The Emptiness of Emptiness

"'~'i.__,.
·--·-
_._...
1
141040
THE EMPTINESS :+
OF EMPTINESS
AN INTRODUCTION TO EARLY
INDIAN MADHYAMIKA
C. W. HUNTINGTON, JR.
WITH
GESHE NAMGYAL WANGCHEN
MOTILAL BANARSIDASS PUBLISHERS

PRIVATE LIMITED e DELHI
--
>-I
.;lac>
I
~', -,
First published by the Unil,ersity of Hawaii Press, 1989

First Indian Edition: Delhi, 1992
(CJ 1989 University of Hawaii Press

All rights re;;erved
ISBN: 81~208-0814-2
FOR SALE IN INDIA ONLY
Also available at:

MOTILAL BANARSIDASS
41 U.A., Bungalow Road, Jawahar Nagar, Delhi 110 007
120 Royapettah High Road, Mylapore, Madras 600 004
16 St. Mark's Road, Bangalore 560 001
Ashok Rajpath, Patna 800 004
Chowk, Varanasi 221 001
PlliNUD IN INDIA
BY JAINENDRA PRAKASH JAIN AT SHRI JAINENDRA PRESS, A-45 NARAINA
INDUSTRIAL AREA, PHASE I, NEW DELHI 110 028 AND PUBUSHED BY
NARENDRA PRAKASH JAI!Ii FOR MOTILAL BANARSIDASS PUBLISHERS
PVT. LTD., BUNGALOW ROAD, JAWAHAR NAGAR, DELHI 110 007
,,
~', -,
TO MY MOTHER AND FATHER.
WITHOUT WHOSE LOVE AND ENCOURAGEMENT
THIS BOOK WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN WRJITEN
..
CONTENTS
Preface X
Acknowledgments X\
PART ONE: CANDRAKTRTI AND EARLY INDIAN MADHYAMIKA
Methodological Considerations 5
2 Candraklrti's Historical and Doctrinal Context 17
2.1 The Entry into the Middle Way as a Mahayana text 17
2.2 The bodhisattva ideal and the thought of awakening 19
2.3 The stages in the path to full awakening 20
2.4 The perfections of the bodhisattva's path 22
3 The Philosophical Language of the Madhyamika 25
3.1 Sources for the study of Madhyamika thought 25
3.2 Major figures in the development ofMadhyamika
thought 32
3.3 History and doctrine of the Middle Way 36
3.4 Major philosophical themes of The Entry into the
Middle Way 40
3.4.1 Dependent origination 41
3. 4. 2 Dependent designation so
3.4.3 Emptiness 55
I
.' >·:~
3.5 The debate with the Yogacara
3.5.1 Sources for the study ofYogacara thought
3.5.2 The Yogacar~ doctrine of "the three marks"
60
60
61
3.5.3 The Prasangika critique 62
4 The Ten Perfections of the Bodhisattva Path
69
vii
-
viii Contents
4. 1
4.2
4.3
4.4
The perfection of generosity
The perfection of morality
The perfection of patience
The perfection of energy
69
70
72
73
-i j --
4.5 The perfection of meditation 75

4.6 The perfection of wisdom 83
4.6.1 The concept of." perfect wisdom" 83
4.6.2 The relationship of perfect wisdom to the other
perfections 89
4.6.3 Candrakirti's presentation of the Sixth Stage 92
4.7 The perfection of skillful means 99
4.8 The perfection of the vow 100
4.9 The perfection of the powers 103
4.10 The perfection of knowledge 103
5 The Emptiness of Emptiness: Philosophy as Propaganda 105
5.1 The four noble truths
5.2 Wisdom and the nature of illusion
5.3 Knowledge and practice
105
109
113
-i
)A
!' ..
I
5.4 Nondualistic knowledge 119
5.5 The bodhisattva's vow 122
5.6 Universal compassion, nonclinging, and emptiness ' 124
PART TWO: THE ENTRY INTO THE MIDDLE WAY
Sources for the Translation 145

The joyous 149
2 The Immaculate 151
3 The Luminous 153
4 The Radiant 155
5 The Unconquerable 156
6 The Directly Facing 157
Introduction 157
The non-origination of all things 158
Spontaneous production: The first alternative 158
Production from another: The second alternative 158
Exposition of the two truths 160
The nature of the empirical world as expressed in the
truth of the highest meaning 161
Contents ix
Refutation of consciousness as an ultimate truth 162

Cognition in the absence of an external object 162
Cognition as the result of" ripened potentiality" 164
The unreality ofboth cognition and its object 165
Refutation of a noncognized entity (reflexive awareness)
as the ultimate truth 166
The true meaning of teachings on "mind alone" 166
The combination of self-production and production from
another: The third alternative 168
Production unassociated with any causal factor: The fourth
~rn~~ 1~
Summary of the refutation of intrinsic being 169
Refutation of the intrinsically existent person 171
Introduction 171
Refutation of the self as different from the
psychophysical aggregates 172
Refutation of the self as identical to the
Refutation of the self as the composite of all five
Refutation of the self as equivalent to the body 173
Summary ofthe preceding arguments 174
Refutation of the self as an inexpressible yet real substance 17 5
The self is com pared to a carriage cognized in dependence
on its parts 17 5
The self as a dependent designation 176
Summary of the refutation of production 177
Defense of the Prasangika's use of deconstructive analysis 178
The sixteen examples of emptiness 179
Introduction 179
The examples of emptiness 180
The four condensed explanations 183
Conclusioll 183
7 The Far Advanced 185
8 The Immovable 186
9 The Unerring Intellect 187
10 The Cloud of Dharma 188
Th~ Qualities and Fruits of the Ten Stages 189
The qualities associated with the ten stages of the
bodhisattva's path 189
X Contents
The qualities associated with the stage of a fully

awakened buddha
The sameness of all things
The three bodies of a buddha
The ten powers of a buddha
190
190
190
192
'i
..,... '_
. '
Conclusion 194
Epilogue 196
Notes 199
Bibliography 269
Index 281
PREFACE
This book contains a study and a translation of The Entry into the Middle
Way, a philosophical and religious text composed in Iridia sometime
during the first half of the seventh century A.D. by a Buddhist monk
named Candrakirti. It was a treatise of critical importance to the devel-
opment of Buddhism in Tibet and, presumably, in its native India as
well. As the title implies, Candrakirti's text is essentially an introduc-
tory manual for those wishing to study and practice the soteriological
philosophy known as the Madhyamika (middle way) or Sunyavada
(doctrine of emptiness). But it would be best to acknowledge from the
very start that this "primer" was never intended to serve the needs of an
audience like the one to which it is now being presented in its English
translation. The first part of the book is therefore aimed at discovering
what meaning The Entry into the Middle Way might have for us. It is
designed to be read both as a commentary on Candrak1rti's treatise and
as an introduction to early Indian Madhyamika.
Part 2 began years ago with Geshe Wangchen's intention to produce
an unembellished translation of Candrakirti's Madhyamakavatiira, as an
introductory text for Madhyamika studies. Before long, however, it
became evident that the treatise's extremely terse and cryptic style
demanded some sort of annotation if our translation was to be useful to
anyone not already familiar with early Indian Buddhist 'literature.
Eventually even extensive annotation proved insufficient. In surveying
modern publications dealing with the Madhyamika, we began to see
that the maze of interpretations could be sorted into a few distinct
themes which seemed to preserve, with only superficial variations, the
vocabulary and attitudes critiqued by Nagarjuna and Candrakirti. The
single exception to this pattern appears to be what I call the "linguistic
interpretation." In the face of this mass of Western scholarship, the plan
to present a bare translation of the text seemed more inadequate than
ever, and yet it was obvious that references to even recent studies had to
xi
-
xii Preface
be used with care and accompanied by explicit qualifications. The

Madhyamika critique of all views and beliefs is certainly much subtler
and much more radical than most Western interpretation indicates.
Some introductory remarks were required to explain the situation, and
soon the "introduction" had swelled to its present size. The translation
represents a joint effort on the part ofGeshe Wangchen and myself, but
I assume full responsibility for assessing the significance of Candrakir-
ti's work in the context of modern Buddhist scholarship.
Early Madhyamika explicitly claims to operate as a rejection, or
deconstruction, of all attempts to create a value-free, objective view of
truth or reality. From the very beginning this was the crux of the
Madhyamika critique, and in fact it was only much later, in reaction to
the writings of Bhavaviveka and his followers, that this total rejection of
all fixed views and beliefs came to be specifically associated with the
name Prasaiigika. The Sanskrit word dnti, which I have translated
"philosophical view," is actually a technical term used in a variety of
contexts where it refers to the full range of opinion, belief, and intellec-
tual conviction of any kind, and finally, to any form of reified thought,
regardless of whether it is registered in a precisely articulated, rational-
ist methodology or in a largely unconscious tendency to think only
according to certain innate patterns. Ultimately, the Madhyamika's
rejection of all views is more the rejection of an attitude or way of thinking
than the rejection of any particular concept. This element of Nagar-
juna's thought has been responsible for the greatest controversy among
both ancient and modern commentators.
The Madhyamika sets itself in opposition to a philosophical tradition
which was preoccupied with the search for more and more precise tech-
nical terminology and had neglected the practical application of philo-
sophical theory, which had previously carried the teachings into the
emotive and volitional life of the early Buddhist community. Entirely
apart from the pseudoproblem of "original Buddhism," Nagarjuna's
critique can be understood as an attempt to reinstate what was clearly
felt to be the earlier spirit of the buddha's teachings by prescribing a
remedy to the complex of historical developments that had severed the-
ory from practice. His concept of "dependent designation" (prajiiaptir
upiidiiya) recognizes that the meaning of words derives exclusively from
their usage or application in everyday affairs. Accordingly, the signifi-
cance of the words and concepts used within the Madhyamika system
derives not from their supposed association with any objectively privi-
leged vocabulary supporting a particular view of truth or reality, but
from their special efficacy as instruments which may be applied in daily
life to the sole purpose of eradicating the suffering caused by clinging,
antipathy, and the delusion of reified thought. Thus, although Can-
Preface xiii
draldrti has no fixed position to defend, it does not necessarily follow

that his arguments are mere sophistry, for genuine meaning and signifi-
cance is to be found in their purpose. The critical distinction here is
between systematic philosophy, concerned with the presentation of a
particular view or belief ( dr~.ti), and edifying philosophy, engaged in
strictly deconstructive activity (the Madhyamika prasangaviikya). The
central concepts of an edifying philosophy must ultimately be aban-
doned when they have served the purpose for which they were designed.
Such concepts are not used to express a view but to achieve an effect: They
are a means ( upiiya).
In the course of the following pages I have referred to the Madhya-
mika as "soteriological philosophy" or "philosophical propaganda."
This has been done, first, in order to emphasize the all-important point
that this philosophy cannot, even in theory, be dissociated from a con-
cept of practical application; and second, so that it might be more
clearly distinguished as a truly radical departure from the type of philo-
sophical enterprise through which one endeavors to discover or define
an objective, value-free view of truth or reality.
Finally, it must be stressed that while the work of modern deconstruc-
tionists provided the impetus for the linguistic interpretation of the
Madhyamika I have developed, and even for some of the technical
vocabulary I use to discuss Candrakirti's text, no one-to-one correspon-
dence between two philosophical traditions separated by so much time
and space does or can exist. I have used the ideas of Wittgenstein and
other modern philosophers simply as hermeneutical tools to analyze the
Miidhyamika literature and to extrapolate from it in order to see what
meaning it might have for us. And for us, meaning is necessarily
embedded in the symbolic forms of our culture and our time. In
response to the reader who condemns all such attempts to interpret a
text on the ground that the text itself does not employ our linguistic and
conceptual structures, I can only throw up my hands in despair of ever
understanding any ancient way of thinking. At some point we simply
must acknowledge that no translation and no text-critical methodology
can be sacrosanct. Translation and all other forms of hermeneutical
activity rest firmly on the preconscious forms of linguistic and cultural
prejudices peculiar to our historical situation. The most vital challenge
faced by scholars is certainly summed up in their responsibility to make
their (and their readers') presuppositions entirely conscious and to con-
vey through their work a sense of the wonder and uncertainty of coming
to terms with the original text. The interpretive comments of part 1 are
offered solely as a tool for approaching the Madhyamika as living phi-
losophy. The translation will provide the reader with an opportunity to
Work as closely as possible to Candrakirti's writing.
xiv Preface
Modern deconstruction and pragmatism are especially valuable to us

not only because their concerns seem so near, in certain respects, to
those of Nagarjuna and Candraklrti, but also precisely because these
philosophies belong to us. In making an effort to interpret a foreign sys-
tem of thought, we cannot but use the conceptual equipment already at
our disposal. Gadamer has recognized and discussed the element of
effective history present in understanding, but the two thousand years
during which Buddhism spread from one culture to another throughout
Asia provide more than ample testimony against both the rationalist
ideal of prejudiceless objectivity and its converse, an uncritical romanti-
cism. Those presently engaged in the study of Buddhist literature can
do no less than acknowledge openly, as a matter of intellectual integrity,
the deeply problematic nature of any concept of meaning based exclu-
sively on the recapturing or repetition of a text's "original message."
For the Madhyamika the problem is by no means confined to concepts
of textual interpretation. The hermeneutical process involved in this
kind of understanding is itself a particular instantiation of the universal
mystery of change, and as such it is merely one more facet of the inter-
play between past and present that incorporates and continually trans-
forms and renews all that we know and all that we are.
-C . W . H .
Sarnath, India
I
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The roots of this book stretch back to an idyllic summer in the Hima-
layan village of Musoorie, where Geshe Namgyal Wangchen and I
passed the mornings together carefully working out a first draft of our
translation ofCandrakirti's text. But it was not only the translation that
began that summer. The issues that laid a foundation for my continuing
interest in Miidhyamika also first presented themselves during our long
afternoon walks. I soon discovered that Geshe Wangchen is a natural
philosopher, that for him no question is irrelevant, no area of experi-
ence outside the range of legitimate philosophical concerns. It was cer-
tainly then, in the course of our wonderful, timeless conversations, that
I began to understand how philosophy can be much more than a system
of concepts. For Geshe Wangchen and so many of his countrymen, phi-
losophy is very definiely a way oflife, and philosophical questions must
always relate, in one way or another, to the problems of living. No
doubt this attitude toward philosophy left its mark on me and guided
my approach to the texts throughout the years that this book was taking
shape. Since that time many people have contributed to my thinking,
and each has influenced my efforts to preserve the spirit of what I
learned that summer. I am particularly grateful to Luis 0. Gomez for
his careful reading of the first draft of the translation and notes, for his
criticisms and suggestions at that crucial stage, and, most of all, for the
example he provides-a rare combination of unexcelled scholarship
with a deep, personal concern for the responsibilities of teaching. The
many hours we spent over coffee paralleled those I had shared with
Geshe Wangchen in India, for once again the discussion took place in
an atmosphere where the greatest attention could be given to the need
for bringing philosophy to bear on the problems of everyday life.
Among those who have had the most profound impact on my thought I
rnust also mention Bob Sharf, with whom I have had innumerable fasci-
xvi Acknowledgments
nating conversations on just about everything, and Gregory Schopen,

who provided an invaluable service in allowing me to sharpen my initial
understanding of the Miidhyamika against the whetstone of his formi-
dable intellect. My reading of the Indian sources has benefited a great
deal from the many hours I have shared with Pandit Ram Shankar Tri-
pathi of Sanskrit University, Varanasi. I would like to thank my milia-
guru, Madhav Deshpande, for years of continuing encouragement,
and, most recently, for his meticulous reading of Sanskrit words and
phrases scattered throughout this book. John Newman and William
Ames also gave their time and energy to the task of proofreading. Any
errors that might still have slipped through must be attributed entirely
to changes that have occurred since the text left those capable hands.
Dr. Bimal K. Matilal read parts of the manuscript in an early draft and
offered valuable suggestions, as did Dr. Meredith Williams, who man-
aged to find time for the task despite her busy schedule as a visiting pro-
fessor at the University of Michigan. Pat Pranke was always available
for an animated epistemological argument, until he disappeared into
the Burmese jungle. I am very grateful to the American Institute of
Indian Studies for their support during the initial stages of research.
And finally I want to thank Liz, whci came late to this particular project
but has nevertheless endured more than her share of the tribulations
involved in carrying it through to completion. She is everything: a loyal
friend, a therapist, a teacher, an unflagging partner in the most
abstruse conversations, and a patient, loving wife.
THE EMPTINESS
OF EMPTINESS
l ·~
~
p A R T 0 N E
CANDRAKTRTI AND EARLY INDIAN

MADHYAMIKA
The emptiness of the conquerors was taught in

order to do away with all philosophical views.
Therefore it is said that whoever makes a philo-
sophical view out of "emptiness" is indeed lost.
- N iigiirjuna, Madhyamakafiistra
Buddhism is not and never has pretended to be a

"theory," an explanation of the universe; it is a
way to salvation, a way oflife.
-E. Zurcher, The Buddhist Conquest of China
I
I i
'·
s E c T 0 N 0 N
METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS
The study of Asian religions in the West has its roots in nineteenth-cen-
tury European (largely German) philology, and it has retained to a
remarkable degree the imprint of its origins as a branch of the study of
Indo-European linguistics. This is especially true for the study of Bud-
dhist literature, where research in the primary Indo-European source
languages must be combined with research involving Chinese and
Tibetan translations of Indian texts. Although the philological model
has been the only approved academic methodology in European and
American universities, it has in fact existed alongside a4other approach
to the study of the Buddhist tradition-one that claims to be much more
interested in Asian religious texts from an "insider's" point of view.
Each of these models has displayed its strengths and weaknesses, and
yet both of them are to some extent anachronistic vestiges of a style of
scholarship that has come under fire from a number of quarters outside
the province of Asian cultural studies. The failure of many Asian area
specialists to recognize this fact is, I am afraid, a strong indication of the
insularity of the field.' This insularity is supposed to preserve the integ-
rity of the discipline as a legitimate, autonomous Fach, but by now it has
become dear that both the concept of an isolated discipline and the tech-
niques used to define it (the guarantors of purity) are no longer neces-
sary or desirable. The imposition of such boundaries has led only to fur-
ther isolation and to the sort of quaint philosophizing which provokes an
equally unself-critical and often caustic response from philologists who
insist that the texts be allowed to speak for themselves, in their own
~oice. Before I go on to expand these claims a bit, and to sketch the out-
hne of an approach that seeks to turn the study of Asian religious philos-
ophy in a more promising direction, it will be useful to characterize the
existing research models in somewhat greater detail.
The philological or text-critical model draws its strength from a rigor-
6 Candrak1rti and Early Indian Miidhyamikc;,
ous methodology resting on the firm intellectual foundation of philology

and historiography. The philological component is realized in the estab-
lishment of authoritative texts through the production of meticulous
critical editions, heavily annotated translations, detailed indexes, and
other reference tools. Text-critical scholars rightfully pride themselves
on using all available resource materials. Editions are often based on
assigning numerous obscure xylographs to a stemma. In the subfield of
Buddhist studies translations frequently rely on source texts in three or
more classical Asian languages. The historical aspect of text-critical
scholarship consists in the contextualization of these editions and trans-
lations, relating them to each other and to known historical events. The
aim of this approach to the study of religious philosophy is to define a
coherent tradition for the continuum of texts which provide the raw
material for research activities. Questions of a text's meaning are gener-
ally subordinated or dismissed altogether as irrelevant. Rigorous appli-
cation of text-critical methodology is required of every serious scholar in
the field; even brief digressions into philosophical or soteriological
issues are the prerogative of established authorities-those who have
'- already demonstrated their ability to produce the approved text-critical
studies. Occasionally, however, recognized experts publish entire arti-
cles that treat of some particular question of meaning, applying the
same methodological principles in an effort to understand the philo-
sophical and religious content of the texts.
The "proselytic" model offers a distinct alternative to the text-critical
scholar's apparent lack of concern with questions of meaning. Here the
text-critical methodology is often applied with considerably less rigor.
Editions appear rarely; translations are generally based on a single
source and are most often not accompanied by any substantial critical
apparatus. Historical information, when offered, usually includes un-
critical assumption of conflicting or fantastic accounts, supplied more or
less verbatim from Asian sources, which are to be accepted at face
value. Occasional attempts are made to justify traditional concepts by
comparing them to various Western ideas. The existence of a tradition
is taken for granted, and proper application of methodology is pre-
sumed rather to grant access to this preexistent tradition than to define
it. The entire concept of meaning collapses into the search for an atem-
poral mens auctoris which is assumed to be present in the source text. Dis-
covery and restitution of this meanihg is the result of close reading of
the texts and indigenous commentaries.
While it is true that these two models are in general separated by
divergent methods and aims, it is also the case that the proselytic
scholar seldom works entirely without recourse to certain elements of
the text-critical methodology. The text-critical model is accorded the
reatest prestige-d~e, no doubt, to i~s .dose asso~iation with what. ~s

~aken to be the scientific method-but 1t IS also subject to frequent cntl-
. m on the grounds that it has become altogether too abstract and ster-
ns · d attentwn
·1 in its refusal to give sustame · tot h e problem o f meamng.
·
~r~e hybrids have developed on both ends of the spectrum-"text-criti-
cal proselytism" and "~roselytic text criticism" -with varying degrees
of success in the academic world.
What I most want to draw attention to here is not the differences
between these two models of scholarship, but their commonalities, and
these can be summarized in two brief observations. First, both models
rest on the concept of an objectively present tradition, that is, a tradi-
tion which stands apart from the researcher as the object of all attempts
to understand or define it. Second, both models in turn rely on the
proper application of an approved methodology supposed to insure
access to this tradition . These common features are nowhere spelled
out, much less defended. Instead, they remain forever behind the
scenes, where they operate as powerful forces shaping the results of all
our research by predetermining the forms that questions will take before
those questions are ever posed. These presuppositions are entirely unaf-
fected by all the accusations and counteraccusations about "rigorous
philological standards" versus "the search for meaning."
The insularity of their discipline has thus far prevented many Asian
specialists from noticing that the interrelated concepts "objectivity"
and "method" have become targets for a steadily increasing gale of crit-
icism associated with everything from the philosophical hermeneutics of
Gadamer to the pragmatism of James and Dewey, from Nietzsche and
Heidegger to Wittgenstein, Derrida, and Foucault. There is insufficient
space here even to begin to detail the nature of the change signaled by
the writings of these men, or their impact on the assumptions underly-
ing the current models for the study of Asian religious philosophies. As
Gadamer has written:
The thing which hermeneutics teaches us is to see through the dogmatism

of asserting an opposition and separation between the ongoing, natural
"tradition" and the reflective appropriation of it. For behind this assertion
stands a dogmatic objectivism that distorts the very concept of herme-
neutical reflection itself. In this objectivism the understander is seen-
e.ven in the so-called sciences of understanding like history-not in rela-
ti?nship to the hermeneutical situation and the constant operativeness of
history in his own consciousness, but in such a way as to imply that his
own understanding does not enter into the event. 2
In the history of Buddhist studies in Europe and North America, the

text-critical and proselytic models of scholarship have exerted a decisive
8 CandrakTrti and Early Indian Madhyamika
influence on our understanding of Buddhism. This book is, however,

based on an alternative approach to the study of Buddhist literature.
Before all else we must agree on what counts as the meaning of a text.
I favor what Harold Bloom calls a "strong misreading"-the preference
of Richard Rorty's "strong textualist," who "asks neither the author
nor the text about their intentions but simply beats the text into a shape
which will serve his own purpose." 3 The strong textualist "is in it for
what he can get out of it, not for the satisfaction of getting something
right."* Exactly why I see this as a preeminently Buddhist hermeneutic
and therefore a preferred approach to studying Buddhist literature-in
direct contrast to both the strict text-critical and the proselytic models-
can be inferred from another of Rorty's comm~nts: "The strong tex-
tualist ... recognizes what Nietzsche and James recognized, that the
idea of method presupposes that of a privileged vocabulary, the vocabulary
which gets to the essence of the object, the one which expresses the
properties which it has in itself as opposed to those which we read into
it. Nietzsche and James said that the notion of such a vocabulary was a
myth." 5 As did virtually every classical Buddhist author, in particular
Nagarjuna and the other early Indian Madhyamikas, who rejected
all assumptions of meaning bound up with the notion of an objec-
tive, value-free philosophical view (dr~.ti), thesis (pak~a), or proposition
(pratiJiiii).
Thanks to the work of Rorty and others, we can begin to appreciate
the extent to which strict adherence to the text-critical and proselytic
models constitutes a violation of the very texts we bring to our study.
Nevertheless, in making the transition within Buddhist studies from an
isolated Fach to a more broadly based literary criticism, we need to pro-
ceed with caution, so as not to sacrifice the legitimate accomplishments
of previous scholarship. It is necessary to dismantle the approved meth-
odology and expose its presuppositions, rescue what is most valuable,
and move on. D. S. Ruegg has already pointed the way in his research
on thesis and assertion in the Madhyamika:
The historian ofthe Madhyamaka-and oflndian and Tibetan philoso-

phy in general-must of course refrain from anachronistically u;ansposing
al!d arbitrarily imposing the concepts of modern semantics and philosoph-
ical theory, which have originated in the course of particular historical
developments, on modes of thought that have evolved in quite different
historical circumstances, and which have therefore to be interpreted in the
first place within the frame of their own concerns and the ideas they have
themselves developed. Still, in studying Indian and Tibetan thought, the
importance of religious and philosophic_al praxis, and of pragmatics, must
receive due attention. 6
Methodological Considerations
This is precisely the lead I have followed in breaking the closed circle of
dogmatic adherence to methodological presuppositions:
It seems all the more appropriate and legitimate for us to consider the
rejection of a praty.iiii in terms of a pragmatic rather than of an exclusively
propositional analysis of assertion and its negation since, from the earliest
time, the Madhyamaka-and indeed the Mahayana as a whole-has
engaged in the analysis and deconstruction of ordinary language with its
conceptual categories. 7
Recourse to the insights of post-Wittgensteinian pragmatism and

deconstruction provides us with a new range of possibilities for inter-
preting The Entry into the Middle· Way and other early Madhyamika trea-
tises, for what we learn in our encounter with these texts is in every way
a function of the tools we bring to our study.
At present the literature of the Madhyamika has only begun to be
appreciated by Western scholars, and study of Candrakirti's writing is
beset by all the difficulties inherent in any attempt to grapple with a lit-
erary tradition that is remote from us in many significant ways. An
Indian or Tibetan monk would approach Candraklrti's work with a rich
background of information on the doctrinal issues and technical termi-
nology of other relevant systems. This is how The Entry into the Middle
Way is presented by the Tibetan tradition even today, behind the walls
of monasteries built by the refugee community in India. Years of pre-
paratory study and ritual practice of all kinds, including meditation,
give the young monk a context into which he can set each of Candraklr-
ti's statements and through which he can arrive at an appreciation of
the significance of this treatise within the Tibetan Buddhist tradition as
a whole. Modem Western readers not only lack such a context but find
themselves implanted in a different tradition holding to a wide range of
premises, some of them at a great remove from those which form the
essential features of Candrakirti's paradigm. This is a difficulty for the
general reader and the specialist alike, for even after the most diligent
study, many of the concepts expressed in this ancient Indian text may
continue to appear as nothing other than intellectual curiosities entirely
uprooted from the Buddhist way oflife which alone is capable of impart-
ing to them their most profound significance. One important dimension
of the problem has been summarized in an article by A. L. Becker:
"Esthetic depth is in most cases impossible to translate, so that a fuller
understanding of a distant text requires a step beyond translation, a
deconstruction of the translation and a reconstruction of the context of
its source, mode by mode, so as to describe and explore its particu-
larity."8
10 CandrakTrti and Early Indian Miidhyamika
The notion ofesthetic depth may not seem perfectly suited to the spe-
cialized set of problems relevant to the study of Buddhist technical liter-
ature, but it is an especially valuable concept here, because it draws
attention to the fact that in approaching such a work as this we must
make a strong effort to uncover "the fundamental concern that moti-
vates the text-the question that it seeks to answer and that it poses
again and again to its interpreters." 9 I most certainly do not suggest
that we should strive to interpret the text through reference to any sup-
posed mens auctoris. As Gadamer and others have argued, meaning is
always meaning in the context of history, and history includes both the
text and its various interpreters. 10 Yet to the extent that we are unable to
appreciate the "particularity" of this treatise within the full context of
Candrakirti's writing, not only in its intellectual but also in its ethical
and practical dimensions, we may all too easily devalue or misinterpret
one or a number of vital Madhyamika concepts. The following example
illustrates my point.
The Miidhyamika philosopher rejects our most fundamental empiri-
cal propositions and the matrix of rationality in which they are cast as
matters of strictly normative and ultimately groundless belief. More
specifically, according to the Miidhyamika, concepts of logic, and theo-
retical as well as practical concepts dealing with empirical" phenomena
like causation, are all grounded in a particular way of life which is itself
groundless. Everyday experience is empty of a fixed substratum for the
justification of any type of knowledge or belief, and precisely this lack of
justification-this being empty even of "emptiness" -is itself the truth
of the highest meaning.
With what sort of critical apparatus should we approach such a claim,
if indeed it is a claim. It would be inadequate to attempt an investiga-
tion with the single question "How would you verify that?" We must
also learn to ask such questions as "How would you teach someone
what it says?" "How would you hint at its truth?" "What is it like to
wonder whether it is true?" These same questions have been phrased
elsewhere, in an essay on Ludwig Wittgenstein, 12 and the issues
explored in that article are significant for the present attempt at engag-
ing with the Miidhyamika. I suggest that Miidhyamika philosophers
can best be understood by entirely disposing of the idea that they are
presenting a'series of arguments against one set of claims and in favor of
another. Rather, as Rorty has said about the pragmatists: "They would
simply like to change the subject."" Like Wittgenstein and the pragma-
tists, with whom they have much in common, the Miidhyamikas "keep
trying to find ways of making anti philosophical points in nonphilosophi-
callanguage."H In some ways both Wittgenstein and the modern prag-
matists have been more successful than Nagiirjuna or Candrakirti at
Methodological Considerations II
accomplishing this, but in other ways, given the nature of their sote-
riological aim (which differs considerably from the aim of any modern
Western philosopher), the ancient Madhyamikas were surprisingly
ingenious in their use of "propaganda, emotion, ad hoc hypotheses, and
appeal to prejudices of all kinds" 15 to discredit the views of their con-
temporaries.
We, however, are not living in seventh-century India, nor do we
share the presuppositions and prejudices of medieval Hindu society. We
have our ownways of thinking and speaking, our own ideas, interests,
and aims, our own form of life, shot through with the presuppositions
and prejudices of neo-Kantian scientific rationalism. 16 Thus we cannot
expect on our own terms to engage in effortless conversation with the
Madhyamika, as though it were simply a matter of matching the words
and concepts of a seventh-century Sanskrit text with their counterparts
in twentieth-century North American English. It is necessary to invest
some real energy in preparing to meet these distant texts, and for this
project we must be willing from the very beginning .to reassess what we
most take for granted. In moving from the vocabulary and topics which
monopolize our present conversation to a new vocabulary and a new set
of topics suggested by the Madhyamika philosopher, we might begin by
considering a number of problems also raised in the article on Wittgen-
stein cited just above, problems outlined in the following questions:
"Why do we feel we cannot know something in a situation in which
there is nothing it makes sense to say we do not know?"; "What is the
nature of this illusion?"; "What makes us dissatisfied with our knowl-
edge as a whole?"; "What is the nature and power of a 'conceptualiza-
tion of the world'?"; "Why do we conceptualize the world as we do?";
"What would alternative conceptualizations look like?"; "How might
they be arrived at?" 17 These last two questions are especially germane
to our present purposes, for unlike Wittgenstein, the Madhyamika goes
so far as to develop his own alternative conceptualization of the world-
a "conceptualization" which is "no conceptualization," but rather an
alternative "form oflife" 1 ~-and to suggest a specific path by means of
which it might be actualized. In part 1 I pave the way for our reading of
Candrakirti's text by attempting to establish the relevance of his writing
to problems crucial to our own time and place.
Madhyamika scholarship in the West has made considerable progress
during the past century. In spite of this progress or, perhaps more accu-
/' rately, because of it, many of the basic themes of the Madhyamika are
now subject to more than one interpretation. There is, of course, no
,, fault in this. On the contrary, the presence of this controversy should be
taken as a sign that the issues involved are not of interest only to the phi-
.. lologist and the text-critical scholar, who are methodologically indis-
12 CandrakTrti and Early Indian Modhyamika
posed toward considering a text's meaning. Throughout part 1 and the

notes which accompany the translation, I refer to these controversies
and develop a consistent position on several key points of interpretation
which form the nucleus of an approach to the study of the Madhyamika
that has recently been gaining favor among Western scholars. This is to
be accomplished according to the following general principles.
First, I have begun at the beginning, with extended discussions of
many of the most fundamental Buddhist doctrines. Wherever possible
references to classical sources are linked with suggested translations in
English, French, or German and with standard editions in the original
languages. I have not tried to be exhaustive in supplying references, but
otherwise I have endeavored to apply the historical and text-critical
principles rightfully valued by Western Buddhologists. Much of the
material presented in sections 2 and 3 will seem very basic to the spe-
cialist, but the linguistic interpretation developed throughout should
interest anyone concerned with the hermeneutical problem of finding
meaning in the Madhyamika philosophy. What may not be entirely evi-
dent at first is that this is a holistic interpretation, that is, an interpreta-
tion which rests on an appreciation of all aspects of the Madhyamika:
intellectual, ethical, and practical. For this reason I have thought it best
to leave nothing to chance and to build my argument from the ground
up, demonstrating as I go how each of these three aspects influences and
is in turn influenced by the other two.
In developing this holistic interpretation, it is obvious that I eros!
back and forth over the borders of several jealously guarded disciplines,
each of them defended by a close-knit group of rigorously trained initi-
ates. But then, this was considered necessary in view of the fact that th{
texts explicating the various systems of Buddhist thought have barel)
begun to be translated into Western languages, so that interpretation ol
this material has thus far remained, to a considerable extent, in th{
hands of a small circle of scholars who themselves devote years almos1
entirely to developing a mastery of the philological and text-critical tool!
necessary to specialize in Asian studies. As I indicated above, this seem!
to me an unfortunate situation, for despite the great accomplishments ol
the approved philologically based methodology, by giving it an exclu-
sive claim as a hermeneutical strategy we have hindered our search fm
meaning in Buddhist literature. The problem is not whether to dispens{
with these valuable text-critical tools but how best to divest the philolog-
ical methodology of its privileged claim to absolute hegemony in textual
interpretation-without either losing touch with the texts or falling intc
an uncritical romanticism. My solution attempts to incorporate th{
accepted principles of text-critical scholarship while simultaneous!)
rejecting the largely unstated presuppositions of "objectivity" that nor-

mally accompany them. Claims to methodological purity necessarily
embody (and mask) a fundamental alienation from the objects of
research to which they are applied. The question raised by philosophical
hermeneutics forces itself upon scholars of Buddhist literature just as it
has forced itself upon all scientists and humanistic scholars who are
dominated by methodological preoccupations: Is it not likely that the
understanding achieved by such "controlled alienation" will be an
alienated understanding? "The text that is understood historically is
forced to abandon its claim that it is uttering something true. We think
we understand when we see the past from a historical standpoint, ie
place ourselves in the historical situation and seek to reconstruct the his-
torical horizon. In fact, however, we have given up the claim to find, in
the past, any truth valid and intelligible for ourselves. Thus this
acknowledgment of the otherness of the other, which makes him the
object of objective knowledge, involves the fundamental suspension of
his claim to truth." 19
In designing this introductory study I have worked toward develop-
ing an understanding of the Madhyamika as a cogent and viable
response to a number of broadly based philosophical and religious prob-
lems . Accordingly, without abandoning the basic equipment necessary
to any text-critical research, I have done my best to bring this discussion
into the widest possible arena . 20 Such an approach presents several dif-
ficulties. A certain amount of critical apparatus may intrude upon the
reader who is primarily interested in the philosophical and religious sig-
nificance of Candrak1rti's thought, but the citations of Sanskrit frag-
ments and particularly important textual variants, for example, should
be of use to the philologist. On the other hand, my frequent references
to the work of Western philosophers are likely to strain the attention of
text-critical scholars skeptical of any sustained attempt to engage with
the content of this literature by bringing it into the mainstream of mod-
ern philosophical conversation . My approach takes for granted the
insights of Gadamer's concept of effective history. It has been dictated
by an effort to follow through with some initial, tentative steps already
taken by others in a direction that may eventually lead us beyond any of
the present models for the study of Asian philosophy.
My second overriding concern has been to place Candrak1rti's work
as much as possible within the wider context of Indian Mahayana Bud-
dhism, for Miidhyamika philosophy cannot be properly understood
when extracted from the matrix of its soteriological aims . 21 This is not a
novel claim . It is more or less commonly acknowledged among Western
scholars that we can expect only limited success from a stri~tly historical
or philological study of Buddhist texts. J. W. de Jong, himself a highly

respected philologist, reflects this understanding when he writes:
In the past European orientalists have applied themselves especially to the

history of Buddhism, as has recently been underlined by Eliade. Educated
in the historical tradition of the nineteenth century, scholars believed they
could learn all about Buddhism by studying its history. In the first place
they tried to obtain a knowledge of the facts and data in order to form a
picture of the development of Buddhist ideas. This method is doomed to
failure because in the spiritual life oflndia the historical dimension is of
much less importance than it is in Western civilization. The most impor-
tant task for the student of Buddhism today is the study of the Buddhist
mentality. That is why contact with present-day Buddhism is so impor-
tant, for this will gu:1rd us against seeing the texts purely as philological
material and forgetting that for the Buddhist they are sacred texts which
proclaim a message of salvation. 22
Ruegg corroboratesjong's opinion:
Let me emphasize from the outset that the philosophical side cannot
usually be divorced and treated entirely separately from the religious
without a certain more or less arbitrary compartmentalization, for no hard
and fast dividing line can normally be drawn between the philosophical
and the religious in either India or Tibet. Indeed, the Sanskrit word
dharma (Tibetan chos) covers a whole complex of ideas belonging to the
philosophical, religious and sociological domains which can only be sepa-
rated one from the other for the particular purposes of a given specialized
analysis.
It is, I think, correct to say that Buddhism was never exclusively either a
purely moral teaching or some more or less "aristocratic" doctrine des-
tined, in the framework of a satiated or pessimistic world view, to provide
an escape from the ills and suffering of the world. It is rather a compre-
hensive soteriological teaching necessarily involving a philosophical foun-
dation-which has a number of featurc;:s in common with other Indian
systems-and including an elaborate cosmology closely linked with the
stages of meditation. In short, Buddhism is what is commonly referred to
as a philosophy and a religion. 23
"
I entirely agree with Ruegg here, though I think it necessary to call
into question the presuppositions underlying any arbitrary separation
of religious, philosophical, and sociological domains in the study of
Buddhism. What kind of results can we expect from this sort of "spe-
cialized analysis," which by its nature is a distortion of the tradition it
claims to interpret? This introduction to the Madhyamika is predicated
on a conviction that any attempt at understanding the texts must pro-
ceed through an effort to uncover our own presuppositions as well as
those of the Indian and Tibetan authors. Any other approach is guaran-
teed to fail through not taking into account "the interest that is bound
together with knowledge." 24
Candrakirti has made it quite clear that the sole purpose of the doc-
trine of emptiness and the entire Madhyamika critique lies in its func-
tion as a means through which all sentient beings can find release from
fear and suffering. The great significance this "purpose" or "applica-
tion" (prayojana) holds for him is both explicit, insofar as he has stated it
in several places, and implicit, in that the overall structure of his treatise
reflects the ethical and practical aspects of Mahayana Buddhism. This
is not, however, simply a matter of apologetics, for independent ofCan-
drakirti 's isolated remarks and the claims of the Mahayana tradition, a
case can be made for the centrality of soteriological concerns strictly on
the basis of an analysis of the Madhyamika's approach to the problem of
language and conceptual thought. 25 It will become apparent as we pro-
ceed that the Madhyamika is a philosophy which relates ideas to action
in a particularly subtle fashion. This is not accomplished by arguing
against one view as "wrong" and in favor of another as "right," but by
demonstrating through any available means that the very fact of hold-
ing a view-arry view-keeps one enmeshed in an endless cycle of cling-
ing, antipathy, and delusion. 26 If the Madhyamika cannot be under-
stood in this way-if we insist on interpreting these texts as a set of
answers to epistemological or ontological questions-then we have
missed the point. We shall produce a vast and solemn technical litera-
ture on the categories of truth, the ontology of dream states, and so
forth, but we shall never appreciate the Madhyamika's attempt to
release us from our obsession with the search for one Truth and one
Reality. 27 · "Whoever makes a philosophical view out of emptiness is
indeed lost"; held captive within the bonds of his own imagination, he
forgets-or never begins to realize-that "a knot made by space is
released only by space." 2 B
,
1:"
s E c T 0 N T w 0
CANDRAKTRTI'S HISTORICAL AND

DOCTRINAL CONTEXT
2. 1 The E.ntry into the Middle Way as a Mahiyina text
The distinction between Hinayana (Inferior Vehicle) and Mahayana

(Great Vehicle) is one of those issues about which much has been writ-
ten, while all too little is actually known. For our purposes it is best to
avoid all reference to what has been said concerning the chronological
and sociological implications of these terms, since it has become increas-
ingly apparent that quite a few widely accepted opinions are based on
indefensible premises. It is clear, however, that the Madhyamika cri-
tique was specifically directed against an abstract, academic philosophy
that had become divorced from the tradition of practical application.
Still, we have no reason to suppose that this sort of scholasticism was
characteristic of every non-Mahayana school even in Nagarjuna's
time, 1 and therefore the terms have been retained here as convenient
labels for two different genres of literature. With this in mind, I wish to
draw attention to a twofold distinction between the attitudes expressed
by Indian Buddhist texts with respect to their particular ontological,
epistemological, and soteriological concerns. In each case, The Entry into
the Middle Way is on the side of the Mahayana.
Ontology. Hinayana texts are those which accept a sort of radical plu-
ralism, analyzing all mundane experience into a precisely determined
number of ultimately real, discrete atomic constituents, called dharmas. 2
The individual sense of subjectivity-the experience of a subjectively
real "1''-is based on a composite of certain of these dharmas, and as
such it is simply a reified concept associated with no ultimately real sub-
stance. The ontological position of Mahayana texts is most clearly
viewed as a reaction to or critique of the Hinayana ontology. Within the
Mahayana literature not only is the individual "I" reduced to a reified
concept, but all aspects of everyd~y experience, both subjective and
17
objective, are emptied of any ontological content, whether defined as

"self' (iitman), or as "intrinsic being" or "essence" (svabluiva). The ter-
minological distinction to be noted here is between the Hinayana pref-
erence for dharma and the particularly idiomatic use of the Mahayana
expression iunyatii (emptiness) as a synonym for tattva (reality). 3 Most
contemporary scholars believe that the term emptiness refers neither to
existence nor to nonexistence, and this is certainly the interpretation I
favor. 4 It is a serious misnomer to identify the ontological position of
Mahayana texts as a species of nihilism. 5
Epistemology. The Hinayiina position on epistemological issues finds
its source in what might be called a naive realism with a metaphysical
twist, for although everyday objects are not real, and therefore our sen-
sory experience and our concepts are erroneous, still there is an objec-
tively real ground to these entities, which is composed of the dharmas
that are directly revealed to the meditator. From the Hinayana perspec-
tive, incorrigible, assertoric knowledge derives only from contact with
these ultimately real atomic building blocks; all other forms of knowl-
edge are based on illusion. The Mahayana position is considerably
more complex and subtle, and because of the wide variety of scholastic
writings on the subject, it is impossible to set forth a narrowly defined
Mahayana epistemology. Of primary importance to all schools, how-
ever, is the system of multiple truths, which is given a particularly force-
fld interpretation by Candrakirti. 6 According to his exposition of the
doctrine, all means of knowledge are only "conventionally veridical,"
for in every case the act of knowing is contingent on the interdepen-
dence between knower and known. This interdependence vitiates all
three components of any cognitive act, rendering both subject and
object unreal as intrinsically existent entities; under normal circum-
stances the act of knowing itself is therefore unreliable. 7 As opposed to
conventional truth (vyavahiirasatya), the truth of the highest meaning
(pararruirthasatya) must be realized through a means of knowledge not
grounded in the rigid dichotomy established between reified concepts of
subject and object. Knower and known are experienced as interdepen-
dent events within a larger matrix of other such transitory, constantly
shifting events, through a way -or understanding referred to as prajfiii
(wisdom), resulting in advayajfiiina (nondualistic knowledge). Prajiia and
advayajfiiina are, however, best defined with reference neither to episte-
mological nor to ontological categories, but rather to what can be called·
an alternative conceptualization of the world 8 actualized in a,n attitude
of nonclinging, an attitude engendered within the meditator who has
completely internalized the Madhyamika critique. This is the central
theme of Candrakirti 's philosophy. 9
Soteriology. By definition, Hinayana literature is concerned with the
Historical and Doctrinal Context 19
uest for individual liberation. Its ideal is expressed in the figure of the
~rhat (including both the sravaka and the-pratyekabuddha), 10 who has
transcended all possibility of rebirth, and in the concept of nirvar;1a, the
final cessation of fear and suffering. Once again, the Mahayana posi-
tion is perhaps most easily understood as a critique of the Hinayana
ideal. The highest aim is here embodied in the career of the bodhi-
sattva, who is motivated not from a desire to escape his own malaise,,
but from his immense compassion for the suffering of all living beings.
Nirviii;la, or individual salvation, is set aside as unworthy of the bodhi-
sattva. The goal is now nothing short of full awakening-to become a
buddha oneself-for the welfare of all sentient beings.
2. 2 The bodhisattva ideal and the thought of awakening
The extremely powerful and heroic figure of the bodhisattva dominates

the entire corpus of Mahayana literature, so much so that the Great
Vehicle is often referred to as the "vehicle of the bodhisattvas" (bodhi-
sattvaytina). More than upon anything else the bodhisattva ideal is built
upon a truly imposing altruistic impulse. The most central characteris-
tics of a bodhisattva are his overwhelming compassion for all living
beings and his conviction that they must-each and every one of them
-be rescued from all forms of fear and suffering. The bodhisattva
aspires to be a buddha not in order to find his own salvation, but out of
his concern for an infinite number of beings who must be shown the
way out ofthe recurring pattern of conflict and misery.
The title bodhisattva is actually a compound of two Sanskrit words:
bodhi, meaning "awakening," or, as it is usually translated, "enlighten-
ment"; and sattva, "[a] being." Thus a bodhisattva is "an awakening-
being," or more fluently pace Candrakirti, "one who is determirted to
achieve awakening." 11
Although the bodhisattva ideal plays a vital role in practically every
Mahayana text, there are a few particular compositions in which the
~areer of the bodhisattva is treated in considerable detail. Among these,
ill addition to the present treatise I might also cite as especially authori·
tative sources the Bodhisattvabhiimi (BB), the Mahtivastu (MVA), and the
Daiabhiimika (DB), which was in all likelihood the locus classicus for the
ten stages described in Candrakirti's text.U
The prototype for the bodhisattva figure is ·very clearly none otlter
than "our" historical buddha, yet the collection of Jataka tales refer to
q '
many as thirty-four other buddhas who are supposed to have pre-
~eded Sakyamuni. According to the account preserved in the Dipari·
13
ara ]qtaka, 14 at some time in the very r~mote past a certain monk
20 Candrak1rti and Early Indian Madhyamika
named Sumedha achieved arhatship as the result of his dedicated reli-

gious strivings, and he was therefore destined to enter nirvfu).a at the
time of death. During his wanderings, however, he happened to
encounter the buddha Dipaiikara, and as the result of this fateful meet-
ing he was inspired to renounce the immediate fruit of his immense
efforts in favor of the vastly more significant goal of becoming a perfect
buddha. This vow (prarzidhiina) to attain full awakening for the benefit of
all living beings constitutes the first moment in the generation of the
thought of awakening (bodhicittotpiida), and from this time on, Sumedha
was a bodhisattva. As the tale unfolds, Diparikara uses his supernormal
powers to look into the distant future to a time and place where the
bodhisattva Sumedha will finally become a fully awakened buddha
known as Sakyamuni. A prophecy of success ensues, but the goal will
still not actually be attained until the novice bodhisattva has experi-
enced countless births as animal, human, and god. During this incredi-
ble period of time he will practice the ten perfections as he passes
through the stages to buddhahood, until atJast he will be reborn in the
Tu~ita heaven, and from there he will go on to his final incarnation as a
prince in the foothills of the Himalayan mountains.
2. 3 The stages in the path to full awakening
All of the essential features of the bodhisattva ideal are present in this
earlyjataka story, and each one is encountered again in Candrakirti's
Entry into the Middle Wtry, where the entire development of the bodhisatt-
of
va's career is viewed as a series of progressive stages in the generation
the thought of awakening. In order to set Candrakirti's work into the
larger context of the literature which deals with this topic, I will give a
short review of the general characteristics of this path, which leads from
the state of an ordinary, worldly person (prthagjana) to the most sublime
station of a perfect buddha. The bodhisattva ideal rests upon the prem-
ise that every living being has within it the potential of becoming a bud-
dha, and this same premise underlies the entire edifice of Madhyamika
thought. According to what seem to be "the most ancient systematic
doctrines concerning the career of a bodhisattva," 15 we can speak of
three major gradations in the generation of the thought of awakening.
The first of these precedes the actual bodhisattva vow, for at this
point the future bodhisattva has not yet even conceived of becoming a
buddha. Nevertheless, long before his formal vow to attain awakening,
he belongs, in some sense, to the "family" (gotra) of the bodhisattvas.
He is kind and considerate, and he embodies a certain predisposition
toward compassion, which has been acquired over the course of count-
l-listoricol and Doctrinal Context 21
less previous births .16 During this preliminary stage he lives in such a
way as to accumulate the merit that will eventually lead him to conceive
of the possibility ofrescuing all living beings from suffering. Because of
his naturally compassionate nature, he will not be likely to commit any
act rooted in antipathy or hatred (dve~a), but he is not immune to the
influence of clinging or greed (riiga). It would seem that such an individ-
ual, with his innate concern for others, would not be inclined to pursue
the goal of liberation for himself alone, as had the future buddha
Sumedha in the Diparikara]iitaka. In some texts there is a suggestion that
the bodhisattva is never seriously disposed to follow the path to arhat-
ship; but he is not initially directed toward any particular spiritual goal
(aniyatagotra). 11
The second step is characterized by the first faint glimmerings of
aspiration toward full awakening. The common person is still quite
unrefined, but he is now anxious to be on his way, for he has first
entered the vehicle of the bodhisattvas. His natural predisposition
toward compassion is beginning to ripen into a self-conscious aspiration
truly to serve all living beings, although at this point his thought of
awakening is so faint that it can well be c9mpletely lost unless it is nur-
tured and encouraged to grow in the proper manner. This is accom-
plished in four ways: ( 1) by contemplating the example of the buddhas;
(2) by reflecting on the faults and affiictions inherent in a life governed
by strictly self-centered concerns; (3) by closely observing the miserable
conditions in which all living beings are immersed; and (4) by cultivat-
ing a strong aspiration toward the attainment of the virtues of a bud-
dha.18 During this period he must concetltrate on doing good, for
despite his great feelings of compassion, his basic tendency is still
directed toward self-aggrandizement at the expense of others. The rea-
son for this is that his realization of emptiness is very slight, growing out
of a mere inferential understanding of the teachings derived from study
and careful reflection. He has yet to actualize this understanding
through meditation and practice of the perfections.
Only a very few pass beyond this, but eventually some do succeed in
purifying their aspirations so that they enter the first actual stage of the
bodhisattva path, called "The Stage of Pure Aspiration" (suddha.saya-
bhiimi), or simply "The Joyous" (pramuditii). Candrakirti's account
begins here.
With his ascent to The Joyous, the wayfarer on the path is no longer a
common person, for the transition has been made to the status of a saint
(iirya), from which there can be no retrogression. Preparation for
becoming a bodhisattva is now complete, and the vow is taken to attain
full awakening for the sake of all creatures. As Suzuki has indicated,
"vow" is rather a weak term to convey the fprce of the Sanskrit
~~fs.)~1e~
ID&C~~;Q C)~~C}<;lSaC.o (~ O•fSl)E>)
prartidhiina, which is actually "a strong wish, aspiration, prayer, or

inflexible determination to carry out one's will even through an infinite
series of rebirths." 19 The thought of awakening has by now become a
fully conscious realization of the necessity to follow the path to perfect
buddhahood.
Stages 1 through 7 are devoted to the active pursuit of the bodhisattva
ideal; the eighth stage is called "The Immovable" (acalii), and it marks
the shift to a qualitatively different aspect of the bodhisattva's career.
The emphasis is then no longer on actualization of the thought of awak-
ening, but rather on the nondualistic knowledge and higher mental fac-
ulties (jniiniibhijiiiiniicarya) indispensable to all buddhas.
These ten stages of the path correspond to a set of "perfections"
which are the subject of chapters 1 through 10 in The Entry into the Middle
Way. Candrakirti has obviously emphasized the role of philosophical
investigation in the larger context of the path, primarily because the
Madhyamika makes its unique contribution in this area. Nevertheless,
the sixth stage, which deals with perfect wisdom (prajiiiipiiramita}, treats
only one of a series of perfections, and each of the other stages repre-
sents an indispensable step in the bodhisattva's development. More-
over, wisdom is much more than the ability to render a formal interpre-
tation of philosophical concepts.
2.4 The perfections of the bodhisattva's path
Both Candrakirti and Nagarjuna are quite emphatic about the dangers
of an incorrect understanding of the concept of emptiness, 20 and Bud-
dhist teachers often remind their students that while mistaken beliefs
concerning the intrinsic nature of empirical things are relatively easy to
correct, like dousing a fire with water, if one begins to grasp at some
sort of reified notion of emptiness, then it is as if the water intended to
extinguish the blaze has itself caught fire. The chances of developing
this sort of fatal misconception of emptiness as either "absolute being"
or "unmitigated nothingness" are substantially enhanced if one relies
en~rely on intellectual powers of discrimination, and it is generally
accepted that the most effective means to combat this danger is to culti-
vate an attitude of nonclinging from the very start, by following the full
length of the path in all its theoretical and practical aspects.
As we shall discover in discussion ofthe two truths, reified concepts of
intrinsic being (svabhiiva) associated with the apprehension of an "I" or
any other conceivable subjective or objective phenomenon must be
unqualifiedly rejected. However, the "I" and all other empirical
pheonomena are to be accepted or rejected solely on the basis of their
Historical and Doctrinal Context 23
causal efficacy, or lack of it, within the sociolinguistic nexus of conven-

tional states of affairs. It is clinging that must be totally eradicated, and
in order to accomplish this, one must first begin to distinguish, through
a process of introspection, the illusory, reified concept of self from the
strictly conventional or pragmatic notion of an "I" as the agent of men-
tal, verbal, and physical activity. This kind of introspection certainly
does not exclude the intellect's analytical powers, but it does embrace
much more than intellect, since it rests on a balance of thought and
action . All the features of the path outlined in Candrakirti's text are
intended to operate in harmony, each one reinforcing the others and
contributing in its own way toward a total reconfiguration of one's form
of life . Intellectual understanding evolves into the wisdom of personal
experience, and verbal and physical action ripens into skillful means.
"Action," which here includes the practice of meditation and the
other perfections, is both the outward, ritualized expression of an
inward, spiritual condition or attitude and the determining factor in the
formation of a person's future experience. In this sense, perhaps, we
can begin to comprehend the peculiarly Indian notion of karma, for it is
clear that we are constantly creating ourselves through the vector of our
volitional acts.
Just as an artist develops the capacity to express himself freely and
creatively in his work through mastery of technique, so in a similar way,
through mastery of action, the bodhisattva cultivates the thought of
awakening in a spirit of compassion and wisdom. The perfections Can-
drakirti discusses are perfections precisely because they serve to inte-
grate practical training and academic study of philosophy, or real and
ideal. Each perfection is associated with its own stage in the path, and
each of the first six is said to possess a dual nature which resides initially
in its causal or mundane aspect, and secondarily in its potential for
being transformed into a supramundane effect. 21. With respect to the
first five perfections, this means that they are initially cultivated in reli-
ance on their mundane capacity to function as causal links in the gener-
ation of perfect wisdom. There is, however, a second all-important
quality to action inspired through the soteriologically oriented philoso-
phy of the Madhyamika critique. Such action is said to purify the mind
by cleansing it of all reified <;oncepts, and so to exterminate the very
foundation of clinging. 22 When this process of purification is complete,
the same practice of generosity, morality, patience, energy, or medita·
tion is properly called a "supramundane perfection," and in this second
sense it is not a cause but a fruit of wisdom .
\
c N T H R E E
s E T 0
THE PHILOSOPHICAL LANGUAGE

OF THE MADHYAM!KA
3. I Sources for the study of Mic:llyamika thought
The classical sources for study of the Madhyamika philosophy are, for
the most part, awaiting translation into English, although several of the
more important treatises have been carefully edited and translated into
either French or German. 1 The principal text of the school, Niigiir-
juna's Madhyamakaiiistra (MS), has been the subject of valuable studies
by several distinguished Western scholars. Candrakirti's famous com-
mentary on this text has also been edited and partially translated into
English, French, and German. 2 Aside from the corpus of Niigiirjuna's
work, which is traditionally accepted as the authoritative source for all
later Miidhyamika developments, 3 we also have a vast repository of
technical writings in Sanskrit, Tibetan, and Chinese composed by later
classical authors. So far these remain largely unedited and untranslated
into any European language. Our two primary classical sources of his-
torical information about the school are those of the Tibetan historians
Bu ston and Tiiraniitha. +
As for modern studies, it would be nearly impossible to list all the
books and articles that have been published during the past hundred
years by Western Madhyamika scholars, but many of the most valuable
of these are cited in the bibliographies mentioned in note 1 to this sec-
tion. For our purposes we need refer to only a few of these studies.
The history of Madhyamika scholarship in the West can be viewed as
a progression through three phases, each, it appears in retrospect, more
sophisticated and sensitive than its predecessor. 5 The first was charac-
terized by a nihilistic interpretation of emptiness and other key Madhy-
amika concepts, a reading adopted by such prominent orientalists as
A. B. Keith and Hendrick Kern. 6 These men were among the earliest
Western scholars to attempt a systematic study of Buddhist philosophi-
25
cal texts, and they were confronted by a mountain of unedited manu-

scripts. In addition to having to deal with overwhelming linguistic prob-
lems, they, like any other scholars, were influenced by the prejudices
and presuppositions oftheir"time. It is not at all surprising that the doc-
trine of emptiness at first appeared to them not only as a total rejection
of substance ontology, but far more significant, as a devastating assault
on the very citadel of all ethical values, since from their perspective any
concept of morality was necessarily rooted either in belief in an all-pow-
erful creator God, or at the very least, in the concept of an ultimately
real ground to all phenomena. What must have been most threatening
was the Madhyamika's radical critique of the entire rationalist project.
Although tlie nihilistic interpretation has been twice superseded, the
problem of relativism in connection with the linguistic interpretation is
in a sense little more than a new incarnat~on of the same doubts and
fears that plagued many nineteenth-century scholars.
Classical Madhyamika authors emphatically rejected nihilistic inter-
pretations of emptiness, 7 although it is clear that they viewed it as the
most inviting and dangerous distortion of a deconstructive critique that
depended exclusively on a reductio ad absurdum for its results. Again,
and again they admit that the doctrine of emptiness is frightening-and
ought to be frightening for anyone who engages with it at an emotional
and volitional level through meditation-because it lends itself so easily
to nihilistic interpretations. As Nagarjuna wrote in the Ratniivalz (R f):
"Beyond good and evil, profound and liberating, this [doctrine of emp-
tiness] has not been tasted by those who fear what is entirely ground-
less."8
Nagarjuna and Candrakirti would not have made nearly so much of
the fearfulness of the Madhyamika if it were actually just another abso-
lutist system. Or, if emptiness were to be read as a synonym for the
Vedantic brahman, they would certainly have sought to allay the fear of
emptiness with some reference to the underlying ground of all phenom-
enal experience. Instead they insist on pointing only more resolutely to
the groundlessness of all experience, to "the emptiness of emptiness."
They also recognized and acknowledged in their writings the possibility
of an absolutist interpretation but, given the historical context in which
they \vrote-a period during which Buddhism had defined itself doc-
trinally and socially vis-a-vis the Hindu predilection for epistemological
and ontologi<;al monism-they understandably did not perceive it a1
likely that such views would be attributed to the Madhyamika. Nor die
this happen until quite recently. Medieval Indian Buddhists could no'
have anticipated the social and intellectual forces that would come tc
bear on their doctrines almost two thousand years later.
The second phase of Western Madhyamika scholarship dealt wid:
Philosophical Language of the Madhyamika 27
what Candrakirti might have called an "absolutist interpretation."

Quite a few eminent names are associated with this phase, as well as
some masterful studies, particularly those of the Russian scholar
Theodore Stcherbatsky, who was convinced that the Madhyamika was
essentially a very sophisticated doctrine of monism explicating "tran-
scendental or absolute existence." 9 A more recent example of the type
appears in T. R. V. Murti's widely acclaimed study, The Central Philoso-
phy of Buddhism. 10 If Stcherbatsky represents the classical statement of
the absolutist interpretation, then Murti is certainly its baroque-his
Vedantic/Kantian spectacles distort the Madhyamika's message in a
much more subde and persuasive fashion than any nihilistic interpreta-
tion ever could, and for that reason have unfortunately done a great
deal to prevent us from deepening our understanding of these texts.
Once Nagarjuna and Candrakirti are viewed as Murti suggests we view
them-through the medium of Sarikara's and Kant's epistemological
presuppositions-we are immediately stuck with all the old philosophi-
cal problems, related arguments, and counterarguments, which will
never lead beyon~ themselves in the way Murti hopes. An example is
his remarks on the subject of negation: "Negation itself is significant
because there is an underlyin~ reality-the subjacent ground. If there
were no transcendent ground , how could any view be considered false?
A view is false because it falsifies the real, makes the thing appear other
than what it really is in itself. Falsity implies the real that is falsified.
Phenomena are characterized as sariw.rti because they cover the real
nature of things." u ·
The problem with this kind of exegesis is not so much that it is wrong
per se, but that it uses language in a way that Nagarjuna and Can-
drakirti steadfastly refuse to. Thus it fails to engage with the deeper
meaning these texts could have for us . 12 In asserting this "subjacent
ground," Murti places himself and his reader in the mainstream of a
philosophical debate including the entire range of Vedantic vocabulary,
which is consistendy and very self-consciously avoided in early Indian
Madhyamika texts . As Wittgenstein would say, Murti is playing an
altogether different language game. Let us briefly compare his use of
language with Nagarjuna's to get a feeling for the difference between
these two distinct styles of expression. Where Murti asserts that "the
real nature of things" is their "transcendent ground," Nagarjuna
writes: "Everything is real (tathyam), not real, both real and not real,
and neither real nor not real: This is the teaching of the buddha." 13
Murti's epistemological presuppositions demand justification for the
Madhyamika's use of reductio ad absurdum. Given these presupposi-
tions, Nagarjuna's unwavering rejection of all views can only be under-
stood as an indirect reference to a proposition which cannot be forced
into the words of the Vedantic/Kantian language game. But is the lack
of any such epistemological justification actually acknowledged as a
fault anywhere in the Madhyamika texts? In the Vigrahavyiivartanl, the
Naiyayika interlocutor 14 insists that the Madhyamika's negation of the
intrinsic nature of all things is an instance of petitio principii, 15 because
his proposition would negate itself. Murti's only possible response to
this charge-the only response consistent with his interpretation of the
Madhyamika-has already been noted. He must reject the accusation
with a firm counterproposition, "Negation itself is significant because
there is an underlying reality-the subjacent ground." Compare the
response actually given by Nagarjuna: "If I had any proposition
(pratiJnii), then this fallacy would be mine. I have, however, no proposi-
tion, and therefore I have no fallacy." 16
Concern with justification for epistemological and ontological claims
is part and parcel of the language game that Murti and the Naiyayika
realist cannot stop playing. Nagarjuna, however, refuses to be coerced
into joining the game, and he is therefore not constrained by its rules.
I do not wish to argue that Murti's interpretation is wrong, and that
the Madhyamika's language does not presuppose the Vedantic absolute
he finds there-1 leave this, perhaps, to those who favor the nihilistic
interpretation referred to above. My point is that it would be best if we
simply ceased to talk about these texts in this way, for it leads nowhere.
One cannot forge a meaningful link between this sort of language and
the language and concerns relevant to every other dimension of our
present intellectual and spiritual life. To use Kant as a hermeneutic for
interpreting the Madhyamika is perhaps the surest way to isolate
Nagarjuna's thought in a quaint Asian backwater, as fit for little more
than historical and philological study and with nothing of importance t<
say to a culture that is struggling to free itself from a Kantian epistemol-
ogy that has not led to any new or interesting insights for some time.
Murti and other epistemologists (who need not, of course, refer explic-
itly to Kant) are suggesting that we go back to a period before Nietzsche
and Heidegger, and their successors, whose work presents us with the
possibility of understanding the Miidhyamika in a radically different
way. In discussing James and Dewey, Rorty turns us in a more promis-
ing dilrection:
They asked us to liberate our new civilization by giving up the notion of
"grounding" our culture, our moral lives, our politics, our religious
beliefs, upon "philosophical bases." They asked us to give up the neurotic
Cartesian quest for certainty which had been one result ofGalileo's fright-
ening new cosmology, the quest for "enduring spiritual values" which had
been one reaction to Darwin, and the aspiration of academic philosophy to
form a tribunal of pure reason which had been the neo-Kantian response
Philosophical Language of the Modhyamika 29
to Hegelian historicism. They asked us to think of the Kantian project of

grounding thought or culture in a permanent ahistorical matrix as reaction-
ary. They viewed Kant's idealization of Newton, and Spencer's of Darwin,
as just as silly as Plato's idealization of Pythagoras, and Aquinas' of Aris-
totleY
Murti's idealization of Nagarjuna should be viewed in much the

same way. The necessity for approaching the Madhyamika with a more
suitable hermeneutic is made clear once we sense the possibility of step-
ping away from the compulsive need to justify our interests through ref-
erence to some objectively valid epistemological or ontological criterion:
If one abandons the Kantian distinctions, one will not think of philosophy
as a matter of solving philosophical problems (for example, of having a
theory of the relation between sense-experience and theoretical knowledge
which will reconcile rationalists and empiricists, or a theory of the relation
between mind and body which will reconcile materialists and panpsy-
chists). One will think of it as a matter of putting aside the distinctions that
permitted the formulation of the problems in the first place. 18
I suggest that the Madhyamika be read as a radical attempt at aban-

doning the obsession with a metaphysical absolute that dominated the
religious and philosophical thought ofpost-Upani~adic India. This is by
no means impossible if we use the sources available to us, something
which has begun to happen as the absolutist interpretation is superseded
by the third phase of interpretation.
The work ofMurti and the other absolutists developed as a critique of
the preceding, nihilistic interpretation and as an alternative to the prob-
lems inherent in it. Nevertheless , the authors of classical Madhyamika
texts-especially Nagarjuna and Candrakirti-were adamant in their
censure of both nihilism (ucchedaviida) and its' opposite, the so-called
absolutism (fafvatiiviida) of the Hindu philosophers, which is considered
nothing more than an elaboration of the reified concept of being that
underlies every form of epistemological and ontological monism. 19 To
identify emptiness with any form of absolute, transcendent ground is, in
Candrakirti's words, "as if a shopkeeper were to say, 'I have nothing to
sell you,' and would receive the answer, 'Very well, then just sell me this
-your absence of goods for sale.' " 20
In retrospect, these first two phases may appear arrogant or facile,
insofar as they either blatantly ignore or otherwise fail to come to terms
with the classical Madhyamika philosophers' explicit statements that
the Madhyamika is neither nihilism nor an extremely rarefied variety of
substance ontology or epistemological monism. 21 We need to bear in
mind that the writings of these scholars represent initial attempts at
30 CandrakTrti and Early Indian Miidhyamikc
understanding a very subtle soteriological philosophy. A considerablt

amount of indispensable research has been done by them and, although
it must be used cautiously, much of their work will no doubt retain it!
value for years to come.
The origin of the nihilistic interpretation is easily traced to the writ·
ings of Niigarjuna and Candrakirti. Both men made it a point tc
counter every argument designed to ground everyday experience in any
sort of rationalist or idealist project, and only a very careful textual
analysis will serve to distinguish such a deconstructive approach from
the nihilist's absolute denial of existence, knowledge, and meaning. 22 In
fact, the Madhyamika's fellow Buddhists raised perhaps the most tren-
chant accusation against the prasarigavii/r:ya: "If everything is empty, then
nothing comes iP..to or goes out of existence. Consequently, for you even
the four noble truths themselves do not obtain23 • • • and by expound-
ing [the emptiness of all things] you reject the three jewels [the buddha,
the Buddhist teachings (the Dharma), and the monastic order (the
sangha))-" 24 Niigarjuna and Candrakirti responded to this grave criti-
cism by asserting that their opponents misunderstood the doctrine ol
emptiness because they misunderstood its purpose (prayojana). 25 Its pur-
pose, as stated by Candrakirti, is to eradicate the innate tendency ol
conceptual thought to construct reified notions of being (blulva) and
nonbeing (abhiiva). Such reified notions generate the philosophical posi-
tions referred to as absolutism and nihilism. Even more crucial, though,
from the Buddhist perspective, is Candrakirti's point that both of these
theoretical positions are representative of exactly the sort of conceptual
diffusion (prapaii.ca) that lies at the root of clinging and antipathy and
therefore all forms offear and suffering. 26 This idea of purpose or appli-
cation is the pivot on which Candrakirti:s philosophy and soteriology
turn .
This brings us to the third phase of Miidhyamika scholarship in the
West, which might best be identified as the "linguistic interpretation,"
developed in books and:artides by Robinson, Streng, Daye, Thurman,
Gudmunsen, Gimello,, and several others. One of the great strengths ol
this interpretation is tl'lat it helps us to harmonize our understanding ol
the Ma?hyamika wit}l what the classical philosophers themselves had to
say about their work, since it quietly sidesteps all the old epistemologi-
cal and ontological problems. In this sense it is a radical departure from
· the previous two phases and a considerably more fertile approach to
understanding the Miidhyamika's analysis of language and conceptual
thought. Gimello has clearly described this advantage:
Just as particular material forms lack ontological own-being, so all predi-

cations lack the linguistic equivalent of own-being-to wit, referential
Philosophical Language of the Miidhyamika 31
meaning. The Buddhist ultimate truth of emptiness is ineffable, then, but

in a special sense-not because our words fall short of describing some
transcendent reality called "emptiness," but because all words are such
that they Jack referential content·or are "empty" of substantive meaning
(artha-fii.nyafabda). This holds despite appearances and the common usage
of words. As there are really no determinate entities to be referred to, so
words do not actually refer. Their indexical function is illusory, indeed
it is one of the major fabric_ators of illusion. What is, and the emptiness
thereof, will simply not submit to the language of determinateness. On the
other hand there is no other kind oflanguage. This no doubt accounts for
the intractable character of the emptiness teaching and for its frequent
misinterpretation. 27
Gudmunsen's book, Wittgenstein and Buddhism, is the most compre-

hensive treatment of the theme to date, so I would like to review the
essential features of his argument. 28 It appears that early Buddhist phi-
losophers inherited from Sanskrit grammarians what could be called a
correspondence theory of truth, embodied in the following proposition:
"A sentence is true if it corresponds to a fact." 29 This is perhaps nothing
more than a practical justification of normal linguistic behavior, but in
the hands of a committed rationalist even the most innocent observation
can be transmuted into the suggestion of transcendent being. Not only
Hindu philosophe~s,. but early Buddhist Abhidharmika scholastics as
well, seem to have operated on a largely unconscious premise extrapo-
lated from this correspondence theory of truth, which can be summa-
rized as follows: "If a simple expression has meaning, there is a corres-
ponding simple object." 30 According to the linguistic interpretation
favored by Gudmunsen, the Miidhyamika analysis can best be under-
stood as a critique_ of this referential theory of meaning and the corre-
spondence theory of truth which had preceded it. The critique operates
on two interconnected levels, in a strictly polemical sense and in an edi-
fying one.
The polemical function of the analysis is accomplished through its
criticism of the inconsistencies inherent in any kind of metaphysical lan-
guage, where the expression "metaphysical language" refers to any sort
of linguistic behavior that purports to derive its meaning from a source
outside the sociolinguistic community in which it occurs.
The edifYing function of the analysis is fulfilled through its presenta-
tion of an approach to language and conceptual thought that is charac-
terized as "nonreferential." This approach can be concisely set forth in
the following way. First, the truth value of a collocation of words or con-
cepts de.rives from its being used in a manner that may be seen as some-
h?w consistent with the conceptual matrix of the sociolinguistic commu-
filty in which it occurs. Second, the meaning of a word or concept derives
32 CandrokTrti and Early Indian Madhyomiko
from its application in some particular sociolinguistic community, and

not from its reference to any necessarily private object.
This interpretation is not only advantageous for the reasons already
mentioned, but also-and primarily-because it facilitates our appreci-
ation of the Madhyamika's system of the "two truths," which will be
discussed in some detail below. If the meaning of a word or concept
derives entirely from its usage in a historically bound social context,
where it must be understood as indicative of a certain attitude toward
some actual or possible state of affairs in the world, then any reference
to an exclusively private object like a thing in-and-for-itself (a dharma)
or an isolated, inviolate "I" (an atman) would be senseless. Such pri-
vate objects are by definition excluded from any sociolinguistic matrix.
The linguistic interpretation allows us to appreciate this seminal insight
captured in all of the Madhyamika's central concepts: Metaphysical
language is incapable of justifying its claim to capture truth in a com-
plex of ontological and epistemological propositions, for the objects to
which it refers are entirely without practical consequences and are thus
devoid of all reality. Equally important, it should be noted that this
analysis has the effect of drawing our attention away from names and
named objects and fixing it squarely upon the context in which they
occur and the relations that obtain between them .
3.2 Major figures in the development of Madhyamika thought
Without a doubt, the central figure in all traditional accounts of the

Madhyamika-and on the basis of his extant writings, perhaps the most
important Indian scholar of any persuasion-is the Buddhist philoso-
pher Nagarjuna, who lived sometime during the first few hundred years
after Christ. 31 Nagarjuna is generally regarded as "one of the very first
and most original thinkers of the Mahayana," 32 and yet we know almost
nothing of his life. 33 I have already mentioned his Madhyamalcafiistra. His
other most influential philosophical work is the Vigrahavyavartani, a trea-
tise of particular relevance for the linguistic interpretation. In addition
to t'hese and the four other texts mentioned in section 3, note 3, there
are two other major compositions ambiguously attributed to Nagar-
juna: the Alcutobhaya, a commentary on MS; 34 and the Mahaprajiiiipiira-
mitiiiiistra, a vast c~mpendium of Mahayana teachings that touches
upon every aspect of the bodhisattva's path. Lamotte 1944-1980
presents a partial translation and detailed study of this treatise whicll is
itself a monument of modem Buddhist scholarship, and the investiga-
tion done by Ramanan 1966 is a particularly sensitive and readable
commentary on the whole of the Madhyamika teachings . Still, notwith-
141040
standing these two fine achievements, the authorship of the Mahiiprajiiii-
piiramitiifiistra is a matte~ that r~mains u~settled .. Two other figures are
associated with the earliest penod of Madhyamrka development. The
first of these, Aryadeva, probably lived toward the end of the third cen-
tury A.D. and on into the fourth; he is said to have been Nagarjuna's
disciple and the cofounder of the Madhyamika. 35 Not one of his works
seems to have survived completely in its original Sanskrit version, but
all are apparently preserved in Tibetan translation. One of them, the
Catuhiataka (CS), is a long philosophical tract of great interest for its
ar~ments against contemporary non"Buddhist philosophers, aug-
mented by a lengthy commentary attributed to Candraklrti. The other
legendary personage of this period is a rather shadowy figure, Rahu-
labhadra, known to us through traditional accounts variously as the
teacher or the pupil of Nagarjuna. Only fragments of his writings are
presently available, as citations in other Madhyamika texts. 36
The next period of significant development for the Madhyamika is
dominated by Candraklrti himself, and by references to another monk-
scholar named Buddhapalita (ca. 500 A.D.), 37 who is unanimously
attributed with only one work, a lengthy commentary on Nagarjuna's
MS entitled Miilamadhyamakavrtti (MMV). 38
Very little is actually known about the life of Candrakirti. He was
doubtless the major force behind consolidation of what was much later
identified as the Prasarigika-madhyamika, although tradition accords to
his predecessor Buddhapalita the status of founder of this subschool of
Madhyamika thought. 39 At any rate, it was through the medium of
Candrakirti 's writings that the Prasarigika-madhyamika received its\
classical statement. The Tibetan historian Taranatha writes that Can-
drakirti was born "in Samanta in the south of India ... during the
reign of King Sila, son of Sriharsa,"io which would indicate that he was
active during the late sixth or early seventh· century. Most modern
scholars are willing to accept this estimate. Perhaps the most precis~
dates that can he assigned on the basis of the rather scanty avai!able evi-
dence-are those suggested by Ruegg, ca. 600-650. 41
Candrakirti is supposed to have been a contemporary of the famous
Sanskrit grammarian Candragomin, and Taranatha tells us that the
two scholat"s were in constant competition with each other. ~ 2 It would
s:em that Candaraklrti was not only a brilliant philosopher but a rather
drfficult personality as well, for Candragomin apparently had a great
deal of trouble with him. According to one account, the goddess Tara
went so far as to confide in Candragomin that Candrakirti's work would
be of limited use to others, since he was so proud of his scholarship. 43
~other rather curious report has been handed down to us concerning a
S«;cond Candrakirti" who was supposed to have been a disciple of a
34 Candrai<Trti and Early Indian Miidhyamika
tantric master named Nagarjuna. 44 (This is not the Madhyamika phi-

losopher Niigarjuna.) There is no other significant biographical infor-
mation available on Candrakirti .
The primary testimony to the life of Candrakirti consists of the
impressive list of works attributed to him by later Indian and Tibetan
scholars. 45 His most famous composition is certainly The Entry into the
Middle Way and its autocommentary (bhi¥ya). However his commentary
to Nagarjuna's MS, the Prasannapadti (PSP), is also very well known both
in the Indian and the Tibetan traditions. In addition to his philosophi-
cal treatises on the Miidhyamika and related topics, he is also credited
with the composition of a number oftantric texts. 46
The last great Madhyamika philosopher of Candrakirti's era was the
master logician Bhavaviveka (ca. 500-5 70).47 He was the founder of the
second major school of early Madhyamika thought, the Sviitantrika,
and we possess a number of his writings in Tibetan translation. 48 Even
in its earliest form, the Svatantrika system constitutes an imposing
monument to rationalism, incorporating a complex series oflogical for-
mulas designed to substantiate Niigarjuna's original philosophical im-
pulse. Because of its apparent similarities in certain important respects
to the absolutist interpretation, as well as its historical importance to the
development of Madhyamika thought, it would be useful to review the
Svatantrika position. 49
From the sixth through the eighth centuries the course of Madhy-
amika development was determined by an ongoing debate between the
Prasangika, chiefly represented by Candrakirti, and the Svatantrika,
championed by Bhavaviveka. The Entry into the Middle Way reflects the
central concern of this debate. While both schools accepted the ultimate
validity of the emptiness doctrine, the Svatantrika held that this doc-
trine could be established most effectively by utilizing an extensive sys-
tem of independently valid (svatantra) inferential judgments embodied in
the tripartite syllogism of Indian philosophers, which consists of a prop-
osition (pratijnii), a supporting reason (hetu), and a suitable example
(dr~tiinta). The Pras~ngika maintained that this sort of Sfllogistic argu-
mentation, even with the modifications introduced by Bhavaviveka, is
inappropriate in the service of the concept of emptiness, for "empti-
ness" is not to be sought after in the propositional structure of an
inferential judgment. 50 According to the Prasangika, one must be led
toward a gradual realization of emptiness solely by means of a critique
directed against his own prejudices and presuppositions about so-called
empirical experience and the arguments either consciously or uncon-
sciously posited to support these preconceived ideas. 51 The Prasangika
technique is accordingly a species of reductio ad absurdum whereby one
moves step by step to become aware of the unforeseen consequences
l '
asangas), or better yet, the inherent contradictions invariably present

(P~hin any attempt at a priori justification of the presuppositions that
~~e meaning and structure to every dimension of convention~ affairs.
gt The Prasangika-Svatantrika debate was thus only tangentially con-
emed with the emptiness doctrine per se. Both sides agreed that all
c hilosophical views (dr~.tis) must be rejected; the disagreement arose
~ith respect to determination of the proper means for accomplishing
such a nonpresuppositional or nonimplicative (prasajya) negation. 5 2 The
essential issue which informed all the heated controversy, however, was
actually a question as to the efficacy of reason itself: To what extent can
logic be employed to se~e the Madhyami~a's soteriol~gical pu~ose?
Bhavaviveka argued that 1f the truth of the highest meanmg (paramartha-
satya) could not be grounded in a rationalist methodology, then there
would be no possibility of developing any cogent system of philosophy. 53
The truth of the highest meaning must be susceptible to rational inter-
pretation, for otherwise there would be an unbridgeable rift between
conventional truth and an eternally transcendent absolute (a conse-
quence that would stand in direct conflict with the Madhyamika's own
concept of dependent origination). Candrakirti responded by steadfast-
ly rejecting Bahavaviveka's rationalist convictions on the pragmatic
grounds that any such appeal to abstract reason would inevitably
undermine the soteriological purpose of the Madhyamika critique. If
used for anything other than strictly deconstructive aims-aims that are
accomplished by accepting an opponent~ reasoning only in order to turn it
back on itself in a spiral of paradox and contradiction-logic can
become a dangerous snare. It is in itself quite incapable of resolving the
confusion which is generated by the attempt to apply conventional,
dichotomized thinking to a task for which it is totally unsuited. As the
crystallized essence of conceptualization, logic tends by its nature to
engender the clinging and antipathy associated with reified thought.
The Madhyamika philosopher must not get caught up in and obsessed
with the effort to manipulate syllogistic reasoning or any other conven-
tional device. According to the Prasarigika, one need only learn to
observe patiently, with extreme care and devotion, the appearance .of
reality on which our commonsense assumptions are based, and in so
d~ing the emptiness of all ontological and epistemological c~tegories
wdl reveal itself in these everyday appearances. Conventional, truth is
not to be reconciled with the soteriological truth of the highest meaning
by grounding bits of language (prajooptis) in an objective rationalist
m_ethodology, not only because such a project would actually strengthen
C~Inging and antipathy, but also because the commonsense sociolinguis-
tic World does not require any external, ahistorical point of reference-
any "tribunal of reason"-to manifest the emptiness of its inherently
36 CandrakTrti and Early Indian Miidhyamikc
contextual structure. Language is not grounded outside itself, bu1

rather in its use or application (prayojana): "Indeed, words do not recoil or
the speaker and make him dependent [on their objective meaning], likt
an animal trainer with a stick! On the contrary, in their circumstantia
efficacy [words) are subject to the speaker's fundamental concern witl
communication. Therefore [the Madhyamika] is not compelled t<
accept-as the sole result of the refutation of an opponent's propositior
-the antithesis of the logical consequences he has exposed." 54
The truth of emptiness must be realized in direct awareness of tht
paradox and mystery of all mundane experience, which need only bt
deconstructed through application of the symbolic forms of the Madhy-
amika's soteriological philosophy in study, critical reflection, and practi-
cal training.
3.3 History and doctrine of the Middle Way
Candrakirti's text is called The Entry into the Middle Way, and the Madhy-
amika philosophy is itself a mean (madhyama) between all extremes, a
middle path (madhyamamiirga), or a moderate course of action (madhyamii
pratipad). 55
The Middle Way represents first of all a characteristic attitude,
rooted in a certain set of individual and social concerns, which shapes
the motivation for one's actions in the world. Secondarily, it is indica-
tive of a particular sort of deconstructive philosophy which endows the
Madhyamika with its paradoxical "non-position." This notion of a
Middle Way is fundamental to all Buddhist teachings-it is in no sense
the exclusive property of the Madhyamika-yet it was given priority by
Nagarjuna and his followers, who applied it in a singularly relentless
fashion to all problems of ontology, epistemology, and soteriology.
There is little question that the concept underwent a gradual evolu-
tion within the early history of Buddhist thought, and it received two
important applications in Hinayana literature. Perhaps one of the best-
known references to a Middle Way is found in the record of the bud-
dha's first sermon at the Deer Park outside Varanasi, in the plains of
northern India:
Then the Blessed One addressed the group of five religious mendicants:
"Mendicants, there are two extremes which should not be practiced by
any person who has left society to find salvation. What are these extremes?
On the one hand there is the realm of desire and the pursuit of pleasure
which is in accord with desire-it is a base pursuit, boorish, profane,
crude and without profit. On the other hand, there is the pursuit of self-
mortifiration which is sheer misery, as well as crude and without profit.
~~~~'CeO
CltCt:f? .~ ~\S!"t;~'ll'JI!~" (~ ~·~'E:l)
Philosophical Language of thlM&tfr~~lfflko 37
Mendicants, passing through these two extremes and avoiding them both
is the Middle Way, object of the tathii.gata's perfect awakening, opening
the eyes and the mind, leading to peace, to omniscience, to complete
awakening, and to nirvarza. " 56
The Middle Way is very clearly defined here as a practical approach

to the religious life , a prescription for the sort of behavior that will
eventually lead to release from fear and suffering. Elsewhere we find
evidence of a different conception of the Middle Way, a much more
abstract application of the concept to ontological categories. The
buddha is in this instance explaining the nature of "right view" to a
wandering ascetic named Katyayana:
Kii.tyiiyana, everyday experience relies on the duality of "it is" and "it is
not." But for one who relies on the Dharma and on wisdom, and thereby
directly perceives how the things of the world arise and pass away, for him,
there is no " it is" and no " it is not." " Everything exists" is simply one
extreme, Kii.tyii.yana, and "nothing exists" is the other extreme. The
Tathii.gata relics on neither of these two extremes, Kii.tyiiyana; he teaches
the Dharma as a Middle Way. 57
This text is especially relevant to our present concerns since it is cited

by Nagarjuna in his Madhyamakafiistra (15 . 7). In his commentary on the
verse, Candrakirti underscores its importance by reminding the reader
that this particular scripture is studied in all the various Hinayana and
Mahayana schools. 58 The avoidance of reifed concepts of being and
nonbeing, that is, the Middle Way, is directly equated with the eightfold
noble path, 59 and with the last of the four noble truths, the "path lead-
ing to the cessation of all suffering." 60
The concept of a Middle Way obviously proved to be a very fruitful
heuristic in early Buddhist literature, a device that could seemingly be
exploited as an aid toward the explanation of virtually any important
point of doctrine . One of the most crucial doctrinal issues for all Bud-
dhists is, of course, the concept of selflessness (nairiUmya), and here as
elsewhere we encounter the all-pervasive influence of the Middle Way,
this time interpreted by Nagarjuna as the absence of any philosophical
view-the "view" which is really no view at all : "The buddhas have
indicated that there is a self, they taught that there is no self, and they
also taught that there is neither any self nor any no-self." 61 The Madhy-
~ika's refusal to accept any proposition as absolutely binding is espe-
Cially characteristic of Candrakirti's thought, but as a universal philo-
~phical hermeneutic, the non view of the Prasangika finds its precedent
~n the writings of the master Nagarjuna, who even went so far as to call
mto question the very existence of the buddha and his teachings. 62
38 CandrakTrti and Early Indian MadhyamikCJ
This central theme of a Middle Way is intimately connected with

another fundamental Madhyamika doctrine, the system of the two
truths. The "two truths" are: (1) the truth of convention (vyavahiirasatya)
[=the truth of the screen (sanivrtisatya)]; and (2) the soteriological truth
of the highest meaning (piiramiirthasatya). In a short tract titled The Key to
the Middle Way, the fourteenth Dalai Lama explains the distinction
between these two truths. And as with "emptiness" in the writings of
Candrakirti, it is important to note that once again the concept derives
its meaning from its purpose in a very specific practical application:
The purpose of knowing, ... the presentation of the two truths is as fol-
lows. Since it is utterly necessary to be involved with these appearances
which bring about varieties of good and bad effects, it is necessary to know
the two natures, superficial and deep, of these objects to which we are
related. For example, there may be a cunning and deceptive neighbor
with whom it is always necessary for us to interact and to whom we have
related by way of an estimation of him that accords only with his [pleas-
ant] external appearance. The various losses that we have sustained in this
relationship are not due to the fault of our merely having interacted with
that man. Rather, the fault lies with our mistaken manner of relation to
him. Further, because of not knowing the man's nature, we have not
estimated him properly and have thereby been deceived. Therefore, if that
man's external appearance and his fundamental nature had both been
well known, we would have related to him with a reserve appropriate to
his nature and with whatever corresponded to his capacities, and so forth.
Had we done this, we would not have sustained any losses. 63
The system of the two truths is closely aligned with a hermeneutical

tool based on the distinction between passages of definitive meaning
(nitiirtha) and those of nondefinitive meaning (neyiirtha), which are neces-
sarily in need of further interpretation in order to be properly under-
stood. 64 Conventional truth is the subject of statements which fall into
the first category, while the truth of the highest meaning is expressed in
paradoxical, albeit "definitive," statements like those of Nagarjuna
cited just above. Eventually it was deemed most accurate, from the per-
spective of the Middle Way, not only to deny that the buddha ever
existed, but to deny that he did not exist, that he both existed and did
not exist, and, of course, that he neither existed nor did not exist. 65 This
tetralemma (catU$kotz) is the classic formula of the prasarigaVIikya set forth
in 6.8cd of The Entry into the Middle Way, at the beginning of an analysis
of production.
The force of this deconstructive formula can be appreciated if we look
back to the discussion of the nonreferential approach to language and
conceptual thought. There I pointed out that according to the Madhy-
ika analysis , objects presented in the context of everyday experience

amre neither real nor unrea1, neit. h er existent
. .
nor nonexistent, a n d t h at
:ltimately nothing at all can be said concerning their ontological status.
However, as Wittgenstein has observed, the referent of a word "is not a
something, but not a nothing either. The conclusion was only that a noth-
ing would serve just as well as a something about which nothing could
be said."66 For the soteriological purposes of the Madhyamika , how-
ever, it was necessary ultimately to dispense with all references to both a
something and a nothing. 67
When the Madhyamika philosophers consistently refuse to use words
and concepts as though they drew their meaning from association with
an intrinsically existent "private object," they not only provide a de
facto solution to any intellectual problems of ontology or epistemology
that focus on such abstract, hypothetical entities, but more important, a
philosophical bulkhead is established from which they can mount an all-
out attack on the essentially emotive or volitional problem of clinging. 68
When this new attitude toward language and conceptual thought is
harnessed to the practice of balanced concentration, the meditator
reaches a point where he begins to see clearly-by "not seeing"-the
lack of a fixed substratum underlying any experience. And where there
is no object to be grasped at-no ground whatsoever-there is no basis
for clinging or antipathy, and the mind is naturally at peace. Here one
realizes the truth of the highest meaning, the actualization of emptiness,
the cessation of all fear and suffering. On the other hand, words and
concepts used for strictly practical purposes do possess a very definite
semantic content, and that content is totally exhausted within the
sphere of the sociolinguistic context where they are used . "Meaning"
and "reality" are defined only in conventional terms, with reference to
nothing more nor less than the thoughts and feelings, the conversations
and activities, that together make up all that there is to life . 69 This is the
second of the two truths, the conventional truth of everyday experience,
which must be seen exactly as it is (yathtibhiitam) in the full context of its
interpenetrating relations, in order that one might begin to eliminate
the problem of clinging.
Any attempt to ignore or transcend everyday life in favor ·of some
metaphysical concept of objectivity is inherently meaningless and
~oomed to failure. Yet everyday, practical experience is constantly
Invoked by the Madhyamika "not on account of its value, but rather on
ac~ount of its ultimate inconsistency, or more precisely, because of the
ultimate inconsistency which is its only value ." 70
~he truth of the highest meaning takes its reality only through being
proJected onto the screen (samvrti) of conventional truth. Recognition of
the strictly contextual or pragmatic significance of the thoughts and
objects that populate our mental and material world renders meaning-
less any search for a transcendental ground behind these phenomena.
But paradoxically, by stripping away the tendency to reify the screen of ·
everyday affairs, this same recognition simultaneously lays bare the ~·
intrinsic nature of all things, which is their "suchness" (tathatii), their ( . . . ..
quality of being just as they are in reciprocal dependence. What is .
immediately given in everyday experience is indeed all that there is, for
the inherently interdependent nature of the components of this experi-
ence is the truth of the highest meaning: both the means to the goal
(marga; upiiya) and the goal itself (nirviirza). 71
In this way a holistic interpretation of conventional truth provides the
necessary means for the actualization of emptiness. As intellectual
appreciation of the Miidhyamika's approach to language and concep-
tual thought grows deeper and begins to take root in experience, it
becomes manifest in an attitude of nonclinging, which is by definition
in complete accord with the soteriological aim of the truth of the highest
meaning. The academic study of philosophy plays a critical role in
developing this immediate awareness of things "as they are," but ac-
cording to the textual tradition, any study of deconstructive philosophy
is significant only to the extent that it contributes to formation of an atti-
tude of nonclinging, and such an attitude is both cultivated and
revealed in the most unpretentious or obviously ritualistic activities.
Nagarjuna, the master dialectician of the Madhyamika, himself com-
posed very moving devotional poetry, and legend has it that the entire
Far Eastern traditions ofCh'an and Zen are founded on one sermon of
the buddha, in which he did nothing but silently offer a single flower to
the assembly of monks.
3.4 Major philosophical themes of The Entry into the Middle Way
I have discussed the broader context of Candrakirti's work and the sig-
nificance of his writing within the Miidhyamika tradition. The Miidhy-
amika, or Middle Way, has its roots in a very ancient Buddhist doctrine.
Before going on to review the contents of The Entry into the Middle Way in
greater detail, there are three important themes which should be
explained, /since they act as a sort of leitmotif for Candrakfrti 's text. All
three ofthem are introduced in the following passage from the Prasanna-
padii:
A carriage is designated in dependence on its parts, the wheels and so

forth. Whatever is designated in dependence on its own parts is not pro-
duced through any intrinsic being, and nonproduction through any
........
intrinsic being is emptiness. Emptiness, defined as nonproduction

through any intrinsic being, is itself the Middle Way. That which is not
produced through any intrinsic being cannot possibly be existent, and yet
because it lacks nonbeing neither can it be nonexistent. Therefore, on
account of its avoiding the two extremes of being and nonbeing, empti-
ness, defined as nonproduction through any intrinsic being, is called the
Middle Way, or the Middle Path. So it is that the following expressions are
various synonyms for dependent origination: "emptiness," "dependent
designation," and "the Middle Way." 72
It should be evident that none of these themes is completely new.

They are closely intertwined insofar as each applies to some particular
facet of the doctrine of the Middle Way: "dependent origination" (prati-
tyasamutpiida) focuses primarily on ontological problems, and especially
on the problem of causality; "dependent designation" (prajiiaptir upii-
diiya) deals with epistemological problems and with the Madhyamika's
approach to language and conceptual thought; and "emptiness" (fiin-
yatii) is perhaps the most charged term in the entire range of Madhy-
amika techrtical vocabulary, a word so vibrant and rich in associations
that it brings together all the most vital aspects of the Madhyamika's
soteriological philosophy.
3.4.1 Dependent origination (pratityasamutpoda)

The problem of causation must be accounted for by any system of
thought which aspires toward a comprehensive ontology, and ancient
Indian philosophers are not alone in their search for a solution to ques-
tions posed by the very special and intimate relationship that obtains
between a cause and its effect. A survey of the history of Western
attempts to deal with the issue of causation serves only to augment the
air of mystery that surrounds this most mundane phenomenon:
It is apparent that some of the main philosophical problems of causation

do not yield to an easy solution. The idea of a necessary connection
between cause and effect may be, as Hume thought, an esoteric and meta-
physical one, but it is doubtful whether anyone can render an adequate
analysis of the causal relation without it. The idea of causal power or
efficacy is perhaps more esoteric still, and yet there is no obvious way of
eliminating it from the concept of causation. Considerations of means and
ends 0r of time do not help to eliminate this concept. If, however, one
professes to find no difference between the relation of a cause to its effect,
on the one hand, and of an effect to its cause, on the other, he appears to
contradict the common sense of mankind, for the difference appears per-
fectly apparent to most men, even in cases where neither cause nor effect
can be represented as a means or end and even when both occur con tern-
poraneously. Here, then, as in so many areas of philosophy, our advances

over our predecessors appear more illusory than real. 73
The .Miidhyamika philosopher would certainly sympathize with his

European or American counterpart, mired in a singularly intractable
problem; and he would doubtless admire the rigorous methodology
which our Western tradition has forged in the course of its investiga-
tion. In fact, Candrakirti would heartily applaud any effort to avoid
contradicting "the common sense of mankind," and he would as well
agree with Hume, given certain qualifications, that "the idea of a nec-
essary connection between cause and effect" is "an esoteric and meta-
physical one." Concerning this last point, however, we must be very
careful, for the similarity between the two men as regards the value
placed upon "common sense" and the degradation of "esoteric ideas"
is more apparent than factual. At any rate, Candrakirti is, in at least
one sense, more willing to accept the consequences of Hume's skepti-
cism than is Hume himself, for the .Miidhyamika philosopher is pre-
pared to concede to the force of pragmatic demands as entirely sufficient
for definition of the cause-effect relation. As he writes in The Entry into
the Middle Way, "If a cause produces its requisite effect, then, on that
very account it is a cause. If no effect is produced, then in the absence
[of any effect], the cause does not exist." 74
What is most striking here is the difference in attitude which distin-
guishes one tradition from the other in its idea of what constitutes a
philosophical problem. The .Miidhyamika can rest content with this
very practical definition of causality because he has dispensed with the
presupposition that philosophers should be able to discover a more satis-
fying theoretical explanation for what is universally accepted at face
value in the context of everyday experience. He feels no compulsion to
go beyond this uncompromisingly practical account; to him the unend-
ing search for something more than pragmatic justification is funda-
mentally misguided, in that it is vitiated by an unexamined, and
unwarranted, premise: Why presuppose that causation must necessar-
ily be predicated upon some a priori, abstract "connection" between
a cause and its effect? Why must the task of philosophy be restricted
to this continuing search for a transcendental locus of meaning and
existence-some "necessary connection," "substance," "power,"
"essence," "logical form," or the like-through which the constituents
of everyday experience might be brought together into some kind of sig-
nificant whole? Could it not be that the only legitimate philosophical
work is over and done with when all problems are shown to be practical
problems, and when the paradoxical nature of the everyday world has
been shown to be entirely self-sufficient as revealed in all actual and
possible states of affairs? This basic problem of causality was summa-

rized by Nagiirjuna in MS 20.19: "It certainly is not the case that cause
and effect are identical, nor, indeed, are they different." 75 Given the
same dilemma of causality, compare the response of many Western phi-
losophers with the Madhyamika's response as provided by Candrakirti:
"Because we maintain that both [cause and effect] are like magical illu-
sions, therefore we are subject to no [logical] fallacy, and the elements of
everyday experience are left intact." "Do not lose touch with the screen
taken for granted in the context of everyday experience." 76 There is
here no attempt to get behind or under everyday experience to a tran-
scendental substratum. Such an attitude is not altogether lacking
among Western philosophers, however. Indeed, since Nietszche several
important movements have developed in the West seeking to avoid
entirely the problem of causation as it presented itself to earlier philoso-
phers steeped in Descartes's thought and Kant's epistemological pre-
suppositions . As early as 1903 A. E. Taylor anticipated what was to
come when he drove a wedge between nineteenth-century rationalism
and conventional everyday experience:
Regarded as a universal principle of scientific procedure, the causal

assumption must be pronounced to be neither an axiom nor an empirical
truth but a postulate, in the strict sense of the word, i.e., an assumption
which cannot be logically justified, but is made because of its practical
value , and depends upon the success with which it can be applied for
conformation ... . It is a postulate which experience may confirm but
cannot prove. 77
Only seven years later William james published The Meaning of Truth,
in which he completely sidestepped the philosophical problem of causal-
ity with his "pragmatic" definition of truth:
"Grant an idea or belief to be true," [Pragmatism] says, " what concrete

difference will its being true make in any one's actual life? What experi-
ences [may J be different from those which would obtain if the belief were
false? How will the truth be realized? What, in short, is the truth's cash-
value in experiential terms?" The moment pragmatism asks this question ,
it sees the answer: True ideas are those that we can assimilate, validate,
corroborate, and verify. False ideas are those that we cannot. That is the
practical difference it makes to us to have true ideas; that therefore is the
meaning of truth, for it is all that truth is known as. 78
The implications of James's pragmatic definition of truth for the

problem of causality are made clear only a few pages further on in his
preface, where he lays down the ground rules for a new doctrine of
"radical empiricism":
•
44 Candrak1rti and Early Indian Modhyamika
Radical empiricism consists first of a postulate, next of a statement of

fact, and finally of a generalized conclusion.
The postulate is that the only things that shall be debatable among
philosophers shall be things definable in tertns drawn from experience.
[Things of an unexperiential nature may exist ad libitum) but they fonn no
part of the material for philosophic debate.}
. The statement of fact is that the relations between things, conjunctive as
well as disjunctive, are just as much matters of direct particular experi-
ence, neither more so nor less so, than the things themselves.
The generalized conclusion is that therefore the parts of experience hold
together from next to next by relations that are themselves parts of experi-
ence. The directly apprehended universe needs, in short, no extraneous
trans-empirical connective support, but possesses in its own right a conca-
tenated or continuous structure. 79
James was well aware of the obstacles his pragmatism would encoun-
ter in the prevailing rationalist belief "that experience as immediately
given is all disjunction and no conjunction, and that to make one world
out of this separateness, a higher unifying principle must be there." 80
The necessity for "categories of relationship" is built into the rationalis-
tic/idealistic way of looking at things that James wanted ·to leave
behind, and the prototypical category the archetype of all relation-
ships is the truth-relation, "which connects parts of reality in pairs,
making of one of them a knower, of the. other a thing known, yet which
is itself contentless experientially, neither describable, explicable, nor
reduceable to lower terms, and denotable only by uttering the name
'truth.' " 81
I have cited James at length here because his pragmatic definition is
to · a very great extent compatible with the Madhyamika's analysis of
truth as a function of what can be put into practice what can be
embodied in the thoughts, words, and actions that go to make up a form
of life. I shall have more to say about this Buddhist concept of truth in a
moment, but first we need to examine more closely the Madhyamika's
own approach to the riddle posed by causality, as expressed in the words
of the fourteenth Dalai Lama: · ·
If phenomena were not empty of a fundamental basis or of inherent exis-

tence, it would be utterly impossible for the·varieties of phenomena to be
transformed in dependence on causes. If they existed by way of their own
fundamental basis, then no matter what type of entity they were, good,
bad, and so on, how could they be changed? If a good fruit tree, for
instance, were inherently existent by way of its own entity or its own inner
basis, how would it be true that it could become bare and ugly? lfthe
present mode of appearance of these things. to our minds were their own
inner mode of being, how could we be deceived? Even in the ordinary
--
world many discrepancies are well known between what appears and what
actually is. Therefore, although beginninglessly everything has appeared
as if it were inherently existent to the mind that is contaminated with the
errors of ignorance, if those objects were indeed inherently existent, their
inner basis would be just as they appear. In that case, when the conscious-
ness searching for the inner basis of a phenomenon performed analysis,
that inner basis would definitely become clearer. Where does the fault lie,
that when sought, phenomena are not found and seemingly disappear? 82
The fault, as far as the Madhyamika is concerned, lies in an unshaka-

ble tacit commitment to the a priori principle that the interaction
between cause and effect is an interaction between two discrete, intrin-
sically existent entities. The search for a "necessary connection" linking
a cause with its effect is, like the search for the archetypal "truth-rela-
tion" itself, no objective, value-free philosophical enterprise. On the·
contrary, from the Madhyamika's perspective it appears as a blind
groping for justification of the unacknowledged presupposition that
truth "connects parts of reality in pairs." And whether these pairs be
cause and effect, knower and known, subject and object, or any other
dichotomy, this presupposition preserves at its core a kernel of contami-
nation-the spiritual ignorance (avidyii) embodied in the mind's inher-
ent tendency to reify all experience into "things" that can be grasped at
and possessed by an "I" that is itself only another fragmented, intrinsi-
cally existent thing: "Those who teach that the 'I' and objective things
possess individualized reality cannot be considered to know the [bud-
dha's] teaching." 83
The question posed by the Madhyamika is in this respect very similar
to the question implicit in james's pragmatism: Which is more salutary,
to press on in this way by weaving an endless series of abstruse argu-
ments, in the hope of retrieving some solid justification for this presup-
position of a metaphysical reality behind the appearance of everyday
affairs, or simply to abandon the presupposition altogether and accept
everyday, practical considerations as sufficient unto themselves? 84
There is a very large catch here, of course, and it is a catch which has
not been directly addressed by James or any of his followers, though it
forms an integral part of the Madhyamika's soteriological philosophy.
According to the Madhyamika, even if one should be persuaded in
favor of the second, "pragmatic," option and sincerely desire to aban-
don this endless quest for an objectively valid, rationalistic account of
~ausation and truth, only then will he begin to discover just how strong
ts his commitment to a substance ontology which is built into the search,
how far its influence stretches beyond the intellect, and how deeply it
penetrates into emotive and volitional realms. The extent of the prob-
-
lem may be perceived by considering what Feyerabend has written

about the intimate relationship between "concept" and "sensation":
"We can now distinguish between sensations and those 'mental opera-
tions which follow so closely upon the senses,' and which are so firmly
connected with their reactions that a separation is difficult to achieve.
Considering the origin and the effect of such operations, I shall call
them natural interpretations. " 85
Just how much of the intellectual history of the East and of the West
has been structured by the search for a priori justification of these natu-
ral interpretations, and the extent to which this search (like "natural
interpretations" themselves) is built into the fiber of our mental, emo-
tional, and volitional being, may be judged from Feyerabend's continu-
ing analysis of the role that they play noi: only in extracurricular activi-
ties like science and philosophy, but in everyday life as well:
It was Bacon's belief that natural interpretations could be discovered by a

method of analysis that peels them off, one after another, until the sensory
core of every observation is laid bare. This method has serious drawbacks.
First, natural interpretations of the kind considered by Bacon are not just
added to a previously existing field of sensations. They are instrumental in
constituting the field, as Bacon says himself. Eliminate all natural interpre·
tations, and you also eliminate the ability to think and to perceive. Sec-
ond, disregarding this fundamental function of natural interpretations, it
should be clear that the person who faces a perceptual field without a
single natural interpretation at his disposal would be completely dison'ented,
he could not even start the business of science (or philosophy!]. The fact
that we do start, even after some Baconian analysis, therefore shows
that the analysis has stopped prematurely. It has stopped at precisely
those natural interpretations of which we are not aware and without
which we cannot proceed. It follows that the intention to start from
scratch, after a complete removal of all natural interpretations, is self·
defeating. 86
The perception of causality, and the corresponding elements of our

observational language-the words cause and effect, certainly embody an
extre~ely basic natural interpretation that we can hardly expect to dis-
pel. Indeed, we cannot even quite imagine what it would mean to do
without the awareness of this most fundamental relationship. And yet,
by gaining insight into the psychological and social mechanisms that
support our thoughts and perceptions, we might be able to surrender
the obsession to search for an a priori justification of causality a.nd an
objective, rationalistic definition of truth. And if this insight were to go
deep enough into the wellsprings of our emotional and volitional being,
we might eventually find that everyday life would be transformed into
--
something quite different from what it is at present. Wittgenstein seems

to have recognized such a possibility, which is one reason for the aura of
mysticism commonly felt to surround his writing: "The real discovery is
the one that makes me capable of stopping doing philosophy when I
want to. -The one that gives philosophy peace, so that it is no longer
tormented by questions which bring itself into question." 87
The ultimate justification for the Madhyamika's soteriological philos-
ophy does not lie in any claim to a monopoly on objective, value-free
truth, but in a very pragmatic sense of purpose: the desire to bring an
end to clinging, antipathy, and delusion. It is not only professional phi-
losophers who are so tightly bound by the innate reifying tendency of
conceptual thought. As Candrakfrti writes in The Entry into the Middle
Way, "Even though [things] are not in reality produced . . . they do
serve as objects that are perceived in the context of everyday experi-
ence. . . . 88 Therefore the master declared that all things are from the
beginning at peace, devoid of production and, by virtue of their intrin-
sic nature, completely unentangled in suffering." 89 The role of philoso-
phy is here very clearly defined in soteriological terms. The investiga-
tion of everyday experience is taken to be conducive to one particular
aim, and this aim could never be fully realized in any strictly formal
rationalist or idealist account of truth: "The analysis in the [Madlryama-
ka]sastra is not conducted out of fondness for debate-it teaches about
the reality [expressed in the truth of the highest meaning] for the pur-
pose ofliberation." 90
\Recognition of the importance of causation as an entirely pragmatic
concern is, like so much of the Madhyamika, simply an extension of
what is, properly speaking, a pan-Buddhist attitude to philosophy. The
second noble truth explained by the buddha sets forth the cause of suf-
fering, and a very ancient verse is traditionally held to summarize the
whole of his teachings: "The tathagata has told the cause of things that
originate through causes, and their cessation as well the great mendi-
cant explained."9 1
In Pali literature the concept of dependent origination is expounded
in the form of a detailed analysis of the causal mechanism underlying
transmigration. Within the Mahayana it receives a much broader inter-
pretation incorporating a general critique of the problems inherent in
any substance ontology. In these texts dependent origination is pre-
sented as a universally valid, pragmatic interpretation of causality. This
distinction is in general accord with the doctrinal differences character-
istic of these two branches of Buddhist thought. For our purposes, the
essential features of the Madhyamika notion of dependent origination
and its extension to the problem of causality can be highlighted in an
explanation based on the system of the two truths:
-
48 CandrakTrti and Early Indian Miidhyamiko
( 1) The truth of the highest meaning: That which exists within a nexus of
cause and effect cannot be real in and of itself (that is, its individual
existence cannot be grounded outside the context of everyday expe-
rience).
(2) Conventional truth: The sole criterion for empirical reality is existence
within the nexus of cause and effect which defines our shared
sociolinguistic experience, constituted by all the states of affairs that
have already come to pass or may at any time in the future come to
pass.
Over the course of the next few pages I shall expand on these two
principles of dependent origination and examine some of their implica-
tions for Madhyamika thought.
( 1) That which exists within a nexus of cause and effect cannot be real in and of
itself (that is, its individual existence cannot be grounded outside the context of
everyday experience).
This first principle has very subtle and far-reaching ramifications within
the Madhyamika system, where it is bound up with the particularly
abstruse concept of svabluiva. 92 Candrak1rti defines svabhava as follows:
"Whatever is possessed by fire or anything else that is never produced
because it is 11ot dependent on anything other than itself and because it
is not artificially fabricated, that is svabhiiva. " 93 Within the Madhy-
amika system, the word svabhiiva denotes the fundamental natural inter-
pretation that finds expression in both the conception and the percep-
tion of individuality. As used by the authors of Madhyamika texts the
term has two distinct but related connotations: intrinsic being, and
intrinsic nature.
Svabhiiva as intrinsic being. The concept of intrinsic being is, according
to Candrakirti, the reified concept of "relative being," which is itself
nothing more than "being as opposed to nonbeing." The concept of rel-
ative being accords with the practical demands of everyday experience,
where the absence of, for example, a pot implies its presence in some
other time or place. The reified concept of intrinsic being is, however,
an abstraction, a metaconcept extrapolated from these practical de-
mands and then laid b~ck over them as an interpretive grid. Thus the
same natural interpretation is capable of simultaneously generating two
very different sets of concepts and perceptions, each of which is colored
with its own emotional and volitional force. Whereas the first of these,
associated with the concept of relative being, is spiritually benign, the
concept of intrinsic being is associated with a form of life contaminated
-
b aversion and clinging. The concept of intrinsic being operates as the

y examined presupposition behind idealist and rationalist philosophies
u~d
a '
drawing on the power of the natural interpretation at its core, it
. .
serves as a filter for all of everyday expenence, exertmg a profoundly
detrimental influence on both the individual and society.
Svabhiiva as intrinsic nature. Intrinsic nature is synonymous with rela-
tive being as described above . Nothing exists in and of itself, which is
simply another way of saying that nothing possesses intrinsic being. On
the other hand, subjective and objective phenomena are in possession of
an intrinsic nature which accounts for their existence in the world . This
intrinsic nature is an expression of the way in which they are related to
each other, and it is manifest through their participation in the nexus of
cause and effect that characterizes all of everyday experience. The
Madhyamika refers to this way of being as "dependent origination."
This brings us to the second of the two principles of dependent origin-
ation:
(2) The sole criterion for empirical reality is existence within the nexus of cause and
iffect which defines our shared sociolinguistic experience, constituted by all the
states of affairs that have already come to pass or may at any time in the future
come to pass.
The nexus of cause and effect is itself what is denoted by the expression
dependent origination. Any conventionally real "thing" (that is, any
dharma, either a concept or an external sense object) is necessarily an
effect, with reference to its cause, and a cause, with reference to its
effect(s). Nothing can possibly escape this configuration . Where there is
a cause, there must be an effect, and where there is an effect, there must
in turn be a cause . 94 This is true in both an ontological and an epistemo-
logical sense, for the concepts of "cause" and "effect" could themselves
have no meaning outside their relationship with each other, and this
naturally holds for any other pairs of concepts as well. In this way the
Madhyamika finds that both ontological and epistemological problems
can be meaningfully defined only in a context of reciprocal dependence.
A~d as the implications of this very nontranscendental, pragmatic anal-
ysis begin to seep downward into the level of natural interpretations,
w~ere they absorb their own emotional and volitional significance, the
t?mgs of the world are revealed as they are in the totality of their rela-
tions with each other. 95 The way in which this is accomplished can be
ap~reciated only by taking into account the entire system of the Madhy-
arm~a's soteriological philosophy in its intellectual, prat.:tical, and ethi-
cal dimensions.
-
SO CandrakTrti and Early Indian Madhyamika
3.4.2 Dependent designation (prajnaptir upadaya)

Within the context of everyday affairs valid concepts and percepts are
defined as those which are suitable for practical purposes. According to
the Madhyamika, it is meaningless to expect anything more than this
from the processes of conceptualization and perception. The objects of
veridical perception are granted a sort of de facto existential status. The
power of conceptual thought lies in its intimate connection with percep-
tion, in its capacity to influence one's percepts, and therefore to influ-
ence one's attitude toward the objects revealed through sense percep-
tion. For the Madhyamika, epistemological truth is firmly lodged in
veridical sense perception. 96 Both the validity of a concept and the truth
of a proposition are derived from their application within the context of
mundane affairs so as to achieve a more or less specific purpose, both as
an expression of one's own attitude and experience, and as a factor in
the modification of the attitudes and experiences of others. 97
Although objects appear to be entirely independent and self-con-
tained, it is clear that the relationship between concept and percept is in
some important sense reciprocal. For this reason, when the interface
between conceptual thought and perception becomes more fluid than
normal, a new object can be "found" or "created." Consider, for exam-
ple, the invention of the wheel: Did any wheel exist previous to the first
moment when some particular circular-shaped stone was identified in
terms of its potential use as a wheel, or before some clever Stone Age
technician first carved a large rock so that it conformed to his new con-
cept "wheel"? Under such circumstances, what would it mean to assert
either that a wheel did or did not exist? The Miidhyamika philosopher, in
accordance with his radically holistic approach to such philosophical
problems, would maintain that the existence of any actual wheel is
dependent on the concept "wheeL" This does not imply that the empiri-
cal wheel is totally unreal or imaginary; it simply suggests that its exis-
tential status is tightly bound up with the fact of its being deeply
enmeshed in the interrelations between conceptual though and percep-
tion. Candrakirti explains this as follows:
A reflection that is mere designation is founded on a collocation of[ causes

and conditions] including the face and other things which themselves exist
as mere designations; a house is designated as dependent on its beams
and other structural components which are also mere designations; and a
forest is similarly designated as dependent on trees. Just as in a dream one
apprehends a sprout that is not produced in and of itself (svabhiivata~), so it
is equally reasonable that no entity exists apart from its own designation;
and this designation is founded on [a collocation of] other entities which
are themselves mere designations. 98
_ .......
Philosophical Language of the Modhyamil<a 51
Not all concepts are associated with valid sense perceptions, however,
and certain of them are effectively stillborn, by their nature unassoci-
ated with any percept. A concept is defined as invalid by any one of
three criteria. 99 ( 1) It is formally inapplicable. Such a concept is invalid
because it necessarily entails a logical contradiction, as , for example,
"the son of a barren woman." (2) It is misapplied. Any concept asso-
ciated with faulty sense perception is circumstantially invalid. (3) It is
empirically inapplicable. Concepts that do not suggest any possible
application are invalid. "In short, it is said that though there is no phe-
nomenon that is not posited by the mind, whatever the mind posits is
not necessarily existent." 100
The third category mentioned above can be further divided into two
subcategories. In the first subcategory, a possible application is absent
because of extraneous factors such as an apparent lack of material or
means. The second subcategory contains concepts that exclude any pos-
sible application by virtue of their inner constitution . Such concepts are
not only invalid but spiritually harmful, because they contribute
directly to the formation and maintenance of a profoundly impractical
attitude toward everyday experience that must invariably result in frus-
tration and despair. The inherent tendency of the mind to generate such
concepts is referred to as "conceptual diffusion" (prapaii.ca), and, as
Candrakirti tells us, the sole purpose of the Madhyamika analysis is
"the calming of all conceptual diffusion " (prapaiicopafama). 101
When conceptual thought is temporarily set free from the immediate
pragmatic concerns of everyday activities (as in daydreaming or philos-
ophizing), one concept provides access to another, this other to a third,
and so the process continues, on and on without any mechanism to reg-
ulate or halt it. For this reason, Buddhist texts compare the mind to a
young and playful monkey that climbs a tree by grasping at one branch
after another, rising farther and farther from the solid ground of every-
day, practical concerns until it sways precariously among the fragile
~wigs of its imagination, frightened, confused, and certain to be injured
Ill the inevitable fall. 102 In conventional, day-to-day situations, whether
a word or concept is valid or invalid is a matter to be determined

entirely on the basis of its application, but the tendency of conceptual
thought is to depart from strictly context-bound usage and to impute a
~etaphysical sense to everyday concepts. The word real, for example, in
Its most concrete application, expresses the fundamentally practical
concept of "being in accordance with appearance or claim," "genuine,"
"fiUnctional," or "efficacious." In this sense, under normal circum-
stances when a carriage is said to be real, this means simply that it will
perform in accordance with our expectations of what a carriage should
do: it will convey x amount of cargo from point a to point b. A second
D
but equally pragmatic sense of real lies in its reference to "actual exis-
tence," as opposed to "merely possible, apparent, or imaginary exis-
tence." In addition to these two meanings-or more specifically,
through a very subtle process of extrapolation from them-the word real
has also assumed an essentially metaphysical import which has nothing
whatever to do with its concrete application in any actual or possible
state of affairs in the world. This tertiary meaning is the one most likely
to emerge when rationalist or idealist philosophers enter into conversa-
tion with each other. In this case, when one of them states that a given
carriage is real, his colleagues understand by this assertion that the car-
riage is in possession of an essence or quality of intrinsic being that in
some way transcends its function within the context of everyday life. We
may naturally be quite curious as to the exact location of this "essence,"
and about its relationship to the carriage which stands before us, loaded
and ready to go, but no matter how or where we may search, no such
essence will ever be found. This may or may not bother a philosopher
(some are bothered, some not), but it is a matter of consternation for
those of us who are less inclined to speculation and more inclined to feel
that this sort of language is at best superfluous, as one would certainly
be no worse off without it. 103
The essence of the carriage is not revealed through any examination
of the parts, for each of them is itself merely a composite of other parts,
and these as well dissolve under closer inspection. Candrakirti summa-
rizes the Madhyamika's conclusions: "Even though [the existence of
the carriage] must remain unproven ... in the context of everyday
experience, nevertheless for everyday purposes it is designated in
dependence on its parts-without analysis. 104 This very [carriage] is a
possessor of parts and pieces, it is referred to in the world as an 'agent.'
... Do not lose touch with the 'screen' taken for granted in the context
of everyday experience." 105
The concept "carriage" is valid when its objective referent is real,
and any object is real (actually existent) only insofar as it performs its
requisite function. A valid concept naturally expresses its application,
just as a real or existent object naturally expresses its function. The
nature of an object's existence cannot be meaningfully expressed as an
independently valid or entirely objective "fact," for any object is
defined as existent only in dependence on its being conceived and desig-
nated in an essentially linguistic act. Thus there are genuine carriages
and there are artificial carriages-there are even imaginary carriages
that may forever exist only in the mind-but there can be no such thing
as a metaphysical carriage, because a metaphysical carriage could not
perform a function within any actual or possible state of affairs. It is
excluded by definition from the sociolinguistic matrix of everyday life
d is entirely inefficacious. The concept of a metaphysical carriage

::~rieswith it absolutely no application as an intelligible ontological
claim.
Let us quickly review what has been said concerning the doctrine of
dependent designat~on alon~ w_ith_some o~its impli~ations .. A word o~ a
concept is necessanly prescnptwe m that Its meanmg denves from 1ts
application within a p~rticular context. Tha~ is, the meaning of a ~on
cept derives not from 1ts reference to some mdependendy real object,
but rather through the circumstance that it recommends to us a particu-
lar way of looking at the world and suggests a certain appropriate form
of behavior on this basis. It is in this sense that concepts serve to mold
our experience, which is quite apparent when words are used for obvi-
ously practical purposes . For example, the concept "carriage" is imme-
diately intelligible in either of two conventional contexts, where "car-
riage" means either
( 1) If one conceives of this assemblage of wood and metal in such and

such a way, then one can use it to transport cargo; or
(2) If one assembles this wood and metal in such and such a way (as dic-
tated by the concept "carriage"), then one can use it to transport
cargo.
There are any number of imaginable contexts, however, in which the

behavior suggested by the use of a term might at first appear other than
strictly practical. This is often the case in theoretical discussions, where
abstract concepts of relation or process can be understood as "practi-
cal" only in the strictest sense of the word. Under such circumstances
the context of usage invariably dictates an attitude or form of behavior
which is somehow consonant with the interests and intention of the
speaker as a member of the sociolinguistic community in which the
communication takes place. 106 Yet the use of certain c;xpressions-as for
example, "God" (with a capital G), "soul," "subjacent ground," "nec-
essary connection," and so forth 107 -poses a special sort of difficulty in
that the expressions seem to entail a quasi-ontological daim in their
apparent reference to a transcendent reality analogous to the mundane
carriage. Rationalist and idealist philosophers and metaphysicians
employ a very similar type of highly specialized technical vocabulary in
order to refer exclusively to necessarily private objects, so that even
verbs and grammatical abstractions dealing with processes or relations
~e h_y postatized and transformed into entirely metaphysical entities.
f espite their normal appearance, such concepts are actually divorced
rom any conceivable application within the sociolinguistic matrix gov-
erned by everyday states of affairs. They embod)l an ontological claim
54 Candrak1rti and Early Indian Miidhyamika
that can neither be avoided, nor justified, nor interpreted in any intelli-
gible manner. According to the Madhyamika, propositions incorporat-
ing concepts of this sort-the paradigmatic form of rationalist discourse
-are associated with a pattern of behavior that is out of touch with the
pragmatic ground of everyday experience.
I cannot emphasize too much how important it is to understand that
the rationalistic/idealistic way of thinking and speaking is not con-
demned because it fails to connect with reality; this would imply the
possibility of an alternative language that could take up the same pro-
ject more successfully. 108 The Madhyamika philosopher is actually in
favor of something much more radical. He is suggesting that we alto-
gether give up the search for truth in the project of trying to establish a
necessary connection between language and reality, for this way of
thinking and speaking is itself the problem to be solved. We can see this
very clearly throughout most of the Vigrahavyavartani", and in The Entry
into the Middle Way, 6.171-178, where the real topic of discussion is the
Madhyamika's use of language. The opponent is naturally put off by
what he sees as the Madhyamika's refusal to take a position on impor-
tant epistemological and ontological problems and defend it: "Is there
or is there not any connection between your refutation and the proposi-
tions it claims to refute? In speaking as you do, you defeat your own
position and are incapable of defeating the position of another. Your
irrational denial of the very possibility of holding any position is like a
double-edged sword."
Candrakirti responds:
The problem of connection between argument and counterargument is

only a problem for those who presuppose some form of absolute, as you
do, and are therefore compelled to meet your claims with appropriate
counterclaims. For us it is a pseudoproblem, because we hold no such
presuppositions. Our words are like the reflection of a face in a mirror-
there is no real connection between the reflected image and the face, but
the image nevertheless serves a specific purpose for the person using the
mirror. Similarly, our words bear no intrinsic connection with your episte-
mological and ontological problems and the language used to express
these problems, but nevertheless these words of ours can serve to realize a
specific purpose: They can be understood to express something that is not
at all susceptible to expression in the language of "objective facts." 109
Elsewhere, Nagarjuna says the same thing more succinctly: "When

all things are empty, perfectly calm, and by nature inviolable, where is
there any proposition, or any 'connection' (prapt1) with the distinguish-
ing characteristic of [another] proposition, or any fallacy stemming
from connection with the distinguishing characteristic of [another]
proposition?" 110 The way of thinking and speaking that finds expres-
sion in propositions embodying epistemological and ontological claims
is diagnosed as symptomatic of an extremely serious "mental affliction"
(klefa), the generative force behind an inordinate and ultimately painful
clinging to the "I" and to the objects used to insure the continued well-
being of this "I." The Miidhyamika maintains, moreover, that philoso-
phers are not the only ones. bound up so tightly in the web of reified
thinking. In articulating these ideas of "necessary connection" and the
like they merely reveal to public scrutiny what is for the average person
a clandestine, unconscious, and deeply engrained tendency of concep-
tual thought, that both generates and sustains an attitude and a pattern
of behavior tainted by clinging, antipathy, and delusion. This tendency
is rooted in the natural interpretations that are passed from one genera-
tion to the next, and it draws from them powerful emotional and voli-
tional associations that can only be broken down through a radical
transformation of personal experience, and consequently, of one's entire
form of life: "Through insight, the meditator realizes that all afflictions
and misfortunes are associated with the philosophical view of a real,
substantial 'I,' and once he has identified the [cons<;ious and uncon-
scious concept of an intrinsically existent] self (iitman) as the focal point
of this view, he uproots [the reified concept of] 'self.' " 111
3.4.3 Emptiness (sunyata)

The concept of emptiness is of the highest value and most profound
truth precisely because of its soteriological application as the tranquiliz-
ing agent for "conceptual diffusion." As the grand master of the
Miidhyamika, Niigiirjuna, wrote, "One who is in harmony with empti-
ness is in harmony with all things." 112
Emptiness is equated with causation and with the entire range of
associations which coalesce around the concept of dependent origina-
tion. Candrakirti discusses this aspect of emptiness in the context of the
sixth stage of the bodhisattva's path:
It is no secret that empty entities like reflections and so forth depend on a

collocation [of causes and conditions J, and that a cognition may be pro-
duced in the form of an image of such an empty reflection, for example. 113
All entities are, in a similar fashion, not only empty [as effects], but they
are also produced out of empty [causes]. According to the two truths,
[entities possess] no intrinsic being, and therefore they are not permanent,
nor are they subject to annihilation. 114
In this passage emptiness is first presented as a matter of normal,

everyday experience. Suppose for a moment that you have mistakenly
-
perceived a reflected image in a mirror, taking it as the "real" (unre-
flected) object. In this case you have been misled by inattention or bad
lighting or for some other such reason. Taking into account the circum-
stances, one can say that the reflection is illusory, in that it is not what it
appears to be. Clearly such a statement does not imply that the reflection
is totally nonexistent, or that the original object is transcendentally
existent. The reflection is said to be illusory only in order to correct the
mistaken notions held by those who believe it is real in a way that it is
not. As Candrakfrti writes, "In their circumstantial efficacy [words] are
subject to the speaker's fundamental concern with communication." 115
This is a relative, not an absolute, assertion, tailored to meet the
demands of a particular situation. 116
Once encouraged to look more closely at the reflection and the cir-
cumstances of its appearance, we find that the image originates in a
composite of particular causes and conditions, including the mirror, the
original object, and the neccessary illumination. At first glance the
reflection had appeared to be an independent, substantial object, but on
closer examination its existence proves to be entirely contingent on a
circumstantial collocation of causes and conditions. Alter any aspect of
these circumstances and the reflection is altered, or gone. It is illusory-
not what it appears to be-because its appearance as a self-sufficient entity
masks its deeper nature as the product of a momentary coalescence of
causes and conditions.
That the reflection owes its temporary existence to these various
causes and conditions need not trouble the viewer who is only interested
in using it as a reflection, and when properly appreciated the image in a
mirror serves any number of valuable purposes. Although it can be
deceptive because it is not exactly what it appears to be, it is neverthe-
less efficacious, valuable, and not at all problematic for one who recog-
nizes its exclusively pragmatic nature.
In the second part of the passage cited above, Candrakirti describes
emptiness as a considerably more subtle and complex state of affairs.
The problem of illusion is now cast in the form of a much more broadly
based existential concern. In what way are all the objects that we
encounter in the course· of everyday life similar to the reflected image
discussed above? The Miidhyamika philosopher wants to draw our
attention to the curious circumstance that the world we live in would
look much different to us if we took the time and energy to investigate
the presuppositions that are bound up with its conceptual and percep-
tual underpinnings. The "I" and the objective, external things of the
world appear to us as independent, self-sufficient entities, but upon
closer examination this appearance -proves to be predicated upon a
tacit, preconscious failure to engage with the deeply contextual nature
--
of their presence. As the analysis proceeds, Candrakirti points out the

paradoxical nature of causes and conditions which are themselves only
the products of other such causes and conditions. In the case of the
reflection, a collocation of real causes and conditions results in an illu-
sory, unreal effect, but the illusory appearance of the world is vastly
more profound, for here both cause and effect are artificial constructs,
devoid of intrinsic, self-contained being.
As long as the things of the world are used for everyday, practical pur-
poses, their illusory nature may and usually does go completely unno-
ticed , though some unforeseen change can momentarily upset the day-
to-day routine of expectations. 117 Indeed, very few look closely enough
to notice the illusion, and of those who do, even fewer are affected by
their vision into this ever-descending vortex of causes and conditions.
Under normal circumstances we manage to function in the midst of this
grand illusion with only the most superficial appreciation of the paradox
and mystery that confront us at every step.
The Madhyamika's insistence that the world is like an illusion (may-
opama) is specifically directed at those who believe that it is real in a way
it is not. The arguments presented in these texts are a series of correc-
tive devices; there is no attempt to connect words to reality or to suggest
that they somehow reach beyond themselves for their justification. This
nonreferential use of language allows the Madhyamika authors to avoid
the problems inherent in holding and defending a particular philosophi-
cal view, for when their aim is accomplished and the problem of reifying
thought disappears,~he content and the form of the propositions are
entirely inconsequential. Therefore Nagarjuna can write, "When all
things are empty ... where is there any proposition?" 118 The concept
of emptiness is a medicine prescribed for a specific ailment-the disease
of clinging-but the prescription will have only a negative effect as long
as the Madhyamika's language is forced into the mold of some privi-
leged view of a transcendent, ahistorical (epistemic) truth or (ontic)
reality. As the buddha explained to Kasyapa,
It is not [the concept of) emptiness that makes things empty; rather, they are
simply empty. It is not [the concept of) the absence of any ultimate cause
that makes things lack such a cause, rather, they simply lack an ultimate
cause. It is not [the concept of) the absence of an ultimate purpose that
makes things lack an ultimate purpose; rather, they simply lack an ultimate
purpose . Kasyapa, I call this careful reflection the Middle Way, truly careful
~eflection. Kasyapa, I say that those who refer to emptiness as "the mental
•mage (upalambha) of emptiness" are the most lost of the lost .. .. Indeed,
Kasyapa, it would be better to hold a philosophical view of the ultimate
reality of the individual person the size of Mount Sumeru, than to be
attached to this view of emptiness as "nonbeing." Why is that?- Because,
58 CandrakTrti and Early Indian Mlidhyamika
Kasyapa, emptiness is the exhaustion of all philosophical views. I call incur-

able whomever holds emptiness as a philosophical view. Kasyapa, it is as if a
physician were to give medicine to a sick man, and when the medicine had
cured all the original problems it remained in the stomach and was not itself
expelled. What do you think, Kasyapa, would this man be cured of his
disease? -No indeed, Blessed One, ifthe medicine cured all the original
problems and yet remained in the stomach, unexpelled, the man's disease
would be much worse. The Blessed One said: Thus it is, Kasyapa, that
emptiness is the exhaustion of all philosophical views. I call incurable who-
ever holds emptiness as a philosophical view. 119
Within the Madhyamika system, soteriology plays an integral role as

the practical application of philosophical reflection. Although things do
not bear their individual existence within themselves, as they appear to
do, they are nevertheless quite real insofar as they are efficacious. The
eminent Tibetan scholar Tsong kha pa has referred to the concept of
causal efficacy-the sole determining criterion for conventional truth
and reality-as "the most profound and subtle matter within the
Madhyamika philosophy." 120 One needs, then, to appreciate the inter-
dependent nature of appearances and to adjust attitudes accordingly in
order to avoid a considerable amount of suffering.
Indian philosophers traditionally define two distinct types of nega-
tion:121
(1) Negation which indirectly affirms the existence of something else

(paryudasa)
(2) Negation which leaves nothing in its place (prasajya).
The Madhyamika has assigned a particular significance to each of

these. The first type of negation is "relative," "implicative," or "pre-
suppositional" negation. Taken as a philosophical principle, it leads
to the opposed ontological positions of nihilism and absolutism. The
second type, "nonimplicative" or "nonpresuppositional" negation, is
used by the Madhyamika to express the radical, deconstructive nega-
tion effected through application of the concept of emptiness. When one
negates the reality of a reflection he necessarily affirms the reality of the
reflected entity, but when the Madhyamika philosopher negates the
reality of the world, he affirms neither a "something" nor a "nothing"
in its place. 122 In other words, he does not supply the old, reified con-
cept "reality" with a new, more refined and abstract referent, a meta-
physical substrate of some novel and convincing variety. On the con-
trary, in order to know and accept the world as it is both in its everyday
appearance and in the paradox and mystery of this appearance, he steps
entirely outside the language game that can be played only by holding
onto propositions (pratlj"fiiis) and views (dntis). In taking this step he
makes the first critical move away from a form of life caught up in the
anxious and generally manipulative attitude associated with this way of
thinking and acting.
This is a very subtle point, and it lies at the heart of the Madhyamika
philosophy for, as Candrakirti and others have often indicated , no mat-
ter what ingenious things may be written or said about emptiness by the
cleverest philosopher, ultimately it must be "seen by nonseeing" and
"realized by nonrealization." 123 It is not an epistemic or ontic fact disso-
ciated from everyday life , ensconced "out there" somewhere waiting to
be discovered and possessed through the power of critical rationalism.
"Emptiness" is a conventional designation (prajii.apti), an ordinary word
used, like all words, to accomplish a specific purpose registered in the
intention of the speaker. In accordance with what the texts say, it is per-
haps best understood as a way of being, a way of existing, knowing, and
acting with complete freedom from clinging and antipathy. In the direct
(noninferential) realization of emptiness, the claims of the part or indi-
vidual are immediately experienced as harmonious with the claims of
the whole world of sentient and insentient being. The direct realization
of emptiness, what I call the "actualization" of emptiness , 12 • is the
source of the bodhisattva's uni~ersal compassion .
Soteriology is built into Madhyamika philosophy, where any concept
must bear an inherently correct application. Just as the very idea of a
carriage implies that one is somehow engaged with the world, so the
concept of emptiness functions as an exhortation to act in a certain way,
with a certain attitude of nonclinging. This is an aspect of Buddhist
thought taken for granted in the writings of classical Madhyamika phi-
losophers, and one which many Western interpreters may have tacitly
branded as mere apologetics . This is certainly unfortunate, for the
Madhyamika is straining at just this point to say something of consider-
able philosophical import about the nature of understanding. "Empti-
ness ," the central concept of Madhyamika philosophy, is amenable to
interpretation only as the expression of an entire form of life. The task
is , then, to interpret it in this manner. To accomplish this we must begin
by listening carefully to what the Madhyamika authors have to say in
the total context of their writings. Nothing of significance will come
from attempts to understand the texts by basing our analysis on prede-
termined categories of philosophy, religion, sociology, psychology, and
~o forth . This could have the effect only of more firmly entrenching us
In a preexisting network of unexamined presuppositions about what can
legitimately be considered a problem.
-
60 Condrokirti and Early Indian Madhyomika
3. 5 The debate with the Yogadira
Candrakirti devotes a considerable amount of space to his debate with a

single rival Buddhist school, th6 Yogadira, though one need not be con-
versant with the complexities of Yogacara scholasticism to appreciate
the significance of the Madhyamika's soteriological philosophy as devel-
oped in The Entry into the Middle Way. Candrakirti's objections to the
Yogacara can best be understood as an extension of the Madhyamika's
general objections to the use of language as a vehicle for epistemological
and ontological views of "truth" and "reality." Let us see the extent to
which this is a valuable way of approaching Candrakirti 's text.
3.5.1 Sources for the study ofYogacara thought

( Yogacara translates from Sanskrit as "the practice of meditation"; it is
most likely the earliest name of this school and the one which most accu-
rately indicates the source of the school's preoccupation with mental
and perceptual processes. Other names associated with these writings
are Cittamatra (mind alone), Vijiiaptimatra (representation alone), and
Vijiianavada (the doctrine of consciousness).
It is not surprising that the Yogacara plays so great a role in Can-
drakirti's work, for judging from the literary output of the school, it
must have constituted a very formidable opponent. The Yogacara was,
along with the Madhyamika, one of the two most influential Mahayana
schools of thought. Western scholars generally credit the monk-scholar
Asariga with the earliest expression of Yogacara doctrines, although it
seems that he early on converted his brother, Vasubandhu. Between
them they composed most of the fundamental Yogacara treatises. 125
Two particular sutras, the Samdhinirmocana (SN) and the Larikavatara
(LA), seem to have had a decisive influence on their work, and it is clear
that the impulse for their thought, as well as many specific doctrines,
can be traced to earlier strata of the Indian Buddhist tradition. One of
the Yogacara's most distinctive doctrines, embodied in the concept of
reflexive awareness (svasamvitti; svasamvedana) is anticipated in a Sau-
trantika doctrine that was considerably refined by the logician Diri-
naga;126 and the Dhammapada, an ancient text that was held in great
esteem by all later schools, speaks in its first stanza of the primacy of
mind: "All things are dominated, governed, and constituted by mind.
If a man speaks or acts with a tainted mind, then suffering follows after
him, just as the wheel of the wagon follows after the hooves of the bull-
ock . . . . But if he speaks and acts with a pure mind, then ease follows
after him, just like his shadow that is always with him." 127
From the writings of Asariga and Vasubandhu on, the school dis-
-
responsible for the appearance of the subject/object dichotomy, the

dependent is itself something other than this dichotomy, 135 for as both
the imagination of this unreal dichotomy (abhutaparikalpaY 36 and mind
(citta), 137 the dependent actually exists, 138 but not as the dualistic form
in which it is perceived. 139
Vasubandhu illustrates the relationship of these three types of intrin-
sic nature with an analogy conceming a magician who causes a piece of
wood to look like an elephant:~+ 0
It is like a magical power which, by the working of incantations, appears

in the nature of an elephant: there is altogether no elephant at all, but only
its form.
The elephant stands for the imagined nature, its form for the dependent
nature, and that which remains when the elephant has been negated
stands for the perfectly accomplished nature.
So, in the same way, by the working of the fundamental mind, the imagi-
nation of the unreal appears in the nature of duality; there is altogether no
duality at all, but only its form.
Fundamental consciousness is like the incantations, suchness is like the
piece of wood, the discrimination [of subject/object1is like the form of the
elephant, and the duality [of subject/object1is like the elephant.
When the illusion of the subject/object dichotomy completely dis-

solves, what remains is perceived as the perfectly accomplished nature:
·~It is just as in the case of magic, where no mental image of the ele-
phant, the disappearance of its form, and the mental image of the piece
of wood take place all at once." 141
3.5.3 The Prasangika critique

Before moving on to Candrakirti's critique of the Yogacara, a word or
two needs to be said regarding the Yogacara doctrines as they appear in
The Entry into the Middle Way. There is some reason to argue, along with
Candrakirti, that the language of these texts lends itself too easily to
reification in terms of an epistemological monism. However, it would
be quite unrealistic-and unedifying-to judge the Yogacara solely on
the basis of an account of its doctrines set forth by its most vehement
opponent. The Entry into the Middle Way is best studied to leam about
Candrakirti 's own understanding of the Madhyamika, not to form an
opinion about his opponents' doctrines.
The basis of the Prasangika's three major objections to the concept of
the dependent nature are summarized in 6.47 (the Yogacarin is speak-
---
ing): " 'Dependent fo~' (paratant~ariipa = ~aratantrasvab/Wva) acts ~s

the foundation of any destgnated existent entity: (1) It appears even m
the absence of any apprehended external object; (2) it actually exists;
and (3) its intrinsic nature is not within the range of conceptual diffu-
.
SIOn . "
In criticizing the Yogadira Candrakirti focuses on the concept of
dependent nature. His objections revolve around a general contention
that the Yogacara has simply resurrected the Vedantic concept of a
metaphysical substrate of all phenomenal appearance and clothed it in
the guise of this dependent nature. Referring to the stanza just cited,
one can paraphrase Candrakirti's critique:
(1) This concept of dependent nature constitutes an absolute denial of

the existence of conventional everyday reality.
(2) It amounts to nothing other than the assertion of a transcendental
substrate, an intrinsically existent ground.
(3) This substrate is posited as something other than a reified concept
(that is, as something other than a product of conceptual diffusion).
It is not difficult to understand how Candrakirti reached these con-

clusions, and in fact he is not alone in his reading of the Yogacara texts.
Most modern interpretations of "Yogacara idealism" are in accord with
the absolutist views Candrakirti attributes to the school. 142 Even
Kochumuttom, who has defended the system against prevailing idealist
interpretations, himself lapses into the same Kantian vocabulary that
Murti used in his exposition ofthe Miidhyamika:
Kant's distinction between noumenon and phenomenon seems to be close

to the distinction between the absolutely accomplished nature and the
imagined nature. For Kant noumenon is the thing-in-itself, unqualified
by any category of experience, and, therefore, even beyond the reach of
experience; while phenomenon is the thing as it appears to the perceiver,
necessarily qualified by the categories of experience superimposed by the
perceiver. Similarly, the absolutely accomplished nature is the thing as
such, unqualified by the mental forms of subjectivity and objectivity, the
only categories of experience recognized by Vasubandhu, and, therefore
also beyond the reach of ordinary, samsaric, experience; while the imag-
ined nature is the thing as it appears to the urdinary perceiver, necessarily
qualified by the categories of subjectivity and objectivity superimposed by
the perceiver. Both for Kant as well as Vasubandhu, the mode in which a
thing is experienced, depends on the perceiver, who of necessity imposes
his subjective forms on the thing-in-itself. A difference between Kant's
PDsition and that ofVasubandhu is this: according to the fermer one never
comes to realize the noumenon, the thing-in-itself, while according to the
latter one definitely comes to realize the absolutely accomplished nature in

the state of enlightenment. 143
Indeed, it is virtually impossible to escape from the grip of the pre-

suppositions underlying the Yogacara's preoccupation with the episte-
mological problems of the subject/object dichotomy. Here again we see
how the very choice of what is to be legitimately considered as a prob-
lem is already made by the language one uses in discussing that prob-
lem. What Candrakirti objects to in the Yogacara texts is their use of a
language that is extremely susceptible to reification. As with Murti's
interpretation of the Madhyamika, it is not that the Yogacara is wrong
per se, but that given his soteriological aim, the Yogacara philosopher's
use of language is unskillful. Clinging is not eradicated by using this
sort of language, it is simply furnished with a much more subtle justifi-
cation. Instead of clinging to the "I" and other objects of everyday
experience, one begins to cling to such reified concepts of dependent
nature as "the perception of nonduality," or to the dharmadhiitu that is
"entirely dissociated from conventional, mundane experience," or to
the "nondual unity that remains behind when the illusion of the sub-
ject/object dichotomy is dispelled"~just as the piece of wood remains
behind when the illusion of the elephant is removed.
We have seen how Candrakirti objected to the use of the expression
"mental image" with reference to emptiness because of its susceptibility
to reification in a philosophical view, IH and here we find Vasubandhu
discussing "the mental image of the nondual dharmadhiitu." Similarly,
both Nagarjuna and Candrakirti refused to be trapped into using the
word connection (priipti), on the grounds that this is the very language of
reified thought. 145 Here Vasubandhu uses the same vocabulary to dis-
cuss the perception of the perfectly accomplished nature as a "connec-
tion" with this nature. 146 Elsewhere, Asanga refers to the "substrate"
(iifraya) responsible for the entity's appearance as that which remains
after the adventitious appearance of form and all other characteristics
are negated through the correct apprehension of emptiness. 147 The
"entity alone" (vastumiitram) is to be separated from "designation
alone" (prajiiaptimiitram) and equated with this substrate. 148 As Asanga
writes, "How, then, is emptiness well apprehended? ... Whatever
remains in that place, one knows it as it is, that here there is something
that truly exists." 149
In interpreting these words from Asanga's Bodhisattvabhiimi (BB),
Janice Willis comments:
Here the traditional warning, most often voiced by Miidhyamikas, must

be heeded. Voidness [= emptiness J is not itself an entity, and it is a grave
mistake to hypostatize it. Hence the Miidhyamikas teach siinyatii.fiinyatii.,
the "voidness of voidness." Asaiiga's stance with regard to iiinyatii is

voiced more positively in order to allay fears of complete nihilism. . .
Siinyatii is therefore treated as an existent by the Yogiiciira, but it is impor-
tant to see that by this characterization, Asanga wishes to assert that iiin-
yatii exists as the ultimate made of existence of all things (and not itself as an
existent thing). 130
I am inclined to agree with Willis here, and this is a defense that does
not seem to violate the spirit of Asariga's position. But at the sam_e time,
I am convinced that her interpretation tends to distract our attention
from a much more useful point that can be understood only by learning
to appreciate the Madhyamika-Yogaciira controversy from the perspec-
tive of the Madhyamika-that is, not as an epistemological or ontologi-
cal problem, but as a problem of skillful means (upii.yakaufalya). Cer-
tainly both Asariga and N agarjuna agree that siinyatii. is nothing more
than a conventional designation (a prajiiapt1), and yet for both of them it
is also the most effective means to liberation. The critical difference is
that for Asa:riga words derive their meaning through reference to "what
remains" -to the transcendental basis or substrate (ii.Sr.aya) of the desig-
nation; whereas for the Madhyamika this view oflanguage-a view that
is built into the idea of paratantrasvabhiiva-is unacceptable because it
militates against the soteriological purpose of the word iiinyatii. by pro-
viding a rarefied conceptual ground for clinging. Once again, it is
important to see that, from the Madhyamika's perspective, at least, the
Yogacara is not wrong because this ground does not exist. He is simply
unskillful because in his use of language he defeats the soteriological aim
that is the only real justification for all the pages and pages of mere
words. Compare Nagarjuna's recommendation for the use of the word
iiinya: "Nothing is to be called empty (siinya) or not empty, nor is any-
thing to be called both empty and not empty, or neither empty nor not
empty; [the word emptiness] is, however, used in conversation as a con-
ventional designation." 151 In commenting on this stanza, Candraklrti
takes special care not to use a vocabulary with any epistemic or antic
associations, no matter how rarefied or abstract they might be:
We do not say any of these things. One is incapable, however, of appre-

ciating the nature of[ the bodhisattva's] practice as it is without speaking.
Therefore we l'>ase ourselves firmly in conventional truth through a pro-
c~ss of imputation, and we say "empty," "not empty," and so forth as
dtctated by convention, according to the particular needs of those who
re~uire instruction . . . . "Nothing is to be called 'empty,' because it
extsts, or 'not empty,' because it does not exist: this is the Middle Way." 152
b It Wou~d be counterproductive to argue directly against the Yogaciira

Y assertmg that there is no substrate, and that the th~gs of the world
66 Candrak1rti and Early Indian Miidhyamika
have no existence whatsoever: "According to the Sage, what is seen,

heard, and so forth is neither true nor false. From a position(= view) a
counterposition arises, but both are meaningless." 153
Candrakirti does not meet the Yogiidira with any such counterargu-
ments; rather, he consistently attempts to defuse his opponent's termi-
nology by insisting that scriptural teachings on "mind alone" are not of
definitive meaning. 154 They are set forth with the sole intention of
diminishing attachment to the objects encountered in everyday experi-
ence, and as is the case with any conventional designation, the meaning
of the expression "mind alone" cannot be understood without taking
into consideration its purpose or application. When grounded in this
way, the expression "mind alone" is understood to mean that "the
agent within the context of everyday experience is 'mind alone.' " 155 As
Candrakirti explains in The Entry into the Middle Way, "Even though
form does indeed exist, it does not, like mind, function as 'agent.'
Therefore, in denying the existence of any other agent besides mind,
there is no implied denial ofform." 156 In finding this sort ofnondefini-
tive "intentional meaning" in sutras teaching that "the world is mind
alone," Candrakirti cautions the Yogiiciira not to forget that the reverse
is also true: Mind is the world alone. "If form does not exist, then do
not hold to the existence of mind; and if mind exists, then do not hold to
the nonexistence ofform." 157
My primary aim in this discussion is to demonstrate how the Madhy-
amika's critique does not directly engage the epistemological or onto-
logical doctrines of the Yogiiciira by offering a counterthesis that would
claim to link up with reality successfully. I wish to suggest that the cri-
tique can best be appreciated as applying to the Yogiiciira's use of lan-
guage-a use oflanguage which the Madhyamika considers impractical
for soteriological purposes. This is most clearly seen in Nagarjuna's and
Candrakirti's unqualified refusal to develop any philosophical position
of their own on epistemological or ontological questions: "We [Madhy-
amikas] do not have the same attitude toward our [concept of] the
screen as you [Yogiicarins] have toward your [concept of] dependent
being. With reference to the nature of everyday experience, we say:
'Even though things do not exist, they exist'-and this is done for a spe-
cific purpose." 158
Candrakirti comments:
On your own authority, you maintain within your system that dependent
being is realized in the knowledge of the saints; but according to us this is
not the case for the [conventional objects referred to as] screened (sariwrta).
Then what exactly do we say? Even th~ugh they do not.exist (from the
perspective ofthe truth of the highest meaning], because they are taken for
granted throughout the context of everyday experience they are said to

exist, strictly with reference to the nature of worldly convention . This
distinction is made as a means of refuting those who assert any form .o f
substance ontology. The Blessed One said as much in these words:
"Although the world may quarrel with me, I have no quarrel with the
world. That which is considered to exist in the context of the world I also
assert as existent; and that which is considered not to exist in the world I
also assert as nonexistent ." 159
s E c T 0 N F 0 u R
THE TEN PERFECTIONS

OF THE BODHISATTYA PATH
4.1 The perfection of generosity (diinaparamitii)
This first stage is characterized by the practice of generosity ( diina),

which is the predecessor of all the other perfections and the foundation
for any further progress along the path. In its mundane aspect, that is,
prior to the actualization of emptiness (see the sixth stage), generosity
constitutes the ability to give whatever can be given freely and without
resentment, through a feeling of sympathy for those who are in need.
The nature of the gift is not considered to be of primary importance.
What is critical is that the tendency to grasp at one's own property be
countered by developing a spirit ofnonclinging.
The philosopher-poet San tid eva (685-783), 1 who was himself an
extremely influential spokesman for the Prasangika-madhyamika,
wrote about the perfection of generosity in his magnum opus, the Bodhi-
caryavatara (BCA): "In the beginning the Blessed One directs only the
giving of vegetables and so forth; yet eventually he fashions a person
who would sacrifice even his own flesh." 2
This sort of giving is only a start, however, for the bodhisattva must
remain constantly sensitive to the pain felt by all creatures. He must
strive to cultivate an attitude of nonclinging, which is initially accom-
plished by eradicating the grossest ~ind of attachment to possessions
~hrough not acquiring in the first place anything that could not be will-
mgly surrendered. 3 Through the practice of charity a basic impulse of
r~nunciation is engendered and the first significant step is taken in a
dtrection that will eventually culminate in total liberation from bondage
t? ideas as well as from bondage to objects. When generosity is prac-
ticed in conjunction with the wisdom (prajii.a) expressed in both intellec-
tual discernment and actualization of the concept of emptiness at
emotional and volitional levels, it contributes to an attitude of compas-
69
r
sionate nonclinging that is the predominant theme of Madhyamika phi-
losophy: "When one fares by seizing, by clinging, then [in one's case]
the world would be a mass of perversion; but when one fares free from
clinging, then [the world itself] is nirva!'lfl. " 4
At the sixth stage of the path the bodhisattva learns not only to cease
clinging to material things, but also to identify and surrender all partial-
ity for even the subtlest objects of reified notions concerning the intrin-
sic nature of sentient beings and insentient things. By coordinating the
development of wisdom and compassion, even in its causal aspect the
practice of giving fosters a frame of mind conducive to a soteriologically
effective interpretation of emptiness; and as a supramundane perfection
it becomes a pure expression of deep insight into the selflessness of all
things: "Bodhi (awakening) is not realized by seeing or hearing or
understanding, nor is it realized by the [mere] observance of morals;
nor is it realized by abandoning hearing and seeing, and it is [definitely]
not realized by giving up morals. Thus what one should abandon is dis-
putation as well as [false] notions of 'I' and 'mine': one should not cling
to the diverse natures of things." 5
For the Madhyamika philosopher the perfection of generosity is
equated with this spirit ofnonclinging. Generosity here means action in
the world coupled with wisdom, and action and thought that are in har-
mony with the concept of emptiness. In its most developed expression
generosity grows out of a direct and unqualified rejection of any reified
concept of giver, gift, or recipient. Rooted in compassion as well as in
wisdom, generosity is born from a fracture of the ego which renders it
especially vulnerable to the suffering of other beings.
Within the Madhyamika system the doctrine of selflessness (nairat-
mya) is a philosophical concept, an ethical principle, and a soteriological
device of the highest order. It is considered the source of wisdom and
compassion, and nonclinging is taken as a mark of the most profound
insight into selflessness. For all these reasons, perhaps, in the Mahaya-
na scriptures it is written that "giving is the bodhisattva's awakening." 6
4.2 The perfection of morality (iTiaparamiui)
One law serves to summarize the whole of the Mahiiyiina: The

protection of all beings is accomplished through examination of
one's own mistakes. -Siintideva, Si~iisamuccaya
Close attention to all aspects of his behavior is the central feature of the
bodhisattva's career at the second stage of the path. He has already
begun to attend to the practice of generosity, and the moral conduct pre-
Ten Perfections of the Bodhisattva Path 71
ribed at this stage is in certain respects merely an extension of this

~~actice and a deepening of his understanding of the concept of selfless-
ness .
The Bodhisattvabhumi lists three categories of morality: ( 1) restraint
from immoral behavior; (2) cultivation of virtuous behavior; and (3)
accomplishing what is most beneficial for all living beings. 7 According
to a very old Buddhist tradition, virtue is grounded in restraint of body,
mind, and speech. Restraint, or self-discipline in all dealings with the
world , is especially concerned with fostering qualities opposed to ego-
tism as it makes manifest its influence through clinging and antipathy,
which are two of the so-called roots of all evil ( akufalamulas). The third
root of evil, delusion, is countered with the cultivation of perfect wis-
dom at the sixth stage of the path. These three spiritually unhealthy
mental states are identified as invariable concomitants of the deep-
rooted tendency of conceptual thought to construct reified notions of an
ultimately real self. They are diagnosed as symptomatic of an attitude
inharmonious with the concept of emptiness, and they help to forge the
links of a chain which keeps the mind firmly bound to a beginningless
cycle of misery.
The scriptures and commentaries enumerate a substantial number of
inducements to moral behavior, including fame, popularity, beauty,
happiness, and the ability to meet death calmly. Still, the most signifi-
cant power of morality in its "causal" aspect lies in its potential to free
the mind from emotional disturbances connected with anger, regret,
guilt, and any other disruptive moods which arise from inconsiderate or
selfish action. It is important to understand that virtue in the Mahayana
sense of the word need not be viewed as an arbitrary and absolutely
binding code of ethics, for in essence it is a system of mental discipline
designed to induce goodwill and peace of mind in oneself and in others.
At t,he close of chapter five in his other famous work, the Silcyiisamuc-
ct:rya (SS), Candraklrti's successor Santideva discusses the most compel-
ling pragmatic justification for virtuous behavior: "A [bodhisattva] cul-
tivates the desire to abandon all sinful and unmeritorious behavior. In
this context, (an action) is evil and unmeritorious if it causes the mind
to become agitated and so is opposed to balanced concentration. Such
[an action] is also referred to as 'an opponent to samiidhi.' " 8
Balanced concentration (samiidhi) is achieved in a mind that has
become calm and firmly disciplined through the practice of meditation,
so that it is clearly focused. All its attention can then be given over to
developing a precise intellectual appreciation of doctrinal issues and
eventually to actualization of the concept of emptiness.
~rom the very start, morality lays the foundation for a stable mind,
Whtch is prerequisite to the practice of meditation and to the cultivation
....
of perfect wisdom. Nevertheless, ethical behavior does not always

remain simply a tool or a conscious imposition. As a supramundane
perfection it is transformed into a spontaneous demonstration of the
bodhisattva's soteriologically effective understanding of emptiness and
his great compassion for all living beings.
4.3 The perfection of patience (~iintipiiramitii)
The perfection associated with the third stage of the path is bound up
with an ambiguous and problematic concept. K~iinti, here translated as
"patience," expresses much more than passive acceptance of frustration
or pain. Like all the practices cultivated along the path, in its causal
aspect patience is recommended as a spiritually healthy, creative
response to everyday situations and problems, while as a supramun-
dane perfection, it is regarded as a direct manifestation of compassion
and wisdom. In attempting to gain some appreciation of the broad spec- •"!~
trum of meaning conveyed by the Mahayana concept of k~iinti, accord- 1 .
ing to what the texts tell us, it is necessary to develop a t;nuch deeper
appreciation of the value and efficacy of patience not only as a common
virtue, but also as a characteristically Buddhist form of mental disci-
pline which becomes more and more pronounced during the advanced
states of the bodhisattva's career.
The Bodhisattvabhiimi designates three particular varieties of k~iinti. 9 ~
The first two are defined primarily in terms of a lack of antipathy, as the
patience to forgive those who inflict injury and the patience to bear nec-
essary and unavoidable suffering. In this context, of course, "injury"
must be understood as a reference to any sort of mental cruelty, either
intentional or unintentional, as well as to physical violence. These first
two kinds of patience should be practiced as social virtues, with the
understanding that although the concepts of "self' and "other" are
entirely suitable and harmless enough for practical purposes, they
become pernicious and destructive when U:sed to justify anger and
resentment. 10
Both of these types merge into a third sort of "patience," which is
described in the texts as a mental discipline of the most refined order.
.- Patience in this sense is not practiced as a social virtue, but with the spe-
cific aim of cultivating one's intellectual appreciation of doctrinal and
philosophical issues to the point where soteriological application of the
concept of emptiness finally becomes a real possibility. This third kind
of patience is defined as a quality of stamina in conjunction with a
proper attitude of mental flexibility ~r sensitivity. Both are considered
necessary in order that the bodhisattva conduct a meaningful analysis of
the various aspects and ramifications of the doctrine of the four noble
truths. It is further subdivided into three categories: 11 ( 1) patience in
studying the principles of doctrine and philosophy; (2) resolution in crit-
ically reflecting on and practicing what is learned through study; and
(3) "intellectual flexibility," which culminates in a deep, noninferential
understanding that all things are, from the perspective of the truth of
the highest meaning, entirely unproduced (anutpattikadharma-qanti).
The last of these three subdivisions is discussed in some detail by the
Yogacara philosopher Asanga, who informs us that it is traditionally
regarded as "a most esse~tial factor in the awakening of a bodhi-
sattva."12 He goes on to provide an annotated list of doctrinal and philo-
sophical issues, each of which represents a particular opportunity for
application of the concept of patience. 13 The final item mentioned there
is ~anti with regard to the buddha's body of the Dharma. 14
Much of this is obscure, but it should be clear that ~iinti is associated
with a great deal more than what is normally expressed in the notion of
patience. In the early stages of practice it constitutes simple nonsuscep-
tibility to anger, but as a supramundane perfection the humble quality
of patience evolves into an attitude characterized by equanimity and
alertness and a heightening of intellectual flexibility, an attitude diamet-
rically opposed to the push-and-pull of dualistic, reified thought.
"Patience" is the cornerstone of a way oflife based on insight and atten-
tion rather than on manipulation and control.
4.4 The perfection of energy (vTryoporomiti:i)
The perfection cultivated at the fourth stage of the path is characterized

by enthusiasm and perseverance in every undertaking. Virya is the
source of energy to begin the bodhisattva's career and to see it through
to full awakening.
Once again, three aspects are specifically mentioned: (1) energy and
stamina which serve as armor in encounters with difficulties and pro-
vide the encouragement necessary to avoid depression; (2) energy
which produces enthusiasm and good spirits; and (3) energy which
helps to accomplish the welfare of all living beings. 15 As a further clarifi-
cation of the meaning of the term, Siintideva offers the following verse:
"What is vijya?-It is resolution in pursuing whatever is good. And
what is referred to as the antithesis of vlrya?-Laziness; slothfulness,
attachment, depression, and self-contempt." 16
Lack of self-contempt is equated with confidence (mana), with the
caveat that in this case the term c.arries with it no connotations of vanity
or conceit. In this context, "confidence" refers to a strictly measured
-
74 CandrakTrti and E.arly Indian Miidhyamika
assurance which guarantees that the bodhisattva does not fall subject to
doubt or hesitation in his journey, even though he will certainly find
himself alone and in apparent opposition to the concerns of those who
do not ';lPPreciate the nature of his spiritual aspiration . Again, accord-
ing to Santideva, he must cultivate this confidence in three areas: (1)
confidence in the ability to act on his own initiative, which must grow
directly from the Buddhist teachings; (2) self-respect as a deterrent to
the afflictions of clinging, antipathy, and delusion; and (3) the power of
self-assurance which is not worn down or swayed by the opinion of
others. 17
These three types of confidence outlined by Santideva in his Bodhi-
carytivatara may well have been incorporated into the Tibetan tradition
as the three "diamondlike convictions" of the bKa gdams lineage
founded by the famous Indian scholar AtiSa. They are: (1) the
diamondlike conviction to be unmoved by the weeping, pleas, or
demands of friends or relatives who oppose the decision to renounce
worldly concerns; (2) the diamondlike conviction firmly to guard one's
practice against the degenerative effects of the mental afflictions ; and
(3) the diamondlike conviction to disregard the opinion of worldly peo-
ple:18 "As one is going off to a cave or some other suitable place for
Dharma practice, if others are filled with anger and derision, saying,
' You're just a miserable beggar,' and so forth, one should think, 'If they
call me a blessed saint-fine. If they call me a rotten scoundrel-fine. It
makes no difference to me. So many problems arise from attaching a
high value to the opinions of worldly people that it is an obstacle to
Dharma practice.' " 19
These diamondlike convictions are a part of the "ten innermost jew-
els of the bKa gdams lineage.'' Besides them there are also four
"entrustments" and three "changes in living status," all of which have
to do with the cultivation of energy on a grand scale, as they are
designed to meet the needs of a solitary ascetic who must live for some
time entirely outside the claims of society. The first of the four entrust-
ments involves the total devotion of one 's mind and thoughts to pursuit
of the path, which means that one must remain constantly aware of the
opportunity provided by life as a human being, and of the fact that
death may steal the opportunity away at any moment . Second, one
must "entrust" the practice of the Buddhist teachings to a life of pov-
erty. And third, even if renunciation of the world entails starvation, one
must develop the energy to accept such a destiny : "In any of my count-
less past lives, have I ever sacrificed my life for the sake of the Dharma?
Now, if I must die for the sake of my Dharma practice, so be it. The
causes of death of both the rich and the poor are basically the same. The
rich die after spending their lives committing non-virtue for the sake of
accumulating wealth. On the other hand, there is great meaning in

dying after spending a life of bearing hardship in one's Dharma prac-
tice. This I can do." 20
Finally, the solitary meditator must entrust his death to the dark and
lonely recesses of a barren cave. The three changes in living status
involve expulsion from the ranks of society and acceptance of life under
circumstances "no more luxurious than those enjoyed by a stray dog."
And for the few who are capable of devoting themselves to study and
practice with such enormous commitment, at the end ofthe path lies the
most significant of all changes in living status-the attainment of full
awakening and buddhahood in this life.
The extreme perseverance required in realizing the ten jewels of the
bKa gdams is obviously beyond the pale of those just beginning their
spiritual practice. At the start it is sufficient to conceive of energy as the
generation of inner determination and courage which does not read
every hardship in life either as an unyielding external force or an incur-
able internal flaw, but which looks for the source of any problem in the
relationship between "self' and "other."
Vfrya is not simply the strengthening of the power of will in service to
the Buddhist teachings. It is also the energy needed to remain con-
stantly attentive and to observe all aspects of experience with extreme
patience and care. In this sense, through the practice of meditation,
v!rya helps build a bridge between the intellectual interpretation of phil-
osophical concepts and their soteriological application in everyday life.
Initially a bodhisattva's energy is said to be generated from faith or con-
viction (fraddhiinusiirin), but as he ascends through the levels of the path
it derives more and more from critical understanding and application of
the teachings (dharmanusiirin). 21
4.5 The perfection of meditation (dhyanaparamita)
!n the Mahasaccakasutta the buddha is speaking with a Jain ascetic named

Aggivesana. He has been narrating the story of his own extremely
ascetic life during the years immediately preceding the attainment of
awakening in Bodhgaya, and how these practices had nearly destroyed
him physically without resulting in any real insight. Finally, after
months of particularly grueling self-mortification,
This, Aggivesana, occurred to me: "I know that while my father, the
Sakyan, was ploughing, I was sitting in the cool shade of the rose-apple
tree, alooffrom pleasures ofthe senses, alooffrom unskilled states of
mind, entering on the first meditation, which is accompanied by initial
thought and discursive thought, is born from aloofness, and is rapturous

and joyful, and while abiding therein, I thought: 'Now could this be the
way to awakening?' Then, following on my mindfulness, Aggivesana,
there was the consciousness: 'This is itself the Way to awakening.' " 22
In these words, the buddha described his first ipontaneous experience

of meditation. The systematic cultivation of more and more refined ver-
sions of this same basic experience forms the central theme of the bodhi-
sattva's practice at the fifth level of the path.
Meditation is at the very core of all Buddhist thought, yet it has
remained a subject barely acknowledged by scholars in the West until
quite recently, and even now the battery of technical terminology in
Sanskrit, Pa.J.i, and Tibetan surrounding the topic retains an aura of
vague imprecision, generally resisting all attempts at fluid and compre-
hensible translation. In the beginning it is most important to appreciate
the significant role that meditation plays within the whole concept of the
"path," and the tremendous influence it has exerted upon all Buddhist
thought. Eventually, however, we need to build upon this appreciation
so as to arrive at a real understanding of how meditation is directly
related to study of the Madhyamika's soteriological philosophy.
During the previous four levels of the path the bodhisattva has culti-
vated generosity, morality, patience, and energy, each of which is neces-
sary to lay a strong foundation for the practice of meditation. Like these
other perfections, meditation too involves a disciplined commitment,
through a specific practice, to ordering and determining to some extent
the nature of one's experience in the world. Yet just as the previous four
qualities are unified in the practice of meditation, so the importance ol
dhyana itself is clear indication of the influence which mind exerts over
the essential characteristics and the overall pattern of one's experience
in the world: "Tigers, lions, elephants, bears, snakes and all enemies,
the demons, demonessses, and all the guardians of hell-every one ol
these is bound through binding of the mind, and with control of the
mind all of them are controlled. The speaker of truth taught that fron:
mind alone all fears proceed and sorrows without measure." 23
The first four perfections in their causal aspects are designed to guidt
the bodhisattva to a point where the external circumstances of his life
are in harmony with his study of the philosophical concepts embodied in
the Buddhist teachings and to reduce the possibility of agitation (vik~epa)
engendered through spiritually unwholesome states of mind, which
arise from and perpetuate a beginningless cycle of compulsive action
and reaction. In connection with the practice of meditation, the bodhi-
sattva must first cultivate mindfulness (smrti) with respect to all his
behavior, which implies constant attention to these first four perfections
as they are grouped under the generic title of fila (good character). So
we are told: "From the growing interaction between good character and
balanced concentration (samiidhi), the action of the mind is purified. A
bodhisattva's training is simply this-the purification of the mind, for a
purified mind is the principal generative cause of the welfare of all living
beings." 24
The action of the mind is purified through the combined practice of
the first four perfections in conjunction with meditation, which is in this
context referred to as samatha, or "calming of the mind." The Bodhisait-
vabhiimi provides a definition:
What exactly is "calming" (fa11Ultha)?- It is the way in which the bodhi-

sattva, after resolute pursuit of critical reflection .. . [on philosophical
and doctrinal issues J, binds his thought to the support of some simple
•• •
~
object or thing which is not to be expressed in words . ~nd being released
from all specific supports through fixed concentration on this mental
image, devoid of all conceptual diffusion and restless mental states, he sets
up and firmly plants his innermost thought among the instrumental
causes of balanced concentration . This is to be accomplished for quite
some time, until (his mind] is sharply focused and stabilized. This is
referred to as "calming."25
Dhyana is actually a generic term, and famatha is only the first of two
broad divisions of meditation which have played a critical role in the
development of Buddhist thought. Samatha itself includes a wide variety
of meditation practices which are not the sole property of the Buddhist
tradition. Sakyamuni-the buddha of our historical period-:-is said to
have learned about many of these techniques from his early teachers,
and throughout the centuries during which Buddhism developed in
India , meditative tools continued to be expropriated from a vast reposi-
tory of yogic teachings and adapted to the specific needs of various Bud-
dhist masters . Within the general category of famatha we find the exer-
cises known as the four brahmavihiiras, all the trance states of the form
and formless realms, and of course, the endless types of samadhi that
result in the acquisition of parapsychological powers to be used for' the
benefit of all.
Purification of the mind (as referred to in the passage quoted above)
is not accomplished solely through the practice of famatha, however, for
within the Buddhist tradition meditative stabilization of the mind is
only a foundation for the practice of vipafyanii 'insight' , 26 which devel-
oped as a uniquely Buddhist technique closely associated with the culti-
vation of perfect wisdom at the sixth level of the path. There is no doubt
that the history of Buddhist thought is saturated with the influence of
D
78 CandrakTrti and E.arly Indian Madhyamika
Hindu practices like some of those just mentioned, but within this sec-
ond broad division of meditative techniques we may fmd a key to the
direct relationship between philosophy and meditation in the Buddhist
tradition .
When the mind is calm and focused it can be used as an instrument of
tremendous power of insight, allowing the meditator to experience
directly the central concepts of Buddhist philosophical systems. Gimello
explains the relationship between theory and practice in the follow-
ing way:
The degree of stillness recommended varies from technique to technique

but, once an adequate stillness is achieved one proceeds to analytically
review and thereby immediatdy to apprehend or "see" the meaning of
the fundamental truths of Buddhism. Discernment (vipafyanii) is the latter,
the analytic and most characteristically Buddhist part of this discipline.
Since no analytic activity, meditative or other, can be carried on without
the use of conceptual equipment, since the data of no experience interpret
or explain themselves, one must bring to the experience a scheme of orga-
nizing and interpreting terms such as in science would be called a theory.
Otherwise the experience either remains mute and meaningless or is
uncritically interpreted in terms of some other, perhaps deficient, concep-
tual scheme or theory. 27
I have commented briefly on the peculiar inseparability of conceptual

thought and sensation and noted in passing Feyerabend's discussion of
the interdependence between observational languages and the natural
interpretations that both generate and are generated by these lan-
guages. His work offers us a useful vocabulary for exploring the rela-
tionship between philosophy and meditation in the Madhyamika. "We
have discovered," Feyerabend writes, "that learning does not go from
observation to theory but always involves both elements."
Experience arises together with theoretical assumptions not before them,

and an experience without theory is just as incomprehensible as is (alleg-
edly) a theory without experience: eliminate part of the theoretical knowl-
edge of a sensing subject and you have a person who is completely disori-
ented and incapable of carrying out the simplest action. Eliminate further
knowledge and his sensory world (his 'observation language') will start
disintegrating, colours and other simple sensations will disappear until he
is in a stage even more primitive than a small child. 28
The rigidity of the so-called empirical world evaporates under closer

inspection, when we begin to fathom the extent to which sensation and
perception are completely bound up with language and conceptual
thought:
To start with, we must become clear about the nature of the total phe-
nomenon: appearance plus statement. There are not two acts-one, notic-
ing a phenomenon; the other, expressing it with the help of the appropri-
ate statement-but only one . ... We may, of course, abstractly subdivide
this process into parts, and we may also try to create a situation where
statement and phenomenon seem to be psychologically apart and waiting
to be related. (This is rather difficult to achieve and is perhaps entirely
impossible.) But under normal circumstances such a division does not
occur; describing a familiar situation is, for the speaker, an event in which
statement and phenomenon are firmly glued together.
This unity is the result of a process oflearning that starts in one's child-
hood. From our very early days we learn to react to situations with the
appropriate responses, linguistic or otherwise. The teaching procedures
both shape the 'appearance', or 'phenomenon', and establish a firm connec-
tion with words, so that finally the phenomena seem to speak for them-
selves without outside help or extraneous knowledge. They are what the
associated statements assert them to be. The language they 'speak' is, of
course, influenced by the beliefs of earlier generations which have been
held for so long that they no longer appear as separate principles, but
enter the terms of everday discourse, and, after the prescribed training,
seem to emerge from the things themselves. 29
The bodhisattva path is a means of exposing and defusing many of

these very beliefs "which have been held for so long that they no longer
appear as separate principles," and the combination of philosophy and
meditation is a particularly powerful feature of this path. Girnello's fur-
ther remarks concerning the application of Buddhist conceptual catego-
ries within the practice of insight meditation are especially relevant in
this connection, and well worth considering:
It is surely not the purpose of any form of Buddhist meditation simply to

construct conceptual models of the world . . . . Quite to the contrary, their
ultimate aim is to disabuse the meditator of his attachment to any and all
concepts. Liberation, after all, is "inconceivable". However, it is the
attachment and not the concepts that one must be rid of. That very pro-
cess of conceptual disenchantment, so felicitously described by Buddhists
as a "rinsing" of the mind in "the waters of insight" is in fact a
homeopathic therapy. Cure of conceptual illness requires precisely the
expedient and disciplined use of well-chosen conceptual remedies . . . .
They are to be used, by collected and one-pointed minds, without attach-
ment, and are particularly designed so as not to occasion or incite attach-
ment .... The mind is never given the opportunity to make hard and
false discriminations, nor is it allowed to dwell in or depend upon any one
perspective on any discrete object. These meditative concepts and the
rather special sort of analysis they permit are to be sharply distinguished
from conventional concepts-from notions like selfhood, permanence,
cause and effect, and the like-which Buddhists are wont to call vikalpa or
samjilii. Conventional concepts are regarded by Mahayana Buddhists as
the flawed instruments of unstilled minds and they are thought to be too
readily susceptible to dangerous misuse. First of all, they imply false dis-
criminations and are therefore held simply to be in error. But, even more
serious is the assumed likelihood of their becoming mental fixations,
objects of a kind of intellectual craving that is far more difficult to extin-
guish than emotional craving. Such concepts as are used in meditative
discernment, are not at all the deceptively safe harbors or lulling abodes of
thought which Buddhists, in their "homeless" wisdom, must avoid ....
Their validity is ajunction especially of the sort of use to which they can be put. They
are not used, as conventional vikalpa or samjilii are, in such spiritually
inexpedient activities as differentiation or dichotomous discrimination.
They produce instead, as we have seen, visions of coalescence and mutual
permeability. They are so defined as to actually "disarm" themselves, as
they are being used, of the snares of craving and delusion with which
conventional concepts are equipped. . . . They therefore do not tether the
mind to ignorant views but propel it further along its liberating course. 30
It perhaps appears as no startling discovery that the primary concepts

of the Madhyamika system are to be used in meditation, but the real
force of my point here-and Gimello's as well, I suspect-goes beyond
this fundamental obsy:rvation. Although this book is certainly not
intended as a presentation of the technicalities of meditative practice,
the principal concerns of part 1 are directly related to the issues dis-
cussed in the passage just cited. Two things need to be carefully noted
and explained in greater detail: ( 1) from the perspective of the Madhy-
amika, the meaning and the validity of all concepts are determined
solely as functions of "the use to which they can be put"; and (2) empti-
ness and the other key Madhyamika concepts are not only "especially
well suited" for application in the context of meditative practice, but
require, in order to be properly understood, an appreciation of the philo-
sophical significance of the practice of meditation and the other perfec-
tions of the bodhisattva path.
Prajiia, or wisdom, is subject to a threefold division: 31 ( 1) wisdom
founded on textual study; (2) wisdom based on philosophical reflection
and reason; and (3) wisdom that grows out of a synthesis of interpreta-
tion and application, a synthesis which finds its catalyst in the peculiarly
Buddhist type of meditation called vipaiyanii., here translated "insight."
The first two types of wisdom are most commonly referred to as fr'iita-
may!-prajnii., wisdom composed of rote learning and study, and cintii.mayf-
prajnii, wisdom composed of critical reflection on what has already been
learned through study of the textual tradition, so that the material is
intellectually assimilated. Neither of these has any direct connection
with meditation. Just as meditation can be practiced without recourse to

a religious or philosophical matrix (though not without any conceptual
structure whatsoever), so the scriptures and the various systems of Bud-
dhist philosophy can be studied without the aid of meditation, though
this leads in all likelihood to a distortion of their message through reifi-
cation of concepts that are necessarily linked to a particular praxis. The
third type of wisdom, a nontheoretical o~ pragmatic understanding of
the teachings, is called bluivanrimayi-prajna, or "the wisdom composed of
meditative cultivation." Bhiivanrimayf-prajiiii is the result of applying
what has been theoretically understood to an analysis of all aspects of
everyday experience~ both subjective and objective-by harnessing the
power of concentration developed in the practice of famatha . As we read
in the Bodhisattvabhiimi:
What exactly is "insight" (vipafyana)?-Insight is grounded in fixed con-

centration infused with a calm presence of mind (famatha), and it com-
prises analysis, inspection, or close attention to the instrumental causes of
those (philosophical and doctrinal] principles which have been properly
reflected upon, critical understanding of the teachings (the· Dharma), and
a great number of other such [forms of discrimination J up to and includ-
ing absolute mastery of the practice of what has been understood in this
way (prajniiciira). 3 2
Vipafyanii is truly Buddhist meditation, for it is the essence of bhiivanii-

mayl-prajiia; and this "wisdom composed of meditative cultivation" is
itself the perfection of wisdom within the Mahayana tradition as a
whole . At the sixth level of the path intellectual understanding is firmly
grounded not in any transcendental "truth" or "reality" but in the
application or actualization of both philosophical and religious teach-
ings, so that the adept is enabled to perceive directly all experience as an
instantiation of self-deconstructing Buddhist conceptual categories.
This, and nothing else, is the perfection ofwisdom.B
In the broadest sense, meditation is a method of shaking oneself free
from habitual patterns of thought and of refining both the will and the
intellect through a maturing of insight into the nature of cognitive and
perceptual processes as they influence everyday experience. The ulti-
mate goal of such practice is not to eliminate emotional involvement or
to divorce oneself from the external world, but to create a stable and
~ttentive mind which can serve as a workable foundation for appreciat-
m~ the significance of any experience in the wider context of the Bud-
dhist teachings . Sensitivity in all relationships is to be enhanced, not
devalued, and for this it is abSolutely necessary to undermine egotism
and the clinging to concepts and views of any kind .
The meditator extracts himself from the confines of day-to-day self-

centered behavior and gradually attains to a release from the dictates of
reified conceptual thinking. Awareness of thoughts and sensations is
temporarily set apart from any normal mundane considerations, in the
sense that the contents of perception are no longer seized upon as a ful-
fillment (or a denial) of the ego's own precalculated motives, but rather
as dramatic instantiations of one or another key philosophical or doctri-
nal principle. Through the practice of meditation, all experience begins
to assume a new significance, which does not in the least preclude the
sort of personal invo!vement characterized by intellectual and emo-
tional concern, but allows for the transfiguration of both forms of atten-
tion into an expression of unselfconscious participation in the world.
The flow of events comes to be seen as a dynamic and constantly chang-
ing interaction between the six organs of sensation (including the mind)
and their respective objective referents-an interaction which is experi-
enced as entirely devoid of any stable, abiding ground. Apprehended in
this way, the everyday procession of worldly affairs generates and sus-
tains not only dichotomizing thought and emotion, but a deeper under-
standing of the philosophical literature as well. The conventional world
remains just as it is, but with the steady refinement of philosophical
understanding and the direct application of these concepts, one sees the
meaning of emptiness unfold as a new dimension within the old order of
things-a new natural interpretation that "seems to emerge from the
things themselves."
Eventually the meditator establishes himself in a great inner peace
characterized in the texts as the actualization of emptiness, devoid of
reified thought and therefore free from the distortions of an emotionally
unbalanced, egocentric mind. 34 This tremendous inner peace is de-
scribed as the power embodied in realization of the "suchness" of
everyday experience, the ability to see oneself and all the other things of
the world with "perfect clarity," just as they are in the context of their
relations with each other. 35 The highest experience of perfect, balanced
concentration (samyaksamadhi) involves the transformation and har-
monization of the entire personality so that one's attitude and form of
life are in complete accord with the understanding gained through study
and critical reflection.
It would be difficult to overestimate the importance of meditation as
the primary instrument for th<:_!ntegration of soteriologi-;:ally efficacious
concepts into the emotional and volitional life of the practicing Bud-
dhist. Understanding becomes no longer a matter of interpretation or
belief, but one-~f direct perception and unhesitating action . It is not
simply that questions of epistemic truth and antic reality are entirely
irrelevant to ihis process; they are, in fact, symptomatic of the archety-
a1 samsaric form oflife that is permeated with fear and suffering. The
fnability to escape one's obsession with the observational language in
which these questions are embedded-not only to "stop philosophiz-
ing," as Wittgenst~in puts it, ~ut simul.taneously to see and see ~hrough the
natural interpretatiOns that gtve meanmg and structure to this and any
picture of the world-is to be held tightly, with "a knot made by SJ>Ii'ce,"
to the wheel of becoming (bluuJacalaa), continually turning rounq. and
round under the force of clinging, antipathy, and delusion.
4.6 The perfection of wisdom (praj~ramitii)
The previous five stages of the path have dealt with tM practices of gen-
erosity, morality, patience, energy, and meditation. The first four work
to foster a structure or harmony within physical and verbal actions, so
that external affairs are brought into order, and feelings o( anxiety and
depression are reduced to a minimum. These virtues are initially culti-
vated as an effective means to discipline the mind and so to lead it
toward a sustained condition of relative calm and stability, and t()
heighten one 's capacity for sensitivity to the feelings and needs 'of
others.
An early scholastic treatise informs us that virtue "is either coordinat-
ing, meaning non-inconsistency of bodily action, etc., due to virtuous~
ness; or it is upholding, meaning a state of basis owing to its serving as
the foundation for profitable states [ot' mind)." 36 Just as there are many
colors, yet all are characterized by "visibility," so there are many vir-
tues, each of which provides a basis for order or composition. 37 Under
these circumstances meditation first becomes possible as the practice of
mental purification (cittaoiiuddhi)-a natural extension of the previous
four virtues, leading to a .. profitable unification of mind." 38 The mind
is said to be briefly purified during any moral action, and immediately x
~rior to entering a period of meditapon there OC<turs ~ further stabiliza-
t~on and unification of mental processes called- "~~ximity purifica-
tiOn." Complete purification of the mind, according to this tradition,
~ccurs only in deep med~tation, which should be practiced in conjunc- ,.
tl~n with the study of philosophy and the cultivation of perfect ., ·
Wisdom.39
4.6. 1 The concept of "perfect wisdom" .

"'
The study of philosophy and the practice of meditation act togeth~r to ,
enhance intellectual discernment arid moral sensibilities, but it is only
after a person has already formed the basis for a wholesome state of
mind that he can actually begin to appreciate the significance of either

philosophy or meditation in the Buddhist tradition. A "wholesome state
of mind" is founded on calmness and insight, and is characterized pri-
marily by an attitude of nonclinging, for the reduction of strong attach-
ment to things and ideas reduces in its tum feelings of hostility, fear,
and greed. It gradually contributes to an emotional and intellectual
involvement with the world marked by the selfless concern needed to
actualize the concept of emptiness.
Wisdom is not simply learning or philosophy, although as the expres-
sion is used by Candrakirti it includes both of these. In the earliest sys-
tematic attempts to synthesize the scriptural teachings, philosophy con-
sisted of little more than a highly technical and specialized modification
of doctrinal formulas. It was designed to provide a conceptual grid that
could be laid over the meditator's experience, separating and defining
the basic components of that experience. Ultimately this sort of analysis
was justified as a sophisticated expedient for the elimination of a priori
presuppositions about the nature of the sentient "self' which result in
clinging and antipathy. Early Buddhist philosophy, as represented in the
Abhidharma literature, is not particularly concerned with the construc-
tion of a flawless system of formal truths. It is not opposed to logic and
rational argumentaion, but these two are clearly subordinated in the
interests of a higher, soteriological purpose: "The Buddhist teachings
and the monastic discipline are all of a single flavor-the flavor of liber-
ation."40 Philosophy is not viewed as an abstract set of propositions. It is
a pragmatic force contributing to insight into the nature of conceptual
thought and perception and to an understanding that strong· ~ttachment
to the reified notion of a self lies at the root of all forms of suffering. This
attitude toward philosophy is characteristic of all later developments,
including the Madhyamika, whose deconstructive analysis obviously
constitutes an endeavor to exploit logic and rational argumentation as
aids to salvation, without' any belief in their intrinsic value.
It is assumed that a practical examination of everyday experience will
not only reveal certain fundamental inconsistencies in on~'s preconcep-
tions about the world, but will at the same time lead to a basic dissatis-
faction with all attempts to account for everyday experience in a priori
terms. The average person operates within a maze of unexamined
belief, inherited in the observational language and natural interpreta-
tions passed along from one generation to the next as the ground of all
experience. Under the)nfluence of this network of hereditary beliefs
that are built into thought and language and perception, the average
person is almost entirely governed by self-centered considerations, and
he is alternately attracted to or repelled ·by a world that threatens his
fragmented, isolated self. Buddhist wisdom stands in direct opposition
to this pattern of behavior and to the attitude underlying it, for one
develops wisdom by not taking for granted this self-centered view of the
world and by deconstructing the grid of prejudices and presuppositions
that give shape to all our experience.
Mental processes, or faculties of the mind, are divided by early
Abhidharmika scholastics into three distinct categories identified as (1)
perception (samjiiii); (2) conceptualization or ideation (vijfiiina); and (3)
discernment or wisdom (prajfiii). H Perception accounts for our aware-
ness of one object as distinct from another in terms of sensible qualities
like color and shape, while conceptualization apprehends the intrinsic
characteristics of the object-those not accessible to the five senses. In
this literature, prajiia is distinguished from these two as a particular
innate faculty of the mind which reveals the nature of everyday experi-
ence as it is, divorced from any preconceived notions about its reality or
value. This faculty is illustrated by the following. 42
Imagine for a moment that some unscrupulous fellow is trying to pass
a counterfeit bill to an unsuspecting victim. Let us further suppose that
there is a third individual involved, a child of three or four, who chances
to observe the whole event. Now we must ask ourselves what each of
those present knows about the counterfeit note. The child clearly per-
ceives the existence of the bill. He can see its shape and color, he can
touch it (or even smell it, if given the opportunity), but he is totally
unaware of the fact that it is money, and he is entirely incapable of inter-
preting the numbers printed on it, even though he can easily see them.
The unsuspecting victim is only slightly better off. He knows how to
count and how to read numbers, so that his knowledge of the bill
encompasses the child's perception and augments it with the ability to
interpret abstract numerical symbols. It is immediately evident, how-
ever, that his knowledge is incomplete in one very crucial respect, for
unlike the criminal, he is unable to judge the way in which the bill is
both genuine and false-both "real" and "illusory." His acquired con-
ceptual knowledge, in this instance, represents only a margin~ gain
over the child's untutored perception. The counterfeiter has a distinct
advantage over them, for he knows all that needs to be known in order
to behave most effectively in this situation. He knows that the n~te is
present-that it exists, and is real to this extent at least. He can under-
stand and interpret its cha~acteristic marks-the numbers printed-on
:ach side. And he knows that it is in one very important respect false or
Illusory, not because it does not exist at all, but simply because it is not
what it appears to be to the naive. The bill is not entirely unreal, but
~nderstanding how it is deceptive is an advantage to the criminal
:cause it allows him to adjust his attitude and expectations. He sees
t e note with perfect clarity, as it is; his knowledge is complete in every
86 CandrokH and Early Indian Modhyamika
respect, and his attitude toward the bill is in accord with its relative
value.
The untutored perception of the child is superficial, and the efficacy
of rational thought and conceptualization limited. They generate an
analytic comprehension of the object which can be of great pragmatic
value but is still incomplete. Furthermore, where perception and con-
ceptualization are exclusively relied upon without any· awareness of
their limitations, one is very likely to develop an unrealistic set of expec-
tations which inevitably leads to frustration and despair. Therefore the
texts conclude that it is absolutely necessary that this third faculty of the
mind, prajiia, be cultivated and pressed into service wherever possible,
in order that we not be deceived by our past conditioning.
The Hlnayana literature, and particularly the Abhidharma, is most
concerned with the illusion of a sentient "self," and they would unravel
my example as follows. Our concept of a "self'' is founded upon two
sorts of information: (1) perceptual data, for example, the physical body
in all its material aspects; and (2) conceptual data, which include infer-
ences of abstract characteristics like "consciousness," personality traits,
and prenatal dispositions, in addition to the conceptual component of
perception. According to the Hinayana Abhidharma "systems, if we rely
entirely on perceptual and conceptual evidence for information about
the self we are in danger of committing a serious blunder, for we would
be inclined to attempt to purchase lasting s<J.tisfaction by grasping at the
currency of this "self'' as though it were a substantial , enduring entity,
when closer inspection reveals that the self is nothing more than a com-
posite of perceptual and conceptual elements-a counterfeit of the
reified self that (ironically enough) exists only in the imagination.
The critical distinction between the reified concept of "self" and the
conventional notion of "agent" has been described by a modern Bud-
dhist teacher in the following words:
When someone praises or abuses you, you catch a glimpse of what is to be

refuted, but it lasts only momentarily-when you try to examine it, it
disappears into the five (psychophysical aggregates]. When you are happy,
suffering or angry, you have the best opportunity to recognise this false
self. Also, if someone unjustly accuses you of stealing, you experience a
cold, uncomfortable feeling in the chest and ybur whole mind strongly
reacts with self-grasping. Then as soon as part of the mind tries to exam-
in_e this, it disappears like a rainbow_ . . . Self grasping is sometimes
identified with the body and at other times with the mind. For example,
when walking along a cliff, it is identified with the body, and, when view-
ing one's non-virtue and fearing birth in a low realm, with the mind. The
urge for self-preservation which strongly arises while walking along a cliff
is not self-grasping, but is accompanied by it. Even the Buddha has the
instinct of self-preservation, for it is this which preserves the well-being of

the relative(= conventional) self. The feeling that the self exists indepen-
dent of mental imputation is based upon an illusion, and it is because of
this, the root of samsiira, that all [the afflictions] arise. For countless aeons
sentient beings have remained in samsiira due to confusing the relative self
with this illusion.H
But why do we cling so tightly to an illusion? For protection from

impermanence (anityatti), decay, and death. Ernest Becker has carefully
exposed the source of this illusory "I" and the elaborate mechanism
that sustains it:
The prison of one's character is painstakingly built to deny one thing and
one thing alone: one's creatureliness. The creatureliness is the terror.
Once admit that you are a defecating creature and you invite the primeval
ocean of creature anxiety to flood over you. But it is more than creature
anxiety, it is also man's anxiety, the anxiety that results from the human
paradox that man is an animal who is conscious of his animal limitation.
Anxiety is the result of the perception of the truth of one's condition. What
does it mean to be a self-conscious aniTTIIll? The idea is ludicrous, if it is not
monstrous. It means to know that one is food for worms. This is the ter-
ror: to have emerged from nothing, to have a name, consciousness of self,
deep inner feelings, an excruciating inner yearning for life and self-expres-
sion-and with all this yet to die. It seems a hoax, which is why one type
of cultural man rebels openly against the idea of God. What kind of deity
would create such complex and fancy worm food? Cynical deities, said the
Greeks, who use man's torments for their own amusement. H
The empirical truth of impermanence is never completely suppressed

by the fictions that we create or inherit. Here is the source of duhkho.-
the pervasive anxiety that is held at bay only through the strength.offor-
getting or refusing to look more closely.
For most Hinayana schools, release from fear and suffering can be
achieved only by learning to see completely through this illusory
