notes

Discussions Start discussion topic{{#formlink:

form=Feedback |link text= Submit feedback |query string=Feedback[SuperPage]=dgongs pa/Feedback&Feedback[FbTerm]=dgongs pa&Feedback[FbUser]=172.22.0.3&Feedback[FbTimestamp]=20241124000711 |popup |reload }}

Lotsawa Workbench The Lotsawa Workbench is an initiative of the Tsadra Foundation research department. Currently, this is just a test and we welcome any comments and suggestions. We hope to invite collaboration from users and stakeholders from Dharma groups as well as academia. Please contact us if you are interested in developing this project with us: research AT tsadra DOT org.

Essentials

Full Entry Entry's details, including senses, etc.

Tib-Eng Tibetan-English dictionaries.

Tib-Tib Tibetan-Tibetan dictionaries.

Tib-Skt Tibetan-Sanskrit dictionaries.

Tib-Chi Tibetan-Chinese dictionaries.

TMs Translation memories (TMs) containing the current headword.

Related EntriesLists of related entries (i.e, collocations including the headword).

Scholarship Additional lexicographical resources.

དགོངས་པ་

dgongs pa

Hopkins Comments ?

No direct match.

18 other match(es)

Reference Notes from other Works [i.e. Footnotes/Endnotes]

