LPA35: Importance of Vows on the Tantra Path

Reliance on a Qualified Spiritual Mentor

Tsongkhapa points out that we have the basis for being able to practice. We have a precious human rebirth, we’ve met with the teachings, we have a teacher, and we have the intelligence to be able to discriminate between what’s helpful and what’s harmful, what’s to be practiced and what’s not. Therefore, if we really appreciate and value this opportunity that we have, then we really need to engage ourselves in the teachings. 

To do that we have to rely on guidance from a teacher who doesn’t miss out on any of these most essential points of qualification, which is that they need to know what is that we need to develop, what it is that we don’t need to develop or what we need to get rid of, and not adding anything, not leaving anything out, and knowing the graded order of how to develop all these various qualities and aspects of the mind. That teacher has to be someone who has similarly gone through this type of training with their own qualified teacher, and a training that’s based on the classics, on the scriptural authority. 

That actually is a very important point. When a student is examining a teacher and the teacher says something that maybe the student hasn’t heard before, or the student has a little bit of doubt about, then the proper procedure, of course, is to ask the teacher, “What’s your scriptural source for that? Where did you get this from?” A proper teacher is somebody who should have some idea of where these teachings come from, what they’re based on, because then one gets more confidence as a student or a potential disciple that that teacher is following the actual instructions of the Buddha and not just making something up. If a teacher has gotten various insights based on his or her own experience, then if the teacher is honest, the teacher will say, “This is based on my own experience, on my own understanding. I haven’t seen this in a text, but this seems to me correct. We have to check it out,” something like that. That point is actually quite important. 

The Motivating Mental Framework

Then as for how we actually begin our practice, what we need to do is to tame our minds, and taming our mind depends on having the proper motivating mental framework. And for that there’s a graded order. The graded order is something which has been based on a tremendous amount of experience of what actually works in terms of developing ourselves. So, we have the initial, intermediate, and advanced scope of motivation, as Atisha pointed out: 

• This means, first of all, turning away our main concern from this lifetime and having it be in future lives. That’s the beginning of getting over attachment, not being so concerned about this lifetime, and realizing that we are going to continue to take rebirth and it’s very important that it not be in worse states. If we want to continue with our Dharma practice and go all the way, then it’s very, very important to work to benefit our future lives. 

• Then, in terms of the intermediate scope, it’s very important to gain complete disgust with this uncontrollably recurring rebirth, with the basis for it, which is our disturbing emotions and the karmic impulses that it builds up, and being so fed up with it; we are not at all attracted to continuing rebirth and all the various things that are involved with that. We develop a keen interest then in liberation. 

• When we have that and that is firm, then when we think about others we will think about them in a much more profound way. We’ll be able to recognize on a much deeper level the type of problems that they have, not just that they’re out of work or they’re hungry or this or that, which of course are things that need to be taken care of, but on a deeper level we are… Our concern with others is a much deeper concern, concern about not just them in this present lifetime, concern about them not just “Let’s help them to get a better rebirth,” or to improve this lifetime (to get a job or something like that), but to help them on a much more profound and long-lasting level, to help them to gain liberation. We realize, having this concern for others, that it’s not enough for us to just work for our own liberation — even if we attain that, that’s not going to be of maximum help to others — and so we have to work further to achieve enlightenment. It’s with this type of motivation that we enter into tantra practice, because tantra practice is designed to help us to reach that enlightened state as quickly as is possible. Doesn’t make any sense to practice it outside of that type of context. 

This graded way of building up our motivating mental framework is absolutely essential. In order to do that, it’s not enough to just have some intellectual understanding of it or just mouth the words; we have to actually meditate, which means to build them up as a beneficial habit. Meditate, as you know, is based on hearing all the teachings and then thinking about them. You have to think about them so that they make sense, so that you’re actually convinced of the aims of these motivating mental frameworks: 

• I’m actually convinced, and I really, really, want to be able to benefit my future lives. 
• I really want to be able to gain liberation from uncontrollably recurring rebirth, from disturbing emotions and karma, and not just disturbing emotions in this lifetime but the whole cycle that’s going to perpetuate rebirth, samsaric rebirth. 
• I’m convinced that I really want to achieve enlightenment. I sincerely feel the need for that, not just because it’s the highest thing possible but because I’m really deeply concerned about everybody, and I see that this is the only way that I can really be of best help to them. 

When we have understood what’s involved and we are convinced that this is valid, that the methods will work to achieve that type of goal and that it’s possible to achieve that goal, then we have the discriminating awareness that’s arisen from thinking about the teachings. 

How To Meditate

Then meditating. Meditating means to really have it sink in, to make it a beneficial habit. If we look at the discriminating awareness that comes from meditation, that’s based on a combination of shamatha and vipashyana already, that your mind is completely stilled and settled so you can concentrate on anything whatsoever for as long as you want, and exceptionally perceptive that you can really perceive all the details and all the aspects of something with total concentration. 

The real meditation is to then, with that type of state of mind of joined shamatha and vipashyana, to really focus very, very deeply, both in a discerning type of way in which you see that this is so (whatever it is that we’re trying to develop) and then a stabilizing way in which we just totally absorb into that state of concentration based on this. This is how it becomes really totally part of us, absolutely 100% part of our minds. 

