madhyamaka - tl april 2007

7/30/2019 Madhyamaka - TL April 2007

1/8

4 Thar Lam APRIL 2007

Madhyamaka is translated into English as the

Middle-way. There are quite a few schools ofthought, or lineages, of Madhyamaka, such as theRangtong and Shentong. Within the Rangtong, the twomain schools are known as the Middle-way AutonomousSchool (Svatantrika) and the Middle-way ConsequenceSchool (Prasangika). The Middle-way AutonomousSchool was founded by a disciple of Nagarjuna,Bhavaviveka or Legdenje in Tibetan. One of his followers

was the bodhisattva Shantarakshita, and their lineage isknown as the Middle-way Autonomous School.

Within the Middle-way Autonomous School, fourmajor schools developed. The first of these is the Middle-

way Autonomous school compatible with the Sutra(Sautrantika) Schools tenets. In Tibetan this school iscalled the Dode tang-tun-ki U-ma Rang-gyupa. Thisschool came about first through Legdenje/Bhavavivekascommentary, Tokke barwa (Tarkajvala, The Blaze of Reasoning) on Nagarjunas Uma-tsawa-sherab (Pranjamila The Roots of Knowledge). This first commentary wason the words of Nagarjunas text. Writing a commentaryon the words of the text means he expanded upon the

Madhyamakaby

12th Kenting Tai Situ Rinpoche


2/8

Thar Lam APRIL 2007 5

words Nagarjuna had written. So, for example, whenNagarjuna wrote something like I take refuge in theBuddha, he described what the I meant, what takemeant, what refuge meant, what in meant and whatBuddha meant.

Following this he wrote a commentary on the

meaning ofTheRoots of Knowledges, called the SherabDrnme (Prajna-paradipa, The Light of Wisdom). Thistext did not focus on the words Nagarjuna had used,but on their meaning. The content of thesecommentaries, the aspect of Madhyamaka they show,became known as the Middle-way Autonomous Schoolcompatible with Sutra.

The second sub-school of the Middle-wayAutonomists is the Middle-way Autonomists compatiblewith Mind-only (Chittamatra). This school is slightlydifferent to the Middle-way Autonomous Schoolcompatible with Sutra. It was founded by the bodhisattva

Shantarakshita, or Shiwatso in Tibetan, who was afollower of Legdenje/Bhavaviveka. His name means he

who lives in peace. His students name was Kamalishila,the great master Kamalashila. Many people have heardhis name. Their lineage, the Middle-way Autonomistscompatible with Mind-only, is still based on NagarjunasUma-tsawa-sherab (Pranjamila The Roots of Knowledge);however, the Mind-only school that this Middle-wayschool is compatible with has the basic philosophy thateverything is a manifestation of mind. Sometimes when

we are debating, some of the other Buddhist schools likeRangtong will say the Shentong view is Mind-only. It issimilar but it is not quite the same.1

The philosophical lineage of these masters forms thecontent of quite a few important commentaries onNagarjunas Roots of Knowledge. There is one written by

the bodhisattva Shantarakshita called Umagyen(Madhyamaka-lamkara,An Ornament to the Middle Way),and Kamalashila also wrote three very, very enlightening,comprehensive texts based on the meditation practicesof Madhyamaka. They are called the Gomrim sum(Bhavana krama, The Stages of Meditation), and describethree stages of meditation. The content of all these textsis known as the Autonomist school compatible withMind-only and it is still part of the Madhyamaka.

The third sub-school is similar to the Mind-onlyschool, but also quite similar to the Consequence school.

You wi ll rem em be r tha t I sa id the Ran gt ong

Madhyamaka has two main lineages: the Autonomistand Consequence lineages. I will explain what those

words mean later. Still, even though this school is similarto the Consequence lineage it is still an Autonomistschool. It is called, the Autonomist school that assertsproofs by means of illusion like reasoning. In Tibetan itis called the Juma rigpa drup pa: jumameans illusion,rigpameans cognitive reasoning and drupa means toestablish they use cognitive signs or methods to verifytheir view.

