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)

Is it about Shugden for you?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 06:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely not -- I stay as far away from all that as I can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djlewis (talk • contribs) 14:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Tshongkhapa certainly had critics of some of his views - including notably Gorampa Sonam Senge, Shakya Chogden (1428–1507), Karmapa Mikyo Dorje, Mipham, Gendun Chophel, and Botrul (1898 1959) - there were even some critics of certain views of Tsongkhapa (particularly some of those found in his earlier works) by later Geluk writers. All these have been extensively discussed in good academic sources which are not too difficult to find, so it should be possible to write a very good and very useful sections summarizing all these criticisms in a balanced way in this article. These criticisms of Tsongkhapa (and the Geluk responses to them) are of course an absolutely central and vital part in the development of all Madhyamika Buddhist philosophy in Tibet post-Tsongkhapa. Understanding these criticisms is also critical to fully understanding Tsongkhapa's views themselves. 19:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I find it continually challenging to know how to respond to this sort of issue. In Tibet, the Geshe studies were undertaken over 20-40 years, with upwards of 50 monks per annual cohort finishing the degree, taught at various monasteries of different schools, since the 12th Century CE. One of the five masteries is Madhyamaka. Every single academic studied this for a minimum of 3 years, normally much longer. They would be expected to read hundreds of scholarly commentaries based on this. One major branch of academic study arose via the works of Je Tsongkhapa. So we have hundreds of years, with hundreds of thousands of monks debating on every single nuance of his works, (and a whole load of other authors too). The depth of the analysis is incredibly hard to get to grips with, unless one is willing to spend a similar amount of time studying it. So, nowadays we see these arguments having been transferred over into the Western academic sphere - for example, read Garfield's "The Conventional Status of Reflexive Awareness: What’s at Stake in a Tibetan Debate" ; a direct response to Williams 'The Reflexive Nature of Awareness' where William promotes one of Mipham's criticisms against Tsongkhapa.

So, what I am saying is that when we look at this material, it's not a criticism of Tsongkhapa - it's a scholarly debate involved in examining Tsongkhapa's works and, in general, limits itself to the narrow field of Madhyamaka studies within a Geshe curriculum. As such, this isn't a criticism of Tsongkhapa, (even if sometimes the language gets florid). There are criticisms of Tsongkhapa, based on whether or not he needed to start a new school - whether or not he was able to live up to his own high standards, etc. (for instance, Drukpa Kunley's critique - that TK never met the common man, but spent his time as a recluse- find your own source for this, mine was via oral tradition).

In brief, if the best scholars of East and West, over the last 600 years, cannot come to a conclusion about Je Tsongkhapa, we are foolish to take sides on this sort of thing, especially as every Buddhist teacher, from the first, tells us to 'find out for ourselves'. One thing that we can be sure about, is that Je Tsonkhapa's views were worthy of discussion! (20040302 (talk) 13:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC))

It is acknowledged by even the Gelug school that Tsongkhapa had a different understanding of emptiness.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 15:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Haha, Yes Victoria. It reminds me of Wittgenstein who wrote "On certainty" and then later on said "I've had second thoughts about some of that" (apocryphally) (20040302 (talk))

Yes its rather obvious isn't it:) Tsongkhapa threw out the main point of Madhyamaka, anutpada.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 16:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Hm, I'm not sure about that. Do you have a source for that from within his own work, rather than merely what he is accused of? I'm surprised because I have a text here which is his commentary on Anutpada as depicted in the MMK. He certainly doesn't reject conventional anutpada. See, that's the problem. As soon as you make an assertion or negation about his position, you have about a thousand texts that discuss it at a greater depth than any wiki-editor has time for. (20040302 (talk))

Tsongkhapa boiled down emptiness to the nonimplicative negation of inherent existence. There are many sources that say that. Tsongkhapa ignores what Madhyamaka texts actually emphasize, which is anutpada.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 16:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Victoria, let's say that we agree that Tsongkhapa does define emptiness as being a non-implicative negation of inherent existence. It's the next sentence which seems to be WP:SYN and worse, un-substantiated. Nakamura contradicts you - he considers that Madhyamikas identify anutpāda with sunyata, in which case Tsongkhapa is merely defining anutpāda as a synonym for the same non-implicative negation of inherent existence. (20040302 (talk) 16:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC))

