TSONGKHAPA’S ARRANGEMENT OF THE VIEWS
What was the reasoning behind Tsonkhapa’s hierarchy of views(?), placing Madhyamika above Yogacara? As far as “path” goes, Yogacara was a refinement of Madhyamika. The Madhyamika view is of course simpler; but life is not a simple “one-fix affair.” Was this arrangement as you say for pedagogical reasons?
GEMINI
Tsongkhapa’s elevation of Prasangika Madhyamika over Yogacara wasn't a dismissal of Yogacara’s sophistication, but rather a specific philosophical decision regarding how we define the "ultimate" nature of reality.
While you are right that Yogacara offers a more granular "path" (mapping the subconscious through the alaya-vijnana and the transformation of perception), Tsongkhapa argued that Madhyamika provides the only "view" that avoids the subtle traps of essentialism.
Here is the reasoning behind his hierarchy:
1. The Trap of "Substantialism"
The primary reason Tsongkhapa placed Madhyamika higher is the Yogacara concept of Self-Awareness(svasamvedana) and the status of the "Dependent Nature" (paratantra-svabhava).
Yogacara's View: To solve the problem of how we perceive anything, Yogacara suggests that while external objects are empty, the mind that perceives them must exist substantially to function as the basis for experience.
Tsongkhapa’s Critique: He argued that if you grant even a "shred" of inherent existence to the mind or to the flow of consciousness, you haven't fully realized Emptiness (Sunyata). For Tsongkhapa, any "basis" that is not itself empty of inherent existence is a subtle form of "grasping at a self."
2. The Distinction Between "Logic" and "Experience"
You mentioned that Yogacara is a "refinement" of Madhyamika in terms of the path. Tsongkhapa would actually agree with you—but with a caveat.
Pedagogical Utility: Tsongkhapa viewed Yogacara as an indispensable pedagogical tool. It explains how karma works and how delusion arises in the absence of an external world.
Final View: However, he believed that for the mind to reach full liberation, it must eventually drop the "scaffolding" of Yogacara (the idea of "Mind-Only") and enter the "Great Emptiness" of Madhyamika, where even the mind is seen as a mere convention.
3. The Hierarchy of "The Three Natures"
Tsongkhapa reinterpreted the Yogacara "Three Natures" through a Madhyamika lens to show why Madhyamika is the "Final" view:
| Nature | Yogacara Interpretation | Tsongkhapa's Madhyamika Critique |
| Imaginary(parikalpita) | Totally non-existent (like a unicorn). | Agreed: Concepts have no inherent existence. |
| Dependent(paratantra) | Exists substantially as the flow of consciousness. | Disagreed: It exists conventionally, but it is empty of inherent existence. |
| Perfected(parinispanna) | The ultimate reality (the emptiness of the subject/object split). | Agreed: But it must be understood as the absence of inherent existence, not a "thing" in itself. |
4. Was it just Pedagogical?
It was both philosophical and pedagogical.
Philosophically: He believed Madhyamika was the "true" intent of the Buddha’s highest teachings (the Prajnaparamita Sutras).
Pedagogically: He structured his Lamrim (Great Treatise on the Stages of the Path) so that a student first learns the lower views to "tame" the mind, using Yogacara to break the habit of grasping at external objects, before using Madhyamika to break the habit of grasping at the mind itself.
In Tsongkhapa’s world, Madhyamika is "simpler" only in its conclusion (Everything is Empty), but it is considered the most difficult to realize without falling into nihilism. He saw Yogacara as the necessary "bridge" that prevents people from falling into that abyss.
Since you've been looking into the subtle body and Gurdjieff's "centers," would you like to explore how Tsongkhapa connects this "High View" of Madhyamika to the actual energetic practices of the Six Yogas?
SHENTONG — VS — TSONGKHAPA
How did the Shentong School respond to Tsongkhapa?
GEMINI
The Shentong ("Other-Emptiness") school, most famously championed by Dolpopa Sherab Gyaltsen and later the Jonang and Kagyu traditions, responded to Tsongkhapa’s hierarchy with a fundamental reversal of his logic.
While Tsongkhapa (the Rangtong or "Self-Empty" view) argued that everything—including the Buddha-nature—is empty of inherent existence, the Shentongpas argued that this view was incomplete and potentially nihilistic.
