Bodhisattva ethical restraints: Vows 6-8

• Vows 6-8, to avoid:
  • 6. Abandoning the holy Dharma by saying that texts which teach the three vehicles are not the Buddha’s word
  • 7. With anger (a) depriving ordained ones of their robes, beating and imprisoning them, or (b) causing them to lose their ordination even if they have impure morality, for example, by saying that being ordained is useless
  • 8. Committing any of the five extremely destructive actions: (a) killing your mother, (b) killing your father, (c) killing an arhat, (d) intentionally drawing blood from a Buddha, or (e) causing schism in the Sangha community by supporting and spreading sectarian views
• Think about the mindsets that the precepts are guarding against and see how easily they can arise
  

Bodhisattva ethical restraints 04: Vows 6-8 (download)

Introduction

In the first chapter of Engaging in the Bodhisattva Deeds, Shantideva talks about who in this world has this incredible, beautiful gem of the mind: bodhicitta. When we think of the people who have been kindest to us in this life—maybe our parents or best friends or somebody who reached out to us when we were down and out—we have such regard for a person who does that, but does that person have bodhicitta?  Just because somebody’s kind to us, does that mean that they have bodhicitta? No. It just means they’re doing a kind act. The people that we regard as the kindest in our lives, on an ordinary level, are not bodhisattvas. But look at the qualities of somebody who is a bodhisattva and how those qualities are zillions of times more magnificent than somebody that in our ordinary life we consider to be kind. Are you getting what I’m saying? Because we usually think in our ordinary way, “Oh, such and such a person has been so kind to me. I love that person so much” or “I’m so attached to that person. They’ve been so wonderful to me.” But when you think about it, does that person have the bodhicitta? Are they working for the benefit of all sentient beings throughout all time and space, until everybody’s enlightened?  

And beyond that, is their care and affection for us something stable? Because we can be so enamored with somebody, thinking “Oh, they’re so wonderful,” but is their care and affection really stable? Some of it is genuine love and compassion, and a lot of it is attachment. Maybe we’re their child or their spouse or their parent or their doctor or their psychiatrist—who knows? We might be their best friend. When The qualities of that person are compared with the qualities of somebody who is actually a bodhisattva, they’re quite different. We come to really have this amazing regard for somebody who has generated bodhicitta. And even though our bodhicitta at this point is still contrived or fabricated bodhicitta, having high regard for bodhicitta and for bodhisattvas is something wonderful that will make us more and more open to making our bodhicitta really genuine and going beyond the fabricated and contrived state. Really think about this; it’s quite amazing. Think of the difference between who we consider to be kind on an ordinary level and the beings who are most kind from a Dharma perspective.  

Audience: [Inaudible] 

Venerable Thubten Chodron (VTC): Okay, so the question is: Can’t somebody just in an ordinary occupation, a teacher, a doctor, whatever, be very kind, and we have the feeling of them being kind to us not out of attachment but just out of kindness? Well, yes, it’s quite possible that there is a bodhisattva who manifests as an ordinary person. But let’s say that person is an ordinary person, and they’re very kind to others. That’s still very different from the qualities of a bodhisattva. A bodhisattva is not just somebody who is kind to others. A bodhisattva is not just somebody who is kind to others.  

Audience: [Inaudible] 

(VTC): What is bodhicitta? It’s a primary mind that aspires to attain full enlightenment for the benefit of sentient beings. Many of these people may have kindness toward sentient beings, but do they aspire to attain full enlightenment? If they are just ordinary sentient beings and not a bodhisattva manifesting in that way, they don’t even know about enlightenment. I’m not negating their kindness; their kindness is wonderful. But the kindness of a bodhisattva who is willing to go through everything it takes, for three countless great eons, to purify their mind so that they can be of the most effective benefit to others, that kind of love and compassion is far greater than an ordinary person who happens to be very kind in their own particular occupation.  

Audience: [Inaudible] 

(VTC): So, in this life, what’s the practical difference between that person she was describing who is an ordinary person and in their job they’re very very kind and compassionate and a bodhisattva? A bodhisattva is also going to be putting energy into realizing emptiness; they’re going to be keeping the bodhisattva ethical conduct, maybe the tantric ethical conduct; they’re going to be doing a daily meditation practice; their love and compassion for others is going to be not conditioned on how that other person treats them, so there’s going to be a difference in how they spend their life and their time. 

