Mesoscope’s Reviews > Distinguishing the Views and Philosophies: Illuminating Emptiness in a Twentieth-Century Tibetan Buddhist Classic > Status Update
Mesoscope
is on page 214 of 346
If I'm not mistaken, Bötrül states that the final view is deeply hidden, meaning that it is inaccessible to valid perception and indemonstrable through reason, and we must take the Buddha's word for it. That seems intensely problematic to me.
— May 25, 2026 08:33AM
Like flag
Mesoscope’s Previous Updates
Mesoscope
is on page 200 of 346
This isn't the best book I've read on Nyingma Madhyamaka, but it's the most indispensable. Bötrül really ties the whole thing together in a way I haven't seen in any other English-language source.
— May 22, 2026 11:49PM
Mesoscope
is on page 162 of 346
Bötrül's account of Geluk Madhyamaka is a bit of a caricature, as is Mipham's. They both frequently summarize the Geluk position as "A pot is not empty of pot, it is empty of inherent existence," Bütröl here, and Mipham in his commentary on the Madhyamakavatara. I don't believe this is an assertion that any Gelukpa would defend.
— May 19, 2026 08:29AM
Mesoscope
is on page 143 of 346
Many times in the Nyingma account of Madhyamaka, they take what is simple in the Gelukpa account and turn it into something extremely complicated.
— May 17, 2026 05:31AM
Mesoscope
is on page 135 of 346
I'm finding Bötrul's discussion of the two truths is much clearer if I look at the passages in Mipham's commentary to the Ornament of the Middle Way that they reference. It may function better as an amplification of that discussion than as a free-standing argument.
— May 16, 2026 07:29AM
Mesoscope
is on page 20 of 346
Fascinating to read this book after Rongzompa's Entering the Way of the Mahayana - you can clearly see the strong contribution Rongzompa made to Mipham's view, but here, it is reformulated in much more modern and familiar terms.
— May 11, 2026 06:22AM
Comments Showing 1-3 of 3 (3 new)
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Keith
(new)
-
added it
May 25, 2026 09:34AM
Since I haven't read this, I'm not sure what he's doing with the term "final view," but if that is "final" because realization of it is what makes a Buddha, then it would seem more axiomatic than problematic, no?
reply
|
flag
Bötrül asserts that the “basic element’s aspect of luminous clarity” (i.e., sugatagarbha) on the conventional side and great emptiness, free from extremes, on the ultimate side are deeply hidden phenomena, meaning they can neither be directly perceived nor derived through inference. Aspects of the Buddha's inconceivable awareness such as omniscience may be unknowable, but for many Tibetans, the nature of ultimate truth itself can be clearly established by reason. Otherwise, we have to take the view on the testimony of the Buddha, and it becomes essentially a revealed religion of faith.
So I'm pretty sure he doesn't actually say this, but thinking it through carefully, I believe the reason he claims that luminous clarity and great emptiness are deeply hidden is because you cannot just figure them out on your own, generally speaking, but have to be introduced to them through pointing out instructions. This is a very interesting position, if it's what he holds. I can see why he'd make this argument, but it does kind of seem to conflict with his insistence that Chandrakirti, properly understood, teaches great emptiness, free from the extremes. That would indicate that it is in fact demonstrable by reason.