ACI 7 «Обеты бодхисаттвы», занятие 4

Class Four: Vows One to Nine Explained
August 24, 1995



{Satong} (repeat), {satong} (repeat). {Satong} means what? Remember? That’s a root, ah a
root vow. Really root vows are, is not a good translation. Sa means, root, but tong means,
“to fall down” We talked about it, ‘to fall down.’ And it means to commit a really, really
serious mistake in your morality. in your bodhisattva morality. And there are how many of
those?

(student: Eighteen?)

Eighteen. Eighteen what you could call root downfalls. Why are those so serious? There’s
two reasons why they’re serious. If you do a {satong} it destroys your vows, you don’t have
the vows anymore after that. That vow you destroyed. So once you commit a {satong), one
of those eighteen, it, it destroys the vows in your mental streak. It’s, it’s no longer there. To,
to break a satong is very difficult because you have to have four attitudes in your heart when
you do it. And we’re going to go over that two classes from now. But basically you have to
enjoy it, you have to want to do it again, you have to think it’s not a bad thing to do in the
bottom of your heart, and, and like that. It’s, it’s you have, it’s hard to collect a {satong}. But
if you do commit one - except for two of them by the way, that’s another story - you destroy
the vow. You have to take it over again. The nice thing about bodhisattva vows is you can
take them over again. You can ask for them again. Je Tsong Khapa says, in his commentary,
‘Don’t be happy you can take bodhisattva vows over again because once you’ve committed
it once it’s impossible to achieve the first bodhisattva bhumi in this life. He, he says it, that
strongly

(student: Once you’ve broken it?)

Once once you’ve broken a {satong}. So, so you can take it over, but, but you’ve already
disqualified yourself, and, and what is, what is the bodhisattva, first bodhisattva bumi? When
does it occur?

(student: (unclear)).

Two things are going on at the same time.

(student: (unclear)).

To see emptiness directly and you have true bodhichitta in your mind. So that experience
can never happen to you in this life, according to Je Tsong Khapa. You can take them over
again but they’re never quite the, you, you, you’ve done something very serious.

(student: Gets you all eighteen?)
Yeah. But, and also when you study the bodhisattva vows well, which we will, you’ll realize
that they are very, very specific. They’re not as general as most Americans think. They’re
very specific, extraordinarily evil things, okay? (laughs) And, so it’s not really, it’s kind of
hard to break them. Relatively hard (laughs). Lets say that. There’s another word for
{satong} ...

Which is {pomba}. Say {pomba} (repeat). {Pomba} is an abbreviation of an expression which
is {paypon paroke pomba}. That means to be defeated by the enemy. Okay, defeated by the
other side. Defeated by your opponent. And the bodhisattva vows are also called, {pombas},
because that’s the name given to the four most serious breaking of a monk’s vows; the full
monk’s vows. We have two-hundred and fifty-three vows. Two hundred and forty-nine are
less important and four are very important. And if we break one of those four it’s very, very,
very serious for us. They are killing a human being. Stealing more then a certain amount of
money, say a dollar. (laughter) Seriously. Sexual intercourse with a woman. And then
lying about our spiritual level to another person. Those are for us, just about destroys our
vows; doesn’t quite. So by extension, or by comparison, the first eighteen bodhisattva vows
are given the name of those vows. Because those are so, of breaking those vows, call them
defeat, {humba}. Who’s the other side, who’s the enemy?



Eighteen. Eighteen what you could call root downfalls. Why are those so serious? There’s
two reasons why they’re serious. If you do a {satong} it destroys your vows, you don’t have
the vows anymore after that. That vow you destroyed. So once you commit a {satong), one
of those eighteen, it, it destroys the vows in your mental streak. It’s, it’s no longer there. To,
to break a satong is very difficult because you have to have four attitudes in your heart when
you do it. And we’re going to go over that two classes from now. But basically you have to
enjoy it, you have to want to do it again, you have to think it’s not a bad thing to do in the
bottom of your heart, and, and like that. It’s, it’s you have, it’s hard to collect a {satong}.

(student: (unclear))

Your own bad thoughts. (unclear) When you do one of these eighteen you’ve been defeated
like the Yankees were last night. (laughs) They, you’ve been shamed, you’ve been defeated,
you, you went up against, to box against your bad thoughts and they wiped, they beat you
up. And you failed. So those are the meanings of, these are the words for the first eighteen,
the most serious, so we’re gonna go over half of them tonight, we’ll go over half of them the
next class. Yeah?

(student: You said {pompa} is the synonyms?)

Yeah. They are synonyms in the, when you’re talking about Bodhisattva vows. And, and
bodhisattva vows are called {pompas} because they are similar in their seriousness to breaking
the first four full monk’s vows.

(student: Breaking the bodhisattva root vows is the same as breaking the ...)
It’s very similar. It’s even more serious. If I break one of those first four vows I don’t lose
my monk’s cloths; if I do certain things. But if you break one of these you lose the vow.
Okay? It’s even more serious. I can break one of my four most important vows as a monk
and still reach the first bodhisattva bhumi. You can’t if you break one of these, these are
much more serious. But they’re very similar because that’s the most serious, that’s the
heaviest bad that you can do as a monk and these are the heaviest bad deeds that you can do
as a person who is claiming to want to help other people. So here we go, alright? (laughs)
Very serious. Let me tell you the positive side, okay? You always hear about, you meet
many dharma practitioners after they’ve been into the dharma practitioning business for
awhile they’re getting discouraged, nothing’s happening, they go through personal crises’ in
their lives, bla bla bla. They learned all these tantric things and nothing works, nothings
happening. They’re getting bored, or they’re getting tired, or they’re getting discouraged, or
etcetera. etcetera. They don’t follow their practices because there’s no life to them. It it
comes from not keeping your vows. If you keep these vows things will pop like popcorn,
things will happen. Your life will be unbelievable. Things you never imagined. You know.
This is the root. I can go over them with you but once you know them it’s up to you. If
you, if you keep them, which you can’t do until you understand them, and very few
Americans understand them, maybe, I don’t know, but very, very few (laughs) understand
them well, keep them, your life will go through extraordinary experiences. And, and if you
keep them wishy-washy you’ll have wishy-washy life. And if you don’t keep them at all
you’ll get bored and quit these classes and say, ‘I don’t know what’s the big deal about all
that stuff.’ And you’ll be right. (laughs) For you. So, keep them, and things will happen;
almost immediately. Alright.

Say, {dokta} (repeat) {shumu} (repeat). And by the way you can’t enter obviously the secret
teachings unless you keep these vows. (Doktra shima) is the first root vow.

(silence)

{Doktra} means to praise yourself. {Shima} means to put down other people. First root vow:
praising yourself, putting down other people. A lot of Americans, you know, they know the
seriousness of the root vows, so they go crazy because obviously when you go to work
you’re going to do it about twenty times before the tomorrow’s over. At least I do. (laughs)
So it’s not just a generally praising yourself and putting down other people it’s a very specific
kind of praising yourself and putting down other people. First of all your motivation has to
be that you’re after two objects; two kinds of things. One is called {ngyapa}. {Ngyapa} means
some kind of material gain. By praising yourself and putting down other people you’re
gonna be able to gain something like a house, property, or money, or a car, or some kind of
gain that you’re gonna get from it. Particularly if you’re teaching dharma. Okay.
Particularly if you’re trying to teach other people and you’re putting down other dharma
teachers and putting yourself up in the hopes that somebody in Connecticut will give you a
big piece of property. (laughter) (laughs)

(student: When you say a true gain do you mean money, cash, or reputation, any of that?)
Ah, we’re getting to the reputation, that’s the second one.

(student: (unclear))

Yeah, but I, I won’t do too much, because this class is gonna run over.

(silence)

So that’s... The second object that you might be after is {suktee}. {Suktee} means the respect
and admiration of other people. Particularly in the sense of when you’re teaching people
dharma, you know? You, you’re putting down other, you’re say, ‘Ah, they’re not, they
don’t know what they’re doing, I know what I’m doing.’

(student: Both, or one or the other?)

Either one. Okay? Je Tsong Khapa points out that you don’t need both. It could be either
one.

(student: (unclear) could it be material gain or could be a gain of status or position?)

That’s the second one. You see?

(student: The second?)

That’s not material.

(student: The second, that’s renown?)

Yeah, any kind of gain they say, you, hoping people put you up on a nice thrown and you
have lots of students and they’ll all bow down to you when you come in and, you know, it’s
like that. Mostly that.

[student]



It doesn’t make a big deal about that. But I think if you reflect on it that’s the obviously result
and it’s happened all throughout history and all kinds of religions, if all those people and
those religions had been under a solemn vow never to say anything bad about it (unclear)
like that; probably would be a lot more peaceful world. Okay.

(silence)

(student: The first one is strictly limited to material gain?)

Well those are the examples that he gives. He gives clothes, food, houses, cars; advances, in
those days it was a horse. Things like that. That’s the, by the way, I’m gonna read straight
from my notes, because I, his book is very big and it’s very beautiful and I don’t want to miss
anything. You gotta know the vows well. So I made notes about, it’s gonna be a little bit
detailed. The motivation has to be a desire for those objects, okay? It, it’s a kind of desire, or
attachment to those objects. If you, something very important here, and people have asked
me, particularly with regard to dharma. Then, then would it be wrong to say something bad
about other traditions, or other teachers? And, and Je Tsong Khapa in his, and, and the
bottom line here is that, if someone’s teaching something wrong, especially something
harmful; for example you could say, tantric practices which are dirty, you know, things that
they say are tantric which are just dirty things. And, or things about emptiness which are
ridiculous and totally wrong. You’re required to fight those ideas. You’re required to go,
and go to that person, maybe offer them a public debate with that person and, or in front of a
group of people say, come, you know could you come and we’ll have a discussion in front
of these people? You can show me where you get these ideas from the scriptures, where are
they? You know? And, and who taught those things and, you know, what, what kind of
authoritative source do you have for those things? They won’t be able to show any because
there isn’t any. And, and you’re required to be a tiger when you’re talking about the truth of
the dharma. Especially because those wrong ideas are very harmful to people. So that point
of view is not, you don’t have the motivation of desire You’re not hoping that you get more
famous than the other person, you’re just trying to prevent the other person from hurting
people. That, you have to do that. You’re supposed to do that. And it’s a good thing to that.
Two requirements: you have to know what you’re talking about, you have to, you’d better
have some scriptures to back up what you’re saying. And then secondly, when you get to
this point in other teachings you’ll read that, a passage which says, you must do it with great
joy, and with great friendliness, and with great love for the other person. You’re not allowed
to do it under any other circumstances. As you do it you’re thinking about how much you
care for that other person that you’re fighting their wrong ideas. But you’re not allowed to
do it out of any kind of anger. You have to actually do it out of some kind of brotherly love
and good humour. You can’t do it out of some kind of anger. You can pretend to be be
angry, that’s okay. But in the bottom of your heart you have to love them, you have to be
joyful, and you have to fight those dirty ideas like a tiger and put them wrong. That’s not
breaking your bodhisattva vows, that’s keeping every kind of morality (unclear). Yeah?

(student: Would that same motivation apply to correcting anyone in any area of activity?)

That, mostly there are scriptures about it that I can’t tell you the details. It’s in the higher
teachings. But basically you’re required to do it with good humour and out of great love for
the other person. And you’re supposed to, if it gets to where they have a, start to have a bad
reaction you’re supposed to back off.

(student: In addition the dharma just some general non-truth that’s causing the disturbance or
harm?)

That’s dharma. (laughs)

[student]
He makes another point which is, you couldn’t, like if I were staying in, it’s not too
important, but if I were staying in a monastery with somebody else, who’s a monk, and
we’re sharing the same resources of the monastery, what they call {[unclear] - {[unclear]}
means it’s communal wealth - well then you can’t commit, this, this, this particular bad deed
you can’t commit with them because there’s nothing you can gain from them. Because
anything that another monk in my personal monastery would have to give me is the property
of the monastery already. And it would still be the property of the monastery when I got it.
There’s no wealth transfer here. Ya see what I mean? It all belongs to everybody, anyways.
So, but you’re not monks in a monastery. Yeah, okay. It says you don’t need both. It could
be for either object. Meaning either gain or fame. Okay? Gain or respect. It doesn’t have to
be both. {Satong} occurs at the moment that the other person grasps what you’re saying.
Therefore if you get [unclear] from Howell, New Jersey and tell her how great you are and
how bad that other teacher is, you’re not gonna collect this bad deed. (laughter)

(student: (unclear))

That’s (unclear) (laughter) It has to be a human being. You know, not a child, it has to be
someone who grasps what you’re trying to say. And most bad deeds of speech are like that.
I mean generally the bad deeds which require them understandings what the point you’re
trying to make and how great you are and how bad the other person is, is, should be
someone on your own level. Someone who can under, grasp what you’re saying. The
minute they grasp what you’re trying to say that’s a {satong}. You’ve done a {satong}. Yeah?

(student: So obviously it depends on somebody grasping but an accurate grasping.
Somebody who...)

Well if you said I’m a great person and, but you mean does it have to be a lie?

(student: No. Lets just say...)

(student: a misunderstanding.)

(student: ... somebody overheard a fragment of a conversation...)

Oh yeah, yeah, yeah (unclear).

(student: and thought that, and then grasped that erroneously.)

(student: (unclear) your dealing with somebody who belongs to a different religion in which
they have a different view of the, ‘ultimate truth.’)

This mainly refers to Mahayana Buddhists talking about Mahayana Buddhists and we will talk
about that later. We’ll get to that later. It comes from a quotation of Shantideva But I’m not
gonna get into that too deeply. Mainly it’s among dharma friends; mainly, mainly. Alright.
(student: Michael, just to qualify that point, so if you’re talking to someone at work and you
say, ‘Fred’s a putz,’ you know and, ‘I’m great,’ does that qualify?)

Ah (laughter)

(student: If you’re trying to get a promotion.)

(student: Yeah, I mean, you know cause it’s (unclear))

It’s a general question. Je Tsong Khapa says, it’s almost like a probably. It’s almost, that it
should be a Mahayana practitioner complaining about another Mahayana practitioner;
probably should be a lie. It does say that the other person should be someone who really
does have good qualities. So it implies that you’re lying about the other person. Those are
all, those are all, I would say, that Je Tsong Khapa would say, that it has to be a Mahayana
person talking about another Mahayana person.

(student: So if you’re just bad-mouthing someone... )

And probably a lie.

(student: So if you’re just bad-mouthing someone because you really believe they’re a putz?)

But, no, as you study the real bodhisattva vows you’ll see they’re much more serious then, I
mean there very, they’re on the level of Cardinal so-and-so bad, bad-talking the Baptist so-
and, Cardinal so-and-so because he’s interested in getting all that money of all, you know Its
has to be pretty evil. Yeah?

(student; (unclear) lay person. So in the lay person...)

The lay person could be talking about (unclear).

(student: That’s true. But in the lay person’s life I would think that if you were at work and
something came up and you said, you know, ‘Joe’s a putz,’ or whatever, that, that has to, I
mean if you know about karma and emptiness, you know, if you have, that person has to
have good qualities, really, because...)

But, you mean the good qualities that’s the opposite of what you’re accusing them of.

(student: Okay, but, when we were, and, if you make some other person have rise to that
feeling, that can be a...)

No. We’re talking (unclear). {Tay} means...

(student: Okay.)
What;s the border at which you cross into {Itsatum}? There are many, many, {[unclear]}
meaning, coming close to these are countless. Really countless. And you gotta know the
exact (tay} at which if you cross that you broke your {tsatum}

(Student: It would be more specific protocol for things to go wrong without being
disparaging of him and without, it would be more of an equanimity (unclear))

No if you’re doing it for any kind of good motivation you cannot collect it.

(student: What?)

If you’re doing it with any kind of charitable motivation you cannot collect it. It has to be,
you’re talking good-and-evil. You have to think it’s right, and you have to like it, you have
to want to do it again. This, and, and the results are very serious. You can’t achieve the first
{unclear) and the stakes are very high and they’re very evil. You have to break, it has to be a
very nasty thing to do. And, and that’s not the impression that most Americans have of the
bodhisattva vows. But you have to study them. And, and they’re very, the results are
extremely serious, and, and the deeds are very serious.

(student: And this is only Mahayan, Mahayana, this one?)

{unclear} says looks like that. Okay. (laughs) Based on something that comes later. But
(laughs), (unclear) just avoid it, okay? He says, probably, which means, I’m sure Je Tsong
Khapa avoided any kind of {unclear}, okay. But, but, particularly around the field of dharma,
particularly, this is how schisms happen. This is how one group becomes split from another
group. You can’t imagine a more dirty or horrible thing then religious people are splitting
against each other, and bad-mouthing each other, and, this is really what we’re talking about.
This is what really the result is that we’re talking about. You can’t think of anything more
destructive to the peace of the world then, then prac… followers of religion (laughs) talking
about (unclear). That’s not {unclear}. There’s actually two vows in there. When we, when
we finish this I want an exercise, okay? It’s a lot more then eighteen vows. Each one has
within it multiple root vows. There’s two root vows, what are they? What do ya guess?

(student: Not praising yourself.)

(student: Praising yourself.)

Yeah, praising yourself. (unclear) Either one. Alright? Either one, you commit the bad deed
when you commit either one. So there’s actually two substance here. We’re gonna have a
lot more then eighteen by the time we’re finished. I’d like someone to keep count.

(student: could you say that again. If you just praise yourself, you break the...)

Yeah, yeah, you don’t have to do both. It;s either-or.

(student: Even if, well, I mean, can you qualify that somehow?)
(students: (unclear))

Let’s say you only get so far as lying about your own Mahayana spiritual qualities …

(student: What if you think it’s accurate?)

Then you don’t commit a {bhumi}. I mean, no, a (tsatsum).

(student: So you have to lie about yourself is what you’re saying.)

Je Tsong Khapa says, it looks like that.’ (laughter) He says most of the Indian scriptures say
it. It’s very difficult that these vows are spread out all throughout the scriptures and he
studied all of them, he went very deeply into the {unclear} and this is his result. And you
can’t, you won’t get a better, and he puts, he, he disproves in that text a lot of Tibetan, earlier
Tibetans who said, ‘Oh, I understand now what this means,’ and they give a presentation and
Je Tsong Khapa shows why according to the ancient books it’s not true. Yeah?

(student: How about if it’s just the thought?)

It has to be - it’s a good point - it has to be in speech, to another person.

(student: And the second part of this criticism (unclear) also has to be a lie? Just so I can say...

Yeah.

(student: Just so I can say this person is very bad at math; gets things long. And if it’s
accurate (unclear))

(unclear) the classic one is that this first half is, ‘I’m a great Mahayana practitioner. I know
how to read the books. I can recite them. I can explain them. I know all these things
perfectly. But, that guy, he’s, he’s telling everybody he can read them and teach them and
he’s lying. He doesn’t have those qualities. That’s the classic {doktra shimla}. That’s the
classic event of a {doktra shimla}. Yeah?

student: Is the main point here the causing of the schism? Is that the...)

It doesn’t make a big deal about that. But I think if you reflect on it that’s the obviously result
and it’s happened all throughout history and all kinds of religions, if all those people and
those religions had been under a solemn vow never to say anything bad about it each other
like that; probably would be a lot more peaceful world. Okay.

By the way, why are they counted as one vow then? Why do they, why do they count them
as one vow, because the, the motivation is the same. The motivation is, is desire. The
motivation is wanting other people’s things and respect. So therefore there classed as one
root vow. But they are two. They are two especially from the point of view of actual
activity. It’s two different activities. And that’s going to be the same for the rest of the first
four root vows. Why do you think the first four are, are one way and the other fourteen
another way?

Huh?

(student: They parallel the monks four?)

No. Where do the first four come from? The first four from Asanga (unclear) And the other
fourteen are from a different source actually. So, it happens to be that the first four, which
were taught by Maitreya, and Asanga, are all dual; all double. Okay?

(student: So Michael, as far as putting down another person does that have to be a sort-of false
putting down, like saying, ‘that was really stupid?’ Maybe it wasn’t, verses saying it was
really stupid and it was really stupid.)

Je Tsong Khapa says leaves it open that if even if it were true you could commit it. He leaves
it open.

(student: (unclear) nasty or...)

He says, no it doesn’t have to be, but he says most of the time it’s a lie. And, and from one
point of view he does, he has a long debate and then he says, ‘It looks like the other person
should really have good qualities and you claim he doesn’t have good qualities.’ He or she.
But it, but when he says, looks like, and mostly, and, you gotta, that means we gotta avoid
any of that. (laughs) Okay? Alright.

Say {chinor} (repeat), (metair) (repeat), {chinor} (repeat), {metair} (repeat).
{Chir} means dharma. {Nor} means material wealth. Okay? Money, food, things like that.

{Neita} means not to give it. What he means is not giving someone dharma teachings or not
giving someone material assistance. Now we gotta talk about it. Don’t ask me any questions
until we’re finished. okay? (laughs) It’s very specific. Alright? It has to be a pretty evil one,
alright? First thing is, we’ll talk about the other person. What about the other person? There
should be two qualities. One of two qualities. The first one is that they are really suffering,
suffering is really wrong. They don’t have food, they have some kind of disease, they’re out
of money, they’re in serious, some kind of serious problem. And those are all what? Those
are all kind of material serious problems. The second category of personal need is, is
someone who doesn’t have support, doesn’t have a support system. Meaning, Je Tsong
Khapa says, ‘they don’t have somebody like,’ first of all like, like Maitreya or some kind of
protector for them. They don’t have a whole network like family, or friends or they don’t
have a network of support that they can draw from. They are counting on you. (laughs)
You, you are their, they’re depending on you. You know the, you know the difference.
You’ve had people come to you and try to borrow money. And then, I just had it recently.
A close friend got overworked at her work; got diabetes, had her kidneys taken out,
desperate for money. Was never in that situation before. Non of the relatives can give
anymore. Gotta buy this dialysis machinery. Must have five thousand dollars. Coming to
me, specifically, you know, ‘I need your help. I’m, this is, I don’t have anywhere else to
turn to. I need this.’ Then if I say no I broke my{unclear}. That’s, and by the way, must be
able to help. You must own the thing that they need, okay? (laughs) Alright. You don’t
have the money you don’t break your vow. You don’t, you can’t get the money, you don’t
own the money, within, you know, pretty reasonable boundaries, you don’t break your
vow. He says there are certain limitations on the thing they ask you for. You’re not allowed
to give anything that would be harmful to them. And he gives two examples: weapons.
Okay? Like if a person comes to you and begs you for, ‘you’re the only person who could
give me this knife that I need to stab my neighbor.’ (laughs) That’s, that’s where, he calls it
unhealthy. He means unhealthy. And then he says poison,. like especially if the person were
planning to poison themselves and they come and beg to you, you to help. You know,
something, he said that would be improper. So it’s almost like unhealthy and improper.
Weapons or poison are the two examples he gives.

(student: So then the question of euthanasia is covered in this case.)

Yeah, you can’t do euthanasia. They’re for a lot of other reasons too.

(student: (unclear))

I, you know, about the fine, you know, I’m gonna leave it to you. You know. Personally I
think it’s poison and I don’t think you should do it. But you don’t, it’s, it’s, believing that the
person is going use it and hurt themselves you refuse them money, you don’t break your
bodhisattva vows. But I’d say you have to be real careful not to get lazy. In {Getsu Sawang
Samdrups’s} text he often mentions laziness as a motivation for breaking vows. You just don’t
feel like giving it to the guy so you assume he’s a drunk. You know? (laughs) (laughter) I
mean you gotta be careful. Okay?

(student: What if that person’s starving, you give them food, (unclear))
 (student: Where there’s so many homeless people how do you know, on the street there’s
always (unclear))

To the best of, to the best of you ability you have to judge. And that comes often in the
bodhisattva vows. For example, we’ll cover a vow later about teaching people emptiness.
You’re supposed to check whether you think they, whether it’s appropriate. If you misjudge,
Je Tsong Khapa says, I don’t believe it’s in, breaking a root vow. If you honestly checked,
and in your best knowledge, the person was ready and then you taught it to them, and you
freaked out, you don’t break your bodhisattva vows. And that, in other words, every, it’s all
based on your best judgement at that time. You can’t know if that person’s an alcoholic at the
time. If you truly think they are, even if they’re not, you have (unclear). I don’t mind but
we’ll be here late and don’t guys, don’t blame me. Okay.

(student: If the Bosniums came here tonight with their hat outs and we’re getting slaughtered
in our homeland, please give us some money so we can buy some weapons and defend
ourselves, we wouldn’t be able to do that because...)

Looks like, looks like we, we wouldn’t, be allowed. But it’s also in your vows you have to
protect people who are in danger. So, you have to, it takes a lot of wisdom. Takes a lot, I’ll
just say that. One more question.

(student: What if you just don’t know? Which way do you go? I mean, if you, you know,
you have all these people coming up to you in the street, you see all these situations, you just
say, I don’t know?)

I, I don’t have an answer. Use your best judgement. He doesn’t mention it. The motivation
must be that you are overwhelmed by feelings of stinginess, don’t want a part with the thing
that they’re asking for.

(student: Does it have to be asked of you or can you see that’s it’s a need?)

Say again.

(student: Does it have to be asked of you or is it just a need?)

Um, good question. Yeah, he says they have to approach you and ask you. So you see the
vows get more and more, the conditions are more and more narrow. He says they do have
to approach you personally and ask you personally.

(student: And the reason you give is (unclear))

Because you don’t want to part with something you have.

(unclear), he mentions that the motivation should be out of a desire not to do something
wrong. Attachment to something, the, the mental affliction in number two is attachment. I
suppose you could do it out of anger. Or, you know, but he mentions that it’s attachment.
You, you can’t part with the thing. What you’re giving could be either a material object, or
dharma.
Okay? Those are the two divisions here. In the, in the case of dharma, it’s the case, it’s, it’s
where you don’t wanna teach someone everything you know because your afraid that
they’ll, then you won’t be so great anymore. You know what I mean? And it’s, it’s called
{bayque}. It’s holding back things that you know because you, you don’t want it to get out
and everyone know what you know. Je Tsong Khapa talks about a wrong believe that was
held in some tibetan scriptures that were written where they said, ‘The other person’s hopes
must be dashed. They must feel the emotion of, of their hopes being crushed by you.’ And
he says that’s, he says he’s checked all the Indian sources and, everywhere, and it doesn’t
ever mention that. So he says it’s not a condition of the vows.

(student: What, what is it?)
It’s not a condition to beak your vow that the other person’s hopes are dashed after you
refused them. Some Tibetan commentators, before Je Tsong Khapa, claimed that the other
person’s hopes have to be, they have to feel this immense feeling of letdown from what you
did. And they say you don’t break it if they don’t feel that. Je Tsong Khapa says that there’s
no scripture that says that, there’s no source like that, it wasn’t in the, the Buddha never said
that. Some, somebody got up and mentioned it one night-day and people wrote it down
after that: it’s not true. You have to know those things. So how many root vows there?

Not to give dharma and not to give material assistance. Number three... We’ll do one more
and then we’ll, we’ll stop for a break.

(silence)

Say {shakyam} (repeat), {minyen} (repeat). By the way some of you may recognize some of
these verses. Hopefully you do. (laughter) If you don’t recognize them don’t worry about
it. (laughter)

{Shakyaminyen, shakyaminyen}. This divides into two, two root vows. The first of the pair
here is not even mentioned in the text. So you could of been breaking it all this time and not
known it, okay. In the verse commentary, verse, verse summary that most of us learn to
keep our vows, it’s not even mentioned. And it’s mentioned by Asanga, it’s taught by
Asanga. Whoever wrote this verses didn’t mention it. Okay, and that’s called {tokpa}.

This, this third root vow also has two halves. And the first half isn’t even mentioned. So if
this is all you ever learned you could be breaking it all the time and not know it. The
situation is very specific. Somebody did something bad to you. You got angry. You didn’t
let the anger go, you held it. And it built up to a point where you actually did violence to
them. You hit them, or you threw something at them, or you got somebody else to, to do
violence to them. It seems, to refer very specifically to - {tokpa} means to, to, to strike
someone - and if it’s ever happened to you, I mean if you’ve ever been so angry, it’s
happened to me twice in my life, I’ll never forget it, where you were so angry that you
actually struck someone, you, you know how bad it feels. And it feels very, very, dirty.
And you feel very, very, wrong. And that’s, that’s what it has to be, it has to be such, it has
to be where you actually do violence to someone.

(student: What are you calling this, Michael?)

The, the word, the word is to strike someone; striking another person. It has to be a person.

(student: So the third vow would be, ‘not striking another person?’)

And ‘B’ which you didn’t get to.

(student: And what?)

The third vow has two parts, I’m only talking about the first part now.
(student: Alright.)

The first part of the third vow is to, is to do violence to another person.

(silence)

Je Tsong Khapa gives the, I mean the root says, ‘you use your own body to strike them. You
throw something at them. You swing something at them. You imprison them, or you do
other kinds of real violence to them.’

(student: Physical violence.)

Yeah, yeah. Which see, it gets to be very specific. It’s, and you know how wrong it feels if
you’ve ever had it happen. you know, that you blew up and hit somebody. How wrong it
is, how wrong it feels. Yeah?

(student: you mentioned you’re holding on to something and not letting it grow, would this
also apply to just being in some spontaneous altercation?)

No.

(student: This fight...)

Ah, we’ll get there. But it should be a buildup of anger over a period of time and then finally
you, you hit them. Not the initial flare-up of anger. How ling it takes between there he
doesn’t mention. Je Tsong Khapa finally says, ‘It seems to me,’ from studying the text and he
quotes a few cases, that, ‘it should be a person; should be another person and not an animal
or something like that.’ It has to be, it has to be someone who can understand it if you said
something to them. And it has to be someone who could be keeping, or not keeping
morality. And he says therefore, ‘It’s limited to human beings.’ You do violence to an
animal, it’s very, very, evil, but you don’t break you root vow. Okay, number, the second
half of root vow number three. Is, say it, well that’s {shokyan minyin}. {Shok), {shock}
means to apologise or confess. To apologise or to confess. {yan} means, ‘even
though.’ {minyan} means, ‘refuse to listen.’ And it’s very specific again.

Someone had done something wrong to you. some one has hurt you in some way. That’s
the first requirement. They’re coming to you in a very, almost in a very formal way. They’re
approaching you to apologise. Or they’re approaching you to explain what they did that
hurt you and why it wasn’t, you know they, they wanted, it doesn’t matter whether it was
intentional or not, but they want to come to you and explain to you, or apologise to you,
what happened. You know like maybe they did something by accident that offended you.
So that in that case I wouldn’t call it an apology, right? They’re coming to explain to you, to
explain themselves to you what happened. But either whether you call it an apology or just
coming to explain to you why, what it was that they did that hurt you. You know, ‘I didn’t
really mean to it,’ or, ‘I’m sorry,’ or, you know, ‘I was just talking about somebody else.
You thought it was you, I...’ They’re coming to you to explain. Yeah?

(student: Sincerely coming to you to explain as opposed to just trying to give you a line.)

It says in coming to you in a very, in Tibetan it’s called (shunshim domines}. In the proper
way, in a good way. They’re coming to you in, in a nice way to, they’re coming to you
formally almost...

(student: With a true motivation.)

Yeah. From their heart.

(student: Not to try to (unclear))

No, they’re coming from their heart. To, to exp… to give you an explanation of what
happened. Or to apologise.

(student: From the heart too.)

Your motivation must be that continued anger that was same in the first half. It’s called
{kunzin}. In tibetan it means to hold the heat almost. To hold that anger within your heart,
burning in you. After the initial currents of anger you keep it, you store it, you meditate on
it. (laughs) And the essence of the vow, when breaking the vow, is when you refuse to
accept their, you don’t even want a, you refuse to listen, you refuse to accept their
explanation. You say, ‘I don’t wanna hear about it.’ ‘I, I’m angry at you, you know.’ ‘I
don’t wanna, don’t tell me all the crap, you know.’ ‘I know you meant to do it, and I,’ you
know something like that. And you just refuse to let them explain themselves to you. Then
you break the vow. We’ll take a break there. Please come and have some tea and stuff. Yes?

(student: What if there’s no hitting involved. If you get really angry at someone.)

No. It’s either-or, okay? Again, it’s either-or. We’re talking, either-or. Either-or means you
break the third root vow when you either strike another person or refuse to listen to
someone’s apology or explanation (unclear).

(student: The main mental affliction is anger.)

There’s really two root vows in here. Yeah, the main mental afflictions and why they’re
counted as one vow is, is, it doesn’t say anger, what does it say?

(student: (unclear))

{Nussen} means, {nicol} means, you wanna hurt someone. It’s the desire to hurt someone.

(student: (unclear).
{Nu} means to hurt. And {sen} means the desire to hurt someone. The motivation has to be
that you wanna hurt them.

(student: On the second part also?)

Yeah. You wanna hurt their feelings.


[student]

If you’re busy and you can’t listen right now you do not break your ...

(student: Oh no, but your motivation isn’t necessarily to hurt them but you’re just so angry
you just can’t listen to them; you can’t deal with it, you can’t... )

(student: Overcome by your emotions.)

Then it’s not. You don’t break the vow. It has to be the desire to...

(student: Well isn’t it a matter of (unclear) accept your apology?

It has to be, it has to be that simmering...

(student: (unclear) is not being willing to forgive.)

It’s like the, it’s based on that.

(student: Is it like being angered at all? Your class mates ‘cause they’re going to get(unclear))
(Laughter)

By the way, excuse me, we have dictionaries if anybody wants it. So many people ask me
for them. I’m not trying to sell them. They’re twelve dollars; they’re twenty-five dollars at
every book store. We went and bought a case in India and dragged it back here. (laughter)
So, I have more out in New Jersey if you want. (unclear)

(student: First part of the vow, you break it when you actually strike the person then? Is that
the idea?)

Yeah. You strike, throw, swing,

(student: Well that’s when it’s broken at that point.)

(student: So if you trip over your own feet and you don’t connect, you don’t break it.)

No, you don’t break it.
(unclear) {Taichin} (repeat), {bor} (repeat). {Taichin} means Mahayana. The bodhisattva
teaches, teachings about (unclear) bodhisattva. The (unclear) means to reject them.

(silence)

What Mahayana teachings is it? It’s either of the two great divisions of the Mahayana
teachings. Which is the emptiness teachings and then the teachings on how to act like a
bodhisattva. Those are the two great divisions; the teachings on emptiness and the teachings
on bodhisattva activities.

