Galloway - PP 13 New Edition and Translation

Toward a New Edition and Translation of

Chapter 13 of the

Prasannapad of Candrakirti

By Brian Galloway, Berkeley

Introduction

The Prasannapad of Candrakirti is the most renowned commentary in the

Indo-Tibetan tradition on Ngrjuna's Mlamadhyamaka-krik (Ngr

juna's title is Prajn, according to the two other commentators, Bhvaviveka

and the author of the Akutobhay, though the work is usually known as

Mlamadhyamaka-krik or as the Madhyamaka-sstra). The editio princeps

of the Prasannapad is by Louis de la Vallee Poussin and was published in

St. Petersbourg in the Bibhotheca Buddhica series, in 1903 to 1913. In 1978

J.W. de Jong published his "Textcritical Notes on the Prasannapad" in

which he gives several hundred corrections, largely based upon the new

manuscript called R that he obtained from G. Tucci. We have used these two

sources and also two others: S. Schayer's German translation of 1931 pub

hshed in Cracow, and the Tibetan translation as published by Sakya college in

Dehra Dun in 1993 (based on the Derge recension?). Both de la Vallee

Poussin and Schayer have given quite a good number of useful comments in

their footnotes; some of this information has been retained in the present new

edition. Almost all of de Jong's corrections are good; once in a great while his

R manuscript gives us a worse reading and we must then stick with de la

Vallee Poussin's text.

The task as we have defined it here was to come up with a text that makes

sense, which we have largely been able to do with the four sources mentioned.

We have also used some subsidiary sources given in the notes of de la Vallee

Poussin and Schayer. Candraklrti's quotations from the Ksyapaparivarta

can be corrected via the von Stael-Holstein edition (studded with errors,

but at one point superior).

The result, we hope, will be a modest advance on prior work (and of course

is very heavily indebted to that same prior work). We have often broken up

long compounds with the hyphen for ease of reading and even dissolved

322 Brian Galloway

vowel sandhi for the same reason. It can be argued that the hyphen and word

space are a part of the Roman script. The same can be said for punctuation

marks, which I have occasionally added. At the same time I have preserved all

the original punctuation, consisting of the danda (|), the double danda, (| |),

and the half-danda (').

Perhaps the most interesting features are the interpretation of the word

nirupyamana (ed. n. 2, tr. n. 139), the interpretation of musyate (ed. n. 36), the

reconstruction of the badly garbled line as atma-jino ca anatma-sthitas ca (ed.

n. 102), the discussion of drstigata/drstikrta (ed. n. 119 and esp. n. 136, also tr.

n. 181) where the von Stael-Holstein ed. of the Ksyapaparivarta and the

Tibetan translation of the Prasannapad allow us to correct all mss. of the

Prasannapad, and the change of vykulitam to nom. vykulitah for sense

(ed. n. 112), apphed to the opponent ('You, Sir, are confused ...'), whereas the

Tibetans read 'snake', evidently vyla. While we must be cautious in suggest

ing readings not in any extant ms. or the Tib. translation, an editor cannot

confine himself to making a catalog of variants; at some point he must decide

which variant is likely to have been written or intended by the author (here

Candrakirti); and it is possible that no extant ms. gives what the author wrote

or intended.

Abbreviations

T Tibetan used by de Jong

hT Tibetan used by von Stael-Holstein

pT Tibetan used by LVP

saT Tibetan used by Galloway (Sakya College)

s^ T Tibetan published by Saigusa, first

s^ T Tibetan published by Saigusa, second

LVP Louis DE La Vallee Poussin

R Manuscript used by de Jong, not available to LVP

BHSG Edgerton, Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar

Schayer Ausgewhlte Kapitel der Prasannapad

Sprung Lucid Exposition of the Middle Way

Chapter 13 of the Prasannapad of Candrakirti 323

Part I: Text

samskra-pariks nma

trayodasam prakaranam \ \

yatas ca-evarn samanantara-atikrnta-prakarana-vidhin, sva-para-

uhhaya-krtatvam' ahetu-samutpannatvarn ca nirpyamnarn^ bhvnm

asad, anyas ca-utpdako vidhir asan | utpanna-rpatvena^ ca-ete bhv

avidy-timira-Hpahata-mati-nayannrn bla-prthagjannrn khynti* \

tasmn nihsvabhv eva santo hlnrn visamvdak, my-karv'-

turaga-divat tad-anabhijnnrn na tu vijnnarn \ ata eva sarva-

dharma-svabhva^-aparoksa-dhi-nayanah samunmlita-asesa-avidy-

vsanas catur-viparysa-viparyasta-atrna-sattva-paritrnya-avipartta-

naihsvbhvya-upadesa-tatparo buddho jagad-vibodhako mahkrunikah \

' LVP adds this tvam, and it is needed for sense because the ca requires two nouns, in this

case ending in tva, thus krtatvam samutpannatvam ca 'made-ness and arising-ness'; there is

no having-been-madeness by self, other, or both, and no having-arisen-without-cause-ness.

The singular verb (in this case participle) asat where we expect a plural is not unknown in

Ngrjuna himself: VI11.4 has kryam ca kranarn ca na vidyate in the first line and kriy

kart kranarn ca na vidyate in the second, de J has kranarn in this second clause also, but

s''2T has karanarn, distinguished from the kranarn in the first line, and also makes the dis

tinction between rgyu yan hthadpa in the first line and byed in the second (s'-^T). saT has bya

for karanam in the second line (p. 153).

2 saT places nirpyamnam before sva-para above, and translates it adverbially as dpyad

par na 'if we investigate'. But if we leave the word where it is, it seems likely to be an adjective

applying to krtatvarn samutpannatvarn. ca. Translate nirpyamna as 'being investigated or

supposed, appearing as, specious, angebliche' (MW s.v. nirpya 'to be seen or defined or as

certained; not yet certain, questionable'.

3 Schayer makes this a full sentence: 'Daher, [obwohl es kein Entstehen gibt], erscheinen

ihm die bhvas als etwas, was dem Entstehen unterworfen ist' (p. 25). Better to see it as 'By

means of the appearance (formed-ness) of something having arisen'. saT translates as skye

bahi no bor 'as reahty arisen'.

* khy 2 P. usually 'declare', here 'appear, manifest (itself)'. Oddly enough the dictionar

ies of Monier-Williams, Apte, and Macdonell all fail to give this meaning for khy and

define it (and the related noun khyti f.) solely in terms of speech. But the meaning 'appear,

manifest' is clearly implied by saT snah ba. Mylius in his Sanskrit-German dictionary gives

s.v. 'sichtbar werden', which is good. saT and Mylius are confirmed by Mandanamisra's

Vibhramaviveka, wherein the word khyti f. is used in this sense; Schmithausen translates

it as 'Erscheinen', see e.g. his pp. 21, 53, 233. Candrakirti uses the verb khynti here (below,

the nouns khyti and khytin), so Monier-Williams is wrong to write, 'the simple verb oc

curs only in Pass, and Caus.' s.v. ^^^'. -Take the genitives nayannrn iiid prthagjannrn asdatives.

5 Shorten EVP's ato a (thus reading my-kari) with R. saT has sgyu mahi rta dah glah po

che. 'illusory horse and elephant'.

* Read svabhva with R and saT (LVP had svbhvya.)

324 Brian Galloway

tan mrs^ mosadharma^ yad, bhagavn ity abhsata \

sarve ca mosadharmnah samskrs,'' tena te mrs' | | 1 | |"

SHtra uktam, "tan mrs, mosadharma yad idarn sarnskrtarn'^ \ etad dhi khalu,

bhiksavah, paramarn'^ satyarn, yad idam'^ amosadharma, nirvnarn.

^ We translate mrs (indec.) as 'false' and mosa as 'deceptive' througliout, not that no

other translations are possible. - Schayer's comments on mrs and mosa should be noted:'mosa-dharma kann auch "ruberisch", wrtlich: "zu dessen dharma Raub und Diebstahl

gehrt"[,] bedeuten und an diese (aktive) Bedeutung denkt offenbar Candrakirti, wenn er

weiter unten Pr. 233 13 dem Gegner erwidert: saty arri mosa-dharmak sarva-sarnskr ye'dypi bhavantam musnanti - "Mit recht heien alle sarnskrs mosa-dharmaka, weil sie

noch jetzt deine Einsicht stehlen (= dich foppen, betrgen)". Etymologisch hat allerdingsmosa mit musnti nichts zu tun. Denn mosa ist hier = Pli mosa = Gunabildung zu mus =

mrs' (p. 27 n.). Thus for Schayer we in effect have tan mrs mrsdharma yad. Of course no

one would write this because of the obvious tautology. Sanskrit grammarians generally derive mrs from mrs 4 P.. 'not heed'. Originally, too, mrs seems to have been an adverb, 'in

vain', mosa on the other hand is {pace Schayer) generally derived from mus 9 P. 'steal'. The

distinction exists in Pali also (mus, mosa); in MN III p. 330 of the Pli Pubhcation Board

edition of 1958 we have tarn hi, bhikkhu, mus yarn mosadhammarn, tarn saccam yarnamosadhammarn nibbnam. But I. B. Horner translates as if mus and mosa were from the

same root: 'For that which is liable to falsity, monk, is falsehood; that truth which is not hable

to falsity is nibbna' (PTS 1959, p. 292). 'Im buddhistischen Sanskrit wurde [Schayer con

tinues ibidem] aber musati = musnti mit mussati = mrsyati in Zusammenhang gebracht und

mosa-dharma als "den Sinn bestehlend" = "irrefhrend" und "[tjrugbewirkend" aufgefat.'

However this may be, the early Buddhists, Ngrjuna, Candrakirti, and the standard sources

for Sanskrit grammar have mosa and mrs from different roots.8 Here dharman is n.; in the next line the word dharman m. is used with the same mean

ing (m. to agree with sarnskr), and both mean the same as dharma. Understand the first

four words as yan mosadharma, tan mrs 'what is a deceptive dharma (that which is a deceptive dharma), that is false'.

' Understand sarve ca sarnskr mosadharmh bhavanti 'And all sarnskr are mosa-

dharma'. If we consider mosadharman as a bahuvrihi compound, mosadharmnah sarnskrs

are 'sarnskr, whose dharmas are deceptive'. The question is whether the sarnskras are false

because they have deceptive dharmas or because they are deceptive dharmas. We prefer thelatter interpretation. But see Note 17 below.

' 'And therefore they (the samskras) are false'. The whole sloka amounts to a syllogism:

If a deceptive dharma, then false; sarnskras ire deceptive dharmas; therefore samskras are

false. Some think, not without reason, that the syllogism is clearer if the first two clauses are

reversed, thus samskras are deceptive dharmas; if a deceptive dharma, then false; thereforesarnskras are false.

" LVP states concerning the sloka, 'Cite ci-dessus p. 42.10.' The citation differs only insandhi: samskrh tena. - Saigusa's version of the Skt. is the same.

'2 saT understands by this hdus byas bslu bahi chos can gah yin pa de ni rdsun pa yin'Whatever is a deceptive dharmin or dharmaka, that is, a sarnskrta, that is false'. Tib. chos can

suggests dharmin, but a short while later (n. 17 below) we shall see chos can for dharmaka.

