What do you think?
Rate this book
The Ornament of the Middle Way: A Study of the Madhyamaka Thought of Shantaraksita
This is the first book length study of the Madhyamaka thought of Shantarakshita in any Western language.
- GenresBuddhismPhilosophy
400 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1876
7 people are currently reading
82 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
June 24, 2025
Shantarakshita's Ornament of the Middle Way is a seminal text of Indian Mahayana Buddhist philosophy and probably represents the final great development of the movement. In it, the author synthesizes the two dominant stains of Mahayana thought into a synthesis of the Yogacara or Cittamatra (Mind Only) view and the Madhyamaka (Middle Way followers of Nagarjuna) view, arguing that on the conventional level of everyday, transactional usage, there is no difference in nature between the mind and its objects, while from the perspective of how things truly exist, all things are alike in equally lacking inherent existence, including mind itself.
The author establishes this position in a series of disputations with many other points of view representing various Buddhist and non-Buddhist schools, such as the perspectives of Samkaya, Vedanta, Vaibashika, and Sautrantika schools, for example. The principal argument he wields against all of his foes is the analysis of neither-one-nor-many, one of the key arguments used by Madhyamikas to establish the non-inherent existence of phenomena, which here finds its greatest and most sustained expression. The first verse of the work reads:
Those entities, as asserted by our own [Buddhist] and
other [non-Buddhist] schools, have no inherent nature at all
because in reality they have neither a singular nor a manifold
nature - like a reflected image.
Over the course of the work, the view that Shantarakshita represents gradually changes. He uses the position of the Mahayana Cittamatra view to refute the "lower" tenets of the Sautrantikas, for example, and later refutes the Cittamatra views with the Madhyamaka view.
This is one of many factors that contribute to the incredible difficulty of understanding this work, which is as difficult a work of Buddhist philosophy as I have read. He does not say what view he represents at any given time, and mostly leaves his opponents unnamed. It is often not even clear from the text if he is summarizing a hypothetical argument by an opponent, or stating his own view. And of course, "his own view" changes steadily across the 97 root verses of the work.
I first attempted reading this work in Speech of Delight, Andreas Doctor's translation of the root verses with Mipham Rinpoche's commentary, and immediately found the root verses completely incomprehensible. Much more difficult than, say, the Madhyamkavatara, the Uttaratantra, or the Mulamadhyamakakarika. I literally had not idea what was being said, and when I turned to Mipham's commentary, I found it nearly as incomprehensible as the root verses themselves.
I then picked up Blumenthal's edition, and again started with the root verses, and again found them incomprehensible. I tried reading them with Gyeltsap's verse-by-verse commentary, and again found the commentary almost equally difficult. It was only reading the central part of this book, in which Blumenthal carefully goes through the entire thing stanza by stanza, bringing in extensive commentary based on Shantarakshita's auto-commentary as well as works by Kamalashila, Tsong Khapa, and Gyeltsap, that I was able to understand what we being said. And even so, I found that the argument was so dense and complex, it was necessary for me to re-write every single stanza in clearer English and to add my own summary of the commentaries. I ended up with a synopsis of the entire work in 15 single-spaced pages.
Without this degree of effort, I would not have been able to understand on a basic level what was being said. Root verses are usually cryptic, but Shantarakshita is something special.
But now I'm in possession of my synopsis and will one day go through Mipham's commentary with this in hand, and this should be quite valuable, as it is supposed to be one of Mipham's greatest works, and representative of his own view. Mipham, like Shantarakshita, was not particularly concerned about the distinction between the so-called Svatantrika and Prasangika Madhyamaka views, and I think they have good reasons for this.
I expect that Shantarakshita's influence will be deeply felt by any practitioner of Mahamudra or Dzogchen, which do not necessarily share the view of Shantarakshita, but resemble it in many key respects. In that regard, I would very highly recommend this work to any practitioner of those traditions.
This is a difficult work but a magnificent one with much value. His exhaustive application of the neither-one-nor-many argument will be of great use to anyone concerned with establishing the view of emptiness. In particular, I found that if one is interested in establishing the emptiness of mind, it is a very powerful approach.
