Prasangika

The Relation between the Object of Refutation in Voidness and the Ease of Understanding Voidness as Dependent Arising Tsenshap Serkong Rinpoche II: [In the context of cognition of conventional truth] because there are cognizing minds (shes-pa), that’s why there are objects...

Understanding Different Interpretations and Analysis in Buddhist Schools We have presented the Sautrantika way of enumerating the different ways of knowing. As we go deeper in our studies we find that there are certain variants to be found. For instance, in Asanga’s...

Grasping for a Self-Sufficiently Knowable “Me” Can Also Be Doctrinally Based First, let me add one further point. While almost all the Indian Buddhist tenet systems say this grasping for a self-sufficiently knowable “me” is just automatically-arising, according to Prasangika...

Learn why Study Buddhism prefers the term “voidness” over “emptiness.”

A question-and-answer session between Dr. Alexander Berzin and Tsenshap Serkong Rinpoche II on the Prasangika view of voidness according to the Gelugpa and Nyingma assertions.

All apprehensions explicitly apprehend one or more involved objects. Not all, however, implicitly apprehend anything.

Svatantrika and Prasangika are two divisions of the Madhyamaka tenet system, but according to the Gelugpa presentation, Svatantrika asserts self-established (inherent) existence, while Prasangika refutes it.

Gelug Prasangika’s presentation of coarse disturbing emotions, which are based on grasping for a self-sufficiently knowable “me,” and the underlying subtle disturbing emotions, which are based solely on the automatically-arising grasping for self-established existence.

To attain either liberation or enlightenment, we need to cognize correctly and decisively the two truths and the inseparable voidness of both.

Yongdzin Ling Rinpoche explains the Gelug Prasangika presentation of appearances being the play of the mind.