Gelug responses to these critiques of Tsongkhapa?

wei wu wei
Posts: 132
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 5:01 am

Gelug responses to these critiques of Tsongkhapa?

Post by wei wu wei »

From my little corner of the dharma social media universe,Tsongkhapa is taking a beating at the hands of people armed to the teeth with Mipham, Gendun Chopel, and other non-Gelug thinkers. As someone engaged in Tsongkhapa's approach to Madhyamaka I can find interactions with these folks both very helpful--from the framework of dialogical learning--but also deflating and discouraging. If someone consistently critiques the climbing gear you use (to borrow a metaphor), then you're going to have moments where you have crises of faith as well. Sometimes that's productive; other times, it's just distracting and deflating.

So, below is what I think is the most succinct critique of Tsongkhapa's understanding of emptiness that I've found. I'm not asking anyone to single-handedly respond to all of it--just to speak to any part of it you can. Of course, I'm working on this myself and have also read for hours on prior DW threads (threads in which, TBH, Gelug proponents seem a bit outmatched), but I'm at a point where having some present-tense dialogue would be really helpful.

I believe, BTW, that this is from Douglass Duckworth:

"This first difference between Tsong kha pa and his critics is probably the most significant in terms of the objectives of these authors, who aim at providing proper guidance for the realization of emptiness but disagree on how to do so. For Tsong kha pa, emptiness is a negation (dgagpa, pratisedha) and must be understood in terms of the negation of a putative object of negation (dgag bya).Tsong kha pa describes such a putative object within the Präsangika context as inherent existence (rang bzhin gyis grub pa), existence from the side of the object (rang ngosnasgrub pa), or objective existence (ranggi mtshan nyid kyis grub pa). The understanding of emptiness presupposes the identification of such an object whose nonexistence is then demonstrated by the various Madhyamaka reasonings. This, for Tsong kha pa, is how to realize emptiness.

For Mi pham and Tsong kha pa's critics, this approach to emptiness is questionable. For them, emptiness is not, at least in its ultimate expression,
a negation. If emptiness were a negation, it would consist of the rejection of a proposition and hence would be conceptual. How could a conceptual fabrication stand as the ultimate nature of things? Moreover, a negation exists only in opposition to an affirmation. Hence, if emptiness were a negation, it would have to exist on the same level as other conventional phe- nomena and would be just another elaboration, a phenomenon captured by dichotomies such as "is" and "is not." Finally, the idea of identifying a spe- cial object of negation does not make much sense, for what is this object? Is it the first extreme (mtha\ koti) mentioned in Madhyamaka reasonings, the positive extreme, usually spelled out as existence (yodpa, bhâva)7. If this were the case, the understanding of emptiness that would result from its negation would be partial, leaving out the negation of the other extremes, particularly of the second, the negative extreme, usually spelled out as non- existence (medpa, abhäva). If the object of negation were not the first extreme (existence), what would it be?

For these thinkers, emptiness is not the negation of a putative object of negation, for emptiness is beyond any description and hence transcends both affirmation and negation. This is not to deny, however, the special role of negation in the process of understanding emptiness. To understand emptiness one must negate all the extremes. First, one must refute existence, the positive extreme variously described as inherent existence (rang bzhin gyis grubpa), true existence (bden par grub ba), or more simply, exis- tence (yodpa) or production (skyeba), etc. Such a refutation, however, is not emptiness in its ultimate expression but only a proximate ultimate (mthunpa'i don dam) or a figurative ultimate (mam grangpa'i don dam). This figurative ultimate is important, for its realization can lead to the insight into the actual ultimate. Hence, it is often presented as emptiness in Madhyamaka texts. But such descriptions cannot be taken literally, for they are still prisoners of the essentialist temptation to pin down reality through a determinate description. To conceive of ultimate truth as being merely the fact that phenomena do not exist intrinsically is to assume a negative essence and to remain a captive of binary oppositions. In order to understand reality to its fullest extent, we need to go beyond this negative description and negate the second, or negative, extreme as well. For it is only when one leaves behind all the extremes that one can be said to under- stand emptiness in its ultimate expression.

In this perspective, which sees emptiness in terms of freedom from any elaboration and stresses the ineffability of ultimate truth, Tsong kha pa's idea of emptiness as the negation of a putative object of negation is problematic. It seems to be only a partial understanding of emptiness. And if the idea of emptiness as the negation of an object of negation is rejected, Tsong kha pa's first key point that there is a difference in the object of negation between Svatantrika and Prasangika falls by the wayside. Once one understands emptiness as the transcendence of all four extremes, it makes no sense to argue that there is a substantive difference between Svatantrika and Prasangika on the basis of a difference in their conceptions of the object of negation. Either the Svatantrika rejects the four extremes and offers a true Madhyamaka insight, or it does not and is unfit to be counted as Madhyamaka."
zerwe
Posts: 778
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 4:25 am
Location: North Carolina

Re: Gelug responses to these critiques of Tsongkhapa?

Post by zerwe »

wei wu wei wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 12:12 am
For Mi pham and Tsong kha pa's critics, this approach to emptiness is questionable. For them, emptiness is not, at least in its ultimate expression,
a negation. If emptiness were a negation, it would consist of the rejection of a proposition and hence would be conceptual. How could a conceptual fabrication stand as the ultimate nature of things? Moreover, a negation exists only in opposition to an affirmation. Hence, if emptiness were a negation, it would have to exist on the same level as other conventional phe- nomena and would be just another elaboration, a phenomenon captured by dichotomies such as "is" and "is not." Finally, the idea of identifying a spe- cial object of negation does not make much sense, for what is this object? Is it the first extreme (mtha\ koti) mentioned in Madhyamaka reasonings, the positive extreme, usually spelled out as existence (yodpa, bhâva)7. If this were the case, the understanding of emptiness that would result from its negation would be partial, leaving out the negation of the other extremes, particularly of the second, the negative extreme, usually spelled out as non- existence (medpa, abhäva). If the object of negation were not the first extreme (existence), what would it be?
I think they are missing the target and confused about what, for Tsongkhapa, is the object of negation. In other words, they just don't get it.

The object of negation is inherent existence, which is how objects appear to the mind, and this is something that never existed in the first place. The object of negation is the mistaken reification the mind casts upon objects of perception. The mistake that things appear in and of themselves and from their own sides.

Maybe this can help a summary from an earlier post of mine;

"He was a Prasangika Madhyamaka and ascribed to the view that not self nor phenomena existed inherently from its own side. Person, object, and mind perceiving--none existed from their own side. Yet he accepted that things could be posited as existing conventionally, due to causes and conditions, by concepts of the world and as mere imputations of the mind.

In this system--

Because, things are dependent arisings they are empty from existing from their own side. And, it is because they are empty from existing from their own side, that they are able to appear at all(dependent arisings).

Appearances and emptiness do not contradict one another, but they support each other. Emptiness is what makes conventional phenomena possible.

Dependent Arising reinforces the understanding of something being empty and being empty reinforces the understanding of something being a dependent arising.

Dependent Arising negates the extreme of non-existence and
Emptiness dispels the extreme of existence.

He believed that if you were to posit that something existed, there are only two possibilities; they exist from their own side (and thus must be findable under analysis) or they exist via mere imputation.

The tricky part I learned about recently, is that "merely labeled" is a phenomena's nature and, at the same time, it doesn't need to be labeled--it doesn't require a mind and it isn't a name. In other words, emptiness isn't something that is applied to an object after it comes into being--emptiness is its very nature from the moment it comes into existence."


Conventional and Ultimate are two sides of the same coin, as are, Samsara and Nirvana.

Shaun :namaste:
User avatar
Tsongkhapafan
Posts: 1244
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 9:36 am

Re: Gelug responses to these critiques of Tsongkhapa?

Post by Tsongkhapafan »

You know what? These debates have been going on for centuries - no one is going to change anyone's mind about this, especially these days when everyone thinks they're right about everything.

It's a waste of time debating this. Milarepa was right - it's important just to practice and not be overly intellectual.

If you have a Guru in the pure tradition of Je Tsongkhapa, just follow their instructions and the results will speak for themselves. It's better to attain enlightenment instead of debating why it's impossible to do so by meditating on a particular view of emptiness. Our task as Gelugpas is to understand and meditate on Tsongkhapa's view to which he was guided by Manjushri directly, and that is based on Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti.
Kai lord
Posts: 1166
Joined: Sun May 15, 2022 2:38 am

Re: Gelug responses to these critiques of Tsongkhapa?

Post by Kai lord »

wei wu wei wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 12:12 am From my little corner of the dharma social media universe,Tsongkhapa is taking a beating at the hands of people armed to the teeth with Mipham, Gendun Chopel, and other non-Gelug thinkers. As someone engaged in Tsongkhapa's approach to Madhyamaka I can find interactions with these folks both very helpful--from the framework of dialogical learning--but also deflating and discouraging. If someone consistently critiques the climbing gear you use (to borrow a metaphor), then you're going to have moments where you have crises of faith as well. Sometimes that's productive; other times, it's just distracting and deflating.
Thats because those people around you, are doing it the easy way, if they have the courage and right mastery of Buddhist art in debate. They would have challenged the renowed buddhist scholar monks at drepung, sera je and ganden directly.
Internet access makes "debates" look easy because its essentially a number game and mob rule.
So there is no need to be distracted or discouraged by their arguments. You can treat them in a similar fashion to nikaya school's criticism of Mahayana.
wei wu wei
Posts: 132
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 5:01 am

Re: Gelug responses to these critiques of Tsongkhapa?

Post by wei wu wei »

Tsongkhapafan wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 7:14 am You know what? These debates have been going on for centuries - no one is going to change anyone's mind about this, especially these days when everyone thinks they're right about everything.

It's a waste of time debating this. Milarepa was right - it's important just to practice and not be overly intellectual.

If you have a Guru in the pure tradition of Je Tsongkhapa, just follow their instructions and the results will speak for themselves. It's better to attain enlightenment instead of debating why it's impossible to do so by meditating on a particular view of emptiness. Our task as Gelugpas is to understand and meditate on Tsongkhapa's view to which he was guided by Manjushri directly, and that is based on Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti.

I agree that it's probably the best approach to not let the sectarian debates bog down one's practice, and I usually can and do avoid being distracted by them, but there's a persistence to them that eventually wins. Plus, Tsongkhapa's critics raise important points that I think Gelugpas should be able to respond to.

But I think it's also true that understanding other approaches is beneficial for understanding our own approach. The more I begin to understand what the non-Gelugpas say about emptiness and the two truths, the more I see and understand what Tsongkhapa is saying. So there's a balance between, on the one hand, not letting the nitpicking distract you, and, on the other, not being insular.

I just wish there were a book by, say, Thupten Jinpa entitled Gelugpa Responses To Criticisms of Tsongkhapa!
wei wu wei
Posts: 132
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 5:01 am

Re: Gelug responses to these critiques of Tsongkhapa?

Post by wei wu wei »

Kai lord wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 11:51 am Thats because those people around you, are doing it the easy way, if they have the courage and right mastery of Buddhist art in debate. They would have challenged the renowed buddhist scholar monks at drepung, sera je and ganden directly.
Internet access makes "debates" look easy because its essentially a number game and mob rule.
So there is no need to be distracted or discouraged by their arguments. You can treat them in a similar fashion to nikaya school's criticism of Mahayana.
Well, I'm not sure how the average social media user engages a "renowned Buddhist scholar-monk" at one of the great monasteries, but they are skillfully and directly taking on Tsongkhapa's presentation of emptiness. Yes, internet debate is easy, but I'm not talking about low-level sectarian mud slinging: I'm talking about serious points of criticism raised by non-Gelugpas regarding important issues of interpretation.
Last edited by Ayu on Thu Sep 08, 2022 8:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Fixed quote.
Kai lord
Posts: 1166
Joined: Sun May 15, 2022 2:38 am

Re: Gelug responses to these critiques of Tsongkhapa?

