Madyamika Sautrantika vs Prasangika

[Mariusz]

...no wonder why the schools would have problems with each other if this is what they would say of people who did not think the same way. Considering he was a Keeper of Vinaya and certainly we all know the benefits of refuge vows with regards to spirits that line of said reasoning really does sound petty.

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

In the short lineage of Yamantaka Umapa is not listed as I know. What is the source of your statement?

[Mariusz]

Perhaps "faulty" is not correct here,

Faulty is quite correct, since that is what Candrakirti says i.e.:

mthong ba brdzun pa kun rdzob bden par gsungs

"False perception is said to be relative truth".

N

It is the same, false does not mean useless here I think but could suggest as it also. So I prefer the term seeming.

[Malcolm]

Perhaps "faulty" is not correct here,

Faulty is quite correct, since that is what Candrakirti says i.e.:

mthong ba brdzun pa kun rdzob bden par gsungs

"False perception is said to be relative truth".

N

It is the same, false does not mean useless here I think but could suggest as it also. So I prefer the term seeming.

You are not at liberaty to invent your own Dharma - well you are, just don't call it Candrakirti's intent.

False, faulty, incorrect, etc. All of these apply to relative truth.

N

[Mariusz]

You are not at liberaty to invent your own Dharma - well you are, just don't call it Candrakirti's intent.

False, faulty, incorrect, etc. All of these apply to relative truth.

N

Khenpo Karl Brunnholzl often use a alternative term "the deceiving" which I also like because doesn't suggest useless: "Generally speaking, if a given philosophical system differentiates the two levels of seeming and ultimate reality, then in whatever way it does so, one it speaks about seeming, relative, or deceiving phenomena", it must also accept this mean that such phenomena are precisely something that is not established. Otherwise, why differentiate between two such levels?" The ultimate can have alternative term "undeceiving" here. I think everyone is free to investigate the meaning of Madhyamaka using terms that work, or not?

[Malcolm]

In the short lineage of Yamantaka Umapa is not listed as I know. What is the source of your statement?

The lineage prayers.

[Malcolm]

You are not at liberaty to invent your own Dharma - well you are, just don't call it Candrakirti's intent.

False, faulty, incorrect, etc. All of these apply to relative truth.

N

Khenpo Karl Brunnholzl often use a alternative term "the deceiving" which I also like because doesn't suggest useless: [i]"Generally speaking, if a given philosophical system differentiates the two levels of seeming and ultimate reality, then in whatever way it does so, one it speaks about seeming, relative, or deceiving phenomena", it must also accept this mean that such phenomena are precisely something that is not established.

Ok, you are not understanding something -- kiun rdzob is relative truth, but actually means "totally obscuring" in Tibetan.

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. The word brdzun pa means "to lie" as well. Further, for example, there are two schools in Yogacara rnam bden pa and rnam brdzun pa i.e. true aspect and false aspect. The latter is the higher of the two. The term brdzun pa means false.

So a false perception is relative truth.

When Shantideva is taking about the two truths, he says - ultimate truth is beyond the mind, because the mind itself is relative. The mind can never apprehend ultimate truth.

N

[Mariusz]

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.
N

I like "obscuring" also but I do not agree with your division. Do you really think the so-called "objects", somewhere "out there", can be perceived correctly in the ultimate truth?

[Malcolm]

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.
N

I do not agree. Do you really think the so-called "objects", somewhere "out there", can be perceived correctly in the ultimate truth?

Have you ever read Candrakirti? If not, I suggest you do.

It is pointless for me to educate you. But in breif, Candra says "all phenomena have two natures, one ultimate, the other, relative" and "Whatever is correctly perceived, that is real; false perception is said to be relative truth".

Please examine these things. I'm out.

N

[Mariusz]

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.
N

I do not agree. Do you really think the so-called "objects", somewhere "out there", can be perceived correctly in the ultimate truth?

Have you ever read Candrakirti? If not, I suggest you do.

It is pointless for me to educate you.

N

Do you know about "subject perspective" and "object perspective" in Madhyamaka? Object perspective is often used by Tsongkhapa, and now I see by you also. Please read the Madhyamaka Forum here in Dharmawheel.

[Malcolm]

Please read the Madhyamaka Forum here in Dharmawheel.

There is no need for me read what amateurs have to say about Madhyamaka, whether Gelug or non-Gelug.

N

[Mariusz]

Please read the Madhyamaka Forum here in Dharmawheel.

There is no need for me read what amateurs have to say about Madhyamaka, whether Gelug or non-Gelug.

N

Upss, no comments

[Malcolm]

Please read the Madhyamaka Forum here in Dharmawheel.

There is no need for me read what amateurs have to say about Madhyamaka, whether Gelug or non-Gelug.

