Śāntarakṣita: Difference between revisions

{{short description|Indian philosopher}}

| birth_place = [[Bhagalpur district|Bhagalpur]], [[Bihar]]<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Singh |first1=Shyam Deo Prasad |title=NALANDA PANDIT SANTARAKSHITA-HIS WRITINGS AND ENDEAVOUR TO PROPAGATE BUDDHISM IN TIBET AND NEPAL |journal=Proceedings of the Indian History Congress |date=1981 |volume=42 |pages=110-114 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/44141119 |access-date=31 January 2021}}</ref>

'''{{IAST|Śāntarakṣita}}''' ([[Sanskrit]]; {{bo|t=ཞི་བ་འཚོ|w=zhi ba tsho}},<ref>Murthy (1989) p.18-27, 41–43</ref> 725–788),<ref name="stanford.edu">stanford.edu: [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/saantarak-sita/ Śāntarakṣita (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)]</ref>, whose name translates into English as "protected by the One who is at peace"<ref> Śāntarakṣita's name might be understood as  a poetic way of rendering "protected by the Buddha". Technically, like "Dharmarakṣita" or "Devadatta", the compound `Śānta-rakṣita' is to be understood as a `tṛtīyātatpuruṣa', or instrumental determinative compound,  comprising the noun `Śānta-' ("peaceful [person]") in its (implicit) instrumental inflection on the one hand and the past passive participle `rakṣita' ("protected") on the other.</ref> was an important and influential Indian [[Buddhism|Buddhist]] philosopher, particularly for the [[Tibetan Buddhism|Tibetan Buddhist]] tradition[[Tibetan Buddhism|.]]<ref name=":1" /> Śāntarakṣita was a [[philosopher]] of the [[Madhyamaka]] school who studied at [[Nalanda]] University under [[Jñānagarbha]], and became the founder of [[Samye]], the first [[Vihāra|Buddhist monastery]] in Tibet.

Śāntarakṣita defended a synthetic philosophy which combined [[Madhyamaka]], [[Yogachara|Yogācāra]] and the [[Buddhist logico-epistemology|logico-epistemology]] of [[Dharmakirti]] into a novel Madhyamaka philosophical system[[Tibetan Buddhism|.]]<ref name=":1">Blumenthal (2018)</ref> This philosophical approach is known as ''Yogācāra-Mādhyamika'' or ''Yogācāra-Svatantrika-Mādhyamika'' in Tibetan Buddhism.<ref>Eltschinger (2019)</ref><ref name=":1" /> Unlike other Madhyamaka philosophers, Śāntarakṣita accepted Yogācāra doctrines like mind-only (''cittamatra'') and self-reflective awareness (''svasamvedana''), but only on the level of conventional truth.<ref>Blumenthal, James. "Two Topics Concerning Consciousness in Śāntarakşita's Yogācāra-Madhyamaka Syncretism" in Garfield and Westerhoff (2015) ''Madhyamaka and Yogācāra: Allies or Rivals?''

There are few historical records of Śāntarakṣita, with most available material being from [[Hagiography|hagiographic]] sources. Some of his history is detailed in a 19th-century commentary by [[Jamgon Ju Mipham Gyatso]] drawn from sources like the ''[[Blue Annals]]'', [[Buton Rinchen Drub|Buton]] and [[Taranatha]]. According to Ju Mipham, Śāntarakṣita was the son of the king of Zahor (located in Bhagalpur district of [[Bihar]]).<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Singh |first1=Shyam Deo Prasad |title=NALANDA PANDIT SANTARAKSHITA-HIS WRITINGS AND ENDEAVOUR TO PROPAGATE BUDDHISM IN TIBET AND NEPAL |journal=Proceedings of the Indian History Congress |date=1981 |volume=42 |pages=110-114 |jstor=44141119}}</ref> <ref name="padmakara2">Shantarakshita & Ju Mipham (2005) pp.2–3</ref>

Most sources contain little information about his life in India, as such all that can be known is that he was an Indian monk in the [[Mulasarvastivada]] lineage in the [[Pala Empire]]. Tibetan sources also state he studied under [[Jñānagarbha]], and eventually became the head of Nalanda University after mastering all branches of learning.<ref>Eltschinger (2019)</ref><ref>Shantarakshita & Ju Mipham (2005) p. 85.</ref>  

He was first invited to Tibet by king [[Trisong Detsen]] (c. 742–797) to help establish Buddhism there and his first trip to Tibet can be dated to 763.<ref>Eltschinger (2019)</ref> However, according to Tibetan sources like the ''[[Blue Annals]],'' his first trip was unsuccessful and due to the activities of certain local spirits, he was forced to leave.<ref>Blumenthal (2004), p. 26.</ref> He then spent six years in Nepal before returning to Tibet.<ref>Eltschinger (2019)</ref>  

Tibetan sources then state that Śāntarakṣita later returned along with a tantric adept called [[Padmasambhava]] who performed the necessary magical rites to appease the unhappy spirits and to allow for the establishment of the first Buddhist monastery in Tibet. Once this was done, Śāntarakṣita oversaw the construction of [[Samye]] monastery (meaning: "the Inconceivable", Skt. ''acintya'' ) starting in 775 CE on the model of the Indian monastery of [[Uddandapura|Uddaṇḍapura]].<ref>Eltschinger (2019)</ref><ref name=":4">[http://himalaya.socanth.cam.ac.uk/collections/journals/bot/pdf/bot_1982_03_01.pdf Banerjee, AC (1982) "Acarya Santaraksita"]</ref>

He then ordained the first seven Tibetan Buddhist monastics there with the aid of twelve Indian monks (circa 779).<ref>Eltschinger (2019)</ref> He stayed at Samye as the abbot (''upadhyaya'') for the rest of his life (thirteen years after completion). At Samye, Śāntarakṣita established a Buddhist monastic curriculum based on the Indian model.<ref>Eltschinger (2019)</ref> He also oversaw the translation of Buddhist scriptures into Tibetan. During this period, various other Indian scholars came to Tibet to work on translation, including [[Vimalamitra]], [[Buddhaguhya]], Santigrabha and Visuddhasimha.<ref name=":4" /> Tibetan sources state that he died suddenly in an accident after being kicked by a horse.<ref name=":4" />

According to Tibetan sources, Śāntarakṣita and his students initially focused on teaching the 'ten good actions' (Sanskrit: [[Buddhist ethics|''daśakuśalakarmapatha'']]), the six [[Pāramitā|paramitas]] (transcendent virtues), a summary of the [[Mahayana|Mahāyāna]] and 'the chain of dependent origination' (''[[pratītyasamutpāda]]'').<ref>{{Cite book|last1=Gzhon-Nu-Dpal|first1=ʼgos Lo-tsā-ba|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=2R6OaXn76IgC&q=dasa+kusalani+ten&pg=RA1-PA43|title=The Blue Annals|last2=Roerich|first2=George|year=1988|isbn=9788120804715}}</ref><ref name=":2">Dargyay, Eva M. (author) & Wayman, Alex (editor) (1977, 1998). ''The Rise of Esoteric Buddhism in Tibet''. Second revised edition, reprint. Delhi, India: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Pvt Ltd. Buddhist Tradition Series Vol. 32. {{ISBN|81-208-1579-3}} (paper), p.7</ref>  

Tibetan sources indicate that he and his student [[Kamalaśīla]] mainly taught a [[Buddhist paths to liberation|gradual path]] to [[Buddhahood]] (most thoroughly outlined in the ''[[Bhāvanākrama]]'' of Kamalaśīla).<ref name=":2" /><ref>Blumenthal (2004), p. 26.</ref> Ju Mipham writes that when he came to Tibet, "he set forth the ten good virtues, the [[Skandha#Eighteen Dhātus and Four Paramatthas|eighteen dhatus]], and the twelve fold chain of dependent arising."<ref>Shantarakshita & Ju Mipham (2005) p. 88.</ref>

Śāntarakṣita is best known for his syncretic interpretation of Madhyamaka philosophy which also makes use of Yogācāra and Dharmakirtian epistemology. His Madhyamaka view is most clearly outlined in his ''Madhyamakālaṃkāra'' (''The Ornament of the Middle Way'') and his own commentary on that text, the ''Madhyamakālaṃkāravṛtti'' (''The Auto-Commentary on The Ornament of the Middle Way'')[[Tibetan Buddhism|.]]<ref name=":1" /> Śāntarakṣita is not the first Buddhist thinker to attempt a synthesis of Madhyamaka thought with Yogācāra. Though Śāntarakṣita is often regarded as the leading exponent of this approach, earlier figures such as Vimuktisena, Srigupta and Śāntarakṣita's teacher Jñānagarbha had already written from a similar syncretic perspective.<ref>Ruegg, David Seyfort (1981) ''The Literature of the Madhyamaka School of Philosophy in India'', p. 87. Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden.</ref>

