NagarjunianaFirst Pub/ish~d: 1982 Fi,.,f , Indian Edition : Delhi. 1987
Reprinted: Dl'llzi, 1990
ISBN : 81 -208- 0281S-8
Also available at:
MOT l LA L BANARSIOASS 41 U.A .• Bungalow Ro.ad, Jawahar Nagar, Delhi 110007
120 Royapcttah H igh Road. Mylapore, Madras 600 004 24 Race Course Road, Bangalore 560001
Ashok Rajpath, Patna 800 004 Chowk, Var;masi 221 001
PRINTED m I NDIA
BY JAINENDRA PRAK ASH JAIN AT SHRI JAINENDRA PR~. A-45 NAR AINA
IND USTRIAL AREA, PHASE I, NEW DELHI 110 028 AND PUBLISHED BY NA.RI!NDKA
PRAKASH JAI:-> ~OR MOTLLAL BANARSIDASS PUBLISHERS PVT. LTD.,
II UNUAL(I\\' RIJAIJ, JAWAHAR NAG AR, DELHI 110007.
' I
Foreword
The flood of modern books and articles on Buddhism has its pearls and its 'fool's gold '. Lindtner's Nagarjuniana must be classifi ed as a pearl. It is a tireless and resourceful attempt to l{:rret out what Nagarjuna is talking about, by way of his own works in Sanskrit and in the Tibetan renditions. Lindtner dis­ covers that Nagarjuna is faithful to Buddhist tradition as he knows it, but as a rcform~r. The author has frank, even biting, crit icisms of some previous attempts to translate Nagarjuna's works. This might invite criticism in return. Whatever be in store in this matter, this series on Buddhist Traditions is proud to include Lindtner's boc.k'
New Delhi ALEX WAYMAN
Preface
These studies in the writings and philosophy of the Buddhist pa­ triarch Nagarjuna could not have achieved their present fi>rm had I not been able to benefit from the co-operation and support of a number of friends, students, colleagues and library staffs hen: and abroad.
To all of them, too numerous to mention individually, it is a pleasure to acknowledge my sincere gratitude and tender my best thanks.
In particular I would like to mention tht: narnes of four svayiithyas: Per K. S0rensen, Ole Holten Pind, Harish Gaonkar and T orvald Olsson with whom I have enjoyed indulging in th<' sturl y of .Ytadhya­ maka texts and in discussions conceding problems of Indian philol­ ogy and philosophy. Prolrssorsj. W. dc.Jong, Y. Y. Gokhale and \1. Hahn, Dr. M. Hara and Mr. A. Saito ail provided Tnt' either with indispensable suggestions, papers or copi<·s of manuscripts.
<:.!..
/
INTRODUCTION
Contents
I) Spurious and dubious 9 '2) A preliminary s ummary 18
THE AUTHENTIC WRITI NGS I Mulamadhyamakakarilca ( M K)
a) Contents, scope and method 24 II Sunyatasaptati (SS)
a) Authenticity and synopsis 31 b) Tibetan text and a translation 34
III Vigrahavyavartani (VV) a) Authentirity and analysis 70 b) Sanskrit text with the Tibetan version 76
IV VaidalyaprakaraT)a (VP) a) Authenticity and analysis 87
V *Vyavaharasiddhi (VS) a) Authenticity 94 b) A fragment edited with a transla tion 96
V I Yuktiftll/ika (Y$) a) Authenticity /00 b) Tibetan version, Sanskrit fragments, translation 102
VII Catul;.stava (CS) a) Authenticity 121 b) Conspectus testium /24 c) Lokatitastava: Sanskrit text, Tibetan version,
translation 128 d) Acinryastava: Sanskrit text, Tibetan version,
translation 140
l !; 'I
Ratni11;ali (RA) a) Authenticity, cri tical analysis 163 b) The saptapancasaddofa~, Tibetan and Sanskrit 167
Praiityasamutpadahrdayakarika ( PK) a) Authenticity and analysis 170
Sutrasamuccaya (SS) a) Authenticity amt synopsis 172 b) FonUs 175 Bodhicittauiuara1JO. (BV) a) Au~henticity and synopsis 180 b) T ibetan version, Sanskrit fragments, translation 184 Suhrllekha (SL) a ) Authenticity and sources 218
* Bodhisa'!lhhara [ka] ( BS) a) Authenticity and contents 225 b) Translation of the C hinese version 228
T H E UNITY OF NAGARJU M'S T H OUGHT
I Background a) Non- Buddhist 250 b) Buddhist : The Tripi{aka 251 c) Buddhist: ~ahiiyana 260
II Nagarjuna 's philosophical S)'Stem 264 I II Vestiges of influence 278
Bibliography 282
Dansk resume 287 Appendix: The N epalese' Ms of Catubstava with Akiiri{iki! 290
Introduction
1) Spurious and dubious Even though a steadily increasing amount of papers and books about Nagaljuna and the Madhyamaka school testify to a wide­ spread interest in this branch of Mahayana Buddhism, 1 Indolo­ gists have still not laid the solid fou ndation required for real pro­ gress in these studies in particular. Only a small - though important - fraction of his works are available in modem editions and reliable translations, 2 while more than one hundred of the most varied texts transmitted under Nagarjuna's name still lie in Chinese and Ti­ betan versions, and even in Sanskrit manuscripts, without having been analysed let alone critically edited. 3
It is only when a genuine and intelligible kernel of text has been extracted from this rudis indigestaque molis that the two main tasks awaiting the scholar in this field may be taken up: The first will be the endeavour to understand the ideas and the personality of Nagaljuna from his own works against his own background (mainly Buddhist), the next, to trace the immense impact- for I am certain that it will prove to have been so - that his efforts exercised on the subsequent development not only inside but also outside the Buddhist fold. 4
In a previous work5 l have attempted to assign all the texts and
I. Suffice it to mention Murti (1966); Robinson (1967); Streng (1967). ­ General bibliographical surveys may be found in Fotter ( 1970), pp. 480-484; Regamey ( 1950), pp. 55-58; Streng ( 1967), pp. 237-245; Nakamura ( 1977), pp. 77-94. - Good selective bibliographies in May ( 1959), pp. 23-45; Lamotte ( 1970), pp. lxi-lxviii; ( 1976), p. xvii-xix; ( 1980) pp. xii-xv.- The most recent survey ofMadhyamaka is by ~ay in Hooogirin, pp. 470-493 (s.v. Chilgan).
2. Viz. MK, VV, PK, and, in part RA, see below. 3. The Chinese translations are conveniently registered in the Fascicule aruuxe to
HobOgirin, Tokyo 1978; the Tibetan e.g. in the index volume to the Tibttan Tripi[aka, Peking edition, Tokyo 1962.
4. Here I have only pointed out a few instances where Nagarjuna's influence is obvic:-us, see pp. 278-281.
5. Nagarjuna - £gte og U.egte. En ana!Jise og sammmfatning af Nagarjunas autentiskt
9
II ./ ~ fragments {to the extent I have come across such in the commentato­
rial literature) attributed to Nagarjuna to three classes, viz. works I) correctly attributed, 2) wrongly attributed to him, and 3) those which may or may not be genuine.
The following internal and external criteria of authenticity were applied: I took my point d'appui in a close study - with careful regard to the commentaries6 - of the doctrine and style of Mulamadhyama­ kakarika (MK)1 which I axiomatically, bui in accordance with a unanimous and, for all we know, reliable Indian, Chinese and Tibetan tradition11 regard as his magnum opus. Those among the remaining works which agree with MK in regard to a) style, b) scope, c) doctrine, and - turning to the external criteria - in addi­ tion explicitly are ascribed to Nagarjuna by the testimony of 'trust­ worthy witnesses', viz. Bhavya (Bhavaviveka), Candrakirti, Santa­ rak$ita and Kamala.Sila, I recognize as genuine.9 Works that are
v~Lrker ogfragmenter udskilt bland/ samtlige pa sanskrit, tibetansk o.e, kinesisk under hans navn ovtrleverede skrijler. Kabenhavn 1978. (Unpublished). It is now super· seded by the !>resent work.
6. Namely Akutobhaya (TP, No. 5229); Buddhapalitaurui (TP, Nu. 524:l), l'rajna­ pradipa {TP, No. 5253) by Bhavya, l'rajnapradipa{ikn (Tl', No. 5259) by Avalokitavrata and Prnsannapnda (crl. J.a Valli-•· Poussin) hy Candrakirti. I have only resorted to the commentarit·s •·xtant in Chint·s•· (Taisho, Nos. 1564, 1567) occasionally, as they srldom ar<· of much us•· from a phil.,logical point of view.
7. Sanskrit text in Mulamadhynmaknkiirilciis ( Madhyamiknsutras) de Nagarjuna avec Ia Prasannapnda Commentaire de Candrakirti. Public par Louis de La Vallee Poussin. St.-Petersbourg 1903-13.- There is a separate edition of Nagarjuna, Miilamadhyamakalcarikal} by J. W. de.Jong, Adyar 1977. As modern versions of MK (by In ada and Streng) arc most unreliable one still has to consult MK as translated together with the Prasannapada by Stcherbatsky, Schayer, Lamot­ te, de Jong and May, see de Jong, II}, XX, p. 25. A recent attempt by M. Sprung, Lucid Exposition 'of tht Middle Way: The Essential Chaptm from tht Prasannapada of Candrakirti. London 1979, again suffers from the author's insufficient philological outfit.
8. I.e. colophons as well as the testimony of commentators (Indian) and »historians« (Chinese and Tibetan).
9. Buddhapiilita is absent from this list as he only refers to MK (cf. my remarks in II}, XXIII, p. 1~). I have consulted all the extant works ofCandrakirti (fora briefaccountofwhich seeAO, XL, pp. 87-92) and Bhavya {see WZKS, XXVI (1982)). Among the many works of Siintarak~ita and his pupil Kamalasila the former' s MadhyamakalaT[Ikaravrtti and Tattvasiddhi and the latter's MadhyamakiilaT{Ikarapaiajika, Madhyamakaloka as well as Bhavaniilcrama (I & III) have proved most profitable. True, we cannot prove that these
10
provable as unauthentic (e.g. if they quote from a source later than Niigiirjuna, always allowing for cases of interpolation} belong to the second class, while texts from which I have in vain tried to extract decisive criteria, external or internal, come within the third.
Summing up, I found that apart from MK twelve other texts must thus be considered genuine. T hey will be analysed, edited or translated on the following pages in this order subsequent to a review of MK: Sunyatasaptati (SS), Vigraha~avartani (VV), Vaidalya­ prakaraT)a (VP), * Vyavaharasiddhi (VS), Yulct~a~Jika (Y$), Catul].stava (CS), Ratnavali (RA) , Prahtyasamutpadahrdayakarika (PK}, Sutrasa­ muccaya (SS}, Bodhicittavivarar;ta (BY), Suhrllekha (SL} and *BodhisaT[1- bhara[ka] (BS).
Decidedly spurious are *Mahaprajnaparamitopadtia, 10 AbudluJbodha­ kaprakarar;ta, 11 Guhyasamajatantrafika, 12 *Dvadaiadvaraka, 13 Prajnapara-
authorities possessed any objective means of deciding what Nagarjuna wrote and what he did not write. However, we do know that all of them were very learned and meticulous in dealing with their texts, and that even a slight misquotation etc. on their part would be certain to expose them to the censure of lurking svayuthyas. On the other hand I never accept the testimony of other (usually later) authors unless its credibility can be established independently.
10. Cf. May, Chiigan, p. 482. II. TP, No. 5238. This is a small but very readable prakaral}a demonstrating
pudgaladharmanairiitmya. It does however, betray itself by quoting (without naming any source) Catu!Jataka, XIII, 2; BV, 18; MK, V, 6; PK, >>7<<; Bhavasaf!!krimti »8«. An Abodhabodhaka ascribed to Advayavajra (TP, No. 3145) is nothing but another recension of the very same text!
