Uhuuuuuu
puted for the sake of analysis. This problem is described in the next stanza. STANZA 70 /'jig rten pa yi chos bstan mi 'jig cing/ /yang dag nyid du nam yang chos l)bstan med/ /de bzhin gshegs 2)pas gsungs pa ma rig pas/ /de las dri med brjod pa 'di las skrag/ l)D:bsten 2)P:psa What is shown conventionally to the world appears to be without disintegration, but the Buddha has never actually shown anything with true existence. Those who do not understand what is explained by the Tathii gata to be conventionally existent and empty of the sign of true existence are frightened by this teaching. Here we see that when making comparisons the Buddha and Nagarjuna seem to speak as if things were permanent, that is, do not disintegrate, but this is only because conven tional expressions make things seem permanent. Such permanence would imply true existence for things, which they never assert. People who make such interpretations merely demonstrate their lack of understanding of the Bud dha's intentions. Furthermore, many of these people have a dangerous misunderstanding of the middle way, believing that non-existence is being taught, when actually non inherent existence is being taught. They have fallen into the extreme of the nihilistic view, misinterpreting emptiness as indicating actual non-existence, and this nihilistic attitude causes them to be fearful when they hear the Buddha teach about non-inherent existence. Another misinterpretation would be to take the Buddha's teaching about causality at face value, forgetting his chief underlying thought. This is discussed in the next stanza. STANZA 7 1
I' di la brten nas 'di 'byung zhes/
1 80
Niigiirjuna's Seventy Stanzas /'jig rten tshul 'di mi 'gog cing/ / l)gang brten rang bzhin med 2)pas de/ /ji ltar yod 'gyur de nyid nges/ l)P:kang 2)P:bas It is known in the way of the world that "this arises in dependence on that." Such statements are not refuted. But whatsoever arises dependently does not exist in herently, and how can that non-inherent existence itself have inherent existence? In fact, that non inherent existence must definitely not exist in herently!
Here Nagarjuna reminds his auditors that causality, which in reality is dependent arising, is itself without inher ent existence. It would also be a mistake to believe that the non-inherent existence of dependent arising itself had true existence, when in actuality it too must be without inherent existence. In another context this is known as the emptiness of emptiness. Both are refutations of a subtle eternalist interpretation of a teaching meant to refute eternalism. In the last two stanzas of the Seventy Stanzas on Empti ness, Nagarjuna moves on from this point and summarizes the way in which his middle view leads to a nirviiQ.a which is superior to the nirviiQ.a of the lesser vehicle because it does not postulate the extreme view which asserts an actual non-cyclic existence. STANZA 72 /dad ldan de nyid l )chos 2)la brtson/ /3)tshul 'di rigs pas rjes 4)dpogs gang/ /S)rten med chos 6)'ga' 7)bstan pa yi/ /srid dang srid min spangs nas zhi/ l)P:tshol 2)D:lar rtson 3)P:chu la 4)P:dbogs S)D:brten 6)P,D:'gal 7)D:brtan
Those who have faith in the teaching of emptiness will strive for it through a number of different kinds of reasoning. Whatever they have understood about it in
181
terms of non-inherent existence, they clarify this for others, which helps others to attain 8)nirvii1J.ll by abandoning grasping at the apparently true existence of cyclic existence and non-cyclic existence. 8)Lit: zhi; tranquility. STANZA 73 I'di dag rkyen 'di las 1 )rig nas/ /lta ngan dra ba kun ldog des/ /chags rmongs khong khro spangs pa'i phyir/ /ma gos mya ngan 'das pa thob/ 1)D:rigs
By seeing these internal and external phenomena arising from causes and conditions they will eliminate the whole network of wrong views. With the elimina tion of wrong views they will have abandoned attach ment, closed-mindedness and hatred and thereby attain nirvii1Jil unstained by wrong views. The clarification for others which is referred to in stanza 72 is not considered by Tibetans to be an act of compassion, or of bodhicitta, but a simple offering of the teaching which is an offshoot of the practitioner's own striving for under standing through reasoning. Tibetans hold two views on Nagarjuna's teaching about great compassion. One group asserts that compassion is implied in texts such as the Mulamadhyamakakiirikii and the Seventy Stanzas on Empti ness, while another group asserts that such texts are strictly philosophical and that Nagarjuna's teachings about com passion are to be found in other texts, such as Ratniivali, or Sutrasamuccaya. In any case, whatever our opinion on this subject may be, it is clear that here, in the concluding fifteen stanzas of the Seventy Stanzas on Emptiness, Nagar juna has demonstrated the practical implications of adopt ing the correct view of the middle way. For this view, implemented by meditative practice, will free the yogi from grasping after cyclic existence and set him on the path to nirvai].a.
1 82
Niigiirjuna' s Seventy Stanzas
THE COLOPHON /stong nyid bdun cu 1)pa'i tshig le'ur byas pa zhes bya ha/slob dpon 'phags pa klu sgrub kyis mdzad pa rdzogs so/lo tsa' ba gzhon nu mchog dang/ 2)gnyan dharma grags dang khu'i 'gyur dag las don dang tshig bzang du bris pa'o 1 )P omits 2)D:snyan dar ma These Seventy Stanzas Explaining How Phenomena Are Empty Of Inherent Existence have been written by the Teacher A rya Niigiirjuna and compiled by an unknown editor who referred to the better wordings and meanings of the translations by the translators Gzhon nu mchog, Gnyan dharma grags and Khu. Nagarjuna's seventy three stanzas were translated into English in the years 1 982 and 1983 by the Venerable Geshe Sonam Rinchen, the Venerable Tenzin Dorjee and David Ross Komito at the Library of Tibetan Works and Archives in Dharamsala, India. The commentary on the seventy three stanzas is based on the oral explanations given by Geshe Sonam Rinchen while the translation was in prog ress and later edited by David Komito. The root stanzas and commentary were then orally retranslated into Tibetan and corrected by Geshe Sonam Rinchen. Our translation and interpretation of the Seventy Stanzas on Emptiness pri marily follows the traditions of Sera Monastery, Lhasa, Tibet, and that given by Candrakirti in his ShUnyatiisaptati vrtti (sTong pa nyid bdun cu pa'i 'grel pa) and secondarily follows that given by Parahita in his ShUnyatiisaptativivrtti (sTong pa nyid bdun cu pa'i rnam par bshad pa). Italicized words in the English translation of the root stanzas corres pond to those Tibetan words which actually appear in the Tibetan root stanzas; words which are not italicized in the English translation of the root stanzas are interpolations placed in the stanzas in order to clarify their meaning and are based on the commentaries and on oral tradition.
Chapter Three The Seventy Stanzas on Emptiness and its Transmission
1 83
Section 3-1 Treatises by Nagarjuna Nagarjuna, who seems to have lived in the second century, may be regarded as the father of philo sophical Mahayana. We know little or nothing a bout the circumstances of his life, and the legendary reports to be found in the works of Taranatha and other Tibetan historians obviously refer chiefly to a later Nagarjuna, a Tantric and sorcerer, whose fig ure has become merged into that of the earlier philosophical Nagarjuna in the consciousness of lat ter times. 1 Lamentably, this situation of minimal clarity concerning the details of the life of Nagarjuna has not-altered since 1956 when these words were written. Perhaps we shall never have much in the way of facts about Nagarjuna's life due to the general disinterest of Indians in historical or "biographi cal" records. K. Inada's work NO,garjuna (1970) contains a bibliography which lists all the significant articles and books which deal with such biographical concerns up to the date of its publication. If we survey these citations, we find a veritable quagmire of conflicting opinions. Robinson has quoted a number of these alternative views on pages 2 1 to 26 of his work Early Madhyamika in India and China. From
185
186
his summary it can be seen that scholars are unlikely to ever establish anything like a factual biography of Nagarjuna. I will simply follow the opinion of the majority of scholars and place his activities between 1 50 and 250 A.D. in India. As to the details of his life, I shall simply refer the reader to the above-mentioned references, as such details are second ary to our concerns in this book. The difficulty of identifying the authentic works of the second century Nagarjuna is clearly a more relevant issue, and is connected with the problem of establishing the best redaction of the text of the Seventy Stanzas for translation purposes. Some of the works in the Tibetan canon which are attributed to Nagarjuna have a clearly tantric character, and obviously belong to a later Nagarjuna. For other works, such a method of discrimination is not applicable, for their content is not so clearly tantric. The method typically adopted by the most discriminating Tibetan authorities, as well as by many modern scholars, is to only accept as authentic those works whose style and content closely agree with the Mulamadhyamakakarika (Mula). Thus, in essence, Nagarjuna is defined as being the author of the Mula, and any work which appears to accept or propose views other than those in the M ula is by definition authored by someone other than the Nagarjuna of the second century, and is not considered "authentic. " Such a method has its own strengths and weaknesses. Its strength lies in its exclusion of such clearly inappropriate works as those of the tantra class, for the tantric literature is, by common agreement of all modern scholars, a develop ment which postdates the second century Nagarjuna, no matter in what era its roots may lie. The weakness of this method lies in the tendency of some scholars to exclude works which seem to have minimal emphasis on the pras aJiga style of exposition. Thus, if a work seems to make some positive assertions or to have some Cittamatra tenden cies, for example, these scholars would have to consider it to be inauthentic. The problem here is that Nagarjuna