(student: (unclear) have my notebook?)

Anybody have a notebook with like hieroglyphics in it? (laughter)

(student: (unclear))

Yeah.

(student: (unclear))

Mahayana. {Take} means, yana and {chin} means, maha. Great vehicle. Great capacity.
Vehicular capacity would be more correct.

(student:This is number four?)

It’s a number four. Four, four, eight. Right? Four, eight, we’re talking about four, eight,
there’s gonna be a Four-B, right. Because the first four have two parts each. Two vows each
(unclear).

(student: (unclear) also four?)

Reject. Give-up.

(student: (unclear))

And, and emptiness and bodhisattva-like. Okay? Two great divisions, {satba etc.}. Two
great divisions. The way you give it up is to put it down. That, the Buddha never taught
that, that’s all rubbish, silly, it’s no good, it doesn’t help, it never … I don’t believe the
Buddha said that. That’s the classic way to give it up. That’s the classic, classic way to reject
it. Yeah?

(student: When you say reject it you mean saying it’s invalid versus it’s a pain in the but or...)

Yeah, yeah. No the complaint about how hard is no, that’s no big, that’s not... It’s, it’s to say,
it’s invalid.

(silence)

The Buddha didn’t teach that.

(student: If you have a teaching where it says, ‘to say is one thing but to think, just thinking it
is bad, isn’t that, you know, an even harder teaching and then you should say, well that
teaching is harder then the one where you just not allowed to talk. Would that be saying
something better?)

This one normally refers to, to stating it. Talking about it. Normally refers to...)

(student: If you walk around thinking this is a bunch of baloney...)

Obviously no. (laughs) That’s projecting. Okay. Ah, Four-B.



Say, {darnum} (repeat). {Duba} (repeat). {Darnum} (repeat). {Duba} (repeat). {Darno} means
false. (Duba} means to teach. Okay. To teach false means the following: you propagate
something as, as dharma and especially Mahayana dharma and it was never taught like that,
it’s not what the Buddha taught, you made it up yourself, you think it would be cool, you
would like to update Buddhism, maybe the Buddha didn’t see 1995 although he’s omniscient,
maybe he didn’t know what would be (unclear), better improve on it. You know. All of
those things. Very common, very dangerous. It’s like that thing where I whisper in Pat’s ear
something and, and then it gets over here and she whispers it to me. Buddhism could not
have survived two and a-half thousand years in it’s pure form unless every generation and
we’re, we’re now the generation; past it on in a very pure way, don’t add anything, don’t
take anything out, don’t interpret. Teach what the Buddha taught. It’s fine, it works, very
effective (laughs). You know, pass it on pure to the next generation.. If you corrupt it half a
percent then a hundred years from now it will be all ruined. It won’t work for anybody
because it’s missing something, or you … you polluted it. It works. You can reach
Buddhahood in this life. You will see paradise. You’ll know it when you see it. And don’t
mess around with it, you know. There’s a certain method and don’t mess it up for the next
generation. Yeah?

(student: So what is that method, is to only quote sutras and commentaries?)

Mostly to depend on the original texts and the authoritative commentaries which you can,
don’t, we talked about that, that’s a long story. But confirmable by tour personal experience,
confirmable by internally, logically, and things like that.

(student: So if you say this is my experience of this, or this is my opinion of this...)

That’s alright. That’s great.
(student: Or this is my, can you say this is my interpretation of this and get what you think
about it? Nah.)

(student: This only seems like context, but, you know...)

As long as you are very careful to explain it. This is your own idea. It’s not stated. I, I think
this might be relevant in this discussion but to present it as the Mahayana teachings of the
Buddhas.

(student: So this is whole school going around here, Vinaya, where they’re saying just as
Tibetan Buddhism changed, Buddhism changed and went to the bad, it’s gonna change again
now that it goes to the West to be wonderful, we’re supposed to debate these people?)

The last lines of the Vinaya sutra and you can’t find anything more stricter then the monk’s
vows teachings say, apply this philosophy to your times, and your days, using the proper
rules. So there is a, a place in Buddhism, in the strictest side of Hinayana Buddhism that says
apply this to your circumstances but use the following guidelines and you must know those
guide lines, it , it is necessary to, to apply it in certain ways according to your times and
your, but you must know their rules for doing that. You have to study those rules. It doesn’t
im...

(student: ... influence in anything that they’re bringing in, Japanese cultural stuff, all in
English with Tibetan backup. And they’re doing it to (unclear)) (laugh) (laughter)

What’s the first vow? (laugh) (laughter) (unclear) We can’t, don’t know.

(student: These people sincerely believe that their Buddhists. But, and I don’t know scriptures
well enough to challenge what they’re doing right now but I have a little wiggles of worry.
If their good intentions, thinking they’re teaching the sutra and not teaching sutra, teaching
something a little wired, it, does this break the vow?}

Yeah it breaks the vow. If they have the vow. You have to have the vow to break it, right?
That’s one of the requirements of breaking it. (laughs) Okay, we gotta move, it’s gonna be
late so, I don’t mind. I, I enjoy it.

(student: (unclear))

Okay. (laughs) Please don’t give me any vibrations like, ‘hey we gonna get out-a
here.’ (laughing) I, I, I like to answer questions but, but don’t give me these vibrations,
okay?

Ah, number five, say {konchokl} (repeat). {konchok} (repeat). {konchok} you know, it means
that, what? It’s not Three Jewels. The Three Jewels: Buddha, Dharma, Sangha. The Buddha
is teaching and, and the community of, of monks usually. {Kor} means the belongings of the
Three Jewels. {chok} means to steal.
Je Tsong Khapa says, describes it as what belongs to a church, you know a temple, or a
dharma center, or a shrine. You know the objects that are there that belong to that, that, or
which belong to a group of monks. It could be, the, the Buddha here could refer to an image
of the Buddha or a painting of the Buddha. Dharma here could refer to the books. But what
he’s trying to say is it’s not the ultimate jewels that you have learned if you studied refuge; if
you understand what they are. For example: The ultimate dharma is not the books, it’s the
perception of emptiness and things like that. You couldn’t steal those those, okay? The real
meaning of sangha is people who have seen emptiness directly. Okay. But what he’s trying
to say it’s, it’s, more of the, it’s more tense towards the normal things you think of. The, the
statue in a temple, the painting in the temple, the money that belongs to that dharma group,
okay? And any one of those, any one of the three. So it means there’s really?

(student: Three.)

Three root vows here. If you just stole a Buddha image you would break this vow with
reference to the Buddha instead of the other two jewels. And, and you, so you can
theoretically break three at one time. (laughs) There would be three. There’d be three
separate {sarto}, so here you have three separate {sartos}. He gives examples of the objects, he
says, property, meaning the land of that place. The houses of, belonging to those people.
Food or drink that belongs to them, to the people living there, or, or a car or some kind of
horse, or something you can use to get around. He says to be honest, I can’t find in the
scriptures any descriptions of the minimum cost of the thing. So I guess you can say any
particular object. Okay? (laughs) Alright. Anything dedicated by someone to you, to the
dharma.

