Some people assert that we can attain enlightenment without abandoning samsara or delusions while working for the welfare of sentient beings.  If we hold this view and encourage others to think the same, we incur a secondary downfall.

It is quite a popular misconception in society to think that Bodhisattvas do not strive to escape from samsara, but they instead seek to remain within it so that they can help living beings get out.  The belief is quite similar to the idea of Shepherd-like Bodhichitta, which is the idea of a shepherd who tends to their flock and only once all their flock is safe do they themselves get to safety.  It is like the Captain of the Battalion who is the first man on and the last man off the field of battle.  Such an attitude is sublime, and there are some very profound Highest Yoga Tantra ways of practicing this type of view, but ultimately it is not the most compassionate mind possible and is in fact karmically impossible to accomplish.

It is not the most compassionate mind possible because what happens if the shepherd is killed before all his flock is safe?  For example, it is only once we are in the life boat ourselves that we are in a position to help others get up into the life boat.  If we drown, then all those who are not yet in the boat will drown with us.  The popular misconception is based on a false belief that once we attain liberation or enlightenment we are somehow incapable of coming back to save people.  This is completely wrong.  Once we become a Buddha, we can send countless emanations out into the world of beings to help people along.  From the safety of the pure land, we can help everyone for the rest of time.  But if we remain in samsara ourselves, we are always in danger of being swept away and all the beings who we otherwise would have helped if we had escaped will continue to suffer.  It is not karmically possible to be the last one out because our compassionate mind of cherishing others will swiftly bring us to enlightenment whether we want to attain it or not! 

Understanding that king-like bodhichitta (the wish to attain enlightenment first so that we can rescue all others) is the highest mind, there is a danger, however, that our self-cherishing can hijack this Dharma fact and use an internally insincere application of king-like bodhichitta as the rationalization for our self-cherishing of putting ourself first.  We should never underestimate the ability of our delusions to hijack our Dharma understandings for their own deluded purposes. 

So how do we protect ourselves against this danger?  The answer is simple.  We go about our life from the perspective of shepherd like bodhichitta, always putting others first, serving ourselves last, etc.  But when it comes to our formal practice we use king-like bodhichitta.  For example, when we engage in our formal practice or go on retreat, we are, from an external point of view, not helping other people.  We could be using that same time to help other people, and it can seem selfish to go off to meditate or to go on retreat.  This is particularly a problem for parents, especially when the partner in the relationship is not also a practitioner.  But if we spend all our time out “helping people” and we don’t create any time for our formal practice, then our ability to actually transform our mind will remain quite limited.  The reality is sometimes we can transform our mind at a deeper level when we are in meditation than when we are out engaging in activities.  The more deeply we meditate, the more deeply we reprogram our mind, which then filters up into all our other activities.  So even if it creates some tension with our family or partner, we should make a point of taking the time to engage in our daily practice and to engage in retreat, and we should ask our partner to respect that this is the only thing we ask for in our relationship and we would like their support for this.  They may be unhappy about this at first, but if they see that over time after you do your formal practice or after you go on retreat you come back more loving, more patient, more kind, and more serving, then eventually your daily practice and your going on retreat will become a priority for them.  Then, there are no problems and everything gets easier.

Acquiring wealth or fame through wrong livelihood. 

Geshe-la explains if with a selfish motivation we behave as follows we incur a secondary downfall:  (1) we resort to dishonest means to acquire wealth, praise, respect, etc., (2) we pretend to be outwardly good, but subtlety hint that we need others possessions for ourself, or (3) we give small presents in the hope of receiving larger presents in return.

It was explained earlier how there is nothing wrong with wealth, power, or fame.  In and of themselves, these things are neutral.  It is our motivation for using them that determines their value.  Backed by a good motivation, these things can in fact be quite positive.  It is possible that we could have the opportunity to acquire these things and our motivation for wanting to do so is pure and virtuous, but we would need to engage in some negative actions in order to acquire these things and we could find ourselves in a moral dilemma.  Basically, do our virtuous ends justify our non-virtuous means? This vow answers that moral dilemma.  The answer is no, they don’t.  Even if our motivation for acquiring these things is pure, if we have to use non-virtuous means we shouldn’t do it.  It is better to lack these resources but maintain our moral discipline than it is to have these resources but sacrifice our moral discipline in the process. 

