Talk:Madhyamaka

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Relevant article: [1]

Needs Renaming This article should be renamed as Madhyamika, which literally translates as "The middle path". Madhyamaka appears to be a mispronounciation of the same.

Deepak23

The school of thought and its subsidiaries are called "Madhyamaka"; those who follow it are called "Mādhyamikas."

It's a Sanskrit thing. The article should NOT be renamed. 20040302

[edit] Shentong/Rangtong and prasangika/yogacara

Is it correct to identify yogacara with shentong, and prasangika with rangtong? These terms certainly aren't translations of one-another. My (limited) understanding is that shentong/rangtong is a question of view, as in how you "see", whereas yogacara/prasangika is concerned with philosphical reasoning. So my opinion is that it is possible to be a prasangika philosophically, and a shentongpa for the purposes of meditation practice.

I further understand that *all* important tibetan lamas profess adherence to the prasangika school of reasoning. If prasangika is to be construed as being in opposition to shentong view, then that would mean that there are no more shentongpas. Since this is counterfactual, I find myself somewhat confudledoo (madhyamaka thinking is supposed to lead to clarity, so I'm obviously doing it wrong!).

I haven't tried to fill-in the missing article on Rangtong, in the hope that someone who is philosophically opposed to Shentong view will help to clarify this question. --MrDemeanour 12:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, from what I understand of the Shentong issue, it certainly is in no way cognate with yogacarya. However, the actual specific details of what shentong is, is much harder to understand. I am guessing, but I think they were asserting that there is one mode of emptiness - shentong - which merely meant 'empty of other' - ie empty of being something other than itself. This could be construed to indicate an essentially existing substrate similar to 'God', and is probably why the Jonangpas were accused of holding non-buddhist views. I may be completely mistaken, not being a scholar, and not being too familiar with this rather antique long-standing debate. (20040302 13:34, 18 September 2005 (UTC))

"Empty of something other than itself" - this is correct, and has indeed been construed in the way you say. I believe the accusations against the Jonangpas, however, were leveled for political reasons, and the doctrinal issue was a pretext. But this debate isn't "antique", and the shentong view is not just a historical footnote; the Rimay masters were shentongpas, as are many of their their contemporary lineal descendants. I'd like to add a cite from Jamgon Kongtrul to emphasize this; but I'm unable to check it (it's a second-hand citation). Kongtrul apparently says in Encyclopaedia of Knowledge that rangtong is for establishing certainty through listening, studying and reflecting; shentong is for meditation practice.

--MrDemeanour 16:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank-you for your correction - I did not mean to demean the issue by calling it antique - though I see now that it is easier to read it that way than otherwise - I was merely saying that it has an old history. My understanding of Madhyamaka holds that, if I am right in my understanding of shentong, this would be objectionable to views held by Candrakirti and indeed Nagarjuna - both of whom tried pretty hard to deny any form of essence whatsoever. It is possible that the shentong/rangtong debate continues to have a political facet to it also, though I would feel that such areas are outside of the scope of a general presentation of Madhyamaka (ie this article). (20040302 17:01, 19 September 2005 (UTC))

Continuing this discussion, at the risk of repeating myself, I do not think it is correct to identify the Shentong/Rangtong division as being the same as the Prasangika/Yogacara division. Following MrDemeanour's statements that

1. The Rimay masters are shentongpas and
2. All Tibetan lamas profess adherence to the prasangika,

We have to either state that there is a contradiction, or that both Shentong and Rangtong views belong to those who claim to be Prasangikas. The Yogacarya school has plenty of distinguishing features: one of them is (from what I understand) that the Yogacarya assert that e.g. a table appears to be a different substantial entity from the eye consciousness apprehending it but is not - therefore in Yogacarya, a table is said to be empty of being a different entity from a valid consciousness. This mode of emptiness is (in my limited understanding) in direct contrast to the shentong position, if it is as above-stated: empty of being something other than itself.

With these thoughts in mind, and until someone cares to express a clear rationale for their union, I am removing the sentence Tibetan adherents of this school refer to it as the Shentong view, whereas Prasangika Madhyamaka is known as the Rangtong view.

Further to this, I am deeply intrigued as to how someone can actually be a Prasangika and express the shentong position of "empty of being something other than itself" - what does this position mean, in light of Candrakirti: "Atman" is an essence of things that does not depend on others; it is an intrinsic nature, understanding that according to the Madhyamikas this 'intrinsic nature' exists solely as a cognitive obscuration - the root obscuration responsible for all suffering? What I am curious about is how one can derive an understanding of the essencelessness of a thing from meditating on the emptiness of being something other than itself? (20040302 13:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC))

Shentong/Rangtong not the same as Prasangika/Yogacara: I'm sure this is correct. Specifically, my understanding is that the terms Shentong and Rangtong are not translations of any Sanskrit terms, and the ideas behind them were Tibetan developments.

Could it be that the problem is the result of confounding a view with a system of reasoning? Prasangika and Yogacara are ways of establishing certainty. I don't think the "emptiness" that they each asserts is a different kind of emptiness.

Shentong and Rangtong are "views", i.e. ways of seeing, not of reasoning. Shentong view, in particular, can only be acquired as the result of being shown (pointing out). It's not a type of logic, nor is it the kind of thing that could be proved by some system of logic. And as far as I can understand, the Shentong view is pretty meaningless, outside the context of Rangtong insight. This is really difficult stuff to discourse about, I think; words definitely get in the way. but my understanding is that Shentong is really a sort of Rangtong-plus, and that the two are not really opposed to one-another, despite this being the way the story is usually presented. One would need to have acquired Rantong insight, for Shentong view to become accessible. That's why one might profess to be both a prasangika and a shentongpa. --MrDemeanour

Thanks for the comment - regarding shentong/rangtong - I am ignorant, and have offered the best I can without more research. However, I completely disagree about Prasangika and Yogacarya both as merely ways of establishing certainty (for a start the schools are both concerned with Prajnaparamita, not Pramana) secondly, for a Prasangika, the Yogacarya view is basically an essentialist view: The yogacarya assert the necessity of things like 'mind-basis-of-all' and other phenomena, whereas the Prasangika tend to avoid substance doctrine at all cost. (20040302)

[edit] Prasangika Madhyamaka Paragraph

The Prasangika Madhyamaka paragraph is a misrepresentation of the school's views on every single issue.

1. Prasanga is not their sole avowed technique
2. The views of the Prasangika Madhyamaka are NOT held solely for the purpose of defeating all views.

There is no doubt at all that the PM have their own views, and that they do not solely use Prasanga. Tsongkhapa has written eloquently and at length on these specific issues - as the misrepresentation is a traditional one. In fairness, one could argue that some who claim to be PM themselves also state this - what Tsongkhapa does is to show that these two points are not representative of the views of Nagarjuna or Candrakirti. At some point I shall work on a revised paragraph that is more adequate. (20040302 17:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC))