Who is primarily associated with the Svatantrika viewpoint, and what was their key contribution to Madhyamaka?

The Svatantrika viewpoint is primarily attributed to the 6th-century Indian scholar Bhāviveka. He is known for his use of autonomous syllogistic reasoning (svatantra) in explaining Madhyamaka, a method he employed to engage with essentialist opponents and make the philosophy more accessible through logical discourse.

What criticism did Bhāviveka level against Buddhapālita's approach to Madhyamaka?

Bhāviveka criticized Buddhapālita for abstaining from syllogistic reasoning in his commentary on Nāgārjuna's work. Bhāviveka believed that Buddhapālita relied too heavily on reductio ad absurdum arguments and should have incorporated autonomous syllogisms to clarify Madhyamaka's teachings.

Why did Bhāviveka argue for the use of autonomous syllogisms in Madhyamaka?

Bhāviveka argued for the use of autonomous syllogisms to establish a common ground with essentialist opponents. This allowed for a shared basis of discussion, enabling the use of logical reasoning to demonstrate how even conventionally existing phenomena are ultimately empty of inherent existence.

What is the core method associated with the Prasaṅgika viewpoint?

The Prasaṅgika viewpoint, based on Candrakīrti's critique of Bhāviveka, relies solely on prasanga, which is a method of reductio ad absurdum. This involves demonstrating the logical consequences and absurdities that arise from holding essentialist views, rather than establishing a positive thesis through autonomous syllogisms.

According to Candrakīrti, why is autonomous syllogistic reasoning problematic for Madhyamaka?

Candrakīrti argued that autonomous syllogistic reasoning is impossible in a debate concerning ultimate truth because opponents operate from irreconcilable viewpoints—one mistaken (essentialist) and one correct (non-essentialist). This lack of a shared perception of the object of discussion prevents the establishment of a common ground necessary for syllogistic arguments.

How did Candrakīrti's influence evolve in Tibet compared to India?

Candrakīrti's works had minimal influence in India during his time but gained significant prominence in Tibet starting in the 12th century after his works were translated into Tibetan. This marked a shift in Tibetan Madhyamaka thought, moving towards his interpretation.

Who was Tsongkhapa, and what was his significance regarding the Svatantrika–Prasaṅgika distinction?

Tsongkhapa (1357–1419) was the founder of the Gelugpa school of Tibetan Buddhism. He became the most prominent proponent of the Svatantrika–Prasaṅgika distinction, strongly advocating Candrakīrti's Prasaṅgika view and arguing for crucial philosophical differences between the two schools.

What did Tsongkhapa believe separated the Svatantrika and Prasaṅgika schools?

Tsongkhapa believed the Svatantrika and Prasaṅgika schools were separated by fundamental philosophical differences, particularly in their understanding of emptiness and conventional reality, and crucially, in their use of autonomous syllogistic reasoning versus reductio ad absurdum.

How did Śāntarakṣita's approach relate to the Svatantrika–Prasaṅgika distinction?

Śāntarakṣita (725–788) synthesized Madhyamaka, Yogācāra, and Buddhist logic into a system known as Yogācāra-Mādhyamaka. While his approach used syllogistic reasoning, similar to Bhāviveka, Tibetan doxographers later grouped him with Bhāviveka under the Svatantrika category, despite the nuanced differences in his synthesis.

What was the primary philosophical viewpoint established in Tibet before Candrakīrti's works gained prominence?

Before Candrakīrti's works became influential in Tibet around the 12th century, the primary philosophical viewpoint established was Śāntarakṣita's Yogācāra-Mādhyamaka synthesis, which explained conventional truth through Yogācāra and ultimate truth through Madhyamaka.

What is the 'Rangtong-Shentong' concept, and how does it relate to the Svatantrika–Prasaṅgika debate?

Rangtong-Shentong refers to a doctrinal topic concerning the nature of ultimate truth, specifically whether it is empty of self (rangtong) or empty of other phenomena (shentong). While not directly defining the Svatantrika–Prasaṅgika distinction, it represents another significant area of philosophical discussion within Tibetan Buddhism.

How did the Gelugpa school, under Tsongkhapa's influence, come to dominate Tibetan Buddhism?

Tsongkhapa's views, particularly his strong advocacy for the Svatantrika–Prasaṅgika distinction, became dominant in Tibetan Buddhism following the 17th-century civil war. The intervention of Gusri Khan and the subsequent establishment of the 5th Dalai Lama's government provided the Gelugpa school with political power, enabling them to promote Tsongkhapa's interpretations and suppress opposing views.

What were Tsongkhapa's 'Eight Difficult Points' that differentiated Prasaṅgika from Svatantrika?

Tsongkhapa outlined eight points, including the refutation of the storehouse-consciousness (ālaya-vijñāna) at a conventional level, the nonexistence of reflexive awareness, the rejection of autonomous syllogisms for establishing ultimate views, and differing views on external objects, the comprehension of selflessness by Śrāvakas and Pratyekabuddhas, the nature of grasping, the concept of disintegration, and the presentation of the three times.

How did other Tibetan schools, like the Nyingma, Sakya, and Kagyu, view the Svatantrika–Prasaṅgika distinction?

Many scholars in the Nyingma, Sakya, and Kagyu schools tended to downplay the significance of the Svatantrika–Prasaṅgika distinction, viewing it as primarily pedagogical or based on exaggerated differences. They often argued that both approaches lead to the same ultimate realization, with some, like Ju Mipham, offering alternative interpretations that focused on the distinction between 'approximate ultimate truth' and 'ultimate truth in itself'.

What was Ju Mipham's alternative interpretation of the Svatantrika–Prasaṅgika distinction?

Ju Mipham's interpretation, aligned with Bhāviveka's earlier distinction, emphasized the difference between the 'approximate ultimate truth' (associated with Svatantrika) and the 'ultimate truth in itself' (associated with Prasaṅgika). He saw Svatantrika as a gradual approach starting with conventional reality, leading towards the ultimate, while Prasaṅgika directly addresses the ultimate beyond all assertions.

What is the Sakya school's perspective on the Svatantrika–Prasaṅgika distinction?

Mainstream Sakya teachers, such as Gorampa, were critical of Tsongkhapa's view. They generally hold that the distinction between Svatantrika and Prasaṅgika is pedagogical, asserting that there is no fundamental difference in their ultimate realization, although Gorampa did critique the Svatantrika reliance on logic as inappropriate for the ultimate.

What criticism did Gorampa offer regarding the Svatantrika approach?

Gorampa criticized the Svatantrika approach for its perceived over-reliance on logic, arguing that the component parts of syllogistic logic are not applicable in the realm of the ultimate truth. However, he believed this was a methodological critique and that both Svatantrika and Prasaṅgika methods ultimately lead to the same realization.

How did the Rimé movement influence the perception of the Svatantrika–Prasaṅgika distinction?

The Rimé movement, which emerged in the 19th century, sought to preserve the teachings of the Nyingma, Kagyu, and Sakya schools against the dominance of the Gelugpa school. This movement led to a revival of older interpretations and a tendency to downplay the significance of the Svatantrika–Prasaṅgika distinction as emphasized by Tsongkhapa.

What is the main difference highlighted by Tsongkhapa concerning the two schools?

Tsongkhapa's central argument was that the Svatantrika and Prasaṅgika schools differ crucially in their use of autonomous syllogisms to establish Madhyamaka views and their understanding of conventional reality, with Prasaṅgika rejecting any such syllogistic basis.

According to Tsongkhapa, what is necessary for the use of autonomous syllogistic reasoning?

Tsongkhapa stated that for autonomous syllogistic reasoning to be effective, both parties in a discussion must share a common ground or perception of the object being discussed. This shared perception is based on characteristic marks that distinguish objects, which Tsongkhapa found problematic for the Madhyamaka view.

What method does Tsongkhapa consider most valid for demonstrating emptiness?

Tsongkhapa considered the reductio ad absurdum of essentialist viewpoints to be the most valid method for demonstrating emptiness (the lack of inherent existence) and for showing that conventional things do not possess a naturally occurring conventional identity.

How did the political landscape in Tibet affect the dominance of Tsongkhapa's views?

The political intervention of Gusri Khan in the 17th century, which placed the 5th Dalai Lama in power, significantly boosted the Gelugpa school's influence. This political ascendancy allowed the Gelugpa school to promote Tsongkhapa's philosophical interpretations, including the Svatantrika–Prasaṅgika distinction, and suppress critical dissenting texts.

What is the significance of the 'Prasannapada' in relation to Candrakīrti and the distinction?

Prasannapada is Candrakīrti's commentary on Nāgārjuna's Mulamadhyamakakarika. Tsongkhapa based his strong support for the Prasaṅgika view on Candrakīrti's work, asserting that the distinction aligns with Candrakīrti's arguments and is not merely a Tibetan fabrication.

What is the core disagreement regarding the 'mere object' between Svatantrika and Prasaṅgika?

The core disagreement revolves around the 'mere object' as a common ground for discussion. Svatantrikas, like Bhāviveka, believe that conventionally perceived objects, distinguished by characteristics, can serve as this common ground. Prasaṅgikas, like Candrakīrti, reject this, arguing that differing perceptions (mistaken vs. correct) preclude a truly common ground for syllogistic debate.

What did Bhāviveka mean by 'existence according to characteristics'?

Bhāviveka used the concept of 'existence according to characteristics' to describe how phenomena can be conventionally understood and discussed. This means that even though phenomena are ultimately empty, they possess distinguishing features or characteristics that allow them to be conventionally identified and serve as a basis for logical discourse.

What was Śāntarakṣita's synthesis called, and what did it combine?

Śāntarakṣita's synthesis was known as Yogācāra-Mādhyamaka. It combined elements from Madhyamaka philosophy, Yogācāra philosophy, and the logico-epistemological traditions established by Dignāga and Dharmakīrti.

How did Tibetan doxographers categorize Śāntarakṣita's approach in relation to the Svatantrika–Prasaṅgika distinction?

Tibetan doxographers often grouped Śāntarakṣita's approach with Bhāviveka's under the Svatantrika category. This grouping was primarily due to their shared use of syllogistic reasoning to explain and defend Madhyamaka, often overlooking the nuanced philosophical differences in Śāntarakṣita's synthesis.

What is the significance of the 'council of Lhasa' in Tibetan Buddhist history?

The 'council of Lhasa,' according to Tibetan tradition, was a debate where the Indian monk Kamalaśīla, a student of Śāntarakṣita, debated and defeated the Chinese Chan monk Moheyan. This event is considered crucial for establishing Indian Buddhism, particularly the Indian Madhyamaka tradition, as the normative form for Tibetan Buddhism.

What is the primary difference between Svatantrika and Prasaṅgika according to the Nyingma and Kagyu schools?

According to the Nyingma and Kagyu schools, the primary difference between Svatantrika and Prasaṅgika is not necessarily about dialectical preferences (consequential vs. syllogistic reasoning) but rather about the distinction between 'approximate ultimate truth' and the 'ultimate truth in itself.' They generally believe both approaches lead to the same realization.

What does the term 'prasanga' mean in the context of Candrakīrti's philosophy?

Prasanga, from which the term Prasaṅgika is derived, refers to a method of logical inquiry that deconstructs an opponent's argument through the use of reductio ad absurdum. It highlights the unwanted or absurd logical consequences of holding a particular viewpoint.

What was the role of Pa tshab nyima drakpa in the development of the distinction in Tibet?

The Tibetan translator Pa tshab nyima drakpa (1055–1145) is credited by some scholars with possibly originating the Svatantrika–Prasaṅgika distinction in Tibet. He used the Tibetan terms 'Rang rgyud pa' and 'Thal 'gyur ba', which were later Sanskritized as Svatantrika and Prasaṅgika, respectively.

