Bodhisattvacharyavatara by Acharya Śāntideva
Chapter VI– verses 85-86
Transglomeration: [But others don’t deserve to be happy, I’m the virtuous one here!] [85] OK, so you would perversely have it that others should not have the ripenings of their own virtue, the support of their families and communities, that they disavow and nullify their own good qualities? And then you get angry with them that they enjoy their success! Rather, it is because you get angry that you lose hold over your own virtue, that you lose the faith of others and the kindness they show you, that all your spiritual worth comes to nothing. Is there nothing you don’t get angry with? Tell me, would it not be better to get angry with yourself for not having the causes for gain? Where will this perversity of yours end up? [86] It is bad enough that you feel no regret about the un-virtuous deeds you commit now (and have before), O mind, but why do you then compound it by arrogantly thinking to measure yourself against others who undertake the practice of virtuous deeds as well?
~~~ “BCA” ~~~
V. 84 indifference to getting/not getting
↑ Stitch ↓
V. 85-86 fault of resenting others’ happiness and fortune
Sanskrit/Tibetan Text: in verse 85, it seems the Sanskrit addresses oneself talking about ‘him’ supressing, or not taking (expressing, participating in), his virtues, (being with) kind people and good qualities (i.e. because you, O mind, resent them having these things), but then asking with what should one (really) be being angry with; whereas the Tibetan turns the same glove inside out and makes the conclusion for you, O mind, that you, being angry about others’ virtue and good fortune, destroys one’s own virtue, faith (others have in you) and good qualities; in the transglomeration – to include both outside-in and inside-out – start with a dripping-sarcastic Sanskrit (‘OK, so …’ ending with ‘that’s right, get angry with others!’, and then (‘rather’, ‘because you get angry … affecting virtue, faith, qualities …’) drive it home with a Tibetan saying it like it is
Reflection: all, still addressed to, ‘O mind’, self-obsessed, self-grasping, self-cherishing, self-justifying and in all other ways, self-ish; all of these two verses are in the form of self-addressed questions; this is Śāntideva getting angry with the self-centered mind (as he himself advises), but getting angry because the self-centered mind (OK, me, me, me) is stupidly denying the whole of causality to just fit in with what I want and then shouting about it when it doesn’t work out as I want, Śāntideva’s anger is the combined exasperation and understanding when faced with a tired toddler throwing a tantrum because the wooden bricks won’t stack up; the same as is shown in chapter five earlier, this anger is directed against one’s own faults and mistakes (it’s no good being tolerant and indulgent with a self-centered mind, this causes the build-up of problems in the first place) and for the meanwhile is to be tolerated; a fine line to balance on, admitted, but one that is a true practice of the Middle Way between self-indulgence and self-denial – a skilful virtue, because it is truer
Reflection: Śāntideva’s response (to the self-obsessed mind) is a re-affirmation of the inexorability of cause and effect: the self-absorbed mind, in the throes of envy and resentment, thinks happiness and fortune are ‘bestowed’, are a matter of justice and ownership, and it stays in this perverse way of seeing things precisely because it refuses to acknowledge the cause and effect of how things work – in fact, because it has reached a state of anger about the situation (others getting happiness and not oneself), it is really holding tight to the notion that others getting happiness is ‘unfair’ and thereby strengthening the belief in things happening a-causally
Practice: is implicit in these verses, but rather obvious, given Śāntideva’s sarcasm towards the self-cherishing mind: recognise that things happen causally, and rejoice in others’ virtue when it reaches fruition – whether it is of relative scope, and definitely if it is ultimate; when jealous of others getting something, would I want them to deny their virtue which has brought them good fortune – or, why don’t I rejoice in their (virtue which has engineered their) good fortune and thereby create the causes for my own
mlewisredford 
I was raised Catholic. I went to Catholic school for 3 years. My Catholicism was filtered though the lens of the 1970s Charismatic movement (I’m not sure if this was something that was only American …). It was also filtered through the lens of my mother. She was raised in New England – a Catholic in a Protestant area, as well as her family experience. Her mother’s family was Irish Catholic (my mother’s grandparents arrived here around the turn of the 20th Century), and her father’s family was Scotch Protestant. My mother was raised Catholic, though her Scotch Protestant grandparents fought it tooth and nail. I was raised Catholic, but never felt the spiritual pull. I tried. I was always met by silence.
I spent most of my 20s exploring various spiritual avenues. In general, the Eastern tradition resonates more. Yet, it still doesn’t satisfy me.
I say all this as a prelude to saying I find this series of posts interesting though my rebellious mind questions and questions.
‘O mind’, self-obsessed, self-grasping, self-cherishing, self-justifying and in all other ways, self-ish” ….
I do understand what this quote means even though I wonder where the line between ‘self-obsessed’ and ‘self-reflective’ occurs. There are obvious answers: Donald Trump, for example; the endless Instagram pages where people post endless photos of themselves. I use Instagram, and I think there are maybe 3 or 4 photos of me, and a hundred or more of the world-at-large.
And then I think about the art of memoir and story-telling. As someone who enjoys writing and reading memoir, I understand that one can be too self-obsessed, too convinced that our story is vital to share.
Yet, I think of the Annie Dillard quote you shared, and I think of how important sharing stories really is.
I struggle in my own writing to find that line between ‘self-reflection’ and ‘self-obsession’.
I’ve really enjoyed you translation and analysis of this text. It gives me a lot to ponder.
LikeLike
I would venture that ‘finding’ a religion is not like finding the right fit of a piece of clothing, say, but of growing in to the clothes you wear: ‘questioning and questioning’ is all part of wearing the clothes; but not questioning whether you should be wearing the clothes at all, but questioning how to wear them; constructive questioning is good, constructive questioning is being religious; ‘it’s not what you do, it’s the way that you do it’ is an annoying song from the 1930s which is nevertheless useful – it’s not questioning in itself that is good or bad, but with what aim you are questioning (that makes it so); likewise with thinking about/chronicalling(?)/talking about oneself: what makes it un-virtuous is if it is done to further indulge one’s sense of self/entitlement/pleasure above that of others; if it is done to further your understanding of you and the world in which you live so that you can use the best of yourself in the world … then it is good; when Shantideva is talking about the self-obsessed, self-grasping, self-cherishing, self-justifying, selfish mind, he is just talking about the mind, not just what the mind is doing through the body;
thank you for questioning, John; as far as I understand, this makes you a good Catholic … this makes you a good John Nooney
LikeLike
lesson worthy
of sincere study
& practice 🙂
LikeLike