buddhist hinduism?

[Enochian]

I think you read the books description on Amazon, and not the actual book.

I pretty much read the whole thing on Google Books

Gorampa is pretty much the definitive voice on Madhyamaka in Tibet.

Thats all well and good, but reading that translation gave me a headache.

I need things dumbed down.

[mudra]

Gorampa is pretty much the definitive voice on Madhyamaka in Tibet.

From the Sakya point of view, yes.

From the Gelug pov, Je Tsongkhapa.

A matter of opinion perhaps.

[Malcolm]

Gorampa is pretty much the definitive voice on Madhyamaka in Tibet.

From the Sakya point of view, yes.

From the Gelug pov, Je Tsongkhapa.

A matter of opinion perhaps.

Since the Gelugpas have never effectively answered Gorampa, Gorampa is pretty much the definitive voice on Madhyamaka in Tibet.

N

[Enochian]

So basically Gorampa says that Je Tsongkhapa gets stuck on the level of mind, and what you really need to do is go beyond mind.

[Malcolm]

So basically Gorampa says that Je Tsongkhapa gets stuck on the level of mind, and what you really need to do is go beyond mind.

Well, it is a little more nuanced than that, but yes, one criticism of Tsongkhapa is that he holds that the intellectual apprehension of emptiness as non-affirming negation of true existence an appropriate conceptualization because it mimics ultimate truth. Gorampa rejects that emptiness is merely the "non-affirming negation of true existence" as well as the notion that an intellectual apprehension of emptiness is ok.

There are over 150 points where Gorampa criticizes Tsongkhapa's views.

[Enochian]

Gorampa rejects that emptiness is merely the "non-affirming negation of true existence"

I highly doubt Tsongkhapa held this view in the first place.

I am sure Tsongkhapa would have agreed with Gorampa that emptiness is a nonimplicative negation of all the Four Extremes, or ANY claim in general.

[mudra]

Since the Gelugpas have never effectively answered Gorampa, Gorampa is pretty much the definitive voice on Madhyamaka in Tibet.

N

interesting argument.

Well, it is a little more nuanced than that, but yes, one criticism of Tsongkhapa is that he holds that the intellectual apprehension of emptiness as non-affirming negation of true existence an appropriate conceptualization because it mimics ultimate truth. Gorampa rejects that emptiness is merely the "non-affirming negation of true existence" as well as the notion that an intellectual apprehension of emptiness is ok.

There are over 150 points where Gorampa criticizes Tsongkhapa's views.

Too bad they never met and discussed it personally.

[Malcolm]

Gorampa rejects that emptiness is merely the "non-affirming negation of true existence"

I highly doubt Tsongkhapa held this view in the first place.

I am sure Tsongkhapa would have agreed with Gorampa that emptiness is a nonimplicative negation of all the Four Extremes, or ANY claim in general.

No, Gorampa analyzes this in detail.

Basically Tsongkhapa's famous formula for freedom from extremes is "not existent in the ultimate, not non-existent in the relative", he disregards the second set of extremes since they are double negatives and considers it absurd to negate things that "both and exist and do not exist" etc., since things never appear to both exist and not exist at the same time.

[Will]

Namdrol what you are saying is the Chinese got the Sutra first, then it got translated into Tibetan from the Sutra.

My claim is they came from the same original source, and whether the source is still with the translation as you said is not the case for one of it. If you implied that the one without the original is the fake one, then we can make comparison in meanings to see if they are basically saying the same thing.

For Huseng, if you have two different versions in the two different languages and if these people don't get it from each other, my claim is they have to come from the same source. Namdrol said that is not the case as the Chinese got it first, then got translated into Tibetan if I understand what he said correctly...now whether the original is still with us today is not what I am saying.

LL: I have read the Tibetan Surangama, translated by the Library of Tibetan Works, and it is totally different from the famous Surangama that Master Hua commented on.

[LastLegend]

Namdrol what you are saying is the Chinese got the Sutra first, then it got translated into Tibetan from the Sutra.

My claim is they came from the same original source, and whether the source is still with the translation as you said is not the case for one of it. If you implied that the one without the original is the fake one, then we can make comparison in meanings to see if they are basically saying the same thing.

For Huseng, if you have two different versions in the two different languages and if these people don't get it from each other, my claim is they have to come from the same source. Namdrol said that is not the case as the Chinese got it first, then got translated into Tibetan if I understand what he said correctly...now whether the original is still with us today is not what I am saying.

LL: I have read the Tibetan Surangama, translated by the Library of Tibetan Works, and it is totally different from the famous Surangama that Master Hua commented on.

Ok...but I am not gonna buy the book for I am broke. If you could post even an excerpt from that book here, I will read and judge for myself.

[mudra]

Gorampa rejects that emptiness is merely the "non-affirming negation of true existence"

I highly doubt Tsongkhapa held this view in the first place.

I am sure Tsongkhapa would have agreed with Gorampa that emptiness is a nonimplicative negation of all the Four Extremes, or ANY claim in general.

No, Gorampa analyzes this in detail.

