Around Abhinavagupta

Aspects of the Intellectual History of Kashmir from the Ninth to the Eleventh Century

edited by Eli Franco and Isabelle Ratié

Transmission of the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā and Prasannapadā to Tibet from Kashmir CHIZUKO YOSHIMIZU

INTRODUCTION From the end of the tenth century up to the twelfth century, Tibetans revived Buddhist traditions that had deteriorated after the collapse of the ancient dynasty in Central Tibet by reintroducing scriptures, teachings, and monastic rules from their neighboring areas such as Northeast India, where the great Buddhist monasteries Nālandā and Vikramaśīla were located, Nepal, Kashmir, East Tibet, and Central Asia. Kashmir in particular was the favorite destination of

Tibetan Buddhists. A considerable number of Buddhist exoteric as well as esoteric texts were introduced to Tibet from Kashmir by Tibetan translators and their Indian collaborators during this period called the “later diffusion” (phyi dar). The main sources of information about their translation activities before 2006 were later Tibetan historical literature and the colophons attached to Tibetan translations of canonical texts (bka’ ’gyur, bstan ’gyur). Jean Naudou’s

illuminating book, Les bouddhistes kaśmīriens au Moyen Âge (Paris 1968),1 was the most significant study based on these reference sources. He described the development of Buddhism in Kashmir and its impact on Tibetan Buddhism from the seventh to the fourteenth century. In particular, Tibetan history books such as the history of Buddhism (Bu ston chos ’byung) by Bu ston Rin chen grub (1290-1364) from the fourteenth century, and ’Gos gZhon nu dpal’s (1392-1481) “Blue Annals” (Deb ther sngon po) from the fifteenth century have contributed a great deal to the knowledge of the later diffusion. They were, however, not composed by a person directly involved in translation projects of 1 The English version, Buddhists of Kaśmīr, was published in 1980.

that period. A Buddhist history of old tradition (rNying ma’i chos ’byung) from the twelfth century provides only brief sketches of the early Tibetan translators and their translations.2 Information in translation colophons of canonical texts was mostly added by later revisers of the translations or editors of each single version of canons. Since the publication of newly discovered manuscripts from the tenth to thirteenth century begun in 2006 in China, a large number of textual witnesses that were once presumed to be lost have become available.3 Today, voices of the time are made heard. Consulting some of these new materials, the

present paper will examine how the most fundamental Madhyamaka treatises, i.e., Nāgārjuna’s (second c.) Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (henceforth MMK) and Candrakīrti’s (seventh c.) commentary on it named Prasannapadā (henceforth PsP), were studied, translated, and transmitted from Kashmir to Tibet or from teacher to student. Nāgārjuna’s masterpiece, the MMK, was translated into Tibetan from Sanskrit by the first quarter of the ninth century at the command of a Tibetan ruler. The translators were the Tibetan lo tsā ba Cog ro Klu’i rgyal mtshan and the Indian paṇḍita Jñānagarbha.4 Towards the end of the eleventh century, this translation was revised by Pa tshab Nyi ma grags (1055?-1145?)5 and his Indian collaborator Mahāsumati in Kashmir before it was further revised by Pa

2 This text was published in faximile edition in MEISEZAHL 1985. The author is Nyang ral Nyi ma ’od zer who lived either in 1124-1192 or 1136-1204 (see MEISEZAHL 1985, p. 9). 3 bKa’ gdams gsung ’bum, vols. I-XXX (2006), vols. XXXI-LX (2007) and vols. LXI-XC (2009). Bod kyi lo rgyus, vols. I-XXX (2010), vols. XXXI-LX (2011). 4 This translator Jñānagarbha is supposed to have translated Śāntarakṣita’s Satyadvayavibhaṅgapañjikā

together with Ye shes sde. Therefore, as D. Seyfort Ruegg has pointed out (SEYFORT RUEGG 1981, p. 69, n. 224), it is unlikely that he is the same Jñānagarbha as the author of the Satyadvayavibhaṅga and its autocommentary (vṛtti). 5 Regarding his dates, see VAN DER KUIJP 1985, p. 4, VOSE 2009, p. 190, n. 20, YOSHIMIZU AND NEMOTO 2013, p. viii, n. 15 and p. xii, n. 30. 1055 was given for his birth date by ’Jam dbyangs bzhad pa Ngag dbang brtson ’grus (16481721) in his bsTan rtsis re mig tu bkod pa 2a, which was composed in 1716, and Sum pa mkhan po (1704-1788) in his dPag bsam ljon bzang, part III, p. 9, l. 2. Because it coincides with Atiśa’s possible reincarnation (i.e., Atiśa died in 1054), van der Kuijp has cast doubt on it. His birth could be later than 1055. PDF-Muster LIT Verlag 06/09/16

tshab and Kanakavarman in lHa sa in the first half of the twelfth century. Pa tshab made these revisions of Klu’i rgyal mtshan’s earlier translation in accordance with the kārikās cited in the PsP.6 Pa tshab also translated the PsP with Mahāsumati in Kashmir and revised it with Kanakavarman in lHa sa.7 Several Tibetan history books have reported that Pa tshab Nyi ma grags resided in Kashmir for 23 years,8 presumably from 1077 to 1100.9 He was a contemporary of another well-known Tibetan translator who stayed in Kashmir from 1076 to ca. 1092, rNgog Blo ldan shes rab (10591109?). Ngog is also considered to have stayed in the same place as Pa tshab,10 although there is no evidence that the two Tibetan translators knew each other.

6 MMK D19a3-6, P22a7-22b: dbang phyug dam pa’i mnga’ bdag rgyal po chen po dpal lha btsan po’i bka’ lung gis | rgya gar gyi mkhan po chen po dbu ma pa | dznyā na garbha dang | zhu chen gyi lo tstshā ba dge slong cog ro klu’i rgyal mtshan gyis bsgyur cing zhus te gtan la phab pa | ’di la rab tu byed pa nyi shu rtsa bdun | shlauka bzhi brgya bzhi bcu rtsa dgu yod | bam po ni phyed dang gnyis su byas so || slad kyis kha che’i grong khyer dpe med kyi dbung | gtsug lag khang rin chen sbas pa’i dbus su | kha che’i mkhan po ha su ma ti dang | bod kyi sgra bsgyur gyi lo tstshā ba pa tshab nyi ma grags kyis mi’i bdag po ’phags pa lha’i sku ring la ’grel pa tshig gsal ba dang bstun nas bcos so || ||*slad kyis ra sa ’phrul snang gi gtsug lag khang du | rgya gar gyi mkhan po ka na ka dang | lo tstsha ba de nyid kyis hu chen bgyis pa’o ||. *P omits the last sentence (*...*). 7 PsP D200a5ff., P225b4ff. (cited and translated in LANG 1990, p. 134, SEYFORT RUEGG 2000, p. 45, and YOSHIMIZU 2005, p. 132, n. 19): kha che'i grong khyer dpe med kyi dbus || rin chen sbas pa'i

gtsug lag khang gi 'dabs su || rgya gar gyi mkhan po rtog ge ba chen po || ma hā su ma ti'i zhal snga nas dang | bod kyi lo tsā ba pa tshab nyi ma grags kyis kha che'i dpe dang mthun pa ltar bsgyur || phyis ra sa ra mo che'i gtsug lag khang du kha che'i mkhan po ka na ka bar ma (P: ka na ka va rba) dang | bod kyi lo tsā ba de nyid kyis nyi 'og shar phyogs kyi dpe dang gtugs shing legs par bcos te gtan la phab pa'o ||. 8 See rNying ma’i chos ’byung (MEISEZAHL 1985, Text

512a3f., Tafel 343.1), Bu ston chos ’byung 138b3 and Deb ther sngon po, cha 7b4 (BA 342). 9 LANG 1990 (p. 134) has inferred that he returned to Tibet by 1101, for the colophons of translations on which Pa tshab worked indicate that they were done during the reign of the Kashmiri King Harṣa (1089-1101). Cf. n. 13 below. 10 rNgog translated or revised numerous texts in grong khyer dpe med (*Anupamapura), Kashmir, where Pa tshab also worked, including the Ratnagotravibhāga, Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā, Pramāṇavārttika, Pramāṇavārttikālaṃkāra, Pramāṇaviniścayaṭīkā, Anyāpohaprakaraṇa, and Anyāpohasiddhi (see KRAMER 2007, pp. 61-67).

Neither Pa tshab nor his disciple left a biographical account of his activities in Kashmir.11 Among newly discovered manuscripts, however, were three exegetical works attributed to Pa tshab Nyi ma grags, which are included in the eleventh volume of the bKa’ gdams gsung ’bum: 1) “Commentary on Nāgārjuna’s Prajñā-nāma-Mūlamadhyamakakārikā [entitled] the lamp that reveals the treatise” (dBu ma rtsa ba’i shes rab kyi ti ka bstan bcos sgron ma gsal bar byed pa 1a-52b); 2) “Pa tshab’s instruction on the relation between the chapters” [of the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā] (Le ʼbrel pa tshab kyi man ngag 53a-54b); and 3) “explanation of

difficult points in Candrakīrti’s Prasannapadā” (Tshig gsal ba’i dka’ ba bshad pa 55a-88a). The first and last one are to be regarded as the first commentarial works on the MMK and PsP respectively written in the Tibetan language.12 They primarily provide explanations of the root texts, but they also contain some information about the transmission of the MMK and PsP, as will be seen below. The present paper is my first study of these three texts by Pa tshab Nyi ma grags. Because I focus on the historical background of his compositions, I will not deal with the content of his philosophical discussion.

1. TRANSMISSION OF THE MMK AND PSP TO PA TSHAB NYI MA GRAGS FROM KASHMIRI PAṆḌITAS It is known from the colophons of the bsTan ’gyur versions of the MMK and PsP that the paṇḍita-lo tsā ba team, Mahāsumati-Pa tshab Nyi ma grags, worked on the revision of the MMK and the translation of the PsP during the reign of King Harṣa (1089-1101)13 11 Pa tshab’s short biography is included in Deb ther sngon po, cha 7b4-8a2 (BA 341f.). rNgog Blo ldan shes rab’s biography by Gro lung pa Blo gros ’byung gnas (late eleventh to early twelfth centuries) does not provide much information about his

stay in Kashmir. Cf. DRAM DUL 2004 and KRAMER 2007. 12 For the outlines of the three texts, see DREYFUS AND TSERING 2010. 13 King Harṣa is said to have been enthroned in 1089 and killed in 1101 in the age of forty-two years and eight months (RT 7.828-829, 1717). His name appears in the colophons of the Tibetan MMK cited above and the MA and MABh translated by Pa tshab and Tilakakalaśa (D219a5ff., D348a5ff.) as ’phags pa’i lha (*Āryadeva). NAUDOU 1968, pp. 168-170, identifies him as Harṣa. The colophon of the Tibetan version of Dharmottara’s Paralokasiddhi (D249a7f., P267b5f., cf. MEJOR 1991, p. 195), which was translated by Pa tshab and *Bhavyarāja (sKal ldan rgyal po), has recorded a king’s name śrī ha

649 at Rin chen sbas pa’i gtsug lag khang (*Ratnagupta monastery) in grong khyer dpe med (*Anupamapura), which appears to be modern-day Srinagar.14 ’Gos gZhon nu dpal cites later Tibetans’ claims that their Madhyamaka lineage goes back to Indian masters including the Kashmiri Ratnavajra, Parahitabhadra, and Mahāsumati.15 Although Ratnavajra’s involvement in the Madhyamaka tradition is unclear, he is said to have been from a family of scholars with his grandson being the brahmin Sajjana and his greatgrandson being the brahmin Sūkṣmajana with whom Pa tshab translated Āryadeva’s Catuḥśataka and its ṭīkā by Candrakīrti at the *Ratnagupta monastery.16 Ratnavajra’s fame is based on his career in the Vikramaśīla monastery and his mastery of the tantric doctrines and practices.17

Ratnavajra’s student as well as Mahāsumati’s teacher Parahitabhadra was known among later Tibetans as a great logician who collaborated with rNgog Blo ldan shes rab in translating, for example of the Pramāṇaviniścaya and Nyāyabindu of Dharmakīrti.18 Although Parahitabhadra left a commentary on Nāgārjuna’s Śūnyatāsaptati, there has been no evidence suggesting his further commitments to the transmission of Madhyamaka doctrines.19 But at present, there is one small hint in Zhang Thang sag pa’s commentary on the PsP. Zhang Thang sag pa is supposed to have been a direct disciple of Pa tshab Nyi ma grags.20 Zhang him

ri śa de ba (P) or śrī ha ri sha de (D). 14 NAUDOU 1968, pp. 168, 185 (1980, pp. 208ff.) has discussed the identification of these places. 15 Deb ther sngon po, cha 8b3f., BA 344 (cited in YOSHIMIZU AND NEMOTO 2013, p. x, n. 24), where ’Gos cites Thang sag seminary’s allegation of their lineage. 16 CŚ D18a6f., P20a8: kha che’i grong khyer dpe med kyi dbus (D dbung) | (D omits |) rin chen sbas pa’i kun dga’ ra bar | rgya gar gyi mkhan po su smma dzā na (D su smra dzā

na) dang | bod kyi lo tsā ba (D lo tstshā ba) pa tshab nyi ma grags kyis bsgyur cing zhus te gtan la phab pa’o ||. Cf. CŚṬ P273b3-6, D239a5f. Cf. also LANG 1990, p. 133, 140, n. 20 and DIETZ 1984, p. 61, 273. Sajjana worked with rNgog Blo ldan shes rab. 17 See NAUDOU 1968, pp. 139ff. 18 See KRAMER 2007, pp. 61-67. 19 Parahitabhadra is also known as the author of the Sūtrālaṃkārādiślokadvayavyākhyāna (mDo sde rgyan gyi tshigs su bcad pa dang po gnyis kyi bshad pa, D4029,

P5530), i.e., the commentary on the first two verses of the Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra. 20 For Zhang Thang sag pa ’Byung gnas ye shes alias Ye shes ’byung gnas, see YOSHIMIZU 2005 and YOSHIMIZU AND NEMOTO 2013, Introduction. It is most likely that he learned the PsP directly from his teacher Pa tshab (see YOSHI

self or a scribe noted in the margin of the manuscript (dBu ma tshig gsal gyi ti ka 21a5) the name Parahita and identifies him as a follower of Bhāviveka (sixth c.).21 If it was Zhang who inserted this note, Zhang possibly received this information from his teacher Pa tshab Nyi ma grags. Assuming that Parahita truly

supported Bhāviveka’s Madhyamaka thought, his student Mahāsumati took a different position. Parahitabhadra’s student Mahāsumati is also known as a great logician (*mahātārkika, rtog ge ba chen po) according to the colophon of the PsP. The colophon of the MMK records his name as Hasumati.22 This shortened name is often used by later Tibetans, although the way of abbreviation can hardly be explained.23 Zhang Thang sag pa uses the even shorter version “Ha su,” referring to a Kashmiri scholar who could be Hasumati.24 Neither his own work nor any other translation work that bears his name survived. This scholar, however, played an

important role in the transmission of the MMK and PsP: the colophon of Pa tshab’s commentary on the MMK (i.e., dBu ma rtsa ba’i shes rab kyi ti ka) says: “This is a record of the explanation of paṇḍita Hasumati.”25 Although the colophon does not mention who recorded it, one may well assume that the person who received the explanation from Hasumati and wrote it down in the Tibetan language was Hasumati’s student Pa tshab Nyi ma grags. Therefore, I have no reason to question his author

MIZU forthcoming). 21 dBu ma tshig gsal gyi ti ka 21a5 (YOSHIMIZU AND NEMOTO 2013, p. 93, n. 1), where it is spelled pha ra he ta and said: rgol ba ’di ni legs kyi phyogs pa (a marginal note below the line shows that it is pha ra he ta) zhig gam yang na gud na gnas pa zhig gis rgol ba’o ||. The name pha ra he ta seems to have been mentioned as a representative of Bhāviveka’s party, whom Pa tshab directly or indirectly knew. 22 See n. 6 above. 23 ’Gos gZhon nu dpal also recorded his name as Hasumati (Deb ther sngon po, cha 8b4, BA 344). In some gSan yig literatures, the name Hasumati appears in the lineage of the Madhyamaka tradition (e.g., gSan yigs of Tsong kha pa Blo bzang grags pa and mKhas grub dGe legs dpal bzang po [see VAN DER KUIJP 1985, appendix]). Cf. also SEYFORT RUEGG 2000, p. 9, n. 10. 24 dBu ma tshig gsal gyi ti ka 24a2 (YOSHIMIZU AND NEMOTO 2013, p. 107, l. 3). Cf. also YOSHIMIZU forthcoming. 25 dBu ma rtsa ba’i shes rab kyi ri ka 55b22 (132): dbu' ma rtsa ba'i shes rab kyi ti ga | bstan bcos sgron ma gsal bar byed pa zhes bya ba | pan ḍi ta ha su mati'i bshad lugs bris pa rdzogs sho ||.

ship of this work as claimed by a later compiler of manuscripts.26 This commentary on the MMK does seem to have been composed on the basis of oral instructions of an Indian scholar, because the author frequently uses expressions derived from Sanskrit without translating them into Tibetan.27 He also often names Indian Madhyamaka masters Buddhapālita and Bhāviveka in Sanskrit, unlike bsTan ’gyur texts and later Tibetan literature, where they are generally named in Tibetan, Sangs rgyas bskyang and Legs ldan ’byed. Moreover, he calls Bhāviveka not “Bhāviveka” but “Bhavyakīrti” or its Tibetan rendering “sKal ldan grags pa.” As is well known, the name of this sixth-century Madhyamaka master has been transmitted in various ways: Bhāviveka, Bhāvaviveka, or Bhavya in Sanskrit; sNang bral, sKal ldan, Bhavya snang bral, Legs ldan, or Legs ldan ’byed in Tibetan.28 However, to my knowledge, “Bhavyakīrti” does not occur anywhere else to refer to this Madhyamaka master.29 “Bhavyakīrti” is rather known as the author of tantric works such as the commentary on tantric Nāgārjuna’s Pañcakrama.30 I tentatively assume that Hasumati identified or confused the name of the tantric “Bhavyakīrti” with the Madhyamaka Bhāviveka, and used it when he was teaching Pa tshab. Pa tshab wrote it down as his teacher said in Sanskrit and rendered it “sKal ldan grags pa”; afterwards, he replaced it with “Legs ldan ‘byed” for some reason, because he uses the latter in his later work on the PsP. Whether this change was a result of their reference to the manuscripts of the PsP is unclear, for “Legs ldan ’byed” does not exactly correspond to the Sanskrit Bhāviveka either. “Legs ldan

The name Pa tshab as the author of this work was most presumably added by a compiler of the manuscripts on the front page. The authorship is discussed in detail by DREYFUS AND TSERING 2010, whose conclusion is that the work was composed by Pa tshab or a person very close to him. 27 E.g., buta (for the Sanskrit Buddha; Tibetan sangs rgyas), bode (for the Sanskrit bodhisattva; Tibetan byang chub sems dpa’), and ede (for the Sanskrit ādi; Tibetan la sogs pa). DREYFUS AND TSERING 2010, p. 398, n. 19, have also conjectured that ede is used for la sogs pa. They have used the archaic spellings of the manuscripts to date them to the twelfth century (ibid., p. 391). 28 See EJIMA 1990 and SEYFORT RUEGG 1990. 29 The Manuscripts of the PsP, which EJIMA 1990 and MACDONALD 2015, vol. I, p. 2, n. 4.) have investigated, record his name as either Bhāviveka or Bhāvaviveka. 30 He is the author of the Śrī-cakrasaṃvarasya pañjikā sūramanojñā (P2121), Pradīpoddyotanābhisaṃdhi-prakāśikā-nāma-vyākhyā-ṭīkā (P2658) and Pañcakramapañjikā (P2696).

’byed” is considered to be a rendering of Bhavyaviveka. “sNang bral” instead matches Bhāviveka.31 In this commentary on the MMK, Pa tshab frequently adduces the name Bhavyakīrti, instead of Bhāviveka, in the first chapter as a critic of Buddhapālita as well as Candrakīrti’s opponent. This is because Pa tshab discusses at length the Bhāviveka-Candrakīrti conflict in the first chapter, following Candrakīrti’s PsP. This fact suggests that Mahāsumati and Pa tshab were commenting on the MMK with reference to Candrakīrti’s interpretation. At the very beginning, Pa tshab describes the Indian commentarial tradition on the MMK as follows: In this regard, [it is] generally [known that] there are many commentaries on the MMK. Among them, there are four in Tibet (bod?). These are the four: first,

Buddhapālita composed [a commentary], interpreting this [MMK] as [[[teaching]]] prasaṅga. Although the Akutobhayā is known to have been composed by Nāgārjuna himself, some others (pa ra, Skt. pare?) say that it is not so. On the basis of Buddhapālita’s commentary, Bhavyakīrti composed the Prajñāpradīpa and thereby refuted the former’s prasaṅga and interpreted [the MMK] as [[[teaching]]] independent [[[Wikipedia:inference|inference]]] (rang rgyud, svatantr[ānumāna]). Later than the [[[Prajñāpradīpa]]], Candrakīrti refuted the independent [[[Wikipedia:inference|inference]]], defended Buddhapālita, and interpreted [the MMK] as [[[teaching]]] prasaṅga.32 Here, Pa tshab clearly distinguishes between the BuddhapālitaCandrakīrti’s prasaṅga line and Bhāviveka’s svatantra line with regard to their interpretation of Nāgārjuna’s kārikās. For him, the question is whether Nāgārjuna’s teachings should be interpreted as entailing a reasoning of either prasaṅga or formal inferential proof.33 Within the Indian Buddhist tradition, Nāgārjuna’s MMK 31 The early Tibetan translator Ye shes sde (ninth c.) used both “sNang bral” and “sKal ldan,” the latter of which is adopted in Mahāvyutpatti 3495 for Bhavya, as indicated in EJIMA 1990, p. 102. 32 dBu ma rtsa ba’i shes rab kyi ti ka 3b6-9 (38): de la spyir dbu ma’i rtsa ba la ’grel ba mang po (3b7) yod pa las bzhi bod (?) la yod de | bu ta bha li tas dang por mdzad de thal ’gyur da (read du) bkral | rga la ’jigs myed klu grub nyid kyis mdzad par grags na yang pa ra na re men (3b8) zer bu ta ba li ta’i gting la bha phya kir tis shes rab sgron ma mdzad pas sngar kyi thal ’gyur sun phyung nas rang rgyud du bkral | de’i phyis zla grags kyis rang rgyud sun phyung (3b9) nas bu ta pa li gzhung bskyangs te thal ’gyur du bkal (read bkral) ba dang bzhi’o ||. 33 Cf. also dBu ma rtsa ba’i shes rab kyi ti ka 6a6ff. (39): rang bzhin med par bsgrub pa la dngos po yod par smra ba rnams kyis brtsad pa dgod pa dang |

seems to have been studied with the aid of a specific commentary. If Mahāsumati’s teacher Parahitabhadra was, as mentioned above, a follower of Bhāviveka’s view, this means that he preferred to understand the MMK resorting to Bhāviveka’s commentary, the Prajñāpradīpa. In contrast, Mahāsumati and Pa tshab studied and retranslated the MMK relying on Candrakīrti’s PsP, which resulted in their revision of the earlier translation of the MMK. Akira Saito (SAITO 1987, pp. 238f., SAITO 1995, p. 95) has revealed that Jñānagarbha and Klu’i rgyal mtshan translated Nāgārjuna’s root text referring to Avalokitavrata’s (ca. 650-750)

subcommentary on Bhāviveka’s Prajñāpradīpa. They first translated Avalokitavrata’s text that includes Nāgārjuna’s kārikās and Bhāviveka’s interpretation, and then, Nāgārjuna’s and Bhāviveka’s texts. Finally, this team translated two more commentaries, the Akutobhayā and Buddhapālita’s commentary. This procedure of their translation work shows the translators’ preference to read the MMK based on Bhāviveka-Avalokitavrata’s commentaries, presumably because they are more elaborate than the Akutobhayā and Buddhapālita’s commentary. They supposedly did not use Candrakīrti’s PsP. According to Saito, they translated several kārikās following Avalokitavrata’s explanation, while the Akutobhayā and Buddhapālita give a different explanation. Hence, Mahāsumati and Pa tshab must have found it necessary to revise the translation of kārikās in correspondence with Candrakīrti’s interpretation.34 How seriously they intended to eliminate Bhāviveka’s influence from the Tibetan version of the MMK is unclear. But in my view, their retranslation of the MMK based on the PsP brought for Tibetans a shift in

authority from Bhāviveka to Candrakīrti for the study of the MMK . To sum up, Pa tshab Nyi ma grags introduced this new version of the MMK together with his translation of the PsP in Tibet. He also composed a commentary on the MMK based on Candrakīrti’s

brtsad pa de’i lan rang rgyud du smra ba’i dbu ma bas gdab cing (6a7) rang rgyud kyi ’dod pa brjod pa dang | rang rgyud pa’i bsam pa blangs te zla grags nyid kyis sun dbyung ba dang | klu grub kyi dgongs pa thal ’gyur smra ba’i dbu ma nyid du zla grags rang gi (6a8) bdod (read ’dod) pa brjod pa’o ||. Referring to this passage, it may be possible to say that Pa tshab made a distinction between the two divisions of the Madhyamaka tradition, i.e., rang rgyud pa and thal ’gyur ba. They are the two types of Mādhyamikas who interpret Nāgārjuna’s intention as teaching independent inference or prasaṅga argument. 34 According to SAITO 1987 and 1990, they emended some of them, while retained others unchanged due to their misreading of the PsP or for other reasons.

