Chenrezig

Chenrezig (Khensur Rinpoche)

Chenrezig

Play Episode Pause Episode

1x

00:00 /

RSS Feed

Share

Link

Embed

<blockquote class="wp-embedded-content" data-secret="eTnfYqWxe0"><a href="https://askbuddhism.com/teaching/chenrezig/">Chenrezig</a></blockquote><iframe sandbox="allow-scripts" security="restricted" src="https://askbuddhism.com/teaching/chenrezig/embed/#?secret=eTnfYqWxe0" width="500" height="350" title="&#8220;Chenrezig&#8221; &#8212; AskBuddhism" data-secret="eTnfYqWxe0" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" class="wp-embedded-content"></iframe><script> /*! This file is auto-generated */ !function(d,l){"use strict";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&"undefined"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!/[^a-zA-Z0-9]/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret="'+t.secret+'"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret="'+t.secret+'"]'),c=new RegExp("^https?:$","i"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display="none";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute("style"),"height"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):"link"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute("src")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener("message",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll("iframe.wp-embedded-content"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute("data-secret"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+="#?secret="+t,e.setAttribute("data-secret",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:"ready",secret:t},"*")},!1)))}(window,document); //# sourceURL=https://askbuddhism.com/wp-includes/js/wp-embed.min.js </script>

Audio recorded at Tibetan Buddhist Institute, Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.

About this talk. In this 61-minute teaching, Geshe Jampa Gyaltsen provides detailed oral instruction on the 18 root downfalls of the Bodhisattva vows, drawing extensively from Nāgārjuna’s Letter to a Friend. He explains why ethics forms the foundation for spiritual development, then systematically examines each downfall — distinguishing which require all four binding factors to be broken and which do not. He covers practical cases: praising oneself or demeaning others to gain donations; abandoning or turning others away from full enlightenment; teaching emptiness to those unprepared; and criticizing lower philosophical schools. Throughout, he emphasizes that downfalls arise from mental intention but many require physical or verbal action to be complete. The closing minutes clarify the distinction between tantric empowerment and subsequent permission for Avalokiteśvara practice. Pitched at practitioners who have already received Bodhisattva vows.

As Ārya Nāgārjuna says in his letter to a friend, the Suhṛllekha, the presence or the absence of ethics defines whether there are qualities or not just as the ground. And the meaning of these two verses is that just as in worldly affair, the presence or the absence of the ground is what underlies everything else. Likewise, ethics is indispensable for the development of qualities. Now generally speaking from a mundane standpoint, we speak of qualities whereas in a dharma context, speak of benefit or virtue. More greater part of ethics focuses on non virtuous deeds of body and speech.

Then, when one counters these deeds, one generates virtues. Virtues are the opposite of those. So we have three categories of vows. Pratyamoksha vows, bodhisattva vows, and tantric vows. And they are increasingly they’re objects of abandonment and what one must protect oneself against is increasingly more subtle as one progresses upwards in the vows.

And it is more difficult to protect these vows. Then obviously, once one has realization, it is not particularly difficult, but at present, since we don’t have it is a bit difficult for us. So we must develop our minds and this is for instance what leads to the Bodhisattva vows and higher. So what one must protect against in the root Bodhisattva vows are the 18 downfalls. So within the Bodhisattva vows on your handout, the first ones are probably those we engage in with the greatest facility.

Then the latter ones perhaps less and there are obviously some as we said which are not terribly related to us at present. Now within the 18 Bodhisattva vows as was mentioned to the ninth and the eighteenth do not require the presence of the four binding factors to be broken. The remaining 16 would require the presence of all four binding factors to be broken. Now the two vows which lead to root downfalls, these are the four binding factors of the eighteenth, relinquishing bodhicitta and the ninth, wrong views. In the case of relinquishing bodhicitta, all that is required for relinquishing aspiring bodhicitta is to generate the strong resolve within oneself, I shall not work for the welfare of one given person.

That is sufficient. At that point, one has abandoned or relinquished bodhicitta. Regarding the ninth root downfall, wrong view, views, the reason for which disbelief in causality, in other words that a cause leads to an effect which is a similar type to itself is a root downfall is because in dependence on this view, one would think that the practice of bodhicitta does not lead to the accumulation of great virtue, it becomes void. Then the majority of the 18 root downfalls are related to non virtuous deeds of body or speech. Some however are related to mental non virtuous deeds.

If you analyze them, you will understand. Which ones are mental? I suspect it’s related to body and mind. That’s related to body and mind. Because one has to actually say something regarding one’s turning away from full enlightenment, otherwise who would know?

The two you gave, the ninth and the eighteenth are unrelated to verbal or physical non-virtuous deeds. In other words, wrong views and, relinquishing or abandoning aspiring bodhicitta are neither physical nor verbal deeds. Are there other downfalls which are neither physical nor verbal? Very good, you know. It’s through this type of reflection that you will understand.

It’s very good. That’s related to speech, isn’t it? This thirteenth vow does not refer to an interior abandonment of a liberation, but refers to saying to someone else that they should abandon liberation. And? Yes, why not?

So here, when we speak of downfalls which are only or exclusively mental, these are the dangerous ones because they are very easy to commit. Then the physical or verbal downfalls are more difficult to commit. Must engage in physical or verbal action for the downfall to actually occur. When you’re talking of motivation, So when we’re speaking of a physical When we are speaking of a physical or verbal downfall, this is a downfall which obviously arises from a mental intention, but to be completed needs a physical or verbal action. There’s two components in there.

There is on the one hand the reaction of the other party and then there’s the anger which arises within our self. However this may be, the two we engage in the most easily are the two first downfalls. Praising oneself, excuse me, or debasing others and not giving dharma or wealth. But for them to lead to a complete downfall is difficult since the four binding factors are necessary. In your opinion, of these 18 downfalls which is the easiest for you to commit?

Is there some reward for you? Is there some benefit for you in praising yourself and blaming others? What’s the short term there? Maybe for yourself? Who’s going to believe if you say I’m more holy?

So these practices of get of ethics get more difficult when one moves upwards from an ethics which is an abandonment of the 10 non-virtuous actions as they call for greater and greater qualities. The sixth root downfall abandoning dharma is one which is very dangerous for us and easy to engage in. If for instance we were to say to a practitioner of the Hīnayāna, there is no liberation based on the Hīnayāna alone. We would incur the downfall of abandoning dharma. Now as far as tenets are concerned, it is a very delicate and dangerous topic to criticize lower schools of tenets from the standpoint of higher schools of tenets even though there might be defects.

For instance, if we take Prāsaṇgika Mādhyamika as a base and relying on Candrakīrti’s Madhyamakāvatāra, we criticize lower schools of tenets saying what they assert does not exist. It is to be examined whether this is abandonment of dharma or not. This is a basis for reflection for yourselves, to, study and to think, well, if one says something like this, it is dangerous. One might abandon dharma and if one says that, it might be dangerous as well. Then what questions are there?

Do you have questions? The reason for which is put in the eighteenth place is because once one has generated bodhicitta, it is rather difficult to abandon or to relinquish. It’s not easy to abandon. The remaining 16 vows are broken if all four binding factors are present. The eighteenth vow does not require the four binding factors.

I ask this because I thought the first or second root vow is lighter than the eighteenth one. You know, the 18 is the the heaviest. Is it true? Yes. Why not?

It’s a way to look at things. Number 12 Geshe-la, is that only causing someone else to turn away from full enlightenment or is it thinking yourself? I cannot reach full enlightenment. So, this is a good question. Let us take my own case.

I have bodhisattva vows, then let us assume I were to say to Chris, well, look Chris, I mean forget about full enlightenment, it’s gonna take forever to reach. Why don’t you focus on something practical like liberation and you’ll get it in no time and then you can relax at ease in bliss. When Chris is a good student, listens and does that, then the vow is broken. Then, if you ask at this point, well, who has broken root Bodhisattva Chris or myself? Then I’m the one who has Bodhisattva vows and who turned Chris away from full enlightenment.

So I broke the root vows. Then for Chris, there’s no certainty because it’s not because one is a Mahāyāna practitioner that one has Bodhisattva vows. Mahāyāna There practitioners who have taken Bodhisattva Vows and Mahāyāna practitioners who have not. Then if Chris has Bodhisattva vows as well, then he has definitely broken his Bodhisattva vows. He has broke or performed the root downfall of the eighteenth vow abandoning aspiring bodhicitta.

Do you understand? It’s not difficult to understand, it’s quite easy to think about. When Geshe-la gave the example of in debate from a point of view in saying that a position put by a lower school is asserted, how does one avoid both refuting at the same time not breaking that vow? Then, what to say? Basically, if we debate from the standpoint of Prāsaṇgika Mādhyamika and we refer to the passage in Madhyamakāvatāra in which it is said that those passages in which Buddha says one can attain liberation through relying exclusively on the Hīnayāna alone.

Does one abandon Dharma or not? Everything hinges on one’s motivation. If the motivation is bad, yes. So just to clarify then, if the motivation is to get to the truth of the matter rather than to repudiate the person or somehow bring them down. But is that constitutes a pure motivation?

Yes, that’s a good motivation. That is the motivation. Then just as with the question regarding the twelfth root downfall, turning away from perfect enlightenment. Likewise, for the eleventh root downfall, teaching emptiness to the untrained. If one teaches emptiness to a receptacle which is of dull acumen and cannot understand emptiness and as a result that person abandoned the great vehicle and enters the vehicle of hearers or Pratyekabuddha, oneself would have incurred a root downfall.

My question is actually about that very one, number 11 within the context of, for example, leading an introduction to Buddhism class where emptiness is presented, albeit very brief, it’s impossible to know the acumen of the recipients. And it is possible that hearing about emptiness they may be afraid. So how is it, how can one avoid that downfall in that context? So for this root downfall to occur, first oneself must have Bodhisattva vows and then in addition one must actually understand emptiness and be able to explain it. Otherwise, downfall will not happen.

Hi, Geshe-la. My question is related to vow number nine, wrong views. You mentioned in the morning the definition of wrong view is disbelief in causality and the past and the future lives rooted in reasons. Why the second components rooted in reasons is a part of the definition? It’s sorry, please.

So the ninth verse refers to someone who asserts that past and future lives for instance, do not exist based on his own reasoning. Someone who is a dyed in the wool materialist like Lokāyata of ancient India, who would say you cannot see past and future lives. Therefore, they do not exist. Obviously reasons can be correct or false reasons. Here these are false reasons.

In brief, the ninth vow or or the ninth downfall, wrong views is a downfall one incurs through tenets, through philosophy. Sorry, I just got a second question related to the same vow. Simply having doubts doesn’t constitute a breach of that wrong view vow. For them, in other words, those who don’t have Bodhisattva vows, it makes no difference whether they believe in past and future lives or not. They cannot break vows they do not have, but for us who have Bodhisattva vows, if we doubt the existence of past and future lives, it doesn’t break the vow.

Do you understand? Really? Well, the seventeenth downfall is one which we probably would find difficult to perform. We are not at that level, but it would concern for instance advanced meditators. Then someone who is engaged in Dhyāna or in training in calm abiding.

If we were to go to that person and say you should stop meditating, Here are some texts you should study and for instance not feed them unless they did this. Then we would incur the downfall. Lily? Regarding the first downfall, praising oneself and debasing others, the commentary and explanation of the three precepts based on sūtra alone says, I should have put us up the vow holder for his own sake through desiring specifically a donation. As Geshe-la, could you please elaborate on for his own sake and through desiring specifically a donation?

So the meaning in Ngawang Pelden’s commentary of for his own sake is for himself. And the donation? So here donations refer to things such as money and so forth. So here donation in Tibetan refers to monetary donations but also to respect and that sort of thing. Just on the first one, praising oneself, we often talk about in the West there’s a lot of self-deprecation and I wonder if self-deprecation, could one substitute depreciating oneself if the motive was to get something from somebody else.

That person must have bodhisattva vows first, right? So the first vow applies to a being who has Bodhisattva Vows and then in dependence on these vows engages in behavior to get donations. There are such people. So you’re saying basically so with a bad motivation you deprecate yourself and you deprecate others as well. So you first have to have the vows then obviously the question here is the motivation, the motivation for deceiving people basically.

Natalie? Yes Geshe-la, given that quite a number of the vows are ones that I wouldn’t even be able to engage in at the moment because I’m such a poor student. For example, number 11, teaching emptiness to the untrained. I couldn’t break that vow because I don’t know how to teach emptiness. And other vows such as destroying cities for example, I don’t have the power to do that.

So given that, what advice do you have Geshe-la for us in terms of developing each of these vows in our mind streams? The way to look at it is that in the future you will get this capacity. It will come. At present, it is not there. So, these words refer to the future.

So why they first of all, list first, you know, that like because it’s I’m I’m questioning because of the whether we do the first downfall very easily, the downfall, at least first. Yes because we engage with him. I read that Lama Zopa talked about the tenth root downfall destroying cities and he cited a particular city in India which was being destroyed by rubbish, by the dumping of rubbish by the inhabitants. He drew a link between failing to protect the environment and failing to hold that vow purely. What do you think about drawing a link between failing to protect the environment and destroying cities?

So we have received Bodhisattva vows which are necessary to engage in the study of the practice of Avalokiteśvara. Then in our own case, we have received a subsequent permission, a jenang for Avalokiteśvara, but strictly speaking, we should receive an initiation, an empowerment to practice it. Then, we have received a mere subsequent permission of Avalokiteśvara, a mere subsequent permission of body, speech and mind. Then in our own case, since we have not received an initiation or an empowerment of Avalokiteśvara, but merely a subsequent permission. It is not necessary for us to engage in the practice of generating the five aggregates as the five lineage Buddhas.

And therefore, our practice is simpler. So the distinction between subsequent permission and initiation or empowerment is that for an empowerment, one must have received the initiations of the five lineage Buddhas. And in addition, one must engage in self generation and have received the tantric vows. This is not necessary for a subsequent permission. So do you understand that present the distinction between a subsequent permission and an empowerment?

A subsequent permission is a permission given by the guru who bestows it to meditate on the mere body, speech, and mind of the deity. Whereas, an empowerment or an initiation enables us to meditate on the five aggregates as lineage deities and so forth. So we shall stop here for today.