Talk:Prasaṅgika

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. Please participate by editing the article Prasaṅgika, or visit the project page for more details on the projects. Guidelines: Chinese Manual of Style - Naming conventions Indic Manual of Style - Naming conventions Japanese Manual of Style Korean Manual of Style - Naming conventions Tibetan Proposed naming conventions
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

This article appears to be mistaken on several counts. I refer readers to the Wisdom Chapter of the Lam Rim Chenmo for Je Tsongkhapa's examination of some of the points raised here. Of course, his views represent only one interpretation of the definitions and concerns of the Prasangika, but he argues his case well. (20040302)

[edit] Prasangika reasoning

Prasangika reasoning is also a way of preparing the mind for meditation on emptiness (shunyata). All conceptual constructs are analysed and seen to be dependent on causes and conditions, and so empty of self-nature. In this way, the practitioner aims to rid his mind of all conceptual thought. This may well be a statement that belongs to e.g. the Karma Kargyu, but it something that cannot be found within the Indian school. Can the wiki-editor responsible please qualify it and provide references/source (20040302 17:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Prasanga

Consequence is not merely reductio ad absurdum, and such a definition misses out the primary distinction between 'consequence' and 'autonomous syllogism'. Candrakirti says (Clear Words) We argue "Your (The opponent's) position is contradicted by an argument based upon what you accept". This is how an argument that is established for them refutes their position His point is that, unlike Bhavaviveka, it is not necessary for both parties to share a common ground for an argument to be established, and due to the nature of emptiness being the absence of something (essence) there is no need to assert that.

[edit] Svatantrika Prasangkika distinction

Somewhere, here, on the Svatantrika article or elsewhre, we need a discussion or at least mention of the fact that the very distinction (Svatantrika vs. Prasangika) is a post-hoc construction by Tibetan doxographers and was _not attested_ in primary Indian sources. Zero sharp 21:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, it is the nomenclature that was used by the TIbetans, used to differentiate the scholars Buddhapalita/Candrakirti vs. Bhavaviveka. It is the defence of Buddhapalita's text by Candrakirti himself which is used to identify and name these two positions, when he states that Madhyamikas should employ prasanga arguments, not svatantra ones. So the two schools of thought are distinguished by Candrakirti's Clear Words. As I understand, by the 11th century CE, the terms were used by Indian scholars. Moreover, there were other divisions made regarding the Madhyamika, but they were more or less dismissed by Tsongkhapa and others in later Tibetan scholarship. (I am talking about the early division into the mayopamadvayavadin and the sarvadharmapratisthanavadin ).

In brief, there is little doubt that Candrakirti's Clear Words demonstrates a division of views reflected by the terms Prasangika/Svatantrika, which therefore refutes the claim that these views are a Tibetan construction. (20040302 09:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC))

I'd be very eager to see a reference to these 11th century usages of the terms Svatantrika/Prasangika by Indian writers Zero sharp 01:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The Svatantrika/Prasangika debate existed in India, in the sense that there was a criticism of Buddhapalita's treatment of arising from self by Bhavaviveka, and a response to this criticism by Candrakirti in his Clear Words (Prasannapada). However, the entire scope of the argument around whether one should use autonomous inferences or consequences to demonstrate emptiness to an opponent is strictly confined to an argument about paragraph long in Buddhapalita's Madhyamakavritti concerning the refutation of sprouts arising from themselves, which is then expanded on in the Prasannapada. So these terms are indeed present in Indian texts, and they also represent a division of views. It should be noted that the tradition of using a few verses to derive a doctrine was inherited from India by the Tibetans.

Addendum - The Lucid Exposition of the Middle Way, Sprung ISBN 0140194118 is an excellent translation of the Prasannapada. You can find the terms and distinctions of Prasanga/Svatantra being used by Candrakirti on pp36-42. (20040302 10:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC))

Thank you so much, I'll check that out. Nonetheless, I still feel that we need something somewhere to indicate that the distinction is not as cut and dried as, I feel, the article currently seems. But clearly I need to read a bit more. Thanks for the ref Zero sharp 19:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I feel I am missing something, ZS - the terms are used, and have been used in a scholastic form for about a thousand years, with strong indications that the division of views was made in India by the aforementioned scholars (and their students). Consider Middle Platonism as a term from Western Philosophy - how is it significant as to when the term was coined? It refers to a set of ideas and concepts that distinguished themselves clearly enough to make a differentiation from Early Platonism, or Neoplatonism. Maybe this specific analog isn't sound - (Platonism is not something I know about). (20040302 00:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC))

if you're missing something it's b/c I'm not articulating it very well. Basically, I've read in a number of sources (notably Dreyfus/McClintock "The Svatantrika Prasangika Distinction") that there is a danger in misapprehending the terms Svatantrika and Prasangika as if they referred to self-consciously defined schools of Indian Buddhism, that existed at, say, the time of Buddhapalita and of Bhavaviveka -- that the term is often read back too forcefully, as if those writers said "I am a Prasangika" or "I am a Svatantrika" -- there seems to be no debate that the *distinctions* and *disagreements* existed, but that it's not 100% accurate to speak of a Prasangika or Svatantrika _school_, per se, existing at the times those authors wrote. But as I said, I clearly need to read and absorb a bit more. Thanks for the pointer to Sprung, I've got a copy on order. Zero sharp 01:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)