Talk:Rangtong

Rangtong
Rangtong does not have its own page right now and I am increasingly convinced it should after reviewing Prasangika (where it redirects - incorrectly, in my understanding) and Madhyamaka. Shentong has its own page despite being considered a Yogacara school by many. Jayaguru-Shishya, care to assist?  Ogress  smash!  17:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Greetings! I agree, rangtong certainly should have an article of it's own. I can try to find some refs for the new article, hopefully that will help! :P Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 11:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I took a quick look and I came up with this one about the Rime movement (rangtong and shentong: Ringu Tulku 1995. The Rimé (Ris-med) Movement of Jamgon Kongtrul the Great. Internation Association for Tibetan Studies, 7th Conference. I hope it helps! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 11:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a fascinating topic. Hookham's The Buddha Within is a must-read in this respect, I guess. See also Gimello's review in The Journal of Asiatic Studies, 1992, p.624-626:
 * "Now if Prasangika-Madhyamika were truly the summit of Mahayana thought, and if that summit were, as has been alleged, no philosophical view in itself but only a rigorously negative dialectic by which all false views-meaning, all views are deconstructed and shown to be null, then one might well wonder what to do with those many teachings in Buddhism (not to mention its broadarrayof practices) that seem to presupposephilosophical or soteriological affirmationsof some absolute order of reality. What is to be done, for example, with the characteristic Mahayana assertion that all sentient beings possess the Buddha nature? How can this be so, or what can this mean, if all sentient beings are also empty and if no conceivable theory of sentient beings can be credited with ultimate truth? By what immanent or transcendent agency is the feat of enlightenment accomplished? As more and more attention has recently been paid to questions of this sort, and to the true diversity of pan-Asian Mahayanathought-as scholars have lately begun to resist the anti-Buddhist compulsion to identify a single "essence" of Buddhism - the assumption that the emptiness doctrine is Buddhism's ultimate truth, or that it means only what it is said to mean in the most prevalent modern interpretation of PrasangikaMadhyamika, has been called variously into question."
 * Ironically, I myself am a Zen-practitioner, but "feel" that Prasanghika-Madhyamaka is "true." But I also "feel" that this distinction is highly relevant, and that the essentialist approach is an essential (ha!) element of Buddhism. I even think that the belief (sorry, sorry) in a transcendental "Nirvana-loka" may have been part of earliest Buddhism, and that Prasangika-Madhyamaka is really a later development within Buddhism. The rangtong-shentong distinction also illuminates popular modern "nondualism," which is clearly in favor of an essentialist "nondualism," while, also ironically, its favorite Advaita Vedanta approach was deeply influenced by Madhyamaka. Enough to elaborate here.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   12:32, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Prasangika Madhyamaka is a Tibetan invention . There was no Prasangika Madhyamaka in India. And there are many different contradicting Prasangika Madhyamakas such as Tsongkhapa, Gorampa, Eighth Karmapa, Ju Mipham etc.VictoriaGraysonTalk 16:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)