The concrete examples of the different ways we can do this are too numerous to enumerate.  It suffices to look at Geshe-la’s explanation above of the three types of instance where we incur a downfall and test it against our own contemplated action to know if we are making this mistake.  One very simple test we can apply is we can ask ourselves, “If Geshe-la asked me how I got these resources, power, or reputation, could I explain it to him without feeling like I had done something wrong?”  If no, then we have our answer.

Indulging in frivolity. 

If, without a good reason but motivated only by excitement, attachment, or lack of conscientiousness, we indulge in frivolous activities we incur a secondary downfall.

Again, no activity is from its own side inherently frivolous.  An activity is frivolous only if we engage in it with a frivolous mind.  Any activity can be made meaningful if we engage in it with a meaningful mind.  But let’s be honest here:  we quite often have frivolous minds!  Just because in theory the activity can be engaged in with a meaningful mind doesn’t mean we ourselves are engaging in the activity with a meaningful mind. 

Generally speaking, we can divide our activities into two categories:  those things we have to do and those things that are optional.  Each of these categories can in turn be divided into two of those things we want to do and those things we don’t want to do.  This covers all possibilities.  Let’s explore each one in turn. 

For those things we have to do and we want to do them, there is no problem.  We just do them.  For those things we have to do but we don’t want to do, we can either grumble about the fact that we have to do it or we can change or our attitude.  One way or the other, we still need to do the action; but if we grumble we torture ourselves and if we change our attitude we don’t.  To change our attitude, it suffices to ask ourselves the question, “how does engaging in this action give me a chance to develop some skill or learn some truth of the Dharma?”  Once we have an answer to that question, we have a valid reason for engaging in the action, transforming our not wanting to do the action into wanting to do the action for good reasons.

For those things that are optional and we don’t want to do them, again, there is no problem.  Since we don’t want to do the actions and we don’t have to, we simply don’t do them.  For those things that are optional and we want to do them, there are two possibilities:  either we want to do them for virtuous reasons or we want to do them for deluded reasons.  If it is something we want to do and we have a virtuous reason for doing it, then again there is no problem – we just do the action. 

If however we want to engage in the action for deluded reasons, then there are two possibilities:  our engaging in the action is harmful to others or it is harmful to ourself.  If the action is harmful to others, then we should consider the karmic implications of the action and realize it is simply not worth it to accumulate negative karma which could potentially ripen in the form of a lower rebirth or other suffering, and we train in standard moral discipline of restraint. 

If, however, the action is only harmful to ourself then again there are two possibilities:  it harms us by somehow destroying our capacity to help others or it harms us by wasting our time.  There are all sorts of examples of actions that destroy our capacity to help others.  It is interesting all the different ways we are attracted to things that ultimately are harmful to us.  For these, we should consider how these actions are exactly opposite of our bodhichitta motivation.  Bodhichitta is the wish to increase our capacity to help others, whereas this action is decreasing our capacity to help others, so it runs exactly opposite of our bodhichitta wish.

If the action is simply a waste of time, then again there are two possibilities:  either we can relate to the action in a different way to make it not a waste of time or we can’t.  If we can relate to the action in a different way to make it not a waste of time, then we should apply the effort necessary to do so.  It is not enough to just know theoretically it is possible to relate to the action differently, we need to actually do so.  There are several things we can do to relate to the action differently.  First, we can ask ourselves what delusion this activity gives us a chance to overcome or what truth of Dharma does this activity teach us.  Second, we can offer the enjoyment of the activity to our guru at our heart.  Third, we can relate to the action as a metaphor for something that is meaningful, such as just as I walk down this road, may I always walk down the road to the city of enlightenment.  Fourth, we can recite mantras or special verses while we engage in the action.  And finally, we can just view our engaging in the action as the power of rest.  We are resting now so that we can return to our normal activities fresh and energized.  Without proper rest, we can become burned out and then do even less in the long-run. 

