Svatantrika
Encyclopedia
In the philosophy of Mahayana
Buddhism
, specifically in the Madhyamaka
view, Svātantrika is a category of Madhyamaka viewpoints attributed primarily to the 6th century Indian scholar Bhavaviveka
. It is used in contrast with another such subcategory, Prāsangika Madhyamaka.
The key distinction between these viewpoints is whether one works with assertions about the ultimate nature of reality, or if one refrains completely from doing so. If one works with assertions, then that is a Svātantrika approach. Refraining from doing so is a Prāsangika approach.
Besides the technical definitions, the styles of the different approaches are notable. Svatantrika style approaches have a more structured syllogistic form, making assertions with argumentation, whereas the Prasangika approach may make assertions, but with significantly less reasonings for those assertions. Instead they mainly point out errors resulting from taking reasonings to logical extreme
s.
commentators
Note that none of these "schools" seem to have existed in ancient India, but were created after the fact by Tibetan doxographers. For that matter the very name "Svātantrika" represents a back-translation into Sanskrit, coined by modern scholars, for the Tibetan term rang rgyud ba.
The term refers to Bhāvaviveka's criticism that Buddhapalita ought not to have relied solely on reductio ad absurdum
arguments—hence the name "Prāsangika", from prāsanga ("consequence")—but ought to have set forth "autonomous" (svātantra) syllogisms of his own. (Whether a Madhyamaka viewpoint would allow the necessary factual claims, or statements of epistemological principles, for such an argument was the major point in dispute.) Dreyfus and McClintock observe:
The name of the inventor of the Prāsangika / Svātantrika distinction is not known. One possible candidate is the 11th-century Tibetan translator of Candrakirti
, Patsap Nyima Drak (Wylie: Pa sthab nyi ma grags). The rise of Prāsangika can be attributed to the influence of Tsongkhapa, the Gelugpa founder, who ironically sides with Svātantrika writers on several important points (including the necessity of proposing formal theses as part of a logical argument).
As interpreted by Tibetan writers such as Tsongkhapa, the Prāsangika / Svātantrika distinction involved not only issues of logic, but also affected the two schools' respective understandings of sunyata ("emptiness"). However, mainstream Sakya
s (following Rongtön and Gorampa) hold the position that the distinction between these two schools is merely of pedagogical nature. With regard to the view of the ultimate truth both have no difference.
Later Gelugpa scholars as well as Nyingmapas considered both of the above to constitute subdivisions of Svatantrika, however, under the names of
The preferred Gelugpa approach, Prāsangika, was represented chiefly by Candrakirti. Classical Indian commenters did not acknowledge Candrakirti as an important Nāgārjuna commentator, but the Tibetan tradition after the 14th century considers his commentary critical. Though lacking a formal categorization, there are key differences between the viewpoint of Tsongkhapa's interpretation of Prāsangika and earlier forms of Prāsangika.
, Ian Charles Harris reports that "Bhāvaviveka held the third turning to reflect the teaching of the Sandinirmocanasutra [Sutra of Unraveling the Thought, the scripture which is the basis for the doctrine of the Three Turnings] while the third was in conformity with the Prajñāpāramitā
corpus."
As a result of Je Tsongkhapa's view, the Gelugpa lineage establishes a sort of ladder of progressively refined worldviews and identify the Svatantrika view as inferior to the Prasangika. His critics variously claim that there is no difference in the realization of those using the Svatantrika and Prasangika approaches and that the Svatantrika approach is better for students who are not able to understand the more direct approach of Prasangika but it nonetheless results in the same ultimate realization.
According to the Nyingma lineage, an amusing critique by Ju Mipham of Je Tsongkhapa's assertion was to argue that Je Tsongkhapa was also a Svatantrika because of the way he refutes true establishment instead of objects themselves. Further, Ju Mipham argues that Je Tsongkhapa's approach is an excellent Svatantrika approach that leads students further but will not lead to the true ultimate until they go further.
The debate is also not strictly along lineage lines, there are some non-Gelugpa's who prefer Je Tsongkhapa's points and a notable Gelugpa,
Gendün Chöphel
, preferred and wrote about Ju Mipham's interpretation.
The debate between proponents of Prasangika and Svatantrika somewhat resembles the debates of proponents of shentong
(empty of other) and rangtong (empty of self) views but they are separate distinctions.
