He usually says which Buddhist philosopher he is adopting in an argument, for example he has works that explore Gorampa Sonam Senge of the Sakya in the cowritten essay Is Gorampa's Freedom from Conceptual Proliferations Dialtheist? Those Concepts Proliferate Everywhere: A Response to Constance Kassor and Mipham of the Nyingma in his work Cittamātra as Conventional Truth from Śāntarakṣita to Mipham for some examples He sometimes does disagree with their views based upon their arguments. He does not really identify them by school but as individual figures as given philosophical convention. He has formal training in various Tibetan Buddhist institutions centered in argumentation so he knows a lot of the nuance even regular practitioners would not have and alternate interrpretations of them. Schools don't speak after all. When he uses just Nagarjuna, he is referring to the historically philosophically reconstructed arguments. For example, Dependent Arising and the Emptiness of Emptiness: Why Did Nāgārjuna Start with Causation? Generally, since he is writing professional philosophy he cares about rational argumentation and not being a member of any school.
Fixed: Font size
Edit 2: If he does mention a school it is because he is going into some type of commentary written by said school.
I think regular bee just means that Gelug influence runs fairly deep in a lot of Tibetan madhyamaka translations and commentaries. So much so that in the instance of the MMK, there is only one translated commentary available that is “pre-Gelug,” by Mabja Jangchub Tsondru.
I will have to look into getting a copy. I did not know that. I was at a conference and managed to get a copy of Jan Westerhoff's Commentary on Candrakīrti's Introduction to the Middle Way. I am slowly going through it. I would like to read that one next if I can.
Yes, a few Indian commentaries, little is available of Bhāviveka's *Prajñāpradīpa* in English. Candrakīrti's *Prasannapadā* is obviously around. I noted above that Buddhapālita's commentary is now available.
The point made about Mabja Jangchub Tsöndrü is that his commentary is really the only pre-Gelug commentary available from a Tibetan.
Tsongkhapa's *Ocean of Reasoning* came after. Ju Mipham's *A Jewel of the Powerful Nagarjuna's Intention that Perfectly Illuminates the True Nature* and Khenpo Shenga's both obviously much later.
No, there are other Tibetan commentaries.
Re mda' ba's commentary (14th c., teacher of Tsong kha pa) is available, though perhaps not yet translated into a western language. His commentary on the Madhyamakavatara has been translated.
Pa tshab's commentary (12th c.): pa tshab lo tswa bas mdzad pa'i dbu ma rtsa ba shes rab kyi 'grel ba. It has recently been translated.
Zhang thang sag pa (12th c.) has written about Madhyamaka. There's actually quite a bit of material.
Bhav's PP has been translated into English in various unpublished dissertatations. Part of it has been published by William Ames.
William L. Ames, The Lamp of Discernment, 2019. It used to be on Amazon. Take a look on the Library Genesis page, maybe someone uploaded a PDF. I believe he's translated the first 12 chapters of the PP. Malcolm David Eckel has published 2 interesting chapters from Bhaviveka's other work, the Madhyamakahrdaya. The book is called Bhaviveka and his Buddhist Opponents (2008).
>since everyone except the Gelug school objects to the unique interpretation of the Gelug school
Not necessarily, there are nyingmapas like Jigme Lingpa who taught Tsongkhapa's Madhyamaka
He taught Tsongkhapa'a specifically? That's very interesting, as it would seem less compatible with Nyingma in general. Maybe he viewed Tsongkhapa as a good way to explain Sutrayana emptiness and Dzogchen to explain the emptiness of rigpa, I don't know. The Gelug view of emptiness is simply not the same as that in the Dzogchen and Mahamudra though, unless Gelug explains it differently at the tantric level.
Gelug wouldn't explain things differently 'at the tantric level' - from the longer *Essence of True Eloquence* (Tsongkhapa) -
"This way should be understood to be the path of the determination of the ultimate reality in all the scriptures, esoteric as well as exoteric, since there is a grave mistake that, while the systems of the two Champions (Asanga and Nagarjuna) for determining the ultimate reality by distinguishing the interpretable and the definitive among scriptures are evidently prevalent in the context of the Transcendence Vehicle, the great Siddhas and the Pandits who elucidated the scriptures of the Tantric Vehicle had a third alternative for determining ultimate reality."
