six-session_guru_yoga_commentary_geshe_tashi_tsering_of_chenrezig_institute_10
Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

six-session_guru_yoga_commentary_geshe_tashi_tsering_of_chenrezig_institute_10 [2018/02/26 18:13] (current)
Line 1: Line 1:
 +** [[Ayurveda Healing Arts Institute]] of [[Medicine Buddha Healing Center]] **
 +** [[Nalanda University]] of [[Ayurveda]] and [[Buddhism]] **
 +
 +
 +[[Home]] | [[Clinic]] | [[Featured Content]] | [[Buddhist Ayurvedic Distance Learning |Distance Learning]] | [[About Us]] | [[Donate]] | [[Non-Profit]] | [[Recent Changes]] | Phone: 1-510-292-6696
 +
 +Part of the List of [[Dharma Terms]] and [[Fair Use]] [[Hyperlinked Shastra commentary]] ([[Non-Profit Educational Purposes for Distance Learning]]) from the [[Buddhist Ayurveda]] Course ([[SUT560]] [[Introduction to Tantra]] and [[SKT220]]) on [[Sanskrit Terms]] of [[Ayurveda]],​ [[Tibetan Medicine]], [[Dharma]] and [[CLN301|Consultations]]
 +----
 +
 +[[Buddhism Distance Learning]] | [[Ayurveda Distance Learning]]
 +
 +[[Recent Changes]] | [[Ayurveda Terms]] ([[Ayurvedic Chinese Western Medicine Terms from Marma Points of Ayurveda]] | [[Dharma Terms]] | [[Dharma Teachers]], See also [[Six Session Guru Yoga]], [[Extremely Abbreviated Six Session Guru Yoga]], [[Samaya]], [[Tantric Vows]], [[Puja]], [[Sadhana]]
 +
 +----
 +
 +======= Six-Session Guru Yoga Commentary by Geshe Tashi Tsering of Chenrezig Institute ======
 +
 +
 +For a formatted downloadable version, please see: 
 +
 +http://​www.ayurveda-california.com/​distance_learning/​index.php/​buddhist-masters-program/​six-session-guru-yoga/​6-session-guru-yoga-commentary-tashi-tsering-10
 +
 +----
 +This transcription has been very lightly edited, and has not been checked by Ven. Lozang Zopa. All mistakes, omissions, additions, errors, erratic spelling and bizarre punctuation are due solely to the transcriber. This transcript is for study purposes. ​
 + 
 + 
 +Six Session Guru Yoga.
 + 
 + 
 +Teacher:​ Geshe Tashi Tsering
 +Translator:​ Ven. Lozang Zopa
 +Transcribed:​ Carolyn McLeod
 +Chenrezig Institute; 18th March, 2003
 + 
 +Tape 10.
 + 
 +The forty-six secondary offences related to the Bodhisattva Vows are not given in the Six Session Guru Yoga – they’re not there, are they? [Geshe-la in English]: Six Session Guru Yoga memorised by everyone?
 + 
 +We here have a good opportunity to make this life meaningful – not just this life but also future lives as well. Now that we have the opportunity and have come into contact with these words that we study on training the mind, Geshe-la feels that it would be good if we could memorise them or at least get the mind working, use them so that the mind is very familiar with them.
 + 
 +We speak about Buddhas and bodhisattvas – bodhisattvas develop the practice of the mind of enlightenment until they become Buddhas; isn’t that the case. How is it that bodhisattvas make progress to become Buddhas? It’s by properly guarding against the eighteen root downfalls and forty-six secondary offences; they make progress to become a Buddha. We also can follow in their footsteps by aspiring to guard against the eighteen root downfalls and the forty-six secondary offences so that we too may become Buddhas.
 + 
 +Of course its very difficult for us to altogether avoid some transgressions of the eighteen root downfalls and forty-six secondary offences but what we can do is not rejoice in those transgressions but see the short comings of that approach. By not rejoicing, seeing the shortcomings or drawbacks of such transgressions,​ we can prevent those acts from completing these binding afflictions. It won’t become a great binding affliction if we see the drawbacks of such behaviour.
 + 
 +Geshe-la feels that if we work to the best of our ability it will be beneficial. Coming back to where we left off in the text, we are on page 4 of the translation under the heading of The Forty-six Secondary Offences. There is a slight change, which we will come to. It reads: - If a day passes without worshipping any one of the Three Jewels with the three doors –that is, by prostrating your body, praising with your speech and recalling their qualities with a clear mind, it is a secondary offence of Not worshipping the Three Jewels with the three doors. It seems that with each day that passes, a secondary offence is accumulated. ​
 + 
 +The basic meaning is that as Buddhists, but not only as Buddhists but as people who have taken the Bodhisattva Vows, then we should work and not loose respect for the Three Jewels. Should we loose respect for the Three Jewels we incur this type of secondary offence. If we were to recite Six Session Guru Yoga then we would be fulfilling the obligations of respect for them. 
 + 
 +The second secondary offence reads: - If you do not act to arrest great desire, the lack of contentment or attachment to expressions of reverence, it is a secondary offence of Following a desirous mind. 
 + 
 +Should a desirous state of mind arise, we should apply the antidote. Failing to apply the antidote to that is what is being referred to in this secondary offence. We are naturally in danger of incurring this all the time, because by nature we really like it when we are praised and we dislike it when other people denigrate or belittle us. It’s very easy for us to follow the attachment we feel towards praise, so we should be careful. The basic meaning is to see the shortcomings of that, not to follow that but to see how the attachment to such praise and so forth is detrimental.
 + 
 +The third reads: If you do not show respect, such as esteem and so forth, to a senior practitioner of bodhicitta who has good qualities and is worthy of esteem, it is a secondary offence of Not respecting elders.
 + 
 + In the Vinaya the high raki of seniority is very highly emphasised; it’s regarded as being something that is very important. In fact they say that if the renunciants - the monastics - observe the high raki of seniority then there will be happiness in the land. Similarly in society, to observe the seniority – in this case not being in the context of ordination but in terms of years, or in terms of the ill and so forth, to show respect to such people in other words – then observing that high raki of seniority will lead to happiness in the land. The importance of the high raki of seniority is also important in the context of the Mahayana as well, as is clearly said here. 
 + 
 +There’s this picture of the four animals, the elephant, the monkey on top of that, on top of the monkey is the rabbit and on top of the rabbit is the bird – you have seen this picture of the four animals one on top of the other.
 + 
 +There is a story about these four creatures. It seems that in a particular kingdom, the harvests were good and the rain would come at the right time and in general there was a lot of happiness in this particular kingdom, and people thought it was due to the king. They said this to the king and the king said, ‘No. No. In fact, in an out of the way part of this area there are four animals that show respect to the high raki of seniority and get along quite well, and the happiness of the land is due to them”. They say the eldest of the elders was the bird. Next in seniority came the rabbit. The order of seniority was determined in relation to the growth of a particular tree, so they go through this whole process of trying to determine who’s the most senior and they determine that it’s the bird, because the bird was the one responsible for the seed that later grew into the tree. Because, the bird had gone off to some other place, eaten the fruit, ingested the seed that was in that fruit and it came out in his ka ka [that’s Geshe-la’s word of choice] and hence it became this tree. The bird was determined to be the eldest because it was he who bought the seed for the tree. 
 + 
 +The rabbit came along once that seed had sprouted into a small stalk with leaves and it came along hoping to make a meal out of the leaves – that was when he came into the picture. The monkey came about once the tree had become quite a reasonable size and had started sprouting branches. Monkeys are always in need of a place to play and climb around so once the tree sprouted branches, he got his playground. ​
 + 
 +Once the tree became very large and developed a big canopy of leaves, then along came the elephant to enjoy the relief from the heat provided by the shade of the tree. It is said that the elephant is the youngest of these four. At first glance, it appears that the order would be established in terms of physical size in which case the elephant is the biggest, the most significant. In fact, the establishment wasn’t done in relation to physical size but in relation to seniority and in this regard, the bird is at the peak a he is depicted at the very top. The elephant, being the youngest, had to show respect to all the rest of them. 
 + 
 +With monks, nuns and with lay people as well, oftentimes if the more senior person doesn’t have an education or certain qualities then the younger person has a tendency to condescend to that person. They don't have a great deal of respect for them, even though, by rights of seniority, this person is an object of respect oftentimes that respect is not given due to lack of qualities and so forth. In fact, there is condescension from the younger parties; this is considered to be very bad. 
 + 
 +When you are dealing with a person who by nature has those qualities or is learned and so on and so forth, then the situation tends to be a bit better. Because the recognition of the fact that this person has these certain positive qualities leads to feeling respect, or a sense of reverence towards the person. you think, “oh, this person is quite intelligent and so on and so forth.’ But, when the thought arises, ‘this person isn’t really very educated’,​ or something, there is a tendency to condescend. In fact, from one’s own side, a sense of pride arises. ​
 + 
 +Hence in the Vinaya, there’s great importance attached to recording the time at which one was ordained. These days, we can time this to quite accurate point as far as seconds and so forth; regardless, even in the Vinaya of old, the recording, being aware of and observing the order in which one is ordained, down to the time, is regarded as foundational.
 + 
 +Geshe Doga maintains that he will not ordain monks and nuns and it goes back to a particular event where there was a woman who was requesting ordination as a nun from him. Geshe Doga gave an explanation that followed the Vinaya to the letter. In the Vinaya it says that if you are dealing with two people of the same level of ordination, one is ordained in the morning and one ordained at noon or in the afternoon then it would be suitable for the one ordained in the afternoon to prostrate to the one who was ordained in the morning. [Geshe-la has made this very simple for dim witted folks like myself – its easy, its obvious, someone ordained at 1o’clock, someone’s ordained at 2 o’clock; it would be suitable for the person ordained at 2 o’clock to prostrate to the person ordained at 1 o’clock.] Geshe Doga explained this to the perspective nun – she’s not a nun yet, she’s perspective,​ she wants be to ordained. He points out that is the case. She says, “wait a minute, wait a minute! Gen-la’ she says to Geshe Doga, ‘there’s no way I could prostrate to older nuns, forget it! I can’t do that.’ Geshe Doga said, ‘Look, that’s what the Vinaya says.’ Geshe-la suspects that Geshe Doga might have said, ‘You must prostrate to older nuns,’ rather than say that it would be suitable for you to prostrate to an elder nun or monk. Geshe Doga didn’t say, ‘I said that she had to,’ but Geshe-la suspects that’s what actually happened. Whatever happened or what was actually said, this woman maintained that no way was she going to prostrate to an elder nun and she being very direct, and Geshe Doga being very direct, said, ‘well, in that case, there is no way I am going to ordain you.’ To this day, Geshe Doga says he isn’t going to ordain.
 + 
 + ​Geshe-la responded saying, ‘why don't you ordain?’ Geshe Doga responded, ‘Because the root isn’t there. The very root of the Vinaya is respect, and these people don’t want to show respect, they refuse for juniors to show respect to seniors.’
 + 
 +Tenzin Wangmo – Geshe-la’s old attendant, she asked Geshe-la, ‘do you even have to show respect to somebody who is uneducated and has no qualities, just because they are seniors?’ There was a monk, Lozang, around at that time, who she didn’t have a very high estimation of apparently, and this was probably what she was referring to. Geshe-la points out that she had to prostrate to him, he said that she had to have respect for him; still she found this idea a little bit abrasive. Geshe-la wonders how many people here would refuse to prostrate to a senior monk or nun; probably there’s a few, maybe even many.
 + 
 +The wording is suitable or appropriate to prostrate to. All of those who are more senior in terms of ordination are suitable to be prostrated to. It is appropriate. ​
 + 
 +There’s no need to be prostrating on a regular basis, especially in this context when we see the explanations given we see that it is not only appropriate but in fact perhaps sometimes necessary to prostrate to those elder in their training. It would be however inappropriate for an elder in training to prostrate to a more junior one in the training – that should not be done. 
 + 
 +The dharma robe [chogyu] of a monastic has a blessing with it. Geshe-la lost the blessing of his dharma robe because he passed a night without it; it was taken down to Annie McGhie’s place to be washed and didn’t come back that evening, so he lost the blessing on it. In going back to Sera, he thought he would get it blessed again. In the past he would always go to Gen Loga, Geshe-la’s teacher, but Gen Loga had passed away and he had to find someone else. Geshe-la spoke with Geshe Tsering Lhudrup, an old mate of his, who was in the class below Geshe-la. ​
 + 
 +He spoke to Geshe Tsering Lhudrup saying, ‘look, I need to get a blessing for my dharma robe.’ Geshe Tsering Lhudrup would have said, ‘ah, you’re going to have to prostrate to me, you know that don’t you.’ Geshe-la said, ‘no, I don't have to prostrate to you, [here there was a demonstration of what replaces a prostration,​ which you have to do three times in place of the prostration when the person doing the blessing is someone more junior in the training] I just do this three times in place of the prostration and that’s sufficient, because, after all, I’m more senior in the training than you are.’ At this point, Geshe Tsering Lhudrup said, ‘hey, wait a minute, no you’re not!’ Geshe-la assumed he was junior because he was in the class below but then Geshe-la remembered, ‘that’s right. Geshe Tsering Lhudrup got ordained as a Bhikkshu – a gelong – in Buxor when Kyabje [?] Rinpoche, His Holiness the Dalai Lama tutor, came. It was only after that the Geshe-la went to Dharamsala to get ordained as a Bhikkshu, a gelong, by His Holiness the Dalai Lama. Indeed Geshe Tsering Lhudrup is older in the training. Geshe-la had said, ‘wait you’re the new monk, I’m the older one’ – then Geshe-la said, ‘no, no, no – you’re right, ok, absolutely; I’ll prostrate to you, I’ll do the prostrations.’ Geshe Tsering Lhudrup said, ‘no, no, no you don’t have to do the prostrations;​ he said, ‘no, no, no, you don’t have to be shy about it, it’s appropriate;​ you’re elder in the training, I’ll do the prostrations.’ [Geshe-la laughs, everyone laughs]
 + 
 +It’s just a gesture that you make three times, and its something that’s spoken about in the Vinaya. Geshe-la didn’t do that, he actually did the prostrations because in the end it was determined that Geshe Tsering Lhudrup was an elder in the training. If however, Geshe Tsering Lhudrup hadn’t been an elder in the training, it would have been inappropriate for Geshe-la to do the prostrations,​ it would have been inappropriate for his training as an elder, so he wouldn’t have been allowed to do it. 
 + 
 +Question 1. Inaudible and not repeated by Ven. Lozang Zopa
 +Geshe-la. That’s something that getsuls – novices – don’t have to observe. It’s something unique to gelongs – Bhikkshus. It’s a non downfall for a getsul. It would be a fault for a gelong or a Bhikkshu to sleep in one place with his chogyu being in another, they have to remain together under the same roof. The fault is incurred if they are under separate rooves. ​
 + 
 +This is one of the ways in which we must observe the high raki of seniority. It’s no big deal – making a prostration to someone elder in the training. It’s due to the power of pride that we are taken aback at the thought that, ‘I will have to prostrate to this person,’ for instance, because they aren’t very well educated or something like this – that is exactly the work of pride. It’s probably best if we don’t speak a lot about the Vinaya. ​
 + 
 +Question 2. Inaudible and not repeated by Ven. Lozang Zopa.
 +Geshe-la. You’re not ordained in a group and you get ordained in groups of three at the most, and Geshe-la has now said the three are the same. If you get ordained at the same time, you obtain the vows at the same time and are the same.
 + 
 +Question 3. Inaudible and not repeated by Ven. Lozang Zopa.
