Day Two: Sunday 6th December
Going for Refuge with Eyes Wide Open
Summarized by Lhundup Damchö
Emphasizing the
importance of understanding what our sources of refuge are, His
Holiness provided concise explanations of the various ways that each
of the three jewels is identified in the Listener-Disciples’
Vehicle, the Mahayana and the Vajrayana. Moving on to the topic of
fear and faith as causes that lead us to generate refuge in the
three jewels, His Holiness commented that while the fear that
motivates us to seek refuge is basically fear of suffering,
nevertheless there are different understandings of suffering, and
different forms of suffering that might be feared. He then deftly
mapped out the sorts of fear that induce practitioners in different
vehicles and of different capacities to take refuge in the three
jewels. For example, lam rim teachings following divide
practitioners into three types, according to capacity, the lowest of
which is moved to seek refuge out of fear of suffering in future
lives, and especially the fear of falling into the three lower
realms, of animal, preta and hell beings. At the very least, His
Holiness said, to generate sincere refuge in the three jewels, we
should have a concern for the sufferings that await us in the lower
realms.
Nevertheless, His
Holiness added, even if not all who consider themselves Buddhists
are yet at the level of this lowest scope of being, the Dharma
itself is able to address people at whatever level they are when
they encounter it, and offers a path to support us all in our wish
to progress from there.
His Holiness further
discussed the way to take refuge, underscoring that refuge is not
something we simply receive from the outside, as if we could go to a
lama and he could hand us refuge. Rather, we need to make the
determination within ourselves to strive for our own liberation and
omniscience.
Describing the way to
receive Dharma teachings, His Holiness took up the image of a vessel
free of the three faults—of having holes in it, being dirty or being
placed upside down. He managed to take this analogy, well known to
many Dharma practitioners, and make it come suddenly alive and
replete with new meaning—another characteristic feature of his
teaching style. His Holiness assigned the audience the task of
examining for themselves whether their minds were worthy recipients
for the pure Dharma. We ourselves must take steps to ensure that our
minds are suitable vessels to hold the Dharma, he said. We must
actively work to remove any stains in our minds, and see to it that
our minds are sound, and held upright to receive and retain the
Dharma offered.
Going to attend the
teachings of a high lama casually, as if we were going to an
ordinary, everyday event, is a sign we are not properly valuing the
Dharma. Nor is it adequate to simply sit, nonchalantly extending our
plate for whatever might be dished onto it, His Holiness said.
Instead, we should go to teachings with a deep hunger, and eagerly
hold up the empty bowl of our minds to receive the nectar of the
pure Dharma.
Turning to the topic of
the study of philosophical views, His Holiness cautioned against
allowing a partisan or bigoted attitude to develop for the
particular school we each follow. For the Dharma to truly serve as a
source of benefit and happiness for sentient beings, it is essential
that we maintain a sense of the inner harmony among the different
Buddhist schools. His Holiness commented that since he himself had
been given the name of Karmapa he had a particular responsibility
for sustaining one particular lineage. Yet he stated that he thinks
it important to study the views of other schools and compare them.
In general, His Holiness urged those present to study the views of
their own and at least one other school, to have a comparative
understanding of two schools.
In general, His
Holiness commented, our aim in engaging in activities of study,
contemplation and meditation should be for the benefit and happiness
of others, not to become scholars ourselves or to gain a reputation
as learned. The knowledge we develop should not be a sort of
ornament that beautifies us and earns us the admiration of others,
while others remain with comparatively less. When we gain a jewel,
our wish should be to offer that jewel to others, so that it may
beautify them. Thus the purpose of our study should be to share what
we have gained with others.
