I believe this is from khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche? But it is neither the view of Longchenpa nor Mipham nor the founder of Nyingma Nubchen Sangye Yeshe. I supposed u have read enough of Malcolm conversations in dharmawheel abt Shentong and Rangtong and difference between Shentong and Dzogchen 😜.
yeah longchenpa doesn't agree with shentong but he accepts tathagatagarbha as definitive
Malcolm: It also explains why, for example, Longchenpa is not a gzhan stong pa. He considers tathāgatagarbha definitive, but places the teaching of the three natures within Yogacara and never uses them to explicate the meaning of the tathāgatagarba, since they are not necessary. There is no discussion of these in the Uttaratantra, per se. The Yogacara masters were not that interested in tathagatagarbha, quite frankly.
John Lane wrote in AtR group:
Tathagatagarbha has always been accepted as definitive, just the interpretation.
Soh: [pasting more]
Soh Wei YuAuthor
Longchenpa’s definition of buddha nature as the union of emptiness and clarity and rejection of non buddhist views is consistent with what I have said above about the provisional vs definitive meaning of buddha nature.
Also, Malcolm wrote before:
“In general, it (Soh: Mahaparinirvana Sutra) should be considered provisional even by Longchenpa since it contains the doctrine of the icchantika. It is also considered provisional because it uses intentional language to discuss a self, permanence, and so on.
What Longchenpa holds to be definitive is the doctrine of tathāgatagarbha, but there are some problems if we take the whole of those ten sūtras to be "definitive."
Then of course, there is the issue of whether the tathāgatagarbha doctrine is actually definitive. Arguably, the Uttaratantra itself holds the tathāgatagarbha doctrine to be provisional.”
Soh Wei YuAuthor
Malcolm also wrote:
“They are for Gorampa as well, providing tathāgatagarbha is properly understood. But if for example the nine examples are not correctly understood, he states the TTG sūtras are provisional.
Also, the reason Longchenpa claims the TTG sūtras are definitive has to do with how he understands them in relation to Dzogchen. He also defines Prasanga Madhyamaka as the definitive view.
In general, however, the Buddha himself declares the tathāgatagarbha doctrine provisional, that is interpretable, in the Lanka Sūtra.”
Soh Wei YuAuthor
“Longchenpa had no problem reconciling Prasanga Madhyamaka, which he maintains is the definitive view, with tathāgatagarbha sūtras, which he maintains are the definitive sūtras. Likewise Gorampa asserts that properly understood the tathāgatagarbha doctrine is definitive and does not contradict Madhyamaka, but wrongly understood leads to a wrong view. Thus, these are not examples of squeezing tathāgatagarbha into Madhyamaka, if anyone is doing any squeezing, it is the gzhan stong pas who try to squeeze Madhyamaka, Yogacāra and tathātagatagarbha all into the same box, without much success, frankly.”
Acarya Malcolm Smith:
"The term bdag nyid, atman, just means, in this case, "nature", i.e. referring to the nature of reality free from extremes as being permanent, blissful, pure and self. The luminosity of the mind is understood to be this.
There are various ways to interpret the Uttaratantra and tathāgatagarbha doctrine, one way is definitive in meaning, the other is provisional, according to Gorampa Sonam Senge, thus the tathāgatagarbha sutras become definitive or provisional depending on how they are understood. He states:
In the context of showing the faults of a literal [interpretation] – it's equivalence with the Non-Buddhist Self is that the assertion of unique eternal all pervading cognizing awareness of the Saṃkhya, the unique eternal pristine clarity of the Pashupattis, the unique all pervading intellect of the Vaiśnavas, the impermanent condition, the measure of one’s body, in the permanent self-nature of the Jains, and the white, brilliant, shining pellet the size of an atom, existing in each individual’s heart of the Vedantins are the same.
The definitive interpretation he renders as follows:
Therefor, the Sugatagarbha is defined as the union of clarity and emptiness but not simply emptiness without clarity, because that [kind of emptiness] is not suitable to be a basis for bondage and liberation. Also it is not simple clarity without emptiness, that is the conditioned part, because the Sugatagarbha is taught as unconditioned.
Khyentse Wangpo, often cited as a gzhan stong pa, basically says that the treatises of Maitreya elucidate the luminosity of the mind, i.e. its purity, whereas Nāgarjuna's treatises illustrate the empty nature of the mind, and that these two together, luminosity and emptiness free from extremes are to be understood as noncontradictory, which we can understand from the famous Prajñāpāramita citation "There is no mind in the mind, the nature of the mind is luminosity"."
i think Tsongkhapa treats it as provisional
but most understand it to be either provisional or definitive depending on how it is understood
shentong also seems to have many interpreters.. when thrangu rinpoche explained shentong, he emphasized empty nature of luminosity although there are qualities. so i dont find his explanation any way veering into extremes. but when i look at the originator Dolpopa, i cant differentiate his teachings from advaita 😂
i havent read very indepth into tsultrim gyamptso writings but i dont think he holds substantialist view either
Tsongkhapa has different definition with regards to perception and therefore context is different. He doesn't accept pure perception of dharmakirti and dignaga and therefore all phenomena dependent originate. U see many like to say Tsongkhapa doesn't know freedom from all elaborations and started talking about this and that, do u think this is possible? Tsongkhapa is an accomplished yogi and scholar. His thoughts r very deep and profound so don't make comments that u don't understand and when u din read enough about him.
oic.. yeah i think even malcolm has a more respectful tone about tsongkhapa these days
You seem to really get off on relating stories about teachers and their unconventional conduct.
I prefer stories about truly great beings like Sapan, Longchenpa, Ngorchen, Tsongkhapa, etc. "
Tsongkhapa is a wonderful teacher, but you should not imagine that his presentation is by any means the definitive one. It is not even the definitive one in Geluk, since there are many different trends in Geluk, and not even all famous Geluk scholars agree with everything Tsongkhapa wrote.
" Tsongkhapa was a nonsectarian master. And there are many others in the history of the Geluk schools. Indeed, in Geluk, rivalry amongst different colleges was far more intense than extra-sectarian impulses."
" Consciousness is a dependently arising dharma. So not, it does not ultimately exist.
Whatever is dependently originated, that is empty, that is dependently designated, and that is the middle way.
That which arises dependently is free from the extremes of permanence and annihilation. You might try reading Tsongkhapa's Praise to Dependent Origination. Many people consider it Tsongkhapa's final statement on his realization of emptiness. "
" Tsongkhapa’s approach to Madhyamaka is ok, it just has some holes, and one of those is the monopole negation. No Gelugpa has ever successfully rebutted Gorampa’s critique of Tsongkhapa’s novelties, but we’ve had this discussion before. And Tsongkhapa has even been challenged within his own school.
Mipham largely bases his arguments on Gorampa.
In Ocean of Reasoning, Tsongkhapa clearly talk about freedom of extremes and freedom from all elaborations.
Gorampa is very fierce in his criticisms about Tsongkhapa as if he was in the same period but they never met. Gorampa was borned like 20 years after Tsongkhapa's death.
For freedom from all elaborations, yes Mipham largely based his arguments on Gorampa. But Gorampa din mention abt appearances as far as I know that Mipham emphasized a lot, Mipham thought is very much influenced by Rongzom, in fact he self claimed as Rongzom disciple.🤣
ic... yeah Rongzom sounds very resonating for those who go through anatta
André A. PaisAuthorAdminThe nature of mind is utter openness and complete relaxation. Thus, any fixation on existence or non-existence works as a point of closedness and tension. Keeping that in mind, we should exercise some plasticity when it comes to means of expression and linguistic conventions; they will always be dualistic and context-dependent. Rangtong can be seen as a methodology; shentong as a celebratory description. If handled carelessly, both are prone to strayings into non-existence and existence, respectively. Skillfully utilized, I think both can tread on the tightrope that is the Middle Way free from extremes.1André A. PaisAuthorAdminThe aspiration to realize the wisdom mind of the unity that defies the intellectInconceivable and free of all superimposition, one-sided fixationOn things being either existent or non-existent completely dissolves.The full import of this turns back even the tongue of the victors.Without beginning, middle, or end, it is a great expanse of deep clarity.May all realize this Great Perfection, the true nature of the ground!To the conceptual mind, with its characteristic mind and mental states, the precise nature of this ground is inconceivable. The object, the sphere of reality, is free of all conceptual projections. Although the conventions "primordial purity" and "spontaneous presence" are used in order to communicate, if one latches onto the existence or non-existence of the sphere of reality, the mind will fall prey to superimposition and its basic nature will not be seen.The same holds for the subject as well, meaning wisdom, since this causes all one-sided fixation on things being either existent or non-existent to completely dissolve into the expanse of reality. This realization, in which subject and object are of one taste, can be put into conventional terms, yet its full import defies such expressions; it turns back even the tongue of the victors, who reign supreme when it comes to using positive affirmations to describe the true nature of things.This inherent pure awareness is without birth in the beginning, abiding in the middle, or cessation in the end; it is a great and spontaneously present expanse of deep, radiant clarity. May all realize the unified Great Perfection, the true nature of the ground—an inconceivable reality that defies the intellect!1p.s. found a post by Kyle Dixon from 5 years ago:level 1
Gzhan stong (Shentong) simply says that buddha qualities are innate and fully formed from the very beginning. For instance they hold the three kāyas to be fully formed at all times, something that no other system believes.
Their view consists of mapping the three nature scheme of Yogācāra over the two truths of Madhyamaka, some argue that this view doesn't really work.
The adept who started gzhan stong, named Dolbupa, belonged to the Jonang school of Tibetan Buddhism and is widely considered to have a very extreme view (in terms of being quite eternalistic). Nowadays there are more moderate forms of gzhan stong such as that of Shakya Chögden and Jamgon Köngtrul, who are both considered to be much more agreeable.
Gzhan stong is found in most every school of Tibetan Buddhism, but only moderately. It is not found in the Gelug school at all.
The three major Tibetan views are (i) gzhan stong, (ii) spros bral, (iii) gelug. The Kagyu, Nyingma and Sakya schools contain a mixture of spros bral and gzhan stong. The Jonang is mainly Dolbupa's gzhan stong, and the Gelug practice Tsongkhapa's Prasanga Madhyamaka.5
"Mind itself and the true nature of
objects have no reality whatsoever
and are beyond intellect and
inexpressible. This one point could
well be the synopsis of all teachings."
- Jamgon Kongtrul Lodro Thaye