We have been discussing Nagarjuna's text, Letter to a Friend, which Nagarjuna composed for his friend, King Udayibhadra. In it, we are elaborating on verse four where Nagarjuna says:
[4] The Triumphant has proclaimed six (objects) for continual mindfulness: The Buddhas, the Dharma, the Sangha, generous giving, ethical discipline, and the gods. Be continually mindful of the mass of good qualities of each of these.
As a general piece of advice, particularly in keeping with the initial scope of motivation in the lam-rim, that of working to improve future lives as a general basis, Nagarjuna is recommending here that we always keep in mind – in other words, remember as much as possible – the good qualities of these six objects, particularly the qualities of the Three Jewels of Refuge.
We have been discussing the good qualities of the Buddhas, and we have gone through the good qualities of the physical body of a Buddha. Now we are ready to discuss the qualities of a Buddha's ennobling or enlightening speech.
If we summarize the good qualities of a Buddha's speech, we would say that no matter how many beings simultaneously ask a Buddha different questions, each in his or her own language, a Buddha could answer them all instantly and perfectly with just saying one thing, and that everybody would be able to hear what the Buddha said in his or her own language, with equal volume, no matter how close or how far they were. That's pretty good! It’s hard to imagine, actually, that this is possible. That's why they always say that these qualities are beyond imagination.
The only thing that I can think of as an analogy, something that will allow us to approach being able to understand this, would be, for instance, when His Holiness the Dalai Lama teaches. Sometimes there are people in the audience who, of course, have their own language and have questions in their minds. They might not actually ask His Holiness personally these questions, but they have these questions. What people find when we speak with them after the teachings is that, “Oh, it sounded as though His Holiness knew exactly what was troubling me, what my question was, and answered it.” His Holiness is just saying one thing that everybody is listening to, but everybody seems to find that it answers their questions in one way or another. Obviously, it’s an exaggeration to say “everybody,” but I think this is a little bit in the direction of what we mean by “enlightening speech.” Everybody does seem to hear something different. It's an interesting phenomenon. Is His Holiness actually making effort to do that? No, because they say that a Buddha's activity – the way that a Buddha benefits others – is automatic. Buddhas don’t have to make any effort; it’s just natural. Whatever Buddhas say, whatever they do, benefits others like the sun benefits everything on the earth that is warmed by it so that it will grow, without the sun having to make any effort to do that.
Remember, remaining continually mindful of these types of qualities – what’s the point of it? On the one hand, the most general level of it is taking safe direction: “This is the direction that I’m going in, and how wonderful that I have teachers, or this ideal, the Buddha himself. There are beings that are able to do all of this. No matter what problem or question I have, they would be able to answer it; they’d be able to communicate in a way that I can understand.” This gives us a great deal of confidence in the path. Also, whatever our level of intelligence is doesn't matter. A Buddha would be able to direct words and answers to us in such a way that we would be able to understand. Also, if we are following the path in a Mahayana way – striving to become a Buddha – this is a wonderful quality to be able to develop: “Wouldn't that be wonderful if I could really communicate with everybody in as perfect way as possible? Then I’d really be able to help.” As it is now, it’s very difficult for us to really communicate to anybody and to communicate in a way that actually helps them. How wonderful it would to be able to do that.”
The Sources
If we elaborate on the Buddha's verbal qualities then we have a list of 64. This list comes from a sutra called the Sutra of Demonstrating the Unimaginable Hidden Qualities of a Tathagata. “Tathagata” means “Thus Gone One.” Sometimes this list of 64 is abbreviated into 60. The list of 60 is found in the commentaries to Maitreya's Mahayana-sutra-alamkara (the Ornament or Filigree of Mahayana Sutras). In that list, item numbers 60 through 63 are missing.
The way I will explain it here is the way I studied it from Tsongkhapa's text Ocean of Clouds of Praise to Manjushri and its commentary by the seventh Dalai Lama. We find slightly different explanations of these in several other texts, but this is the one that I have studied. I haven't come across it in the Pali literature that I have access to. Maybe it's there in a sutra showing the unimaginable hidden qualities of the Thus Gone Ones, the Tathagatas.
