Madyamika Sautrantika vs Prasangika

[Malcolm]

Ah Now I see Thanks for that Namdrol this is probley where alot of the Anamosity toward Gelugpa's Originally arose from. So I take it on that root practitoners from Non Gelug traditions would see Lama Tsongkhapas recieved Mahamudra teachings from Manjushri as equally false and wrong then ?

Well, while it is possible for ordinary people to have pure visions, they are not usually regarded as the basis for having large amounts of faith in that person.

[Caz]

Ah Now I see Thanks for that Namdrol this is probley where alot of the Anamosity toward Gelugpa's Originally arose from. So I take it on that root practitoners from Non Gelug traditions would see Lama Tsongkhapas recieved Mahamudra teachings from Manjushri as equally false and wrong then ?

Well, while it is possible for ordinary people to have pure visions, they are not usually regarded as the basis for having large amounts of faith in that person.

Im sure your well aware what Implication that would have for the Gelug lineage and all of its teachings and transmitted lineages then. That it would be a false lineage.

[Mariusz]

Perhaps you should read Karmapa Mikyo Dorje

I have. Thanks.

I have studied Tibetan polemical authors of Madhyamaka quite well.

The Indian masters are better.

Perhaps you should studied it once more. The best you sign to Nitartha's Online course to learn more such things (as I quoted few posts earlier Santideva):
"The ultimate is not the sphere of cognition ("perceptions" whatever if "false" or "correct")
It is said that cognition is the seeming (only)." .

[Tom]

Ah Now I see Thanks for that Namdrol this is probley where alot of the Anamosity toward Gelugpa's Originally arose from. So I take it on that root practitoners from Non Gelug traditions would see Lama Tsongkhapas recieved Mahamudra teachings from Manjushri as equally false and wrong then ?

Well, while it is possible for ordinary people to have pure visions, they are not usually regarded as the basis for having large amounts of faith in that person.

What lineage does not place some faith in an account of pure vision?

Also, I thought Tsongkhapa's madhyamaka insight/perspective, correct or not, was inspired by Buddhapalita's work and that "Manjushri" (besides sending him to Rendawa) was mainly encouraging Tsongkhapa to go back to the Indian sources - not bad advice according to this thread!

[Jnana]

Perhaps you should read Karmapa Mikyo Dorje

I have. Thanks.

I have studied Tibetan polemical authors of Madhyamaka quite well.

The Indian masters are better.

Perhaps you should studied it once more. The best you sign to Nitartha's Online course to learn more such things (as I quoted few posts earlier Santideva):
"The ultimate is not the sphere of cognition ("perceptions" whatever if "false" or "correct")
It is said that cognition is the seeming (only)." .

Are you serious? What Namdrol has said on this thread is generally in agreement with Karmapa Mikyo Dorje and Karl B. You seem to simply fail to understand the issues being discussed.

[Mariusz]

Are you serious? What Namdrol has said on this thread is generally in agreement with Karmapa Mikyo Dorje and Karl B. You seem to simply fail to understand the issues being discussed.

Yes, I'm quoting simply the Nitartha book: Brunnhlzl Karl "The Center of the Sunlit Sky" where this quote was commented on the basis of Karmapa Mikyo Dorje.

[Jnana]

Are you serious? What Namdrol has said on this thread is generally in agreement with Karmapa Mikyo Dorje and Karl B. You seem to simply fail to understand the issues being discussed.

Yes, I'm quoting simply the Nitartha book: Brunnhlzl Karl "The Center of the Sunlit Sky".

I know you are. And the author, Karl B., states pretty much the same things that Namdrol is saying on this thread.

[Tom]

Are you serious? What Namdrol has said on this thread is generally in agreement with Karmapa Mikyo Dorje and Karl B. You seem to simply fail to understand the issues being discussed.

very weird … maybe more context would help … Mariusz for what its worth here are the verses from Candra MV 6th Chapter in context …

[Exposition of the two truths]
 
22. [Objection] “Worldly perspective, which is grounded in its own view, is considered authoritative;
So what need is there for the demand for reason here in this context?
That different things originate from different things is perceived by the world;
So what need is there for reason [to affirm] the existence of arising from
another?"
 
23. [Response] All entities obtained by the seeing of perfect truth and falsehood,
All these entities bear two, two realities;
The object that is seen by perfect vision is "true suchness,"
While that which is seen by false vision is taught to be the "concealed truth."
 
note: here the word for "false" is मर्षा or རྫུན་པ  

24. The false vision too is accepted to be of two classes:
That of a clear sense and that of a defective faculty-
The cognition of those with defective faculties is considered distorted
ln contrast to the cognition of those whose faculties are sound.
 
