Gorampa

During Gorampa's time, the Sakya school had to contend with the rise of new Tibetan Buddhist traditions which were growing rapidly, mainly the Gelug school of Tsongkhapa (1357–1419) and the Jonang school of Dolpopa (1292–1361). Both of these schools presented unique presentations of the madhymaka philosophy, which differed significantly from the classic Sakya interpretation of madhyamaka. The Sakyas had also lost political hegemony in Tibet at the time. As the tibetologist José Cabezón writes, "the time was therefore ripe for a committed Sa skya pa intellectual to step up and offer a defense of the classical Sa skya tradition as a whole." One of Gorampa's most important and popular works is Distinguishing the Views (), in which he argues for the classic Sakya view of madhyamaka, which he termed “the Middle Way qua freedom from extremes” (mtha’ bral dbu ma). Like all madhyamikas, Gorampa and other Sakya teachers classified themselves as presenting a madhyamaka view which was "Free from Proliferation" () and he used this name as a moniker for his interpretation of madhyamaka. According to Cabezón, Gorampa's polemics attempt to argue that his interpretation of madhyamaka "is the true middle way between two extremist views prevalent in his day: the eternalistic view of the Jo nang pas, and the nihilistic view of the Dga’ ldan pas." Gorampa considers this view to be the orthodox Sakya school view and traces it back to Ngok Loden Sherab and Patsab Nyima Drak. Gorampa's madhyamaka According to Gorampa, all phenomena are empty of inherent existence (svabhava) but this is not the only feature of the ultimate truth (i.e. emptiness). The ultimate truth is also the absence of the four extremes (existence, nonexistence, both and neither), without any qualification. Thus, for Gorampa, conventional truths are also an object of negation because "they are not found at all when subjected to ultimate rational analysis". Hence, Gorampa's madhyamaka negates existence itself without qualifications. This is different than the view of Tsongkhapa, where the object of negation is just svabhava. As such, according to Cabezón, Gorampa holds that "the fourfold negation found in the tetralemma or catuskoti—not x, not non-x, not both, and not neither—is to be taken literally as a repudiation of, for example, existence, nonexistence, both, and neither without the need for qualification. Hence, contra Tsong kha pa, existence itself is an object of negation for him, there being no need to add the qualifier “ultimate” (as in “ultimate existence”) to make this negation palatable." As Jay L. Garfield and Sonam Thakchoe write:By “false appearance,” Gorampa means anything that appears to our mind. Therefore, all conventional phenomena are false appearances. Appearances, he claims, are conceptually produced. So, when conceptual reification ceases, appearance also ceases. Insight into reality puts an end to conceptual reification and so to appearance. As Gorampa states, the first priority of madhyamikas should be “the negation of the reality of appearances; thus the unreality of appearances is the principal thing to be established.” Furthermore, the object of negation consists of an objective aspect (yul), comprising all conventional truths and a subjective aspect (yul can), comprising all cognitions (with the exception of ārya's meditative equipoise). For Gorampa, all conventional knowledge is dualistic, being based on a false distinction between subject and object. Therefore, for Gorampa, madhyamaka analyzes all supposedly real phenomena and concludes through that analysis "that those things do not exist and so that so-called conventional reality is entirely nonexistent." Gorampa writes:Suppose someone replied: If that were the case, even conventional truths would have to be the object of negation from the perspective of the ultimate rational analysis. Precisely, absolutely. This is because they are not found at all when subjected to ultimate rational analysis.And,Those who seek to achieve awakening must negate reality...seekers of the awakening of the Mahāyāna must negate the fabrication (spros