Talk:Ban on Jonang

Middle seems a bit top heavy. Be doing that soon. Beginning and end seem to function though. Geir Smith 16:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this article really dosent conform to wikipedias strict npov policy,Benon 09:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the tone is wrong

If the tone is wrong (and it's too familiar-sounding for encyclopedic tone of voice) I can change it like in the paragraph about "How Jonang was finally banned". I can just dress it up for "formal dress". "Business"-style.Geir Smith 09:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That section suffers from some POV issues, too, though. NPOV means that Wikipedia doesn't use words like "hopefully," because that indicates an opinion. Calling another point of view "archaic" is also an opinion. The closest thing Wikipedia comes to stating a conclusion as fact within a controversy is "the large consensus of experts is X" or that "there is no evidence for Y". Just look at Modern geocentrism for an example of NPOV. Phoenix-forgotten 20:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pheonix. Geir Smith 12:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I added a cleanup tag; article tone is totally wrong. Needs to be rewritten to be more encyclopedic.--Isotope23 18:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge them

Deville, Hi. Merging Bon on Jonang and Taranatha might be a good thing making a kind of SuperTaranatha page. It could include several issues in it which all arose during the 17the cent. Gelugpa banning of 1. Taranatha (the name of the page) 2. the Jonangs (his school) and 3. the other school of Sakyas protector Jalpo/Gyalpo [one of the three Gyalpo Sum/Three King-Spirits] (Jonang-Taranatha was Sakya) at the same time by the same Gelug school. (So as to offset Sakyas powerful protector and finalize the Gelugpa power at its time. Also try throwing a jinx on Sakya..didn't succeed though seeing Jalpo is now truning on Gelugpas as the deity truning Gelug into a battle field now and which all know who is, even if its name is not named ooutwardly or mentionned outloud now.)

The three are natural to each other in time, topic and intent. It would indeed be interesting but would have to be a kind of encyclopedic treatment of the themes in their totality or else separate pages woiuld still be needed, so as to reach the full exent of it. Also, treading this ground is not easy, as people are very fanatical about it, and the banning faction sees itself as still being in power while their country has been ground to dust and they don't see that reality; preferring to live in illusion of grandeur and power-lost. Presently, two pages are bringing Tibetans back to earth, which are American Buddha Online Library (which is stating the court-cases for sex abuse against Sakya Trizin and Trungpa), while the page of Kalachakra King is in debate now for deleting and people can go there from here to vote stopping that deletion process on grounds that it is not, as accused, a new version of the Kalachakra page. One keep vote there will already be a good starting point: a way to counter-balance the delete vote that's already there; and it can hold down the page for now, gain some time, and we see things on from there.

People with agendas and who want to preserve the Tibetan power-structure from lost Tibet are out there, and should be stopped from developping their mad dream of a revitalized Tibet that will not happen and which prevents them from seeing reality and modernizing 1. Tibetan Buddhism 2. the Kalachakra 3. and the future for us all. People with agendas and blind faiths... that blind them should be woken up and a simple little vote over there helps make them think... instead of just banning as they do... like idiots and lynching parties and which will just accrue bad karma for them. They're also just suppressing deep sholarship and years of study that they have themselves not done any of. Suppressing knowledge like with Taranatha being banned in the 17th cent. is not a path towards the goal that we all seek : Nirvana. Yeah, merging could be a fantastic project of bringing all together one one single page for people to browse through and thus not get lost on all kinds of side-pages. Right. Good idea. Didn't think of it. But have to erase a lot of double-mentionned subjects in both articles. Merging and blotting out one in favour of the other is also not an option. If merging means enriching great but if it means making it cannibalizing the one for the other, no way. I'll take a look at it. If it means fighting no way. I'm a scholar not a bulldog. Anyone with hidden political agendas can just get lost. That's not part of Wikipedia. Civility is Wikipedia. Geir Smith 22:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is Rudy Harderwijk: Sorry to blunder in on this, but what is the use of merging two totally different subjects: a person and a the ban on a tradition which he happened to be part of? It could just as well be merged with any other Jonang master? I mean, if I look for information on Taranatha, I don't expect a long essay of the Jonang ban, nor would I expect the biography of Taranatha on a 'Jonang ban' page? I would certainly expect links on both pages to each other. By the way, of course the Jonang-ban page needs to be written much more objective - especially as recent history made the whole issue a thing of the past. By the way, i never heard any inclination of the Jonangpas that they like to be called a Sakya sub-tradition, so dragging another sub-tradition into the same page makes it really a book and not an encyclopedia article? By the way, many other parts are far from objective, like the statement "Thinking that the Jonangpas are not the origins of the Kalachakra tradition is a commonly-spread false idea." To be honest, this is absurd: how can you say the Kalachakra originated in a Tibetan tradition that whereas the tradition originates from Indian masters like Chilupa and Kalachakrapada?

Hi Rudy,

Remember we had posts between us back a few years now ? Trees have fruits every year and originate them. The Kalachakra originated its tradition to its offspring in Tibet while it had received it from outside Tibet before it. That's a question of precedence but something always precedes another. On Kalachakras page it says that the origins of its history "contains a mass of contradictions", so betting to much on this name or that name is pretty absurd : as all the valid sources like Taranatha also likewise claim the massive contradictions and endless lies and deceptions carried out in the name of serious history in Tibetan sholarship. Read what you wrote also in previous posts and merging indeed makes it too heavy because at least three totally separate subjects would have to fit into it. The Jonangs have too much to write about them for just one article. They are the ones who specialized in Kalachakra before Gelug even existed. What you say about Jonangs not liking being called a Sakya sub-sect, well that's all hogwash (bull..it) because they are the ones left over after the take-over by the Gelugpas in the 17th cent. so their opnion is like that of those who have been brainwashed and no longer reliable. Do you know what being banned means ? It means that one defends ones own banner afterwards (called the Stockholm Syndrome or what happened to Patty Hearst too). The present-day Jonang have nothing to do with this article. Does one ask the Nazis to comment on Holocaust-articles ? The banned Jonangs of today are not asked to comment on the Ban on Jonang article and one relies just on historical sources like Taranatha instead. That's what I've done and the line of the article remains that - and not making deals with the Gelugpa-Kalachakra point of view. POV is not the line of Wikipedia. If the Gelugpa POV that's on the Kalachakra article tries to claim ownership of the "Ban" article I'll report it to Wikipedia. One is not into POV on WIkipedia and Gelugpa POV that the whole of Buddhism is theirs is not possible now as even Gelugpa didn't even exist at Taranathas time or at least at the founding of Jonangs time. Gelugpas are so embroiled in their Shugden controversy that I don't think that taking on the Jonangpa view on the Ban article will be within their potential. People have been made aware of the POV issue about the Kalachakra, Shugden and Taranatha (Jonang). They know there's a dispute about the Jonangs, and about Shugden and the Sakyapas. One can no longer write articles that no one knows anything about and just write ones own mind on them now, because people here all know this is mined territory from now on. One has to be scientific and non-POV from now on. Geir Smith 19:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this page is to be merged, why not merge to Jonang? - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 02:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]