Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 45-minute talk, Geshe Dhawa Gyaltsen introduces Nāgārjuna’s Letter to a King—a 2,000-year-old guide to applying Buddhist doctrine to daily life. He establishes essential context: who Nāgārjuna was, why his teachings survived, and how to approach spiritual instruction (check the doctrine, not the teacher’s appearance). He outlines the structure of the full commentary—three vehicles of practice—before detailing the first: the ten non-virtuous acts to abandon (killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying, slander, harsh words, gossip, covetousness, harmful intent, wrong views) and the core principle behind them: help others if you can; if not, avoid harming them. He introduces the second vehicle through reflection on wealth—possessions are impermanent and never satisfying, making generosity the highest investment. Pitched at those beginning the spiritual path.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 01 LtK no date.mp3
UUID: e9900767-a554-4a5d-8c07-105c6a55aae7
Teacher: Geshe Dhawa Gyaltsen
Collection: Letter to a King (Geshe Dhawa Gyaltsen)
Date: 1984 (exact day not recorded)
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 45.5 minutes
Words: ~4,457
Topics that we are going to discuss tonight is the Letter to the King — Suhṛllekha. So this letter was written by one of the greatest Indian saints called Acharya Nāgārjuna. See? So Acharya Nāgārjuna was summarizing the whole Buddhist doctrine into — how do you say? — into the applications of a king’s day-to-day activity or day-to-day life.
Mhmm. I think. Yeah. So I think it’s important to know a little bit about the author’s life. So, of course, there were so many supernatural qualities of the author, which we don’t need to discuss here.
However, from the point of view of the mundane aspect of life, I would explain a little bit — how to say — biography, or the life story of this great Indian saint called Acharya Nāgārjuna, who is the present author of the present poem. And then upon studying the life story of Acharya Nāgārjuna thoroughly, we do — or we can’t help believing — that he has attained so many spiritual qualities or spiritual attainments such as clairvoyance, such as super-knowledge, consciousness, and so forth, through practising or through properly putting the Buddha’s doctrine into his own practice. Mhmm. Mhmm. Maybe from speaking from the point of view of his personal spiritual achievements such as clairvoyance and so forth, it’s not that important.
However, from the point of view of his work, his Buddhist study, or his writings about or relating to the Buddhist doctrine, this is so important that his writing of the Buddhist doctrine is the main source of the survival of the later part of the Buddhist Dharma or Buddhism’s diffusions. Especially, this author or this saint was specialised in establishing the right interpretation of the Buddhist doctrines or right interpretations of the Buddhist profound philosophy of emptiness. This Acharya, or this saint called Acharya Nāgārjuna, came about four hundred years after Buddha’s passing away or Buddha’s passing into parinirvana. So from that reckoning of the period or age, now Acharya Nāgārjuna is about two thousand years old. This Acharya’s — this saint’s — writing about Buddhism was the main or the main and valid source of reference for his contemporary scholars.
And now even though it’s more than two thousand years old, still his writings about Buddhist philosophy are the main source of reference and main source of the validity of Buddhist teachings. So before him, Buddha actually gave the various teachings of the various doctrines relating to the achievements of individuals’ goal of spirituality. So from that respect, there are three vehicles of Buddhist doctrines. The first is the lesser vehicle or the Hīnayāna. So first, this Acharya’s work or writings were relating to the improvement or the rejuvenation, or the renewal of the Hīnayāna doctrines or the doctrines of the lesser vehicle.
Okay. So of the Buddhist few ways, or three vehicles, to approach one’s goal of spirituality, the first is the lesser vehicle or the lesser or easier way to approach one’s goal of spirituality. So first, this Acharya’s work was regarding the development, the further reestablishment of the doctrines of the lesser vehicle. And after that, he did the reestablishment of the doctrines of the higher vehicle, Mahāyāna, or higher ways.
So that is — how to say — that is historically called the first turning and the second turnings. Turning. Yeah. Yeah. The third turning was the turning of the Buddhist doctrine or Dharma or spirituality regarding the tantra, or the secret way, or the secret way of approaching one’s goal of spirituality.