 +Geshe-la. Getsuls or novices take up thirty-six commitments;​ for the most part the things that fully ordained people have to observe are subsumed by these thirty-six taken by the novices. If one were to not properly guard one, then it’s possible that the fault of having transgressed that will be incurred. That’s really what we are speaking about.
 +There’s actually no text that explicitly said that novices are not allowed to read the trainings of Bhikkshus – fully ordained monks or nuns - you didn’t hear Geshe-la say that. 
 + 
 +Question 4. Inaudible and not repeated by Ven. Lozang Zopa.
 +Geshe-la. It says for fully ordained monks only, which is indicated by the parenthesis in the English edition, perhaps what they mean by this is that lay people shouldn’t be reading it. 
 +Palden’s question is a good one, there’s truth to what he says. If a novice fails to fully guard against some of these faults of a Bhikkshu they don’t incur a fault to the same degree, but there is a fault attached to that. 
 + 
 +With the so jong or Restoration and purification ritual; first the fully ordained go in and after that the novices go in. Some people understand that is the case and assume that why the novices go in later is because they are not allowed to listen to the restoration recitation of the fully ordained. This is not actually the case – people think it is but that’s not actually the case. In the past, during Shakyamuni Buddha'​s time, there was a tradition of actually bringing up the downfalls of the ordained people. In front of the sangha, someone would say, ‘you did this downfall, and you did that downfall and so on and so forth.’ It would actually be brought up in front of other people. ​
 + 
 +It would be inappropriate for a novice to be present when the downfalls of the fully ordained are being brought up. These days they don’t do that, but that’s where the tradition of having the fully ordained come first and the novices come later stems from. Furthermore,​ in that ritual the novices have to leave first and the fully ordained still have what is known as the Vinaya karma or the work of the Vinaya - the Vinaya activities - yet to do. Those Vinaya activities that come at the end are something that has to be kept away from the novices. That is just a point of clarification. Geshe-la would suspect that this addition for fully ordained monks only carried the meaning that it should not be read by lay people. Geshe-la will look into this. 
 + 
 +Question. 4. What about when a monk or a nun is with a high lama who is not ordained. How do the rules of prostration apply?
 +Geshe-la. If it’s your own lama, that is to say, a lama that you have a dharmic connection with; a lama that you are connected as teacher - student, then you have to prostrate. In the past, sometimes, an image of the Buddha or a thanka or something was placed so that the monastic could prostrate to that, so that others would not make criticism of the situation which transpires. That was mainly done so as to prevent people criticising the monastic making prostration to the lay person. Properly speaking, when the lama is a lay person who you do not have that dharmic connection with, who is not your teacher, then it’s inappropriate for the monastic to prostrate – its unsuitable. ​
 + 
 +Question. 5. In The Fifty Verses of Guru Devotion, it’s said that a monastic should not prostrate in public to a lay teacher.
 +Geshe-la. Geshe-la would suppose that refers to lama in general; not your own lama but who is a lama you are not connected to through dharma. Its appropriate,​ in fact necessary, for an monastic to prostrate to their own lama. For instance, it would be appropriate to prostrate to the conqueror Vajradhara wouldn’t it? The conqueror, Vajradhara is not a monk – that’s how you would debate it. Is it appropriate to a monastic to prostrate to the conqueror Vajradhara? You’re not going to prostrate to him?
 +Geshe-la feels that it’s probably a reference to a lama whom you don’t have a relationship with, because its certainly appropriate and suitable for one to prostrate to one’s own lama yet inappropriate to prostrate to a lay lama whom you have no connection with. 
 +We have to be careful because there are a lot of lay lamas who come around, and certainly people who are present here will attend the teachings by those lay lamas. Its possible that a monastic will go into one of these teachings and doesn’t prostrate, and people criticise the monastic saying how prideful they are. Its possible that the criticism comes all the way back to Geshe-la – people saying. ‘that Geshe is so full of pride and he’s teaching that pride to the monastics’ – people might criticise us and we do have to take care. 
 +If you are in a situation where you have to prostrate to such a lay lama who is not your teacher, then it should be sufficient to, on a mental level, imagine you are making a prostration to the objects of refuge; its certainly suitable to visualise the objects of refuge and prostrate to them. Just because you bend over it doesn’t mean you are prostrating to them. A proper prostration has to involve something occurring in the mind. We should take care with these types of things – its quite important.
 + 
 +It is indeed quite important to show respect to others; keep in mind what Geshe Langri Tangpa says in his verses on training the mind. He says, bless me so I may view myself lower and others as higher with whoever I go about with – that’s a pretty poor translation but its literal and it will do. As Geshe Langri Tangpa says, we should have respect for everyone – all sentient beings. Having respect is one thing, it might be more difficult for us to prostrate because that involves putting our head to the ground. ​
 + 
 +To have respect in your mind, to speak respectfully and hold yourself respectively is all polite, honourable and upstanding. Its possible that its even beneficial as its related in this story about where the whole land benefited from people acting in this way.
 + 
 +Moving on to the fourth that says: If, out of anger or laziness, you do not respond with a relevant answer to another person’s sincere and amicable question, it is a secondary offence of Not responding to a question.
 + 
 + What they are talking about here is like the response that Geshe-la gave to Palden a bit earlier when he said, ‘I don’t know.’ Geshe-la was thinking the whole time, ‘maybe best not to speak too much about the things that novices have to guard against.’ He did think about it a little bit more and thought it was a good question and maybe he should respond a little bit more. Geshe-la was just teasing, kidding around when he responded by saying, ‘I don’t know’.
 + 
 +Geshe-la didn’t have any negative or bad motivation in giving that response to Palden, he was just teasing. Its conceivable how that type of response would be the basis for this type of secondary offence if its done out of anger or laziness. Geshe-la says never would he respond that way out of anger and he doesn’t think he would respond that way out of laziness – probably not laziness, we might debate that [L/L; A/L]
 + 
 +Some of the nuns, a few lay people, the Geshe and the translator are people who would be particularly hungry at this point of the day, having about 12 hours still to wait.
 + 
 +Notice that its called, not responding to a question. ​
 + 
 +Number five reads: If, due to pride, anger, laziness, or bitterness you do not accept another person’s invitation to food or clothing etc., it is a secondary offence of Not accepting another’s hospitality.
 + 
 +If you don’t have a real reason or purpose for not going, you really have to go. In this regard, there are certain circumstances where it would be inappropriate to refuse. To not go due to pride, anger or bitterness would be a great negativity. Even to not go out of laziness involves some type of fault – its not suitable to refuse on the basis of laziness. ​
 + 
 +When a benefactor offers gold silver or some other precious items, if you do not take it out of bitterness, anger or laziness it is a secondary offence of Not accepting gold and the like. 
 + 
 +Mainly this type of secondary offence is incurred on the basis of motivation. If one refuses or does not take these things that are offered out of bitterness, anger or even laziness it functions as a secondary offence. Its also that a person might have a good motivation in refusing to accept. For instance, they might think that in accepting this, the person is going to experience hardships in livelihood and be unable to sustain themselves and refuse on that basis, which is another matter. Mainly the refusal to accept leading to a secondary offence relates to the motivation. ​
 + 
 +If out of bitterness, anger, envy or laziness, you do not give Dharma to those who want it, it is a secondary offence of Not giving Dharma to those who want it. 
 + 
 +How does this differ from the root downfall we mentioned above, which speaks about not giving Dharma and material assistance – number 2? If out of miserliness you do not give Dharma or material assistance to those who suffer or have no protector even though it is appropriate,​ it is a root downfall of Refusing to give the Dharma or material assistance. ​ Is there a difference? What is the difference?
 + 
 +Here, the root downfall is called Refusing to give the Dharma or material assistance; the secondary offence is called, Not giving Dharma to those who want it. A secondary offence is relatively light whereas a root downfall is great.
 + 
 +Student. The secondary offence is out of anger.
