Edit kilaya - abgetrennt von: http://www.buddhaland.de/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=15618 Es ging um Jamgön Kongtrül Lodrö Thaye's Kommentar zum Mahayana-Uttaratantra-Shastra
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@Sherab: Ich kann mir auch nicht vorstellen das es da einen großen Unterschied gibt. Es irritiert halt nur das in der Inhaltsbeschreibung ausdrücklich auf die Mahamudra-Lehre hingewiesen wird.
Ich habe mich kürzlich etwas mit Jamgön Mipham befasst. Der hat zahlreiche Kommentare zu den großen Klassikern verfasst und u.a. auch die bis dato präferierte Interpretation der Madhyamaka-Lehre in einem berüchtigten Kommentar neu ausgelegt. Daher meine Überlegung ob es evtl. auch zu diesem Werk unterschiedliche Ansichten seitens der Kommentatoren gibt. Es liegen immerhin Kommentare von Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche, Jamgön Kongtrul und Jamgön Mipham vor.
Hier mal Zitate in denen klar wird das der Kommentar einen Unterschied machen kann:
Wikipedia:Although Mipham wrote on a wide range of subjects, Prof. David Germano identifies the most influential aspect of Mipham's career in that he "was the single most important author in the efflorescence of Nyingma exoteric literature in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Grounding himself theoretically in the writings of Longchenpa and other great Nyingma authors, Mipham produced brilliant exegetical commentaries on the great Indian philosophical systems and texts with a Nyingma orientation.".
E. Gene Smith also judged that Mipham's greatest contribution was "in his brilliant and strikingly original commentaries on the Indian treatises." Prior to Mipham, Nyingmapa scholars "had seldom written detailed pedagogical commentaries on the śāstras of exoteric Buddhism." Until his time the colleges or shedra associated with the great Nyingma monasteries of Kham, such as Dzogchen, Shechen, Kathog, Palyul and Tarthang lacked their own exegetical commentaries on these exoteric Mahayana śāstras, and students commonly studied Gelug commentaries on these fundamental texts. Grounding himself in the writings of Śāntarakṣita, Rongzom Chokyi Zangpo, and Longchenpa, Mipham produced a whole array of brilliant exegetical commentaries on the great Indian philosophical systems and texts that clearly articulated a Nyingma orientation or view.
Wikipedia:Miphams commentary on the ninth chapter of Shantideva's Bodhicaryavatara, the Shertik Norbu Ketaka "threw Tibetan scholarly circles into several decades of heated controversy," but "it was not the only tempest Mipham's new expositions raised." His commentary on the Madhyamakalamkara of Śāntarakṣita was also considered highly controversial.
(Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamgon_Ju_Mipham_Gyatso)
ZitatHis presentation of the Nyingma School’s unique approach to the view and practice of Buddhism, and in particular the relationship between Madhyamaka and the Great Perfection, has had an enormous impact on the past few generations of Tibetan Buddhist scholars and practitioners.
(Quelle: https://www.bodhicittasangha.org/nyingma-lineage/)
...hier ist klar und deutlich von einer Nyingma-Sichtweise seiner Kommentare die Rede.