PsP presumably during or shortly after his stay in Kashmir, in which he embedded his teacher Mahāsumati’s explanations. Pa tshab Nyi ma grags thus created a new MMK tradition for Tibetans, which follows the line of Candrakīrti.

2. REWORKING OF THE TRANSLATIONS OF THE MMK AND PSP IN TIBET Around 1100, Pa tshab Nyi ma grags came back to Tibet. He continued his translation work and revised earlier translations of his own or others with Indian paṇḍitas who accompanied him to Central Tibet.35 Among them, Kanakavarman assisted Pa tshab in revising the translations of the MMK and PsP in lHa sa, at the ’Phrul snang and Ra mo che temples respectively, presumably because they gained the second

manuscript of the PsP from the “eastern borderland” (nyi ’og shar phyogs).36 There is textual evidence of the existence of this second manuscript. Pa tshab’s Explanation of difficult points in the PsP (i.e., Tshig gsal ba’i dka’ ba bshad pa) includes the following information about two manuscripts of the PsP: Because the Kashmiri text (kha che’i dpe) lacks the expression “its purpose” (de’i dgos pa, *tatprayojana), the answer of this [inquiry of what is the purpose of the purpose of the treatise] is not explicit in the body of the text either. Because the Indian text (rgya dpe) has this, an answer to the [inquiry] is also

implicitly given.37 35 For Pa tshab’s activities after his return to Central Tibet, see, in addition to Deb ther sngon po, cha 7b4-8a2, SEYFORT RUEGG 2000, pp. 45f. and VOSE 2009, p. 50. With Kanakavarman also Pa tshab revised the earlier translations of the MA, MABh, Ratnāvalī, and with Muditaśrī he retranslated Nāgārjuna’s Yuktiṣaṣṭikā. For his revision of the MA, cf. further TAUSCHER 1983. 36 UEBACH 1987 (p. 95, n. 424) has indicated that nyi ’og is the term of literature in translation and corresponds to the Sanskrit aparānta, which means “am Rand befindlich” in old Tibetan historiography. I follow Seyfort Ruegg’s translation “borderland” (SEYFORT RUEGG 2000, p. 45). Pa tshab and Kanakavarman also retranslated the MA and MABh

relying on a new Sanskrit manuscript from nyi ’og shar phyogs (see the colophon to the MA and MABh, D219a5ff. and D348a5ff.). The geographical location of this nyi ’og shar phyogs is, however, uncertain. Cf. MACDONALD 2015, vol. I, p. 16, n. 37. 37 Tshig gsal ba’i dka’ ba bshad pa 56b6f. (140): kha che’i dpe la de’i dgos pa ces bya pa med pas de’i lan yang dkyus las mi gsal la | rgya dpe la yod pas de’i lan yang shugs las ’debs so |. Cf. also 61b8, where “a certain Kashmiri manuscript” is mentioned: don kyi ngag zhes pa ni ’phags pa’i ngag ces kha che’i

Here it is apparent that the author referred to two manuscripts from Kashmir and India. The Tibetan expression rgya dpe is often used for “original Sanskrit text” in contrast to “Tibetan text,”38 but here it could refer to a Sanskrit manuscript from India compared to that from Kashmir (kha che’i dpe). Moreover, it is most likely identical with the manuscript from the “eastern borderland” (nyi ’og shar phyogs) mentioned above. The “eastern borderland” could be the border area between Tibet and East India or Bengal.39 Although there is doubt about Pa tshab’s authorship of this Explanation of difficult points because his name is merely

inserted to the colophon in small letters,40 I consider this work as his own composition. Who else but the translator, Pa tshab Nyi ma grags, was in a position to see the two manuscripts and indicate a minor difference between them? It is also evident that Pa tshab composed this work in Tibet after he and Kanakavarman had gained the second Sanskrit manuscript from India. In the passage cited above, Pa tshab is pointing out a difference between the two manuscripts concerning the Sanskrit sentence, tasya kāni saṃbandhābhidheyaprayojanāni (PsP LVP, p. 2, l. 5ff., MACDONALD 2015, vol. I, p. 116), which asks about relation, subject matter, and purpose of the MMK. The Indian manuscript Pa tshab used adds to this compound tatprayojana in the sense of the

dpe kha cig las grags so || yang na don gyi ngag ni ngag gcig la don mang po ’dus pa la bya’o ||. 38 For instance, it appears in Zhang Thang sag pa’s dBu ma tshig gsal gyi ti ka 5b1, 10a2, 10a4, 10a5 (YOSHIMIZU AND NEMOTO 2013, pp. 23, 45). It also appears in the colophon of the Tibetan version of the Prajñāpāramitopadeśa translated by rNgog Blo ldan shes rab (see KRAMER 2007, p. 57 and n. 56). For his translation of some Indian texts, rNgog used a manuscript from Magadha called yul dbus kyi dpe (KRAMER 2007, pp. 58, 67, nos. 27, 32 and 48). 39 In Tibetan literature, the expression “east” (shar phyogs) often intends East India, for instance, the expression “three [from] the East” (shar

gsum) refers to three teachers or works from East India or Bengal. 40 Tshig gsal ba’i dka’ ba bshad pa 88a9f. (203) cited below in n. 47. As seen there, this work had wrongly been attributed to Candrakīrti. The compiler or writer of the manuscript may have inserted Pa tshab’s name, as DREYFUS AND TSERING 2010, p. 392 have speculated. Cf. also dBu ma rtsa ba’i shes rab kyi ti ka 1a (29), where, after the title, “here is the commentary on the Madhyamaka composed by the teacher Candrakīrti” (slob dpon zla grags pas mdzad pa’i dbu ma’i ’grel pa zhes bya ba bzhugs so), the compiler of the manuscript noted, “this is not composed by the teacher Candrakīrti but composed by the translator Pa tshab” (’di slob dpon zla grags kyis mdzad pa min par pa tshab lo tsas mdzad yin ’dug).

purpose of the purpose (prayojanasya prayojana), as some currently available manuscripts attest the reading saṃbandhābhidheyaprayojanatatprayojanāni.41 In the above passage, Pa tshab seems to make good use of both manuscripts by interpreting the purpose of the purpose as not explicit but implicit in the text. Candrakīrti does not explicitly state the purpose of the purpose, so that the Kashmiri manuscript does not have it, whereas the Indian manuscript has it

suggesting that Candrakīrti implies it. The second purpose must be implicit, because the fact is that he explicitly states one purpose alone, as will be seen below. This is Pa tshab’s interpretation of why one manuscript has tatprayojana and another does not have it. Interestingly, however, Pa tshab implants in his own translation a different interpretation: what is implicit is the direct purpose of the treatise, whereas the purpose of the purpose is explicit. Pa tshab’s solution is as follows: “What are relation, subject matter and the purpose of the purpose of [this treatise]?” (’brel pa dang brjod bya dang dgos pa’i dgos pa

gang yin).42 This Tibetan sentence includes prayojanaprayojana (i.e., prayojanasya prayojana), but, unlike the Sanskrit saṃbandhābhidheyaprayojanatatprayojanāni, it omits the first prayojana as an independent item. Pa tshab’s intent here is, in my reading, that Candrakīrti explicitly states the prayojanaprayojana in his text, because Candrakīrti solely speaks of nirvāṇa as a purpose of the treatise (PsP LVP, p. 4, l. 1: nirvāṇaṃ śāstrasya prayojanaṃ nirdiṣṭaṃ), and because nirvāṇa is the final purpose of all other purposes, which must be the purpose of the purpose. The direct purpose of the treatise is implicit in the text.

According to Pa tshab, it is “the purpose to make others understand [[[dependent origination]] (pratītyasamutpāda)].”43 Pa tshab’s student Zhang Thang sag pa follows his teacher in interpreting the text in a way to say

41 See TANJI 1988, p. 91, n. 13 and DE JONG 1978, p. 28, 2.6. As de Jong has indicated, “the purpose of the purpose” probably has been introduced by later scholars, who were familiar to setting forth the question about the four topics, saṃbandha, abhidheya, prayojana and prayojanaprayojana, not the first three only. According to MACDONALD 2015, vol. I, p. 116, n. 10, the Potala manuscript (Ms Q) reads saṃbandhābhidheyaprayojanaprayojanāni, while nine of the paper manuscripts attest saṃbandhābhidheyaprayojanatatprayojanāni. Cf. further ibid., vol. II, p. 10, n. 31. 42 PsP D2a1f., P2a6f. 43 Tshig gsal ba’i dka’ ba bshad pa 56b16 (140): dgos pa ni gzhan gyis khong du chud par bya ba’i phir ro ||.

that Candrak īrti presents the ultimate purpose rather than the purpose of the words (sgra’i dgos pa) of the treatise.44 This provides a good example of Pa tshab’s emendation of his own earlier translation as a result of comparing the two manuscripts. Supposedly, he had first translated the sentence as having the three elements, i.e., ’brel pa, brjod bya and dgos pa (*saṃbandhābhidheyaprayojanāni) in accordance with the Kashmiri manuscript. He later replaced dgos pa

(prayojana) with dgos pa’i dgos pa (*prayojanasya prayojana), having looked at the manuscript from India. This is a well considered translation, for it entails both prayojana and prayojanaprayojana, and yet suggests that Candrakīrti explicitly states the final purpose alone, that is, nirvāṇa. Pa tshab conducted the retranslation work of the PsP with the aid of Kanakavarman.45 This scholar was probably engaged in teaching activities with Pa tshab, for Pa tshab’s disciple Zhang Thang sag pa seems to have learned the MMK and PsP not only from Pa tshab but also from Kanakavarman. As I have previously discussed, Zhang cites the

opinions of a lo tsā ba and a paṇḍita several times in his commentary on the PsP, who were to be identified as Pa tshab and Kanakavarman respectively.46 There is some information about Pa tshab’s composition of the Explanation of difficult points in the PsP: this composition took place under a paṇḍita’s guidance. The colophon of this text says that it was composed on the basis of the instructions of the teacher tshong dpon paṇḍita.47 Who is this enigmatic figure, bla ma

tshong 44 dBu ma tshig gsal gyi ti ka 4a3 (YOSHIIMIZU AND NEMOTO 2013, p. 17): dgos pa ni sgra’i dgos pa ma yin gyi nying dgos bla med kyi byang chub thob pa’o ||. 45 Kanakavarman had a long career as a translator. He collaborated with Rin chen bzang po (958-1055) in the translation of the Sarvadurgatipariśodhanapretahomavidhi. He is also known for his translation with Mar thung Dad pa’i shes rab of Dignāga’s (fifth c.) masterpieces of logic, the Pramāṇasamuccaya and its vtti. Cf. NAUDOU 1968, pp. 184f. Although Naudou identifies Kanakavarman as Kashmiri, Pa tshab is said to

have met him at Vajrāsana (rdo rje gdan) of Bodhgayā and invited him to Tibet from there by an anonymous author in his composition based on the summary of Madhyamaka meanings in the way of inquiries and answers between Pa tshab lo tsā ba and Zhang Sha ra ba (pa tshab lo tsa ba dang zhang sha ra ba gnyis kyi dri ba dri len gyi tshul du dbu ma’i don mdor bsdus pa, manuscript 42a2-8). I am indebted to Leonard van der Kuijp for providing me with the pdf of the manuscript. 46 YOSHIMIZU forthcoming. 47 Tshig gsal ba’i dka’ ba bshad pa 88a9f. (203): slob dpon zla ba grags pa'i zhal snga nas kyis sbyar pa | tshig gsal ba'i dka' ba bshad pa | bla ma tshong dpon pan ḍi ta? The Tibetan word tshong dpon means “chief of traders” or “merchant,” whose Sanskrit equivalent is śreṣṭhin or vaṇij. This term can also be understood to mean “distinguished man.” Although it is hard to judge by this name even whether he is Indian or Tibetan, it seems natural to guess that this paṇḍita – from whom Pa tshab received oral instructions – was one of the Indian scholars who resided in Tibet while Pa tshab was working on the retranslation of the PsP. It could have been Pa tshab’s collaborator, Kanakavarman.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

To summarize the transmission process of the MMK and PsP to Tibet from Kashmir and their dissemination into the Tibetan Buddhist scholastic circle through Pa tshab Nyi ma grags and his collaborators, the following phases may be assumed: 1. Pa tshab Nyi ma grags studied the MMK and PsP in Kashmir during his 23-year stay. He translated the PsP into the Tibetan language with the aid of the Kashmiri scholar Mahāsumati, using a Sanskrit manuscript accessible there. They also revised Klu’i rgyal mtshan’s earlier translation of the MMK in accordance with the citations and interpretations of the MMK in the PsP. Since the earlier

translation was based on Bhāviveka-Avalokitavrata’s interpretation, their revision work of the MMK introduced a shift in authority for studying the MMK from Bhāviveka to Candrakīrti. 2. Pa tshab himself composed a commentary on the MMK relying on Mahāsumati’s lectures who explained the MMK based on Candrakīrti’s interpretation. 3. Pa tshab revised his translations of the PsP and the MMK with Kanakavarman in Tibet, referring to the second Sanskrit manuscript from a

“borderland” of India. 4. Pa tshab composed a commentarial work to explain difficult points in the PsP on the basis of Tshong dpon paṇḍita’s guidance. Pa tshab himself left instructions on the relation between the chapters of the MMK for educational purposes (Le ʼbrel pa tshab kyi man ngag).48 dpon pan ḍi ta'i (88a10) gtam ngag la brten [insertion: pa tsab kyis] sbyar ba'o ||. 48 This short work seems to have been composed in order to help students me

Thanks to the discovery of Pa tshab’s works, there are now textual witnesses to confirm that these events actually took place in Kashmir and Tibet from the end of the eleventh century to the middle of the twelfth century. They undoubtedly are of particular significance for the history of the Indian and Tibetan Madhyamaka tradition because they reoriented the understanding of the MMK to Candrakīrti’s interpretation.

REFERENCES

BA The Blue Annals, transl. G. Rörich, Calcutta: The Asiatic Society, 1953 Bod kyi lo rgyus Bod kyi lo rgyus rnam thar phyogs bsgrigs.『蔵族史記集成』dPal brtsegs bod kyi yig dpe rnying zhig ’jug khang. Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang (百慈蔵文古籍 研究室編、四川民族出版社、成都), 2010-2011

Bu ston chos 'byung Bu ston rin chen grub, bDe bar gshegs pa'i bstan pa'i gsal byed chos kyi 'byung gnas gsung rab rin po che'i mdzod ces bya ba, in the Collected Works of Bu ston, ed. L. Chandra, pt. 24, New Delhi: Śaṭapiṭaka Series 64, 1971 dBu ma rtsa ba’i shes rab kyi ti ka Pa tshab Nyi ma grags, dBu ma rtsa ba'i shes rab kyi ti ka bstan bcos sgron ma gsal bar byed pa. bKa' gdams gsung 'bum, vol. XI

dBu ma tshig gsal gyi ti ka Zhang Thang sag pa ’Byung gnas ye shes/Ye shes ’byung gnas, manuscript; see YOSHIMIZU AND NEMOTO 2013 CŚ Āryadeva, Catuḥśataka, D3846 (dBu ma 2), P5246 (vol. XCV)

CŚṬ Candrakīrti, Catuḥśatakaṭīkā, D3865 (dBu ma 8), P5266 (vol. XCVIII)

DE JONG 1978 J.W. de Jong, “Textcritical Notes on the Prasannapadā,” Indo-Iranian Journal 20, 1978, pp. 25-59

Deb ther sngon po ’Gos lo tsā ba gZhon nu dpal, Bod kyi yul du chos dang chos smra ba ji ltar byung ba'i rim pa Deb ther sngon po, ed. L. Chandra, New Delhi: Śaṭapiṭaka Series 212, 1974 morize chapter titles and contents of the MMK.

DIETZ 1984 S. Dietz, Die Buddhistische Briefliteratur Indiens nach dem tibetischen Tanjur herausgegeben, übersetzt und erläutert, Wiesbaden: Asiatische Forschungen 84, 1984

DRAM DUL 2004 Dram Dul (ed.), Biography of Blo ldan śes rab. The Unique Eye of the World by Gro luṅ pa Blo gros ’byuṅ gnas. The Xylograph Compared with a Bhutanese Manuscript, Wien, 2004

DREYFUS AND TSERING 2010 G. Dreyfus and D. Tsering, “Pa tshab and the origin of Prāsaṅgika,” in P. Hugon and K.A. Vose (eds.), Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 32(1-2), [2009] 2010, pp. 387-417

EJIMA 1990 Y. Ejima, “Bhāvaviveka/Bhavya/Bhāviveka,” Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies (Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū) 38(2), 1990, pp. 98-106 bKa' gdams gsung 'bum 『噶当文集』 dPal brtsegs bod kyi yig dpe rnying zhig ’jug khang. Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang (百慈蔵文古籍研究室編、四川民族出版社、成都), 20062011

KRAMER 2007 R. Kramer, The Great Tibetan Translator. Life and Works of rNgog Blo ldan shes rab (1059-1109), München: 2007

VAN DER KUIJP 1985 L. van der Kuijp, “Notes on the Transmission of Nāgārjuna’s Ratnāvali in Tibet,” Tibet Journal 10(2), 1985, pp. 3-19

LANG 1990 K.C. Lang, “Pa tshab Nyi-ma-grags and the Introduction of Prāsaṅgika Madhyamaka into Tibet,” in L. Epstein and R.F. Sherbourg (eds.), Reflections on Tibetan Culture: Essays in Memory of Turrell V. Wylie, Lewiston: 1990, pp. 127-141

Le ’brel pa tshab kyi man ngag Pa tshab Nyi ma grags, bKa' gdams gsung 'bum, vol. XI MA Candrakīrti, Madhyamakāvatāra; see MABh MABh [[[Candrakīrti]], Madhyamakāvatārabhāṣya] Madhyamakāvatāra par Candrakīrti, ed. L. de La Vallée Poussin, St. Pétersbourg: 1907-1912 MACDONALD 2015 A. MacDonald, In Clear Words. The Prasannapadā: Chapter One, 2 vols., Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences Press, 2015

661 M EISEZAHL 1985 R.O. Meisezahl (ed.), Die große Geschichte des tibetischen Buddhismus nach alter Tradition rÑiṅ ma'i čhos 'byuṅ čhen mo, Sankt Augustin: 1985

MEJOR 1991 M. Mejor, “On the Date of the Tibetan Translations of the Pramāṇasamuccaya and Pramāṇavārttika,” in E. Steinkellner (ed.), Studies in the Buddhist Epistemological Tradition: Proceedings of the Second International Dharmakīrti Conference, Vienna, June 11-16, 1989, Wien: 1991, pp. 175-197 MMK [[[Nāgārjuna]], Mūlamadhyamakakārikā] Mūlamadhyamakakārikāḥ. ed. J.W. de Jong, Madras: Adyar Library and Research Center, 1977; Ye Shaoyong (叶少勇) ed.,『中論頌』(Mūlamadhyamakakārikā), Zhongxi Book Company中西書局, Shanghai 2011; D3824, P5224

NAUDOU 1968 J. Naudou, Les bouddhistes kaśmīriens au Moyen Âge, Paris: 1968; [English transl.] Buddhists in Kaśmīr, Delhi: 1980 PsP Candrakīrti, Prasannapadā Madhyamakavṛtti, D3860, P5260

PSP LVP [[[Candrakīrti]], Prasannapadā Madhyamakavṛtti] Mūlamadhyamakakārikās de Nāgārjuna avec la Prasannapadā commentaire de Candrakīrti, ed. L. de la Vallée Poussin, St. Pétersbourg: 1903-1913

dPag bsam ljon bzang Sum pa mkhan po Ye shes dpal ’byor, ed. Sarat Chandra Das, part III, in R. Vira (ed.), Indo-Asian Literatures, vol. VIII, New Delhi: Śaṭapiṭaka Series, 1959

RT Sir M.A. Stein, Kalhaṇa’s Rājataraṅgiṇī. A Chronicle of the Kings of Kaśmīr, vol. III, Delhi: 1988 [repr.] SAITO 1987 A. Saito, “Konpon chūron chibetto yaku hihan” [[[Criticism]] of the Tibetan translation of the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā], Bukkyō kenkyū no shomondai, Tokyo: The Sankibo Press, 1987, pp. 23-48

SAITO 1995 A. Saito, “Problems in Translating the Mūlamadhyamakakikā as Cited in its Commentaries,” in D. Tulku (ed.), Buddhist Translations, Problems and Perspectives, Delhi: Manohar, 1995, pp. 87-96

SEYFORT RUEGG 1981 D. Seyfort Ruegg, The Literature of the Madhyamaka School in India, Wiesbaden: 1981

SEYFORT RUEGG 1990 D. Seyfort Ruegg, “On the authorship of some works ascribed to Bhāvaviveka/ Bhavya,” in J. Bronkhorst (ed.), Earliest Buddhism and Madhyamaka. Panels of the VIIth World Sanskrit Conference, Kern Institute, Leiden: August 23-29, 1987, vol. II, Leiden: Brill, 1990, pp. 59-71 SEYFORT RUEGG 2000 D. Seyfort Ruegg, Three Studies in the History of Indian and Tibetan Madhyamaka Philosophy. Studies in Indian and Tibetan Madhyamaka Thought, Part 1, Wien: 2000

TANJI 1988 T. Tanji, Chūronshaku akirakana kotoba I, Prasannapadā Madhyamakavṛtti I. Translated into Japanese with Notes, Osaka, Kansai University Press: 1988 TAUSCHER 1983 H. Tauscher, “Some Problems of Textual History in Connection with the Tibetan Translations of the Madhyamakāvatāra and its Commentary,” in E. Steinkellner and H. Tauscher (eds.), Contributions on Tibetan and Buddhist Religion and Philosophy, Wien: 1983, pp. 293-303 Tshig gsal ba’i dka’ ba bshad pa Pa tshab Nyi ma grags, bKa' gdams gsung 'bum, vol. XI

bsTan rtsis re mig tu bkod pa ’Jam dbyang bzhad pa Ngag dbang brtson ’grus, bsTan rtsis re mig tu bkod pa’i tshegs chung rtogs byed gser gyi nyi ma’i ’od zer bkra ba, in the Collected Works of ’Jam dbyangs bzhad pa’i rdo rje Ngag dbang brtson ’grus (bKra shis ’khyil Blocks), ed. Ngawang Gelek Demo, vol. I, New Delhi: 1974

UEBACH 1987 H. Uebach, Nel-pa Paṇḍitas Chronik Me-tog phreṅ-ba. Handschrift der Library of Tibetan Works and Archives. Tibetischer Text in Faksimile, Transkription und Übersetzung, München: 1987

VOSE 2009 K. Vose, Resurrecting Candrakīrti. Disputes in the Tibetan Creation of Prāsaṅgika, Boston: 2009 YOSHIMIZU 2005 C. Yoshimizu, “A Tibetan Text from the Twelfth Century Unknown to Later Tibetans,” Cahiers d'Extrême-Asie 15, 2005, pp. 125-163 YOSHIMIZU 2014 C. Yoshimizu, “Chapter Titles and Divisions of the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā in Early Tibetan Commentaries,” Journal of Tibetology『蔵学学刊』9, Center for Tibetan Studies of Sichuan University, 2014, pp. 182-193

Y OSHIMIZU forthcoming C. Yoshimizu, “How did Tibetans learn a new text from the texts’ translators and comment on it? The case of Zhang Thang sag pa (twelfth century),” in The Proceedings of the Symposium: Cross-Cultural Transmission of Buddhist Texts: Theories and Practices of Translation, July 23-25, 2012, University of Hamburg

YOSHIMIZU AND NEMOTO 2013 C. Yoshimizu and H. Nemoto, Zhang Thang sag pa 'Byung gnas ye shes, dBu ma tshig gsal gyi ti ka, Part I, folios 1a-26a3 on Candrakīrti's Prasannapadā ad Mūlamadhyamakakārikā 1.1. Studies in Tibetan Religious and Historical Texts, vol. I, Tokyo: The Toyo Bunko, 2013