Auxiliary bodhisattva ethical restraints 1-6

• Comparison of worldly needs and spiritual needs
• How not to act on thoughts of desire
• Showing respect and making offerings to those who are worthy
• How to appropriately answer questions
• When to accept invitations and gifts and when not to accept them

Gomchen Lamrim 91: Auxiliary Bodhisattva Ethical Restraints 1-6 (download)

Motivation

Let’s begin with our motivation. All of us at the very depths of our heart, our sole wish is to be happy and to be free of suffering. Part of the problem is we don’t understand exactly what it is we’re trying to be free from. And we think that the suffering we want to be free from is the “ouch” kind of suffering that is noticeably, physically or mentally painful. We don’t think of our pleasurable experiences as unsatisfactory, so we don’t think to go beyond seeking them. In that way our life gets very involved with the eight worldly concerns and trying to control the external world and everybody in it. Whereas if we understand the three kinds of dukkha very well, we won’t cling onto the dukkha of change or the pleasant experiences in samsara. Nor will we cling onto having a body and mind under the influence of afflictions and polluted karma.

It’s very important when we say that we want to be happy and free of suffering that we’re not just thinking of the “ouch” kind of suffering but of all of the dukkha of samsara. And then to learn how to avoid creating the causes for that dukkha and how to create the causes for the kind of happiness that we want. The ultimate kind of bliss or a sense of fulfillment is that of full buddhahood. We want to aim for that not simply for our own pleasure and fulfillment. Our fulfillment, our bliss is a side product; but our main aim: we should try and make it to be compassion for others and wanting to develop our own capabilities so that we can enact the compassion that we feel for others and really improve their situation in a significant way. With this kind of attitude, let’s listen to the teachings on the bodhisattva precepts so we can learn how to create the causes of happiness and avoid the causes of misery.

Nonviolent communication, change, and happiness

When we think of that second kind of dukkha, the dukkha of change, which is what we ordinarily call happiness, isn’t that part of the meaning of getting a lot of our worldly needs fulfilled? I mean, our need for spirituality and transcendence, that’s something else. A lot of the other needs that are listed in Nonviolent Communication (NVC), when they’re fulfilled aren’t we uplifted by that second form of dukkha that we think is true happiness? So, we’re suffering from, let’s say, not being appreciated or not being acknowledged or not having control over our situation? As if we ever have control! 

And then when that suffering is great, it’s that first one, the dukkha of pain. When it gets fulfilled, that need gets fulfilled a little bit, so that the big suffering has gone down and the other one is going up, then we call that happiness. Now the question comes, because they usually say when that other one goes up at a certain point, it starts becoming suffering itself too. Does having your need for, let’s say, appreciation, or love or whatever, ever turn into something that is unpleasant for you? Having that need met, do you ever get to a point where it’s like, “Enough already!” It’s like, “I’ve got enough praise” and you feel uncomfortable with more praise, or you have gotten a lot of appreciation but more begins to make you feel uncomfortable.

Audience: I can think of like if your need for appreciation has been met but then at a certain point, your need for autonomy becomes strong, then that may become suffering of change because you no longer need somebody coddling you.

Venerable Thubten Chodron:  That’s an interesting point. That fulfilling one need can make another need unmet. Because you’re getting your need for appreciation met and somebody’s coddling you and then at a certain point, you scream because what you want is autonomy. That’s interesting, isn’t it? That [is] how maybe fulfilling one need to excess, can interfere with another need.

Audience: Could also be the case that if we get used to getting our needs met, there may come a time when we’re not able to. And then we experience pain and distress, because at that particular moment, we’re not able to fulfill that need.  And we’re used to doing that.

VTC: Right. And that’s because we’re so often seeking the fulfillment of our needs from something external to ourselves, which we cannot control or predict. And why the real fulfillment of the needs, just even on a conventional level, I think has to come from internally liking ourselves and becoming our old friends, and eventually abandoning those needs altogether. Because there’s no ‘I’ that needs them.

Audience: I think the way that you need to change also shows that it’s not like there’s this little image of battery cells inside me where you reach a certain point and it’s full and then it goes back down and it comes back up again, like you’ve kind of got a meter and you’re filling up a car. It’s kind of the needs change depending on the situation and it’s not these fixed things that we need all the time.

VTC: Say that last part.

Audience: This set of needs we have each day that need to be fulfilled, it’s so fluid, so changeable.

VTC: Yes, the needs that we’re most interested in fulfilling day to day change.

Audience: Yes, at that moment when we feel that they need to be fulfilled, they feel so solid and real, and I always feel that… 

VTC: Yes, definitely solid and real, quite definitely, and that we’re experiencing this tremendous suffering if they’re not met. It would be interesting to investigate when Marshall talks about empathy for ourselves if what he’s talking about there can be extended into learning how to fulfill our own needs. What came out when I was doing the course in Instituto Lama Tsong Khapa, I’m working with anger and NVC, it really came out how so much of our suffering is because of the self-hatred and low self-esteem that we have. That so much comes down to that.  Boils down to that in one way or another. And how that’s not something that can be steadily fulfilled from outside. It gets fulfilled to some extent from outside, but it’s not real fulfillment because we don’t really believe it inside. You can be full of praise with all sorts of people saying nice things about you but inside you feel crummy about yourself. So, there’s this constant grasping for more, and [getting] no satisfaction with it because the basic thing is to learn how to be our own friend and accept ourselves and get rid of this very noxious kind of self-centeredness.

Bodhicitta is the way to do it. I mean bodhicitta and wisdom realizing emptiness, those are the two things that are going to fulfill the needs by eliminating the needs, not by fulfilling them.  In other words. bodhicitta and the wisdom realizing emptiness say, “forget about fulfilling your needs, we’re going to eliminate the needs to start with,” which is actually much more freeing. If we don’t have the need and the craving and everything to start with.

Audience: I was wondering: can bodhicitta become a need?

VTC: Can bodhicitta become a need? I don’t think so. Because bodhicitta is completely oriented towards the benefit of all sentient beings. It’s not, “I need bodhicitta!”  How’s somebody else going to fulfill it? I have a need for bodhicitta. We could say that in our spiritual practice, “I need to develop bodhicitta,” but I don’t think it can become a need, like the need for creativity or autonomy or appreciation or things like that.

Audience: Can it come to a place where because of your understanding of interdependence, because of your compassion, you have a need, bodhicitta arises spontaneously and it’s a need. It’s a form of motivation, because the show also talks about how needs are actually what motivates you.

VTC: I think fulfilling our needs is what motivates us. Not the need itself. But I’m not sure I understand your question completely. Do you have a follow-up on your question?

Audience: Two things. One, the word that I remember Michelle using is that ‘need’ is another word that can be used for values. These are what we value and so this is what maybe fits into the motivation, we value these things, so we pursue them. I was thinking, for instance for me being away, I said some of my needs were met. And some of those needs, our needs like contribution or creativity expression. And I wonder, it seems like Buddhists would have a huge need or a huge urge or desire to contribute but with a very different motivation for doing it. I think that that’s the key: it becomes spontaneous rather than: “It’s not about me, it’s about you.”

VTC: Exactly. Exactly. And that’s the thing about bodhicitta. It’s not about me. It’s about the others because we’ve exchanged self with others.

Audience: What I’ve also read, when my need for respect is not met because I’ve spoken to someone in a terrible way, angrily, like an example of the mothers being so angry with the child because she’s scared that the child will hurt itself. And she felt really bad about it. I mean she has a lot of regret because her need for respect was not met, as in she has a need to respect her child. That was also the example that was given in Marshall’s book.

VTC: That you have a need to respect the child or is it more? Could you explain that some more? How is that a need?

Audience: I remember reading in his book that he talks about this mother wanting to come to his cause and then that morning the child was slow or something. The child was, I think, doing something that potentially would endanger the child and then the mother got really angry. Then after that she regretted it, how she spoke to the child, and then through the analysis what was identified was her need for respect, was not met as in she has a need to respect her child, to speak to her child kindly. And that was presented as the need for respect was not met.

VTC: I remember something like that in him explaining how to say sorry to somebody. I think it was in that context because he said, “You never say sorry.” You just say “I didn’t fulfill my own need to respect it.” But I think it’s more because Marshall is trying to put everything in positive language. I know when I don’t act properly and I feel bad about it, my need is actually to like myself and I haven’t acted according to my own need to live according to my values. I’m not saying all needs are bad, I mean a need to live according to your values, a need for spirituality, some of those needs are quite different than other needs. But this deserves more thought.

Audience: Is it the presence of expectation? Or the lack of expectations? The word “fulfilling a value” doesn’t include expectation–fulfilling a value to act in the right way, but without expectation.

VTC: Yes, I think expectations very often make a mess of the situation when we’re attached to the expectations. In a normal social interaction, we do have certain expectations. We expect people to say “please” and “thank you.” We expect people [have] common things, to be polite. There are those kinds of expectations. And then there’s the expectations of, “I expect you to fulfill all my needs.” Or, “I expect you to be whatever I want you to be.” And those really get us very tangled up. 

But even the ordinary ones, of expectation in ordinary social discourse, if we’re attached to those expectations, we get very angry when people don’t behave according to what we think are normal rules of social interaction. Those kinds of expectations you hold but you have to learn to be really flexible. Otherwise, you’re going to get angry a lot because we were all raised that being polite is very important, but what constitutes being polite is different for every person. So, we have to get used to people not always fulfilling our definition of what being polite is. 

Shall we go on to the bodhisattva precepts? I’m just making these comments because I think it’s good to look at what nonviolent communication, NVC is teaching, pull the threads out and see where does it correspond to Buddhism and where doesn’t it? Where is it thinking about just this life? Where is the need going beyond just the happiness of this life? So, here’s the whole thing: am I doing it for me or am I doing it for you?  

Auxiliary bodhisattva ethical restraints

We’re talking about the 46 auxiliary bodhisattva precepts. These are divided into groups according to the six perfections and then a seventh group specializing in the ethical conduct of benefiting others. We’re going to start out with the first seven of the 46 related to the perfection of generosity. 

1. Not making offerings to the Three Jewels every day with your body, speech and mind.

Physical offerings are bowing. If you’re sick, if you’re on the plane, put your hands together.  Don’t go prostrating down the aisle of the plane especially when they’re serving food. Speech is vocally saying something. Of course, if you’re keeping silence, maybe the speech thing is more saying it internally to yourself. And mind can be either doing the visualization or generating the appropriate feelings that the visualizations and the words and the actions are trying to get you to feel. 

Those are things we should be aware of every day and try to do. That’s why it’s very nice and in keeping with our refuge precepts when we get up in the morning, get out of bed and [the] first thing we do is make three prostrations to the Three Jewels. His Holiness says the first thing he does when he wakes up in the morning is to recite the Praise to Nagarjuna, usually the one I think that’s the Praise to the Buddha, that is in Nagarjuna’s Karikas; he recites that one.  

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

This one is really difficult. They say there are four aspects of desire of attachment. One is strong desire; one is dissatisfaction. To recognize when we’re dissatisfied, it’s because there’s a lot of attachment in our mind. Again, the unhappiness with the dissatisfaction is not due to not getting what we want, it’s due to having attachment for whatever it is we’re wanting.

The third aspect is attachment to material possessions. And the fourth is to praise and reputation. So,

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

This I think fuels (I don’t know about your life) but a lot of my life. So, I want something. Today I went back for seconds, there was one piece of tofu left. Venerable Jampa was also at the table getting some more soup and I went to grab the piece of tofu before she could get it. Even though I didn’t know if she wanted it or not, I made sure I got it first. Then I went to get more soup. It’s a small thing, but it completely fulfills the definition here. If that’s a small thing, then think of how many big ones we also do day to day to get the material things that we want.

Again, this is acting out thoughts of desire. When we go to get our lunch, we have to eat lunch, we offer the food, we say that we’re eating it to sustain our body. Not to make our bodies very muscular and athletic and not to make it attractive, we’re doing it solely to sustain our life. So going to get that food that has been offered to us, that’s not acting out of desire if our mind is in the right place. If our mind isn’t in the right place, then our bowl is full of all sorts of things that were served at other times when we weren’t eating that we collected to make sure we would get to eat that at some other time. So that would be an example of acting out thoughts of desire. We don’t eat in the evening but we made sure we take the food that was served in the evening so we could eat it at another time. So, the mind is still eating in the evening; the body may not be, but the mind is.

You switch rooms, how can I take the things that I like with me? We don’t take any of the furniture, but what exactly is considered furniture? This lamp isn’t considered furniture, I can take the lamp I like with me because it’s not furniture and put the lamp that’s in my new room in the old room so that somebody else can suffer with it. So just to watch how the selfish thoughts of desire come. And again, really focus on the big ones, we could sit there and kick ourselves forever about the small ones. Like the one about the tofu. If I sat there and got so mad at myself, “Oh, Chodron, got a piece of tofu. And you stole it from Venerable Jampa even though you didn’t even know if she wanted it. Did you want that tofu? Oh, shoo. Oh, I’m not guilty. That saved me three eons of guilt. She didn’t even want it. But I wanted it. And now my greed is just exposed and it’s terrible [with] food. I’m always so greedy for food! This is terrible! How could I call myself a Dharma practitioner if I’m so greedy for food? I think I better not eat ever again!” That doesn’t stop your greed for food!

The idea with these things is not to go into overdramatized, “hate myself-kick myself,” self-flagellation over some small thing, but look at the big ones that really mess up your life. The big ones that are going to bring conflict with other people. And in some cases, taking that lamp with you might be that thing. So just be aware. 

Like setting up your own empire in the meditation hall and your one little thing is not enough so you start to expand with two little trays, it’s the central one, then one on each side going the opposite direction. Then you need a nice, beautiful cloth to cover it. But your water bottle you can’t put on top of it because on the table there isn’t really space. So, you need more space to put your water bottle. And then pretty soon the person next to you has no space to sit down because your empire is expanding as if you were Catherine the Great. So those kinds of things could be very inconvenient [for] others. 

You go to teach somewhere, and you put your heart into teaching and then the people don’t give very much dana. “I went all this way and sat in that airplane, how many hours? And studied how many hours and they didn’t give me much dana!”  That can happen, can’t it? There I think the dana is symbolic of appreciation, what we really want is appreciation. The people usually give enough verbal appreciation. But we want some physical appreciation too, even though we give it to the Abbey, even though it’s not ours and we give it away. “For the Abbey’s sake, they should really show more appreciation!”  We have to watch our minds about that too. 

Then especially the one about praise and reputation; acting out thoughts of desire to get praise and reputation. We are so good [at] that, aren’t we? You want somebody to praise you so what do you do?  I remember when you were a lay person, and you had some new something and nobody commented on it. So you go, “oh, this junky old blouse, hint, hint, hint.” So that somebody says, “Oh, but it looks so good on you. It’s really beautiful.”  

Or just all sorts of ways of getting our needs for appreciation and love and respect and so on met; how we drop hints, how we praise people, how we know how to operate to get that. It’s basically selfish desire coming out of a mind that doesn’t believe in ourself which is related to a mind that thinks that we should be perfect. A mind that gets mad at ourselves when we aren’t perfect [is] a mind has low self-esteem. So, all that kind of stuff, it’s all coming together, it’s all different angles [of] that same thing. 

We try to get possessions, sometimes because it symbolizes respect and appreciation and so on and it’ll give us a good reputation, but sometimes for the physical comfort of it. Then the need for reputation and praise so that we’ll feel that we’re useful, we’re good. For some people they feel like unless I can do something I don’t deserve to be here. So, I better put out something that other people appreciate; otherwise, I don’t deserve to eat or to be alive or whatever it is; some kind of contorted way of thinking. That kind of stuff we want to really work on because that fulfills the definition of this. I just saw Mudita [the cat] walk up. She’s a good example. She’s quite needy, emotionally she’s quite needy. She’s sweet as can be but her neediness can sometimes drive you crazy. It’s a poverty mind of “I need this.” But whatever I get isn’t enough because there’s a feeling inside of ourselves of this empty hole and whatever is put in just leaks out, so we never get enough.

Audience: It seems like sometimes we’re just confused about our needs. We think we need respect; we think we need appreciation, and we really need self-appreciation like we were talking about earlier. I think a lot of our needs are that way. We’re confused about what we really need and we’re hitting all the wrong buttons.

VTC: Yes, I agree with you.  Number two is quite difficult, so we work at it slowly, gradually. We don’t criticize and clobber ourselves over the head. We confess when we transgress it. We work at it gradually and gradually improve.

3. Not respecting your elders.

Elders meaning those who have taken the bodhisattva precepts before we have or who have more Dharma experience than we do.  This is something that we transgress often out of pride. “I don’t want to show respect to somebody else because that means I’m less than that person.” That mind is always looking at things in terms of competition and rank. Where’s my rank with somebody else? Do they respect me? Do I respect them? Are we equal? There’s always this mind of comparison going on. 

That’s one of the filters that we filter our life through without even realizing it. Somebody else has some good quality or they get some recognition that we don’t, and our pride is injured. We get jealous so we don’t want to show them any respect, as if our not showing them respect made us better. It doesn’t make us better; it makes us worse. And learning to respect others is something that opens our mind to develop those good qualities. It’s so funny how we’re so self-sabotaging. Respecting others helps us, but we feel like it means we’re less then and that we’re getting penalized and we’re not so good. And then we grasp at more “I need more reputation. I need more appreciation.” Do you see how all this stuff gets, it’s all related, [it] gets quite messy and sticky. 

This is something in our ordination, you sit in ordination order. Some people really don’t like that, especially if you’re ordained later in life and you have to sit behind people who are younger than you. “But I have more life experience, and I’ve had a career and I’ve done this, and I’ve done that. I understand the world more than this nincompoop 20-something that’s sitting in front of me who thinks that they’re better than me because they got ordained two months before me.”  

Do you see how that mind is imputing all this stuff on the other person? And that mind’s whole way of relating to somebody is comparison in rank. So how often do we relate to other people? In other words, our whole approach to people is, “what is my rank with them?” “Am I better than them? Am I worse than them? Or am I equal to them?” And what bodhicitta is trying to do is, “Oh, there’s another sentient being who’s exactly like me.” Full stop.

You see the difference in just the basic way of relating to people? In the Pali tradition, when they talk about the four immeasurables they talk about metta or loving-kindness as cultivating that as our default mode of relating to everybody. Whenever we meet any sentient being, our default mode is loving-kindness, wishing them well. The mind that has difficulty keeping this third one is the mind where the habitual M.O. is, “How do I rank? How do I compare? Am I better? Am I worse? Am I equal?” And then, “How do I act towards them? Because I’m actually better but the system–the ordination system–says that they’re better. But actually, I’m better.” Do [you] know that one? “I should be sitting in front of them. They should be sitting behind me.”

All it is, is a place where you put your tush. We impute so much meaning to the place where we put our tush. Isn’t this an incredible example of imputation by mind, conceptualization by mind? And so much stuff in society is like this. If you sit at the head of the table, it means you’re more important than everybody else. Who said so? It’s societal convention. Is it reality? No. Where you put your tush, everybody puts their tush on the toilet so when it comes down to it, we’re all equal. We shouldn’t get so arrogant about where our tush goes in any particular situation.

Audience: So, I was very green, very young, just starting my career and didn’t really have much experience in the corporate world. And I was translating for a Spanish, (meaning from Spain) company. The director didn’t speak English, so I was his translator, and we went to this meeting, very big company. We get into the meeting room, and I was trying not to sit in the middle of the table, it was a huge table. So, I picked the end which I thought was the foot of the table, because this is a rectangular table. You don’t know which one is the footer and which one is the head. I was trying not to be in the middle of the conversation, I wanted to be on the side so that they could talk while I was translating on the side. Well, here comes the big boss of this organization. And I was told with very little consideration to get out from where I was sitting because that was the head of the table, and I shouldn’t be sitting there. Where you put your tush has to be on the right side of the table!

VTC: Yes, I had an even more embarrassing one. Going in for an interview with His Holiness with a small group of other people. As you come in there’s some sofas and chairs and they keep pushing you up the line to go there, and then be ready to sit down when His Holiness comes. So, I just walked to the end of the row. You know what happened? They were supposed to sit down, and I sat down, and His Holiness says, “I think that’s my chair.”

But a lot of these things about status? They’re things we’re so attached to. But when you look at them, you can see how they’re just created by conceptuality. Like the head of the table and the foot of the table and where you’re supposed to sit.

Audience: What makes it even more confusing is that there’s an assumption across the culture that everybody understands the imputations and the directions. Then you get put into a situation where you happen to not understand what the culture is even of a room of a company or a group of people. And that puts you in a more interesting position. 

VTC: This is that thing where we understand very well the culture and how we should be behaving but our pride does not go along with that. What you said is very true but that’s not an infraction here because there’s no grasping under reputation or arrogance or anything like that.  But this is just not showing respect to those who are worthy of respect which is a hindrance for us when we don’t do that. Then the question comes, how do you show respect? In each culture, there’s different ways of showing respect. So, you try and do it according to that culture as much as you can.

Audience: For me, this one happens very often, it’s my default mode. And what I think is happening is I don’t actually believe in my good qualities, so the confidence is not there. Then when you start doing this to boost what you think, to artificially inflate yourself.

VTC: Yes, exactly. I think you articulated that very well, that’s what actually lies behind it. 

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

Or answering them very sharply and ridiculing the person who asked the question, shaming them in some way, making them feel foolish; you’re deliberately doing that. Here’s somebody asking a sincere question and instead of responding sincerely (if we’re capable and we know the answer) our self-centeredness chips in and we ignore them. We ridicule them, we speak sharply, we do something, anything but politely share the information that we have. This applies to our daily life and just sharing regular information, but especially if somebody has Dharma questions, not sharing our Dharma knowledge because we’re jealous or we want to be the most knowledgeable ones so we don’t want to answer somebody else’s question because then their status might grow instead of our status. 