pa) of all four extremes. Thus, in Gorampa's system "there simply is no truth in conventional truth; to be conventionally real is to be completely unreal. To see things as they are is to see nothing at all." Critique of Dolpopa and shentong Gorampa criticized the shentong view of Dölpopa Shérap Gyeltsen (1292–1361), following Rongton and Rendawa, and argued that it is incompatible with any of the sutra traditions or Buddhist philosophical schools and thus "it cannot but fall outside of the [bounds of the] Buddhist tradition." Thus, for Gorampa, the Jonang philosophy is “a system that, while having strong affinities to the Cittamatra, never manages to reach the Middle Way." Gorampa accuses Tsongkhapa of holding an interpretation of madhyamaka which amounts to nihilism. This is why for Gorampa, everything (including conceptual emptiness) is to be negated by madhyamaka dialectic. As Cabezón explains:For Tsong kha pa, the problem of ignorance lies in the fact that the mind improperly reifies objects, imputing real or inherent existence to things that lack it. For Go rams pa, the chief problem lies in the fact that the mind operates through a dichotomizing filter that continuously splits the world into dualities (existent/nonexistent, permanent/impermanent, and so forth). Put another way, for Tsong kha pa the problem lies with the false quality that the mind attributes to objects, whereas for Go rams pa it lies with the very proliferative character of the conceptual mind itself, an aspect of mental functioning that cannot be entirely eliminated through the selective negation of a specific quality (true existence), requiring instead the use of a method (the complete negation of all extremes) that brings dualistic thinking to a halt. Gorampa also criticizes Tsongkhapa's view of conventional truth on numerous points (including those related to Tsongkhapa's "Eight Difficult Points") such as: • for accepting the destruction of things to be a real entity (zhig pa dngos po ba) • for his theory of perception across the different realms of existence, which explains how different types of beings (humans, hungry ghosts, gods, etc.) perceive the same object differently by arguing that "a vessel full of liquid must be said to contain actual water, actual pus and blood, actual nectar and so forth." • Gorampa claims that Tsongkhapa reifies the “mere I,” into a real entity that is left over when the self is analyzed • Gorampa disagrees with Tsongkhapa that sravakas and pratyekabuddhas understand the ultimate truth as the freedom from proliferations • Gorampa critiques Tsongkhapa's rejection of the foundation consciousness (kun gzhi) and of self-reflexive cognition (rang rig) Gorampa also does not agree with Tsonghkapa that the prasangika and svatantrika methods produce different results nor that the prasangika is a "higher" view. Gorampa also critiques the svatantrika approach as having too much reliance on logic, because in his view the component parts of syllogistic logic are not applicable in the realm of the ultimate. But this critique is constrained to the methodology, and he believed both approaches reach the same ultimate realization. In his polemical passages against Tsongkhapa, Gorampa states that Tsongkhapa's supposed conversations with Manjusri bodhisattva were actually encounters with a demon: Gorampa's critiques of Tsongkhapa were very influential and it was seen as a major critique of the Gelug tradition by Gelug scholars. Gorampa's critiques were addressed by some of the Gelug school's most important thinkers such as Jetsün Chökyi Gyaltsen (Rje btsun Chos kyi rgyal mtshan c. 1469– 1544/46) and Jamyang Shepe Dorje Ngawang Tsondrü (’Jam dbyangs bzhad pa Ngag dbang brtson ’grus c. 1648–1722). == Works ==

Gorampa was a prolific author, his major exoteric works are: Middle-Way (Madhyamaka; Dbu ma) works • Dbu ma rtsa ba’i shes rab kyi rnam par bshad pa yang dag lta ba’i’ ’od zer (incomplete), a commentary on Nagarjuna’s Mulamadhyamakakarika • Rgyal ba thams cad kyi dgongs pa zab mo dbu ma’i de kho na nyid spyi’i ngag gis ston pa nges don rab gsal,188 also known as the Dbu ma’i spyi don, a general exposition of Madhyamaka • Lta ba’i shan ’byed theg mchog gnad kyi zla zer, his polemic against Dol po pa and Tsong kha pa, written in 1469 • Dbu ma la ’jug pa’i dkyus kyi sa bcad pa dang gzhung so so’i dka’ ba’i gnas la dpyad pa lta ba ngan sel, a quasi-polemical commentary that focuses on the difficult points of Candrakirti's Madhyamakavatara, taking issue with many of Tsong kha pa's interpretations Perfection of Wisdom (Prajñaparamita; Phar phyin) works • Shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa’i man ngag gi bstan bcos mngon par rtogs pa’i rgyan ’grel pa dang bcas pa’i dka’ ba’i gnas rnam par bshad pa yum don rab gsal, a commentary on the Abhisamayalankara, written in 1464 at Skyed tshal • Shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa man ngag gi bstan bcos mngon par rtogs pa’i rgyan gyi gzhung snga phyi’i ’grel dang dka’ gnas la dpyad pa sbas don zab mo’i gter gyi kha ’byed, another commentary on the Abhisamayalankara, written in 1470 at Rta nag • Grel pa don gsal gyi ngag don, a commentary on Haribhadra’s Sphuthartha, written in 1481 at Ngor E vam chos ldan • Shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa’i man ngag gi bstan bcos mngon par rtogs pa’i rgyan gyi mtshon byed kyi chos rnams kyi yan lag khyad par bshad pa sbas don rab gsal, a commentary on the Abhisamayalankara, written in 1472 at Rta nag • Zhugs gnas kyi rnam gzhag skyes bu mchog gi gsal byed, a treatise on those who “enter and abide” in the different fruits of the path (stream-enterer, etc.), written in 1470 at Rta nag • Mthar gyi gnas pa’i snyom par ’jug pa’i rnam bshad snyoms ’jug rab gsal, a treatise on the advanced meditative states, written in 1470 at Rta nag • Rten ’brel gyi rnam par bzhag pa ’khor ’das rab gsal, a treatise on dependent arising, written in 1470 at Rta nag Epistemo-Logical (Pramana; Tshad ma) works • Rgyas pa’i bstan bcos tshad ma rnam ’grel gyi rnam par bshad pa kun tu bzang po’i ’od zer, an extensive commentary on Dharmakirti’s Pramanavarttika, composed in 1474 • Rgyas pa’i bstan bcos tshad ma rnam ’grel gyi ngag don kun tu bzang po’i nyi ma, a shorter commentary on the Pramanavarttika, written at Rta nag • Sde bdun mdo dang bcas pa’i dgongs pa phyin ci ma log par ’grel pa tshad ma rig[s] pa’i gter gyi don gsal bar byed pa, a commentary on the seven treatises of logic and Sapan’s Tshad ma rigs gter • Tshad ma rigs pa’i gter gyi dka’ gnas rnam par bshad pa sde bdun rab gsal, a commentary on Sapan's Tshad ma rigs gter composed in 1471 at Dga’ ba tshal Monastery Vinaya (’Dul ba) works • Dul ba mdo rtsa’i rgyas ’grel (no longer extant), a commentary on the Vinaya Sutra of Gunaprabha • Rab tu byung ba rnams kyi bslab bya nyams su blang ba’i chos ’dul ba rgya mtsho’i snying po, advice to monks, written in 1481 at Rta nag Abhidharma (Mdzod) works • Chos mngon pa mdzod kyi bshad thabs kyi man ngag ngo mtshar gsum ldan (incomplete), a commentary to the Abhidharmakosha • Phung khams skye mched kyi rnam gzhag ji snyed shes bya’i sgo ’byed, a treatise on the aggregates, elements, and spheres, written in 1472 at Rta nag Works on the three vows (Sdom gsum skor) • Sdom pa gsum gyi rab tu dbye ba’i rnam bshad rgyal ba’i gsung rab kyi dgongs pa gsal ba, a commentary on Sapan’s Sdom gsum rab dbye, written in 1463 at Skyed tshal • Sdom gsum rab dbye’i spyi don yid bzhin nor bu, a general treatise on the Sdom gsum rab dbye, written in 1461 at Skyed tshal • Sdom pa sgum gyi bstan bcos la dris shing rtsod pa’i lan sdom gsum ’khrul spong, a polemical work defending the Sdom gsum rab dbye, written in 1476 at Rta nag • Sdom pa gsum gyi rab tu dbye ba’i kha skong legs bshad ’od kyi snang ba, a polemical supplement to the Sdom gsum rab dbye, written in 1478 at Rta nag • Sdom gsum kha skong gi bsdus don, an abbreviated version of the supplement to the Sdom gsum rab dbye, written at Rta nag Miscellaneous texts • Blo sbyong zhen pa bzhi bral byi khrid yig zab don gnad kyi lde’u mig, a commentary on the famous short text, Abandoning the Four Attachments • Rgyud bla’i ’grel pa rtsom ’phro, an incomplete commentary on the Uttaratantra == See also ==