This school does not assert a difference in the entity [or nature] of the paths of Hearers (śrāvaka, nyan thos) and Solitary Realizers (pratyekabuddha, rang gyal), but does assert that they are distinguished in terms of the length of cultivation [of the path] and the effect [they achieve]. With regard to Solitary Realizers, they make presentations of the great and small Congregators (vargacārin, tshogs spyod) and the Rhinoceros-like (khaṅgaviṣānakalpa, bse ru lta bu). Because they assert that the selflessness of phenomena is not taught in the Hīnayāna, Hearers and Solitary Realizers who are definite in the lineage of their own path do not realize the selflessness of phenomena.
Objection: It must be asserted that there exists someone who, having entered the Mahāyāna, ascertains the selflessness of phenomena well and later falls to become a Hearer or Solitary Realizer. If that is so, then there must be an actualization of the selflessness of phenomena [on the path of seeing] by such a person through meditation and an accustoming [on the path of meditation] to what was seen. If you accept that, then, since you must accept that he abandons the artificial conception (*parikalpitagrāha, ’dzin pa kun brtags) of true existence on the path of seeing and abandons the innate (sahaja, lhan skyes) [conception of true existence] on the path of meditation, the positions that the conception of true existence is asserted as the obstructions to omniscience and that Hearers and Solitary Realizers do not abandon [those obstructions] are not correct.
Answer: There is no fallacy. Such a person relying on such a path could merely temporarily suppress the manifest conceptions of true existence but could not abandon the seeds of either the artificial or innate conceptions of true existence. Therefore, these cases of directly seeing the selflessness of phenomena and becoming accustomed to what was seen are not posited as the path of seeing and path of meditation that realize the subtle suchness. The reason for this is that in order to abandon the seeds of the conception of true existence, meditation on selflessness alone is insufficient; it must be accompanied by the limitless collections. Therefore, generating the wisdom realizing non-true existence into the entity of an uninterrupted path which is the antidote (pratipaḳsa, gnyen po) abandoning objects of abandonment depends on the power of the special method, and even at the time of the uninterrupted path itself, [the wisdom] must be related with the power of special types of method. By this reasoning, at the very time of the uninterrupted path at the end of the continuum [as a sentient being before achieving Buddhahood], along with the exalted wisdom of meditative equipoise there must exist a complete capacity definitely to manifest in the next moment all the conventional and ultimate uncontaminated qualities of a Conqueror. Nevertheless, conventional aspects do not have to be manifest in that exalted wisdom of meditative equipoise.
This is a difficult point in the Perfection Vehicle (pāramitāyāna, phar phyin theg pa). It is one essential [reason why] one must definitely add the Mantra path to the end of the Perfection Vehicle path in order to become fully enlightened.
This way of dispelling objections is similar in Yogācāra-Svātantrika-Mādhyamika as well, and this process of reasoning is very important in the context of Prāsaṅgika also. These too are unrivalled, great features of the good explanation by the foremost great being Tsong-kha-pa, and I have spoken relying on the statements of the Foremost One himeself. How could the likes of me explain these difficult points on his own?
Objection: Since the honorable master Bhāvaviveka stated that if the selflessness of phenomena were taught in the Hearer scriptural collection (śrāvakapiṭaka, nyan thos kyi sde snod), the teachings of the Mahāyāna would be purposeless, then a Hīnayāna Superior could not possibly have realized the selflessness of phenomena because, otherwise, the teaching of the selflessness of phenomena would not be the only distinguishing feature of the Mahāyāna.
Answer: There is no fallacy. The wisdom realizing the subtle suchness is the antidote to the conception of true existence of phenomena, and since the conception of true existence is an obstruction to omniscience, the teaching of the selflessness of phenomena was set forth for the purpose of abandoning the obstruction to omniscience. Therefore, if the selflessness of phenomena were taught in the scriptural collection of Hearers, Hīnayānists would have to abandon the obstructions to omniscience. If that were the case, then, since the antidote for abandoning the obstructions to omniscience would have to be fully taught in that scriptural collection, [Bhāvaviveka] says that it would [absurdly] follow that the Mahāyāna scriptural collection would be purposeless. He is not asserting that the Mahāyāna has no distinguishing features apart from the selflessness of phenomena.
They [the two branches of Svātantrika] are similar in asserting that the obstructions—the objects of abandonment—are two: the afflictive obstructions (kleśāvaraṇa, nyon sgrib) and the obstructions to omniscience (jñeyāvaraṇa, shes sgrib). Since it is explained in Bhāvaviveka’s Blaze of Reasoning that when a person definite in the Mahāyāna lineage attains the eighth ground (bhūmi, sa), the afflictive obstructions are consumed, he does not assert, as do the other Svātantrikas, that the two obstructions are abandoned simultaneously by the vajra-like meditative stabilization (vajropamasamadhi, rdo rje lta bu’i ting nge ’dzin) [at the end of the tenth ground]. However, he also does not assert, as do the Prāsaṅgikas, that one does not begin to abandon the obstructions to omniscience until the afflictive obstructions have been consumed.
The four doctrinal forbearances (dharmakṣānti, chos bzod) of the uninterrupted path of the path of seeing are divided from the perspective of comprehending the reality of the four truths, and the four subsequent forbearances (anukṣānti, rjes bzod) are posited from the perspective of realizing [the reality] of the four subjects [that is, consciousnesses], observing the four doctrinal forbearances to be selfless. The foremost Gyel-tsap asserts that this procedure of the higher knowledge [texts, such as Asaṅga’s Compendium of Knowledge (Abhidharmasamuccaya)] regarding the way of making such distinctions with respect to the eight knowledges is similar for all Mādhyamikas—Prāsaṅgikas and Svātantrikas.
All Prāsaṅgikas and Svātantrikas agree that the reasoning consciousness directly realizing non-true existence does not establish the existence of non-true existence, but the Yogācāra-Svātantrika-Mādhyamikas assert that the self-knower experiencing the reasoning consciousness which realizes non-true existence establishes the existence of non-true existence implicitly from its explicit realization of the reasoning consciousness. The Prāsaṅgika-Mādhyamikas assert that the subsequent cognizer (*paricchinnajñāna, bead shes) induced by the non-conceptual reasoning consciousness establishes the existence of non-true existence, and they assert that conceptual subsequent cognizers (*kalpanāparicchinnajñāna, rtog pa bead shes) and direct valid cognizers (pratyakṣapramāṇa, mngon sum tshad ma) are not mutually exclusive. For the Svātantrikas of this [Sautrāntika-Svātantrika] system, positing either of those two is not feasible, nor does the reasoning consciousness implicitly realize the existence of non-true existence because the explicit object of the reasoning consciousness is a non-affirming negative. Thus, how [the existence of the emptiness of true existence] is certainly to be reflected upon. Beginning with these, there are many points to be talked about, but I will leave them for the time being.
Such presentations as those of the Three Bodies (trikāya, sku gsum) of the state of the fruition [Buddhahood] agree for the most part with the other Mādhyamikas. Although there are many different modes of explanation in the texts, they constitute differences only in form; they are not discordant systems.