12. As pointed out by G. Tucci, Opera Minora, I, p. 214aquotation from Maitreya occurs in this !fka. - I find it quite likely that the author of this work is idemical with the authorofPancakrama (ed. La Vallee Poussin, Gand 1896), a work which is already cited in Madhyamakaratnapratfipa, ca. 570, see WZKS, XXVI ( 1982).- As a mere working hypothesis I would at present suggest that this 'Nagarjuna II ', i.e. the tirntrika or siddha flourished ca. 400 A.D. He may also have been responsible for numerous siidhanas and other more or less tantric works transmitted under the name of Nagarjuna (see. e.g. B. Bhattacharya, Siidhanamirlii, I-11, Baroda 1968). As a discussion of this complex quesiSOn has no direct bearing on the 'real' Nagarjuna it must be postponed for future research.
13. Usually referred to as DviidaianiJ.:ii]aiiistra, Dvadaiamukhaiiistra or Dvadaiad­ viiraiiistra i.e. Taisho, No. 1568, but there is seldom any reason to attach much weight to the Chinese lun in titles etc. - Some observations on this text by May, Chiigan, pp. 488-489; Robinson (1967) , p. 32. Cf. also sTon pa nid kyi sgo bcu grus pa, No. 595 in the !Dan dkar ma Catalogue.- While there can be
I I
mitastotra 14 and Suabhauatrayapraueiasiddhi. 1 s The third group, i.e. the dubious texts, may be divided into those
that are perhaps authentic: Mahayanaui,.,Uilca, 16 Bodhicittotpadauidhi, 11
no doubt that (nearly) all the verses were originally composed by Nagarjuna (MK, SS) there are in my opinion several good reasons for maintaining that the author of the commentary (:nost probably identical with the compiler of the verses) is not Nagarjuna but rather *Pingala. Here I must postpone further remarks to a later occasion.
14. See II), XXIII, p. 182, n. 94. 15. Edited and translated by La Vallee Poussin, MCB, II , pp. 14 7-161.- First of
all the doctrine of svabhavatraya (already attested in the Lalikiivatiira) is refuted by Nagarjuna in his BY, 28, q. v. Moreover, the existence of paratantrasvabhava endorsed by Svabhiivatrayapraveiasiddhi (also called Tri.rvabhiivanirdeia) is repeatedly refuted by Bhavya, Candrakirti etc. who never quote this work, sometimes, and perhaps correctly, ascribed to Vasubandhu.
16. The Sanskrit text was edited and translated by G. Tucci, Minor Buddhist Texts, Part I, pp. 195-207. Further ref. Nakamura ( 1977), p. 83, n. 38. - I have come across quotations from this work ascribed to Nagarjuna in Caryiimeliiyanapra­ tfipa (TP, No. 2668, 95a) and Tattvasiirasal]lgraha (TP, No. 4534, 92a, IOOa). q.v. Atisa also ascribes this work to Nagarjuna, Bodhimar,l!,adipapanjik.a (TP, No. 5344, 324b}, but Bhavya etc. never quote it. Still it shows great similarity to Y~. RA, BV etc. as far as style and doctrine is concerned. so it may be authentic.- Here are some emendations to Tucci's edition made in the light of the Tibetan and Chinese translations, q. v.: 3a, read piiriiviiram ivotpannii~, cf. CS, III , II. Note that Tib. wrongly has tshul b?.in for t.<hu bbn. - 6a, Tucci has [aggatir yai ca sal]lSiira~ svar.f!aS which is impossible. Read with Tib. and Chin. [atft:atayai ca sa'!lsiire svar,11,e. - 6d, Tucci hasjariil!)'iidhir apiyatiim with the note that Ms. has 0 rapibhyatiim, or rapityatiim. However, this is, as Tib. and Chin. show, not to be counted as 6d but as 7b.Due to haplography (originally 6c and 7a must have ended with du~k.ham! v. Tib. and Chin.), the scribe left out two piidas. In 7b we find ... mi rtag nid, so Tucci's Ms. apparently has anityatam. - » II a«, read bhiivato. - >> 12b«, Tucci reads karu'!adhiramiinasii~, but Tib. hassiriti ~.it'i dbangyur ... which is a common idea (cf. CS, I, I; II , I etc.). So read k.aru!fiidhinaman.asii& (Tucci probably misread Ms.).- >>14« read, of course, tattviirtha0 with Tio. and Chin. ->> 15a«, Tucci reads lena , >>t!.erefore«, but with Tib. de dag read te na, cf. Y$, 5. - » 17a«, read mayiivi, and in >> 18b<< perhaps miiyiik.iirasamutthitam, cf. Caryiimeliiyanapradipa, loc. cit.: sgyu ma'i rnam par yan dag 'byuiJ.
17. A brief but interesting ritual text (TP, Nos. 5361,5405, nearly identical}. -It prescribes a sevenfold rite for a bodhisattva ( cf. UpiilipariP'fcchii, p. 98, n. 7; BS, 48 with ref.}: vandanii,piipadeianii,purvlmumodanii, iara'}llgamana, atmatyiiga, bodhicittotpiida andpari!liimanii. The final paragraph is noteworthy as it alludes to the same iigama as the prose introduction to BV. Moreover it ends with three prarJidhiinas the first of which is identical with RA, V, 83. The second recalls RA, V, 80.- A ·Danish translation of this will be found in C. Lindtner
12
Ouiidaia~aranayastotra, 18 ( Madhyamalca-) Bhavasa1[!lcrimti, 19 *Niralamba­ .rtaua, 20 Salistambak.Orika, 21 Stu~alitastava, 22 Danaparikatha, 23 Cittavaj-
el a/., Buddhismen. Kebenhavn 1982, pp. 102-105. 18. Only extant in Tibetan (TP, No. 2026) in 14stanzas. Clearly a Madhyamaka
text (speaks of pupyajiillnasatpbhiira, upiiyakauialya etc.) relating the Buddha's duiidaiakiira, cf. BV, 91-92; CS, II , 23. Perhaps the same author as the Af!amahiisthiinacairyastotra, v. H. Nakamura in lndianisme tl bouddhisme, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1980, pp. 259-265.
19. The edition by N. A. Sastri (see ref. Nakamura (1977), p. 84) is useful but far from definitive. The transmission of this text is more complex than that of any other work ascribed to Nagarjuna. Apart from the versions published by Sastri one must consult the Bhauasatpcara ascribed to Nagarjuna, and the Nirvikalpaprakara1Ja ascribed to Aryadeva both of which contain many similar or identical verses. - V~rse »6« is attributed to Nagatjuna in Bhavya's Madhyamakaratnapradipa, 352a. Incidentally the same verse is discussed by Williams,j/P, VIII, p. 27. - In Sanskrit I have come across a quotation (no source given) in Adikarmapradipa (ed. La Vallee Poussin), p. 196: diinaJi/akfa­ miiu'iryadhyiiniidin seuayet sadii I acirt!laiua kiilena priipyale bodhir uttamii II; cf. RA, II, 25; IV, 80, 98-99.
20. Known from a quotation in Dharmendra's Tattuasiirasal'{lgraha, TP, No. 4534, 102b: bsam byed bsamgtan bsam byadag II spanspa bdenpamthon bayin II 'dikun rtog p2 tsam nid do II gan gis rtogs pa de grot 'gyur II. AtiSa ascribes this verse to Nigarjuna in Bodhimiirgadipapanjika, TP, No. 5344, 329b: kun tu rtogs pas ma btags iin llyid ni rab tu mi gnas Ia II dran trUd yid la byed pa med II dmigs mtd de la phyag 'tshallo II. The three verses found in Pancakrama ( ed. LaVallee Poussin), p. 36 ending in niralamba namo 'stu It may be from the same source (note that the previous verses are extracted from CS, II , 18-19!).
21 . Only in Tibetan (TP, No. 5466 and No. 5485). 70 verses, originally probably an~Jl(ubli. 47d missing in TP. This is simply a very faithful versification of the Salistambasutra, one of Nagarjuna's basic iigamas, cf. suau[lli to VV, 54; May ( 1959), p. 267, n. 967. Accordi.ng toRatnapradipa, 342a, Nagarjuna composed a sa lu ljan pa'i mdo'i 'grel pa ( *Salistambasiitraurtti); possibly this refers to these kirikas. Anyhow it hardly refers to the SO.listambaka[ika also attributed to Nigitjuna- as this must be a rather late work inasmuch as it deals with the four anubandhas, not attested in early Madhyamaka.
22. Only Tibetan (TP, No. 2020). Sanskrit reconstruction by Patel, IH~ VIII , pp. 689-705. The most philosophical of all the hymns attributed to Nagitjuna apan from CS, I and III. I have not seen any quotations from this hymn which is quite possibly authentic.
23. Only in Tibetan (T P, No. 5661 ). A collection of 13 verses (various metres) forming a sermon on one of the distinctive paramitas of an upasaka often praised by Nagirjuna (BS, SL, RA, SS,passim). Belongs to the same genre as several other products of the early Madhyamaka school, e.g. Matrceta's CaJurviparyayakathii. No quotations known to me. Cf. also Traite, pp. 650..769.
13
• Lokaparilqa, 21 Yoga.faklka,Z8 PrajntuiarJ¢a,Z9 Rasavaii_e[ikasiitra 30 and
- The Svapnacintama!'iparikathil, in 32 verses, also belongs to this group of dubious texts.
24. The T ibetan version edi ted with a French translation by La Vallee Poussin, u Muston, N.S.XIV, pp. 14-1 6. I found verse 3 in Adikarmaprat!ipa, p. 200: cittena /abhyate bodhii cittena gatipaiuakam I na hi cittad rte kif!! ci/ /aqa!'a'!' sulchadui)Jchayo~ II (Tib. rim thob must be corrupt.)
25. O nly Tibetan (TP, No. 5629). 50 karikas based on the Vinayauibhanga on the Bhilcfupratimoktasittras of the Miilasarvastivadins.- Recalling how innuential the Vinaya of this school must have been in the early centuries A.D. (cf. Traiu, III, p. xviii) in the Madhyamaka milieu it is not unlikely that Nagaljuna should have compiled a summa of monastic rules. It would tally excellently with RA, V, I, 34, q .v., and also be consistent with the samuccaya­ genre, a favourite ofNagaJjuna's. There is a possible allusion to this work in Ratnaprat!ipa, 350 a, which speaks oftheiilcfaS ... slob dpon klu sgrubkyi l.al sna nas ji /tar bkod pa rnams ...
26. Only Chinese (Taisho, No. 1521 ), cf. Vimalakirtinirtkia, p. 76; Raman an ( 1966), p. 34(), n. 61) Nalcamura (1977), p. 82; Traiti, III, p. xliv (with ref.) - Though, like •Mahilprajnaparamitopadtia etc., this commentary is apparently unknown to Indo-Tibetan tradition there are in my opinion several reasons to render it likely that it is authentic: The very early Chinese evidence; quotat ions from • Bodhisambhara; the Amitabha doctrine set forth here tallies with SL. 121 (cf. RA, 111: 99); Daiabhumikasutra is k"nown to havr hun usNl hy Nagarjuna elsewhere (PK; RA, V, 41-60; SS, 249 b). - All this crrtainly deserves a discussion more thorough than I am prepared to undertake at present. - Cf. J . Eracle, Le Chapitre de Na.11,arjuna sur Ia Pratique Facile, suivi du Sutra
qui lout Ia Terre tk Pureti, Bruxelles 1981 (not seen). 27. Only known to me from a quotatiou in Prajnaprat!ipa, 114b: 'di niyodnid 'gogpaslt II
med nid yoits su 'd1.in pa min II na.l', po min i.es smras pa na II dkar po yin i.tS ma brjod bbn II. According to Avalokitavrata (loc. cit. , Za fol. 96a) its source. is Nagarjuna' s j"ig rten brtag pa i.es bya ba'i gtan (read: bstan ) bcos, •Lolcaparilcfa. I.e. astitvaprati[edha does not necessarily imply nastitvaparigraha. Thus on.- can deny that something is krf'}a without necessarily affirming that it is i ulcla. In other words (see Avalokitavrata, loc. cit.) a Madhyamika is allowed to express paramarthatai} a prasajyaprati[edha of astitva, without, however, advocating niistitva by way of a paryudasa. -Other verses attribu ted to Nagarj una occur e.g. Ekasmrtyupadeia (TP, No. 5389, 26a); Madh.JamakiilaT(Ikaravrtti (TP, No. 5285, 72b = TP, No. 5274, 383a); Caryamelayanaprat!ipa (TP, No. 2668, 95a) ­ to mention only a few of the most interesting verses which I havt failed to identify in the extant works.
28. A summary of therapeutic formulas (yoga) composed in various metres and closely following the classical doctrine of medicine (a.stanga). Recently two useful editions (including the Tibetan version) have appeared: B. Dash ( 1976), Tibetan MediciiU with special riftrnue to Yoga Sataka, Dharamsala; andJ.
14
BhiivanOJcrama; 31 and those most probably Mt genuine: Akfaraiataka, 32
Akutobhaya ( Miilamadhyamakavrtti), 33 Aryabha!!araka-Maiijurriparamar-
Filliozat ( 1979), Yogaiatalca: Texte medical attribui a NO.g1njuna, Pondichery. (Note that there are two Mss. in The Royal Library, Copenhagen, not collated. Rask and 'Tuxen collections.) - Yogaiatalca is commonly (but not exclusively) ascribed to Nagarjuna, see Filliozat, op.cit., pp. iv-xix, who discusses the question of authenticity. Here I would only call attention to three pieces of evidence in favour of the authenticity of Yogaiatalca: RA, III, 46 speaking oftriphala, trilca{ulca, ghrta, madhu, aiijana etc.: 'bras bu .s:sum dan tsha ba gsum II mar dan shran rtsi mig sman dati II dug sel chu rar b~ag bgyi f;in II grub pa'i sman dan snags !cyan bgyi II. BS 79 and SS, 251 b recommend that a bodhisattva cultivates vitl,yO.sthiJ.na etc. which include cilcitsa. Finally Ratnaprrulipa (337b) reports that Nagarjuna masteredgso ba (cilcitsa) etc. - For other medical texts etc. see Dash (1976), pp. 9-17.
29. The Tibetan version (260 verses, various metres) was edited and translated by W.L. Campbell, The Tree of Wisdom, Calcutta 1919. Recently 255 verses were translated by Tarthang Tulku, Elegant Sayings, Emeryville 1977.- Note that vv. 76, 108 and 196 recall RA, 11, 41 ; IV, 49, 8, q.v.- Atisa's Satyadvayavatiira, 25 is nearly identical with 140. - Prajriiidlli!!Ja and other mti texts ascribed to Nagarjuna in Tibetan versions have been discuss­ ed by S. K. Pathak, The Indian Nitiiil.stras in Tibet, Delhi 1974, q.v.
30. Contrary to what one might expect this is not an alchemic tract but rather a >>biochemical«, seeN. E. Muthuswami (ed.) , Rasavaiiefilcasiltrarp Narasi1[1ha­ lcrtabhQ.vopel(1.m, Trivandrum 1976. - Filliozat (1979), pp. x-xiii has discussed !he question of authenticity.
31. Only Tibetan (TP, No 5304). 55 anuJ(ubh. The most salient features of this text advocating full-fledged miiyavada is that a large number of its stanzas also occurs in the Lanlciivatarasiltra (e.g. 1-4- X, 7-10; 53-55- X, 255-257 etc.) with several interesting variants. The third verse is quoted Tattvasiirasa~gra­ ha, I 02 b, as from Nagarjuna's * Niriilambastava (cf. n. 20above), the fourth also occurs as Madhyamalcabhavasa1[11crimti, » 15«. It certainly deserves a separate treatment, preferably along with the many other (if not always unambiguous) points of agreement between early Madhyamaka and the Lanlciivatiirasutra.
32. Only Tibetan and Chinese, see EOB, I, p. 360; V. V. Gokhale, Aicsaraial(1./cam. The H;mdred Letters, Heidelberg 1930. - The Chinese (Taisho, No. 1572) attributes it to Aryadeva, the Tibetan (TP, 5234, siltra, and TP, 5235, vrtti) and Atisa, Bodhimiirgrulipapaiijilcii, 324a to Nagarjuna. - If the sUtras and the V[tti have the same author (which is most likely the case), and the quotation of SO.~Ichyalcarilcii, 9 in the vrtti (see W. Liebenthal, Satlciirya in der Darstellung seiner buddhistischen Gegner, Stuttgart-Berlin 1933, p. 25) is not a late interpolation it cannot possibly have been composed by Nagarjuna or Aryadeva. Liebenthal, loc. cit., instead suggests »Vasu«, perhaps correctly. See also Robinson ( 1967), p. 33. - A new edition by Mr. Holten Pind will appear in lndislce Studier V.
33. See Nakamura (1977), p. 78, and May (1979), p. 481 who summarizes some
15
thastuti, 34 Kiiyatrayastotra, 35 Narakoddharastava, 36 Niruttarastava, 37 Van­ danastava, 38 DharmasaT[lgraha, 39 Dharmadhatugarbhavivarar;za, 40 *Eka­ slokoJastra, 41 lsvarakartrtvanirakrti> 4 2 Sattvaradhanastava, 43 *Upayahrda-
of the arguments against the authenticity of the Akutobhayii. - In my opinion the same Sanskrit original must be supposed behind the Tibetan version (T P, No. 5229) and the Chinese, i.e. ZhOng liln (Taisho, No. 1564). The latter is quite free in its rendering of verses as well as commentary. In spite of the fact that there is a good Indian tradition in support ofNagarjuna as the author of Akutobhayii (see//j, XXIII, p. 212, n. 18; WZKSO, VII, p. 37; Bodhimiirgatli­ papaftjikii, 324 b; Akutobhayii, 114a, etc.) I consider it spurious, not only because its prose compares rather poorly with that of the svavrttis to VP, SS and VV but especially because Aryadeva's Catui;Jataka, VII, 9 is quoted ad MK, XXVII, 24, in the Tibetan version as well as in the Chinese (so correct Robinson 's remark ( 1967), p. 31 that X XVI I, 25 has >>no counterpart in the Sanskrit«. It must have had, not in MK but in the vrtti quoting Catui;Jataka ). At present we must accept the obscure *Pingala to have composed the commentary, cf. May {1979), p. 481. He was certainly not identical with Aryadeva.
34. T P, No. 2023. Simply another recension of Paramiirthastava (CS, IV). 35. Four verses in thesragdharii metre, see A. von Stael Holstein: 'Bemerkungen zum
Trikayastava', Bulletin de I'Acadimie imperiale des scienm dr St.·Pttersbourg, XI , pp. 837-835; G. N. Roerich, The Blue Annals, Calcutta 1949, pp. 1-2; D. S. Ruegg (1969), p. 49 . ._Ascribed to Niigiirjuna injnanasrimitra'sSiikarasiddhi· iastra, p.503,butthetrikaya-cloctrine is hardlycompatiblr with th<'kayadvaya of Y~, 60; RA, II I, I 0, 12. Moreover the style is very loose, rather unlike Nagarjuna. - Several extracts injRAS ( 1906) , pp. 943-977.
36. I have edited and translated this hymn AO, XL, pp. 146-155.- It has nothing to do with Nagarjuna. (Corr(s:enda: 4c,yas•; 6a, •riufha; 15a, •raja.- Prof. de Jong kindly makes the following suggestions: I a, read daridrya•?; 2b, is anatha0
an old corr1.1ption for-ananta•~; 4, cf. Dharmasamuccaya, XIII, 13; 13c, seems corrupt. R~d rajaha'll me tada manas?) .
37. Only Tibetan (TP, No. 2021 ). Eig~t verses, too poor to be g~nuinr . 38. Only T ibetan (TP, No. 2027). Also eight poor verses. 39. Cf. Murti (1960), p. 91, n. 5. Though certainly a Mahayana t<'xtthere is
nothing particularly Nagarjunian about it. 40. TP, No. 5602. - Discussed and [econstructed into Sanskrit by S. K. Pathak,
IHQ, XXXIII , pp. 246-249. Cf. BV, 59-63 (note). 41. A literal version of the Chinese (Taisho, No. 1573) is found in L. de La Vallee
Poussin, Cata/4gue of the Tibetan Manuscripts from Twr-lluanK in the India Offu:e library, London 1962, No. 595; ran gino bo nid myi rtag 11 dt b~in no bono bo myed II ran bbn no bo nid myed pas II de phyir ston dan myi rta.s: .s:suias 11.
42. Also . called Vij'}Or ekakartrtvanirakara'!am. Discussed and translate~ by G.
16
Chemparathy: 'Two early Buddhist refutations of the existence ofiSvara as the creator of the universe', WZKSO, XXII-XIII, pp. 85-100 (with ref.). Text and translation also in H. C. Gupta (transl.), Papers ofTh. Stcherbatsky,
ya, 44 * A~!ada.raJunyatasiistra, 45 Dhannadhatustava, 46 Yo.J?aratnamala, 4 1 etc.
Calcutta 1969, pp. 3-16. 43. Nine verses in Tibetan (TP, No 20 17) and Sanskrit (t•asantatilakii ) edi ted by S.
Levi under Asvagho~a·s name: 'Autour d'Asvagho~a',JA, CCXV, pp. 264- 66.- According to the Tibetan colophon (which ascribes it to Nagarjuna) it is a bsdus pa of a part of Bodhisattuapz!aka called lshva chu lr.lun. - The style of this nice little hymn recalls Matrce~a more than anyone else.
44. There is a Chinese version (Taisho, No. 1632) ' retranslated' into Sanskrit by G. Tucci, Pre-Dinnaga Buddhist texts on logic from Chinese sources, Baroda 19.29. ­ Its authenticity was impeached by H . Ui, c[ Nakamura ( 1977), p. 85. - At least two circumstances render its genuineness dubious in my mind: It appears unlikely that Nagarjuna, whose predilection for a rguing merely by way of prasan.ga is well-known, should recommend conventional rules of Jebate in order to vindicate the Dharma. And again, why does the *Up,~valzrda_ya never figure in the subsequent Svatantrika-Priisangika contro­ versy in which its tenets would certainly have entitled it to play a decisive role ifautlwntic? If, on the other hand, we as~ume that it fell into oblivion in India at an early date it is quite possible that Nagiirjuna composed it »from a desire to defend the Saddharma« (loc.cit., 23b 19-20), i.e. on the smzwrti-level (cf. ibid., 25a 4 If. where a saryadvaya-thcory is implicit}. Moreover we here find tht· same disdainful attitude towards ultda usually motivated by various kleias (ibid., 23b 6fT. Here the purvapak!a is, of course, rhetorical).
45. Sec the arguments advanced by Ramanan (1966), p. 34 (with n. 55). ·16. Extant in Tibetan, I 01 verses (TP, No. 2010) and Chinese, 87 verses (Taisho,
No. 1675). They are not different works (as Nakamura, op.cit. , p. 84 apparently thinks), the Chinese being merely a free version.- Discussed and paraphrased by D. S. Ruegg: 'Le Dharmadhatustava de Nagiirjuna', E'tudes TibitaiTzeS didiies a Ia Mimoire de Marcelle La lou, Paris I 97 I. pp. 448-471) q. V.­
It is attributed to Nagiirjuna by Bhavya, quoting 91-96 and 101 (op.cit., 358a and 361 a). It must also be noticed that several siitras asserting the (•xistence of dharmadhatu or tatha.t~atagarbha as nirya , dhruua, siva and i(iivala ( cf. CS, I I, 22) are also known from quotations in Niigarjuna's SS. In this stava (or slotra ) we also find a prima facie 'positive ontology': dham~adhatu is niyatastlzana (I), sa'!lsiirahelu (2) ' anutpanna, aniruddha (8) ' prabhiisvara, viiuddha (9)) sara ( 15)) b(ja {17), anatman (24, here 'without gender'), tlhruva (35) etc. It is not merely iiinya (22).- It would be a glaring inconsistency fort he authorofMK, SS, VV etc. to express himselfthusparamiirthata~. On the other hand I do not think we can exclude that Nagarjuna wrote this hymn saTflvrtital;, or neyiirtha (cf. CS, I II, 57) with the motive sattvavatarata& ( cf. CS, II, 21 -22).