Speaking directly to the hearts of those present, His Holiness said
that his thinking of late is that in essence refuge entails opening
our eyes. We need to open our eyes to reality, and to look around us
and see the suffering and the happiness of others directly. Opening
our eyes of wisdom as well as our physical eyes, we need to see
clearly how that suffering arises. With faith and confidence and
eyes wide open, once we see that suffering and are moved to do
something about it, then we can fully go for refuge. If we are
simply closing our eyes and repeating the words of the refuge
formula, we may just be going from one ignorance to another, from
one form of darkness to another.
Day
Three: Monday 7th December
A
Dharma Vast Enough to Include the Whole World
Summarised by Lhundup Damchoe
His Holiness the Gyalwang Karmapa today tackled a number of complex
debate issues, clearing the way for the examination of the main
topic of this year’s winter debate teachings—the way for one person
to keep all three types of vow. At the same time, he emphasized that
the optimal Buddhist practitioner is one that does hold and preserve
all three types of vow—pratimoksha, bodhisattva and tantric.
First, Gyalwang Karmapa explored the major points of contention that
arise in defining and classifying pratimoksha and bodhisattva vows.
Some texts mention traditions of conferring pratimoksha vows
according to the Mahayana textual tradition, and His Holiness, who
is fluent in Chinese and conversant with the Chinese Buddhist canon,
noted that the Chinese canon preserves a number of texts that
describe how to do so. By contrast, he pointed out, the Tibetan
canon contains only scattered references and instances of such
ritual texts, an example of which would be the Mahayana sojong vows
offered each morning during the Kagyu Monlam.
Following the text, His Holiness moved on to a discussion of the
ways the different types of vow are conferred, and how they are
cancelled or lost. He stressed that taking a higher type of vow by
no means
cancels the lower vows. After receiving higher vows, we still need
to observe and guard the lower vows as part of the discipline that
is the foundation of all our practice as Buddhists. The teachings
this week
have as their aim to clarify the relationships among the vows and
to help us understand how to proceed when conflicts arise among
them.
Tibet became a place where all three of the major forms of
Dharma—the foundational Buddhism of the pratimoksha vows, the
Mahayana and the Vajrayana—were transmitted and preserved, His
Holiness observed. They were maintained in Tibet not merely in their
outer appearances, but were actually implemented through serious
inner practice, and thus were able to flourish in Tibet.
Nowadays, this is so not only in Tibet, but wherever there are
people practicing Tibetan Buddhism. Since the Dharma that flourished
in Tibet has now spread throughout the world, it can rightly be
called a worldwide Buddhism, Gyalwang Karmapa stated. Because of the
richness that comes from preserving all three vehicles and offering
teachings suited to people at a wide variety of capacities, this
Dharma is
highly inclusive. In this way, a wide range of people are able to
practice the Dharma that flourished in Tibet.
Ethical discipline offers us a common foundation on which we can all
base our practice. We should avail ourselves of the various types of
vow that the Dharma offers us, the Gyalwang Karmapa urged, not
simply taking those vows but also guarding them fully, from refuge
vows onwards. To become a Buddhist implies much more than just
getting a new name, or in the case of monastics, new clothes and a
new name. We need to know what it means to be Buddhists and we then
need to implement that in our behavior and in our very beings, he
said.
For example, among the refuge vows, we have the precept that
stipulates that once we have gone for refuge in the Dharma, we
should abandon harming others. This vow to cease harming others is
not
limited to beating them physically or abusing them verbally. It
includes the inner aggression or hostile thoughts we may harbor
towards others. If we do not work to abandon such thoughts and
attitudes, they simply fester within us and at a certain point, they
will overwhelm us and lead us to act harmfully. If we think that we
are not aggressive simply because we do not behave aggressively
toward others, we
should look at what is in our heart, to see how our thoughts are
oriented and ask ourselves whether we are nurturing hostility and
aggression towards others. It is crucial that we do so, and that we
continually work to correct whatever faults we find within us, so
that all our thoughts become wholesome and beneficial.