25. That which is apprehended by any of the six unimpaired faculties,
And is perceived within the perspective of everyday world,
This is true from for the standpoint of the world, as for the rest,
From that same standpoint of the world, they are posited as false.
 
26. The "self" as postulated by the upholders of extreme views
Who are overcome with the sleep of ignorance,
And those other constructs based on illusion, mirage and so on,
These things do not exist even from the perspective of the world.
 
27. Just as what is perceived by an eye afflicted with cataracts
Cannot invalidate the cognition of those who are free of cataracts,
Likewise the cognition that is impoverished of stainless gnosis,
This cannot invalidate an understanding that is itself stainless.
 
28- Because delusion obscures the intrinsic nature it is a veil;
That which is fabricated by it and appears as real,
This is described by the Sage as "truth of the veil;"
The fabricated entities are [real] on the conventional level,
 
note: Veil here is आवरण སགྲིབ་པ

29. Through the force of cataracts such distorted realities
As falling of hairs and so on are imputed;
What is its reality is seen by those with a clear sight;
So too you should understand the case to be so here.

[Jnana]

Also, I thought Tsongkhapa's madhyamaka insight/perspective, correct or not, was inspired by Buddhapalita's work and that "Manjushri" (besides sending him to Rendawa) was mainly encouraging Tsongkhapa to go back to the Indian sources - not bad advice according to this thread!

According to his non-Gelugpa critics he failed. Karmapa Wangchuk Dorje's Feast for the Fortunate:

Here the great Tsongkapa and others assert that the two truths are of one entity yet differ in terms of their conceptual isolates (ngowo chik la dokpa tade/ ngo bo gcig la ldog pa tha dad). By holding this assertion, they autonomously posit that the entities of the two truths are established by valid cognition. These and many similar assertions are untenable and contradict all the sūtras and tantras....

Again, from the same text:

Some later Tibetans, namely Shar Tsongkapa and his followers, say that if something exists conventionally, it meets the standard (go chö/go chod) of “existence.” They also do not accept that the arising and ceasing and so on of interdependence are free from the eight extreme elaborations. They assert that the involvement of elaborations in the relative truth meets the standard of “the involvement of elaborations,” but that freedom from elaborations in the ultimate does not meet the standard of “freedom from elaborations.” The refutations of these untenable assertions are found in full in the Ṭīkā.

And so on....

[Caz]

So according to his Critics not only is Je Tsongkhapas view Invalid but also his teachings and transmissions ?

[Mariusz]

Are you serious? What Namdrol has said on this thread is generally in agreement with Karmapa Mikyo Dorje and Karl B. You seem to simply fail to understand the issues being discussed.

Yes, I'm quoting simply the Nitartha book: Brunnhlzl Karl "The Center of the Sunlit Sky".

I know you are. And the author, Karl B., states pretty much the same things that Namdrol is saying on this thread.

Can you specify what exactly the saying you mean? I compared only: "The two truths are about how objects are perceived. They can be perceived in only two ways, correctly and incorrectly. Perceiving them incorrectly, a false perception of them is called relative truth" with mine ""The ultimate is not the sphere of cognition ("perceptions" whatever if "false" or "correct") It is said that cognition is the seeming (only)" . I did not see agreement here.

[Tom]

Here the great Tsongkapa and others assert that the two truths are of one entity yet differ in terms of their conceptual isolates (ngowo chik la dokpa tade/ ngo bo gcig la ldog pa tha dad). By holding this assertion, they autonomously posit that the entities of the two truths are established by valid cognition. These and many similar assertions are untenable and contradict all the sūtras and tantras....

Again, from the same text:

Some later Tibetans, namely Shar Tsongkapa and his followers, say that if something exists conventionally, it meets the standard (go chö/go chod) of “existence.” They also do not accept that the arising and ceasing and so on of interdependence are free from the eight extreme elaborations. They assert that the involvement of elaborations in the relative truth meets the standard of “the involvement of elaborations,” but that freedom from elaborations in the ultimate does not meet the standard of “freedom from elaborations.” The refutations of these untenable assertions are found in full in the Ṭīkā.

And so on....[/quote]

I am aware of the critiques.

