LPA20: Secondary Bodhisattva Vows for Generosity & Ethical Discipline

His friend had asked for some advice on how to practice sutra and tantra, and so Tsongkhapa says that we have a wonderful opportunity to be able to do that: we have the excellent working basis of a human rebirth; we’ve met with the teachings; we have precious, superb spiritual teachers; we have the power of mind to discern what is to be adopted, what’s to be rejected. And so we need to engage ourselves in the teachings. 

For that, we have to actually rely on those spiritual teachers. The teacher has to be qualified: they have to know what are the states of mind (or pathways of mind) that we need to develop, which are the ones that we must not develop; know the definite count of them (not add anything, not leave anything out); and know their order and how to apply them to each of the students’ minds. The teacher has to have gained this experience from having been led by a teacher himself or herself in this way of studying that is based on the classics. And not to consider the classics and the practice as something different from each other. 

To begin our practice, then, Tsongkhapa emphasizes that we need to tame our mind. For that, we need to work on our motivating mental framework first. For this, there’s the graded stages as outlined in the lam-rim:

On the initial level, to turn away from interest in just this lifetime and think in terms of all future lifetimes, to continue to have a precious human rebirth. 

On the intermediate level, to gain liberation from uncontrollably recurring samsara. In other words, although the mental continuum is going to go on forever, we don’t want it to go on in a samsaric state of suffering. Realizing that the causes for that are something which are fleeting, we work for liberation. 

Then on the advanced level, we think in terms of everybody: everybody else also is in the same situation and how terrible that is. Moved by love and compassion, then we take responsibility to help them gain liberation as well. We realize that the only way to do that is if we become Buddhas ourselves, in which state we would have complete omniscience and know all the causes for each person’s situation of samsara and all the results that would follow from anything that we would teach them, so we would know how best to help them. 

We need to build up these various motivating mental frameworks as a positive habit. To do that, we have to meditate on them. Then Tsongkhapa went into a big discussion of how we meditate, how we build these up as positive habits. For these, we need to know what the causes are for them, what the things are that we focus on for each of these states of mind, what the way the mind understands or takes these things as objects is, what the supporting factors are, what the factors that would harm these states of mind are, and so on. We need to be able to specify that state of mind very, very well in order to be able to develop it. 

Then Tsongkhapa goes on to say that we need to have these motivating mental frameworks throughout our sessions and, particularly when we’re talking about bodhichitta, have that at the beginning of the session and also at the end of the session with a dedication. 

Then as for how to practice the two stages of tantra — referring to anuttarayoga tantra specifically — then we need to keep as our basis the ethical discipline of all the various Buddhist vehicles of mind in a progressive order. First there’s the ethical discipline of keeping the vows of individual liberation (that’s referring to lay and monastic vows), and so we discussed the five lay vows. For the Mahayana path in general, we need to keep the bodhisattva vows. 

We are in our discussion of the bodhisattva vows. We have covered the root vows (in other words, the main vows), eighteen of them, and now we are in our discussion of the 46 faulty actions that are referred to as the secondary bodhisattva vows. These are faulty actions that, if we commit them, would be a weakening of our bodhisattva vows (it wouldn’t be a loss of them). These 46, as we mentioned last time, are divided into various groups that refer to the various faulty actions that would hamper our development of each of the six far-reaching attitudes, in terms of certain ones that would be detrimental for developing generosity, then ethical self-discipline, patience, joyous perseverance, mental stability or concentration, and discriminating awareness. Then there’s a set that would be detrimental to helping others in general. 

The first group is the faulty actions that would negatively affect our development of far-reaching generosity.

Two Faulty Actions Detrimental to Developing the Willingness to Give Others Material Objects

[1] Not making offerings to the Triple Gem through the three gateways of our bodies, speech, and minds (continued)

We spoke of the first one last time, which is not making offerings to the Triple Gem through the three gateways of our body, speech, and mind, and doing that three times each day, three times each evening. This can be offering prostration, it can be offering the refuge formula or words of praise, and remembering the good qualities (body, speech, and mind). For many of us, this involves offering the seven water-bowls. The point is that if we can’t be generous enough to at least offer the water bowls, or just one water bowl or something like that, how can we develop the willingness to give everything to everyone? It’s important to practice being generous. This is a general way. If we neglect to do that then that weakens our bodhisattva vows. 

[2] Following out our desirous minds

The next one is following out our desirous mind. This is referring to: because of great desire, attachment, or a lack of contentment, indulging in any of the five types of sensory objects (this is sights, sounds, smells, tastes, or tactile sensations). 

What does this actually refer to, and how would that hamper our practice of generosity? The easiest example I can think of is: because of attachment to delicious tastes, we nibble at a cake in the refrigerator even when we’re not hungry. This is out of attachment. It is detrimental to generosity because we don’t really think in terms of others — sharing the cake with others, sharing the taste or whatever it is with others — and just simply out of attachment and greed we take it for ourselves. 

What we try to do is somehow think in terms of others when we’re dealing with various things. Like, for instance, sights. What would be an example for that? That could be like pushing ahead in order to stand in front of a picture in the museum so that we can see it the best and block the view of all the people around us who also want to see it. This is hampering our practice of generosity in terms of giving that sight to others. I can think of... Perhaps you can think of other examples as well. 

Participant: Why is this specifically about generosity? Are the first few vows just about generosity?

