Tibetan doxographers divided the "Madhyamaka" philosophy of "Nāgārjuna" into "Svātantrika" ("svatantra": autonomous) and "Prāsaṅgika" ("prasaṅga": consequence). This manner of division has been retroactively applied in Tibetan monasteries, and commonly found in modern secondary literature on Madhyamaka. However, according to Dreyfus and McClintock, such a classification is problematic and was not used in India, where instead the ""Svatantrika and Prasangika"" schools were camped together then contrasted with ""Santaraksita and Kamalasila""("Yogacara") schools of Madhyamaka Buddhism. The former accepted "external objects exist", while the latter camp accepted "external objects do not exist". The Svatantrika versus Prasangika sub-schools may have been an 11th–12th century innovation of the Tibetan translator ""Patsab Nyima Drakpa"" while he was translating a Sanskrit text by Candrakirti into Tibetan.