Seventy Stanzas on Emptiness and its Transmission
1 87
preceded such sectarian splits in the Mahiiyana stream which he so influenced. As the general approach I follow in this book is to express the views of Tibetan scholars, I will also do so in regards to the question of determining what are the authentic works of Nagarjuna. Modern scholarly opinion may disagree with the views of Tibetan scholars, and, indeed, often such modern scholarly opinion is not unanimous on a variety of issues. Lindtner has a very useful summary of the opinions of modern scholars concerning the authenticity of various works attributed to Nagarjuna. 2 But since our general pur pose is to present the Tibetan scholarly view, such disagree ments only become relevant in regards to questions about the authenticity of the so-called "autocommentary" (Shiinya ttisaptativrtti) to the Seventy Stanzas and its appropriate ness for establishing the text of the Seventy Stanzas, so I will simply refer the interested reader to Lindtner's summary. As to the authenticity of the "autocommentary" to the Seventy Stanzas, I will return to this problem shortly. If we turn to the writings of Tibetan authorities on Nagarjuna, we will find that there is a group of works which they all attribute to him and there is a second group of works which is considered authentic by some and is rejected by others. Bu ston, in his History of Buddhism (Chos 'byung) indi cates that there are " . . . six main treatises of the Madhyami ka Doctrine (by Nagarjuna) demonstrating that, which is expressed by the sii.tras directly, or otherwise, the essential meaning (of the Doctrine). " [sic] 3 They are, in the order which he gives them: Shunyatasaptati, Prajiiamula, Yuk tishash#ka, Vigrahavyavartani, Vaidalyasu.tra and Vyavahara siddhi. He further states that Shunyatasaptati expounds " . . . the theory of Relativity [shii.nyata] of all elements of existence, devoid of the extremities of causality (rten 'brel) and pluralism (spros pa) . . . "4 "Tson[g] kha pa in his Gser phren says that the sixth work is considered by some to be the Vyavahara-siddhi, by
188
Niigiirjuna's Seventy Stanzas
others - the Akutobhayii or the Ratniivali, but that it is not correct to insist upon the number of treatises as being six. "5 And he adds, in his rTsa she ti ka chen rigs pa'i rgya mtsho, that the Seventy Stanzas was written in response to an objection raised concerning chapter seven of the Mula. 6 Taranatha mentions "five fundamental works" which according to Walleser does not include Vyavahiirasiddhi. 7 According to Obermiller, this work was never translated into Tibetan. 8 Atisha also lists the important treatises of Nagarjuna. In his Lamp of the Enlightenment Path (Byang chub lam gyi sgron ma), which is a signally important work for Tibetan Buddhism, he mentions only two works by Nagarjuna: Seventy Stanzas and Mula. 9 In his autocommentary to that work (Byang chub lam gyi sgron ma'i dka' 'grel) he expands upon this grouping, stating that similar to these two are Akutobhayii, Vigrahavyiivartani, Yuktishash#kii, Ratniivali, Mahiiyiinavi'f!lshikii, Ak�arashqtaka and Shiilistambakati kii. 10 Taking the Chinese point of view, Robinson notes that " . . . the basic stanzas in the Three Treatises [i.e. , the Madhyamika school] are the work of Nagarjuna and Aryadeva and correspond fairly closely with counterparts in Sanskrit and Tibetan . . . " 11 One of these treatises is called the Twelve Topics (Shih-erh-men-lun, Taisho # 1568). As it quotes the eighth and nineteenth stanzas from the Seventy Stanzas and was itself translated by Kumarajiva, we have an established later limit for the composition of the Seventy Stanzas and a further attestation of its authenticity. Thus, if we define Nagarjuna as being the indiviaual who authored the M ula, then he certainly is also the same Nagarjuna who authored the Seventy Stanzas, and accord ing to the consensus of the indigenous experts, this same person also authored Yuktishash#kii, Vigrahavyiivartani and Vaidalyasutra. These are the agreed upon five fundamental treatises which comprise a class with certain authorship. The second class of works, accepted as authentic by some experts but not considered authentic by others would in.
Seventy Stanzas on Emptiness and its Transmission
189
elude : Vyavah arasiddhi, A k u to b haya, R a tnavali, Mahayanavi�shika, Ak�arashataka and Shalistambakatika. Note that the "autocommentary" to the Seventy Stanzas is not included in either of these classes and that the Aku tobhaya, which is an "autocommentary" to the Mula, is not considered by all authorities to have been authored by Nagarjuna. Besides the karika(s) of the Seventy Stanzas itself (Peking Ed. #5227), the bsTan 'gyur contains three commentaries on the Seventy Stanzas. The so called "autocommentary" is titled Shunyatasaptativrtti (sTong pa nyid bdun cu pa'i 'grel pa; Peking Ed. #5231); it is attributed to Nagarjuna. There is another and longer work of the same title which is au thored by Candrakirti (Peking Ed. #5268). The third com mentary is called Shunyatasaptativivrtti (sTong pa nyid bdun cu pa'i rnam par bshad pa; Peking Ed. #5269), and is authored by Parahita(bhadra). All three commentaries on the Seventy Stanzas, as well as the isolated karika(s) themselves, are extant only in Tibetan. 12 Just one karika has survived in Sanskrit, which is quoted in the Prasannapada. 13 Although the Seventy Stanzas was translated into Chinese, it has since been lost, 14 except for the two karika(s) found in the Twelve Topic Treatise. 15 In addition to the redaction of the Seventy Stanzas kari ka(s) in an isolated form, each of the three commentaries also contains a version of the Seventy Stanzas. As Ruegg says, " . . . the variations between these versions pose a num ber of philological and historical problems . . . . The version accompanying the Tibetan translation of Candrakirti's com mentary, and hence this commentary itself, differs from the version accompanying the commentary ascribed to Nagar juna; and the question arises as to whether Candrakirti knew this commentary or recognized it to be by Nagarjuna. " 16 I will investigate some ofthese historical and philological problems in the balance of this chapter. A parallel to the problem of the authenticity of the "auto commentary" to the Seventy Stanzas is the problem of the
1 90
authenticity of the "autocommentary" to the Mula, called the Aukutobhaya (Peking Ed. #5231). This treatise was translated into German by Max Walleser in 191 1 Y As the karika(s) of the Mula are embedded in this treatise, this translation was the first appearance of the complete text of the Mula in a western language. Walleser accepted the attribution of Nagarjuna's authorship, though later western scholars have taken exception to this view. De Jong does not consider this work to have been written by Nagarjuna, 18 nor does Lindtner/9 nor does Murti.20 The most convinc ing argument is given by Obermiller: As concerns the Akutobhaya, we have the following interesting statement in the Stoii thun Bskal bzaii mig hbyeq of Khai dub . . . It is said that many Tibetan authors consider the Akutobhaya to be an autocommentary (ran Q.grel) of Arya Nagarjuna, but such an opinion shows that they have not correctly analyzed the text. Indeed, the Akutobhaya, in com menting on the 2 7th chapter of the Miila Madhyamika, quotes from the Catul}.satika of Aryadeva with the indication: 'It has thus been said by the venerable Aryadeva.' It is quite impossible that Nagarjuna could have quoted the work of his pupil in such a manner . . . . Similar indications are to be found likewise in Tsoii kha pa's Legs bsad sftin po . . . where it is moreover said that Buddhapa lita, Candrakirti, and Bhavaviveka have not made a single quotation from the Akutobhaya and have not even mentioned it in their works. This is like wise an argument for denying the authorship of Nagarjuna. 2 1 Thus this commentary to the Mula loses some of its author itative character, though its usefulness for interpreting Madhyamika is not necessarily thereby diminished.22 It may be that we face a similar situation with the "auto commentary" to the Seventy Stanzas. As demonstrated by
Seventy Stanzas on Emptiness and its Transmission
191
the case of the "autocommentary" to the M ula, just because a text is attributed to Nagarjuna does not mean that it was authored by Nagarjuna. Following this line of reasoning, there is thus no basis for asserting that the "autocommen tary" to the Seventy Stanzas was authored by Nagarjuna just because the colophon makes this indication. Now this does not mean that the treatise is of no value, but it does suggest that there is no reason to believe that the "autocommen tary" is Nagarjuna's explanation of the Seventy Stanzas or that its version of the karika(s) is either older or more accurate than that in either the Candrakirti or Parahita commentaries. As Ruegg has pointed out, it is not clear that Candrakirti either knew of this "autocommentary" to the Seventy Stanzas or recognized it to be by Nagarjuna. He may have known of it, but not accepted its authenticity, or he may not have known of it, perhaps because it was au thored after Candrakirti composed his own commentary to the Seventy Stanzas. Should either be the case, then the "autocommentary" loses any special significance and should simply be considered a commentary with uncertain authorship and whose date of composition is uncertain, but possibly postdates Candrakirti (approx. 600-650 A. D . ).23 The balance of this chapter should shed some light on this problem, which is important when it comes to selecting the most appropriate redaction of the Seventy Stanzas for trans lating purposes.
Section 3-2 Translation of the Seventy Stanzas During the First Introduction ofBuddhism to Tibet Thanks to the efforts of Lalou, we can ascertain that the Seventy Stanzas was first translated into Tibetan during the Imperial period. In Journal Asiatique1 she has translated a work from the Peking bsTan 'gyur, mDo 'grel Vol. CXXVII, which she has shown to be, in actuality, a cata logue of the Tibetan canonical collection as it existed either at the time of the Emperor Khri srong lde brtsan (775-797 A . D . ), which is Lalou's position, or at the time of the Emperor Khri lde srong brtsan (799-8 1 5 A.D.), which is Tucci's position. He reviews the evidence in his Minor Buddhist Texts2 and concludes that the catalogue in the bsTan 'gyur can be dated to 8 12 A . D . This catalogue was assembled at the "Palace of lDan kar in sTod than" by dPal brcegs and Nam mkha'i snyin po, and contains over seven hundred works. In section XXII, titled "dbu ma'i bstan bcos la," i.e. , shastras on Madhyamika, we find listed a translation of the Seventy Stanzas and one of its commentaries. They are: Lalou's # 593 titled 1/sTong pa nyid bdun cu pa'i chig le'ur byas pal in 74 slokas; and Lalou's #594 titled 1/sTong pa 192
Seventy Stanzas on Emptiness and its Transmission
193
nyid bdun cu pa'i 'grel pal rigs pa drug cu pa'i 'grel pal in 280 slokas. # 593 is of course our very own Seventy Stanzas, as is evident from the title and from the number of stanzas. Though our Peking edition of the Seventy Stanzas has 73 stanzas instead of the 74 mentioned in this catalogue, this should not be considered as counterindicative of our con clusion. We know that portions of a text can be omitted by a copyist and it would be no surprise if a stanza were lost between the edition of the eighth or ninth centuries and that of the seventeenth or eighteenth centuries, or, for that matter, if one crept in. Indeed, stanza 67 in the Peking edition of the Seventy Stanzas is omitted in the sDe dge edition. In this case its authenticity might be confirmed by its existence in the "autocommentary" to the Seventy Stan zas in both the Peking edition and the sDe dge edition (folio 120b2). On the other hand, there is no certainty that the "autocommentary" itself was authored by Nagarjuna. That stanza 67 is missing in the Peking and sDe dge editions of the Candrakirti and Parahita commentaries suggests not only that stanza 67 is an interpolation but also that if either of these commentators knew of the "autocommentary" they rejected its authority. Furthermore, Lalou states that in regards to this cata logue of lDan kar a sloka is meant to indicate a meter of recitation, and not a stanza or phrase per se. 3 Thus the salutation and colophon could have been counted as two slokas along with 72 stanzas in the body of the Seventy Stanzas. Or there may have been 73 stanzas plus either the salutation or the colophon. Unfortunately, we cannot deter mine what is actually included in the number 74. Lalou's #594 presents another difficulty. As no author's name is indicated in the catalogue, we cannot know if this commentary is the "autocommentary," or if it is the com mentary of Candrakirti, which has the same title. As follows from Lalou's statement about the significance of the term "sloka" within this context, we cannot simply count up the number of phrases in any of the currently existing commen-
1 94
taries and compare that number with the number of slokas given in the catalogue. However, as the commentary of Candrakirti is rather extensive, we can assume with reason able certainty that it was not indicated by this entry in the catalogue, which would have been a considerably shorter work. However, the possibility that the commentary is actually by some currently unknown author cannot be ruled out. We can, nevertheless, adduce some other evidence which will demonstrate that, indeed, it is very likely that this commentary from the Imperial period is the same as the one which we have termed the "autocommentary. " To begin with, although the colophon to the "autocommentary" in the Peking edition (#523 1) mentions Nagarjuna, it does not list any translators. However, the colophon to the sDe dge edition of this work (Tohoku #3831) states that it was translated by Jinamitra and Ye shes sde.4 Hoffmann has identified these men as two of the compilers of Mahavyutpatti. 5 This work is known to be contemporary with the reign of Khri lde srong brtsan (following Tucci, above, who dates the Mahavyutpatti at 8 1 2 A. D.), and thus also the catalogue of Ldan kar. Therefore, the redaction of the autocommentary in the sDe dge edition would appear to be a copy of a work which was first translated during the Imperial period. This would seem to have survived the general destruction of texts during the Tibetan persecution of Buddhists during the ninth century. Indeed, the Blue Annals implies that such works had been preserved, as do modern scholars, such as Wayman.6 Additionally, Stein's explorations into Inner Asia and subsequent retrieval of manuscripts from Tun-huang has given us some further evidence in this matter. The India Office Library possesses a single folio in Tibetan of a work which La Vallee Poussin has identified as Shunyatasapta tivrtti. 7 The karika(s) commented upon are 19 through 23 inclusive. As the manuscripts in this collection are believed to be the production of translators and copyists from the
Seventy Stanzas on Emptiness and its Transmission
195
Imperial period, a comparison of these five karika(s) from the Tun-huang collection with the similar karika(s) from later editions of the bsTan 'gyur should be most informa tive. Therefore we include this fragment of the text below, accompanied by the corresponding karika(s) from Lind tner's edition of the "autocommentary. " 8 As can be seen, the Tun-huang karika(s) are much more similar to those in the "autocommentary" then they are to those in our edition of the Seventy Stanzas, which are based upon the isolated karika(s) in the bsTan 'gyur and the embedded karika(s) in the Candrakirti commentary. This further supports the view that the "autocommentary" in the bsTan 'gyur was, as indicated by its colophon, translated during the Imperial period, that it survived the destruction of texts during the ninth century, and is, most likely, the text indicated in the lDan dkar catalogue (#549). Tun-huang: 19 /dngos dang dngos myed cig car myed/ /dngos myed myed par dngos po myed/ /rtag du dngos po'i dngos myed de/ /dngos myed myed na dngos myed myed/ autocommentary: 19 Idngos dang dngos med cig car med/
/dngos med med par dngos po med/ /rtag tu dngos dang dngos med 'gyur/ /dngos dang dngos po med mi 'gyur/ Tun-huang: 20 /dngos po myed par dngos myed myed/ /bdag las ma yin gzhan las myin/ /de lta has na dngos po myed/ /de myed na ni dngos myed myed/ autocommentary:20 /dngos po med par dngos med med/
1 96
Niigiirjuna's Seventy Stanzas /bdag las ma yin gzhan las min/ Ide lta bas na dngos po med/ Ide med na ni dngos med med/ Tun-huang: 2 1 /dngos po yod pa nyid na rtag/ /myed na nges par chad pa yin/ /[ dngos po yo ]d na de gnyis yin/ /de phyir dngos po khas blangs myin/ autocommentary: 2 1 /dngos po yod pa nyid na rtag/ /med na nges par chad pa yin/ /dngos po yod na de gnyis yin/ /de'i phyir dngos po khas blangs min/ Tun-huang:22 /rgyun gyi phyir na de myed de/ /rgyu byin nas ni dngos po 'gag/ /snga ma bzhin du 'di ma grub/ /rgyu chad pa'i nyes pa 'ng yod/ autocommentary:22 /rgyun gyi phyir na de med de/ /rgyu byin nas ni dngos po 'gag/ /snga ma bzhin du 'di ma grub/ /rgyun chad pa yi nyes pa'ng yod/ Tun-huang:23 /skye 'jig gzigs pas mya ngan 'das/ /lam bstan stong nyid phyir ma yin/ /'di dag phan tsun bzlog phyir dang/ /log pa'i phyir na mthong ba yin/ autocommentary:23 /skye 'jig gzigs pas mya ngan 'das/ /lam bstan stong nyid phyir ma yin/
Seventy Stanzas on Emptiness and its Transmission
197
/'di dag phan tshun bzlog phyir dang/ /log pa'i phyir na mthong ba yin/ Returning to the catalogue of lDan kar, we find another title which follows Lalou's #593, and # 594 in consecutive order. Lalou's #595 is a work which is missing from the Tibetan canon as it is currently known to us. The title of the work in the lDan kar catalogue is 1/sTong pa nyid kyi sgo bcu gnyis pal rtsa ba dan 'grel par bcas pal in 600 slokas. This may be translated as Twelve Entrances of Shunyata Com mented (Upon) With Root (Verses). Unfortunately, no author is given and beyond the title we know nothing more ahout this work except that it does not appear in any current editions of the bsTan 'gyur. Apparently this is the same treatise as the work in the Chinese canon called Twelve Topic Treatise (Shih-erh-men-lun; Taisho # 1568) which we discussed earlier, an opinion shared by Lindtner and others. 9 Robinson, for example, has reconstructed the San skrit title of this Chinese translation as Dvadashamukhashas tra. Thus Twelve Topic Treatise is the same as Twelve En trances of Shunyata Commented Upon With Root Verses. The Chinese version is attributed to Niigiirjuna and was, as stated earlier, translated by Kumiirajiva. 10 The text is divided into twelve chapters, each dealing with one topic: the first chapter deals with causes and conditions; the seventh chapter deals with the existent and the non-existent. Chapter one contains a stanza which turns out to be stanza 8 in the Seventy Stanzas, and chapter seven contains only one stanza, which turns out to be stanza 1 9 in the Seventy Stanzas. 1 1 Seventeen of the other stanzas in the Twelve Topic Treatise are identical to stanzas in the Mula. Robinson states that the content of this treatise "is mostly a duplication" of the M ula; 12 its authorship is disputed. 1 3 The occurrence of Seventy Stanzas stanzas 8 and 19 in the Twelve Topic Treatise establishes an historical "later-limit" for the Seventy Stanzas which stands independently of any questions about the dates of Niigiirjuna's life. Robinson
198
believes that Kumarajiva obtained a copy of the Twelve Topic Treatise while still in Kashgar, perhaps about 360 A.D . , though he can produce no hard facts to support this assertion. 1 4 Inada gives the date of its translation by Kumarajiva as 409 A.D. 1 5 At any rate, it was certainly translated before his death in 413 A . D .