Book	Author/Translator	Note
Frameworks of Buddhist Philosophy	{{#arraymap: ;	;	@@@	@@@	}}	859 Abhayākaragupta ( 'Jigs med 'byung gnas sbas pa) (late eleventh to early twelfth century) resided at Vikramashīla. His Ornament of Clear Realization commentary is called Moonlight of Key Points (Marmakaumudī, gNad kyi zla 'od). He also wrote over thirty works that are included in the Tengyur and collaborated on the translation of over one hundred texts. Some of his more well-known writings are Kernels of Key Instructions (Upadesha-mañjarī, Man ngag snye ma), a commentary on the Sampuṭa-mahātantra (a shared explanatory tantra), and Ornament of the Sage's Thought (Munimatālaṃkāra, Thub pa'i dgongs pa'i rgyan), an encyclopedic work on Mahāyāna Buddhism. See Ruegg 1981, 114-5.
Frameworks of Buddhist Philosophy	{{#arraymap: ;	;	@@@	@@@	}}	838 Inherent absence (niḥsvabhāva, ngo bo nyid med pa) is presented in the Sūtra Unraveling the Intention (Saṃdhinirmochanasūtra, dGongs pa nges par 'grel pa), Chapter 7; see Powers 1995, 98–105. It is also found in Asaṅga's Compendium of Abhidharma, Chapter 4; see Boin-Webb 2001, 193. This term is also translated as "non-nature," "absence of own-being," or "lack of nature." See also Khenpo Tsültrim Gyamtso 1986; Mathes 2000, 215–7; Hopkins 2002, 103; and Brunnhölzl 2004, 470. Imagined characteristics do not exist by way of their own characteristics. The nature that they do not have is to be existent by way of their own characteristics.
Frameworks of Buddhist Philosophy	{{#arraymap: ;	;	@@@	@@@	}}	14 This includes such sūtras as the Descent into Laṅkā Sūtra (Laṅkāvatārasūtra, Lang kar gshegs pa'i mdo), Sūtra Unraveling the Intention (Saṃdhinirmochanasūtra, dGongs pa nges par 'grel pa), Genuine Golden Light Sūtras (Suvarṇaprabhāsottamasūtra, gSer 'od dam pa'i mdo). Note that the designations of texts as belonging to one of three turnings of the dharma wheel is thematic rather than based on historical chronology.
Frameworks of Buddhist Philosophy	{{#arraymap: ;	;	@@@	@@@	}}	280 Thub pa dgongs gsal. This may be Thub pa dgongs pa rab gsal by Sakya Paṇḍita, Kunga Gyaltsen (Kun dga' rgyal mtshan) (1182–1251); however, I was unable to locate this comment in that text.
Frameworks of Buddhist Philosophy	{{#arraymap: ;	;	@@@	@@@	}}	818 Shākya Chokden states this perspective in his Great Path of the Nectar of Emptiness (sTong nyid bdud rtsi'i lam po che, hereafter cited as Nectar of Emptiness) (179.2) as follows: To summarize, the view expressed by Asaṅga does not differ in terms of its essence; there are, however, two contexts in which the philosophical tenets [found in the Treatises of Maitreya] are incompatible. The expositions of the thought of the first Dharma Treatises of Maitreya state that ultimately there are three yānas, and they do not make any mention of a bhūmi on which the habitual tendency of ignorance is present or that birth can take place through undefiled karma. The expositions of the thought of the Highest Continuum are the opposite. mdor na thogs med zhabs kyis bzhad ba'i lta ba rang gi ngo bo la khyad par med kyang/ grub mtha'i mi mthun pa'i skags gnyis byung ste/ byams pa'i chos dang po rnams kyi dgongs pa 'grel ba na mthar thug gi theg pa gsum yin pa dang/ ma rig bag chags kyi sa dang zag med kyi las kyis skye ba len pa zhes bya ba'i bshad pa mi mdzad la/ rgyud bla ma'i dgongs pa 'grel ba na ni/ snga ma las zlog ste bshad pas so. Note that Shākya Chokden says "the first Dharma Treatises of Maitreya," not "the first three" (byams chos dang po gsum) as Jamgön Kongtrul does. This may indicate that Jamgön Kongtrul bases his statement of Shākya Chokden's position on Tāranātha's Twenty-one Differences. There Tāranātha says (211.5–212.3) that the second difference between Shākya Chokden and Dolpopa is that Shākya Chokden considers the Ornament of Clear Realization to teach both Rangtong and Shentong tenet systems, and that the remaining four Dharma Treatises of Maitreya teach only Shentong. These four have two [exegetical] modes: (1) The Highest Continuum teaches that ultimately there is one yāna and that a cut-off potential (rigs chad) is refuted. (2) The other three treatises [Ornament of the Mahāyāna Sūtras, Differentiation of the Middle and the Extremes, and Differentiation of Phenomena and Their Nature] teach that ultimately there are three yānas and that there is a cut-off potential. See Mathes 2004, 297; and Hopkins 2007, 121. This is in contrast to Dolpopa's view that all five Dharma Treatises teach only Shentong (see p. 251 and n. 823).