Post by Kai lord »

wei wu wei wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 3:32 pm

Thats because those people around you, are doing it the easy way, if they have the courage and right mastery of Buddhist art in debate. They would have challenged the renowed buddhist scholar monks at drepung, sera je and ganden directly.
Internet access makes "debates" look easy because its essentially a number game and mob rule.
So there is no need to be distracted or discouraged by their arguments. You can treat them in a similar fashion to nikaya school's criticism of Mahayana.
Well, I'm not sure how the average social media user engages a "renowned Buddhist scholar-monk" at one of the great monasteries, but they are skillfully and directly taking on Tsongkhapa's presentation of emptiness.
Here's one way that they could experience that. Visitors can even enter the monastery.

Tibetan Monks Debate in Drepung Monastery

Don't think the Gelug monks there will refuse an open challenge on the beloved tenets of their founder guru.
The only drawback is that the challenger must be well versed in Tibetan language so that no words or meaning are lost in translation during the open debate.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Gelug responses to these critiques of Tsongkhapa?

Post by Malcolm »

wei wu wei wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 12:12 am From my little corner of the dharma social media universe,Tsongkhapa is taking a beating at the hands of people armed to the teeth with Mipham, Gendun Chopel, and other non-Gelug thinkers.
The people who arm themselves with such polemics, imagining that there is some transcendental emptiness, have missed both Tsongkhapa's point, as well as the point of Classical Madhyamaka thinkers in Tibet prior to Tsongkhapa.

Well, I'm not sure how the average social media user engages a "renowned Buddhist scholar-monk" at one of the great monasteries, but they are skillfully and directly taking on Tsongkhapa's presentation of emptiness. Yes, internet debate is easy, but I'm not talking about low-level sectarian mud slinging: I'm talking about serious points of criticism raised by non-Gelugpas regarding important issues of interpretation.
First one has to make sure they actually understand the point of view they think they are defending. It is not clear at all that this is case.
wei wu wei
Posts: 132
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 5:01 am

Re: Gelug responses to these critiques of Tsongkhapa?

Post by wei wu wei »

The people who arm themselves with such polemics, imagining that there is some transcendental emptiness, have missed both Tsongkhapa's point, as well as the point of Classical Madhyamaka thinkers in Tibet prior to Tsongkhapa.
Setting aside pure polemicists, there are obviously substantially different views in how to characterize emptiness (as shown in the Duckworth quote above). I regularly see non-Gelug refutations of Tsongkhapa's formulation of emptiness as a non-implicative negative but I've rarely run across solid Gelug responses directly to these criticisms. Of course, one can begin to suss them out for oneself, but it can take many years to come to some understanding of both systems before it's even a possibility.


First one has to make sure they actually understand the point of view they think they are defending. It is not clear at all that this is case.
Hmmm. What can I say? I've done my homework the best I can for several years, even with a mentor. Have spent my time in all volumes of the Lamrim Chenmo, Hopkins, Newland, Napper, HHDL, Garfield, Westerhoff, Thakchoe, the primary early Madhyamaka texts. I won't claim direct insight into emptiness but if I'm not qualified to begin understanding the broader dialogues of the path I'm taking, then I don't know exactly when I would be.
User avatar
tobes
Posts: 2194
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 5:02 am

Re: Gelug responses to these critiques of Tsongkhapa?

Post by tobes »

In essence, I think Duckworth's characterisation is wrong, and the two seemingly oppositional positions are not so opposed. There are of course subtle distinctions to made between Mipham/Gorampa etc and Tsong Khapa. They have a lot to do with the epistemic status of concepts themselves..i.e. whether or not they can be conventionally true or valid.

And this has implications on method, which sets up a big split between those who think analysis is a big waste of time, and those who think it is indispensable.

But these are method questions, and not related to what one directly realises after svabhava has been negated. Moreover, when you look closely, you can see that practitioners of Dzogchen and Mahamudra also engage in analysis- what is Mipham doing if not supplying the analytical view of the inseparability of Madhyamaka and Dzogchen? And practitioners in the Ganden tradition engage in guru devotion which culminates in pointing out instructions. In practice, outside of the debating hall and the internet, things are not so sharply demarcated as some sectarian people claim.

Emptiness is not purely a cognitive/logical negation for Tsong Khapa. If you read Garfield etc, one might be drawn into that conclusion, but it is missing the point big time.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Gelug responses to these critiques of Tsongkhapa?

Post by Malcolm »

wei wu wei wrote: Tue May 17, 2022 12:01 am
The people who arm themselves with such polemics, imagining that there is some transcendental emptiness, have missed both Tsongkhapa's point, as well as the point of Classical Madhyamaka thinkers in Tibet prior to Tsongkhapa.
Setting aside pure polemicists, there are obviously substantially different views in how to characterize emptiness (as shown in the Duckworth quote above). I regularly see non-Gelug refutations of Tsongkhapa's formulation of emptiness as a non-implicative negative...
All classical Madhyamaka scholars in Tibet accept emptiness as a non-affirming negation.

First one has to make sure they actually understand the point of view they think they are defending. It is not clear at all that this is case.
Hmmm. What can I say? I've done my homework the best I can for several years, even with a mentor. Have spent my time in all volumes of the Lamrim Chenmo, Hopkins, Newland, Napper, HHDL, Garfield, Westerhoff, Thakchoe, the primary early Madhyamaka texts. I won't claim direct insight into emptiness but if I'm not qualified to begin understanding the broader dialogues of the path I'm taking, then I don't know exactly when I would be.
My point is that it is really not clear whether these western scholars you refer to actually understand Madhyamaka at all.
wei wu wei
Posts: 132
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 5:01 am

Re: Gelug responses to these critiques of Tsongkhapa?

Post by wei wu wei »

tobes wrote: Tue May 17, 2022 12:20 am In essence, I think Duckworth's characterisation is wrong, and the two seemingly oppositional positions are not so opposed. There are of course subtle distinctions to made between Mipham/Gorampa etc and Tsong Khapa. They have a lot to do with the epistemic status of concepts themselves..i.e. whether or not they can be conventionally true or valid.
This is nice to hear...somehow this minor-distinction take isn't aligned with what I often read online, where, as I've said, Gelugpa understandings of emptiness or the two truths tend to be disparaged or relegated to Svantantrika. Or perhaps it's just the rabbit holes I go down. Take this DW thread for example: https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?t=28648

But these are method questions, and not related to what one directly realises after svabhava has been negated. Moreover, when you look closely, you can see that practitioners of Dzogchen and Mahamudra also engage in analysis- what is Mipham doing if not supplying the analytical view of the inseparability of Madhyamaka and Dzogchen? And practitioners in the Ganden tradition engage in guru devotion which culminates in pointing out instructions. In practice, outside of the debating hall and the internet, things are not so sharply demarcated as some sectarian people claim.

Emptiness is not purely a cognitive/logical negation for Tsong Khapa. If you read Garfield etc, one might be drawn into that conclusion, but it is missing the point big time.
In regards to your first paragraph, I do remember hearing that HHDL said something very similar, so this resonates.

Thanks
wei wu wei
Posts: 132
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 5:01 am

Re: Gelug responses to these critiques of Tsongkhapa?

