Knowing Illusion Bringing A Tibetan Debate Into Contemporary Discourse Volume Ii Translations The Yakherds full chapter pdf docx

Knowing Illusion: Bringing a Tibetan
Debate into Contemporary Discourse:

Volume II: Translations The Yakherds
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/knowing-illusion-bringing-a-tibetan-debate-into-conte
mporary-discourse-volume-ii-translations-the-yakherds/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
The Oxford Latin Syntax, Volume II: the Complex

Sentence and Discourse Harm Pinkster
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-oxford-latin-syntax-volume-ii-
the-complex-sentence-and-discourse-harm-pinkster/
Brain, Beauty, and Art: Essays Bringing Neuroaesthetics

into Focus Anjan Chatterjee (Editor)
https://ebookmass.com/product/brain-beauty-and-art-essays-
bringing-neuroaesthetics-into-focus-anjan-chatterjee-editor/
Organic Chemistry—A Modern Approach (Volume-II) Nimai

Tewari
https://ebookmass.com/product/organic-chemistry-a-modern-
approach-volume-ii-nimai-tewari/
Flow Assurance. Volume II Qiwei Wang
https://ebookmass.com/product/flow-assurance-volume-ii-qiwei-
wang/
A Chinese-tibetan Bilingual Dictionary 1st Edition
Et.Al. (Ed.) Editing Group Of Tibetan People'S
Publishing House
https://ebookmass.com/product/a-chinese-tibetan-bilingual-
dictionary-1st-edition-et-al-ed-editing-group-of-tibetan-peoples-
publishing-house/
The Sustainable Development Theory: A Critical

Approach, Volume 1: The Discourse of the Founders 1st
ed. Edition Ion Pohoa■■
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-sustainable-development-theory-
a-critical-approach-volume-1-the-discourse-of-the-founders-1st-
ed-edition-ion-pohoata/
Gardner’s Art through the Ages: A Global History,

Volume II 16th Edition, (Ebook PDF)
https://ebookmass.com/product/gardners-art-through-the-ages-a-
global-history-volume-ii-16th-edition-ebook-pdf/
Spatial Economics, Volume II: Applications Stefano

Colombo
https://ebookmass.com/product/spatial-economics-volume-ii-
applications-stefano-colombo/
Miller's Anesthesia, 2-Volume Set: Volume I + II 9th

Edition Michael A. Gropper Md Phd (Editor)
https://ebookmass.com/product/millers-anesthesia-2-volume-set-
volume-i-ii-9th-edition-michael-a-gropper-md-phd-editor/
Knowing Illusion: Bringing a Tibetan
Debate into Contemporary Discourse
Volume II
Knowing Illusion:
Bringing a Tibetan
Debate into
Contemporary
Discourse
Volume II: Translations
T H E YA K H E R D S
1
3
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers
the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education
by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University
Press in the UK and certain other countries.
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press

198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America.
© Oxford University Press 2021
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in

a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction
rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above.
You must not circulate this work in any other form

and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Yakherds, The, editors.
Title: Knowing illusion: Bringing a Tibetan debate into contemporary
discourse / The Yakherds. | Volume II: translations |
New York : Oxford University Press, 2021|
Includes bibliographical references and index.|
Identifiers: LCCN 2021029427 (print) | LCCN 2021029428 (ebook) |
ISBN 9780197603680 (paperback) | ISBN 9780197603673 (hardback) |
ISBN 9780197603703 (epub) | ISBN 9780197603710 (oso) | ISBN 9780197603697 (updf)
Subjects: LCSH: Knowledge, Theory of (Buddhism) | Buddhist logic.
Classification: LCC BQ4440.K66 2021 (print) | LCC BQ4440 (ebook) |
DDC 181/.043—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021029427
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021029428
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780197603673.001.0001
1 3 5 7 9 8 6 4 2
Paperback printed by Marquis, Canada
Hardback printed by Bridgeport National Bindery, Inc., United States of America
Preface
This is the second volume of a two-volume study, the first of which is a

philosophical history and critical examination of the debate between
Geluk scholars and their Sakya and Kagyü interlocutors inspired by
Taktsang Lotsawa Sherab Rinchen’s (sTag tshang Lo tsā ba Shes rab rin
chen, 1405– 1477) charge of “eighteen great burdens of contradiction.”
These contradictions were leveled against Tsongkhapa Losang Drakpa
(Tsong kha pa bLo bzang grags pa, 1357–1419) in the fifth chapter of
Taktsang’s doxographic work Freedom from Extremes Accomplished through
Comprehensive Knowledge of Philosophy (Grub mtha’ kun shes nas mtha’ bral
sgrub pa). We follow that debate from its inception in the fifteenth century to
the present day in our studies in Volume I. This volume presents translations
of the principal texts comprising that debate that have hitherto not been
available in European languages.
We advise reading these two books together. This volume contains most of
the original material relevant to this debate; the study volume discusses the
history of the debate, including the issues discussed by Indian philosophers
that set the agenda for future exegetes. We then move on to early Tibetan
disputes regarding which Indic sources ought to be regarded as normative,
and how further controversies developed as Tibetans attempted to work out
the conceptual ramifications of the philosophical corpus they inherited from
India. The bulk of the first book analyzes the philosophical details of the var-
ious positions that were defended in Tibet.
Hence, the reader who wishes to start with the primary material can read
this volume and use the study volume as a guide to this literature; the reader
who wishes to have an analytical overview of this episode in Tibetan intellec-
tual history and to see its connections to contemporary philosophy can read
the study volume and use the texts in this volume to get a feel for how these
ideas were expressed in Tibet and how various Tibetan philosophers pros-
ecuted their respective arguments and analyses. Each work was written to
stand on its own, but careful reading of both, either in tandem or sequentially,
will provide a more comprehensive picture of the philosophical discussions
viii Preface
that involved many of Tibet’s greatest minds for centuries and that delve into
fundamental aspects of Buddhist thought and practice.
There are texts relevant to this debate that are not collected in this book,
although they are discussed in the study volume. The first is Tsongkhapa’s
own exposition in Great Treatise on the Stages of the Path to Awakening
(Lam rim chen mo). This is a tour de force of Buddhist philosophy, in which
Tsongkhapa examines in great detail and analytical subtlety the role of epis-
temology in the conventional world, along with the status of conventional
truth in Prāsaṅgika Madhyamaka—the philosophical tradition that came to
be widely regarded in Tibet as the supreme articulation of Buddhist thought.
That account is already beautifully translated in the Lamrim Chenmo
Translation Committee’s Great Exposition of the Stages of the Path to
Enlightenment (Lam rim chen mo) (Ithaca, NY: Snow Lion Publications,
2000–2002, vol. 3: 155–184), and we recommend that the interested reader
consult that text. Khedrupjé (mKhas grub rje dGe legs dpal bzang, 1385–
1438) offers a synopsis of this view in his Great Digest (sTong thun chen
mo), translated by José Cabezón in A Dose of Emptiness (Ithaca, NY: State
University of New York Press, 1993). That exposition also provides impor-
tant context for the debates discussed here. Finally, Jamyang Shepa’s (’Jam
dbyangs bzhad pa’i rdo rje Ngag dbang brtson ’grus, 1648–1721/2) reply to
Taktsang is available in Jeffry Hopkins’s translation of his Great Exposition of
Philosophical Systems (Grub mtha’ chen mo) in Maps of the Profound (Ithaca,
NY: Snow Lion Publications, 2003). Because reliable translations have al-
ready been published, although we discuss them in Volume I, we do not offer
new translations here.
The reader will note that while Volume I is coauthored by the Yakherds in
toto and most chapters are not attributed to a particular member of the group,
each of the translations in Volume II is identified with several Yakherds.
This is because in each case, following a series of meetings in which we es-
tablished uniform translation policies, vocabulary, and so on, individual
Yakherds volunteered to do the initial draft translations of certain texts.
Those translations were then edited by the group to ensure accuracy, uni-
formity, and clarity. But since so much of the work takes place in that original
drafting, we give credit to those who completed those initial translations and
to others who made substantial contributions to subsequent translation and
emendation, referencing, and so on. We have endeavored, in our collective
editing, to keep the approach to translation and the vocabulary used uniform
across these texts.
Preface ix
The five treatises translated here are the most important (barring
Tsongkhapa’s initial analysis in the Great Treatise) in this centuries-long de-
bate. We present them in order of composition, beginning with Taktsang’s
Comprehensive Knowledge of Philosophy. This is followed by two works from
the first of two successive Karmapas, as it was the Karma Kagyü order that
took up Taktsang’s banner in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. These
are an excerpt from One Hundred Thousand Discussions of Mahāmudrā
(Phyag rgya chen po’i sgros ’bum) and another from Chariot of the Dakpo
Kagyü Adepts (Dwags brgyud grub pa’i shing rta) by the eight Karmapa,
Mikyö Dorjé (Mi bskyod rdo rje, 1507–1554). We next present Panchen
Losang Chökyi Gyaltsen’s (Paṇ chen bLo bzang chos kyi rgyal mtshan, 1570–
1662) Lion’s Roar of Scripture and Reasoning (Lung rig seng ge nga ro), a de-
fense of Tsongkhapa’s presentation of Prāsaṅgika against Taktsang and his
Kagyü allies. We then offer two of the ninth Karmapa’s, Wangchuk Dorjé’s
(dBang phyug rdo rje, 1556–1603) texts: Conferring the Definitive Meaning
(Nges don mchog ster) and Concise Compendium of the Middle Way (dBu ma’i
don bsdu bsdus pa), in which he responds to the Geluk position by radical-
izing Taktsang’s exposition of Madhyamaka, claiming that Prāsaṅgikas say
nothing at all from their own perspective and put forward no philosophical
claims; they only report the perspectives of others. We close with Purchok
Ngawang Jampa’s (Phur lcog Ngag dbang byams pa, 1682–1762) Diamond
Slivers (rDo rje’i gzegs rna), a nuanced rejoinder to Tsongkhapa’s critics and
defense of the Geluk position.
Acknowledgments
The Yakherds have worked on this book for more than six years, and many
people and organizations have helped us along the way. We are grateful for
the research funding we received in a Discovery grant from the Australian
Research Council (DP160100947: “A Tibetan Polemical Debate and Its
Contemporary Philosophical Relevance”) and a Tier 2 Grant from the
Singapore Ministry of Education, which provided support for workshops in
India, Singapore, and Australia, as well as other costs related to our work. We
also thank Ms. Grace Kwan of Yale-NUS College for her tremendous support
in the preparation of this grant and for her work administering it.
The project has had four bases of institutional support: (1) Deakin
University, particularly the Alfred Deakin Institute for Citizenship and
Globalisation; (2) the University of Tasmania; (3) the Central Institute for
Higher Tibetan Studies (CIHTS); and (4) Yale-NUS College. We wish to
thank the administrations of all four universities for allowing research leave
for members of our group, and particularly Deakin University for support
in administering the grants and for the expert financial work of Amanda
Sutherland, Scott Cavanagh, Amy Bieser, and Amy Shay.
Sonam Thakchöe wishes to thank the University of Tasmania for providing
periods of research leave that enabled him to attend workshops and for its on-
going support for the Asian Philosophy Program. Douglas Duckworth would
like to thank Temple University for giving him a Presidential Humanities and
Arts Research Program Grant and for supporting his research on this project.
Our work has benefitted enormously from the generous support and col-
laborative input of CIHTS and its Vice-Chancellor, Ven. Professor Ngawang
Samten. CIHTS hosted four meetings at its campus in Sarnath, India, and
made available the resources of the Śāntarakṣita Library, which houses one
of the world’s premier collections of works on Buddhist philosophy. In ad-
dition, two of the Institute’s leading scholars, Khenpo Tashi Tsering and
Geshé Yeshes Thabkhas, whose breadth and depth of knowledge contrib-
uted substantially to the final products of this project, were members of the
Yakherds team.
xii Acknowledgments
A number of people provided help to one or more Yakherds. We are par-

ticularly grateful to Paul Hackett, whose search engine for Tibetan and
Sanskrit texts has proven to be an incredibly useful tool for research. At sev-
eral junctures along the way, Paul also sent us electronic texts that helped in
locating citations or sources for the arguments studied in this project.
Lobsang Dorjee Rabling served as Research Assistant from the begin-
ning and went well beyond the requirements of his position. His proactive
approach to his work yielded bibliographical resources and material that
have been integrated into the two volumes that are the major outputs of this
project.
We are grateful to Khenpo Chodrak Thenphel Rinpoché for his expert and
generous help in resolving difficult passages in Taktsang’s Comprehensive
Knowledge of Philosophy. His knowledge of this literature, and of Buddhist
thought in general, were enormously helpful in the process of grappling
with the arguments presented in Taktsang’s text and their conceptual
ramifications. Molly McPartlin and Hallie Jane Richeson provided valuable
editorial assistance.
Notes on Translation
In preparing these translations, we have adopted a few translation policies

that deserve mention. First, we have used the same vocabulary and transla-
tion protocols for each text, so that they can easily be read together. There are
many textual citations in each of these works, and often the same source is
rendered slightly differently in different Tibetan treatises, reflecting the use
of different Tibetan editions of Indian works. We have—unless noted in the
text—used the version of a quotation as it is cited in its first occurrence in this
debate.
Second, we have translated these sources as contemporary philosophers
generally translate Western philosophical texts. That is, we take the sentence,
or sometimes even the paragraph, as the unit of translation, not the word,
asking always how this sentence or set of sentences in classical Tibetan would
be written in contemporary English, so as to produce a readable version. We
hope that these will be accessible to contemporary philosophers not con-
versant with Tibetan or Sanskrit. This also means that we favor contempo-
rary philosophical terminology over Buddhist Hybrid English1 and that we
eschew the use of square brackets to indicate lexical material elided in the
Tibetan but necessary in the English expression of these thoughts. Our glos-
saries indicate how we have rendered important terms.
1 The term “Buddhist Hybrid English” was coined by Paul Griffiths (1981) to characterize the
efforts of translators of Buddhist texts to construct neologisms to render terms from Asian languages.
Griffiths contends that these are often incomprehensible and present a barrier to understanding for
contemporary readers.
The Translators
The international group that produced this book—José Cabezón, Ryan

Conlon, Thomas Doctor, Douglas Duckworth, Jed Forman, Jay Garfield,
John Powers, Sonam Thakchöe, Tashi Tsering, and Geshé Yeshes Thabkhas—
has adopted the collective name “Yakherds,” an allusion to the Cowherds,
who authored a groundbreaking collaborative study of the two truths,
Moonshadows: Conventional Truth in Buddhist Philosophy (Cowherds,
2011) and of Buddhist ethics, Moonpaths: Ethics and Emptiness (Cowherds,
2015). The Cowherds’ work demonstrates the usefulness of a collabora-
tive approach to Buddhist Studies and cross- cultural philosophy. Two
Cowherds—Sonam Thakchöe and Jay Garfield—are also members of our
present collective. In consideration of the fact that this book examines
Tibetan debates regarding the two truths that have their origins in India,
“Yakherds” (gyag rdzi) suggested itself as a Tibetan equivalent of the Indian
“Cowherds” (gopāla).
The name “Cowherds” is an allusion to a famous passage in Candrakīrti’s
(c. 600–650) Autocommentary on Introduction to the Middle Way in which
he denounces the confused thinking of philosophers who engage in niggling
disputes regarding grammar, epistemology, and ontology— which he
contrasts with the pragmatic, evidence-based perspectives of ordinary, un-
educated people. He claims that his approach to philosophy accords with the
understanding of the latter group, but that philosophers—with their convo-
luted and internally inconsistent systems and hair-splitting dialectics—are
unable to grasp this. He declares that his perspective is concordant with
“what even people like cowherds and women recognize.”2
Despite the sexism implicit in Candrakīrti’s phrase, it highlights the
differences between how the world appears to philosophers versus how it
is experienced by ordinary people unconcerned with academic philosoph-
ical debates and theses. In ancient India, women were seldom educated,
2 Candrakīrti, Autocommentary on Introduction to the Middle Way (Madhyamakāvatāra-bhāṣya;
Tib. dBu ma la ’jug pa’i bshad pa), sDe dge #3862, bKa’ ’gyur, dBu ma, vol. ’a: 254a.5: gnag rdzi dang
bud med la sogs pa yan cad la grags pa; Skt. gopālāṅganājana-prasiddha).
xvi The Translators
and cowherds were the equivalent of today’s “man in the street” (or in the
pasture), whose knowledge of the world is derived from empirical obser-
vation and recognition of patterns and regularities. These are used to make
pragmatic decisions (such as when to move cows into the fields and when
to bring them home) that are uninflected by the sorts of abstractions that
engage philosophers pursuing their craft. Candrakīrti, as we will see, claims
to accept all the epistemic instruments used by ordinary people (including
perception, inference, testimony, and analogy) and to do so in a manner that
is consistent with mundane epistemological practices. But this ostensibly
down-to-earth approach to epistemic warrant—to understanding what jus-
tifies assertions—sparked heated debates in India, which continued and were
expanded in Tibet. Some of the most philosophically compelling of these
debates constitute the subject matter of the present volume.
1
Freedom from Extremes Accomplished
through Comprehensive Knowledge
of Philosophy, Chapter 5
Taktsang Lotsawa Sherab Rinchen
The Author: Life and Times
Taktsang Lotsawa Sherab Rinchen was born in Langdro Khangmar in the

