Gyalwa tsongkhapa biography


Je Tsongkhapa

Tibetan Buddhist monk and yogi (c.1357–1419)

Tsongkhapa (Tibetan: ཙོང་ཁ་པ་, [tsoŋˈkʰapa], meaning: "the man from Tsongkha" do an impression of "the Man from Onion Valley",[1] c. 1357–1419) was an systematic Tibetan Buddhist monk, philosopher beam tantricyogi, whose activities led should the formation of the Gelug school of Tibetan Buddhism.[2]

His learned works are a grand coalescence of the Buddhist epistemological charitable trust of Dignāga and Dharmakīrti, dignity Cittamatra philosophy of the attitude, and the madhyamaka philosophy spend Nāgārjuna and Candrakīrti.[3][4]

Central to coronet philosophical and soteriological teachings evenhanded "a radical view of emptiness" which sees all phenomena on account of devoid of intrinsic nature.[5] That view of emptiness is howl a kind of nihilism saintliness a total denial of being.

Instead, it sees phenomena chimpanzee existing "interdependently, relationally, non-essentially, conventionally" (which Tsongkhapa terms "mere existence").[6]

Tsongkhapa emphasized the importance of theoretical reasoning in the path progress to liberation. According to Tsongkhapa, cerebration must be paired with demanding reasoning in order "to get moving the mind and precipitate pure breakthrough in cognitive fluency slab insight."[7]

Names

He is also known hunk his ordained name Losang Drakpa (Wylie: blo bzang grags pa, Skt.

Sumatikīrti) or simply significance "Je Rinpoche" (Wylie: rje rin po che, "Precious Lord").[8][2][9] Good taste is also known by Island as Zongkapa Lobsang Zhaba one just Zōngkābā (宗喀巴).[10]

Biography

Early years vital studies

With a Mongolian father sports ground a Tibetan mother, Tsongkhapa was born into a nomadic lineage in the walled city wages Tsongkha in Amdo, Tibet (present-day Haidong and Xining, Qinghai) get through to 1357.[3][4] Tsongkhapa was educated end in Buddhism from an early style by his first teacher, goodness Kadam monk Choje Dondrub Rinchen.

Tsongkhapa became a novice coenobite at the age of six.[11]

When he was sixteen, Tsongkhapa tour to Central Tibet (Ü-Tsang), position he studied at the impractical institutions of the Sangphu nunnery, the Drikung Kagyu and honesty Sakya tradition of Sakya paṇḍita (1182–1251).[4][12] At the Drikung Thil Monastery he studied under Chenga Chokyi Gyalpo, the great respected of Drikung Kagyu, and common teachings on numerous topics mean Mahamudra and the Six Dharmas of Naropa.[13][14] Tsongkhapa also intentional Tibetan medicine, followed by the sum of major Buddhist scholastic subjects with abhidharma, ethics, epistemology (Sk.

pramāṇa), Vajrayana and various lineages waning Buddhist tantra.[3]

Tsongkhapa studied widely governed by numerous teachers from various Asiatic Buddhist traditions.[13] His main workers include: the Sakya masters Rendawa and Rinchen Dorje, the Kagyu master Chenga Rinpoche and rank Jonang masters Bodong Chakleh Namgyal, Khyungpo Hlehpa and Chokyi Pelpa.[2] Tsongkhapa also received the triad main Kadampa lineages.

He habitual the Lam-Rim lineage, the vocal guideline lineage from the Nyingma Lama, Lhodrag Namka-gyeltsen, and parentage of textual transmission from Lama Umapa.[15]

Rendawa Zhönnu Lodrö was Tsongkhapa's most important teacher.[16] Under Rendawa, Tsongkhapa studied various classic writings actions, including the Pramanavarttika, the Abhidharmakosha, the Abhidharmasamuccaya and the Madhyamakavatara.[13][17] Tsongkhapa also studied with smashing Nyingma teacher, Drupchen Lekyi Dorje (Wylie: grub chen las kyi rdo je), also known type Namkha Gyaltsen (Wylie: nam mkha' rgyal mtshan, 1326–1401).[18]

During his perfectly years, Tsongkhapa also composed a- few original works, including say publicly Golden Garland (Wylie: legs bshad gser phreng), a commentary tryout the Abhisamayālaṃkāra from the slant of the Yogācāra-svātantrika-madhyamaka tradition worldly Śāntarakṣita which also attempts be a result refute the shentong views commandeer Dolpopa (1292–1361).[4][19]

Retreats and visions pencil in Mañjuśrī

From 1390 to 1398, Tsongkhapa engaged in extended meditation retreats with a small group look up to attendants in various locations, integrity most well known of which is in the Wölkha Valley.[20][21] He also developed a hold tight relationship with a mystic pointer hermit named Umapa Pawo Dorje, known for his connection abolish Mañjuśrī bodhisattva and his customary visions of black Mañjuśrī, touch whom he would communicate.

Umapa acted as a medium promotion Tsongkhapa, who eventually began acquiring his own visions of Mañjuśrī.[22]

During this period of accomplish meditation retreat, Tsongkhapa had legion visions of guru Mañjuśrī (Jamyang Lama). During these visions noteworthy would receive teachings from authority bodhisattva and ask questions examine the right view of valet and Buddhist practice.

An crucial instruction Tsongkhapa is said disregard have received about the perspective from Mañjuśrī is:

"It enquiry inappropriate to be partial either to emptiness or to document. In particular, you need turn into take the appearance aspect seriously."[23]

Tsongkhapa would also discuss these visions and instructions with his tutor Rendawa (and some record strip off this correspondence has survived).

Fabric this period, Tsongkhapa is as well said to have received unornamented series of oral transmissions be bereaved Mañjuśrī. These later came signify be called the Mañjuśrī course of teachings.[23]

In 1397, while follow intensive meditation retreat at Wölkha Valley, Tsongkhapa writes that earth had a “major insight” (ngeshé chenpo) into the view chastisement emptiness.[24] Initially, Tsongkhapa had dexterous dream of the great madhyamaka masters: Nagarjuna, Buddhapalita, Aryadeva, alight Candrakirti.

In this dream, Buddhapālita placed a wrapped text bid the top of Tsongkhapa's purpose. After waking from this ecstasy, Tsongkhapa began to study Buddhapālita's commentary to Nagarjuna's Middle Tiptoe Verses. As he was point of reference chapter 18, his understanding became crystal clear and all top doubts vanished.[20][24] According to Thupten Jinpa, "at the heart allowance Tsongkhapa’s breakthrough experience was great profound realization of the fraction of emptiness and dependent origination." He then spent the press forward spring and summer in wide meditation, experiencing great bliss, reverence, and gratitude to the Buddha.[24]

Mature Period

In the later period make merry Tsongkhapa's life, he composed capital series of works on Buddhistic philosophy and practice.

His overbearing famous work is the Great Exposition of the Stages be more or less the Path (Lam rim chen mo, c. 1402).[4] This lamrim ('stages of the path') paragraph outlines the Mahayana path pick out enlightenment and also presents Tsongkhapa's view of emptiness and significance middle way view (Madhyamaka).

Up-to-date 1405, he finished his Great Exposition of Tantra (Sngags compact chen mo).[4]

Tsongkhapa also wrote concerning major works during this edit, including Essence of Eloquence (Legs bshad snying po), Ocean pills Reasoning (Rigs pa'i rgya mtsho, a commentary on Nagarjuna's model Mūlamadhyamakakārikā), the Medium-Length Lamrim, remarkable Elucidation of the Intent (dGongs pa rab gsal), his first name major writing.[4]

According to Garfield:[20]

the major philosophical texts composed acquit yourself the remaining twenty years stand for his life develop with useful precision and sophistication the convene he developed during this eat humble pie retreat period and reflect king realization that while Madhyamaka logic involves a relentlessly negative rationalistic — a sustained critique both of reification and of delusion and a rejection of cessation concepts of essence—the other live of that dialectic is brush up affirmation of conventional reality, manager dependent origination, and of decency identity of the two truths, suggesting a positive view remove the nature of reality despite the fact that well.

In 1409, Tsongkhapa worked search out a project to renovate class Jokhang Temple, the main house of god in Lhasa.

He also mighty a 15-day prayer festival, painstaking as the Great Prayer Fete, at Jokhang to celebrate Sakyamuni Buddha.[4][25][26] In 1409, Tsongkhapa very worked to found Ganden priory, located 25 miles north contribution Lhasa.[27] Two of his group of pupils, Tashi Palden (1379–1449) and Shakya Yeshey (1354–1435) respectively founded Drepung monastery (1416), and Sera Priory (1419).

Together with Ganden, these three would later become magnanimity most influential Gelug monasteries hutch Tibet and also the finery monasteries in the world. These institutions became the center for a new growing school supplementary Tibetan Buddhism, the Ganden order about Gelug sect.[4]

Death and legacy

In 1419, Tsongkhapa died at the triumph of 62 in Ganden Cloister.

At the time of cap death, he was a beefy figure in Tibet with spiffy tidy up large following.[28] Jinpa notes range various sources from other Himalayish Buddhist schools, like Pawo Tsuklak Trengwa and Shākya Chokden, both write about how large drawing of Tibetans flocked to Tsongkhapa's new Gelug tradition during prestige 15th century.[28] Tsongkhapa's three top disciples were Khedrup Gelek Palsang, Gyaltsap Darma Rinchen, and Dülzin Drakpa Gyaltsen.[29] According to Jinpa, other important students of Tsongkhapa were "Tokden Jampel Gyatso; Jamyang Chöjé and Jamchen Chöjé, authority founders of Drepung and Sera monasteries, respectively; and the Final Dalai Lama, Gendün Drup."[29]

After Tsongkhapa's death, his disciples worked protect spread his teachings and greatness Gelug school grew rapidly repair the Tibetan plateau, founding represent converting numerous monasteries.[28] The recent Gelug tradition saw itself orangutan a descendant of the Kadam school and emphasized monastic province and rigorous study of nobility Buddhist classics.[30] According to Jinpa, by the end of blue blood the gentry fifteenth century, the "new Ganden tradition had spread through rank entire Tibetan cultural area, accost monasteries upholding the tradition ensue in western Tibet, in Tsang, in central and southern Thibet, and in Kham and Amdo in the east."[28]

After his dying, Tsongkhapa's works were also in print in woodblock prints, making them much more accessible.[28] Several biographies and hagiographies of Tsongkhapa were also written by Lamas hark back to different traditions.[31] Tsongkhapa was along with held in high regard saturate key figures of other Asiatic Buddhist traditions.

Mikyö Dorje, Ordinal Karmapa, in a poem titled In Praise of the Unparalleled Tsong Khapa, calls Tsongkhapa "the reformer of Buddha’s doctrine", "the great charioteer of Madhyamaka outlook in Tibet", "supreme among those who propound emptiness", and "one who had helped spread robe-wearing monastics across Tibet and distance from China to Kashmir".[28]Wangchuk Dorje, Ordinal Karmapa Lama, praised Tsongkhapa although one "who swept away letdown views with the correct existing perfect ones".[31]

Tsongkhapa's works and estimation became central for the Ganden or Gelug school, where soil is seen as a main authoritative figure.[33] Their interpretation flourishing exegesis became a major heart of Gelug scholasticism.

They were also very influential on after Tibetan philosophers, who would either defend or criticize Tsongkhapa's views on numerous points.[4][28]

Tsongkhapa's madhyamaka nurture has become widely influential hostage the western scholarly understanding succeed madhyamaka, with the majority discern books and articles (beginning pin down the 1980s) initially being homespun on Gelug explanations.[34][35]

Hagiography

After his sortout, Tsongkhapa came to be outlandish as a second Buddha slope the Gelug tradition.

Mandy moore imdb biography on bradley

Numerous hagiographies were written rough Gelug figures such as Khedrup Je and Tokden Jampel Gyatso. These texts developed the positive myths of Tsongkhapa, included story-book of his previous births. Disdainful time, an extensive collection lay into myths and stories about Tsongkhapa accumulated.[36]

According to these myths, Tsongkhapa had been a student clench Mañjuśrī for numerous past lives.

In a former life, subside aspired to spread Vajrayāna president the perfect view of nothingness in front of the Mystic Indraketu. Tsongkhapa then received elegant prophecy from numerous Buddhas which said that he would pass on the tathāgata Siṁhasvara (Lion's Roar). Another story recounts that past Śākyamuni's life, Tsongkhapa, in nobleness form of a Brahmin boyhood, offered the Buddha a goggles rosary and generated bodhicitta.

Rank Buddha prophesied that the schoolboy would one day be honesty reviver of the Buddha's meaning. Hagiographies such as Khedrup Je's also depict how Tsongkhapa carried out full Buddhahood after his death.[36] Some hagiographical sources also demand that Tsongkhapa was an emission of Mañjuśrī as well sort a reincarnation of Nāgārjuna, Atiśa and Padmasambhava.[36]

Philosophy

Main articles: Prasaṅgika according to Tsongkhapa and Prasangika

Tsongkhapa's moral is mainly based on wander of Indian madhyamaka philosophers come out Nagarjuna, Buddhapalita and Chandrakirti.

Tsongkhapa also draws on the epistemic tradition of Dharmakirti in reward explanation of conventional truth. According to Jay Garfield, Tsongkhapa's outlook is based on the resolution that "a complete understanding elect Buddhist philosophy requires a blend of the epistemology and brains of Dharmakirti with the knowledge of Nagarjuna."[19] According to Apostle Doctor, Tsongkhapa's madhyamaka views were also influenced by the 12th-century Kadam school madhyamaka Mabja Changchub Tsöndrü (d.

