Sanskrit for gDon

[pemachophel]

Is there a Sanskrit equivalent for the Tibetan gDon གདོན ?

[Malcolm]

Is there a Sanskrit equivalent for the Tibetan gDon གདོན ?

Not as a kind of non-human being that causes problems.

Otherwise is corresponds to terms that mean doubt and being dominated.

[pemachophel]

Thank you, Loppon, for your response. So do you use the translation "provocations" as in nad gdon ནད་གདོན་, disease and ...? I've never been really comfortable with "provocations." I've tried "provoking spirits," but I'm not totally satisfied with that either.

[Malcolm]

Thank you, Loppon, for your response. So do you use the translation "provocations" as in nad gdon ནད་གདོན་, disease and ...? I've never been really comfortable with "provocations." I've tried "provoking spirits," but I'm not totally satisfied with that either.

One Tibetan Medical dictionary I use defines gdon by itself as "a name for the power of nonhumans to inflict harm, who arise from the reification of benefit and harm through deluded concepts of not recognizing one's own state."

It defines gdon nad as a name for diseases of mind and body inflicted by nonhumans such as gods, nagas, tsan, etc.

The root of all gdon are false imputations.

[pemachophel]

Thank you.

[Linguistic Mystic]

The Sanskrit for gdon is graha. Lotsawa House gives a good definition:

"Grahas (gdon) are understood to be both evil spirits and evil influences that are contained within or connected with a particular spirit or deity. They are also closely associated with the planets and other astronomical bodies. Grahas can inflict great harm on the human body and mind."

https://www.lotsawahouse.org/words-of-t ... chokdrupma

[Malcolm]

The Sanskrit for gdon is graha. Lotsawa House gives a good definition:

"Grahas (gdon) are understood to be both evil spirits and evil influences that are contained within or connected with a particular spirit or deity. They are also closely associated with the planets and other astronomical bodies. Grahas can inflict great harm on the human body and mind."

https://www.lotsawahouse.org/words-of-t ... chokdrupma

Care to provide a qualified example?

[amanitamusc]

Thank you, Loppon, for your response. So do you use the translation "provocations" as in nad gdon ནད་གདོན་, disease and ...? I've never been really comfortable with "provocations." I've tried "provoking spirits," but I'm not totally satisfied with that either.

One Tibetan Medical dictionary I use defines gdon by itself as "a name for the power of nonhumans to inflict harm, who arise from the reification of benefit and harm through deluded concepts of not recognizing one's own state."

It defines gdon nad as a name for diseases of mind and body inflicted by nonhumans such as gods, nagas, tsan, etc.

The root of all gdon are false imputations.

We create the cause for specific sentient beings to manifest through not recognizing our own state ?

[Linguistic Mystic]

The Sanskrit for gdon is graha. Lotsawa House gives a good definition:

"Grahas (gdon) are understood to be both evil spirits and evil influences that are contained within or connected with a particular spirit or deity. They are also closely associated with the planets and other astronomical bodies. Grahas can inflict great harm on the human body and mind."

https://www.lotsawahouse.org/words-of-t ... chokdrupma

Care to provide a qualified example?

The Kangyur is qualified source. The 84000 glossary has many entries on gdon (graha). Here is one translated from Sanskrit, so we know gdon is attested as graha in Sanskrit: https://read.84000.co/translation/UT22084-088-038.html

[tingdzin]

The Tibetan word gdon probably existed before Sanskrit came to Tibet, just as klu predated naga, etc. The equivalence with graha probably represents the early translators' attempts to match every indIgenous word in the Tibetan religious sphere with the nearest Indic equivalent (an effort which at times bordered on a mania) and strict one-to-one equivalencies cannot really be upheld. Btsan, for example, has no Indic equivalent.

[Linguistic Mystic]

The Tibetan word gdon probably existed before Sanskrit came to Tibet, just as klu predated naga, etc. The equivalence with graha probably represents the early translators' attempts to match every indIgenous word in the Tibetan religious sphere with the nearest Indic equivalent (an effort which at times bordered on a mania) and strict one-to-one equivalencies cannot really be upheld. Btsan, for example, has no Indic equivalent.

That could be the case. Though it's hard to say what things looked in pre-Buddhist Tibet given the dearth of written sources. We'd probably have to look at the instances of gdon in some of the Dunhuang manuscripts. Either way, the answer to the OP's questions is that graha is the Sanskrit equivalent for gdon.