Audience: [Inaudible] 

(VTC): Right, the person you’re describing is working for the immediate or temporary benefit of somebody, whereas a bodhisattva is looking out for that person’s long-term benefit. It’s like the person who just helps you in this life, maybe they don’t even care about future lives, and they aren’t taking into consideration the kind of karma you’re going to create for future lives. Whereas a bodhisattva is going to have that really strong in their mind, and they’re also going to be thinking about how to help that person in their spiritual practice so they, too, can generate bodhicitta.  

Audience: [Inaudible] 

(VTC): So, another teacher said that even somebody in a helping profession who isn’t a bodhisattva, some of their motivation may be mixed with other things as well, but there’s a lot of kindness. A lot of people like to be needed, and they like to receive thanks from other people, and they like to have a certain standing or image in the community. This is not about putting down their kindness, but just recognizing that it really takes quite a lot to have pure motivation.  

We’ll go back to the bodhisattva ethical restraints here, and as we’re going through them, there are a few things to keep in mind. I know when I first studied these, I was thinking “Gee, how can a person do that? How can a person be a Dharma practitioner and do that kind of thing?” For example, there’s one coming up about destroying a town or a province by fire: how can somebody do that? Even the first one—disparaging others and praising oneself out of wanting offerings and respect—how can somebody really do this? There’s one about taking possessions from a meditator and giving them to somebody who is reciting: how can they do that? Stealing from the Triple Gem: how can somebody do that? I remember first hearing this and thinking “Why do they have these ethical restraints?”  

Then as time went on and I started looking around, I saw people doing these very actions, and once in a while I go, “I’m coming really close to doing one of them, too.”  And then you realize these aren’t such weird things. These are things that are very human. Like with the first one—“disparaging others and praising yourself”—it sounds like somebody’s on some big ego trip, just being totally pompous, saying, “That person doesn’t know what they’re doing. Come, give me all your money.”  No. That’s too gross.  It’s like, “This student has been coming to our Dharma center for a long time, and they’re one of our strong supporters. Now they’re studying with somebody else, and they’re giving their donations to that person’s Dharma center. I want them back! They’re my student or they’re my donor.” So, what do you do? You put down the other one, and you somehow extol your own good qualities with that kind of jealous, attached motivation. It’s not hard to do. Be on the lookout for some of these.  

It’s the same thing that we’ve been talking about with stealing things from the Sangha. We may not take big things where the law would get involved, but certainly we would take whatever we can get. Take it for ourselves; nobody will know. It’s something to think about. “There are some offerings there. They look really good. It’s almost time to take them down anyway, and Buddha’s not going to eat that, for heaven’s sake. I’m hungry.”  Or :“My friend’s right over there, and they can really use something that the monastery has. The monastery has so many of these things. That’s my friend, and they don’t have that, and anyway, they’re my friend, and if I give them something nice, then they’ll give me something nice in the future.  So, I’ll take this from the monastery and give it to my friend, no problem.”   

Audience: [Inaudible] 

(VTC): This is the whole purpose of when we have mindfulness and introspective awareness. With mindfulness, we know our precepts, and we know how we want to be, and we keep them in mind—maybe not always consciously, but we know them. We evaluate our actions with respect to our precepts, and then when we see that our mind is going beyond the scope of our precepts then we stop it. But we must have a lot of conscientiousness and a real respect and fervent regard for the value of ethical conduct. It’s not this attitude of “They’re just rules that somebody else made up. I left the religion I grew up with because I couldn’t stand their rules, so I’m not going to get into another one that has more rules.” If you have that kind of attitude and don’t have a genuine respect for ethical conduct, then you’re not going to have mindfulness or introspective awareness about your behavior.  

6.  Abandoning the pure Dharma 

The sixth major transgression of the bodhisattva vows and the second in Shantideva’s work is abandoning the pure Dharma.  

First, we consider the object. The expression ‘the sacred Dharma’ comprises much more than just the Mahayana teaching.

Remember, it was number four that was about repudiating the Mahayana and teaching some false doctrine. So here we’re talking about Dharma in general, not just the Mahayana.

It refers to the entire Buddhadharma: the teachers, the teachings of the hearer vehicle, solitary realizer vehicle, and bodhisattva vehicle. Repudiating the Mahayana doctrine means denying the validity of a work that explains both the vast and profound aspects of the path.  

Before, we were saying the previous one was just repudiating the Mahayana as a general category. And here it could be talking about a specific scripture.