" LVP states concerning the following, 'Voir ci-dessus p. 41.4 et suiv.' There we find

paramarn satyarn yaduta amosadharma nirvnarn ' sarv a- sarnskrs ca mrs mosa-


sarvasamskrs ca mrs, mosadharmna" iti'^ \ tath "* " mosadharmakam'^

apy etat ' pralopa'^ dharmakam''^ apy etad" itf \ \ tad^' anena nyyena^^ yan

mosadharmakarn^^ tan mrs-ity evarn yasmd uktavrns^^ tathgato

bhagavn ' sarve ca mosadharmnah sarnskrs tasmn mosadharmatvena te

sarnskr mrs bhavanti ' ^^citrakara-yantra-drikvat ' laksana-upeta-

yantra-matta^^-vrana-vancita-udayana-vatsarjavat'^^ \ \ tatra visarn-

vdakarn mosadharmakarn vitatha-khyty^'-ltacakravat \ \

a-tat-svabhvatvenaP mrs sarvasarnskr mosadharmakatvt ' martcikdi-

jalavat \ \ yat tu satyarn na tan mosadharmakarn ' tad-yath nirvnam ekam^ \

dharmnah. He states also (p. 41 n. 2), 'cite ad Bodhic. IX.2 (p. 244.13) avec d'inadmissibles

lectures.' ... In the same place he states, 'Cf. M. Vyut. 245,907,908 mrs mosadharminah.' This

is confirmed on p. 92 of the Bibliotheca Buddhica edition of the Mahvyutpatti (vol. XIII,

1911) (confusingly, the number of the word comes after the word and is separated from it by a

danda). But why dharmin (as above n. 12) pl. dharminah and not dharmh or dharmnah}

INV st3.te.s, yad Uta a, p. A\A." The last clause, sarvasamskrs ca mrs, mosadharmna iti, is lacking in saT. It is indeed

a mere repetition of what was said just previously.

' LVP adds within brackets, nsty atra tathat v avitathat v and states, 'Manque dansles Mss. et dans le tibetain.' This refers not just to the v but to the whole phrase within

square brackets. If this does not derive from the mss. or the Tibetan, then what is its source?

It is wanting also in saT.saT chos can. Here the idea of having appears.

'8 LVP ha.s pralpa in text but corrects to pralopa in his "Additions et Corrections" p. 602.

In his note ad loc. he states, 'Le tibetain porte hdi ni hjig pahi chos can no = vins'a-

dharmakam etat.' pralopa m. 'destruction' (MW s.v. pra-lup). Schayer emends to pralopaand translates it: '= der Realitt beraubt = annulliert = pralop adh arma' (p. 27).

" saT chos can.

2 saT identifies this as a quotation from some authoritative source by adding ses gsuns so.

2' siT dehi phyir.22 saT tshul hdis.

2' Adding karn with R and T. Whole word mosadharmakarn = saT bslu sin hjig pahi chos

can - mosapralopadharmaka.2'' LVP had uktavn. Correct sandhi with R.

25 Beginning of portion not in Tib. acc. to LVP and saT.2 matta 'in rut' with R. LVP had maya.

2' End of portion not in Tib. acc. to LVP and saT.2* See Note 4 above.

2' Reading with T, saT.

' LVP says, 'ekam manque dans la version tibetain', confirmed saT.

326 Brian Galloway

tatas ca vihitay-upapatty^' 'smc cgamt^^ siddham sarvabhvnm

naihsvabhvyam; ' "snyh sarva-dharm nihsvabhva-yogena" iti ca

prajnpramit-ardhasatik-ptht \

atrha^* | yady evam mosadharmatvena sarvasarnskrnrn mrstvam

pratipditam bhavata ' nanv evarn sati na santi sarve bhv iti

sarvapadrtha-apavdino mithy-drstir eva syt \ \ ucyate^^ | satyam

mosadharmakh sarvasarnskr ye 'dypi bhavantarn musnanti | nanu ca

bhoh I

tan mrs mosadharma yad yadi, kirn tatra musyate^^ |

yad-asmbhis "tan mrs mosadharmakam" ity uktam tad kirn tatra

musyate ' kirn tatra-abhvo bhavati \ kascid^^ yadi padrtho 'bhavisyat, syt

tasya-apavdd abhva-darsann mithy-drstih ' yad tu padrtham eva

kamein na pas'ymas, tad kim tatra musyate ' naiva kirncid abhvo

bhavati-ity ayukto 'yam uplambho bhavatah I I

" vihit upapatti 'formal proof, proof according to prescribed {vihito) procedures; rea

son, upapatti f., so read asmt with gamt, esp. as saT has bstan pahi rigspa dah luh hdi las.

Both bstan pahi rigs and bstan rigs are wanting in S. C. Das. vihitay-uppatty inst, 'by formal proof; asmad gamt abi. 'from the tradition'.

'2 The two sources of knowledge then are secular and sacred, reason and scripture, here

vihit upapatti 'formal proof and gama '[scriptural] tradition'. Medieval Western theolo

gians also appealed to 'reason and authority' as their two pramnas.

^' snyh sarvadharm nihsvabhva-yogena is indeed from the Ardha-satika orAdhyardhasatika-prajhpramit-stra, in section VII (P. L. Vaidya ed. p. 91, E. Conze tr.

p. 188).

atra ha 'Here [the opponent of Ngrjuna and Candrakirti] speaks.'

" 'It is said' in reply by Ngrjuna or Candrakirti.

"^ Schayer translates, 'was wird dann berhaupt vom Trug betroffen?' 'what is deceived?'

which seems not quite right because a thing, as distinct from a person, cannot be deceived ornot deceived. Also off the mark is Sprung, who translates, 'what is it that pretends' as if a

thing could pretend and as if the verb were active. But it is passive, with the passive marker

ya. The meaning of the root mus 9 P. is 'to take away, to steal'. Ngrjuna asks here, 'If a de

ceptive dharma is false, what then is taken away here' when I point out its falsity? The inter

pretation 'what is it that deceives' is a question that the opponent might ask, but this does not

correspond to the meaning of the passive verb, and the preceding ucyate (three lines up)

marks what follows as being Ngrjuna's point of view. Also if the opponent were speaking

here, then Ngrjuna would have failed to reply to the accusation of nihilism just made. In

fact he is replying to it here, saying in effect, 'I am not taking anything away from anyone

here; for there was nothing to take away in the first place.' Thus translate kirn tatra musyate

as 'what is lost' when I declare a deceptive dharma to be false? saT bslu seems to be a misunderstanding.

Tib. hga sig any, some; not in Das.


atraha \ yady abh ava- dar sanam api na pratipadyate ' kirn punar

anena-gamena pratipdyata^' iti \ \ ucyate \

etat tu-uktarn hhagavat snyat-paridipakam \ \2\\

yad etad uktarn hhagavat tan na bhvnm abhva-paridipa-dipakam ' kirn

tarhi? snyat-paridipakarn svabhva-anutpda-paridipakam ity arthah \

yath-uktam anavatapta-hradpa-sarnkramana-stre \

yah pratyayair jy ati sa hy ajto;

no^'^ tasya utpdu'* sahhvato^' 'sti \

yah pratyaydhlnu'^^ sa snya'^^ ukto

yah snyatm jnti'''^ so 'pramattah^^ \ \ iti \ \

atrha^^ \ na-ayam gamo bhva-svabhva-anutpdarn paridipayati; kirn

tarhi? nihsvabhvatvarn svabhvasya-anavasthyitvarn, vinsitvam iti'^^ \ \

kuta etad iti cet 1

'8 With DE Jong and R.

^' de Jong and R have na, but read no (same meaning) with LVP metri causa (indravajr).

The four hnes are in the indravajr meter provided we refrain from sandhi in tasya utpduthis hne.

^ The u ending is due to the influence of Apabhrarnsa (see Woolner, Introduction to

Prakrit, p. 34; Pischel, Sec. 363, p. 291). It is to be understood as Skt. ah. The u endings are

obviously used metri causa (for instance we need a short vowel here for the meter, and the a

stem ending ah is long when followed by the s of svabhavato). It is not that the Buddhists

could not write good Sanskrit; rather, this poem may have been first composed by a bard and

sung aloud; then, whoever wrote it down allowed himself to be influenced by the Prakriticelements in an oral tradition and to take metrical considerations into account. He was trying

to balance the oral tradition, correctness of grammar, and the need to fit the meter.

Concerning the first syllable of this word, sa for sva, metri causa so that utpdu can

end on a light syllable; understand svahhva-. On the last syllable, LVP's mss. have -to 'sti, Rhas -to sti; understand tas adverbial. But LVP in his "Additions et Corrections" wants

svahhvat because of Tib. Madh. avat. 119.2 which has for this line de la skye bahi rah hsin

yod ma yin which suggests 'the essence of arising from them is not'.

''2 adhina 'resting on, subservient to', saT rag.

Or sUnyu with R.

Usually jnti 'knows' but sometimes jnati in epic Sanskrit (cf . Whitney, Roots s.v.

jh). So reiA jnati here with LVP, metri causa.

R's sprasamanta makes no sense. Swami Dwarika Das Shastri's edition MMK 24.14,

p. 218, also has so 'pramattah.

The one who speaks here is an objector to Ngrjuna, but from another point of view,that of the Vaibhsikas or Sarvstivdins. See Note 161 of the translation.

" This sentence 'definit le nihsvabhvatva (ou snyat) comme etant le svabhvasya

vinsitva' (LVP).

328 Brian Galloway

bhavanam nihsvabhavatvam anyathabhava^'-darsanat'^'' \

vicryamnnm^ anyathtvamr'' viparinma^^-darsand ity arthah^-^ \ \ etad

uktam bhavati \ yadi bhvnm svabhvo^^ na syt, tadnim na-eva-esm

anyathtvam upalabhyeta \ upalabhyate ca viparinmah^^ \ tasmt

svabhva-anavasthyitvam eva strrtha iti vijneyam \ \ itas ca-etad evam \

yasmt |

na-asvabhvas ca bhvo 'stf^ bhvnm snyat yatah | | 3 | |

yo hy asvabhvo bhvah sa nsti ' bhvnm ca snyat nma dharma isyate \

na csati dharmini tad-srito dharma upapadyate \ na hy asati vandhy-

tanaye tacchymat-upapadyata iti \ tasmd asty eva bhvnm svabhva

iti I I

api ca I

anyathbhva or 'other-becoming' or 'change' is the only real meaning of

nihsvabhvatva according to this (Vai./Sarv.) point of view. Things lack an essence in that

they change; it is not that they are unreal. saT gsan du hgyur ba.

saT has dnos rnams ho bo hid med de \ gsan du hgyur ba snah phyir ro 'That entities are

without essence is [taught] for showing or illuminating (gnah) [their] changeability'. LVP

states, 'On dit que les etres n'ont pas de svabhva parce qu'on voit que leur svabhva est

sujet au changement. - Par le fait, Ie changement prouve l'existence du svabhva.'

5 This word, as LVP states, not in the Tibetan (saT). It seems to mean 'of the things beingconsidered here' i.e. of the entities, bhva.

5' saT gsan du hgyur ba.

" As LVP states, the Tibetan (saT) is yohs su hgyur ba.

