We’re going through this letter that Tsongkhapa wrote to his friend who was also a teacher of his and a meditator, and in it Tsongkhapa answers the request that was given to write some practical advice on how to follow the path of sutra and tantra, specifically anuttarayoga tantra, the highest class.
Review of Previous Sessions
Reliance on a Qualified Spiritual Mentor
Tsongkhapa — to summarize — points out that we have the basis for being able to do this type of practice: we have the precious human rebirth, and we’ve met with the teachings, and we have spiritual masters, and we have the intelligence to discern what is to be adopted and what’s to be rejected. We need to then really just engage ourselves in the teachings, and to do that we have to rely on guidance from a teacher who is properly qualified: who knows what are the states of mind that we need to develop, which are the ones that we need to get rid of or not develop, doesn’t add any, doesn’t leave any out, and knows the proper order for how to teach them to us. And that teacher needs to have gained certainty and experience about all this by having gone through a similar type of training himself or herself based on the classics studied with his or her teacher.
The Motivating Mental Framework
Then for actually beginning the practice, the main thing is to tame our minds. To do that we need to work first on the motivating mental framework. To do that, the proper order is indicated by the lam-rim (the graded stages of the path):
- First turning away our keen interest from this lifetime to our interest being in benefiting future lives so that we can continue to have a precious human rebirth.
- Then to turn our minds away from that and turn our minds away from getting the so-called goodies or good things of uncontrollably recurring existence, but to work for liberation.
- And then, on the advanced level, to think how everybody is in the same predicament and turn away from working just for our own aims and work for the aims of everyone else in terms of becoming a Buddha.
How To Meditate
To develop these, our motivating mental frameworks, in an uncontrived way, it’s not sufficient to just have an intellectual understanding of them; we need to actually meditate and build them up as habits and integrate them with our mental continuums. For doing that, we need how to meditate. Tsongkhapa explains that we need to know the causes for developing each of these states of mind, these motivating states, what they rely on, what are the different aspects of them. We need to supplement that with studying the scriptural texts that deal with it and building up positive force and cleansing away obstacles. We need to know what is helpful for developing these states of mind, what is detrimental. Then, more specifically, we have to know what to focus on for each of them, and what are all the different aspects of it, how our mind will take that object as its object, and so on. And we need to know the function of that state of mind that we want to develop. In other words, what it does in terms of benefiting us in our spiritual practice and how it gets rid of what is detrimental. We need to develop all of these motivating mental frameworks in their proper progression and generate the entire progression for developing them. Tsongkhapa outlines the process of meditation very thoroughly.
He says we have to maintain these motivations steadily and continuously throughout our sessions. In general, we meditate on bodhichitta (Skt. bodhicitta) at the beginning of the session and end it with a dedication prayer, but we need to not just leave it at that but try to maintain that bodhichitta aim throughout the meditation and throughout the entire day.
The Ethical Self-Discipline of Keeping Vows
Then, on the basis of this, if we want to get into the practice of tantra, the two stages of the highest class of tantra, then we need to first of all set one of the bases for it — the main basis, the first basis (besides this motivating mental framework) — which is the ethical discipline of keeping vows. Tsongkhapa explains about the vows for individual liberation, the bodhisattva vows, and the tantric vows. We’ve gone through all of them. These we need to take at pure empowerments, or initiations, from qualified teachers. We’ve gone through that a little bit. We have to try never to give these vows up by means of the causes for giving them up or let them weaken. We’ve gone through the causes for giving up the vows and what will weaken them. If we have weakened them then there are various methods to restore and revitalize them through applying various opponent powers, retaking initiation, etc. We’ve gone through all of that.
Then Tsongkhapa says, “Even if we do not meditate on the two stages of the highest class of tantra, still if we have received an empowerment, we are definitely required to keep the vows.” That is the absolute minimum. Whether we’re actually practicing a tantric ritual or meditation or not, it doesn’t matter; still we need to keep the vows if we have received an empowerment and taken them.
The Importance of the Pratimoksha Vows for Mahayana Practice
Then we started the discussion last time of the importance of having full monastic vows, how this is something which is the most beneficial for being able to practice tantra. Let me read once more the paragraph that Tsongkhapa wrote about that that we were discussing last time. Tsongkhapa says:
(Another point can be seen from two more of Buddha’s statements.) He has said that if our working basis for practicing secret mantra 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.
If we have the pratimoksha (Skt. prātimokṣa) vows — let’s use the Sanskrit word for the vows for individual liberation (that’s either lay or novice or full monk or nuns’ vows) — and the bodhisattva vows, we will gain actualizations in tantra much more quickly and effectively than if we just have the tantric vows themselves. Within those pratimoksha vows, Buddha has said that being fully ordained is best for practicing tantra, then middle would be novice, and then at least lay. We discussed that last time.
Tsongkhapa presses this point even further, so let’s read the next paragraph. Tsongkhapa writes:
It is similar also in the case of actualizing the pathway minds of the (non-tantric Mahayana) vehicle of mind of far-reaching attitudes (Paramitayana, the Perfection Vehicle).
This is talking about non-tantra practice. It’s the same thing.
The actualizations gained by having taken bodhisattva vows while having already been ordained (on one of the levels) according to the Vinaya (rules of discipline) are best (compared) to those gained by having maintained only bodhisattva vows alone. This is what (Buddha) meant when he said in many sutras that if there were two bodhisattvas equal in all respects (except that) one was a householder (with no vows of individual liberation) and the other ordained, the latter would be more praiseworthy. (Buddha has clearly set forth all these points) in his presentation of these (vows). But despite this, although people frequently appear who can explain them by expounding forth merely their verbal formulations, and partial ones at that, yet when it comes time to apply these to personal practice, those who do so appear ever so rarely. This falls into the category of something very difficult to understand.
Tsongkhapa has made a big point of this, and probably this is one of the special features of Tsongkhapa’s reform and the Gelug tradition, which is the emphasis on the monastic vows and pointing out the various scriptural sources from Buddha saying how important they are.
We had a discussion last time of the relevance and necessity or importance of having the vows for individual liberation and why monastic vows, and particularly the full vows of a monk or nun, would be more beneficial to keep in terms of our practice than just the lay vows or none of these vows at all. This is true, Tsongkhapa is pointing out here, not only for the tantra path but for the bodhisattva path.
Are there any further thoughts on that, why it would be necessary for even the bodhisattva path to have pratimoksha vows? Basically, I think it’s the same reasons for why it would be beneficial for the tantra path: we establish a set of discipline; we’re basically not doing things that are going to harm ourselves.
When you talk about the vows for individual liberation and the destructive actions, the main point in terms of the harm that is caused by them is the harm that it causes to ourselves. By stealing from somebody — it may harm them, it might not harm them. There’s no certainty as to the effect of our actions on the other person. We may steal something that they wanted to get rid of and they collect the insurance, so they’re very happy. That’s a classic example, but I’m sure there are other examples as well. The point is that what is certain is the unhappiness and negative consequences that will ripen on ourselves. If we build up more and more negative potential on our own mental continuum from acting in a destructive way, then obviously that will prevent us from being able to help others, won’t it? Especially if we build up the negative potential to be born in one of the worse rebirth states. Then there’s very little we can do to help others, unless we have the fortune to be born as a seeing-eye dog or something like that. But aside from those examples… we don’t have seeing-eye chickens or seeing-eye cockroaches, so there’s very few opportunities to help others in other animal rebirths. Maybe being a pet gives some pleasure to somebody, but it’s hard to really be of great help to others in these worse rebirth states.
I think that’s the main emphasis here, that if we want to be able to continue to have a precious human rebirth, for example, then we need to avoid destructive actions. The strongest way to avoid destructive actions is to take a vow to avoid them, to give them up. So, we have this.
In terms of the monastic vows, the monastic vows are going to give us the best opportunities to be able to devote ourselves to serious practice.
Participant: Which century did Tsongkhapa live in?
Dr. Berzin: Tsongkhapa lived at the end of the fourteenth and the beginning of the fifteenth century. I forget the exact dates. It’s something like 1357 to 1417, something like that. I don’t remember the exact dates. Something like that. 1420-something I think it was that he lived. He lived at a time when there was a great deal of abuse in the system, a lot of degeneration. You had a lot of just very wealthy monasteries and corrupt abbots and stuff like that. There were two reform movements at that time. One was Tsongkhapa, which was to reassert the purity of the monastic discipline. And the other way of dealing with this was what we found in the “mad yogi” tradition that you find in the Kagyu, in which they want to go back to the example of Milarepa, and so you have basically the so-called mad yogis basically mocking and making fun of these corrupt abbots in order to shock them to try to get back to very basic pure meditation practice. There were these two reactions or responses to the times.
Participant: It’s interesting. Today I read about this Korean stuff. In the Middle Ages in Korea they had the same discussion as we had now. There was a lot of tantric practice and all sorts of confusion. There was a reform movement, but they said we should really examine the vows, all these vows, and we should modernize it. They’re old ideas and they’re not relevant anymore for these times, so we should really go back and look what is relevant now and what is really for the practice. They wanted to clear all this away, because all these conservative people just go by the letter of the vows.
Dr. Berzin: Do you know what Korean tradition that was in? Let me just repeat for the tape: She’s saying that she’s been doing research about Korean Buddhism, and in the medieval period... Do you know what century?
Participant: I’d have to check. I can’t say now.
Dr. Berzin: She doesn’t know offhand, but so-called Middle Ages.
Participant: I looked up the seventh to twelfth centuries, so it must have been…
Dr. Berzin: Seventh to twelfth centuries, so that’s earlier than Tsongkhapa. But in any case, there were many periods of time when there was so-called degeneration of the Dharma. In Korea one of the responses was to reexamine the vows to see what was relevant. Did they change them and revise them? Because you have this in Japanese Buddhism with Nichiren, and then eventually you get something in Japan in which they said, “We don’t even have to have celibacy anymore,” and they even have the monks drinking sake and so on and not really being monks but married priests. There was a whole big development within Japanese Buddhism, but I didn’t know that that was in Korea as well. Or was it borrowing the Japanese? Was it borrowing the Japanese development or did it develop native in Korea? Do you know which tradition?
Participant: Baekje or something. It was some Korean thing. I can’t remember. I can look it up.
Dr. Berzin: Baekje was one of the three kingdoms. There was Silla, Baekje, and what was the third one?
Participant: But there was a monk or one person, whose name I cannot say, and he was... Actually, there was a big movement that changed because the emperor and the empress were backing him.
Dr. Berzin: There was a famous monk with the backing of the emperor and empress. They changed the vows. Simplified them or what?
Participant: Changed them to modernize them.
Dr. Berzin: Do you know how they changed them? Is it documented?
Participant: Yes, that was written down. They changed. Yeah.
Dr. Berzin: Please send me the reference. I would be interested in seeing that. Send me the article.
Participant: But then this emperor died, and the empress, so he lost his…
Dr. Berzin: Patronage.
Participant: And then the conservatives were brought back.
Dr. Berzin: It didn’t succeed.
Participant: No.
