The Svātantrika–Prāsaṅgika distinction is a doctrinal distinction made within Tibetan Buddhism between two stances regarding the use of logic and the meaning of conventional truth within the presentation of Madhyamaka.
Svātantrika is a category of Madhyamaka viewpoints attributed primarily to the 6th-century Indian scholar Bhāviveka. Bhāviveka criticised Buddhapalita’s abstinence from syllogistic reasoning in his commentary on Nāgārjuna. Following the example of the influential logician Dignāga, Bhāviveka used autonomous syllogistic reasoning (svātantra) syllogisms in the explanation of Madhyamaka. To have a common ground with essentialist opponents, and make it possible to use syllogistic reasoning in discussion with those essentialists, Bhāviveka argued that things can be said to exist conventionally 'according to characteristics'. This makes it possible to take the mere object as the point of departure for the discussion on inherent existence. From there, it is possible to explain how these things are ultimately empty of inherent existence.
Prāsaṅgika views are based on Candrakīrti's critique of Bhāviveka, arguing for a sole reliance on prasaṅga, "logic consequence," a method of reductio ad absurdum which is used by all Mādhyamikas, using syllogisms to point out the absurd and impossible logical consequences of holding essentialist views. According to Candrakīrti, the mere object can only be discussed if both parties perceive it in the same way. As a consequence (according to Candrakīrti) svātantrika reasoning is impossible in a debate, since the opponents argue from two irreconcilable points of view, namely a mistaken essentialist perception, and a correct non-essentialist perception. This leaves no ground for a discussion which starts from a similarly perceived object of discussion. And it also makes impossible the use of syllogistic reasoning to convince the opponent.
Candrakīrti's works had no influence on Indian and early Tibetan Madhayamaka, but started to rise to prominence in Tibet in the 12th century. Tsongkhapa (1357–1419), the founder of the Gelugpa school and the most outspoken proponent of the distinction, followed Candrakīrti in his rejection of Bhavaviveka's arguments. According to Tsongkhapa, the Svātantrikas do negate intrinsic nature ultimately, but "accept that things conventionally have intrinsic character or intrinsic nature." Tsongkhapa, commenting on Candrakīrti, says that he "refute[s] essential or intrinsic nature even conventionally." For Tsongkhapa, as well as for the Karma Kagyu school, the differences with Bhavaviveka are of major importance.
Established by Lama Tsongkhapa, Candrakīrti's view replaced the Yogācāra-Mādhyamaka approach of Śāntarakṣita (725–788), who synthesized Madhyamaka, Yogācāra and Buddhist logic in a powerful and influential synthesis called Yogācāra-Mādhyamaka. Śāntarakṣita established Buddhism in Tibet, and his Yogācāra-Mādhyamaka was the primary philosophic viewpoint until the 12th century, when the works of Candrakīrti were first translated into Tibetan. In this synthesis, conventional truth or reality is explained and analysed in terms of the Yogācāra system, while the ultimate truth is presented in terms of the Madhyamaka system. While Śāntarakṣita's synthesis reflects the final development of Indian Madhyamaka and post-dates Candrakīrti, Tibetan doxographers ignored the nuances of Śāntarakṣita's synthesis, grouping his approach together with Bhāviveka's, due to their usage of syllogistic reasonings to explain and defend Madhyamaka.
After the 17th century civil war in Tibet and the Mongol intervention which put the Gelugpa school in the center of power, Tsongkhapa's views dominated Tibetan Buddhism until the 20th century. The Rimé movement revived alternate teachings, providing alternatives to Tsongkhapa's interpretation, and reintroducing Śāntarakṣita's nuances. For the Sakya and Nyingma schools, which participated in the Rimé movement, the Svātantrika–Prāsaṅgika distinction is generally viewed to be of lesser importance. For these schools, 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. In this context Tenzin Gyatso, his holiness the Dalai Lama, says in a forward to Shantideva's book "A Guide to the Bodhisattva's Way of Life," a work based on the idea that the Mahayana teachings are focused on cultivating a mind wishing to benefit other sentient beings, that Shantideva’s philosophical stance follows the Prāsangika-Madhyamaka viewpoint of Chandrakīrti. [1]
See also: Two truths doctrine.
Madhyamaka originated with the works of
The name Prāsaṅgika is derived from, a method of logical inquiry which deconstructs the opponents' argument in debate through the use of unwanted logical consequences. It arises from Bhāvaviveka's criticism that Buddhapālita ought not to have relied solely on reductio ad absurdum argumentation - hence the name "Prāsangika", from prāsanga ("consequence") - but ought to have set forth "autonomous" (svātantra) syllogisms of his own.
