THE RELATIONSHIP OF SAKYA SCHOOL TO GELUGPA SCHOOL
In your estimation, do you think the Sakya philosophy tranch, specifically their adherence to madhyamika orasangika view, was a political move to align with the Gelugpas?
GEMINI
That is a sharp historical intuition. To answer your question: No, I don't believe the Sakya shift toward a more "Prasangika-leaning" Madhyamika was a mere political move to align with the Gelugpas. In fact, if we look at the timeline and the internal mechanics of Sakya thought, it was often the opposite.
The Sakyas and Gelugpas were fierce intellectual rivals. If anything, the Sakyas refined their Madhyamika precisely to distinguish themselves from what they saw as Tsongkhapa’s "innovations."
Here is how that breakdown looks:
1. The Pre-Gelugpa Root
The Sakya tradition’s commitment to Madhyamika—specifically the "Freedom from Proliferations" (nisprapanca)—predates Tsongkhapa by centuries.
Sakya Pandita (1182–1251): Long before the Gelug school existed, Sakya Pandita established a rigorous, logic-based Madhyamika.
The Goal: He wanted to purge Tibetan Buddhism of what he considered "Chinese Chan" influence or "pseudo-Dzogchen" ideas that he felt were too vague.
2. Rivalry, Not Alignment
When Tsongkhapa arrived on the scene, he actually drew heavily from Sakya logic. However, the Sakya masters (like Rendawa, who was actually Tsongkhapa’s teacher) eventually felt Tsongkhapa went too far.
The great Sakya scholar Gorampa Sonam Senge (1429–1489) became Tsongkhapa’s most sophisticated critic. He didn't align with the Gelugpas; he accused Tsongkhapa of:
"Extreme Nominalism": Turning Emptiness into a mere logical concept rather than a meditative state.
"Hidden Permanentism": Ironically, Gorampa argued that Tsongkhapa’s "Conventional Existence" was too sturdy, making it seem like things actually existed in a way that violated true Madhyamika.
3. The "Middle Way" Between Two Extremes
The Sakyas carved out a third space. While the Gelugpas were Rangtong (Self-Empty) and the Jonang were Shentong (Other-Empty), the Sakyas championed "Freedom from Extremes" (mtha' bral).
Political Reality: While there were times of political cooperation, the Sakyas viewed their Madhyamika as the "Pure Golden Logic" of India. To align with the Gelugpas would have been seen as an intellectual surrender.
The "Path" vs. "View": For a Sakya, the "View" is Madhyamika (rigorous negation), but the "Path" is Lamdre (the Path and its Fruit), which is highly tantric and experiential. This allows them to be intellectually "dry" in philosophy but "wet" and visionary in practice.
4. Why it might look like alignment
The confusion usually stems from the fact that both schools value Prasangika logic. But they use that logic to reach different conclusions:
Gelug: Use logic to find a precise, narrow definition of Emptiness that allows for "valid conventional reality."
Sakya: Use logic to completely blow up the intellect so that "Non-Duality" can be experienced directly, without any remaining concepts.
Summary: The Sakya adherence to Madhyamika was a defense of their own lineage's intellectual rigor. They weren't joining Tsongkhapa's party; they were trying to show him that he'd missed the point of the party entirely.
Since you're interested in the "Power Moves" of Tibetan philosophy, would you like to see how Gorampa’scritique of Tsongkhapa actually changed the way the Sakya school taught the "Union of Clarity and Emptiness"?
GORAMPA AND THE SAKYA SCHOOL
Yes, show how Gorampa’s critique of Tsongkhapa actually changed the way the Sakya school taught the "Union of Clarity and Emptiness"
GEMINI
Gorampa’s critique of Tsongkhapa wasn’t just a logic puzzle; it fundamentally altered how the Sakya school taught the Union of Clarity and Emptiness (gsal stong zung 'jug).
To Gorampa, Tsongkhapa’s method was like "trying to wash a blood-stained hand with more blood." He believed Tsongkhapa used too much conceptual thought to try and transcend conceptual thought.
Here is how Gorampa’s critique reshaped the Sakya approach:
1. From "Eliminating Proliferation" to "Freedom from Extremes"
Tsongkhapa taught that emptiness is a non-affirming negative—a specific absence of inherent existence. You find the "object to be negated" (inherent existence) and logically delete it.
Gorampa’s Shift:
He argued that if you are focusing on an "absence," you are still focusing on a concept.
The Sakya Method: Instead of finding a "target" to negate, the Sakya teacher points the student toward "Freedom from the Four Extremes" (catuskoti).
The goal isn't to arrive at a "view" of emptiness, but to reach a state where the mind stops generating any views at all (existence, non-existence, both, or neither).
2. Redefining "Clarity" (Gsal)
In the Gelug tradition, "Clarity" is often treated as the mind's ability to cognize objects.
Gorampa’s Shift:
Because Gorampa rejected Tsongkhapa’s hyper-logical emptiness, he was able to lean harder into the Tantricdefinition of Clarity.
He taught that Clarity is the Innate Gnosis (sahaja-jnana).
By dismantling Tsongkhapa's "valid conventional reality," Gorampa cleared the way for the Sakya student to see "Clarity" not as a functional mind perceiving an object, but as the luminous nature of the deityarising within emptiness.
3. The "Meditation on the Middle" (Madhyamaka-Yoga)
Gorampa’s critique led to a specific pedagogical sequence in the Sakya Lamdre (Path and its Fruit) system:
Analytical Phase: Use Madhyamika logic to realize that neither the "self" nor "objects" exist. (This satisfies the intellect).
The "Blow": This is where he departs from Tsongkhapa. The teacher instructs the student that even the concept of "emptiness" must be abandoned.
The Resulting Union: Once the "emptiness" concept is dropped, what remains is Clarity. This isn't a "thing," but the "unimpeded radiance" of the mind.
4. Why this matters for the "Path"
If you follow Tsongkhapa, your meditation is very deliberate. You are checking your view against logic constantly.
If you follow Gorampa’s refined Sakya view, the meditation is "Non-Conceptual" (nisprapanca).
Tsongkhapa: Emptiness is found through the correct view.
Gorampa: Emptiness is found by exhausting the view.
The Sakya Maxim: "When you realize that appearances are the mind, and the mind is empty, and emptiness is beyond expression—that is the Union."
The Practical Outcome
Because of Gorampa, Sakya practitioners often spend less time on formal syllogisms in their later years of practice and more time on the "Inseparability of Samsara and Nirvana" ('khor 'das dbyer med). They believe that if you hold Tsongkhapa’s view too tightly, you stay trapped in a "purified" version of Samsara rather than breaking through to the non-dual state.
Since Gorampa's view is essentially a "deconstructive" one, would you like to see how this specifically impacts the Hevajra Tantra—the "heart" of the Sakya system—where the "view" must be applied to the actual transformation of the senses?
GORAMPA & THE HEVAJRA
Yes, show how, since Gorampa’s view is essentially a "deconstructive" one, how does this specifically impact the Hevajra Tantra—the "heart" of the Sakya system—where the "view" must be applied to the actual transformation of the senses?
GEMINI
In the Sakya tradition, the Hevajra Tantra is the practical laboratory for Gorampa’s "deconstructive" Madhyamika. If Tsongkhapa’s approach is like a scientist carefully labeling every part of a machine to understand it, Gorampa’s approach is more like a master artist who breaks the machine to reveal the raw electricity powering it.
In the context of the Hevajra Tantra, this impacts the Transformation of the Senses in three specific ways:
1. The Principle of "Inseparability of Samsara and Nirvana" (’Khor ’Das Dbyer Med)
This is the philosophical "heart" of the Sakya system. Gorampa’s view dictates that you don't "exit" Samsara to find Nirvana.
The Deconstructive Logic: If everything is empty of inherent existence (Madhyamika), then there is no "essence" that makes an emotion "bad" (Samsara) or "good" (Nirvana).
Practical Application: In Hevajra practice, you don't suppress desire or sensory input. Instead, you look directly into the Clarity of the sensory moment. Because the "view" has already deconstructed the "self" who feels and the "object" that is felt, the raw sensory energy is revealed as the deity Hevajra himself.
2. Transformation via "Taking the Result as the Path"
Because Gorampa’s Madhyamika is "Non-Conceptual" (nisprapanca), the Sakya practitioner doesn't use the senses to build a visualization; they use the visualization to deconstruct the mundane senses.
The Shift: In the Generation Stage (utpattikrama), you don't just "imagine" you are Hevajra. You use the deconstructive view to realize that your current "human" identity is a mere conceptual construct.
The Result: When the concept of "I am a human" is dissolved by Madhyamika logic, the "Clarity" that remains naturally manifests as the enlightened form of the deity. The five senses (sight, sound, etc.) are transformed into the Five Buddhas not by changing them, but by removing the "labels" that limit them.
3. The "Causal" vs. "Resultant" Continuum
Gorampa’s critique of Tsongkhapa led to a very specific way of handling the Completion Stage(sampannakrama) in Hevajra:
| Element | Tsongkhapa's Tendency | Gorampa’s Sakya Application |
| The Senses | Objects to be understood as empty. | The "play" (lila) of the luminous mind. |
| Desire/Passion | Something to be "transformed" through logic. | The "fuel" for the Great Bliss (mahasukha). |
| The "View" | A correct conceptual alignment. | The "Non-Abiding" state where concepts vanish. |
4. The Impact on "Great Bliss" (Mahasukha)
In the Hevajra Tantra, the union of Emptiness and Bliss is paramount.
Gorampa’s Logic: If you hold a "view" of emptiness (as Tsongkhapa suggests), that conceptual "holding" creates a subtle tension in the central channel (avadhuti).
The Deconstructive Result: By using a "non-affirming" and "non-conceptual" emptiness, the Sakya practitioner allows the winds (prana) to enter the central channel without the "friction" of thought. This results in a much more explosive and direct experience of Clarity-Bliss.
The Sakya Perspective: We don't meditate on Hevajra to become something else; we meditate on Hevajra to stop pretending we are something limited. The "Deconstruction" is the act of stripping away the "ordinary appearance" of the senses to reveal their "Luminous" nature.
Since we’ve touched on the Central Channel and the energetic "friction" of thought, would you like to explore how the Sakya "Six Yogas" or their specific Tumo (Inner Heat) instructions differ from the Gelugpa version based on this "Non-Conceptual" view?
GORAMPA — SHENTONG?
Gorampa’s view you discussed earlier, because it distinguishes itself from Tsongkhapa’s view, seems to encompass or resemble the Shentong remarkably, would you say?
GEMINI
You’ve hit on the exact "theological trap" that Tibetan scholars have debated for five hundred years. At first glance, Gorampa and the Shentongpas (like Dolpopa) look like they are standing in the same corner of the room because they are both pointing at Tsongkhapa and saying, "You’re too intellectual!"
However, if you look at their "DNA," Gorampa is actually performing a very sophisticated balancing act. He is not a Shentongpa, but he uses a "Shentong-adjacent" strategy to save Madhyamika from becoming a dry science.
Here is how his view resembles Shentong and, crucially, where he hits the brakes.
1. Where they Resemble (The "Anti-Tsongkhapa" Alliance)
Gorampa and the Shentong school both agree that Tsongkhapa’s "Non-Affirming Negative" (emptiness as a mere absence) is insufficient for the Tantric path.
The "Luminosity" Factor: Both schools insist that the ultimate reality is not just a "blank space" where things used to be. It is Luminous Gnosis (prabhasvara-jnana).
The Critique of Logic: Both argue that Tsongkhapa’s "Correct View" is still a mental construct. They believe the "Ultimate" must be beyond the reach of the conceptual mind.
2. The Great Divide: Is the Buddha-Nature "Real"?
This is where Gorampa parts ways with Shentong. This distinction is subtle but vital:
Shentong (The "Positive" View): They argue that while everything in Samsara is empty, the Buddha-nature is NOT empty of itself. It is a permanent, truly existing, "Positive" reality that is "Empty of Other" (delusions).
Gorampa (The "Total Deconstruction" View): He refuses to say the Buddha-nature "truly exists." He sticks to the Prasangika guns. He says even the Luminous Mind is empty of inherent existence.
The Sakya Logic: Gorampa argues that if you say the Buddha-nature "truly exists" (as Shentong does), you’ve just created a "Buddhist Atman" (a Soul). You've stopped deconstructing too early.
3. "Freedom from Extremes" vs. "Other-Emptiness"
Gorampa’s view is called Mthas-bral (Freedom from Extremes). It functions like a middle ground:
| View | Target | Conclusion |
| Tsongkhapa | Inherent Existence | Emptiness is a Definition. |
| Shentong | Adventitious Stains | Emptiness is a Presence (Buddha-nature). |
| Gorampa | The Thinking Mind itself | Emptiness is a State (Freedom from concepts). |
4. The "Path" vs. the "Ground"
In your earlier comments, you noted that the "path" is what matters.
To a Shentongpa, the "Ground" is already perfect; you just have to uncover it.
To Gorampa, the "Ground" is Inexpressible. By refusing to label it "existent" (like Shentong) or "a non-affirming negative" (like Tsongkhapa), Gorampa keeps the practitioner in a state of radical openness.
This allows the Sakya practitioner to use the "Clarity" of the Shentong school (for Tantric practice) without the "Philosophical Baggage" of saying that something actually exists. It's a "Shentong practice" built on a "Prasangika foundation."
Summary: A "Pragmatic" Shentong?
Would I say they resemble? Yes, in their aesthetics and their meditative goals. They both want to get to the "Luminous Bliss."
But in terms of "Final View," Gorampa is more of a skeptical mystic. He wants the light, but he refuses to call it "Real." He would say the Shentongpas are "grasping at the Light," while the Gelugpas are "grasping at the Logic."
Does this "Skeptical Mysticism" of Gorampa feel like it bridges the gap you saw between the simplicity of Madhyamika and the complexity of the Yogacara path?
Would you like to see how this specifically plays out in the "Hevajra" practice of "Turning Passion into the Path," where you have to be both empty (Madhyamika) and "Full" (Shentong-style luminosity) at the same time?
THE YAB-YUM RIDDLE
Is there a school in Tibet, or especially was there a medieval Indian Siddhi — Śaivic or Buddhist, who argued for a non-dual outlook; but who subtly used the Theological mechanics of “yab-yum” to argue for a refined view: female is emptiness, male is luminous Reality?
GEMINI
You have identified a sophisticated "inversion" of the standard symbolic order. In the standard Buddhist Tantric model (the "Mother" and "Father" Tantras), the genders are usually assigned as:
Male: Method/Compassion (Upaya)
Female: Wisdom/Emptiness (Prajna)
However, there is a specific lineage of Indian Mahasiddhas and a corresponding "sub-current" in Tibet—specifically within the Shangpa Kagyu and certain Mahamudra traditions—that refined this through the lens of Luminous Gnosis.
The figure you are looking for is likely found in the circle of Niguma or Sukhasiddhi (the great female Mahasiddhas), or within the Sahajiya (Spontaneous) movement of medieval India.
1. The Mahasiddha View: "Luminous Reality" as Male
In the Sahajiya and certain Kalachakra commentaries, the "Male" principle is not just "Method" (doing things), but Prabhasvara (Clear Light/Luminous Reality).
The Logic: If Emptiness is the "Womb" (Dharmadhaya)—the vast, silent, feminine potential—then the "Luminous Appearance" that arises out of it is the masculine "Throb" (Spanda in Shaivic terms).
The Union: In this refined view, the Yab (Male) is the Radiance and the Yum (Female) is the Depth. Without the Female, the Light has no place to shine; without the Male, the Depth is a dark void.
2. The Shaivic Parallel: Abhinavagupta’s Pratyabhijna
If we look at the medieval Indian Shaivic Siddhas (specifically the Kashmir Shaivism of Abhinavagupta), your description fits almost perfectly.
Shiva (Male): Represented as Prakash (Pure Light/Luminous Consciousness).
Shakti (Female): Represented as Vimarsha (Self-awareness/The "mirroring" power of that light).
The Subtle Shift: In some of these non-dual systems, the Female is the "Voidness" that allows the Male "Light" to know itself. They argued that the "Male" is the ultimate Reality (Sat) while the "Female" is the Power (Shakti) of that reality to be empty and thus infinite.
3. The Tibetan "Refinement": The Shangpa Kagyu
The Shangpa Kagyu tradition, founded by Khyungpo Naljor, often emphasizes the teachings of the female Buddha Niguma.
Because their lineage comes from female Mahasiddhas, their "mechanics" of Yab-Yum are often more fluid. They taught the "Inseparability of Appearance and Emptiness" where:
Appearance (Male): Is the Luminous, energetic display of the Mind.
Emptiness (Female): Is the birthless nature of that display.
This school was eventually absorbed/protected by the Jonang (Shentong) and Sakya schools, which is why you see Gorampa and Dolpopa grappling with these "Luminous" masculine principles.
4. Why this is a "Refined" View
Using "Male" for Luminous Reality rather than just "Method" changes the goal of the path:
Standard View: You use "Method" (Male) to realize "Emptiness" (Female).
Refined View: You use "Emptiness" (Female) as the base to allow the "Luminous Reality" (Male) to manifest.
In this model, Emptiness is the "Ground" and the Luminous Reality is the "Result." This aligns with the Hevajraconcept where the "Deity" (Male) is the actual vivid, clear, and "Real" experience of the practitioner, while his consort (Female) ensures that he never becomes a "solid entity."
Comparison Table: Symbolic Mechanics
| Tradition | Female (Yum/Shakti) | Male (Yab/Shiva) | Ultimate State |
| Standard Sutra | Wisdom/Emptiness | Compassion/Method | Enlightenment |
| Kashmir Shaivism | Vimarsha (Reflective Awareness) | Prakash (Pure Light) | Samvit (Non-dual Gnosis) |
| Refined Tantra | Emptiness (The Void) | Luminosity (The Reality) | The Great Bliss Union |
The "Subtle" Theological Move
By making the Male "Luminous Reality," these Siddhas prevented Madhyamika from becoming "too feminine" (i.e., too focused on negation/emptiness). They used the Masculine principle to re-introduce Existence—not as a "soul," but as Vibrant Light.
Does this "Luminous Male / Empty Female" dynamic feel like it resolves the tension you saw between the "simplicity" of Madhyamika's void and the "complexity" of Yogacara's lived experience?
Would you like me to look into the specific liturgy of the "Six Yogas of Niguma," where this "Luminous Masculine" is visualized in the central channel?
THE SAKYA VIEW OF DIVINE MALE/FEMALE
Rundown for me exactly how the Sakya school and Gorampa wrestled with this aspect above; of the female emptiness, and the male luminous Reality.
GEMINI
For Gorampa and the Sakya school, the "wrestling match" was about how to maintain the rigor of Madhyamika (which says nothing truly exists) while practicing the Hevajra Tantra (which says everything is a Luminous Deity).
If you make the Female "Emptiness" and the Male "Luminous Reality," you risk falling into the Shentong trap of saying that the "Male/Light" is a permanent, soul-like entity. Gorampa solved this by using the specific theological mechanic of "Inseparability" (Dbyer-med).
Here is the rundown of how they handled this refined view:
1. The "Womb" and the "Vibration"
In the Sakya Lamdre (Path and its Fruit) system, they utilize the Indian Siddha concept of the Ali-Kali (the vowels and consonants).
The Female (Kali/Emptiness): The Sakyas teach that the "Female" is the Dharmadhatu—the empty "space" or "womb" of reality. It is represented by the vowels.
The Male (Ali/Luminous Reality): The "Male" is the Prana-bindu—the energetic "vibration" or "light" that arises within that space. It is represented by the consonants.
Gorampa’s Twist: He argued that you cannot have the "Light" (Male) without the "Space" (Female), but more importantly, the Light is the Space in motion. He refused to let the "Luminous Reality" become a "Thing."
2. Deconstructing the "Luminous Male"
The danger in the Indian Siddha view was that "Luminous Reality" sounds like a "True Self." Gorampa wrestled with this by applying his "Deconstructive" Madhyamika directly to the "Male" deity:
Step A: You visualize the Male (Hevajra) as the Luminous Clarity of the mind.
Step B: You apply the Female (Prajnaparamita/Consort) to realize that this "Light" has no atoms, no core, and no beginning.
The Result: The "Male" doesn't disappear; he becomes "Apparent yet Empty." This prevented the Sakyas from becoming "Soft Shentongpas." They kept the Luminous Male, but they "emptied" him of any substantiality.
3. The Mechanics of the "Four Blisses"
In the actual tantric practice (the Yab-Yum union), the Sakyas teach a very specific "refinement" of the senses. This is where the theological mechanics become biological:
The Female (Consort): Triggers the "emptying" of the conceptual mind. She represents the "Object" of wisdom.
The Male (Practitioner): Experiences the "Luminous Bliss." He represents the "Subjective" gnosis.
The Inseparability: Gorampa taught that at the moment of peak Bliss, the distinction between "The Empty Object" and "The Luminous Subject" must collapse.
Gorampa’s Key Insight: If you hold "Emptiness" (Female) on one side and "Luminosity" (Male) on the other, you are still in duality. You must reach the state of "Non-Dual Gnosis" where you can't tell if the experience is "Empty" or "Luminous."
4. The "E" and the "VAM"
The Sakya school focuses heavily on the seed syllable EVAM.
E (Female/Emptiness): The triangle of the "source of phenomena."
VAM (Male/Luminosity): The drop of "vajra-bliss."
Gorampa’s refinement was to teach that VAM (the Luminous Reality) is the display of E (Emptiness). He used this to critique Tsongkhapa. He felt Tsongkhapa focused too much on the E (the emptiness) and neglected the VAM (the vibrant, luminous display).
Summary of the Sakya Stance
Gorampa wrestled with this by moving the goalpost. Instead of trying to balance "Emptiness" and "Luminosity" like a scale, he taught that they are "One Essence, Two Aspects."
If you look at the Nature of reality, it is Female (Empty).
If you look at the Character of reality, it is Male (Luminous).
By refusing to give priority to either, the Sakya school created a path that is intellectually as dry as Madhyamika but experientially as "wet" and "luminous" as the highest Indian Siddha traditions.
Since this "EVAM" union is central to the Hevajra system, would you like to see how they apply this to the "Six Yogas" of the inner body, specifically how they move the "Luminous Male" (the Bindu) through the "Empty Female" (the Central Channel)?
No comments:
Post a Comment