“At the three times with supreme faith, with mandala and flowers between your palms, revere the Guru and teacher, and bow your head down to their feet.”
“If they are a householder or ‘new’, In order to avoid worldly censure, Those who have vows arrange sacred Dharma and such in front, and mentally holding ‘unconventional conduct’ (tul-zhug), prostrate.”
“Arranging their seats, standing up, Working for the purposes and so on. The one with ‘unconventional conduct’ should serve them in all ways.”
—-Verses 3, 4 and 5 Fifty Verses on the Guru
On the fifth day of Fifty Verses on a Guru teaching, the 17th Gyalwang Karmapa focused on the third, fourth and fifth verses of the main text, which is how to act towards a qualified Vajrayāna teacher prior to them becoming your master, and after they have become your master. The first topic, how to act towards them prior to becoming your master has three points in general:
1) how to request them to be your vajra master/guru
2) in particular, how to request a householder or a junior/new monastic to be your master
3) how to examine them in order to have mutual confidence in each other
The 17th Karmapa discussed 1) and 2) with the second half of the teaching focusing mainly on 2), which involved a very interesting discussion of the question of the seniority/superiority of vows in the Hinayāna, Mahayāna and Vajrayāna. For example, what should a fully ordained monastic do if their guru is a layperson/householder? Would it be a breach of the Vinaya to prostrate to them? Some may think it is, according to worldly norms and the Hinayāna Vinaya rules. The 17th Karmapa first discussed the verse how to ask a guru to become your teacher, then how to do that if the guru is a layperson, such as prostrating mentally to them but prostrating physically to a Dharma text placed in front of them, so as to avoid worldly censure and harm to the guru cause by a worldly ignorance and lack of understanding .
This was then followed by an extensive discussion as to whether it was ever appropriate for a fully ordained monastic to prostrate physically to a layperson guru. The 17th Karmapa cited the well-known Kālacakra commentary Stainless Light (Vimalaprabhā/ Dri-mé Ö དྲི་མེད་འོད།,), which states that of all the types of vow holders, the supreme one in terms of giving an empowerment is a fully ordained monastic. According to the Hinayana prostrating to a layperson would be breaching Vinaya rules. Yet, according to Jetsun Dragpa Gyeltsen’s commentary on the Fifty Verses, the Karmapa cited that there might be occasions where it would not be contrary or bad for a fully ordained monastic to prostrate to a layperson and explained why. The commentary cites three reasons why asserting that it was not alright for a fully ordained monastic to prostrate to a layperson is incorrect and contrary to not only the Mahayāna but also Hinayāna scriptures.
In sum, according to the Hinayāna and Mahayāna Sutras and scriptures it is never wrong or faulty to prostrate to a Bodhisattva, and there are many examples of Bodhisattvas, and even Buddhas, appearing as lay people. Thus, ultimately, it is not about the clothes one wears, or even vows one keeps, but one’s level of realisations and awareness/yeshe, as to whether or not a person should be prostrated to by a fully ordained monastic.
The 17th Karmapa briefly also discussed how householders who live in monastic communities and consume the offerings, should not be followed as teachers, and even the children of gurus are not necessarily suitable students for a variety of reasons, in particular because they often don’t have the qualities or required devotion necessary for a student. Although previously in Tibet, there were family lineages of parent-children in Ngagpa/tantric traditions, these degenerated and generally become more about worldly politics and power, than actual Dharma practice.
There was also a discussion of a text called Blaze of Reasoning (Tarkajvālā; Tib. རྟོག་གེ་འབར་བ་,) by the 6th Century Indian Philosopher, Bhāvaviveka, ལེགས་ལྡན་འབྱེད་ a master of the Svātantrika school of Madhyamika. He was critical of Buddhapalita’s interpretation of Nagārjuna’s classic work The Root Verses on the Wisdom of the Madhyamika. In this text, Bhāvaviveka asserts that it is incorrect to say that fully ordained monastics should never physically prostrate to householders. After all, the Buddha himself, before he attained awakening, appeared as a Bodhisattva in lay clothes and so even though people wear lay clothes, they may not be ordinary sentient beings.
In essence, the point of the teaching in these three verses was that a student must revere and respect a qualified vajra master, and approach them to be their teacher in an appropriate and respectful way. The teacher also must have examined the student to see if they are qualified before accepting them. In addition, a fully ordained monastic should never have too much pride and think that laypeople are unworthy gurus and should not get prostrations from them, merely by fact of their being a monastic. In fact, the 17th Karmapa cited Sutra and Tantra scriptures from the commentaries to show conversely that it is considered ‘despicable’ if a person wears monastic robes and acts like they are a great fully ordained monastic, when they are not really performing the speech, activities or thoughts of a monastic. Indeed.
The 17th Karmapa also spoke about the importance of examining a guru well again and that we must do that, but after we have done that and started the vajra connection with a guru, if we later see they have faults and are not qualified, we should not speak about them with malice or disrespect or lose faith in the Dharma, instead skilfully we should stay far away from them. See video clip I made of this part of the teaching (in Tibetan, with English captions) here.
This teaching reminded me of a few years ago when I requested a Karma Kagyu Rinpoche from Bhutan to prostrate physically to me in person three times, because it seemed they were disrespecting and objectifying me and other women. They did so privately (with no one else present), and I visualised myself as Vajravarahi to avoid any breach or downfall. After all, prostrating to a person depends on inner qualities and intentions for it to be a genuine prostration, right?
Below is a transcript of the teaching, edited slightly to avoid too much repetition, and I have given my own translations of the verses in Tibetan, with explanation as to why I have changed it when necessary. For example, certain words like ‘unconventional conduct’ (tul-zhug) in Tibetan were not translated for some reason, or the order of the lines was changed.
Music? I’m Gonna Give You Respect by Marvin Gaye, Respect by Aretha Franklin, and A Little Respect by Erasure.
May we all meet and be able to recognise qualified Vajrayāna gurus regardless of how they look and appear externally and so on, and serve them well with suitable respect and devotion!
Translated and transcribed by Adele Tomlin, 26th February 2024.
Fifty Verses on the Guru by 17th Karmapa (Day 5)
Transcript
Today with our topic the Fifty Verses on the Guru, there are different outlines there’s the one according to Drogon Chogyal Phagpa’s summary, and there’s also the outline according to Tsongkhapa’s commentary. I thought that there’s a good reason to speak about both of these.
