Gelug Madhyamaka

User avatar
Ayu
Global Moderator
Posts: 13256
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:25 am
Location: Europe

Re: Gelug Madhyamaka

Post by Ayu »

My gelug teacher gives the simplified explanation: "Things do not exist like they appear. The appearance is an illusion. How they exist, we do not get before we realised emptiness."
I add: This realisation is not the same as intellectual understanding. It goes way deeper than superficial understanding.
WeiHan
Posts: 670
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 5:50 pm

Re: Gelug Madhyamaka

Post by WeiHan »

I like the analogy of dreams. All things are like what appear in dreams. they are not existence but yet appear to the person. Nihilism will be like no dream at all, a total darkness with nothing happening.

Impermanent is actually a mild word if people overlook its meaning. To be exact, thing don't (nothing) even exist for a split split second. Nothing whatsoever can be transferred to the next moment in time. In other words, nothing even persist more than a split second. The appearance that some things appear longer than that is an illusion. The appearances of every moment come into perception in dependent of a whole new set of conditions and factors that has nothing to the moment before that.
Nicholas2727
Posts: 247
Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2019 5:44 am

Re: Gelug Madhyamaka

Post by Nicholas2727 »

Malcolm wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 6:37 pm
Nicholas2727 wrote: Sun Jan 03, 2021 7:31 pm
Malcolm wrote: Sun Jan 03, 2021 6:18 pm


Yes, if by "truly" you mean "ultimately."

The Geluks make a distinction between "mere existence", which is not an object of analysis, and "true existence," which is an object of analysis. In Geluk Madhyamaka, the mode of investigation is to search for inherent existence in a given thing.

So yes, the Geklukpas are saying nothing truly exists, and that things exist merely on a conventional level, which cannot withstand ultimate analysis.
Would they also say that consciousness does not ultimately exist?
Consciousness is a dependently arising dharma. So not, it does not ultimately exist.
I would be curious how this fits with Madhyamaka philosophy. From my very limited understanding, Madhyamaka is supposed to be the middle way between nihilism and externalism. If they say nothing ultimately exists how is this between nihilism and eternalism?
Whatever is dependently originated, that is empty, that is dependently designated, and that is the middle way.

That which arises dependently is free from the extremes of permanence and annihilation. You might try reading Tsongkhapa's Praise to Dependent Origination. Many people consider it Tsongkhapa's final statement on his realization of emptiness.

Also from my understanding, many Sakyapas hold the Rangtong view of emptiness. Does there interpretation match with the Gelug view that nothing ultimately exists?
There is no such thing as a rang stong view of emptiness unless one holds a gzhan stong view of emptiness. Since neither the Sakyas nor the Geluks hold a gzhan stong view of emptiness, they cannot maintain a rang stong view of emptiness.

Wondering if you could clarify that this is the right copy of Tsongkhapa's Praise to Dependent Origination that you suggest I read.



Been reading some other material, although I am hoping to get this soon and hopefully understand the Gelug school a bit better. If you have any other suggestions for books about the Gelug school that would also be helpful.
Bristollad
Posts: 1122
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2015 11:39 am

Re: Gelug Madhyamaka

Post by Bristollad »

Matt J wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 6:41 pm Nihilism would deny appearances. Appearances negate nihilism. To quote Gendun Chophel:
There are those who fear that if vases, pillars, and so on were refuted through reasoning, everyone would come to espouse nihilistic views of nonexistence. Their worries are pointless. For in the case of ordinary, everyday beings who are looking at a vase in front of them, how is it possible that a nihilistic view regarding the vase to be utterly nonexistent could arise? Even if such an outlook did happen to arise in someone, he or she would directly cognize that the vase can still be seen and touched. Therefore, if a mind naturally arose that thinks, "The vase is appearing to me, but while appearing, it is utterly nonexistent," that is the Middle Way view known as "the two-fold collection of appearance and emptiness that cognizes how appearing phenomenon do not exist in the way they appear." How is that nihilism?
Nicholas2727 wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 5:34 pm The part I am confused about is how this does not fall into nihilism at the ultimate level. From your description and Malcolm's description, I understand that phenomena occur, but they have no intrinsic existence. Therefore to conventionally say nothing exists would be obvious nihilism and not true, but I am confused at how it is not nihilism at the ultimate level? I am not implying that it is nihilism, but I am having trouble understanding how it is not. Hopefully someone with more knowledge will be able to help.
Yes, this is Gendun Chophel's view which differs from the Gelukpa explanation (which was what was enquired about).

In Introduction to Emptiness by Guy Newland three possible views in relation to a seed and a sprout are explained to show Tsongkhapa's point of view:
Essentialists: A seed cannot produce a sprout if the seed is empty of intrinsic nature. If the seed does not have, in its intrinsic nature, the capacity to produce a sprout, then a sprout will not be produced from the seed. Since sprouts are produced, we know that their causes, seeds, must have in their intrinsic nature the power to produce sprouts.

Those who negate too much: We agree that a seed cannot produce a sprout when the seed is empty of intrinsic nature. If the seed does not have, in its intrinsic nature, the capacity to produce sprouts then a sprout will not be produced from the seed. However, Madhyamaka analysis shows that seeds have no intrinsic nature, thus it follows that sprouts are not produced. All production, all existence, is a delusion.

Tsongkhapa: A seed can produce a sprout when the seed is empty of intrinsic nature, as is frequently observed in the world. A seed does not need an intrinsic nature in order to produce a sprout. In fact, it is only because seeds lack intrinsic nature that dependent arising can take place as observed.
Guy Newland goes on to explain,
"By framing the discussion in these terms, Tsongkhapa makes it clear that the Tibetans who negate too much, while priding themselves on their rigorous Madhyamake analysis, in fact share a common assumption with the essentialists: Production must be intrinsic production; existence must be intrinsic existence. Once one accepts this assumption, one falls either to the extreme of reification - by affirming intrinsic nature - or to the extreme of nihilism - by denying production. Neither party can imagine that things might merely exist and merely give rise to effects without doing so by virtue of some essential property or intrinsic nature. [...] Things arise and give rise to other things without a shred of intrinsic nature.
You can see that the quote from Gedun Chophel above is actually defending the middle view explained above, which differs from Tsongkhapa and Gelukpa explanations. It is often explained that the reason for Tsongkhapa's disagreement with the middle view is that rather than saying "The vase is not produced, it is a delusion", some used the same reasoning to say, "Ethics and vows do not exist, they are just a delusion".

Gedun Chophel argued that that fear is unfounded. And so the arguments and counter-arguments are deployed.
Personally, I think different explanations suit different people.
The antidote—to be free from the suffering of samsara—you need to be free from delusion and karma; you need to be free from ignorance, the root of samsara. So you need to meditate on emptiness. That is what you need. Lama Zopa Rinpoche
Nicholas2727
Posts: 247
Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2019 5:44 am

Re: Gelug Madhyamaka

Post by Nicholas2727 »

Thank you for including those quotes from Guy Newland. I understand the difference between the essentialist, those who negate too much and Tsongkhapa, although I thought the basic understanding of emptiness was the same as what is being represented as Tsongkhapa view here. I am aware that those who hold a Shentong view would have some disagreements with this. My question is that I often here how Tsongkhapa's philosophy was different from many others although I am not understanding what is so different, so possibly you or someone else could explain this more.
User avatar
Matt J
Posts: 1440
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 2:29 am
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Gelug Madhyamaka

Post by Matt J »

Actually, Gendun Chophel strikes me as some one who followed the logic to its natural end.
Bristollad wrote: Sat Mar 27, 2021 11:04 am Yes, this is Gendun Chophel's view which differs from the Gelukpa explanation (which was what was enquired about).
"The world is made of stories, not atoms."
--- Muriel Rukeyser
Bristollad
Posts: 1122
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2015 11:39 am

Re: Gelug Madhyamaka

Post by Bristollad »

Matt J wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 12:13 am Actually, Gendun Chophel strikes me as some one who followed the logic to its natural end.
Bristollad wrote: Sat Mar 27, 2021 11:04 am Yes, this is Gendun Chophel's view which differs from the Gelukpa explanation (which was what was enquired about).
Perhaps, but it still wasn't what was asked for. Gendun Chophel does not represent Geluk views however correct you personally think he might have been.

Tsongkhapa explained that the correct understanding of emptiness prevented nihilism whereas the correct understanding of dependent arising prevented superimposition or essentialism.
The antidote—to be free from the suffering of samsara—you need to be free from delusion and karma; you need to be free from ignorance, the root of samsara. So you need to meditate on emptiness. That is what you need. Lama Zopa Rinpoche
Schrödinger’s Yidam
Posts: 7885
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: Gelug Madhyamaka

Post by Schrödinger’s Yidam »

Guy Newland has a series of videos on how the different schools see Madhyamaka. Here’s his take on the Gelug school:


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZKmmZXlhlM



.
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
User avatar
Virgo
Posts: 4844
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 3:47 am
Location: Uni-verse

Re: Gelug Madhyamaka

Post by Virgo »

Schrödinger’s Yidam wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 8:36 am Guy Newland has a series of videos on how the different schools see Madhyamaka. Here’s his take on the Gelug school:


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZKmmZXlhlM



.
I think he's my old basketball coach.

Virgo
Post Reply

Return to “Gelug”