appearance of a self, and beyond even death, to the underlying colloca-
~ion of perceptual and conceptual data responsible for the illusion. This
Is defined as "wisdom" in the literature of these schools. The Madhy-
amika set out to purge this definition of any trace of objectivity.
Nagarjuna's critique of this position appears more sophisticated phil-
osophically and is thus more compelling to a modern Western mind,-
but it is also important because it is embedded in a radically different
soteriology. I have discussed the threefold nature of prajiia as being
~om posed of study, critical reflection, and meditative cultivation of what
as been learned. Given this definition of prajiia-a definition common
to all Buddhist schools, both Hinayana and Mahayana-it is clear that

"wisdom" is a direct expression of the meditator's total mastery of phil-
osophical and doctrinal teachings. The nature of wisdom varies from
school to school because of differences in the concepts that the schools
teach. In another sense wisdom is more than concept and reason, when
it is referred to as "wisdom as an effect," but for the moment it is most
important to understand how the Madhyamika's radically deconstruc-
tive approach to philosophizing resulted in a complete reshaping of the
conceptual content of prajfia. The thorough going critique of Hinayana
epistemology, ontology, and soteriology defined the new conceptual
foundation for study and critical reflection, and thereby for meditation
as well.
The Madhyamika would go one step further and interpret the coun-
terfeit bill not simply as a reference to the sentient self, but as a simile
for any conceivable subjective or objective phenomenon. It must con-
stantly be borne in mind that such examples are intended only as simi-
les, for the world is never actually identified as an illusion per se; it is
merely compared to an illusion (miiyopamam lokam). Everyday experi-
ence is like an illusion in that our interaction with· the things of the
world is confused and fragmented and our knowledge incomplete. Indi-
vidual, discrete "things" most certainly do present themselves in the
context of everyday affairs as the contents of perception and conceptual-
ization, but when analyzed in perfect wisdom no object retains its
appearance of independent reality, nor does any word or concept prove
to have a fixed, referential meaning. Ontological and epistemological
problems dissolve in the radically contextual nature of life. "Things"
are merely contingent and highly unstable fabrications, totally depen-
dent for their existence on particular temporary collocations of causes
and conditions. Words and concepts draw their meaning from their
application in the interaction between speaker and listener. Perfect wis-
dom graphiCally reveals the holistic, contextual nature of all forms of
existence and knowledge and allows the bodhisattva to adjust his atti-
tude so that it accords with the "suchness" of all experience, with the
self, and with the world, as they are in the context of the moment. In
this way, he is invested with the ability to act effectively and in harmony
with the demands of every situation as it presents itself in the web of
interrelated events.
To summarize a critical distinction: It is not that the "I" or the
"external world" is unreal in any absolute sense; the point is only that
the average person's experience is adversely conditioned by a wide
range of prejudices and presuppositions that are at best soteriologically
neutral, and at worst the indirect causes of tremendous fear and suffer-
ing. In applying study and critical reflection through practicing the per-
fections, and especially in the practice of meditation, the bodhisattva

comes to see all experience as the instantiation of the Mahayana con-
cept of emptiness. I~ so doi~g, he realizes all that there is to realize in
the wisdom of the Madhyam1ka adept.
4.6.2 The relationship of perfect wisdom to the other perfections

The great poet laureate of the Madhyamika, Santideva, included the
following v-erse at the beginning of chapter 9 of his Bodhicaryiivatiira,
which deals with perfection of wisdom : "The Sage taught the entire ret-
inue of [other perfections] for the purpose of [developing] perfect wis-
dom ; therefore , perfect wisdom should be cultivated by one who desires
the cessation of suffering. " 45 In the initial stages, the bodhisattva culti:
vates morality and the other perfections in order to purify his thought
and action so that he can eventually correctly interpret and actualize the
concept of emptiness. It is crucial from the start that the qualities which
constitute these first four perfections not be understood as an externally
imposed ethical code. At the sixth stage of the path the bodhisattva
clearly comprehends the threefold emptiness of all virtues. 46 Earlier the
virtues served as the means to an end, but from this moment on, as
illuminated by perfect wisdom, they are gradually transformed into an
end in themselves, a spontaneous expression of the bodhisattva's deep
compassion for all living beings .
The nature ofprajiia as "nondualistic knowledge" (advayajnana) is the
key to its relationship with the other perfections. According to the
Mahayana literature, all five perfections must be practiced for eons,
during which time they are purified by perfect wisdom and so purged of
all associations with the reified concepts "agent," " action," or "recipi-
ent ." Acc<>mpanied by full comprehension of the emptiness of all
things, the practice of these virtues releases one from the obscuring
force of mental and emotional afflictions and reified thought. Actualiza-
tion of emptiness releases us from the grip of the observational language
and natural interpretations that are useful in their own right but spiritu-
ally ?angerous unless placed in contrast with an alternative, soteriologi-
cal truth . Through their transformation all six perfections are held
responsible for engendering the realization of the buddha's body of the
Dharma, which is the truth of the highest meaning. 47 Only at this point
are they properly called "perfections," and prajiia is chief among
them . 48 In union with perfect wisdom each of the other qualities takes
part in fostering a deep inner peace, the affective counterpart to direct
awareness of conventional truth as it is in its relational, contextual
nature.
Prajiia is not amassed through accretion of theoretical formulas or
~fit)~"' ~e::.'
~,e~d w c.;~i:.i~<;DaCw (~ O•.esllE)'
'-'1"',~~,.... I
through reference to any sublime, metaphysical, or mystical reality. It is

the essential clarity and flexibility of the mind revealed when, through
the discipline of the path, the bodhisattva has completely rid himself of
the tendency to cling to the .contents of conceptualization and percep-
tion as though some or all of them were grounded in an a priori truth or
reality. Prajiia is a matter both of intellectual understanding and of
action. With it the bodhisattva not only slashes away at the thick under-
growth of reified concepts but is also conducted along the path to a point
where the concept of emptiness is actualized through his attitude and
behavior in the world.
In his remarks on the verse I have cited from the Bodhicaryiivatiira,
Santideva's commentator, Prajiiiikaramati, subdivides prajiia into two
main types: 49 (1) intellectual discernment, or what might be called
"dualistic wisdom," employed by the bodhisattva in traveling along the
path as a cause for actualizing emptiness-hence its name, "wisdom as
a cause" (hetubhiita-prajiiii); and (2) "wisdom as an effect" (ph6labhiita-
prajiiii), the noninferential actualization of what has been conceptually
grasped, which is devoid of intrinsic being., empty, subsuming all forms,
and yet unrelated to any particular thin~ or idea, no matter how philo-
sophical or refined it may be. Hetubhlita-prajiiii is developed through
study, critical reflection and analysis, and meditation and appropriate
activity in the world. This final critical step lets theoretical understand-
ing be incorporated into an attitude that permeates the character of the
bodhisattva's experience and gives him access to the path. When his
inferential understanding of the philosophical system has been perfected
by practice of the virtues associated with the previous stages, and when
clinging, antipathy, and the other afflictions have dissolved, then his
mastery of philosophical concepts is said to be transmuted into the very
heart of awakening-nondualistic knowledge, free from the snare of
reified thought. "Nondualistic knowledge" and "wisdom as an effect"
are synonymous expressions for the noninferential actualization of phil-
osophical understanding, and this, according to Prajiiakaramati, is the
reason why prajiia is prescribed as the remedy for one's own pain and
for the fear and suffering experienced by all.
Pain is associated with birth, disease, old age, and death, with sepa-
ration from that which is loved or union with that which is hated, or
with loss of that which was obtained only after long pursuit. According
to Prajiiiikaramati, when perfect wisdom is identified as an effect, it is
equated with the eradication of all clinging to the "I" and to the objects
it depends upon as guarantors of its existence and meaning. Wisdom is
then called true peace, nirvaJ:la. In perfect wisdom comes the realization
of unqualified tranquility, of an alternative, liberating truth-that nei-
ther the "I" nor any sentient being or insentient thing ever arises or
-
passes away. Inordinat~ attachme~t, strong aversion, and the .other

afflictions are produced m one who IS confused and has, under the mflu-
ence of reified thought, resorted to seizing at notions of "I" and
"mine," so that his mind is constantly distracted and unbalanced. From
this deluded grasping come volitional action (karma), birth, disease, old
age, death, sorrow, grief, misery, despair, and all the other afflictions-
the entire mass of fear and suffering. But when, through prajiiii, the
bodhisattva actualizes the concept of dependent origination and experi-
ences all things as interrelated threads woven into the fabric of empti-
ness (which is no fabric), then the phenomena of the world are seen to
be devoid of any enduring "self' or "sovereign." Like magical illu-
sions, beams oflight, fairy cities, dreams, or reflected images, from the
perspective of this soteriological truth they are all without intrinsic
being. As seen through the eye of perfect wisdom, the relations between
things exert much greater claims to meaning and existence than do the
things themselves .
When the bodhisattva clearly perceives himself and all things in this
way, as they are in the "suchness" (tathatii) of the context of their rela-
tionships, then spiritual ignorance as the decisive factor in the experi-
ence of becoming is terminated. Prenatal dispositions to volitional
action and thought (samskiiras) are dispelled, and all the other links in
the chain of cyclic existence are subsequently broken. Birth is no more,
and so goes all the suffering that derives from it. Spiritual ignorance,
desire, and clinging, which form the basis of the other afflictions, are
uprooted . Dispositions to perpetual becoming and embodiment, which
lead to volitional action, are cut off. And suffering, which is composed
of the remaining links in the chain of rebirth, is then totally under-
mined . These three-the afflictions (klefas), volitional action (karma),
and suffering (dubkha)-are utterly annihilated through the efficacy of
wisdom. One perceives that the concepts "I" and "mine" are of indis-
putable conventional value but no transcendental significance. As com-
ponents of worldly experience all elements of conceptualization and per-
ception come into being through an unstable conjunction of the
requisite circumstances, and cease to be through disjunction of these
same circumstances: Their intrinsic nature is like a bundle of hollow
reeds.
This is the traditional account of wisdom as cause and as effect, as
philosophical understanding, and as the implementation of understand-
ing toward actualization of a new form of life. By means of perfect wis-
dom the bodhisattva experiences himself and all things as composite
and only contextually real, similar to the images of a dream or magical
-illusion. Actualization of emptiness dissolves the afflictions of delusion,
clinging, and antipathy i~to insight, nonclinging, and compassion:
Therefore, Pn1jiiakaramati adds in closing, perfect wisdom is the prin-

cipal agent in the cessation of suffering for all living beings.
4.6.3 CandrakTrti's presentation of the Sixth Stage

At the very beginning of chapter 6 of The Entry into the Middle Way, 6.1-
7, Candrakirti briefly defines the role of prajiia in relation to the other
perfections and praises the virtues found in a person who sincerely
desires to devote himself to the search for wisdom and compassion.
In order to begin truly to appreciate the teachings on emptiness, one
must already have experienced a profound concern for the suffering of
all sentient beings, and an equally acute sensitivity to the inadequacy of
every attempt to ignore or explain away the unsatisfactoriness of the life
that can include such misery. All the clever words of theologians, philos-
ophers, and politicians fail to bring relief, and the theoretical and tech-
nical accomplishments of the physical sciences seem to lead only to ever- ... :·;
greater alienation from what is felt to be most important in life. One is
completely, irrevocably trapped, and the need for a radical solution is
plainly evident. Only a desperate person is prepared to make any sacri-
fice to extricate himselffrom a form oflife which is perceived as oppres-
sively artificial and fragmented. The problem of suffering has sub-
sumed all other problems, and knowledge that could release all
creatures from fear and suffering is the only knowledge worth striving
for. A real and intimate sensitiyity to the fundamental unsatisfactori-
ness of the present form of life is the touchstone for proper study of phi-
losophy in the Buddhist sense. This is something that cannot be argued
or forced upon anyone who has not already experienced it, but once it
has been experienced, only a personal, spiritual solution can ever reach
deeply enough to touch its emotional and volitional source.
As always, Candrakirti's remarks here, at the beginning of chapter 6,
must be seen as falling within the larger context of the Mahayana litera-
ture. Understanding the soteriological efficacy of the concept of empti-
ness is more than a matter of grasping an ostensive definition. Empti-
ness must resonate far down into the core of every experience, and in
order for it to do so, the concept must find direct application as the solu-
tion to a universal human problem. It must be shown capable of uniting
self-interest with the best interests of all living beings. The problem of
suffering is brought forward as the paradigmatic existential predica-
ment, and extended contemplation on pain, its cause, and its cure is
recommended at the start of the path. The four noble truths, an analysis
of suffering and its alleviation, are traditionally ascribed to the first ser-
mon delivered by the buddha after his awakening at Bodhgaya. 50
According to all schools of Buddhism, the presence of fear and suffer-
--
ing is so basic and all-pervasive that if one ceases even for a moment to
ignore or depreciate its significance, the normal state of worldly affairs
-"business as usual" (including the business of academic philosophy)
-is experienced as inherently unsatisfactory. Something is terribly
wrong with our entire form of life, from the Buddhist point of view, and
in the presence of acute fear and suffering one is most urgently aware of
this flaw, which permeates even the most apparently benign experi-
ences. A major Hinayana scholastic treatise, the Abhidharmakofa of
Vasabandhu, provides a metaphorical illustration of the severity of the
problem: "No man even feels a thread lying in the palm of his hand,
but if this same thread should get caught in his eye it would produce
great discomfort and pain. Like the palm of the hand, a spiritually igno-
rant person is completely insensitive to the thread of suffering that runs
through all things in life; for the wise person, however, as for the eye,
this same thread is a source ofterrible affiiction." 51
Becker has graphically described the more obvious manifestations of
this thread of suffering:
What are we to make of a creation in which the routine activity is for
organisms to be tearing others apart with teeth of all types-biting, grind-
ing flesh, plant stalks, bones between molars, pushing the pulp down the
gullet with delight, incorporating its essence into one's own organization,
and then excreting with foul stench and gasses the residue. Everyone
reaching out to incorporate others who are edible to him. The mosquitoes
bloating themselves on blood, the maggots, the killer-bees attacking with a
fury and a demonism, sharks continuing to tear and swallow while their
own innards are being torn out-not to mention the daily dismemberment
and slaughter in "natural" accidents of all types: an earthquake buries
alive seventy thousand bodies in Peru, automobiles make a pyramid heap
of over fifty thousand a year in the U.S. alone, a tidal wave washes over a
quarter of a million in the Indian Ocean. Creation is a nightmare spectac-
ular taking place on a planet that has been soaked for hundreds of millions
of years in the blood of all its creatures. The soberest conclusion that we
could make about what has actually been taking place on the planet for
about three billion years is that it is being turned into a vast pit of fertil-
izer. 52
At least in part, to be wise means to have come face to face with the
suffering that is bound up with every aspect of our lives. This can never
be accomplished by ignoring the problem or by explaining it away. One
has to become much more sensitive,· not less. Buddhist teachings often
thought of as unnecessarily pessimistic are actually designed gradually
to heighten our sensitivity until it reaches· a crescendo of desperation
that will not be diminished by anything short of a complete redefinition
of one's form oflife .
The first noble truth is a statement of fact: "All life is suffering."

Whether or not the average person agrees is another matter. The second
noble truth is an analysis of the origin of suffering, which is twofold:
cognitive, and affective, or volitional. The cognitive origin of suffering
is identified as spiritual ignorance (avidyii), the failure to go beyond
appearances to an alternative, soteriological truth. The volitional origin
of suffering is thirst (tr~T!ii), also called "attachment," "grasping,"
"clinging," or "insatiable desire ." Both avidya and tr~~ii are related as
causal factors, and the solution to the problem, provided in the third
noble truth concerning the cessation of all suffering, is also twofold .
From the cognitive standpoint, suffering ceases with the termination of
spiritual ignorance, with realization of and willing participation in the
impermanent, insubstantial, contextual nature of all things. Affectively,
suffering ends along with clinging and attachment. The fourth noble
truth is "the truth of the path which leads to the cessation of suffering."
More than anything else, the "path" is Buddhism-as a system of eth-
ics, philosophy, and soteriology, but most of'all, as a form of life that
expresses in every manifestation the possibility of freedom from fear
and suffering.
A word must be said at this point about the complex relationship
between "path" and "goal." Throughout Buddhist literature frequenf
explicit proscriptions against all speculation regarding the nature of the
goal are juxtaposed with considerable discussion bearing on nirval).a
and awakening, or "enlightenmentc" Certainly there is some tension
here, though on the whole one finds that the focus is continually
brought back to the pragmatic concerns of study, critical reflection, and
practice. In the end it is not entirely obvious just what is meant by "the
cessation of all suffering," and the Madhyamika texts themselves gener-
ally avoid theroretical descriptions of the third noble truth. Indeed, the
concept of a goal is ultimately deconstructed along with any notion of a
resolution to the analysis . This points to the important fact that even
this most central concern of Buddhist doctrine must be seen as a tool of
propaganda-one of the devices of skillful means. I shall deal with this
issue in greater detail in section 5.
Following the short prologue, in 6.8ab Candrakirti presents the for-
mula of the tetralemma (catu,ko.tz), which also appears at the beginning
of Nagarjuna's Madhya1'1Ulkaiiistra. The tetralemma is the trademark of
the Prasangika's distinctive style of reductio ad absurdum. The four
alternatives set forth in this aphorism are intended to represent the only
possible means of analyzing the nature of production and cause-effect
relations with the kind of precision that philosophers and logicians tra-
ditionally demand . By exposing the inherent contradictions within
each, the Prasangika aims to refute all rationalistic or idealistic analyses
of causality.
96 CandrakTrti and E.arly Indian Modhyamika
I ..
sality). These two forms of truth are not mutually exclusive (6.27), but
a greater value is placed on the "highest" truth because of its soteriolog-
ical efficacy, which can be realized only through a steadfast refusal to
step outside everyday experience by an appeal to some a priori author-
ity (6. 31 ). Application of deconstructive analysis to conventional expe-
rience neither creates nor destroys anything. It merely reveals the con-
textual, ''dependently originated" nature of this experience.
In 6.37-44 Candrakirti gives a brief outline of the essential interde-
pendence of all conventional things, equated with their intrinsic empti-
ness. After having dismantled every available rationalistic explanation
of causality, Candrakirti goes on to show how it is possible to replace
these reified concepts, using an alternative approach to language and
conceptual thought that does not lead to either absolutism or nihilism.
Cause and effect are merely pragmatic terms expressing one aspect of
the contextual richness of everyday experience. One need not assume
that the things of the world are individually existent in order to account
for their interrelationships. In fact, the reality of this network of cause
and effect can be appreciated only by seeing it as an integral feature of
our present form of life that is; as a natural interpretation that cannot
be stripped away from experience and justified or explained through
recourse to any supposedly objective, neutral vocabulary a vocabu-
lary which would have to be entirely disconnected from the intellectual,
emotional, and volitional interests that are necessarily associated with
any search for meaning or structure. The endeavor to discover and use
such a vocabulary is misguided from the start, not only because lan-
guage is inextricably bound up in the total context of life, but also
because such a project is soteriologically disastrous: it leads deeper and
deeper into the convoluted recesses of conceptual diffusion. A person
does not find liberation by completely throwing off all the natural inter-
pretations that define his form of life. But by developing an apprecia-
tion of both their legitimate power and their inherent limitations he is
gradually released from his painful obsession with the narrow picture of
life that they present.
Most of the criticism made during discussion.. of the second alterna-
tive in the tetralemma (production from another = cause and effect as
intrinsically different) is directed against the Yogacara, particularly
against their concept of a "repository consciousness" (alayaviJnana) and
i
the associated ·doctrine of the three types of intrinsic nature. The !
•
'
Madhyamika attempts to defuse these terms by calling them into ques-
tion on pragmatic and soteriological grounds. Each one of the Prasarigi-
ka's criticisms is explicitly directed against a particular Yogacara claim
which can be fully appreciated only by going back to the te~s where
these doctrines appear.
-
The two remaining alternatives are dealt with in 6.98-103, and in

6.104-116 the Prasangika responds to criticism leveled against the con-
cept of emptiness. He answers particularly the contention that, if phe-
nomena do not exist from a soteriological perspective, then they cannot
exist at all, demonstrating as before that for him the truth of the matter
is quite the reverse: All epistemological and ontological language is
divorced from the contextual nature of everyday experience and is com-
pletely incapable of providing anything close to a comprehensive, philo-
sophically viable account of even the most mundane aspects of conven-
tional reality.
Insentient things have at this point been investigated and revealed to
be devoid of any intrinsic being, a conclusion technically referred to as
the "selflessness of things" (dharmanairiitmya). In 6.117-165, the discus-
sion turns to an analysis of the nature of living beings. Refutation of the
concept of an intrinsically existent "I" proceeds along lines comparable
to those used in the examination of insentient things, and issues in rec-
ognition of the "selflessness of the person" (pudgalanairiitmya). The con-
cept of an ultimately real self imagined to describe the nature of objec-
tive entities and living beings is defined by the Prasatigika as spiritual
ignorance (avidyii), the basic error of reified thought , which , as the
invariable concomitant of clinging, lies at the root of all forms of fear
and suffering. The reified concept of a self associated with the person is
considered under two categories, according to · the particular form in
which it manifests its presence.
First, as the metaphysical concept of an eternal, solitary, and inde-
pendent soul, creator God , or inexpressible, transcendent substrate
postulated and defended within the context of a wide variety of episte-
mological and ontological arguments, the self is considered coarse and
relatively easy to refute through rational discourse . Second, as the
innately occurring intellectual, emotional, and volitional tendencies
associated with the reified concept of an intrinsically existent "1," the
self is much more intractable. Grounded as they are in a poweriul com-
plex of natural interpretations, these tendencies are extremely difficult
e_v en to expose, much less to defuse or extinguish . Natural interpreta-
tions are not the conscious fabrications of professional philosophers and
theologians, and any spiritually unhealthy tendencies that grow out of
them represent a systemic pathology grounded in the structure of lan-
guage and conceptual thought, a pathology which demands remedy
through nothing less than a radical transformation of one's form of life.
~ne achieves such a transformation primarily by resorting to tech-
mques that combine the formal study of philosophy with the practice of
meditation and the other perfections.
Although Candrakirti is not always careful to distinguish between
these two categories in the course of his discussion, he deals with both of
them at various intervals. He conducts his examination with reference
to seven alternatives, which are intended to comprise every possible
epistemological and ontological account of the sentient self. The seven
alternatives are first presented as they would apply to the analysis of a
carriage, so that later we simply subsiitute the self for the carriage and
the psychophysical aggregates of the individual for its parts. At the close
of this presentation, Candrakirti briefly refutes the reified concepts of
production and causality, in a final clarification of the doctrine of depen-
dent origination.
The Prasarigika defends his style of reductio ad absurdum argumen-
tation in 6.171-178. His strict refusal to resort to any specific view or
proposition is in total harmony with the Madhyamika's soteriological
concept of emptiness. Not only must the ontological status of any thing
be discussed only in terms of its association with some thing(s) other
than itself, but the epistemological problem of meaning can as well be
defined only by viewing any proposition in the full context determined
by its usage. Both existence and meaning (or knowledge) are grounded
in a contextual matrix which is essentially a function of certain rela-
tions, and yet that a word or concept has nothing but this sort of contin-
gent significance does not, for the Prasarigika, detract from its useful-
ness-quite the contrary. He holds no fixed position and lays claim to
no objective, value-free vocabulary. Because of this it is impossible to
engage with him on any such terms. The emptiness of his arguments is
the guarantee of their success. As Nagarjuna's immediate disciple, Ar-
yadeva, wrote: "If one makes no claim to existence, nonexistence, or
both, it will never be possible to defeat him." 55
Although the Prasarigika has no fixed position, it does not follow that
he argues arbitrarily and without any purpose, as his opponents have
accused. Every statement is tailored to suit the demands of a particular
situation, as a response to some specific view or idea or proposition. His
use of language is entirely consonant with the soteriological purpose of
the Madhyamika's philosophy. In his comments on 6.172, Candrakirti
explains the critical distinction between "no position at all" and "no
fixed position":
For example: A position may set out to refute the singularity, plurality,
length, circularity, or blackness-whatever the qualities that might be
ascribed to the hair apprehended by a person with ophthalmia, but such a
position is of no possible consequence to those not infected with ophthal-
mia. Likewise, the refutation developed. by you who apprehend both
[cause and effect as intrinsically existent] is of no possible consequence to
one who analyzes cause and effect as being without any intrinsic being.
F
You have strayed fro.m the direct path free from [reified concepts of]
in·t;insic being, and wandered down the wrong path of strict rationalism.
And as you apply yourself to the labors of your own imagination, the
obstructions to the correct path mount ever higher. What do you derive
from this constant accumulation of words?~ 6
At the end of the sixth stage (179-222) Candrakirti records sixteen

specific illustrations of emptiness. A summary of this type shoukl be
regarded as a pedagogical device . Similar lists appear throughout the
literature of the Mahayana, but the number and content of the exam-
ples varies considerably from text to text. 57
4. 7 The perfection of skillful means (upoyakausalyapiiramitii)
The perfections of this and the three following stages of the path are tra-
ditionally assigned a subordinate role, as auxiliaries of perfect wisdom,
and as such they are not always enumerated separately. All of them may
well have been tacked on to an original nucleus of six perfections as
scholastic accretions to a much older doctr.ine . 58 Of the four, skillful
means, which is particularly associated with the seventh stage, is a pre-
dominant feature ofthe bodhisattva's practice .
At the sixth stage of the path, the bodhisattva attains a clarity of
vision which allows him direct insight into the contextual nature of the
world . His perceptions of insentient things, living beings, and the
events in which they participate are not clouded over by reified concepts
or associated emotional and volitional disorders, and for this reason he
is said to be capable of acting spontaneously and in perfect accord with
the demands of every situation. 59 Skillful means is especially connected
with propagation of the Buddhist teachings (the Dharma), and it entails
complete fulfillment of the practical elements of the path.
. Traditionally there are three groups of items distinguished in con-
JUnction with the perfection of skillful means. First are the four "ele-
ments of attraction" (samgrahava.stus). These aspects of the bodhisattva's
c~aracter act to insure that his dealin&s in the world will be effective.
Ftrst is generosity, which in this instance refers specifically to the giving
of the gift of the Dharma (considered the best of gifts because it provides
a ~eans for the eradication of all desires). Second is pleasing speech
(przya.viida), which helps guarantee that others will be drawn to the
hodhts~ttva's words and find meaning in them. The third element of
attraction is purposeful behavior (arthacaryii.), meaning that the bodhi-
:att~a d~es not waste time or energy in fruitless activity, but always
PP tes htmself completely to the task at hand . This should not be taken
as an Asian version of the Protestant work ethic, however, since artha-

carya does not refer to compulsive work for work's sake-much less to
work for the sake of "progress" in the Western sense of the word. Bud-
dhist texts often emphasize the point that in every circumstance there is
some lesson to be learned and some teaching to be applied. In following
the path one gradually comes to appreciate things in this light, and so tc
infuse even the most mundane activity with purpose and meaning
derived from study and practice of the Dharma. 6 ° Finally, the bodhi·
sattva behaves in accordance with an ideal of impartiality (samiiniirthatii):
"Thus he must cultivate the thought that whatever affection arises in
him with respect to his · own son or even to himself, this same feeling
must be held for all sentient beings. He is to consider it carefully in this
way: 'He comes from one place, and I from another. All sentient beings
are my sons, and I am the son of all beings. Yet in this life none is really
a son or a stranger to anyone else.' " 61
The second set of characteristics that is part of skillful means is the
four types of "analytical knowledge" (pratisamvid). 62 These embody the
bodhisattva's practical grasp of the teachings and his confidence in com-
municating what he knows. Last of the categories of skillful means is
knowledge of the ritual formulas chanted as aids to meditating and to
collecting and focusing the powers of the mind .
In its most general sense, upiiyakaufalya simply refers to the bodhisatt-
va's ability to act efficiently and effectually. Skillful means is closely
related to compassion and is, in this connection, often called "meritori-
ous action," or just "merit" (purzya). In the Mahayana skillful means
assumed all the status and import of perfect wisdom.
4.8 The perfection of the vow (propidhonaporamito)
In resolution truly, 0 Blessed One, is the root of the buddha's

qualities . He who has no resolution; from him all the buddha's
qualities are far away. Yet when he has made his resolve,
Blessed One, even if there are no buddhas present, the voice of
the Dharma comes forth from space and from the flowering
trees. When a bodhisattva has pure resolve in his vow, then all
teaching and instruction pour forth from the wellsprings of his
own mind .-Santideva, Si/qiisamuccaya
With his ascent to the eighth stage of the path the bodhisattva has
actualized his philosophical understanding, and the world appears to
him not as a random collection of discrete, isolated entities and eventS
surrounding a similarly isolated, alientated "I" but as a multilayered
pz
web of relations in the midst of which he acts with complete freedom

from clinging. The most refined concepts of patience discussed in my
comments on the third stage are fully realized at this level of the path.
The bodhisattva now knows from experience that his perceptions are
deeply conditioned by preconscious prejudices and presuppositions,
and that conventional appearances can be dangerously misleading. At
this juncture in his practice he would seem most susceptible to the temp-
tation to withdraw completely from the net of relationships (were such
an act possible) and to enter into unconditional peace and liberation
from suffering for himself alone. Yet just when he might otherwise be
prepared to turn away from the everyday, pain-filled world, there
appears to him a vision of all the buddhas who have traveled along this
same path, and relying on their example he is inspired to reaffirm his
original vow to rescue all sentient beings from the suffering caused by
spiritual ignorance -and clinging. 63 Rather than retreat into the final,
most subtle, seductive illusion of personal liberation, here at the eighth
stage of the path the bodhisattva is able to relinquish all self-interest and
to surrender himself completely to this world. The consequences and
implications of such an act-as well as the necessity for taking it-are
more apparent to him than ever before, and the texts describe his will-
ingness to abide in samsara in very dramatic terms.
The decision to maintain his original commitment is rooted in both
compassion and wisdom, a point made in the literature of the Mahayana
again and again. The great Tibetan yogi Milarepa was once asked by
his disciples "if they could engage in worldly duties, in a small way, for
the benefit of others." Milarepa replied:
If there be not the least self-interest attached to such duties, it is permissi-

ble. But such detachment is indeed rare; and works performed for the
good of others seldom succeed, if not wholly freed from self-interest. Even
without seeking to benefit others, it is with difficulty that works done even
in one's own interest are successful. It is as if a man helplessly drowning
were to try to save another man in the same predicament. One should not
be overanxious and hasty in setting out to serve others before one has
oneself realized the truth in its fullness; to do so would be like the blind
leading the blind. As long as the sky endures, so long will there be no end
of sentient beings for one to serve; and to everyone comes the opportunity
for such service. Till the opportunity come, I exhort each of you to have
but the one resolve, namely to attain Buddhahood for the good of all living
beings.6•
The bodhisattva's original vow, made at the beginning of the path,

Was inspired by his recognition of the terrible suffering of the world.
From the point of view of the higher, soteriological truth, however, this
commitment to beings who do not exist is the paramount absurdity. But

Buddhist compassion cannot be appreciated without a clear under-
standing of the relationship between soteriological and conventional
truths. The wisdom of a bodhisattva is cultivated both through philo-
sophical reflection and in the silence of meditation, where the world
responds to this supplication for higher knowledge by revealing its
intrinsic emptiness, the deepest secret of the spirit inherent in the very
fabric of everyday life. His quest for knowledge culminates in a direct
experience of the philosophical concepts that he has understood through
study and reflection. At the same time, compassion takes root in the
bodhisattva's original vow, and it too matures, along with wisdom, intc
a total afiirmation of the identity of emptiness and form, culminating in
his selfless concern for all those still caught up in the necessary illusion
of worldly existence.
Only at this advanced stage in his study and practice, with actualiza-
tion of emptiness and a deep noninferential appreciation of the concept
of dependent origination as the bridge linking the necessity of conven-
tional truth with insight into its illusory nature, has the bodhisattva
achieved the wisdom and the reserves of strength effectively to commit
himself to what might once have seemed a preposterous paradox: an
ideal of sympathy for countless empty beings trapped in an empty cycle
of fear and misery. On the very brink of clinging to the last and most
compelling illusion of his own salvation, he pauses for a moment and
looks down over the spectacle of the world: "These beings are tied in the
bonds of incredible suffering, despair, misfortune, attachment and
repulsion, love and hate. They are imprisoned in the triple world of
past, present, and future, guarded by grief and remorse, chained by
desire, clothed in abysmal ignorance, delusion, and deceit. By us they
must be led to true understanding of the triple world, to the sanctuary of
courage, the cessation of all pain, the freedom of nirviil).a." 65
This immense concern for the anguish of other creatures is presented
as the natural expression of perfect harmony between heart and mind.
Compassion is in profound accord with the knowledge gained through
philosophical analysis, but it is not in the least analytical. On the con-
trary, this boundless love becomes manifest as the active, operational
aspect of "wisdom as an effect," which finds its embodiment in an
impulse finally to bring together in nirval).a all sentient beings, who
h;;tve been from the beginning united not only by their spiritual igno-
rance and suffering in the world but also by their innermost nature,
which is empty of any transcendental ground for perception, conceptu-
alization, or clinging. The bodhisattva's vow is a vow of refined, puri-
fied love, immersed in paradox and contradiction and nurtured in a
wisdom that does not ignore but incorporates and transcends the claims
of reason.
4. 9 The perfection of the powers (balaparamita)
The bodhisattva's practice at this stage consists primarily in consolidat-

ing the powers that are described as an important fruit of spiritual
maturity. Lists provided in various places throughout the texts are fairly
standard 66 and appear to be designed to emphasize the role that these
powers play in the realization of the bodhisattva's commitment to act in
the world on behalf of all sentient beings. The four types of analytical
knowledge are brought to perfection here, so that the bodhisattva not
only understands the doctrine and conceptual content of the Buddhist
teachings, but he is, in addition, capable of conveying his understand-
ing and insight to others in innumerable ways. 67
Perhaps the most significant aspect of these last four stages, for the
purposes of our present discussion, is their focus on the bodhisattva's
commitment to action. Although earlier he expended· enormous effort
in cultivating an inferentially based understanding of the central con-
cepts of the Mahayana, this understanding did not lead him to
renounce the world and retire into the peace of nirvaQa, much less into
the sterility of a purely rationalistic or idealistic abstraction. The last
four stages of the path point to the practical application of philosophy,
albeit in what is, for modern Western tastes, a rather zealous and over
dramatic manner. The bodhisattva is to live and teach in the world with
dignity and grace. His actions are efficient, he can waste no effort in
confusion or hesitation. And with his ascent to the ninth level of the
path, the whole of everyday experience is said to reflect the strength of
his vow to propagate the teachings and lead all sentient beings to libera-
tion from suffering. 6 8
4.10 The perfection of knowledge (jnanaparamita)
The culmination of the bodhisattva's intellectual and spiritual journey

comes with his ascent to the tenth and final stage of the path, immedi-
ately preceding his transformation into a fully awakened buddha. The
most significant event at this level, and the paramount symbol of the
bodhisattva's highest accomplishment, is entrance into a meditative
state of balanced concentration immersed in nondualistic knowledge
of emptiness. This . event is represented by his initiation into the
omniscience of a perfect buddha, which is the quintessential perfec-

tion.69
Prajiiii, associated in particular with the sixth stage, is the strength of
intellectual discrimination elevated to the status of a liberating power, a
precision tool capable of slicing through obstructions that take the form
of afflictions and attachments to deeply en grained hereditary patterns of
thought and action. Prajiiii has an analytic quality which does not seem
to figure as a specific characteristic of the nondualistic knowledge devel-
oped by the bodhisattva at this final stage of the path. On the basis of
what the texts say, however, it is difficult to draw any definite distinction
between prajiiii and nondualistic knowledge. It is evident that non-
dualistic knowledge is inseparable from the bodhisattva's experience in
all its aspects. It is this experience, in both its conceptual and perceptual
aspects. Jiiiina is the essential clarity and unerring sensibility of a mind
that no longer clings to reified concepts of any kind. It is direct and sus-
tained awareness of the truth, for a bodhisattva, that meaning and exis-
tence are found only in the interface between the components of an
unstable and constantly shifting web of relationships, which is everyday
life. 70
s E c T 0 N F v E
THE EMPTINESS OF EMPTINESS:

PHILOSOPHY AS PROPAGANDA
The practitioner of deconstruction works within the terms of the

system but in order to breach it. ... This double procedure of
systematically employing the concepts or premises one is under-
mining puts the critic in a position not of skeptical detachment
but of unwarrantable involvement, asserting the indispensabil-
ity of( e.g.] causation while denying it any rigorous justifica-
tion . This is an aspect of deconstruction which many find diffi·
cult to understand and accept.
-Jonathan Culler, On Deconstruction
The truth of the highest meaning is taught only by relying on
conventional practice.
- Madhyamalca.iiistra
5.1 The four noble truths
According to the early Buddhist doctrine of the four noble truths, what
is the nature of our present life, and how might it be transmuted into
something entirely different? Filtered through a veil of inherited.~atural
interpretations, reified thought, and attachments, one's relationships in
the world become a source of frustration and sorrow, for every aspect of
experience is ephemeral and devoid of stable identity or essence. This is
the first noble truth of Buddhism, the bedrock on which stands the
entire superstructure of Buddhist theory and practice.
In the form of physical pain and disease, suffering is an immediate
and undeniable factor in the experience of all living beings. There is,
however, as defined in the writings of later scholastics, a second, more
subtle, but equally all-pervasive form of pain concealed within ostensi-
bly pleasant experiences. Like a stomachache produced from overindul-
105
106 Candraklrti and Early Indian Madhyamika
gence in rich food, this kind of suffering arises from a transformation of

pleasure into pain. And because the process is often not obvious, for the
majority of people life consists to a great extent of self-centered, com-
pulsive actions, committed blindly and without awareness of the painful
consequences that must eventually follow. This is always the case where
clinging is present, for what may at first appear as pleasure never fails,
under these circumstances, to ripen into misery. A little reflection is fre-
quently sufficient to reveal the mechanism at work in this second kind of
suffering. But there is yet a third form of suffering which is present at an
even more refined level, where it operates, according to Buddhist teach-
ers, in a manner wholly incomprehensible to the coarse and undisci-
plined sensibilities of the average person. Wisdom as it is cultivated
through study and practice of the Madhyamika's soteriological philoso-
phy implies an acute sensitivity to this third aspect of suffering, which
infuses the experience of deluded, self-centered creatures in such a way
as to dominate their conceptual and perceptual processes and, indeed,
their entire form oflife. 1
When there is desire to possess some object or an instinct to seek for
lasting satisfaction through anything whatsoever-whether it is actually
present to the senses or merely conceived to exist in some rarefied and
abstract manner (as, for example, a "subjacent ground" or a transcen-
dental "1")-one's efforts must always end in frustration and defeat.
The attempt to hold onto any object or idea as though it could provide
an enduring refuge will only result in more pain, and the insatiable
desire to look for security in one or another cherished possession is the
source of all misery. This is the second noble truth taught by the bud-
dha, and if one accepts it in all its ramifications, then it is apparent that
freedom from fear and anguish can never be defined simply as matters
of self-interest. Two of the most basic traits of a bodhisattva are renunci-
ation and humility, both of which have to do with the surrender of all
clinging to reified concepts of "I" and "mine." The Madhyamika anal-
ysis is designed to reveal the holistic, contextual nature of all experi-
ence.
The third noble truth is the truth of the cessation of suffering, which
is to be lived out through actualizing the concept of emptiness. If this
beginningless cycle of misery is ever to be transformed, then it is neces-
sary to escape from any form of life where words are felt to derive their
meaning through reference to one or another object, even if that object
transcends normal experience. The very questions which, under the
spell of reified thought, seem so engaging are invariably founded upon a
tacit. deep-rooted presupposition that truth and reality can be discussed
only in the language of epistemological and ontological propositions,
that they must in some manner be susceptible to interpretation through
Philosophy as Propaganda 107
the application of a rationalistic or idealistic grid over the data of every-

day experience. The Madhyamika's deconstructive analysis tries to illu-
minate and dissolve this presupposition by turning epistemological and
ontological language back on itself so that it devours itself whole, with-
out leaving a trace. Any attempt to stand outside this life and this
world, in an appeal to some higher authority by virtue of which one
may pronounce final judgments over conventional affairs-either "ne-
gating" them en masse, or else grounding them in a transcendental
reality-is destined for continual frustration because it proceeds from a
fundamental contradiction. The natural interpretations and observa-
tional languages that shape everyday experience also mold rational
thought and critical discussion in a crucible of prejudice, presupposi-
tion, and unconscious interest which is always bound up with the search
for knowledge. The habitual tendency of dichotomizing thought to reify
even the most abstract concepts of relation and process is only encour-
aged and fortified by this fetish for rationalistic precision . Under the
banner of scientific, value-free "objectivity" the preoccupation with
rationalistic and idealistic language is easily (and quite unintentionally)
inflated into a full-blown metaphysical view. On the other hand,
rational thinking cannot be abandoned. The real task is completely to
surrender the compulsion to define any and every problem in the prop-
ositional structure and vocabulary of rationalism . First, however, this
compulsion must be brought to light and recognized for what it is. To do
so demands more than extended critical discussion for, as Feyerabend
writes, "Prejudices are found by contrast, not by analysis ."
Now-how can we possibly examine something we are using all the

time? How can we analyze the terms in which we habitually express our
most simple and straightforward observations, and reveal their presuppo-
sitions? How can we discover the kind of world we presuppose when pro-
ceeding as we do?
The answer is clear: we cannot discover it from the inside. We need an
external standard of criticism, we need a set of alternative assumptions or,
as these assumptions will be quite general, constituting, as it were, an
entire alternative world, we need a dream -world in order to discover the features of
the real world we think we inhabit (and which may actually be just another
dream-world). The first step in our criticism of familiar concepts and
procedures, the first step in our criticism of 'facts', must therefore be an
attempt to break the circle. 2
"I have no proposition," writes Nagarjuna, "and therefore I have no

fallacy." 3 Must we insist on "making sense" of these words by reading
them as a veiled reference to some novel claim that needs only to be
rephrased in comprehensible epistemic or ontic terminology? Is this the
108 CandrakTrti and Early Indian Madhyamikc
c;>nly way we can find meaning in the Madhyamika's rejection of all

views? Or is the compulsion to do so rather a failure on our part to meet
the challenge offered in these texts and to free ourselves entirely from the
grip of our present way of thinking and perceiving? There is an alterna-
tive: "We must invent a new conceptqal system that suspends, or
clashes with the most carefully established observational results, con-
founds the most plausible theoretical principles, and introduces percep-
tions that cannot form part of the existing perceptual world ." 4
Note that a truly new conceptual system is incommensurable with the
old, it "clashes with" or "suspends" the old system, but does not con-
tradict it: "A set of ideas or actions 'clashes' with a conceptual system if
it is either inconsistent with it, or makes the system appear absurd ." 5
Consider once again, in this light, what Candrakirti is saying about the
incommensurability of the two truths: "If everyday experience were
authoritative, then common people would perceive reality. What neces-
sity would there be for those others, the saints? And what would be
accomplished by following their path? It is unreasonable for such fool-
ishness to be accepted as entirely authoritative. Everyday experience is
not authoritative in every respect, and therefore it does not contra-
dict the reality [expressed in the soteriological truth of the highest
meaning] . " 6
According to the Madhyamika, our obsession with the rationalistic
structure of epistemological and ontological propositions is symptom-
atic of a pathology that infects our entire form of life. The disease is par-
ticularly difficult to treat , for it is rooted in deep, subconscious strata of
natural interpretations from which it derives powerful emotional and
volitional associations that in turn set up tremendous resistance to its
even being seen as a problem . Critical discussion of epistemological and
ontological problems will never provide any escape from the closed cir-
cle of this way of thinking and speaking. 7 Moreover, although certain
concepts may be of great practical value, no concept, regardless of how
pure or refined it may appear, is immune to the possibility of infection
from the power of inherited beliefs. An incommensurable form of truth
and reality can be known only through contrast, and ultimately through
direct experience, by first learning to identify and then totally to relin-
quish all obsession with our present observational language and the
concepts and perceptions associated with it. This is the step that has
already been taken by Nagarjuna. He is speaking to us from "the other
shore" of perfect wisdom: "If any object were apprehended by percep-
tion or any other means of knowledge, then it would have to be affirmed
or denied ; but since this is not the case I am susceptible to no critical
argument." 8
This does not mean that either conceptualization or perception can
be denied outright, but that they must be transmuted through being

placed in the larger conte~t that is _ope~ed to view with t?e growing
appreciation of an alternative, sotenolog1cal truth, a truth mcommen-
surable with our normal ways of thinking and perceiving. It is at this
point that we enter the sphere bf the fourth and last noble truth: the
truth of the path leading to the cessation of suffering for all living
beings.
Treading the path means cultivating perfect wisdom, and the cultiva-
tion of perfect wisdom initially entails a rigorous reevaluation of empiri-
cal experience, culminating in the realization that our concepts and per-
cepts have been profoundly influenced by inherited belief structures
that cannot be entirely illuminated by any strictly rationalistic analysis.
And just as our ideas and perceptions are conditioned by other ideas
and perceptions, so every aspect of the contents of perception-every
object-necessarily exists in dependence on the others, as well as on its
association with a specific, conditioned state of consciousness. Every
element of conceptualization and perception owes its individual identity
to an interrelated web of causes and conditions, so that it does not bear
its meaning or existence in itself, and on this account concepts of a self-
sufficient generative matrix or a transcendental ground are inherently
problematic. By virtue of its most fundamental nature, as illuminated
through the Madhyarnika's deconstructive analysis, all experience is
radically contextual. All things are necessarily conditioned and quite
empty of independent existence. All words are contingent and devoid of
fixed, referential meaning.
When the bodhisattva has begun not only to understand the analysis
but to assimilate its implications emotionally and volitionally through
having followed the path in all its dimensions for some time, his own
tendency to cling begins to fade. No matter how compelling the imagi-
nary referents of words and concepts may seem, he will turn from them
and search for truth and reality not in any particular epistemic act or
antic place, but in a form of life expressing a certain attitude toward the
context of relations, the whole of everyday experience.
5.2 Wisdom and the nature of illusion
Here one point must again be especially stressed: When the Madhy-
amika argues that the world as perceived through the veil of reified
thought is similar to an illusion, this does not imply that conventional
affairs should (or could) be cast aside, as though they were insignificant
o_r adventitious. On the contrary, patient observation of everyday expe-
nence is absolutely necessary, for the problematic natmc of one's atti-
110 Candrakirti and Early Indian Madhyamika
tude and form of life is revealed solely through an intimate encounter

with the world . 9 Unwarranted assumptions and unconscious presuppo-
sitions are uncovered and abandoned one after another as the meditator
probes deeper and deeper into the nature of conceptual and perceptual
processes, continually rejecting static reified concepts as he gains facility
with the self-deconstructing symbolic forms of the Madhyamika. The
sense of being in copstant relationship begins to permeate all experi-
ence. Entities no longer seem to possess intrinsic existence but are per-
ceived as partners produced and sustained in relationships of reciprocal
dependence. Event~ ally it becomes apparent that any form of meaning
(truth) and existence (reality) is bound up in this deeply paradoxical
nexus of interpenetrating relations .
All concepts are susceptible to reification, yet study and critical
reflection play a central role in the soteriological strategy of the Madhy-
amika, where key philosophical concepts operate within an interpretive
schema that is particularly resistant (though certainly not impervious)
to the stultifying influence of inherited natural interpretations. One
must learn how to identify and resist the compulsive need to refer the
illusion fostered by language and conceptual thought beyond everyd~y
experience to some more sublime reality. The Madhyamika's argument
here actually amounts to insistence that intellectual and spiritual integ-
rity is maintained only by refusing to accept the content of everyday life
as accessible to any exclusive, ultimately binding symbolic representa-
tion . Conventional experience is mere appearance only in the sense that
there is no truth or reality other than what appears to us in the context
of these intertwining relations of meaning and existence:
The Blessed One clearly demonstrated that things arise in dependence on

causes and conditions, and he rejected the possibility that origination
could be without cause, from one cause, or from a multiplicity of causes,
or that things could be produced from themselves, from what is other than
themselves, or from both. By this rejection the conventional (screened)
intrinsic nature of conventional things is revealed as it stands: Dependent
ongination is itself conventional because it is not produced through atry intrinsic being.
From the perspective of the wisdom of the saints, there is no cessation and
no movement. 10
Here is the crux of the paradox that the Madhyamika asks us to accept.
The soteriological truth of the highest meaning, as dependent origina-
tion and emptiness, is itself the illusory, conventional truth, because it
necessarily appears in a self-contradictory, misleading form. In other
words, everyday experience is, for the bodhisattva, a necessary fiction.
The doctrine of dependent origination, a fundamental Madhyamika
Philosophy as Propaganda Ill
concept, embraces the entire spectrum of actual and possible ~tates of

affairs and describes the circumstances through which the totality of
relations that gives meaning and structure to life is experienced as
empty and devoid of any foundation for clinging. But this emptiness,
which is implied in every aspect of everyday affairs, is no more than a
useful designation (a prajiiaptz) to apply in study and practice as a means
to a soteriological goal-the end of fear and suffering for all sentient
beings.
With this we have circumscribed the territory governed by the first
property of wisdom, or "wisdom as a cause," which is a detailed doctri-
nal presentation of the way in which all mundane experience can be
seen as the expression of emptiness. This "seeing" is also referred to as
"non-seeing," for there is actually nothing new to see:
Suppose that a man with diseased eyes is holding a bone-white vase in his
hand, and under the influence of an optical defect he sees what appear to
be clusters of hair on the surface of the vase. He wants to remove the hairs
and so begins to shake the vase when a second man with normal vision
happens to pass by. Puzzled as to this odd behavior, the second man
approaches and begins to stare at the place where the hairs should appear.
Naturally, he apprehends no such hairs, and consequently he forms no
conception of existence or nonexistence, of hair or non-hair, nor even of
darkness or any other attribute with respect to these hairs. When the man
with an optical defect tells the second man about his idea that he sees
hairs, then the second man may desire to clarify this misconception by
stating that the hairs do not exist. This is indeed a statement of negation;
however, the speaker has not in this case rejected [any conventionally real
entity). The man without any optical defect sees the reality of the hairs,
while the other man does not. In just the same way, there are those who
are stricken with the optical defect of spiritual ignorance so that they are
incapable of perceiving the reality [expressed in the truth of the highest
meaning). The intrinsic being 6f[ conventional things) apprehended by
them is itself nothing more than [illusory] conventional form. The blessed
buddhas, however, are without any trace of spiritual ignorance, so that
they perceive the hairs in the manner of one who is not affiicted with an
optical defect; that is, the intrinsic nature of[ conventional things] seen by
them is itself the truth of the highest meaning. One may ask how it is that
they are capable of seeing an intrinsic nature like this, which is invisible.
-True, it is invisible, but they "see" it by means of "non-seeing." 11
What is called for is a new form of life, one in which people are able to
r~spond to sensory stimulation b;• seeing it as an instantiation ofdependent origina-
tzon and emptiness, without ho.ving to make an intervening inference. 12 The first
property of wisdom therefore acts as an introduction to the concept of
emptiness, and it is rooted in what could accurately be called philosoph-
112 Candrak.Trti and Early Indian Modhyamik.a
ical propaganda. Study and critical reflection provide an intellectual

context in which the concept of emptiness can be given a soteriologically
efficacious interpretation founded on an appreciation of its application.
This first type of wisdom is therefore a "cause" for the actualization of
emptiness in a new form oflife.
When properly disciplined through study of the Madhyamika's
deconstructive philosophy the intellect is a powerful and efficient guide
that can point the bodhisattva in the,__right direction and even conduct
him along the way for some distance. Inherited patterns of conceptual-
ization, perception, and linguistic usage dictate that we either devalue
rationalism as mere discursive thought or place a premium on logical
precision, or else do both simultaneously, fragmenting ourselvesi into
intellectual and spiritual components that can be welded together only
through the power offaith. Here, as elsewhere, the Madhyamika cuts a
middle way between these two extremes. Rational thought should be
used, as it is a particularly effective tool, but it is nothing more than a
tool, and critical thinking alone is not enough to bring about the actual-
ization of emptiness. The fruit of deconstructive analysis must be
allowed to ripen in personal experience. A solid intellectual grasp of the
symbolic structure of the Madhyamika philosophy must be cultivated
through practice. In order to proceed, the bodhisattva must learn how
to cease clinging to every concept of "truth" and "reality"-including
emptiness-by waiting patiently and watching with all his attention
focl.Ised intensely, through meditation, on the network of interpenetrat-
ing relations that is gradually revealed through study of the texts and
critical reflection on what has been learned. An acute intellectual sensi-
tivity to the fundamentally misguided nature of all attempts to impose
/an' exclusively rational grid on empirical experience is the initial and
crucial step in dearing the way for the noninferential experience of
emptiness, which constitutes the second property of wisdom. By prac-
./ tieing all the perfections in conjunction with the study of philosophy the
bodhisattva grounds understanding of the conceptual tools in increasing
proficiency with their soteriological use.
The actualization of emptiness, or "wisdom as an effect," is much
more than just another interpretation of the concept. In order to move
from wisdom as a cause to wisdom as an effect, one needs to reach an
appreciation of the manner in which philosophical understanding
becomes something more than rational.
To understand a concept is to understand its use. Whether in philoso-
phy or in day-to-day affairs, there is no meaning apart from use, and
therefore "to understanc;l" means "to use a word correctly and to act in
accord with its correct usage." For the Madhyamika correct under-
standing of a concept can never be grounded in an abstract, privileged
notion of truth or in any intuition of an ultimately real substrate. Cor-
rect understanding is based on an appreciation of correct behavior, and

for any Buddhist, "correct behavior" is defined in soteriological terms :
contributing to the liberation of all beings from fear and suffering.
Whether or not a concept has been understood is judged by one's facil-
ity in using it, and the strictest criterion for verifying an interpretation
is the criterion of application. If, for example, a child claims to have
understood the concept of counting, his claim is verified by his actually
counting. Otherwise his understanding would be nothing more than
abstract and sterile theory. According to the Madhyamika, all veridical
concepts are alike in this way, including the concept of emptiness . This
is why emptiness and the other primary symbolic forms of the Madhy-
amika cannot be understood without taking their purpose ·into ac-
count.13 It also explains the significance of the distinction betWeen wis-
dom as cause and as effect.
5.3 Knowledge and practice
It may help to clarify matters at this point if we note that much of the
present discussion turns on a single issue: How is a concept-arry con-
cept-understood? We have already seen that from the Madhyamika's
perspective the meaning of a word or concept invariably derives from its
application within a context of sociolinguistic relations and not through
reference to any self-sufficient, independently real object. Meaning is
ever and always couched within an undulating matrix of natural inter-
pretations that conditions concepts and perceptions, emotional and
int~ectual needs and desires, and ultimately, conscious and precon-
scious attitudes toward all of everyday experience. Moreover, it is evi-
dent on this account that meaning is flexible and subject to constant,
subtle revision. Altogether novel concepts evolve out of the cru~ible of
familiar patterns of thought ~nd perception, altering and amplifying old
concepts so that they assume new and various nuances of meaning.
~earning occurs neither as an act of will nor through any dramatic
Intellectual tour de force, nor does it come about spontaneously and
entirely without cause . Rather, knowledge evolves through the individ-
ual's participation in a process of theoretical and practical training,
wh~ch enables the adept to perceive directly every aspect of experience
as. Involved in new and pnprecedented modes of relationship-both
With each other, and with the perceiving consciousness itself. This has
been called both a "nonreferential" and a "nonegocentrist" theory of
meaning:
Th us It
· IS
· precisely the reaffirmation oflanguage, free of any suppl)sed
absolute substratum, as a practical, conventional process, an ordinary
activity of human beings, a "form oflife" (Ltbensform) that sets the non-
egocentrist philosopher apart from the skeptic and the mystic, who make
the classic absolutist mistake of thinking that lack of an absolute basis is no
basis at all, lack of an absolute process is no process at all, lack of an abso-
lutistic, privately grounded language is no language at all, lack of a math-
ematically absolute, perfect logic is no logic at all, and so on. 14
Normally one comes to understand the meaning of a word or concept

through a process of socialization, where repeated practice serves to
impress upon the mind a pattern of associations out of which the mean-
ing of the word or concept emerges as a single element in the sociolin-
guistic context which reflects one's entire form of life. Buddhist train-.
ing, including as it does both theoretical and practical components,
replicates this natural process for a similar effect. The meaning of a
philosophical concept emerges from a complex fabric of relations gradu-
ally woven in study and practice. Meditation is the principal and most
powerful tool for incorporating theoretical understanding or belief into
the total context of a form of life entailing immediate, noninferential
perception of key Buddhist concepts. This process is referred to as "the
actualization of emptiness"; "the transformation of wisdom as 'cause'
to wisdom as 'effect' ";or "the realization of perfect wisdom."
We are here concerned exclusively with an indirect, inferential or the-
oretical understanding of emptiness which is, by the standards of the
Madhyamika's approach to language and conceptual thought, a very
incomplete and superficial stage of understanding in comparison with
knowledge that is fully integrated into the emotional, volitional, and
perceptual dimensions of life. Still, even the scholar whose sole and
legitimate concern is with wisdom as a cause would never get beyond
his own presuppositions by seeking to determine what "emptiness"
refers to. He or she must learn to ask different sorts of questions and to
appreciate the implications of this radically different concept of mean-
ing: "What use is made of the concept of emptiness?" "How is it
applied within the context of everyday experience?"
The meaning of the philosophical and soteriological concept of empti-
ness must be sought for in its application in a specific regimen of train-
ing; ultimately, correct understanding must be demonstrated-not
merely discussed-by a life founded on nondinging. In the final analy-
sis, all that can really be said regarding the actualization of emptiness is
that one's understanding evolves into the total assimilation of an alter-
native form of life with its own conceptual and perceptual structure and
its own strong sense of commitment and responsibility derived from a
very specific set of moral obligations. Previously one was held captive
by a picture generated out of the natural interpretations and associated
bservational languages which exert such a powerful influence over all

~xperience, so tha~ h~ was unable to think or act wi~h any true cl~rity.
This new form of hfe 1s to be absolutely free from the mfluence of relfied
thought, and thus completely harmonious with the contextual, rela-_
tional nature of the world.
Intellectual reflection alone cannot cause such a radical shift not only
in behavior, but in the most basic patterns of conceptualization and per-
ception . To this end, both the ability to master theory and the willing-
ness to engage in practical training are necessary, for one must under-
stand how to apply the concept of emptiness. The concern with eliciting
this form of behavior and the conceptual and perceptual changes that
grow out of it is the only justification, within the Madhyamika litera-
ture, for insistence on the practice of meditation and the other perfec-
tions in conjunction with the academic study of philosophy.
It is, of course, quite permissible to pursue the study of Nagiirjuna's
philosophy as an entirely academic enterprise. Devoted scholars could
go on interpreting the concept of emptiness indefinitely, arguing about
its meaning in terms of this or that rationale and setting forth ever more
subtle and sophisticated analyses, only to refine them on some subse-
quent occasion, or to retract them altogether in favor of some new
hypothesis. There may come a time, however, when the inherent limi-
tations of this unending process of inquiry begin to be apparent, when
the desire to continue begins to feel like a compulsion to go back over
the same ground again and again. This is the point at which the prob-
lems mentioned in section l of this study arise of their own accord. 15
Where wisdom as an effect is concerned, the scholar must be pre-
pared to look into these and a whole range of new and different ques-
tions: What exactly would the word knowledge mean in this context?
What sort of knowledge is sensed to be necessarily inaccessible to an
exclusively text-critical, philological analysis? Under what circum-
stances does the search for formal interpretation of a text-or of experi-
ence-cease to be a significant activity and begin to manifest the signs
of an oddly self-perpetuating, compulsive pattern of behavior? All of the
preceding questions could be compressed into a single problem: To
what extent does the insatiable desire for concepts of epistemic truth
~nd ontic reality constitute the imposition of an unwarranted and essen-
tially manipulative a priori demand on the subject of inquiry, whether it
be a single philosophical text or the whole of everyday experience? In
the West this way of thinking has its historical roots especially in Des-
~artes and Kant, while in India it may be traced back in part to the
Influence of Sanskrit grammatical theories on later speculative philoso-
~hy. In both cases, howeve'r, the demands of rationalism have their own
Internal dynamic in the emotionally charged network of natural inter-
pretations that give shape not only to the quest for knowledge, but to
knowledge itself, and ultimately to all forms of experience.
The problem of rationalism-its inability to break free from its self-
imposed demands-is an issue that lies at the heart of the Prasangika's
quarrel with rival Buddhist theoreticians, and it is equally relevant to
anyone trying to find meaning in the central concepts of the Madhy-
amika, for the role of rational thought in the process of understanding is
a matter subjected to the most intense scrutiny by Nagarjuna and Can-
drakirti: "Although this exposition of the reality [expressed in the truth
of the highest meaning] is profound and frightening, it will certainly be
understood by a person who has previously cultivated [his textual study
in the practice of meditation]. Any others will never comprehend it,
despite the breadth of their learning. One must clearly perceive that all
other philosophical systems are composed simply as justification for
their own unstated presuppositions." 16
The . Madhyamika leaves open the possibility that philosophical
uncertainty, confusion, and doubt can be resolved once and for all, yet
he insists that this happens-that one obtains "true," functional knowl-
edge of the concept of emptiness-only upon mastering its application.
In application the concept of emptiness is no different from any other
mundane notion (for example, causality or production). Rationalism
flounders in paradox and contradiction that need pose no obstacle to
·practice. The farmer does not question whether or not a sprout is pro-
duced from a seed but perceives that it happens through experience
unmediated by theory and inference, and he acts accordingly. He plants
the seeds so that he and his family can enjoy an autumn harvest. Simi-
larly, the bodhisattva well trained in study and practice of the Madhy-
amika's soteriological philosophy no longer questions whether or not all
things are in and of themselves "unreal"-he simply perceives this and
acts in accordance with what he perceives.
The concept of emptiness is distorted when forced to serve as the
object of an inferential judgment, for it cannot be effectively taught
through the inculcation of a new system of beliefs or a new set of expec-
tations about the world. On the contrary, one must learn the meaning of
emptiness through a meticulous deconstruction of all present beliefs and
the entire form of life from which they spring, and this can only be
accomplished by engaging in a specific training designed to cultivate an
unwavering mindfulness with respect to the most trivial details of day-
to-day affairs. An alternative form oflife is not necessarily a function of
believing or expecting different things about the world in which we live.
Liberation from old and deeply en grained patterns of thinking and per-
ceiving need be neither a supernatural nor a miraculous phenomenon,
but rather a very mundane affair. Dreams of magic and talk of mystical
p
intuition are all too often merely alternative, slightly more pleasant
ways of masking the old destructive patterns of clinging and manipula-
tion. As Gregory Bateson has written, "A miracle is a materialist's idea
of how to escape from his materialism . . . . And like applied science, it
always proposes the possibility of control. So you don't get away from all
that way of thought by sequences into which that way of thinking is
already built in." 17 Compare Nagarjuna: "Everyday life (samsara) is not
the slightest bit different from salvation (nirvarza), nor is salvation the
slightest bit different from everyday life." 18 And Candraklrti: "The
Lord of the world taught that no salvation is itself salvation. A knot
made by space is released only by space." 19
In Candrakirti's writing, the analysis of the Madhyamika's soterio-
logical philosophy is presented as a revolutionary deconstruction of all
views and beliefs which seek justification through reference to a set of
presuppositions discoverable a priori, regardless of how rational or vir-
tuous or sublime these views and beliefs may seem to those who hold
them. 20 Ultimately, given the Madhyamika's notion of the task of phi-
losophy, the change engendered through rigorous training in applica-
tion of the concept of emptiness is no abstract matter of cultivating
another, alternative view or belief. To actualize emptiness is to affirm
one's membership in the universal context of interpenetrating relations
which gives meaning and structure to human activity. And this affirma-
tion of membership is registered in a transformation of behavior which
simultaneously fosters and is fostered by a change 1in the nature of one's
experience of the everyday world-a world which no longer appears
as a collection of intrinsically real, compartmentalized objects, each
one dissociated from the others and from a similarly isolated, frag-
mented "1."
For present purposes, however, the essential point is not whether onf
in fact endeavors to actualize the concept of emptiness through practict·
of meditation and the other perfections, but rather that one appreciate ~
how the Madhyamika's approach to language and conceptual thought i~
c~uched in a particular philosophical paradigm. This alternative para·
dlgm defines the task of philosophy in precise tffms, through the syste·
m~tic working out of a way to integrate theoretical understanding con·
sclously and harmoniously with everyday life. I have said that
~~eriology is built into the philosophy of the Madhyamika, and that
agarjuna's thought is invariably distorted by any speciali~ed analysis
that
. .rests on unexamme . d presuppositions
. . '" .
en,orcmg an ar b"ltrary d.lS-
hnctlOn between " religion" and "philosophy." This claim can now be
~xpanded as follows : First, there is no question that the Madhyamika
lterature .
d . ·lncorporates .
a vanety o f responses to t h e vanous
. onto Iog1c
. al
an epistemological problems of "normal philosophy'' (in the sense of
Kuhn's "normal science," where all members of the intellectual com-

munity agree on what counts as a legitimate problem). Second, how-
ever, is the important fact that every one of these responses is revolu-
tionary, in the sense that its meaning is self-consciously prescriptive and
devoid of any pretension to value-free objectivity. In other words, the
central concepts of the Madhyamika are inextricably linked with a revo-
lutionary approach to the problem of meaning as a problem of applica-
tion. Given this radically different approach to language and conceptual
thought, the meaning of emptiness is to be sought not in a new defini-
tion of truth or reality, but in the concept's uniquely efficacious role in
actualizing a radically new form of life. Such a form of life takes shape
in the ethical and practical dimensions of the Madhyamika philosophy
as well as in its language, which embodies the assumption of "an entire
alternative world . . . a dream-world [necessary] in order to discover
the features of the real world we think we inhabit."
In philosophical discourse interpretation of a concept remains an
ongoing process, but by the standards of the Madhyamika paradigm an
ultimate criterion for "correct" interpretation can and must be offered
-the criterion of correct application. If a concept is applied correctly,
then what sense does it make to say that it has not been understood?
And, by the same token, if it is proposed in isolation from any inher-
ently correct application, then what possible justification can be offered
for the claim that a given interpretation ought to be accepted as authori-
tative, or even viable? Words and concepts are necessarily used within a
context of relations between speaker and listener, and meaning is mean-
ing only because of its consequences for the sociolinguistic. commu-
nity. 21 Taking into account both the Madhyamika's concept of nonrefer-
ential meaning and the soteriological purpose of the philosophy, it is
evident that the deconstructive analysis presented in The Entry into the
Middle Way can be properly appreciated only in the full context of its
use. The word emptiness operates as a key term in the metalanguage of
the Madhyamika philosophy, which draws attention to the groundless-
ness of all forms of knowledge and belief. It is applied to problems of
logic, epistemology, ontology, and ethics in such a way as to play a cen-
tral role in the overall soteriological strategy.
Like any other meaningful concept, then, the concept of emptiness
must be understood not through ostensive definition but through osten-
sive training. In learning to appreciate the Madhyamika along these
lines the boundary between philosophy and religion begins to demate-
rialize, revealing the arbitrary nature of distinctions it had created and
preserved. This is not to confound philosophy with mysticism, or the
reverse, but it would be misleading to represent the Miidhyamika solei_Y
as a mystical doctrine, as though it were exclusively concerned with reh-
gious problems irrelevant to the properly_ philosophical q~~st for value-

free , objective truth. Both terms-phdosophy and rel!gzon-actually
belong to a language game based on presuppositions not shared by
Nagarjuna and Candrak.rrti.
5.4 Nondualistic knowledge
Wi~h the actualization of emptiness, manifest in wisdom as an effect,

the bodhisattva gains access to the nondualistic knowledge of a buddha.
It may be that this concept seems particularly abstruse because it is
associated not so much with a way of knowing as with a way of being, for
we have seen that the justification underlying claims to knowledge of
this type is necessarily immersed in a certain form of life. The concept
is, then, not so obscure as it first appears, since we can find ample evi-
dence for a similar type of knowledge within the course of normal,
everyday experience . In fact, a kind of nondualistic knowledge is
present wher~ver a particular epistemic act is embedded in an intuitive
awareness of the unique context through which two apparently discrete
phenomena are intimately related, as is usually the case, for example,
when we speak of a cause and its effect. And one's attention is again
directed to the context of a relationship, only in a much more dramatic
fashion, through the experience of a bodily sensation like pain. Here
both the subject ("I") and the object ("pain") are undeniably present,
yet the connection between them is so inextricably lodged in the broader
context of their relations, including a wide spectrum of particular his-
torical and situational factors, that this relationship is itself felt to be
much more significant than the related subject and object. This is espe-
cially evident when the sensation is so overpowering that one feels
"swallowed up" in the experience of intense pain or pleasure . The
ontological-status of an internal object of sensation cannot be defined in'
isolation from this network of circumstantial conditions. Moreover, the
knowledge of such an object is incorrigible, and it is not normally artic-
ulated as a proposition to be assessed in terms of its truth or falsehood. 22
Feelings are mere appearance, and have no other reality than the reality
manifest in their seeming. The same peculiar features are characteristic
of a whole range of epistemic events that we see no need to explain, for
example, acts of intention, expectation, and reme~bering, and as-
sumptions of meaning and structure bound up with our most basic pat-
terns of perception and communication. Clearly this sort of knowledge _
.·--
~nderiies much, though not all, of everyday life, and it seems to serve as
d ost for parasitic, rational, dichotomizing thought . The Madhyamika
Oes not advocate any radically unconventional category of episte~~c _
120 CandrakTrti and Early Indian Mddhyamika
act, but rather a radically unconventional form of life, in which one is

constantly and profoundly in touch with the holistic, contextual nature
of all experience-with "the suchness of dependent origination."
For the bodhisattva, rational, dualistic thinking no longer intrudes
upon everyday experience, creating epistemological and ontological dis-
tinctions between feelings and so forth , on the one hand, and the mate·
rial , physical world of objects, on the other. All experience is mere
appearance and has no other reality than the reality manifest in how it
seems not just to him, but to ::.11 sentient beings. In analyzing the con·
tents of everyday experience, deconstructive criticism reveals this much
and no more. What is false appearance for the average person bound to
reified concepts is mere appearance for the bodhisattva, and mere
appearance is all that there is to reality. One must learn not to lQok for
truth and reality behind or under appearances, but to see both in the
context of everyday life, where the soteriological truth of the highest
meaning is understood by placing oneself in a harmonious relationship
with these same appearances: "When the entities [taken for granted in
the context of everyday experience] are examined, they ~re found to
have no intrinsic distinguishing characteristic other than the mark of the
reality [expressed in the truth of the highest meaning]. Therefore the
conventional truth of everyday experience is not to be critically exam·
ined." 23 "The master declared that all things are from the beginning at
peace, devoid of production, and by virtue of their intrinsic nature ,
completely unentangled in suffering. " 24
The nature of this nondualistic knowledge can be hinted at through
consideration of the Necker cube, an illustration that has been used in a
number of critiques of positivist theories of perception:
~~
'
~I
'
~J~; Is this a perspectival drawing of a cube from above, or from below? Per-
haps it is something else entirely-a polygonally cut gem, or a two-
dimensional set of lines. One is tempted to say that it is all these things
and more, but no amount of effort will allow us to see them simultane-
ously. Dualistic, conceptual thought influences perception in such a way
that any of these possibilities can only be seen individually, as a self-suf-
ficient , discrete image, but at .the same time we are aware of the inti-
mate relations that obtain between the various figures in this drawing.
According to the Madhyamika, a similar but much more convoluted
and subtle relationship holds between any two dichotomies of concep-
tual thought, whether expressed in ontological, epistemological, ethical,
or any other terms: Cause/effect, subject/object, substrate/predicate,
absolute/relative, truth/error, good/evil, and all other dualistic concepts
find their meaning in the context of their elusive relationship with each
other and with an interrelated network of other such concepts. The
structure that they give to all experience-a structure that seems "to
emerge from the things themselves" -is also dependent on an illusion
similar to the Necker cube , where each image finds its meaning and
existence only in the context of its relationship to partners that must
always remain out of sight. The critical difference is only that the con-
text of everyday life in which these other relationships are embedded is
infinitely more complex, for it embodies an indeterminate number of
historical and circumstantial factors shared by the sociolinguistic com-
munity in which this vocabulary is used and thought and perception
take place. Nevertheless, a cause can no more be detached from its
effect than one image from the other, and neither can the "self' .be
extracted from the context of its relar'ionship with the "others" that
make up all of the sentient and insentient world . Moreover, just as there
is no objective, neutral or uninterpreted image available to the subject
viewing the drawing above, so it is pointless to refer our concepts and
perceptions back to any a priori, uninterpreted ground.
The nature of rational thought and perception is such that it necessar-
ily focuses on one or the other aspect of any dichotomy, as though each
was significant in and of itself, entirely apart from its hidden partners.
Nondualistic knowledge derives from a noninferential awareness of the
total context in which all experience is immersed, and through which it
finds its meaning and reality. This context is the constantly fluctuating
collocation of elements comprising one's whole form of life. It is neces-
sarily recognized as a constantly fluctuating "state of affairs " and not as
~static "thing," so that once the attention is brought to bear unremit-
tingly on the contextual nature of experience, the possibility of reified
thought disappears. When we focus our attention on the total context of
the Necker cube we still see either one figure or another, but we also see
through them , for we do not see them as solitary, fragmented images
divorced from the context of their peculiar dependence on each other.

The difference is one of attitude, for all else remains as it was.1 Similarly,
when the bodhisattva cultivates nondualistic knowledge he both sees
and sees through, the natural interpretations that structure his world.
He sees nothing new or different, but he knows, directly and incorri-
gibly, that all the elements of experience are dependent upon one
another and upon the nature of the perceiving consciousness in a very
profound and significant way. This dramatic shift in attitude can only
come about through mastery of a parti~i:ular training, entailing a corre-
spondingly dramatic shift in one's form oflife.
A buddha or a very advanced bodhisattva is deeply mindful of the
relationship bttween himself and the world. He feels himself to be inti-
mately involved with sentient beings andwith insentient things in a way
that is analogous to the average person's felt relationship to the object of
sensation, so that while subject and object are still present, with or with-
out conscious reflection, their existence and meaning are totally sub-
sumed by the nature of their relationship within a complex matrix of
historical and situational criteria. Attention is here completely given
over to the total context in which any experience occurs.
5.5 The bodhisattva's vow
What are the characteristics of the world as conceptualized by one who

has actualized emptiness? More precisely: What is the bodhisattva's
form of life, and what sort of responsibility does it entail?
Like the structures of the inanimate world, all living beings have a
dual nature. They are stationed at the crossroads of spirit and matter,
sacred and profane, infinite and finite. Animate creatures are bound by
the same necessity that governs every element of the inorganic universe.
Just as any material body must respond to the pull of gravity, so, inas-
much as all living beings are born, they must also suffer disease, grow
old, and die. This is the law of all creation. Here, for better or worse,
we must live with a fundamental dichotomy that will forever maintain
an opposition between the "I'" and the objects and forces ·perceived as
external to it. At the same ~ime, however, within the teachings of Bud-
dhism greater priority is given to another l('lw, the law of the Dharma,
and according to the Madhyamika the workings of this law are revealed
in the literature dealing with perfect wisdom (prajiiiipiiramitii) and empti-
ness.
In their innermost nature living beings are entirely free from any of
the categories and qualifications on which language and conceptual
thought must depend. For the bodhisattva conventional truth is indis-
tinguishable from the truth of emptiness. Reality simply is as it appears
-regardless of whether "it" appears as samsara or ni.rvai_la. The con-

stant oscillation and interplay between these and other opposites is the
interpenetrating nexus of dependent origination, experienced here in
this world in the kaleidoscopic pattern of relations that makes up every-
day life. This is what the Madhyamika means by insisting that the
round of birth and death (samsara) is itself salvation (ni.rvat:ta). Obsti-
nate clinging to the poles of any opposition as though they possessed
independent, self-contained meaning or reality is associated with the
most crippling form of spiritual ignorance, for just this clinging alien-
ates us from the soteriological truth which must be found here in this
world, and, according to Nagarjuna and Candraklrti, only here, at the
crossroads of being and nothingness. It is an axiomatic principle of
Candraklrti's text, and of all Madhyamika philosophy, that through
immediate and uninterrupted awareness of the emptiness or "such-
ness" of everyday experience the bodhisattva finds liberation from suf-
fering now-in this life and in this world.
The bodhisattva is a being who has awakened to the emptiness of all
things, and what is called the thought of awakening is the growing non-
inferential awareness of this profound dimension of freedom hidden in
the inescapable web of our natural interpretations and associated obser- •
vational languages. A bodhisattva recognizes that the objects and '
beings populating the world, and the concepts and percepts through
which they and all possible experience ·take shape, do not possess self-
contained meaning or structure, and that everyday life is simply the
totality of relations obtaining between these empty dichotomies. The
bodhisattva moves with ease along the interface between soteriological
and conventional truths. He finds total freedom in conformity to the
unyielding necessity of knowledge grounded in mundane experience,
and the consummate expression of this freedom is his deep spontaneous
commitment to action in accord with his compassion for the myriad
empty beings suffering in an empty world:
One who has set out on the career of a bodhisattva should reflect in the
following way: '' However many living beings there are gathered together
in the univer~ of beings-egg-born, or born from an embryo, or mois-
ture-born, or miraculously born, with or without form, with ideation,
without ideation, with neither ideation nor nonideation-to whatever
extent a universe of beings can be designated-all these must be led to
release from suffering, to the realm ofnirval)a which leaves no remain-
der." Yet although an infinite number of beings may thus be led to nir-
vaQa, no being at all is ever led to nirvaQa. And why is this? If in a bodhi-
sattva the idea of a "being" should occur, then he would r.ot be called a
bodhisattva. He is not to be called a bodhisattva in whom the idea of a
being should occur or the idea of a sentient creature, or the idea of a real
person. 25
The Madhyamika's claim that suffering can be somehow mitigated or

completely transformed by following the bodhisattva's path is an issue
concerning which, from our point of view, no totally convincing justifi-
cation is likely to be forthcoming. But we may at least come to appreci-
ate just how the central concepts of the literature are integrally aligned
with the concept of pain as a context-bound experience. The pain of any
individual, or his release from that pain, has no sort of transcendental
reference. Although its effect can be transforming, suffering itself is
always experienced as mundane fact. The force of pain or grief acts in a
very dramatic way to ground the individual in the concerns of the
present moment, yet at the same time suffering is in every instance con-
tingent on the entire web of relations that forms the warp and woof of
the dependently originated, empty world. For the Madhyamika this is a
matter of tremendous import because it leaves open the possibility that
even the experience of physical pain could be altered and invested with
a radically different significance by fundamentally altering one's form
oflife.
Any experience, whether it involves perception of an external, physi-
cal object or awareness of a thought or feeling, is always intimately
bound up with the quality of its perceiving consciousness . The inner-
most nature of both consciousness and its objects is therefore invariably
a function of this relationship, so that nothing-neither mind ·itself nor
any conceptual or perceptual object-is independently real, fixed, or
inalterable. All elements or'experience are fluid, dynamic, and con-
stantly evolving in such a way as to reflect the interaction between con-
sciousness and its objects. And within this interaction, where every
aspect of experience is deeply conditioned by a network of natural inter-
pretations that are themselves ungrounded and totally subject to histori-
cal and circumstantial conditioning, there lies an unlimited potential for
growth and transformation . 26
5.6 Universal compassion, nonclinging, and emptiness
The bodhisattva's universal compassion is both the highest expression

of nonclinging and the living instantiation of the philosophical matrix in
which it is cast . Without understanding the relationship of compassion,
nonclinging, and emptiness, one cannot appreciate the meaning of
Nagarjuna's thought or the true significance of Mahayana Buddhism.
The Madhyamika's soteriological philosophy focuses attention di-
rectly on the problem of context and relation, dramatically manifest in
our need to think and act in harmony with each other and with the rest
of the sentient and insentient world in which we live. 27 The primary
place this problem holds in the literature signals an unqualified rejec-

tion of the usual concern of philosophy with ideas in and for themselves.
Such a rejection parallels the turn made by "edifying" philosophers like
Wittgenstein, Heidegger, and Dewey away from the rationalistic/ideal-
istic tradition which had preceded them. In Rorty's words, "Edifying
philosophers [aim] to help their readers, or society as a whole, break
free from outworn vocabularies and attitudes, rather than to provide
'grounding' for the intuitions and customs of the present." 28 For the
Madhyamika, no matter how powerful or compelling they are, concepts
are to be handled with the same measure of respect and caution given a
useful but dangerous tool. One must be especially careful with the con-
cepts of dependent origination and emptiness, however, which should
have the single purpose of turning one's attention away from notions of
"I" and "mine" and toward the community, including all sentient
beings. The focus on context and relation reflects the fact that one nec-
essarily stands in a sociolinguistic community, and that it is both irratio-
nal and spiritually fatal not to align oneself with the best interests of the
community as a whole. To act and speak at all is to act and speak in the
context of the community. Most important, self-knowledge is nothing
other than knowledge of one's role in the world community. There is no
truly independent "self' which can be stifled by others, for outside this
complex web of relations there is no self at all. 29 Therefore, to assume
full responsibility for all sentient beings is to realize the highest truth
and the deepest meaning of the self. No longer dominated by reified
concepts of "I" and "mine," the bodhisattva is directly, noninferen-
tially aware of the world as nothing more than a constantly changing
pattern of relationships. He is then firmly rooted, for the first time, in
the contextual reality of everyday experience and the concerns most rel-
evant to life in this world. And what could possibly be of greater practi-
cal concern to us all than the problem of fear and suffering, which can-
not be denied or thrust away by any effort to gratify the individual self?
Stanley Cavell makes the following observation on philosophical
notions of "liberation": "Recognizing what we say, in the way that is
relevant in philosophizing, is like recognizing our present commitments
and their implications; to one person a sense of freedom will demand an
escape from them, to another it will require their more total accept-
ance."30 The literature which expounds the soteriological philosophy of
the Madhyamika is quite clearly designed to make propaganda for a
concept of freedom as "the more total acceptance of our present com-
mitments and their implications." Although deconstructive analysis
removes every possible basis for clinging, antipathy, and the delusion of
reified thought, still it must be considered propaganda because the
Madhyamika cannot assert any absolutely authoritative, objectively
valid grounds for justification of the form of life manifest in the bodhi-
sattva ideal. All the rhetoric (which, taken as a whole, is internally
inconsistent) is aimed toward gradually convincing us that freedom is to
be found in the Buddhist way of life. But such conviction must ulti-
mately give way to training and practice. Philosophy as a methodologi-
cal exercise in pure rationalism (a sophisticated version of ostensive def-
inition) is incapable of providing an objective foundation for this way of
life or any transcendental justification for the ethical ideals of the Bud-
dhist. The rationalist component of the Madhyamika is merely one of a
wide range of propagandistic devices referred to, generically, as "skillful
means"; yet the tremendous significance of this fact can easily be
underestimated or forgotten when the arguments of the Madhyamika
are divorced, even for the purposes of a "specialized analysis," from the
tradition of ritual practice and meditation. The problem is a particu-
larly thorny one, since abject refusal to comply with the vocabulary and
propositional structure of epistemologically oriented philosophy cannot
but appear highly suspect in a community of intellectuals steeped in the
tradition that proceeded from Descartes through Locke and Kant to
where it presently endows the scientific, rational world view with its
exclusive right to all adjudication in matters of meaning and structure.
A number of modern studies demonstrate an awareness-of the difficul-
ties involved, and several commentators have begun to recognize this
propagandistic element in the Madhyamika's approach to language and
conceptual thought. But so far no one seems to have remarked that the
Prasarigika technique is paralleled in the work of modern pragmatist
and deconstructive philosophers. When efforts to force Nagarjuna's
work into a neo-Kantian mold fail, as they must, talk almost invariably
turns in equally unpromising directions, suggesting that the Miidhy-
amika is not to be read as philosophy after all, and thus cannot be prop-
erly judged by "philosophical" standards. We are told, for example,
that Nagiirjuna "had no interest at all in 'objectivity' as Western philos-
ophers define that word." 31 This sort of comment could be made only
by someone who has not given adequate consideration to the writings of
James, Gadamer, Wittgenstein, and all the others whose work I have
been referring to at intervals throughout these pages. This is the sort of
confusion we can continue to expect when the best scholars of Buddhist
literature isolate themselves behind the walls of a discipline that is
defined almost exclusively in terms of a philologically based methodol-
ogy. Clearly, the concept of objectivity is no longer taken for granted in
intellectual circles, and Western philosophers are at present far from
reaching any consensus as to its meaning and implications as a method·
ological strategy. It is therefore important to see how this same article'!
central thesis, that Niigarjuna's thought is essentially mystical and con·
sequently not "philosophically cogent," 32 is unacceptable, primarily

because it rests on a number of arbitrary and unexamined premises
concerning the nature and task of the sort of enterprise which properly
deserves the title "philosophy." 33
For more than half a century now, philosophy has been construed in
ways that altogether avoid the problem of objectivity-ways in which
the issue of "reason" versus "mysticism" no longer means what it did
to the tradition that rotated on the Descartes-Locke-Kant axis:
[The epistemologically centered philosopher] wants to be constrained not

merely by the disciplines of the day, but by the ahistorical and nonhuman
nature of reality itself. This impulse takes two forms-the original Pla-
tonic strategy of postulating novel objects for treasured propositions to
correspond to, and the Kantian strategy of finding principles which are
definatory of the essence of knowledge, or representation , or morality, or
rationality. But this difference is unimportant compared to the common
urge to escape the vocabulary and practices of one's own time and find
something ahistorical and necessary to cling to. It is the urge to answer
questions like "Why believe what I take to be true?" "Why do what I take
to be right?" by appealing to something more than the ordinary, retail,
detailed, concrete reasons which have brought one to one's present view.
This urge is common to nineteenth-century idealists and contemporary
scientific realists, to Russell and to Husser!; it is definatory of the Western
philosophical tradition, and of the culture for which that tradition speaks.
James and Dewey stand with Nietzsche and Heidegger in asking us to
abandon that tradition, and that culture.'*
If the linguistic interpretation has any force, then we must assume

that Nagarjuna would himself have seen any philosophical project
whatsoever as either inherently dissociated from the real, day-to-day
concerns of human activities (and hence meaningless and insignificant),
or propagandistic in the sense just defined . It is to the Madhyamika's
credit and to the credit of more than one modern Western philosopher,
that they have not attempted to escape from the ramifications of this
admittedly disconcerting "view that is no view." This realization that
all significant philosophical enterprises necessarily function as intellec-
tual propaganda most clearly distinguishes the writings of these philoso-
phers from those of their colleagues both in the East and in the West.
NXGARJUNA: We contend that you do not know the application ('purpose'

or 'use,' prayojana) of emptiness ... and therefore you are lost. 35
WITTGENSTEIN: I am in a sense making propaganda for one style of
thinking as opposed to another. I am honestly disgusted with the
other. . . . Much of what I am doing is persuading the people to
change their style ofthinking.3 6
The characterization of philosophy as propaganda is valuable be-

cause it stands in dramatic defiance of all attempts to hypostatize this or
that definition of "philosophical cogency." It acts as a barometer to
gauge one's attachment to the concept of philosophy as a search for eter-
nally sanctified, ahistorical, inalterable truth(s) to be attai~d through
the proper application of an approved methodology. Insofar as the
notion of philosophy as propaganda precludes gratification of the desire
to fall back on unexamined presuppositions about what constitutes a
legitimate philosophical problem, it insures that the Madhyamika's
holistic, contextual approach to meaning and existence as functions of
relation will not be misinterpreted, either as a species of non philosophi-
cal mysticism or as what Alvin Gouldner calls a "classic" theory of
objective truth. Both those interpretations are examples of extremes
that for dichotomous, reified thought seem the only available alterna-
tives.
Let us take a closer look at the notion of philosophical objectivity, for
it harbors a number of ambivalent meanings relevant to the present dis-
cussion. As mentioned above, Gouldner has investigated the anachro-
nistic, although highly treasured and virtually inextinguishable, con-
cept of truth as a quest for value-free objectivity:
The classical, older notion of objectivity stressed that truth was the prod-
uct of applying specific methods to particular intellectual tasks and data. Its
focal assumption was that truth was produced essentially by an individual
scholar and the approved method. But what grounds were there for a
confidence in the scholar's motives for conformity to the right method?
What was defocalized here was the social aspect of the process: namely,
that the scholar as a scholar was the product of a social system that had
trained and awarded him his credentials; that as a mature scholar he
worked as a member of a scholarly community; that he had to convince its
members of the warrantability of his assertions, and that he sought to do
so by employing the rules, methods and criteria that his community sanc-
tioned, as a rhetoric. 37
The Madhyamika quite clearly recognizes no possibility of "objective

truth" defined in these terms, but it does not follow that the literature is
not and cannot be philosophically cogent. In contrast to the classical
notion, Gouldner defines an- alternative concept of truth as a fluid,
dynamic process of theory formation. This "modern" view of truth
avoids the pitfalls of hypostatized categories through its responsiveness
to the varying demands of social and linguistic conve]ltions: "The mod-
ern view then, sees truth as the product of a rhetoric and collective
appraisal of the warrantability of assertions about the social world, as <
world-referencing judgement that is collectively construed and whid
does not have an unmediated availability, either as subjective 'intuition'

or as objective 'evidence.' " 38
This second "view" of truth is compatible with the Madhyamika'!
rejection of all views, for both Candrakirti and Gouldner agree in prin-
ciple that "things claimed may be factually so, and statements made
may be logically and factually correct; but that is not necessarily 'truth. '
For the sociology of cognition truth comes down to the perspectives by
which even logically and factually correct propositions may be limited .
Truth has to do with the limits of reason." 39 Elsewhere in the same arti·
de Gouldner works out a concept of "new objectivity," which deserve!
to be appropriated as a hermeneutic for appreciating the Madhyamika'!
deconstructive philosophy as a particular instantiation of "skillful
means " -a corrective or cure for deep-rooted obsessions with any possi·
ble picture of the world. As with any medicine, the prescription must be
adapted to the specific symptoms of the patient-that is, to his own sys·
temic peculiarities, which stem, in this case, from the natural interpre·
tations and related observational languages that condition his entin
form of life-and to the general pathology of reified thought:
"Objectivity," then, is not neutrality; it is realism concerning our own

situation, desires and interests. Here "realism" means being aware of the
continual vulnerability of reason to interest and desire, of the limits that
interest and desire impose on rational discourse. Objectivity, then, is a
wholeness paradoxically pursued by stressing insistently and one-sidedly the
repressed and silenced side of things. It is the effort to overcome the varied
and changing limitations of persons and groups through recovery of what
their lives have systemically repressed, distorted, and lost. 40
The Madhyamika could be understood in terms of this "new objec-

tivity," but it is misleading to characterize Nagarjuna and Candrakirti
as the proponents of a mystical, alogical, or irrational system uncon-
cerned with the proper business of philosophy, namely, the search for
objective truth conceived in what Gouldner identifies as its classical for-
mulation . Such an interpretation does a tremendous disservice to
Nagarjuna 's thought . It fails to engage with the profound and disturb-
ing challenge issued by this ancient Buddhist philosopher. Without a
doubt, the single most controversial and revolutionary feature of
Nagarjuna's legacy lies in his restructuring of the philosophical enter-
prise so as entirely to discredit the quest for value-free, ahistorical veri-
ties supposed to reflect a similarly transcendental reality. In pursuing
the analysis this far, Nagarjuna and his successors were simply working
out the further consequences of the earlier Buddhist doctrine of selfless-
ness (nairiitmya), which had already begun the pro~ess of deconstruction
that reached its climax in the scriptures dealing with perfect wisdom
(prajno.piiramitiisutras). Although it arose out of a culture remote from our
own and was harnessed to the soteriological interests of Indian philoso-
phy, the Madhyamika's critique seems to have anticipated many of the
concerns of twentieth-century philosophers rebelling against the estab-
lished authority of neo-Kantian scientific rationalism. Consider, for
example, what Rorty characterizes as the "existentialist" view of objec-
tivity:
Objectivity should be seen as conformity to the norms of justification (for

assertions and for actions) we find about us. Such conformity becomes
dubious and self-deceptive only when seen as something more than this-
namely, as a way of obtaining access to something which "grounds" cur-
rent practices of justification in something else. Such a "ground" is
thought to need no justification, because it has become so clearly and
distinctly perceived as to count as a "philosophical foundation." This is
self-deceptive not simply because of the general absurdity of thinking that
the vocabulary used by present science, morality, or whatever has some
privileged attachment to reality which makes it more than just a further set
of descriptions. Agreeing with the naturalists that redescription is not
"change of essence" needs to be followed up by abandoning the notion of
"essence" altogether."
In the modern struggle to escape from our deep attachment to the

notion of essence we find a powerful heuristic for Nagarjuna's rejection
of all philosophical views: "Those who see in it [any reference to] intrin-
sic and extrinsic being, or existence and nonexistence, do not see the
actual teaching of the buddha." 42
This denial of the concept of essence can best be appreciated by .con-
trasting the antiphilosophicallanguage of the Madhyamika with a mod-
ern statement of epistemological monism analogous to the one pre-
sented in the Vedantic view of a nondual, transcendental reality. Mark
C. Taylor develops such a view of truth and existence as functions of
relation and context which is reminiscent of the complexity attained by
pre-Copernican models of the-solar system constructed in an attempt to
accommodate the mounting pressure for an altogether new observa-
tional language. In his densely worded essay we can feel the tension
involved in Taylor's effort to hold onto the presuppositions and the
vocabulary of the epistemological problematic against the onslaught
of deconstructive, pragmatic philosophy and philosophical herme-
neutics:43
Epistemological and semantic considerations s~gest the perspectival

relativity of truth. The historicity of consciousne~s establishes the inescap-
Philosophy as Propaganda
able situatedness of the knowing subject. Cognitive activity arises through

the confluence of multiple conditioning factors, and issues in knowledge
that invariably bears the mark of the situation within which it is genera-
ted. Moreover, we have seen that meaning is contextual. Meaning
remains unspecifiable apart from dialogic relation with alternative points
of view. The synchronic and diachronic extensiveness of such relationality
implies that meaning is inexhaustible and ever revisable. Consequently
the meaningfulness of truth necessarily entails dialectical relation with
contrasting frames of interpretation and !s constantly subject tore-forma-
tion . Truth emerges only through the synchronic and diachronic interplay
of truths . In sum, truth is relative to the perspective from which it is
apprehended and is co-relative with implicated truths whose reciprocity
it presupposes.
The relativity of the ordo cognoscendi, however, does not necessarily dis-
tort the ordo essendi. To the contrary, the relationality of being is accurately
comprehended only in truth that is relative. Like thought, being is inher-
ently dialectical. In other words, that which thought seeks to grasp is itself
relative. As a result of the sociality of being, determinate identity assumes
concretion through internal relation with difference. Particular phenom-
ena are posited by an extensive mutual interaction that forms a single
complex web. Our ontological investigation has shown the' synchronic and
diachronic coordinates of constitutive relationality. Determinate identity is
established through association with coexisting entities and through loca-
tion within temporal process. Due to the historical unfolding of multiple
ingredient relations, being is always in the process of becoming. Dynamic,
dialectical actuality cannot be re-presented in static, sharply delineated
categories of cognition. If such being is to be known, it. must be grasped
relative to otherness from which it is inseparable, and must be regularly
re-constructed as it re-constructs. As an adequate reflection of the energet-
ics of being, truth changes-it requires constant re-visioning. 44
This article is especially useful for our present purposes because it

constitutes "an attempt to demonstrate that relativism is mandated
both epistemologically and ontologically." 45 Taylor has done everything
possible to stretch the neo-Kantian paradrgm and adapt it to a vision of
truth and reality not ·susceptible to reiflcation, and yet, in retaining
what Rorty calls "the ocular metaphor,'·' he is ultimately compelled to
ground his philosophical view in references to an ahistorical, essentially
rn~taphysical epistemology. This is explicit from the beginning, when he
W~ttes, "As the argument unfolds, it will become apparent that the only
th~ng that is not relative is relativity itself." 46 Taylor's concept of nonrel-
a~tve relativity is particularly instructive for us because it stands in
dt~ect contrast, forming a sort of minimal pair, to Nagarjuna 1s ·complete
r:Jection of the ocular metaphor. The Madhyamika's total deconstruc-
tion of even its own key concepts is epitomized in "the emptiness of
-
132 CandrakTrti and Early Indian MadhyamikCJ
emptiness" (fiinyatiifunyatii)-a self-deconstructing concept that throws

into relief many difficult and controversial passages that are incommen-
surable with the Vediintic or Kantian language game and simply cannot
be interpreted according to its rules. 47
The conceptual system of the Miidhyamika has been characterized as
philosophical propaganda in order to stress this crucial point of the
emptiness of emptiness, which provides no a priLri justification for a~
view or belief. As I have attempted to demonstrate in a number of ways
over the course of the preceding pages, the difficulties of coming tc
terms with such a doctrine cannot be resolved strictly by recourse tc
extended critical discussion. Indeed, intellectual resistance to this seem·
ingly unrelieved relativism assumes various and subtle forms, even
among those most inclined to accept the premises and the aim ofNagiir-
juna's soteriological philosophy. 48 Fears of relativism and irrationality
need to be seen in this light as stemming from a failure of imagination,
for once they are understood as such we can entirely break free of both
the problem and its various solutions. The extremes of nihilism and
epistemological monism find a parallel in the phenomenon described by
Kuhn and Feyerabend in their discussions of incommensurablility,
where large segments of the scientific community-the practitioners of
"normal science"-are left behind during times of revolutionary
change to such an extent that they do not even realize that a revolution
has occurred.
Resistance to a new language game is signaled either by a vain effort
to make do with the old terminology, as with Taylor and so many mod-
ern scholars who rely on the vocabulary of rationalistic/idealistic metho-
dologies to interpret the Miidhyamika, or else by accusing those who
insist on not participating in the normal conversation of relativism am
irrationality, as has been done by the proponents of the nihihstic inter
pretation. 49 In both cases we detect a response to the problem of in com
mensurability, since these resistances "oppose not just the truth of th<
resisted alternatives but the presumption that an alternative has beer
presented." Only by seeing these accusations in this way can we escap<
to something completely new.
"Relativism" only seems to refer to a disturbing view, worthy of being

refuted, if it concerns real theories, not just philosophical theories. Nobody
really cares if there are incompatible alternative formulations of a categor-
ical imperative, or incompatible sets Qf categorien>f the pure understand-
ing. We do car~ about alternative, concrete, detailed cosmologies, or alter-
native, concrete, detailed proposals for political change. When such an
alternative is proposed, we debate it, not in terms of categories or princi-
ples but in terms of the various concrete advantages and disadvantages it
-
has. The reason relativism is talked about so much among Platonic and
Kantian philosophers is that they think being relativistic about philosophi-
cal theories-attempts to "ground" first-level theories-leads to being
relativistic about the first-level theories themselves. If anyone really
believed that the worth of a theory depends upon the worth of its philo-
sophical grounding, then indeed they would be dubious about physics, or
democracy, until relativism 1n respect to philosophical theories had been
overcome. Fortunately, almost nobody believes anything of the sort. 50
To address the philosophical problem of irrationalism in connection

with the Madhyamika, we must first understand what the accusation of
irrationalism means in the context of its historical roots in our own
intellectual tradition. Only then will we appreciate the difficulties that
must be overcome in order to present this remote literature as an inter-
esting and coge nt contribution to the conversation of modern Western
philosophers.
Questions about irrationalism have become acute in our century because

the sullen resentment which sins against Socrates, which withdraws from
conversation and community, has recently become articulate. Our Euro-
pean intellectual tradition is now abused as "merely conceptual" or
"merely ontic" or as "committed to abstractions." Irrationalists propose
such rubbishy pseudo-epistemological notions as "intuition" or "an inar-
ticulate sense or tradition" or "thinking with the blood" or "expressing
the will of the oppressed classes'' Our tyrants and ba.ndits are more hate-
ful than those of earli~r times because, invoking such self-deceptive rheto-
ric, they pose as intellectuals. Our tyrants write philosophy in the morning
and torture in the afternoon; our bandits alternately read Holderlin and
bomb people into bloody scraps. So our culture clings, more than ever, to
the hope of the Enlightenment, the hope that drove Kant to make philoso-
phy formal and rigorous and .professional. We hope that by formulating
the right conceptions of reason, of science, of thought, of knowledge, of
morality, the conceptions which express their essence, we shall have a shield
against irrationalist resentment and hatred . . . . For the traditional,
Platonic or Kantian philosopher . . . the possibility of grounding the Euro-
pean form of life-of showing it to be more than European, more than a
contingent human project-seems the central task of philosophy. He
wants to show that sinning against Socrates is sinning against our nature ,
not just against our community. So he sees the pragmatist as an irrationa-
list. The charge that pragmatism is "relativistic" is simply his first un-
thinking expression of disgust at a teaching which seems cynical about our
deepes t hopes . . . . [The pragmatist] seems to be sacrificing our common
European proj-::ct to. the delights of purely negative criticism. 51
. I have not referred again and again to the writings of deconstruc-

tiOnist and pragmatic philosophers because I believe that these mod<::rn
thinkers are saying the same thing as the ancient Madhyamika.

Instead, I introduce these writings to help us approach the Madhy-
amika literature as something other than an historical relic from a dis-
tant culture with nothing interesting or relevant to contribute to our
present conversation. Previous attempts to understand the Madhyami-
ka's rejection of all philosophical views have been of limited value
because they failed to engage with the revolutionary message these texts
might carry to us across the centuries. To meet this challenge we require
a hermeneutic that does justice both to the texts and to our participatory
role in textual interpretation-"a hermeneutical discovery of how to
trarlslate them without making them sound like fools." 52 As Gadamer
has written, "We cannot understand without wanting to understand,
that is, without wanting to let something be said . . . . A kind of antici-
pation of meaning guides the effort to understand from the very begin-
ning."53 In imposing a strictly philological or text-critical methodology
upon these texts, or, conversely, by seeking access to Nagarjuna's and
Candrakirti's message in an ahistorical mens auctoris, we deny the very
possibility of understanding:
Here we find the well-known problem that Heidegger analyzed under the
title of the hermeneutical circle. The problem concerns the astounding
naivete of the subjective consciousness that, in trying to understand a text,
says "But that is what is written here!" Heidegger showed that this reac-
tion is quite natural, and often enough a reaction of the highest self-critical
value. But in truth there is nothing that is simply "there". Everything that
is said and is there in the text stands under anticipations. This means,
positively, that only what stands under anticipations can be understood at
all, and not what one simply confronts as something unintelligible. The
fact that erroneous interpretations also arise from anticipations and,
therefore, that the prejudices which make understanding possible also
entail possibilities of misunderstanding could be one of the ways in which
the finitude of human nature operates. A necessarily circular movement is
involved in the fact that we read or understand what is there, but nonethe-
less see what is there with our own eyes ('}nd our own thoughts). 54
If we are interested in these texts not simply as "philological mate-

rial," but as "sacred texts which proclaim a message of salvation," 55
then we must let them speak to us in the only way we can understand
such a message-in a voice that incorporates, illuminates, and chal-
lenges the prejudices and presuppositions that are a part of our cultural
and linguistic inheritance. One need sacrifice neither rational standards
nor philological rigor in order to make room for the anticipation of
meaning that allows for understanding. Here is the challenge: We need
to discover if the Madhyamika's rejection of all views can be understood
-
not in the anachronistic context of a logical or epistemological problem-

atic, but as a significant contribution to the general force of a movement
that is vital to our present philosophical conversation, for this is the
place where philosophical meaning must be sought and found. What
might this denial of all views mean to us?
Whereas less pretentious revolutionaries can afford to have views on lots

of things which their predecessors had views on, edifying philosophers
have to decry the very notion of having a view, while avoiding having a
view about having views. This is an awkward, but not impossible, posi-
tion . Wittgenstein and Heidegger manage it fairly well. One reason they
manage it as well as they do is that they do not think that when we say
something we must necessarily be expressing a view about a subject. We
might just be saying something-participating in a conversation rather than
contributing to an inquiry. Perhaps saying things is not always saying how
things are. Perhaps saying that is itself not a case of saying how things are .
Both men suggest we see people as saying things, better or worse things,
without seeing them as externalizing inner representations of reality. But
this is only their entering wedge, for then we must cease to see ourselves as
seeing this, without beginning to see ourselves as seeing something else. We
must get the-visual, and in particular the mirroring, metaphors out of our
speech altogether. To do that we have to understand speech not only as not
the externalizing of inner representations, but as not a representation at
all. We have to drop the notion of correspondence for sentences as well as
for thoughts, and see sentences as connected with other sentences rather
than with the world. We have to see the term "corresponds to how things
are" as an automatic compliment paid to successful normal discourse
rather than as a relation to be studied and aspired to throughout the rest of
discourse. To attempt to extend this compliment to feats of abno77TUll dis-
course is like complimenting a judge on his wise decision by leaving him a
fat tip : it shows a lack of tact. To think ofWittgenstein and Heidegger as
having views about how things are is not to be wrong about how things
are, exactly; it is just poor taste . It puts them in a position which they do
not want to be in, and in which they look ridiculous. 56
As I have already pointed out, the linguistic and conceptual forms of

inquiry dictate in advance the sort of answers one will receive. This is
why certain teachings are by nature esoteric. The soteriological truth
can be taught only in terms of the presuppositions of those who seek to
understand: "Just as a grammarian would teach even the alphabet, so
the buddha taught the Dharma to his disciples according to the dictates
of the particular situation. To some he taught a doctrine that would dis-
courage sinning; to some, a doctrine to aid in earning merit; and to
some, a doctrine not based on duality, a means to attain awakening,
profound and frightening, the source of emptiness and compassion." 57
136 Candraklrti and Early Indian Madhyamika
The circle of objectivity and relativism must be broken if one is to

learn anything truly revolutionary. Let us, then, avail ourselves of the
example provided by these philosophers to forge a hermeneutical tool
with which we can translate Nagarjuna and Candrakirti without mak-
ing them sound like either fools or epistemologists.
The entire conceptual edifice of the Madhyamika must be allowed to
collapse in on itself in order to fulfill its purpose. It must not leave a
trace of even the most refined and ultrararefied concept of emptiness tc
which the mind could cling. When its philosophical work is done, the
concept of emptiness dematerializes along with every possible justifica-
tion for belief in any reality beyond the sociolinguistic matrix of every-
day experience. At that juncture, for the meditative practitioner, tht
mind becomes extremely attentive and open to the "suchness" of tht
present moment. There is then no grasping and pushing away, no per-
sonal stake in the dividing, categorizing, and criticizing activity of in tel·
lectual processes that are normally steeped in a manipulative, self-cen-
tered energy.
Not only has the philosophical rug been jerked from beneath our feet,
but the ground of conceptualization and perception has eroded away as
well. When the concept of emptiness self-deconstructs it takes the whole
system with it. There is no central concern here with the accumulation
of new and more precise technical terminology. The Madhyamika is
radically deconstructive, pragmatic philosophy designed to be used for
exposing, defusing, and dismantling the reifying tendencies inherent in
language and conceptual thought. And as bare critique, devoid of any
claim to an independently valid view, this philosophy offers no answers.
All it does is dissolve the old questions, which are seen to have been mis-
guided from the start, leaving behind nothing other than a dramatic
awareness of the living present-an epiphany of one's entire form of
life. No form of conceptual diffusion remains, and no questions begging
for answers that reinforce a deep-seated resistance to acceptance that
this life, as it is now lived, is the only arbiter of truth and reality-a
truth and reality that is, for the majority of people, dominated by cling-
ing, antipathy, and delusion. If there is any possible alternative-any
other form of life-then it can be realized only through the unified and
profoundly creative activity of mind, speech, and body.
As one immediate repercussion of this restructuring of philosophy, it
is evident that the ethical doctrine of the Madhyamika (like any other
ethic) must ultimately be grounded in a particular form of life which is
itself groundless. In the final analysis, the Mahayana Buddhist concep-
tualization of the world, epitomized in such central notions as "depen~
dent origination" and "emptiness," must be called upon to provide its
own justification through the freedom from fear and suffering which it
is supposed to yield . Achieved in a manner which conforms in every

way to the legitimate demands of reason, this ideal of freedom, rather
than any objective fact or mystical intuition, is the soteriological truth of
emptiness propagated by the Mahayana Buddhist tradition in almost all
its forms:
Through all circumstances of historic spread and change . .. the idea of

the great compassion has remained a constant factor. In popular religious
imagination it is symbolized by images in temples, images of wise and
merciful Buddhas, of great, heroic, self-sacrificing Bodhisattvas, on whose
altars burn lights and incense, before whom prayers are uttered, and
whose names are chanted in longing and in hope. They represent a notion
that out of some infinite store of pity and oflove, help is to be had amid the
sufferings oflife. Among the devout there is belief that their own deeds of
kindness and mercy accumulate some merit toward a general good which
Buddhas and Bodhisattvas approve . And among the learned there is
awareness of the deep tradition that highest knowledge should be for the
welfare of all the living. 58
It is most unfortunate that there are those among us who willfully

endeavor to avoid all responsibilities to society and to nature. Yet ac-
cording to the Madhyamika the real tragedy of this and all times is that
there are so many others who simply do not know how to begin to think
and act in order to see these obligations clearly and carry them out with
dignity and strength. To this second group in particular Candrakirti's
writing is addressed, for it is here assumed that philosophy can set itself
