Study/The Debate Between Mipham and Pari Rabsel: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 15:45, 22 April 2024

Viehbeck 2014 p.99-210

@@ Line 954: / Line 954: @@
 <h3>Svātantrika and Prāsaṅgika</h3>
 The classification of Indian Madhyamaka as Svātantrika or Prāsaṅgika is known to be problematic. Ostensibly not an Indian invention, this distinction reflects an attempt to systematise an intricate tradition made by Tibetan doxographers in the eleventh century.<ref>Cf. Dreyfus & McClintock 2003, for discussions of the differentiation of the Svātantrika and Prāsaṅgika traditions from various perspectives, and – more recently – Seyfort Ruegg 2006: 324ff., who lists seven criteria for the distinction of the two Madhyamaka traditions. The question, that of course arises, is to what extent this Tibetan categorisation is useful or harmful when one investigates the Indian tradition. In contrast to more sceptical voices, Seyfort Ruegg has argued in favour of the Svātantrika-Prāsaṅgika distinction as a hermeneutical tool, even for approaching the Indian tradition, provided that its limitations are considered: "Recognition of the constraints and limitations of the Svātantrika-Prāsaṅgika distinction as applied in the sources need not lead inexorably to the conclusion that it is arbitrary historically and worthless philosophically, that it has neither descriptive (taxonomic and doxographic) nor analytical and heuristic usefulness. Provided it is handled with due care, and with an appreciation of its historical limits, it can prove interesting even for the study of the Indian sources, in spite of the fact that the distinction as such has not been mentioned there." (Seyfort Ruegg 2006: 345)</ref> While all later Tibetan philosophers readily use this distinction in their categorisation of their Indian predecessors, as well as a means of self-identification and delimitation of their own doctrinal space, the role they ascribe to this distinction varies. Tsong kha pa, the founder of the Dge lugs tradition, is particularly famous for conceiving of a fundamental difference between the two Madhyamaka traditions and emphasising the supremacy of the Prāsaṅgika. This is expressed ''inter alia'' in the ''Dka' gnad''/''gnas brgyad'', a work that formulates the "eight difficult points," i.e., the eight core characteristics of the Prāsaṅgika tradition.<ref>As pointed out by Lopez, the establishment of the Prāsaṅgika view as the pivotal system in Tibetan philosophy was, to a large extent, influenced by Tsong kha pa: "The primacy of the Prāsaṅgika view was firmly established for the Tibetan tradition by Tsongkha-pa, the founder of the Ge-luk (''dGe-lugs'') order, in works such as the ''Great Exposition of the Stages of the Path'' (''Lam rim chen mo''), the ''Essence of the Good Explanations'' (''Legs bshad snying po''), and the ''Great Commentary on'' (''Candrakīrti's'') ''<i>'</i>Supplement<i>'</i>'' (''<i>'</i>Jug dik chen mo''). In these works he presents both the central issues and most intricate points of the Prāsaṅgika school with
-a precision and style unmatched in Buddhist literature. Thus, it can be said that from the time of Tsong-kha-pa, if not before, the Prāsaṅgika school was the dominant philosophical system in Tibet." (Lopez 1987: 22) However, even though the Dge lugs school achieved a hegemonic status with regard to its politcal power, and thus its philosophical ideas had a great impact on Tibetan philosophy as a whole, there were still philosophers who had a quite different opinion on the nature of the Svātantrika-Prāsaṅgika distinction.</ref> For other Tibetan scholars, such as Rong ston (1367–1449) and Go rams pa (1429–1489), the differences are minor and consist only in methodological issues.<ref>Dreyfus 2003a: 318–328 and Cabezón 2003: 289ff. give an overview of the respective positions.</ref> The exact characterisation of each of these two Madhyamaka traditions, as well as the general problem of the nature of their differences, have been issues of dispute throughout Tibetan history and were naturally also a "hot topic" in the debates between Rab gsal and Mi pham discussed here.
+a precision and style unmatched in Buddhist literature. Thus, it can be said that from the time of Tsong-kha-pa, if not before, the Prāsaṅgika school was the dominant philosophical system in Tibet." (Lopez 1987: 22) However, even though the Dge lugs school achieved a hegemonic status with regard to its politcal power, and thus its philosophical ideas had a great impact on Tibetan philosophy as a whole, there were still philosophers who had a quite different opinion on the nature of the Svātantrika-Prāsaṅgika distinction.</ref> For other Tibetan scholars, such as Rong ston (1367–1449) and Go rams pa (1429–1489), the differences are minor and consist only in methodological issues.<ref>Dreyfus 2003a: 318–328 and Cabezón 2003: 289ff. give an overview of the respective positions.</ref> The exact characterisation of each of these two Madhyamaka traditions, as well as the general problem of the nature of their differences, have been issues of dispute throughout Tibetan history and were naturally also a "hot topic" in the debates between Rab gsal and Mi pham discussed here. . . .