Post by wei wu wei »

zerwe wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 2:30 am
I think they are missing the target and confused about what, for Tsongkhapa, is the object of negation. In other words, they just don't get it.

The object of negation is inherent existence, which is how objects appear to the mind, and this is something that never existed in the first place. The object of negation is the mistaken reification the mind casts upon objects of perception. The mistake that things appear in and of themselves and from their own sides.

Maybe this can help a summary from an earlier post of mine;

"He was a Prasangika Madhyamaka and ascribed to the view that not self nor phenomena existed inherently from its own side. Person, object, and mind perceiving--none existed from their own side. Yet he accepted that things could be posited as existing conventionally, due to causes and conditions, by concepts of the world and as mere imputations of the mind.

In this system--

Because, things are dependent arisings they are empty from existing from their own side. And, it is because they are empty from existing from their own side, that they are able to appear at all(dependent arisings).

Appearances and emptiness do not contradict one another, but they support each other. Emptiness is what makes conventional phenomena possible.

Dependent Arising reinforces the understanding of something being empty and being empty reinforces the understanding of something being a dependent arising.

Dependent Arising negates the extreme of non-existence and
Emptiness dispels the extreme of existence.

He believed that if you were to posit that something existed, there are only two possibilities; they exist from their own side (and thus must be findable under analysis) or they exist via mere imputation.

The tricky part I learned about recently, is that "merely labeled" is a phenomena's nature and, at the same time, it doesn't need to be labeled--it doesn't require a mind and it isn't a name. In other words, emptiness isn't something that is applied to an object after it comes into being--emptiness is its very nature from the moment it comes into existence."


Conventional and Ultimate are two sides of the same coin, as are, Samsara and Nirvana.

Shaun :namaste:
Thanks, Shaun. This all makes good sense with the exception of one line in your last paragraph, when you say that phenomena don't "require a mind." What you say there sounds quite close to mind independence. The Gelugpa teaching on this point is that all phenomena conventionally exist in dependence upon parts/causes and by designation/cognition.
wei wu wei
Posts: 132
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 5:01 am

Re: Gelug responses to these critiques of Tsongkhapa?

Post by wei wu wei »


All classical Madhyamaka scholars in Tibet accept emptiness as a non-affirming negation.
What I mean is the distinction that Duckworth is setting up above: "For these thinkers, emptiness is not the negation of a putative object of negation, for emptiness is beyond any description and hence transcends both affirmation and negation."

This, it seems, is a distinction that even Thupten Jinpa has spoken about, though he does so in an attempt to point out that much of it is semantics:




My point is that it is really not clear whether these western scholars you refer to actually understand Madhyamaka at all.
Thanks for that clarification. Perhaps some of them don't. Are there some you question?
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Gelug responses to these critiques of Tsongkhapa?

Post by Malcolm »

wei wu wei wrote: Tue May 17, 2022 4:27 am

All classical Madhyamaka scholars in Tibet accept emptiness as a non-affirming negation.
What I mean is the distinction that Duckworth is setting up above: "For these thinkers, emptiness is not the negation of a putative object of negation, for emptiness is beyond any description and hence transcends both affirmation and negation."
All Classical Madhyamakas agree that emptiness is the emptiness of something, and that without something, there cannot be nothing. What is that something? Dependent Origination. No classical Madhyamaka accepts a self-established ineffable emptiness. The ultimate is the ultimate of something, no classical Madhyamaka rejects this, including Mipham. Otherwise one cannot have the Union of the two truths and so on which became codified with the translation of the MAV of Candrakirti.


Thanks for that clarification. Perhaps some of them don't. Are there some you question?
Most, not some.
Schrödinger’s Yidam
Posts: 7885
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: Gelug responses to these critiques of Tsongkhapa?

Post by Schrödinger’s Yidam »

When I’m trying to hammer two pieces of wood together, and I hammer my thumb by mistake, Tsongkhapa’s position seems more valid.

