r0b’s Reviews > Meditation on Emptiness > Status Update

Like a lot of critics of the Gelukpas, Gendun Choephel is basically arguing that the Gelukpas fall on the extreme of reification by over-defending the notion of conventional validity. He's pretty clear in his Ornament to Nagarjuna's Thought that a lot of Gelukpas would like to leave our basic experience of the world basically unchallenged, while he himself believes that the recognition of emptiness is a shattering change that radically alters how you see and think of the world. If not, he asks, how could it end all suffering?

Barnaby wrote: "Like a lot of critics of the Gelukpas, Gendun Choephel is basically arguing that the Gelukpas fall on the extreme of reification by over-defending the notion of conventional validity. He's pretty c..."

I have come across those criticisms you mention. In my (admittedly limited) reading of the Gelukpa presentations of Prasangika-Madhyamika though that hasn’t been obvious to me. They seem generally to be a view fairly well balanced between eternalism and nihilism.
Tsongkhapa certainly doesn’t endorses that view (of not wanting to leave our basic experience of the world unchallenged).

I should have posted the whole paragraph and also a Hopkins’ comment but I was too lazy ;). I’m not sure but hopefully this will add to the discussion. I will post it below.

r0b wrote: "Barnaby wrote: "Like a lot of critics of the Gelukpas, Gendun Choephel is basically arguing that the Gelukpas fall on the extreme of reification by over-defending the notion of conventional validit..."

Gendun chöpel often refers to scholars who pressed him with their debates, and it appears that his objections are not to a philosophical incorrectness in Tsongkhapa’s teaching but to a pedagogical fault. Since even Tsongkhapa says that no beginner can discriminate between existence and inherent existence, an emphasis on the valid establishment of conventionalities might merely fortify the habitual sense that things exist the way they appear. Gendun chöpel essentially is accusing the Gelugpas of being too subtle for their own good.’

If you still have this book I think what ‘The highly respected Mongolian scholar and Gelugpa geshe (Tandarlarapa?)’ on page 545 has to say is helpful.

This is Hopkins’ comment:
‘Even though the ‘mere appearance’ of an object is not negated in the view of selflessness, one has to bring one’s in analysis to the point where the object is utterly unfindable and totally disappears. One can at that time come up with nothing that is the object; this is a time of fright [or, a shattering experience, as you said]. It is said that eventually one will be able to comprehend what the ‘mere appearance’ that is not refuted is.’

Yes, I think the line beginning "Since even Dzong-ka-ba says that no beginner...." pretty well says it.

I agree personally that Tsong Khapa gets the two truths right. Leafing back through Gendun Choephel's Ornament, I'm reminded that it hinges to a large degree on his contention that our ignorant deluded minds cannot be relied upon as an arbiter of conventional validity, but the focus of his criticism is on "validity" rather than "conventional."

For example, he says:

"[T]o think that the earth, stones, mountains, and rocks that we see now are still to be seen vividly when we are buddhas is very much in error. As long as consciousness remains in the body of a donkey, one is able to experience the delicious flavor of grass, but when it has left [the body of the donkey], the flavor is completely lost.... Therefore, to decide that all objects of knowledge are included within just this measure, based on these five weak senses, with the mistaken mind summoned to assist, and to remain content, saying that the mode of being which does not appear before our mind is nonexistent and impossible, is the door to all trouble."

"That our sensory valid consciousness cannot be the criteria was also stated clearly by the Bhagavan himself. As it says in the Samadhiraja: 'The eye, the ear, the nose are not valid; the tongue, the body, the mind are not valid. If the senses were valid, what could the noble path do for anyone?'"

Barnaby wrote: "Yes, I think the line beginning "Since even Dzong-ka-ba says that no beginner...." pretty well says it.

I agree personally that Tsong Khapa gets the two truths right. Leafing back through Gendun ..."

Thanks for this, I don’t remember much of what I read in the Lopez book, I should buy it and reread it.

I am thinking of trying to get a copy of this somehow, are you familiar with this translation of Gendun Chophel’s Ornament to Nagarjuna's Thought?

https://www.amazon.com/Ornament-Thoug...

I am not. Without knowing anything about it, I would opt for the Lopez one - I am very confident in his ability to deal with this extremely problematic text. Are you having trouble finding it? It seems to still be in print.

Barnaby wrote: "I am not. Without knowing anything about it, I would opt for the Lopez one - I am very confident in his ability to deal with this extremely problematic text. Are you having trouble finding it? It s..."

Thanks, no, I can probably still borrow it from our ILL again or just purchase it from amazon. I’m just curious to compare the two...but this newer one looks like it would be hard to find.