Audio recorded at Tibetan Buddhist Institute, Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 105-minute class, Kyabje Rinpoche works with advanced students on close reading and translation of the Lama Chöpa (Guru Puja) commentary, emphasizing rigorous textual scholarship. He begins by comparing manuscript versions—a computer printout against block prints held at Tashi Lhunpo Monastery in Tibet—to identify errors and establish the most reliable text. The session then dives into Tibetan grammar: relative pronouns and their antecedents, past versus future tense inconsistencies, and the use of appositions in verse. Students translate specific verses aloud, and Rinpoche guides them through the grammatical structures, emphasizing precision over stylistic fluency in English. The teaching underscores the traditional role of the teacher in unfolding a text’s compressed meaning and the importance of direct transmission in Buddhist scholarship.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 2011-03-03 – KR.mp3
UUID: c7b5b75b-54d3-4e80-85f8-29a0faa47dd9
Teacher: Kyabje Rinpoche
Collection: Guru Puja – Lama Chopa
Date: 2011-03-03
Recorded at: Tibetan Buddhist Institute, Adelaide
Words: ~9,947
I think we could abstain from tea in the temple. It’s preferable. Sessions get long and we leave our cups of tea in the kitchen then No. I mean, then some we’re going to spill a cup at some point. Then it’s gonna be terribly awkward.
Yes. So Richard can’t come. He he apologizes. He has, some, a presentation at the library. And, what I wanted to check with you is, is it more convenient for all of you if we if we meet later?
Instead of seven, is 07:15 more convenient? Because Because everyone’s late. Everyone’s late, basically. Okay. I would use a more forceful technique here to recommend.
And then how have you found the work for today? So before looking at it, maybe you might want to turn it face down. I need more more tea, more more burnt tea and burnt milk. The secret to 07:00 in here is no tea. This doesn’t qualify for tea.
This qualifies for coffee. So you remember the two questions we had last time? One was Malvin’s question, and one was a general question, which I asked you, actually. Malvin’s question, if you remember, was what the you, the second you in the Sanskrit transliteration was. So page 40, you have And Malvin wanted to know, if you remember, what the second was.
Page 40. In the Sanskrit title. Yeah. If there’s not Have you all found it? Counting the title, first, second, third, fourth line.
After the beginning of the text, first line. In Sanskriti Gyagarkedhu, Guru Puja Sia, Yakakalapanama. Do you remember? So Malvin had that doubt, and I told you that, basically, I thought it was a mistake. Now what I’ve done, is a computer printout which was input in 2,010 at Sera Je Monastery and the texts are often very corrupt.
So what I’ve handed out to you is a copy of the block prints, which are kept at Tashi Lhunpo Monastery in Tibet. These are actually the this is the monastery of the Pänchen Lamas, It happens to be an extremely clean block print. Normally, block prints are nowhere nearly as legible as this. So this I downloaded from TBRC. It’s the one I used for Rinpoche’s teaching.
Now if you look here at the Sanskrit Tibetan transliteration of the Sanskrit title, what do you see? Compare the two. What’s the difference? No? What’s the difference?
Yes. Exactly. Exactly. In other words, the second you here is indeed a mistake. Well, what I would do, I would I would I would not correct your prayer books.
You keep it. I have handed this out to you because we will continue to work with the prayer book, but I’d like you to have this in the background. This is about the most accurate text we have, the two versions of Lama Chöpa, the Tashilhunpo version and the Lhasa version. The Tashilhunpo version is more reliable. That’s the first point I wanted to put to make.
The second, do you remember what we talked about at the end of last week’s class? The tenth? Yes. What was the problem? Yes.
Where so what what line are we on here? So it’s diverse reading. Right? So if you have your prayer book, it’s line five after the beginning of Lama Chöpa. Right?
You all have it. And the Tibetan in your prayer book reads, So you remember we said this is a composite verb. Right? And I ask you you remember? Yes.
Was a composition had the verb. Yes. Exactly. And I ask you basically why the verb is in the past tense. When we are asking to be taken care of and how we should translate this.
So Richard proposed something akin to an anterior past, something like that. What did you find? What is your conclusion regarding this very strange verbal form? How would you translate it? No?
May you? You? Take care of this. How does that account for the past? Well, in some languages, they use the past tense as a subjunctive.
Yes. Would that I were? Any any any other proposals? I wonder if it was at the time in the two because we haven’t translated. I wonder it’s possible this is not coming.
So take take the Tashilhunpo text. Second line. Before the the share in the middle of the line, look at your verb. Second line. How is it written?
It’s got the the is it a or a? What is it? It’s a. What tense is that? Future.
Future. So it isn’t It’s a mistake. I withdraw this thing. Maybe it’s just But this is something you have to ascertain. So when you see these things, if it looks fishy in this type of edition, these are very unreliable, check a block print.
That’s why I’ve handed the block prints out to you and you do have to account for tenses. So in this case, context implied a future. We had a past year, which is very strange. I mean, is clearly a past. Then your immediate reaction, if you have access to a text, is to go and check the block prints, especially when you have very, very pure block prints like these from Tashilhunpo, which are very close to official block prints.
For the Pänchen Lama’s collected works, the Tashilhunpo block prints are the reference works. And how is the mistake? Is it actually? It’s just Tightening. Computerization of texts, Tibetan texts, has raised unspeakable damage because computers enable work to be done on a large scale quickly.
And, unfortunately, if one is not careful with no checking. Do you know how the block prints were made? Yes. You actually had a board of wood, and the letters were carved by hand. I’ll try to bring you next time some pictures I have of the collection of block prints still extant at Sera Je monastery.
It’s a huge amount of work. That’s exactly it. That was what the picture I had from Sera. Pictures. That’s exactly it.
It’s a huge amount of work. Tradition, which is I’m sure unsubstantiated, said that when an apprentice made a mistake, a bit of his finger was cut off. So I’m sure that’s not true. But he certainly if it was a big mistake and you couldn’t just chop over the letter, had to recarve the whole block. Therefore, you were very careful.