Obviously, we meditate, so-called meditate, earlier than that, earlier than that achievement of joined shamatha and vipashyana. But I think it’s very important not to confuse the thinking stage with the meditating stage — they’re different — and not to downplay the thinking stage. The thinking stage is to really become convinced “This is really what I want to do.” For most of us that’s not something that we’ve done very thoroughly. We sit there and “Yes, I’m going to meditate on love and compassion,” and these sorts of things, but I really wonder how deep that goes. I think there’s a big difference between doing something like that in order to be a good person, sort of a therapeutic type of thing, which I would put in the category of Dharma-lite, which is very beneficial, no doubt about that, but really doing it in the full proper way as is taught in the Buddhist teachings is something else, something much deeper.

Then Tsongkhapa actually explains how we meditate, how you build up something, a certain state of mind, as a beneficial habit. We have to know what it depends on, what are the things that support it, what are the things that harm it that we have to avoid and we have to watch out for, what is the way of building up to that state of mind, what are all the details of it (and details meaning what are the various mental factors that would accompany it), and what are we actually focusing on, and how is the mind focusing on that object. All of these things specify very precisely the state of mind that we’re trying to digest and integrate with us. The more that we can specify the state of mind correctly, obviously it helps us to be more successful in developing it (if it’s fuzzy then our development is going to be fuzzy). So, this is very good. 

Also, by the way, the whole process of debate in Buddhism is intended to help us with this stage of thinking so that we understand what it is that we’re trying to develop, and we don’t have any questions about it, we don’t have any doubts about it, everything is clear, and we are convinced that our understanding is clear and correct. Then you have much more confidence in the actual meditation Those who might put down debate as simply being arguments and intellectual play don’t really understand the theory and purpose of the debate system in Buddhism. 

Now, Tsongkhapa also says that these motivating frames of mind need to be sustained, not just at the beginning when you sit down to do meditation and you set the motivation (and then you forget about it, which is very easy to do), but to try to maintain it throughout the meditation, and not only throughout the meditation but also throughout the day. This is essential. 

The Ethical Self-discipline of Keeping Vows

Then we had a very long discussion based on Tsongkhapa’s mentioning, at the very beginning now, of once we have the proper motivation, if we want to get into tantra, then the next thing that is so essential are the vows. He spoke about the pratimoksha vows, the vows for individual liberation, as either a layperson or a monk or a nun (novice or fully ordained), and the bodhisattva vows and the tantric vows. We went through all of them. And there’s also a discussion of what are the factors that might weaken them, what are the factors that might cause us to lose them, all the various grades of these, and how we can restrengthen these vows if they are lost or weakened. We’ve gone through all of that, and that has taken us quite a number of months. But this is where we are now. 

Now to go on with Tsongkhapa’s text. He sums up a little bit about the vows now. He says: 

Thus as I see it, (the facts of the matter are these). We must enter into the meditations of the two (anuttarayoga tantra) stages with these (tantric vows and close bonds) indispensably (set) as our foundation. 

He reaffirms that we absolutely have to have the vows.

Furthermore, even if we do not meditate on the two stages, still if we have received an empowerment, we are definitely required to keep them. 

Remember we have a brief discussion of initiations or empowerments. As many great masters have said, you have not received an empowerment unless you take the vows. There’s no empowerment without the vows. That’s an indispensable part of receiving any tantric initiation. If it’s with the first two classes of tantra, it’s only the bodhisattva vows. If it’s the third or fourth, it’s both the bodhisattva and tantric vows.

Tsongkhapa goes on:

As these are the case, we must therefore strive to develop great certainty in this (matter concerning vows). This is because (of two points Buddha has made). He has said that having received an empowerment, if we keep our close bonds and vows purely, then even if we have not meditated on the two stages during this lifetime, we can still reach the supreme attainment (of Buddhahood) in seven or sixteen lifetimes and so on (of consecutively keeping them). And also, he has said that if, (treating them lightly,) we give up the close bonds and vows we have promised to keep, then even having done seemingly meditation on the two stages, we will fall to one of the worse rebirths and thereby not attain (enlightenment).

OK. Let’s take a little bit of a look at this. Now, this has always struck me as a bit of an odd statement that we have to examine a little bit more closely. What does it mean? He says: If we’ve taken these vows and we keep the vows — referring to the pratimoksha (individual liberation), the bodhisattva, and the tantric vows, all three — then even if you don’t meditate on the two stages, you can still reach Buddhahood in seven or sixteen lifetimes of consecutively keeping them. What in the world could that mean? Anyone? It’s not so easy.

Participant: If you follow the vows… It is a vow to remember to do meditation on voidness. I think gradually you’ll progress…

Dr. Berzin: Right. Right. Very good. If you keep the vows, if you remember what the vows are — this is why it’s important to know the vows — then connected with the bodhisattva vows, we’re supposed to reaffirm our bodhichitta every day; we’re supposed to remember the advantages of bodhichitta. Part of the tantric vows — you meditate on voidness six times a day. Plus, we are avoiding acting in negative ways (the basis of the pratimoksha vows) at least in the grossest manner. And we are refraining from acting on the basis of selfishness (that’s the bodhisattva vows). We are having a respectful attitude toward our spiritual teacher. 

The close bonds, remember, were always to — what were they? Practice generosity. Remember the nineteen close-bonding practices? Practice all sorts of generosity. Always have safe direction. Always have ethical discipline. Making offerings. That’s building up positive force all the time. Keeping a vajra and bell. What was that? That was always being mindful of a blissful awareness and a discriminating awareness of voidness, not just to have some knickknack that you keep on the shelf. So always trying to be mindful of that. What’s another one? Having a proper relation with the spiritual teacher. 

