause suffering. The teaching on defilement is really basic. The most basic of the Buddha's teaching, which is the four noble truths, when he talks about the fact that it's not the innate nature of your mind, but your actions, he's talking about the second noble truth. The fact that defilement is affliction relates to the first noble truth. The luminosity of the mind is that your able to see there is affliction and that it is related to your actions. That's what enables you to follow the path. So if you can't admit these things, it's not healthy. It's narcissism and it's repression. So it's important that you learn to keep this concept in mind, and realize that what we are doing is a kind of cleansing. There is this darkness in the mind. Fortunately it's not innate to the mind, it can be cleansed. And we can cleanse it away ourselves. That's what the luminosity is all about.

There's one faction which doesn't like the teaching on defilement because it suggests that we need somebody else's help to cleanse ourselves, but that's not what the Buddha said. You have this luminosity, in other words you have this ability to see, there is something. If the mind were totally dark it wouldn't even recognize suffering as such. It wouldn't realize that it's optional, or that something should be done about it. That would be total darkness. You wouldn't be able to see that what you were doing was causing the suffering. So you do have this ability to cleanse your own mind.

Now it works best if you're around people who are cleansing their minds as well, who have had some success in it so you can see their example and get advice from them. But you do have this potential within you that you can do the work yourself, and it's work worth doing. So it's good to think about this concept of defilement, and where it's coming from, and know where it's coming from what you're doing and saying and thinking, it's a darkness in the mind that's caused by your actions, and it doesn't have to be there. Your actions can change, and as the Buddha said, if people couldn't change therir actions, if they couldn't abandon unskillful qualities and develop skillful qualities, there'd be no point in his teaching. But it's something we can do.

So it's good to resist that teaching which says you need self-esteem above all else. I mean if you're going to have genuine self-esteem your pride should be around the fact that you've learned how to recognize your mistakes, and want to do something about them, that's something to be proud of. The idea that I never make a mistake or I'm always good, if your pride that's based on that is going to be very shaky. You have to deny what you're doing, you have to deny the results of what you're doing, and it just piles on more and more darkness in the mind.

So take this to heart, the mind is luminous, but it is defiled by its actions. It's darkened. And we're trying to work our way out the darkness. And so when greed comes into the mind, or aversion comes, or when you recognize that there's some delusion, you just can't sit there and watch it come and go. You have to do something about it, you've gotta figure out, "Well why am I acting this way, I would normally expect that I would want to act for the purposes of happiness, so why am I doing something that's causing affliction?" You want to look into that, what is it that you like about the affliction, that's more darkness, or why would you want to pretend that it's not darkness, that's even more darkness on top of darkness.

So what we're doing here is try to cleanse the mind of that darkness. And the result is not that we go around calling ourselves pure. The purity is there when it's there. But it's just the nature of the mind, at that point, whether the mind would be proud or not proud, it's just the way things are, but it's a much better state to be in. You're not doing it to impress anybody else, you're doing it to cleanse the mind of its darkness, to stop the suffering that it's causing itself. Cause that really is dark. This is the big irony of life, that we all want happiness, and yet we turn around and do things that cause affliction. And when you begin to recognize that, that's when there's some light in the mind, and it's that light that you want to encourage, because that's the only way that you work yourself free.

Jeffrey

In my sangha we talk about defilements, but there is the additional teaching that defilements underneath them are bodhicitta. For example if you get angry or say an angry word it is because you are hurt by something. Since it is defiled bodhicitta it only makes things worse. But you cannot conclude that a teacher is not aware of defilements simply because they teach that the mind is luminous. I feel that is an error. The lojong slogans purpose is to uproot whatever is inhibiting seeing and they are very much about views and behaviour and defilements though they are also a teaching of ultimate bodhicitta. Views to uproot views. Trungpa says that the lojong is training the mind rather than pacifying the mind. My teacher also specifically mentioned in a personal e-mail that avoiding the 10 wrong actions and cultivating the 10 wholesome could interest me because I was asking a question where that came up.

As far as looking into and explaining my teacher has a unique method called reflecting on the heart wish. Inside the defilement is the wish to be happy. You don't just chop off the defilement you see what the problem is that is upsetting you. Once you see an error that error loses power.

The second noble truth in my family of teachers refers to turning away from experience because it is too raw. Not turning away is the whole point. We have to work with our experience whatever it is.

This is pretty much like my sangha teaches, but the defilements are viewed as distorted Buddha qualities. When we reach more confidence and insight and working with the uncomfortable parts of our life (not turning away) we get away from samsara. Samsara is always distracting us with ways to make this life better rather than attain the deathless.