Mahayana
Mahāyāna is one of the two main existing branches of Buddhism and a term for classification of Buddhist philosophies and practice...
Buddhism
Buddhism
Buddhism is a religion and philosophy encompassing a variety of traditions, beliefs and practices, largely based on teachings attributed to Siddhartha Gautama, commonly known as the Buddha . The Buddha lived and taught in the northeastern Indian subcontinent some time between the 6th and 4th...
, specifically in the Madhyamaka
Madhyamaka
Madhyamaka refers primarily to a Mahāyāna Buddhist school of Buddhist philosophy systematized by Nāgārjuna. Nāgārjuna may have arrived at his positions from a desire to achieve a consistent exegesis of the Buddha's doctrine as recorded in the āgamas...
view, Svātantrika is a category of Madhyamaka viewpoints attributed primarily to the 6th century Indian scholar Bhavaviveka
Bhavaviveka
Bhavyaviveka was the founder of the Svatantrika tradition of the Mādhyamaka school of Buddhism. Ames , holds that Bhavyaviveka is one of the first Buddhist logicians to employ the 'formal syllogism' of Indian Logic in expounding the Mādhyamaka which he employed to considerable effect...
. It is used in contrast with another such subcategory, Prāsangika Madhyamaka.
The key distinction between these viewpoints is whether one works with assertions about the ultimate nature of reality, or if one refrains completely from doing so. If one works with assertions, then that is a Svātantrika approach. Refraining from doing so is a Prāsangika approach.
Besides the technical definitions, the styles of the different approaches are notable. Svatantrika style approaches have a more structured syllogistic form, making assertions with argumentation, whereas the Prasangika approach may make assertions, but with significantly less reasonings for those assertions. Instead they mainly point out errors resulting from taking reasonings to logical extreme
Logical extreme
A logical extreme is a logical construct that is often useful in testing hypotheses. The use of a logical extreme is often the simplest way to disprove a hypothesis. Quite simply, a logical extreme is the statement of an extreme or even preposterous position that is nonetheless consistent with the...
s.
History
The Prāsangika / Svātantrika distinction represents a native Tibetan interpretation of Indian disputes among NāgārjunaNagarjuna
Nāgārjuna was an important Buddhist teacher and philosopher. Along with his disciple Āryadeva, he is credited with founding the Mādhyamaka school of Mahāyāna Buddhism...
commentators
- BuddhapalitaBuddhapalitaBuddhapālita was a commentator on the works of Nāgārjuna and Aryadeva. His works were mildly criticised by his contemporary Bhavyaviveka, and then he was vigorously defended by the later Candrakīrti, whose terms differentiating the two scholars led to the rise of the Prasaṅgika and Svatantrika...
(whom Tibetan tradition credits as the founder of the Prasangika "school"); - BhāvavivekaBhavavivekaBhavyaviveka was the founder of the Svatantrika tradition of the Mādhyamaka school of Buddhism. Ames , holds that Bhavyaviveka is one of the first Buddhist logicians to employ the 'formal syllogism' of Indian Logic in expounding the Mādhyamaka which he employed to considerable effect...
(whose criticisms of Buddhapalita are retrospectively imagined as the foundation of the Svatantrika "school"); and - Chandrakirti (who defended Buddhapalita against Bhavaviveka, and is therefore associated with Prasangika).
Note that none of these "schools" seem to have existed in ancient India, but were created after the fact by Tibetan doxographers. For that matter the very name "Svātantrika" represents a back-translation into Sanskrit, coined by modern scholars, for the Tibetan term rang rgyud ba.
The term refers to Bhāvaviveka's criticism that Buddhapalita ought not to have relied solely on reductio ad absurdum
Reductio ad absurdum
In logic, proof by contradiction is a form of proof that establishes the truth or validity of a proposition by showing that the proposition's being false would imply a contradiction...
arguments—hence the name "Prāsangika", from prāsanga ("consequence")—but ought to have set forth "autonomous" (svātantra) syllogisms of his own. (Whether a Madhyamaka viewpoint would allow the necessary factual claims, or statements of epistemological principles, for such an argument was the major point in dispute.) Dreyfus and McClintock observe:
The name of the inventor of the Prāsangika / Svātantrika distinction is not known. One possible candidate is the 11th-century Tibetan translator of Candrakirti
Candrakīrti
Candrakīrti , was an Indian scholar and a khenpo of Nālandā Mahāvihāra. He was a disciple of and a commentator on his works and those of his main disciple, Āryadeva...