17. See most recently P. Kumar (ed.), Nagarjuna's Yogaratnamiilii, Delhi 1980. It is a collection of verses dealing with various matters such as uaiikara(la , viduelakara(la, uccii~ana, piiacikara'!a, iiveiavidhiina, vandhyaputrajanma, dipena kiir;ikara'!a and similar whimsical- not to say criminal - devices which in the opinion ofNiigiirjuna would certainly secure their author a place of honour in :\vici. - Worthy of a more serious interest are the extracts from Rasaratnakara
17
T he fact that my desire to treat all the works ascribed to Nagar­ juna in one way or another - xa'ta 'tTJV UATJV o{ A.6yoL Ct:TtaL'tT)'tEOL - has thus made the present work rather wide in its scope, does, needless to say, inevitably entail that numerous details or points of minor significance are tacitly passed by. This could not be other­ wise. Nobody could be more aware of how much still remains to be done by future research than I am. However, I may say that I have done my best to clarify, or at least to indicate all points afford ing genuine problems, textual or philosophical. For misunderstandings and omissions I can, of course, only crave the reader's indulgence.
2) A pre1iminary summary It will be convenient for the reader when stud ying the texts and for the editor when annotating them, if I anticipate the results of the detailed analysis of each of the genuine texts and provide a synthe­ tic survey (sarrtk~epa ) of the religious and philosophical persuasions of Nagarjuna. 4~
edited by P. C. Ray, A HistoryofHindu chtmi.ll~y. Calnuta I~IW, vul. II , pp. • 3- *17. The author is an alrhemist with a hiJ.:h upiniun uf his sanC'd vucation ( Ill , 4 ): prajnnparamitiz nii itha.ramayt Mlapnt pra ,(ufilqtflm I nnmnn tik!'!amukha'!i raJ·mdram nmala'!l na.~tnrjurraproditt~m II. Pt·rhaps this lint· which apparently does not belong to the Rasaratnizkara hut rathu to tht' KnkJapu[a (sometimes ascribed to Nagarjuna, cf. Tucci, op.cit. , p . 214) reveals the true identity of this namesake: iriiailaparvatasthiiyi .siddho nagarjuno mahan I sarvasattvopalr.ari ca sarvabha,zyasamanvita~ II (ibid., p. *12).- On Rasaratnakara cf. also M. Eliade, Yoga: Unsterblichktit und Freiheit, Frankfurt 1977, p. 430; Traiu, p. 383.
The remaining works ascribed to Nagarjuna are mainly sadhanas etc. or other texts the for m or content of which, at least from a first perusal, appear too insipid and unworthy of the author of the thirteen works I consider genuine.
48. Lamotte, Vima/akirtinirdeia, pp. 40-51 and May, TP, l.IV, pp. 339·342 (cf.
18
Hooogirin, Chugan, p. 474) have attempted to summarize 'Ia position du Madhyamika' in six fundamental theses, or essential elements, q .v.- As many of Nagarjuna's authentic works have not been taken into account full justice has not been done to the ethical, epistemological and psychological ( religious) aspects of his thought, nor has an attempt to demonstra te the inherent unity of these aspects been made. In my sarpk~tpa I take it for granted that a philosopher faces four fundamental problems: the ontological, the epistemological, the psychological and the ethical. This division reflects a distinctly Occidental approach, which, his torically speaking, ultimately
l"ltt· lwst starting point for such an expos1t10n is the theory of r"" t nrt hs (saryadvaya): a relative or conventional truth (sa1J!vrti­ .. ,, •• ,, 1 which serves as the means for obtaining the absolute or "ltu t~ortc truth (paramarthasarya).49
' ' ' l"lu· ultimate goal of all endeavours is the summum bonum of .• , ... sdf and of others: abolition of rebirth, or Nirval)a.50 It implies tlw .rttainment of buddhahood, or a double body (kqyadvaya) .51
I '"' may be considered from four angles:
I 1 Ontolo.t!,ical!J: All phenomena (dharma ) are empty (Siinya) since tlwy lack own-being (svabhava) inasmuch as they, empirically .111<1 logically, only occur in mutual dependence (pratiryasamut­ f"mnn ). s 2
.'t FpiJirmological!J: The ultimate truth (tattva) is the object of a cogni­ tton without an object (advayqjiiana ),51 thus only an object meta­ phorically speaking (upadaya prajiiapti). 54
l o l'•vtlwlo.P,ical!J: It is the abolishment of all the passions (klda), p• imarily desire (raga), hatred (dve~a ) and delusion (moha). 55
Ftluml!J: It implies freedom from the bonds of karma but subjec­ t tun to the altruistic imperatives of compassion (karu~a). 56
h.tils from Xenocrates's tripartition of philosophy into logic, cosmology and rthit·s (according to Sextus Empiricus, Ativ. Malhematicos, VII, 16). I am ou •• inly indebted to the clear exposition by H . Heffding, Filosojiske Problemtr, K uhl· nhavn 1902, (English translation: The problems of philosophy, New York, I '10~) . and Den rrunnesktlige Tanke, tien.s Former og dens Opgaver, Kebenhavn 1'110 (German translation: Der 71U'IUchliche Gedanlce, stint Formtn und seint :lu/.l:ahen, Leipzig 1911). These two are not at all outdated: the latter may rvo·n he claimed to be one of the most substantial philosophical works ever wrilll·n in Danish. - Below (pp. 249-277) I have set myself to describe the 1111ity of Madhyamaka vistarer;a.
•·• r .. Nagiirjuna the theory of satyadvaya is above all a ped agogical device. - I "·"'~' c·ollected the most instructive texts on this theme in a paper: 'Atisa's lrotrotluction to the Two Truths, and its sources', in}IP, IX, pp. 161-214 .
... . '1.. 104; RA, I, 4 .
. ,. I<\. Ill , 12-13; Y~, 60. · · \ \ ·. 'l2; MK, XXIV, 18; Y~, 19 etc. ·. t t.\. II , 3; Ill, 37-39; YS, I; MK, XXV, 24; RA, 1, 98 etc . . , , \IK . XX II, II ; XX IV," 18; cf. May (1959), p. 161 , n . 494 (ref.). · · ""· n: MK, XVII I, 5; XXV, 2 . . ,, t : \ , I . I (with ref.); MK, XXVII, 30.
19
\\'it h this scheme in mind I trust the reader will be able to 1111r·rpn·t each of Nagarjuna's statements within their proper con­ I r- \I.
l.ikt· Indian hagiographers in general the ancient anonymous .< 111 hors of Nagarjuna legends did not share our curiosity to under­ .r.uul the personality of this remarkable individual. So for a por- 11.1\'.d of the man we are referred to the conclusions we may draw II • 1111 observations of his genuine works. 66
< >nly blurred outlines of a shadowy figure are still visible, to my •. ,,. at least. - Nagarjuna was first of all an ardently devoted \l.all:-ayanist and a staunch propagator of his faith (especially evi­ .J,· aan ·d by his Siitrasamuccaya, Catul]stava and Ratnavali).67 His l · · .arnin~ was extensive and not confined to the various branches of lluddlaist lore.6 M Though he even attempted to make proselytes of 1\e..Junin lo~icians ( Vaidalyaprakara1Ja) , 69 his main concern, however,
'·'• For uhiographical« accounts ofNiigiirjuna, see Ramanan ( 1966), pp. 25-30; 1\. .S. Murty, Nagarjuna, New Delhi 1978, pp. 38-67; M . Walleser, The lift of .\',i~:n~junafrom Tibetan and Chinese sources, Delhi 1979 (rep.); May, Chiigan. p. 1711 (r<'f.); E. Lamoue, »Der Verfasser des Upadda und seine Quellcn«, \',td~rirhten dtr Akademit dtr Wisunschaftm in Giillingen. I. Philolo,l!,isch-historisch, A/•l!fr. 1973, Nr. 2, pp. 3-5. One can only subscribe ro the Belgian master's <tatt·mfnt that: »Dieser Mischung an sagenhaften Oberlieferu'lgen, in denen sirh untaschiedlos Wahres, Falsches und Zweifelhaftes widcrspicgeln, steht dir· modrrnc; Kritik ratios gegeniiber. Sie hat nur einige Arl>t:itshypothescn 'urhrinl{<'n konnen.« (ibid., p. 4 ). Accordingly 1 shall only take these traditions inw account when they coincide with the evidence, howe\'ff scanty, to be ~kancd from the author's own writings, above all RA.
<.i Tu he sure, the strange question posed by A. K. Warder, ' Is Niigiirjuna a \lithayiinist ', in M. Sprung (ed.), The Problem of Two Truths in /Juddhism and r·,·dnnta, Dordrecht 1973, pp. 78-88 has been rejoined by May, Chii.~an, p . 4 73. On<' may add that the term .~andharvana.garo ( MK, Vll, 34: X Vll, 33; XX Ill , B) <loes not occur in the ancient agamas (cf. Traiti, p. 370, n I). ~1oreovcr \IK , Xlll, 8 is inspired by Kiziyapaparivartm(cf. Traiti. p.l227). and MK, \:\:IV, 8 by Akjayamatinirdtia {cf. P. L. Vaidya, Etudes sur Ar_vad,va (/son t 'ntu!dntaka, Paris 1923, p. 21, n. 6) . So even in MK alone the Mahayana harkground is indisputable.
'·" It is noteworthy that on the l!)'llllahara-level Nagarjuna cndors<'s polymathy, ··1: BS, 79, 103.
1•' 1 \\'t· have no reason to believe that such attempts proved ,·ery successful. Whatever the reason - lack of time or interest - it was left for Niigiirjuna's most brilliant pupil Aryadeva to refute the doctrines of Siimkhya and Vaisqika (cf. RA, 1, 61 and Lankavatiirasiitra, X, 723). •
21
was to reform the dogmatic attitude (duEiparamar.fa) of Abhidharma by propagating his conviction of the emptiness of all phenomena. This was the scope of his fundamental work M ulamadhyamaka}(arika and its supplements Simyatasapuui and Vigrahal!)lavartani meeting some of the objections which inevitably rain upon a radical innova­ tor. 70 - His commitment to the cause of instructing the lay public had several outcomes: Suhrllekha and Ratnavali are, each in its own way, introductions to Buddhism. They are addressed to a king.71
His *Bodhisarrzbhara[ka] and Bodhicittavivara7Ja are manuals in the theory and practice of Mahayana for the benefi t of monks and laymen. These facts tally well with the tradition that Nagarjuna had close connections at court and held responsible monastic offices. 72 It is thus quite probable that he played a decisive role in the foundation of monasteries etc. in NagarjunakOQQa. 73 - Of his character we only catch occasional glimpses of self-assurance a nd sarcasm as well as humility and compassion. His writings are, on the whole, characte­ rized by a lucid and elegant diction, thus differing significantly from those e.g. of his pupil Aryadeva. 74
70. SS and VV are, as Candrakirti observes {cf. 1/j, XXIII, p. 177, n. 4), elaborations of respectively MK, V II, 34 and I, 3. It is in fact only in th is perspective that the motives behind the objection~ raised and the topics introduced become quite intelligible. Along with Y~ and, possibly, VS these writings are intended to establish the ontological and epistemological tenets of Mahayana by way ofyukti.
71. Perhaps a Satavahana, see E. Lamotte, Histoire du bouddhisme iltdint,desorigiNs a /'ire .~akn, Louvain 1958, p. 379; K. S. Murty {1978), pp. 62-65. Also S. Dietz, »Der Au tor des Suhrllekha«, to appear in the Procttdings oftht Csoma eft
Kiirii.r Symposium, Velm/Wien, Sept. 13th-19th, 1981. 72. Ibid. 73. Ibid., p. 64; K. K. Murthy, Nagarjunalr.orJ4a: A Cultural Study, Delhi 19?7. -
References to caityas, stiipas, viharas, buddha-images etc. are found RA, I I , 77; III, 3134; 39, 41, 92; IV, 10-11, 17; V, 65; BS, I ll, 11 3, 136, 150-151. It would certainly prove worthwhile to compare this evidence closely with the archaeological remains of NagarjunakoQQa and Amaravati. Also BS, 79, 103 (iilpa).
