Madyamika Sautrantika vs Prasangika

[conebeckham]

I know that text isn't Madhyamika, Namdrol....also understand how Mipham labors to make it non-contradictory....I recall that Khenpo Shenga's commentary on this particular text was based on Vasubhandu, per the forward...not Buddhapalita.

Perhaps he uses Budhapalita as a source for the true madhyamika works?

[Malcolm]

I know that text isn't Madhyamika, Namdrol....also understand how Mipham labors to make it non-contradictory....I recall that Khenpo Shenga's commentary on this particular text was based on Vasubhandu, per the forward...not Buddhapalita.

Perhaps he uses Budhapalita as a source for the true madhyamika works?

Right, we are not communicating well. Khenpo Shenga's commentary on MMK has not been published yet.

His commmentry on the dharmadharmata vibhanga is based on Vasubandhu. It also presents Mipham's side by side. Mipham's attempt to reconcile DDV with Madhyamaka is exactly the kind of Tibetan exegesis that muddies the water because Mipham uses a couple of linguistic sleights of hand that are possible in Tibetan (suggesting that if you substitute rnam par snang ba for rnam par rig pa (vijñapti) the text can the be read as Madhyamaka text) and are completely impossible in Sanskrit.

[conebeckham]

Thanks, Namdrol--that's really interesting! Didn't know about that linguistic sleight-of-hand, and that's something most of us would never catch..... And a good example of why you stress the importance of the root (Indian) texts.
Do you know if Khenpo Shenga's commentary to MMK is in the works for publication in translation?

Also, off-topic I know, but w/ regard to Maitreya's Five Treatises, Are you familiar with this?
http://www.amazon.com/Universal-Discour ... 282&sr=1-1

I think Thurman was the head translator. I'm wondering if it's a good translation? (Perhaps a thread about JamChoDeNga in translation may be a good idea...)

[Malcolm]

Thanks, Namdrol--that's really interesting! Didn't know about that linguistic sleight-of-hand, and that's something most of us would never catch..... And a good example of why you stress the importance of the root (Indian) texts.
Do you know if Khenpo Shenga's commentary to MMK is in the works for publication in translation?

Also, off-topic I know, but w/ regard to Maitreya's Five Treatises, Are you familiar with this?
http://www.amazon.com/Universal-Discour ... 282&sr=1-1

I think Thurman was the head translator. I'm wondering if it's a good translation? (Perhaps a thread about JamChoDeNga in translation may be a good idea...)

It's a little wierd in my opinion, but it is consistent in its wierdness and scholarly.

[gad rgyangs]

Khenpo Shenga's commentary on MMK has not been published yet.

Speaking of which, Brother Namdrol, Lotsawa Namdrol, where are your translations????. Isn't it time to make a contribution? What are you waiting for? (certainly not a six figure advance from snowlion, i hope). With your experience, expertise and insight, how can you hide your light under a basket? If you dont want to make translations and give them away, and cant or wont deal with publishers, then just make pdfs and sell them on Lulu or Amazon. I'd buy every single one. I mean, come on, bro, daylight's burning. death is certain but the time is uncertain....you know the drill.

[Malcolm]

Khenpo Shenga's commentary on MMK has not been published yet.

Speaking of which, Brother Namdrol, Lotsawa Namdrol, where are your translations????. Isn't it time to make a contribution? What are you waiting for? (certainly not a six figure advance from snowlion, i hope). With your experience, expertise and insight, how can you hide your light under a basket? If you dont want to make translations and give them away, and cant or wont deal with publishers, then just make pdfs and sell them on Lulu or Amazon. I'd buy every single one. I mean, come on, bro, daylight's burning. death is certain but the time is uncertain....you know the drill.

I want to make sure my mango not only looks ripe, but is in fact ripe.

[kirtu]

Khenpo Shenga's commentary on MMK has not been published yet.

Speaking of which, Brother Namdrol, Lotsawa Namdrol, where are your translations????. Isn't it time to make a contribution? What are you waiting for? (certainly not a six figure advance from snowlion, i hope). With your experience, expertise and insight, how can you hide your light under a basket? If you dont want to make translations and give them away, and cant or wont deal with publishers, then just make pdfs and sell them on Lulu or Amazon. I'd buy every single one. I mean, come on, bro, daylight's burning. death is certain but the time is uncertain....you know the drill.

I want to make sure my mango not only looks ripe, but is in fact ripe.

We can digest not quite ripened mango.

Kirt

[conebeckham]

I try to grow Mango, and end up with Guava.

So, there you go.

[Terma]

I think it is better to stick to Nagarajuna and Aryadeva. Nagarjuna and Arydeva are straighyforward and easy to understand. This is the "pedagogical tradition" of Khenpo Shenga.

I will take your suggestion here, Namdrol.

I have been studying Chandrakirti's madhyamakavatara[i][/i], by way of a very lengthy and detailed teaching given by Dzongsar Khyentse Jamyang Rinpoche (pdf format). It is quite "meaty", and somewhat challenging. But of course, like was mentioned some of the commentary/teaching is done according to the Tibetan Shedra tradition, though I feel Rinpoche tries to keep it to its original form, rather then taking the positions of the various lineages or schools.

Has anyone studied this? Comments? (BTW, I found this much easier to digest than Mipham's commentary)

Is Chandrakirti perhaps not the best angle to take here? Do you feel that Nagarjuna/Aryadeva might present things in an easier format as suggested earlier? Can someone recommend a good starting point in terms of nagarjuna (ie. books/commentaries)

thanks,

Terma

[Malcolm]

I think it is better to stick to Nagarajuna and Aryadeva. Nagarjuna and Arydeva are straighyforward and easy to understand. This is the "pedagogical tradition" of Khenpo Shenga.

I will take your suggestion here, Namdrol.

I have been studying Chandrakirti's madhyamakavatara[i][/i], by way of a very lengthy and detailed teaching given by Dzongsar Khyentse Jamyang Rinpoche (pdf format). It is quite "meaty", and somewhat challenging. But of course, like was mentioned some of the commentary/teaching is done according to the Tibetan Shedra tradition, though I feel Rinpoche tries to keep it to its original form, rather then taking the positions of the various lineages or schools.

Has anyone studied this? Comments? (BTW, I found this much easier to digest than Mipham's commentary)

Is Chandrakirti perhaps not the best angle to take here? Do you feel that Nagarjuna/Aryadeva might present things in an easier format as suggested earlier? Can someone recommend a good starting point in terms of nagarjuna (ie. books/commentaries)

thanks,

Terma

Candra is fine too, but not as essential.

[Jnana]

Generally speaking, I find the arguments tortured and difficult to follow. As an example, the critique of motion in the second chapter of the MMK, which starts out clearly (if not convincingly) but quickly goes downhill.

As you probably know, it's a somewhat common experience. Some people find the epistemologically based stage-by-stage method explained in Kamalaśīla's Bhāvanākramas and Vimalamitra's Kramaprāveśikabhāvanārtha to be more convincing.

Meditation and the Concept of Insight in Kamalaśīla's Bhāvanākramas
Mādhyamika and Epistemology: A Study of Kamalaśīla's Method for Proving the Voidness of all Dharmas
The Stages of Meditation by Vimalamitra

In The Center of the Sunlit Sky, pp. 295-310, Karl B. gives a detailed explanation of these progressive stages of insight meditation.

[Lhug-Pa]

The Stages of Meditation by Vimalamitra

Nice find.

Do you happen to know if this treatise is from the view of Mahayana in general, Tantra, or Dzogchen?

[Jnana]

Nice find.

Do you happen to know if this treatise is from the view of Mahayana in general, Tantra, or Dzogchen?

It's a fairly short sūtrayāna stages of meditation treatise, similar in view and presentation to Kamalaśīla's Second Bhāvanākrama. It also has a lengthy section of sūtra quotations at the end emphasizing the importance of solitary meditation practice.

[Lhug-Pa]

Ah I see.

Thanks Jnana.

:jawdrop:


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

...

Well considering your response here, the two philosophies that you would likely find to be best for you, would be of the Mahamadhyamaka:

Prasangika-Madhyamaka

And:

Yogachara-Svatantrika-Madhyamaka or Yogacara-Svatantrika-Madhyamaka

So there's not necessarily any need to memorize the names of all the different philosophical schools.

[catmoon]

Ah I see.

Well considering your response here, the two philosophies that you would likely find to be best for you, would be of the Mahamadhyamaka:

Prasangika-Madhyamaka

And:

Yogachara-Svatantrika-Madhyamaka or Yogacara-Svatantrika-Madhyamaka

I wonder tho, if I start digging into Pransangika-Madhyamaka, is that going to throw me into conflict with my foundation in Gelug orthodoxy?

[conebeckham]

The "Orthodox Geluk" position is that they ARE Prasangika Madhyamika, actually.

I don't want to reopen this can of worms, but I think it depends on what you read, and whose presentation of "Prasangika Madhyamika" you're exposed to.

Frankly, I think the difference between the so-called Svatantrika- and Prasangika-distinctions is not terribly important to an understanding of the main point of Madhyamika.

[Tom]

Ah I see.

Well considering your response here, the two philosophies that you would likely find to be best for you, would be of the Mahamadhyamaka:

Prasangika-Madhyamaka

And:

Yogachara-Svatantrika-Madhyamaka or Yogacara-Svatantrika-Madhyamaka

I wonder tho, if I start digging into Pransangika-Madhyamaka, is that going to throw me into conflict with my foundation in Gelug orthodoxy?

Perfect example of how these designations don't mean much unless associated with a particular Tibetan master!

[Caz]

The "Orthodox Geluk" position is that they ARE Prasangika Madhyamika, actually.

I don't want to reopen this can of worms, but I think it depends on what you read, and whose presentation of "Prasangika Madhyamika" you're exposed to.

Frankly, I think the difference between the so-called Svatantrika- and Prasangika-distinctions is not terribly important to an understanding of the main point of Madhyamika.

While not important for a beginer It would be important for one whom is progressing through the grounds and paths and trying to distinguish which set of teachings confirm or negate Inherant existence as a requisite for fully abandoning Ignorance.

[Malcolm]

I wonder tho, if I start digging into Pransangika-Madhyamaka, is that going to throw me into conflict with my foundation in Gelug orthodoxy?

Yes, since you will discover that gelug "prasanga" is not the "prasanga" of the founder of Prasanga, Batsab Nyima Drag.

N

[conebeckham]

The "Orthodox Geluk" position is that they ARE Prasangika Madhyamika, actually.

I don't want to reopen this can of worms, but I think it depends on what you read, and whose presentation of "Prasangika Madhyamika" you're exposed to.

Frankly, I think the difference between the so-called Svatantrika- and Prasangika-distinctions is not terribly important to an understanding of the main point of Madhyamika.

While not important for a beginer It would be important for one whom is progressing through the grounds and paths and trying to distinguish which set of teachings confirm or negate Inherant existence as a requisite for fully abandoning Ignorance.

First, we need only discuss the first two Paths--as the Path of Seeing, and everything above it, is predicated on direct experience, rather than conceptual frameworks or "sets of teachings."
So, if you feel the distinction between "so-called Svatantrika and Prasangika" is important, it would only be important for someone on the Paths of Accumulation and Preparation. Of course, even residing on the first path is a transmundane state, so I think it's only "beginners" in a sense who would be involved in these sorts of conceptual distinctions--i.e., people like us! (Apologies to any Bodhisattvas residing on the Dharma Wheel Ground....)

Madhyamika, truly understood, negates "existence." It also negates "nonexistence," and all other options. No need for the "inherent" qualifier, which is Tsong Khapa's (very helpful, at times) "novelty." (see Namdrol's comment re "Prasanga.") The Tibetan distinctions between Prasangika and Svatantrika, etc., are more about the methods by which analysis is undertaken.