Tsongkhapa's Lam Rim Chen Mo w/ audio and video commentaries

[RongzomFan]

Im curious to know of your personal leanings, whether its to Prasangika or Svatantrika.

 

You are asking me to align myself with fictitious Tibetan categories. Its utter nonsense my friend.

 

You should have merely asked if I agree with Candrakirti's defense of consequentialist argumentation in his Prasannapadā.

Edited July 22, 2013 by alwayson

[C T]

You tell me then....what did Gorampa mean by this stuff:

 

"Gorampa, in the Lta ba ngan sel (Eliminating the Erroneous View), accuses Tsongkhapa of being "seized by demons" (bdud kyis zin pa) and in the Lta ba'i shan 'byed (Distinguishing Views) decries him as a "nihilistic Madhyamika" (dbu ma chad lta ba) who is spreading "demonic words" (bdud kyi tshig)."

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=u7ZtE1bhtRYC&pg=PA125&dq=Gorampa,+in+the+Lta+ba+ngan+sel+(Eliminating+the+Erroneous+View),+accuses+Tsongkhapa+of+being+%22seized+by+demons%22+(bdud+kyis+zin+pa)+and+in+the+Lta+ba#v=onepage&q=Gorampa%2C%20in%20the%20Lta%20ba%20ngan%20sel%20(Eliminating%20the%20Erroneous%20View)%2C%20accuses%20Tsongkhapa%20of%20being%20%22seized%20by%20demons%22%20(bdud%20kyis%20zin%20pa)%20and%20in%20the%20Lta%20ba&f=false

I dont know what exactly was his state of mind when he uttered that nonsense since 'being seized' and 'demons', according to mahayana view, are based on ignorant assumptions, or, to put it another way, on dualistic notions of self and external phenomenon. If Gorampa was indeed a man of realization, then these utterances of his are totally off the mark.

 

Moreover, one man's accusatory words does not render the otherwise well-received teachings of another baseless and inaccurate. Dont know about you, but it would appear childish to actually accept Gorampa's obviously biased and distasteful remarks as anything more than jealousy or envy of another's achievement. It may not be this, but it sure sends out that kind of a message, as far as i can see.

[RongzomFan]

I dont know what exactly was his state of mind when he uttered that nonsense since 'being seized' and 'demons', according to mahayana view, are based on ignorant assumptions, or, to put it another way, on dualistic notions of self and external phenomenon. If Gorampa was indeed a man of realization, then these utterances of his are totally off the mark.

 

Moreover, one man's accusatory words does not render the otherwise well-received teachings of another baseless and inaccurate. Dont know about you, but it would appear childish to actually accept Gorampa's obviously biased and distasteful remarks as anything more than jealousy or envy of another's achievement. It may not be this, but it sure sends out that kind of a message, as far as i can see.

 

Only a fool would disregard Gorampa, a pillar of Sakya thought who is required reading in Sakya.

Edited July 25, 2013 by alwayson

[RongzomFan]

Dont know about you, but it would appear childish to actually accept Gorampa's obviously biased and distasteful remarks as anything more than jealousy or envy of another's achievement.

 

What achievement of Tsongkhapa would Gorampa be jealous of?

 

Speaking of childish, the later Gandenpas made up a story of Tsongkhapa speaking to Manjushri as a justification for Tsongkhapa's heretical views.

 

Moreover, one man's accusatory words does not render the otherwise well-received teachings of another baseless and inaccurate.

 

Tsongkhapa was not 'otherwise well-received', as you put it. He was criticized from the beginning to the present day.

 

As Sam van Schaik states: "As Khedrup and later followers of Tsongkhapa hit back at accusations like these, they defined their own philosophical tradition, and this went a long way to drawing a line in the sand between the Gandenpas and the broader Sakya tradition."

 

As Karl Brunnholzl states: "In fact, the peculiar Gelugpa version of Madhaymaka is a minority position in Indo-Tibetan Buddhism, since its uncommon features are neither found in any Indian text nor accepted by any of the other Tibetan schools."

Edited July 22, 2013 by alwayson

[C T]

I almost fell out of my chair when I read this.

 

Have you heard of Gorampa, the Sakya scholar???

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=gbT01AXrmisC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Gorampa&hl=en&sa=X&ei=E_7rUbGHNZer4AON94DgDw&ved=0CDgQuwUwAQ

I too almost fell out of my chair when i scrutinized this article by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Gorampa. Did you know that he actually considers himself prasangika as well (as Tsongkhapa)? A detailed comparison between the distinct assertions each made can be gleaned further down in said article.

 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/gorampa/

 

 

This link (below) gives an extensive list of all eminent scholars and commentators who have undertaken to write, comment and critique Tsongkhapa's works. Surely they would not have gone to such length if Tsongkhapa was indeed demon-possessed, and whatever else was wrong with him, as claimed by Gorampa/Alwayson.

 

http://www.easterntradition.org/etri%20bib-tsongkhapa.pdf

 

In the official website of Sakya Trizin, under the topic 'Holy Biography of Sakya Pandita' it opens with homage paid by Tsongkhapa to Sakya Pandita. -- http://www.hhthesakyatrizin.org/tradition_founder4.html

 

Odd thing, taking into account all that Alwayson have vaguely alluded to (regarding how the Sakyas and other more formidable, reputable lineages diss Tsongkhapa's writings and all).

[RongzomFan]

Did you know that he actually considers himself prasangika as well (as Tsongkhapa)?

 

Gorampa does not consider Tsongkhapa as Prasangika.

 

And I would reread Creation's post on page 2.

Edited July 22, 2013 by alwayson

[RongzomFan]

In the official website of Sakya Trizin, under the topic 'Holy Biography of Sakya Pandita' it opens with homage paid by Tsongkhapa to Sakya Pandita. -- http://www.hhthesakyatrizin.org/tradition_founder4.html

 

This is Tsongkhapa paying homage to Sakya Pandita.

 

Not Sakya Pandita paying homage to Tsongkhapa.

 

The whole point there is the supremacy of the Sakya school.

[RongzomFan]

Odd thing, taking into account all that Alwayson have vaguely alluded to (regarding how the Sakyas and other more formidable, reputable lineages diss Tsongkhapa's writings and all).

 

How is it odd??

 

They are showing that Sakya Pandita and the Sakyas are more authoritative than Tsongkhapa.

[Creation]

I too almost fell out of my chair when i scrutinized this article by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Gorampa. Did you know that he actually considers himself prasangika as well (as Tsongkhapa)? A detailed comparison between the distinct assertions each made can be gleaned further down in said article.

 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/gorampa/

 

 

This link (below) gives an extensive list of all eminent scholars and commentators who have undertaken to write, comment and critique Tsongkhapa's works. Surely they would not have gone to such length if Tsongkhapa was indeed demon-possessed, and whatever else was wrong with him, as claimed by Gorampa/Alwayson.

A few things. First, about the demon thing. Tsongkhapa claimed to have discussions with Manjursri. This is a very potent claim for pious Buddhists: If you accept that Tsongkhapa was instructed by Manjursri, arguing with Tsongkhapa becomes arguing with Manjusri, which is bad news for Tsongkhapa's opponents. So I suspect Gorampa reasoned, "since I believe Tsongkhapa was wrong, this spirit he conversed with must not have been Manjursi but a demon masquerading as Manjusri." A potent response to a potent claim, so to speak. I don't think that Gorampa actually claimed Tsongkhapa was possessed, that would be ridiculous.

 

But this is a false dichotomy: in the spirit of non-sectarianism, you can say that all these scholars were just giving different conceptualizations of emptiness, all of which are potentially useful to some. Then it is no problem to accept that Tsongkhapa spoke with Manjusri and praise him highly, yet hold that his view is not the most faithful to Nagarjuna's intent, like the Eighth Karmapa for example.

 

Now, since you have read that SEP article, you might see why Mahamudra and Dzogchen practitioners might prefer Gorampa's presentation of Madhyamaka, which emphasizes the nonconeptual nature of the ultimate, to Tsongkhapa's presentation, which tries to conceptualize the ultimate. Actually, for all Tsongkhapa's criticism of Svatantrika, it seems to me that he did to Candrakirti what Bhavyaviveka did to Nagarjuna: use logic to conceptualize the ultimate truth.

