Discussion on answer by Tenzin Dorje: What exactly is svabhava?

6:59 PM

Svabhāva stands for inherent existence. From an early Madhyamika viewpoint, there are two types of dependent-arising: Causal dependence Dependence on parts While impermanent phenomena depend on both causes and parts, permanent phenomena do not depend on causes and conditions but they do depe...

ruben2020

So the Theravadin sankhara (conditioned things) is the same as having causal dependence and dependence on parts. The self too has causal dependence in Theravada. But the Madhyamaka svabhava adds on dependence on name and this applies to Nirvana because it means "lack of suffering", so it depends on the name of "suffering". Is that right? So, it is dependence on name that is the difference between the Theravadin asankhara and the Madhyamaka svabhava? Do you agree?

Tenzin Dorje

Only Madhyaika-Prasangika adds dependence on name. Dependence on parts applies to all phenomena, including nirvana. Nirvana is the final cessation of something on which it depends. Prasangika adds dependence on name. It means: just like the person is not any of the aggregates but is designated upon them, nirvana is merely labeled upon factors that are not it. Or as we say "If you look for it under analysis, you cannot find it."

ruben2020

OK. So, Nirvana has causal dependence on the final cessation of something - it only appears when something else ceases. Nirvana also has dependence on the name of something that is not it - so you can see an elephant, but you can't see or find "elephantless".

Tenzin Dorje

No. Nirvana does not have causal dependence. It has dependence on parts and, according to Prasangika (not all Madhyamika) on names as well. You may think of it this way: if John leaving the room was the cause of the absence of John in the room, his absence would be a moment after his leaving, but hey are simultaneous. In the same way, nirvana (the final true cessation) is permanent, thus not caused. Permanent phenomena are not causally dependent: only on parts (and name, from a Prasangika viewpoint).

Mishu 米殊

Be careful of Prasangika-interpretation of Mad.! Candrakīrti revived the Indian heretic's method of debate of "deconstructing every premises of an argument is the argument" (隨應破派) which refuted already by the Buddha - a wrong method, recorded in Shorter Saṃyukta-āgama of Dirghanakha Brahmacārin (長爪梵志). For establishing his interpretation Candrakirti denied Alaya, which Tsongkhapa promoted so that he could hack in his 2nd part of Lamrim Chenmo and Ngakrim Chenmo Tantric practice for claiming achieving "Buddha-hood".

Yeshe Tenley

6:59 PM

You are denigrating Je Tsongkhapa by using the word "hack" and then using quotes around Buddha-hood. The person you are responding to is an ordained member of the Sangha in the direct lineage of Je Tsongkhapa. If you believe that Candrakirti and/or Je Tsongkhapa's words viewpoint are incorrect or at odds with your own viewpoint or that of your teachers, then please argue with respect without resorting to belittling the teachers of the people you are responding to.

Please provide a link to the teaching where you say Buddha refuted Candrakirti's reasoning.