Dependent Origination — 2012-05-31

Audio recorded at Tibetan Buddhist Institute, Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.

About this talk. In this 144-minute Tibetan grammar class, Geshe Jampa Gyaltsen guides students through classical and colloquial translation techniques using a sustained example of an intelligent student studying Tibetan to become a renowned professor who benefits others. He drills case endings (nominative, genitive, instrumental, dative, ablative), word order, participles, and the flexibility of sentence structure in Tibetan, showing how emphasis shifts with reordering. The class then pivots to translating excerpts from a Lamrim text on refuge and compassion, tracing meaning through philosophical rather than literal translation, and concludes with verses from Śāntideva’s Bodhicaryāvatāra. Geshe Jampa emphasizes breaking sentences into grammatical units, resisting the impulse to construct meaning before parsing forms, and accommodating both classical elegance and colloquial usage. Closing remarks preview an upcoming informal assessment and exam format. Suitable for serious Tibetan language students familiar with basic grammar and verb tenses.

File metadata (for organising)

File: 2012-05-31 – KR.mp3

UUID: c38fb1d1-669f-43ad-8931-073cd24dff6a

Teacher: Geshe Jampa Gyaltsen

Collection: Dependent Origination

Date: 2012-05-31

Recorded at: Tibetan Buddhist Institute, Adelaide

Words: ~8,592

So I think we’re at number nine or number 10. Right? So to become a professor. How would you translate to become a professor? Very good.

Excellent. What tense how would you spell? Excellent. Any other options? Then it is.

How would you spell it? Yes. But what is missing here? Yes. Right.

Now what about the verb? What other tense can you put it in? It’s in the present here. Right? Yes.

We don’t know exactly, what the tense is. What would what would be the usage of the past here? Yes. It’s a general statement, becoming a professor. Right?

So typically in Tibetan, you would actually put it in the past for a general statement. In the present, if you’re sure it’s happening in the present or in the future if it’s definite it’s happening in the future. Is even better. But do we need to put it back? Then it depends what you mean by to in English.

You say to become a professor. In English, it can be one of two things. Right? It can be an infinitive to become, infinitive the verb to become, or it can be a dative. Dative, for the sake of.

Right? So if it is aditative, then you have to put If it is aditative, you drop la. It gives you the infinitive of the verb in Tibet. Tibet doesn’t really have an infinitive, but we call it an infinitive. Then whether it’s wa or pa depends on euphonics.

Yeah. Why there’s no debate. Then the la, it depends how you understand. Now for instance, in the light of sentence 11, what would it be? Yes.

Exactly. In the light of sentence 11, it has to be Allah. If it’s sentence 10 alone, just Very good. Then sentence 11, how do we translate that? We forgot renowned, actually.

That’s right. Thank you for putting it up. So how do we say renowned? Then, obviously, we have to eliminate the hearer. Right?

So you can see here, your goes after the objective. Right? Is an objective. And whereas previously we had put it after because we had forgotten the adjective. When we put the adjective then you get this or in practice you see this a lot without the Ra.

You see it a lot. Simply because with the Ra it becomes very very inelegant. It’s correct. It’s correct. Then 11, to become a renowned professor who benefits others.

What is your? It’s an instrumental or it’s a genitive? Then how do you spell like, I can’t write it, actually. Spell it for me. Any comments?

So let us translate, Ralph’s, version. Are there any volunteers? Yes. Exactly. Who benefits of others?

Is that the meaning? What do we have to change to get our sentence? Who benefits others? How do we translate who benefits others? We just eliminate the genitive here.

The genitive is unwanted. Right? Others? So genitive can’t be No. No.

What could be for? Yes. But would it be appropriate here? Why not? Exactly.

It’s redundant. It’s not inappropriate, but it’s redundant. If you wanted, you could say Very good. But it’s unnecessary. Yeah.

Because the word order is exactly the opposite of English. You’re moving backwards and the You can can stick in the la, But if you have to ask yourself. You can do both. Both are allowed. Lies correct.

It’s actually more correct, but it’s redundant in this context. But you can do it. However, what is not possible is a genitive. If you put the genitive, I thought you could put an instrumental, which would be just the genitive I can see how you might get there. But that then it it really is becoming a famous professor who benefits of others.

Then really, it’s close to who benefits from others. If you put the instrumental it will be from others. So it’s like it’s on the edge there. That’s not what we mean. Then our sentence 12: Any volunteers?

It’s called Yes. Go for it. You’re doing very well so far. How do you spell it? Very good.

Uh-huh. It’s like sounds like an Italian bread. You know? Okay. So when the intelligent students studied Tibetan, which is seldom studied in the West to become a renowned professor who benefits others.

What do you think, the rest of the class? This law here at the end of the sentence, well, that is better. Right? Because why would you have? So it’s what?

Two. Two. Then did you put a genitive here? Or did I mishear you? I misheard you.

Are our feelings about this at present? Yes. Two is very good. That’s perfectly legitimate. Where did you put it?

Okay. Then, what does that mean? It is when he became a famous professor, not when he studied. Right? So what does our English text say?

When the intelligence studied students studied Tibetan blah blah blah to become a famous professor, not when he became a famous professor. After thirty years That’s of correct. So if you were to use do like Dale, where would you put it? Yes. Here.

That’s correct. Yes, Melissa. Think Then no, no, obviously. How did you how did you do it? Okay.

Give it Give it to me. What tense? Spell it for me. What tense? So how would you translate this little bit here?

Any suggestions? If basically here, it’s ambiguous, isn’t it? Yeah. But I was using that as when. When?

How would you disambiguate it? So so okay. When training in Tibetan, so far so good, So you systematically confuse the dative and the instrumental. For the sake, so here it is, when having trained in Tibetan through or because The instrumental reason why why he he Because of becoming famous or since he became famous. Since he became famous, there’s a difference between a reason and a goal.

His goal is to become famous. Goals in Tibetan are translated by what case? So if you had said, that would be correct. Instrumental of reason. But now I will have like how they said thank you.

Could you spell that a bit piece? If instead of this, excuse me, I’m using a different word processor, I’m not quite sure where the colors are so don’t no. Yeah. Whatever. Instead of using this, if you did this, that would be perfectly legitimate.

So And how would you do it so that it’d be unambiguous? If you put it could be, it probably is a conjunction. Right? So this is called wrong views. Then we live in a democratic society where these things are not punished, you know, which is highly regrettable.

So so a heresy for fire. Yes, in English you say that, but you don’t want to say precisely because for immediately conveys it. It actually is a fire’s hearth. Then if you say for fire in this type of material, you want to convey it by a dative. It’s not wrong.

But Well, as you know in the Middle Ages, it wasn’t heresy which was the problem. It was persistence and heresy. No. Hodges is very good, but he makes he makes it very simple. And that’s can translate a genitive in English by four, but the full meaning of four is really a dative meaning, you know.

Just like I see where Melissa is coming from, but in Tibetans you have a very real difference between the instrumental which is a source case. Remember our meta cases. Right? Instrumental is a source case and the dative which is actually a goal case. You see the difference?

And the source caseness of the instrumental is signified by the you remember. So you find the in the verbal forms in Tibetan to indicate a causative. You find it in the ablatives. Sa in Tibetan always indicates origin. Right?

Always. You have reason, you have a goal. Right? Then it depends on your presentation. Melissa came to Adelaide to become a professor.

Goal, to become a professor. It is because she wanted to become a professor that Melissa came to Adelaide. Reason, a different formulation. Then let’s look at your sentence again. Then if you want to do that, how would you have to do it?

With the instrumental. You can do it, but not like this. How that well, that’s how I thought you would have done it. You can do it like that. Because if you put if you if this gurky, it is either a since or possibly a negative form.

Here it can’t be a negative. Right? But is really really a reason and how would you make it even clearer? What’s the frozen form which really gives a reason based on the instrumental? Do you remember?

For Tibetan this would sound heavy, but it’s perfectly correct. That is really because. Alternatively, if you don’t want to use I mean, I understand some people don’t like datives, you know, it’s it’s not illegitimate. What would you Maybe you have too many datives in Australia. It’s possible.

Is what would you use? There’s another particle you can use. You find it all the time in philosophical texts. Yes. Clear.

In order to. That is as clear as it gets. It doesn’t get clearer than that. So let us go back to our sentence. What do you think of this?

Is this correct or not? Let’s break it up in its parts. That is our That’s the Sake. Sake called. It’s the Called in Tibetan are?

Ergative, right? Then if I could get colors, it would be very nice. But I don’t seem to be able Well, it’s a different word processor. There we are. So we’ll put ergatives.

They do things. We’ll put them in green. Okay. Then our time clause. How far down does our time clause go?

To the to the realtivizer. To do. Right? If we use do. Depends which one we choose to use.

Right? But do. Right? So this is good. Yes.

What’s the problem here? We can put it if you want. Yes. So what’s our problem here? How does that look?

What was the problem with the previous one? Your apposition which gives reason for the sake of becoming a renowned professor is put at the end of the sentence and the whole sentence becomes unclear. It is the goal of the student. So you have given your ergative then his purpose. What happens here?

All of this can be read now as one clause. And that is precisely what we have in English. Look, when the intelligent students study Tibetan, which is seldom studied in the West, to become a renowned professor who benefits others. So when you’re working with these sentences, I would encourage you to break them up like this in groups, use colors, and twist them around. I mean, with a word processor, it’s very easy, right?

You just excuse me. Hence. Now what are the other possible word orders here, clause orders here? Yes, we missed something. To benefit or who benefits others.

So where would we put that? And now we have the whole thing. Ergative, the agent, a student with a sharp mind or literally when a student with a sharp mind studied Tibetan which is studied seldom in the West for the sake of becoming in the future, then as we said you can have or not have your ah here, a famous teacher, what is this? A famous teacher who or which who in this case benefits others. Then here we can also put or not put the la.

So I’ll show you what is optional. La here in I put the optional ones in purple, why not? And here, sorry. So let’s continue with this sentence. It’s nothing like chewing a little bit on these things.

It takes time, but it’s I think it’s worth it. What different word or good order could we use here? Clause order. What can we switch around? What is red here?

The agent. Where else can we put it? It’s the one place it can’t go. But in the middle, yes. You could put it here.

Right? Right? Why did you do that? So look at this sentence first in Tibetan and I’ll I’ll give you this well, there’s no space. And look at this one now.

What’s the difference in terms of meaning? Oh, well, guess it’s almost more passive in some sense you say. Yes. It’s not so much more passive. The emphasis is totally different.