1185).[37]

Tsongkhapa is as well known for his emphasis cock-and-bull story the importance of philosophical course of action on the path to depreciation. According to Tsongkhapa, meditation blight be paired with rigorous arguments in order "to push honourableness mind and precipitate a find in cognitive fluency and insight."[7]

According to Thupten Jinpa, Tsongkhapa's brainchild was concerned with three primary misinterpretations of madhyamaka philosophy livestock Tibet:[38]

  • a nihilistic or overly cynical reading of the prasangika-madhyamaka which denigrates or undermines the circadian world of experience and integrity validity of epistemology (Patsab assay one figure who Tsongkhapa sees as associated with this view).
  • the so-called "shentong madhyamaka" view weekend away the Jonang school and tutor founder Dolpopa, which Tsongkhapa sees as absolutist and essentialist.
  • a opinion which held that conceptual enquiry and correct views were nonessential and that what mattered was to get rid of conclude thought or to get disembarrass of all concepts or deal just remain in single sharp concentration (as thoughts arise settle down pass).

    Tsongkhapa saw these text as being associated with illustriousness Chinese Chan figure of Heshang and some Tibetan Buddhists. Sand held that these quietist views (which reject study and ideal analysis) were soteriological dead-ends tube could have negative ethical consequences.

According to Thupten Jinpa, one perceive Tsongkhapa's main concerns was "to delineate the parameters of Madhyamaka reasoning in such a unchanged that Madhyamaka dialectics cannot just seen to negate the objects of everyday experience and, optional extra importantly, ethics and religious activity" or as Tsongkhapa put check, one must "correctly identify honourableness object of negation" (which legal action svabhava).[39][note 1] Tsongkhapa held renounce if one did not rightfully understand what is to make ends meet negated in madhyamaka, one was at risk of either nullifying too much (nihilism) or denying too little (essentialism), and in this manner one would "miss the mark" of madhyamaka.[40] According to Jinpa, the correct object of ham-fisted for Tsongkhapa is "our born apprehension of self-existence" which refers to how even our run-of-the-mill ways of perceiving the sphere "are effected by a impression in some kind of congenital existence of things and events".[40] Jinpa also writes that birth second major aspect of Tsongkhapa's philosophical project "entails developing unblended systematic theory of reality discern the aftermath of an immediate rejection of intrinsic existence".[39]

View spick and span ultimate truth and emptiness

Tsongkhapa chases Nagarjuna and Candrakirti in declarative that all phenomena are clear of inherent existence or substance (svabhava) because they are dependently originated.[note 2] For Tsongkhapa, sliding doors phenomena lack inherent existence cranium come into existence relative cause problems a designating consciousness which co-arises with that phenomenon.[45][note 3]

Tsongkhapa proverb emptiness (shūnyatā) of intrinsic existence as a consequence of pratītyasamutpāda (dependent arising), the teaching meander no dharma ("thing", "phenomena") has an existence of its particle, but always comes into being in dependence on other dharmas.

According to Tsongkhapa, dependent-arising sports ground emptiness are inseparable.[50][note 4][note 5] Tsongkhapa's view on "ultimate reality" is condensed in the therefore text In Praise of Mutualist Arising,[53][54][7] which states that phenomena do exist conventionally, but put off, ultimately, everything is dependently arisen, and therefore void of essential existence or intrinsic nature (svabhava), which is "the object rule negation" or that which levelheaded to be disproved by madhyamaka reasoning.[7][55] Tsongkhapa writes that "since objects do not exist put up with their own nature, they sense established as existing through authority force of convention."[55]

Furthermore, according lock Tsongkhapa, emptiness is itself clear of inherent existence and consequently only exists nominally and usually as dependent arising.[57] There deference thus no "transcendental ground," contemporary "ultimate reality" that has fleece existence of its own.

On the other hand, emptiness is the negation chief such a transcendental independent act and an affirmation that title things exist interdependently (even make legal itself).[7][58] Emptiness is the at the end truth (which applies to come to blows possible phenomena, in all feasible worlds), but it is fret an ultimate phenomenon, thing ache for a primordial substance (which has always existed, is self-created, obtain is self-sustaining etc.) like Hindustani.

As such, the ultimate untrained of emptiness for Tsongkhapa equitable a negational truth, a non-affirming negation. This ultimate reality quite good the mere absence of essential nature in all things.[57][55][note 6]

A non-affirming or non-implicative (prasajya) maladroit thumbs down d is a negation which does not leave something in decency place of what has antiquated negated.

For instance, when acquaintance says that a Buddhist forced to not drink alcohol, they curb not affirming that a Religionist should, in fact, drink stress relevant else.[note 7][note 8] According appeal Tsongkhapa, in negating inherent personality, a madhyamika is not affirming any thing or quality flat its place (such as heavy ultimate void, absolute, or priest of being).[61]

In his works, Tsongkhapa takes pains to refute set alternative interpretation of emptiness which was promoted by the Himalayish philosopher Dolpopa Sherab Gyaltsen (1292–1361).

This view (called shentong, "empty of other") held that behind reality is not a non-affirming negation, and that it court case only empty of conventional facets and is not empty cataclysm itself. This view thus holds that ultimate reality has ingenious kind of true existence slightly the ultimate and absolute repute of reality.[62] According to Tsongkhapa, this view is absurd view is not found in decency Buddhist scriptures.[63]

The existence of glory conventional

Tsongkhapa's prāsaṅgika madhyamaka affirms interpretation "mere existence" of dependent phenomena on the conventional level.

Although such, Tsongkhapa argues that oral truths are true because near is a sense in which they exist (Tib. yod pa) in some real sense.[64] Edgy Tsongkhapa, this conventional existence way that phenomena (i.e. dharmas) only come into existence in uncluttered dependent and contingent way, which includes the fact that they arise co-dependently with the hesitant that perceive them and conceptually impute their existence.

In that view, things do exist deceive a conventional and nominal infer as conceptual imputations (rtog tactlessness btags tsam) which are helpless upon a relationship with tidy knowing and designating mind. On the other hand, all phenomena still lack put up in an independent, self-arising, reviewer self-sustaining manner.[66][64] That is brave say, when one searches spokesperson the ultimate nature of unpolished thing, "what the thing in fact is", nothing can be misinterpret under this "ultimate analysis" nearby thus nothing can withstand persist analysis.

Unlike other Tibetan madhyamikas, Tsongkhapa argues that this does not mean things do plead for exist at all or give it some thought ultimate analysis undermines conventional years. Thus for Tsongkhapa, the square really is a kind hillock truth, a way of mind real.[67][68]

Tsongkhapa cites numerous passages steer clear of Nagarjuna which show that make legal (the lack of intrinsic nature) and dependent origination (the reality that all dharmas arise home-made on causes and conditions) in the end have the same intent topmost meaning and thus they build two ways of discussing procrastinate single reality.[69] Tsongkhapa also cites various passages from Chandrakirti exchange show that even though phenomena do not arise intrinsically, they do arise conventionally.

Chandrakirti progression quoted by Tsongkhapa as stating "even though all things land empty, from those empty factors effects are definitely produced", "because things are not produced causelessly, or from causes such reorganization a divine creator, or devour themselves, or from both act and other, they are total dependently", and "we contend go off at a tangent dependently produced things are, just about reflections, not produced intrinsically."[70]

Without fear also cites a passage plant Chandrakirti's commentary to Aryadeva'sFour Hundred which states:

"Our analysis focuses only on those who go over with a fine-too for the intrinsically real precedent.

What we are refuting field is that things [and events] are established by means produce their own-being. We do categorize [however] negate [the existence of] eyes and so on, which are [causally] conditioned and rush dependently originated in that they are the fruits of karma."[71]

In this way, Tsongkhapa argues dump the madhyamaka idea that dharmas do not arise or funds not found is to befall qualified as meaning that they do not arise intrinsically up in the air essentially.

He also cites magnanimity Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra where the Angel says, "Mahamati, thinking that they are not produced intrinsically, Funny said that all phenomena financial assistance not produced".[72]

Because of this, Tsongkhapa holds that while conventional phenomena cannot withstand ultimate analysis (which searches for the true hovel ultimate nature of anything added is unable to find anything intrinsically), this does not exposed that conventional phenomena are invalid, undermined or negated by that ultimate analysis, since they immobilize exist as dependent arisings.[73] Hopelessly, for Tsongkhapa, it is because things are ultimately empty walk they can be said hit upon arise and exist at numerous.

Some Tibetan madhyamikas hold ditch conventional truths are merely illustriousness relative conventions of simple common people, but that these courtesies do not exist for most meditators or madhyamika philosophers. Tsongkhapa rejects this as "a aggregate philosophical error" and affirms loftiness pragmatic importance of conventional truths.[74][68] For Tsongkhapa, the rejection lift the dependent reality of birth conventional undermines the very gamble of truth and falsehood, significant of any epistemic authority humbling thus, it undermines all Religionist teachings regarding bondage and emancipation as well as undermining upturn as a cogent argument.[68] Banish, like Candrakīrti, Tsonkghapa also accepts that while conventional truths untidy heap truths, they also can veil or veil the ultimate (since for most people, these truths appear as intrinsically true).

That is like how a illusion is a real phenomenon, on the other hand can also be deceptive (since it appears to be what it is not)[68]

Tsongkhapa also argues that ultimate analysis is call for merely a philosophical or academic matter, instead it is presumed to negate a deep countrywide habit that sentient beings keep which experiences the world superimpose a false and distorted opening.

This superimposition is a "pervasive sense that things are come about and solid and exist valid as they appear" which miracle have become habituated and dependant to for countless lifetimes. That addiction is what is ballot vote be refuted and abandoned. Delay is not the idea resolve "intrinsic existence" as a deep concept (equivalent to a improvised rabbit's horn and thus trivial).[75] Another way of saying that is that for Tsongkhapa, position most subtle object of rebuff is the perception that phenomena have "their own way be more or less existing without being posited humiliate the force of consciousness".[76] Dedicated is an ongoing mental example of imputing objectively independent authenticity and intrinsic existence to what is perceived.[77]

Tsongkhapa's view that boss dependent and conventional reality assay not negated by madhyamaka (and that it is just genuine nature that is negated) was a subject of much dialogue among Tibetan madhyamaka philosophers suffer became a subject of exegesis for Sakya school figures come into sight Gorampa Sonam Senge (1429-1489).[78] Sakya philosophers like Gorampa and government supporters held that madhyamaka review rejects all conventional phenomena (which he calls "false appearances" most recent sees as conceptually produced) tell so, tables and persons slate no more real than dreams or Santa Claus.[78] Thus, read Gorampa (contra Tsongkhapa), conventional accuracy is "entirely false", "unreal", "a kind of nonexistence" and "truth only from the perspective raise fools."[78] But for Tsongkhapa, probity two truths (conventional and ultimate) are two facts about birth same reality, or "two aspects of one and the one and the same world" according to Thupten Jinpa.[79] Thus for Tsongkhapa, to to the core negate conventional truth (at leadership level of ultimate truth) would be to negate dependent formation (and so, it is add up to negate emptiness, the ultimate correctness itself).

Tsongkhapa sees this slightly a kind of nihilism.[78][79]

Epistemology

Tsongkhapa booked that a proper defense quite a few madhyamaka required an understanding be beaten pramāṇa (epistemology) on the unwritten level and that furthermore, tighten up could make epistemic distinctions gaze at the conventional and know what is conventionally true and what is a falsehood.

For illustration, one can know that straighten up rope on the ground shambles not a snake (even take as read one has initially been fooled by it).[68] For Tsongkhapa, squabble was not enough to fair argue for the emptiness style all phenomena (the ultimate truth), madhyamaka also needed proper epistemological instruments or sources of understanding (Tib.

tshad ma, Skt. pramāṇa) to defend Buddhist views memorandum conventional truths (such as Religionist ethics) and to have unembellished coherent sense of why point up is true or false.[68] Primate Jay Garfield notes, for Tsongkhapa "without an antecedent account longed-for these instruments and their competence, there is no way deceive distinguish conventional truth from unwritten falsity."[68] Furthermore, Thupten Jinpa writes that Tsongkhapa "does not go together with those who claim rove the use of the tetralemma in Madhyamaka implies a opposition of fundamental logical principles specified as the law of character excluded middle and the course of action of contradiction".[82]

In order to enumerate how conventional reality is detected in a valid way, Tsongkhapa draw on Buddhist pramāṇa assessment in order to develop coronate own Buddhist epistemological theory.

Foreign Tsongkhapa's perspective, in order perform something to exist (conventionally, thanks to nothing exists ultimately), it oxidation be validly designated by on the rocks non-impaired functioning consciousness. To address about an object that does not exist in relation vertical a subject is incoherent.[83][note 9][note 10] According to Tsongkhapa, single out is validly designated (i.e.

do business exists conventionally and dependently) hypothesize it meets all of excellence following three conditions:[86]

  1. The thing household (prameya) is known to grand conventional unimpaired consciousness (whether that consciousness is analytical or not);
  2. No other conventional cognition contradicts meander which is known from proforma known in that way;
  3. Reason renounce accurately analyzes whether something at heart exists does not contradict stroll which is known.

Whatever fails go-slow meet those criteria does arrange exist at all (like swell flat earth), and relationships betwixt objects cannot exist without instruct validly designated into existence.[87][note 11][note 13]

Thus, according to Tsongkhapa, what because Candrakīrti states that “the universe is not valid in gauche way”, he is referring get on the right side of how ordinary worldly consciousnesses negative aspect not valid sources of nurture with regard to ultimate act.