Dr. Berzin: Oh, I see. This was a failed attempt. The emperor died and they lost their patronage and reverted back to the older form. In Japan they did change it. Nichiren said that the time of Buddha was no longer relevant and he’s the second Buddha and now it’s his time, and they changed things. And you also have with Sangharakshita now in the Friends of the Western Buddhist Order. He also has changed various vows and so on. This is a recurrent... He’s an English monk that started a new movement, a new order, in more modern times.
This is of course a very problematic thing, that can you change the vows or not change the vows? According to the vinaya (’dul-ba, rules of discipline), you need a quorum and a consensus of all the elders to be able to deal with any vinaya issues. I think there’s a mechanism there, but that’s a very, very delicate issue. Now, you can have a dictator, an emperor, that just promulgates that change. But if you look at the actual vinaya rules… I mean, Buddha did make it as a democratic society, but you needed a consensus of everybody to make any changes, and vinaya itself was the most difficult. I don’t know if there were changes allowed in the vows.
There were of course further interpretations of the vows — and this is a very interesting point — in terms of inappropriate sexual behavior, that if you look at it just in terms of the ten destructive actions, which is what I had researched, then over time more and more things were added to it. Then of course the question is asked: Were they added just because of the times? Were they added because of super-conservative abbots that came in? And one of the arguments was that just because it wasn’t specified by Buddha in the original wording of the vow, doesn’t mean that it wasn’t Buddha’s intention. In that sense, things could be added, but it didn’t leave room for things to be taken away. The whole question of how you interpret vows becomes a very difficult one and a very delicate one.
Participant: But the precedent, I think, is set that the Buddha didn’t have the vinaya originally. It was when he observed what happened with the monks that he then…
Dr. Berzin: That’s exactly right. Buddha promulgated these vows, made these vows, because of occasions. They were ad hoc. That something came up — that a monk was in a room with a woman by himself, and then lay people came and saw this and suspected that hanky-panky was going on, and it caused a big scandal, and so to avoid future scandals Buddha said that a monk must not be alone in a room with a woman. I don’t know if that was the exact circumstance, but it was something like that.
Most of these vows for the monks and nuns were to avoid public disgrace and scandals. I mean, you could look at it from a Marxist point of view, that the monastic community needed the financial support of the lay community, and so in order to not damage their support, they had to clean up their act and be beyond suspicion. That’s one way of looking at it. There are many ways of interpreting it. But basically, it was important for the monastic community to have the respect of society, as I said, especially since they depended on society for their livelihood, for their support. Monks and nuns must act with proper respectful decorum and not bring disgrace or suspicion on the whole institution, which is interesting when we look in terms of what are the two mental factors that are always present with a destructive action. Anybody know?
Participant: I don’t know what to call it.
Dr. Berzin: Right. There are many different ways of translating it.
Participant: That you don’t refrain out of respect for yourself or out of concern for yourself and out of concern for others or what they might think of you.
Dr. Berzin: OK. He says (this is the usual way of translating it) that... Christian’s giving the definition. I call it a sense of self-dignity — that you commit a destructive action when you don’t have this sense of self-dignity. In other words, you don’t care how it reflects on yourself.
Then the other one he’s explaining as you don’t care about the effect it has on others. That’s not so... Now, take that another way. The way that you explained it, which is the way that often you hear it explained, is that it’s our Western sense of consideration. You don’t have a sense of consideration of how it might hurt somebody else. Like playing your radio really loudly or music really loudly so it disturbs your neighbors. You don’t care. That’s not the meaning of it.
The literal thing is taking into consideration your own purposes, and the other one is the purposes of others. What it’s referring to is a much more Asian concept of you don’t care how your actions reflect on others — on your parents, your family, Buddhism, your country, and so on. Because you are bringing shame… On the first one, you are bringing shame to yourself. The second one, you’re bringing shame to your family, your caste, the Sangha, to the monastic community. It’s very much an Asian mentality here that is reflected.
Obviously, you don’t care that your music disturbs somebody else is a major consideration in terms of our ethics, but it’s not really mentioned, not really mentioned. Except that you want to avoid harming others. That’s a more general principle. But you never know what’s going to harm them or not harm them.
Participant: The point would be more that somebody thinks badly about your family.
Dr. Berzin: Right. Somebody thinks badly of your family, which for an Indian or a Chinese or Japanese is… I mean, it’s the worst thing that you could do. You bring shame to your parents, bring shame to your ancestors, etc.
Here the point is that you don’t want to bring shame or disgrace to the monastic community. That’s a very basic principle in Buddhist ethics.
Participant: What was the other translation for it again?
Dr. Berzin: A lack of concern of how our — I can’t think of a short thing — of how our actions reflect on others. I forget the exact phrase that I use, but I couldn’t think of a single word for that. It’s ourselves losing face, or others that we’re a member of the group of — that they lose face.
Participant: The Asian concept of shame is very foreign to Western thinking.
Dr. Berzin: Right. The Asian concept of shame is very different. That’s why I think the closest is a sense of self-dignity, of self-respect, which often we don’t have.
If you think about it, it also is very significant in terms of… This is one of the ways of dealing with violent people. If they have no sense of self-respect, if everybody looks down on them and so on, then they don’t care. Or “Oh, you’re Palestinian,” or you’re this or you’re that, a group that a lot of people don’t have a lot of respect for. Then it undermines their sense of ethics. In other words, if you show respect to these people and give them a sense of dignity and a sense of self-worth, that is usually, from a psychological point of view, one of the best weapons against terrorism and against violence. Give these people a sense of self-respect by showing respect to them, treating them as human beings rather than a terrible label.