So, first of all according to Drogon Chopag’s summary there are three main sections. The first are the introductory points connected to the composition, the second is the meaning of the text, and the third is the concluding summary, concluding the composition. Now we’re speaking about the meaning of the text.
In this section, the meaning of the text is 1) how to act prior to them becoming your master, and 2) how to act toward them after they have become your master. These are the two main topics.
The first topic, how to act toward them prior to becoming your master has three points in general:
1) Generally, how to request them to become your master
2) In particular, how to request a householder, or a junior/new monastic to be your master
3) How to examine yourself in order to have mutual confidence in each other
So basically, what this is saying is what you need to do before they become your master, there are these three topics. The first of these in general how do you ask someone who is a qualified Master to be your master? And ask them to please accept me as your student. how do you make this request? The second is in particular, if the guru or Master is a householder, or if they’re a monastic who is junior to you, so it’s either someone who is like a novice monastic or is junior to you in the precepts, how do you ask them? The third is how do you examine the connection in order to have confidence in each other? In order to believe that the guru is qualified and the student is a qualified vessel then you have to examine each other. That is how it is divided according to Drogon Chophag’s outline.
According Je Tsongkhapa’s outline there is:
-how to show respect
-how to General teaching
-how to revere the guru and then exceptions as I’ve mentioned before.
So today, we have come to the general teaching on how to revere the guru. For this, there’s the reason why it is logical to follow the guru and how to show respect, pay and offer service with your body, speech and mind. The third of these is examine the object and the basis for the respect. So this is examining the qualities of the guru, examining the basis is examining whether they are monastic or layperson. So the section on how to show respect has two points the general teaching on how to revere the guru and the exceptions.
At this point we’re on the general teaching on how to revere the guru, if we take Tsongkhapa’s commentary as the basis. At the point on a general teaching on how to revere the guru. According to Drogon Chopag this is in general how to request them to become your master. Now the verse that is related to this to show you the verse:
The Third Verse: how to make a request to the guru, the prostration
“At the three times with supreme faith, with the mandala and flowers between your palms, revere the Guru and teacher, and bow your head down to their feet.”
I believe this is the third stanza among the Fifty Verse. Now to explain the meaning there is the Sanskrit commentary on the Fifty Verses. This is showing you the Sanskrit, Tibetan, Chinese and English, I don’t need to show that now.
Indian commentary
So, according to the Indian textual commentary on serving the guru what it says in this verse, is teaching the need to show respect to your Guru and teacher.
Meaning of the word ‘teacher’ (ton-pa)
The meaning of the word ‘Teacher’ (ton-pa) , it gives according to the Sanskrit commentary in the Fifty verses it says is the one who is teaching sentient beings the instructions on the path to higher states and true excellence, that is a teacher. So teacher, means the person who’s actually teaching you the path, brings you down the path, teaches you the path is the teacher.
The meaning of word ‘guru’
There are many different ways to explain the word guru/lama, and here it says because of their sole qualities by Nature. So when you say sole qualities by Nature saying that basically their own qualities and no faults and solely qualities this is one explanation .
Supplicating them with a mandala and flowers and the six paramitas
Now in order to request them, you can’t just do this with empty hands, you need to have a basis to make the request.What is the basis for this? It says with the Mandala and flowers between your palms. This shows the support that you need to offer.
When you say a Mandala, in Sanskrit the word is Mandala of course and the meaning of this is that ‘it holds its essence’, terms of holding its Essence properly it is a Mandala. In Tibetan we say khyil-kor. So you have a Mandala and you have to make the supplication with a Mandala. It says it has to encompass all six transcendences/paramitas.
For example, by wiping it and so forth that is like discipline and so forth. So there’s a way of making a mandala offering that includes all six transcendences. This is with a model that and with such a Mandala you make the offering. The mandala can be of many shapes, they can be round or square there are many different types of mandalas for the peaceful, enriching, wrath, magnetizing and wrathful. So whether it’s round or square, you need to wipe it with scented water. Also in the Indian tradition they would scrub it with ba-jung which means cow dung. So this is in the Indian tradition you wipe it with these substances and you should have flowers the Mandala and then not only are there is a mandala in your palms you have flowers between your palms. Flowers such as Jasmine and other flowers and join two hands are joined together. So when we say: “flowers between your palms”. The palms are joined together and you have flowers between your palms. This is an old Indian tradition and so this is the way that you should join your palms with the flowers.
Now, generally in terms of the topic of mandalas, there is a way I understand a Mandala but we don’t need to speak about that today, we can think about that later. There is the way we normally offer mandalas and the way they’re talked about in India in the olden days are slightly different and so I will speak about this later. In any case, you prepare a Mandala and then flowers between your palms as you join your palms. Not only that also should bow your head down to their feet, you prostrate to their feet and bow down to them fully. You touch their feet with the crown of your head you have to prostrate by bringing your head to their feet you bow their head. That is how you do it physically.
With ‘supreme faith’
What is your intention? It is with highest [the Tibetan word here is ‘supreme’] faith, which means it is from the depths of your heart or you could say like in an appropriate and good way, basically, from the depths of your being with respect and with resolve you prostrate to them.
Is it okay to just prostrate a single time? It is not. The prostration and supplication shouldn’t just be a single time but three times. So you should practice three times and you should do this at the three times, which is the three periods of morning, noon and afternoon. You should supplicate them not just once, but morning, midday, and the evening these are the three times when you should supplicate the guru along with the support. That is the interpretation of the Sanskrit commentary in the Fifty Verses.
Jetsun Dragpa Gyeltsen’s commentary
In terms of Jetsun Dragpa Gyeltsen’s interpretation the way that he explains this is that primarily, it says before there’s a connection between the master and disciple, it is a new disciple who has never followed this Guru before, a new Guru. We have the student and the guru they’re new to each other. For that reason, this is when they’re making a new connection as a guru and disciple, so how do you pay respect and serve them? How do you make the connection? How do you begin with them? If you ask about this again and again. it says this is the way you should pay respect.
Another reason for this is that is that after you’ve done the Refuge vow, this is not just any Refuge vow, this is one that’s connected with the Vajrayana, you’ve given just the Refuge vow but it is before you make a secret Mantra connection. So this is when you have just a connection of giving Refuge vows but have not made a Vajrayana connection.
Then it says “with supreme faith” and this means there’s a qualified Guru who’s worthy of following when you’re requesting the Dharma and instructions from them in order to receive the instructions in Dharma complete and without mistake then you need to supplicate them in an uncontrived and from the depths of your heart,with the motivation of wishing to achieve Liberation and omniscience. What is important is the motivation. When you’re relying on a guru the motivation is very important. If the motivation is mistaken, then there’s a great problem.
Thus, when you hear their name and then you feel like you need to want to rely on and serve that guru, then you need to supplicate the Guru away that’s complete and unmistaken. Then it’s not like you just get any empowerment or instruction, instead it shouldn’t be like that of just wanting to get as many empowerments as you can and you want to make a long list of them. Even if one only receives a single word of teaching from the guru you should think you’re going to practice that single word and join it with your being and you’re doing this with the intention of achieving Buddhahood for the sake of all sentient beings. So this is the highest intention, the highest and supreme faith. It is very important that with this intention you imbue your request for them to become your teacher. Then in one day, you should do this in the three times, joining your palms with flowers between them thinking that this is the guru who’s going to teach you everything, that’ll give you all the qualities in your mindstream in this and future lifetimes since they are Superior to you or because they give you the empowerments and the instructions.
The meaning of ‘Unexcelled’
Here the word Tibetan word La-na-mepa means unexcelled, none Higher, none who is greater than the guru you follow should be greater than you in qualities, and in particular in the qualities of Dharma they must be superior to you. if they are not equal to you, or lower than you, if you rely on that sort of a guru then you can’t really develop qualities yourself. For that reason, they should be superior to you, or be the guru or teachers who gives you the empowerments and instructions you should serve them and venerate them with your possessions and so forth. Give and offer them services and so forth and prostrate to them. bowing your head to their feet. That is Jetsun Dragpa’s commentary as the basis.
Je Tsongkhapa’s commentary
Taking the great Tsongkhapa’s commentary as the basis it is not that much different. In any case, in the morning, afternoon and the evening, these three different times or periods of the day you should you should prostrate to the guru who teaches you the path. The lowest part of their body is their feet and one takes the highest part of the body, the Crown and attach it to the guru’s feet as a way of showing that you have incredibly great respect for them. It’s a way of showing great respect. So this is a way of you have to show reverence to the guru by touching your head to their feet.
If you ask is merely prostrating going to benefit is that enough? It is not it is not enough. You have to have support for the prostration you have to arrange a mandala with piles of flowers So here he says that you have a Mandala with piles of flowers on it this is how I explain it. According to the Indian commentary, first you prepare a Mandala and then in your hands you hold the flowers between your palms not with empty Palms but with flowers between your palms, it’s a little bit different. The main thing in talking of Mandala is I think there is a difference in terms of the way we Tibetans understand a Mandala, we understand it and the way it was understood in in in ancient India are is slightly different. I will speak about this later if the time occurs.
In any case here, first the offering Mandala is arranged with the piles of flowers. Then after you’ve made the Mandala offering and then you join your palms.
Chag Lotsawa’s ‘better’ translation of the verse
Here Je Tsongkhapa gives the translation of the Chaggyur Fifty Verses, translated by Chag Lotsawa (ཆག་ལོ་ཙཱ་བ་ཆོས་རྗེ་དཔལ་,(1197-1263/4) ), which reads “with a mandala of flowers, join palms prostrate with your head to their feet, thus venerating the guru and teacher.” Je Rinpoche says this is a better translation. However, these days, this translation is not available. It is possible that it is in some group of old texts but it is not extant now. However, at the time of Je Tsongkhapa it was probably Chag Lo’s translation, which was common at the time. Now, the one we put in the Tengyur, is the one from Lotsawa Rinchen Zangpo, not the one by Chag Lo.
Generally, when we were in Tibet, when printing the Kangyur and the Tengyur there were probably many different translations of any single text, but they couldn’t put all of them because it is very expensive to do that. So at that time if they had to print all of them you couldn’t. So if they had to choose one of the various different translations they had and use those that one. However, these days we have computers and if we can put them all in then there is not so much extra expense that we need to do. We do not have to go through as much effort as we did before. So these days, if we print if we prepare an edition of the Kangyur and Tengyur tenture then we can we can include as many different translations as we can and I think that there are great benefits and great purpose and need to do this. In any case, Je Tsongkhapa says that Chag Lo’s translation is better. Here he says with highest faith means acting with a motivation of great sincere faith so after
The Fourth Verse: how to request if they are a householder or junior monastic
Speaking about the fourth verse then, according Tsongkhapa’s outline is in particular, how to request a household or a junior vow-holder, this section has two different parts: the first is not prostrating in order to avoid criticism by others, the second is other ways of showing respect to perfect your own accumulation. What this is saying is that when there’s a guru, that we’re relying on they might be a householder, they are a layperson or maybe a junior monastic someone who has just taken ordination, or taken the novice vows, but the student is someone who has the Gelong vows So the student has the support of being a Gelong, then if they prostrate to someone who’s a householder or to that who has a junior vows how should they show their respect. There are two different points and verses on this and there will be more of an explanation later.
Je Tsongkhapa’s Commentary: the exceptions to the rule
Now, according to the outline by Je Tsongkhapa, both of these are in the section called the exceptions, these are exceptional circumstances. He’s introducing what these exceptional circumstances are. Now what the verse itself says is:
“If they are a householder or ‘new’, In order to avoid worldly censure, Those who have vows arrange sacred Dharma and such in front, and mentally holding ‘unconventional conduct’ (tul-zhug), prostrate.”
[My translation above is slightly different from the one used in Karmapa’s teaching: I have changed the order to follow the original Tibetan more closely, and the replaced words with sacred (dampa) and ‘unconventional conduct’ for the Tibetan word, tul-zhug, an important idea/term in Vajrayana].
“If I describe the meaning of this stanza according to the Sanskrit commentary on the Difficult Points, it says that if the guru is a householder and the student is a fully ordained monk (Gelong), then does the student need to prostrate to the guru and serve them? Is this proper? This doubt arises. The reason for this is because, as is generally known the fully ordained monastics are the foundation of the teachings. So the foundation or the root of the teachings are the monastics and among the monastics the highest level is the Gelong/Bikshu. So in the Buddhist teachings, we have to consider that the Gelong are the most important or the most authoritative, So if this Gelong who is a student how do they pay respect or prostrate to a household master? If you have this sort of a thought, So the Gelong is the most important but here when it says you have to revere and pay respect to a householder Master then aren’t these contradictory? However, the Gelong is most important and the one whom you should consider authoritative. That’s a general teaching but here it says You must pay respects to a householder and so isn’t there a bit of a contradiction between these two? So the way this is described in the Indian commentary is that you need to hold the Gelong to be authoritative and they are important but this is only what is said in the foundation vehicle not in the Mahayana. So this is one of the ways of explaining.