5^ ity arthah = saT ses bya bahi tha tshig go. Das does not have this meaning under tha

tshig. Jschke gives dhi tha tshig as 'what signifies?' tha tshig = arthah.

" Mss. nihsvabhvo, but LVP right to follow the Tibetan. saT dhospo rnams la rah hsinmed na. Schayer: 'Wenn der svabhva der bhvas irreal wre'.

55 Adding vi with T and R.

5' This pda as R. The LVP mss. had nsvabhvas ca bhavo nsti, with triple negation,

wrong length in bhavo, and violation of the meter. LVP changed to asvabhvo bhvo nsti in

accordance with a passage by Candrakirti on LVP's p. 245.9. But Candrakirti probably in

tended paraphrase rather than quotation, and generally we should not change the root text to

the exact wording of the commentary, which usually paraphrases. Besides, in this case LVP'sversion also violates the meter. Saigusa's Sanskrit holds to LVP's version. - LVP: 'Notre

commentaire au troisieme pda ho bo hid med de = bhvasvabhvo nsti' This seems not

quite right; it is not what the opponent, who is here speaking, would say. The Tibetan of the

sloka third pda is dhos po ho bo hid med med (s'T; actually Saigusa has erroneously dhos

ho) or, with the same meaning, ho bo hid med dhospo med (s^T). saT has erroneously dhospo

ho bo hid med de (as if Ngrjuna were speaking), but the commentary in saT reads dhospogah sig ho bo hid med pa de niyod pa ma yin te (saT) = bhvah kascit asvabhvo nsti, as one

would expect the opponent to say.


kasya syad anyatha-bhavah svabhavas cen na vidyate |

yadi bhvnm svabhva na syd, yo 'yam viparinma-laksano 'nyath-

bhvah sa kasya syd iti \

atra-ucyate \ evam api parikalpyamne \

kasya syd anyath-bhvah svabhvo yadi vidyate | | 4 | |

iha yo dharmo yarn padrtharn na vyabhicarati sa tasya svabhva iti

vyapadisyate ' apara-pratibaddhatvt^^ \ agner ausnyarn hi loke tad-

avyabhicritvt svahhva ity ucyate \ tad eva-ausnyam apsu-upa-

labhyamnarn para-pratyaya-sambhtatvt krtrimatvn na svabhva iti \

yad ca-evam avyabhicrin svabhvena bhavitavyarn, tad-asya-

avyabhicritvd anyathhhvah syd abhvah ' hy agneh saityam

pratipadyate ' evarn bhvnrn sati svabhva-abhyupagame 'nyathtvam

eva na sambhavet \ upalabhyate ca-esm anyathtvam ato nsti svabhvah \ \

api ca-ayam anyathbhvo bhvnrn na-eva sambhavati yad-darsant

sasvabhvat syt \ yath ca na sambhavati tath pratipdayann ha \

tasya-eva na-anyathbhvo na-apy anyasya-eva yujyate \

yuv na jiryate yasmd yasmj jtrno na j try ate | | 5 | |

tasya-eva tvat^^ prg-avasthyrn vartamnasya bhvasya-anyathtvarn

na-upapadyate \ tath hi yno yuva-avasthym eva vartamnasya nsty

anyathtvam | | atha-apy avasth-antara-prptasya-eva-anyathtvarn

parikalpyate ' tad api na-upapadyate \ anyathtvarn nma jaryh paryyh \

tad yadi yno na-isyate 'nyasya-eva jirnasya bhavati-iti ' tad api na yujyate '

yasmn na hi jirnasya punar jaray sarnbandho nihprayojanatvt \ kirn hi

jirnasya punar jaray sambandhah kuryt ' tad-antarena^'^ jirnat-bhvj^

jirno jiryata iti na yujyate \ atha yna eva-anyathbhvas^' tad ayuktarn '

T has translated a wrong reading as de Jong notes: gsan gyis gegs-byar med pahipbyir

ro for wrong aparapratibandhatvt. So also saT (p. 207).

58 Deleting prgvat per T and R.

5' 'Without that' connection; or tm antarena 'Without that' old age.

^ With T, saT: rgaspa idyodpas. 'Because there is old-man-ness' (immediately we have

said 'old man', this without any 'old age' or any 'connection with old age' as separate

dharmas from 'old man'). R rezds jirnnatvhhvt i.e. jirnatva-ahhvt 'because there to is

no old-man-ness', so this if accepted should be emended to jirnatva-bhvt.

' The other-becoming is of the youth i.e. is is the youth that becomes old. Tib. has trans

lated gson nu nid gsan du hgyur ro 'just the youth becomes other'.

330 Brian Galloway

a-prpta-jar-avasthym^^ yuv-iti vyapadesd avasth-dvayasya ca

paraspara-viruddhatvt \ \

api ca

tasya ced anyathhhvah ksiram eva bhaved dadhi \

atha^^ ' ksira-avasth-paritygena dadhy-avasth bhavati ' ato na ksiram eva

dadhi bhavati-iti \ \ ucyate \ yadi ksiram dadhi bhavati-iti na-isyate

paraspara-virodht

ksird anyasya kasyacid dadhi-bhvo bhavisyati | | 6 | |

kim udakasya dadhi-bhvo bhavatu | tasmd asambaddham eva tad-anyasya

dadhi-bhvo hhavisyati-iti \ tad evam anyathtva-asambhavt kutas tad-

darsant sasvabhvat bhvnrn prasetsyati^^-iti na yuktam etat \ \

yath-uktam rya-ratnkara-mahyna-stre

yo na pi^^ jy ati no cupapadyf^

no cyavate na pi jiryati dharmah

tarn jinu desayatf'^ narasirnhas

tatra nidesayi sattva-maharsi^'^ I I (1)

yasya sabhvu^ na vidyatf kascf^

no par abhva tu kenaci labdhah \ P''

2 Mss. have avasthasya but this is ungrammatical saT has rgas pahi gnas skabs ma thob pa

la gson nu ses 'a youth is [someone] in the non-attainment of the state of old age'. As there is a

locative particle, emend the Sanskrit to provide a locative case as above, though one could

also change the position of the word for state as in the saT and translate literally into Sanskrit

and write jar-avasth-aprpte.

Mss. have athasyd, athsy, R, atha syt; but saT has nothing like syt: ci ste = atha. syt

does not fit the context which demands rather the opposite. Take atha as 'but'.Monier-Williams 3. sidh (fut.).

" Fora/?/.

Obviously for ca-upapadyi and should be copapadyi, but a short syllable is neededmetri causa.

^ The meter is dodhaka, in which each pda has three dactyls and a spondee: | - |

'8 LVP emended to darsayati, but mss. and R have it as above; so also saT (bstan sin).

Should be desayati, but vowel lengthened metri causa. Lengthening of ti to ti and si to si metri

causa noted in Edgerton, BHSG 3.16, 26.2. Also many times in following pdas.

' Tib. has as if sattva-satni 'hundreds of beings' (saT sems can brgya phrag dag) (inter

pret as acc, the objects of teaching).For svabhvo, metri causa. The u is from R.

^' For vidyate, metri causa. LVP had nidyati but corrected the error in his "Additions etCorrections" in the back of the book.

'2 Should be kascid.


na-antar ato na pi bahir ato va \

labhyati tatra nivesayi nthah | | (2) | |

snta'^ gatf^ kathit sugatena \

no ca gatl upapadyati kci \

tatra ca voharasf" gati-mukto \

muktaku mocayasi bahusattvn^^ \ \ (3)

sarvi vadsf^ nirtmaka-dharm;

satvatu grhatu^'^ mocasi lokarn \

mukta svayarn gatito, gati-mukto,^

tena si^' pragato na^^ ca tirno^^ I I (4) I I

This hne is given in saT by gsan yah ma yin sus kyah mi rhed pa. Understand as noparabhvah tu kenacil labdhah.

Should be snt to agree with the following noun gati, but a shortened metri causa.

Course, path, state, motion. Should be gati f. but vowel lengthened metri causa.

This word vyoharasi s\io\AA be vyoharasi 'you live' but takes its form metri causa. It is a

Prakrit version of vyavaharasi, which (with I) is the reading of R. gati-mukto 'freed from

[every worldly] state'. The saT of this line is different: de dag hgro las grol bar rnam par gsuhs

'they will be liberated from going, it is said', evidently not reading vyoharasi, and taking theend of the line as ukto; it is not clear how the line read in the version used by the Tibetan

translators. - The change from third person in the previous line to second person address in

this one is a commonplace in Buddhist poetry (or oral chant, taken down in writing by some

one other than the original writer).

The saT is grol nas sems can mah po grol bar mdsad 'After liberation you will cause the

liberation of many beings'Understand sarvi with dharm(n). vadsi R; vadesi LVP; vadmi LVP's mss.

Tib. understands sattva-grahdt (sattvn-graht) 'after grasping (taking up?) beings';but R has sarvata grhatu; sarvatu grhatu LVP's mss. Understand satvatu grhatu (satvatograhatas}) with saT: sems can hdsin las.

8 This gati-mukto straightforwardly rendered in Tibetan (saT) by hgro grol bas.8' Understand as asi.

82 ta R; na LVP, saT (see next note).

na ca tlrnah = Tib. brgal bahah med 'cannot be fathomed, cannot be compassed, cannot

be surpassed, cannot be crossed'. See Das, p. 340a, brgal dkah ba 'the ocean, that which is

difficult to cross', from (p. 302a) rgalba 'cross, ford, surmount (a pass)'. So brgal bahah medmust mean 'he who cannot be crossed over, like the ocean'. - Schayer translates as if the text

said that the Buddha is 'not a tlrna': '... nicht hinbergeschifft, bist du ein Jenseits-Gelang-

ter', implying perhaps that he has attained the beyond without being brought there by any

one else. Sprung ttinshtes pragato na ca tlrno in accordance with the idea that the Buddhais both transcendent and immanent, or in Buddhist terms that he attains the absolute without

passing into nirvna, the blessed rest; he is thus still available in his salvific power and bless

ing: 'you have reached the other shore without leaving this one' (na ca tlrna). This is a good

idea, but the text does not appear to say it. The very next line, indeed, states that the Buddhais a tlrna.

332 Brian Galloway

pragato 'si bhave 'py avatirnah^^

pragato na ca labhyati kascit |

pru na vidyati^^ npi apru^^

pragato 'smi vadesi^^ ca vkyam^'' I I (5) | |

vra'' na vidyati yo''' ca vadesi

yarn pi vadesi na vidyati tarn pi \

yasya vadesi na vidyati so 'pi

yo pi vijnti''^ so 'piasanto^^ I I (6) | |

tatra pranastu jagarn imu sarvarn'*

vitatha-vikalpa-nivesa-vasena''^ \

snta'"' vijnti yo naru''^ dharmrns

re'* hi tathgatu drsta'''' svayarnbh | | (7) | |

Here we interpret tirna as active, hence avatirna = 'you who have crossed over'.

bljavrnavatirnah LVP; hhavrnnavatirnnah. pT and saT have dran sroh chen po srid pahi

pha roi phyin = pragato 'si maharsi hhavasya' - LVP p. 244 n. 5. Translate as 'A Great Seer,thou art transcendent over existence'. The Sanskrit above, on the other hand, means 'Having

crossed over, you have surpassed existence.'

