https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/1ih999o/tibetian_buddhism/
created by Competitive_Bug3664 on 04/02/2025 at 04:12 UTC
2 upvotes, 2 top-level comments (showing 2)
My question is , which philosophy different schools of tibetian Buddhism ? As far I know , yogacara and madhyamika are two major schools of philosophy in tibetian Buddhism and Gelug school follow madhyamika . I want to know which philosophy other schools follow. As for me , i'm more inclined towards madhyamika philosophy, so it will be helpful in choosing tibetian school in future.
Comment by NangpaAustralisMajor at 04/02/2025 at 06:13 UTC*
6 upvotes, 0 direct replies
All Tibetan schools generally see the Madhyamaka as the ultimate view when it comes to ontology. That is, how emptiness is to be understood. My root teachers are all Madhyamaka in view, and they are Kagyu-Nyingma.
That said, the other tenent systems have their place in every tradition. Yogacarya is useful for psychology, especially how mental formations are explained, and how tathagatagarbha is presented in the third wheel turning sutras. Sautrantika for the phenomenology of perception.
Some traditions would emphasize a comparative study of tenets and how each “higher” school has an increasingly more subtle concept of emptiness. The Gelug master Jamyang Zhepa’s comparative tenets would be a good example. The Nyingma master Mipham would integrate Sautrantika-Yogacarya-Madhyamaka in his commentary on Shantarakshita’s Madhyamakalankara.
Some traditions would put strong emphasis on Yogacarya and the essence sutras, and this would show up in the Shentong or other emptiness interpretation of Madhyamaka. Some traditions would emphasize the logical and epistemological tradition of Sautantrika, and this would show up as the Rangtong or self emptiness interpretation of Madhyamaka. Some traditions would care less about this distinction, others harmonize them…
Comment by NoBsMoney at 04/02/2025 at 04:46 UTC
4 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Buddhist schools often integrate elements of both rather than strictly adhering to one. Here's how some of the major active traditions relate to these two philosophies:
Gelug: Strongly aligned with Madhyamaka. They emphasize emptiness (śūnyatā) as the ultimate truth, rejecting Yogācāra's idealism.
Nyingma, Kagyu, Sakya: Accept Madhyamaka but integrate Yogācāra elements, especially in tantric ideas.
Chan (Zen, Seon, Thiền): Historically influenced by both, but tends to lean more toward Madhyamaka in its emphasis on non-conceptual wisdom and emptiness.
Tiantai: Integrates Madhyamaka but also values Yogācāra-style consciousness analysis.
Huayan: Heavily influenced by Madhyamaka but also incorporates Yogācāra insights into the nature of consciousness and interpenetration.
Pure Land: They have connections to both, with Yogācāra influencing views on the "storehouse consciousness" (ālaya-vijñāna).
Theravāda - Traditionally does not follow either school but engages with some Yogācāra ideas, particularly in later Abhidharma developments. Some modern Theravādins study and incorporate Madhyamaka logic.
Most Buddhist schools do not rigidly align with just one but often blend aspects of both. Madhyamaka is generally dominant in philosophical discourse, while Yogācāra influences practical teachings on mind and perception, particularly in tantric and Eastern Buddhist traditions.