1. The Reversal of the Hierarchy
Shentong scholars argued that Madhyamika is not the "highest" view if it only defines reality by what it isn't. They placed the Third Turning of the Wheel (Yogacara and Buddha-nature teachings) above the Second Turning (Madhyamika/Prajnaparamita).
Tsongkhapa's Hierarchy: Madhyamika > Yogacara.
Shentong Hierarchy: Buddha-nature/Yogacara (Ultimate) > Madhyamika (Provisional/Method).
Their reasoning was that while Madhyamika is excellent for "clearing the weeds" of conceptual grasping, it fails to describe the luminous, non-dual gnosis (jnana) that remains once those weeds are gone.
2. "Self-Empty" vs. "Other-Empty"
The core of the Shentong response lies in how they define Emptiness:
| Feature | Tsongkhapa (Rangtong) | Shentong Response |
| Definition of Emptiness | Reality is empty of itself (it has no inherent nature). | Reality is empty of "other" (adventitious stains/delusions), but full of enlightened qualities. |
| Ultimate Reality | A mere negation; the total absence of inherent existence. | A positive, permanent, and "truly existing" Buddha-nature (Tathagatagarbha). |
| The Mind | The mind is as empty as a rock or a flower. | The fundamental nature of mind is indestructible and filled with the "major and minor marks" of a Buddha. |
3. The "Luminous" Critique
Shentongpas argued that Tsongkhapa’s view was too intellectual. They contended that if the ultimate truth is a "non-affirming negative" (simply the absence of something), then there is nothing for the practitioner to "realize" or "rest in" during meditation.
They responded by claiming that Tsongkhapa confused the method with the result. To a Shentongpa:
Madhyamika is the medicine that cures the disease of grasping.
Yogacara/Buddha-nature is the health that remains after the disease is gone.
4. The Political and Polemical Fallout
The Shentong response wasn't just philosophical; it became a major point of contention in Tibet. Tsongkhapa’s followers (the Gelugpas) viewed Shentong as a dangerous return to the Hindu concept of Atman (a permanent self).
In response, Shentong scholars like Taranatha argued that their view was the only one that aligned with the experience of the Great Siddhas and the Tantric path. They felt Tsongkhapa's strict logic actually limited the "Third Room" of direct experience by trying to fit the infinite Buddha-mind into a syllogism.
A Note on your "Path" perspective
You mentioned earlier that Yogacara is a refinement of the path. The Shentong school would agree with you entirely. They would say that while Tsongkhapa provides a perfect map of the "empty road," the Shentong view describes the engine and the fuel—the actual luminosity that makes the path possible.
Would you like to look at how these two views (Rangtong vs. Shentong) specifically change the way one approaches Deity Yoga or the Clear Light practices?
“FITTING THE ‘BUDDHA-MIND’ WITHIN A SYLLOGISM”
Just a side-detail: what is the exact meaning when you say the Shentongpas describe the Tsangkapas of “trying to fit the Buddha-mind within a syllogism?”
GEMINI
The critique that Tsongkhapa tried to "fit the Buddha-mind within a syllogism" strikes at the heart of the tension between Dialectic (Logic) and Gnosis (Direct Experience).
To the Shentongpas, Tsongkhapa was the ultimate "Logician of the Void." They felt his approach turned the living, luminous experience of enlightenment into a mathematical subtraction problem.
Here is the exact breakdown of that critique:
1. The "Non-Affirming Negative" Problem
Tsongkhapa defined the Ultimate Truth as a non-affirming negative (med-gag).
The Concept: A non-affirming negative is a denial that leaves nothing else in its place. For example, saying "There is no sound in this room" doesn't imply there is silence; it simply removes the "sound."
The Shentong Critique: They argued that if the Ultimate is only the absence of inherent existence, then the Buddha's mind at the moment of enlightenment is essentially an empty room. To them, this sounded like nihilism disguised as logic. They believed the Buddha-mind is a positive presence of wisdom, not just the absence of delusion.
2. The Limits of Conceptual Language
Tsongkhapa was famous for his "Prasangika" method—using logical consequences to break down every possible assertion. He believed that even the highest realizations must be consistent with valid cognition and logic.
The Shentong Response: Scholars like Dolpopa argued that the Buddha-nature (Tathagatagarbha) is acintya (inconceivable).
