Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 29-minute session, Geshe Pema Tsering focuses on a verse in which Nāgārjuna asks readers not to dismiss his text simply because his poetry is plain — just as a wise person venerates a roughly-made Buddha statue for what it represents rather than its material. He traces the layered commentary tradition behind the text, from Nāgārjuna through the Tibetan scholar Rendawa to Geshe Losang Jinpa, explaining why successive commentaries exist to clarify what came before rather than to correct it. He closes with a pointed contrast: Western science works toward perfection, while Buddhist study begins from the premise that the Buddha’s teaching was already perfect, and commentary is the ongoing effort to understand it.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 02 LF 2004 08 17.mp3
UUID: f5e5aee1-2127-4c36-8c94-5d0ae4f4a4e8
Teacher: Geshe Pema Tsering
Collection: Letter to a Friend (Geshe Pema Tsering)
Date: 2004-08-17
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 29.7 minutes
Words: ~2,010
And so part of the reason that it was so important for this king to do this practice is described in another passage, which is actually not from the text, but is from a piece that was called In Praise of the Worthy, a praise praising the worthy, which was written for Śākyamūni Buddha by another pandit at the time that Śākyamūni Buddha was around. In this praise, this pandit said, whatever needs to be abandoned is stopped. Whatever needs to be practiced is taken up. All of the afflictive emotions, it can be gotten rid of, but only you have described how to do this. Therefore, between your words and others, there is a great difference.
What this is talking about is that there are many different people explaining different dharmas at the time of the Buddha, many different teachers with many different paths. All of those could be beneficial to people, but only the Buddha’s teaching had the ability to explain to people how to completely get rid of afflictive emotions, how to completely get rid of suffering and its causes, and to practice all that needed to be practiced in order to become a Buddha. Because of this, the teaching of the Buddha is said to outshine the rest of the teachings that were around at that time. Also, the king is exhorted to listen to these teachings of Nāgārjuna, because it is only through the teachings of Nāgārjuna, which are expanding the Buddha’s words, he will be able to completely get rid of his suffering and become a whole Buddha. So in his description then, the person who wrote this text, which is the Geshe Losang Jinpa, says that he will follow a previous commentary, which was done by Okay.
I was trying to figure out who this guy was so I could say it clearly for you. And I said, I’m pretty sure that he was a Sakya teacher of Tsongkhapa’s Geshe. I don’t care which lineage he was from. I said, But I’m just trying to say it so I can say it clearly for people so they know exactly who he is. He goes, It’s more important that they get what he said than where he came from.
So I’m just going to say there was a man called Rendawa, who was Tibetan. And wrote a commentary to Nāgārjuna’s letter to a friend on which this Geshe Losang Jinpa is basing his commentary. So you have two levels of commentary going on. Following me? Alright.
So, on the basis of Rendawa’s commentary, then Losang Jinpa explains that the next verse is actually meant to dispel any doubts that people may have about Nāgārjuna’s style of writing and composition. People may not listen to the teachings because of their style of composition. The verse says: Wise men venerate figures of the Sugatas made from wood and such, Whatever they be like, just so through this poetry of mine be poor, scorn it not, for it is based upon the sayings of the holy Dharma. So the meaning of this then is that there are many different types of statues of the Buddha that we may encounter. We can see statues of the Buddha that are made from all types of materials.
In the actual text, refers to materials made from stone, clay and so forth. But you can also have things made from gold or silver, and they may have a pleasant or an unpleasant shape. But, if you are wise, then you are looking to the fact that this is an object that is a representation of the Buddha, so the actual form it takes isn’t going to be something that you focus on. You’ll actually focus on what it represents and, therefore, make offerings to it nonetheless. In the same way as we should approach Buddha’s statues equally with veneration, Nāgārjuna is trying to discourage people from being turned off by the way that he has composed the text and his style of poetry by pointing out that even though his poetry may not be beautiful, then he is basing his text on the he’s based his text on the teachings of the Buddha.
And therefore, because they have the the perfect or pure Dharma in them, then they also should be venerated and not dismissed. So I can stop there for today. I I have to do more preparation for next week because I looked at the commentary and went, yeah. Yeah. That’s easy.
And I didn’t realize that I actually would have to translate poetry on the spot. And Geshe-la goes, but you’re supposed to be an expert translator. Sure. And as you can see, he’s hey? Yeah.
He’s just, like, saying it’s, like anyway, tease me. Yeah? Oh, sorry. If anyone has questions. Table of contents as well.
Yeah. Yes. So the reason that they have such an an elaborate outline is because it makes it easier to stick in your head. If you have an idea of the outline, then it’s easier to remember it and to remember which which bits are where. Yeah.
It’s saying that this outline, which is like a table of contents but actually goes through the whole text as well, is in order for people to remember the different parts of the text, what’s in them, and where they can find information. So if you remember the outline of the text and you know which parts of the text deal with what and which yeah. So you can you know where to go to. The reason that you put the outline in there is so you know where everything is. I said about an acknowledgment, and he goes, Yeah, the main thing is the outline.
Yeah. It has to be that because it couldn’t have been that it was rubbish because you can’t be a manifestation of manjushri and not be able to write poetry. It’s interesting because the word that’s usually translated as poetry literally means beautiful to hear. The guest goes, Of course, it’s all beautiful to hear. Then there’s this other word that literally means chopped words or half sentences.
Yeah? And so yeah. So the half sentences is the is the is the form that Nāgārjuna wrote this in, which is what we probably call poetry. And then and then there is a section which isn’t in this half form, which is the commentary. Yeah.
So for like here. Okay? This is Nāgārjuna’s bit, and this is the commentary. Yeah. Nāgārjuna’s bit.
Yeah. No. She said you need more. The reason that there’s a lot more is that when they say poetic aspect, you’re chopping all the words down in Tibetan. Can definitely chop endings off, so you have a whole string of syllables chomped into one.
In order to understand that clearly, you need a lot of explanation because you’re expanding it out. You’re extrapolating on every word. So if you don’t have a commentary, can be very difficult to understand what they’re saying. Yes. And in order to stop that, that’s why you have a commentary.
I said it’s interesting because when we study poetry, we have this idea that if one poem can elicit very different responses in different people, then it must be a very good poem. If one person has a response that’s one way and another person has a different response, then that shows the depth of that poem. So, we’re all each trying to find our own meaning for that poem. But in Buddhist poetry or in Buddhist texts, you’re not trying to find your own meaning you’re trying to find the Buddha’s meaning. So, Geshe-la said, Yeah.
If you were trying to get your own meaning, wouldn’t get anywhere. You’re trying to find the Buddha’s meaning, not your own meaning as we do with poetry. Yeah. So, yeah, it’s a short composition that explains what’s positive and what’s negative so that the king it could benefit the king and he could incorporate that those teachings. Because the king had so many things to do, he couldn’t spend all his life studying the Dharma, so Nāgārjuna composed a short text that had everything in it so that he could just practice that.
That is actually my big mistake. Oops. I thought he was writing his commentary based on Geshe Rendawa’s commentary, which was based on a translation by I can’t remember the name of the translator. But, in actual fact, there were two translations into Tibetan of Nāgārjuna’s letter. Right?
And Geshe Rendawa was based his commentary on one translation, and Geshe Rendawa is basing his commentary on another translation. So but he said because Geshe Rendawa did this commentary, I’m gonna do it on this translation to give a more detailed idea. But the but then Uh-oh. So he said that then he did say I’m sorry. I didn’t make as big a mistake as I thought.
And he said he is going to base his commentary on this separate translation on Rendawa’s commentary. Alright? So it’s they have different approaches, but he’s going to base his commentary on Randawa’s commentary. So it’s not because they made mistakes. It’s just that there’s parts of that commentary which are still not clear.
Someone’s done a commentary on the Buddhist teachings and then another commentary on that, and we can still look at that and it doesn’t make sense. Geshe-la says that’s what we’re doing here. We’re looking at a commentary that doesn’t necessarily make sense to us because there’s points we need to make clearer or extrapolate on. By going through it, he’s giving a commentary a commentary on a commentary. The process of writing another commentary and another commentary is to clarify points in there that have been difficult to access.
The same. So you have to ultimately respect the original, but you you shouldn’t think this the the we there’s no sense of this one’s more important than the other. You have respect for all of them. Whoever wrote this description understood things that we don’t. It may not be clear to us, but it doesn’t mean it wasn’t clear to them.
Through their understanding of the text, they were able to give a commentary. Just because we don’t understand that commentary doesn’t mean that it’s not clear. We have to be respectful to all of them. He says, I do what I just did then. So he’s like reading it and then trying to explain it clearly.
Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
So it’s a completely different approach to it, because in the Buddhist or in Buddhist culture, you start off with the premise that the Buddha first taught the Dharma. He did that perfectly. Therefore, because we can’t understand it, it doesn’t mean there was something wrong with that. What’s happened over the years is through the change in language, through the change in culture, through the change in the minds of beings, then we can’t understand what he said properly, so people have had to keep explaining it and work towards the intent of the Buddha. It worked towards describing the intent of the Buddha, and that has had to become more clear to us.
It’s not saying that it wasn’t clear for them back in the day. It’s just saying that we can’t approach that because of our situation at the moment. It started off perfect, and we’re trying to understand the perfection in different commentary, which is completely different to the approach of Western science, which is that we’re working towards a better approach. We’re working towards perfection as opposed to starting off with a perfect explanation that we’re trying to understand. Is everyone okay?
And so that was really difficult to translate. I have to add a little note there because it was all outlines and titles and does that make sense? So if it was a bit like I’m sorry. I should have had a map. I needed a chart.
So page four.