Not apologizing when we have the opportunity. 

If we have disturbed another person by acting unskillfully, and later the opportunity to apologize arises but, out of pride or laziness, we fail to do so we incur a secondary downfall.

Just as others harm us all of the time, we too harm others all of the time with our unskillful actions.  Normally we internally excuse our wrong behavior on the grounds of the other person provoking us in some way, “it’s their fault!”  But nobody has the power to provoke us, we allow ourselves to be provoked.  Ultimately, we need to be responsible for all of our behavior, regardless of what others do.  This is not easy, but its not being easy doesn’t make it the wrong thing to do. 

When we do harm others, such as saying something hurtful, then later, once we have calmed down, we need to make a point of apologizing.  I know a mother who has a bad habit of getting angry at her kid.  She is a very powerful and smart woman, and when she gets angry she can be downright nasty, controlling and hurtful.  But she also has an unshakable habit of always apologizing to her kid afterwards when she eventually calms down.  She tells her kid, “I’m sorry I got angry at you and treated you in that way.  Mommy’s anger just took over, and I am sorry.  When I get like that, I want you to know it is not your fault that I get so angry, it is my responsibility.  Just ignore me and know that it is my anger talking not me.”  Then she has a good laugh with her kid about how crazy she sometimes acts.  Because she has consistently done this, her son has learned how to take her mother’s anger in stride where it doesn’t affect him.  He knows she will later come apologize.  This doesn’t mean that he might not need to change his behavior if he has been doing something wrong, but it does prevent the anger from destroying the relationship and making things worse.  This mothers habit of apologizing and having a good laugh not only disarms the harmful effects of her anger, it also teaches her kid how to relate to his own feelings of anger and what he should do when he himself gets upset. 

Until we are an advanced bodhisattva, getting angry is pretty much unavoidable.  But apologizing afterwards is completely within our control.

One last thing, sometimes we hold off on giving our apology because actually it was the other person who started it and clearly they are the one who committed the bigger harm, so we think surely they must apologize first.  This is a completely mistaken way of thinking.  First, if they don’t apologize then we start getting upset at them about not apologizing when we think they should.  Second, just because they did something wrong doesn’t in any way excuse or justify our own mistakes.  We need to own up to our mistakes and take responsibility for them.  Third, when we apologize it often creates the space for the other person to apologize as well.  And even if they don’t apologize in return (which of course will have the potential to really make us angry again), we can at least know we did the right thing by apologizing.  If the other person doesn’t apologize as well, that is their mistake.  But at least from our own side we have done the right thing.

Not accepting others apologies. 

If someone who has previously harmed us later apologies and, without a good reason but not out of resentment (which is a root downfall) we refuse to accept, we incur a secondary downfall.

Very often if we were in a fight with somebody and they later apologize but we haven’t yet overcome our own anger towards them, we will take advantage of their apology as a sign of weakness and then we attack them one last time.  When we do this, they then get angry back and the cycle can start over, or at a minimum they decide they better not apologize again in the future because when they do so they get their hand bit off.  This is obviously completely wrong.

When somebody apologizes, that is them admitting they were wrong and they are seeking to make things right again.  Why would we not want to cooperate with that?  As bodhisattvas, we want others to attain enlightenment.  If they generate regret for their negativity and try to do something nice to set things straight, we should be delighted and welcome fully their effort.  From our own side, we should repay their apology with one of our own, and we should try have a good laugh with them about how sometimes we act silly.  Our accepting their apology is also a very powerful way of letting go of our own pent up resentment towards the other person.  Resentment is like a cancer within our mind.

The difference between a worldly person and a spiritual person is which life they are working for.  Worldly people work to enjoy good effects in this life.  Spiritual people use this life to create good causes for their future lives.  The road of our future lives is endless and it is guaranteed.  The road of this life is indefinite, and it could end at any time.  It doesn’t matter at all what happens in this life, any more than it matters what happened in last night’s dream. We are so obsessed with what we are “feeling.”  Who cares what we are feeling?  What difference does it really make?  It is only because we think we are important that we think what we feel is important.  But the self we think we are doesn’t even exist, so how could its happiness possibly be important?  And even if it was important, what is more important this one fleeting life or our countless future lives?  There comes a time in our normal life where we work hard now to have things easier in the future.  We voluntarily endure the sufferings of University so that we can get a good job and have a better life thereafter.  We happily work hard and save up our money to go on a special trip.  This involves sacrifice in the short run, which we gladly accept because we know the rewards are greater on the other side.  Such is the optic of the spiritual practitioner.

We cannot blame others for being so inconsiderate and harmful to us.  It is not their fault.  They don’t even exist, they are just karmic echoes of our own past harmful and selfish behavior.  We have nobody to blame but our past delusions which drove us to negativity.  If we did not have the karma on our mind to be harmed, nobody would even appear to harm us.  Our negative karma propels them to harm us.  When they do so, they create negative karma for themselves and they will suffer in the future.  From our side, if we accept the suffering, we purify our negative karma and so are better off; but from their side they accumulate negative karma and will have to experience similar suffering (or worse) in the future.  So who is better off and who is worse off.  It is we who should be saying sorry to them. 

