LPA15: Lay Vows against Improper Sex & Intoxicants

For this, Tsongkhapa — just to review — mentions that we’ve found this excellent working basis (this is the human rebirth) with all the liberties and endowments to be able to practice the Dharma, and we’ve met with the precious teachings of the Buddha, and we’ve been cared for by superb spiritual masters (so we have a teacher), and we have the power of mind to discern between what’s to be adopted and rejected. In other words, we have all the basic features that are necessary for actually practicing the Dharma. And given that situation, we need to take advantage of it fully and engage ourselves with the teachings. For that, we have to rely on guidance from someone who knows. 

It’s interesting that he says we’ve been cared for by teachers (in other words, that we have a teacher), but then there’s a difference between just having a teacher and really relying on guidance from that teacher and putting what that teacher advises into practice. In order to do that, the teacher has to be qualified properly. We’re not just listening to a lecture from someone who is learned in facts but who is really qualified in that. Qualification means that they have to know basically the essential nature of the pathway minds that we need to develop. In other words, what are the ones that we need to develop, what are the ones that are not needed to be developed or would be inappropriate. They have to know the definite count of the details, which means not to add anything, not to leave anything out. And they have to be learned in the graded order. In other words, how to apply them to each student’s level and what would be the sequence of applying them. 

The teacher needs to have learned all of that by having been led through all of that himself or herself, and the way in which they have been led along these paths themselves by their own spiritual teacher has to be in accordance with the great texts. And this is something that the teacher needs to instruct us in as well, and we ourselves need to follow those teachings and not think that there is some difference between the Dharma to be practiced and the Dharma which is written in the great classic texts, because everything in the texts was intended for actual practice. That is very important, to base ourselves on what are the authentic teachings. 

As for how we begin our practice, then, Tsongkhapa points out what Nagarjuna has said, and Aryadeva, which is that we need to tame our minds. That’s the main thing to work on. When we speak about the mind, we’re speaking about not just the intellect, but we’re speaking about the heart, the emotions, and so on. We have to tame all of that. The process of doing that, which will be with the sutra and tantra practices, all depends very much on our motivating mental framework, which involves both the intention of what we’re aiming for as well as the emotional drive behind that. For this, there’s the graded levels of motivation as are presented in the lam-rim, the graded stages of mental pathways. Here we have three levels: 

The initial level is working for improving our rebirths. That means trying to always gain a precious human rebirth, realizing that our mental continuums have no beginning and have no end. 

On the intermediate level, we think about how if we continue with that mental continuum being driven by disturbing emotions and the karma or impulsive behavior that is driven by that, then it’s just going to continue to have various types of suffering, and so we’re motivated to get out of that. This is based on understanding clearly that the mind is free of emotional obscurations, that this is not part of the nature of the mind.

Also, on the advanced level, then we think of everybody else having the same type of problems and how wonderful it would be if we could help everybody out of these problems. To do that, we need to become omniscient Buddhas so that we know all the aspects of cause and effect in terms of how to actually help others and what are all the actual sources of their problems. For this, we need to be convinced that the mind is pure of the cognitive obscurations as well. That means that it’s not part of the nature of the mind to make appearances of true existence. 

All of that, in the way that I was presenting it, was in terms of: in the presentation of bodhichitta, which do we develop first? Do we develop the deepest bodhichitta first or conventional bodhichitta? Deepest bodhichitta is the understanding of voidness. For those of the sharpest intelligence, it’s described that we need to develop the understanding of voidness first. If we understand voidness then we are convinced that enlightenment is possible; if we’re convinced that enlightenment is possible, then it’s easier to work for it. However, the other way round is for those that are not intellectually the sharpest. For them, working on the emotional side comes first, that you really want to be able to help others the most. For that, we need to become enlightened. We realize that and then we need to become convinced that it’s actually possible. 

In any case, then it’s very important, Tsongkhapa says, to have these motivating mental frameworks in an uncontrived manner, in a very sincere manner, not just with words. To do that, we need to meditate on them. Meditate means to build them up as beneficial habits. For that, how to meditate, we have to know many different things. We went into a big, long discussion of that. 

As Tsongkhapa points out, we have to know all the causes for being able to develop these states of mind, these motivations, and the various aspects, all the different parts of it. And we need to know what is helpful for developing them, what is harmful for developing them, what actually will follow if we have developed them, what we focus on when developing them, how the mind understands or takes that focal object. All these sort of things we have to know, then we can have a very clear idea of what we’re trying to do and how we do it in our meditation. That has to be helped with building up positive force, cleansing away negative force, and reading various texts in between sessions so that we get a little bit more inspiration from others who have gone through the same process as well. With these various levels of motivation or mental frameworks, we need to develop them in a proper sequence. 

Tsongkhapa discussed all of that. Then he also mentioned that it’s important to maintain these motivations throughout our sessions, throughout our practice, not just have it at the beginning and so on. All of this is very important advice, very practical advice. So, we start our meditation sessions with the motivation (like bodhichitta) and end it with the dedication. 

Then we started our next discussion, which is the discussion of how — on top of these motivations, within the context of these motivations — we would practice tantra. Here Tsongkhapa starts out by saying that (and I quote from the text):

Well in general, whenever we enter the doorway of any (Buddhist) vehicle of mind, we need to set as its basis the ethical discipline of its own (set of vows).