All these things are included in the vows. If we keep them seriously, which means seriously meditating on bodhichitta and voidness every day, and following the teacher, and trying to have this blissful understanding of voidness… One way of building up a blissful mind — there are many ways in tantra practice — but the more positive things you do, the happier and the more blissful you become. 

If we think in this way then it’s not so strange when it says that we can still, just on the basis of keeping the vows purely — this means absolutely purely, 100% purely, which is not so simple — but if you keep it absolutely purely for seven or sixteen lifetimes (where these numbers come from, I have no idea, but seven or sixteen lifetimes) then it is possible to achieve enlightenment just on that basis.

Participant: Is there any purification practices involved with these vows?

Dr. Berzin: Is there any purification practice? Yes, that was what we discussed last week. (Two weeks ago. Last week we didn’t have class. I wasn’t here.) There’s applying the opponent forces. Openly admitting that what we did was incorrect, and regret, promising to try to not to do it again, reaffirming our foundation (safe direction and bodhichitta), and applying some sort of opponent (which could be lots of Vajrasattva mantra, various other type of mantra, self-initiation, fire pujas, all sorts of things). 

But this thing about seven or sixteen lifetimes. I would imagine that that means keep them purely, fully — and that’s obviously not so simple — and not weaken them. Remember we had the discussion of all sorts of little things, attitudes that we could have, that could weaken them as well? The point is that these vows are very, very important. That’s our main point here. 

And — here it’s interesting — the second thing that Tsongkhapa mentions based on what Buddha said: If we give up the close bonds and the vows we’ve promised to keep, we give them up, then even if we’ve done seemingly meditation on the two stages — in other words, you do the practice and it seems as though you’re doing the actual meditation but you’re not really (that’s called seemingly practice, at least that’s the way that I translate it) — then we will fall to one of the worse rebirths and thereby not attain enlightenment. What does that mean? Meditate or else you’ll go to hell? Surely not that type of flavor to it. What does this mean? Why would you go to a worse rebirth?

Participant: Maybe on the basis that you really have decided to go all the way for the liberation of all beings — on this basis, you start tantra practice, but you don’t take it seriously. That’s really the downfall.

Dr. Berzin: Right. He says that we started out with bodhichitta. I mean, obviously if you take the bodhisattva vows, it’s on the basis of bodhichitta, engaging bodhichitta (’jug-sems): you’re going to engage in the practice to bring you to enlightenment. Then you give it up. “I was doing this to benefit everybody.” You give it up. Why do you give it up? “Now I don’t give a damn about everybody, and it’s not possible for me to achieve enlightenment.” You get discouraged. If you think it’s not possible to achieve liberation and enlightenment, are you going to achieve liberation and enlightenment? Nay. No. “This is impossible, so why even bother? I’m not going to restrain myself from abusing others,” so you go against the bodhisattva vows. 

“Forget about meditating on voidness,” so I’m doing seemingly meditation in tantra — what does that mean? — sitting there and visualizing myself as a deity. You might as well be sitting there and visualizing yourself as Mickey Mouse. What in the world are you doing? You’re just playing around. “Ooh, I’m going to visualize and work with the chakras,” and so on. I mean, come on! What in the world are you doing? You’re not doing anything. You’re fooling yourself into thinking you’re doing something. 

On this type of basis, what are causes for a worse rebirth? It’s acting destructively, isn’t it, selfishly, on the basis of being selfish, and you go around: “I can abuse my teacher. I don’t need to rely on a teacher. I don’t need to be generous. I don’t need to...” all these things. You’re going against the vows. You give them up. 

I don’t think this is talking about “I’ll give up the vows, but without the vows I’ll keep them anyway.” It’s not talking about that, is it? It’s talking about acting contrary to the vows because you think they’re useless or “I can’t do it. It’s stupid.” That’s what’s called a distorted antagonistic attitude (log-lta). In terms of the destructive actions, that’s the heaviest. That’s what’s involved here, is having a distorted antagonistic way of thinking. “These vows are stupid. Liberation and enlightenment are impossible. There’s no point in keeping them. There’s no point in any of this. But I’ll sit there and visualize myself as this or that deity because it’s so cool and far out.”

Participant: There’s the special case of Shariputra, who gave up the bodhisattva vows. I mean, he wasn’t acting out of anger.

Dr. Berzin: Right. She mentions this verse in Bodhicharyavatara, in Shantideva’s Engaging in Bodhisattva Behavior, and Shantideva says: As for the case of Shariputra, who gave up the vows and still attained liberation, this is something we can’t really understand. (If I remember the verse correctly.)

Participant: Only the Buddha can.

Dr. Berzin: Only the Buddha can understand that. Did Shariputra stop following the Buddha? No. Did Shariputra gain enlightenment, or did he just gain liberation?

Participant: Liberation.

Dr. Berzin: Liberation. He obviously continued to have strong renunciation and keeping various other vows. He was a monk, wasn’t he? But anyway, “Only a Buddha knows” is maybe a cheap way out of answering the question. You know, a “God knows why he did that” type of answer. But that’s what Shantideva wrote.

Participant: Shantideva was writing about being reborn in the deepest hells when you give up bodhichitta.

Participant: In one verse he says this. Then in the other verse he gives an example where it’s not like this, but “God knows why.”

Dr. Berzin: They are pointing out that the context in Shantideva’s text is he’s speaking about all the terrible things that will happen in terms of giving up bodhisattva vows. You have invited everybody to a feast of liberation, and then you have disappointed them and let them down. But then he gives the exception of Shariputra. There are always exceptions. What to say? It may be unsatisfying, but at least Shantideva was honest enough to mention the objection. Why did Shantideva mention the objection? (The exception, I should say.) Shantideva is a bodhisattva par excellence. Why would he mention this?

