The following verses from Shantideva (Chapter 8, Meditation, Verses 113 and 115) demonstrate the use of བདག་ nicely. We can also have a little fun comparing Batchelor's translation with a more literal translation.
Chapter 8, V. 113
བདག་ཉིད་སྐྱོན་བཅས་གཞན་ལ་ཡང་། །
ཡོན་ཏན་རྒྱ་མཚོར་ཤེས་བྱས་ནས། །
བདག་འཛིན་ཡོངས་སུ་དོར་བ་དང་། །
གཞན་བླང་བ་ནི་བསྒོམ་པར་བྱ། །
Having seen the mistakes in (cherishing) myself
And the ocean of good in (cherishing) others,
I shall completely reject all selfishness
And accustom myself to accepting others. (Batchelor)
Perceiving now the faults possessed by “I”,
The ocean of good qualities that are in “other,”
I shall lay aside all love of self
And gain the habit of adopting other beings (Shambala / Padmarkara)
Acknowledging oneself as fault-ridden and others as oceans of virtues,
one should one should practice discarding self-grasping and accepting others. (Wallace)
Chapter 8, V. 115
ཇི་ལྟར་བདག་མེད་ལུས་འདི་ལ། །
གོམས་པས་བདག་གི་བློ་འབྱུང་བ། །
དེ་བཞིན་སེམས་ཅན་གཞན་ལ་ཡང་། །
གོམས་པས་བདག་བློ་ཅིས་མི་སྐྱེ། །
Through acquaintance has the thought of ʺIʺ arisen
Towards this impersonal body;
So in a similar way, why should it not arise
Towards other living beings? (Batchelor)
Just as in connection with the form, devoid of self,
My sense of “I” arose through strong habituation,
Why should not the thought of “I,"
Through habit, not arise related to another? (Shambala / Padmarkara)
Just as the notion of a self with regard to one's own body, which has no personal experience,
is due to habituation, will the identity of one's self with others not arise out of habituation in the same way? (Wallace)
བདག་ཉིད་སྐྱོན་བཅས་གཞན་ལ་ཡང་། །
ཡོན་ཏན་རྒྱ་མཚོར་ཤེས་བྱས་ནས། །
Having seen the mistakes in (cherishing) myself
And the ocean of good in (cherishing) others, (Batchelor)
Perceiving now the faults possessed by “I”,
The ocean of good qualities that are in “other,” (Padmarkara)
The grammar of the first two lines is a little hard to decipher, as is not unusual with poetry. ཤེས་བྱས་ can be understood to be the causative auxiliary ཤེས་པར་བྱས་ (past tense causative or emphatic, according to Hackett). Past tense causative would be made to understand or made to know or come to know. Emphatic is in the sense, in English, of saying Please do take out the trash (with do being the emphatic). I'm not sure how to form a past tense causative.
The ནས་ forms what Hackett confusingly calls a gerund, Craig Preston calls a participle, and Wilson calls a continuative. It's a continuative in the sense that what is to the left of it is understood as having been done before what is to the right. It is called a participle because, from the English grammar perspective, the past perfect participle is often the closest translation: having come to know or having come to understand. Hackett calls it a gerund because, coming from a Sanskrit perspective, this usage of ནས་ most closely matches a Sanskrit gerund.
I'm taking the core grammar of the phrase to be determined by the causative verb and the second case complement (ར་), putting the rest of the sentence on a box. The paradigm for this would be Know all sentient beings as [their] mother. But here the second case is distributing across two phrases, knowing one's self or selfness as having faults and knowhing others as having an ocean of virtue. I find it a little confusing why others (གཞན་) is marked with a la, but བདག་ཉིད་ is not. However, because this is meter, and because its a translation from Sanskrit, grammar is often omitted or filled with strange exceptions.
བདག་ཉིད་སྐྱོན་བཅས་གཞན་ལ་ཡང་། ། ཡོན་ཏན་རྒྱ་མཚོ ར་ཤེས་བྱས་ནས། །
བདག་ཉིད་ selfness, one's self
སྐྱོན་ fault, flaw
བཅས་ having, possessing, together with
གཞན་ others, another (as in self and other བདག་གཞན་)
ཡང་ but, however, even, also, again (kind of a rhetorical interjection that can mean almost anything, conjunctive or disjunctive, and whose function has to be gleaned from context)
ཡོན་ཏན་ good qualities
རྒྱ་མཚོ་ ocean
ཤེས་བྱས་ past causative auxiliary phrase: come to know
ནས་ used here as a continuative to form the past participle: having …, [then] …
The challenge in the sentence above is really understanding how the two clauses relate to the core verb. Below I added in the ར་ that is distributing and the second case complement to show how I understand it. བདག་ཉིད་ is being known as སྐྱོན་བཅས་ and གཞན་ is being known as ཡོན་ཏན་རྒྱ་མཚོ་.
བདག་ཉིད་སྐྱོན་བཅས་[ར་][2] གཞན་ལ་ཡང་། ། ཡོན་ཏན་རྒྱ་མཚོར་[2] ཤེས་བྱས་ནས། །
SELFNESS FAULT-POSSESSING | OTHERS WITH RESPECT TO HOWEVER GOOD QUALITIES OCEAN | AS COME TO KNOW HAVING
བདག་ཉིད་ can mean either selfness or one's self. You'll notice in the translations above that it is translated differently in each translation: myself, “I”, and oneself. ཉིད་ is a restrictive particle that can create abstract nouns (-ness), such as སྟོང་པ་ཉིད་ (emptiness). So we can understand བདག་ཉིད་ to be selfness, that is, the mistaken sense of self we all carry. But it can also function more like just, in a more reflexive sense like རང་, to give more of a meaning of oneself. I would personally prefer to translate it in a more techincal sense, such as selfness, emphasizing that it is the mistaken, non-existent self that "possesses faults" in the sense of being a delusion that leads to afflictive emotions and suffering, rather than saying simply "oneself is fault-ridden," which begins to feel a little too much like Christian original sin to me and like it's making a value judgement about a person's worth. Of course, selfness, is a terrible word to use in a poem in English, so the Padmarkara group probably struck a nice balance with Perceiving now the faults possessed by “I."
སྐྱོན་བཅས་ means possessing faults. བཅས་ is a verb that means having, together with, possessing. It is most commonly seen in verbal noun phrases such as ཟག་པ་དང་བཅས་པ་, contaminated [contamination-having]. Thus སྐྱོན་བཅས་ is short for སྐྱོན་དང་བཅས་པ་, and is a verbal noun phrase that means [phenomenon] that possess faults or flaws.
བདག་འཛིན་ཡོངས་སུ་དོར་བ་དང་། །
གཞན་བླང་བ་ནི་བསྒོམ་པར་བྱ། །
So in a similar way, why should it not arise
Towards other living beings? (Batchelor)
Why should not the thought of “I,"
Through habit, not arise related to another? (Padmarkara)
བདག་འཛིན་ [self-grasp] self grasping, conceiving of a self
ཡོངས་སུ་དོར་བ་
བླང་བ་ adopt, assume, take up
ནི་ separative particle, no meaning in and of itself
བསྒོམ་པར་བྱ་ should meditate or will meditate
བསྒོམ་ [future tense] cultivate, meditatively cultivate, Class V agentive-nominative (Hackett pp. 105)
The next two lines are mercifully much simpler. བསྒོམ་པར་བྱ་ is another compound verb formed with an auxiliary. VERB + པར་བྱ་ means either that one should do VERB of that one will do VERB. བྱ་ is the future tense of བྱེད་ (do, make, perform). The ནི་ very helpfully separates the verb from the nominative object. བསྒོམ་ is simply the very meditate or familiarize. What should one meditate on? བདག་འཛིན་ཡོངས་སུ་དོར་བ་ and གཞན་བླང་བ་ – two verbal noun phrases that mean thoroughly wiping away grasping at self and adopting others.
བདག་འཛིན་[n] ཡོངས་སུ་དོར་བ་[n] དང་། ། གཞན་[n] བླང་བ་[n] ནི་ བསྒོམ་པར་བྱ། །
བདག་འཛིན་ is the object of ཡོངས་སུ་དོར་ and གཞན་ is the object of བླང་. The agent in both is unstated, taken in this case to be I/my (Shantideva speaking for himself) or in the sense of an unstated third person (one). Both of these verb phrases are nominalized with a བ་ and become the object of meditation or familiarization.
བདག་འཛིན་ means grasping self or self grasping. Grasp (འཛིན་) here, however, is a rich that has the sense of apprehending and conceiving more than physically grabbing. Colloquially and in Sanskrit, འཛིན་ (grāha) also means to apprehend in the sense of being detained, so འཛིན་ or grasping has the sense of holding. But it's not a sense of being attached to self – although this results from grasping – its a much deeper sense of conceiving of a self and through that conception, holding it in one's mind.
Doctrinally, it's important to point out that the self (བདག་) one is mistakenly grasping (འཛིན་) is one of the three non-existent selves, the most subtle of which is the inherently existent self. There is a conventionally existent self that does exist and which is very useful and healthy – we simply cannot actually perceive it as it exists. It is the deluded grasping at a non-existent self that is the root ignorance that creates attachment and aversion (or craving and hatred) and sets off the cycle of samsara. Because ignorance is the only link in the twelve links of dependent origination that can be cut, བདག་འཛིན་ is a fundamental concept in the soteriological assertions of Buddhism.
Much of the philosophical differences between the different Buddhist schools hinge on the details defining exactly what the non-existent self is and what the existent self is and how best to remove the mistaken self-grasping. They all agree that Buddha taught that we conceive of a non-existent self and that this is the cause of all our problems, they just don't agree on exactly what that mistaken self is and what to do about it.
ཇི་ལྟར་བདག་མེད་ལུས་འདི་ལ། །
གོམས་པས་བདག་གི་བློ་འབྱུང་བ། །
ཇི་ལྟར་ adverbial phrase meaning just as or in this way
བདག་མེད་ [self-without] selfless – མེད་ is a negative suffix particle forming the word without self, selfless, or selflessness
ལུས་ body
འདི་ this
གོམས་ familiarize, cultivate, become familiar (with), Class III nominative-objective (Hackett pp. 65)
བློ་ mind, intelligence, awareness, knowledge
བདག་གི་བློ་ mind [conceiving] self
འབྱུང་བ་ arise, occur, Class III nominative-objective (Hackett pp. 319)
Through acquaintance has the thought of ʺIʺ arisen
Towards this impersonal body; (Batchelor)
Just as in connection with the form, devoid of self,
My sense of “I” arose through strong habituation (Shambala / Padmarkara)
My literal translation would be something like:
Just like, with/to this selfless body,
Through familiarization, the self-mind arises
It's awkward to try and keep the same word order since this selfless body is the object of familiarization and this relationship is show in English through a word order different than the Tibetan. A better translation that does not keep the same word order could be:
Just as, through familiarization,
with the selfless body, the mind [conceiving] self arises
The grammar here is pretty simple.
ཇི་ལྟར་[adv] བདག་མེད་ལུས་འདི་ལ[2]། །གོམས་པས་[3] བདག་གི་བློ་[nom] འབྱུང་བ། །
ཇི་ལྟར་ is simply an introductory adverbial phrase that ties these two lines into the next two lines. བདག་མེད་ལུས་འདི་ is a noun phrase [self-without-body-this] that can be read backwards to mean this selfless body. The ལ་ is the second case object of the verb གོམས་, a Class III nominative-objective verb. Once again the nominative agent is unstated. The ས་ after གོམས་པ་ is a third case instrument, by means of or through.
བདག་གི་བློ་ is a noun-6th-noun phrase. This challenge here is deciding how to interpret the 6th case. The quickest, shooting-from-the-hip answer, is something like mind of self. That doesn't really cut it here. Possibilities include: type, apposition, possession, composition, and field of activity. It's not apposition because self and mind are not equivalent here: mind, that is to say, self. It's not possession because it's not self's mind. Nor is it composition or field of activity. I'll go with type. What type of mind is it? It is a mind [that conceives] self. Batchelor translates this as thought of ʺIʺ and Padmarkara as sense of “I."
འབྱུང་བ་ is a class III nominative-objective verb that is used here to mean arise. Here the object is omitted, in contrast to གོམས་པ་ where the agent was omitted. What arises? བདག་གི་བློ་, the thought of self or mind [conceiving] self. By what means does it arise? Through familiarization with this selfless body.
Two very similar verbs are used in the Shantideva quote.
བསྒོམ་ [future tense of སྒོམ་] cultivate, meditatively cultivate
- Class V agentive-nominative (Hackett pp. 105)
- volitional verb, བྱེད་འབྲེལ་ལས་ཚིག
གོམས་ familiarize, cultivate, become familiar (with)
- Class III nominative-objective (Hackett pp. 65)
- non-volitional verb, བྱེད་མེད་ལས་ཚིག
སྒོམ་ is a Class V agentive-nominative verb. It is normally translated as meditate. It is an action verb, with an agent in the third case and an object in the nominative case. བསྒོམ་ is explicitly the future tense of the present tense core verb སྒོམ་, which is a verb with four discrete verb tenses for present, past, future, and imperative. In the Tibetan grammar system, སྒོམ་ is understood as a volitional verb (བྱེད་འབྲེལ་ལས་ཚིག). To སྒོམ་ is to apply intention and effort toward transforming a separate object, in this case one's mental continuum.
སྒོམ་ བསྒོམས་ བསྒོམ་ སྒོམས་
མ་རྟོགས་ཤིང་ཅི་ཡང་མི་སེམས་པའི་ཧྭ་ཤང་གི་བསྒོམ་ལ་ནན་ཏན་དུ་འབད་པ་ལྟ་བུ་
For example, ardently striving in the meditation of Ha-shang, not conscious of anything at all and without realization
ཐོས་བསམ་བསྒོམ་པ་གང་ལ་བྱ་བ་
deeds of whatever hearing, thinking, and meditating [one has engaged in]
ཐོས་བསམ་སྒོམ་པ་བྱེད་པ་པོ
person engaged in deeds of hearing, thinking, and meditating
གོམས་ is called, in the Wilson system, a nominative action verb. It is a Class III verb. It is more often translated as familiarize. It's subject is in the nominative case (no case marking) and it may have a qualifier in the second (objective) case. We do not know the tense of གོམས་ except through context. All of its tenses have the same spelling. In the Tibetan system, གོམས་ is a non-volitional verb (བྱེད་མེད་ལས་ཚིག). གོམས་ describes the transformation of the mental continuum itself in a sense that is separate from intention, volition, and a separate agent.
གོམས་
དེ་ལྟར་སྙིང་རྗེ་ཆེན་པོ་གོམས་པའི་ཤུགས་ཀྱིས།
… likewise, though the force of familiarizing with great compassion …
Tibetan grammar talks about the difference between these two verbs using བྱེད་འབྲེལ་ལས་ཚིག and བྱེད་མེད་ལས་ཚིག. These can be translated as volitional and non-volitional, but a more literal translation would be [doer-connected-action-word] action word with an agent or do-er and [doer-without-action-word] action word without an agent or do-er. It's tempting to equate བྱེད་མེད་ལས་ཚིག and བྱེད་འབྲེལ་ལས་ཚིག with transitive and intransitive, and while there is a fair amount of overlap, they are not the same.
Transitive and intransitive is a more simple classification based solely on if a verb has an agent and a separate direct object. བྱེད་མེད་ལས་ཚིག and བྱེད་འབྲེལ་ལས་ཚིག is a little more subtle and is based on if the action described by the verb entails an agent with intention that through effort transforms a separate object.
For example, the verb to see (མཐོང་) in Tibetan is non-volitional or བྱེད་མེད་ལས་ཚིག. The act of seeing does not require any effort on the part of the person or agent doing the seeing. Seeing “just happens.” Seeing is also understood to occur within the same mental continuum as the person that sees even though it might appear to be somehow separate. The verb to look or view (ལྟ་), however, is volitional or བྱེད་འབྲེལ་ལས་ཚིག. In Tibetan, looking or viewing when specified with ལྟ་ is understood as an action that requires intention and effort on the part of the agent and is directed toward a separate object. One must look at something in Tibetan.
དེ་བཞིན་སེམས་ཅན་གཞན་ལ་ཡང་། །
གོམས་པས་བདག་བློ་ཅིས་མི་སྐྱེ། །
So in a similar way, why should it not arise
Towards other living beings? (Batchelor)
Why should not the thought of “I,"
Through habit, not arise related to another? (Padmarkara)
Let's look at the grammar of these two lines. Notice the use of the non-volitional or བྱེད་མེད་ལས་ཚིག form of the verb arise or སྐྱེ་. There is also a volitional form of the verb, སྐྱེད་, frequently translated as generate or cultivate. But here Shantideva is talking about “the arising of the thought of self" and not the volitional act of familiarization (or meditation) that causes the thought to arise.
དེ་བཞིན་[sp] སེམས་ཅན་གཞན་ལ་[2] ཡང་།[sp] །གོམས་པས་[3] བདག་བློ་[nom] ཅིས་[sp] མི་སྐྱེ[vb]
In that way with respect to sentient being[s] however due to familiarization thought of self why not arise?
སེམས་ཅན་གཞན་ལ་ is a 2nd-case qualifier that tells us more about the action of arising. With respect to what is the thought of self arising? With respect to all sentient beings. གོམས་པས་ is a short 3rd-case means (aka, instrument) or reason. Because of familiarization. Due to familiarization. Through familiarization. བདག་བློ་ is the same as བདག་གི་བློ་ just with the 6th-case connective omitted. ཅིས་ is an interrogative syntactic particle that gives us the sense of what or why. མི་སྐྱེ་ is the final verb and simply means not arise.