(student: So if you took a flower from the ground that be an offence?)

He says I can’t find it, a mention of a minimum amount. {Yojay} means, Yojay, I, I would say
that the word he uses more often refers to the article being used by that temple, like a chair,
or, or, a horse, or a, you know I don’t think if you picked a flower, I don’t think that would
cause a, it’s very serious maybe...

(student: But if you took some flowers that were offered.)

That’s a different, well no … in a sense the flowers, but it, it’s, I’m just, I don’t believe Je
Tsong Khapa would say that a flower, he doesn’t, specifically state it, right? Okay. The
(laughs), the motivation has to be that you want, you want to appropriate the thing. He says
the motivation must be {kleshic}.

Okay, say {chepo} (repeat). {Chepo} means, give up the Dharma. Give up the Dharma. The
Dharma here refers to any one of three kinds of Dharma; three different kinds of Dharma.
Two of them are Hinayana and one of them is Mahayana. The first one we call the dharma of
the listeners. If you, if you know the (unclear), okay. It’s the Dharma of the listeners. It’s a
whole track, a Hinayana track, the teachings on that track. Classic example is the teaching on
the Four Noble Truths. That is a, a listener Dharma, okay? When the, in fact it was the first
teaching the Buddha gave on the Four Noble Truths.

Yeah, good. The second group is ...

(student: Who’s that?)

(student: Must be the pizza.)

(unclear) (laughing) {shravaka}

(student: What’s that mean?)

Listener, if you’re interested they’re called listeners because they can hear Mahayana dharma
talk, they can even describe it to other people, but they’re incapable of practicing it by
themselves. And that’s why call it (unclear). Okay. {Dongyel} means self-made Buddha. And
that’s the second track. It’s a Hinayana track. It’s a whole dharma, it’s a whole collection of
dharma. It’s, it’s collection number two, okay? A classic teaching there is the twelve links of
dependent intonation. What you see in the wheel of life there, okay? The twelve links of
dependent intonation.

(silence)

They’re not self-made and they’re not Buddhist but they’re called self-made Buddhists,
{Pratiyayka} Buddha. Self-made means in this life they didn’t have a direct teaching. They
had millions of teachers in there past lives. Okay? (laughs) So it’s, it’s, it’s deceptive. Okay.
But in this life they don’t have a direct personal {nahma} but they still achieve some high
spiritual realizations. So their not real Buddhists but they’re called, self-made Buddhas. Their
not self-made and their not Buddhists. Okay



Yeah. The twelve links.

(student: Twelve links. Why aren’t they (unclear))

They haven’t achieved enlightenment. They don’t have omniscience. They can’t get
omniscient in that track. They can reach nirvana. They’re called buddhas though but it
doesn’t refer to the Buddha. It doesn’t refer to Buddhahood. And then obviously the
mahayana is the third group.

(student: So if you give up the Dharma of any of the three?)

The way you give it up is very specific. You say, ‘This was not spoken by the Buddha. This
is not the Buddha’s teaching.’ Anyone of those two.
(student: Michael does that include any part of it or...)
It’s very good question. If you put down any part of it, it’s a secondary vow breaking. If
you put down the whole thing you break the root vow. It has to be the whole track, putting
down the whole track.

(student: Oh, that category...)

Yeah, you’re putting down that whole group of group of teachings. The whole listener
group of teachings was not taught by the Buddha, it’s all ridiculous.

(student: (unclear) three vows?)

Yep. Good. Three root vows here. If you put down a detail of it, if you say, ‘link number
seven is ridiculous, ’you don’t collect a root, you don’t break a root vow. You, you break a
secondary vow. We’ll get there. We’ll get to that. Okay. We’re gonna make it pretty good
I think.

(student: Oh, that category...)

Yeah. This was not taught by the Buddha. This is not the Buddha’s teaching.

(silence)

If you get good at keeping these you will be reviewing {Tundruk} six times a day. You’ll be
reviewing your own mind (unclear). And, and if you’re, and obviously you should review
anytime you came close. You know? That’s the whole practice of morality is, is reviewing
yourself frequently to see if you came close.

So... Say {mumaypah} (repeat), {mumaypah} (repeat). Well, that’s number seven.
{Mume} is a golden color of the breast feathers of a certain dove in Tibet. (laughing) (laughs)
Okay? You can say this, you can say (laughter) it’s true. You can say this, you can say
(laughter). You’re getting silly now. You can say the saffron. Meaning the saffron robes.
It’s like saying ‘the saffron. And everybody’s supposed to understand. Unlike saying ‘the
golden.’ And it refers to the golden robes of the monk. I mean even our robes, our true
robes that we have to keep with us are, are golden. The real outside robe that we wear is
golden. So {Mumay) means golden. {[unclear]} means to steal it. To take it away. To take it
away.



The real meaning of this vow is to harm the monk. I, I should say an ordained person. To
harm an ordained person. There’s gonna to be two different kinds of harm. There’s two root
vows.

The first one is just physically to, to take away their robes. To disrobe them. It doesn’t mean
to make them become a laymen it means to physically remove them. You know tell them,
‘okay, give me your robes.’ And the second part is to force them to disrobe. Okay, so
there’s really two parts. The first part is, is taking away their robes like a punishment, or, by
the way motivation has to be anger. The motivation has to be disliking that ordained person.
And you say, and you, and you strip them of your robes. The second root vow here, the
second breaking of a root vow, is to force them to become a layman.

(student: You know we were talking getting (unclear) and you were talking about disrobing
in the sense of getting to violate their vows?)

No, no, not like that.

(student: Not at all.)

Physically to remove the, to say do you give me, that’s the first, that’s; Seven A is to force
them to give back their robes physically. To give you their robes.

(student: Forcing them to disrobe automatically..)

But not, in the English word disrobe means (laughs) to force them to become laymen. That’s
Seven B. There’s a distinction between, saying you must give me your robes - at that time
they don’t lose their vows - and then Seven B, forcing them to become a laymen. Making
them become a layman. Like the Chinese did.

(student: How can they, when do they become a layman? How do they become a layman?)

{Domatoy etc.} (laughs) There’s a lot of them really ready. (laughs) Forcing them to give up
the monk’s way of life. How’s that?

(student: Did you say Seven A has to be with anger or Seven B has to be with anger?)

Both of them have to be with the intention of hurting that person.

(student: What did you say has to do with anger.)

(student: Motivation is anger.)

Motivation is wanting to hurt the person.

(student: So it has nothing to do with sexuality. I mean...)

No, nothing like that. Not like that.

(student: If you force someone who doesn’t really want it.)

That’s true, I mean you don’t just lose your monk’s vows just because someone makes you do
bad things. But, it’s to make the person do those bad things.
[cut]

Side B

[cut]

(student: But if I had a friend who was a monk who has doubts and I spoke with him for an
hour or something and afterwards he decided he didn’t want to be a monk anymore, I’d be
guilty?)

Is it because you wanted to hurt him?

(student: No, just a friend talking...)

Then it’s not a (unclear).

Very, very bad. By the way they say here, it’s whether or not, whether the person is a good
monk or a bad monk. Meaning maybe you know the monk has broken all his vows and
you go and say, ‘okay, you gotta, you can’t wear those robes anymore.’ You still commit the
{satung}.

(silence)

There are times in the monastery when by monastic law you’re required to expel a person
(unclear). But you’re not allowed to, out of a desire to hurt them, force them to become a
{unclear}.

Okay. I got rid of that one easy. (laughter)

(student: (unclear))

It doesn’t, I don’t have it in my notes but I, I think so.

(student: (unclear))

You wanna hurt them, {ner sem}. So like in some extraordinary cases in, out of compassion,
you know someone might say (unclear) to be a monk, or something, that’s not same, you
don’t collect (unclear). Okay.

You wanna hurt them, {nisem}. So like in some extraordinary cases in, out of compassion,
you know someone might say (unclear) to be a monk, or something, that’s not same, you
don’t collect (unclear). Okay.

(student: (unclear) karma?)
Ah, I don’t remember that he said, it would be ignorance actually. Because it was ignorance
in the other case. Okay.

Say, {sam me nga} (repeat), {sam me nga} (repeat).

{sam me} means no interim, no interim {nga} means five. These are the five most serious bad
deeds in normal morality that you can do. And they are, no interim in the sense that you
must go to the lowest hell after you die, you will not ever take any other birth in between.
You go immediately to the lowest hell. And those are five. First one is killing your father.

Second one is killing your mother. These are not in order of importance as you know if you
took the karma class.

Third one is killing an arhat; killing someone who has reached nirvana. Which is defined as?

(student: (unclear))

Permanent cessation of your own bad thoughts because you have...

(student: Eliminated all your negative thought models)

Perceived the?

(Student: Emptiness>)

Perceived, perceived emptiness directly and had those realizations that directly followed that.
Ah, the full definition involved.
Okay, number four ... to cause a split in the {sangha}, in the group of monks. By the way,
there are certain specific requirements here. It has to be the direct disciples of the Buddha. It
has to not go on for more then twenty-four hours. Ah, {[unclear] or Sharipu) have to
reconcile everybody. Ah, I mean it’s very, you, we can’t do this one technically in our
modern world. You can collect tremendous, horrible, next to the lowest hell, bad deeds, by
splitting up dharma practitioners. I mean, very serious, extremely serious. But it’s not the
{tormay}. It’s not, that you can only do in India at certain times. Okay. Number five is ...

To attempt to harm a Buddha.

Literally it, it says to, to draw a Buddha’s blood, okay? Holy blood, they say.

(student: Attempt? (unclear))

Yeah.

(student: Alright, so...)

The intent, the intent.
Okay, number nine, last one.

This one’s easy.

(student: No motivation necessary in any of those?)

Doesn’t say. I guess... It does state in the Arbidharmia that if you kill your parents out of
Euthanasia and you think you’re helping them, you still collect the (unclear). Is that correct?

Yeah. There’s a great debate in the Arbidharmia. It’s ah, if the egg is fertilized in one woman
- this was written (laughs), 300 A.D., okay? - and the egg is moved to the womb of the other
woman and the child comes out and which woman does he have to kill to (unclear) more,
(laughs) and things like that. (laughs) It has to be, you’re, you’re not, you’re (unclear).

(student: Does this (unclear))

That’s a good question. He doesn’t say that but I assume it does. Yes.

(student: what’s the question?)

Yeah, you can commit them more then one at one time. But yeah, I understand, any one
would be a, (unclear). But normally you don’t all five at once (laughs). Yeah?

(student: (unclear) in the case of Christ, I mean Jesus, where a lot of jews crucer, were part of,
you know, part of the act of killing Him. How, how, you say that (unclear))

If they took bodhisattva vows (unclear), or... No this is a whether or not took bodhisattva
vows. If, if He was a (unclear). Yeah. Or if He was, had attainment (unclear).

(student: (unclear) have attainment (unclear))

I don’t know. (laughs) (laughter) I think so.

(student: So in that next case they would, that would make the, the people that actually
crucified Him would make them...)

Yeah.

(Student: If they took bodhisattva vows...)

No. But what he’s saying, either way they committed [unclear]

(student: Alright.)
(student: (unclear))

That’s true and if they were, if they had taken bodhisattva vows in connect, they’d break their
root vows and commit {[unclear]}.

(student: (unclear))

After they die they take no other birth before they go to the lowest hell.

(student: After they die they would take no...)

No, they’d not go for an animal and then go to the lowest hell.

(student: Oh, okay.)

Direct to the lowest hell. They still go through a bardo.

Alright. Number nine is {lokta}. {Lokta} means wrong view. Okay. {Lokta} means wrong
view.

There are two classic wrong views. Je Tsong Khapa mentions these two. I’m not sure if it’s
restricted to these two but I believe these are the two most common. One is to deny the law
of karma, in the following way. You know, you say, it’s not true that if I do something bad I
will get a bad result. And it’s not true that if I do something good I will get a good result

(student: You just believe it, you don’t have to say it?)

It’s not clear but generally just to believe it is the bad thing. And you have to believe from
the bottom of your heart, you know, you can’t have any doubts, it’s, it’s very specific.
Totally wrong, {loke} means completely backwards. Deny it totally, okay? The second one
is to deny the existence of past births and future births. Deny the existence of future lives and
past lives. If you’re a logician, if you’re a good buddhist, you have to say I’m not sure, if
you haven’t established it in your own mind. Or if you haven’t perceived it directly in
meditation. But you can’t reject it. If you say, as a good Buddhist, ‘I can’t say I’ve seen them,
and I haven’t worked it out myself logically yet,’ that’s not the {lok ta}, that’s beautiful. That’s
required. (laughs) Okay? But to say categorically, there’s no past lives and no future lives,
then that’s the {lok ta}. Believe that.

(student: Supposed you were to say, ‘I have trouble with that idea.’)

That’s o-kay, but be careful (laughs). Say, ‘I’m gonna shelve that one until I learn more.’
That’s okay. The Buddha encouraged that. If you can’t accept something in Buddhism,
shelve it for the time being. Don’t pass judgement on it. Don’t say I believe it or don’t
believe it. You know? Just leave it for awhile but don’t go out and say it’s not true. That’s
when you collect {sa tung
(student: You say you have to believe from the bottom of your heart, what if occasionally
you just like, you know, the idea flips through, you know,)

It seems to me that all of us commit light {loktas} anytime we do a bad deed. So, I don’t
think it counts (laughs), okay?

(student: Can you talk about the mental affliction and motivation of (unclear) would that be...)

Mostly ignorance. But he doesn’t, he doesn’t, limit it to that. He doesn’t ...

(student: (unclear) emptiness included in this that’s (unclear))

That’s hard. (unclear)

(student: Well normally when this happens to more virtuous people is when they see
something bad happen to someone who’s living a virtuous life and they feel thereÕs an
inequity in the karma then that would go back to second part not in the (unclear)
understanding how the previous lifes affected this karma. Is that correct?



Yeah. Okay.

[cut]
950826-1

COURSE VII: The Boddhisattva Vows