Frameworks of Buddhist Philosophy	{{#arraymap: ;	;	@@@	@@@	}}	803 Here, "a later generation of Tibetans" (bod phyi rabs pa) specifically means Tsongkhapa Lo-zang Drakpa (Tsong kha pa blo bzang grags pa) (1357–1419) and the Geluk school, who are known as the "later Mādhyamikas" (in contrast to the "early Mādhyamikas," which refers to the followers of the Madhyamaka traditions in Tibet prior to the time of Tsongkhapa and to those who continue these traditions). (ALTG) These eight great, uncommon theses (thun mong ma yin pa'i dam bca' chen po brgyadare Tsongkhapa's "eight difficult points of the Prāsaṅgika-Madhyamaka" (dbu ma thal 'gyur gyi dka' gnas brgyad), which he considers to be a summary of the ways in which the Prāsaṅgika system is distinct from other Buddhist philosophical tenets. The primary sources for these are Tsongkhapa's Illumination of the Thought (dGongs pa rab gsal); and Gyaltsap Jé's Notes on the Eight Difficult Points (dKa' gnas brgyad kyi zin bris) (see Ruegg 2002, 139–255); and Gyaltsap Jé's Aide-Mémoire for the Eight Great Difficult Points of the "Fundamental [Treatise on] the Middle Way" (dBu ma'i rtsa ba'i dka' gnas chen po brgyad kyi brjed byang). In an earlier work, Essence of Eloquence (Legs bshad snying po), Tsongkhapa presents seven points that distinguish the Prāsaṅgika system (see Thurman 1984, 288–344; and Ruegg 2002, 146–7). For overviews of these eight points, the various lists, and the Geluk works in which they are found, see Cozort 1998, 58–63; and Ruegg 2002, 142–52. Although each of these primary sources lists eight points, there are some discrepancies between them, and Jamgön Kongtrul's list of eight does not correspond to any of them exactly in terms of content or order. Nevertheless, the elements in his list match those in Tsongkhapa's Illumination of the Thought with just one exception: whereas Tsongkhapa's list includes "an uncommon way of positing the three times due to [disintegration being a functioning thing]" (de'i rgyu mtshan gyis dus gsum gyi 'jog tshul thun mong ma yin pa), Jamgön Kongtrul's does not. Instead, Jamgön Kongtrul has "the existence of things by way of their own characteristics is not accepted even as a convention" (tha snyad du'ang rang gi mtshan nyid kyis grub par khas mi len pa) (A1), which is found in both texts by Gyaltsap Jé (see ACIP S5426). Jamgön Kongtrul's presentation of these as "four theses associated with refutation and four theses associated with affirmation" (dgag phyogs kyi dam bca' bzhi/ sgrub phyogs kyi dam bca' bzhi) is similar to Gyaltsap Jé's comment that these constitute "four theses involving acceptance and four positions involving non-acceptance" (khas len pa'i dam bca' bzhi dang mi len pa'i dam bca' bzhi) (see ACIP S5426; and Ruegg 2002, 158). These points have been the subject of much discussion and, of course, refutation. Numerous Geluk teachers have written on these, ranging from Chang-kya Rolpé Dorjé in his Beautiful Ornament of Philosophical Tenet Systems (see Cozort 1998, 429–78) to Jamyang Shepa, who presents a list of sixteen points in eight pairs in his Great Exposition of Tenets (see Hopkins 2003, 927–47; and Cozort and Preston 2003, 258–71). Brunnhölzl presents (2004, 557–62) Mikyö Dorjé's assessment of these. Mipham's views are discussed in Pettit 1998, 128–33; and Dreyfus and McClintock 2003, 324–8.
Frameworks of Buddhist Philosophy	{{#arraymap: ;	;	@@@	@@@	}}	514 Saṃdhinirmochanasūtra; dGongs pa nges par 'grel pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo. This is the final statement of the Bhagavat in Chapter 3, The Questions of Suvishuddhamati. Toh. 106, f. 9b2. See Powers 1995, 49.
Frameworks of Buddhist Philosophy	{{#arraymap: ;	;	@@@	@@@	}}	859 Abhayākaragupta ( 'Jigs med 'byung gnas sbas pa) (late eleventh to early twelfth century) resided at Vikramashīla. His Ornament of Clear Realization commentary is called Moonlight of Key Points (Marmakaumudī, gNad kyi zla 'od). He also wrote over thirty works that are included in the Tengyur and collaborated on the translation of over one hundred texts. Some of his more well-known writings are Kernels of Key Instructions (Upadesha-mañjarī, Man ngag snye ma), a commentary on the Sampuṭa-mahātantra (a shared explanatory tantra), and Ornament of the Sage's Thought (Munimatālaṃkāra, Thub pa'i dgongs pa'i rgyan), an encyclopedic work on Mahāyāna Buddhism. See Ruegg 1981, 114-5.
Frameworks of Buddhist Philosophy	{{#arraymap: ;	;	@@@	@@@	}}	838 Inherent absence (niḥsvabhāva, ngo bo nyid med pa) is presented in the Sūtra Unraveling the Intention (Saṃdhinirmochanasūtra, dGongs pa nges par 'grel pa), Chapter 7; see Powers 1995, 98–105. It is also found in Asaṅga's Compendium of Abhidharma, Chapter 4; see Boin-Webb 2001, 193. This term is also translated as "non-nature," "absence of own-being," or "lack of nature." See also Khenpo Tsültrim Gyamtso 1986; Mathes 2000, 215–7; Hopkins 2002, 103; and Brunnhölzl 2004, 470. Imagined characteristics do not exist by way of their own characteristics. The nature that they do not have is to be existent by way of their own characteristics.
Frameworks of Buddhist Philosophy	{{#arraymap: ;	;	@@@	@@@	}}	14 This includes such sūtras as the Descent into Laṅkā Sūtra (Laṅkāvatārasūtra, Lang kar gshegs pa'i mdo), Sūtra Unraveling the Intention (Saṃdhinirmochanasūtra, dGongs pa nges par 'grel pa), Genuine Golden Light Sūtras (Suvarṇaprabhāsottamasūtra, gSer 'od dam pa'i mdo). Note that the designations of texts as belonging to one of three turnings of the dharma wheel is thematic rather than based on historical chronology.