Taklung region of Yamdrok. His father’s name was Döndrup Gyelpo (Don
grub rgyal po), and his mother was Lhamo Gyel (Lha mo rgyal).1 Taktsang
lived during a time of religious ferment and competition between established
and emerging Buddhist groups vying for political power and the patronage
of wealthy supporters. The Sakya order to which Taktsang belonged had been
the power elite in Tibet during the time of the Mongol Empire (1206–1368),
when its hierarchs served as regents of the Mongol overlords. But following
the Mongols’ collapse into factions consumed by internecine conflicts, the
remaining clans of the still-powerful empire were no longer able to impose
their will over the Tibetan Plateau. Instead, individual Mongol hegemons lent
support—both financial and military—to various Tibetan religious groups.
In the power vacuum left by the collapse of the Mongol Empire, Tibet
entered a period of civilian rule, first by the Pakmodrupas, and later by the
Rinpungpas, who supplanted them. The first Pakmodrupa king, Jangchup
Gyeltsen (Byang chub rgyal mtshan, 1302–1364), seized estates that had
belonged to Sakya. Unable to prevent this, the Sakyapas were forced to cede
power to Jangchup Gyeltsen in 1350, and he became the most powerful ruler
in Tibet. Tibet’s civilian hegemons patronized various religious groups,
1 This summary of Taktsang’s life is mainly based on his autobiography (Taktsang 2007e), with
additional material from Kodani (2017), Cabezón (1995), Dondor and Tenzin Chödrak (1993: 510–
512), and Tupten Nyima (2007: 22–30).
Knowing Illusion: Bringing a Tibetan Debate into Contemporary Discourse Volume II. The Yakherds, Oxford University
Press. © Oxford University Press 2021. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780197603673.003.0001
2 Knowing Illusion
often as part of their attempts to gain or solidify power. While the Sakyapas
remained wealthy and influential, they were now one of a number of factions
in a competitive religious marketplace.
The Gelukpas, who during Tsongkhapa’s time had avoided political
entanglements, gradually emerged as a rising power. Tsongkhapa had estab-
lished Ganden, the order’s first monastery, in 1410, and his followers expanded
the influence and spread of the brand he initiated. By Taktsang’s time, the
Gelukpas had become well-established as an intellectual and political force in
Tibet. Philosophers of other traditions viewed them as a threat and attacked
key aspects of Tsongkhapa’s system. Taktsang’s charge that Tsongkhapa’s pre-
sentation of the two truths was riddled with internal contradictions was one of
the most potent assaults on the still-nascent Gelukpa orthodoxy, one that con-
tinues to resonate in the works of Sakyapas and Karma Kagyüpas today.
In his religious autobiography, Taktsang presents himself as a precocious child
with a strong inclination toward Buddhism. He reports that he had deep faith in
the Buddha’s teachings at an early age, and he received the threefold refuge when
he was three years old.2 His parents taught him prayers to Tārā when he was five,
and when he was eight he traveled to Topgyel to begin formal study.3
In addition to Buddhist subjects, Taktsang learned calligraphy, and he also
received tantric initiation in practices related to Jetāri’s lineage of Amitāyus
(Dze ta ri’i lugs kyi tshe dpag med) from Gyatön Sönam Chöchok (rGya ston
bSod nams chos mchog, d.u.). Later, Chöjé Drakpa Sangpo (Chos rje Grags
pa bzang po, d.u.) initiated Taktsang into the practice of Red Yamāri with
Five Deities (gShin rje gshed dmar po lha lnga).
Taktsang’s biographies suggest that his parents were initially reluctant to
grant him permission to receive full monastic ordination.4 In his autobiog-
raphy, he indicates that he became fully ordained before the standard age of
twenty.5 His preceptor, Sengé Gyeltsen Pelsangpo (Seng ge rgyal mtshan dpal
bzang po, d.u.), gave him the monastic name Sherab Rinchen.
In his autobiography, Taktsang clearly intends to demonstrate his
grounding in the tradition: he lists many teachers who gave him instructions
2 Taktsang (2007e: 1). This involves formally “taking refuge” in the three jewels: the Buddha,
Dharma, and Monastic Community (Saṃgha). This is the standard way of officially becoming a
Buddhist.
3 Ibid., 5.
4 Ibid., 3.
5 This may have been the reason for his parents’ reluctance to accede to Taktsang’s wishes to be-
come a fully ordained monk. In Tibet, it is customary for monks to wait until they are at least twenty
years of age before taking full ordination.
Taktsang Lotsawa Sherab Rinchen 3
or empowerments, and his characterizations of them suggest that they

were regarded as eminent religious luminaries. One of these is Wangchuk
Sönam Rinchenpel (dBang phyug bsod nams rin chen ’phel, d.u.), whom
Taktsang describes as a “great scholar among scholars.” This master provided
instructions in the Kālacakra Tantra (Dus kyi ’khor lo’i rgyud). During the
period Taktsang studied with him, he wrote the first of several works on this
text, Ocean of Teachings: The General Meaning of the Kālacakra Tantra (Dus
’khor spyi don bstan pa’i rgya mtsho).
Despite frequent statements of humility and self-deprecation, the works of
Tibet’s philosophical luminaries also often contain remarkably explicit claims
to unique depth and originality. In this regard, Taktsang is no exception. He
states that he ranks among the most accomplished scholars of his time and is
one of only a handful of Tibetans in his generation to truly grasp the thought
of the Buddha and Indian masters such as Nāgārjuna and Candrakīrti. This
tone is also evident in Comprehensive Knowledge of Philosophy. Near the end
of the “Madhyamaka” chapter, he sums up his work:
All of my claims here rest on the foundation of the Sage’s teachings because all
of the reasons just explained are the Victor’s intention. That said, the analysis
that clearly fleshes out such ideas as the three kinds of cyclic existence and so
forth are my own. No one else has ever taught these publically—not even the
six ornaments and the two supreme ones have done so. Therefore, the sun of
my discernment is indeed capable of illuminating all objects of knowledge,
but should its light not fall on those who stay in caves facing north, then that
is not the fault of the sun. I speak thus, feeling both proud and despondent.6
In 1437, Taktsang received instructions on grammatical texts from Tukjé

Pelsangpo (Thugs rje dPal bzang po, d.u.). These included Kārtikeya’s (d.u.)
Assemblage (Kalāpa; Tib. Ka lā pa’i mdo) and Candragomin’s (c. seventh
century) Candra’s Grammar (Cāndra-vyākaraṇa-sūtra; Tib. Lung ston pa
tsandra pa’i mdo). Taktsang subsequently studied a range of related subjects,
including poetics and metrics. His expertise in these fields of learning was
influential in his conclusion that these fields are not exclusively Buddhist,
but rather are part of the intellectual apparatus shared by Buddhist and non-
Buddhist scholars.
6 Taktsang (2007b: 358–359).

4 Knowing Illusion
One of Taktsang’s principal charges against Tsongkhapa’s presentation of

Madhyamaka was that the latter’s attempt to integrate the epistemology of
Dignāga and Dharmakīrti with the Prāsaṅgika approach of Candrakīrti is
fundamentally misguided. Epistemology, according to Taktsang, is a mun-
dane field of knowledge—just like linguistics, poetics, or medicine—and has
no intrinsically religious import. Together with his charge that Tsongkhapa’s
Madhyamaka was replete with contradictions, Taktsang’s critiques provoked
outrage among the Gelukpas, beginning with the first Panchen Lama, Losang
Chökyi Gyaltsen. Taktsang’s fellow Sakyapas, however, did not cite his critique
in their own works. As we will see, Taktsang’s most explicit appropriators were
the eighth and ninth Karmapas, Mikyö Dorjé and Wangchuk Dorjé.
Despite the sectarian tone of Comprehensive Knowledge of Philosophy,
Taktsang was eclectic in his studies, receiving instructions from masters
of various traditions, including the Gelukpa. His students also included
the Gelukpa scholar Norsang Gyatso (Nor bzang rgya mtsho, 1441–1527).
Although Taktsang’s Madhyamaka position was subsequently largely
ignored within the Sakya order, in traditional histories he is counted
among a triad of eminent Sakyapas that includes Gorampa Sönam Sengé
(Go rams pa bSod nams seng ge, 1429–1489) and Shakya Chokden (Shā
kya mchog ldan, 1428– 1507).7 His characterizations of problems in
Tsongkhapa’s system have been trenchantly attacked by Gelukpas up to the
present day, indicating they constitute a philosophical challenge worthy of
careful consideration.
Taktsang and the Proper Understanding

of Madhyamaka Philosophy
Taktsang’s charge of “eighteen great burdens of contradiction” in Tsongkhapa’s

thought occurs in the context of Taktsang’s articulation of the Prāsaṅgika-
Svātantrika distinction and of the unique features of the Prāsaṅgika system
that he argues Tsongkhapa misses. Since Taktsang (like Tsongkhapa) grounds
his views in a reading of Candrakīrti’s exposition of Nāgārjuna’s system, the
disagreement also concerns how to interpret Candrakīrti.
Candrakīrti’s corpus is large, and careful cherry-picking of quotations can
indeed support many distinct interpretations of his thought. Throughout
7 See Dhongthog Rinpoche (2016: 153).

this chapter, Taktsang adduces textual sources for his reading of Candrakīrti.
In the works of Losang Chökyi Gyaltsen and Purchok we will see prom-
inent examples of the way his Geluk opponents marshal evidence from
Candrakīrti’s treatises to support their exegeses. We leave it to the reader to
decide who is offering the most compelling analysis of Candrakīrti’s corpus
and who is citing him in misleading ways.
The serious philosophical work begins in part 2 (“The Explanation of the
Actual Madhyamaka”). Taktsang begins by aligning a commitment to con-
ventional epistemic warrants with the Svātantrika school. He argues that an
important difference between Svātantrika and Prāsaṅgika is that the former
claims that the conventional world can be determined and ascertained ob-
jectively (despite the fact that the objects of the conventional world are ulti-
mately deceptive), while the latter denies that this is possible.
Taktsang then argues that a commitment to epistemic warrant only makes
sense if such warrant is obtained objectively, by the power of the objects,
and he adds that acceptance of such objectivity runs counter to being a
Prāsaṅgika. This is an important early salvo against Tsongkhapa, who
argues that the Prāsaṅgika system both requires and makes sense of con-
ventional epistemic warrant. Taktsang characterizes this notion as a “later
blend of the two distinct schools of Madhyamaka thought”—Svātantrika and
Prāsaṅgika—and thus “a baseless fabrication.”8
This is the heart of Taktsang’s critique of Tsongkhapa: Prāsaṅgika, he
argues, eschews any commitment to the reality of the conventional world, or
any sense of conventional truth. On this view, the so-called relative reality
is upon initial Madhyamaka analysis found to be entirely deceptive, and so
false. Yet even this conclusion does not stand up to sustained Madhyamaka
reasoning, and so the entire framework of the two truths—and indeed truth
and falsity—is ultimately transcended on the Madhyamaka path. Therefore,
the conventional world is, from a Madhyamaka perspective, not a proper
object of knowledge, where knowledge by definition delivers reality, or the
truth. So epistemic warrant regarding the conventional is incoherent. Verse
12 at the top of the section on Prāsaṅgika summarizes this fundamental
error that issues in the contradictions that Taktsang argues beset the Geluk
system.
Taktsang further argues that buddhas do not know conventional truth
because they are omniscient and are undeceived, and the conventional
8 Taktsang (2007b: 262).

6 Knowing Illusion
truth is false and deceptive.9 In fact, according to Taktsang’s reading, all

scriptural statements that treat buddhas as subjects with knowledge of
conventional objects concern simply the preanalytic context where no
Madhyamaka reasoning has been employed, or where the import of such
analysis has been forgotten. Conventional truth—the framework of objects,
agents, and actions—is therefore really not a truth at all nor anything that
can be known. Tsongkhapa’s commitment to the idea that a buddha is an
omniscient being who knows both truths (and whose gnosis is thus a war-
rant for conventional truth) is described by Taktsang as “a primary flaw of
this system.”10
The “eighteen contradictions” appear in the “Extensive Explanation”
subsection in the Prāsaṅgika section. We discuss these in detail in the
study volume and will only survey the principal issues here. The first two
contradictions11 claim that Tsongkhapa’s system is incoherently committed
to the view that there can be knowledge of false objects. The second two
contradictions12 concern inference: Taktsang argues that it is inconsistent to
accept inference but to reject probative arguments.
Taktsang then argues13 that Tsongkhapa’s system is contradictory in
accepting both external objects and the infinite divisibility of matter.
Understanding this alleged contradiction requires attention to an important
hermeneutical device introduced by Taktsang—his three levels of analysis. In
the context of no analysis—that of everyone who has either not yet engaged
in Madhyamaka philosophical investigation or forgotten its implications—it
makes sense to speak of epistemic instruments and warrants. Yet in the second
context—that of slight Madhyamaka analysis—it becomes apparent that eve-
ryone (except buddhas) is generally wrong about everything all of the time.
There are therefore no epistemic warrants, except for the gnosis that recognizes
the nature of reality. In the final context—that of thorough analysis—the very
framework of knower and known has been exposed as false and is transcended.
This culmination of the Prāsaṅgika path is therefore ineffable.
Taktsang argues that macroscopic objects and knowledge of them make sense
only in the first context and that they make sense only if they are ultimately
composed of partless particles. For if they were infinitely divisible, it would be
9 Ibid., 267.
10 Ibid. 271.
11 Ibid., v.13a–b.
12 Summarized by Taktsang in verse 13c–d.
13 In verse 14a.
impossible for them to constitute extended wholes.14 Analysis in the second con-
text, however, reveals that there are no partless particles and that everything is
infinitely divisible. Tsongkhapa’s version of Prāsṅgika, he argues, is committed
to both theses: external objects are real and are epistemically warranted, but also
that objects have parts. Taktsang argues that in trying to maintain both theses at
the same time, this system is also committed to claims that, despite their being in-
dividually true within separate contexts, cannot both be true in a single context.
Taktsang also argues15 that it makes no sense to distinguish—as Tsongkhapa
and his followers do—between true and false in a world in which everything
is deceptive. The fact that truth and falsity can be relativized to different kinds
of epistemic subjects (what the world looks like to us is very different, for in-
stance, from how it is experienced by a dog) contradicts the idea that any of us
can really be correct in a definitive sense. The remainder of the contradictions
follows this pattern, except for some that are explicitly exegetical.
Taktsang’s principal charge is that because a Prāsaṅgika must accept the decep-
tiveness of the world, there is no privileged metaphysical perspective from which
a Prāsaṅgika can talk about what is true or false, real or unreal, warranted or un-
warranted in that world. He argues that the vast majority of Buddhist terms and
principles that allegedly describe the nature of reality, the path of awakening, and
the fruition to be attained in fact belong to the unexamined, nonanalytic context,
and that Prāsaṅgikas avail themselves of those terms with this understanding in
mind. There is no special Prāsaṅgika epistemology beyond that which is encoun-
tered in the unanalyzed world, because both epistemology and ontology implode
and dissolve when one follows the Prāsaṅgika path.
Taktsang acknowledges that in the first context it is possible and indeed
necessary to say and understand what Madhyamaka classifies as relative or
conventional truth, but none of this amounts to knowledge in a Madhyamaka
sense. In the second context, we can discuss and comprehend how all of that
dissolves upon analysis. Such understanding offers insight into the ultimate
truth. But even this framework of the two truths, which is the hallmark of
the second context, does not have any metaphysical foundations. In the final
context, knowledge is transcended, and the character of this so-called third
context is hence inexpressible.
****
14 This pertains to complex debates within Buddhist scholasticism that are discussed in Duckworth
et al. (2016).
15 Verse 15b: 280.
8 Knowing Illusion
Freedom from Extremes Accomplished

through Comprehensive Knowledge of Philosophy
Taktsang Lotsawa Sherab Rinchen

Translated by Thomas Doctor and Ryan Conlon
With Jay L. Garfield and John Powers
[255]
Chapter 5
Accomplishing Freedom from Extremes by
Refuting the Subtle Twofold Self
The lower schools among our own and other traditions employ inauthentic
textual sources and reasoning. They thereby entrench the innate delusions of
their continuums. But as it has been said:
Yogis are also undermined

By ever superior levels of intellect.16
Thus, [256]17 the better the textual sources and reasoning are, the more one
can refute the imaginings of the reifying mind. Here, the refutation of the
subtle self comprises: (1) a brief presentation of the classification; (2) an ex-
tensive explanation of the framework; (3) a refutation of other aspects of rei-
fication and nihilism; and (4) various elegant explanations.
1. Brief Presentation of the Classification
The first section comprises (1) a general explanation; and (2) specific
explanations.
16 Śāntideva, Entering the Way of Bodhisattvas (Bodhi[sattva]-caryāvatāra; Tib. Byang chub sems
dpa’i spyod pa la ’jug pa), ix.4a–b, sDe dge #3871, bsTan ’gyur, dBu ma, vol. la: 31a.
17 While we have consulted other editions of Taktsang’s text, the page numbers found in square
brackets in this translation are those of Taktsang (2007b). It should be noted that while the Tibetan
text of the autocommentary makes reference to the relevant verses of the root text, it does not
cite them in full. In our translation of the autocommentary, we have chosen to include complete
translations of the root verses at the appropriate places for ease of reading. When we get to the enu-
meration of the 18 contradictions, those will be indicated by numbers in parentheses.
1.1. General Explanation
All philosophical systems presume to refute the two extremes

And to propound the middle way from their respective perspectives.
In particular, the nondualistic false representation view
Is taught as the middle way in sūtras and authentic treatises. [1]‌
All of our own and others’ philosophical systems reflect their exponents’
perspectives. Thus, whatever the proponents of the lower systems affirm—
despite its actual nonexistence—constitutes an extreme of reification, whereas
whatever the higher systems deny—despite its actual existence—is an extreme
of nihilism. Each school claims that its own position is the middle path beyond
those two extremes. Thus, for example, in his commentary on Thirty Verses,
Sthiramati explains:
Any assertion that the cognitive object is as real as the mind is the extreme
of reification. Any assertion that cognition is as nonexistent as the cognitive
object is the extreme of nihilism. Here I will offer the middle path that is free
from those two.18
Among realists, proponents of Cittamātra who support the nondualistic false

representation view19 in particular make this claim. They invoke the Descent
into Laṅkā Discourse, which states:
Imputed entities do not exist,

But dependent ones do.20
Those who think in terms of the extremes
Of superimposition and deprecation are ruined.21
18 Sthiramati, Commentary on Thirty Verses (Triṃśikā-bhāṣya; Tib. Sum cu pa’i bshad pa), sDe dge
#4064, bsTan ’gyur, Sems tsam, vol. shi: 146b–147a. Taktsang’s rendering of this passage differs in
wording from the sDe dge version.
19 The view of false representations (rnam rdzun smra ba; Skt. alīkākāravāda) is the Yogācāra po-
sition upheld by thinkers such as Ratnākaraśānti (c. 970–1045), according to which both external
objects and their mental representations (ākāra) are unreal.
20 Emend gzhan gyi dbang ni yod ma yin to gzhan gyi dbang ni yod pa ste.
21 Descent into Laṅkā Discourse (Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra; Tib. Lang kar gshegs pa’i mdo), sDe dge #107,
bKa’ ’gyur, mDo sde, vol. ca: 107b.

10 Knowing Illusion
And the Great Discourse on Emptiness states:
When something is absent in something else, the latter is empty of the

former. That which then remains is existent. This is the middle way, the true
unmistaken view of emptiness.22
And Distinguishing the Middle from Extremes states:
Imagination of the unreal exists. [257]

Duality does not exist in that.
Emptiness exists in this,
And within it, that exists as well.
Neither empty nor nonempty:

This explains everything,
Because of existence, nonexistence, and existence.
This is the middle way.23
Likewise, the author of Ornament of Epistemology24 and many others often

refer to the proponents of false representations as Mādhyamikas.
1.2. Specific Explanations
Specifically, among the supreme exponents of the way of Nāgārjuna,

Buddhapālita and Bhāviveka employed, respectively,
Mere reductios and independent arguments,
And thus Prāsaṅgikas and Svātantrikas are well-known and accepted among
the learned. [2]‌
Next we turn to those Mādhyamikas, like Nāgārjuna and others, who are not
just called this, but actually belong to that school from among the four phil-
osophical systems. In terms of that Madhyamaka, the Prāsaṅgikas are those
22 Great Discourse on Emptiness (Śūnyatā-nāma-mahāsūtra; Tib. mDo chen po stong pa nyid), sDe
dge #290, bKa’ ’gyur, mDo sde, vol. sha: 250b.

23 Maitreya, Distinguishing the Middle from Extremes (Madhyānta-vibhāga; Tib. dBus dang mtha’
rnam par ’byed pa’i tshig le’ur byas pa), i.2–3, sDe dge #4021, bsTan ’gyur, Sems tsam, vol. phi: 640b.
24 This refers to Prajñākāragupta (c. eighth century), author of Ornament for Commentary on the
Compendium of Epistemology (Pramāṇa-vārttikā-alaṃkāra).

who refrain from the use of independent reasons—arguments in which the

triple criteria25 are established by the power of objects, and instead primarily
present mere reductio arguments that expose contradictions within realist
positions. Svātantrikas, however, for the most part employ such independent
arguments in their probative arguments.
These two appellations, Prāsaṅgika and Svātantrika, are well known to
the scholars of India and Tibet. There is also good reason for that: the master
Buddhapālita’s (c. 470–550) refutation of arising from self and so forth was crit-
icized by the scholar Bhāviveka (c. 500–560) for, among other things, failing to
satisfy the threefold criterion. Candrakīrti, in turn, saw Bhāviveka’s criticism
as pointing out errors that would only apply to the Epistemologists,26 and he
instead explained at length why a Mādhyamika cannot reasonably have an in-
dependent thesis or proof. Vast exegetical traditions derive from these masters.
Many authentic sources of the Noble Land refer to these two

As Nonfoundationalism and Illusionism.
Hence, it does not make sense to say
That these two categories are “an amazing delusion.” [3]‌
Just as in Tibet, these two systems were also known in India under the names
Nonfoundationalism and Illusionism.27 Thus, in his Instructions for Cultivating
the Ultimate Spirit of Awakening, the supreme scholar Śūra28 explains: [258]
Thus, although compelling when not analyzed,

The mind resembles an illusion,
And awakening is also like an illusion.
By imagining that these are mere illusions, they are fooled.29
25 The triple criteria are the following: the truth of the minor premise; the fact that the possession of
the property in the subject of the major premise guarantees the possession of the property in its pred-
icate (anvaya-vyāpti); and the fact that anything that lacks the property mentioned in the predicate of
the major premise also lacks the property mentioned in its subject (vyatireka-vyāpti).
26 This is the Pramāṇavāda school of Dignāga (c. 480–540) and Dharmakīrti (c. seventh century),
sometimes also translated as Epistemologists.

27 Apratiṣṭhana-vāda and Māyopama-vāda. Tsongkhapa, siding with Ngok Loden Sherab
(rNgog bLo ldan shes rab, 1059-1109) on this issue, denies that this is a valid way of distinguishing
Mādhyamikas. On this and related issues, see Ruegg (2000: 32–35).
28 On the complexities of identifying Śūra or Āryaśura and his authorship of this text, see Ruegg
(1981: 59n, 119–120). For a summary of the argument regarding the two kinds of Mādhyamikas in
Śūra’s work, see Almogi (2010).
29 The fourth line of this verse appears as the second in the sDe dge edition. The translation is based
on the rendering found in our version of Taktsang’s text.

12 Knowing Illusion
They also fail to see the ineffable

Mañjuśrī beyond all fabrications.
Illusion is not mere illusion;
If it were, it could not be established,
And if it were established, the scriptures of others

Would also turn out to be illusory phenomena.
Therefore, when something is of an illusory nature
It cannot be called “this illusory-like thing.”30
Thus, he argues that one fails to see the Mañjuśrī qua freedom from
fabrications even if one may otherwise have proven illusion, or the like. Thus,
having explained how establishing illusions is unreasonable, he proceeds:
Nevertheless, the Compassionate One

Took the support of the two truths;
And so, relying on convention,
Let the lion’s roar of no-self be heard.
Employing such principles as that of emptiness,

As well as examples, such as illusion,
He used techniques in the form of various vehicles
To reveal Nonfoundationalist Madhyamaka.31
Having in this way taught the Prāsaṅgika approach, Śūra continues:
This may be shown, and yet it is not something that can be shown.
Here there is nothing at all to clear away.
Emptiness is also empty.
Here there are neither buddhas nor sentient beings.
Self and other, appearing and existing phenomena,

As well as bondage and liberation,
30 Śūra/Aśvaghoṣa, Compendium of the Stages of Meditation on the Ultimate Spirit of Awakening
(Paramārtha-bodhicitta-bhāvanākrama-varṇa-saṃgraha; Tib. Don dam pa byang chub kyi sems

bsgom pa’i yi ge rin po che’i sgron ma), verses 18–20, sDe dge #3912, bsTan ’gyur, dBu ma, vol. ki: 16a.
31 Ibid., verses 21–22: 16a.
Are mere words and do not even exist as words.

Everything is like space.
When no phenomena are therefore seen,

One sees the imperceptible and nonappearing Mañjuśrī.
Thus, one crosses the ocean
Of birth, death, and cyclic existence.32
In this way, he shows that everything is purely nominal, imaginary, and

without any real existence, just like space. He explains that with this ap-
proach one sees all forms of Mañjughoṣa: the intrinsic nature that is the
true absence of self, that is immaterial and unsullied, that is complete lib-
eration without remainder, that is beyond consciousness and phenomena,
that transcends verbal expression, [259] and that is imperceptible and
nonappearing. This supreme scripture was transmitted in the Dharma lin-
eage of Atiśa (Dīpaṇkara Śrījñāna, 982–1054), and yet not even the great
translator Ngok Loden Sherab (rNgog lo tsā wa bLo ldan shes rab, 1059–
1109) noticed it. Similarly, in his discussion of the second stages of the path,
the Indian scholar Jñānavajra (d.u.) declares:
In Mantra there is no view33

Superior to that of nonfoundationalism.
If there were, that view would involve fabrications and its teacher would
be a fool.
However, Mantra is superior because of its methods.34
Also, for example, Avadhūtipāda’s (Advayavajra, 1007–1085) Jewel Garland

of Reality35 and Jetāri’s (c. tenth century) Differentiating the Sugata’s Thought36
clearly articulate this twofold division.
32 Ibid., verse 23–25: 16a.

33 “Mantra” here refers to tantric or Vajrayāna Buddhism, widely regarded in Tibet as the supreme
tradition of practice.
34 We have been unable to identify this text. A large number of texts are attributed to this author in
the Tibetan canon, but none appear to contain this exact wording.
35 Advayavajra (Maitreyanātha /Maitrīpāda), Jewel Garland of Reality (Tattva-ratnāvalī; Tib. De
kho na nyid rin po che’i phreng ba), sDe dge #2240, bsTan ’gyur, rGyud, vol. pi: 115b–120b.
36 Jetāri, Differentiating the Sugata’s Thought (Sugatamata-vibhaṅga-kārikā; Tib. bDe bar gshegs pa
gzhung rnam par ’byed pa’i tshig le’ur byas pa). sDe dge #3899, bsTan ’gyur, dBu ma, vol. a: 7a–8b.
14 Knowing Illusion
The two approaches are also correctly known as “the school of reasoning that
exposes contradictions in others” versus “the school of reasoning that furnishes
autonomous proofs.” They are also referred to as those who deny—versus those
who assert—that relative truth can be divided in terms of correct and incor-
rect, that buddhas have impure karmic perceptions, and that the view involves
assertions.
Nonetheless, some earlier Tibetans claimed that the schools may be distin-
guished in terms of whether or not they accept the relative truth, whether or
not they hold that buddhas possess gnosis, whether or not they declare the ul-
timate to be absence of fabrications or a nonimplicative negation, and so on.
Nevertheless, none of those distinctions work because even Prāsaṅgikas accept
the relative truth as it appears in the perspective of others, and both Candrakīrti
and Śāntideva (c. 685–763) refute in their treatises the idea that buddhas have
no gnosis. Finally:
Moreover, the negation of arising etc. is accepted

Because it accords with the ultimate.37
Thus, the Svātantrikas themselves teach that a nonimplicative negation is a fig-

urative ultimate.
The great Ngok Lotsawa was very fond of the Svātantrika system, [260]
and he would therefore interpret even Candrakīrti and Śāntideva as if they
belonged to that school. Although in his epistle entitled Drop of Nectar,
Ngok claims that the division of Mādhyamikas into Nonfoundationalists and
Illusionists is incorrect,38 I have already explained in detail why the distinc-
tion is a proper one.
2. Extensive Explanation of the Framework
This includes: (1) the refutation of a merely nominal “Madhyamaka”; (2) an

explanation of the actual Madhyamaka; and (3) a discussion of our scriptural
sources of proof.
37 Jñānagarbha, Differentiation of the Two Truths (Satyadvaya-vibhaṅga; Tib. bDen pa gnyis rnam
par ’byed pa’i tshig le’ur byas pa), verse 9a–b, sDe dge #3881, bsTan ’gyur, dBu ma, vol. sa: 2a.
38 See Ngok Lotsawa Loden Sherab (2006), Drop of Nectar (bDud rtsi’i thig le), bKa’ gdams gsung
’bum phyogs bsgrigs thengs dang po, vol. 1: 709. See also Ruegg (2000: 32–34).
2.1. Refutation of What Is Merely Called “Madhyamaka”
The term “Madhyamaka” is used by various schools to identify themselves:

By the Vijñānavāda that holds the emptiness of duality to be real,
By the school that excludes and deprecates appearance,
By the school of logic that employs conventional epistemic instruments, [4]‌
And by the school of extrinsic, truly existent emptiness.