What’s the emphasis here? On On the benefit, exactly. It’s for the sake, we’d say in English, it’s for the sake of that. However, if you put it like this, then how would you translate it in English? As we have here, the intelligent student, etcetera etcetera.

Right? Then, what about the final clause? So is that possible? Let’s look. What do you think?

Yes, it’s possible. I mean what is the one thing which is very unflexible? It is your agent. Your agent can go in only one of two places. Now why?

If we have this construction, what is grammatically the relationship of the clause, the blue clause to the rest of the sentence? It is in apposition. It’s like a parenthesis. When the intelligent student studied Tibetan, she seldom studied in the West. Oh, by the way, for the sake of.

Right? That’s perfectly legitimate. But you have differences of emphasis. Differences of emphasis. Context.

Context. And you want to try to convey that in English. Yes. Where? Oh, I just add all generally.

Like here. Lab cong. Is a relative pronoun which is often but not always an interrogative. It can mean it can mean whom or that him. Generally, not always.

Generally, it’s a person. Alright? But how would you use it, Melissa? Give it to me. Go read it.

Spell it if I don’t understand. Okay. That’s an incorrect usage there, that you cannot say. Kang. Is that is that what you were doing?

How would you translate this? Matto like that doesn’t mean seldom. It means I guess that that comes before. So I’m just playing in half I hear a sentence. We we don’t have a sentence.

So do you have an instrumental or not here? Then you must. Right? That’s pretty evident. Right?

So the d carries it? I think it had it in all the The can carry the instrumental, definitely. It’s perfectly appropriate. You know, it’s a way of formulating things in Tibetan. In this West, it’s a bit heavy.

It’s not false. I was using because when we did it the time before, in the article, we we wrote it all out. Okay. Noctua Dila. Noctua Dila would be in this West Yeah.

As opposed to it’s it’s emphatic as opposed to other Wests, you know. Right. Then it’s not wrong, but it’s a bit heavy. So there’s no connection between the words of this part of the sentence. See, that’s a problem.

This starts very well. Very good. So far, so good. Then what is he doing? Where is Tibetan?

Oh, that’s that’s, like, way down the other end of the sentence. That’s not possible. That’s not possible. You have to have your clauses have to be connected, you know. You could see why, otherwise, you would have no way of knowing the meaning.

Right? So you have to put nukchola, you have to add here. Right? Then you’re trying to say which is not studied. Maybe if we have a moment, I look at your your sentence after if that’s okay with you.

Do you find all this helpful or it’s very tedious? No. It’s It is helpful? No. Okay.

Okay. If I didn’t write it badly for you, they should be. Well, to be honest with you, the the dictionary say it has to be plus negative, but I have seen both used because it’s got the same meaning. From time to time doing or from time to time not doing, same thing. So you could say which is the form I gave you or both are correct.

Both are correct. Even tam tam, I should have given you tam tam, it makes your life easier. Tam tam just means occasionally. So you could drop all of this. That’s correct too.

Sometimes. Sometimes means sometimes. Means not sometimes. Tibetan likes double negations. Those of you who have done debate know.

Do you have any questions on this? If not, we’ll start quickly on the next one and then we’ll take our tea break. So a cat. Chimichik. Yes.

That is definitely a cat. If you put chimi, how do you translate it? Cat? I know, but I mean b That’s a question, right? Both.

She mean a cat. She mean the cat. She mean cheek, you’ve definitely translated a cat. So in English you have a cat. You have to convey that by Tibetan translation which is unambiguous.

Therefore, Ralph’s translation is a correct one. Chimi cheek. Alright? Chimi cheek. Then that mouse.

C c c Blue seems to be the new default. I’m sorry. Yes. So far so good. That mouse is cat.

Exactly. Everyone got that? That’s exactly why I was drilling you. How do you translate this exactly? Yes.

The mouse of that cat. The mouse of that cat. That cat’s mouse. The mouse of that cat, Saxon genitive in English, that cat’s mouse. Right?

It’s there is a genitive. Well, that would be what? That would be? That mouse of cat. No.

No. No. Cat of the Yes. The cat of the mouse. Exactly.

But it is what here? That mouse is cat. So, no, this is mainly a drill of the genitive. I don’t want to give you a hard time. So, Ralph got this is his, this is what?

Is the cat of the mouse or the cat of a mouse or a cat of the mouse or a cat of a mouse. Could you say that? No. That’s not there. You have to add that.

So that’s why I put that mouse’s cat, right? The cat of that mouse. Right? So far so good? Yes.

Then that cat’s mouse. Yes, which is? How do you write it? Very good. The mouse of that cat.

That cat’s mouse. These are pretty self evident. Then that cat’s mouse is cheese. When you have these to translate in Tibetan, you have to turn the English sentence out of the Saxon genitive so it becomes what? That cat’s mouse is cheese in English becomes the cheese of the mouse of the cat of that cat.

Exactly. And then in Tibetan you reverse the order. That cat’s must have cheese. Yes. So, Christel, yes?

Would you start again? Let’s do it in English first. So I’ll switch characters, excuse me. That, cats, mouses, cheese. Alright?

So if we eliminate the Saxon genitive, what do we get in English? The cheese of the mouse of that cat. Then when we translate this in Tibetan, how do we translate it? What’s the word order? Exactly the opposite.