When we speak of ‘practicing’ the Dharma, His Holiness explained,
the term ‘practice’ in Tibetan has two components, one indicating
‘experience’ and the other indicating ‘taking.’ When we gain some
experience in our lives, we should take that into our hearts and
into our practice. Gyalwang Karmapa gave the example of the people
begging at the stupa in Bodhgaya, many of whom are desperately
hungry, some lacking limbs, lacking their faculties and others
unable even to speak out to ask for help. When a feeling of
compassion arises upon seeing them, we should not leave this as a
momentary experience, but should actively take this experience into
our practice, he advised.
His Holiness observed that we may feel that we simply have an
aggressive personality, and console ourselves with the thought that
we were just born that way. But if we resign ourselves to having
such
faults, we will never take the steps needed to change. On the
contrary, by familiarizing ourselves with the reasons that we do
need to change, many more possibilities for transforming ourselves
do open
up, starting by taking the refuge vows and training within them, and
later taking up the other forms of discipline. We cannot expect the
Dharma to work if we simply say at the very outset that, “I am going
to be enlightened quickly and become a Buddha,” and then go about
collecting tantric initiations. Rather, we need to begin by
eliminating our non-virtuous actions. This can happen only when we
ourselves make an effort, and take the responsibility to work with
the afflictions in our own minds. It is for this reason that we
first take pratimoksha vows, and only afterwards the bodhisattva and
then tantric
vows.
If we do not thus proceed in stages and in the right order, His
Holiness said, it is like attempting to lift a huge boulder without
first training ourselves gradually in preparation. If we are not
careful, the boulder could end up landing right on top of us. Among
all that Buddha taught, His Holiness said emphatically, there is
nothing that we are not capable of achieving. We just need to look
within ourselves to determine what our capacity is at the moment,
asking ourselves what vows we are actually capable of holding and
observing, and taking only those. If you do not do so, there is no
other way to reach enlightenment. We should know that we do have all
the basic capacities we need; we just have to proceed step by step
in the practices suited to our abilities.
Day Four: Tuesday 8th December
How Discipline Becomes Pure
Summarized by
Lhundup Damchö
In today’s teaching,
His Holiness moved deep into philosophical territory, exploring a
range of positions on the nature of vows.
The main question
raised was whether the three types of vow are one in nature or
distinct. His Holiness’ skills in debate were much in evidence as he
pitted the positions of the Vaibhasika school, who identify vows as
a particular type of physical form, against that of Shantideva, who
describes vows as the resolve to abstain. Gyalwang Karmapa further
surveyed the views of major Indian scholars as to precisely how the
vows co-exist within a single person at the same time. Turning next
to presentations by Tibetan scholars, he decisively refuted the
stance of the great Sakya scholar Jetsun Drakpa Gyaltsen, who holds
that the three vows are one in nature but the lower vows transform
when the higher vow is taken. His Holiness further tackled a second
Tibetan view that maintains that the lower vows become parts, or
aspects, of the higher vow. Adopting the position staked out by the
Seventh Karmapa Chödrak
Gyatso, he demonstrated the fallacy of this view, on the basis that
if lower vows were parts of higher vows, then actions damaging the
lower vows would render the higher vows incomplete. After
establishing that these opposing views are untenable, His Holiness
clarified that the Kagyu tradition follows Gampopa in understanding
that the three types of vow are separate in nature, and that the
lower vows do not transform when the higher are taken. Rather, he
emphasized, when we have taken all three types of vow, we remain
responsible for observing and guarding all three of them.
Gyalwang Karmapa
spoke of three types of discipline, each based on a different
motivation. One form of discipline is grounded in fear, and His
Holiness noted that the vinaya contains many accounts of people in
India seeking monastic ordination out of a wish to escape punishment
by the king. A second type of discipline is motivated by the hope or
wish to be reborn in higher realms in the future, and the third is a
discipline based on renunciation of cyclic existence itself. Not
only is the third form of discipline superior to the other two, His
Holiness said, it is the only authentic basis for holding the vows.
Illustrating this point, he related the story of the Kadam geshe,
Geshe Potowa, who had already taken monastic ordination before he
met the layman Dromtonpa, heart disciple of the founder of the
Tibetan Kadam tradition, the great Indian pandit Jowo Atisha. Upon
seeing Dromtonpa and receiving instruction from him, Geshe Potowa
underwent an intense experience of renunciation, and, consequently,
although he had already received his monastic ordination from
another teacher, Geshe Potowa declared that Dromtonpa the layteacher
was his abbot—that is, the preceptor who had granted him his
monastic vows—because it was from Dromtonpa that he had received his
first genuine experience of renunciation. It was this renunciation
that transformed his monastic discipline into the third type of
discipline—pure discipline that is based on renunciation. In that
sense, Dromtonpa merited the title of abbot even if he did not
preside over the actual ceremony conferring the vows.
Day Five: Wednesday 9th December
How to Handle Conflicts Among the Different Vows
Summarized by Lhundup Damchö
Following yesterday’s debate-style discussion of the various
schools’ views on the three vows, His Holiness began by commenting
that it is crucial that we have a clear understanding as to what our
own position is and what that of others is. When we sketch out a
range of positions, Gyalwang Karmapa noted that sometimes people get
confused and begin mixing the view of our school with that of
others. The great scholars of the past composed treatises that
explore crucial points, refuting others’ views and establishing
their own, in order to make clear for us the reasoning behind their
position. He observed that such texts often begin by defeating the
views of others, and may do so using what can strike us as harsh
speech.
If we find ourselves put off by the strong language scholars use in
negating the views of others, as we study these texts it is
important that we bear in mind what their purpose was. When we read
the compositions of the Eighth Karmapa, for example, when he argues
powerfully against others, we need to keep in mind that the point is
to cut through wrong views, rather than to find fault with others.
Such debates were waged among great scholar-yogis who stated their
positions strongly with the motivation of spreading the teachings,
for the benefit of all sentient beings. Sentient beings have various
attitudes and aptitudes, and so we need different presentations, and
thus it is appropriate and in fact necessary that the Dharma offers
a range of views.
His Holiness cited the example of Lama Tsongkhapa, the founder of
the Gelugpa school, who argued that the monastic discipline in the
Sakya school had degenerated. This resulted in heated debates
between the Sakya scholars, Gorampa and Shakya Chogden, and Lama
Tsongkhapa and his followers. Yet it is utterly mistaken to conclude
that these discussions were driven by competitiveness and pride, for
these are great lamas who are free of the influence of such
afflictions and who have high realizations of the Dharma. Indeed,
Lama Tsongkhapa’s comments sparked a revival of interest in vinaya
study and practice. As such, Gyalwang Karmapa said, we can see that
these vigorous debates injected vigor into the Dharma and thus
helped it to remain fresh and to spread in Tibet. Therefore it is
most appropriate that we view those who initiated and participated
in such debates with respect.
Returning to the discussion of vows, His Holiness went on to comment
that both those who hold the upasaka, or genyen vows
of lay practitioners and those who hold higher monastic vows are
sustaining the teachings of the Buddha. Just as a well-constructed
house needs four pillars, the teachings of the Buddha are built
around the four pillars of upasakas, upasikas, (male and
female holders of lay precepts) and bhikshus and
bhikshunis (in Tibetan, gelongs and gelongmas, or
fully ordained monks and nuns). Among
the monastics, the two communities that are considered senior or
supreme are the bhikshus and bhikshunis. Among the lay followers,
the highest are the male and female holders of lay precepts.
When all four are present, the house becomes stable. His Holiness
stressed that the presence of all four is indispensable in order for
the Buddha’s teachings to remain long and flourish. He added that
such topics would be discussed further in the upcoming vinaya
colloquium that also forms part of this year’s winter debate
session.
Continuing the topic of various communities that contribute to the
Dharma, His Holiness turned his attention to lay followers, and
addressed a wide number of ways that lay Buddhists can deepen their
commitment by taking precepts to become upasaka, or genyen.
