Talk:Prasaṅgika

message: Prasangika reasoning is also a way of preparing the mind for meditation on emptiness (shunyata). All conceptual constructs are analysed and seen to be dependent on causes and conditions, and so empty of self-nature. In this way, the practitioner aims to rid his mind of all conceptual thought. 
This may well be a statement that belongs to e.g. the Karma Kargyu, but it something that cannot be found within the Indian school.  Can the wiki-editor responsible please qualify it and provide references/source (20040302 17:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prasangika reasoning 

message: The Svātantrika response to Tsongkhapa was that because there are different levels of existence, a conventional thing could self-exist, exist from its own side, and have inherent existence, but that it still would not exist absolutely, ultimately, or really.
I remain unconvinced by this - in general there are the two truths, that of the conventional and that of the ultimate; then within the scope of the conventional there are dependant arisings, and dependant designations. I would really like to see more citation or explanation for the statement.
Also, there are several discrete Svātantrika strands - such as the Yogācārya-Svātantrika of Śāntarakṣita - and this does not appear to identify which Svātantrika scholar (most probably a Tibetan) is making this response.  (20040302 (talk) 23:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Svātantrika response to Tsongkhapa 

message: The text currently includes the words: "All these arguments are flushed out..."  I flush acid out of my eye by holding my eye under the cold water faucet for at least fifteen minutes. "Flush out" means to get rid of something by impact and dilution using water or some other solvent. You can flush stones out of a culvert using a fire hose attached to a pumper unit. Somehow, I don't think this is the kind of thing that the person who wrote the sentence in question really meant to convey. 
Also, what is:
;|Lam Rim Chen Mo}} A...
supposed to be?
:The Lam Rim Chenmo is an important text, written by Je Tsongkhapa. 20040302 (talk)
三人莫然 (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange assertion -- flushed down the toilet or fleshed out by... 

message: The text currently says:
Ordinary activity here refers to the ethical choices we make under the influence of the understanding of emptiness, during our path practice as a Bodhisattva.
The ordinary well-informed reader will have no way of understanding this sentence in an acceptable way. The ordinary reader is not a practicing Bodhisattva. What is a "path practice"? Practice of the Buddhist Marga? If that's what you mean, why don't you just say it? 三人莫然 (talk) 04:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another strange pronouncement 

message: The text currently has: 
    The opponents of Candrakirti's Prassana-padā (a seminal text regarding the Prasaṅgika/Svātantrika distinction) are both (a) the essentialists, who accept that things ultimately have intrinsic nature, and (b) the Svātantrikas, who refute that, but accept that things conventionally have intrinsic character or intrinsic nature.
    —quote
The "-quote" business is totally weird. Sometimes published works have a block of text and then below it
  --Ralph Waldo Emerson
or something like that. "Quote" won't do.三人莫然 (talk) 04:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange formatting and reference 

message: I have qualified the second assertion.  Je Rinpoche clearly wasn't expecting all conventions to be consistent, but merely that any given convention should be self-consistent.  For instance, for those conventions that assert 'no ghosts exist' it would be internally inconsistent if the same convention asserted 'Hugh exists, and Hugh is a ghost'. I guess that this could be something like saying models which are not self-consistent cannot be meaningful regarding questions of assertion and negation . The relevance of multiple, non-intersecting, conventions can be seen in such areas as mathematical pluralism. (The case for mathematical pluralism rests on the observation that there are different mathematical “universes” in which different, indeed incompatible, mathematical theorems or laws hold). (20040302 (talk) 13:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  criteria for conventional existence 

message: The relationship between the mind and object is commonly described as "Co-dependent arising, dependent arising, and dependent origination"
This isn't right. Actually, a lot of the (very good) material needs to be sourced. But the above is just wrong.  See Prajñaptir_upādāya vs. Pratītyasamutpāda. The three dependencies of Prasaṅgika are:-
* Pratītyasamutpāda Dependent arising which arises from causality. Prasannapada 2b: All things arise in dependence on causes and conditions, and this is the meaning of dependent origination
* Prajñaptir_upādāya Dependent designation which arises from convention. Mūlamadhyamakakārikā 24:18 That is dependent designation, and is itself the middle way
* Dependence upon parts which arises from aggregation. Madhyamakavatara VI:161 : In everyday life, without analysis it is designated in dependence on its parts.
I have therefore removed that part of the article.
(20040302 (talk) 13:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emptiness preamble 

message: I've merged this page :Svatantrika-Prasaṅgika distinction, since it is the same topic. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:29, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger