Mādhyamaka (Sanskrit: मध्यमक, Mādhyamaka, Chinese: 中觀派; pinyin: Zhōngguān Pài; also known as Śunyavada) refers primarily to a Mahāyāna Buddhist school of philosophy^[1] founded by Nagarjuna. According to Madhyamaka all phenomena are empty of "substance" or "essence" (Sanskrit: svabhāva) because they are dependently co-arisen. Likewise it is because they are dependently co-arisen that they have no intrinsic, independent reality of their own.

Origins and development[link]

Nagarjuna

The Madhyamaka school was founded by Nagarjuna, though it may have existed earlier.^[2]

Abhidhamma[link]

The Madhyamaka school is regarded as a reaction against the development of the Abhidhamma, especially the Sarvastivadin. In the abhidhamma, the understanding of anatman is developed by analysing phenomena into single dhammas, "each with an inherent 'own-nature'".^[3] By doing so, the Abhidhamma analysis constituted independent existing 'things', contrary to the Buddha's teachings on the middle way.

Prajnaparamita[link]

The critique against this substantialist thinking is also worded in the Prajnaparamita sutras, which originated from the first century AD on.^[4] According to tradition, Nagarjuna retrieved the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra from the realm of nāgas, though actual reference to Mahayana sutras seems to be scarce in his works.^[5][6] Nevertheless, traditionally Mādhyamaka is regarded as a source of methods for approaching prajnaparamita, or "perfection of wisdom".

The term prajnaparamita is used as the collective title of the rajnaparamita sutras, of which the Diamond Sutra is the best known. The perfection of wisdom is the sixth of the Six Perfections of the bodhisattva path, and the third part of the Threefold Training.

According to Mahayana hagiography the prajnaparamita sutras contain the teachings on śūnyatā that were delivered at Vulture Peak (Raj Gir). Those teachings have been categorized as the Second Turning of the Wheel of Dharma.

Nagarjuna[link]

Nagarjuna's intention was not to establish an ontology or epistemology, but to free the Buddhist soteriology from essential notions which obscured the Buddhist Middle Way:^[7]

In particular, the many forms of reasoning for ascertaining suchness that were set forth are only for the sake of clarifying the path of liberation for the fortunate, not for the sake of becoming intent on debate.^[8]

Nagarjuna sought to return to the Buddha's teachings on non-essentialism:^[9]

Nagarjuna's main contention is that it was not the intention of the Buddha to set out a list of 'ultimate' principles or elements which in some metaphysical sense 'exist', still less to define their 'own-beings', by implication immutable. He opposed therefore the general tendency of abhidharma discussion to hypostatise certain philosophical concepts, to superimpose netaphysical constructions on the real universe which did not correspond to them.^[2]

His Mūlamadhyamakakārikā is best known work. It is a "detailed and careful analysis of most of the important discourses included in the Nikayas and the agamas, especially those of the Atthakavagga of the Sutta-nipata.^[10] In this work,

Utilizing the Buddha's theory of "dependent arising"(pratitya-samutpada), Nagarjuna demonstrated the futility of [...] metaphysical speculations. His method of dealing with such metaphysics is referred to as "middle way" (madhyama pratipad). It is the middle way that avoided the substantialism of the Sarvastivadins as well as the nominalism of the Sautrantikas.^[11]

Nagarjuna insisted that...

[A]ll experienced phenomena are empty (sunya). This did not mean that they are not experienced and, therefore, non-existent; only that they are devoid of a permanent and eternal substance (svabhava). Since they are experienced, they are not mere names (prajnapti).^[11]

Even nirvana is an empty concept:

If nirvana is something causally unconditioned, a reality that does not arise or pass away, then there is no way for us to get there. If it is conditioned, then it too will pass away, like every other conditioned thing.^[12]

"Clarity and peace" are reached when we let go of attachment to conceptual thinking, and the unrest which accompanies this attachment to conceptual thinking.^[12]

Nagarjuna opposed speculative opinions by deducing "from the opponent's position a 'necessary consequence' (prasanga) which shows the absurdity of the position and the self-contradiction inherent in it".^[13]

Aryadeva[link]

Nagarjuna's pupil Aryadeva (3rd century CE) emphasized the Bodhisattva-ideal. His works are regarded as a supplement to Nagarjuna's^[14], on which he commented.^[15] Aryadeva also confuted the theories of non-Buddhist Indian philosophical schools.^[15]

Buddhapalita and Bhavaviveka[link]

Buddhapālita (470–550) was a strong supporter of the prasangika approach.^[16] He opposed Bhavyaviveka (ca.500–ca.578), who argued for the use of syllogisms "to set one's own doctrinal stance".^[17] Bhavyaviveka was influenced by the Yogacara school.

The opposing approaches of Buddhapālita and Bhavyaviveka led to a split of Madhyamaka in two schools, the Prasaṅgika and the Svātantrika.

Candrakirti[link]

Candrakīrti (600–c. 650) wrote the Prasannapadā (Clear Words), a highly influential commentary on the Mulamdhyamakakarika. This commentary is central in the understanding of Madhyamaka in Tibetan Buddhism.

Shantideva[link]

Shantideva (end 7th century – first half 8th century) is well known for his Bodhisattvacaryāvatāra, A Guide to the Bodhisattva's Way of Life. He united "a deep religiousness and joy of exposure together with the unquestioned Madhyamaka orthodoxy".^[18]

Schools[link]

There is currently no evidence that the historical Mādhyamikas divided themselves into distinct schools, but later Tibetan scholars—in particular the 11th-century Tibetan translator Patsap Nyima Drak—did categorize their views. According to the Tibetan view, the subdivisions of Mādhyamaka are:

• Prasaṅgika
• Svātantrika
• The later Yogācāra and Mādhyamaka synthesis, sometimes rendered Yogācāra-Svatantrika-Mādhyamaka

While these different systems of tenets were discussed, it is not certain to what degree individual writers in Indian and Tibetan discussion held each of these views and if they held a view generally or only in particular instances.

Both Prasangikas and Svatantrikas cited material in the āgamas in support of their arguments.^[19]

Prasangika[link]

The central technique avowed by Prasaṅgika Mādhyamaka is to show by prasaṅga (or reductio ad absurdum) that any positive assertion (such as "asti" or "nāsti", "it is", or "it is not") or view regarding phenomena must be regarded as merely conventional (saṃvṛti or lokavyavahāra).

The Prasangika hold that it is not necessary for the proponent and opponent to use the same kind of valid cognition to establish a common subject; indeed it is possible to change the view of an opponent through an reductio argument.

Buddhapalita and Candrakirti are noted as the main proponents of this approach. Tibetan teacher Longchen Rabjam noted in the 14th century that Candrakirti favored the prasaṅga approach when specifically discussing the analysis for ultimacy, but otherwise he made positive assertions. His central text, Madhyamakavatāra, is structured as a description of the paths and results of practice, which is made up of positive assertions. Therefore, even those most attributed to the Prāsaṅgika view make positive assertions when discussing a path of practice but use prasaṅga specifically when analyzing for ultimate truth.^[20]

Svātantrika[link]

The Svātantrika Mādhyamaka differs from the Prāsaṅgika in a few key ways. Conventional phenomena are understood to have a conventional essential existence, but without an ultimately existing essence. In this way they believe they are able to make positive or "autonomous" assertions using syllogistic logic because they are able to share a subject that is established as appearing in common - the proponent and opponent use the same kind of valid cognition to establish it; the name comes from this quality of being able to use autonomous arguments in debate. Svatantrika in Sanskrit refers to autonomy and was translated back into Sanskrit from the equivalent Tibetan term.^[20]

Bhavaviveka is the first person to whom this view is attributed, as they are laid out in his commentaries on Nāgārjuna and his critiques of Buddhapalita.

Ju Mipham explained that using positive assertions in logical debate may serve a useful purpose, either while debating with non-Buddhist schools or to move a student from a coarser to a more subtle view. Similarly, discussing an approximate ultimate helps students who have difficulty using only prasaṅga methods move closer to the understanding of the true ultimate. Ju Mipham felt that the ultimate non-enumerated truth of the Svatantrika was no different from the ultimate truth of the Prāsaṅgika. He felt the only difference between them was with respect to how they discussed conventional truth and their approach to presenting a path.^[20]

Yogācāra-Svatantrika-Mādhyamaka[link]

A Yogācāra and Mādhyamaka synthesis was posited by Shantarakshita in the 8th century and may have been common at Nalanda University at that time. Like the Prāsaṅgika, this view approaches ultimate truth through the prasaṅga method, yet when speaking of conventional reality they may make autonomous statements like the earlier Svātantrika and Yogācāra approaches.

This was different from the earlier Svatantrika in that the conventional truth was described in terms of the theory of consciousness-only instead of the tenets of Svatantrika, though neither was used to analyze for ultimate truth.

For example, they may assert that all phenomena are nothing but the "play of mind" and hence empty of concrete existence—and that mind is in turn empty of defining characteristics. But in doing so, they're careful to point out that any such example would be an approximate ultimate and not the true ultimate. By making such autonomous statements, Yogācāra-Svatantrika-Madhyamaka is often mistaken as a Svātantrika or Yogācāra view, even though a Prāsaṅgika approach was used in analysis.^[21] This view is thus a synthesis of Madhyamaka and Yogācāra.

Concepts[link]

Madhyamaka uses language to make clear the limits of our concepts. This creates a tension, since it does have to use concepts to convey its teachings:

This dynamic philosophical tension—a tension between the Madhyamika accounts of the limits of what can be coherently said and its analytical ostension of what cannot be said without paradox but must be understood—must constantly be borne in mind in reading the text. It is not an incoherent mysticism, but it is a logical tightrope act at the very limits of language and metaphysics.^[22]

Svabhava - essence[link]

In Chapter 15 of the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā Nagarjuna centers on the words svabhava ^[a], parabhava^[b], bhava ^[c] and abhava^[d]:

Nagarjuna's critique of the notion of own-nature^[e] (Mk. ch. 15) argues that anything which arises according to conditions, as all phenomena do, can have no inherent nature, for what is is depends on what conditions it. Moreover, if there is nothing with own-nature, there can be nothing with 'other-nature' (para-bhava), i.e. something which is dependent for its existence and nature on something else which has own-nature. Furthermore, if there is neither own-nature nor other-nature, there cannot be anything with a true, substantial existent nature (bhava). If there is no true existent, then there can be no non-existent (abhava).^[3]

In chapter 15 of the Mulamdhyamakakarika, "Nagarjuna is playing on the word 'thing'".^{[web 1][f]} Nagarjuna uses the ambivalence inherent in the term svabhava:

[T]he word "svabhava" can be interpreted in two different ways. It can be rendered either as identity [...] or as causal independence.^[29]

This ambiguity is easily lost in translation:

When one reads Nagarjuna's argument in Sanskrit, it is not immediately obvious that the argument has taken advantage of an ambiguity in the key term. But when one tries to translate his argument into some other language, such as English or Tibetan, one finds that it is almost impossible to translate his argument in a way that makes sense in translation. This is because the terms in the language of translation do not have precisely the same range of ambiguities as the words in the original Sanskrit. In English, we are forced to disambiguate, and in disambiguating, we end up spoiling the apparent integrity of the argument.^[29]

The doctrine of dependent arising cannot be reconciled with "a conception of self-nature or substance".^[27] Nagarjuna refutes "the commentarial doctrine of the 'own-being' of principles as contrary to the Tripitaka":^[23]

Nagarjuna had no objection to the Abhidhamma formulation of causal relations so long as the relata are not regarded as having a unique nature or substance (svabhava).^[24]

The rejection of inherent existence does not imply that there is no existence at all.^[26] What it does mean is that there is no "unique nature or substance (svabhava)"^[24] in the "things" we perceive. This may not necessarily be in contrast to the Abhidhamma point of view, given the ambivalence in the terms used bu Nagarjuna:

What Nagarjuna is saying is that no being has is a fixed and permanent nature. What the abhidarmikas maintained was that everything has features that distinguish it from other things.^[30][g]

Essentialism and nihilism[link]

What remains is the middle way between eternalism and annihilationism:^[27]

The object of the critique is to show that the eternalist view is untenable and further to show that the 'own-being' theory adopted by some Buddhists did not really differ, when its implications were strictly worked out, from the eternalist theory of Brahmanism (theory of an eternal 'soul' and other eternal 'substances'.^[26]

These two views are considered to be the two extreme views:

1. Essentialism^[32] or eternalism (sastavadava)^[26] - a belief that things inherently exist and are therefore efficacious objects of craving and clinging;^[32]
2. Nihilism^[32] or annihilationism (ucchedavada)^[26] - views that lead one to believe that there is no need to be responsible for one's actions. Nagarjuna argues that we naively and innately perceive things as substantial, and it is this predisposition which is the root delusion that lies at the basis of all suffering.^[32]

Madhyamaka represents the middle way" between them.

Two truths[link]

Madhyamaka discerns two levels of truth, absolute and relative, to make clear that it does make sense to speak of existence. Absolutely seen, there are no "things". Relatively seen, there do exist concrete objects which we are aware of.

According to Hayes, the two truths may also refer to two different goals in life: the highest goal of nirvana, and the lower goal of "commercial good". The highest goal is the liberation from attachment, both material and intellectual.^[33]

Insight into the emptiness of "things' is part of developing wisdom, seeing things as they are. Conceiving of concrete and unchanging objects leads to clinging and suffering. Buddhapalita says:

What is the reality of things just as it is? It is the absence of essence. Unskilled persons whose eye of intelligence is obscured by the darkness of delusion conceive of an essence of things and then generate attachment and hostility with regard to them.

—Buddhapālita-mula-madhyamaka-vrtti P5242,73.5.6-74.1.2^[34]

Understanding in Buddhist tradition[link]

Although not all Mahāyāna schools adhere to the Mādhyamaka view or approach, Mādhyamaka forms the basis for Mahayana, giving rise to the historically later Yogacara.

The Tibetan and Zen traditions have adopted Mādhyamaka with differences in lineage. The present day schools of Tendai, Sanron, and the Mahā-Mādhyamaka are also heirs to the Mādhyamaka tradition (cf. East Asian Mādhyamaka).

Tibetan Buddhism[link]

Gelug[link]

The Gelupga school was founded by Je Tsongkhapa in the 14th century. He emphasized compassion and insight into emptiness.

In his Ocean of Reasoning, Tsongkhapa comments on the Mulamdhyamakakarika.^[35] According to Tsongkhapa, Nagarjuna uses the term svabhava to refer to sunyata as the nature of reality^[36]:

Their nature of emptiness is their reality nature.^[37]

This is in line with the Eight Thousand Stanza Perfection of Wisdom Sutra:

Subhuti, since the five aggregates are without nature, they have a nature of emptiness.^[37]

Tsongkhapa's understanding is derived from Candrakirti's interpretation^[38], who states that conventionally there are entities with distinguishing characteristics, but ultimately those qualities are not independent essences. But since this emptiness is true for everything that exists, this emptiness may also be regarded as an essence, though not in the sense of an independent essence. Candrakirti formulates a final negation by stating that even the denial of svabhava implies ...

...that either oneself or one's audience is not entirely free from the belief in svabhava. Therefore, ultimate truth, truth as it is for those who are free from misknowledge, cannot be expressed by assering either the existence or nonexistende of svahbava.^[39]

Jonangpa[link]

Dolpopa, the founder of the Jonangpa school, called his synthesis the Great Middle Way.^[40] He regarded the tathagatagarbha to be the true emptiness. This view was opposed by Tsonghkhapa. ^[41]

Western Buddhism[link]

Thich Nhat Hanh[link]

Thich Nhat Hanh explains the Madhyamaka concept of emptiness through the related concept of interdependence. In this analogy, there is no first or ultimate cause for anything that occurs. Instead, all things are dependent on innumerable causes and conditions that are themselves dependent on innumerable causes and conditions. The interdependence of all phenomena, including the self, is a helpful way to undermine mistaken views about inherence, or that one's self is inherently existent. It is also a helpful way to discuss Mahayana teachings on motivation, compassion, and ethics. The comparison to interdependence has produced recent discussion comparing Mahayana ethics to environmental ethics.^[42]

Understanding in modern scholarship[link]

Western scholarship has given a broad variety of interpretations of Madhyamaka:

Over the past half-century the doctrine of the Madhyamaka school, and in particular that of Nāgārjuna has been variously described as nihilism, monism, irrationalism, misology, agnosticism, scepticism, criticism, dialectic, mysticism, acosmism, absolutism, relativism, nominalism, and linguistic analysis with therapeutic value.^[43]

Garfield likewise rephrases Ruegg:

"Modern interpreters differ among themselves about the correct way to read it as least as much as canonical intepreters. Nagarjuna has been read as an idealist (Murti 1960), a nihilist (Wood 1994), a skeptic (Garfield 1995), a pragmatist (Kalupahana 1986), and as a mystic (Streng 1967). He has been regarded as a critic of logic (Inada 1970), as a defender of classical logic (Hayes 1994), and as a pioneer of paraconsistent logic (Garfield and Priest 2003)".^[44]

These interpreattions "reflect almost as much about the viewpoints of the scholars involved as do they reflect the content of Nāgārjuna's concepts".^[45]

Most recent western scholarship (Garfield^[46], Napper^[47], Hopkins^[48], Huntington, and others) have, after investigation, tended to adopt one or another of the Gelugpa collegiate interpretations of Madhyamaka.

Kalupahana[link]

Kalupahana's interpretation sees Madhyamaka, along with Yogacara, as an antidote against essentialist biases in Mahayana Buddhist thought.^[49][50]

Hayes[link]

Richard P. Hayes is critical of the works of Nagarjuna:

Nagarjuna’s writings had relatively little effect on the course of subsequent Indian Buddhist philosophy. Despite his apparent attempts to discredit some of the most fundamental concepts of abhidharma, abhidharma continued to flourish for centuries, without any appreciable attempt on the part of abhidharmikas to defend their methods of analysis against Nagarjuna’s criticisms.^[51]

According to Hayes, Nagarjuna makes use of two different possible meanings of the word svabhava, and uses those two meanings to make statements which are not logical.^[52] In doing so, Hayes regards Nagarjuna...

[A] relatively primitive thinker whose mistakes in reasoning were eventually uncovered as the knowledge of logic in India became more sophisticated in subsequent centuries.^[53]

Magee[link]

William Magee strongly disagrees with Hayes. He points out the influence of Nagarjuna in Tibetan Buddhism, and refers to Tsonghkhapa's interpretation of Nagarjuna to argue that

Hayes is misidentifying Nagarjuna's intended meaning of svabhava. In contradistinction to Hayes' belief that Nagarjuna speaks equivocably of an identity anture and a causally independent, non-existent nature, Dzong-ka-ba feels that in chapter XV.1-2 Nagarjuna uses the term svabhava to refer to an existent emptiness nature.^[54]

According to Magee, both Candrakirti and Dzong-ka-ba "see Nagarjuna as consistently referring to emptiness with the word svabhava".^[55]

See also[link]

Notes[link]

References[link]

Web references[link]

Sources[link]

External links[link]

• Thinking in Buddhism: Nagarjuna's Middle Way
• thezensite: articles on Nagarjuna
• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Madhyamaka
• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Nagarjuna

Jan Westerhoff is a philosopher and orientalist with specific interests in metaphysics and the philosophy of language. He was educated at Trinity College, Cambridge and SOAS. At present he is a Reader in Philosophy at the University of Durham as well Research Associate at SOAS. For two years he was Research Fellow in Philosophy at the City University of New York and seminar associate at Columbia University. Before that he was a Junior Lecturer in philosophy at the University of Oxford.

He is a specialist in metaphysics and Indo-Tibetan philosophy. His research interests also include the history of ideas in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

Books[link]

• Reality. A Very Short Introduction. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011)
• Twelve Examples of Illusion. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010)
• The Dispeller of Disputes. Nagarjuna's Vigrahavyavartani. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010)
• Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009)
• Ontological Categories. Their Nature and Significance (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005)
• (co-authored) Moonshadows. Conventional Truth in Buddhist Philosophy, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011)

Journal papers (selection)[link]

• "Nagarjuna's arguments on motion revisited", Journal of Indian Philosophy, 2008, 36:4, 455-480.
• "The Madhyamaka Concept of svabhava: Ontological and Cognitive Aspects", Asian Philosophy, 2007, 17:1, 17-45.
• "Nagarjuna's catuskoti", Journal of Indian Philosophy, 2006, 34, 367-395.
• "Logical Relations between Pictures", Journal of Philosophy, 2005, 102: 12, 603-623.
• "The Construction of Ontological Categories", Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 2004 82:4, 595-620.
• "The Underdetermination of Typings", Erkenntnis, 2003, 58:3, 379-414.
• "Ars Characteristica Kantiana. Ludwig Benedict Trede's Forgotten Necessary Grammar", Kant-Studien, 2003, 94, 3, 333-351.
• "The Definition of 'Ontological Category'", Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 2002, 102, 3, 287-293.
• "A World of Signs. Baroque Pansemioticism, the Polyhistor and the Early Modern Wunderkammer.", Journal for the History of Ideas, 62, 4, 2001, 633-650.
• "Harsdörffer, Leibniz and the Universal Characteristic", Journal for the History of Ideas, 60, 3, 1999, 449-467.

Talks[link]

• Talk on naturalizing Buddhism, 2011
• Talk at the Madhyamaka and Methodology Symposium, 2010

External links[link]

• Westerhoff's homepage

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (January 2010)

Lonnie Liston Smith
Lonnie Liston Smith performing live at the Glastonbury Festival, 27th June 2009.
Background information
Born	(1940-12-28)28 December 1940 Richmond, Virginia, United States
Genres	Jazz Soul Funk
Occupations	Musician
Instruments	Piano Keyboard
Associated acts	Pharoah Sanders Rahsaan Roland Kirk Betty Carter Gato Barbieri Miles Davis Max Roach

Lonnie Liston Smith, Jr. (born December 28, 1940 in Richmond, Virginia) is an American jazz, soul, and funk musician who played with notable free jazz artists such as Pharoah Sanders and Miles Davis before forming Lonnie Liston Smith And The Cosmic Echoes, recording a number of albums widely regarded as classics in the fusion / Quiet Storm / smooth jazz and acid jazz genres.

Early Career (1963 - 1973)[link]

Lonnie was born into a musical family; his father was a member of Richmond Gospel music group The Harmonizing Four, and Lonnie remembers groups such as the Swan Silvertones and the Soul Stirrers (then featuring a young Sam Cooke) as regular visitors to the house when he was a child. He learned piano, tuba and trumpet in High School and College, graduating from Morgan State University, Baltimore with a Bachelor of Science degree in music education. He has since cited Charlie Parker, John Coltrane and Miles Davis as major influences on his youth. While still a teenager at College, Lonnie became well known locally as a backing vocalist as well as pianist, and played in the Baltimore area with a number of his contemporaries, including Gary Bartz (alto), Grachan Moncur (trombone), and Mickey Bass (bass). He also backed a number of jazz singers such as Betty Carter and Ethel Ennis when, soon after graduating, he began playing live with the house band at the Royal Theater, Baltimore.

In 1963 he moved to New York, and played piano in Betty Carter's band for a year. Early in 1965 Lonnie began playing with Rahsaan Roland Kirk (then known as Roland Kirk), first recording with his band on "Here Comes The Whistleman" (Atlantic, 1965), an album recorded live in NYC, March 14, 1965. A further track from that gig, "Dream" appeared later the same year on Roland Kirk and Al Hibbler's live album "A Meeting Of The Times" (Atlantic, 1965).

Late in 1965 Lonnie joined Art Blakey's sextet, the Jazz Messengers, sharing the piano position with Mike Nock and Keith Jarrett. The Jazz Messengers, together with Miles Davis' group, were one of the main proving grounds for young up-and-coming jazz musicians, experimentally edgy and musically stretching, and both were an ever-revolving door of young modern jazz musicians as modes and moods rapidly changed during a fresh period of experimentation. Beginning with a live session at The Five Spot, New York City, November 9, 1965,^[1] Lonnie's time as a Jazz Messenger was fairly short-term, only lasting until a 3-gig engagement at The Village Vanguard 26–28 April 1966;^[2] by May 1966 his position was filled by Chick Corea. Unfortunately no recordings exist of this period.

In May 1967 Lonnie returned to working with Roland Kirk for the album sessions for "Now Please Don't You Cry, Beautiful Edith" (Verve,1967) before continuing his career as pianist for a year with drummer Max Roach (although once again no recordings were made of this lineup).