Frameworks of Buddhist Philosophy	{{#arraymap: ;	;	@@@	@@@	}}	280 Thub pa dgongs gsal. This may be Thub pa dgongs pa rab gsal by Sakya Paṇḍita, Kunga Gyaltsen (Kun dga' rgyal mtshan) (1182–1251); however, I was unable to locate this comment in that text.
Frameworks of Buddhist Philosophy	{{#arraymap: ;	;	@@@	@@@	}}	818 Shākya Chokden states this perspective in his Great Path of the Nectar of Emptiness (sTong nyid bdud rtsi'i lam po che, hereafter cited as Nectar of Emptiness) (179.2) as follows: To summarize, the view expressed by Asaṅga does not differ in terms of its essence; there are, however, two contexts in which the philosophical tenets [found in the Treatises of Maitreya] are incompatible. The expositions of the thought of the first Dharma Treatises of Maitreya state that ultimately there are three yānas, and they do not make any mention of a bhūmi on which the habitual tendency of ignorance is present or that birth can take place through undefiled karma. The expositions of the thought of the Highest Continuum are the opposite. mdor na thogs med zhabs kyis bzhad ba'i lta ba rang gi ngo bo la khyad par med kyang/ grub mtha'i mi mthun pa'i skags gnyis byung ste/ byams pa'i chos dang po rnams kyi dgongs pa 'grel ba na mthar thug gi theg pa gsum yin pa dang/ ma rig bag chags kyi sa dang zag med kyi las kyis skye ba len pa zhes bya ba'i bshad pa mi mdzad la/ rgyud bla ma'i dgongs pa 'grel ba na ni/ snga ma las zlog ste bshad pas so. Note that Shākya Chokden says "the first Dharma Treatises of Maitreya," not "the first three" (byams chos dang po gsum) as Jamgön Kongtrul does. This may indicate that Jamgön Kongtrul bases his statement of Shākya Chokden's position on Tāranātha's Twenty-one Differences. There Tāranātha says (211.5–212.3) that the second difference between Shākya Chokden and Dolpopa is that Shākya Chokden considers the Ornament of Clear Realization to teach both Rangtong and Shentong tenet systems, and that the remaining four Dharma Treatises of Maitreya teach only Shentong. These four have two [exegetical] modes: (1) The Highest Continuum teaches that ultimately there is one yāna and that a cut-off potential (rigs chad) is refuted. (2) The other three treatises [Ornament of the Mahāyāna Sūtras, Differentiation of the Middle and the Extremes, and Differentiation of Phenomena and Their Nature] teach that ultimately there are three yānas and that there is a cut-off potential. See Mathes 2004, 297; and Hopkins 2007, 121. This is in contrast to Dolpopa's view that all five Dharma Treatises teach only Shentong (see p. 251 and n. 823).
Frameworks of Buddhist Philosophy	{{#arraymap: ;	;	@@@	@@@	}}	803 Here, "a later generation of Tibetans" (bod phyi rabs pa) specifically means Tsongkhapa Lo-zang Drakpa (Tsong kha pa blo bzang grags pa) (1357–1419) and the Geluk school, who are known as the "later Mādhyamikas" (in contrast to the "early Mādhyamikas," which refers to the followers of the Madhyamaka traditions in Tibet prior to the time of Tsongkhapa and to those who continue these traditions). (ALTG) These eight great, uncommon theses (thun mong ma yin pa'i dam bca' chen po brgyadare Tsongkhapa's "eight difficult points of the Prāsaṅgika-Madhyamaka" (dbu ma thal 'gyur gyi dka' gnas brgyad), which he considers to be a summary of the ways in which the Prāsaṅgika system is distinct from other Buddhist philosophical tenets. The primary sources for these are Tsongkhapa's Illumination of the Thought (dGongs pa rab gsal); and Gyaltsap Jé's Notes on the Eight Difficult Points (dKa' gnas brgyad kyi zin bris) (see Ruegg 2002, 139–255); and Gyaltsap Jé's Aide-Mémoire for the Eight Great Difficult Points of the "Fundamental [Treatise on] the Middle Way" (dBu ma'i rtsa ba'i dka' gnas chen po brgyad kyi brjed byang). In an earlier work, Essence of Eloquence (Legs bshad snying po), Tsongkhapa presents seven points that distinguish the Prāsaṅgika system (see Thurman 1984, 288–344; and Ruegg 2002, 146–7). For overviews of these eight points, the various lists, and the Geluk works in which they are found, see Cozort 1998, 58–63; and Ruegg 2002, 142–52. Although each of these primary sources lists eight points, there are some discrepancies between them, and Jamgön Kongtrul's list of eight does not correspond to any of them exactly in terms of content or order. Nevertheless, the elements in his list match those in Tsongkhapa's Illumination of the Thought with just one exception: whereas Tsongkhapa's list includes "an uncommon way of positing the three times due to [disintegration being a functioning thing]" (de'i rgyu mtshan gyis dus gsum gyi 'jog tshul thun mong ma yin pa), Jamgön Kongtrul's does not. Instead, Jamgön Kongtrul has "the existence of things by way of their own characteristics is not accepted even as a convention" (tha snyad du'ang rang gi mtshan nyid