OK. Then the question that I left you with last time was: If Tsongkhapa is saying that the best way to practice is as a full monk or nun (whether we’re talking about tantra, whether we’re talking about Mahayana (Skt. Mahāyāna) sutra), then the question is, why am I not a monk or a nun? I don’t want your personal stories. That’s not necessarily the case. But why wouldn’t you? Why aren’t you? What are the reasons for not becoming a monk or a nun? I think that gives a great deal of insight if we examine them. Why don’t you want to become a monk or a nun? What stops you from it?
Participant: Personal experience with the monks and nuns. I think it’s a hard life in the West.
Dr. Berzin: Personal experience with monks or nuns, that they have a hard life in the West.
Participant: They don’t seem to have so much benefit.
Dr. Berzin: They don’t seem to have so much benefit? Who are you talking about?
Participant: The Western monks and nuns.
Dr. Berzin: The Western monks and nuns. Why don’t they?
Participant: They’re looking for places. There are no monasteries, no monastic community.
Dr. Berzin: OK. There’s no monastic community. This would be a reason, that there’s no monastic community. But if there are no monks or nuns trying to make a monastic community, it won’t happen.
Participant: I don’t think benefit is the reason to be monk or a nun, either. I mean self-benefit.
Alex. Self-benefit. Well, isn’t it? You take vows for individual liberation. Isn’t it for your self-benefit?
Participant: No, but you can do the practice as a monk or a nun without a monastery.
Dr. Berzin: Can you do the practice of a monk or a nun without a monastery? I don’t think so. I don’t think so. I mean, the whole point of being a monk or a nun was to be part of a community, and the support of the community was very important, and there are many rituals which are done as part of the community.
Now, if there were an established monastic community, would you want to join it? You would?
Participant: Yes.
Dr. Berzin: OK. The only reason for you is because of the circumstance isn’t right yet in terms of having a monastic community, a monastic community also that has the financial support of the lay community, obviously, or some sort of support. All the circumstances. If that were available — if you had been born in Tibet before the destruction, would you have become a monk or a nun?
Participant: I know it isn’t a valid reason, but I have the feeling that I have some kind of duty in society. Like living a normal life and being part of normal society, be a productive member.
Dr. Berzin: For you, you feel that you have a duty to be a good citizen, part of society, and contribute to society. Are monks and nuns not contributing to society?
Participant: One can be more productive in society than to be a monk.
Participant: Besides my attachments too.
Dr. Berzin: OK. Now let’s get down to what people seem to be too embarrassed to say. It’s usually attachment, and for most people it’s attachment to sex. What is the most difficult vow and what is the one that is usually the one that is broken and the reason why most people disrobe? It’s because of celibacy.
Participant: I just laugh because I’m thinking that I once heard a geshe say that usually people don’t disrobe because they want to kill somebody.
Dr. Berzin: That’s right. That’s exactly it. People don’t disrobe because they want to kill somebody or go hunting or fishing and so on. I mean, this is the topic that I wanted to discuss. Why is sexual attachment, or attachment to sex and to physical pleasure and stuff like that, the problem here? In other words, if the vows are to aim for individual liberation, why would it be necessary to be celibate? Or why would it be most beneficial? It’s not saying it’s impossible if you are not celibate, because you have Vimalakirti and you have these sort of examples of lay bodhisattvas, but why would it be a problem?
Participant: Because if you weren’t celibate, it would potentially contribute to more recurring births, because you would be procreating.
Dr. Berzin: Not quite. She’s saying that if you weren’t celibate then you would be contributing to more samsara (Skt. saṃsāra) because you would be propagating more beings. That’s giving other people a chance for rebirth. We’re talking about yourself. Why are you attached to sex? Desire. Attachment. What is desire and attachment? Disturbing emotion. What produces more negative karma, etc.? What do you want to overcome and get rid of in order to attain liberation? Desire, attachment, hatred, naivety — the disturbing emotions. If I am unwilling to become celibate because I’m so attached to sex and I don’t want to give that up, obviously I’m not serious about achieving liberation.
Participant: I think that one is attached to samsara.
Dr. Berzin: One is attached to samsara? That’s… Be careful what you say. I’m attached to uncontrollably recurring rebirth. That’s not necessarily sexual. That’s everything. That’s everything.
Participant: That’s just a part of it.
Dr. Berzin: That’s a part of it but not all of it. I’m attached to going through all the stages of life and… etc.
Participant: Khandro Rinpoche said we’re attached to the entertaining qualities of samsara.
Dr. Berzin: Right. We are attached to the entertaining qualities of samsara, Khandro Rinpoche said. Geshe Ngawang Dhargyey used to say we are professional tourists of samsara — see everything and experience everything of samsara.
But this gives us something to think about in terms of how serious am I in terms of wanting to achieve liberation and how seriously am I willing to give up the disturbing emotions and all the activities which are based on disturbing emotions. That’s why I often talk about Dharma-lite. Don’t fool ourselves into thinking that we’re doing the real thing when in fact we’re not really about to be a person of intermediate scope motivation. If we talk about lam-rim — I mean, it’s almost inconceivable to even be an initial scope motivation, that “I’m really, really seriously working to benefit my future rebirths, and I am actually doing something about that.” How seriously do we take that, let alone “Am I really aiming for liberation? Really, really?” If I really, really am then obviously being a monk or a nun would be helpful. That doesn’t mean it’s going to be easy. Maybe being a monk or a nun (unless we are homosexual) is going to not give us opportunities.
Participant: The only technical question I’ve always had… I’ve asked several people but never got a satisfactory answer. Even the Dalai Lama has written several times that the ultimate liberation (if you really read his technical writing) has to be realized through the correct tantric performance of the sexual rite, the union.
Dr. Berzin: OK. Now we get into something else. Now we get into a whole...
Participant: He has written, “Even I can’t be liberated yet, because…”
Dr. Berzin: Right. Yeah. Let me answer.