Basically Tsongkhapa's famous formula for freedom from extremes is "not existent in the ultimate, not non-existent in the relative", he disregards the second set of extremes since they are double negatives and considers it absurd to negate things that "both and exist and do not exist" etc., since things never appear to both exist and not exist at the same time.

I am not sure that Tsongkhapa "disregards" the second set when for example, right in the beginning of the LRCM chapter "Production is Not Refuted" he argues:

Those who assert ultimate production must assert that it withstands analysis by reasoning that analyses reality. As this is so, they must use reason to analyze production so as to discover which it is among the four alternatives (my italics) ...

As to your statement that:

Gorampa rejects that emptiness is merely the "non-affirming negation of true existence"

later on in the LRCM Je Tsongkhapa, in the Chapter "The Actual Object to Be Negated", says that the whole point of a recognizing a non-existent as non existent is that the mistaken consciousness apprehending it as existing will stop - and he quotes Nagarjuna's Refutation of Objections:

What use is it to establish the negation
Of what does not exist anyway, even without words?
To answer that, the words "does not exist"
Cause understanding, they do not eliminate.

seems to me that Je Tsongkhapa is indicating the non-affirming negation is a process that causes understanding - not 'merely a non-affirming negation'.

BTW Namdrol-lags, which text of Gorampa's (translated into English) would you recommend as a 'primer' on his interpretation of Madhyamaka?

thanks - m

[Malcolm]

Those who assert ultimate production must assert that it withstand analysis by reasoning that analyses reality. As this is so, they must use reason to analyze production so as to discover which it is among the four alternatives ...

wrong four alternatives, he means production from self, other, both and causelessly.

N

[mudra]

Those who assert ultimate production must assert that it withstand analysis by reasoning that analyses reality. As this is so, they must use reason to analyze production so as to discover which it is among the four alternatives ...

wrong four alternatives, he means production from self, other, both and causelessly.

N

Am aware of that, but I felt the implication is that for existents it would be the same approach. Am looking for a citation in which he glosses the second set of extremes but can't find one in LRCM or Ocean of Reasoning. Help me out: where does he actually actively, definitively disregard the second set?

[Malcolm]

Those who assert ultimate production must assert that it withstand analysis by reasoning that analyses reality. As this is so, they must use reason to analyze production so as to discover which it is among the four alternatives ...

wrong four alternatives, he means production from self, other, both and causelessly.

N

Am aware of that, but I felt the implication is that for existents it would be the same approach. Am looking for a citation in which he glosses the second set of extremes but can't find one in LRCM or Ocean of Reasoning. Help me out: where does he actually actively, definitively disregard the second set?

Napper's book Dependent Arising has a whole section devling into this issue. Look there.

N

[mudra]

Thanks Namdrol-lags - I think my sister has a copy, will browse it.

Are there any English translation of Gorampa's texts that are accessible?

[Will]

Namdrol what you are saying is the Chinese got the Sutra first, then it got translated into Tibetan from the Sutra.

My claim is they came from the same original source, and whether the source is still with the translation as you said is not the case for one of it. If you implied that the one without the original is the fake one, then we can make comparison in meanings to see if they are basically saying the same thing.

For Huseng, if you have two different versions in the two different languages and if these people don't get it from each other, my claim is they have to come from the same source. Namdrol said that is not the case as the Chinese got it first, then got translated into Tibetan if I understand what he said correctly...now whether the original is still with us today is not what I am saying.

LL: I have read the Tibetan Surangama, translated by the Library of Tibetan Works, and it is totally different from the famous Surangama that Master Hua commented on.

Ok...but I am not gonna buy the book for I am broke. If you could post even an excerpt from that book here, I will read and judge for myself.

Not sure if LTWA still publishes the booklet of excerpts; anyway here is the entire McRae translation done by Numata:
http://lirs.ru/lib/sutra/Surangama_Sama ... 25-III.pdf

[LastLegend]

Thanks but for some reason I am not able to open it...I will try again.

[mudra]

Napper's book Dependent Arising has a whole section devling into this issue. Look there.

N

Ok so checked the index in Napper's book and could not find any reference to Je Tsongkhapa disregarding the second set. All I could find was his classic emphasis on the need for qualifiers when interpreting the tetralemma (yes, all four lines). I checked back to the Snow Lion translation of LRCM and in the chapter "Production is not Refuted" (p189) found one discussion on the tetralemma which again is more of a discussion on the need for qualifiers when interpreting the four lines such as refuting essential nature etc. Nowhere have I found Je Tsongkhapa actively disregarding the second set.

[Malcolm]

Napper's book Dependent Arising has a whole section devling into this issue. Look there.

N

Ok so checked the index in Napper's book and could not find any reference to Je Tsongkhapa disregarding the second set. All I could find was his classic emphasis on the need for qualifiers when interpreting the tetralemma (yes, all four lines). I checked back to the Snow Lion translation of LRCM and in the chapter "Production is not Refuted" (p189) found one discussion on the tetralemma which again is more of a discussion on the need for qualifiers when interpreting the four lines such as refuting essential nature etc. Nowhere have I found Je Tsongkhapa actively disregarding the second set.

Check again.

[Enochian]

Gorampa addresses this issue in Freedom from Extremes.

I take back the criticism of the book, since there is a small part around page 50 which is excellent.