Cross-Cultural Transmission of Buddhist Texts

Cross-Cultural Transmission of Buddhist Texts

by Dorji Wangchuk

Hamburg *2016

Transmission of Buddhist Texts

Theories and Practices of Translation

Chizuko 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)

Issues surrounding the theories and practices of translation of Buddhist texts have been an interest for modern scholars from early on, and accordingly have been the main topic of sundry academic gatherings. In February 1990, Tibet House, based in New Delhi, organized an international seminar with the

title "Buddhist Translations: Problems and Perspectives/5 the proceedings of which were edited and published under the same title? After a somewhat lengthy interval, in July 2012, the Khyentse Center for Tibetan Buddhist Textual Scholarship (KC-TBTS), Universitat Hamburg, organized a three-day international symposium on

"Cross-Cultural Transmission of Buddhist Texts: Theories and Practices of Translation July 23—25, 2012, Hamburg). This symposium has been followed by a series of international events focusing on various aspects of translation of Buddhist texts: Shortly after the Hamburg symposium, in December 2012, the K.

J. Somaiya Center for Buddhist Studies in Mumbai organized an international conference on "Cross-Cultural Transmission of Buddhist Texts: Critical Edition, Transliteration, and Translation.55 A year and a half later, Prof. Dr. Klaus-Dieter Mathes and Mr. Gregory Forgues organized a one-day workshop on

"Translating and Transferring Buddhist Literature: From Theory to Practice (May 21, 2014, University of Vienna). The latter was followed by yet another related symposium, dealing with "Studies on Translation of Buddhist Sutras: On "Outstanding Translation (May 24, 2014), which took place within the

framework of the 59th International Conference of Eastern Studies (ICES) and was organized by the Toho Gakkai and chaired by

• Doboom Tulku, (ed.) Buddhist Translations: Problems and Perspectives. New Delhi: Manohar Publishers, 1995.Cross-Cultural Transmission of Buddhist Texts

Prof. Dr. Akira Saito (then at the University of Tokyo). Later that year, the Tsadra Foundation, in collaboration with several other foundations and

institutions, organized a conference on "Translation and Transmission (October 2_5, 2014, Keystone, Colorado), in which numerous academics, practitioners, translators, and interpreters dealing with Tibetan Buddhist texts or oral teachings (or both) participated in various capacities. Most

recently, in March 2015, the Institute for Comparative Research in Human and Social Sciences and International Education and Research Laboratory Program (Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences), University of Tsukuba, Japan, organized a symposium on "Philosophy across Cultures: Transmission, Translation, and Transformation of Thought (March 5-6, 2015, Tsukuba).

I had the privilege to attend all these events and thus to experience first-hand the rapid developments in the field. It was indeed a humbling experience, which taught me not only (a) the complexity of themes relevant to theories and practices of translation, but also (b) the existence of a persistent

interest on the part of various groups——be they academics from the field of Buddhist Studies or Translation Studies, translators, interpreters, or Buddhist masters and practitioners——in exploring and deepening our understanding of the challenges involved in translating and transmitting Buddhist texts and ideas.

The present volume mostly consists of scholarly contributions by participants (arranged in alphabetical order) of the above-mentioned symposium "Cross-Cultural Transmission of Buddhist Texts: Theories and Practices of Translation,55 which took place in Hamburg in 2012. Each of these contributions deals,

in one way or another, with issues concerning the cross-cultural transmission of Buddhist texts in general or with theories and practices of translation of Buddhist texts in the past or present in particular. I would like to take this occasion to pay homage to the late Prof. Dr. Emeritus Michael Hahn

(Philipps-Universitat Marburg), who over the years contributed in various ways to the translation of both Sanskrit and Tibetan texts into modern western languages. Despite his illness, he worked tirelessly to revise and finalize his contribution to the present volume, which he submitted on March 30, 2014,

only about three months before his passing away on July 12. Sadly, he did not live to see this volume in print. I am thankful for having had the opportunity to be in frequent email Foreword

correspondence with him over various issues regarding the finalization of his contribution. Michael Hahn was widely known for being particularly kind to younger colleagues, and I can confirm this with much retrospective gratitude.

It is hoped that this volume, with its rich and diverse contributions, will be of some relevance and usefulness to those interested not only in the cross-

cultural transmission of Buddhist texts but also in the cross-cultural transmission of texts and ideas—— or in specific theories and practices of translation—in other disciplines and fields of specialization.

I wish to take this opportunity to express my profound gratitude to all the institutions and individuals who contributed in various ways to the success of the above-mentioned symposium "Cross-Cultural Transmission of Buddhist Texts.55 My thanks go to all the participants (including those who unfortunately

were not able to contribute to the present volume), and also to the students and staff of the Department of Indian and Tibetan Studies, Asien- Afrika-Institut, Universitat Hamburg, for their help and support in organizing the event. Special thanks are due to Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche and the Khyentse Foundation without whose vision and support the Khyentse Center would not exist and academic activities such as the symposium on the cross-cultural transmission of Buddhist texts could not take place. Last but not least, I thank the Fritz Thyssen Foundation (Die Fritz Thyssen Stiflungjur Wissen- schadenfreude) for their generous financial support of the same event.

How Did Tibetans Learn a New

In the period of the later diffusion dar). a number of Buddhist texts were newly introduced to Tibet from India. Those who played a central role during the first stage of this transmission of texts were Indian pandita^ and Tibetan lo tsa has. They interpreted the new texts they translated and educated their

Tibetan students about these texts. In this way, the Tibetans developed their own scholastic and educational system in their monasteries. This first generation of scholars who contributed to the transmission of Candrakirti^ (7th c.) Madhyamaka works include Pa tshab Nyi ma grags (1055?-l 145?)1 2 and

his Indian collaborators.3 A Kashmiri Madhyamaka master, Jayananda, who composed a commentary on Candrakirti^ Madhyamakavatarabhasya (i.e., Madhyamakavataratikd. D3870, P5271) in Tangut, also worked with Pa tshah's disciple Khu mDo sde 'bar (11—12th c.) in Central Tibet prior to leaving for Tangut.4 5

Following in their masters6 footsteps, the second generation carefully examined Candrakirti^ works as well as their teachers5 interpretation and commented

on the works themselves, as an attempt to present a more elaborate explanation of Candrakirti^ thought. Most scholars from this second generation learned from Pa tshab, and from among them, gTsang pa Sar spos, rMa bya Byang chub ye shes, Ngar Yon tan grags, and Zhang Thang sag pa Ye shes 5byung gnas were

enumerated as his four main students by 5Gos lo tsa ba gZhon nu dp al (1392-1481) in his Deb ther sngon po {cha 8a2, BA 343). Zhang Thang sag pa Ye shes 5byung gnas alias 5Byung gnas ye shes (12th c.) composed a complete commentary on the Prasannapadd entitled dBu ma tshig gsal gyi ti ka. which is available

in a unique manuscript comprising 99 folios.7 We know only a little about the other three students. In addition to the four students, 8Gos lo tsa ba also acknowledges the great contribution of another rMa bya, rMa bya Byang chub brtson 5grus (d. 1185?).5 This rMa bya learned not only from Pa tshab, but also

from Jay ananda and Khu mDo sde 'bar (ibid., 8a4). It is well-known that this rMa bya Byang brtson departed from his teacher Phya pa Chos kyi seng ge (1109-1169) in order to study Candrakirti^ Madhyamaka under Pa tshab.9 Likewise, gTsang nag pa brTson 5grus seng ge (d. after 1195)10 and mTshur ston gZhon nu seng ge (ca. 1150-1210) are said to have preferred Candrakirti^ Madhyamaka system to that of the so-called Svatantrika descended from the masters from the East, i.e., Jnanagarbha, Santaraksita and Kamalasila, which Phya pa followed.11 Given the history of Tibetan Buddhism, it was high time the Tibetans

began to establish the superiority of Candrakirti^ Madhyamaka tradition over that of the Svatantrika. Moreover, it was the beginning of a competition for the best interpretation of Candrakirti^ philosophy.

On reading between the lines of Zhang Thang sag pa's dBu ma tshig gsal gyi ti ka. I have discovered his education, knowledge, ability, and independent and competitive spirit. In the present paper, I would like to focus on the historical, social, and personal influences that resulted in the transmission of the Prasannapadd to Zhang from his teachers and in his composition of the dBu ma tshig gsal gyi ti ka. I surmise that he studied the Prasannapadd and composed this commentary under the following circumstances:

    1. He learned the text mainly from its translator Pa tshab and an Indian pandita.

    2. He further studied and interpreted the text himself, occasionally emending his teachers5 interpretation.

    3. He composed the commentary in order to provide a more elaborate interpretation of the Prasannapadd than other contemporary rivals who also studied and interpreted the same treatise.

1 How did Zhang Thang sag pa learn the Prasannapadd?

In his dBu ma tshiggsal gyi ti ka. Zhang cites the opinions of a lo tsa ba and a pandita several times, which suggests that Zhang learned the text of the Prasannapadd from these two masters. It seems safe to identify this lo tsa ba as his teacher Pa tshab Nyi ma grags. Consider the following account of a debate held in Kashmir, which Zhang reproduces from the lo tsa bah words:

The [story goes] as follows: It was not long after the translator arrived in Kashmir. Harsa(deva) was the king. Because the [[[king]]] knew [[[Sanskrit]]] grammar

well and was also good at logic, many scholars gathered and had minor debates. The way was [as follows]: Ministers and the like became patrons. One dug the ground, put a turtle into the hole, lit fire on it and performed a homa rite. A jar (? go etc. and drinks were served to the scholars. At that time

Somabhadra was also the judge. A rich brahmin became this Somabhadra^ patron and learned Buddhist teachings [from him]. Then the four great [[[scholars]]] including Hasu arrived. Many minor [[[debates]]] occurred. The two, i.e., the [[[spiritual]]] son of the brahmin and Hasu, debated with each other, with Somabhadra as a judge. This [[[judge]]] declared unbiasedly that Hasu won.

Zhang introduces this account in order to illustrate an actual debate that was decided by the words of a judge. He is commenting on Candrakirti^ argument that an inferential proof, the logical reason of which is acknowledged by one party alone (i.e., a non-Madhyamika opponent), is able to refute this party's

thesis, for it is the case in legal disputes that victory or defeat is determined by the words of either a witness or the defendant, independent of what the plaintiff says.14 Now, it is natural to guess that this lo tsa ba. who was present at the debate in Kashmir under the reign of Harsadeva (1089-1101)15

and narrated this story to Zhang, was Pa tshab Nyi ma grags, if we are to assume that there were a certain number of Tibetan scholars in Kashmir at that time.16 Another interesting figure here is the master called ha su^ who might be Mahasumati, Pa tshab Nyi ma grags5s collaborator in Kashmir when he first

translated the Prasannapada,17 although the strange appellation ha su as well as the shortened name "Hasumati55 for Mahasumati, which appears in some Tibetan sources, can hardly be explained.18

A second story about a debate in Kashmir describes the case where victory or defeat is determined by a scriptural authority that is established for one party alone; also the figure called Jnanasri19 20 appears in this story:21

It comes to be appropriate that a scriptural authority is established on one's own [side] alone. For instance: In Kashmir there was a greatly blessed pool

of nectar (^Amrtakundamahadhisthana). When the master of gathering (Ganapati/Ganesa) sat on the throne of this [place], [some Buddhists] were unhappy since

it was the God of non-Buddhists. [They] gave the throne of Ganesa to Sakyamuni instead. Then, Jnanasri gathered all the people and asked [them]: "Is there any scriptural authority which tells [us] to give his (i.e., Ganesa^) throne to him (i.e., Sakyamuni)? Please bring [it here]." [But] there was no such

scriptural authority. [They] asked [[[Jnanasri]]]: "Do you have a scriptural authority?" There was [a scriptural authority which] tells that one should cherish tradition and enshrine [a deity]. Hence [those who replaced Ganesa by Sakyamuni] are said to have lost.

Presumably, Zhang Thang sag pa heard these stories directly from Pa tshab.

If the lo tsa ba whom Zhang often mentions is identified as Pa tshab Nyi ma grags, it may be possible to further assume that the Indian scholar whom Zhang refers to as pandita is Kanakavarman, Pa tshah's collaborator on the revisions of the earlier translation of the Prasannapadd in Tibet, although I have no

clear evidence toChizuko YOSHIMIZU: The Case of Zhang Thang sag pa (Twelfth Century) confirm this assumption.22 One certainty is that Zhang Thang sag pa learned about the text that Pa tshab was just reworking or had finished reworking from his teacher Pa tshab and the latter5s Indian colleague, for Zhang

used the full Tibetan version of the Prasannapada, which corresponds to the current bsTan 5gyur text completed by Pa tshab and Kanakavarman.23 Zhang supposedly wrote down the remarks that the lo tsa ba and the pandita made about the text and used them when he composed his own commentary

2 Independent Reading of the Text

Zhang Thang sag pa was, however, an independent scholar. Referring to his teachers5 interpretation, he occasionally decided whether it is correct or not. In his commentary on the first chapter of the Prasannapada, Zhang Thang sag pa once notes only the lo tsa ba's opinion (23a4f.)24 and twice refers to the opinions of both the lo tsa ba and the pandita. which differ from each other (5b8£, 18a4ff.), without commenting on them.25 At one time, Zhang Thang sag paintroduces different interpretations of the lo tsd ba and the pandita, and agrees with the reading of the pandita while rejecting that of the lo tsd ba. This instance deals with the questioning of the formula of

gzugs la bya sle don gyi bye brag la mon pa mi UhadpaHphyir ro \ \. uWhy does such an object under discussion not necessarily have [the meaning of] addition*? [[[Candrakirti]]] commences an argument by saying: 'A specific object is actually accepted/ 'A specific obgect5 refers, according to the pandita^ to

that which depends on Candrakirti^ specific view. According to the lo Isa ba, it refers to a specific object, i.e., an eye and a visual matter, because addition* is inappropriate with regard to a specific object." *The word "addition" (rnon pa) seems to be used to imply "repetition (mpsa). The Tibetan

word rnon pa should be understood as a variant for snon pa. The pandM^ strange interpretation has supposedly been caused by or linked with the Tibetan translation of the Sanskrit angikrldrlhavisese by an honorific verb zhalgyis bzhes. Cf. Pr D3a2£, P3a7??phrad paH don niphrad nas }byungpa ni rlen cing

^brelpar }byungpa}o zhes don gyi khyadpar zhal gyis ma bzhes pa ? rlen cing }brel par }byung pa ? sgra la yang yod payin la \ don gyi khyad par zhal gyis bzhes pa la yangyod payin le \ mig dang gzugs la brlen nas mig dang gzugs phrad cing mig dang gzugs la llos nas zhes hshad paH phyir ro \ \; Pr LVP 6, 5ff.

(MacDonald 2015: I 123, tr. II 26): praplyarlhas Iv anangikrldrlhavisese 'pi pralilyasabde sambhavali, prapya samhhavah praUilya samulpada ili \ angikrldrlhavisese 'pi sambhavali, caksuh pralilya caksuh prapya caksuh preksyeli (MacDonald reads apeksyeli) vydkhydndl \. "In contrast [to the

interpretation of the word praUilya as repetition (vipsa)] the meaning of [the word pralilya] as reaching is possible in the case that the word pralilya does not have any specific object, for it is explained that origination in dependence is an emergence after reaching. And [the same] is also possible in the case that it has a specific object, for it is explained that "depending on an eye5 is "reaching an eye5 and "relying on an eye.'"

See also dBu ma Ishiggsalgyi li ka 18a4ff.: nye bar sbyar has gsalpar byaspa}i byaspa he du (read throughout: lu)yinpa de hzhin du zhespa nipan li la na re nyer sbyar gyis he du sgrub bya la mi Urul (18a5) bar byaspas nyer sbyar gyis he du gsal bar byaspa^o I I deH don m dam bca}i rjes nyid la he duyodpas he

duH gong du khyab pa ma bslan la \ khyah pa ma hrjodpaH he dus sgrub bya la nges pa myi sJ^ed do \ \ nyer sbyar gyi gong du khyah pa hrjod pas nyer sbyar khyah pa can jin la \ des he du sgrub bya la nges par byas ? er ro \\ lo Isa na re he du gzhung na dngos su med pa de nyer sbyar (18a6) hrjod nas go bar

byas pas nyer sbyar gyis he du gsal bar byas zer ro \ \. "The [property of] being produced (krlakalva) [in the inference that sound is impermanent because it is produced], which is explicated by application (upanaya)^ is the logical reason. [The expression] 'in the same manner5 (evam) is, according to the

pandHa^ [the manner] that the logical reason is explicated by application, because the application makes it clear that the logical reason does not deviate from [the property] to be proven. According to the lo Isa ba, [the expression 'in the same manner5] is [the manner] that the logical reason is explicated

by application, because the logical reason, which does not actually appear in the text [of Buddhapalita], is understood through the statement of application.C£ Pr LVP 20, 8f. (MacDonald 2015: I 155, tr. II 78): lasmdl krlakatuad anilya ili krlakalvam alropanayahhivyaklo heluh \ evam ihapi.

a reverse proposition (viparyaya) that Bhaviveka renders from Buddhapalita5s prasanga statement that things do not arise from self (na svata utpadyante bhdvds) because their arising would be purposeless (tadutpadavaiyarthyat) and because there would be a fault of absurdity (atiprasangat) due to infinite

regress (12b5 infra.)^26 as I have discussed in detail in my previous studies (2006: 2008: 88 n. 21).27

In another case, Zhang refers to the opinion of the pandita and criticizes it (16a2 infra). This is on the question of how to interpret a locative case in the following passage from the Prasannapada, which I type in bold font:

Pr LVP 16, 1 If. (MacDonald 2015: I 147): yada caivam svatantranumananabhidhayitvam madhyamikasya tada kuto nadhydtmikany ayatanani svata utpannaniti svatantra pratijna yasydm samkhyah pratyavasthdsyante, ... | .28

Pr D6a4£, P6b6f.: gang gi tshe de Itar dbu ma pas rang gi rgyud kyi rjes su dpagpa mi bijodpa nyidyin pa de7i tshe \ (D inserts: gang la grangs can dag gis | I) ... | | zhes bya bar gang la gi'angs can pa dag gis phyir bzlog (D ?l(? par byedpar 7gyur ba (D 'gyur Id) \ nang gi skye mched mams bdag (D dag) las skye ba med de zhes bya ba7i rang gi rgyud kyi dam bca7 ba Ita ga layod I. And when the Madhyamika does not state an independent inference in this way, how [could there possibly be] an independent thesis [such as Bhaviveka^ thesis, viz.,] "the inner bases have not arisen from self/" in regard to which the Samkhyas could object [as follows].