1. The Mind-only and Shentong Schools both use the three natures or aspects of experience to explain their view: however,there are differences between their presentations of these aspects.The three natures or three aspects of experience are: the imaginary nature (Skt. parikalita, Tib. kuntag), the dependentnature (Skt. paratantra, Tib. zhenwang) and the perfectly existent nature (Skt. parinispanna, Tib. yongdrub).In the Mind-only view, the imaginary aspect of experience refers to what our thoughts are thinking about, what ourthoughts are projecting. These are just conceptual creations, they have no existence and dont appear anywhere in the

world. This includes all the names that we give to things and it is pretty easy to understand.The dependent aspect of experience refers to all the things that we actually do experience. They are called dependentbecause they dont have any control over their own existence, they only come into existence when certain causes andconditions come together to produce them.The perfectly existent nature or aspect refers to the essential nature of the dependent nature. What the essential nature ofthe dependent nature is, is that it is free of the imaginary aspect. What we do is confuse the dependent aspect and theimaginary aspect as the same thing, leading us to believe that the imaginary aspect really exists. When you look at the

dependent aspect, the imaginary aspect does not exist within it at all, and this dependent nature empty of the imaginary isthe perfectly existent nature of reality.If we dissolve our attachment to the imaginary aspect we will see the nature of the dependent aspect, which is the perfectlyexistent aspect. Perfectly existent means its really there, it is genuine reality.The Shentong explain the three natures differently: whatever thoughts are focused on, whatever they imagine exists, are theimaginary nature; the objects of thoughts are imagined. The thoughts themselves are the dependent nature or the dependentaspect because they arise in dependence upon the habitual tendencies in the mind. The true nature of the thoughts is theclear light nature of mind, the perfectly existent nature.The difference between this view and the Mind-only schools view is that the Mind-only school said that the perfectlyexistent nature is the dependent aspect empty of the imaginary aspect. Whereas the Shentong says that the perfectlyexistent nature is empty of both the dependent and the imaginary natures. In the Mind-only School there is still the qualityof the dependent nature having some existence whereas in the Shentong view the ultimate perfectly existent nature isempty of both the imaginary and the dependent.


3/8


Where does this lineage stand? They say thateverything from the lowest form to the highestenlightenment is just like a dream, like an illusion, likemagic. Some philosophical texts say this position wasput forward by a disciple of Vasubandhu namedVimuktisena (Namdrlde) and a disciple of

Shantarakshita named Haribadra, Senge Sangpo inTibetan, but other scholars have questioned thisassertion. The main thing to remember about thisschool, their main stand, is that everything, equally, islike an illusion, a dream.

The fourth Middle-way Autonomist School is theMiddle-way Autonomist School that accords with theParticularist (Vaibhashika) School. In Tibetan it is calledthe Chidramawa-tang-tun-ki U-ma Rangjupa. Chidrameans specifically, and mawameans to speak or teach.The master who started this school was the arhatUpagupta, Drachomba Nyerbe in Tibetan. He wrote

commentaries on the three basic teachings of the Buddha the tripitaka of Vinaya, Abhidharma and Sutra notTantra. He interpreted these teachings in his own way,very clearly. He was an arhat so for him to interpret theBuddhas teachings in his own way was different froman ordinary person like us trying to interpret the LordBuddhas teachings. First he attained arhathood, and thenhe manifested the tripitaka in his own way, slightlydifferently than the way others had interpreted it.

This roughly covers the sub-branches of theMadhyamaka lineage known as the Autonomists. In

order to understand the name Autonomists we needto look at Pramana. When you study Madhyamaka youalso have to use the teachings and terminology ofPramana. If I say, Here is a glass of water, I have toprove there is a glass of water, that there is a glass with

water inside; that this is a glass of water like any other,the water is like other water and the glass is like otherglasses. From the perspective of Pramana, you cannotsimply say that this is a glass of water, then not showthat it is a glass of water. It could be a photograph of aglass of water. It could be a glass of vinegar that lookslike water. It could be a glass of white wine or Vodka

that looks like water. It is a very simple statement, Hereis a glass of water, but we dont necessarily know it istrue. Pramana has many ways of defining and comingto conclusions. Through Pramana we can say that this is

indeed a glass of water.Pramana is a very advanced subject. There are seven

main Pramana texts: the Commentary of Valid Cognition,the Discernment of Valid Cognition, the Drop of Reasoningon Valid Cognition, the Drop of Logical Reasoning,Analysisof Relationship, Establishing an Alternative Continuum

and The Science of Debate. The first three of these arethe main texts and the last four are the limbs orsecondary texts. Each one of these texts is enormous.

There are many ways to explain Pramana but one ofthe simplest is through the tsul-sum, the three modes ofproof. If we were going to make the statement, there is,or has been a fire on the mountainside because there issmoke, for example, we need to apply these three modesof proof to our statement in order to confirm it. Thefirst part of our statement is the subject fire on themountainside, the second part is the sign, in this casesmoke, and the third part is our assertion that if there is

smoke there has to be, or have been, a fire. The fire maynot be active now but if there is smoke there has been,or is, a fire. Nowadays it may be that stuff restaurantsuse in dishes that looks like smoke but doesnt comefrom a fire lets forget about that. It is not smoke. It issteam. We are not saying that there is a fire on themountainside because there is steam, so our statementis still okay.