Therefore, it says that householders who are masters should all be shown respect in all the different ways what’s pleasing them is what is most important. He gives many different quotations to prove this, however we don’t need to go through the quotations. But in terms of the way the Indian commentary describes it, and say that considering Gelong to be authoritative and saying that they’re the most important is the Vinaya teachings of the foundation vehicle, it is not a Mahayana teaching.
So the householder vajra master should be prostrated to. Here, when you consider the fully ordained monk/Gelong are authoritative and that they are the most important, where does this question come from in terms of thinking this aspect of the thinking that the guru that the Gelong are foremost and that they are the authoritative one that this question arise?
So the words say: “those who have vows”, what does this mean? This phrase means the vows taught in the Vinaya. Basically, this should be understood to mean monastics, individuals who have monastic vows. So this means in this context people who have in their beings the vows that are as taught in the Vinaya, particularly those who have the full ordination through a four part motion of the request and wear the monastic robes and are venerated by worldly people. These should be fully ordained who have all the characteristics of a guru, not the different types like those who are name only, or impostor Gelong monastics and so forth. In terms of the way it’s spoken about in the world, the word can be used broadly, but here it means people actually have the actual vows, they are an individual who actually has fully ordained vows in their being, in their Continuum.
The meaning of ‘householder’ (khyimpa)
It says revere them mentally to avoid worldly censure, so how do they revere them and who are they prostrating to? It says if it is a householder we need to understand what we mean by a householder? This is someone who has a house/family, then they’re a householder an individual, who lives in a house. It is not someone who is like monastic, someone who is not worthy of veneration by all sentient beings someone who’s attached to sensory pleasures, this is what it meant by householder. Basically, it means someone who lives in a household and they live the lifestyle of ordinary worldly people this is how we understand it now.
The meaning of new/junior
What do we mean by new/juniors? This means like new monastics, such as new novices or Juniors this is how it should be understood.
How should a fully ordained prostrate to a householder? Arrange Dharma texts in front
The word ‘prostrate’, this means the Gelong who are worthy of offerings by worldly people should revere them. While they should discard the pride of thinking I’m a Gelong, I’m an elder they should discard that pride and then show veneration and prostrate to a master who is a householder or venerate their junior. So how must they prostrate to them?
It says those who have vows arrange sacred (dampa) Dharma in front. According to the Sanskrit commentary, this is actually explained in different ways. So one of the explanations is that when you talk about Dharma means that it holds its own essence in terms of holding its own Essence it is called Dharma. Another way of explaining it way is because it holds all sentient beings back from the lower realms it is because it holds them back or protects them from the lower Realms, it is called Dharma. And the word sacred/dampa, means that it’s because the Dharma, the Buddhas, and the Bodhisattvas, it is sacred/dampa. When you combine those two then it is the sacred Dharma that’s one explanation.
Another way is that that the word dampa/sacred means that it has transcended the world and because it’s transcended the world it is true. Because it holds its own essence it is dharma.
Basically, all phenomena hold their own essence but the sacred Dharma holds the characteristics and put the two together then it can be called the sacred Dharma. In any case, the Sanskrit commentary divides it into three parts: the scripture, the realization and the Practice, mean the nine types of texts. The scripture realization means the levels and the transcendences and the abandonment of afflictive and cognitive obscurations.
The “dharma itself” (cho-nyi) and suchness means the highest truth, the ultimate, these are all synonyms. It is basically the nature of all phenomena, the Dharma expanse, the Dharma nature of all phenomena. Because they teach these the dharma characteristics are also called scriptures, realization and dharma expanse are the actual Dharma, but we have the Dharma texts that are written in letters because they teach the topic of the actual, the true Dharma then they are also called Dharma. Now, we talk about the volumes or the texts that hold the Dharma, we can call them Dharma and there is also the ultimate Dharma and suchness.
As for the word/phrase ‘and so on’ this primarily means texts, but also paintings or statues of Buddhas or Bodhisattvas and all of these.
‘Arrange in front’
“Arranging in front” means that you place them in front of you, a volume of a sacred Dharma, a text, a Thangka or statue in front of you. When you do this and the Gelong thinks “I’m the Gelong, I’m an elder”, they have to give up that pride, thinking they’re a Gelong or Elder, and they should prostrate to the guru as a householder or junior they need to prostrate to them. It says they must prostrate to them.
The words ‘tathagata’ and ‘senior’
There are two types of Gelong in the Vinaya that should prostrate. It says that Gelong should only prostrate to two: the Buddha and those who are fully ordained or people who are senior (gen-pa) in the vows. These are the only people to whom the Gelong can prostrate to. There is no one else that a Gelong should prostrate to. However, here it says that you should prostrate to the householders and the Juniors, isn’t this contradictory? This is one aspect that is true but this is the explanation according to the shravaka teachings. This is exactly what you’d say in terms of the Shravaka teachings but it is not quite right with the Bodhisattva teachings and in particular with the secret mantra. There is no fault of it being against any of the prohibitions in the Vinaya. This is one explanation.
Another explanation is what it says in the Vinaya, one should prostrate to the Tathagatas and who is superior, so we talk about a Buddha or superior, the Tagatha doesn’t mean just the Buddha alone it also includes Bodhisattvas. The word senior here does not mean being senior in terms of full ordination, or in terms of their vows but also in terms of wisdom/awareness, which means in terms of the realization. This is a question of higher or lower realization right? So in terms of being senior or higher in their realizations and wisdom and realization. Likewise, senior in austerities which means in terms of their fortitude and the austerities and efforts that they’ve gone through for the Dharma. So the word senior can include these also. So ‘senior’ does not mean only those with senior in vows but also senior in realization and in their fortitude, their effort and courage for the Dharma. If you do not explain it in that way then the fault that happens is that if you categorically say a Gelong could only prostrate to the Tatagata and the senior vow-holder, then you’ve got people like noble Arya beings who wear the Robes of the householders then they would not be worthy of prostration.
