this month:
Buddhist Ethics and the Pratimoksha Vows
An extract of a teaching given by the Venerable Traleg Kyabgon Rinpoche

The Path of Purification
Sayadaw U Jagara

Buddhist Ethics and the Pratimoksha Vows

This is an extract of a teaching given on January 13, 2001 at the Buddhist Summer School, Melbourne by the Venerable Traleg Kyabgon Rinpoche. Born in Eastern Tibet in 1955, the Venerable Traleg Kyabgon Rinpoche was recognised as the ninth incarnation of the Traleg lineage and enthroned as Abbot of Tra'gu Monastery. Rinpoche came to Australia in 1980 and established E-Vam Institute in 1982. He regularly conducts courses and retreats and travels extensively in Europe and the US giving lectures and seminars on Buddhism. Audiotapes of this series of talks are available from E-Vam Institute.

In Buddhism, what you have to understand is that the system of morality is based upon moral education. To be moral is a way of educating oneself. Sometimes there may be variances between different monastic codes of ethics. That is not important. What is really important is how these monastic codes of ethics are designed for us to educate ourselves in a way that we will flourish as individuals.

We engage in various activities physically, verbally and mentally. According to Buddhism, we engage in these activities willy-nilly, without reflection, instinctively and without spontaneity. Spontaneity, by the way, is encouraged in Buddhism, because it is the opposite of instinct. With instinct, our mind does not belong to us, our body does not belong to us and our speech does not belong to us. We think things that we do not want to think and should not be thinking and we say things that we regret afterwards. Just for a moment we lose control, we lose ourselves and we make a mess and then we try to amend, correct or remedy the situation. Often, however, it is too late, the damage has been done. That damage will have a long-lasting influence on what kind of person we are, or what kind of person we become. Physically, also, we unthinkingly do all kinds of things.

That is why, in Buddhism, we talk about ethics. In Sanskrit, it is called vinaya and in Tibetan it is 'dul ba. This means 'to subdue', to subdue our body, speech and mind. We have to be reflective, concentrated and aware. That is why the monastic vows are taken and that is also the reason why celibacy is encouraged in Buddhism.

At this point, I should say that in Buddhism we encourage celibacy. We value celibacy. However, this is not because we think that our material, corporeal body is regarded as evil. It is not that there is something called the spirit which is separate from that body, and that the more you disassociate yourself from your body, the more you will be able to disassociate yourself from the physical state to the spiritual state of being. That is not the reason why celibacy is sometimes encouraged in Buddhist teachings and practices. The reason why celibacy is encouraged is because, as human beings, we are governed by uncontrollable desires and our mind is always in a state of agitation.

Therefore, it is said that we should be celibate. However, even in terms of the vinaya and the pratimoksha vow - the vow of individual liberation - this is because disassociating yourself from things that give rise to sexual desires, anger and jealousy and finding time for yourself for reflection in a state of quietude, means that you can progress. That is the reason for celibacy. It is not because the body is an evil thing in itself.

I am sure some of you are familiar with Buddhaghosa's work. Buddhaghosa was one of the Theravadin teachers who wrote the Visuddhimagga, in which there are meditation exercises involving seeing your body as impure. But, again, I have to remind you that this does not mean that the body, in itself, is impure. Seeing it as such however, will provide you with the necessary meditational antidote for dealing with your sexual desires and your way of being.

I hope that is clear for you, because so many Western people, having been brought up in Christianity, have trouble grasping this notion. I have got nothing against Christianity personally, it is just that certain Christian ways of thinking are not the same as the Buddhist way of thinking, particularly when it comes to issues about the material world and the physical body. In Buddhism, we are not born of original sin and our physical state is not tainted by original sin. What you have to understand is that, as a celibate monk or nun, when you see the physical body in a negative light you are doing that as a meditational exercise. It is not because the body, in itself, is seen as something that is evil and degrading. It is just a meditational exercise. As Buddhists, we do many different kinds of meditational exercises, as you know. Whatever works, is regarded as helpful.

If you get attracted to a man or woman, if you imagined them internally, their internal organs - the liver, the heart. Really, seriously, this is what you are supposed to do in these meditational exercises. You dissect the body into bits and then you do not find that person attractive any more. That is the idea. That is the reason for this exercise; that is how we are supposed to learn detachment. We have to learn how to maintain a sense of composure. That is very important in the Buddhist way of thinking, not just in terms of the pratimoksha vow of individual liberation, but also in terms of the bodhisattva vow and the tantric vow in the later Buddhist traditions.

The pratimoksha vow means individual liberation, as I have said. This is so sor thar pai dom pa, in Tibetan. So sor means 'individual', thar pai means 'liberation' and dom pa means 'vow'. Now, what does that mean? That means that you, as an individual, in wanting to embark on the spiritual path, may want to take this vow for yourself. That is why it is called 'individual liberation' - it is not for others, in other words.

When you take this vow you have to think in terms of virtues and vices. Buddhist ethics are based on the notion of virtues and vices. It is not about obeying some kind of commandment or divine judgement. There is no supernatural source for Buddhist ethics; it is human based. The Buddhist notion of ethics, including the notion of individual liberation, is based on our own human experiences. We reflect upon what sort of things will make us flourish, develop, achieve things and what sort of experiences will drag us down, destroy, degrade and humiliate us. We have to know what sort of things we should avoid and what sort of things we should encourage within ourselves. This is what we have to do and pratimoksha vows are supposed to help us to achieve that goal. For we are capable of both, we are capable of destroying ourselves and we are capable of achieving believable states of spiritual realisations.

That is why, when we take the pratimoksha vow, we aim toward the attainment of arhathood (dgra bcom pa in Tibetan). Arhat means 'foe-destroyer'. What is being destroyed here? It is our negativities - our anger, jealousy, resentment, ignorance and foolishness that are being eradicated. It is said in the Buddhist teachings that we, as human beings, are childish. We are childish in our behaviour; we are not mature. When we aim toward becoming an arhat, we are learning how to become fully human, a human being who is in control.

In order to become mature, we have to learn how to cultivate certain mental states that are favourable to our development and to avoid those that will prevent us from developing. Our negative state of mind, for example, can only generate more negativity. In Buddhism, we put a lot of emphasis on cause and effect. The notion of cause and effect is central to the Buddhist way of thinking. David Kalupahana, a Sri Lankan scholar, wrote a book about it called Causality: the Central Philosophy of Buddhism. We have to think of virtues and vices in relation to cause and effect. A virtuous mind will produce a virtuous effect - mentally, verbally and physically. A non-virtuous thought will always result in a negative effect, both for oneself and for others.

That is how we educate ourselves morally. We are not obeying the vinaya rules or the pratimoksha vows because Buddha said so, so it must be true. We know this to be true through our own reflection. As we all know, our mind is like a broken record, it repeats itself over and over. Even when we go to sleep, we get no rest; the same thought is there - only more exaggerated than during one's waking hours - it never goes away. We have to find a way to prevent that from happening. That is why the notion of virtues and vices is important.

As a monk or nun you can take heaps of vows, depending on which tradition you belong to. The vows number well over two hundred. Not having spent time in Sri Lanka, Thailand or Vietnam, I do not know how the monks observe the vinaya rules in those countries. I can speak for Tibetans, however. It is a fact that Tibetans routinely break many of the vows mentioned in the Vinaya-pitaka. They are minor rules you see, such as not exchanging money, not having gold, not sitting on a high throne, and not sitting on a high bed and things like that. We, as Tibetans, take that to be normal. The justification for this is that Tibetans have this notion of a three-tier system of ethics. With the bodhisattva vows and the tantric vows there is no prohibition against sitting on a throne or sitting on a high bed, etcetera.

In any case, the most important vows that a monk or nun has to observe are called pam pa bzhi, in Tibetan. Pam pa means 'defeat'. I think it is called pajika, in Sanskrit or Pali. That in itself is very suggestive. It means that the monk or nun has yielded to uncontrollable emotions. They have lost it, gone berserk! That is why they are called defeats.

The four defeating offences are:

Sexual intercourse, theft, murder, and lying about one's level of spiritual attainment. If you have engaged in or committed any of those four kinds of offences, you have lost your vows. You are no longer a monk or nun.

Sexual intercourse is elaborated upon very clearly in the texts. If you are a monk, you cannot say, ' Well, anal sex is okay because I'm not having vaginal intercourse'. It is described very clearly here, in Jamgon Kongtrul Lodro Thaye's Buddhist Ethics:

Sexual intercourse refers to the experience of orgasm arising from the contact made when the penis penetrates any of the three orifices - the mouth, anus, or a vagina - of a living being, be it male, female, neuter, or animal, or of a corpse with at least half the body.

Does that mean you can have sex with a decapitated head? I will not venture into that area, but that is what is said, 'at least half the body'. Why? I do not know.

Theft refers to:

Personally stealing, or inducing someone else to steal, another person's possessions of significant value. The measure of significant value in India equals the value of four hundred cowry shells, or one-quarter karshapana. To steal an object equal in worth to that would be the defeating offence. In Tibet, an object is considered of significant value when it is worth one bushel of barley when there is no famine or one-half bushel of barley in times of famine.

Thus, what has significant value must be determined in the context of each individual country. Even though this sounds a bit archaic in the way that it is expressed, we know what it basically means. You do not steal; you do not take things that do not belong to you. This is a major offence. It comes from your greed, your uncontrollable, unruly mind that is never satisfied - more is never enough, that kind of thing.

Murder is:

To kill, or to induce another to kill, a human being or a foetus in the earliest or later stages of development in the womb with a weapon, poison, mantra or in other ways.

Again, we do not take life into our own hands. Obviously, the vinaya rules prohibit anyone from aborting a child; the foetus is mentioned there.

Telling lies is the fourth one:

Telling lies about one's level of spiritual attainment (saying one has qualities superior to human attributes) is to falsely claim that one has attained high or superior qualities not easily accomplished by a human being. Falsely claiming to be enlightened, to have clairvoyance, to have experienced signs of spiritual accomplishment, to have seen a deity, and other such examples would fall into this category.

Saying, 'I'm enlightened, I'm a Buddha, I have seen these various deities'. In Tibetan Buddhism, we also have a whole pantheon, a plethora, of iconic images, such as Vajrapani, Chakrasamvara, Tara, Kalachakra and Vajrayogini. Perhaps you have had the experience of seeing them, but so what? You are still deluded. It is very important, according to Buddhism, not to make claims like that.

It has become almost customary for spiritual teachers in the West to claim all sorts of things. According to Buddhism, that is a major offence - one should never do that. And that is why, when people ask the Dalai Lama, for example, if he remembers his previous incarnations, His Holiness invariably says 'No, I don't know, I don't remember, I'm just a simple monk'.

It is only the Western media that has decided to accord to him this title of 'God-King'. It is another Western fabrication that he is the God-King. He never said that he is the God-King and Tibetans do not think he is a God-King. If he claimed himself to be a God-King, most Tibetans would become suspicious, because this is not the kind of thing that one should be doing. That is a major offence; they call it 'defeat'. You are defeated, you have fallen victim to your egoism and emotions, you are not focused, and you are not present.

I think I should mention that there are thirteen offences that are associated with the four defeats. We do not need to go into all of them, such as not wearing certain kinds of clothes, not using perfume, not wearing make-up.

The thirteen associated offences to the four defeats are:

Ejaculation; Touching; Speaking of sexual intercourse to a woman; Extolling reverence; Match-making; Constructing a hut; Constructing a large dwelling; Groundless accusations; Trivial accusations; Causing a schism; Taking sides; Causing a lay person to lose faith; and Defiance.

These constitute the class of partially defeating offences. Any of these offences is said to leave only a residue of the vows. If a monk or nun has been involved with any of the four defeats, he or she has lost their vows. Irreparable damage has been done. These thirteen associated offences can be remedied by making confessions. This is done every month. You congregate, both in Theravada countries and in Tibet. In Tibetan, we call this so sbyong - so means 'reparation' and sbyong means 'purification'. You gather and then, during the ceremony, the young monks separate into smaller groups and confess to an elderly monk. This is what one has to do.

To elaborate on these thirteen minor offences further:

Ejaculation means to emit semen through contact with a part of one's body, such as the fingers, or a part of another person's body, with the exception of the three orifices of mouth, anus or vagina. As already mentioned, if any of those orifices are involved, you have already lost your vow, because defeat has already occurred.

Touching or holding is to touch the bare skin of a woman (or a man, if one is a nun) motivated by sexual desire.

Speaking of sexual intercourse is to use lascivious language with a woman, with words that suggest sexual intercourse, etcetera, motivated by lust.

Extolling reverence means, motivated by sexual desire, to suggest to a woman in glorified terms that sexual intercourse would be a good way for her to revere oneself: 'I am the lama. Come to me', that kind of thing. That is also known to happen, but that is wrong. You should not be fooled into thinking that this behaviour is acceptable.

Matchmaking means to cause a previously uninvolved man and woman to engage in sexual intercourse by carrying, or having another carry, a message between them three times.

Constructing a hut means to build on an improper site, and for oneself, a house that exceeds the prescribed size. The prescribed hut must be large enough to stretch the arms when standing; to extend or draw in the arms and legs when sleeping; to take three strides in each direction when moving around, and to easily assume the cross-legged posture. It must not, however, exceed the prescribed size of eighteen cubits in length and ten and a half cubic in width. That is a bit stringent, don't you think, a bit constricting?

Constructing a large dwelling means to construct on an improper site, and with improper materials, a large house for four monks or more.

Groundless accusation means to defame a fellow monk without any of the three grounds for accusation of having seen, heard about, or having suspected that he has incurred a defeating offence.

Accusation for a trivial reason means to falsely accuse a fellow monk of having committed a defeating offence, justifying this on the basis of a trivial event.

Causing a schism means to persist in causing a division in the order, not desisting even though other monks have admonished one three times. Taking sides refers to supporting a fellow monk who is trying to create a schism in the order, not desisting although admonished three times.

Causing a lay person to lose faith means to defame the fellow monks who have expelled one (from the boundaries of the monastery) because one's depraved conduct has subverted a lay devotee's faith in the order, and not desisting even though admonished three times.

Defiance means not to accept the allegation made by the fellow monks when one has incurred a downfall, and persistently refusing to acknowledge (and amend) it in spite of the (triple) admonishments of the monastic community.

Those are the main rules that a monk is supposed to abide by. All the others are not all that important. It is not just the Tibetan monks, monks in all Buddhist countries do not abide by all the rules. The Vinaya pitaka is available in English, by the way. Charles Prebish has made a translation of it, both in a Mahasanghika and a Mulasar-vastivadin version of the vinaya rules.

Buddha himself, made it very clear in the vinaya, that the vinaya rules should be amended in terms of cultural context. Buddha was very concerned about people's perception of his sangha, the 'sangha' meaning the ordained members of his community. How society perceived them was very important to him. The Buddha made amendments regarding these rules in response to people making certain accusations against the ordained members of his community. If they behaved in certain ways, and if people did not like that, then Buddha said, 'You should not do that'.

For many of the minor rules the infringement is negligible, but the four defeats are to be cherished by all ordained members of the Buddhist sangha. If you have incurred any of the four defeats, you have lost your vow. You are no longer a monk or you are no longer a nun. All the other kinds of offences mentioned in the vinaya, do not need to be really strictly adhered to because they are culturally relative, they are governed by the culture within which one is living. The most important thing, as I said before, is to see the vinaya vows, the pratimoksha vows, as something that will help the individual from indulging in unruly and unbecoming behaviour. They are about restraint.

It is made very clear in the vinaya texts that to observe these vows is to 'cool oneself' (sil ba in Tibetan). What this means is that we are heated up with emotions. We are on fire, as it is said in the Buddhist teachings. We are on fire, we are burning with our passions and we have lost control. We are consumed by the fire of emotions, totally undisciplined. When we learn to discipline our body, speech and mind, we start to experience a sense of composure and a sense of tranquillity that can only come from observing these kinds of monastic rules.

I want to really emphasise the point that Buddhist ethics are virtue-based ethics. The notion of virtues and vices is very important. Observing these vows is an education in morality. We learn to educate ourselves. We will become more human and humane, more developed, and our life will flourish more when we start to make that distinction between things that are favourable to our growth and things that are unfavourable and unconducive to our growth. That is very important, I believe.

So many times in religious discourses, morality is based on some kind of supernatural foundation, as it were, something that we have received from elsewhere. We have to reach upwards for our moral guidance. We have to be open and find some kind of guidance coming down upon us, and we go, 'Oh, Hallelujah! I feel it man'. Really, even if you do not personally behave that way, the fact is many people do. All you have to do is watch TV evangelism and you will see it happening every day - almost twenty-four hours a day in America. There are so many channels that just bombard you with things like that. But Buddhist morality, as with the Greek virtue-based ethics, is about ascendance. It is not that one is receiving something from above to lift oneself, but rather that one is growing from within. We have that capacity to grow within ourselves. We can either go onto a path of self-destruction, or we can embark on the path that will lead to self-fulfilment and meaning in life. That is why, in Buddhism, we have to take the notion of ethics very seriously. That is how we will become transformed.

'Selflessness' in Buddhism, does not mean that there is no self. 'Selflessness' simply means that we, as human beings, as individuals, are made up of a composite of things - our feelings, aspirations, desires, dreams, our physical embodiments. All of those things together constitute what we call 'the self'. There is no such thing as the 'core' self, the 'real' self, the 'untainted, untouched soul', or whatever you want to call it. We, as Buddhists, do not believe in that. That is why self-transformation is important. By changing our thoughts, by changing how we feel about things, by changing how we dream about things, by changing what we try to attain and realise in our lives, we will become a different person, we will become totally transformed. One then becomes an arhat, according to the vinaya rules, an Aryan, an elevated being (phag pa in Tibetan).

As Buddhists, we have to think that to become an elevated being is still to be a human being. One does not become a god. But, in the early Buddhist teachings, in the Pali suttas actually, it is said that to become an arhant is to become like Brahma, like God. There is no divine being out there. One can become a totally transfigured, transformed, spiritually perfected, human being. To attain that, one has to abide by the vinaya rules.

Next feature article>> The Path of Purification - Sayadaw U Jagara