 

But you can follow Tsongkhapa's system of Madhyamaka and practice Mahamudra of Dzogchen, like the Dalai Lamas and Shabkar, because as far as Mahamudra and Dzogchen are concerned, Madhyamaka is conceptual from the start so a more conceptual presentation like Tsongkhapa's is not a problem.

 

That's how I see things anyway.

Edited July 23, 2013 by Creation

[C T]

Gorampa does not consider Tsongkhapa as Prasangika.

 

And I would reread Creation's post on page 2.

The need is to ask if you know whether he considers himself prasangika?

 

You have made it clear Gorampa does not rate Tsongkhapa as any worthwhile saint or scholar, but that is not important. What is crucial is how each considers themselves - do each of them see themselves aligning with prasangika or svatantrika? According to research, they both see themselves aligned to the former. Is this correct or not? I dont care what Gorampa thinks of Tsongkhapa so much.

 

Important point to consider, since i am reminded that 'prasangika is a fictitious Tibetan category'.

[C T]

A few things. First, about the demon thing. Tsongkhapa claimed to have discussions with Manjursri. This is a very potent claim for pious Buddhists: If you accept that Tsongkhapa was instructed by Manjursri, arguing with Tsongkhapa becomes arguing with Manjusri, which is bad news for Tsongkhapa's opponents. So I suspect Gorampa reasoned, "since I believe Tsongkhapa was wrong, this spirit he conversed with must not have been Manjursi but a demon masquerading as Manjusri." A potent response to a potent claim, so to speak. I don't think that Gorampa actually claimed Tsongkhapa was possessed, that would be ridiculous.

 

But this is a false dichotomy: in the spirit of non-sectarianism, you can say that all these scholars were just giving different conceptualizations of emptiness, all of which are potentially useful to some. Then it is no problem to accept that Tsongkhapa spoke with Manjusri and praise him highly, yet hold that his view is not the most faithful to Nagarjuna's intent, like the Eighth Karmapa for example.

 

Now, since you have read that SEP article, you might see why Mahamudra and Dzogchen practitioners might prefer Gorampa's presentation of Madhyamaka, which emphasizes the nonconeptual nature of the ultimate, to Tsongkhapa's presentation, which tries to conceptualize the ultimate. Actually, for all Tsongkhapa's criticism of Svatantrika, it seems to me that he did to Candrakirti what Bhavyaviveka did to Nagarjuna: use logic to conceptualize the ultimate truth.

 

But you can follow Tsongkhapa's system of Madhyamaka and practice Mahamudra of Dzogchen, like the Dalai Lamas and Shabkar, because as far as Mahamudra and Dzogchen are concerned, Madhyamaka is conceptual from the start so a more conceptual presentation like Tsongkhapa's is not a problem.

 

That's how I see things anyway.

Thank you. A good and detailed analysis is always appreciated!

 

Btw, i am not a Gelug student. I just happen to take an interest where i feel there could be misinformation floating around, and thus causes me to dig deeper in order to verify if indeed Tsongkhapa is the scoundrel that he is made out to be.

[RongzomFan]

The need is to ask if you know whether he considers himself prasangika

 

Do you think Tsongkhapa invented prasangika or something?

 

Prasangika was coined at Sangphu by Batsab Nyima Drag in the 12th century.

[C T]

Actually, for all Tsongkhapa's criticism of Svatantrika, it seems to me that he did to Candrakirti what Bhavyaviveka did to Nagarjuna: use logic to conceptualize the ultimate truth.

Allow me to quote a few lines from The Adornment of the Middle Way (Jamgon Mipham):

 

Je Tsongkhapa also says that beginners who do not possess the certainty deriving from rational investigation and who merely talks about the absence of conceptual extremes cannot dislodge their clinging to inherent existence. They therefore deviate from the authentic path. This being so, he said that, for the time being, it is very important to continue apprehending or focussing on the absence of inherent existence as this is revealed by reasoned inquiry.

 

Nevertheless, his final teaching was as follows:

 

Phenomena that, in dependence, inescapably arise,

And the understanding of voidness, free from all assertion -

As long as these appear as different,

The teachings of the Buddha is not understood.

 

But when phenomena, arising in dependence,

Are seen at once together with their emptiness,

And when there is no further apprehension that the two are separate,

Then your View has been perfected.

