|
In the philosophy of Tibetan Buddhism, specifically in the Madhyamaka view, Svātantrika is a category of Madhyamaka viewpoints attributed primarily to the 6th century Indian scholar Bhāviveka. It is used in contrast with another such subcategory, Prāsaṅgika Madhyamaka. The key distinction between these viewpoints is whether one works with assertions about the ultimate nature of reality, or if one refrains completely from doing so. If one works with assertions, then that is a Svātantrika approach. Refraining from doing so is a Prāsangika approach. Besides the technical definitions, the styles of the different approaches are notable. Svatantrika style approaches have a more structured syllogistic form, making assertions with argumentation, whereas the Prasangika approach may make assertions, but with significantly less reasonings for those assertions. Instead they mainly point out errors resulting from taking reasonings to logical extremes. ==History== The Prāsangika-Śvātantrika distinction represents a native Tibetan interpretation of Indian disputes among Nāgārjuna commentators * Buddhapālita (whom Tibetan tradition credits as the founder of the Prasangika "school"); * Bhāvyaviveka (whose criticisms of Buddhapalita are retrospectively imagined as the foundation of the Svatantrika "school"); and *Candrakīrti (who defended Buddhapālita against Bhāvyaviveka, and is therefore associated with Prāsangika). Note that none of these "schools" seem to have existed in ancient India, but were created after the fact by Tibetan doxographers. For that matter the very name "Svātantrika" represents a back-translation into Sanskrit, coined by modern scholars, for ''Ranggyüpa'' (). The term refers to Bhāvaviveka's criticism that Buddhapālita ought not to have relied solely on ''reductio ad absurdum'' arguments—hence the name "Prāsangika", from ''prāsanga'' ("consequence")—but ought to have set forth "autonomous" (''svātantra'') syllogisms of his own.〔Shantarakshita & Ju Mipham (2005) pp. 7-14〕 (Whether a Madhyamaka viewpoint would allow the necessary factual claims, or statements of epistemological principles, for such an argument was the major point in dispute.) Dreyfus and McClintock observe: The name of the inventor of the Prāsangika-Svātantrika distinction is not known. One possible candidate is the 11th-century Tibetan translator of Candrakīrti, Patsap Nyima Drak (). The rise of Prāsangika can be attributed to the influence of Je Tsongkhapa, the Gelug founder, who ironically sides with Svātantrika writers on several important points (including the necessity of proposing formal theses as part of a logical argument). As interpreted by Tibetan writers such as Tsongkhapa, the Prāsangika-Svātantrika distinction involved not only issues of logic, but also affected the two schools' respective understandings of śūnyatā ("emptiness"). However, mainstream Sakyas (following Rongtön and Gorampa) hold the position that the distinction between these two schools is merely of pedagogical nature. With regard to the view of the ultimate truth both have no difference. 〔 See Cabezon, J. I.; Lobsang Dargyay (2007): ''Freedom from Extremes. Gorampa's "Distinguishing the View" and the Polemics of Emptiness''. Boston: Wisdom. 278n8) 〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Svatantrika」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|