There are actually many passages in the foundation vehicle (Hinayana) scriptures that speak about prostrating to bodhisattvas such as Maitreya. So there are many quotes about this I will describe more later. In any case, when you speak about the Vinaya saying that the Gelong should only bow to a Buddha and those who are senior, the word Buddha can include the Bodhisattvas, and the word senior can include those not only those in terms of full ordination but those who are senior in terms of wisdom and realization and so forth. If you explain it in this way then there’s also no contradiction of the foundation vehicle or of the Vinaya. For this reason, even a Gelong should prostrate to and revere in all ways the vajra masters who are householders who are Juniors. If one has to prostrate to them in all cases then one should arrange a text to the true Dharma in front. Why do you have to say all that? I didn’t explain this before but the reason for saying this is that one arranges the true text in front in order to avoid worldly harm. Now, it says in the root text of the 50 verses itself it says criticism or censure which means So it is in order to avoid reproach to the teachings one has to arrange the text to the true Dharma text in front. How does it bring “harm from the world”? If you prostrate to the guru and so you say I prostrated to my guru, so what’s a problem?” If the worldly people criticize it, so what’s the problem with that? The point is that most worldly people in society really don’t understand much about the actual nature of Dharma. 46:36 They don’t really know in any detail what’s actually said in the scriptures of the Buddha. They don’t even know or they never heard or seen nor understand many of the points directly. They don’t really know what accords with the Dharma, what does not accord to the Dharma, they only can look at the external appearances, they don’t really know the actual details of the meaning and they don’t understand the really deep and profound situations. So, to have a Gelong who is considered so important and well known in society, if there is such a Gelong whom you consider to be so important the prostrates to a householder and would just start to have like thoughts and suspicions and saying they prostrated to householder whom they shouldn’t prostrate to. So they then might say something to offend the householder, then what happens in order to avoid offending the householder, one puts the text of the true Dharma in front. If you actually do it according to the path, then you prostrate to the guru. However, if you prostrate to the Guru, then in that situation, in that environment, in that society, there is a danger other people would criticize you and people would be offended. Because of this danger in order to avoid offending the householders, instead of appearing to prostrate to, one prostrates to the Dharma text. So outside it looks like you’re prostrating to the text, but what you’re thinking about in your mind, one is prostrating to the guru. So the actual prostration, the body is actually prostrating to the Dharma text or the Buddha statue or whatever.
The main point is not to offend the householders because most worldly people don’t understand the nature of the Dharma, or have a vast understanding, there’s a danger in order that there not be any discussion or debate about whether it’s harmful or whether it’s offending people or whether it is proper or not.
Now if we speak about it in terms of Je Tsongkhapa’s commentary it’s the same. The reason is that the student monastic and the Vajra master is a householder and when you have to prostrate to them. In that situation then you arrange the text of the sacred Dharma or the statue. With the body and you actually prostrate actually to the text and to this the statues but with your mind you should prostrate to the Guru and the reason for this is again if you actually prostrate to the guru physically then the worldly people will criticize the teachings and it will also offend the guru and offend not the gurus but the lay people. So in that situation you should prostrate to the Dharma but if there’s no situation like that you can prostrate it to the Dharma texts.
HALF-WAY BREAK
Unqualified gurus, what to do about that after we have relied on them? Stay far away from them at a distance
In the Stainless Light (Dri-mey O) commentary, it says when practising mantra, when looking at the guru’s qualities one should ignore any faults. We only need to adopt the guru’s qualities, we do not adopt their faults. If we take up the qualities, we can attain the siddhis. If we take up their faults there is no accomplishment of siddhis. We should not look for or see any faults.
In particular, as I said yesterday, “in the three times the tatagatas who dwell in the ten directions prostrate to vajra masters who have received the Supreme empowerment.” There are vajra masters who give these supreme empowerments who we as ordinary individuals, need to pay respect to, we do not need to mention this, as the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas in ten directions have to prostrate to them.
So some say you do not need to examine them for faults at all. Even if they have faults, you should take it as if they only have qualities, and rely on them in that way and do whatever they do. There are people who say this kind of thing.
However, speaking like this is not quite right, these are the words of fools who do not know how to rely on a Guru, they do not understand how in the mantra you’re supposed to follow a guru. When you’re following a Vajrayana guru, you need to examine whether that Guru has all the qualities and the qualifications of a guru, as to whether they are an authentic Guru. This is said by the Teacher Vajradhara.
As this is said below, someone who’s uncompassionate, angry, cool, arrogant, and unrestrained, we need to examine the teacher’s character. It talks about this in many Sutras and Tantras, one has make sure someone whom one requests to be a guru has all the qualifications and qualities of a guru. If you don’t examine them, there’s no way to know whether they have the qualifications or not. So it is important that we have to examine them, this is very clear.
Not only that some people, when they first follow lamas don’t examine them well and then you follow them, but later you see that the guru does not have the qualifications, that they have faults. If you see this then what should you do? If you leave a guru by losing the faith and belittling them and abandoning them, then that is a fault. Instead of looking down on them and talking badly, you should do it a in a skillful way by staying very far away, keeping a big distance from them without losing faith. it is taught like that.
For that reason, you need to examine the guru very well before you rely on them, this is very important. One should do this not just a single time. As it says in the tantras, but once you have found the guru, if it then turns out the lama lacks the qualifications then you should leave them without showing any disrespect, in a very skillful way. You should keep a big distance between yourself and the guru. This is said in the text.
There’s something you have to be careful about because some say that even after you have relied on e guru, you should not look at their faults. So the danger is after you started to rely on a guru, you should never see their the faults of lacking faith in the guru. If at first you think that they have all the qualities, then even if they don’t have the qualifications, you shouldn’t say in disrespectful ways “oh they don’t have the qualifications” and so on. Instead you should do it in a skillful way and just keep a long distance from them.
Prohibitions against householders staying in monastic communities, and parents being the guru of their biological children
Likewise, it says in the root Kālacakra tantra about householders who consume offerings of the sangha. So there are householders who live in a monastic community, in a monastery. Actually, that monastery is a place for the monastic community to stay but there’s a householder who has some status or authority in in the community. If they arrogantly take over and ‘steal’ that monastic place and stay in that monastic community and they eat and consume the offerings for the monastics, then these sorts of people who are householders should not be relied on as a guru. It is said in the root Kālacakra tantra.
