Jonang officially recognized

[heybai]

It's quite long.  is there an extract which makes the point you want to introduce?

C'mon, Yeshe.  It's just another working paper from Harvard.   

Reads like a dime store novel.

 

There's an abstract on page 2.

[zerwe]

It's quite long.  is there an extract which makes the point you want to introduce?

C'mon, Yeshe.  It's just another working paper from Harvard.   

Reads like a dime store novel.

 

Exactly, this sort of paper represents a typical (almost model) post-grad paper. I wouldn't even consider it doctoral level stuff.
A doctoral candidate might write such a paper as a mere exercise or model for his students to follow.
Shaun


There's an abstract on page 2.

[Dairy Lama]

There's an abstract on page 2.

Could we have an abstract of the abstract?

Spiny

[Yeshe]

There's an abstract on page 2.

Could we have an abstract of the abstract?

Spiny

Got it.

''By forming an alliance with a foreign power (Mongols), the Gelukpa were willing to use
extreme violence to become the state religion.''

or

'Bad dudes, blood, innit'.

[conebeckham]

Yeshe-
That's one "point" that can be deduced from the paper.

There are other "points" that are equally interesting.  Granted, it's written from the POV of "International Development," and deals with religion as a "product," but i does provide a reasonable chronology and some historical facts which would take a while to gather, otherwise...

For example, from the writer's POV, the Dalai Lama was a created position, created by the Gelukpa in order to compete with the Karmapa.  The main thrust of the paper is how the Gelukpa became the State Religion of Tibet, and what the consequences were for others.  You should read the whole paper, if only for access to the wider perspective it would likely give you.  Or not.

It's not that long, and not that complex, really, as academic papers go!

[Yeshe]

Yeshe-
That's one "point" that can be deduced from the paper.

There are other "points" that are equally interesting.  Granted, it's written from the POV of "International Development," and deals with religion as a "product," but i does provide a reasonable chronology and some historical facts which would take a while to gather, otherwise...

For example, from the writer's POV, the Dalai Lama was a created position, created by the Gelukpa in order to compete with the Karmapa.  The main thrust of the paper is how the Gelukpa became the State Religion of Tibet, and what the consequences were for others.  You should read the whole paper, if only for access to the wider perspective it would likely give you.  Or not.

It's not that long, and not that complex, really, as academic papers go!

Ok boss, as it's you I'll reread it!

I did notice the creation of the DL position.  All joking aside, the Jonangpa seem to have really suffered and it is good that history is examined for lessons to be learned.

EDIT:  Read all of it, and glad I did.  The tables at the end are very helpful to see the picture 'gestalt'  - I may have missed it, but what heppened to the 'Bodong' sect?  Also terminated?

[santamonicacj]

Letting go of the past and forgiveness is part of Dharma practice. It is difficult to do when the offense(s) are continuing, but if past wrongs are being righted then in behooves us to move forward.

The current DL has consistently been an advocate for non-sectarianism. Those of us that are not Gelugpas would do well to emulate his efforts in this regard and embrace a new era.

[conebeckham]

I agree, to some extent.  I'm not attempting to bash anyone, though I could see how my post would lead some to believe otherwise.

This does not mean I think we should ignore history, though.  Not because "there's someone to blame," but because it affords us a bigger picture, a wider canvas, upon which to reflect, with regard to our own "issues."   

For example, what does it mean to be "Officially Recognized?"   Were they "unofficial" before?  I'm not saying this "recognition" is "meaningless," or that it's a "bad thing," but trying to introduce some perspective.  I'm sure there's some benefit to the "recognition," and not just to the Jonangpa institution(s).

My hope is that, rather than scapegoating or "blaming," we can gain some perspective on some of the "hot button" issues facing Tibetan Buddhists of all persuasions, and recognize that these issues are not The Main Thing,  and that taming our own minds is the best use of our energy.  It seems to me that the Jonangpas maintained practice, and continued their traditions, despite it all.  We didn't see a lot of political action, protests, etc., as far as I know. Perhaps it was behind-the-scenes.  I think there's a lesson here, or more than one.....but I'll leave it to everyone to find their own perspective.