Finally, there is the case of the action is a waste of time and there is no way we can transform it.  Almost anything can be transformed, so this case should happen only very rarely, but if it does, there is still something we can do.  Quite simply, we should probably just abandon the action.  If we can’t at present, we should generate the intention to one day do so understanding we are wasting our precious human life. 

Buddha taught that since Bodhisattva’s have abandoned self-cherishing and are motivated by compassion that all their actions are pure.  If we refuse to believe this we incur a secondary downfall.  This also advises that we should rejoice in all Bodhisattva’s actions because they are motivated solely by compassion and bodhichitta.

As a general rule, people struggle to gain a correct understanding of pure view.  Take for example the actions of the Spiritual Guide or one’s teacher.  When we observe our teacher’s actions there are two possibilities:  either their actions appear to us to be correct or they do not.  If they appear to us to be correct, it is very easy to maintain pure view.  Few problems arise.  If however the teacher’s actions appear to us to be incorrect, then it gets more complicated.  The root of this problem is people grasp at an object as needing to appear as pure on the side of the object, and when it doesn’t confusion arises.  In a situation where, from the point of view of the practitioner, the Spiritual Guide or teacher appears to engage in some mistaken action there are again two possibilities:  either the action is in fact conventionally correct, but the practitioner lacks the wisdom to understand how or why; or the action is conventionally incorrect.

If the action is conventionally correct and the practitioner lacks the wisdom to understand how or why, then Geshe-la advises us to go speak frankly with our teacher.  We explain that it appears to us that the teacher is making a mistake by acting in a particular way, but we are open to the possibility that we may be wrong about the situation.  So we ask to get the teacher’s point of view.  Once the teacher explains to us their point of view and they are right about it, then we just learned something and now we once again no longer have a problem with what they are doing. 

If however after the teacher explains to us their point of view we still think the teacher is wrong, then we need to be very careful.  There is a danger that we start to focus inappropriate attention on the mistake of the teacher, to the point where that becomes the only thing we see.  If this happens, then even when the teacher is engaging in other actions, such as giving flawless teachings, we are incapable of receiving any benefit because all we see is the mistake which crowds out anything else.  If we find ourselves in this trap, then we need to compartmentalize.  In other words, we tell ourselves, “OK, their action still seems to me to be a mistake, but that doesn’t mean all their actions are mistaken.  So I will temporarily set aside this question and focus on everything else which is still good.  Perhaps over time my view will change, and if it doesn’t, I can always once again go speak with my teacher when I have bit more perspective on the matter.”  Gen Tharchin once told me a very good story to illustrate how this works.  He said, “I have been with Venerable Geshe-la now for many many years.  There has not been a single instance where he has made some very big decision or change of direction with the tradition where I did not think he was completely crazy and that he was committing a blunder of cosmic proportions.  Initially, I would fight him and complain – either externally or I would internally grumble.  But then, as time went on, I came to see how what I thought was a blunder was in fact a very shrewd and skillful move.  After going through this experience easily a half dozen times, I started to realize that I probably shouldn’t trust my initial reaction to such things.  So now, when something new arises, I may still think he is making a mistake, but I suspend my judgment to see how things unfold with time.  Again and again, time proves that each of his decisions were quite prescient.  Now, since this has happened to me so many times, when he makes some bold move that I think is wrong, I just assume I am wrong about the whole thing and I eagerly watch to see how things will unfold with time knowing that I will be dazzled in the end.”  In other words, if the teacher’s action is in fact conventionally correct, our compartmentalization while maintaining an open mind will pay off in the long run in the form of deeper wisdom and amazement about our teacher’s skillful means.

Where things can get quite complicated, though, is when our teacher’s actions are in fact conventionally incorrect.  How should we approach situations like this?  Once again, as before, we should approach our teacher in exactly the same way saying that what they are doing is appearing to us to be a mistake, but we are open to the possibility that we might be wrong.  When we approach our teacher in this way, there are then two possibilities to how they might respond.  Either, they say, “you’re right, I was making a mistake.  Thank you for pointing it out to me.  I will try do better next time.”  If this happens, there is no problem.  Our respect for our teacher grows because we see they have integrity and they are showing the example of somebody who admits their mistakes and corrects for them.  If, however, they deny that they are doing something wrong and they get all defensive about it, then we once again need to be very careful.  First, we once again need to compartmentalize and say just because they are wrong about this one thing doesn’t mean they are wrong about everything.  So I can still receive benefit from them for the other things that they are doing correctly and I shouldn’t let this one mistake prevent me from receiving benefit in other contexts.  Second, with respect to the mistake itself, we can say, “conventionally this action they are doing is wrong and I know I am right about it.  So even if they can’t admit their mistake, it is nonetheless teaching me something.  It is teaching me what not to do.  Their defensive attitude is also teaching me what not to do.  So even though they are making a mistake, their mistake is nonetheless providing me with benefit because I am looking at it in a correct way.”  If we reason in this way, we come to realize it doesn’t matter at all whether our teachers are making mistakes or not, because either way we still receive perfect benefit.  Pure view is not found on the side of the object, it is found on the side of our own mind.  Nobody and nothing in samsara will ever appear completely perfect on the side of the object, but it is possible for me to view everything that appears in a perfect way and therefore receive perfect benefit no matter what appears.  This is pure view, and this way of practicing will never deceive us. 

One final instance deserves mentioning.  If the mistake our teacher is making is a particularly egregious one where if it continued it would harm other people or the tradition in some significant way, and we have tried to approach our teacher about it and they are not-responsive to our questioning, then we have a duty to go to whoever is our National Spiritual Director or even to the NKT office if necessary to report what is happening.  Examples where this might apply are sexual scandals, stealing money, the teacher moving in the direction of breaking off from the NKT, etc.  Small things we should just let go of, but big things need to be reported.  Geshe-la is very explicit about this, so much so that several years ago he put forward a new amendment to the NKT internal rules saying that it is the responsibility of practitioners to report things that seem wrong as a means of protecting the tradition.  If there is wrongdoing that does not get corrected, then it can bring the entire tradition into disrepute, thus harming directly or indirectly countless living beings.  Our teacher may be upset about our blowing the whistle, but we can do so with confidence that our action is pure because it is motivated by the compassionate wish to protect the tradition and to protect those who our teacher’s actions are harming. 

If we find ourselves in a situation where we might need to take such a step, we should first discuss it with some of our closest Dharma friends and other teachers whom we trust to see what they think.  Since this is a big step, we need to make sure we are right about it; but if after having checked in our heart and having checked with those we trust it seems like the right thing to do, then we should not hesitate nor should we fear the potential fallout.  There is nothing about being a Kadampa that condones covering things up.  Too much is at stake for that.

A Mahayanist should not needlessly diminish his or her capacity to help others by shunning wealth, reputation, or involvement with other people.  If we do this without a special altruistic motivation, we incur a secondary downfall.  This also advises that if we have a bodhichitta motivation we can use these things providing we use them solely to bring increased benefit to sentient beings.

I think this vow is very important for the future of the tradition in this world.  Geshe-la has made it clear that the main mission of the tradition at this time is to attain the union of Kadam Dharma and modern life.  Geshe-la has passed on to us the complete Kadam Dharma and he has re-presented it in a way that is optimally suited to integrate it into modern life.  Now it is our turn.  If we are to carry the lineage forward into future generations, we need to complete the task he has given us – namely attaining this union.  He gave us the Dharma, we already have modern lives, now what we need to do is attain the union of the two.  This union is what we are to pass on to the next generation of Kadampas.  There is nothing more important we can do with our life than this.

The development of the tradition takes place on two different, non-contradictory and mutually reinforcing planes:  namely, internally and externally.  Historically, this tradition has been a monastic one.  In the East, there is a strong grasping at a difference between one’s spiritual life and one’s worldly life.  There is a strong grasping at normal life as being somehow inherently worldly and therefore if we wish to live a spiritual life, we need to abandon normal life and society and join a monastery, etc.  The residual of this cultural legacy came to the West when the Dharma came.  As a result, Western practitioners have likewise struggled with this apparent tension.  We too tend to view our jobs, our families, and our modern problems as somehow obstacles to our spiritual life and we develop aversion to them and attachment to some fantasy of somehow “escaping from it all” and living a quiet life of contemplation in some comfy corner of nowhere.  Or we fantasize about moving into some Dharma center and spending our day and night doing pujas and giving Dharma teachings.  The more we grasp at such visions, the more we start to view everything in our modern life that prevents us from living such a life as “obstacles to our practice.”  We then grow increasingly unhappy, tension builds, we start having more conflict with our families about our practice, etc.

There is sometimes a pride that develops in some Dharma practitioners who do live the more traditional Dharma life thinking that those who do not do so are somehow inferior or less serious about their practice.  Such practitioners think they are the real tradition, the real practitioners, and the only reason why people live a different mode of life is because they are too attached to samsara to let go of it, etc.  Such practitioners then unskillfully make others feel like they are somehow doing something wrong if they live a normal modern life, if they don’t make it to every festival, etc.  

Or, we think that the only way to practice Dharma is by doing the above things, we realize that we can’t (or don’t want to) live such a life, so we never fully commit to the Dharma.  It remains a background hobby, or something we turn to occasionally when our life is particularly difficult.  We can sometimes think being a Kadampa is an all or nothing venture, and since I can’t do it all, I will do nothing (or next to nothing).  So there winds up being this big chasm between those who are “in” and those who are “out.”  Those who are “in” judge those who are “out” as somehow being impure, as not real Kadampas, etc.  Those who are “out” judge those who are “in” as being crazed, or they think those who are “in” are only in because they couldn’t succeed in the real world and so they have run away, and they are in fact just a bunch of losers. 

All the above completely wrong attitudes and problems have a common origin:  namely grasping at some sort of inherent duality between modern life and the Kadam Dharma.  Realizing the union of modern life and the Kadam Dharma will solve all these problems, naturally and effortlessly.  When these problems are solved, then there is literally nothing stopping the Kadam Dharma from flourishing like a wild fire in the modern world.  The modern world is thirsting for the answers the Kadam Dharma provides.  The time is ripe, and unfortunately it is our own grasping at a duality between modern life and the Kadam Dharma that is the biggest obstacle to it flourishing in this way.

Of course, the real flourishing of the tradition cannot be measured by the number of temples and external manifestations.  We could be materially rich but spiritually bankrupt.  The internal development of the tradition is the primary development of the tradition and our real goal, but this requires external development as well.  External development supports internal development, and internal development motivates external development. 

Things like money, resources, power, a good reputation, fame, and extensive personal relationships are all, in and of themselves, neutral.  They are tools, nothing more.  It is our motivation that determines their value.  If we want these things for virtuous reasons, they are positive tools; if we want these things for deluded reasons, they are negative tools.  If we have the karma to have a lot of money, power, reputation, etc., and we shun it because we ignorantly grasp at these things as being somehow inherently worldly, we deny ourselves the ability to use these tools for virtuous purposes.  Of course we shouldn’t pursue these things at the expense of internal development, but we can unashamedly pursue these things if by doing so we can then use them for good purposes. 

Additionally, if we let go of grasping at these things as being somehow inherently worldly, then we help the people of this modern world let go of their own wrong understandings that they have to abandon these things if they want to live a spiritual life.  They can keep their entirely modern life with all its external manifestations and still be a 100% pure Kadampa, viewing every moment as part of their spiritual training.  The only thing we need to give up to become a Kadampa is our delusions and contaminated karma.  They are the only objects of abandonment.

In particular, what is most important is the nexus of personal relationships we have with other living beings.  Gen Tharchin tells the story of how when he was on long retreat, towards the end he was feeling like he was very close to attaining enlightenment.  He went to Venerable Geshe-la and he said, “if I stay on retreat just a little bit longer, I think I can complete the path.”  Much to Gen Tharchin’s surprise, Geshe-la then said, “then it is time for you to end your retreat.  It is true, if you stay up here, you will likely soon attain enlightenment, but if you do you will be a ‘worthless Buddha’ because you will not have any karmic connections with living beings.”  He then set Tharchin loose on the world.  He went to Canada where he formed a cadre of some of the greatest teachers in the tradition today, they have then gone out into the world and founded and made flourish centers throughout the world.  He then was sent back to Tharpaland where he established a model for what it means to have a Kadampa retreat center.  The people of Tharpaland were then fanned out to the retreat centers around the world where they are spreading his model.  Gen Tharchin’s example and teachings have touched almost all us, either directly or indirectly through one of his students.  Tharchin at one point said his biggest desire is to be reborn in a hell realm.  When asked why, he said, “because that is where all the living beings are.”  I bow down.

Each one of us has a different set of karmic connections with living beings.  Collectively, though, we touch almost the entire world.  We know people who know people who know people, and our every action ripples through humanity on the ocean of the karmic web of our relationships.  Just as we need wealth, power and resources, we likewise especially need vast karmic relationships which will serve as karmic conduits through which the blessings of the Buddhas, the wisdom of the teachings and the purity of our example may reach every corner of the world.  This is our mission.

Downfalls that obstruct the perfection of moral discipline

Forsaking those who have broken their moral discipline. 

We incur a secondary downfall if we ignore with a judgmental or self-righteous attitude those who have broken their moral discipline.  This also advises that we should keep the intention to help all living beings, including those who have broken their moral discipline.

This is something we do all the time.  We judge people for their shortcomings and for their failings.  Who amongst us has not fallen short?  Who amongst us has never fallen flat on their face?  Yet when we see others do the same we judge and condemn them.  We lose all respect for them and start taking our distance from them.  Somebody who has broken their moral discipline did so either out of ignorance or out of a lack of strength, but either way they are an object of compassion and understanding, not contempt and judgment. 

Not acting in ways that cause others to generate faith. 

To help others effectively it is necessary to conduct ourselves in a way that causes them to develop confidence in us.  If we fail to do this but retain bad habits that are likely to attract criticism, we incur a secondary downfall.  This also advises us to keep pure moral discipline to show a good example to others so as to increase others’ faith in us.

The reality is this:  our words only count for about 10-20% of what we communicate, our actions and behavior are the rest.  We could have the most pure speech alive, but if our actions are not consistent with our speech, it will have no power.  People have more confidence in somebody who is negative but doesn’t pretend to be otherwise than they do somebody with pure speech but is a hypocrite.  We could say nothing at all, but if our actions were pure and consistent with the Dharma, our simple living would be a powerful teaching to all who know us.  At the end of the day, it is our example more than anything else that matters.  So we need to be mindful of how others perceive us. 

This doesn’t mean we need to be fake about it, pretending to be somebody we are not.  Kadam Morten said there are two types of master, the one who shows the final result and the one who shows the example of getting there.  And in the end, he said, the latter is the more beneficial.  It is much more beneficial to others for us to “keep it real” in our example than try to pretentiously carry ourselves off as some holy being.  Nobody is better at this than Gen-la Khyenrab.  There is absolutely nothing pretentious about him, yet there is no denying his deep experience and understanding of the Dharma.  It is because he is just an “everyday” sort of guy that is the demonstration of his greatness.  He is completely approachable, down to earth, humble and friendly, yet at the same time unbelievably wise and realized.  He just cuts through the crap like nobody else.  All we need do is be ourselves – a practitioner doing their best to put the instructions into practice, while making mistakes and learning from them.  This is the best example.  Not some pious, uptight, phony. 

Not accepting gifts. 

If we are given gifts and, without a good reason, we refuse them merely out of pride, anger, or laziness we incur a secondary downfall.  This also advises that we should use gifts from others in the most meaningful way.

Again, I have really struggled with this one.  I like giving gifts, but I frankly really don’t like it when others give me gifts.  Gifts are not just presents, but also it can be people doing favors for us.  As a general rule, I never ask others for favors unless I absolutely have to.  In all my relationships I like to make sure I have always done significantly more favors for others than they have done for me.  I really dislike feeling like I owe others something or I am indebted to them in some way.  But sometimes this behavior can be taken to an extreme.  Others want to help out and they want to repay some of my past favors and to deny them the opportunity to do so is to deny them the opportunity to engage in virtue themselves. 

Likewise, there are some people – myself included – who are too proud to accept the help of others.  Sometimes we need help to get out of a situation we are in.  If due to our pride we fail to reach out to others for help when we need it, who are we helping?  We are unnecessarily bad off, and sometimes we can be in over our head and our situation can become much worse.  When that happens, we then have to ask people for help, but now we are asking for much more.  We shouldn’t be like this.  Likewise, by seeking help from others we can sometimes accomplish much more than if we do everything ourselves, and so therefore we can help even more people.  So in an effort to accomplish great things, we ask for help from others.

I think a good middle way here is a 3 to 1 or a 4 to 1 ratio.  We help others 3 or 4 times for every one time we ask something of them.  This keeps us on the side of giving more than we take but still we give others a chance to give back and seek out help when we could really need it.  There is nothing cosmically true about this ratio, rather it is just what seems to work for me in my life.

Not giving Dharma to those who desire it. 

If someone with a sincere desire to practice Dharma requests us to teach them, and without a good reason, we refuse merely out of laziness we incur a secondary downfall.  Valid reasons for not teaching include:  we do not know the subject well enough, it is not suitable to teach them, others will be unhappy, we are ill, we do not have the free time, and so on.  This also advises us that whenever we have a chance we should try to eliminate the darkness of ignorance from the minds of others by giving Dharma teachings.

Just as the greatest offering we can make to the Buddhas is our own practice of Dharma, so too the greatest act of giving we can perform is giving Dharma.  Why?  Ordinary gifts can at best help people in this life, but the gift of Dharma helps people in all their future lives.

Giving Dharma doesn’t just mean giving formal Dharma teachings or using a lot of Dharma jargon when we talk to people.  Giving Dharma means understanding what is mentally ailing somebody else and giving them a wiser perspective on their situation.  It is giving them a new way of looking at things so that instead of their situation being a problem for them, it becomes an opportunity to grow or learn.  We don’t need Dharma words to do this, and in fact in most situations Dharma words actually get in the way.  We should try use normal, everyday speech that everyone knows and understands.  With our Dharma friends, our Dharma words are like a shorthand for quickly getting to the meaning we want to refer to, but as a general rule we should speak with others completely normally.  We all know people who come across like they are a religious fanatic or somebody who is brainwashed.  We usually reject them and everything they have to say.  Part of modern skillful means is learning how to transmit Dharma meanings using normal modern words and references.

If we do have the opportunity to give formal teachings, we should most definitely do so.  If we look at things from a karmic perspective, there really is no higher job than that of a Dharma teacher.  Sure, the external rewards are virtually non-existent, but the internal rewards are eternally flowing.  Every time you help somebody else understand the Dharma, you create the cause for somebody else to help you easily understand the Dharma in the future.  We all know those people who the Dharma just comes easily to, and they almost instinctively understand at a very deep level everything they are being taught.  Why is this?  Because in the past they used to be Dharma teachers and they helped others understand the Dharma. 

Ultimately, there is nothing to do in this world other than wake up.  If we have wisdom, we will realize there is no point in pursuing any other goal.  This does not mean we need to abandon our jobs and families, rather it means we need to view our jobs and family time primarily through the lens of the opportunities these activities afford us to train our mind in virtue.  Every external resource we have finds its meaning when used for the sake of realizations, either of ourself or of others.  This does not mean just Dharma realizations as gained through a formal Dharma class, but instead can take the form of learning about training through piano lessons, learning about overcoming discouragement when learning a hard language like Chinese, gaining skillful means when dealing with problematic co-workers etc.  On the outside, these may not appear to be Dharma classes, but for the modern Kadampa every day is a class.

