If in this life we only have contrived, not genuine, bodhicitta, just as the Venerable Atisha said, “Those who have aroused contrived bodhicitta in this life will become great bodhisattvas in the next life and be able to deliver as many sentient beings from samsara as there are in Jambudvipa. " Why is that? That is due to the fact that simply arousing bodhicitta is already a supreme Dharma practice. Based on infallible karma, it is only logical for those people to attain equally supreme result in their next lives.

The Great Perfection itself is deemed supramundane, but our motivation for practicing it or listening to its teachings could turn it into a mundane practice instead. If our motivation were to gain benefits in this or next life, the teaching of the Great Perfection would cease to be supramundane upon entering our mindstream; it would not even be a Mahayana practice. What would it be then? It would just be a mundane practice, or, a practice of mundane Great Perfection.

Many people are convinced that what they practice must be of supra- mundane nature. How can it not be if they have been practicing the five extraordinary preliminaries? In fact, these five preliminaries are not only supramundane in nature but also part of the Mahayana practices. The key is, notwithstanding, having what kind of perspective when you sit down to practice these preliminaries. Though the possibility of practicing solely for the benefit of this life is slim, it is quite likely to undertake these practices to avoid rebirth in the hell realm. If the motivation is not to seek liberation for the sake of all sentient beings, the practice of the five preliminaries will be considered mundane, not supramundane. 

We may often think to ourselves: I am not really willing to generate bodhicitta, as I am only interested in my own benefit. But I will force myself to do it. Because if I don’t, whatever I do will not be considered practicing Mahayana. This is called “contrived” bodhicitta.

We should not think of burning incense and doing prostration as being mundane, whereas listening to the teachings of Madhyamaka or the Great Perfection is supramundane. The distinction between the two is simply not about form.

Take the example of offering butter lamp to the Three Jewels. Given the same object of offering, act of offering and person who offers, the practice will be deemed mundane when renunciation is not generated and the purpose of the offering is to obtain worldly benefits like health, longevity, job promotion, wealth and so on, or a favorable rebirth. Conversely, offering lamp out of true renunciation and to seek liberation from samsara will be considered a supramundane practice. Therefore, the gauge for distinguishing the mundane from the supramundane is no other than whether one has renounced worldly pursuits or not.

In order to succeed, we must first begin by cultivating renunciation. Failing that, neither meditation nor mantra chanting can ever be deemed supramundane practice through which ultimate liberation can be attained. This is extremely important!

What does the word “renounce” mean? First, to renounce is to forsake all worldly concerns. In other words, to renounce is not to have any attachment to worldly things and, at the same time, to be fully aware of the suffering nature of samsara. Second, one must endeavor to seek liberation from all suffering.

For example, is eating a meal counted as a good, evil, or neutral action? On the premise of not harming lives, eating itself is neither good nor evil. But as stated in the Abhidharma-kosha-shastra, if one wants to eat first in order to have the strength to kill, fight, or trick others afterwards, eating that meal is the same as committing evil. If the purpose of eating is to have energy to listen to a Dharma teaching, to liberate animals or to cultivate virtue, then this eating signifies a good action. Moreover, if these positive actions are invested with bodhicitta, eating can even become a Mahayana practice. On the other hand, when eating is without any specific purpose, not thinking of hurting or killing others, liberating or saving animals, it is neither good nor evil; it is, in Buddhist terminology, moral neutrality.

If it is for purposes related to spiritual practice, working can be viewed as a kind of supramundane practice. If the money is intended for ill purpose, even before any real action has taken place, evil karma will start being accumulated every day one goes to work. When working is simply a means for living, it results in neither good nor evil karma. So, action may be the same, but karma may not. And the determining factor is nothing but one’s motivation.