Silouan

This was an observation and concern of mine as a Western Buddhist that was influenced by commentaries by the Dalai Lama. Not that he was addressing or identifying a particular problem in the West, but rather on the importance of dealing with defilements in preparing the mind for enlightenment. It was his emphasis on its importance along with a lack thereof that I experienced as a Buddhist in the West as one of the motivating factors that eventually lead to my conversion to Eastern Christianity. It remains very much a part of its spiritual tradition and practice even in the West.


I firmly believe what the Dalia Lama has said is true, and I'm also learning through practice that working with these defilements is like peeling a never ending union layer by layer, and since the heart is deep, with no limit to our spiritual development, we are going to be spending our entire lifetimes learning to work with them from the most obvious to the most subtle.

lobster

One of the reasons we support, bow and have high expectations of the sangha, is for their example of working on clearing defilements

It is a hard, dedicated example. Worthy of deep reverence and respect.
Lock them in a small room until enlightened. Let them out occasionally for food and watering . . .

:bowdown:

pegembara

In a way Hui Neng's (6th Chan Patriarch) contemporary was correct when he said:

Our body is the Bodhi-tree,
And our mind a mirror bright.
Carefully we wipe them hour by hour,
And let no dust alight.

It says the mind is luminous, but it is defiled by visiting defilements. And if you don't notice, there's no training of the mind. Then you look at the Buddha's teachings, and one of the basic analogies that he uses is that the practice is a kind of cleansing, it's a kind of purification. So if you don't appreciate the importance of the defilements, you can't really train the mind.

This is the work (right effort) until emptiness is realised. So this famous quote:

There is no Bodhi-tree,
Nor stand of a mirror bright.
Since all is void,
Where can the dust alight?

["You are already enlightened. Only that you don't know it yet." which is an unfortunate misrepresentation.]

Cinorjer

I consider the never-ending war against the mind's defilements to be one of the thousand doorways to the Dharma. Like any expedient teaching, it can be liberating or it can become an obstacle in itself. It's like someone rushing around the house checking and rechecking the doors and windows and locking and bolting them over and over, to make sure nothing bad gets in. Sure, the house remains pure. But the defilements are still there, waiting for the day you let your guard down. And if your entire focus is on this, you begin to see defilements everywhere, until the entire world becomes one huge cesspool of forbidden acts.

What do you say to that?

lobster

Cinorjer said:

What do you say to that?

Are you talking dirty to us?

Silouan

I see the condition you describe as being based on grasping and attachment but even more subtle and also a defilement. Working with defilements is only part of one's practice, and what you describe is a very real possibility if not for the understanding that the defilements are rooted in pride or egoism and that they are all transient. They are not the self or hypostasis (person) as they say in my spiritual tradition.

Sabre

I'd say it is a certain perspective on the path that's not wrong but also not the only possible perspective. In one sense it is about going against the defilements, but in another way it is about being contented and not constantly interfering with the process. From the big view "battling defilements" and "being contented" are just parts of the elephant. In the end they come down to the same thing, but in my experience, if I approach the path from a "battling" point of view, the mind doesn't get really peaceful. To constantly try to find a way around things is not what produces contented states of mind for me. So my approach is to be contented with whatever arises.

I'd say a better description is to starve the defilements. I don't have to go against them, I just should refrain from feeding them. If I have a perspective of trying to purify the mind, it's also easy to fall into the trap of identifying with the defilements as "mine" or craving for them to go away; two things that I find not productive as they are founded on defilements themselves. So one could wonder why one wants to be without defilements; chances are it is based on yet another defilement, like craving for happiness.


I don't know what Thanissaro uses as his definition of the "West", however, because I've heard about this quite often.

fivebells

@Jeffrey, I like lojong practices, too, use them all the time. I think the deathless is precisely what's left when all defilement is abandoned.

@Cinorjer, there is no enlightenment as long as there is greed aversion or delusion.

@Sabre, I think the "denying defilements" in the title is more about denying that they exist, or denying that they are a problem. He talks about knowing the defilements in order to let them go, not so much about battling them. The hindrances are a different story, though obviously they arise out of the defilements. I don't think he means every dharma talk in the West, because he was giving this talk in the West. I can think of a few lineages, teachers and practitioners where his criticisms make sense, though.

karmablues

I love dhamma talks on defilements, can't get enough of them.

It is also useful to be mindful of the Upakilesa which are also considered as defilements or sometimes translated as corruptions of the mind. We should fight these as well!

The following 16 Upakilesas are found in the Vatthupama Sutta:

1. Covetousness and unrighteous greed (abhijjhāvisamalobha): Ps: Covetousness is desire for and attachment to one’s own belongings; unrighteous greed is (desire for and attachment to) the belongings of others. Or else: Covetousness is attachment to an object that is suitable and has been obtained; unrighteous greed is the same for an object that is unsuitable and has not been obtained. One Elder says that there is no greed that is not unrighteous, therefore greed itself is covetousness in the sense of longing and also unrighteous in the sense of contrary to what is right. The meaning is one though the expressions are different.