Not replying to others

If someone greets us in a friendly and courteous manner, and without a good reason, we give no reply we incur a secondary downfall.  This also advises us to try make others’ minds happy by giving them answers and advice.

Why do we need to do this?  The answer is obvious.  When we say hi to somebody and they ignore us, how do we feel?  What do we think about the other person?  We don’t want to make others feel this way.  While of course the minimum is to return the basic level of cultural politeness, as Bodhisattvas, we need to go one step further – we need to be genuinely delighted to see the other person.

It suffices to watch 5 year olds on a playground to know and appreciate the difference.  When they see one of their friends, their faces light up with delight.  This then makes the friend likewise light up and everyone is very happy.  How good does it make us feel when we haven’t seen somebody we really like in a long time and when we see them they are really happy to see us – their face lights up like a child on a playground.  It makes us feel warm and loved inside.  This is how we need to make others feel with our own reaction to seeing them.  The sun warms all around, and in the same way the Bodhisattva warms the heart of all around with their delight at seeing people.

Now of course we can’t be over the top with this and act in conventionally strange ways.  We need to calibrate the intensity of our outward expression of delight to not go outside normal cultural conventions or to make the other person feel uncomfortable, but we should be like the sun. 

Not accepting invitations. 

If someone with a good motivation invites us to do something and without a good reason we decline merely out of pride, laziness, or anger, we incur a secondary downfall.  Valid reasons for declining are we are sick, do not have the time, it would make others unhappy, or it would be a danger to our Dharma practice.

To be honest, I have struggled with this one over the years.  I usually want to do my own thing.  I have my own plans and my own projects, and I work so hard both at work and at home that I frankly don’t usually want to go over to friend’s houses, etc.  I would just as soon stay at home and relax.  I also generally am not too fond of the normal banter and chit chat of social gatherings, finding it to be largely meaningless and a waste of time.  There have been many times when I have received invitations and my own selfish instinct is to say I am busy and I can’t go, but then I remember this vow and force myself to go. 

When I go, I am forced to confront all sorts of delusions in my mind.  First, I must overcome the selfishness of not being able to do what I want to do.  Second, I must learn to overcome my tendency to just sit in the corner and not engage with anybody else, but instead to go out and connect with people.  Third, I have to get over my Dharma snobbery thinking everything others have to say is meaningless.  What nonsense!  Everyone is a living being with a story.  Everyone has their troubles and their wisdoms.  Each new person is really like a nicely wrapped Christmas present and you don’t know what you will find inside until you ask them about their lives, being interested in who they are, etc.  Everyone has a lifetime worth of acquired wisdom and they are usually happy to share it with me if only I bother to ask and learn.  Fourth, one of the most important skills of a Bodhisattva is the ability to actively listen to others.  Gen Tharchin is the master at this.  There have been many meetings I have had with him where, in the end, he said almost nothing – but the way he listened itself answered all my questions for me as I told my story, etc. 

Professionally, I am a diplomat, so a big part of my job is – frankly – making friends with other people.  It is not just making friends for the sake of making friends, but finding out what everyone is doing and seeing if there are opportunities to collaborate on common projects, etc.  Sometimes I will encounter people who are vehemently opposed to something the U.S. government is doing or even people who are spying on me trying to figure things out.  Each person I meet is like a mirror revealing to me some weakness in myself, and by learning to get along with the person I have the opportunity to correct for that weakness.  It is only by breaking out of our safe cocoon and accepting the invitations we receive that we can do so.  You never know who you will meet or where that encounter may lead!

That being said, there is also nothing wrong with us choosing to stay in and not go out if we need to rest and recharge our batteries.  This vow should not drive us to burnout and it needs to be practiced in the context of maintaining our overall health, energy, and capacity.  Whether we go or don’t go isn’t as important as making whatever choices we do make with wisdom.