In order to prove our assertion we apply the threemodes of proof to it: the chog ch(the premise), the jekyab (the forward pervasion) and the dog kyab (the reverse

pervasion). The premise is the statement When there isfire there is smoke. The forward pervasion is that Ifthere is smoke there will be, or has been a fire. Thereverse pervasion is the opposite, If there has been nofire there will be no smoke.

An Autonomist asserts these three modes; they makea stand on these three principles. The Tibetan form of

Autonomist, Rangju, means an independent argument.As I said earlier, some of the Autonomists make a standsimilar to the non-Madhyamaka Sutra school, others takea stand similar to the non-Madhyamaka Mind-onlyschool, and yet others view is similar to that of the

Particularists, another non-Madhyamaka school.The non-Madhyamaka schools are the Particularist

school,2 the Sutra and the Mind-only school.The Particularist school was based on a particular

2. The Buddha first taught about the skandhas or aggregates, indicating that a person is a collection of many different parts,that external phenomena are also collections of many different things: they are not single, solid objects. External appearances,then, are just a collection of many very tiny particles that we could call atoms. As for internal apprehending consciousness,it is a collection of indivisible moments of mind. This is the view of the Particularists or Vaibhashikas, who say that theminute partless particles and irreducible moments of mind are truly existent and it is through a collection of such inseparableparticles or a continuum of such irreducible moments of mind that the gross phenomena that we ordinarily apprehendcome about. It is only through a continuum that, for instance, something such as a year or a month comes about. There is

no large, hard thing that exists in the way in which things ordinarily appear. Khenchen Thrangu Rinpoche


4/8


text, with a different approach called the Chedrag ShetsoChenmo, The Great Ocean of Commentary. The Sutraschool is based on the original Sutra teachings of LordBuddha, rather than any commentaries made on them

by great masters, which are only used in a secondarycapacity. Even commentaries like the root texts ofNagarjuna and Aryadeva are not considered thatimportant. They place an absolute importance on the

Sutras, and only look into other texts as commentarieson these Sutras. They focus on the command rather thanthe commentaries on the commands.3

Mind-only means that no phenomena, from hell

to heaven, are separate from our mind. They are mirrorlike projections or manifestations totally reliant on ourmind. They are the minds reflections nothing more,nothing less. Within the Mind-only school itself there

3. The Sutra or Sautrantika School differentiates between 1) what is a mere abstraction, having only general characteristics:objects of our thoughts or abstract images that we can construct conceptually, and 2) what is a specifically characterizedthing, something that has its own unique characteristics, an actual thing that appears before us which is there whether wethink about it or not. For example, when we think fire, the fire were thinking about cant burn anything, it doesnt doanything, it cannot perform the function of burning. What actually does something is the actual thing that is there beyondour names and concepts, to which we give the name fire: it has its own totally unique characteristics unlike anything else.It is a unique object and it is performing the function of being hot and burning whether we think it burns us or not. Thats

AryaNagarjuna


5/8


are also quite a few different definitions and beliefs.Not as many as within the Madhyamaka, butquite a few. I will not go into those here though.

We can look at the Mind-only school throughthe three modes of proof. The subject is allphenomena, everything. Not everything else

okay? Then the second part, the sign is that Allphenomena are only manifestations of the mindand non separable from the mind. The third part,the assertion, would be Phenomena only occurthrough the karma created by the mind and actedout through body and speech. They would saythat all of the things happening outside onlyhappen because of the karma created through thebody and speech by the mind it all boils downto the mind. This is the simplest way to give adefinition of the Mind-only position.