So in that respect, historically, he did three turnings or the reestablishment of the Buddhist talk or Buddhist doctrines or the Buddhist teachings. Mhmm. This scholar was so important in terms of rejuvenating or in terms of reestablishing the doctrines of Buddhism in terms of three vehicles or three ways of approaching one’s goal of spirituality. So, therefore, this teacher, in actual fact, was already predicted by Buddha himself in his many scriptures or many teachings. Buddha said that after four hundred years of my passing away, there will be a teacher called Nāgārjuna who will once again rejuvenate or reestablish my stainless — or revive the — doctrines which I am giving you now. This is the person or this is the author who did this present work called Letter to a King.
Yeah. Mhmm. A lot of this work is called a Friendly Letter to a King, and which we don’t need to explain much because friendly means friendly. What else can I say? Rewriting a letter to your friend.
These two people were contemporary to each other, and they were very good friends. They’re good men to each other. Yeah. Acharya said in his letter — technically, he said, worthy of listening, worthy of paying attention. So what the author was saying to the king is that whatever I’m going to say in this letter is worthy of listening, is worthy of your paying attention — it’s good stuff.
As a reason — as a reason that Acharya put forward — as to say that whatever he’s going to say is worthy of listening or worthy of studying, is that Acharya said, you know, I am the writer of this letter. However, whatever I said in this letter is not my own self-invention. It’s rather already being taught by the one who has gone beyond, or one who has gone into the eternal bliss — meaning a Buddha. So what he’s saying is that he was something like a secretary. You know?
I mean, the Buddha said it, and he did this sort of secretarial part of things. Yeah. Mhmm. That’s it. So whatever the Acharya or author is going to say is about how to achieve the two states or two positions.
The first position is technically termed as higher birth. Mhmm. Yeah. It’s higher birth and ultimate goodness. Then further, the author said that whatever I said is a method to achieve the two positions — which is the ultimate goodness and higher rebirth or higher births.
So and that practice can be applied by the king yourself and all others who are interested in practising that. And the form of my writing is a poetic form. Yeah. A poem. Like a poem.
Yeah. So that was his sort of main reason to say that whatever he said is worthy of listening or worthy of paying attention by a king, because he said whatever I said is not my own self-invention. It’s rather the doctrines which were already taught or given by Buddha. Mhmm. The worship itself.
There are a few terms used to refer to Buddha. So Buddha here — the term has been used as — they worship in Tibet or in English — Gone to Bliss. So Buddha has been referred to with that name because Buddha has gone to that sort of state of ultimate freedom, you know, through the path which produces bliss. So it means that Buddha achieved that bliss, that state of bliss of ultimate freedom from the problems and the suffering, through the way of bliss. Through the way of bliss means he did practise concentrations and concentration and calm abiding, vipassana, and so forth, which itself is the nature of bliss.
So through that, the path of bliss, he achieved the state of the bliss of ultimate freedom; therefore he is called — or being referred to as — Sugata, one who has gone to bliss, one who has gone to the ultimate place. He said — our Acharya said — my basic attempt in this letter is the proper presentation of the Buddhist teachings. However, my written form of this letter, if it does not seem so readable, or if you cannot listen properly to it, then don’t use the unreadability of this letter as a reason for quitting reading this letter. Rather, please pay attention, because my basic attempt or my basic meaning which I’m trying to convey is the faultless teaching of Buddha himself. Therefore, please read this letter.
So Acharya said that if my letter, or if the style of writing in a poetic way, is not so good — it’s not so listenable — then don’t use it as the reason for not listening to it. Rather, please listen to it, because my main topic or subject of this letter is the pure teaching of Buddha himself. So he gave the reason, or some kind of examples or similes: people make the statues of Buddha as the source of their refuge, or taking refuge, or paying their homage or prayers, making their prayers, whatever. So whether one makes the statue of Buddha out of gold or other metals, woods, whatever — it doesn’t make a difference to one who pays attention or one who pays homage. The reason why one is paying is because this statue is just the reminder of Buddha himself. So from that point of view, one is paying homage to the statue of Buddha — not to the kind of materials it is made of. One is not paying homage to that statue because it is made of gold. The reason why one is paying is because it is a reminder of the Buddha. So in that way, similar to that fashion, Acharya was requesting the king that if my letter is not so readable, still please pay attention, because what I’m saying is a pure teaching of Buddha.
Precious of this sentence — Buddha himself said in his scriptures that one should not rely upon the teacher or the person. One should rely upon the doctrines, upon the teaching, upon what he really says. So that is being referred to in this particular sentence. The fundamental key point to remember or keep in view with regards to learning Buddhism or doctrine is that one should not judge the teaching because of the teacher or because of the person who presents it. So even the person who talks — one should not put the reason: the person who talks looks so wonderful, he looks really nice, so whatever he may say would be nice. That is not enough reason. So one has to rather check what he really says, not how he looks, how she looks.
And there is a great Tibetan saint called Langdol Rinpoche. Physically, he looks — if I’m — I’m not saying I’m going too far — disgusting or revolting, but he is a great Lama, he’s a highly realised being. So that one should not judge the person by how he looks in terms of checking the teachings — you should check the teaching, not the teacher. If one practises something on the basis of the reason that — on the reason that: I took this teaching or I took this practice from the person who looks really wonderful, physically wonderful — see, that is a great mistake. So actually, it’s not that unusual to think in that way in terms of human’s mind.
For instance, with my own experience, when Geshe-la was — the place where Geshe-la is, in a local monastery, is very far away from central Tibet where normally the local monasteries go to central Tibet and complete their study. So when Geshe-la was very young and he heard of a great Tibetan saint or Tibetan lama who lived in central Tibet, and whose fame or reputation was far-reaching — that Geshe-la heard that he can meditate nonstop for about a week and things like that. So Geshe-la, for some reason, believed that he should be really wonderful-looking, physically — I mean, really wonderful-looking. So when he came to Tibet and he looked for that, and he actually saw him, but he didn’t recognise him because Geshe-la was somewhat believing that he should be looking physically wonderful. So the idea was that if you tend to do such a thing then you are making a great mistake.
You are making a great mistake. His name is Dratse Rinpoche — you see, Dratse Rinpoche — and actually he physically, in terms of his physical look, is a little bit — you know, not so — how to say — eye-catching, I mean. You know, practising concentration is so wonderful, so marvellous, that he can do such practice for about a week without taking anything in, without any intake of foods and things like that, for a whole week. Yeah. And then he gave advice to his followers that, don’t check the teaching on the basis of how the teacher looks — rather check his own teaching.
Technically: rely upon — don’t rely upon the person, rely upon the teachings. Don’t rely upon the words, but rely upon the meaning, you see. So it means that there are so many people who have really good command of speech. So they can really write using different vocabularies and different metaphors, similes, things like that. They really write a nice poem.
So when you really look for the reality or the meaning, then it is nothing. It’s rather wordy statements of something really nonsensical. So that’s also one way of people getting into the trap of ignorance. That’s it. Mhmm.
So this Acharya, at this stage of his letter, was telling the king how he should have his attitude towards listening to teaching or receiving teaching, whatever. The author was saying to the king that, I believe that you already know what I’m going to say in this letter. However, it still qualifies to be worthy of listening, to be worthy of paying your attention to this talk, because it will do the role of a reminder to your already-known understanding of whatever the Acharya was going to say. So Acharya further said, I believe that you have already established the totality of the meaning of the Buddhist teaching by yourself — through listening, through the wisdom of listening, contemplation, and meditation. However, this still does not make my letter to be of less quality, because it does help you.
So as to elaborate this meaning, Acharya is going to use some kind of examples which is to come. So Acharya was saying that even though you have already understood the Buddha’s teaching through listening, through the wisdom of listening, and contemplation and meditation and so forth, however, it’s still alright to listen to my letter — it’s alright to read my letter — because if there’s a house whose inside is painted with a white colour, as an attempt to make the house shine or improve the whiteness of the house colour, so on top of that whiteness, if the moonlight reflects all its light, beats that whiteness, then the intensity of the whiteness of the wall improves. So similar to that, even though you have already understood the Buddhist teaching, if you listen to my teaching, it will improve the quality of your already-understood understanding.
