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 as
datives.
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 allerdings
mosa 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 de
rive 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 yarn
amosadhammarn 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 decep
tive 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 the
latter 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; therefore
sarnskras are false.
" LVP states concerning the sloka, 'Cite ci-dessus p. 42.10.' The citation differs only in
sandhi: 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-
325
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 dans
les 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 pralopa
and 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 for
mal 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 or
Adhyardhasatika-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 or
not 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 mis
understanding.
Tib. hga sig any, some; not in Das.
327
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 utpdu
this 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 Prakritic
elements 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, R
has -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 being
considered 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 hsin
med 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's
version 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 dhospo
gah 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.
329
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 needed
metri 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 et
Corrections" in the back of the book.
'2 Should be kascid.
331
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 no
parabhvah 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 the
end 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 (satvato
grahatas}) 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 med
must 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 Buddha
is 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 Buddha
is 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 no
this 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 next
verse.
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.
333
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 the
sense: 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 gsuh
lugs.
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 is
unambiguously 'alas!'
"2 All mss. have -arn, but context suggests -ah to apply to the opponent ('you. Sir ... are
confused 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 mhon
par 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<ird with saT: rha gyal sen pas bzuh pa.
335
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 of
the 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 clauses
too.
'2 Omitting here LVP's api tu and the two foWowing api tu (de Jong). They are not in saT
or 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 empti
ness-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 of
himself, von Stael-Holstein has adhimnikasya 'of someone who is angry-minded'. In
the first interpretation the Buddha of the Kasyapa-parivarta criticizes intellectual failing, in
the other cases moral failing.
" LVP and R have drsti-krtnm 'of things made by views' or possibly 'of things that have
been 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
337
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 annihi
lationist 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.). -
339
(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. But
the meaning is the same.
Wheel made by swinging a blazing torch rapidly in a circle. The appearance of a circular
structure 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 sub
strate 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 a
triad (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 this
interpretation 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, so
there 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 der
Nicht-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 mystics
call the via negativa, which is not the same as being nihilist. - B.C.] Besonders lehrreich ist
Pr. 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 Leug
nung 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 Mdhya
mikas 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 di
vista 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."
341
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, voir
notamment 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 has
attention'.
'' This objector is of the Vaibhsika or Sarvstivda persuasion. Schayer: 'Das absolute
An-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 der
Zukunft durch den Moment des Jetzt hindurch in die Existenzphase der Vergangenheit
bergehen. Das nihsvabhvatva ist ein Synonym der anityat und bezieht sich nur auf die
momentane 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 just
cited 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 really
the opponent's dilemma.
The son is the dharmin and his darkness is the dharma. So for all things snyat is the
dharma 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 its
changing (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
343
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 A
nor 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 separate
from 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 on
this account.
SaT hphagspa dkon mchog hbyun gnas ses bya ba thegpa chenpo mdo (Mine of Jewels
Stra).
345
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.
347
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 gelangen
und 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 fact
the 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 by
Dharmaksema 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 in
China (Princeton Univ. Press, 1964), pp. 113-116. Again Schayer: 'Auch Vasubandhu stellt
im 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 sagt
nicht, 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 der
Wesen sein wird, welche die Lehre des Buddha hren werden". Es lt sich nicht leugnen,
da diese Behauptung vom Standpunkt der buddhistischen Soteriologie hretisch ist. Doch
mu in Betracht gezogen werden, da Mahvastu kein philosophischer Traktat ist; in der
populr-religisen Literatur lassen sich berall, auch im Christentum, grobe Irrlehren
nachweisen.
'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 (Baudda
Bharati 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 Supreme
Person?' 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.
349
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; if
it 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 Wezler, Hamburg
Soeben habe ich den mir vom Verfasser freundhcherweise unter dem Da
tum vom 20.12.2000 im Sonderdruck zugesandten Aufsatz von Konrad
Klaus Zu den Srautastras"' gelesen. Durch die bersendung eines an
deren Beitrags war ich schon frher auf den entsprechenden Sammelband,
die Berichte der Arbeitstagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom
2. bis S.Oktober 1997 in Erlangen",-^ und bei Durchsicht des allen Sonder
drucken beigefgten Inhaltsverzeichnisses auch auf den genannten Aufsatz
von Klaus aufmerksam geworden, hatte freilich zunchst nicht mehr unter
nehmen knnen, als den Bibliothekar unseres Instituts' um die Anschaffung
des Buches zu bitten.
Da ich nun in dieser, ffentlichen Form auf die endlich mgliche bzw.
vollzogene Lektre des Beitrags von Klaus reagiere, ist in erster Linie da
durch bedingt, da ich seine Ausfhrungen zum Stil der Srautrastras, d. h.
zur Weise des Ausdrucks und zur Form der Beschreibung in ihnen, bei
erster Lektre nicht nur als recht interessant erfahren, sondern seine Er
klrung des Begriffs stra/Stra* zunchst auch fr einen diskussionswrdi
gen Vorschlag gehalten habe,* mich insgesamt also angeregt fhlte. Daneben
bzw. in erster Linie aber veranlassen mich zwei an von ihm mitgeteilte und
klar belegte Beobachtungen anknpfende und sie, denke ich, fortfhrende
Gedanken bzw. berlegungen zu der vorliegenden spontanen und raschen
Reaktion.
' Siehe Benutzte Literatur" unter Klaus 2000.
2 Wenn ich mich recht erinnere, war es Oberlies 2000.
^ Auch bei dieser Gelegenheit vermelde ich, da unser Institut", vormals Seminar",
mit der Umwandlung des Fachbereichs (10) Orientalistik der Universitt Hamburg in
das Asien-Afrika-Institut" am 26.05.2000 zur Abteilung fr Kuhur und Geschichte
Indiens und Tibets" geworden ist.
* Die orthographische Unterscheidung von stra = einzelnem .Faden'" und Stra
= zu einer Einheit zusammengefgte, miteinander ,versponnene' Einzelaussagen" (vgl.
Klaus 2000, 187) halte ich nach wie vor fr hilfreich, weil Miverstndnisse vermeidend.
5 Man vermit freilich eine Erwhnung und ein Eingehen auf Staal 1992.

Galloway - PP 13 New Edition and Translation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Galloway - PP 13 New Edition and Translation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Toward a New Edition and Translation of

You might also like