There are also further ways to split hairs in

the Mind-only school but I will only briefly gointo this here. In the Mind-only school they divideall phenomena into three groups: kuntag (that

with an imaginary nature), zhenwang(that witha dependent nature) and yongdrub (that with aperfectly existent nature). An imaginary nature issomething that is only a projection of mind. Forexample, we call the things we put our feet inshoes. We could call them hat or jacket but inthe beginning the English people decided to callthem shoes. Tibetans call them lham and in India

we use the Hindi word jut. These labels are allkuntag,imaginary natures. Dependent naturesare things that come into existence due tosomething else, another force. These phenomenaare nothing within themselves but are perceived,utilized, consumed and affected positively andnegatively by the mind. The other power is thepower of the mind; all phenomena are influencedby the power of the mind. The perfectly existent

what the Sautrantika school say, that there is an object there which really does exist beyond our concepts about what it is,and that the concepts are mere fabrications that dont really exist. The Sautrantikas also say that external, material phenomena

have the nature of being established as particles, which are the cause of appearances.If you look then at the specifically characterized object itself, it doesnt have any name, it doesnt have any conceptually

fabricated characteristics at all. It is its own unique entity, and what that is is completely indescribable and inconceivable.Our own mental experiences are precisely the same. When we feel happy or we feel down then we give it those labels but ifyou really examine the experience, its inexpressible. It cant be named or labeled by any conceptual term, and that in theSautrantika School is evidence of a specifically characterized thing. Therefore the inexpressible, specifically characterizedthing truly exists, according to the Sautrantikas.

There are various differences between the Particularist (Vaibhashika) School and the Sutra (Sautrantika) School, but interms of their view, it is basically the same. Both hold that apparent and gross phenomena are, in fact, merely collections oftruly existent partless particles and truly existent irreducible moments of mind. The important point of these views is thatordinarily we apprehend coarse or gross phenomena and these viewpoints show this is a great mistake. If we are able torealize that phenomena are not the massive, solid things that they appear to be, then that is the first step on the staircasetowards a more profound understanding. Khenchen Thrangu Rinpoche

AryaBhavaviveka


6/8


nature is that there is nothing other than theprojection of the mind. This is the Mind-onlyschools definition of emptiness.

An im agi na ry nat ure is al so vo id of adependent nature. They are not the same thing.

When I say this is a nice long table, this idea is an

imaginary nature. My seeing this as a nice longtable is influenced by my perception of whatnice, long and table are. There is nothingmore to it, and nothing less to it, than my idea, itis not the dependent object the thing that is atable itself.

These three aspects are the Mind-only schoolsbasic philosophy. I wont go into their philosophyany further; otherwise you will get confused. Ihope you are not already confused. If you areconfused, there is not much point in discussingthese philosophies. But lets try looking at one

more school anyway. We have finished theAutonomist school in a superficial way and someof you are confused, so perhaps we should look atanother school.

The other main Madhyamaka School, theother main lineage of the Madhyamaka, is theConsequence School. To make defining theConsequence school as simple as possible for you,

we need to look again at the Autonomist School.By definition the Autonomist school has a belief.This belief is based on three things, the three

modes of proof. However the Consequence schooldoes not hold onto anything. The Autonomistschool is an offence school, and the Consequenceschool only has defense. The Consequence Schooldoes not say, We believe in this, we believe inthat. Instead they react to what other people say.They examine the consequences of what otherpeople say. The Consequence philosophy examines

what other people put forward and comes toconclusions about them, rather than stating theirown beliefs. The Autonomist school will say theybelieve something, and the Consequence school

will not this is their main difference. Of courseboth schools believe in Buddhahood, bodhichitta,all of these things, but not as particular dualisticbelief systems.

The Consequence lineage also has manybranches: There is the Gel b j b tal jur, aconsequence that exposes contradictions; theDrubche Drubcha dang tsung p ma drub ba, thenon-application of the means of proof due to thepresupposition of the premise; and the Gyumstensum gyi go ne zhen kyi drag b je bag, the inference

through the popular conventions of others

established by way of the three reasons. From among these Ithink we will look at the simplest way to understand this school,

the Consequence that is an inference established through thepopular conventions of others,Zhen kyi drag b je bag. ThisConsequence school would only say that everything isimpermanent when somebody else said they were permanent.They would use the philosophical principles, the Pramanaprinciples and techniques, to prove that everything isimpermanent because somebody else believes they arepermanent. This Consequence school itself, however, wouldnot make a particular, dualistic assertion. For them this is likecreating conditions for ourselves. It becomes like target practice:

when you shoot an arrow it is only ever at a little target, youlimit yourself to the little bulls-eye. You are only happy when

AryaShantarakshita


7/8


you hit that little bulls-eye with your arrow, you lose allthe opportunities to be happy that may come fromhitting something else. If you dont aim at a bulls-eye,however, and dont particularly aim at anything else,

whenever you hit anything you will be happy. Thosewho put forward the Consequential position do notcreate bulls-eyes for themselves. They only makecomments about, and react to, other peoples points ofviews.