Participant: Maybe for people who become scared when they hear about… who think that it’s too difficult to take the vows.

Dr. Berzin: To help those who might think it’s too difficult to take the vows is one answer. What’s your answer?

Participant: It’s exactly the other way around. It’s more like to at least mention it so that you shouldn’t rely on such a cheap way out as thinking “Well, you can always go a step back again later.” I think it was given as a bad example: don’t rely on that.

Dr. Berzin: Right. Christian says the opposite. He’s saying that Shantideva mentions this exception just to say that “Don’t be like this. Don’t think that you can get out so easily.” Anybody else have a good idea? Why would Shantideva want to say this?

Participant: It might have been so that people don’t get discouraged.

Dr. Berzin: OK. The people don’t get discouraged. So, you agree with Mark.

Participant: Maybe to prove his honesty.

Dr. Berzin: To prove his honesty. That’s another answer. 

My guess of why he would do this is to benefit his readers. Right? That’s obviously his only motive for writing anything. So, what happens? Some smart-aleck monk comes along and goes to the texts and finds this example of Shariputra and he says, “What Shantideva says is garbage. Look here. I can prove it. Here’s somebody that it didn’t work with.” To help these kind of people, like Christian says, not to use this as an excuse, and to help them (part of your answer) not to get discouraged — discouraged isn’t the word here, isn’t the proper word — but to help them not to give up the bodhisattva way because they found an example that is contradictory, not to lose confidence in the teachings because they found an example that contradicts it, Shantideva points it out. This is very helpful. He’s being totally honest, yes, and helping people not to stumble over the fact that “Well yeah, here’s an exception.” OK, there’s an exception. Don’t freak out about it.

Participant: This is only logical if you think about cause and effect. Even if you give up the bodhisattva ideal but still you strive for liberation, it is cause and effect that then brings this result. How can it be if you still have the idea about acting for liberation? It cannot be otherwise. Otherwise, it would be like punishment (you go to hell), but this is not cause and effect.

Dr. Berzin: She is saying that cause and effect is very important here. If you give up bodhichitta because you think “Enlightenment is too much. I can’t do it,” but you still have strong renunciation and are working for liberation, then on the basis of cause and effect, that should work. 

I know you have things that you want to say but let me just add my own thought on this. Shariputra is not us. Who is Shariputra? Shariputra was the closest attendant and disciple of Buddha Shakyamuni. Don’t you think he built up a tremendous amount of positive force serving the Buddha himself and studying with the Buddha himself? So yes, cause and effect is very important here. But for us ordinary people, giving up bodhichitta… I don’t think that we would build up as much positive force to achieve liberation as Shariputra could serving the Buddha. I think that you’re right in terms of cause of effect, but we have to take into consideration who in the world was Shariputra. That’s what I think.

Manuel?

Participant: I thought about it when she mentioned the question, about the German saying die Ausnahmen bestätigen die Regel, which means the exception confirms the rule.

Dr. Berzin: Right. The exception proves the rule. We say that in English as well.

Participant: It’s a bit like in statistics in university when you have maybe one exceptional case, but which really proves the point.

Dr. Berzin: Right. He is saying that we have this saying, both in German and English, “The exception proves the point.” If you look at statistics, if there’s one case which doesn’t fit the paradigm then you’re saying that everything else does fit the paradigm and so that proves the paradigm. 

It’s sort of like when His Holiness the Dalai Lama has given oral transmission of very, very difficult texts, I remember listening to many of them from His Holiness. He reads the text at superfast speed going through all of that, and all of a sudden, he will stop abruptly and then he’ll say, “I don’t understand this word.” And then he’ll ask the greatest scholars who are sitting around him, who also had to keep up at super-speed of where he was, to see if they know what it means. Sometimes nobody knows what it means, and then His Holiness usually laughs and goes on. Here’s a very good exception — the exception proves the rule — that, at least for me, it gave me far more confidence in His Holiness. If His Holiness stops once in this text and admits here’s one word that he doesn’t understand, and nobody else understands it either, then that pretty much indicates that if he didn’t understand something else, he would have stopped again, so he does understand all the rest of it. So yes, that’s very good.

Participant: I will contribute to Manuel’s thought, which I agree with, but from another vantage point. I see actually all of the views in the room as almost being… you could view it as a clock, and the views here and here are at 9 o’clock and 3 o’clock, and maybe Manuel’s is at 12 o’clock, and one at 6 o’clock. It makes sense. I think all of these are valid and applicable and logically thought out and explained, but I think there’s one ingredient that’s missing, which is comparable to what Manuel was talking about (the exception defining the rule or supporting the rule), is that the flip side of that is to exemplify the “neither this nor that,” to exemplify a liminal state where it’s all…

Dr. Berzin: A liminal state?

Participant: Like it’s not an absolute. Do you see what I’m saying? That’s related to what Manuel was saying, but it’s on the flip side of the same coin. It’s not the logical, but it’s the…

Dr. Berzin: I’m sorry. I don’t see what you mean.

Participant: I think she means there’s no absolute truth or absolute 100%.

Participant: An exception has to exemplify that. Do you see what I mean?

Participant: What I think, what I get out of it, is that even if teachings are relative, on the whole they are true.

Dr. Berzin: OK. I understand. The point that Zina’s making — she’s saying that we’re all looking at this from different points of view, and she wants to add another aspect, which is that by there being an exception it indicates that there isn’t an absolute statement that one can make, that things are relative.

Participant: Which is true with everything.

Dr. Berzin: Which is true about everything, after all. In the teachings where we differentiate between interpretable and definitive teachings, the only definitive teachings are on voidness; everything else is interpretable. Whether or not interpretable means you can take it literally or not… No. Interpretable means that by interpreting it, it brings you to the understanding of voidness. Perhaps we can think of the voidness of this causal relationship, that “If it’s this, it has to be that” and is something which is fixed from the side of the logic, or are there other factors that will influence it? This is a very good point. Because one cause doesn’t bring about just one result. 

Give up bodhichitta: you go to hell? The result of that giving up bodhichitta is a lower rebirth; this is clear. Now, the teachings of karma say that “Not just one cause causes one result” — voidness of cause and effect, if you recall. There are many, many causes and conditions which will influence what happens. This goes back to what I said about Shariputra building up such enormous positive force serving the Buddha that maybe he stubbed his toe or something like that, but he didn’t go to a worse rebirth. He was able to achieve liberation. I mean, this reinforces Shantideva’s statement: “Only a Buddha knows.” Why does only a Buddha know? Because only a Buddha knows the full aspects of karma, of cause and effect. Obviously, there are many, many other causes influencing Shariputra achieving liberation. So yeah, I think we’ve covered the whole spectrum perhaps of how we would understand this.

Participant: Then also it brings you to think about the case of Shariputra and discuss that, and then to think about the Buddha, the qualities of a Buddha, and how all this can be considered something beneficial to meditate on. And also, to develop respect for Shariputra.

Dr. Berzin: Right. She said that bringing in the example of Shariputra is also very helpful because it’s led to discussions like we’ve had just now, in terms of then thinking about the qualities of a Buddha, thinking about karma, thinking about so many different things. It helps us to go deeper into the teachings and also to develop more respect for Shariputra. 

But I want you to appreciate that although we have not done a formal debate on this point, by discussing it in the way that we’ve been discussing it, we gain not only a deeper understanding but a little bit more confidence in the teaching, hopefully. It clears away doubt, which is the whole point of this type of discussion. And that’s not so easy to do just by yourself, because other people will bring in different points of view, different ideas. They will challenge what we say much more than we’ll challenge ourselves. Very good.

Let’s go on. This is Tsongkhapa again:

(Another point can be seen from two more of Buddha’s statements.) He has said that if our working basis for practicing secret mantra 

That’s another word for tantra.

is as a householder, we must practice while continually maintaining the five (vows of lay) discipline or, if as ordained, then while maintaining either the two or three sets (of novice or full vows). Further, he has said that for upholding (and practicing) the Vajra (Vehicle of mind) it is best to be fully ordained, next best a novice, and at minimum someone with householder (vows). Therefore, it follows (from these statements) that (Buddha’s) presentation (of this ranking) is by means of the number of vows that are (actually) safeguarded and not merely by the (number that are) promised to be kept. This is why (Kamalashila) has said in Beholding Reality (De-nyid snang-ba, Skt. Tattvaloka), that if someone maintaining both individual liberation and bodhisattva vows practices (secret) mantra, he or she will actualize results more quickly. (In stating this) he is asserting that the actualizations gained by having taken the (secret) mantra vows while already safeguarding bodhisattva and ordination vows are (gained) much more quickly than those from having safeguarded only the mantra vows themselves.

What is Tsongkhapa saying here? And he’s quoting Kamalashila — it’s not just Tsongkhapa. He’s referring back to what Buddha said, so obviously he has some sutra source for this (or tantra source, because it’s speaking about tantra). He’s saying that... What is he saying? He’s saying that to practice tantra, secret mantra — so that’s referring to the highest classes of tantra, what’s involved with the tantric vows — you have to practice it with some level of vow for individual liberation, either householder, novice, or full vows, and that it’s best to have the full vows of a monk or a nun; less, to be a novice; the least, at least to have the householder vows. This is not just in terms of having like a badge on your arm for the number of vows that you’ve taken but actually keeping them. Kamalashila has said: if you have pratimoksha (individual liberation) and bodhisattva vows and then keep the tantric vows, you will gain realization more quickly than if you don’t have the pratimoksha or bodhisattva vows as your basis. In other words, having the tantric vows will not be as efficient if you don’t have the pratimoksha and bodhisattva vows. 

What do you think of that?

Participant: You can’t take the tantra vows without the bodhisattva vows.

Dr. Berzin: OK. You can’t take the tantra vows without the bodhisattva vows. That’s a start. Why? Why can’t you take the tantric vows? Just because Buddha said so? 

Participant: First you have to be certain that your dedication is to help others, that you want to be a bodhisattva.

Dr. Berzin: Right. First you have to be certain that you want to achieve enlightenment. You want to be able to benefit everybody, not just achieve enlightenment just because it’s the highest. I mean, it’s very easy to aim for enlightenment just because it’s the highest and forget about everybody else. “Who wants liberation? That’s number two. I want number one. No idea what it is, but it’s supposed to be the best, so I want the best. Only the best for me. That’s right. I want to be number one.” 

Why can’t you practice tantra? This gets into a much larger discussion, doesn’t it, of what is the necessity for... What’s involved with the vows for individual liberation and the bodhisattva vows? 

Participant: Motivation.

Dr. Berzin: Motivation. Motivation for individual liberation. That means exactly what it says. You’re taking it in order to attain, individually, liberation. Which means you have renunciation. If you didn’t have renunciation, you wouldn’t take vows to refrain from various things that would perpetuate samsara. Bodhisattva vows implies that you have bodhichitta. Renunciation is the basis for pratimoksha vows. Bodhichitta is the basis for bodhisattva vows. Without those two, then, tantra practice doesn’t make sense. This is the way to understand this.

Participant: Another way of saying it, if I’m right, is Hinayana, Mahayana, and then tantra are all built on each other.

Dr. Berzin: Right. Another way of saying what Tsongkhapa is saying — what Buddha and Kamalashila are saying then Tsongkhapa is quoting — is that tantra Mahayana is based on sutra Mahayana, sutra Mahayana is based on Hinayana. But what we need to understand is why, because only if you understand that do you become convinced that it’s correct. 

So renunciation. What are we renouncing? We are renouncing uncontrollably recurring rebirth. What is the root cause for uncontrollably recurring rebirth? Unawareness, ignorance, grasping for a truly established me and mine. In order to attain liberation, we have to get rid of what’s known as the emotional obscurations (nyon-sgrib). There’s grasping for truly established existence, and all the disturbing emotions and attitudes that are based on that, and then all the karmic junk that’s based on that. 

When you want to achieve enlightenment, you have to overcome the cognitive obscurations (shes-sgrib). What are the cognitive obscurations? This is our mind producing appearances of truly established existence (with the emotional ones, you believe that it’s true, that it corresponds to reality). 

What we’re doing in tantra is focusing on voidness to start with, so you get rid of this... When you focus totally absorbed on voidness non-conceptually, there’s no appearance of truly established existence and you certainly don’t grasp for it (grasp meaning to perceive it and to believe that it’s true). 

On that basis, then thinking in terms of... Remember what we do when we do our prostration? Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha. Safe direction from the Buddha, so that’s the resultant level. The pathway level — that’s our own future enlightenment we’re aiming to achieve with bodhichitta. Basis level — the Buddha-nature factors which will enable us to reach that goal. On the basis of that, then we can label me. We’re talking about our mental continuum. Mental continuum is going on and on and on. Bodhichitta — we are convinced that we can achieve enlightenment, and to do that we need love and compassion, and think of everybody and help everybody, and we want to help everybody the best. All of that’s involved. 

Now we get rid of the junk, which is our ordinary appearance-making. What you want to get rid of is what’s called ordinary appearance-making and ordinary pride or grasping. So now we imagine ourselves as a Buddha-figure. A Buddha-figure is on the basis of Buddha-nature. It’s representing the enlightenment that I’m aiming to achieve, my own not-yet-achieved enlightenment — “There I am” — without an appearance of... it’s very difficult to have it without an appearance of truly established existence, but you imagine that it’s without an appearance of truly established existence. As an opponent to cognitive obscurations, your mind making an appearance of truly established existence, you at least imagine that your mind is making not that kind of appearance, an appearance of not truly established existence, in the form of this… what’s representing your enlightenment. And the pride — instead of grasping for me and all of that on the basis of truly established existence, which is the emotional obscuration, then we label the me on that pure appearance. 

You have to have bodhichitta; otherwise, what in the world are you… I mean, there’s no basis for having this pure appearance as a deity which is representing your future enlightenment, because you’re not even aiming to achieve enlightenment. So, what the hell are you doing (pardon my language)? Just visualizing Mickey Mouse. It has nothing to do with enlightenment and what you’re aiming to achieve. 

If you don’t have renunciation, then you’re not willing to give up your ordinary appearance, your ordinary grasping, ordinary appearance of things and so on. That’s what you have to be willing to do, to say, “No, thank you. Enough. Don’t want that. That’s just a source of suffering.” If you can’t renounce ordinary appearances and your ordinary grasping, your ordinary identity as “Me, me, me” truly established on the basis of these aggregates, which are just a source of more problems — if you’re not willing to give that up, then tantra is just a game; you’re not doing anything. That’s why I said you have to meditate on voidness six times a day. If you give that up and you give up bodhichitta, what in the world are you doing? You’re just visualizing Mickey Mouse. 

Kamalashila is saying that if you try to practice tantra without the basis of pratimoksha and bodhisattva vows, then it’s going to be less effective, much slower. 

Now the question comes: Why a vow? It’s not talking about giving up bodhisattva vows and giving up pratimoksha vows. So, why a vow? Couldn’t you practice tantra, keep the tantric vows, and have renunciation and bodhichitta, but not take any pratimoksha or bodhisattva vows? Is that possible? I mean, he’s talking about vows here. The statement before, the difference… He says these statements of Buddha: householder vows, novice, and full vows — they’re ranked. The best is the full vows. It’s not from just a number; it’s from actually keeping them. So why the vows? That’s the question. We can understand it in general, the principle, in terms of the necessity of renunciation and bodhichitta, but then why the vows?

Participant: They are something very concrete, so it helps us much more to bind in our minds, not to forget and to fall back.

Dr. Berzin: Right. She says they’re very concrete — not the best choice of words — but they are very firm. 

Participant: Specific, I think.

Dr. Berzin: It’s not just specific. I think firm is the word, in terms of concrete. They’re firm. When you take a vow it’s a decision for life, or with bodhisattva or tantric vows it’s a decision for all the way up until enlightenment, all my lifetimes.

Participant: # it’s a non-manifesting form, but it’s solid enough to…

Dr. Berzin: Right. It is a nonrevealing form (rnam-par rig-byed ma-yin-pa’i gzugs) — that’s from the Vaibhashika and Prasangika point of view — that shapes the mind. It’s something which is actually on the mental continuum, a very subtle form. 

Participant: In other words, it’s real. It’s there.

Dr. Berzin: It’s conventionally existent. It’s an actual shaping of the mind; it’s a very firm decision. So there’s no doubt involved here. Plus, it’s like putting a seal, with this nonrevealing form.

Participant: I think two lectures ago you said something like it’s a reference point that you can always move back to. Like a backdoor that you put there, and you define everything from there.

Dr. Berzin: Right. It’s a reference point. As he says, it’s a reference point, so I know exactly what I’m going to avoid. It sets a boundary, in a sense. A boundary for our behavior, which is not a prison wall. It’s not that we’re looking at it as a prison wall. I set a boundary because I am firmly convinced that I don’t want to go beyond that boundary, and I’m happy not to go out beyond this boundary, and in fact I’m happier not going beyond this boundary: if I went beyond that boundary, I would get hurt.

Participant: It also has to do with the fact that you know that you’re not the only one who’s ever taken these vows. These vows have a huge weight behind them from others who have taken them, and you know that that is manifest by the fact that you’re even able to be aware of the vows. When you take them, it is almost like engaging in a kind of magical rite. Just by speaking them, you… words are not just words, in other words. These words have a particular weight to them, so that when you take them into yourself, you’re not only saying something as you exhale the words from speaking them (if you do it that way), but you’re also taking something into yourself, which is the weight of all those who have done this before you. That gives you something more than just a practical way of living life, gives you something far more than some guidelines to be more helpful to other human beings.

Dr. Berzin: OK. What she’s saying is that the vows, joining a monastic community or householder lay community, or bodhisattva community in addition (Mahayana community), that in taking these vows and repeating the words for taking the vows and so on, that there’s the huge weight of the lineage behind it. We have confidence that many people have done this for centuries, going all the way back to the time of the Buddha, and they have gained success on the basis of these and therefore it is time proven. 

As His Holiness pointed out, if you look at all the great — I mean most of the great masters (there are of course exceptions) — if you look at most of the great masters who wrote the great Buddhist classic texts, masters from Nalanda university — Nagarjuna, Aryadeva, Shantideva, Asanga, Vasubandhu, etc., etc. — all of them were fully-ordained monks. There are of course the mahasiddhas, there’s Marpa, but the vast majority were fully ordained monks. So, in taking these vows ourselves, it gives us a confidence that we are following a time-tested way. 

Daniel, you wanted to say something?

Participant: I think it’s also some sort of psychological trick like I remember from my work with my kids. Sometimes when they misbehave, they really do some bad things. We give them vows and we let them sign this… like some sort of contract. They have to sign that they vow not to do it again. In most cases it works, at least for a short while.

Dr. Berzin: Daniel points out that it’s a psychological trick, the vows. He works with children and these children can sometimes be unruly, and when they are naughty then one of the things that they do is suggest to them that you promise not to do it again and you sign something that says, “I will not do this again.” And when the children agree to do that — I can imagine some don’t — but when they agree to do that, then in most cases it works, at least for some time.

Participant: If they don’t, they get suspended.

Dr. Berzin: Right. If they don’t, they get suspended. They go to a worse rebirth, or something like that. Look at the mental factors. There’s a sense of self-dignity, of self-pride, that “I think highly enough of myself that I’m not going to act like a jerk, like an idiot. I have enough respect for myself, and value myself, that I’m not going to act in a terrible way.” This is the basis for all ethical behavior.

Participant: I think you made a valuable point a few weeks ago too. You said that it saves you the energy of constantly having to think with each new situation: “What should I do?” You’ve already made up your mind.

Dr. Berzin: Right. Exactly. That’s what I said. That’s exactly the point, that it liberates us from having the indecision of “Do I smoke another cigarette or not smoke another cigarette?” for instance. If we take a vow, that’s it: I’m not. Finished. Full stop. There’s no issue of being tempted (and then I have to make the decision again each time).

Participant: We have very little time to do our practice, especially if we waste it when we’re constantly deciding where our time is going.

Dr. Berzin: Right.

Participant: What I have read is that tantra accelerates very much the changes in a person. It brings about a process of opening up the person, acquiring new qualities, developing new qualities. And that would mean that it is, because of this acceleration, it is much more important even to have the limits clearly established so that you don’t lose the perspective of where you are.

Dr. Berzin: Right. Very good. He’s saying that in tantra practice we accelerate — it’s noted for being a faster path. Therefore, if we open up to more quick growth and if we don’t have the boundaries, then we could be in trouble. 

Now let’s look at that in a practical way: I am visualizing that I am superman or superwoman. I’m Buddha. I am this deity. I’m that deity. (Mighty Mouse we had in America when I was a kid.) And if we don’t have the boundaries of how to conduct ourselves as a Buddha-figure, it would be very easy to abuse that. “I’m the all-powerful Buddha. I can do whatever I want.”

Participant: From my own experience with Hindu tantra, I think that is what Hindu tantra… It has many similarities to Buddhist tantric practice but without the bodhichitta and the desire to only help others and to be liberated from samsara to help others. Because literally Hindu tantra is to become a superman, but it leaves it at that; it doesn’t go beyond that.

Dr. Berzin: Right. He’s saying, from his experience of studying Hindu tantra and seeing practitioners, that here’s one of the basic differences between the Buddhist and the Hindu tantra. In the Hindu tantra it really does often degenerate into just becoming a superman or a superwoman and there isn’t that bodhisattva flavor to it or the boundaries or the vows, etc., of doing it to benefit others. 

What do you do when you visualize yourself as a Buddha-figure? You imagine sending light and all sorts of rays out benefiting all others and eliminating this type of problem and that type of problem, and you go through all the different types of problems. And in, let’s say, Guhyasamaja (which is one of the anuttarayoga tantras, the King of Tantras it’s called, that Tsongkhapa wrote the most about) there’s thirty-two different figures, and each of them you imagine sending out: “Now sending out rays to help those who are afflicted with attachment. Now for those with anger. Now for those who are stuck with being attached to sights. Now for those who are attached to sounds.” It’s all differentiated (that’s why you have all these different figures). You are imagining actually helping others like a Buddha would do. Without bodhichitta what are you doing this for? I mean, mind you, you also imagine making offerings to the Buddhas and so on. Why? Because we need to build up a lot of positive force so that we’ll actually be able to realize — actualize I think is the term that I like to use — actualize all of this, to make it actually happen. 

That’s what you’re doing when you’re visualizing yourself as this figure. You’re not visualizing yourself as this Buddha-figure and what? Sitting around the pool, playing cards? What are you visualizing yourself as? 

You also imagine chasing away interferences. You also imagine alleviating various types of sickness and problems, and sometimes in very forceful ways, but it’s to benefit others. To benefit others.

Obviously, we need the vows for individual liberation also, as this basis of “I’m going to benefit others. I’m not going to harm them.” First you want to avoid harming them (that’s the pratimoksha vows) and then “I’m going to benefit them.” 

Then the question is — and we don’t really have time to explore this, but Tsongkhapa goes on this point (so we will continue the discussion next week) — is why then did Buddha say, in terms of the pratimoksha vows, it’s best to be a fully ordained monk or a nun, second best novice, third best householder? Why keeping more vows is more efficient than keeping less vows. Especially when you think that some of the monk and nun vows, full vows, are how you sew your robes and all these sort of really small details. 

Participant: Keeps the mind much more focused.

Dr. Berzin: Keeps the mind much more focused. 

Participant: I think you practice all the time.

Dr. Berzin: Right. You practice all the time. Every aspect of your life becomes a practice.

Participant: Everything that’s reflecting onto you is reflecting your vow.

Dr. Berzin: Everything about you is affecting your vow. And it’s not like the vow — what’s called an anti-vow — when you join the military and every aspect of your life is disciplined and ruled but in a way in which you’re being trained to be a killer, say if you join the Marines.

Participant: If you wear a uniform, people will treat you that way. If you’re a monk or a nun, they will treat you that way.

Dr. Berzin: Right. If you wear a uniform, they’ll say, “Oh, they’re monks and nuns” — people develop respect, and so on. There are many, many advantages. 

And we find it also in the Kalachakra initiation. There’s a differentiation in it between — at the final stage in the full initiation or empowerment — a fully ordained novice and householder. They are specified out. 

But this is a very interesting point. It also of course raises the point: Why am I not a fully ordained monk or a nun? Not that I’m saying that everybody should go out and become a fully ordained monk or a nun, but it makes us think. “If I’m not one… Maybe others aren’t that also for some reason or another.” 

Then of course there’s also the examples of householders who became Buddhas. You have the Vimalakirti Sutra in which Vimalakirti is the householder who thumbs his nose at Shariputra and Maudgalyayana and these ones, saying that they’re pretty stuffy and uptight and as a householder you can also achieved enlightenment. Marpa. These sorts of people. They were householders. What about the Nyingma lamas?

Participant: Milarepa wasn’t a monk.

Dr. Berzin: Milarepa wasn’t a monk. Milarepa didn’t have a family though.

Participant: Right. No, he wasn’t a householder either. 

Dr. Berzin: These are things to think about. 

Participant: The world needs all kinds of people.

Dr. Berzin: The world needs all kinds of people. Thank you.

Participant: If we really look at it, it seems like most of the teachings are saying it will certainly work much faster, better, quicker if you are ordained.

Dr. Berzin: Right. All the teachings point to: Yes, it is possible to go all the way as a householder, but it will be much easier — and this is what we find here as well, in this reference to what the Buddha said — that it will be much easier if you are fully ordained. 

Also, I should point out that if you look at the examples of the Nyingma lamas and Rinpoches who are married and who have children, these are not people who are going out and washing dishes at McDonald’s and struggling to pay the rent. These are people who have, usually, a monastery that they’re in charge of. They have a tremendous support system to take care of their family, and so on. They’re not worried about rent, they’re not worried about feeding their family, they’re not worried about anything in terms of what would normally be a householder’s concerns. Again, we have to look at the circumstances of them and not think that we are in the same circumstances. Maybe we do have the same circumstance, but most of us don’t. 

Participant: I’m sure you’re aware, from your experience, many Western monks and nuns have no support and it’s very hard for them to live that life.

Dr. Berzin: Right. Many Western monks and nuns don’t have a support system. The whole point of being a monk or a nun is to live in a monastery with a group of people doing the same thing. Without that, then it’s very, very difficult. 

But anyway, we’re the end of our hour. Tsongkhapa goes on in this discussion, so we will also go on. But think about it, OK? Good.

We end with the dedication. We think whatever positive force is built up from this, whatever understanding, may it go deeper and deeper and act as a cause to reach enlightenment for the benefit of all.