Zhang discusses the interpretation of the relative pronoun in the feminine singular locative iovmyasydm (Tib. gang Id). In Sanskrit, it is apparent that this pronoun refers to svatantra pratynd. as Zhang himself ascertains it.29 According to the pandita, however, this can be interpreted in two ways:30

As for gang la (ya.^am)y the pandita says as follows: gang la [refers to] a single thing (i.e., grammatically it is singular). There are two [possibilities of interpretation]: a single thing that is an object (yul gyi cig pa) and a single thing that means [the state of] being present ^odpa'i don gyi cig pa).

When it is connected with [the word] thesis {dam bca\ it is the seventh [i.e., locative] case [in the sense of] object (i.e., visayasaptamt), [Hence] gang la is explained as "in regard to the thesis" [the Samkhya could object]. When [the Samkhya] indicates a contradiction that is a fault in a logical reason,

it is a single thing that means [the state of] being present [i.e., satsaptami or the locative absolute in the sense of svatantrayam pratijnayam sati\.

[Hence] gang la [means], "[if] something would exist" (gangyod) [i.e., if an independent thesis would exist], then it is said that the Samkhyas could object [to the logical reason for this thesis].

Here, the pandita proposes the following:31 when the Samkhya directly censures a fault in a thesis, the thesis is expressed as a single object ?? visaya) in the locative case; however, when the Samkhya points out a contradictory reason ^iruddhahetu), it is implied by the locative absolute, since a logical reason must exist if an independent thesis exists.

Zhang Thang sag pa expresses his disagreement with the pandita by saying:32

It is not so. If interpreted as a single object, it is irrelevant. [In] the saying "in regard to which [the Samkhyas] could o?ect" (gang la phyir bzlog gang [refers to] "thesis" [and] phyir bzlog [means] the indication of a contradiction. If so, it would follow that [the Samkhya] could indicate a contradiction in a thesis, but the contradiction is not in the thesis but in the logical reason. Therefore it must be interpreted [in the sense] that if it would be present [i.e., if an independent thesis would be present], then [the Samkhyas could] object. This means that if a thesis and a logical reason would exist, there could be a contradiction.

Here Zhang Thang sag pa is dismissing the pandita"3 first interpretation. Zhang understands the verbal expression phyir bzlog byed or pratyavasthasyante to be synonymous with 7gal ba brjod pa. Since only one verb is given in the Prasannapada, in Zhang's view, the Samkhya must thereby aim to completely overturn

the Madhyamika5s logical reason. Therefore, insofar as the word gang la (yasyam) refers to pratynd. this locative case must have one sense, namely, the locative absolute.

From this discussion, one may properly surmise that Zhang had some knowledge of Sanskrit grammar.33 Elsewhere, he also examines a translation of the Sanskrit locative form asmin sati^ which is translated asyod pas in a passage cited from the Prajndpradlpa:3(}

[The clause] "because it exists" is [in] the seventh (i.e., locative) case. This is the seventh case [in the sense of] cause (i.e., nimittasaptami) and [means] that [another thing Y] arises from it (i.e., X). Therefore it is said [in the seventh case], "if it exists" fdi yod na, asmin sati).

The translator(s)34 35 render(s) the locative absolute asmin sati as ^diyod pas. not di yod na. Zhang explains that it is because this locative case implies a cause. Although Zhang does not thereby intend to condemn the translation, he seems to explain the reason for the translation as ^diyodpas for ^diyod na. There is, however, one place he emends Pa tshah's translation,36 where he comments:37

[The translation of the Sanskrit??? tavat as] "as long as" (ji srid du de srid dii) is not good, [for] ji srid is to indicate time. In this case, [however], it does not indicate time but it indicates number [with regard to the two truths]. Hence it is elegant [to put] only the wordjz or "as much as" (ji snyed).

Here, Zhang proposes the wording ji de or ji snyed du de snyed du instead oiji srid du de srid du.38 Although this emendation does not seem to be of great importance, it is interesting to see that Zhang Thang sag pa examined his teachers5 translation himself. Moreover, the fact that even the translators

occasionally offer different interpretations suggests that both Indian and Tibetan interpreters read the text independently, unhampered by any rigid tradition. This free and independent attitude seems to have flourished in the course of transmitting Candrakirti^ Madhyamaka.

3. Composition in Rivalry with Contemporaries

Zhang Thang sag pa must have composed the dBu ma tshiggsal gyi ti ka in the period when Candrakirti^ works were beginning to be extensively studied by the students of Pa tshab, Jayananda, and Khu mDo sde 'bar. Although no other commentaries than this Zhang's ti ka and the Tshig gsal ba7i dka7 ba bshad pa.

which is attributed to Pa tshab, are available today, this younger generation must have been more eager to prove their knowledge of and competence in the newly introduced Madhyamaka philosophy as well as in Sanskrit. Poetry, too, constituted an important part of their education. Following Indian writers,

Zhang inserts his own verses in his work, each of which comprises four lines with seven, nine, or eleven syllables in each line; an exception is the twentieth verse, which has ten lines (19b3). In some verses, Zhang gives utterance to his feelings toward others. From the following initial verse of the

dBu ma tshiggsalgyi ti ka? one can infer a strong sense of rivalry against Zhang Thang sag pa:39 Although today fortunate [ones in Tibet40] mostly trust inferior [[[views]]], thanks to good tradition whatever meaning gained from [the] treatise now comes to

be my own; then, on the present occasion too, [I will] give [a teaching] by this treatise [i.e., the Prasannapada\. This [commentary] is to be presented here for friends to see.

Interestingly, a similar utterance is given in the colophon, too:41 42

In period of degeneration, people believe inferior [[[views]]]. Although a fortunate one who makes an effort [to understand] the great treatise is rare like an udumbara tree, I wrote [this commentary] so that some may see.

In these two verses, Zhang Thang sag pa is revealing that he has composed this work for some friends, regretting that inferior views gained general trust at that time. His words would suggest that, in his view, his contemporary Tibetans did not correctly understand the Prasannapadd. As I have discussed

(2013: xiii-xiv), one may well speculate that Zhang Thang sag pa assigned these "inferior views55 to his own classmates including rMa bya Byang chub brtson 5grus, who is also credited with a commentary on the Prasannapadd (i.e., Tshig gsal stong thun gyi ti kd)^ and gTsang nag pa, who, according to the Deb ther sngon po. composed many Madhyamaka works.43

Moreover, in his seventeenth verse, Zhang Thang sag pa strongly appeals for the correctness of his interpretation with regard to Buddhapalita5s prasanga statement:44

I am sure that Buddhapalita^ intention is exactly that which I have explained [here]. The way in which Bhaviveka reverses the prasanga is also exactly as I have explained.

Underlying this utterance is the fact that Zhang gave a very unique and challenging interpretation of Buddhapalita5s prasanga reasoning, which I have

extensively discussed previously. 45 Accepting the panditcC^ opinion that Bhaviveka transforms Buddhapalita5s statement46 into a reverse proposition (pipaxyayd) by way of simple reversal and not by contraposition, Zhang Thang sag pa construes the implicit logic in Buddhapalita5s statement as a prasanga

containing the proof of its pervasion (vyapti).47 In my previous study (2008: 95), I have conjectured that he offered this innovative interpretation for the purpose of establishing prasanga reasoning invulnerable to any criticism from contemporary logicians and the Madhyamaka advocates of independent

inference. This conjecture may prove correct, but I would also like to indicate Zhang's more direct intent to demonstrate an interpretation that is original——different from that given by other interpreters of the same text—but, nevertheless, correct. If, in the future, we will be able to see other interpretations of Buddhapalita5s statement, his intention will become clearer.

Let us now look at another verse of Zhang's, where he also alludes to his advanced proficiency in the Sanskrit language and etymology:48 I have analyzed and explained the etymology of the word \pratityasamutpada\, which is known to be difficult. By this merit, like sun and moon, one may

obtain the source of wisdom (ye shes 7byung gnas). "Source of wisdom55 (ye shes 7byung gnas) is Zhang's own name, so that it sounds like he is the "source of wisdom55 for his great ability to explain the

difficult etymology of the Sanskrit term prafityasamutpada. Indeed, he closely analyzes this important term by himself, referring to some texts of Paninian grammar.49

Such a competitive spirit was presumably the spirit of the time when Pa tshab Nyi ma grags5s students were vying for the honor of best interpreter of Candrakirti.50 Undoubtedly, this led to the later triumph of Candrakirti^ Madhyamaka in Tibetan Buddhist scholasticism. However, compared with later

Tibetan Buddhist tradition, where the interpretation of the founder of a school is highly esteemed, early Tibetan masters seem to have singly aimed to be "originaF5 thinkers.

Bibliography

BA: G. Roerich (tr.), The Blue Annals. The Asiatic Society, Calcutta 1953.