It is explicitly clear that Tsongkhapa considers Candrakirti, Buddhapaliata, and Aryadeva as his guides regarding Nagarjuna. Tsongkhapa cites Candrakirti :The self is an essence of things that does not depend on others; it is an intrinsic nature. The non-existence of that is selflessness. As you point out, this is a non-implicatinve negation of intrinsic existence. Likewise, Tsongkhapa cites Buddhapalita: What is the reality of things just as it is? It is the absence of essence. Unskilled persons whose eye of intelligence is obscured by the darkness of delusion conceive of an essence of things and then generate attachment and hostility with regard to them. So, these two Indian scholars are both accepted as Madhyamika authors. You are yet to demonstrate two things that your statement implies: (A) that Tsongkhapa ignores the primary emphasis of Madhyamaka texts and (B) Madhyamaka texts emphasize, an anutpada which is distinct from emptiness. I think you will find such a challenge particularly difficult. (20040302 (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC))

Regarding B., my whole point is that sunyata=anutpada. Also, don't use Gelug influenced translations.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Victoria, your suggestion that the translations that I'm using are somehow biased is rather disingenuous. Are you accusing the well-recognised modern Sanskrit scholars of somehow being subverted? Especially as you have no counter-translations to offer. The first cite is from Bodhisattva Yogacaryā Catuḥśatakaṭikā, and the latter is from Buddhapālita Mulamadhyamaka Vrtti. Please provide alternatives, if you are unhappy with them.

Apart from that, you have now set yourself the challenge of demonstrating how Tsongkhapa ignores the emphasis of the Madhyamikas, but if you agree that the emphasis of Madhyamaka is 'the reality of things just as they are', then it appears you agree with Tsongkhapa, so in what way does he ignore the emphasis of the Madhyamikas?

Lastly, I do not know of anywhere within Tsonkhapa's works where he distinguishes between sunyata and anutpada as anything other than synonyms. Instead, I believe that he considers them both to be part of the underlying truth as mentioned by Candrakirti and Buddhapalita, that there is no inherent existence, and this lack of inherent existence is 'Sunyata' or, if you will, 'Anutpada'.

The specific presentation of Mādhyamaka Prāsaṅgika by Tsongkhapa have been well-documented (see Hopkins, Napper, Garfield et al), but this specific argument that you make is new to me. You may not be caught in WP:SYN and WP:OR, but without explicit references which back your position without requiring any interpretation, it looks like you are out on a limb here.

I will look into this further, but I would really like you to provide some scholarly backing to the presentation of your thoughts, especially as you are not shy of writing. However, maybe I've totally missed your point. If you are saying that Tsonkhapa asserts non-implicatinve negation of intrinsic existence, and he asserts that Sunyata and Anutpada are synonyms, then yes, you would be right. However neither assertions are unique to Tsongkhapa; rather, both are shared by Candrakirti and Buddhapalita, well-known Indian Madhyamika scholars. (20040302 (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2015 (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)

Sources for Tsongkhapa's philosophical views and their critics

I've copied and ordered djlewis' sources, and added one more:

Primary

• Gareth Sparham, Translator, Forward to Ocean of Eloquence, Tsong kha pa's Commentary on the Yogacara Doctrine of Mind

Tibetan (including westerners)

• Robert A.F. Thurman (Author, Editor), Life and Teachings of Tsong Khapa
• Jeffrey Hopkins, Tsong-kha-pa’s Final Exposition of Wisdom

Popular

• Reginald A. Ray, Indestructible Truth: The Living Spirituality of Tibetan Buddhism
• John Powers, Introduction to Tibetan Buddhism

Academic

• Thupten Jinpa, Self, Reality and Reason in Tibetan Philosophy: Tsongkhapa's Quest for the Middle Way
• Karma Phuntsho, Mipham's Dialectics and the Debates on Emptiness: To Be, Not to Be Or Neither
• Thakchoe, foreword by Garfield, Two Truths Debate, Tsong Khapa and Gorampa on the Middle Way
• Sam van Schaik, Tibet: A History
• Giuseppe Tucci, The Religions of Tibet
• Don Lopez editor, Religions of Tibet in Practice
• The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
• Paul Williams, A Note on Some Aspects of Mi Bskyod Do Rje's critique of Dse Lugs Pa madhyamaka, Journal of Indian Philosophy, Vol. 11, No. 2 (JUNE 1983), pp. 125-145
• Paul Williams (introduction, translation), The Reflexive Nature of Awareness: A Tibetan Madhyamaka Defence
• Garfield's "The Conventional Status of Reflexive Awareness: What’s at Stake in a Tibetan Debate" ; a direct response to Williams 'The Reflexive Nature of Awareness' (and Mipam)
• Jose Ignacio Carbezon, Tsonghkapa, MacMillan Encyclopedia of Religion, general editor Lindsay Jones

Unknown

• Hoffman, The Religions of Tibet (outdated?)

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

---

Thanks Joshua. A few corrections and additions (Yes, I've been collecting).

• There is useful secondary material in the forewords, section introductions and other material that accompanies the translations of primary works. In general, my intention is to use that secondary material, so I think it's more appropriate to list these under "Academic". This includes:
  • Gareth Sparham, Translator, Forward to Ocean of Eloquence, Tsong kha pa's Commentary on the Yogacara Doctrine of Mind
  • Robert A.F. Thurman (Author, Editor), Life and Teachings of Tsong Khapa
  • Jeffrey Hopkins, Tsong-kha-pa’s Final Exposition of Wisdom
• There are actually three relevant articles in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP). Strictly speaking, SEP is a teritary source, but like most SEP articles these are detailed, well-researched and written by identified scholars, so I think they count as secondary. Also, Tsongkhapa's philosophy is so closely tied to Geluk philosophy that material on Geluk views is almost always directly or indirectly about Tsongkhapa or about subsequent commentators, sympathetic or critical.
  • Gareth Sparham, Tsongkhapa, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
  • Douglas Duckworth, Gelukpa (dge lugs pa), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
  • Sonam Thakchoe, The Theory of Two Truths in Tibet, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
• Kind of OR, but includes much secondary material and I think if used carefully it is OK
  • Douglas Duckworth, De/limiting Emptiness and the Boundaries of the Ineffable, Journal of Indian Philosophy, February 2010, Volume 38, Issue 1, pp 97-105
• Tertiary but useful
  • Thupten Jinpa, Critique of Autonomous syllogism, Encyclopedia of Asian Philosophy
  • Tom Tillemans, Tibetan Philosophy, In E. Craig (Ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djlewis (talk • contribs) 01:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• By a prominent modern (19th century) critic of Tsongkhapa from the Nyingma school; somewhat more of a primary work
  • Padmakara Translation Group, Introduction to the middle way: Candrakirti’s Madhyamakavatara; with commentary by Ju Mipham
• Jose Ignacio Cabezon, Buddhism and Language: A Study of Indo-Tibetan Scholasticism
• Jay Garfield, Understanding the Two Truths: Tsongkhapa’s Ocean of Reasoning: A Great Commentary on Nagarjuna’s “Mulamadhyamakakarika”, in Edelglass, Garfield editors, Buddhist Philosophy: Essential readings

djlewis (talk) 15:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Succes! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Despite SEP, I do think that the WP approach has something to contribute here -- summarize Tsonghkhapa's views and those of critics clearly and succinctly -- and as neutrally as possible in this contentious environment. I hope I/we are up to it -- the material can get quite abstruse. As you suggest, I do plan to take an incremental approach. djlewis (talk) 01:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

@Djlewis and Joshua Jonathan: Add to this list Douglas S. Duckworth's "Distinguishing the Views and Philosophies: Illuminating Emptiness in a Twentieth-Century Tibetan Buddhist Classic" (State University of New York Press, 2014) and Gendün Chöphel's "Clarifying the core of Madhyamaka: Ornament of the thought of Nagarjuna"(Shang Shung Publications 2006). You're right about the introductory sections of academic translations of primary sources - this is often where the arguments and their counter arguments as well as their context are best explained. BTW No need for anyone to be either contentious about or defensive of Tsongkhapa at all. Just present the views of Tsongkhapa and his critics in a balanced and neutral way. I think you will probably gain a much deeper understanding of Tsongkhapa's teachings through this. For the most part Tsongkhapa's major critics respected him as a teacher - and most praise many of his views while taking issue with others. Chris Fynn (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Views on emptiness

I note that this section was removed and restored recently. I'm not surprised. The section is polemically one-sided. Whoever authored it has broken nearly every wiki guideline there is.

However, I am not in favour of big deletes, as Victoria knows.

NPOV articles describe debates fairly rather than advocating any side of the debate. (20040302 (talk) 16:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC))

I have reworked this section to better meet the WP:NPOV as mentioned above. The previous stuff was remarkable for being merely a polemical attack without calling on any substantive reasoning. The least interesting aspect of the debate is whether or not Tsongkhapa synthesised his position. The most important aspect (for nearly every scholar involved) is whether or not it represents a valid soteriology.(20040302 (talk) 14:07, 7 March 2015 (UTC))

NPOV, means not whitewashing as @Montanabw: says. And this article is not a WP:BLP, where concerns of a "polemical attack" may be warranted.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 14:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, It's not merely BLP that are relevant. The most important aspect, IMO is NPOV, which is the representaion of a neutral point of view. Also, as I have said before, I'm not convinced at all by the bias in your views regarding TK. It's really important to be able to talk without picking sides.

Likewise, I authored the section using fully referenced WP:RS with page numbers; the accusation of OR was unfounded, and I do not like the implication that be that his art comes with it.

The new criticism section which you recovered from the original 'views' section remains poorly written. As I mention earlier, (and you seem to ignore), The least interesting aspect of the debate is whether or not Tsongkhapa synthesised his position. The most important aspect (for nearly every scholar involved) is whether or not it represents a valid soteriology (20040302 (talk) 14:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC))

I obviously agree with 20040302 -- the original section is not only poorly written, it is blatantly NOT NPOV. Applying the term "whitewashing" in this way is inappropriate -- makes it a matter of who gets there first with an apparently well-sourced section no matter how biased and even malicious (mentioning the demon business twice!). Yes, Je Tsongkhapa is not a living person -- and he chose not to initiate a reincarnation line ;) -- but the kind of controversy that led to this biased contribution is very much alive, not only among Tibetans, but also for Western scholars and practitioners (and, apparently, wikipedians). Frankly, I just do not understand Victoria's stance on this -- I'd like to understand why she thinks she is not promoting the opposite bias. And, BTW, this is all one reason I have been reluctant to spend time and energy trying to improve the section. djlewis (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Scrubbing an article of info is the opposite of NPOV. Even Mother Teresa has a criticism section, and in fact has an entire article Criticism of Mother Teresa dedicated to criticism.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 20:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Victoria, you appear to be avoiding my point - please explain yourself. I am not against a criticism section, as long as it is coherent. The current criticism section is far from coherent, and seems centred on a stance that Tk wasn't following tradition. Not following tradition is not even considered to be a criticism nowadays. The source of inspiration is not considered particularly interesting. What matters is if the arguments themselves stand up to scrutiny. Now, I may believe that his arguments do, or do not, but it isn't relevant to WP. What is flagrant is that the debate regarding his views is active, and has been active since the tail end of the 14th century. Our job is not to take sides in the dispute, but to depict the dispute. What saddens me is the very weakness of the 'criticism' section - no mention of the Shen-tong argument, or even a mention of reflexive awareness. Nothing about TK's objection to the contemporary movement attempting to synthesise yogacayra with madhyamaka. Nothing about his other veiled (and not so veiled) critiques of other contemporaries. I want to see less religious bias and more academic rigour, please. 20040302 (talk) 23:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The business of not following tradition is relevant IMHO, since that is a common meme in Buddhist philosophy and soteriology. The two most prominent examples are the "back dating" of both the Abhidharma and the Mahayana (including the Vajrayana) to be literally taught by the Buddha even though they were not propounded or developed until after his death. Staying true to the thought of the Buddha is considered, even today, an important imprimatur, even though it is frequently contrived or attributed to "supernatural" processes. So this line of critique should probably be covered, but it clearly has to be placed in context for digestion by modern readers. The real point, however, is that accusing a philosopher of deviating from tradition is not a criticism in the same sense as, say, an accusation of hypocrisy, financial malfeasance, etc (as for, say, Mother Teresa). It's part of the philosophical colloquy. In fact, I'd rather see such a section entitled "philosophical opponents" or "philosophical controversies" than "criticism". The demon thing, btw, is another aspect of the very different way some of the philosophical back-and-forth works for Tibetans -- sometimes supernaturally. It is a bit extreme, however, since it amounts to accusing the distinct majority of Tibetans of indirectly admiring or venerating a demon, since the Gelug is still the majority school and Je Tsonghkhapa is admired by people of all schools. In that sense, it's a bit like accusing St. Francis of Assisi of consorting with Satan to do his healing -- it insults a lot of people beside hard core Franciscans. djlewis (talk) 17:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Re "Scrubbing an article of info is the opposite of NPOV" -- I wish that NPOV were so easily and mechanically determined, without evaluating content. What if somebody added a criticism section to the article on St. Francis (there isn't one now!) and quoted some rabid, obviously nutcase anti-Catholic sources that accuse him of consorting with Satan. Would removing that section be whitewashing or anti-NPOV? djlewis (talk) 18:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Not St. Francis but Pope Francis -- http://lasteelshow.org/main/?p=4226 -- if this were cited on the page for the current Pope, would removing it be whitewashing? No criticism section there either -- yet ;) djlewis (talk) 18:09, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

