30-April- 2018 Prasangika Madhyamika
In The Ornament of the Middle Way by Śāntarakṣita it says,
“The negative effects of getting involved with wrong view, causes those with lack of proper understanding will fall on wrong path, like the negative effects of holding onto snake, and conducting the mantra practices in negative way, for this reason of others in regard with this doctrine, through acknowledging the difficulties of apprehending the depth, The Victorious One’s mind was thoroughly dispelled from teaching the doctrine”.
The deep and profound doctrine realized by the Buddha consists the view based on the view of emptiness avoiding the dualism and whole extremes. There are several tenet systems in Buddhism based on the doctrinal philosophy within the category of Buddha’s teaching regarding the nature of the two truths regarding the viewpoint of schools in Indian Buddhism. The Indina Buddhist schools consists of 4 tenet systems. The most prominent school of indian Buddhism is that of the school of the middle way. Within the school of middle way, the prasangika stands above every other schools without any claim on its own. The prasangika normally plays the role of refuting the view of other schools through valid logic reasoning which in term is also known as negative result, for assuming and asserting the viewpoint with flaws simply faces negative consequences from the prasangika view holder. The prasangika claims to have no constructed view of its own, and therefore claims to have no flaws at all. Here the focuses is on the two truths of prasangika and non-buddhist school along with refutation, explaination and avoiding misunderstanding.
The prasangika’s view is free of all assertion and doesn’t have any fault and prasangikas proudly announces that they are free of flaws for the reason of not having any assertion. The prasangika madhyamika school explains the actual truth to be free of whole extremes and the conventional truth accord with dependent arising as the way of the world. The relative or conventional level viewed by prasangika is nothing more than the images arisen before the deluded person. Just like a person in dream conceptualizing the whole world in tiny room. Prasangika talks of dependent arising excluding the concepts of arising from others, self, both and none of self and other. The explanation of dependent arising is just like of worldly concepts of not conducting examination of whether the phenomena are being created by self, other, both and none.
The Samkhya school claims and asserts their view of everything being created by self, and the view of created by self is refuted by prasangika’s logic reasoning. Samkhya claims that the tree and fruits already does exists in the seed and it’s the matter of the tree and fruits being revealed to the world is called the process of birth from self. It is like a seed of mango bearing only the tree and mangoes and not trees and fruits of other plants because seed of mango does not have tree and fruits of other plants. Mango tree grows out of mango seeds and bears mango fruits due to the existence of mango and its tree being in mango seed from the beginning of the time. Thus mango tree grow grows from mango seed and bears its fruits.
The prasangika plays the role of hitting upon (deconstructing) the view of Samkhya by explaining that there is no self born entity, for the reason of birth of already existent entity becoming futile and too it sounds too stupid to say and claim already existing phenomena to reborn from self, there is no reason for the existence of self entity to be reborn and, if there is rebirth for the already existing entity, then there won’t be no and/or pause to the arising of the entire entities. Through these logic reasoning, the prasangika successfully averts the claims of Samkhya school’s view on arising from self.
Samkhya school also promotes the view of permanent sound. The samkhya asserts that the sound is always living around us without any chances of declination. The sound is universally permanent and the effect of the sound is felt through the effects of the person. When asked, Samkhya scholars responds saying that although the sound is permanent and never decreases. It can be felt only after being brought into action by person. It is because the sound is living and hidden within the water particles in air elements thorough the space. When the water particles in air elements gets provoked by person’s active force, the wetness of air elements get vaporized and then the sound is exposed to the ear as the sound.
To refute the samkhya view of permanent sound, Prasangika madhyamika uses logic reasoning of conditioned and unconditioned phenomena regarding the issues of sound being impermanent or permanent regarding the nature of the sound. If the sound can be perceived after being effected by the activity of a person. The sound doesn’t remain ringing on the ear consciousness of the perceiver for the reason of perceiver not being able to cognize the sound he heard before a moment ago. Also the sound does go off after the instance it came into existence. The sound rapidly disappears with the duration of each and every moments. The samkhya view of permanent sound was bombarded by prasangika madhyamika without giving any space to stay negative from prasangika’s dialogue. The Samkhya scholar accepts that evey conditioned phenomena is impermanent. Those which are impermanent does changes and declines through the moments. Thus, the prasangika goes on injuring samkhya’s view thoroughly like “that whichever is impermanent are conditioned and thus every conditioned entities are subjected to change, decrease, decline and eventually die?” To the response to prasangika’s statement. Samkhya accepts the nature of every conditioned phenomena to be impermanence to the prasangika goes further adding more reasoning with these sayings “The sound entity is impermanent, because it is conditioned, for example: the reflection of man in mirror or a dying men in hospital bed.” Here prasangika can place any conditioned phenomena as the conditioned and dying entity. Thus the claim of permanent sound by Samkhya school is refuted by prasangika.