At least it will not bring any harm to your already-understood understanding. Mhmm. The body of this letter is about the three vehicles of approaching one’s goal of spirituality. So the first vehicle, or the first way, is technically termed as the vehicle of small persons. So the vehicle — the doctrine — the vehicle of the doctrines relating to the small persons is in the initial stage of one’s practice.
You see? So therefore, this letter is now trying to tell how one should be involving in the spiritual activity when one begins the teaching, or when one begins to follow the spiritual path. So the next stage — the second vehicle of approaching one’s goal of spirituality — is technically termed as the vehicle of middle persons. So that is after having done the initial practice of the doctrines, then what one should be doing in the in-between period. So after having gone through that in-between state, then the third vehicle is the vehicle of the higher persons.
So this letter is also guiding how one should be handling the techniques or the doctrines of the higher persons. Asking. So the whole process of approaching to the goal of the spirituality of oneself is — or means — to eradicate the basic ignorance or delusions through applying the special practice of wisdom, and the special practice of concentration, which has been developed through the meditation and so forth. However, when the evocation of such concentration or the special wisdom is slightly difficult when one begins the practice, approaching to the finality of one’s goal of spirituality. Therefore, one has to practise the morality, which means controlling the behaviours, one’s behaviours or one’s daily activities.
So that is the practice of morality, which pacifies or which makes oneself more reinforced or more energetic. Mhmm. The achievement or the attainment of human rebirth is considered to be the high state or the achievement of a high state. So that is very crucial in order to practise spirituality or doctrines. So that position — the achievement of human rebirth — can be done through the evocation of special wisdoms and the concentrations.
However, in the initial period, that is not so possible. So then what would be the other alternatives or other options to substitute the cause of achieving higher rebirth, which means human rebirth or whatever. So the other alternative or option is practising the ten moralities of abandoning the ten non-virtuous acts. So doing so or practising this will bring harmony and peace to other sentient beings. And for one’s own benefit, one will achieve the higher rebirth — means again becoming human. Now we will count the ten non-virtuous acts.
The first is killing — the act of killing. Mhmm. The second is stealing — technically, taking the things which have not been given. So the third is sexual misconduct. Mhmm.
So now the others would be through verbal action, verbal action. The first is telling lies. So I think the second is slander. Harsh words. idle gossip, or talking nonsense. So now there are another three — the remaining of these acts are done through mentality. The first is covetousness.
Then harmful thought. Then wrong views. So these are the ten non-virtuous acts. So the very act of not committing these ten non-virtuous acts is the very positive cause of achieving the higher states — which is human rebirth. So the opposite of these ten non-virtuous acts are the ten virtuous acts — meaning the act of killing is a non-virtuous act, and the act of not killing is the act of virtue. These ten acts are what the Acharya was requesting the king to practise.
You see? Now on top of that, Acharya said, if you can, it’s also a good idea to keep away from indulging in any kind of drugs or alcohol or intoxicants. So here it means intoxicant or alcohol means the things, the taking of things which causes the loss of consciousness or which makes you completely losing the control of the mind, or which causes your mind to become completely muddled. Acharya was saying to a king that if you can abstain from doing these acts, then you are doing a good job. Yeah.
Is it? Yeah. That looks correct. So when Acharya was talking to the king through his letter, it seems that the first-hand receiver of his talk is the king. However, it’s not only the king.
It’s also something that we should also try to do. So doesn’t matter. We make the classification of some different division of the acts. The main thing is that which we are trying to understand through making the classification of some divisions in acts — which are non-virtuous — is that Buddha basically is saying that if you can, then you have to help others. So if you cannot help others, at least you should not harm other people or harm other sentient beings.
You see? So if you are abiding in the morality practice of not killing, so in a way you help the sentient being who would be the object to be killed by you. So you are not killing that animal or that person or whatever. So in that way, you help that sentient being, and not only that — that produces a special sort of awareness within you.