Dr. Berzin: The first seven are about generosity. 

Participant: But it also sounds very, very general.

Dr. Berzin: They are general. But the point here is: if we’re practicing generosity, then what would be detrimental to that? We want to offer sights, sounds, smells, tastes, tactile sensations to everybody. That’s being generous. Out of attachment or greed, just taking it for ourselves would detrimental to that practice of generosity. 

This is not an easy one, not at all an easy one to keep. But how often do we think of others when we take the seat on the bus when there may be others who perhaps would want to take that seat? Or we push to the front of a group — let’s say somebody’s giving a speech, and we push to the front so that we can hear better. 

Participant: Like the Dalai Lama teaching.

Dr. Berzin: Like the Dalai Lama teaching, for example. Not think of the other people who have to stay in the back and can’t hear so well. This is very difficult. We shouldn’t underestimate this.

Participant: What about taking a place on the bus, for example, not by pushing but just taking it? There are other people standing, not a hundred-year-old lady, but there’s people standing, and you don’t get up. No, seriously.

Dr. Berzin: His question is: What about if we’re on the bus, and it’s not a hundred-year-old lady who needs to sit down but there’s an empty place and we just take that empty place? Especially here in Germany where a lot of people, even if there are empty seats, don’t sit down and prefer to stand. 

I think the point here is “desire, attachment, or lack of contentment” is what it says in the formulation. For instance… The example that comes to mind is fighting for a parking space. There are other cars that are trying to get this parking space so they can get to wherever they want to go more quickly, and we push in out of greed and attachment. The point is this state of mind — greed or attachment, that we want it for ourselves. That’s difficult to ascertain, whether or not we need to sit down. I mean, if nobody’s sitting, obviously we can sit. The point is just to think in terms of others, in terms of giving to others. As an aspiring bodhisattva, that’s what we’re trying to do. 

Nibbling the cake in the refrigerator, and we’re living alone? It’s not necessarily that we need to save it for somebody else. The point is that we have a lack of contentment. We don’t need to eat. We’re not hungry. You just eat because you’re attached to the taste. I think many of us do that. I certainly fall into that category sometimes. “I’m bored. I don’t feel like doing anything. So, I’ll go to the refrigerator and take something to eat.” That is detrimental to the practice of generosity. Or go listen to a song. Why are we listening to these things? Out of boredom? Out of attachment? If you want to relax, that’s something else. 

We have this. You seem to have trouble with this.

Those are detrimental to the generosity of giving material things, or sense things, to others.

Two Faulty Actions Detrimental to Developing the Willingness to Give Others Protection from Fearful Situations

The next are detrimental to our willingness to give protection from fearful situations (another type of generosity).

[3] Not showing respect to our elders

This is referring to, first of all, not showing respect to our elders. The objects of this action include our parents, teachers, those with excellent qualities, and in general any persons with seniority or simply older than ourselves. If we fail to give our seat on the bus, or meet them at the airport, or to help them in difficult situations, or to carry their bags, or so on, because of — and here are the reasons why we might do this — because of pride (too proud to help this little old lady), or anger (we don’t like them), or spite, or laziness, or indifference, or forgetfulness, then we’re leaving them in a fearful and worrisome situation that’s difficult to cope with. We need to watch out for forgetting — not being mindful — of older people and so on. Older people.

Participant: Old ladies.

Dr. Berzin: Old ladies. 

Participant: Somebody with an older body is more worthy of respect?

Dr. Berzin: Yes, somebody who is older than us is more worthy of respect. Yes. Because they are more experienced in life, and they are more in need — whether they’re worthy of respect or not — they’re more in need of help. What is this helping with? This is the generosity of giving protection from fearful situations and difficult situations. OK. 

I think that this is not just... I mean, the way that it’s formulated is “for others who are objects of respect” (our elders, in a sense). But I think that we could extend this, in a sense, to also giving protection to children, and not just children but disabled people and so on, to actually help them. A blind person who maybe is having difficulty crossing the street, or whatever. These sorts of things.

Participant: Give them protection.

Dr. Berzin: Give them protection. 

[4] Not answering those who ask us questions

Then the next thing is, also in this category, is not answering those who ask us questions. This would be because of pride (too proud to answer what I consider a stupid question), or anger (you don’t like a person), or out of spite (they did something nasty to me, so I’ll not answer their questions), or laziness, or indifference, or forgetfulness. (It always lists the disturbing emotions that could be behind it.) Because of that: if we don’t happily answer others’ sincere questions, in ignoring them we leave them in a state of not knowing, of quandary, with nobody to turn to for an answer to their question, and so it’s a fearful and insecure position. Obviously, if we don’t know the answer, we can recommend them to somebody else. It’s also very important not to pretend that we know the answer when we don’t.  

I have here in my write-up on this, the commentaries… Tsongkhapa has a very extensive commentary on all these vows, and in it he gives exceptions — and the commentaries always give exceptions to all of these — when there’s no fault in, for instance, here, remaining silent or postponing our answer. It says: in terms of ourselves as the basis for this action, we don’t need to answer if we’re too sick or the person asking the question has purposely woken us in the middle of the night. You can tell them “I’ll answer you in the morning. I’m busy now,” or “I’m sleeping.” Then, unless there’s an emergency, there’s no fault in telling a person to wait. 

