The image of the seed and the fruit.

[Inge]

In buddhist teaching the image of the seed and the fruit is often utilized to illustrate cause and result.

For instance receiving empowerment might be refered to as planting the seed of Buddhahood. A seed that will sprout when the conditions are right, and then ripen into the fruit of Buddhahood.


In the case of seeds: if a fertile seed is planted it will generally sprout when the conditions are right, and then ripen into a type of fruit that corresponds to the type of seed. It is not the case that the seed turns into something completely different then its corresponding plant and fruit.

Therefore if the seed and fruit image is correct, I think that having planted the seed of Buddhahood by receiving empowerment, this seed should not be able to ripen into a fruit that is something completely different than Buddhahood. I think that if the different conditions that is needed for the seed to grow - in the case of empoweremnt this could be for instance keeping vows and fulfilling commitments - then it will certainly grow and ripen into the fruit. If the conditions are not met the worst thing that can happen is that the seed will not grow. Therfore i think that to not foster the conditins for the seed to grow, by not keeping the vows and fulfilling commitments, the worst thing that can happen is that the seed will not grow into Buddhahood. It will not be the case that it grows and ripens into something completely different, like the experience of the worst possible hellish realm for countless eons.

Do you think this is faulty?

[Pero]

Therefore if the seed and fruit image is correct, I think that having planted the seed of Buddhahood by receiving empowerment, this seed should not be able to ripen into a fruit that is something completely different than Buddhahood. I think that if the different conditions that is needed for the seed to grow - in the case of empoweremnt this could be for instance keeping vows and fulfilling commitments - then it will certainly grow and ripen into the fruit. If the conditions are not met the worst thing that can happen is that the seed will not grow. Therfore i think that to not foster the conditins for the seed to grow, by not keeping the vows and fulfilling commitments, the worst thing that can happen is that the seed will not grow into Buddhahood. It will not be the case that it grows and ripens into something completely different, like the experience of the worst possible hellish realm for countless eons.

Do you think this is faulty?

You make an interesting point but yes, I think this is faulty. You see, the seed for achieving Buddhahood by receiving empowerment is not what would rippen into hell realm by not keeping the samayas. Breaking samayas is the seed that does that. That would be a new seed which could rippen into hell. At the same time the seed planted with an empowerment would still be there, just not rippened.

[pemachophel]

Or scorched and, therefore, nonfunctional

[Inge]

You make an interesting point but yes, I think this is faulty. You see, the seed for achieving Buddhahood by receiving empowerment is not what would rippen into hell realm by not keeping the samayas. Breaking samayas is the seed that does that. That would be a new seed which could rippen into hell. At the same time the seed planted with an empowerment would still be there, just not rippened.

Are you sure about this? That breaking samaya bring negative result, not only prevent positive result.

For instance The wikipedia entry on samaya says:
"Khenpo Karthar Rinpoche defines root samayas as any which if violated would remove all the benefit from practicing. He defines branch samayas as any which if violated would diminish or impair the benefit of practice. He states that the most egregious root samaya to violate is the commitment to one's guru."

[Inge]

In the following quote Bardor Tulku Rinpoche also explains samaya as an opportunity more than a restriction:

"Marriage is a mundane, social contract. The contract of samaya is something entirely different. It is not primarily an obligation. It is an opportunity. It is more of an opportunity or gift than a restriction. The point of samaya is that a connection has been established between a guru and a disciple. The establishment of this connection gives the disciple the opportunity to cultivate faith and devotion for their guru. The establishment of the connection does not mean that the disciple is obligated to cultivate faith and devotion for their guru. It means that, without that connection, they do not really have the same opportunity. It is not the case that once samaya has been undertaken, that it is, henceforth, illegal for that disciple to fail to cultivate sufficient faith and devotion."

From a teaching on the Clear Guide for the Generation Stage given by Bardor Tulku Rinpoche at Kunzang Palchen Ling in September 2010 - http://kunzang.org/kplblog/2010/09/30/about-samaya/

[Pero]

You make an interesting point but yes, I think this is faulty. You see, the seed for achieving Buddhahood by receiving empowerment is not what would rippen into hell realm by not keeping the samayas. Breaking samayas is the seed that does that. That would be a new seed which could rippen into hell. At the same time the seed planted with an empowerment would still be there, just not rippened.

Are you sure about this? That breaking samaya bring negative result, not only prevent positive result.

For instance The wikipedia entry on samaya says:
"Khenpo Karthar Rinpoche defines root samayas as any which if violated would remove all the benefit from practicing. He defines branch samayas as any which if violated would diminish or impair the benefit of practice. He states that the most egregious root samaya to violate is the commitment to one's guru."

Well, depends what you mean by "sure" hehe... But anyway, Jamgon Kongtrul says so in his Buddhist Ethics. I can give some quotes about the effects of not keeping samaya, but first someone should tell me if it's ok to post it.

In the following quote Bardor Tulku Rinpoche also explains samaya as an opportunity more than a restriction:

And so it is indeed, however, I don't think merely not having faith in a teacher is breach of samaya.

edit:

Or scorched and, therefore, nonfunctional

You think so Bob? I had this thought too, but then I thought that once a connection has been made, it has been made. Like (I think) Namdrol once said on E-Sangha, Vajrayana is like the mafia, once you get in you can't get out.

[Inge]

You make an interesting point but yes, I think this is faulty. You see, the seed for achieving Buddhahood by receiving empowerment is not what would rippen into hell realm by not keeping the samayas. Breaking samayas is the seed that does that. That would be a new seed which could rippen into hell. At the same time the seed planted with an empowerment would still be there, just not rippened.

Are you sure about this? That breaking samaya bring negative result, not only prevent positive result.

For instance The wikipedia entry on samaya says:
"Khenpo Karthar Rinpoche defines root samayas as any which if violated would remove all the benefit from practicing. He defines branch samayas as any which if violated would diminish or impair the benefit of practice. He states that the most egregious root samaya to violate is the commitment to one's guru."

Well, depends what you mean by "sure" hehe... But anyway, Jamgon Kongtrul says so in his Buddhist Ethics. I can give some quotes about the effects of not keeping samaya, but first someone should tell me if it's ok to post it.

If you don't wish to quote from Buddhis Ethics here you could post the page numbers where those quotes can be found?

[Pero]

If you don't wish to quote from Buddhis Ethics here you could post the page numbers where those quotes can be found?

Oh I wish it hehe, it's just that for a moment doubt arose in my mind if it's ok, so I asked. It's on pages 295 and 296. Perhaps elsewhere too. I suppose it's fine if I post an explanation of the word dam tshig (samaya) from The Condensed Heruka Tantra which Jamgon Kongtrul is quoting and I found interesting:
"It is said that by not transgressing it, one becomes a supreme (dam) being;
By transgressing it, one will burn (tshig) [in hell]."