Bodhisattva ethical restraints: Auxiliary vows 4-5

• Auxiliary vows 1-7 are to eliminate obstacles to the far-reaching practice of generosity and obstacles to the ethical discipline of gathering virtuous actions. Abandon:
  • 4. Not answering sincerely asked questions that you are capable of answering.
  • 5. Not accepting invitations from others out of anger, pride, or other negative thoughts.
    
• Examples of situations where not following the third and fourth precepts do not constitute a misdeed
• Monastery conduct
• Situations where it’s appropriate not to accept invitations (as explained in the fifth auxiliary precept)

NOTE: Talk starts at 8:40.

Motivation

When we reflect on how rare it is to have the opportunity to meet the Dharma and to have a precious human life, everything we do becomes quite joyful, because we feel very blessed with the present opportunity that we have. We get that feeling by seeing how difficult it is to create the causes for a precious human life and how few precious human lives there are in number. So, feeling like a beggar who found a jewel, we feel delighted. We engage in our Dharma practice with really a lot of joy, changing the whole feeling of how we live our life, as well as how we approach the Dharma in general. Then, even if we encounter things that are difficult, that we don’t understand, we feel quite fortunate to have the opportunity to explore the Dharma and learn these things, knowing that with time, with continuous effort, gradually the meanings will become clearer to us. With that kind of mind, let’s focus on the bodhicitta, our aspiration for full enlightenment for the benefit of all beings, and our wish to learn about the bodhisattva precepts, so that we can follow the bodhisattva path to enlightenment. 

Retreat pep talk

How are people doing in retreat? Are you plugging away?  Yes?  Okay? Because I know for a lot of you this may be your first long retreat, and you’re jumping in with both feet doing three months, not a one-month retreat or a two-week retreat to warm you up but jumping in with three months right away. So, you are kind of going through Bodhisattva Boot Camp, and it can be tough sometimes. But as you continue and learn to work with your mind and learn to work with all the different thoughts that come up and things going on with your body—this, that, and the other thing—then you actually gain quite a bit of self-confidence that you can handle all these things and they’re not going to derail you. You begin to actually enjoy your practice and become very good friends with Vajrasattva. 

You really develop a relationship with the Buddha that you’re meditating on. You think of the qualities of the Buddha, and it’s extraordinary. It really brings a lot of joy to your mind. You create this relationship that you can come back to, that you can call on, no matter what’s going on in your life. Because your relationship with the Buddha doesn’t require the intermediary of some priest or something else; you’re creating it directly. It becomes a real refuge in your life. We don’t know what’s going to happen in our lives and what situations we’re going to find ourselves in, but as we do our practice, our refuge in the Three Jewels deepens, and we gain a lot of confidence that we can handle different things. And we also see the things that we can’t handle and know we have to work harder with them.  

Different things come up. Sometimes your mind is peaceful, and sometimes your mind sounds like a circus. Sometimes your body is fine; sometimes your body hurts—what else is new? What else is new?  Sometimes in retreat, these things become a very big deal: “Oh, my mind is so uncontrolled, aaah!  Retreat is making it worse.” No, that’s not happening. It’s always been like this; you just have the quiet to notice it, that’s all. Your mind’s not worse. In fact, you may not realize how quiet your mind’s gotten over the two months that we’ve been in retreat.  

It’s the same thing with our bodies: “Oh, this hurts, that hurts. I’m sure I’m dying. I must have cancer here.  I must have…” We get all worked up about it. No, we are always having strange feelings in our body, but usually we’re busy doing other things and we don’t even notice them. Don’t you always have strange feelings in your body? I always have strange feelings. So what? I mean, this is what we get for having a body. Yes, once you have a body, this is what happens. It’s normal; it’s not a big deal. Once we have a mind that’s under the control of afflictions and karma, this is what happens. This is why we want, of course, to attain liberation—because we want to be free of all of this. You’re just learning about what samsara is, what your life experience is, and that’s very helpful. Because I suspect you will look at life a lot differently at the end of retreat than at the beginning of retreat in terms of what’s important and how you look at different things, how you treat different things. So, give yourself some credit and a pat on the back. We really need to rejoice in what we’re doing and rejoice at our opportunity. 

Returning to the Precepts

4. Not answering sincerely asked questions that you are capable of answering.

Last time, we were right smack in the middle of one of the bodhisattva precepts.  We were doing the fourth one of “Not answering questions.”  He was saying here:

It’s important that we give clear and polite answers to questions that we are asked, unless there is a good reason for not doing so.

We have to be reasonable here, otherwise you could spend all day with somebody asking you one question after another question, and you never get anything done. The idea of this precept is to be polite and not standoffish to other people, but also, we don’t go to extremes and just get stuck in situations where people are asking us one question after the other and not going anywhere. He says:

Many of the secondary precepts of the bodhisattva vows are in keeping with the standards of good behavior in society. By simply complying with these in situations that we encounter every day in our lives, we will easily be able to observe a large number of the precepts and avoid misdeeds.

