Madyamika Sautrantika vs Prasangika

[Tsongkhapafan]

If the two truths are one entity, seeing relatives truth would be seeing ultimate truth and all commoners would always have correct perception.

N

It's a good point. The two truths are the same entity, but due to the ignorance of self-grasping and its imprints, they appear to be different entities to all beings except Buddhas. Enlightened beings see the two truths directly as being the same entity.

[Tom]

But false perception is mthong brdzun, so what Candrakirti is clearly saying is that false/faulty/incorrect perception is relative, or totally obscuring, truth.

seems like this blockhead understanding of Chandra leads to the following idea:

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. The word brdzun pa means "to lie" as well.

for in gelugpa the two truths are divisions of reality. what do you think about the two truths being 1 entity? for me it seems super air-tight so it would be good if you could find a sharp barb to sink in!

If the two truths are one entity, seeing relatives truth would be seeing ultimate truth and all commoners would always have correct perception.

N

Since for Tsongkhapa the ultimate truth and conventional truth are two different aspects (conceptual identities) of one ontological entity why should this follow? Just because we see one aspect of an entity why should it follow that we perceive all the other aspects?

I would have expected instead the critique that this position holds emptiness as not beyond existence and non-existence, but as existent.

[Mariusz]

If the two truths are one entity, seeing relatives truth would be seeing ultimate truth and all commoners would always have correct perception.

N

It's a good point. If the two truths are one entity are the same entity, but due to the ignorance of self-grasping and its imprints, they appear to be different entities to all beings except Buddhas. Enlightened beings see the two truths directly as being the same entity.

I don't agree. The two truths are neither the same nor different. So they are neither one entity, as Namdrol mentioned, nor the two different entites. As I wrote they are the same impossible for sentient beings and they are the same from the perspective of buddhas because their freedom from all reference points and all divisions. Here I emphasized there is not valid to make any distintion according to Madhyamaka whatever the level. This means neither sentient beings nor buddhas experience the same two truths somehow simultaneously. The two truths seems to be different only when not analyzed and this distinction collapse when analyzed by sentient beings even conventionally, let alone ultimatelly during buddhahood.

[conebeckham]

The two truths are not objects themselves, or entities, neither the same nor different. They are better thought of as "states of mind," correct vs. Incorrect "perception," though that word is limited by nature of it' s being subject to dualistic subject/object dichotomy.

[Tom]

The two truths are not objects themselves, or entities, neither the same nor different. They are better thought of as "states of mind," correct vs. Incorrect "perception," though that word is limited by nature of it' s being subject to dualistic subject/object dichotomy.

It seems incoherent to propose a division of the two truths based on mind and at the same time hold that they are neither the same nor different, irrespective of the status of emptiness.

[Mariusz]

It seems incoherent to propose a division of the two truths based on mind and at the same time hold that they are neither the same nor different, irrespective of the status of emptiness.

The two truths are reference points, objects which are not the actual target of Madhyamikas. The actual target is the largely unconscious and instinctive clinging to such identities from the subject-side perspective:

(The Center of the Sunlit Sky; page.132) ...the object of negation is a mistaken cognition, a
wrong conception that apprehends something nonexistent as existent. Since there
is no actual object of negation on the objective side, there never was anything
objective to be relinquished. So “negating an identity” is just another expression
for the process of letting go of our subjective clinging to imaginary identities. Of
course, from the Centrist point of view, this clinging itself is not something real
either. However, as long as there is an individual mistaken notion of an object,
there is also the notion of a subject. Consequently, with the realization that an
object is illusory, the subject that held on to it dissolves naturally. On the other
hand, if there were an object of negation that was established as an actual object,
we would not be able to relinquish it anyway, no matter how hard we tried. For
no one can successfully negate something that actually exists or, for that matter,
prove the existence of something that does not actually exist.

Thus, for Buddhist reasoning and meditation to be soteriologically efficient,
it is crucial to acknowledge that their actual target lies not at the level of the
apprehended objects—the notions of a real personal or phenomenal identity—
but at the level of the apprehending subject—the largely unconscious and instinctive
clinging to such identities.

[Tom]

It seems incoherent to propose a division of the two truths based on mind and at the same time hold that they are neither the same nor different, irrespective of the status of emptiness.

The two truths are reference points, objects which are not the actual target of Madhyamikas. The actual target is the largely unconscious and instinctive clinging to such identities from the subject-side perspective:

Despite differences in explanation of the object of negation, Tsongkapa would agree with the above statement and so I am not sure how this sheds light on the discussion.

[Malcolm]

Since for Tsongkhapa the ultimate truth and conventional truth are two different aspects (conceptual identities) of one ontological entity why should this follow? Just because we see one aspect of an entity why should it follow that we perceive all the other aspects?

I would have expected instead the critique that this position holds emptiness as not beyond existence and non-existence, but as existent.

I was addressing the notion that the two truths were one entity.

[Mariusz]

Followers of non-sectarian Rime know the fact I posted above that Je Tsongkhapa had visions of Manjushri at least considering Yamantaka Single Hero practice of HYT.

This lineage actually starts with Lama Umapa. Nevertheless, it is preserved in Kongtrul's Dam sngags mdzod in the Kadampa section.

N

http://www.scribd.com/doc/34036423/The-Union-of-Bliss-and-Emptiness-By-Dalai-Lama page.24; The Union of Bliss and Emptiness. Teachings on the Practice of Guru Yoga by Dalai Lama:

Here is brief explanation of the short lineage. In secret biography by Jamyang Choje Tashi Pelden, Tsongkhapa had many visions of deities even as a child and after he came to central Tibet received many instructions from Manjushri. Then this transmission was handed down to Togden Jampel Gyatso...Then to Baso Chokyi Gyaltsen...then mahasiddha Chokyi Dorje...

Further Dalai Lama even wrote: Gelug as the practice of 3 types of Manjushris: Manjushri, Yamantaka, Kalarupa from Tsongkhapa

[Malcolm]

Followers of non-sectarian Rime know the fact I posted above that Je Tsongkhapa had visions of Manjushri at least considering Yamantaka Single Hero practice of HYT.

This lineage actually starts with Lama Umapa. Nevertheless, it is preserved in Kongtrul's Dam sngags mdzod in the Kadampa section.

N

http://www.scribd.com/doc/34036423/The-Union-of-Bliss-and-Emptiness-By-Dalai-Lama page.24; The Union of Bliss and Emptiness. Teachings on the Practice of Guru Yoga by Dalai Lama:

Here is brief explanation of the short lineage. In secret biography by Jamyang Choje Tashi Pelden, Tsongkhapa had many visions of deities even as a child and after he came to central Tibet received many instructions from Manjushri. Then this transmission was handed down to Togden Jampel Gyatso...Then to Baso Chokyi Gyaltsen...then mahasiddha Chokyi Dorje...

Further Dalai Lama even wrote: Gelug as the practice of 3 types of Manjushris: Manjushri, Yamantaka, Kalarupa from Tsongkhapa

BTW, I was mistaken, the practice is preserved in Khyentse Wangpo's Collection of All Tantras, and it is as I said, the lineage starts with Umapa.

N

[Mariusz]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/34036423/The-Union-of-Bliss-and-Emptiness-By-Dalai-Lama page.24; The Union of Bliss and Emptiness. Teachings on the Practice of Guru Yoga by Dalai Lama:

Here is brief explanation of the short lineage. In secret biography by Jamyang Choje Tashi Pelden, Tsongkhapa had many visions of deities even as a child and after he came to central Tibet received many instructions from Manjushri. Then this transmission was handed down to Togden Jampel Gyatso...Then to Baso Chokyi Gyaltsen...then mahasiddha Chokyi Dorje...

Further Dalai Lama even wrote: Gelug as the practice of 3 types of Manjushris: Manjushri, Yamantaka, Kalarupa from Tsongkhapa

BTW, I was mistaken, the practice is preserved in Khyentse Wangpo's Collection of All Tantras, and it is as I said, the lineage starts with Umapa.

N

As I know during the Yamantaka Initiation of HYT from Gelug one is informed of the two lineages, the long from Lalitavajra and the short from Tsongkhapa. Moreover, the practice is according to unique visualisation from Tsongkhapa's vision. You know well the lineage in Vajrayana is the most important because without it ther will be not realization. In the case of Gelug Yamantaka for sure there is the realization, for example the late Ling Rinpoche, a well-known pratitioner of Gelug Yamantaka, and other such masters who stayed in thugdam Clear Light state several days.