Madyamika Sautrantika vs Prasangika

[conebeckham]

Mariusz-
I may have lost the thread somewhere, but I don't think your quotes and excerpts are contradictory to anything Namdrol has said. In fact, your post seems to further support my understanding of what he's been saying.

??

(EDIT: I see Namdrol has already asked you to re-state.....)

[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.

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.

Thank you for continuing. It will benefit all of us. Of course I took it: a correct perception of them (the perceived objects) is called ultimate truth. Thats why I asked you: "Do you really think the so-called "objects", somewhere "out there", can be perceived correctly in the ultimate truth"?

[Caz]

Okay thanks for clearing that up Namdrol, I guess on this assumption that those who think Je Tsongkhapa did not achieve awakening would reject the authenticity of various recieved practices from Je Rinpoche after he passed away not to mention the Gaden Mahamudra lineage as mentioned earlier if one thinks Je Rinpoche Could not percieve Manjushri Directly then I suppose critics would assume he made this form of Mahamudra up ?

[conebeckham]

Okay thanks for clearing that up Namdrol, I guess on this assumption that those who think Je Tsongkhapa did not achieve awakening would reject the authenticity of various recieved practices from Je Rinpoche after he passed away not to mention the Gaden Mahamudra lineage as mentioned earlier if one thinks Je Rinpoche Could not percieve Manjushri Directly then I suppose critics would assume he made this form of Mahamudra up ?

I'm not Namdrol of course..and I'd be interested in his answer, too.
My two cents:

I don't know if we can say he "made up" his Mahamudra teachings..... Tsong Khapa, in my view, was a great "synthesiser" and he certainly had received transmissions of extant Mahamudra lineages. I've read the "Geluk/Kagyu Tradition of Mahamudra," years ago, and I recall it struck me then as a combination of more "traditional Mahamudra" teaching from the Kagyu POV and a certain analytical focus on "emptiness," which isn't found in the same manner in (most?) Kagyu transmissions. Not sure that book reflects the Ganden Mahamudra lineage teachings?

Also, for what it's worth, the stress Tsong Khapa placed on the "conventional truth" and "function" has been attributed by some scholars to be a response to his concern regarding the laxity of monastic behavior and observance of the vinaya. I dunno. He's certainly not first (or last) Tibetan master to attempt to reconcile divergent Indian lineages of transmission. He is the most famous one, though!

[Malcolm]

Thank you for continuing. It will benefit all of us. Of course I took it: a correct perception of them (the perceived objects) is called ultimate truth. Thats why I asked you: "Do you really think the so-called "objects", somewhere "out there", can be perceived correctly in the ultimate truth"?

Candrakirti very specificially says "yang dag mthong yul gang de de nyid de" i.e. "Any object [yul] of a correct (yang dag) perception (mthong) that is real (de nyid)" i.e. an ultimate truth. The he says mthong ba brdzun pa kun rdzob bden par gsungs i.e. "[The object of] a false perception is a relative truth."

He also specfies very precisely just before these two lines:

/dngos kun yang dag brdzun pa mthong ba yis/ /dngos rnyed ngo bo gnyis ni 'dzin par 'gyur

"Since all things are perceived correctly and falsely;
all things will possess two natures.

He then explains in his commenatary:

de'i phyir dngos po thams cad rang bzhin de gnyis 'dzin pa yin no/ /rang bzhin de gnyis las kyang mthong ba yang dag pa'i yul gang yin pa de ni de nyid de/ de ni don dam pa'i bden pa'o zhes bya ba'i don to/ /de'i rang gi ngo bo ni bshad par bya'o/ /mthong ba brdzun pa'i yul gang yin pa de ni kun rdzob kyi bden pa'o/ /de'i phyir de ltar bden pa gnyis rnam par gzhag nas/ mthong ba brdzun pa rnams la mthong ba yang dag pa dang brdzun pa nyid las

Therefore, all things possess two natures. Also out of those two natures, any object of a correct perception means that it is called "ultimate truth". It's own nature has been explained. Any object of a false perception is a relative truth. Therefore, after having demonstrated the two truths, among false perceptions there are also true and false."

N

[Mariusz]

Perhaps what differentiate us is that I take these so-called "objects" as pedagogical tools only, expedient meaning but not as the definitive.

As The "Center of the Sunlit Sky" says:
page 608. To state the definition of knowable
object as “that which is suitable to be taken as an object of a cognition” is only
taught in texts for beginners as a step in order to unfold their intelligence.
However, these texts also give the definition of consciousness as “the cognition
that is clear and aware of objects.” Thus, not only in terms of definition but also
in the actual process of perception, consciousness and the object that it cognizes
mutually depend on each other. Thus, one can never ascertain one of them without
the other. In general, knowing consciousnesses and knowable objects are
only imagined by the ignorance of ordinary beings. Actually, there are no such
entities. When the Buddha used such labels, he did so only provisionally for certain
purposes, such as to communicate his teachings about ultimate reality.
So then is the ultimate a knowable object or not? For beginners, the following
is taught: Through knowing the seeming, one just cognizes worldly conventional
terms and events, but this has no greater significance. Through knowing
the ultimate, one goes beyond cyclic existence. Therefore, the only correct object
to be known is the ultimate. However, again, this is said only for a specific purpose,
which is to introduce beginners to the nominal ultimate. For those who are
already intensely trained in the path and then conceptualize the ultimate as a
thing with characteristics, it is taught that the ultimate is not even a mere knowable
object, since knower and knowable object are just conventions on the level
of seeming reality. This is said in order to remove all mental reference points
that cling to the ultimate in terms of subject and object. If these are not removed,
they function as subtle obstacles to “actually” perceiving the ultimate as it is. The
direct cognition of the ultimate only engages in the nature of phenomena just as
it is, when there are no more remainders of knower, knowable object, true seeing,
false seeing, and so on in such a cognition.

As for Candrakırti and Karmapa Mikyo Dorje:

Page, 84. By definition, ultimate reality cannot be taught or demonstrated.
Therefore, it is said that the ultimate cannot be an object of cognition. When the
formations of mind or mental events merge with the ultimate, all of them are naturally
and completely at peace, and none of them has any chance to stir for even
a single moment....
....Karmapa Mikyö Dorje explains that this mode of being is the vital point of the
definitive meaning of all sutras and tantras and nothing other than the
“Mahamudra of mental nonengagement that is beyond cognition” that was transmitted
from Saraha and Savaripa to Marpa and Milarepa.

327. As for the enlightened bodies of a Buddha, The Entrance into Centrism states:
The dry firewood of knowable objects having been totally incinerated,
This peace is the Dharma Body of the Victors.
At this point, there is neither arising nor ceasing.
The cessation of mind is revealed through this Body.720
Candrakırti’s autocommentary explains:
In this Body that has the nature of wisdom and [in which] the dry
firewood of knowable objects has been totally burned away, there is no
arising of knowable objects. Therefore, that which entails such nonarising
is the Dharma Body of the Buddhas. Thus, the object of wisdom—
true reality—is in no case engaged by the [corresponding]
subjects of such [knowable objects], that is, mind and mental events.
Hence, on the seeming level, this is expressed as [true reality] being
revealed through this very Body.

Page 547. Karmapa Mikyö Dorje says that, in the context of compassionately and skillfully
taking care of individual disciples, even the Buddha taught some expedient
meanings as if they were true reality. Since Centrists just follow this approach, by
having another basis of intention in mind and for the sake of certain purposes,
in many of their texts, they also talk about such topics as knowable objects in
terms of the five bases, the three natures, and the eight consciousnesses. For
example, in his Commentary on the Mind of Enlightenment, Nagarjuna talks about
the ground consciousness and latent tendencies:
Likewise, the ground consciousness
Is not real but appears as if it were real.
When it moves to and fro,
It retains the [three] existences.
The seeming originates from karma and afflictions.
Karma originates from the mind.
The mind accrues through latent tendencies.
If one is free from latent tendencies, one is happy.
He further says that there are no outer objects and that it is mind that appears as such objects...


Excuse me, I can't help to add some of mine:

Whosoever knows so-called conventional truth (the so-called objects) as totally dependently arisen,
suppose to be a all-knowing buddha only,
ultimate truth is not even called truth too,
because the total freedom from all reference points,
pointing out the unblurred, unimpaired vision.

To locate the center of the sky is just impossible,
never can be found,
this type of the center,
like any other type of "the center" [appearences, the so-called objects],
the unfindable.

So
"Give up the surroundings,
Don't defend your headquarters
And conquer the citadel of self-surrender"
for everything and everyone,
according to time and space,
but full of energy and life,
like the sun lights the darkness,
the illusionlike (the useful seeming). (from http://www.lamrimnotes.webs.com/hornlike.html)

[Caz]

Okay thanks for clearing that up Namdrol, I guess on this assumption that those who think Je Tsongkhapa did not achieve awakening would reject the authenticity of various recieved practices from Je Rinpoche after he passed away not to mention the Gaden Mahamudra lineage as mentioned earlier if one thinks Je Rinpoche Could not percieve Manjushri Directly then I suppose critics would assume he made this form of Mahamudra up ?