How did the Gelugpa school's dominance impact the availability of critical texts?

Following the Gelugpa school's rise to political power in the 17th century, seminal texts critical of Tsongkhapa's views, such as those by Gorampa, reportedly ceased to be widely available and were nearly lost, indicating a suppression of alternative interpretations.

What is the significance of 'emptiness' in the Madhyamaka philosophy discussed in the article?

Emptiness, or shunyata, is a central concept in Madhyamaka philosophy, referring to the lack of inherent existence in all phenomena. Both Svatantrika and Prasaṅgika schools aim to demonstrate this emptiness, but they differ in their methods and the precise way they articulate conventional reality and the path to realizing emptiness.

What does Tsongkhapa mean by 'conventional existence according to characteristics'?

Tsongkhapa, following Candrakīrti, rejected the idea that conventional existence is established by findable characteristic marks. He argued that such an assertion implies an inherent existence at the conventional level, which contradicts the Madhyamaka understanding of reality, and that the Prasaṅgika method of reductio ad absurdum is more appropriate.

How did the Rimé movement attempt to preserve traditional teachings?

The Rimé movement, active in the 19th century, brought together the Nyingma, Kagyu, and Sakya schools. It aimed to preserve their distinct religious legacies and interpretations, including alternative views on philosophical distinctions like Svatantrika–Prasaṅgika, in response to the prevailing influence of the Gelugpa school.

What is the role of 'reductio ad absurdum' in the Prasaṅgika method?

Reductio ad absurdum, or prasanga, is the primary method for Prasaṅgikas. It involves demonstrating the logical inconsistencies and absurd consequences that arise from an opponent's position, thereby undermining their essentialist views without necessarily establishing a positive thesis through independent syllogisms.

What is the difference between 'Rangtong' and 'Shentong'?

Rangtong (empty of self) and Shentong (empty of other) are related concepts in Buddhist philosophy. Rangtong emphasizes that phenomena are empty of inherent existence, while Shentong can refer to an ultimate reality that is empty of conventional phenomena or is itself a true, existing reality. The distinction is relevant to discussions on the nature of ultimate truth.

What was the main point of contention between Bhāviveka and Candrakīrti regarding logic?

The main point of contention was the use of autonomous syllogistic reasoning. Bhāviveka advocated for it to engage opponents and clarify teachings, while Candrakīrti rejected it, arguing it compromised the Madhyamaka view by implying a provisional acceptance of inherent existence and that only reductio ad absurdum was appropriate.

How did the 14th Dalai Lama integrate different Buddhist traditions in his teachings?

The 14th Dalai Lama integrates Gelugpa Madhyamaka with Dzogchen views, similar to the 5th Dalai Lama. His works, such as 'The Gelug/Kagyu Tradition of Mahamudra,' blend Tantric theory, Chittamātra (Yogācāra), and Madhyamaka-Prasaṅgika, reflecting an inclusive approach influenced by figures like Śāntarakṣita and Padmasambhava.

What is the significance of the 'two truths doctrine' in relation to the Svatantrika–Prasaṅgika distinction?

The two truths doctrine, which distinguishes between conventional (relative) truth and ultimate truth, is central to the Madhyamaka philosophy. The Svatantrika and Prasaṅgika schools differ in how they articulate and analyze conventional truth, particularly concerning its relationship with ultimate truth and the methods used to demonstrate the emptiness of phenomena.

What does it mean for phenomena to exist 'according to characteristics' in Bhāviveka's view?

For Bhāviveka, 'existence according to characteristics' means that phenomena possess distinguishing features that allow them to be conventionally identified and understood. This conventional existence serves as the basis for logical discourse, even though these phenomena are ultimately empty of inherent existence.

Why did Bhāviveka believe Madhyamaka needed to adapt to developments in Buddhist logic?

Bhāviveka believed that Madhyamaka needed to incorporate the logic developed by scholars like Dignāga to remain relevant and avoid becoming obsolete. By using syllogistic reasoning, he aimed to provide clearer explanations and engage more effectively with contemporary philosophical discourse.

