(Sanskrit: शान्तरक्षित; ,Murthy (1989) p.18-27, 41–43 725–788),stanford.edu: Śāntarakṣita (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) whose name translates into English as "protected by the One who is at peace"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. was an important and influential Indian Buddhist philosopher, particularly for the Tibetan Buddhist tradition. Śāntarakṣita was a philosopher of the Madhyamaka school who studied at Nalanda monastery under Jñānagarbha, and became the founder of Samye, the first Buddhist monastery in Tibet.
Śāntarakṣita defended a synthetic philosophy which combined Madhyamaka, Yogācāra and the logico-epistemology of Dharmakirti into a novel Madhyamaka philosophical system.Blumenthal (2018) This philosophical approach is known as Yogācāra-Mādhyamika or Yogācāra-Svatantrika-Mādhyamika in Tibetan Buddhism. 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.Blumenthal, James. "Two Topics Concerning Consciousness in Śāntarakşita's Yogācāra-Madhyamaka Syncretism" in Garfield and Westerhoff (2015) Madhyamaka and Yogācāra: Allies or Rivals?Blumenthal (2004), pp. 22-24. According to James Blumenthal, this synthesis is the final major development in Indian Buddhist philosophy before the disappearance of Buddhism from India (c. 12-13th centuries).
Biography
There are few historical records of Śāntarakṣita, with most available material being from 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 and Taranatha. According to Ju Mipham, Śāntarakṣita was the son of the king of Zahor. Some sources have identified Zahor with the area surrounding Bhagalpur and Banka in eastern Bihar. Tibetan sources refer to him, Jñānagarbha and Kamalasila as rang rgyud shar gsum meaning the "three eastern Svātantrikas".Shantarakshita & Ju Mipham (2005) pp.2–3
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 who lived during the time of the Pala Empire. Tibetan sources also state he studied under Jñānagarbha and eventually became the abbot of Nalanda University after mastering all branches of learning.Shantarakshita & Ju Mipham (2005) p. 85.
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. 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.Blumenthal (2004), p. 26. He then spent six years in Nepal before returning to Tibet.
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 Uddaṇḍapura.Banerjee, AC (1982) "Acarya Santaraksita"
He then ordained the first seven Tibetan Buddhist monastics there with the aid of twelve Indian monks (circa 779). 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. 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, Śāntigarbha and Viśuddhasiṃha. Tibetan sources state that he died suddenly in an accident after being kicked by a horse.
Philosophy and teachings
According to Tibetan sources, Śāntarakṣita and his students initially focused on teaching the 'ten good actions' (Sanskrit: daśakuśalakarmapatha), the six paramitas (transcendent virtues), a summary of the Mahāyāna and 'the chain of dependent origination' (pratītyasamutpāda).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. (paper), p.7
Tibetan sources indicate that he and his student Kamalaśīla mainly taught a gradual path to Buddhahood (most thoroughly outlined in the Bhāvanākrama of Kamalaśīla). Ju Mipham writes that when he came to Tibet, "he set forth the ten good virtues, the eighteen dhatus, and the twelve fold chain of dependent arising."Shantarakshita & Ju Mipham (2005) p. 88.
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). 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.Ruegg, David Seyfort (1981) The Literature of the Madhyamaka School of Philosophy in India, p. 87. Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden.
Like other Indian Madhyamaka thinkers, Śāntarakṣita explains the ontological status of phenomena through the use of the doctrine of the "two truths": the ultimate (paramārtha) and the conventional (saṃvṛti). While in an ultimate or absolute sense, all phenomena as seen by Madhyamaka as being "empty" (shunya) of essence or inherent nature (svabhāva), they can be said to have some kind of conventional, nominal or provisional existence. 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."Blumenthal (2004), p. 43.
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 doxographic hierarchy to present Buddhist philosophy remains influential in Tibetan Buddhist thought.
Ultimate Truth and neither-one-nor-many
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: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.Blumenthal (2004), p. 24.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).Ruegg, David Seyfort (1981) The Literature of the Madhyamaka School of Philosophy in India, p. 91. Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden.
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.
For example, when analyzing the 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.
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.Ruegg, David Seyfort (1981) The Literature of the Madhyamaka School of Philosophy in India, p. 91. Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden He also critiques the Sautrantika and Yogacara Buddhists who held that consciousness (vijñāna) is truly singular and yet knows a variety of objects. 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.Ruegg, David Seyfort (1981) The Literature of the Madhyamaka School of Philosophy in India, p. 92. Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden Furthermore, he also critiques the Yogacara theory of the three natures.
Śāntarakṣita then turns to a critique of the idea that there is a truly manifold nature in phenomena. Śāntarakṣita's main argument here is that any manifold nature or essence would depend on an aggregation of singular essences. But since singular essences have been proven to be irrational, then there can also be no manifold essence. Because of this, phenomena cannot have any inherent nature or essence at all, since the very idea of such a thing is irrational.
The Conventional All Madhyamikas agree on an 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."
According to Blumenthal, the main criteria for conventional entities given by Śāntarakṣita in his Madhyamakālaṃkāra and its commentary are the following:
that which is known by a mind, that which has the ability to function (i.e., that it is causally efficacious), that which is impermanent, and that which is unable to withstand analysis which searches for an ultimate nature or essence in entities. Furthermore, causal efficacy and impermanence are qualities that conventional truths have due to the fact that they are dependently originated, that is, they arise due to causes and conditions which are themselves impermanent (and so on). Also, conventional truths are described by Śāntarakṣita as being known by conceptual thought and designated based on worldly custom.