|
|
楼主 |
发表于 2008-6-9 06:08
|
显示全部楼层
Well, Anonymous, your noted scholar should be John Power, who was then Senior Lecturer in the Asian History Centre, the Australian National University. I don't understand why you didn't quote his name?
If he is really a noted scholar, then he must work harder to live up with his name. The first quote is full of misrepresentations and mistakes, starting from the 1st line.
1. Bodong Choklay Namgyel, if we are referring to the same the founder of the Jonang-pa sect, Phyogs-las Rnam-rgyal (pronounced Choklay Namgyel, 1306～1386) (Ref. Tucci (1949), pp.659-661, p.704, fn.848及Table XVI-Genealogy of Zhva Lu，Ruegg, pp.12-13) or your Bodong Choklay Namgyei).
Gendün Drüp, or the 1st Dalai birth and death years are 1391-1474. Please verify yourself, how can your contemporary Choklay Namgyel addressed Gendün Drüp as "Great Scholar", when the boy was only born 5 years after he died?? Fascinating, isn't it? And who is this Phyogs-las Rnam-rgyal or your Bodong Choklay Namgyei? He was a great scholar indeed, and actually teacher of 1st Dalai 's master, the legendary Tsongkhapa (1357-1419).
Phyogs-las Rnam-rgyal or your Bodong Choklay Namgyei, (1306～1386)
Tsongkhapa (1357-1419).
Gendün Drüp (1391-1474), make sense??
2. The Title "Panchen" was not conferred by Dalai 5th, but Gushri Khan (1582-1654) of Khoshut. In 1634, Dalai 5th and Panchen 4th (masterminded by Panchen 4th aged 64, as Dalai 5th was 17) were threatened by other Tibetan sects and linked with Gushri Khan to suppress their rivals. But Gushri Khan then set foot in Tibet. Later under Panchen's plan, Dalai sought for help from the Qing Emperor to drive Gushri Khan away. Panchen 5th further got the title confirmation from Qing Emperor in 1713 from Kangxi.
3. The Title Panchen or Dalai did not come from among themselves. The 3rd Dalai, Soinam Gyatso (1543—1588) successful converted Altan Khan of Tumet Mongols in 1578 and they exchanged titles. So Soinam Gyatso got his Dalai, meaning Sea of Wisdom. Altan Khan had been granted by Ming Dynasty as Shunyi Lord. Well in ancient times, communications were not like now, so being in the remote Tibetan Plateau, Ming might seem a great dynasty to Soinam Gyatso, who asked Altan Khan to seek for acknowledgment from the Ming Emperor, while he himself wrote to the Prime Minister Zhang Juzheng for grant of his title. The Ming Emperor allowed his wish and the grant script had "Dalai" and was later confirmed in 1587. Soinam Gystso prepared to go to Beijing to express his thanks but died on the way in Mongolia in 1588. This was the story of Dalai's title, and was clearly documented in the Ming's account. Not something invented in 1995 in Australia.
4. If you read your quote carefully, you will find it's self-contradictory.
"although they did not belong to Tashi Lhünpo monastery", the tie between Panchen and Tashi Lhünpo basically started from Panchan 4th. Tashi Lhünpo was built by Gendün Drüp in 1447, The 1st two Panchens (Khedrup Je, 1385–1438, Sönam Choklang 1438–1505) were either dead or happily heading his own Ganden Monastery.
"Losang Chökyi Gyeltsen’s successor was later recognised as the fourth Panchen Lama."
If your notable scholar did his study, he won't make such mistakes. Dalai's title was retroactively granted to the 1st 2 Dalai, because it was 3rd Dalai who started the title, and for Panchen, there were 3 previous Panchen for such retroactive recognition, because it was the 4th Panchen who started to hold this title. Therefore Losang Chökyi Gyeltsen’s successor should be the 5th Panchen Lama. If he cannot get such simple fact right, I can't believe he can get other stuff any better either. In my words, only fooling people more stupid and ignorant than him.
Panchen 4th actually helped to establish Dalai 4th, as well as Dalai 5th, and had much to contribute in the establishment of Dalai 5th actually. Why? because Dalai 4th met sudden death, after being Dalai for 5 years at the age of 27!!! Panchen 4th was not only a learned monk, he was a great politician. It was he who master-mind the collaboration with Gushri Khan and later with Qing Dynasty to stabilize Gelug against the other sects. As mentioned aforesaid, he was 64 and Dalai 5th was only 17. Rather than it was Dalai who GAVE his teacher the Tashi Lhünpo, would it not be "face saving" as your notable scholar said, that the young Dalai had no choice, or that he owed a lot to Panchan? So much so that it was not "who" GAVE "whom" what title or temple, as a from top to bottom kind of implication, but rather as whose muscle was stronger?
When studying something far from your own culture and history background, how can one rely on just bits and pieces from hearsay or so-called research of one "scholar" and accept everything as-is, without really in-depth study and considering all the historical, political, cultural background and their inter-related cause and effect, and claim one's knowledge is THE FACT?
[ 本帖最后由 ltbriar 于 2008-6-9 07:40 编辑 ] |
|
楼主: ltbriar
狗仔卡
发表于 2008-6-8 23:35
显身卡
