Mental Afflictions: What Makes One a Dharma Practitioner?

Extracted from a teaching given on Vajrasattva by Drupon Rinpoche Karma Lhabu. Transcribed into English and Translated into German by Barbara Stütz

Thinking about the way of dharma and that which stops us from developing, that which stops the dharma practitioner view from being taken up; what is that, principally? It’s our way of thinking, our approach not developing. For example when we think about a dharma practitioner we think that’s someone without desire, without aversion, without confusion. That’s how we think of a dharma practitioner, but that’s not the truth of it. That state of being without these things is the ultimate state of a dharma practitioner, it is the end result. Dharma practitioners have desire, aversion and confusion. If they did not have these mental afflictions they would have no need to practice. They would not have any work to do. But dharma practitioners have a job to do, they have work to do. They have to apply themselves, make great effort. They have to study, meditate, practice. Why? Because they have the mental afflictions. The way we see things is that dharma practitioners are without mental afflictions. That if somebody is a dharma practitioner, automatically they are without the afflictions. But that’s not the case. Those who are without desire, aversion and confusion, they are given a different name. Different from ‘dharma practitioner’. They are called arhats, siddhas, buddhas, bodhisattvas. So when do we use the word dharma practitioner? It’s for those who have not yet attained these sorts of results and still have the mental afflictions very intensely.

For example, many Westerners who are new to Buddhism think that monks and nuns are totally free from desire. Once they have gone forth they no longer have any clinging or attachment. They don’t need anything. But this is not the case. Just as other people, they too have desire, aversion and attachment.

But what’s the difference between dharma practitioners, including monks and nuns, and ordinary, worldly people? They strive in the methods which rid themselves of the mental afflictions. They are very devoted to that. That’s very important and foremost in their way of seeing things.

For example, if somebody had a headache, we wouldn’t think “they can’t be a dharma practitioner, they’ve got a headache”. We probably wouldn’t think that. So it’s similar with “oh, they have got desire, or aversion so they can’t be a dharma practitioner”. So if you can be sick and still be a dharma practitioner and have the afflictions and still be a dharma practitioner, what’s the difference to ordinary, worldly people? The difference is that when pain, sickness or the afflictions arise they serve as a trigger for a special, particular attitude; a different way of seeing things. Dharma practitioners have the afflictions and the resultant suffering of the afflictions. But through these two, acting as a condition, a different way of seeing needs to come about if one is a dharma practitioner.

In brief, not all beings with the mental afflictions are dharma practitioners. Only those who see that the mental afflictions are no good, that they are troublesome and that they want to rid themselves of them. The main thing for determining a dharma practitioner, and if somebody is becoming a dharma practitioner, is whether they learn from the mental afflictions and regard them as negative. If someone learns from their mental afflictions and gains some insight then this person is called a dharma practitioner.

Extract from a teaching on Vajrasattva, 16 July 2015.