Madyamika Sautrantika vs Prasangika

[DarwidHalim]

Dear Members,

What are the exact difference between them?

[Josef]

Some Tibetans made up the words in order to argue with one another over who was better at intellectual posturing and polemics.

[Caz]

One affirms Inherant existence and the other does not.

[Jinzang]

A Prasangika is someone who agrees with Chandrakirti's interpretation of the Madhyamika, a Svatantrika is someone who does not. The Svantarika is further subdivided into those with a realistic inclination (Sauntantrika Svantrika) and those with an idealistic inclination (Yogacara Svantatrika).

[Sönam]

Pransanga consists in bringing out pernicious effects of a stance that would have for ground a true existence, in that way destructing reasoning of any objection about the middle way (Madhyamaka).
Also they destruct reasoning, consequentialists do not proporse any opposite thesis. In fact, necessary consequence is only a negation and do not propose any assertion.

[catmoon]

A Prasangika is someone who agrees with Chandrakirti's interpretation of the Madhyamika, a Svatantrika is someone who does not. The Svantarika is further subdivided into those with a realistic inclination (Sauntantrika Svantrika) and those with an idealistic inclination (Yogacara Svantatrika).

Hold on... aren't Sautantrika and Svatantrika different schools?

[ground]

A Prasangika is someone who agrees with Chandrakirti's interpretation of the Madhyamika, a Svatantrika is someone who does not. The Svantarika is further subdivided into those with a realistic inclination (Sauntantrika Svantrika) and those with an idealistic inclination (Yogacara Svantatrika).

Hold on... aren't Sautantrika and Svatantrika different schools?

These fantasized categories can be really confusing

[Lhug-Pa]

Here is one way of looking at this:


Sarvastivada

Vaibhashika

Mulasarvastivada (Vinaya)

Sautrantika

(All of the above are of the First Turning of the Wheel of Dharma)

(Let's also mention the Shramana or Sramana and Jain Schools here too)


Yogachara or Yogacara:

Chittamatra or Cittamatra (Asanga)

Vijnanavada (Vasubandhu)


Madhyamaka:

Madhyamaka-Svatantrika (Rangtong)

Sautrantika-Svatantrika-Madhyamaka


Mahamadhyamaka:

Madhyamaka-Prasangika (Rangtong)

Yogachara-Svatantrika-Madhyamaka (Shentong or Zhentong)

(On the latter, see also Shantarakshita or Santaraksita and Ju Mipham)

[catmoon]

OMG I will NEVER be able to sort all this out. Where's my beads?

Om mani padme hum
Om mani padme hum
Om mani padme hum
Om mani padme hum
Om mani padme hum
Om mani padme hum
Om mani padme hum
Om mani padme hum
Om mani padme hum
Om mani padme hum

...

[Karma Dondrup Tashi]

A Prasangika is someone who agrees with Chandrakirti's interpretation of the Madhyamika, a Svatantrika is someone who does not. The Svantarika is further subdivided into those with a realistic inclination (Sauntantrika Svantrika) and those with an idealistic inclination (Yogacara Svantatrika).

Hold on... aren't Sautantrika and Svatantrika different schools?

They are and I presume the OP meant to refer to the Svatantrika school of Rangtong Mandhyamaka view.

The sautrantika view states that apparent reality are those things and concepts that cannot perform a function. Genuine reality is that which is directly perceived and are things that can perform a function.

There are two views within the rangtong madhyamaka view. One is the svatantrika view, the other is the prasangika view.

The svatantrika view states that apparent reality is illusionlike phenomena but that genuine reality is emptiness like space.

The prasangika view states that apparent reality is whatever ordinary people believe truly exists but that genuine reality is free from the complexity of extremes, beyond all thought and expression.

The svatantrika and prasangika views are both "rangtong" madhyamaka views since they both state that genuine reality is self-empty.

[Malcolm]

The svatantrika and prasangika views are both "rangtong" madhyamaka views since they both state that genuine reality is self-empty.

This is incorrect. There is no such thing as rang stong, at least, not in real madhyamaka.


"If there were something subtle not empty, there would be something subtle to be empty;
as there is nothing not empty, where is there something that could be empty?"

--MMK

N

[ronnewmexico]

For those that may not be familiar with the related subject matter, this may be helpful...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shentong..

if there are exceptions to the article, it may serve as a basis of reference.

[Karma Dondrup Tashi]

The svatantrika and prasangika views are both "rangtong" madhyamaka views since they both state that genuine reality is self-empty.

This is incorrect. There is no such thing as rang stong, at least, not in real madhyamaka.


"If there were something subtle not empty, there would be something subtle to be empty;
as there is nothing not empty, where is there something that could be empty?"

--MMK

N

Yes, yes. For that matter there's no such thing as "real madhyamaka" either since there's no such thing as anything.

[conebeckham]

I prefer this: http://www.rinpoche.com/teachings/shentong.htm to the Wiki link regarding Shentong.

Clinging to any "View" is self-limiting, in the end, I think, though on the path it's natural, even necessary. Shentong teachings can be helpful. They can also be the cause for "reification" so it's best to not cling too much to any position.

[ronnewmexico]

That we may know discrimination as a form of awareness in aspect and thusly merely a form of energy no right or wrong to its aspect than any other...does not mean discrimination nor its utilization are things not to be done or studied in a conventional manner in this world.
Even taste or one taste does not infer all taste is equal in conventional manners.

I agree with N. and disagree also with C.

The pot may call the kettle black that doesn't substantiate its view.

This excerpt from that..."Seeing that mind’s true nature is replete with many invaluable qualities that manifest spontaneously and naturally, one no longer clings to the extreme of nihilism or cessation.... is also using view as means. Such may be attached to as well as any other, if that is ones inclination.

[conebeckham]

Ron, I don't really understand what you're saying.

I don't think Namdrol and I "disagree," either--at least, not here in this thread, so far. I''m in agreement, actually, that there was no such thing as "Rangtong" and "Shentong" in Indian Classical Era Buddhist Philosophy. Nonetheless, Shentong is a Tibetan pedagogical device, in current use by certain teachers, and, as such, I thought that providing a link to a teaching by perhaps the foremost contemporary teacher of the Shentong position would be helpful for people. Ultimately, though, the whole issue is somewhat afield from the original question (Sautrantika V. Prasangika). FWIW, I'm not even sure that THAT distinction existed in a clear-cut way in "True Madhyamika." Perhaps someone can address that?

[ronnewmexico]

Assumeing this is related to the issue and statements made on the issue(not just randomly stated out of the blue)...

I reject this assertation..."Clinging to any "View" is self-limiting, in the end, I think, though on the path it's natural, even necessary. Shentong teachings can be helpful. They can also be the cause for "reification" so it's best to not cling too much to any position.,

Don't see any clinging.....show it if this be so
Pretty simple really.

Shentong by that statement is identified as a position that may be clung to while other positions are not also identified by name.
All may be clung to. That it may be clung to does not validate nor invalidate its position as viable. It speaks to the clinger not the thing.
So why the saying...?

[conebeckham]

Oh, I see.

My position is that conceptual analysis must be transcended ultimately. Therefore, "clinging" to the analysis, or the results of the analysis, is not ultimate. Whether one clings to an ineffable, existent Clear Light of Mind, or to "Emptiness," or even to "having no view," still, it is conceptual.

Conventionally, we can say it is "valid" or "invalid." Ultimately, there's no "view" or "position."
Even saying one has "no position" is a position.

[ronnewmexico]

I agree with that...nameing one not the other, implies bias.
Which is why I mentioned it.... both positions may be clung to....so I think we agree.

[Mariusz]

Ron, I don't really understand what you're saying.

I don't think Namdrol and I "disagree," either--at least, not here in this thread, so far. I''m in agreement, actually, that there was no such thing as "Rangtong" and "Shentong" in Indian Classical Era Buddhist Philosophy. Nonetheless, Shentong is a Tibetan pedagogical device, in current use by certain teachers, and, as such, I thought that providing a link to a teaching by perhaps the foremost contemporary teacher of the Shentong position would be helpful for people. Ultimately, though, the whole issue is somewhat afield from the original question (Sautrantika V. Prasangika). FWIW, I'm not even sure that THAT distinction existed in a clear-cut way in "True Madhyamika." Perhaps someone can address that?

Svatantrika as inferior and Prasangika as the best are useful only for pedagogical gradual meditaions on emptiness, althought the both are sufficient and supplementary tools (svatantra and prasanga) of genuine Madhyamaka and lead to the total vivid freedom from all reference points. There are many subtle points on this distinction in "Center of Sunlit Sky" and other books of Khenpo Karl Brunnholzl. When you want totally resolve all your subtle errors it is beneficial to learn tibetan made distinctions: Svatantrika/Prasangika, so called prasangika of Tsongkhapa, shentong and cittamatra's narrow interpretation. All of these are the most subtle reference points for the dissolving.