"When someone is not ashamed to tell a deliberate lie, there is no bad deed they would not do"

Oke, that is the mundane Path, but i feel it is also important to see the limitations of reinforcing habits.

I feel this is important too:

“And what are neither dark nor bright deeds with neither dark nor bright results, which lead to the ending of deeds? It’s the intention to give up dark deeds with dark results, bright deeds with bright results, and both dark and bright deeds with both dark and bright results. These are called neither dark nor bright deeds with neither dark nor bright results, which lead to the ending of deeds”. (MN57)

In the early nineties a certain celebrity tulku came to Thailand to teach a one-week Dzogchen course in Hua Hin. A certain French sāmaṇera who had long yearned to meet the celebrity tulku decided to enroll.

Halfway through the course a tsok feast was held, which entailed the ritual drinking of whiskey out of a skull cup. The students of the celebrity tulku invited the French sāmaṇera to take part.

“À Rome, fais comme les Romains,” thought the French sāmaṇera and drank the proffered whiskey.

The celebrity tulku observed the French sāmaṇera breaking his fifth precept, but made no comment at the time.

At the end of the course a ceremony was held in which the course attendants formally requested the celebrity tulku to become their root lama (or something like that). The French sāmaṇera, however, was forbidden to take part and ordered to leave the room.

“Why?” asked the sāmaṇera.

“Because I don’t want a disciple who can’t even keep his Hīnayāna precepts,” said the celebrity tulku.

And so they did not become teacher and pupil and the French sāmaṇera, now long-disrobed, did not become a great master.

With Tantric stories, as with Zen stories, it seems one can cite them to prove just about anything one likes.

Ven. Mahākassapa wasn’t noted for being “flexible”, yet as an arahant he was certainly free of sīlabbataparāmāsa.

“Rigid”. “Inflexible”. Do you not see the loadedness in your choice of words?

[Emotive conjugation] is often called Russell’s conjugation in honour of philosopher Bertrand Russell, who expounded the concept in 1948 on the BBC Radio programme The Brains Trust, citing the examples:

I am firm, you are obstinate, he is a pig-headed fool.

I am righteously indignant, you are annoyed, he is making a fuss over nothing.

I have reconsidered the matter, you have changed your mind, he has gone back on his word.


A tsok offering consist of alcoholic drink would be a kind of “nectar” and not treated as something alcohol in vajrayana especially in Nyingmapa . Even if the Tulku himself is a monk , they dont break the precept , because they are suppose to visualise it as blessed nectar . But of course this is totally different from Theravada teachings . Maybe the samanera didnt understand the vajrayana teachings very well that he need to make visualisation (according to vajrayana), or he may need to disrobe first before engaging in vajrayana practice .

Tja, so all is wrong what i am saying? There is no point in it that one can be to strict in rules and attached to it? What you say rejects all i say?

My main point was that the fact that some monk is very scrupulous in his observance of training rules doesn’t permit the inference: “He must be attached to rules.” His scrupulosity may be due to this, but it may also be quite wholesomely motivated.


Then it seems this particular tulku (Namkhai Norbu) took a rather different view of the matter. In his eyes transubstantiated Glenfiddich is still Glenfiddich as far as a sāmaṇera’s fifth precept is concerned.


That i have no way of knowing . He was a Yogi rinpoche not a monk rinpoche which clearly upholding precepts that quite different from vajrayana monks , not to mention other lineage vinaya . Perhaps he should know hinayana monks are not suppose to drink it in the first place and not to test someone lightly but instead to properly guides him on the path . Thats the role of a good teacher . From the perspective of Theravada , he already broke it .

Wow in what Sutta did the Buddha say this? In my understanding, telling a lie is a quality of the coward. Or they have wrong view that there is no afterlife. Thus you won’t be accountable for your actions and there is no repercussion in any kind of deed. So why not commit the worst of worse deed altogether? But even then killing your parents seem like a stretch to me. You probably don’t want to kill your own parents if there was no huge advantage in doing so, like if you’re member of a cult or you can access inheritance or something like that.

From the follow-up i notice that you apparantly quote Namkhai Norbu rinpoche when you write:

It is an anecdotal story and for me it really sounds all very strange. So, i question if it really took place this way. Were these really the literal words and deeds of the rinpoche?

For me this story leaves a bad impression of the teacher. And one would almost think that the monk disrobed because of this incident. It leaves a bad taste. Am i allowed to question this story? I feel i ama. Am i allowed to show my doubts about this story. Well, i do.
All taken together, i feel it would be proper to give some evidence that it really happened this way and these were the literal words and deeds of the teacher.

I shared this story with a friend dzogchen practioner , pupil of Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche and he cannot imagine it happened this way because it is not at all the style of rinpoche. So, i wonder, what did happen here?