Rejecting the teachings of the hearer vehicle implies refusing to admit that the Buddha taught the four noble truths, for example, because that’s one of the basic teachings of the hearer vehicle, and rejecting or abandoning the solitary realizer vehicle entails notably spurning a scripture that expounds the twelve links of dependent origination, for in each case these topics are central to the doctrines of the vehicle in question.  

The hearer vehicle really emphasizes meditating on the four noble truths. The solitary realizer vehicle emphasizes meditating on the twelve links of dependent origination. 

Next, we consider the action. Rejecting the pure Dharma consists of asserting that a given scripture, which expounds the central theme of one of the three branches of Buddha’s teaching, was not taught by Lord Buddha. In Tibet this has rarely posed a problem because in Tibetan Buddhism all the teachings of Lord Buddha have been preserved. Never has a Tibetan proclaimed, for example, that Lord Buddha did not teach the hearer vehicle teachings. The issue exists mainly in countries where only part of the Buddha’s teachings has spread. As a result, some people conclude that the other branches of Buddhism are not true Buddhist teachings.  

This does happen in some Buddhist communities where a particular text isn’t important, or when they don’t follow a particular canon. Let’s say you’re following the Pali scriptures and saying, “This is a Mahayana scripture. The Buddha made it up. It’s not a real teaching.” It’s any of these kinds of things.  It’s clinging to your own tradition so much that you denigrate the scriptures of the other traditions and the other vehicles.  

In America and Europe, too, we have some people saying the Buddha didn’t teach about rebirth. Do you think that violates this one or some other bodhisattva vow? What do you think about that? Because you have people now saying Buddha didn’t teach about rebirth.  

Audience: [Inaudible] 

(VTC):  No, saying there is no rebirth is the wrong view. Saying the Buddha didn’t teach rebirth…

Audience: [Inaudible] 

(VTC): No, on this one it can be either. It can be part of some teaching from any of the vehicles or some scripture. This in particular is referring to scriptures or major points, like the four noble truths or the twelve links or emptiness. For example, saying Buddha didn’t teach emptiness.  

Audience: [Inaudible]

(VTC): The Buddha quite clearly talked about rebirth.  

Audience: [Inaudible] 

(VTC): Buddha quite clearly talked about other realms of existence. He would say, “In my previous life I was so and so, and this person was so and so.” The Tibetans use the example from the Samyutta Nikaya for how often sentient beings have been our mother: if we had a juniper bead for every time they were our mothers, if we had a juniper bead for every rebirth. And then you see samsara as limitless. What about somebody saying the Buddha didn’t teach rebirth? 

Audience: [Inaudible] 

(VTC): Would it be this one or would it be another one? 

Audience: [Inaudible] 

(VTC): Why this one? 

Audience: [Inaudible] 

(VTC): They’re based on the teaching of rebirth. The Buddha didn’t actually set rebirth out as a doctrine; he assumed it. 

Audience: [Inaudible] 

(VTC): It’s based on rebirth, isn’t it? Yes. 

I think it’s number four: teaching a false doctrine. But you can see how it could be number six, too, because the other teachings are based on it. And if you say the Buddha didn’t teach the twelve links because he didn’t teach rebirth, that would sound pretty strange, wouldn’t it?  

Does that mean that you have to believe in rebirth in order to benefit from the Buddha’s teachings? No, you can benefit from the Buddha’s teachings without believing in rebirth. Does it mean that you’re going to be a bad Buddhist if you don’t believe in rebirth? Does it mean you’re going to be a bad Buddhist if you don’t believe?  

Audience: [Inaudible] 

(VTC): Is there such a thing as a bad Buddhist for somebody who is not convinced of a certain point in the Dharma? No, there’s no such thing as somebody who is a bad Buddhist just because they’re exploring and learning and thinking about things, and they have no sure opinion about one thing or another.  

