promise & process

the nature of vow-holding

questions and answers with Ngak’chang Rinpoche

Question: Is it correct that the vows and the practice of keeping the vows are process as well as promise . . . in that you are always working at it?

Rinpoche: In that sense, yes.

Q: . . . because I have heard you say that promise and process are kind of opposing forces?

R: Quite so. It depends on the definition of process. When I polarise ‘process’ and ‘promise’ in terms of teachings on damtsig (dam tshig – samaya – Vajrayana vows), what I mean by ‘process’ is ‘that which undermines promise’. Process—in this sense—makes everything temporary: I am going to write a book. No, I changed my mind – I’ll turn it into a film. No, I don’t think I want to see that through. Now I’m not going to do that; it’s going to be a series of poems linked to paintings. Actually, I need to quit my job as a waiter first and then I’ll write the screen play, which may turn out to be book. Whatever statement I make, it cannot be relied upon – because I can wake up next morning and say: No, I reviewed that, because this happened to me etcetera. Process—in terms of vows—is the on-going working process of fulfilling the practice.

Q: The process of keeping your promise?

R: Yes. The Fourteen Root Vows could be one’s entire practice.

Q: They could be your entire life?

R: Yes. It is only an enlightened being who actually keeps vows. Being a vow-holder could be another way of saying that someone has accomplished the path. If one is an enlightened being, one does not need to keep vows. Only an enlightened being holds vows purely – because keeping them is more or less the fruit of practise.

Q: Like arising as the yidam.

R: Yes.

Q: Rinpoche, could you say something about your life being on the line – what is meant by that?

R: When one gives the vows, one’s well-being is dependent on their being kept and upon people’s attempt to keep them.

Q: Is that related to Protector practice?

R: Yes. Giving the vows is—at some level—a risk that one takes.

Q: Is this related to your not giving commitments at empowerments? That no matter who takes it, there is some level of responsibility that is disseminated?

R: Certainly.

Q: So in a way, anyone listening to teachings has a really strong responsibility to you, anyway?

R: One could say that – although when it comes to Ngakpa Chögyam, I would not make a big deal of it. Let me put it this way – if I were a real Lama, then there would be a ‘really strong responsibility’ – yes.

Q: Rinpoche could you talk about the way the sangha helps in keeping the vows as well? I am interested in what real responsibilities people have to each other in that regard.

R: I suppose there are many examples of this. When my father-in-law used to make ‘old-fashioned comments’ about women, I did not respond. I did not take him on, because he was Khandro Déchen’s father. Whenever he tried the chummy-men-together number, I used to move somewhere else with the conversation. He eventually stopped making ‘old-fashioned comments’ about women – and without my having to make any comment. I just did not participate. There are various ways of showing people that you are not really with them in their idea. You do not have to be critical or say: You should not be saying this; this is a bad view. You simply avoid participation; and eventually people get to learn: It’s no use talking to him about this; it just causes him to gaze out of the window.

The example of one’s being is always the best communication. It may take longer, because it is not immediately apparent – but the point is made more effectively. People do not like being criticised. What happens when we criticise somebody, is that we invariably lock them further into their opinion or course of action. People become defensive when criticised, and are therefore less open to changing their view or course of action. Most people seem to operate in that way. Even for me in my rôle as Lama it is not particularly easy to be straight and honest in terms of feedback. I need to know how feedback will be accepted. Will direct feedback function with this person or that person? Is the person open to hearing this? Will it be too much? Feedback is not easy to give – even when it is requested. Now—of course—everyone would probably like to say: Rinpoche – tell me exactly what you think of me. but there is always the silent caveat which reads: But please don’t make it too bad! No one says: Please be utterly merciless in your appraisal of me.

Q: Eventually vow-breaking goes beyond the ‘healthy process’ of simply failing to keep the vows purely – and there is a level of alienation that can happen – where the student demonises the Lama, creates schisms, and attempts to cause as much damage as possible. I saw that in (a previous sangha) and it was awful. Is there much that can be done about that?

R: In the cases which Khandro Déchen and I have witnessed—with two of our own students, and with the students of other Lamas—we do not believe that there was anything that could have been done by anyone. I think when one is dealing with ‘psychologically middle-of-the-road folks’ – then yes. But when dealing with sociopathy, no. There is nothing that can be done in respect of sociopathy. My own Tsawa’i Lamas—Kyabjé Künzang Dorje Rinpoche and Jomo Sam’phel—had such a student. Shakyamuni Buddha had Devadatta; so I cannot even say that for an enlightened being – that something could be done in respect of sociopathy. Padmasambhava and Yeshé Tsogyel encountered sociopathy in the court of Trisong Détsen with the ‘God-King faction’ and although they quelled them for periods – they still came to the fore from time to time.

Q: I wondered about that, in terms of the vow of not disparaging other practitioners? If you were uncertain, then the best thing would be to speak to the Lama privately?

R: Always. In terms of disparaging other practitioners however – they do have to be practitioners. People in the West make that mistake as well. If all it means to be a vajra brother or vajra sister is that one has taken empowerment, then you can never say anything about the distortions perpetrated by anyone. To be a vajra brother or vajra sister, you have to authentically attempt to maintain the samayas. If you are engaged in the work of undermining Vajrayana – you can no longer be called a vajra brother or vajra sister. If you are undermining Vajrayana – you are no longer maintaining the samayas. If someone says something about you as a person who is distorting Dharma—particularly Vajrayana—it is not a breakage of that Root Vow. If this were not the case, then once having taken an empowerment, a person could say and do whatever they liked; and no one could disparage them for it. That would make no sense whatsoever. However, when we speak of disparagement – we should never disparage the person. We should only comment on the acts and statements of the person who is distorting Dharma. The person could possibly change their view and then the distortions would be empty.

Q: There is also a vow about not failing to act . . .

Q2: Yes, those two . . .

R: That is important. It is usually good—if in doubt—to ask the Lama for advice: ‘Is this a place where I need to act?’ Also, if you are being critical, it is important to ask yourself if you are enjoying it or not. If you are enjoying it, then it is suspect.

Q: And what if you are not enjoying it? And you wish you weren’t in the situation?

R: It is not a pleasant thing to be critical. If you find it a pleasant thing, then it is problematic. It is useful that it is not easy, that it is unpleasant.

Q: Because it tempers how you respond?

R: That is a secondary factor. It just should not be enjoyable.

Q: It is unpleasant because it is sad.

R: It is sad – yes. You see, this is a difficult area. Vow breakage is not just ‘me and my vow breakage’ – it is the other people who are affected by my vow breakage. If someone is trying to view me with Pure Vision, and I am engaged in whatever it is with which I am negatively engaged – it damages everybody’s practice.