As for its importance in intellectual history, it can hardly be overstated. The influence of this work on Tibetan doxography is obviously enormous, and some of the so-called schools that are commonly identified in Tibetan tenet literature would seem to be based entirely on arguments in this text. In some cases, they do not seem to represent actual historical schools, but rather possible positions, as in the case of the putative Yogacara Half-Eggists.
It is also extremely interesting to see Shantarakshita pull in not just the epistemological arguments of Dignaga and Dharmakirti, but their Yogacara thought as well. One doesn't see that often.
As a final note, if you have qualms about reading a Gelukpa commentary on this work, you may rest assured that Gyeltsap's purpose is solely to explain what Shantarakshita means, and he only very rarely lets his own perspective influence his reading. When there are divergences between Gyeltsap's commentary and what Shantarakshita probably meant, Blumenthal clearly calls them out, and in a very fair-minded way. He is no Gelukpa apologist.
This is a difficult, important work, and of the five available translations I'm aware of, this is definitely the one I would recommend, at least to begin with. I doubt the others would be particularly comprehensible, even to readers with a very strong background in Buddhist philosophy.
The author establishes this position in a series of disputations with many other points of view representing various Buddhist and non-Buddhist schools, such as the perspectives of Samkaya, Vedanta, Vaibashika, and Sautrantika schools, for example. The principal argument he wields against all of his foes is the analysis of neither-one-nor-many, one of the key arguments used by Madhyamikas to establish the non-inherent existence of phenomena, which here finds its greatest and most sustained expression. The first verse of the work reads:
Those entities, as asserted by our own [Buddhist] and
other [non-Buddhist] schools, have no inherent nature at all
because in reality they have neither a singular nor a manifold
nature - like a reflected image.
Over the course of the work, the view that Shantarakshita represents gradually changes. He uses the position of the Mahayana Cittamatra view to refute the "lower" tenets of the Sautrantikas, for example, and later refutes the Cittamatra views with the Madhyamaka view.
This is one of many factors that contribute to the incredible difficulty of understanding this work, which is as difficult a work of Buddhist philosophy as I have read. He does not say what view he represents at any given time, and mostly leaves his opponents unnamed. It is often not even clear from the text if he is summarizing a hypothetical argument by an opponent, or stating his own view. And of course, "his own view" changes steadily across the 97 root verses of the work.
I first attempted reading this work in Speech of Delight, Andreas Doctor's translation of the root verses with Mipham Rinpoche's commentary, and immediately found the root verses completely incomprehensible. Much more difficult than, say, the Madhyamkavatara, the Uttaratantra, or the Mulamadhyamakakarika. I literally had not idea what was being said, and when I turned to Mipham's commentary, I found it nearly as incomprehensible as the root verses themselves.
I then picked up Blumenthal's edition, and again started with the root verses, and again found them incomprehensible. I tried reading them with Gyeltsap's verse-by-verse commentary, and again found the commentary almost equally difficult. It was only reading the central part of this book, in which Blumenthal carefully goes through the entire thing stanza by stanza, bringing in extensive commentary based on Shantarakshita's auto-commentary as well as works by Kamalashila, Tsong Khapa, and Gyeltsap, that I was able to understand what we being said. And even so, I found that the argument was so dense and complex, it was necessary for me to re-write every single stanza in clearer English and to add my own summary of the commentaries. I ended up with a synopsis of the entire work in 15 single-spaced pages.
Without this degree of effort, I would not have been able to understand on a basic level what was being said. Root verses are usually cryptic, but Shantarakshita is something special.
But now I'm in possession of my synopsis and will one day go through Mipham's commentary with this in hand, and this should be quite valuable, as it is supposed to be one of Mipham's greatest works, and representative of his own view. Mipham, like Shantarakshita, was not particularly concerned about the distinction between the so-called Svatantrika and Prasangika Madhyamaka views, and I think they have good reasons for this.