Based on inauthentic scripture and reasoning,
These four thus assume and declare themselves to be Mādhyamikas.
Yet, mired in sophistry, they do not escape from grasping of extremes: [5]‌
The first and the last because they assert true existence;
The second because they leave out all the factors of method;
And the third because they contradictorily find, upon analysis,
A common locus of the false and the nondeceptive. [6]‌
Four schools use the term “Madhyamaka” in reference to themselves, yet

nevertheless continue to grasp extremes either explicitly or implicitly. In all
four cases, their extremism is due to having been mired in the philosophy of
the Epistemologists who are committed to epistemic instruments that func-
tion through the power of their objects.
In particular, the first school declares both that reflexive awareness is
empty of duality and that the unchanging and thoroughly established in-
trinsic nature of this reflexive awareness is truly existent in the face of anal-
ysis. The last among the four schools conflates what is present from the
perspective of rational cognition39 with that which can withstand analysis.
Thus, adherents of this school, unable to understand why most Tibetans say
that emptiness is not rationally established, claim that emptiness withstands
analysis. In this way, many scholars, such as Tanakpa Rinchen Yeshé (rTa nag
pa Rin chen ye shes, d.u.), who were confused about the explicit teaching of
certain advanced scriptural traditions, proceeded to say that emptiness in the
sense of freedom from fabrications, or as a nonimplicative negation, is a ni-
hilistic emptiness that, like the banana plant, has no core.
39 Rational cognition (rigs shes) is a technical term for any cognition that engages ultimate truth. It
does not refer to cognitions that relate to conventional reality in a rational way.
16 Knowing Illusion
Thus they teach that the pure dependent nature of the system of false
representation itself is the ultimate truth, the sphere of reality, emptiness
endowed with all supreme features—and as such is immune to analysis.
They proclaim that the teacher of that system, Vasubandhu (c. fourth cen-
tury), is a proponent of the Great Madhyamaka, and they deny that glorious
Candrakīrti, Haribhadra (c. 459–529), and other such teachers of intrinsic
emptiness [261] are Dharma teachers of the age of perfection. Instead
they see them as propagating nihilism. Similarly, they say that when noble
Nāgārjuna (c. second century) composed his analytical corpus,40 his intellect
had not yet matured in the way that it had when he authored his Praise of the
Sphere of Reality.41 Those who in this way persistently seek to prove true ex-
istence nevertheless vainly consider themselves representatives of the Great
Madhyamaka.
The second of these four schools teaches that because nothing whatsoever
can be established from the rational perspective, one may, even in conven-
tional terms, dispose with the factors of method. There are many who thus,
while in actual fact following the way of the Chinese Hashang (Ch. Heshang
Moheyan 和尚摩诃衍, fl. eighth century), proclaim an all-sufficient Great
Perfection (rDzogs chen) that brings liberation upon perception.42 They say
that while people who lack merit will not meet with this Dharma, those who
do encounter it will be liberated without even having to pursue the three
trainings.43 Those three approaches all constitute actual grasping at extremes.
The third school holds that the relative truth is false. But it also asserts
that relative things, while being false, may nevertheless be conventionally
40 Nāgārjuna’s Analytical Corpus is a group of texts on logic and reasoning attributed to him: (1)
Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way (Mūlamadhyamaka-kārikā; Tib. dBu ma rtsa ba’i tshig le’ur
byas pa shes rab ces bya ba); (2) Reply to Objections (Vigraha-vyāvartanī; Tib. rTsod pa bzlog pa’i
tshig le’ur byas pa); (3) Jeweled Garland (Ratnāvalī; Tib. Rin po che’i ’phreng ba); (4) Seventy Verses
on Emptiness (Śūnyatā-saptati; Tib. sTong pa nyid bdun cu pa’i tshig le’ur byas pa); (5) Sixty Verses of
Argument (Yukti-ṣaṣṭikā-kārikā; Tib. Rigs pa drug cu pa’i ’grel pa); (6) Detailed Analysis (Vaidalya-
prakaraṇa; Tib. Zhib mo rnam par ’thag pa zhes bya ba’i rab tu byed pa); and a no longer extant work
entitled Establishment of the Mundane (Vyavahāra-siddhi; Tib. Tha snyad grub pa), a few verses of
which are cited in Jeweled Garland.
41 Dharmadhātu-stotra; Tib. Chos dbyings bstod pa, sDe dge #1118, bsTan ’gyur, bsTod tshogs, vol.
ka: 63b5–67b3.
42 Heshang Moheyan (Tib. Hashang Mahayana) is commonly portrayed in Tibet as a paradig-
matic example of someone who holds heterodox views. He is regarded as propounding an antino-
mian vision of Buddhist practice in which simply eliminating all thought leads to awakening. This
simplistic version of his teachings is at odds with extant sources from his time, but it has become
widely accepted in Tibet. See van Schaik (2008 and 2015) and Gómez (1983). A summary of the
Great Perfection system of practice can be found in Powers (2007: 383–393).
43 These are training in ethics, meditation, and wisdom.
nondeceptive in the sense of being epistemically established from the per-

spective of cognitions not under the influence of temporary causes of
error. Because this approach does not accept anything that resists analysis
ultimately, it is not actual grasping at extremes. But because it accepts con-
ventionally the objective existence of a nondeceptive relative truth, it is nev-
ertheless consistent with such grasping.
2.2. Explanation of the Actual Madhyamaka
This involves explaining (1) the Svātantrikas and (2) the Prāsaṅgikas.
2.2.1. The Svātantrikas
This topic is explained by way of: (1) showing that Svātantrika is the ap-
propriate approach for those who are fond of epistemically warranted
conventions; (2) showing that Svātantrikas are not representatives of
the Great Madhyamaka; (3) proving that they generally do qualify as
Mādhyamikas; and (4) presenting their subdivisions.
2.2.1.1. Svātantrika Is the Way for Those Who Are Fond of Epistemically
Warranted Conventions
Still, as explained by many scholars of India and Tibet, Svātantrika

makes sense
If you want epistemically warranted conventions. [7a–b]
As I have said elsewhere:
If you hold that the relative is false,

Claiming that it is nondeceptive would be highly contradictory.
What does “false” mean,
If not deceptive? [262]
Thus, it would certainly be contradictory to assert that the same thing can be
both false and nondeceptive in the context of a realist system. Nevertheless,
as explained by many scholars of India and Tibet, Svātantrika makes sense
if you want epistemically warranted conventions. Śūra, the supreme scholar
and great son of Nāgārjuna and Āryadeva (c. 163–261), teaches that through
18 Knowing Illusion
such an approach, which refutes the system of false representation, one will
fail to see either the Mañjughoṣa that transcends verbal expression or that is
imperceptible and nonappearing. However, one may still perceive the forms
of Mañjughoṣa up to that which is beyond consciousness and phenomena.44
Moreover, the tradition that asserts that the same thing can be both false
and nondeceptive was established by Bhāviveka, an early son of Nāgārjuna,
and so this system is among the original explanations of Madhyamaka.
Therefore, the later blend of the two distinct schools of Madhyamaka thought
is a baseless fabrication. For this reason, the Indian and Tibetan scholars
who adhered to the Svātantrika system are extremely numerous, and as
Candrakīrti says:
Intimidated by the colors of the extremely vast ocean of Nāgārjuna’s mind,

People have completely shunned this good system.45
Thus, Candrakīrti appears to declare that there has been no one but himself
who did otherwise. As for Candrakīrti’s followers, there were only a few—
for example, Vidyākaukila (d.u.), the great Lord Atiśa, the latter’s spiritual
son Siṃha (d.u.), and so on. In Tibet, glorious Candrakīrti’s Madhyamaka
treatises were not translated until the coming of Patsap Nyima Drakpa
(Pa tshab Nyi ma grags pa, b. 1055), and hence even Entering the Way of
Bodhisattvas was given a Svātantrika interpretation. Among the four sons of
Patsap,46 it seems that apart from the one lacking expertise about both word
and meaning, Shang Thangsakpa (Zhang thang sag pa Ye shes ’byung gnas,
eleventh century), they did not produce very many lineage holders.
The noble Sakya forefathers, as well as Butön (Bu ston Rin chen grub, 1290–
1364) and others, referred to their own approach as Great Madhyamaka,
but they did not teach it very often. Nonetheless, Tibetan scholars in, for
44 For the complete list of views characterised as approaching Mañjughoṣa to a greater or lesser ex-
tent, see section 1.2.

45 Candrakīrti, Introduction to the Middle Way (Madhyamakāvatāra; Tib. dBu ma la ’jug pa), xi.55,
sDe dge #3861, bsTan ’gyur, dBu ma, vol. ’a: 218b.
46 According to Gö Lotsawa’s (’Gos Lo tsā ba gZhon nu dpal, 1392–1481) Blue Annals (Deb gter
sngon po; Gö Lotsawa 1984: 417), Patsap’s main disciples are (1) Tsangpa Sarbö (gTsang pa Sar sbos,
d.u.); (2) Mabja Jangchup Tsöndrü (rMa bya Byang chub brtson ’grus, d. 1185); (3) Dar Yönden Drak
(Dar Yon tan grags, d.u.); and (4) Shang Tangsakpa Yeshé Jungné (Zhang thang sag pa ye shes, a.k.a
Ye shes ’byung gnas). Gö credits them with “spreading the Madhyamaka teachings in Ü and Tsang.”
There is a tradition that the first student understood the words of the teachings, while the third un-
derstood their meaning. Mabja understood both words and meaning, and Shang Tangsakpa Yeshé
Jungné understood neither.
example, the lineage coming from Ngok Lotsawa for the most part taught
Svātantrika. [263] Moreover, the preceptor Śāntarakṣita (8th century), whose
kindness toward Tibet is immense, taught a combination of Madhyamaka
and Pramāṇavāda—and thus Svātantrika—in his Ornament of the Middle
Way,47 his epistemological Compendium of Metaphysics,48 Establishing the
Ultimate,49 and elsewhere. Therefore, the fact that Tibetans adhere to his ap-
proach is also in accord with the ways of the world.
2.2.1.2. Svātantrika Is Not the Great Madhyamaka
Although they set forth the relative truth as compelling only when not
examined,
Due to their immense habituation to logic they do not understand
How without a shared dependent arising free from imputations
Things can function in a world that is only imputed by mind.
Regarding their claim that emptiness and dependent arising amount to the
same thing,
They are also slightly confused. For these reasons this is not the Great
Madhyamaka. [7c–8d]
Regarding this system, let us consider the following statement from

Differentiation of the Two Truths:
Because its nature is just as it appears,

This is not subject to analysis.50
Similarly, Ornament of the Middle Way speaks of that which is:
Compelling when not examined,

Subject to origination and destruction . . . 51
47 Madhyamakālaṃkāra-kārikā; Tib. dBu ma rgyan gyi tshig le’ur byas pa, sDe dge #3884, bsTan
’gyur, dBu ma, vol. sa: 53a1–56b3.

48 Tattva-saṃgraha; Tib. De kho na nyid bsdus pa’i tshig le’ur byas pa, sDe dge #4266, bsTan ’gyur,
Tshad ma, vol. ze: 1b1–133a6.

49 Paramārtha-viniścaya; Tib. Don dam pa gtan la dbab pa, no longer extant.
50 Jñānagarbha, Differentiation of the Two Truths, verse 21a–b: 2b.
51 Śāntarakṣita, Ornament of the Middle Way (Madhyamakālaṃkāra-kārikā; Tib. dBu ma rgyan gyi
tshig le’ur byas pa), verse 64a–b, sDe dge #3884, bsTan ’gyur, dBu ma, vol. sa: 55a.
20 Knowing Illusion
Clear Meaning, the short commentary on Ornament of Clear Realizations,

says that the relative reality consists of “causally related entities that are com-
pelling only as long as one does not subject them to analysis.”52 Although one
finds many such statements in their texts, this approach is still not the Great
Madhyamaka that understands how things can function while being purely
nominal and imputed. Ngok Lotsawa said:
The gateway to the natural emptiness of all things

Is taught through venerable Nāgārjuna’s true and supreme reasoning.
Having realized that by means of the excellent commentary of the Lord of
Reason (i.e., Dharmakīrti),
One will disregard all other approaches as if they were grass.53
Thus, because they are used to combining Madhyamaka and Pramāṇavāda,

the present approach fails to explain how, without requiring the triple crite-
rion, functional conventions may be posited as purely nominal and as having
only imputed existence. Hence, the present approach is slightly confused
with respect to the identity of the characteristics of emptiness and dependent
arising.
In this context, the triple criterion is held to be unlike the double moon,
floating hairs in the visual field, and the like.54 Rather, they are established
by the perceptions of a vast number of people who are free from temporary
causes of error; they arise in dependence on causes and conditions; and they
are free from imputations, such as that of a permanent primary principle.
[264] Thus, Differentiation of the Two Truths explains:
Isolated from imputed entities,

The bare entities of dependent arising
Should be known to be the correct relative truth.55
52 Haribhadra, Clear Meaning (Abhisamayālaṃkāra-prajñāpāramitopadeśa-śāstra-vṛtti; Tib. Shes
rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa’i man ngag gi bstan bcos mngon par rtogs pa’i rgyan zhe bya ba’i pa’i ’grel pa),
sDe dge #3793, bsTan ’gyur, Shes phyin, vol. ja: 118b.
53 Ngok Loden Sherab (2006), Drop of Nectar: 708.
54 As explained on p. 11, note 25, the “triple criterion” (trairūpya) sets conditions for the validity of
an argument. To put this in the terms of Buddhist logic, reason (liṅga; Tib. hetu) must (1) be present
in the subject (pakṣadharmatva; Tib. phyogs chos); (2) also be present in similar cases (anvayavyāpti;
Tib. rjes khyab); and (3) not be present in any dissimilar case (vyatirekavyāpti; Tib. ldog khyab). These
criteria are often associated with Dignāga, but they originated with Vasubandhu; see Frauwallner
(1957).
55 Jñānagarbha, Differentiation of the Two Truths, verse 8a–c: 2a.
It also states:
Isolated from any imputed essence,

Only the exact appearance of all
That arises in dependence
Is perceived directly by the Omniscient One.56
The same point is made extensively in Ornament of the Middle Way and its
commentary,57 Light of the Middle Way,58 and Heart of the Middle Way59 and
its commentary.60
2.2.1.3. The Svātantrikas Are Nonetheless Mādhyamikas
Nevertheless, this approach refutes the fact that things resist ultimate
analysis
And teaches the ultimate, final pacification of fabrications
As well as the figurative nonarising.
Thus, it is superior to the realists and is nothing but the Middle Way. [9]‌
Nevertheless, the present approach is superior even to the system of false

representation that, as the best among the realist approaches, asserts the true
existence of nondual emptiness. Indeed, the present approach refutes any as-
sertion of something that withstands ultimate analysis, and in terms of con-
vention it asserts the efficacy of epistemically warranted things, free from the
extremes of permanence and reification.
This approach also draws distinctions with respect to the ultimate. Thus,
it regards the thorough pacification of fabrication within the sphere that is
not established as anything at all as the final ultimate. However, it treats the
56 Ibid., verse 37: 3a.

57 Śāntarakṣita, Commentary on Ornament of the Middle Way (Madhyamakālaṃkāra-vṛtti; Tib.
dBu ma’i rgyan gyi ’grel pa), sDe dge #3885, bsTan ’gyur, dBu ma, vol. sa: 56b4–84a1.
58 Kamalaśīla, Light of the Middle Way (Madhyamakāloka; Tib. dBu ma snang ba), sDe dge #3887,
bsTan ’gyur, dBu ma, vol. sa: 133b–244a.

59 Bhāviveka, Verses on the Heart of the Middle Way (Madhyamaka-hṛdaya-kārikā; Tib. dBu ma’i
snying po’i tshig le’ur byas pa), sDe dge #3855, bsTan ’gyur, dBu ma, vol. dza: 1a–40b.
60 Bhāviveka, Blaze of Reasoning: A Commentary on the Verses on Heart of the Middle Way
(Madhyamaka-hṛdaya-vṛtti-tarka-jvālā; Tib. dBu ma snying po’i ’grel pa rtog ge ’bar ba), sDe dge
#3856, bsTan ’gyur, dBu ma, vol. dza: 40b–329b.
22 Knowing Illusion
absence of birth and the emptiness of anything real as the so-called figurative
ultimate. Thus, Differentiation of the Two Truths explains:
Moreover, the negation of arising and so forth is accepted

Because it accords with reality.
Because there is nothing to negate,
It is clear that ultimately there is no negation.
When something is of imputed nature,

How could its negation not be so as well?
Therefore, this is relative truth;
It carries the meaning of reality, but is not reality.
In reality, there is no duality—

This is the absence of fabrications.
When Mañjuśrī inquired about reality,
The son of the victors remained quiet.61
Ornament of the Middle Way similarly declares:
Because it accords with the ultimate truth,

This is termed “ultimate”.
In reality, the ultimate truth is free
From the entire mass of fabrications.
Because arising and so forth do not exist, [265]

Absence of arising and so forth is impossible.62
2.2.1.4. Subdivisions among the Svātantrikas
Some of them deny reflexive awareness and affirm external objects,

Whereas the rest assert the opposite.
The first include Jñānagarbha and Bhāviveka,
And the second Śāntarakṣita and his followers. [11]
61 Jñānagarbha, Differentiation of the Two Truths, verses 9–11: 1b–2a.

62 Śāntarakṣita, Ornament of the Middle Way, verses 70–71b: 55b.
The Svātantrikas include learned masters such as Bhavyākara, or Bhāviveka,

as well as Śrīgupta (d.u.), Jñānagarbha (c. eighth century), Śāntarakṣita,
Kamalaśīla (c. 740–795), Āryavimuktisena (c. sixth century), the master
Haribhadra, Jñānapāda (d.u.), Dīpaṃkarabhadra (c. tenth century),
Vaidyapāda (d.u.), Thagana (d.u.), and others. Although they are numerous,
they all either deny reflexive awareness and affirm external objects, or oth-
erwise affirm reflexive awareness and deny the existence of external objects.
The first group is that of Bhāviveka and Jñānagarbha, and the second includes
Śāntarakṣita and his followers.
Certain earlier Tibetans have classified Bhāviveka as a “Mādhyamika who
follows the Vaibhāṣika,” and there is nothing wrong in doing so in consid-
eration of their general philosophical commonalities. However, it is not
reasonable to take Jñānagarbha’s statements with respect to “the nature of
exactly that which appears”63 as a reason for classifying him together with
Candrakīrti as a Mādhyamika who makes assertions in accord with mun-
dane people. If one were to become such a Mādhyamika simply by accepting
conventions without analysis and investigation, then the same would be true
of Śāntarakṣita, Haribhadra, and Bhāviveka because they do the same thing.
Because this a relatively minor issue, fearing an excess of words, I will not cite
their texts at length here.
2.2.2. The Prāsaṅgikas
This topic comprises (1) refuting the misleading; and (2) establishing the
genuine.
2.2.2.1. Refutation of Misleading Prāsaṅgika Madhyamaka
This comprises (1) a brief presentation; (2) an extensive explanation; and

(3) an account of the reason.
2.2.2.1.1. Presentation
Those who follow the glorious Candrakīrti

And, based on various analyses, assert
That impure, deceptive perception can be epistemically warranted
Bear the great burden of the following contradictions. [12]
63 Jñānagarbha, Differentiation of the Two Truths, verse 21a: 2b.

24 Knowing Illusion
Certain recent Tibetan holders of the teachings who were great scholars
propounded Candrakīrti’s system accurately and faithfully early in their
careers. [266] Nonetheless, they later deviated, but not due to any improve-
ment in their logical acumen. Generally, Tibet abounds with terminology de-
rived from logic texts, and in particular from Chapa’s (Phya pa Chos kyi seng
ge, 1109–1169) compendia. Moreover, Mādhyamikas embrace the “blessing
of relative truth that is nondeceptive dependent arising” of the Svātantrika
teaching and are hounded by the statement that “causality cannot reliably be
posited simply on the basis of an erroneous perspective.”
They believe that if this were so, then in terms of conventional reasoning
that is not ultimate analysis, it would follow that a dream elephant and an
elephant perceived when awake would be equally efficacious; and a halluci-
nation of falling hairs and a perception of blue would likewise be epistemi-
cally indistinguishable. Their principal concern is that it would follow that
the process of karmic causality would not be reliable.
Those who have such concerns and believe themselves to be followers of
the system of Candrakīrti and Śāntideva face further contradictions, as we
shall see. Consider this:
With a supreme and unequalled voice,

He teaches that emptiness and dependent arising
Are coextensive: the middle way.
Homage to the Lord of Sages!64
And similarly:
Whatever is dependently co-arisen

That is explained to be emptiness.
That, being a dependent designation,
Is itself the middle way.65
As is thus taught at great length, “emptiness” and “dependent arising” are

coextensive. Something that is truly existent could not possibly be related
to anything else, and it could thus not arise dependently. Likewise, they
64 Nāgārjuna, Reply to Objections (Vigraha-vyāvartanī; Tib. rTsod pa bzlog pa’i tshig le’ur byas pa),
verse 71, sDe dge #3828, bsTan ’gyur, dBu ma, vol. tsa: 29a.
65 Nāgārjuna, Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way (Mūlamadhyamaka-kārikā; Tib. dBu ma rtsa
ba’i tshig le’ur byas pa shes rab ces bya ba), xiv.18, sDe dge #3824, bsTan ’gyur, dBu ma, vol. tsa: 15a.
continue, anything that is established in dependence cannot be truly existent.

Therefore, appearances—that is, functioning things and the like—and the
emptiness that is the absence of nature are included within a single basis.
Not only that, a person who has understood dependent arising necessarily
ascertains both emptiness on the basis of appearance and appearance on the
basis of emptiness—and comes to a point where the two are understood as
mutually entailing.
This is indeed the Madhyamaka approach, [267] and according to the
Svātantrikas, mere natures, or essences, exist objectively in conventional
terms, and they supply qualifiers, such as absence of real natures. Here,
however, without using qualifiers, our opponents claim on the one hand
that objects have no nature or essence whatsoever, and on the other that
such things as fire’s having the function of burning are not just mere mental
imputations, but perform their functions in a nondeceptive, foundational
way, albeit merely conventionally. For this reason, they say, the conven-
tional and ultimate nature of phenomena must be used in tandem to in-
duce ascertainment, because explaining the way things function merely in
terms of the perspective of delusion does not provide sufficient grounding.
They do not just say this once; they say it over and over: this is the prin-
cipal contradiction to which they fall prey. This is because for the Great
Madhyamaka there is absolutely no object of negation—viz., nature—
beyond the idea that the functioning world has an objective, foundational
nature.
They might reply that they do not accept foundations. But not being
foundational contradicts being epistemically warranted; for to be epistemi-
cally warranted means to be nondeceptive, and being nondeceptive means
nothing more than being foundational.
Moreover, it is the root of all contradiction to claim that according to the
glorious Candrakīrti’s system a buddha’s knowledge of things in their diver-
sity is the epistemic instrument that examines relative reality. As stated in
Introduction to the Middle Way: “Ignorance, in covering the intrinsic nature,
is relative.”66 In the Autocommentary, Candrakīrti distinguishes between
relative truth and a merely false relative, the former being supplied by af-
flictive ignorance. As the Autocommentary explains, “Thus, relative truth is
66 Candrakīrti, Introduction to the Middle Way, vi.28a: 205b.

26 Knowing Illusion
set forth based on the afflictive ignorance that belongs to the twelve links of
existence.”67
The second variant of the relative is supplied as follows: Disciples and sol-
itary buddhas68 who have completed their training, [268] as well as noble
bodhisattvas of the Mahāyāna who are still training, have relinquished the
afflictive ignorance that is responsible for relative truth, as mentioned ear-
lier. Therefore, it is explained that nonpathological ignorance, or mere igno-
rance, supplies the relative as experienced by those who partake in gnosis
that involves appearances. Thus, for them “the relative is fabricated and not
truth, because they do not presume that it is real.”69
Candrakīrti then explains: “Such beings experience mere ignorance in the
form of cognitive obscuration and so this appears to noble beings who par-
ticipate in the domain of appearances. . . .”70 Therefore, forget about relative
truth in the case of buddhas; Candrakīrti states that they are free from even
that which serves to set up the mere relative. As he says:
That is not the case for those who participate in the domain without ap-
pearance. Since buddhas have attained true and complete awakening with
respect to all phenomena, all movements of mind and mental states have
completely ceased.71
Similarly, as he declares after that:
Mental cessation is actualized by embodiment.72
And:
67 Candrakīrti, Autocommentary on Introduction to the Middle Way (Madhyamakāvatāra-bhāṣya;
Tib. dBu ma la ’jug pa’i bshad pa), sDe dge #3862, bsTan ’gyur, dBu ma, vol. ’a: 255a. For a discussion
of the twelve links of existence, see Keown (2003: 221).
68 These are categories of Buddhist practitioners. “Disciples” (śrāvaka; lit. “hearer”) are followers
of the Buddha who belong to what is often called the “Lesser Vehicle” (Hīnayāna) and whose main
religious goal is the liberation of an arhat. Solitary buddhas (pratyeka-buddha) are more advanced
than disciples and have superior attainments, but still fall short of the aspirations of bodhisattvas. See
Keown (2003: 102 and 177) for more details.
69 Candrakīrti, Autocommentary on Introduction to the Middle Way: 255a.
70 Ibid.
71 Ibid.
72 Candrakīrti, Introduction to the Middle Way, xi.17d: 216b. The Autocommentary explains that
“embodiment” refers to the arising of the embodiment of bliss (saṃbhoga-kāya).

Master of excellent knowledge, through comprehending that everything is

of the same essence,
You achieve omniscience in a single moment.73
Candrakīrti then anticipates an objection: You say that gnosis that is free
from dualistic appearance has no object (“if at the time of pacification the
intellect does not engage . . .”74). But it does not make sense for cognition to
know an object in the absence of the appearance of an object. He replies to
this objection with the verses that begin: “When non-arising is reality . . .”75
Thus he argues that, as is commonly held, an object is known when a mental
state arises with its representation; when the object does not arise, the mental
state does not arise either, just like water being poured into water. Similarly,
the phrase: “the mind knows an object” may be used when the character of
the object and its appearance to the mind correspond. So Candrakīrti does
not deny the absence of any appearance of an object. [269] Also, Entering the
Way of Bodhisattvas teaches that no object appears:
When neither an entity nor a nonentity

Stands before the mind,
There are then no other possibilities;
And so, without any objectification, peace is complete.76
It is explained that no object appears to gnosis. As a response to the objec-

tion that, on such an account, none of the activities of buddhas, such as their
teaching the Dharma, would make sense, we find the example of a strong
potter77 as well as the following stanza:
Like a wish-fulfilling jewel and a wish-granting tree

That completely satisfy hopes,
73 Ibid., xi.11c–d: 216a.

74 Ibid., xi.12a: 216a.
75 Ibid., xi.14a: 216a.
76 Śāntideva, Entering the Way of Bodhisattvas, ix.35: 32a.
77 Candrakīrti, Introduction to the Middle Way, xi.15–16: 216b. The example is of a potter who
turns his wheel so powerfully that it continues to spin without further effort. Similarly, buddhas train
in such qualities as wisdom and compassion over the course of eons, and the force of this enables
them to respond spontaneously to the needs of sentient beings.
28 Knowing Illusion
The appearances of bodies of the victors [i.e., buddhas]

Manifest in response to the aspirations of disciples.78
Responding to the criticism, “How can anything result from worshipping

something that has no mind,”79 Śāntideva states:
It is because it is taught that the result is similar

Whether one worships a buddha that is present or has passed away.80
Thus, he argues that the objection does not hit the mark, and he does not
deny that buddhas do not have minds. Confused by such statements, Kharak
Jangchub Shönnu (Kha rag pa Byang chub gzhon nu, d.u.) and others have
taught that these two masters deny that buddhas possess gnosis. If we ex-
amine these debates, however, it is clear that Candrakīrti and Śāntideva af-
firm the existence of the gnosis of equipoise without appearances—a gnosis
that fully comprehends the manifold reality of all cognitive objects as having
a single taste.
Suppose someone objects: “Such gnosis requires mind and mental states.
Hence, Clear Meaning also says: ‘Nondual minds and mental states must be
accepted; how should they be classified?’ ”81
But that is a Svātantrika assertion. Thus, the same commentary also
asserts: “These must not be refuted based on another philosophical system.”82
[270] Similarly, “One single moment of your understanding embraces the
full sphere of what is knowable” is a statement from the commentary to
Differentiation of the Two Truths.83
Again, it might be objected: “Well, consider these passages from
Introduction to the Middle Way:
There is only one epistemic warrant: the gnosis that is omniscience.84
78 Śāntideva, Entering the Way of Bodhisattvas, ix.36: 32a. The magical jewels and trees spoken of in
this verse fulfill the wishes of beings without being sentient.

79 Ibid., ix.39a–b: 32a.
80 Ibid., ix.39c–d: 32a.
81 Haribhadra, Clear Meaning: 133a.
82 Ibid., 86b. The canonical translation reads: “based on another vehicle” (theg pa gzhan la rten nas).
83 Jñānagarbha, Commentary on Differentiation of the Two Truths (Satyadvaya-vibhaṅga-vṛtti; Tib.
bDen pa gnyis rnam par ’byed pa’i ’grel pa), sDe dge #3882, bsTan ’gyur, dBu ma, vol. sa: 14b.
84 Candrakīrti, Autocommentary on Introduction to the Middle Way: 312b.
And:
The gnosis that is omniscience

Is what has the characteristics of “perception.”85
The same treatise also provides an extensive exposition of the ten powers,
such as the knowledge of what is right and what is wrong.86 Why is that?”
To this we reply that the first two passages concern the gnosis of equi-
poise without appearances. The second passage—and a number of others,
including Entering the Way of Bodhisattvas’ statement that “buddhas and
bodhisattvas have unimpeded vision of everything”87—is made from the
perspective of trainees. These claims—that the Buddha knows, that he was
born, and so on—are about bodies that are responses to the disciples. These
emanational embodiments of the Buddha that are responses to sentient
beings are simply magical displays or merely semblances of the Buddha. If
one were to say that because they seemingly display cognition they actually
cognize, one would, by the same token, also have to say that they in fact attain
awakening anew in the world when they appear to do so.88
Moreover, it would follow that when the world and its inhabitants appear
to a person who performs actions and suffers from pathologies, the apparent
environment and inhabitants are not produced by their specific causes, viz.,
actions and pathologies. It would follow that these appearances are not due
to the causes for error, viz., actions and pathologies. Similarly, it would follow
that darkness would make physical things imperceptible for perfectly awak-
ened buddhas, that their bodies would be burnable by the flaming red-hot
iron of hell and destructible in a rain of weapons, and that this appears to
85 Candrakīrti, Introduction to the Middle Way, vi.214a–b: 214b.

86 The ten powers are abilities unique to buddhas: (1) the ability to know what is right and what
is wrong (sthānāsthāna-jñāna-bala); (2) knowledge of the retribution of karma (karma-vipāka-
jñāna-bala); (3) knowledge of all forms of liberative meditation (dhyāna-vimokṣa-samādhi-
samāpatti-jñāna-bala); (4) knowledge of various beings’ capacities (indriya-parāpara-jñāna-bala);
(5) knowledge of the aspirations and inclinations of beings (nānādhimukti-jñāna-bala); (6) know-
ledge of the varieties of causal factors (nānā-dhātu-jñāna-bala); (7) knowledge of what leads to var-
ious destinies (sarvatra-gāminī-pratipaj-jñāna-bala); (8) knowledge of their former life situations
(pūrvanivāsa-jñāna-bala); (9) knowledge of death and rebirth (cyuty-upapatti-jñāna-bala); and (10)
knowledge that their afflictions have been thoroughly destroyed (āsrava-kṣaya-jñāna-bala).
87 Śāntideva, Entering the Way of Bodhisattvas, v.31a–b: 11b.
88 According to a variety of Mahāyāna texts, the Buddha had already attained awakening in the
heaven of Akaniṣṭha before he appeared to attain awakening under the Bodhi Tree. Thus, the attain-
ment of awakening at Bodhgaya was only an appearance—a pretense, as it were—and not reality. See
Cabezón (1999).
30 Knowing Illusion
buddhas themselves. This is because except for the appearance of true ex-
istence, which does not appear to buddhas, all of the other properties of
the world—solidity, and so on—that appear to ordinary individuals are
warranted exactly as they appear by means of epistemic instruments—and
[271] indeed chiefly by buddhas’ epistemic instruments.
Moreover, there would be no point in cultivating aspects of the path such
as the illusory body, which are for the sake of attaining the embodiment of a
buddha through gnosis that is free from the elemental, material factors of or-
dinary physical embodiment.89 This is because the apprehension of all phys-
ical factors is here held to be a special quality of buddhas’ gnosis.
One would also lose the concordance between the path and the result. This
is because during the gnosis of equipoise on the stages of training, and before
every mandala of the path of Mantra, one must forcefully dispel appearances.
Nevertheless, here our opponents hold that all appearances are manifest at
the time of the result. Because all phenomena are seen during the gnosis of
equipoise at the time of the result, it would follow that the perception of the
gnosis of equipoise would have to improve continuously beyond the path of
seeing, gradually enabling one to see phenomena more clearly.90
Therefore, this idea that the gnosis of buddhas is the primary epistemic war-
rant for discerning the relative truth is a primary flaw of this system. Describing
the relative truth as “worldly”—as in the phrase “the truth of worldly conven-
tion and the ultimate truth”91—would make no sense. Statements that could
be cited in this context are abundant, but consider, for example, these:
This is accepted without analysis and due to confusion.92
Saying that these exist despite their not existing,

I speak in conformity with the world out of necessity.93
“For whom should I then care?”

For those who are imagined to exist due to ignorance,
Who are accepted out of necessity.
89 Yogas relating to the illusory body (māyā-deha) are aspects of tantric practice; see Powers
(2007: 286–287).
90 The path of seeing (darśana-mārga) is the third of the five paths to awakening; see Powers
(2007: 91–98).
91 Nāgārjuna, Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way, xxiv.8c–d: 15a.
92 Candrakīrti, Introduction to the Middle Way, vi.164d: 212a.
93 Ibid., vi.81c–d: 208a.
“Whose necessity if there are no sentient beings?”

True, this desire is caused by ignorance.94
In other words, the relative truth is referred to as confusion, it is constituted

by mundane and innate ego-grasping, and it is not seen by pure gnosis. [272]
These points are made again and again.
It might then be objected: “In that case there would be no need to pursue
some courses of action and to refrain from others.” To this we reply: Those who
truly understand will make even greater efforts at pursuing the right course
and rejecting the wrong one. When people who suffer from clouded vision
realize that the hairs they perceive are not really there and that people with
healthy eyesight do not perceive them, they will, similarly, begin to regard the
hairs as their own visual defect.95 They will go searching for a doctor, and when
they find one they will listen to the doctor with great reverence. They may even
take a horrible medicine96 and diligently maintain a healthy lifestyle!
The pure conduct of body, speech, and mind that was displayed by
Lord Atiśa, his emanation Patsap Nyima Drakpa, Lochen Kyabchok
94 Emend ’bral to ’bras. Śāntideva, Entering the Way of Bodhisattvas, ix.76b–77b: 33b.
95 The Sanskrit term timira (Tib. rab rib) is frequently used in Buddhist literature as an ex-
ample of mistaken perception. It can refer to a wide range of visual defects, including floaters, oc-
cluded or hazy vision, or seeing spots, lines, dots, flowers, or clouds. Many of these (e.g., floaters or
perceptions of sky-flowers) result from defects in the eye’s vitreous humor, but they are perceived as
external. Floaters cast shadows on the retina or refract light that passes through them, which causes
perceptions of external phenomena. In his Commentary on the Discourse Explaining the Thought
(Ārya-gambhīra-saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra-ṭīkā; Tib. ’Phags pa dgongs pa zab mo nges par ’grel pa’i mdo
rgya cher ’grel pa; sDe dge #4016, bsTan ’gyur, mDo ’grel, vol. ti [118]: 517.4), Wonch’ŭk 원측/圓測
(613–696) explains: “Through the power of clouded vision existing in the eye, an eye-consciousness
and a mental consciousness that [arises] at the same time are generated through the power of those
two consciousnesses; a conceptual mental consciousness cognizes circular hairs and so forth in the
second moment.” On p. 518.5, citing the Compendium of Abhidharma (Abhidharma-samuccaya), he
adds that timira can also refer to conditions that cause people to misperceive colors: “Due to the de-
generation of an eye sense power that is affected by jaundice of the eye, blue is perceived as yellow.”
See also MacDonald’s (2015, vol. 2: 111–112, n. 228) discussion of translations of timira. The term is
discussed in a number of Indian Buddhist sources, including Madhyamaka-kārikā-vṛtti, ed. Louis
de la Vallée Poussin (1903–1913, ch. 18: 373); Candrakīrti’s Madhyamakāvatāra (la Vallée Poussin
1970: 102 and 109).
When the term is used to indicate floaters perceived externally, ophthalmologist Dr. Mindy
Kim-Miller (personal communication) stated that from a contemporary medical perspective,
“myodesopsia” is a close match for “the effect of floaters on vision, whereas floaters can refer to the
physiologic etiology. Given modern medical advances, the analogy to seeing things that aren’t there
seems to be a misinterpretation. The floaters that cause the ‘hair-like’ debris are actually present in
the vitreous of the eyeball, but they get misinterpreted as hairs or flowers or insects.” She added that
she has floaters in her own eyes, and so she perceives external hairs, but as an ophthalmologist she
recognizes them as false at the same time as she experiences this phenomenon. Kobayashi (2013)
provides a useful overview of relevant Indian medical literature on the subject.
96 Emend mi zad pa’i to mi bzad ba’i.
32 Knowing Illusion
Pelsang,97 and other great teachers—w ho these days are regarded as

nihilists—is not evinced by those who now howl triumphantly that the
conventional truth is epistemically warranted and that the effects of
actions can be ascertained with warrant. Enough said.
At this point it might be objected: “You drone on and on, but at the end
of the exposition found in Clear Words, four epistemic instruments are ac-
cepted: perception, inference, testimony, and analogy.98 That is the gen-
uine Prāsaṅgika way. Therefore, the early Tibetans were correct to draw
the Prāsaṅgika/Svātantrika distinction in terms of the number of epistemic
instruments accepted. In other words, Prāsaṅgikas are those who accept
four, whereas Svātantrikas assert only perception and inference in the same
way as the Commentary on Compendium of Epistemology.”99
But neither earlier nor later Tibetans are right about that, because the four
epistemic instruments are simply presented as the way ordinary people talk.
It is not a presentation of the Prāsaṅgikas’ own system. This is why the same
treatise concludes:
Therefore, it is through four types of epistemic warrants that ordinary

beings’ understanding of objects is structured.100 [273]
If this were not the case, then it would also be unreasonable to assert—based
on the statement: “That is indeed true, but only in mundane terms; every-
thing else is, according to mundane people, falsely conceived”101—that the
distinction between correct and incorrect relative reality is drawn only in
mundane terms and that it is not the way of our own Prāsaṅgika system.
“Well,” one might then think, “I see that these passages make exactly the
same point. So I will henceforth accept that our system distinguishes between
97 Lo chen sKyabs mchog dPal bzang (c. 1340–1415), teacher of Rendawa Shönnu Lodrö (Red
mda’ ba gZhon nu blo gros, 1349–1412). Kyabchok was also the teacher of another great Sakya
scholar, Ngorchen Kunga Sangpo (Ngor chen Kun dga’ bzang po, 1382–1456) and the author of a
commentary on Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way: Clarification of the Meaning of the Words
of the Commentary on Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way (dBu ma rtsa ba shes rab kyi ’grel pa
tshig don rab gsal), as well as a commentary on Introduction to the Middle Way entitled Extensive
Explanation of Introduction to the Middle Way Thoroughly Clarifying the Essence of the Ocean of
Scripture (dBu ma la ’jug pa rgya cher bshad pa gsung rab rgya mtsho’i de kho na nyid rab tu gsal ba).
98 Candrakīrti, Clear Words (Mūlamadhyamaka-vṛtti-prasanna-padā; Tib. dBu ma rtsa ba’i ’grel
pa tshig gsal ba), sDe dge #3860, bsTan ’gyur, dBu ma vol. ’a: 25b.
99 Dharmakīrti, Commentary on Compendium of Epistemology (Pramāṇa-vārttika; Tib. Tshad ma
rnam ’grel), sDe dge #4210, bsTan ’gyur, Tshad ma, vol. ce: 94b1–151a7.
100 Candrakīrti, Clear Words: 25b. Rendered according to the canonical translation.
101 Candrakīrti, Introduction to the Middle Way, vi.25c–d: 205a.
correct and incorrect relative truth.” But that is not reasonable if you take
statements like this one into account:
Until waking up, one finds as existent the three

Just as they are when awake.102
Thus, Candrakīrti repeatedly explains that for as long as the causes of delu-
sion endure, the horses and elephants in a dream are just as existent as the
ones we may encounter when awake. Once the causes of delusion cease,
both are equally nonexistent. Therefore, it is accurate to say that in our own
Madhyamaka system there is no distinction between correct and incorrect
relative truth. Without losing sight of this point, one must conclude that our
own Madhyamaka system does not divide the relative into four—as would
be the case if it is distinguished between what is and what is not an epistemic
warrant.
Our opponents claim that disciples and solitary buddhas must realize the
absence of self in phenomena; but Svātantrikas do not accept this. They are
also at odds with Prāsaṅgika because they march under the banner of “the
crossed lions’ necks of Madhyamaka and Pramāṇavāda.”103 This system tries
to get everything right and thereby becomes full of contradictions.
2.2.2.1.2. Extensive Explanation (1)‌
All objects being false104 contradicts their subjects being non-deceptive. [13a]
Our opponents explain that unless one realizes that the object is false, one
will fail to understand the meaning of relative truth. This is exactly right.
In the Prāsaṅgikas’ own system, one indeed realizes that the relative truth
is false. Therefore, it is contradictory to hold on the one hand that all rela-
tive objects are false and on the other hand that the cognitions that are their
subjects can be nondeceptive and epistemically warranting. This is because
102 Ibid., vi.53a–b: 206b.

103 This refers to the notion that in Tsongkhapa’s system the merging of Pramāṇavāda and
Madhyamaka creates a philosophical approach that becomes stronger and better able to withstand
attacks from opponents, like two lions fighting together with their necks intertwined, which enables
them to see enemies in all directions and anticipate their attacks. See, for example, Dalai Lama XIV
(2017: 41).
104 The term we translate as “false” (rdzun) has the sense of something counterfeit or fake. The
contradiction here involves the inconsistency of the object not existing in the way it appears and the
subject apprehending the object as it appears.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
for the purpose of guarantying the neutrality of the Isthmus canal or
determining the conditions of its use.
CHILI AND PERU.
The entire question is complicated by the war between Chili and

Peru, the latter owning immense guano deposits in which American
citizens have become financially interested. These sought the friendly
intervention of our government to prevent Chili, the conquering
Republic, from appropriating these deposits as part of her war
indemnity. The Landreau, an original French claim, is said to
represent $125,000,000, and the holders were prior to and during
the war pressing it upon Calderon, the Peruvian President, for
settlement; the Cochet claim, another of the same class, represented
$1,000,000,000. Doubtless these claims are speculative and largely
fraudulent, and shrewd agents are interested in their collection and
preservation. A still more preposterous and speculative movement
was fathered by one Shipherd, who opened a correspondence with
Minister Hurlburt, and with other parties for the establishment of
the Credit Industriel, which was to pay the $20,000,000 money
indemnity demanded of Peru by Chili, and to be reimbursed by the
Peruvian nitrates and guano deposits.
THE SCANDAL.
All of these things surround the question with scandals which

probably fail to truthfully reach any prominent officer of our
government, but which have nevertheless attracted the attention of
Congress to such an extent that the following action has been already
taken:
On February 24th Mr. Bayard offered in the Senate a resolution
reciting that whereas publication has been widely made by the public
press of certain alleged public commercial contracts between certain
companies and copartnerships of individuals relative to the exports
of guano and nitrates from Peru, in which the mediation by the
Government of the United States between the Governments of Peru,
Bolivia and Chili is declared to be a condition for the effectuation and
continuance of the said contracts; therefore be it resolved, that the
Committee on Foreign Relations be instructed to inquire whether
any promise or stipulation by which the intervention by the United
States in the controversies existing between Chili and Peru or Chili
and Bolivia has been expressly or impliedly given by any person or
persons officially connected with the Government of the United
States, or whether the influence of the Government of the United
States has been in any way exerted, promised or intimated in
connection with, or in relation to the said contracts by any one
officially connected with the Government of the United States, and
whether any one officially connected with the Government of the
United States is interested, directly or indirectly, with any such
alleged contracts in which the mediation as aforesaid of the United
States is recited to be a condition, and that the said committee have
power to send for persons and paper and make report of their
proceedings in the premises to the Senate at the earliest possible day.
Mr. Edmunds said he had drafted a resolution covering all the
branches of “that most unfortunate affair” to which reference was
now made, and in view of the ill policy of any action which would
commit the Senate to inquiries about declaring foreign matters in
advance of a careful investigation by a committee, he now made the
suggestion that he would have made as to his own resolution, if he
had offered it, namely, that the subject be referred to the Committee
on Foreign Relations. He intimated that the proposition prepared by
himself would be considered by the committee as a suggestion
bearing upon the pending resolution.
Mr. Bayard acquiesced in the reference with the remark that
anything that tended to bring the matter more fully before the
country was satisfactory to him.
The resolution accordingly went to the Committee on Foreign
Relations.
In the House Mr. Kasson, of Iowa, offered a resolution reciting
that whereas, it is alleged, in connection with the Chili Peruvian
correspondence recently and officially published on the call of the
two Houses of Congress, that one or more Ministers Plenipotentiary
of the United States were either personally interested or improperly
connected with a business transaction in which the intervention of
this Government was requested or expected and whereas, it is
alleged that certain papers in relation to the same subject have been
improperly lost or removed from the files of the State Department,
that therefore the Committee on Foreign Affairs be instructed to
inquire into said allegations and ascertain the facts relating thereto,
and report the same with such recommendations as they may deem
proper, and they shall have power to send for persons and papers.
The resolution was adopted.
THE CLAIMS.
The inner history of what is known as the Peruvian Company reads

more like a tale from the Arabian Nights than a plain statement of
facts. The following is gleaned from the prospectus of the company,
of which only a limited number of copies was printed. According to a
note on the cover of these “they are for the strictly private use of the
gentlemen into whose hands they are immediately placed.”
The prospects of the corporation are based entirely upon the
claims of Cochet and Landreau, two French chemists, residents of
Peru. In the year 1833, the Peruvian government, by published
decree, promised to every discoverer of valuable deposits upon the
public domain a premium of one-third of the discovery as an
incentive to the development of great natural resources vaguely
known to exist. In the beginning of 1830, Alexandre Cochet, who was
a man of superior information, occupied himself in the laborious
work of manufacturing nitrate of soda in a small oficina in Peru, and
being possessed with quick intelligence and a careful observer he
soon came to understand that the valuable properties contained in
the guano—an article only known to native cultivators of the soil—
would be eminently useful as a restorative to the exhausted lands of
the old continent. With this idea he made himself completely master
of the mode of application adopted by the Indians and small farmers
in the province where he resided, and after a careful investigation of
the chemical effects produced on the land by the proper application
of the regenerating agent, he proceeded in the year 1840 to the
capital (Lima) in order to interest some of his friends in this new
enterprise. Not without great persuasion and much hesitation, he
induced his countryman, Mr. Achilles Allier, to take up the
hazardous speculation and join with him in his discovery. He
succeeded, however, and toward the end of the same year the firm of
Quiroz & Allier obtained a concession for six years from the
government of Peru for the exportation of all the guano existing in
the afterwards famous islands of Chinchi for the sum of sixty
thousand dollars. In consequence of the refusal of that firm to admit
Cochet, the discoverer, to a participation in the profits growing out of
this contract a series of lawsuits resulted and a paper war ensued in
which Cochet was baffled. In vain he called the attention of the
government to the nature and value of this discovery; he was told
that he was a “visionary.” In vain he demonstrated that the nation
possessed hundreds of millions of dollars in the grand deposits: this
only confirmed the opinion of the Council of State that he was a
madman. In vain he attempted to prove that one cargo of guano was
equal to fourteen cargoes of grain; the Council of State coolly told
him that guano was an article known to the Spaniards, and of no
value: that Commissioner Humbolt had referred to it, and that they
could not accept his theory respecting its superior properties, its
value and its probable use in foreign agriculture at a period when no
new discovery could be made relative to an article so long and of so
evident small value.
At length a new light began to dawn on the lethargic
understanding of the officials in power, and as rumors continued to
arrive from Europe confirming the asseverations of Cochet, and
announcing the sale of guano at from $90 to $120 per ton, a degree
of haste was suddenly evinced to secure once more to the public
treasury this new and unexpected source of wealth; and at one blow
the contract with Quiroz & Allier, which had previously been
extended, was reduced to one year. Their claims were cancelled by
the payment of ten thousand tons of guano which Congress decreed
them. There still remained to be settled the just and acknowledged
indebtedness for benefits conferred on the country by Cochet,
benefits which could not be denied as wealth and prosperity rolled in
on the government and on the people. But few, if any, troubled
themselves about the question to whom they were indebted for so
much good fortune, nor had time to pay particular attention to
Cochet’s claims. Finally, however, Congress was led to declare Cochet
the true discoverer of the value, uses and application of guano for
European agriculture, and a grant of 5,000 tons was made in his
favor September 30th, 1849, but was never paid him. After passing a
period of years in hopeless expectancy—from 1840 to 1851—his
impoverished circumstances made it necessary for him to endeavor
to procure, through the influence of his own government, that
measure of support in favor of his claims which would insure him a
competency in his old age.
He resolved upon returning to France, after having spent the best
part of his life in the service of a country whose cities had risen from
desolation to splendor under the sole magic of his touch—a touch
that had in it for Peru all the fabled power of the long-sought
“philosopher’s stone.” In 1853 Cochet returned to France, but he was
then already exhausted by enthusiastic explorations in a deadly
climate and never rallied. He lingered in poverty for eleven painful
years and died in Paris in an almshouse in 1864, entitled to an estate
worth $500,000,000—the richest man in the history of the world—
and was buried by the city in the Potters’ Field; his wonderful history
well illustrating that truth is stranger than fiction.
THE LANDREAU CLAIM.
About the year 1844 Jean Theophile Landreau, also a French

citizen, in partnership with his brother, John C. Landreau, a
naturalized American citizen, upon the faith of the promised
premium of 33⅓ per cent. entered upon a series of extended
systematic and scientific explorations with a view to ascertaining
whether the deposits of guano particularly pointed out by Cochet
constituted the entire guano deposit of Peru, and with money
furnished by his partner, John, Theophile prosecuted his searches
with remarkable energy and with great success for twelve years,
identifying beds not before known to the value of not less than
$400,000,000. Well aware, however, of the manner in which his
fellow-countryman had been neglected by an unprincipled people, he
had the discretion to keep his own counsel and to extort from the
Peruvian authorities an absolute agreement in advance before he
revealed his treasure. This agreement was, indeed, for a royalty of
less than one sixth the amount promised, but the most solemn
assurances were given that the lessened amount would be promptly
and cheerfully paid, its total would give the brothers each a large
fortune, and payments were to begin at once. The solemn agreement
having been concluded and duly certified, the precious deposits
having been pointed out and taken possession of by the profligate
government, the brothers were at first put off with plausible pretexts
of delay, and when these grew monotonous the government calmly
issued a decree recognizing the discoveries, accepting the treasure,
and annulling the contract, with a suggestion that a more suitable
agreement might be arranged in the future.
It will be seen that these two men, Cochet and Landreau, have
been acknowledged by the Peruvian government as claimants. No
attempt has ever been made to deny the indebtedness. The very
decree of repudiation reaffirmed the obligation, and all the courts
refused to pronounce against the plaintiffs. Both of these claims
came into the possession of Mr. Peter W. Hevenor, of Philadelphia.
Cochet left one son whom Mr. Hevenor found in poverty in Lima and
advanced money to push his father’s claim of $500,000,000 against
the government. After $50,000 were spent young Cochet’s backer
was surprised to learn of the Laudreaus and their claim. Not wishing
to antagonize them, he advanced them money, and in a short time
owned nearly all the fifteen interests in the Landreau claim of
$125,000,000.
To the Peruvian Company Mr. Hevenor has transferred his titles,
and on the basis of these that corporation maintains that eventually
it will realize not less than $1,200,000,000, computed as follows:
The amount of guano already taken out of the Cochet Islands—
including the Chinchas—will be shown by the Peruvian Custom
House records, and will aggregate, it is said, not far from
$1,200,000,000 worth. The discoverer’s one-third of this would be
$400,000,000, and interest upon this amount at six per cent. say for
an equalized average of twenty years—would be $480,000,000
more. The amount remaining in these islands is not positively
known, and is probably not more than $200,000,000 worth; and in
the Landreau deposits say $300,000,000 more. The Chilean
plenipotentiary recently announced that his government are about
opening very rich deposits on the Lobos Islands—which are included
in this group. It is probably within safe limits, says the Peruvian
Company’s prospectus, to say that, including interest to accrue
before the claim can be fully liquidated, its owners will realize no less
than $1,200,000,000.
THE COUNTRIES INVOLVED.
In South America there are ten independent governments; and the

three Guianas which are dependencies on European powers. Of the
independent governments Brazil is an empire, having an area of
3,609,160 square miles and 11,058,000 inhabitants. The other nine
are republics. In giving area and population we use the most
complete statistics at our command, but they are not strictly reliable,
nor as late as we could have wished. The area and the population of
the republics are: Venezuela, 426,712 square miles and 2,200,000
inhabitants; United States of Colombia, 475,000 square miles and
2,900,000 inhabitants; Peru, 580,000 square miles and 2,500,000
inhabitants; Ecuador, 208,000 square miles and 1,300,000
inhabitants; Bolivia, 842,730 square miles and 1,987,352
inhabitants; Chili, 200,000 square miles and 2,084,960 inhabitants;
Argentine Republic, 1,323,560 square miles and 1,887,000
inhabitants; Paraguay, 73,000 square miles and 1,337,439
inhabitants; Uruguay, 66,716 square miles and 240,000 inhabitants,
or a total in the nine republics of 3,789,220 square miles and
16,436,751 inhabitants. The aggregate area of the nine republics
exceeds that of Brazil 180,060 square miles, and the total population
exceeds that of Brazil 5,069,552. Brazil, being an empire, is not
comprehended in the Blaine proposal—she rather stands as a strong
barrier against it. Mexico and Guatemala are included, but are on
this continent, and their character and resources better understood
by our people. In the South American countries generally the
Spanish language is spoken. The educated classes are of nearly pure
Spanish extraction. The laboring classes are of mixed Spanish and
aboriginal blood, or of pure aboriginal ancestry. The characteristics
of the Continent are emphatically Spanish. The area and population
we have already given. The territory is nearly equally divided
between the republics and the empire, the former having a greater
area of only 180,060 square miles; but the nine republics have an
aggregate population of 5,059,522 more than Brazil. The United
States has an area of 3,634,797 square miles, including Alaska; but
excluding Alaska, it has 3,056,797 square miles. The area of Brazil is
greater than that of the United States, excluding Alaska, by 552,363
square miles, and the aggregate area of the nine republics is greater
by 732,423 square miles. This comparison of the area of the nine
republics and of Brazil with that of this nation gives a definite idea of
their magnitude. Geographically, these republics occupy the
northern, western and southern portions of South America, and are
contiguous. The aggregate exports and imports of South America,
according to the last available data, were $529,300,000; those of
Brazil, $168,930,000; of the nine republics, $360,360,000.
These resolutions will bring out voluminous correspondence, but
we have given the reader sufficient to reach a fair understanding of
the subject. Whatever of scandal may be connected with it, like the
Star Route cases, it should await official investigation and
condemnation. Last of all should history condemn any one in
advance of official inquiry. None of the governments invited to the
Congress had accepted formally, and in view of obstacles thrown in
the way by the present administration, it is not probable they will.
Accepting the proposition of Mr. Blaine as stated in his letter to
President Arthur, as conveying his true desire and meaning, it is due
to the truth to say that it comprehends more than the Monroe
doctrine, the text of which is given in President Monroe’s own words
in this volume. While he contended against foreign intervention with
the Republics on this Hemisphere, he never asserted the right of our
government to participate in or seek the control either of the
internal, commercial or foreign policy of any of the Republics of
America, by arbitration or otherwise. So that Mr. Blaine is the author
of an advance upon the Monroe doctrine, and what seems at this
time a radical advance. What it may be when the United States seeks
to “spread itself” by an aggressive foreign policy, and by
aggrandizement of new avenues of trade, possibly new acquisitions
of territory, is another question. It is a policy brilliant beyond any
examples in our history, and a new departure from the teachings of
Washington, who advised absolute non-intervention in foreign
affairs. The new doctrine might thrive and acquire great popularity
under an administration friendly to it; but President Arthur has
already intimated his hostility, and it is now beyond enforcement
during his administration. The views of Congress also seem to be
adverse as far as the debates have gone into the question, though it
has some warm friends who may revive it under more favorable
auspices.
The Star Route Scandal.
Directly after Mr. James assumed the position of Postmaster-

General in the Cabinet of President Garfield, he discovered a great
amount of extravagance and probably fraud in the conduct of the
mail service known as the Star Routes, authorized by act of Congress
to further extend the mail facilities and promote the more rapid
carriage of the mails. These routes proved to be very popular in the
West and Southwest, and the growing demand for mail facilities in
these sections would even in a legitimate way, if not closely watched,
lead to unusual cost and extravagance; but it is alleged that a ring
was formed headed by General Brady, one of the Assistant
Postmaster-Generals under General Key, by which routes were
established with the sole view of defrauding the Government—that
false bonds were given and enormous and fraudulent sums paid for
little or no service. This scandal was at its height at the time of the
assassination of President Garfield, at which time Postmaster-
General James, Attorney-General MacVeagh and other officials were
rapidly preparing for the prosecution of all charged with the fraud.
Upon the succession of President Arthur he openly insisted upon the
fullest prosecution, and declined to receive the resignation of Mr.
MacVeagh from the Cabinet because of a stated fear that the
prosecution would suffer by his withdrawal. Mr. MacVeagh, however,
withdrew from the Cabinet, believing that the new President should
not by any circumstance be prevented from the official association of
friends of his own selection; and at this writing Attorney-General
Brewster is pushing the prosecutions.
On the 24th of March, 1882, the Grand Jury sitting at Washington
presented indictments for conspiracy in connection with the Star
Route mail service against the following named persons: Thomas J.
Brady, J. W. Dorsey, Henry M. Vail, John W. Dorsey, John R. Miner,
John M. Peck, M. C. Rerdell, J. L. Sanderson, Wm. H. Turner. Also
against Alvin O. Buck, Wm. S. Barringer and Albert E. Boone, and
against Kate M. Armstrong for perjury. The indictment against
Brady, Dorsey and others, which is very voluminous, recites the
existence, on March 10, 1879, of the Post Office Department,
Postmaster-General and three assistants, and a Sixth Auditor’s office
and Contract office and division.
“To the latter was subject,” the indictment continues, “the
arrangement of the mail service of the United States and the letting
out of the same on contract.” It then describes the duties of the
inspecting division. On March 10, 1879, the grand jurors represent,
Thomas J. Brady was the lawful Second Assistant Postmaster-
General engaged in the performance of the duties of that office.
William H. Turner was a clerk in the Second Assistant Postmaster-
General’s office, and attended to the business of the contract division
relating to the mail service over several post routes in California,
Colorado, Oregon, Nebraska, and the Territories. On the 16th of
March, 1879, the indictment represents Thomas J. Brady as having
made eight contracts with John W. Dorsey to carry the mails from
July 1, 1878, to June 30, 1882, from Vermillion, in Dakota Territory,
to Sioux Falls and back, on a fourteen hour time schedule, for $398
each year; on route from White River to Rawlins, Colorado, once a
week of 108 hours’ time, for $1,700 a year; on route from Garland,
Colorado, to Parrott City, once a week, on a schedule of 168 hours’
time, for $2,745; on route from Ouray, Colorado, to Los Pinos, once a
week, in 12 hours’ time, for $348; on route from Silverton, Colorado,
to Parrott City, twice a week, on 36 hours’ time, for $1,488; on route
from Mineral Park, in Arizona Territory, to Pioche and back, once a
week, in 84 hours’ time, $2,982; on route from Tres Almos to Clifton
and back, once a week, of 84 hours’ time, for $1,568.
It further sets forth that the Second Assistant Postmaster-General
entered into five contracts with John R. Miner on June 13, 1878, on
routes in Dakota Territory and Colorado, and on March 15, 1879,
with John M. Peck, over eight post routes. In the space of sixty days
after the making of these contracts they were in full force. On March
10, 1879, John W. Dorsey, John R. Miner, and John M. Peck, with
Stephen W. Dorsey and Henry M. Vaile, M. C. Rerdell and J. L.
Sanderson, mutually interested in these contracts and money, to be
paid by the United States to the three parties above named, did
unlawfully and maliciously combine and conspire to fraudulently
write, sign, and cause to be written and signed, a large number of
fraudulent letters and communications and false and fraudulent
petitions and applications to the Postmaster-General for additional
service and increase of expenditure on the routes, which were
purported to be signed by the people and inhabitants in the
neighborhood of the routes, which were filed with the papers in the
office of the Second Assistant Postmaster-General. Further that these
parties swore falsely in describing the number of men and animals
required to perform the mail service over the routes and States as
greater than was necessary.
These false oaths were placed on file in the Second Assistant
Postmaster-General’s office; and by means of Wm. H. Turner falsely
making and writing and endorsing these papers, with brief and
untrue statements as to their contents, and by Turner preparing
fraudulent written orders for allowances to be made to these
contractors and signed by Thomas J. Brady fraudulently, and for the
benefit and gain of all the parties named in this bill, the service was
increased over these routes; and that Brady knew it was not lawfully
needed and required. That he caused the order for increasing to be
certified to and filed in the Sixth Auditor’s office for fraudulent
additional compensation. That Mr. Brady gave orders to extend the
service so as to include other and different stations than those
mentioned in the contract, that he and others might have the
benefits and profits of it: that he refused to impose fines on these
contracts for failures and delinquencies, but allowed them additional
pay for the service over these routes. During the continuance of these
contracts the parties acquired unto themselves several large and
excessive sums of money, the property of the United States,
fraudulently and unlawfully ordered to be paid them by Mr. Brady.
These are certainly formidable indictments. Others are pending
against persons in Philadelphia and other cities, who are charged
with complicity in these Star Route frauds, in giving straw bonds, &c.
The Star Route service still continues, the Post Office Department
under the law having sent out several thousand notifications this
year to contractors, informing them of the official acceptance of their
proposals, and some of these contractors are the same named above
as under indictment. This well exemplifies the maxim of the law
relative to innocence until guilt be shown.
The Coming States.
Bills are pending before Congress for the admission of Dakota,

Wyoming, New Mexico and Washington Territories. The Bill for the
admission of Dakota divides the old Territory, and provides that the
new State shall consist of the territory included within the following
boundaries: Commencing at a point on the west line of the State of
Minnesota where the forty-sixth degree of north latitude intersects
the same; thence south along the west boundary lines of the States of
Minnesota and Iowa to the point of intersection with the northern
boundary line of the State of Nebraska; thence westwardly along the
northern boundary line of the State of Nebraska to the twenty-
seventh meridian of longitude west from Washington; thence north
along the said twenty-seventh degree of longitude to the forty-sixth
degree of north latitude; to the place of beginning. The bill provides
for a convention of one hundred and twenty delegates, to be chosen
by the legal voters, who shall adopt the United States Constitution
and then proceed to form a State Constitution and government. Until
the next census the State shall be entitled to one representative, who,
with the Governor and other officials, shall be elected upon a day
named by the Constitutional Convention. The report sets apart lands
for school purposes, and gives the State five per centum of the
proceeds of all sales of public lands within its limits subsequent to its
admission as a State, excluding all mineral lands from being thus set
apart for school purposes. It provides that portion of the Territory
not included in the proposed new State shall continue as a Territory
under the name of the Territory of North Dakota.
The proposition to divide comes from Senator McMillan, and if
Congress sustains the division, the portion admitted would contain
100,000 inhabitants, the entire estimated population being 175,000
—a number in excess of twenty of the present States when admitted,
exclusive of the original thirteen; while the division, which shows
100,000 inhabitants, is still in excess of sixteen States when
admitted.
Nevada, with less than 65,000 population, was admitted before
the close Presidential election of 1876, and it may be said that her
majority of 1,075, in a total poll of 19,691 votes, decided the
Presidential result in favor of Hayes, and these votes counteracted
the plurality of nearly 300,000 received by Mr. Tilden elsewhere.
This fact well illustrates the power of States, as States, and however
small, in controlling the affairs of the country. It also accounts for the
jealousy with which closely balanced political parties watch the
incoming States.
Population is but one of the considerations entering into the
question of admitting territories, State sovereignty does not rest
upon population, as in the make up of the U. S. Senate neither
population, size, nor resources are taken into account. Rhode Island,
the smallest of all the States, and New York, the great Empire State,
with over 5,000,000 of inhabitants, stand upon an equality in the
conservative branch of the Government. It is in the House of
Representatives that the population is considered. Such is the
jealousy of the larger States of their representation in the U. S.
Senate, that few new ones would be admitted without long and
continuous knocking if it were not for partisan interests, and yet
where a fair number of people demand State Government there is no
just cause for denial. Yet all questions of population, natural division,
area and resources should be given their proper weight.
The area of the combined territories—Utah, Washington, New
Mexico, Dakota, Arizona, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming and Indian is
about 900,000 square miles. We exclude Alaska, which has not been
surveyed.
Indian Territory and Utah are for some years to come excluded
from admission—the one being reserved to the occupancy of the
Indians, while the other is by her peculiar institution of polygamy,
generally thrown out of all calculation. And yet it may be found that
polygamy can best be made amenable to the laws by the compulsory
admission of Utah as a State—an idea entertained by not a few who
have given consideration to the question. Alaska may also be counted
out for many years to come. There are but 30,000 inhabitants, few of
these permanent, and Congress is now considering a petition for the
establishment of a territorial government there.
Next to Dakota, New Mexico justly claims admission. The lands
comprised within its original area were acquired from Mexico, at the
conclusion of the war with that country, by the treaty of Guadalupe
Hidalgo in 1848, and by act of September 9, 1850, a Territorial
government was organized. By treaty of December 30, 1853, the
region south of the Gila river—the Gadsden purchase, so called—was
ceded by Mexico, and by act of August 4, 1854, added to the
Territory, which at that time included within its limits the present
Territory of Arizona. Its prayer for admission was brought to the
serious attention of Congress in 1874. The bill was presented in an
able speech by Mr. Elkins, then delegate from the Territory, and had
the warm support of many members. A bill to admit was also
introduced in the Senate, and passed that body February 25, 1875, by
a vote of thirty-two to eleven, two of the present members of that
body, Messrs. Ingalls and Windom, being among its supporters. The
matter of admission came up for final action in the House at the
same session, just prior to adjournment, and a motion to suspend
the rules, in order to put it upon its final passage, was lost by a vote
of one hundred and fifty-four to eighty-seven, and the earnest efforts
to secure the admission of New Mexico were thus defeated. A bill for
its admission is now again before Congress, and it is a matter of
interest to note the representations as to the condition of the
Territory then made, and the facts as they now exist. It has,
according to the census of 1880, a population of 119,565. It had in
1870 a population of 91,874. It was claimed by the more moderate
advocates of the bill that its population then numbered 135,000
(15,435 more than at present), while others placed it as high as
145,000. Of this population, 45,000 were said to be of American and
European descent. It was stated by Senator Hoar, one of the
opponents of the bill, that, out of an illiterate population of 52,220,
by far the larger part were native inhabitants of Mexican or Spanish
origin, who could not speak the English language. This statement
seems to be in large degree confirmed by the census of 1880, which
shows a total native white population of 108,721, of whom, as nearly
as can be ascertained, upward of 80 per cent. are not only illiterates
of Mexican and Spanish extraction, but as in 1870, speaking a foreign
language. The vote for Mr. Elkins, Territorial Delegate in 1875, was
reported as being about 17,000. The total vote in 1878 was 18,806,
and in 1880, 20,397, showing a comparatively insignificant increase
from 1875 to 1880.
The Territory of Washington was constituted out of Oregon, and
organized as a Territory by act of March 2, 1853. Its population by
the census of 1880 was 75,116, an increase from 23,955 in 1870. Of
this total, 59,313 are of native and 15,803 of foreign nativity. Its total
white population in the census year was 67,119; Chinese, 3,186;
Indian, 4,105; colored, 326, and its total present population is
probably not far from 95,000. Its yield of precious metals in 1880,
and for the entire period since its development, while showing
resources full of promise, has been much less than that of any other
of the organized Territories. Its total vote for Territorial Delegate in
1880, while exceeding that of the Territories of Arizona, Idaho, and
Wyoming, was but 15,823.
The Territory of Arizona, organized out of a portion of New
Mexico, and provided with a territorial government in 1863, contains
about 5,000,000 acres less than the Territory of New Mexico, or an
acreage exceeded by that of only five States and Territories. Its total
population in 1870 was 9,658, and in 1880, 40,440, 35,160 of whom
were whites. Of its total population in the census year, 24,391 were of
native and 16,049 of foreign birth, the number of Indians, Chinese,
and colored being 5,000.
Idaho was originally a part of Oregon, from which it was separated
and provided with a territorial government by the act of March 3,
1863. It embraces in its area a little more than 55,000,000 acres, and
had in 1880 a total population of 32,610, being an increase from
14,999 in 1870. Of this population, 22,636 are of native and 9,974 of
foreign birth; 29,013 of the total inhabitants are white, 3,379 Chinese
and 218 Indians and colored.
The Territory of Montana, organized by act of May 26, 1864,
contains an acreage larger than that of any other Territory save
Dakota. While it seems to be inferior in cereal producing capacity, in
its area of valuable grazing lands it equals, if it does not excel, Idaho.
The chief prosperity of the Territory, and that which promises for it a
future of growing importance, lies in its extraordinary mineral
wealth, the productions of its mines in the year 1880 having been
nearly twice that of any other Territory, with a corresponding excess
in its total production, which had reached, on June 30, 1880, the
enormous total of over $53,000,000. Its mining industries represent
in the aggregate very large invested capital, and the increasing
products, with the development of new mines, are attracting
constant additions to its population, which in 1880 showed an
increase, as compared with 1870, of over 90 per cent. For particulars
see census tables in tabulated history.
Wyoming was constituted out of the Territory of Dakota, and
provided with territorial government July 25, 1868. Lying between
Colorado and Montana, and adjoining Dakota and Nebraska on the
east, it partakes of the natural characteristics of these States and
Territories, having a fair portion of land suitable for cultivation, a
large area suitable for grazing purposes, and a wealth in mineral
resources whose development, although of recent beginning, has
already resulted in an encouraging yield in precious metals. It is the
fifth in area.
Henry Randall Waite, in an able article in the March number of
the International Review (1882,) closes with these interesting
paragraphs:
“It will be thus seen that eleven States organized from Territories,
when authorized to form State governments, and the same number
when admitted to the Union, had free populations of less than
60,000, and that of the slave States included in this number, seven
in all, not one had the required number of free inhabitants, either
when authorized to take the first steps toward admission or when
finally admitted; and that both of these steps were taken by two of
the latter States with a total population, free and slave, below the
required number. Why so many States have been authorized to form
State governments, and have been subsequently admitted to the
Union with populations so far below the requirements of the
ordinance of 1787, and the accepted rules for subsequent action may
be briefly explained as follows: 1st, by the ground for the use of a
wide discretion afforded in the provisions of the ordinance of 1787,
for the admission of States, when deemed expedient, before their
population should equal the required number; and 2d. by the equally
wide discretion given by the Constitution in the words, ‘New States
may be admitted by Congress into this Union,’ the only provision of
the Constitution bearing specifically upon this subject. Efforts have
been made at various times to secure the strict enforcement of the
original rules, with the modification resulting from the increase in
the population of the Union, which provided that the number of free
inhabitants in a Territory seeking admission should equal the
number established as the basis of representation in the
apportionment of Representatives in Congress, as determined by the
preceding census. How little success the efforts made in this
direction have met, may be seen by a comparison of the number of
inhabitants forming the basis of representation, as established by the
different censuses, and the free population of the Territories
admitted at corresponding periods.
“At this late date, it is hardly to be expected that rules so long
disregarded will be made applicable to the admission of the States to
be organized from the existing Territories. There is, nevertheless, a
growing disposition on the part of Congress to look with disfavor
upon the formation of States whose population, and the development
of whose resources, render the expediency of their admission
questionable; and an increasing doubt as to the propriety of so
dividing the existing Territories as to multiply to an unnecessary
extent the number of States, with the attendant increase in the
number of Representatives in the National Legislature.
“To recapitulate the facts as to the present condition of the
Territories with reference to their admission as States, it may be said
that only Dakota, Utah, New Mexico and Washington are in
possession of the necessary population according to the rule
requiring 60,000; that only the three first named conform to the rule
demanding a population equal to the present basis of representation;
that only Dakota, Utah and Washington give evidence of that
intelligence on the part of their inhabitants which is essential to the
proper exercise, under favorable conditions, of the extended rights of
citizenship, and of that progress in the development of their
resources which makes self-government essential, safe, or in any way
desirable; and that only Dakota can be said, unquestionably, to
possess all of the requirements which, by the dictates of a sound
policy, should be demanded of a Territory at this time seeking
admission to the Union.
“Whatever the response to the Territorial messengers now waiting
at the doors of Congress, a few years, at most, will bring an answer to
their prayers. The stars of a dozen proud and prosperous States will
soon be added to those already blazoned upon the blue field of the
Union, and the term Territory, save as applied to the frozen regions
of Alaska, will disappear from the map of the United States.”
The Chinese Question.
Since 1877 the agitation of the prohibition of Chinese immigration

in California and other States and Territories on the Pacific slope has
been very great. This led to many scenes of violence and in some
instances bloodshed, when one Dennis Kearney led the
Workingmen’s party in San Francisco. On this issue an agitator and
preacher named Kalloch was elected Mayor. The issue was carried to
the Legislature, and in the vote on a constitutional amendment it was
found that not only the labor but nearly all classes in California were
opposed to the Chinese. The constitutional amendment did not meet
the sanction of the higher courts. A bill was introduced into Congress
restricting Chinese immigrants to fifteen on each vessel. This passed
both branches, but was vetoed by President Hayes on the ground
that it was in violation of the spirit of treaty stipulations. At the
sessions of 1881–82 a new and more radical measure was
introduced. This prohibits immigration to Chinese or Coolie laborers
for twenty years. The discussion in the U. S. Senate began on the
28th of February, 1882, in a speech of unusual strength by Senator
John F. Miller, the author of the Bill. From this we freely quote, not
alone to show the later views entertained by the people of the Pacific
slope, but to give from the lips of one who knows the leading facts in
the history of the agitation.

Knowing Illusion Bringing A Tibetan Debate Into Contemporary Discourse Volume Ii Translations The Yakherds full chapter pdf docx

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Knowing Illusion Bringing A Tibetan Debate Into Contemporary Discourse Volume Ii Translations The Yakherds full chapter pdf docx

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Knowing Illusion: Bringing a Tibetan

Debate into Contemporary Discourse:

The Oxford Latin Syntax, Volume II: the Complex

Brain, Beauty, and Art: Essays Bringing Neuroaesthetics

Organic Chemistry—A Modern Approach (Volume-II) Nimai

Flow Assurance. Volume II Qiwei Wang

The Sustainable Development Theory: A Critical

Gardner’s Art through the Ages: A Global History,

Spatial Economics, Volume II: Applications Stefano

Miller's Anesthesia, 2-Volume Set: Volume I + II 9th

Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press

© Oxford University Press 2021

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in

You must not circulate this work in any other form

Library of Congress Cataloging-​in-​Publication Data

This is the second volume of a two-​volume study, the first of which is a

A number of people provided help to one or more Yakherds. We are par-

In preparing these translations, we have adopted a few translation policies

The international group that produced this book—​José Cabezón, Ryan

2 Candrakīrti, Autocommentary on Introduction to the Middle Way (Madhyamakāvatāra-​bhāṣya;

The Author: Life and Times

Taktsang Lotsawa Sherab Rinchen was born in Langdro Khangmar in the

or empowerments, and his characterizations of them suggest that they

In 1437, Taktsang received instructions on grammatical texts from Tukjé

6 Taktsang (2007b: 358–​359).

One of Taktsang’s principal charges against Tsongkhapa’s presentation of

Taktsang and the Proper Understanding

Taktsang’s charge of “eighteen great burdens of contradiction” in Tsongkhapa’s

7 See Dhongthog Rinpoche (2016: 153).

8 Taktsang (2007b: 262).

truth is false and deceptive.9 In fact, according to Taktsang’s reading, all

Freedom from Extremes Accomplished

Taktsang Lotsawa Sherab Rinchen

Yogis are also undermined

1. Brief Presentation of the Classification

1.1. General Explanation

All philosophical systems presume to refute the two extremes

Among realists, proponents of Cittamātra who support the nondualistic false

Imputed entities do not exist,

bKa’ ’gyur, mDo sde, vol. ca: 107b.

And the Great Discourse on Emptiness states:

When something is absent in something else, the latter is empty of the

And Distinguishing the Middle from Extremes states:

Imagination of the unreal exists. [257]

Neither empty nor nonempty:

Likewise, the author of Ornament of Epistemology24 and many others often

1.2. Specific Explanations

Specifically, among the supreme exponents of the way of Nāgārjuna,

dge #290, bKa’ ’gyur, mDo sde, vol. sha: 250b.

Compendium of Epistemology (Pramāṇa-​vārttikā-alaṃkāra).

who refrain from the use of independent reasons—​arguments in which the

Many authentic sources of the Noble Land refer to these two

Thus, although compelling when not analyzed,

sometimes also translated as Epistemologists.

on the rendering found in our version of Taktsang’s text.

They also fail to see the ineffable

And if it were established, the scriptures of others

Nevertheless, the Compassionate One

Employing such principles as that of emptiness,

Having in this way taught the Prāsaṅgika approach, Śūra continues:

Self and other, appearing and existing phenomena,

30 Śūra/​Aśvaghoṣa, Compendium of the Stages of Meditation on the Ultimate Spirit of Awakening

(Paramārtha-​bodhicitta-​bhāvanākrama-​varṇa-​saṃgraha; Tib. Don dam pa byang chub kyi sems

Are mere words and do not even exist as words.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

This is the second volume of a two-volume study, the first of which is a

The international group that produced this book—José Cabezón, Ryan

2 Candrakīrti, Autocommentary on Introduction to the Middle Way (Madhyamakāvatāra-bhāṣya;

6 Taktsang (2007b: 358–359).

Compendium of Epistemology (Pramāṇa-vārttikā-alaṃkāra).

who refrain from the use of independent reasons—arguments in which the

30 Śūra/Aśvaghoṣa, Compendium of the Stages of Meditation on the Ultimate Spirit of Awakening

(Paramārtha-bodhicitta-bhāvanākrama-varṇa-saṃgraha; Tib. Don dam pa byang chub kyi sems

Also, for example, Avadhūtipāda’s (Advayavajra, 1007–1085) Jewel Garland

32 Ibid., verse 23–25: 16a.

’gyur, dBu ma, vol. sa: 53a1–56b3.

Tshad ma, vol. ze: 1b1–133a6.

52 Haribhadra, Clear Meaning (Abhisamayālaṃkāra-prajñāpāramitopadeśa-śāstra-vṛtti; Tib. Shes

bsTan ’gyur, dBu ma, vol. sa: 133b–244a.

In reality, there is no duality—

61 Jñānagarbha, Differentiation of the Two Truths, verses 9–11: 1b–2a.

Whatever is dependently co-arisen

67 Candrakīrti, Autocommentary on Introduction to the Middle Way (Madhyamakāvatāra-bhāṣya;

“embodiment” refers to the arising of the embodiment of bliss (saṃbhoga-kāya).

Like a wish-fulfilling jewel and a wish-granting tree

73 Ibid., xi.11c–d: 216a.