Some Problems Concerning Textual Reuses in the Madhyamakaratnapradīpa, with a Discussion of the...

1 23

Journal of Indian Philosophy ISSN 0022-1791Volume 43Combined 4-5 J Indian Philos (2015) 43:511-557DOI 10.1007/s10781-014-9246-3

Some Problems Concerning Textual Reusesin the Madhyamakaratnapradīpa, with aDiscussion of the Quotation from Saraha’sDohākośagīti

Krishna Del Toso

1 23

Your article is protected by copyright and all

rights are held exclusively by Springer Science

+Business Media Dordrecht. This e-offprint

is for personal use only and shall not be self-

archived in electronic repositories. If you wish

to self-archive your article, please use the

accepted manuscript version for posting on

your own website. You may further deposit

the accepted manuscript version in any

repository, provided it is only made publicly

available 12 months after official publication

or later and provided acknowledgement is

given to the original source of publication

and a link is inserted to the published article

on Springer's website. The link must be

accompanied by the following text: "The final

publication is available at link.springer.com”.

Some Problems Concerning Textual Reusesin the Madhyamakaratnapradīpa, with a Discussionof the Quotation from Saraha’s Dohākośagīti

Krishna Del Toso

Published online: 3 September 2014

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Abstract The aim of the present study is to shed light on why the citation taken from

Saraha’s Dohākośagīti and occurring in the Madhyamakaratnapradīpa, chapter 7,opens the door to some fundamental reflections concerning the authority and the

“nature” of this latter text. On the basis of a historical and doctrinal analysis, here a new

interpretation is put forward, according to which the Madhyamakaratnapradīpashould be considered a tenth century CE handbook, written by some unknown Bud-

dhist teacher perhaps as a manual for his lessons. The primary purpose of this teacher

seems to have been the discussion—in the light of textual sources compiled up to this

time—of the doctrinal and philosophical perspectives contained in the sixth century

CE Bhaviveka’s Madhyamakahṛdayakārikā and Tarkajvālā. The Madhyamakarat-napradīpa could have been composed on the basis of noteswritten down for the benefit

of this teacher’s students. Moreover, the analysis of the general style and quotes or

references of the text, on the one hand, comparedwith the passage containing the quote

from Saraha, on the other hand, lead us to take seriously into consideration the pos-

sibility that the citation borrowed from the Dohākośagīti could have been embedded

into the text a little after its composition, by someone different from its original author.

Keywords Bhaviveka/Bhavya · Tibetan translations · Madhyamaka ·

Madhyamakaratnapradīpa · Saraha · Textual reuse

1 General Introduction

In this essay the quotation from awork of Saraha, theDohākośagīti (henceforth:DKG;Tib. Do ha mdzod kyi glu), which occurs in chapter 7 (titled bsGom pa’i rim pa,*Bhāvanākrama) of the Madhyamakaratnapradīpa (henceforth: MRP; the Tibetan

title being dBuma rin po che’i sgronma)—ascribed to Bhavya—is taken into account.

K. Del Toso (&)

Department of Humanistic Studies, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy

e-mail: [email protected]

123

J Indian Philos (2014) 43:511–557

DOI 10.1007/s10781-014-9246-3

Author's personal copy

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s10781-014-9246-3&domain=pdf

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s10781-014-9246-3&domain=pdf

The primary aim of the present study is to shed light onwhy this citation opens the door

to some fundamental reflections concerning the MRP, a work that has in itself the

aspect of a—so to speak—“patchwork writing”. The “patchs” that constitute theMRPhave been put together by its Author—as wewill see—possibly around the beginning-

to-mid of the tenth century CE. In what follows I will discuss a concrete case of how

one can or could tread possible interpretative paths when context, style, citations and

historical and philosophical analysis of a text are dialectically taken into account. At

the same time I will do this by enlivening in new directions the debate about the epoch,

purposes and nature of a text that still remains problematic. But before tackling our

primary subject, it will be helpful here to put forward some introductory notes

concerning the text and its compiler/s, alongwith its general cultural background, as is

inferable from the quotes that constellate the chapter 7 of the MRP.

1.1 The Text and Its Author

1.1.1 The Text, Its Content, Its Scope

The MRP, extant only in Tibetan translation, since the original Sanskrit is to be

considered lost and no Chinese version is available, is a work clearly devoted to the

affirmation of the Madhyamaka philosophy over all the other points of view, either

Buddhists and non-Buddhists. It is divided into nine chapters, as follows:1

1. bDen pa gñis kyi skabs (*Satyadvayaprakaraṇa, Explanation of the two truths);

this is a first assessment of the doctrine of the two truths according to the

Madhyamaka viewpoint.

2. Kun rdzob ’khrul pa’i śes rab kyi skabs (*Saṃvṛtibhrāntaprajñāprakaraṇa,Explanation of the erroneous discrimination of the conventional truth); this

chapter deals with the wrong non-Buddhist perspectives, which are said to be

363 in number.2

3. Draṅ ba’i don gyi yaṅ dag pa’i kun rdzob kyi śes rab kyi skabs (*Neyārtha-tathyasaṃvṛtiprajñāprakaraṇa, Explanation of the discrimination of the right

conventional truth in a provisional sense); here the examination and refutation

of the Vaibhas˙ika doctrines are provided.

4. Draṅ ba’i don gyi yaṅ dag pa’i kun rdzob kyi śes rab kyi gñis pa(*Neyārthasaṃvṛtiprajñādvitīya, Second [explanation] of the discrimination

of the right conventional truth in a provisional sense); this is the exposition and

rejection of the Yogacara teachings.

5. Ṅes pa’i don gyi yaṅ dag pa’i kun rdzob kyi skabs (*Nītārthatathyasaṃvṛti-prajñāprakaraṇa, Explanation of the right conventional truth in a definitive sense);in this chapter theMadhyamakapoint ofview is dealtwith fromaconventional level.

6. Don dam pa’i śes rab kyi skabs (*Paramārthaprajñā, Explanation of the

discrimination of the ultimate truth); the aim of this short chapter—only five

stanzas—is to point out the ineffable nature of paramārtha.

1 For a more detailed survey of the contents of theMRP, I refer here the reader to: Lindtner (1984), Potter(2003, pp. 443–457).2 On the 363 wrong views see in particular the illuminating Folkert (1993, pp. 229–245).

512 K. Del Toso

123


7. bsGom pa’i rim pa’i skabs (*Bhāvanākramaprakaraṇa, Explanation of the

progress in meditation); here some reflections are put forward on the practical

aspects of the meditation.

8. sLob dpon gyi źal sṅa nas kyi che ba brjod pa’i skabs (*Ācāryapāda-māhātmyābhidhānaprakaraṇa, Explanation of the discourse on the greatness of

the venerable teacher); this chapter is devoted to the affirmation of Nagarjuna’s

grandeur.

9. PHan yon gyi skabs (*Anuśaṃsaprakaraṇa, Explanation of the benefits [of the

Buddhist life]); this chapter explains why the Buddhist perspective should be

embraced.

Some of these chapters have already been studied, edited and translated, therefore I

refer the reader to the existing essays for a clear aperçu of them.3 What is relevant to

notice here is instead that theMRP, inmore than one place, filchesmany passages from

the sixth century Bhaviveka/Bhavya’s works, such as the Prajñāpradīpavṛtti (PPV),the Madhyamakahṛdayakārikā (MHK) and the Tarkajvālā (TJ), as both Yasunori

Ejima (1980, pp. 950–947) and Christian Lindtner (1982, pp. 178–182) clearly

demonstrated some decades ago. These passages are unmarked, inserted as if they

were part of the original text and referred verbatim or almost verbatim. Notwith-standing these borrowings from Bhaviveka/Bhavya’s writings, only the title of the TJis mentioned, and only once throughout all theMRP (D, dBu-ma, TSHa, 266b4): bdaggis bkod pa rtog ge ’bar ba (on this passage we will come back later on). By virtue of

these unmarked excerpts one could really get the impression that theMRP is actually a

work by the sixth century Bhaviveka/Bhavya. Yet, as it will be pointed out in the next

section, it would be hard to uphold consistently such a perspective.

What is essential to stress, for the moment, is the importance and centrality

attributed to the Madhyamaka philosophy and philosophers by the Author of the

MRP, whose aim seems to have been entirely celebratory. This eulogistic purpose

emerges from several textual clues, such as:

(a) The title itself reveals that the main scope of the work is to shed light (pradīpa)on the Madhyamaka viewpoint, which is compared to a jewel (ratna).

(b) In many occasions the Author defines the Madhyamikas as «we Madhyami-

kas» (bdag cag dbu ma pa; D, dBu-ma, TSHa, 260a3–4, 261a7, 261b6, 266b1,

273b7 and so on), clearly showing that he belongs to this school.

(c) After the chapters 2–4 of the MRP, where wrong and imperfect perspectives

are dealt with, in chapter 5 the reader is instructed on what the right vision is,

namely, on Madhyamaka philosophy.

(d) The entire chapter 8 is completely devoted to the exaltation of the figure of

Nagarjuna.

(e) In the colophon, as we will see in a while, we are told that the MRP is written

in compliance of Nagarjuna’s teachings.

3 Translation of chapter 1 in Lindtner (1981, pp. 169–177); translation of chapter 3 in Lindtner (1986b,

pp. 182–190); edition of chapter 4 in Lindtner (1986b, pp. 192–197) and translation of the same in

Lindtner (1986a, pp. 246–254).

Textual Reuses in the Madhyamakaratnapradīpa 513

123


1.1.2 The Author of the MRP and His Epoch

The first information that we have about the Author of the MRP comes from the

colophon, where we are told that his name was Bhavya and that he was a follower of

Nagarjuna (D, dBu-ma, TSHa, 289a6): slob dponmkhas pa chen po bha byas slob dpon’phags pa klu sgrub kyi gsuṅ bźin dumdzad pa rdzogs so («Written by the great erudite

ācārya Bhavya in conformity with the teachings of the noble Nagarjuna»). Different

opinions have been put forward on who this Bhavya could have been and when might

he have flourished. To cite only a few studies on this subject, we can here remind that

according toChristian Lindtner, this Bhavyawas the sixth centuryBhaviveka/Bhavya,

author of the MHK along with its commentary TJ, and of the PPV commentary on

Nagarjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā.4 On the contrary, Yasunori Ejima (1980, p.

951) argued that theMHK and the PPV were written by the sixth century Bhaviveka/

Bhavya,whereas theTJ (or, at least, part of it) and theMRP should be ascribed to a later

Bhavya. Seyfort Ruegg, after having suggested (1981, p. 106, note 339) that theMRPcould have been compiled by a certain Bhavyakırti (on whom we shall return in a

while), later on (1990, p. 66) seems to have given credit to Ejima’s opinion, accepting

the possible attribution of both theMRP and the TJ to one and the same author. Only

few years ago, Eckel (2008, pp. 25–26) pinpointed that theMRP contains remarkable

traces ofBuddhist philosophical theories thatwe knowdeveloped not before the eighth

century CE.5 This fact of course implies in itself that theMRP cannot be assigned to the

sixth century Bhaviveka/Bhavya, as also Krasser—who refers his readers to Eckel’s

arguments—has recently underlined in two different works, (2011a, pp. 231–232, note

100) and (2011b, p. 50). Accordingly, both Eckel andKrasser uphold that theMHK,TJandPPV are all ascribable to the sixth century Bhaviveka/Bhavya, whereas theMRP is

actually the work of an author who fourished after at least the eighth century CE.

Nevertheless, besides and before themodern debate just outlined in brief above, it is

interesting to notice the fact that right from at least the eighteenth century, the learned

Tibetan Buddhist thinker lCan-skya Rol-pa’i-rdo-rje (1717–1786) argued that the

MRP is to be undoubtedly considered a work written by a later namesake of the well-

known sixth century Madhyamaka philosopher. This observation, unfortunately,

seems not to have received the due attention by modern scholars. In his monumental

work Grub pa’i mtha’i rnam par bźag pa gsal bar bśad pa thub bstan lhun po’i mdzesrgyan, indeed, Rol-pa’i-rdo-rje introduces a long quote from the TJ ad MHK 9.19 (in

which the 363 incorrect perspectives are listed, and that corresponds to D, dBu-ma,

DZa, 278a5–279a3) with the following words: (ed. 1983, 9b4): slob dpon legs ldan’byed kyi rtog ge ’bar ba las | («In the Tarkajvālā of the ācārya Bhaviveka […]»). At

the end of the citation we meet with the usual closing formula (ed. 1983, 10b6) źes’byuṅ («Thus it is said»). Immediately after this reference, Rol-pa’i-rdo-rje hastens to

4 See Lindtner (1982, pp. 172–184, 1986a, p. 239, 1986b, p. 179).5 On account of the identity of the author of the MRP, and on the basis of the quotations inserted in that

work, Eckel (2008, p. 27) cautiously maintains: «Either we are dealing with a very mellow scholar, who

had lived long enough to leave these controversies behind, or we have an author who found it useful to

attribute this summary of Madhyamaka to the earlier Bhaviveka […]. Without knowing more about the

intellectual development in later Madhyamaka thought, and also about the compositional strategies that

were popular in Indian monastic communities at this time, all we can do is speculate».

514 K. Del Toso

123


specify that (ed. 1983, 10b6–11a1): legs ldan phyi mar grags pa’i dbu ma rin chensgron ma las kyaṅ lta ba’i dbye ba sum brgya sogs yod tshul bśad mod | («Also in theMadhyamakaratnapradīpa, of a well-known later Bhavya, the existing three-hundreddifferent doctrines and so forth are expounded»). What Rol-pa’i-rdo-rje hints at, is a

passage in chapter 2 of the MRP (see D, dBu-ma, TSHa, 263a1–263b2) that repeats

almost verbatim the portion of the Tarkajvālā he has just quoted. This witness testifiesthat since centuries, within the Tibetan tradition the notion was accepted that theMRPis not a work authored by the sixth century Bhaviveka/Bhavya.

Accordingly, the following questions arise: whowas this later Bhavya? Could he have

been the above-mentionedBhavyakırti,whomSeyfortRuegg refers to?6Andwhendid he

flourish? Let us tackle the point step by step. To beginwith, it is worth noting that it seems

that at least two Bhavyakırti-s existed roughly during the same epoch.7 The first one—

whom, for the sake of convenience, I will call Bhavyakırti I—was abbot of the

Vikramasıla vihāra, where he is reputed to have taught tantric doctrines related to the

Cakrasam˙vara cycle.He allegedly flourished in the early tenth centuryCEand compiled a

commentaryon theCakrasaṃvaratantra. Theproblemof identifyingourAuthorwith this

Bhavyakırti I lies in the fact that from the study of the quotes in the chapter 7 of theMRP(see Sect. 1.2) it emerges that there is no presence of references to texts or doctrines

belonging to the Cakrasam˙vara tradition, nor is it detectable any strong doctrinal

proximity of theMRPwithBhavyakırti I’s works, which seem—as has been remarked by

some scholar—tobe philosophicallymore indebted to theYogacara andPraman˙a schools

ofBuddhism, than toMadhyamaka.8 Inmyopinion these observations have enoughvalue

to make us suspect that the Author of the MRP was not Bhavyakırti I. The second

Bhavyakırti—I will call him Bhavyakırti II—was affiliated to the Guhyasamaja circles

and wrote a short commentary on Nagarjuna’s Pañcakrama and an impressive

commentary on Candrakırti’s Pradīpoddyotana. Also Bhavyakırti II may have lived in

the tenth century, or straddling the tenth and eleventh centuries CE. In this case, since in

theMRPwemeet with some quotes from the Pañcakrama, alongwith some further work

authored by the tantric Aryadeva,9 we could suppose that, behind our Bhavya, this

Bhavyakırti II is foreshadowed. However, if we admit such a conclusion, some urgent

questions arise on account of the—so to speak—intellectual honesty of our Author. For

6 Recently also other scholars have shared Seyfort Ruegg’s suggestion. For instance, Vose (2009, p. 32).7 Thanks to a personal communication of Peter-Daniel Szanto, dated 8th June 2012, I can here report

some of the major clues that allow us to suppose that there have been two Bhavyakırti-s: «The

Guhyasamaja Bhavyakırti constructs a very clear edifice of what tantric Buddhist revelation is/should be,

and generally has a later feel to it. On the contrary, one clearly gets the idea from the Cakrasam˙vara

Bhavyakırti that his concerns are not so far-reaching, there is plenty of material he is not aware of, simply

—I think—because it was not still circulating during this time (I think he was active sometime in the early

tenth century, or perhaps a little earlier). For example he does not quote the Hevajra, most later tenth

century authors, and later ones usually do. More concrete evidence is that both authors quote roughly the

same passage from the Catuṣpīṭha (3.1.43–47 and 43–50ab), but in different ways. It is somewhat

unlikely that the same author would have done this. To finish with, the Cakrasam˙vara Bhavyakırti makes

recourse to a stylistic device that, simply put, works as follows: X says 1, Y says 2, Z says 3, but I

Bhavyakırti say it is actually 4. This feature does never occur in the works of the Guhyasamaja

Bhavyakırti». On Bhavyakırti I see Szanto (2012, pp. 42–48).8 See in particular: Gray (2007, p. 697).9 For a detailed reference see Lindtner (1982, pp. 175–176).


123


instance: why a fine and glib commentator on texts belonging to the Guhyasamaja

tradition, as Bhavyakırti II undoubtedly was, felt the need to borrow many passages—as

pointed out above—from the sixth century Madhyamika Bhaviveka/Bhavya’s works,

keeping at the same time concealed these textual sources to his readers, while, on the

contrary, he marked meticulously plenty of other quotes? This one seems quite an odd

consuetude that with difficulty I would expect from a learned author like Bhavyakırti II.

Well, exactly this discrepancy of treatment between the citations taken from the sixth

century Bhaviveka/Bhavya’s writings and those taken from all the other sources, along

with the above-mentioned theoretical distance of the MRP from the Cakrasam˙vara

horizon, makes me suspect that we are in presence, here, of a work authored neither by

Bhavyakırti I, nor by Bhavyakırti II, rather by an—as it were—emulator of Bhaviveka/

Bhavya.

A further clue that could strengthen such an opinion emerges from the analysis of the

colophons. Indeed, the colophon of Bhavyakırti I’s Cakrasaṃvarapañjikāśūramanojñā(D, bsTan-’gyur, rGyud,Ma, 41a1) reports the Tibetan rendering of the author’s name as

sKal-ldan-grags-pa (=Bhavyakırti), and the same occurs in his *Vīramanoramā, whereasboth the colophons ofBhavyakırti II’sPañcakramapañjikā (D, bsTan-’gyur, rGyud, CHi,7b7) andPradīpoddyotanābhisandhiprakāśikā (D, bsTan-’gyur, rGyud, KHi 155a5) bearthe Tibetan transliteration Bha-bya-kı-rti. On the contrary, in the three colophons of,

respectively, theMRP (partially referred to above), theMHK and the TJ (see D, bsTan-’gyur, dBu-ma,DZa, 40b6 and 329b2, wherewe read: slob dpon chen po bha byasmdzadpa rdzogs so), the same Tibetan transliteration Bha-bya is used. In none of these three

colophons is there mention of a second part of the name, i.e., grags-pa or °kırti.Interestingly enough, not only Bha-bya lacks °kırti/grags-pa, but it also lacks °viveka/’byed (the nameBhaviveka being generally rendered intoTibetanwithLegs-ldan-’byed).

This fact suggests that the Author of theMRP was allegedly reputed to be (one) Bhavya

tout court. SinceBhavya is the recordednameof the compiler of theMHK andTJ,whereasLegs-ldan-’byed (Bhaviveka, or even Bhavyaviveka) is the name of the same person as it

occurs in the PPV, the suspect arises that the Author of the MRP took somehow

inspiration, for writing his work, more from theMHK and TJ (fromwhich a considerable

series of quotations are taken and embedded unmarked into theMRP), than from thePPV(which provides material for only few quotes, unmarked as well). Accordingly, he may

haveborrowed thenameBhavya insteadofBhaviveka. Put it in otherwords, theAuthor of

theMRP is said to be (one) Bhavya because the name of the author of theMHK and TJ isBhavya. This is an interesting hypothesis, on which we will come back in a while.

Let us for the moment turn our attention towards the possible date of the

compilation of the MRP. In this respect, we have, hence, to notice that in the MRPseveral quotes taken from the tantric Nagarjuna’s works, such as the Pañcakrama andthe Piṇḍikṛtasādhana, are met with. As Wright (2010, p. 16) has made it clear, «it is

likely that the P[iṇḍi]K[ṛta]S[ādhana] did not exist until at least 800 CE and probably

did exist by 950 CE. This range is about fifty years earlier than that proposed by

Wedermeyer [sic!] for the Caryāmelāpakapradīpa of Aryadeva which is subject to

the same lineage and dating». Wright, here, makes reference to the observations put

forward by Christian Wedemeyer (2007, p. 13), according to whom «it seems we

must move the C[aryā]M[elāpaka]P[radīpa] […] into at least the mid-to-late ninth

century» as its terminus post quem. This Aryadeva is the author of other tantric texts

516 K. Del Toso

123


that are quoted as well in the MRP, in particular the Svādhiṣṭhānakrama.10 This fact—if we accept the dating established by Wedemeyer—makes our Author’s floruitshift at least later than the end of the ninth century.

As regards the terminus ante quem, it can be derived from the colophon of the

MRP, of which the concluding part runs as follows (D, dBu-ma, TSHa, 281a1–2):

bla ma rje btsun zaṅs gliṅ pa dge bsñen mgon po la | paṇḍi ta chen po dī paṃka ra śrī dzñā nas bka’ drin źus pa las | phyis so ma pu ri’i gtsug lag khaṅ durgya brtson ’grus seṅ ge daṅ | nag tsho tshul khrims rgyal ba gñis kyis yaṅ daṅyaṅ du źus nas bsgyur ciṅ gtan la phab pa’o ||

That is: «Having the great paṇḍita Atisa Dıpam˙karasrıjnana requested the

venerable Ceylonese teacher dGe-bsnen-mgon-po (*Upasakanatha?) to receive [a

copy of the MRP], later on, in the Somapurı vihāra, both Vıryasim˙ha from India and

TSHul-khrims-rgyal-ba from Nag-tsho translated and arranged [the MRP into

Tibetan], after having asked again and again». Since Atisa Dıpam˙karasrıjnana

flourished between 980–1054 CE, we can accordingly conclude that the MRP was

compiled allegedly before the eleventh century. Therefore, it should have seen the

light at some time in the tenth century, and probably not after the first half.

1.1.3 What Kind of Text is the MRP? AWorking Hypothesis, and Again on Its Author

The colophon of the MRP quoted above provides us with interesting material for

some further consideration related to the—as it were—textual “nature” of the MRP.First of all, it is worth noting that, we are told, Atisa asked a copy of the text for

himself. This suggests to us that, for some reason, he was very interested in

possessing a personal manuscript. Thence, the obvious question is: why Atisa felt

the need to have that copy? Well, I am persuaded that a plausible answer to this

enigma cannot leave aside Atisa’s teaching activity. Let us clarify this point,

beginning by saying that Atisa spent a long period of his life as teacher at the

Vikramasıla vihāra,11 the place in which TSHul-khrims-rgyal-ba fetched him from

Tibet for the first time. Yet, from the colophon of the MRP it emerges beyond any

doubt that TSHul-khrims-rgyal-ba was already a well reputed disciple of Atisa when

he translated theMRP in the Somapurı vihāra, together with Vıryasim˙ha. Otherwise,

it would be hard to imagine that Atisa would have assigned to the two monks this

translation, or allowed them translating the MRP more or less under his guidance or

with his placet (consider the expression yaṅ daṅ yaṅ du źus nas). This suggests thatthe period spent at the Somapurı came after Atisa’s stay at the Vikramasıla.

However, as Chattopadhyaya (1996, pp. 127–128) points out, we know also that

Atisa actually left India for Tibet when he was residing at the Vikramasıla vihāra.Since all the sources at our disposal agree on the fact that Atisa, once arrived in

Tibet, spent over there the rest of his life, and died without ever coming back to

10 For more references see Lindtner (1982, pp. 173–174). On the authorship of the Svādhiṣṭhānakramasee Wedemeyer (2007, p. 56).11 On the time spent and the role played by Atisa at the Vikramasıla vihāra see Chattopadhyaya (1996,

pp. 128–130).


123


India, it is quite safe to suppose that his permanence at Somapurı took place

between two distinct periods spent at Vikramasıla. We can therefore imagine that

Atisa was called at Somapurı as a—so to speak—visiting teacher, his “natural”

place being Vikramasıla. What is interesting to notice at this point is that, while

residing at the Somapurı vihāra, Atisa taught Bhaviveka/Bhavya’s TJ to the studentsof that monastery. This fact, Chattopadhyaya (1996, p. 124) informs us, «is

corroborated by Jayasıla’s [i.e., TSHul-khrims-rgyal-ba’s] stotra to Dıpam˙kara [i.e.,

Atisa]. “When”, says Jayasıla in his stotra, “you were at the Somapurı vihāraexpounding (gsuṅ) the Tarka-jvālā (rTog-ge-’bar-ba) […]”». By virtue of the above-

mentioned textual affinities existing between the MRP and the TJ, therefore, it is notan outlandish idea to suppose that Atisa brought his copy of the MRP from

Vikramasıla to the Somapurı vihāra (the presence of phyis, «later on», in the MRPcolophon makes it clear that Atisa reqested the copy before the time spent at

Somapurı) in order to get at his disposal a work that could help him while preparing

his scheduled lessons on the TJ. This consideration, if accepted, opens the door to

the idea that Atisa might have made use of the MRP as a manual or a handbook, in

so far as it contains good explanations of several passages of the TJ, drawn in the

light of—so to speak—updated Madhyamaka viewpoints and textual sources.

Keeping this supposition inmind, let us now turn our attention back to theAuthor of

theMRP for further observations.We have said that he seems to have been an emulator

of the sixth century Bhaviveka/Bhavya. However, we have not yet explained the sense

of such an assertion. In other terms, and in the light of what we have so far argued, the

problem concerns how we can unravel, as consistently as possible, the enigma of the

paternity of the MRP. The best answer I can find is grounded on the following

arguments. (a) We have the fact that the colophon of the MRP records Bhavya as its

author, as it happens in the MHK and the TJ, not Bhaviveka like in the PPV. (b) We

have also the fact that theMHK and the TJ are twoworks, of which several excerpts areembedded into theMRPwithout quotation marks, as if they were part of the main text;

the PPV undergoes a similar treatment, except for that the cases of textual reuse are

sensibly fewer. On the contrary, all the other quotations fromother texts are in oneway

or another indicated by the usual marks. (c) We have, moreover, the fact that Atisa

wanted a copy of the MRP before he delivered his lessons on the TJ at the Somapurı

vihāra. Therefore, even if we cannot be entirely sure of this conclusion and hence weshall take it as a working hypothesis, we may nonetheless suppose that theMRPwas a

sort of instructionmanual focusing on the TJ, written perhaps for the sake of clarifyingsome particular aspect of theMadhyamaka point of view. Probably it is nothing but the

collection of some notes, functional for, or taken during, lessons on Madhyamaka

philosophy, delivered on the basis of, or inspired by, considerations contained mainly

in theMHK and TJ (and secondly in the PPV). This would also justify why the Authoris said to be Bhavya (the same name used in the MHK and TJ) and not Bhaviveka

(Legs-ldan-’byed, the name used in the PPV): Bhavya, because the teachings writtenby the author of the TJ represent the primary theoretical inspiration for the Author of

theMRP. For these reasons, since we cannot be sure of his real name, the compiler of

theMRP, in what follows, will be referred to as simply “our Author”, or “the Author”.

In the following section some further textual evidence in support of this

hypothesis is gathered.

518 K. Del Toso

123


1.1.4 In Support of the Thesis: Some Textual Clues

Let us consider, now, those passages that could corroborate our perspective, namely,

that the MRP might have been a work, in which notes carefully taken during, or

written for, a class have been collected and arranged in the form of a consistent text.

I have organized these evidences in five points, as follows.

(a) In the colophon of theMRPwe read the long sentence slob dponmkhas pa chen pobhabyas slobdpon ’phags paklu sgrub kyi gsuṅbźin dumdzadpa rdzogs so (whichpoints at stressing the sense that Bhavya was a follower of Nagarjuna, namely, a

Madhyamika: a quite redundant clarification that learned people of this time surely

gave for granted; the suspect arises, hence, that this was an information for, for

instance, beginner students), whereas in both the colophons of theMHK andTJweread simply (and obviously) slob dpon chen po bha byas mdzad pa rdzogs so.

(b) So many times throughout the MRP we meet with the expression «we

Madhyamikas» (bdag cag dbu ma pa), that nowhere occurs in theMHK and TJ(nor in the PPV) and therefore seems not to be in accordance with the typical

style of the sixth century Bhaviveka/Bhavya. This expression has indeed in

itself a somewhat homiletic or conversational aspect/function, as if it were the

result of the transcription of some direct speech, like when, while speaking to

an audience, one says: “on this respect we of this school uphold so and so” or

“they of that school affirm this but we of this school argue thus”.

(c) In some cases, we find passages that look like instructions or advices for students.

These passages contain either (c.1) suggestions for further readings or (c.2)rhetorical advices on how to refute some opponent’s argument or defend one’s own

viewpoint. To the first group (c.1) belong excerpts like the following one (D, dBu-ma,TSHa, 281a1–2):mdo sdedumargsuṅs pasdedaṅderblta barbya («Since [thisargument] has been enunciated in many Sutras, you may/should look in those

particular [writings for further details]»); in other similar cases (see for instance

points 11. and 16. of the list in Sect. 1.2.1) the title of some specific Sutra is

mentioned. The impression is that these references have the purpose of, so to say,

giving some homework to students, that a teacher assigns in order to integrate what

he is explaining but cannot be dealtwith in depth during the lessons.As concerns the

second group (c.2), we can consider for example D, dBu-ma, TSHa, 269a2: da nirigs padedag rimpabźin dubrjodpar bya («Now, [against] these reasonings, in dueorder you may/should declare»), or 271a1, 273b2 etc.: ’dir brjod par bya («To this,you may/should declare»). All these expressions have, again, a very conversational

feature of the kind: “if someone tells you so and so, you could retort in this way”.

(d) Sometimes our Author informs us that, although the treatment of the argument

he is dealing with would need in itself a more complex explication, he

nonetheless prefers not to go further in its analysis, as in the case of D, dBu-

ma, TSHa, 270b1, where the exposition of some mistakes related to the

Yogacara self-cognition theory (svasaṃvedana) is concluded with the words:

gźan yaṅ skyon maṅ du yod de | re źig gźag go || («There are many other faults

[in the opponent’s viewpoint, however], let us stop [here] for the moment»).

Such sentence, once again, has a conversational aspect and seems to be


123


directed to someone who does not handle very well the argument, someone

like a student, for whom complex matters need to be simplified.

