Gro lung pa blo gros 'byung gnas

From Buddha-Nature

< People(Redirected from Drolungpa Lodrö Jungne)

PeopleGro lung pa blo gros 'byung gnas


གྲོ་ལུང་པ་བློ་གྲོས་འབྱུང་གནས་
Drolungpa Lodrö Jungne(b. 11th century - ) 
Buddhist Digital Resource Center

Drolungpa Lodrö Jungne was a disciple of rNgog lo tsā ba Blo ldan shes rab. Among his important works include a biography (rnam thar) of Blo ldan shes rab as well as the Great Stages of the Doctrine (Bstan rim chen mo), which served as a model for Tsongkhapa's Lam rim texts.


On the topic of this person

Book
Rong-zom-pa's Discourses on Buddhology
The present study looks into the investigation of buddhology1—that is, conceptions of Buddhahood found in various traditional Buddhist systems and scriptures—by the eleventh-century rNying-ma author and translator Rong-zom Choskyi-bzang-po (henceforth Rong-zom-pa). The bulk of attention will be devoted to his work titled Sangs rgyas kyi sa chen mo (henceforth Sangs sa chen mo) (An Extended [Exposition on] the Stage of a Buddha). This treatise—the only known Tibetan (and, as far as I am aware, indeed pan-Indian) work of its kind on buddhology—discusses its subject at length, focusing on the controversy about whether gnosis exists—on the conventional level—at the stage of a buddha.2 My attention was first drawn to this controversy when I was working on my Master's thesis, titled "The Life and Works of Rong-zom Paṇḍita," for which I critically edited and translated Mi-pham-rgya mtsho's (1846–1912) Rang zorn gsung 'bum dkar chag me tog phreng ba (Garland of Flowers: A Catalogue to Rong-zom's Collected Works), and prepared a detailed catalogue of Rongzom-pa's three-volume collected works.3 In his catalogue, Mi-pham devotes an entire passage to this issue, with the aim of refuting what he believed to be the wrongly held view that Rong-zom-pa denied the existence of gnosis at the stage of a buddha. Any denial of the existence of gnosis had obviously been difficult to digest by most Tibetan scholars, and the prevailing position in Tibet was and still is that a buddha does possess gnosis. Mi-pham attempts to interpret Rong-zom-pa's statements in which he unquestionably maintains that gnosis does not exist at the stage of a buddha as only referring to gnosis that had been generated on the path but not to gnosis as such, for Rong-zom-pa, Mi-pham argues, is an expounder of rDzogs-chen, a system in which what is called 'self-occurring gnosis' (rang byung gi ye shes: svayaṃbhūjñāna) features prominently. Nonetheless, from my examination of Rong-zom-pa's discussions of the whole issue, it has become evident that he did indeed deny the existence of any cognitive element whatsoever at the stage of a buddha, the sole constituent of Buddhahood being for him the purified dharmadhātu. Although he alludes to self-occurring gnosis on numerous occasions in his works, there is a salient difference between his and Mi-pham's understanding of the term: for Mi-pham self-occurring gnosis is something cognitive, whereas for Rong-zom-pa, who equates it with the dharmadhātu, it is not. Rong-zom-pa, however, does not deny that a buddha's gnosis, as mere appearance, manifests to those who have not yet attained release and thus have not yet eliminated all their delusions. A buddha, on the other hand, whose delusions have been completely exhausted, does not possess such gnosis. This position of Rong-zom-pa's does not seem to be an exceptional case. It can be shown in fact that numerous, if not the majority, of Indian Madhyamaka scholars of the eleventh century took a position similar to that of Rong-zom-pa. Furthermore, several works of early bKa'-gdams scholars that have come to light recently show that Rong-zom-pa was not the only Tibetan of his time to hold such a view. It thus appears that while the latter was indeed current among Tibetan scholars of the eleventh century, for a variety of reasons it was soon superseded by the less radical position which allows for the existence of some kind of cognitive element. (Almogi, preface, 13–14)
Notes
  1. Following Paul Harrison, I employ the term 'buddhology' (written in lower case) to refer to theories on and conceptions of the nature of a "buddha" (i.e., Buddhahood), while reserving 'Buddhology' (capitalized) for an alternative designation for Buddhist Studies. See Harrison 1995, p. 24, n. 4.
  2. In the present study I differentiate between a buddha (i.e., written in lower case and italicized), a title referring to any unspecified awakened person, and Buddha (i.e., written in roman and capitalized), a title referring to Śākyamuni Buddha or any other particular awakened person. (The same convention has been employed in the case of other titles: for example, bodhisattva versus Bodhisattva.) This differentiation is particularly important for the discussion of buddhology, or conceptions of Buddhahood, since some such conceptions (particularly the earlier ones) are clearly only associated with the person of the historical Buddha, while others, which commonly represent later developments in which a plurality of buddhas is affirmed, concern all awakened persons. To be sure, often there is no clear-cut borderline. In such cases I have employed both forms as alternatives.
  3. A considerably revised and enlarged version of the thesis is currently under preparation for publication in the near future.
Almogi, Orna. Rong-zom-pa's Discourses on Buddhology: A Study of Various Conceptions of Buddhahood in Indian Sources with Special Reference to the Controversy Surrounding the Existence of Gnosis (jñāna: ye shes) as Presented by the Eleventh-Century Tibetan Scholar Rong-zom Chos-kyi-bzang-po. Studia Philologica Buddhica Monograph Series 24. Tokyo: International Institute for Buddhist Studies, 2009.
Book
The Great Tibetan Translator
Abstract

