The Disputed Middle Ground: Tibetan Mādhyamikas on How to Interpret Nāgārjuna and Candrakīrti

By the twelfth century, a broad consensus had developed among Tibetan Buddhists: The Middle Way School (Madhyamaka) of Nāgārjuna (c. 2nd century), as interpreted by Candrakīrti 600–650), would be normative in Tibet. However, Tibetans inherited various trajectories commentary on Madhyamaka, and schools thought developed, each with particular reading. This article will examine some major competing philosophical stances, focusing three figures who represent particularly compelling interpretations, but whose understandings Madhyamaka are profoundly divergent: Daktsang Sherap Rinchen (1405–1477), Wangchuk Dorjé, 9th Karmapa (1556–1603), Purchok Ngawang Jampa (1682–1762). former two contend that Nāgārjuna’s statement “I have no thesis” (nāsti ca mama pratijñā) means exactly what it says, while latter advocates could termed an “anthropological” approach: Mādhyamikas, when speaking only report “the world” without taking any stance their own; understanding Buddhism is based insight gained through intensive meditation training. focus how these philosophers figure history exegesis respective readings Indic texts incorporate elements previous work moving interpretation new directions.