Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 46-minute talk, Geshe Dhawa Gyaltsen examines where root vow violations lie, focusing on five ‘close’ heinous crimes: harming Arhats, killing ordained sangha and bodhisattvas, misappropriating sangha donations (with the concrete example of money pledged but later reclaimed), and destroying sacred places. He devotes substantial time to wrong view—arguably the easiest root vow to break and the most damaging, as it spontaneously produces non-virtue and uproots accumulated merit. He reflects soberly on wrong view’s danger at the moment of death. He concludes with three types of ethical discipline: abstaining from non-virtue, cultivating virtue, and benefiting sentient beings. The Q&A explores edge cases, including questions about kinship and whether killing an Arhat-parent incurs patricide or Arhat-slaying. For practitioners grounded in Buddhist ethics.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 06 FoP.mp3
UUID: b6de43f2-33c4-43b2-8814-e50264468291
Teacher: Geshe Dhawa Gyaltsen
Collection: Foundation of Practice (Geshe Dhawa Gyaltsen)
Date: 1996 (exact day not recorded)
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 45.7 minutes
Words: ~2,634
If you happen to, like, help shape your teacher’s head here, then suddenly if the blade cuts and makes a wound and if it causes a causes bleeding, then that is not one of the crime because he is a crime because one doesn’t have, what is it, the intention or the motive to to kill. So She was saying back in India, like, don’t have the the machine, So they have to use the razor to shave their head. So when they use that, it happen it they they get cut in the head. So, these are things which is important for us to know. And they are also the close, known as the five close Hinius Crime, also which is not mentioned here, but the alternate one.
So those are the five close heinous crimes known as, which is explained in the Abhidharma Kosha text, which says the first one is that harming Arhats whether they are male or female. The Arhats are, if it’s an Arhat then they are always ordained person, male or female. And if one is to disturb them, then one receives one of the close five. So so then next, the closing is crime, which is killing bodhisattva or the masters and and the sanghas? And and then next is stealing the the things that which has been dedicated to the sanghas.
So this one with us, it’s it’s more likely happen to us. So, like, for example, that in the beginning, let’s say now, that one generated some level of renunciation and they make some offering. For example, like a hundred dollar to to to a monastery with our with our sanghas. So so then one so sorry. One thought first to offer that that hundred dollar to the sangha, to the to the monastery, to the sanghas.
But then later on one change one’s thought and uses that money for oneself. Then that is one of the close crime, heinous crime which is, how do say, robbing the belongings of the Sangha. So so before you you do any of these actions, for example, offering to the sanghas, one has to think very carefully, like the choice is complete upon oneself before making the dedication or offering it to the sanghas. And once it has been dedicated or been offered, then if you take it back, then one receives this, what is it, this breaking of the close heinous crime, one of the heinous crime. So then the fifth one, which is destroying stupas, one thing, like that which represents Buddha’s body, speech, and mind.
If one is to destroy one of these, then one might also receive one of the crimes, heinous crimes, which is known as the close one. So he’s just saying that in the text, it’s not not very clear. But if if one happened to commit one of this one of the five close heinous crimes, he’s not saying he don’t think so. He don’t think it is breaking one the root vows like the five heinous crimes which are explained in the text. So one will receive some of the faults of doing that, but doesn’t receive the full, what do say, faults of breaking the full root vow.
So so then the next one, which is the fifth one, I quote in the text, it’s the ninth one. That is holding wrong view. Yeah. So then this one holding the wrong view which is also most likely for us that it’s easy to have a wrong view for us which once it’s very easy to happen to us. And once we have a wrong view, then So in order to break this file, you don’t have to have completed many of the branches.
Just having the wrong view itself easily commit like breaking one of the root vows. So, wrong view is recognizing the opposite. Such as like the wrong view, example such as the karma, the cause and effect doesn’t exist. So which which is saying that there’s no refuge object. There’s no Buddha.
Not only saying it, but, like, coming it from the depth of one’s heart. And then that is known as the wrong having a wrong view. So, which wrong view, which something that which exists, but but but then telling it doesn’t is what is known as holding a wrong view. So what falls that we will have if one have this wrong view or how the wrong view functions as is that it stops one from accumulating virtue and secondly, it spontaneously makes one commit non virtuous action. Plus it also uproots all our collections of virtues together with its imprints.
But there’s listen. There’s no one happier than the person with wrong view. So which we think that’s no worry for that person with a wrong view which even if he or she to do many negative actions, no regret at the end of the day or don’t have to put any effort like us that collecting the virtue and abandonment virtue in that part. So the one with the wrong view is the, I would say, is the happiest one or without any worry. So a person with with the wrong view need don’t need to practice Dharma.
And even if he or she do many negative actions, it doesn’t matter for that person. So so then so then gradually when the person that person with the wrong view grows up and and it’s it’s a time for him or her to face the death. And then at that time, he or she then retracts and, like, pulls and grabs to its heart and chest. So so once one when one faces that stage, when one is in that stage, then even if if he or she to shout or cry for help, it’s already too late and by crying only makes more worry to the close ones. So for us to, it’s very easy that we might have this view, the wrong view.
So we have to be very careful with this one. So so also being being a Buddhist, one shouldn’t also, one should not, what to say, say the other religious refuge object doesn’t exist or other religious liberation which they explain doesn’t exist. One shouldn’t have this wrong view. Every religion they are like their own refuge object and there are different precepts that they keep and also they explain their own liberation. So unless one have a direct understanding of everything then it’s different matter but unless one one don’t have this direct understanding of everything, one shouldn’t, what to say, one shouldn’t have this wrong view which saying that they are that doesn’t exist in a way.
So especially, I’ve been saying that with this one, this wrong view, we have to be very careful. Such as saying myself, I wear the robes and I follow my religion and it’s possible like me telling which is this religion that I’m doing is the best and the others are not good or it’s just, what’s it, which is just imputed or labeled and it’s nothing. Deprecate. Yeah. So, it might happen even for me like that way.
So, we all have to be very careful with this one. So we go to the next one, the sixth root vows, and then we stop there. So the sixth one, the sixth root vow that is destroying places. So the place is more like a was it town or or this cities? Sorry.
Town and and next one, city. So these places are, how to say, explaining four kinds which town and city and the province or the district and countries. So, like these different places here. So so, yeah, any of these places with with the intention to destroy those places and and and destroying these places. So That’s an example.
For example, say that if one becomes a leader of a country, if one is a Buddhist and becomes a leader of the country and and if one tried to rule others others other countries and try to destroy other places, then then one receives, what is it, the fall of breaking falls of breaking this root So as Australia itself is very, what to say, peaceful country. It has no, what to say, troubles. As if it happens that Australia like a it throws a bomb to another country and if the other country, like some villages have been destroyed, then in that action, we shouldn’t rejoice in that action. And more that’s one likely that it might happen to us that we might rejoice in that. And and and, again, like, not getting involved in those, you know, like, those where they have meetings to destroy different places or countries.
So if one happened to involve in the meetings and making the plans to destroy those other places, then again, once when the action is completed, then you’ll see this false breaking the root vows. Yeah. That is a three. So, Geshe-la, we’ll stop here. He was Geshe-la, he was thinking of completing all the thirteen, but Yeah.
That’s. So if you if you have any question, you can ask. So those are three moralities. The first one, integrating the morality of integrating the virtue. So the first one sorry.
So the morality of the first one is abstaining from abstaining from, what is that? Abstaining from doing the doing things which is contrary to the to the vows. So for example, if one have taken different vows for the the those who are lay, those are the lay preceptors who are taking the lay preceptors of the eight precepts are what is known as the vows that one need to keep. Yeah, there are the vows that one need to keep. The that’s the morality morality of keeping the vows.
Yeah. So so those who who haven’t taken the lay vows for them, like, abstaining from vow of abstaining from ten non virtuous actions are like, yeah, are the one. The vow of keeping, the vow that you take to, the morality of morality or the power that you keep. Yeah. And then second one is like a morality of integrating the virtue.
So so then that next one, that that is the quality of integrating gochu, which in the in the text it says like practicing the six perfections. Those are the examples. But generally it’s all the boju’s that one practice is the morality of integrating virtue. And then the third one is the morality of, say, working for the sake of morality of benefiting other sentient beings here. So so the way of benefiting other sentient beings as last time, Geshe-la explained.
That’s like twenty one ways of benefiting other beings. So which is the third of benefiting other things. That that is the the morality of benefiting other things. Uh-huh. Second one, what was that?
Can you repeat again? And then So these are the one is like killing Bodhisattvas and then the second one, killing masters and sanghas, count as another one. Which one? No. No, you just split these two.
The second one. Yeah. The third one. Yeah. So these five close heinous crimes, what is that, are very close to becoming the other five major crimes which is like killing, let’s say, Arhat.
It’s coming very close to almost committing one of the major ones. So each one of the five, it’s very close to committing the major ones, the five major ones. So, but it doesn’t mean one committing these close one doesn’t mean that one is breaking the root So, like, generally, like, killing humans are not regarded as a heinous crime, but especially, like, pointing out, like, killing father or mother is regarded as a heinous crime? So the reason why the parents are like, killing parents are regarded as a heinous crime is because in this life, the most kind the most kind one towards us is our parents. So of those up to two parents, even the mother is more kind.
Mother is one who has given more kindness to us. So in this way, that these two, like, the parents are like, killing parents are regarded one of the enemies crime. The sperm of the father goes into mother’s womb, and say that you take out the embryo then both the sperm and the blood, and put it into another mother’s womb. And then that mother gives birth to a child. And that child grows up and if the child kills that one, that mother, is it does that becomes as a heinous crime or not?
So which one is the with the real mother? Mother? The the one who who gave birth or one where the the sperm and blood is got from? Which one? No.
Which one is the He said, usually, you are the one who asks questions to Geshe-la. He’s the one who answers your questions. So, yeah, that’s that’s right. That’s how it’s regarded. And also, the real mother is the one who from whom the sperm and the blood came.
That is that way, who who brought that is the the real mother. The other one is the other one is regarded more like the nanny. So so the the mother who who kept the baby and and kept the bird, that one, if that baby killed that mother doesn’t receive the full negative act of killing the mother, which is one of the heinous crime. And another again. So another doubt might arise also, which is, like, say, whether it’s our own father or mother, either one.
So so then so either either one of our parents, he he or she does the practice on the path and gradually he or she achieves the state of Arhat on that life. And then once they have achieved that state of Arhat, and if you happen to kill parents, is it killing parents or is it killing arhats? Which one is that? Why? Why it’s not killing mother or father?
So it’s it’s not both because that’s why it is like No. This crime which is counted two separately. One is like killing parents, like father, mother, and then separately, it’s counted killing. So it’s it’s murder, but that that crime is known as it becomes like killing an arhat. Yeah.
So, I mean but the reason Sukhir is not completely right. It’s not just changing into arhat. He said even that arhat, when that person achieves the arhat state, even if it’s a fully ordained monks, you can still call father or if it’s fully ordained nun, you can still call mother. So that was a story that he is and said he will explain here that from come, the family was father and son. The son was already a monk.
And the father took the son, the monk, to Sarah and came to the And also the father became a monk. Took the robes there. So once the father had taken to the ordination and became monk, then his son to call him father, the father becomes, I wanna say, embarrassed. He he he becomes it’s got a little bit shameful and becomes embarrassed. So so that when the all the monks gathered together for prayers, like thousands of monks, and then the son was very little.
And suddenly in the crowd, the child shouted father, father. So while they’re in the puja, the father, the dad can’t do anything. And when he got back to to the house, to the home, then the dad said, like, beat him up. Why you calling me father? So