Samkhya school also claims that happiness and suffering does exists on substantial particles and not on the state of the mind. They claims this view point by saying that person becomes happy being able to own the attractive objects, and feels sorrow by not being able to own the desired objects. In this case the Prasangika presents the concepts of feeding a most delicious food to a mother grieving over the death of her son is unable to make the grieving mother happy. If happiness is substantially established on particles, then the grieving mother should be able to feel happy with delicious food. But, since it is not possible to make a person in the state of sorrow happy by delicious food, nothing like a substantial happiness and sorrow can be proved.
The Samkhya school primary talks of twenty-five Gunas. Of 25, Purusha and Prakriti are ultimate truth and leftover 23 Gunas are conventional truth. The 23 are parts of Mahat and Purusha is connected with these 23 Gunas. Samkhya claims that through the act of purusha looking into Prakriti, the Mahat of 23 conventional knowledge does arises. And through the practices of following the dharma. The 23 Gunas of Mahat dissolves into the prakriti and the Purusha becomes lonely. Purusha being left lonely into this world, the purusha remains in practices for the long time eventually leading to the liberation. Here, the purusha and prakriti are ultimate truth and mahat and its 23 parts are conventional truth. This are the part of vision of samkhya school’s practitioner with the clairvoyance of upto 4th level of the concentration.
This final paper consists of two truths in both prasangika Buddhism versus samkhya of non-buddhist school. It is not a comparison paper but you can treat it in that way. Anyhow this paper is focused upon bit of two truths of both Samkhya and Prasingaka’s along with the way prasangika refutes Samkhya’s position. According to my view, samkhya is a most influential school within Hindu tradition. Although it might be superior school in Hinduism. It doesn’t hold any chances to compare itself with prasangika. For the reason of the prasangika school being very effective in refuting samkhya’s view through the continuous refutation onto self rebirth, Permanent sound, and substantial particles as the source of sorrow and happiness. It turns out to be interesting with samkhya’s view that is needed to be refuted and stand along with the statement of prasangika’s negative hammer of logic reasonings.
Understanding of material – 30/30
Reflection – 20/20
Appropriate sources, citation relevance and style – 10/20
Clarity, cogency, organization – 10/20
RYI guidelines – 0/10
70/100 – This is a fine idea for a paper, and you bring up interesting points along the way. The organization cues you use could be stronger and clearer. You should cite every time you explicitly reference the ideas of another person or school of thought, and in general you should introduce your sources in the body of your paper. For instance, you talk of the Samhkya school’s views, but you don’t mention or justify why you didn’t use either 1) a scholarly work that strives towards objectivity about the Samkhyas, or 2) a typical work important to the Samkhyas. The result is that you end up following the Mādhyamika view point, which is not analysis or striving towards objectivity, so your arguments are not as strong. Finally: read, consult, and follow the RYI Style Guide as you write your paper.
Santideva, Translated from the Sanskrit and Tibetan by Vesna A. Wallace and B. Alan Wallace. 1ST edition.
A guide to the bodhisattva way of life (Bodhicaryavatra),
Snow Lion Publications.
Ithaca, New York US. 1997
Ju Mipham Rinpoche, Translated by Khenpo Gawang Rinpoche, Gerry Wiener.
THE KETAKA JEWEL.
Made in the USA.
San Bernardino, CA
26 October 2017
BIMAL KRISHNA MATILAL, IS “PRASAṄGA” A FORM OF DECONSTRUCTION? Springer. 01-05-2018 06:46 UTC.
Mipham Rinpoche, The ornament of the Middle way (དབུ་མ་རྒྱན་གྱི་རྣམ་བཤད་འཇམ་དབྱངས་བླ་མ་དགྱེས་པའི་ཞལ་ལུང་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་བཞུགས་སོ།།).
Published by Ngagyur Nyingma Institute. Namdroling Nyingmapa Institute.
THEGCHOG NAMDROL SHEDRUB DARGYELING MONASTERY.
MYSORE, SOUTHINDIA 2006
Printed at Chos spyod Publication House No-31 New Samyeling New Aruna Nagar Tibetan Refugee Colony Majnu-ka-tilla Delhi-110054 INDIA.
Aryadeva, Tsultrim Gyatso, 400 stanzas on middle way, བསྟན་བཅོས་བཞི་བརྒྱ་པ་ཞེས་བྱ་བའི་ཚིག་ལེའུར་བྱས་པ་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ཞུགས་སོ།།
Dharmacakra Press, Odiyan, USA, 1997