Explanation of the Svātantrika-Mādhyamika system has three parts: definition, divisions, and assertions.
DEFINITION
Amarasiṃha’s Treasury (Amarakośa) says, “Own continuum [means] own power and self-power.” Thus, own continuum (svātantra, rang rgyud), own power (svairī, rang dbang), and own nature (svabhāva, rang bzhin) are synonyms. Bhāvaviveka’s Lamp for (Nāgārjuna’s) Wisdom, in commenting on the thirteenth chapter of Nāgārjuna’s Treatise on the Middle Way says:
The thirteenth chapter was composed for the purpose of setting forth the non-entityness of conditioned phenomena in terms of another aspect, through the force of answers to the refutations [by opponents] and own-powered inferences.
Therefore, autonomous (svatantra, rang rgyud) means that an inferential consciousness (anumāṇa, rjes dpag) realizing the thesis (pratijñā, bsgrub bya) is produced without taking the lead merely from the opponent’s assertions, but by his having ascertained the establishment of the modes of the sign (liṅga, rtags) with respect to a subject that is established as appearing commonly to non-mistaken valid cognizers (pramāṇa, tshad ma) of both parties in the debate through the force of an objective mode of subsistence from the side of its basis of designation. Mādhyamikas who assert the correctness of such a necessity are Svātantrika-Mādhyamikas.
In the Svātantrika system, non-defective sense consciousnesses are conventionally not mistaken with respect to their appearing objects (*pratibhāsaviśaya, snang yul). The reason why they are not mistaken in that way rests on the fact that forms and so forth appear to non-defective consciousnesses to be established by way of their own entity, and they assert that forms and so forth are established by way of their own entity. Thinking of this, Tsong-kha-pa’s Great Exposition of the Stages of the Path to Enlightenment (Byang chub lam rim chen mo) says:
The reason why they assert autonomous signs (svatantraliṅga, rang rgyud kyi rtags) in their system is this conventional existence of own-character (svalakṣaṇa, rang mtshan), that is, establishment by way of [the object’s] own entity conventionally. Therefore, the [Svātantrikas’] positing and the [Prāsaṅgikas’j not positing of autonomous signs in their own systems derives from this very subtle object of negation.
Therefore, a Mādhyamika who asserts that the three modes of the sign proving non-true existence are established from their own side is the definition of a Svātantrika-Mādhyamika.
DIVISIONS
The Svātantrikas are definite as two, the Sautrāntika-Mādhyamikas1 and the Yogācāra-Mādhyamikas. Regarding the reason why the first are called Sautrāntikas, since they assert that the observed-object-conditions (ālambanapratyaya, dmigs rkyen) of sense consciousnesses are external objects which are composites of subtle particles, their assertion of observed-object-conditions accords with the Sautrāntikas conventionally. Therefore, they are designated in that way.
Regarding the reason why the second are called Yogācārins, the master Śāntarakṣita’s autocommentarv to his Ornament for the Middle Way says:
According to others:
[Phenomena] which are causes and effects
Are solely [the entity of] consciousness alone
[Because] that which is established by it [consciousness]
Abides as [the entity of] consciousness.2
Also, “Hence, we accord with everything that appears in the Sutra on the Heavily Adorned (Ghanavyūhasūtra) and the Sutra Unravelling the Thought”3 Thus, since they conventionally make assertions in accordance with the mode of Mere Knowledge (vijñaptimātratā, rnam par rig pa tsam), which is an emptiness of external objects, they are called Yogācāra-Mādhyamikas. Therefore, Tsong-kha-pa’s Essence of the Good Explanations says:
Thus, it is good to [take it] in accordance with the assertion of the master Ye-shay-day that although such a system appeared here and there [prior to Śāntarakṣita], the master Śāntarakṣita extensively composed texts and founded the system of Mādhyamika tenets [teaching] the mode of the non-existence of external objects conventionally.
Objection: That etymology of Sautrāntika-Mādhyamika is incorrect, for Kay-drup’s Thousand Doses says:
Neither the master Bhāvaviveka nor Jñānagarbha accord with the Sautrāntikas in the presentation of conventionalities because there are many points of great disagreement, such as their not asserting self-knowers (svasaṃvedana, rang rig), and because, if accordance is posited due to agreement on one position, then it would [absurdly] follow that everyone agrees with the tenets of everyone else.
Answer: There is no fault because this [statement by Kay-drup] is merely putting forth a point which refutes an etymology by earlier Tibetans that whatever the Sautrāntikas assert ultimately, these [Sautrāntika-Svātantrika] Mādhyamikas assert conventionally; he is not saying that in general it is unsuitable to etymologize Sautrāntika-Mādhyamika from the viewpoint of [their] according with the Sautrāntikas on one position. Also, there are many cases of an etymology or mere usage not having to contain all characteristics [of the object in question]. Furthermore, the glorious Candrakīrti, in his commentary to Āryadeva’s Four Hundred, explains that Bhāvaviveka’s mode of positing sense powers (indriya, dbang po) and objects (viṣaya, yul) in accordance with the Sautrāntikas is not correct. Also, that Bhāvaviveka asserts such is explained clearly in his commentary to his Essence of the Middle Way. Furthermore, Tsong-kha-pa’s Great Exposition of the Stages of the Path and Kay-drup’s Thousand Doses both explain [his position] as just that when they explain Bhāvaviveka’s assertions.