What is the Prasaṅgika critique of the Svatantrika's use of 'three sovereign reasonings'?

According to Ju Mipham's interpretation of the Prasaṅgika view, the 'three sovereign reasonings' critique the Svatantrika separation of the two truths. These reasonings argue that Svatantrika's approach would imply that the meditation on emptiness destroys phenomena, that production according to characteristics cannot be disproved on the ultimate level, and that conventional truth resists absolute analysis.

What is the main difference between the two schools according to many scholars?

Many scholars assert that the primary difference between the Svatantrika and Prasaṅgika schools, as highlighted by Tsongkhapa, lies in their methodology: Svatantrikas use autonomous syllogisms, while Prasaṅgikas exclusively use reductio ad absurdum. Other points raised by Tsongkhapa are often considered secondary or minor doctrinal differences.

What was the impact of Candrakīrti's 'Madhyamakāvatāra' in Tibet?

Candrakīrti's 'Madhyamakāvatāra' became highly influential in Tibet after its translation in the 12th century. It provided the philosophical basis for the Prasaṅgika viewpoint, which gained prominence and eventually became the dominant interpretation, particularly through the work of Tsongkhapa.

What does Candrakīrti mean by rejecting 'autonomous arguments' as a subtle form of grasping?

Candrakīrti believed that using autonomous arguments, even provisionally, implies a subtle grasping at the inherent existence or essence of conventionally perceived objects. This, for him, is antithetical to the core Madhyamaka insight of emptiness, as it suggests a search for intellectual security rather than direct realization of emptiness.

How did the Gelugpa school's interpretation of Madhyamaka become dominant in Tibet?

The Gelugpa interpretation, heavily influenced by Tsongkhapa's emphasis on the Svatantrika–Prasaṅgika distinction, became dominant after the 17th century due to the political support provided by the Ganden Phodrang government, established with the help of Gusri Khan. This political backing allowed the Gelugpa school to promote its views and marginalize opposing interpretations.

What is the significance of the 'two truths doctrine' in the context of Bhāviveka's approach?

Bhāviveka made a distinction within the two truths doctrine to facilitate discussion. He proposed 'existence according to characteristics' for conventional truth and distinguished between 'ultimate truth in itself' (ineffable) and 'approximate truth' (which points to the ultimate), allowing for verbal discourse about ultimate reality.

What is the core argument of the Prasaṅgika school regarding the establishment of conventional truth?

The Prasaṅgika school argues that conventional truth is established solely by imputation or labeling, not by findable characteristic marks on objects. They reject the Svatantrika idea that such characteristics provide a common ground for syllogistic reasoning, as this implies a subtle form of inherent existence.

What was the main criticism of Tsongkhapa's views by other Tibetan schools?

Critics from schools like Sakya and Nyingma often viewed Tsongkhapa's interpretation of the Svatantrika–Prasaṅgika distinction as 'inadequate, newfangled, and unsupported by tradition.' They believed he exaggerated the philosophical divergence between the two approaches and that both methods led to the same ultimate realization.

Svatantrika U2013prasa U1e45gika Distinction Wiki: The Svatantrika–Prasaṅgika Distinction: Navigating Madhyamaka's Philosophical Currents

Dive in with Flashcard Learning!

When you are ready...
🎮 Play the Wiki2Web Clarity Challenge Game🎮

Introduction to the Distinction

Defining the Divide

The Svatantrika–Prasaṅgika distinction represents a significant doctrinal classification within Tibetan Buddhism, primarily concerning divergent interpretations of Madhyamaka philosophy. This distinction centers on the methodologies employed in logical argumentation and the understanding of conventional truth, particularly in relation to the concept of inherent existence.

Historical Context

This classification traces its roots to the Indian Madhyamaka tradition, emerging from the interpretations and critiques of foundational figures like Nāgārjuna. The differing approaches were later synthesized and debated extensively within the rich intellectual landscape of Tibetan Buddhism, becoming a focal point for philosophical discourse.