That’s where last time we got into the big discussion about manners and etiquette and showing respect and those kinds of things. We discussed realizing that some people have never been taught that, and it is something that we have to learn.  

‘The Great Way’ gives several kinds of exceptions regarding the third and fourth misdeeds.

Those are the precepts about not respecting elders and not answering questions.

The first concerns the ‘basis,’—the person holding the precepts. When we are so ill that we are incapable of rising or responding correctly to questions, no misdeed occurs. Furthermore, when we’re unaware of the presence of a senior or of being asked a question because we’re asleep, there’s no fault in not acting as we should.

So, if you’re really sick, and your teacher comes to see you, you don’t have to stand up and get out of bed and make three prostrations. You’re really sick, so that’s okay.  

The second group of exceptions concerns our situation.  Under the following circumstances, there are no misdeeds [if we don’t show respect or don’t answer questions].

The first is:

We’re receiving teachings from our spiritual master or someone else is speaking to us about the Dharma.

This situation happens. You’re in Dharma class; you’re really listening attentively to something. You’re taking notes, and the person next to you reaches over and says, “What page are we on?” or “I missed the third point, what is it?” In those situations, it’s perfectly all right not to answer the question. Because you’re in a Dharma teaching, and it can be very distracting to the teacher for people to start talking in the teaching.  

Second one where we don’t have to answer is:

We’re teaching or explaining the Dharma seriously to someone.

You’re in the middle of explaining something and someone asks you a question and is taking you off in all sorts of directions so you can’t give the teaching as you would wish to. In those situations, you don’t have to answer. 

And three is:

We are trying to distract or console someone who is unhappy or facing problems.

Someone is unhappy, so you’re counseling them. Or somebody’s grieving and you’re trying to comfort them, and somebody comes in and says, “When should I take out the garbage?” or “How are you doing today?” or “Can you fix the internet?”  In those situations, you don’t have to respond because you’re doing something that’s quite important. 

In any of these situations, if someone asks us a question and we don’t answer, or if a senior person arrives and we do not rise, there is no fault.

So, if you’re giving a Dharma class—or like I was telling you about the English class I was giving at Kopan—you’re doing something for sentient beings and a senior comes in, you don’t have to rise and show respect.  

The third criterion is purpose or necessity. We’re exempted from the obligation to answer, rise, and so on when it serves an important purpose. It is better not to answer or rise in the following five circumstances: First, it would upset the people we are with, disturb others who are listening to the Dharma or interfere with their spiritual practice.

Like I was saying, if we’re in a Dharma teaching with our teacher’s teacher, and our teacher walks in, we don’t stand up to greet our teacher, because it disturbs the teaching that we’re in, and it also embarrasses our teacher. It could disturb the teacher, disturb the teaching, the people who are listening, and so on.  

Second:

It would provoke the hostility of a large number of people.

I didn’t come up with an example of that. Can you think of a good example where answering some kind of question or showing respect would provoke the hostility of a large number of people? 

Audience: In an interfaith kind of situation where someone asks something about Buddhism that is contrary to what others believe? 

Venerable Thubten Chodron (VTC): The first thing I thought of was Lama Zopa. He doesn’t often care what people do. I think he saw Rinpoche one time in the airport, and he just did three long prostrations right in the airport to his teacher; it was some situation like that. I’m sure it’s fine for Rinpoche to do this.  He probably got a lot of people on the Dharma path for doing it. Maybe for us it might upset people or something like that. 

The third circumstance is:

It would be inconsiderate for another teacher. A master is teaching, and we are nearby. If someone asks us a question, as replying would upset the teacher and disrupt his lesson, it is preferable to abstain.

That’s the situation I was referring to here. It’s also quite distracting when you’re trying to teach. If people in the audience start talking or whispering to each other about this or that or even passing notes, it can become very distracting, so try to avoid that. 

The fourth is:

It would prevent other people from improving their attitude. Not rising, answering, and so on may help lessen someone else’s pride, for example, or help a person to progress in another way.

I remember Geshe Tekchok did that with me because I was in the classes. I was sitting right in front. I always had so many questions about this, and this, and this. Sometimes, he would just ignore me. One time I came up to his room afterwards. He looked at me and said, “You think I’m being mean—ha ha ha.” But that wasn’t the situation; he had a purpose for ignoring me. 

Five is:

It would be contrary to monastic rules or to social codes. This applies to many secondary precepts. In our dealings with ordained people or with monasteries in general, we must adjust our behavior to take into consideration their precepts and respect the rules and regulations of each religious community, regardless of whether we have the monastic precepts or not. 

That also is an important thing when we go to a monastery: we behave in accordance with how people at a monastery behave. Even if we as monastics go to another monastery and they keep the precepts in a little bit different way than we do, we do as they do unless they say, “Oh, it doesn’t matter. I know you’re unfamiliar with this. It doesn’t matter.” Otherwise, we do as they’re doing in that monastery, as long as it’s not contrary to our precepts. I’m thinking like if we went to a Zen monastery where they may not have all the same precepts as we do, we would act according to how they do, but we wouldn’t do anything that would endanger our own precepts. 

Also, lay people must realize when they go to a monastery that it is appropriate to act in accordance with how people act in a monastery. Behavior at a monastery is different from behavior at a Dharma center or at a retreat center. A monastery is a celibate community, so maybe at a retreat center or a Dharma center you can flirt a little bit and nobody minds, but at a monastery, it’s really inappropriate. This is a celibate community. That kind of behavior shouldn’t be done here.  

Sometimes lay people who don’t know a lot about monastic life can get very upset. Sometimes, even if they do know about it, they can get very upset about how things are done at monasteries. I remember when I lived in Seattle, somebody had gone to visit Abhayagiri in California, and they are very strict about not eating in the evening. That person came back, and they were so upset, and because they were in the health profession they were saying, “It’s so bad for your health. They need to eat at night. Why are they doing this?” They were so upset with this. You need to know when you go into a monastery that people are there for a particular purpose. If you don’t want to have the experience of living in a monastic community for as long as you’re there, then it’s better to go where you do want to have the experience of living. Somebody recently told me that somebody told them that we have a puritanical view about sex at Sravasti Abbey. I’m not quite sure what that means. 

Audience: What does that mean? 

(VTC): I’m not quite sure what it meant; it was meant as a derogatory thing. A puritanical view is meant as derogatory. I’m not quite sure what that meant. Maybe the fact that we’re celibate means that we have a puritanical view. I’m not quite sure what that means. 

Audience: This comes up downstairs with guests coming and going. I’m remembering this couple coming for just a short time, a day. They were standing at the door at the office. He was going to go with someone doing something, and she was going to go with someone else and they kissed each other. I didn’t know what to do. I really didn’t, because we don’t do that, but you can see it’s just what they do. They were a married couple and every time they leave each other give a little quick kiss, but it was like, “Oh wow—this is a monastery.” This was just going on in my mind: “They’re just here a day, and I don’t know them very well, and what do you do or say?” It was all so open like that. I was like, “Oh, my goodness.” People just don’t know.

(VTC): Yes. It’s often the case that people don’t know. I’m going to tell your story. You’re saying that a while back a couple came who were new to Buddhism. They were only staying here for a day. So, they were standing at the office door. He was going one way; she was going the other way. They kissed, and then went their own ways, and you were standing there going, “Oh, what do I do?” Because they didn’t think about the environment they were in, or they didn’t know what’s appropriate at monasteries. So, yes, this happens. This happens. I think when they’re here for just a day or something, maybe don’t say anything, but… 

Audience: [Inaudible]

(VTC): Yes, we ask people to wear modest clothing when they’re here, to not wear tight things or very low-cut things, and so on. There have been a few times when we’ve had to ask people to cover themselves more and give them some clothing to do so. It’s on the website, but maybe they didn’t read it or whatever.

Audience: [Inaudible]

(VTC): This is another good example that in a monastery you don’t walk around eating, and you don’t eat standing up, or walk by the kitchen and stick a spoon in. You’re saying that one day you put butter on bread, and you got it almost to your mouth and then you remembered, so you just stayed like that, and everybody started laughing. I think many people have been in that situation at one time or another.  That’s another thing that sometimes we’ve had to remind guests who are here. Not the one-day guests, but people who are staying for a while, we have to remind them: “Please sit down when you eat.” We had one person with his spoon in his cereal bowl making so much noise and completely oblivious not realizing it. So, it’s this whole idea of mindful eating, and introducing people to that idea, and saying things gently to them and respectfully.

It’s the same with people coming in and putting their Dharma books on the floor, or stepping over Dharma books, or putting their teacup or their mala on top of the Dharma books. Sometimes we just have to very politely say, “Oh, maybe you don’t know this, but this is how we do it.” Usually, if you’re polite and say it that way—“Maybe you don’t know it”—then actually they’re quite happy, because most people who come don’t want to do anything that disturbs other people, and so they welcome it. Of course, there are other people who wish this place were like a spa, so what to do? You can’t please everybody. 

I thought that was a great comment, that we have a puritanical view of sex. 

Audience: It’s so interesting because it’s a monastery. We have a Buddhist viewpoint. I’m wondering if maybe it’s partly out of unfamiliarity with a monastery. Like growing up Catholic, we would have never said to the nuns or priests “You have a puritanical view of sex,” because they’re monastics. So, when you say that to monastics, what are you thinking? I guess I don’t understand it. 