Like other Indian Madhyamaka thinkers, Śāntarakṣita explains the ontological status of phenomena through the use of the doctrine of the [[Two truths doctrine|"two truths"]]: the ultimate (''paramārtha'') and the conventional (''[[Samvriti|saṃvṛti]]''). While in an ultimate or absolute sense, all phenomena as seen by Madhyamaka as being [[Śūnyatā|"empty" (''shunya'')]] of essence or inherent nature (''[[svabhava|svabhāva]]''), they can be said to have some kind of [[Conventionalism|conventional]], [[Nominalism|nominal]] or provisional existence[[Tibetan Buddhism|.]]<ref name=":1" /> James Blumenthal summarizes Śāntarakṣita's syncretic view thus: "Śāntarakṣita advocates a Madhyamaka perspective when describing ultimate truths, and a Yogācāra perspective when describing conventional truths."<ref>Blumenthal (2004), p. 43.</ref>

According to Blumenthal, Śāntarakṣita's thought also emphasized the importance of studying the "lower" Buddhist schools. These lesser views were "seen as integral stepping stones on the ascent to his presentation of what he considered to be the ultimately correct view of Madhyamaka." This way of using a [[Doxography|doxographic]] hierarchy to present Buddhist philosophy remains influential in Tibetan Buddhist thought.<ref name=":6" />  

Like other Madhyamaka thinkers, Śāntarakṣita sees the ultimate truth as being the emptiness of all phenomena (i.e., their lack of inherent existence or [[essence]]). He makes use of the "neither-one-nor-many argument" in his ''Madhyamakālaṃkāra'' as a way to argue for emptiness. The basic position is outlined by the following stanza:<ref name=":1" /><blockquote>These entities, as asserted by our own [Buddhist schools] and other [non-Buddhist schools], have no inherent nature at all because in reality they have neither a singular nor manifold nature, like a reflected image.<ref>Blumenthal (2004), p. 24.</ref></blockquote>The main idea in his argument is that any given phenomenon (i.e. ''dharma''), cannot be said to have an inherent nature or essence (i.e. ''svabhāva''), because such a nature cannot be proven to exist either as a singular nature (''ekasvabhāva'') or as a multiplicity of natures (''anekasvabhāva'').<ref name=":1" /><ref>Ruegg, David Seyfort (1981) ''The Literature of the Madhyamaka School of Philosophy in India'', p. 91. Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden.</ref>  

In the ''Madhyamakālaṃkāra'', Śāntarakṣita analyses all the different phenomena posited by Buddhist and non-Buddhist schools through the neither-one-nor-many schema, proving that they cannot be shown to exist as a single thing or as a manifold collection of many phenomena. Śāntarakṣita usually begins by looking at any phenomenon that is asserted by his interlocutor as having a truly singular nature and then showing how it cannot actually be singular.<ref name=":1" />  

For example, when analyzing the [[Samkhya|Sāṃkhya]] school's doctrine of a Fundamental Nature (''[[Prakṛti]]'', the permanent, un-caused absolute cause of everything), Śāntarakṣita states that this permanent and fundamental nature cannot be truly singular because it "contributes to the production of successive effects." Since "each successive effect is distinct", then this fundamental nature which is contributing to all these different effects arising at different times is not really singular.<ref name=":1" />  

After critiquing the non-Buddhist ideas, Śāntarakṣita turns his arguments against Buddhist ideas, such as the theory of ''svabhāva,'' the theory of atoms (''paramanu''), the theory of the person (''pudgala''), theories regarding space (''akasa'') and [[Nirvana (Buddhism)|nirvana]].<ref>Ruegg, David Seyfort (1981) ''The Literature of the Madhyamaka School of Philosophy in India'', p. 91. Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden</ref> He also critiques the [[Sautrāntika|Sautrantika]] and Yogacara Buddhists who held that consciousness (''[[vijñāna]]'') is truly singular and yet knows a variety of objects.<ref name=":1" /> In his analysis of consciousness, Śāntarakṣita concludes that it is just like other entities in the sense that it can be neither unitary nor multiple. Therefore, he (like other Madhyamikas) refuses to assign any ultimate reality to consciousness and sees it as empty of any inherent nature.<ref name=":5">Ruegg, David Seyfort (1981) ''The Literature of the Madhyamaka School of Philosophy in India'', p. 92. Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden</ref> Furthermore, he also critiques the Yogacara theory of the three natures.<ref name=":5" />  

