Difference between revisions of "Rngog blo ldan shes rab"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
|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. | |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 | |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. | + | |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 | 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 | 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 | ||
Revision as of 14:50, 8 March 2018
Rngog blo ldan shes rab on the DRL
རྔོག་བློ་ལྡན་ཤེས་རབ་
| Wylie | rngog blo ldan shes rab |
|---|
Other names
- རྔོག་ལོ་ཙཱ་བ་
- ལོ་ཆེན་བློ་ལྡན་ཤེས་རབ་
- rngog lo tsA ba
- lo chen blo ldan shes rab
Dates
| Birth: | 1059 |
|---|---|
| Death: | 1109 |
| Place of birth: | yar 'brog (lho ka) |
Tibetan calendar dates
| Day | |
|---|---|
| Month | |
| Gender | Female |
| Element | Earth |
| Animal | Pig |
| Rab Jyung | 1 |
About
- Religious Affiliation
- bka' gdams
- Teachers
- Rin chen bzang po
- Students
- 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
Other Biographical info:
Son of rngok lo tsA ba legs pa'i shes rab
Links
- BDRC Link
- https://www.tbrc.org/#!rid=P2551
- Treasury of Lives Link
- https://treasuryoflives.org/biographies/view/Ngok-Loden-Sherab/4261
- Wiki Pages
Buddha Nature Project
- Person description or short bio
Expand to see this person's philosophical positions on Buddha-nature.
| Is Buddha-nature considered definitive or provisional? | |
|---|---|
| Position: | Definitive |
| Notes: | #"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. |
| All beings have Buddha-nature | |
| Position: | Qualified Yes |
| If "Qualified", explain: | "...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." |
| Notes: | Wangchuk, Tsering, The Uttaratantra in the Land of Snows, pp. 17-18 |
| Which Wheel Turning | |
| Position: | Third Turning |
| Notes: | |
| Yogācāra vs Madhyamaka | |
| Position: | Madhyamaka |
| Notes: | "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. |
| Zhentong vs Rangtong | |
| Position: | |
| Notes: | |
| Promotes how many vehicles? | |
| Position: | |
| Notes: | |
| Analytic vs Meditative Tradition | |
| Position: | Analytic Tradition |
| Notes: | "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 |
| What is Buddha-nature? | |
| Position: | Tathagatagarbha as the Emptiness That is a Nonimplicative Negation |
| Notes: | #"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
|
| Svātantrika (རང་རྒྱུད་) vs Prāsaṅgika (ཐལ་འགྱུར་པ་) | |
| Position: | Svātantrika (རང་རྒྱུད་) |
| Notes: | # "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.
the textual foundation of the Svātantrika Yogācāra-Madhyamaka synthesis, among whose proponents rNgog lo may be counted. Kramer, R., The Great Tibetan Translator, p.?
|
| Causal nature of the vajrapāda | |
| Position: | 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- |
"Tathagatagarbha as the Emptiness That is a Nonimplicative Negation" is not in the list (Tathāgatagarbha as Mind's Luminous Nature, Tathāgatagarbha as the Unity of Emptiness and Luminosity, Tathāgatagarbha as a Causal Potential or Disposition (gotra), Tathāgatagarbha as the Resultant State of Buddhahood, There are several types of Tathāgatagarbha, Tathāgatagarbha as the Emptiness That is a Non-implicative Negation (without enlightened qualities), Tathāgatagarbha as the Emptiness That is an Implicative Negation (with enlightened qualities), Tathāgatagarbha as the Latent State of Buddhahood that is Obscured in Sentient Beings, Tathāgatagarbha was Taught Merely to Encourage Sentient Beings to Enter the Path) of allowed values for the "PosEmptyLumin" property.