Second only to the famous Rin chen bzang po (958–1055) in receiving the title of a "Great Translator" (lo chen) during the period of the "Later Propagation" (phyi dar) of Buddhism in Tibet, rNgog lo tsā ba Blo ldan shes rab (or rNgog lo) was one of the most influential figures in the establishment of Tibetan Buddhist scholasticism. After having devoted seventeen years of his life to the study of Sanskrit under scholars in Kashmir, India and Nepal, he became renowned for his more than fifty painstaking translations and revisions of Buddhist scriptures. Apart from being the foremost Tibetan translator of works on Buddhist logic and epistemology (Pramāṇa), rNgog lo’s activities as a commentator and teacher are regarded as fundamental for the later development of this field of learning in Tibet, and his tradition came to be well-known in Tibetan literature as the "rNgog tradition" (rngog lugs). This book presents a detailed examination of rNgog lo's life based on the available Tibetan accounts, including his biography (rnam thar) written by Gro lung pa Blo gros 'byung gnas (fl. late 11th to 12th c.). Annotated translations of great parts from the latter work (one of the earliest surviving examples of the rnam thar genre, possibly unique regarding its complicated and elegant style) are included in the book. rNgog lo's oeuvre as a translator and writer is dealt with in detail, making the book an important source on this hitherto little studied scholar and his tradition. (Source Accessed July 24, 2020)
Kramer, Ralf. The Great Tibetan Translator: Life and Works of rNgog Blo ldan shes rab (1059–1109). Collectanea Himalayica 1. Munich: Indus Verlag, 2007. https://epub.ub.uni-muenchen.de/6834/1/Kramer_Ralf_2007.pdf.

Mentioned in

Video
Khenpo Tamphel at the 2019 Tathāgatagarbha Symposium
Drawing on the text entitled A Mahāmudrā Investigation into Confusion: An Instruction for Identifying the Process of Confusion by Jikten Sumgon, Khenpo Tamphel explains how, according to this text, sentient beings and buddhas are related, how confusion arises that leads to saṃsāra, and how recognition of the true nature of sentient beings is the way to enlightenment.
Tamphel, Khenpo Könchok. "The Difference Between a Sentient Being and a Buddha: 'Jig rten gsum mgon’s Instruction on the Process of Confusion." Paper presented at the University of Vienna Symposium, Tathāgatagarbha Across Asia, Vienna, Austria, July 2019. Video, 47:23. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GbYgx3ozDM.


Philosophical positions of this person

Is buddha-nature considered definitive or provisional?
 
Do all beings have buddha-nature?
  Yes


"Gro-lung-pa follows faithfully rNgog’s interpretation as found in the latter’s gloss on RGV 1.27-28—the two verses that teach the dharmakāya, tathatā and the gotra as being three reasons why all sentient beings possess Buddha-nature." Kano, K., Buddha-Nature and Emptiness, p. 340.

Click for more on this topic
To which "turning of the wheel" do the buddha-nature teachings belong?
 
Is buddha-nature equated with emptiness or alayavijnana?
 
Do buddha-nature teachings belong to the zhentong or rangtong view of emptiness?
 
Are there one or three vehicles on the path to buddhahood?
 
Do the author's writings belong to the analytic or meditative tradition of Uttaratantra exegesis?
 
What is Buddha-nature?
  Tathāgatagarbha as the Emptiness That is a Non-implicative Negation (without enlightened qualities)

"Gro-lung-pa appears elsewhere in the same text to endorse rNgog’s idea of tathatā as emptiness, and follows rNgog’s position with regard to the ineffability of the ultimate." Kano, K., Buddha-Nature and Emptiness, p. 340.

Click for more on this topic
Does the author advocate the Svatantrika or Prasangika view of emptiness?
 

Affiliations & relations

  • Bka' gdams pa · religious affiliation
  • Rngog blo ldan shes rab · teacher
  • Atīśa · teacher
  • Tshul khrims 'byung gnas · teacher
  • Phywa pa chos kyi seng+ge · student
  • Tshul khrims 'byung gnas · student
Retrieved from "https://buddhanature.tsadra.org/index.php?title=People/Gro_lung_pa_blo_gros_%27byung_gnas&oldid=54148"