I will do what I can, if you'll bear with me, to shape and contain the discussion somewhat. We'd like to build on what we've been talking about all week and have the people who have been teaching participate with us and be available to answer questions as resources, but not to stress their participation so much as to include and elicit ideas from everyone. To begin with, I would like to go around and ask anyone who has some specific question or specific observation to state it. I'll keep track of the questions and use those to frame discussion as we go along. Now, not everyone needs to say it, but if anyone does wish to say something, I would invite you to be concise.

[01:01]

And then, based on that, I think we can build the discussion for the rest of the day. Our concern has been the development of spiritual practice, Buddhist practice specifically, and the larger framework in which discussion has moved thus far during the conference has been in the context of monasticism, Buddhism, and ethics generally. For me, at least, the principal through-line has been monastic practice. What is it? Is it something accessible to us in the United States? If so, what shape is it likely to take? What can we learn from our own experience to date? What can we learn from traditional experience in Asian countries where Buddhism has been practiced in a monastic way? What are the issues that face us as we seek to develop a community of Buddhist practice in this country?

[02:06]

Those are general questions. What I would like to do now, as I say, is go around and ask any of you whose wishes to state particular questions you may have in mind, which I would like us to consider collectively. And I'm feeling my way along somewhat as we go, as you may notice, but I think this may be a useful endeavor. We've done this somewhat already, and my sense is that things may start a bit hesitantly, but by the end of the two and a half or three hours we're together, people are buzzing and buzzing, and there's been quite a bit of fruition in the process. So, with that, I would like to start looking for Nenna. I don't need to start. You want to start? No. Let me just start here in front of me. Steve, if you wish to say anything, we'll go this way.

[03:07]

Actually, as an offshoot of last night's discussion, we talked a lot about celibacy and its virtues. I'd like to hear some more from us and also from the teachers who haven't been celibate. What have the virtues been of being in a relationship, and how they've used, or how we've used, relationship as a path, as a way to practice? Last night when we stopped, I was going to ask Katagiri Roshi, but I can throw it out for everybody. It seems to me that American people are really caught up in the fact that they have rights, and any little sensory delight that they want to fulfill, they feel that they have the right to do that. I just wonder if, culturally, if this pursuit of happiness gets drummed into us by the advertising media over and over again. My credit union has an ad campaign for loans that says, Taste the Sweet Life.

[04:12]

I think we really... So, my question is, is this a major hindrance to developing selfless Buddhist practice in America? Sometimes people talking about the Constitution will point to the pursuit of happiness, and others wonder, is it the pursuit of happiness, or the happiness of pursuit? I meant to find the Bill of Rights at my house this morning, but I got caught doing the dishes. I think we can piece it together for you. I like to see the way that women together practice. It feels that it might be a little different from men's practice that we took over, especially Zen practice. It feels to me that women might practice a different way together, and so there's a possibility of maybe nunnery that we can practice together. I'd like to see that happen.

[05:13]

Please don't feel like everybody has to do this. Let me come back to this. Heather Geary, if you wish to put in a comment at this point. I haven't been here, but I'd like to just ask the place of healing practice in spiritual practice. I was wondering what happened to the... We were going to finish the talk on emptiness. I can't hear you. We were going to finish the talk on emptiness. Okay. I think what happened was we decided that the continuation of the talk on emptiness was infinitely extensive, and that we wanted to move to this format. We may be able to come back to it. All right. Let's see. Let's go around the circle on the floor, and then we'll come back around this way. Don't forget your kundalini. No, I won't forget my kundalini.

[06:23]

With your help. Oh, good. I passed too. Am I? No. Steve? Steve, did you...? Heather's already a lot out on the floor. All right. I'm mostly interested in how practice can support getting through emotional confusion as well as developing meditation practice, especially in some non-dualistic practice. Because I always train myself very much in thinking about that, in terms of there being a boundary between myself and other people. So I don't know some new way of thinking about that in terms of Buddhist practice.

[07:29]

I'd like to hear some people's views on... It seems as if there are degrees of situations of discipline. There's an extremely strict, what you could call a strict monastery, very cloistered, very definite in its practice, very traditional. And then there seems to be a unit, and perhaps within that there could be a hermitage that's even more solitude, more ultimate. And on the other side of that, there's other kinds of establishments that are kind of in between that, let's say, and the everyday world. And you can think of the traditional church, where people come from the outside and gather and then leave to go to the outside world. And then between the church and the monastery, there's some other level there of practice.

[08:37]

There seems to be a graduation between totally in the world and totally within the spiritual practice. And what is this continuum? What are some of the parameters of this continuum? What is the importance of this continuum? And is this important to address now in this country? And just one other thought. It seems to me that perhaps the same continuum is within each person. As we go within ourselves, at the bottom there's a hermitage and a monastery, and then you're out into the world. And that this is somehow perhaps a model, an inner model for the external model. This may be a little unfair, but I wanted to ask Bob if it was appropriate for him to imagine that it stayed in the monastic Tibetan tradition,

[09:45]

and that at some point your abbot or teacher had said to you, it's time for you to go to America and set up a Buddhist sangha. And I understand that America is not Tibet, it's not India, it's not China, it's not Japan, but you have freedom to do what you will in that country that you have some association with. And please go and set up a sangha. And for you to, if there's time and if it's appropriate, to let us know what you might consider doing in setting up a Buddhist sangha in this country. I don't have a strategy for setting up a sangha. I'm not looking into this. You can please go ahead and speak, because it's going to take too long otherwise, for many of us.

[10:51]

I have two questions, they're not completely unrelated. One is, I'd like Rinpoche to talk to us about Gampopa's fourth dharma, about may the defilements arise as wisdom. And also, I wonder if he could talk about Dakini energy at all, both maybe how it relates to that, and also how it functions in a monastic setting. I'm sure it does function in a monastic setting. How do the monks practice with it, and when it arises. I don't know. You pass.

[11:52]

Quite often, people in this sangha here, Zen center sangha, want to find some form to express the next step in their commitment to the Buddha way. And many times they think, I want to become a priest to express my commitment to the Buddha way. So, sometimes they do that, and when they do that, that's wonderful for them. And then sometimes, some other people say, I want to express my deeper commitment to the Buddha way, but I'm afraid if I become a priest, that therefore, since it's an act on my part to express deeper commitment, that in some sense, I will put down people who aren't priests. If you become a priest to express deeper commitment, in some sense, it makes it seem like it's better than being a layperson. So, I would like to hear how you handle this problem, because people want to have some form to express a deeper commitment, but then people who don't take that form, maybe they're not as good.

[13:04]

So, how do we do that? I'll pass for the moment. I'm working on the master plan, and it'll take some time. I'll pass as far as it needs to be. I'm collecting these things. It's a bit of a ricochet, but... All right, maybe we can address something ordinary. How Zen Center's organizational practice has begun and how it will continue to now,

[14:29]

as a monastery, it's something to do with everybody's aim is one, so people can come together without any question of personal fever, so to speak. So, that is my one basic question. And so, in that line, the person who represents the whole Sangha, internally and externally, has a corrective authority whether the monastery should continue or not.

[15:45]

That monastery should continue or not. Which I greatly appreciate President Abbott and Zen Center allowing us to gather here this time. Without that open-minded personality, we cannot have this kind of open meeting. I appreciate that very, very much. And the other subject is, I'd like to hear

[16:54]

a word of Rinpoche about the spirit of monastery, monastic practices. Along that, the rules and precise organizational conduct within the monastery, which reflect the society, ordinary people's life, which create the monastery.

[18:11]

The rule of the law or precepts of the monastery, in particular, should have a crystal expression of why this monastery has appeared, which was caused by large society abroad. And so, our questions, each question contains the necessary information that all, in other words, who came to practice monastery, present the rule of the monastery.

[19:21]

That's my big presentation of the discussion. Thanks. Never mind. I think I'll figure out what's happening first. Never mind, that's sort of the temporal dimension of no-mind. I'm interested in how monastery can be a model to the outside world as a way of living in harmony with the environment, by way of teaching and practicing ways of restraint, especially in American culture, which is bent on excess. It seems inevitable that in such specialized places as practice places,

[20:28]

that some have pitfalls. One of them, Rev San mentioned, about priests feeling special, and lots of other things like that. And I've been living away from here, and I found the world as a whole to be quite supportive, and useful to be out there. And I wonder what other people's experiences are with that, and if it wouldn't be useful for people who stay in a practice place to leave once in a while, and have a chance maybe to lose some of these things we build up in our practice that might not be so useful to us. Good, that's a good question. I'd like to ask Vipashe,

[21:43]

if he could elaborate a little more on what he was talking about Sunday, in terms of Manjushri, and also wisdom and freedom or liberation, and the necessity to combine sitting and practice with wisdom and scholarly endeavor, which you mentioned was necessary in order to bring them both together. In your lectures, you just perhaps mentioned the definitive meaning that comes along. I'd just like to reiterate that I'd like to see the issue of whether it makes more sense in America

[22:47]

to have models of nunneries, or whether it makes more sense for us to be integrated with the sexes, or what kind of model in regards to practice for women particularly makes sense. I had the impression in China and Japan, I didn't read up on that in Tibet, but I had the impression that the model or the source for ethics was Confucian doctrine, and that's why this address was very little said directly about ethics in Buddhist writings. And I was wondering how, I mean, I happen to think of the Christian commandments, and the ethics of quite the same commandments and so on to be one specific thing, very intimately connected with Christian religion. So there's just some way that this idea of the background of Christian ethics

[23:48]

could move in to provide the same kind of background for Buddhism as Confucianism provided in Japan and China. And I take it part of your question is to the assumption that the source of ethics in China and Japan was Confucianism. And one of the questions is, what should be the role of Buddhist laity in America? That's a small box. Thank you. Oh, thanks. All right, I don't know who in fact did that, but I've registered now two requests. Three. And there may be more. Yeah, there's a way of looking at Japanese Buddhism as kind of a severely diluted form of the monastic tradition,

[24:57]

having dropped the monastic success in the 250 precepts, et cetera, which in case the situation was pretty grim, seems to be in Japan. But there's also the alternative that maybe there's actually a different model, a different archetype, which Japanese Buddhism is affirming. It seems to me that that model might have something to do with King Srimala, might have something to do with Vimalakirti, and Prince Shotoku Taishi, and Empress Suika, and Saicho, and Shinran. That's not the monastic model. It's coming from someplace else maybe. Something to do, I think, with the Bodhisattva tradition. So, I then hesitate to look upon Japanese Buddhism as that kind of severely diluted remnant of monasticism. One other thing, it seems to me to some degree that Buddhism is a virus.

[26:00]

Say like Daisetsu Taikara Suzuki, I think is a kind of virus that got in under a lot of our skin. Krishnamurti, Reverend Suzuki. I don't think of Reverend Suzuki, our founder, as being monastic, trying to establish a monastic tradition or a lay tradition. But he was a virus that got under a lot of our skin. So, it seems to me, say like Alan Watts, for me, I got a big dose of virus Alan Watts. That's a lot of people did. So, it seems to me that virus results in all kinds of things. It results in monasterism. It results in Buddhist studies of emperors. It results in all kinds of things. What we should be working at is that virus. Think of our teachers here today as a virus. Once they get under your skin, there's nothing you can do about it.

[27:05]

You just have to do it anyway. It's scratching. How do we live with this? It's a disease. It's called just scratching. Yes, but I really want to... We've heard a very vigorous defense of the monastic model, the archetype or something like that. I think it needs to be balanced or fulfilled or something, by another thrust, which I think, in some degree, the Japanese tradition does represent. Well, I know at least one person present has given some pretty serious attention to what we want with characters. That's a good debate. My question is right on a non-subject that we were talking about this morning. My feeling, as I was arguing with Tim, is that we are seeing a degraded form of practice in Japan, currently in the family temples.

[28:08]

This is more of what I would call a religious practice. What is called the Bodhisattva way is, to me, a very typical kind of a church practice. When people come to service, they get rituals performed for births and deaths. They get some lectures on how to be good to one another, all of which is a tremendous contribution to society and to the general peacekeeping in society. But it is not necessarily this total rooting out of the self and attainment of a vision of ultimate reality that Rinpoche has been presenting to us. But I hear from Kadagiri and from Thich Nhat Hanh and some others of a way in which, possibly, we could have this kind of vision but continue our lay practice. And that is to be mindful, living in the instant, to be performing a continuous meditation on the present and on what we're doing as a form of self-development, instead of more of an esoteric type of meditation.

[29:10]

My question to Rinpoche was whether or not, in the Tibetan tradition, this is a valid form of practice, a valid form of meditation, to meditate in the instant, live in the present, and meditate on the manifestation of reality which exists all around you, which is my understanding of it. First, I like Martha's question a lot. I would love to hear the first few chapters of Bob's dissertation on the grand plan. On what? On the grand plan. And that also it seems to me that Rinpoche has gotten to know us some and I would be very interested in his initial responses to us and perhaps if he would say something about how he might go about attaining the particular kinds of energies that you've seen in this group.

[30:11]

Taming. Attaining. And in general to me, today I feel like there are a lot of discussions that we can continue to have with each other for months and years and I'm particularly, I feel very honored and very grateful to have a number of our guests here and I suppose particularly the guests from the farthest away and I feel it's a very precious opportunity for us to hear from Rinpoche. On whatever subject he wants. Emptiness, monasteries, the news, Star Trek, whatever it happens to be. I've heard a lot of discussion about we and what we should do. I wonder what work he should do. Maybe it's not we at all, but it's something else. What? I'm sorry. Well, I've heard a lot of discussion today and the days about we and what we should be doing

[31:17]

about Buddhism in America and so on and so forth. I wonder about Rinpoche's opinion about maybe it's not we at all, it's completely something else and what that might be. And we don't have anything to do with it. Okay. If I understand your question, there was a metaphysical leap. It's a mystical leap. Sense thoughts or something like that. I was hoping Rinpoche would comment a little further about the heart sutra. Rinpoche talked yesterday about the goals and directions and the practice to that. I'd be interested to know how monks are actually trained on a daily basis. What kind of schedule they have. Is it optional? When you wake up?

[32:18]

When you wake up is it optional? I think Gladys wasn't present that evening, the membership popped in. Yeah, we had that. There was a tape. It was a tape. It's a wonderful tape. And I want to know if it included lay practice. And then I'd like to see how Bob's version would differ into that exposure. I can't resist, just as a student in this impressive assemblage of teachers, to bring up a long-standing question of mine having to do with views, right views.

[33:20]

And it seems to me that phenomena arise in a seamless way, as it were. Right. And that, similarly, there is a mind-generating view of views that corresponds to this seamless arising of phenomena. And that, too often, we live in the shadow, the very shadow of right views. Instead of a non-regressive or immunizing... Remember, Shea spoke of this aspect yesterday or the day before. Instead of that, we have an imperviousness. This is what I mean. And so I'm very...

[34:22]

I hunger for some kind of creative, non-self... some way that I can generate an ongoing, non-stopping way, right view. I don't know how. It seems we have enough to talk about already. I would say, for me, it's been very inspirational to be here. And as I feel myself in the American Sangha moving through this not-whole, this American Sangha creation, not-whole, that I hope that our patience and our tolerance can stay with us. And we can remember that it's a creation phase that we're in. And somehow, maybe gather more frequently in these kinds of assemblies where this is really the issue.

[35:29]

The issue that we are moving through in this creative way through this not-whole, because it's very inspirational to gather like this. Okay. In respect to the form and the function of the Sangha, I'd like to hear more that was brought up about the levels of... possible for people to make their commitments to the community, the monastic camp, to the lay person, and what those levels and how they would be structured. And the second is, in respect to... I know everything that is taught is in respect to world peace, but in the form of outreach or missionaries or Peace Corps, or how the Sangha can be active or useful in that way. Just maybe a little faster.

[36:31]

And the third is a question to Rinpoche regarding women's spiritual development, whether he feels that women learn the same or differently as men in spiritual enlightenment. In many ways. Well, I didn't think there was a second. I think there will be. Go on. I'd like to give a third voice to the issue of... feminine principles and how to integrate... Okay. How to integrate feminine principles and practices.

[37:34]

Perhaps I'll say more about subtle boredom, or not so subtle boredom. Versus... Bring the middle line, not versus. No, that's not what I mean. I mean, I'll put it real simple. Bad boredom versus good boredom, or helpful boredom versus structured boredom. I'd like to learn a little bit more about the compatibility of tantra yoga with the question of celibacy that we were addressing last time. Well, I'd like to vote for the heart sutra, but in lieu of that, I'm quite interested in how Buddhism coming into this country does not get inundated by Christianity,

[38:39]

much as Buddhism in Asia got abraded and somewhat crippled by Confucianism. Let me check that. If anyone were concerned about topics for future meetings or conferences, my list would be that. Hey, Bill. David. Yes, now I know what you all are talking about. The thought I have is that we have these great teachers here, and it seems to me one thing that this week has pointed to

[39:41]

is maybe we should discuss the need for an area to be built in Green Gulch where there could be some sort of cloistered or isolated practice, a monastic practice or something like that. I think there's been a very beneficial, friendly coming together of teachers and older students here, and I think there should be discussion on whether, at this point when we're working on the master plan of Green Gulch, if maybe we should think about some little monastery within Green Gulch to continue a traditional, more limited, isolated way within the sort of screwed up way that we do in general here.