Likewise, even if your father is a guru, then the child because it’s their father it’s actually more difficult from to develop pure devotion and to behave purely to them in terms of following the Guru. So it is even actually prohibited for there to be a connection of Master and disciple between a parent and a child. According to the root Tantra of the Kālachakra.
In the past, in Tibet there were fathers who were vajra holders who had many devoted children, and they were considered to be excellent tantric lineages, that was the tradition. Later, such good lineages actually decreased in number, and there were fewer children who were actually able to see their parents as gurus or to follow them properly. So it was like them imitating their parent being a guru and disciple. There became fewer who actually saw and revered their parents as precious gurus.
Not only with parents and children, even connections of Master-disciple relatives, such as between brother and sister, were prohibited from having Master-disciple relations. In the past in Tibet, there were gurus who passed the religious lineage to their relatives. The gurus were like an owner and they would pass it on to their siblings, relatives or to their servants and so on, people would say that this is something that you could feel a lot of confidence as a good family as a pure family. So people looked up to them as even greater than other Gurus, there was that kind of tradition. However, if you think about this in terms of how it actually is according to the Dharma, it is actually not so good after all. Because in terms of the Dharma, when you’re following a teacher as a guru, if they’re are a Lord/Owner then politically, if they have all their siblings, and their servants around them, then it’s easier for people to believe them. So in terms of worldly terms it seems like they’re following the guru but actually, if you think about it in terms of the Dharma, the way they way they think about it is not actually proper. So this also happens.
Kalacakra root tantra: The most supreme vajra master is the monastic and householders should not be the guru of a King
Similarly, in the root Kalacakra Tantra it speaks about three types of gurus we should take:
1) there’s the big Supreme guru the fully ordained monk
2) the middling is a novice, and
3) the lowest a householder.
So among the gurus who uphold the mantra, that in terms of their support the one who the Supreme is the fully ordained monastic, the middling is the novice, the lowest is a householder.
Likewise, it also says the King should not take householders as gurus except those who have achieved the levels. So basically it’s saying that unless a householder achieves the Bodhisattva level, the king should not take them as the gurus. What this means if there’s someone who is able to visibly display signs of accomplishment, if you’re in a place where there’s a monastic vajra holders, then that it is not suitable for that householder to be a king’s Guru, to perform consecrations and so forth or other important rights and rituals. The reason is that the monastics are like the foundation of the teachings, they’re the ones who support the teachings, the ones who uphold the root of the teachings. it is the monastics who do this because they spend all their time supporting the teachings, engaging and listening contemplating and meditating. So for this reason, the people who perform the work of the Buddhist teachings are the monastics and since they’re the root, or the basis for upholding the teachings then one should consider monastics to be important and as primary. As long as there are fully ordained monastics who are worthy to receive the offerings and the respect and the king shows respect to the householders, then everyone will say monastics are just sort of like a custom and because of that influence it will harm the teachings in general and harm the foundation of the teachings the monastic community.
So for this reason, the gurus who have the status to be a king’s Guru who are able to perform great consecrations, other ceremonies and engage in great dharma, if in that situation there are fully ordained monastics there, but instead of them you have a householder as the master, it’s not proper to do that. This is what is said in the root Tantra of the Kalachakra. So it’s good if we understand this from all the different perspectives what the actual point is we should look from all perspectives.
The fifth verse: Ways of showing respect to perfect your own accumulations
So, according to the next stanza it is called ways of showing respect to perfect your own accumulations in Tsongkhapa’s commentary this is not a separate particular topic it’s a continuation of the discussion of the exceptions when relying on a guru.
“Arranging their seats, standing up, Working for the purposes and so on. The one with ‘unconventional conduct’ should serve them in all ways.”
So I think that’s how it should be understood, these are inappropriate acts. For example in prostrating, if you aren’t prostrating properly and if you prostrate in this way then it harms the Buddha’s body speech and mind or if it offends the guru then these are lesser or reproachable acts it says you should perform all the actions such as arranging the seats well how should you do them and says that you should prostrate.
There are two different ways of this one is that you should do it after prostrating and respectfully. So you should prostrate with politeness and respectfully, it’s not so you should just to like kind of ignoring things, or making faces and so forth that’s not how you should do this.
In brief, doing lesser acts means doing things that are disrespectful, just joining your palms without having anything just joining your palms but no respect in your expression if you’re doing that then that is a lesser act. Alternately like when you’re holding like tree leaves that are kind of hanging down, just basically bowing your head and just bowing your head and it’s kind of just regarding the guru just merely bowing your head, and these are lesser acts. Another way to understand lesser acts, for example such as washing the feet or bowing in ways that give up. So giving a blessing act refers to washing feet and so forth. You should also be giving bowing and so forth.
Actually I don’t need to say it now I will describe it below. So that was the way it’s described in the Indian commentary.
Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen’s commentary
Should a fully ordained monastic offer services to a householder guru?: Yes except washing feet and prostrating
The way Dragpa Gyeltsan describes this is you have the guru’s householder and so forth and the student is a gelong, if the monk then actually prostrates to the guru then this actually may harm the sangha. Instead you should not actually prostrate, you should mentally prostrate and with your body prostrate to the to Dharma texts or to statues of the Buddha and so forth.
Well then, not only should you not prostrate, you should also not do other services for them and you should only do them mentally and not actually do them? It says no. So here at this point it says if you do prostrations and so forth and it causes problems there’s a danger that people say various things to the people in the society who will criticize and cause problems but the most of the rest of the services are mainly other ones. For example preparing their seats when a guru comes, likewise standing when the guru comes and being respectful and so all these other methods of showing respect should be done.
Here, you should not prostrate and not do the lesser acts, which means ways of paying respect that are inappropriate. If there are things that don’t look good in front of other people, you should not do the types of paying respect that are that do not look good at that do not look proper to other people, as that would harm the guru’s body, speech, and mind and would not benefit the guru. Instead they would harm the Guru and so these are the lesser the wrong acts. For example, it says here like washing feet. In general of course in a place where many people can see if you have fully ordained monk who is a student and they wash the feet of a guru who is a householder then this is thing where the people may say all sorts of things about this and this might offend the gurus or turn the uh might offend the householders. So this should not be done now .