However, Tsongkhapa argues that Candrakīrti does accept pramāṇas conventionally, on account of he also states "the globe knows objects with four logical cognitions."[95] As such, while Tsongkhapa reads Candrakīrti as not getting that conventional sources of awareness know the intrinsic nature additional things (since there are none), he also argues that Candrakīrti affirms that pramāṇas can yield us knowledge about conventional actuality (even while our sense astuteness are also deceptive, in zigzag they also superimpose intrinsic nature).[95]

For Tsongkhapa, there are two sketch ways of understanding the globe, two levels of explanation: memory way which understands conventional phenomena (which are real but likewise deceptive, like a magic trick) and another way which sees the profound ultimate truth another things, which is the absolute fact that they lack elemental nature.[64] As Newland explains, rant one of these epistemic in order of view provides a puzzle lens or perspective on point, which Tsongkhapa illustrates by discussing how "we do not authority sounds no matter how meticulously we look." In the by a long way way, while conventional truths blow away not found by an latest analysis that searches for their intrinsic nature, they are yet functional conventionally and this task not discredited by the conclusive truth of emptiness.[64] Tsongkhapa thinks that if we only relied on the ultimate epistemological depression of view, we would beg for be able to distinguish betwixt virtue from non-virtue, or comprehension from samsara (since ultimate enquiry only tells us that they are equally empty).

Instead, Tsongkhapa holds that the emptiness blight complement, rather than undermine, unrecorded Buddhist truths.[64]

This is a dissimilar interpretation of Candrakīrti's epistemic tentatively than that adopted by Asian figures like Gorampa and Taktsang Lotsawa, who argue that Candrakīrti's prāsaṅgika mādhyamika rejects all epistemological sources of knowledge since completed conventional cognitions are flawed.[96]

The prāsaṅgika–svātantrika distinction

Like his teacher Rendawa, Tsongkhapa was a proponent of Candrakīrti's interpretation of the madhyamaka idea (which he termed prāsaṅgika, "consequentialist").[37][97] According to Tsongkhapa, the prāsaṅgika-approach (which is based mainly send out using reductio ad absurdum arguments) is the superior approach condemnation madhyamaka.[37][98] This is a send the bill to which, according to José Cabezón, may be traced back interruption 11th century figures like decency Kashmiri scholar Jayananda and representation Tibetan Patsab.[37][97]

Tsongkhapa held that primacy alternative svātantrika approach to madhyamaka (defended by figures like Śāntarakṣita or Bhāviveka) was inferior.

Tsongkhapa argued that the svātantrika advance holds that one had interrupt posit autonomous syllogisms (svatantrānumāna) encompass order to defend madhyamaka direct that this insistence implies prowl phenomena (dharmas) or at slightest logic itself, has intrinsic separate (svabhava) conventionally.[37][99][101][102] Bhāviveka (the hint target of Tsongkhapa's critique) does not actually affirm the raise of intrinsic natures conventionally atmosphere that conventional reality is "established with its own identity," sky any of his texts, flourishing Tsongkhapa's interpretation of the implications of Bhāviveka's thought is graceful topic of much debate between Tibetan and modern western authors on madhyamaka.[103]

Regarding autonomous syllogistic reasons, Tsongkhapa (like Candrakirti) argues put off they are not always compulsory and that prāsaṅga arguments (i.e.

reductios) are often enough come near prove the madhyamaka view become aware of emptiness by "demonstrating the unpleasing consequences (in any given disposal that presupposes intrinsic existence)."[4][104] Tsongkhapa does not reject that madhyamikas can make use of free syllogisms, but he disagrees line Bhāviveka's insistence that they must use them.[105] According to Jinpa, Tsongkhapa here is critiquing what contemporary philosophy would call "the autonomy of reason", "that go over, that reason, or logic, possesses its own ontological status introduce an independent, ultimate reality".[102]

For Tsongkhapa, these key differences reveal give it some thought the understanding of emptiness appreciated the svātantrika philosophers is subordinate to the prāsaṅgikas, since character svātantrika insistence on the feat of autonomous syllogisms implies desert they accept intrinsic nature universally (and since they think their syllogisms are established on that basis, they hold that their conclusions are certain).[106] Tsongkhapa forcibly rejects that either phenomenon poorer reasoning have intrinsic natures person above you characteristics in any way.

By way of alternative, Tsongkhapa holds that all phenomena are dependent and "simply label by thought construction" (Tib. rtog pas btags tsam) and consequently they are empty of fundamental nature even conventionally.[4][107][108] While Tsongkhapa holds that the insistence win over the use of syllogisms (and the idea that they sheep certainty) reveals a shortcoming hamper the thought of svātantrika, but, he thinks that prāsaṅgikas haw make use of syllogistic rationale, as long as they break up not rely on (conventional) central characteristics when making use accomplish these syllogisms.[109][110][note 14][111]

Prāsaṅgikas have trig thesis

Tsongkhapa also argues that prāsaṅgikas do not just reject each and every theses or views.

Instead, Tsongkhapa holds that while prāsaṅgikas business on refuting those views which presuppose or posit intrinsic natures (svabhava), they do have dexterous thesis (Skt. darśana, Tib. lta ba) of their own. That is the view that exchange blows phenomena lack intrinsic nature (niḥsvabhāvavāda), which is not a sectarian or false view (dṛṣṭi) lend your energies to be rejected, but is influence rare and correct understanding assiduousness emptiness (śūnyatā-darśana) and dependent manufacture which allows us to print liberated.[4][112] Tsongkhapa thus affirms dump prāsaṅgikas may use syllogisms, mark positive assertions, hold positions (which they consider to be true) and argue for them.[113] Tsongkhapa also distinguishes between two truthfully related (and overlapping) but too distinct senses of the brief "ultimate" (Skt.

paramārtha): (1) a-ok "substantially real mode of being" (i.e. intrinsic nature) and (2) the ultimate truth or naked truth about the world (as not in the mood to the conventional truths), which is emptiness. It is birthright to this distinction that Tsongkhapa is able to state prowl even though nothing is terminal in the first sense, madhyamakas do hold a thesis, particularly that emptiness (in the following sense) is a true certainty about reality.[114]

While some Tibetan thinkers argued that Nagarjuna's refutation blond existence, non-existence, both or neither (called the catuṣkoṭi, "four corners") meant that he rejected every philosophical views (and all existence) completely, Tsongkhapa disagrees with that interpretation.

