This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
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)
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)
The best solution would be to merge the articles Prasaṅgika, Svatantrika, Rangtong and Shentong into an article called Tibetan categories of Madhyamaka and Yogacara. VictoriaGrayson Talk 23:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
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)
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)
The best solution would be to merge the articles Prasaṅgika, Svatantrika, Rangtong and Shentong into an article called Tibetan categories of Madhyamaka and Yogacara. VictoriaGrayson Talk 23:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)