Madyamika Sautrantika vs Prasangika

[Mariusz]

I like Je Tsongkhapa, as for example initiator of Yamantaka Ekavira Single Hero HYT system from Manjusri, because He wrote (in Tsongkhapa's Final Exposition of Wisdom; page.158):
"during states subsequent to meditative equipoise on the stages of generation and completion (of Highest Yoga Tantra)
one takes suchness to mind within analyzing it...with respect to that occasion, do not posit analytical meditation
as one-pointed meditation" and there were many masters of His Yamantaka system who got Vajrayana realizations

[Malcolm]

I like Je Tsongkhapa, as for example initiator of Yamantaka Ekavira Single Hero HYT system from Manjusri, because He wrote (in Tsongkhapa's Final Exposition of Wisdom; page.158):
"during states subsequent to meditative equipoise on the stages of generation and completion (of Highest Yoga Tantra)
one takes suchness to mind within analyzing it...with respect to that occasion, do not posit analytical meditation
as one-pointed meditation" and there were many masters of His Yamantaka system who got Vajrayana realizations

Intellectual views do not count for much in Vajrayāna.

N

[conebeckham]

I think Tsong Khapa's elaboration of "inherent" emptiness can be helpful in clarifying the "object of negation" --the mistaken "assumption" ( I use that, instead of "idea," because I think our wrong conception of existence is almost "pre-conscious," it's a habitual propensity) that phenomena each demonstrate/possess/"contain"/"embody" an essence/definition/reality.

At any rate, such elaboration was helpful for me. Once one understands that the "assumption" or thorough-going habitual misconception, though, and goes back to Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti, one finds that such elaborations aren't necessary. In fact, they're "forced" and lead to absurd consequences.

[Mariusz]

I think Tsong Khapa's elaboration of "inherent" emptiness can be helpful in clarifying the "object of negation" --the mistaken "assumption" ( I use that, instead of "idea," because I think our wrong conception of existence is almost "pre-conscious," it's a habitual propensity) that phenomena each demonstrate/possess/"contain"/"embody" an essence/definition/reality.

At any rate, such elaboration was helpful for me. Once one understands that the "assumption" or thorough-going habitual misconception, though, and goes back to Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti, one finds that such elaborations aren't necessary. In fact, they're "forced" and lead to absurd consequences.

There is the link between conceptual analysis and realization of sunyata indeed. For Tsongkhapa it is gradual and constant until Buddhahood, as I quoted. Like some kind of very well oiled machine, but not the mere illusion-like interdependent connection never ever "arisen" like in svatantrika or yogacara.

[Caz]

[/quote]

Thats true Gelugpa's Believe Tsongkhapa's Doctrine distills the essence of Nagarjunas teachings. [/quote]

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

N[/quote]

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.

[Mariusz]

I very like Je Tsongkhapa because His intention was to built epistemological very complicated system, validated conceptually by valid cognition, that should fit together,

The problem is that pramanas and prameyas are just conventional fictions, as Nagarjuna shows in the Vigrahavyavartani. In other words, there are no ultimate pramanas, so elaborating a Madhyamaka systems which makes use of this kind of language is very faulty indeed.

In other words, valid cognitions, like all relative truths, are the objects of faulty cognitions.

N

Perhaps "faulty" is not correct here, because suggests "useless". I prefer "seeming" because is "useful" although in illusion-like manner only, the seeming. As for example Santideva explained the collapse of any analysis using valid cognition, until realization of sunyata:

If what has been analyzed
Is analyzed through further analysis,
There is no end to it,
Because that analysis would be analyzed too.

Once what had to be analyzed has been analyzed,
The analysis has no basis left.
Since there is no basis, it does not continue.
This is expressed as nirvana

Santideva's Bodhisattva's way of life agrees:

The ultimate is not the sphere of cognition.
It is said that cognition is the seeming."

[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.

[Malcolm]

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

[Malcolm]

...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

[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

[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: "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