LPA17: Root Bodhisattva Vows One to Six

Tsongkhapa begins by saying what the wonderful, excellent basis that we have, the working basis for practice — we need to appreciate that. We’ve met with the teachings. We have spiritual masters and teachers. We have the power of mind to discern between what to practice, what to give up. 

With that basis, we need to engage ourselves in the teachings. For that, we have to rely on guidance of a teacher who knows what the actual states of mind are (or pathways of mind) that we need to develop and what are not, and who doesn’t add anything unnecessary or leave out anything that is necessary, and who knows the proper order of them and how to apply them to each of us. That teacher has to have gained certainty about all of this from having been led through this course of training by a qualified teacher himself or herself. And that way of study has to accord with the teachings of the Buddha, the textual teachings. 

As for the main way to begin our practice, we have to tame our mind. For doing that, we need to work on our motivating mental framework. In other words, what are we intending to achieve and why? What is the emotional basis for that? The main structure that Tsongkhapa always follows is that of the graded course of development, the lam-rim. For that, on the initial level, we work to improve future lives, seeing that our mental continuum has no beginning and no end. Then, on the intermediate level, we work to attain liberation from the uncontrollably recurring rebirth that perpetuates this cycle of suffering with which our existence is characterized. We see that the nature of the mind is free from the unawareness and the disturbing emotions and the karmic imprints that come from all of that. Then, thinking of others, we need to achieve enlightenment in order to be able to benefit others the best. In other words, we need to achieve the state of omniscience, in which the mind is completely free of all limitations. And that also we can gain certainty about by understanding the pure nature of the mind. 

We need to build up these motivating mental frameworks in an uncontrived manner. To do that, we need to know how to do that. In other words, we need to know how to meditate. To meditate means to build up something as a beneficial habit. We have to know the causes for whatever state of mind we’re trying to achieve, various aspects or details of it. And in between sessions support our understanding by looking at the various texts of the Buddha that deal with the subject. We need to build up positive force, cleanse negative force. We have to know what is detrimental, what’s beneficial for each of these states of mind. We have to know the focal object, the way of taking it to mind, and so on. 

For example, when we were speaking about concentration on the breath, then we have to know what the causes are for being able to achieve that. That would be having mindfulness and alertness. Mindfulness is the mental glue to stay on the topic (here, the breath), and we need to have alertness to discern when the attention is wandering away and to bring that attention back. 

What will support that is having a conducive environment, having all the teachings, not having any doubts about the teachings or about the methods, and so on. What would be detrimental to that would be having a lot of distractions, a lot of busywork. In other words, having our computer on all the time with the email constantly coming in and so on. These would be detrimental to gaining that single-pointed focus of mind. 

We would need to know what object to focus on for gaining concentration. For instance, it might be the breath. We know how the mind needs to take that (not too tightly, not too loosely, without squeezing too hard, but without being too relaxed). We have to know what the right measure is for how the mind focuses on the object, and all the aspects of it (all the stages that we would progress through in order to gain perfect concentration, and so on). 

What is the use of gaining the concentration? What is the application? The application would be for being able to focus on any other positive state of mind that we want to generate, either focusing on a state of mind of love and compassion or focusing on the understanding of reality and so on. 

All these things, if we know them, will allow us then to proceed with our meditation with confidence. That’s very important, Tsongkhapa says, to have confidence in what we’re doing. And to also know the progression of how we build one state of mind on the next. In terms of concentration, to know that we focus just for a minute or so, and then a few minutes, and as we are able to gain more concentration then we extend the amount of time that we concentrate or try to concentrate.

All these things are very important. Specifically in terms of the motivation (and this goes for concentration as well), that we need to have these not only at the beginning of the meditation… (That’s why we always start our classes, and meditation as well, with the conscious decision to concentrate: if the attention wanders, we’ll try to bring it back; if we get sleepy, we try to wake ourselves up.) We need to maintain all of this continuously throughout our session, which means being mindful of it, remembering what we want to do (the mental glue). At the end, to have a dedication. 

Then Tsongkhapa goes on to say: if we want to then practice the two stages of tantra, then we need to know that the foundation — or the doorway he refers to it — for entering any of the Buddhist vehicles of mind (the various types of training that will act as a vehicle to bring us to our goal), that the basis for that is our ethical discipline of keeping the specific set of vows particular to that vehicle. These vows are cumulative. In other words, we start with the vows for individual liberation (those are pratimoksha vows, either lay or monastic), and then on top of that the bodhichitta vows — bodhisattva vows, I should say — and then, if we’re practicing one of the two higher classes of the four classes of tantra, the tantra vows. 

We then went into our discussion of the vows. We spoke first of the vows for individual liberation, specifically the lay vows of not to kill (not to take the life of others), not to take what is not given, not to speak or indicate what is untrue, to avoid what is called contrary sexual behavior (sexual behavior contrary to the goal of trying to gain liberation from attachment and desire), and to avoid taking intoxicants. 

Now we are in our discussion of the bodhisattva vows. We spoke about, last time, the various trainings that we have when we take or develop the pledged state of bodhichitta (not just merely the wishing but the pledge to never forsake our bodhisattva resolve). Then come the vows. The vows are what we take when we have developed the engaging state of bodhichitta to engage in the actual practices that will bring us to enlightenment, which means, basically, shaping our behavior according to the vows. The vows, we’ll see, especially with the secondary vows, are structured along the lines of what to avoid in order to practice the six far-reaching attitudes (the six perfections, so-called perfections): generosity, ethical discipline, patience, enthusiastic perseverance (or joyful perseverance), mental stability, and discriminating awareness. 

Last time we went through the first of the bodhisattva vows. There are 18 negative actions that will bring about a root downfall. That is what the so-called root bodhisattva vows are all about. They are about avoiding certain actions that will cause us to fall down from our goal (working toward enlightenment). The root indicates that they are a root to be eliminated. 

[1] Praising ourselves and/or belittling others (continued)

The first one — we covered that last time — was: what we want to avoid is praising ourselves and/or belittling others out of jealousy and attachment to receiving something in return. Like advertising that we are the best and everybody else is no good, in order to get more customers, more money, more attention, more love, whatever. We are jealous of anybody who gets that, and so we want to take the customers away from somebody else and get them to ourselves, and so we advertise “I am the best.” We saw that this makes campaigning in a democracy, for getting elected, very difficult in the structure in which we presently find it in our Western world. 

Anyway, if there isn’t anything more to discuss about that first vow… Obviously we could discuss a lot in terms of the principles of democracy and voting and how we would fit that together with the first bodhisattva vow. Is there anything further that anybody wants to add about it? Basically, the motivation to take an office should be purely compassion to help others, not attachment to the power and money and fame, etc., that we would gain. Rather than praising oneself and putting down others, to avoid all dirty politics and simply present the programs that we would follow in order to benefit the society and demonstrate or explain how this would be of benefit without necessarily saying “This is the best and the others are no good.” I think that’s the way that one would carry out an election and still keep this vow.

Participant: I was just thinking if a judge could easily follow that when making decisions about penalties (basically that you say somebody’s guilty of committing a crime). I know a judge who has taken drugs herself when she was very young, and now she’s the judge who is ruling that people should not take drugs and who sends them to prison. Also, that’s an example of putting down people when you yourself are not really superior. 

Dr. Berzin: Here’s an interesting example that Andreas raises. What about in a court of justice? Would a judge who needs to decide trials of somebody guilty or not guilty — would a judge have to watch out for this vow? He gives the example of a judge that he knows who is in charge of cases concerning drugs, who… Was it a man or a woman? 

Participant: When she was young, she…

Dr. Berzin: When she was young, she herself took drugs. The attitude that this person has that would need to be avoided here is that “I am so much better. I am righteous. And you are no good.” 

But it has to be because of attachment or jealousy. Where’s attachment and jealousy here? Attachment to power? I don’t know. I don’t know that this case falls necessarily within the realm of avoiding this downfall of praising ourselves and belittling others. I think this comes more in terms of what we discussed before — the trainings of not being pretentious, not thinking “I’m so much better.” You don’t have to admit to the person who took drugs that “I took drugs when I was a kid.” That’s not necessarily so, especially if one is in a court of law. 

I think it’s different in terms of if you are a teacher, let’s say a Buddhist teacher, and you’re teaching about avoiding intoxicants and if you yourself have taken intoxicants when you were young, and gave the... Well, if we took intoxicants and continue to take intoxicants but tell others to stop, this is absolutely ridiculous, hypocritical. But if you’ve taken intoxicants and given it up and now are advising others, certainly it doesn’t mean “I am so much better and you are worse.” To have that attitude is no good. But I think in that case you can explain “This is my experience. This is why I stopped. These are the advantages. I know from my experience that it’s not so easy, but the advantages of stopping far outweigh the short-term benefits of taking the intoxicant,” whether it’s a drug or whatever. 

But with these vows, there are specific states of mind that motivate it that one wants to avoid, in terms of how the vow is defined. that doesn’t mean that if a different motivating state of mind is there and it’s a disturbing one, that’s OK to praise oneself and belittle others, but the emotion behind it is very important here. 

Participant: Jealousy or greed.

Dr. Berzin: Jealousy, and greed for getting love, attention, power, money from the other person. The person that you say it to has to be in an inferior position. 

Does that mean that it’s OK to say it to somebody in a superior position? What about if you want to get a job? You’re applying for a job, and you say, “I am better than everybody else. I’m the most qualified. Everybody else is no good. Hire me,” and the motivation is attachment to getting the job. Is that OK? No. Obviously not. But then why does this specify that the object, the person that we speak such words to has to be in an inferior position to us? 

Participant: I suppose it’s because these bodhisattva vows are like a list of the most damaging things to a bodhisattva motivation.

Dr. Berzin: OK. It’s the most damaging... the vows deal with what’s the most damaging to our motivation. Why is this, saying these words to someone in an inferior position, more damaging than saying it to someone of a superior position? 

Participant: Because you’re more likely to be able to help someone in an inferior position.

Dr. Berzin: Because you’re more likely to help somebody in an inferior position. Exactly. We are aiming to be a bodhisattva to help those who are having more suffering than ourselves, and so what we’re doing is deceiving these people that we are trying to help. We want to help them by saying “I’m the best one. Come to me,” because we’re jealous of others who might try to help them, and we’re attached to getting them dependent on us, or to get money from them, or some other motivation. Do you follow?

This is actually quite important when looking at these bodhisattva vows, to understand them in the context of ourselves as an aspiring bodhisattva trying to help others. How do we relate to these people that we are trying to help? What do we want to avoid that would be really contrary to the bodhisattva path? That’s what it’s all about, not just general rules.

Participant: I think also the other motivations are covered in the other vows.

Dr. Berzin: Right. Doing this for other motivations is... This particular one is covered in one of the secondary vows. But that’s not the case with all of these, just with some, that some negative motivations are heavier than other negative motivations. 

[2] Not sharing Dharma teachings or wealth

The next one is not sharing Dharma teachings or wealth. Here, the motivation is attachment and miserliness. 

Question: What’s miserliness?

Dr. Berzin: Miserliness means that we want to keep everything to ourselves and not share. 

Participant: Geiz. You don’t want to share.

Dr. Berzin: You don’t want to share. So, you’re a miser; you want to keep it all to yourself. 

Obviously, if we are wanting to help others, we need to be willing to share with them the Dharma, the teachings. Obviously, we want to share the teachings with others. This means we have to avoid being possessive of our Dharma notes, our recordings, these sort of things. We don’t want to even loan them to others. Or if we do, we begrudge loaning it to them. This type of thing. We want to keep it to ourselves. 

But it can also be attachment to... when we talk about teachings or wealth, it could be... I think we can extend this: being stingy with our time, being stingy with our energy, with our willingness to help others, this type of thing. We want to keep it all to ourselves. “I want to keep my free time so I can watch television. I don’t want to go and help you.” This type of thing. Also, we have to avoid, if we do help others, complaining all the time about how difficult it was for us, and so on, and make them feel badly about it or guilty. 

It’s very important to share, be open. OK? That means to share our understanding. These type of things. It’s not like we want to be the first in the class and get an award at the end or that we’ll get a better position if we outdo the others. 

I think this is an important thing not only in regard to the Dharma teachings, but I think in regard to learning anything. It’s important to try to help the others. Sometimes our school systems don’t encourage that. In which, for instance, scholarships are available only to those who do well and there are only a limited number, so you have to do better than everybody else. That makes it very difficult, that type of system, doesn’t it? How do you deal with that? Do you share at school? I think it’s different in different countries, different cultures. But these are things to really consider. What is one’s motivation? If we are aspiring to be a bodhisattva, we aspire for everybody to develop equally, for everybody to get an education, not just me to get ahead. Our whole orientation has to be quite different if we’re following a bodhisattva path. 

Participant: It’s very difficult not to do it from an arrogant position. Like even if you’re a good student and you do share with the others, you might give them the notebook, and as they take it, you think “That’s not good for them.”

Dr. Berzin: Right. One could also mix this with arrogance, and that would be again something not the primary thing to avoid but a secondary thing to avoid. Even if we share, we’re very arrogant about it. But then that goes back to the first one: “I’m the best, and everybody else’s notes are no good. My notes are the best.” Again, we want the other one to appreciate us, to say, “Oh, how wonderful you are. How smart you are.” We need to put these things together. Basically, we want to help others, so obviously we would be willing to share. 

[3] Not listening to others’ apologies or striking others

The third one is not listening to others’ apologies or striking others. The motivation for either of these is primarily anger. The first refers to the actual occasion when we’re yelling at somebody or beating somebody and either that person pleads for forgiveness, or somebody else begs us to stop, and we refuse. 

I know one could laugh and say that OK, we would never do that, but how quick are we to accept somebody’s apology when we are angry? Obviously, we don’t want to be angry if we’re following a bodhisattva path. But if we are angry and we’re yelling at somebody or hitting them or something like that… I mean, this is referring to the actual time. Less heavy would be holding a grudge afterwards and they apologize. But obviously if they say “stop”... 

Now, it’s interesting. One could analyze this further, and that’s why the second part of this is here. What happens if you’re hitting somebody, or yelling at them, and they don’t apologize? Is it OK then to continue hitting them? They don’t say “I’m sorry” and they don’t say “Stop!” That’s why we have the second part of this, which is just striking others, which means simply hitting somebody or beating them. In general, if we want to help, then that’s not the way to help, to yell or beat them out of anger. Then one has to ask: Is it a skillful means sometimes to yell or beat somebody? For instance, a naughty child. 

Participant: Sure.

Dr. Berzin: When? When would be appropriate? I can see yelling. Let’s say if your child is about to run into the road with a lot of traffic. You don’t say in a gentle voice, “Oh dear, don’t do that.” They might not listen. If you yell really loudly perhaps the child will cry, but at least they won’t run into the road and get hit by a car. That’s not out of anger. But what about hitting? I don’t know. Is there any justification for hitting? What about your dog? To train the dog not to go to the toilet on the rug, do you hit the dog with a newspaper? 

Participant: That’s OK.

Dr. Berzin: That’s OK? 

Participant: With a newspaper it’s OK. Even a child, I think, with a newspaper.

Dr. Berzin: Even a child, with a newspaper? I don’t know. This says quite specifically not to do this, but… Pardon? 

Participant: Hit a baby with a newspaper.

Dr. Berzin: Hit a baby with the newspaper? I don’t think that’s terribly nice. That’s not nice. 

The main point here is anger, not with anger. 

My teacher always yelled at me, called me an idiot all the time. Is that yelling? I don’t know. Then we get into a very fine definition of yelling. I suppose that’s yelling. I mean, he didn’t really raise his voice in anger. 

Question: What was his motivation?

Dr. Berzin: The motivation was to teach me not to be such an idiot. He called me an idiot when I actually was acting like an idiot. It was correct. I had asked him to do that. 

Question: Does it fit this vow?

Dr. Berzin: Does it fit this vow? 

Participant: He wasn’t angry.

Dr. Berzin: He wasn’t angry, so it doesn’t fit the vow. One has to see what is...

Question: He wasn’t annoyed?

Dr. Berzin: Was he annoyed? I don’t know if he was annoyed. I don’t think he was annoyed. That’s, after all, one of the qualities of a teacher, is to have patience with the students and not to get angry when they don’t remember, when they get up in the middle of the class or fall asleep, or whatever, and they don’t learn. One has to have patience. 

Sometimes very strong methods are required. But one has to be very, very careful not only with the motivation but very careful in terms of “Is this the most effective means or not?” I forget who it was, whether it was Marpa or one of these people, who used to get hit by his teacher and said, “When I get hit by my teacher, they’re the blessings of Heruka.” What does that mean? What about a Zen master smacking somebody with a stick? 

Participant: I think Milarepa was beaten by Marpa.

Dr. Berzin: Milarepa was beaten a lot by Marpa. 

Question: How beaten? Like what?

Dr. Berzin: How beaten? 

Participant: With the newspaper.

Dr. Berzin: With the newspaper, right! He was beaten when he did things incorrectly or when he asked stupid things. 

Everything really depends on the motivation and the student, and the relation between the teacher and the student. But to just go around hitting people is obviously not a way to help them, especially when we are angry. 

[4] Discarding the Mahayana teachings and propounding made-up ones

Then the next one, number four, is discarding the Mahayana teachings and propounding made-up ones. What is this referring to? This is referring to rejecting the authentic teachings and then making up something ourselves and saying that these are the actual authentic teachings, and we teach this to others in order to get them to follow us as their teacher. 

Now comes the whole discussion of Dharma-lite. For instance, saying that we reject the teachings about, let’s say, the hells, or about contrary sexual behavior, or all these sorts of things that many Western people have difficulties with, and we make up something and say, “Well, as long as you don’t hurt anybody, then whatever sexual behavior you follow is OK. And the hells? They’re only these psychological states. You don’t have to take that seriously. Rebirth? Forget about that.” We make up something else instead so that more students will follow us. This is what it’s saying that we need to avoid. Is there any situation in which Dharma-lite is acceptable?

Participant: Can’t you interpret and represent an interpretation of the hells really as psychological states or something?

Dr. Berzin: Can you present them just as psychological states? 

Participant: You don’t have to tell them “This is the truth,” but “That’s one interpretation.”

Dr. Berzin: Saying you don’t have to tell the truth, say that this is... You don’t have to give the full teaching. You could give part?

Participant: No, you don’t say “This is the truth, that they are psychological,” just “This is one interpretation of it.”

Dr. Berzin: OK. You don’t say “This is the truth, that the hells are just a psychological state,” but “This is one interpretation of it.” Personally, what I think is more appropriate is to say that “This is a Dharma-lite version. You can understand it from this, but the actual thing is the hells.” At this point, perhaps we can’t understand what it’s talking about, but we are not going to reject them and make up something in its stead. It’s sort of like “I don’t like this part of the teachings, and so I’ll make up something instead.” 

Participant: That’s an extreme version.

Dr. Berzin: That’s an extreme version, but if we are a bodhisattva, or aiming to be a bodhisattva, and we want to help others achieve enlightenment, then we follow the Buddha’s method. Buddha taught how to do this. He taught many different ways of how to do this. I think there is a difference between adapting Buddha’s teachings to a specific culture or a particular individual — which is after all the way the Buddha taught (different ways to different people) — and just making up something so we’ll get more students.

Participant: It’s again the motivation.

Dr. Berzin: Again, it’s the motivation, and it’s not just... You can give part of the teachings without giving the whole teaching. That’s certainly the case. But not to make up something and say, “This is what…” Sure, it is “Be kind to others. Don’t hurt others.” That doesn’t contradict Buddha’s teachings in any way. But why are we saying that? Why are we teaching that to others? That’s not necessarily making up something.

 Participant: Yesterday I was looking at this TV program about the Dalai Lama, this interview with the Dalai Lama, and he said something like “Yeah, but you don’t meditate for other lives. You don’t meditate for heaven. You meditate to be happier.” It’s true, but isn’t this Dharma-lite, what he said?

Dr. Berzin: Jorge’s pointing out that His Holiness has said, “We don’t meditate…” How did he say this? That you don’t meditate for...

Participant: You don’t meditate for other lives. You don’t meditate for heaven.

Dr. Berzin: You don’t meditate for other lives, you don’t meditate for heaven, you meditate in order to be happier in this lifetime. What is the context for saying that? Is he saying that this is the Buddha’s teachings? No. I doubt that. I doubt that. I mean, are you referring to this conference that he’s doing now in Seattle about compassion and the application of compassion and so on in a Western context? In which case, then, even those who are not Buddhists and not following the Buddha’s path can benefit from meditation just as a way to be happier in this lifetime. But he’s not rejecting the Buddha’s teachings. 

Participant: This can create a lot of misunderstanding, because the Dalai Lama is the highest authority of Buddhism. People see that and think this is Buddhism. 

Dr. Berzin: He’s saying that people could be mislead because people will think that this is Buddhism. Not if he’s... One has to understand the context. Anybody could be misunderstood, that’s for sure.

Participant: This was a program about Western science and Buddhism.

Dr. Berzin: Right. A program about Western science and Buddhism. Therefore, he is speaking in terms of what can Western science and health systems and so on learn from Buddhism that would be beneficial. He always makes that very clear, and he makes that quite different from someone following the Buddhist path to liberation and enlightenment. 

Participant: When they are doing that, they’d also need to meditate for a happier state now. 

Dr. Berzin: Right. One would need to meditate to have a happier state now. That’s why I always stay with Dharma-lite as a stepping-stone for what is actually in the texts, which is meditating to gain liberation and enlightenment. As a stepping-stone, as long as you realize it’s a stepping-stone, that’s fine, and you’re not just making up something. Making up something like: if you go out and — from the classic text of Angulimala — if you go out and cut off the thumbs from a thousand people and wear them as a rosary around your neck, you will gain liberation. That’s making up something, isn’t it? Rejecting the teachings and making up something. Why would you make it up? Because I want to gain something from you. One has to be very, very careful in adapting the Buddha’s teachings to various cultures and individuals. 

Participant: Also, the motivation when he said this thing. Even if it is in another context, the motivation is probably not, from his side, to gain more followers. So, if that’s not the motivation then he does not break the vow.

Dr. Berzin: What it’s doing is, he says here, to make up something that is false. When we make up something, it’s not that we make up something which is a helpful application of the teachings to your circumstance. We’re making up something false, like “Collect a thousand thumbs and it will bring you enlightenment.” 

Participant: The thing with the hells, like what I said before, that’s… You could say, “This is something like it, but not exactly. I’m just presenting a different interpretation.” It’s not inventing something.

Dr. Berzin: With the hells… The hells are always a very difficult topic. Do you want to reject them? Can we reject them just because we don’t like them? Why do you reject them? This is the thing to examine: Why do I reject these teachings? 

Participant: This is clear. But the question is: Is it specifically said that this is a physical place in the texts? Or it was already an interpretation of a great master? I mean, it is difficult to find it, you know?

Dr. Berzin: OK. Now we get into a fine point here of: what about all the details? Let’s say the hells are located a certain number of yojanas — this is a measurement of distance in ancient India — so a certain number of kilometers underneath Bodhgaya. Do we reject those and make up false teachings? Now we go to the example of His Holiness the Dalai Lama. His Holiness has said if any teachings can be proven to be incorrect by Western science, or by anybody else, then he’s willing to drop it from Buddhism. Is this breaking the vow? Analyze: Is this breaking the vow? Did you hear?

Participant: It’s giving priority to science, because in this world, science is…

Dr. Berzin: It’s giving priority to science, because in this world, science is well-respected. That means in medieval times when certain beliefs, let’s say of the Inquisition, were the most widely accepted, that therefore one would accept the Inquisition? 

Participant: But he didn’t say it’s a positive thing 

Dr. Berzin: No. No, no, no, no, I think we have to analyze more deeply.

Participant: But if you make up something false…  With reasoning, and all the other methods that you can use, you can prove something is correct and show you’re not making up something false.

Dr. Berzin: Right. Now we’re getting closer. That if we teach something which is correct… if we can demonstrate that something that is in the texts is not to be taken literally, and we can demonstrate something else which can be proven to be correct, then in fact we are accepting Buddha’s teachings, because Buddha said, “Examine everything that I said.” And if it doesn’t accord with reality, it’s only interpretable, something which is to lead us to the truth, but not to be taken literally. In fact, by rejecting a literal interpretation of Mt. Meru and the hells being located a certain distance beneath the ground, and so on, and by accepting a Western explanation… Here we don’t have a Western explanation for the hells, so let’s speak more in terms of the abhidharma presentation of the earth being square and flat, as opposed to Western science saying that the earth is a sphere. Then obviously...

Participant: I think the Dalai Lama also said...

Dr. Berzin: We accept the science. That’s not making up something which is false.

Participant: I think the Dalai Lama also said, which I find very nice, he said: “Buddha didn’t come to teach just geography. He came to teach us how to overcome our suffering.”

Dr. Berzin: Right. His Holiness said, “Buddha did not come to teach us geography. He came to teach us how to overcome suffering.” But then again, Buddha was omniscient. Does that mean he failed his geography test? 

Participant: I don’t know. Did he say anything about it?

Dr. Berzin: Did he say anything about geography? Then this questions did he say anything about anything. Nothing was written down at that time, so how do we know? 

The point is that there are things which are true and correct which will lead us to liberation and enlightenment, as Buddha taught. If we reject those and make up something else which is false, and we’re doing that in order to win more disciples and so on, because it is easier to accept, then this is breaking the vow. OK? This means also not only in terms of teaching others as an aspiring bodhisattva, but also in terms of our own understanding. We have to be very careful when we follow the Buddha’s teachings. There may be certain things that we’re not ready to be able to follow, but that doesn’t mean that we reject them and make up something else which is not true. You just say, “I’m not ready for this yet.”

Participant: I found it interesting on your website that it’s also possible to break the vow in a conversation. Not only when you are a teacher and trying to gain more students, but also that it can very easily happen also in a conversation when we talk about these things.

Dr. Berzin: Right. She points out that I had written something on my website, in one of the articles, that the vows, particularly this one, don’t necessarily have to be within the context of teaching, but it can also be just in terms of our casual conversation with others. We need to be careful not to just speak out of the force of our disturbing emotions but to try to be mindful of these vows and have it shape not only the way we speak and act but also the way we think. We’re aiming for enlightenment and we’re aiming to help everybody achieve liberation and enlightenment, so what are the things that we have to avoid? We have to understand why we need to avoid them, how they would hinder our ability to help others. 

Here are the teachings. Here’s the way to achieve enlightenment. And we don’t want to teach it; we make up something else. Why? Not because we want to help this person toward liberation or enlightenment. Why? Because we want to get more students, because it’s more popular and more people will accept it. OK? Of course, many students are not ready for the Real Thing Dharma. It’s too advanced. But you don’t make up something. You teach something which is in the same flavor of Buddhism, and you say, “This is a preparatory step. Buddhism goes much, much further than this. This is a start.” Something like that. 

[5] Taking offerings intended for the Triple Gem

Then the next one: Taking offerings intended for the Triple Gem. That means that we steal or embezzle (sort of take on the side), either personally or asking someone else to do it for us, anything that’s offered to, or belonging to, the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha and then consider it to be ours. (The Sangha, in this case, refers to a group of four or five monastics.) 

That would be, for instance, funds are given as a donation to the Dharma center to building a Buddha statue, to printing Dharma books, to feeding the monks or nuns, and we take it for ourselves, use it for ourselves. We’re not talking here in terms of if we are working for the Dharma and using this to pay our salary which is a fair salary. We’re talking about just going to the offering box and taking it. This type of thing. Why is that a hindrance to the bodhisattva path? 

Participant: You need to show respect towards…

Dr. Berzin: We need to respect the Triple Gem. But that is in general. 

Participant: Is it thinking that you deserve it more?

Dr. Berzin: Is it thinking that we deserve it more? What is the way to benefit others? Through the Triple Gem — Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha. If we want to benefit others, then anything that anybody does to support the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha is beneficial, isn’t it? 

What do you do when, let’s say, there’s a lot of money which is being offered to put gold all over a Buddha statue in a monastery which we think is a waste of money? What do you do then? Obviously, just taking that money and putting it in our pocket is not the way to deal with it. 

Participant: You speak to people.

Dr. Berzin: You speak to the people? I don’t know. That’s difficult, isn’t it? 

Participant: One buys fake gold and uses the money for some more beneficial things.

Dr. Berzin: Buy fake gold and use the money for something more beneficial? I don’t know. We’re not using it for ourselves. We’re using it for some other Dharma purpose that it was not given for — that one has to be very careful about — and so the patron won’t give again, will they? 

These are things one has to think about very carefully. There’s the argument... There’s a project to build an enormous Buddha statue in India, and when criticism is given to that, one of the replies that they say is that the people who are giving large amounts of money for this would not give that money for a hospital or for feeding poor people or other things. They wouldn’t. So, what do you do? They give the money for a statue. You have to use it for a statue. 

Participant: In the end, it’s also for the people living there, because they also build schools, hospitals…

Dr. Berzin: Right. In the end, this particular project does benefit the people there indirectly, because as a side thing of the project they’re also building hospitals, etc. That’s not necessarily the case with all projects, but with this particular one it is. It’s very difficult, very difficult. 

Participant: Do you know the effect? Maybe it’s more beneficial to build a statue than a hospital.

Dr. Berzin: Right. Maybe it’s more beneficial to build a statue than a hospital. I don’t know. This thing gets very, very tricky, and I don’t want to accuse people of breaking bodhisattva vows. But I remember that there was somebody who gave money to improve the diet of a particular monastery: and the money was given to the monastery, and instead of using the money to improve the diet of the monks, they used it to build a temple, to buy more bricks for the temple. In the end, what the patron had to do was actually buy the food itself and give the food to the monastery, and not the money, if they wanted it for that specific purpose of improving the diet. But obviously the monks in the monastery thought that the temple was more important than their diet. Was that stealing money given to the Dharma? I mean it was money given to the Sangha, basically.

Participant: Why is it so beneficial to think about all these cases of gold and funds and stuff? It’s just so far away from my world. I mean, it’s interesting, OK, but...

Dr. Berzin: OK. Now he’s asking: What is the benefit of thinking of these examples? They’re so far away from our world here. I suppose. I’m thinking more of my times living in India, where all these examples are very real examples. Here in the West, I would think it would be more in terms of Western Dharma centers. 

Participant: Which is also far away from my world.

Dr. Berzin: Which is far away from your world, although you’re sitting in a Dharma center. 

Participant: In the sense that I don’t imagine that I would have the ability to take the money to influence this, to have a decision whether to build this or this. This is what I mean. Maybe we should ask Rainer — he is. He has all the money.

Dr. Berzin: We’re following a bodhisattva path, or at least we’re aiming to do that with the bodhisattva vows, and therefore we are involved with helping others with the Dharma. How do we help others with the Dharma? We are working within a context of Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha, whether directly or indirectly. Therefore, we want to make the teachings available to others, not just be a nice person. Sure, we could be a nice person. What you bring up is interesting. If we’re taking the bodhisattva vows, how actively involved do we need to be with Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha, with actual external manifestations of Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha — in terms of statues, in terms of teachers representing the Buddhas, in terms of Dharma texts, in terms of facilities for learning the Dharma, in terms of the monastic community? How actively involved do we have to be?

Participant: We have to keep in mind that we take these vows for not only now but for a longer time, so they’ll become relevant later.

Dr. Berzin: Very, very good. Excellent. We take these vows not just for this lifetime, not just for now when I’m not particularly involved. We take these vows all the way to enlightenment. There will be situations in which these are relevant. 

But it’s a very interesting question. If I take the bodhisattva vows, does that mean I have to go out and be a Buddhist missionary? No. Does it mean that I have to go out and try to help others? Yes. At least in some way, don’t we? How do we help others? We may or may not be directly involved with something involving the Dharma. But surely, we would need to study, we would need to learn, we’d have to rely on a teacher. If we’re relying on a teacher, then what about offerings given to the teacher? 

Anyway, these are things to think about. My point is that we don’t just recite the vows or think of them in a light fashion, but I think it’s important to go more deeply into them and to think: What does this actually mean? Why would I want to keep this? Are we following the Dharma in trying to help others basically for our own benefit, and we’re willing to use the Dharma in order to benefit myself? That we need to avoid. As Shantideva said, if we are helping others then, like a good servant, you have to feed the servant. If we’re serving others, it’s OK to feed ourselves and take care of ourselves, but only if we’re really helping others. This is what’s involved here. 

[6] Forsaking the holy Dharma

Then the next: Forsaking the holy Dharma. We repudiate it, or cause others to repudiate, that the textual teachings of either the shravaka, pratyekabuddha, or Mahayana vehicles are Buddha’s words. Here, basically we’re denying that all or just part of some of these texts are teachings that derive from the Buddha. 

This is not an easy one. It’s not an easy one. There are a lot of texts and a lot of teachings that come from all these vehicles, whether we call it Hinayana, Mahayana, whether we call it Theravada, Mahayana, shravaka vehicle, whatever you want to call them, tantra, etc. This is saying that “This was not taught by Buddha. These are not the words of the Buddha.” 

Participant: All of these?

Dr. Berzin: All of these. Does that mean that we follow an uncritical approach? Does that mean we totally ignore history? 

Participant: I don’t understand what’s the vow against.

Dr. Berzin: The vow is against: I come across a Zen text. I’m following Tibetan Buddhism, and I come across a Zen text, and I say “This isn’t Buddhism. Buddha didn’t teach this” — one of their sutras, one of their scriptures, or a Theravada scripture. Or a Theravadin says, “Mahayana? Buddha didn’t teach that. It was just made up.” 

How do you reconcile that with modern scholarship that shows that many texts were written much, much later. Do we really accept that Buddha taught all the tantras? That he manifested as Chakrasamvara, and out of the four faces, each face taught one of the four classes of tantra. Do you accept that? You do? Thank you very much. He stood on Mt. Meru or Mt. Kailash and he taught all of this? It becomes a very difficult question. 

His Holiness has said that just to say that Buddha didn’t teach all of these things, and it was passed down orally in private and was only written down much later — to say that is false merely on the basis of “I don’t think so” is not a sufficient reason. It doesn’t prove anything just by saying, “I don’t think so. How could that be?” That’s one point. 

The other point is that Western scholarship shows that various things were written at different times, and there’s so many different versions of texts, the same text. Is one right? Is one wrong? How do we point out mistakes in the text that came in? Did Asanga really go to Tushita realm and get the teachings from Maitreya Buddha and come back? Did Nagarjuna really find the Prajnaparamita Sutras underneath the ocean, being kept by nagas? These were really taught by Buddha? These are very difficult questions. Do we actually believe in all of this? To say “These are not the words of the Buddha” would be breaking this vow. 

I think that the solution to this is our understanding of what is a Buddha. This vow is not saying that everything was taught by the historical Buddha two and a half thousand years ago. There’s quite a different concept of Buddha in the Mahayana teachings, in the tantra teachings. In the Mahayana teachings, a Buddha’s someone who manifests in a zillion different forms simultaneously in all times. That kind of Buddha taught the Mahayana texts, not the historical Buddha. In tantra, the Buddha’s a manifestation of the clear light mind that manifests in all these various yidam forms and so on. Quite a different type of Buddha who gave the teachings of tantra. And there are certainly texts that you could say were written by other people. But if you look at the types of teachings of the Buddha, Buddha words, there are some texts that… Like, for instance, the Heart Sutra. Buddha didn’t actually speak the Heart Sutra, did he? Buddha sat there in samadhi, and one of the others in the audience got up and spoke it, inspired by the Buddha. With that as an example...

Participant: That’s an easy way out.

Dr. Berzin: That’s an easy way out, but it actually says that in the sutra. 

Participant: It was Avalokiteshvara.

Dr. Berzin: Right. It’s Avalokiteshvara who speaks the sutra. There are other sutras as well. There’s a whole long list I have — I don’t remember it by heart, but I have that on my website — of various types of Buddha words inspired by the Buddha. You could say that — and this was in a text by Dharmakirti, the great Indian master — how do you know that something is the Buddha’s words? He said: if it fits with the main points that are repeated over and over again in all the Buddha’s teachings, and is consistent with that, then that’s the criterion for it being a Buddha word. This type of vow is basically aimed at helping us to be nonsectarian. Like we could be following Gelugpa, let’s say, or Kagyu or Nyingma, then we say: “The other traditions? That’s not really the Buddha’s teachings. We have the real teachings. The others are false.” 

There are many commentaries, and you debate various commentaries. Again, one has to really work with this material. Are there any things that are wrong? Here we’re saying it’s not the words of the Buddha. Did Buddha teach anything that was wrong? To some he taught that there was an atman — there was a soul — which obviously is contradicted in other teachings. We have to be very careful here. 

I’m not giving any definite answers to all these questions. I’m just suggesting that when we study these vows, that you question. That’s the whole process in Buddhism. 

Participant: If you come to the conclusion that you don’t agree, you are excluded?

Dr. Berzin: If we come to the conclusion that we don’t agree, then we are excluded, we’re excommunicated? No. If we come to the conclusion that we don’t agree, I think this is a problem. I think the conclusion that we could come to is “I don’t understand it. I respect that this is in the teaching, but I can’t accept this now, because I don’t understand it.” There’s a difference between saying that and saying “I’m right. Buddha is stupid and wrong.” We already dealt with the example of when something is proven to be incorrect in the teachings then we see it as some interpretable thing that can be used as a skillful means to get one to the more definitive answer or explanation. What would you not agree with? 

Participant: It’s not that I don’t agree. I understand that this vow is supposed to prevent… supposed to unify all forms of Buddhism and not...

Dr. Berzin: Right. The vow is intended to unify forms of Buddhism. If we want to help others, we need to be able to teach them various different methods, not just the one that we ourselves followed.

Participant: This is completely fine. I don’t want to be arrogant and say I don’t agree. A lot of this more mythical stuff I have problems to accept, and I’m not saying that I don’t agree, but I also am not saying that “This is an axiom. This is true. And when I’m ready, I will understand it.” About certain stuff, about deeper stuff, I am saying this. But, for me, it’s like the less important things, like if the Buddha could manifest in one thousand or one thousand two forms. This is not that important for me. 

Dr. Berzin: OK. He’s saying that...

Participant: I’m sorry that I’m taking a provocative position today.

Dr. Berzin: That’s OK. You have to take a provocative position. That is the way to learn, is to take a provocative position. He’s saying that certain things are not so important. Could a Buddha manifest in a thousand forms or two thousand forms? These numbers don’t really matter, so I can’t agree.

Participant: What is annoying is that I want to agree. I agree with the meaning of all of these vows. Like this one about the texts. I can’t take it as it is, although I agree and I identify with the general meaning and intention. I want to. Does this mean that I have to take it for granted and agree with every small bit of it? Because this I can’t. 

Dr. Berzin: OK. He’s saying he can agree with the general principle of these vows, but do we have to agree with every small detail? I don’t know. I’m thinking now, with this particular vow, that there was… In Tibetan history they compiled the Kangyur and Tengyur. The Kangyur was the words of the Buddha, the translated words of the Buddha, and the Tengyur was the translated Indian commentaries. And they had quite a discussion of which texts are authentic teachings and which are inauthentic, and many texts were rejected by some of the compilers of the Kangyur. There were many, many different editions of the Kangyur, so different editions have different texts that are accepted. It’s not all the same. The main criterion that they used for whether or not the text was authentic was whether or not there was a Sanskrit version of it. Which is not a very good criterion. Because of that, certain non-Buddhist texts were also included. There are a number of Hindu texts that are included in the Kangyur simply because there was a Sanskrit original of it in some library. 

How do you know what is authentic and what’s not authentic? Does it mean that we give up all critical faculties in terms of textual analysis? I don’t think we do. I don’t think we necessarily have to do that. But there has to be very clear guidelines for what is authentic and what is inauthentic and what does it mean that it comes from Buddha. As I said, I think we have to extend our view from not merely the historical Buddha but to a wider view of what a Buddha is, and follow Dharmakirti’s criterion, which is: does it accord with the main teachings that appear over and over again in most of the texts? Then we can say it’s Buddha words. 

Participant: If you widen it to “Every text that was inspired by Buddha is written by Buddha” I can accept this, but I don’t think that this is what it is.

Dr. Berzin: I think it is though. (He says if we extend this to all the texts that were inspired by Buddha). Because there are lot of them. In a lot of the sutras, Buddha didn’t actually speak, and it says so right in the sutra. 

Participant: Doing this, expanding this — I think it is exactly what we are not supposed to do in the case of the hells. 

Dr. Berzin: What do you mean, we’re not supposed to do this in the case of the hells? 

Participant: Expanding this so it would be easy for me to accept. Saying that it wasn’t really written by Buddha, but it was inspired by Buddha, so it’s fine.

Dr. Berzin: Inspired by Buddha or spoken by Buddha is the same. 

Participant: Expanding this vow is like doing what you’re not supposed to do on...

Dr. Berzin: Expanding this vow? Well, no. But we’re talking about what accords with the Buddha’s teachings. To say that the hells are all rubbish, they’re all myth, that doesn’t accord with Buddha’s teachings, because the hells are mentioned in many, many places. One has to look a little bit more deeply what is actually meant by it.

Participant: I know that there’s not a good translation in German for the word. Because I remember that you also talked about faith in the Buddhist sense — that when it comes to teachings that you’re not ready to understand, maybe tantra or something else, that you can rely on maybe the example of your teachers, and they accept this as authentic. You can rely on their point of view. 

Dr. Berzin: OK. Now Andreas... 

Participant: I’m not saying it’s not Buddhist, OK?

Dr. Berzin: No, no, no. Please don’t get defensive. What Andreas is saying is that there is a certain amount of faith or confidence that if we don’t understand it but our teacher accepts this as being so, therefore my teacher is not stupid and my teacher has attained a certain level which I can respect — let’s say His Holiness the Dalai Lama — then OK, I will provisionally accept it until I understand it and say I don’t understand it yet. 

If we want to look at the actual teaching about this, a valid means of knowing, of inference: if what Buddha taught about voidness, which is something obscure but which can be understood through logic and practice, that if that is true, then since Buddha’s only way of understanding that was through his compassion and understanding, then there’s no reason why Buddha would have lied about things that are extremely obscure, like karma. Then, through inference, one accepts these other teachings. There’s that. It’s out of respect. But anyway, we have gone past our hour.

Participant: Can I ask a question? What was the vow?

Dr. Berzin: The vow is specifically forsaking the Dharma. This is repudiating (which means [saying] that “It is not the teachings of the Buddha”) or causing others to repudiate that the textual teachings of either the shravaka, pratyekabuddha, or Mahayana vehicles are Buddha’s words. We’re denying that they are the Buddha’s words, that they derive from the Buddha in one way or another. 

Participant: Then it’s just the denying. It’s not that one has to say, “Oh yes, this is from the Buddha.” It’s just someone saying, “Oh, that’s for sure not from the Buddha.” 

Dr. Berzin: Right. Do we have to say that it definitely is from Buddha or is it just denying? What we want to avoid is denying it. As I say, I think it really depends on what we understand by Buddha’s words. 

Participant: How can there be a definite version of these vows. I think, for myself, that even if I don’t accept one vow fully but I agree with its basic content and principle, for me it’s fine. I won’t feel as if I’m breaking the vow if I would say… like the question about these texts. I mean, it is kind of a matter of feeling also, because there is no objective criterion.

Dr. Berzin: OK. He’s saying there’s no real objective criterion that we can use for all of this. How do I know if this is an authentic text or it’s not an authentic text? What do I know?

Participant: No. I meant there’s no objective criterion that could say: if you understand the vow like this, it’s right; and if you interpret it like this, it’s wrong. 

Dr. Berzin: OK. He’s saying that there are many different ways of interpreting a vow: if we understand it like this, it’s correct; if we understand it like that, it’s incorrect. Let’s not get stuck in the details here. We don’t want to get into a legalistic argument in court. What would be an example of breaking this vow? It would be somebody who is a very, very conservative Gelugpa, for instance, saying that “Dzogchen is not the teachings of the Buddha. This is all rubbish.” That would be a classic example. “It’s not what I follow, therefore I say it’s not even the teachings of the Buddha.” That’s what we want to avoid, this type of thing. 

OK, so let’s end with a dedication. But I think this is good that we have a little bit more lively discussion and debate. It’s supposed to be provocative. That’s what is done in debates. To question. If we’re not satisfied with the answer in the end, not to give up, but to continue. That’s why these debates in the monasteries go on till the wee hours of the morning. People get very, very involved. That’s good. 

We end with a dedication. Whatever positive force, whatever understanding has come from this, may it go deeper and deeper and act as a cause for reaching enlightenment for the benefit of all.