No. You see this? This is one block which will be printed on both sides. It’ll be carved on both sides. It weighs around a kilo.
The big ones weigh a kilo. You basically lather ink on with a roll, spread a sheet of paper, lift the paper, then you go do the next one. These were the treasures of the monastery. And they were recreated in India. The Tibetans obviously could not carry their blocks with them.
They carry whatever text they had. They were recarved using vine and whiskey barrel boards, which were approximately the right size. So to this day in the monasteries, any serious student is actually not going to rely on this sort of text. You always have if you can get a block print, it’s greatly valued. You have a block print behind and they’re often very difficult to read.
This is a beautiful and clean copy. I’ll show you some which are difficult, but they are the reference for accuracy. They are the reference. Another thing I wanted to point out to you, today you prepared half the second page. So we pointed out last time that the first page is the actual root text and the second page in minuscules is the auto commentary of the Pänchen Lama.
I’d like you to look at the block print and find me where the text of minuscule starts. So I can tell you to simplify your work. It’s at the end. You can see the needs of speed reading in Tibetan for all of you. It’s at the end of the first page.
When I say page, refer to this. To just this is one page. The end here, it starts. That’s the beginning of the text in minuscules in your printout. So what do you notice?
It’s the same. Yes. No difference. So what does that say to us? That we have to understand that too.
What is it saying to us about this the fact that this is in minuscules? Whereas here, in the authoritative version from Tashi Lhunpo from Tibet, it is not. That’s an interpretation. Yes. That’s an interpretation.
Is interpretation. This is actually not at all the original intent of the Pänchen Lama. The Pänchen Lama did not intend to separate or separate the commentary from the root text. So when you work with this sort of material, what is in miniscule is indeed a commentary, but that is an interpretation by a later scholar. He may be wrong.
Many many times, know, this is something an interpretation which may be three, four centuries later. And if you look at the body of the text at the meaning, you will see that actually there is no real reason for which this section should start being in miniscule. What came before could very well be seen as part of the commentary as well. So that’s something natural being. This is part of the work we want to start getting to get involved with, which is to return to the authentic sources.
Oh, yes. That is very common. Punctuation is very interpretative. But you can see that as well. But what you can see basically with this this version is large number of mistakes and considerable editorial freedom.
Tibetan texts were written for scholars. Yes. So the scholars were written. And they were written in something we are completely oblivious to in the wet the West. They were never written to be read the way we read them.
A text was read under the guidance of a teacher who explained and at Te here, the commentary starts. But when your text here puts de yang in miniscule, it freezes an interpretation, which may or may not be valid. You know? In this case, I’m not terribly sure it’s valid myself. So how did you manage with the translating?
How did it go? It was a structure. That’s good. To put you in it. So did you find it was too much work for one week?
No. Too little? Just right. Just right? Uh-huh.
That’s less important. I mean, we will do that today. We’ll do a bit today if we have time. I don’t want to insist on that too much. I told you why last time.
It it impact your reading skills. All of you must drill reading. So it’s not something we’re gonna talk about anymore, but you can see when you have a text like this, I have to be able to tell you the bottom of the first line, and you have to find it. That’s what the that’s what got left out, you know Yeah. With the focus on trying to get the words out.
You have to The reading You have to read. You have to read every day. When you’re preparing a text, you have to read. Otherwise, it’ll faint. And with Tibetan, unfortunately, skill in reading and knowledge of the grammar go hand inherently.
Hand inherently. That’s the problem of the language. That’s the problem of the language. So let us start then with the so called commentary in minuscules. I’m going to finish last week.
Oh, do we have something left? Oh, we didn’t do. We didn’t do this. It’s we only just really got Where did we stop? Oh, we start oh, yes.
Yes. Yes. We didn’t do anything. Okay. Okay.
Okay. Okay. We didn’t do anything at all. Then, Shaya, would you get do the honors? I I have come where are we?
Yes. So we are on line three four five. K. Yes. Very good.
We can stop there. How would you translate that? Starting with the big with your first verse. Give us give us your your thinking on the verse. Pass the verse.
Give us a grammar. Translate the two first verses for us. So you haven’t you’ve I noticed. You’ve run with the words, and you haven’t tried to take the grammar into account. Alright.
And that’s how I feel. I’ve got I’m lacking confidence now in structure, in process instruction. Oh, that’s normal. Yes. What is what is the key point missing in your translation?
There’s one word you haven’t accounted for which is critical to get the meaning right. Allah at the end? No. It’s not the verb. No.
No. It’s if you do not understand that, you cannot translate these two verses. It’s a the relative pronoun. Means what? in dependence on what or on that.
The question here is on what? What in dependence on what is the rest of the verse predicated? What is that come? What does it refer to? It’s a relative pronoun.
It has an antecedent. Yes. Exactly. So why would it be impossible to be independent on your body? Because as a language, Tibetan functions from the back to the front.
So the kang refers to what here? To something which is before. And actually, do you see where we are? Are we all there? The is a relative pronoun.
So we all know what relative pronouns are. Yes. You know? Relative pronouns have antecedents. They refer to something.
The gentleman who went downtown. Who is a relative pronoun? It refers to whom to the gentleman. Now here, the relative pronoun can’t refers to what? Something before.
What before? Well, the antecedent here of this relative pronoun is alluded or is intimated in the first stanza. It’s a guru in general. Is to rely. Generally means if, but here, what is it?
A? A case wise, what is it? A? So there’s two possible readings. Both are correct.
How would you how would you read the hearer? What does mean in Tibetan? When. When or if? Both readings are correct.
When relying on the teacher, when relying on that or on him, or if relying on him. Both are correct. However, they have different meanings. You have to choose. Is?
So is the three bodies. Is great bliss. How do you relate three bodies in great bliss? So in your book with the Guru’s No. No.