85 kaidt R; kasci LVP. saT understands, probably rightly, passive lahhyate (ti only metri

causa): pha roi gsegs pa gah yah mi rhed hgyur 'no transcendent can be apprehended'.

8 saT consistent with passive vidyate.

" nvidyu prarn R. With this the line means 'No other side is seen and the other side is

not not seen', which is not as good as above: 'No other side is seen and the not-other side is

not'; confirmed by saT, pha roi yod ma yin sih tshul roi med 'there is no other shore and nothis shore'.

88 For vadasi. Influenced by Prakrit, wherein aya becomes e. Thus we postulate a form

vadayasi perhaps derived from causative vdayasi through vowel shortening. Also in nextverse.

8' Schayer and Sprung treat this word as if it meant 'mere conventional expression'

('Redensart', 'manner of speaking'). Again the idea is good, but the text appears not to say it.

Generally vkya is straightforwardly 'sentence'. saT has tshig tu gsuhs 'say in words' for

vadesi vkyam. gsuhs does not imply any qualification or sandhybhsa. tshig tu 'in words'

might, but not necessarily.

' For vram, metri causa, according to all mss. LVP emended to vca.

" Mss. have yarn LVP, y R. But saT has gah gis implying yah 'who' (nom. case, or instr.with a passive verb, but here the Sanskrit verb is active).

'2 Should be vijnti but shortening metri causa.

" Should be asan; pl. metri causa.

Understand tatrapranastam jagam (= jagat) idam sarvam 'there this whole world is lost'.

'5 R has vasena, obviously an error. The first vi in this line is extrametrical.' For snta understand snto.

For naro but avoiding the (long) o and substituting the Prakritic u, metri causa.'8 Understand tena.

Understand tathgato drstah.


snta prajnati dharma-pramtn'

prlti sa vindatP' tosati satvn |

50 bhavati jinu, jitvana kles'n

tma-jino ca antma-sthitas' ca'^ I I (8) | |

tena vijnita bodhi jinnm'^

buddhiya bodhayate sa jagam pi | | (9) | | ity di | |

yac ca-uktam asvabhvo bhvo na-eva-asti snyat ca bhvnm isyate '

tasmd asti snyat-srayo bhva-svabhva iti \ etad api na yujyata ity ha \

yady''* asnyarn bhavet kirncit, syc chnyam api'^ kimcana \

na kirncid asty asnyarn ca, kutah snyarn bhavisyati \ \7 \ \

yadi snyat nma kcit syt, tad-srayo bhva-svabhvah syt \ na tv evarn \

iha hi snyat-antmat sarva-dharmnrn smnya-laksanam ity

abhyupagamd asnya-dharma-abhvd asnyat-eva na-asti \ yad ca-

asnyh padrth na santi ' asnyat ca na-asti ' tad pratipaksa-

nirapeksatvc, chnyat-api kha-puspa-mlvan na-asti-ity avasiyatm \

yad ca snyat na-asti tad tad-sray api padrth na santi-iti sthitam

avikalpam'^ | |

"Additions et Corrections" pranTtan. R pramtn. LVP right the first time. Schayer

translates dharma-pramtn as 'die hchsten dharmas', Sprung as 'the subtlest elements of ex

istence'. saT has chos mchog 'supreme dharmas. But could it not mean 'those things that have

been brought forth as dharmas, protrayed as dharmas}sarnvindati R does not fit the meter.

Conjectural reconstruction of this line, of which LVP gives only tma followed by a se

ries of dots. In his footnote he gives from his mss. v(t)ma jino ca ar(o)ma(e) sthitas ca. R has

nma jino ca ardma sthitas ca. pT bdag nid rgyal bar hgyur sin gnas pa med; saT has gyur. We

take LVP's v(t)ma in accordance with saT bdag hid as tma, jino with Tibetan rgyal ba, and

read the compound as 'who has conquered the self (Schayer 'Sieger iiber das eigene Selbst'Sprung does not translate this line at all. antma is conjectural here but fits the meter and thesense: antma-sthita 'who stands in selflessness'. The Tibetan on the other hand has 'who has

no standing-place' which also fits the sense, though it does not translate ar(o)ma(e). Schayer

has 'ist er in keinem ksetra befindlich', taking the continuative sin as 'field' - ingenious but not

convincing. Perhaps he sees ar(o)ma(e) as rme} But an rma is a pleasure garden or plea

sure grove, not usually a ksetra. - In our version hiatus needed between ca and a, metri causa.

Understand tena vijhto bodhir jinnm.

If there were anything nonempty, like a tree, there would be something empty, like a

mirage, but there is no nonempty thing like a tree, in ultimate reality, so how will there be any

empty thing like a mirage in ultimate reality? gal te stoh min cuh zadyod\ stoh pahah cuh zad

yod par hgyur \ \ mi stoh cuh zad yod min na \ stoh pahah yod parga la hgyur [siT) (Tibetan of

Madh. avat. has stoh pa in second hne) 'If there were at all a nonempty, then there would be

some empty as well; since there is no nonempty at all, how will there be an empty as well?'

iti LVP; but api R; stoh pahah T, saT. Saigusa retains iti.

saT does not translate iti sthitam avikalpam. avast (two lines up) is from ava-so 4 P.

334 Brian Galloway

atra-ha trinivimoksamukhni, snyat-animitta-apranihita-khyni,'^

vimuktaye vineyebhyo hhagavat nirdistni, sarva-tirthika'''-mata-

asdhranni,'' saugata eva pravacane samupalahhyante \ yesm

upadesa-artham eva, buddh bhagavanto 'sesa-tirthya-vda-mah-

moha-andhakra-anugata-jagati jagad-eka-pradip nairtmya-upadesa-

avicchinna-sikh utpadyante \ sa bhavms tathgata-pravacana-

vykhyna-vyjena-idnirn tm eva snyatrn prati-kseptum-rabdhavn

ity alarn hhavat svarga-apavarga-mrga-samucchedakena-iti \ \

ucyate \ aho bata!''' bhavn atyunmukha iva-atyanta-viparysn nirvna-

pura-gminam sivam rjurn paramarn panthnam avadhya, bhva-

abhinivesa-vykulitah,"^ sarnsra-kntra-anugam"^ eva mrgam moksa-

pura-gmitvena samsrito nirmumuksuh san sarnsra-atavi-kntrt"''

sadbhir uplabhya eva sann abhimna-abhinivesa-graha"^-vasatay tn

eva-uplabhate \ nanu bho niravasesa-klesa-vydhi-cikitsakair mah-

vaidya-rjaih \

Here saT adds gah bstan par bya bahi phyir sahs rgyas bcom ldan hdas] hgro bamu stegs

pahi smra ba ma rig pahi smag chen pohi rjes su son pa la\ hgro bahi sgron me gcig pur gyur ba\bdag medpa he bar ston pahi me Ice rgyun mi hchadpa mhah ba rnams hbyun ba.

These three 'gates of hberation' are given frequently in Pali and Sanskrit Buddhist liter

ature. LVP gives a number of citations from Pali literature and we can add here the

Astashasrika and the Dharmasarngraha. LVP also refers us to p. 43 of his Prasannapad,where we find a reference to Mahvytpatti 73.

Omitting mra with T, saT, and pT, which suggest simply tirthika-mata, mu stegs pahi

gsuh lugs, for which LVP suggests tirthika-samaya; but mata could also be translated as gsuhlugs.

Tib. thun moh ma yin pa dag confirms the first a of asadhranni, as does the neuter

gender of mata.

"' Schayer translates 'Das ist aber wunderlich!' with a sarcastic tone; Sprung has 'good

gracious!' Bm aho bata is clearly 'ihsV aho is ambiguous, but bata is not; confirmed by saT e

ma kye hud in which e ma is expressive of compassion (ruling out sarcasm) and kye hud isunambiguously 'alas!'

"2 All mss. have -arn, but context suggests -ah to apply to the opponent ('you. Sir ... areconfused by inclination towards existents') (the road can hardly have been confused). Tib.

however has another reading entirely; for bhva-abhinivesa-vykulita it has dhospo la mhonpar sen pahi sbrul gyis dkris pa 'surrounded by the snakes of the inclination to existents' as if

the Tibetan translators read bhva-abhinivesa-vyla-panvrta or some such.

R has anugamam but as de Jong rightly says, read with LVP's mss.

Reading with R instead of LVP's -ah. The words nirmumuksuh san sarnsra-atavi-

kntrt (or -ah) are not in pT or saT.

"5 Omittingp


sunyata sarvadrstinam prokta nihsaranam''^ jinaih |

yesm tu snyat drstis tn asdhyn''^ babhsire | | 8 | |''*

iha sarvesm eva drsti-gatnm''"' sarva-graha-ahh inivesnrn yan

nihsaranam apravrttih s snyat \ na ca drsti-gatnrn'^ nivrtti-mtrarn

bhvo I ye tu tasym api snyatym bhv-abhinivesinas, tn pratyavcak

vayam'^' iti kuto 'smad- up ade st sakala-kalpan-vyvrtty mokso bhavis

yati I yo "na kirncid api te panyarn dsymi" ity uktah san'^^ "dehi bhos tad

eva mahyam na kimcin nma panyam" iti bryt, sa kena-upyena sakyah

p anya-abh v arn grhayiturn? \ evarn yesrn snyatym api bhvbhinivesah

kena-idnlrn sa tesrn tasyrn bhvbhiniveso nisidhyatm iti \ ato mah-

bhaisajye 'pi dosa-sarnjnitvt parama-cikitsakaih mahvaidyais tathgataih

pratykhyt'^^ eva te \

" pT, saT hes par hhyuh ba. According to LVP, Bcp. [Bodhicaryvatrapanjik] 1X.33

translates nihsarana by hes par hbyin pa. 'hbyin pa = to emit, to remove (nihsrayati), est le

"transitif" de hbyuh ba.' Confirmed in Das. Thus hbyin ba 'pull out' and hbyuh ba 'go out,

be pulled out'.

pT bsgrub tu med par, saT, Madh. avatra 119.8 sgrub tu med par. 'notre commentaire,

sgrub tu med par, 'Bcp. IX. 33 qui traduit ... asdhya par gso-bya-min-pa.' In "Additions et

Corrections" he refers to (prob. Tihetun) Abhdh. k. v. fol. 256b as iranslzimgasdhya by gso

bya min pa.

"8 Verse 'Cite Subhsitas., Museon, IV, 397.23 et Bcp. IX. 33 ...' LVR From LVP "Addi

tions et Corrections", stt Madh. avatra 119.6. pT = saT, but Tib. of Madh. avatra 119.6 is a

different translation with same meaning. It gives hes par hbyin pa for nihsarana.

LVP's mss. have krtnm 'of things made by views', but it is not clear whether a view

can make anything, and pT and saT have ha bar gyur pa i.e. drsti-gatnm. Candraklrti's

probable source for this word is Ratnakuta/ Ksyapaparivarta, which he quotes in the next

paragraph. See Note 136 below.

'2 See previous note.

'2' With R. LVP's mss. had rayam and LVP rightly emended it. Confirmed by pT and saT,

which have de dag la ni kho bo cag mi smra ste.With R. LVP's mss. have sarva dehi and sa ca dehi, but sarva is not in saT and sa ca

makes less sense than san 'being'.

'2' Schayer interprets as if khyta 'called' and adds 'als unheilbar' in brackets. But with

praty the word has the sense of 'repudiate' (Sprung: 'do not attend to', closer to the mark

than Schayer here). Confirmed by saT bor (s.v. hbor in Das).

336 Brian Galloway

yath-uktam bhagavad-rya-ratnakta-stre,'^* "yan na snyatay'^^

dharmn s'nyn karoti'^^ ' dharm eva snyh \ yan na-animittena dharmn

animittn karoti ' dharm eva-animitth | yan na-apranihitena dharmn

apranihitn karoti ' dharm eva apranihith \ []'^'' y-evarn pratyaveks

iyam ucyate, ksyapa, madhyampratipad dharmnm hhta-'^'^pratyaveks

I [...J'^'^'e hi, ksyapa, snyat-upalambhena'^ snyatmpratisaranti,'^' tn

aharn nasta-pranastn iti vadmi" | itah pravacant'^^ \ "vararn, khalu,

ksyapa, sumeru-mtr pudgala-drstir,'^* na tv eva-abhva-abhinivesika-

sya'-'^ snyat-drstih \ tat kasya hetoh? i sarva-drsti-gatnrn'-^^ hi, ksyapa.

'2'' This whole quotation from the Kasyapa-parivarta is from Sections 63 to 65 with omis

sions. LVP: 'Voir p. 45, n. 1' where we find 'traduit par Burnouf, Intr. 562. - Voir Sikss.

233.15 (235, n. 1); cp. 261.4; Bodhic. t. IX.106 (p. 338.16).' - In Candraklrti's time

Ratnaieta-stra meant Ksyapa-parivarta. For this see von Stael-Holstein's edition ofthe Sanskrit, Tibetan, and Chinese versions.

Instrumental case, therefore emend saT kyi to kyis. In the two following clauses in saT

there is an instrumental particle. LVP in his "Additions et Corrections" refers us to Madh.

avat. 118.1 (i.e. the Tibetan translation, LVP, St. Petersbourg 1912, Bibliotheca Buddhica IX,

p. 118) where there is in fact kyis at this point and instrumentals in the two following clausestoo.

'2 Omitting here LVP's api tu and the two foWowing api tu (de Jong). They are not in saTor the Tibetan tr. of Madh. avat. (loc. cit.)

'2' Passage in Siitra omitted by Candrakirti (von Stael-Holstein 63, p. 94).

'28 saT translates bhta as yari dag par.

'2' Passage in Stra omitted by Candrakirti (von Stael-Holstein 64, p. 95).

" pT, saT stori pa riid du dmigs pas 'imagining emptiness'.

'^' Go against, attack. But pT, saT have rtog 'understand'.'^2 saT nams rab tu riams.

'^5 Reading as R. saT puts this before nasta-pranasta, and translates it as gsuris rab hdi las

'in this tradition of teaching'; pT and saT have gsuris; de Jong and Das have gsuri.

'^t After drsti, neither s'rit nor the Tib. gnas seems necessary to this sentence. The follow

ing instance of the word drsti does not have it.

'"^ This is LVP's reading, and it is consistent with Candraklrti's thought: 'than the emptiness-view of someone (-ka) who inclines to nonexistence'. Dwarika Das Shastri also

adopts this reading. saT, T mrion pahi ria rgyal (abhimnikasya) 'of someone who is proud ofhimself, von Stael-Holstein has adhimnikasya 'of someone who is angry-minded'. In

the first interpretation the Buddha of the Kasyapa-parivarta criticizes intellectual failing, inthe other cases moral failing.

" LVP and R have drsti-krtnm 'of things made by views' or possibly 'of things that havebeen made into views or made as views (see below)', but the von Stael-Holstein manu

script of the Ksyapaparivarta, usually so much worse, here (Section 64) presents the better

reading gatnm that is confirmed by the hT gyur pa. gata here need not be translated. The

sense of drsti-gata is 'something that has gone to, become, a view', i.e. a view. The

Ksyapaparivarta has the word drsti-krtnm in Section 109 in the verse, but the corre

sponding prose in the same section has drsti-gatnm. In Section 112 it has krta both times.

In Section 18 it has krta in the prose, gata in the verse. But in all six instances the Tibetan

translation has gyur for gata or understands krta as meaning the same as gata in this context


snyat nihsaranam \ yasya khalu punah snyat-eva drstis, tam aham

acikitsyam iti vadmi \ tadyath, ksyapa, glnah purusah syt, tasmai vaidyo

bhaisajyarn dadyt, tasya tad hhaisajyam, sarva-dosn ucclya,'^^ svayarn

kostha-gatarn na nihsaret \ tat kirn manyase, ksyapa, api nu'^^ sa purusas tato

glnyn mukto bhavet?" \ \ "no hi-idam, bhagavan, gdatararn tasya

purusasya glnyarn bhavet, yasya tad bhaisajyarn, sarva-dosn ucclya,

kostha-gatarn na nihsaret" \ bhagavn ha | "evam eva, ksyapa,

sarva-drsti-krtnrn snyat nihsaranarn \ yasya khalu punah snyat-eva

drstis, tam aham acikitsyam iti vadmi" \

Part II: Translation

Chapter 13

Investigation of the Sarnskras

And so thus by the method of the immediately preceding chapter, there being

no supposed (nirpyamna)'^'' production (lit. having-been-made-ness) by

('what has been made a view'). - The index to de la Vallee Poussin's French translation of

the Abhidharmakosa has no drstikrta, but it does have a drstigata referring to v, 40, i.e. Tome

IV, p. 40 (Chapter v is in Tome IV) where we find drstigata precisely in the sense of drsti. The

Buddha is quoted as memioning the highest of non-Buddhist views. In the bhsya we have,within sloka 19 (and not after it as in the French translation), in the Dwrikds Sastri edi

tion, eta evoktam [sic] hhagavat - "etad agram drstigatnm yaduta no ca sym no ca me

syt na bhavisymi na me bhavisyati" (vol. 2, p. 794) 'This is the highest of views ...' What

follows yaduta is clearly a view (here drstigata). One ms. has bhyaknm drstigatnm 'of

the views of the outsiders'. The commentator Yasomitra writes, etad agram drstigatnm iti |

etad visistarn drsti-prakrebhyah \ ntisvadyam ity arthah \ mokso mrgopanisat, ucchedas

tu nirhetuko 'bhipreta iti, bhrnteh svadyam uccheda-darsanam iti visesah \ {loc. cit., n.;

punctuation by Dwrikds Sastri, final visarga by Wogihara p. 463) '"this is the highest of

views", this is a particular among kinds of views, means that it is not too objectionable; it is

intended as [a way of] liberation, a secret doctrine (upanisad) of the path, though it is annihilationist and [teaches a doctrine of] causelessness. It is a kind of annihilationist view that is

[after all] objectionable for someone who has gone astray.'

With R. Certainly a better reading than LVP's uccrya. True, neither MW nor Apte,

Pract. Diet., have ucclya s.v. ud-cal, but Whitney, Roots, has -clya as a derivative s.v. cal.With ud we have the sense of 'move out, drive out'. saTib. has bskyed for bskyod. von

Stael-Holstein has uclya.LVP tu, but no 'but' needed here; de Jong writes, 'Read as R, cf. von Stael-Holstein and

Wogihara p. 557.' von Stael-Holstein has nu.

saT translates this word as rnam par dpyad pa na i.e. adverbially: 'if we investigate'. But

in the Skt. it appears as an adjective modifying the two nouns in tvam. Moreover Monier-

Williams gives nirpya s.v. ni-rp ('consider' inter alia) as 'to be seen or defined or ascer

tained, not yet certain, questionable' (p. 554, col. 2). Thus we translate nirpya as 'supposed';

338 Brian Galloway

self or other or both nor any arising without cause {lit. arising-without-

cause-ness) of entities (bhva), and there being no other method of causing an

arising, by the appearance (rpatva) of having arising, these entities appear to

ordinary fools whose minds' eyes have been struck by ignorance's eye-

disease.''' Therefore just those things that are without essence (nihsvabhvo)

are deceiving (visam-vdaka)''^' to fools, like the illusory elephant (karin),

horse, etc. to those who do not know but not to those who do.'''^ Now [the

Buddha] whose intellect-eye has seen the nature of all dharmas up close,

whose unconscious tendencies (vsan) have without exception been torn up

by the roots, whose highest aim is the undeceiving and essenceless teaching

for saving unsaved beings who are deceived by the four''*-' deceptions

(viparysa), the teacher of the world, the greatly compassionate one [has said].

What are deceptive (mosa) dharmas are false (mrs), the Lord has said;

All the sarnskras are deceptive dharmas; therefore they are false. 1.

In a Stra it is said, 'That is false, the deceptive dharma, the sarnskrta; but this,

indeed, monks, is the supreme truth, the undeceiving dharma, nirvna, while

all the sarnskras are false, the deceiving dharmas.' Thus what has a deceptive

mturc (dharma) has a destructive nature (dharma) as is said. Thus by this syl

logism, what has a deceptive nature is false as the Tathgata, the Lord, has said,

and all sarnskras are deceptive dharmas; therefore because of their decep-

twc'dharma-ntss those sarnskras are false, like a robot-girl [made by] the

craftsman, or like King Udayana Vatsa tricked''*'' by the device provided with

the characteristics of an elephant'''^ in rut; a lying (visarnvdaka)'*^, deceptive

then the passage appears grammaticahy straightforward: There is no (asat) supposed

(nirpyamna = nirpya) made-ness of existents from self, other, or both, or [any supposed]arising-without-cause-ness [of them].

''o Their minds have been struck by ignorance as eyes by an eye-disease (ignorance-eye-disease-struck minds' eyes, a sort of interwoven metaphor; 'ignorance' is to be connected

with 'minds' and 'eye-disease' with 'eyes').

Lit. 'breaking their word'.

'"^ saT has 'the illusory horse, elephant, etc. deceive those who do not know them' sgyu mahi

rta dari glari po che la sogs pas \ de mi ses pa mams Itar byispa mams siu bar byed pa yin no \ \

The four deceptions are, as Schayer writes (p. 26 n. 19), 'da man in dem Nicht-Beharrlichen das Beharrliche, in dem Nicht-Reinen das Reine, in dem Leidvollen das Nicht-Leidvolle und in dem Nicht-Ich das Ich erblickt'.

''*'* laksana-upeta-yantra-matta-vrana would be clearer if emended to matta-vrana-

laksana-upeta-yantra 'machine provided with the characteristics of an elephant in rut'.

citrakara ... rjavat 'Like a robot-girl ... elephant in rut' is lacking in saT.

'^5 LVP states, 'Mahsena s'empara d'Udayana au moyen d'un elephant artificiel, voir.

