The first thing we have to understand, when talking about bringing adversity to the spiritual path, is that if we engage in spiritual practice, we will be undergoing adversity.

Adversity can take many forms; it can be external, such as physical or environmental, or it can be internal and arise within our mind. As a great abbot of the Sakya tradition, Khenpo Kedrup, once said, “For you all, there are so many adversities and so few conducive circumstances.” What we have to understand, though, is that in spite of the fact that adversity is so conspicuously prevalent in our lives, none of the adversities we encounter are inherently existent. They arise as circumstances that we experience as adverse because of the attitude we take toward them in our minds. And therefore the adversities themselves are secondary to our nature.

It is important, however, to make a distinction in this regard between the situations of persons who bear different degrees of responsibility that affect others. If someone bears the responsibility for something like a dharma center, in which the decisions they make will affect the spiritual practice of many others, that is a whole different situation. But with regard to persons concerned only with their own development—with their own personal practice—fundamentally, what they need to do is maintain their faith and connection. They should especially remain free from sectarianism and ensure that their minds not be overpowered by kleshas.

One of the most important things for us as Buddhists is to understand the meaning of our taking refuge in the Three Jewels, and especially to understand the actual attributes of the Three Jewels in whom we take refuge. We can learn about these things from the many books, teachings given by eminent lamas, and so on. But the point is that if we understand the attributes or characteristics of the Three Jewels, then the whole process of relating to the teachings becomes very easy, I think.

In the context of taking refuge, the Buddha is defined as “supreme among those who walk upon two feet.” That means that the Buddha is supreme among all humans and devas, because he is the authentic teacher.

In the context of the vow of refuge, we define dharma as “supreme among all that is free of attachment.” This means that dharma itself is always free from attachment and all other kleshas.

What is dharma? Dharma consists of two things: tradition and realization. The dharma of tradition exists as written words found in books. Books and the words within them are inanimate. They are not sentient beings and therefore they do not, and cannot possibly, possess kleshas. So therefore the dharma of tradition is immaculate in the sense of being free from attachment.

Realization refers to all of the resultant states and levels of realization gained by practitioners of the shravakayana, pratyekabuddhayana, and mahayana through their practice of the Buddha’s respective teachings. So the realization dharma consists of the states of shravaka arhat, pratyekabuddha arhat, bodhisattva, and finally a buddha. In that state of realization and in the realization itself, the kleshas are eradicated, not increased, and one comes to possess the wisdom that knows the nature of things and the wisdom that knows the attributes of things. So the dharma of realization increases one’s merit and in no way increases or supports the kleshas. It is, therefore, accurate and true to say that dharma is supreme among all that is free of attachment and other kleshas.

In the same context, the sangha is defined as “supreme among assemblies.” In this world, there are a vast number of societies, groups, assemblies, and organizations. Some of these are held together by a common commitment among the members to try to do good; and some of them are held together by a shared commitment among the members to do bad. The Buddhist sangha is defined by the shared commitment among its members to do their best to try to emulate the Buddha. And so we regard the sangha as a source of refuge because it is the next best thing to the Buddha. But the members of the sangha are explicitly not buddhas. Therefore they have kleshas. If the members of the sangha did not have kleshas, they would not need to practice dharma and would not be members of the sangha. A sick person will take medicine; someone who is completely free from illness is not going to take medicine because they do not need it.

The problem we experience very much nowadays is that we are unable to tell the difference between a spiritual tradition and those who practice it. When we encounter upheaval, adversity, disputation, or controversy in a religious or spiritual tradition, we immediately denigrate the tradition itself. We say, “Well, this tradition is simply no good.” But this comes from our misapprehension of the behavior of some of the members of the tradition as something inherent in the tradition itself. This is a problematic misapprehension for us because it causes us to lose respect for genuine spiritual traditions. And, for example, if we are Buddhist practitioners and we lose respect for our own tradition, it harms us tremendously because we leave the path. Without pursuing the path, we find ourselves unable to tame our minds and our kleshas.

Even when there are problems, we need to recognize that dharma itself is pure, but the humans who practice it are human beings who should be expected to be imperfect. The nirmanakayas who intentionally take birth among us in order to teach us and guide us to liberation—however they may appear—are essentially free from affliction. But practitioners, all of us, have all five kleshas functioning fully. The amount of kleshas that we have and the degree we fall prey to them is based on our attitudes, our intentions, and our previous karma. Whenever we act out our kleshas, this is not coming from dharma, this is coming from us as people.