Dagpo Rinpoche talks about some exceptions for these. I thought it would be interesting to read what he says here.

Exceptions. We’re receiving teachings from our teacher, or somebody else is speaking to us about Dharma.

If we’re in that situation and somebody comes along and asks us a question, it’s fine that we don’t answer it. Especially if you’re in the middle of teachings and somebody whispers to you, then it’s not polite at all and you’re going to miss teachings yourself if you start a conversation with the other person.

If we’re teaching or explaining the Dharma seriously to someone,

and we’re in the middle of doing that and somebody interrupts with questions, if we don’t respond there’s no fault. Or,

if we’re trying to distract or console someone who is unhappy or facing a lot of problems.

We’re in the middle of trying to help somebody else. If somebody comes along and interrupts and asks us a question, it’s not a fault if we don’t answer it.  

There are also some exceptions where it’s better not to answer. For example, if it would upset the people that we’re with, or disturb others who are listening to the Dharma, or interfere with people’s spiritual practice. Or if our answering the question would provoke hostility in a large group of people.

You don’t want to incite a riot.

If answering the question would be inconsiderate for another teacher.

So, we’re disrupting what somebody else is teaching or we’re trying to draw attention to us rather than let the teacher answer the question.

Also, we shouldn’t do it if 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 the person to progress in another way.

If there’s some reason for not answering the question or some reason for not showing respect because it would be beneficial to the other person.

Also, if it would be contrary to monastic rules, monastic precepts or social codes.

This kind of thing applies to many of the secondary bodhisattva precepts.  In those kinds of situations, it’s better just to remain silent and there’s no misdeed.

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

Sometimes we look at this, we leave out the end part and we read

Not accepting invitations from others

“Oh, well, they invited me to the movies, and they invited me to the pub, and they invited me out to dinner, and they invited me to go shopping and they invited me…so it’s a bodhisattva precept, I better accept all those invitations!” No. 

Here somebody sincerely makes an invitation, “Like to come for lunch, Donna?” But we don’t want to go because we know the person doesn’t have a lot of money so chances are they’re going to serve us the kind of food we don’t like, and we would much rather go with somebody who will serve us very good food. So, we decline the invitation. Are you getting what I’m saying? 

I remember somebody just when they were talking about this, talking about gifts on Geshe Ngawang Dhargyey and saying that one time when they were traveling in India, there were some lepers who invited Geshela to come and eat with them, and he went. The reason that you accept people’s invitations are, if they’re asking out of faith and they want to create merit, if you don’t accept the invitation, you’re denying them the ability to create merit. Also, they’re inviting you because they want to learn the Dharma; if you decline and you don’t go, then they’re missing out on that. 

This is a situation where we’re in the position of being a Dharma practitioner. Somebody knows that they want to create merit and they’re inviting us for something. We think either the food’s not going to be good or “I don’t want to be seen with those people because they’re lower class and I’m upper class” or “I don’t like those people” or “I’m mad at them because of whatever happened 15 years ago” or “I’m too good to be seen with them.” Some kind of negative motivation then [we] turn down their invitation.  

Again, there’s exceptions here because people do get hurt if we turn down their invitations.  Especially if it is a sincere invitation, we should accept but there’s many exceptions.

If in the long run, it’s going to be more helpful to decline the invitation rather than accept it.

If for some reason you’re turning it down might make somebody think more deeply about their behavior or something like that.

If accepting the invitation interferes with your daily practice.

So instead of using this precept as a way to get out of doing our daily practice, “oh, I must accept their invitation,” actually we should decline the invitation if it interferes with our daily practice because clearly our practice is more important.  

Also, it’s okay to decline if it’s going to interfere with our attending a Dharma teaching, especially if it’s a teaching that we haven’t heard or that we’re not so familiar with or if it would prevent us from participating in a meaningful Dharma discussion.  Instead of going to the SAFE discussion, somebody invited you out for something. So, you accept, and you go. 

You can decline (the invitation) if it conflicts with monastic rules.

Either for us if we’re a monastic, or if the person who invites us is a monastic. For example, if there’s a single man who invites us out for a meal, it’s not going to look good, we don’t know who the man is and what the situation is, then we should decline. Having said that, when I arrived at Smith College there was a little bit of food in the refrigerator, not a lot. So, my friend who was the professor there said, “Let’s go out.” He asked other people to go too, but they declined so I wound up eating with him alone in a restaurant. But it was a crowded restaurant, nobody thought anything of it. And it was good because he, I think out of his compassion, ordered too much so that I had a lot of leftovers that would last the next few days. But ordinarily you wouldn’t go out just with somebody of the opposite sex for a meal at a restaurant, especially in a Buddhist culture where people would really go “what’s this person doing?”  

If accepting the invitation would upset a large group of people.

Then also we shouldn’t accept it. In other words, we should think what’s best in the long run.

Audience: I had read that one of the things that led to the Buddha’s death was he was invited by a poor man to eat at his house, and he also received an invitation from a very rich person that same day. Everyone told the Buddha “Don’t go to that first invitation, go to the rich man’s house.” I’m not sure who it was who told him that. But the Buddha of course said “No, I’m going to keep my initial promise.” And then when he went to the man’s house, the man served him mushrooms that ended up being poisonous, and it made him sick, and led to his eventual death. Is that story true? Do you happen to know that?

VTC: I’ve heard variations like that. The idea was that it was food poisoning that caused him to die. I don’t know all the other details about another invitation and all of that because I’m not well versed on all these stories, but I’m sure the Buddha knew what was going to happen anyway.

Audience: The exception “it would upset a large group of people.” What constitutes large and what’s small? I mean, what if it’s just a setting of one or two people?

VTC: Well, you just have to see. It’s the thing of using your common sense. If you accept an invitation and it’s going to create a big hoopla then it’s not like “well, if it creates a big hoopla for four people that’s okay, but for five people that’s too many.”  No, you’d use your common sense, I think.

Audience: What about if it’s an invitation from a person and, for example, I know I would be very unskilled, and feelings of anger might arise. I just know I would be really unskilled. How would I handle that?

VTC: Can you give me a clear example of a situation where that would occur?

Audience: I’ll give you a more generic one. I was talking with some friends who have been declining invitations with people they know who voted for President Trump. They just know it’s going to not go so well, and they don’t want to be in a state of anger [and] speak out. I’ll just state it like that.

VTC: Yes, that’s a good enough example. And it could go the other way too, that Trump’s supporters not accepting invitations by somebody who voted for Hillary. Either way it could go. I think we have to really look there. Are we sure that the conversation will go to politics? Or is there a way where we can steer the conversation away from politics? Because I remember when I was younger a lot of people, a lot of the students didn’t want to go home for Thanksgiving because their parents supported the Vietnam War, they were against the Vietnam War, and they knew what the dinner table conversation was going to be like. Do you accept the invitation or not? I think in that kind of thing, it’s also a call for us to become more tolerant and to not be so picky like, “well, I can only eat with people who agree with my ideas because the other people are going to give me indigestion. They’re going to make me lose my temper.” Nobody makes us lose our temper, we lose it all by ourselves. I think if you really know that you’re totally going to blow it and you can’t endure it and you know for 100% sure the conversation is going to be on politics and there’s no way to get out of it and there’s no way to change the subject to do something else, then maybe yes: because then you don’t want to create a scene at a family dinner by yelling and screaming at your parents. 

But having said that, there’s often ways to get out of situations. I was invited and I wanted to go to a Seder dinner in the West Bank. I went and it was fine for a while. The host who was a rabbi and we people who are clergy tend to talk a lot. Clergy talk a lot, don’t they? You’re used to giving a talk and people listening to you because you’re so interesting. It was a very nice thing, he invited me, I was a Buddhist, there was one Swami there who was Hindu, we were the guests, and it was very nice. And he got into pontificating and there’s this certain way that certain groups of people pontificate. It was late because these things last until like four in the morning. What I did is I got up and I went in the kitchen, and I helped the women clean the dishes. I was exempt from the women’s activities because I was a clergy guest. But all the women were in the kitchen, I was tired. I didn’t want to hear the pontification. So, I went in the kitchen, and I helped clean dishes. At family meals there’s always dishes to clean. There’s always food to serve. There are usually children that need to be played with. So, you can often excuse yourself from these situations to do something else. But if it’s going to interfere with your Dharma practice, then you can say, “Excuse me, I can’t come.”

Audience: Someone online is asking “As a lay person, is it okay to decline a family invitation to a birthday party for a child knowing it is going to upset the child’s mother, to attend a Dharma teaching?”

VTC: Yes. If there’s a special Dharma teaching that is important to go to, I think it’s okay to decline the invitation. You may not say to the person, “there’s this special Dharma teaching I’m going to” because maybe the person is a Buddhist, but you could say, “You know, I’m really sorry, there’s something that I made a commitment to attend a long time ago and, I have a commitment to attend that. I’m very sorry, I can’t come.” And when people get upset, what to do? 

But I think the main thing here is if somebody is inviting you, because they want to create merit and because they want to learn the Dharma, and you decline out of anger or something like that. I don’t think this precept is talking so much about just regular social situations where of course you have some freedom to say, “no, I don’t feel like going.” Your friends ask you to go out to the pub and you really don’t want to drink, and you say “no.” This precept is not saying that you’re obliged to accept every invitation. Because I think the precept is specifically not for a general social context, especially if people are inviting you to do things that you consider not a good use of your time.

Audience: Because I’ve been tripped up on this idea before in traveling as a monastic and people want to offer dinner, it’s the only meal they can offer. Generally, I try not to, I’m not that strict about it. But generally, I keep that precept of not eating in the evening. So often I’ve accepted the invitation, thinking just that they’re trying to make an offering, but it’s always been a little uncomfortable how to think about that. 

VTC: Yes, well, that’s very clear, because here it says if it’s contradicting a monastic precept, it’s fine to decline. Or you can say “bring some broth for me and bring dinner for you.” But I don’t know about you, I cannot go to a social event and then give a Dharma teaching afterwards. That doesn’t work at all. But if you’re keeping your precepts, it’s fine to say, “I’m sorry, I don’t eat in the evening.” I know one monastic who sometimes eats, sometimes doesn’t and she really started not to eat more in the evening because she was getting so many invitations and she just felt it was not a good use of her time to be going out because meals take a long time.

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

Here again this situation is, I think, one where somebody really wants to be generous and we’re not giving them the opportunity to be generous. This could be in a Dharma situation; somebody wants to create merit by giving, and we deny them; but it could be I think, in a regular social situation too. Some people love to be generous; they take so much delight in giving other people things, and if we don’t accept it denies them that delight. So, we should accept things. Here it’s specifying money, gold and other precious things. That’s especially for monastics because we’re not allowed to touch those things according to our pratimoksha precepts. But here it’s saying to give the other person the opportunity to be generous, then it’s fine to accept those things. However, we should not be attached to them. It shouldn’t be that somebody gives us a gold Rolex watch which we then put on and proudly display. That wouldn’t be very good. 

One of the exceptions is,

There’s no fault in refusing the gift when we feel that accepting it would strengthen our attachment.

So very clearly if somebody is going to give you something that you’re attached to and that you feel would strengthen your attachment, it’s fine to decline it. Other things that are exceptions are if we suspect that the person may later regret having given it or if we think that actually the gift is meant for somebody else and they confused us with another person, we can decline it. If we’re concerned that the other person really can’t afford to give us that gift, and it’s going to really hurt them financially, then we should decline it, it’s actually better to do that. Also, if we think that it’s something that has already been offered to the Three Jewels or been donated to Buddhist statues or to the Sangha and somehow the person got it. Maybe they took it without asking or maybe it’s something like when they loot monasteries. It was happening a lot after the Cultural Revolution, looting monasteries, and then these antiques showing up in Hong Kong and being sold for exorbitant prices. It said, don’t buy something like that that has been looted from a temple, but then other people think if I can buy it and return it to the temple, then that would be good. 

Also,

We shouldn’t accept things if we think they’ve been stolen or the donor is giving them because they extorted the other person or harmed the other person in some way to get the thing that they’re giving to us, or if we think that somehow the donors may get criticized for giving us this gift or be harmed in some kind of way.

Those are also reasons to decline the gift. But especially, I think if we think that it’s going to increase our attachment or our distraction or whatever. 

I remember years ago when I was leaving Italy, that one person who didn’t have much money. She wanted so much to give me something, she gave me her watch; I knew she needed it and I knew she didn’t have a lot of money, so I didn’t accept it. What I’ve learned subsequently to do is, because she really wanted to give it, is to accept it, and say, “thank you very much and I also want to create merit so I’m going to offer it back to you. Please allow me to create merit too and accept it.” I’ve learned that that often works much better because the person does want to give, and they want they’re gift accepted. And they do create merit that way and then, I also want to create merit, and I really want them to have it because I feel that they may suffer in some way, or it may be something that they’re very attached to that afterwards they’ll really miss, so I return it in that in that kind of way.

Audience: Two questions from one person. First is, are there specific meditation techniques to help lessen our expectations and our attachment to our expectations about social interactions? 

VTC: Can you give me some examples?

Audience: I’ll wait, I’ll let the person…And then the second question is, while it’s important to respect more advanced Dharma practitioners, is it also important not to glorify them?

VTC: Depends on what you mean by glorify. If glorify means to raise them to the status of a god or a king or queen, of course not. If it means somebody is worthy of respect, we should show them respect. The word “glorify” I’m not sure… maybe the person who’s asking could tell me what they mean by glorify. Give me some examples that might help me.

Audience: He’s given examples of the first question. About trying to lessen our hopeful expectations to avoid disappointment about social interactions.

VTC: Somebody else’s expectation?

Audience:  Your own to avoid disappointment. 

VTC: To avoid the disappointment, realize that your social expectations are based on attachment. If you’re expecting to go there and be treated in a certain way or receive certain gifts or have such a good time, that’s all motivated by attachment, isn’t it? And you develop this fantastic scene in your mind about how happy you’re going to be meeting that person and then the person shows up and they’re in a bad mood, or they have a stomachache and your big balloon just goes “pop”. We’re the one who created the balloon due to our attachment, if that’s the kind of thing that person is talking about.

Audience: He says “fair enough.” And then for glorify, he said, “exaggerate the achievement or abilities based on someone’s title.” 

VTC: I want to ask you, is it ever good to? What were the exact words, exaggerate somebody’s ability or exaggerate their achievement based on their title? Is exaggeration ever something that’s good to do? No. Exaggeration has no place in Buddhist practice. We should be honest and direct. If you’re with somebody and you feel like they need a lot of glorification then maybe look at who you’re hanging out with.

Audience: I was reading a story at one point about a master who was meditating in front of a hollow tree and people would come and give him offerings. He didn’t need anything except something to eat once in a while so he would just accept it and put it in the tree. And when people came by, he would just reach in without looking at what it was and give gifts all the time.

VTC: Yes, that’s exactly what you do. And we do that a lot. In Singapore people bring so much stuff. It’s wonderful because we get to give it all away to other people. Somebody comes and gives you something and the next person who comes, you give them something or you offer [it] to the Buddha, or you take it to the temple for everybody to enjoy, it’s nice. You receive things because people take delight in giving and then give it away or you put it in your suitcases and give it to people at the Abbey. You’re laughing, you’re not carrying the suitcases! 

Audience: I’ll share something that happened when I was in Singapore some years back. I was trapped there because I had a visa problem. And then one day I went to the temple to find Jessie. And there was someone who knew me from my volunteer days at Sunday school who was so excited that day. They were like, “Oh, please, please, can we offer lunch?” I didn’t know her very well, so I said, “Okay.” I went for the lunch. They were very kind, with a lot of faith, and made this beautiful meal. And in the middle of the meal, she said to me, “I think my son might be gay, please pray that he’s not.” And at the moment, I just was like, “I can’t eat this food.” My liberal reflexive response, “What?”  It was really good training because I had to calm down and really try and understand where she was coming from and empathize. Also knowing your position as a monastic, she’s looking to you for what is the Buddhist perspective on this.

VTC: Yes. 

Audience: It was quite hard, but it helped me understand why this is part of our training, really to accept invitations with anyone who wants to make that merit if I can.

VTC: Right. We have to accept it and we have to know how to skillfully reply to people who may have very different values or opinions than we do because they are looking to us for spiritual advice. There was one person who came with that kind of question about their child. Their daughter was a lesbian. They were wondering should they go to the marriage? And I said, “Yes, your daughter’s happy and she loves somebody. Go! Rejoice that you have a child that’s happy.” And actually, the mother felt quite relieved as I remember; she felt very relieved when I said that. 

When you’re in the role of a monastic, sometimes you really have to learn to think quickly on your toes: how to respond to different situations, how to keep your precepts, how to follow social etiquette, [and] how to conform to expectations of Sangha and a particular country. And also, how sometimes to teach people how they should treat Sangha because they don’t know. It’s all part of our training to do this with a completely even mind.

I remember some time ago I went somewhere in the south and some people were greeting me outside. Then I went into the building and other people were greeting me. I can’t remember whether it was inside or outside, but one of the places people were offering khatas and, “So nice that you came and here’s a khata and flowers,” and then the other place, whether it was inside or outside, just “Hi!” And it was the same group of people, the same center, it was the same center. It’s just two groups of people one inside the house, one outside who greeted me in entirely different ways. And just learning, however it is, that’s the way it is. And you just accept it. 

Audience: My experience recently was that people with such a good heart wanted to do things correctly and wanted to show respect. And when people met me at the airport with khatas I just freaked out, I just wanted to look the other way. And I didn’t accept them, I didn’t put them over their heads. I just said, “I don’t do khatas.” And it was awkward. It was awkward for me, and they probably felt like their gift wasn’t accepted, but it felt totally inappropriate. And I think there’s often a mistake and understanding of who really is an appropriate recipient for offering khatas and who’s not. There’s probably no clear dividing line.

VTC: Actually, I think it’s completely appropriate if you’re going there to teach them, they offer khatas. If you feel uncomfortable putting it over their heads, you can just hold their hands. Often the Lamas do that too, they don’t put it over your head. They just hold your hands, and you keep the khata. So, you can do like that. 

Audience: The other thing that made me squirm was they had special dishes for me. And I thought “This? No, this doesn’t work!” And they said, “well, they’re just teachers’ dishes. They’re not Lamas Zopa Rinpoche’s dishes. They’re just dishes for the teacher.”  

VTC: Yes, when I went to Russia, the real reason I was making that face was the dishes at the retreat center. They looked like dishes that the Russian royalty would eat off of. Seriously! They had gold edges, and painted flowers, intricately painted dishes with gold on them. And I said to [them], are there any simpler dishes around? And there weren’t. And this is what they wanted to serve us on. They served casseroles on those dishes too. And we invited some of the people to have lunch with us. They also ate on those dishes. I was flabbergasted, it was like “get me away from this,” but this is what they wanted to do, and they didn’t have anything else. So, you eat like that. Some places give you the teachers’ dishes and then the next place you go they give you chipped cups. Seriously, plastic plates and chipped cups. 

What to do? People are trying to show respect, so you want to be considerate. If it gets over the top, I remember Geshe Yeshe Tobden, when he arrived at Palmyra and we had these fancy Italian plates, and at his first meal, he said, “take these away and bring me plastic.” He was a real renunciate, he didn’t care whether people were offended by him not eating on the plates or not.

I know the Theravadas have some things that they put out, “Care and feeding of your Monastic.” I’ve seen the booklets and it’s very helpful for people to know what to serve, when to serve it, who should serve it, and stuff like that. We tend to be a little bit more flexible about many of those things. But then other things we aren’t so flexible with. There’s no real book, booklet; and people want to do what’s right. I think it is suitable for them to show respect to somebody who’s teaching the Dharma, it’s not about you as the teacher.  It’s not about you as a person that something is so special about you. They’re showing respect to the Dharma. Let them do it. If it’s over the top, then you could say… I mean like these gold dishes. 

But what I did get out of it was I didn’t have to use the teacups because I like bigger mugs so there were some mugs with just flowers on them that were much simpler, dime store mugs. So, I got out of the dainty teacup with the saucer, and didn’t have to use that. People are coming from a good place. The thing to protect against is you accept this once and then you start expecting it at the next place you go to. But as it so happens with Dharma in the West, the next place you go to they give you a chipped cup and old plastic plates, so you just get used to it. It’s not about me, it’s something to eat on. And that’s it.

Contemplation points

Venerable Chodron continued giving commentary on the bodhisattva ethical code, which are the guidelines you follow when you “take the bodhisattva precepts.” Consider them one by one, in light of the commentary given. For each, consider the following:

1. In what situations have you seen yourself act this way in the past or under what conditions might it be easy to act this way in the future (it might help to consider how you’ve seen this negativity in the world)?
2. From which of the ten non-virtues is the precept helping you to restrain?
3. What are the antidotes that can be applied when you are tempted to act contrary to the precept?
4. Why is this precept so important to the bodhisattva path? How does breaking it harm yourself and others? How does keeping it benefit yourself and others?
5. Resolve to be mindful of the precept in your daily life.

Precepts covered this week:

To eliminate obstacles to the far-reaching practice of generosity and obstacles to the ethical conduct of gathering virtuous actions, abandon:

• Auxiliary Precept #1: Not making offerings to the Three Jewels every day with your body, speech, and mind.
• Auxiliary Precept #2: Acting out selfish thoughts of desire to gain material possessions or reputation.
• Auxiliary Precept #3: Not respecting your elders (those who have taken the bodhisattva precepts before you have or who have more experience than you do).
• Auxiliary Precept #4: Not answering sincerely asked questions that you are capable of answering.
• Auxiliary Precept #5: Not accepting invitations from others out of anger, pride, or other negative thoughts.
• Auxiliary Precept #6: Not accepting gifts of money, gold, or other precious substances that others offer to you.