(VTC): Well, I think you bring up an important point here—that people who were raised Catholic may have more sensitivity to this issue because they were exposed to priests and monks and nuns when they were little, whereas for people who grew up protestant or who didn’t have any kind of particular religious upbringing, there’s no idea of a place where people are celibate. Because your ministers and your Rabbis and all these people have families. 

Audience: They’re not celibate. 

(VTC): Yes, they’re not celibate. So for many people, it may not enter their mind because of the background they come from. 

Audience: I was just thinking about the differences in the cultures, because the tradition comes from Asia. I don’t think anyone who grew up in that culture would find this puritanical because it is the norm of their culture. 

(VTC): Yes, I think this is a good point. In fact, nobody from Asia would feel that what we’re doing is puritanical, because it’s part of the culture that they grew up with. Whereas in America, like I was saying, if it’s a protestant culture and you didn’t grow up with it, then it’s unfamiliar. In fact, some people from Asia come here and they’re really rather surprised that we have men and women sitting together, and they say, “You should have women on one side of the room and men on the other side of the room, and they shouldn’t sit at the same dining room table, and you should have two lines for food, one food line for women, one food line for men.” Some people are quite surprised. So, we’re stuck in the middle. We’re trying to do something that follows our own culture and yet hold the monastic precepts well. 

At the end of the day, nobody’s going to be happy with what you do, so you just do what you do. 

Audience: I am so puzzled over this, but I also recall many times, actually, in various locations when we’ve taught about the body and how angry some people get. They get angry when they think about having to look at the body as the filth factory—that view and what that means, how that affects our identity, and how important sexual expression is to some people. It’s like some part of who they are, and so not feeling like I can carry that comfortably into the Abbey. I can imagine that kind of response coming from that kind of place. And the vehemence of the anger is a lot, and it is a very challenging point of view. 

(VTC): Yes, I think this is another good point. You’re saying you’ve noticed that on retreats that I’ve led, at different places, when I’ve talked about the body and the nature of the body—how it produces pee and poo and everything like that—that some people get very upset and very angry. That’s really true. I’m just describing what the body is, but as you say, the people’s identity is very mixed in with the body, and their sexual expression is very important to them. So, when you start talking about the body like Shantideva does, they get really upset: “Oh, you’re against sex, and you’re puritanical, and you don’t like couples, and da da da da da.” It’s because it’s something that’s very important to them in their lives. 

Audience: When I first heard those kinds of teachings, I really shied away from them, because I didn’t want to be upset, so I had to do other kinds of things that kind of helped me towards that. It’s kind of like people in the U.S.; maybe it’s more this generation that went through the 60’s and 70’s in reaction to a kind of puritanical 1950’s.  I think that comes in there somewhere.  It’s like, “Oh, you monastery people just want to go back to the 1950’s, where it’s all so strict and no sex before marriage, and da da da da.” It’s however the judging mind goes off on, but I think that’s in there. 

(VTC): Right.  That’s another thing, too, especially with the sexual revolution in America and the different sexual values. When people now come to a place where sex is not an important thing to us, we’re really not into it, people say, “Oh, you want to go back to the 1950’s? Yes, you’re so puritanical. You think sex is dirty, and the body is dirty, and sex is bad. You’re stifling your sexuality, and it must come from some inner neurosis that you have.” I’ve heard people say that—“You’re suppressing your sexuality”—and these kinds of things.  Yes, it very much could be because of the sexual revolution in America. Because what we’re doing is not what the rest of the world is doing, is it? It’s only other monastics. But most other people, especially in this country where there is sex all over the place, the idea that you’re cultivating a mind that isn’t interested in sex seems so crazy. 

Audience: “There is something wrong there.”

(VTC): Yes: “Something wrong with those people because they’re not interested in sex.”

Audience: I often think of an odd situation that I was in. I was with a very casual group where there was a Catholic nun; it was kind of a game. It was this thing about revealing sexual orientation, you know, who likes what. The nun was so clear; somebody actually turned to her point blank and said, “What about you?” It was quite rude, but her view was so clear. She said, “I’m a monastic; I don’t have a sexual orientation,” and it was just so kind of pure in the way that she saw it. She wasn’t going to bite. There was no way that she really had that kind of identification in her. I think of her a lot here in that context, but anyway, it just impressed me. I’d never seen anybody so direct about “It’s irrelevant.”  That’s really what she said, but it was much kinder and purer than “I have no sexual orientation.”

(VTC): It sounds like a very strange kind of group, a strange party game. But anyway, there was a Catholic nun there, and people asked her about her sexual orientation, and she just looked and said, “I don’t have one. I don’t relate to the world in that way.” I remember hearing about one Buddhist monk who was gay, but he says when people ask him what he is, he says, “I’m nomo-sexual.”  No-more sexual: nomo-sexual.  It doesn’t really matter if you’re gay or you’re straight if you’re celibate. You drop all of that altogether. You’re relating to things differently. People who don’t have that interest don’t understand what in the world you’re doing. It seems very strange to them.  