I'm not Namdrol of course..and I'd be interested in his answer, too.
My two cents:

I don't know if we can say he "made up" his Mahamudra teachings..... Tsong Khapa, in my view, was a great "synthesiser" and he certainly had received transmissions of extant Mahamudra lineages. I've read the "Geluk/Kagyu Tradition of Mahamudra," years ago, and I recall it struck me then as a combination of more "traditional Mahamudra" teaching from the Kagyu POV and a certain analytical focus on "emptiness," which isn't found in the same manner in (most?) Kagyu transmissions. Not sure that book reflects the Ganden Mahamudra lineage teachings?

Also, for what it's worth, the stress Tsong Khapa placed on the "conventional truth" and "function" has been attributed by some scholars to be a response to his concern regarding the laxity of monastic behavior and observance of the vinaya. I dunno. He's certainly not first (or last) Tibetan master to attempt to reconcile divergent Indian lineages of transmission. He is the most famous one, though!

See Cone the question arises because it was a very doubtful synthesis of earlier Indian traditions Kagyu Mahamudra begins with the Naval Chakra where as the Gelug tradition which Manjushri taught to Je Rinpoche starts at the heart. So if as earlier mentioned many of his critics do not think he attained high accomplishments what does this say for the genuity of the tradition and the results it can give if not direct from Manjushri himself. I take note that there seem to be very few Rime practitoners for outside the Gelug tradition who would be familiar with The Gaden oral lineage of Mahamudra perhapes this is once again because others hold Je Rinpoches teachings to lack Authenticity ? As Namdrol has kindly elaborated people respect Je Rinpoche but apparently do not respect him enough to accord his teachings rightful authentication.

[Mariusz]

Mariusz-
I may have lost the thread somewhere, but I don't think your quotes and excerpts are contradictory to anything Namdrol has said. In fact, your post seems to further support my understanding of what he's been saying.

??

(EDIT: I see Namdrol has already asked you to re-state.....)

You see, earlier I also was argued about definition of "the seeming" because the terms "faulty" or false" (for all the seeming) are a little tricky. Suppose you agree with my understanding: the all "the seeming" (even if seems to be false) can be useful in Madhyamaka practice, let alone in Mahamudra or Dzogchen, so one can not say it is totally false. It's all about the "self-liberation", is not? As I quted Dzogchen Ponlop in Tibetan madhyamaka forum here:

Therefore, Madhyamaka continually emphasizes “no arising,”
which cuts the process at the very beginning.
Like Mahamudra and Dzogchen, Madhyamaka does not apply any
antidotes to suppress or destroy the arising of emotions, other than the
analysis that produces insight into their nature. When we analyze the
emotions in this way, they are self-liberated. It is important to understand
that these methods are not mere philosophy.

In Mahamudra and Dzogchen, Madhyamaka you cherish everything. Everything is useful, not simply the faulty. All is the play of Mahamudra, Dzogchen or Prajnaparamita
This is also one more point why I see the definition used by Namdrol, presented the seeming "totally false" reference point, ultimate "totally correct" reference point, simply incomplete. False or correct are reference points only, therefore only "the seeming" for me.

When one would use terms: the seeming as the "deceiving", the ultimate as the "undeceiving", as I proposed, it will sounds much better, but define the seeming as simply "the seeming" and the ultimate as ultimate, because it not seems to be, will be even more better.

[Malcolm]

Perhaps what differentiate us is that I take these so-called "objects" as pedagogical tools only, expedient meaning but not as the definitive.

As I said, you are not understanding my point, and imputing things on to me that I have never stated.

[Malcolm]

You see, earlier I also was argued about definition of "the seeming" because the terms "faulty" or false" (for all the seeming) are a little tricky.

You are choosing to follow a very non-standard and rather modern translation for kun rdzob, samvritti -- for which the vast majority of people have for many years translated as "relative". There in no problem with this per se.

However, you are conflating two terms (mthong brdzun pa i.e. false/faulty/incorrect, etc. perception) with (kun rdzob (for which you like "seeming" following KB), the object of a false perception.

There is a breakdown of communication because we are not using the same English terms to discuss these things.

N

[conebeckham]

See Cone the question arises because it was a very doubtful synthesis of earlier Indian traditions Kagyu Mahamudra begins with the Naval Chakra where as the Gelug tradition which Manjushri taught to Je Rinpoche starts at the heart. So if as earlier mentioned many of his critics do not think he attained high accomplishments what does this say for the genuity of the tradition and the results it can give if not direct from Manjushri himself. I take note that there seem to be very few Rime practitoners for outside the Gelug tradition who would be familiar with The Gaden oral lineage of Mahamudra perhapes this is once again because others hold Je Rinpoches teachings to lack Authenticity ? As Namdrol has kindly elaborated people respect Je Rinpoche but apparently do not respect him enough to accord his teachings rightful authentication.

I don't think it's an issue of what chakra one focuses on, Caz. If one is practicing Tantric Mahamudra, which is what you're talking about, in the Kamtsang tradition, for instance, one has already done a lot of practice relating to both the Emanation- and Dharma-chakras.
This whole discussion is branching out into really tangential areas, far afield. Let's just say that the critiques levelled at Tsong Khapa from outside the Geluk lineage (and from within, sometimes) are primarily levelled at his interpretations of Madhyamaka. There are also critiques of the View of Highest Yoga Tantra as interpreted by Tsong Khapa, but this isn't really the place to get into those. I can assure you, though, that Jamgon Kongtrul, Jamyang Khyentse Wango, and other great "rime masters" were familiar with the Ganden Oral Lineage of Mahamudra.

[Malcolm]

I take note that there seem to be very few Rime practitoners for outside the Gelug tradition who would be familiar with The Gaden oral lineage of Mahamudra perhapes this is once again because others hold Je Rinpoches teachings to lack Authenticity ? As Namdrol has kindly elaborated people respect Je Rinpoche but apparently do not respect him enough to accord his teachings rightful authentication.

AFA Ganden Mahamudra goes, even within Gelug this teaching at one time was highly controversial since it first appeared with the First Panchen Lama.

N

[Jnana]

You see, earlier I also was argued about definition of "the seeming" because the terms "faulty" or false" (for all the seeming) are a little tricky.

You are choosing to follow a very non-standard and rather modern translation for kun rdzob, samvritti -- for which the vast majority of people have for many years translated as "relative". There in no problem with this per se.

However, you are conflating two terms (mthong brdzun pa i.e. false/faulty/incorrect, etc. perception) with (kun rdzob (for which you like "seeming" following KB), the object of a false perception.

There is a breakdown of communication because we are not using the same English terms to discuss these things.

Indeed, this accords with Karma Kagyu sources as well (i.e. sources for Nitartha Institute curriculum). Karmapa Mikyo Dorje:

Relative [truth] is the object of an erroneous subject.

Karmapa Wangchuk Dorje:

The relative truth (saṃvṛtisatya, kundzob denpa/kun rdzob bden pa) is posited from the perspective of ordinary sentient beings, whose eyes of intelligence are covered by the cataracts of ignorance. Since the objects seen are false, the relative truth is posited as a mental state.

Karl Brunnhölzl:

The Sanskrit term for “the seeming” is saṃvṛti (Tib. kun rdzob), which literally means “to completely cover, conceal, or obscure.” ... [Saṃvṛtisatya] is called seeming because basic ignorance obscures the seeing of true reality.

[conebeckham]

AFA Ganden Mahamudra goes, even within Gelug this teaching at one time was highly controversial since it first appeared with the First Panchen Lama.

Again, this is tangential, but I've figured out that Caz isn't talking about the Panchen Lama's "Geluk/Kagyu Mahamudra," but about a transmission that his organization claims is not found anywhere else, regarding the practice of Completion Stage Yogas focusing on the Dharmachakra. As I understand it, his organization's or teacher's position is that Milarepa, and all his subsequent followers, had to endure many hardships because they had "lost" this vital instruction which Tsong Khapa received directly from Manjusri, and therefore had to "start with the navel chakra" which was so much more difficult.

I'm not making this up, by the way. It's in GKG's books.

[Caz]

See Cone the question arises because it was a very doubtful synthesis of earlier Indian traditions Kagyu Mahamudra begins with the Naval Chakra where as the Gelug tradition which Manjushri taught to Je Rinpoche starts at the heart. So if as earlier mentioned many of his critics do not think he attained high accomplishments what does this say for the genuity of the tradition and the results it can give if not direct from Manjushri himself. I take note that there seem to be very few Rime practitoners for outside the Gelug tradition who would be familiar with The Gaden oral lineage of Mahamudra perhapes this is once again because others hold Je Rinpoches teachings to lack Authenticity ? As Namdrol has kindly elaborated people respect Je Rinpoche but apparently do not respect him enough to accord his teachings rightful authentication.

