![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
icarusIt's Christmas! And it's snowing! In Seattle! Big, floofy flakes. I mean, snowballs from the sky.
We've unwrapped the pressies and![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
wildernessguru howled over the "polar bear repellent" and "expedition weight dental floss" (I almost got him "dehydrated water" but I couldn't figure out how to create that convincingly). We're knee-deep in wrapping paper.
Monty was bad last night and yankedwildernessguru's Christmas stocking down. Bad kitty! I had to repack it at 1am. I, uh, was rather unnecessarily upset with him. Of course he's just a kitty. He doesn't know the dangling thing was special (though he was mostly trying to get my attention).
Now I have a chocolate high (chocolate covered cherries, given to WG but it turns out he doesn't like them), and we're both reading.wildernessguru is reading about the Croatian Air Force in his new World Air Power journal -- and man, did I have fun calling Britain and talking to the military analysts at Jane's. Wow, you Brits answer your own phones. Never pick up the American habit of letting everything to go voicemail, okay?
He just showed me a gorgeous photo of Russian SU-27s flying in formation, the Russian Knights. Everyone (apparently) is apparently buying the SU-27 right now, China, India, Chavez of Venesuela ... they're better than the F-15, the F-16, and have this thing called "thrust vectoring" which is somethingwildernessguru is learning more about now: "It means that the main engine can be turned slightly while in flight, improving maneuverability, big time." It's an extremely long-range, large aircraft. Athough he just read that the Chinese wanted one with exended fuel capacity.
I asked how the SU-27 compared to the U.S. F-22 Raptor and he said they're very different so that they really can't be compared. The Raptor is a stealth aircraft, for starters. The SU-27 stands little chance against the Raptor because the SU-27's avionics are based on 1980s technology.
I'm reading the intro to a translation of Chandrakirti's Introduction to the Middle Way, a classic Buddhist text -- and check this out, it has a commentary from the Nyingma master, Jamgon Mipham. Yay! Mipham, my hero, he was a Tibetan master in the late 19th century who put the ancient school on the map.
Interesting note to those interested in Tibetan Buddhist history: First thing you need to know is that Buddhism is an import into Tibet.
There are two main divisions of Tibetan Mahayana Buddhism.
First was the early translation school of the 8th century CE, during the reign of King Songsten Gampo whose Tibetan Empire was a serious thorn in the side of the Chinese T'ang Dynasty. The Tibetans even captured Chang'an, the capital of China, for fifteen days, and the T'ang bought the Tibetans off with marriage alliances. (According to historian Paul Graf, trouble with the Turks and the Tibetans are probably why the T'ang finally decided to leave Korea alone; they found themselves fighting on too many fronts and the Korean Silla had united against the (brief) Chinese occupation.) This represents the Nyingma sect (literally "nying" = old; "ma" = particle that makes the adjective a noun).
Second was the later translation school of the 12th century CE, after Langdharma, a Tibetan Pol Pot who decided the way to uproot the foreign Buddhist religion was to kill, kill, kill the monks and burn all the books. Prior to Langdharma, Buddhism was the official religion of the state but the reality on the ground was a polyglot of various quasi-Buddhist, quasi-Bonpo syncretic animist religions. After Langdharma the sympathy of the Tibetans swung towards Buddhism and a huge effort was made to restore Buddhism to Tibet. Langdharma had been thorough during his roughtly 30-year reign, although a lot of the early translation school monks had fled to Mongolia. All the other Tibetan Buddhist sects, including the one that the Dalai Lama heads, are Sarma schools (literally "sar" = later; = particle that makes the adjective a noun).
Bear in mind that I'm of the early translation school but because of lack of facilities for my school I've been studying with later translation school teachers recently.
So. In Indian Buddhism there were two types of Mahayana. Yogachara ("all phenomena are a reflection of mind") and madhyamika ("all phenomena are empty in ultimate truth, and exist only in relative truth"). Most people think that yogachara and madhyamika argue with each other, and Sarma Tibetan Buddhist schools say that yogachara is an inferior view. I've heard this many times from current Sarma students even though I hadn't heard it from Nyingma teachers. I didn't know why there was a discrepancy.
I just read that the school of thought brought to Tibet in the 8th century was from Shantirakshita and Karmashilla in the 7th century (both of them had gone to Tibet to teach and help start Buddhism there). They had brought together yogachara and madhyamika into one system. They said that yogachara represents ordinary phenomena ("all phenomena are a reflection of mind") while madhyamika represents ultimate truth ("all phenomena are empty in ultimate truth, and exist only in relative truth"). Since one can only recognize ultimate truth through recognizing the interdependence of relative truth, madhyamika doesn't toss out yogachara, but rather yogachara is a needed step. This was the philosophy expounded in Tibet for 400 years.
In the 12th century, however, when Tibetans reached out to the dwindling Buddhism in India for translations, they translated many more texts on madhyamika than had been previously available. (I'm guessing, too, that Shantirakshita's view didn't gain the widespread acceptance in India that it had in Tibet.) At that point questions arose whether yogachara and madhyamika belonged together in one system or if they actually argued with each other. So the later schools toss aside yogachara as an inferior view.
I hadn't known enough to wonder at the opposition to yogachara to recognize that it was a difference in the schools. But now it makes a great deal more sense.
And, of course, I rather like Shantirakshita's perspective. I've always appreciated inclusiveness. :)
Oh. And now the snow is sticking! Not on the roads but it's frosting all the houses.
I hope you all are having a wonderful time, enjoying family and friends, watching your kids tear into their gifts, catching that warm smile from your husband or gay boyfriend or lesbian lover as you share a moment, a sly smile as you open some of your naughtier treasures. ;) I hope that your pets are happily playing with the wrapping paper and bouncing in the snow, lapping at your faces as you try to gather them in your arms. I hope that your homes are filled with the sights and smells and sounds of Christmas, and that we all take a moment to remember those less fortunate than us and wish them all this and more.
Merry Christmas to you all.
We've unwrapped the pressies and
wildernessguru howled over the "polar bear repellent" and "expedition weight dental floss" (I almost got him "dehydrated water" but I couldn't figure out how to create that convincingly). We're knee-deep in wrapping paper. Monty was bad last night and yanked
wildernessguru's Christmas stocking down. Bad kitty! I had to repack it at 1am. I, uh, was rather unnecessarily upset with him. Of course he's just a kitty. He doesn't know the dangling thing was special (though he was mostly trying to get my attention). Now I have a chocolate high (chocolate covered cherries, given to WG but it turns out he doesn't like them), and we're both reading.
wildernessguru is reading about the Croatian Air Force in his new World Air Power journal -- and man, did I have fun calling Britain and talking to the military analysts at Jane's. Wow, you Brits answer your own phones. Never pick up the American habit of letting everything to go voicemail, okay? He just showed me a gorgeous photo of Russian SU-27s flying in formation, the Russian Knights. Everyone (apparently) is apparently buying the SU-27 right now, China, India, Chavez of Venesuela ... they're better than the F-15, the F-16, and have this thing called "thrust vectoring" which is something
wildernessguru is learning more about now: "It means that the main engine can be turned slightly while in flight, improving maneuverability, big time." It's an extremely long-range, large aircraft. Athough he just read that the Chinese wanted one with exended fuel capacity.I asked how the SU-27 compared to the U.S. F-22 Raptor and he said they're very different so that they really can't be compared. The Raptor is a stealth aircraft, for starters. The SU-27 stands little chance against the Raptor because the SU-27's avionics are based on 1980s technology.
I'm reading the intro to a translation of Chandrakirti's Introduction to the Middle Way, a classic Buddhist text -- and check this out, it has a commentary from the Nyingma master, Jamgon Mipham. Yay! Mipham, my hero, he was a Tibetan master in the late 19th century who put the ancient school on the map.
Interesting note to those interested in Tibetan Buddhist history: First thing you need to know is that Buddhism is an import into Tibet.
There are two main divisions of Tibetan Mahayana Buddhism.
First was the early translation school of the 8th century CE, during the reign of King Songsten Gampo whose Tibetan Empire was a serious thorn in the side of the Chinese T'ang Dynasty. The Tibetans even captured Chang'an, the capital of China, for fifteen days, and the T'ang bought the Tibetans off with marriage alliances. (According to historian Paul Graf, trouble with the Turks and the Tibetans are probably why the T'ang finally decided to leave Korea alone; they found themselves fighting on too many fronts and the Korean Silla had united against the (brief) Chinese occupation.) This represents the Nyingma sect (literally "nying" = old; "ma" = particle that makes the adjective a noun).
Second was the later translation school of the 12th century CE, after Langdharma, a Tibetan Pol Pot who decided the way to uproot the foreign Buddhist religion was to kill, kill, kill the monks and burn all the books. Prior to Langdharma, Buddhism was the official religion of the state but the reality on the ground was a polyglot of various quasi-Buddhist, quasi-Bonpo syncretic animist religions. After Langdharma the sympathy of the Tibetans swung towards Buddhism and a huge effort was made to restore Buddhism to Tibet. Langdharma had been thorough during his roughtly 30-year reign, although a lot of the early translation school monks had fled to Mongolia. All the other Tibetan Buddhist sects, including the one that the Dalai Lama heads, are Sarma schools (literally "sar" = later; = particle that makes the adjective a noun).
Bear in mind that I'm of the early translation school but because of lack of facilities for my school I've been studying with later translation school teachers recently.
So. In Indian Buddhism there were two types of Mahayana. Yogachara ("all phenomena are a reflection of mind") and madhyamika ("all phenomena are empty in ultimate truth, and exist only in relative truth"). Most people think that yogachara and madhyamika argue with each other, and Sarma Tibetan Buddhist schools say that yogachara is an inferior view. I've heard this many times from current Sarma students even though I hadn't heard it from Nyingma teachers. I didn't know why there was a discrepancy.
I just read that the school of thought brought to Tibet in the 8th century was from Shantirakshita and Karmashilla in the 7th century (both of them had gone to Tibet to teach and help start Buddhism there). They had brought together yogachara and madhyamika into one system. They said that yogachara represents ordinary phenomena ("all phenomena are a reflection of mind") while madhyamika represents ultimate truth ("all phenomena are empty in ultimate truth, and exist only in relative truth"). Since one can only recognize ultimate truth through recognizing the interdependence of relative truth, madhyamika doesn't toss out yogachara, but rather yogachara is a needed step. This was the philosophy expounded in Tibet for 400 years.
In the 12th century, however, when Tibetans reached out to the dwindling Buddhism in India for translations, they translated many more texts on madhyamika than had been previously available. (I'm guessing, too, that Shantirakshita's view didn't gain the widespread acceptance in India that it had in Tibet.) At that point questions arose whether yogachara and madhyamika belonged together in one system or if they actually argued with each other. So the later schools toss aside yogachara as an inferior view.
I hadn't known enough to wonder at the opposition to yogachara to recognize that it was a difference in the schools. But now it makes a great deal more sense.
And, of course, I rather like Shantirakshita's perspective. I've always appreciated inclusiveness. :)
Oh. And now the snow is sticking! Not on the roads but it's frosting all the houses.
I hope you all are having a wonderful time, enjoying family and friends, watching your kids tear into their gifts, catching that warm smile from your husband or gay boyfriend or lesbian lover as you share a moment, a sly smile as you open some of your naughtier treasures. ;) I hope that your pets are happily playing with the wrapping paper and bouncing in the snow, lapping at your faces as you try to gather them in your arms. I hope that your homes are filled with the sights and smells and sounds of Christmas, and that we all take a moment to remember those less fortunate than us and wish them all this and more.
Merry Christmas to you all.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-12-26 01:01 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-12-26 05:19 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-12-26 06:07 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-12-26 11:18 am (UTC)As for the history ... so what you are saying is that the early translation school seems to identify more with Shantirakshita's inclusive system than the later school who had separated out the components? I am rather fascinated by the way you have divided up the historical background to the two schools as 'conquering leaders' and 'under a repressive regime.' Is there any reason for this correspondence? You don't really go into it. Was there the same polyglot of practices during the early school as before Langdharma, and hmm... *ponders*
Fascinating.
Bah humbug to christmas.
no subject
Date: 2007-12-26 01:23 pm (UTC)The early translation school relied upon Shantirakshita's combined yogachara and madhyamika system, so yes. According to this text here, it was the translation of a particular (most likely early) madhyamika text that apparently argued against yogachara did this system get called into question.
As far as the characterization of 'conquering leaders' vs. 'repressive regime' -- huh, wha-? No, that's not the case at all.
It's believed that Songsten Gampo's (617-650) Chinese wife brought Chinese Buddhism with her to Tibet in the late 7th century CE.
The nyingmas credit Padmasambhava with bringing tantric Buddhism to Tibet under Songsten Gampo's grandson, Trisong Deutsen (730-785), but the translation of Indian Buddhist texts didn't really get under way until Ralpacan (815-838).
The Bonpo priests who opposed Buddhism during Trisong Deutsen's reign were also unhappy about it durin Ralpacan's reign; two Bonpo ministers assassinated Ralpacan in 838 and installed his brother "Langdharma" as emperor. He banned Buddhism, burned the newly translated texts, and required Buddhist monks to return to lay life. The Uigyur state to the north collapsed during his reign, flooding Tibet with refugees. Already unstable and unpopular, Langdharma was assassinated, too.
Tibet fell apart into multiple feuding kingdoms for the next 400 years. In the 11th century, a prince of Tibet founded Ladakh, and then his grandson became a monk and studied under the famous Indian scholar Atisa in 1050. This was the first of the later translation schools (note the plural), though there wasn't a concerted effort to propagate Buddhism, teachings were mostly oral.
That family established a few little fiefdoms in western Tibet near Nepal, creating a kind of royal Buddhist lineage where teachings were passed on through the family, the Sakya clan.
Meanwhile, on the other side of former Tibet in eastern Kham, nyingma Buddhism continued.
In other parts of Tibet, Tibetans had to trek to India to get teachings on Buddhism, and these adventurers started the second sarma translation school, the Kagyud in the 11th century.
What happened next? The Mongols, everyone's favorite.
The Mongols burned Sakya and Kagyud Buddhist monasteries to the ground (the Kham monasteries fared a little better). The Mongol Köden sent a "surrender or else" command to the Sakyas who at the time seemed to be the largest sign of any leadership in Tibet. Tibet was annexed into the Mongol Yuan Dynasty.
By this point you have all kinds of Buddhist sects, following different traditions of texts that were translated at different periods. They fought each other for political power.
The Mongol family politics get very complicated, different relatives were parceled out different areas. One family member was in charge of Tibet, while Kublai Khan was given China, but then the guy in charge of Tibet died and Kublai Khan got both.
no subject
Date: 2007-12-26 01:24 pm (UTC)By 1578, the Mongols had lost control of China but still had a relationship with Tibet. Mongolia had a massive spread of translations of Buddhist texts into Mongolian and relations were friendly. They installed the first "Dalai Lama" (actually, the current Dalai Lama explains "Dalai" was just a Mongolian translation of the man's name), but they kept having to prop him up. By this point political and religious authority were all mixed together in one bag for Tibet.
By the 17th century, even Mongolian influence had faded from Tibetan politics, so the Tibetan religious factions were free to fight amongst themselves.
Then the Manchurian Chinese emperors kept sending garrisons to prop up the later Dalai Lamas and park an ineffective advisor who would be ignored as convenient for the Tibetans. By the time British showed, the Chinese presence was so minimal, Younghusband didn't even know they were a factor.
So, bottom line: No. This isn't a characterization of "conquering leader" and "evil despot." Rather, the ancient translations were done during the old Tibetan Empire, while the various multitudes of later translations were done after the Tibetan Empire.
It's a political distinction, having on the part of the sarma the claim: "oh, none of the old translations survived, so your Buddhism isn't the real thing."
And on the part of the nyingma the claim: "oh, your Buddhism is a later, lesser version further from the original source. Oh. Wait. Make that versions."
So, yes, they had tons of sectarianism, but not the sectarianism you were suggesting.
P.S. Note that Christianity was in Tibet during this medieval period (some Jesuits translated parts of the bible into Tibetan), and various Bonpo schools continued as well. Later on Islam came to Tibet also.