Śāntarakṣita

IAST|Śāntarakṣita (Devanagari: शान्तरक्षित) was a renowned 8th Century Indian Buddhist pandit and abbot of Nalanda University. Shantarakshita founded the philosophical school known as the Yogacara-Svatantrika-Madhyamaka which united the Madhyamaka tradition of Nagarjuna, the Yogacara tradition of Asanga with the logical and epistemological thought of Dharmakirti. He was also instrumental in the introduction of Buddhism and the Sarvastivadin monastic ordination lineage to Tibet which was conducted at Samye.

Padmakara Translation Group (2005: p.3) ground Shantarakshita's Dharma in Buddhism and the Hinduism from which it, Buddhism, seceded:

Shantarakshita's writings, lost for the most part in Sanskrit but preserved in Tibetan translation, give evidence of the encyclopedic range of his learning, which embraced all the religious and philosophical currents of his time, Hindu and Buddhist alike. [Shantarakshita (author); Mipham (commentator); Padmakara Translation Group (translators)(2005). "The Adornment of the Middle Way: Shantarakshita's Madhyamakalankara with commentary by Jamgön Mipham." Boston, Massachusetts, USA: Shambhala Publications, Inc. ISBN 1-59030-241-9 (alk. paper): p.3.]

Nomenclature, orthography and etymology

IAST|Śāntarakṣita (Devanagari: शान्तरक्षित, also called Shantarakshita, Santaraksita, Santiraksita, Zhi-ba-tsho, and Acarya Bodhisattva [Murthy (1989) p.18-27, 41-43] )

History

There are few historical records of Śāntarakṣita, with most available material being from hagiographic sources. Some of his history is detailed in a 19th century commentary by Ju Mipham drawn from sources like "The Blue Annals", Büton, and Taranatha. Śāntarakṣita was the son of the king of Zahor.Shantarakshita & Ju Mipham (2005) pp.2-3]

Śāntarakṣita was brought to Tibet at the instigation of King Trisong Detsen, some time before 767 CE. One account details his first trip as unsuccessful and he spent six years in Nepal before returning to Tibet. [ [http://www.lumbiniinteractive.org.np/contents/books/Book_04/contribution.php Contribution of Indian Buddhists in Nepal] ] Once established in Tibet he oversaw the translation of a large body of scriptures into Tibetan. He oversaw the construction of the first Buddhist monastery at Samye in 787 CE and ordained the first monastics there. He stayed at Samye for the rest of his life, another 13 years after its completion, and this was considered significant by Tibetans later that he stayed and did not return to India.

In some accounts he left Tibet for a time due to the antipathy of followers of the traditional Bön tradition and interference from local spirits. "He then thought that a teacher possessed of super-natural powers and mystic charms would be able to move deeply the people of Tibet, steeped in sorcery exorcism and the like. Accordingly, he advised the King to invite the celebrated Buddhist teacher Padmasambhava to Tibet and subdue the Tibetan devils and demi-gods." [Banerjee, 1982 p. 3 [http://www.thdl.org/texts/reprints/bot/bot_1982_03_01.pdf] ] .

His philosophic views were the main views in Tibet from the 8th century until it was mostly supplanted by Je Tsongkhapa's interpretation of Prasangika Madhyamaka in the 15th century.Fact|date=July 2008 In the late 19th century, Ju Mipham attempted to promote his views again as part of the rime movement and as a way to discuss specific critiques of Je Tsongkhapa's interpretation of Prasangika.

Views

His synthesis of Madhyamaka, Yogacara, and valid cognition was expounded in his text "Madhyamakalamkara". Within the Yogacara in that text he also included the Sautrantika and Consciousness-only views specifically when referring to 'conventional truth', one of the Two Truths. His view is therefore categorized as "Yogacara-Svatantrika-Madhyamaka" by later Tibetans, but he did not refer to himself that way.

In his synthesis text, readers are advised to adopt Madhyamaka view and approach from Nagarjuna and Aryadeva when analyzing for ultimacy and to adopt the mind-only views of the Yogacarans Asanga and Vasubandhu when considering conventional truth. He also incorporates the logic approach of valid cognition and the Sautantrika views of Dignaga and Dharmakirti.

Śāntarakṣita is also known for his text "Tattvasamgraha" (English: Compendium on Reality), which is a more encyclopedic treatment of the major philosophic views of the time and survived in translation in both Tibet and China. A Sanskrit version of this work was "discovered" in 1873 by Dr. G. Bühler in the Jain Dharma temple of Parshvanatha at Jaisalmer. This version contains also the commentary by Śāntarakṣita's pupil Kamalaśīla.

Madhyamakalamkara

In his main text he details his synthesis of Madhyamaka, Yogacara, and valid cognition. In addition and related to that, according to Ju Mipham, he made five assertions while not unique to Shantarakshita's view individually uncommonly integrated nonetheless:Shantarakshita & Ju Mipham (2005) pp.122-141]

# Objects — which is to say fully qualified objects of comprehension — are posited only with respect to things that are able to perform functions.
# The way he asserts cognition or consciousness in the absence of an object — that knows itself and illuminates itself — is uncommon.
# The various appearances of the external appear through or due to the power of one's own mind. Due to which they are asserted as mind-only.
# The ultimate is divided into the enumerated ultimate and the non-enumerated ultimate.
# On the occasion of settling the enumerated ultimate, the objects found by the individual valid cognitions are apprehended without contradiction.

In the first, Śāntarakṣita uses the Sautrantika distinction that objects of cognition can be of two kinds: abstract mental objects which are merely theoretical - including generalities like classes of objects and labels for them - and then objects of cognition of actual things. To define actual things he says things that can perform some sort of function. The Sautantrika used that distinction for conventional and ultimate truth, but Shantarakshita discards the merely theoretical or generality objects completely and then discusses the objects of cognition of actual things as conventional truth. Further, he incorporates Dharmakirti's valid cognition that analyzes conventionalities but also connects that with valid cognition that analyzes for ultimacy. [Shantarakshita & Ju Mipham (2005) pp.122-123]

In the second, he asserts that a self-reflexive awareness exists conventionally. That is to say, that consciousness can be aware of the objects of cognition. This position was later critiqued by Je Tsongkhapa as implying that a self-reflexive awareness is an existent, separate thing from the objects of cognition. Ju Mipham later qualified the meaning to be that within conventions we can say that all cognition is self-aware of itself and not a separate material thing. [Shantarakshita & Ju Mipham (2005) p.123]

In the third, he uses the consciousness-only view as the way a student may relate to conventional appearances in post-meditation as the best way to progress along the path. He still affirms the supremacy of the Madhyamaka school when students analyze for ultimacy, but generally when relating to conventionalities he asserts that a mind-only position is recommended. [Shantarakshita & Ju Mipham (2005) pp.123-125]

In the fourth, he makes a distinction between the ultimate way of abiding — established by the method of the Madhyamaka — which he calls the non-enumerated ultimate and an approximate or enumerated ultimate that is a lesser conventional understanding of the ultimate yet which leads one closer to the non-enumerated ultimate.Shantarakshita & Ju Mipham (2005) pp.125-135]

As part of his reasoning for why this is useful, Mipham quotes Gorampa:

So in terms of analyzing the extremes of existence and non-existence, he suggests students first contemplate the lack of inherent existence and establish this first. Then after that contemplate the extreme of non-existence. In contemplating step by step and enumerating through the conceptual extremes a student does not realize the ultimate truth but moves in a progressive manner toward the ultimate. Once all extremes have been analyzed then the student finally arrives at the non-enumerative or true ultimate.

In the fifth, he further asserts that analysis of objects with respect to those approximate or enumerated ultimates does not create a problem of true establishment. In part, he does this by noting that a clear distinction can be made when one is analyzing for each case, including the use of two different approaches of valid cognition — one for the conventional domain and one used for analyzing for ultimacy — which is his addition to the Pramana tradition of valid cognition. Mipham uses this demonstration in his commentary to point out a problem with Je Tsongkhapa's approach of negating the predicate of 'true establishment' instead of negating the object of perception altogether, which is avoided in Shantarakshita's approach. And Mipham also notes that many of the supposed Prasangika writers had — similar to Svatantrika writers — previously made positive assertions in order to move students closer to the ultimate view, pointing out that the distinction between Prasangika and Svatantrika is really one of how one talks to students about conventionalities and not really a distinction of how one considers ultimate truth. Further Mipham concludes that Je Tsongkhapa by making a distinction of true establishment is also proposing a Svatantrika approach instead of a truly Prasangika approach. [Shantarakshita & Ju Mipham (2005) pp.135-147]

Ju Mipham's Revival of Śāntarakṣita's Tradition

References

* Murthy, K. Krishna. "Buddhism in Tibet". Sundeep Prakashan (1989) ISBN 8185067163.
* Doctor, Thomas H. (trans.) Mipham, Jamgon Ju. " Speech of Delight: Mipham's Commentary of Shantarakshita's Ornament of the Middle Way". Ithaca: Snow Lion Publicaions (2004). ISBN 1559392177
* Shantarakshita (author); Mipham (commentator); Padmakara Translation Group (translators)(2005). "The Adornment of the Middle Way: Shantarakshita's Madhyamakalankara with commentary by Jamgön Mipham." Boston, Massachusetts, USA: Shambhala Publications, Inc. ISBN 1-59030-241-9 (alk. paper)
* Banerjee, Anukul Chandra. "Acaraya Santaraksita" in Bulletin of Tibetology, New Series No. 3, p.1-5. (1982). Gangtok, Sikkim Resarch Institute of Tibetology and Other Buddhist Studies. [http://www.thdl.org/texts/reprints/bot/bot_1982_03_01.pdf]
*Blumenthal, James. "The Ornament of the Middle Way: A Study of the Madhyamaka Thought of Shantarakshita". Snow Lion, (2004). ISBN 1559392053 - a study and translation of the primary Gelukpa commentary on Shantarakshita's treatise: Gyal-tsab Je's "Remembering The Ornament of the Middle Way".
* Prasad, Hari Shankar (ed.). "Santaraksita, His Life and Work." (Collected Articles from "All India Seminar on Acarya Santaraksita" held on August 3-5, 2001 at Namdroling Monastery, Mysore, Karnataka). New Dehli, Tibet House, (2003).
*Jha, Ganganath (trans.) The Tattvasangraha of Shantaraksita with the Commentary of Kamalashila. 2 volumes. First Edition : Baroda, (G.O.S. No. Lxxxiii) (1939). Reprint ; Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, (1986).
*Phuntsho, Karma. "Mipham's Dialectics and Debates on Emptiness: To Be, Not to Be or Neither". London: RoutledgeCurzon (2005) ISBN 0415352525