It is basically the same in Tsongkhapa’s commentary, when a student who is a Gelong or so forth should not prostrate physically to a guru who’s a householder does that mean that should find any other service? It says except for prostrating their feelings and a few lesser acts such as washing feet and so forth the guru should provide all other ways of showing respect other than those two.
So what this includes is arranging the seats for the gurus, when the guru is coming or going then you stand up respectfully, doing work for the guru’s sake uh doing whatever task that they need, offering money to the gurus and so forth these are all things that you should do.
Je Tsongkhapa mentions in in his commentary on Chakrasamvara says that even if the Master is a householder, or a junior monk, you should still serve them by arranging seats and so forth, but you shouldn’t serve them by prostrating or washing their feet. So this is what it says in the commentary on Chakrasamvara. Now, there’s an exception to the prostration at other times, when they’re teaching the Dharma, you should Dharma in front and prostrate to them, but in generally, the fully ordained or the monastic students should not prostrate all the time. when they are receiving a Dharma teaching one has to prostrate and while prostrating if you’re actually prostrating to the guru then there’s a the danger that there’s a downfall you should say or there’s the default of offending the worldly householders, so you place the text in front.
Now the Kalachakra commentary the Stainless Light also gives the same explanation of the words. Here there some doubts that we need to speak about. These are in Jetsun Drappa Gyeltsen’s commentary and Lord’s Tsongkhapa’s commentary, so I would like to speak about these.
As I described before according to Je Tsongkhapa’s commentary, in Jetsun Dragpa’s commentary, there’s a guru who has all the qualifications and with the intention that you want to achieve perfect Buddhahood, you should offer them a Mandala and then make supplication to them with flowers between your hands. When you’re making the request you have a qualified Guru who’s worthy of being the guru, it’s possible that they might be a householder. or a junior monastic and it’s possible that the student may be a monastic, not only a monastic but also a fully ordained monastic with senior vows.In any case, the question there’s the difference between the guru and the student.
It is also possible that the environment might be a place where there are many people in the foundation vehicle it’s an area where people primarily practice the Dharma of the foundation vehicle. In such an environment if that’s what happens when you receiving the teachings or making supplications the prostration should be made not to the guru directly but instead mentally, what you actually prostrate to is a representation of the Buddha Tathagata.
However the other ways of serving such as arranging seats and standing up before them and offering mandalas and so forth should all be done even if the guru is a householder. So according to Jetsun Dragpa’s interpretation, this is primarily when you’re in an area where there are primarily Shravaka disciples, in an environment of the foundation vehicle (Hinayana). When you’re in such a place, if a Gelong prostrates to a householder it doesn’t look right and it’s not accepted. So you shouldn’t do it in that kind of place
The three faults of saying a fully ordained monastic should never physically prostrate to a householder
However, this is not saying in general the fully ordained monk should not prostrate to a householder guru. Basically, what some people say in some instructions if you have the Gelong who is a student or has senior vows, they should never prostrate ever to a guru as a householder or their junior they should only prostrate mentally and should never prostrate physically, but that is not exactly right. If some people explain it with that meaning, there are three faults to this explanation. The three faults are:
1) it contradicts the Mahayana words and treatises
2) it contradicts the Shravaka’s responses to the objections of the Mahayana
3) It is a contradiction to the master who is the author of the Fifty Verses it contradicts his own text.
2) it contradicts the Shravaka’s responses to the objections of the Mahayana
The second fault is that it contradicts the responses to the shravaka’s objections. When the shravakas object to the Mahayana, they object to the Guru saying that there are faults to the Mahayana. So there’s the danger that there’s a fault that this is contradictory to the responses. The reason why the Shravakas say that the Mahayana is not the Buddha’s words is that the in the Mahayana, it says that fully ordained should prostrate to householders and so forth and this is not the what the Buddha said, they say. We can know this because the Buddha said in the vinaya that there are only two recipients of prostrations: the Buddha and Elder fully ordained monks. Because of this, they’re completely contradictory and so therefore the Mahayana Dharma is not the Buddha’s words, it says.
This is one proof that the Mahayana is not the Buddha’s words they said. So making this objection shows is that if you only prostrate mentally then there’s no basis for the Shravakas to even begin to understand this. Because the Shravakas understand it this way, shows that there are people who actually doing it, otherwise, they would not have such a doubt. So for this reason it says that there were fully ordained monastics who were prostrating to vajra masters who were householders and so forth.
Likewise, when the Mahayana responds to them, the response they give is that it says in the Shravaka scriptures of the Shravaka vehicles that the Bhagavan, our teacher the Buddha said that: “Bikhshus should think of Bodhisattvas who have not achieved Enlightenment as a teacher, and prostrate.” So for this reason you cannot categorically say they should not prostrate to householders and so forth.
3) It is a contradiction to the master who is the author of the Fifty Verses it contradicts his own text
Now the third fault is that is contradicts Master Bhabila’s own text. The reason is as it says in the second verse: “In the three times, the Tatahgatas…”that all the Buddhas prostrate to the vajra master. Later it says except prostrations and lesser acts. Which means the preliminary actions before requesting teachings and so on. It says when you are asking teachings in the Dharma, then the preliminary actions teach how to be respectful. Only after an examination of the master-disciple has been made, it is only taught at that time. Before the connection of master-disciple has been made, when you make the request, please accept me as a student, but when you are making the supplication. That is what this is indicating. Je Tsongkhapa’s commentary is the same, there is nothing in it that is not in here.
Blaze of Reasoning by Master Bhaviveka as to why householders can be worthy of prostration from fully ordained monks
Within the Blaze of Reasoning commentary by Bhaviveka, and I think it’s good to know what is said in this text. So Master Bhaviveka’s Blaze of Reasoning it says that one proof the foundation vehicle offers that the Mahayana is not the words of the Buddhas is because it teaches that fully ordained monks prostrate to householders. For this reason, they say this proves that the Mahayana is not the words of the Buddha.
Master Bhaviveka’s response to this is by saying that when we are speaking about prostrating in the Mahayana to householders, we are speaking primarily about making prostrations to Chenrezig and Bodhisattvas and this is why it is said in the Mahayana about prostrating to householders. But when you think about the prostrating to well-known Bodhisattvas like Nobel Chenrezig and Maitreya so forth, they aren’t actual lay people because they have completely abandoned all attachments, they’ve taken the individual liberation vows, and they’ have taken the bodhisattva vows until they reach enlightenment. Noble Chenrezig and Maitreya only take the form of householder. They’re not an actual householder/ lay people, the reason why they take the form of a householder is in order to ripen sentient beings in order to benefit more sentient beings because if you think about it, there are more lay people than the monastics right? So in order to benefit many, they take the form of a lay person but they’re not actual lay people.