The Autonomists are different, they believe in thethree principles I mentioned earlier. If something fitsthese principles, it is okay; if it doesnt, they will dismissit. It isnt really this simple, but I have simplified itsdescription. Generally, the Madhyamaka is divided intothese two groups, the Autonomist and ConsequenceSchools.

To review, Madhyamaka means the Middle-way.A simplified way to explain the Middle-way is to saythat everything is neither this nor that and the essenceof everything is limitless and beyond any dualisticlimitation. The Middle-way does not mean being a Swiss

National! It doesnt mean being neutral! It meanseverything is neither this nor that and has a limitlesspotential. Everything is perfect beyond description. Theessence of everything cannot be described by an exactexample, so any example used to describe it remains justthat, an example. We can say mind is empty and limitlesslike the sky, but that is not exactly what it is. If we saidthis we would have to add that it is as luminous as the

sun, as solid as a vajra and illusory like a rainbow. Wehave to use many examples because if we say mind issolid like a diamond, for example, this implies somethingeternal and if we say mind is empty like the sky thatimplies nihilism both are wrong, so to get at the viewof the Middle-way we have to give many examples.

This is the Middle-way position. The Shentong viewof the Middle-way is that mind is everything the essenceof everything and that this essence has no limitation.This is the specific emphasis Shentong puts on theMiddle-way.

Questions

Question: Buddha-nature is in each and every one of usand it is always there. Could you also say that Buddha-nature is permanent?

Rinpoche: I could say that. I am a proponent ofShentong, so I can say that. If I had to choose out ofthese two, permanent and impermanent, I would saythe Buddha-nature is permanent. However, I would alsoanswer that it is beyond being permanent or

impermanent. I have to say it is more than permanentbut if you only give me these two choices, permanent orimpermanent, I have to say permanent. If after that youasked for further clarification I would say it was morethan permanent because being permanent is related tobeing impermanent, it is dualistic.

Even the proponents of Rangtong M-gag though,would say the essence of the mind is not solid ordualistically existent. They could not say the essence ofthe mind is dualistically existent, so we are actually sayingthe same thing. The essence of the mind is notdualistically existent; it has no dualistic existence. It is a

AryaKamalashila


8/8


non-dualistic reality unspeakable, incomparable,ineffable and indescribable but there. This is why ifyou only give me these two choices, permanent orimpermanent, I have to say it is permanent. But if you

were to give me more choices, I would say it is morethan permanent.

Question: You mentioned that one of these lineagesbelieves that everything is a manifestation of the mind.Can you elaborate on that?

Rinpoche: The Mind-only school believes this. This isone of the very basic Buddhist philosophical lineages.These basic lineages are the Particularists school, the Sutraschool, the Mind-only school and the Madhyamakaschools. Another basic philosophical lineage is theTheravadan lineage. The Mind-only and Madhyamakaare Mahayana lineages. The Mind-only school is quitehighly considered, but it isnt considered the top lineage.The Mind-only school is derived from the four mainSutras that are associated with it, the Semtsam do zhi.4

What the Mind-only school says is that everything,from the most basic to the highest phenomenon, is justa manifestation of mind. When your mind is pure, apure land will manifest. When your mind is impure, ahell manifests; when your mind is so-so, a situation likeours manifests. This is a simplified way to describe thephilosophy of the Mind-only school. There are actuallymany levels, aspects and branches of the Mind-only school.For example, there are the Zung-Dzin Drang Nyampa,

the proponents of an equal number of subjects and objects,and the Gonga Che Tselwa, the Half Eggists. The HalfEggists, say that subject and object are like one boiled eggcut into two, actually the same thing. These two branches,and many others, all have their own unique views.

Question: I also have a question on the Mind-only school.Does it refer to relative and ultimate worlds or onlyrelative phenomena?

4. Semtsam do zhi: 1. The Sutra Unraveling the Intention, 2. Travel to Lanka Sutra, 3. The Sutra Taught in the Highest Pure LandGreatly Adorned, 4. The Flower Ornament Sutra.

Rinpoche: When we say it refers to everything from themost basic to the highest phenomenon that means fromrelative to ultimate truth. The Madhyamaka doesnt saythis exactly.

Student: Even primordial wisdom?

Rinpoche: Yes. This is what the Mind-only school wouldsay. These schools go from a grosser philosophy to a

subtler philosophy, step by step. First there is theParticularists school, then the Sutra school, then theMind-only school and then the Madhyamaka school.Progressing from one to the other is sort of like climbing.However, the Mind-only school may not say this.

From Ground, Path & Fruition, published by Zhyisil ChokyiGhatsal

madhyamaka - tl april 2007

Documents