 

[heybai]

Suppression of the Jonang sect (pp. 29-30) --

The 5th Dalai Lama quickly moved to consolidate the religious monopoly of the
Geluk school. He stripped the 10th Zhanag of his authority as well as his monastery of
Tsurpu and his labrang, much of the contents of which were taken to the Potala Palace in
Lhasa. The 10th Zhanag left or fled Central Tibet and lived his remaining years in exile on
the Tibetan marches. However, he was apparently able to reach some sort of an
agreement with the Dalai Lama and the Panchen Lama whereby most of the monasteries
were restored to his sect. At the same time, a representative of the Dalai Lama’s
ecclesiastical court was stationed at the Karmapa’s seat of Tsurpu.

The Jonang sect, loyal supporters of the Tsangpa and an offshoot of the Sakya,
was terminated in 1642 with its main monastery Tagten phuntsholing being converted
into a Gelukpa one (Seyfort Ruegg 1963: 78-79). The Sakya sect itself was allowed to
continue as were the older religions, Bon and Nyingmapa, but their wealth, lands, and
political influence diminished. The hierarch of the Sakya sect, which historically had
been hereditary, was now under the authority of the Dalai Lama and selected by the
Oracle of his government (Carrasco 1959: 79).



A Wow moment here (pp. 33-34) --

Rockhill (1891a: 295-6), interpreting a 1737 Qing census, estimated the entire
Tibetan population to be approximately 1,168,362 with 316,200 of them monks.
The 1737 census recorded 3,150 monasteries under the authority of the Dalai Lama and 327
monasteries under the Panchen Lama (Rockhill 1891b: 259, footnote 3). Huang
(1985:264), relying on the same 1737 census, estimates the Tibetan population under
monastic authority to be 957,150 with the total Tibetan population at 1,340,000. Clearly,
Goldstein’s estimate of the total Tibetan population is high. What is apparent is that the
total number of Tibetans under monastic control was significant.

In 1842, a Chinese source recorded 3,487 monasteries in Tibet (Rockhill 1891b:
259, footnote 3). In 1882, the Lhasa government recorded 1,026 monasteries of the
Gelukpa, with 491,242 monks. That means that in 149 years, the Gelukpa lost 2,451
monasteries but had close to a 50 percent increase in monks. In other words the sect was
concentrating its monks in fewer monasteries. A slightly larger number of monasteries
belonged to all the other 17 sects. Thus, the total number of monasteries in Tibet by 1882
was 2,500 with an estimated 760,000 monks.

In 1917, it is estimated that 42 percent of the land was owned by monasteries, 37
percent by the central government, and 21 percent by the aristocracy (Carrasco 1959: 86).
Although accurate data are not available, one Tibetan scholar claims that 37 to 50 percent
of arable land in Tibet was in the possession of monasteries in 1959 (Goldstein 1998: 19).

[heybai]

Letting go of the past and forgiveness is part of Dharma practice. It is difficult to do when the offense(s) are continuing, but if past wrongs are being righted then in behooves us to move forward.

Absolutely. 

Human institutions are created in samsaric conditions.  They will always fall short of our ideals.  When they inevitably do, we are taught to forgive.  And for good reason.

On the other hand, had all the 316,200 monks in the 1737 census been Arahants, things might have been different by now.  I can't let go of that one.   

[catmoon]

What a thought. Just imagine the impact of unleashing 300,000 enlightened beings on the planet!

[heybai]

Yeah, but it's those other 16,200 that would tip the balance.

[Tsongkhapafan]

I am very happy for the Jonangpas as everyone should have religious freedom, whatever their views, and everyone should be free to practice as they wish.

Now, if only the Dalai Lama would practise equanimity and give religious freedom to all followers of Tibetan Buddhism.....

[heybai]

I had a premonition you were going to say that! 

[Yeshe]

I had a premonition you were going to say that! 

Oh bugger - not ANOTHER oracle!  LOL