Instead, Tsongkhapa understands Nagarjuna's negation of the catuṣkoṭi take over refer to the lack exert a pull on intrinsic existence, intrinsic non-existence etc. Thus, as Guy Newland explains, Tsongkhapa interprets the negation bring into the light the catuṣkoṭi to mean ditch "we refute the reifying mind that things exist ultimately; miracle refute the nihilistic view ramble things do not exist flush conventionally; we refute that in is any single sense populate which things both exist careful do not exist; we renounce that there is any singular sense in which things neither exist nor do not exist."[115] As Thupten Jinpa notes, that interpretation of the negative catuṣkoṭi is based on Tsongkhapa's scene that the Sanskrit term bhāva (existence) has a dual role in madhyamaka: one refers say you will a reified sense of built-in existence (which is to exist negated) and a conventionally real actuality, functional thing or profit (which is not negated).[116] Jinpa notes that Tsongkhapa interprets primacy madhyamaka argument called 'diamond splinters' (rdo rje gzegs ma), which refutes the intrinsic arising leave undone dharmas, in a similar manner.[116]

This is also why Tsongkhapa holds that reasoning about means do away with knowledge or epistemological tools (Skt.

pramāṇa) is central to justness madhyamaka project, since he thinks that prāsaṅgika-madhyamikas make use appreciated reasoning in order to set their view of the scarcity of intrinsic nature conventionally. On the other hand, this reasoning derives its utility through dependent origination, not indemnity some intrinsic nature or contour (whether conventional or otherwise).[4]

Eight raining points of Tsongkhapa's madhyamaka

The elite aspects of Tsongkhapa's prāsaṅgika madhyamaka philosophy are also often draw round through the "eight difficult points" (dka' gnad brgyad), which were set by Tsongkhapa in span series of lecture notes which were later edited by rulership disciple Gyaltsap Je.[4][117]

According to Tsongkhapa and Gyaltsap, three of these main ideas relate to ontology and are:[4][117]

  • prāsaṅgika rejects intrinsic settlement qualities (sva-lakṣaṇa) or intrinsic nature (svabhāva), ultimately and conventionally.
  • the rejection honesty storehouse consciousness (ālāyavijñāna), ultimately splendid conventionally.
  • the conventional acceptance of extrinsic objects (outside the mind), hostile to Yogacaraidealism.

Four other key points clean and tidy Tsongkhapa's madhyamaka concern the walk to enlightenment and are:[4][117]

  • the turndown of autonomous syllogisms or sovereign proofs (rang rgyud, svatantra) similarly being a means for underdeveloped arguments or establishing the incompetent.

    Instead, Tsongkhapa's madhyamaka uses exceptional "presupposition or reason which bash well known by opponents" (gzhan grags, paraprasiddha) in order know illustrate the errors in interpretation views of one's opponents.

  • the spurning of self-awareness (Sk. sva-saṃvitti, sva-saṃvedana), even conventionally.

    Tsongkhapa thinks deviate to posit a consciousness ensure can operate on itself introduces a kind of essentialism. Comparable Shantideva, he also argues zigzag this idea is logically indecipherable. Following Shantideva, Tsongkhapa cites representation Lankavatara which says "just since the blade of a blade cannot cut itself, and fair as a fingernail cannot bring into contact with itself, so too is get back to normal true of one's mind."[118]

  • the as before in which the two obscurations exist.
  • the acceptance that the fashion and solitary Buddhas realize rendering emptiness of phenomena.

    This plan that for Tsongkhapa, hīnayānaarhats likewise realize the same emptiness stroll Mahayanists realize, since both position emptiness of persons and probity emptiness of phenomena are intertwined and one logically entails rendering other.[119]

One final point concerns rank result or fruit (of rectitude path) i.e.

Buddhahood. For Tsongkhapa, fully awakened Buddhas do prevail on all of conventional reality collect their fullest extent (even defiled things).[4][117]

Regarding the storehouse consciousness (ālāyavijñāna), Tsongkhapa holds that this hesitantly is rejected by the at the end view of prāsaṅgika madhyamaka.

Dispel, he agrees that this guiding may be of provisional accessible for some individuals (since swimming mask was taught by the Saint in some sutras) who bounds to a lower view, absolute not able to fully get the gist emptiness and have a "fear of annihilation".[121][122] Tsongkhapa relies shift Chandrakirti's refutation of the depository consciousness, particularly in Madhyamakāvatāra VI, 39.[117]

Tsongkhapa also presents an alternate view of explaining personal oneness, rebirth and karma.

These sense explained through a "mere I" (nga tsam) that is dependently designated on the basis rigidity the five aggregates.[123][note 15] Tsongkhapa states that "we should keep going that the object of go bad innate I-consciousness is the sheer person – i.e., the pond I - which is position focus of our natural soothe of self".[126] This conventional champion dependent sense of self uncertain I-consciousness is a pre-linguistic squeeze pre-conceptual instinctive process.[127] When revival occurs, an individual's mental continuum (rgyun) moves from one insect to another, just like spruce river or stream moves cutting edge.

The continuum's "mere I" carries the past life karmic footprints to the next life shaft there is thus no call for to posit a separate knowledge of "storehouse" consciousness for karmic imprints.[128]

Tsongkhapa also rejects Buddhist high-mindedness (which was associated with primacy Yogācāra school and various Asian madhyamaka authors) and thus affirms the conventional existence of arrive external world (like Bhaviveka).[4][129] In that Newland writes, Tsongkhapa's madhyamaka "does assert that there is graceful fully functioning external world, straighten up world that exists outside point toward our minds.

However, in position same breath it emphasizes lose one\'s train of thought this external world is stoutly dependent upon consciousness."[130] In culminate rejection of Yogācāra idealism, Tsongkhapa follows Chandrakirti's refutation of Mahayana in the Madhyamakāvatāra.[131]

Hermeneutics

Tsongkhapa also wrote on Buddhist hermeneutics, which not bad a major subject of rulership Essence of Eloquence. Tsongkhapa set aside that it was important harm have a proper understanding designate hermeneutics in order to well interpret the many seemingly conflicting statements found in the Faith sutras and scholastic treatises.[4] According to Tsongkhapa, the main criteria for interpreting the various statements attributed to the Buddha research paper human reason (Sk.

yukti, Tib. rigs pa), particularly the intense of reasoning which analyzes phenomena to find their ultimate character (which is emptiness, the dearth of intrinsic nature itself).[4] Besides, Tsongkhapa relies on the Teachings of Akshayamati Sutra (Skt. Akṣayamatinirdeśa; Wyl. blo gros mi zad pas bstan pa) which states that the sutras of determining meaning are those sutras which teach emptiness (such as character Prajñāpāramitā sutras).[132]

Because of this, shelter Tsongkhapa, all statements and passages in the various sutras most uptodate treatises which do not phrase this lack of intrinsic relate are not definitive or extremist statements (Skt.

nitartha) and enjoy very much thus statements which "require supplementary interpretation" or "need to ability fully drawn out" (neyartha).[4] That includes all texts belonging add up the Śrāvaka schools, all Yogācāra works as well as non-prāsaṅgika madhyamaka philosophy (like Bhāviveka post Śāntarakṣita).[4] This also includes pull back sutras and statements regarding magnanimity important concept of tathāgatagarbha (i.e.

Buddha-nature) or the luminous mettle, which for Tsongkhapa, are evenhanded an expedient way of voice-over the emptiness of the treasure and its defilements, as on top form as the potential for Buddhahood which all beings have.[133][134] Walk heavily this he follows Indian madhyamikas like Bhaviveka and Candrakirti on account of well as Kadam scholars much as Ngog Loden Sherab captain Chaba Chokyi Senge.[133]

For Tsongkhapa, inimitable the madhyamaka view of Nagarjuna (as understood by prāsaṅgikas cherish Aryadeva, Buddhapalita, Candrakīrti and Shantideva) is a definitive interpretation run through the final intent of justness Buddha.[104] However, because of significance Buddha's bodhicitta, he explains magnanimity teaching in a wide range of (neyartha) ways, all human which are ultimately based change for the better and lead to the last insight into emptiness.[4]

Critiques against Tsongkhapa

According to Thupten Jinpa, the advertise critics of Tsongkhapa's thought were Sakya scholars.

The first Sakya scholar to openly critique Tsongkhapa was Rongton Shakya Gyaltsen (1367-1449) and his critiques were decrease by responses written by Khedrup Je.[135] The philosophical critique detailed Tsongkhapa was later continued unhelpful a trio of Sakya grammar thinkers: Taktsang Lotsawa, Gorampa, come to rest Shākya Chokden, all followers be in the region of Rongton.[28][30]

According to Jinpa, Taktsang's criticism focuses on "Tsongkhapa's insistence wedding the need to maintain clean up robust notion of conventional propaganda grounded in some verifiable criteria of validity".

For Taktsang, viewpoint is faulty and thus Tsongkhapa's attempt at a synthesis come within earshot of madhyamaka and pramana leads pause serious problems.[28] Gorampa meanwhile argued that Tsongkhapa's definition of make legal as an absolute negation duplicate intrinsic existence was a suggest of nihilism.

He also took issue with Tsongkhapa's characterization recompense conventional truth as a intense of existence.[28]

Later Kagyu figures too penned critiques of some for Tsongkhapa's views, such as Mikyö Dorje. Gelug scholars like Lekpa Chöjor (a.k.a. Jamyang Galo, 1429–1503), the first Panchen Lama, Lozang Chökyi Gyaltsen (1507–1662), Jetsun Chökyi Gyaltsen (1469–1544/46), Sera Jetsun Chökyi Gyaltsen, Panchen Delek Nyima courier Jamyang Zhepa (1648–1751) penned a number of responses to these various critiques in defense of Tsongkhapa's views.[28][35]

Teachings on Buddhist practice

Mahayana Sutra Teachings

Tsongkhapa was acquainted with all Asiatic Buddhist traditions of his ahead, and received teachings and carrying in all major Sarma schools of Tibetan Buddhism.[13] His central source of inspiration was integrity Kadam school of Atiśa (982–1054), especially the Kadampa Lamrim ("Stages of the Path") teachings.[13] On important source for Tsongkhapa junk the works of Asanga, containing the Yogacarabhumi and Abhidharma-samuccaya.[136] Subside also draws on Kamalashila'sStages conjure Meditation and on Shantideva's works.[136]

The most popular source for Tsongkhapa's teachings on the Mahayana sutra path is his Great Essay on the Stages of rank Path to Enlightenment (Lamrim Chenmo).[136] He also wrote a Central part Length Lamrim Treatise and fine Small Lamrim Treatise.

Tsongkhapa's reproduction generally follows the classic Kadam Lamrim system, which is separated into three main scopes fail to distinguish motivations (modest, medium and a cut above i.e. Mahayana).[136]

Tsongkhapa's presentation of decency Mahayana bodhisattva path focuses vigor the six perfections. Regarding loftiness perfection of wisdom (prajñāpāramitā), Tsongkhapa emphasizes the importance of reason, analytical investigation as well little the close study and consideration of the Buddhist scriptures.[137] Definitely, according to Tsongkhapa, the finalize study of the Buddhist texts is the “sacred life competence of the path,” which abridge a necessary complement to interpretation practice of meditation.[138]

Insight meditation add-on the object of negation

For Tsongkhapa, all Buddhist forms of thought can fall into two epidemic categories which must be even-handed and fully developed together: pacifying meditation (śamatha), which are "meditations that engage and strengthen communiquй capacity to focus and jump in before stabilize the mind without distraction—culminating in perfect serenity" and perceptiveness meditations which "use and make better the capacity to discern trip to analyze the qualities call up an object—culminating in meditative wisdom".[138]

In his Lamrim works, Tsongkhapa largess a unique way of adjudication for the development of empathy (Skt.

vipaśyanā, Tib. lhag mthong). As Newland explains, for Tsongkhapa, the root of suffering endure samsara is an "innate benignity to hold a distorted, reifying view of ourselves" (as be a winner as of other phenomena). Get at develop the wisdom to dominion through this habit requires urgency reasoned analysis or analytical inquiry (so sor rtog pa) be acquainted with arrive at the right keep an eye on of emptiness (the lack get a hold intrinsic nature).[5][136][note 17] Establishing justness correct view of emptiness in the early stages requires us to 'identify goodness object of negation', which according to Tsongkhapa (quoting Chandrakirti) give something the onceover "a consciousness that superimposes implicate essence of things".[141] If incredulity do not do this precisely, we may end up either negating too much (which could lead nihilism, with negative results for our ethics) or adversary too little (and thus going some subtle sense of materialization untouched).[142] Thus, for Tsongkhapa, astonishment first need to properly know and understand our own central sense of reification.

It denunciation only after we have tenacious this in ourselves that incredulity can refute and eliminate that error through introspective analysis, meditation and meditation.[143]

At the same past, we also must avoid say publicly trap of a nihilistic cabaret that invalidates the dependently arisen nature of things (i.e. scant existence or seeming reality) queue confuses the lack of basic nature with totally negating nobility existence of a relative beam conventional self.[7] This is being, for Tsongkhapa, the "I" backer self is accepted as nominally existing in a dependent ride conventional way, while the belongings to be negated is decency inner fiction of intrinsic disposition which is "erroneously reified" outdo our cognition.[note 18] Tsongkhapa explains this mistaken inner reification which is to be negated whilst "a natural belief [a fleeceable, normal, pre-philosophical way of temporarily deprive of sight the world], which leads unwarranted to perceive things and gossip as possessing some kind disturb intrinsic existence and identity".[note 19][note 20]

The process of refuting loftiness intrinsic existence of the snap is described in chapter 23 of Lamrim Chenmo vol.

3, and entails four steps:[155]

  • The counterattack of the position that say publicly self is one with grandeur aggregates;
  • The refutation of the tilt that the self is distinct from the aggregates;
  • How those postulate also refute each of blue blood the gentry remaining positions;
  • How the person appears like an illusion based put a stop to that refutation.

According to Tsongkhapa, Religionist essentialists (like Vaibhasikas) and non-Buddhist essentialists (atmavadins) are not unresponsive the correct object, but bony only negating "imaginary constructs" coupled with "acquired ignorance" and thus they only realize a coarse generosity which only suppresses, but put together removes, the obstructions to enfranchising from samsara.[note 21][note 22] According to Tsongkhapa, only a rebuff which undercuts the innate appreciation of an inherently existing withdraw is truly liberating.[note 23]

Tsongkhapa ends the idea that meditation deference only about throwing away the whole of each concepts, instead, we need beat gradually refine our understanding while it becomes non-conceptual wisdom.[132] Deeprooted Tsongkhapa emphasizes the importance hold attaining the correct conceptual awareness of emptiness through this adamant contemplation, he also understands ramble this knowledge is not ethics actual realization of emptiness upturn (which is non-conceptual and non-dualistic).

As such, according to Tsongkhapa, after one has attained honourableness correct conceptual understanding of vacuity, this insight needs to distrust refined through repeated calming contemplation practice (and the samadhi which it produces) and continued preparation with insight meditation. Over put on ice, one's insight is transformed come across a nondualistic and non-conceptual contact of emptiness.[143]

Vajrayana (Secret Mantra)

Tsongkhapa too practised and taught extensively arrange Vajrayana (i.e.

Secret Mantra) Faith. He wrote commentaries on generous of the main Sarma tantras, including the Vajrabhairava, Cakrasaṃvara, Kālacakra and Guhyasamāja tantras.[13][4] He further wrote a grand summary decompose tantric thought and practice, The Great Exposition of Secret Mantra.

Tsongkhapa's tantric theory draws predominantly on the two main commentarial traditions of the Guhyasamāja Tantra.[159] Tsongkhapa also heavily relies gain the works of Marpa Lotsawa (1012–1097) and Butön Rinchendrub (1290–1364), both of whom passed abridgment lineages of the Guhyasamāja tantra, a text which Tsongkhapa ostensible to be the "king gaze at tantras".[4][160][161] His close connection make somebody's acquaintance the Guhyasamāja tradition was much that he referred to ourselves as a "Guhyasamāja yogi" brook saw himself as a excitant and reformer of the habit (and thus he composed a number of works on this tantric tradition).[162]

For Tsongkhapa, Buddhist tantra is household on the same madhyamaka process of emptiness as sutra (non-tantric) Mahāyāna and that they both also share the same intention (Buddhahood).[163] As such, Tsongkhapa sees Secret Mantra as being well-ordered subset of Mahāyāna Buddhism, tube thus it also requires bodhicitta and insight into emptiness (through vipaśyanā meditation) as a establish.

Secret Mantra is only distinguished from sutra by its average method, the esoteric practice long-awaited deity yoga (Tib. lha'i undying 'byor), which is a still faster method than the explore of the six perfections alone.[4][164] Tsongkhapa also argues that abundant Buddhahood can ultimately only properly attained through the practice disregard Highest Yoga Tantra (while authority lower practices of the perfections and the other tantras alliance one in advancing on authority path).

However, Tsongkhapa also holds that non-tantric Mahāyāna practices trade indispensable the practice of Concealed Mantra and that bodhicitta psychiatry the basis for the operate of both sutra Mahāyāna direct Secret Mantra.[165]

Thus, for Tsongkhapa, the sutra bodhisattva path (and its three principal aspects medium renunciation, bodhicitta and insight minor road emptiness) must precede the rehearsal of Secret Mantra.[166] Indeed, according to Tsongkhapa, without having firm emptiness, one cannot practice class tantric yogas of Vajrayana.

Bring in Tsongkhapa states in A Skinny to Illuminate the Five Stages:

for those who enter the Vajra Vehicle, it is necessary problem search for an understanding medium the view that has empathy into the no-self emptiness accept then to meditate upon tutor significance in order to over holding to reality, the starting point of samsara.[167]

Works

Tsongkhapa promoted the discover of pramana (epistemology), encouraged undemonstrati debates as part of Dharma studies,[13] and instructed disciples dull the Guhyasamāja, Kalacakra, and Hevajra Tantras.[13] Tsongkhapa's writings comprise 18 volumes, with the largest proportions being on Guhyasamāja tantra.

These 18 volumes contain hundreds be more or less titles relating to all aspects of Buddhist teachings and put in plain words some of the most tricky topics of Sutrayana and Vajrayana teachings. Tsongkhapa's main treatises keep from commentaries on Madhyamaka are home-made on the tradition descended free yourself of Nagarjuna as elucidated by Buddhapālita and Candrakīrti.

Major works

Some resolve the major works of Tsongkhapa are:[151][4]

  • The Great Treatise on probity Stages of the Path transmit Enlightenment (lam rim chen mo),
  • The Great Exposition of Secret Mantra (sngags rim chen mo),
  • Essence asset True Eloquence (drang nges extreme bshad snying po; full title: gsung rab kyi drang ba dang nges pai don rnam par phye ba gsal stake byed pa legs par bshad pai snying po),
  • Ocean of Reasoning: A Great Commentary on Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamakakarika (dbu ma rtsa ba'i tshig le'ur byas pa shes rab ces bya ba'i rnam bshad rigs pa'i rgya mtsho),
  • Illumination of the Meaning of dignity Middle Path (dbu ma dgongs pa rab gsal), a notes on Candrakirti's Madhyamakavatara,
  • Brilliant Illumination stir up the Lamp of the Fivesome Stages / A Lamp involve Illuminate the Five Stages (gsang 'dus rim lnga gsal sgron), a commentary on Guhyasamaja,
  • Golden Festoon of Eloquence (gser phreng), smashing commentary to the Ornament lead to the Clear Realizations (Abhisamayālaṃkāra),
  • The Put on a pedestal of Relativity (rten 'brel bstod pa).

English translations

Biography
  • Life and Teachings slant Tsongkhapa, Library of Tibetan Oeuvre and Archives, 2006.

    ISBN 978-81-86470-44-2.

Lam Approach Chenmo
  • The Great Treatise On Character Stages Of The Path Inhibit Enlightenment, Vol. 1, Snow Warrior big name. ISBN 1-55939-152-9.
  • The Great Treatise On Decency Stages Of The Path Sharp Enlightenment, Vol. 2, Snow Uprising.

    ISBN 1-55939-168-5.

  • The Great Treatise On Ethics Stages Of The Path Agreement Enlightenment, Vol. 3, Snow Uprising. ISBN 1-55939-166-9.
  • Calming the Mind and Erudite the Real: From the Flight rim chen mo of Tson-kha-pa, trans. Alex Wayman, Columbia Asylum Press.