Controversy among dGe lugs pa Scholars about What Is Negated in Emptiness According to the Svātantrika-Mādhyamika School

This paper will examine intrasectarian controversies among the colleges of the dGe lugs order of Tibetan Buddhism. dGe lugs pa is one of the four or five major orders that developed in the Tibetan cultural region; it was founded by Tsong kha pa¹ (1357–1419) or, as some say,² developed from his teachings. We will look specifically at Jam yang shay pa’s³ (1648–1721/22) Decisive Analysis of (Candrakīrti’s) “Entry to (Nāgārjuna’s) ‘Treatise on the Middle’”: Treasury of Scripture and Reasoning, Thoroughly Illuminating the Profound Meaning [of Emptiness], Entrance for the Fortunate.⁴ The author is well known as a prolific writer as well as influential scholar of the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries CE. His text is a commentary on Tsong kha pa’s Illumination of the Thought of (Candrakīrti’s) “Entrance to the Middle” (Illumination of the Thought henceforth) and is still used as the textbook for the Prāsaṅgika-Mādhyamika School in Go mang⁵ college in Dre pung⁶ monastery in Central Tibet and India, as well as in La brang⁷ monastery in Tra shi khyil,⁸ Am do⁹ Province, Tibet, and in their affiliated monasteries.

In his Decisive Analysis, Jam yang shay pa refutes other thinkers’ purportedly mistaken understandings in order to present dGe lugs pa’s systematic philosophy in his unique way. This paper mainly focuses on Jam yang shay pa’s refutation of challenges to Tsong kha pa’s position on the two types of objects of negation (dgag bya, pratiṣedhya) in the Svātantrika School of Madhyamaka.

According to Tsong kha pa, the topic of the object of negation is essential, since without clearly identifying what veils suchness (or, emptiness) one cannot achieve the view of suchness.¹⁰ Moreover, the dGe lugs pa sect’s presentation of the Svātantrika understanding of the object of negation—that is to say, what is rejected in the view of emptiness—is an important feature distinguishing it from other sects in Tibetan Buddhism, and provides crucial justification for their division of Mādhyamika School into two subschools. As Tillemans says:

Undoubtedly, one of the major issues of Mādhyamika philosophy for Tsong kha pa is the question of precisely what and how much Mādhyamikas should deny if they are to avoid reification of entities, yet preserve conventional truth. How one stands on this matter—in particular, how one “recognizes the object to be negated” (dgag bya ngos ’dzin)—is argued to have very wide-ranging consequences.¹¹

Despite Tsong kha pa’s hermeneutical authority within the dGe lugs pa sect, his commentators differ regarding how to understand his statements.

In focusing on the objects of negation in the Svātantrika School, this paper examines certain debates between Tsong kha pa’s commentators, specifically Je tsun pa¹² (1469–1544/46), author of the textbooks of the Je¹³ monastic college in Se ra monastery,¹⁴ Gung ru Chö kyi jung ne (mid-16th cent.-early 17th cent.), author of the textbooks once used at the Go mang monastic college,¹⁵ and Jam yang shay pa, author of the textbooks currently used at the Go mang monastic college, by utilizing the latter’s retrospective examination of the issues.

The Two Types of Objects of Negation in the Mādhyamika School

Tsong kha pa speaks of two objects of negation—the object of negation in terms of the intellectually imbued apprehension of true existence and the object of negation in terms of the innate apprehension of true existence:

Furthermore, mere identification of (1) a true establishment that is superficially imputed by proponents of tenets and (2) [the consciousness] apprehending such true establishment is not sufficient. Because of this, it is most essential to identify well the innate apprehension of true establishment that has operated without beginning and exists both in those whose awarenesses have been affected through [study of] tenets and in those whose awarenesses...