|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Criticism section inappropriate
I have removed the criticism section as inappropriate (and correspondingly modified the intro) -- for several reasons.
First, it's all about Je Tsongkhapa, not the Gelug Order per se. If this material is to be included, it goes under the entry for Tsongkhapa (though there is a caution even there -- see below).
Second, while a major religious order such as the Gelug (the largest Tibetan order, 600 years old, highly respected East and West) is certainly not immune to criticism, this kind of doctrinal dispute is out of place in Wikipedia, unless presented as a discussion in its own right, probably under Madhyamika or Tibetan Buddhism. By any standards, Je Tsongkhapa is certainly a major figure in both those topics, and his views have been widely argued on all sides for hundreds of years. In fact, his views are so widely discussed pro and con in Tibet and now again in the West, that the debate itself might be worth an article. But both sides would have to be represented in a balanced way, and his approach acknowledged as the dominant one in Tibet prior to the Chinese occupation.
Elaborating a bit on that last point -- and this applies to the same material as it might appear in the entry for Je Tsongkhapa -- these kinds of doctrinal disputes are common in all religions, but the Tibetans practice them with particular intensity. The remark about Je Tsongkhapa being deceived by a demon is an excellent example. So trying to recount such disputes for Wikipedia runs the risk of reproducing the disputation itself rather than taking a neutral, objective point of view. I won't go so far as to say that the authors of that material in this article were acting out of chauvinistic malice or opposition toward the Gelug order or Je Tsongkhapa, but that is certainly the impression that comes thorough. djlewis (talk) 16:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I am not sure how to spell the founder of the schools name. I think a few important facts are missing, e.g. that he was a Sa-skya. That his major contribution to philosophy was to combine Nagarjuna and Dharmakirti. Also, the violent nature of the ascendency of the school seems to have been studiously avoided. The Gzhan-stong v. Rang-stong debate might use some attention too. --Nathan hill 09:48, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
No - 'New Kadampa' is a synonym for the Geluk. The 'New Kadampa tradition' is certainly not a synonym for the Geluk. However, I have added some text to that, to disambiguate, as many individuals appear to be confused about this distinction. (20040302)
Should this page be renamed to Gelug? If you wanna reply do it on my talk page by the way. --Hottentot
founding the gelugs
it is a little bit inadequate to claim Tsongkhapa has founded the Gelug school. mainly a founding was attributed later to his actvities by his followers. --Kt66 23:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Again to that said here: Tsongkhapa founded Ganden and the formation of the Gelug school was a development after his death, I correct the article in that sense. regards, --126.96.36.199 (talk) 17:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
-  see  Grünwedel, Albert
"Im Jahr 1688 wurde unter der Aufsicht des damaligen Regenten von Tibet Sans rgyas rgya mts'o ein astronomisch-astrologisches Kompendium verfaßt, das den Titel Vaidurya dkar po "Weißer Lotus" (so Grünwedel, besser aber wohl 'Weißer Lapiz') trägt." I am not sure whether the Regent (Desi) of 1688 named Sans rgyas rgya mts'o belonged to the Gelug or not. If so, the "Vaidurya dkar po" should be mentioned.
I've found out that the 3rd regent of the 5th Dalai Lama was Desi Samgye Gyamtso (1653-1705). So the "Vaidurya dkar po" must have been compiled by him.
Here he is listed as Gelug, , see Desi Sangye Gyatso (sde srid sangs rgyas rgya mtsho): 1653-1703/5 .
Hi ever one
I have found a nice brief about Dalai Lama here and i also want to add something for your interest, infact tell you the meaning of some word used in this page which were Basically the Old Tibetian and this language is still used as mother tongue in Northern Areas of Pakistan, Indian Ladakh Region and Chinese Tibet, Like
Kadan Means Hope and Pa mean which have
Pa is a word word is used in may ways with respect to time and situation,
Lam means path rim or ring mean long i.e Long Path/Difficult path
I will wait for you response and then make more correction
- The translations you have given are not correct. Please do not use them. Moonsell (talk) 23:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Ordination necessary for vajrayana?
The article haa: "Arguably, Gelug is the only school of vajrayāna Buddhism that prescribes monastic ordination as a necessary qualification and basis in its teachers (lamas / gurus). Lay people are usually not permitted to give initiations if there are teachers with monastic vows within close proximity. This discipline was laid down by Tsongkhapa as a mechanism to prevent Buddhist teachings from further degenerating. Je Rinpoche through his unsurpassed wisdom and direct perception of Manjuśri has shown sentient beings how vajrayāna teachings can be practiced without compromising vinaya. " This would seem to need deletion. It has been a topic of controversy among Gelugpas since the time of Tsongkhapa's disciples. It is mentioned by Khedupje or Gyaltsapje (not sure where) and has not been resolved. Certainly, it would be very hard indeed to find anyone who would suggest Pabongkha Rinpoche, for example, after he had disrobed was unfit to give initiations. I suggest we delete this quote from the article. Moonsell (talk) 23:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC) I don't distrust wikipedia this much but isn't this a prasangika madhyamika school? Why does it only mention vajrayana? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 00:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
The article has: 'as the Dalai Lama remarks, "there is a saying in the Gelug, 'If one is on the move it is Guhyasamāja. If one is still, it is Guhyasamāja. If one is meditating, it should be upon Guhyasamāja.’ Therefore, whether one is engaged in study or practice, Guhyasamāja should be one’s focus."' The citation for this is http://www.dalailama.com/page.153.htm, which is a broken link. Does anyone have a way to repair it, one of the only two citations in the whole article? Moonsell (talk) 23:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- I was able to track down the title of the original link via archive.org. Emptymountains (talk) 20:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't distrust wikipedia this much but isn't this a prasangika madhyamika school? Why does it only mention vajrayana?