Participant: Then he said another thing, that Tsongkhapa had to wait until he died to then perform the union with a dakini (Skt. ḍākinī) to be ultimately liberated, not in his lifetime, not in his karmic life.
Dr. Berzin: That’s slightly different. OK. Let me summarize what he said. He said that His Holiness the Dalai Lama has repeated what you find in the tantra literature, anuttarayoga tantra literature — that in order to achieve enlightenment it’s necessary to follow the path of blissful awareness, and for a blissful awareness one needs to have an actual union with a partner, with a consort, and that His Holiness said that as a monk he can’t actually do that. And the example is Tsongkhapa, who had to wait to achieve enlightenment as a substitute for bardo.
It wasn’t that Tsongkhapa had union with a dakini in the bardo. That wasn’t the point. The point was what one is aiming for in the highest class of tantra is to gain access to and to activate the clear-light level of consciousness (’od-gsal). In order to do that, then, one of the most effective means is to generate a blissful awareness as the mind that takes voidness as its object, and that will help to dissolve the winds so that one can activate the clear-light mind. A blissful awareness isn’t necessarily a clear-light mind, nor is it necessarily a mind that understands voidness — you have to combine the three of them (blissful awareness, and understanding of voidness, and have that reach the clear level of mind) — but it’s most conducive for getting down to that level. Now we’re not talking about a blissful awareness which is a physical consciousness; we’re talking about a blissful awareness that is a mental consciousness and that is something which is experienced within the central channel. We’re not talking in the slightest bit about the blissful awareness of an orgasm or orgasmic release or anything like that.
There is, in humans, there is a certain yogic posture which requires a partner which will help to generate a physical sense of bliss, which will induce — if you have done an enormous amount of yoga — a mental consciousness within the central channel. Now the question is: Do you need to have desire in order to be turned on enough in order to generate this? The answer is yes, you do. However, this is using desire to get rid of desire, and so obviously it’s not a level of desire which would be our ordinary level of desire. It’s not a desire which is based on exaggerating the qualities of the object or the sensation and with a big inflation of the me that is experiencing it. It’s not that type of desire.
Then the question is: What kind of desire is it? That, I must say, I have never actually explored with questioning His Holiness. Because there is gross desire and there is subtle desire. Subtle desire is when you have gotten rid of the gross...
When you talk about the grasping for an impossible me or grasping for an impossible soul or self (or however you want to translate it), there are two levels according to Prasangika (Skt. Prāsaṅgika). According to the non-Prasangikas, they have two levels. The first is a me that is static (unaffected by anything) and a partless monolith. This is not even counted in Prasangika. For the non-Prasangika, non-Gelug Prasangika, the subtle one is the self-sufficiently knowable me, a me that can be known all by itself: “I know John. I know Mary,” as if you could know them by themselves. This is the gross one according to the non-Gelug Prasangika. According to the Gelug Prasangika, this is the one which…
By gross and subtle I’m talking about doctrinally based and automatically arising. The first one (the self that is static, etc.), that you would have to learn from a Hindu school. One which is self-sufficiently knowable, and which is one… Now this gets very complicated, so let’s not get into it in too much detail. Let’s just leave it as the self-sufficiently knowable one — to believe in that type of self-sufficiently knowable one, this is considered doctrinally based, because behind it is a belief in truly established existence that you would learn from a non-Prasangika school.
Then the subtle one would be a truly established self that is a findable referent object of the label me. Referent: implied by the concept or the word. Subtle desire is based on having gotten rid of the grasping for a self-sufficiently knowable me, but you’re still grasping for a me which can be a findable referent object. What in the world this actually means in terms of “Let’s give an example rather than an actual definition” is very hard to imagine.
Maybe this is what’s involved. I don’t know what level… Because the first one (getting rid of grasping for a self-sufficiently knowable me), according to non-Gelug Prasangika, is what you would need to overcome in order to gain liberation as a… according to the shravakas, the shravaka (Skt. śrāvaka) path.
Participant: You’re saying you could achieve that as a monk or a nun?
Dr. Berzin: You could achieve that as a monk or a nun. But still as a monk or nun one wouldn’t practice the union thing, because that’s against the monk and nuns’ vows. But my point is that you need to have some level of desire — otherwise you wouldn’t get turned on — but it is a very low level of desire, and you have complete control over the energy-winds; there’s absolutely no danger that you’re going to have orgasm. There’s no gross attachment but there’s some sort of desire. Otherwise, it wouldn’t work at all.
Participant: Can you even call it sex?
Dr. Berzin: You couldn’t really call it sex. It’s a yogic posture that involves contact of two bodies.
Participant: It requires circulation of energy between two bodies, but it isn’t normal sex.
Dr. Berzin: Right. What Tsongkhapa did was… You can achieve the clear-light mind at the time of death. Then at the time of death, if you achieve it and you’re able to use that clear-light mind of death to focus on voidness, then instead of when you come out of that absorption — instead of coming out into a bardo situation, you come out into what’s called the illusory-body situation, and on the basis of that then you can go on to achieve enlightenment, on that basis as a substitute for bardo. That’s what Tsongkhapa did.
We have gotten into a very advanced discussion, which I can see has put some people to sleep, without giving names…
Participant: Marianna.
Dr. Berzin: Someone else gave the name in order to shame her.
Participant: It’s really so far out for me.
Dr. Berzin: It is very far out. But let us say very clearly that you have to have overcome the ordinary attachment to ordinary sex in order to... There’s no way that you can engage in this very, very advanced tantra practice if you have not overcome...
Participant: As you know, the Dalai Lama repeatedly writes, “I can’t do that yet.”
