Madhyamaka exams
Found one of these old exams from 2009. Sort of embarrassed, but it’s what I wrote down at the time. Now I’ve completely forgotten everything.
Examination questions are in bold. Instructor comments are in block quotes.
- What are the different interpretations of the term Madhyamaka?
The term ‘Madhyamaka’ is the Sanskrit of what is generally translated into English as the ‘Middle Way.’ ‘Madhya’ means middle. ‘Ma’ is an emphasizing particle which here suggests the ‘very middle.’ And ‘ka’ indicates the way and could refer to texts, the path, the method etc. The Tibetan translation ‘Uma’ offers another level of interpretation. ‘U’ means middle and ‘ma’ is a nominal suffix or it could also be a negating particle. As a negating particle Uma could be interpreted as ‘not even the middle.’
Middle indicates not dwelling in the extremes. Lama Tenpa illustrates this as a soccer field where the two goals at either end represent the two extremes of existence and non-existence or permanence and impermanence. A Madhyamika, a person who follows Madhyamaka, does not subscribe to either extremes. Considering the Tibetan interpretation of not even dwelling in the middle, Lama Tenpa suggests that Madhyamaka could not even be placed on the soccer field. In other words, it is not a matter of negotiating a compromise between two choices, but rather Madhyamaka is beyond the soccer field altogether. This interpretation seems to be the most appropriate to its non-implicative stance.
Well said.
2. What is the purpose of studying Madhyamaka?
Our immediate concern is about certainty. Ultimately our view of reality is decided by this mind and could either be based on an ambiguous belief or a clear certainty. The purpose of Madhyamaka then is to fully investigate our conceptual clinging and to eventually lead one to an unmistaken understanding of reality.
By using it as a tool to help us let go of reference points
3. What is the basis, path, & fruition in the Madhyamaka system?
The basis is the union of the two realities, the path is the accumulations of merit and wisdom, and the result are the two enlightened bodies.
Ok
5. Briefly describe the common aspects and the differences between Svatrantika and Prasangika.
Get max lee’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
You could say the main aspect common to both Svatrantika and Prasangika according to Jamgon Kongtrul is they are both Proponents of Entitylessness as the ultimate view of reality. Otherwise they would not be considered Madhyamaka. The ultimate is explained in terms of the two identitylessnesses: personal identitylessness and phenomenal identitylessness. The second aspect common to both is the manner of reasoning. Through the five means of analysis of (1)the cause, (2) result, (3) both cause and result, (4) the entity and (5) the reasoning of dependence they use nonimplicative negation of the object, and the subject, which is all phenomenon from form up to omniscience. They both agree on the ultimate
The two schools differ in their presentation and assertion of seeming reality. The Autonomists acknowledge valid cognition at the level of the seeming according to the other schools such as the Sautrantika and Chittamatra. But they do not accept the views of these schools at the ultimate. The Consequentialists do not argue from the basis of philosophical systems but from worldly consensus at the level of no analysis. This is illustrated by the story of Chandrakiriti who merely asserts the appearance of his robe in front of him and the appearance of Nalanda behind him.
The main difference is that Svatrnatikas use autonomous reasonings as part of their system while Prasangikas don’t.
6. Give brief overview of Five Great Uma reasonings. What does each one refute?
We could broadly categorize the first four reasonings as refuting the extreme of eternalism and the fifth reasoning to refute both eternalism and nihilism. The first reasoning of analysis of the cause investigates just exactly where is the cause of arising. In the example of the sprout, it asks just how did the sprout arise? Did it arise from itself, from something other, from both, or without any cause? So it refutes arising. The second reasoning refutes the notion of result that exists at the time of a cause. So if the result is the sprout, then did the sprout exist at the time of the cause or does the sprout exist only at the time of the result? The third is the analysis of both cause and result, which refutes arising from four the possibilities. Can one sprout arise from one seed or does it take many seeds to produce one sprout or one seed to produce many sprouts or many seeds to produce may sprouts etc.? The fourth is the analysis of the entity, which refutes singularity and multiplicity. What makes a sprout a sprout? Is it the stem, the bud etc. In actuality there is no singularity that could define the notion of sprout. The fifth reasoning of dependent origination is known as the king of reasoning. It refutes existence and nonexistence because all phenomena originate in dependence.
Good: brief and pithy
9. Is Madhyamaka nihilistic? Why?
Supposedly Madhyamaka as a view is not nihilistic because it does not make any assertions about existence or non-existence. The common interpretation of the nihilistic view is mere nothingness. Emptiness and nothingness are not synonymous. If you ask if the Madhyamika has within his or her mindstream a nihilistic view, then I would also say no because he or she would not refute mere appearance at the conventional level. At the ultimate level, nominal reality is understood as freedom from proliferations. Since nihilism denies the conventional reality of cause and effect and also does not approach the ultimate view of freedom from proliferations, strictly speaking Madhymaka is not nihilistic. But I do understand how other Buddhist schools may perceive the Madhyamaka view as being nihilistic according to their own tenet systems since their views are based on different modes of analysis.
Very well put
12. Comment on: “through appearances one does not reject the path of karma. Through being empty, clinging does not arise.”
At the level of the seeming one’s actions are still governed by the seeming.
Jamgon Kongtrul quotes Tilopa’s instruction to Naropa, “It is not appearances that bind you, but your clinging…”
In this sense the view informs one’s actions in approaching the ultimate, but the conventional reality of the immediate seeming (appearances) would not be negated through reasoning.