(e) In theMRP there is a problematic passage, in which we read (D, dBu-ma, TSHa,

266b4): bdag gis bkod pa rtog ge ’bar ba. The problem lies in the fact that here we

find the title of the TJ in its Tibetan translation (rTog ge ’bar ba). The

hermeneutical key term of the sentence is undoubtedly the verb bkod pa, which isthe perfect of ’god pa. This verb has several meanings and, according to many of

them, the expression bdag gis bkod pa could be translated as «compiled/written/

accomplished by me», or similar expressions. Being so, the sentence would

convey the sense that the Author of theMRP also wrote the TJ, a sense that, in thelight of what precedes, could now be accepted with difficulty. How to unravel this

point, then? Thanks to a short but illuminating study of Izumi Miyazaki, we are

made aware that bkod pa, along with the significance of «written», «compiled»

(Miyazaki: 著した, arawashita), may also convey the meaning of «included»,

«incorporated», «embedded» (Miyazaki: 組み入れた, kumiireta) or «quoted»,«cited», «referred to» (Miyazaki: 引用した, in’yō shita). Interestingly enough,

bkod pa seems to occur exactly with this last acceptation for instance in Atisa’s

Bodhimārgadīpapañjikā, which is an auto-commentary on theBodhipathapradīpaand whose Sanskrit text is now lost. While explaining his Bodhipathapradīpa 45,Miyazaki indeed argues, Atisa makes known that he took this stanza from (a work

of?) his master Bodhibhadra, and inserted it into the Bodhipathapradīpa root

text (see D, bsTan-’gyur, dBu-ma, KHi, 278a3–4).12 Since the Bo-dhimārgadīpapañjikā, like the MRP, has been translated into Tibetan by TSHul-

khrims-rgyal-ba, I think that we are allowed to assume that the same translator

translated in the samemanner the same word in both cases. Therefore, in the light

of the above mentioned last group of three meanings of bkod pa noticed by

Miyazaki, the sentence of theMRP under discussion herewould signify something

like: «TheTarkajvālā [passages] that I havequoted/included».This is an important

observation because, since throughout all theMRP none of the cited TJ passagesare marked, we can find in this sentence a strong element in support to the thesis

according to which the TJ is the text that stands—as it were—behind theMRP, assaid above.Moreover, the lack, on the one hand, of any quotation mark indicating

explicitly the TJ excerpts, and the presence, on the other hand, of the expression

bdag gis bkod pa, which foreshadows the fact that the text here somehow reports a

speech in the first person, lead us to argue that theMRPwith all probabilitywas not

originally meant to be a written text in the way a Sastra or similar treatises have

been written. Otherwise, we may suppose that if this had been the case, also the

quotes from the TJwould have been marked, like indeed all the other citations in

12 For the study of the Bodhimārgadīpapañjikā passage in which bkod pa occurs and the analysis of its

context see Miyazaki (2006, p. 452). The excerpt runs as follows: bla ma dpal byaṅ chub bzaṅ po’i źal nas’di skad du | śes rab pha rol phyin spaṅs pa’i || sbyin pa’i pha rol phyin la sogs || dge ba’i tshogs rnamsthams cad dag | rgyal ba rnams kyis thabs su bśad || [= Bodhipathapradīpa 45] ces gsuṅs pa de bdag girtsa bar bkod pa yin no ||. See also Miyazaki (2007, p. 69), where he translates: «I inserted the words of

my master, Bodhibhadra, into the root text, [the Bodhipathapradīpa], that the Jinas assert that skillful

means are all the accumulation of virtues, i.e. the perfection of giving and so on, excluding the perfection

of wisdom».

520 K. Del Toso

123


the MRP are, and not simply included in the discussion. Accordingly, if this

perspective is correct, we conclude that theMRPmight have beenwritten down in

consequence of some direct speech.

All these points, I think, provide altogether good reasons to believe that the MRPwas originally assembled as a manual of Madhyamaka philosophy, with particular

attention to the arguments contained in the TJ, and compiled on the basis of a course

held, at some time around the beginning of the tenth century CE, by some teacher to

a class of Buddhist students, probably at the Vikramasıla vihāra. Moreover, the lack

of quotation marks for all the TJ passages suggests that the teacher, during the

lessons, could have had a copy of the TJ at hand. It was therefore clear to everybodywhich source those passages were taken from, making it unnecessary the insertion

of any quotation mark in the text of the MRP.Having thus arrived at such a preliminary consideration, we can now turn our

attention towards the reuse of texts in MRP, chapter 7. This will help us to better

contextualize the citation from the DKG.

1.2 The Cultural Horizon of the MRP, Chapter 7, as can be Inferred

from Its Quotations

In order to sketch withmore precision the cultural and scriptural horizon of theMRP, inwhat follows I have provided a list of all the quotations detectable in its chapter 7, which

is devoted to the discussion of the bhāvanākrama (progression of meditation). But

before considering the list, two preliminary specifications are needed. Firstly, I assume

that the analysis of the quotes of the sole chapter 7 will here suffice for our purposes to

study the citation from Saraha, since in the preceding and subsequent chapters theMRPdeals with subjects that have nothing to do with the bhāvanākrama practice. Saraha’s

text, indeed, occurs in the explanation of the cittamātra concept,which is assumed in the

MRP as a fundamental notion involved in the progression into meditation, explained—

says our Author—from a Madhyamaka viewpoint.13 For this reason, I will handle the

chapter 7 as if it were a sort of independent section of the MRP. Secondly, with“quotations” I mean all those textual reuses that are introduced by, and/or ended with,

the usual quotation marks, such as the particle las after the title of a work, opening

expressions like ji skad du, and so on, or closing expressions as źes bya ba, źes gsuṅs so,etc. In this list I have recorded the citations that are referred verbatim or almost verbatim,all the cited titles ofworks and the indications of authors and thinkers, both those that are

mentioned by name in theMRP and those that remain unmentioned, but are hinted at by

general appellations, like slob dpon, ’phags pa slob dpon and so on. The textual

references are all from the D edition of the bKa’-’gyur and bsTan-’gyur.

1.2.1 List of Quotations of Textual Material, Titles and Authors in the MRP, Chapter 7

The references I have been able to detect are organized in the following table.

13 See the opening section of the excerpt edited and translated below, section 2.1.


123


No.

Locus

Kindofreferences

Worksreferred,

whose

titles

are

mentioned

Worksreferred,

whose

titles

are

unmentioned

Authors

referred,

whose

nam

esare

mentioned

Authors

hintedat,

whose

nam

esare

unmentioned

Correspondence(s)

ofquotedtexts

Untraced

1277a4–5

Śesrabkyiph

aroltu

phyin

pamṅonpa

rrtog

spa’i

rgyan(Abh

isam

ayālaṅkā-

raprajñā

pāramito

pa-

deśaśāstra)

(Maitreyanatha,

third-fourth

century

CE?)

Citation

correspondsto

Abh

isam

ayālaṅ

kāra-

prajñāpāramito

-pa

deśaśāstra

4.6

2277a5

gźan

naskyaṅ

(unknown)

Onestanza.Although

untraced,

itsSanskrit

versionoccurs

also

intheSu

bhāṣita

-saṃgraha1

3277a5–6

rjebtsun’PHags

palha’izalsna

nas

(Aryadeva)

Citationcorresponds

toCittaviśud

dhi

prakaraṇa842

4277a7–b1

rGyalba

skyedma

(Jinajan

anī?

;seeNo.33)3

mGonpobyam

s

pa(M

aitreya

[natha])

Correspondsto

Abh

isam

ayālaṅ

kāra-

prajñāpārami-

topa

deśaśāstra

4.7ab,d

5277b1–4

’PHagspa

yeśeskyiph

yag

rgya’itiṅ

ṅe’dzingyimdo

(Āryatathāga

tajñāna

mud

rāsamādhisūtra;

D,bKa’-’gyur,mDo-sde,

Da,

230b4–253b5)

Even

ifcertain

sentencesin

the

citationcanremind

usofpassages

in

that

Sutra,

Ihave

beenunable

totrace

theexactwording

522 K. Del Toso

123


No.

Locus

Kindofreferences

Worksreferred,

whose

titles

are

mentioned

Worksreferred,

whose

titles

are

unmentioned

Authors

referred,

whose

nam

esare

mentioned

Authors

hintedat,

whose

nam

esare

unmentioned

Correspondence(s)

ofquotedtexts

Untraced

6277b4

slobdpon’phagspakLu

sgrubkyizalsnanas

(Nagarjuna)

Noquotedtexts.

Reference

to

Nagarjuna’s

authoritative

teachings

concerning

Madhyam

aka

philosophy(gźuṅ

lugs

bdumachen

po’ido

n)

7277b5

bDebachen

po

(*Mahasukhaor

*Mahadeva)

4

Onestanza

onthe

twotruths

8277b5–7

1)(M

adhyam

a-kāvatāra).

2)(U

nknown?)

slobdponrjebtsunzL

aba

gragspa’izalsnanas

(Candrakırti)

1)Firstquotedstanza

correspondsto

Madhyam

akāvatāra

6.4.Subsequent

threepāda

s

correspondto

Madhyam

akāvatāra

6.5a,cd

2)Lastfourpādas

remainuntraced

9277b7

’phagspakLusgrubkyi

zalsnanas

(Nagarjuna)

Noquotedtexts

10

278a2

1)slobdponkLusgrub

kyizalsnanas

(Nagarjuna)

2)’phagspaTHogsmed

(Asanga)

Noquotedtexts


123


No.

Locus

Kindofreferences

Worksreferred,

whose

titles

are

mentioned

Worksreferred,

whose

titles

are

unmentioned

Authors

referred,

whose

nam

esare

mentioned

Authors

hintedat,

whose

nam

esare

unmentioned

Correspondence(s)

ofquotedtexts

Untraced

11

278a5–6

1)’PHagspa

chos

bźi’imdo

(Āryacaturdh

ar-

makasūtra;D,bKa’-’gyur

mDo-sde,

Za,

60b1–61a2)

2)’PHagspa

phuṅ

pogsum

pa(Āryatriskan

-dh

akasūtra;D,bKa’-’gyur,

mDo-sde,

Ya,

57a3–77a3)

3)’PHagspa

laskyisgrib

rgyungcod

pa’imdo

(Āryakarmāvara-

ṇapratiprasravitisūtra;


TSHa,

297a5–307b6)

4)’PHag

spa

ñeba

’khorgyis

źuspa

(Upālip

aripṛ-

cchāsūtra;

D,bKa’-’gyur,

dKon-brtsegs,Ca115a1–

131a7)

5)Nam

mkha’

sñiṅ

po’imdo

(Ākāśaga

rbha

sūtra;

D,

bKa’-’gyur,mDo-sde,

Za,

264a4–283b2)

Noquotedtexts.Our

Authoronly

refers

hisreader

tothese

Sutras

forfurther

details

onthe

subject

heisdealing

with

524 K. Del Toso

123


No.

Locus

Kindofreferences

Worksreferred,

whose

titles

are

mentioned

Worksreferred,

whose

titles

are

unmentioned

Authors

referred,

whose

nam

esare

mentioned

Authors

hintedat,

whose

nam

esare

unmentioned

Correspondence(s)

ofquotedtexts

Untraced

6)’PHagspa

sman

gyi

blaba

iḍū

rya’od

kyirgyalpo’imdo

(Āryab

haiṣajyagu

ruvai-

ḍūryaprabhārājasūtra;

D,bKa’-’gyur,rG

yud,

Da,

274a1–283b7)

7)gZ

uṅskyimdo

sde

(Dhāraṇīsūtra—

perhaps

therD

orjesñiṅ

po’i

gzuṅskyimdo,

Vajram

aṇḍadhāra-

ṇīsūtra;

D,bKa’-’gyur,

mDo-sde,

Na,

278a1–289b4)

12

278a7–b3

’PHag

spa

theg

pachen

po’i

man

ṅaggi

mdo

(Āryam

ahāyānop

adeśasūtra;


Ba,

260a1–307a7)

Citationcorrespondsto

D,


Ba,

271b2–5

13

278b3–4

Yumchen

mo(Prājñapāram

itā)

Tocomparewith

Vajracchedikā-

prajñāpāramitā

§32:

itaḥprajñāpāramitā

yādh

armap

aryāyād

antaśaścatuṣpādikām

apigā

thām

udgṛhya

dhārayed

deśayed5

Althoughthisexcerpt

isuntraced,itis

citedalso

inTJad

MHK2.106


123


No.

Locus

Kindofreferences

Worksreferred,

whose

titles

are

mentioned

Worksreferred,

whose

titles

are

unmentioned

Authors

referred,

whose

nam

esare

mentioned

Authors

hintedat,

whose

nam

esare

unmentioned

Correspondence(s)

ofquotedtexts

Untraced

14

278b4–6

’PHag

spa

chos

tham

scad

’byuṅba

med

parbstanpa

(Āryasarvadh

arma-

pravṛttin

irdeśasūtra;

D,


Ma,

267a1–296a6)

Citationcorresponds

toD,bKa’-’gyur,

mDo-sde,

Ma,

275b3

15

278b5–6

kLu’irgyalpo

rgya

mtsho

sźuspa

(Sāgaranāga-

rājapa

ripṛcchāsūtra;

D,


PHa,

116a1–198a3)

Citationcorresponds

toD,bKa’-’gyur,

mDo-sde,

PHa,

170a3–4

16

278b6–7

1)Debźin

gśegspasgsaṅ

ba’i

mdo

(Āryatathāgatācin-

tyaguhyanirdeśa;

thefull

Tibetan

titlebeing:’PHags

pade

bźingśegspa’igsaṅ

babsam

gyismikhyabpa

bstan

pa’imdo;D,bKa’-’gyur,

dKon-brtsegs,Ka,

100a2–

203a7)7

2)Las

kyisgribpa

rnam

par

dagpa’imdo,

(Karmāvaraṇaviśud

-dh

isūtra;D,bKa’-’gyur,

mDo-sde,

TSHa,

284a3–

297b5)

Noquotedtexts.Our

Authoronly

refers

hisreader

tothese

Sutras

forfurther

details

onthe

subject

heisdealing

with

526 K. Del Toso

123


No.

Locus

Kindofreferences

Worksreferred,

whose

titles

are

mentioned

Worksreferred,

whose

titles

are

unmentioned

Authors

referred,

whose

nam

esare

mentioned

Authors

hintedat,

whose

nam

esare

unmentioned

Correspondence(s)

ofquotedtexts

Untraced

17

279a3–4

slobdponchen

po

’phagspakLu

sgrubkyizalsna

nas

(Nagarjuna)

Noquotedtexts.The

Authoronly

refers

tothetransm

ission

(man

ṅag)

of

Nagarjuna’s

Madhyam

aka

teachings

18

279a3–4

slobdponzL

aba

gragspa’izalnas

(Candrakırti)

Noquotedtexts

19

279b2–3

Yum

chen

mo

(Prajñapāram

itā)

(Vim

uktasena,

sixth

century

CE)?

Tocomparewith:Śes

rabkyiph

aroltu

phyinpa

stoṅ

phrag

ñiśu

lṅapa’iman

ṅaggi

bstanbcos

mṅonpa

rrtog

spa’i

rgyangyi’grelpa

(Pañ

caviṃśa-

tisāhasrika-

prajñāpāramito

-pa

deśaśā-

strābh

isam

ayālaṅ-

kāravṛtti;see:

D,

bsTan-’gyur,Ses-

cin,Ka,

45a4)

20

279b4

dBumasrid

paph

oba

(Bha

vasaṃkrāntip

arikha

tā)

slob

dpon

gyiźalsṅa

nas(N

agarjuna)

Citationcorresponds

toBha

vasaṃkrān

-tip

arikhatā

58


123


No.

