in front of a representation of the Buddha (a statue or painting, for example) and do not need to take them from another living person. However, it is necessary to take Vajrayana and pratimoksha vows from another living person, because you need an unbroken continuum. Perhaps one of the reasons for this is that taking vows in the presence of a master or other living person brings a greater sense of commitment. It reinforces your own conscience, and gives a sense of personal obligation. If you wish to pursue the reasons for this further, then I must admit we would have to defer the question to the Buddha himself.
Q: If we see someone engaging in a wrong action which will lead to their suffering, should we try to prevent them from carrying it out, or would that be imposing on their karma? In other words, is it better for us to experience our own suffering so we can learn from it?
HHDL: As you know, a practising Buddhist is deliberately engaged in a way of life that is dedicated to helping others. Here we should know that, in the Buddhist sense, we are talking about helping others find their own liberation through engaging in the right path; that is, engaging in a way of life that accords with the karmic law, where the person avoids negative actions and engages in positive actions. So generally speaking, when a Buddhist sees others engaging in wrong actions, it is right to try to stop them from doing so.
However, this does raise several questions. To what extent can we impose our own morality, or our own sets of values, on to another person? We might even wonder whether the Buddha’s prescription to his followers to live their lives according to the moral discipline of avoiding the Ten Negative Actions7 is also a way of imposing his set of moral values on us.
It is useful to remember that one important principle in Buddhism is the need to be sensitive to individual context. There is a story which illustrates this point well.
Shariputra, one of the chief disciples of the Buddha, knew that if he were to give the basic teachings on the Shravakayana to a group of five hundred potential disciples, these disciples would without doubt gain insight into the truth and become Arhats. However, the bodhisattva named Manjushri intervened, and instead taught them the Mahayana doctrine of emptiness. These five hundred disciples understood what he taught as a doctrine of total nihilism, denying the validity and reality of everything. They all developed wrong views on the nature of the path and reality, and as a result it is said that they created karmic actions that led them to take rebirth in the lower realms of existence.
So Shariputra sought out the Buddha straightaway, arguing that if Manjushri had let him guide these five hundred people, they would have at least attained high levels of realization, if not full enlightenment. The Buddha responded by saying that in fact Manjushri had applied the principle of skilful means. Manjushri knew that in the short term these people would create negative actions through their wrong views, but he also knew that because the doctrine of emptiness had been implanted in their consciousness, those seeds would later ripen and would lead them to buddhahood. So in effect, their path to buddhahood had been shortened.
The moral that we can draw from this story is that until we reach the state of full enlightenment ourselves, it is very difficult to judge what is, and what is not, the right response to a given situation. We should simply do our best to be sensitive to each particular situation when we are interacting with others.
Q: Your Holiness, it is a well-known fact that you are a very busy person with many demands on your time. Could you advise a lay person with home, family and work demands, on how to develop a systematic pattern of Dharma practice?
HHDL: My Western friends often ask me for the quickest, easiest, most effective – and cheapest – way of practising Dharma! I think to find such a way is impossible! Maybe that is a sign of failure!
We should realize that practising the Dharma is actually something that needs to be done twenty-four hours of the day. That’s why we make a distinction between actual meditation sessions and post-meditation periods, the idea being that both while you are in the meditative session and also when you are out of it, you should be fully within the realm of Dharma practice.
In fact, one could say that the post-meditation periods are the real test of the strength of your practice. During formal meditation, in a sense you are recharging your batteries, so that when you come out of the session you are better equipped to deal with the demands of your everyday life. The very purpose of recharging a battery is to enable it to run something, isn’t it? Similarly, once you have equipped yourself through whatever practices you engage in, as a human being you can’t avoid the daily routines of life, and it is during these periods that you should be able to live according to the principles of your Dharma practice.
Of course at the initial stage, as a beginner, you do need periods of concentrated meditation so that you have a base from which you can begin. This is certainly crucial. But once you have established that base, then you will be able to adopt a way of life where your daily activity is at least in accord with the principles of the Dharma. So all this points to the importance of making an effort. Without some effort, there is no way that we can integrate the principles of Dharma in our lives.
For a serious practitioner, the most serious effort is necessary. Just a few short prayers, a little chanting, and some mantra recitation with a mala (rosary) are not sufficient. Why not? Because this cannot transform your mind. Our negative emotions are so powerful that constant effort is needed in order to counteract them. If we practise constantly, then we can definitely change.
Q: What is the relationship between relative compassion and absolute compassion?
HHDL: There are different ways of understanding the meaning of compassion according to whether you approach it from the Mahayana or the Vajrayana point of view. For example, although the Vajrayana uses the same word for compassion, karuna, as the Mahayana, it has a totally different meaning.
Perhaps this question is related to another distinction made in the scriptures between two levels of compassion. At the first level, compassion is simulated. This is the initial stage, when you need to practise certain contemplations in order to generate compassion. As a result of this practice you reach the second level, at which compassion becomes natural and spontaneous. This is one of the ways of understanding the difference between relative and absolute compassion.
ONE 
Now let us turn to the Buddhist teaching on the Four Noble Truths. The first question we might ask is why these Truths are considered to be so fundamental, and why, in fact, Buddha taught them at all.
In order to answer this, we have to relate the Four Noble Truths to our own experience as individual human beings. It is a fact – a natural fact of life – that each one of us has an innate desire to seek happiness and to overcome suffering. This is something very instinctive, and there is no need to prove it is there. Happiness is something that we all aspire to achieve, and of course we naturally have a right to fulfil that aspiration. In the same way, suffering is something everybody wishes to avoid, and we also have the right to try to overcome suffering. So if this aspiration to achieve happiness and overcome suffering is our natural state of being, and our natural quest, the question is how we should go about fulfilling that aspiration.
This leads us to the teachings on