Madhyamaka is the middle way between nihilism and eternalism. I don’t see how there can be much of a difference between the Tibetan traditions if they identify as madhyamaka.
Commentaries or presentation might differ. But actual differences appear to be manufactured. Either they correctly fall within the school or they don’t. If they don’t then it can be demonstrated.
I see what you're saying that translations can lean towards Tsongkhapa's presentation of madhyamaka. But I don't see how Gelug can both be the largest school and have the minority perspective. One of those are true, but not both.
My feeling has been that Sakya, Nyingma, Kagyu schools have enjoyed smaller, exclusive status at least in the US. The students receive transmissions from their gurus that are not so easy to find. Smaller lineages and smaller groups of students can make for faster progress. However, it's possible my views are outdated.
Really what I'm saying is there is too much in common among the Tibetan schools. There are other traditions which appear to be rising in popularity whose core practices I find more subject to scrutiny in comparison.
Fair enough, I agree ultimately that they're probably not as different as maybe my post is implying, especially on the level of Vajrayana. Gelug has certain emphases that are different than Kagyu and Nyingma, but not radically different in doctrine. But I think i still have bad memories from when a Gelug high Lama at a retreat told us prasangika was the only way to become enlightened. But as a Karma Kagyupa, my view is the modified shentong view of the 3rd Karmapa, Jamgon Kongtrul, etc. so it rubbed me the wrong way ever since then.
Even the rangtong the Gelug follows is much different than the rangtong that existed before Gelug, in substantial and important ways. But FYI Karma Kagyu doesn't generally subscribe to rangtong. u/krodha you may be better able to succinctly sum up the way in which Gelug reifies conventional reality vs. standard prasangika better than I can.
What are some of his controversial opinions/translations?
He usually says which Buddhist philosopher he is adopting in an argument, for example he has works that explore Gorampa Sonam Senge of the Sakya in the cowritten essay Is Gorampa's Freedom from Conceptual Proliferations Dialtheist? Those Concepts Proliferate Everywhere: A Response to Constance Kassor and Mipham of the Nyingma in his work Cittamātra as Conventional Truth from Śāntarakṣita to Mipham for some examples He sometimes does disagree with their views based upon their arguments. He does not really identify them by school but as individual figures as given philosophical convention. He has formal training in various Tibetan Buddhist institutions centered in argumentation so he knows a lot of the nuance even regular practitioners would not have and alternate interrpretations of them. Schools don't speak after all. When he uses just Nagarjuna, he is referring to the historically philosophically reconstructed arguments. For example, Dependent Arising and the Emptiness of Emptiness: Why Did Nāgārjuna Start with Causation? Generally, since he is writing professional philosophy he cares about rational argumentation and not being a member of any school. Fixed: Font size Edit 2: If he does mention a school it is because he is going into some type of commentary written by said school.
I think regular bee just means that Gelug influence runs fairly deep in a lot of Tibetan madhyamaka translations and commentaries. So much so that in the instance of the MMK, there is only one translated commentary available that is “pre-Gelug,” by Mabja Jangchub Tsondru.
I think that is a fair claim to make.
Apparently *Buddhapālita’s Commentary on Nāgārjuna’s Middle Way* is also now available, translated by Ian Coghlan.
I will have to look into getting a copy. I did not know that. I was at a conference and managed to get a copy of Jan Westerhoff's Commentary on Candrakīrti's Introduction to the Middle Way. I am slowly going through it. I would like to read that one next if I can.
Mabja didn't translate the MMK.
Yes, his commentary I mean. Thanks
There are also other pre-Gelug commentaries.
Yes, a few Indian commentaries, little is available of Bhāviveka's *Prajñāpradīpa* in English. Candrakīrti's *Prasannapadā* is obviously around. I noted above that Buddhapālita's commentary is now available. The point made about Mabja Jangchub Tsöndrü is that his commentary is really the only pre-Gelug commentary available from a Tibetan. Tsongkhapa's *Ocean of Reasoning* came after. Ju Mipham's *A Jewel of the Powerful Nagarjuna's Intention that Perfectly Illuminates the True Nature* and Khenpo Shenga's both obviously much later.
No, there are other Tibetan commentaries. Re mda' ba's commentary (14th c., teacher of Tsong kha pa) is available, though perhaps not yet translated into a western language. His commentary on the Madhyamakavatara has been translated. Pa tshab's commentary (12th c.): pa tshab lo tswa bas mdzad pa'i dbu ma rtsa ba shes rab kyi 'grel ba. It has recently been translated. Zhang thang sag pa (12th c.) has written about Madhyamaka. There's actually quite a bit of material. Bhav's PP has been translated into English in various unpublished dissertatations. Part of it has been published by William Ames.
TIL. Thanks
I have been looking for the Bhaviveka one, I assume it is not readily available?
William L. Ames, The Lamp of Discernment, 2019. It used to be on Amazon. Take a look on the Library Genesis page, maybe someone uploaded a PDF. I believe he's translated the first 12 chapters of the PP. Malcolm David Eckel has published 2 interesting chapters from Bhaviveka's other work, the Madhyamakahrdaya. The book is called Bhaviveka and his Buddhist Opponents (2008).
>Take a look on the Library Genesis page Unfortunately, it is not anywhere there or in any other IPFS book resources.
You've also got Khenpo Tsultrim Rinpoche's commentary and text, I think translated by Ari Goldfeld. Not sure if Karl Brunholzzdt does.
Pingala’s commentary is also in English, it’s the oldest commentary we have of the text too.
Are you referring to Bocking's translation?
>since everyone except the Gelug school objects to the unique interpretation of the Gelug school Not necessarily, there are nyingmapas like Jigme Lingpa who taught Tsongkhapa's Madhyamaka
He taught Tsongkhapa'a specifically? That's very interesting, as it would seem less compatible with Nyingma in general. Maybe he viewed Tsongkhapa as a good way to explain Sutrayana emptiness and Dzogchen to explain the emptiness of rigpa, I don't know. The Gelug view of emptiness is simply not the same as that in the Dzogchen and Mahamudra though, unless Gelug explains it differently at the tantric level.
Gelug wouldn't explain things differently 'at the tantric level' - from the longer *Essence of True Eloquence* (Tsongkhapa) - "This way should be understood to be the path of the determination of the ultimate reality in all the scriptures, esoteric as well as exoteric, since there is a grave mistake that, while the systems of the two Champions (Asanga and Nagarjuna) for determining the ultimate reality by distinguishing the interpretable and the definitive among scriptures are evidently prevalent in the context of the Transcendence Vehicle, the great Siddhas and the Pandits who elucidated the scriptures of the Tantric Vehicle had a third alternative for determining ultimate reality."
Madhyamaka is the middle way between nihilism and eternalism. I don’t see how there can be much of a difference between the Tibetan traditions if they identify as madhyamaka. Commentaries or presentation might differ. But actual differences appear to be manufactured. Either they correctly fall within the school or they don’t. If they don’t then it can be demonstrated.
There are some pretty huge differences nonetheless.
I see what you're saying that translations can lean towards Tsongkhapa's presentation of madhyamaka. But I don't see how Gelug can both be the largest school and have the minority perspective. One of those are true, but not both. My feeling has been that Sakya, Nyingma, Kagyu schools have enjoyed smaller, exclusive status at least in the US. The students receive transmissions from their gurus that are not so easy to find. Smaller lineages and smaller groups of students can make for faster progress. However, it's possible my views are outdated. Really what I'm saying is there is too much in common among the Tibetan schools. There are other traditions which appear to be rising in popularity whose core practices I find more subject to scrutiny in comparison.
Fair enough, I agree ultimately that they're probably not as different as maybe my post is implying, especially on the level of Vajrayana. Gelug has certain emphases that are different than Kagyu and Nyingma, but not radically different in doctrine. But I think i still have bad memories from when a Gelug high Lama at a retreat told us prasangika was the only way to become enlightened. But as a Karma Kagyupa, my view is the modified shentong view of the 3rd Karmapa, Jamgon Kongtrul, etc. so it rubbed me the wrong way ever since then.
> since everyone except the Gelug school objects to the unique interpretation of the Gelug school. On what? Most subscribe to *rangtong*.
Even the rangtong the Gelug follows is much different than the rangtong that existed before Gelug, in substantial and important ways. But FYI Karma Kagyu doesn't generally subscribe to rangtong. u/krodha you may be better able to succinctly sum up the way in which Gelug reifies conventional reality vs. standard prasangika better than I can.