This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Buddhism Mid‑importance This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.BuddhismWikipedia:WikiProject BuddhismTemplate:WikiProject BuddhismBuddhism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Philosophy: Eastern Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Eastern philosophy

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

The school of thought and its subsidiaries are called "Madhyamaka"; those who follow it are called "Mādhyamikas."

Are the disputes finished? I would like to add a section on "Origin and development". The origins of Madhymaka are mostly missing now. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 13:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if Nagarjuna denies "existence", then who or what is reading this anyway? Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 13:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to reorder the article, adding a little bit of information on Nagarjuna. Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 14:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute were in light of a single individual (User:Thigle) who appears to be fascinated with the Madhyamaka but who also falls foul of Wikipedia rules and manifests as many sock puppets.

I'm doing my best to follow the re-ordering! There's some formatting errors in the Prasangika/Svatantrika section. Has anything been removed / inserted?

Why did you (re)move the 'purpose' section - do you not think that the motivation/purpose of Nagarjuna is highly relevant to the discussion? After all, this isn't a Western philosophical tradition, and a Mādhyamika's/Nagarjuna's purpose isn't cosmology, ontology, or epistemology but Buddhist soteriology. However, the 'concepts' section appears to have put the slant onto epistemology.

Hopkins (p558) cites Jang-gya's 'Presentation of Tenets' 419.17-420.9 "In particular, the many forms of reasoning for ascertaining suchness that were set forth are only for the sake of clarifying the path of liberation for the fortunate, not for the sake of becoming intent on debate. Buddhapalita says, 'What is the purpose in teaching dependent-arising? The master (Nagarjuna) whose very nature is compassion saw that sentient beings are beset by various sufferings and assumed the task of teaching the reality of things just as it is so that they may become liberated. Therefore he began teaching dependent-arising. Also, Chandrakirti's Supplement says, 'The analyses in the Treatise were not done for the sake of attachment to debate; suchness was taught for the sake of liberation. Also Tsongkhapa says, 'All the reasoned analyses set forth in the MMK are only so that sentient beings might attain liberation' ".

For me, the purpose of Madhyamaka helps to contextualise it's import for the general reader. In many ways it is otherwise hard to understand why anyone would still be interested in a philosophy from the first century CE. Yet it's legacy is vast and broad - especially with it being one of the core subjects of Nalanda and the monastic universities of Tibet, and yet it has also influenced many Mahayana traditions, and more recently it has even made inroads within the Theravada tradition. (20040302 (talk) 13:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Hi 20040302!

The section on "Distinctions between Prasangika and Svatantrika" was part of Prasangika. I moved it to a separate subsection. Also, part of this section I moved into a footnote - it was not clear to me whether this was a quote or a personal reflection.

I renamed "Purpose" into "Origin and develeopment". I agree with you that it's useful to give a short introduction into the subject. The first line of this section, Mādhyamaka is a source of methods for approaching prajnaparamita, or "perfection of wisdom", would also be well at place in the lead, as second line. Providing more information on the history of Madhyamaka, and the intentions of Nagarjuna, might also serve that purpose. By giving a short history of Madhyamaka, such an explanation is placed within a "story", instead of a philosophical explanation, which might be harder to follow for readers who are not familiair with Buddhism.

The "Concepts" section could use some expansion. For example, bhava could be explained further there. It already was worth a long discussion, after all.

Your line "Mādhyamika's/Nagarjuna's purpose isn't cosmology, ontology, or epistemology but Buddhist soteriology" seems a good one to me. It's insightfull to emphasize that this is the intention of Nagarjuna. Why not put it in the "Origin and develeopment"/"Purpose" section?

And I totally agree that Madhyamaka is very relevant! I think that anyone interested in Buddhism will stuble on it, but it's also useful in general. Postmodernism and deconstructionism resemble it, but Madhyamaka indeed shows that there is more than mere nihilism.

Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 16:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi too! In general I like the gist of what is going on here - and some collab. is def. welcome. I love the idea of developing some sort of 'story' - but I'm short on sources outside of legends. As mentioned below (and in an edit), I think that the arena of provenance is a good way of bringing in the development theme - especially in terms of how Indian, Chinese, and Tibetan scholars have carefully selected just who to trust as secondary sources (many of whom have become primary sources in their own right, but remain secondary when commenting on Nagarjuna). The best to you -20040302 (talk) 17:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about removing this section? It seems to me that it is to specific for a "general reader"; it's more like a debate for an "inner circle" of Madhyamaka-adherents. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 18:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles on both Prasangika and Svatantrika. We could possibly add a proper Prasangika/Svatantrika Distinction page. Regardless, we would still need to introduce them articles into this one with some context. Likewise I would argue that the Madhyamaka tradition - especially the Himalayan Madhyamaka - has become quite involved regarding the distinction.

I would also like to say that, from my viewpoint, the encyclopaedia is not merely for a general reader. There are thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of technical articles on Wikipedia, for instance Racah_W-coefficient, or Blum_axioms. However, I agree that the lede and any additional introductory material should provide some sort of context which is readable by an interested mind new to the discussion. (20040302 (talk) 12:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Yeah, you're right that there a lot of specific articles. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 16:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between Prasangika and Svatantrika may also be stated in plain language, instead by quotes from primary sources without any introduction or context. The same goes for the Prasaṅgika view on conventional existence.

Tsongkhapa mentions several common misinterpretations of the distinction between Prasangika and Svatantrika, a couple of which are:^[1]

1. A misinterpretation^[a] stating that Prasangikas have no theses of their own, and they only refute what others believe. And because Prasangikas have no beliefs of their own, the only permissible argument is the reductio which negates the opponents theses.
2. A broader misinterpretation^[b] is made that there are no theses, positions, or arguments whatsoever held by the Prasangika.

These misinterpretations are refuted by Tsongkhapa^[1]. Regarding the second misinterpreation, Tsongkhapa quotes several verses:

Napper's commentary includes a thorough examination of common errors made by modern academics, translators, and Buddhologists alike.^[5]

Tsongkhapa's thesis is the following:

The opponents of Candrakirti's Prassana-padā (a seminal Prasaṅgika text) 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.^[6][d]

A Prasaṅgika asserts that something exists conventionally if it meets all of the following three conditions:

• if it is known to a conventional consciousness
• if no other conventional cognition contradicts its being as it is thus known
• if reason that accurately analyses reality (that is, analyses whether something intrinsically exists) does not contradict it

Whatever fails to meet those criteria does not exist.^[6] Therefore Prasaṅgikas cannot accept that intrinsic nature exists, even conventionally.

As I see it, East Asian Madhyamaka developed from a lineage that accepts Nāgārjuna and Āryadeva, whereas the Himalayan tradition accepts a longer Indian lineage with the additional contributions made by Buddhapalita and Candrakirti (as well as Bhavaviveka and Shantarakshita). Within the Himalayan tradition, there are several subdivisions - the largest of which follow the various schools, and then many minor divisions, right down to collegiate differences within the Gelugpa (who in general accept Tsongkhapa and, combined, have probably written more scholarly texts on Madhyamaka than every other Madhyamaka school, in all history, ever). Most recent western scholarship (Garfield, Napper, Hopkins, Huntington, and others) have, after investigation, tended to adopt one or another of the Gelugpa collegiate interpretations of Madhyamaka due to the attractive, intensely rational, and thorough approaches that they offer.

Therefore, and especially for recent scholarly texts (ie, post-Tibetan diaspora along with the adoption of the Tibetan language and studies into Western universities) it is hard to avoid the strong scholarly bias (and huge corpus) towards the Gelugpa in this article. It's important to remember that although it is a majority opinion, it is only one of many views regarding the Madhyamaka. D. Seyfort Ruegg says (ISBN 978-3447022040, p2) : "Over the past half-century the doctrine of the Madhyamaka school, and in particular that of Nāgārjuna has been variously described as nihilism, monism, irrationalism, misology, agnosticism, scepticism, criticism, dialectic, mysticism, acosmism, absolutism, relativism, nominalism, and linguistic analysis with therapeutic value". Likewise Daye says (ISBN 978-0271011950, 1971 p77) "It seems fair to say that the different labels, approaches, and descriptions of Nāgārjuna writings found in the history of modern scholarship reflect alsmost as much about the viewpoints of the scholars involved as do they reflect the content of Nāgārjuna's concepts."

Bearing that in mind, how best can we establish a list of WP:RS? (20040302 (talk) 13:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I would like to put in also a section on "Understanding in western scholarship", in which the various (mis)understandings in western scholarship can be mentioned. But my understanding depends on only a few sources (though academic). Joshua Jonathan (talk) 16:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a chinese rendition of the land of Nagas. I am not convinced that we should get too chinese in our interpretation here! (20040302 (talk))

Hi 20040302. Do you mean that "Dragon World" is the wrong translation of "Naga"? I got it from a book on Indian Buddhism, but I'll change it. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 05:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tengu800 already did. Thanks! Joshua Jonathan (talk) 05:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In general, translators in China equated the Indian naga with the Chinese dragon, so they always translated "naga" as "dragon". Both nagas and dragons are a type of large serpent with spiritual powers, and they play similar roles in their respective cultures. But when covering Indian sources, it is more accurate to keep the term as the Sanskrit "naga", to avoid confusion with other types of dragons. Neither is wrong, but "naga" is more accurate in Indian Buddhist contexts. Tengu800 22:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well stated, Tengu :D (20040302 (talk))

It seems to me that you-know-who did have a point when he equated existence and existent. When comparing Kalupahana and Wardner I got the impression that svabhava and bhava are being used interchangeably. Reading chapter 15 of the Mulamadhyamakkarika didn't help either; there I also got the impression that the two terms are being used interchangeably. This quote from Warder seems to confirm this impression:

We see from this that Nagarjuna takes the words 'exist' or 'are' and 'being' (the verb as and the noun bhava) as meaning 'existing eternally' and implying the eternalist option. (source: Wardner 2000, p.361)

I'm going check for other translations and commentaries. Any way I try to be as carefull as possible in presenting Nagarjuna's statements, or what my sources state about his statements. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 20:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Batchelor's note is a nice one, isn't it? "Nagarjuna is playing on the word "thing" Joshua Jonathan (talk) 21:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wardner is mistaken here ( in my reading of your cite, anyhow ), at least in the conflation of the notion of 'eternalist' with 'sassatavada'/'eternalism'. Not uncommon. I will see if I can come back with something on this. 20040302 (talk) 01:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, Magee has an entire book on the subject of svabava/bhava : "The nature of things: emptiness and essence in the Geluk World" By William A. Magee - it's been five years since I read it, but as I recall, there are no big surprises: Nature is used in different ways, and different contexts, and one must understand the context in order to identify the correct meaning. Tsongkhapa also talks about the same issue in LRCM, particularly about how N. does not always qualify his terms, but that the meaning is to be derived from context and nothing more should be read into it. 20040302 (talk) 02:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like a nuanced topic to me. Studying the subject took me in unexpected directions, reading sanskrit text to find out what was written originally, and how that's being understood in various translations. Did you read the article by Hayes? It's interesting. It's not only Warder, it's also Stephen Batchelor and Hayes who point toward a "play" on the use of the various meanings of key terms. I'll have to read something by Garfield, to get other impressions as well. Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes. TBH, I wasn't impressed with Batchelor's text - to me 'Verses from the Middle' comes across as self-aggrandising which cannot really be correlated with the direct purpose of the text! If you are up for it (and are unfamiliar with it), I strongly recommend the "Insight" section of the Lam Rim Chenmo (chapters 7-25 of Vol 3 of the Snow Lion edition ISBN 1559391669). It may be a 14th Century text, but reads as if contemporary and it is a thorough and impeccably convincing text. I cannot recommend it more highly. Garfield's translation (and commentary) of the MMK is also very good indeed, but I still consider the LRCM is a necessary precursor. Napper's book (ISBN 0861710576) is hard to find, and much of her translation informs the LRCM (she was a key translator). Her own book does a great job summarising many modern academic misconceptions. Huntington's work (Emptiness of Emptiness) is a very good - and exciting - read (he has a go, like so many others, at modernising Candrakirti/Madhyamaka - but he has some really great insights). Garfield/Samten's translation of the Tsongkhapa's Ocean of Reasoning (ISBN 9781095147339 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum) should be enough for any appetite. There are many other texts that offer great insight - and not all from the Gelugpa tradition - but until I digested the Lam Rim Chenmo the thought of Madhyamaka remained elusive and obscure. (20040302 (talk) 10:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I've got a Dutch translation of Batchelor's translation, and it s***s. Mistranslations, and even letting out part of the verses. totally incomprehensible. Thanks for the 'recommandations list'. Grfield sounds interesting to me. Tsoghkhapa is also on the bookshelve sof my favouritte bookstore (they've got a good selection from Motilall Benaras). Right now I'm reading Hayes 1994 article; he's very good. And I've been reading through Magee the past few days (he happened to be in my collection), but his arguments are not very convincing to me. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 13:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Motilal - be wary of wayman's translation of the lam rim - it's particularly poor and has subject to one (or more) very scathing academic reviews! ----

For the die-hards among us, Mulamadhyamakakarika verse 3 and 6, Sanskrit, Tibetan + Stephen Batchelor translation, Tsondru translations. Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 07:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Verse 3

3. Sanskrit: kutaḥ svabhāvasyābhāve parabhāvo bhaviṣyati| svabhāvaḥ parabhāvasya parabhāvo hi kathyate||3||

3. Tibetan: /rang bzhin yod pa ma yin na //gzhan gyi dngos po ga la yod //gzhan gyi dngos po'i rang bzhin no //gzhan gyi dngos po yin zhes brjod/

3. SB: If an essence does not exist, how can the thingness of the other exist? [For] the essence of the thingness of the other is said to be the thingness of the other.

[SB: There is a problem here with the Tibetan translation from Sanskrit. Svabhava is translated as rang bzhin, but parabhava rather clumsily as gzhan gyi dngos po [the term first appears in I:3]. A Tibetan reader would thus lose the etymological connection between "own-thing" (svabhava) and "other-thing" (parabhava), which then link up with "thing" (bhava) and no-thing (abhava). Nagarjuna is playing on the word "thing".]

IIRC There has been some scholarly discussion about SB's interpretation here, and it's relavance in light of the commentarial literature. 20040302 (talk)

3. T: If nature does not exist, How could there be other-nature? It is the nature of other-nature That is identified as “other-nature”. [XV.3]

Verse 6

6. Sanskrit: svabhāvaṁ parabhāvaṁ ca bhāvaṁ cābhāvameva ca| ye paśyanti na paśyanti te tattvaṁ buddhaśāsane||6||

6. Tibetan: /gang dag rang bzhin gzhan dngos dang //dngos dang dngos med nyid lta ba //de dag sangs rgyas bstan pa la //de nyid mthong ba ma yin no/

SB: Those who view essence, thingness of the other, things and non-things do not see the suchness in the teaching of the awakened.

T: Those who believe in nature or other-nature, In entity or nonentity Fail to see reality Ín the teaching of the Buddha. [XV.6]

There's even more to say about Nagarjuna, his way of arguing, and the ambivalence of the terms he's using:

When one reads Nagarjuna’s argument in Sanskrit, it is not immediately obvious that the argument has taken advantage of an ambiguity in the key term. But when one tries to translate his argument into some other language, such as English or Tibetan, one finds that it is almost impossible to translate his argument in a way that makes sense in translation. This is because the terms in the language of translation do not have precisely the same range of ambiguities as the words in the original Sanskrit. In English, we are forced to disambiguate, and in disambiguating, we end up spoiling the apparent integrity of the argument.Richard P. Hayes (2003), Nagarjuna: Master of Paradox,Mystic or Perpetrator of Fallacies? p.4