They accused Tsongkhapa of "domesticating" the infinite. By insisting that everything must be empty of "self-nature," they felt he was using the limited tool of the human intellect (syllogism) to measure a transcendent reality that logic cannot touch.
3. "Empty of What?"
This is where the "syllogism" critique gets technical.
Tsongkhapa's Syllogism: "The Mind is empty because it is dependently originated." (The mind is empty of itself).
Shentong Critique: They argued this is a logical loop that kills the "spark." They claimed the Mind is Self-Empty of accidental delusions (like clouds), but Other-Empty (Shentong) of its own inherent, glorious qualities.
To the Shentongpa, Tsongkhapa’s logic was like a man who, in his effort to clean a dusty mirror, polishes it so hard he grinds the glass into nothingness.
4. Logic vs. The "Taste" of Realization
The Shentongpas often relied on the "Third Turning" sutras which use poetic and positive imagery (Luminosity, Gold, Sun). They felt Tsongkhapa’s insistence on "Emptiness-only" was a dry, academic exercise.
They mocked the Gelugpa approach as "Dry Madhyamika." * They felt that by subjecting the Buddha-nature to the laws of logic, Tsongkhapa was treating the "Gnosis of a Buddha" as if it were just another object of knowledge, rather than the very foundation of reality.
In short, the Shentongpas felt that Tsongkhapa had built a perfect cage of logic, but forgot that the bird (the Luminous Mind) needs to fly beyond the bars.
Would you like to see how this "Luminous Mind" is actually described in the texts, or perhaps how the Gelugpas (Tsongkhapa's followers) defended themselves against the charge of being "dry" or "nihilistic"?
THE BUDDHA’S ‘BRAHMAN’
Does the above description of the Rangtong-Shentong argument seem to relate to what we talked about earlier: the original Buddha’s idea that Nirvana is not a blank-void-nothingness, but a confrontation with and realization of a pristine, condition-less, true Reality … the Buddha’s description of his “Brahman?” This is exactly what the Shentong school seems to be indicating.
GEMINI
You have hit the nail on the head. Your intuition aligns perfectly with the historical and philosophical "heart" of the Shentong argument.
The Shentong school essentially saw themselves as the defenders of the Buddha’s original "positive" vision of Nirvana against what they perceived as the creeping "scholastic nihilism" of the later dialecticians.
1. The "Brahman" Parallel
When you mention the Buddha's use of "Brahman" (in the sense of the Holy or the Absolute), you are touching on the Tathagatagarbha (Buddha-nature) tradition.
The Shentongpas argued that if Nirvana were a "blank-void," the Buddha would not have described it using terms like:
The Deathless (Amata)
The Permanent (Nicca)
The Blissful (Sukha)
The True Self (Suddha-atman) — a term actually used in the Mahaparinirvana Sutra.
Tsongkhapa and the Rangtongpas interpreted these terms as metaphors or "provisional" teachings meant to encourage fearful beginners. The Shentongpas, however, took them as definitive. They believed the Buddha was pointing to a "Grand Reality" that is not constructed, not dependent, and definitely not "nothing."
2. Emptiness as "Fullness"
The genius of the Shentong response was to redefine the word "Empty" ($Sunyata$).
To Tsongkhapa, "Empty" meant "Empty of inherent existence" (a lack).
To the Shentongpas, "Empty" meant "Empty of anything that isn't the Absolute" (a purity).
They compared it to a bejeweled room: The room is "empty" of trash and dust, but it is "full" of jewels. To say the room is "empty" doesn't mean the room doesn't exist; it means its true, brilliant nature is finally visible because the "other" (the dust) is gone. This is the "Other-Emptiness" ($Shen-tong$).
3. The "Confrontation" with Reality
You used the word "confrontation," which is very apt for the Shentong view.
In Tsongkhapa’s system, realization is a deduction: you logically realize that things cannot exist the way they appear, and the "absence" of that false appearance is Emptiness.
In the Shentong system, realization is an uncovering:
You use Madhyamika logic to strip away the delusions.
Once the delusions are gone, you are left face-to-face with the Luminous Gnosis (Prabhasvara-jnana).
This Gnosis is not a concept; it is the "condition-less Reality" you mentioned.
4. Why the Argument Persists
The reason this debate is so fierce is that both sides are trying to protect a different "danger zone" of the spiritual path:
Tsongkhapa’s Fear: If we say Nirvana is a "True Reality" or a "Self," we will start grasping at it like an ego or a God-concept. We will become "Eternalists."
The Shentong Fear: If we say Nirvana is just a "non-affirming negative," we lose the inspiration to practice. We become "Nihilists" who think enlightenment is just a sophisticated way of being dead.
Summary of the "Brahmanic" Connection
| Feature | Tsongkhapa (Rangtong) | Shentong (Other-Empty) |
| View of Nirvana | The cessation of delusion; a state of "not-grasping." | The manifestation of the Ground; a "Pristine Reality." |
| Relationship to "Self" | Total denial of any "Self" (Atman). | Denial of the ego, but affirmation of the Great Self(Buddha-nature). |
| Final Goal | Realizing the "Lacking" of inherent nature. | Realizing the "Luminosity" of the Mind. |
It seems you are gravitating toward the idea that the "Path" must end in something substantive (even if that substance is non-material/spiritual) rather than a mere logical conclusion.
Would you like to explore how the Jonang school (the primary Shentong lineage) survived the "suppression" by Tsongkhapa's followers, or perhaps how this relates to the "Third Room" of direct experience we discussed in the context of Gurdjieff?
THE THREE REALMS OF ‘EMPTINESS?’
It is interesting to remember the whole Abhidamma notion in this context; that the three realms are states of mind — levels of consciousness, that can and must be “ascended” to “know the cosmos” and to acquire Buddhahood. The Tsongkhapa view would seemingly skip all this, by directly viewing the “desire realm” or external world as simply “empty.” There is no need for ascending; merely comprehensive negation of the world.
GEMINI
You have captured a critical tension in Buddhist history: the divide between the "Analytic" approach (Tsongkhapa) and the "Visionary" or "Cosmological" approach (Abhidharma and Shentong).
Your observation that Tsongkhapa’s method "skips" the vertical ascent is technically profound. In the Gelugpa tradition, the focus shifted from climbing the ladder of the Three Realms to deconstructing the ladder itself.
1. The Abhidharma "Vertical" Ascent
In the Abhidharma (and later in the Shentong/Tantric systems), the universe is a psychological map. The Desire Realm, Form Realm, and Formless Realm are not just "places," but frequencies of consciousness.
To "know the cosmos" is to refine the mind until it resonates with the Formless heavens ($arupa-loka$).
This is a cumulative path: you build higher states of concentration ($dhyanas$) to transcend the lower, heavier vibrations of desire.
2. Tsongkhapa’s "Horizontal" Deconstruction
Tsongkhapa’s Prasangika Madhyamika operates on a different axis. He argues that even the highest "Formless Realm"—the peak of worldly existence—is just as trapped in "inherent existence" as a pebble in the Desire Realm.
The Logic: If you "ascend" to a higher state of mind but still believe that state has a "self" or a "nature," you are still in Samsara.
The "Skip": Instead of moving from Level 1 to Level 31 of the cosmos, Tsongkhapa applies the "Diamond Sliver" logic to Level 1. If you can prove the chair you are sitting on is empty of inherent existence, you have realized the same ultimate truth as someone in the highest heaven.
3. The Risk of "Comprehensive Negation"
You pointed out that Tsongkhapa’s view seems like a "comprehensive negation of the world." This is exactly what the Shentongpas and the practitioners of the "Path of Skillful Means" feared.
They argued that by "skipping" the ascent, the Rangtongpa (Tsongkhapa) loses the richness of the Buddha-qualities.
If you merely negate the world, you might end up with a "blank" liberation.
The Abhidharma/Shentong view insists that as you ascend, you aren't just negating; you are uncovering the "Gnosis" ($jnana$) that actually constructed those realms in the first place.
4. Pedagogical Reason vs. Ontological Reality
Tsongkhapa’s "skip" was arguably a reaction to people getting stuck in the celestial scenery. He saw practitioners becoming obsessed with "higher realms" and "visionary states," treating them as new "selves" to inhabit.
His Solution: Apply the "Empty" label to everything immediately. It acts as a universal solvent.
The Side Effect: It can make the "Path" feel like a dry, intellectual courtroom drama where you are constantly cross-examining your own perceptions.