So give me the give me the Tibetan now. Exactly. How do you translate? How do you translate? Nothing.

One possibility or you can also put it up to you So the word order is what matters here. If you put first, Adrian, it becomes whatever belongs to the cheese. Alright? Shall we do another or are you exhausted? Okay.

So let’s go French. That cat’s mouth is blue cheese. So let’s do it in English first. Give it to me without the Saxon genitives. Blue of the of that cat.

Of that cat. Okay. Well, first in English, you have to get your English syntax down, then we switch the word order. So what would that be in Tibetan? Precisely.

You got it head on. You got your word order right. You got the position of the objective right. It’s all there. Is that clear for everybody?

You have to do this step directly from the Saxon genitive to Tibetan ubula, is hopelessly confused. Let’s introduce the next participant and have tea. Another mouse. Yeah. She would be classical Tibetan, very classical.

How would we say normally? Shinda. Exactly. Shen is correct. It’s highly classical.

For persons, normally one uses Shinda. Then tea break. We change it around first. You have to. Until you become really really accustomed.

Otherwise, it becomes very confusing. You have to be careful about these things, you know. Then you go on a hard talk and they said, you said. Yeah. Right.

Right. You see. The other mouse which ate the blue cheese, adjective after the noun it qualifies, of the mouse of that cat. And then we will do quickly the last one. So it’s same as here, the other mouse which ate the cat’s blue cheese.

It’s different, isn’t it? Is that cat’s mouse but the cat didn’t know. How do we add but the cat didn’t know? I put la at the beginning. Where do you put the la?

After the yin. Very good. Yin la? He knew or he didn’t know? He didn’t.

Right? Yes. Chez Maison as well? If you put me Chez, what’s the problem? If you drop Yeah.

Yeah. Exactly. The verb is invariable therefore you don’t get the tense. Yes. How would you use it?

Which one? Okay. What does everyone think? No, it’s correct. Genitive after a verb, as long as it is not the form which is fused with the ending of the infinitive element, it’s not the way, after a verb can be often is a conjunction.

Correct? However, in classical Tibetan, if you said that in colloquial Tibetan people would understand, they would think you were a very highly educated person. Which is probably certainly the case. What are the other ways of formulating this? Instead of ki or la, how would we put it?

So but the cat didn’t know. Right? What are the other ways? Yes? Yin Yang.

How would you write it? In the contracted form? Yes. How would you write it? Exactly.

Exactly. Then that’s it for these translations. What what you removed it at the end to liturgy from the from the present. So I didn’t. I was just asking why you you couldn’t do this.

Yes. It is. It’s very, very ancient. Then why wouldn’t we put shimi in the instrumental here, in the ergative? It’s equated verb.

Yeah. It’s what? An equated verb. No. It’s Tamidepa.

Yeah. It’s a Tamidepa verb. Yeah. Yes. Yes.

Shepa is a Tamidepa invariable verb. Very good. Then let’s move to something a little bit more serious. Did the travails of mice and blue cheese. Well, I was looking at a piece of blue cheese, and this is basically called free association of blue cheese, you know.

The mouse, the cat, and so where did we stop last time? How far down on page 12 did we get? We went to page 13 or not. Half an hour did we go after that? We didn’t stop there, did we?

Okay. Then, Shayna would you start translating for us? Very good very good reading. Thank you. Would you break it up as much as you feel like and then give us your translation?

Please. Okay. So summarize what the author is saying in your own words. What’s he saying here? Forget the literal translation, the meaning.

What is he saying? Don’t look at the words because it’s unclear. If you look at me, what is the point of the Panchakrama? Then let’s go back to the to the text. I’m trying to see if you actually understood the the intent, because the words are there.

I I think all the students, you all get the words. That’s not the problem. You don’t get the meaning, generally speaking. And you know because it’s a well, unfortunately, Amram, you know what it’s talking about and you construct a meaning, you know. And that’s something we have to resist.

So let us start from the beginning. Where would you break it if you were reading it from here? Which one? This one here. Are you sure?

Everyone agrees? Which one? Where is that line? Any other suggestions? What about share parts?

Down here. Yes. That is grammatical instinct. You have good instincts. That’s the only place you can break it here.

Very good. It is not true that ablatives are automatically places where there’s a sentence break. In this case actually they aren’t. So how would you translate that la, Melissa? Play on.

Take it down. Are you what are you reading it as? Are you reading it as a conjunction or a nadir? Or are you undecided? I think you could interpret that.

I guess what’s I tried to do. Interpret it as? Well, I used a lot. My interpretation was two people. Exactly.

That’s exactly it. In other words, it is a dative. To generate what? The great compassion, how do you translate? Is this here?

Grammatically is what? It is a verb. Genitive after a verb? Relative. Which?

Which cannot precisely what? Or sentient beings. Yes. tormented animals. Exactly.

Two of you have good grammatical instincts at least. Who cannot bear all sentient beings being tormented by suffering, then, moving onwards, where would you stop after this? Hope springs eternal. I’m looking at your faces expecting eureka moment. Is this a verb?

One must what? Travel previously. On the two. Where’s first? Yes.

One must previously travel or previously generate the two convictions. Go on. No. Stick to the text. Having the capacity of protecting From.

Then what is that here? Okay. The problem is you know what is being said. That’s But if you if you look carefully okay. Anthony’s right.

We have to start here. And then One must generate or one must travel preliminarily, one must generate first, the two convictions that the triple gem has the capacity to protect from that after what? Being terrified? Yes? Being terrified oneself, rang yi.

Of what? From the sufferings of middling and small scope. No, one is not terrified of that. So the genitive qualifies both, right? One’s self being terrified by the sufferings of cyclic existence and the lower realms, which are akin to what was explained in the context of the practice of the being of the small and middling scope.

So if we summarize the meaning here, what is being said? You can’t generate suffering which can’t support the sort of the suffering of others if yourself haven’t first taken refuge with the conviction that refuge can protect you from the sufferings which were explained in the context of the practice of the being of the small and middling scope. The problems in this sentence are rang gi, which is interspersed here, but it is pretty self evident and identifying your la, which Melissa did very well. So la here cannot be a conjunction. Why?

If it were a conjunction, what would be the construction? Yeah. Is almost necessarily a would be a conjunction. Then we would have a completely different meaning. If you had if you omitted just this the whole meaning of the sentence changes.

Then it would be Paul generating the great compassion or the compassion which cannot withstand the tormented sufferings of all sentient beings. Nonetheless, and then one would have to generate and then one doesn’t see the meaning. It doesn’t make any sense. What helps you to identify the rangni as basically the subject of is the usage of the in the following sentence. So if we move onwards.

How Yes? Would you do it? Go for it. That’s not what’s being said. What is being said here?

One must generate initially what? The twofold conviction that the triple gem can protect one from that. Alright? Now what the two fold convictions are is not explained. That we may find before or later in the text.

Alright? So here, the clear indication that this is basically the faith one has to have is your ra here. Having literally. The triple gem has the capacity to protect one from that. The conviction in literally in English, the triple gem is having the capacity to protect one from that after etcetera etcetera etcetera.

It’s very difficult to translate this sort of sentence because it’s very easy to miss the point of the author. Very very easy. So his point is not that we ourselves must be convinced of the suffering of the lower realms and of cyclic existence. His point is that we must have refuge. It’s a different point.

To have refuge we must be convinced that the triple gem has the capacity to protect us of those sufferings which have been previously realized. So when you translate Lamrim text, you have to put what you think you know about Lamrim to the side. For instance, is an uncommon presentation of Lamrim. Your Lamrim is noted for this. It’s very uncommon.

It’s perhaps one of the most precious Lamrim texts for that reason. Then let us move onwards. Christelle, would you like to take a shot? Yes. Yes.

Unless you want to continue. Yes, if you would. Yes, yes. Then is a critical point. I mean so far it’s very good.

So your big problem is translating the pa here. How do you translate it? There are two ways to translate this sentence. One can go the root Cristela adopted which is the linear route. Start at the end and move backwards, that’s the standard way to do it or you can use a more direct approach, suppose, Just all all tricks allowed.

Start at the beginning and see how far you can go. Both are possible. You have the same problem each time. You’re meper. Right?

How do you translate your meper, Kristen? Yes. I think it is correct. Go on. Liberate whom?

Yes. At the beginning. That’s a very good translation, Christel. So because it is impossible to generate a powerful compassion which cannot support the tormented sufferings of other sentient beings without what? A powerful mind wishing for liberation for oneself from that fearing what?

Oneself’s cyclic existence and the lower realms. There is another way to translate it which is a little bit more intuitive. You start at me par. Then you translate as follows because without without having a powerful mind which wishes for liberation from that, through fearing oneself the sufferings of cyclic existence and the lower rebirth, it is not possible to generate a powerful compassion which cannot support the agonized sufferings of other sentient beings. Both are correct.

In either case, the pivot of the sentence is me par. Your quotation is excellent, sister. Excellent. Then, Rach, would you give us the or read the following? Sayi.

Correct. Sayi. Very good. Yes, if you want and then give us your analysis. So to start with, is it the sūtra of the 10 Wheels?

What is Sa Nyingpo? Sa Nyingpo Komo Chuped. Yes. Yes. Very good.

What is the essence of the earth in Sanskrit? Kshitigarbha, exactly. This is the name of the sūtra. From the sūtra of the 10 wheels of Kriti Garbha, the Kriti Garbha Dashachakra sūtra. Then Very good.

Very good, very good. That’s exactly it. To be providing a careful literal translation, if one lacks, how do you translate young? Even. If one lacks even what?

The power, the force to drink, to train a stream. A stream. Streams tend to be small rivers. A brook, yes, a brook. How will we have the capacity to drink, to ingest a great ocean?

Well, that’s not the meaning here. But the verb is used and that says If one is unable how do you translate If one is? No or likewise is possible yes even I think so if one is unable even to become accustomed to the two vehicles You did a very good job of it, Ralph. How could one train or study the great vehicle? What are the two vehicles here?

Mhmm. It’s one possibility. Is that used is a smaller and middling used for Yes. I think so. So hearers and Pratyekabuddha.

I think so. Yeah. You could you could. You have many possibilities. But I think it’s emphatic here.

If even you can’t do that, how on earth can you do this? You know? The other possibility is even for the first and as someone said also for the second. That’s a very very real possibility. If even one is unable to do this then also how could one?

Good. Melissa would you like to go on with the quote from Lamrim? So so what’s the meaning? Perhaps if I went to the hairdresser, which is not my case. So where does a quote start?

Where it stop? Does it stop? Where is K? Yes. It stops at She.

Then you have Lamrim Leh and then you have a quote with a quote, don’t you? Sort of. Yes. Yes. Then let’s stop.

Let’s moanace it. Let’s start with the beginning. Te young. How would you translate Te young? Moreover.

Moreover, in addition. Then where would you where would you break your quote next? Nawa as pain, you read? Yeah. I see.

Okay. That that just threw everything out. Any suggestions here? So Can I check the blueprint as well to make sure? Is it the hairs of one’s body.

Right. Is it like, you know to mute to move. Yes. To shudder. So one’s hair is not moving, not standing on end.

Does it start to dawn? So let’s start from the beginning. Moreover, Moreover, when? This is a clear case where it has to be when. Moreover, when thinking of what?

Wondering in cyclic existence. What is? One self bereft of oneself bereft of happiness happiness and oneself tormented by suffering. No, no, no. Remember when we talked of the Tibetan super cases?

So we said that the instrumental and the ablative are the source super cases. Is a clear case where an instrumental is used with an ablative meaning. No. Bereft from happiness. Yeah.

Yeah. I mean, that’s what it looks like. It’s not an instrumental of reason, you know. Yes. Yes.

Yes. Yes. So that’s how otherwise, it would have tricked me. I’ve never I I I’ve never seen this in grammar books. I think if you study grammar German grammar, you know that in German, there are certain verbs which call for certain cases.

Always followed by the accusative, always by the dative, always by the genitive. I’ve seen in Tibetan verbs which are always followed by the genitive or the instrumental. Then it’s not covered in Tibetan grammars, but I think it’s a reality of the language. You know? And I would assume to be destitute of, to be bereft of, is one of those verbs.

But I’ve never seen that in a grammar text. Instrument functioning as Well, it’s an instrument which has a sense of the source case. It functions as an ablative, yes. You know? To be bereft from happiness, literally.

That’s what it looks like. Bereft of happiness, Yeah. In this context. I mean in the tantric context, Otherwise, it’s just they want the sense of deki happiness. So when this occurs, right?

So what is this? Okay, let’s start at the end. What does the law refer to? Here. What does a chic refer to?

What does chic mean? A. Well, it’s a a or an unsolved label. Any any other suggestion? Yes, Krista?

No, no, no, no, It’s it’s not a verb. Someone, one. For someone whose hair of the poor do not stand on end when thinking of the manner of himself wandering in cyclic existence tormented by the sufferings of cyclic existence and bereft of happiness, for such a one and then we move on, what is Wong Sahi here? So break it up. How would you this is a compound.

You’d understand if you break it up? Yes. Yes. Yes. You won’t find it in the dictionaries.

It’s not listed in the dictionaries, I think. No. If you have to transit a compound like this, what how would you go about it? What could it be? What could be between wrong and Sa?

What is easily omitted in Tibetan? Yes. So it could be What would be the meaning of The ground where one comes what is the meaning of the ground where one comes? The occurrence. The happening of something.

It’s a very very common I don’t know if I listed it in your list of compounds. I may have. Very common way of forming a compound in Tibetan is to add Sa, the place. For instance to a verb, Depa to stay, right? What is dessa in Tibetan?

Dessa is to stay. Dessa is? Give me an English word. Don’t don’t break it up anymore. To stay in a hotel.

A house. Decide your house where you stay. Right? Decide where you stay. Is to see.

Right? What is The scene. The scene. What is scene? What is scene?

So here, Wong was to come. Wong is the occurrence. Now, what would be origin? Thank you for bringing it up. If you want to construct with how would you So give it to me.

Yes? What’s the other one? This is how you construct them. So there is no occurrence of what? Of being unable to support all sentient beings being bereft I’m sorry, I use bereft, but she doesn’t like it, but bereft.

All sentient beings being destitute, despoiled, I become very self conscious these days. Alienated from happiness and tormented by suffering. Yeah. Possibility. Yeah.

Means happening, really. Occurrence happening. You get some place. It happens, in other words. Possibility sounds good.

Then the quote from Bodhicaryāvatāra, Jangchup Sempé Chöpa Jukpa Lé, then let’s move up a little bit. Because it is said, so we translate from the end, because it is said in Bodhicaryāvatāra. And then how do we translate these verses? Where do we start translating? We’ve got four verses.

Right? This is the one you’re referring to I assume. And what else is important to translate? Yes. Very good.

Then it’s pretty straightforward, isn’t it? You’re like the Indians, you know, in India, when they want to say yes, you say They wouldn’t be able to say no. Say no. Any proposals? Yeah.

Sort of. That’s the general meaning. But if you if you were to nail it down a little bit more, that’s it. So where’s had? You see why we’re the trouble we are in worldwide when economists throw bits and things?

It’s little bits, you know? What’s your verb in this sentence? Your verb is? What verbs do you have? Let’s start from the beginning.

Then? You have two verbs here which are exactly which means to dream and kepa. So if these sentient beings formerly did not even dream in a dream, in other words, not even dream, What? To generate such a mind for their own sake even. How could they generate it for the sake of another?

Then is redundant, but it is a way of fleshing out the verse. Right? What is important, literally it is if they couldn’t dream even in a dream, then obviously in English you would say if they couldn’t even dream. The even is important, the is unimportant. It just the author needed the meter or the translator needed the meter, right?

So if those sentient beings, you note here, tida, those, technically it’s a dual, right? Yeah. So why would you have and? Yes. But it’s really ugly if it’s me too.

Then why not just and pop in a knee or something something? What’s happening in the text? Can you speculate? Before. He spoke of before in the text.

And then he’s bringing it up. Śāntideva was bringing it up again. Then sentient tida, then nam is ugly, I mean, okay, that’s the meaning here. So we have tida as these as an argument. Tida is these.

Then in very, very classical Tibetan grammar, it’s these two. That’s obviously not the case here. So Yes. Because it is said in Śāntideva’s Bodhicaryāvatāra, if those sentient beings formerly, even in a dream, did not dream of such a mind for their own sake. How could they generate it for the sake of another or for the sake of others?

That you have to choose a trans if you had to to decide between another and others as a translator, how would you go about it? Tibetan keeps both options open. What would you do? I mean, you could refer to a Tibetan commentary, but the commentator has the same problem as you. You go to the Sanskrit.

It’s a classic case you have to go to the Sanskrit verse. Then with Bodhicaryāvatāra, there is quite a discrepancy between the Sanskrit, the Sanskrit recensions which are later than the Tibetan recensions. So you have to be very very careful with this text when checking the Tibetan against the Sanskrit. Discrepancies do not impugn either version. A case like this you would check the Sanskrit to see in the Sanskrit is one.

The Sanskrit grammar obliges you to indicate this. One person, two persons or multiple persons. A singular, a plural or a dual in other words. Single, dual or plural. It’s a very famous space.

It’s very famous. Yes. Yes. Yes. Why doesn’t he use yarn here?

Of the because of the hour. Meter. Oh, meter. Seven feet. So he he is obliged to fuse.

Then if he does this you can be sure that this existed in Sanskrit. Otherwise you wouldn’t have such a contrived construction. The author would not go to all this trouble, right? Then here you might wonder, Sanskrit does not, as a language find these composite verbs which are repetitious beautiful. So I wonder, I’ve not looked at the Sanskrit, I couldn’t tell you.

Very good. She is peace. She is peace. She is somebody. It’s Cheek.

For the lahi would be for someone whose bodily hair do not stand on end when thinking of being destitute of happiness thinking of the mode of wandering within cyclic existence or being tormented by suffering, there is no occurrence of an incapacity to bear there is no occurrence of not being able to bear other sentient beings being bereft of happiness and being tormented by suffering. Because, as is said in the Bodhicaryāvatāra, if formerly did not even if formerly sentient beings, those sentient beings did not even in a dream, dream of of such a mind for their sake, How could they generate it for the sake of others? Then we have to wrap this up in good English. So If I read you what I ended up with, which is more elegant than what we have done.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Moreover, if when thinking on one’s own way of wandering and cyclic existence deprived of happiness and tormented by suffering, not even one bodily hair stands on end, there is no basis for the occurrence of being unable to bear other sentient beings deprivation of happiness and tormented by suffering.

As I said in the Bodhicaryāvatāra, if formerly those sentient beings even in a dream did not fancy of such a mind, even for their own sake, how could it arise for the sake of others? So you chose that to be a dream? Mhmm. You substitute fancy for dream? Yeah.

That’s legitimate. That’s legitimate because it’s Well They’re dreaming. They’re dreaming. You know. Well, depends.

You see, you have to be flexible. I’ll take Ralph’s question. You’re dealing with poetry, Deb, you have a fair bit of latitude. When you’re dealing with philosophical material, you have almost none. I think much of the critiques or many of the critiques addressed to Jeffrey Hopkins are within the problem that he translates everything according to the same standard.

Then you can’t go always for a word by word translation from Tibetan to English. With philosophical material one has to. And we hear this a bit especially with poetry. You you can make it beautiful. Excuse me now.

So actually, I guess that’s part of the question I’m asking. How did you get really one hair? So then So there’s two ways to translate. You can either translate the chic here as one person for one who’s here or you can translate the chic as referring to even one here. Both are possible.

So here I translated as even one hair and in class we translated as for one. I think for one is grammatically more correct. But you could also have the other translation. You do have to translate it however, you have to account for it. And note your continuative here.

What does it usher? It ushers the chair. Yeah. It’s a tear tear structure which is so common in Buddhist philosophy. Then I think that’s that for today.

Thank you very much. And then for next time, how are you doing I should ask you in your preparation for the informal assessment? How’s that going? You have time. You have time.

You know? So up to what up to what to what page is the is the material for the Up to the page we reach the week before. Alright. In other words, as much as possible. But that would be fresh in your minds.

You know? Then I would very much like to take your questions on all of this in every class. I’m delighted if you’ll ask questions on page two or page six or whatever, you know. And I don’t think I’ll give you more than a page a week if that’s okay. I’m assuming you’re all working hard, you know, memorizing vocabulary and all that.

Oh, last week. I I don’t know the last week. So it’ll be from page one. We’ll probably reach page 17. And you’re suggesting that the page a week to revise or two pages to revise?