[40:46]

Let me suggest for purposes of reference as we proceed through, wherever we are going to proceed, if you would concur, David, we simply designate that the cloister. If we say any one of us says cloister, we can understand, at least for purposes of this conversation, what we mean in an isolated situation where some kind of defined practice will occur without so much contact with something else. I put it that way because Bill wants a lot of definition. That's what we mean by cloister. In Kadagiri Roshi's language, I think it would be called maybe a soja. I don't know if he's listening. What do you mean, non-dually? Your voice got this far. Very good.

[41:48]

I think it's about enough tentativity. All right, what I suggest we do, and I will proceed to do, I think is call these questions up from the top. We will provide time for Rinpoche to talk about the Heart Sutra. I think not before lunch, however. I think there's enough on the table. It's fruitful for us to delve into this material. This was very much an announced part of the conference, and I think in terms of its effect going forward, the more pebbles we can drop out, the more ripples we have. The initial question was, what is the virtue for practice of being in relationship? And that was posed in contrast, I think, to a premise about the nature of celibacy as not being, at least not being in a sexual relationship.

[42:50]

So let me put that under comment. Does anyone, including our teachers and everyone else, want to comment on that? What is the virtue of being in relationship for practice? Yes. I'm particularly interested in the heart of the married priest, visiting married priests. In the Arch of the Earth, they talk about celibacy. Yesterday's virtue, what is the other side of that? There's others who talk about that, too. We actually have several married priests here. Yesterday, I think we discussed about celibacy.

[44:07]

What I want to tell you is not to judge which is better, which is wrong, which is right. Because if you see married life as a priest, you can learn a lot from your life with somebody else in your whole life. And also, from that point of view, I think very deep suffering individually, the more you seek for the truth seriously, I think you can see how deeply human desire is rooted. And that desire is basically coming from that desire trying to have a relation with somebody else.

[45:09]

It's very difficult to be right in the middle of emptiness and completely being aloneness. Aloneness doesn't mean separate from somebody else. In the samsaric world, the aloneness is to taste deeply who you are, what the being is. That kind of thing is very important for us. So if you become a priest, and I think if you read deeply the scriptures, whatever Buddhist teachings express, a priest should be exactly right in the middle of emptiness and settle yourself within yourself and practice it and demonstrate human life as a good example

[46:13]

to the all sentient beings and how to live in peace and harmony. This is a priest's mission. If you become a priest, this is your mission. But on the other hand, in this case, I think if you become a priest and manage your life, I think you can see this is very difficult to do. Even though I can say so, I can say a certain pure sense of practice. I can say it with my mouth, but practically, it's very difficult for me to do this. I accept all sentient beings giving richness to human life. So that's it. So what I wanted to say is that from now on,

[47:18]

I think if you want to develop monastic life or Buddhism in the United States, you cannot pay attention to only one side. Monastic life is fine. You cannot say so. Or service is fine. You cannot say so either. So you have to pay attention to both of them. That's what I wanted to tell you. That's why I bring up, present these questions. So always, individually, you have to face directly Buddhist teachings beyond your desires, beyond your inconvenience feeling from a desire. You have to face directly what the Buddhist teaching is, and then you have to reflect upon yourself in the concrete aspect. That's why I mention. Would any of the other Merit Priests care to comment on this topic?

[48:26]

I'm a Merit Priest, maybe... So I was going to say any unmerit priest. Oh, can you say unmerit? Or unmerit like anyone here. Please. I became a priest expecting somehow that I would feel a deeper identity with all sentient beings. That was kind of my intent. I became a priest expecting somehow that I would feel a deeper identity and I was celibate. I quit my job and all that sort of stuff. I went down to Tassajar and I was celibate. Somehow I found that I was kind of more isolated than everyone. I was kind of an isolated monad, so to speak. So what I had expected didn't happen. Later I got married. Can you elaborate a little bit on what the nature of the isolation felt? What was the source of the isolation, perhaps? What were the circumstances in Tassajar at the time? Well, yes, not only...

[49:41]

I found Tassajar to be, for example, a very lonely place. And Zen Center in general to be a very lonely place. So not only where I thought I would feel the most... feeling of sisterhood and brotherhood with everybody, I didn't find it. My friends dropped me because I had done the strange thing. I wouldn't say they dropped me, they just didn't understand. I had done this weird thing. Of course, my relatives didn't understand. I had gone to California or something. So... The way I did it, it didn't work. At least it's my part of what I intended. Later, as it is, I did get married. I feel from that a more of a sense of relatedness with all... a detailed sense of relatedness,

[50:44]

including some sense of a sense of family. I'm giving away myself. Not to indulge in my mundane desires. But literally, I'm giving away myself. Not on purpose. It is that way, with my kids and so on. I'm giving away myself. So that is closer to the intent of what I originally had, namely the deeper sense of identity with all... than as a windowless monad of some sort. Thank you. The reason I ask for more detail is that I think it will be useful and fruitful for us as we talk today, as specific as we can. Because I think in looking what our several experiences are, looking at that collectively, we can really enrich the whole discussion. For example, what are the circumstances if we're considering a cloister

[51:47]

that will work towards creating within the cloister some sense of relationship with the people who are there, some sense of companionability. I was going to say that I spent a year in Tassajara, which was not actually as close to a celibate life for me as spending a few months in India happened to be. Partly because this culture is so completely energized by sexual imagery and activity that to me it didn't feel so much as if I were practicing with a group of like-minded celibates, say at Tassajara, as I did in India. And when Blanche said the other night that she was interested in, say, a more restricted practice, I can really see the advantage of practicing with like-minded people because they obviously bring up all the issues in your practice.

[52:47]

So I can imagine doing celibate practice much more readily if I in fact had a group of like-minded people because we would, say, be exploring it much more jointly. And I just haven't run into that kind of group yet, except maybe in a Catholic monastery, but I don't know that. Well, I became, I think consciously I became a priest. I think to be closer to my teacher was the reason why I did it. And I didn't understand at the time that becoming a priest was primarily to save all sentient beings. That point didn't strike me so deeply at the beginning. I just had this interest to be closer to my teacher. But then as I continued to be a priest, I found out that that's what it's about. And one thing I noticed was that as a single priest,

[53:53]

as a celibate priest or whatever, because there are so many women at Zen Center, it was kind of difficult to know what to do. Things got very complicated around my relationship with women as a priest. And in many ways what I did is, I felt like I got married to clarify my relationship with women. And I felt that after I became married, that my relationship with women cleared up quite a bit. That they were much, they were quite a bit cleaner and less fantasy in both directions. Not necessarily less fantasy, but maybe awareness that the fantasy was fantasy was very important. And now I've come to the issue that I don't know which way is best. I don't think either way is best.

