Chapter 13 of the
Prasannapadä of Candrakirti
By Brian Galloway, Berkeley
Introduction
The Prasannapadä of Candrakirti is the most renowned commentary in the
Indo-Tibetan tradition on Nägärjuna's Mülamadhyamaka-kärikä (Nägär¬
juna's title is Prajnä, according to the two other commentators, Bhävaviveka
and the author of the Akutobhayä, though the work is usually known as
Mülamadhyamaka-kärikä or as the Madhyamaka-sästra). The editio princeps
of the Prasannapadä is by Louis de la Vallee Poussin and was published in
St. Petersbourg in the Bibhotheca Buddhica series, in 1903 to 1913. In 1978
J.W. de Jong published his "Textcritical Notes on the Prasannapadä" in
which he gives several hundred corrections, largely based upon the new
manuscript called R that he obtained from G. Tucci. We have used these two
sources and also two others: S. Schayer's German translation of 1931 pub¬
hshed in Cracow, and the Tibetan translation as published by Sakya college in
Dehra Dun in 1993 (based on the Derge recension?). Both de la Vallee
Poussin and Schayer have given quite a good number of useful comments in
their footnotes; some of this information has been retained in the present new
edition. Almost all of de Jong's corrections are good; once in a great while his
R manuscript gives us a worse reading and we must then stick with de la
Vallee Poussin's text.
The task as we have defined it here was to come up with a text that makes
sense, which we have largely been able to do with the four sources mentioned.
We have also used some subsidiary sources given in the notes of de la Vallee
Poussin and Schayer. Candraklrti's quotations from the Käsyapaparivarta
can be corrected via the von Stael-Holstein edition (studded with errors,
but at one point superior).
The result, we hope, will be a modest advance on prior work (and of course
is very heavily indebted to that same prior work). We have often broken up
long compounds with the hyphen for ease of reading and even dissolved
vowel sandhi for the same reason. It can be argued that the hyphen and word
space are a part of the Roman script. The same can be said for punctuation
marks, which I have occasionally added. At the same time I have preserved all
the original punctuation, consisting of the danda (|), the double danda, (| |),
and the half-danda (').
Perhaps the most interesting features are the interpretation of the word
nirupyamana (ed. n. 2, tr. n. 139), the interpretation of musyate (ed. n. 36), the
reconstruction of the badly garbled line as atma-jino ca anatma-sthitas ca (ed.
n. 102), the discussion of drstigata/drstikrta (ed. n. 119 and esp. n. 136, also tr.
n. 181) where the von Stael-Holstein ed. of the Käsyapaparivarta and the
Tibetan translation of the Prasannapadä allow us to correct all mss. of the
Prasannapadä, and the change of vyäkulitam to nom. vyäkulitah for sense
(ed. n. 112), apphed to the opponent ('You, Sir, are confused ...'), whereas the
Tibetans read 'snake', evidently vyäla. While we must be cautious in suggest¬
ing readings not in any extant ms. or the Tib. translation, an editor cannot
confine himself to making a catalog of variants; at some point he must decide
which variant is likely to have been written or intended by the author (here
Candrakirti); and it is possible that no extant ms. gives what the author wrote
or intended.
Abbreviations
T Tibetan used by de Jong
hT Tibetan used by von Stael-Holstein
pT Tibetan used by LVP
saT Tibetan used by Galloway (Sakya College)
s^ T Tibetan published by Saigusa, first
s^ T Tibetan published by Saigusa, second
LVP Louis DE La Vallee Poussin
R Manuscript used by de Jong, not available to LVP
BHSG Edgerton, Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar
Schayer Ausgewählte Kapitel der Prasannapadä
Sprung Lucid Exposition of the Middle Way
Part I: Text
samskära-pariksä näma
trayodasam prakaranam \ \
yatas ca-evarn samanantara-atikränta-prakarana-vidhinä, sva-para-
uhhaya-krtatvam' ahetu-samutpannatvarn ca nirüpyamänarn^ bhävänäm
asad, anyas ca-utpädako vidhir asan | utpanna-rüpatvena^ ca-ete bhävä
avidyä-timira-Hpahata-mati-nayanänärn bäla-prthagjanänärn khyänti* \
tasmän nihsvabhävä eva santo hälänärn visamvädakä, mäyä-karv'-
turaga-ädivat tad-anabhijnänärn na tu vijnänarn \ ata eva sarva-
dharma-svabhäva^-aparoksa-dhi-nayanah samunmülita-asesa-avidyä-
väsanas catur-viparyäsa-viparyasta-aträna-sattva-paritränäya-avipartta-
naihsväbhävya-upadesa-tatparo buddho jagad-vibodhako mahäkärunikah \
' LVP adds this tvam, and it is needed for sense because the ca requires two nouns, in this case ending in tva, thus krtatvam samutpannatvam ca 'made-ness and arising-ness'; there is no having-been-madeness by self, other, or both, and no having-arisen-without-cause-ness.
The singular verb (in this case participle) asat where we expect a plural is not unknown in Nägärjuna himself: VI11.4 has käryam ca käranarn ca na vidyate in the first line and kriyä kartä käranarn ca na vidyate in the second, de J has käranarn in this second clause also, but s''2T has karanarn, distinguished from the käranarn in the first line, and also makes the dis¬
tinction between rgyu yan hthadpa in the first line and byed in the second (s'-^T). saT has bya for karanam in the second line (p. 153).
2 saT places nirüpyamänam before sva-para above, and translates it adverbially as dpyad par na 'if we investigate'. But if we leave the word where it is, it seems likely to be an adjective
applying to krtatvarn samutpannatvarn. ca. Translate nirüpyamäna as 'being investigated or supposed, appearing as, specious, angebliche' (MW s.v. nirüpya 'to be seen or defined or as¬
certained; not yet certain, questionable'.
3 Schayer makes this a full sentence: 'Daher, [obwohl es kein Entstehen gibt], erscheinen ihm die bhävas als etwas, was dem Entstehen unterworfen ist' (p. 25). Better to see it as 'By means of the appearance (formed-ness) of something having arisen'. saT translates as skye bahi no bor 'as reahty arisen'.
■* khyä 2 P. usually 'declare', here 'appear, manifest (itself)'. Oddly enough the dictionar¬
ies of Monier-Williams, Apte, and Macdonell all fail to give this meaning for khyä and define it (and the related noun khyäti f.) solely in terms of speech. But the meaning 'appear, manifest' is clearly implied by saT snah ba. Mylius in his Sanskrit-German dictionary gives s.v. 'sichtbar werden', which is good. saT and Mylius are confirmed by Mandanamisra's Vibhramaviveka, wherein the word khyäti f. is used in this sense; Schmithausen translates it as 'Erscheinen', see e.g. his pp. 21, 53, 233. Candrakirti uses the verb khyänti here (below, the nouns khyäti and khyätin), so Monier-Williams is wrong to write, 'the simple verb oc¬
curs only in Pass, and Caus.' s.v. ^^^'ä. -Take the genitives nayanänärn iiid prthagjanänärn as datives.
5 Shorten EVP's ato a (thus reading mäyä-kari) with R. saT has sgyu mahi rta dah glah po che. 'illusory horse and elephant'.
* Read svabhäva with R and saT (LVP had sväbhävya.)
tan mrsä^ mosadharma^ yad, bhagavän ity abhäsata \
sarve ca mosadharmänah samskäräs,'' tena te mrsä'° | | 1 | |"
SHtra uktam, "tan mrsä, mosadharma yad idarn sarnskrtarn'^ \ etad dhi khalu,
bhiksavah, paramarn'^ satyarn, yad idam'^ amosadharma, nirvänarn.
^ We translate mrsä (indec.) as 'false' and mosa as 'deceptive' througliout, not that no other translations are possible. - Schayer's comments on mrsä and mosa should be noted:
'mosa-dharma kann auch "räuberisch", wörtlich: "zu dessen dharma Raub und Diebstahl gehört"[,] bedeuten und an diese (aktive) Bedeutung denkt offenbar Candrakirti, wenn er weiter unten Pr. 233 13 dem Gegner erwidert: saty arri mosa-dharmakä sarva-sarnskärä ye 'dyäpi bhavantam musnanti - "Mit recht heißen alle sarnskäräs mosa-dharmaka, weil sie noch jetzt deine Einsicht stehlen (= dich foppen, betrügen)". Etymologisch hat allerdings mosa mit musnäti nichts zu tun. Denn mosa ist hier = Päli mosa = Gunabildung zu musä = mrsä' (p. 27 n.). Thus for Schayer we in effect have tan mrsä mrsädharma yad. Of course no one would write this because of the obvious tautology. Sanskrit grammarians generally de¬
rive mrsä from mrs 4 P.Ä. 'not heed'. Originally, too, mrsä seems to have been an adverb, 'in vain', mosa on the other hand is {pace Schayer) generally derived from mus 9 P. 'steal'. The distinction exists in Pali also (musä, mosa); in MN III p. 330 of the Päli Pubhcation Board
edition of 1958 we have tarn hi, bhikkhu, musä yarn mosadhammarn, tarn saccam yarn
amosadhammarn nibbänam. But I. B. Horner translates as if musä and mosa were from the same root: 'For that which is liable to falsity, monk, is falsehood; that truth which is not hable to falsity is nibbäna' (PTS 1959, p. 292). 'Im buddhistischen Sanskrit wurde [Schayer con¬
tinues ibidem] aber musati = musnäti mit mussati = mrsyati in Zusammenhang gebracht und mosa-dharma als "den Sinn bestehlend" = "irreführend" und "[tjrugbewirkend" aufgefaßt.' However this may be, the early Buddhists, Nägärjuna, Candrakirti, and the standard sources for Sanskrit grammar have mosa and mrsä from different roots.
8 Here dharman is n.; in the next line the word dharman m. is used with the same mean¬
ing (m. to agree with sarnskärä), and both mean the same as dharma. Understand the first four words as yan mosadharma, tan mrsä 'what is a deceptive dharma (that which is a decep¬
tive dharma), that is false'.
' Understand sarve ca sarnskärä mosadharmäh bhavanti 'And all sarnskärä are mosa- dharma'. If we consider mosadharman as a bahuvrihi compound, mosadharmänah sarnskäräs are 'sarnskärä, whose dharmas are deceptive'. The question is whether the sarnskäras are false because they have deceptive dharmas or because they are deceptive dharmas. We prefer the latter interpretation. But see Note 17 below.
'° 'And therefore they (the samskäras) are false'. The whole sloka amounts to a syllogism:
If a deceptive dharma, then false; sarnskäras ire deceptive dharmas; therefore samskäras are false. Some think, not without reason, that the syllogism is clearer if the first two clauses are reversed, thus samskäras are deceptive dharmas; if a deceptive dharma, then false; therefore sarnskäras are false.
" LVP states concerning the sloka, 'Cite ci-dessus p. 42.10.' The citation differs only in sandhi: samskäräh tena. - Saigusa's version of the Skt. is the same.
'2 saT understands by this hdus byas bslu bahi chos can gah yin pa de ni rdsun pa yin 'Whatever is a deceptive dharmin or dharmaka, that is, a sarnskrta, that is false'. Tib. chos can suggests dharmin, but a short while later (n. 17 below) we shall see chos can for dharmaka.
" LVP states concerning the following, 'Voir ci-dessus p. 41.4 et suiv.' There we find
paramarn satyarn yaduta amosadharma nirvänarn ' sarv a- sarnskäräs ca mrsä mosa-
sarvasamskäräs ca mrsä, mosadharmäna" iti'^ \ tathä "* " mosadharmakam'^
apy etat ' pralopa'^ dharmakam''^ apy etad" itf° \ \ tad^' anena nyäyena^^ yan
mosadharmakarn^^ tan mrsä-ity evarn yasmäd uktavärns^^ tathägato
bhagavän ' sarve ca mosadharmänah sarnskäräs tasmän mosadharmatvena te
sarnskärä mrsä bhavanti ' ^^citrakara-yantra-därikävat ' laksana-upeta-
yantra-matta^^-värana-vancita-udayana-vatsaräjavat'^^ \ \ tatra visarn-
vädakarn mosadharmakarn vitatha-khyäty^'-älätacakravat \ \
a-tat-svabhävatvenaP mrsä sarvasarnskärä mosadharmakatvät ' martcikädi-
jalavat \ \ yat tu satyarn na tan mosadharmakarn ' tad-yathä nirvänam ekam^° \
dharmänah. He states also (p. 41 n. 2), 'cite ad Bodhic. IX.2 (p. 244.13) avec d'inadmissibles lectures.' ... In the same place he states, 'Cf. M. Vyut. 245,907,908 mrsä mosadharminah.' This is confirmed on p. 92 of the Bibliotheca Buddhica edition of the Mahävyutpatti (vol. XIII, 1911) (confusingly, the number of the word comes after the word and is separated from it by a danda). But why dharmin (as above n. 12) pl. dharminah and not dharmäh or dharmänah}
INV st3.te.s, yad Uta a°, p. A\A.
" The last clause, sarvasamskäräs ca mrsä, mosadharmäna iti, is lacking in saT. It is indeed a mere repetition of what was said just previously.
'« LVP adds within brackets, nästy atra tathatä vä avitathatä vä and states, 'Manque dans les Mss. et dans le tibetain.' This refers not just to the vä but to the whole phrase within square brackets. If this does not derive from the mss. or the Tibetan, then what is its source?
It is wanting also in saT.
saT chos can. Here the idea of having appears.
'8 LVP ha.s praläpa in text but corrects to pralopa in his "Additions et Corrections" p. 602.
In his note ad loc. he states, 'Le tibetain porte hdi ni hjig pahi chos can no = vinäs'a- dharmakam etat.' pralopa m. 'destruction' (MW s.v. pra-lup). Schayer emends to pralopa and translates it: '= der Realität beraubt = annulliert = pralop adh arma' (p. 27).
" saT chos can.
2° saT identifies this as a quotation from some authoritative source by adding ses gsuns so.
2' siT dehi phyir.
22 saT tshul hdis.
2' Adding karn with R and T. Whole word mosadharmakarn = saT bslu sin hjig pahi chos can - mosapralopadharmaka.
2'' LVP had uktavän. Correct sandhi with R.
25 Beginning of portion not in Tib. acc. to LVP and saT.
2« matta 'in rut' with R. LVP had maya.
2' End of portion not in Tib. acc. to LVP and saT.
2* See Note 4 above.
2' Reading with T, saT.
■'° LVP says, 'ekam manque dans la version tibetain', confirmed saT.
tatas ca vihitayä-upapattyä^' 'smäc cägamät^^ siddham sarvabhävänäm
naihsvabhävyam; ' "sünyäh sarva-dharmä nihsvabhäva-yogena" iti ca
prajnäpäramitä-ardhasatikä-päthät \
aträha^* | yady evam mosadharmatvena sarvasarnskäränärn mrsätvam
pratipäditam bhavata ' nanv evarn sati na santi sarve bhävä iti
sarvapadärtha-apavädino mithyä-drstir eva syät \ \ ucyate^^ | satyam
mosadharmakäh sarvasarnskärä ye 'dyäpi bhavantarn musnanti | nanu ca
bhoh I
tan mrsä mosadharma yad yadi, kirn tatra musyate^^ |
yadä-asmäbhis "tan mrsä mosadharmakam" ity uktam tadä kirn tatra
musyate ' kirn tatra-abhävo bhavati \ kascid^^ yadi padärtho 'bhavisyat, syät
tasya-apavädäd abhäva-darsanän mithyä-drstih ' yadä tu padärtham eva
kamein na pas'yämas, tadä kim tatra musyate ' naiva kirncid abhävo
bhavati-ity ayukto 'yam upälambho bhavatah I I
" vihitä upapatti 'formal proof, proof according to prescribed {vihito) procedures; rea¬
son, upapatti f., so read asmät with ägamät, esp. as saT has bstan pahi rigspa dah luh hdi las.
Both bstan pahi rigs and bstan rigs are wanting in S. C. Das. vihitayä-uppattyä inst, 'by for¬
mal proof; asmad ägamät abi. 'from the tradition'.
'2 The two sources of knowledge then are secular and sacred, reason and scripture, here vihitä upapatti 'formal proof and ägama '[scriptural] tradition'. Medieval Western theolo¬
gians also appealed to 'reason and authority' as their two pramänas.
^' sünyäh sarvadharmä nihsvabhäva-yogena is indeed from the Ardha-satika or
Adhyardhasatika-prajhäpäramitä-sütra, in section VII (P. L. Vaidya ed. p. 91, E. Conze tr.
p. 188).
atra äha 'Here [the opponent of Nägärjuna and Candrakirti] speaks.'
" 'It is said' in reply by Nägärjuna or Candrakirti.
■"^ Schayer translates, 'was wird dann überhaupt vom Trug betroffen?' 'what is deceived?' which seems not quite right because a thing, as distinct from a person, cannot be deceived or not deceived. Also off the mark is Sprung, who translates, 'what is it that pretends' as if a thing could pretend and as if the verb were active. But it is passive, with the passive marker ya. The meaning of the root mus 9 P. is 'to take away, to steal'. Nägärjuna asks here, 'If a de¬
ceptive dharma is false, what then is taken away here' when I point out its falsity? The inter¬
pretation 'what is it that deceives' is a question that the opponent might ask, but this does not correspond to the meaning of the passive verb, and the preceding ucyate (three lines up) marks what follows as being Nägärjuna's point of view. Also if the opponent were speaking here, then Nägärjuna would have failed to reply to the accusation of nihilism just made. In fact he is replying to it here, saying in effect, 'I am not taking anything away from anyone here; for there was nothing to take away in the first place.' Thus translate kirn tatra musyate as 'what is lost' when I declare a deceptive dharma to be false? saT bslu seems to be a mis¬
understanding.
Tib. hga sig any, some; not in Das.
atraha \ yady abh ava- dar sanam api na pratipadyate ' kirn punar
anena-ägamena pratipädyata^' iti \ \ ucyate \
etat tu-uktarn hhagavatä sünyatä-paridipakam \ \2\\
yad etad uktarn hhagavatä tan na bhävänäm abhäva-paridipa-dipakam ' kirn
tarhi? sünyatä-paridipakarn svabhäva-anutpäda-paridipakam ity arthah \
yathä-uktam anavatapta-hradäpa-sarnkramana-sütre \
yah pratyayair jäy ati sa hy ajäto;
no^'^ tasya utpädu'*° sahhävato^' 'sti \
yah pratyayädhlnu'^^ sa sünya'^^ ukto
yah sünyatäm jänäti'''^ so 'pramattah^^ \ \ iti \ \
aträha^^ \ na-ayam ägamo bhäva-svabhäva-anutpädarn paridipayati; kirn
tarhi? nihsvabhävatvarn svabhävasya-anavasthäyitvarn, vinäsitvam iti'^^ \ \
kuta etad iti cet 1
'8 With DE Jong and R.
^' de Jong and R have na, but read no (same meaning) with LVP metri causa (indravajrä).
The four hnes are in the indravajrä meter provided we refrain from sandhi in tasya utpädu this hne.
^° The u ending is due to the influence of Apabhrarnsa (see Woolner, Introduction to Prakrit, p. 34; Pischel, Sec. 363, p. 291). It is to be understood as Skt. ah. The u endings are obviously used metri causa (for instance we need a short vowel here for the meter, and the a stem ending ah is long when followed by the s of svabhavato). It is not that the Buddhists could not write good Sanskrit; rather, this poem may have been first composed by a bard and sung aloud; then, whoever wrote it down allowed himself to be influenced by the Prakritic elements in an oral tradition and to take metrical considerations into account. He was trying to balance the oral tradition, correctness of grammar, and the need to fit the meter.
Concerning the first syllable of this word, sa for sva, metri causa so that utpädu can end on a light syllable; understand svahhäva-. On the last syllable, LVP's mss. have -to 'sti, R has -to sti; understand tas adverbial. But LVP in his "Additions et Corrections" wants svahhävatä because of Tib. Madh. avat. 119.2 which has for this line de la skye bahi rah hsin yod ma yin which suggests 'the essence of arising from them is not'.
''2 adhina 'resting on, subservient to', saT rag.
Or sUnyu with R.
Usually jänäti 'knows' but sometimes jänati in epic Sanskrit (cf . Whitney, Roots s.v.
jhä). So reiA jänati here with LVP, metri causa.
R's säprasamanta makes no sense. Swami Dwarika Das Shastri's edition MMK 24.14, p. 218, also has so 'pramattah.
The one who speaks here is an objector to Nägärjuna, but from another point of view, that of the Vaibhäsikas or Sarvästivädins. See Note 161 of the translation.
" This sentence 'definit le nihsvabhävatva (ou sünyatä) comme etant le svabhävasya vinäsitva' (LVP).
bhavanam nihsvabhavatvam anyathabhava^'-darsanat'^'' \
vicäryamänänäm^° anyathätvamr'' viparinäma^^-darsanäd ity arthah^-^ \ \ etad
uktam bhavati \ yadi bhävänäm svabhävo^^ na syät, tadänim na-eva-esäm
anyathätvam upalabhyeta \ upalabhyate ca viparinämah^^ \ tasmät
svabhäva-anavasthäyitvam eva süträrtha iti vijneyam \ \ itas ca-etad evam \
yasmät |
na-asvabhävas ca bhävo 'stf^ bhävänäm sünyatä yatah | | 3 | |
yo hy asvabhävo bhävah sa nästi ' bhävänäm ca sünyatä näma dharma isyate \
na cäsati dharmini tad-äsrito dharma upapadyate \ na hy asati vandhyä-
tanaye tacchyämatä-upapadyata iti \ tasmäd asty eva bhävänäm svabhäva
iti I I api ca I
anyathäbhäva or 'other-becoming' or 'change' is the only real meaning of
nihsvabhävatva according to this (Vai./Sarv.) point of view. Things lack an essence in that they change; it is not that they are unreal. saT gsan du hgyur ba.
saT has dnos rnams ho bo hid med de \ gsan du hgyur ba snah phyir ro 'That entities are without essence is [taught] for showing or illuminating (gnah) [their] changeability'. LVP states, 'On dit que les etres n'ont pas de svabhäva parce qu'on voit que leur svabhäva est sujet au changement. - Par le fait, Ie changement prouve l'existence du svabhäva.'
5° This word, as LVP states, not in the Tibetan (saT). It seems to mean 'of the things being considered here' i.e. of the entities, bhäva.
5' saT gsan du hgyur ba.
" As LVP states, the Tibetan (saT) is yohs su hgyur ba.
5^ ity arthah = saT ses bya bahi tha tshig go. Das does not have this meaning under tha tshig. Jäschke gives dhi tha tshig as 'what signifies?' tha tshig = arthah.
" Mss. nihsvabhävo, but LVP right to follow the Tibetan. saT dhospo rnams la rah hsin med na. Schayer: 'Wenn der svabhäva der bhävas irreal wäre'.
55 Adding vi with T and R.
5' This päda as R. The LVP mss. had näsvabhävas ca bhavo nästi, with triple negation, wrong length in bhavo, and violation of the meter. LVP changed to asvabhävo bhävo nästi in accordance with a passage by Candrakirti on LVP's p. 245.9. But Candrakirti probably in¬
tended paraphrase rather than quotation, and generally we should not change the root text to the exact wording of the commentary, which usually paraphrases. Besides, in this case LVP's version also violates the meter. Saigusa's Sanskrit holds to LVP's version. - LVP: 'Notre commentaire au troisieme päda ho bo hid med de = bhävasvabhävo nästi' This seems not quite right; it is not what the opponent, who is here speaking, would say. The Tibetan of the sloka third päda is dhos po ho bo hid med med (s'T; actually Saigusa has erroneously dhos ho) or, with the same meaning, ho bo hid med dhospo med (s^T). saT has erroneously dhospo ho bo hid med de (as if Nägärjuna were speaking), but the commentary in saT reads dhospo gah sig ho bo hid med pa de niyod pa ma yin te (saT) = bhävah kascit asvabhävo nästi, as one would expect the opponent to say.
kasya syad anyatha-bhavah svabhavas cen na vidyate |
yadi bhävänäm svabhäva na syäd, yo 'yam viparinäma-laksano 'nyathä-
bhävah sa kasya syäd iti \
atra-ucyate \ evam api parikalpyamäne \
kasya syäd anyathä-bhävah svabhävo yadi vidyate | | 4 | |
iha yo dharmo yarn padärtharn na vyabhicarati sa tasya svabhäva iti
vyapadisyate ' apara-pratibaddhatvät^^ \ agner ausnyarn hi loke tad-
avyabhicäritvät svahhäva ity ucyate \ tad eva-ausnyam apsu-upa-
labhyamänarn para-pratyaya-sambhütatvät krtrimatvän na svabhäva iti \
yadä ca-evam avyabhicärinä svabhävena bhavitavyarn, tadä-asya-
avyabhicäritväd anyathähhävah syäd abhävah ' hy agneh saityam
pratipadyate ' evarn bhävänärn sati svabhäva-abhyupagame 'nyathätvam
eva na sambhavet \ upalabhyate ca-esäm anyathätvam ato nästi svabhävah \ \
api ca-ayam anyathäbhävo bhävänärn na-eva sambhavati yad-darsanät
sasvabhävatä syät \ yathä ca na sambhavati tathä pratipädayann äha \
tasya-eva na-anyathäbhävo na-apy anyasya-eva yujyate \
yuvä na jiryate yasmäd yasmäj jtrno na j try ate | | 5 | |
tasya-eva tävat^^ präg-avasthäyärn vartamänasya bhävasya-anyathätvarn
na-upapadyate \ tathä hi yüno yuva-avasthäyäm eva vartamänasya nästy
anyathätvam | | atha-apy avasthä-antara-präptasya-eva-anyathätvarn
parikalpyate ' tad api na-upapadyate \ anyathätvarn näma jaräyäh paryäyäh \
tad yadi yüno na-isyate 'nyasya-eva jirnasya bhavati-iti ' tad api na yujyate '
yasmän na hi jirnasya punar jarayä sarnbandho nihprayojanatvät \ kirn hi
jirnasya punar jarayä sambandhah kuryät ' tad-antarena^'^ jirnatä-bhäväj^°
jirno jiryata iti na yujyate \ atha yüna eva-anyathäbhävas^' tad ayuktarn '
T has translated a wrong reading as de Jong notes: gsan gyis gegs-byar med pahipbyir ro for wrong aparapratibandhatvät. So also saT (p. 207).
58 Deleting prägvat per T and R.
5' 'Without that' connection; or täm antarena 'Without that' old age.
«^ With T, saT: rgaspa üidyodpas. 'Because there is old-man-ness' (immediately we have said 'old man', this without any 'old age' or any 'connection with old age' as separate dharmas from 'old man'). R rezds jirnnatvähhävät i.e. jirnatva-ahhävät 'because there to is no old-man-ness', so this if accepted should be emended to jirnatva-bhävät.
«' The other-becoming is of the youth i.e. is is the youth that becomes old. Tib. has trans¬
lated gson nu nid gsan du hgyur ro 'just the youth becomes other'.
a-präpta-jarä-avasthäyäm^^ yuvä-iti vyapadesäd avasthä-dvayasya ca
paraspara-viruddhatvät \ \
api ca
tasya ced anyathähhävah ksiram eva bhaved dadhi \
atha^^ ' ksira-avasthä-parityägena dadhy-avasthä bhavati ' ato na ksiram eva
dadhi bhavati-iti \ \ ucyate \ yadi ksiram dadhi bhavati-iti na-isyate
paraspara-virodhät
ksiräd anyasya kasyacid dadhi-bhävo bhavisyati | | 6 | |
kim udakasya dadhi-bhävo bhavatu | tasmäd asambaddham eva tad-anyasya
dadhi-bhävo hhavisyati-iti \ tad evam anyathätva-asambhavät kutas tad-
darsanät sasvabhävatä bhävänärn prasetsyati^^-iti na yuktam etat \ \
yathä-uktam ärya-ratnäkara-mahäyäna-sütre yo na pi^^ jäy ati no cupapadyf^
no cyavate na pi jiryati dharmah tarn jinu desayatf'^ narasirnhas
tatra nidesayi sattva-maharsi^'^ I I (1)
yasya sabhävu^° na vidyatf kascf^
no par abhäva tu kenaci labdhah \ P''
«2 Mss. have avasthasya but this is ungrammatical saT has rgas pahi gnas skabs ma thob pa la gson nu ses 'a youth is [someone] in the non-attainment of the state of old age'. As there is a locative particle, emend the Sanskrit to provide a locative case as above, though one could also change the position of the word for state as in the saT and translate literally into Sanskrit and write jarä-avasthä-apräpte.
Mss. have athasyd, athäsyä, R, atha syät; but saT has nothing like syät: ci ste = atha. syät does not fit the context which demands rather the opposite. Take atha as 'but'.
Monier-Williams 3. sidh (fut.).
" Fora/?/.
«« Obviously for ca-upapadyi and should be copapadyi, but a short syllable is needed metri causa.
«^ The meter is dodhaka, in which each päda has three dactyls and a spondee: | - |
'8 LVP emended to darsayati, but mss. and R have it as above; so also saT (bstan sin).
Should be desayati, but vowel lengthened metri causa. Lengthening of ti to ti and si to si metri causa noted in Edgerton, BHSG 3.16, 26.2. Also many times in following pädas.
«' Tib. has as if sattva-satäni 'hundreds of beings' (saT sems can brgya phrag dag) (inter¬
pret as acc, the objects of teaching).
For svabhävo, metri causa. The u is from R.
^' For vidyate, metri causa. LVP had nidyati but corrected the error in his "Additions et Corrections" in the back of the book.
'2 Should be kascid.
na-antar ato na pi bahir ato va \ labhyati tatra nivesayi näthah | | (2) | |
sänta'^ gatf^ kathitä sugatena \
no ca gatl upapadyati käci \
tatra ca voharasf" gati-mukto \
muktaku mocayasi bahusattvän^^ \ \ (3)
sarvi vadäsf^ nirätmaka-dharmä;
satvatu grähatu^'^ mocasi lokarn \
mukta svayarn gatito, gati-mukto,^°
tena si^' päragato na^^ ca tirno^^ I I (4) I I
This hne is given in saT by gsan yah ma yin sus kyah mi rhed pa. Understand as no parabhävah tu kenacil labdhah.
Should be säntä to agree with the following noun gati, but a shortened metri causa.
Course, path, state, motion. Should be gati f. but vowel lengthened metri causa.
This word vyoharasi s\io\AA be vyoharasi 'you live' but takes its form metri causa. It is a Prakrit version of vyavaharasi, which (with I) is the reading of R. gati-mukto 'freed from [every worldly] state'. The saT of this line is different: de dag hgro las grol bar rnam par gsuhs 'they will be liberated from going, it is said', evidently not reading vyoharasi, and taking the end of the line as ukto; it is not clear how the line read in the version used by the Tibetan translators. - The change from third person in the previous line to second person address in this one is a commonplace in Buddhist poetry (or oral chant, taken down in writing by some¬
one other than the original writer).
The saT is grol nas sems can mah po grol bar mdsad 'After liberation you will cause the liberation of many beings'
Understand sarvi with dharmä(n). vadäsi R; vadesi LVP; vadämi LVP's mss.
Tib. understands sattva-grahdt (sattvän-grahät) 'after grasping (taking up?) beings';
but R has sarvata grähatu; sarvatu grähatu LVP's mss. Understand satvatu grähatu (satvato grahatas}) with saT: sems can hdsin las.
8° This gati-mukto straightforwardly rendered in Tibetan (saT) by hgro grol bas.
8' Understand as asi.
82 ta R; na LVP, saT (see next note).
na ca tlrnah = Tib. brgal bahah med 'cannot be fathomed, cannot be compassed, cannot be surpassed, cannot be crossed'. See Das, p. 340a, brgal dkah ba 'the ocean, that which is difficult to cross', from (p. 302a) rgalba 'cross, ford, surmount (a pass)'. So brgal bahah med must mean 'he who cannot be crossed over, like the ocean'. - Schayer translates as if the text said that the Buddha is 'not a tlrna': '... nicht hinübergeschifft, bist du ein Jenseits-Gelang- ter', implying perhaps that he has attained the beyond without being brought there by any¬
one else. Sprung ttinshtes päragato na ca tlrno in accordance with the idea that the Buddha is both transcendent and immanent, or in Buddhist terms that he attains the absolute without passing into nirväna, the blessed rest; he is thus still available in his salvific power and bless¬
ing: 'you have reached the other shore without leaving this one' (na ca tlrna). This is a good idea, but the text does not appear to say it. The very next line, indeed, states that the Buddha is a tlrna.
päragato 'si bhave 'py avatirnah^^
päragato na ca labhyati kascit |
päru na vidyati^^ näpi apäru^^
päragato 'smi vadesi^^ ca väkyam^'' I I (5) | |
vära''° na vidyati yo''' ca vadesi
yarn pi vadesi na vidyati tarn pi \
yasya vadesi na vidyati so 'pi
yo pi vijänäti''^ so 'piasanto^^ I I (6) | | tatra pranastu jagarn imu sarvarn'*
vitatha-vikalpa-nivesa-vasena''^ \
sänta'"' vijänäti yo naru''^ dharmärns
re'* hi tathägatu drsta'''' svayarnbhü | | (7) | |
Here we interpret tirna as active, hence avatirna = 'you who have crossed over'.
bljavärnavatirnah LVP; hhavärnnavatirnnah. pT and saT have dran sroh chen po srid pahi pha roi phyin = päragato 'si maharsi hhavasya' - LVP p. 244 n. 5. Translate as 'A Great Seer, thou art transcendent over existence'. The Sanskrit above, on the other hand, means 'Having crossed over, you have surpassed existence.'
85 kaidt R; kasci LVP. saT understands, probably rightly, passive lahhyate (ti only metri causa): pha roi gsegs pa gah yah mi rhed hgyur 'no transcendent can be apprehended'.
8« saT consistent with passive vidyate.
" nävidyu pärarn R. With this the line means 'No other side is seen and the other side is not not seen', which is not as good as above: 'No other side is seen and the not-other side is not'; confirmed by saT, pha roi yod ma yin sih tshul roi med 'there is no other shore and no this shore'.
88 For vadasi. Influenced by Prakrit, wherein aya becomes e. Thus we postulate a form vadayasi perhaps derived from causative vädayasi through vowel shortening. Also in next verse.
8' Schayer and Sprung treat this word as if it meant 'mere conventional expression' ('Redensart', 'manner of speaking'). Again the idea is good, but the text appears not to say it.
Generally väkya is straightforwardly 'sentence'. saT has tshig tu gsuhs 'say in words' for vadesi väkyam. gsuhs does not imply any qualification or sandhyäbhäsa. tshig tu 'in words' might, but not necessarily.
'° For väram, metri causa, according to all mss. LVP emended to väca.
" Mss. have yarn LVP, yä R. But saT has gah gis implying yah 'who' (nom. case, or instr.
with a passive verb, but here the Sanskrit verb is active).
'2 Should be vijänäti but shortening metri causa.
" Should be asan; pl. metri causa.
Understand tatrapranastam jagam (= jagat) idam sarvam 'there this whole world is lost'.
'5 R has vasena, obviously an error. The first vi in this line is extrametrical.
'« For sänta understand sänto.
For naro but avoiding the (long) o and substituting the Prakritic u, metri causa.
'8 Understand tena.
Understand tathägato drstah.
sänta prajänati dharma-pramtän'°°
prlti sa vindatP°' tosati satvän |
50 bhavati jinu, jitvana kles'än
ätma-jino ca anätma-sthitas' ca'°^ I I (8) | | tena vijänita bodhi jinänäm'°^
buddhiya bodhayate sa jagam pi | | (9) | | ity ädi | |
yac ca-uktam asvabhävo bhävo na-eva-asti sünyatä ca bhävänäm isyate '
tasmäd asti sünyatä-äsrayo bhäva-svabhäva iti \ etad api na yujyata ity äha \
yady'°'* asünyarn bhavet kirncit, syäc chünyam api'°^ kimcana \
na kirncid asty asünyarn ca, kutah sünyarn bhavisyati \ \7 \ \
yadi sünyatä näma käcit syät, tad-äsrayo bhäva-svabhävah syät \ na tv evarn \
iha hi sünyatä-anätmatä sarva-dharmänärn sämänya-laksanam ity
abhyupagamäd asünya-dharma-abhäväd asünyatä-eva na-asti \ yadä ca-
asünyäh padärthä na santi ' asünyatä ca na-asti ' tadä pratipaksa-
nirapeksatväc, chünyatä-api kha-puspa-mälävan na-asti-ity avasiyatäm \
yadä ca sünyatä na-asti tadä tad-äsrayä api padärthä na santi-iti sthitam
avikalpam'°^ | |
"Additions et Corrections" pranTtan. R pramtän. LVP right the first time. Schayer translates dharma-pramtän as 'die höchsten dharmas', Sprung as 'the subtlest elements of ex¬
istence'. saT has chos mchog 'supreme dharmas. But could it not mean 'those things that have been brought forth as dharmas, protrayed as dharmas}
sarnvindati R does not fit the meter.
Conjectural reconstruction of this line, of which LVP gives only ätma followed by a se¬
ries of dots. In his footnote he gives from his mss. v(t)äma jino ca arä(o)ma(e) sthitas ca. R has näma jino ca ardma sthitas ca. pT bdag nid rgyal bar hgyur sin gnas pa med; saT has gyur. We take LVP's v(t)äma in accordance with saT bdag hid as ätma, jino with Tibetan rgyal ba, and read the compound as 'who has conquered the self (Schayer 'Sieger iiber das eigene Selbst' Sprung does not translate this line at all. anätma is conjectural here but fits the meter and the sense: anätma-sthita 'who stands in selflessness'. The Tibetan on the other hand has 'who has no standing-place' which also fits the sense, though it does not translate arä(o)ma(e). Schayer has 'ist er in keinem ksetra befindlich', taking the continuative sin as 'field' - ingenious but not convincing. Perhaps he sees arä(o)ma(e) as äräme} But an äräma is a pleasure garden or plea¬
sure grove, not usually a ksetra. - In our version hiatus needed between ca and a, metri causa.
Understand tena vijhäto bodhir jinänäm.
If there were anything nonempty, like a tree, there would be something empty, like a mirage, but there is no nonempty thing like a tree, in ultimate reality, so how will there be any empty thing like a mirage in ultimate reality? gal te stoh min cuh zadyod\ stoh pahah cuh zad yod par hgyur \ \ mi stoh cuh zad yod min na \ stoh pahah yod parga la hgyur [siT) (Tibetan of Madh. avat. has stoh pa in second hne) 'If there were at all a nonempty, then there would be some empty as well; since there is no nonempty at all, how will there be an empty as well?'
iti LVP; but api R; stoh pahah T, saT. Saigusa retains iti.
saT does not translate iti sthitam avikalpam. avast (two lines up) is from ava-so 4 P.
atra-äha trinivimoksamukhäni, sünyatä-animitta-apranihita-äkhyäni,'°^
vimuktaye vineyebhyo hhagavatä nirdistäni, sarva-tirthika'°''-mata-
asädhäranäni,''° saugata eva pravacane samupalahhyante \ yesäm
upadesa-artham eva, buddhä bhagavanto 'sesa-tirthya-väda-mahä-
moha-andhakära-anugata-jagati jagad-eka-pradipä nairätmya-upadesa-
avicchinna-sikhä utpadyante \ sa bhaväms tathägata-pravacana-
vyäkhyäna-vyäjena-idänirn täm eva sünyatärn prati-kseptum-ärabdhavän
ity alarn hhavatä svarga-apavarga-märga-samucchedakena-iti \ \
ucyate \ aho bata!''' bhavän atyunmukha iva-atyanta-viparyäsän nirväna-
pura-gäminam sivam rjurn paramarn panthänam avadhüya, bhäva-
abhinivesa-vyäkulitah,"^ sarnsära-käntära-anugam"^ eva märgam moksa-
pura-gämitvena samäsrito nirmumuksuh san sarnsära-atavi-käntärät"''
sadbhir upälabhya eva sann abhimäna-abhinivesa-graha"^-vasatayä tän
eva-upälabhate \ nanu bho niravasesa-klesa-vyädhi-cikitsakair mahä-
vaidya-räjaih \
™ Here saT adds gah bstan par bya bahi phyir sahs rgyas bcom ldan hdas] hgro bamu stegs pahi smra ba ma rig pahi smag chen pohi rjes su son pa la\ hgro bahi sgron me gcig pur gyur ba\
bdag medpa he bar ston pahi me Ice rgyun mi hchadpa mhah ba rnams hbyun ba.
These three 'gates of hberation' are given frequently in Pali and Sanskrit Buddhist liter¬
ature. LVP gives a number of citations from Pali literature and we can add here the
Astasähasrika and the Dharmasarngraha. LVP also refers us to p. 43 of his Prasannapadä, where we find a reference to Mahävytpatti 73.
Omitting mära with T, saT, and pT, which suggest simply tirthika-mata, mu stegs pahi gsuh lugs, for which LVP suggests tirthika-samaya; but mata could also be translated as gsuh lugs.
™ Tib. thun moh ma yin pa dag confirms the first a of asadhäranäni, as does the neuter gender of mata.
"' Schayer translates 'Das ist aber wunderlich!' with a sarcastic tone; Sprung has 'good gracious!' Bm aho bata is clearly 'ihsV aho is ambiguous, but bata is not; confirmed by saT e ma kye hud in which e ma is expressive of compassion (ruling out sarcasm) and kye hud is unambiguously 'alas!'
"2 All mss. have -arn, but context suggests -ah to apply to the opponent ('you. Sir ... are confused by inclination towards existents') (the road can hardly have been confused). Tib.
however has another reading entirely; for bhäva-abhinivesa-vyäkulita it has dhospo la mhon par sen pahi sbrul gyis dkris pa 'surrounded by the snakes of the inclination to existents' as if the Tibetan translators read bhäva-abhinivesa-vyäla-panvrta or some such.
R has anugamam but as de Jong rightly says, read with LVP's mss.
Reading with R instead of LVP's -ah. The words nirmumuksuh san sarnsära-atavi- käntärät (or -ah) are not in pT or saT.
"5 Omittingp<ird with saT: rha gyal sen pas bzuh pa.
sunyata sarvadrstinam prokta nihsaranam''^ jinaih |
yesäm tu sünyatä drstis tän asädhyän''^ babhäsire | | 8 | |''*
iha sarvesäm eva drsti-gatänäm''"' sarva-graha-ahh inivesänärn yan
nihsaranam apravrttih sä sünyatä \ na ca drsti-gatänärn'^° nivrtti-mätrarn
bhävo I ye tu tasyäm api sünyatäyäm bhävä-abhinivesinas, tän pratyaväcakä
vayam'^' iti kuto 'smad- up ade sät sakala-kalpanä-vyävrttyä mokso bhavis¬
yati I yo "na kirncid api te panyarn däsyämi" ity uktah san'^^ "dehi bhos tad
eva mahyam na kimcin näma panyam" iti brüyät, sa kena-upäyena sakyah
p anya-abh äv arn grähayiturn? \ evarn yesärn sünyatäyäm api bhäväbhinivesah
kena-idänlrn sa tesärn tasyärn bhäväbhiniveso nisidhyatäm iti \ ato mahä-
bhaisajye 'pi dosa-sarnjnitvät parama-cikitsakaih mahävaidyais tathägataih
pratyäkhyätä'^^ eva te \
"« pT, saT hes par hhyuh ba. According to LVP, Bcp. [Bodhicaryävatärapanjikä] 1X.33 translates nihsarana by hes par hbyin pa. 'hbyin pa = to emit, to remove (nihsärayati), est le
"transitif" de hbyuh ba.' Confirmed in Das. Thus hbyin ba 'pull out' and hbyuh ba 'go out, be pulled out'.
pT bsgrub tu med par, saT, Madh. avatära 119.8 sgrub tu med par. 'notre commentaire, sgrub tu med par, 'Bcp. IX. 33 qui traduit ... asädhya par gso-bya-min-pa.' In "Additions et Corrections" he refers to (prob. Tihetun) Abhdh. k. v. fol. 256b as iranslzimgasädhya by gso bya min pa.
"8 Verse 'Cite Subhäsitas., Museon, IV, 397.23 et Bcp. IX. 33 ...' LVR From LVP "Addi¬
tions et Corrections", stt Madh. avatära 119.6. pT = saT, but Tib. of Madh. avatära 119.6 is a different translation with same meaning. It gives hes par hbyin pa for nihsarana.
LVP's mss. have krtänäm 'of things made by views', but it is not clear whether a view can make anything, and pT and saT have ha bar gyur pa i.e. drsti-gatänäm. Candraklrti's probable source for this word is Ratnakuta/ Käsyapaparivarta, which he quotes in the next paragraph. See Note 136 below.
'2° See previous note.
'2' With R. LVP's mss. had rayam and LVP rightly emended it. Confirmed by pT and saT, which have de dag la ni kho bo cag mi smra ste.
With R. LVP's mss. have sarva dehi and sa ca dehi, but sarva is not in saT and sa ca makes less sense than san 'being'.
'2' Schayer interprets as if äkhyäta 'called' and adds 'als unheilbar' in brackets. But with praty the word has the sense of 'repudiate' (Sprung: 'do not attend to', closer to the mark than Schayer here). Confirmed by saT bor (s.v. hbor in Das).
yathä-uktam bhagavad-ärya-ratnaküta-sütre,'^* "yan na sünyatayä'^^
dharmän s'ünyän karoti'^^ ' dharmä eva sünyäh \ yan na-animittena dharmän
animittän karoti ' dharmä eva-animittäh | yan na-apranihitena dharmän
apranihitän karoti ' dharmä eva apranihitäh \ [•••]'^'' yä-evarn pratyaveksä
iyam ucyate, käsyapa, madhyamäpratipad dharmänäm hhüta-'^'^pratyaveksä
I [...J'^'^'e hi, käsyapa, sünyatä-upalambhena'^° sünyatämpratisaranti,'^' tän
aharn nasta-pranastän™ iti vadämi" | itah pravacanät'^^ \ "vararn, khalu,
käsyapa, sumeru-mäträ pudgala-drstir,'^* na tv eva-abhäva-abhinivesika-
sya'-'^ sünyatä-drstih \ tat kasya hetoh? i sarva-drsti-gatänärn'-^^ hi, käsyapa.
'2'' This whole quotation from the Kasyapa-parivarta is from Sections 63 to 65 with omis¬
sions. LVP: 'Voir p. 45, n. 1' where we find 'traduit par Burnouf, Intr. 562. - Voir Siksäs.
233.15 (235, n. 1); cp. 261.4; Bodhic. t. IX.106 (p. 338.16).' - In Candraklrti's time Ratnaieüta-sütra meant Käsyapa-parivarta. For this see von Stael-Holstein's edition of the Sanskrit, Tibetan, and Chinese versions.
Instrumental case, therefore emend saT kyi to kyis. In the two following clauses in saT there is an instrumental particle. LVP in his "Additions et Corrections" refers us to Madh.
avat. 118.1 (i.e. the Tibetan translation, LVP, St. Petersbourg 1912, Bibliotheca Buddhica IX, p. 118) where there is in fact kyis at this point and instrumentals in the two following clauses too.
'2« Omitting here LVP's api tu and the two foWowing api tu (de Jong). They are not in saT or the Tibetan tr. of Madh. avat. (loc. cit.)
'2' Passage in Siitra omitted by Candrakirti (von Stael-Holstein 63, p. 94).
'28 saT translates bhüta as yari dag par.
'2' Passage in Sütra omitted by Candrakirti (von Stael-Holstein 64, p. 95).
"° pT, saT stori pa riid du dmigs pas 'imagining emptiness'.
'^' Go against, attack. But pT, saT have rtog 'understand'.
'^2 saT nams rab tu riams.
'^5 Reading as R. saT puts this before nasta-pranasta, and translates it as gsuris rab hdi las 'in this tradition of teaching'; pT and saT have gsuris; de Jong and Das have gsuri.
'^■t After drsti, neither äs'ritä nor the Tib. gnas seems necessary to this sentence. The follow¬
ing instance of the word drsti does not have it.
'■"^ This is LVP's reading, and it is consistent with Candraklrti's thought: 'than the empti¬
ness-view of someone (-ka) who inclines to nonexistence'. Dwarika Das Shastri also
adopts this reading. saT, T mrion pahi ria rgyal (abhimänikasya) 'of someone who is proud of
himself, von Stael-Holstein has adhimänikasya 'of someone who is angry-minded'. In
the first interpretation the Buddha of the Kasyapa-parivarta criticizes intellectual failing, in the other cases moral failing.
"« LVP and R have drsti-krtänäm 'of things made by views' or possibly 'of things that have been made into views or made as views (see below)', but the von Stael-Holstein manu¬
script of the Käsyapaparivarta, usually so much worse, here (Section 64) presents the better reading gatänäm that is confirmed by the hT gyur pa. gata here need not be translated. The sense of drsti-gata is 'something that has gone to, become, a view', i.e. a view. The Käsyapaparivarta has the word drsti-krtänäm in Section 109 in the verse, but the corre¬
sponding prose in the same section has drsti-gatänäm. In Section 112 it has krta both times.
In Section 18 it has krta in the prose, gata in the verse. But in all six instances the Tibetan translation has gyur for gata or understands krta as meaning the same as gata in this context
sünyatä nihsaranam \ yasya khalu punah sünyatä-eva drstis, tam aham
acikitsyam iti vadämi \ tadyathä, käsyapa, glänah purusah syät, tasmai vaidyo
bhaisajyarn dadyät, tasya tad hhaisajyam, sarva-dosän uccälya,'^^ svayarn
kostha-gatarn na nihsaret \ tat kirn manyase, käsyapa, api nu'^^ sa purusas tato
glänyän mukto bhavet?" \ \ "no hi-idam, bhagavan, gädatararn tasya
purusasya glänyarn bhavet, yasya tad bhaisajyarn, sarva-dosän uccälya,
kostha-gatarn na nihsaret" \ bhagavän äha | "evam eva, käsyapa,
sarva-drsti-krtänärn sünyatä nihsaranarn \ yasya khalu punah sünyatä-eva
drstis, tam aham acikitsyam iti vadämi" \
Part II: Translation
Chapter 13
Investigation of the Sarnskäras
And so thus by the method of the immediately preceding chapter, there being
no supposed (nirüpyamäna)'^'' production (lit. having-been-made-ness) by
('what has been made a view'). - The index to de la Vallee Poussin's French translation of the Abhidharmakosa has no drstikrta, but it does have a drstigata referring to v, 40, i.e. Tome IV, p. 40 (Chapter v is in Tome IV) where we find drstigata precisely in the sense of drsti. The Buddha is quoted as memioning the highest of non-Buddhist views. In the bhäsya we have, within sloka 19 (and not after it as in the French translation), in the Dwärikädäs Sastri edi¬
tion, eta evoktam [sic] hhagavatä - "etad agram drstigatänäm yaduta no ca syäm no ca me syät na bhavisyämi na me bhavisyati" (vol. 2, p. 794) 'This is the highest of views ...' What follows yaduta is clearly a view (here drstigata). One ms. has bähyakänäm drstigatänäm 'of the views of the outsiders'. The commentator Yasomitra writes, etad agram drstigatänäm iti | etad visistarn drsti-prakärebhyah \ nätisävadyam ity arthah \ mokso märgopanisat, ucchedas tu nirhetuko 'bhipreta iti, bhränteh sävadyam uccheda-darsanam iti visesah \ {loc. cit., n.;
punctuation by Dwärikädäs Sastri, final visarga by Wogihara p. 463) '"this is the highest of views", this is a particular among kinds of views, means that it is not too objectionable; it is intended as [a way of] liberation, a secret doctrine (upanisad) of the path, though it is annihi¬
lationist and [teaches a doctrine of] causelessness. It is a kind of annihilationist view that is [after all] objectionable for someone who has gone astray.'
With R. Certainly a better reading than LVP's uccärya. True, neither MW nor Apte, Pract. Diet., have uccälya s.v. ud-cal, but Whitney, Roots, has -cälya as a derivative s.v. cal.
With ud we have the sense of 'move out, drive out'. saTib. has bskyed for bskyod. von Stael-Holstein has ucälya.
LVP tu, but no 'but' needed here; de Jong writes, 'Read as R, cf. von Stael-Holstein and Wogihara p. 557.' von Stael-Holstein has nu.
™ saT translates this word as rnam par dpyad pa na i.e. adverbially: 'if we investigate'. But in the Skt. it appears as an adjective modifying the two nouns in tvam. Moreover Monier- Williams gives nirüpya s.v. ni-rüp ('consider' inter alia) as 'to be seen or defined or ascer¬
tained, not yet certain, questionable' (p. 554, col. 2). Thus we translate nirüpya as 'supposed';
self or other or both nor any arising without cause {lit. arising-without-
cause-ness) of entities (bhäva), and there being no other method of causing an
arising, by the appearance (rüpatva) of having arising, these entities appear to
ordinary fools whose minds' eyes have been struck by ignorance's eye-
disease.'''° Therefore just those things that are without essence (nihsvabhävo)
are deceiving (visam-vädaka)''^' to fools, like the illusory elephant (karin),
horse, etc. to those who do not know but not to those who do.'''^ Now [the
Buddha] whose intellect-eye has seen the nature of all dharmas up close,
whose unconscious tendencies (väsanä) have without exception been torn up
by the roots, whose highest aim is the undeceiving and essenceless teaching
for saving unsaved beings who are deceived by the four''*-' deceptions
(viparyäsa), the teacher of the world, the greatly compassionate one [has said].
What are deceptive (mosa) dharmas are false (mrsä), the Lord has said;
All the sarnskäras are deceptive dharmas; therefore they are false. 1.
In a Sütra it is said, 'That is false, the deceptive dharma, the sarnskrta; but this,
indeed, monks, is the supreme truth, the undeceiving dharma, nirväna, while
all the sarnskäras are false, the deceiving dharmas.' Thus what has a deceptive
mturc (dharma) has a destructive nature (dharma) as is said. Thus by this syl¬
logism, what has a deceptive nature is false as the Tathägata, the Lord, has said,
and all sarnskäras are deceptive dharmas; therefore because of their decep-
twc'dharma-ntss those sarnskäras are false, like a robot-girl [made by] the
craftsman, or like King Udayana Vatsa tricked''*'' by the device provided with
the characteristics of an elephant'''^ in rut; a lying (visarnvädaka)'*^, deceptive
then the passage appears grammaticahy straightforward: There is no (asat) supposed (nirüpyamäna = nirüpya) made-ness of existents from self, other, or both, or [any supposed]
arising-without-cause-ness [of them].
'■'o Their minds have been struck by ignorance as eyes by an eye-disease (ignorance-eye- disease-struck minds' eyes, a sort of interwoven metaphor; 'ignorance' is to be connected with 'minds' and 'eye-disease' with 'eyes').
Lit. 'breaking their word'.
'■"^ saT has 'the illusory horse, elephant, etc. deceive those who do not know them' sgyu mahi rta dari glari po che la sogs pas \ de mi ses pa mams Itar byispa mams siu bar byed pa yin no \ \ The four deceptions are, as Schayer writes (p. 26 n. 19), 'daß man in dem Nicht- Beharrlichen das Beharrliche, in dem Nicht-Reinen das Reine, in dem Leidvollen das Nicht- Leidvolle und in dem Nicht-Ich das Ich erblickt'.
''*'* laksana-upeta-yantra-matta-värana would be clearer if emended to matta-värana- laksana-upeta-yantra 'machine provided with the characteristics of an elephant in rut'.
citrakara ... räjavat 'Like a robot-girl ... elephant in rut' is lacking in saT.
'^5 LVP states, 'Mahäsena s'empara d'Udayana au moyen d'un elephant artificiel, voir.
Kathä., XII, init.; Harsacarita, VI sub fin. Schiefner, Mahäkätyäyana und König Tschanda Pradyota, pp. 36-37 {mäyämätariga, H.-c. = kapatakunjära. Comm. = yantrahasti, K.-s.). -
(mosa) dharma manifests not in accordance witli reality (vitathä-khyätin),
like a fire-wheel.''*^ That all sarnskäras are false because of their deceptive
character (mosa-dharmatva) is to be taken in the sense that they are without
essence (svabhäva), like a fata morgana.'''* What is true is not of a deceptive
nature (mosadharmaka), which is nirväna alone. So the lack of essence of all
entities (bhäva) is demonstrated (siddha) by both formal proof and the
authority of scripture (ägama), since we read in the Ardhasatikä Prajnä¬
päramitä, 'Empty are all dharmas by their lack of essence (svabhäva).''*''
Here [an opponent of Nägärjuna and Candrakirti] speaks: 'If thus the falsity
of all sarnskäras because of their deceptive character is maintained by you,
then just for this reason, all entities are [by your thesis] not, and this would be
the wrong view (mithyädrsti) of the one who denies [the existence of] all ob¬
jects (word-meanings).
We reply: Truly of a deceptive nature are all sarnskäras, which deceive you
even now. For, Sir,
If what is a deceptive dharma is false, what there is lost?'^°
Communique par M.F.W. Thomas.' - Schayer states, 'Die wohlbekannte Geschichte
von der Uberlistung des Königs Vatsa mit Hilfe eines künstlichen Elefanten ist in der indischen Literatur oft bearbeitet worden: Bhäsas Pratijnäyaugandharäyana, Somadevas Kathäsaritsägara II, 12 usw. Über die automatischen Puppen in der Gestalt von Menschen, Vögeln usw. vgl. das XXXI. Kapitel des Samarärigana, Gaekwad Oriental Series 25, 32.'
saT has here hdrid bar byed for visamvädakä, whereas before it had sIh bar byed pa. But the meaning is the same.
Wheel made by swinging a blazing torch rapidly in a circle. The appearance of a circular structure is there, but there is no wheel there. (Persistence of vision results in the appearance of a fixed circular structure, a burning wheel.)
'''8 maricikä-ädi-jala, smig rgyuhi chu, mirage-water. Skt. has also ädi 'etc.'. Schmit¬
hausen: 'maricikä, Auffassung von Sonnenstrahlen als Wasser'. 'Wenn auch Irrtümer mit Substrat herangezogen wurden ... so ist dabei die Existenz des Substrates aus dem Vergleich auszuklammern' (p. 149). The Mädhyamika does not admit the ultimate reality of the sub¬
strate of the illusion.
''" LVP states, 'Voir l'edition de Räjendraläl, p. 405.' Also see Conze, The Short Prajnä¬
päramitä Texts, p. 188; P.L. Vaidya, ed., Mahäyäna-Sütra-Sarngraha, Part I. Buddhist Sanskrit Texts - No. 17. Darbhanga: Mithila Institute, 1961, p. 91,1. 16. sünyäh sarvadharmä,
nihsvabhävayogena; nimimittäh sarvadharmä, nimimittatäm upädäya; apranihitäh sarva¬
dharmä, apranidhänayogena;prakrti-prabhäsvaräh, prajnäpäramitä-parisuddhyä iti 'empty are all dharmas, by their lack of essence; signless are all dharmas, considering signlessness;
wishiess are all dharmas, by their not having wishes; naturally radiant [they are], by the com¬
plete purity of the prajfiäpäramitä.' Emptiness, signlessness, and wishlessness constitute a triad (the Three Gates of Liberation) found in Päli also.
'5° He is not denying the reahty of any real thing, because there was never any real thing whose reality could be denied. The falsity of the deceptive sarnskäras means that denying them is no error; it is not denying the reality of what exists, because there is no existence in
When it is said by us that a deceptive thing is false, then what there is lost?
How is there a nonexistence there?'*' If there were any existent,'*^ then by de¬
nying it, by seeing it as non-existing, there would indeed be a wrong view. But
when we see no existent, then what is taken away? There simply is no nonex¬
istent'*^ [that could be taken away as if it were an existent]. Thus your re¬
proach is unjustified.
Here [an opponent] speaks: If the view of nonexistence is not maintained,
then what is maintained by your tradition?
the deceptive things. - Weber-Brosamer and Back translate, 'was wird dann noch
betrogen' and add 'Auch die eigene, scheinbar "betrogene" Person, ist ja aus Zusammen¬
setzungen gebildet, also ebenfalls unwirklich' (p. 47). But Candrakirti does not support this interpretation or mention a deceived person.
How could I be preaching nonexistence of real things? A 'nonexistence' could only be posited of something (potentially) existing, and I see nothing (even potentially) existing, so there is no 'nonexistence' here nor am I advocating it.
SzV drios po = bhäva.
'55 Schayer: 'Wir aber sehen nirgends wirkliche Gegenstände. Was ist also jenes x, das vom Trug betroffen wird? [Wir meinen:] Ein Nichts, etwas schlechthin nichtseiendes' (p. 29). - To 'take away' or 'lose' something that was never there in the first place can hardly be cahed nihilism. Schayer states (p. 28 n. 22), 'Candrakirti wehrt energisch dieses prinzi¬
pielle Mißverständnis ab: die Mimärnsakas, die Särnkhyas und auch die Vaibhäsikas lehren das astitva, die Nästikas (Cärväka) lehren das nästitva, die Mädhyamikas sind aber advaya- nihsrita, die behaupten weder das asti noch das nästi (Vgl. das Zitat aus der Ratnävali = Pr.
137.7). Die Nästikas leugnen die Möglichkeit einer Erlösungslehre, sie sind nicht nur Gegner der Metaphysik, sondern vor allem irreligiös; die Mädhyamikas "machen hell den Weg der Nicht-Zweiheit, welcher zu der Burg des nirväna führt" {Pr. 329.14). Sie sind Monisten,
Mystiker, bekämpfen den Realismus, den Rationalismus und den Pluralismus, sind aber
keine Sophisten und keine Negativisten. [They do however employ what Chnstian mystics call the via negativa, which is not the same as being nihilist. - B.C.] Besonders lehrreich ist Pr. 368.4-369.4: Die Mädhyamikas lehren das nihsvabhävatva ahes Seienden, des ihaloka und des paraloka, im Sinne des pratityasamutpäda: weil alles in Korrelation zu den hetu- pratyayas entsteht, deshalb hat es kein Sein an sich, ist, "leer", relativ usw.' For the Nästikas, 'Die Realität des ihaloka wird nicht geleugnet, wohl aber die des paraloka; und diese Leug¬
nung resultiert nicht aus der Erkenntnis des bhäva-svabhäva-sünyatä, sondern stützt sich auf das triviale Argument' that we cannot see the process of reincarnation. But 'die Mädhya¬
mikas das astitva im Sinne des sarnvrtisatya wohl zugeben. Die Nästikas, sofern sie die Irrealität des sarnsära und des karma behaupten, sind dem Zeugen ähnlich, welcher die Anklage gegen einen Dieb bestätigt, ohne den Diebstahl gesehen zu haben: die Anklage ist wahr, der Zeuge ist aber trotzdem ein Lügner. - Mit Recht bemerkt J. Tucci Qoseph i.e.
Giuseppe Tucci], Studi Mahäyänici, Rivista degli Studi Orientali, vol. X. 522 "... il punto di vista di Nägärjuna non e forse proprio questo [is it not just this?]: sünya non e sinonimo di abhäva, che allora lo sünyavädin diverebbe un nästivädin; ma e il nulla dal punto di vista concettuale, la soppressione di tutti i contrari, Vupasama di tutto quanto Wpraparica. E di fatti sünya e anche tathatä che non e il nulla, ma un reale ineffabile, al di lä di ogni concepire."
Tfiis was said by tlie Lord as an illumination'*'' of emptiness. 2.
What was said by the Lord was not an illumination'** of the [supposed] non¬
existence of entities. What then [was it] ? It was an illumination'*^ of emptiness
and an illumination'*'' of the nonarising of the essences [of entities]. As it is
said in the Anavatapta-hraddpa-samkramana-sütra,'^^
That of conditions born is thus unborn;
Th' arising's not from them, in essence-mode;'*'
What from conditions comes is empty called;
Who knows this emptiness is madness-free.'^°
Here [an opponent]'^' speaks: This passage does not mean the non-arising of
an essence in existents (bhäva-svabhäva). What then? Not possessing an
'5'' Or iUustration, teaching. SaT yons su bstan pa. Nägärjuna maintains that the Buddha's reference to dharmas' being false and deceptive means not that they are nonexistent but that they are empty, which is not the same thing. Cf. Schmithausen: 'Nägärjuna ... lehnt für die Wahrheit alle ontologischen Prädikate - Sein, Nichtsein, beides zugleich und keines von beiden - ab. Wenn er von Nichtsein spricht, so meint er nur: Inadäquatheit des ontologischen Prädikates "Sein".' (p. 235). Nägärjuna here glosses the HTnayäna terms 'deceptive' (mosa) and 'false' (mrsä) by the terra 'empty' (sünya) (a term mostly Mahäyäna though also some¬
times Hinayäna).
SaT ston pa.
'5« SaT yoris su ston pa.