I expect that Shantarakshita's influence will be deeply felt by any practitioner of Mahamudra or Dzogchen, which do not necessarily share the view of Shantarakshita, but resemble it in many key respects. In that regard, I would very highly recommend this work to any practitioner of those traditions.
This is a difficult work but a magnificent one with much value. His exhaustive application of the neither-one-nor-many argument will be of great use to anyone concerned with establishing the view of emptiness. In particular, I found that if one is interested in establishing the emptiness of mind, it is a very powerful approach.
As for its importance in intellectual history, it can hardly be overstated. The influence of this work on Tibetan doxography is obviously enormous, and some of the so-called schools that are commonly identified in Tibetan tenet literature would seem to be based entirely on arguments in this text. In some cases, they do not seem to represent actual historical schools, but rather possible positions, as in the case of the putative Yogacara Half-Eggists.
It is also extremely interesting to see Shantarakshita pull in not just the epistemological arguments of Dignaga and Dharmakirti, but their Yogacara thought as well. One doesn't see that often.
As a final note, if you have qualms about reading a Gelukpa commentary on this work, you may rest assured that Gyeltsap's purpose is solely to explain what Shantarakshita means, and he only very rarely lets his own perspective influence his reading. When there are divergences between Gyeltsap's commentary and what Shantarakshita probably meant, Blumenthal clearly calls them out, and in a very fair-minded way. He is no Gelukpa apologist.
This is a difficult, important work, and of the five available translations I'm aware of, this is definitely the one I would recommend, at least to begin with. I doubt the others would be particularly comprehensible, even to readers with a very strong background in Buddhist philosophy.
Read
April 19, 2020Mipham's commemtary of madhyamakalankara. The english translation is very nice.
July 1, 2023
wakefulness comes by way of
sleep...sleep of sense dominated cognition that has revealed its cyclic existence in chase of material desires...if you may claim such this pointing-out has means to provide wakefulness
sleep...sleep of sense dominated cognition that has revealed its cyclic existence in chase of material desires...if you may claim such this pointing-out has means to provide wakefulness
August 19, 2025
I'm feeling grateful to have found this book. It was challenging to read, but something I'm interested in knowing. As a Buddhist I began to reconsider my idiosyncratic agnosticism about twenty years ago. Interested in psychology and philosophy, meditation was also a tool for mental health. I started by reading the few popularly packaged American books I could find. Today I'm reaching the limits of that casual interest. My skepticism of religion in general is meeting with Buddhist thought.
I want to be able to further appreciate Buddhism. Not just as a psychology and philosophy, but as an anthropology and phonetic philology. I'm fascinated with Santaraksita and Nagarjuna. But it's humbling to remember that all we know about these people is from what has been passed down. Buddhists have had genocide and cultural cooptation for many generations. Despite the greatest of efforts to keep texts, cultures, and philosophies sacred, even Buddhism can be hijacked by those who would use their good name for political ends. It's sad when you consider not just what the Dalai Lama and his people have recently been through, but what the contemplative tradition has been through since its inception. I'm excited to read more academic perspectives like this one.
I want to be able to further appreciate Buddhism. Not just as a psychology and philosophy, but as an anthropology and phonetic philology. I'm fascinated with Santaraksita and Nagarjuna. But it's humbling to remember that all we know about these people is from what has been passed down. Buddhists have had genocide and cultural cooptation for many generations. Despite the greatest of efforts to keep texts, cultures, and philosophies sacred, even Buddhism can be hijacked by those who would use their good name for political ends. It's sad when you consider not just what the Dalai Lama and his people have recently been through, but what the contemplative tradition has been through since its inception. I'm excited to read more academic perspectives like this one.
January 20, 2009
geluk commentary on "the ornament of clear reason" by santaraksita, who considers himself to be madhyamika (middle way) despite geluk categorization as yogacara-svatantrika-madhyamika. santaraksita adopts a soteriological sliding framework of views as he refutes increasingly subtler schools, using mind-only analysis for conventional existence, eventually arriving at middle-way analysis of ultimate truth.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews