Bodhisattva ethical restraints: Auxiliary vows 6-7

• 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:

• 6. Not accepting gifts of money, gold, or other precious substances that others offer to you.

• 7. Not giving the Dharma to those who desire it.

It’s good to remember, every day, that everybody just wants to be happy, and nobody wants to suffer. Whatever anybody is doing, it’s simply because that’s what they’re trying to achieve. When we can see things in that light again and again, it stops the critical, judgmental mind. It stops the mind that thinks that other people are a pain in the neck when they have problems. It really opens our heart to having some patience and tolerance with them and seeing what we can do skillfully to help them, whatever the situation is. When we think that everybody equally wants happiness and not suffering, that’s also the very important first step on the way to cultivating bodhicitta. Because with bodhicitta we want to care equally about everybody and to be able to do what we can to eliminate their suffering and lead them to the state of Buddhahood where there’s no longer any possibility to experience misery. Remembering here that misery and suffering doesn’t just mean that your body hurts or you’re in a bad mood; it means the whole situation of being in cyclic existence. Let’s cultivate that awareness, that motivation.

Retreat pep-talk

Is everybody doing okay? It’s funny, sometimes about this point in retreat, people are going, “Oh, when is this going to be over? It’s so long…” either that, or you look and say, “Oh, three more weeks, that’s not very much at all. I can always spend a little time here and a little time there.” But if you don’t think of it in terms of a three-month retreat, then three weeks is quite a long time to do retreat, isn’t it? If you’re living your regular life on full-speed ahead, zooming here, zooming there, your mind completely discombobulated and stressed out, and then somebody says, “Oh, you can have three weeks of retreat,” you would go, “Oh, wow! How fortunate! Three whole weeks!” So you have to put it all in perspective and really appreciate the opportunity that you have to do retreat. Because it’s always so funny at the end, people go, “I just want to get back and do some work,” and then you’re out, and the rest of the year you’re busy, and it’s like, “Why don’t we have more retreat?” And then retreat time, comes and it’s like, “Oh, looking at my mind again.” 

Audience: [Inaudible]

Venerable Thubten Chodron (VTC): That’s exactly it, we’re always dissatisfied. I think it’s quite important to remember the fortune that we have, just to have the time to look and think about things and do some more study and do more intensive practice.

Precepts regarding generosity

We were talking about the auxiliary precepts. We were on the ones that have to do with cultivating generosity, or I say the ones that obstruct the cultivation of generosity. We talked about five of them so far. Let me read them out of this book. 

Not making offerings to the Three Jewels every day with one’s body, speech, and mind.

Are you being more mindful of that now?

Acting out selfish thoughts of desire to gain material possessions or reputation.

Well, let’s skip that one. [laughter] That one is really hard, isn’t it? Very hard.

Not respecting one’s elders.

“Elders” is referring to those who have taken the bodhisattva vows before you or who have more knowledge and experience with the Dharma.

Not answering sincerely-asked questions that one is capable of answering.

That means being polite and courteous to people who ask things.

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

6. Not accepting gold and so forth/Not accepting gifts of money, gold, or other precious substances that others offer to one’s self.

Now we’re on number six. This one says, in this book:

Not accepting gold and so forth.

And here [in the other book] it says:

Not accepting gifts of money, gold, or other precious substances that others offer to one’s self. 

They say gold, because in a culture without money, gold is something that is precious, but for us it would include definitely money and any other kind of precious substances. Again, the point of this one is that we impinge on other people’s ability to create merit by making offerings if we don’t accept things. But there’s a lot to think about here. Let’s see what he says. 

The sixth secondary misdeed is not accepting gold or anything else that is offered to us.

Anything else that is offered to us, but clearly there’s going be some exceptions there. When you’ve eaten food, and you’re too full, you must eat some more because it was offered? Or somebody offers you a gun, do you have to accept it? So, we need to think here. 

Once again, the fault lies in not giving others the opportunity to be generous. The misdeed is associated with kleshas, with afflictions, when we refuse the gifts out of anger or animosity. It is dissociated from afflictions when we refuse them out of laziness or sloth. From our point of view, there is no fault in refusing the gift when we feel that accepting it would strengthen our attachment.

Right there, that’s something to think about. If somebody is giving us something, and we feel that if we accept it we’re going to get really attached to this thing, then refusing it is okay. And it might be very well if we refused it, too, because anything that’s going to increase our attachment is not going to be good for our practice, and, therefore, by extension, for other living beings.

Can you think of something that if you accepted it would increase your attachment? 

Audience: A bag of chips.

VTC: A bag of chips. What else? A new car? A new computer? Money to come here again—I don’t think that’s attachment. If it was money to go on a vacation, that’s something else, but if it’s money to do Dharma, then I think it’s different. Anything electronic, yes. Sometimes the electronic goods are irresistible, and they make them that way, constantly upgrading it so it’s like, “I’ve got to get the newest whatever.” How about the rest of you? Some of you are so contemplative. Now that’s your object of renunciation, the Red Sox.

From others’ point of view, it is better to refuse a gift in the following cases: One, We suspect that the donors might later regret having given it.

Perhaps it’s a married couple. One person gives it, but the other partner doesn’t know, and it might be inconvenient, they might regret it afterwards; it’s going to somehow cause problems to somebody else later on. And then another is when:

We believe there is a case of mistaken identity and that we have been confused for another person for whom the gift was originally intended.

Somebody could confuse us with somebody else, and if we suspect that, we need to stop and really see who the gift is intended for. I remember one time when I was in Singapore, somebody gave me an envelope with some money in it, which said something about ‘for free distribution of your books.’ I had to stop and think, “Who was this really intended for? Is it intended for me?” Well, actually, no. It’s intended for the temple that produces the books for free distribution. So, I gave it to them. Things like that can happen. 

What also happens is sometimes if you’re going as a representative of a monastery, somebody gives you an offering, and they may be thinking it’s going to the monastery, but they give it to you, and you think, “Oh, it’s mine.” So, it’s always good to clarify with the people, and that’s why we have the rule we do at the abbey whenever you’re acting as a member of the abbey and somebody does that, because people don’t always specify, they just make assumptions. 

Three is when:

We are afraid that the donors may be impoverished by their gifts because the donation is substantial.

Somebody gives something that is quite a lot, and we’re afraid that they’ll be impoverished. I remember one time when I was in Italy, when I was leaving, one woman came to me. I knew her, and she didn’t have very much. She wanted to give me something, so she wanted to give me her watch. I didn’t want to take her watch, because I thought, “She doesn’t have very much money, and she wears watches, I don’t, and she’ll need to go out and buy another one.” So, I tried to refuse it, but she really wanted to give me something, so finally I accepted it because she really wanted that. Then I said, “And I would like to offer it back to you, so please accept it.” 

Sometimes you have to do it that way, because somebody really very sincerely wants to give even if it’s going to be hard on them, so we might say, “Yes, I accept, and I offer back,” or if they still say no, then we say, “Well, then let’s split it,” and then I appeal to them, “I need some good karma by making offerings, too, so let me offer part of it back to you.”

There are further exceptions in relationship to the substance or the item offered.

If, for example, :

We suspect that the object has already been offered to one of the Three Jewels or that it was donated to have Buddha statues made, Dharma books printed, or to provide for the Sangha.

So, if we think that the money was already given to the Three Gems, or it was destined for the Three Gems, then we should refuse it, or make sure that it gets to where it needs to be going. And then another situation is when:

We think that it might have been stolen or extorted from others or obtained by harming them – killing, maiming, fining, or punishing people.

If we think that it was obtained in quite a bad way, we should refuse it. I know Zopa Rinpoche is very strict about this thing of money from selling Dharma items. Somebody came to Kopan with some fruit, but this person earns their money from selling Dharma items. Rinpoche accepted it, but then he had them bury the fruit. Other people aren’t quite so strict. Another situation:

We think that accepting it might bring harm to the donors. For example, others may criticize them for offering [whatever it was they offered to us]. This misdeed is contrary to an aspect of the ethic of helping others.

Investigating our motivation

Let me tell you one story. This was many years ago, and Kyabye Zong Rinpoche was in Los Angeles, and they wanted to take him to Disneyland. I wanted to come with, but I had no money.  So, I let it be known among the various people, the disciples, that, “Oh gee, I would really like to go with Rinpoche to Disneyland, and I don’t have any money,” I don’t know how I said it. Anyway, at some point, somebody offered me money, and then I went, “Oh, my God, I can’t take this, I had such a crummy motivation, just really very selfish, yucky motivation.” I wanted to be a groupie, basically. As soon as that person offered it, I realized what I was doing, and I said, “No, no, no, I can’t take it.” 

Geshe Gyeltsen, he’s another one of my teachers, was in the room at that time, and he said, “What’s going on, why aren’t you accepting it?” and I told him, “Because I have a really horrible motivation, Geshela,” and he said, “But this person wants to give, so you need to change your motivation.” I wonder if I hadn’t had that regret and if my eyes had been like, “Oh, boy, now I get to go,” I don’t think he would have said that same thing. But it was because I had realized what I was doing that he said, “No, you should change your motivation and accept it.” Anyway, we wound up not going, but it was something that was quite shocking to me, to see, “Oh, somebody wants to give something, and instead of just going, ‘No, no, no, no, no,’ sometimes really for that person’s benefit, to say, “Yes,” and make sure I have a good motivation. And if I can’t quite get my motivation to where I want it to be, then maybe accept it and give it away. 

Just a side thing about giving is whenever we give to somebody, we should genuinely give. So, if we give, it means it really belongs to the other person, and that means they can do with it what they want to. Because sometimes when we give something, we really check up on it afterwards. Like, “Oh, well, that was given by me, so are they taking good care of it? Oh, you’re not taking very good care of it, this was so precious to me, why are you not treating that object right? I mean, I gave it to you, and you should love it and respect it as much as I did.” We have that, don’t we?

Or we give something, and then we ask the other person later, “Oh, how are you enjoying it?” And we want them to say, “It’s so nice, it’s so wonderful.” But then if they say, “Oh, I gave it away to so-and-so,” then we feel like, “You betrayed me. I gave you this precious thing, and you betrayed me by giving it away.” But that just shows that in our mind we’re not freely giving a gift. Self-centered thought is infiltrating it somehow, and we’re wanting something out of it. Or, “I gave you something, and now it’s time for you to give me back something.” And getting upset with people who don’t give us something back after we gave them something. 

We might see there, too, that our generosity is a bit tainted, we want special regard, we want to be known as somebody, we want to be noticed or appreciated or given some special condition because we made a particular offering. We have to be very careful about that, because it lessens the merit we create from making the offering, and also we’re setting ourselves up for a whole lot of grief. But to really think, when we give something, it really belongs to the other person. And if we’re not really fully willing for it to belong to them, then we should really reconsider if we want to give it. 

I remember one time in India, I wanted to make an offering, so I sewed some book covers, all hand-stitches (we did not have any sewing machines or anything). Stitched the whole thing by hand and went and offered the book covers to my teacher and had my interview, and then I left. Then another monk came to see my teacher afterwards, and when he came out, he was carrying the book covers. So, teacher had given them to him, and I just said, “Great, okay, they’re getting used to create more merit.” Like the one fruitcake at Christmas that everybody gives to everybody else, except you really need to have a good motivation if you give fruitcake, boy! [laughter] 

VTC: Okay, anything on that one at all?

Audience: [Inaudible]

VTC: When you’re in a culture where people have a lot of respect for the Sangha, and they come and make you an offering, especially when you’re first ordained you feel like, “Oh, I can’t accept it, I’m not worthy.” That’s in some way an afflicted state of mind, too, because it’s very centered on ‘me,’ it’s not thinking at all about here’s somebody who wants to create merit. Their giving to me isn’t because I’m something special. They’re giving to the robes, they’re giving to the precepts in the mental continuum, it has nothing to do with me.