BP: Buddapdlita-mulamadhyamakavrtti. D3842 (dBu ma 1), P5242 (vol. 95).

dBu ma rtsa ba shes rab kyi ti ka\ Pa tshab Nyi ma grags, dBu ma rtsa ba7i shes rab kyi ti ka bstan bcos sgron ma gsal bar byed pa. bKa7 gdamsgsung 'bum?vol. 11.

dBu ma tshig gsal gyi ti ka: Zhang Thang sag pa 5Byung gnas ye shes (or Ye shes 5byung gnas). Manuscript. See Yoshimizu and Nemoto 2013. Bu ston chos 7byung\ Bu ston Rin chen grub, bDe bar gshegs pa7i bstan pa7i gsal byed chos kyi 'bymg gnas gsung rab rin po cheH mdzod ces bya ba. Lokesh Chandra (ed.), the Collected Works of Bu ston? pt. 24. Satapitaka Series 64. New Delhi 1971.

de Jong 1978: J. W. de Jong, "Textcritical Notes on the Prasannapada.55 Indo-Iranian Journal 20, 25-59. Deb ther sngon po\ 5Gos lo tsa ba gZhon nu dpal, Bod kyiyul du chos dang chos smra ba ji Uar byung ba7i rim pa Deb ther sngon po. Lokesh Chandra (ed.), Satapitaka Series 212. New Delhi 1974. ' ' Dreyfus and Tsering 2010: Georges Dreyfus and Drongbu Tsering, "Ta tshab and the origin of Prasarigika.55 Pascale Hugon, Kevin A. Vose (eds.), Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 32, number 1-2 (2009) 2010, 387-417.

Hugon 2004: Pascale Hugon, mTshur ston gzhon nu sengge: Tshad ma shes rab sgron ma. Arbeitskreis fiir Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien Universitat Wien, Vienna.

bKa7 gdams gsung 'bum:???????dPal brtsegs bod kyi yig dpe rnying zhig jug khang. Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang (?????????????????????) 2006-2011. Kramer 2007: Ralf Kramer, The Great Tibetan Translator. Life and Works of rJVgog Bio Idan shes rab (1059-1109). Studies on the History and Culture of the Himalayas and Tibet, vol. I. Munich.

van der Kuijp 1985: Leonard van der Kuijp, "Notes on the Transmission of Nagaijuna5s Ratndvali in Tibet.55 Tibet Journal 10~2 (1985), 3-19.

1993: 'Jayananda. A Twelfth Century Guoshi from Kashmir Among the Tangut.55 Central Asiatic Journal 37-3/4 (1993), 188-197.

Lang 1990: Karen Christina Lang, "Ta tshab Nyi-ma-grags and the Introduction of Prasarigika Madhyamaka into Tibet.55 L. Epstein and R.F. Sherbourg (eds.), Reflections on Tibetan Culture: Essays in Memory of Turrell V. Wylie. Lewiston, 127- 141. LVP = Pr LVP

MacDonald 2003: Anne MacDonald, "Interpreting Prasannapada 19.3-7 in Context, A Response to Claus Oetke.55 Wiener ^eitschriftJur die Kunde Sudasiens 47, 143-195.

2015: In Clear Words. The Prasannapada: Chapter One. 2 vols. Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Beitrage zur Kultur- und Geistesgeschichte Asiens 86, Sitzungsberichte der philosophisch-historische Klasse 863. Vienna.

Naudou 1980: Jean Naudou, Buddhists in Kasmlr. Delhi. The original French version: Les bouddhistes kasmiriens au Moyen Age. Paris 1968. rJVying ma'i chos 7byung\ R.O. Meisezahl (ed.), Die grofie Geschichte des tibetischen Buddhismus nach alter Tradition rNin ma'i chos 7byun chen mo. Sankt Augustin 1985.

Pr: Candrakirti, Prasannapada Madhyamakavrtti. Pr D: Ibid. Tibetan sDe dge ed. no.3860 (dBu ma 7). Pr LVP: Ibid. L. de La Vallee Poussin (ed.), Mulamadhyamakakarikas de JVdgd^una avec la Prasannapada. St. Petersbourg 1903- 1913. Pr P: Ibid. Tibetan Peking ed. no. 5260 (vol. 98).

Pr R: Ibid. Roman manuscript belonging to Guiseppe Tucci referred to in de Jong 1978.

Praip: Bhaviveka, Pramdpradipamulamadhyamakavrtti. D3853 (dBu ma 2), P5253 (vol. 95).

dPag gsam Ijon bzang\ Sum pa mkhan po Ye shes dp al 5byor. Sarat Chandra Das (ed.), part III. Raghu Vira (ed.), Indo-Asian Literatures^ vol.8, Satapitaka Series. New Delhi 1959.

RT: Kalhana "s Rajatarangim. A Chronicle of the Kings of Kasmlr. M.A. Stein (ed.), vol. Ill, Sanskrit Texts with Critical Notes. Delhi 19872 (Bombay 18921).

Seyfbrt Ruegg 2000: David Seyfbrt Ruegg, Three Studies in the History of Indian and Tibetan Madhyamaka Philosophy. Studies in Indian and Tibetan Madhyamaka Thought?Part 1. Arbeitskreis fiir Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien Universitat Wien, Vienna.

bsTan rtsis re mig tu bkod pa: Jam dbyangs bzhad pa Ngag dbang brtson 5grus, bsTan rtsis re mig tu bkodpaH tshegs chung rtogs byed gser gyi nyi ma'i 'od zer bkra ba. Ngawang Gelek Demo (ed.), the Collected Works of Jam dbyangs bzhad, paH rdo rje Ngag dbang brtson 'grus {bKra shis 'khyil blocks), vol.l. New Delhi, 1974.

Tshig gsal ba7i dka7 ba bshad pa\ Pa tshab Nyi ma grags. bKa7 gdams gsung 'bum?vol. 11. Vose 2009: Kevin Vose, Resurrecting Candraklrti. Disputes in the Tibetan Creation of Prdsangika. Boston.

Williams 1985: Paul Williams, "rMa bya pa byang chub brtson 'grus on Madhyamaka Method.55 Journal of Indian Philosophy 13 (1985), 205-225. Yoshimizu 2005: Chizuko Yoshimizu, "A Tibetan Text from the Twelfth Century Unknown to Later Tibetans.55 Cahiers d7Extreme-Asie 15, 125-163.

2006: "Indo-chibetto chugan shiso no saikochiku he mukete, "Chugan meikuron chushaku5 dai 1 sho no shahon kenkyu shidd55 •???????? ???????????1????????? (Toward reconstructing the history of Indian and Tibetan Madhyamaka thought — The launch of the study of dBu ma tshig gsal gyi ti ka

I). Tetsugaku-shiso ronshu ???•?? ???32 (2006), Tsukuba University, 73-114. 2008: "Zhang Thang sag pa's reevaluation of Buddhapalita5s statement of consequence {prasangd)^ Tetsugaku-shiso ronshu ???•?????34 (2008), Tsukuba University, 81- 99.

2010: "Zari Than sag pa on theses {dam bca\ pratyna) in Madhyamaka thought.55 Pascale Hugon, Kevin A. Vose (eds.), Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 32, number 1-2 (2009) 2010, 443-467.

Yoshimizu and Nemoto 2013: Chizuko Yoshimizu and Hiroshi Nemoto, ^hang Thang sag pa 7Byung gnasye shes^ dBu ma tshig gsal gyi ti ka? Part ? folios 1 ?26a3 on CandraklrtVs Prasannapadd ad Mulamadhyamakakdrika 1.1. Studies in Tibetan Religious and Historical Texts, vol.l. The Toyo Bunko, Tokyo.Books that appeared in the "Indian and Tibetan Studies Series55 of the Department of Indian and Tibetan Studies, Universitat Hamburg. Orders can only be made from Biblia Impex: contact@bibliaimpex.com.

   1. Kengo Harimoto, God^ Reason^ and Yoga: A Critical Edition and Translation of the Commentary Ascribed to Sankara on Pdtanjalayogasdstra 1.23-28. Indian and Tibetan Studies 1. Hamburg: Department of Indian and Tibetan Studies, Universitat Hamburg, 2014. ISBN: 978-3-945151 -00-6.
   

2. Alexander Schiller, Die iCVier Yoga^-Stufen der Mahamudra- Meditationstradition: Eine Anthologie aus den Gesammelten Schriflen des Monchsgelehrten und Yogin Phag mo gru pa rDo rje rgyal po (Kritischer Text und Ubersetzung^ eingeleitet und erlautert). Indian and Tibetan Studies 2. Hamburg: Department of Indian and Tibetan Studies, Universitat Hamburg, 2014. ISBN: 978-3- 945151-01-3.

   3. Ayako Nakamura, Das Wesen des Buddha-Erwachens in derfruhen Yogdcdra-Schule. Indian and Tibetan Studies 3. Hamburg: Department of Indian and Tibetan Studies, Universitat Hamburg, 2016. ISBN: 978-3-945151-02-0.

   4. Orna Almogi, (ed.) Tibetan Manuscript and Xylograph Traditions: The Written Word and Its Media within the Tibetan Cultural Sphere. Indian and Tibetan Studies 4. Hamburg: Department of Indian and Tibetan Studies, Universitat Hamburg, 2016. ISBN: 978-3-945151-03-7.
   

5. Doiji Wangchuk, (ed.) Cross-Cultural Transmission of Buddhist Texts: Theories and Practices of Translation. Indian and Tibetan Studies 5. Hamburg: Department of Indian and Tibetan Studies, Universitat Hamburg, 2016, pp. 351-370. ISBN: 978-3-945151-04-4.