I think you have to do two pages at least at least At least. You know? You might say, you see it’s very repetitious. I mean, Christel was commenting about this. The vocab comes again and again.

It’s not and it’s vocabulary you will need, you know. Then put your effort in the vocabulary, crack your verbal forms, try to learn your verbs when you meet them. This is the opportunity to learn your verbs. You know. It’s it’s worth doing.

Know? It’ll be in class. Then I I’ve never had an exam with you. I’ll tell you how it will go. First for next week, please do page 14 and the first two lines of page 15.

Put the chair. Alright? And then I’ll see if I can get you another remedial page. You did very well today. Then for the assessment, the way it will go is you’ll have fifteen minutes to prepare approximately four or five lines.

It will be one complete meaning unit. Four five lines. Yes. It’ll be up to half a page. It depends on the the the length of the meaning unit.

Only something we have seen, you can use and bring with you all the grammars, vocabularies and dictionaries you want but not your notes. You cannot cannot bring your notes. That’s all in your mind. You know? But your grammars, Jäschke, Goldstein, Tibetan, all that you can bring, your verbal tables you can bring, but not your notes and not my translation.

No any translation. Then you prepare and then I will project it on the blackboard and I’ll ask you to parse it exactly what we do in class. If there are verbal forms, I’ll ask you to give me the verbal forms. Is it a differentiated verb, non differentiated verb, in what tense? Give the syntax.

Is it a nominative accusative syntax, an ergative absolutive syntax? And then eventually after we’ve cracked all that, your translation. And then if the translation is not elegant, I’ll ask you as I’ve asked Shaya and some others to give me the actual meaning of the sentence. Because you may not be able to give an elegant translation, but if you’ve caught the essence, that’s okay. You know?

And then those whom we haven’t who haven’t sat the assessment, on July 5 will sit the following week. It’ll be easy. It’ll be easy. But what you have to do, you have to re study, not just re read, re study the totality of, the material we’ve covered. You have to memorize the vocabulary because you won’t be able to look up all the words in the dictionary in fifteen minutes.

Believe me, it’s not possible. And you must memorize your verbal forms because if you think you can use a dictionary to crack it in fifteen minutes, it’s gonna be a big disappointment. Big disappointment. And then you should go through the PowerPoint presentations of the intensive. The ones which starting with the eight cases.

And in your spare time, work through the examples. Rely on that more than on You saw the problem with Hodge. Hodge. I mean he makes it too simple. That creates complications down the line, you know.

And then I will, if you are thinking, if you’re doing well I won’t ask you any question on grammar. If you just you look at the sentence and you translate it, there’s no need to ask any questions on grammar. If you’re in trouble, I’ll ask you questions on grammar to help him out. That’s the goal. You know?

Then we won’t do any of the sentences we’ve done here. That’s just for your benefit. Unless you want Mickey Mouse and Roquefort cheese. I like the Gorginee. The real one.

That’s the problem. When you get a reputation for creativity, have to keep it up. Right? Next week, I have to find something. If you can’t, you can’t.

But it’s very helpful for you to know at least to recognize them. Like, jump up, you know, the jar turns into sharp, you know, from behind and so forth. The way we did it with Jeffrey, I won’t do it with you. So the way we did it with Jeffrey was we had, four hours written exam. We had one hour on a text which had been seen before over six months and three hours we had two texts unseen.

No grammars allowed, only dictionaries. You know? And we were given the time period. You know? It might be, let’s say, whatever, fifteenth to seventeenth century.

Made, you know, notes of the this the PowerPoint presentation or notes, grammar, human writing? No. That’s not a note. None of your your your the notes from the PowerPoint No. No.

No. No. Your grammar reference text. A PowerPoint, why not? If you want to bring the notes just of the grammar, why not?

Why not? But no notes of the text. No. No. I’m not bringing notes to the grammar.

And then if you do really well, we will have a sight and seen text in the future. That will be fun. That’s where one really assesses, you know. Thank you very much.

Key terms in this teaching

cyclic existence samsara (Skt); khor wa (Tib)

The six realms of conditioned existence, three lower - hell, hungry ghost and animal - and three upper - human, demigod and god. LYWA

dependent origination pratityasamutpada (Skt); ten drel (Tib)

Also called dependent arising. The way that the self and phenomena exist conventionally as relative and interdependent. LYWA

lamrim

The graduated path. A presentation of Shakyamuni Buddha’s teachings in a form suitable for the step-by-step training of a disciple. LYWA

lower realms ngen dro (Tib)

The three realms of cyclic existence with the most suffering: the hell, hungry ghost and animal realms. LYWA

Mahayana teg chen (Tib)

Literally, Great Vehicle. It is one of the two general divisions of Buddhism. LYWA

pratyekabuddha rang sang gye (Tib)

A solitary realizer or self-realizer; a Hinayana practitioner who attains liberation from cyclic existence autonomously, without relying on an external teacher or teachings. Cf. shravaka. LYWA

Three Jewels triratna (Skt); kon chog sum (Tib)

Also called the Triple Gem or the Three Rare Sublime Ones. The objects of Buddhist refuge: Buddha, Dharma and Sangha. Lama Zopa Rinpoche prefers “Three Rare Sublime Ones” as a more direct translation of kon chog sum. LYWA

Definitions adapted from the Lama Yeshe Wisdom Archive glossary, as taught in the Gelug tradition.