In order to survive upheaval or adversity, we need to learn to distinguish between the dharma and the sangha, and to recognize that after all we are practicing dharma because we all have kleshas. No matter how much we may object to the errors or misdeeds of another, we have to remember that all beings without exception have countless times been our parents because we have all been born countless times throughout beginningless time. If we can take that attitude of empathetic bodhichitta and abstain from the demonization of others, then even when adversity arises, we will not lose our accumulation of merit and our accumulation of wisdom in an outburst of anger. We will know how to tame our minds even in the midst of difficulties, controversy, and adversity. We will learn how to recognize our own kleshas and tame them. We will continue to study and practice. And especially, we will not fall into the error of rejection of dharma and we will not harm others.

It is said that there is nothing good about wrongdoing but in fact, there is one good thing about wrongdoing—it can be purified. If a person who committed wrongdoing admits to it wholeheartedly, then regardless of what the wrongdoing consisted of, it will be purified.

Dharma, because it is inanimate, is said to be flawless and immaculate. But in a sense we could say that dharma has one flaw. There is one problem with the dharma. Precisely because it is inanimate, dharma will not tell you when you are distorting it. We have a saying about this, “Quotations of the Buddha’s words are like animal skins, they can be stretched quite a bit.” And this is why the Buddha warned us by saying, “Test those words attributed to me down to a single stanza with the skepticism that you would treat something being sold to you as the purest gold. Do not accept it until you have proven its purity.” This means that we each need to employ our own insight and our own common sense in assessing any teaching—written or oral—to see it is really true to the dharma. We have to ask if it is really helpful to beings or not. And if we can use our intelligence in that way, then we will be certain that our practice will be unmistaken and of benefit to ourselves and others.

Those who teach dharma may possess both virtues and flaws. In all cases, we need to be able to tell the difference, so that we can emulate our teacher’s virtues and avoid our teacher’s flaws. Only in that way will we be able actually grow spiritually.

His Holiness the Sixteenth Gyalwang Karmapa and His Holiness the Seventeenth Gyalwang Karmapa, and in fact any buddha or bodhisattva, has only one aim, and that is to help beings. As it is said, “the only thing pleasing to buddhas is the happiness of beings.” Any buddha, any bodhisattva, any emanation of any buddha or bodhisattva, will have that aim alone. All they want to do is free beings from suffering and bring beings to a state of happiness. If we have that understanding and if based on that understanding we, as practitioners and in working with our teachers, can act according to dharma, things will go very well. So it is my hope that all of us will do this. I pray that all of us do this and I ask that all of you do this.

Still, no matter how hard we try, there will be problems. Something is always going to come up. Sometimes things come up within our minds. Sometimes things come up externally. When problems arise, we need to deal with them in such a way that we can actually bring them to the path, which means to use the unavoidable situation of the problem to go further on the path rather than abandon it or backtrack.

We are Buddhists and especially we are practitioners of the mahayana. That means that principally what we are trying to do is train our minds in both aspiration and implementation bodhichitta. We are trying to practice the six paramitas (or six perfections). But the six perfections can only be practiced when there are problems of one kind or another. We can use the third perfection—patience—as an example. The quality of patience is the ability not to become angry and not to act out of anger when something or someone is making us angry. When we are subject to no stimulus that evokes anger, when nobody is doing anything that bothers us, when nothing is going wrong; there is simply no way for us to practice patience. We cannot practice patience unless there is a situation that tests our patience. The situation may be internal—it may be something that has arisen within our mind that is tormenting us. It may be a disagreement within our family, within a mundane group or association, within a sangha. But whatever it is, by being patient with it we have a fantastic opportunity to increase our own virtue and obviously to facilitate others’ increase of it.

While we can never expect others not to get angry at us, while we can never expect there to be an absence of stimuli evoking anger, we have to remember that a fight takes two. No cymbal can make sound unless it is collided with another cymbal. No drum will make a sound unless a drumstick strikes it. So there will always be disagreements among us and we will always experience disappointments with the behavior of others. But if we can commit ourselves to open-minded patience, we will not lose our way along the path. And we will be able to cooperate with others and be of real use to them. Even in order to succeed in this world in the most mundane way, we depend upon doing as much good as we can, and avoiding as much wrongdoing as we can.