Bhāviveka (c. 500 – c. 578 CE) argued that autonomous syllogistic reasoning was required when explaining or commenting on Nagarjuna's teachings on voidness or essencelessness. To be able to use syllogistic reasoning, both parties need to share a common object of discussion at the conventional level. While the various opponents have different opinions on the specifics of their teachings, the mere objects or mere forms are commonly appearing to both parties, "enjoy[ing] a certain existence 'according to their characteristics."
Bhāviveka criticised Buddhapalita for merely repeating Nāgārjuna's ad absurdum approach in his commentary, instead of clarifying Nāgārjuna's teachings. According to Bhāviveka, syllogistic reasoning could be used for the sake of clarification. Bhāviveka further argued that Buddhapalita only showed the logical consequences, and incoherence, of the Samkhya's views on causation and inherent existence, but failed to address their arguments against Buddhist critiques. Furthermore, simply negating the opponent's view, without positing one's own position, "leaves room for doubt in the opponent's mind," and is unwarranted.
To facilitate the possibility of discussing Madhyamaka with opponents, Bhāviveka made a provisional division of the two truths, accepting that phenomena exist "according to their characteristics." Bhāviveka made a further distinction in his treatment of ultimate truth or reality. Ultimate truth or reality transcends discursive thought, and cannot be expressed in words. To be able to talk about it anyway, and distinguish it from relative truth or reality, Bhāviveka makes a distinction between the "world-transcending" or "ultimate truth in itself," which is ineffable and beyond words; and the "pure worldly wisdom" or "approximate truth," which can be talked about and points to the "ultimate truth in itself," which has to be personally experienced.
Dreyfus and McClintock observe that Bhāvaviveka was more influential in Indian Madhyamaka than was Candrakīrti: "In this regard, Bhāvaviveka should probably be seen as quite successful: apart from Candrakīrti and Jayananda, nearly all other Indian Mādhyamikas were to follow in his footsteps and embrace autonomous arguments as important tools in their endeavors to establish the supremacy of the Madhyamaka view."
Candrakīrti (c. 600 – c. 650 CE) had little impact during his lifetime. The first commentary on his Madhyamakāvatāra was written in India in the 11th century, more than 300 years after his death. In the 12th century his works were translated in Tibetan, and became highly influential.
Candrakīrti rejected Bhāviveka's criticism of Buddhapālita, and his use of independent logic. According to Candrakīrti, the mere object can only be discussed if both parties perceive it in the same way. According to Candrakīrti, this is impossible, since the opponents argue from two irreconcilable points of view, namely a mistaken essentialist perception, and a correct non-essentialist perception. This leaves no ground for a discussion starting from a similarly perceived object of discussion, and also makes impossible the use of syllogistic reasoning to convince the opponent. According to Candrakīrti, without a conventionally appearing set of characteristics to designate upon, the Svātantrika would not be able to establish a syllogism.
Candrakīrti also rejected Bhāviveka's argument that autonomous arguments should be used in commentaries to clarify the original text, noting that Nāgārjuna himself, in his auto-commentary on the Vigrahavyavartani, also didn't use autonomous arguments.
Candrakīrti rejected "the use of autonomous arguments, for the very reason that they imply the acceptance (however provisional) of entities. According to Candrakīrti, this mode of thinking is a subtle form of grasping at inherent existence: one's mind is still searching for some way to hold on to an essence, self, or identity for conventionally perceived objects. For Candrakīrti, there is no use in explaining the relative truth in any philosophical system; "the relative truth consists simply of phenomena as we observe them, the unanalyzed constituents of the common consensus." The only aim of consequential arguments "is to introduce the mind to the direct knowledge of emptiness, not an intellectual understanding of it," making "no concessions to the spiritually unprepared."
Candrakīrti's criticism was "part of a wider rejection of the logico-epistemological tradition of Dignāga, which he regarded as a misguided attempt to find "philosophical completeness" and a sense of intellectual security that is antithetical to the fundamental insight of Madhyamaka." Candrakīrti did not reject the use of logic, but it served to demarcate the limits of discursive thought. In the absence of any agreement between Mādhyamikas and substantialists, prasaṅga is the best approach "to indicate the ultimate without making statements that [...] compromise or [...] obscure their own position." Since the use of autonomous arguments implies the acceptance of real entities, even if only provisional, they should not be used.
Born and educated in India, Śāntarakṣita (725–788) came to the Tibetan Empire at the instigation of King Trisong Detsen after Nyang Tingdzin Zangpo had encouraged the King to make the invitation. Śāntarakṣita came to Tibet sometime before 767 CE. He oversaw the construction of the first Buddhist monastery at Samye in 787 CE, ordained the first monastics there, had Indian Buddhist texts brought to Tibet, and started the first translation project. He also advised the king to invite Padmasambhava to come to Tibet. He was also instrumental in the coming of Kamalaśīla to Tibet, who participated in the so-called "council of Lhasa," which, according to Tibetan tradition, led to the defeat of the Chinese chan monk Moheyan, and the establishment of Indian Buddhism as the norm for Tibetan Buddhism.