kyis grub par khas mi len pa) (A1), which is found in both texts by Gyaltsap Jé (see ACIP S5426). Jamgön Kongtrul's presentation of these as "four theses associated with refutation and four theses associated with affirmation" (dgag phyogs kyi dam bca' bzhi/ sgrub phyogs kyi dam bca' bzhi) is similar to Gyaltsap Jé's comment that these constitute "four theses involving acceptance and four positions involving non-acceptance" (khas len pa'i dam bca' bzhi dang mi len pa'i dam bca' bzhi) (see ACIP S5426; and Ruegg 2002, 158). These points have been the subject of much discussion and, of course, refutation. Numerous Geluk teachers have written on these, ranging from Chang-kya Rolpé Dorjé in his Beautiful Ornament of Philosophical Tenet Systems (see Cozort 1998, 429–78) to Jamyang Shepa, who presents a list of sixteen points in eight pairs in his Great Exposition of Tenets (see Hopkins 2003, 927–47; and Cozort and Preston 2003, 258–71). Brunnhölzl presents (2004, 557–62) Mikyö Dorjé's assessment of these. Mipham's views are discussed in Pettit 1998, 128–33; and Dreyfus and McClintock 2003, 324–8.
Frameworks of Buddhist Philosophy	{{#arraymap: ;	;	@@@	@@@	}}	514 Saṃdhinirmochanasūtra; dGongs pa nges par 'grel pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo. This is the final statement of the Bhagavat in Chapter 3, The Questions of Suvishuddhamati. Toh. 106, f. 9b2. See Powers 1995, 49.
When the Clouds Part	{{#arraymap: Asaṅga;Maitreya;Brunnhölzl, K.	;	@@@	@@@	}}	1303. That is, these persons are actually able to attain nirvāṇa at some point in the distant future. This represents a typical case of "the intention with regard to another time,"one of "the four intentions" (Skt. abhisaṃdhi, Tib. dgongs pa) of the words of the Buddha (these four are explained in Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra XII.16ff. and its commentaries). Among them, (1) the intention in terms of equality means to take the three equalities between all buddhas in terms of the accumulations of merit and wisdom, the dharmakāya, and the welfare of beings accomplished by them as the reason for the Buddha's saying something like "At that time, I was the Tathāgata Vipaśyī." (2) The intention in terms of another meaning means to take the threefold lack of nature of the imaginary, dependent, and perfect natures in terms of characteristics, arising, and the ultimate, respectively, as the reason for the Buddha's saying something like "All phenomena lack a nature." (3) The intention in terms of another time means to take the time in the far future when a certain person will actually be born in Sukhāvatī as the reason for the Buddha's saying something like "If you make the aspiration prayer to be born in Sukhāvatī, you will be born there." (4) The intention in terms of the thinking of a person refers to something like the Buddha's disparaging discipline and praising generosity by intending to make persons who content themselves with discipline alone engage in other means, such as generosity, too. In addition, there are "the four indirect intentions" (Skt. abhiprāya, Tib. ldem dgongs). Just like the Sanskrit and Tibetan words, the English term "intention"can be understood in many ways (see Ruegg 1985), which has led to different (mis)interpretations. Also, the Tibetan terms are often used in different ways than the Sanskrit ones. As the examples for the different kinds of intention and indirect intention show, there is no consistency in what they refer to—it is not always just another meaning (as the content of an intention) or an intention per se, and there also are overlaps. In a general sense, "having something particular in mind"when making a statement often seems more correct. For details, see Broido 1984, Ruegg 1985, and Brunnhölzl 2010, 289–91.
When the Clouds Part	{{#arraymap: Asaṅga;Maitreya;Brunnhölzl, K.	;	@@@	@@@	}}	600. In that vein, it will prove to be very illuminating to compare the presentation in Jamgön Kongtrul's TOK with the Dus gsum gyi rgyal ba sras dang bcas pa'i bstan pa mtha' dag dang khyad par rdo rje 'chang ka rma pa'i dgongs pa gsal bar byed pa'i bstan bcos thar pa'i lam chen bgrod pa'i shing rta (two-volumes, published in 2012) by Balkang Lotsāwa Ngawang Chökyi Gyatso (Tib. Dpal khang lo tsā ba ngag dbang chos kyi rgya mtsho—the Second Karma Trinlépa; born fifteenth/sixteenth century). As its title says, this text is an overview of all Buddhist teachings but in particular elucidates the intention of the Eighth Karmapa (the main teacher of Balkang Lotsāwa). It appears that TOK (not the root text but the commentary) incorporates almost this entire text in more or less literal form. It will be one of my future projects to translate this work and compare it with TOK. Given that it is already well known that TOK incorporates a substantial number of passages from Tāranātha's and Śākya Chogden's works, its comparison with Karma Trinlépa's text will shed even more light on the process through which TOK was compiled.