That’s what we were up to, were the sets of vows. Here the first set of vows are the pratimoksha vows, which are the vows for individual liberation, and those include lay vows and monastic vows (either novice or, in the case of nuns, probationary vows, and then the full vows for both the monks and nuns). But we were leaving our discussion just in terms of the lay vows. We saw that there are five lay vows, which are to avoid taking the life of others, to avoid taking what has not been given to us, avoid indicating what is untrue — so that’s killing, stealing, and lying (we’ve already covered those last time) — and the last two (that we need to avoid) are indulging in contrary sexual behavior (contrary means contrary to trying to rid ourselves of the disturbing emotions), and then taking intoxicants.

We also saw that it’s not necessary to take all five. We can take any of them, any number of them — one, two, three, or four, and so on. The point is these are vows for individual liberation, and we are aiming for liberation. Liberation means aiming for overcoming our disturbing emotions and the destructive karma which is built up by that. There’s no obligation to take these vows, although it’s necessary to have, Tsongkhapa said, some level of pratimoksha vows as a basis for taking the bodhisattva vows. It’s absolutely essential to have the bodhisattva vows in order to take the tantric vows. These sets of vows build on one another, but it’s not absolutely mandatory that you have the full set of lay vows. One should only take vows if we are prepared to keep them and keep them as purely as possible. 

We saw that also there are many factors which are involved in any of these vows in terms of the general teachings on karma — what’s necessary for the force from the karma, whether it’s positive or negative, to be complete. Otherwise, the force is not complete, which doesn’t mean that it’s not there, but it’s weaker. 

Now that’s what we’ve covered so far. Any questions on that? Anyway, you get the general idea, how Tsongkhapa is structuring his letter. 

Now we get into the discussion of contrary sexual behavior. This is always a rather touchy discussion for Westerners because there are lot of things in here that are a little bit difficult for many of us to follow. But the important point about this is that the whole purpose of this vow is that we are trying to rid ourselves of disturbing emotions. We’re trying to, therefore, minimize being under the influence of a disturbing emotion. 

Now, in the case of sexual behavior, the most usual disturbing emotion is desire. We saw there are two forms of this depending upon which abhidharma we follow. One is longing desire, which is the wish to have something that we don’t have. The other one from Abhidharmasamucchaya is attachment, which is to not let go of something that we do have. We need to include both of these. It’s based on an exaggeration of the good qualities of something. You exaggerate — you know, that “This is the most fantastic thing!” or whatever — and then “I have got to get it!” if I don’t have it, and if I do have it “I don’t want to let go of it!” This is what we’re trying to minimize here. There are also examples of sexual behavior, contrary sexual behavior, that is brought on by anger and hostility, like when you go and rape the women of your enemy, for example. And there is also sexual behavior that can be motivated by naivety (for instance, thinking that having the most perfect orgasm is going to be the path to liberation). All of these are destructive. 

Now, regardless of what the causal motivation might be (these three that we just discussed are the causal motivation, what would bring you into the action), the contemporaneous motivation — in other words, the actual disturbing emotion which would be there contemporaneous with the action (the exact moment before you start, and during the thing, and what brings it to its conclusion) — is going to be desire. Desire is going to be involved; otherwise you wouldn’t indulge in the actual sexual act. Regardless of why you would want to get into the act, desire is going to take over during the thing. 

I discussed this quite a lot with many different Geshes. And one of the most learned Geshes is Geshe Wangchen, who is the tutor, the teacher, of the reincarnation of Ling Rinpoche (the senior tutor of His Holiness). He’s very, very learned, and very qualified, an elderly Geshe. I asked, in terms of this… You know, there are what are called naturally proscribed (rang-bzhin kha-na ma-tho-ba, naturally uncommendable) and proscribed by custom (bcas-pa’i kha-na ma-tho-ba, prohibited uncommendable) things. I forget the exact way in which I translate that. But there are certain things which by nature are destructive. Then there are other things which Buddha said for certain people in certain situations at certain times, “This is detrimental.” 

For instance, eating after noon. You eat after noon. In general, that’s not a destructive action, but it’s harmful for monks and nuns. I mean, he proscribed it for monks and nuns. But obviously even if we’re not a monk or a nun, it’s harmful if we are engaging in intensive meditation, because it will cloud your mind; you become heavy if you eat at night. If we want to have clear meditation in the evening and the early morning, you don’t eat after noon. This is proscribed for specific type of people. 

I asked in terms of these different forms of contrary sexual behavior, is it naturally proscribed or is it this other category? And Geshe Wangchen said that they are naturally proscribed. All forms of sexual behavior, he said, are naturally proscribed, whether or not we’ve taken lay vows to give it up. In other words, my question was “Is it only harmful for those who have taken a vow not to indulge in this? Or is it harmful in general, for everybody?” He said all sexual behavior is destructive. Now the question is, why? The reason for it is because it strengthens your desire; it reinforces desire. If you want liberation, you want to get liberated from desire (which means liberated from rebirth, on a deeper level). Liberated from biology, liberated from being under the control of biological impulses. This is something which is really very, very radical from any point of view of our ordinary Western way of thinking. Why do we want to become liberated from desire and attachment? It’s because they cause us suffering and reaffirm and strengthen our whole situation of samsaric rebirth. OK. Now, if that’s the case, then ultimately, we have to give up all sexual behavior in order to gain liberation and gain enlightenment, whether we are monastics or we’re lay people. This is clear. 

