Diskussion:Jonang/Archiv
Lemma
Würde Jonangpa gerne nach Jonang verschieben, Einwände? --Wissling 16:49, 15. Jun. 2008 (CEST)
- Archivierung dieses Abschnittes wurde gewünscht von: Wissling 10:01, 23. Okt. 2008 (CEST)
Jonang/Gelug/Kalachakra
I'd like to speak English here 195.93.102.74 23:50, 13. Jan 2006 (CET)
I've (195.93.102.74 23:50) opened an account Geir Smith 23:58, 13. Jan 2006 (CET)
Koennten Sie mit mir sprechen. Ich spreche nicht gut Deutsch, baer ein bisschen vom Schule gelernt. Die Kette von hier nach der Kalachakra seite ist bebrochen bemacht von einer der nicht dass liebt.
Sie haben nocht gern Gruschke der hier schreibt und erklaert dass Jonang vom Gelugpa ubergenommen und verboten wuerde. Venn Sie nicht dass hoeren vollten, haben Sie (die Mennschen auf Kalachakra Seite) das Kette einfach, gerade gebrochen genwu vie Sie historischlich getuen schonn dis schule vom Jonang, auch, vekk-gebrochen haben. Die faktum vom Jonang mussen vieder bekannt macht sein. Obskurantismus vie es in Tibet var, muss nicht nochher authorisiert verden. Wass sie tun daruber am Kalachakra Seite kann besonders nicht direkte angriffen geworden oder der Jonans Seites anschau gemacht zum Kalachakras anschau zu, aber mann kann zum kleineste fall, vissen das sie daroben das Kette nach her begrochen gemacht haben, und so ist zu vissen, zu dirigieren. Jonang ist der Vater vom Gelugpa fuer Kalachakra und fuer mehrere Lehren vom Gelugpa... spezielt vass geht ann Tantrismus, vie Kalachakra, und so veiter.
Jonang hatt so ein Vaters dirigierende rolle zuspielen in die Gelugpa Schule, die nun ist vekk gekommen in das moderne Welt und Rechnings loes. Sie veisst nicht die Lehre von Buddismus veiter zu geben in ein Welt mit Westerlige Mennscchen, die Tantrismus gern haben und vom lamas bekommen gern vollen. In Tibet war Tantrismus verboten fuer die Gelugpas, und nur die rot Huuette schule von Sakya, Kagyu und Nyingma praktisierte Es.
Sie mussen ien bissschen mobilizieren hier am Seite um der Biuld vom Jonang zum draussener Welt zu beschutzen und nicht retrogradische Mennsche vom Kalachakra Seite Autoritaet unber alles zu ergriffen vekk vom anderen. Ich bin der erste "Benutzer:195.93.102.74" Geir Smith 18:54, 15. Jan 2006 (CET)
Kukk mal an die Kalachakra Seite Kalachakra In English Geir Smith 09:32, 16. Jan 2006 (CET)
- Ok, I didn't unterstand all, it's better in english ;-) --Panchito 11:11, 16. Jan 2006 (CET)
- The Jonang-Issue was first not based on informations by Gruschke. Gruschke came later and made some detailed wider edits. The thing is, that jonang-lineage was surpressed during the time of the 5.Dalai Lama. As far as I could find out the jonang-line survived in eastern tibet. It was generally not broken, only the transmission in central-tibet got lost. Gelug like it to state that the jonang-lineage was lost, because they surpressed it out of reasons of view and, of course, politics and it looks like that they want to present semselves as the only real Holder of the original Jonang-Kalachakra-transmission. Sure Jonang has a slightly different view concerning emptiness, but as far as i now, other views then madhyamaka, for ex. cittamatra and so on are also buddhism. The Gelug, Sakya, Kagyü, Nyingma don't accept these different views for themselves, but thats an intern case of the different schools. If you state that jonang is not buddhism you make a grave mistake in deminishing buddhism. Thats a typicall sectarian view, which was one of the reasons why buddhism in tibet declined. The monasteries in eastern provinces give other statements concerning an unbroken intact lineage. The english wikipedia is good, but it is not all perfect especially the Kalachakra-article concentrates very much on the Dalai Lamas initiations and does not note other one. That's maybe ok on english-WP, but we are here on the german-WP and its within Wikipedia not law (of course not!) to follow the english WP.