Significance in Tibetan Thought

The emphasis on this distinction, particularly by figures like Je Tsongkhapa, profoundly shaped the curriculum and philosophical debates within Tibetan monastic institutions. Understanding this divide is crucial for grasping the nuances of Madhyamaka's presentation of emptiness and the nature of reality.

Foundations in Indian Madhyamaka

Bhāviveka: The Autonomous Syllogism

Bhāviveka (c. 500–578 CE) is primarily associated with the Svatantrika (self-reliant) approach. Influenced by the developing Buddhist logic of Dignāga, Bhāviveka advocated for the use of autonomous syllogistic reasoning. To engage with essentialist opponents, he argued that phenomena could be said to possess characteristics that allow for conventional existence, providing a basis for logical discourse on their ultimate emptiness.

Candrakirti: The Prasaṅgika Method

Candrakirti (c. 600–650 CE) is the principal figure for the Prasaṅgika (consequence) approach. Candrakirti critiqued Bhāviveka's reliance on autonomous syllogisms, arguing that such reasoning implicitly accepts the existence of entities, which contradicts the Madhyamaka aim of demonstrating emptiness. He championed the use of *prasaṅga* (reductio ad absurdum) as the sole valid method, revealing the logical incoherence of essentialist views without positing any independent assertions.

Śāntarakṣita: A Synthesis

Śāntarakṣita (725–788 CE) developed a significant synthesis, integrating Madhyamaka with Yogācāra and Buddhist logic. His influential Yogācāra-Mādhyamaka approach, which became dominant in Tibet until the 12th century, analyzed conventional reality through Yogācāra principles while presenting ultimate truth via Madhyamaka. Tibetan doxographers often grouped his method with Bhāviveka's due to their shared use of syllogistic reasoning.

Developments in Tibetan Madhyamaka

Tsongkhapa's Dominance

Je Tsongkhapa (1357–1419) became the most prominent proponent of the Svatantrika–Prasaṅgika distinction in Tibet. He strongly defended Candrakirti's Prasaṅgika view, arguing for fundamental philosophical differences regarding emptiness and conventional reality. His interpretation gained significant traction, becoming the dominant view within the Gelugpa school following the 17th century.

Scholarly Debate and Resistance

Tsongkhapa's views faced considerable resistance from other schools, such as Sakya, Kagyu, and Nyingma. Critics argued that his distinction exaggerated the differences and that the methodologies ultimately led to the same realization. The Rimé movement, in particular, sought to revive and preserve alternative teachings, reintroducing nuances from Śāntarakṣita's synthesis.

Alternative Interpretations

Scholars like Ju Mipham (Nyingma) offered alternative interpretations, emphasizing the distinction between "approximate ultimate truth" and "actual ultimate truth," aligning more closely with Bhāviveka's approach. They argued that the core difference lay not in dialectical methods but in the nature of the ultimate reality being approached.

Core Philosophical Concepts

Conventional vs. Ultimate Truth

Madhyamaka philosophy distinguishes between two truths: conventional truth (relative reality, how things appear) and ultimate truth (the true nature of reality, emptiness of inherent existence). The Svatantrika and Prasaṅgika schools differ on how these truths are established and discussed.

Emptiness (Śūnyatā)

Central to Madhyamaka, emptiness refers to the lack of inherent, independent existence in all phenomena. Both Svatantrika and Prasaṅgika aim to demonstrate this emptiness, but they diverge on the most effective logical pathways to achieve this understanding.

Logic and Methodology

The core of the distinction lies in methodology:

Svatantrika: Employs autonomous syllogisms, which require shared conventional grounds and positive assertions about reality to establish a conclusion.
Prasaṅgika: Relies exclusively on prasaṅga (*reductio ad absurdum*), demonstrating the logical consequences of an opponent's position without making independent assertions, thereby avoiding any implicit acceptance of inherent existence.

Key Philosophical Figures

Indian Masters

Nāgārjuna (c. 150–250 CE): Founder of Madhyamaka.
Dignāga (c. 480–540 CE): Pioneer of Buddhist logic.
Bhāviveka (c. 500–578 CE): Key proponent of Svatantrika.
Candrakirti (c. 600–650 CE): Principal proponent of Prasaṅgika.
Śāntarakṣita (725–788 CE): Synthesizer of Madhyamaka, Yogācāra, and logic.

Tibetan Scholars

Patsab Nyima Drakpa (1055–1145): Credited with introducing Candrakirti's works and possibly the distinction itself to Tibet.
Je Tsongkhapa (1357–1419): Systematizer and dominant proponent of the Prasaṅgika view in Tibet.
Gorampa (1429–1489): Sakya scholar critical of Tsongkhapa's interpretation.
Ju Mipham (1846–1912): Nyingma scholar offering alternative interpretations.

The Core of the Distinction

Methodological Divergence

The primary divergence lies in the method of establishing Madhyamaka's central tenet: emptiness. Svatantrikas, following Bhāviveka, utilize autonomous syllogisms, which require establishing common ground and making positive assertions about conventional reality. Prasaṅgikas, following Candrakirti, exclusively employ *prasaṅga* (reductio ad absurdum) to expose the logical fallacies of opposing views without making any positive assertions, thus avoiding any subtle reification.

Conventional Reality

A key point of contention is the nature of conventional existence. Svatantrikas argue that phenomena possess characteristics that allow them to exist conventionally, providing a basis for syllogistic reasoning. Prasaṅgikas, however, assert that even conventional existence is ultimately non-existent and that any attempt to establish it through positive assertions risks obscuring the ultimate truth of emptiness.

Pedagogical vs. Ultimate Differences

While Tsongkhapa emphasized significant philosophical differences, many scholars and practitioners from other traditions (Sakya, Kagyu, Nyingma) view the distinction as primarily pedagogical. They argue that both approaches, despite methodological variations, ultimately lead to the same realization of emptiness and that the Svatantrika approach may be more accessible for certain students.

Teacher's Corner

Edit and Print this course in the Wiki2Web Teacher Studio

Edit and Print Materials from this study in the wiki2web studio

Click here to open the "Svatantrika U2013prasa U1e45gika Distinction" Wiki2Web Studio curriculum kit

Use the free Wiki2web Studio to generate printable flashcards, worksheets, exams, and export your materials as a web page or an interactive game.

True or False?

Test Your Knowledge!

Gamer's Corner

Are you ready for the Wiki2Web Clarity Challenge?

Learn about svatantrika_u2013prasa_u1e45gika_distinction while playing the wiki2web Clarity Challenge game.

Unlock the mystery image and prove your knowledge by earning trophies. This simple game is addictively fun and is a great way to learn!

Play now

Explore More Topics

Discover other topics to study!

florida in the american civil war

mohan lall shrimal

united press international

judiciary of virginia

charles iii of spain

References

Whether a Madhyamaka viewpoint would allow the necessary factual claims, or statements of epistemological principles, for such an argument was the major point in dispute.

This is also related to Rangtong-Shentong the idea of Buddha Nature

Padmakara Translation Group 2005, p. 386, note 12.

Shantarakshita & Ju Mipham 2005, pp. 7â14.

Padmakara Translation Group 2012, Section: "Mipham Rinpoche and the Prasangika-Svatantrika Distinction".

Padmakara Translation Group 2012, "Bhavaviveka objected [...] in the opponent's mind.".

Padmakara Translation Group 2005, "Turning to the question [...] that they appear.".

Padmakara Translation Group 2005, "This division [...] "concordant ultimate"".

Padmakara Translation Group 2012, p. Section "Mipham Rinpoche and the Prasangika-Svatantrika Distinction".

Padmakara Translation Group 2005, "Shantarakshita's disciple Yeshe De [...] that observes them.".

Padmakara Translation Group 2005, "One is tempted [...] after Chandrakirti's death.".

Padmakara Translation Group 2005, "The brilliance [...] ontological matters.".

Padmakara Translation Group 2005, "It is important to situate [...] Gelugpa scholasticism.".

Padmakara Translation Group 2005, "When discussing the two [...] a little further.".

Padmakara Translation Group 2005, "And with regard [...] no assertions.".

Padmakara Translation Group 2005, "For in Miphams'opinion [...] severely flawed.".

Padmakara Translation Group 2005, pp. 21â24.

Panchen Lama, Dalai Lama & Berzin 1997, p. 235.

Alexander Berzin, Self-Voidness and Other Voidness

Gareth Sparham (2017), Tsongkhapa, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

A full list of references for this article are available at the Svatantrika–Prasaṅgika distinction Wikipedia page

Feedback & Support

To report an issue with this page, or to find out ways to support the mission, please click here.

Academic Disclaimer

Important Considerations

This document has been generated by an AI, drawing upon academic sources to provide an overview of the Svatantrika–Prasaṅgika distinction within Tibetan Buddhist philosophy. The content is intended for educational and informational purposes for students pursuing higher education in philosophy and religious studies.

This is not a substitute for rigorous academic study or direct engagement with primary texts. Philosophical traditions, particularly those as nuanced as Madhyamaka, require deep study under qualified guidance. The interpretations presented here are based on secondary scholarly consensus and may not encompass the full depth or diversity of views within these traditions.

The creators of this page are not responsible for any misinterpretations or actions taken based solely on the information provided herein. Always consult primary sources and expert commentary for a comprehensive understanding.

Madhyamaka's Philosophical Currents

💡 Dive in with Flashcard Learning! 💡

Introduction to the Distinction 📚

⚖️ Defining the Divide

📜 Historical Context

🌍 Significance in Tibetan Thought

Foundations in Indian Madhyamaka 🇮🇳

🤔 Bhāviveka: The Autonomous Syllogism

🔍 Candrakirti: The Prasaṅgika Method

🤝 Śāntarakṣita: A Synthesis

Developments in Tibetan Madhyamaka 🏔️

👑 Tsongkhapa's Dominance

🗣️ Scholarly Debate and Resistance

🔄 Alternative Interpretations

Core Philosophical Concepts 💡

🧠 Conventional vs. Ultimate Truth

❓ Emptiness (Śūnyatā)

⚖️ Logic and Methodology

Key Philosophical Figures 👤

📜 Indian Masters

👨‍🏫 Tibetan Scholars

The Core of the Distinction ⚖️

🎯 Methodological Divergence

🧐 Conventional Reality

🏆 Pedagogical vs. Ultimate Differences

Teacher's Corner 🧑‍🏫

Edit and Print this course in the Wiki2Web Teacher Studio

True or False? 🤔

❓ Test Your Knowledge! ❓

Gamer's Corner 🎮

Are you ready for the Wiki2Web Clarity Challenge?

Explore More Topics

📜 Discover other topics to study!

References

📜 References

Feedback & Support 👍

To report an issue with this page, or to find out ways to support the mission, please click here.

Academic Disclaimer ⚠️

📜 Important Considerations

Dive in with Flashcard Learning!

Introduction to the Distinction

Defining the Divide

Historical Context

Significance in Tibetan Thought

Foundations in Indian Madhyamaka

Bhāviveka: The Autonomous Syllogism

Candrakirti: The Prasaṅgika Method

Śāntarakṣita: A Synthesis

Developments in Tibetan Madhyamaka

Tsongkhapa's Dominance

Scholarly Debate and Resistance

Alternative Interpretations

Core Philosophical Concepts

Conventional vs. Ultimate Truth

Emptiness (Śūnyatā)

Logic and Methodology

Key Philosophical Figures

Indian Masters

Tibetan Scholars

The Core of the Distinction

Methodological Divergence

Conventional Reality

Pedagogical vs. Ultimate Differences

Teacher's Corner

True or False?

Test Your Knowledge!

Gamer's Corner

Discover other topics to study!

References

Feedback & Support

Academic Disclaimer

Important Considerations