Talk:Je Tsongkhapa

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
thread_title:  Link in German language 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  General tone of this article 

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

text:  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)
thread_title: Sources for Tsongkhapa's philosophical views and their critics

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: NPOV, means not whitewashing as  says. And this article is not a WP:BLP, where concerns of a "polemical attack" may be warranted.VictoriaGraysonTalk 14:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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.VictoriaGraysonTalk 20:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Views on emptiness 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: 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)
thread_title: Added info

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

message: this edit added to this text
the following, together with 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):
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)
thread_title:  Early period 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Je Tsongkhapa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150518074106/http://thenonbuddhist.com/2014/01/12/tsongkhapa-in-praise-of-relativity-the-essence-of-eloquence/ to http://thenonbuddhist.com/2014/01/12/tsongkhapa-in-praise-of-relativity-the-essence-of-eloquence/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:38, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Je Tsongkhapa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150324104523/http://about.tbrc.org/rare-tibetan-texts-05-new-sources-for-madhyamaka/ to http://about.tbrc.org/rare-tibetan-texts-05-new-sources-for-madhyamaka/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:18, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified