Q: When you become a Buddhist, it seems that the problem of personal shortcomings is difficult to deal with and this perhaps can be discouraging. How then does a person deal with what he knows to be his own imperfections and shortcomings so that he will not be discouraged?

H.H. 16th Karmapa: One has to understand the nature of these shortcomings and limitations. Once we realize that our habitual patterns have caused us problems and we have started on a path, we begin to understand the need to transform these patterns.

In Buddhism, we talk of different methods and different techniques that one could use in cutting through neurotic patterns and our shortcomings. Once you are able to apply these methods and teachings, you are able to understand the importance of their application and sense the benefits, one has no doubt about it. Once you have experienced the benefits you can change your patterns for good.

Q: Can you address what it means to take vows and develop an affiliation to this particular lineage as compared to the others? How do you feel about continuing practices from other traditions simultaneously in addition to this, if there is no underlying fundamental conflict?

Khenpo Karthar Rinpoche: The definition of the vow in this tradition is that, from the moment you receive the vow, you are committing yourself, thinking, "From today onward, I will exert myself to benefiting and establishing all beings in enlightenment." That is the commitment. Since you have said, for example, "I will exert myself for benefiting and liberating all living beings," then your responsibility in accordance with the vow is doing anything that is beneficial, doing anything that is harmless. Therefore, I cannot speak specifically about different traditions, but if any tradition that you are practicing is aimed to benefit living beings, it is perfectly fine to continue it. However, there are many religions that believe in sacrificing life and so forth. If you are practicing these things, then you are totally going against this vow, so that may not be advisable. Other than that, any tradition that seems to be benefiting, wanting to help others, you are free to continue.

Q: Rinpoche mentioned earlier that all we really need is enough to maintain our physical body, but what if there are other people dependent upon you, like a family? How do you meet their needs?

Khenpo Karthar Rinpoche: Generally, in the practice of the Dharma one gives up any attachments one may have, including associations and relationships and the like. By doing so, if one becomes a realized person, then one can return to the world and benefit others by associating with them, for one would not be stained by the limitations of samsara. But when one is living in society as a householder, it is very difficult to be able to do that efficiently. Therefore, when one is living in a family situation and providing for their needs, Rinpoche says that it is important to provide only those needs which are not harmful to anyone else. If trouble arises over this, simply explain the harm that will result from such things.

Furthermore, as a practitioner of the Dharma, one should have the attitude that whatever one does and whatever one gives to others, hopefully it will bring them happiness and somehow turn their minds towards the Dharma. In this way, ultimately they will be able to appreciate the goodness of the Dharma. Practicing this attitude of the Bodhisattva's enlightened mind is very important even if you do not immediately experience realization, because its benefit is continuous and can help you make your way more smoothly.

Now, if people you associate with seek out things which are harmful, it will be very difficult to directly tell them not to do this, because they may not be sincere practitioners of the Dharma. Mainly, you make the aspiration that they will realize the limitations of their actions. And if you can skillfully explain to them the harmful effects of their desire without offending them or threatening their sense of independence and freedom, that is a good thing to do.

Q: You spoke this morning of the importance of the union of wisdom and skillful means. I was wondering if you could explain a little bit on how a person actually puts that unity into practice.

Khenpo Karthar Rinpoche: To make the idea of the union of skillful means and wisdom very simple, I will explain it this way: Skillful means is doing whatever practice you do or virtuous activity you engage in with an altruistic mind, which means your intention is that you are engaging in that positive action for the benefit of all sentient beings. Then the question is, what sort of benefit are we intending? If we intend for them to have the ultimate realization of buddhahood--rather than the benefit of temporary (mundane) relief--that is wisdom. Of course, this topic can be explained from many different angles, but to present it simply, the altruistic mind of including all sentient beings is skillful means and aspiring for their spiritual enlightenment is wisdom.

Q: In relation to trying to eliminate some of the confusion, you spoke about associations with people. Could you expand on that, concerning our friendships, perhaps with people who are not doing things that we are doing or with our job situations (which would be perhaps very difficult to get out of)?

Khenpo Karthar Rinpoche: The beginning of the elimination of confusion starts from the moment we take refuge. Why were we not able to eliminate confusion in the past, prior to having knowledge of the sources of refuge? It was because of the preoccupation with self, the selfish attitudes and self-centeredness, that prevented us from eliminating our own confusion. Thus we were not really able to work for the elimination of others' confusion either.

We are quite familiar with the idea of selfishness. The process of the elimination of confusion starts with an impartial state of mind. In the past, even if we have had a feeling for others, it was very limited and personal in scope. We might have had some compassion, wanting to provide happiness to our family, but probably not to all people. As long as it is "my family," it is very selfish. As long as it is, "my friends," "I want my friends to have good health and happiness," we become very possessive of "my." The attitude is in a sense altruistic, but it is a very selfish altruism because we have not included all beings in our compassion.

There are some people who go beyond the boundaries of family, relatives, and friends, saying "my country," "my people," but still it is limited to that, rather than for all beings. There is no impartial state of thinking.

We are able to eliminate confusion the moment we have an impartial feeling of liberating all beings, without bias toward "my family, my friends, my countrymen," or anything. It is a matter of not only having compassion toward human beings, but having it for all living beings. We start to eliminate confusion the moment we understand this. At present, people may think enlightenment is somewhere high up in the sky. When we talk about achieving enlightenment, they think they are going to another planet! We are not going anywhere at all; we are right where we are. Enlightenment simply means the elimination of our neuroses, the mental afflictions.

The second thing about confusion is that previously we did not aim toward achieving perfection of the mind; we aimed toward achieving perfection of the physical body. I am not saying you should not have physical well-being, but the mind is very important. We have not worked to eliminate the errors, or mistakes of the mind. Therefore, understand that enlightenment means eliminating mental mistakes or errors. Enlightenment is not another realm; it is the absence of all delusion and confusion. The altruistic mind of benefiting all living beings is impartial to all; that is the way to eliminate confusion.

Q: This is a question concerning the bodily nonvirtuous actions, such as killing. If someone eats meat, or even though they do not eat meat, but wears leather that comes from an animal--how do we reconcile that? Or if the doctor says we have to eat meat or something like that, how can we reconcile that with the teachings?

Khenpo Karthar Rinpoche: As you say, eating meat, or even enjoying wearing leather, is definitely not positive. It is part of the unvirtuous actions. However, eating meat and wearing leather are not as unvirtuous as purposely killing. The reason these actions are not as unvirtuous as purposely killing is that, when we talk about negative karma from killing, it has to involve four factors:

1. you have the knowledge that killing is not proper,

2. you are aware of whatever being you want to kill,

3. the emotional attachment (whatever reason you are attached) to that being (animal), and

4. the intention (wanting) to destroy.

When all these factors are present, and you actually commit the act of killing, and after having killed the being you have a feeling of fulfillment or satisfaction that you have killed something--when all of this comes together, that is the complete meaning of killing. That generates tremendously heavy karma.

Suppose you are a meat eater, and you know of an animal that you want killed, and you purposely order someone else to kill it for you, so you can eat it. Then suppose that when that particular animal has been killed, you feel satisfied that you can really enjoy the leather or the meat of that animal. Although you do not have to be involved physically, in that case it would be the same degree of unvirtue as killing. In the case of simply eating meat and wearing leather, these are not positive, but they are not as negative in terms of karma as purposely or intentionally killing.

Q: In line with the same question of killing, at present, I am living with my mother, who is 84 years old, who has said that one of her few joys is cooking, and I consume whatever she puts on the table, which includes meat, fish and eggs. All I know to do is to offer and to pray. That is the only way I know to deal with that. Is there any better way? I cannot convince her to be a vegetarian.

Khenpo Karthar Rinpoche: Of course, if you are doing some prayers, it is always good. But I cannot suggest to anybody to consume everything they are given. You have to, on the one hand, make your mother happy and on the other hand, you have to be cautious with your karma as well. I want to make it clear that there is unvirtue taking place, but you have to survive, so you have to eat. If you want my advice, make sure she does not cook anything alive, such as lobster.

Q: What is the difference between the flesh of an animal and the flesh of a vegetable?

Khenpo Karthar Rinpoche: Ordinarily speaking, if the vegetables have feelings of pleasure and pain, as animals have, there is no difference between eating vegetables or the flesh of animals. If the vegetables do not have feelings of pleasure of pain or feelings of fear of pain and so forth, there is a very big difference. In that sense, by eating vegetables, we are not committing any unvirtuous action. However, we must understand one thing here: Often when we are eating vegetables, we do not realize that when farmers grow vegetables, in order to protect the growth of the vegetables, uncountable beings, such as insects, are killed. For Buddhists, there is no difference between insects and larger animals. When you look into that situation, there is really no difference of virtue or unvirtue in eating vegetables or eating meat. If a vegetable could be grown without needing to destroy a single life of a sentient being, then it would be true that a vegetable is a completely positive thing to eat.

