Talk:Rangtong and shentong
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
Merger proposal[edit]
I think that Shentong and Rangtong should be merged to Rangtong-Shentong. The topics are closely related, and also treated as such in many publications. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Survey[edit]
Support - Good idea.VictoriaGraysonTalk 12:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)- Oppose - The best solution would be to merge the articles Prasaṅgika, Svatantrika, Rangtong and Shentong into an article called Tibetan categories of Madhyamaka and Yogacara.VictoriaGraysonTalk 22:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- Looks like there was one support, subsequently withdrawn and converted to an oppose. Therefore the consensus was "don't do it". So why did the merge proceed? MrDemeanour (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Threaded Discussion[edit]
I tentatively agree, although it was only recently that Rangtong was even created (at my suggestion, if I recall) because its overwhelming canonicity in the majority Gelug teachings lead to its erasure everywhere outside of the minority strongholds in Sichuan and Qinghai. I have some concern that merged, shentong (which should be spelled zhentong according to wikipedia's THL standard for romanisation, a different argument) will be overwhelmed by, um, partisan writers. I know VictoriaGrayson is at least aware of how Gelug sectarians can dogpile onto articles. It was barely a confused stub when I got to it and even now Western scholarship is still being made aware of the importance and presence of the zhentong teachings outside of Gelug orthodoxy - the 14th Dalai Lama even selected a new Jonang appointee to support one of the zhentong schools the Great Fifth crushed. Ogress smash! 18:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Ogress. You may have a point here. Nevertheless, I think that the topic becomes cleaere when all the info is available at one place. I also think that zhentong deserves respectfull attention; Buddhism is more than (Prasangika) Madhyamaka. The tradition as a whole (if it is a whole) only makes sense when one nows the importance of essentialist ideas, like Buddha-nature. Madhyamaka may be favored by intellectuals, but Buddha-nature (Nirvana as transcendental loka, etc.) seems to be the "real" "essence" of Buddhism. Or, at least "a" "essence". Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
The best solution would be to merge the articles Prasaṅgika, Svatantrika, Rangtong and Shentong into an article called Tibetan categories of Madhyamaka and Yogacara.VictoriaGraysonTalk 23:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- May be a good idea too. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- Although I disagree with the larger merge proposal. I agree with the smaller one (Rangtong/Shentong) as the words are strongly paired. However. VG's suggestion, as an additional article may not be such a bad idea - except that it just adds yet another article for which there would never be consensus. I cannot remember who told it me, but apparently there's a well known Tibetan proverb that goes something like "There's as many Dharmas as there are Lamas" which lends itself to the issue of any encyclopaedic article about Indo-Himalayan (aka Tibetan) philosophy. Moreover less than 0.1% of Tibetan academic literature has been translated into English, and for all that has been, there are as many interpretations as their are readers, it seems. I cannot think of one historic Tibetan Madhyamaka author for whom all others agree is correct. (Unlike eg. Nagarjuna, who is almost always undisputed in the HImalayan Madhyamaka tradition, though there are disputes as to which of his works are actually his.). So this would end up being an article which says "No-one agrees about much - and the debates have been continual about what anyone is saying (let alone what it is they are talking about) for over 700 years". Of coures this isn't surprising, as the Tibetan academic system has always rested on an adversarial approach to education. But it also means, that you have to learn it by learning the arguments, and developing strength in your own arguments. (20040302 (talk) 13:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC))
- Oh la la, we all end up as constructivists - I bet Nagarjuna would have loved it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- Although I disagree with the larger merge proposal. I agree with the smaller one (Rangtong/Shentong) as the words are strongly paired. However. VG's suggestion, as an additional article may not be such a bad idea - except that it just adds yet another article for which there would never be consensus. I cannot remember who told it me, but apparently there's a well known Tibetan proverb that goes something like "There's as many Dharmas as there are Lamas" which lends itself to the issue of any encyclopaedic article about Indo-Himalayan (aka Tibetan) philosophy. Moreover less than 0.1% of Tibetan academic literature has been translated into English, and for all that has been, there are as many interpretations as their are readers, it seems. I cannot think of one historic Tibetan Madhyamaka author for whom all others agree is correct. (Unlike eg. Nagarjuna, who is almost always undisputed in the HImalayan Madhyamaka tradition, though there are disputes as to which of his works are actually his.). So this would end up being an article which says "No-one agrees about much - and the debates have been continual about what anyone is saying (let alone what it is they are talking about) for over 700 years". Of coures this isn't surprising, as the Tibetan academic system has always rested on an adversarial approach to education. But it also means, that you have to learn it by learning the arguments, and developing strength in your own arguments. (20040302 (talk) 13:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC))
Anyone know why this was deleted?[edit]
This text used to be present:
The earliest shentong views are usually asserted to have been presented in a group of treatises variously attributed jointly to Asanga and Maitreyanātha, especially in the treatise known as the Unsurpassed Continuum (Uttaratantraśāstra, also called the Ratnagotravibhāga), and in a body of Mādhyamaka treatises attributed to Nāgārjuna.
Was it deleted for lack of citations? Is it controversial? Is it in fact wrong? MrDemeanour (talk) 20:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- Can you find the diff of the removal? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- Huh - it's still there. I wonder why I thought it had been removed. Oh well, sorry for the noise. MrDemeanour (talk) 14:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
This article should just be titled shentong[edit]
A better title would just be shentong. I don't think it makes much sense to have this titled rangtong and shentong since there is already Madhyamaka, emptiness, and Buddha-nature which discuss the various interpretations of emptiness in Tibetan Buddhism. I've been studying the shentong tradition recently and I don't see a expansive article on shentong alone. The shentong page just redirects to this page, but there is much more to say about shentong. So I think that this page should really just be about shentong, and also the critiques against it of course. Another reason this makes more sense is that rangtong is a term invented by Shentongpas anyways. From the POV of "rangtongpas" they do not use this term for themselves really, just 'madhyamaka' and this is all already discussed in the Madhyamaka article. Javier F.V. 16:32, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- Requested moves is thataway... Skyerise (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- It used to be two articles, but I merged them, as the topics form a pair, and the two articles overlapped substantially. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:06, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- Well, you kind of clouded the issue by merging without a WP:CONSENSUS after soliciting one. Skyerise (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- 100% agreed. am here looking for madhyamika takes on Rantong but it's this TALK PAGE which explains that term's limitations. otoh we're stuck with a 'Shentong vs Rangtong' literature as it is. Thus i propose a compromise- i encourage you, OP Javier F.V., to skillfully incorporate the insight you have offered here on TALK into the article- including particularly all those links. meanwhile I can work on locating supporting verification Hilarleo Hey,L.E.O. 23:53, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Hypostasy[edit]
Copied from [[Talk:Apostasy]]; the book is The Buddha Within, and is cited in the main article.
I added a paragraph under "Buddhism", referring to "hypostasy", used as if it were the opposite of "apostasy", if apostasy is taken to be falling away from belief. Hypostatsy is taken to be "falling into belief", where both terms are taken as negative; nobody would call themselves either an apostate nor a hypostate, because both terms denote error.
I don't know if this word is attested anywhere other than the book I cited. For what it's worth, the prefix "hypo-" means "under". "Apo-" means "apart", so they are not etymologically opposites.
The word "hypostasy" doesn't occur in Wiktionary.
MrDemeanour (talk) 19:27, 20 May 2023 (UTC)