WSW 44: Criticizing Dharmic Acts, Distorted Sense of Shame

Now, we are up to verse 88 in the new translation and that is numbered in the old translation as verse 89. We’re looking at two translations that I have done of the text. One is the old looser translation – a little bit more poetical – from 1974; and the other one is the more literal translation that I did last year. First the more poetical version:

We do not despise actions unwise and immoral, instead we dispute and attempt to pick flaws in the excellent teachings and the great master’s works. Trample him, trample him, dance on the head of this treacherous concept of selfish concern. Tear out the heart of this self-centered butcher who slaughters our chance to gain final release.

In the new translation, the more literal one, verse 88:

Toward non-Dharmic actions, we don’t make any censure. But toward all excellent explanations (of the Dharma), we spout forth with insult. Crash, really crash down, right on the head of (this) ruinous concept! Deal the death blow to the heart of this butcher, a “true self,” our foe.

This verse is referring to how we do a lot of non-Dharmic actions – in other words, we act in ways that are not at all in accord with the teachings, which means to act destructively, to act selfishly and so on – and we don’t make any censure of that. In other words, we don’t criticize that; we don’t find any fault in that. We think that it’s perfectly fine, yet in terms of the excellent explanations of the teachings, we are very insulting of them. This could be teachings about aspects of the Dharma that we don’t particularly like, that might instruct us that certain habits that we have, when we act them out, are going to cause a lot of problems and are very negative – this type of things. We don’t want to hear about and so we insult these and say, “That’s no good. That really is something that we can ignore and so on.” It can be aspects concerning intoxicant; it can be aspects concerning various types of inappropriate sexual behavior – things that sort of touch us in a very private, personal way. Often, we are not very happy about the teachings of the Dharma concerning these types of things and so we don’t criticize this type of behavior. We say, “Well, we’re Western people and that was just for the ancient Indians.” That way we insult the teachings and say that this is not relevant to our times. 

If we were to do that, why would we do that? What would lie behind that? Well, like in every one of these verses, obviously, it’s this ruinous concept, this concept of a true self, isn’t it? “This is me. These are my customs. This is what I like to do.” What the Dharma might say about it is threatening and so let’s ignore that, let’s put that down. Let’s say that’s just for those ancient people in India but not for me, not for these modern times. That really revolves around the concept of a solid “me,” doesn’t it? Do we often go to the Buddhist teachings with a pick-and-choose attitude? We’ll take the nice pieces, like picking out vegetables at the fresh fruit and vegetables store. We’ll take the nice ones and leave the ones that we don’t like. Is that our attitude toward the teachings? I think it is for a lot of people, isn’t it? Now, how is that different from having a critical attitude toward the teachings, which is encouraged? Buddha said, “Don’t accept anything that I said just out of respect for me but test it as if buying gold.” 

In a sense, it’s good in the beginning to shop around, I think, because there are so many different forms of Buddhism available to us now – particularly with the internet – in most major cities now, outside of traditional Buddhist areas – whether in the West, or in Southeast Asia, or East Asia, or where ever it might be (those were traditional Buddhist places anyway). But in any case, there are so many different forms of Buddhism available and so many different teachers. How do we know which one is going to suit us the best? So, in the beginning I think it’s healthy to look around, to shop around and see, because the first one that we go to might not be the one that suits us the best. 

I certainly did this. In the beginning, I was attracted to Asian religions and philosophies, but it took me a while to decide on Tibetan Buddhism. I studied and looked around in some forms of Hinduism, Chinese Daoism, Chinese forms of Buddhism and so on. This, I think, is okay, but the point is that once we have accepted a tradition, then within that tradition to have this shopper mentality of just choosing the bits and pieces that we like and not the other pieces – this I think is the problem here. For instance, many people don’t like to hear about the hell realms – well, those teachings happen to be there, in Buddhism. We might not understand them – that’s okay. But to say, “Well, I don’t like those bits,” and insult them – “These are just superstitions of ignorant people and Buddha was teaching to ignorant, superstitious people at that time, so he had to teach in terms of what they believed in” – this I think is insulting the Dharma.

For example, what does Buddhism say about homosexuality? These are exactly the type of points that I’m referring to. Well, this I think, particularly about homosexuality, needs to be analyzed very well in terms of what the point is of what Buddha said and what the society was back then. What was the situation? Who is the audience? This is not insulting it and this is not saying, “Well, it’s just for ignorant, superstitious people.” If we look at that issue specifically, then what was Buddha speaking about? What was his whole point? Four Noble Truths, suffering. When Buddha said or explained that there are certain types of behavior that are destructive, what’s the definition of “destructive?” The definition of “destructive” is not “bad,” and “you’re going to go to hell.” The definition of it is a type of behavior that’s going to cause you problems. So, you could say that if you’re going to follow a homosexual lifestyle, you probably will have more problems with that than if you didn’t. I think that’s a fair statement in most societies. Just as there are some really difficult statements in Buddhism about female rebirth. These also are things that so many people object to, but again, what’s the point behind it? The point behind it is that women are given a more difficult time in the society. That’s just the situation. It doesn’t mean that it’s impossible; it just means that they may have more problems to deal with in terms of being harassed and so on and not given as many opportunities as men might have. Nowadays that’s changing, but it still isn’t completely equal, so there are still some problems there. 

Now in terms of the audience that Buddha was speaking to – he was speaking to a society in which people got married at the age of ten or eleven and he was speaking to an audience then of basically heterosexual men. You have to look at the actual phraseology of the sexual ethics in Buddhism in the texts. There are different recensions, different lineages of the Vinaya – the Vinaya are the rules of discipline. I’ve looked at some of this literature and I’ve only found one in which there was ever any mention of inappropriate sexual behavior from the point of view of a woman. In the vast majority of this literature, it only explains it from the point of view of a man – and a heterosexual man at that and a heterosexual man who probably got married at the age of 10. So, the argument that I’ve made in my analysis of it is that this can’t possibly mean that there is no such thing as inappropriate sexual behavior for women; it’s just that Buddha didn’t spell it out. There are many things in the Buddhist teachings that Buddha didn’t spell out completely, that later commentators filled in in terms of what the intention was. So, I think you certainly would have to fill in the intention – that just as it’s inappropriate for a man to have sexual relations with a woman who is somebody else’s partner, similarly you would have to say that it was inappropriate for a woman to have sexual relations with a man who has a partner. 

That’s just logical, that’s just reasonable and therefore I would argue that you could say the same thing for homosexuals. The same thing: it’s inappropriate to have sex with somebody who has another partner, with somebody else’s partner. So, I think that when we look at the teachings, one has to analyze and examine very deeply – this I think is perfectly fine – and not just take it on its face value, that if you’re gay you’re going to go to hell. It certainly doesn’t mean that. Now, of course, there are various traditionalists – like in any religious society, religious group – that take things very literally, like fundamentalists, but I don’t think that that is the attitude that we need to follow here. It’s not insulting the teachings to analyze, and this is what Buddha said to do: analyze them.

Do you accept that Buddha was omniscient? That’s like saying, do you accept that the Bible is based on omniscient wisdom and therefore everything in it is perfectly correct and you shouldn’t question it? Are we saying the same thing about Buddhism – that we shouldn’t question anything? No, I don’t think so. His Holiness the Dalai Lama has said that if the scientists can disprove anything in the Buddhist teachings, then he’s willing to throw it out, including rebirth. There is a distinction made in the teachings – the Mahayana schools say this; it’s not actually present in the Hinayana schools – between interpretable and definitive texts and passages within the texts. The interpretable ones lead you on to a deeper meaning. They have to be interpreted. They’re not necessarily to be taken literally. The definitive teachings – the definitive texts that talk about the definitive teachings – are those that don’t require further interpretation. They can be understood and taken the way they are. These are the teachings on voidness. Everything else is intended to lead us to that understanding and may or may not be taken literally. 