[54:55]

Or you can say one way is the right way. We have to find out. And I feel that being married, for me, the type of person I am, the type of person I am, I would like to be, in many ways, some place where there are just men, and no women even come around. And I said that to Suzuki Roshi. He said, for you, that's too easy. Maybe someday that will be hard. But being married and having women practice in the temple, for me, has helped me develop certain areas that I might sort of shy away from, if I didn't have to relate with members of the opposite sex and practice. So I feel that, for me, it's been good. Maybe someday it will be different,

[55:56]

but so far it's been, I think, helpful. As we continue on this question, let me bring the next question on the list up, because I think it really connects. Very good. You can guess it. No. No, no, no. No. No. Now, Rubenstein says,

[56:58]

before we can come to real insight about the whole business of relationship of layperson and monk, or none, we should try to understand the intention of the founder in this regard, how these categories actually developed historically. And the first thing to understand is that the notion that the monk is higher and the layperson is lower, which we find in all the Buddhist cultures, this is not something that was made by decree of the Buddha. Buddha? This is something that emerged, which was made by the early monks and laypersons, monks and nuns and laypersons themselves, as they began to define their roles and differentiate between themselves in the early history of the order, this notion of hierarchy between monks and laypeople, monastics and laypeople. First of all, the notion of a monastic emerged

[58:04]

from within the large culture, huge culture of India. The Buddha did not order people, you must become a monastic, otherwise no hope type of thing. He did not make any such order to people. Various people themselves in this culture and in that time found that they felt in a state of stress and tension and conflict because of being tied to a certain home life, because of having responsibility of family and children and labor and work and service and so forth and embeddedness in a certain social fabric, found that conflicting with their individual aspiration

[59:06]

to transcendence and so forth. They then came to the Buddha saying, I feel this way and I'm under these pressures and distresses and what can I do? And in regard to that, the Buddha found in regard to them that it would benefit them if they would become free of certain kinds of concerns to concentrate themselves to other kinds of concerns. And that is how he then developed the idea that they could have such a way of living as a monastic. This is how it emerged from their need. In fact, it is the case that if one understands the function of human life, and if one is intent on a certain type of development and understands the idea of development towards long-term evolutionary perfection as an individual in relation to many, then it is definitely true that in most cases it will be easier to achieve a kind of happiness

[60:09]

and there will be a greater intensity and speed of development if one is in a situation where one does not have the immediate concern and responsibility for an immediate family, an immediate spouse, immediate children, that one does not have this kind of commitment, obligation. It definitely enables one to develop a certain level of happiness in this life more easily. For example, the matter of livelihood becomes much simplified unless attention has to be given to the livelihood of the body of this life, such as then if one has to bear the livelihood of many as a lay person. If I give money for my son, I have to make sure that many people who do not have support do not have the same level of support in their families. The humans who do not have the same level of support do not have these hopes.

[61:11]

So if there is no attention in their houses then it is not the same for them. It's the same as taking away their children and the disabled people. If they have to be taken care of and it is not the same for them, then they will not be left with the same They will never have the same And therefore, a person who decides to put their energy, withdraw all their energy from sort of normal short-term avenues of satisfaction and short-term avenues of... and short-term commitments such as to an immediate family, and put their energy into the large-scale development of themself and the evolutionary development, using this human life for their own evolutionary development in a multi-life perspective with total energy, and successfully does that. It has been a historical case that such individuals have quickly and easily achieved a certain type of being and bearing and contribution where it just has come to be that everyone in their societies who related to them began to see them as immensely valuable persons. And they thought, oh, such people, oh, that person is a great point of value, or whatever

[62:14]

emanates from that person, their mere presence is so delightful and so useful. I really like to be around them. I really like to see that they can represent that to us. I really... I rejoice in how they are practising. I rejoice in their type of development and their type of way of being. It just has so happened that such individuals have come to represent such kind of banners of peace and joy to the world and social world in which they live. It just has happened that way. And therefore, it just has happened naturally as an organic kind of evolution within those societies. It is not... It has not been that people in those societies, because of some, like, a burdensome authoritarian order of the Buddha, when they see a monk, they think, oh, God, now I've got to do duty to put the monk over here and this and that and be hierarchical and creep and crawl and

[63:15]

do this. It has not been... It all been a case like that. It has been that as... Because of this fact, in these societies, because the monastics have represented a personal representation of a certain coolness, happiness, freedom, and bliss, that people naturally over the centuries and millennia in these countries, when they have met such persons, they have thought, oh, this person is a kind of icon of those goals that I also wish to achieve and a kind of reminder of the possibility of achieving those goals. So when I see those persons too, I want to put them up higher. I want them to sit here. I want them to be calm and just to radiate and be happy. I want to see them up above me a little bit. I want them to represent my own higher aspirations, so I want them to... I want to put them up there. People doing that out of their own pleasure, their own delight in discovering that there can be such human beings. This is how it has developed, not because somebody ordered people to behave in such and such a way as some sort of burdensome obligation. Therefore, another point, it has been that Buddha developed a situation where he felt

[64:36]

that beings, were they to commit their life in a certain kind of a way, could easily achieve a certain stage of development where they would manifest, they would become manifestations of a certain type of peace and selflessness. And therefore, in that context, he didn't want such beings to be isolated from the community. He didn't want them to be cloistered away from the community. Part of the newness of Buddha's monasticism was that they should be closely connected to the community, while not totally in the world, also not totally out of the world, like the Indian ashrams were, for the sadhu types who already existed, but sort of right in the suburbs nearby the town, where they had to therefore daily go into the town and daily get their sustenance from the laypeople so the laypeople could enjoy their presence in immediate presence, and then give the feedback to the laypeople of some sort of exhortation and simply some sort of a presence, so that this different kind of life wiring, this different

