Seeking sources on -- practicing for this life alone is not even Dharma

Question

The Gelugpa Lam Rim says that someone who practices for benefit in this life alone is not even practicing Dharma -- the minimum Dharmic motivation is to achieve better rebirth (and there are two levels above that, which I am not concerned about here). Here is Pabongka Rinpoche, Liberation in the Palm of Your Hand (Wisdom Pubs, Kindle Edition, location 2937; same spot in the 1991 paper edition from Wisdom begins on p. 154):

The difference in our motivation makes an enormous difference to the sort of virtuous karmic results we will receive, and to the measure of strength of these results. Suppose four people are reciting together the Praise of the Twenty-One Tārās. One has bodhichitta as a motive. Another is motivated by renunciation. The third yearns for a better rebirth. The last only aspires to the concerns of this life: long life, good health, and so on. Although all four recite the same amount of words, there is a great difference in the sort of karmic results they will obtain. ... The fourth’s recitation belonged only to this life and so was not even Dharma. And it would even be difficult for it to have any of the the hoped-for effect on his life.

So, my question -- can folks point me to similar material in the Pali Canon, Visuddhimagga or other non-Tibetan sources. Likewise in Tibetan lineages other than Gelug.

---

Added 11/25 -- Or, is this a Mahayana teaching, and therefore not found explicitly in the Pali Canon. The distinction between bodhicitta and renunciation as motivation is certainly Mahayana -- initially taught in this "three scopes" form in Tibet by Atisha in Lamp for the Path to Enlightenment. So maybe even this pre-three-scopes teaching is not only Mahayana, but a Tibetan addition not found even in Atisha.

If so, then I'd be interested to at least find other Tibetan sources, or hear that this is strictly a Gelug teaching.

---

More still 11/25 -- Looks like Tsongkhapa, contra Pabongka, includes motivation for this life only in the lower scope, thus making a general motivation for better samsaric life apart from the rebirth distinction:

Furthermore, the scriptures mention many ways of positing a least, a medium, and a superior person. Like Atisha's Lamp for the Path to Enlightenment, Vasubandhu's Abhidharma-kosa Auto-commentary (Abhidharma-kosa-bhasya) defines the three types of persons. Among the persons of small capacity, there are indeed two types — those who are intent on this lifetime and those who are intent on future lifetimes. However, here I am speaking of the latter, whom I will identify as those who engage in the unmistaken method for attaining high status. (The Great Treatise on the Stages of the Path to Enlightenment, Volume One. The Lamrim Chenmo, Wisdom Pubs, pp. 131-132)

So maybe this teaching is actually post-Tsongkhapa Gelug.

Answer 1

The closest I can think of is the Dana sutta in which the Buddha explains how the purity of one's motives have an effect on the results.

"Sariputta, there is the case where a person gives a gift seeking his own profit, with a mind attached [to the reward], seeking to store up for himself [with the thought], 'I'll enjoy this after death.' He gives his gift — food, drink, clothing, a vehicle; a garland, perfume, & ointment; bedding, shelter, & a lamp — to a brahman or a contemplative. What do you think, Sariputta? Might a person give such a gift as this?"

"Yes, lord."

"Having given this gift seeking his own profit — with a mind attached [to the reward], seeking to store up for himself, [with the thought], 'I'll enjoy this after death' — on the break-up of the body, after death, he reappears in the company of the Four Great Kings. Then, having exhausted that action, that power, that status, that sovereignty, he is a returner, coming back to this world.

[...]

"Or, instead of thinking, 'When this gift of mine is given, it makes the mind serene. Gratification & joy arise,' he gives a gift with the thought, 'This is an ornament for the mind, a support for the mind.' He gives his gift — food, drink, clothing, a vehicle; a garland, perfume, & ointment; bedding, shelter, & a lamp — to a brahman or a contemplative. What do you think, Sariputta? Might a person give such a gift as this?"

"Yes, lord."

"Having given this, not seeking his own profit, not with a mind attached [to the reward], not seeking to store up for himself, nor [with the thought], 'I'll enjoy this after death,'

[...]

" — but with the thought, 'This is an ornament for the mind, a support for the mind' — on the break-up of the body, after death, he reappears in the company of Brahma's Retinue. Then, having exhausted that action, that power, that status, that sovereignty, he is a non-returner. He does not come back to this world.

"This, Sariputta, is the cause, this is the reason, why a person gives a gift of a certain sort and it does not bear great fruit or great benefit, whereas another person gives a gift of the same sort and it bears great fruit and great benefit."

-- AN 7.49

Now, if you're asking about the possibility of practicing the Dhamma without, at the very least, assuming rebirth to be true, then in the Apannaka sutta the Buddha indeed said this was wrong view, and thus against the path.

Because there actually is the next world, the view of one who thinks, 'There is no next world' is his wrong view... when he says that 'There is no next world,' he makes himself an opponent to those arahants who know the next world. Because there actually is the next world, when he persuades another that 'There is no next world,' that is persuasion in what is not true Dhamma. And in that persuasion in what is not true Dhamma, he exalts himself and disparages others. Whatever good habituation he previously had is abandoned, while bad habituation is manifested.

-- MN 60

Answer 2

As per Theravada tradition Dhamma has the quality of Paccattaṃ veditabbo viññūhi (To be meant to perceive directly and this experience in withing this life time), Sandiṭṭhiko (can be examined and the results been seen here and now), Akāliko (timeless and immediate results when practiced correctly). All this leading to the fact that you should practice for this life time though the benefits would also manifest in substantial life times if you do not get fully liberated in this life.

You need some level of motivation otherwise you will not,

• put the effort, or
• be diligent in the way on how to practice.

Answer 3

I don't see how this isn't obvious.

1. bodhichitta
2. renunciation
3. better rebirth
4. long life, good health

The first three are all (aspects of, mentioned in, included within) Dharma.

"Better rebirth" at least allows you to detach from a view of self-is-this-body.

"Long life, good health" are slightly mentioned as possibilities (for example inasmuch as it's recommended not to eat too much, which is beneficial in this life), but practicing only for that motive seems to me to originate in (and to sustain) a view that's contrary to Dharma, which says for example:

• Be heedful of the current moment
• No guarantee about the future, except that all compound things will decay
• Attachment (e.g. to long life, good health) causes suffering

So that view or intention seems to me to be contrary to the noble truths, contrary to the eightfold way ... if it's not Dharma ... if, therefore, it's not Buddhism ... then I don't see how it isn't obvious that it's likely that the "hoped for effect won't happen":

• If the "hoped-for-effect" is the benefit-of-practising-Buddhism (e.g. happiness of renunciation) then the effect won't happen if you're not practising Buddhism
• If the "hoped-for-effect" is benefit-to-health then, if you're only pretending to practice Buddhism (e.g. "reciting the same amount of words"), practising it badly or falsely, why should that have any effect at all?

Answer 4

Parting from the Four Attachments :a short teaching spoken by Manjushri to the Sakya patriarch Sachen Kunga Nyingpo:

If you are attached to this life, you are not a true spiritual practitioner.
If you are attached to samsara, you do not have renunciation.
If you are attached to your own self-interest, you have no bodhichitta.
If there is grasping, you do not have the View.

This first line addresses this exact point: if your only concern is for this present life, then you can't practice. Actually, your first practice can be changing this attitude!

Answer 5

I'm going to add an answer of my own based on some reading I did today (but still give the nod to Sadhana for a good citation).

This piece -- The Truth of Rebirth, by Thanissaro Bikkhu -- makes the point that "birth" in the first of the Four Truths can only refer to rebirth, otherwise why would it be relevant to an already born being. It also cannot refer simply to micro-level, momentary mind-states because the Buddha is quite clear (SN 12:2) that he means the literal birth of a person, and likewise illness, aging and death. And for all, he means cyclic repetition of them.

This and numerous other points, particularly Paticca Samuppada (dependent arising) make it clear the the Four Truths are intimately bound up with literal rebirth. So any view that denies rebirth also denies the Four truths, that is, Dharma.

The only remaining question for me is the person who acknowledges the truth of rebirth but is still not motivated by it. But to do that is clearly not to practice Dharma either, since intention and action are a crucial elements of practice.

So bottom line, I think the Lam Rim formulation is a forceful summary of these facts, which is deeply built into the fundamental Pali Canon teachings but scattered around. (Plug for Lam Rim -- it claims to be a succinct, systematic gathering of the fundamental teachings, both Pali Canon and Mahayana. I think this example demonstrates that quality rather nicely.)