For instance, the teachings that the earth is square and flat – well, do we take that literally or not? Do we say, “I’m not going to accept that because that’s ridiculous,” or do we understand that Buddha taught many different descriptions of the universe and here is one description – earth is square and flat with Mount Meru and all this sort of stuff – to help in training the mind? You have what’s called Abhidharma. Abhidharma are special topics of knowledge. In Abhidharma – there are several texts and traditions of this – you learn about Mount Meru and the continents and all the different beings and where they live and how long their life spans are and stuff like that. Well, when this material was taught, this was the main thing that people studied in the monasteries. That’s how they trained their minds. Abhidharma was intended to help people develop discriminating awareness, to work with complex systems with complex variables. As a learning tool, it’s very helpful to work with this Abhidharma material. Whether it actually corresponds to reality is not the question. It helps to train the mind so that eventually you can understand voidness. So, again, one needs to look at teachings concerning intoxicants, concerning inappropriate sexual behavior and so on in terms of how they can lead me. What Buddha said, how can it lead me to an understanding of voidness?

Concerning alcohol, for example, if you look at the texts, Buddha said not even a drop – “not even the amount on the tip of a blade of grass,” I think was the exact phrase. One could analyze and the analysis – and we’re not talking about medicinal uses of alcohol; that may be something else – but the question is, why would you want to drink alcohol? Usually, for most people, it’s to relax. For some people, it might be to get drunk. But I think for most people, it’s a social thing, to relax, let the barriers down and so on. Well, what is Buddhism talking about? Buddhism is talking about training our mind to be able to do that without having to rely on some substance. If you become dependent on a substance in order to relax, you’ll never be going to train your mind, are you? Also, alcohol clouds the mind. It clouds the judgment. It clouds self-control in terms of being able to discriminate what is appropriate behavior and what’s inappropriate behavior and so on. So, whether you drink a little bit or you drink enough to get you drunk, the same question is there: why would you want to drink? To say, “I want to drink to be socially accepted by the people around me who are drinking” – that I think is not a very valid argument because if everybody around me in my society was going out and killing baby seals and skinning them in order to sell the skins, do I go out and join them just so that I will be accepted by the society? Where do you draw the line?

I think that one needs to analyze what’s behind these things. I think it’s an insult to Buddhism to say, “This is stupid” without acknowledging that Buddha taught all these things to help people avoid suffering. So, then you investigate. You take him seriously: what could he possibly have meant by that? I think that’s the point here. 

Often, these verses, like here where it’s speaking about the problem of picking and choosing and how that’s basically an ego trip of picking and choosing of what we like in the teachings – why don’t the texts explain things a little bit more precisely? The main body of the teachings might be very good, but there are things that could be misunderstood or interpreted differently. For instance, if a text says that this type of situation is going to be more difficult for some people, then it would be better if there were a comment put in here that we shouldn’t discriminate against such people. Well, that is precisely why there is a whole history of commentarial literature to the Buddha’s teachings. If we look at the original sutras of the Buddha, they’re very vague. Most of the things are taught in an anecdotal way – through telling a story or something like that – and then the Indian commentaries fill in a little bit more detail, present them in a more orderly fashion. Then the Tibetan commentaries come along, and they make outlines and make it more precise. Because the texts can be interpreted in many ways, then you have different types of commentarial traditions and there certainly is still room for adding more comments to it and so there is no reason why the commentarial literature has come to an end. I think that there are many things that could be added to make things clearer, particularly for a modern Western audience who thinks in quite a different way from traditional Buddhist audiences. So, yes, clarification I think is very important because we can have a great deal of misunderstanding. So, study hard and write some commentaries. There is no problem with that; it’s welcomed. 

But in writing a commentary, one has to be clear that there can be other ways of interpreting and, in the future, there may be further things that can be added. Also, when you write and make a commentary, as His Holiness has often said, you can’t just give as a reason for your explanation that it’s because “I think so.” That’s not a sufficient reason. It needs to be based either on logic, or other texts of authority, or some evidence – something like that. Not just “I think so.” Just to give footnotes to other people who basically wrote “I think so” – I don’t think it’s sufficient either because one could easily get into that Western footnote habit. It doesn’t mean that the footnotes are authentic in any case. But sure your point is an important point: just because one group may have more difficulty than another, that doesn’t mean that they need to be discriminated against. That’s for sure.