Q: Could you explain the difference between the refuge vow and the bodhisattva vow? What I am hearing about the proper attitude in taking refuge reminds me of what I have heard about the bodhisattva vow.

Khenpo Karthar Rinpoche: There is quite a big difference. The difference is based on the seriousness of your responsibility. In taking refuge, the goal is that you want to liberate yourself and all sentient beings, as I have said. Right now, though, you do not have the capacity, so you are asking the assistance of the sources of refuge, those who have the capacity--the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha--to fulfill your goal. To put it another way, you want the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha to include you among them, so to speak. This still involves the notion of wanting to benefit living beings, but you are seeking someone else's help to do that. The bodhisattva vow is that you are taking the responsibility alone: "I will liberate all sentient beings." Taking on that complete personal responsibility is what makes the bodhisattva vow different.

As a second analogy for the refuge and the bodhisattva vow, I could use myself as an example. Since I am a Tibetan, taking refuge would be similar to my asking to become a citizen of the United States. Once I become a citizen of the United States, I am an American; I have the rights of an American. Therefore, I have not only the rights of an American, but also the responsibility to follow the laws of America. The bodhisattva vow is like asking to become President of the United States. It is in the same country, but the responsibility is much greater.

Q: How does one break the root vow?

Khenpo Karthar Rinpoche: In order to completely break the root vow, three stages must exist: the intention, the action, and the rejoicing in the fulfillment of it. For instance, if you have the intention to kill somebody, and then you do it, and afterwards you rejoice in it, then all three conditions exist, and you have broken the root vow. But if you kill someone unintentionally, then you have not completely broken the vow because you did not intend to do it. You will still have accumulated negative karma, but reparations can easily be made for it, which is of course understandable.

Q: What should one do if one has broken the lay precepts?

Khenpo Karthar Rinpoche: The manner with which one will atone for a violation of the lay precepts will depend upon the attitude with which one has taken them. If one has taken them according to the Mahayana attitude, which is for the benefit of all sentient beings, then the best method of reparation is to renew the basic commitment and practice consistently. However, if one has taken the precepts in order to achieve personal liberation or to secure a good rebirth, and one then breaks the basic Hinayana vows, one must renew them completely with the preceptor from whom one first received them. So it depends on the context in which one received the precepts and what attitude was demanded of one when they were received.

Basically, one completely breaks a lay precept when one has the desire to commit some negative activity, which one performs and then rejoices in when it is accomplished. If one has the intention to do something negative but doesn't do it, there is a violation of the precepts, but the vow has not been completely broken. Furthermore, if one rejoices in the wrongdoing of others, that too is a violation of the precepts, but not a complete breakage. So, it depends upon one's involvement as well as on the extent of the violation.

Q: I am a vegetarian, and I do not see how eating meat fits in with the precept of not harming. It seems to be a conflict with that, especially in this country. This would even apply to putting unhealthy food in our own bodies (sugar and whatnot) which can also cause harm. I do not understand that because it seems that it would go against the practice of not harming. That confuses and bothers me.

Khenpo Karthar Rinpoche: In order to answer that particular question, we have to be quite logical; we cannot be one-sided. We have to be open to all situations. First of all, I have a tremendous respect for all vegetarians. Because of the country I was brought up in, vegetarianism was not possible. Since I got used to it, I do not do well on a vegetarian diet--I feel very bad without meat in my diet. Therefore, it is not that I am not aware of it. I am very aware, and each time I have to take a meal, it is impossible to overlook. Meat is indeed an evidence that you have harmed a being. There is that particular flesh you are eating, so it becomes very obvious. At the same time, we have to understand that we are in samsara. Whatever we do in samsara--even if we are working toward enlightenment--we cannot achieve realization right at the moment we begin aspiring in that direction. It takes quite a long time from the moment we get intrigued with the idea of enlightenment to the perfection of it. Between the intention and the achievement of perfection, we have to survive. There are many different ways of survival in samsara, but I do not think that there is any way of surviving in samsara that is really wholesome. For example, you boil a pot of water; you are killing beings in there. According to Buddhism, the physical size does not matter. Beings are beings, whether small or big. You are killing thousands of beings by boiling the pot of water.

Then let's take the example of a vegetarian. Yes, it is not obvious you are harming beings when you are eating vegetables, because no flesh is being eaten. When the farmer plows or cultivates the ground, they are killing many insects. When the vegetables are grown, they use lots of insecticides to kill thousands and millions of insects. Insects are living beings. In that sense, even being a vegetarian, you are unable to live a wholesome life, without harming others. It is not the fault of vegetarians and not the fault of non-vegetarians; it is the nature of samsara. This particular case is an example of why, as Buddhists, we speak of the nature of samsara being suffering. Although we all have the intention not to harm any being, for our survival we have to eat and drink, and in anything we do there are living beings' lives involved.

As far as sugar and other things go, I cannot comment on that. That is very much a personal choice.

Q: What should we do to inwardly prepare for the actual ceremony of taking refuge? Is taking refuge an act of just receiving, or is there an offering at the same time? At the time of taking refuge, where should our focus be concerning our defilements? Finally, at the time of taking refuge, is there a particular center (chakra) that we are receiving through and should keep open?

Khenpo Karthar Rinpoche: Getting an explanation and understanding of refuge is a very important part of the preparation, so we are doing that now. Mainly the preparation for the refuge involves the knowledge of what refuge is, along with developing the proper attitude, the proper state of mind. That is why I have stressed developing the proper mental state, which involves the attitude that we are not just taking refuge for our own liberation or enlightenment, but rather we take refuge in the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha for the enlightenment of all sentient beings. If you have that in mind, that is very much the preparation. In addition to that, there is the actual repetition of prayers, led by the refuge master during the refuge ceremony, and some prostrations to do, which the refuge master will tell you to do at the proper time.

Refuge really means that we are simply committing ourselves to engage in positive activities. The main point of it is the commitment. We are committing to positive activities because our goal is twofold: wanting to liberate all beings--not only from temporary pain or suffering, but to the ultimate realization of Buddhahood, which is permanent. With that attitude we are committing to engage in the proper activities (physically, verbally, and mentally) that benefit all living beings.

The root of all mental afflictions is ignorance, so the whole goal in taking refuge is to eliminate ignorance and give birth to awareness. We aim to eliminate ignorance because that is the root. By focusing on the root, we do not have to aim toward the many branches. In the presence of awareness, we could be of tremendous benefit to ourselves as well as to others. For example, right now many people are not very aware of the intense psychological suffering of beings. We are all aware of the physical suffering, but beings go through psychological suffering that we are not aware of. We are unaware of that because of ignorance. Another aspect of ignorance is that, although all sentient beings have the enlightened essence, we fail to realize it. Therefore, the goal of establishing all beings in enlightenment involves removing everyone's root mental affliction, ignorance. In the absence of that ignorance we are all enlightened, because we all have the enlightened essence.

In this refuge ceremony, which is the very beginning of the path of Buddhism, there are really no chakras or centers to concentrate on. Simply having openness of mind and the altruistic attitude is sufficient. Later on, in the advanced stages of practice, based on each individual's practice, there are centers or chakras that are visualized or concentrated on, but not here.

Q: Can you share with us what goes on while you are choosing a refuge name? Does the name have a meaning?

Khenpo Karthar Rinpoche: I normally choose a name with the intention that you will understand the meaning of that name, and my aspiration or prayer is that you will fulfill that meaning. Each of you will have a different name and thus a different meaning.

Q: In regard to asking your lama for advice, is there a particular frequency that one can talk to a teacher, or is there a particular number of students that a teacher can handle?

H.E. Jamgon Kongtrul Rinpoche: There is no way to formulate that, precisely because there is no formula for the situation that arises between a given teacher and his students. Sooner or later it becomes clear what kind of time you are going to get with your teacher, and what channels there may or may not be for asking certain kinds of questions. The situation may require you to examine yourself a little more carefully: "Do I really need to ask him or don't I know that after all?" The time with your teacher becomes more precious when it is rare.

Q: In the Kagyu lineage, the relationship with the root guru is very important, but there are so many teachers in the lineage. How do we relate to the many different teachers?

Khenpo Karthar Rinpoche: Among the Kagyu forefathers, one example of a great lineage holder and realized being is Marpa, who is always referred to as the great Kagyu father. Marpa said that he had thirteen gurus, teachers who had the realization, qualities, and attributes that make someone a truly realized teacher. Among these thirteen, two were extraordinary: Naropa and Maitripa. Marpa said that between those two, one was more extraordinary and that was Naropa. With that in mind, there is the possibility that within the same lineage you could relate to many great masters and appreciate what everyone does, and at the same time, without making any specific discrimination, there could be one teacher who touches your heart the most. Naropa actually sent Marpa to these other teachers, saying "go to such-and-such teacher and learn this and that from him." Naropa knew all of those teachings himself, and when Marpa would come back, having gone through all the ordeals of finding and approaching a particular master and requesting teachings, Naropa would give him instructions on the same subject, but in a more detailed and elaborate way. Marpa eventually asked him, "Why have you let me go through these ordeals if you could have given me the teachings yourself?" Naropa replied that in former lifetimes Marpa had connections with these teachers and to renew these connections was a further cause of blessings for him. From what he had learned from other teachers and from what he had learned from Naropa, Marpa developed a deeper devotion, appreciation, and gratitude for Naropa. The same possibility exists for any dharma practitioner in the Kagyu lineage. There are still a great number of highly realized teachers. There may be some differences in their approach and style, in the particular sequence they follow in introducing the teachings, and in the attributes they manifest most. If we have a true understanding of some core teachings, everything is a cause of further expansion of our understanding.

When our understanding is limited, we may find more differences between things that are being said, differences that may sometimes be only in terms of detail, rather than actual contradictions. The important point is that you have a particular teacher to whom you relate as your root guru, or your most intimate guru. However, you may then receive instructions from other teachers in the lineage, and there may be certain differences. Nevertheless, this should be a further step in understanding, a further cause of inspiration. If you have devotion and great respect for these teachers, that is very good. What actually should be happening, though, is when you develop devotion or respect for these other teachers, it should cause a stronger devotion to your root guru. If that is happening, things are probably going fine. If, on the other hand, you are beginning to have devotion for a hundred teachers, and if your devotion to your root guru is diminishing because of it, then your devotion to a hundred different teachers is really not making much sense, because your samaya (commitment) to your root guru is suffering. That could be limiting as far as your achievement of true realization is concerned.

Q: Many of us have had a relationship with one teacher, and consider that teacher to be our root guru, but your definition of a root guru as our most intimate guru makes me wonder. . . What happens if you are in a situation where you have very little contact with your teacher? How could that person be your most intimate guru if you are living far apart and do not see him very often?

Khenpo Karthar Rinpoche: The intimate connection we describe between a teacher and a student is not the same as an intimate relationship within a family, or between a king and his people, or even a boss and his or her workers. The relationship or intimacy is more a situation of trust, respect, and mutual understanding. It is very powerful, and is in fact the most profound of relationships. There is a high quality of trust, respect, and concern for each other. There is also a greater vision to it in that there is a willingness to overlook what we might ordinarily regard as inconveniences and discomfort. Such a connection is definitely important for a student's proper and further development, but being physically close to each other or being together is not particularly important. In fact, in most cases, the idea is that there should be greater distance. One commonly used analogy for this relationship is the bee and the honey. Only when the bee needs the honey does it go to the flower and get its supply. Then it will go and digest its supply, living on it and using it in whatever way needed. Because you heard the teachings, you were moved by them, and since the goodness and the greatness of the teachings probably had a lot to do with the teacher, you were moved by both the teacher and the teachings. Now you have a very pure devotion, respect, and appreciation for the teachings and for the teacher, and you practice and begin to benefit through the teachings. You think of the teacher and what rich and pure provisions are being given to you, and you feel grateful. You develop more trust and more devotion to the teacher. Then, when there is need of further teachings or further instructions and clarifications, you approach the teacher and receive them. Then you go back and practice, maintaining a very pure relationship, which is so very important for the development of a student. In the case of an extremely good or intelligent student, it might be better to actually be with a teacher, because the student might see that very movement and every action of the teacher is a manifestation of wisdom and sanity that will constantly inspire the student and renew his or her aspiration. For most of us, though, it is initially not easy to find ourselves in that kind of state, especially with a teacher who is not so highly realized and has his or her own limitations. Even if we are with a teacher who is highly realized, it may happen as time passes by (because of our neurotic patterns and perceptions), that our initial devotion, respect, and comfort begins to wear out because of the way the teacher did this or that. Then the teacher becomes more like a friend to us. When we get to that point, it may be fine for the teacher, but it is not fine for us if we limit ourselves to that sort of relationship. After a while, we begin to see this fault and that fault. We start thinking we could have done a better job, so now the teacher becomes less than a friend, and we end up having a conflict with our teacher. We might fight about who between the two of us is wrong or right, and how in fact we could do a better job. That could be quite a limitation. We begin to not even appreciate the teachings. If we have a realized teacher who is giving us the pure teachings, that is magnificent, absolutely fortunate.

There can also be the case that the teacher is not so fully realized but, because of having a good background and knowledge, is able to explain the instructions to us and give us clarifications. That is really what is important for us, and through that we could become realized ourselves. This process also could be jeopardized by too much closeness, so it is not so important to be together. When you really are in need of instructions, it is important that they be available to you and that you make a point to get them. Then you will appreciate the teachings more.

As your devotion, commitment, and appreciation for the teachings and the teachers develops, occasionally a situation will come that a particular teacher will instruct or request you to take on a certain responsibility or be in a particular place. Such instructions generally should be for your own good. Frankly speaking, a true teacher's wish and desire is for your benefit and for what benefit you can extend toward others, so if you could fulfill such a request or instructions, that would be wonderful. Otherwise, maintaining your own practice and continuing to develop trust and devotion is the best way.

Q: Could you say something about how to apply ourselves in learning about Buddhism and memorization of teachings?

Khenpo Karthar Rinpoche: Exertion or diligence is an important factor, but it has to be skillfully applied so when you have to memorize something, there is really some sense of excitement. It is like a project in which after a while you could say, "This much has been done." You work very hard at it because there is some expectation from it, so you concentrate very hard on it. Maybe you have some things memorized, but they are not very stable. A certain amount of exertion is important, but not with expectation. Go for it with no expectations. It is like doing anything; you just do not be too stubborn, though. It is like meditation. With meditation a lot of exertion is necessary, but it cannot be forced. The exertion should be, rather, that you are trying to imprint something. It has a similar quality, because in this way you memorize, and you really retain it better, not only in memory, but also in terms of mindfulness and of having some sense of what you are memorizing. This could all be part of it.

It can also be a matter of doing something repeatedly and getting used to it. If you do something again and again, you will become more and more familiar with its content. Therefore, how many times you are able to go over a particular thing is important. It is better to go over it frequently for a short time rather than to try to get a lot in a long span of time. Of course, an individual's intelligence and capacity for memorizing is also an important factor. In the case of many monks, it seems they could have memorized many things in past lives, so now it is like recalling that memory. It may seem incredible; you just cannot understand why or how they have such a capacity to learn, yet they do it in front of you, so you cannot say they did not do it. For others it is not so pronounced, but there are these exceptional situations.

Q: Often people will take monastic ordination for short periods of time, say one year. Another view, however is that it is better not to take vows at all, than to take them and subsequently give them up (not necessarily break them, maybe just decide to disrobe). What would YOU say about that?

Khenpo Karthar Rinpoche: When someone takes a vow or makes a commitment for a particular period (like a month or a year), or takes a vow with the intention that, "I can keep this vow in a certain location but I cannot keep this vow in a different location," they are vows, but taking a vow in that manner does not meet with all the characteristics or requirements of vows. To meet the requirements of a vow, you must develop the renunciation in your mind and then positively take the vow, without any conditions.

Q: Is it better to have been ordained and disrobe than never to have been ordained at all?

Khenpo Karthar Rinpoche: Of course, it is better to have taken the vow and given it back. Having disrobed or given it back, you would have the accumulation of merit for whatever length of time you were able to keep the vow. From the moment you disrobed, there is again not that merit, but at least you would have the merit from the past. If you did not take the vow in the first place, you would not have that particular merit at all.

Q: Is the pitfall of attachment that you won't desire awakening?

H.E. Tai Situ Rinpoche: Okay. Don't worry. We do our best. Some people say that doing your best is not good enough, but I don't believe in that. We can't do better than our best, you see. If we expect better than our best then we will have a really complex problem. So we just do our best and be happy and don't think too much. Just enough.