Also just because they’re not an actual householder, that does not mean they are not worthy of prostration, it doesn’t mean that either. You cannot prove that they’re not worthy of prostration. For example in the Shravaka scriptures there is this story right there is a King named Kapina and in order to tame him, the Buddha emanated himself as a Chakra Emperor and came to tame the teacher Kapina. At that time he took the form of a Chakravartin emperor of a householder but he was not in actuality one. So if you say this but it would make sense by your logic to say that the Buddha who is taking the form of a Cakravartin Emperor should not be prostrated to.
Likewise, there’s also a Brahman named Danavas and when Bhagavan Buddha was taming him, he turned himself into Brahma with four faces and wearing a crown and long hair. This is said in the Vinaya. Also in there is a Brahman woman of the bajas and so the book of Bhavan appeared as a Brahman and on his back he was carrying the corpse of a woman and he said “this is my wife, this is my spouse.” and so there’s also story of him saying this. Likewise in the land of Kosala there is a Dancer or an actor there, and in order to tame a Dancer the Bhagavan took the form of a performer and played drums and so forth. Basically, the Bhagavan Buddha our teacher in order to tame various sentient beings sometimes takes the form of a potter sometimes you took the form of a blacksmith, working with a metal worker. Sometimes he took the form of a strong athlete or a hunter. He took the form of a householder individual and behaved like them and spoke like them. When we look at them how it looked on the outside but that doesn’t mean that the Bhagavan Buddha who has taken the the form of an ordinary individual is not worthy of veneration and prostration.
Likewise, it also says in the in the Vinaya, though bedecked in jewelry those who practice Dharma are peaceful, subdued have vows and chaste conduct they gave up what is forbidden to all sentient beings, they are Brahman and a shravaka, they are a fully ordained monk.
There’s a student of the Buddha, I don’t remember I think it was K? or was it another one so the student was a householder and before they went forth as a monk, they achieved the state Arhat first. So whether there was stream-entry or the state of Arhat while they were still wearing the householder clothes they achieved the result of Arhat. So this was an event that occurred and if you look at it on the other side they were householder but they had achieved the state of Arhatship. So in order to praise their qualities he said, “bedecked in jewelry those who practice Dharma” this means a householder who’s wearing the all the ornaments and jewelry. They do this but in actuality they are Bikshu and Arhat and all that. There are many different citations that are given here, it says that merely wearing a householder clothes does not make necessarily an actual householder.
So in the commentary the Blaze of Reasoning, it says if they’ve taken the form and the clothes of a householder, that kind of reasoning means that only householders should prostrate them and not fully ordained monastics. Then, if the Buddha is taking that form then only householders should prostrate to them. Yet if you say that then this is not quite right. because the reason why you prostrate is, what is primary is the qualities that are worthy of prostration, one has to have the qualities for being worthy of veneration. It is only because they have qualities of greatness, that’s why you prostrate to them, it’s not just because of their clothing. It’s not just the external appearance and form. There are qualities that are worthy of prostration.
Conversely, someone who only wears the monastic clothes and doesn’t have any qualities is despicable. As it says in the Śrāvaka Vinaya teachings. It says that there are people who look like fully ordained monks on the outside but don’t have any renunciation and wear the saffron robes on the outside but they haven’t given up mental faults. There are also some people who when you look at them they’re carrying an alms bowl but they themselves are not vessels for the qualities. They have all of the signs of a guru but they’re neither householders nor fully ordained monks, they’re like clouds with no rain, like wells with no water, or it’s like seeds that will not spread, like a drawing of a lamp. So merely having all the external robes is not what makes them amazing. When we prostrate to someone who has the value, or the heaviness or weightiness of having the qualities that are worthy of prostration. Other than that, we do not prostrate to the external signs and appearances.
If you’re talking about it in terms of the qualities, the difference between the Shravakas and the Bodhisattvas, is like the difference between the rich and the poor. Because the bodhisattvas benefit not only are they giving up the harm to others, they’re also bringing benefit to others and because of this they are superior. For this reason, the Śrāvakas are poor and the Bodhisattvas are rich.
Likewise the Blaze of Reasoning text cites scriptures from all eighteen schools saying that the monastics should prostrate to the Bodhisattvas. If one cites Mahayāna scriptures they won’t accept them. So he cites scriptural passages that say one should prostrate to the Bodhisattvas, he quotes all of these and says “in your text it says that they should prostrate to the Bodhisattvas”. For this reason, Bhāviveka asserts that those who say prostrating to Bodhisattvas who wear the householders clothes
means that the Mahayāna is not the words of the Buddha is not quite the correct reason. Because there are many passages in their own scriptures that say that fully ordained monastics should prostrate to bodhisattvas who wear the household clothes.
So for this reason, when we think about it from all perspectives, when we say that monastics are the basis of the teachings, we need to understand is that is because they spend all their time on this, they uphold preserve and spread the teachings of the Buddha by listening contemplating and meditating. This is why they are the foundation of the teachings. So because of the basis of the holding the teachings is the sangha, that is why we should consider them important. This naturally occurs this is sort of the general way the teachings work, it’s like the general teachings.
However, in general, when we talk about householders, most householders can get fooled by their own lifestyles and they might not be able to give it up. For this reason, it’s difficult for them to be as diligent as monastics, and to devote all their time to listening, contemplating and meditation. However, it is not that there are none, there are many lay people who practice listening, contemplation and meditation and who uphold, preserve and spread the teachings of the Buddha. For example, if you think about the Kagyu, there’s Marpa and Milarepa, and in the Kadampa there is Dromtonpa and others. There are many of these, if we think about all of these, if they’re not superior to us monastics, then they are certainly not less. So we need to look at this in actuality. If we think we are monastics and we are really something special, but we’re not actually able to really do what monastics should do, we take the name of Gelong, and we have this great name of being the foundation of the teachings, but in actuality and actual practice, we don’t have much but pretending to be something, we get proud about it, that is not correct. This is a crucial point for us to understand I believe.