2. Ill will (byāpāda): Ps. = the nine cases of aversion.

3. Anger (kodha): Vbh. = Anger, being angry, angriness, hatred, hating, hatefulness, irritation, irritability, irascibility; opposition, resistance, … displeasure of mind.

4. Malice (upanāha): Vbh. = In the past there was anger, later there is malice. It is the accumulation, persistence, strengthening of anger. Ps.: It is anger after it again and again envelops the mind.

5. Contempt (makkha): Ps. It is the disregard of favors done towards oneself. In the case of lay people, if one is poor and someone, out of compassion, sets one up in a high position, later one disregards the favor done, thinking, “What did he do for me?” In the case of a monk, after one becomes famous and respected, one disregards the instruction and guidance one’s elders gave to one when one was a junior monk.

6. Insolence (paḷāsa): Ps. The sense of competitiveness that arises overpowering someone else, for example, towards a learned person one thinks, “What is the difference between you or me?”

7. Envy (issā): Vbh. The envy, envying, enviousness, that arises towards the gain, honor, respect, esteem, veneration, and reverence shown towards others.

8. Miserliness (macchariya): Vbh. Miserliness, meanness, stinginess, unwillingness to share; Miserliness regarding dwellings, families, gains, praise, and Dhamma. Ps. Inability to endure sharing one’s own fortune with others.

9. Deceit (māyā): Vbh. Someone misbehaves with the body, by speech, by mind. For the purpose of concealing it, he forms the evil wish, “May others not know this of me!” Such deceit, deceptiveness, excessiveness, crookedness, craftiness, hiding, concealment, etc., is called deceit.

10. Craftiness (sāṭheyya): Vbh. Someone is crafty, utterly crafty, etc., this is called craftiness. Ps. Kerāṭikabhāva (trickiness?). For a trickster is like a long-fish. For a “long-fish” is said to show its tail to fish and its head to snakes, to make them think, “I am just like you.” So a trickster shows himself to others and says to them, “I will be your companion, your benefactor, and I will never desert you.” And they think, “He is devoted to us, loyal to us.”

11. Obstinacy (thambha): Vbh. Stiffness, harshness, single-mindedness, inflexibility. Ps. Unyieldingness, rigidity, high-headedness; being like a bellows filled with air.

12. Rivalry (sārambha): Ps. A layman sees another person dressed up in ornaments and there arises in him the thought of surpassing the other person twofold; a monk hears of another who has learned so much Dhamma or preaches so much and, by way of conceit, thinks to outdo the other twofold or threefold.

13. Conceit (māna): Ps. elevation of the mind on account of social class, etc.

14. Arrogance (atimāna): Ps. Extreme elevation of the mind.

15. Vanity (mada): Vbh. defines mada almost in the same terms as māna; it concerns social class, clan, etc.; in suttas, related to youth, health, life (as opp. to age, sickness, death). Ps. The aspect of grasping vanity (madaggaha5ākāra; not so helpful).

16. Heedlessness (pamāda). Ps. Letting the mind roam among the objects of sensual pleasure. Also translated as negligence which in social behavior, this leads to lack of consideration.

maarten

What do you say to that?

@Cinorjer, I have a more optimistic view, because I see battling the defilements as a process of refinement. First, you tackle the gross suffering by learning not to be purposely deceitful, arrogant, stingy etc. Once you have left one of these gross defilements and its associated suffering behind you, I think there is no danger of it returning, but then you realize that you are still causing yourself suffering, because you are still deceiving but in a more subtle manner. This refinement is a never-ending process, but at least things improve along the way.

Sabre

fivebells said:

I can think of a few lineages, teachers and practitioners where his criticisms make sense, though.

Could be. Perhaps I'm just lucky to have come across the teachers who do mention it, although sometimes in different words. For example when somebody speaks of compassion, they automatically also speak of its opposite, anger. And when someone speaks of right understanding or seeing truth, in a way they also speak of delusion. And of course non-craving is the absence of greed. If you see it like this, I think dharma talks that are not about defilements are quite rare. Or again, perhaps I was lucky.

fivebells

It depends on how the opposites are spoken of. If compassion, right understanding and non-craving are presented as intrinsic qualities of mind which don't need to be developed, that is denial.

Jeffrey

Again sectarianism, fivebells. The mahayana teaches that the mind is clear, luminous, and unimpeded. The kleshas are essenceless as the prajnaparamitas show us. The kleshas are distortions but underneath is always a movement of heart, bodhicitta.

It's actually double sectarianism. I think a Tibetan rangtongpa might agree with you. The distinction is between action bodhicitta and ultimate bodhicitta. What you are talking about is action bodhicitta but the nature of a Buddha (and us) is 'awareness' or openness, clarity, and sensitivity ie ultimate bodhicitta.

This is related to refuge because you are taking refuge in the Buddha which you have Buddha nature so some where along the line you have to have faith in your insight otherwise you would be unable to make progress whatsoever if you couldn't sense anything including whether something is a klesha.

fivebells

In case it wasn't clear, I was responding to @Sabre's argument that someone who speaks of compassion implicitly refers to anger. I was saying that if they speak of compassion as an intrinsic quality of mind, then any implicit reference to anger in what they're saying is actually a denial. If anger is then pasted on top of that as a distortion or whatever, then obviously that's not a denial.

It doesn't really bolster an accusation of sectarianism to follow it up with a rant about your own creed. Also, keep in mind that I am a Tibetan Buddhist too. I have a lot of time for (and have invested a lot of time in) Mahayana practices.

Jeffrey

I was pointing out that compassion is an intrinsic quality of mind. Are you contradicting that?

I meant the discussion is sectarian. You or I are just practitioners talking about what we learned. Rangtongpa says we build up good qualities. Yogacara says we clear away the kleshas and underneath there is compassion etc.

Sabre

fivebells said:

It depends on how the opposites are spoken of. If compassion, right understanding and non-craving are presented as intrinsic qualities of mind which don't need to be developed, that is denial.

True in a way, but I think it is very generalized. One could say one has to develop compassion, or one could say let go of anger leaves compassion. One could say the mind is intrinsically bright or intrinsically cloudy. In my eyes both can be good as teachings, but either way is not ultimately correct because "mind" is just a concept.

I'll leave it at that for now. I think the talk is quite good in general and just wanted to say I think it mainly depends on what our perspective is. Some times the perspective of "there are defilements in the mind" can be helpful, some times the perspective of "the mind is already bright" can be helpful.

fivebells

@Jeffrey, No, I do not take a position on qualities of awakened mind. That would be wrong view, as this conversation is starting to demonstrate.

To the extent that I have a sect, I learned it from Ken McLeod, and I tend to think its creed revolves around determining which practices and beliefs lead to the ending and the proliferation of suffering, based on personal experience. That is, I don't think my end of the conversation is really sectarian, unless pragmatism is a sect.

Jeffrey

From a mahayana perspective everything is empty and when you drop prapanca you are free of suffering. From my teacher's message (shentongpa) if you aren't manifesting the limitless ungraspable buddha qualities including compassion then you haven't dropped prapanca. The tantric path is to go that last bit.

fivebells

@Sabre, Yes, I think it would be better if he just hadn't said the second paragraph, and if I had left it out of the transcript here. The talk would be much better without it.

Jeffrey

I consider my view pragmatic because it makes sense to me and helps me in my life and I believe it is going to full enlightenment eventually. There are 100s of Ken McLeods and 100000s of students who believe they are being pragmatic.

Another way of saying it would be 'can you produce a buddhist (or Christian or Muslim) who says "I am not pragmatic"?

Cinorjer

lobster said:

Cinorjer said:

What do you say to that?

Are you talking dirty to us?

Hee!

Cinorjer

maarten said:

What do you say to that?

@Cinorjer, I have a more optimistic view, because I see battling the defilements as a process of refinement. First, you tackle the gross suffering by learning not to be purposely deceitful, arrogant, stingy etc. Once you have left one of these gross defilements and its associated suffering behind you, I think there is no danger of it returning, but then you realize that you are still causing yourself suffering, because you are still deceiving but in a more subtle manner. This refinement is a never-ending process, but at least things improve along the way.

I think that is a perfectly valid response.

zenff

pegembara said:

In a way Hui Neng's (6th Chan Patriarch) contemporary was correct when he said:

Our body is the Bodhi-tree,
And our mind a mirror bright.
Carefully we wipe them hour by hour,
And let no dust alight.
...

Yes, I think the problem here is that of gradual enlihtenment versus sudden enlightenment.

I think it is a Zen-cliché that pursuing gradual improvement only gets you so far and at some point a more fundamental realization is possible; “seeing ones true nature” or “dropping off body and mind”.

lobster

Behaviour is important as it prepares the likelihood that the container will not break, leak, tip over or be so full of gunk that the 'ambrosia' just pours over the sides . . .

It is also true that the Amrita is a little more cleansing than our symbolic Buddhist 'Eucharistic' rituals
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amrita
In essence, Amrita is the very stuff of the eternal, unborn, Buddha yummyness . . .

Where is it? Strangely enough, in the behaviour of the enlightened . . .
:thumbsup:

flowdrift

Thanks for the transcription! That's a great talk and very helpful to have a text to read.

Jeffrey

Wow this is interesting to read again 5 years later!

federica

5 years. A long time in Politics, but in Buddhism, no time at all...