Talk:Shentong
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. Please participate by editing the article Shentong, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
|
||
| B | This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Tibet:Tibetan Buddhism, an attempt to improve content and create better coordination between articles related to traditional religion, cultural practices and customs in Tibet. Please participate in improvement by editing Shentong and related pages, or visit the WikiProject Tibet main page for more details on the projects. 
|
|
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||||||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | ||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
 |
Shentong was a good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Delisted version: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{DelistedGA|insert date in any format here}} |
This subject-matter is both contentious and difficult; it could do with at least looking-over by a topic expert. --MrDemeanour 16:56, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Yeah - I'm not sure we can safely say "Madhyamaka Buddhism" - even though Shentong practitioners call themselves "Madhyamaka", as discussed elsewhere. I changed this to say "Tibetan Buddhism" I will look further into this, possibly from the opponents (rather than the apologists) views. (20040302)
I have concerns about the rest of the article - AFAIK Maitreya/Asanga and the Uttaratantra are all recognised as founders of Cittamatra/Yogacarya and not Madhyamaka sources - which were resyncretised by Santaraksita and Kamalasila as the Yogacarya-Svatantrika-Madhyamaka
It appears that the shentong/rangtong division is a popular didactic framework used by non-geluk schools. Berzin states that non-geluk schools differentiate Gelug and non-Gelug schools, there are
- Geluk: Hinayana, Madhyamaka, and Chittamatra
- Non-Geluk Shentongpas: Hinayana, Madhyamaka rangtong, Madhyamaka shentong
Berzin appears to neglect Non-Geluk Rangtongpa divisions in his article.
I don't know if Berzin is even right - certainly it looks to me that the Yogacarya-Svatantrika-Madhyamaka movement of Santaraksita/Kamalasila could be the foundation for Shentong - but as I understand it, Shentong's views do not sit easily with my understanding of the (idealist/transcendantalist) Yogacarya; it fails to meet the basic (anti-essentialist) tenets of the Madhyamaka, and completely fails the (vehemently anti-essentialist) tenets of the Madhyamaka-Prasangika, especially as delineated by Tsongkhapa. But maybe I'm missing something. (20040302)
Why on earth is Yogācāra Madhyamaka being re-directed to this page? There may be overlaps but they are not synonymous. The Yogacarya-Svatantrika-Madhyamaka of Santaraksita is not Shentong. Chris Fynn (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] According to shentong...
According to shentong, it is true that phenomena are empty of self-nature; but they are not empty of what they truly are.
Well, according to all Buddhist schools, phenomena are not empty of what they truly are. I thought that the Shentong distinction was that phenomena are empty of being something other than what they are:– A chair is empty of being a table, but it is not empty of being a chair.
In Madhyamaka, a chair is empty of essential (or inherent) existence: It solely exists as a chair in those conventions that assert it as one, so it's existence is necessarily conventional. This does not mean that a chair is not empty of what it truly is at all. It is empty of essence, and is not empty of it's ultimate nature, but of course it's ultimate nature is likewise empty of essential (or inherent) existence. So in Madhyamaka, "chair" is a rule-of-thumb concept, a convention, a provisional, or placement term used to identify what is known as a "chair", solely within conventions that assert "chairs". It's 'emptiness' is a referent to the lack of any substance-ontology, essentialist stance or transcendentalist stance regarding it's being. It is merely a chair. (20040302 22:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC))
- I find it uncontroversial to discuss chairs and tables in this way. The problem arises when contemplating something like 'The Nature of Mind', 'Tathagatagarbha' or or 'Dharmakaya'. These terms may incidentally have a conceptual referent, but they are really intended to refer to something non-conceptual, and their existence is not 'convential' - at least, it doesn't seem so to me. They are not 'rule-of-thumb' concepts, they are not considered to arise dependent on causes and conditions, and they are not susceptible to prasangika-style analysis to destruction. --MrDemeanour 11:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
-
- The point from Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka is that Dharmakaya, Tathagatagarbha, etc. have exactly the same ontological status as a chair - they are merely conventions, rules-of-thumb, etc. Not to be so would be to assert some 'three truth' doctrine - one for chairs, one for Dharmakaya, one for ultimate truths. The fact that these objects may refer to something non-conceptual is not relevant - absolute truths are merely the way things are - and that is (as a rule-of-thumb definition goes) without essence, without foundation, etc. For Nagarjuna it is not meaningful to state that Nirvana / Dharmakaya etc. are not dependant arisings; to be so would to be to say that they were not empty. Moreover, Dharmakaya (as Nirvana) has been subjected to prasangika-style analysis by Nagarjuna himself: try MMK-XXV, or MMK-XXII for similar treatment to the Tathagata. As I understand Candrakirti's analysis of Nagarjuna, Nagarjuna does not (and would not) subscribe to some form of transcendancy - indeed Nagarjuna says (MMK-XXV:19) There is not the slightest difference between samsara and nirvana. There is not the slightest difference between nirvana and samsara. To me this suggests that we should not be looking 'behind' or 'beyond ' the world for some ultimate state or nature. The profound issue here is that there is no essence - no objective truth - no acontextual position; and moreover, if it wasn't that way, the universe could not function. (20040302 14:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC))
[edit] Latest changes
Though I'm not a scholar, I'm going to try to introduce a little more clarity into this. Judging by the previous posts here, it seems like a lot of knowledgable contributions have been made. Why not have the article should reflect the discussion here? That is to say, we should use that Berzin info. NPOV doesn't require us to make everything vague, it only requires that disagreements are acknowledged and treated evenhandedly. --GZ 10/21/05
- OK, I've expanded the article considerably, in what I hope is a fair and balanced manner.
--GZ 10/21/05
[edit] Delisted GA
It seems that this article did not go through the GA nomination process. Looking at the article as is, it fails on criteria 2 in that it does not cite any sources. Most Good Articles use inline citations. I would recommend that this be fixed and submit the article through the nomination process. --RelHistBuff 11:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sources
Reigle, David & Reigle, Nancy (2007). Jonangpa and Shentong: A Bibliography of English Language Materials. Eastern Tradition Research Institute.
O = O = O = O = O = O = O = O = O
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo
Spirit Dance = Ghost Dance = Hummingbird Dance = The return of the buffalo...
Is this [water] Buffalo heĀrd?
B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 14:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Uh, What? What are you trying to convey with these nonsensical ramblings? Please confine such drivel to your user page and not article/talk space. If (?) you have anything of value to contribute, wouldn't it make about a billion times more sense to do it in a coherent manner that other people could benefit from instead of typographical and linguistic gymnastics that serve _no purpose_ (certainly not clarity of expression)? Zero sharp (talk) 16:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Own your words! With dilligence and deep grazing: in the aforecited "nonsensical ramblings" reside Truth unfettered. Own YOUR ignorance (Tibetan: ma-rigpa) don't project it onto others. This information has been set in stone here with sublime intentionality. Mysterium Magnum: The central hub of the wheel = the exteriority beyond the circumference.
- Sarva mangalam Walk in Beauty!
- B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 15:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Own your words! With dilligence and deep grazing: in the aforecited "nonsensical ramblings" reside Truth unfettered. Own YOUR ignorance (Tibetan: ma-rigpa) don't project it onto others. This information has been set in stone here with sublime intentionality. Mysterium Magnum: The central hub of the wheel = the exteriority beyond the circumference.
- Please review the page concerning no personal attacks. I did not call you ignorant, I said your edits were incomprehensible. What is the purpose of the line of 'O's, which link to a bunch of different words? Why hide them with links? Why not just say what you mean, if indeed you mean anything at all? "...reside Truth unfettered?" Give me a break. Zero sharp (talk) 16:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- The Holy Trinity: Hypothesis, Antithesis, Synthesis. Thank you my nemesis.
- Blessings in the Mindstream of Jigme Lingpa.
- B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 02:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Uh, What? What are you trying to convey with these nonsensical ramblings? Please confine such drivel to your user page and not article/talk space. If (?) you have anything of value to contribute, wouldn't it make about a billion times more sense to do it in a coherent manner that other people could benefit from instead of typographical and linguistic gymnastics that serve _no purpose_ (certainly not clarity of expression)? Zero sharp (talk) 16:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