Now, in tantra, where you work with desire, that’s only as a method to get a certain state of mind which will be conducive — a certain mental feeling, a mental state of mind that will be conducive for getting the energy-winds into the central channel. It has nothing to do with ordinary sex. That’s something else. 

With taking the lay vows, there can be two versions of these lay vows concerning contrary sexual behavior. One is total celibacy, like a monk or a nun. The other is limited sexual behavior. That’s the whole point of the description of this vow, or the description of contrary sexual behavior in the list of ten destructive actions — how do we limit our sexual behavior so that we limit the amount of reinforcement of desire? That’s what it’s all about. It’s not about sex being dirty, it’s not about certain forms of sex being perverted, or anything like that. It’s how to minimize being under the control of longing desire and attachment. Fine. If we are interested in that, if we’re interested in liberation, we would be interested in somehow at least minimizing or limiting our attachment and desire and not just letting go and letting it go in any direction whatsoever. OK. There has to be the proper understanding of why you would want to limit your sexual behavior. 

Given the fact that there are many, many different types of sexual behavior (and different objects, and times, and things like that) then obviously some will have heavier karmic results than others, depending on not only the standard factors that affect the heaviness of karma, in terms of frequency and these sort of things — having sex with a monk or a nun as opposed to having sex with someone who doesn’t have vows of celibacy... I mean, these sorts of things. There are the regular standard factors, but also the heaviness will depend also on the degree to which the type of sexual behavior will cause our desire and attachment to increase. This is also very, very important. 

As Geshe Wangchen pointed out, all of these are intended to make us think, to reconsider our sexual behavior. Are there certain aspects of our sexual behavior that cause our desire and attachment to get stronger and stronger and stronger? There may be other forms which don’t, or which do it to a lesser extent. These are things to think about. 

Also, cultural attitudes and societal laws undoubtedly also affect the heaviness of the karma. That we have to take into consideration as well. In some societies they have… for instance, in ancient China you had concubines, and so there was wife number one, wife number two, wife number three, this type of thing. Tibet also: in many families you had either multiple wives or multiple husbands. In the West that would not be appropriate. Certain things have to be taken into consideration in terms of culture, but the main thing is to become aware of the degree of desire and attachment we have in our sexual behavior. OK. Is that clear? 

Now, I asked as well: “Well, if there are minor forms of contrary sexual behavior, what’s the point of mentioning all of those?” As you look at the development of the commentarial literature about contrary sexual behavior, then you find more and more things get added to the list, and so one wonders “Is it just added because of cultural interactions? Is it added because of… who knows what? Why are things added?” The analogy that Geshe Wangchen used, which I thought was very good, is one of... he said it’s like putting a fence around an orchard of fruit trees at a considerable distance away from where the grove of trees actually begins. He said, “By setting the boundaries of what you need to be careful about at a considerable distance from what’s the most important things to avoid, then the great masters are helping us to become more aware of our conduct and the motivating emotions driving it.” Obviously, the fence could be erected at a much further distance to include other type of things, or the type of trees that are in the center could be slightly different, if we play with this analogy. Do you follow the analogy? The point is to make you really think about your sexual behavior. The most important things to avoid, like rape and so on — OK, that’s the grove of trees in the center. But more minor things also are included within that fence so that we think about it, not just give unbridled liberty to sexual desire and attachment. 

When we speak about any of these karmic actions, you have to have the basis, and the motivation, and the action involved, and the finale — all these things. Here, in terms of the analysis, what is given in the texts are different ways in which things could be contrary: contrary in terms of the person, the manner, the place, or the time. Now this word contrary (log-pa) is a really a difficult word, and it’s a difficult word to translate, and I’ve changed my way of translating it many times: the latest one is contrary. Contrary means… there’s one way, and contrary means different from that one way, basically. It’s the same word that people translate as “distorted,” but to call this distorted sexual behavior — that’s pretty strange, that’s pretty weird.

Participant: It invites the word perversion.

Dr. Berzin: It invites the word perversion, that’s not so good. What are other ways in which people translate this? Inappropriate sexual behavior. Incorrect sexual behavior. What are other ways that these are translated? Anyway, all of them give some heavy connotation, and I don’t think that’s really what is intended here. I think that the main point here is that if you’re going to have sexual behavior, that basically there be just one partner, one way, and that’s it, and you don’t want to deviate from that. I mean, we’re not talking about deviant — that’s also perverse sexual behavior — but not to... You know, you don’t have to be a sexual tourist and shopping around and trying many things and many partners and many different positions and many… all this sort of thing. Because that increases your desire. That is allowing your desire to take over. In other words, you’re not satisfied with what you have and so there has to be more — there has to be other things, and variety, and so on. Why would you want variety? If you have some sort of sexual conduct that you’re engaging in, why would you want something else? Basically, because you want more pleasure — you’re not getting as much pleasure — that’s desire, isn’t it? That’s the whole point behind this. 

If you’re not ready to take this kind of vow, don’t take it. Nobody says you have to take it. Also, as I explain — and Geshe Wangchen said this as well, and Geshe Tenzin Zangpo as well (that’s Serkong Rinpoche’s teacher) — that if you take the vow, you take the vow, which is the whole vow, which are all the aspects of it. You can’t just take the parts that you want and leave out the others. If you take the vow, it’s with the full intention to keep the whole thing. If you don’t take the vow but you keep a lot of what’s in the vow, then that’s still something which is very positive. You’re making the decision to “OK, I’m not going to rape and I’m not going to…” this sort of thing. But it’s not the actual vow. 

