Mipham: Gelug = Svatantrika Madhyamaka

Forum for discussion of Tibetan Buddhism. Questions specific to one school are best posted in the appropriate sub-forum.
Post Reply
User avatar
Karma Dondrup Tashi
Posts: 1615
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:13 pm

Mipham: Gelug = Svatantrika Madhyamaka

Post by Karma Dondrup Tashi » Fri Jun 01, 2018 6:20 pm

The Svatantrika Madhyamaka - which is just below the most profound school in the Madhyamaka philosophy, the Prasangika Madhyamaka - uses a term called nominal ultimate reality. A working definition of the word “nominal” is “in name only,” as in something that is just merely labeled as ultimate reality, without examination. Mipham Rinpoche says that the nonaffirming negative is really nominal ultimate reality, since it does not rise to the level of true uncontrivance.

Anyen Rinpoche, Journey to Certainty, The Quintessence of the Dzogchen View, An Exploration of Mipham's Beacon of Certainty https://tinyurl.com/yalc48ko

Does this mean that Mipham believed all Gelugpas to be Svatantrikas?

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28507
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Mipham: Gelug = Svatantrika Madhyamaka

Post by Malcolm » Fri Jun 01, 2018 6:37 pm

Karma Dondrup Tashi wrote:
Fri Jun 01, 2018 6:20 pm
The Svatantrika Madhyamaka - which is just below the most profound school in the Madhyamaka philosophy, the Prasangika Madhyamaka - uses a term called nominal ultimate reality. A working definition of the word “nominal” is “in name only,” as in something that is just merely labeled as ultimate reality, without examination. Mipham Rinpoche says that the nonaffirming negative is really nominal ultimate reality, since it does not rise to the level of true uncontrivance.

Anyen Rinpoche, Journey to Certainty, The Quintessence of the Dzogchen View, An Exploration of Mipham's Beacon of Certainty https://tinyurl.com/yalc48ko

Does this mean that Mipham believed all Gelugpas to be Svatantrikas?
Crypto-svatantrikas
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

User avatar
Karma Dondrup Tashi
Posts: 1615
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:13 pm

Re: Mipham: Gelug = Svatantrika Madhyamaka

Post by Karma Dondrup Tashi » Fri Jun 01, 2018 7:14 pm

Which seems clear. Yet they call themselves prasangikas and [deleted] they do not admit that conventional truth can withstand analysis (which is the logical flaw of the svatantrikas).

So how can that be?

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28507
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Mipham: Gelug = Svatantrika Madhyamaka

Post by Malcolm » Fri Jun 01, 2018 7:52 pm

Karma Dondrup Tashi wrote:
Fri Jun 01, 2018 7:14 pm
Which seems clear. Yet they call themselves prasangikas and [deleted] they do not admit that conventional truth can withstand analysis (which is the logical flaw of the svatantrikas).

So how can that be?
Svatantrikass do not admit that conventional truth can withstand logical analysis, apart from some early Tibetan pre-Candra Madhyamakas who made this error.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

User avatar
Karma Dondrup Tashi
Posts: 1615
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:13 pm

Re: Mipham: Gelug = Svatantrika Madhyamaka

Post by Karma Dondrup Tashi » Fri Jun 01, 2018 9:37 pm

I wasn't precise enough, let me try to parse out the question.

The Gelugpas say: The cup is not empty of its own [conventional] essence [as it appears to ordinary persons], but it is empty of having a truly established nature. (Anyen Rinpoche).

This is a non-affirming negative. In other words, the cup's truly established nature is negated, but it's [conventional] essence [as it appears to ordinary persons] is consequently not analyzed.

They do this, according to Anyen Rinpoche in his book, out of compassion for ordinary persons, who may have fear of emptiness.

[F]rom the Later Scholars’ point of view, if you assert that the conventional essence of the cup is empty, then the cup itself will cease to exist in conventional reality. But a cup appears; we see it, we can use it! The Later Scholars do not want to contradict this appearance; they abstain from making any assertions about conventional reality at all [...] They do not address conventional reality at all. They leave conventional reality exactly as it appears, without analysis. [...] As a result, the appearance of an entity and its truly established nature become two different things, because one is refuted and found to be empty, but not the other. Actually, they must be separated for this philosophy to be consistent; otherwise to refute one would be to refute the other. The Later Scholars have a good reason and motivation for putting space between conventional and ultimate reality. Beings have very strong attachment toward ordinary reality, and refuting conventional reality may cause some people to become frightened and unable to engage in the Buddhist path. This presentation actually benefits such beings. (AR).

Now, from what I am understanding, Mipham criticizes negation generally but also specifically this version of non-affirming negation.

He criticizes negation generally since any negation, whether affirming or non-affirming, takes a position and hence is a contrivance, and is therefore not the ultimate, uncontrived view.

But he also criticizes the Gelugpa non-affirming negation specifically because: One of the consequences of refuting only an object’s truly established nature is that there is something left over after you refute it. This is clear if you recall the actual logic being stated: The pillar is not empty of the pillar; it is empty of the pillar’s true establishment. This implies that the pillar - how it appears conventionally - is somehow its own individual entity that is separate and distinct from its appearance. [...] When we say that “a pillar is not empty of being a pillar; it is empty of its truly established nature,” then conventional phenomena are able to withstand logical analysis. This means that conventional truth is not empty. (AR).

Now, The Gelugs, of course, say that their non-affirming negative is the same as the truly ultimate, uncontrived view: The Later Scholars say that from the point of view of the empty essence, the nonaffirming negative is completely uncontrived. From the point of view of the clear nature, it is the expression of the indivisible, enlightened body or inseparable, indestructible wisdom. It is uncompounded, naturally expressed, spontaneously present, and has all of the good qualities of the buddhas. This is how we always hear the uncontrived nature described. Except you may have noticed that, in this explanation, the nonaffirming negative is what is said to be uncontrived. That is the one distinction from Mipham Rinpoche’s presentation. (AR).

They do this in spite of the fact that they (apparently) deliberately preserve conventional essence from analysis.

So my question is - how do the Gelugpas avoid Mipham's criticism that as a consequence of deliberately preserving conventional essence from analysis, they have implicitly affirmed that conventional truth is not empty?

This becomes more absurd if we try to apply it to an actual being. Take the example of David. “David is not empty of David; David is empty of David’s truly established nature. [...] If the pillar is not empty of the pillar, but is empty of the pillar’s truly established nature, then the emptiness is not that of the pillar itself. The emptiness is just the emptiness of the pillar’s true existence. So actually, emptiness is never able to refute the pillar at all. Emptiness is not an expression of the pillar’s nature.” (AR).

It's a good book, btw.

User avatar
Palzang Jangchub
Posts: 1006
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 10:19 pm
Contact:

Re: Mipham: Gelug = Svatantrika Madhyamaka

Post by Palzang Jangchub » Sat Jun 02, 2018 12:44 am

Would it be terribly off topic if I were to ask for clarification on Mipham Rinpoche's stance regarding the levels of relative and absolute truth in relation to emptiness?

I attended a teaching once where one of Kyabje Penor Rinpoche's senior khenpos asked us to tell him something, anything, that wasn't empty. When the crowd was stumped or everyone was too shy to speak up, he told us that all compounded phenomena were empty.

When I mentioned this to a friend of mine whose lama is also within the Palyul lineage, he explained that based on his readings of Mipham this was only part of the picture, and that even uncompounded phenomena (if such were to exist) would be empty as well. He reframed it like this:

"Ultimately there are no beings and also no buddhas. Beings are the appearance of the impure relative truth, whereas buddhas and bodhisattvas, etc., are the appearance of the pure relative truth. Both are still conventional, and not ultimate."

Is this truly Mipham's stance? I've seen and heard it said over and over again that beings are ultimately buddhas (based on sugatagarbha, a.k.a. buddha-nature), but if buddhas are likewise relative then how can this be so? Is there any such thing as an uncompounded phenomenon that is not empty? Am I just missing something here?

:shrug:
Image

"The Sutras, Tantras, and Philosophical Scriptures are great in number. However life is short, and intelligence is limited, so it's hard to cover them completely. You may know a lot, but if you don't put it into practice, it's like dying of thirst on the shore of a great lake. Likewise, a common corpse is found in the bed of a great scholar." ~ Karma Chagme

དྲིན་ཆེན་རྩ་བའི་བླ་མ་སྐྱབས་རྗེ་མགར་ཆེན་ཁྲི་སྤྲུལ་རིན་པོ་ཆེ་ཁྱེད་མཁྱེན་ནོ།།
རྗེ་བཙུན་བླ་མ་མཁས་གྲུབ་ཀརྨ་ཆགས་མེད་མཁྱེན་ནོ། ཀརྨ་པ་མཁྱེན་ནོཿ

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28507
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Mipham: Gelug = Svatantrika Madhyamaka

Post by Malcolm » Sat Jun 02, 2018 12:47 am

Karma Dondrup Tashi wrote:
Fri Jun 01, 2018 9:37 pm
I wasn't precise enough, let me try to parse out the question.

The Gelugpas say: The cup is not empty of its own [conventional] essence [as it appears to ordinary persons], but it is empty of having a truly established nature. (Anyen Rinpoche).

This is a non-affirming negative.
It's actually an affirming negation, reverse extrinsic emptiness, as Khenpo Appey quips.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

User avatar
Virgo
Global Moderator
Posts: 3480
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 3:47 am
Location: Uni-verse

Re: Mipham: Gelug = Svatantrika Madhyamaka

Post by Virgo » Sat Jun 02, 2018 1:02 am

Malcolm wrote:
Sat Jun 02, 2018 12:47 am
Karma Dondrup Tashi wrote:
Fri Jun 01, 2018 9:37 pm
I wasn't precise enough, let me try to parse out the question.

The Gelugpas say: The cup is not empty of its own [conventional] essence [as it appears to ordinary persons], but it is empty of having a truly established nature. (Anyen Rinpoche).

This is a non-affirming negative.
It's actually an affirming negation, reverse extrinsic emptiness, as Khenpo Appey quips.
He affirmed that?

Kevin...

User avatar
Karma Dondrup Tashi
Posts: 1615
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:13 pm

Re: Mipham: Gelug = Svatantrika Madhyamaka

Post by Karma Dondrup Tashi » Sat Jun 02, 2018 1:52 am

Malcolm wrote:
Sat Jun 02, 2018 12:47 am
It's actually an affirming negation, reverse extrinsic emptiness, as Khenpo Appey quips.
Mipham seems to be saying that there's no such thing as a non-affirming negation.

I.e.: Any negation affirms its negandum is there to be ... negandum-ed.

So any negation is still just categorized emptiness.

The question is how do the Gelugpas deal with Mipham?

User avatar
Tsongkhapafan
Posts: 1215
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 9:36 am

Re: Mipham: Gelug = Svatantrika Madhyamaka

Post by Tsongkhapafan » Sat Jun 02, 2018 6:58 am

Karma Dondrup Tashi wrote:
Sat Jun 02, 2018 1:52 am
Malcolm wrote:
Sat Jun 02, 2018 12:47 am
It's actually an affirming negation, reverse extrinsic emptiness, as Khenpo Appey quips.
Mipham seems to be saying that there's no such thing as a non-affirming negation.

I.e.: Any negation affirms its negandum is there to be ... negandum-ed.

So any negation is still just categorized emptiness.

The question is how do the Gelugpas deal with Mipham?
A non-affirming negation merely negates its object without affirming anything thing in its place. If you are hallucinating pink dots in front of your eyes, the truth is there are no pink dots. Pink dots is the object of negation and realizing the mere absence of pink dots is the truth.

In the same way, because there are no inherently existent objects in the universe, the non-affirming negative that is the mere absence of inherent existence is ultimate truth and Mipham is wrong. Ultimate truth is a mere absence of our daily hallucinations created by self-grasping ignorance. Put simply, the things that we normally see do not exist at all because they are fabricated by ignorance.

Sādhaka
Posts: 189
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2016 4:39 pm

Re: Mipham: Gelug = Svatantrika Madhyamaka

Post by Sādhaka » Sat Jun 02, 2018 7:34 am

Tsongkhapafan wrote:
Sat Jun 02, 2018 6:58 am
Put simply, the things that we normally see do not exist at all because they are fabricated by ignorance.

Well that would actually be the final conclusion of Mipham as well (someone correct me if I’m mistaken).

Then the moral of this story is that debating over whose Madyamaka is right and whose is wrong is not very useful.

