Talk:Je Tsongkhapa

Untitled

I think the following important facts have been ommited. 1. The philosophical project of Btsong-kha-pa. 2. The fact that he did not see himself as starting a new school, i.e. he never intended to found a school. 3. His controversial vision of Manjusri. 4. Shouldn't there be links to his main students.

Also, in an encylopedia I think sanskrit and Tibetan words should be spelled correctly. I have taken care of the Tibetan ones but the Sanskrit ones still need help. --Nathan hill 10:01, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Yet you didn't spell his name correctly above. The root letter should be capitalized, not the silent prefix. Whether this is worse than your misspelling of the English word "encyclopedia" or not is not for me to decide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.65.123 (talk) 06:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

In his article introducing the Wylie system of transliteration, Turrell Wylie writes "it is suggested that Csoma de Körös’ original practice of capitalizing the first letter, whether a prefix or an initial, be restored if only for the sake of visual conformity to Western capitalization practices." So, "Btsong-kha-pa" is correct.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 17:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Link in German language

[1] Site of Kadampa Buddhism Der Ausdruck “Freudvolles Land” in der fünften Zeile ist der Name des Reinen Landes von Buddha Maitreya, das in Sanskrit als “Tushita” oder im Tibetischen als “Ganden” bekannt ist. Nach seinem Tod ging Je Tsongkhapa an diesen Ort.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.93.123 (talk) 13:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section low quality, not NPOV

The "criticism" section as it stands seems more to engaging in the (rather extensive) disputation regarding Tsongkhapa's philosophic views than explaining or reporting on them. If someone doesn't fix it soon, I think it should simply be omitted. Perhaps parts of it can be resurrected in amore general section on Tsongkhapa's views (which is lacking, as noted elsewhere in this page). Also, citing one source that accuses Tsongkhapa of succumbing to a demon pretty clearly crosses the line from objective reporting into insult and disputation. Finally, the standards for selecting and citing references seems pretty weak in this section, as does the general logical structure. djlewis (talk) 20:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Why did you say "If someone doesn't fix it soon, I think it should simply be omitted" but then you removed it three minutes later? Was someone supposed to see your post here and make the requested changes within that three minute window? Helpsome (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes -- apologies -- I should have gone back and changed my talk entry. As I looked at it, especially the logic (or lack thereof), poor sourcing, very non-npov tone and substance, lack of positive material, etc spoke for just deleting it. It would be great if someone did write a section on Tsongkhapa's views and their influence, including of course, opposing material from other authors and Tibetan lineages (Ju Mipham is particularly appropriate there). I don't have the time to do a proper job at the moment. But what was there is just not a viable substitute or even place-holder for a longer piece, IMHO, so it's better left out altogether. djlewis (talk) 21:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Several of the books you deleted (Freedom from Extremes, The Two Truths Debate, Tibet A History, Self, Reality and Reason in Tibetan Philosophy) are well known academic and history books written by scholars. To claim that books written by scholars are "poor sourcing", "low quality" etc. is nonsensical. Hopefully this is just an error on your part. Also how do you "insult" Tsongkhapa? He died centuries ago. This article is not a WP:BLP.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 04:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

@Djlewis: I think you're on to something here.. the criticism section is pretty terrible and its bizarre it is such a highlight in comparison to the rest of the page. For Tsongkhapa's elevation and worldwide respect, you would think it probably deserves about a paragraph but not as much room. Prasangika37 (talk) 19:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to have to disagree with your assessment of that section as "terrible" and "bizarre". And no matter his "elevation and worldwide respect", this is an encyclopedia. There's a quote in another part of the article that is longer than the criticism section in entirety! It is a very long article, and frankly I'd suggest we focus on the lack of citations and the often hagiographical nature of the rest of the article. Ogress _smash! 21:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I didn't see the lack of citations and I see what you're saying. I don't find the criticism very encyclopedic honestly (particularly the block quote mess...), but I see the concern in wanting to spend more time on more obvious issues elesewhere. The gigantic quote from HH Dalai Lama is strange too! Maybe it can be parsed down..? It has valuable information, but it could use some trimming and adjusting. I think with a few hands addressing the article as a whole it all could get tightened up. Regarding the mentioning that this article is 'long', its actually quite short for the amount of information on Je Tsongkhapa out there. I was checking out the stanford encyclopedia article and there are plenty of good sources just in that place alone. There isn't much about his philosophy that is understandable here, for one. Prasangika37 (talk) 21:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Ogress.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 00:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson:My primary critique of the criticism section was that is was (and again is) disputatious rather than neutral -- it's directly propagating criticisms by some of Tsongkhapa's rivals of his views and the quality of his life and thinking (most notably mistaking a demon for Manjushri, but others things as well). So it not NPOV.