Within the discussion of vows, there are three categories: 

• There’s a vow, which is to engage in something positive. 
• There is something which I have no idea how to translate properly, something like an “anti-vow,” which is to vow to engage in something destructive. Like when you go into the army and “I vow that I’m going to kill the enemy,” and this sort of thing. 
• And then there is something which is in between, which is neither. In the sense that it’s doing something positive with intention, like a promise to do something constructive, but it’s not the same as a Buddhist vow. 

That’s the category. It would be in this in-between category. That’s fine. The point is: if you’re going to take something, have the full intention to keep it. 

Now, contrary person. All of this is speaking from the point of view, by the way, of a heterosexual male who probably is getting married at the age of 10 or something like that, before puberty, which was the case in India at the time when all of this was formulated. I mean, you have to see it within that cultural context. The first question is: Well, does that mean that women don’t have a vow? That of course is absurd to say, that women don’t have vows, and so it would have to be changed. Similarly, I would argue, in terms of dependent arising and everything being relative to other situations, that you would have to adjust — not adjust, but make other categories. You know, like what are the grove of trees in the center that we want to protect. You’d have to have one for men, you’d have to have one for women, you would have to probably have one for those who are unmarried (not married). 

It’s interesting. I mean, now you get a big question: What about homosexuality? That’s a very, very difficult question. Because why is there this emphasis on heterosexuality? From one Thai master, a prominent Thai master that I discussed this with, he said, “Well, come on. If you’re going to indulge in sexuality, what are the motivations that you would have in order to engage in sexuality? Either it is totally for desire, or it is for reproduction. For reproduction, that’s heterosexual.” From a Western point of view we would say, “Sexuality is an expression of love and so on. We want to make the other person happy.” What do you want to do? You want to increase the desire of the other person, in terms of making them happy, increase their attachment. That doesn’t work very well from a Buddhist point of view, does it? As an expression of love? If you analyze this from a Buddhist point of view: if you love the other person, you want them to be happy; if you want them to be happy, you would help them to gain liberation. This becomes very difficult to argue. 

Participant: If you can’t apply this medicine right away, you…

Dr. Berzin: Right. You can’t apply this medicine right away, that’s true. But what we’re analyzing here is why is there the emphasis on heterosexuality. The reason for that, according to this Thai master, was because of the whole idea of reproduction, that “OK. Well, we need reproduction,” etc., etc., and so that’s why it is explained from that point of view. 

I bring all of this up because we have contrary person — what type of person is contrary to, let’s say, that one, single person that one has sex with? 

First of all, it’s someone else’s partner (that’s adultery), or someone who’s unwilling, or someone whose parents, guardians, and so forth would not allow it and would be very upset if they knew. Then they also have with a child, and they have anybody with vows of celibacy. There are other categories here: it says also someone of our own sex (so that’s homosexuality), a eunuch (someone with no sex), an animal, or ourselves (that’s masturbation).

We need to analyze all of this. What is this saying? I think (now this is my interpretation of it, because you don’t usually get interpretations of this) that if you have a partner, a heterosexual partner, and you’re in a heterosexual relationship, then to have sex not in that form, something contrary to that — which would include sex with yourself as the object (that’s masturbation), or somebody of your own sex, or an animal, or somebody else’s partner — that would be destructive. Why would you want to do that? The only reason would be for desire, to follow out desire, or attachment. 

An interesting question comes in terms of… Well, two interesting questions. One is: Who’s not included in this? Who’s not included in this is a prostitute. Now, what is included is a prostitute that you haven’t paid for, using somebody else’s prostitute that you haven’t paid for. Then you ask, “Well, does that mean that a married person — it’s OK, it’s not destructive for them to have sex with a prostitute?” I don’t think that that is the conclusion to draw from this. I think that what this means is if you are not married and if your form of sexuality is to go to a prostitute, then you better be sure that you pay for the prostitute and you don’t use somebody else’s prostitute. I don’t think it is giving free license to someone who is married to go to a prostitute. That’s my interpretation. Otherwise, the thing makes absolutely no sense in terms of the general theory behind it, that you don’t want to increase your desire. 

Participant: A prostitute doesn’t increase desire?

Dr. Berzin: No, what we’re talking about is that all forms of sex increase desire, but if you have one form, you don’t do something which is contrary to that. If you’re not married, what are you going to do? That’s the same thing that I would argue masturbation. If your form of sexuality is to have sex with yourself, as in, let’s say, a teenager, a young teenager, then that’s the form; you don’t do something contrary to that. Now, maybe you change later in life, and you don’t have a partner. That’s something else. But I think the point is: minimize. That, I think, is the point.

Participant: What came to my mind is the argument of reproduction. In our times, especially in the West, a lot of relationships are not aiming for reproduction. That’s quite different to former times.

Dr. Berzin: That’s very true. In our times, a lot of relations are not aimed for reproduction. That’s why... But when I brought up reproduction, I brought that up in the sense of: why is there such an emphasis on heterosexuality? Because the question is, of course…. because you could say, “Well, as long as you have one form, that’s OK.” Now, what’s included in these lists is having sex with your mother or your father or a child or an animal. If that’s your only way of having sex, your one way is to have sex with a three-year-old or with a sheep, then is that OK? I don’t think that it is. Then if that’s the case, that in all situations that would be contrary to... Well, contrary to what? For a child, it would be... You see, that becomes very difficult, because if you look at the list, there’s twenty types of women who are inappropriate to have sex with. It goes through the whole list. And these would include those who are guarded by their parents. What happens when you have, like you do in Southeast Asia, that the parents sell the eight-year-old girl into prostitution in order to get the money (so the girl has the permission of the parents)?

Here I think you have to bring in societal and cultural type of things. I don’t think that it would be... That’s hard to say. Is there an absolute thing, that this is inappropriate? I don’t really know. I mean, in our society, certainly, having sex with a child or having sex with your parents would be inappropriate in all cases. Then the question comes in: Is that the case for homosexuality and for masturbation? Is that in the same category as the animal or a child or your parents? That’s very difficult to say. That’s very difficult to say. Certainly, in terms of our own society and culture, that’s not at all as heavy as having sex with an animal or with your mother or a child, that’s for sure. 

Again, the things here are dealing with degrees of desire. To have sex with somebody of your own gender certainly is not aimed for reproduction. That has to be taken into consideration. Many people will enter into a heterosexual relationship without having any intention of reproduction as well. I don’t think that it is beneficial to get into a legalistic analysis of what’s heavier, what’s not heavier, what are you going to go to jail for, or stuff like that — we’re really going to go to hell for it — that’s not the point. The point really, as Geshe Wangchen emphasized, is to really become aware of the emotional state and motivation that you have in your sexual behavior. If you’re not ready to really aim for… not aim for, but if you are going in the direction of liberation, which is after all what we’re doing as Buddhists in terms of refuge and so on — we’re aiming at least for liberation if not for enlightenment — then we take steps to go in that direction and not just leave sexual behavior out of what we’re working on. I think that’s the important point here. If you’re going to take the vow, it’s the whole package. 

Is there a vow for women? Yes, there has to be a vow for women as well. Is there a vow for homosexuals? Is there a vow for unmarried people? I think you’d have to argue yes. You certainly have to argue yes in terms of women, in which instead of not having sex with somebody else’s woman, you don’t have sex with somebody else’s man. But what’s the case with homosexuals? What’s the case with those who are unmarried and who only masturbate? This is a very shady area. It’s not clear at all.

Participant: I think the point of these questions is also interesting from a cultural background. I don’t know if you’ve ever talked to someone of Islamic background living in Africa. It was very normal for everybody to go to prostitutes, but it’s inappropriate or not allowed to masturbate if you are not married, and all these things. But this was very normal.

Participant: It was totally common. Everybody talks about it like it was just going shopping.

Dr. Berzin: Right. This is a very good point that she makes. In certain cultures, and she’s referring to African Islamic culture — that there it is considered inappropriate to masturbate, and certainly homosexuality as well is not allowed by Islamic law, but everybody goes to a prostitute, and it’s the most common thing, and people talk about it as if you were going shopping. I think this is true also in these ancient cultures in which Buddhism arose, that that also is the case. That’s why I’m saying there are certain cultural aspects that are there. 

Then the question is: Do we change the vow a little bit? How do you deal with that in terms of our culture? And so on. This is very dangerous ground, because you can’t really change vows. This is what the vow is. But they expanded the vow, in terms of adding more and more and more things. Then you have the whole argument: Was it Buddha’s intention, implicit in the vow, and just was not spelled out? Or was it something that was added? Can things be left out and can other things be added in? These are very, very difficult things to answer. I think that, personally — I mean, this is my own understanding — that it’s safer… if you have questions about it, it’s safer not to take the vow and to limit your sexual activity according to what you’re able to limit it to. It’s in that category of in between not a vow and not an anti-vow. That’s fine. That’s enough. Why do you want to... Do you want to have a badge that says you have five stars here? “I have the five vows rather than the four vows!” What is the motivation? The motivation needs to be to start to limit my acting out every impulse of desire and attachment that comes to my mind. That’s my motivation. I will limit it to the extent that I’m able to limit it. If it goes to the extent of what’s actually written in the text for the vows, then it’s a vow. If it’s a little bit less than that, then it’s this other category. Fine, what’s the problem? That’s my own way of understanding it, but obviously other people will speak differently. 

Participant: When we are taking this vow, it’s extremely clear what the final objective is. You’re trying to work with your mind, trying to work toward that direction.

Dr. Berzin: That’s exactly it. You understand it’s a vow for individual liberation. The name of it, pratimoksha, means something. You know the direction that you want to go in — that is the direction of refuge, after all — and so you keep that in mind and let it extend to all aspects of your life, including your sexuality. Then you work with whatever capacity that you’re able to do, but always trying to go a little, little bit further. It’s like learning to... Like I used to explain to you: When I was translating for Serkong Rinpoche, I’d reach a point where I was completely tired and, you know, “Please, I can’t go on.” Rinpoche always said, “You can always do five minutes more. No matter what, you can always do five minutes more.” That’s true. Push toward liberation. I mean, that’s what Buddhism is all about.

Participant: I have another point about the case with prostitutes. I don’t know if there is any consideration in the discussion. I believe that many prostitutes are definitely not there because they want to be there, but because of certain conditions, economic conditions, lack of education, whatever, they end up in that. Possibly for everyone, all of the prostitutes. There is another aspect there, which is a moral issue, in the sense that if you go and make use of the services of a prostitute, you are using a person who is not willingly doing that, although legally she’s not saying she doesn’t want to, or whatever, but it’s not from her own free accord that she’s doing that. You’re also somehow ultimately forcing that person into that situation, or at least you’re definitely not helping her out. So that would be also another issue, not having to do with my desires or my attachments but with the consequences of what I’m doing to another person.