Although it can fun, if that’s what you’re into.
“...we should try to acquire clairvoyance. Without it, we are like a baby bird whose wings are undeveloped and has not yet grown feathers and remains stuck in its nest, unable to fly. Without clairvoyance, we cannot work for other sentient beings.” — Khunu Lama
“Just as a bird can not fly without both wings,
The welfare of others cannot be accomplished without the higher faculties of perception,
So diligently strive for your own wellbeing, whilst mentally considering the welfare of others.” — Longchenpa

User avatar
Tsongkhapafan
Posts: 1215
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 9:36 am

Re: Mipham: Gelug = Svatantrika Madhyamaka

Post by Tsongkhapafan » Sat Jun 02, 2018 7:37 am

Malcolm wrote:
Fri Jun 01, 2018 6:37 pm
Crypto-svatantrikas
Gelugpas are not crypto-Svatantrikas because they assert that phenomena do not exist inherently, whereas Svatantrikas assert inherent existence conventionally. Phenomena do hold their own nature, but this nature is merely imputed and does not exist ultimately. Things exist as mere appearance to mind like objects seen in a dream and they cannot withstand logical analysis.

User avatar
Ayu
Former staff member
Posts: 7007
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:25 am
Location: Europe

Re: Mipham: Gelug = Svatantrika Madhyamaka

Post by Ayu » Sat Jun 02, 2018 10:04 am

Karma Dondrup Tashi wrote:
Fri Jun 01, 2018 6:20 pm
The Svatantrika Madhyamaka - which is just below the most profound school in the Madhyamaka philosophy, the Prasangika Madhyamaka - uses a term called nominal ultimate reality. A working definition of the word “nominal” is “in name only,” as in something that is just merely labeled as ultimate reality, without examination. Mipham Rinpoche says that the nonaffirming negative is really nominal ultimate reality, since it does not rise to the level of true uncontrivance.

Anyen Rinpoche, Journey to Certainty, The Quintessence of the Dzogchen View, An Exploration of Mipham's Beacon of Certainty https://tinyurl.com/yalc48ko

Does this mean that Mipham believed all Gelugpas to be Svatantrikas?
At least the Gelugs define themselves as Prasangika Madhyamikas. Therfore I believe, this whole discussion is in vain as many other discussions of this kind on DW are. If you search for information about A, ask A and not B who has secondhand information only. :namaste:
I have decided to stick with love.
Hate is too great a burden to bear.
- Martin Luther King, Jr. -

User avatar
Palzang Jangchub
Posts: 1006
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 10:19 pm
Contact:

Re: Mipham: Gelug = Svatantrika Madhyamaka

Post by Palzang Jangchub » Sat Jun 02, 2018 11:21 am

Mods, can you please split my post into a new thread under the Nyingma subforum?

Much obliged.
Image

"The Sutras, Tantras, and Philosophical Scriptures are great in number. However life is short, and intelligence is limited, so it's hard to cover them completely. You may know a lot, but if you don't put it into practice, it's like dying of thirst on the shore of a great lake. Likewise, a common corpse is found in the bed of a great scholar." ~ Karma Chagme

དྲིན་ཆེན་རྩ་བའི་བླ་མ་སྐྱབས་རྗེ་མགར་ཆེན་ཁྲི་སྤྲུལ་རིན་པོ་ཆེ་ཁྱེད་མཁྱེན་ནོ།།
རྗེ་བཙུན་བླ་མ་མཁས་གྲུབ་ཀརྨ་ཆགས་མེད་མཁྱེན་ནོ། ཀརྨ་པ་མཁྱེན་ནོཿ

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28507
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Mipham: Gelug = Svatantrika Madhyamaka

Post by Malcolm » Sat Jun 02, 2018 12:37 pm

Tsongkhapafan wrote:
Sat Jun 02, 2018 7:37 am
Malcolm wrote:
Fri Jun 01, 2018 6:37 pm
Crypto-svatantrikas
Gelugpas are not crypto-Svatantrikas because they assert that phenomena do not exist inherently, whereas Svatantrikas assert inherent existence conventionally.
This is quite false. Please provide a citation from Bhavaviveka, Jñānagarbha, etc., which support this absurd claim.
Phenomena do hold their own nature, but this nature is merely imputed and does not exist ultimately.
This statement is internally contradictory.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28507
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Mipham: Gelug = Svatantrika Madhyamaka

Post by Malcolm » Sat Jun 02, 2018 12:41 pm

Ayu wrote:
Sat Jun 02, 2018 10:04 am
Karma Dondrup Tashi wrote:
Fri Jun 01, 2018 6:20 pm
The Svatantrika Madhyamaka - which is just below the most profound school in the Madhyamaka philosophy, the Prasangika Madhyamaka - uses a term called nominal ultimate reality. A working definition of the word “nominal” is “in name only,” as in something that is just merely labeled as ultimate reality, without examination. Mipham Rinpoche says that the nonaffirming negative is really nominal ultimate reality, since it does not rise to the level of true uncontrivance.