Fascinating reading! Joshua Jonathan (talk) 10:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Magee, page 36, writes:

"The existence of a causally arisen anture of things, such as the heat of fire, is contradictory with the necessity that a nature be non-fabricated, immutable, and independent.[1]"

This seems to me as an example of interchanging two meanings of shabhava: 'independent existenc', and 'a quality or characteristic that distinguishes it (...) from something else'. Heat is a quality of fire by which it is distinguished from, by example, ice. But a fire of course does not exist independently. Interesting, too. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added info on the history of Madhyamaka, and on the various interpretations of svabhava. The sections on Tsonghkhapa and modern scholarship leave room for additions, a task for which other Wikipedians are probably more knowledgeable than I am. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed some wiki-links from the sources-section, since Tsongkhapa is already wiki-linked in the main body of text, and Paul Williams does not match with the reference, which only uses the last name. It also seems, to me, that the sources-list is not the place for Wiki-links. But I'm not sure about that. Also, the "jre tsong Kha Pa" does not link to the source itself, but I don't know why... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about inserting a section of the etymology of Madhyamaka similar to what was done on the Yogacara page? user:pema donzang 17:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go ahead! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt if Arena is a reliable source. See also Talk:Śūnyatā#Leonardo Vittorio:

The Italian philosopher and orientalist Leonardo Vittorio Arena conceives Nagarjuna's philosophy as nonsensical, in the positive meaning of the word, as follows: 1) Nagarjuna recovers the original message of the historical Buddha, namely, the destruction of opinions, and that may considerably help the post-modern philosopher to embrace a non-dual perspective of the world and life. 2) If developed to its extreme logical consequences, the Yogacara school, far from contrasting Nagarjuna, must necessarily lead to share Nagarjuna's standpoint, inasmuch as the subjectivity of the only one mind may be regarded itself as empty of meaning. According to Arena, Buddhist emptiness has to be related to meaning, namely, to a kind of awareness acquired at a certain level of reality (satya). (Source: Arena 2012,chap.5)

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that be the specific Kagyu interpretation? Or even Mikyo Dorje's? Besides, that sentence is non-intelligible for 99,9% of the readers; it needs explanation in the article itself. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• p.554: "... it is of no importance what the commonly acknowledged stance in a certain camp is; we have to investigate and find out for ourselves what we personally think is correct. If we look at the controversies between the great masters or schools in this way, they can be helpful as models to gauge and refine our personal insights."
• p.555: "In contrast to Tsongkhapa, for the Karmapa the foremost issue in Centrism is not one of ultimate versus conventional, but of ultimate versus pedagogic. He focuses on the soteriological efficacy of the Centrist view [...] his essential criterion for the correct Centrist view is whether such a view is appropriate to serve as the basis for the spiritual path to attain liberation from cycle existence and Buddhahood."
• p.555-556: long quote from Dudjom Rinpoche, on how many masters introduced new teachings, and could therefor be deemed heretic.

The quote you're referring to is part of a longer section with a critique of Tsongkhapa, about 'disintegratedness performing a function'(p.587), accusing him of taking quotes out of their context. The quote says:

"Moreover, since both Nagarjuna and Candrakirti emphasize again and again that all phenomena are without arising and ceasing, how could their having ceased or disintegrated exist, let alone perform a function?"

I think we first need a section on non-arising, and a section on the various Tibetan views on emptiness. By the way:

• p.590: "... the fact of their emptiness - their lack of solid and independent existence"
• p.70: "Those on the first level uphold the Centrist view by following master Nagarjuna and understand the meaning of the texts that say that all phenomena are without nature."

Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:27, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• pg 590 is Tsongkhapa's view. Start from the end of page 589.
• Of course Nagarjuna says phenomena lack nature as his minor point.
• Quote of Candrakriti from the book Nagarjuna's Reason Sixty:

"Nagarjuna taught , "bereft of beginning, middle, and end," meaning that the world is free from creation, duration, and destruction."

VictoriaGrayson^Talk 13:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

p.590: I see, thanks. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:27, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Madhyamaka. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://digitalcommons.mcmaster.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=9558&context=opendissertations

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Madhyamaka. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150518074106/http://thenonbuddhist.com/2014/01/12/tsongkhapa-in-praise-of-relativity-the-essence-of-eloquence/ to http://thenonbuddhist.com/2014/01/12/tsongkhapa-in-praise-of-relativity-the-essence-of-eloquence/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141202094809/http://www.misterdanger.net/books/Buddhism%20Books/The%20notion%20of%20Ditthi.pdf to http://www.misterdanger.net/books/Buddhism%20Books/The%20notion%20of%20Ditthi.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Javierfv1212 This is way too much for a single edit. Note that the edit includes deleting a significant amount of content, too; so the amount of new material is probably well in excess of 37,000 characters. Naturally, with such a large edit, it is impossible to do justice to the change in a normal edit summary.

Please break the edit down into a series of simple changes that can each be adequately described in an edit summary, so that reviewers can see what it is that you are doing. Broadly speaking, I think that means that each diff can be reviewed on a single screen (i.e. without scrolling); and that a reviewer can get an overview of what changes you are making simply by reading your edit summaries.

Thanks. MrDemeanour (talk) 09:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, I will make several smaller changes instead. Thanks for the heads up!

Javierfv1212, I appreciate your recent edit. It looks easily reviewable, so thank you. MrDemeanour (talk) 17:59, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on cleaning up this article, and there are some problems with the references that I'm hoping someone more familiar with the subject matter can help with:

• We have citations for two editions of Williams' Buddhist Thought: A Complete Introduction to the Indian Tradition - 2000, and 2002. Same publisher, but different page counts. Can we pick one edition, and get all of the page numbers lined up?
• There are bare shorthand references for Bronkhorst 2009. What book is this?
• There are references to Brunnholzl 2001. Is this an earlier edition of Brunnholzl 2004, and if so, can we standardize?

If I find more issues, I'll add them here. pauli133 (talk) 13:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Williams: I'd keep both sources; what matter si verifiability.
• Bronkhorst 2009: Buddhist Teaching in India. Simon and Schuster (I guess)
• Brunnhozl 2001: probably Brunnholzl 2004. The two truths themselves are therefore just a practical tool used to teach others, but do not exist within the actual meditative equipoise that realizes the ultimate.<ref>Brunnholzl, 2001, p. 75.</ref> diff; let's ask User:Javierfv1212.

Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, it was Brunnholzl 2004 Center of the Sunlit Sky, which says:

Thus, the presentation of the two realities is in itself an aspect of the bodhisattvas’ skill in means, but within this educational approach, neither of these two realities is “better” or more real than the other. The reason for this is that all presentations and practical applications of these two can only happen within the framework of seeming reality itself, since they only need to be taught to those who have an essentially dualistic state of mind. As such, these two cannot but be mutually dependent and dualistic, since it is impossible to talk about,reflect on, or meditate on the one without the other. Likewise, there is no way to proceed on the path to “the ultimate” without using and eventually letting go of seeming reality. On the other hand, within the meditative equipoise of those who directly perceive what is called ultimate reality, all reference points of a dualistic mind have completely subsided. Thus, any arguments about what is seeming, ultimate, real, or false are by definition simply irrelevant to this perceptual perspective. The Sutra That Teaches the Unity of the Nature of the Expanse of Dharmas says: O Mañjusri, when the expanse of dharmas is taken as the source of valid cognition, there is neither seeming reality nor ultimate reality.

You can verify it here: https://wisdomofcompassionblog.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/brunnholzl_center-of-the-sunlit-sky.pdf ☸Javierfv1212☸ 00:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to MOS:DOCTCAPS it would appear that madhyamaka should not be capitalized. Teishin (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).