No. You’re you’re already way into interpretation. I’m asking about the grammar. You have three bodies and you have great bliss. There’s no grammatical particle between them.
Is it the great bliss of the three bodies? Three bodies which are great bliss? Che is great. Che is great. But in another pronoun.
One other that pronoun, it says the same But this is poetry. So, basically, he didn’t want to put because of meter. So what I’m driving at is because you lack a case particle, you’re going to have to interpret. Possibly. However, this classically is an apposition.
Mhmm. The three bodies which are great bliss. Which are great. Three bodies of bliss. Or the three bodies, can read it as a genitive.
The three bodies, but then it’s a great bliss of the three bodies. Because genitives work backwards in Tibetan. Right? Everything works backwards in Tibetan. Right?
Then you have to ask yourself here, what makes more sense? The three bodies which are great bliss, the three bodies and great bliss, the great bliss of the three bodies. What are the other alternate meanings? You have a grammatical particle missing you have to account for. I think these are the three, and I think probably you two are valid.
It’s either the three bodies and great bliss or the three bodies which are great bliss. So you read it either as a conjunction which is omitted and or an apposition. Everyone knows what an apposition is. Peter, the gentleman who didn’t go to town, eats at the restaurant. So the gentleman Peter, comma, the gentleman who didn’t go to town.
The gentleman who didn’t go to town and Peter are in apposition. The gentleman who didn’t go to town qualifies Peter, but there’s no case relationship explicitly mentioned between the two. Tibetan loves this. That would make my sense. That would make Tibetan loves this.
It’s very common as a way of formulating things. So as we said, there’s a particle which is missing. So we do not know what the relationship is. There should be a particle here. Now it could be a genitive, then it would be ku sum gi, and you would have to translate it as the bliss of the three bodies, or it could just as well be an apposition, in other words, a comma.
And then it is the three bodies which are great bliss. Right? Or it could also be a conjunction. Right? Conjunction, apposition, genitive.
If it is a conjunction, it would be these three bodies and great bliss. How do we decide? So here we have to interpret. It’s at this point that having done the background work with the grammar, we look at the three forms and we say, okay. In the context, with the Geluk interpretation of the three bodies and great bliss, which is the most legitimate?
The bliss of the three bodies? Yes. Three bodies which are great bliss? Yes. The three bodies and great bliss?
No. Because you implied there’s some sort of great bliss apart from the three bodies. You attain the three bodies and you attain the great bliss. So either of these is legitimate. Having said this, this is probably the correct one because this is how the language functions.
The language enjoys appositions. Not always. No. But it does enjoy appositions. But it’s perfectly correct to translate like this.
That’s in that’s inverse. There’s no guarantee. Normally, four lines is is how you should do it, but there’s no guarantee. Absolutely no. Well, like, you see here for instance, you take your second stanza which we just started.
If you don’t understand the kang as referring to the first stanza, the general subject of the first stanza, all the second stanza’s reading is wrong. All. One kang. So the kangs, the relative pronouns in Tibetan are lethal. They are lethal because it’s not an organic outcrop of the language.
The language actually lived happily without relative pronouns until the Tibetan started translating from Sanskrit. Then they tried to adapt the Tibetan relative to the Sanskrit relative. As a result, it is very difficult sometimes to know what the antecedent of the Tibetan relative is. What does it refer to? Very, very hard.
Well, this one is easy to interpret because the text before it is all of four lines. So we know it’s not referring to something in another text. If, however, you had 20 pages before you and a typical Tibetan author has a sentence which is one page long, and your kang comes at the end of that, you have problems. You don’t know. Then you have to look at context.
Like here, normally, it’s a dead giveaway, in dependence on that. You know enough of Tibetan Buddhism to know that, especially in the Guru Puja, what can we be talking about? The guru? Could it be his compassion? So it could be.
It could be. And then you would have to look back and you say, Is there anything there which can function as antecedent of Kang? When we request him to hold his name in love. What would be the other possible antecedent? I think you you just mentioned it.
No. No. Love. The love. Love.
Love is the other possible antecedent. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
Most definitely. I think grammatically, probably love is a better reading than the guru here. In terms of meaning, you’re probably happier having the guru as an antecedent, and it’s legitimate. You have to find one. But then again, you see that this is far reaching.
If you if you decide that it’s in dependence on the love of the guru that will attain the three bodies or dependence on the guru in general, the meaning is different. This is what makes such a phenomenology Difference meaning is different. Meaning is different. So let’s move onwards. At this pace, we will be doing the introduction next year.
So, Shaya, would you give us the next line? I because I couldn’t work out the context of So it should be ease it should be easy now for read us the next line. Okay. So what was the problem you had with that line? Of the?
Oh, sorry. So to to Mong, the first words. I’ve got common shared Okay. Joined to collect Yeah. A solid short retreat in.
Let’s let Tun Mong ride. What’s the next word? Cities. Yes. Is what?
It means in Tibetan? No. No. Means? Dunce means etcetera.
And so forth. Etcetera. Together. Means etcetera. Literally means and etcetera.
And then what is ketchikla? Are you sure? Language. Ketchik is an instant. Okay.
K is speech. K is speech. Unfortunately, for all of you, in this case, it’s which means one instant. Never ever stick to one possible read. Like, you have you check it in the dictionary, then check.
Oh, Yeah. Is a voice language. But but no. That is wrong then. That is wrong then.
Is instant. If if he did that, I have to write him. Know? No. Why?
Means voice. No. It’s voice. Would be sound. And in other words, one voice means an instant.
I honestly don’t know. It might be something like the instant being measured by a. But it means instant. In an instant. An instant.
Instant. In an instant. So means shared or common. So this verse cannot be translated independently of the previous verse. So if you translate them together, in dependence upon whom one can obtain, the verb is implicit, instantaneously, the three bodies which are great bliss and the common or shared siddhis, etcetera.
Right? It’s a good question. It’s just a frozen form. You see it always like this. I don’t know a lot about Tibetan metric.
You’d have to see what the requirements of the Tibetan verse are in terms of syllables. So we have inserted a verb which we want to put in brackets until we find another verb which is appropriate. Then perhaps, Jasmine, do you want to read onwards? Yes. So that’s the first reward.
Yes. Would you first read and then pass it and give us your translation? The how do you pronounce it? Uh-huh. There.
Chen shop? Yes. Uh-huh. Well, we should keep on going, but it’s a little bit long. So let’s just start with that.
Uh-huh. Yes. Yes. Very good. Are you sure?
Supreme. Yes. Yes. Supreme. And And the treasure.
Jewel, literally. Literally. Jewel. Jewel. Jewel.
Exactly. In verse, we drop the last syllable to get the meter. Then it always works for the Naturally. Pass the word. This is this is this is verse.
This is verse. It doesn’t get more awkward than this. So how would you translate this? So the like, There’s two bestows. Do you start?
It’s just one verse. Normally, you start at the end. All of the things being equally start at the end. So starting at the end, what do you have? Anyone has any other interpretations?
The wish fulfilling gem. The gem, Sheen like the mind, the gem which gives whatever the mind likes. You it sometimes with or without the da. You see both forms. Wish fulfilling gem.
Mhmm. So that would just, in itself, be wish fulfilling joy. It doesn’t refer to the desire, including the line. No. No.
No. No. Just step by step. The wish fulfilling gem. Now moving backwards, Jasmine, how do we move onwards with this or backwards?
Okay. So far so good. It’s it’s referred to the nine desires. What are the nine desires? What are we talking about?
I don’t know. Is nine in Tibetan? The nine desires means all desires. Nine in Tibetan is used as a totalizer for everything. For every language has a number which means everything or at least many classical languages do.
So it doesn’t mean it doesn’t mean the nine desires. It means all desires. Yes. Means all desires, all wishes we would say here. So wish fulfilling gem which bestows the supreme of all wishes.
Bestows what’s the supreme? The supreme of all wishes. It doesn’t cancel. Well, have to sort of Also bestows the supreme of the supreme of all. Supreme.
We will sort of turn it into good English later on, but what do you do with the at the beginning, Jasmine? How do you account for it? You have at the beginning of the verse, we have not yet translated. How would you translate? Allow or grant.
What does it mean? To bestow. Yes. Do you wanna translate it as a verb? There’s something I mentioned earlier which may really help you.
What is the form Tibetan really likes? The verb that I like. Yes. I just mentioned earlier on today. Apposition.
Appositions. Is there any way we could read this as an apposition? No. So we bestow an apposition. Becomes bestower who is the wish fulfilling jewel which bestows all the supreme of all wishes.
It’s a very good way of accounting for the grammar. You would in English basically, you’re reading as we would say in English a participle, a verb which basically functions as a noun in opposition to the rest of the sentence. Now part of the problem in Tibetan is that you are dealing with meter. So the author needs his two feet. He uses to get them.
You have to translate And the best way to do it is to see as qualifying Gishin nobu. Then it makes sense. Refers to the guru before. He is the bestower. And then that bestower, that imparter, is the wish fulfilling jewel, which bestows?
Then Yes. You could. Sure. The the the trick here is to try to account for, the grammar as best you can. One word would take both lines?
As best you can. Could you say he will bestow us that time? Yeah. That’s exactly it. He will bestow you.
What was it owed to Obviously, that’s gender loaded, but I don’t enter into those matters. And, you know, that’s That’s I I consider this I consider this an intra feminine debate. You know? Let’s let’s do another verse or two before we take a tea break. Could you just repeat the last Yeah.
What how do you translate it? You tell me. What was the reasoning? Because catch the reasoning. The rest is not important.
What’s an apposition? So you have your line. The first two syllables are read as a noun. And then you assume that it’s an apposition to the rest of the verse and therefore that it qualifies the wish fulfilling gem at the end. You who are the wish fulfilling gem.
If you don’t assume that, then what’s the relationship between and the rest of the verse? You have to say it’s a genitive. Then a genitive doesn’t work at all in this context. It looks really strange and redundant. Then I think what many translators would do is they would just make believe there is no problem and not translate zulze, it’s just forgotten.
But that’s not good translation policy. You have to account for it if you can. The way to do it is with an apposition. Should I write it out or it’s pretty clear for everybody? So the store who is the wish fulfilling Yes.
Bestower, comma, we could just wish fulfilling gem which grants, we use a different verb, which grants all the wishes, all the supreme wishes. Could you say the bestow, grantor wish of Indian grantor of all wishes? So my policy is to be to stick as close to the Tibetan as I can. Obviously, once you’ve done the central translation, you can flesh it out in English. Flushing out is dangerous, however, because it entails interpretation.
So we’ve ended up with some translations which have led many people the wrong path because the fresher out didn’t really understand what he was doing. So in case of doubt, Tibetan grammar does not function as English grammar, but still we try to extract as much of the grammar as we can and to translate it as accurately as possible in English even if it’s a bit awkward. As much as you can. Then with verse with verse you have breathing space, but still, you know, it’s good to do that. Then moving on to the following verse, perhaps Molly, How would you translate that?
Try all of you to actually work on the naked text without your if you can. I mean, if it’s too difficult to do so. Sorry. Here we go. Yes.
Just about the bestowal Mhmm. Yes. It’s very common. I mean, the what you have is a situation where here what is it? You have nine feet.
Right? The author, the Pänchen Lama needs to have nine feet. Then sometimes he’s stuck for the meter. So he will insert something which is not really meaningful to get the number of feet. You don’t always know whether it’s because of that it’s inserted or not.
Tibetan language likes this sort of repetition. It’s a feature of the language and the language likes appositions. So it’s just something to keep in mind. You do encounter it a lot. Yes.