To use myself as an example, at the command of His Holiness the Sixteenth Gyalwang Karmapa, I served the monastery of Karma Triyana Dharmachakra for 31 years. During that time, when Khenpo Karthar Rinpoche had founded the Karme Ling Retreat Center and was busy teaching and directing the retreat, for a period of almost 20 years I had the principal responsibility of teaching and supervising the ongoing functions of the centers. Therefore, I remain attached to the outcome in these centers and I pray that in your centers you work together in harmony; and that the centers grow, prosper, and flourish. Never think that I want these centers to go down, be ruined, or suffer in any way. Work together and remember that even though there will always be problems, there will always be miscommunications, ups and downs, disagreements of all kinds, that your centers were founded by the Sixteenth Gyalwang Karmapa and they will therefore, without doubt, be the primary venue for the activity in this country of the Seventeenth Gyalwang Karmapa. Furthermore, the teachings of the Karmapas will last for as long as the teachings of the thousand buddhas of this kalpa continue to exist. So for all these reasons, the survival of these centers is of far greater significance to me than how you view or treat me. I always pray for all of you and for the centers, and I will always keep you all in my mind.

One of the most important things for us as Buddhists is to understand the meaning of our taking refuge in the Three Jewels, and especially to understand the actual attributes of the Three Jewels in whom we take refuge. We can learn about these things from the many books about this, tapes of teachings given about this by eminent lamas, and so on. But the point is, if we understand the attributes or characteristics of the Three Jewels, then the whole process of relating to the teachings becomes very easy, I think.

In the context of taking refuge, the Buddha is defined as “supreme among those who walk upon two feet.” That means that the Buddha is supreme among all humans and devas, because he is their authentic teacher.

In the context of the vow of refuge, we define dharma as “supreme among all that is free of attachment.” This means that dharma itself is always free from attachment and all other kleshas.

What is dharma? Dharma consists of two things: tradition and realization. The dharma of tradition exists as written words found in books. Books and the words within them are inanimate. They are not sentient beings and therefore they do not, and cannot possibly, possess kleshas. So therefore the dharma of tradition is immaculate in the sense of being free from attachment.

Realization refers to all of the resultant states and levels of realization gained by practitioners of the shravakayana, pratyekabuddhayana, and mahayana through their practice of the Buddha’s respective teachings. So the realization dharma consists of the states of shravaka arhat, pratyekabuddha arhat, bodhisattva, and finally a buddha. In that state of realization and in the realization itself, the kleshas are eradicated, not increased, and one comes to possess the wisdom that knows the nature of things and the wisdom that knows the attributes of things. So the dharma of realization increases one’s merit and in no way increases or supports the kleshas. It is, therefore, accurate and true to say that dharma is supreme among all that is free of attachment and other kleshas.

In the same context, the sangha is defined as “supreme among assemblies.” In this world, there are a vast number of societies, groups, assemblies, and organizations. Some of these are held together by a common commitment among the members to try to do good; some of them are held together by a shared commitment among the members to try and do bad. The Buddhist sangha is defined by the shared commitment among its members to do their best to try to emulate the Buddha. And so we regard the sangha as a source of refuge because it is the next best thing to the Buddha. But the members of the sangha are explicitly not buddhas. Therefore they have kleshas. If the members of the sangha did not have kleshas, they would not need to practice dharma and would not be members of the sangha. A sick person will take medicine; someone who is completely free from illness is not going to take medicine because they do not need it.

The problem we experience very much nowadays is that we are unable to tell the difference or distinguish between a spiritual tradition and those who practice it. When we encounter upheaval, adversity, disputation, or controversy in a religious or spiritual tradition, we immediately denigrate the tradition itself. We say, “Well, this religion or this tradition is simply no good.” But this comes from our misapprehension of the behavior of some of the participants or members of the tradition as something inherent in the tradition itself. This is a problematic misapprehension for us because it causes us to lose respect for genuine spiritual traditions. And, for example, if we are Buddhist practitioners and we lose respect for our own tradition, it harms us tremendously because we leave the path. Without pursuing the path, we find ourselves unable to tame our minds and our kleshas.

Even when there are problems, we need to recognize that dharma itself is pure, but the humans who practice it are human beings who should be expected to be imperfect. The nirmanakayas who intentionally take birth among us in order to teach us and guide us to liberation, however they may appear, are essentially free from affliction. But practitioners, all of us, have all five kleshas functioning fully. The amount of kleshas that we have, the degree we fall prey to them, all of this is based on our attitudes, our intentions, and our previous karma. Whenever we act out our kleshas, this is not coming from dharma, this is coming from us as people.

In order to survive upheaval or adversity, we need to learn to distinguish between the dharma and the sangha, and to recognize that after all we are practicing dharma because we all have kleshas. No matter how much we may object to the errors or misdeeds of another, we have to remember that all beings without exception have countless times been our parents because we have all been born countless times throughout beginningless time. If we can take that attitude of empathetic bodhichitta and abstain from the demonization of others, then even when adversity arises, we will not lose our accumulation of merit and our accumulation of wisdom in an outburst of anger. We will know how to tame our minds even in the midst of difficulties, controversy, and adversity. We will learn how to recognize our own kleshas and tame them. We will continue to study and practice. And especially, we will not fall into the error of rejection of dharma and we will not harm others.

The fundamental significance of the vow of refuge in the Buddhist tradition is that it is the necessary starting point and foundation for all other consciously adopted forms of moral discipline. It is said that there are vows for everyone, but not for those who have not taken the vow of refuge. The reason for the presentation of vows in Buddhism—the conscious adoption of moral discipline—is that, in his omniscience, the Buddha recognized that the only cause of higher rebirth is consciously adopted moral disciple.

In order to enable disciples to achieve continued higher rebirth and to continue to pursue the path, he therefore presented the vow of refuge and all the other vows that ensue upon it. To understand the context in which the Buddha presented these things, we have to look at the broad context of his teaching, which is what we call the four noble truths: The truth of suffering, the truth of the cause of suffering, the truth of cessation, and the truth of the path. We must start with the acknowledgement of our suffering. Anyone who was born in any of the six realms (or states) of samsara suffers. No one can say that they do not suffer at all. The claim that a being living in samsara is free of suffering simply goes against all of our valid experience. But suffering does not arise without a context, without a cause. And suffering depends upon the accumulation of karma. If you accumulate karma, you will suffer. If you do not accumulate karma, you will not suffer. This is what the Buddha was pointing to when he presented the first noble truth—the truth of suffering—in his words, “Recognize suffering.”

The first step is for us to recognize and admit our suffering because if we fail to do that, we will have no inspiration to escape from (or transcend) samsara. But other than recognizing suffering, we cannot simply try to get rid of it. We have to get rid of its cause. Therefore the Buddha went on and presented the second noble truth—the truth of the cause of suffering—by saying, “Abandon its cause.” What is the cause of suffering? Fundamentally it is kleshas—mental afflictions. Through the presence of kleshas within us, we accumulate karma. Negative karma causes us to suffer. Positive karma causes us to experience states of afflicted (or imperfect) happiness. All of this is of the nature of suffering and results from the certain cause of kleshas and karma.

How do we abandon the cause of suffering? We do that by the achievement of cessation. Therefore the Buddha taught the third noble truth—the truth of cessation—when he said, “Achieve cessation.” That is to say, you achieve the cessation of suffering by achieving the cessation of its cause, the cessation of kleshas and karma.

To some extent we could say that all spiritual traditions are concerned with the transcendence of suffering, and there are many varieties of spirituality in this world, some more sophisticated than others. But the Buddha, having perfected the two accumulations and achieved the dharmakaya for his own benefit and the rupakaya for the benefit of others, and having therefore turned the three dharmachakras, taught a precise path leading to the cessation of suffering and the causes of suffering, a path leading to non-abiding nirvana. He first mentioned this path by proclaiming the fourth noble truth—the truth of the path—when he said, “Rely upon the path.” The path the Buddha presented conforms to the needs and dispositions of the individual. It can be therefore divided into the path of the shravaka, the path of the pratyekabuddha, and the path of a bodhisattva. And each of these paths leads to liberation.

The reason why the Buddha began by saying, “Recognize suffering,” is that as long as we are in denial of suffering, we are like small children who will touch fire because they are too young or too naïve to know that it will burn them. Small children have to be kept away from fire by their parents, but when a child matures to the point where they know that fire will burn them if they touch it, they no longer have to be protected from it, and they are mature enough to be able to choose not to touch fire. In instructing us to recognize suffering, the Buddha was instructing us to gain an analogous type of maturity to recognize what will cause suffering and how to avoid it. In that way, the Buddha began his presentation of all of his buddhadharma with the four noble truths, and among them, what we actually practice is the fourth—the truth of the path.

The starting point of our practice of the path is the cultivation of moral discipline, and this is because in order to continue to pursue the path, we need continued higher rebirth. The only cause of higher rebirth is moral discipline. Is higher rebirth our final goal? No. All six realms involve suffering, but three of these realms—what are called the three higher realms or three higher states—have much less suffering than the states that are called the three lower realms. Through the conscious adoption of moral discipline, we can achieve these higher rebirths: As a human, as a deva, or as an asura. In these three states we still suffer, but we suffer so much less than those in the lower states, that we can continue to pursue the path. And the only way to gain this necessary resource of a higher rebirth is moral discipline. Nevertheless moral discipline alone will not lead to liberation. It leads to a higher rebirth that is a container (or basis) for pursuing the path, but that higher rebirth itself, because it is still an afflicted state, is not a state of liberation. Devas suffer from death and downfall; humans from birth, aging, sickness, and death; and asuras from warfare and disputation. So we cannot stop there. We cannot stop merely with the practice of moral discipline and the achievement of higher rebirth; we have to go further. Starting with moral discipline, the substance (or body) of the path is the gathering of the two accumulations—of merit and wisdom. And by means of these—the combination of moral discipline and the gathering of the accumulations—not only do we achieve a higher rebirth avoiding the three lower realms, but we also progress along the path.

The starting point of this process is taking the vow of refuge. Taking the vow of refuge is what opens the door to all of the eight varieties of what are called pratimoksha or individual liberation. These are the vows of a male or female monastic, a male or female novice,  a male or female upasaka (or lay disciple), the temporary 24–hour vow, and the eight lifelong vows. You can therefore think of the refuge vow as the only doorway into the buddhadharma or you can think of it as the first step on the path that culminates in liberation and awaking. But in either case, whatever analogy or metaphor you use, the taking of the vow of refuge is the starting process of the path that consists of gathering the two accumulations and that culminates in buddhahood.

In whom do we take refuge? We take refuge in the Buddha, the Awakened One; in the dharma, his teaching; and in the sangha, the community (or society) of those who follow the Buddha. Why are there three sources of refuge? That is because there are basically three types of people who engage in spiritual practice. Corresponding to these three types of people, the Buddha taught three vehicles, and as gateways into these vehicles he taught three sources of refuge. Some people are of the shravaka type. Shravakas (originally the term referred to the Buddha’s direct disciples) are those who practice in a group as a society, because the emphasis in their practice is on moral discipline itself and this is maintained in reliance upon and in relation to others—they principally take refuge in the sangha (or community). An individual of the shravaka type primarily takes refuge in the sangha, and for them there is the refuge vow, “I take refuge in the sangha, supreme among assemblies.” The sangha is unique among assemblies, organizations, or societies. There are many organizations, many societies in this world, but the sangha is a society that is specifically dedicated to the mutual support of the pursuit of liberation, and especially the pursuit of moral discipline, so therefore the sangha is the principal source of refuge for a shravaka type of person who therefore practices the shravakayana or shravaka vehicle.

The second type of practitioner is called the pratyekabuddha type. Pratyekabuddha is someone who seeks and achieves the realization of a solitary realized one. The pratyekabuddha type of person principally takes refuge in the dharma. This is because pratyekabuddha type people are very intelligent; they also usually take birth in what is called an aeon of darkness—a time in human history when no buddha or teaching of a buddha are present. Nevertheless, in spite of the dark age in which they have taken birth, through their intelligence and their previous dispositions, they realize the meaning of dharma. They recognize the twelve links of interdependence through the analysis of phenomena and therefore, since essentially they discover the dharma for themselves, they principally take refuge in the dharma. Therefore, for the pratyekabuddha type of person who practices the pratyekabuddhayana, there is the refuge vow, “I take refuge in the dharma, supreme among all that is free of attachment.”

The third type of practitioner is the bodhisattva type who will therefore practice the bodhisattvayana or mahayana. Such an individual principally takes refuge in the Buddha himself. The reason for this is that unlike the other two types, the bodhisattva actually seeks the achievement not merely of liberation but of full buddhahood. Therefore principally their practice consists of conscious emulation of the Buddha. Since they seek perfect buddhahood and since the essence of their practice is following the Buddha’s example, they principally take refuge in the Buddha. Therefore for the bodhisattva type of person there is the refuge vow, “I take refuge in the Buddha, supreme among all who walk on two feet.” So we have three sources of refuge to correspond to three types of people who therefore practice three distinct vehicles.

I need to make something clear about this distinction between the three jewels, and this clarification is especially needed in a culture such as western culture where buddhadharma is relatively new. Because we take refuge in the Buddha, dharma, and sangha, when we are new to buddhadharma, we generally have the attitude that all three must be perfect. We therefore expect that any member of the sangha must be perfect, and then as soon as we discover—as we eventually must—that members of the sangha have problems, then we decide that the whole thing must be a lie. We are disillusioned about the sangha. This causes us to distrust the dharma and lose faith all together. This, however, can be easily prevented by gaining an understanding of the attributes of the three jewels as explained by the Buddha. If you understand the distinctions the Buddha made among the attributes of the three jewels, this disillusionment and rejection of dharma—this disappointment—need not occur.