And I don't understand why it's importnat that TK is dead. I don't think that because a person is dead he is open to such one-sided and bizarre (yes, bizarre) attacks, particularly when such disputations are proxies for ongoing contemporary controversies in Tibetan Buddhism which are now worldwide in scope. As for being poorly sourced, I don't think that one rival's personal, unsupported assertion that Tsongkhapa was influenced by a demon counts as a neutral or scholarly source. To be neutral, you'd have to cite scholarship that addresses the evidence and concludes based on that evidence that yes, there is a plausible case that Tsongkhapa mistook a demon for Manjushri (which I doubt there is). In fact, the real news here is not about TK but about Gorampa.

As for Jinpa's citation, Jinpa is one of the most vociferous admirers of Tsongkhapa's thought today, and his remarks are taken out of context - so that too is poorly sourced unless embedded in an larger piece that addresses, at least, why a mystic vision is an issue. I can see a critical section on Tsongkhapa's views, but a NPOV one -- this isn't even close. I would like to remove it and encourage someone, if they like, to write a NPOV section instead -- I haven't the time. It might start like --

TK's thought has been enormously influential in Tibet and now worldwide. The important points are blah blah blah. Criticisms of TK come from other Tibetan schools, and has at times grown so heated that one dissenting Sakya scholar has even accused him of blah blah demon blah, an isolated and bizarre assertion, even by Tibetan standards, against one of the most influential figures in Tibetan history.

But as for many other important thinkers IMHO TK deserves a separate article on his views and thought, with pros and cons. But the section as it stands is way off base. Before I remove it again, someone please tell me how we resolve such a a back-and-forth dispute? djlewis (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

We are quoting academic books on the subject. I will rename the section.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson:That does not resolve my concern. In fact, it makes it more acute -- how can the demon accusation be considered academic? This section is so far off base that it has to be removed, IMHO. It would make a wonderful section -- or better yet complete article -- to review TK's views because (a) they are so influential in Tibet and now worldwide; (b) the disputes are so sharp and heated and go deeply to the rivalry among Tibetan lineages. But I don't think a really poor section can be justified as a substitute for a good NPOV one, just because nobody has yet taken the time to write a good one. djlewis (talk) 19:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