Following this stint, Lonnie moved to Pharaoh Sanders ensemble early in 1968, a group Sanders had set up on the death of John Coltrane the previous year. Fiercely improvisational, Sanders pushed the band to the creatively boundaries of free jazz, recording three of Sanders finest recordings "Karma" (Impulse, 1969), "Jewels of Thought" (Impulse, 1970) and "Thembi" (Impulse, 1971), together with 1969 recording sessions not released until 1973 as "Izipho Zam" (Strata East, 1973). It is at this point that Lonnie began experimenting with electric keyboards:

On Thembi, that was the first time that I ever touched a Fender Rhodes electric piano. We got to the studio in California — Cecil McBee had to unpack his bass, the drummer had to set up his drums, Pharoah had to unpack all of his horns. Everybody had something to do, but the piano was just sitting there waiting. I saw this instrument sitting in the corner and I asked the engineer, 'What is that?' He said, 'That’s a Fender Rhodes electric piano.' I didn’t have anything to do, so I started messing with it, checking some of the buttons to see what I could do with different sounds. All of a sudden I started writing a song and everybody ran over and said, 'What is that?' And I said, 'I don’t know, I’m just messing around.' Pharoah said, 'Man, we gotta record that. Whatcha gonna call it?' I’d been studying astral projections and it sounded like we were floating through space so I said let’s call it 'Astral Traveling.' That’s how I got introduced to the electric piano.^[3]

During this period Lonnie also backed Sanders vocalist Leon Thomas on his first album "Spirits Known and Unknown" (Flying Dutchman, 1969).

Having already guested on Gato Barbieri's 1969 album "The Third World" (Philips, 1969), Lonnie joined Barbieri's band from 1971-73. Barbieri had by then begun to temper his free jazz excursions of the 1960s with softer Afro-Cuban and South American textures in his music, which would influence Lonnie's playing into new directions in the following years. Lonnie played on a number of albums marking this transition, "Fenix" (Philips, 1971), the critically acclaimed live album "El Pampero" (Flying Dutchman, 1972), "Bolivia" (Flying Dutchman, 1973) and "Under Fire" (Flying Dutchman, 1973). One further recording, "El Gato" (Flying Dutchman, 1975), was released after Lonnie had again moved on; from 1972 Lonnie had also taking up the invitation to join Miles Davis band on electric keyboards. Over the next year, during an intense period of studio recording by Davis, various line-ups laid down a considerable number of sessions, which were later inter-cut and remixed for final release. Miles Davis insisted that Lonnie learned to play the organ for the sessions: "Miles gave me two nights to learn how to make music on the thing. Miles liked to introduce new sounds in a surprising way — that's how he produced such innovative, fresh music.".^[4] Lonnie's contributions appear on "On The Corner" (Columbia, 1973) and the track "Ife" on "Big Fun" (Columbia, 1974).

The Cosmic Echoes (1973 - 1985)[link]

While passing through Miles Davis' ever-changing line-up, Lonnie had finally formed his own group, 'Lonnie Liston Smith and the Cosmic Echoes' in 1973, together with his partner in Pharoah Sanders group Cecil McBee on bass, George Barron (soprano and tenor sax), Joe Beck (guitar), David Lee, Jr. (drums), James Mtume (percussion), Sonny Morgan (percussion), Badal Roy (tabla drums), and Geeta Vashi (tamboura). Blending atmospheric fusion, soul and funk, Lonnie was encouraged by Bob Thiele, the owner of Flying Dutchman Records, who had produced both Pharaoh Sanders' and Gato Barbieri's output while Lonnie had been in their bands, the latter for Thiele's newly formed label. For his debut album, "Astral Traveling" (Flying Dutchman, 1973), Lonnie re-recorded the title song he had composed and played on with the Pharoah Sanders band two years previous. An instrumental album, "Astral Travelling" also contained a re-arrangement of the Gospel standard "Let Us Go Into the House of the Lord," which Lonnie had also previously arranged for Sanders.

The following year Lonnie's brother Donald joined the Cosmic Echoes as vocalist for "Cosmic Funk" (Flying Dutchman, 1974). Although he remained close to his earlier roots with featured versions of Wayne Shorter's "Footprints" and John Coltrane's "Naima" on this album, by now Lonnie was heading into the smooth jazz funk/fusion style that would dominate his output from here on, with dreamy vocals and long, spacy instrumental passages underlaid by strong funky bass-lines and a distinctive use of light percussion, with a message of peace and tranquillity in both the lyrics and song titles. 'I was trying to expand the consciousness of humanity' explained Lonnie in an interview in 2009.^[5] This attitude may not have endeared Lonnie to the hardcore free jazz fans who had appreciated his earlier work, but this new relaxed fusion style proved extremely popular with a cross-over audience not normally associated with jazz, and the following albums, "Expansions" (Flying Dutchman, 1974), "Visions of a New World" (Flying Dutchman, 1975) and "Reflections of a Golden Dream" (RCA, 1976) have since become semi-legendary mainstays of the jazz-funk and chill jazz genres with djs and audiences worldwide, especially in Europe and Japan. "Renaissance" (RCA, 1977) continued this crossover fame, and the following year Lonnie expanded upon his success with a new contract with Columbia Records and two further acclaimed crossover albums in "Loveland" (Columbia, 1978) and "Exotic Mysteries" (Columbia, 1978), the latter containing the single "Space Princess" which became a disco/r+b hit still popular in clubs today in both 7" and remixed 12" versions. "Space Princess" was written by and featured the thundering basslines of 16-year old Marcus Miller, who was discovered by Lonnie and also wrote the track "Night Flower" on "Exotic Mysteries". A further track from the same album, "Quiet Moments" was to become a mainstay of the smooth jazz genre over the next decade.

After the crossover success of the 1970s, and continuing interest in and discovery of his earlier work by fans of the new 'Quiet storm' late night radio/smooth jazz format, Lonnie moved to Bob Thiele's new label, Doctor Jazz, and had a minor hit in 1983 with "Never too late". He also appeared in Marvin Gaye's backing band at the 1980 Montreux Jazz Festival, which has since been released on both cd and DVD (Eagle Vision, 2003). However, public interest slowly waned in his newer material as the decade wore on, and the Cosmic Echoes eventually dissipated during the mid-80's after releasing a further three albums mining the same smooth jazz field "Dreams of Tomorrow" (Doctor Jazz, 1983), "Silhouettes" (Doctor Jazz, 1984) and "Rejuvenation" (Doctor Jazz, 1985).

Later Career (1986 - )[link]

In October 1986 Lonnie moved closer to his musical roots with "Make Someone Happy" (Doctor Jazz, 1986), an acoustic session that included new recordings of several jazz standards by the trio of Lonnie, Cecil McBee and Al Foster, produced by Bob Thiele. However, despite critical acclaim for this work, Lonnie found himself without a recording contract until the turn of the decade, when the small Startrak label released "Love Goddess" (Startrak, 1990) and "Magic Lady" (Startrak, 1991). "I had a lot of idealistic concepts about music, and about the spiritual message I was trying to get across. But most record companies only care about demographics and bottom line sales.".^[4] Both of the Startrak albums marked an about turn to the smooth jazz mode of the Cosmic Echoes period, "Love Goddess" featuring vocalist Phyllis Hyman and saxophonist Stanley Turrentine.

Around this time, the emerging hip-hop movement took an interest in Lonnie's earlier work, and he found himself working with rapper Guru, who was mixing hip-hop with jazz in an innovative way. "Guru and the other rappers would tell me how their uncles used to make them listen to me and Miles and Donald Byrd and how they got the message" Smith told Australia's Daily Telegraph Mirror newspaper in 1995.^[6] Smith appeared on Guru's groundbreaking "Jazzmatazz, Vol 1" album (Chrysalis, 1993), once again finding a new audience for his earlier work as a result. He had also toured Europe in 1991, but after this short period of activity Lonnie produced little further work in the 1990s. Despite extensive radio play, appearing on a bewildering number of compilation cds and being namechecked and sampled by an increasing number of younger musicians discovering his Cosmic Echoes output, Lonnie spent the next few years mainly involved in setting up his own label, Loveland, and it wasn't until 1998 that Sony International took advantage of his new found audience by reissuing "Exotic Mysteries" and "Loveland" as a double cd. The same year, Lonnie recorded 'Transformation' (Loveland, 1998), once again revisiting the genre he had been most successful in and reuniting with his brother Donald's vocals. For this release he re-recorded "A Chance For Peace (Give Peace a Chance)" (both as vocal and instrumental versions) and "Expansions" as well as "Space Princess".

Since then Lonnie has not recorded, although he has performed live and toured on a number of occasions, especially in Europe and Japan, were he remains popular with new generations of listeners. He has also spent much of his time teaching at various workshops. In 2002, Sony issued a 2-cd retrospective of his Columbia output "Explorations: The Columbia Years", and his compositions remain a feature of jazz fusion orientated radio and cd compilations. The Cosmic Echoes track, "Expansions" has been featured in two videogames: Grand Theft Auto: Vice City and Driver: Parallel Lines, while "A Chance for Peace" featured in Grand Theft Auto 4. He most recently appearing on the Jazz World Stage at the Glastonbury Festival in June 2009.

Discography[link]

This discography excludes re-releases under different titles and compilations by other artists/companies featuring previously released work

• 1965 Roland Kirk - Here Comes the Whistleman' (Atlantic)
• 1965 Roland Kirk and Al Hibbler - A Meeting of the Times (Atlantic)
• 1967 Roland Kirk - Now Please Don't You Cry, Beautiful Edith (Verve)
• 1969 Gato Barbieri - The Third World (Philips)
• 1969 Pharoah Sanders - Karma (Impulse)
• 1969 Leon Thomas - Spirits Known And Unknown (Flying Dutchman)
• 1970 Pharaoh Sanders - Jewels Of Thought (Impulse)
• 1970 Pharaoh Sanders - Summun Bukmun Umyun (Impulse)
• 1971 Pharoah Sanders - Thembi(Impulse)
• 1971 Huey Simmons - Burning Spirits (Contemporary)
• 1971 Stanley Turrentine - Sugar (CTI)
• 1971 Gato Barbieri - Fenix (Philips)
• 1972 Gato Barbieri - El Pampero (Flying Dutchman)
• 1973 Pharoah Sanders - Izipho Zam (Strata East)
• 1973 Gato Barbieri - Bolivia (Flying Dutchman)
• 1973 Gato Barbieri - Under Fire (Flying Dutchman)
• 1973 Miles Davis - On the Corner (Columbia)
• 1974 Miles Davis - Big Fun (Columbia)
• 1975 Gato Barbieri - El Gato (Flying Dutchman)
• 1975 Oliver Nelson - Skull Session (Flying Dutchman)
• 1977 Mysterious Flying Orchestra - Mysterious Flying Orchestra (RCA)

Lonnie Liston Smith and the Cosmic Echoes

• 1973 Astral Traveling (Flying Dutchman)
• 1974 Cosmic Funk (Flying Dutchman)
• 1974 Expansions (Flying Dutchman)
• 1975 Visions of a New World (Flying Dutchman)
• 1976 Reflections of a Golden Dream (RCA)
• 1977 Live! (RCA)
• 1977 Renaissance (RCA)
• 1978 Loveland (Columbia)
• 1978 Exotic Mysteries (Columbia)
• 1979 A Song for the Children (Columbia)
• 1980 Love Is the Answer (Columbia)
• 1983 Dreams of Tomorrow (Doctor Jazz)
• 1984 Silhouettes (Doctor Jazz)
• 1985 Rejuvenation (Doctor Jazz)

Later work

• 1986 Make Someone Happy (Doctor Jazz)
• 1990 Love Goddess (Startrak)
• 1991 Magic Lady (Startrak)
• 1998 Transformation (Import)

• 2002 Karl Denson's Tiny Universe - The Bridge
• 2003 Marvin Gaye - Live in Montreux 1980 (DVD/CD) (Eagle Vision)

Lonnie Liston Smith tracks sampled by other artists[link]

An incomplete list

"Expansions" ::Stetsasonic - "Talkin' All That Jazz"

"Devika (Goddess)" ::Digable Planets - "Pacifics"

"Bridge Through Time" ::Conscious Daughters - "We Roll Deep"

"A Garden of Peace" ::Jay-Z - "Dead Presidents II"

"A Garden of Peace" ::Mary J. Blige - "Take Me as I Am"

"Bridge Through Time" ::Jay-Z - "Understand Me"

"A Garden of Peace" ::Stacie Orrico - "Is It Me"

"A Garden of Peace" ::Total - "Rain"

"A Garden of Peace" ::O.C. - "You and Yours"

"A Garden of Peace" ::ABN-"I Miss My Dawg (I Gotta Survive)"

"A Garden of Peace" ::Nikki Jean - "Exit Sign"

"A Garden of Peace" ::Grifta (Dubstep act) - "Curbside on YouTube"

"A Garden of Peace" ::Duo Infernale - "Feeling Blue"

"Mystical Dreamer (A Tribute To Miles Davis)" ::Three 6 Mafia - "Smoke If U Got It"

"Quiet Moments" ::Scienz Of Life - "Yikes!"

"A Chance for Peace" ::Shape of Broad Minds - "Let's Go"

"A Chance for Peace" ::La Fouine - "Tombé pour elle"

"Quiet Moments" ::Malcolm Mclaren - "World Famous" (Ft. World's Famous Supreme Team)

"A Garden of Peace" ::Young Jeezy - "Leave You Alone" (Ft. Ne-Yo)

References[link]

External links[link]

Note: some of these links confuse Lonnie Smith's work with Lonnie Liston Smith's, and should be used with caution

• Official Website
• Lonnie Liston Smith Myspace page
• Lonnie Liston Smith Bio at Allmusic
• Lonnie Liston Smith discography at Discogs.com
• Short Biography
• Lonnie Liston Smith interview at Allaboutjazz.com

Jeffrey Hopkins (born 1940) is a distinguished^[1] American Tibetologist. He is Emeritus of Tibetan and Buddhist Studies at the University of Virginia, where he taught for more than three decades since 1973.^[2] He has authored more than twenty-five books about Tibetan Buddhism, among them the highly influential Meditation on Emptiness,^[3] which appeared in 1983, offering a pioneering exposition of Prasangika-Madyamika thought in the Geluk tradition. From 1979 to 1989 he was the Dalai Lama's chief interpreter into English^[4] and he played a significant role in the development of the Free Tibet Movement.^[5] In 2006 he published his English translation of a major work by the Jonangpa lama, Dolpopa, on the Buddha Nature and Emptiness called Mountain Doctrine.^[6]

Notes and references[link]

Works[link]

• Lati Rinpochay & Hopkins, Jeffrey (1985) Death, Intermediate State and Rebirth, Ithaca: Snow Lion

External links[link]

• Audio Interview Series on BuddhistGeeks.com