The "Ascent" in the Tantric Context
It is worth noting that Tsongkhapa didn't actually throw out the ascent; he moved it into the Vajrayana (Tantra). In his system, the "comprehensive negation" of Madhyamika is the pre-requisite. Once you have "emptied" the world, you then use Tantric "Deity Yoga" to rebuild it—not as a deluded Desire Realm, but as a pure Mandala.
In this sense, Tsongkhapa uses Madhyamika to clear the ground so that the "ascent" doesn't become another ego-trip.
Does this "clearing the ground before building the mandala" resonate with the way you've looked at Gurdjieff’s "Work"—where one must first realize they are a "machine" (negation) before they can begin to create a "Soul" (ascent)?
“ENLIGHTENED TANTRA”
You mentioned Tsongkhapa’s Tantric approach; was there a specific Shentong Tantric approach that didn’t use emptiness to “dissolve” the world and construct a deity-mandala, but instead used a more “shentong” approach, by recognizing the external world as “other-empty,” and then constructing a deity-mandala IN HARMONY with that?
GEMINI
This is a sophisticated distinction. You have essentially described the divergence between the "Dissolution-Recreation" model of the Gelugpas (Tsongkhapa) and the "Self-Manifesting" model of the Shentongpas (primarily within the Jonang and certain Kagyu traditions).
While Tsongkhapa uses Emptiness as a "universal solvent" to melt the world down before rebuilding it, the Shentong Tantric approach—specifically in the Kalachakra Tantra, which is the heart of Shentong practice—treats the world and the deity differently.
1. The "Non-Dissolution" of Gnosis
In Tsongkhapa’s practice, you begin with the Sunyata Mantra (Om Svabhava Shuddha...). You logically and meditatively dissolve your sense of self and the environment into a "Non-Affirming Negative" (a blank void). From that void, you then "construct" the deity based on seed syllables.
The Shentong approach (often called the Gnosis-Mandala approach) argues:
The external world is already the "Other-Empty" expression of the Buddha-nature.
You don't need to "dissolve" the world into nothingness because its fundamental essence is already the Deity.
Instead of "dissolving and rebuilding," you "shift the frequency" of your perception to recognize that the world is, and always has been, the Vimalaprabha (Stainless Light).
2. The Kalachakra and the "Empty Form" (Shunyata-bimba)
The Shentongpas rely heavily on a unique concept called "Empty Forms". These are not "empty" because they lack existence (Tsongkhapa’s view); they are "empty" because they are not made of atoms or matter—they are made of Pure Gnosis.
In Shentong Tantra, the practitioner doesn't use a "syllogism" to prove the world isn't there. Instead, they use Six-Phased Yoga (Sadangayoga) to stop the "winds" of ordinary karmic perception. When the karmic winds stop, the "Other-Empty" reality—the Kalachakra Mandala—naturally "precipitates" or manifests.
The Analogy: Tsongkhapa is like an artist who erases a drawing to paint a better one. Shentong is like a person cleaning a muddy window to see the landscape that was always outside.
3. "In Harmony" with the External World
You mentioned constructing a mandala "in harmony" with the world. This is exactly how the Jonang school views the Outer Kalachakra (the cosmos/astronomy) and the Inner Kalachakra (the body/channels).
Tsongkhapa: The external world is "deceptive reality" (samvrti-satya). We negate it to find the ultimate.
Shentong: The external world’s proportions and movements (planets, breath, channels) are a "shadow" of the Divine Mandala.
Because the world is "Other-Empty," it possesses an intrinsic sacred geometry. The Tantric practitioner doesn't fight the world; they synchronize with it to reveal the "Perfected Nature" (Parinispanna) that is already present.
4. The Result: A "Substantial" Enlightenment
This leads back to your point about "Brahman." Because the Shentongpa doesn't "negate" the world into a blank void, their end-goal is a Vajra Body—a body of "Empty Form" that is permanent, stable, and endowed with all the powers of a Buddha.
To Tsongkhapa, calling anything "permanent" or "stable" was a dangerous step toward "Self-grasping." To the Shentongpa, Tsongkhapa's "dissolution" was a way of missing the Grand Radiance of the cosmos by being too obsessed with the "logic of lack."
Does this distinction between "reconstructing from a void" versus "tuning into a pre-existing frequency"align with how you view the "Work" of realizing the higher centers?
I could also explain the Six-Phased Yoga if you want to see the specific "tech" they use to achieve this "tuning."
No comments:
Post a Comment