Section 3-3 Translation of the Seventy Stanzas During the Second Introduction ofBuddhism to Tibet During the "second introduction" of Buddhism to Tibet, the Seventy Stanzas again became a point of interest for translators rendering Madhyamika philosophy into Tibet an. It appears that much of the initial impetus for the work on Madhyamika came from Atisha, whose name is intimate ly connected with the reintroduction. In his influential work Lamp for the Bodhi Path he writes: The reasoning of the ShUnyatiisaptati, And of works like the M ulamadhyamaka also, Explain the proof for the emptiness Of inherent existence in entities. 1 He thus recommends these works to his disciples and all later generations of Tibetan Buddhists. If we look at the various works relating to the Seventy Stanzas in the bsTan 'gyur, we find that with the exception of the "autocommentary," the remaining two show the influence of Atisha to some degree. Let us therefore now examine these texts and the translators who worked with 199
200
Niigiirjuna's Seventy Stanzas
them. They are: [1] Seventy Stanzas itself, Shunyatiisaptati kiirikaniima; (Peking Ed. #5227); author: Nagarjuna; translators: gZhon nu mchog, gNyan dharma grags and Khu. [2] ShUnyatiisaptativrtti; (Peking Ed. #5268); author: Candrakirti; translators; Abhayakara and Dharma grags. [3] ShUnyatiisaptativivrtti; (Peking Ed. #5269); author: Pa rahita; translators: Parahita and gZhon nu mchog. The first point to note is that of the three translators of the Seventy Stanzas, except for Khu, each of the remaining two is also a eo-translator of a commentary upon the Seventy Stanzas root verses, and in the colophons to each of these commentaries the name of an Indian pandita is also men tioned. However, no Indian pandita's name is associated with the Seventy Stanzas. As each of the commentaries contain the Seventy Stanzas root verses they comment upon, it is my hypothesis that the root verses which are now extant under the title ShUnyatiisaptatikarikiiniima are an edition which was compiled out of previous translations of the commentaries to the Seventy Stanzas. To explore this hypothesis, and also to develop some of the historical con text of the translation of the Seventy Stanzas from Sanskrit into Tibetan during the second introduction of Buddhism to Tibet, we will turn our attention to these translators. The colophon to Shunyatiisaptativivrtti indicates that the treatise was translated at mTho gling monastery by Parahita (who is also its author) and gZhon nu mchog. mTho gling was the center of Atisha's initial activities in western Tibet during the years 1042 to 1045 , and we know from the biography of Atisha that Parahita accompanied him from Nalanda to mTho gling.2 Moreover, we also know from the colophon to Peking Ed. #5633 that Atisha and gZhon nu mchog worked together. Since we may assume that if Para hita accompanied Atisha to mTho gling, he in all likelihood also accompanied him to central Tibet, and since we have ample evidence of gZhon nu mchog's translating activities at mTho gling with other of Atisha's traveling companions, we may reasonably assume that ShUnyatiisaptativivrtti was
Seventy Stanzas on Emptiness and its Transmission
201
translated between 1042 and 1045 A. D . Since the text itself primarily explains the meaning of terms in the Seventy Stanzas, we may also presume that it was composed at mTho gling in the course of preparing the translation of the Seventy Stanzas which is embedded in it. 3 The colophon to the Peking edition of Candrakirti's Shunyatasaptativrtti indicates that it was translated in India at Nalanda monastery by Abhayakara and Dharma grags. Abhayakara was, according to Ruegg, "one of the last of the great Indian Buddhist masters whose works we possess," and "a prolific polymath" who was "a scholar of the Vikra mashila seminary" and "flourished at the time of King Ramapala (rg. ea. 1077- 1 1 30). "4 According to the Cam bridge History of India, Ramapala's reign dates are about 1077 to 1 120. 5 Taranatha states that Abhayakara was upa dhyaya ("gatekeeper," actually a title of respect) at both Vikramashlla and Nalanda during the reign of King Ramapala.6 He may have died in 1 125 A . D . 7 However, such statements do not mean that Abhayakara lived during the entire period of Ramapala's reign; indeed there is evi dence to suggest that he lived at the beginning of Ramapa la's reign, but not the end and that either he did not die in 1 125, or else lived an exceedingly long life. For example, the Blue Annals states that Abhayakara was a disciple of Naropa in the Kalachakra lineage. 8 The date of Naropa's death is not certain. Guenther suggests 1 100 A.D.,9 while Ferrari suggests 1040 A.D. 10 In the biography of Atisha we read that Naropa visited Vikramashila for about twenty days while Tshul khrims of Nag tsho was there, conversed with Atisha, and died several days later. We also read that "Some relics of his remains were brought to Tibet by Atisha. " 1 1 In the biography of Marpa we read of Atisha meeting Marpa after he had left Vikramashila and telling Marpa of Naropa's death. 1 2 This evidence would suggest that Naropa died around 1040 A . D . If Abhayakara died in 1 125, then he must have received his initiation into the Kalachakra at a very young age and lived to a very ripe old age.
202
Niigiirjuna's Seventy Stanzas
Further evidence comes from several colophons which show Abhayakara and Tshul khrims rgyal ba of Nag tsho as eo-translators: Peking Ed. #3965 , #3969, #3975 , #4012, and #40 1 8 . As Tshul khrims rgyal ba spent a few years at Nalanda, invited Atisha to Tibet and accompanied him to mTho gling, it is clearly the case that Abhayakara was active at Nalanda prior to 1040 A . D . , when Atisha and Tshul khrims departed for Tibet. I can find little further evidence which will help us to pin down Abhayakara's dates, and thus the dates of the translation of the Candrakir ti commentary. 13 Unfortunately, if we look for information about Dharma grags to help us in this matter, we find the yield very scanty. 14 Thus it is impossible to ascertain whether the Candrakirti commentary to the Seventy Stanzas was translated prior to Atisha's departure for Tibet or pos terior to his departure, and thus we also cannot know whether or not such a translation was in the possession of Parahita and gZhon nu mchog at mTho gling monastery, and thus whether the Tibetan translation of the Candrakirti commentary influenced the translation of Parahita's com mentary. This also implies that although the colophon to the Seventy Stanzas lists the names of gZhon nu mchog and Dharma grags, we do not know if one utilized the transla tion of the other to produce the isolated karika(s) of the Seventy Stanzas, or if yet a third person utilized their two commentary translations to produce the isolated karika(s) of the Seventy Stanzas. The third person listed in the Seven ty Stanzas colophon might seem to be a likely candidate; unfortunately, this third translator, whose name is Khu, is also hard to pin down, as Khu is the name of a clan which produced a number of able translators. Two likely candi dates do emerge, however. Khu ston brtson 'grus byung drung (101 1 - 1075)15 was born in eastern Tibet, and "conducted extensive studies under Jo bo se btsun" in Khams. 16 He later became a disciple of Atisha17 and did some translation work with
Seventy Stanzas on Emptiness and its Transmission
203
him. 1 8 He is also known to have taught the Prajfiiiparamita at Thang po che. It is possible that he is the Khu mentioned in the Seventy Stanzas colophon. If so, this is particularly interesting as we have already established that the "auto commentary" survived the persecution and text destruction of the ninth century, and was thus probably current in eastern Tibet where the practice of Buddhism was maintained. 19 Perhaps Khu ston brought this "autocom mentary" with him to central Tibet and utilized it, along with the other commentaries, in establishing the edition of the Seventy Stanzas? We simply do not have adequate evi dence to know. Moreover, there is a second Khu who is perhaps even a more likely candidate to be the Khu of the Seventy Stanzas colophon. The Blue Annals indicates that Pa tshab nyi ma grags, who was born in lOSS A.D. ,20 spent twenty three years in India, was active in the early twelfth century as a great expositor of the Miidhyamika system according to Candra klrti, and also states that his disciples were responsible for the spread of Madhyamika in central Tibet. 21 "The great commentary composed by the Acarya Candrakirti on the sTong pa nyid bdun cu pa (ShUnyatiisaptati) has been trans lated by Abhaya and sNur dharma grags. sPa tshab [sic] with the pandita Mudita revised more than 300 slokas of the first part of this commentary. "22 We know from the col ophon to Sutrasamuccaya (Tohoku #3934), that a Khu mdo sde 'bar worked with Pa tshab. We also find Khu mdo's name in other colophons to works by Niigiirjuna (for exam ple, Peking Ed. #S230 and #2666). We also know that Pa tshab prepared translations of Niigiirjuna's Yuktishashfikii and its commentaries, as well as Candrakirti's Prasannapa dii and Madhyamakiivatiira. Perhaps it was Pa tshab's col league or disciple Khu mdo who, working in Pa tshab's circle of translators, prepared an edition of the Seventy Stanzas based on the three available commentaries? We do know that among Pa tshab's "four sons" (i.e., his chief disciples), Zhang thang sag pa founded Thang sag monas-
204
tery, where he taught Madhyamika in accordance with Can drakirti's interpretation. The Blue Annals state that "due to him the teaching of the Madhyamika system continued up to the present time [i.e., 1476 A.D. when composition of the Blue Annals began] in Thang sag. "23 The inhabitants of this monastery "which was of great benefit for the Madhyamika system" include both Candrakirti and Para hita through Pa tshab in their lineage,24 which clearly sug gests that they had access to both commentaries on the Seventy Stanzas. In the end, there seems inadequate evidence to determine who this Khu mentioned in the Seventy Stanzas actually was, nor is the evidence adequate to arrive at a final conclu sion about the origin of the edition of the isolated karika(s) of the Seventy Stanzas in the bsTan 'gyur. Finally, one must even suppose that Bu ston ( 1290- 1 364 A. D.), who actually determint>d which treatises and redactions were to be in cluded in the bsTan 'gyur, might have had a hand in the final editing of the Seventy Stanzas. For one thing, the actual original manuscript of the Candrakirti commentary of Dharma grags (either the Tibetan or the Sanskrit, which one is unclear) was preserved at Bu ston's monastery of Zha lu up until the 1 940's. 25 Perhaps, in the end, he compared the versions of the Seventy Stanzas in the three commentar ies, produced an edited version based on those three, linked the names of the original translators of the differing com mentaries in a new colophon, and it is his edition which has come down to us as the Seventy Stanzas in the bsTan 'gyur! The karika(s) of the Seventy Stanzas do, at any rate, read differently at places than do the karika(s) in the commentar ies on it, although their meanings generally agree. For the most part the Candrakirti and Parahita commentaries have quite similar versions of the Seventy Stanzas root verses and these are in closer agreement with the isolated root verses of the Seventy Stanzas than are the root verses in the "auto commentary. " Lindtner, who also notes this, suggests that the latter commentary may have been unknown to those
Seventy Stanzas on Emptiness and its Transmission
205
who prepared the former two commentaries, as does Ruegg.26 The evidence which we have thus far adduced in this chapter would tend to support this conclusion. We are thus left with what appear to be two separate transmissions of the Seventy Stanzas. One is represented by the isolated Seventy Stanzas karika(s) in the bsTan 'gyur, the Candra kirti commentary and the Parahita commentary, and the other is represented by the "autocommentary. " Although the Tibetan version of the "autocommentary" is certainly older than the Tibetan versions of the Candrakirti and Parahita commentaries, this says nothing about the age of the Sanskrit originals. Finally, we have no clear information which would allow us to date the redaction of the isolated karika(s) of the Seventy Stanzas in the bsTan 'gyur, although it seems probable that they are based on the Can drakirti and Parahita commentaries. There is thus no basis for determining which transmis sion is derived from the oldest Sanskrit redaction of the Seventy Stanzas nor which transmission is the more accurate translation of the lost Sanskrit original. Thus a decision about the most accurate reading for establishing a text edition or translation of the Seventy Stanzas is left in the hands of individual contemporary translators who must make such judgements in accordance with other criteria.
Section 3-4 Contemporary Translation Activities Among Nagarjuna's treatises, the Seventy Stanzas seems not to have aroused too much interest on the part of translators until about the last ten years. No doubt this is due, in part, to the difficulties of the text and its discrepencies in the commentaries, the loss of the Sanskrit original and the assumption that for the most part it merely duplicates argu ments made in the Mula. As to this assumption, readers who compare the two texts will find that this is not entirely the case, although in both style and content the two trea tises are similar enough to assure that they were composed by the same author. In recent years the Seventy Stanzas has been translated into Danish 1 and Japanese.2 A number of stanzas of the Seventy Stanzas have been translated into English in various scholarly articles and popular books. 3 The first complete translation of the Seventy Stanzas into English was my own in 1 979.4 In 198 1 Luvsantseren published an English trans lation of the Seventy Stanzas5 which was followed by Lindt ner's in 1982 .6 Unfortunately, as Luvsantseren's transla tion was published in Mongolia I have been unable to obtain a copy. 206
Seventy Stanzas on Emptiness and its Transmission
207
Lindtner, in commenting on his translation of the Seven ty Stanzas states "Though I have consulted C[andrakirti] and P[arahita] my translation of the karikas strictly follows the svavrtti [autocommentary] which must, of course, re main the final authority in questions of interpretation. "7 I see no reason why the "autocommentary" should remain "the final authority. " As I have shown, the "autocommen tary" was translated several centuries prior to the Candra kirti and Parahita commentaries and independently of them. But this does not mean that it was authored prior to these commentaries, and there is some evidence to suggest that indeed it was not authored prior to them (cf. section 3-1). There also is no certainty that the "autocommentary" was actually authored by Nagarjuna. It may have been, but it may not have been; in the case of the "autocommentary" on the Mu/a (Akutobhayii) scholarly opinion leans in the direction of refuting the attribution of authorship to Nagar juna, as I also have suggested (cf. section 3-1) and as Lind tner suggests. 8 Though the original translation of the "auto commentary" certainly predates the translation of the Can drakirti and Parahita commentaries as well as the isolated karika(s) of the Seventy Stanzas in the bsTan 'gyur, there is no reason to assume that any one of the Sanskrit redactions of the Seventy Stanzas which were translated and worked into the Tibetan translations of the commentaries was a more faithful copy of the second or third century A.D. original. Nor is there any reason to presume that an earlier translation is more accurate than a later translation. There is thus no reason to presume the superiority of the "auto commentary" as a basis for establishing the text of the Seventy Stanzas or for making translations or interpreta tions. On the other hand, there is also no fundamental reason for not using the "autocommentary" for establishing the text of the Seventy Stanzas or for guidance in translating it or interpreting it. As I suggested in section 3-3, the "autocommentary" represents one transmission of the Seventy Stanzas while the Candrakirti and Parahita com mentaries represent another. The isolated karika(s) of the
208
Niigiirjuna's Seventy Stanzas
Seventy Stanzas in the bsTan 'gyur are probably connected to the Candrakirti and Parahita transmissions, and were certainly edited after these two commentaries were trans lated, but the "autocommentary" may also have been con sulted by the editor who prepared this redaction of the Seventy Stanzas. My aim in translating and presenting the Seventy Stanzas has been to document what the contemporary Tibetan tradition believes Nagarjuna to be saying, and to place this explication in the framework of the monastic educational curriculum because the texts studied in this curriculum determine the interpretations given to Na"garjuna. Since this tradition selfconsciously places itself in the lineage which follows Candrakirti's interpretation of Nagarjuna, it makes sense to use the Candrakirti commentary as the basis for making interpretations of the Seventy Stanzas. We have used all the available commentaries and versions of the Seventy Stanzas when clarifying obscurities and scrib al errors in the Tibetan text of the Seventy Stanzas. When discrepencies in the texts have gone beyond this and there has been no other way to establish the best reading of the text we have followed Candrakirti, both to establish the text and to translate it. In truth I can make no claim that the translation of the Seventy Stanzas in this volume is a com pletely accurate version of what Nagarjuna was saying when he wrote the Seventy Stanzas. There have been too many centuries of copying, editing and interpreting the karika(s) for any translator to make such a claim. Moreover, every translator brings certain philosophical assumptions into the activity of translating, and the resultant text bears the stamp of these assumptions. Different assumptions also effect the choice of redactions used as the bases for the translation. As we have followed the Candrakirti commen tary to clarify difficulties in the Seventy Stanzas text, our translation of the Seventy Stanzas differs in places from Lindtner's, who has followed the "autocommentary. " This does not make either translation superior to the other: each
Seventy Stanzas on Emptiness and its Transmission
209
is correct in what it translates. One claim that I can make, however, is that our translation is an accurate rendering of what contemporary Tibetans of the dGe lugs pa sect say Nagarjuna means, and this is all we had in mind. In a larger cultural sense, however, there is a problem with assuming that English speakers will be able to under stand what Tibetans say Nagarjuna means simply because they say it in English or because I have translated it into English. Concepts like "inherent existence" (svabhava; rang bzhin) or "emptiness" (shiinyata, stong pa nyid) or even "permanence" (nityatva, rtag pa nyid) all have special technical meanings in a treatise such as the Seventy Stanzas. These are familiar to a Tibetan monk who has engaged in many years of formal study of the various treatises which explain these terms and their significance in the larger Buddhist scriptural context. Most English speakers do not have the benefit of such an education, and so lacking the proper context for understanding the terms in the Seventy Stanzas, may misinterpret their meanings. We have sought to minimize this problem by interpolating many words into our translation of the Seventy Stanzas which do not appear in the Tibetan text and by providing a stanza by stanza commentary on it. To maintain a distinction between those words which do and do not appear in the Tibetan text, in section 2-2 we have italicized those English words which literally translate words in the Tibetan text, and left our interpolated words without italicization. For the scholar, the Tibetan text is also provided. I have already indicated how we established the text. To provide a more systematic insight into the scriptural context in which Tibetan monks function when reading Nagarjuna and to aid the reader in understanding the thrust of the arguments in the Seventy Stanzas I have written a chapter which outlines some fundamentals of Buddhist thought ( 1 -2), epistemology ( 1-3) and psychology ( 1 -4 and 1-5). I have also written a section which summarizes the basic elements of Nagarjuna's discourse ( 1 -6).
Footnotes FOOTNOTES, Preface 1 . I have discussed this issue and the value of Bud dhadharma for the practice of psychotherapy in the west in: Komito, "Tibetan Buddhism and Psychotherapy: A Con versation with the Dalai Lama," and "Tibetan Buddhism and Psychotherapy: Further Conversations with the Dalai Lama."
FOOTNOTES, Section 1 -2 1 . Majjhima Nikiiya, 1 .262; Samyutta Nikiiya, 2 . 28 . 2 . Conze, Buddhist Thought in India, p. 1 5 . 3 . Dhammasangani 1309. 4. Segal, "Sleep and The Inner Landscape: An interview with the Tibetan physician Dr. Yeshe Dhonden," p. 3 1 . FOOTNOTES, Section 1 -3 1 . Elaborated in Dharmakirti's Commentary to Ideal Mind, Pramiir}llviirttikiikiirikii, Tshad ma rnam 'grel gyi tshig le'ur byas pa. A complete outline of Dharmakirti's episte mology can be found in Rabten, The Mind and its Functions. In this section I only discuss those aspects of this episternal210
Footnotes
211
ogy that are directly relevant to understanding the Seventy Stanzas. This epistemology is also presented, in a somewhat different arrangement, in Akya Yong dzin, A Compendium of Ways of Knowing and Rinbochay and Napper, Mind in Tibetan Buddhism. 2. Cf. also stanza 62 .
FOOTNOTES, Section 1-4 1 . Especially Asarlga's Compendium of Abhidharma, Abhidharmasamuccaya, mNgon pa kun btus. Asarlga's system is summarized in Rabten, The Mind and its Functions. 2. Rabten, ibid. , p . 5 2 . 3 . Ibid. 4. Ibid. , p. 59. 5. Ibid. , p. 58. FOOTNOTES, Section 1 -5 1 . Taken from the Visuddhimagga as translated by Conze in Buddhist Meditation, p. 1 1 3-1 1 8 . I have substituted the term "dhyana" for "jhana" throughout. 2 . The description of the meditative path is extremely complex, and what follows is a mere thumbnail sketch which, for the sake of brevity, leaves out many important details. A full detailed description of these techniques of meditation can be found in Rinbochay et al. , Meditative States in Tibetan Buddhism. A detailed description of the path in regards to taking emptiness as the object of medita tion can be found in Hopkins, Meditation on Emptiness. 3 . The Tibetan view is that to obtain this final path one must take up the practice of tantra; cf. Hopkins, ibid. , p. 109- 123. FOOTNOTES, Section 1 -6 1 . Cf. section 1-2 and Hopkins' various discussions of ignorance listed on p. 996 of Meditation on Emptiness. Hop kins' book is the most complete exposition of the Tibetan interpretation of Candrakirti now available in English; it
212
expounds in detail many of the points I have summarized in this section. 2 . Prasannapada, folio 456-7; Sprung, Lucid Exposition of the Middle Way, p. 2 1 1 . Sprung's book is the most complete translation of Candrakirti's Prasannapada now available in English. 3 . Seventy Stanzas, stanza 2. Here nirvai].a refers to "in trinsic" or "natural" nirvai].a; cf. stanza 63.
FOOTNOTES, Section 3-1 1 . Hoffmann, Religions of Tibet, p. 32. 2. Lindtner, Nagarjuniana, p. 9- 1 7 . 3 . Obermiller, History of Buddhism, Vol. I, p. 50. 4. Ibid . , p. 5 1 . 5 . Obermiller, "The Doctrine of Prajiiaparamita as Ex posed in the Abhisamayalamkara of Maitreya," Acta Orient alia, XI, p. 4 . 6 . Tsong kha p a , rTsa she ti k a chen rigs pa'i rgya mtsho, p. 26-27. 7 . Chattopadhyaya, Taranatha's History of Buddhism in India, chapter on Nagarjuna. Walleser, Life of Nagarjuna, p. 434, as quoted in Robinson, Early Madhyamika in India and China, p . 26. 8 . Obermiller, "The Doctrine of Prajiiaparamita as Ex posed in the Abhisamayalamkara of Maitreya," in Acta Orientalia XI, p. 4 . 9 . Peking Ed. #5344, folio 276b. 10. Peking Ed. #5345 , folio 324a. 1 1 . Robinson, Early Madhyamika in India and China, p. 28. 1 2 . Murti, The Central Philosophy of Buddhism, p. 89; Lindtner, Nagarjuniana, p. 3 1-33 . 1 3 . la Vallee Poussin, Prasannapada, p. 89. 14. Ramanan, Nagarjuna's Philosophy, p. 36. 1 5 . Robinson, Early Madhyamika in India and China, p. 32; Hsueh-li Cheng, Nagarjuna's 'Twelve Gate Treatise,' translates Seventy Stanzas stanza 8 on p. 56 and stanza 19 on p. 85, but does not provide the text.
Footnotes
213
16. Ruegg, The Literature of The Madhyamaka School of Philosophy in India, p. 2 1 . 17. Walleser, Die M ittlere des Niigiirjuna nach der tibetischen version ubertragen. 1 8 . De Jong, Cing Chapitres de la Prasannapadii, p. IX . 19. Lindtner, Nagarjuniana, p. 15-16. 20. Murti, The Central Philosophy of Buddhism, p . 89. 2 1 . Obermiller, "The Doctrine of Prajiiaparamita as Ex posed in the Abhisamayalamkara of Maitreya," Acta Orient alia XI, p . 4-5 . 22. Streng, Emptiness, p. 239. 23. Ruegg, The Literature of the Madhyamaka School of Philosophy in India, p. 7 1 .
FOOTNOTES, Section 3-2 1 . 1953, p. 3 1 3 . 2 . Tucci, Minor Buddhist Texts, Part 11, p . 52-54. 3. Journal Asiatique, 1953, p. 3 1 5 . 4. Folio 27a, and also Inada, Niigiirjuna, p. 188. 5. Hoffmann, Tibet: A Handbook, p. 133. 6. Roerich, The Blue Annals, p. 45 , and also Wayman, Calming the Mind and Discerning the Real, p. 5 . See also section 3-3 note 19. 7. la Vallt!e Poussin, Catalogue of the Tibetan Manuscripts from the India Office Library, p. 204. 8. Lindtner, Nagarjuniana, p. 42-44. 9. Ibid. , p. 1 1 . 10. Robinson, Early Miidhyamika in India and China, p. 26-27. 1 1 . Hsueh-li Cheng, Niigiirjuna's 'Twelve Gate Treatise,' p. 56 and 85 . 12. Robinson, Early Miidhyamika in India and China, p. 32-33. 13. Lindtner, Nagarjuniana, p. 1 1 ; Cheng, Niigiirjuna's 'Twelve Gate Treatise,' p. 27. 14. Robinson, Early Miidhyamika in India and China, p. 72 . 1 5 . Inada, Niigiirjuna, p. 19 1 .
2 14
Niigiirjuna's Seventy Stanzas
FOOTNOTES, Section 3-3 1 . Peking Ed. #5344, folio 276b. 2 . Das, Journal of the Buddhist Text Society, p. 29. 3. See Komito, A Study of Niigiirjuna's 'Sunyatii-saptati kiirikii-niima,' p. 33-36 for further details concerning Para hita and gZhon nu mchog. 4. Ruegg, "The gotra, ekayana and tathagatagarbha theories of the Prajiiaparamita according to Dharmamitra and Abhayakaragupta," in Prajiiiipiiramitii and Related Sys tems, p. 284. 5. Vol. Ill , p. 5 1 1 . 6. Chattopadhyaya, Tiiriinatha's History of Buddhism in India, p. 329. 7 . "According to Sum pa Ye shes dpal 'byor('s) Re'u mig Abhayakaragupta died in shin sbrul 1 125." Ruegg, The Literature of the Madhyamaka School of Philosophy in India, p . 1 14. 8. Roerich, The Blue Annals, p. 760. 9. The Life and Teaching of Niiropa, Introduction. 1 0 . Ibid . , note 2 . 1 1 . Das, "Indian Pandits in Tibet," in Journal of the Buddhist Text and Research Society, Vol. I, part 1 , p. 2 1 . 1 2 . Bacot, La Vie de Marpa, p . 34. 1 3 . See Komito, A Study of Niigiirjuna's 'Sunyatii-saptati kiirikii-niima , ' p . 3 6 - 4 3 for more information on Abhayakara. 14. Ibid . , p. 43-44. 1 5 . Roerich, The Blue Annals, p. 93-94 and p. 404. 16. Ibid. , p. 93 . 1 7 . Chattopadhyaya, Atisha and Tibet, p. 363. 1 8 . Cf. colophon to Peking Ed. #5028. 1 9 . "In his [rNgog lo tsa ba blo ldan shes rab, born 1059 A.D.] teaching he followed the traditions of the Prajiiapara mita as taught during the period of the early spread of the Doctrine and which had been preserved in Khams. " Roerich, The .Blue Annals, p . 328 and p. 330. 20. Ruegg, The Literature of the Madhyamaka School of =
Footnotes
215
Philosophy in India, p. 1 14. 2 1 . Roerich, The Blue Annals, p. 34 1-343 . 22. Ibid. , p. 342 . 23. Ibid . , p. 344-45. 24. Ibid. , p. 344. 2 5 . Ibid. , p. 342 . 26. Lindtner, Nagarjuniana, p. 32; Ruegg, The Litera ture of the Madhyamaka School of Philosophy in India, p. 20. FOOTNOTES, Section 3-4 1 . Lindtner, Niigiirjuna's Filosofiske Voerker, 1982 . 2 . Uryuzu, Daijo Butten XIV. 3. Dalai Lama XIV and Hopkins, The Buddhism of Tibet and the Key to the Middle Way, 1 975 , translates Seventy Stanzas 5ab on p . 69 and stanza 64 on p. 75 . Wayman, Calming the Mind and Discerning the Real, 1978, translates stanza 1 on p. 276 and stanza 68 on p. 1 95 . Ruegg, The Literature of the Madhyamaka School of Philosophy in India, 198 1 , translates stanzas 58, 69, 70, 7 1 and 72 on p . 2 1 . Cheng, Niigiirjuna's 'Twelve Gates Treatise,' 1982, translates stanza 19 from the Chinese on p. 85 and apparently, though there is no formal attribution to this effect, stanza 8 on p. 56. 4. Komito, A Study of N_iigiirjuna's 'Sunyatii-saptati kiirikii-niima,' 1979. 5 . Luvsantseren, Philosophical Views of Niigiirjuna, 198 1 . Reviewed in Buddhists for Peace, Journal of the Asian Buddhist Conference for Peace, Vol. 3 ( 198 1), p. 63. 6. Lindtner, Nagarjuniana, 1982 . 7. Ibid. , p. 32-33. 8 . Ibid. , p. 15-16.
Entries under "Peking Edition" refer to The Tibetan Tripi taka, D . T . Suzuki, ed. Tokyo: Otani University, 1962. Akya Yong dzin. Blo rigs kyi sdom tshig blang dor gsal ba'i me long. Translated by Geshe Ngawang Dhargyey et al. as A Compendium of Ways of Knowing. Dharamsala: Library of Tibetan Works and Archives, 1976. Asaiiga. Compendium of Abhidharma. Abhidharmasamuc caya, mNgon pa kun btus. Peking Edition #550. Atisha. Bodhipathapradipa, Byang chub lam gyi sgron ma and Bodhimargapradipapafljika, Byang chub lam gyi sgron ma'i dka' 'grel. Text in Sherburne, Richard F. A Study of AtiSa's 'Commentary' on His 'Lamp of the Enlightenment Path.' Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International, 1 976. Bacot, Jacques. La Vie de Marpa le "Traducteur. " Paris: Buddhica 1 , 7, 1937. Buddhaghosa, Bhadantacariya. Visuddhimagga. Selections translated by Conze, Edward in Buddhist Meditation. New York: Harper and Row, 1969. 216
217
Candrakirti. M ulamadhyamakavrttiprasannapadii, db U ma rtsa ba'i 'grel pa tshig gsal ba. Peking Edition #5260. Candrakirti. Shunyatiisaptativrtti, sTong pa nyid bdun cu pa'i 'grel pa. Peking Edition #5268 Chattopadhyaya, Alaka. Atisa and Tibet. Calcutta: Indian Studies, 1967. Chattopadhyaya, D. Tiiriinatha's History of Buddhism in India. Simla: Indian Institute of Advanced Study, 1970. Cheng, Hsueh-li. Niigiirjuna's 'Twelve Gates Treatise. ' Dor drecht: Reidel, 1982 . Conze, Edward. Buddhist Thought in India. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1973 . Das, Sarat C. "Indian Pandits in Tibet," Journal of the Buddhist Text and Research Society, Calcutta. Vol. I, part 1 , 1 893 . De Jong, J . W. Cing Chapitres de la Prasannapadii. Paris: Librarie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1949. Dhammasangani. Translated by Caroline Rhys Davids as A Buddhist Manual of Psychological Ethics. New Delhi: Oriental Books Reprint Corporation, 1975 . Dharmakirti. Commentary to Ideal M ind, PramiirJ.a viirttikakiirikii, Tshad ma rnam 'grel gyi tshig le'ur byas pa. Peking Edition #5709. Guenther, Herbert. The Life and Teaching of Naropa. Lon don: Oxford University Press, 1974. Gyatso, Tenzin: The Fourteenth Dalai Lama. The Buddh ism of Tibet and the Key to the Middle Way. New York: Harper and Row, 1975 . Hoffmann, Helmut. Religions of Tibet. London: Alien and Unwin, 196 1 . Hoffmann, Helmut. Tibet: A Handbook. Bloomington: Re search Center for the Language Sciences, 1975 . Hopkins, Jeffrey. Meditation on Emptiness. London: Wis dom Publications, 1983. Inada, Kenneth . Nagiirjuna: Mulamadhyamakakiirikii. Tokyo: Hokuseido Press, 1970. Komito, David. A Study of Niigiirjuna's 'Sunyatii-saptati-
218
Niigiirjuna's Seventy Stanzas
kiirikii-niima.' Ann Arbor: University Microfilms Inter national, 1979. Komito, David. "Tibetan Buddhism and Psychotherapy: A Conversation with the Dalai Lama," The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, Vol. XV, # 1 , 1983 . Komito, David. "Tibetan Buddhism and Psychotherapy: Further Conversations with the Dalai Lama," The Jour nal of Transpersonal Psychology, Vol. XVI, # 1 , 1984. la Vallee Poussin, Louis de. Mulamadhyamakakiirikiis de Niigiirjuna avec la Prasannapadii. St. Petersberg, 19031914. la Vallee Poussin, Louis de. Catalogue of the Tibetan Manu scripts from the India Office Library. London: Oxford University Press, 1962 . Lalou, Marcelle. "Les Textes Bouddhiques au Temps du Roi Khri-srong lde-bcan," Journal Asiatique, 1953. L i n d t n e r , C h r . N iigiirjuna's Filosofiske Voerk er. Copenhagen: (publisher unknown), 1982 . Lindtner, Chr. Nagarjuniana . Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1982 . Luvsantseren, S . Philosophical Views of Niigiirjuna . (pub lisher unknown), 198 1 . Majjhima Nikiiya. Selections translated in David Kalupaha na. Buddhist Philosophy: A Historical Analysis. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii, 1976. May, Jacques. Candrakirti Prasannapadii Madhyamakavrtti. Paris: Adrien Maisonneuve, 1959. Murti, Tirupattur. The Central Philosophy of Buddhism. London: Allen and Unwin, 1970. Nagarjuna. Shunyatiisaptatikiirikiiniima, sTong pa nyid bdun cu pa'i tshig le'ur byas pa zhes bya ba. Peking Edition #5227. Nagarjuna. ShUnyatiisaptativrtti, sTong pa nyid bdun cu pa'i 'grel pa. Peking Edition #523 1 . Obermiller, Eugene. "The Doctrine of Prajiiaparamita as Exposed in the Abhisamayalaf\lkiira of Maitreya," Acta Orientalia, XI, 1932 .
2 19
Obermiller, Eugene. History of Buddhism by Bu-ston. Suzu ki Research Foundation (no date given) . Parahita(bhadra). Shunyatasaptativivrtti, sTong pa nyid bdun cu pa'i rnam par bshad pa. Peking Edition #5269. Rabten, Geshe. The Mind and its Functions. Mt. Pelerin: Tharpa Choeling, 198 1 . Ramanan, K . Venkata. Nagarjuna's Philosophy as Presented in the Maha-Prajiiaparamita-Sastra. Rutland : Tuttle, 1 960. Rinbochay, Lati and Napper, Elizabeth. Mind in Tibetan Buddhism. Valois: Gabriel Press, 1980. Rinbochay, Lati, et al. Meditative States in Tibetan Buddh ism. London: Wisdom Publications, 1983. Robinson, Richard. Early Madhyamika in India and China. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1967 . Roerich, George N. The Blue Annals. Delhi: Banarsidass, 1976. Ruegg, David S. "The gotra, ekayana and tathagatagarbha theories of the Prajftaparamita according to Dharmamitra and Abhayakaragupta," in Prajiiaparamita· and Related Systems, Louis Lancaster, ed. Korea: .Berkeley Buddhist Studies Series, 1977 . Ruegg, David S . The Literature of the Madhyamaka School of Philosophy in India. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 198 1 . Samyutta Niktiya . Selections translated in David Kalupaha na. Buddhist Philosophy: A Historical Analysis. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii, 1976. Segal, William and Segal, Marielle. "Sleep and The Inner Landscape: An interview with the Tibetan physician Dr. Yeshe Dhonden," Parabola, Vol. VII, # 1 , 1982 . Sprung, Mervyn. Lucid Exposition of the Middle Way. Lon don: Routledge, 1979. Streng, Frederick. Emptiness - A Study in Religious Mean ing. New York: Abingdon, 1967. Tsong kha pa. rTsa she ti ka chen rigs pa'i rgya mtsho. Varanasi: Pleasure of Elegant Sayings Press, 1973. Tucci, Giuseppe. Minor Buddhist Texts, Part 11. Rome:
220
Niigiirjuna's Seventy Stanzas
Serie Orientale Roma, 1958. Uryuzu, Ryushin. Daijo Butten XIV. (publisher unknown). Walleser, Max. Die Mitt/ere des Niigiirjuna nach der tibetis chen version ubertragen. Heidelberg, 191 1 . Walleser, Max. "The Life of Nagarjuna from Tibetan and Chinese Sources," Hirth Anniversary Volume, Bruno Schindler, ed. London: Probsthain, (no date given). Wayman, Alex. Calming the Mind and Discerning the Real. New York: Columbia University Press, 1978.
Index Abhayakara 201 Abhidharma 53, 97 action 56, 145-157 agent 15{}..- 1 5 1 , 154-155 aggregates 27, 33 aggregation 102 analytic meditation 62 - see also meditation annihilationist view 129 - see also extreme view appearances 66, 69, 7 1 , 120, 132 appearing object 40, 57, 66 - see also object appreciation S S Arhat 1 0 1 arising 9 8 , 105-107, 125, 127 - see also dependent arising arising, enduring, ceasing 1 25-143 Arya 56, 58, 64, 174 Asatiga 52, 66 aspiration S S Atisha 1 8 8 , 199 attention 52, SS, 56 attraction 3 1 auditory consciousness 37 - see also consciousness basis of imputation 98, 1 19, 154 - see also functional basis see also imputation -
becoming 26, 29 birth 26 birth and death 30 body 37, 148-151 Bu ston 187 Buddha 23-24, 97, 156 buddhahood 65 calm abiding 63 Candrakirti 157, 177, 189, 202 cause 102, 107, 138 - see also dependent arising - see also result cause-effect relationships 25, 107, 129-1 3 1 , 138-139 cessation 125, 127, 135 cognition 37 - see also conceptual cognition - see also deceived cognition - see also direct valid cognition - see also erroneous cognition - see also erroneous conceptual cognition - see also ideal cognition - see also mistaken conceptual cognition - see also mistaken sensory cognition see also perceptual cognition - see also perfect cognition -
221
222
Niigiirjuna's Sevenly Stanzas
- see also valid cognition - see also valid conceptual cognition - see also valid perceptual cognition compassion 1 8 1 composite phenomenon 142-144, 149 - see also phenomenon composite thing 105 - see also thing compounded phenomenon 104 - see also phenomenon concentration 5 5 , 56 - see also eight stages of con centration - see also meditation conception 36, 42, 50, 154 - see also extreme conception conception of self 14 7 - see also self concepts 37, 66 conceptual cognition 4 1 , 43 - see also cognition condition 102 - see also dominant condition - see also immediate condition - see also object condition consciousness 26, 30, 37-38, 52, 152, 164, 168-169, 1 72 - see also auditory conscious ness - see also gustatory conscious ness - see also mental consciousness - see also olfactory consciousness - see also primary conscious ness - see also tactile consciousness - see also visual consciousness consciousness limb 26, 52 consciousness skandha 38 contact 2&-28, 37, 5 5 , 16&-168 continuity 130 - see also moment conventional 146, 1 5 3 , 1 78 - see also truth
conventional existence 99, 1 56 - see also existence conventional "I " 100 - see also "I" - see also self conventional terms 178 - see also worldy convention conventional truth 65 , 7 1 , 178-179 - see also truth correct belief 47-48, 62, 67 craving 26, 28 cyclic existence 3 1 death, grief, suffering 26 - see also suffering deceived cognition 43 - see also cognition defined 137 definition 1 37 delusion 3 1 , 150 dependence 28, 120 dependent arising - see dependence - see also dependent origination dependent origination 2 5 , 1 101 2 1 , 172-178 devoid of inherent existence 69, 102 - see also empty of inherent existence Dharma 1 80 Dharma grags 1 8 1 , 20 1 Dharmaltirti 36, 50, 67 direct valid cognition 48 - see also cognition discernment 55-56 discernment without signs 5&-57 disintegration 127 - see also momentary disintegration distinctions 140 distorted traces 3 1 distortions 1 12 , 124, 170, 172 "does not exist" 69, 1 56 - see also existence "does not exist inherently" 70 - see also existence
Index dominant condition 38 - see also condition ear 37 eight stages of concentration 59 - see also concentration emanation 1 54 empty (emptiness) 62-65, 68-70, 102, 133, 176--178 - see also inherent existence - see also truth empty of inherent existence 69 - see also devoid of inherent existence - see also empty - see also existence enduring 127 entrances - see sense fields epistemology 37 erroneous cognition 44 - see also cognition erroneous conceptual cognition 41 - see also cognition eternalism 134, 1 7 5 , 1 77, 180 eternalist extreme 1 5 7 eternalist view 129 - see also extreme view existence 69, 99, 156 - see also conventional exist ence - see also devoid of inherent existence - see also "does not exist" - see also "does not exist inherently" - see also empty - see also empty of inherent existence - see also exists non-inherently - see also inherent existence - see also non-inherent existence - see also true existence existence and non-existence 103104, 125-129, 14�145 "exists-and-does-not-exist" 1 56 exists non-inherently 70
223
experience 1 5 1 extinction 134 extreme conception 170 - see also conception extreme view 73, 157 - see also annihilationist view - see also eternalist view - see also nihilistic view - see also overestimation - see also underestimation eye 37 feeling 26--27, S S , 1 38-139, 167 five aggregates 1 5 3 - see also aggregates form 1 5 7-167 four evil preconceptions - see distortions four great elements 32, 1 5 8-159 four noble truths 3 1 functional basis 1 4 1 - see also basis o f imputation functional phenomenon 68, 123, 126 - see also phenomenon functional thing 68, 99, 1 75 - see also thing gateways - see sense fields general examination S S , 57 generic image - see mental image grasping 26, 28 grasping at self 100 - see also self gustatory consciousness 37 - see also consciousness gZhon nu mchog 1 82 , 200 "I" 29, 33, 99-100 - see also conventional "I" ideal cognition 44 - see also cognition ignorance 26, 30, 1 1� 1 1 7 , 1 72 , 1 75-176 immediate condition 38 - see also condition impermanence 170
224
- see also permanence imputation 50, 66, 7�7 1 , 98 - see also basis of imputation - see also superimposition imputation by thought 1 5 3
inattentive perception 46 - see also perception individuality 102-103 infallible 45 inference 45 inherent existence 68-69, 99, 102 - see also devoid of inherent existence - see also empty - see also empty of inherent existence - see also existence inherently existing characteristics so, 1 1 3 initial moment 40 - see also moment innate conception of inherent ex istence 64 - see also existence intelligence/wisdom 55-56 intention 55-56, 1 5 7 karmic formations 2 6 , 30 Khu 182, 202-204 lDan kar catalog 192 liberation 1 32-133, 1 3 5 , 1 52 , 172 - see also peace main mind 1 16 - see also mind Manjushri 97 mark 1 10 - see also sign meditation 59, 1 73 - see also analytic meditation - see also concentration mental consciousness 37, 39, 1 5 2 - see also consciousness - see also mind mental factors 1 16 - see also secondary mental fac tors
mental (generic) image 40, 42, 50, 63, 156 mental image of emptiness 63, 178 middle way 1 79 mind 37-38, 16�162 - see also main mind - see also mental consciousness - see also moments of mind - see also unmistaken mind mistaken conceptual cognition 47, 62 - see also cognition - see also conception mistaken sensory perception 46 - see also perception moment 37 - see also initial moment momentary disintegration 132, 143 - see also disintegration moments of mind 1 1 1 , 162 - see also mind
Mula - see M ulamadhyamakaktirikti Mulamadhyamakaktirika 1 8 1 , 1 86 mutually dependent 137, 1 39
Nagiirjuna 17, 67-74, 156, 185187 name and form 26-27, 2 9 , 3 2 name 3 2 nihilism 1 7 5 , 1 7 7 nihilistic view 1 3 4 , 1 5 7, 1 79 - see also extreme view nirv8I].a - see peace non-composite phenomenon 142, 144 - see also phenomenon non-existing 99 - see also existence non-functional phenomenon 123, 126 - see also phenomenon non-functional thing 99, 175 - see also thing non-inherent existence 70, 74, 176 - see also existence nose 37
Index object 66, 120 - see also appearing object object condition 38, 68 - see also condition olfactory consciousness 37 - see also consciousness omniscience 65 - see also truth origination - see dependent origination overestimation 73, 129, 147, 170 - see also extreme view Parahita 177, 189, 200 path of accumulation 174 path of meditation 64 path of no more learning 65 path of preparation 64, 17 4 path of seeing 49, 64, 133, 174 peace 3 1 , 35, 1 0 1 , 1 32-136, 1 5 5 , 1 7 5 , 180-181 - see also liberation perception 36 - see also inattentive percep tion - see also mistaken sensory perception - see also valid direct percep tion - see also valid perceptual cognition perceptual cognition 41 - see also cognition perfect cognition 44 - see also cognition perfect reason - see inference permanence 129 - see also impermanence person 32-36, 74, 99, 104, 1 5 1 - see also conventional "I" - see also self phenomenon 68, 72, 124 - see also composite phe nomenon - see also functional phe nomenon - see also non-functional phe-
225
nomenon - see also produced and com pounded phenomena - see also thing
Prasannapadii 157, 189
precise analysis S S , 57 preconceptions 1 7 1 - see also distortions primary consciousness 38, 5 3 - see also consciousness produced and compounded phe nomena 1 04 - see also phenomenon
Ratniivali 1 8 1
reason 160 - see also inference rebirth 29, 35 - see also liberation recollection S S regret S S result 103, 107 , 1 38 - see also cause - see also cause-effect relationships revulsion 3 1 secondary mental factors 3 8 , 5 3 - see also mental factors seeing 1 39 - see also sense fields self 69, 175 - see also conception of self - see also conventional "I" - see also grasping at self - see also person - see also selflessness self-existent 165 selflessness 32-35, 49 - see also person self-sufficient 74 sense-fields 2fr.27, 165-166
Seventy Stanzas - see S hunyatiisaptatikiirikii niima
Seventy Stanzas Explaining How Phenomena Are Empty of Inhe-
226
rent Existence S hunyatasaptatikarika ndma Seventy Stanzas on Emptiness - see S hUnyatdsaptatikarika ndma S hunyatasaptatikarikanama 12-14, - see
79, 96, 200, 208--2 10
Shunyatasaptativivrtti 1 89, 200 Shunyatdsaptativrtti 1 89, 200-20 1 sign 56, 109
- see also mark simultaneously 1 1 8 six sense fields - see sense fields skandha - see aggregates sleep 5 5 smells 3 7 sounds 3 7 special insight 6 3 subsequent moments 40 - see also moment suchness 152 suffering 148 - see also death, grief, suf fering - see also liberation superimposition 49, 170 - see also imputation Sutra Pitaka 1 6 1 sutrasaniuccaya 1 8 1 tactile consciousness 3 7 - see also consciousness tangibles 37 tastes 37 Tathiigina 152, 1 79 thing 68 - see also composite thing - see also functional thing - see also non-functional thing - see also phenomemon thought-consciousness 172 - see also consciousness three poisons 3 1 three times 107, 140 time
- see three times tongue 37 true existence 99, 1 2 5 , 175 - see also existence truth - see conventional truth - see two truths - see ultimate truth Tsong kha pa 187 Tun-huang manuscripts 194-197 twelve limbs of dependent origination 26-32 - see also dependent origina tion Twelve Topic Treatise 189, 197-198 two truths 65 - see also truth ultimate 146, 173 - see also truth ultimate analysis 1 5 3 ultimate reality 1 78 - see also ultimate truth ultimate truth 65, 7 1 - see also truth underestimation 129 - see also extreme view unmistaken mind 1 73 - see also cognition - see also mind valid cognition 4 1 , 44-45, 67, 1 1 6 - see also cognition valid conceptual cognition 44, 48, 50, 62 - see also cognition valid direct perception 178 - see also perception valid perceptual cognition 44 - see also cognition - see also perception visual consciousness 37 - see also consciousness ways of knowing 52 wisdom - see intelligence/wisdom worldly convention 97-99 - see also conventional terms