Also, I think, if you look at most of the Buddhist centers in the West, the majority of them have far more women coming than men – far more. My classes are a little bit of an exception in terms of having many men in my classes, but in most classes in most Dharma centers, the vast majority are women. So, if you analyze that, you could say that either men don’t have as much time, or you could say that women are more open-minded, more willing to be adventurous, try something new than men – from that point of view. His Holiness has pointed this out as well, because he sees this in the audiences, that maybe it’s easier now being a women, at least in Western societies. So, times change. I think the important thing here, however and particularly in terms of the women issue, is to see what’s behind it. Or the homosexual issue. What’s behind it is always the intention of the Four Nobel Truths: here are problems. Here are causes of problems. Let’s get rid of them. Acknowledging where there are going to be problems and trying to find out the cause and trying to eliminate it. That’s what Buddhism is all about. Just because one points out a problem, it doesn’t mean that you discriminate against those that have that problem.

Let’s go on. The text was saying, “Toward non-Dharmic actions, we don’t make any censure. But toward all excellent explanations (of the Dharma), we spout forth with insult.” So, in picking and choosing here: certain things that we do we might not criticize; some negative things that we might not do because basically we want to able to continue doing them; and other things we are very insulting with. For instance – and I’m guilty here because I am not a vegetarian – Buddhism doesn’t specifically say to be vegetarian, but certainly it’s better to be vegetarian than non-vegetarian. But if we don’t make any acknowledgement of that – so “toward non-Dharmic actions, we don’t make any censure” – we say it’s perfectly okay, but then we make fun of all the people who eat organically and vegetarians, basically because we’re defensive and feel threatened. That’s what it’s talking about. There is a big concept of a solid “me” behind it: “I don’t want what I like threatened even if it might be destructive.”

People who smoke or the people who pollute the environment – if they go around saying, “Well, it’s okay to pollute the environment, because if we put any controls on it, that’s no good” – and then they censure anybody who wants to put controls on it, saying that it’s bad for the economy and they insult them just so that they can continue polluting and make more money. This is the type of attitude that we’re talking about here – not just to pick and choose in the Dharma catalog. Let’s think about this for a moment and then we’ll go to the next verse. 

Also, this issue about women – one thing that we need to remember is the example of Tara. Tara is this Buddha-figure who as a bodhisattva; when she became a bodhisattva, she vowed to and prayed – and it came true – that in all her lifetimes, may she always be reborn as a woman and achieve enlightenment in a female form in order to encourage women. This is a very strong image in Tibetan Buddhism. That’s one point; another point is that I think we need to really try to conceive of ourselves and others in terms of a beginningless and endless mental continuum that is not inherently male or female, or heterosexual or homosexual, or even human. Rather, in each lifetime that mental continuum associates with a physical body based on various karmic factors. So, what we always want to have in order to be able to achieve enlightenment as quickly as possible is the most optimal rebirth state, so that we can make progress the easiest and the fastest. Now, that might change in the future, but what the specifications of that are I’m not quite sure. Though if we look at the specifications, there is a whole list of eight states of freedom that we have from the most difficult situations: being born as a hungry ghost, or an animal, or something like that. We have a great freedom that we’re not born like that, with that type of body. You can make very little progress on the spiritual path if you’re born as a cockroach and everybody who sees you just wants to step on you, for example. If we are born with a very strong instinctive hostility towards spiritual practice, that also is going to be a big problem and we’re very fortunate that we’re not born like that. 

There’s also a list of 10 endowments or enrichments that make our life very rich with opportunities, like being born at a time when the Buddhas have come and they’ve taught and the teachings are still preserved and there are teachers still teaching them and people supporting it and so on. These are the most conducive circumstances and if we have those circumstances, that’s known as a precious human rebirth. Now, within precious human rebirths, there is an additional list. This is the one where the male rebirth makes it easier. It’s in a supplementary list; that’s where it actually appears. Well, it also says being from a wealthy family and being someone that can command respect of others – these types of things make it easier to benefit others because they listen to you and you can help them easier. But my point is to not identify strongly with whatever situation we have in this lifetime. It’s only one lifetime, from a Buddhist perspective. Whatever situation we’re born in, try to make the best of it. Take full advantage of it – that’s the thing: to think in terms of working to improve our future lifetimes, to always aim for having the most conducive circumstances, whatever they may be. We think, “I really would like to continue on the spiritual path; in my next lifetime, may I be able to meet with the pure teachings very quickly and easily – not be reborn in a war zone with no access to anything; or somebody with a situation in which I just want to go out and kill the enemy – that that’s my strongest wish.” These are the types of things that we want to strive for.

Let’s look at the next verse. Actually, the next two verses are quite similar here. In the old translation, verse 90:

We are never embarrassed when acting disgracefully, only respectful deeds cause us shame. Trample him, trample him, dance on the head of this treacherous concept of selfish concern. Tear out the heart of the self-centered butcher who slaughters our chance to gain final release.

In the new translation, verse 89: 

Toward situations to be ashamed of, we don’t hold any shame. But toward what isn’t to be ashamed of, we distortedly hold them as shameful things. Crash, really crash down, right on the head of (this) ruinous concept! Deal the death blow to the heart of this butcher, a “true self,” our foe.

This is something similar: we’re not embarrassed or ashamed of things that we do that are shameful, like for instance hoarding all our money – this is a classical thing. But toward what isn’t to be ashamed of, we distortedly hold them as shameful things. Say if we go to a Buddhist event, we’re a little bit embarrassed – you don’t really want to tell your family about that; but if you go out to a bar – well, this is something we’re not ashamed of. We boast, “I went out and was drunk and I did this and I did that,” and etc. – this type of situations. Why should we be ashamed of spiritual practice that we do? Why should we be ashamed that we follow a spiritual path? “I’m ashamed and I don’t publicize it” But I’m thinking of situations in which people come from a very strong, let’s say, Christian family and their parents would be very heavy with them if they knew that they are following a Buddhist path. So, is it something to be ashamed of or is it simply something that we don’t have to smear in their face? This requires a lot of delicacy, doesn’t it? One point in the teachings is that it’s important not to cause the circumstances for others to have negative views towards the Dharma. So, if by advertising our Buddhist ways with parents or a society in which the others are then going to make fun of it – let’s say, we’re in the army or our family is very heavy in terms of not appreciating our Buddhist ways – then if we were to advertise it, they would become even more negative. They’d make fun of us. They would scold us. They would try to discourage us and so on. In those situations, keeping private about it is very different from feeling ashamed of it, or embarrassed.

But feeling shame about things that there is no need to feel ashamed about and the opposite – we have to understand how this comes from a belief in the solid “me,” which is similar to what we had before: “I want to do this, and I don’t care even if it’s something which is shameful to do.” “I want to go and get drunk.” I just saw on the internet, somebody won this contest of eating – I think it was something like 180 chicken wings. People think this is great and there was a whole crowd that came and cheered. I mean, poor chickens. So, people are not ashamed of that. But to be ashamed that you go to a meditation retreat – that’s something else. 

Why should one feel ashamed? I tell you, speaking with Western monks and nuns, that the most difficult aspect of being a monk or nun in a Western society, as a Western person, is walking around in the robes outside and having many people – not everybody – stare at you. People make fun of you and so on. That is the most difficult challenging thing that they face. In general, there is no reason to feel ashamed. However, this is an example of what is being spoken of here. 

Let’s end with the dedication: we think, whatever understanding may have come from this, may it go deeper and deeper and have a positive force. May we be happy that we analyze and challenge in such a way that we actually go deeper into the teachings and may it act as a cause for reaching enlightenment for the benefit of all.