But we latch on to it as, “Oh, they’re giving to me, but I’m unworthy,” and then it gets to be this internal conflict, so you really have to come back to the thing that it really has nothing to do with us. People make offerings to you or don’t make offerings to you, and it doesn’t have anything to do with us. If they make offerings, because you’re ordained they create merit and generate faith. That’s something that is very virtuous in their mind, and we should let them do it. 

If they look at us and say, “Who are you? I’m not giving you anything,” that’s something that reflects on their mind that they experience the karma of, and neither way does it have really anything to do with us. We just happen to be standing there. And to really see that. And then to look and say, “Wow, here’s somebody who has faith, who wants to make an offering, it’s so beautiful that they have this virtuous mind.” So, you let them make the offering, and completely in your own heart you rejoice at the virtue they’re creating by making the offering. You don’t look at it as, “Oh, I must be somebody special now, they gave me something.”  No. It’s, “Wow, somebody’s creating virtue, that’s really quite wonderful.” 

And if you don’t feel like it’s something that you want to keep because you feel like you need to improve your practice, then give it away to somebody, whatever they give. 

Audience: [Inaudible]

VTC: But you really see how beautiful people’s mind states are when they want to make an offering to the Sangha. It’s really quite beautiful. And especially in that situation with the story that you’re telling, where they don’t know you, you just happen to be sitting there doing your prayers or whatever.

Audience: [Inaudible]

VTC: Yes, you had a very virtuous wish to come here and get ordained, so your friends wanted to support. And it’s so beautiful when they then tell their friends, who you don’t even know but who also get excited and want to support something that is very virtuous.

Audience: [Inaudible]

VTC: Dealing with objects that are in our possession, what level of mental ownership should we have? As little as possible. Because as soon as we attach the word “mine” to it, a lot of things happen. As soon as this becomes “my tissue,” it’s very different than if it’s just a package of tissues. “My tissue” means it’s my tissue, it means it’s not your tissue, and you better ask me for it, and I want to save it. Even if I don’t need it now, but your nose is running, if I give it to you, then I won’t have it later when I need it. So, let’s get you something else to wipe your nose, because I’m going to hoard my tissue because it’s mine. That’s why when we do the mandala offering, when we say, “I’m giving everything to the Buddha,” we should really feel that way. I’m giving everything, so now I’ve given it to the Buddha, it’s only nominally under my care, which means I have a responsibility to take good care of it, but it doesn’t permanently, inherently belong to me. 

Sometimes if we don’t call something mine, then we don’t take good care of it. And that’s also wrong. Because I’ve really seen people that when it has to do with the Dharma center’s money or the temple’s money or something, they’ll spend it here and there anyway. But they wouldn’t spend their own money that way, and that’s not right. If you’re the representative of a charity organization of any sort, then you should have the thought, “People gave this out of faith, they want to see whatever charity you’re doing run properly, and so I must use this property responsibly.” So, ownership just basically means you have responsibility to take care of the thing, but it doesn’t mean that you must possess it. 

Because as soon as we start possessing it, it gets very difficult. “This is my blankie.” Did you all have your blankie when you were little? Who was the cartoon character? Linus, yes! “This is my blankie, it’s my blankie and I’m not giving it away, even when I’m 60 years old. Maybe I take my thumb out of my mouth, but this is my blankie. And I’ve had it for 59 years and nine months, and I’m not giving it up now.” We can get very attached to things. And then that attachment just creates a lot of disturbance in our mind. That’s why in the mandala, if we think, “Oh, it’s already given away,” then when it’s time to actually give it, the mind isn’t so embroiled in it. On the other hand, don’t think, “I’ve given it away, therefore I can just use it any old way,” without any respect for the object. No, we should take care of the things that are nominally in our possession.

Audience: [Inaudible]

VTC: What you’re bringing up is one of the perpetual problems we have in India of dealing with beggars. It looks like some people are beggars by profession, and when there’s a big religious event in a certain place, they will go to that particular place and beg. And then often there’s somebody there, who if you give that person money, they will go out and buy the bread and the tea and distribute it very early in the morning for the beggars. So, on one hand you want to give because you see that people are deformed, or they’re very poor or whatever. 

