asunthatneversets

Yes, 'what wise person would think the rest is not the opposite'... if one were to assert that the rest is not the opposite, they would not be a wise person. The wise understand that wisdom is the sole truth, all else, including so-called conventional and relative truths, are not wisdom, ergo, they may be referred to as 'truths' in conventional parlance, but because they are not wisdom they are not in fact, truths.

"Since the jinas have stated nirvana is the sole truth, at that time, what wise person would think the rest is not the opposite". -- Yuktiṣaṣṭika

Like I said Tsongkhapa's view has never resonated with me, so I have no vested interest in taking any sides on this matter. I'm not about to dissuade you from the anti-Tsongkhapa torch you carry, nor am I going to carry it with you.

It does adhere to a freedom from extremes. Tsongkhapa's interpretation just gives a little too much credence to conventional truths. Which granted was the result of the climate of debate during his time. He had to be able to mount a formidable exposition, and with topics such as valid and invalid cognitions and so on even in the relative, he had to respond. Tsongkhapa can't be faulted for this, nor can he really be faulted for the way the Gelug ended up interpreting those aspects of his teaching. Which I agree has gone somewhat awry, at least for my taste. But if it resonates with someone else who am I to judge?

Tsongkhapa's interpretation does not resonate with me personally, but to each their own.

Fixating on Prasangika itself is surely counterproductive. The reason why Prasanga is championed is because it upholds a freedom from extremes as its fundamental view.

Well, it is a conventional designation just like anything else, and it is a title which is clearly used by many, so in that respect it does indeed exist.

This is another straw man. I never proclaimed strict allegiance to anyone. Again, you're taking this Longchenpa and Jigme Lingpa statement out of context, which was only issued in response to your reference to Dudjom Rinpoche and Dilgo Khyentse, both of whom I am fond of as well.

Why do you think I stick to Madhyamaka? All I said is that I see no reason to deprecate it. Neither does my teacher: "...Madhyamaka explains with the four 'beyond concepts,' which are that something neither exists, nor does not exist, nor both exists and does not exist, nor is beyond both existing and not existing together. These are the four possibilities. What remains? Nothing. Although we are working only in an intellectual way, this can be considered the ultimate conclusion in Madhyamaka. As an analytical method, this is also correct for Dzogchen. Nagarjuna's reasoning is supreme." - Chögyal Namkhai Norbu "That view established intellectually we need to establish consciously in dependence upon one’s capacity of knowledge and on convention. The way of establishing that is the system of Prasanga Madhyamaka commented upon by the great being Nāgārjuna and his followers. There is no system of view better than that." - Chögyal Namkhai Norbu

I'm a big Rongzom fan as well. Not sure why you think otherwise.

True, I have nothing against Rongzompa. If it appears that I do that is only Alwayson kicking up dust and projecting.

My teacher is Chögyal Namkhai Norbu.

My tantric teachers see no need to deprecate Madhyamaka either.

Apart from comparing and contrasting for the purposes of identifying how rapid certain paths are, I see no reason to deprecate Madhyamaka.

If you understand what Tantra points to, or what Dzogchen is teaching, then you can see it just the same in Madhyamaka. What you're objecting to is the respective paths and the means they implement. The fundamental meaning does not differ.

Congratulations.

We weren't comparing the Gonpa Zangthal to anything. What was being addressed is the subject of Dzogchenpas taking gzhan stong to be a definitive view. Which they do not.

Quite unnecessary to bump.

The title 'original' usually goes to who or what came first. Therein lies the logic.

Tantra is a different path to the same end, as is Atiyoga. All are the buddhadharma, and so none are 'false'. Some just take longer than others, but as there are varying individuals with varying capacities, the varying teachings are a blessing. Your contention that they are 'false' is a ultimately a counterproductive view to hold.

Yes I misread that. It was a conjectured statement from Mayajala (who's understanding isn't very refined) to begin with. The bottom line is that the praxis of Madhyamaka and the praxis of Dzogchen are dissimilar. But their views are ultimately in agreement. The same cannot be said for gzhan stong.

They are certainly more original in comparison to Dudjom Rinpoche and masters of our era. Which was my point.

Within the praxis. However since Madhyamaka accepts neither relative nor ultimate truths to be truly valid. It is merely the praxis which is being addressed. As was noted; that if Rongzom had access to Candrakīrti's other works at that time, he would have agreed with Candrakīrti's ultimate position on this matter.

They are 'key figures', not 'the key figures'. You're taking the statement out of context and presenting it as if I claimed they were the only two key figures, which is a straw man argument.

Rongzompa is criticizing the praxis of Madhyamaka.