Of the Sakyapas. The nascent Gelukpa order challenged both their politicalReligions 2021, 12,7 ofposition and

August 10, 2022

Of the Sakyapas. The nascent Gelukpa order challenged both their politicalReligions 2021, 12,7 ofposition and their philosophical method. The Mongols remained a potent force all through Asia, however, and in Tibet religious groups sought the patronage and military backing of Mongol leaders. The Gelukpas were engaged in intermittent armed conflicts with rivals, particularly the Kagy as, as well as the Sakyapas also continued to press their claims to manage in central Tibet. Through Tsongkhapa’s time, the Gelukpas had avoided entanglement in political conflicts and had gained a reputation for strict adherence to the guidelines of monastic discipline and excellence in scholarship. As their energy and influence grew, nevertheless, other orders came to view them as a threat and attacked them, both philosophically and militarily. In 1498 control on the Good Prayer Festival (sMon lam chen mo) was wrested from Gelukpa handle, and for the duration of the sixteenth century the kings of Tsang (gTsang), who have been patrons on the Kagy as, actively suppressed the Gelukpas. In 1642, nonetheless, the fifth Dalai Lama, Ngawang Losang Gyatso (Ngag dbang blo bzang rgya mtsho, 1653703), was installed as Tibet’s most effective figure with the aid of Mongol armies, and numerous monasteries that had been seized by the Kagy as have been returned to Geluk handle. The Gelukpas refrained from a wholesale pogrom against their former adversaries, but their ascent saw a reduction in energy and influence amongst the other orders. 4. The Gelukpa Response Daktsang’s critique of Tsongkhapa’s Madhyamaka potentially undermined the whole Gelukpa project, and this was understood by leaders from the order. The fifth Dalai Lama called on his compatriots to defend their order’s founder and his program.22 The initial to AAPK-25 Apoptosis respond was Losang Ch yi Gyeltsen (bLo bzang chos kyi rgyal mtshan, 1567662), the fourth Panchen Lama, who characterizes Daktsang’s presentation of Madhyamaka as dangerous nihilism.23 Ignoring Daktsang’s claim that he adopted a Madhyamaka prasanga method and asserted no theses of his personal, the Panchen Lama employs a dialectical debate style and accuses his opponent of endorsing the opposite of every “contradiction” that he attributes to Tsongkhapa. This includes positions Daktsang doesn’t affirm and a few that he explicitly rejects. Considerably in the critique is properly argued and represents a severe response to Daktsang, but it is flawed by these components. The second Gelukpa response, by Jamyang Shepa (‘Jam dbyangs bzhed pa’i rdo rje Ngag dbang brtson ‘grus, 1648721/2), is much less philosophically satisfying.24 It mostly relies on invective RP101988 Autophagy directed toward Daktsang, hyperbolic sarcasm, and ad hominem attacks. Jam-yang Shepa repeats a lot of the Panchen Lama’s points and apparently believes that the matter has currently been settled. His task is usually to heap abuse on Daktsang for his temerity in attacking Tsongkhapa, who’s regarded in Geluk tradition as an emanation of Ma ur si the bodhisattva of wisdom.25 All 3 of the Gelukpas who composed responses to Daktsang’s critique (the third being Purchok) also employ a further polemical device: they refer to a document that only seems in Geluk-produced collections of Daktsang’s functions, a verse paean to Tsongkhapa that purports to be a repentance written late in life after Daktsang realized the error of his youthful philosophical indiscretions.26 The author refers to Tsongkhapa as an emanation of Ma ur proclaims that his Madhyamaka is faultless and beyond any achievable reproach, s.