Dr. Berzin: Right. Well…
Participant: This is why you’re saying that anybody should be willing to take the monastic vows, because unless you can even achieve that, you could never aspire to the next level which we were talking about.
Dr. Berzin: Don’t say I’m saying this. Tsongkhapa is saying that — although there are exceptions — that Buddha said what is best, what’s going to work in the vast majority of cases, is to practice tantra on the basis of having monastic vows. In other words, you’re very serious about gaining liberation and so you follow a discipline which is designed to help you to overcome disturbing emotions.
I didn’t finish what I was saying. Living in a monastic community, although (if you are not gay) then you’re not going to be tempted sexually with them, but then there’s still masturbation. There are still all these other issues that you need to deal with.
But don’t think that living in a monastic community is the easiest thing in terms of not developing anger. It’s very easy to develop anger at these other members of your monastic community. Now you think… why is there a tantric vow of don’t get angry with your vajra brothers and sisters? Hey, that’s very important as well, because it is very easy to get... I mean, from monks and nuns that I know: If you live in a close community with other people — boy, people are going to get on your nerves. It’s going to be very difficult.
Participant: Just the last question about this whole issue. Then what’s the explanation for those who have done away with their vows and do engage in sex but still carry on as teachers or lamas?
Dr. Berzin: Those who do not have vows, you said?
Participant: Who have done away with them, who have done with the monastic vows or... Because there are several… I’m sure you can think of incidences of those who certainly do engage in sex but are still regarded as teachers.
Dr. Berzin: OK. Now she’s asking: What about the teachers who are lay teachers who maybe started as monks — most of them have — and gave up their vows, married, many of them have children, and continue to be a very highly respected teacher?
Participant: Whether in the East or West. Either one. It doesn’t matter.
Dr. Berzin: Whether in the East or the West. I was thinking of Tibetan examples.
What about them? The question is: Are they effective teachers? Sure, they can be effective teachers. Are they enlightened beings? I don’t know. The whole guru thing, of seeing the teacher as a Buddha, etc., that’s a whole different discussion. Have they achieved liberation? Objectively, probably not. Do they have family responsibilities and so on? Yes. Some of them, if they are Tibetan, may have a monastic community that supports them in any case (that’s the case with many Nyingma lamas). They have support. Those who have just gone by themselves alone in the West, many of them have not had children — I can think of a number of examples who have not — even though they did get married. Often the marriage... There are many different reasons for getting married. One can be as a protection: if you’re married then the female students will stop trying to seduce you. There are many examples that I know, having spoken with these lamas. That there can be these people who: “Oh, I’m going to try to seduce the Rinpoche,” this type of trip, like teenage groupies with movie stars.
Participant: Marriage doesn’t always stop that.
Dr. Berzin: Marriage doesn’t always stop that, but it can be a type of shield. It can be a type of shield. There are many reasons besides falling desperately in love with someone. There are many different types of marriages that I’ve seen.
Participant: As a helper, as an aid.
Dr. Berzin: As a helper, as an aid, as... There have been many different arrangements. Certainly the relationship between a man and a woman when you have two traditional Asians is a very different dynamic from a Western couple in terms of issues of equality, women’s lib… Stuff like that is very different.
Participant: Wasn’t Dagyab Rinpoche a monk?
Dr. Berzin: Dagyab Rinpoche was certainly a monk to start with. He has children, but you can think of… Dagpo Rinpoche in Paris. He certainly doesn’t have children. Geleg Rinpoche. Khyongla Rinpoche. These lay teachers don’t have children.
Participant: But he is very respected.
Dr. Berzin: Yes, they are very respected. We’re not talking about one’s effectiveness as a teacher. What we are talking about here is the actual real thing: gain liberation and enlightenment. That’s what we’re talking about. You can be a very effective teacher as a very neurotic, messed-up university professor but an excellent teacher. I’ve had many of those. They have no social abilities whatsoever, but they know their topic and they’re an excellent teacher. One has to keep focus of what we’re talking about here.
I think that is the issue that I wanted to raise here, was for everybody to really think very seriously “How much do I really want liberation?” and to gain respect for this intermediate level of motivation and not pooh-pooh it (pooh-pooh means to put it down). I mean, there are so many people who put down the initial scope: “Oh, that’s beginners’ stuff.” Intermediate: “That’s selfish. They’re selfish. I want to help everybody.” Who are you kidding? That any of these levels should be really, really serious, the real thing, is unbelievably advanced. And tantra is based on having done all of that already. That’s why when you skip this motivating framework and you skip the vows, there’s no way. That’s why Tsongkhapa makes such a big deal about it. He doesn’t just say it in one sentence. He goes on and on about these points.
Participant: Have you ever taken monastic vows earlier in your life?
Dr. Berzin: Have I taken the monastic vows? I have the five lay vows. I’ve not taken the novice or full monks’ vows. No.
Participant: Do you want to share your reasons why you haven’t?
Dr. Berzin: Do I want to share the reasons why I... Now we come to true confessions.
Participant: If it’s the best thing for all of us to do, but you haven’t…
Dr. Berzin: For myself… I must say that some of the reasons go back to what Marianna said originally, which was that I... For me, it seemed as though if I was going to do it, that I wanted to do the real thing, the full thing. Looking at the example of the monastic community at the time — we’re talking about the 70s when I was considering this, 1970s, when I was considering this seriously — people weren’t keeping all the vows, certainly not going around with begging bowls and all these other things. And it seemed to me that to be a plainclothes monk by myself, without a monastic community, not keeping most of the vows, was hypocritical. It didn’t make any sense to me.
