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

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited August 20, 2013 by Simple_Jack

[RongzomFan]

Now that I proved that "the traditional Geluk understanding" fully admits to "deviations in Tsongkhapa's thought", I don't want to derail your thread. Carry on.

[Protector]

It's ok, bro, I won't ever mention Tsongkhapa on this board again. You don't like it, it's not allowed, it's not cool.

 

I allow it

 

 

P.S. LAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAW!!!!!

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited August 20, 2013 by Simple_Jack

[RongzomFan]

I can totally expect this sectarian attitude from you, so it's not surprising to me

 

Why am I sectarian?

 

Geshe Thupten Jinpa, the Dalai Lama's translator, says "the traditional Geluk understanding" fully admits to "deviations in Tsongkhapa's thought":

 

"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!"

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited August 20, 2013 by Simple_Jack

[Creation]

Why am I sectarian?

 

Geshe Thupten Jinpa, the Dalai Lama's translator, says "the traditional Geluk understanding" fully admits to "deviations in Tsongkhapa's thought":

Seriously? Because Thupten Jinpa follows Tsongkhapa even though he acknowledges his Madhayamaka deviates from the Indian tradition, whereas you think that invalidates everything he taught. That makes you sectarian.

[RongzomFan]

Seriously? Because Thupten Jinpa follows Tsongkhapa even though he acknowledges his Madhayamaka deviates from the Indian tradition, whereas you think that invalidates everything he taught. That makes you sectarian.

 

whatever.

Edited July 24, 2013 by alwayson

[RongzomFan]

I trust the Dalai Lama's research and interpretation on this matter

 

Obviously you don't trust HH Dalai Lama, because you say Tsongkhapa:

 

seems completely consistent with other masters before him

 

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!"

Edited July 25, 2013 by alwayson

[RongzomFan]

Because these are Tibetan inventions.

 

self-empty and other-empty is another B.S. Tibetan invention

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=8zeh8VAFCvAC&pg=PA445&dq=Center+of+the+Sunlit+sky+The+answer+is+sim-ple+and+may+be+shocking+to+some:+There+is+no+Shentong-Madhyamaka+nor+any+need+to+make+one+up.++The+subdivision+of+Madhyamaka+into+%22self-empty%22+and+%22other-empty%22+is+obsolete.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=vpLwUcfYEpOn4AOq_YCgDQ&ved=0CDIQuwUwAA#v=onepage&q=Center%20of%20the%20Sunlit%20sky%20The%20answer%20is%20sim-ple%20and%20may%20be%20shocking%20to%20some%3A%20There%20is%20no%20Shentong-Madhyamaka%20nor%20any%20need%20to%20make%20one%20up.%20%20The%20subdivision%20of%20Madhyamaka%20into%20%22self-empty%22%20and%20%22other-empty%22%20is%20obsolete.&f=false

[Apech]

self-empty and other-empty is another B.S. Tibetan invention

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=8zeh8VAFCvAC&pg=PA445&dq=Center+of+the+Sunlit+sky+The+answer+is+sim-ple+and+may+be+shocking+to+some:+There+is+no+Shentong-Madhyamaka+nor+any+need+to+make+one+up.++The+subdivision+of+Madhyamaka+into+%22self-empty%22+and+%22other-empty%22+is+obsolete.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=vpLwUcfYEpOn4AOq_YCgDQ&ved=0CDIQuwUwAA#v=onepage&q=Center%20of%20the%20Sunlit%20sky%20The%20answer%20is%20sim-ple%20and%20may%20be%20shocking%20to%20some%3A%20There%20is%20no%20Shentong-Madhyamaka%20nor%20any%20need%20to%20make%20one%20up.%20%20The%20subdivision%20of%20Madhyamaka%20into%20%22self-empty%22%20and%20%22other-empty%22%20is%20obsolete.&f=false

 

So is the Gyu Lama not Indian origin ... I understood it was translated into Tibetan by Kashmiri/Tibetan scholars.

[Simple_Jack]

self-empty and other-empty is another B.S. Tibetan invention

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=8zeh8VAFCvAC&pg=PA445&dq=Center+of+the+Sunlit+sky+The+answer+is+sim-ple+and+may+be+shocking+to+some:+There+is+no+Shentong-Madhyamaka+nor+any+need+to+make+one+up.++The+subdivision+of+Madhyamaka+into+%22self-empty%22+and+%22other-empty%22+is+obsolete.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=vpLwUcfYEpOn4AOq_YCgDQ&ved=0CDIQuwUwAA#v=onepage&q=Center%20of%20the%20Sunlit%20sky%20The%20answer%20is%20sim-ple%20and%20may%20be%20shocking%20to%20some%3A%20There%20is%20no%20Shentong-Madhyamaka%20nor%20any%20need%20to%20make%20one%20up.%20%20The%20subdivision%20of%20Madhyamaka%20into%20%22self-empty%22%20and%20%22other-empty%22%20is%20obsolete.&f=false

 

Still, kudos to the Tibetans for creating their own unique takes on traditional Indian philosophical treatises.

 

Speaking of Yogacara, here's a preview of Tsongkhapa's Ocean Of Eloquence:

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=sX4RtxEUlLgC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

[Simple_Jack]

For anyone that's interested:

 

1. Tsongkhapa's Ocean of Reasoning on scribd: http://www.scribd.com/doc/113108520/Ocean-of-Reasoning

 

2. Tsongkhapa's Sngags rim chen mo/Great Treatise on the Stages of Tantra:

 

Vol 1 - http://books.google.com/books/about/Tantra_in_Tibet.html?id=STm_SEdgoCkC

 

Vol 2-3 - http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Yoga_of_Tibet.html?id=goXfIvghdmYC

 

Also, look for a new translation of the above by Thomas F. Yarnall & AIBS team called "Great Treatise on the Stages of Mantra".

[Creation]

So is the Gyu Lama not Indian origin ... I understood it was translated into Tibetan by Kashmiri/Tibetan scholars.

It is, or at least from the "Indosphere", as are the Tathagatagarbha sutras. Most orthodoxy Tibetan scholarship identifies Yogacara with "mind only" idealism and interprets Tathagatagarbha in purely Madhyamaka terms. Shentong seems to be the label for anything that does not do this. It originally referred to Dolpopa's philosophy, which is particularly Advaita-like and drew criticism from Tsongkhapa and Gorampa alike, but now it is used more generally. Shakya Chokedn and the Third Karmapa are Shentong proponents according to the wider definition who are less less Advaita-like than Dolpopa.

[RongzomFan]

Just read original Indian texts, and forget about all this Tibetan commentary.

[RongzomFan]

In second thought, I'm not quite done with this thread....

 

I actually agree with what Lopon Namdrol (aka. Malcolm) says about taking a more constructive approach to comparing the different Tibetan commentaries on Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti's Madhyamka:

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=102&t=6731&start=100

 

"....I am attempting to encourage people to take a more constructive approach: instead of saying, as I have many times in the past, "Tsongkhapa was wrong to say that we may leave off the second two alternatives of the four extremes because they are double negatives", it is better think long and hard why he might give such an opinion. Rather than immediately assume that Gorampa is wrong in asserting that Candrakiriti accepts things like svasamvedana conventionally, it is better to ask yourself why he might assert that. These great scholars almost always have very solid reasons for saying what they do about this and that thing, and the thing is, we have to really question ourselves if we think something they said is wrong. That is my point."

 

And Rongzom trashed all of Madhyamaka.

 

Rongzom said that while sutra subscribes to the 2 truths, the better tantric view subscribes to 1 truth.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Establishing-Appearances-Divine-Reasoning-Madhyamaka/dp/1559392886

[RongzomFan]

Wasn't Tsongkhapa responsible for rejuvinating monastic Tibetan Buddhism when it had fallen into severe degradation with sexual indulgence on the rampage

 

Tsongkhapa himself taught karmamudra. On this issue Tsongkhapa is in the mainstream.

 

Tsongkhapa speaks of the qualifications required of one who would engage in the karmamudra yogas:

 

"Here both oneself and the mudra should be beings of highest capacity, and should have received the pure empowerments. Both should be learned in the root and branch guidelines of tantric practice, and have the ability to maintain them well. Both should be skilled in the sadhana of the mandala cycle, and mature in practicing four daily sessions of yoga. Also, they should be skilled in the sixty-four ways of sexual play as described in A Treatise on Bliss. They should be mature in meditation upon the doctrine of emptiness; be experienced in the techniques for inducing the four blisses in general and the innate wisdom awareness in particular; and be able to control the melted drops and prevent them from escaping outside.

 

Such are the characteristics required of the practitioners as described in the original tantras and also in the treatises of the [indian] mahasiddhas."

Edited November 1, 2013 by RongzomFan

[Simple_Jack]

A commentary on a commentary, by Geshe Sonam Rinchen, on Aryadeva's "Four Hundred Stanzas on the Middle Way" --http://www.amazon.com/Aryadevas-Four-Hundred-Stanzas-Middle/dp/1559393025.