I don't think it's an issue of what chakra one focuses on, Caz. If one is practicing Tantric Mahamudra, which is what you're talking about, in the Kamtsang tradition, for instance, one has already done a lot of practice relating to both the Emanation- and Dharma-chakras.
This whole discussion is branching out into really tangential areas, far afield. Let's just say that the critiques levelled at Tsong Khapa from outside the Geluk lineage (and from within, sometimes) are primarily levelled at his interpretations of Madhyamaka. There are also critiques of the View of Highest Yoga Tantra as interpreted by Tsong Khapa, but this isn't really the place to get into those. I can assure you, though, that Jamgon Kongtrul, Jamyang Khyentse Wango, and other great "rime masters" were familiar with the Ganden Oral Lineage of Mahamudra.

Cool that clears that up then

[Caz]

AFA Ganden Mahamudra goes, even within Gelug this teaching at one time was highly controversial since it first appeared with the First Panchen Lama.

Again, this is tangential, but I've figured out that Caz isn't talking about the Panchen Lama's "Geluk/Kagyu Mahamudra," but about a transmission that his organization claims is not found anywhere else, regarding the practice of Completion Stage Yogas focusing on the Dharmachakra. As I understand it, his organization's or teacher's position is that Milarepa, and all his subsequent followers, had to endure many hardships because they had "lost" this vital instruction which Tsong Khapa received directly from Manjusri, and therefore had to "start with the navel chakra" which was so much more difficult.

I'm not making this up, by the way. It's in GKG's books.

Are they not the same ? its a lineage that has to come from someone...Its all a very interesting topic the way people relate to other traditions.

[conebeckham]

Hey Caz-
What we're talking about here are two different things--I think. The "Geluk/Kagyu Mahamudra" was written by the Panchen Lama, and it deals with Mahamudra relating more to "Nature of Mind," and to Vipassana, Samatha, and sutra-related practices, though with some Tantric "coloring." It's separate from the Yoga of the Two Stages, though.

The whole "Tantric Mahamudra" discussion is about completion stage practices of the Two Stages, in particular, and the assertion, I believe, is that the instructions you refer to come from the "Ganden Emanated Scripture," and that those of us who do not follow that oral lineage do not have these special instructions.

That's a discussion far from the difference between Sautrantika and Prasangika, and I don't know that it's a fruitful discussion. Rest assured, though, other lineages of Completion Stage practice have plenty of techniques dealing with the Heart Chakra, winds, drops, etc.

[Caz]

Hey Caz-
What we're talking about here are two different things--I think. The "Geluk/Kagyu Mahamudra" was written by the Panchen Lama, and it deals with Mahamudra relating more to "Nature of Mind," and to Vipassana, Samatha, and sutra-related practices, though with some Tantric "coloring." It's separate from the Yoga of the Two Stages, though.

The whole "Tantric Mahamudra" discussion is about completion stage practices of the Two Stages, in particular, and the assertion, I believe, is that the instructions you refer to come from the "Ganden Emanated Scripture," and that those of us who do not follow that oral lineage do not have these special instructions.

That's a discussion far from the difference between Sautrantika and Prasangika, and I don't know that it's a fruitful discussion. Rest assured, though, other lineages of Completion Stage practice have plenty of techniques dealing with the Heart Chakra, winds, drops, etc.

I wasnt disputing that rather that it was just an interesting disscussion seems its easy to wonder of on subjects of divergence.

[tobes]

Seriously, folks....the VAST majority of published work available in Western languages, where, after all, most of us are first exposed to Madhyamika, contains "bias" or "Interpretation" of one sort or another, based on Tibetan commentarial tradition. For better or worse, primary sources, uncolored by Tibetan exposition, are thin on the ground.

I'd venture that 99% of people who've even heard or read the word "Madhyamika" encountered it via some Tibetan presentation of Nagarjuna or Chandrakirti, or some academic presentation, colored by the influence of one or more Tibetan expository traditions.

Anyone care to suggest books in Western languages that avoid such things, and stick to the Indian Texts? That may be helpful for those reading this thread.....

Good call.

Bhattacharya's translation of the Vig is good. Contains the Sanskrit version as well ~ However, it has been edited with Tibetan and Chinese sources.

I think another trans of the Vig has been done by Westerhoff which has a much stronger Tibetan influence.

[Mariusz]

Perhaps what differentiate us is that I take these so-called "objects" as pedagogical tools only, expedient meaning but not as the definitive.

As I said, you are not understanding my point, and imputing things on to me that I have never stated.

The Consequentialists (Prasangikas) are not imputing anything You presented something of Candrakirti that suggested for me: first: the objects are perceived in the ultimate, second: all the "relative" is totally faulty. So can you please write what is you understanding of what you presented?

Excuse me, here was your presentation, not mine:
But false perception is mthong brdzun, so what Candrakirti is clearly saying is that false/faulty/incorrect perception is relative, or totally obscuring, truth. 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.