Usually there’s cases where they travel because they’re handicapped in one way or another. On the other hand, you feel like, “Maybe I’m just reinforcing this whole thing,” and especially when you hear about a really bad situation where sometimes there’s people who control the beggars, who take care of them in one sense, but then the beggars must give them a certain cut of what they receive every day. Kind of like pimps for beggars. So, you feel like, “Oh, I don’t want to participate in that.” On the other hand, here are people who need. It’s a really difficult situation. Really difficult. 

I can’t say I have an answer to that. I think, on one hand, you feel like you want to give; on another hand you feel like you’re just contributing to a bad situation. And then you think, “Well, the ideal thing to do would be let’s start some kind of charity where these people could come and live and not have to beg and live like that,” but we can’t drop our whole life to go and start a charity every time we see beggars in this condition. Also, sometimes the beggars don’t want to stay in one place, they like to go from place to place. So, I don’t have a good answer for you. 

I certainly understand the dilemma, because I felt that way many times myself. But there is something special when you’re at Bodhgaya that makes you somehow just go beyond that. I know when we had our program, Life as a Western Buddhist Nun, in 1996, we did that as a group. We decided to offer lunch to all the beggars. One thing is you must get them to sit down and line up, otherwise it’s just total chaos. But I found it very beautiful, because we personally offered the food to them, and for me that was very meaningful, to be able to actually dish it up, or somebody dished it and gave it to me, and I was the one that actually gave it. 

Audience: [Inaudible]

VTC: Yes, exactly. To look them in the eyes and make it a real gift and make it a real thing of respecting them. Because then it was not just giving them food, it was giving them human respect, which is often more important than the food. 

7. Not giving the Dharma to those who desire it.

Number seven is, again Chandragomin: “Not giving the Dharma to those who desire it.”

The seventh secondary misdeed conflicts with the practice of generosity in the form of giving spiritual advice, that is, the Dharma. Of the three kinds of ethics, it is contrary to the ethic of helping living beings. It consists of declining to give spiritual teachings to those who request them. When the refusal to teach is motivated by anger, animosity, or jealousy, it is a misdeed associated with afflictions, and its consequences, therefore, are more serious. Jealousy might make us hesitate to share our knowledge with others from the fear that they would end up by enjoying higher status than we do thanks to their erudition.

You don’t want to teach somebody something because they’re going to know it better than you or teach it better than you, and they’ll get the respect and the offerings afterwards. You don’t want to share. That’s a really horrible mental state, thinking like that, really dreadful. 

The misdeed is dissociated from afflictions when laziness or sloth inspires it.

Somebody asks for teachings, and you’re just too lazy. We are to share the Dharma that we possess when the request for it has been made properly and is founded in a sincere desire to learn and practice the teaching. Here I find it quite interesting when it says “When the request for it is made properly,” because I feel that a lot of times nowadays, people don’t know how to make a request properly. The Dharma is just something, so, let’s just zip off an email and ask somebody if they can teach us something. It might take ten minutes, or it might take ten days, but just zip off an email. “Can you teach me this?” In other words, asking for some instructions or something, but the mind really not being very respectful in the process of asking.

You find that it makes a difference when a center sends a written request. Sometimes they do it with the Seven Limb Prayer and all this fancy language. The fancy language I can do without, but you see that at least they’ve taken the time to think about it and to make a very nice request. Then other people just kind of send an email, “Can you come here on such-and-such a date at this time and teach this?” There’s very different ways of making a request. I think it’s nice to really think about the request. Sometimes it’s fine to print out a letter, it’s fine to use email, but if you use email, make it a respectful request and not just kind of dashing something off while you’re flying out the door. 