Audience: [Inaudible] 

(VTC): It’s stating as a matter of fact that the Buddha didn’t teach rebirth or stating the wrong view which will come later of “There is no rebirth.” It’s because “The Buddha didn’t teach it” and “There is none” are two different things. But even for somebody who is saying “There is no rebirth”—and we’ll come to that because that’s also the tenth of the ten non virtuous pathways—you have to have a very strong belief.  It’s not just, “Well, I’m not sure, or I don’t understand, or I don’t really get how this works.” It’s absolutely, positively saying, “This is rubbish. It doesn’t exist.” So, it’s quite different from somebody who says, “You know, I didn’t grow up believing in rebirth, and it’s not something that comes to me naturally, but I certainly benefit a lot from the Buddha’s teachings. And I love the meditation practice, and the talk about ethical conduct and love and compassion and forgiveness and how to remedy anger. This helps me so much.” I think that’s good enough for somebody to take refuge.  If they have a hard and fast opinion, that’s a wrong view. And if they’re really defensive and antagonistic about it, that’s a very different ballgame.  

Audience: [Inaudible]

(VTC): No, there are no schools that teach, “There is no rebirth.” There are some people who sometimes in the West say the Buddha didn’t teach it. Or there are some traditions where they don’t talk about rebirth very much. It’s not a point that is strongly emphasized in that particular tradition. Whereas in other traditions, it’s more clearly articulated as part of the teachings or as the foundation background of the teachings.  

Audience: [Inaudible]

(VTC): When you say repudiate, what do you mean? What’s the person saying? 

Audience: [Inaudible] 

(VTC):  No, the first one is specifically repudiating the Mahayana. And then the second part is expounding fallacious doctrines: teaching what’s falsely presented as a reliable teaching.  

Audience: [Inaudible]

(VTC): This one is more if you say, “There’s the hearer vehicle teachings, and the Buddha didn’t teach those” or whatever. That’s this one here. Then we’re going to come to some other ones where people are going to say, “You don’t need to do some of those hearer practices, such as keeping the vinaya, because we’re great bodhisattva practitioners. We don’t need that stuff.” That’s a whole other thing altogether. 

7.  With regard to a bhikshu or bhikshuni, even with degraded ethics: confiscating their robes, striking them, having them incarcerated and making them defrock. 

Number seven is also from Shantideva.

Also, with regard to a bhikshu or bhikshuni, even with degraded ethics: confiscating their robes, striking them, having them incarcerated and making them defrock.  

The seventh major transgression consists of mistreating an ordained person. The object, therefore, is somebody who has received ordination as a monk or nun in the Buddhist monastic tradition. In the present context, it does not matter whether the person ordained has actually kept the precepts that he or she has taken. The misdeed is accomplished in relation to people who wear the robes of ordination regardless of whether they observe their ethical discipline correctly or not. The object of our mistreatment must be a group of not more than three monastics. And if it is an individual, he or she must not be an arya; otherwise, the misdeed would be equivalent to the fifth major transgression: taking what belongs to the Three Jewels.

If you’re taking the robes of somebody, that’s referring specifically to taking the robes. If it’s from the whole community then it falls under the fifth one. If it’s from three or fewer monastics then it falls under this one.  Also, if it’s an arya, it’s the other one.  

The motivation which is associated with a disturbing mental factor is the cruel intention to inflict harm on an ordained person. On the other hand, there is no transgression when we confiscate the robes of monks or nuns not to hurt them but because their conduct is so offensive that we are convinced that their continuing to wear them will damage Buddha’s teachings.  

The action committed on the basis of ill will can be of two kinds. It can be accomplished physically, by confiscating the robes of ordained people, thus depriving them of the outer symbols of their ordination, or by obliging a monk or nun to defrock and become a lay person once more. Thus, the transgression is committed by abusing a monk or a nun in one of two ways. The first is to take away his or her robes and the second is to make him or her break the vows of individual liberation.

Or it could be just forcing them—putting them in a situation where they have to return the ordination, even though they didn’t break the vows. There’s another paragraph, but I want to ask you some questions or make some examples here. In the cultural revolution in China and also the occupation in Tibet when they often would take monastics out of the monasteries and make them return to lay life, would that be an example of this?  

Audience: [Inaudible] 

(VTC): Yes, even if they didn’t physically go in there and take the robes, but out of fear of being imprisoned or beaten or who knows what, they were forcing the monastics to disrobe. Also, what they did during the cultural revolution is they sometimes made monastics have sex in public to break their vows. That’s something with really heavy negativity. But that would be something that applies here. They did horrible things.  

Audience: [Inaudible] 

(VTC): Yes, they forced them to do that.  

Audience: [Inaudible] 

(VTC): We’re talking about people who are monastics. 

Audience: [Inaudible] 

(VTC): Right, good point. The soldiers are not breaking this bodhisattva vow because they don’t have it.  But they’re doing the kind of action that if somebody had the bodhisattva vows would fall under this.  Thank you, yes, very good. 