Kath., XII, init.; Harsacarita, VI sub fin. Schiefner, Mahktyyana und Knig Tschanda

Pradyota, pp. 36-37 {mymtariga, H.-c. = kapatakunjra. Comm. = yantrahasti, K.-s.). -


(mosa) dharma manifests not in accordance witli reality (vitath-khytin),

like a fire-wheel.''*^ That all sarnskras are false because of their deceptive

character (mosa-dharmatva) is to be taken in the sense that they are without

essence (svabhva), like a fata morgana.'''* What is true is not of a deceptive

nature (mosadharmaka), which is nirvna alone. So the lack of essence of all

entities (bhva) is demonstrated (siddha) by both formal proof and the

authority of scripture (gama), since we read in the Ardhasatik Prajn

pramit, 'Empty are all dharmas by their lack of essence (svabhva).''*''

Here [an opponent of Ngrjuna and Candrakirti] speaks: 'If thus the falsity

of all sarnskras because of their deceptive character is maintained by you,

then just for this reason, all entities are [by your thesis] not, and this would be

the wrong view (mithydrsti) of the one who denies [the existence of] all ob

jects (word-meanings).

We reply: Truly of a deceptive nature are all sarnskras, which deceive you

even now. For, Sir,

If what is a deceptive dharma is false, what there is lost?'^

Communique par M.F.W. Thomas.' - Schayer states, 'Die wohlbekannte Geschichte

von der Uberlistung des Knigs Vatsa mit Hilfe eines knstlichen Elefanten ist in der

indischen Literatur oft bearbeitet worden: Bhsas Pratijnyaugandharyana, Somadevas

Kathsaritsgara II, 12 usw. ber die automatischen Puppen in der Gestalt von Menschen,

Vgeln usw. vgl. das XXXI. Kapitel des Samarrigana, Gaekwad Oriental Series 25, 32.'

saT has here hdrid bar byed for visamvdak, whereas before it had sIh bar byed pa. Butthe meaning is the same.

Wheel made by swinging a blazing torch rapidly in a circle. The appearance of a circularstructure is there, but there is no wheel there. (Persistence of vision results in the appearance

of a fixed circular structure, a burning wheel.)

'''8 maricik-di-jala, smig rgyuhi chu, mirage-water. Skt. has also di 'etc.'. Schmit

hausen: 'maricik, Auffassung von Sonnenstrahlen als Wasser'. 'Wenn auch Irrtmer mit

Substrat herangezogen wurden ... so ist dabei die Existenz des Substrates aus dem Vergleich

auszuklammern' (p. 149). The Mdhyamika does not admit the ultimate reality of the substrate of the illusion.

''" LVP states, 'Voir l'edition de Rjendrall, p. 405.' Also see Conze, The Short Prajn

pramit Texts, p. 188; P.L. Vaidya, ed., Mahyna-Stra-Sarngraha, Part I. Buddhist

Sanskrit Texts - No. 17. Darbhanga: Mithila Institute, 1961, p. 91,1. 16. snyh sarvadharm,

nihsvabhvayogena; nimimitth sarvadharm, nimimittatm updya; apranihith sarva

dharm, apranidhnayogena;prakrti-prabhsvarh, prajnpramit-parisuddhy iti 'empty are

all dharmas, by their lack of essence; signless are all dharmas, considering signlessness;

wishiess are all dharmas, by their not having wishes; naturally radiant [they are], by the com

plete purity of the prajfipramit.' Emptiness, signlessness, and wishlessness constitute atriad (the Three Gates of Liberation) found in Pli also.

'5 He is not denying the reahty of any real thing, because there was never any real thing

whose reality could be denied. The falsity of the deceptive sarnskras means that denying

them is no error; it is not denying the reality of what exists, because there is no existence in

340 Brian Galloway

When it is said by us that a deceptive thing is false, then what there is lost?

How is there a nonexistence there?'*' If there were any existent,'*^ then by de

nying it, by seeing it as non-existing, there would indeed be a wrong view. But

when we see no existent, then what is taken away? There simply is no nonex

istent'*^ [that could be taken away as if it were an existent]. Thus your re

proach is unjustified.

Here [an opponent] speaks: If the view of nonexistence is not maintained,

then what is maintained by your tradition?

the deceptive things. - Weber-Brosamer and Back translate, 'was wird dann noch

betrogen' and add 'Auch die eigene, scheinbar "betrogene" Person, ist ja aus Zusammen

setzungen gebildet, also ebenfalls unwirklich' (p. 47). But Candrakirti does not support thisinterpretation or mention a deceived person.

How could I be preaching nonexistence of real things? A 'nonexistence' could only be

posited of something (potentially) existing, and I see nothing (even potentially) existing, sothere is no 'nonexistence' here nor am I advocating it.

SzV drios po = bhva.

'55 Schayer: 'Wir aber sehen nirgends wirkliche Gegenstnde. Was ist also jenes x, das

vom Trug betroffen wird? [Wir meinen:] Ein Nichts, etwas schlechthin nichtseiendes'

(p. 29). - To 'take away' or 'lose' something that was never there in the first place can hardly

be cahed nihilism. Schayer states (p. 28 n. 22), 'Candrakirti wehrt energisch dieses prinzi

pielle Miverstndnis ab: die Mimrnsakas, die Srnkhyas und auch die Vaibhsikas lehren

das astitva, die Nstikas (Crvka) lehren das nstitva, die Mdhyamikas sind aber advaya-nihsrita, die behaupten weder das asti noch das nsti (Vgl. das Zitat aus der Ratnvali = Pr.

137.7). Die Nstikas leugnen die Mglichkeit einer Erlsungslehre, sie sind nicht nur Gegner

der Metaphysik, sondern vor allem irreligis; die Mdhyamikas "machen hell den Weg derNicht-Zweiheit, welcher zu der Burg des nirvna fhrt" {Pr. 329.14). Sie sind Monisten,

Mystiker, bekmpfen den Realismus, den Rationalismus und den Pluralismus, sind aber

keine Sophisten und keine Negativisten. [They do however employ what Chnstian mysticscall the via negativa, which is not the same as being nihilist. - B.C.] Besonders lehrreich istPr. 368.4-369.4: Die Mdhyamikas lehren das nihsvabhvatva ahes Seienden, des ihaloka

und des paraloka, im Sinne des pratityasamutpda: weil alles in Korrelation zu den hetu-

pratyayas entsteht, deshalb hat es kein Sein an sich, ist, "leer", relativ usw.' For the Nstikas,

'Die Realitt des ihaloka wird nicht geleugnet, wohl aber die des paraloka; und diese Leugnung resultiert nicht aus der Erkenntnis des bhva-svabhva-snyat, sondern sttzt sich

auf das triviale Argument' that we cannot see the process of reincarnation. But 'die Mdhyamikas das astitva im Sinne des sarnvrtisatya wohl zugeben. Die Nstikas, sofern sie die

Irrealitt des sarnsra und des karma behaupten, sind dem Zeugen hnlich, welcher die

Anklage gegen einen Dieb besttigt, ohne den Diebstahl gesehen zu haben: die Anklage ist

wahr, der Zeuge ist aber trotzdem ein Lgner. - Mit Recht bemerkt J. Tucci Qoseph i.e.

Giuseppe Tucci], Studi Mahynici, Rivista degli Studi Orientali, vol. X. 522 "... il punto divista di Ngrjuna non e forse proprio questo [is it not just this?]: snya non e sinonimo di

abhva, che allora lo snyavdin diverebbe un nstivdin; ma e il nulla dal punto di vista

concettuale, la soppressione di tutti i contrari, Vupasama di tutto quanto Wpraparica. E di fatti

snya e anche tathat che non e il nulla, ma un reale ineffabile, al di l di ogni concepire."


Tfiis was said by tlie Lord as an illumination'*'' of emptiness. 2.

What was said by the Lord was not an illumination'** of the [supposed] non

existence of entities. What then [was it] ? It was an illumination'*^ of emptiness

and an illumination'*'' of the nonarising of the essences [of entities]. As it is

said in the Anavatapta-hraddpa-samkramana-stra,'^^

That of conditions born is thus unborn;

Th' arising's not from them, in essence-mode;'*'

What from conditions comes is empty called;

Who knows this emptiness is madness-free.'^

Here [an opponent]'^' speaks: This passage does not mean the non-arising of

an essence in existents (bhva-svabhva). What then? Not possessing an

'5'' Or iUustration, teaching. SaT yons su bstan pa. Ngrjuna maintains that the Buddha's

reference to dharmas' being false and deceptive means not that they are nonexistent but that

they are empty, which is not the same thing. Cf. Schmithausen: 'Ngrjuna ... lehnt fr die

Wahrheit alle ontologischen Prdikate - Sein, Nichtsein, beides zugleich und keines von

beiden - ab. Wenn er von Nichtsein spricht, so meint er nur: Inadquatheit des ontologischen

Prdikates "Sein".' (p. 235). Ngrjuna here glosses the HTnayna terms 'deceptive' (mosa)

and 'false' (mrs) by the terra 'empty' (snya) (a term mostly Mahyna though also some

times Hinayna).

SaT ston pa.

'5 SaT yoris su ston pa.

'5' ^izY yoris SU gsal bar byed pa.

'58 LVP States correctly (saT), 'Le tibetain a simplement mdo las = sutrt.' He suggests that

the stra in question is the Anavataptangarjapariprcchstra, Nanjio 437, T. 635, K. 407,

'qui est nomme par Wassilieff, Bouddhisme p. 327, comme un des stras "des ausschliesslich

echten Sinnes" au point de vue des Mdhyamikas. - Sur Anavatapta, lac ou nga, voirnotamment Burn., Intr. 171, 330, 396 et Lotus 3; Fujishima, Bouddh. japonais, 55. - Notre

stance est cite (sans indication de souree et avec variantes) Bodhicaryv. p. IX. 2 {Bihl Ind.

p. 355.10 et Bouddhisme p. 241, n. 1), Subhs. sgr {Museon, N.S. IV, 395.22), et ci-dessous,

trois fois, au. chap. XXIV

'5' Or following saT and the Tibetan as quoted in Madh. avat. (229.3), the essence of aris

ing is not from them (the conditions).

' saT and the Tibetan as quoted in Madh. avat. (229.4), bag yod yin 'is someone who hasattention'.

'' This objector is of the Vaibhsika or Sarvstivda persuasion. Schayer: 'Das absoluteAn-Sich-Sein der dharmas ist transzendent und hinter dem sarntna verborgen. Die Be

unruhigung dieses absoluten Substrats (= duhkha, vgl. Anm. 9 [he refers here to his first note

on Ch. 12 of the Prasannapad^ beruht darauf, da die dharmas aus der Existenzphase derZukunft durch den Moment des Jetzt hindurch in die Existenzphase der Vergangenheit

bergehen. Das nihsvabhvatva ist ein Synonym der anityat und bezieht sich nur auf diemomentane Manifestation im sarntna, auf das laksana, nicht auf das laksya. Die Lehre

Buddhas, da alle dharmas nihsvabhv sind, bedeutet danach das Nicht-Beharren der

dharmas in ihrem svabhva, nicht aber die Irrealitt des svabhva. Dem Werden und der

Vernderung mu ein reales Sein an sich zugrunde liegen, wenn es auch unmglich ist, mit

342 Brian Galloway

essence (nihsvabhvatva) is not-abiding, destructibility. If you ask whence

this [point of view, we reply].

The essencelessness of entities is [only seen] from seeing their other-

becoming.'"

Of the things considered, an other-becoming, from the seeing of change; this

is the meaning. Thus it is said. If there were no essence in entities, there would

be also no change that could be perceived in them. But change is perceived.