- So concerning Jonang, today it is, as it was, in my opinion an intact vajrayana-lineage relating especially to Kalachakra. That's what the article states. To state that Jonang is not able to propagate buddhism in the west is based on prejudice. The jonang-school took over the general transmission of buddhism of the sakya-line (especially Sutra) and Sakya follow in the sutra and outer tantra like all schools of tibetan buddhism the translation of Nyingma(Kadampa are not mentioned now). The schools Nyingma, Sakya, Kagyue, Gelug and of course Jonang have differences mainly in the Higher Tantras and in different lines of Kadampa transmission which they integrated. The Jonang concentrate in the highter tantra transmission on Kalachakra only, that's the main difference in transmission. I do not doubt that the sutra-transmission of Sakya is intact and indeed precious buddha-dharma, so why should the jonang-transmission not be the same?.
The article further concentrates on Jonangpa, so there is no reason to introduce further Kalachakra-Links, you can find them easily on the Article to Kalachakra. Greetings --Panchito 11:11, 16. Jan 2006 (CET)
I've written Jalpo is the demonic deity banned by the Gelugpas alkong with Jonang at fifth Dalai's time. Much more politics went on then, that influences things today, than you know. Kalachakra existed in Jonang and nowhere else before the Gelugpas even came into existence and they just took from wherever they could. You may think that Jonang is independant from Sakya but who's to tell you're right ? Nobody because there's no authority.
One authority could be the Jonangpas, but who can say their authority is valid ?
One authority can be you but who can say your authority is valid ?
The only authority that still exists about Jonang is the Sakyapas and they say Jonang is their school. No one will assert otherwise merely because they think so.
You can't assert Jonang is not Sakyapa just be cause you want to. You're not even Tibetan so why should you decide about this ? Gruschke rightly says that Jonang branches off from Sakya. All Sakyas six or seven sub-sects likewise branch off from it just like Jonang. I come from one of them : Sakya's main branch of Ngor.
Saying Jonang is not Buddhism is denying Kalachakra because Kalachakra comes from Jonang and from Taranatha who passed it down to the Gelugpas because they stole it by banning the Jonangs. It's a grave sin to say Jonang is not Buddhist because that's saying Kalachakra is not Buddhist. Geir Smith 23:31, 17. Jan 2006 (CET)
- I fully agree with you, so what's your problem? The article does not give other statements. I see indeed Jonang as an independent lineage with origins in Sakya. Sakya-Masters especially Sakya Trizin doesn't clame today that the kham and golok monasteries of Jonang belong to Sakya. They only notice the historical development and connection to Sakya. I never heard other statements from Sakya Trizin. Maybe you have more detailed info.
- Jalpo/Gyalpo is a spirit-class in generall but maybe you mean the Gyalpo of Dol? I see no connection to Jonang. They do not worship as far as I know this Gyalpo today. Circumstances are well known concerning this evil force, you can find it on a separate Article in German-WP, i don't want to mention here more in detail. --Panchito 13:44, 18. Jan 2006 (CET)
- Jamyang Khyentse Chökyi Lodrö mentions in "Opening of the Dharma" (Library of tibetan works and archives 1974): "There are three additional Traditons rooted in the Sakya Tradition itself. The Bu.lugs (...), the Jo.nang Tradition (founded by Jo.nang.pa Ta.ra.na.tha) and the Bo.dong Tradition.(...)"
- So if Jamyang Khyentse mentions Jonang as an additional Tradition which roots in Sakya, why should I claim they are not independent. They root in Sakya, especially concerning sutra and outer tantra, but are a separate Traditon. For me Jamyang Khyentse Chökyi Lodrö a Lama coming from Sakya (later great Rime heir) is authority enough. Rime is especially within Sakya of great importance, it is stressed in several practice texts, so why should they claim Jonang is/belongs to Sakya. I'm sure, if you take a general view towards tibetan buddhism and want to base your jugdement on the four great schools, you can say Jonang belongs to the Traditions with origins in Sakya, yes of course, but "belongs to..." mean not Jonang is Sakya, but they could be mentioned in the Sakya-context as well as you can mention Jonang as an independent Lineage if you take a more detailed focus. The Sakyas in general are today not very political, especially compared to Gelug, so what's this "belongs to..." or "are independent" about? --Panchito 13:59, 18. Jan 2006 (CET)
- The article states: "Jonang is a subschool of Sakya...but the tradition declined in central tibet. A few monasteries in eastern Tibet survived" - no talk of independent or not! Maybe you understood something wrong. If you take a look to Sakya you will find Jonang named as a subschool of Sakya. So What?--Panchito 14:30, 18. Jan 2006 (CET)
OK. Thanks for your response there.