This is a matter of academic fact. We are quoting academic books. NPOV means not whitewashing subjects. Pinging @Montanabw: on this whitewashing.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I assume NPOV also means not maligning someone (alive or dead), or in keeping with "whitewash", not presenting an inaccurate negative appraisal. I'm not proposing whitewashing, btw, but it has to be an accurate, fair, balanced, reasonable critique from a relatively neutral standpoint. This is none of those. djlewis (talk) 21:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Even if this article was a BLP (see WP:BLP) the academic sourcing we are using would greatly exceed even that standard. So you are way off the mark.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I am going to improve this section, but step-by-step. To start, I have removed the demon business, since it is not academic critique or disputation in any sense. In fact, it is unsubstantiated calumny, and the two sources cited are actually redundant, both going back to the same source. If someone wants to restore this accusation in an academic context, then go ahead. I do not think it has any bearing on TK's academic views, except to display the intensity of the debate and the Tibetan's propensity for supernatural dispute,, which is well-enough documented elsewhere. djlewis (talk) 02:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I am also puzzled by what appears to be merely reference-counting as a substitute for sourcing quality. I can produce plenty of laudatory references and defenses of TK against the opponents of his views, but that is not the point. What's needed is a reasonably accurate and balanced account of his intellectual legacy. djlewis (talk) 02:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The deletion of academic books is pure whitewashing. Pinging @Joshua Jonathan: and @Montanabw:.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 02:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid the critics may have a point here. I also get the impression thet the demons are over-emphasized, to give the impression that Tsoghkhapa was some weirdo. I'd be interested what was novel about his interpretations, and why the demons were necessary to lend credibility to his views. He's an important figure in Tibetan Buddhism, so I'd be interested in his "development". And the DL-quote is indeed too long. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan:Just to explain. Tsongkhapa and Gorampa are two major Tibetan philosophers of different schools who disagree on a number of crucial points. Tsongkhapa claimed to have many mystical visions of Manjushri, the bodhisattva/buddha of wisdom, from whom he obtained many of his philosophical insights. Besides disputing Tsongkhapa philosophically, at one point Gorampa apparently stated that Tsongkhapa must have been in communion not with Manjushri but with a demon, and therefore to have been spreading demonic falsehoods instead of truth. Who knows what he meant, especially from the point of view of the modern Western naturalist zeitgeist, but there is apparently no evidence that anyone else ever publicly agreed with Gorampa on this calumny. Given the prominence of Tsongkhapa's views in Tibet, it is in effect accusing the major school and the majority of Tibetans of following a demonic line. Obviously this is hyperbole, and has no bearing on the philosophical issues presumably under discussion here. BTW, most Tibetans, even today, accept the supernatural, including demons, so it's not an issue of being a weirdo, except insofar as they are all weirdos from the Western perspective.

The subtext is that the Tibetans take their philosophy approximately the way Americans take baseball, and get equally heated. It's like the Red Sox vs the Yankees, and Tsongkhapa is a Yankee, in fact, Babe Ruth. My guess is that this whole section on Tsongkhapa was created by "fans" of one or more schools that oppose Tsongkhapa's, to cast doubt on his reliability, like Red Sox fans pointing at Babe Ruth's beer belly and hard drinking. But it's of very low quality by all standards, including NPOV.

I'm very busy, but give me a few days and I will construct a decent section on Tsongkhapa's academic views -- without the thoroughly irrelevant demon accusation (which I'd like to remove immediately). djlewis (talk) 05:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

How is this comment not whitewashing?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 05:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanantion. Zennies also got their problems, which get equally heated... Funny, isn't it, how we strive for perfection and end up in fights like these? Anyway, what are the relevant academic sources then? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The two major sources are: Life and Teachings of Tsong Khapa by Robert A.F. Thurman (Author, Editor); Self, Reality and Reason in Tibetan Philosophy: Tsongkhapa's Quest for the Middle Way by Thupten Jinpa; There is a lot of other material in sources such as: Forward to Ocean of Eloquence, Tsong kha pa's Commentary on the Yogacara Doctrine of Mind, Gareth Sparham, Translator; Mipham's Dialectics and the Debates on Emptiness: To Be, Not to Be Or Neither By Karma Phuntsho; Two Truths Debate, Tsong Khapa and Gorampa on the Middle Way, Thakchoe and forward by Garfield; Tibet: A History, by Sam van Schaik; Indestructible Truth: The Living Spirituality of Tibetan Buddhism By Reginald A. Ray; The Religions of Tibet by Giuseppe Tucci; Religions of Tibet in Practice, Don Lopez editor; Introduction to Tibetan Buddhism by John Powers; The Religions of Tibet by Hoffman; and numerous others. Several of these are already cited in the section under discussion, though generally the most negative possible citations have been chosen (which indicates the problem here). Tsongkhapa is one of the three or four seminal Tibetan figures (along with Padmasambhava, Atisha, Milarepa), and probably the most prolific, so there is a lot of material. djlewis (talk) 14:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Adding a couple more -- this will be my reference list -- Tsong-kha-pa’s Final Exposition of Wisdom by Jeffrey Hopkins; http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/tsongkhapa/ (The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy -- is that a legit source in Wikipedia?); A Note on Some Aspects of Mi Bskyod Do Rje's critique of Dse Lugs Pa madhyamaka, by Paul Williams,Journal of Indian Philosophy, Vol. 11, No. 2 (JUNE 1983), pp. 125-145 djlewis (talk) 17:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The Reflexive Nature of Awareness: A Tibetan Madhyamaka Defence, by Paul Williams djlewis (talk) 17:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, here's my take on this article: It is not particularly well-written and would very much benefit from more sourcing, there is a great deal of material with no footnoting at all. If we were, for example, to submit this article as a potential GA, it would be rejected out of hand. I also take issue with the sections that have long quotations but no real summary of the analysis (and said analysis or summary would need to be sourced). So in effect, the article has some very superficial sections that need work. The work in question probably needs a bit more assessment (in other words, some sort assessment along the lines of "on one hand, this writer says A, but on the other hand another writer says B, and analysis of expert C says that A is kind of right abut B is also kind of right.") That said, Wisdom Publications is an acceptable mainstream publisher of Buddhist works, and it appears to publish material from Mahayana, Zen and Theravada sources, so I am comfortable that the publishing house itself is fine and the books from that source can be assessed individually (if a work, for example, is a bit outdated or superceded by subsequent scholarship. I also looked the Stanford Source noted above, and given that I am not a Buddhist nor a scholar of Buddhism, it too appears to be a solid source.