Dr. Berzin: Right. Exactly. What you point out is also taken care of in the further details about this vow. What he’s pointing out (if that didn’t get on the recording) is that there are many prostitutes who are forced into prostitution — it’s against their will and so on, or they are uneducated and this is the only thing they can do — which is also another category of they don’t really want to but they’re forced by economic circumstances and so on, and you reinforce that if you have sex with such a person. Yes. I mean, this is in the category of those who are inappropriate. Those who are inappropriate are those who are forced into having sex or unwilling to have sex. That’s included here. That’s included here. But, as I say, I don’t think that this is giving you license to, if you’re married, to have sex with a prostitute. I think that’s not a correct understanding of the vow. 

Participant: But this is kind of like a category of eating meat, like the effects that this causes in society and so on. Buddhism doesn’t seem to care so much about things that are not karmic.

Dr. Berzin: Jorge is bringing up the point that if you look at what Christian just said, in terms of we are reinforcing the system by making use of prostitutes who are forced into prostitution, that this is similar to eating meat when we’re not killing it: we’re not actually forcing the person ourselves to go into prostitution. But I think you’re... That’s beside the point. That’s not really the analogy here. The analogy is that the case that Christian is mentioning is another one in the list of the categories of inappropriate partners, contrary partners. It’s someone being forced. 

Participant: Then you’re saying that basically every prostitute either directly or indirectly is forced.

Dr. Berzin: Well, no. I wouldn’t say that every prostitute is directly or indirectly forced. I don’t know if you’re saying that, but there are some who want to do that. 

Participant: I would go to the point of thinking that possibly most, if not all, of the people who enter prostitution are forced or induced by some sort of circumstance.

Dr. Berzin: I don’t think so, that some... She’s saying that all prostitutes are forced into it by some circumstance. No, I think there are some — in other words, nymphomaniacs — those who just absolutely love sex, and love the money that comes from it, and do it because they like it. Are we then acting as a circumstance for them to increase their desire and attachment? Well, I suppose you could argue that. But I don’t think it’s very beneficial to… 

I mean, obviously you have vinaya scholars and you have people who debate all of these vinaya points. Personally, I think that all of this should not fall down to a legal argument and “Are there loopholes that I can get around in the laws?” as it were. Buddhism is not a system of laws like you have in, certainly in Judaism and in Islam. I don’t know about in Christianity, but in those two religions the law is something which is very, very important. I don’t think that that is helpful here. But it’s interesting that in Chinese they translate the word Dharma (fa) with the same word as the word for law. How it’s understood in a Chinese context…

Participant:  Then you have the laws of nature.

Dr. Berzin: Well, you have laws of nature and so on. Anyway, enough. 

Participant: What about the point that sexuality has more to do with hormones? If you take the antihormone, you can reduce your sexuality.

Dr. Berzin: What he’s saying is that sexual drive is, to a great extent, driven by hormones, and so couldn’t you just take a pill to reduce the hormone level in the body to control your sexuality? Well, obviously you could, but that’s not really training your mind to overcome the disturbing emotion. It’s like going to sleep, in a sense. That’s not really solving the problem. I mean, there are pills that you could take for increasing your concentration, for all sorts of things. But that’s not what we’re aiming for. I mean, that’s not going to get you liberation. That’s going to get you dependency.

Participant: I understand the point with the in-between vow, that there are still teachers who give some vows in a reduced way. I think they are proper teachers — they also have their own teachers and so on — so they must have a certain basis for this attitude.

Dr. Berzin: Right. This is a very good point. She points out that there are some teachers who give the vows in a reduced manner, and these are very valid teachers, and they have studied with valid teachers and so on. I was discussing this with a follower of Thich Nhat Hanh. Thich Nhat Hanh interprets this aspect here, of contrary sexual behavior, as not to have sex with... well, there’s too many negatives in that. If you’re going to have sex with somebody, it should be with somebody that you would be willing to spend the rest of your life with. If you’re not willing to spend the rest of your life with this person, don’t have sex with them. When I discussed this further with the person, they said that “Yes, but Thich Nhat Hanh doesn’t say that that is the Buddhist lay vow.” They give this as a so-called precept, but they don’t say that this is the meaning in the text when it gives this vow. It’s a preliminary type of thing, a sort of a Dharma-lite version, if we can use that idiom. Helpful, very, very helpful, but it’s not the Real Thing vow. 

This is what I always emphasize, that there are other versions of it, which are fine. Nothing wrong with it. But don’t throw away what the Buddha said is the vow and say that this lighter version is the actual vow and that the full vow, the way it is in the text, is useless or impossible or whatever — that’s what’s called abandoning the Dharma, throwing away the Dharma — because basically “I don’t like it.” When it comes down to it, the bottom line is “I reject this because I don’t like it. I don’t want to do that.” That’s one of the... I forget if it’s a bodhisattva vow or a tantric vow, which is you want to avoid saying that certain things that are in the text are not the words of the Buddha. It’s in a bodhisattva vow. 

The further details here about the sexuality business is there are unwise manners, places, and times, and these pertain even to our own partner. 

We have a contrary part of the body. That’s anything other than the womb. the mouth, the anus, between the legs, your hand. Or by a contrary action, such as with beating the person. 