[65:37]

channeling of life energies could be represented very close in the world, but not of the world, so to speak, neither totally in it just as another layperson, and neither totally out of it as a totally cloistered hermit Buddha, as they call it, but something right in between and very close to the world and yet a little out of the world. This was why the Buddha's design of such an institutional niche for these monastics was very worked out to be very beneficial. Similarly, it was not at all the case that the Buddha ran out from under the Bodhi tree and rushed in downtown and just sort of made some orders, hey, we got to build a lot of monasteries around here, and everybody had to jump and salute and run out and build monasteries, not at all a case like that. It was a case that the Buddha was enlightened, he was a certain kind of personal presence, therefore, and people immediately disowned presence through his expressions to others and their requests of him. They found it easy to transform themselves into his similar type of presence, and this

[66:40]

ripple of this kind of presence spread so powerfully through the society that as the laypeople approached that and as the kings approached it, they also, they wanted to create some sort of space where that presence could be institutionally sheltered and cultivated and nurtured, and therefore they requested, can we do this, can we do this, will you come and stay in these buildings if we build them, and so forth, and it was the people's wish to have this kind of presence living near them that caused this to happen. Buddha did not come in and order, build a monastery here and do this and that there to anybody. And therefore, the difference between monastics and laypersons, between monk and layman, between nun and laywomen, emerged from the way the people of the society naturally sorted themselves out according to their abilities, according to their interconnections with other people,

[67:41]

according to their understanding and wish to use their life in certain ways. This happened naturally as a kind of shakeout of the levels of development and levels of inclination of the people themselves. And as far as the differentiation between monastics and laypersons relating to the differentiation between bodhisattvas and non-bodhisattvas, the Buddha never made any bones about the irrespective of these institutional forms that developed out of the needs of the people on the level of lay and monastic, that the bodhisattva differentiation, which does not come out of immediate social need, but comes out of evolutionary stage over the multi-life perspective, amongst the two, therefore, of the four possible types you could have, amongst the two of the four possible types, namely the non-bodhisattva monastic and the bodhisattva

[68:44]

layperson, the Buddha was quite clear that the bodhisattva layperson was a higher level of evolutionary development, although within that other social matrix, by being lay and not monastic, there was a level of greater inefficiency in their way of living orientation towards enlightenment. But the interesting thing was, that in spite of the fact that the Buddha takes the case of Vimalakirti, that the Buddha esteems the achievement and the insight and the level of development of a lay bodhisattva such as Vimalakirti, and there was no question even in any of the monks' minds about the evolutionary stage of Vimalakirti being higher than that

[69:45]

of many of the monastics who were non-bodhisattvas, nevertheless, according to the people and their understanding in general of how they oriented to different people and which kind of personal presence they found more beneficial, the people still esteemed the monastic as a higher being with a higher bearing, giving them a higher benefit and respected them more greatly by virtue of their office, if you will, by virtue of their station, those people even including Vimalakirti. Vimalakirti himself bowed to the monastic. He might have scolded the monastic about their dualistic views and given absolute hell on the intellectual level—this is my footnote—but nevertheless, Vimalakirti first bowed to that monastic and afterwards bowed to that monastic and respected him by office completely and laid himself at their feet as a layperson. So this kind of subtlety we have to understand, that's my footnote, but it fits in exactly with what Rinpoche says. The irony of the lay bodhisattva, which he wanted to stress, is that they are higher in evolutionary development, recognised by the Buddha, other bodhisattvas and even the

[70:48]

monastics, and yet within the social notion of creating a set of offices that are most beneficial to the majority of people, the people respect the lay bodhisattva qua layperson less than the monastic qua monastic irrespective of the individual's evolutionary development because of the general prevalence of the development of the society. For example, in sutras such as the Heart Sutra, at the head of the Heart Sutra, at the beginning of the Heart Sutra, Therefore, in all the Mahayana sutras, we see that the way they begin, this famous way they all begin, says, Thus did I hear upon a certain occasion, the Lord Buddha dwelt in Rajagriha in the bamboo park with a great assembly of monastics

[71:54]

and a great assembly of bodhisattvas. And always the great assembly of monastics is placed first before mention of the great assembly of bodhisattvas, even if it is a sutra, as in the case of the Heart Sutra, where in fact the teaching is given by a bodhisattva. Nevertheless, the monastic sangha is still mentioned first in that sutra of Mahayana, which is in fact oriented toward the bodhisattva. This is the reason why the monastic sangha is still mentioned first. Therefore, in fact, in the development of the Vinaya, during the first six years of

[73:01]

the development of the earthly sangha, after the Buddha achieved his perfect enlightenment under the Bodhi Tree, and had his first retreat, and then began to teach and so forth, for a period of six years, there was a natural wave of transformation of individuals and development of natural, certain kind of development within the society, without the slightest problem, without the slightest hitch or sort of anything going wrong or any kind of problem taking place. It was just a natural wave or ripple, like a stone into a certain water, developed automatically, creating a certain kind of structure and so forth, as irresistibly by the power of that enlightenment for six years. Only after six years did there begin to develop certain kind of counter-ripples, sort of cross-feedback and so forth, that then created a certain need for discrimination. And situations would arise where then the Buddha had certain kinds of flaws would arise in the behavior of individuals, and the Buddha had to say, oh, this is not good. This is as Kobunroshi was saying, this was not good. This is not how you should behave.

[74:02]

In the future, you shouldn't do like this. And from this instance, we can derive a rule and a lesson that should be adhered to in the future, and the precepts as specific rulings given out by the Buddha's analysis and criticism and discrimination about the action within the society of a certain case. Out of that developed a rule, which became a rule of the Vinaya. Only organically did that start to develop after six years, when there first began to be some sort of back-ripples, which indicated some sort of problems that required a certain critical evaluation and ruling. And from that year, the sixth year of the Buddha's teaching, that is his age of 41, up until the time of his death at his age of 81, there developed specific rulings in specific situations, in specific social difficulties, social and individual difficulties of individuals,

[75:04]

both bhikshus and bhikshunis, laymen and laywomen, where the Buddha then gave certain rulings. And these rulings then sort of, as they were added up and recorded and remembered by the people, added up to the 252 or 3 or so rules of the bhikshu order, and the 350 or 340 some rules of the bhikshuni role or level of discipline, and then there's so many rules for this kind of layperson and so many rules for that kind of layperson, this all developed as a kind of precipitation of the actual situation that developed during that next 40 years, from 41 to 81 of the Buddha's life. And therefore, after the Buddha had attained ultimate nirvana, parinirvana, full liberation, and passed from that world, that social time and place, until after that, then the new rules

[76:06]

were closed and the basic first sort of set of judgments, the set of boundaries and disciplinary things that the Buddha developed in those situations was considered to be, the foundation of it was considered to be laid. And the later ones that were developed in later situations by later patriarchs and so forth, all took as their model what they considered the ideal way of handling a social situation and a social context, being the ideal way, being the way that the Buddha himself handled it during those 40 years. So the basis from which other judgments later were made of situation and context and individual behavior and so forth, was taken to be that set that emerged during the Buddha's own interaction with the social matrix during those 40 years. And then in the centuries after that, the fact that while the Sangha had had this initial

[77:20]

powerful expansion during the Buddha's life, and still there was a certain continuous ripple going outward, which was a continuing expansion of the Sangha, the monastic Sangha of male and female monastics through the society, at the same time, within some areas of society, very much those areas where they had initially first expanded, there began to be a sense of dissatisfaction among the laity, both the Buddhist laity and the non-Buddhist laity, about the contribution of these monastics, because in fact, certain individuals didn't measure up to what the earlier monastics had represented in that, from that place, from that niche where the icons, as it were, of the first arhats had been developed, like a niche to put those where they could have maximum radiation, kind of, where laypeople could develop sort of maximum basking in the glow of those monastics, because those monastics in fact themselves developed their ability, they developed their self-transcendence and self-radiation poorly, they used that niche poorly, they didn't really, they didn't work out, they didn't get there, they didn't use, they just used the niche to just poof

[78:20]

and therefore there was nothing radiating to the people, and people were just serving this empty icon, this like, this murky, cloudy, foggy icon, and the icon didn't glow to them, so they began to think less of it, and they began to think, what am I putting up this thing here, it's like glowing nothing to me, just gobbling down more and more food, and not really doing nothing for it, just acting arrogant about it, so they began to esteem the institution less and less, and look for other models, and look for a glow, and look for kind of example and expression in other places, this began to happen over the centuries after the Buddha had gone. And therefore nowadays, for example, this Holiness the Dalai Lama constantly exhorts

[79:25]

the monks and nuns that this is up to you, you have to continue to earn your status, it is because it was never said by the Buddha that automatically by wearing a robe of monk or nun and so forth like this, you can then allow yourself full scope of arrogance, and full scope of I am so great, and the people should come and grumble and give me a lot of stuff, and if they don't I'll threaten them with hell, and I'll wag my finger and say Buddha said, and therefore you behave even though I'm a jerk because I have a robe on, and if you behave like that you'll naturally simply become obsolete, because the point is the Buddha never made such an order, what happened was that certain people had a certain need, and they had a certain kind of a way of approach, and it became impossible for them to attend a certain kind of detail, and they were in fact more useful to others by radiating and being free of those details in a certain way, and therefore this naturally developed by the pleasure of the people in these people, they wanted the people, and they wanted to bask in the glow of these people, and they put them up in a certain way, and they wanted to carry them around on the top of their head, but when the people stopped

[80:26]

glowing they didn't want some kind of heavy horrible hat that was like iron, and had no luminance to it at all, and so then they naturally got tired of it and shuffled it off, and so I never made an order that it should be held there like a prison cap, but after it had stopped glowing, so you guys, and you gayer girls, have to keep it up, and turn out your hearts inside out for these people if you want to be set up there, it will not naturally happen to you, nor should you think that it should, the Dalai Lama constantly exhorts his monks and nuns in this way. Now, the other point to understand, secondly, is that we then turn to what did the people turn to back in the history after the time of Ashoka, let us say, in those centuries

[81:29]

when the monastic saga was beginning to deteriorate, and people were creeping into the niche and snoozing in the niche, and being very dualistic about doing nothing in it, and just hogging on it, and people were getting sick and tired of them, they then developed this new ideal, idea they turned to of the lay bodhisattva, the bodhisattva sangha as it's called, but here we must not think that the bodhisattva sangha was again someone who just by some sort of automatic evolutionary development, could just sit and be like a fat bodhisattva, and be big respected while walking around in the middle of worldly life just as worldly as could be, on the contrary, the lay bodhisattva had a very difficult discipline, the bodhisattva vow as originally elaborated in the original Mahayana sutras has many, many precepts, has like 18 major and 46 minor precepts, and in fact these precepts are even more difficult to keep than the monastic precepts were, they are not easier to keep, it was not that on the social level, on the level of restraint of mind, body and speech, they had something less to restrain, even though they were more developed, because of that higher development they were capable of, and they were asked within the Mahayana sutras to maintain a higher

[82:33]

level of discipline in fact than the monastics were, so we must not think that there is nothing for them to maintain in the way of precepts. So these again did not emerge in a certain kind of system, in other words, when this

[83:37]

new ideal became more and more necessary, as provided for according to our Mahayana faith, provided for by the Buddha's skill and liberative technique, the Buddha's design for the evolution, to assist the evolution of the society and the people, that there were these Mahayana teachings given, Mahayana sermons given in assemblies that remained a little less well known in the early time, which then Narottuna brought up from another realm where they had been preserved, and in these Mahayana sutras, in those individual assemblies, the Buddha also gave certain rulings over the 40 years of his teaching Mahayana sutras, and these rulings were not systematically given out like 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, but they came from all parts of the Mahayana sutras, and in the time of Arya Asanga, and Nagarjuna, starting with Nagarjuna, but especially by Arya Asanga, from Asanga's time in the 4th century up to Shantideva's time in the 8th century, the great masters and analysts of the Mahayana sutras took out from all the vast ocean of Mahayana sutras, aha, this rule, just like earlier, out of the Buddha's rulings given in individual cases, the monastics took out the 253 precepts of the monastic, and the 353 of the female monastic, and so many of

[84:41]

the laypeople, etc. From Asanga's time to Shantideva's time, they took out the precepts from the sutra and put them in an order system to make it easy for people to embrace, accept, and remember, and use, of 18 major root vows of the Bodhisattva, male or female lay Bodhisattva, or lay or monastic Bodhisattva, because you could take both of those simultaneously actually, monastic, the greater person took both levels of both monastic and Bodhisattva, but anyway, 18 major ones and 46 minor ones in the eventual list that developed. It's finally perfected by the time of Shantideva. And so therefore, in the context of your discussion, which you are all saying, and the discussion, the healthy, the wonderful discussion that you are having about, well, what should we do? Should we have a monk? Should we have a lay person? Should we have a monastery? Shouldn't we have a monastery? How should we do? Which discussion, I must confess, it is subtleties

[85:44]

and details, I'm not too well sure that I'm grasping. Whether or not, however you end up, both collectively and individually, whether you decide to be a Bodhisattva, mainly upholding precepts, and wish to uphold the standards and the role of being a lay person, lay man or woman, or whether you decide that in addition to that, you wish to uphold the monastic precepts as well as the Bodhisattva precepts, or whether you decide only to do the monastic precepts, that you can't somehow take up the charge of all living beings right away, or something like that, and can only manage about individual liberation, or other roles, whatever you do, in fact, the value and the power and the glow of whatever you do, either as a group or as an individual, will depend on how much and how intense and how clear your practice as an individual, each of you one by one, will

[86:46]

be. That still will remain the central thing, how you actually keep your own mind turned, how you keep your own selflessness attuned, and view and action and behavior and speech, this is what will be the key of whatever these arrangements you decide to come up with at whatever time. How each individual will turn their own heart inside out and maintain it that way, this will be the key of it. Any individual who truly puts to implementation selflessness and compassion, that individual, whether they decide that their particular network and relativity and interconnectedness and nonduality with people is best served, and they and others' purpose is best served by being either a monastic or being lay, or within this context or within that context, as well as they maintain in their own inner practice of selflessness and compassion, the

[87:50]

more excellent will be their benefit for themselves and others, and that will depend upon that individual's inner realization and manifestation of selflessness and compassion. And in fact, therefore, within that, those who wish and who feel and can see how their wisdom of selflessness and universal and messianic compassion of the Bodhisattva can best be manifested to the majority and maximum number of people on the visible and invisible levels both, and who feel that they can do that best by carrying as well as Bodhisattva commitment, also monastic commitment, and living in a certain kind of meditative way, and living with a certain kind of level of restraint and level of concentration and so forth, as many as can be monastic, and as many as can be supported as being a monastic, and as many as can glow from within the monastic niche, male and female, the better for the society,

[88:50]

the better for them, the better for those who know them, and support them, in fact. And there's for such beings who both can radiate within the messianic internal connection, universal interconnection of the Bodhisattva, and those who can radiate within the monastic notion of the monastic, who can do both, the more the merrier. It's really excellent, something everyone should carry on the crown of their head. No. For example, there is a teaching, Lomas, there is a teaching that

[89:51]

a monk, monks may have a teacher who is the lay person, the lay Bodhisattva, who has real realization, and the monk is studying with that Bodhisattva as their student, as their disciple even, and they are revering that Bodhisattva, and learning from that Bodhisattva, seem to transform themselves according to the teaching emanating from such a Bodhisattva. Nevertheless, it is still taught that in a public situation, where a number of mixed groups, say monks and lay persons are present, that in the outset of the teaching, even though in general when we receive a teaching from any teacher within the ancient thing, it is important to prostrate to that teacher, to pay homage and salutation to that teacher, initially to express a kind of receptivity to the teaching, for a monastic to prostrate to a lay teacher is forbidden. It is not to be done, even though mentally that monastic is to be totally receptive and totally respectful to receiving the teaching of that teacher, nevertheless the monastic should not in public prostrate to that teacher.

[90:52]

So therefore, even though to one's guru or teacher one should make prostration to express one's complete receptivity and complete wish to not to resist the teaching and to receive it and fully put it into practice, in that particular case, the monk, even though that monk wants to prostrate to that lay teacher because they are receiving some very valuable insight for their own development from that teacher, they must not do so because then that would confuse the social level of orientation of the different roles in regard to the lay people should therefore prostrate, the monk should salute the teacher in another way and maintain receptivity without publicly doing that by publicly prostrating to a lay teacher. The reason why they should not do so is that if they do, it will displease the lay assembly. They will not like it. They will feel, oh, the monks, my monks have bowed to another lay person over there.

[92:03]

They will say that, oh, if those monks do this to this other layman, then this layman is going to become so proud, is going to scold and make trouble to the monks, is going to make everything confused about what is a monk and what is a lay person. Oh, we don't like this at all. The other lay people will feel on some level. Therefore, even though this would be a case where the lay bodhisattva would not at all necessarily get ruined or inflated by the monks bowing to them, and it's just a necessary preliminary to a teaching which they validly genuinely understand and can transmit, even though the monks want to prostrate to them because they want to show their receptivity for the teaching, they want to see their teacher as indivisible from the Buddha, which is the best way to receive a teaching because our sensitivity to the unconscious reaction, conscious or unconscious reaction of the other lay people, because our sensitivity to the unconscious

[93:08]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