74. His verses are usually simple as far as syntax, metre, vocabulary a nd style are concerned. They differ distinctly from that of a predecessor such as Asvagho,a, or a successor such as Aryadeva or Matrce!a. His prose {VV, VP, SS) seems modelled on that of Pataiijali's MahiJhhiljya { cf. L. Renou, Hirtoire de Ia lartgw samkrite, Paris 1956, p. 135; K. Bhattacharya t l al., The Dialectical method of Nagarjuna, Delhi 1978, p. 8) and differs totally e.g. from that of the Arthaiartra of Kausilya (cf. Re~ou, loc.cit., p. 136).
22
111 the srquel I shall deal with the thirteen genuine works one by I IIII" , first six mainly dialectical works ( MK, SS, VV, VP, VS andY~) .uul t h<·n the remaining chiefly didactic texts (CS, R.~, PK, SS, BV, Sl . ;md BS), thus roughly following the prescripdve distinction lwtWI'Cn y ukti and agama.
Thr reader may fi nd it convenient in advance to consult my essay 1111 tht· unity of Nagarjuna's thought (below pp. 249-277).
23
I. Mulamadhyamakakarika prajiia nama (MK)
As indicated by its very title, 'The fundamental verses on the Middle (Way)' called 'Wisdom', 75 the large number of important commentaries by renowned teachers, and, thirdly, by its very thorough and radical treatment of the cardinal concepts (dharma ) of Buddhist systematic soteriology (Abhidharma), MK may suitably be labelled the chif d'reuvre among Nagarjuna's dialectical tracts. 76
For a correct understanding of MK three main issues require clarification, viz. the subject-matter and composition of the work, its aim a nd, thirdly, the method employed for its achievement.
a) Let us first review the twenty-seven chapters ( 148 verses) of the Sanskrit lexlus receptus 77 compared with the recensions now only available within the body of four Indian commentaries transmitted in Tibetan versions. 711 Each prakaraT)a lorms a critical rxamination (parikia) ol:
75. Also known as .Hl!d~ynmika .• utra, .Wadhynmikni l!strn (c[ May (1959), p. 7) or, especially among Tibetans, rt.ra ha ;,r rnh , •Miila-prajna, or •Mu/aprakara!Ja (e.g . . S'imlatirsnptativrtti, TP. No. 5268, Yafo/. 309a, 31Za, 325a, 329a etc.).­ The standard t'dit ion is that of La Vallee Poussm (see n. 7 above), supplemented by de J ong, 'Texrcritical notes on the Prasannapada', IIJ, X X, pp. 25-59, 217-252. - As no satisfactory English version of the karikas alont' exists one must refer to those incorporated in one of the commentaries (cf. May (1959), pp. 8-10; n. 6-7 above), or R. Gnoli, Na.~arjuna, I.e stan~e dtl cammino di mtu.o ... Torino 1961, pp. 39-139. A Danish version (with Sanskrit) in my Nagarjunasjilosofiske V.rrker, Kebenhavn 1982.
76. Along with SS, VV, VP, VS and Y~, M:K may, to adopt tlw convenient Tibetan 'classification tripartite, qui est a Ia fois furmc·ll .. ('I ~ynrhronique' (D. S. Ruegg, loc.cit., p. 449) be said to fi>rm the ~yuktik~ya, in which it is its 'backbone'. The hymns, of course, form the •stavnk~l·a. tilt' rl'rnaining texts the • kathirkiryn (i.e. expositions, or sermons, main ly. hut nor t•xc lusively, yatha.~nmam ).
77. As edited by La Va llee Poussin with the addenda ofJ. W. dc.Jon.~. v. above n. 75.
78. S(:C n. 6 above for the lis t. - The titles of the twenty-sewn pmlr.araiJaS are identical in Akutobhayii, Buddhapirlitavrtti, Pmjnapradlpa and Prajnapradipavrui, and they have been adopted here.
24
XXVI XXVII
The conditions (pra9'aya ), in 16 verses Change, or movement (gatiigataganryamfina), in 25 verses The sense-fields (iiyatana ), in 9 verses T he skandhas, or aggregates (skandha ), in 9 verses The elements (dhiitu), in 8 verses Affection and the (person) affected (riigarakta), in I 0 verses Origination, duration and decay (utpiidasthitibhanga), m 34 verses Action a nd agent (karmakaraka), in 13 verses Grasper and grasping (upadatrupiidiina), in 12 verses Fire and fuel (agnindhana), in 16 verses Birth and death (saT{lSara), in 8 verses Suffering (dubkha ), in 10 verses The real (tattva), in 8 verses Combination (sa1[1Sarga ), in 8 verses Being and non-being (bhiiviibhiiva), in II verses Bondage and release (bandltanamolqa), in 10 verses Action and its results (karmaphala ), in 33 verses The self and phenomena (iitmadharma), in 12 verses Time (kala ), in 6 verses Cause and effect (httuphala), in 24 verses Coming to be and passing away (saT[!bhaiJavibhava), in 21 verses The Buddha (tathagata), in 16 verses T he perverted views (viparyiisa), in 20 verses The noble truths (aryasa9'a ), in 40 verses Extinction (nirvaiJa), in 24 verses The twelve sectors (dvadaianga ), in 12 verses, and The dogmas (duJi), in 30 verses.
Though it remains uncertain whether these titles are authentic or not, they are anyhow appropriate and ancient.79 As to the wording
79 Prasannapada differs thus: II : gatagata0 ; III: cnk1uradi"; VII: sarzuk[la0
; XI: piirvaparako!i0
; XIII: su'!lskara0 ; XV: svabhava0
; XVIII : atma0 ; XX: samgn-o. ­
As far as the number of verses is concerned Prasannapada III , 7 (cf. //j, XX, p. 40), XII, 6 and XXIII, 20 are absent in the four other commentaries. So unless it is supposed that Candrakirti had access to better Mss than his predecessors- which I find unlikely- these three verses as we'll as the titles of
25
"' llw Hll 'Trsl's, it is, if not identical, at least very close to the text ·" II ldt tlH" hand of its author (or his Scribe).80
tht· t·ighl chapters mentioned are probably Candrakirti's own innovations. Clearly it inOuenced the separate Tibetan version of the karikas (TP, No. 5224), q .v. - I append some remarks on a few karikas. Comparing the commentaries there only seems to be one really significant v.l. (in XXVII, 19 d): - I, 3:/zi is used as a technical term to indicate something which is logically or empirically obvious, in no need of further elaboration, cf. I, 7; I I, 6, I 9, 22; III , 2; VI, 3, 4; VII, 9, 10, 28, 30; VIII, 7,8; IX, 2; XI, I; XII, 2, 7,8, 10; XV, 2, 3, 4, 8; XVII, 22; XVIII, 7, 10; XIX, I; XX, 14, 19; XXI, 3, 4, 5, 14, 15; XX III, I, 4, 23, 24; XXIV, 21 , 34; XXV, 4,5,6, 8, 12; XXVI,6; XXVII, 3, 6, 9, 10, 15. It provides the sa'llvrti-basis for arguments paramiirthatalJ. - For pratyayiidqu cf. XXIII, 9 and Pal}. Ill, 3, 37.- I, 4 cf. XX I, 6.- I, 5kila (as in AbhidAarmakoiahhii.va etc.) indicates an opponent's opinion only provisionally acceptable, cf. RA, IV, 50. - II, I tiivat always indicates the first of two (equally absurd) alternatives. - II, 2d Buddhapalita readyasya foryala~ for which Bhavya rightly criticizes him.- III, 6d Buddhapilita takes It as lava (hardly convincing).- VII, I 3d forjiite cf. niruddht I, 9d. - VII, 29c perhaps ladaioa for tadaiuatrt?- VII, 31 cd same dutiinla in the apparatus to Molzabhiirola, XII, 173, 27, q. v.- XII, 5d Candrakirti has kula~ and in 8d ( = 7d) kalhom. The other commentators vice versa. - X I I I, 6c read lcasyiilha for kosya cid. The Mss readlcasyiirtha . In MK, X VI, 6 and XXV I, 2 alha is also left untranslated in Tib.! - XX, 7d readyac for_yai. - XXI, 7b all Tibetan versions point to 0syapi rather than °sya.rli. - (X X I, 8 Candrakirti •ever~es the order of piidas ab and cd against the previous commentators (Prasannapadii, p. 417, I is a quotation from Alculohhayii. 91 b 3!).- XX I, I I nearly verbatim Lankiivalara­ siitra, X, 36, q .v. - XXI, 12 identical with Calu~atalca, XV, 14.- XX III, Sed = XV II , 33cd. - XXIII, IOc CandralUrti has protitya Jubham but the previous commentators readpratityiJ.Jubha1[1 . - XXIII, lie again CandraiUrti has patityiJ.Jubha1[1 against pralitya iubha1[1. - XX III, 13cd Candrakirti has niinilya'fl ··· viparyaya~ againstna nilya'fl ··· 'uiparyaya~.- XXII I, 14a CandraiUrti hasanitye nityam, in bas in 13b, in canityam against anitye 'nityam in a, in bas in 13 d and · in c niinityam, in d perhaps aviparyaya~ (or naviparyaya~) for na viparyaya~. - X X IV, 18 Professor Wayman's interpretation of this important verse injAOS, LXXXIX, pp. 141 ff. does not make any sense.- XXV, 13b, 14b CandralUrti reads leatham but the previous commentators read yadi ( cf lib, 12b). - XXVII, 19d CandralUrti's sa1[1Siira~ seems to be a gloss. The previous commentators have rtag par g,ur no, i.e. JiJ.Jvala&. (The wording of the karikas included in the various commentaries was also discussed by S. Yamaguchi, ChiJcan Buklr..JO Ro-Mo, Tokyo 1965, pp. 3-28, which was, however, not available to me.)- I have edited MK anew in lndislct Studitr II.
80. An account of the textual transmission of MK etc. (along the lines, mutatis mutaru/i.r, of e.g. L. D. Reynolds & N. G. Wilson, Scribe.s aru/ Scllolars, Oxford I 974, or H. Hunger tt al, Die Texlwmlitfm~~~g ur tlllliknt Liuralllr wuJ tkr Bibtl, Zurich 1961 ) would certainly prove highly instructive. However, the paucity
26
Each chapter is mainly concerned with (but by no means strictly confined to) one of these basic topics:xt
of sources, at least as far as early Madhyamika is concerned, warrants no such attempt. Still we may note that at least the karikas, then as now, were meant to be learnt by heart, c( suiidhyaya, PK, S. But naturally in the case of sutras, commentaries etc. the oral transmission was supported by a written, c( RA, I I I, 38: thub dban gsun dan dts byun ba 'i II g{un rnams bri dan .t:le.gs bam ni II sna.~ cha dag dan smyu gu dan II snon du :t:ro ba sbyin par md~od II; cf. Traiti, p. 752; UpalipariP(cchiz, p. 95.- Our knowledge of how books (pustaka ) were copied, corrected, circulated, preserved and quoted is regrettably fragmentary. - However, the fact that MK was transmitted virtually without variants or corruptions for many centuries within the body of different commentaries the earliest of which, Akutobhayii, is hardly more than a century younger than the Mula , must surely inspire us with confid ence in the textus receptus. Though I hclieve that this rule on the whole also applies to the twelve other authentic works it is by no means universal: Texts such as Bhavasa'!lkrimti and .\fahiiyiinaui'[liikii are in many cases so contaminated or hopelessly corrupt that we can never hope to reconstruct an archetype but only, at best, one intelligible recension among others in their own right.