Also, in terms of being able to serve His Holiness and to go around the world and do various projects and set up things, etc., that it seemed to me that I would lose credibility if I went around as a monk in robes. And to be a monk without robes didn’t make any sense to me. But having put in so much effort to get the Harvard PhD, that opened up a tremendous number of doors. It opened up all the doors, what I was able to do so easily. With that background I could get invited to lecture at universities anywhere. It seemed to me more useful than to be a monk.
Then I had my own selfish reasons, self-centered reasons. I mean, I tried wearing the robes. I was freezing cold, for example. I wasn’t living in any heated type of place. But in the winter up in the mountains, I found it unbelievably uncomfortable, for example. I mean, they’re just personal reasons.
I tried keeping all the vows — I mean the major vows — for a few years just to see if I was capable of doing it. I was capable of doing it, but it didn’t seem as though that was the thing for me. I don’t regret that. But I personally don’t like to fall into any category, so I’m neither a monk nor a householder.
Participant: Do you feel that the work you are doing, in the way that you’re doing what you do, actually is contributing more to the long-term whole picture, Buddhism on the whole, than what you could do if you were in the confines of being a monk?
Dr. Berzin: Do I think that my lifestyle, looking at my personal life, has been more beneficial for contributing to Buddhism than if I had been a monk? Yeah, I think so. First of all, I don’t have the financial responsibilities of a family, so I’ve been able to live on a very, very low budget for all my life. Because I never had an income. I never worked for a salary in my life. I’ve been able to manage. I mean, I lived in India. My rent was $5 a month. A mud hut with no water and no bathroom and no toilet. I was able to live like that for 29 years, no problem, without having an income. I don’t have all the family responsibilities, the financial responsibilities.
On the other hand, if I were a monk — as I said, I would want to be part of a monastic community. Being a part of monastic community... I mean, I know what a monastic community is like. I could have joined the Tibetan community and been... I know Tibetan, so I could live with Tibetan monks. I’ve lived in Tibetan monasteries. That’s not a problem. But I haven’t participated in the monastic schedule. The monastic schedule would require a tremendous amount of my time going to pujas. I personally don’t get off on pujas. Some people really like them. I don’t, personally. We’re talking about true confessions here. That doesn’t mean that pujas are no good, but I don’t like them. So, I would have to spend a tremendous amount of time with that. I see the pressures of the monks and nuns who teach in the West. They have an unbelievable pressure to raise money in order to feed the monks and nuns back in the monasteries. I don’t have any of that.
I don’t have the responsibilities of a family. I don’t have the responsibilities of a monastery. I am a free agent. But I’ve always been a free agent. But I don’t know of very many people that have been successful in being able to do that. I fortunately have been able to do that.
Participant: Without getting married and having a family.
Dr. Berzin: Without anything. Without anything. But Serkong Rinpoche used to make fun of me. He said that I’m like the bat. When people accuse the bat of being a rat, it says, “No, no, I’m not a rat. I’m a bird.” When they accuse it of being a bird, it says, “No, no, I’m not a bird. I’m a mammal. I’m a rodent.” I choose one side or the other, whatever’s convenient. If I don’t like something on this side then I go over to the other side, and if I don’t like something on that side… But he was very good at making fun of me and pointing out my absurdities.
Participant: But what I’m saying is that your contribution historically, in the long-term, is probably greater having lived the way you live rather than having lived as a monk.
Dr. Berzin: Yes. Right. I would say that my contribution, if I make any lasting contribution to Buddhism, has been certainly a dependently arising phenomenon dependent on my not becoming either householder or a monk. That I would say. Whatever contribution I might be making, that I might make. But that doesn’t mean that that would be the case for everybody else. It certainly may not put me closer to liberation or enlightenment. Maybe build up some positive force.
Participant: It builds merit.
Dr. Berzin: Builds merit, builds up positive force. Doing something like a website or books — but I think the website even more — fulfills what it says in abhidharma, that even after I’m dead it will continue to build up positive force on my mental continuum. At least think in terms of initial scope motivation.
Participant: I was thinking about your questions, and I think they are pretty hypothetical, you know? It’s like tortuous logic or thinking in circles, because you would never know. What I can say about my experience with Alex over the lectures here: I found the group from a French website. I was reading in French on the Internet, and then I found out about Alex Berzin, all these references. And then I checked them out, or checked the website out, and found it. OK, you can ask: If you had been a monk, would it be possible or not that I could maybe stroll in Paris or whatever to find him? I don’t know. Nobody knows.
I mean, the question of... Because I have the impression… Now it becomes a bit like a trial or something. Although I know your intentions are different, you know? But I think you have to ask questions which have no conclusive answer. If you speak from your personal experiences of how you see his work, it’s different than asking whether if he would be in another place...
Dr. Berzin: Yeah, Manuel points out something relevant, which I would agree with completely.
Participant: I have to add something again, also coming back to my personal background. I’m mixed race. When he talked about that, about “I lived my whole life…” Maybe she feels this too. Because I’m in both cultures. I am in African culture and European culture, you know? So for me, when he tried to explain about his personal reasons for not becoming a monk, it sounded a bit like when people ask me about my personal identity or something. Often, I found myself in a position where I had not to defend but to define things for other people who don’t have my life or my background. Therefore, maybe I get a bit too sensitive for these penetrating questions.
Dr. Berzin: Let me say something for the recording, for people who listen to this, that what he’s pointing out are two things. First of all, one point, which I agree with completely, which I call the dangers of living in the subjunctive world. The subjunctive world is “What would have been if I had done this or that or if I hadn’t done this or that?” The what-if world is totally fiction. I mean, it’s absurd. You can’t possibly know what would have happened, and it’s pointless to postulate about it. “What would have been had I become a monk? What would have been had I raised a family?” It’s irrelevant. I agree totally with you. “What if my parents didn’t marry, then what would have happened to me?” and these things. I mean, it’s pointless.
Participant: That’s not exactly how I posed the question.
Dr. Berzin: No. I know you didn’t pose the question. I’m repeating, recapitulating, Manuel’s comments here. Then the second point that he made was that the discussion made him feel a little bit uncomfortable, because coming from a mixed African and European culture, he knows this situation of the bat very well that I described — of neither being a bird nor a rat, and you choose whichever is convenient at the time — and it’s generally uncomfortable to have to define oneself. I must say I didn’t feel uncomfortable. I can be perfectly honest about my experience.
Participant: I think it’s a gift. People can feel it’s a gift or a curse. But I think sometimes not being so well defined is a gift. That’s how I see it. I see also your position which you have in life never having worked for people. An unbelievable statement, you know? I mean employed. Let’s say that, not worked. Sorry. And not paid. But on the other hand, my mother — nobody knows my mom, at least not on the internet. It brings a whole other dimension to it. Being an object of fun for some Rinpoche or something. It’s fun. But on the other hand, it’s also a gift not being that defined like being a monk or like only a layperson.
Dr. Berzin: Right. Then he’s saying that in many ways it can be a gift not to be well defined. It’s sort of now we have voidness theory in here, that there’s nothing findable from any of the labels, that you can give labels but don’t want to fit into any label or any sort of box. And that is the way that I have unconsciously always led my life. He was saying that people could misunderstand me when I say that I’ve never been employed. I have never worked for a salary, but I work all the time. I don’t do weekends, for example. I have never observed a weekend in my life, that “Oh, it’s Saturday and Sunday. I’m not going to work.” I work all the time. That’s what I do, is translate and write and organize and do things.
But anyway, we are well, well, over our time period for today’s class. But maybe speaking about this is useful to give my experience.
Participant: I don’t ask questions to be hypothetical. I ask them for practical purposes. Because he and I have seriously considered taking vows. He and I have both lived on very extreme spectrums of society and religion, of very extreme opposing careers. It helps very much to hear a more experienced person’s perspective on why they chose a certain direction in life. It really helps.
Dr. Berzin: Yeah, OK. She’s saying that she and her partner have both felt very seriously of becoming monks and nuns and they want on a very practical level just to know my experience of why I decided not to be a monk or a nun. But if you look at many aspects of my life, it has been very much like a monk.
Participant: I agree with that completely. See, this is why for me it was an important question to ask, is because we have lived our life, for chunks of our life, very much like that, voluntarily. We didn’t take vows with anybody. It was a personal... I wouldn’t even say it was a decision but something that organically presented itself to us, and we were faced with “Should we take this a step further?” For many years now, we have been… and actually even this very week, we had an opportunity presented to us in which we will probably need to make a decision of when do we move there and ordain, not anymore if we move there and get ordained.
Dr. Berzin: Right. She’s saying this is very personal with her in terms of making decisions about ordaining or not.
I must also say that one of the things… I remember speaking with one Rinpoche that I was extremely close with, who was about my age, and worked with him together many years, translating. He said the main reason for being a monk is because of discipline. You wear the robes because basically it reminds you to keep discipline, and you don’t have the strength or ability to keep discipline on your own. He said this is the main reason for becoming a monk. He was a monk.
Looking at myself, personally, I have a tremendous amount of discipline, and I don’t need an external… wearing robes to remind me to be disciplined. I am disciplined. And another thing was becoming monk in the Gelug tradition, which is what I was exposed to the most, meant going into the debate line, and — I’m sure I’ve said this many times — that would have been the worst thing for my personality. I would have become a debate monster. Because the danger with debate is if you are too intellectually aggressive, which was the way that I came to India from my super Harvard background, that I would not have been able to turn off debating. I would have become just a monster. No, I mean you debate all the time. Anything that anybody says, you jump down their throat: “You’re illogical.” That is the most obnoxious, horrible way to interact with people. It’s like somebody sends you a letter and you go over it with a red pen and correct the grammar and send it back to them. This type of thing.
Participant: If you need to do that automatically, it should maybe be curtailed.
Dr. Berzin: Right. There are many reasons why I didn’t go on this course. This was not what I needed, more discipline and more intellectual aggression.
One has to look at the… This is the same thing in terms of — I mean, now we’re going ridiculously past our time limit — but it’s the same thing in terms of choosing a career. This is what I did. I looked at, well, what are the consequences of choosing that career. What type of lifestyle would it generate? Who are the people that I would spend most of my time with? Do I want to spend my time with these people? And all the things that would follow from being a chemist working in a laboratory, or being a university professor, or working with foundations for scholarship and research and things like that. These were all the things that I checked out.
The same thing in terms of being a monk or a nun. What are the options? The options are being with other Western monks or nuns in terms of what was available at that time (or what’s available now), being in a Tibetan monastery with what is available there (and you have to have a really insider good look at the reality of a Tibetan monastery, not an idealistic fairytale idea of it), and then the third option is to be a plainclothes monk by myself in my room. Then you see “What are the consequences of these three decisions?” and then you see “Do I want any of them?” For me, personally, no. But for everybody, that’s their own individual decision. I’m the bat. Batman. I became a bat, the batman.
Anyway, let us end, please, with the dedication. It’s very funny. Every class turns out to be one hour and twenty-two minutes regardless of what I do, when I start.
Participant: Maybe the machine’s broken.
Dr. Berzin: The machine’s broken? I don’t know. That’s really funny. But now we have gone to our one hour and twenty-two even though we started so late.
Let us end with the dedication. We think whatever positive force, whatever understanding has come from this, may it go deeper and deeper and act as a cause for reaching enlightenment for the benefit of all.