Mhmm. So if we try to present the Buddhist doctrine in a nutshell form, then it would be: help others if you can; if you can’t, don’t harm other people or other sentient beings. So these are the two things which consist in the totality of the Buddhist talk or Buddhist teachings. So when we deal from the lesser vehicle of practitioner or practice, it is not to say not to harm other people — that is the basic sense. Asking you to practise the ten virtuous acts is basically asking you to do the cause which will abandon the act of harming other people or other sentient beings in the broader sense. Making the division of the ten acts gives you a rough idea, you see.
So if you do the killing, who receives harm is the other person or other sentient being. So in that way if you do the rest of the listed ten acts, if you think who suffers the consequences of your act, it is basically other people and other sentient beings. So therefore, you are being requested to give up those acts of your mind, your body, and your speech which bring disharmony or harm or problems or difficulties to other sentient beings or other people. So that is a natural fact. If you think about the whole issue very realistically, then it’s not that big a deal to understand.
Normally, we always try not to harm other people, even though we don’t make the classification of that act. You are asked to practise the morality of abandoning the ten non-virtuous acts. It means that you become qualified as a practitioner of small persons or smaller vehicles. So this is a very short presentation of the path of smaller persons or smaller vehicles or smaller ways of approaching to the goal of one’s spirituality. So next we will have a short presentation of the path or the vehicles or the ways of middle persons or the middle vehicles.
Mhmm. You know? Yeah. Mhmm. Because, as we said, the short presentation or just a hint of the vehicles of the middle persons is that the author is asking the king that you should — you must investigate the nature of your wealth or nature of your possessions. Are they going to be existing forever? Or what kind of nature do they have? So by realising that your possessions, your wealth, are not going to exist forever — so instead of putting lots of hours into making or increasing them, rather try to make positive use of your wealth or your possessions, such as giving them to other people or showing some kind of act of generosity.
Lastly, Acharya was telling or advising the king that, obviously, you have a lot of possessions, lots of wealth, or lots of monies, lots of bucks, whatever. So Acharya was saying that, don’t get completely carried away in increasing your wealth, or don’t put a lot of hours into increasing your wealth. Rather, be aware of what’s the nature of your wealth, what’s the nature of your money — whether they can exist for a long time or not. So as Acharya says, the wealth or the money that you have is not the object of contentment. So no matter how much money you have, no matter how many big possessions you have — you see — you never become satisfied with it.
You never become content with it, or say this much is enough for me, I don’t need more. You never reach that sort of state, but rather as things keep growing, your desire for possessing or earning more also grows. So in that way, you never reach a point where that’s enough. So not only that — in actual fact, the possessions or the money don’t have eternal meaning or big purpose, since you have to spend all of your lifetime in making the money.
So in a way, the things, or the possessions, or the wealth, the money, can fool you, or they are not so reliable, you see. Just even if you have got lots of money, just a one-moment mistake of miscalculation of your investment or your business can make you completely poor — or you become, you know, completely broke. So therefore, the things — I mean, the money and so forth — don’t have any kind of unchanging eternal meaning or purpose. So therefore, rather than grasping at your money, try to make some good act of generosity by giving your money or your wealth, whatever, to those people who are striving, who are experiencing suffering or hunger, things like that.
In that way, you are making good use of your possessions or monies or wealth. Yeah. To whom you can make generosity of your things, such as the sick people who haven’t got someone to look after them, and poor or needy people. Mhmm. In other words, who are in need of your assistance.
Oh, who — yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Mhmm. If one really wants similar possessions of wealth in the next lifetime, then the main cause or the right investment is making generosity in this lifetime.
And when you are doing such a thing — making generosity during this lifetime — that’s the investment that gives the highest rate of interest. I said that it’s a good idea to make some act of generosity to other people or other sentient beings. It actually helps other people, and in return it also helps yourself. So you can see there are so many different people who have wonderful ideas of making quick money or quick bucks or whatever. So some people have a really good idea, but they never seem to become rich.
Doesn’t matter how much hard work they do, for some reason their wonderful plan always goes wrong. Whereas some people haven’t got that wonderful, terrific idea of making quick bucks, but somehow their plan seems to work out and they seem to be making their living very easily. So that sort of thing — the present condition is not the ultimate reason for making money or your success. It does refer to what you have done in the past.
Yeah. Whatever we did tonight is just a hint of what is going to come in the later part of these letters.