The Superiority of Tantra to Sutra

[RongzomFan]

The reason why Prasanga is championed is because it upholds a freedom from extremes as its fundamental view.

Yes, Prasangika, for example according to Mipham or Jigme Lingpa is just freedom from extremes.

 

I agree with that.

 

But I wouldn't call that Indian Madhyamaka.

[asunthatneversets]

Which Prasangika?

 

And who is championing it?

 

Gorampa certainly did not champion Tsongkhapa's Prasangika...

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

[RongzomFan]

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

 

Exactly.

 

There are many different Prasangikas.

 

I don't even think Tsongkhapa's Prasangika adheres to freedom from extremes.

[asunthatneversets]

 

Exactly.

 

There are many different Prasangikas.

 

I don't even think Tsongkhapa's Prasangika adheres to freedom from extremes.

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?

[RongzomFan]

Tsongkhapa's Prasangika does not adhere to freedom from extremes:

 

http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=13822&p=180514&hilit=extremes+tsongkhapa#p180514

 

http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=4056&p=49245&hilit=extremes+tsongkhapa#p49245

 

 

This is clear from Tsongkhapa's own writings.

Tsongkhapa can't be faulted for this

Tsongkhapa is faulted throughout history.

 

Tsongkhapa has critics including Gorampa and the Eighth Karmapa

Edited February 13, 2014 by RongzomFan

[asunthatneversets]

Tsongkhapa's Prasangika does not adhere to freedom from extremes:

 

http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=13822&p=180514&hilit=extremes+tsongkhapa#p180514

 

http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=4056&p=49245&hilit=extremes+tsongkhapa#p49245

 

 

This is clear from Tsongkhapa's own writings.

 

Tsongkhapa is faulted throughout history.

 

Tsongkhapa has critics including Gorampa and the Eighth Karmapa

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.

[Songtsan]

All paths are superior paths...some just take longer. Are you in a rush? Do you run from your suffering? Take the fast path. Is everything fine enough? Just take the scenic route then. Quit squabbling over how fast a path is...no one misses out in the long run. You are short run focused.

[RongzomFan]

Why do you think I stick to Madhyamaka? All I said is that I see no reason to deprecate it.

 

This is the reason:

 

"since they assert a true relative truth [Candrakirti established two kinds of relative truth as well], the category of “established as homogenous” is not understood."

 

http://www.vajracakra.com/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=1195&start=10#p13827

[RongzomFan]

Greatness of Rongzom:

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=HLFlN5mq9EcC&pg=PA271&lpg=PA271&dq=Rongzompa+OR+Rongzom+%22Comfort+and+Ease%22&source=bl&ots=HymPiXBO6w&sig=UZReYgDqaSwzmVebmSc1xuK1SGg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=AQRyUun_MIbS2AXCnIHQBA&ved=0CBgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Rongzompa%20OR%20Rongzom%20%22Comfort%20and%20Ease%22&f=false

[asunthatneversets]

 

This is the reason:

 

"since they assert a true relative truth [Candrakirti established two kinds of relative truth as well], the category of established as homogenous is not understood."

 

http://www.vajracakra.com/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=1195&start=10#p13827

"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

[RongzomFan]

"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

Edited February 13, 2014 by RongzomFan

[RongzomFan]

If you are going to argue that Madhyamaka doesn't subscribe to the 2 truths, just forget it.

[asunthatneversets]

 

"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

 

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.

[RongzomFan]

if one were to assert that the rest is not the opposite, they would not be a wise person.

 

right.

[asunthatneversets]

If you are going to argue that Madhyamaka doesn't subscribe to the 2 truths, just forget it.

 

Madhyamaka posits two truths conventionally, as a skillful means and pedagogical methodology. It does not, however, contend that there are actually two truths. How could it when it doesn't even allow the ultimate truth [emptiness] it asserts to stand on its own?

 

"When the [ultimate] truth is explained as it is, the conventional is not obstructed; Independent of the conventional, no [ultimate] truth can be found."

- Nāgārjuna

 

So again, we see that what is really being addressed in the deprecation of Madhyamaka is not the system itself, but the efficacy of its path. Due to the fact that Madhyamaka implements logic as its primary means, its process is not as swift as those paths which rest upon uncontrived dharmatā. However it is an efficient path in and of itself, which is available for those who find Madhyamaka to resonate with them, and for that reason it should not be rejected.

 

Truly, even in a path such as Dzogchen, where the afflictive nidānas arise due to non-recognition, Madhyamaka logic applies because the nidānas proliferate in accordance with dependent origination. So it is all relative. Deprecating Madhyamaka beyond the pale of conventional discourse which is comparing and contrasting the efficacy of these paths is truly selling oneself short.

[asunthatneversets]

right.

 

And that, coming from Nāgārjuna, shows that Madhyamaka does not ultimately state that there are indeed two truths.

[RongzomFan]

Deprecating Madhyamaka .....is truly selling oneself short.

 

Take it up with Rongzom.

[RongzomFan]

And that, coming from Nāgārjuna, shows that Madhyamaka does not ultimately state that there are indeed two truths.

 

No, read your own statement again

 

 

if one were to assert that the rest is not the opposite (I.E. ASSERTING THE REST ARE THE SAME), they would not be a wise person.

Edited February 13, 2014 by RongzomFan

[asunthatneversets]

Take it up with Rongzom.

 

Ha, you removed the context which validated Rongzom's critique.

[RongzomFan]

I don't know what that means.

 

the efficacy of these paths is truly selling oneself short.

 

Rongzom isn't comparing efficacy. He is comparing fundamental differences in outlook.

Edited February 13, 2014 by RongzomFan

[asunthatneversets]

 

No, read your own statement again

 

 

 

Right, if someone were to assert that any other alleged 'truth' is ultimately on par with the sole truth of nirvana, they would be unwise. Just as Nāgārjuna states.

[RongzomFan]

Right, if someone were to assert that any other alleged 'truth' is ultimately on par with the sole truth of nirvana, they would be unwise. Just as Nāgārjuna states.

 

I am not going to keep on arguing about one Crappily translated sentence.

[asunthatneversets]

Ok

 

 

Rongzom isn't comparing efficacy. He is comparing fundamental differences in outlook.

 

In the context of the respective praxis of the paths. So yes, he is comparing the efficacy. The fundamental differences in outlook concern the paths alone. The result is always the same in the buddhadharma, it is only the paths which differ.

 

Just as Vairocana says:

 

"According to grades of capacity, there are individual gateways

into the innermost view of ultimate dharmatā;

One will obtain or realize the result by realizing any

doctrine in the vehicle of the sublime Dharma." [Per Malcolm]

[RongzomFan]

So yes, he is comparing the efficacy.

 

 

I don't get that feeling from Rongzom.

 

I have read all of Namdrol's posts and the book Establishing Appearances as Divine.

[asunthatneversets]

 

 

I don't get that feeling from Rongzom.

 

I have read all of Namdrol's posts and the book Establishing Appearances as Divine.

There are other subtle differences, such as the fact that Madhyamaka does not involve energy nor does it approach the topic of lhun grub. However as far as the fundamental view goes, aside from the praxis, it is no different than the 'higher yānas'.