HIMALAYA, the Journal of the Association for Nepal and Himalayan Studies
Volume 25 Number 1 Himalaya No. 1 & 2 Article 15
2005
Book review of 'The Ornament of the Middle Way: A tudy of the Madhyamaka Thought of Santaraksita' by James Blumenthal
James B. Apple University of Alberta
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/himalaya
Recommended Citation Apple, James B.. 2005. Book review of 'The Ornament of the Middle Way: A tudy of the Madhyamaka Thought of Santaraksita' by James Blumenthal. HIMALAYA 25(1). Available at: https://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/himalaya/vol25/iss1/15
This Book Review is brought to you for free and open access by the DigitalCommons@Macalester College at DigitalCommons@Macalester College. It has been accepted for inclusion in HIMALAYA, the Journal of the Association for Nepal and Himalayan Studies by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Macalester College. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE ORNAMENT OF THE MIDDLE WAY: A STUDY OF THE MADHYAMAKA THOUGHT OF SANTARAKSITA jAMES BLUMENTHAL
REVIEWED BY jAMES B. APPLE
The Madhyamalwlamlwra-lwrilw (MAK) is one incorporating the notes of Rgyal-tshab supplement of the major philosophical works of the Indian ed with a presentation and examination of the Geluk Buddhist scholar Santaraksita (c . 725-788). The tradition's representation of Santaraksita's Madhya MAK, consisting of 97 stanzas supplemented with maka. an autocommentary (Vrtti: (MAY)) and commentary Blumenthal's study confines itself to a descriptive (Panjika: (MAP)) by Kamalasila (c. 740-795), is rather than an interpretative analysis of Santaraksi emblematic of the Yogacara-Madhyamaka synthesis ta's "middle way" philosophy (dbu ma pa). The intro in the later formations of Indian Madhyamaka ductory portion of the book provides an overview thought. The treatise and its commentaries were of Santaraksita and his writings, then outlines the first translated and introduced into ninth-century scope of the study within the framework of Santa Tibet during the early dissemination phase (snga raksita's Yogacara-Madhyamaka synthesis. The core dm) of Tibetan Buddhist history and later, after two of the study consists of three parts. Part l, "A nalysis of centuries of political instability, became a focus of Texts and Arguments," provides a stanza-by-stanza systematic study in Tibet through the influence of narrative presentation of Santaraksita's MAK inter Rgnog lo-tsa-ba blo-ldan-shes-rab (1059-1109). The spersed with Rgyal-tshab dar-ma rin-chen's memo MAK, along with Kamalasila's Madhyamalwloka (MA) randum notes to the MAK along with selections of and jnanagarbha's Satyadvayavibhangalwrilw, were Santaraksita's MAY. Part II, entitled "An Analysis of collectively known as "the three eastern Svatantrika the Geluk Interpretation, Representation, and Criti (texts)" (rang rgyud shar gsum). These texts were cism of Yogacara-Svatantrika-Madhyamaka and the actively studied in Tibetan scholastic centers, Madhyamaka Thought of Santaraksita," examines The Ornament of particularly from the twelfth to fourteenth centuries. Geluk representations of Santaraksita's thought and the Middle Way: Geluk (dge lugs) traditions, beginning in the fifteenth compares them to Santaraksita's "own presentation A Study of tlte century, did not place emphasis on the systematic of ideas." This comparison, between a number of Ge study of these texts, but rather concentrated attention luk authors dating from the fifteenth to nineteenth Madhyamaka upon the thought of Candrakirti (c. 600-660), whose century and the thought of Santaraksita as presented Thought of approach to Madhyamaka philosophy was strongly in Part I, is carried out through five selected areas of Santarallsita advocated by Tsong-kha-pa (1357-1419) and his inquiry: hermeneutics of Mahayana Buddhist texts, james Blumenthal immediate disciples. path systems issues concerning the status of Hinay Tsong-kha-pa and his immediate disciples such as ana arhats, Madhyamaka application of autonomous Ithaca: Snow Lion Rgyal-tshab dar-ma-rin-chen (1364-1432), although inferences, the two truths and the status of conven Publications, 2004. Pp. not emphasizing Santaraksita's thought, did make tional truths, and self-cognizing cognition. Part Ill 404. note of it. The Ornament of lhe Middle Way by james consists of a translation of Rgyal-tshab's Brjed byang Blumenthal provides for the first time in English a with stanzas from Santraraksita's MAK inserted at ' study and translation of Rgyal-tshab's "Memoran appropriate points in the translation of the memo dum on the Ornament of the Middle Way'" (dbu ma randum. The book also contains three appendices: rgyangyi brjed byang: (Brjed byang)). The book centers the first consists of a translation of Rgyal tshab's on the interpretation of Santaraksita's MA/V through topical outlines (sa bead) found in the Brjed byang, the second and third are Tibetan text reproductions copied 11, 12, 13, 16, 30 with TS 1989, 1990, 1991, 1999, 1255, directly from the 1976 Sarnath edition of the MA and Brjed respectively, are not noted. The Sanskrit citation of MAl< 29 byang. (p. 103) is mistakenly noted (p. 358nll0) as correlating to TS Blumenthal's study provides in readable English a book 1255, when the citation actually corresponds toTS 1254. If length exegesis and detailed description of the condensed there a·re Sanskrit notations, they are frequently erroneous, arguments found in the MAl<. The study clearly outlines such as the notation of MAl< 1 (p. 351n20), found in the Bod the multiple levels of mereological analysis that Santaral< hi caryavatarapanji lw , that leaves out a half-quarter of a stanza sita applies in his multifacted treatment of Indian Buddhist ("svaparoditah"). On page 150 a well-known stanza from and non-Buddhist philosophical systems. The strength of Bhavaviveka's Madhyamahahrdayahariha (3 .12), "Without the this study, despite its fl aws, is that it illustrates the rhetorical ladder of correct customary truth, a wise man cannot ascend manner through which later Geluk commentators utilized to the palace of reality (tattva)," is attributed to Santaraksita. the MAK in their philosophical studies. In this sense, the Critical points of exegesis are thought away rather than study is a cerebration upon the Geluk received cultural mem thought through . For instance, Blumenthal chooses not to ory of commenting upon Santaraksita's MAK, and consists use Santaraksita's SDVP commentary on the two truths, of a synchronic analysis of philosophical arguments through following a Tibetan custom, and thereby forgoes an excellent the amalgamation of traditional written and oral Gelul< dis opportunity to critically examine Santaraksita's position on courses on the MAK from the fifteenth to twentieth centu the two truths. As recent scholarship has demonstrated, it ries. Nevertheless, the study has a number of problems that is an error to dismiss the SDVP commentary as inauthentic undermine the narrative description and synchronic points merely on Tsong-kha-pa's understanding, particularly in light of the analysis it provides. These problems are in method of Funayama (WZKS 1995:193) and Lee (JIBS 1993:203-205) and philology. who demonstrate through textual analysis that Santaraksita Diachronically the study fails to substantially address issues most likely wrote this commentary. of context and genesis both in regard to the eighth-century Although Blumenthal correctly notes the influence and Indian cultural milieu of Santaraksita and for the fourteenth reliance upon the thought of Dignaga and Dharmakirti by to fifteenth-century Tibetan scholastic arena of Tsong-kha Santakaraksita/l