'5' ^izY yoris SU gsal bar byed pa.
'58 LVP States correctly (saT), 'Le tibetain a simplement mdo las = suträt.' He suggests that the sütra in question is the Anavataptanägaräjapariprcchäsütra, Nanjio 437, T. 635, K. 407, 'qui est nomme par Wassilieff, Bouddhisme p. 327, comme un des sütras "des ausschliesslich echten Sinnes" au point de vue des Mädhyamikas. - Sur Anavatapta, lac ou näga, voir notamment Burn., Intr. 171, 330, 396 et Lotus 3; Fujishima, Bouddh. japonais, 55. - Notre stance est cite (sans indication de souree et avec variantes) Bodhicaryäv. p. IX. 2 {Bihl Ind.
p. 355.10 et Bouddhisme p. 241, n. 1), Subhäs. sgr {Museon, N.S. IV, 395.22), et ci-dessous, trois fois, au. chap. XXIV
'5' Or following saT and the Tibetan as quoted in Madh. avat. (229.3), the essence of aris¬
ing is not from them (the conditions).
'«° saT and the Tibetan as quoted in Madh. avat. (229.4), bag yod yin 'is someone who has attention'.
'«' This objector is of the Vaibhäsika or Sarvästiväda persuasion. Schayer: 'Das absolute
An-Sich-Sein der dharmas ist transzendent und hinter dem sarntäna verborgen. Die Be¬
unruhigung dieses absoluten Substrats (= duhkha, vgl. Anm. 9 [he refers here to his first note on Ch. 12 of the Prasannapadä^ beruht darauf, daß die dharmas aus der Existenzphase der Zukunft durch den Moment des Jetzt hindurch in die Existenzphase der Vergangenheit übergehen. Das nihsvabhävatva ist ein Synonym der anityatä und bezieht sich nur auf die momentane Manifestation im sarntäna, auf das laksana, nicht auf das laksya. Die Lehre
Buddhas, daß alle dharmas nihsvabhävä sind, bedeutet danach das Nicht-Beharren der
dharmas in ihrem svabhäva, nicht aber die Irrealität des svabhäva. Dem Werden und der Veränderung muß ein reales Sein an sich zugrunde liegen, wenn es auch unmöglich ist, mit
essence (nihsvabhävatva) is not-abiding, destructibility. If you ask whence this [point of view, we reply].
The essencelessness of entities is [only seen] from seeing their other-
becoming.'"
Of the things considered, an other-becoming, from the seeing of change; this
is the meaning. Thus it is said. If there were no essence in entities, there would
be also no change that could be perceived in them. But change is perceived.
Therefore it should be understood that the meaning of the sütra'" is non-
permanence of essence. This is right, because
There is no entity without an essence, because of the emptiness of entities. 3.
An entity without an essence there is not. We maintain a dharma called empti¬
ness [that is predicated] of entities.'^'' In a nonexisting dharmin'^^, no dharma
based on it is tenable. For in a nonexisting son of a barren woman no darkness
[or lightness of skin color] of his is tenable.'^^ Therefore there is an essence of
entities [which is sünyatä].
Moreover,
Of what [prior existing entity] would the changed entity (anyathä-bhäva) be
[a changed version] if there were [previously] no self-entity (svabhäva)}'^^
unseren Erkenntnismitteln irgend etwas [Pjositives über seine Beschaffenheit auszusagen.
Eine Darstellung der Ontologie der Vaibhäsikas gibt Vasubandhu Abh. K. V, 50ff.' '«2 This means, The only sense in which things can be said to have no essence is that they have a changeable nature. In another sense they really do have an essence = sünyatä. Other- becoming, becoming other = anyathäbhäva = change.
The sütra cited just after the first sloka of this chapter (LVP). Or perhaps the sütra just cited above?
That entities have. SaT drios po mams liyi chos stori pa riid ces bya ba ni hdod pa yin no.
The dharma is the essence.
""5 An entity or bhäva is called a dharmin 'possessor of a dharma' because it is held to be the possessor of the dharma 'thing possessed' sünyatä 'emptiness'. This is its svabhäva (ac¬
cording to the opponent, who is speaking now. Weber-Brosamer and Back seem to inter¬
pret this as Nägärjuna's speech: '... steht Nägärjuna vor dem offenkundigen Dilemma, beides. Eigensein und Nicht-Eigensein der Dinge, nachgewiesen zu haben' (n. 68). It is really the opponent's dilemma.
The son is the dharmin and his darkness is the dharma. So for all things sünyatä is the dharma and all bhävas are the dharmins.
Self-existing = svabhäva. Other-becoming = anyathä-bhäva = change or changed en¬
tity. The sense of the question is. What would be the thing that becomes other if there were no original 'self of a thing? There must be a thing in the first place before we can speak of its changing (anyathä-bhäva), and this must be an essence = self-existence (sva-bhäva). How could there be change if there were no definite entity in the first place that could undergo
If there were no self-entity of entities, whose [i.e. of what] would be this
changed version [i.e. from what would it have changed, of what would it be a
changed version], since [the changed entity's] quality is to have changed?
We reply, even if we accept the imaginary [entity].
Whose changed entity would it be if there were a self-entity? 4.
Here'^* a certain dharma that does not occur without a certain object is called
its essence, because it is not bound to anything else. Of fire, heat is the essence,
for in the world [fire] is not found without [heat]. The same heat, found in wa¬
ter because of the presence of other causes, because of [artificial] activity, is
not the essence [of water]. If there is an essence that constantly accompanies
(its entity), then the changed entity must not be real, because of constant ac¬
companiment of [the essence]; for coolness does not occur in fire. Therefore if
we admit that there is an essence in entities, the changed things are impossi¬
ble.'^' But changes of them are seen. Therefore there is no essence.
Moreover there is no changed entity in view of which there might be the
fact of having an essence (sasvahhävatä). How it does not occur he explains
by saying.
There is no other-becoming of the [original entity], nor of the other [that has re¬
sulted] either. A youth does not become old and an oldster does not either.'^" 5.
A change (otherness, anyathatva) of an entity that continues from its former
state is untenable. There is no other-becoming of a youth who continues [to be
such] in the state of youthfulness. And if you imagine an otherness that is of
something that has obtained another state, this too is untenable. For otherness
is a synonym of old age. Then 'if there is no [other-becoming] of a youth, there
must be [other-becoming] of an old man, i.e. an other' is not logical,'''' so again
change? How could there be other-becoming if there were no prior self-existing? bhäva can mean both 'existing' and 'becoming'.
'«8 'In der realistischen Logik' - so Schayer (p. 32).
The opponent has argued that the fact of change proves that things have own-being,
svabhäva. Nägärjuna replies that svabhäva would actually make change impossible. A
svabhäva always is what it is. Next he is going to argue that in any case there is no real change. Supposedly A changes to B, but actually A is always A and never becomes B; while B was always B and cannot change into B because it already is B. Change occurs neither in A nor in B.
A youth does not become old because he is what he is, a youth, and because the change is never perceived; an oldster does not become old because he already is old. So no entity changes into another.
Because other-becoming of an old man is his becoming aged (since other-becoming is in this context a synonym of age), but he cannot become aged since he already is aged.
there is no connection of an old man with old age, because such would have no
purpose.'''^ For what would the connection of an old man with old age do?
Without that [(connection with) old age], because we have an old man [as
soon as we say the words 'old man'], it makes no sense to say that an old man
becomes old. Now the becoming other [or ageing] of a youth is also not right,
for a youth is [precisely] someone in the state of not having attained age, as it is
said, and the two states [youth and age] are mutually exclusive.
Furthermore,
If [yogurt]'^-' is the changed version (anyathäbhäva) of [milk], then milk
would become yogurt.
But when the state of milk is renounced, the state of yogurt appears; so milk
does not become yogurt. If you do not want milk to become yogurt, because
of their mutual exclusivity, then [the two are different; but in this case, if A
changes into B, A and B being different, then anything different from B could
change into B. Thus]
The becoming (bhäva) of yogurt will be from anything other than milk.''''' 6.
But is water the basis of yogurt? Therefore it is not connected (logical) that the
basis of yogurt should be something other [than milk].
[We sum up:]'^* Thus since there is no change, how will there on that basis be
a proof of the possession of essence on the part of existents? It will not work.'''^
As is said in the Ärya-Ratnäkara-Mahäyäna-Sütra'^^
No dharma is there born, arises, dies, or ages;
This the Conqu'ror states, the Lion of a Man,
The Pointer-Out, the Great Seer of beings, (1)
'^2 Because an old man is what he is already and needs no connection with a dharma called 'old age'. To give him one would be gilding the lily (action to no purpose), redundant.
dadhi, usually translated as curd. But Monier-Williams defines it as 'coagulated milk;
thick sour milk (regarded as a remedy; differing from curds in not having the whey separate from it)' s.v.
Translating as SaT: ho ma las gsan gari sig ni \ so yi drios po yin par hgyur. The Skt. says 'The basis will be of what thing . ..' (gen. of material?).
'''5 If milk and yogurt are the same, there is no change; if they are different, there is still no change, because two things that are different are absolutely different, and therefore one can¬
not become the other, or if so then anything could become anything, which is not observed.
''''' According to the opponent, change (anyathähhva) shows that there is a svabhäva. But Nägärjuna has shown that there is no change; therefore there need not be any svabhäva on this account.
SaT hphagspa dkon mchog hbyun gnas ses bya ba thegpa chenpo mdo (Mine of Jewels Sütra).