In all these cases, it is better to remain silent, not to rise and so on, which is perfectly logical, for in doing so the benefits outweigh the damage.  

I can think of another situation where it’s perfectly all right not to answer a question: when you’re on the way to the bathroom and somebody stops you. I know that from experience around here. 

These exceptions relate first to the subject – [the person who has the precepts] being ill or asleep; then to the situation—teaching Dharma or discussing it, cheering up those who are depressed, and listening to Dharma teachings—and finally concerning answering various needs. After all, Lord Buddha’s teaching is meant to help people. If our behavior provokes bad reactions in people, activates their latent kleshas or disturbs others in any way, it is obviously better to abstain from it. This is the general rule when helping others. 

If what we’re going to do is going to disturb them or get them really furious or whatever, it’s better to abstain. We don’t do this at the cost of our monastic precepts. Somebody could come here and get very upset, but that doesn’t mean we change how the monastery is run.  

Audience: [Inaudible]

(VTC): Yes, that’s a good example. You’re saying an example of when answering a question could potentially disturb a great number of people might be if you’re giving a Dharma talk or something, and somebody asks you about a controversial issue. You don’t know who the people in the audience are, and you don’t want to be unskillful and say something that will just create a lot of animosity and misunderstanding. That’s a very good example; it would be better not to answer the question. Or you could just say, “We’ll talk about that later,” or “That’s something different than what we’re discussing now”—something like that. 

Okay.

These two misdeeds, three and four, are associated with afflictions when we refuse to rise and so forth, or answer questions out of pride and animosity, which leads to ill will or anger, which agitates our mind.

We’re proud, and we don’t want to stand up. We’re angry at somebody, and we don’t want to answer a question. We’re arrogant, like thinking, “That question is stupid.” It’s that kind of thing. That is a misdeed with affliction.

The misdeeds are dissociated from afflictions when they are motivated by sloth, laziness, or forgetfulness.  Thus, if we do not answer because we are too lazy or slothful to do so, or because we have forgotten that we should not behave in this way, we commit a misdeed dissociated from afflictions. Laziness, of course, is an affliction, so the expression ‘dissociated from afflictions’ is not to be taken literally.

Laziness is an affliction, but when it’s saying a misdeed with afflictions, it’s referring to a misdeed like arrogance or anger. It’s something that’s quite potent like that, not just like sloth and laziness, even though they are afflictions, too. 

Nevertheless, when more negative emotions like arrogance, ill will, and anger do not come into play, we speak of ‘misdeeds dissociated from afflictions,’ for they are less serious than those motivated by these disturbing factors. Both misdeeds are contrary to the precept of the ethic of helping living beings, which is to protect their minds by avoiding upsetting or troubling them. 

Here we have the thing of “Okay, why do we show respect to seniors?” Here it’s saying to avoid troubling their mind, or to avoid troubling the minds of other people who see these people as worthy of respect.  So, if we’re just disrespectful, nonchalant, and everybody’s equal, it can disturb a number of people’s minds. It can also make the person we’re being disrespectful towards think, “What’s going on here? Is this person serious about the Dharma or not? Or are they just on some ego trip?” It’s the same thing about answering questions. If somebody says, “How are you?” but we ignore them or look away, then people are offended, and their feelings are hurt. So, avoid doing that kind of thing. We protect them from hurt feelings that come from our inconsiderate behavior. 

Audience: I was just going to say, when we were in Taiwan, it was such a pervasive value there that you don’t disturb others, just in that way.  It’s not situational; you just work at always not disturbing others, no matter who they are. 

(VTC): You’re saying when you were in Taiwan, the whole ethic at the monastery was you don’t disturb other people, no matter whether they’re seniors or not seniors. You try and be aware of things that could disturb them, and you avoid doing those things. 

It creates such a nice environment. Sometimes you really have to restrain yourself, because it’s like, “I want to know this now,” and the other person is in the middle of doing something. But you see I’m exempt from that, and that’s why I interrupt all of you when you’re busy working. [laughter]  But it is hard sometimes to know, “Oh, this isn’t the right time to interrupt somebody, or this isn’t the right time to make this suggestion or to give feedback or to ask a question.” 

Audience: I want to raise something here about monastics and lay people that is in the ballpark. It’s something that I get frustrated about or confused about. As a lay person here wanting other lay people to respect the monastics, I try to model. Like if a monastic is coming, let them go in the door first, or don’t bow in front of them, try to be behind them or whatever. I don’t know if it’s the renunciation or the person’s monastic vows or it might be because our monastics are westerners, but I find that they’re not always comfortable with it, so they’ll step back and try and have the guests go first, and it gets confusing.  I feel confused, and I think the guests feel confused, and I just wonder about it. Sometimes I’ll even say to a lay person who is new, “Oh, we’ll let the monastics go in or out first,” and then the very next time, a monastic will step back and shoo the lay people ahead of her, and so it’s like I don’t know. 

(VTC): You’re saying that it becomes confusing because as a lay person you’re trying to set a good example for other lay people who come here for how to respect the monastics. But sometimes the monastics don’t want to be respected in that way, or whatever it is. It’s like you’re trying to let them go first, and you’re teaching new people who come here to let the monastics go first, and then the next thing after you teach them that, there comes along a monastic, the lay person steps back, and the monastics says, “No, no, you go in.” So, it seems quite confusing.  

It’s a funny kind of situation, because lay people should show respect to the monastics. Again, you’re not respecting the individual per se; you’re respecting the precepts and the robes. It has nothing to do with that individual; it’s the precepts and the robes. You want to show respect to that, but then sometimes it gets to be too much. I know for me, sometimes if I’m just trying to come in and get medicine meal, and then everybody at four tables stands up, it’s too much. But then there’s other times where I walk in the door, and I’m carrying dishes, and nobody even looks, let alone stands up. So, it’s somehow finding some kind of medium.  

I think it’s always good that we have the intention to show respect, but if somebody says to us, “No, you don’t need to,” then that’s okay, we don’t. But in some situations, it could be that a monastic, the way people are coming to the door is that the lay person is there first, so the monastic may just say, “Okay, go ahead. ” But that doesn’t mean every time you’re coming to a door, as a lay person you go in first. It means if you’re coming at a different time and somebody is slightly ahead of you, you step back. You have to have some sensitivity to when somebody says no need to do that, whether it means in this particular situation or forever. You need some kind of sensitivity to that.  

Audience: I think that probably along the lines of making it clear that we are respecting the robes and the precepts, because I know when we did our last community meeting, some people stated that they felt really moved by the fact that they’re doing retreat with monastics. Before, their whole concept of monastics was, they had us kind of up on a pedestal. To see us get sick and struggle and have to work with our minds and deal with afflictions really warmed their hearts, and it made them feel like we’re human beings, that we have the same struggles. On one hand, I understand, and I see that. That is how I want the respect to be earned. There is this balance of people understanding that that’s what they’re inviting through the door—the precepts and the robes—not somebody that they put on a pedestal to treat as some special person.  When I heard that from them, I felt that this was a wonderful experience for us always to remember. We’re humans, and we want to model the same struggles as they do. 

(VTC): Not just modeling—we do have the same struggles as they do.  

Audience: But to know that we do, that we’re not trying to hide behind these robes saying we’ve gotten it all together, that’s what I’m trying to say. 

(VTC): Yes. You’re saying it’s important for lay people to remember that they are really respecting the robes and the precepts that come from the Buddha, and that there’s no need to put monastics up on a pedestal as an individual, because we have the same struggles that everybody else does. And when people expect you to be floating around up there somewhere, it can be quite uncomfortable. 

Audience: Because I know when we first were here, and we were here living at the Abbey those first few years, it was quite a reality check for our local Dharma friends to realize that the people that lived at the Abbey were human. I know that that was quite a shift for them. 

(VTC): Well, face it—nobody ever sees us the way we want them to see us, do they? 

Audience: The comment you were making, it reminds me of the Sangha receiving food prayer. I’m always very moved to hear that line, that although we are not perfect, we will do our best to be worthy of the offering. That’s a wonderful line. 

(VTC): Right. That is something we need to remind ourselves of, so that there’s no conceit or feeling of privilege that develops thinking that, “Oh, we’re so great.” It’s not that we’re so great. It’s the robes and the precepts. It has nothing to do with us. But we try and behave properly because if we don’t, people get quite upset—and for good reason. 

Most secondary misdeeds are at times associated with kleshas and at other times dissociated from them. The second misdeed, maintaining thoughts of desire, is an exception. If you recall, it consists of giving desire, dissatisfaction, or attachment to goods or signs of respect a free rein when they arise in us and doing nothing to oppose them. By its very nature, this fault is always associated with kleshas, afflictions. 

5.  Not accepting invitations from others out of anger, pride, or other negative thoughts.

The fifth secondary misdeed is refusing invitations. By it, we deny a person the opportunity to practice generosity. Training in generosity well includes helping others to practice it.  

Generosity doesn’t just mean that we’re being generous; it means also that we learn to receive others’ generosity gracefully. I’ve done many discussion groups on this with people. It is very interesting how many people say that it’s easier for them to give than to receive. When they give, some people say, “I feel like I’m in charge, but when I receive, I feel obligated to the other person, and that’s uncomfortable. I feel like I owe them something.” This is all just the junk going on in people’s minds. And then some people say, “I feel embarrassed when other people give to me,” or “I feel unworthy, and I don’t deserve it, so I want to refuse.” Or they say, “I’m afraid it’s going to be too much for the other person.”  There might be any number of reasons, and so we feel uncomfortable accepting other people’s generosity.  

What he’s saying here is that since we’re doing the precepts now that have to do with far-reaching generosity, generosity also involves being able to receive, so that we give somebody else the opportunity to be generous. Because if we were always going around, “No, no, no…” then people don’t have the opportunity to give. Sometimes people really want to give, and they feel badly if we refuse to accept their offering. They feel like, “What—am I deficient? Or is this not good? What I’m offering is not good?  What’s the story? Why aren’t you accepting what I’m offering?” So, we must be quite sensitive to this kind of thing. We’ll go through this, and we’ll see the different exceptions when we can say no and so on.

The misdeed can occur in a variety of ways.

Actually, this is not accepting invitations. The next one is not accepting gold and so forth. That’s talking about accepting offerings, but the same applies to invitations. Somebody invites us and we say no, and they think, “Oh dear, what I’m offering you is not good enough. I’m too low on the social scale. What’s wrong with me?” In other words, people could be very upset by it.  

The misdeed can occur in a variety of ways. Someone may invite us for a meal, for example. When motivated by pride, animosity, or anger, we decline the invitation, we commit a misdeed associated with kleshas.

It’s associated with afflictions.

We refuse the invitation in the hope that it will cause a problem for other people or hurt their feelings.

Somebody might do that. They might be mad at somebody. Somebody is trying to hold out the peace flag to invite you somewhere and you say, “No,” with the intention that they feel hurt and offended, and know that you’re upset with them.

If you do not accept an invitation simply because you’re too lazy or slothful to go, the misdeed is dissociated from kleshas, from afflictions. 

What would be an example of refusing an invitation out of pride? 

Audience: You’re not good enough?

(VTC): Yes. You think the person isn’t good enough. “I only go to homes of rich people. I only want to go out in public with people who drive nice cars, or people who take me to nice restaurants. I don’t want to go with people who just take me down the street to the coffee shop.” It’s some kind of arrogance of “they’re inferior,” or “I’m just so superior.” Or it might be with anger: “What are you bugging me for? Just, leave me alone!” or “I don’t want to have anything to do with you.” It might be being angry and dismissing them, not accepting the invitation like that—those kinds of situations.  

This is not saying you must accept every invitation. Because sometimes if you do, then you would have no time to do your Dharma practice. I know for myself, when I did my first tour around the U.S. teaching the Dharma, I had very much in mind that I want to be easy to take care of, and I want to please people, and so on. Whenever people asked me out, because I was going all around and if they wanted to go out for dinner before a class or they wanted to have people over before class, I would do it. I realized the quality of my teaching was not so good after that. I realized I have to say to people before I give a Dharma teaching, “Please, don’t plan a social event, because the quality of the teaching you’re going to receive will suffer. The reason I’m coming here is to share the Dharma with you, not to go out and have a good social time.” I began saying that to people, and they were fine with it. They accepted it. Sometimes you have to set those limits. Or sometimes people invite you to their home, and you know you’re going to get back really late, and you have your evening commitments to do, so in that kind of situation then it’s okay to excuse yourself: “I have my commitments to do.”

You can also say no when somebody invites you to some kind of social event where it’s really not appropriate for monastics to go. Let’s say it’s an event where people are drinking, or somebody takes out a joint. I mean, I’ve been at those kinds of things where a Buddhist has asked me to dinner and then they start drinking. I feel so uncomfortable, and I would not have accepted the invitation if I had known that they would do this. I’ve even been at one place where people started smoking dope. I just excused myself.  

I was in one eastern European country, and the people there didn’t know much about monastics or Dharma. I think maybe a couple of teachers had been there before. I was scheduled to go through there.  I was staying at the flat of one man and his girlfriend. We went, and I gave the Dharma teaching and everything, and then we all came back to his flat. He invited all these other people to come back to the flat. What it turned into was this big make-out party! There were all these couples are sitting in this room making out. I just went into the bedroom. They have no idea how to behave around a monastic. It was really embarrassing. It’s like, “I don’t want to be here,” but I was staying at their house, so I just went in the bedroom and closed the door.  

I’ve had some exciting adventures when I’ve traveled. Another time, I was in another country. Again, it was one that used to be part of the Soviet Union but split off afterwards. And again, the people didn’t know much about monastics or whatever, and I didn’t know until I got to the flat where I was staying that it was the flat of a single man. I went in the bathroom, and there is this poster of a naked woman—“Oh, where am I? What do I do?” And then he offered to take my coat, and reached out to help me take it off. I’m going, “No, no, I can take it off.” That’s why we’ve learned not to assume anything when you go traveling, and to tell people, “Please, only put us in the house of either where there’s only women, or if there’s a couple with a woman, and in a separate bedroom, and not in the master bedroom where the couple does their stuff.” It’s just amazing. 