A lot. It’s a construction. Whenever you see two clusters, two, let’s say a noun and an adjective, a noun and adjective, and there’s no case connection, you have to think genitive, conjunction, apposition. Those are your genitive, apposition. It’s one of the three.
Context will tell you which one. Conjunction. Conjunction. Apposition. Yeah.
Apposition is I mean, this. A prose as well. Prose as well. It’s a good scholar’s way of playing with the language. A good scholar would have a different meaning for each of the three.
Each of the three meaning legitimate, each giving rise to a different clause. Then that is a sign of a good scholar. If it’s a adjective, this is how you read it. If it’s an apposition, this is how you read it. And if it’s a conjunction, this is how you read it.
And you would have commentaries written, you know, which would flesh this out. The Je Tsongkhapa’s works are like this. You know? It’s like, but Je Tsongkhapa’s Tibetan is magnificent. You know?
You just it could be this, but it could be that. You know? Does it lead to heated debate? Yeah. It does.
I mean, some of the hottest debates some of the hottest debates in the monasteries, if you want to be an elegant debater, how about verbal tenses? You can nail an opponent to the wall with your verbal tenses. Is that one of the the authors Yes. Yes. It’s intentionally.
Make you flesh it out? It’s intentional. Yeah. I think to make you think. It’s intentional.
I mean, it’s a different vision of scholarship than ours. In Asia, all scholarship occurs in the master of disciple relationship. So the master imparts the commentary on the text. A text cannot be studied without a commentary. And then the author would basically pack meaning, and then the master, the teacher would would unfold it.
You know? It’s discovered. It’s discovered. You know? It’s a way of protecting texts.
All of tantra is protected by the twilight language, Sandhyabhasha. The Tantric treatises you read, they’re talking about moonlight and the setting of the sun, and you you don’t see what connection there was with meditative practice at all. The entire treatise is coded. You know? Then, even in material like this, there is a tradition of packing meaning.
You know? So I perhaps translate for a set verse, and then we will have a a tea break. So here is what? It’s an ablative. Right?
Case wise. Yes. An ablative. Here, it just means after. After having my Now, what is as a verb?
To prostrate, to venerate, actually. After having shown reverence. Yes. In which tense? In the past tense.
Why? What is this? Bowel prefix sign of the past tense. So dupa is reverence. Dupa means veneration.
Yes. So after revering with veneration, this is a typical compound verb, a noun verb compound. Is that low to speed? Wait. Wait.
Wait. Noun verb compound, both have the same meaning, then the verb itself has to be translated by one verb in English after reviewing or venerating. And then as you said rightly, at indeed, is a ladder, a locative. What? Lotus.
Feet shop is a hundredthic of feet. Right? And then what is Doji Ching? You’re very close. Yes.
The one who has the Vajra. Has the Vajra. So it alludes to yes. But he does not say. He has a.
Does anyone know what means in Tibetan? Brandish. Brandish. Brandish. Brandish.
Brandishes a has a Vajra. And then maybe I think a tea break is not inappropriate. Well, obviously, three is a particularly holy number. It’s that it was a triple gem. And then the Buddhist tradition has always been one of enumeration.
Enumeration to show that there is no self within the parts. So Buddhists, a little bit like the Samkhyas. Samkhyas. Samkhyas are the counters, Sankas are the counters, the Buddhist’s counter. We have the triple gem, but we have the four objects of refuge as well. We have whatever, you know.
The seven this, the 12 that, the 19 this, you know, etcetera. Apart from that The nine-point death sign. Point meditation. Three. Yes.
Well, yes, three is a particularly significant number for the Buddhists. It is. I mean, not as much as a Trinity for the Christians. And numerology is something which Tibetans do engage in, but, a bit differently from the way we do. Odd numbers are lucky.
Even numbers are unlucky, basically. Basically. And all of the traditional count cultures consider even numbers unlucky because they imply opposition. Twos, fours, sixes, eights, tens, twelves. 12 is a very unlucky number in Tibetan.
Four very unlucky. A 100. 12, very unlucky. 16, very unlucky. 11, very lucky.
17, extremely lucky. Then if you are into these things and you are you know the impact numbers have on your own life, that’s the key because the number may be lucky in general and not helpful for you. You you work with those numbers. Feel better to do this or not. You know?
A lot. So are we all here, or is someone missing? Duke gets here. Melissa’s missing today. Melissa and otherwise, everyone is there.
Right? Richard and Pamela is there. Pamela is also. There’s three. So, Malvin, would you like to take the next verse for us?
And home. Just do it blind. We’ll help you. Do you see why I didn’t give you block prints before? This is this is superb quality.
Believe it or not. Mhmm. You going? No. I think we stopped there.
Would you like to take a shot at translating it? Start from the end of the first verse. Does anyone know what means? Exception. Yes.
Without exception. What does it mean? Is the remainder. Without remainder. Tibetan makes a strong distinction as language between all and without exception.
It’s quite alien as a distinction to us, but the Tibetans really feel there is a difference. So without exception means nobody’s left. No body. No body. Nothing is left.
No body is left. Is the remainder. Is the body. Yeah? So There is they have the same meaning.
There’s a difference of connotation. Means everything. Means all in the sense of an enumeration of all. Kun is more in totality. Is more every single item.
Yes. Kun also is very classical. Tamche is more contemporaneous. Do you? Kun is very classical.
Very classical. It’s a totalizer. It’s a totalizer. So without exception, Then what does pende mean? Does anyone know?
Pende. Pende. Pende. Pende. Yes.
Will mean Yes. On the group. Have you broken it up? It’s a word of two syllables. What does each syllable mean?
Well, not. Pimpa means what? Do you know? Beneficial help. Benefit.
Yes. Very good. Dewa means what? Comfortable, welling with her. Happiness.
Means happiness. Means happiness. Together would be welfare. It’s a good way to translate it. Welfare.
Then we have a genitive connecting this to you student or more precisely? Which is not just Yes. What would be student? Does anyone know? What would be student?