Therefore it should be understood that the meaning of the stra'" is non-

permanence of essence. This is right, because

There is no entity without an essence, because of the emptiness of entities. 3.

An entity without an essence there is not. We maintain a dharma called empti

ness [that is predicated] of entities.'^'' In a nonexisting dharmin'^^, no dharma

based on it is tenable. For in a nonexisting son of a barren woman no darkness

[or lightness of skin color] of his is tenable.'^^ Therefore there is an essence of

entities [which is snyat].

Moreover,

Of what [prior existing entity] would the changed entity (anyath-bhva) be

[a changed version] if there were [previously] no self-entity (svabhva)}'^^

unseren Erkenntnismitteln irgend etwas [Pjositives ber seine Beschaffenheit auszusagen.

Eine Darstellung der Ontologie der Vaibhsikas gibt Vasubandhu Abh. K. V, 50ff.'

'2 This means, The only sense in which things can be said to have no essence is that they

have a changeable nature. In another sense they really do have an essence = snyat. Other-

becoming, becoming other = anyathbhva = change.

The stra cited just after the first sloka of this chapter (LVP). Or perhaps the stra justcited above?

That entities have. SaT drios po mams liyi chos stori pa riid ces bya ba ni hdod pa yin no.The dharma is the essence.

""5 An entity or bhva is called a dharmin 'possessor of a dharma' because it is held to be

the possessor of the dharma 'thing possessed' snyat 'emptiness'. This is its svabhva (ac

cording to the opponent, who is speaking now. Weber-Brosamer and Back seem to inter

pret this as Ngrjuna's speech: '... steht Ngrjuna vor dem offenkundigen Dilemma,

beides. Eigensein und Nicht-Eigensein der Dinge, nachgewiesen zu haben' (n. 68). It is reallythe opponent's dilemma.

The son is the dharmin and his darkness is the dharma. So for all things snyat is thedharma and all bhvas are the dharmins.

Self-existing = svabhva. Other-becoming = anyath-bhva = change or changed en

tity. The sense of the question is. What would be the thing that becomes other if there were

no original 'self of a thing? There must be a thing in the first place before we can speak of itschanging (anyath-bhva), and this must be an essence = self-existence (sva-bhva). How

could there be change if there were no definite entity in the first place that could undergo


If there were no self-entity of entities, whose [i.e. of what] would be this

changed version [i.e. from what would it have changed, of what would it be a

changed version], since [the changed entity's] quality is to have changed?

We reply, even if we accept the imaginary [entity].

Whose changed entity would it be if there were a self-entity? 4.

Here'^* a certain dharma that does not occur without a certain object is called

its essence, because it is not bound to anything else. Of fire, heat is the essence,

for in the world [fire] is not found without [heat]. The same heat, found in wa

ter because of the presence of other causes, because of [artificial] activity, is

not the essence [of water]. If there is an essence that constantly accompanies

(its entity), then the changed entity must not be real, because of constant ac

companiment of [the essence]; for coolness does not occur in fire. Therefore if

we admit that there is an essence in entities, the changed things are impossi

ble.'^' But changes of them are seen. Therefore there is no essence.

Moreover there is no changed entity in view of which there might be the

fact of having an essence (sasvahhvat). How it does not occur he explains

by saying.

There is no other-becoming of the [original entity], nor of the other [that has re

sulted] either. A youth does not become old and an oldster does not either.'^" 5.

A change (otherness, anyathatva) of an entity that continues from its former

state is untenable. There is no other-becoming of a youth who continues [to be

such] in the state of youthfulness. And if you imagine an otherness that is of

something that has obtained another state, this too is untenable. For otherness

is a synonym of old age. Then 'if there is no [other-becoming] of a youth, there

must be [other-becoming] of an old man, i.e. an other' is not logical,'''' so again

change? How could there be other-becoming if there were no prior self-existing? bhva can

mean both 'existing' and 'becoming'.

'8 'In der realistischen Logik' - so Schayer (p. 32).

The opponent has argued that the fact of change proves that things have own-being,

svabhva. Ngrjuna replies that svabhva would actually make change impossible. A

svabhva always is what it is. Next he is going to argue that in any case there is no real

change. Supposedly A changes to B, but actually A is always A and never becomes B; while B

was always B and cannot change into B because it already is B. Change occurs neither in Anor in B.

A youth does not become old because he is what he is, a youth, and because the change

is never perceived; an oldster does not become old because he already is old. So no entity

changes into another.

Because other-becoming of an old man is his becoming aged (since other-becoming is in

this context a synonym of age), but he cannot become aged since he already is aged.

344 Brian Galloway

there is no connection of an old man with old age, because such would have no

purpose.'''^ For what would the connection of an old man with old age do?

Without that [(connection with) old age], because we have an old man [as

soon as we say the words 'old man'], it makes no sense to say that an old man

becomes old. Now the becoming other [or ageing] of a youth is also not right,

for a youth is [precisely] someone in the state of not having attained age, as it is

said, and the two states [youth and age] are mutually exclusive.

Furthermore,

If [yogurt]'^-' is the changed version (anyathbhva) of [milk], then milk

would become yogurt.

But when the state of milk is renounced, the state of yogurt appears; so milk

does not become yogurt. If you do not want milk to become yogurt, because

of their mutual exclusivity, then [the two are different; but in this case, if A

changes into B, A and B being different, then anything different from B could

change into B. Thus]

The becoming (bhva) of yogurt will be from anything other than milk.''''' 6.

But is water the basis of yogurt? Therefore it is not connected (logical) that the

basis of yogurt should be something other [than milk].

[We sum up:]'^* Thus since there is no change, how will there on that basis be

a proof of the possession of essence on the part of existents? It will not work.'''^

As is said in the rya-Ratnkara-Mahyna-Stra'^^

No dharma is there born, arises, dies, or ages;

This the Conqu'ror states, the Lion of a Man,

The Pointer-Out, the Great Seer of beings, (1)

'^2 Because an old man is what he is already and needs no connection with a dharma called

'old age'. To give him one would be gilding the lily (action to no purpose), redundant.

dadhi, usually translated as curd. But Monier-Williams defines it as 'coagulated milk;

thick sour milk (regarded as a remedy; differing from curds in not having the whey separatefrom it)' s.v.

Translating as SaT: ho ma las gsan gari sig ni \ so yi drios po yin par hgyur. The Skt. says'The basis will be of what thing . ..' (gen. of material?).

'''5 If milk and yogurt are the same, there is no change; if they are different, there is still no

change, because two things that are different are absolutely different, and therefore one can

not become the other, or if so then anything could become anything, which is not observed.

''''' According to the opponent, change (anyathhhva) shows that there is a svabhva. But

Ngrjuna has shown that there is no change; therefore there need not be any svabhva onthis account.

SaT hphagspa dkon mchog hbyun gnas ses bya ba thegpa chenpo mdo (Mine of JewelsStra).


Of whom no essence (svabhva) is there seen at all.

Nor is his changeling (parabhva) grasped by anyone,

Nor is he in this or outside of this

To be perceived, the Pointer-Out, the Savior. (2)

Pacified is the course (gati), the Sugata hath said;

And no course, motion, state, or path (all gati) appears.

There thou conductest life from every state (gati) divorced;

And freed thyself, thou many beings free'st. (3)

Thou say'st that selfless dharmas are; and having taken

Beings up, thou free'st the world; having arrived (gatita)

At freedom (mukta) from the self (svayam), and freed from state;

Thou art transcendent, cannot fathomed be. (4)

Thou art transcendent, hast descended to the world;

And no transcendent can be apprehended here;

There is no other side and no this side;

And yet you state, T am transcendent' here. (5)

And truly, thou who speak'st art not perceived,

And what thou sayest too is not perceived;'^^

And he with whom thou speakest also not;

And he that understandeth also not. (6)

Lost is this world entire

Under the power of construction wrong;

Who sees that dharmas are quiescent here

By him the Self-Existent is perceived. (7)

He knows that so-called dharmas are quiescent;

He findeth joy and bringeth joy to beings;

Conquering faults, he is the Conquerer;

Conquering the self, he stands in selflessness. (8)

By him the Awakened state of the Conquerors

Is known; Awake, he awakens all the world. (9)

You have stated [Candrakirti says to the opponent] that there is no existent

without an essence; you maintain that emptiness is of existents and therefore

For these two hnes, Schayer and after him Sprung have in effect, 'The words thou

usest are not, nor the things the words stand for'. But the SaT has a 'who' in the first line and

just a word for 'words' in the second.

346 Brian Galloway

that the basis of emptiness is the essence of the existents. It is not so, for

[Ngrjuna] states.

If there were anything nonempty, there might be something empty; but there

is nothing nonempty, so whence will there be something empty? 7.

If there were anything to be called emptiness, then there would be its basis, the

essence of entities. But it is not so. For here if it is believed that emptiness or

selflessness is the common quality of all entities, then because of the nonexis

tence of any nonempty things [dharminah] there will also be no nonempti-

ness. [To repeat,] When there are no nonempty objects, there is no nonempti-

ness. Then, because the lack of an opposite, emptiness too, like a garland of

sky-flowers, is not, we must insist. And if emptiness is not, then the objects

that are its basis are not; this is established and nondelusive.

Here it is said. The Three Gates of Liberation, emptiness, the signless, and

the wishiess, as they are called, have been taught by the Lord to his disciples

for [their] liberation; they are not common to all non-Buddhists,'''' but are

learnt [only] in the Buddhist verbal tradition (pravacana). Just for the sake of

teaching them, the Buddhas, the Lords, appear in this world that is come un

der the great darkness of delusion of all the non-Buddhist teachings (vada),

[the Buddhas who are] the sole lamps of the world, the uninterrupted flames

of the nairatmya teaching. You, Sir, on the pretext of teaching the Tathgata's

doctrine, have now undertaken to deny emptiness. Enough of you, the utter

destroyer of the path to heaven and Nirvna!

We reply, alas! you. Sir, with face turned upwards [i.e. not looking at the

road], as it were, because of extreme error rejecting the supreme, straight, and

auspicious path that goes to the city of Nirvna, are confused by your inclina

tion to existents and have resorted (samsrito) to a path that goes to the forest

of sarnsra, as if it went to the city of liberation,'^" desirous of liberation from

the forest of the wandering in samsra; you are worthy to be criticized by the

wise, but because of the power of your being taken up by an inclination to

pride, you criticize them. Nevertheless, these great kings of healing who cure

the illness of all defilements say,

The Conquerers have called emptiness the remedy for all views;

But those for whom emptiness is itself a view they call incurable. 8.

Here emptiness is defined as the expulsion (remedy, nihsarana) of views, of all

inclinations to grasping,'^' as the inaction (apravrttih) of them. But the mere

Meaning that none of the non-Buddhist schools has them.

'8 This seems to be the meaning: molssa-pura-gmitvena.


cessation of views is not an entity (bhva). To those who cHng to entities even

in that emptiness we have no wish to reply, because in our teaching salvation

is obtained'^^ by deliverance from all discursive thought.'*^ Who, being told,

T shall give you no ware,' should reply, 'Give me. Sir, just that no ware,' he by

what method is capable of grasping the nonexistence of that ware? Thus the

inclination to existence in emptiness of those people - by what can this incli

nation to existence in it of them be prevented? Thus because they understand

the [possibility of] abuse even of the Great Medicine, the foremost healers, the

great physicians, the Tathgatas, do not attend such people.

So it is said in the Lord's Noble Heap of Jewels Stra, "'Nothing'*'' makes

dharmas empty by means of emptiness; dharmas are just empty. Nothing

makes dharmas signless by signlessness; dharmas are just signless. Nothing

makes dharmas wishiess by wishlessness; dharmas are just wishiess. ... Just

this analysis, Ksyapa, is the the Middle Way and the reality-analysis of

dharmas. ... Those, Ksyapa, who go against emptiness while being depend

ent on emptiness I call ruined and thoroughly ruined, speaking from my tra

dition of teaching. Better, Ksyapa, a person-view as big as Mount Sumeru

than an emptiness-view of someone who inclines toward nonexistence. Why?

Emptiness, Ksyapa, is the expelling of all views. But him for whom empti

ness is itself a view I call incurable.'** Thus, Ksyapa, suppose there is a sick

saT Ita bar gyur pa, Skt. drsti-gata 'what are become views' i.e. views. LVP has drsti

krta; but see the Sanskrit, nn. 119, 136. saT has 'inclination' mhon par se pa without any

'grasping'.

Lit. 'will come about', bhavisyati.

'8' Schayer's Begriffsconstructionen is perhaps a good rendition of kalpan.

'8'' yan na ... karoti 'whatever there may be (yad) does not make ...'

'85 Schayer correctly writes, 'Da unwissende Individuen, welche die snyat als eine

drsti auffassen, verloren (pranasta) und unheilbar (acikitsya, asdhya) sind, ist ein dictum,das man wohl nicht la lettre verstehen muss. "Ewig Verdammte" kann es im Buddhismus

prinzipiell nicht geben; vielmehr wird jeder sarntna frher oder spter zur Ruhe gelangenund diese These ist in der Tat eine notwendige Konsequenz der Lehre von dem duhkha als

dem berpersnlichen Weltleiden: eben deshalb, weil sich in jedem individuellen Erlsungs

proze die fortschreitende Beruhigung des transzendenten Substrats vollzieht, mu die Heils

garantie absolut sein. Anders gesagt: der sarnsra hat keinen Anfang, aber wohl ein Ende.'In what follows, however, he is not quite so correct: 'Der Gedanke, da alle Wesen die

Erlsung erreichen werden, ist im Mah-Parinibbna-Sutta deutlich ausgesprochen.' In factthe Pli Sutta here referred to does not have the doctrine of universal salvation; Schayer here

is obviously thinking of the Sanskrit Mahparinirvna-Stra translated into Chinese byDharmaksema in 414^21. It states that all beings have the Buddha-nature, which should

mean that it is possible that all beings will achieve Buddhahood. See K. Chen: Buddhism inChina (Princeton Univ. Press, 1964), pp. 113-116. Again Schayer: 'Auch Vasubandhu stelltim AbhK I, 12 ausdrcklich fest, da alle samskrta-dharmas erlschen werden (= da sie

sa-nihsra sind) ...' This is correct (see below). Schayer: '... und Milindapanha 69

348 Brian Galloway

person to whom a physician gives medicine, and this medicine, after driving

out all the illnesses, itself does not exit the body.'*^ What do you think,

Ksyapa, will that person then be freed from illnesses?' 'No indeed. Lord, the

widerspricht nicht dieser Lehre, wie Oldenberg, Buddha ^ 378 annimmt. Ngasena sagtnicht, da es Wesen gibt, die nie erlst werden, sondern bestreitet lediglich, da "alle", ohne

die ntigen Vorbedingungen erfllt zu haben, das nirvna erreichen knnen.' But it rather

seems that Ngasena opposes the doctrine of universal salvation but does not wish to say so

clearly. Schayer: 'Bedenklicher ist die uerung Mahvastu 1 126, "da es nie ein Ende derWesen sein wird, welche die Lehre des Buddha hren werden". Es lt sich nicht leugnen,

da diese Behauptung vom Standpunkt der buddhistischen Soteriologie hretisch ist. Dochmu in Betracht gezogen werden, da Mahvastu kein philosophischer Traktat ist; in der

populr-religisen Literatur lassen sich berall, auch im Christentum, grobe Irrlehrennachweisen.

'Im Mahyna steht der Grundsatz der Heilsuniversalitt im Mittelpunkt der Erlsungs

lehre; alle Kreaturen sind Embryonen des Tathgata. Vgl. Rosenberg, Problemy 256 ff.'

Schayer refers to Volume I, p. 12 of the French translation of the Abhidharmakosa, which

indeed states 'nihsra signifie "sortie (sra = nihsrana) necessaire (avasyam)", le Nirvna

(nirupadhisesanirvna) de tout conditionne. Comme on doit sortir des conditionnes, on les

quahfie "munis de sortie".' The edition of the Sanskrit by Dwrikds Sastri (BauddaBharati Nos. 5, 6, 1981) has p. 27 nihsaranam nihsrah = sarvasya sarnskrtasya nirvnam, tad

esm astiti sanihsrh. The commentator adds: nirupavisesanirvnam (? for nirupadhi(vi)sesa-nirvnam).

Schayer refers to Mahvastu p. 149 in the Basak edition: srnvatm purusavarasya

ssanam bahunrn kutah \ paryanto bhesyati satvanm iti uktarn maharsin 'Whence will

there be (reading bhavisyati) a limit to the many beings who hear the teaching of the SupremePerson?' This is p. 99 in the Jones translation: 'Whence, then, can there be a limit to the

countless beings who listen to the teaching of the Supreme of men?' The doctrine of the

infinitude of beings is not necessarily heretical, however. It is present in Asahga's

Mahynasarngraha (which is a philosophical treatise), at least by implication: khams gcig na

ni gnis med phyir \ dpag med lhan cig tshogs bsags phyir \ rim gyis hbyun bar mi rigs phyir \

sahs rgyas man por rab tu grags \ 'Although there are not two Buddhas in a dhtu, because an

unlimited number of them (dpag med, aprameya) accumulate their equipment (sambhra) at

the same time {lhan cig), and because an arising in succession (krama) is impossible, the

Buddhas are renowned as many' (Lamotte, text p. 96, translation pp. 328-329). This seems

to imply that there is an infinite number of beings, because an infinite number of Bodhisatt

vas become enlightened at the same time (a 'smaller' infinity, of course). If there are beings,

there can be N, Bodhisattvas among them while leaving N non-Bodhisattvas, just as there are

positive integers and integers divisible by 4 among them, leaving while leaving num

bers not divisible by 4. Moreover if N beings become enlightened at every moment, all beings

could become enlightened in a finite time, even though there is an infinity of beings: if there

are beings numbered 1, 2,..., n , then the diagonal method well known to mathematicians,

which shows that N cannot embrace all the points in a finite line segment, also shows a way in

which N points can be distributed on the finite line segment (which contains N, points). If the

line is seen as a time line, we can have N beings becoming Buddhas in a finite time. The time

distance between the enlightenment of one and the next will be in general of the order of an

infinitesimal of the N, kind, which leaves a succession, but an arbitrarily small one, so that for

practical purposes it could be argued that the enlightenments are lhan cig.


illness of this person will become more severe, in whom that medicine, after

driving out all the illnesses, does not exit the body.' The Lord said, Tn just this

way, Ksyapa, emptiness is the expelling of all views. But him for whom emp

tiness is itself a view I call incurable.'"'*''

Bibliography

K. Chen: Buddhism in China. Princeton 1964.

F. Edgerton: Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar and Diaionary. New Haven 1953.

J.W. DE Jong: "Textcritical notes on the Prasannapad." In: IIJ 20 (1978), 25-59; 20

(1978), 217-252.

R. Pischel: A Grammar of the Prakrit Languages. Translated from German by

Subhadra Jh. 2d ed. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidas, 1981.

Lambert Schmithausen: Mandanamisra's Vibhramavivekah, -^'f ^f^die zur

Entwieklung der indischen Irrtumslehre. Wien 1965 (sterreichische Akademie

der Wissenschaften, Phil.-Hist. Kl., Sitzungsberichte 247,1, 1965).

A. von Stael-Holstein: Tbe Ksyapaparivarta: A Mahynastra of the Ratnakta

Class. Shanghai 1926.

Mitsuyoshi Saigusa: Ngrjuna's Mlamadhyamakrik-s: Texts and Translations.

Tokyo 1985.

Stanislaw Schayer: Ausgewhlte Kapitel der Prasannapad (V, XH, XIII, XIV, XV,

XVI) ... W Krakowie: Polska akademja umiejftnosci ... 1931 ... Polska

akademja umiejftnosci, Cracow. - Komisja orientalistyczna. Prace. Nr. 14.

M. Sprung: Lucid Exposition of the Middle Way. The Essential Chapters from the

Prasannapad of Candrakirti. Boulder, CO 1979.

L. DE LA Vallee Poussin: Mlamadhyamaka-kriks (Mdhyamikastras) de

Ngrjuna avec la Prasannapad Commentaire de Candrakirti. St.-Petersbourg

1913. (Published in several fascicles in the years 1903-1913.)

Bernhard Weber-Brosamer and Dieter M. Back: Die Philosophie der Leere,

Ngrjunas Mlamadhyamaka-Kriks: bersetzung des buddhistischen Basis

textes mit kommentierenden Einfhrungen. Wiesbaden 1997.

'8' According to traditional Indian medical theory, not inconsistent with modern findings, a

medicine for the sick is a poison for the well. So it must leave the body after curing the illness; ifit remains, it will cause further sickness. Modern studies show that medicines do indeed leave

the body, e.g. in the urine, in a measurable amount of time (at least most of a dose does).

LVP writes p. 249 n., 'La theorie de la durgrahitat, des dangers que presente une fausse

conception des doctrines bouddhiques, et en particulier de la snyat, est developpe dans un

grand nombre de textes. (Voir Dogmatique Bouddhique, I, p. 26 = J. As. 1902, II, p. 258.) - La

snyat est couramment comparee un serpent, qu'il faut saisir au bon endroit. Cette meta

phore (alagarda = alagadda) est developpe dans un sijtra que cite Buddhaghosa, Sum. Vil. p. 21;

mais il s'agit de la doctrine bouddhique en general, duggahitatt bhikkhave dhammnam.'

Chapter 24 also refers to this idea.

350 Brian Galloway

Alfred C. Woolner: Introduction to Prakrit. Calcutta 1917.

Slob dpon Zla ba grags pa: dBu ma rtsa bahi hgrel pa tshig gsal. Rajpur 1993.

Note

In three papers published in the WZKS in 1981,1985, and 1988, 1 addressed the matter

of sudden enlightenment. In the first paper I had occasion to cite a paper by E.

Lamotte published in 1977. Lamotte published again on the subject in 1981, but I

did not see this paper until the late 1990s. It seems that he and I cite some of the same

literature, but his paper was not an influence on my 1985 and 1988 papers (had it been,

I would have cited it).

Zu der Frage des Strebens nach uerster Krze"

in den Srautastras

Von Albrecht

Galloway - PP 13 New Edition and Translation

Documents

Transcript of Galloway - PP 13 New Edition and Translation