N

Upss, no comments

The point is, I can argue for or against any position and win. I don't really have a stake in a position. But I know perfectly well what Nāgārjuna says, Aryadeva, Buddhapalita, Candra, Jñānagarbha, Ṡ́antarakṣita, Sapan, Gorampa, Dolbuwa,Tsongkhapa, etc. have to say.

I have studied Madhyamaka for 25 years. On this forum, the only people who have anything to share with me about Madhyamaka is Jñāna and Ratna, and even then, it is only more sources, and different information. They have nothing to share with me concerning the essential principles of Nāgārjuna and other tenet systems.

So, you can either benefit from my extensive knowledge of these teachings, honed by years of constant study with the best Tibetan lamas in the world, mastery of classical Tibetan, and personal experience in meditation, or not. It is your choice. No one is forcing you to listen.

N

[Mariusz]

The point is, I can argue for or against any position and win. I don't really have a stake in a position. But I know perfectly well what Nāgārjuna says, Aryadeva, Buddhapalita, Candra, Jñānagarbha, Ṡ́antarakṣita, Sapan, Gorampa, Dolbuwa,Tsongkhapa, etc. have to say.

I have studied Madhyamaka for 25 years. On this forum, the only people who have anything to share with me about Madhyamaka is Jñāna and Ratna, and even then, it is only more sources, and different information. They have nothing to share with me concerning the essential principles of Nāgārjuna and other tenet systems.

So, you can either benefit from my extensive knowledge of these teachings, honed by years of constant study with the best Tibetan lamas in the world, mastery of classical Tibetan, and personal experience in meditation, or not. It is your choice. No one is forcing you to listen.

N

I don't want show you my curriculum vitae either because here I think only the investigation counts, sorry.

[Malcolm]

I don't want show you my curriculum vitae either because here I think only the investigation counts, sorry.

My investigation is finished. I have nothing further to investigate. I rely on my own knowledge now.

N

[Malcolm]

In the short lineage of Yamantaka Umapa is not listed as I know. What is the source of your statement?

It is based on the lineage list (volume 30, page 109 compiled by Loter Wangpo) in the rgyud sde kun 'dus based on the lineage of Cangkya Rolpai Dorje

The close lineage is as follows:

From Vajrabhairva, Jamyang Tenpa'i Khor Lo (Mañjuśrī Sasanacakra, and Gyalba Jampal Nyingpo (Jina Mañjuśrīgarbha) or alternately, from Mañjuśrī and Vajrabhairava individually to Lama Umapa, and then all three to Tsongkhapa, then Kheydrup and so on.

[Mariusz]

In the short lineage of Yamantaka Umapa is not listed as I know. What is the source of your statement?

It is based on the lineage list (volume 30, page 109 compiled by Loter Wangpo) in the rgyud sde kun 'dus based on the lineage of Cangkya Rolpai Dorje

The close lineage is as follows:

From Vajrabhairva, Jamyang Tenpa'i Khor Lo (Mañjuśrī Sasanacakra, and Gyalba Jampal Nyingpo (Jina Mañjuśrīgarbha) or alternately, from Mañjuśrī and Vajrabhairava individually to Lama Umapa, and then all three to Tsongkhapa, then Kheydrup and so on.

Thank you Namdrol for info, I will check it.

My investigation is finished. I have nothing further to investigate. I rely on my own knowledge now.

Perhaps you should read Karmapa Mikyo Dorje, not only petty me, in tibetan of course, not only from english miserable books To make better one's own knowledge is always recommended. Wish you the best.

[Malcolm]

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.

[Tsongkhapafan]

yes, whereas non-Gelugpas think he was deluded by a spirit posing as Manjushri.

N

Wow Namdrol its no wonder why the schools would have problems with each other if this is what they would say of people who did not think the same way. Considering he was a Keeper of Vinaya and certainly we all know the benefits of refuge vows with regards to spirits that line of said reasoning really does sound petty.

Gorampa mentions this as possibility in his differentiation of views, and basically asserts that Tsongkhapa was lead astray by Umapa's channeling of "Manjushri".

N

That's actually not so because Tsongkhapa realized emptiness directly much later when he was able to see Manjushri and receive teachings from him directly.

[Malcolm]

That's actually not so because Tsongkhapa realized emptiness directly much later when he was able to see Manjushri and receive teachings from him directly.

Yes, I understand that this is what you believe. You will forgive me for pointing out that Tsongkhapa is not universally regarded as someone who attained the path of seeing. We can respect Tsongkhapa as a great pracitioner and scholar without acquiescing to your demand that we perceive him to be an aryan pudgala.

N

[Caz]

That's actually not so because Tsongkhapa realized emptiness directly much later when he was able to see Manjushri and receive teachings from him directly.

Yes, I understand that this is what you believe. You will forgive me for pointing out that Tsongkhapa is not universally regarded as someone who attained the path of seeing. We can respect Tsongkhapa as a great pracitioner and scholar without acquiescing to your demand that we perceive him to be an aryan pudgala.

N

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 ?