The List of the Qualities of a Buddha’s Speech (1 through 44)
[1] First of all, the enlightening speech is moistening. Just like clean water flows everywhere, softens the earth and makes everything grow, likewise, a Buddha's speech enters everybody's ears in accordance with their dispositions and makes their positive potential grow. So, it's moistening.
[2] The second quality is that enlightening speech is smooth. Here, it’s that listening to a Buddha’s speech gives mental pleasure similar to the comfort we would feel if we were wearing heavenly clothes. So, in that sense it's very smooth: it gives us this comfort.
[3] A Buddha’s speech goes straight to the mind in the sense that it indicates how our minds need to understand the clear meaning of the two truths, dependent arising, and these sorts of things. It goes straight to the mind.
[4] The fourth quality is that the mind finds it sensible; it all makes sense, in the sense that it never speaks in a ridiculous manner, in an ungrammatical manner, or with broken language.
When we listen to these qualities, we could say, “Oh, it's just a long list of 64. How boring.” Or, we could listen to these qualities and try to associate them with the speech of how one actually teaches and then compare it to our own speech and think “How wonderful it would be to be able to speak in this way.” I mean, listen to these four qualities: a Buddha’s speech is moistening, so it moistens beings’ potentials – causes everybody to get stimulated and to grow; it's very smooth – when we listen to it, we feel so wonderfully comfortable; it goes straight to the point – teaches us exactly what we need to know; also, everything makes sense – it’s all congruent, nothing ridiculous there; it's all grammatical and proper. That's really the type of language that we would like to hear, isn't it? This is also the type of language that we would like to be able to produce when we speak to others. So, try to imagine what speech like this would be like in actual life.
[5] The fifth point is that a Buddha’s speech is perfectly correct. That’s because it arises based on the deep awareness that realizes the full extent of what exists.
[6] The speech of a Buddha is unstained because it’s spoken on the basis of having gotten rid of all the disturbing emotions and attitudes. Whatever a Buddha says is not stained by any attachment, anger, naivety, arrogance, pride, or jealousy. When we think of our own speech – how often it is mixed with these disturbing emotions? So, a Buddha’s is unstained.
[7] Enlightened speech is sparkling clear since it never uses any words or expressions that are not commonly known to ordinary people. I should tell this list to the people back at the university I went to. There we were encouraged to use the most complicated, big, long words words that nobody could understand, just sort of out of arrogance. A Buddha doesn't use this type of language. Buddhas are able to explain everything in common language so that everybody can understand, which is much more difficult. Mind you, Buddhism is filled with jargon. But in any case, a Buddha teaches this way.
[8] A Buddha’s speech brings harmony to the ear since it has the power to vanquish all out-of-tune, extremist views. When we think in terms of these extremist views, our minds aren’t quite in harmony; nothing really fits nicely. When we listen to a Buddha’s speech, however, everything fits together; everything is in harmony.
We'll do these qualities four by four; I think that's the best way. Also, I think it is very helpful to use them as guidelines for our own speech and to try, when we speak to others, to have these qualities to the best of our ability – for instance, to speak in ways that ordinary people can understand, not to have our speech be stained with arrogance, hostility, or attachment, and to speak in a grammatically-correct type of way, not speaking in a ridiculous way, and so on.
[9] Then the ninth quality is that it is proper to be listened to since it gives the listener the determination to be free from samsara. It helps them to have renunciation and inspires them to actualize just what it says. So, it's proper to be listened to.
[10] Enlightened speech can't be damaged. It can't be damaged because it can't be faulted in debate by extremist outlooks; it will stand up.
[11] The speech of the Buddha is pleasing since it brings mental happiness to whoever hears it. It makes us feel happy and uplifts the mind.
[12] A Buddha’s speech is taming in the sense that it allows us to tame our disturbing emotions by indicating the antidotes for attachment, hostility, and naivety. It helps anyone who listens to it to tame their disturbing emotions.