My thought was that it did not seem valid to criticize Tsongkahapa's view of Madhyamaka by arguing that he was influenced by a spirit posing as Manjushri. Now the two truths being one ontologically identical - now that maybe up for grabs ...

[Tsongkhapafan]

According to his non-Gelugpa critics he failed. Karmapa Wangchuk Dorje's Feast for the Fortunate:

Here the great Tsongkapa and others assert that the two truths are of one entity yet differ in terms of their conceptual isolates (ngowo chik la dokpa tade/ ngo bo gcig la ldog pa tha dad). By holding this assertion, they autonomously posit that the entities of the two truths are established by valid cognition. These and many similar assertions are untenable and contradict all the sūtras and tantras....

There is no contradiction with the sutras and tantras. Nowhere in the sutras and tantras does Buddha ever say that conventional truths are completely invalid and solely, in all respects, an object of ignorance. Perhaps Tsongkhapa's assertions disagree with the incorrect interpretations of the sutras and tantras by other authors, but those wrong views are not his problem...

The problem of denying the validity of conventional truth on the level of being mere imputation by a valid mind is what it always was - it makes all method aspects of the spiritual path invalid, since minds such as love, compassion, bodhichitta, faith and so forth would be based solely on objects of delusion (which are non-existents) and it leaves emptiness to be autonomous and independent - this is not Nagarjuna's intention at all! These unwanted consequences invalidate the view of teachers such as Gorampa and so forth who have gone to an extreme regarding conventional truths. The only problem with conventional truth is that it is mere appearance appearing and conceived as being inherently existent by the mind of true grasping.

[Jnana]

Can you specify what exactly the saying you mean? I compared only: "The two truths are about how objects are perceived. They can be perceived in only two ways, correctly and incorrectly. Perceiving them incorrectly, a false perception of them is called relative truth" with mine ""The ultimate is not the sphere of cognition ("perceptions" whatever if "false" or "correct") It is said that cognition is the seeming (only)" . I did not see agreement here.

Center of the Sunlit Sky, p. 85:

There is no contradiction between, first, the explanation that the ultimate is taken as the object of the wisdom of noble ones and, second, the teaching in some sūtras and treatises that it is not the sphere of cognition.

[Jnana]

There is no contradiction with the sutras and tantras.

Take it up with his many critics. I have no interest in debating this.

[Mariusz]

Can you specify what exactly the saying you mean? I compared only: "The two truths are about how objects are perceived. They can be perceived in only two ways, correctly and incorrectly. Perceiving them incorrectly, a false perception of them is called relative truth" with mine ""The ultimate is not the sphere of cognition ("perceptions" whatever if "false" or "correct") It is said that cognition is the seeming (only)" . I did not see agreement here.

Center of the Sunlit Sky, p. 85:

There is no contradiction between, first, the explanation that the ultimate is taken as the object of the wisdom of noble ones and, second, the teaching in some sūtras and treatises that it is not the sphere of cognition.

Excuse me, I have not the book with me now to check the context. Are you quoting on the wisdom of noble ones that is beyond the perceptions of objects, beyond all reference points? If so, it agrees with Santideva saying, but not with the saying of Namdrol.

[Terma]

Hopefully not too off topic, though it does relate to the title of the thread:

By reading Candrakirti, it seems that he is a "prasangika", in terms of his debating style and overall view (or lack there of). Is this the case, even though these terms and way of subdividing madhyamaka came later on?

I guess this is just another "label" huh? lol

Terma

[Malcolm]

Ah Now I see Thanks for that Namdrol this is probley where alot of the Anamosity toward Gelugpa's Originally arose from. So I take it on that root practitoners from Non Gelug traditions would see Lama Tsongkhapas recieved Mahamudra teachings from Manjushri as equally false and wrong then ?

Well, while it is possible for ordinary people to have pure visions, they are not usually regarded as the basis for having large amounts of faith in that person.

Im sure your well aware what Implication that would have for the Gelug lineage and all of its teachings and transmitted lineages then. That it would be a false lineage.

No, Tsongkhapa was a good yogi, and had experience. He received the transmissions of the tantras, practiced them, was skilled in the arts of Vajramaster, and conveyed them properly, he was am interesting and novel scholar. However, it is precisely his novelty that landed him in hot water with those who were not his students.

In this instance, his students had lots of faith in him and thus there is a new lineage. Those who were not his students rather resented the Sakya sarmas as they were called for a while, these new Sakyapas later known as Gelugpas.