Or I’ve commented on it before, people want to take refuge, so they write me a note on the backside of an old piece of paper, “I want to take refuge,” on some scrappy piece of paper. That’s not the way to ask for refuge. Or, “I want to take bodhisattva vows, where’s a scrap of paper?” And it’s torn here and torn there, and on the other side is printed, “Please give me bodhisattva vows.” That’s not the way to ask.

Audience: [Inaudible]

VTC: Take care when you’re asking about reusing paper for printing if it has something like His Holiness’ image or some Dharma content on it or something like that. You don’t want to print recipes on the back of that kind of paper. If you’re reusing it to print another Dharma thing, that’s okay. But to reuse it to print a recipe, no.

Audience: [Inaudible]

VTC: The usual Buddhist thing is that somebody should ask three times for something. And I think the reason for that is it makes us exert some energy, so it pulls us out of our consumer mentality of, “I want this, can you give it to me?” I have to request three times. Also, when you request three times, it shows that you’re really earnest, that you really mean it. Because if on the first time you don’t get an answer, then, “Well, how important is this to me? Is it important enough that I’m going to ask another time?” Nowadays, oftentimes, that isn’t followed. On certain things it’s good to do, it’s good to do.  

Audience: [Inaudible]

VTC: I don’t know, but I think all the Buddhist traditions have this thing of asking three times, and so you have to consider, “Oh, is this something really important where I’m going to ask again?”

Again, there are several exceptions to the rule. In relation to the basis or subject, ourselves, exceptions are made when we’re ill, or personally we do not know the material that we have been asked to teach.

If you’re sick, fine to say no, and if you don’t feel confident in your knowledge of the material, it’s fine to say no. In fact, we should say no. If we don’t know the material, we should not say yes, because that is only going to mislead and damage the other person. I see that in any kind of thing – if you don’t know the answer to a question, or you don’t know something, you just say straight out, “I don’t know.” Or you can say, “I don’t know, I’ll check for you,” or, “This is my opinion, but I want to check it,” or really qualify if it’s your opinion. 

Because I’ve noticed that people remember the first thing that they hear about a certain topic, and sometimes you run across people who have heard something incorrect, and then when you tell them the correct version, they don’t believe you. Because they heard it incorrectly – either they misunderstood, or whoever it was that said it said it incorrectly—so we should be careful about those kinds of things. That doesn’t mean becoming so uptight that we don’t say anything to anybody, because remember you have the story I told you about Lama Yeshe when I said, “I can’t lead that course,” and he looked at me and he said, “You’re selfish.” So, you can’t go to that extreme of, “I don’t know anything,” or, “I’m so afraid of making a mistake, I can’t say anything,” that also is not correct. It’s perpetual middle way.

In relation to purpose, there is no fault in refusing to give the teaching requested in any of these situations: One, Our refusal is better for the petitioners in the long run, even if it upsets them at first, for it makes them wonder what they have done wrong. Another possibility is that not immediately receiving the explanation reinforces their aspiration to it and stimulates them to practice even harder.

So, if you think that somebody hasn’t behaved correctly or that they’re being very flippant in the way they’re asking for whatever, if you say, “No”, with the intention to get them to think about their actions, there’s no fault in it. Or if you feel that not responding will just really increase their wish to have that. And I know in my own case, there’s certain things I’ve requested, and then I can really see, “Oh, it’s not that important, I’m not going to request again.” But another thing is like, “Oh, this is really important, I am going to request again.” 

There are several exceptions in relation to the potential students. [First,] The people making the request are not fit to receive the teaching because they have bad intentions. For example, their sole purpose in asking for the explanation is to then turn around and criticize us.

So, this is when somebody asks you, and you know they don’t really want to learn the material, they just want to criticize you or criticize the teaching afterwards. In that kind of case, it’s fine to not give the teaching. 

[Two,] The people making the request speak rudely, physically misbehave, and are generally disrespectful and bad-mannered.

Again, if the people are requesting, but when you see them in teachings, they’re lying down. I’ve had to, sometimes at teachings, ask people, “Please sit up.” Because it’s very distracting when you’re teaching and somebody is lying down. In India, you get people who don’t know anything about the Dharma, and so this kind of stuff will happen. People who are rude and disrespectful. You think, “Is it really going to make a difference to teach them this?” If you feel that it will, then that’s one thing, but if you feel that it won’t then…

[Three,] The people lack the intelligence needed to understand a lengthy or complicated teaching, and by hearing one run the risk of becoming discouraged, losing faith, and developing wrong views.

So, people don’t really have the ability to understand it, and they could develop wrong views. They may ask you for a teaching on emptiness, or they may ask you for a teaching on tantra or whatever, but you know if you give it they’ll develop wrong views, because they don’t really have the intelligence or the background. It’s not specifically listed here, but I would think this includes if somebody asks you for a teaching, but they don’t have the background to really understand it and could misunderstand it. Maybe there’s somebody that comes and says, “I want to learn completion-stage tantra.” For somebody who knows that, are they going to teach that to that person if they think that that person is then going to go off and do those meditations and it could be really quite damaging to the person? Because they don’t have the background to be able to do that kind of practice. 

I remember Alex told me a story about Rinpoche and a situation where a brand new person came one day and said, “I want to learn Guhyasamaja Tantra.” He had read it in a book or something like that, not really having any clue what it was. It’s a very advanced practice, and Rinpoche said, “Okay, I’ll teach you, but first you have to learn this and this, first learn this, and then come back,” and then gave him another thing, “Learn this first.” And so he didn’t say, “No,” he said, “Yes, I will, but first you must have the adequate preparation.” That’s a skillful way to do it if somebody is asking for a teaching that is too advanced for them at this particular moment. The next one is:

We suspect that although the people would understand what we taught, they would not listen properly and would not give credence to the teaching. We fear that this would lead them to behave so badly and thereby create so much negative karma, that in their next life they would be reborn in a lower realm.

So, if you’re concerned that somebody might not listen properly and might generate all sorts of wrong views, then again, it’s fine not to give it. The next one is:

Although people who are asking for the teaching are themselves fit to hear it, we infer that once they have received it they would in turn give it to others who are not qualified to listen to it, which would only do them harm.

So, somebody’s trying to get a teaching, and then they’re going to go off and teach it to somebody else who isn’t qualified. 

I remember on one of the tours with the monks, they had gone to one small town and done the medicine Buddha practice, so somebody from that town called me and wanted me to teach them the medicine Buddha practice so that they could teach it to all the other people there. This is somebody who wasn’t even Buddhist. So I said, “No, you need some more background, you need some more things. It’s not something that you come and learn, and then you become a teacher and you teach it to somebody else in that town. We don’t go about things in that way.”

I have a whole list of things that people have asked me to teach at one time or another, and sometimes it’s just the concern, “When is there going to be time to do it?” Choosing the proper time. And also considering what’s the thing that is best for these people to hear at a certain time, because they may request one thing, but you think something else is better for them to hear. 

I have a little note on my computer from you to teach the hand mudras and the Powa practice, and John wants me to teach how to set up an altar and to video it. So yes, I have all these things in mind, and then what do we do first? Do we not have this teaching so that we can do those? That’s what we have to live with.

I just was thinking one thing about the previous precept of not accepting gold and so forth, is to also consider what the person is giving you. If somebody is giving you something that’s unsuitable, like a weapon or poison or something like that, then definitely we shouldn’t accept. Unless they’re turning their weapon in because they don’t want to have it, in which case I don’t even want to touch the thing, I’d take them directly to the police and give it to them. Or maybe somebody is trying to get off drugs, and they pull out a whole bag of dope and give it to you. I don’t know, I don’t think I’d accept that one either, but I’d say, “Look, put it down the toilet, I’m not the proper recipient, the toilet is.” 

Audience: [Inaudible]

VTC: Oh, laundered money. Yes. So, you’re saying some people know that the money’s been obtained illegally. Not all the time, okay. If you don’t know, then you don’t know.

Audience: [Inaudible]

VTC: Right. That’s difficult. You’re saying there’s a lot of crime and that somebody could give you some money, maybe you’re selling your house, and they want to buy it, and you don’t know if it’s drug money.

Audience: [Inaudible]

VTC: Yes, very difficult. But here it’s saying if we think the money might have been obtained illegally, better not to take it.

Audience: [Inaudible]

VTC: Somebody once came here and offered you a leather purse and said, “Is this something that you could use?” and you said, “No,” and you’re wondering now if you should have accepted it and then given it away. I would say that because the person had the idea in their mind that maybe it wasn’t a suitable gift, that it’s completely fine that you said, “No.” In fact, it would have been very confusing if you had said, “Yes,” and then she later found out that it’s not suitable to give leather. 

I had the situation one time when I was visiting a prison in Mexico, in Morelia, and in the prison, they had a leather workshop. The guys were making things, and one of the inmates wanted to give me a leather purse. That one I accepted. Because he really wanted to give, he didn’t know anything Buddhism, he would have felt very hurt if I didn’t accept, so I accepted, and then I gave it for something. I can’t remember, I gave it to somebody or did something with it. But if somebody has the idea that this may not be a suitable offering, then it’s perfectly fine to refuse it. You say, “Thank you very much, I appreciate your good intention, but it’s not something I can accept.” 

The importance of understanding the precept

This point is worth examining closely, for when we are asked to teach, give a lecture, or lead a study group, sometimes it is not easy to know how to respond. The above complete checklist will help us find the right answer.

Of the seven secondary misdeeds that concern the practice of generosity, six consist of failing to do something that we should do, and one, the second, of doing something that we should not, maintaining our desire. Thus, misdeeds can arise from both action and inaction.

You see that most of them are actually not doing something that we should do.

The great master, Je Tsongkhapa, on the subject of maintaining thoughts of desire, said that the likelihood of finding ourselves in a situation where we feel a strong urge to act upon our desires is very high, and for that reason we often run the risk of committing this misdeed. Of the seven misdeeds related to generosity, the second is therefore the one which could occur most easily. We need to be especially watchful of it and from the outset resolve to guard ourselves from it. Given the numerous conditions needed to complete the other six misdeeds, and all the exceptions to them, we are much less likely to commit them.

That doesn’t mean we can ignore them, okay?

Knowing the secondary misdeeds can greatly improve and facilitate our lives. When we discover the material, we may at first have the impression that the opposite is true. There’s so much to learn about the precepts.

We might think, “Oh, it’s making my life so difficult.”

The topic is vast, and sometimes it seems that we will never be able to master it, but keeping in mind that they all concern very practical aspects of our lives will help. For example, we are invited for a cup of coffee or for lunch, or someone wants to offer us something and we need to respond. By studying the secondary precepts and familiarizing ourselves with them, we will no longer be in a quandary how to answer. Nor will we need to constantly be running to others for advice, for we will be able to determine whether or not we should accept the invitation.

When you really know the precepts, think about them, and refer to them when you need to make a decision, then you can reach something yourself. 

Furthermore, based on our knowledge of the vows, without hesitation we will be able to decide whether to accept or refuse a gift.

I think in many of these situations it’s really difficult. I was just thinking, let’s say somebody came and said, “I want to give you a diamond necklace,” and you’re a monastic. It’s like, “I want nothing to do with a diamond ring or a necklace,” but if you said, “Oh, thank you very much, I’ll use it for when we fill the Buddha statues, I’ll offer it,” then you could accept it in that way. Otherwise, if you accept a diamond necklace for yourself or a diamond ring for yourself, then when other people come along and say, “Oh, I heard my friend gave you a diamond ring, but aren’t you a monastic, are you supposed to have those?” 

Audience: [Inaudible]

VTC: It says that when out of laziness or sloth or forgetfulness, it’s a misdeed not associated with afflictions. That doesn’t mean that it’s not an afflicted state of mind. When it says dissociated from afflictions, in that context it means that it’s not one of these powerful afflictions, like conceit, anger, or resentment, but it’s still a misdeed. There’s still afflicted states of mind, but it’s not quite as heavy, because what’s going on in your mind isn’t some strong thing.