|WikiProject Tibetan Buddhism||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Buddhism||(Rated Start-class)|
This article needs a lot more citation. As it stands, it appears to be biased. maintained a teaching known as Shentong, which is closely tied to the Indian Yogacara school is contentious. Yogacarya was completely acceptable to the Gelugpa school. Indeed, there are many statements made saying that both Yogacarya (which is after all rooted in the Method lineage of Maitreya/Asanga) and Madhyamaka (rooted in the Wisdom lineage of Nagarjuna) are both considered to be valid philosophical viewpoints. Moreover, IIRC the term 'rangtong' is not used reflexively by the Gelugpa school, though I may be wrong about this. As I understand the shentong position, the Gelukpa held that shentong is basically positivistic. (20040302 10:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC))
- As I understand it, the whole Gelugpa stated reasoning of the Shentong view being the problem is very doubtful and merely propaganda. As you say, Yogacara is not disputed by the Gelugpa as being non-Buddhist or anything like that. The political reason of the Jonang having comntacts with the all-important Mongols seems to be the only logical explanation. The expression Shentong (or better Zhentong) vs. Rangtong is known to every Tibetan scholar, but the expression Rangtong is only used in connection with Shentong. At least from the Gelugpa view, Shentong is a bit like Yogacara (or Cittamatra) or even Hindu, as it refers to the clear-light nature of mind being 'real' (as opposed to everything else) which then resembles the idea of the Hindu Atman, which is of course rejected by Buddhism. Anyway, the line you quoted was not very correct, so I took the liberty to change it to explain Shentong in a one-liner. --rudy 16:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Another problem line is The Jonangpa interpreted Shentong to imply that there is a value in inaction and non-striving, which is associated with the teachings of medieval Chan Buddhism in China (which also gave rise to Zen Buddhism in Japan). which I think is completely incorrect. --rudy 16:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yea - that's good stuff. However, do you have any information regarding the Jonangpa-Shentong views regarding the doctrine of two truths? It seems that there is a difficulty regarding your current revision (which may be inherent in the Jonangpa view) - in that there appears to be 3 truths: conventional, empty, and 'real'. Any thoughts? (20040302)
- Shentong and Cittamatra are closely-related, and in Cittamatra view there are indeed three 'natures' - the imaginary nature, the dependent nature and the truly existent nature. In the dream example, the person in the dream who experiences the events in the dream is completely imaginary; the dream itself, before conceptualisation, is the mind, and so the dependent nature; and the absolute truth is the emptiness of the mind of any person or entities. That's taken from Progressive Stages of Meditation on Emptiness, by Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso Rimpoche. The book is essentially a Shentong manual, that approaches its subject by contrasting it with a sequence of other Buddhist views.
- MrDemeanour 15:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hi MrD, Okay - so then it sounds like Shentong and Cittamatra are not different, except for maybe a specific choice of vocabulary (if that). This leads down a complex path though - for the Geluk don't reject Cittamatra view whatsoever- indeed, it is seen as a valid path to liberation. After all, the method lineage of Asanga is all Cittamatra. This would put the entire "Shentong heresy" section of the article into disarray. We should certainly alter the section where it states "The Gelugpa school held the distinct but related Rangtong view where everything is empty", which I am guessing only refers to the wisdom lineage within the Geluk. However, reading the section, it suggests that the Jonangpa place value in inaction and non-striving, which certainly would be rejected by the Geluk, if accepted as face value (ie with a literal meaning, rather than any mystical meaning); I would not be too surprised if a Geshe were to point out that an entailment would be that one could become enlightened by spending the rest of one's life/lives in a coma! (20040302 21:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC))
- I shall pull the questionable sentence as above. (20040302)
The Shentong article is pretty good too, if you'd like to consult that. Sylvain1972 13:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Gelugpa: More stuff
This association with Chinese Buddhism tainted the Jonangpa in the eyes of the Gelugpa who considered the true teachings to derive from the Indian saints, particularly Atisha. An additional motivation in criticizing the Jonangpa sect as Chan-followers was that it enabled the Gelugpa to lay claim to the high moral ground previously held only by the rival Nyingmapa sect who were proud of their ancient and unsullied transmission from the Indian saints (and being sullied by later transmissions as were the Sakyapa, Kagyupa, and Gelugpa).