Thanks for checking out the sources -- I did try to use only "serious" ones. The author of the Stanford piece (they list authors at the bottom) is Gareth Sparham, who is a recognized scholar and appears elsewhere in my reference list. I agree the whole TK article needs work. I will commit to a "Philosophical Views" section, including balanced treatment of opposing schools and controversies. I'll even mention the demon bit, but place it in appropriate context -- it is interesting and says something about Tibetan dialectical culture. Sorry I cannot do more, but I am too busy. In fact, I can't get to work on anything until after the new year. I would like, however, to immediately erase the current "Academic Views" section altogether. It says essentially nothing useful about TK's academic/philosophical views, which are extremely influential and important, not only in current and historical Tibetan Buddhism, but now in Buddhism worldwide. Despite the minimum appearance of appropriate sourcing, it is really a hatchet job (blackwashing?), probably by some overly ardent adherents of an opposing school. Can I get signoff from someone -- that the deletion won't be reverted by Wikipedia "staff" as "whitewashing" or for any reason, and if someone else tries to put it or the equivalent back you will support keeping it neutral and balanced. djlewis (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Add to the reference list -- The Central Philosophy of Tibet by Robert A.F. Thurman -- which was the subject of a recent teaching by H.H. The Dalai Lama in NYC.djlewis (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Thurman is well-respected. Because I am not an expert in Buddhism, I hesitate to remove that section, per my comments below. (One person's hatchet job is another's whitewashing, and I don't read the current section as a hatchet job, it's adequately neutral, just poorly-written) I think it can be tagged for cleanup (perhaps refimprove-section or dated-sources templates) and that will address any interim concerns. Montanabw^(talk) 20:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm really puzzled that you can read the current "academic views" section as (a) neutral; (b) providing any information about TK's actual academic views? So, let me ask a question -- are you concerned that this is somehow about Shugden? djlewis (talk) 06:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

General tone of this article

I've read this article and I'm none the wiser about what this person actually stood for or what his teachings were. It just reads like a big list of names of other people and names of various mystical practices. What exactly were his teachings? --Eamonnca1 ^TALK 18:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/tsongkhapa/ is a far superior article and puts this one to shame. Maybe some helpful points from there can be instituted into here. I assume no one has been able to give this article the proper time to make it correct. Prasangika37 (talk) 19:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Apples and oranges to compare an academic article to this one. The Stanford article appears to be a useful source, my main concern is that this article not become a vehicle for promoting the New Kadampa Tradition's fringe views, particularly their hostility to the Dalai Lama, anything on Shugden worship, and opposition of an "ecumenical" approach within the Gelug/Geluk tradition. Montanabw^(talk) 20:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)