So while we all respect Tsongkhapa, we do not all assume that he achieved awakening.

N

[Mariusz]

Center of the Sunlit Sky, p. 85:

There is no contradiction between, first, the explanation that the ultimate is taken as the object of the wisdom of noble ones and, second, the teaching in some sūtras and treatises that it is not the sphere of cognition.

ok, here is the context:
Center of the Sunlit Sky, p. 99:

Dividing Space: Divisions of the Ultimate
Of course, there can be no divisions of the actual nature of the ultimate. How-
ever, in terms of a terminological classification, “nominal ultimate reality” is distinguished
from “nonnominal (or actual) ultimate reality.” The first is what is
approximately concordant with ultimate reality. On the subject side, it is a reasoning
consciousness about emptiness that fulfills the criteria of inferential valid
cognition. On the object side, it is the emptiness that is characterized as a nonimplicative
negation. Such can be regarded as a reality, since it is undeceiving
from the perspective of analytical reasoning. It is, however, only a partial freedom
from reference points. For example, the nonimplicative negation “nonarising”
that negates arising still involves the notion of nonarising. As Santideva says,
such notions must be let go too:
Through familiarity with the latent tendencies of emptiness,
The latent tendencies of entities will be relinquished.
Through familiarity with “utter nonexistence,”
These too will be relinquished later on.
Once neither entities nor nonentities
Remain before the mind,
There is no other mental flux [either].
Therefore, it is utter nonreferential peace.326
The actual and complete freedom from all reference points, such as arising,
nonarising, existence, and nonexistence, is called nonnominal ultimate reality.
The Treasury of Knowledge reminds us to be aware that all the various avenues of
analyzing the two realities in Centrist treatises are solely dealing with nominal
ultimate reality. Actual ultimate reality is by definition completely inaccessible to
any conceptual analysis.327
In terms of the object to be negated, nominal ultimate reality is further classified
as personal identitylessness and phenomenal identitylessness.328 In terms of
defining characteristics, it can be divided into the three “doors to liberation”:
emptiness, signlessness, and wishlessness329 (sometimes a fourth door, nonapplication,
330 is added). Among these, it is emptiness in particular that is further classified
in various ways in different scriptures.331
In conclusion, one may wonder whether the phenomena that are contained in
the two realities exist as knowable objects. In terms of the Centrists’ own system,
when such phenomena are analyzed and not found, obviously this question is
pointless. And when Centrists talk about these phenomena without analysis, they
do not describe them in such a way as to say that certain ones among them exist
as correct knowable objects and certain others do not. However, when speaking
about phenomena in adaptation to the common worldly consensus of others,
without analysis, Centrists in general say that all phenomena contained in the two
realities are suitable to be known as mental objects. As for those Centrists who
are beyond worldly experiences, in order to guide disciples and without analysis,
they just repeat what is the common worldly consensus of those who say that
knowable objects accord with dependent origination and are illusionlike. Again,
it is only from the perspective of such people that these Centrists say this. As for
the illusionlike “mere seeming” that originates under the influence of unafflicted
ignorance (the phenomena included in that aspect of the seeming which is the
consensus of noble ones within the context of the presentation of the two realities
as just something mutually dependent), these Centrists would say that, conventionally,
the phenomena of this mere seeming correctly exist as knowable
objects. All other phenomena do not exist as correct knowable objects of unmistakenness.
They include all phenomena of seeming reality that originate from and
are affected by afflicted ignorance as well as all appearances and ideas of those who
are affected by incidental causes for mistakenness, such as visual objects for people
with blurred vision or notions about a permanent self.

[Malcolm]

Can you specify what exactly the saying you mean? I compared only: "The two truths are about how objects are perceived. They can be perceived in only two ways, correctly and incorrectly. Perceiving them incorrectly, a false perception of them is called relative truth" with mine ""The ultimate is not the sphere of cognition ("perceptions" whatever if "false" or "correct") It is said that cognition is the seeming (only)" . I did not see agreement here.

Center of the Sunlit Sky, p. 85:

There is no contradiction between, first, the explanation that the ultimate is taken as the object of the wisdom of noble ones and, second, the teaching in some sūtras and treatises that it is not the sphere of cognition.

Excuse me, I have not the book with me now to check the context. Are you quoting on the wisdom of noble ones that is beyond the perceptions of objects, beyond all reference points? If so, it agrees with Santideva saying, but not with the saying of Namdrol.

What do you take Namdrol to be saying? In your own words please.