Property:PosYogaMadhyaNotes
This is a property of type Text.
A
[[Kano, K.]], [[Buddha-Nature and Emptiness]], p. 109; he cites Ruegg for this, and agrees. +
B
In line with his assertion that these teachings are merely provisional he claims, "The general basis of intention of the teachings on buddha nature is the ālaya-consciousness, which refers to the sheer cause of buddhahood." [[Brunnhölzl, K.]], ''[[When the Clouds Part]]'', p. 868. +
C
"For him, the fact that the ''Uttaratantra'' teaches all sentient beings as having the buddha-nature shows that the ''Uttaratantra'' is a Madhyamaka text, not Cittamātra. [[Wangchuk, Tsering]]. ''[[The Uttaratantra in the Land of Snows]]'', p. 23. +
D
Dolpopa has a unique view on this issue as Wangchuk points out:
*"Dölpopa argues the following: (1) Cittamātra is categorized into Conventional Cittamātra (''kun rdzob pa'i sems tsam'') and Ultimate Cittamātra (''don dam pa'i sems tsam''); (2) Cittamātra must not be conflated with Vijnānavāda; (3) Madhyamaka is grouped into Madyamaka without Appearance (''snang med dbu ma'') and Madhyamaka with Appearance (''snang bcas dbu ma''). His Mahäyäna doxography differs significantly from that of other fourteenth-century Tibetan scholars." [[Wangchuk, Tsering]], ''[[The Uttaratantra in the Land of Snows]]'', p. 47.
*It seems that the simple answer is that Dolpopa espoused Great Madhyamaka (''dbu ma chen mo'') or Madhyamaka with Appearance (''snang bcas dbu ma''), which is equivalent to Ultimate Cittamātra (''don dam pa'i sems tsam''). See [[Wangchuk, Tsering]], ''[[The Uttaratantra in the Land of Snows]]'', pp. 49-50. +
G
*"In his ''Uttaratantra'' commentary, Gyeltsap shows the strong influence of Tsongkhapa's ''Illuminating the Thoughts of the Madhyamaka''. He criticizes those who propose that the ''Uttaratantra'' is a Cittamātra text, arguing that it explicates the ultimate truth presented in the Prāsaṅgika-Madhyamaka." [[Wangchuk, Tsering]], ''[[The Uttaratantra in the Land of Snows]]'', p. 98.
*"Gyeltsap says, "It is not to be asserted that Ācārya Asaṅga is described as a proponent of Vijñāptimātratā; otherwise it would completely contradict his detailed explanation of the one final vehicle and the presentation of subtle emptiness in his ''Uttaratantra'' commentary." Gyeltsap argues that the emptiness explained in the ''Uttaratantra'' and its commentary by Asaṅga is subtle emptiness, and it does not differ from the emptiness that is delineated in the ''Prajñāpāramitāsūtras''." [[Wangchuk, Tsering]], ''[[The Uttaratantra in the Land of Snows]]'', p. 100.
+
Though his own view is based on Mahāmudrā, for which he asserts RGV is an important basis. +
H
Hodor. Hodor HODOR hodor, hodor hodor, hodor, hodor hodor. Hodor hodor, hodor. Hodor HODOR hodor, hodor hodor, hodor, hodor hodor. Hodor hodor - hodor hodor hodor - hodor, hodor. Hodor hodor?! Hodor hodor HODOR! Hodor HODOR hodor, hodor hodor... Hodor hodor hodor; hodor HODOR hodor, hodor hodor. Hodor. Hodor hodor HODOR! Hodor hodor hodor hodor... Hodor hodor hodor. Hodor. +
J
Though he was a follower of Madhyamaka, he likely equates the buddha-nature teachings with Yogācāra, as he deems both to be provisional. +
Sākāravāda to be specific. +
K
"However, Khedrup, a student and a junior contemporary of Rendawa, mentions in his ''Presentation of the General Tantric Systems'' (''rgyud sde spyi rnam''), "Lama Jé [that is, Rendawa] asserts that [the ''Uttaratantra''] is a commentarial work on last-wheel teachings, explicating the view of the Cittamātra School." [[Wangchuk, Tsering]], ''[[The Uttaratantra in the Land of Snows]]'', p. 88. +
M
"YDC denies that the ''Uttaratantra'' is a work that belongs to Mere Mentalism." [[Brunnhölzl, K.]], ''[[When the Clouds Part]]'', p. 310. +
N
"rNgog considers the RGV to be a Madhyamaka work, and hence its teaching to be definitive. His position is made clear in the introductory passage of the ''rGyud bla don bsdus'', where RGV is identified as a treatise that explains sūtras of definitive meaning (''nītārtha''), whereas the other four treatises of Maitreya (i.e. ''Abhisamayālaṃkāra'', ''Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra'', ''Madhyāntavibhāga'', and ''Dharmadharmatāvibhāga'') are listed as treatises that explain sutras of provisional meaning (''neyārtha'')." [[Kano, K.]], ''[[Buddha-Nature and Emptiness]]'', p. 249. +
R
There are apparently different takes on this issue, particularly whether he was a Yogācāran who accepted Madhyamaka or whether he was a Mādhyamika who accepted Yogācāra:
#Nirākāra Vijñānavāda, though as Kano states: "he defines the Madhyamaka position in accordance with the ''Madhyāntavibhāga's'', description of the “middle way.” Indeed, he repeats throughout his works that the doctrine of the Mādhyamikas and that of the Yogācāras are completely compatible." [[Kano, K.]], ''[[Buddha-Nature and Emptiness]]'', p. 73.
#"In sum, in his works Ratnākaraśānti generally sees himself as a Mādhyamika, but one who integrates many essential elements of Yogācāra and the teachings on buddha nature, such as emphasizing the soteriologically crucial role of mind’s nature being nondual lucid self-awareness—the tathāgata heart—which is only obscured by adventitious stains and needs to be experienced in an unmediated manner as what it truly is." [[Brunnhölzl, K.]], ''[[When the Clouds Part]]'', p. 61. +
*"As for whether the ''Uttaratantra'' is definitive or provisional, Rendawa does not explicitly identify it either as definitive or provisional in the texts that I have consulted. However, Khedrup, a student and a junior contemporary of Rendawa, mentions in his ''Presentation of the General Tantric Systems'' (''rgyud sde spyi rnam''), "Lama Jé [that is, Rendawa] asserts that the ''Uttaratantra'' is a commentarial work on last-wheel teachings, explicating the view of the Cittamātra School." [[Wangchuk, Tsering]], ''[[The Uttaratantra in the Land of Snows]]'', p. 88.
*Though Rendawa's personal view is explained by Wangchuk as, "Rendawa argues that only Nāgārjuna's Madhyamaka system presents the correct ultimate view, not Asanga's Cittamātra School." [[Wangchuk, Tsering]], ''[[The Uttaratantra in the Land of Snows]]'', p. 87.
*However there is a possibility that he had a change of heart later in life, as Wangchuk sites the ''Blue Annals'' as stating, "The Venerable Red-mda'-pa believed at first the ''Uttaratantra'' to be a Vijñānamātra work, and even composed a commentary from the standpoint of the followers of the Vijñānamātra school. Later, when he became a hermit, he used to sing: "It is impossible to differentiate between the presence and absence of this our Mind. The Buddha having perceived that it penetrated all living beings, as in the example of a subterranean treasure, or the womb of a pregnant woman, had proclaimed all living beings to be possessed of the Essence of the Sugata." [[Wangchuk, Tsering]], ''[[The Uttaratantra in the Land of Snows]]'', p. 88.
+
S
"Nevertheless, even though the ''Uttaratantra'' and the sutras on which the ''Uttaratantra'' is based occupy a position of higher scriptural authority than the middle-wheel teachings of the ''Prajñāpāramitāsūtras'', Sangpu Lodrö claims that both the middle-wheel scriptures and the ''Uttaratantra'' teach emptiness. He argues:
'The sutras for the ''Uttaratantra'' and the ''Uttaratantra'' [itself] do not contradict the ''Prajñāpāramitāsūtras'' because the emptiness of inherent existence of all phenomena taught there [in the ''Prajñāpāramitāsūtras''] is the dharma-body explicated here [in the last wheel sutras and the ''Uttaratantra''].'" [[Wangchuk, Tsering]]. ''[[The Uttaratantra in the Land of Snows]]'', p. 33. +
T
Though this is perhaps up for debate, he certainly sides with the works of Maitreya and the last wheel sūtras over those of the ''Prajñāpāramitāsūtras'' and the associated Madhyamaka works, which he labels as a "nihilistic emptiness (''chad pa'i stong pa nyid''). See [[Wangchuk, Tsering]]. ''[[The Uttaratantra in the Land of Snows]]'', p. 36. +
*"To sum up, in his explanation of buddha nature, Rangjung Dorjé combines three different strands of interpretations:
1. The mahāmudrā interpretation stemming from Saraha.
2.The interpretation according to Asaṅga's ''Mahāyānasaṁgraha''.
3.The dzogchen interpretation.
In other words, for Rangjung Dorjé, well-founded mahāmudrā and dzogchen explanations need be combined with Asaṅgas Yogācāra distinction." [[Mathes, K.]], ''[[A Direct Path to the Buddha Within]]'', p. 65.
*See also [[Wangchuk, Tsering]]. ''[[Uttaratantra in the Land of Snows]]'', p. 30.
+
Karl cites Kongtrul stating, "TOK calls Ngog’s tradition of the Maitreya texts "the oral transmission of explanation" (''bshad pa’i bka’ babs'') and Dsen’s lineage, "the oral transmission of practice" (''sgrub pa’i bka’ babs''), saying that they are asserted to hold the views of Madhyamaka and Mere Mentalism, respectively." [[Brunnhölzl, K.]], ''[[When the Clouds Part]]'', p. 124. +
Note that Wangchuk maintains that he developed this certainty later in his career.
*He quotes his ''Golden Rosary of Excellent Exposition'' as stating that the Mind-Only presentation of buddha-nature as, "the viewpoint explicated in the ''Uttaratantra''." [[Wangchuk, Tsering]], ''[[The Uttaratantra in the Land of Snows]]'', p. 90.
*Though he later quotes his presumably final stance as: "In his ''Illuminating the Thoughts of the Madhyamaka'', Tsongkhapa clearly states, "The great master Asaṅga also did not explain the ''Uttaratantra'' according to the Cittamātra School, rather he explicated it according to the Madhyamaka School." [[Wangchuk, Tsering]], ''[[The Uttaratantra in the Land of Snows]]'', p. 93. +