Śāntarakṣita synthesised Madhyamaka, Yogācāra, and the logico-epistemological tradition of Dignaga and Dharmakirti. In this synthesis, conventional truth or reality is explained and analysed in terms of the Yogācāra system, while the ultimate truth is presented in terms of the Madhyamaka system.
When Buddhism was established in Tibet, the primary philosophic viewpoint established there was that of Śāntarakṣita (725–788), a synthesis of Madhyamaka, Yogācāra and Buddhist logic called Yogācāra-Mādhyamaka. A common distinction of Madhyamaka teachings was given by Jñanasutra (8th - 9th centuries), a student of Śāntarakṣita:
The difference lies in their "acceptance or rejection of extramental phenomena on the conventional level." While Bhavaviveka considered material phenomena at the conventional level as to be existent outside the mind, he applied Sautrāntika terminology to describe and explain them. Śāntarakṣita rejected this approach, denying "the extramental status of phenomena appearing within the sphere of conventional truth." Instead, he saw conventional phenomena as manifestations of the mind, in line with the Yogācāra approach.
Candrakīrti's works were known in Tibet as early as the 8th century, but "specifically in connection with the logical tradition," when Candrakīrti's Yuktishashtika was translated by Yeshe De (Jñanasutra) and some others. The Prāsangika-Svātantrika distinction was possibly invented by the Tibetan translator Pa tshab nyi ma grags (1055–1145), using the terms Rang rgyud pa and Thal 'gyur ba, which were Sanskritized by modern scholars as Svātantrika and Prāsaṅgika. According to Dreyfus and McClintock, Tibetan scholars themselves state that the distinction "is a Tibetan creation that was retroactively applied in an attempt to bring clarity and order to the study of contemporary Indian Madhyamaka interpretations." Later Gelugpa scholars as well as Nyingmapas, after Candrakīrti's works were translated in Tibetan in the 12th century, considered both of the above to constitute subdivisions of Svātantrika, however, under the names of "Sautrāntika-Svātantrika-Madhyamaka and "Yogācāra-Svātantrika-Madhyamaka."
Those various teachers, and their approaches were grouped together due to their usage of syllogistic reasonings to explain and defend Madhyamaka, in disregard of the philosophical nuances of Śāntarakṣita's approach.
A related doctrinal topic of profound disagreement is between Rangtong-Shentong, which concerns the "nature" of ultimate truth as empty of a self or essence, or as constituting an absolute reality which is "truly existing" and empty of any other, transitional phenomena.
Initially, this new distinction based on Candrakīrti's Prasannapada met with fierce resistance in Tibet, but gained in popularity and was strongly supported by Je Tsongkhapa (1357 – 1419 CE). He became the most outspoken defender of the Svātantrika-Prāsaṅgika distinction, arguing that "the two subschools are separated by crucial philosophical differences, including a different understanding of emptiness and of conventional reality." Tsongkhapa was a powerful personality with a large following, but he too met with a strong resistance, especially within the Sakya school to which he originally belonged. His critics rejected his interpretation as "inadequate, newfangled, and unsupported by tradition." According to those critics, Tsongkhapa had "greatly exaggerated the divergence of view."
Tsongkhapa's view became the dominant view in the beginning of the 17th century, when Gusri Khan (1582–1655) ended the civil war in central Tibet, putting the 5th Dalai Lama in command of the temples in Tibet. This gave the Gelugpa school a strong political power, and the means to effectively ban the writings of Tsongkhapa's critics.
See main article: Je Tsongkhapa and Prasaṅgika according to Tsongkhapa.
For Tsongkhapa, the Svātantrika–Prāsaṅgika distinction centers around the usage of autonomous syllogistic reasoning to convince opponents of the Madhyamaka point of view, and the implications of the establishment of conventional existence 'according to characteristics'.
Tsongkhapa objected against Bhaviveka's use of autonomous syllogistic reasoning in explaining voidness or essencelessness. To be able to use syllogistic reasoning, both parties need to have a common ground onto which those syllogistic reasonings can be applied. This common ground is the shared perception of the object whose's emptiness of inherent existence is to be established. According to Bhaviveka, this shared perception is possible because the perceived objects are mentally imputed (labeled) based on characteristic marks which distinguishes them from other objects.
The Prāsaṅgika reject this idea, arguing that "[w]hat establishes that things exist is only that they are imputable, not that they are imputable with a findable characteristic." According to Tsongkhapa, there is no such common ground or shared perception, while the reliance on characteristic marks implies an inherent existence at the conventional level, which is not in accord with the Madhyamaka point of view.
Tsongkhapa holds reductio ad absurdum of essentialist viewpoints to be the most valid method of demonstrating emptiness of inherent existence, and of demonstrating that conventional things do not have a naturally occurring conventional identity.[2]