This badly needs references. It certainly appears to be POV, in that I doubt the Gelugpa agree with it as it stands. As mentioned above, the Jonangpa value in inaction and non-striving certainly would be rejected by the Geluk, without anything else being needed. What reasons were given by the Geluk? They are renowned for using academic arguments to justify their positions - is there any record of these? (20040302 20:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC))
- Here's a worthwhile post by Henry on Sept 17, 2003 which summarizes pages 176-180 of Enlightenment by a Single Means: Tibetan controversies on the 'Self-Sufficient White Remedy (Dkar Po Chig Thub) by David Jackson. I don't have access to the book so I can't directly evaluate its objectiveness or the accuracy of Henry's summary, but it appears reasonable on the face of it. While I have no axe to grind either way in the Gelug=good/bad viewpoints, I do admit a bias towards believing, in general, that "religious war" often involves motivations which go beyond the stated theological disagreements. Thus I don't find it surprising that the Jonang would seek to cut their own deal with the Mongolians, and that the Gelug would find that action highly threatening and would respond militarily. I also observe that, historically, warring religious factions often work hard to shore up their theological foundations, particularly be they newcomers who may be short on historical tradition but long on economic or military strength. Denouncing other sects (be they Jonangpas or Trotskyites) is part of the process of establishing the moral legitimacy, with possible detrimental near-term consequences for the heretics involved. But I agree we need sources to state that the Gelug saw a need to establish their legitimacy, and what forms it took. technopilgrim 20:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Well, what you write here is, IMO better than the article. Thank-you also for the link - it is particularly good, and the overall thread is interesting. (20040302)
- -- thank you for the kind words technopilgrim 04:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Khalkha Jetsun Dampa
I think this could use some clearing up. If the Jonang lineage claims to be an independent, fifth school, and Khalkha Jetsun Dampa is the head, how can he also be head of the Gelug lineage in Mongolia, as the current wiki article on him states? Sylvain1972 21:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
The Zhentong annexure by the Gelugpa directly yielded the flight of the Institution of the Dalai Lama and the Himalayan Diaspora.
Aum Ah Hung Phet Svaha
B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 01:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
jo nang - Jonangpa. The lineage of masters of the Shentong School who were known by their monastery at Jomo Nang. They include Yumo Mikyö Dorje, the founder of the school, Tukje Tsöndrü, Dölpowa Sherab Gyaltsen and Taranatha [ry] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 22:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I understand some of your concerns about overlinking, but I find them confusing here.
I link things like Kagyupa to Kagyu + pa because Kagyupa is a redirect to Kagyu. No change in text, but a change in redirect. That's why Kagyupa appears as a single link - this is a feature of wikipedia. I look for redirects and fix them.
Also, rangtong and the philosophical terms I changed redirect to the pages I fixed their redirect to. The prasangika page appears not to address rangtong properly, but it is in fact rangtong. There's one book at the end of the page that mentions rangtong, I'll see if I can find more cites and work on that page.
As for stupa-vihara, neither term is familiar to the average reader even though they are English words and hence they deserve wikilinks. That's what wikilinks are for. If you want to just leave out that particular bit of text, okay, that's fine. Ogress smash! 17:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- Also, after reviewing prasangika I've come to the conclusion that the redirect rangtong is incorrect. I think rangtong should have its own page, even if that is only a small one, as while rangtong characterises philosophical approaches, it is not identical to Madhyamaka (and definitely not only Prasangika!). Would you care to help me start it? I have Stearns The Buddha from Dolpo in front of me and rangtong is a creation of the arrival of the shentong position so it should provide good quotes and refs. Ogress smash! 17:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- Greetings Ogress! Thanks for your proposal, I certainly agree with you that rangtong should have an article of it's own. I can try to do some ref work in order to gather a good punch of sources for the article! =P
- Hmm, about linking thatstupa-vihara, I find that a bit problematic since linking both separately will drag the reader to two very distinct articles instead of a one specific one. So in order to avoid excessive linking and to cherish link specifity, I think we should whether link to [[stupa-vihara]] or link to none. Kagyu + pa, oh sure sure... That's alright :-)
- Shall I change the current prasangika to rangtong already? How about the stupa-vihara one, what do you think? =P Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 11:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)