Anyen Rinpoche, Journey to Certainty, The Quintessence of the Dzogchen View, An Exploration of Mipham's Beacon of Certainty https://tinyurl.com/yalc48ko

Does this mean that Mipham believed all Gelugpas to be Svatantrikas?
At least the Gelugs define themselves as Prasangika Madhyamikas. Therfore I believe, this whole discussion is in vain as many other discussions of this kind on DW are. If you search for information about A, ask A and not B who has secondhand information only. :namaste:
Sakyas, Nyingmas, and Gelugs all maintain their view is "Prasangika." But Sakyas and Nyingmas vehemently reject Gelugpa views and vice versa, leaving it up for debate as to a) what exactly is Prasangika, and b) who deserves the label.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

User avatar
Tsongkhapafan
Posts: 1215
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 9:36 am

Re: Mipham: Gelug = Svatantrika Madhyamaka

Post by Tsongkhapafan » Sat Jun 02, 2018 1:49 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Sat Jun 02, 2018 12:37 pm
Tsongkhapafan wrote:
Sat Jun 02, 2018 7:37 am
Malcolm wrote:
Fri Jun 01, 2018 6:37 pm
Crypto-svatantrikas
Gelugpas are not crypto-Svatantrikas because they assert that phenomena do not exist inherently, whereas Svatantrikas assert inherent existence conventionally.
This is quite false. Please provide a citation from Bhavaviveka, Jñānagarbha, etc., which support this absurd claim.
It's not false, Svantantrikas assert that phenomena lack true existence (true existence is existing wholly independent of conceptual thought) but they still assert inherent existence, as all schools below the Prasangika do.
Phenomena do hold their own nature, but this nature is merely imputed and does not exist ultimately.

This statement is internally contradictory.
It really isn't. In dreams phenomena have their own individual natures. These natures exist only for the dreamer because they are mere appearances to the dreaming mind.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28507
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Mipham: Gelug = Svatantrika Madhyamaka

Post by Malcolm » Sat Jun 02, 2018 2:27 pm

Tsongkhapafan wrote:
Sat Jun 02, 2018 1:49 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Sat Jun 02, 2018 12:37 pm
Tsongkhapafan wrote:
Sat Jun 02, 2018 7:37 am


Gelugpas are not crypto-Svatantrikas because they assert that phenomena do not exist inherently, whereas Svatantrikas assert inherent existence conventionally.
This is quite false. Please provide a citation from Bhavaviveka, Jñānagarbha, etc., which support this absurd claim.
It's not false, Svantantrikas assert that phenomena lack true existence (true existence is existing wholly independent of conceptual thought) but they still assert inherent existence, as all schools below the Prasangika do.
It is false, and you cannot provide any citation which supports your claim from any Indian Madhyamaka work.


It really isn't. In dreams phenomena have their own individual natures. These natures exist only for the dreamer because they are mere appearances to the dreaming mind.
What do you mean by "nature?" Most people mean something that is intrinsic to a given thing. For example, common people assume the nature of fire is heat, the nature of water is wetness, and so on.

Bhavaviveka, etc., do not accept that things have natures. If they did, they could not be included even in Mahāyāna, let alone Madhyamaka.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

User avatar
Tsongkhapafan
Posts: 1215
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 9:36 am

Re: Mipham: Gelug = Svatantrika Madhyamaka

Post by Tsongkhapafan » Sat Jun 02, 2018 3:12 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Sat Jun 02, 2018 12:37 pm


This is quite false. Please provide a citation from Bhavaviveka, Jñānagarbha, etc., which support this absurd claim.

It's not false, Svantantrikas assert that phenomena lack true existence (true existence is existing wholly independent of conceptual thought) but they still assert inherent existence, as all schools below the Prasangika do.


It is false, and you cannot provide any citation which supports your claim from any Indian Madhyamaka work.
Great, prove me wrong then.

What do you mean by "nature?" Most people mean something that is intrinsic to a given thing. For example, common people assume the nature of fire is heat, the nature of water is wetness, and so on.

Bhavaviveka, etc., do not accept that things have natures. If they did, they could not be included even in Mahāyāna, let alone Madhyamaka.
Of course things have natures, otherwise you are contradicting the valid cognizers of worldly beings. Valid cognition sees that fire is hot, water is wet, and so forth. If you disagree then as Chandrakirti says, you and worldly should debate on this and we will rely upon the stronger. Things have non-inherent natures.

Are you saying nothing exists and that nothing can be validly known by worldly people (i.e., people who have not realized emptiness)?

User avatar
conebeckham
Posts: 4929
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: Mipham: Gelug = Svatantrika Madhyamaka

Post by conebeckham » Sat Jun 02, 2018 3:31 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Sat Jun 02, 2018 12:41 pm
Ayu wrote:
Sat Jun 02, 2018 10:04 am
Karma Dondrup Tashi wrote:
Fri Jun 01, 2018 6:20 pm
The Svatantrika Madhyamaka - which is just below the most profound school in the Madhyamaka philosophy, the Prasangika Madhyamaka - uses a term called nominal ultimate reality. A working definition of the word “nominal” is “in name only,” as in something that is just merely labeled as ultimate reality, without examination. Mipham Rinpoche says that the nonaffirming negative is really nominal ultimate reality, since it does not rise to the level of true uncontrivance.

Anyen Rinpoche, Journey to Certainty, The Quintessence of the Dzogchen View, An Exploration of Mipham's Beacon of Certainty https://tinyurl.com/yalc48ko

Does this mean that Mipham believed all Gelugpas to be Svatantrikas?
At least the Gelugs define themselves as Prasangika Madhyamikas. Therfore I believe, this whole discussion is in vain as many other discussions of this kind on DW are. If you search for information about A, ask A and not B who has secondhand information only. :namaste:
Sakyas, Nyingmas, and Gelugs all maintain their view is "Prasangika." But Sakyas and Nyingmas vehemently reject Gelugpa views and vice versa, leaving it up for debate as to a) what exactly is Prasangika, and b) who deserves the label.
Kagyupas, most of them, also fall in with the Nyingmapas or the Sakyapas. Most Kagyupas are more stuck on the rangtong/shentong differentiation, and claim both are "Prasangika," though much depends on one's own teacher's stance.

We've been down this road many times here at DW, regarding the Geluk's unique intepretation of the two truths. Interested readers can do a search. Mipham is merely saying what many others have said---the idea of a "conventional existence" is no existence at all, it cannot be construed as an ontological truth, but is an appearance without an existence. Without parsing all these terms, like "essence," Svabhava, etc., the Geluk position is that a cup is empty of Truly Existent Essence of Cup, but not empty of Cup-as-Relative-Appearance. In the Geluk presentation, "Cups hold their Nature" --the nature of "cupness," but no truly existent cup exists. Cup is an imputation or label, but cup is not dog, nor is dog cup, etc. This assertion is made, not merely due to concerns Anyen Rinpoche has stated in the quotes posted, but also due to a concern regarding "valid cognition," and especially a perceived concern regarding demeaning or at least devaluing things which are concerned with "relative appearance"--things like ethics and karma, for example.
དམ་པའི་དོན་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ཆེ་བ་དང་།
རྟོག་གེའི་ཡུལ་མིན་བླ་མའི་བྱིན་རླབས་དང་།
སྐལ་ལྡན་ལས་འཕྲོ་ཅན་གྱིས་རྟོགས་པ་སྟེ།
དེ་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ལ་ནི་ལོ་རྟོག་སེལ།།


"Absolute Truth is not an object of analytical discourse or great discriminating wisdom,
It is realized through the blessing grace of the Guru and fortunate Karmic potential.
Like this, mistaken ideas of discriminating wisdom are clarified."
- (Kyabje Bokar Rinpoche, from his summary of "The Ocean of Definitive Meaning")

Post Reply

Return to “Tibetan Buddhism”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Josef and 72 guests