DjLewis, I don't disagree with you regarding the idea of 'tradition' from within Buddhism - however, tradition bears little weight in modern scholarship - indeed, people are far more likely to praise originality in the modern era. Wikipedia is not constrained by, and pays little heed to, the mores and peccadillos of the Buddhist hermeneutic regarding tradition, and it is this that I am arguing here. There is little (IMO no) point in discussing whether or not the vehement opponents of TK such as Gorampa really believed that he was visited by demons - it is merely a contextual play of debate that was well-recognised, and it is out of place here, both in terms it's use out of context, and as importantly as novelty isn't considered a criticism in the modern world. If originality and novelty were such a bad thing, I doubt that individuals such as Einstein would be so praised in history. (20040302 (talk) 19:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC))

Criticism.

The entire criticism section needs a rewrite - I will do some of this work - using well known positions of Gorampa, etc. I've made one edit so far.

The qualifier regarding Thupten Jinpa (a quote which is also completely taken out of context) that he is the translator of the dalai lama is overstating his role, and also (via rather bitter form of WP:SYNTH editing) written to suggest that the dalai lama is opposed to Tsongkhapa. this is patently not true. The dalai lama has repeatedly depended on, (and avidly supports) Tsongkhapa's works, especially regarding Madhyamaka. (20040302 (talk) 18:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC))

@Joshua Jonathan, Ogress, and Montanabw: edited that section, and saw no need for a rewrite.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 23:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@20040302: Thank you--Please do edit it. I don't have the time unfortunately as of now, but its actually very bad work. I'll keep my eye out here. Prasangika37 (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

As an NKT member, would you accept any critical material of Tsongkhapa?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 15:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi everybody. Since I was busy elsewhere at Wikipedia at a warm and tender suprise-party, I didn't have time yet to read all the changes. I'll try to get to it later next week. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Victoria, please be civil. You clearly have biased views regarding Tsongkhapa, so telling a poor NKT adherent that he is guilty of bias is mere mudslinging. My own views are far too in line with the Dalai Lama to accept the NKT stance, but as an individual who has studied Madhyamaka for over 30 years, I can assure you that Tsongkhapa (and his views) deserves respect, regardless of whether or not he is correct. People as different from the Geluk tradition as chogyal namkhai norbu have said that, in general, Tsongkhapa has got it right. The debate surrounding his works have been raging since the fourteenth century. Do you really believe that you have the insight, knowledge, and integrity to be able to say that, after 750 years of debate, you are sure that Tsongkhapa got it wrong? 11:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Please explain my biased views regarding Tsongkhapa. Everyone, including Gelugs themselves, acknowledge that Tsongkhapa created his own "Madhyamaka". Please provide a reference from Namkhai Norbu that Tsongkhapa got it right.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 13:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Victoria, you owe me references in light of your critique of Tsongkhapa on this page above. Regarding NN, cf. Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka: A Philosophical Introduction by Jan Westerhoff, likewise plenty of oral teachings of NN himself. NN does dispute the necessity of using conceptual thought (ie the praxis), but he does not dispute the philosophical ground. 15:39, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

oh, and here is your (totally unreferenced, unreasoned, and arbitrary) bias against Tsongkhapa : Tsongkhapa threw out the main point of Madhyamaka, Anutpada, see your comment, above 20040302 (talk)

So where exactly does Namkhai Norbu state "Tsongkhapa has got it right."? I don't see Norbu mentioned in Westerhoff.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 16:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree wtih 20040302 on this one. It seems evident that VictoriaGrayson has a bone to pick against Tsongkhapa and seems to be trying to push a point of view. Perhaps you should back off this topic if you can't separate your own strong feelings from trying to be objective? Or perhaps at least be open to the various views being offered? If you can put down your strong feelings perhaps you can engage civilly and try to present a balanced POV here? The fact that the criticism section is so long is bewildering, honestly. And that the article contains almost nothing about Tsongkhapa's view that is being constantly criticized. Prasangika37 (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not the one with a username starting with "Prasangika". Refer to WP:KETTLE.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:53, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Grayson, you appear to conflating the madhyamika prangika with Tsongkhapa here. I thought you were aware that most critics of Tsongkhapa consider themselves to be madhyamika prasangikas themselves (Gorampa, Mipam, etc).

Victoria, I think it is high time you explained yourself rather than continuing to hide behind a barrage of continual reference requests and snipes. You owe me references. Deliver them please. 20040302 (talk) 18:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

References regarding what? You have yet to deliver a reference regarding Namkhai Norbu's position on Tsongkhapa.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

What references do I owe you? For what exactly?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

the references you owe are to explain your assertions regarding your statement: Tsongkhapa threw out the main point of Madhyamaka, Anutpada 20040302 (talk) 23:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Sources

I have pulled the sources section - it's not sources - we already have that under 'english translations' and 'notes'. This section is either repeated text from one of these two other sections, or they are shameless plugs. (20040302 (talk) 18:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC))

Note 21 has a typo, emptitness should be emptiness. Not sure how to fix this, the edit page only shows

. Thanks. --Scratchmarc (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Citation needed and dubious tags

I added citation needed and dubious tags to the following 2 sentences since the claims are uncited and don't make much sense either.

This controversy remains particularly active, and can be easily seen in modern published works. Unfortunately, due to the paucity of translated material, many authors are unaware of the depth and complexity of this debate.

• The controversy is active in modern times? Where is the reference? Where are these "modern published works"?
• The last sentence is just unsubstantiated personal opinion.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 23:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

This comes from Jinpa 2002, and Williams , Victoria - which you cite from yourself - I shall find the page numbers. Please respond to my query above. 20040302 (talk) 07:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Who is Williams? Also I was not the one who inserted the material in the criticism section in the article.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 15:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Victoria, you created the criticism section, and by that action you must have implicitly acknowledged that the 'Views on emptiness' section was nothing more than critical. Jinpa is cited in the (new) criticism section, and it is that which is being referred to here. Williams is a very well-known professor of Indian Philosophy and he has especially written a critique on Tsongkhapa's refutation of self-reflexive awareness, defending Mipham which is mentioned on this talk page (cf. The Reflexive Nature of Awareness: A Tibetan Madhyamaka Defence, by Paul Williams) Garfield has written a rejoinder to his critique, defending Tsongkhapa. I recommend you study a lot more about Madhyamaka, and Tsongkhapa's contribution of it, as you seem to be wilfully ignorant of it.

Lastly I am incensed and outraged by your implicit reference to me as a "Gelug POV pusher". Why don't you bother to read my userpage for a start? I am committed to NPOV. If you really want to depict my views, they are that there is no objective scale by which to measure any truth, excepting falsities which may: conflict with empirical evidence, lack coherence, or assert the impossible. Therefore, I cannot be a 'pusher' of one set of truths over another. (20040302 (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC))

I merely changed the section title back to its original name, after Joshua Jonathan renamed it 'Views on emptiness'. I did not create the section in any sense.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@20040302: Unfortunately it seems to be one of VictoriaGrayson's main strategies on wikipedia--Ad Hominem. This is the fifth different person I have recorded it towards in my brief experience with him. To me, its a blatant disregard for assuming good faith. Prasangika37 (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

CFynn tagged all Dorje Shugen related articles with a warning that you having a possible COI as an NKT member. I did not.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:54, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Emptiness

Tsongkhapa's understanding of emptiness

Can one of you specialists finally explain in the article what Tsongkhapa peculiair views on "emptiness" are? I'm still waiting for the solution of the cliffhanger! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Am I correct when I think that it is articulated in Tsongkhapa's "In praise of relativity" (Patrick Jennings, Robert Thurman), c.q. "In praise of Dependent Arising" (Alexander Berzin)?