Is a root which means to study. Actually means child. It’s a child which studies. It’s a student. Is more the disciple.
Good fortune. Yes. Means fortune. Means good. No.
That no. So how would we translate this verse? It’s better actually to do it as a as a whole, but Would it be a fortunate student or is it a good fortune would it be a fortunate a good fortune to be a student? So your doubt is a very good one. Normally, the adjective as we said earlier should come after the noun, but it’s a frozen form.
It’s something It’s a fortunate disciple. Yes. It’s a fortunate disciples. You know? You know it’s a frozen form.
Well, it’s something you see all the time. Then fortunate disciple. Know it. You know? So every single item of welfare without exception of the fortunate disciples.
So we would say all welfare without exception. Is that how you make it remain? Well, you would just say all in English but really there is this very strong connotation of without remainder. You want to convey in English. Without exception.
Without exception. Would you like to take that, Adrian, for us? The next line. Mhmm. The next verse.
Exactly. Two two seven two. Translate it. Read it and translate it for us. Yes.
How would you translate this? I’ve got the words as storyteller. Where do we where do we start? Well, we start at the end. Yes.
I’ve got without Mhmm. And without. And then at the second Mhmm. Knee pain was the second. Mhmm.
And then I got choke choke, the best means or or way. Choke is supreme. So the best means for the supreme Yes. Way Yes. The supreme method Uh-huh.
Without a second a matchless Chalk is supreme supreme method. The storyteller of Of what is dropper? Who has who has dropper? I have I have a storyteller. Yes.
Accomplish. Accomplish. Accomplish. So accomplish. So how would we translate this?
Peerless with matchless or peers? Without without much. Superior. The the means without a second without second. And that’s peers, should we?
Yes. But yes. So just keep it exact on this product. Without a second. Because the best means come second, the best means of accomplishment.
So your verb at the end, separate from the second supreme means of establishment. What does this mean? What does it mean? Does anyone know? So there’s a first.
Oh, this is not a tantrum. Let’s look at the context and see if we can fresh it out. Having prostrated at the the lotus like feet of the one with the Vajra, all of the fortunate disciple, the totality without exception of the welfare of the fortunate disciples. And then what do we do of bereft of the second supreme means of establishment? You said bereft with the and without.
Without. Without. Yes. What what is the meaning here? Yes.
That you cannot say. Dralwa as without a match? No. It really means separated, but there’s a problem. The problem is that Could it be without another name?
Means without. And, unfortunately, something which is spelled almost identically and pronounced identically is to be connected with. They are often mistaken the one for the other. So here, I don’t think it’s a mistake because I’ve not found any variant reading. I actually don’t know what the second supreme means of establishment is.
So I was hoping one of you could tell me. So it’s not it’s not saying, you know, What could it be? I mean, normally, the second supreme means of establishment would allude to Je Tsongkhapa, second supreme teacher after the Buddha. The problem is your dhrelva here, separated from. So does it make sense to say that we are separated from Je Tsongkhapa?
At the Pänchen Lama’s time, I’m not sure it does. No. So if I had to translate it, which I’m glad I don’t have to. But if I had to translate it, I would say that what is being said here is that the spiritual teacher helps the fortunate disciples, without exception, who have not met Je Tsongkhapa. Oh, you mean guru is The substitute of a stand in No.
That’s the second best. No. You see Second best. Who is the first supreme means of establishment? Buddha.
This is this is my private reading. Who would be the second? Oh, it’s the same thing. Same thing. Now who would be the second?
In the Guru tradition, Je Tsongkhapa. The problem is how are the disciples separated from Je Tsongkhapa? They’re in the Guru tradition, but Je Tsongkhapa no longer was with them at the time of the Pänchen Lama. So I suspect that’s So the Guru is the second base? Yes.
The Guru No. The Guru stands in. He’s not the second best. The Guru is he who helps the fortunate disciples without exception, which have been separated from the peerless second means of establishment, Je Tsongkhapa. And yet we’re taught that the guru is higher than the Buddha because he is here.
Yes. Is Yes. Benjamin. Yes. But that’s just my my personal reading.
What you’d have to do is get a good commentary. You have to check all the variant readings. So the variant read there’s no variant reading in here, you know. It’s the same form of as in your root text. So What’s separate from original?
So it wouldn’t refer to the method. Wouldn’t refer to So there’s a policy. There’s actually a transition policy when faced with these ones. And you can summarize it in one verb, fudge. In other words, if it’s ambiguous in Tibetan, translate the ambiguity in English.
You would never be wrong. Then down the line, you find a commentary, you put a footnote, everyone is happy. If you interpret, you can be very wrong. Then it’s very awkward. Ask one question.
Is there anything here? I know it’s about the guru. Uh-huh. But is there any reason from this that the second best means might refer to the myth of, like, a scripture or, you know, tantra or Possibly. Lamrim.
So I Is there something in there? I thought it might have referred to tantra myself. But there’s a problem with that. What’s the problem? tantra is not the second supreme method.
That’s the problem. And Lama Chöpa is tantra, isn’t it? Lama Chöpa is tantra. But but you cannot say that the Pāramitāyāna and tantra both are supreme methods because on the Pāramitāyāna alone, you cannot attain enlightenment. So it’s So it doesn’t work.
It’s not about it. You know? And then context dictates that we are referring to the teacher. So we are we’re praising the teacher for doing something for students who are bereft of something else. Bereft of what?
Now what is the means of establishment? As you said, it could be tantra, but then the Nipa, the second is a problem. The second couldn’t be both? It would be. Is the second.
Would be both. So so we will just leave that ambiguity. You can put if you were translating this, in writing, you would put up a footnote. And then, Adrian, would you like to do honor to the following verse? Yes.
I’m listening. Yes. Mhmm. How would you translate this? The first two is sūtra and tantra.
Mhmm. Nobody starts from the end ever, do you? It’s like like ever ever ever. Ever ever ever. Which is a bit repetitive.