All Madhyamikas agree on an [[Anti-essentialism|anti-essentialist]] view which rejects all permanent essences, inherent natures, or true existence. However, they do not all agree on conventional truth, that is, the best way of describing how it is that phenomena "exist" in a relative sense. In his ''Madhyamakālaṃkāra'', Śāntarakṣita argues that phenomena which are "characterized only by conventionality" are those phenomena that "are generated and disintegrate and those that have the ability to function."<ref name=":1" />  

According to Blumenthal, the main criteria for conventional entities given by Śāntarakṣita in his ''Madhyamakālaṃkāra'' and its commentary are the following:<ref name=":1" />  

Śāntarakṣita's ''Tattvasaṅgraha'' (''Compendium on Reality''/''Truth'') is a huge and encyclopaedic treatment (over 3,600 verses distributed into 26 chapters) of the major Indian philosophic views of the time. In this text, the author outlines the views of the numerous non-Buddhist Indian traditions of his time.<ref name=":0" />

Unlike previous Madhyamaka texts which were organized around Buddhist categories to be refuted and discussed, the ''Tattvasaṅgraha'' is mainly organized around refuting non-Buddhist views which were becoming increasingly sophisticated and prominent during Śāntarakṣita's era (though space is also saved for certain Buddhist views as well, like [[pudgalavada]] i.e. "personalism").<ref>Carpenter, Amber (2014) ''Indian Buddhist Philosophy,'' pp. 233-235. Routledge.</ref> In this text, Śāntarakṣita explains and then refutes many non-Buddhist views systematically, including Sāṅkhya's primordial matter Nyāya's creator god ([[Ishvara|Īśvara]]) and six different theories on the self ([[Ātman (Hinduism)|ātman]]).<ref name=":0" /> He also defends the Buddhist doctrine of momentariness, rejects the [[Vaisheshika|Vaiśeṣika]] ontological categories, discusses philosophy of language and epistemology as well as Jain theories, [[Sarvastivada]] philosophy, and critiques the materialism of the [[Charvaka|Cārvākas]] and the scriptural views of [[Mīmāṃsā]].<ref name=":0" />  

Ju Mipham further states that this tradition was continued by Tibetan scholars such as Ngok Lotsawa, Chaba Chökyi Senge and Rongton Choje.<ref name=":3" /> Śāntarakṣita's work also influenced numerous later Tibetan figures such as [[Yeshe De]] (''ca.'' 8th c.), [[Sakya Pandita]] (1182–1251), [[Je Tsongkhapa|Tsongkhapa]] (1357–1419) and [[Jamgön Ju Mipham Gyatso|Ju Mipham Gyatso]] (1846–1912)[[Tibetan Buddhism|.]]<ref name=":1" />  

Śāntarakṣita's philosophy remained the main interpretation of Madhyamaka in Tibetan Buddhism from the 8th century until the time of the second dissemination in the eleventh and twelfth  centuries when [[Chandrakirti|Candrakirti's]] work began to be translated. Blumenthal notes that already in the time of [[Patsab Nyima Drakpa|Patsab]] (12th century) "the Prasaṅgika-Madhyamaka view began to be widely taught and the privileging of Śāntarakṣita's system began to encounter serious opposition."<ref name=":7">Blumenthal (2004) p. 27.</ref> Je Tsongkhapa's (1357-1419) interpretation of [[Prasaṅgika]] Madhyamaka, and his new school, the [[Gelug]], raised serious and influential critiques of Śāntarakṣita's position. In no small part due to his efforts, [[Prasaṅgika]] Madhyamaka replaced Śāntarakṣita's Madhyamaka as the dominant interpreation of Madhyamaka in Tibetan Buddhism.<ref name=":7" />  

In the late 19th century, Ju Mipham attempted to promote Yogācāra-Mādhyamaka again as part of the [[Rimé movement]] and as a way to discuss specific critiques of Je Tsongkhapa's widely influential philosophy. The Rimé movement was funded by the secular authorities in [[Derge]], [[Kham]], and began to establish centres of learning encouraging the study of traditions different from the dominant [[Gelug]] tradition in central Tibet. This Rimé movement revitalised the [[Sakya]], [[Kagyu]], [[Nyingma]] and [[Jonang]] traditions, which had been by almost supplanted by the Gelug hegemony.<ref name="padmakara45">Shantarakshita & Ju Mipham (2005) pp.4–5</ref>