 

Then we can compare the equalness of Tsongkhapa's realization with that of Masters of the other traditions, like Marpa for example, who declared:

 

This particular and final View,

The union that dwells in no extreme,

Is wisdom of the Buddhas of the triple time.

Those who sunder means from wisdom,

Fall to extreme views.

So this should be avoided.

 

And then, Milarepa said:

 

Existence, the appearing of phenomena,

Their emptiness or non-existence,

By nature are not separate; they're of a single taste.

There is no self-cognizing and no other-cognizing.

 

Can you really reduce all these 3 quotes to distill which of them is derived from the Dzogchen, Mahamudra or Madhyamika view? Not likely.

[C T]

Do you think Tsongkhapa invented prasangika or something?

 

Prasangika was coined at Sangphu by Batsab Nyima Drag in the 12th century.

I never alluded to that. Its just your imagination.

[RongzomFan]

I never alluded to that. Its just your imagination.

 

Ok, you just think Tsongkhapa was "well-regarded by all Prasangika adherents".

 

Actually i think he is well-regarded by all Prasangika adherents.

[C T]

Ok, you just think Tsongkhapa was "well-regarded by all Prasangika adherents".

Exactly.

 

In the same sort of vein that you think he is not.

[RongzomFan]

Exactly.

 

In the same sort of vein that you think he is not.

 

 

I guess you missed all the Gorampa stuff.

[C T]

I guess you missed all the Gorampa stuff.

duh..

 

You keep harping on about Gorampa. He is nothing more than another so-called lineage transmitter. There are hundreds of 'gorampas' everywhere, in every lineage, as far as the eye can see.

Edited July 23, 2013 by C T

[RongzomFan]

duh..

 

You keep harping on about Gorampa. He is nothing more than another so-called lineage transmitter. There are hundreds of 'gorampas' everywhere, in every lineage, as far as the eye can see.

 

Gorampa established the most definitive Tibetan Madhyamaka.

 

Have you even heard of Gorampa till Creation and I brought him up?

[C T]

Gorampa established the most definitive Tibetan Madhyamaka.

 

Have you even heard of Gorampa till Creation and I brought him up?

Haha. Laughable..

 

Cowboy talk.

[RongzomFan]

Haha. Laughable..

 

Cowboy talk.

 

That's what Loppon Namdrol says. And he is always right about this kind of thing.

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=4056&start=100#p49154

 

"Gorampa is pretty much the definitive voice on Madhyamaka in Tibet."

Edited July 23, 2013 by alwayson

[C T]

That's what Loppon Namdrol says. And he is always right about this kind of thing.

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=4056&start=100#p49154

 

"Gorampa is pretty much the definitive voice on Madhyamaka in Tibet."

Enough of this sort of talk.

 

Im off to play some on-line poker.

 

Will chat again if/when you come down from the clouds.

 

Good day sir.

[C T]

P.S. Namdrol isn't even sure who 'he' himself is anymore.

 

Ciao!

[RongzomFan]

P.S. Namdrol isn't even sure who 'he' himself is anymore.

 

Ciao!

 

How is that? What a throw away comment.

[RongzomFan]

In all my research about the only person I find who is highly critical of Tsongkhapa is you

 

Research more.

 

1. Geshe Thupten Jinpa, the Dalai Lama's translator, fully admits Tsongkhapa is a deviant who did not honor the existing tradition:

 

"The traditional Geluk understanding of these deviations in Tsongkhapa's thought attributes the development of his distinct reading of Madhyamaka philosophy to a mystical communion he is reported to have had with the bodhisattva Manjusri........It is interesting that the tradition Tsongkhapa is claiming to honour is, in a strict sense, not the existing system in Tibet; rather, it appears to be in the tradition of Manjusri as revealed in a mystic vision!"

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=2LhdnDp118oC&pg=PA17&lpg=PA17&dq=It+is+interesting+that+the+tradition+Tsongkhapa+is+claiming+to+honour+is,+in+a+strict+sense,+not+the+existing+system+in+Tibet;+rather,+it+appears+to+be+in+the+tradition+of+Manjusri+as+revealed+in+a+mystic+vision&source=bl&ots=S692C899ki&sig=X0qtjc4iajoL-Lm4PL6LtKKCYrs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=WqbuUdz2JNGl4AOl8YGwAg&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=It%20is%20interesting%20that%20the%20tradition%20Tsongkhapa%20is%20claiming%20to%20honour%20is%2C%20in%20a%20strict%20sense%2C%20not%20the%20existing%20system%20in%20Tibet%3B%20rather%2C%20it%20appears%20to%20be%20in%20the%20tradition%20of%20Manjusri%20as%20revealed%20in%20a%20mystic%20vision&f=false

 

2. Gorampa said Tsongkhapa was seized by demons and spread demonic words. He also did a detailed substantive critique of Tsongkhapa's "Madhyamaka."

 

"Gorampa, in the Lta ba ngan sel (Eliminating the Erroneous View), accuses Tsongkhapa of being "seized by demons" (bdud kyis zin pa) and in the Lta ba'i shan 'byed (Distinguishing Views) decries him as a "nihilistic Madhyamika" (dbu ma chad lta ba) who is spreading "demonic words" (bdud kyi tshig)."

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=u7ZtE1bhtRYC&pg=PA125&dq=Gorampa,+in+the+Lta+ba+ngan+sel+(Eliminating+the+Erroneous+View),+accuses+Tsongkhapa+of+being+%22seized+by+demons%22+(bdud+kyis+zin+pa)+and+in+the+Lta+ba#v=onepage&q=Gorampa%2C%20in%20the%20Lta%20ba%20ngan%20sel%20(Eliminating%20the%20Erroneous%20View)%2C%20accuses%20Tsongkhapa%20of%20being%20%22seized%20by%20demons%22%20(bdud%20kyis%20zin%20pa)%20and%20in%20the%20Lta%20ba&f=false

 

"Even as serious a scholar as Go rams pa cannot resist suggesting, for example, that Tsong kha pa's supposed conversations with Manjusri may have been a dialogue with a demon instead."

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=gbT01AXrmisC&pg=PA17&dq=Even+as+serious+a+scholar+as+Go+rams+pa+cannot+resist+suggesting,+for+example,+that+Tsong+kha+pa's+supposed&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yAfyUfHmL5jb4AOq5IDQDw&ved=0CD0QuwUwAA#v=onepage&q=Even%20as%20serious%20a%20scholar%20as%20Go%20rams%20pa%20cannot%20resist%20suggesting%2C%20for%20example%2C%20that%20Tsong%20kha%20pa's%20supposed&f=false

 

3. Karl Brunnholzl's Center of the Sunlit Sky indicates that Tsongkhapa's interpretation of Madhyamaka is not consistent with any Indian text or the other Tibetan schools. Furthermore it has contaminated western scholarship.

 

"First, with a few exceptions, the majority of books or articles on Madhyamaka by Western - particularly North American - scholars is based on the explanations of the Gelugpa school of Tibetan Buddhism. Deliberately or not, many of these Western presentations give the impression that the Gelugpa system is more or less equivalent to Tibetan Buddhism as such and that this school's way of presenting Madhyamaka is the standard or even the only way to explain this system, which has led to the still widely prevailing assumption that this is actually the case. From the perspective of Indian and Tibetan Buddhism in general, nothing could be more wrong. In fact, the peculiar Gelugpa version of Madhaymaka is a minority position in Indo-Tibetan Buddhism, since its uncommon features are neither found in any Indian text nor accepted by any of the other Tibetan schools."

 

"All critics of Tsongkhapa, including the Eighth Karmapa, agree that many features of his Centrism are novelties that are not found in any Indian sources and see this as a major flaw."

 

4. Tsongkhapa and Gelugpas are weirdo radicals, according to Sam van Schaik's basic history book, Tibet, A History:

 

"......Tsongkhapa was coming to realize that he wanted to create something new, not necessarily a school, but at least a new formulation of the Buddhist Path."

 

"........with Tsongkhapa's own personal interpretation of the philosophy of the Madhyamaka."

 

"As Khedrup and later followers of Tsongkhapa hit back at accusations like these, they defined their own philosophical tradition, and this went a long way to drawing a line in the sand between the Gandenpas and the broader Sakya tradition."

Edited July 26, 2013 by alwayson