I put it has four beams. What does what does it mean here? Well, it’s either going to be come on. Is it a noun, or what is it? Well, I wasn’t sure.
It’s either a comma, action, deeds, or it’s from from. Yes. Yes? Ramos says from or then. I’ve got six six meaning.
So context will let us know. Yes. Then moving backwards, what is Petsel? Petsel, I’ve got Lotus Garden. Lotus Garden.
Lotus Garden. Very Lotus Lotus Lotus Garden. Good. Very good. Yes.
Mhmm. And then you have supranatana and excellent superior. Again, nobody starts from the end. It’s interesting. Then you have I had Yes.
I had speech and under speech. So Menga is does anyone know? Below speech. Under talk. An oral an oral oral.
Usually, Before talk. An oral instruction. Oral instruction. Have to It is oral instructions to the practitioner. Okay.
Oral instructions. Okay. It has that meaning. I got a sense that it was from Lotus sūtra and tantra or excellent So no. No.
No. Let us let us not rush. You you know Yeah. What are the basic principles? You start where?
The end. Okay. Let’s start from the end and translate backwards. Okay. Well, I’m not sure whether it’s karma or from on a basis.
Uh-huh. I have lotus garden. So can can you have lotus gardens with karma? No. I think it’s from the lotus garden Yeah.
Of the oral instructions. So what why would lotus gardens be oral instructions? Because because it’s it’s it’s just Does anyone have another reading here? I thought the words were like. Have Fram.
What does Fram tell you? From. Does it ring a bell? It’s a quote. Oh, shit.
I mean, ah. From. From, that means everything something just before the from. What what might that be? It might be the Don’t discover the name of the The name of a work.
From the oral instruction called is that the Lotus Garden? Okay. Step by step. Step by step. I thought the words of the guru was like the from the lotus Well, you could, but I mean, it’s just from the oral instruction, the lotus garden.
And so you wouldn’t the the the search and counterpart, it just, you know, it just they just know that that’s it. Then how do you translate with the rest of this of the of the verse? Well, the the you have sūtra and tantra. So moving backwards. Just move backwards.
Superior and excellent or pure. Where’s your genitive? You didn’t account for the genitive. Oh, of course. All instructions of Yes.
The The holy Holy. Holy Yes. sūtra and tantra. Exactly. Exactly.
So Oh, I have to be Quoting from the oral instruction called the Lotus Garden of the holy Sutras and Tantras. Sutras and Tantras. And here comes our quote. Here comes the quote. Chris, could you try to do justice to do it?
Go ahead. Chris, would you would you like to do it? Or This one. Mhmm. Wong Pei?
Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Mhmm. Are you sure? I’ll forget otherwise for Richard.
How do you pronounce it? Excellent. Try translating it for us. Mhmm. Exactly.
Yes. Very good. Yes. So how would you translate it now? That’s very good.
So far, so good. I I try to start. Well, actually, couldn’t really make those things increasing in the throat ornaments. What are throat ornaments? Necklace.
Necklaces. Exactly. The necklace, beautiful flower. So beautiful what? Beautiful garlands of flowers.
So you have no genitives here. Well, you you could have one, but it’s a bit stingy, isn’t it? So this is not Yes. It’s a derivation, but I mean, you know Yeah. Gallons of flowers.
And in the boundless feet of generosity as a South Australian may offer one flower. It’s stingy, you know. So garlands of flowers. What do you how do you account for Wongpah? What is Wongpah here?
It says to come. The past to come. What does it have to do with flowers? When when since when do flowers come? Yes.
Some exact exactly. That’s it. What was it? That’s exactly it. Very good.
Brilliant. Brilliant. So you have which means indeed to come, which has no meaning whatsoever in this context unless you add, as Jasmine magnificently said, Igor, you have to study Tibetan. You have the mind of a Tibetanist. Very few people who will catch that one.
Very few people will catch that one. That’s exactly it. So pleasing garlands of flower. So it means come to mind. Now it is Well, what comes to mind is pleasing.
It’s a metaphor. What comes happily to mind, easily to mind. That’s excellent. Absolutely excellent. Start off with this?
The the increasing So it’s just a quote. The quote would read, may the necklaces of beautiful flower garlands, of beautiful pleasing flower garlands increase or magnify or multiply is even better. It’s a verse of offering. So where’s the name that means reverence? So that is you add it.
You just know the quote. To to to you add it basically to make sense of the passage. If you really wanted to translate this correctly, what you would do is you would take, you would chase your your commentary, the oral, commentary of the, Lotus Garden. You would work through it until you came to this verse, and you look at the context before and after. Then you can that this was standard.
When you translate, this is how you have to do it. You know? And then you can do a good translation, and you have to put in footnote where it is. And put proper marks. Also, you have to check whether the quote is accurate.
Many quotes are not. So if it was inaccurate, would you leave the inaccuracy? Yeah. You put the accurate one accurate one in footnote. You do not modify texts.
If you do, you amend text. You have to be very sure of what you’re doing. Otherwise, no. No. Then let us try to Just the last Mhmm.
That I got spread, and then I saw mix will put together. Means to increase. Now what the exact meaning is here, we don’t know. No. That that for sure not.
It probably refers to visualized offerings which are multiplied. So I would translate it as may the garlands of flower and so forth multiply. You know? That’s how you would do it. You would you would basically go on TBRC, chase Mengak Petsel.
Then, normally, these things are short, ten, twenty pages. You chase verses by reading well, eventually, when your reading has become good enough, you chase verses. Taking, like, a text like this, you read in the middle. You don’t read everything because it takes forever. You read in the middle.
There’s a way to do it. Reading in the middle, you catch the verse. You know? But if you have hundreds of pages, you know, you can’t sort of go like this, it takes forever. You just go like this, and you will catch the verse with habit.
You know? And then you check your context. You translate correctly in the context. So the title of the text, don’t know for sure. We know that it is almost certainly Mengak Petsel.
That we are sure of. Whether as you were asking is part of the title or not, we don’t know. We don’t know. Because as we said, Tibetan does not have first quotation markers. The layer here indicates that we have a quote, but it doesn’t tell us where So it’d be from It doesn’t tell us where the title of the text starts.
And you will note in your quote here what is lacking. We don’t have a quotation marker at the end of the verse. We should have a share. Right? Yes.
Why don’t we have it? Yes. Exactly. So it’s a quote form. So he’s taking the quote So why do we know it’s a quote?
What’s the only thing which tells us? The only thing. It’s the only thing. Why could Leno be karma? Karma.
It doesn’t make sense. It doesn’t make sense. It’s the only thing which tells you. Also, it’s a very Tibetan style of writing to finish something with a quote. And Tibetans feel it doesn’t have to be terribly germane to what they were talking about.
You know? In this case, it beggars the imagination. I just don’t know why. But, anyway It’s something that came into the mind. Then we will do the last line before separating for tonight.
Alright. So, Shaya, would you like to take the line in miniscules? Two more syllables. Exactly. Could you try translating that for us?
What does mean? Has anyone found? Moreover. Moreover. Moreover, although, moreover is very good.
And then, Shaya, where would you start translating after that? Yes. She 10. Exactly. What is she 10?
What is she? Were you able to do it? Or What is she? Basis, grandeur, besh. What is 10?
Support. Support. Same. Lines. So it’s a Double bags.
Disyllabic word formed of two words which have the same meaning. Basis. It’s very common. So why do they put characters to is that reinforcement that they do? Because the language over time evolved towards polysyllabicity.
And if this had been a text from the twelfth century, you would just have 10 Oishi. But then over time, the language itself evolved towards multisyllabic words, then they took two words with the same meaning, fused them together, and it gives a word which means this. Or as we saw last year, took two words with opposite meanings, fused them to create a general category. Long and short distance. Many little quantity.
Big, small, size. Size. Right. This is typically Tibetan way of forming an abstract concept. So here, it’s just a disyllabic word, the basis of and what is?
All all. Then after that, how many syllables do we group together? Four. One, two, three, four. Four.
Yes. Perfection. Perfection or perfections? Perfection. Perfections.
Yes. How do you know it’s a plural? Because of all. Exactly. Does anything else tell you?
No. Nothing. So the basis of all perfections, key of, and then how do we translate what remains? Is to get free from all desires. Wishes and devotion.
No. No. No. You have to be careful here. Wish for liberation.
What is num? It’s a pluralizer. Pluralizer. What is? Desire.
Wish design. What is? Liberation. Escape. So is what?
The desire for liberation. What is there’s only one thing which has you know, it cannot be the desire for liberation. I thought it was the escape from desires. It’s not tense, is it? No.
It’s a plural. Alone means a desire for liberation. If you have if you have a plural, it means those who desire liberation. Normally, should be someone desiring liberation, and it should be But because once you put the it cannot be several desires for liberation, they drop the. So it is those striving for liberation.
It cannot be the wish for liberation. Moreover, the foundation of all perfection for those striving for liberation Your numb prevents that. Numb. The plural prevents that. It cannot be it cannot be I put that both just with desires.
Yeah. The numb makes it a group, doesn’t it? The How would you read that English? Moreover, the foundation of all perfections for those striving for liberation. So you can see how the reading of your genitive is influenced here by the fact that you’re talking of persons.
Right? Not of wishes. And then we want to continue today. I’ll give you one hint so that you can make sense of the remainder. Remember what we said about appositions.
Okay. If you don’t, you won’t be able to translate what’s coming. And for next time, if you could finish page 41 and go to the share at the very beginning, the first level of page 42. That’s only half a page. It should be should be manageable.
So you’ve done for today half page 41. Finish page 41 and just up to the share here up here. If you have any doubts, and I would even suggest systematically check against the block print. Please read aloud and put effort into accounting for the grammar. Now this is in prose.
The grammar is gonna be much more important. We’re coming into a prose section, so there won’t be the sort of irregularities we had in verse. And you will see you have long sentences. Where do you search for verbs? How do you become rich?
I mean, all those questions, you know. Where do you meet a millionaire? How to be a millionaire? Okay. You have several quotes.
Remember what we said? Tibetan has only the last quote marker, no first quote. What is the sign of a quote in Tibetan? Do you remember? Le and She.
You have Le and And She. You have a quote in between. What what is before the Le generally? The title. It is from this in this book.
Here comes the quote. From this as we say. It’s not always the case, but if you have lay a sentence before, then generally, not always, but generally there’s a share if they’re kind with you and the share marker which is a quote, quotation marker. Normally, this is your quote, which may be several lines or just one word. And normally, here you have your title, but you have no way of knowing how far back it goes.
So that is up to your appreciation. And what I’d like you to do as we said last time is do your best to see if you can chase the titles in TBRC. Or if you want to look in the bibliographies at the end of books, but TBRC is the easiest way to try to get them. You know? Yes.
So didn’t you say they don’t show the beginning of the quote? The lay normally shows the beginning, but there’s no specific quotation marker. The quotation Lay does. The lay does. From.
Yeah. The quotation marker only shows the end of the quote. But the label, it kind of shows the vision. Normally. Then you do you can have I don’t think you have in this text, but you can have embedded quotes.
An embedded quote would be you will have two shades. And then you have one first quote quoting a second one, and this is very common. So if you see Oh. Two shares close-up and there’s nothing special here, think of an embedded quote. Okay?
That’s in the next page. Oh, you have a you have a bevy of them. I don’t think you have an embedded quote in the next page. Here for this page. Oh, you have several.
Not one. You have at least two or three. Quotes rhythm. Quotes are common. I wanted to tell you last time.
I forgot. There’s one massive worldly benefit for studying Tibetan for all of us. We will never suffer from Alzheimer’s. I can guarantee that. We will never suffer from Alzheimer’s.