 +Geshe-la. Anger better than miserly is it? [Geshe-la in English]
 + 
 +Refusing to give the dharma or material assistance, which is the name of the second root downfall, meant not giving dharma or material assistance when it is appropriate. How do we determine whether it’s appropriate? ​
 + 
 +For instance, if you have a person who is utterly impoverished,​ almost totally void of material wellbeing and you encounter them and you have something to give yet you refuse to give out of miserliness,​ this is a great negativity isn’t it? A big fault.
 + 
 +Maybe a person knows some real crucial points about the Dharma; they have something very special that they could share yet out of miserliness they hold on to it thinking, ‘if I were to say this then that person would come to know.’ There is in a sense the desire for oneself to be greater, for oneself to have the qualities or the knowledge. This does indeed happen, where a person has something special to convey yet refuses to out of miserliness for these types of considerations. That would be a root downfall. ​
 + 
 +Whereas if out of laziness, even though you have the time to speak about the dharma with an individual you do not, it would be a secondary offence. This is different from the scenario we painted with the root downfall where you are holding on to this greatness, or you want to attain some higher position in light of your knowledge and therefore out of stinginess you don’t want to share it. Geshe-la says be sure to check it out – what has just been said is Geshe-la’s interpretation of it. 
 + 
 +Question 6. Would Geshe-la speak a little bit about the fifth root downfall? In commenting on the fifth root downfall, which is Stealing the property of the Three Jewels, Geshe-la mentioned in connection with it, how it’s inappropriate for sangha to give away substances of faith to lay people. Certain instances have come up so could Geshe-la maybe define the perimeters of that a little more clearly. ​
 +Geshe-la. Geshe-la first said, ‘it’s very difficult; its something that you have to take care about’, then he said that he doesn’t know, which is that its difficult to really say. If something is offered specifically to the sangha, with the sangha in mind, then it becomes a substance of faith and strictly speaking it would be inappropriate to give that to a lay person. But, a monk or nun can certainly practice generosity so in the manner of practicing generosity, they could then pass something on to a lay person – even something that has been offered in this way. 
 +In former times in India, the monastics – monks and nuns – wouldn’t sell or engage in business and so on and so forth so the only thing they would really have to practice generosity with were the very things they had been offered – substances of faith. We make a distinction;​ where its appropriate,​ its possible to practice generosity. How about if we were to say that lay people are not permitted to partake of substances of faith that has been offered to monastics in a non-conscientious manner. ​
 + 
 +A lay person is not permitted to indiscriminately partake of substances of faith offered to a monastic. ​
 + 
 +Lets say something is offered to a group of sangha in general – for one or two nuns who do not have full authority over that – in other words there are only two of the whole group – for them to then give it away is inappropriate. That’s what falls into what we were discussing; its not appropriate for one or two nuns who don't have the authority to be giving away things that have been offered to the sangha in general. Keep in mind that it says in this text and in other places to not give material assistance or the Dharma where it is appropriate is a fault. So you certainly can practice generosity. ​
 + 
 +Lets say that you’ve got a bunch of lollies in front of you and a lay person is sitting by just drooling, really obviously wants to have one of those lollies, it would be inappropriate for you not to give it. In this way, you can see there are distinctions that we have to make within the statement there are subdivisions and different angles to look at it from. 
 + 
 +We can indeed practice generosity. ​ But to give away things that you don’t have authority over to an acquaintance or something would be inappropriate,​ not suitable. To give indiscriminately is also inappropriate. ​
 + 
 +Geshe-la is not going to claim that he never makes mistakes. We have some things that are stated very clearly in the texts and other things that he responds to on the basis of his knowledge of the Vinaya and what is stated in there. Those types of things we can take as they are – that’s fine, it says in the text or it says in the Vinaya. There are other comments that Geshe-la will make, that he makes after having arrived at his conclusions through his own thinking process. Those things are for you to investigate – because the Geshe said is not a pervasive reasoning. [Geshe-la in English] – really true.  We will leave it there. Thank you very much.
 + 
 + 
 +10
 + 
 +
 +
  
six-session_guru_yoga_commentary_geshe_tashi_tsering_of_chenrezig_institute_10.txt · Last modified: 2018/02/26 18:13 (external edit)