, Patsap Nyima Drak (Wylie: Pa sthab nyi ma grags). The rise of Prāsangika can be attributed to the influence of Tsongkhapa, the Gelugpa founder, who ironically sides with Svātantrika writers on several important points (including the necessity of proposing formal theses as part of a logical argument).
As interpreted by Tibetan writers such as Tsongkhapa, the Prāsangika / Svātantrika distinction involved not only issues of logic, but also affected the two schools' respective understandings of sunyata ("emptiness"). However, mainstream Sakya
Sakya
The Sakya school is one of four major schools of Tibetan Buddhism, the others being the Nyingma, Kagyu, and Gelug...
s (following Rongtön and Gorampa) hold the position that the distinction between these two schools is merely of pedagogical nature. With regard to the view of the ultimate truth both have no difference.
Subdivisions
Before the Prāsangika / Svātantrika distinction rose to prominence, other divisions of Madhyamaka were proposed. Yeshe De (Wylie: Ye shes sde; 8th–9th centuries) posited two alternative categories:- "Sautrantika Madhyamika," including Bhavaviveka; and
- "YogācāraYogacaraYogācāra is an influential school of Buddhist philosophy and psychology emphasizing phenomenology and ontology through the interior lens of meditative and yogic practices. It developed within Indian Mahāyāna Buddhism in about the 4th century CE...
Madhyamaka," including ShantarakshitaShantarakshita' was a renowned 8th century Indian Buddhist Brahmin and abbot of Nalanda University. Śāntarakṣita founded the philosophical school known as Yogacara-Svatantrika-Madhyamaka, which united the Madhyamaka tradition of Nagarjuna, the Yogacara tradition of Asanga and the logical and epistemological...
, KamalasilaKamalasilaKamalaśīla was an Indian Buddhist of Nalanda Mahavihara who accompanied Śāntarakṣita to Tibet at the request of Trhisongdetsen.Dargyay, et...
, and HaribhadraHaribhadra (Seng-ge Bzang-po)Haribhadra was an 8th-century Buddhist philosopher, and a disciple of Shantarakshita, an early Indian Buddhist missionary to Tibet. Haribhadra's commentary on the Abhisamayalankara was one of the most influential of the twenty-one Indian commentaries on that text, perhaps because of its author's...
.
Later Gelugpa scholars as well as Nyingmapas considered both of the above to constitute subdivisions of Svatantrika, however, under the names of
- "Sautrantika Svātantrika Madhyamaka"; and
- "Yogācāra Svātantrika Madhyamaka."
The preferred Gelugpa approach, Prāsangika, was represented chiefly by Candrakirti. Classical Indian commenters did not acknowledge Candrakirti as an important Nāgārjuna commentator, but the Tibetan tradition after the 14th century considers his commentary critical. Though lacking a formal categorization, there are key differences between the viewpoint of Tsongkhapa's interpretation of Prāsangika and earlier forms of Prāsangika.
Enumerated ultimate
A further distinction exemplified between views by Shantarakshita was the process of using an enumerated or approximate ultimate as a contemplation, such as only negating existence but not yet relating to non-existence or other extremes, as a way to develop one's view before working with the final contemplations of going beyond all extremes concurrently. The approach of working with an enumerative ultimate first would fit within the Svatantrika view since it uses autonomous arguments whereas the final contemplations is in accord with and—according to Ju Mipham—as efficacious the Prasangika approach.Scriptural interpretation
Addressing the Three Turnings of the Wheel of DharmaThree Turnings of the Wheel of Dharma
The Three Turnings of the Wheel refers to a framework for understanding the sutra stream of the teachings of the Buddhism originally devised by the Yogachara school...
, Ian Charles Harris reports that "Bhāvaviveka held the third turning to reflect the teaching of the Sandinirmocanasutra [Sutra of Unraveling the Thought, the scripture which is the basis for the doctrine of the Three Turnings] while the third was in conformity with the Prajñāpāramitā
Prajnaparamita
Prajñāpāramitā in Buddhism, means "the Perfection of Wisdom." The word Prajñāpāramitā combines the Sanskrit words prajñā with pāramitā . Prajñāpāramitā is a central concept in Mahāyāna Buddhism and its practice and understanding are taken to be indispensable elements of the Bodhisattva Path...
corpus."
Debates
Je Tsongkhapa in the 14th century critiqued the Svatantrika viewpoint. He asserted that because the Svatantrika conventionally establish things by their own characteristics, that they do not arrive at a complete understanding of emptiness. So he asserted that not only were their methods different but also that students using Svatantrika do not achieve the same realization as those using the Prasangika approach. Sakya and Kagyu scholars argued against this interpretation. An ongoing debate about these points continues.As a result of Je Tsongkhapa's view, the Gelugpa lineage establishes a sort of ladder of progressively refined worldviews and identify the Svatantrika view as inferior to the Prasangika. His critics variously claim that there is no difference in the realization of those using the Svatantrika and Prasangika approaches and that the Svatantrika approach is better for students who are not able to understand the more direct approach of Prasangika but it nonetheless results in the same ultimate realization.
According to the Nyingma lineage, an amusing critique by Ju Mipham of Je Tsongkhapa's assertion was to argue that Je Tsongkhapa was also a Svatantrika because of the way he refutes true establishment instead of objects themselves. Further, Ju Mipham argues that Je Tsongkhapa's approach is an excellent Svatantrika approach that leads students further but will not lead to the true ultimate until they go further.
The debate is also not strictly along lineage lines, there are some non-Gelugpa's who prefer Je Tsongkhapa's points and a notable Gelugpa,
Gendün Chöphel
Gendün Chöphel
Amdo Gendün Chöphel . A creative and controversial figure, friend of Rahul Sankrityayan, who is considered by many to have been one of the most important Tibetan intellectuals of the twentieth century...
, preferred and wrote about Ju Mipham's interpretation.
The debate between proponents of Prasangika and Svatantrika somewhat resembles the debates of proponents of shentong
Shentong
Shentong is a philosophical sub-school found in Tibetan Buddhism. Its adherents generally hold that the nature of mind, the substratum of the mindstream, is "empty" of 'other' , i.e., empty of all qualities other than an inherent, ineffable nature...
(empty of other) and rangtong (empty of self) views but they are separate distinctions.
See also
- BuddhapālitaBuddhapalitaBuddhapālita was a commentator on the works of Nāgārjuna and Aryadeva. His works were mildly criticised by his contemporary Bhavyaviveka, and then he was vigorously defended by the later Candrakīrti, whose terms differentiating the two scholars led to the rise of the Prasaṅgika and Svatantrika...
- Schools of BuddhismSchools of BuddhismBuddhism is an ancient, polyvalent ideological system that originated in the Iron Age Indian subcontinent, referred to variously throughout history by one or more of a myriad of concepts – including, but not limited to any of the following: a Dharmic religion, a philosophy or quasi-philosophical...
- YogacaraYogacaraYogācāra is an influential school of Buddhist philosophy and psychology emphasizing phenomenology and ontology through the interior lens of meditative and yogic practices. It developed within Indian Mahāyāna Buddhism in about the 4th century CE...
- Prasangika
- MadhyamakaMadhyamakaMadhyamaka refers primarily to a Mahāyāna Buddhist school of Buddhist philosophy systematized by Nāgārjuna. Nāgārjuna may have arrived at his positions from a desire to achieve a consistent exegesis of the Buddha's doctrine as recorded in the āgamas...
- Sautrantika
- Yogacara
- NagarjunaNagarjunaNāgārjuna was an important Buddhist teacher and philosopher. Along with his disciple Āryadeva, he is credited with founding the Mādhyamaka school of Mahāyāna Buddhism...
- MūlamadhyamakakārikāMulamadhyamakakarikaThe Mūlamadhyamakakārikā , or Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way, is a key text by Nagarjuna, one of the most important Buddhist philosophers.-Competing interpretations:...
- Mūlamadhyamakakārikā
- Consciousness-only
- Two Truths DoctrineTwo truths doctrineThe Buddhist doctrine of the two truths differentiates between two levels of truth in Buddhist discourse: a "relative" or commonsense truth , and an "ultimate" or absolute, spiritual truth...
- Buddha-natureBuddha-natureBuddha-nature, Buddha-dhatu or Buddha Principle , is taught differently in various Mahayana Buddhism traditions. Broadly speaking Buddha-nature is concerned with ascertaining what allows sentient beings to become Buddhas...