[13] A Buddha’s speech is never harsh since the speech never prescribes harsh, extremist methods, such as standing or sitting between five fires or standing for years on only one foot – these sorts of ascetic practices that some of the Hindu sadhus do. A Buddha’s speech teaches the means for avoiding these types of extremes with methods that are never harmful. In this sense, it’s not harsh.
[14] Enlightened speech is not cruel since it doesn’t lack methods for us to recover from transgressions of the various vows and various trainings. As such, it doesn't teach eternal damnation – that type of thing. Rather, it teaches us effective means for overcoming any downfalls we might have. So, in this sense, it is not cruel.
[15] Enlightened speech is thoroughly taming since it indicates the three vehicles for being able to progress: the listener vehicle, the shravaka or pratyekayabuddha vehicle, and the bodhisattva vehicle. In this sense, it's thoroughly taming: it indicates the different types of paths for different types of people.
[16] A Buddha’s speech is pleasing to the ear. It's so pleasant to hear that we automatically turn our ears to it and have no mental wandering.
[17] A Buddha’s speech refreshes the body since by hearing it, we become so mentally absorbed that we achieve shamatha – a stilled and settled state of mind – and along with this, a physical sense of being fit. This is not the way that I’m speaking, obviously. My speech just puts everyone to sleep!
[18] A Buddha’s speech soothes the mind by eliminating all doubts. It relieves the torturous discomfort of indecisive wavering, such as, “What did he mean? What does that mean?”
[19] Enlightened speech makes the heart happy since, by indicating the specific and general definitions of things, it eliminates our unawareness of these objects. As one would say in German, Alles klar. So, it gives the definitions of everything and makes us happy.
[20] Enlightened speech gives rise to happiness and bliss. Many of these qualities sound very similar, but where we find the difference is in the explanations of them. The explanation for this quality is that because it indicates the two truths of things – their apparent nature and their deepest nature – enlightened speech rids us of our disturbing discrimination with which we misconceive reality. There are four main misconceptions, four incorrect considerations. These are: (1) considering what is non-static as static (impermanent as permanent), (2) regarding suffering as happiness, (3) regarding what is unclean as clean, and (4) considering what is not the self as being the self – so, considering things lacking true identities has having true identities.
So, by indicating the real nature of things, a Buddha’s speech establishes us very firmly in knowing the facts of reality. In this sense, it gives happiness and bliss – brings us back down to earth, basically. This is an interesting point because it's like bursting people's balloons. We thought, “Ah, this is so easy and so wonderful,” but then we see, “Ah! It's not! This is the way it actually is.” Instead of this making us feel depressed, it actually makes us happy because then we are aware of the actual reality. It requires great skill to be able to do this, doesn't it?
[21] The speech of a Buddha never leaves us disappointed because having listened to it, thought about it, and meditated on it, we’ll actually be able to achieve the results just as they were described. One never regrets listening to a Buddha's words, thinking that it was pointless or that it didn't lead to some meaningful result.
[22] A Buddha’s speech is worth knowing completely since by listening to it, we can develop and come to abide with the outstanding discriminating awareness that comes from listening. So, we gain full knowledge of the teachings. And that’s very worthwhile knowing completely.
[23] A Buddha’s speech is worthwhile because it fits all of the details together to make sense. If we think about its meaning and see how it makes sense from all different points of view, then we get the outstanding discriminating awareness that comes from such reflection. It's worthwhile to listen to it in order to gain all the knowledge. It's worthwhile to think about it in order to get all the meaning.
[24] A Buddha’s speech is clear in all details since it shows the Dharma without the close-fisted attitude of some teachers who purposely conceal things, only explaining some of the Dharma but not all, or only explaining the words but not their meanings. A Buddha’s speech is clear in all its details; it shows everything without holding back.
[25] A Buddha’s speech makes us happy because we see that by relying on it, stream-enterers can reach liberation and bodhisattvas can reach enlightenment. Stream-enterers can reach liberation by getting rid of the emotional obscurations, and bodhisattvas can reach enlightenment by getting rid of the cognitive obscurations. So, it makes us happy.
[26] A Buddha’s speech makes us feel encouraged because it inspires anyone who has not yet beheld reality to develop the wish to engage in what it explains in order to accomplish his or her aims. In this way, it makes us feel very encouraged.
[27] A Buddha’s speech causes us to know things completely because it shows all of the things that are unimaginable and that can't be grasped by conceptual thinking, such as the abiding nature of reality – voidness – which needs to be understood non-conceptually. Or it can show us the laws of cause and effect, and these sorts of things. It helps us to completely know things that are beyond conceptual thought.
[28] The speech of a Buddha causes us to fit details together in a way that makes sense, meaning that it shows us without any mistakes the things that are imaginable and can be grasped by conceptual thinking, such as the five aggregates, the six far-reaching attitudes, and so on.
[29] Enlightened speech is logical since it is perfectly correct in terms of the three points for analysis: (1) it is not undermined by straight-forward perception; (2) it is not undermined by inferential understanding, namely, logic; and (3) it is not contradicted by its former or later statements or by its explicit or implicit meanings. In other words, it is not self-contradictory. So, it is logical.
[30] Enlightened speech is pertinent (“pertinent” means “relevant”). A Buddha’s speech never teaches anything that does not suit the listener or the occasion. It always indicates exactly what is needed for each person that listens to it.
[31] A Buddha's speech is free of the fault of needless redundancy. This is a very interesting point because when we look at the sutras, we see that they repeat themselves endlessly. Actually, in most of the translations into our Western languages, nobody seems to have the patience to repeat it the way that it is repeated in the original languages. They always put “dot, dot, dot,” or something like that, but that's not really fair. The explanation for this repetition is quite interesting. A sutra may appear to be repetitious because it gives many synonyms for some words. However, these similar expressions indicate progressively higher levels of understanding of the same thing, and there can be many reasons for giving them.
These are the reasons for the use of synonyms that are given in the commentaries to the texts in which they appear: (1) they aid in our understanding; (2) they help those with mental wandering not to miss the point – because, actually, the sutras were always recited, so if there is a lot of repetition, we won’t miss the point; (3) it gives others the opportunity to expand on what they have read in the commentaries; (4) it helps dull-witted persons to understand and not to forget the meaning; (5) since many words can sound the same but have different meanings – these are called “homonyms” in English – these synonyms can help to eliminate the misconceptions that the sutra has a different meaning from what it actually does; (6) it helps us to understand the various names by which things are referred to in literature – particularly in Sanskrit, there are many different flowery expressions for things; (7) it helps us to put the words and the meanings to be understood together, for instance by expressing the same meaning several times but using different words; (8) it indicates that the speaker has full command of the subject; and (9) it plants seeds in our minds to gain similar mastery ourselves.
So, although there is a lot of repetition, there is no fault of needless redundancy. Also, although it’s not mentioned in the commentary, I would think that the fact that there is so much repetition makes it a little easier to memorize if we are memorizing it, and easier to recite if we are reciting it.
I was reading something today from one of the Pali sutras as preparation for this weekend course that I am giving here on Mara and demonic impulses. It’s a list of 62 incorrect views. The way that it’s done in the Pali sutra, is to expound on each of the 62 incorrect views for about four paragraphs, and each paragraph is the same with only a few words changed. We look at this and say, “Oh, my god, this is really boring!” However, I think that we have to look at it from the point of view that these things weren’t written down; they were just recited. They were memorized and passed down from one generation to the next. So, if we were trying to memorize it, let’s say, as a student, then so much of it being the same would make it easier and we wouldn’t get discouraged. All we would have to do is change a few words in each section as we went along. So, we have to look at it from this point of view.
Also, a sutra is a sutra. If we want a commentary that cuts out all of these repetitions, then read a commentary. Actually, what’s quite interesting is that the Tibetans don't really study the sutras very much. They only look at the commentaries because it’s easier, they say, to extract the meaning from the commentaries than from the sutras. So, we can be very thankful to the great Indian commentators who extracted meaning from these very repetitious sutras. However, as stated, it’s not a fault of it being needlessly redundant. We have to watch out not to criticize the words of the Buddha. That's not very constructive at all.
Participant: Why weren’t these things written down?
Dr Berzin: Because in those days, that was not the custom. The written language was only used for either commercial reasons or military reasons. It took a very long time for that concept to develop – to use written language for religious and philosophical purposes. Most of the ancient religions didn't write things down in the beginning. The Bible wasn't written down at that time; it was later.
Participant: And before, were the Jains.
Dr Berzin: Before were the Jains, but as far as I know, they didn’t write things down. The Vedas were recited. Chinese texts, I think, were written fairly early on, but I really don't how early the first written form of Confucius was. However, I know that, concerning Middle Eastern religions, they say that one of the things that was so extraordinary about Mani, who started Manichaeism – which was one of these early religions that had this duality of good versus evil – was that he actually wrote down what he said. That was very unusual. I think Mani lived around 100 AD.
If we look at cultures that don't have written languages, we can see that they have sagas and myths. People got together to sing and recite them. I think that’s a much older custom than writing. We take writing quite for granted, don't we? However, it was basically for very practical reasons that writing was developed: commerce, administration, and, primarily, military – to send orders or instructions to various divisions of the army in different areas. They didn't want anybody else to be able to understand.
Participant: And the Sumerians?
Dr Berzin: Did they write religious things? I have no idea. but this certainly was the case in India. Didn't they write things like orders of the king and laws?
Participant: And taxes…
Dr Berzin: And taxes, things related to taxes and commerce.
Participant: There is this text I heard about. It was a text on medicine. It was also used for incantations for healing. It was like a bit like sorcery, like magic.
Dr Berzin: Right, so you’re saying that in Sumeria, those things were written down – some magical things and medicinal things – as a healing technique, like an amulet. Perhaps.
Participant: The written word was considered to have some sort of magical quality to it, a special power
Dr Berzin: That, I think, we fnd in several cultures.
Participant: Also the Germans with the runes.
Dr Berzin: The Germans with the runes? I have no idea. I’ve never studied it.
Participant: It’s only for magical reasons.
Participant: These laws of Manu… something?
Dr Berzin: No, you’re thinking of The Laws of Manu (Skt Manusmṛti). That is a completely different thing. He seemed to combine certain things from Buddhism and early Christianity, as well as various other things. He’s very popular in Central Asia.
Does anybody know about the ancient Greeks? Was Plato’s work actually written down at the time of Plato? Or Aristotle? Or the Greek comedies and tragedies – were they written down at that time?
Participant: Plato’s was written down.
Dr Berzin: Was it actually written at the time of Plato? The first works written down were Homer’s. So, that’s later than Plato and Socrates.
Participant: The Greek tragedies, the plays, they were just memorized.
Dr Berzin: So, they were just memorized. Right, so the earliest writing that’s been found is from around 300 BC. Homer was much earlier, actually, but when they first started writing things down, I have no idea. That’s actually quite an interesting study. Well, the Chinese must have had writing. Now that I think about it, Qin Shihuangdi, the founder of the Qin Dynasty in about 226 BC, was very famous for destroying the books that were written earlier (like Hitler did). So, they must have had a lot of written books before that. I also wonder when the time of the huge library in Alexandria was. It was famous for being so huge, so there must have been a lot of books in it. But that certainly wasn't founded before Alexander the Great, and he is only 300 BC or so.
Participant: And the I-Ching?
Dr Berzin: Right. The I-Ching was one of the earliest things to be written down. Was it 2,500 years ago? I really have no idea when that was first written.
Participant: On bamboo leaves.
Dr Berzin: Yes, on bamboo leaves. They also wrote on shells.
Participant: They wrote on plant materials because they didn’t have paper then.
Participant: They also scratched onto stone.
Dr Berzin: Right, some things were scratched onto stones. I think the Chinese were probably the earliest to establish a written tradition. But certainly, the Egyptians and the Sumerians were also very, very early.
Anyway, let’s move on. There is no way we are going to finish the 64 today, but let's do a few more.
[32] Enlightened speech is like the powerful roar of a lion since it terrifies extremists who try to assert distorted, antagonistic views.
[33] A Buddha’s speech is like the bellowing call of the elephant of the gods; it’s never hesitant or shy to speak out.
[34] A Buddha’s speech is like the thunderous roll of a dragons roar. It's vast and difficult to fathom its depth and extent. This gets very poetical here.
[35] Enlightened speech is like the voice of the King of the Nagas, very majestic and noble so that everybody listens.
[36] Enlightened speech is like the melodious voice of the divine musicians, the gandharvas. Nothing is more pleasant to hear.
[37] A Buddha’s speech is like the 37 melodious calls of the ancient songbird (I’m restraining myself from using the word “song sparrow” since everybody laughed last time). A Buddha’s speech continues from topic to topic without any break. Then, after it’s ended, it leaves us with a strong wish to hear it again.
[38] A Buddha’s speech is like the melodious voice of the great divine Brahma: it reverberates clearly and for a very long time – a big, long sound.
[39] Enlightened speech is auspicious like the cry of the ancient pheasant. Does a pheasant’s cry sound nice?
Participant: It sounds terrible.
Dr Berzin: Terrible? Well, we have to find another bird. I don't know what these birds are.
Anyway, a Buddha’s speech indicates that we will accomplish our aims, not only our worldly aims but also our trans-worldly aims. So, it's auspicious. This 39th quality doesn't say that it's beautiful sounding; it just says that it's auspicious. I have no idea what the image is here.
[40] Enlightened speech is authoritative like the command of Indra, King of the Gods, since no one would ever transgress or obstruct it.
[41] Enlightened speech is like the sound of a battle drum since it rouses us to be victorious over the Maras.
[42] A Buddha’s speech is without any feeling of conceit. Although others might say to the Buddha, “Well said, well done,” as we often have at the end of sutras, a Buddha never has pride, thinking, “Oh, I am so wonderful, I speak so nicely.”
[43] A Buddha’s speech is without any feeling of self-despair. Even if somebody were to criticize a Buddha's words and say, “Oh, you really didn't speak very nicely” a Buddha would never feel discouraged or depressed at being criticized.
[44] Enlightened speech enters into everything that has happened, is happening, or will happen, because it prophesizes everything past, present, and future.
Now I have to ask you. It’s five after nine and everybody looks rather tired, I must say. We still have 20 more. We can either continue with some more, or we can leave it until next time. Most people want to stop here? OK, then we’ll end here.
As I say, I think that if we really think about these qualities, they can be very inspiring and give us encouragement in terms of really listening to a Buddha, or Buddha's speech. Certainly, if we think of the speech of His Holiness, which I think is about the closest example there is of speech that at least approaches these qualities, it certainly gives us a feeling that this is the direction we’d like to go in and that he is someone that we would entrust ourselves to.
The sound of His Holiness's voice is really very special, I must say. I’ve not come across anybody else that has a voice quite like that. It is melodious, very soothing, and makes us feel very happy. It’s also very sharp and very clear. His Holiness speaks unbelievably correct Tibetan. One really has to listen to him in Tibetan to get the full span of the qualities of his speech and, of course, of his mind as well. It just flows.
I remember Ling Rinpoche, His Holiness's senior tutor. The way he spoke was unbelievable. I remember him giving a lam-rim discourse. It just flowed out of his mouth. It didn't even seem as though he took any breaths or anything. It just flowed without any hesitation, without any “ah’s” or “um’s” or any unnecessary words. It was really very inspiring.
So, we see that just the quality of somebody's speech itself, not just the content, can be very, very uplifting. When His Holiness gives oral transmissions, he can read more quickly out loud than anybody, than any Tibetan. Yet, it's distinct. What he’s saying is clear. This is extraordinary.