Again, which ones are... If you are a paraplegic or something like that, and you don’t have use of great parts of the body, does that mean that you can’t have any type of sexual thing? I mean, these are these areas that become very difficult. You would say, “OK. Well, one form.” But then beating the person? Does that mean that that’s OK in some cases, if that’s the way that you do it? I don’t think it is, because that is actually hurting the other person, a sadomasochistic type of thing. These are the areas that are difficult. 

The improper location: Near a lama, a stupa, where you can be seen by many people.

Question: What is many?

Dr. Berzin: Well, by anybody. You know, you don’t put on an act. That’s, I think, the main reason why it’s an inappropriate time during the day, because other people can walk in, this sort of thing. What about somebody who works all night, and they can only have sex during the day? I mean, these are these situations that are awkward here. 

But improper location: Also by a big Buddha statue, or in a room with a bodhisattva or an abbot or your teachers or your parents. Or places which are harmful to the body, like an uneven or hard or wet ground, this type of thing. 

Improper time: When somebody doesn’t want intercourse (when they’re being forced), or when the person is filled with physical suffering or mental suffering, or menstruating, or a pregnant woman at the end of term or when she has an infant who is nursing. 

You ask, “What about these people who nurse a baby for two or three years in Asia?” Again, what does that actually mean? I don’t know. I think the point is that, in an Asian context, the baby always sleeps with the mother. Baby never sleeps in a crib by itself, especially not in another room. With the baby right there, are you on top of the woman, having sex with her? I mean, these sorts of things are awkward. That’s why it seems as though, as I say, it is emphasizing reproduction, basically. 

Then: Someone who has one-day vows, someone who has a sickness making them improper for intercourse (that would be, for instance, nowadays, AIDS), and beyond measure (which means more than five times in a row). 

Four times in a row is OK and five times not? I mean, that’s another area that becomes very, very difficult to understand, why they placed the limit at five. One of my friends came up with an interesting interpretation of this. He said that a lot of the audiences were kings, and kings have a harem, they have many wives, so you don’t want to suggest that they can’t really take care of all these wives, and so you set something like that. Well, it doesn’t mean that anybody… it’s to show respect to the king, that the king is capable of doing it more than four times. I think there’s hardly anybody who can do it four times, five times, more than five times in a row, at least the men. That would be quite difficult, regardless of how young you are. 

In the original text it says, “when visible.” Atisha takes it to mean during the day, and Vasubandhu takes it to mean out of doors (outside, where anybody can see you). The point is when it’s visible, so you don’t want people to walk in on you (and people didn’t lock doors). 

Then we have the factors. There has to be a basis there to actually engage in this sexual action. Realize that this is something inappropriate or contrary, to intend to engage with this person in the sexual act. Disturbing emotion. If it is intercourse, the action would be the meeting of the two organs. The act reaches its completion when we experience the bliss of orgasm. 

This is the discussion of contrary sexual behaviors. As I say, this is a very difficult topic, a very touchy topic, particularly for Westerners. Westerners are always objecting to this, but I think we have to look at it a little bit more objectively in terms of what’s the intention of this vow. OK? Any questions about it or further discussion? Good.

Last one is taking intoxicants. The actual way in which it is phrased is in terms of several different types of alcohol. But it is interpreted by others, particularly in modern Thai and Sri Lankan commentaries, as including marijuana, opium, heroin, psychedelics, etc. That becomes, of course, a controversial thing — you know, where do you draw the line in terms of, well, sleeping pills or tranquilizers?

Participant: Antidepressants.

Dr. Berzin: Antidepressants. Where do you draw the line? Then we have to look at... 

Participant: Coffee.

Dr. Berzin: Coffee. Exactly. You can become addicted to coffee. Coffee is certainly a drug. 

The way in which it is described in the texts is… I mean, first of all, Buddha explicitly said that “Anyone who calls me his or her teacher should not drink even a drop of alcohol.” Buddha was very, very strict about this. With other types of negative things, there are certain exceptions to it where it’s OK, but Buddha didn’t really make exceptions with alcohol or intoxicants, and one has to analyze why. 

The point here: the basis would be various types of substances that would cause one to become intoxicated and have a state of mind of not caring, so that you commit a destructive action. In other words, you lose mindfulness, and you don’t care. Mindfulness is to hold on to constructive behavior. You lose that mindfulness, and then you don’t care what the results are of what you say or what you do, and because of that, you lose the meaning of the Dharma and you will ill-treat others. Even the Buddha you might ill-treat. It’s not a matter of saying that “I’ll only have one drink, because I don’t lose self-control with one drink, then I will not get drunk.” Because where do you draw the line — different circumstances, different situations — and who are you kidding?

Participant: There’s this nice story with the monk, you know?

Dr. Berzin: The story of the monk that, given the choice of drinking alcohol, killing a sheep, or having sex with someone, that the monk said, “Well, I’ll drink alcohol. That’s the least of them.” And having drunk alcohol, then killed the sheep and had sex. Anyway… 

This is very clear here, that one has to distinguish the substance, there has to be the intention to drink it or consume it — so you make the choice “I’m going to swallow it” or smoke it or snort it or inject it or whatever — and the action is actually taking it, and the finale is the substance is absorbed into your body. 

The texts say that alcohol is like dog’s urine: don’t drink it yourself or give it to others to drink. This is pretty strict. Pretty heavy here. If you look at the vinaya, there it says that novices — these are novice monks or nuns — are not permitted to drink even the amount on the tip of a kusha grass. When you have the tsog (tshogs) offering, you just stick your finger in and symbolically taste it. But there you could say, “What’s going on here?” But in that situation, it’s transformed, supposedly, if you have that. It represents transforming the aggregates and the elements and the winds, and so on, in the body into a basis for experiencing the type of blissful awareness that would bring the winds into the central channel. That doesn’t mean that you can drink a whole bottle of vodka at the tsog. But still, it would only be a drop. 

In the vinaya texts, you can’t eat even the grain that has been used for making the alcoholic drink or sleep on it (straw or stuff like that). They get really very strict. But also, it says that one is allowed to add alcohol to a medicine if it’s necessary, but it has to be in very, very small amounts. If it’s more than that limit, it can’t be drunk; it would have to be used as an ointment. 

This would be the case, let’s say, with homeopathic medicine that has some alcohol in it. But this only if it’s absolutely necessary. Then that raises the question: What about for heart disease? They say that having a glass of wine… for medicinal purposes, wine is beneficial. That I don’t know. I think that is exceeding what would be a limited amount here, according to the texts. I don’t think that that really would fit in here with the vow. 

Participant: What about wine extracts? 

Dr. Berzin: Wine extracts. You could take the extract, so you say, “What about wine sauces that are made? In food. If it’s cooked, it loses its intoxicating ability.” Again, I think if one wanted to be very strict, that would not be within the domain of this vow. That’s why I would say — I’ll get to your question in a moment — that if in doubt, don’t take the vow. If you’re going to follow a regime of just “I’ll have a social drink, but I won’t let myself go to the point of getting intoxicated,” very good. Then that’s this in-between vow category.

Participant: I just remember a disciple who did the preliminaries, and he got lung (rlung) quite strongly, then their teacher told him to have a beer in the evening. I just was asking myself. At that time, I don’t know if they had this vow or not. I don’t know if they took the vow before or not. But it’s also an interesting thing.

Dr. Berzin: Right. He gives the example of somebody who was doing the preliminary practices and got very bad lung, a disturbance of the winds or energies in the body, and their Buddhist teacher told them to have a beer at night. There are many teachers that say different things. Again, what I’m explaining here is the hard line, what’s actually in the text. You can look at the Japanese. The Japanese basically said, “Well, these vows and all these things are not appropriate for us Japanese and not appropriate for our times,” and so the monks drink sake and so on. They even have these married priests and do away with monasticism.

 Participant: Tibet also?

Dr. Berzin: Tibet also? No, they don’t call themselves monks or such. No, they’re not monks. Some of them wear robes who are married, but if you look carefully, the ones who are doing things properly don’t wear exactly the same robes. The way it’s folded on the side and so on — it’s different. If they actually wear the robes exactly the way that a monk does, then that is totally, totally inappropriate. The way the bottom of the robes is folded is very, very special, very complicated, with many different folds in different directions and so on. That they would not wear, not in that manner. 

Again, there are different interpretations. But I personally am rather hardline when it comes to the Dharma — this whole distinction that I make between Dharma-lite and the Real Thing Dharma. But the lighter version is perfectly OK, but don’t sacrifice the hardline version of it and say, “That’s ridiculous!” or “That’s not really what Buddha meant.” 

OK. Anything else? These are the vows of a lay person. 

Now, Tsongkhapa goes on to say that:

And especially when we enter secret mantra, 

That’s a general way of referring to Tantrayana.

then, as previously explained, since bodhichitta is the ultimate essential point for all the Mahayana pathway minds, it is very important for that to be firm (with the bodhisattva vows).

That brings us to the bodhisattva vows. This I want to ask you: Do you want to go through the bodhisattva vows? I’m perfectly happy to go through them with you. There are the primary vows and then the secondary vows, so we can do just the primary ones (the root vows), or we could do all secondary ones as well. There are 18 root vows and 46 secondary bodhisattva vows. If we launch into this, this is going to take a few weeks, quite a few weeks, to get through. I’m happy to do that if you would like to do that. We have done that once before, but that was many years ago and probably hardly any of you were here for that. 

 Participant: Do any of us have the bodhisattva vows?

Dr. Berzin: Whether you have the bodhisattva vows or not, it is appropriate to study them without taking them as well. The monks’ vows and nuns’ vows — in theory, you’re not supposed to have studied them before you take them, and the same thing with the tantric vows. In other words, you have to be willing to follow anything. That’s a little bit difficult, and nowadays it’s certainly not the case, because all of these are published and readily available in many books and on the internet. That’s gone, in terms of not knowing them. 

But anyway, the bodhisattva vows there isn’t that restriction on. Shall we do that? 

Participant: Yes. The whole bunch.

Dr. Berzin: OK. The whole bunch. Fine. Good. Then we’ll start that next time. There’s no point starting it now; we only have a few minutes left of the class. Why don’t we end here — I’ll end the recording — and then we can spend the last few minutes just analyzing and thinking about our sexual behavior and the relationship between that and disturbing emotions. What actually is behind our sexual behavior? Are we really considering including our sexual behavior in our Dharma practice, in terms of… not that committing a sexual act is a Dharmic act, but rather working to limit our longing desire and attachment and just acting out any impulsive desire that comes to our mind like a street dog? I think that’s worthwhile to examine, what really is behind our sexual activity. OK? 

We’ll end, then, just for our recording, with a dedication (we’ll have another dedication after the meditation). Whatever positive force and understanding has come from this, let it act as a cause for reaching enlightenment for the benefit of all.