This does not mean we should allow others to abuse us and take advantage of us.  There is a middle way between being a doormat and being a raging lunatic.  We do not help people by allowing them to abuse us, so we must break the cycle.  But we also don’t help them by retaliating, which just causes the cycle of mutual harm to continue.  Ghandi showed the middle way.  We accept the harm, but we refuse to cooperate with its wrong purpose.  We accept the harm as purification, but we don’t reward it by giving people what they want.  Blackmail only works when we give in.  If we refuse to give in, even if people throw everything they have at us, then we break the cycle.  We accept the harm in the short run to be free from it in the long run.  If people blackmail us and we don’t give in, they may try to blackmail us again in the future, but both they and we will know it won’t succeed.  We have stared them down once before, and we can do so again.  Eventually they give up trying.  This helps them and it helps us.

Of course, if we can avoid others harming us we should do so.  There are enough instances of people harming us where we cannot avoid it that we don’t need to needlessly expose ourselves to harm that is avoidable.  Sometimes not cooperating with others delusions means ending that particular relationship.  We do not stick around with others abusing us if we can leave.  But for the harm we cannot avoid, or for the harm that is too insignificant to warrant ending the relationship over, we accept it and refuse to cooperate with it.  We shouldn’t go to extremes with this.  In general, we should go along with others wishes as long as they are not harmful.  We don’t expect others to be perfect and always completely free form harm.  We need to accept others mistakes and give people the space to change.  But on important things, we need to fearlessly say no and not give in.

Downfalls that obstruct the perfection of patience

Retaliating to harm or abuse. 

If out of impatience we retaliate to harm or abuse we incur a secondary downfall.

We are harmed or abused by others all of the time.  This shouldn’t come as a surprise.  We have spent countless aeons in the lower realms where we ourselves harmed and abused others as a way of life.  Even in this life, despite having received Dharma teachings, we continue to lash out at people when they have done basically nothing wrong.  So it is only natural that now we experience the karmic echoes of our past actions.

People criticize us all of the time.  People put us down, directly or indirectly, all of the time.  People snap at us all of the time.  People blame us for whatever ails them all of the time.  People get mad at us for no reason all of the time.  When we make the slightest mistake, people respond disproportionately against us all of the time.  Our bosses or coworkers blame us for things we are not responsible for, and they take credit for our accomplishments.  People cut us off on the road, or cut in front of us in line.  People ask us to do their work for them, and then they get mad at us when we don’t do it as they wanted.  We can do everything we can to make others happy, but they still get upset at us, judge us and are never grateful for what we do.  We give to others, and they take.  When we ask for something in return they say no or make a problem.  People take advantage of our kindness and then forget us on our birthdays.  We make a point of investing in them, but they don’t really care what is happening in our life.  When something important happens in our life, they fail to notice or care.  Our political leaders play games and make the world’s problems even worse.  No matter how much work we do for others, they never give us a break.  They take, take take without end and give almost nothing in return.  When we become tired or frustrated they get mad at us for not being in a good mood.  Our business leaders drive the global economy into ruin for the sake of their own personal enrichment.  Companies pollute the earth, shortening lives, destroying the environment for future generations, all to make a little extra money for themselves.  People suffer from homelessness, hunger and crime, but nobody lifts a finger and indeed they blame the victims for being lazy.  In short, we live in a world with countless causes for frustration.  It is a small wonder that we are not in a perpetual war of all against all.

If we allow these myriad causes of frustration to get to us, it is very easy to begin lashing out at those around us.  Sometimes we rationalize it thinking we need to get angry to deter people from taking advantage of or harming us, but usually it is just our frustration that boils over.  Because we are Dharma practitioners, we know we are not supposed to get angry, so outwardly we pretend to be calm, but internally we are just repressing our frustration until it eventually blows up in some dramatic fashion.  We develop deep resentment for those who put us down again and again and again, and sometimes we can no longer keep it in and we lash out.  This is the nature of samsaric life.  When we do lash out, it invariably makes things worse.  We then either “double down” on our anger and get mad again, or we start repressing again waiting for the next volcanic eruption to occur. 

How do we stop this hellish cycle?  We need to stop it at its root.  Once anger has started, it is very difficult to rein back in.  But we cannot repress our anger, because doing so just guarantees one day it will explode.  The root of anger is wishing things were different than they are.  We wish those around us weren’t so difficult.  We wish life wasn’t so difficult.  We wish we could just have a moment to take a rest.  But the tighter we grasp onto things needing to go well, the more painful it is when they do not.  Samsara is wave after wave of aggravating circumstances.  This is its very nature.  This will never change.

The root of the problem is we want the wrong things.  We want what our eight worldly concerns want (pleasant experiences, happiness, a good reputation, praise, etc.).  In short, we want to experience good effects.  This is the root of our problem.  Instead, we need to want to create good causes.  Bad effects now are the karmic echoes of our past bad causes.  Good causes now are the karmic seeds of future good effects.  We cannot take with us into our future lives the good effects we experience now, but we can take with us the good karmic causes we create for ourselves.  They are our real inner wealth.  The inner wealth of good causes is to bodhisattvas what money is to business people or power is to politicians. 

Not avoiding a bad reputation. 

If we unnecessarily engage in actions that cause us to receive criticism or a bad reputation we incur a secondary downfall.  However, if our actions benefit others, cause the Dharma to flourish, or are necessary to preserve our moral discipline, it does not matter if a few people criticize us.

I would say in modern times our biggest attachment that creates the most problems for us is attachment to what others think about us.  First our parents, then our friends, then society, then our kids, etc.  We need to break completely free from this and make our own decisions about what is the right thing to do, and if other people have a problem with it, then frankly it is their problem, not ours.  We shouldn’t let their misunderstanding of what is best for us prevent us from doing what is in fact best for us (and them) in the long-run.  Buddha showed this example when he left his father’s palace.  This was not his father’s first choice, but because Buddha’s motivation was pure and his father eventually came to see this, he agreed to let his son go even though he didn’t necessarily want to. 

But we also need to be careful to not go to the other extreme with this.  In general, we should go along with others’ wishes for us, unless doing so is somehow harmful.  We should try be of service to whoever we meet and do whatever is the most beneficial for others.  We should not unnecessarily antagonize others with our actions nor should we abandon our conventional responsibilities.  Unless the situation is extreme and we have received very clear indications, we should never abandon our partner or our children thinking we need to do so to pursue our spiritual goals.  We also need to assume our full parental and professional responsibilities.  If we don’t do so in the name of supposedly following our spiritual path, all we will do is bring the Dharma into disrepute and cause others to reject it.  Who does that help?  There is no contradiction whatsoever between living up to our normal modern responsibilities in the world and being a Kadampa.  If there were, it would be impossible to attain the union of the Kadam Dharma and modern life.  As explained by Geshe Chekewa, “remain natural while changing your aspiration.”  We live our external lives completely as normal, but inside we change everything.

Not helping others to avoid negativity. 

If we have the ability and the opportunity to help others avoid committing negative actions but, without a good reason, fail to do so we incur a secondary downfall.

As a general rule, we shouldn’t get into other people’s business or tell others what they need to do.  Our job is to make our own actions correct.  The more we try tell others what they need to do, the more they will rebel against us and the Dharma which they know is behind our proselytizing.  There is nothing wrong with sharing our own experience if people are open to hearing it, but we should leave it up to them to apply our experience to their own circumstance.  This is why quite often when you ask a Kadampa teacher some question about what you should do they won’t answer you directly but they will instead tell some story from their own experience (or that of their friends).  They leave it up to you to apply the story to your own life and situation as you see fit.

With that being said, situations do arise where we have some degree of influence over others and they are about to engage in some negative action and if we say something we could stop them (or at least get them to think twice).  When such situations arise, we should not just sit on the sidelines, we need to act.  Basically, if we can help somebody we need to do so.  Our ability to do so depends entirely on whether the other person trusts us that we have their own best interests at heart.  If they feel like we are just trying to manipulate them for our own purposes, or we are wanting them to stop due to our own attachment to them doing the right thing (attachment to others happiness is quite different than love and compassion), then they will just reject what we have to say.  But if they know we have no hidden agenda and only want what is best for them, and ultimately we don’t need them to make the choice we want them to make, then they will be open to listening to what we have to say.  We never know when somebody we know and love might start doing stupid, self-destructive things, so we need to cultivate trusting relationships with everyone in our life so that if the day does come where we need to intervene, they will listen to us. 

Our intervening doesn’t guarantee that the other person will stop, and we need to be prepared for them to engage in the negative action anyways.  But at the very least we will be able to say we did all that we could, but ultimately the other person’s actions are beyond our control.  When this happens, we can renew our bodhichitta saying may I one day become a Buddha so that I can always be there for this person and gradually lead them along correct paths.

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 of 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 of 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 of 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 of 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 of our other activities.  So even if it creates some tension (within reason of course) 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 of the different ways we are attracted to things that ultimately are harmful to us, such as drugs.  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 conventionally 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 conventionally 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 indeed 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 generate 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 of 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.”  Venerable 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 dazzeled 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.  We can take as an example the various scandals of certain senior teachers several years ago.  Or we can take lesser examples of the myriad of mistakes our teachers make every day.  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 wrong doing 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 and cult-like, 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 of 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 of 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.   Bill Gates is a billionaire, but he uses all of his wealth to bring benefit to others.

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 of its external manifestations (family, jobs, money, etc.) and still be a 100% pure Kadampa, viewing every moment of their normal modern life 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.  Venerable 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 Venerable 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.  Venerable Tharchin’s example and teachings have touched almost all of 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 of 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 of 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 of 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.