In doing so, lay Buddhists will find there are many benefits, and
they may also consider that they are receiving vows that come from
the Buddha and are maintaining the discipline that is the foundation
of the Dharma. Gyalwang Karmapa described 100 different types of
upasakas, ranging from those who observe only one vow for a
limited time up to those who vow to a life of celibacy and
abstention from the ten non-virtuous actions. With such a variety of
options, he noted, we can see that the Dharma offers many
opportunities for people to proceed gradually, committing only to
what they can actually maintain.
His Holiness further broached the issue of conflicts among types of
vow. For example, in a situation where our bodhisattva vows require
us to engage in certain actions to benefit others that are
prohibited by our pratimoksha vows, the higher vows take precedence.
Throughout the discussion, His Holiness re-affirmed that we still
need to hold all our vows as strictly as possible, but that this
counsel applies in those cases where direct conflicts among vows
arise. At the same time, Gyalwang Karmapa pointed out that if, for
example, a bhikshu is in a situation where his higher vows will lead
him to engage in actions that might harm the faith of laypeople if
they were to see a bhikshu acting in that way, he must first
offer back his lower vows, and only after that, engage in the action
— as a layperson rather than as a monastic.
In general, His Holiness said, we may be more flexible in our
application of the bodhisattva vows than we are with our pratimoksha
vows. This is in part because when we take bodhisattva vows, we
agree to hold them until we are enlightened, whereas the pratimoksha
vows do not continue after this present life. Moreover, the
pratimoksha vows are primarily concerned with actions of body and
speech, whereas the bodhisattvas vows ask us to discipline our mind
itself. It is far easier to restrict our actions of body and speech
than it is our mind. Thus to ensure we will have the courage to take
and then actually hold the bodhisattva vows all the way until our
enlightenment, more leeway is granted. However, in the case of the
pratimoksha vows, taken only for this life and aimed at subduing
our bodies and speech, we are required to observe them strictly.
In any case, His Holiness said, the advice that we should act in
ways that contravene our pratimoksha vows in order to uphold our
bodhisattva vows only applies to actual bodhisattvas, who truly know
what is most beneficial for others. It does not apply to ordinary
beings like us, who just happen to have taken bodhisattva vows.
Gyalwang Karmapa proceeded to paint in vivid terms just what
qualities bodhisattvas possess. First, he said, bodhisattvas are in
no way controlled by their afflictions, but act purely out of an
unbearable sense of compassion for others. If it will serve the aim
of benefiting beings, bodhisattvas will descend into the most
painful hells as happily as if they were plunging into a lake, but
only if it contributes to the well-being of others. A bodhisattva
holds the different vows deep within his or her being and acts
within the vows to benefit others. A bodhisattva has skill in
deploying different means to benefit beings. A bodhisattva is able
to anticipate how people will respond to his or her actions. A
bodhisattva understands who will benefit from which action, and does
not engage in actions that benefit a few but are detrimental to a
larger number. A bodhisattva needs great courage, His Holiness said,
adding that bodhisattvas are rightly referred to in the texts as
‘heroes.’
Gyalwang Karmapa concluded the day’s teachings by reading from one
of Milarepa’s songs that stresses the importance of knowing what we
need to put into practice and what we need to give up. His Holiness
added that we also need a clear sense of what we want to accomplish
with our practice. Otherwise, we may study for twenty years but,
when it comes to knowing what to apply in our actual practice and
what to avoid, we find ourselves at a loss. It’s as if having spent
a great deal of time thinking and talking about food, we arrive in a
restaurant and can’t figure out what to order. In the end, the
purpose of our Dharma practice, His Holiness stated, is to pacify
our mind. It is what we do on the inside that counts. The point is
not to wear our Dharma practice on the outside, like an actor
putting on a new costume, but to actually transform our own minds.