The problem is not as you see it.
The Jonang school that's now extant, and left over from before, is still influenced by all that happened with the ban. That's what I'm saying. I'm saying that whatever is left over from that time is nothing, next to the mass of what was banned. It's like as if you cut off the legs, arms and head, and what you have left is not at all what you had before. When I speak about Jonang and Sakya, I'm not going into detailed thought about this, like you are.... about who belongs to who. This is an interpretation of what I said that is not my meaning. My sole intrest is the historical understanding and not the rpesent status at all. I don't believe in any of the present status monasteries, not even the other sects than Jonang. I think they're all jsut imitations of the old ones that have no real meaning any more. Only by serious study of each can one be like previously in Tibet, and this does not go through being a Tibetan, being a monk and so forth. It's in the hands of the scholars now and not in those of the people on the ground. The faults in what is said in Berzin or other scholars are more importnat than saying one belongs to some school or another. I'm Ngorpa, for example, but what I say about Jonang, counts more than my being Ngorpa, now. Knowledge is more important than one's person.
I'll now try to explain a bit (I'll do more later if you can help me along a bit telling me what you see and what is wrong with what I say, in your eyes. Thanks for that : important !) : the meaning of what I said is that before being banned, the Jonangs had nothing to do with Gelugpas. Today, I don't think they have anything to do with anyone, because they're just crushed from that first ban, and then by the Chinese takeover; so they're more or less lost. I don't want to get into the present Jonang's situation because that is not my problem. I don't deal with anything happening in Tibet now anyways so less even for the Jonangs that I have no connection with. I'm solely Ngorpa, of the group out in exile after '59 !
What I say is that the Jonangs were banned, and that whatever they had,- like the Kalachakra, - was just stolen from them.
Now you see that Jalpo and Jonang have no link. You're right. The link is that you should look at this from a bird's-eye-view of it which is that the Dalai Lama set off a two-pronged attack on Sakya. First, by banning Jonang; [thus stealing Kalachakra from it (Sakya)] and then ban Jalpo, the demon-protector of Sakya. This happened at the same time. We see that it was all within the same logic of hegemony. On other pages and forums, I've gotten flak-attacks from Gelugpas, that have been crazy attacks, mindlessly attadcdking in any way with a blinded hatred-agenda. The banning tendancy and evil sin of the Gelugpas continues, and they are completely used to doing this : it's part of their culture to attack other sects, and their freedoms to say things. So, the campaign of the 17th century to ban the Sakyas went that way : through Jonang's ban and that of Jalpo. The result was the Kalachakra. This has to be seen as the same action, carried out on two fronts by the Dalai Lama of the 17th century. Is it clear enough ? You see that, none of this crosses the same ideas that you put forth, and that my whole logic of thinking goes in other directions : I don't speak about Jonang being above or below Sakya, and I don't say that Jonang is linked to Jalpo. I just say what the situation of the 17th century was, and what the result was for Jonang, Jalpo, the Kalachakra.... and what we're now stuck with in Sakya's problems. Geir Smith 16:24, 21. Jan 2006 (CET)
- Ah Ngorpa, you are wellcome - I've some kind of indirect connection to Ngor-Tradition.
You wrote Gelug stole Kalachakra from Sakya. As far as i know Sakya is one of the schools still holding Kalachakra-Transmission. (Sakya Trizin is giving Kalachakra-Initiation in Nov.2006 in Germany). So "stealing" is not precise enough to describe things that happenend. Sure the Gelug tried to "collect" as many higher tantra-transmission as possible. The main-Gelug Tantras like Yamantaka, Guhyasamaja were already integrated into Gelug during the time of Tsongkhapa. Concerning Kalachakra and Gelug, there must have been a transmission of Kalachakra from Jonang or Sakya-Lamas to Gelug-Lamas. Without transmission no transfer of higher tantra. So I think the time was rife to integrate Kalachakra also into Gelug, to get Kalachakra-initiations as widespread as possible (you know the mythological backround of Kalachakra!?) - but, and thats possibly a dark side of this transmission and politcal events, the Gelug tried to supress Jonang. - Maybe out of different reasons. Kalachakra can be one of them, but I am not convinced that this was the main reason. Gruschke states that Kalachakra was a reason - but why should it? Did the Gelug want to be the one and only holder of Kalachakra? Do they want to establish the DL also as one of the mythical Kalachakra-Kulika-Kings? But Kalachakra existed and still exist in different schools, it's too much fantasy to think that Gelug want to wipe out line for line in future to reach such goal - There is so long no evidence in such a theory. The time of the 5.Dalai Lama was the time when Gelug stabilised their political power finally, Jonang especially Taranata was more or less involved and the Gelug want to be quit all political rivals in central tibet - Sure Jonang, but after the conflict of Tsang especially Karma-Kagyü.
- Concerning Gyalpo of Dol, this force was only a minor protector within Sakya - a minor local deity (Zhidag) "Landlord" - it held no central position within Sakya. Why should one steal a minor protector without widespread influence? "like" stealing Kalachakra? Already the 5.DL banned this demon as an evil force - many lamas of different schools did the same. The actual 14.DL gave a bann to practice this being again. They won nothing with consuming this Gyalpo for themself - too much went wrong with it. It's not evident to state that Gelug is some kind of consuming-School who want's to take over transmission and afterwards wipe out schools. You say it's part of their culture to attack... I don't believe in this, it is a kind of "conspiration-theory". All actions of Gelug in relation to supressing other schools can be based on political reasons only - thats sad logic enough. But it makes sence to observe Gelug-policy especially in relation to other schools critical. Things happened are not really good - the mix of politics and spirituality makes Gelug suspicious in general for acting out of political reasons (power-politics I don't like).
Back to Jonang...There is also no evidence that Jonang was fully crushed. It's possible, but not evident. You know, you need only one lineageholder surviving than the line continues. Again, if such a Rime-heir like Jamyang Khyentse refers to Jonang as an existing tradition - I have no different view - maybe the jonang-lineage was interrupted, but they could have integrated Kalachakra from other schools especially Sakya again - all is possible. There have been different Kalachakra-transmissions from India to Tibet. That would make sence if the line was really broken.--Panchito 18:11, 21. Jan 2006 (CET)
You say Jamyang Khyentse refers to Jonang as an existing tradition. No. He says, in the excerpt you give above, that Jonang is a tradition of Sakya ("rooted in"...), but whether it's "existing" or not, no. Panchito, there are ears all around us here. Do you have my adress ? Geir Smith 18:05, 22. Jan 2006 (CET)
- I don't concern about ears and viewers. That's the quality of Wikipedia and I'm using this public space not accidentialy. Yes, sharp view - you are right, Jamyang Khyentse does not mention explicit the "existence" of jonang. He writes in "Opening of the Dharma" concerning different of the minor Kagyu-Schools, that some of them are in a seriously weakend condition at present - e contrario why should he not mention if one lineage, the jonang, has declined fully. A fact even much more crucial, then some "seriously weakend conditions" in other schools. For me the case of Jonang is not very important at all. If they exist or not will the future and much more detailed research show. I have no reason to doubt it, for now. I don't share your theory of Gelug-agression. Once again: the evidence is too thin !!! --Panchito 22:33, 22. Jan 2006 (CET)
I can't change things then
OK, I can't change things then. Sorry to have bothered you, all the best to you. Geir Smith 00:05, 24. Jan 2006 (CET)
- You are welcome - you never bothered me.
I was just joking, I don't agree with anything you say at all. This is functionning like this.... I'm saying things and you're answering by enumerating your ideas without taking any of mine into consideration. You are thus just following your preconceived ideas, and a Buddhist would not do this if he were right.
You're not learning, just preaching your own creed.
You're blind.
Kindest regards.Geir Smith 10:17, 25. Jan 2006 (CET)
Was war das "Häretische" bei Jonangpa?
Dolpopa emphasized two contrasting definitions of the Buddhist teachings of emptiness: "emptiness of self-nature," which applies only to the level of relative truth, and "emptiness of other," which applies only to the level of absolute truth. Dolpopa identified ultimate reality as the Buddha-nature inherent in all living beings.This view of an "emptiness of other," known in Tibetan as Zhentong, is Dolpopa's main spiritual legacy.
- Austerlitz -- 88.72.21.251 22:41, 19. Okt. 2007 (CEST)
Es gibt einen Artikel en:Zhentong...(?) --Wissling 14:21, 1. Dez. 2008 (CET)