However when I’m doing Vajrayana practice, his view seems like a boat anchor to samsara.
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)
Kai lord
Posts: 1166
Joined: Sun May 15, 2022 2:38 am

Re: Gelug responses to these critiques of Tsongkhapa?

Post by Kai lord »

Schrödinger’s Yidam wrote: Tue May 17, 2022 6:18 am However when I’m doing Vajrayana practice, his view seems like a boat anchor to samsara.
I find for most sarma schools' practices, the gradual approach of Yogacara Svatantrika madhyamaka works the best and is the most practical for most especially when most of us who are not too into philosophical tenets debates.
wei wu wei
Posts: 132
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 5:01 am

Re: Gelug responses to these critiques of Tsongkhapa?

Post by wei wu wei »

Schrödinger’s Yidam wrote: Tue May 17, 2022 6:18 am When I’m trying to hammer two pieces of wood together, and I hammer my thumb by mistake, Tsongkhapa’s position seems more valid.

However when I’m doing Vajrayana practice, his view seems like a boat anchor to samsara.
Without a current Lama, I don't really do much Vajrayana so can't speak personally about what you say. OTOH, given that the majority of T's writing was tantra and that he himself was a lifelong mystic--as described by Jinpa in his biography--it may be user error.

Is it that you feel like his upholding of conventional reality is somehow too literal and clunky, as if there is some metaphysical realism left over?
zerwe
Posts: 778
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 4:25 am
Location: North Carolina

Re: Gelug responses to these critiques of Tsongkhapa?

Post by zerwe »

wei wu wei wrote: Tue May 17, 2022 4:16 am

Thanks, Shaun. This all makes good sense with the exception of one line in your last paragraph, when you say that phenomena don't "require a mind." What you say there sounds quite close to mind independence. The Gelugpa teaching on this point is that all phenomena conventionally exist in dependence upon parts/causes and by designation/cognition.
Yes, this is a point that I need to spend some time with and consult a Geshe for additional clarity perhaps.

This comes from Jhado Rinpoche's recent teachings on Recognizing the Mother--which were a breathtaking and unbelievable exposition on emptiness, Tenet schools, etc... he went into very great detail to expound on the various debates and to show that, more often than not, opposing sides of the arguments were simply utilizing different language, and really were pointing to the same thing.

The point he was trying to make that is tied to this statement IS that things are empty in and of themselves from the time they come into existence. Emptiness is not something that is added or attributed to them by a perceiving mind.

So, yes conventionally they still depend on causes and conditions. They don't require us to make them empty.

Shaun :namaste:
wei wu wei
Posts: 132
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 5:01 am

Re: Gelug responses to these critiques of Tsongkhapa?

Post by wei wu wei »

zerwe wrote: Tue May 17, 2022 3:43 pm
wei wu wei wrote: Tue May 17, 2022 4:16 am

Thanks, Shaun. This all makes good sense with the exception of one line in your last paragraph, when you say that phenomena don't "require a mind." What you say there sounds quite close to mind independence. The Gelugpa teaching on this point is that all phenomena conventionally exist in dependence upon parts/causes and by designation/cognition.
Yes, this is a point that I need to spend some time with and consult a Geshe for additional clarity perhaps.

This comes from Jhado Rinpoche's recent teachings on Recognizing the Mother--which were a breathtaking and unbelievable exposition on emptiness, Tenet schools, etc... he went into very great detail to expound on the various debates and to show that, more often than not, opposing sides of the arguments were simply utilizing different language, and really were pointing to the same thing.

The point he was trying to make that is tied to this statement IS that things are empty in and of themselves from the time they come into existence. Emptiness is not something that is added or attributed to them by a perceiving mind.

So, yes conventionally they still depend on causes and conditions. They don't require us to make them empty.

Shaun :namaste:

I see. Right, we don't make them empty.
Post Reply

Return to “Gelug”