If the Buddha had said, “I take refuge in the sangha, supreme among all that is free of attachment,” then our disillusionment would be justifiable. If the Buddha had claimed that the sangha was free of attachment, then as soon as we detected a dharma teacher or member of the sangha demonstrating attachment, such as attachment to food or sex or pleasure of some kind, disillusionment would be justifiable. But the Buddha never said that. The Buddha did not say, “Take refuge in the sangha because they are free of attachment. He said, “Take refuge in the sangha, the best society, supreme among assemblies.” Now what does it mean? As human beings, we are involved in societies, groups, and organizations of all kinds. Many of these are inherently negative. Many of them are neutral. But among all of the societies in which we may take part, the sangha is unique because it is dedicated to mutual support in the pursuit of awakening. So the Buddha never claimed that we should expect the sangha to be perfect. But we should understand the sangha to be the best society.

He did, on the other hand, assert the perfection of dharma. He said, “I take refuge in the dharma, supreme among all that is free of attachment.” And there is a reason for this. Just as the Buddha did not claim that the sangha is free of attachment, he did claim that dharma is free of attachment. Dharma has two aspects: The dharma of tradition and the dharma of realization. The dharma of tradition refers to the Buddha’s teachings and the commentaries upon them. These exist as books. Books are inanimate objects. Books, the words in books, the ideas communicated by those words, as inanimate things cannot possibly have kleshas. You can never mistrust the message found in these books on the basis of assuming that it might have a klesha. It cannot. The other aspect of dharma is realization. This realization dharma is the achievement of the fruition (or result) of the path—the achievement of nirvana—whether it is the nirvana of a shravaka; the nirvana of a pratyekabuddha; or the great non-abiding nirvana of a buddha—the wisdom which knows what there is and the nature of all that there is, the culmination of the bodhisattva path. Whether it is the one-sided nirvana of a shravaka or pratyekabuddha, or the great nirvana of a buddha, which transcends both samsara and nirvana, realization refers to the transcendence of samsara and therefore all kleshas. When someone achieves realization dharma, they cannot and do not have kleshas. Therefore neither the dharma of tradition nor the dharma of realization can possess attachment or any other kleshas. Therefore it was correct and important for the Buddha to make that assertion. If you understand the difference between the dharma and the sangha, then you will not be surprised and disillusioned when you see flaws in dharma teachers or other members of the sangha. You will recognize that as members of the sangha they deserve your support in the mutual achievement of liberation.

In this way an understanding of the attributes of the three jewels not only inspires confidence in them, but it enables us to understand correctly the differences between them. And this understanding will enable us when we observe the imperfections of members of the sangha not to become angry at them, but to feel compassion for them. We will recognize that the other members of the sangha are attempting to follow the correct path, but that they have not yet completed it—they have not yet achieved the state of buddhahood—and therefore they still have kleshas. Recognizing that, we will not be surprised or shocked; we will feel compassion. This brings two benefits. The first, most obvious benefit, is that we will feel supportive compassion for other members of the sangha rather than aggression or anger. The other benefit is that we will not commit the downfall of abandonment of dharma. The abandonment of the dharma is said to be a more serious problem than even the five actions of immediate consequence. So by recognizing the difference between the dharma and the sangha, we will feel compassion and not anger toward the sangha, and we will ourselves be free from the abandonment of dharma. However we may act as members of the sangha, if we can remember that the buddhadharma itself is flawless, then we will avoid the problems of losing faith, losing heart, and these benefits will accrue. In the Uttaratantra Shastra by Lord Maitreya there is a very detailed and precise presentation of the attributes of the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha—a concise presentation, a detailed presentation, and then a very detailed presentation. So as the Uttaratantra Shastra has been translated along with some of its commentaries, you would be well advised to study it and learn more about the three jewels. Based on The Words of My Perfect Teacher as a source text, what has been described up to this point is what are called the outer three jewels of the causal vehicle—the Buddha, dharma, and sangha.

When the refuge vow is given as the gateway into the path, it is usually conferred according to the causal vehicle and especially according to what is called the common vehicle. In that case, there are three particular attributes to the vow of refuge that identify it as the refuge vow of the common vehicle. The first is that the Buddha is identified as supreme among all who walk on two feet. The Buddha is perceived as the best of all bipeds, humans, and devas. But other than that, his unique attributes are not clearly specified. The second thing is the duration of the vow. When one takes the refuge vow according to the common vehicle, it is taken for the duration of this life, so you will say during the ceremony, “Preceptor, from this moment onward and for the duration of my life..,” meaning this life. The third thing that makes the refuge vow of the common vehicle is the intention with which the vow is taken. According to the common vehicle, one takes the vow of refuge because one recognizes the sufferings of samsara and seeks liberation from them. So one’s intention is primarily to acquire the means to achieve one’s own liberation. In that way, the attitude toward the sources of refuge, the duration of the vow, and the intention with which the vow is taken, specify that form of refuge vow as the refuge vow of the common vehicle.

The other type of external refuge is the outer refuge of the greater vehicle (or mahayana). What distinguishes this from the refuge of the common vehicle is the same attributes as previously mentioned but in reverse. In the case of the mahayana vow of refuge, the Buddha is not understood merely as the best of bipeds, but as the complete trikaya, the three bodies of buddhahood. And the duration of the vow is not simply the duration of this life, but until one achieves buddhahood. And the intention of the vow is not simply the achievement of one’s own liberation from samsara, but the achievement of perfect buddhahood, so that one may bring about the liberation and awakening of all other beings. These two varieties—the refuge vow of the common vehicle and the refuge vow of the mahayana—make up what is called the external vow of refuge.

The internal refuge is taking refuge in the three roots. These are the gurus who are the root of blessing; the yidams who are the roots of attainment; and the dakinis and dharmapalas who are the roots of activity. Essentially the inner vow of refuge is achieved through the realization of these three roots.

The third aspect of the refuge vow is the ultimate refuge. The ultimate refuge is the manifest trikaya—the manifest dharmakaya, sambhogakaya, and nirmanakaya. As a source of refuge this refers to your root guru who is recognized to be the embodiment of the three kayas (or three bodies) of perfect buddhahood. The way that this is actually practiced, that the inner and ultimate sources of refuge or vows of refuge are implemented in practice, is essentially that through the practice and achievement of the three roots—the gurus, yidams, and dakinis and dharmapalas—you achieve (or manifest) the trikaya yourself. That means that your mind and the mind of your root guru, who has already achieved the trikaya, are mixed inseparably. In that way, the vow of refuge has the outer aspect consisting of the common vehicle and the mahayana vows of refuge; the inner aspect, consisting of the vajrayana sources of refuge—the three roots; and the ultimate aspect, which is the achievement and manifestation of the trikaya in which your mind and the mind of your guru are inseparable.

The vow of refuge opens the door to all buddhadharma, but it is faith that opens the door to the vow of refuge. And by faith we mean three things: Awe or wonderment; desire or aspiration; and trust or belief. The need for this type of threefold faith is great. It is said, “Just as the seed that has been burnt in a fire cannot possibly grow into a sprout, a person without faith cannot possibly develop any virtue.” Especially if one is going to generate bodhichitta and practice the vajrayana, we need the vow of refuge that comes from the inspiration of threefold faith.

The first of the three aspects or types of faith is awe or wonderment, and awe refers to the feeling of inspiration we have when we see images of the Buddha, books of dharma that are receptacles of his speech, stupas—receptacles of his mind, temples, and so on. The feeling of inspiration we have when we see those things is awe or wonderment, the first aspect of faith. The second aspect of faith is desire or aspiration, and this means the desire to be protected by the three jewels, the aspiration to achieve nirvana. The faith of desire is [expressed], for example, when we say, “Please protect me from samsara and lower states.” And the third aspect, trust or belief, is the attitude, “I know that you are infallible and if I take refuge in you, you can protect me.” In that way, the starting point of taking refuge is developing the threefold faith of wonderment, aspiration, and belief.

In vajrayana, we are taught to view our guru as the complete embodiment of the trikaya—three bodies—as the overlord of all buddha families, the principle of all the mandalas, the embodiment in the single form of all yidams.

Some people, who have studied Buddhism from the outside, have questioned this.  Observing the tremendous emphasis placed on the guru in the Tibetan Buddhist vajrayana tradition, they have called this not Buddhism but Lamaism. And they make a distinction between Buddhism and Lamaism. They say that all that Tibetan teachers talk about is lama, lama, lama, lama this; serve the lama; venerate the lama; pray to the lama; give to the lama, etc. It is just nothing more than self‑serving advertisement. To be honest, of course, there are lamas who justify this criticism. Obviously, charlatans exist as they do in every tradition, but it is not true that any authentic guru is self‑serving.

Authentic gurus teach the path of devotion and faith not because they need our devotion or our faith, but because we do. Authentic gurus do not want or need our respect. They have no use themselves for our service. They do not want or particularly enjoy our wealth. This is because they have no hope or fear. Hope and fear are born of dualism.  Authentic gurus are not dualistic, therefore, respect and disrespect and so forth are irrelevant to them. However the fact remains that while the guru may not need you, if you whole‑heartedly supplicate a guru who is authentically beyond dualism, you can achieve the same state as his in a single instant. In a single instant, you can achieve what we call “the mixing of the guru’s mind and your mind.” And it is this whole‑hearted open supplication that makes vajrayana the fastest possible spiritual journey.

The Buddha’s teachings are incredibly vast. Even among the teachings of the sutras alone, the teachings of the Tripitaka, the Vinaya, sutras, and Abhidharma are so vast that probably no one could even read through them once in a single lifetime, let alone attempt to practice all of them. And yet, in this [vajrayana] path, we do not have to go through that process.  The entire vajrayana path can be traversed in less time than it takes to read through the sutras. It is said, “In a single instant, the difference is made. In a single instant, samyaksambuddha is achieved.” 

Among gurus, Guru Rinpoche is extraordinary. He is extraordinary in his responsiveness, among other ways [in which he is extraordinary]. It is said, “Padmakara sleeps outside the door of everyone with faith in him.” It is as though when you have faith in him, he is literally sleeping outside your door at night. His emanations, such as the hundred treasure revealers and others, have been innumerable and it is also said that he truly appears among us on every 10th day of the waxing phase of the lunar month.

Through this kind of faith and devotion in this kind of guru, we can actually achieve the state of great unity, the state of Vajradhara. So if you want to be a genuine practitioner, remember that it depends upon having unfluctuating devotion, unfluctuating love and compassion for beings, and unfluctuating and ruthless honesty.

From the point of view of an authentic guru himself, his qualities are endless and innumerable. In the tantras, it is said, “The guru is the buddha. The guru is the dharma.  The guru is the glorious heruka. The guru is everything.” Nevertheless, in spite of the perfection and completeness of our guru’s qualities, whether or not we receive our guru’s blessing depends entirely upon our own attitude. The attitude we need is such that we actually view the guru as the embodiment of the Three Jewels; we think that the guru’s body is the Sangha, his speech is the Dharma, and his mind is the Buddha. We view the guru as the embodiment of the Three Roots, inclusive of the gurus—roots of blessing; the yidams—the roots of siddhi; and the dakas and dakinis—the roots of activity.  We regard our guru as the overlord of all buddha families and all mandalas. And this attitude is one‑hundred percent genuine; simply trying to convince yourself of that or faking it is not going to help. If we have that kind of attitude, we will definitely receive the guru’s full blessing and by receiving that and by that alone, we will achieve the fruition of this path.

In that way, the blessing of our root guru can be even greater than the blessing we would receive by meeting the historical Buddha. But if we think that the guru, although far superior to most others, is still not quite the same as the Buddha (after all, how could he be like the Buddha himself?), then we will receive less blessing than blessing of the Buddha. And if we think that the guru is somewhat superior to us (obviously), but how much we do not know, then we’ll receive the blessing of someone somewhat superior to us, but how much we do not know. And if we think that the guru is actually stupider than we are, then we’ll receive the blessing of someone who is stupider than we are.

The problem is that as long as we fail to mix our minds with dharma, the single moment in which the difference is made, that single moment in which samyaksambuddha is achieved, will remain very, very distant from us. If we mix our mind with dharma, then the guru and the guru’s blessing are immediately available. From that point of view, it is irrelevant whether the guru is physically close to us or physically distant, whether the guru is still alive or has passed away. None of these things make any difference as far as the guru’s ability to bestow blessings is concerned, because the blessings of an authentic, realized master are unceasing throughout all time. There is no such thing as physical distance where blessings are concerned.

A great deal has been written in the Jewel Ornament of the Liberation and in other books about how to attend gurus, how to relate to gurus, and so on. But fundamentally it all comes down to devotion. Especially for us of the Dakpo Kagyu devotion alone is the substance of our path. Even if someone were a mahapandita, who knew absolutely everything there was to know about Buddhism in terms of facts and terminology, without devotion it would not be possible for him or her to achieve the fruition of this path.