View source for Rngog blo ldan shes rab

{{Person
|HasDrlPage=Yes
|HasLibPage=No
|HasRtzPage=No
|HasDnzPage=No
|HasBnwPage=Yes
|MainNameWylie=rngog blo ldan shes rab
|MainNameTib=རྔོག་བློ་ལྡན་ཤེས་རབ་
|AltNamesWylie=rngog lo tsA ba; lo chen blo ldan shes rab
|AltNamesTib=རྔོག་ལོ་ཙཱ་བ་; ལོ་ཆེན་བློ་ལྡན་ཤེས་རབ་
|YearBirth=1059
|YearDeath=1109
|BornIn=yar 'brog (lho ka)
|TibDateGender=Female
|TibDateElement=Earth
|TibDateAnimal=Pig
|TibDateRabjung=1
|ReligiousAffiliation=bka' gdams
|StudentOf=Rin chen bzang po
|TeacherOf=shes rab 'bar; gro lung pa blo gros 'byung gnas; Zhang tshe spong chos kyi bla ma; rin chen nam mkha' rdo rje; rin chen grags
|BiographicalInfo=Son of [[rngok lo tsA ba legs pa'i shes rab]]
|BdrcLink=https://www.tbrc.org/#!rid=P2551
|TolLink=https://treasuryoflives.org/biographies/view/Ngok-Loden-Sherab/4261
|PosBuNayDefProv=Definitive
|PosBuNayDefProvNotes=#"He is also said to have held that among the five Teachings of Maitreya only the Ratnagotrivibhaga is of definitive meaning (nītārtha)." [[Ruegg, D.]], [[Studies in Indian and Tibetan Madhyamaka Thought Part 1]], p. 30; #"rNgog considers the RGV to be a Madhamaka work, and hence its teaching to be definitive. His position is made clear in the introductory passage of the rGyud blam don bsdus, where RGV is identified as a treatise that explains sutras of definitive meaning (nitartha), whereas the other four treatises of Maitreya (i.e., Abhisamayalamkara, Mahayanasutralamkara, Madhyantavibhaga, and Dharmadharmatavibhaga) are listed as treatises that explain sutras of provisional meaning (neyartha)." [[Kano. K.]], [[Buddha-Nature and Emptiness]], p. 249.
|PosAllBuddha=Qualified Yes
|PosAllBuddhaNote="...both Ngok and Chapa argue that sentient beings do not have tathägata-essence on the basis of the first reason because they do not have the purified enlightened body of a buddha, rather they have thepotential to achieve an enlightened state.However, they agree that sentient beings have the tathägata-essence from the perspective of the second reason, which is that such-ness is indivisible or nondual. As Ngok states, 'That both a tathägata and ordinary beings have [tathägata] essence is actually the case.' The first reason is true only for enlightened beings, but only designated for ordinary beings; the second reason applies to both enlightened beings and sentient beings.
Therefore, the two Kadam masters argue that sentient beings do not have the tathägata-essence from the perspective of either the first reason of the resultant essence or the third reason of the causal essence. Rather it is the second reason that becomes the central point
for establishing the link between enlightenment and sentient beings. It is the middle reason that shows that sentient beings and tathâgatas are the same in their ultimate nature. In other words, the only thing that sentient beings have in common with enlightened beings is the
ultimate nature of their minds."
|PosAllBuddhaMoreNotes=[[Wangchuk, Tsering]], [[The Uttaratantra in the Land of Snows]], pp. 17-18
|PosWheelTurn=Third Turning
|PosYogaMadhya=Madhyamaka
|PosYogaMadhyaNotes="rNgog considers the RGV to be a Madhamaka work, and hence its teaching to be definitive. His position is made clear in the introductory passage of the rGyud blam don bsdus, where RGV is identified as a treatise that explains sutras of definitive meaning (nitartha), whereas the other four treatises of Maitreya (i.e., Abhisamayalamkara, Mahayanasutralamkara, Madhyantavibhaga, and Dharmadharmatavibhaga) are listed as treatises that explain sutras of provisional meaning (neyartha)." [[Kano. K.]], [[Buddha-Nature and Emptiness]], p. 249.
|PosAnalyticMedit=Analytic Tradition
|PosAnalyticMeditNotes="These two traditions of rngog and btsan were respectively called the "analytical tradition" (thos bsam gyi lugs) and "meditative tradtion" (gsom lugs)."[[Kano. K.]], [[Buddha-Nature and Emptiness]], p. 242
|PosEmptyLumin=Tathagatagarbha as the Emptiness That is a Nonimplicative Negation
|PosEmptyLuminNotes=#"As to the interpretation of Buddha-nature, on the other hand, Sajjana and rNgog hold different views, for Sajjana equates Buddha-nature with the luminous mind, which is not empty, while rNgog equates it with emptiness." [[Kano. K.]], [[Buddha-Nature and Emptiness]], p. 239
#According to Karl, he also equates it with the Alaya Consciousness, "Moreover, Ngog equates “dhātu” not only with the tathāgata heart (as in RGVV) but also with the ālaya-consciousness (maybe influenced by the Laṅkāvatārasūtra). Obviously, this creates a considerable tension with his definition of the tathāgata heart as emptiness, but he does not resolve it..." [[Brunnhölzl, K.]], [[When the Clouds Part]], p. 66.
|PosSvataPrasa=Svātantrika (རང་རྒྱུད་)
|PosSvataPrasaNotes=# "A number of later Tibetan works, and several modern scholars as well, define his position as Svatantrika-Madhyamaka... We cannot yet be sure whether rngog himself was conscious of this divide, even if later Tibetan traditions often presuppose rNgog's knowledge of it. Sakya-mchog-ldan, for instance, in assigning rNgog to a third position of Madhyamaka neither Svatantrika nor Prasangika, presumes that rNgog knew of both schools." [[Kano. K.]], [[Buddha-Nature and Emptiness]], p. 228.  
# "rNgog lo is known to have actively taught and commented on the “Three Svātantrika [Treatises] of Eastern [India]” (rang rgyud shar gsum), namely the Satyadvayavibhaṅga of Jñānagarbha, the Madhyamakālaṃ-kāra of Śāntarakṣita, and the Madhyamakāloka of Kamalaśīla, which formed
the textual foundation of the Svātantrika Yogācāra-Madhyamaka synthesis, among whose proponents rNgog lo may be counted. [[Kramer, R.]], [[The Great Tibetan Translator]], p.? 
#"rNgog's strategy here is to appeal to the destinction between the Two Truths..." [[Kano. K.]], [[Buddha-Nature and Emptiness]], p. 271.
|PosVajrapada=First four are causes of the later three; also, the three jewels are the results of the latter four (which are substantive causes and attendant conditions) [[Kano. K.]], [[Buddha-Nature and Emptiness]], pp. 252-
|IsInGyatsa=No
}}