II I. Here I confine myself to a summary of the observations set forth at length in the introduction to my Danish translation of MK (cf. also IIJ, XX III , pp. 1 ~13- 154). MK is addressed to monks thoroughly conversant with the .'\hhid harm a of the most influential of all com temporary schools: Sarvastiva­ da. Other less influential schools are occasionally introduced and criticized (d. May ( 1959), p. Ill, n. 278). It would be misleading, as some modern authorities have done, to claim that Nagarjuna also had non-Buddhists ( S;irJtkhya, Vaise~ika) in mind, though, of course, many of his arguments a/so
irulirrrtly - apply to them (as Bhavya more than other commentators is ll<"Vt"r loth tu point out). The purpose of MK (SS, VV) is to train Ahhidh;irmikasinpraJnnptiramitii, i.e. to make them realizcpudgaladhannanair­ ni"!Ya hy undt"r~t;mrling tht· Budrlha's doctrine of pratityasamutpiida in the sense of iull)'atii through cintii and bhtivana. (The first aspect of prajna, iruti, Nagarjuna treats in SS, Sl. t"t<" .) The twt"nty-seven chapters are arranged in a number of'clusters': 1-VII refute the fundamental notions of Abhidharma: I­ ll those of causality and movement, Ill-V sarval]lyad asti, viz. skandhiidi, VI sahabhizva, VII sa'!l!krtalakta'la, with an excursion against Saf!!mitiya. VIII-X refute various aspects of pudgalaviitk. XI-XIII may have been intended to refute the notion ofbhiiua in a more general sense. XIV-XVII elaborate II, V I and specific Buddhist notions not discussed previously. XVIII is in a sense the culmination ofMK. Here for once, the author reveals his own opinion about tattva and tattviivaJiira. XIX-XXI abruptly bring back the criticism of Sarvi.stivida. They elaborate I. XXII-XXV show that all Buddhist concepts arc empty i11 tlu ultim4te sense. Not even the most sacred is spared. Thus, at first, the final chapters XXVI-XXVII dealing with traditional Buddhist ideas in a relatiw sense may seem to form a,curious anticlimax. In my
27
a) Specific Abhidharmic or canonical Buddhist concepts (dlumM ): I , III, IV, V, VII, XVII, XXIII, XXIV, XXV, XXVI , XXVII.
b) Various aspects of the belief in the existence of atman: VIII, IX, X, XII , XVI, XVIII, XXII.
c) Common-sense notions underlying all realistic (' positivistic') views concerning dlumnas and atman: II, VI, XI, XIII , X IV, XV, XlX, XX, XXI.
~) The scope ofNagarj una's criticism is not to disavow the practical value of traditional Buddhist concepts but to demonstrate that the right attitude to be adopted towards them is one of pragmatic rela­ tivism and not one of s tubborn dogmatic a bsolutism.112 He wants to reform , not to reject Buddhist tradition. 113
y ) The procedure adopted for this purpose- as Nagarjuna informs us in stray verses in MK 114
- begins with the relentless demand for own-being (svabhiwa):115 To be real (sat) implies bring perma nent (nirya ), independent (nirapek~a) , numerically one (tka) and self: created (svay a'!lkrta ). However, neither experience nor logic war­ rants ou r assumption of the existence of real <:' ntitics (bh(wa) . Hence Niigiirjuna has thl· game in his hands when showing the absurdities
opinio n the a u thor append .. d them with a very specific purpose, namely in v rdcr to show thr orthodoxy uf his fim.ynviida: One can o nly understand thc dviidaiiiri.s:a and the warnings against O!!(is by m eans of i iinyatii.
82. Thus, according to :>l iiA"arjuna, th<· Saddharma was taughtsarvad!f!iprahii~iiya , :VIK . XX\' II , 30. Similarly XIII , 8 ; CS, I, 23; I ll , 52 e tc. All df!!is l){"in~ d ue:- toastill!nastiti (cf. MK, XV, 10) they can only be abolished by realizing the ir paraspnriiptlcfiki siddhi. o r iunyatii.
83. Not only is Nagii rjuna intent o n being a n o rthodox Buddhist (BS. I :10) hut in the cases where he writes according 10 iigama a ncl wt· arc a bk r., dwck his use o f sources he provrs tO represent the m very m r tic ulo usly, sc<· , above all , SL, BS a nd SS passim.
84. :\ nu mber of ' axio matic apho rism s' scatte red more o r k ss at ra rodo m in M K indica te the logical premises from which ~agii rjuna rcduct·s his oppo nent to a n absu rd position: MK, I , I , 3: II. I, 2 1; IV, 6, 8, 9; V, R; V I, 4; VI I. 34; IX , 5; X , 10, I I , 16 ; X I, I; X Ill , I , 8; X IV, 4cd , 5, 6. 7; :\ \' . I . 2 , 10; X :\ I . 6 , I 2; XXII, l 2, 15, 16: XXIII, I ; XXIV, 8, 9, 10, I I. They were latnlo rmulised as the fo ur mahiiht tu (cf. CS, I , 13; Ill , 9 notes) ; infra , p. 273.
85. On th is te rm M ay ( 1959), p . 124, n . 328; de j o ng: 'The problem of the abso lute in the Madhyamaka school' ,JIP, 11. pp. 2 3.
28
itnplicit (prasanga) in all the claims of a realistic attitude. :\1oreover, since posit ive existence is unfounded, non-existence (abhaua), i.e. the negation or destruction of existence (bhiwa),l$6 must, of course, also IH" unwarranted. Thus Nagarjuna proceeds along the middle way (madhyama pratipad) empty of extremes towards his intangible goal: r he unorigination of all phenomena.117
86. RA, I' 72: vinafill pratipakfad va syad astitvasya niistita ... 87. E.g. the initial stanzas ofMK; RA, IV, 86. Foranutpada in Mahayana sutras,
Vimalakirtinirdeia, pp. 408-413; Hobogirin, s. v. Chudo.
, , II. Sunyatasaptati (SS)
I
T his text is in 73 verses (originally composed in the aryii' metre like VV and PK) accompanied by a commentary from the author's own h"nd (svavrtti). It is ascribed to Nagarjuna by Bhavya, 88 Candra­ kirti ,89 and Santarak$ita.90 T estimonies anterior to these are found in Alcutobhaya91 and *DvadaJadvaralca. 92 Later on it is also referred to e.g. by Atisa.93
I have seen no references or allusions to the svavrtti, but as its prose-style (i.e., to be sure, in Tibetan) is quite similar to that of the mmmentaries on VV and VP, there is no good reason to impeach its authenticity.94
The doctrine and scope of SS do not differ from that of MK in wmparison with which it may be said to form an appendix,95 as it partly summarizes its vers~s, partly introduces new topics and 1·laborates old ones. 96 Like MK it reveals no strict underlying struc-
H8. Ratnaprat!ipa, 33a: dbu ma'i rtsa ba rtsod pa b~log II ston nid bdun cu rigs drug cu II rnam par 'thag pa Ia sogs pas II dnos moms slge med ies par bya II.
H9. • Madhyamakaiiutrastuti (ed . de j ong), 10: d[J/VD Sutrasamuccaya'll parilcatha'll Ratniivali'll Sa'l'Stuti abhyasyaticira'll ca Siutragaditas ta{l Karilca yatnataP, I YulcryiJicl!YOm atha $Q.[!ilca'!' sa VidalaiJIID'l' Sunyatiuaptati'!' ya ciuav atha Vigrahasya rae ita IJr<ivartani', tam a pi II ...
90. 58 is quoted Madhyamakai41Jikaravrtti, 72b. 91. 19-21 are quoted with indication of source 90b. 92. 8 is quoted - very freely- from the •Saptati.fiutra I60a 22, and 19 without
indication of source 164b 27. 93. BodhipatluJpratlipa (ed. Eimer}, I. 205. 94. Cf. my remarks on his prose, a bove n. 74. It differs markedly from that of e.g.
AlcutobluJya, tediously d ull as it often is, or AlcjoraiatalcoVftli (cf. above n. 32), already more condensed in its style. On the other hand it is very close to that ofBuddhapalita.- The verses ofSS werearyas, as Parahita states ad 18-20, 32, 36-37, 54-55, 63 and 68-69.
95. Cf. above n. 70.- Having stated that SS and VV both are dbu ma las 'phros pa Candrakirti goes on quoting MK, VII, 32 and adds that ston pa nid bdun cu pa ni dt La brgal ba dan Lon btab par gyur pa'i phyir de Las 'phros pa yin par mlion no (YulctisastilcQvrtti, TP, No. 5265, Yafol. 2b). This is, incidentally, also the opini~n·~r Sunyatiisaptativivflti, TP, No. 5269, Yajol. 381 b, q.v.
96. Thus 29 is a summary of MK, XIX. 33-44 elaborate MK, XVII, and 45-54
31
ture of composition, but it may, as I have ventured, be divided into at least seven paragraphs.
For the study of SS I have had the following sources at my disposal:97
Sigla
K Sunyatasaptatikarika, trans. by G:ion nu mchog, Gnan Dhar rna grags and Khu lo. TP, No. 5227, Tsafol. 27a-30b; TN, No. 3218, T sajol. 24a-26a.
v Siinyatasaplativrtti, trans. Jinamitra and Yeses sde. TP, No, 5231, Tsa jot. 126a-138a; TN, No. 3222, T sa jot. 116b-128b.
C Sunyatasaptativrtti, trans. Abhayakara and Dhar rna grags. TP, No. 5268, Yajol. 305-381 b; TN, No. 3259, Yafol. 295a- 375b.
P Sii.nyatasaptativivrtti, trans. Parahita and G:ion nu mchog. TP, No. 5269, Yajol. 381 b-425a; TN, No. 3260, Yafol. 357a- 420b.
The translations of the karikas included in C and P sometimes differ considerably- and sometimes unhappily - from that given in V, anci more often agree with K than with the one in V.911 As editions and translations of V, C and P are expected I shall confine myself to an edition of K adding the karika version transmitted in V. Though I have consulted C and P my translation of the kiirikiis strictly follows the svavrtti which must, of course, remain the ftnal
supplement MK , IV. These are only the most obvious instances beyond all doubt. - Ace. to C, 306a SS is a •sa1JikftPa of MK .
97. For information about the Indian and Tibetan translators etc. I must refer to J. Naudou, us bouddhistes kaimirims au Mo_ytn A.li'· Paris 1968, passim. - Possibly the Sanskrit text ofCandrakirti's commentary (C) is still extant, see G. N. Roe rich, Tht Blue Annals, Calcutta 1949, p. 342. (Note that C does not include verses 53 and 67, but P has all 73 stanzas.)
98. The variants are of some interest for the light they shed on the technique of translating Sanskrit into Tibetan. As they hardly ever affect the sense, and a separate edition ofC is expected I have only referred toC occasionally. P has not been of much use for the present purpose. - V does not seem to have been known to C and P.
32
authority in questions of interpretation.99
Here is the briefest possible survey ofSS. It summarizes the ana­ lysis given in the introduction to my Danish rendering of the verses with the author's own commentary and must be supplemented by consulting the notes.
1-6: The dharmas only exist vyavaharavaJat (i.e. saTflvrtita&) asyukti shows that paramarthatab everything is anutpanna.
7-26: All entities (bhava) are pratltyasamutpanna, oriunya. So nirvar;za is simply anutpada.
27-32: Various aspects of bhava refuted as being relative. 33-44: Karma is also sunya according to orthodox Buddhism. 45-57: Refutation of the five skandhas, above all rupa. 58-66: avidya vanishes when it is understood, as shown, that there
really is no bhava etc. whatsoever. 67-73: Thus paramartha is simply sunyata, anutpada etc. However,
since it is not generally realized, one must resort to sarrwr!i with sraddha in order to achieve it onesel( 100
99. See my Danish translation (based on TP, TD and TN) referred ton. 75. - I regret that theJapanese translation (Daij"o Butten, XIV) by Ryushin Urylizu was not accessible to me. (I may here add that having collated K and V in TD I deemed that the uariae lectiones, disregarding scribal errors, may be accounted for as results of emendation and contamination. Hence they have been eliminated from the apparatus. A similar editorial licence has clearly affected the transmission in case of the verses of VV and Y~. - I have not collated the other texts in TD.]
I 00. In my view it would be very naive to interpret the introduction ofc.g.iraddha in SS ( c( RA, I, 4·6; SS, 17Sb If.) or the stress laid on uada in VV as signs of a development in the thought ofNagarjuna. Of course, facing new charges, he had to lend new nuances to his standpoint, but I do not think that his fundamental belief in siinyata, once formed, ever underwent any decisive change.
33
,
Sunyatasaptati-k3xika II sTon pa iiid bdun cu pa'i tshig le'ur byas pa II
I. K /V I gnas pa'am skye 'jig yod med dam II dman pa'arn rnr1arn dan
khyad par can I I satis rgyas 'jig rten si1ad dban gis II gsun gi yan dag dban gis min I
I gnas pa'arn skye 'jig yod rned darn II dman pa'am miiarn pa'am khyad par can 1
I sansrgyas 'jig rten bsnad dbat1gis II gsungisyandagdbangis min 1
2. K/V I bdag med bdag rned min bdag dan II bdag rned min pas brjod 'ga'an
rned I I htjod bya mya nan 'das dati mtshuns II dnos po kun gyi ran bzin
ston I
I bdag med brlag nwd min bdagdar1ll bdag med min pas hrjo<.l 'ga'an med I
I hrjod par bya ba'i chos rnams kun II mya rtan 'das mtshuns ran bzin ston I
3. K/ V I gan phyir di10s rnams thams cad kyi II ran b:lin rgyu rkyen tshogs pa
'am I I so so'i dnos po thams cad Ia II yod min d e phyir stor) pa yin I
I gao phyir dnos po thams cad kyi II ran bzin rgyu rkycn tshogs pa 'am I
I so so rnams Ia ' am thams cad Ia II yod min de'i phyir ston pa yin I
34
·r·hc Septuagint on Emptiness
I l'hnuJ!:h the Buddhas have spoken of duration (sthiti), origination "'f~ldf/ ) , destruction (bhanga), being (sat), non-being (asat ), low '""'' ). moderate (sama) and excellent (v#4~a) by force of worldly
• .. 11\Tntion (lokal!)lavalzaravaiat), [they] have not done [so] in an abso­ ln rr · •wnse (tattvavaiat).
·: I >l'signations (abhidhana ) are insignificant (na ki'!l cit) as self ,,,,11n ), non-self (anatman) and self-non-self (atmanatman) do not • '"I , I bt·cause] all expressible things (abhidluyabh(wa ) are, like Nirva- 1."' · "mpty of own being (svabhavaJimya).
I. Since all things all together lack substance (suabhava) either in • ·' "~··s or conditions (hetupratyaya) [or their] totality (siimagrl) or se­ l'·"·ltl'ly, therefore they are empty (iunya) .
I < >r, in the words of M K, XXIV, 8: dve saryt samupasritya buddhiinii'[! dllarmadeianii: cf. YY, 28; Y~, 30-33. For vyavahiira in general, v. May ( 1959), p. 22 1, n. 760. - H ere •iolcavyavahiiravaiiit = kiiryavaiat of Y~, 33, q. v.
' This verseaboutta/111a (i.e.paramiirtha etc.) summarizes MK, XV III, l -7~ q.v.· I Similar reason for anutpada VY, l ; 21; MK, I; XX. - Due to the fact tha t
things lack svabhiiva they a re termed iunya, VV, passim.
35
4. K / V I yod phyir yod pa skye min te II med phyir med pa skye ma yin I I chos m i mthun phyir yod med min II skye ba med pas gnas 'gag
med I
I yod pa yod phyir skye ma yin II med pa med pa' i phyir ma yin I I chos mi mthun phyir yod med min II skye ba med phyir gnas 'gog
med I
5. K/ V I gao zig skyes de bskyed bya min II ma skyes pa yan bskyed by a min I I skyes pa dan ni ma skyes pa'i II skye bi in pa yan bskyed bya min I
I skyes pa bskyed par bya ba min II ma skyes pa yan bskyed bya min I I skye ba' i tshe yan bskyed bya m in II skyes dan ma skyes pa yi phyir I
6. K/V I 'bras bu yod par 'bras ldan rgyu II med de Ia 'an rgyu min mtshuns I I yod min med pa' an min na 'gal II d us gsum rnams su 'thad rna yin I
I ' bras yod ' bras dan !dan pa'i rgyu II de rned na ni rgyu min mtshuns I
I yod min mcd pa min na 'gal II dus gsum rnarns su'an 'thad ma yin I
7. K / V I gcig mcd par ni man po dan II man po med par gcig mi 'jug I I de phyir rtcn cin ' b rei ' byun ba'i II dnos po mtshan ma med pa yin I
I gcig med par ni man po dan II man po med par gcig rni 'jug I I de phyir brten nas dnos po roams II byun ba mtshan ma med pa
yin I
4 Kb med pa : med pas NP 5 Kc skyes pa : skyed pa NP 6 Vc min : yin NP
36
I Bt·ing (sat) does not arise since it exists. Non-being (asat) does ,,. ·• .t 1 isc since it does not exist. Being and non-being (sadasat) do not . 11 "'" dnt· to [their] heterogeneity (vaidharmya ). Consequently they .j,, ""' l"ndure or vanish.
• That which has been born (jata) cannot be born (notpadya), nor . ·"' that which is unborn (ajata) be born. But that which is [now · ..• rdl to he born (utpadyamana) Lis, in fact, partly) born (jata) [partly) ' '"' """" (ajata ) [and] cannot be born (utpadya ) either.
ft . A cause (hetu ) has an effect (phalavat ) when there is an effect fdurla ). but when there is no [effect] the [cause] amounts to no
, .tllsl" (ahetu ). It is inconsistent (viruddha) that [the effect) neither nists nor does not exist. It is illogical that [the cause is active] in the rim·•· periods (kala).
7. Without one (eka) there are not many (aneka). Without many r,m,.kn) one (eka) is not possible. Therefore things that arise depen­ ol.·nll y (pratityasamutpanna) are indeterminable (animitta).
I. This refutes the three hypothetically possible subjects of origination, sal etc. (really there arc four ko[is, see e.g. CS, Il l , 23) as does \ofK, VII, 20; CS, I, 13 rtc.
'•. Refuta tion ofutpada as the first of the three sarrzskrtalakfa (la, cf. MK, VII , 1-2.­ This verse corresponds to •Dviidaiadviiraka, 26 (Taisho, No. 1568, 167a 23- 24) which may, however, have read •jatiijiitavinirmukta (cf. MK, 11, I ) inpada c.
ft . Again utpada is absurd because the notion ofhttu (i.e. toutpada) is untenable. Sec: MK, XX; RA, I, 47: priigjata~ sahajatai ca httur ahttuko 'rthata~ I prajnapter apratitalvad utpallei caiva lallvatal; ll
7. Things (bhiiva) arc also empty because they cannot be indicated (animitta ) in terms of numbers (saqrkhya) since numbers also are praiityasamutpanna. Here the concept of eka/aruka seems quite concrete, so thateJ.:a = kfa')a orparamlir)u, cf. RA, I, 67-7 1.
37
8. K/ V I rten ' byun yan lag bcu gnis gao II sdug bsnal ' bras can de rna skyes I I sems gcig Ia yan mi ' thad cin II du rna Ia yan ' thad rna yin I
I rten ' byun yan lag bcu gnis gao II sdug bsnal 'bras can de rna skyes I
I sems gcig Ia yan mi 'thad Ia II du rna Ia yan mi ' thad do I
9. K / V I rtag min mi rtag min bdag dan II bdag min gtsan min mi g tsa n min I I bde min sdug bsnal rna yin te II de phyir phyin ci log rnams med I
I mi rtag rtag min bdag med pa II bdag min mi g tsan g tsan rna yin I I sdu~ bsnal bde ba rna yin te II de phyir phyin ci log rnams med I
10. K/ V I de med phyin ci log bzi las II skyes pa'i rna rig mi srid Ia I I de med 'du byed mi 'byur1 :lin II !hag rna rna ms kyan de bzin no I
I de med na ni phyin ci log II bzi las skyes pa 'i rna rig mcd I I de med na ni 'du byed rnams II mi 'byun !hag ma'an de bzin no I
II. K/ V I rna rig 'du byed med m i ' byun II de med 'du byed mi 'byun zin I I phan tshun rgyu phyir de gnis ni I! ran bzin gyis ni rna grub yin I
I rna rig 'du byed med mi ' byun II de med 'du byed mi ' byun bas I I de gnis pha n tshun rgyu phyir yan II ran bzin gyis ni ma grub yin I
8 Kb 'bras can N : ' bra) can P 9 Ka rtag min P : brtag min N
10 Vb bzi : gii NP II Vd yin: min NP II K c giiis : nid NP; Vd yin : min NP
38
:~ The [ lirst of the] twelve dependently arising members (dvada­ ., ... . ~. which results in suffering (dubkhaphala ), is unborn (ajata ): it is
•••·I Jl'''sihlr in one mind (tkacitta ) and it is not possible in many
"''"·" ) cit her.
' 1 Perma nent is not (na nitya), impermanent is not (nanitya), non­ ·' II i·. not (niinotman), self is not (natman), impure is not (nii.fuci), pure • "'•I (11a iuci), pleasure is not (na .wkha) and suffering is nut (na f,,J,Aft,r). Therefore the perverted views do not exist (na viparyasa ).
I• I. Without these, ignorance (avidya ) based on these perverted ww~ is root possible. Without this (ignorance] the formative forces ··" f" Attra ) do not arise and the remaining [ten members] similarly.
I I. l ~norance (auidya ) does not occur without the formative forces ·"!"Aiira) [and] without it the formative forces (sa7!1skiira ) do not
'"'' . ;;ince I they] are caused by one another (anyonyahetuta(t) they ",. ''"t established with own-being (svahh(wa).
11. :"'or can cilia (sems) be called eka or bhinna (i.e. aneka) because, as we shall see, its 'content' i.e. dul}lcha due toavidyiidi is in fact ajiila. - This verse is 'quoted',
•DviidaJadviiraka, 2 ( 160a 22-23). '1-10. The four viparyiisas (see MK, XX Ill) do not exist in themselves. Hence
avidyiidi which is based on them does not exist either.
39
12. K/V I gail zig bdag nid ran bzin gyis II rna grub de gzan ji I tar bskyed I I de phyir gzan las grub pa yi II rkyen gzan dag ni skyed byed min I
I gail zig bdag nid ran bzin gyis II rna grub de gzan ji I tar bskyed I I de Ita bas na pha rol po II rna grub rkyen gzan bskyed byed min I
13. K/ V I pha ni bu min bu pha min II de gnis phan tshun med min Ia I I de gnis cig car yan min !tar II yan lag bcu gnis de bzin no I
I pha bu rna yin bu pha min II de gnis phan tshun med min Ia I I de gnis cig car yan min !tar II yan lag bcu gnis de bzin no I
14. K/V I ji !tar rmi lam yul brten pa'i II bde sdug de yi yul med pa I I de bzin gail zig Ia brten nas II gail zig rten 'byun dan 'di med I
I rmi lam yul brten bde sdug dan II yul de' an med ltar brten nas gail I I byun bade yan de bzin med II brten nas gail yin de yan med I
15. K / V I gal te dnos rnams ran bzin gyis II med na dman milam khyad 'phags
dan I I sna tshogs nid ni mi 'grub cin II rgyu las kyan ni mnon 'grub min I
I gal te dnos rnams ran bzin gyis II med na dnam milam khyad 'phags nid 1
I yod min sna tshogs nid mi 'grub II rgyu las mnon par grub pa'an med I
16. K / V I ran bzin grub na rten 'byun gi II dnos po med 'gyur rna brten na I I ran bzin med par ga Ia 'gyur II dnos po yod dan dnos med kyan I
I ran bzin grub rten dnos mi 'gyur II rna brten par yan ga Ia yod I I ran bzin med nid mi 'gyur zin II ran bzin yod pa mi 'jig go I
12 Vb gian : biin NP; Kc yi : yis NP 15 Vd grub P : 'grub N
40
12. That which is unestablished by own-being, how could it c-reate the others? Therefore conditions (pratyaya) established by .,t hcrs cannot create the others.
13. A father is not a son, a son is not a father. Neither exists without being correlative (anyorrya). Nor are they simultaneous (vu.f!apat). The twelve members likewise.
14. J ust as pleasure (sulcha) and pain (dul;lr.ha) depending upon an object in a dream (svapnavifaya ) do not have [a real) object (vi.raya) thus neither that which arises dependently nor that which it arises d1·pcndently from exists.
15. Opponent: If things (bhava) do not exist by own-being (svabhave­ rw }, low (hina), moderate (sama ), excellent (vif4ta) and the manifold world (citra) are unestablished (asiddha) and cannot even be estab­ lished through a cause (hetuta~) .
16. Reply: If own-being (svabhava) were established (siddha ), de­ pendently arising things would not occur. If [they were) uncondi­ tioned how could own-being be lacking? T rue being (sadbhava) also does not vanish (abhava).
Il-l~. Again avitfyadi are anutpanna (i.e. irinya) because they arepratityasamutpaMa (in the sense ofMK, XXVI, 1-12 and/or PK, 1-5, q. v.),pitaputravat (cf. VV, ~9-50). T hussukha and du~kha ( cf. v. 8) are no more real than experiences in a dream {cf. CS, I , 17; III, 5 etc.).
15-16. In fact all the laukika-sa'(lvyavahara {see MK, X IV, 6-40; VV, 70; above v. I) are only possible because they are pratityasamutpanna.
41
17. K/V I med Ia ran dnos gzan dnos sam II dnos med 'gyur ba ga Ia zig I I des na ran dnos gzan dnos dan II dr1os med phyin ci log pa yin I
I med Ia ran gi dnos po 'am II gzan dnos 'jig par ga Ia 'gyur I I de phyir gzan dnos dnos med dan II dnos dan ran dnos log pa yin I
18 K/V I gal te dnos po ston yin na II 'gag pa med cin skye mi 'gyur I I no bo iiid kyis ston pa Ia II gan Ia 'gag cin gait Ia skye I
I gal te dl10s po ston yin na II 'gag parmi 'gyur skye mi 'gyur I I no bo iiid kyis ston pa Ia II gait Ia 'gag cin gan Ia skye I
19 K/V I dnos dan dnos med cig car min II dnos med med na drios po med I I rtag tu dnos po' an dnos med 'gyur II dnos med mcd par dnos mi
srid I
I dnos dan dnos med cig car rned II dnos med meci par dnos po med I I rtag tu dnos dan dnos med 'gyur II dnos dan dr1os po med rni 'gyur I
20. K/ V I dnos po med par dnos med min II rar1 1as min iiri gzan las min I I de Ita bas na de med na II dnos po med cin dnos med med I
I di10s po mcd par dnos med mcd II bdag las rna yin gzan las min I I de Ita bas na dnos po med II de med na ni dnos mc:d med I
21. K/V I yod pa iiid na rtag iiid dan II med na nes par chad nid yin I I dnos po yod na de gnis 'gyur II de phyir dnos po khas blans min I
I dnos po yod pa iiid na rtag II med na ncs par chad pa yin I I dnos po yod na de giiis yin II de' i phyir dnos po khas blans min I
17 Vb 'jig N: 'jog P; V om. c, sed v. K 18 Vc kyis: kyi NP 21 Vc yin : min NP
42
17. How could the non-existing (asat) have own-being (svabh(wa), , •tlwr-lwing (parabhava) or non-being (abhava)?- Consequently own­ IH'illJ{ (.rvabhava), other-being (parabhava ) and non-being (abhiiva) lr .. sult from] perverted views (viparyasa).
I R. Opponent: If things (bhava) were empty (.fiinya ) cessation (niro­ dhn ) and origination (utpada ) would not occur. That which is empty .. rown-being (svabhavena), how does it cease and how does it arise?
19. Repf:y: Being (bhava) and non-being (abhava ) are not simul­ t.mcous (yugapat). Without non-being (abhava) no being (bhava). Jl .. ing (bhava) and non-being (abhava) would always be. There is no I wing (bhava) independently of non-being (abhava).
20. Without being (bh(wa) there is no non-being (abhiiva). [Being] nt'ither arises from itself (svata~) nor from [something] else (paratal) ). This being so this [being] does not exist, so there is no being (bhava), .tnd [therefore] no non-being (abhava) .
2 1. If there is being (sat) there is permanence (SiiJvata); if there is non-being (asat) there is necessarily (niyatam) annihilation (uccheda ). When there is being (bhava) these two [dogmas] occur. Therefore lone should] not accept being (bhava).
17-20. The various forms of bhava (i.e. svabhiiva, parabhava, abhiiva and bhava as such) are only ccnceivable in mutual dependence. ThP.y do not occur independently (cf. MK, XV).- For v. 18 in particular cf. MK, XX IV, I; XXV, 1-2.- Akutobhaya ad MK, XXI, 6 quotes 19-21 as from Simyatasaptati. *Dvadaiadvaraka, 20 (164b 27-28) seems to be identical with SS, 19.
21. Acceptance ofbhava would moreover imply iasvatocchedagrOlra, cf. May, op.cit., p. 213, n. 720; llj, XX III, p. 179, n. 58 (cf. ibid., p. 178, n . 9); MK, XXI, 14. The verse is quoted Madhyama/calarrrkiiravrtti, TP, No. 5285, Safol. 75a (with Catu~atalca, X, 25; RA, I, 60 to the same effect).
43
22. K/V I rgyun gyi phyir na 'di med de II rgyu byin nas ni dnos po 'gag I I sitar biin ' di yan ma grub cin II rgyun chad par yan thai bar 'gyur I
I rgyun gyi phyir na de med de II rgyu byin nas ni dnos po 'gag I I sna ma bzin du 'di ma grub II rgyun chad pa yi nes pa 'an yod I
23. K/V I skye 'j ig bstan phyir sans rgyas kyi II lam bstan ma yin ston iiid
phyir I I 'di dag phan tshun bzlog pa ru II mthon ba phyin ci log las yin I
I skye 'jig gzigs pas my a nan 'das II Jam bstan ston nid phyir ma yin I I 'di dag phan tshun bzlog phyir dan II log pa'i phyir na mthon ba
yin I
24. K/V I gal te skye 'gag med yin na II ci zig 'gags pas mya nan 'das I I ran bzin gyis ni skye med cin II 'gag med gail de thar min nam I
I gal te skye dan 'gag med na II gail zig 'gag phyir mya nan 'das I I gail zig ran bzin skye rned citi II 'gag med de thar ma yin nam I
25. K/ V I gal te 'gags las myan ' das chad II gal te cig sos ltar na rtag I I de phyir dnos dan dnos med dag II rnya nan 'das par run ma yin I
I gal te mya nan 'das 'gog chad II gal te cig sos ltar na rtag I I de phyir dnos dan dnos med min II skye med 'gag pa'an rned pa
yin I
26. K/V I gal te 'gog pa 'ga' gnas na II dnos po las gzan de yod 'gyur I I dnos po med phyir 'di medIa II dnos po med phyir de yan med I
I gal te 'gog pa 'ga' gnas yod II dnos med par yan der 'gyur ro I I dnos med par yan de med de II dnos med med par yan de med I 22 Kb 'gag : 'ga' NP 26 Kd yan: ias NP
44
22. Opponent: These [two dogmas] do not occur due to continuity (sa'!llana ) [which entails that] things (bhava) cease when they have given cause (hetu'!l dattvii) [to an effect].- Reply: As before [vide 19a] this [continuity J is also unestablished. It also follows that the conti­ nuity would be interrupted.
23. Opponent: [No!] The Buddha's teaching of the Way (miirgadeia­ nii) aims at showing origination (utpiida) and cessation (nirodhc), not at emptiness (iW!yatii )! -Reply: To experience the two as mutually excluding (parasparaviparyaya) is a mistake (viparyaya ).
24. Opponent: If there is no origination (utpiida ) and cessation (nirodha), then NirvaQa is due to the cessation of what?- Reply: Is liberation (mokfa ) not that by nature (prakrtya) nothing arises and ceases?
25. If Nirval}a [results] from cessation (nirodha ) [then there is] destruction (uccheda) . If [NirvaQa] were the contrary (itara) [there would be] permanence (.rasvata ). Therefore it is not logical that NirvaQa is being (bhiiva) and non-being (abhiiva).
26. If a definite cessation (nirodhal) kai cit) did abide it would be independent of being (bhiivad anya ). It does not exist without being (bhiiva), nor does [cessation] exist without non-being (abhiiva ).
22. The notion of Saf!lliina does not save one from iO.iuatocchtdagriiha, cf. above, v. 19;MK, XVII; XXI, IJ·21. This, of course, is only paramiirthata~ . cf. MK, XXVII, 22; CatuWataka, X, 25.
23-26. As there is nobhiiua etc. nirviil}a cannot be defined as {bhii114)nirodha, orabhiioa. In fact utpiida and nirodha are sheer illusions (cf. MK, XXI, II and Lankiiuatiira , X, 37; ~IK, XXV; RA, I 42; SL, 105, 123). Thus Nagiirjuna's notion of nin·ii~a incurs no i iiivatocchtda.f!riiha.
45
27. K/ V I mtshan gzi las gzan mtshan nid las II mtshan gzi grub par rari ma
grub I I phan tshun las kyari ma grub ste II rna grub rna grub sgrub byed
min I
I mtshan gzi las mtshan grub mtshan las II mtshan gzi grub ste rari ma grub I
I gcig las gcig kyari ma grub ste II ma grub rna grub sgrub byed min I
28. K / V I 'dis ni rgyu dari 'bras bu dari II tshor dari tshor ba po sogs dari I I Ita po Ita bya sogs ci'ari ruri II de kun ma Ius bsad pa yin I
I 'dis ni rgyu dari 'bras bu dari II tshor bcas tshor ba po sogs dari I I Ita po Ita bya sogs ci'ari ruri II de kun rna Ius bsad pa yin I
29. K / V I gnas med phan tshun las grub dari II 'chol phyir rari riid m a grub
phyir I I drios pu mcd phyir dus gsum ni II yod pa ma yin rtog pa tsam I
I rni gnas phan tshun grub phyir dan II 'chol phyir bdag nid rna g rub phyir I
I dnos po med phyir dus gsum ni II yod pa ma yin rtog pa tsam I
30. K/ V I gar1 phyir skye dan gna& dari 'jig II 'dus byas mtshan nid ' d i gsum
med I I de phyir 'dus byas nid rna yin II 'dus rna byas la'ari curi zad med I
I gari phyir skye dari gnas dan 'jig II 'dus byas mtshan rud 'di gsum med I
I de phyir 'dus byas 'dus ma byas II ci yari yod pa ma yin no I
28 Vc ci'an: ci yari NP 29 Kl> 'chol: 'tshol NP
4·6
27. The marked (lakva ) is established from a mark (la.kfat;za) different from the marked (lakva). It is not established by itself (na \llnsiddha). Nor are the [tv:o] established by each other (paraspara ) !since] unestablished cannot establish unestablished.
28. In this [manner] cause (hetu ), effect (phala), feeling (vedana) , feeler (vedaka) etc., seer (drastr), visible etc. (draseavyadi), whatever it may be, arc all explained without exception.
29. The three times (kiilatraya) do not exist (substantially) since they are unfixed (asthita ), mutually established (parasparasiddha), and since they change [and] since they are not self-established [and finally] since there is no being (bhava). They are merely discriminations ( vikalpamalra ).
30. Since the three marks of the conditioned (saT[I.rkrtalaksaTJa ), !i.e.] origination (utpiida ), duration (sthiti) and cessation (bhanga) do not exist, therefore there is not the slightest