Then there are exceptions according to the occasion. For example, when somebody interrupts us with a question while we’re teaching others, delivering a lecture, conducting a ceremony, speaking words of comfort to somebody else, receiving a lesson, or listening to a discourse. If we’re listening to teachings and somebody sitting next to us asks a us a question… You have to see. I mean, it might interrupt the whole thing. You tell them “Write it down,” or something like that, “and I’ll answer later.” 

Participant: It doesn’t say anything about a person using it for destructive purposes. Like if somebody else wants to build a weapon and you can tell them how.

Dr. Berzin: We haven’t finished the exceptions. Mind you, what are the reasons here? The reasons here are pride, anger, spite, laziness, indifference, or forgetfulness. 

In these situations, we can politely tell them to hold their questions till later. Certain situations, by necessity, require silence or postponing the answer. For instance, if we’re giving a public lecture in the West to beginners and somebody asks a question about the hells and so on, it might cause a lot of people to get turned off. It might not be necessary to answer such a question. Somebody is there and then they say, “Why is this hell described like that and that hell described like that?” You can say, “You can ask me this later in private. This is not a question for this audience.” Something like that. 

Then silence is preferable to answering somebody’s question. For example, a bigot’s inquiry about our ethnic background, if it would cause the person to dislike us and therefore be unreceptive to our help. Again, we don’t have to answer. It doesn’t say that we can lie. 

But silence is also better if it would cause others to stop acting destructively and lead to a more constructive mode of behavior. This is, for instance, when somebody is psychologically dependent on us and constantly asking us to make all their decisions for them. Then sometimes it’s better to remain silent and not answer and help them to develop their own way of thinking. 

If we’re in a meditation retreat with a rule of silence and someone asks us a question, there’s no need to talk. Also, if there’s a question-answer session at the end of a lecture and if we were to continue with more questions, it would make the whole audience tired — and it’s very late, everybody wants to leave. To avoid the resentment and anger of everybody in the audience, we can end the question-answer session. Take questions privately after if we want. 

It doesn’t ask us in terms of, here — to answer your question — somebody asks us “Where can I buy a gun?” Then this has to do with… not in this vow, but there are appropriate and inappropriate things to be generous with, and so it’s something that is inappropriate to be generous with, is to give somebody poison or a gun or weapons or technology to build an atomic bomb. 

Participant: How about if you bought alcohol for an alcoholic?

Dr. Berzin: That comes under this category of “silence is better if it would cause others to stop acting destructively.” I mean, your question about alcohol… This specific one is about people asking us questions: “Where can I get a drink?” as opposed to “Give me money to buy alcohol.” But, in any case, these are inappropriate objects. If you know that the person is going to use the money to buy drugs or alcohol, better to give them food. 

Participant: Then the question “Where can I get alcohol?”

Dr. Berzin: “I don’t know.” If they ask, “Where can I buy alcohol?” you say, “I don’t know.” Is that a lie? That comes later, in terms of sometimes it’s necessary to commit the destructive actions of body and speech when it would be of benefit to the other person but with the willingness to take on whatever suffering consequences there might be from telling a lie. I don’t know. I mean, to answer “I don’t know.” If you know where there’s an alcohol store and you say, “I don’t know.” 

Participant: You know when I was working as a nurse? Sometimes I had to buy tobacco for my clients, and they’d sometimes even ask me to roll the cigarettes. I thought “OK” and I just did it because I couldn’t change it now and I was in this position. But still, that’s not a good action, is it?

Dr. Berzin: Right. He’s referring to when he was working as a — what is it called? Somebody that goes around to people’s homes and helps them — that sometimes elderly people would ask him to, housebound people, would ask him to go out and buy cigarettes for them or to buy tobacco and to roll cigarettes for them. It could be to go out and buy them beer. It might be that as well. What do you do? You said that to avoid difficulties, you did that. I could imagine saying that if you felt really uncomfortable with that — you could say no, that’s true — but you could also say that “That’s not part of my duties.” 

Participant: But it is actually.

Dr. Berzin: It is?

Participant: Yeah. To go shopping.

Dr. Berzin: What if they ask you to go out and score some heroin for them? 

Participant: That’s an illegal product.

Dr. Berzin: Say, “That’s an illegal product.” 

Participant: If they ask you to buy some food, that’s OK.

Dr. Berzin: Right. If they ask you to buy some food — that’s right — then it’s OK to buy them that. That’s true. It’s very difficult in this situation. What do you do when you have a morbidly obese person asking you to go out and buy them ten McDonald’s — ten big burgers or something like that?

Participant: That’s not so good.

Dr. Berzin: Is that good for their health or not good for their health? 

Participant: That’s not so good.

Dr. Berzin: That’s not so good for their health, that’s true. 

What to do? I think one has to be a little bit skillful. There’s what is called “idiot compassion,” which is just out of compassion doing whatever for them. 

You go out to the store and all you’re buying... “Oh, I’m sorry, I forgot the cigarettes. But I have to go.” What else to do?

Participant: That’s so cruel.

Dr. Berzin: Or you just buy them the cigarettes. I mean, everything is relative. Cigarettes are hard. That is difficult, because people are very addicted to them. I don’t know.

I think the main point is to take all of this as guidelines, that there are all these vows and there are always exceptions to them. You really want to learn about the exceptions. The exceptions aren’t the exclusive list — “These are the only exceptions” — but to really analyze and analyze our motivations. It always gives the disturbing emotion that needs to be behind that. If we don’t have any of these disturbing emotions, then sometimes it’s necessary and better not to answer a question. 

There’s always what one Arab friend of mine taught me, which is to be the sphinx. The sphinx means that when somebody asks you a question, you just don’t respond, you pretend that you didn’t hear it, especially if it’s a really awkward question. Then you basically put them in a situation in which they have to ask again and again, and very often people would be a little bit too embarrassed to ask again. Sometimes that works. 

Participant: But this thing with the cigarettes…

Dr. Berzin: The cigarettes? That’s more difficult. 

Participant: It’s a duty. It’s your job.

Dr. Berzin: If it’s your job, it’s your job. 

Participant: How do you know you’re able to decide what is right for the other person?

Dr. Berzin: How can we decide what’s right for the other person in that aspect? That’s hard to say. 

I will give the example of my late brother-in-law. He was dying of brain cancer. He didn’t have very long to live. He was very overweight, and he wanted to eat big ice-cream sundaes every day. You could say that that was not good for his health. But he was dying of brain cancer, so what difference does it make? If he wants to enjoy ice-cream sundaes during the last month of his life, OK. And he did. And he died. But he didn’t die from eating the ice-cream sundaes. 

What is helpful for the person, or not helpful for the person, depends on the situation. With smoking cigarettes: if you have an eighty-five-year-old person who’s housebound, that’s not going to kill them; and to change their lifestyle at that age, it’s not going to work, it’s not going to happen. You have to use your judgment. If it’s a disabled very young person — maybe that’s a different situation. 

Participant: I don’t think we have the right to make a moral decision.

Dr. Berzin: She says she thinks that we don’t have a right to make a moral decision about what other people are doing. There are certain actions that are unhealthy, like smoking cigarettes, and then certain things like taking heroin. I think that one has to... I mean, obviously I bring up extreme examples, but there are certain cases where I think we can decide.

Participant: But I think if somebody is dependent on you to help them and they feel that they need to smoke, I don’t think you have the right in that situation to decide for them. It’s important to understand that they depend on your help for something they need.

Dr. Berzin: Right. She says that as a caretaker of somebody, it’s not up to us to decide what is good for them or what is not good for them. Perhaps a medical person is in a better situation to make such a decision. But again, there is here... What are some of the reasons for not answering those who ask us questions? This is specifically about those who ask us questions here. (We’re speaking about those who ask us to get something for them, so that’s the generosity of giving things.) But one of the things is pride. If out of pride we say, “I am so ethically better than you are, and I judge you. Your habits are bad and immoral, and therefore on that basis, I’m not going to help you,” then that’s breaking this vow. 

If our concern is sincere compassion to try to help the person, then you have to use your judgment: what is of help and what isn’t of help? Then is it appropriate for me or not? If I don’t get them the cigarettes, somebody else will get them the cigarettes. They can call on the phone and have them delivered. There are other ways of getting cigarettes. 

Participant: I think an alternative might be to try to buy some chewing gum or something. Just try to find alternatives here.

Dr. Berzin: Right. We could try to find alternatives — the methadone for heroin or whatever. Certainly there are other ways. Alcohol-free beer, these sort of things. 

Anyway, let’s not get stuck here. I think the main point is to understand: if somebody asks us a sincere question, we need to answer; otherwise, we’re leaving them in a fearful situation of not knowing. But it has to be a sincere question. If they’re just asking it to be annoying, then that’s difficult. Like what do you do with a child? Here we have a child, a good example. Hello. If they are constantly asking question after question — “Why is the sky blue? Why? Why? Why?” — then it’s time to go to bed.

Participant: It’s time to go to bed.

Dr. Berzin: “It’s time to go to bed. See you in the morning.” You don’t continue it. There are certain situations in which it is perfectly appropriate not to answer the question. But if you don’t answer the question because of being lazy or annoyed, that’s breaking this vow. OK? 

Two Faulty Actions of Not Providing the Circumstances for Others to Cultivate and Practice Generosity

Now the next two faulty actions involve not providing the circumstances for others to cultivate and practice generosity. 

[5] Not accepting when invited as a guest

This is not accepting when invited as a guest. If we refuse to go for a visit or a meal or go out to eat with somebody, or something like that, because of pride again (“I’m of too high a status to accept an invitation from this lowly person”), or anger (we don’t like the person), or spite (we want to make them angry), or laziness, or indifference, then we deprive the other person of an opportunity for building up the positive potential, or merit, from offering hospitality. Unless there are good reasons to decline, we accept, no matter how humble the home or the meal might be. 

[6] Not accepting material gifts

Then the next one is similar to that — not accepting material gifts — for the same reasons. If somebody offers us something, it’s important to accept it. People have problems, sometimes, accepting things from their parents, because of pride — “I want to be independent. I don’t want to be dependent on you” — but you’re depriving them… I mean, we can think in a Buddhist way of building up positive force or merit, but you also deprive them of the pleasure of helping their children. 

If you look at the example of His Holiness the Dalai Lama: sometimes there are groups that make these huge offerings to His Holiness and they can’t really afford it, and what does His Holiness do? He accepts it and then gives it back to them. In that way, he allows them to build up that positive force, and then he says, “Use this to improve your facility,” or to whatever.

Participant: The motivation to give is already there, so what difference does it make if one takes the present or not?

Dr. Berzin: The motivation is there, he says, so what difference does it make? The person who gives had the motivation to give, so what difference does it make whether we accept it or not? Think of it. If you offer somebody something and they refuse to take it, don’t you feel bad about that? 

Participant: I do. But it’s also a bad example if somebody accepts it and gives it back. 

Dr. Berzin: We’re not saying that you have to give that… you would feel bad if they accepted it and gave it back. Obviously, we’re talking about specific certain situations. You could accept it and then give it to somebody else. The Dalai Lama hardly ever keeps anything that’s given to him. What is he going to do with all this stuff? Most Tibetan lamas don’t like sweets, they don’t like cakes and chocolates and candies and all of that, so they usually give it to some other people who come to see them. But they accept it. 

Participant: If they don’t accept it then the act is not complete.

Dr. Berzin: If they don’t accept it, the act is not complete. Very good. Remember our discussion of karma? For an action to be complete, the action has to be actually enacted. 

I remember Serkong Rinpoche — Serkong Rinpoche absolutely did not like cakes. We were in a home on one of our foreign tours and the woman of the house had really gone to a great deal of effort to make a very special cake for him. Although he normally would never eat cake, he took a little piece and then he told his attendant to get the recipe (with absolutely no intention that they would ever make this cake). But it really made the woman of the house feel great that he liked it so much. One has to think of others in these types of situations. OK? 

But I think here, pride is the thing that often causes us not to accept, particularly from parents. Or on the other hand, parents, especially elder parents, out of pride often refuse to accept the help from their children. That’s really against these bodhisattva vows.

Participant: The motivation is the important point.

Dr. Berzin: Motivation is the important point behind all of these.

Participant: You really have to think about… I mean, on the other hand, you certainly shouldn’t go out to samsaric pleasures all the time.

Dr. Berzin: As a bodhisattva, yes, you don’t go out to all samsaric pleasures. But if somebody invites you, then… There are exceptions, when you… when I’m busy, I’m in retreat, like this or like that. But if your reason for not going is laziness, indifference, pride, you don’t like the person… you accept. You accept. 

This is very, very difficult, I must say. Particularly when you’re in a situation that I find myself in — but it doesn’t have to be necessarily in my situation — but when a lot of people ask for your help, or to go visit their Dharma center, or this or that, do you accept or do you not accept? Are there situations in which you don’t accept? Again, we look at that list of exceptions that I read from Tsongkhapa in which he said it’s OK not to answer. 

I remember I was, not too long ago, invited to a conference in Australia, and it was for a one-day event. I think it was just one day. It wasn’t more than two days. To travel from Germany to Australia is what, about 24 hours flight? Then with changing planes and so on we’re talking about a day and a half to get there. One-day event. Turn around and come back. I turned that down because it was just too much, too much in terms of health, in terms of everything. 

There are times when you might not be able to accept an invitation, and then that’s very difficult to determine: am I not going because of laziness or what? 

One Faulty Action Detrimental to Developing the Generosity of Giving Teachings

[7] Not giving the Dharma to those who wish to learn

Then the next, the final faulty action, is detrimental to our development of the generosity of giving teachings. This is not giving the Dharma to those who wish to learn. Again, the motivation for refusing to teach about Buddhism, or to loan others our Dharma books, or share our notes, and so on, is either anger, spite, jealousy (jealousy that the other person will outdo us by learning more about Buddhism than we do), laziness, or indifference. 

There was a root bodhisattva vow of not giving the Dharma, and that was declining because of attachment or miserliness. If we are attached (“I want to keep it to myself. I want to keep my books to myself.”) and miserly (“I don’t want to share.”) and we don’t share, that’s the root downfall. But if we don’t give because of anger or jealousy or laziness or indifference, that’s this secondary one. OK?

Then the next group are nine faulty actions that hamper our development of ethical self-discipline, far-reaching ethical self-discipline. 

Four Faulty Actions That Concern Situations in Which Our Main Consideration Is Others

The first four concern situations in which our main consideration is others. 

[1] Ignoring those with shattered ethics

The first is ignoring those with shattered ethics. This is referring to helping those who have broken their vows, those who are criminals, these sorts of things. We don’t want to help them because of anger, spite, laziness, indifference, or forgetfulness. If we ignore them, if we neglect them, if we put them down, this is breaking the vow. 

For instance, this has to do with... You know, there are these programs to teach prisoners in jails, and if with self-righteousness and moral indignation we say, “These are bad people. I’m not going to help them.” If they are sincerely interested in learning Dharma, and we’re asked, and we have the time, then to refuse is breaking this vow. That’s important actually. It’s not just the examples of not teaching prisoners, but there are people who break their ethical self-discipline who are criminals or just in general are naughty people — and are we willing or interested in being able to help them? How do you feel about seeing a drunk lying in the street? Or a heroin addict scrounging around trying to get money for the next fix? Do we look down on them? Do we judge them as bad people? Or at least do we have the willingness to be able to help them? 

Participant: They’re probably not so interested in Dharma teachings.

Dr. Berzin: They’re probably not so interested in Dharma teachings. But this is not referring to helping them with Dharma teachings. This is ignoring them, it says — ignoring those with shattered ethics. It’s ignoring them, neglecting them, or putting them down. It has to do really with our attitude toward them. Do you have a question?

Participant: I don’t understand why forgetful, how you can forget it just like that.

Dr. Berzin: Why forgetfulness? Let’s say there is somebody who needs our help, and they say, “Come over to my house and help me with something,” and we forget. Why did we forget? You could have written it down. If you wrote it down, then you would remember, you would see. But just to forget means that we don’t really care. You try to remember: “I said I would help.” You try to remember, then you do it. It has to do with how much you really care. 

Participant: Then you could forget to write it down.

Dr. Berzin: You could forget to write it down, that’s right. It’s not so easy. It’s not so easy. That’s why you have to practice hard and build up a good habit. 

Participant: Perhaps you don’t have paper.

Dr. Berzin: If you don’t have paper and these things… that’s very true. That’s very true. That could be difficult. You know what some people do? They tie a string around their finger to help remind them of something. You could write on your hand. There are some people who do that. If you don’t have that, you could put a rock in your pocket, and then later on you think “Why did I put that rock in my pocket? That’s strange.” Then you remember: “Oh, I put the rock in my pocket to remind me to go help my mommy do this or that.” You use little tricks. OK?

Participant: If you don’t have a rock? That’s really not easy.

Dr. Berzin: That’s really not easy, that’s right. For those who are listening to the podcast, we have a small child with us today. How old are you? 

Participant: Six.

Dr. Berzin: Six. A six-year-old little girl. We are practicing answering sincerely asked questions.

[2] Not upholding moral training for the sake of others’ faith

Now the next one. The next faulty action is not upholding moral training for the sake of others’ faith. Buddha spoke of many actions that, although they’re not naturally destructive, nevertheless are detrimental to our spiritual progress. For instance, laypersons drinking alcohol, or monastics sharing a room with a member of the opposite sex, these sorts of things. The point is if we act in these ways then it could cause others to lose faith and admiration for the Buddhist teachings. 

It’s like, for instance, there is the criticism that’s given to some Buddhist teachers, for instance, who drink a lot of alcohol and come late, and could even come to teachings when they’re drunk, or something like that, or act in all sorts of strange ways, abusive ways. That aside from all the other issues, this is breaking the bodhisattva vow, because they’re causing people to lose faith in Buddhism, because they represent Buddhism. 

Here, if people look to us as a representative of Buddhism… Or just, let’s say, in your family, you’re following Buddhism. It’s not that “I’m a representative of Buddhism” but if we come from a non-Buddhist family then members of our family sort of look at us in terms of how we behave. If we have explained to them that Buddhism is a way of life or practice that is aimed at trying to improve ourselves, for example, and yet we go and get drunk all the time and so on, this is... Or if we’re a monk or a nun and we are always sharing a room with a person of the opposite sex, even if we’re not indulging in sexual behavior with them, nevertheless it causes people to lose faith. Or monks or nuns in their robes going to a bar or a discotheque or something like that. It causes people to lose faith.

Participant: But I can also — like in the context of Chogyam Trungpa — I can imagine that it might do exactly the opposite. For example, he had students who were in the community or whatever, and so he did things like that in order to come down to another level, to their level. It’s not like this is absolutely morally perfect and there’s nobody for me to connect to. In this way, to make it a skillful means.

Dr. Berzin: Yeah. Skillful means. He brings up the point that there are some teachers who will act in certain ways — such as drinking alcohol, smoking cigarettes, and so on — that could be a skillful means for students who smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol to feel that “I can connect with this teacher, and even people who drink beer and smoke cigarettes can learn and practice the Dharma.” That may be so. That may be so. But what about other people seeing this? You see, then people think that... I mean, I’ve seen this in communities in which this is the case, that people think that it’s OK to drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes and… Obviously, smoking cigarettes… there is no prohibition or mention of smoking cigarettes as something which is detrimental to the health. Whether or not it messes up the energy-winds when you’re practicing tantra is something else. 

Participant: Burmese monks smoke.

Participant: Thai and Burmese monks.

Dr. Berzin: Burmese smoke. Burmese monks smoke, that is true. Thai also. Let’s leave that aside. 

But it depends on the situation. Everything always depends on the situation, of course. But if the attitude is “I don’t care what people think: I’m going to do this. It doesn’t matter,” and so on, then that’s not appropriate. That’s not appropriate. What kind of example do you want to set for other people? I don’t know. That’s difficult. As a monk, for example, do you go to bars with your students and drink just so that your students could relate to you? I don’t think that’s appropriate. As a lay teacher, do you do that? I don’t know.

Participant: It depends on the society. In France, it’s really… For instance, I heard it’s really accepted to drink something. If you don’t get drunk, but you have a little drink. Or to drink wine at lunch. It’s considered normal. If you go “Oh no, no alcohol,” they’ll think you’re a little bit strange, you know?

Participant: In Portugal it’s the same.

Dr. Berzin: This is the constant discussion that always comes up in terms of alcohol fitting into a society in which — like French — in which drinking wine is quite normal and you’re considered quite abnormal if you don’t drink wine. I think that everything depends on your situation or your status. If you are a very, very great teacher or something like that, that’s very different than being a Buddhist practitioner who doesn’t have vows regarding alcohol, and you just have a glass of wine with people. They’re not going to lose faith in Buddhism because of that. But on the other hand, if they look to you as Buddhist and they are judging Buddhism by the way that you act, and you get drunk and get into a fight, then that’s something else. Doing things that would cause others to lose faith. And that obviously is dependent on the society, of what would cause them to lose faith in Buddhism in terms of your behavior. 

You look at teachers — again I’m using the extreme examples — but you look at teachers who have been involved in scandals, and that really has caused so many of their students to lose faith. That’s breaking these bodhisattva vows. They expected something more of their teacher. 

Participant: The important point from this vow is that you strengthen the trust that the person has in you?

Dr. Berzin: Right. You strengthen the trust not just in you, but you strengthen the trust in the Buddhist teachings. 

Participant: In other texts it’s explained differently that you don’t teach Dharma to others who... You are able to teach it, but it’s not your personal practice.

Dr. Berzin: Oh that, I think, is a different vow, about not teaching Dharma to others because of saying that it’s not your personal practice although you are able to teach it. But that, I think, is a different category. 

Participant: But it’s in two texts.

Dr. Berzin: As this specific vow? 

Participant: Yes. Number nine.

Dr. Berzin: Number nine? I don’t know. Could be a different numbering of the vows. I don’t know all these vows by number, exactly what they are, these 46 vows. But this has to do with ethical discipline and our ethical discipline. The other one, what you’re mentioning, seems to be more in terms of generosity. But I don’t know specifically. 

The point is, it says here: “If, as a budding bodhisattva,” — we’re aspiring to be a bodhisattva — “we ignore these things in Buddha’s teachings because of lack of respect or belief in Buddha’s ethical teachings,” — it’s not important to avoid alcohol, or not to get in fights and so on — “or because of laziness to exercise self-control, and we cause others seeing our behavior to lose faith and admiration for Buddhists and Buddhism. Therefore, with concern for the impression our conduct makes on others, we refrain, for example, from taking recreational drugs.” 

Participant: I just wanted to bring up one thing. I think that recently there have been problems for Western people that come to Buddhism now. Some people, I know, are turned off from Buddhism because they have seen that so many Tibetans are eating meat, because they have this notion that a Buddhist shouldn’t eat meat and should be against killing. Most people are just turned off because they see they are not as holy as they should be, or something like that.

Dr. Berzin: OK. This is a very good point, that there are many people in the West who are vegetarians, and they’re turned off by Buddhists who eat meat. And wouldn’t that, by eating meat, be an act which is causing others to lose faith. I suppose it would, although it’s speaking here specifically about ignoring things that Buddha actually proscribed as detrimental to our spiritual progress. Although in certain Mahayana teachings and certain Kriya and Charya tantra practices, eating meat is detrimental, Buddha didn’t say specifically that it is. However, if eating meat would cause others to lose faith and respect in the Buddha’s teachings, then it’s certainly better not to eat meat. What you do in your own home is something else. But certainly, when you go out to a restaurant with these people, you don’t eat meat. 

The point is: what is your motivation for doing that? Is it pretending to be vegetarian when you’re not? Pretending to have good qualities that you don’t have, giving the impression that you’re vegetarian or not? Or do you just say that “I’m quite happy in eating anything — vegetarian, non-vegetarian, whatever is available. If vegetarian is available, fine.” The point is also not to be pretentious about it, not to pretend. 

Participant: How far would one go to please the ideas of people?

Dr. Berzin: How far do you go to please the ideas of people? That is... I don’t know. It was Pentecost over the weekend — it’s called Pfingsten in German — and my sister was here, and we were invited to go to Catholic Mass on Sunday morning. They were having choir and orchestra and stuff. It was very beautiful. We go to this Mass. At certain points in the Mass, everybody stands up. I’m not Catholic. If I didn’t stand up when everybody else stood up, they would think there’s something really odd about me. They would. That’s disrespectful. So, you stand up when everybody else stands up, and you sit down when everybody else sits down. I mean, there are many situations in which this can... certainly my friend and his family would think it odd that I didn’t show enough respect to their customs to stand up when everybody else stood up during the Mass. Of course, you stand up. Did I cross myself? No, I didn’t cross myself, but I stood up. To cross myself would be pretentious. 

How far do you go to please others? Again, you just think of it: You’re at a table, and you’re invited by some people as a guest, and you stuffed yourself. I mean, they’re eating modestly and you stuff yourself, or you start to eat before everybody else is served, or things like that. They lose respect for what you represent. If they are looking to you as, and categorize you as, a Buddhist and they’re not. Not everybody is judging us by our behavior, but if they are, as many of us find as Western Buddhists in a non-Buddhist environment, then it’s important not to cause others to think very lowly of Buddhism and Buddhist practice. They’d say, “Look. This person is supposed to be a Buddhist and look what a pig they are at the table.”

Participant: I find that some people really have strange ideas about Buddhism sometimes. They really think all are vegetarians, they never even smoke or look at a cigarette, they don’t drink a single drop of alcohol, and they’re always smiling. You know? These kinds of ideas they have. Sometimes I can see these kinds of expectations. And sometimes I feel a little bit… I say, “I’m not like this. Maybe some others are like this, but please don’t forget me as a Buddhist.”

Dr. Berzin: OK. What you say is very good. That’s very, very good Karsten. He says that some people have the strange idea that all Buddhists are vegetarian and don’t smoke and don’t drink and are always smiling, and so on, are always calm, etc. When people have that expectation toward you, then you say, “Come on! I’m just a regular person and I do regular things. I’m just trying to follow this path.” This is very important. This is why I said everything depends on your status. If you are a regular Buddhist practitioner and don’t have the status of being a teacher or somebody who has done a three-year retreat or has studied in India for five years, or stuff like that, then it’s very good to tell people “Look, I’m just an ordinary person trying to gain some benefit from these teachings, but don’t look at me as a representative of it.” Now you’re being honest — this is very important — you’re not being pretentious. Especially when people have false projections on you, false expectations.

Participant: If there’s nothing else to eat and you’re vegetarian… You’re so hungry, so you have to eat something.

Dr. Berzin: That’s true. She asks, the little girl asks: If we are very, very hungry and we’re vegetarian, and the only thing available to eat is meat, then what do we do? Sometimes you have to make exceptions. You have to make exceptions. That’s true. Or if we’re in the desert and the sun is so hot and there is nothing to drink at all and we’re dying of thirst, and the only thing to drink is a bottle of beer, what do you do? Do you die or do you drink the bottle of beer? You drink the bottle of beer.

Participant: You have to drink water.

Dr. Berzin: But if there is no water. If there is no water, you might have to drink the… It all depends on how strict your ethics are. 

If you were alone in the desert — here’s a difficult one — you’re alone in the desert and there’s nothing to eat, and you’re there with your dog or you’re there with a goat, what do you do? Do you kill your dog and eat your dog? No. But do you kill a goat and eat the goat, or a chicken? That’s not so nice, that’s right. Sometimes you have to draw the line and say, “No. I’m not going to kill this chicken. I’m not going to eat my dog,” and you don’t. You have to judge what’s good to do, what’s not so good to do. That’s what we’re talking about. 

Participant: If you’re really hungry and there’s only meat, then that’s OK.

Dr. Berzin: That’s right. If you’re really, really hungry and the only thing is meat, and the other person has some meat for you to eat, then in that case maybe it’s OK to eat meat. Because that’s not so bad. That’s not the same as eating your dog, killing your dog, and eating your dog, is it? Of course, the dog also may be hungry. Maybe you can find something else to eat, that’s right. But not only for you — also for your dog.

Participant: Like coconuts.

Dr. Berzin: Coconuts I don’t think will grow in the desert. Unless you go to an oasis. 

Participant: But in the desert, there are some things to drink sometimes.

Dr. Berzin: Sometimes. That’s true. In the desert there are sometimes things to drink. You have to really look hard. OK. That was this... 

Participant: There are animals in the desert. They live there.

Dr. Berzin: That’s right. There are some animals that live in the desert. Camels. Yeah. But camels don’t have to drink very much. 

[3] Being petty when it concerns the welfare of others

Then the next one is being petty when it concerns the welfare of others. Buddha gave... 

Participant: What does petty mean?

Dr. Berzin: Petty means keeping very minor little rules for no good reason. That’s being petty. Is there a German word for that? 

Participant: Kleinlich.

Dr. Berzin: Alright. Like, for instance… The example that’s given is that monks and nuns are always supposed to have their three sets of robes with them, and they are not supposed to sleep in a place without having their three sets of robes. Don’t ask me why. Being petty and keeping a minor rule would be, for instance: somebody falls sick and you go off to help this person, and you have to stay overnight to help them, to nurse them, but you didn’t bring your three robes with you, and you say, “I can’t stay here and take care of you, because I have to go back because I don’t have all three of my robes with me.” (I mean, these aren’t the three robes that they wear all the time. Two of them are robes that you wear in special ceremonies.) That’s being petty. OK? 

Being a rigid fanatic with rules hampers our balanced development of ethical self-discipline. Sometimes we have to be flexible. 

[4] Not committing a destructive action when love and compassion call for it

Then the next one is not committing a destructive action when love and compassion call for it. This is referring to destructive actions of body and speech in which, in a certain situation, it might be necessary out of love and compassion. 

Like if there is a poisonous snake about to bite somebody — well, it’s not good to kill the snake, but if they’re going to bite your mommy or somebody like that, you might have to do something really strong to save your mommy. The same thing if a hunter comes and they want to shoot a deer, and you saw the deer and the deer was going over there, and the hunter asks you “Where did the deer go?”

Participant: You don’t say anything.

Dr. Berzin: You don’t have to say anything, that’s right. In that situation you can lie and say, “I don’t know. I didn’t see it,” because you are really concerned about the deer, and you don’t want the hunter to shoot it. 

Here the point is that we understand that lying or killing this poisonous snake, or whatever, is destructive, but we’re willing to accept the consequences on ourselves, whatever that might be, in order to help the other person. OK? We have to be strong enough to do that properly. That’s not so easy. 

That brings us to the end of our session today, and we’ll continue with these next time. Any questions about this stuff? The point is to really examine our motivation, and if we’re trying to develop these six far-reaching attitudes, what are things that we need to avoid? These were concerning others in terms of discipline, that the way that we act is going to affect their respect or disrespect for Buddhism. Sometimes in order to help others, we might have to lie; we might have to do things. We shouldn’t be petty and fanatic and rigid with the vows when we need to be able to help somebody. Even if others are not very ethical or have really fallen down, we shouldn’t think “Oh, I’m so holy and these people are not worthy of help.”

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