Audience: [Inaudible] 

(VTC): Yes, but you still have to remember that you have it from the past. 

I’m just trying to make some kind of example. I remember when I was in Singapore, there was somebody who was a monk in Malaysia who was doing some naughty things. I think he was sexually molesting some of the college students and the high school students that he was supposedly teaching the Dharma to. He was doing some very strange financial things, if I remember correctly, as well. And some of the lay people got very mad—well, maybe they got mad, I don’t know; each person’s mind is going to be very different—but they made him give back his robes. Let’s say they had the bodhisattva vow. We don’t know, but a lot would depend on their motivation, because if they were angry and they wanted to harm him and damage him, that would fulfill the criteria here. But if they were thinking that his actions were so deplorable that they are harming the image of the Buddhadharma and harming other sentient beings, and for that reason they were taking back his robes, then that would be an entirely different situation, wouldn’t it? 

Audience: [Inaudible]

(VTC): Yes, but it doesn’t matter—even if somebody had already lost their ordination. This one is, even if they’ve already committed the parajika, you can’t go in there and forcefully take back their robes with the mind of anger. What it’s emphasizing is that even if somebody has broken their ordination and continues to wear the robes, you have to talk to them in a more skillful way so that they understand for themselves that they really need to give the robes back. That is, unless you feel that allowing that person to continue wearing the robes is so damaging to the Buddha’s teachings that you feel you need to evict them from the monastery. There is a lot to this one. You really have to see if the mind is filled with anger, with ill-will, and wants to inflict harm on somebody—even if they’ve broken their precepts. Or is your motivation to protect the Dharma and for that reason you’re evicting them? 

Audience: [Inaudible]

(VTC): What’s interesting is that in our monastic vows, at least the one for the monks, to have the parajika, the downfall, there has to be some penetration into any of the three orifices with a man or a woman. The penetration can be even the width of a hair; it doesn’t have to be very much. I was thinking of what some of these Catholic priests have done. They may not have had intercourse with any of the children, but certainly, what they did was very damaging.  

In Buddhism, an inappropriate sexual object is somebody who is under the protection of somebody else, but in ancient India, twelve-year-old girls were married off. Ten-year-old girls were married off. This was part of their culture, so they don’t have the idea of child abuse as being something that is damaging to the child. It’s quite interesting, because the celibacy vow is talking more about the state of celibacy of the person who has the vow. And they’re not talking so much about the damage done to the other person.  In the third precept for lay people, there it’s bringing up more the fact that adultery can break families and cause a lot of harm. There it has more of that idea, but with the monastic one it’s really emphasizing the celibacy of that individual.  

That’s why I was thinking, “Well, what do you do nowadays if you have somebody who is a monastic who molests a child without having intercourse?” They haven’t technically committed a parajika, technically speaking. But you feel like it’s horrible what the person did in terms of the effect on the child, and you care about the reputation of the Buddhadharma and everybody else in the monastery, and all your supporters are just saying this is totally unacceptable behavior.  

Audience: [Inaudible] 

(VTC):  It’s having a lustful mind, yes. Well, those are the ones with the nuns. The nuns’ precepts are much stricter. But I’m just talking about the ones for the monks; they have that, but it’s not a parajika. It’s not a downfall. They don’t lose their whole ordination from that whereas the nuns do, for things like petting and stuff like that. In our society now people feel very differently about child abuse and sexual abuse of children. So, it seems to me, in that kind of situation then you would first of all report it to the government.   

Audience: [Inaudible]

(VTC): Yes, certain categories of people are required, so I assume a monastery would fall under that. The uproar in the Catholic church is certainly about the fact that they didn’t contact the lay officials. You can understand why they didn’t, because it’s horrible publicity for the church; they would much rather deal with it privately. But the problem is that they didn’t deal with it; they just shuffled people around and the people continued doing elsewhere.  

That would be the kind of situation where you would go to the person, without anger, and say, “We have to ask you to leave the monastery because of this behavior, and it would be much better if you left your robes here out of compassion for the Buddhadharma and compassion for everybody else.” But that’s different than being furious and throwing somebody out. 

Audience: [Inaudible] 

(VTC): Is there a precept where a teacher is behaving inappropriately with an adult student, but nobody is saying anything? It would depend a lot on what exactly was going on, because, for example, you were asking in terms of our monastic vows. For the nuns, one of our monastic vows is if we know another nun has committed a parajika but we conceal it and don’t mention it—like she’s sleeping with a man and we don’t say anything—then we commit a parajika.  

But the whole philosophy in monasticism is when somebody is doing something that is inappropriate, we help each other by mentioning it. And we’re really encouraged to learn skillful ways to point out inappropriate behavior to somebody else. If we don’t then they can continue doing what they’re doing, and they could wind up with a downfall and lose their ordination, or they could do something that is very damaging to themselves or others. So, we’re really encouraged to say something, but we’re encouraged to say something skillfully, at the right time, to the right person, in a skillful way. That’s where it really takes a lot of skill, because usually we see somebody doing something and we’re mad and we want to go up to them and say, “Stop doing that!” That’s not the way you admonish somebody. 

That’s the way you make them mad at you, and the way you make them defensive about what they’re doing. But as Dharma practitioners who really sincerely care about each other, if we see somebody doing something that is going in the wrong direction, even if they haven’t broken something but are kind of getting close then we should go to that person and say, “I saw this kind of behavior. This is the way it appeared to me. What was going on? Was it something that might be good for you to check up on and look in your own mind and see what was going on at that time and what you were doing? What you were thinking?” 

It’s unkind, actually, if we don’t say anything. We see this in the U.S. It’s like nobody wants to say anything, because when you are the whistleblower people get mad at you, especially if it’s about the leader of the organization, as we see in many of the scandals. It becomes very difficult for people because they trust that person. From their side, that person has been kind to them. They don’t want to just give it all up.  They have also invested time and energy, and it’s hard to really say, “Oh, I made a big mistake.” Also, the rest of the group could get very mad at you for saying things—not only the person in particular, but the rest of the group. It’s a very difficult position to be in. I think you have to say something but to the right person and in the proper way.  

And it’s always better not to make an accusation. It’s better to say, “I saw x, y and z,” in a very NVC way:  “I saw this, this, this, and this. I don’t know what motivation was going on, but to me, that kind of situation could appear to somebody else to be like da-da-da-da-da, which is really going against the spirit of our precepts and going against the spirit of how we want to train our mind.” You say it to the person privately. You don’t say it in front of everybody. Or you talk to their teacher, and you ask their teacher to explore it or whatever.  

Now, you’re all going to come to me and say, “Oh, I saw you do this.”

Audience: [Inaudible]

(VTC): Now this is an interesting one. One of the verses says to not point out the faults of another bodhisattva. It’s a difficult situation because if somebody is a bodhisattva, you don’t want to be criticizing them publicly and trashing them publicly and so on and so forth. But still, I think and His Holiness says too that if somebody is doing something that is against the precepts, you have every right and you should go to that person. There’s a difference between criticizing somebody and saying, “I saw this behavior.” Okay? When criticizing somebody, you definitely have an angry mind. You want to trash the person. You want to ruin their reputation. You’re very upset about the whole thing. That’s different than somebody who sees something and says, “I don’t know if this person is a bodhisattva or not, but I need to clarify in my mind what is happening.” So, without accusing them, I go and I just say, “I saw this. Could you explain it to me?” 

Audience: [Inaudible]

(VTC): I wouldn’t go to somebody every time you saw them do a small thing, because then we would never do anything but go to people and complain about their actions. I would do it if it’s something that’s clearly damaging, and taking them in the wrong direction, or endangering a whole community of people, or endangering that person’s ability to keep the precepts.  

Audience: [Inaudible]

(VTC): Yes, but every little time we see somebody make a mistake, if we start going to them and pointing it out, forget it. We won’t do anything except point out each other’s mistakes all day long. This is why there’s the practice of fortitude. We have to learn to bear other people’s little mistakes, and then their big mistakes. The whole idea with fortitude means you don’t get angry and upset. It doesn’t mean you don’t act on the situation.  

Audience: [Inaudible]

(VTC): Do bodhisattvas know that they’re bodhisattvas? I would think so. I would think so, yes. But then, somebody going around saying “I’m a bodhisattva” doesn’t really mean that they are one, okay?   

Audience: [Inaudible]

(VTC): Well, you think if somebody’s done some study and they know what bodhicitta is, and if they can look at their own mind and actually discern whether they have what qualifies as actual bodhicitta, then they would know. If they don’t know what the definition of bodhicitta is, they’re going to have a hard time knowing. You would think that somebody who was a bodhisattva from a previous life would meet the Dharma in this lifetime.  