And that the essential point is the following:

• Patrick Jenings, Tsongkhapa: In Praise of Relativity; The Essence of Eloquence:

• "Tsongkhapa’s understanding of emptiness, and the form of meditation he recommended, help to undermine two prevalent x-buddhist myths – that the concept emptiness necessarily posits a transcendental ground; and that the goal of meditative practice is to reach that ground, in the process abandoning the deluded premises of the conceptualizing mind."
• "Tsongkhapa’s understanding of emptiness is not reconcilable with belief in a transcendental realm. This is, after all, the only possible way of working with truths. In fact such an approach undermines x-buddhist belief in a truth transcendent to the society that produced it which can be retrieved in pure form by means of scripture or some sort of a-historical meditative insight. Tsongkapha insisted that such a thing was beyond even Buddhas – dharmic truth is never immune to the relativizing consequences of the fact of dependent origination."
• "Tsongkhapa describes a procedure for establishing the non-existence of a substantial, abiding essence in either the self or in ‘exterior’ phenomena, such as pots or potatoes. It is essential during this procedure that one does not confuse the non-findability of a substantial, non-relational self with the refutation of the existence of a relative or conventional self – the self as it appears to ordinary cognition and which is subject to the law of cause and effect."

• Jesse Shleton, On the Absence of Self: A Critical Analysis of Tsongkhapa’s Philosophy of Emptiness:

• "The doctrine of emptiness proposes, in general terms, that all phenomena, objects, people, experiences, thoughts, etc., have no intrinsic existence. In effect, all things are ‘empty’ of a permanent, self-sustaining, and self-enclosed existence. This idea of emptiness, as advanced by the Prāsaṅgika-Mādhyamaka2 school of thought, is seen by Tsongkhapa as the natural culmination of the Buddhist doctrine of anātman or ‘no-self’."

• Susan Kahn, The Two Truths of Buddhism and The Emptiness of Emptiness:

• "“Since objects do not exist through their own nature, they are established as existing through the force of convention.” - Je Tsongkhapa

Ultimate truth does not point to a transcendent reality, but to the transcendence of deception.5 It is critical to emphasize that the ultimate truth of emptiness is a negational truth. In looking for inherently existent phenomena it is revealed that it cannot be found. This absence is not findable because it is not an entity, just as a room without an elephant in it does not contain an elephantless substance.6 Even conventionally, elephantlessness does not exist. Ultimate truth or emptiness does not point to an essence or nature, however subtle, that everything is made of."

In my words: although "things" do exist conventionally, "ultimately" there are no "things" with an inherent existence. There is also not an "absolute reality" as a substrate underlying phenomenal existence (like Buddha-nature or Atman or Brahman); "ultimate reality" is the logical impossibility of such a reality, and the non-utterance of any such existence or existant.

If that is a correct (though crippled) representation of Tsongkhapa's point of view, yes, than I do understand that he was disfavored by some. Bye bye to Buddha-nature and any essential reality; welcome to the Big Void and the limits of reason and comprehension.

Now, please: my (scholarly) understanding is limited (my personal understanding is better; I deeply agree with Tsongkhapa, but that's personal), so who's going to write this down in the article? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

NB: I'm not so sure that early Buddhism did not postulate some "essence", a transcendental Nirvana-realm, or "pure consciousness." So, Tsongkhapa's interpretation, though correct, I think, may be a later development - and as such a radical departure from Buddhist tradition!!! But that's my personal opinion understanding. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi there JJ, I've not been very active on this article over the last few months - and I just saw your notes here. From my opinion, your basic interpretation seems to be correct. However, JTK does not dispute buddha-nature, but qualifies it in terms which do not provide it with an ultimate (or special) nature - it is merely the continuum of consciousness. Regarding conventional existence, one needs to preserve correct perception from incorrect perception, which is one of the distinguishing features of Candrakirti (cf. East Asian Madhyamaka and some Himalayan traditions for approaches which differ - by asserting that all perceptions are false). This is most apparent with the emphasis on stating that the world is ‘’like’’ an illusion, rather than the world ‘’is’’ an illusion.

Another key point of JTK is that not only do emptiness and causality not conflict with each other, but they are both sides of the same coin vis. Pratītyasamutpāda - the fact that phenomena are dependant upon causes and conditions requires their lack of essence (or intrinsic nature).

Likewise, a common misperception of emptiness is that it merely refutes permanence, unitariness, and independence; this, JTK (following Candrakirti) is at pains to point, out is not enough to assert emptiness. Indeed merely understanding impermanence and it’s consequences is enough for such a refutation and there’s an entire mode of being separate from impermanence which emptiness is required in order to refute. That mode of being is essential existence.

As I mentioned elsewhere, we can identify what specifically is to be refuted by what notions of essential existence cause: Following sutra, we know that it is grasping/clinging to self/things as efficacious sources of pleasure/pain which we must elminate, and we do that by understanding that they have no potency (they are not effective) as sources of pleasure/pain. This lack of potency is first understood at a coarse level by understanding momentary impermanence - and then at a finer level by understanding essencelessness (the inability to act as 'carriers' of pleasure/pain), based on the three dependencies (1: they are products, therefore have no essence; 2: they are dependent designations - constructs of language and convention, and therefore have no essence; 3: they are aggregates (dependent on their parts), and therefore have no essence). It is in this way that we are able to understand Dukkha (the third of the 3 marks of existence the realisation of which is called the wisdom that leads to liberation). 20040302 (talk) 14:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Added info

I've added info on Tsongkhapa's pairing of calming meditation with analytical practice, and his understanding of emptiness ("view" is too realtivistic, I think). The sources are not the best, I'm afraid; I thrust that others who have a better grip on this subject can provide better sources. But it's a start! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Predecessor

This info seems to be relevant. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Early period

@Dienekles: this edit added to this text

Tsongkhapa's first principal work, The Golden Garland of Eloquence (Wylie: legs bshad gser phreng) demonstrated a philosophical view in line with the Yogacara school and, as became one of his hallmarks, was more influenced by Indian authors than contemporary Tibetan sources. At this time his account of the Madhyamaka focused on its interpretation as a negative dialectic structure.

the following, together with references:

[At this time his account of the Madhyamaka focused on its interpretation as a negative dialectic structure], in line with Prasaṅgika philosophy.

References

The Lam Rim Chen Mo is a primary work, from a later period than the The Golden Garland of Eloquence. None of those pages (227-229, 224-267, 204-5) says anything about his stance in this early period. The Gelug-Kagyu Tradition of Mahamudra p.323 says: "Tsongkhapa has explained this point in an even more potent manner in Totally Clarifying the Intentions [of Chandrakirti's "Supplement to (Nagarjuna's 'Root Stanzas on) the Middle Way'"]." Nothing in this alinea about his early work being in line with Prasangika.

Otherwise, this is what Gareth Sparham writes regarding The Golden Garland (emphasis mine):

Tsongkhapa's Golden Garland is his most important early work. It takes the form of a long explanation of the Perfection of Wisdom sūtras, given pride of place in the Kanjur as the foremost words of the Buddha, after the Vinaya section (the codifications of ethical conduct). It is a word-by-word commentary on the topics in the Ornament for the Clear Realizations (Abhisamayālaṃkāra). Tsongkhapa bases his explanation on two sub-commentaries by Ārya Vimuktisena (sixth century?) and Hari Bhadra (end of the eighth century). It propounds a philosophy that later Gelukpas, following the taxonomy developed in the mature works of Tsongkhapa, call Yogācāra-svātantrika-madhyamaka, in essence a Middle Way that incorporates many of the categories of Yogācāra Buddhism, yet does not have the authority of Candrakīrti's Prāsaṅgika interpretation.

Read again: "Yogācāra-svātantrika-madhyamaka."

I'm getting tired of your misrepresentation of sources, the WP:OR, the unwillingness to reach WP:CONCENCUS, and the WP:ICANTHEARYOU probelsm you have, so I'll leave it to you to self-revert. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@CFynn and Javierfv1212: could you take a look here? Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:45, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

MooooOOoove

Tsongkhapa shows up 294 times in the current article, only 2 instances of which—apart from the title—include Je. In this talk page, Tsongkhapa shows up 116 times, only 6 instances of which—apart from the title—include Je. It's even less common in the wild and appears to be an entirely unnecessary honorific. Tsongkhapa already redirects here so it's an unnecessary dab & MOS:SAINT and similar policies are that we remove needless titles unless it's for a WP:NATURALDAB or clearly the WP:COMMONNAME when you WP:USEENGLISH. The article clearly belongs at Tsongkhapa or whatever hyphenate form is most used by Tibetan & Tantric scholars these days. That form should then be clarified in the name section and used consistently through the article except in direct quotes. — LlywelynII 08:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)