Locus

Kindofreferences

Worksreferred,

whose

titles

are

mentioned

Worksreferred,

whose

titles

are

unmentioned

Authors

referred,

whose

nam

esare

mentioned

Authors

hintedat,

whose

nam

esare

unmentioned

Correspondence(s)

ofquotedtexts

Untraced

21

279b6

’PHag

spa

’odsruṅskyisźus

pa’imdo

(Āryakāśyapaparivartasūtra)

Noquotedtexts

22

279b6–7

’PHag

spa

rgyanstug

po’imdo

(Āryag

hanavyūhasūtra;D,


CHa,

1b1–55a7)

Citationcorresponds

toĀryaghan

avyū-

hasūtra4.72cd–73–

74ab

(D,bKa’-

’gyur,mDo-sde,

CHa,

48b6–7)

23

280a1

bDebachen

po

(*Mahasukhaor

*Mahadeva)

Tocomparewith:

Candrahari’sor

Candrarahila’s

(°rahula?)

Ratna

mālā(Rin

poche’iph

reṅba

;see:

D,bsTan-’gyur,

dBu-m

a,A,71b3–4)

Onestanza

528 K. Del Toso

123


No.

Locus

Kindofreferences

Worksreferred,

whose

titles

are

mentioned

Worksreferred,

whose

titles

are

unmentioned

Authors

referred,

whose

nam

esare

mentioned

Authors

hintedat,

whose

nam

esare

unmentioned

Correspondence(s)

ofquotedtexts

Untraced

24

280a3–281a3

(see

section2.1.

below).

25

281a5–7

1)(Pratītyasamut-

pāda

hṛda

yakārikā)

2)yaṅ(Bod

hi-

citta

vivaraṇa)

3)(M

ahāyāna-

viṃśikā)

4)(Piṇḍikṛtasā-

dhan

a)

slob

dpon

gyiźalsṅa

nas(N

agarjuna)

1)Pratītyasa-

mutpāda

hṛ-

dayakārikā

7

2)Bodhicitta

-vivaraṇa

2

3)Mahāyā-

naviṃśikā

18ab

4)Pi ṇḍikṛtasā-

dhana43d–44ab

26

281b5

(Yuktiṣaṣṭi-

kākārikā)

slob

dpon

gyiźalsṅa

nas(N

agarjuna).

Citationcorresponds

toYuktiṣaṣṭikā-

kārikā

11ab


123


No.

Locus

Kindofreferences

Worksreferred,

whose

titles

are

mentioned

Worksreferred,

whose

titles

are

unmentioned

Authors

referred,

whose

nam

esare

mentioned

Authors

hintedat,

whose

nam

esare

unmentioned

Correspondence(s)

ofquotedtexts

Untraced

27

282a2

1)’PHags

paśesrab

kyiph

aroltu

phyinpa’imdo

(Āryaprajñā-

pāramitā

sūtra)

2)’PHagspa

bzaṅ

pospyodpa’i

smon

lam

(Āryasam

an-

tabh

adracāryap

raṇidhāna;

D,bKa’-’gyur,gZuns,

Wam˙,262b5-266a3)9

3)sM

onlam

ñiśu

pa(*Praṇidhānaviṃśikā)10

4)sM

onlam

bdun

cupa

(Praṇidhānasap

tati)

11

slobdponMatitsi

tras

(Maticitra,

mentioned

byour

Authoras

compiler

ofthe

sMon

lam

bdun

cupa)

slob

dpon

gyiźalsṅa

nas(N

agarjuna,

hintedat

byour

Authoras

compiler

ofthesM

onlamñi

śupa)

Noquotedtexts

28

282a5–6

slob

dpon

gyiźal

sṅana

s(N

agarjuna?)

Noquotedtexts

29

282b4–5

’PHag

spa

saṅs

rgyas

tham

scadkyiyulla

’jug

pa(Ārya-

sarvab

uddh

avi-

ṣayāvatārajñā-

nālokālaṃkā-

rasūtra;

D,bKa’-’gyur,

mDo-sde,

Ga,

276a1–

305a7)

Citationcorresponds

toD,bKa’-’gyur,

mDo-sde,

Ga,

299a4–5

530 K. Del Toso

123


No.

Locus

Kindofreferences

Worksreferred,

whose

titles

are

mentioned

Worksreferred,

whose

titles

are

unmentioned

Authors

referred,

whose

nam

esare

mentioned

Authors

hintedat,

whose

nam

esare

unmentioned

Correspondence(s)

ofquotedtexts

Untraced

30

283a2–3

’PHag

spa

laṅkargśegspa

(Laṅkāvatārasūtra)

Citationcorresponds

toLaṅkāvatārasūtra

2.167=

10.128

31

283a3

mdo

źaṅlaskyaṅ

(Unknown)

Sanskritoriginal

preserved

in

Vasubandhu’s

Bhāṣyaad

Abh

idharm

akośa

4.12c1

2

Onestanza

from

a

Sutra

32

283a4–5

’PHag

spa

saṅs

rgyas

tham

scadkyiyulla

’jug

pa(Āryasarvabu

d-dh

aviṣayāvatāra-

jñānālokālaṃ

kā-

rasūtra;

seeNo.29)

Inaccurate

quotation:

thepassagefrom

the

Sutrathat

ourAuthor

presumably

had

in

mindrunsquite

differently(compare

with:D,bKa’-’gyur,

mDo-sde,

Ga,

299a7–b1)


123


No.

Locus

Kindofreferences

Worksreferred,

whose

titles

are

mentioned

Worksreferred,

whose

titles

are

unmentioned

Authors

referred,

whose

nam

esare

mentioned

Authors

hintedat,

whose

nam

esare

unmentioned

Correspondence(s)

ofquotedtexts

Untraced

33

283a5–6

rGyalba

bskyed

masum

brgya

pa(*Jinajana

-nītriśatāor*Jinapra-

bodhatriśatā

?;seeNo.4)

Citation

corresponds

to’PHag

spa

śes

rabkyiph

aroltu

phyinpa

rdorje

gcod

pa’imdo

(Āryavaj-

racchedikāpra-

jñāpāram

itāsūtra;

D,bKa’-’gyur,

Ser-phyin,Ka,

131a7–b1;§26of

theSanskrit

version)13

34

283a6–7

’PHag

spa

saṅs

rgyastham

scadkyiyulla

’jug

pa(Ārya-

sarvab

uddh

a-viṣayāvatāra-

jñānālokālaṃ

kārasūtra;

seeNo.29)

Citationcorresponds

toD,bKa’-’gyur,

mDo-sde,

Ga,

284b4–5

35

283b1

(Pañ

cakram

a)slob

dpon

ñidkyiźal

sṅana

s(N

agarjuna)

Citationcorresponds

toPañ

cakram

a5.13

36

283b2

Don

dam

parstod

pa(Param

ārthastava)


Param

ārthastava

8

532 K. Del Toso

123


No.

Locus

Kindofreferences

Worksreferred,

whose

titles

are

mentioned

Worksreferred,

whose

titles

are

unmentioned

Authors

referred,

whose

nam

esare

mentioned

Authors

hintedat,

whose

nam

esare

unmentioned

Correspondence(s)

ofquotedtexts

Untraced

37

283b3–4

’PHagspalha’i

zalnas

(Aryadeva)

Apparently

onestanza

38

284a2–3

1)mdo

las

(Āryasam

anta-

bhad

racā-

ryap

ra-

ṇidhān

a;seeNo.27)

2)yaṅ

mdo

sdelas

(unknown)

1)TheĀryasama-

ntab

ha-

dracāryapra-

ṇidhānapassage

corresponds,witha

negligible

variant,to

D,bKa’-’gyur,gZuns,

Wam˙,265a4

2)Theexcerptfrom

theunknownSutra

seem

sto

havebeen

quotedwithsome

variantsalso

by

Atısa

inhis

Bod

hipa-

thap

radīpa

pañjikā

(see:D,bsTan-

’gyur,dBu-m

a,

KHi,248b7–249a1)

39

284a4–b1

jiskad

du(D

harm

a-dh

ātustava)

slob

dpon

gyi

źalsṅana

s(N

agarjuna)


Dha

rmadhātustava

91-96(compareto:D,

bsTan-’gyur,bsTod-

tshogs,Ka,

67a4–7)

40

284b4–6

1)jiskad

du(M

añjuśrī-

nāmasaṃ

gīti)

2)gźan

laskyaṅ

(Āryasarva-

budd

haviṣayāva-

tārajñān

ālokā-

laṃkārasūtra;

seeNo.29)

1)Mañ

juśrīnām

a-saṃgīti116–117abc1

4

2)Sa

rvab

ud-

dhaviṣayāvatārasūtra

(see:D,bKa’-

’gyur,mDo-sde,

Ga,

300b5)


123


No.

Locus

Kindofreferences

Worksreferred,

whose

titles

are

mentioned

Worksreferred,

whose

titles

are

unmentioned

Authors

referred,

whose

nam

esare

mentioned

Authors

hintedat,

whose

nam

esare

unmentioned

Correspondence(s)

ofquotedtexts

Untraced

41

284b6

slobdponzL

aba

gragspa’izalsna

nas

(Candrakırti)

Twopādas,although

untraced

are

identicalwith

Vasubandhu’s

Vyākhyāyukti1bc

42

285a1–4

Twoexcerpts

from

the’PHag

spa

yeśeskyiph

yag

rgya’imdo

(inits

entire

Sanskrittitle,

thisistheĀryatathāgata-

jñānam

udrāsamādhisūtra;


Da,

230b4–253b5)

Thefirstexcerpt

reproducestwo

stanzas(that

wefind

inD,bKa’-’gyur,

mDo-sde,

Da,

236b2–4),whereas

thesecondoneisa

passagein

prose

in

whichtwobrief

excerpts

areput

together

inone

single

citation

(corresponding

respectivelyto

D,

bKa’-’gyur,mDo-

sde,

Da,

234b4–5

and234b7)

534 K. Del Toso

123


No.

Locus

Kindofreferences

Worksreferred,

whose

titles

are

mentioned

Worksreferred,

whose

titles

are

unmentioned

Authors

referred,

whose

nam

esare

mentioned

Authors

hintedat,

whose

nam

esare

unmentioned

Correspondence(s)

ofquotedtexts

Untraced

43

285a4

Yum

chen

mo(Prajñā-

pāramitā

)

Thequotedexcerpt

isasentence

that

occurs

severaltimes

throughout

theĀryāṣṭad

a-śasāha

srikāpra-

jñāp

āram

itā

44

285a4–6

1)’PHagspa

sgomtha’

yaspa

sgrubpa

gzuṅ

s(Āryānan

ta-

mukha

sādh

akad

hāraṇī;this

textoccurs

thrice

inthe

bKa’-’gyur:D,


Na,

289b4–299a5;rG

yud,

Na,

62a6-71a1;gZuns,E,

244b6–254b7)

2)Debźin

gśegspa’ile’u

(*Tathāgatap

arivarta)15

1)TheĀryāna

nta-

mukhasādh

akad

hāraṇī

excerptisactually

a

free

renderingofa

passageoccurringtwice

inthat

text(see:D,


Na,

292band293a)

2)The*Tathāga-

tapa

rivartaexcerpt,

althoughuntraced,

iscitedalso

inthe

TJ(see:D,bsTan-

’gyur,dBu-m

a,

DZa,

130b6–131a1)


123


No.

Locus

Kindofreferences

Worksreferred,

whose

titles

are

mentioned

Worksreferred,

whose

titles

are

unmentioned

Authors

referred,

whose

nam

esare

mentioned

Authors

hintedat,

whose

nam

esare

unmentioned

Correspondence(s)

ofquotedtexts

Untraced

45

285a7–b1

’PHag

spa

blogros

mizad

pasźuspa’o

mdo

(Āryākṣayama-

tiparipṛcchāsūtra;D,bKa’-

’gyur,dKon-brtsegs,CHa,

175b2–182b6)

IntheTJ(see:D,

bsTan-’gyur,dBu-

ma,

DZa,

131a2–4),

thesamepassageis

citedandattributed

totheBlo

gros

mizad

pasbstanpa’imdo

(Akṣa-

yamatinirdeśasūtra;

D,bKa’-’gyur,

mDo-sde,

Ma79a1–

174b7).In

reality,

thisexcerptisasort

ofrésumé—

inwhich

sentencesquoted

verbatim

aremixed

upwithpassages

that

areonly

summarized

—ofalong

discussionthat

we

findin

the

Akṣayam

ati-

nirdeśasūtra

(beginningat

86b)

536 K. Del Toso

123


No.

Locus

Kindofreferences

Worksreferred,

whose

titles

are

mentioned

Worksreferred,

whose

titles

are

unmentioned

Authors

referred,

whose

nam

esare

mentioned

Authors

hintedat,

whose

nam

esare

unmentioned

Correspondence(s)

ofquotedtexts

Untraced

46

285b2

1)’PHagspa

dalta

rgyi

saṅs

rgyasmṅg

onsum

dubźug

spa’imdo

(Āryapratyutpannabuddha-

saṃmukhāvasthitasūtra;


Na,

1b1–70b2)

2)’PHagspa

saṅs

rgyasrjes

sudran

pa’imdo

chen

po(Āryabud

dhānusmṛtimahā-

sūtra;

D,bKa’-’gyur,mDo-

sde,

Ya,

54b6–55a7)

Noquotedtexts.Our

Authoronly

tellshis

reader

s/hewillfind

intheseSutras

teach-

ingssimilar

tothose

expounded

inthe

Sutras

quoted

previously

47

285b4–286a3

jiskad

du(U

nknown)

slob

dpon

ñidkyiźal

sṅana

s(N

agarjuna?)

Althoughuntraced,

thissameexcerptis

citedalso

intheTJ

(see:D,bsTan-

’gyur,dBu-m

a,

DZa,

129b5–130a4)

48

286a3–4

1)rD

orjesde

(Vajrasena,

aliasVajrasrı,a

fourth-fifth

century

CE

disciple

of

Vasubandhu)

2)Thogsmed

(Asanga;

fourth

century

CE)

Noquotedtexts16


123


No.

Locus

Kindofreferences

Worksreferred,

whose

titles

are

mentioned

Worksreferred,

whose

titles

are

unmentioned

Authors

referred,

whose

nam

esare

mentioned

Authors

hintedat,

whose

nam

esare

unmentioned

Correspondence(s)

ofquotedtexts

Untraced

49

286a7–b1

1)(N

iraupa

-myastava)

2)(U

nknown)

slob

dpon

ñidkyiźal

sṅana

s(N

agarjuna)

1)Thefirststanza

isNirau

pa-

myastava24

2)Onestanza

from

an

untraced

text(alleg-

edly

byNagarjuna),

quotedalso

intwo

shortworksattributed

toAdvayavajra(tenth–

eleventh

century

CE):

theKudṛṣṭin

irghāta

(lTa

baṅanpa

selb

a;D,bsTan-’gyur,

rGyud,Wi,104b7–

110a2;quotationin

105a4–5)andthe

Tattvaratnāvalī(D

ekhona

ñidrinpo

che’i

phreṅba:seeD,

bsTan-’gyur,rG

yud,

Wi,115a6–120a1;

quotationin

119b4–5)

50

286b1–2

(Dha

rmadhā-

tustava)

slob

dpon

gyiźal

sṅana

s(N

agarjuna)

Citationcorr-

espondsto

Dha

r-mad

hātustava101

538 K. Del Toso

123


No.

Locus

Kindofreferences

Worksreferred,

whose

titles

are

mentioned

Worksreferred,

whose

titles

are

unmentioned

Authors

referred,

whose

nam

esare

mentioned

Authors

hintedat,

whose

nam

esare

unmentioned

Correspondence(s)

ofquotedtexts

Untraced

1See

Bendall(1903,p.389).Thestanza

isinserted

inadiscussionontheprajñāpāramitā

2Accordingto

Wedem

eyer

(2007,p.57),

manyareasonshould

makeussuspectthat

this

texthas

notbeenwritten

bythesameAryadevawhocompiled

the

Caryāmelāpakap

radīpa

3Unclearreference.InKam

alasıla’sMadhyam

akālaṅkārapañjikā(D

,bsTan-’gyur,dBu-m

a,Sa,114b4)wearetoldthatrG

yalbaskyedma(Jinajananī)referstoŚesrabkyipha

rol

tuphyinpa

(Prajñāpāram

itā)

4Thetwopossible

Sanskritnam

esaredueto

theinterpretationofbDe-ba,

whether

itis

taken

asatranslation,sukha,

oras

akindofphonetical

transliteration,deva

5Vaidya(1961,p.89)

6See

Heitm

ann(2004,p.76)

7ThetitleDebźin

gśegspasgsaṅ

ba’imdo

canreferalso

totheTathāgataguhyakasūtra,

that

is,theGuhyasamājatantra.

Nevertheless,thegeneral

contents

oftheĀrya-

tathāgatācintyaguhyanirdeśashowhigheraffinitywiththediscussionintheMRP(severalaffinitiescanalso

bedetectedbetweensomepassagesofthisSutraandthequotedpassage

from

theSāgaranāgarājaparipṛcchāsūtra,

referred

toin

theprecedingpoint15.)than

those

oftheGuhyasamājatantra.

Therefore,wecansafely

assumethat

itistheĀrya-

tathāgatācintyaguhyanirdeśathetexttowardswhichourAuthorwantstodrawhisreader’sattention

8See

Aiyaswam

iSastri(1938,p.74)

9Onthistextseevan

SchaikandDoney

(2007).Interestingly

enough,onthisSutraitexistsacommentary

attributedto

Nagarjuna,

the’PHag

spa

bzaṅ

pospyodpa’i

smon

lam

gyirgyalpo

chen

po’ibśad

sbyar

10

Thistextispreserved

inarN

in-m

acollectionofseveral

philosophical

works.See

Bibliographys.v.Nagarjuna,

Praṇidh

ānaviṃśikā

11

IntheTibetan

Canonwehavenotraceofthiswork,however,thereisasM

onlambd

uncu

patshigs

subcad

pa(Praṇidh

ānasaptatig

āthā;D,bsTan-’gyur,sN

a-tshogs,

No,320b5–324a5),authoredbyacertaingZan-la-phan-pa’idByans-dgon-pa(*ParahitaGhos ˙aran ˙ya?).This

texthas

beenstudiedbyBeresford

(1979),whohowever

upheldthat

itsauthorwas

Aryasurya(sic!)

12

Sastrı(1998,p.476)

13

Vaidya(1961,p.87)

14FortheSanskrit,seeDavidson(1981,p.58)

15OntheseexcerptsseeEckel

(1992,p.231,notes7and8)

16Theentire

passageoccurs

also

intheTJ(D

,bsTan-’gyur,dBu-m

a,DZa,130a7–b3).Asusual,theAuthoroftheMRPdoes

notindicatebymeansofquotationmarks

that

heisborrowingit


123


1.2.2 Analysis of the Scriptural References: A General Assessment

From the list just provided, we can notice the following fundamental points.

(a) In the MRP, chapter 7, the recourse to Sutra sources is definitely preferred to

the recourse to Tantra sources.

(b) The few Tantra works cited here are functional to the explanation of

Madhyamaka viewpoints.

(c) The tantric writings taken into account in the text are mostly those authored by

the tantric namesakes of the great Madhyamika teachers, which are however

indistinctly mixed up with quotations from Nagarjuna’s, Aryadeva’s and

Candrakırti’s Madhyamaka works. This fact embodies a well-known tendency

—that took place from at least the tenth century CE onwards—to attribute, as

Wedemeyer (2007, p. 8) clearly pointed out, «the authorship of the esoteric

works […] to those authors bearing the same names who composed the

exoteric philosophical works of the Centrist (Madhyamika) School. That is,

they maintain that the famous Nagarjuna who penned the Fundamental Versesof Centrism [i.e., Mūlamadhyamakakārikā] was also a tantric yogin who wrote

the Five Stages [i.e., Pañcakrama] and other important works of Buddhist

esoterism».14

(d) The presence of a (single) quotation from theMañjuśrīnāmasaṃgīti, which is awork of tantric lore, can be easily explained by reference to the tantric circles,

which the tantric Nagarjuna, Aryadeva and Candrakırti belonged to. Indeed,

we owe to Ronald M. Davidson a study, in which he points out that the

Mañjuśrīnāmasaṃgīti presents many similarities with the Guhyasamājatan-tra,15 to the extent that this text played a very important, not to say a central,

role within the Jnanapada hermeneutical tradition of the Guhyasamaja.16

Thanks to its conceptual proximity to the Guhyasamājatantra, it is not out ofplace here to suspect that theMañjuśrīnāmasaṃgītimay have been taken into a

certain consideration also among the, or among some, adherents or students of

the Guhyasamaja Arya school.

14 On this very point see also the illuminating Wedemeyer (2010).15 Davidson (1981, p. 2): «there is a distinct morphological similarity […] between the N[āma]S[aṃgīti]and the samādhi chapter (chapter 3) of the Guhyasamājatantra». Moreover, Davidson (1981, pp. 2–3):

«their ultimate common inspiration appears to be the abhisaṃbodhikrama of the Sarvatathāgatatat-tvasaṃgraha». Davidson, then, concludes that (1981, p. 3): «we may probably safely assume that the

earliest coherent stratum of the text [scil. the Mañjuśrīnāmasaṃgīti] encompasses verses 26–162».16 Davidson (1981, pp. 5–7) explains that the earliest commentator on the Mañjuśrīnāmasaṃgīti wasManjusrımitra (eighth century). Manjusrımitra was the teacher of Vilasavajra (and both were teachers of

Buddhajnanapada, the founder of the Jnanapada school), who compiled—among other works—an

important commentary on the Mañjuśrīnāmasaṃgīti and a commentary on the Guhyasamājatantra. Thisconfirms the strict link between these two texts. Therefore, the well-known connection of the

Mañjuśrīnāmasaṃgīti with the Kālacakratantra should have taken place only in later times, presumably

around the epoch of Naropa (tenth–eleventh centuries CE). The reasons of this tying up are explained in

Wayman (1999, p. 7).

540 K. Del Toso

123


In addition, it is worth noting that the reference to the Mañjuśrīnāmasaṃgīti isthe only one in chapter 7 concerning a so-called root tantric text.17 Indeed, the sole

other scripture mentioned here, which at a later time, during the period of

constitution of the bKa’-’gyur collection, was listed under the rGyud (Tantra)

category in the Tibetan Buddhist Canon, namely the Āryabhaiṣajyaguruvaiḍūrya-prabhārājasūtra (see point 11. of the list), is not a Tantra stricto sensu, but a Sutra

devoted to the Buddha of medicine and health.18

Interestingly enough, to conclude with, (e) except for the single quotation from

the DKG, which we are going to deal with, nowhere else in chapter 7, nor in the rest

of the MRP, the Author shows, directly or indirectly, that he was somehow involved

or interested in the so-called Dohā literature, or in the Mahamudra doctrine (whose

father is reputed to be Saraha) and/or in their tantric or pseudo-tantric matrix.

2 The Quotation from the DKG

After having thus introduced the MRP and its chapter 7, let us come to the point of

our discussion, namely, a quotation of a stanza from a work attributed to a certain

guru’s guru (bla ma’i bla ma), whose name, unfortunately, remains unmentioned.

The MRP reports that the stanza belongs to the Don dam par rigs pa’i glu, thatmight be restored into Sanskrit with *Paramārthanyāyagīti, as Lindtner (1982, pp.175–176) pointed out years ago. But as we will see in a while, the quoted stanza

corresponds—with little variants—to Saraha’s DKG 41 (21 in Bhayani’s ed.).

Before taking into account this citation, however, let us consider the entire passage,

into which it is inserted.

2.1 The Context into Which the Quotation is Inserted

Saraha’s stanza occurs in a discussion concerning the concept of cittamātra. OurAuthor distinguishes two main perspectives over reality. According to his treatment,

indeed, there would be a coarse (rags pa yin) interpretation of reality, which is said

to be related to what he calls the external or essoteric Madhyamaka (phyi rol gyi dbuma) approach, and a subtle (phra ba) interpretation, related to the internal or

esoteric Madhyamaka (naṅ gi dbu ma). The understanding of reality according to

the coarse manner, the Author informs us, corresponds to the conventional truth

(kun rdzob kyi bden pa) of the śrāvakas (ñan thos), which consists in taking the

dharmas as existent. This perspective has been explained in MRP, chapter 3. Theunderstanding of reality according to the subtle manner, on the contrary, consists in

taking all the dharmas as non-existing in themselves, since they appear in, or by

means of, mind-only. This second perspective seems to be very near to the Yogacara

17 Lindtner (1982, p. 176) remarked that in the MRP (D, dBu-ma, TSHa, 267a7–b1) there is also a verse

from the Vairocanābhisaṃbodhitantra. Wayman (1998, pp. 27–34) stressed the particular link existing

between, once again, this Tantra and the Jnanapada school of the Guhyasamaja tradition, since the text

has been variously commented upon by Buddhajnanapada’s pupil Buddhaguhya.18 More on this subject in Nakamura (1987, p. 181).


123


viewpoint on cittamātra. Our Author, however, argues that also such an approach

belongs to the sphere of the conventional truth (D, dBu-ma, TSHa, 281a4): kunrdzob kyi bden par nam mkha’ daṅ | bag chags bźi’i mthus sems sgyu ma rdzas sumed pa brdzun pa ñid phyi daṅ naṅ du snaṅ ste | («By means of the conventional

truth, [one sees that] the illusionary mind manifests externally and internally an

unsubstantial falsity by virtue of the space (ākāśa) and the four habitual tendencies

(vāsanā)»).19 Consequently, the higher Madhyamaka comprehension of reality, we

are led to conclude, takes place when one becomes aware that also mind-only is

illusionary and empty (D, dBu-ma, TSHa, 281a4–5): don dam par na sems sgyu made gdod ma nas ma skyes pa | bsal ba med pa | gźag pa med par yaṅ ’di lta bu’o źesśes par bya’o || («When [considered] according to the ultimate meaning, the

illusionary mind should be recognized like [something that is] never originated, not

revealed, nor abandoned»). In order to corroborate his perspective with textual

evidences, the Author makes recurse here to some quotes from works of Nagarjuna,

namely, those indicated in point 25 of the list in Sect. 1.2.1.

The stanza taken from Saraha’s DKG, on the other hand, closes a list of quotes

that are meant to explain the above-mentioned Yogacara-like viewpoint on

cittamātra (according to the conventional truth). The Author opens his citations withthe well-known stanzas 10.256–257 form the Laṅkāvatārasūtra. Subsequently, wecome across two stanzas from Nagarjuna’s Pañcakrama: 3.17 (with variants) and

3.22, followed by three untraced stanzas from some Aryadeva’s work(s), the first of

which is quoted separately from the remaining two. Next, there are three short but as

well untraced quotations from Candrakırti. All these quotes are followed by an

explanation by the Author, which is grounded on a verse of the MHK and a passage

of the TJ. After this, we meet with another untraced stanza attributed to Aryadeva

and only at this point we find Saraha’s verse.

In what follows, I will provide the Tibetan text of the entire excerpt (D, dBu-ma,

TSHa, 280a3–281a3) along with its English translation. For the sake of clarity, and

in order to make easier the reading of the passage, I have underlined the references

to texts and authors (either by name or through some title) in the Tibetan version.

Moreover, I have put in bold type Saraha’s passage, under concern here.

19 This is an interesting passage, since in it there is reference to the four vāsanās. Originally, andaccording to Asanga’s Mahāyānasaṃgraha, which is a core text of the Yogacara school extant only in

Chinese and Tibetan translations, the vāsanās—negative tendencies that bond men to rebirth—are instead

grouped according to three, not four, types (D, bsTan-’gyur, mDo-’grel, Ri, 12a1): abhilāpavāsanā(mṅgon par brjod pa’i bag chags; «habitual tendency of speech»), ātmadṛṣtivāsanā (bdag tu lta ba’i bagchags; «habitual tendency of the view of self») and bhavāṅgavāsanā (srid pa’i yan lag gi bag chags;«habitual tendency of the branches of existence»). However, in the Mahāyānasaṃgraha mention is made

also of a somehow positive fourth vāsanā, namely, śrutavāsanā (thos pa’i bag chags; «habitual tendencyof hearing»), which is said to lead to liberation, and to which an extensive treatment is devoted by

Asanga. In other writings, such as the Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra (see the commentary on 18.88; Bagchi

1970, p. 146), Asanga mentions—only once, as far as I can say—also a karmavāsanā (las kyi bag chags;«habitual tendency of action») that could be considered, or could have provided the basis for a sort of

fourth type of negative vāsanā, besides the three mentioned above.

542 K. Del Toso

123


[D 280a3] ’phags pa laṅ kar gśegs pa las |

sems tsam la ni brten nas su ||phyi rol don la mi brtag go ||de bźin ñid la brten nas ni ||sems tsam las kyaṅ ’das par bya ||

sems tsam las ni ’das gyur na ||[4] snaṅ ba med la gnas par ’gyur ||snaṅ med gnas pa’i rnal ’byor pa ||de yis theg pa chen po mthoṅ ||20

źes gsuṅs so || ’phags pa glu sgrub daṅ | slob dpon ’phags pa’i lha daṅ | slobdpon rje btsun zla ba grags pa ni ’di skad du gsuṅs pa yin te | ’di ltar kun rdzobkyi [5] bden pa ñan thos kyi tshul du smras pa ni phyi rol gyi dbu ma rags payin la | de ñid raṅ gi sems tsam du gnas pa naṅ gi dbu ma źes bya ba phra bayin no źes gsungs pa’i don rgyas par ni ji skad du | slob dpon gyi źal sṅa nas |

’dir ni gaṅ yaṅ skye ba med ||gaṅ yaṅ ’gag pa yod ma yin ||[6] sems kyi raṅ bźin rnam gnas pa ||chos rnams ñid ni śes par bya ||

mig la sogs daṅ yul rnams ñid ||ye śes lṅa po ñid dag ste ||phyi daṅ naṅ du rnam phye ba ||thams cad sems las gźan ma yin ||21

źes bya ba la sogs pa maṅ du gsuṅs so || slob dpon ’phags pa lha’i [7] źal sṅa nas |

phyi rol don ni yod ma yin ||raṅ gi sems ni mthoṅ bar ’gyur ||de yaṅ sgyu mar bsgom bya źiṅ ||de bźin ñid kyaṅ rjes dran bya ||

yaṅ gsuṅs pa |

20 Sanskrit in Vaidya (1963, p. 124): cittamātraṃ samāruhya bāhyam arthaṃ na kalpayet | tathatālambanesthitvā cittamātram atikramet || cittamātram atikramya nirābhāsam atikramet | nirābhāsasthito yogīmahāyānaṃ sa paśyati ||. Our Tibetan text is quite different from the Sanskrit one. In particular, it is worth of

note the fact that samāruhya has been rendered with brten nas su, and atikramet with gnas par ’gyur.21 In the Tibetan version of the Pañcakrama the stanza quoted first in theMRP runs as follows, with some

interesting textual differences (Mimaki and Tomabechi 1994, p. 33): ’dir ni gaṅ yaṅ skye ba med || gaṅ yaṅ’chi ba yod ma yin || sems kyi raṅ bźin rnam gnas par || ’khor ba ñid ni śes par bya ||. I must say that although

the Sanskrit—quoted here below—points to an intransitive meaning (maraṇa, ’chi ba in Tibetan), I am

focusing on a translation of the Tibetan version as is contained in theMRP, for which a transitive sense (’gag[pa]) is better attested and is, furthermore, indirectly confirmed by thePañcakrama itself. The second stanza—and also in this case note the few differences from the text preserved in the MRP—reads (Mimaki and

Tomabechi 1994, p. 34):mig la sogs daṅ yul rnams ñid || śes pa lṅa po ñid dag ste || phyi daṅ naṅ du rnamphyeba || thams cad sgyu ma las gźan min ||. Sanskrit in Isaacson (2007), respectively: na cātrotpadyate kaścinmaraṇaṃ nāpi kasyacit | saṃsāra eva jñātavyaś cittarūpākṛtisthitaḥ ||, and: akṣāṇi viṣayāś caivajñānapañcakam eva ca | adhyātmabāhyato bhinnaṃ sarvaṃ māyaiva nānyathā ||.


123


gzugs sogs lṅa daṅ de bźin skye mched bcu gñis daṅ ||bco brgyad ces bśad khams ni de rnam daṅ ||[D 280b1] śes pa lṅa daṅ ’gro ba ma lus pa ||thams cad raṅ gi sems ñid yin gyi gźan ma yin ||

gaṅ yaṅ ri brgyad daṅ ni rgya mtsho brgyad rnams daṅ |gliṅ la sogs daṅ dmyal ba la sogs dbye ||gaṅ yaṅ brtan daṅ g.yo ba ñid du mthoṅ ba de ||thams cad sems ñid yin gyi gźan ma yin ||

[2] źes maṅ du gsuṅs so || slob dpon zla ba grag pa’i źal sṅa nas kyaṅ | ji skad du |

de bas na phyi rol gyi dṅos po lta bu dmigs su med ciṅ yod pa ma yin te |sems kyi raṅ bźin yin pa’i phyir ro

źes pa daṅ | yaṅ

chos thams cad sems las phyi rol na mi gnas te | mig [3] yor tsam du snaṅ bagaṅ yin pa de thams cad ni raṅ gi sems te | raṅ gi sems ñid las gźan ni ci yaṅmed do

źes pa daṅ | yaṅ gsuṅs pa |

sems las dṅos po tha dad pa yod do źe na | chos med ces bya’o

źes rgyas par gsuṅs so || ’dir tshigs su bcad pa ni |

autpala [4] rtsa ba mū la las ||lo ma la sogs rgyun ’byuṅ ltar ||de bźin sems rdzas med pa yaṅ ||chos rnams kun gyi ṅo bor gnas ||22

deyidonni ’di yin te || autpala’i rtsa ba gźan daṅ ma ’brel źiṅ chu ñid la gnas śiṅrtsa ba der gar yaṅ zug pa med kyaṅ | mtsho śin tu rgya che ba [5] dag lo madaṅ me tog la sogs pas khyab par nus pa bźin du sems rdzas su med pa ñid yinyaṅ kun rdzob tu phyi naṅ gi chos thams cad kyi ṅo bor gnas so || yaṅ smras pa |

ji ltar lu ma’i sā lu ka ||rtsa ba med kyaṅ thams cad khyab ||rtsa ba med pa’i sems ñid kyaṅ ||[6] nam mkha’i mthas gtugs khyab par gnas ||

’di’i don ni ’di yin te || mtshe’u daṅ | lu ma dag ba sā lu ka źes bya ba’i sṅo źigphan tshun ’brel pas | me tog ser po źig gis lu ma’i kha chod par skye la de lartsa ba ni zug pa med do || de bźin du sems rtsa ba [7] med pa bźin du nammkhas ji tsam khyab ba de tsam du chos thams cad kyi ṅo bor gnas so ||

22 This stanza is very similar to MHK 5.48 (see Eckel 2008, p. 414), the Tibetan version of which runs

indeed as follows: autpala rtsa ba mū la las || lo ma la sogs rgyun ’byuṅ ltar || de bźin sems rdzas med palas || rgyun rnams sna tshogs ’byuṅ bar ’gyur ||; Sanskrit: yathā parṇādisantānaḥ śālūkabahuśaktitaḥ |tathādravyasataś cittāc citrāḥ saṃtativṛttayaḥ ||. Also the explanation is akin in both cases (see Eckel

2008, pp. 258, 414). Unfortunately, I have been unable to identify the subsequent stanza, which deals with

the same subject based on a similar example.

544 K. Del Toso

123


slob dpon ’phags pa lha’i źal sṅa nas kyaṅ |

de ltar raṅ gi sems kyi raṅ bźin ’gro ba ma lus pa ||rnam śes thar pa srid pa’i brtags las ’gro ba gaṅ ||srid pa’i [D 281a1] sdug bsṅal mtsho chen naṅ du mi ’khor ba’i ||’dus byas kun gyi pha rol soṅ ba de la phyag ’tshal ’dud ||

ces gsuṅs so || bla ma’i bla mas kyaṅ don dam par rigs pa’i glu las ||

raṅ gi sems ñid kun gyi sa bon te ||gaṅ la srid daṅ mya ṅan ’das ’phro ba ||[2] ’dod pa’i ’bras bu ster bar byed pa yi ||yid bźin ’dra ba’i sems la phyag ’tshal lo ||

źes gsuṅs pas ’khor ba daṅ mya ṅan las ’das pa thams cad sems ñid sgyu marśes par bya’o || de bas de dag bdag gi gźuṅ chen po maṅ po dag bkod pa ni |phyi rol gyi dbu ma yin no źes [3] śes par bya’o ||

Translation:

In the Laṅkāvatāra it is said:

«Relying on mind-only, [one] should not conceptualize external objects;

relying on tathatā, [one] should go beyond even mind-only.

Having gone beyond mind-only, one abides in [the state] without

fallacious appearances; a yogin abiding in [the state] without fallacious

appearances sees the Mahayana».

ārya Nagarjuna, ācārya Aryadeva and the venerable ācārya Candrakırti have

expounded [this subject] in these words: such is the coarse [explanation of the]

external Madhyamaka, [which is] expressed in the manner of the śrāvakas’conventional truth, [but] bymeans of the detailedmeaning ofwhat is enunciated,

[one should understand that] the subtle [explanation of the] so-called internal

Madhyamaka [according to the conventional truth] is that reality abides in one’s

own mind-only, as has been said by the venerable ācārya [Nagarjuna]:

«Here, nothing is born, there is not destruction of anything; what is to be

known are only the dharmas, which abide in the condition of nature ofmind.

Even the eye etc., and the objects, even the five [kinds] of knowledge,

every part—internal and external—is not different from the mind».

Thus and so on he profusely said. The venerable ācārya Aryadeva [explained]:

«The external objects are not existent, [only] one’s own mind is

perceived; moreover, one should meditate [even] upon its (scil. mind’s)

illusion and recollect the tathatā».

He also said:

«The five [skandhas of] form etc., and also the twelve āyatanas, theclasses of dhātus [that are] taught to be eighteen, the five [kinds of]


123


knowledge and the living creatures without exception, being all [nothing

but] one’s own mind, [all these things] are not other [than mind].

Whatever among the eight mountains, the eight oceans, the continents

etc., the classes of infernal realms etc., whatever perception concerning

the very inanimate and animate [beings], being all [nothing but] one’s

own mind, [all these things] are not other [than mind]».

Thus he abundantly said. Furthermore, by the venerable ācārya Candrakırti it

has been said:

«Therefore, the external events are similarly unperceivable and inexis-

tent because [only] of the nature of the mind».

And again:

«All the dharmas do not dwell outside themind, all there is merely appears

as an optical illusion, [thus,] all those [dharmas] are one’s very own mind,

[and what is] other than one’s very own mind is nothing at all».

And it is said also:

«If one says: the various events exist out of the mind, [accordingly] it is

declared: the dharmas are inexistent [in themselves]».

Thus it is explained at length. Here there is a stanza:

«Just as the stream of leaves and so on derives from the principal root of a

lotus, similarly the mind, thought unreal, exists as the nature of all the

dharmas».

The meaning of that [stanza] is this: the root of the lotus is not connected with

anything else, it dwells only in the water and, although the root does not thrust

anywhere into that [place where it grows], it has the power to cover, with

leaves and flowers, lakes extraordinarily extensive; similarly, the mind, albeit

its being unreal, exists as the nature of all the external and internal dharmas,[which are] related to saṃvṛti. It is also said:

«Like the śāluka [lotus sprout] of a pool, that covers all [the surface],

though it has no roots, [so] the mind-only, that has no root, dwells by

covering [all,] up to the limit of the space».

The meaning of this [stanza] is this: in lakelets and pools, some sprouts called

śāluka, being mutually connected, bud by covering the [entire surface of the]

pool with yellow flowers, and [nonetheless] the[ir] root does not thrust into

that [place]; similarly, as the mind without root covers as much space [as there

is], in so much [place] the nature of all the dharmas dwells.Moreover, the venerable ācārya Aryadeva said:

«Thus, [all] the living creatureswithout exception [have] thenature of one’s

own mind; after having [thus] examined the occurrence of the liberation of

consciousness, I pay homage to whoever [among the] living creatures

546 K. Del Toso

123


[whom], not roaming [any longer] within the great ocean of existential

sorrow, is gone to the other side of all the composed [dharmas]».

Also, by the master’s master in the *Paramārthanyāyagīti it is said:

«The nature of one’s mind alone is the seed of all, from where [both]saṃsāra and nirvāṇa emanate; pay homage to the mind, which issimilar to the wish-fulfilling [gem] dispensing the fruits of desire».23

By [these words] the whole saṃsāra and nirvāṇa should be understood [asrooted] in the illusionary mind-only. Thus, those are expressions from the

many great main sources of our [school, which] should be understood as so-

called external Madhyamaka [teachings].

2.2 Reflections and Considerations 1: The Title *Paramārthanyāyagīti

The first question we have to answer now is: Why does our Author refer to

*Paramārthanyāyagīti instead of mentioning the titleDKG? Such a question could bein its turn divided into a set of two further interrogatives: should we perhaps suppose

that *Paramārthanyāyagīti is the title of a lost work of Saraha that shared this stanzawith the DKG? Or, should we suppose rather that *Paramārthanyāyagīti, at the time

the quotation was inserted into the MRP, was another title of the same collection of

songs known to us as DKG? Personally, I think that these suppositions—although

plausible—are in themselves unnecessary, and as a working hypothesis I suggest

another way of interpretation. Indeed, if we translate into English don dam par rigspa’i glu, we obtain something like «The song of the argument(s) for/concerning the

supreme meaning». Interestingly enough, this definition is akin, in its content, to what

is written in the colophon of the DKG (D, bsTan-’gyur, rGyud, Wi, 77a3):

rnal ’byor gyi dbaṅ phyug chen po dpal sa ra ha chen po’i źal sṅa nas mdzadpa do ha mdzod ces bya ba de kho na ñid rnal du mtshon pa don dam pa’i yi gerdzogs so ||

That is: «Here ends the writing (lekha) concerning the supreme meaning [that]

actually exhibits reality, called Dohākośa and composed by the great master of

yoga, the great venerable Saraha». On the basis of the comparison between the

colophon of the DKG and the alleged title *Paramārthanyāyagīti, a suspect is in

sight according to which here we would be more in presence of an attempted

description of (the main content of) Saraha’s work, than of the reference to its real

title (or of a variant of the title). A possible/plausible explanation of don dam par

23 The Tibetan version of this stanza (as we find it in D, bsTan-’gyur, rGyud, Wi, 72b5) runs thus: sems ñidgcig pu kun gyi sa bon te || gaṅ la srid daṅmya ṅan ’das ’phro ba || ’dod pa’i ’bras bu ster bar byed pa yi || yidbźin nor ’dra’i sems la phyag ’tshal lo ||. The Apabhram

˙sa version is: cittekka saalavīaṃ bhavanivvāṇo vi

jasma viphuranti | taṃ cintāmaṇirūaṃ paṇamaha icchāphalaṃ denti ||. The Sanskrit chāyā runs as follows:cittaṃ ekaṃ sakalabījaṃ bhavanirvāṇau api yasya visphurataḥ | tat cintāmaṇirūpaṃ praṇamataicchāphalaṃ dadāti ||. It is worth noting, here, that there are doubts on whether the Apabhram

˙sa were the

language intowhich theDKGwas originallywritten or not.According to some scholars, theDKG (and,more

in general, all the otherwritings attributed to Saraha) could have been compiled by Saraha into Sanskrit. See,

in particular: Guenther (1973, pp. 8–9), Braitstein (2004, pp. 20–21).


123


rigs pa’i glu could, therefore, be conjectured in the light of the following lexical

suppositions: (a) glu conceptually stands for do ha mdzod [kyi glu] in the DKGcolophon; (b) rigs pa conceptually stands for (de kho na ñid) rnal du mtshon pa in

the colophon; and (c) obviously don dam pa refers to the same expression in the

colophon.

In order to corroborate this suggestion, another text can be taken here into

account. In the commentary on the DKG called Dohākośahṛdayārthagītaṭīkā (Do hamdzod kyi sñiṅ po don gyi glu’i ’grel pa), attributed in its colophon to Advaya

Avadhuti (gNis-med A-wa-dhu-tı; see: D, bsTan-’gyur, rGyud, Zi, 106b3), the DKGis referred to as (106b2): Mi g.yo ba’i chos ñid kyi don du mgur, which could be

restored into *Niścaladharmatārthagīti («The song for/concerning the meaning of

the immovable dharmatā»).24 Now, if we compare Mi g.yo ba’i chos ñid kyi don dumgur with Don dam par rigs pa’i glu, once again—even if in a very broad sense—

we can find some conceptual proximity between: (a) mgur and glu; (b) don and rigspa (both pointing to the argument of the song); (c) mi g.yo ba’i chos ñid and dondam pa. On the basis of all what precedes, the reader may easily infer also the

semantic parallels existing between Mi g.yo ba’i chos ñid kyi don du mgur and the

above-mentioned colophon of the DKG. To that, it must be added also that no

recension of the DKG has reached us under the title *Paramārthanyāyagīti, nor doesany other reference to the *Paramārthanyāyagīti exist in other works, at least as far

as my knowledge can go.

Now, since obviously *Niścaladharmatārthagīti represents nothing but an

explanation of the main purpose of the text commented upon in the Dohākośahṛ-dayārthagītaṭīkā, we can accordingly conclude that also *Paramārthanyāyagīticould very well be the paraphrase, which a certain person made use of in order to

fix, explain or communicate the general content or purpose of the DKG, from which

he took the quote.

2.3 Reflections and Considerations 2: Saraha and the Expression bla ma’i blama

A fundamental aspect for our discussion consists in noticing the presence of the

appellation bla ma’i bla ma, which could stand for the Sanskrit compound guruguru(«the master’s master» or «the teacher’s teacher»). The problem raised by this

expression depends on the fact that bla ma’i bla ma is a hapax legomenon.25 To be

more precise, this is the only place in all the MRP in which our Author makes—so

to speak—voluntarily recourse to an expression including the term bla ma (guru). Infact, there are other two occurrences of bla ma in the MRP, but both are—as it were

—independent from the Author. The first occurrence is, indeed, in a pāda of a

quoted stanza, taken from Dharmakırti’s Tattvaniṣkarṣa (D, dBu-ma, TSHa, 272b7)

24 I owe this information to the kindness of Joy Vriens.25 As is well known, the expression bla ma’i bla ma can convey also the meaning of Sanskrit uttarottara,and it is occasionally used, along with its synonym phyi ma’i phyi ma, to indicate a well-known class of

Tantra (whereas bla ma, uttara and bla na med pa, anuttara, refer to the other two classes). In our case,

however, the sense uttarottara is completely out of context.

548 K. Del Toso

123


that runs as follows: bla ma bzaṅ po bsten byas nas || («Taking shelter in a good

master»).26 In this case, our Author is simply following the wording he found in one

of his source texts, and so he could not exempt himself from making recourse to this

term. The second occurrence is in the colophon of the Tibetan translation, as we

have seen above, and does not depend at all on the Author of the MRP, in so far as itis due only to the translators’ intervention. We conclude, hence, that the term bla maand its derivatives (as bla ma’i bla ma) do not belong to the usual vocabulary of our

Author, who seems to be generally more inclined to make recourse to other terms,

such as slob dpon (Sanskrit ācārya), dpal (Sanskrit śrī), sometimes rje btsun(Sanskrit bhaṭṭāraka), and so on, when he wants to indicate thinkers by appellation

and not by name.

On the basis of what precedes, therefore, and taken for granted that behind blama’i bla ma Saraha is foreshadowed, we are led to consider that Saraha should have

lived not so much earlier than our Author, since bla ma’i bla ma might mean that

Saraha was the Author’s master’s master. Hence, since we have determined that the

tenth century is roughly the period in which the MRP was composed, it follows that

Saraha’s floruit should be accordingly placed more or less in the ninth century. This

supposition appears to be substantiated by another source, namely, Bhavabhat˙t˙a’s

Catuṣpīṭhanibandha on Catuṣpīṭhatantra 3.4.11, where DKG 74 is quoted.27

Bhavabhat˙t˙a was a commentator that lived in the early tenth century CE and may

well have been one of the firsts, together with our Author, to reuse in one of his

writings a passage from a work of Saraha, since before this epoch the name and

writings of Saraha seem to have been completely unknown to other thinkers.

As last remark, if we accept the above-mentioned hypothesis that the MRP is a

text that collects the instructions delivered by a teacher during his lessons on

Madhyamaka, then it is to be noticed that bla ma’i bla ma can assume at least two

meanings. On the one hand, we may suppose that Saraha was the teacher’s teacher

of the scholar that delivered the lessons, on the basis of which the MRP was written

(by that very teacher himself as handbook on Madhyamaka, or as collection of notes

taken by one of his students). On the other hand, and considered the above-

mentioned uniqueness of the term bla ma in the MRP, we could also imagine that

someone inserted in a second time into the MRP the DKG stanza as a note, inspired

by his master’s master teachings. In this case Saraha would have been the guru’sguru of, perhaps, a student who followed the lessons delivered by one of his

teachers (allegedly, the one who organized and arranged the textual and doctrinal

material that now constitutes the MRP). For reasons that will be clarified below, I

26 On this text see Lindtner (1980).27 I owe this information to Peter-Daniel Szanto who kindly appended the complete reference in a

personal communication dated 5th June 2012: «fol. 39v of the Vikramasıla ms., this particular folio (the

codex is scattered) is in Kaiser Library 134 = NGMPP C 26/4». DKG 74 runs thus: jattu vi paisai jalahiṃjalu tattauṃ samarasu hoi | dosaguṇāaru cittu tā vaḍha paivakkhu ṇa koi || («And as much water enters

the [great mass of] water, so much [water] becomes of the same character [of the entire mass]. Your mind

is the mine of faults and virtues; O foolish one!, there is no other adverse opinion»). The chāyā is: yāvatapi jale praviśati jalaṃ tāvat samarasaṃ bhavati | doṣaguṇākaraṃ cittaṃ tataḥ mūrkha pratipakṣaḥ nakaḥ api ||.


123


am inclined to think that this second perspective should be taken as more plausible

than the former one.

2.4 Reflections and Considerations 3: Saraha and Madhyamaka

Another singular point is that,when considered in the light of the context intowhich it is

inserted, the presence of theDKG stanza sounds quite odd. Let us clarify why. First of

all inD, dBu-ma, TSHa, 280a4, at the very beginning of his explanation of the doctrinal

meaning of the two verses taken from the Laṅkāvatārasūtra, our Author mentions only

Nagarjuna, Aryadeva and Candrakırti as actual authorities in the field of Madhyamaka

(in this case it is pointless whether the following quotes are taken from the

Madhyamikas’ or from their tantric namesakes’works, since aswe have seen above the

tantric Nagarjuna, Aryadeva and Candrakırti were reputed to be identical with their

Madhyamika predecessors), and no mention is made of Saraha in this preliminary list.

The suspect arises, hence, about the consistence of thepresence of theDKGquotation in

this context. Such a suspect is strengthened at least by two textual clues.

In the first place, we have indeed to notice that at the end of the sequence of

citations, wemeet with the words (D, dBu-ma, TSHa, 281a2–3): de bas de dag bdag gigźuṅ chen po maṅ po dag bkod pa ni | phyi rol gyi dbu ma yin no źes śes par bya’o ||(«Therefore, those are quotations from the many great main sources of our [school,

which] are to be recognized as “external Madhyamaka” [teachings]»). Now, although

Saraha had undoubtedly his merit in the divulgation of the Buddhist message, we

cannot say that he was actually a “great main source” of Madhyamaka philosophy,

whereas to him is rather attributed the paternity of the Mahamudra viewpoint.

Moreover, it should be also remarked that, if the DKG had really represented a great

source of inspiration for our Author, one would expect to come across several other

quotations from Saraha’s writings throughout theMRP (a fact even more expected if

Saraha had been the Author’s teacher’s teacher!), as it abundantly happens indeed in

the case of Nagarjuna’s, Aryadeva’s and Candrakırti’s texts. However, it is not so, and

this one is the sole reference we have.

The second textual clue emerges from the structure and content of the last

untraced stanza quoted from an unknown text of Aryadeva (D, dBu-ma, TSHa,

280b7–281a1). Since this stanza has actually the aspect of a final verse of a work or

of a chapter, it is not so much outlandish to suppose that it may originally have been

stylistically employed here in order to give the idea of a somehow conceptual

conclusive statement on the subject dealt with before. This perspective, I suggest,

finds a point in its favor when we observe the disposition of the quotes: after the

Laṅkāvatārasūtra verses, we meet with Nagarjuna, then with Aryadeva, then with

Candrakırti (and this is exactly the sequence anticipated in D, dBu-ma, TSHa,

280a4). After Candrakırti’s quotes we find an explanation of what precedes

(beginning with autpala and ending with chos thams cad kyi ṅo bor gnas so ||),which is roughly but evidently based on the teachings that the sixth century

Bhaviveka/Bhavya wrote in his MHK 5.48 (this stanza is indeed repeated almost

verbatim at the beginning of the explanation) and TJ thereon.28 This almost

28 See above, note 22.

550 K. Del Toso

123


verbatim citation is not marked with the usual citation marks, as all the other quotes

from theMHK and TJ are not. Probably the explanation grounded on the verseMHK5.48 serves to bring back the discussion so far developed to the philosophical texts

from which, as we have seen, the MRP takes inspiration—that is to say, the MHKand TJ. This seems to have been done by our Author in order to expose the meaning

of the quotes, just cited above, in the light of a simple example (the lotus in the

pond), which Bhaviveka/Bhavya himself made recourse to in his works. This

particular example of the lotus in the pond may have been selected by our Author

with the purpose of facilitating his students’ understanding of the meaning of the

preceding quotes, which are quite technical.

After the citations from Nagarjuna, Aryadeva and Candrakırti, and the subsequent

explanation based onMHK 5.48 and the corresponding TJ, we have Aryadeva again,whose presence here sounds quite strange. The suspect, indeed, arises on why the

Author did not quote the last stanza from Aryadeva together with the other excerpts

taken fromworks of the same thinker, but preferred instead to put it after the citation of

Candrakırti and the subsequent explanation based on theMHK and TJ. One persuasiveanswer could be that the last Aryadeva’s stanza functions as closing quote of the entire

passage because of its above-mentioned stylistic nature, namely the fact that it looks

like a final verse of a work or chapter. If considered otherwise, the presence of this

stanza here would disrupt what seems to be, according to the explicit intentions of our

Author, a sort of progressive disposition of the previous quotations (Nagarjuna→ Arya-

deva → Candrakırti). Accordingly, the presence of a citation from the DKG after thislast Aryadeva’s verse appears tobea bit jarring. In addition,wefind that the excerpt from

Saraha’s work is followed in its turn by a short explanation (źes gsuṅs pas ’khor ba daṅmya ṅan las ’das pa thams cad sems ñid sgyu mar śes par bya’o ||). This specificationsounds in my opinion totally unnecessary, because it is nothing but a simple (perhaps,

too simple) repetition of what the DKG stanza itself already explains very well. It does

not even add any further sense, unlike to what happens few lines before, with the

explanation based onMHK 5.48 and TJ thereon, which is very functional (by virtue of aclear and simple example) to the comprehension of the previous quotes from

Nagarjuna’s, Aryadeva’s and Candrakırti’s works. Given these premises, we shall also

consider that if we erase from the Tibetan text the passage I have put in bold type, the

reading of the excerpt runs more fluently and seems to bemore consistent with the aims

expressed by the Author himself, since all the remaining passages would in that case

focus exclusively and solely on teachings contained in works authored by well attested

Madhyamaka personalities (Nagarjuna, Aryadeva, Candrakırti, and also Bhaviveka/

Bhavya, foreshadowed in the explanation). All this makes the citation from the DKGhave the aspect of a fragment that was not present in the original structure of theMRP.

However, we have to point out that even if Saraha did not begin his career as a

strong supporter of the Madhyamaka viewpoint, it may be possible that when the

MRP was compiled the tendency was taking place to draw Saraha’s thought near

Madhyamaka philosophy. This tendency could have been subsequently inherited by

Advayavajra, aka Advaya Avadhuti or Maitrıpa (1007–1085 CE),29 who was (and

29 This is the chronology proposed by Tatz (1987, pp. 696–698). On the well-known, though

controversial, bond between Advayavajra and Atısa (who requested a copy of the MRP) see Tatz (1988).


123


his legacy was)30 so deeply involved in the so called Dohā literature and in Saraha’s

philosophy, up to the point that he wrote two commentaries on the DKG, namely,

the Dohākośapañjikā (Do ha mdzod kyi dka’ ’grel; D, bsTan-’gyur, rGyud, Wi,

180b3–207a7) and the above-mentioned Dohākośahṛdayārthagītaṭīkā. Advayavajratried to interweave the Mahamudra practice, whose father is reputed to have been

Saraha, with the Prasangika Madhyamaka perspective, as Mathes (2007, pp. 546–

547) clearly points out: «It is well known that Maitrıpa favours the Madhyamaka

“tenet of not abiding in any phenomena” (Sarvadharmapratis˙t˙hanavada) […]

Maitrıpa informs us that mahāmudrā is also known as “[the practice of] not abiding

(apratiṣṭhāna) in anything”. […] Philosophically, this amounts to the Prasangika

attitude of not postulating any position of one’s own, and in fact, for ’Ba’ ra ba

rGyal mtshan dpal bzan (1310–1391), the Apratis˙t˙hana-Madhyamaka is identical

with Prasangika». However, it remains the fact that during the epoch of the

compilation of the MRP, unlike Nagarjuna, Aryadeva and Candrakırti (and

Bhaviveka/Bhavya as well), Saraha could really have been anyone but the author

of well renowned great main source texts (gźuṅ chen po maṅ po dag) of the

Madhyamaka tradition. This leads us to suppose that it had to be quite singular, for a

teacher who was delivering lessons strongly devoted to the exposition of

Madhyamaka philosophy and who was quoting from the great champions’ works

of that school, to have recourse also to Saraha as an actual and well attested

authority in the field, when nowhere else in the MRP we meet with other references

to Saraha’s works. On the contrary, by the person who inserted the DKG quotation

into the MRP, Saraha, though not belonging to the well-known group of

Madhyamaka standard-bearers, was probably taken into a certain consideration as

a good witness to make use of, in order to clarify the concept of cittamātra in a

Madhyamaka perspective.

In the light of what precedes, hence, I think we have enough material for

suspecting that the passage containing the quotation from the DKG (which I have

put in bold type) was probably not due to the very Author of the MRP. Rather, itshould be an interpolation by someone else, allegedly a student, in a text he was

using as handbook during a class, or some similar situation.

2.5 Reflections and Considerations 4: Some Stylistic and Chronological

Annotations (in Form of Conclusion)

A particular aspect that could corroborate the conclusions, pointed out in the

preceding section, is the style used for introducing and closing the quotation of the

DKG, which is really singular in respect of the style of the rest of the excerpt.

Indeed, if we compare it with all the other citations of the entire passage D, dBu-ma,

TSHa, 280a3–281a3, edited and translated above (which constitutes in itself a

coherent textual unit), we notice that: (a) this is the only case in which the name of

the author of the source is never mentioned and only here, throughout the entire

MRP, reference is made to the master’s master (bla ma’i bla ma), which is a

wording actually unusual to our Author; (b) this is the only case in which we have

30 See Schaeffer (2005, pp. 61–66).

552 K. Del Toso

123


the attribution of the quoted excerpt to a certain source (in all the other occasions, in

fact, any mention of titles or other indication that could openly reveal the source

texts are absent); (c) apart from the last Aryadeva’s verse—which, as we have seen,

probably serves as concluding citation of what precedes and hence, being

conclusive, does not need any further discussion—this is the only quote that has

a short and almost unnecessary explanation, independent from the main explanation

of the previous citations, based on MHK 5.48 and TJ thereon. Moreover, (d) whenwe consider the DKG-related passage in its full length (in bold), we find that it

sounds like a sentence of the kind “the master of my master, in the work dealing

with this subject, wrote this and this, which means this and this”, which has more

the feature of a personal note, than of a real sastric quotation uttered by a teacher

during a lesson.

All these arguments come, again, in favour of the theory that the citation from the

DKG is an interpolation. Therefore, on the basis of what precedes and if we accept

the hypothesis that the MRP is a sort of manual for beginners, we may—once again

—suspect that probably this interpolation has been embedded into the text by some

student, while he was studying or hearing the lessons of his teacher.31

As regards the chronology, we have already seen that Saraha should have

flourished not after the ninth century, since Bhavabhat˙t˙a quotes a stanza from the

DKG in a work he compiled in the early tenth century. Now, if Saraha was actually

the guru’s guru of the person who inserted the DKG citation into the MRP, thismeans that also our citation must have been embedded not after the first half—

maybe near the middle—of the tenth century (admitting a progressive chronology:

Saraha, Bhavabhat˙t˙a, our Author). The first half of the tenth century, as we have

pointed out above, is the period in which we can allegedly place the compilation of

the whole MRP. This leads us to conclude that the DKG quotation has been inserted

into the MRP not so much after the first redaction of the text. Such a perspective

could be indirectly substantiated by the fact that the quote from Saraha was already

integrated as part of the main text—and not considered as an addition or

interpolation—in the MRP manuscript that was used as matrix for the copy

requested by Atisa, and subsequently translated into Tibetan by Vıryasim˙ha and

TSHul-khrims-rgyal-ba, at the beginning of the eleventh century CE—that is, less

31 I borrow the inspiration for this idea from a recent study by Helmut Krasser on the TJ. In his paper,

Krasser convincingly points out how certain passages in the TJ, which function as comments upon

previous sentences, look like notes taken for/by students. These notes had probably the purpose of

clarifying the semantic and logical role (subject-dharmin, property-sādhyadharma, logical reason-hetu,etc.) played by single words/expressions contained in the discussion formerly developed. Interestingly

enough, according to Krasser, also the various occurrences of terms such as slob dpon (Sanskrit ācārya)and bstan bcos byed pa (Sanskrit śāstrakāra), which are disseminated throughout the TJ and refer to its

author in the third person, (2011b, p. 70) «can easily be explained by the fact that in such passages we are

most probably dealing with notes taken by a beginner student». In order to summarize Krasser’s

hypothesis, we can follow his own words (2011b, p. 62): «I do consider the TJ to have been composed by

Bhaviveka» and «[t]he Sanskrit manuscript upon which the Tibetan translation of the TJ is based certainlywas not written down in this form by Bhaviveka himself, but more probably by a Buddhist student

monk». Being aware that Krasser’s study focuses on the TJ only, and therefore its conclusions cannot be

extended to other texts and contexts without a thorough analysis, on the basis of the textual clues

previously pointed out here, I nonetheless assume that also in our case we could suppose a similar

explanation, although I would not extend it to the whole text.


123


than a century after the period of the compilation of the MRP. Put it in other terms,

we can say that from at least the end of the tenth century the quote from the DKGwas no longer reputed to be something added to a pre-existing text, allegedly

because—it can be argued—the copy job that took place during the previous years

had already made the DKG passage part of the main body of the MRP. This, in its

turn, suggests that the interpolation was introduced some time before the end of the

tenth century, the first half—perhaps some moment near the middle—of the same

century being, for the reasons pinpointed so far, a quite likely term.

2.5.1 Let Us Imagine…

To sum up, the following scenario can be conceived: Let us imagine a teacher that

delivers lessons on Madhyamaka thought, taking the TJ as his conceptual starting

point; he comments upon that text and develops his reasoning by means of different

sources (and this could have been the reason for Atisa’s request of a personal copy of

theMRP before his own class on the TJ at the Somapurı vihāra).Maybe the teacher has

also a copy of the TJ at hand during his explanations, and perhaps for this reason the

passages from that text that constellate hither and thither theMRP are left unmarked,

since it was clear to everybody that they were from the TJ (the discussion developed

above on the expression bdag gis bkod pa rtog ge ’bar ba could support this point). Atthe end of the class—let us continue to imagine—, then, either the teacher alone, or the

teacher helped by one or more among his zealous students, whom perhaps have

accurately taken notes during the lessons, arrange thematerial used for the lessons into

a text, which is now theMRP. Little after, maybe during a similar class, theMRP was

used as a handbook, and another zealous student at a certain point writes down a note,

allegedly occasioned by a reflection of his teacher. This note concerns a work, the

DKG, not yet well-known, since written not much long before by amaster that was not

a Madhyamika stricto sensu, but whom at this time someone probably begins to

consider a Madhyamika sui generis. Because he knows very well this source, the

person who inserts the quote does not feel the need to mention him by name, rather he

prefers to point out how he is bond to him: he is his teacher’s teacher. In order to

remember the text from which the quote is taken, the student adds also a short note

describing its general content: the song concerning the supreme meaning. Then, the

course of time and the copy job of the text—which also Atisa contributed to, with his

request for a personalmanuscript—helped to embed the note into theMRP as if it were

part of the original work.

Acknowledgments I would like to express my sincere gratitude to all the friends and scholars thathelped me, directly or indirectly, to find the path to the present paper. In particular, Per Sørensen, Peter-Daniel Szanto, Mark Tatz, Aldo Tollini, Joy Vriens and Stefano Zacchetti for their kind and usefulsuggestions and advices. A special thanks goes to Elisa Freschi for the meticulous support andforbearance, and to Grace Johnson for her help in improving my English. It goes without saying, ofcourse, that all the imperfections that the reader will possibly find in this essay must be attributed only toits author.

554 K. Del Toso

123


References

Primary Sources

Asanga, Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra: Bagchi, Sitansusekhar. 1970. Mahāyāna Sūtrālaṅkāra of Asaṅga, TheMithila Institute, Darbhanga.

Bhaviveka, Madhyamakahṛdayakārikā: dBu ma’i sñiṅ po’i tshig le’ur byas pa (D, bsTan-’gyur, dBu-ma,

DZa, 1a1-40b7).

Bhaviveka, Madhyamakahṛdayakārikā: Lindtner, Christian. 2001. Madhyamakahṛdayam of Bhavya, TheAdyar Library and Research Center, Chennai.

Bhaviveka, Madhyamakaratnapradīpa: dBu ma rin po che’i sgron ma (D, bsTan-’gyur, dBu-ma, TSHa,

259b3-289a7).

Bhaviveka, Tarkajvālā: dBu ma’i sñiṅ po’i ’grel ba rTog ge ’bar ba (D, bsTan-’gyur, dBu-ma, DZa, 40b7-

329b4).

Bhaviveka, Tarkajvālā: Eckel, Malcolm D. 2008. Bhāviveka and His Buddhist Opponents, Harvard

University Press, Cambridge-London [edition and translation of Tarkajvālā, chapters 4 and 5].

Bhaviveka, Tarkajvālā: Heitmann, Annette L. 2004. Nektar der Erkenntnis. Buddhistische Philosophie des6 Jh.: Bhavyas Tarkajvālā I-III, 26, Shaker Verlag, Aachen.

lCan-skya Rol-pa’i-rdo-rje, Grub pa’i mtha’i rnam par bźag pa gsal bar bśad pa thub bstan lhun po’imdzes rgyan: - No name. 1983. A monumental survey of the Buddhist Philosophical Systems by theSecond Lcaṅ-skya Rol-pa’i-rdo-rje Reproduced from a Set of Clear Impressions from the Se-ra SmadGrwa-tshaṅ Blocks, Jayyed Press, Ballimaran (Delhi).

Laṅkāvatārasūtra: Vaidya, Parasurama L. 1963. Saddharmalaṅkāvatārasūtram, The Mithila Institute,

Darbhanga.

Mañjuśrīnāmasaṃgīti: Davidson, Ronald M. 1981. The Litany of Names of Manjusrı. Mélanges Chinoiset Bouddhiques [Tantric and Taoist Studies in honour of R.A. Stein, vol. 1], 20, 1-69.

Mañjuśrīnāmasaṃgīti: Wayman, Alex. 1999. Chanting the Names of Mañjuśrī. The Mañjuśrī-Nāma-Saṃgīti. Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi.

Nagarjuna, Bhavasaṃkrāntiparikhatā: Aiyaswami Sastri, Natesa. 1938. Bhāvasaṅkranti Sūtra andNāgārjuna’s Bhāvasaṅkranti Śāstra with the Commentary of Maitreyanātha, Adyar Library, Adyar(Chennai).

Nagarjuna, Pañcakrama: Isaacson, Harunaga. 2007. Nagarjuna’s Pañcakrama. On-line edition based on

Toru Tomabechi, Etude du Pañcakrama: introduction et traduction annotée, These de doctorat,

Faculte des Lettres, Universite de Lausanne 2006, with a few corrections by Harunaga Isaacson:

http://tantric-studies.org/e-texts/bauddha/PaKra.txt (accessed 05 September 2011).

Nagarjuna, Pañcakrama: Mimaki, Katsumi and Toru Tomabechi. 1994. Pañcakrama: Sanskrit andTibetan Texts Critically Edited with Verse Index and Facsimile Edition of the Sanskrit Manuscripts,Centre for East Asian Cultural Studies for UNESCO, Tokyo.

Nagarjuna, Praṇidhānaviṃśikā: No name. 1999. “sMon lam ni su pa”, in bKa’ ma śin tu rgyas pa (vol. 1),Kah

˙thog mkhan po ’jam dbyans, Chendu. 147-150.

Saraha, Dohākośagīti: Bhayani, Harivallabh, C. 1997. Dohā-gīti-kośa of Saraha-pāda and Caryā-gīti-kośa. Restored Text, Sanskrit Chāyā and Translation. Prakrit Text Society, Ahmedabad.

Saraha, Dohākośagīti: Jackson, Roger R. 2004. Tantric Treasures. Three collections of Mystical Versesfrom Buddhist India, Oxford University Press, New York.

Subhāṣitasaṃgraha: Bendall, Cecil. 1903. Subhāṣita-Saṃgraha. An Anthology of Extracts from Buddhist

Works Compiled by an Unknown Author, to Illustrate the Doctrine of Scholastic and of Mystic

(Tantrik) Buddhism. Le Muséon 4: 375-402.Vajracchedikā: Vaidya, Parasurama L. 1961. Mahāyāna-sūtra-saṁgrahaḥ (part 1), The Mithila Institute,

Darbhanga.

Vasubandhu, Abhidharmakośabhāṣya: Sastrı, Dwarikadas. 1998. The Abhidharmakosa and Bhas˙ya of

Ācārya Vasubandhu with Sphut˙artha Commentary of Ācārya Yaśomittra (vol. 2), Bauddha Bharati,

Varanasi.


123


http://tantric-studies.org/e-texts/bauddha/PaKra.txt

Secondary Sources

Beresford, B. C. (1979). Āryaśūrya’s aspiration and a meditation on compassion. Library of Tibetan

Works and Archives: Dharamsala.

Braitstein, L. E. (2004). Saraha’s adamantine songs: Texts, contexts, translations and traditions of theGreat Seal. A thesis submitted to McGill University in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the

degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Faculty of Religious Studies, McGill University, Montreal

[Introduction only].

Chattopadhyaya, A. (1996). Atīśa and Tibet. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass [reprint].

Eckel, M. D (1992). To see the Buddha. A philosopher's quest for the meaning of emptiness. Princeton,US: Princeton University Press.

Ejima Yasunori江島惠教. (1980). Madhyamakaratnapradīpa ni tsuite Madhyamakaratnapradıpaについ

て [On the Madhyamakaratnapradīpa], Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū 印度學佛教學研究 [Journalof Indian and Buddhist Studies], 28(2), 951–945.

Folkert, K. W. (1993). In J. E. Cort (Ed.), Scripture and community. Collected essays on the Jains. Atlanta:Scholar Press.

Gray, D. B. (2007). The Cakrasamvara Tantra: Its history, interpretation and practice in India and Tibet.

Religion Compass, 1(6), 695–710.Guenther, H. V. (1973). The royal song of Saraha. A study in the history of Buddhist thought. Berkeley:

Shambala Publications.

Krasser, H. (2011a). Bhaviveka, Dharmakırti and Kumarila. In T. Funayama徹船山 (Ed.), Chūgoku-Indosyūkyō-shi tokuni bukkyō-shi ni okeru syomotsu no ryūtsū-denpa to jinbutsu-idō no chiiki-tokusei 中国印度宗教史とくに仏教史における書物の流通伝播と人物移動の地域特性 [Regional char-acteristics of text dissemination and relocation of people in the history of Chinese and Indianreligions, with special reference to Buddhism (pp. 193–242)] (A Report of Grant-in-Aid for Scientific

Research (B): Project Number 19320010. March, 2011).

Krasser, H. (2011b). How to teach a Buddhist Monk to refute the outsiders. Text-critical remarks on some

works by Bhaviveka. Dhiḥ, 51, 49–76.Lindtner, C. (1980). Apropos Dharmakırti: Two new works and a new date. Acta Orientalia, 41, 27–37.Lindtner, C. (1981). Atısa’s introduction to the two truths and its sources. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 9,

161–214.

Lindtner, C. (1982). Adversaria Buddhica. Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens, 26, 167–194.Lindtner, C. (1984). On Bhavya’s Madhyamakaratnapradīpa. Indologica Taurinensia, 12, 163–184.Lindtner, C. (1986a). Bhavya’s critique of Yogacara in the Madhyamakaratnapradīpa, Chapter IV. In B.

K. Matilal & R. D. Evans (Eds.), Buddhist logic and epistemology. Studies in the Buddhist analysis ofinference and language (pp. 239–263). Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.

Lindtner, C. (1986b). Materials for the study of Bhavya. In E. Kahrs (Ed.), Kalyāṇamitrārāgaṇam. Essaysin honour of Nils Simonsson (pp. 179–202). Oslo: Norwegian University Press, The Institute for

Comparative Research in Human Culture.

Mathes, K.-D. (2007). Can sūtra mahāmudrā be justified on the basis of Maitrıpa’s Apratis˙t˙hanavada? In

B. Kellner, H. Krasser, H. Lasic, M. T. Much, H. Tauscher (Eds.), Praman˙akırti. Papers dedicated to

Ernst Steinkellner on the occasion of his 70th birthday (Part 2, Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und

Buddhismuskunde 70.2, pp. 545–566), Wien: Arbeitskreis fur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde.

Miyazaki Izumi 宮崎泉. (2006). Chūkan-hū-tū-ron ni mirareru ‘bdag gis bkod pa rTog ge ’bar ba’ ni

tsuite 『中観宝灯論』にみられる「 bdag gis bkod pa rTog ge ’bar ba 」について [On bdag gisbkod pa rTog ge ’bar ba in theMadhyamakaratnapradīpa]. Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū印度學佛

教學研究 [Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies], 55(1), 453–448.Miyazaki, I. (2007). Atisa (Dıpam

˙karasrıjnana)—His philosophy, practice and its sources. The Memoirs

of the Toyo Bunko, 65, 61–89.Nakamura, H. (1987). Indian Buddhism. A survey with bibliographical notes. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

Potter, K. H. (2003). Encyclopedia of Indian philosophies: Buddhist philosophy from 350 to 600 A.D.(Vol. IX). Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

Schaeffer, K. R. (2005). Dreaming the great Brahmin. Tibetan traditions of the Buddhist poet-saintSaraha. New York: Oxford University Press.

Seyfort Ruegg, D. (1981). The literature of the Madhyamaka school of philosophy in India. Wiesbaden:

Otto Harrassowitz.

556 K. Del Toso

123


Seyfort Ruegg, D. (1990). On the authorship of some works ascribed to Bhaviveka/Bhavya. In D. S.

Ruegg & L. Schmithausen (Eds.), Panels of the VIIth world Sanskrit conference (Vol. II, pp. 59–71),Earliest Buddhism and Madhyamaka. Leiden: Brill.

Szanto, P.-D. (2012). Selected chapters from the Catuṣpīṭhatantra (1/2): Introductory study with theannotated translation of selected chapters. DPhil Thesis, University of Oxford (unpublished).

Tatz, M. (1987). The life of the Siddha-Philosopher Maitrıgupta. Journal of the American OrientalSociety, 107(4), 695–711.

Tatz, M. (1988). Maitrı-pa and Atısa. Tibetan Studies, 42, 474–481.Van Schaik, S., & Doney, L. (2007). The prayer, the priest and the Tsenpo: An early Buddhist narrative

from Dunhuang. Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, 30(1–2), 175–217.Vose, K. A. (2009). Resurrecting Candrakīrti. Disputes in the Tibetan creation of Prāsaṅgika. Somerville,

MA: Wisdom Publications.

Wayman, A. (1998). Study of the Vairocanābhisaṃbodhitantra. In A. Wayman & R. Tajima (Eds.), Theenlightenment of Vairocana (pp. 1–205). Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

Wedemeyer, C. K. (2007). Āryadeva’s lamp that integrates the practices (Caryamelapakapradıpa): Thegradual path of Vajrayāna Buddhism according to the esoteric community noble tradition. NewYork: Columbia University Press [Introduction only].

Wedemeyer, C. K. (2010). Cette fraude littéraire ne peut tromper personne: Jo nang Taranatha and the

history of the gSang ’dus ’phags lugs. In M. Kark & H. Lasic (Eds.), Studies in the philosophy andhistory of Tibet (Proceeding of the eleventh seminar of the International Association for Tibetan

Studies, Konigswinter 2006, pp. 145–174). Andiast: International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist

Studies.

Wright, R. (2010). The Guhyasamaja Pin˙d˙ikr˙ta-sadhana and its context. Prepared as part of the MA Study

of Religions, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, London.


123


Some Problems Concerning Textual Reuses in the Madhyamakaratnapradīpa, with a Discussion of the...

Documents

Transcript of Some Problems Concerning Textual Reuses in the Madhyamakaratnapradīpa, with a Discussion of the...