There are several exceptions. The first group relates to the basis or subject, i.e. the person invited who holds the bodhisattva precepts. Exceptions are made when we’re too ill to go or have already accepted another invitation. An additional legitimate reason for declining is that the place to which we are invited is very far away or the road to it is very dangerous.

And I say, too, if you have your commitments to do, or if as a nun it’s a single man inviting you to go out for a meal.  

Oh, should I tell you this story? This is a good one. I was in Hong Kong. I was staying at my friend’s house. They didn’t really have a Dharma center at that time, so the teachings were at different people’s flats. I had newly arrived, and this man called and said, “Are you the new teacher at the Dharma center?”  I said, “Yes,” and he said, “I would like to invite you out to lunch,” and I thought, “Fine.” This is what happens when you don’t learn things early on, so I just said, “Fine,” even though he’s a stranger. He picked me up, and then we went to some club or something like this, so it was fine. And we’re sitting there having our meal, and then he says, “Do you practice tantra?” And I said, “Well, you know, I do some tantric practice and some mantras, like that.”  He asked, “Yes, but do you practice tantra? Do you have tantric sex? I’m really interested in this practice of tantric sex. Can you help me learn it?” And there I am.  It was lunch. It was broad daylight. But I’m with this guy, and I’m wondering how am I going to get back to the flat okay? This is the reason why nuns don’t go places alone. I was so shocked! 

Audience: What did you do? 

(VTC): I just said, “No, I don’t do that. I know nothing about that kind of practice, absolutely nothing! And I want to go home. No, thank you. I don’t want any dessert; let’s go.”

Audience: [Inaudible] 

(VTC): Yes, because you don’t know who you could get stuck with. So, there are times when you don’t accept invitations. My new rule of thumb, and we’ve had to work this out sometimes when she’s arranging my travel, because even sometimes it doesn’t enter your mind.  When I was going to Pennsylvania for His Holiness’ teachings, I was landing at ten o’clock at night, and the people were arranging for a man I don’t know to pick me up. She had arranged this. Then, when I heard it, I said, “No. It’s not appropriate for a man I don’t know to pick me up at the airport, especially at night.” 

Audience: Is there another story? 

(VTC): Enough stories. 

Audience: After retreat? 

(VTC): Maybe. 

The second criterion for exceptions concerns the person who has extended the invitation. If we know that the host who is inviting us has evil intentions or, for example, hopes to use the opportunity to criticize us,

Or if their goal is to embarrass us, or ridicule us, or put us in some kind of uncomfortable position, or we know the person wants to start a conversation that we’re going to be very uncomfortable with, or something like that.

Then it is better for the host that we do not accept.  

The third criterion is purpose or necessity. There are a number of situations when it is wiser not to accept the invitation, each for a good reason.

One is:

In the long run it is more helpful to the people who have invited us to decline the invitation than to accept it, even if it saddens them at first, because the refusal makes them reflect. They will speculate why we have refused and perhaps conclude that they might have done something wrong. This will lead them to search until they find their error and hopefully convince them to be more careful in how they behave in the future.

So, it’s okay if it’s for a good reason, like if somebody was really acting inappropriately, and you need to get them to reflect on their actions.  

Two is:

Accepting interferes with our regular Dharma practice, if we have many daily commitments, for example, that require time to fulfill. 

Three is:

Accepting the invitation will prevent us from attending a certain Dharma teaching that we have never heard before, or one that we have not yet fully mastered.

There’s a Dharma teaching going on at the same time, and somebody invites you somewhere. In this case, it’s perfectly legit, and you should actually decline. Or it would keep us from participating in an important discussion, debate, or study group of Dharma friends that would allow us to learn new material. 

The next one is:

Accepting the invitation conflicts with monastic rules, either for us if we are ordained or for the host if he or she is.

If you’re keeping the precept not to eat in the evening strictly, and somebody invites you out in the evening, it’s fine to say, “Sorry, I don’t eat in the evening,” and just explain it to them, and that’s fine.  Similarly, monastics going to weddings or social gatherings with our old friends is really not appropriate.  Nor is going to parties where we know that they’re going to be serving alcohol or whatever. So, it’s perfectly fine to decline in those kinds of situations.  

Audience: [Inaudible] 

(VTC): So, this is a story about a nun who was new who was asked by another nun to go out to dinner with the Rinpoches, and she accepted the invitation, because she wanted to go. It was the first time that she started eating in the evening, and so after that she kept on doing it. 

Accepting the invitation would upset a large number of people, generate strong negative reactions in them, or make them very uncomfortable.

In those situations, it’s perfectly all right to decline.

In any of these situations, declining an invitation is not a secondary misdeed.

If going somewhere is really going to set a number of people off, and their afflictions are really going to flare up, then you can politely decline the invitation. Sometimes working with our family is quite difficult.  Some families are very understanding of us being monastics, and other families aren’t. You must really work according to your family in terms of what they’ll accept.