But just because somebody thinks they’re a bodhisattva, or they think they’ve attained a certain realization, that doesn’t mean they have. Because people can often be very mistaken in assessing their own ability. Does that make some sense? If you’re getting mad, you’re probably not a bodhisattva. Although the lower-level bodhisattvas could get mad on the path of accumulation; on the path of preparation they also could get angry. There’s a story His Holiness tells about Geshe Potowa, one of the very famous Kadampa lamas. He was busy doing something and some student came to ask him for teachings. He got really mad because the person was really bugging him. He picked up a stick and started chasing him around. His Holiness says we don’t know for sure he was a bodhisattva, and we don’t know what level bodhisattva he was. So, the lower levels can get angry. 

Audience: [Inaudible] 

(VTC): A bodhisattva is somebody who upon seeing any sentient being, has that wish to attain enlightenment for their benefit. They’re not looking at sentient beings like, “Who are you, get out of my way—why in the world are you doing that stupid thing anyway?”

8.  Committing the five heinous crimes. 

We’re on number eight. Shantideva says it’s committing the five heinous crimes. Some actions, like this one, you know already that it’s a negative action.

The eighth transgression amounts to committing one of five very negative actions called the ‘five deeds of immediate retribution,’ or the ‘five heinous crimes.’ They are killing one’s father, killing one’s mother, killing an arhat, causing a split in the Sangha, and spilling the blood of a Buddha with bad intentions. Of these, causing a schism in the Sangha is the worst and it is given particular attention here, as The Great Way explains, especially since the other four are actually part of the third major transgression, ‘of out of anger striking others.’ 

The other four—killing one’s father, mother, an arhat, or causing blood to flow from a Buddha—those would fall under the third one: out of anger striking somebody. So, the one of schism is really emphasized here. The one about schism is also emphasized in our monastic precepts: causing schism in the Sangha or advocating for somebody who is doing that is a sanghadisesa. It’s the second category that entails quite a severe disciplinary practice in front of the whole Sangha. You are questioned about doing it. If you don’t admit it then you must go off and do penance for a while until you’re willing to confess it. Then you have to do two months of service to the Sangha. You have to sit at the end and wash everybody’s feet and tell everybody who comes into the monastery that you’re doing this practice called manatta. It’s very embarrassing. And then you have to be reinstituted. For the nuns it’s in front of forty people; for the monks it’s in front of twenty people. It’s quite a public thing. You want to really avoid doing those: causing schism in the Sangha or supporting somebody who is. 

Causing schism involves talking in such a way that you’re going to split off four or more Sangha members from the community and start to do some of the sanghakarma outside the boundary or even inside the boundary. You’re splitting people off from the community. It happened at the time of the Buddha with his cousin Devadatta who was quite jealous of the Buddha and made himself the big king of the new branch and propagated some new precepts, saying, “What Buddha’s saying is too loose. People should follow me. We’re going to go off and start our own group.” That is very harmful. Why do you think that’s harmful? 

Audience: [Inaudible] 

(VTC): Okay, it’s going to have ripple effects.  But what are the other reasons? 

Audience: [Inaudible]

(VTC): Yes, it hurts the stability of the Dharma because the monastic community is the one that’s carrying the things. If the monastic community is fighting, the faith and confidence of the laity is gone and also it hurts the monastics’ own practice. When you have controversy going on in a community, everybody is so busy talking to each other about “This one said that, and that one said this, and that one did this, and whose side are you on?” Then nobody’s practicing. So, it really makes the Dharma degenerate because nobody’s practicing. All people are doing are getting angry and gossiping.  

And there’s a story in the sutras about the monks at Kosala who were so argumentative that the Buddha just said, “Bye guys. I’m going off into the forest. I’m not hanging around here with you.” The Buddha just left because these people didn’t want to give up their grudges and their anger. They were busy just attacking each other.  

So, it’s very damaging for the peoples’ individual practice, for the faith in the laity, for the existence of the Dharma; it’s really not a nice thing. That’s why there’s always going to be conflict—always. Even if you have one person, that person’s going to have conflicts with himself. As long as you have ordinary beings, you have conflict. But the idea is to learn to resolve a conflict in a skillful way so that we all grow, and we learn something. Conflicts are natural; they’re always going to be there. To resolve them skillfully is the real talent. And that’s what we’re trying to develop in our practice, isn’t it? And for living in communities, it’s important to know how to resolve things in a skillful way instead of just getting so mad that we stomp our feet and say, “I’m fed up, bye! I don’t care if there’s snow on the road; I’m walking down it.” 

Audience: [Inaudible]

(VTC): Yes, Mexico seems to have some kind of karma where the groups are constantly fracturing and bickering. One group is different factions and bickering, and then they break into two groups, and then each group again within itself—this one here, and this one here. It’s a lot of wasted time and energy. And it makes a lot of people quite confused and lose faith. 

Audience: [Inaudible] 

(VTC): The Latin blood? Well, the Quebecs are Latin, too. 

Audience: [Inaudible] 

(VTC): You’re not like these Anglo-Saxons who are just so dull. 

Audience: [Inaudible] 

(VTC): Yes, there’s some cultures that are like that. But I would say in most cultures people have anger, but it’s just how you express it.  

Audience: [Inaudible]

(VTC): Others might be more quiet and under the surface while the Latins are just blaah! But they both have anger.  

Audience: [Inaudible] 

(VTC): That’s a very good question. That whole split that has occurred. First of all, the Sangha must refer to a monastic community. But it’s an interesting question, because in a couple of the monasteries in India, the people who are doing that practice, they kept their own khamzen building, and in Ganden they even built a wall and made a different monastery. But they talked about it, I heard. Maybe it wasn’t an actual schism just because there was a lot of conflict; the schism actually happens when you do a sanghakarma together. Maybe they hadn’t done a Sangha action in a different place, and what happened in the meantime is after years of discord they made it into two monasteries. They agreed, so at Ganden the people who do that practice have their buildings; they have a wall around it, and they do their practice there. The same thing happened at Sera Je. 

Audience: [Inaudible] 

(VTC): In fact, they made the different monasteries two or three years ago—something like that. Even before, one time it was so bad that at Ganden they had to call the Indian police because they were fighting with each other. So, that comes quite close.  

Audience: [Inaudible] 

(VTC): You have to look at every individual situation and you have to see what’s going on in people’s minds and how they’re acting and what they’re doing and so on, okay? 

I’m not accusing people of doing schism, because I don’t know. It has to do with the technical definition of doing a sanghakarma, and it sounds like at the end they got together to agree to separate. But certainly, in the meantime, there was a lot of tension and friction. And you can see in that whole thing a lot of real misfortune: the reputation of Buddhism suffered, many people got very confused in their Dharma practice, and sometimes people just spent a long time twirling around the whole thing, not knowing which way to go and what to do.  

Audience: [Inaudible] 

(VTC): A sanghakarma is specific. You must have a certain number of monastics together to do certain formal monastic procedures. For example, when we do our confession, there is a sanghakarma involved.  When we decide to do this, that, or the other thing—in disciplinary things or when people are ordained—to take the full ordination involves the Sangha, as does having a motion followed by a certain number of repetitions and everybody agreeing to it. So, a sanghakarma is an official action of the Sangha. 

Audience: [Inaudible]

(VTC): Why is that? Why do you have to have a certain number of people? It’s because there’s a difference when a group of people are together. When there’s just two or three people, it’s just two or three people who happen to be together. When it’s four, five, or six or ten or a hundred, you’re really a community and a group. So, they set off a particular demarcation line for the number of monastics that you need to perform certain actions.  

Audience: [Inaudible] 

(VTC): We’re getting way off the topic. I don’t know, perhaps that’s okay, but even in this one, because we’re going to have to stop now. I don’t know particularly. I don’t want to say it was a schism in the Sangha, but we could certainly say that all the tension and the anger was certainly not good for people individually or for the group. And some people did remove themselves. They just removed themselves from the tradition or from whatever.  

There was another verse here?  No, okay.  So, we’ve done eight. All of this is something really to think about and make many examples about. Even if some of the things don’t fit the exact definition that’s being expressed here, it’s helpful to just think, “Well, what kind of things do I want to get involved in? What things do I not want to get involved in? Why, why not?” It is also helpful to know the specific details, so that you can tell if there’s been a definite transgression or not. 

And in all of these, it’s important to really think about why: Why is this a bodhisattva vow? Why is this something that the Buddha would say for people aspiring for enlightenment, that they should not get involved in these things? Because I think the why is very important in pointing to mental states and certain kinds of actions, and the effects on ourselves and on others.