|[DUFF] yul –
1) In combination with other words, and usually placed after another word, it indicates the location of something, e.g., སྐྱེ་ཡུལ་ "birth-place", or place. This could be a country but more often refers to a particular place or locale.
2) A physical location or place. i) "Country", "land", "region", "place", "area". This can refer to an area the size of a whole country but it has the sense of a "locale", the place where something happens or belongs. E.g., འཕགས་ཡུལ་ [Skt. Āryadeśha] "The Āryan Land" meaning the country of India in which the Buddha presented the Dharma teachings. ii) It can also refer more specifically to a particular "district" or "province" and is similar in meaning to ལུང་པ་ in that case.
3) "Object" in the sense of i) The "object" of conceptual mind in general; ii) The "object" of a དབང་པོ་ sense faculty or རྣམ་ཤེས་ consciousness in particular. This usage is very common in Buddhist philosophy where it comes as a pair of terms: ཡུལ་ and ཡུལ་ཅན་. The ཡུལ་ is the "domain" , the "object", "the objective domain" of either the thought or the sense faculty / consciousness that knows it. The ཡུལ་ཅན་ is the "subject", i.e., that which is the knower of the object, that which "has the object". In fact, the words "object" and "subject" are not very accurate translations for these two key terms which is unfortunate but there are not really any better words in English. For a time, the translations "object" and "perceiver" were popular but "perceiver" while being close to the meaning, loses the close relationship with "object" that the term "subject" has. A variety of other words fit the use of ཡུལ་ in this context: the ཡུལ་ are the "sense objects", the "field" of a thought or consciousness, and in more common English usage, the "subject" of a thought or consciousness.
"Rigpa". This word has a huge range of usage in the Buddhist tradition. The verb form translates the Sanskrit "vid" meaning "to know" and having the strong connotation "to see". The noun form translates the Sanskrit "vidyā" meaning "knowledge" but has the strong sense of mental sight, or insight; something known/ seen in mind. Note that the English words with "vi-" or "vid-", e.g., "vision", "video" come from this Sanskrit word through the Latin "vide", "to see".
I. v.i. རིག་པ་/ རིག་པ་/ རིག་པ་//. 1) Meaning either to see with the eyes and hence to know of or 2) to know with the mind and hence to see in the mind. This latter usage has all levels of meaning in Buddhist philosophy and practice from the coarsest conceptual "knowing" all the way to the most unobscured, enlightened way of "knowing". For example, in coll. Tibetan it is common to say ངས་་་་རིག་སོང་། which simply means "I know about that; I understood about that" in the most ordinary sense. Then, there are many precise usages of the verb in all levels of Buddhist philosophy and practice, from the most basic in which the standard operation of conceptual mind is being referred to, all the way down to a very special usage in the highest system in the ཁྲེགས་ཆོད་ Thorough Cut and ཐོད་རྒལ་ Direct Crossing paths of the Great Completion, in which the most fundamental way of knowing, which is the way of knowing of the enlightened factor of the mind, is referred to. Every one of these usages uses the same verb but the degree to which the mind is conceptual or non-conceptual is different in every case, therefore one must take care!
II. The noun use of the verb is exactly cognate to the verb as described above. Therefore again, whilst the basic meaning that runs throughout all usages is "knowledge" in the sense of "seeing with the mind", the levels being referred are very different. For example, there are the following principle usages. 1) In the case of རིག་པའི་གནས་ the noun means clear understanding in the normal sense of knowledge which is gained by study. 2) In རིག་གསལ་ the more subtle quality of the conceptual mind's ability to understand something is being referred to. 3) In the case of རིག་པ་ rigpa used in the ཁྲེགས་ཆོད་ Thorough Cut and Direct Crossing paths of The Great Completion, the knower which is the facet of enlightened mind that all sentient beings have in them is being referred to. Note that, even though these highest systems of Buddhist practice use the term in a very special sense, it still retains its basic meaning of "to know". To translate it as "awareness" which is common practice these days is a poor practice; it means "knowing / seeing" which is much stronger than "aware". Moreover, mind has many awarenesses, most of which are ཤེས་པ་ but there is only one rigpa the way it is spoken of in that context. Besides, rigpa is substantially more than just awareness. The fact is that རིག་པ་ rigpa is a "buzz-word" in that system and to translate it with a generic word like "awareness" totally detracts from the term. Because of that in particular and because it is such an important term and because it lacks an equivalent in English, I choose not to translate it. For the full explanation of this word, you must ask a qualified teacher, however, see རིག་པ་རང་བྱུང་གི་ཡེ་ཤེས་ "rigpa, self-arising wisdom" for more. 4) The term is used to mean བློ་གྲོས་ "intelligence", the faculty of mind which can learn and engage in the various topics of knowledge conceptually. It can also be equivalent to ཤེས་རབ་ prajñā; someone who རིག་པ་ཚ་བོ་ has very "fast and capable" intelligence; they can learn vast amounts and recall it easily. 5) Areas of knowledge which are known as རིག་པ་ "vidya" could be well translated by "science" in some cases but not in all; རིག་པ་ can apply to all areas of knowledge.
As above, the term རིག་པ་ is not well translated by "awareness". Awareness is more of a receptive quality and that accurately translates ཤེས་པ་ q.v. Likewise "insight" and "cognition" do not really capture the "clear-seeing" quality of this term and are better used to translate other words. "Logic", "reason" and related terms are mistaken translations of རིག་པ་; they are translations of the etymologically related term རིགས་པ་ q.v.
||[DUFF] bya ba –
I. 1) Fut. of v.t. བྱེད་པ་ q.v. 2) In the construction ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ which is used following a title or subtitle of a book, it means "called", "named", "titled /entitled", "known as".
II. 1) Tibetan equivalent of Sanskrit "krīya" meaning literally "that which is to be performed", "that which is to be done" i.e., the "activity", "action", "work", "deed" that will come about because of བྱེད་པ་ doing something. E.g., བྱ་བའི་རྒྱུད་ "performance / action tantra"; བྱ་བ་གྲུབ་པའི་ཡེ་ཤེས་ "the wisdom which accomplishes activities".
2) "Action". Translation of the Sanskrit "krīya". Grammar term. In Sanskrit grammar and in Tibetan grammar following it, this is the term used to signify the action / deed done when a transitive verb is carried out. I.e., it is the action that happens at the objects side and which is accomplished by the verb. The Tibetan term is exactly equivalent to and translates the Sanskrit "krīya" of Sanskrit grammar.
The བྱ་བ་ action is defined as "the action that will be carried out on some བྱ་བའི་ཡུལ་ transitive object by an བྱེད་པ་པོ་ agent". See also བྱ་བྱེད་ཡུལ་ "action, agent, and object" and བྱེད་པ་ which has various meanings in grammar q.v.
The classic example given in Tibetan grammar texts is that an axeman (བྱེད་པ་པོ་ the agent), uses an axe (བྱེད་པ་ the complement), to cut down (བྱ་བ་ the action to be performed, the deed to be done) a tree which is the བྱ་བའི་ཡུལ་ object upon which this action ends up being done.
Note that the action referred to here is not the activity actually carried out by the agent. The activity, the actual doing of the action, is different from the deed that will be done on the object. The actual doing of the action belongs, in Tibetan grammar, to the side of the agent. E.g., there is a woodsman who is the agent, there is his activity of chopping with an axe and both of those are on the side of the agent, which is called བདག་ self in Tibetan grammar. Then the object and the completion of the action are on the side of the object which is called གཞན་ in Tibetan grammar (see བདག་གཞན་ for more). Finally, the བྱ་བ་ action is an overall statement of what ends up happening. Thus there are: the woodsman, the agent; the wood, the object; and the cutting of wood, the activity. Note that in Tibetan, the action is always written in the future, which distinguishes it clearly as the overall deed that will be done, separating it from the other two parts of the verbal action which are the doing of the deed (present) on the agent's side and the accomplishment (past) on the agent's side. This fine attention to the use of tenses in relation to the sides of the action (self and other) is a feature of Tibetan verb theory which could be present but is not so strictly observed in English grammar. The result is that Tibetan word structure contains a great deal of signification about verbal context that is not contained or so obvious in English text. Until the full details of this are learned, it is not possible to really read Tibetan text and understand the fullness of its content. Unfortunately, learning this material is particularly difficult. More information about this is given next.
3) An outcome of transitive verb theory is that བྱ་བ་ can be joined with another verb similar to an English auxiliary (see the verb བྱེད་པ་ for more detail). This is used to provide one of three levels of meaning: i) to indicate the future verb sense "will do" or "to be done" or ii) as a verb-noun to indicate "the thing which will result from the accomplishment of the verb" or iii) a noun with the sense of "that thing to be done". As with བྱེད་པ་ (which discussion q.v.) the verb form is indicated by writing the phrase out in full. E.g., the future tense of གཅོད་པ་ which is གཅད་ can be given བྱ་བ་ by making this construction: གཅད་པར་བྱ་བ་. This construction can either mean a true verbal construction of "will be cut", "to be cut"; or it can be a noun-like construction with the full meaning of "that thing on the object's side of a transitive action which will be a cutting"; or it can be condensed to གཅད་བྱ་ in which case it means "the thing (the object itself) that will be cut).
In the case of the noun, shortened form, it refers exactly to the object of the transitive action but does so via the verb of the action, e.g., in the case of cutting wood, ཤིང་ the wood which is the direct object of the transitive action of cutting can equally be referred to with གཅད་བྱ་ meaning "the thing that will be cut" i.e., "the (object) cut".
Again if we take the verb སློབ་པ་ meaning to train and take the future tenses བསླབ་པ་ and then join it with བྱ་བ་ the verb phrase བསླབ་པར་བྱ་བ་ results. This can be a true verb construct "will train"; it can also be a noun-verb in constructs like བསླབ་པར་བྱ་བའི་སློབ་མ་ "students who are the ones that will be trained"; and when contracted by removing the phrase assistive and connector, it is བསླབ་བྱ་ which is exactly equivalent the object of the transitive action, the training but expresses it by saying "the thing that will be trained in".
4) "The function of something", what something does, its activity, e.g. བྱ་བ་ངན་ "bad way of doing things", "negative function".