no more noble, authentic, or pressing task than to contribute toward the
dissolution of an intellectual and spiritual malaise that results in tre-
mendous conflict and misery. Whether or not such an assumption can
be justified is, of course, open to debate. But the terms of the debate will
be entirely defined by the depth of our encounter with the texts .
The Entry into the Middle Way is the literary artifact of a time and place
extremely remote from the modern world of affluent capitalistic society
in Europe and North America, and it would be pointless to deny that
there exist a number of real problems concerning the extent to which
Buddhist philosophy might be capable of answering our deepest intel-
lectual and spiritual needs. If these problems are ever to be explored,
however, it will not suffice either to confront this material merely as an
historical object to be dissected by an exclusive club of philologists or to
expropriate it uncritically in the guise of an exotic new style of belief, as
though this complex fusion of mythology and philosophy could be con-
veyed in "literal" translation across such an awesome cultural gulf and
simply paraded about in public, like a set of royal vestments brought
from some foreign court, without making a rather comical and pathetic
spectacle out of what was once a truly majestic literature. Both text-crit-
ical rigor and devotion have their rightful place among the concerns of
certain groups of individuals within this society, and each has its own
valuable contribution to make in the Western encounter with Bud-
dhism. But the challenge of coming to terms with the Madhyamika
demands a greater capacity for self-critical awareness than either model
has yet been able to demonstrate.
Perhaps one major problem that faces us in any attempt to form a
clear concept of Buddhist philosophy is, in the end, the sociological cir-
cumstance that we have no cultural role model which embodies the
range of concerns proper to the traditional Indian philosopher (either
the darfanika or the frama!UJ), whose needs and interests were principally
governed neither by the exclusively intellectual disposition of the
scholar, nor by the pious faith of the devotee, but by the willingness to
use any resource in the search for a form of truth that would do justice
to both the intellect and the spirit. Without any well-defined context for
such an activity, there is naturally no legitimate arena for dealing with
the special problems generated by a text like The Entry into the Middle
Way. Any attempt to discover or define a viable hermeneutic for this lit-
erature must come up against social as well as intellectual barriers. And
yet Western philosophers may be trapped at an impasse, for according
to the Madhyamika no entirely rational solution will ever be ·able to
escape the dichotomy between objectivity and relativism. One hundred
years ago Nietzsche wrote, "We enter into a realm of crude fetishism
when we summon before consciousness the basic presuppositions of the
metaphysics oflanguage, in plain talk, the presuppositions ofreason." 59
Since Wittgenstein there has been a growing concern with the transfor-
mation or "end" of philosophy. If we are involved in something similar
to the paradigm shift described by Kuhn, then there is a good possibility
that reason may have to be assigned a significantly different role in any
new conception of philosophy. Derrida, for example, has already con-
siderably broadened the parameters within which rational discourse can
take place. Rorty's idea of philosophy as a conversation may go far
enough to avoid the impasse, but in any case the Madhyamika offers us
an ·interesting alternative in its radically pragmatic approach to the
problem of objectivity and relativism. Here philosophy is conceived of
neither as an attempt to define an ahistorical ground, nor as a continu-
ing intellectual conversation, but as the working out of a "justified prej-
udice" productive of knowledge grounded in a new form of life. Of
course a great deal of work remains to be done before any concept of the
Madhyamika's philosophical project will become completely intelligi-
ble, for at present even our translations of the texts are for the most part
suffused with presuppositions of method and objectivity. The opposition
--
in Buddhist studies between text-critical and proselytic scholarship mir-

rors the isolation of philosophy and religion as two distinct fields of
human endeavor. Both dichotomies reflect the quarrel between reason
and tradition that is at the heart of our legacy from the enlightenment,
and we are only beginning to be able to see beyond these polarities to
something radically different. Nevertheless, "the overcoming of all
prejudices , this global demand of the enlightenment, will prove to be
itself a prejudice, the removal of which opens the way to an appropriate
understanding of our finitude, which dominates not only our humanity,
· but also our historical consciousness." 60
What, then, is the most prudent course under the circumstances, that
we might work toward an interpretation which is not in open conflict
with either Buddhist or modern Western concepts of philosophy? My
investigations suggest that the significance of Nagarjuna's and Can-
draklrti's work must today, more than ever, be judged in terms of its
authors' own assertion of a justified prejudice. Carefully taking into
account "the limits of reason" as well as its necessary and legitimate
claims, the meaning that this or any other philosophy has for us can per-
haps be measured by no higher standard than as a function of its practi-
cal consequences for the individual, for society, and for all forms of life.
The most important question would then be: Through incorporating a
vocabulary that seeks neither to deny nor otherwise to contradict or
denigrate all the evidence that can and must be accepted by the canons
of reason, does this philosophy serve to reduce or to augment the fear
and suffering caused by clinging, antipathy, and the delusion of reified
thought? This is the standard against which Buddhist philosophy has
traditionaliy measured its own worth, and one which is enforced with
an extreme d~gree of subtlety and precision in the deconstructive analy-
sis of the Madhyamika.l'his same criterion may offer the possibility of
a congenial meeting ground for two disparate traditions as well, anq a
realistic vantage point from which we can begin to assess the philosophi-
cal cogency of the Madhyamika literature .
I began section 5 with two epigraphs, one from the work of Jonathan
Culler and one from Nagarjuna's MadhyaTTlllkafiistra, and we have now
arrived at a point ~here these two short quotations can be appreciated
in the larger context of all that has been discussed . The interest of the
modern deconstructionist may be seen to coincide in significant ways
with that of the ancient Indian Madhyamika, so that we can legiti-
mately expect to gain a great deal from further study of deconstruc-
tionist writings which furnish both a heuristic for appreciating the tech-
niques and goals of a text like The Entry into the Middle Way and a means
of augmenting the repository of rhetorical devices available to the
Madhyamika's own deconstructive project . We have seen how conven-
tional practice, which is structured by natural interpretations and

expressed in terms of an associated observational language, itself pro-
vides the concepts and premises that are both employed and under-
mined by the Madhyamika's analysis. What is revealed through this
analysis is the soteriological "truth" of emptiness: a self-deconstructive
concept that is gradually transmuted into a new natural interpretation
capable of freeing the bodhisattva from the previously inveterate ten-
dency to solidify experience into a ground for clinging. As Culler points
out, however, "Deconstruction is ambiguously or uncomfortably posi-
tioned and particularly open to attack and misunderstanding. Relying
on distinctions that it puts in question, exploiting oppositions whose
philosophical implications it seeks to evade, it can always be attacked
both as an anarchism determined to disrupt any order whatever and,
from the opposite perspective, as an accessory to the hierarchies it
denounces." 61 Certainly the history of Western interpretation of Ma-
dhyamika literature supplies adequate evidence for this observation.
Such errors of interpretation must be avoided by resisting the tempta-
tion to look for a systematic, unified theory of truth in deconstruction.
The goal of .deconstructive analysis is not the establishment of an
authoritative new view or theory, as a common criticism of its unortho-
dox methods reveals:
Often . . . the objection to this double procedure is stated in a figure that

invokes not the authority of a law or morality but a physical and empirical
inappropriateness: deconstruction's procedure is called "sawing off the
branch on which one is sitting." This may be, in fact, an apt description of
the activity, for though it is unusual and somewhat risky, it is manifestly
something one can attempt. One can and may continue to sit on a branch
while sawing it. There is no physical or moral obstacle if one is willing to
risk the consequences. The question then becomes whether one will suc-
ceed in sawing it clear through, and where and how one mig~ land. A
difficult question: to answer one would need a comprehensive understand-
ing of the entire situation-of the resilience of the support, the efficacy of
one's tools, the shape of the terrain-and an ability to predict accurately
the consequences of one's work. If "sawing off the branch on which one is
sitting" seems foolhardy to men of common sense, it is not so for
Nietzsche, Freud, Heidegger, and Derrida; for they suspect that if they
fall there is no "ground" to hit and that the most clear-sighted act may be
a certain reckless sawing, a calculated dismemberment or deconstruction
of the great cathedral-like trees in which Man has taken shelter for mil-
lennia.62
We may now confidently add Nagarjuna's name to the list of those who
are not afraid of hitting ground.
What is especially critical here is that conventional practice estab-

lishes the terms of the Madhyamika's deconstructive analysis, and for
that very reason conventional practice can never be abandoned. Instead
it is exposed for what it is-a necessary fiction, "the truth of the
screen," similar to what Ernest Becker has called "a cultural illusion."
According to Becker, all forms of cultural illusion are embodiments of
the altogether human need to behave as though we were intrinsically
existent and intrinsically powerful, to act as heroes and heroines in the
drama oflife.
True there is a great de~f f~lseness and self-deception in the cultural

causa-sui project, but there is also the necessity of this project. Man needs a
"second" world, a world of humanly created meaning, a new reality that
he can live, dramatize, nourish himself in . "Illusion" means creative play
at its highest level. Cultural illusion is a necessary ideology of self-justifica-
tion, a heroic dimension thr,t is life itself to the symbolic animal. To lose
the security of heroic cultural illusion is to die-that is what "decdtura-
tion" of primitives means and what it does. It kills them or reduces them
to the animal level of chronic fighting and fornication . 63
When the full implications of this concept of cultural illusion are

grasped, a final, most disturbing question arises: "On what level of illu-
sion does one live?"
What is the "best" iiiusion under which to live? Or, what is the most
legitimate foolishness? If you are going to talk about life-enhancing illu-
sion, then you can truly try to answer the question of which is "best." You
will have to define "best" in terms that are directly meaningful to man,
related to his basic condition and his needs. I think the whole question
would be answered in terms of how much freedom, dignity, and hope a
given illusion provides. These three things absorb the problem of natural
neurosis and turn it into creative living. 64
Becker's arguments are compelling; yet unlike Nagiirjuna and Can-

drakirti , in the end he does not seem to have realized that the maximum
degree of freedom, hope, and dignity can be found within a cultural
illusion only when one is completely released from bondage to the forms
of that illusion, when the structure of the illusion reveals itself with per-
fect clarity and one is allowed to see it as it is-as both fictitious and
necessary. This is the promise elaborated through the Mahiiyiina ideal
of the bodhisattva, who lives and acts in the noninferential unity of
emptiness and awareness .
"Honorable Subhiiti, is there no goal and no full realization [of that

goal]? " . .. "Honorable Sariputra, the goal and full realization [of that
goal] certainly do exist, but not in the form of both [soteriological and
conventional truths]. Sariputra, both the goal and its full realization are
simply everyday realities. [All of the various levels of spiritual attainment
including] the bodhisattva are mere conventional realities. From the per-
spective of the highest meaning, however, there is no goal and no full
realization. " 65
There is very definitely an illusion, but there is no ground to which

the illusion refers, nor is there any reason to imagine that the Madhy-
amika's deconstructive analysis culminates in a brave new world of the
spirit where all possibility of contradiction and diversity is resolved. We
must turn the conversation from talk of resolution, which the Madhy-
amika's own analysis cannot sustain, to discussion of an insight or
attention-a refined, purified love of this world-that never ceases to
illuminate, destabilize, and simultaneously affirm differences which are
themselves supported by other, suppressed forms of illusory differences.
--
p A R T T w 0
THE ENTRY INTO THE MIDDLE WAY

SOURCES FOR THE TRANSLATION
The Entry into the Middle Way (Skt. Madhyamakiivatiira) was originally
composed in 330 metered stanzas of Sanskrit verse, of which only 43
have thus far been recovered in full or part as citations in various other
extant Sanskrit treatises. Neither the original Sanskrit of Candrakirti's
text nor his autocommentary is presently available, so we must rely on a
Tibetan translation of both done by the Tibetan scholar Pa tshab Nyi
rna grags in collaboration with an Indian Pandit named Tilakakalasa
sometime during the eleventh century A.D. This translation was proba-
bly produced between 1070 and 1080 or thereabouts (cr.' Naudou 1968,
172), and may be found in four editions of the Tibetan canon: C 217b1-
350a7; D (3862) 220b1-348a7; N (3254) 266a5-415a2; P [98] (5263)
264b8-411 b 1. There is also a translation of the stanzas (kiin"kiis) alone,
done by the same team: C 198a1-216a7; D (3861) 201b1-219a7; N
(3253) 246b1-266a5; P [98] (5262) 245a2-264b8; and finally, a second
translation of the kiirikiis alone, by Nag tsho Tshul khrims rgyal ba and
Kr~Qapal)c;lita, found in only two editions of the canon: N (3252) 227a3-
246b1; P [98] (5261) 225b7-245a2. For our English translation Geshe
Wangchen and I used the edition of the Tibetan provided by La Vallee
Poussin, which was based on a comparison of P and N. He also utilized
a non canonical edition provided for him by Stcherbatsky, as well as Ja-
yananda's Madhyamakiivatiira.tika (P 5271) (see Tauscher 1983, 293). I
have referred to the partial translations of the kiirikas and commentary
listed in the bibliography under "Primary Sources, MA."
145
T
r
HOMAGE TO PRINCE MANJUSRI-

THE BODHISATTVA OF WISDOM
THE FIRST STAGE
IN THE GENERATION OF THE THOUGHT OF AWAKENING
THE JOYOUS (PRAMUDITA)
(1) Both the sravakas and the middling buddhas 1 are produced from
the [teachings of the] most excellent sage (munindra), and every buddha
is himself born from a bodhisattva. The generative causes of the sons of
the conquerors (or bodhisattvas) are the thought of compassion, non-
dualistic knowledge, 2 and the thought of awakening.
(2) Before all else I praise compassion; for this sympathy is regarded
as the seed of the precious harvest [which is] the conquerors, as the
water that nourishes [this crop], and as the ripening process that yields
mature fruit after some time.
(3) I bow down to this compassion 3 arising for all living beings who
have first generated self-infatuation through the thought "I," and then
attachment to objects through the thought "This is mine," so that like a
paddlewheel they wander round and round devoid of self-determina-
tion.4
( 4-5) The sons of the conquerors see these creatures as fluctuating
and empty of intrinsic being like the reflection of the moon in shimmer-
ing water. The first [stage in generation of the thought of awakening] is
dominated by compassion directed toward the liberation of all living
beings, and fixed in happiness that grows 5 from the vow of universal
good. 6 Because he has obtained [the thought of awakening], from this
moment on he is designated by the title bodhisattva.
(6)1 He is born into the family of the tathagatas8 and rids himself
completely of the three bonds; 9 the bodhisattva fosters a sublime joy,
and is capable of shaking10 a hundred world systems.
(7) Mounting from stage to stage he will make his ascent, [but even]
at this time 11 he will have eradicated the paths leading to rebirth in bad
migrations. 12 For him [any possibility of] life as a common man is now
absolutely exhausted, and he is assigned the same [status] as a saint of
the eighth rank. 13
(8) 14 Even [a bodhisattva] who has reached no further than this first
[stage in the] vision of the thought of perfect awakening excels by the
force of his merit, and triumphs over both the pratyekabuddhas and the
149
ISO The Entry into the Middle Way
[sravakas] born from the words of the most excellent sage; and at the
stage [called] "Far Advanced" (Drirangamii), he will surpass them in
intelligence (dhi) as well.
(9) During this time generosity predominates in [the bodhisattva] as
the initial cause of perfect awakening; and because this generosity
insures devotion even in giving one's own flesh, so it furnishes an
inferential sign of [qualities J that can not become manifest [at this
stage ]. 15
(10) All living beings yearn for comfort, but men are not even com-
fortable without some object of pleasure. 16 The sage established gener-
osity at the head [of the path] since he understood how objects of plea-
sure originate from it.
( 11) The objects of pleasure possessed by livmg beings with little
compassion, those who are filled with hostility and totally devoted to
selfish purposes, have themselves arisen from generosity, which causes
the alleviation of all suffering.
(12) Furthermore, before long, on some occasion when they are prac-
ticing generosity such men will meet with a saint; 17 after this the stream
of existence will be severed and they will attain [true] peace, which has
[generosity] for its cause.
( 13) Those who carry in their hearts the resolution to act for the bene-
fit of all living beings obtain, through [the practice of] generosity, imme-
diate happiness. Therefore these words on generosity are essential,
because they are designed for compassionate as well as uncompassion-
ate people.
( 14) Even the happiness that comes from entering into the peace [of
nirval)ajl 8 is unlike that happiness experienced by a son of the conquer-
ors when he thinks about hearing the word give. What can be said of [the
joy that arises] from abandoning all [inner and outer possessions]? 19
( 15) Through his pain in donating [the flesh] cut from his own body
[the bodhisattva] knows firsthand of the agony endured by others in hell
and the various [bad migrations], and he straightaway puts forth a
supreme effort that these sufferings may be eradicated.
( 16) That act of generosity which is empty of giver, giving, and recip-
ient is called a supramundane perfection; and that which is attached to
[concepts of] these three is taught as a mundane perfection. 20
( 17) In this way the joy abiding in the heart of the son of the conquer-
ors infuses its pure receptacle with a beautifully radiant light, and like
the precious liquid crystal of the moon, it conquers and dispels the
bl~ckest darkness. 21
So ends the first [stage in the] generation of the thought of awakening

called "The Joyous" (Pramudita), according to the exposition given in
The Entry into the Middle Way.
"
b
THE SECOND STAGE
THE 1M MACULATE (VIMALA)
(1) [The bodhisattva] possesses the pure qualities of most perfect

morality and therefore, even while dreaming, he renounces any defile-
ment which would violate his moral behavior. From purification of
physical, verbal, and mental acts he consolidates the ten paths of pure
conduct.'
(2) With his entry into [the second stage) this tenfold path of virtue is
brought to extreme purity. Like the autumn moon he is himself always
pure, and through following these [ten paths) he is made beautiful with
the radiant light of peace . 2
(3) If, however, he were to view [any aspect of] this pure morality as
intrinsically existent, then it would no longer be "pure" morality.
Therefore he remains totally aloof from the influence of dualistic ideas
concerning any of the three [supports]. 3
(4) For a person whose morality is deficient, the goods resulting from
charity may appear even in a bad migration; but when the bulk of them
has been spent along with any other which they produced, there will be
no more such goods in the future.
(5) When [a person] lives with independence and under agreeable
circumstances and still neglects to take firm hold of himself, then he will
tumble into the abyss and be delivered over to the power of others; and
once this has happened, who will lift him up? 4
(6) Because of this, the conqueror gave instruction in moral conduct
just after teaching about generosity. [All J good qualities thrive in the soil
of morality, and the enjoyment of its fruits never ceases .
(7) For common men, for [sravakas] born from the words [of a bud-
dha], for the individuaP [awakening) of pratyekabuddhas, and for the
sons of the conquerors, the essential ca use of temporary happiness as
well as incomparable bliss is none other than morality. 6
(8) just as in the case of the ocean with respect to a corpse, 7 or as it is
lSI
152 The Entry into the Middle Way
with prosperity in the face of misfortune-so a mighty one (mahiitman)

governed by the force of morality is unwilling to live with any transgres-
sion.
(9) When there is any [belief in an] objective support associated with
these three-he who abstains, the act of abstention, and the object of
that act-then such morality is called a mundane perfection; but that
which is empty of attachment to the three of them is referred to as a
supramundane perfection. 8
(10) Issuing forth from that moon which is the son of the conquerors,
this immaculate [stage] is not worldly, and yet it is the glory of the
world. Stainless and pure as light from the autumn moon, it dispels the
burning heat that torments the heart of every living being. 9
So ends the second [stage in the] generation of the thought of awaken-

ing called "The Immaculate" (Vimalti), according to the exposition
given in The Entry into the Middle Way.
L
THE THIRD STAGE
THE LUMINOUS (PRABHAKAR~
( 1) This third stage is [called] "The Luminous" because here ap-

pears the light of the fire which burns away without remainder its fuel of
the objects of knowledge.' At this time, within the son of the tathagata
there arises a brilliance the color of polished brass, like the sun.
(2) If someone angered without provocation should gradually, mea-
sure by measure, cut away the flesh and bone from the bodhisattva's
body, his patience with the person doing the cutting would grow to an
extreme. 2
(3) Even the things associated with such an act of mutilation-that
which [is being cut], he who [is cutting], and the time [of the event]-
are seen as [mere] reflections by a bodhisattva who directly perceives
the absence of a self (nairtitmya). On this account, he is patient. 3
(4) If the one who has been injured bears a grudge against the
[injurer], does this grudge against him annul that [act of violence]
which has already been accomplished? [No, it does not, and] therefore
malice is not only of no advantage in this world, but it creates an obsta-
cle to [favorable birth in] the next world as well.
( 5) The fruit of previous evil deeds is itself called the destroyer [of
future evil deeds]. Why should it be transformed into the seedof misery
through anger and injury against another? 4
(6) Anger directed against a son of the conquerors destroys in a single
moment merit accumulated through generosity and morality practiced
over the course of eons. Therefore there is no other sin greater than
impatience.
(7) Impatience creates an ugly appearance, it leads to association
with the ignoble, it steals the discrimination that distinguishes between
right and wrong behavior, and before long it casts the offender into a
bad migration. Patience engenders qualities the opposite of those
[faults] just mentioned.
153
b
1
(8) Patience beautifies and leads to association with noble people, it is
the knowledge involved in distinguishing between right and wrong can-
duct. Moreover, it brings about the disintegration of sin, and birth as a
god ora man.
(9) When the common man and the son of the conquerors have
understood the faults of anger and the good qualities of patience, and so
abandoned impatience, they ought to practice at once and forever
patience which is praised by the saints.
(10) Even as applied toward the awakening of a perfect buddha,
when [patience is associated with] attachment to reified concepts con-
cerning the existence of the three supports, it remains a mundane per-
fection. That [patience] which is devoid of any support was taught by
the buddha as a supramundane perfection.
( 11) At this stage the son of the conquerors experiences, along with
his practice of meditation ( dhyiina) and higher mental faculties, 5 the
complete exhaustion of craving and hostility. He is also capable at any
time of vanquishing the passionate craving of the world.
(12) The sugatas6 commonly recommend these three principles-gen-
erosity, [morality, and patience]-to laypeople. These same principles
constitute the provision of merit, and are the cause of the buddha's body
ofform. 7
(13) When it has completely dispelled the darkness of the son of the
conquerors within whom it resides, [the thought of awakening asso-
ciated with] this luminous [stage] brings with it a longing for total vic-
tory over the darkness of all living beings. At this stage, even though he
has become extremely zealous (ti~rw), [the bodhisattva] is never subject
to anger.
So ends the third [stage in the] generation of the thought of awaken-

ing called "The Luminous" (Prabhiikarl), according to the exposition
'
'
THE FOURTH STAGE

THE RADIANT (ARCISMATI)
( 1) All good qualities follow after energy ( virya). 1 Energy is a cause

for both of the two types of provisions: merit and di3cernment. 2 The
stage where it is kindled is the fourth, called "The Radiant."
(2) At this stage, within the son of the sugatas, from intense meditative
cultivation (hhiivana) of the ancillaries to perfect awakening (samyak-sam-
hodhipakJas), a brilliance is produced which is superior to the shining of
brass, and any [reified concepts] associated with the philosophical view
of a subjective self are completely eradicated. 3
So ends the fourth [stage in the] generation of the thought of awaken-

ing called "The Radiant" (Arcifmatt), according to the exposition given
in The Entry into the Middle Way.
155
THE FIFTH STAGE
THE UNCONQUERABLE (SUDURJA YA)
~·
.·....;
1
(1) At the stage called "The Unconquerable," the mighty one can-
not be subdued even by all the forces of Miira. 2 [Perfection of] medita- .
tion predominates, and (the bodhisattva] gains extreme skill in compre-
hension of the profound intrinsic nature of the [four] truths of the
noble-minded.
So ends the fifth [stage in the] generation of the thought of awakening

called "The Unconquerable" (Sudurjayii), according to the exposition
' 156
THE SIXTH STAGE
THE DIRECTLY FACING (ABHIMOKH~
[Introduction]
I .
.
.·
(1) (At the stage called] "The Directly Facing," 1 fixed in balanced
concentration (samiidhi) and directly facing the Dharma of a perfect
buddha, (the bodhisattva] who perceives the nature of conditionality
(idampratyayata)2 abides in perfect wisdom and thereby attains cessa-
tion.3
(2) Just as an entire group of blind men is easily conducted to its des-
tination by a single person gifted with sight, so in this case also (perfect
wisdom J goes on to the [stage of] the conquerors, taking along with it
the (previous five J qualities that are without the eye of discrimination. 4
(3) The approach to be explained here is established in accordance
with the original way of the noble Nagarjuna, because he compre-
hended the profound nature of things through reason as well as through
scripture. 5
(4) 6 Even as a common man one may hear about emptiness and
experience an inward joy again and again-his eyes moistened with
tears born from that joy, and the hair on his body standing erect.
(5)1 The seed of a perfect buddha's discrimination lies within such a
person . This person is a proper vessel for teachings on reality, it is to
him that the truth of the highest meaning is to be taught, and he pos-
sesses the qualitieswhich must accompany that [instruction].
(6) 8 Always he lives morally, gives offerings, practices compassion,
and fosters patience. He applies the merit from these [virtues] toward
his awakening for the liberation of all living beings.
(7) He is devoted to the perfect bodhisattvas. A person who is expert
in this profound and vast way, who has by degrees obtained the stage
called "The joyous," and who is intent on this [stage]-he alone should
attend to this path. 9
157
•
[The non-origination of all things (sorvodhormanutpado)]

(8a-b) 10 The same [entity] does not arise from [itself], and how can it
arise from another? Neither does it arise from both [itself and another],
and what exists without any cause?
[Spontaneous production (svoto utpado): The first alternative]

(Se-d) It would be entirely pointles~ for an {entity] to arise from
itself, and it is moreover unreasonable to suppose that something
already produced might be produced all over again. 11
(9) If one presumes that an entity already produced is produced all
over again, then either the production of the sprout, for example, would
not occur in the context of everyday experience, 12 or else the seed would
reproduce until tt.e end of all existence. 13 How could such an entity ever
perish? 14 j"
( 10) According to you [who maintain this first alternative], there is l.
no difference between the seed as generative cause and the sprout as
effect, in terms of their shape, color, flavor, efficacy, 15 or ripening . And
if (the seed] abandons its former intrinsic nature and assumes an
essence different from that, then in this case how would. it possess any
reality at all? 16 ..
(11) If, as you maintain, the seed associated with a particular sprout
is not different from that sprout, then either that which is termed the
sprout, like the seed, would never be perceived, 17 or the s~ed would look
just like the sprout because the two would be identical. It follows that
this [thesis] is unacceptable.
( 12) 18 Insofar as its effect is visible only when the cause has disap-
peared, the identity of the two is also unacceptable even in the context
of everyday experience. Therefore, this conception of an .entity arising
out of itself is unreasonable both in terms of the reality [expressed in the
truth of the highest meaning] and from the perspeci:'lve of everyday
experience. 19
(13) If one maintains this notion of self-production, then it follows
that cause ljanaka) and effect ljanya), or agent (kartr) and action (karma)
would [by the same criterion] be identical. They are obviously not iden-
tical, however, and therefore self-production is not an acceptable thesis,
for it entails these erroneous consequences which have been explained
in even greater detail [in the Madli.yamakafiistra ].
[Production from another (parato utpado): The second alternative] 20

( 14 )21 If one entity arises in dependence on another, 22 then pitch
darkness can arise from a flame . In fact, [if this were the case, then]
The Directly Facing 159
anything could arise from anything, because it is not simply [the cause]
which is different from (its effect]-all non-causes as well are different
(from that effect]. 23
(15) 24 [Objection] That which is capable of being produced is thereby
designated as the effect, and that which is capable of engendering it-
even though it is different (from this effect)-is the cause. (And further-
more, because] a thing is produced from [some other thing) which
belongs to the same continuum and which is itself a producer, therefore
it is not the case that a rice sprout grows from a barley seed, for exam-
ple.25
(16) (Response] You do not assume that a barley seed, or a seed of the
Kesara, the Kimsuka, or any other flower seed produces a rice sprout,
because they do not possess the capability to do so, because they are not
included in the same continuum [with the rice sprout], and because
they are not similar to it. In just the same way, because of the fact that it
is different [from the sprout), the grain of rice lacks [the characteristic
features of that sprout J. 26
( 17) 27 Granted that the sprout and the seed do not exist simultane-
ously, how then can the seed be different [from the sprout) when there is
[no existing sprout] for it to be contrasted with? It follows that [accord-
ing to your own analysis] the sprout cannot be produced from the seed.
This thesis of production from another must then be rejected . 28
(18) One may assert that just as we can see that the ascent and
descent of the two ends of a scale's balance occur simultaneously, in
much the same way the production of an effect and the destruction of its
cause (can also be said to occur simultaneously). 29 However, even if[ the
movements of a scale's balance) are simultaneous, in the case [of causal-
ity] there is no such simultaneity. The example is consequently inappro-
priate.
(19) 30 [Objection] What is being produced is "turned toward" produc-
tion and does not yet exist, while what is being destroyed is "t:.trned
toward" destruction although it still does exist. [Response] How is this
similar to the example of the scale? 31 And furthermore, this sort of pro-
duction in the absence of an agent is entirely illogical. 32
(20) If there is a difference between visual cognition and its own
simultaneously existing generators-the eye, the perception, and the
other coappearing factors, and [visual cognition itself already) exists,
then what is the necessity for its [repeated) arising? And if you say that
it does not already exist, then the fault entailed by this (thesis] has been
previously explained above. 33
(21) Let us suppose that the producer is a cause that produces an
effect different [from itself}. In this case, are we to believe that it
produces something which exists, which does not exist, which both
exists and does not exist, or which neither exists nor does not exist? If
[the effect already] exists, then what need is there for a producer? If it
does not exist, then what could a producer do to it? 34 And in either of
the last two cases the same question arises. 35
[Exposition of the two truths]

(22) [Objection] Everyday experience, which is grounded in immedi-
ate perception, is considered to be authoritative, therefore what is to be
accomplished here by these demands for reason? Furthermore, any nor-
mal person knows that one thing is produced from another. Production
from another is taken for granted as a matter of course-what possible
necessity is there for reason? 36
(23) 37 [Response] All entities bear a dual nature, which corresponds to
the entity as apprehended through either a correct or an incorrect per-
ception. The object revealed through correct perception is real [in the
highest, soteriological sense], while that revealed through incorrect per-
ception is referred to as "the truth of the screen." 38
(24) Incorrect perception is classified according to two categories:
first, that which derives from an unimpaired faculty; and second, that
which derives from a defective faculty. The understanding of those peo-
ple equipped with defective faculties is considered erroneous in relation
to the understanding of one whose faculties are in good order. 39
(25) 40 Understanding based on apprehension by any of the six unim-
paired faculties is true by the standard of everyday experience, while
any remaining reified concepts (oikalpas) are false according to this same
criterion. 41
(26) [For example,] the concepts of non-Buddhists (tlrthikas), who are
overcome with the sleep of spiritual ignorance-as for instance [their
belief in] a self-and other concepts which arise in conjunction with
magic, mirages, and so on: [Each of these is grounded in an object
which is] nonexistent even from the perspective of everyday experi-
ence.42
(27)43 Just as the apprehension of an eye affiicted with ophthalmia
does not invalidate any knowledge derived from a healthy eye, so the
understanding of those from whom stainless knowledge is concealed
does not invalidate that understanding which is itself without stain.H
(28) 45 Delusion is a screen (samorti) precisely because it obstructs
[awareness of the] intrinsic nature 46 [of all things), and on its account,
what is merely fabricated appears to be real. The sage declared that this
is the truth of the screen, and that entity which is [pure) fabrication is a
[mere) screen Y
(29) 48 Under the influence of ophthalmia one forms a false image of
hairs and so forth, while an unimpaired eye spontaneously perceives
what is real. [The distinction between the two truths] must be under-
stood in an analogous fashion. 49
(30) If everyday experience were authoritative, then common people
would perceive the reality [expressed in the truth of the highest mean-
ing]. What necessity would there be for those others, the saints? And
what would be accomplished by following their path? It is unreasonable
for such foolishness to be accepted as entirely authoritative.
(31) Everyday experience is not authoritative in every respect, and
therefore it does not contradict the reality [expressed in the truth of the
highest meaning]. However, the obj~cts encountered in everyday expe-
rience are taken for granted on the consensus of that experience, and
any attempt to negate them may be etTectively countered by relying on
the testimony of just that everyday experience. 5°
(32) Worldly people merely sow the seed, and yet they claim, "I pro-
duced that boy," or they imagine, "That tree was planted [by me]."
Therefore production from another is not viable even by the standards
of mundane experience. 51
(33) The seed is not destroyed at the time when the sprout [is pro-
duced], because the sprout is not different from the seed; and yet,
because the two are not identical, so it may not be asserted that the seed
exists at the time when the sprout [is produced] .52
(34) If [an entity exists] in dependence on an intrinsic distinguishing
characteristic, then through negation of that [distinguishing characteris-
tic] the entity would be destroyed, and emptiness would be the cause of
its destruction. This is not the case, however, because entities do not
[intrinsically] exist. 53
(35) When the entities [taken for granted in the context of everyday
experience] are examined, they are found to have no intrinsic distin·
guishing characteristic other than the mark of the reality [expressed in
the truth of the highest meaning]. Therefore the conventional truth of
everyday experience is not to be critically examined. 54
(36)."Self-production" and "production from another" [have been
demonstrated as] untenable when dealing with the reality [expressed in
the truth of the highest meaning], and according to the same reasoning
these [two alternatives J are untenable for conventional purposes as well.
Through what sort of proof will you defend your [concept of] produc-
tion?
[The nature of the empirical world as expressed in the truth of the

highest meaning]
(37-38) It is no secreuhat empty entities like reflectidns and so forth
depend on a collocation [of causes and conditionsl, and that a cognition
may be produced in the form of an image of such an empty reflection,

for example. All entities are, in a similar fashion, not only empty c{as
effects], but they are also produced out of empty [causes]. 55 According
to the two truths, [entities possess] no intrinsic being, and therefore they
are not permanent, nor are they subject to annihilation. 56
(39) No [action] is terminated through its intrinsic nature, and conse-
quently one must understand that even without any repository for its
efficacy, and despite the lapse of a considerable period of time following
termination of the action, the fruit [of that action] will materialize some-
where. 57
( 40) Even though he has awakened, a foolish person may remember
the objects apprehended during his dream and become attached to
them. So it is that the result may materialize out of an action that has
already terminated and that had no intrinsic being [in the first place]. 58
(41) And just as the object perceived by [an eye] infected with oph-
thalmia is an image of drifting hair and not an image of some other
entity-though any other would be equally unreal; so it must be under-
stood that after the ripening of [a given action] there will be no further
ripening. 59
(42) It follows that although a bad action has an unfavorable conse-
quence and a favorable consequence is seen to be associated with a good
action, a person will find liberation [only] when his mind is free from
[reified concepts concerning] what is favorable and unfavorable. [Fur-
thermore, speculative] thought concerning action and its consequences
has been expressly condemned [by the buddha]. 60
(43)61 "Repository [consciousness] exists"; "The person exists'';
"Only the psychophysical aggregates exist"; "Only the bases of con-
sciousness exist" :62 Teachings such as these are given out of consider-
ation for those who do not understand the more profound meaning [of
teachings about emptiness]. 63
(44)'H Even though the buddha held no philosophical view of a real,
substantial self, nevertheless he used the expressions "I" and "mine"
while teaching. Similarly, even though entities are devoid of intrinsic
being, still he taught in a nondefinitive sense (neyiirtha) that they all do
exist. 65
[Refutation of consciousness as an ultimate truth

Cognition in the absence of an external object]
( 45) 66 [The Yogiiciirin asserts) Where no object exists, no subject can be
found, and therefore the bodhisattva understands that the triple world is
'merely mind. Relying on wisdom, he further realizes that reality itself is
mind alone.
T
(46) 67 Just as waves stirred by the breeze rise up from a vast ocean, so
mind alone becomes manifest through its own potentiality, from the
seed of all [things}. This is referred to as" repository [consciousness] ." 68
(47) 69 "Dependent form" (paratantrariipa) acts as the foundation of
any designated existent entity (prajiliiptisadvastu) [in the following ways]:
( 1) It appeafs even in th~7 absence of any apprehended external object;
(2) it actually exists; and (3) its intrinsic nature is not within the range of
conceptual diffusion . 70
(48)1 1 [The Priisatigika respond5] Is there anywhere such a thing as
thought in the absence of an external object? If you intend to use the
example of a dream, then consider the following: From our perspective,
even in a dream there is no thought [in the absence of an object} , 72 and
therefore your example is unacceptable. 73
( 49) 14 If the existence of mind [in the dream is to be proven] through
reference to memory of the dream during waking hours, then the exis-
tence of the external object [in the dream is also established] by the
same criterion; for just as you remember "I saw," so there is also a
memory of the external object [seen]. 75
(50)1 6 You may suppose that during sleep visual cognition is not pos-
sible, and therefore only mental cognition is present in the absence of
[any external objectJ. According to this supposition, in a dream [the
dream er] attributes externality to this [mental cognition}, and here in
waking life [the process of perception is to be understood} in an analo-
gous fashion.
(51 )1 7 [On the contrary, we Prasangikas maintain the following]Just
as according to you no external object is produced in a dream, so
[according to us] the mental [cognition] as well is not produced: The
eye, the visual object, and the thought produced from them are all three
false. 78
(52) The remaining triads-the auditory, [olfactory, gustatory, tac-
tile , ~nd mental)1 9-are also not produced. Waking life is in this respect
similar to a dream. All things are false, there is no thought jin the
absence of an objective referent J, and deprived of a sphere of operations
sense organs as well do not [ultimately] exist. 80
(53) He who wakes from the sleep of spiritual ignorance is as one
awakening from a dream. So long as he does not awaken, the triad
remains, but when he wakes it no longer exists .
(54) Both the hair perceived under the influence of ophthalmia and
the cognition associated with the infected sense organ are real, relative
to that cognition. However, for one who clearly sees the object, the two
of them are fictitious. 81
- (55) If cognition were to exist in the absence of any object of knowl-
edge , then when the eye w~s directed toward the place where the hairs
[were seen], even a person not afflicted with ophthalmia should perceive
1
them. This is not what actually happens, though, and therefore this
[thesis] is untenable. 82
[Cognition as the result of "ripened potentiality"]

(56) It has been suggested that cognition of the hair does not arise [in
those afflicted with ophthalmia] because the potentiality for cogni~~ion
has not ripened in these particular individuals. In this case, the absence
[of the hair] is not due to lack of an entity to serve as the object of knowl-
edge. 83 [We Prasarigikas respond as follows] There is no such thing as
potentiality, and this [thesis] is therefore not tenable.
(57) There is no possibility of potentiality for [an object which has
already] been produced, and neither can there be any potentiality for an
unproduced entity. 84 The base of a qualification does not exist in the
absence of that qualification, for if this were the case, it would follow
that [the potentiality] would exist even for the son of a barren woman . 85
(58) One might hope to designate this [potentiality as determined] by
the imminence [of the cognition; however, this too must be rejected]. In
the absence of potentiality, [cognition] is no longer imminent. 86 "That
which exists in dependence on a reciprocal object does not [intrinsically]
exist"-thus the saints have declared. 87
(59) If [a cognition] arises from the ripened potentiality of [another
cognition] that has terminated, then one [cognition] would indeed arise
from the potentiality of a different [cognition]. 88 However, the moments
of the continuum (samtiinina!z) would be different from one another, and
consequently anything could arise from anything else.
(60) One may wish to suggest that although the moments of a contin-
uum are different, the continuum [in which they subsist] is itself
undifferentiated, and therefore the [above-mentioned] objection is irrel-
evant. This remains to be proven, for the occasion of such an undiffer-
entiated continuum is not amenable to reason .
(61) The [two individuals named] 89 Maitreya and Upagupta aredif-
ferent people, and therefore their constituent factors are not included in
the same continuum. It would be unreasonable [to prop<)Se that things]
which differ in terms of [their respective] intrinsic distinguishing char-
acteristics could be included in the same continuum.
(62) [The Yogiiciirin asserts] The production of visual cognition occurs
complete and without delay from its own [ripened] potentiality. What is
[commonly] understood to be the physica1 organ of the eye is actually
just this potentiality, which is the source of its own cognition. 90
(63) Normally, a person imagines that [the cognition of color] arises
from the sense organ. He does not understand that the appearance of
~
I The Directly Facing 165
blue, for example, arises from its own seed without any externally
apprehended object, and on this account he assumes that such an object
is present. 91
(64) [However, this is not the case.] As in a dream the mental image
of a discrete objective form arises from its own ripened potentiality in
the absence of any such [actual form), so it is here in waking life also-
mind exists in the absence of any external object.
(65) [The Priisangika responds-) Since in a dream the mental cognition
appearing as blue, for example, arises in the absence of an eye, then why
is [such a mental cognition] not similarly produced from its own seed here
[in\wakinglife as well] to a blind man without any visual organ?
(66} According to you, in the dream [of a blind man] there is ripened
potentiality for the sixth [sense of mental cognition], while in waking
life there is none. If this is so, then why would it be unreasonable to sup-
pose that in the same way [the blind man possesses] no ripened potenti-
ality for the sixth [sense] here [in waking life], he also has no such
(potentiality] during the dream?
(67) The absence of eyes [in a blind man] furnishes no cause {for
vision in waking life]. Similarly, sleep also cannot be posited as a cause
[for vision] in the dream. 92 It follows that in a dream as well as in [wak-
ing life], the [perceived) object and the eye provide [coefficient] causes
for conceptualization of a fictitious entity.
[The unreality of both cognition and its object]

(68) An opponent is refuted by perceiving that each and every
response he offers is nothing but an unsubstantiated thesis. 93 The bud-
dhas did not teach that any entity whatsoever [ultimately] exists. 94
(69) The meditator (yogin) who follows his teacher's instructions see!
the surrounding area to be filled with skeletons. 95 In this case it is obvi-
ous that all three [factors of sensation) 96 are unproduced, because this i!
an exercise in artificial mentation.
(70) According to our opponent, even these impure mental [visual·
izations] are just like the [conventional] objects of sense perception. II
this were so, then anyone else [besides the meditator] who looked at tht
place where they appear should perceive the skeletons. They are ficti·
tious, however, and are not [perceived by anyone other than the medi·
tator] .
.V 1) [The mechanism involved when] hungry ghosts experience cog·
llihon of a river flowing with pus is identical to that of the visual orgar
affiicted with ophthalmia. 97 Our meaning here must be understood a:
f?llows: Just as there is no object of knowledge, so there is no cogni
hon. 98
t
[Refutation of a noncognized entity (reflexive awareness) as the

ultimate truth]
(72) If this "dependent entity" 99 exists in the absence of both subject
and object, then who is aware of its existence? It would be unacceptable
to assert that it exists unapprehended. 100
(73) It is not proven that [a cognition] is aware of itself. Nor can this
be proven by using the subsequent memory [of a previous event as evi-
dence], 101 for in this case the thesis intended to substantiate your claim
itself embodies an unproven premise, and therefore it cannot be admit-
ted [as valid proof] } 02
(74) J.i;ven if [the notion of] reflexive awareness is admitted, it would
still be illogical to assert thata memory (smrtifnana) constitutes remem-
brance [of an actual experience]. In fact, it would be entirely different
from [that previous experience], just as much as if it had been produced
in a continuum that did not include any cognition [of that earlier expe-
rience] . This argument [based on the difference between the two] effec-
tively counters any particular attempt [to explain memory through
recourse to the notion of reflexive awareness ]. 103
(75) OQ the other hand, according to [the Prasangika], a memory is
no different (rom [the previous awareness involved in] experience of the
object, and therefore one's memory occurs in the form "I saw [a partic-
ular object]." This is the position taken for granted in everyday experi-
ence.104
(76) Therefore, without [this notion of] reflexive awareness who (or
what) willapprehend your dependent [form]? The actor, the object [of
the action], and the action are not identical, and for this reason it is
illogical to maintain that [a cognition] apprehends itself. 105
(77) However, if the entity which is [a manifestation of this] depen-
dent form (paratantrariipavastu) exists without ever having been produced
or cognized, then why should our opponent insist that [belief in] the
existence of the son of a barren woman is irrational? What harm could
the son of a barren woman inflict on him [that he has not already suf-
fered through belief in his concept of dependent form]?
(78) And in the event that this dependent [form] in no way whatso-
ever exists, then what will function as the cause for the screen [of con-
ventional truth]? All the ordered structure of everyday experience is laid
waste by this clinging to a real substance inherent in our opponents'
philosophical views. 106
[The true meaning of teachings on "mind alone"]
1
(79) 107 There is no means of finding peace for those walking outside
the path trodden by the master Nagiirjuna. Such people have strayed
from the truth of the screen and from the reality [expressed in the truth
of the highest meaning], and on account of this they will never be free.
(80) 108 Conventional truth is the means, the truth of the highest
meaning is the goal, and one who does not appreciate the distinction
between these two treads a wrong path through his reified concepts. 109
(81) We [Madhyamikas] do not have the same attitude toward our
[concept of] the screen as you [Yogadirins] have toward :·our [concept
of] dependent being (paratantrabhiiva). With reference to the nature of
everyday experience, we say: "Even though things do not exist, they
exist" -and this is done for a specific purpose. 110
(82) [The things of the world] do not exist for the saints who have
abandoned the psychophysical aggregates and found peace. If, in a simi-
lar manner, they did not exist in the context of everyday experience, then
we would not maintain that they do-even in this qualified sense. 111
(83) If everyday experience poses no threat to you, then you may per-
sist in this denial of the evidence provided by such experience. Quarrel
with the evidence of everyday experience, and afterward we will rely on
the winner.
(84) At [the stage called] "The Directly Facing," the bodhisattva who
is turned toward [the truth of the highest meaning] realizes that "the tri-
ple world is mind alone." 112 [This teaching] is intended to refute (philo-
sophical views of the conventional] agent as an eternal self by demon-
strating th~t the agent is mind alone. 113
(85) Like a lightning bolt shattering the lofty mountain peak of the
outsiders, the omniscient one spoke these words from the Lankiivatiirasii-
tra with the aim of increasing the wisdom of the wise.
(86) Each one of the non-Buddhist philosophers 114 speaks in his own
texts about [the agent as J a "person" (pudgala), or as some other [per-
manent entity]. The conqueror did not agree with these [definitions of]
the agent, and so he taught that the agent within the context of everyday
affairs is "mind alone." 115
(87) Just as "he [whose knowledge of] reality is expansive" is
referred to as "buddha," so the [Lankiivatiira]siitra substitutes "mind
alone" for [the full expression J "mind alone is preeminent in the con-
text of everyday experience." The meaning of this sutra is not to be
understood as a denial ofform (riipa). 116
(88) 117 If he intended to deny [the existence of] form when he said
that (the triple world] is mind alone, then why would the mahiitman pro-
. ceed to state, in the same sutra, thaLI1lind alone is produced from delu-
sion (moha) and volitional action? 118
(89) 119 Mind alone fabricates all the diversity of sentient and insen-
tient worlds. (The buddha] declared that the entire universe is produced
L
from volitional action, but there can be no such action without mind. 120
(90) Even though form does indeed exist, it do;s not, like mind, func-
tion as "agent." Therefore, in denying the existence of any other agent

besides mind, there is no implied denial ofform. 121
(91) Within the context of everyday reality (laukikatattva) all five psy-
chophysical aggregates taken for granted by everyday experience do
exist, but they do not appear to the meditator who is engaged in devel-
oping knowledge of the reality [expressed in the truth of the highest
meaning].
(92) If form does not exist, then do not hold to the existence of mind;
and if mind exists, then do not hold to the nonexistence of form. The
buddha unqualifiedly rejected both of them 122 in the scriptures on per·
feet wisdom; and in the Abhidharma literature he affirmed them both.
(93) You destroy the hierarchy of the two truths, and even then this
[idea of a] real substance (i.e., consciousness without any object) will
not be established, for it has been refuted [on a number of other
grounds]. It would be better to understand this hierarchy [of the two
truths] as follows,: In the reality [expressed in the truth of the highest
meaning] no entity is ever produced, but they do arise within the con·
text of everyday experience.
(94-) In a certain sutra it is taught that there is no external image
(bahyabhiisa) and that mind [alone appears in the form of] a diversity of
images. This is intended to function as a denial of form only for those
who are extremely attached to form, and [such teachings are] nondefini·
tive ( neyartha).
(95) The master set forth this teaching in a nondefinitive sense, and it
is only reasonable to interpret it in this way. Futhermore, it is clear on
the basis of this passage that other sutras of this type are also of nonde·
fmitive meaning. 123
(96) The buddhas have taught that refutation of the knower (jiiatr)
may easily be accomplished once the object of knowledge (jiieya) has
been dispensed with. For this reason they began by refuting the object
of knowledge. 12•
(97) One must therefore proceed according to these guidelines when
interpreting doctrinal passages [dealing with the concept of "mind
alone"]. Sutras which deal with [teachings on] emptiness are to be
understood in a definitive sense, while those that take up the subject of
something other than the reality [expressed in the truth of the highest
meaning] are nondefinitive, and they must be interpreted through criti·
cal reflection.
[The comt;>ination of self-production and production from another:

The third alternative]
(98) Production from both is also patently unreasonable, because the
faults already explained also accrue to this [thesis]. Neither [self-] pro-
duction nor production from [another] has been proven, and this [third
alternative] is unacceptable both from the perspective of the truth [of
the highest meaning] and within the context of everyday experience.
[Production unassociated with any causal factor: The fourth

alternative]
(99) If production is believed to take place only in the absence of a
cause, then it follows that anything could be produced anywhere at any
time, and hundreds of thousands of seeds sown by common people for
the purpose of raising crops would result in no harvest whatsoever. 125
(100) 126 If the world were devoid of any cause [for its existence], then
like the color or scent of a lotus growing in midair, surely it would not ·
be apprehended as existent. On the contrary, the world is apprehended
in all its rich variety, and therefore it must be acknowledged that exactly
as is the case with our own cognition [of the world}, the world is itself
)l [produced] from causes.
(101) The primary material elements are not characterized by any
:!
"self" like the one that serves as the object of your [misleading] cogni-
tion; and when one's mind is enveloped with an impenetrable darkness
with respect to everyday experience in this life, how can he accurately
comprehend the next life? 127
( 102) Negation of the possibility of an afterlife implies the presence of
a mistaken belief in the self as a quality of intrinsic being, which is then
attributed to the object ofknowledge. 128 This is so because, in this case,
(belief in the ultimate reality of the material elements of] the body and
belief [in the self as a quality of intrinsic being] both derive from the
same source. 129
( 103) 130 We have by now accounted for the way in which the material
elements do not exist, insofar as the preceding discussion constitutes a·
general refutation of production-whether it is self-production, produc-
tion from another, production from both or from neither. It is clear that
the elements do not exist, even though they were not specifically men-
tioned.
[Summary of the refutation of intrinsic being]

( 104) 131 Entities are devoid of intrinsic being because there is no pro-
duction either from self, from another, from both, or in the absence of
any cause. Yet these objects assume a false appearance, because the
world is covered over with the fog of a profound delusion . 132
(105) 133 Under the influence of ophthalmia one mistakenly perceives
I hair, a double moon, the eyes on a peacock's tail, or flies. In a similar

way, when the mind has fallen under the influence of the problem of
170 The Entry into the Middle Woy
1
delusion, a naive person develops reified concepts in association with all
manner of composite things.
(106) Without a doubt, naive people ought to be aware that volitional
action finds its source in delusion, so that when delusion is eliminated,
such action does not take place. The wise comprehend emptiness and
are liberated, for they have burned away this thick cloud of delusion
with the sun oftheir noble minds. m
( 107) [Objection J If in the reality [expressed in the truth of the highest
meaning] things did not exist, then like the son of a barren woman they
would be nonexistent conventionally as well. [They do exist conven-
tionally, however, and] therefore they must exist by virtue of their
intrinsic being (svabhiivena).
(108) [Response] This objection of yours should be raised, for now,
with reference to those who are affiicted with ophthalmia, since the
objects like hair which appear to such people are [conventionally]
unproduced. After [this phenomenon has been properly explained],
voice your objection with reference to those who are affiicted with the A
ophthalmia of spiritual ignorance. 135

(109) One perceives dreams, fairy cities, mirages of water, magic,
reflected images, and so forth, which are unproduced, and yet accord-
ing to our opponent it is unreasonable that such things could appear as
they do, since [on his view] they are no different from that which does
not exist [in any sense whatsoever] (as, e.g., the son of a barren
woman). 136
(110) [According to the Priisangika, however,] even though [things]
are not in reality produced, unlike the son\of a barren woman they do
serve as objects that are perceived in the context of everyday experi-
ence, and on this account, your argument is inconclusive. 137
( 111) The son of a barren woman is not produced in and of itself
(sviitmata!t) either in the reality [expressed in the truth of the highest
meaning] or in the context of everyday experience. Likewise, all things
are unproduced in and of themselves (svariipena) both in this higher real-
ity and in the world. 138
( 112) Therefore the master declared that all things are from the
beginning at peace, devoid of production and, by virtue of their intrin-
sic nature, completely unentangled in suffering: 139 There is no produc-
tion.140
(113) A jug, for example, does not exist in the reality [expressed in
the truth of the highest meaning], and yet it is taken for granted in the
context of everyday experience. All entities are alike in this way; there-
fore one may not conclude that they are equivalent to the son of a bar-
ren woman. 141
( 114) Entities are not produced without a cause, and not from causes
like "God," for example, [which are nothing more than reified con-
cepts] . Nor are they produced from out of themselves, nor from
another, nor from both [self and other). They are produced in mutual
dependence.
(115) Reified concepts cannot stand up under analysis simply be-
cause entities are produced in mutual dependence. The logic of depen-
dent origination rips to shreds the net of philosophical views.
(116) If entities did [intrinsically] exist, then reified concepts would
be in order. [However,) upon critical investigation the entity as such
proves to be nonexistent, and in the absence of an [intrinsically existent]
entity, these reified concepts are inappropriate. 142 There will be no fire
in the absence of fuel.
[Refutation of the intrinsically existent person (pudgalanoiriitmya)

Introduction]
.A ( 117)U3 Common people are tightly bound by these reified concepts,
while the meditator who does not produce such ideas obtains liberation.
Wise men have declared that analysis 144 results in the termination of
reified concepts.
(118) The analysis in the [Madhyamaka]ftiftra is not conducted out of
fondness for debate-it teaches about the reality (expressed in the truth
of the highest meaning] for the purpose of liberation. If in the course of
these teachings on reality other philosophical systems are destroyed, this
cannot be construed as a fault (ofthe Madhyamika].
(119) Attachment to one's own philosophical view and aversion to the
view of' another is itself evidence of reified thinking. When one sets
aside attachment and aversion and analyzes [all views], he will quickly
find liberation.
( 120) 145 Through insight the meditator realizes that all afflictions and
misfortunes are associated with the philosophical view of a real, sub-
stantial "I" (satkiiyadr~.ti), 146 and once he has identified the self (iitman) as
the focal point of this view, he uproots [the reified concept of] self.
( 121 )w The self as conc<>ptualized by non-Buddhist philosophers is
eternal, inactive, without qualities, a nonagent, and the partaker [of all
objects of knowledge]. The systems of these non-Buddhists are distin-
guished according to the various characteristics that they have attrib-
uted to this [self].
(122) A self like this simply does not exist, for it is no more produced
than is the son of a barren woman . Moreover, it makes no sense that it
should serve as the basis for clinging to an "I": We do not consider it to
exist even from the perspective of the [truth of the] screen. 148
(123) Our well-known arguments concerning nonproduction con-
+
trovert every one of the characteristics that these non-Buddhist philoso-

phers teach about in their texts. Not one of them is feasible.
[Refutation of the self as different from the psychophysical

aggregates 1
(124) Therefore there is no self different from the psychophysical
aggregates, for apart from the aggregates it cannot be established. Nor
is it considered to be the cognitive basis for clinging to an "I," which is a
part of everyday experience. This philosophical view of a self is unrea-
sonable.u9
( 125) Even those who have wandered for eons [spending lifetime
after lifetime] as animals do not perceive this eternal, unborn [self], yet
we can see that they still cling to an "I." On this account, there is no self
different from the aggregates. 150
[Refutation of the self as identical to the psychophysical aggregates 1

( 126) Because the self is not established as different from the aggre-
gates, some consider the basis of the philosophical view of a self to be the
aggregates themselves, some consider [the basis of] the philosophical
view of a self to be a part of the aggregates, and some take it to be only
[the single aggregate of] mind.
(127) 151 If the self is the psychophysical aggregates, then there would
have to be a plurality of selves, since there is a plurality of aggregates. 152
In this case the self would be a [conventionally] real substance, and
[cognition] with reference to such a real substance could not be erro-
neous.153
(128) 154 However, at the moment of realizing nirval)a, such a self
would certainly be annihilated,' 55 and prior to [the realization of] nir-
vaJ:!a it would be produced and destroyed from moment to moment. It
follows that the agent would be destroyed, therl}would be no retribution
for him, and one [self] would therefore partake of [the retribution for]
volitional action accomplished by another. 156
(129) If [our opponent should presume that] this fallacy does not
apply, for in reality there is a continuum [in which the separate
moments of the self subsist], then [he is referred to~ the previous analy-
sis, wherein the fallacies implicit in [this notion of] a continuum have
already been explained. Furthermore, it is unreasonable that the psy-
chophysical aggregates or the mind should be the self, because it would
be wrong to assert that everyday experience, [which is only the aggre-
gates,] is subject to extinction. 157
(130) If what our opponent suggests is indeed the case, then it would
follow that at the moment when the meditator realizes the absence of an
[ultimately real] self, [all conventionally real] things as well would cer-
tainly [be perceived as totally] nonexistent. l(in defense of this position
we assume that he has abandoned [only the concept of) the eternal self,
then in that event the self could not be mind or the psychophysical
aggregates. 158
( 131) The meditator who realized the absence of a self [simply as the
nonexistence of an eternal self) would not comprehend the reality of
form and the other [aggregates as expressed in the truth of the highest
meaning]. On this account, clinging and the other [affiictions] would
still be produced, for they arise through the [mis ]apprehension of form,
and he would not have comprehended the nature(= emptiness) of form
[and the other aggregates]. 159
(132) If [our opponent] considers the self to be the psychophysical
aggregates because the master taught that "the aggregates are the self,"
[then he should be made aware that] this is simply [to be construed as] a
refutation of the self as something different from the aggregates. In
other siitras it was taught that the self is not form [or any of the other
aggregates].l 60 ·
(133) In another siitra it is stated that the self is neither form (riipa)
nor feeling (vedanii), nor apperception (samjiiii), nor the prenatal disposi-
tions (samskiiras), nor consciousness (vy"iiiina). Therefore one cannot
assert that the siitra defines the self as [identical to] the psychophysical
aggregates. 161
[Refutation of the self as the composite of all five psychophysical

aggregates 1
(134) [Objection] When [the siitra] maintains that the self is the aggre-
gates, this is a reference to [the composite of all] the aggregates, and not
to the essence of[ any individual] aggregate.l 62 [Response] [The compos-
ite] is not the protector, nor the one to be subdued, nor the witness, and
therefore the [self) is not the composite. 163
( 135) The self is similar to a carriage, and the quality of being a car-
riage derives from the assembled composite of its parts . However, in the
siitras it is said that the self is merely dependent on the aggregates, and
on this account the self is not to be directly equated with the composite
of the aggregates. 164
[Refutation of the self as equivalent to the body1

(136) If one asserts that [the self) is analogous to the shape (samsthiina)
[of the assembled carriage parts], then the implication is that the self
__,..,.
I
would simply be "form" (riipa), because only form is associated with

shape. The other [aggregates] like mind, for example, could not be
equated with the self, since they are not associated with any shape.
(137) It is inherently unreasonable that the appropriator and the
appropriated substratum are'identical,for if this were the case, then the
"object of action" 165 and the "agent" wiruld be identical as well. 166 And
if, on the other hand, one imagines that action can take place in the
absence of any agent, then [we must take issue with this unwarranted
assumption ]-this is certainly not the case. There is no action in the
absence of an agent. 16 7
[Summary of the preceding arguments]

(138) The sage taught that the self is dependent on the six elements:
earth, water, fire, wind, consciousness, and space; and on the six facul-
ties (sparfiiyatanas): vision, and so forth [including conceptualization as
the sixth].
(139) F"tlrthermore, he taught that the mind (or thought: citta) and its
component features (cittadharmas) support [the self]. Therefore [the self]
is not [the individual elements], nor is it any one of them taken sepa-
rately, nor is it actually the composite-and for this reason the cognitive
basis of clinging to an "I" cannot be [a self defined in any such
terms]. 168
( 140) [Let us suppose for the moment that] when the absence of a self
is understood, [this simply entails] a rejection of this "eternal self." But
this [reified concept of an eternally existent self] is not considered to be
the basis of the clinging to an "I," and therefore why would the philo-
sophical view of a real, substantial self be uprooted by understanding
the absence of a self [in this manner]? Such a proposition would be mar-
velous indeed!
(141) 169 [It is as if] someone were to see that a serpent had taken up
residence in a hole in the wall of his home. He proceeds to assure him-
self that there is no elephant in the house, and by doing so, he manages
not only to dispose of his fear [for the imaginary elephant], but he also
rids himself of any apprehension for the serpent! Indeed, our opponent
is strikingly naive [if he would hold such a position].
( 142) 170 The self does not exist in the psychophysical aggregates, and
the aggregates do not exist in the self. If there were any difference
[between the self and the aggregates], then such reified concepts would
be plausible; but because no such difference exists, these are nothing
but reified concepts [with no possible application] . 171
(143) 172 The self is not considered to possess form because the self
does not exist, and therefore there can be no question of a genitive rela-
tionship. [The genitive applies if] there is a difference [between posses-
.........-
\
sor and possessed] as, for example, [in the statement] "[Devadatta] pos-
sesses a cow." Or [it also applies] where there is no difference as, for
instance, [in the statement] "[Devadatta] possesses a body (riipa)." The
self, however, is neither different from nor identical with form. 173
( 144) 174 The self is not form, nor does the self possess form. The self
is not "in" form, and form is not "in" the self. All [five] aggregates are
to be understood according to just these four alternatives: [The cumula-
tive total of permutations] is regarded as a composite of the twenty
aspects of the philosophical view of a self (iitmo.dnti). 175
(145) 176 These [aspects] are the towering peaks situated on the enor-
mous mountain of the philosophical view of a real, substantial "I."
They and the self are shattered and completely destroyed by the light-
ning bolt of the comprehension of selflessness.
[Refutation of the self as an inexpressible yet real substance]

(146) There are those 177 who consider the person to exist as a real
substance, yet they cannot say whether it is identical to or different from
[the aggregates], permanent or impermanent, or anything else. Fur-
thermore, they consider it to Qe an object of knowledge for the sixth
(mental) cognition, 178 and as such, the basis for clinging to an "1." 179
( 14 7) [The difference or identity of] mind with respect to form is not
. conceived of as inexpressible, and in fact, no existing thing (vastusat) is
considered inexpressible. It follows that if the self is an established
entity, then, like "mind," which is [also] an established entity, [its dif-
ference or identity with respect to the psychophysical aggregates] would
not be inexpressible.
( 148) According to our opponent, a jug is not by nature an estab-
lished entity precisely because [its difference or identity] with respect to
form, for example, is inexpressible. Likewise, the relationship of the self
to the psychophysical aggregates is also inexpressible, and therefore one
ought not conceive of the self as intrinsically existent. 180
(149) Once again according to our opponent, consciousness is not
considered different from itself, but it is taken to be an entity different
from form [and the other aggregates]. These two aspects [of identity
and difference] are perceived in association with any entity, and because
they do not apply to the self, this self does not exist.
[The self is compared to a carriage cognized in dependence on its

parts]
(150) Consequently, the basis of clinging to an "I" is not an entity. It
is not different from the psychophysical aggregates, it is not the essence
of the aggregates, it is not the receptacle of the aggregates (sko.n-
dhadhiira), 181 and it does not possess them. [The self, which is the basis of
clinging to an "I,"J is established in dependence on the aggregates. 182
(151) [The self is, in this respect, similar to a carriage.) One does not
consider a carriage to be different from its own parts, nor to be identi-
cal, nor to be in possession of them, nor is it "in" the parts, nor are they
"in" it, nor is it the mere composite [of its parts); nor is it the shape [of
those parts). 183
( 152) If the carriage were simply the composite [of its parts), then it
would exist even when [the parts) were disassembled. Also, it is unrea-
sonable [to assume that] the carriage is the mere shape [of the parts],
since in that event there would be no possessor of the parts (arigin) and
consequently no parts. 184
(153) According to our opponent, even when included in the car-
riage, the shape of each part is the same as it was previously, [at the time
when the carriage was not yet assembled). It follows that the carriage no
more exists after assembly than it did among the disassembled parts. 185
(154) If, within the assembled carriage, the shape of the wheels and
other parts is different [from the way it was before assembly,] then this
[difference] should be evident. It is not, however, and therefore the car-
riage is not simply its shape. 186 ,
(155) Again, according to our opponent, there is no real "compos-
ite." In this case, the [carriage] could not be the shape of the composite
of its parts, for how could there be any "shape" associated with that
which is nonexistent? 187
(156) It is just as you, our opponent, have maintained: 188 The image
of an effect, with an unreal quality of intrinsic being, [arises] in depen-
dence on an unreal cause. One must realize that all things are produced
in exactly this way. 189
(157) As a consequence, it would be unreasonable to assert that cog-
nition of a jug [is founded) on the form of the jug, for example, which is
analogous [to the parts of the carriage]. Form and the other aggregates
do not exist, because they are not produced, and therefore it is illogical
[to suppose] that they possess any shape. 190
[The self as a dependent designation (prajiioptir upadayo)]

(158) Even though [the existence of the carriage] must remain
unproven according to any of the seven alternatives [enumerated
above] either in the reality [expressed in the truth of the highest mean-
ing) or in the context of everyday experience, nevertheless, [or everyday
purposes it is designated in dependence on its parts-without anal·
ysis. 191
(159) This very [carriage] is a possessor of parts or pieces, it i!
a
--
referred to in the world as an "agent," and for [common] people it is

even established as the "appropriator." 192 Do not lose touch with the
screen taken for granted in the context of everyday experience. 193
(160) How does that which is nonexistent according to the seven
alternatives nevertheless exist? The meditator does not find it to be
existent, and he also easily penetrates to the reality [expressed in the
truth of the highest meaning]. Therefore one should consider [the
things of the world) to be established as [we have demonstrated) here.
(161) When the carriage does not exist, then the "possessor of the
parts" does not exist, and neither do the parts. 194 Just as, for example,
when a carriage has burned, its parts no longer exist, so when the fire of
discrimination (mati) burns the possessor of parts, the parts themselves
[are incinerated]. 195 -,.,,
(162) Similarly, because it is taken for granted in the context of every-

day experience, we consider the self also to be the appropriator, in
dependence on the psychophysical aggregates, the elements, and the six
sense organs with their respective objects (iadayatanas). 196 The appro-
priated substratum is the object of the action, 197 and the [self] is the
agent. 198
(163) However, because there is no such entity, it is neither eternal
nor transitory; it is not produced, nor is it destroyed. It has no quality of
permanence and so forth, nor of identity, nor of difference. 199
(164) The self is that with reference to which awareness of clinging to
an "I" is continually manifest to all living beings, and awareness of
"mine" becomes manifest with reference to that which [the "I"] pos-
sesses. This [self] exists as the result of delusion , insofar as it is taken for
granted without [meditative J examination. 200
(165) No object of an action exists in the absence of an action, and so,
in the absence of a self, there is nv "mine." The meditator sees the emp-
tiness of "I" and "mine," and he will 1M: liberated. 201
[Summary of the refutation of production]

(166) A jug, a woollen or burlap cloth, an army, a forest grove, a
rosary, a heavenly tree, a house, a small cart, a guesthouse, and so on
and so on-these things and whatever else that is, like them, appre-
hended by living beings: They are to be understood [as conventionally
real], because the sage had no quarrel with the world .
(167) Qualities , parts, clinging, distinguishing characteristics, fuel,
and so on and so on; [in addition to] a possessor of qualities or parts, a
base for· clinging or for distinguishing characteristics, fire, and so on :
Such things do not exist according to the seven alternatives when , after
the manner of the carriage, they are subjected to analysis . On the other
1
!
hand, they do exist insofar as they are taken for granted in the context
of everyday experience.
(168) If a cause produces its requisite effect, then on that very
account it is a cause. If no effect is produced, then, in the absence [of
any effect], the cause does not exist. It follows that when the cause
exists, the effect will necessarily be produced [from it]. [If you, our
opponent, wish to maintain that both of them are established as intrinsi-
cally existent, then] please state which will emerge from which, and
which [of the two] will emerge first. 202
(169) If, according to our opponent, the cause produces its effect
through connection [with it], then in that event, since both of them
would have the same potentiality, there would be no difference between
the agent of production and the effect. If, on the other hand, [the. cause
and its effect are absolutely] discrete, then the cause would not be dis-
tinguishable from any non-cause. And apart from these two, there is no
other conception [of the cause-effect relationship]. 203
(170) If you say that the cause does not produce the effect, then [we
respond as follows:] There is in that case nothing to be referred to as
"the effect"; [moreover,] a cause divorced from any effect becomes a
non-cause, and such a thing simply does not exist. 204 Because we main-
tain that both [cause and effect] are like magical illusions, therefore we
are subject to no [logical] fallacy, and the elements of everyday experi-
ence are left intact. 205
[Defense ofthe Prasangika's use of deconstructive analysis]

(171) [O~jection] Does [your] refutation refute that which is to be re-
futed by connecting [with· it], or is there no connection [between the
two]? Does not the fallacy [just set forth) accrue to you, [the Pra-
.saiigika, J as well? When you speak like this you only defeat your own
position, and this being the case, you are incapable of refuting [the
position of an opponent].
( 172) The consequence of your words is like a double-edged sword-
without reason you deny [the existence of) all entities. Noble men would
never agree with you, for lacking any position of your own, you make
use of any sort of refutation so as to construct an argument. 206
(173) [Response] Does a refutation refute [an opponent's position]
without connection, or is there connection? The fallacy already men-
tioned above would certainly accrue to any position entailing [belief in
intrinsic] existence. This consequence is of no concern to us, however,
because we have no position. 2 0 7
( 17 4) According to our opponent, the characteristics that are found
in the sphere of the sun are also [apparent] in its reflection, where one
v
!
The DiredJy Focinr 179
may perceive the alterations [resulting from] an eclipse, for example.

Although it would obviously be unreasonable [to speak of] "connec-
tion" or "non-connection" between the sun and its reflection, still, as a
mere dependent conventional reality, [the reflection) does arise.
(175) Similarly, even though it is not a real [face, the reflection in a
mirror] is useful for a person who desires to make himself attractive,
and in this way it does [conventionally) exist. In the present instance,
[our] arguments are just like [a reflection] through which one becomes
aware of the possibility of cleansing [spiritual ignorance from) the face
of wisdom . They are to be understoOd as capable of establishing certain
conclusions even without recourse to generally accepted [concepts of
objectively grounded meaning].
(176) If the argument designed to substantiate your conclusion is
[taken for] an objective fact, 208 and the nature of the conclusion is also
understood to be an objective fact, then arguments like the one pre-
sented above on "connection" would be relevant. In this case [we main-
tain no such reified concepts], and [our opponent's objection] amounts
to nothing more than his own [unsubstantiated] belief. 209
(177) It is relatively easy to understand what is meant by the absence
_of intrinsic being within all things, but it is quite a bit more difficult to
comprehend [the ramifications of this concept of] intrinsic being.
Indeed, why do you ensnare the world in the dangerous net of your
rationalism?
(178) One must understand that any remaining refutations [not spe-
cifically dealt with here] are implicit in what has already been demon-
strated above, and they also could be offered as responses to positions
involving [notions of] "connection," and so forth. It is not true that we
Prasangikas make use of any sort of refutation. As previously ex-
plained, any additional [arguments] are to be developed by using the
same technique [of reductio ad absurdum].
[The sixteen examplesof emptiness2 10

Introduction}
(179) Selflessness was explained under two aspects, for the liberation
of all living beings, as differentiated into: selflessness of [insentient]
things (dharmanairtitmya); and selflessness of the person (pudgalanairiU-
mya). In addition, the master reclassified these same [two categories]
and taught about them under several different aspects, for the benefit of
Various types of disciples.
(180) He explained sixteen [aspects of] emptiness, each one accom-
panied with examples, and subsequently he condensed these into four
explanations which are accepted by the Mahayana.
L
[The examples of emptiness]

(181) (I] The eye is empty of eye[ness], because that is its intrinsic
nature. The ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind are also to be accounted
for in this way.
(182) The eye and the other (five of the] six (faculties] are neither
eternal nor subject to decay, and their absence of intrinsic being is
referred to as "internal emptiness" (adhyiitmaiiinyatii).
(183) (II] Form (riipa) is empty of form(ness], because that is its
intrinsic nature. Sound, odor, taste, tactile and [mental] things are also
similar [to form in this respect].
(184) The absence of any essence within form and the others is
referred to as "external emptiness" (bahirdhiifiinyatii). [III] The absence
of intrinsic being associated with both is (called] "internal-external
emptiness" (adhyiitmo.bahirdluifiinyatii).
( 185) [IV] The absence of intrinsic being of [all] things is referred to
by wise men as "emptiness," and this emptiness also is considered to be
empty of any essence of emptiness.
(186) The emptiness of what is called "emptiness" is referred to as
"the emptiness of emptiness" (fiinyatiifiinyatii), and it is explained in this
way for the purpose of controverting any understanding of emptiness as
an [ontological reference to) "being." 211
(187) (V) The directions are vast, dnce they engulf without remain-
der the insentient world as well as sentient beings, and since, as an
example of the immeasurable, they are without any bounds.
(188) The emptiness of the ten directions is [called] "the vast empti-
ness" (mo.hiifiinyatii), and it was explained in this way for the purpose of
controverting any understanding of vastness [as an ontological refer-
ence to "being"].
(189) [VI] NirvaQ.a is of the highest meaning because it is the most
excellent goal, and its emptiness (of intrinsic being) is [called) "the
emptiness of the highest meaning" (paramiirthafiinyatii).
( 190) The emptiness of the highest meaning was taught by those who
know the [truth of the] highest meaning, for the purpose of controvert-
ing any understanding of nirviil).a as [an ontological reference to]
"being."
( 192) [VII) The triple world is designated as composite because it
arises from [causes and) conditions. Its emptiness of [intrinsic being] is
[called] "the emptiness of composite things" (samskrtafiinyatii).
(193) [VIII) That which has no extremes is called the transcendence
of extremes. Its emptiness of just that [transcendence of extremes] is
referred to as "the emptiness of the transcendence of extremes" (aryan~
ta#inyatii). 212
181
(194-195) [IX] The round of transmigration has no beginning or

end, and because of this, it is called the absence of beginning and end.
Existence is devoid of coming and going, like a dream, and its voidness
of [beginning, middle, and end] is referred to in philosophical treatises
(fiistras) as "the emptiness of that which is without beginning and end"
(anavariigrafiinyatii).
(196) [X] That which is rejected and expelled is called blameworthy,
and the blameless is what is not abandoned-it is anything not rejected.
(197) [The blameless] is empty of blamelessness, and this is called
"the emptiness ofthe blameless" (anavakarafiinyatii).
( 198-199) [XI] The essence of composite [and noncomposite J things
is not created by the disciples (friivalcas), the pratyekabuddhas, the sons
of the buddha, or the tathiigatas, and therefore this essence of composite
[and noncomposite] things is referred to as the fundamental source.
The emptiness of this [fundamental source] of the same [fundamental
source] is [called] "the emptiness of the fundamental source" (prakrtifii-
nyatii).
(200-201) [XII] The eighteen elements, 213 the six tangible sense
organs (sparfiiyatana), and the six sensations that originate from them, in
addition to that with form and that which is without form, as well as
composite and noncomposite things: The emptiness [of intrinsic being]
with respect to all of these is [called] "the emptiness of all things" (sar-
vadharmafiinyatii). [XIII] Form and the other [aggregates] are without
any essence, and [their emptiness] is [called] "the emptiness of any
intrinsic distinguishing characteristic" (svalakiarudiinyatii).
(202) Form possesses the intrinsic distinguishing characteristic of
color and shape; feeling (vedanii) has the self-nature of experience;
apperception (samjiiii) apprehends [internal and external] distinguishing
characteristics; the prenatal dispositions (samskiiras) are that which fash-
ions [mental, vocal, and physical action].
(203) The distinguishing characteristic of consciousness (vijiiiina) is
cognition of discrete objects. Misery is the intrinsic distinguishing char-
acteristic of [all five J psychophysical aggregates, and the self-nature of
the [eighteen] elements is considered a venomous serpent.
(204) The buddha declared that the sense organs and their respective
~ensory fields (iiyatanas) are the gateway to birth. Dependent origination
Is the distinguishing characteristic of [all] composite things.
(205) Giving is [the distinguishing characteristic] of the perfection of
generosity; the absence of anxiety is the distinguishing characteristic of
morality; the distinguishing characteristic of patience is lack of anger;
and that of energy is freedom from slothfulness.
(206) Meditation possesses the distinguishing characteristic of con-
centration, and the distinguishing characteristic of: wisdom is noncling-
182 The E.ntry into the Middle Wa)
in g. These are called the distinguishing characteristics of the six perfec·

tions.
(207) The perfectly knowing one declared that the [eight levels ofl
meditation ( dhyiinas), the immeasurables, and likewise any other of th~
formless [meditations] possess the distinguishing characteristic of free-
dom from agitation. 214
(208) The thirty-seven ancillary factors to awakening have the intrin-
sic distinguishing characteristic of contributing to escape [from the
round of transmigration] (naiikramya). (The three gateways to deliver-
ance215 have the following intrinsic characteristics:] (First,) emptiness is
unapprehended, and therefore its distinguishing characteristic is isola-
tion ( viveka) [from the defilements of reified concepts].
(209) 216 (Second,) signlessness [has the distinguishing characteristic
of] peace. (Third,) the distinguishing characteristic of the third [gate-
way] (wishlessness) is the absence of misery and confusion. The [eight
types of] deliverance (QJ.tavimolcyas) have the distinguishing characteristic
of contributing to liberation.
(210) 217 :rhe [ten] powers are said to have the intrinsic nature of
extreme precision in ordering [the sensory fields]. The [four types of]
fearlessness in rescuing [all living beings from suffering] are the essence
of extreme stability.
(211) The [four types of] analytic knowledge (pratisamvid)-confi-
dence and the other three, 218 possess the distinguishing characteristic of
inseparability. Securing benefit for all living beings is called "the great
lovingkindness" (mahiimaitri).
(212) "The great compa.Ssion" (mahiikarurui) rescues those who are
immersed in suffering. Sympathetic joy [in the happiness of others] is
the distinguishing characteristic of "the great joy" (mahiimuditii). Equa-
nimity (upe!cyii) is said to possess the distinguishing characteristic of
unscatteredness ( avyavakirrwtii).
(213) The unique qualities (iiverrikadharmas) [of a buddha] are consid-
ered to be eighteen in number, and because the master did not expro-
priate them (from another], so they possess the intrinsic distinguishing
characteristic of nonexpropriation.
(214) Direct perception (pratyalcya) is considered to be the distinguish-
ing characteristic of the omniscient wisdom [of a buddha]. Other [con-
ceptually based knowledge] is not referred to as "direct perception," r
because it is involved in the ephemeral. ,.,.
(215) [XIV] The ultimate emptiness of any distingUishing character-
istic within composite and noncomposite things is [called] "the empti-
ness of the intrinsic distinguishing characteristic" (svalak~arzafiinyatii).
(216) [XV] The present does not endure, and the past and future do
not exist. These are not apprehended, so they are referred to as "th(
unapprehended."
(217) The unapprehended is devoid of any intrinsic essence, neithe1
does it endure eternally nor is it subject to decay, and this is (called]
"the emptiness of the unapprehended" (anupalamhhafrlnyatii).
(218) [XVI] Entities are without any essential quality of co!flposi·
tion, because they originate from (causes and) conditions. The empti·
ness of this quality of composition is [called) "the emptiness of the non·
entity" (abhD.vo.Srlnyatii). 219
[The four condensed explanations]

(219) In brief, the word "entity" refers to the five psychophysica
aggregates. They are empty of[intrinsic being], and this is explained a1
"the emptiness of the (composite] entity" (bhD.vo.Srlnyatii). 220
(220) Again, put briefly, noncomposite things are referred to af
"nonentities." They are empty of the [intrinsic nature of] a nonentity
and this is (called) "the emptiness ofthe nonentity" (abhD.vo.Srlnyatii).
(221) (Third,) intrinsic nature is not fabricated [by the sravakas, tht
pratyekabuddhas, or the bodhisattvas), and so it is designated a!
"intrinsic nature." The absence of an essence associated with intrinsi1
nature is [called] "the emptiness of intrinsic nature" (svahhD.vo.Srlnyatii).
(222) (Fourth,) regardless of whether or not any buddha were tc
become incarnate, the emptiness of all entities would still be proclaimec
as "being another" (parabhD.va).
(223) In the system (presented in the literature dealing with) perfect
wisdom, the "reality limit" (bhrltako.ti) and "suchness" (tathatii) are [both
called] "the emptiness of being another" (parabhD.vo.Srlnyatii).
[Conclusion]
(224) (The bodhisattva] radiates light through the brilliant ray of wis-
dom. He realizes that this triple world is like a medicinal herb lying in
the palm of his own hand, since it is from the beginning unproduced.
And through the power of conventional truth he goes on to cessation. 221
(225) Even though his mind rests perpetually in cessation, still he
generates compassion for all living beings that are without any protec-
f'
tor. Later, through his wisdom, he will triumph over the sravaka and
the pratyekabuddha.
(226) With his broad white wings of the screen and of the reality
[expressed in the truth of the highest meaning), the king of the swans
soars a:head of the common flock. 222 Held aloft by the strong wind of
virtue, he passes over to excellence on the farther shore of the ocean of

royal [buddha] qualities.
So ends the sixth [stage in the] generation of the thought of awaken-

ing called "The Directly Facing" (Abhimii.khl), according to the exposi-
tion given in The Entry into the Middle Way.
' THE SEVENTH STAGE
IN THE GENERATION Of THE THOUGHT OF AWAKENING
THE FAR ADVANCED (DORANGAMA)
(la-c) 1 At the stage [called] "The Far Advanced" [the bodhisattva]

enters into cessation [of dualistic thought )2 from one moment to the
next, and his skillful means also attain a glorious brilliance.
So ends the seventh [stage in the] generation of the thought of awak-

ening called "The Far Advanced" (Diirarigama), according to the exposi-
tion given in The Entry into the Middle Way.
185
THE EIGHTH STAGE
IN THE GENERATION Of THE THOUGHT OF AWAKENING
THE IMMOVABLE (ACALA)
(ld-2) The [thought of awakening] becomes irreversible when, for

the puq)ose of gaining greater and greater virtue, the mighty one enters
into the [stage called] "The Immovable." His vow [to rescue all living
beings] is entirely purified, and the conquerors lift him-from cessation.'
(3) The wisdom of non clinging does not abide in the company of any
faults, and therefore at the eighth stage these impurities along with their
roots are thoroughly eradicated. The afflictions have been extinguished,
yet _even though [the bodhisattva] is preeminent in the triple world, still
he is unable to obtain the treasure of the [qualities] of the buddhas,
which is limitless as the heavens.
(4a-b) Although the round of transmigration has been stopped, [the
bodhisattva] will go on to obtain the ten powers and use them for the
benefit ofliving beings.
So ends the eighth [stage in the] generation of the thought of awaken-

ing called "The Immovable" (Acalti), according to the exposition given
in The Entry into the Middle Way.
186
THE NINTH STAGE
THE UNERRING INTELLECT (SADHUMATij
(4c-d) At the ninth [stage] each and every power is fully purified,
and likewise, [the bodhisattva) also obtains the (four] completely pure
intrinsic qualities (svagurwsY of analytic knowledge.
So ends the ninth [stage in the] generation of the thought of awaken-

ing called "The Unerring Intellect" (Siidhumati), according to the expo-
sition given in The Entry into the Middle Way.
187
THE TENTH STAGE
THE CLOUD OF DHARMA (DHARMAMEGHA)
(5) At the tenth [stage, the bodhisattva] receives from all the buddhas
the most sacred investiture, and his wisdom as well reaches its zenith. '
Like the shower falling from a thundercloud, the rain of the Dharma
falls spontaneously from the son of the conquerors to ripen the crop of l
virtue in all living beings. l
So ends the tenth [stage in the] generation of the thought of awaken-
ing called "The Cloud of Dharma" (Dharmamegha), according to the
exposition given in The Entry into the Middle Way.
188
THE QUALITIES AND FRUITS OF THE TEN STAGES
[The qualities associated with the ten stages of the bodhisattva's

path]
(1) During [the first stage, the bodhisattva] sees a hundred buddhas
and understands that they have invested him with their blessing. He
remains at this stage for hundreds of eons, and (his wisdom] permeates
1 the initial and terminal boundaries [of this period of time].

(2) The wise one enters into and arises from a hundred stages of bal-
! anced concentration. He is capabl~of shaking a hundred world sys-
tems, or of illuminating them . And likewise, by means of his supernor-
mal powers he spiritually matures a hundred living beings and travels to
as many [buddha] fields.
(3) He throws open the gates of the Dharma. The son of the sages
manifests within his own body [a hundred other] bodies-each one of
them enhanced by its own retinue and displayed in company with a
hundred sons of the conquerors.
(4-5) While dwelling in [the second stage called] "The Immaculate,"
the wise one obtains one thousand times as many qualities as were
obtained during his stay at [the stage called] "The joyous," and during
the succeeding five stages the bodhisattva obtains one hundred thou-
sand times the original number [of qualities] , then one hundred million
times as many, then one billion , one hundred billion, and at the seventh
stage, thousands ofbillions of times as many qualities.
(6) (The bodhisattva] who abides free fr~m reified concepts at the .
stage [called] "The Immovable" obtains qualities equal in number to
the measure of atoms contained in three hundred million world systems
taken together.
(7) At the [ninth] stage [called] "The Unerring Intellect," the bodhi-
sattva obtains the qualities mentioned above [in numbers equal to] ten
times the measure of atoms in countless hundreds of thousands [of
world systems] taken together.
(8) These qualities of his acquired here through the levels of the ten
189
L
[stages] far exceed the range of speech, for ithey are as vast as the total
number of atoms [in the cosmos]-an inexpressible figure.
(9) Moment by moment, in the pores o( the bodhisattva's body, i
countle~s fully awakened buddhas are displayed, along with gods, L
demons', men, and other living beings. ~
[The qualities associated with the stage of\a fully awakened buddha]
(1) 1 The moon shines brightly only in a stainless sky, and therefore,
at this point you [the bodhisattva] must once again exert yourself in
order to reach the stage where the ten powers [of a buddha] are pro-
duced.2 You must attain the highest [stage of a buddha], the place of
most excellent peace, the incomparable limit to all [buddha] qualities.
[The sameness of all things]

(2) Despite the divisions created by vessels, space is itself without any
divisions. Similarly, the reality [expressed in the truth of the highest
meaning] is undivided by the presence of entities. 3 [The bodhisattva]
fully comprehends the uniformity [of all things ( dharmas)] , and with this
noble realization he comprehends [all] objects of knowledge in a single
instant.
(3) [Objection] If reality is peace, then the intellect will never penetrate
[to the truth of the highest meaning], and there can be no knowledge of
an object which the intellect cannot reach. This being the case, when
there is no knowledge whatsoever, how can there be any act of know-
ing? These are the contradictions [implicit in your words]. And in the
absence of anyone who knows, according to you, who could teach to
others that this is so? 4
(4) [Response] When nonproduction is reality, and the intellect as well
is unproduced, then it is as if [the intellect] conceives ofreality through
being depfndent on [its own] images. Whatever image the mind
assumes, it knows just that object-and [that object] is cognized [solely]
in dependence on convention. 5
[The three bodies of a buddha

The body of bliss (sambhogakaya)]
(5) The body of bliss of[ the buddhas] is made complete through mer-
itorious action. By the power [of the bodhisattva's previous vow], sound
emanates from [bodies of] transformation, from the sky, or from other
sources, and this sound teaches the reality of [all] things, so that even
~orldly people can know what is real. 6
(6) Here [in the context of everyday experience), a potter's wheel is
Qualities and Fruits of the Ten Stages 191
[initially] spun through the extended eforts of a Strong potter. Once

turning, though, it continues to spin even without the benefit of any
i
additional effort from the potter, and in this way it furnishes the cause
for the production of jugs and other kinds of pottery.
'
(7) Similarly, [the buddha] puts forth no effort whatsoever as he
abides in his body of the Dharina, and yet his totally inconceivable
deeds are accomplished through the virtue he acquired [previously] as a
living being, 7 and in particular through his vow [to lead all living beings
to awakening].
[The body of the Dharma]

(8) When the dry kindling of the object of knowledge is incinerated
without remainder, the peace [which remains] is the body of the
Dharma of the conquerors. There is then no production and no cessa-
tion, and through [previous] termination of conceptual processes this
[peace] is directly experienced through the body [of the Dharma]. 8
(9) This body of peace is copious like the wishing tree and devoid of
reified concepts like a wish-fulfilling crystaV Abiding indefinitely, for
the benefit of the world, until the liberation of all living beings, it
appears in the absence of conceptual diffusion.
[The body of transformation]

(10) Although the circumstances surrounding his own former births
have ceased, simultaneously, in a single body of form realized through
the appropriate cause, 10 the sage comprehensively displays a clear and
ordered account of his various births:
(11) The type of buddha fields and the sages therein-their bodies,
their practices, and the kinds of powers they possessed; the size and
nature of his monastic order of disciples, the bodhisattvas, and the types
offorms they possessed there;
(12) which [beings] followed the Dharma and which believed in a
self; the Dharma they heard [being taught]; the practices in which they
were engaged; the extent of their offerings and donations. All of this
without remainder is displayed within a single body.
(13) Similarly, he clearly displays in the pores of this body all of the
practices [which he engaged in while a bodhisattva], the totality of cir-
cumstances surrounding the earlier practice of morality, patience,
energy, meditation, and wisdom.
(14) [He further displays] the buddhas who have gone and those who
are yet to come, as well as those who dwell at present in the world and,
through teaching the Dharma in a suitable voice extending out to the
limit ofthe heavens, bring relief to living beings caught up in suffering.
(15) He simultaneously demonstrates in every pore his understand-

ing that all facets of his practice-from the first thought (bodhicitta) up to
the very essence of awakening-have possessed the intrinsic nature of a
magical illusion, and that he is himself the same.
(16) Likewise, he simultaneously displays in each pore the practice of
the bodhisattvas of the three times, that of the honorable pratyekabud-
dhas and of the sriivakas, as well as all the circumstances surrounding
the [practices of the common] people.
( 17) These [deeds of the] pure [buddhas] are accomplished merely
through their wish [to do so]. Worlds reaching out to the heavens are
displayed in a single particle of dust so that countless numbers of them
permeate its every recess-yet this dust particle does not become any
larger, and the worlds themselves become no more subtle.
(18) [0 blessed one,] you who are without reified concepts, until the
end of existence you display from moment to moment various practices
as numerous as the uncountable totality of dust particles found in the
whole ofJambudvipa. 11
[The ten powers of a buddha

Summary]
(19) These are the ten powers [of a buddha]: [I] the power of knowl-
edge concerning what is a proper basis [for practice] and what is not
(stiiniistanajii.iinabala); [II] knowledge of the ripening of actions (karma-
vipakajii.iinabala); [III] knowledge of the various aspirations [of all living
beings] (nanadhimuktijii.anabala); [IV] the power of knowledge concerning
the various elements 12 (nanadhatujii.anabala);
(20) [V] knowledge of the excellence or deficiency of the capacities [of
various disciples] (indriyavariivarajii.anabala); [VI] the power of knowledge
concerning paths leading to every destination (sarvatragamanipratipaj-
jii.anabala); [VII] the power of knowledge concerning all the meditations,
liberation, states of concentration, and the attainments (sarvadhyana-
vimo/qasamadhisamapattisamklefavyavadanavyutthanajii.anabala);
(21) [VIII] knowledge entailing memory of previous lives (piirva-
nivasanusmrtijii.anabala); [IX] knowledge of death, transmigration, and
rebirth (cyutyutpattijii.anabala); and [X] the power of knowledge that the
influx of depravities has been exhausted (afravak~ayajii.anabala).
[The ten powers of a buddha

Explanation of each power]
(22) [I] [The buddhas] who know declare that whatever is certain to
be produced from a given cause has that [cause] as its basis, and what is
in contradiction [with these circumstances] as explained is not a basis.

This power is explained as an unobstructed understanding incorporat-
ing innumerable objects of knowledge.
(23) [II] This power is considered to embrace objects of knowledge in
all three times. It is an unobstructed, analytical capacity of understand-
ing with respect to desirable and undesirable [actions J and those
opposed to these two, with respect to action which has the nature of
exhausting [polluted actions J, and with respect to the great variety of
ripened consequences associated with these [types of action].
(24) [III] This power is said to embrace all [living beings J throughout
past, present, and future. It is an understanding of the multiplicity of
inferior, middling, and superior aspirations which are created through
the strength arising from clinging and the other afflictions, as well as an
understanding of those aspirations hidden by other [factors].
(25) [IV] The buddhas, expert in the divisions of elements, declare
that the intrinsic nature of the eye, for example, is just these elements.
This infinite understanding of perfect buddhas is asserted as a power
which comprehends the particularities of the elements in all their
aspects.
(26) [V] This power is declared to be all-encompassing, unimpeded
understanding of the relative capacity of various intentions: 13 the
strongest, called superior, as well as those involved in the circumstances
surrounding middling and dull [intentions], which are referred to as
inferior. This also includes a similar understanding of the various facul-
ties, the visual and so on. 14
(27) [VI] This power is asserted to be an unobstructed, all-encom-
passing understanding concerning which paths lead to [the awakening
of] a conqueror, which to the awakening of a pratyekabuddha, which to
the awakening of a sravaka, and which to existence as a hungry ghost,
an animal, a god or a human, or perhaps to the hell regions.
(28) [VII] This power is explained as unobstructed understanding of
the different divisions [of practice followed by] the innumerable medita-
tors of the world, including the types of meditations ( dhyiinas), the eight
types of liberations (vimuktis), the dwelling in peace (famatha), and the
[nine] attainments (samiipattis). 15
(29) [VIII] This power is explained as understanding that encom-
passes [memories of the buddha's own] past terms of existence which
continued only for as long as delusion remained, as well as [memories of
~he past lives of] each of the other countless living beings that exist,
Including the causes, the location, and the nature [of each of their lives].
(30) [IX] This power is defined as an unattached, comprehensive,
correct, and limitless knowledge which comprehends the time of the
death, transmigration, and rebirth of each individual living being, in
')p,z
1
194 The Entry into the Middle Wa>
association with the diverse circumstances of living beings in a world

reaching out to the limits of the heavens.
(31) [X] This power is defined as an infinite, unfettered understand·
ing that through the power of omniscience the afflictions of the conquer
ors, along with the seeds [of those afflictions], are immediately de-
stroyed, whereas the wisdom of the sravakas [and pratyekabuddhas l
eradicates the afflictions [alone].
[Conclusion]
(32) A bird does not turn back because it has reached the limit of the
sky-rather, it will return because its strength has been depleted. In the
same way, the sravakas [and pratyekabuddhas], along with the sons of
the conquerors, turn back from the boundless sky of inexpressible bud-
dha qualities.
(33) In this case, how can one like me even know of your qualities-
much less describe them? Nevertheless, because the noble Nagarjuna
explained them, I also have said a very little here to aid in the removal
ofdoubt. 16
(34) Emptiness is profound, and the other' qualities are extensive:
[All the qualities of a buddha] are realized only through comprehension
of a way profound and extensive.
(35) You who are of unmoving form descend incarnate into the triple
world, and through [your body of] transformation you exhibit birth and
passing away, as well as the wheel of the peace of awakening. Through
your compassion you lead worldly people of various sorts of behavior-
all those bound by the many snares of desire-to the transcendence of
suffering (nirva~a).
(36) Without knowledge of the reality [expressed in the truth of the
highest meaning], no amount of exertion will dispel all stains. The real-
ity of all things is independent of any division, and the wisdom which
has this reality as its object is also undifferentiated. Therefore, you
taught all living beings that the [ostensibly] dissimilar vehicles 17 are
[ultimately] without any distinction. ,/
(37) As the result of impurities which produce faults in living
beings, 18 the world does not penetrate to the profound level of a bud-
dha's practice. 0 Tathagata, because you possess wisdom along with
skillful means which arise from compassion, and because you vowed to
liberate all living beings-
(38) Therefore, like the wise [captain] who created en route a delight-
ful city in order to allay the fatigue of his crew journeying to the isle of J
gems, you created the vehicles [of the sravaka and the pratyekabuddha]"
in order to direct the mind of the disciples toward a way culminating in
.,
T
extinction [of the afflictions) . Elsewhere you taught [the Mahayana) to

those whose intellect was purified and purged [of those afflictions].
(39) 0 Sugata, as many minute atoms as exist in the countless direc-
tions which furnish objects for [the wisdom of) the buddhas, just that
many eons passed [while you strove for) most pure and excellent awak-
ening. Indeed, this mystery of yours is not revealed [to those who have
not already cultivated the proper spiritual motivation]. 19
( 40) 0 Conqueror, your own mother is wisdom-from her you were
born, and this philosophy [of the Madhyamika) was composed by your
nursemaid, compassion . How could you find peace [for yourself alone]
so long as all the worlds [of living beings] have not passed over into this
most excellent peace, and space itself has not been destroyed?
( 41) Even a mother's suffering for her son who is endangered by poi-
soned food is not so great as your compassion for the living beings
within [this round of transmigration J, who through the fault of delusion
are consuming food saturated with the poison of everyday experience.
Because of this [compassion], 0 Blessed One, you have not passed over
into most excellent peace.
( 42) Unskilled creatures are controlled by a mind attached to [reified
concepts of) "being" and "nonbeing," so that they are overcome by
faults, and they experience suffering derived from birth and death, or
from contact with unattractive things and separation from attractive
things. For this reason, 0 Blessed One, the world has become the object
of your love, and consumed with compassion, your heart draws back
from the peace [of cessation]. For you there is no nirviiQa.
'
-.. .
EPILOGUE
(1) This approach has been set forth by the monk Candrakirti,
according to both treatises drawn from the Madhyamika texts them-
selves and to the scriptural tradition. ·
(2) Wise men affirm that the doctrine of emptiness is not found in
any philosophy other than [the Madhyamika] and, similarly, that this
particular approach as well is not found anywhere else [besides this
text], although it is firmly based on [the Madhyamika teachings].
(3) There are those who have abandoned the beneficial philosophy
[of the Madhyamika) without even trying to understand it, simply
because of fear arising from the [deep] color of the wide ocean [ol
Nagarjuna's profound wisdom]. Candrakirti has now fulfilled their
wishes through this [treatise which explains] the chapters of [Nagar-
juna's Madhyamakafiistra], like the dew which coaxes into bloom the buds
of an evening lotus.
( 4) Although the exposition of the reality [expressed in the truth ol
the highest meaning) is profound and frightening, it will certainly be
understood by a person who has previously cultivated [his textual study
in the practice of meditation]. 1 Any others will never comprehend it,
despite the breadth of their learning. One must clearly perceive that all
other philosophical systems are composed simply as justification fm
their own unstated presuppositions-as, for instance, in the case ol
those systems which postulate the existence of an [ultimately real] self.
And once this has been done, all fascination for theses proposed outsidt
this treatise should be relinquished.
(5) Now that this presentation of Master Nagarjuna's most beneficia
philosophy is complete, let whatever merit I have so acquired spreac
into every recess of the mind darkened by afflictions, like the white ligh1
of stars scattered across the blue autumn sky; or let it become a treasun
held in the heart, like a jewel set into the expanded hood of a might)
cobra, so that all the worlds [of living beings] may come to understanc
the truth [of the highest meaning] and quickly arrive at the [final desti·
nation of the path ]-the stage of a tathagata.
196
NOTES
BIBLIOGRAPHY
INDEX
..
NOTES
SECTION ONE
1. There seems to be a growing awareness of these methodological problems.

Moreover, the style and content of the present work owe a great deal not only to
many carefully reasoned interpretive studies, but also-as I have tried to make
clear throughout-to a large body of meticulous philological and text-critical
scholarship which alone provides the essential foundation for all that must fol-
low if we are to come to terms with the Madhyamika.
2. Gadamer 1976, 28.
3. Rorty 1982, 151. Bloom's concept of misreading ultimately derives from
Derrida: "According to the paleonymic strategy urged by Derrida, 'mis-read-
ing' retains the trace of truth, because noteworthy readings involve claims to
truth and because interpretation is structured by the attempt to catch what
other readings have missed and misconstrued. Since no reading can escape cor-
rection, all readings are misreadings; but this leaves not a monism but a double
movement. Against the claim that, if there are only misreadings, then anything
goes, one affirms that misreadings are errors; but against the positivist claim
that they are errors because they strive toward but fail to attain a true reading,
one maintains that true readings are only particular misreadings: misreadings
whose misses have been missed. This account of misreading is not, perhaps, a
coherent, consistent position, but, its advocates would claim, it resists meta-
physical idealizations and captures the temporal dynamic of our interpretive sit-
uation" (Culler 1983, 178).
4. Ibid., 152.
5. Ibid.
6. Ruegg 1983, 239.
7. Ibid., 238.
8. Becker 1982, 134.
9. Gadamer 1976, xxi (translator's introduction); cf. also ibid., 11: "No
assertion is possible that cannot be understood as an answer to a question, and
assertions can only be understood in this way."
10. Cf. Gadamer 1988, 263-264: "Every age has to understand a transmit-
199
200 Notes to Pages I0-1 ~
ted text in its own way, for the text is part of the whole of the tradition in whid
the age takes an objective interest and in which it seeks to understand itself. Tht
real meaning of a text, as it speaks to the interpreter, does not depend on tht
contingencies of the author and whom he originally wrote for. It certainly is no
identical with them, for it is always partly determined also by the historical situ·
ation of the interpreter and hence by the totality of the objective course of his
tory. . . . Not occasionally only, but always, the meaning of a text goes beyonc
its author. That is why understanding is not merely a reproductive, but alway:
a productive attitude as well . . . . It is enough to say that we understand in <
different way, if we understand at all."
11. Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines empirical as "relying or
experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and the
ory." The very idea of such raw experience is highly questionable, and tht
Madhyamika philosopher is of course not alone in calling attention to the inti
mate bond between one's concepts and one's experience in the world. Com
pare, e.g., Feyerabend 1975, 76 and passim, on the subject of natural interpre
tations, and Rorty 1982, 4ff.
12. Cavell1966, 164-165.
13. Rorty 1982, xiv.
14. Ibid.; cf. also Feyerabend 1975, 189, where he characterizes the "episte-
mological anarchist" in similar terms: "His favorite pastime is to confuse
rationalists by inventing compelling reasons for unreasonable doctrines."
rJ
15. Cf. Feyerabend 1975, 154fT., for a discussion of how these same tactic~
have been used throughout modern history in the service of all revolutionar~
ideas.
16. The possibility of communication is not as remote as it might seem, how
ever. The subjects of conversation in medieval India, though dominated by
Hindu preoccupations with metaphysical problems, were not all that different
from the concerns of many twentieth-century Western philosophers dominated
by Kantian epistemological preoccupations with subject and object, representa-
tion and the real, and so forth.
17. See Cavell1966, 176-177, where Cavell quotes from Wittgenstein's lec-
tures as reported in Moore 1955, 26.
18. Cf. PSP, 373: yadii tu timiropaghiityaviparltaiiinyatiidariananjananjitabuddhi-
nayanii/1 santa~ samutpannatattvajnana bhavanti tadii tat tattvam anadhigamanayogena
svayam adhigacchantlti I (When, however, their eye of awakening is anointed with
the salve of the direct vision of emptiness, which cures any optical defect, and
[nondualistic 1 knowledge of reality has arisen [within them 1, then these people
realize for themselves the reality of that [which had been previously misunder-
stood1-by not realizing it!) (All translations are the author's unless otherwise
indicated.) It is extremely important to see that the Madhyamika does not take
for granted an epistemology that preserves all the old presuppositions about
knowledge as representation, as a relationship between an independent subjec-
tive presence and its objective referents. What must, in the beginning, be
characterized as a new conceptualization of the world turns out, in the end, tc;>
be a modified observational language incorporating its own set of natural obser-
vations. Also see Rorty 1982, 4ff., and §4.5, below .
. 19. Gadamer 1976, 27, and 1988, 270.
Notes to Pages I 3- I 7 201
20. My major regret in this respect is that I have been unable to include here
a complete translation of Candraklrti's own commentary on The Entry into the
Middle Way, which would have greatly facilitated understanding of the text.
This project is presently under way, but it will not be ready for some time, and
it seemed best to go ahead with publication of a translation of the stanzas. Only
a very small percentage of the Miidhyamika literature is available in Western
languages. We do not yet even have a complete translation of any one commen-
tary on Niigiirjuna's Madhyamakafii.stra, the most fundamental of all Miidhy-
amika sources!
21. Here is the force of the claim embodied in proselytic scholarship, for the
entire deconstructive project of the Miidhyamika needs to be read as a response
to the question: How can all living beings find happiness, peace, and liberation
from every form of fear and suffering? But mere reconstruction does not suffice
to make this a real question for us.
22. Jong 1974, 26.
23. Ruegg 1967, 5.
24. Gadamer 1976, 92 .
25 . Demieville (1973, 247) seems to find a similar stress on purpose or appli-
cation in the early Chinese understanding of the Buddhist "absolute" :
"L'idealisme naif qui nie !'existence des choses exclurait une telle activite
(desinteresse] et fausserait le rapport entre !'esprit et les choses en y intro-
duisant un dualisme, une relativite qui doit etre neutralisee en un absolu,
absolu con.;u du reste en ses consequences pratiques ."
26 . Cf. MA 6.119: I rang gi Ita Ia chags dang de bzhin du II gzhan gyi Ita Ia 'khrug
gang rtog pa nyid II de'i phyir 'dod chags khong khro mam bsal te II mam dpyod pa na
myur du grol bar 'gyur I (Attachment to one's own view and likewise aversion to
the view of another is itself evidence of reified thinking. When one sets aside
attachment and aversion and conducts an analysis [of all views), he will soon
find liberation .)
27. Cf. Rorty's (1982, 35) concerns about Pears's interpretation ofWittgen-
stein.
28. The first quota:tion isMS 13.8cd: ymim tu siinyatiidntis tiin asii.dhyiin babhii-
~ire; the second appears in PSP, 540, where it is cited by Candraklrti from an
unidentified source. The entire verse reads, "The lord of the world taught that
no salvation is itself salvation-a knot made by space is released only by space"
(anirvii"(lam hi nirvii"(lam lokaniithena desitam I iikiiiena krto granthir iikiiienaiva moci-
tafz/1). Cf. Wittgenstein : "Why is philosophy so complicated? It ought to be
entirely simple . Philosophy unties the knots in our thinking that we have, in a
senseless way, put there . To do this it must make movements as complicated as
these knots are . Although the results of philosophy are simple, its method cannot
be, if it is to succeed. The complexity of philosophy is not its subject matter, but
our knotted understanding" (cited in Fann 1969, 103 n . 4).
SECTION TWO
1. In this discussion I have used the term Hlnayiina as it is used by Niigiir-

juna, Candrakirti, and other Mahiiyiinists; in fact, the Miidhyamika critique
l
202 Notes to Pages 17-18
was almost certainly directed against only one of at least eighteen early Indian
Hinayana sects, the Sarvastivada: see Lamotte 1944-1980, 3:xvff., for a dis-
cussion of the Sarvastivadin literature.
2. Stcherbatsky 1923 still provides the best introductory survey of the Hina-
yana concept of a dharma. The most recent interpretation of the Mahayana cri-
tique of this concept is Gudmunsen 1977.
3. The English word reality is misleading here: Sanskrit tattva is composed of
two grammatical elements: tat 'that' or 'it,' and tva '-ness,' a suffix used to form
abstract nouns. Tattva is etymologically "that-ness" or "it-ness."
4. In fact, as Daye (1975, 84) has suggested, "emptiness" is a "non-referring
term," a "third-order capstone reflexive concept."
5. Runes 1942, 210, defines nihilism as follows: "The doctrine that nothing,
or nothing of a specified and very general class, exists, or is knowable, or is
valuable. Thus Gorgias held that (1) nothing exists; (2) Even if something did
exist it could not be known; (3) Even if it were known this knowledge could not
be communicated." This would certainly represent the philosophical view of
"nonbeing" (abhii.va). --
6. See§3.4.1.
7. Candrakirti's position on this issue is clearly stated in PSP, 75: satsu pra-
mii.rze~u prameyii.rthii.b satsu prameye~v arthe~u pramii.rzii.ni I no tu khalu svii.bhii.vikl
pramii.rzaprameyayob siddhib (Insofar as there are means of knowledge, there are
objects of knowledge; and insofar as there are objects of knowledge, there are
means of knowledge. It is certain that neither the means nor the object of
knowledge can be established in and of itself.) Cf. Gadamer 1976, 50-51: "Just
as the relation between the speaker and what is spoken points to a dynamic pro-
cess that does not have a firm basis in either member of the relation, so the rela-
tion between the understanding and what is understood has a priority over its
relational terms. Understanding is not self-understanding in the sense of the
self-evident certainty idealism asserted it to have, nor is it exhausted in the rev-
olutionary criticism of idealism that thinks of the concept of self-understanding
as something that happens to the self, something through which it becomes an
authentic self. Rather, I believe that understanding involves a moment of 'loss
of self that is relevant to theological hermeneutics and should be investigated in
terms of the structure of the game."
8. See §1, n. 18.
9. Kuhn's and Feyerabend's concept of "incommensurability" is especially
relevant in this context. See, e.g., Feyerabend 1975, 229: "Should we welcome
the fact, if it is a fact, that an adult is stuck with a stable perceptual world and
an accompanying stable conceptual system, which he can modify in many ways
but whose general outlines have forever become immobilized? Or is it not more
realistic to assume that fundamental changes, entailing incommensurability,
are still possible and that they should be encouraged lest we remain forever
excluded from what might be a higher stage of knowledge and consciousness?
. . . The attempt to break through the boundaries of a given conceptual sys-
tem ... involves much more than a prolonged 'critical discussion' as some rel-
ics of the enlightenment would have us believe. One must be able to produce and
to grasp new perceptual and conceptual relations, including relations which are
1
Notes to Pages 19-25 203
not immediately apparent and that cannot be achieved by a critical discussion

alone."
10. On these terms, see Conze 1962, 166-173, ~nd accompanying refer-
ences: "The three classes of enlightened persons."
11. MAB, 182.20. Tibetan translators chose to render the two components of
this title as "a hero whose thought (sems dpa ') is of purity and perfection (byang
chub)."
12. For references to editions and translations, see the bibliography. The
most comprehensive modern study on the bodhisattva ideal is certainly Dayal
1932. Another very important classical source for our understanding of the sub-
ject is found in the Vimalaklrtinird£fasiitra (VN).
13 . Cf. La Vallee Poussin 1916, 739.
14. MVA 1:231-239. See Conze 1959, 20-24, for an English translation of
the Dzpatikara]iitaka.
15. So La Vallee Poussin 1916, 744fT., where these stages are reviewed and
discussed in accord with information provided in MVA and BB.
16. Cf. MA 6.4-7, where Candrakirti presents a very similar account of the
requirements for proper study and actualization of emptiness.
17. Cf. La Vallee Poussin 1916, 745.
18. Suzuki 1900, chap. 2 (translation of the Mahiiyiinafraddhotpadafastra).
19. Suzuki 1963,307 .
20. See, e.g., MS 24.11: "When wrongly perceived, emptiness destroys a
dull-witted person like a snake improperly grasped, or like a magical formula
insufficiently mastered."
21. See part 2, note toMA 1.16, on the difference between a mundane and a
supramundane perfection. On the distinction between wisdom (prajnii) as cause
and as effect, see §4.6.2: "The relationship of perfect wisdom to the other per-
fections."
22. The archetype of all forms of reified thought is defined by the hypos-
tatized concepts of being (bhiiva) and non being (abluiva).
SECTION THREE
1. The nucleus of this work appears in Sprung's bibliography (Sprung 1979);

for a more detailed review of the literature, see Robinson 1967, Ruegg 1981,
and Lindtner 1982. The most comprehensive information on all editions and
translations of Madhyamika texts is incorporated into the bibliography to
Mimaki 1982, which also refers extensively to other non-Madhyamika sources.
2. See the bibliography, under PSP The reader is cautioned to read Sprung's
translation with an awareness of his presuppositions (see the discussion on
Murti-who apparently had a strong influence on Sprung's work-in the next
section; also seen. 25, below).
3. Nagarjuna's importance to the school is undisputed. However, there is
some difference of opinion as to which texts can be legitimately attributed to
him. Generally speaking, in addition to MS the following six treatises are
ascribed to Nagarjuna by modern Buddhologists: (1) Yukti$as.tilca, (2) Vigraha-
L
vyavartanl, (3) Suhrllekha, (4) Ratnava/1, (5) Siinyatiisaptati, and (6) Vaida.lyasiitrapra -
kararuz. Cf. Lindtner 1982 for a detailed review of the evidence, and Williams
1984 for further consideration of this material .
4. For an English translation of Bu ston, see Obermiller 1931-1932 ; for
Taraniitha, see Chimpa and Chattopadhyaya 1970.
5. What follows is no more than a cursory review of the major trends in
Buddhist studies in the West. Several very competent and useful studies do not
fall easily into any category, but these three phases are certainly the only tho-
roughgoing attempts at interpretation of the Madhyamika thus far proposed in
the West.
6. Keith 1923 represents the Madhyamika as a doctrine based on a concep-
tion of reality as "absolute nothingness" (237, 239, 247, 267); and Kern 1896
calls it "complete and pure nihilism" (126).
7. See, e .g., MS 14. 7 and PSP, 490: sa bhavan svavikalpanayaiva niistitvam iiin-
yatartha iry evam viparitam adhyaropya . . , upalambham bruvarzo 'smasu (You, sir,
falsely impute to emptiness a nihilistic meaning-your own reified concept
I
. . . vilifying us with this insulting accusation .) cr. n. 24, below.
8. RV 1. 79 ab, d: I sdig da.ng bsod nams bya ba 'das II zab mo bkrol ba 'i don dang
lda.n II [mu stegs gzhan dang rang giyang I] I gnas med 'Jigs pas ma myangs pa 'o I
9. Stcherbatsky 1927, 207 . Cf. ibid., 217 : "This is a purely Mahayanistic
doctrine, viz. that Buddha, as soon as he became a real Buddha, did not speak,
because human speech is not adapted to express, and human knowledge incap-
able to realize conceptually, that unique Substance of the Universe with which
the Buddha himself is identified."
10. It may be objected that Murti is, after all , an Indian author, and there-
fore his work ought not to be considered in this review of Western scholarship.
In response to this objection I would point out that his book has had a profound
influence on the way the Madhyamika is understood in the West, and it is
routinely cited as an authoritative source. See, e .g., Sprung 1979 and Bhatta-
charya, johnston, and Kunst 1978.
11. Murti 1960, 235. Examples of this sort of language can be multiplied
indefinitely. But Murti's book is inconsistent , for elsewhere he seems con-
sciously to avoid references to a "transcendent ground" or a "thing in itself'-
e.g. , ibid., 162-163 and 140.
12. Reference to a "transcendent ground" must, however, be defended
against charges that concepts ofsuch an underlying reality would be nothing
more than references to the fourth member of the tetralemma (catu~ko.ti). Cf.
Ruegg 1983, 223-224: "Thus, according to mKhas grub rje and his school, the
Madhyamika's refraining from asserting a thesis (da.m bca'; pratijiia) or tenet
(khas len; abhyupagama) is [not] to be interpreted .. . as a quasi-thesis (which
would in effect be comparable to position 4 of the 'tetralemma' [catu~ko.ti]where
an indeterminate entity 'x' is posited and defined as being without the predi-
cates 'A' and 'A'-in terms, perhaps, of a logic which is not two-valued and
based on the principle of bivalence, or in terms of some 'logic of mysticism' pos-
tulating an ineffable entity) ." Cf. also ibid ., 206 n . 2, and MA 6. 146, where
Candrakirti rejects the concept of an ineffable reality. The same criticisms apply
to the claim that the Madhyamika is not philosophy but mysticism (see§ 5.6) .
••
13. MS 18.8: sarvam tathyam na vii tathyam tathyam ciitathyam eva ca I naiviitathyam
naiva tathyam etad buddhiinufiisanam II
14. The N aiyayikas were a strict empiricist school of philosophy in ancient
India.
15. I use the expression here as the nearest equivalent for the Sanskrit siidhy-
asama, with due regard for the information provided by Bhattacharya, John-
ston, and Kunst 1978, 22-23 n. 3. Also cf. Bhattacharya 1974, 225-230; and
Matilal1974, 221-224.
16. VV 29: yadi kiicana prati:fii.ii syiin me tata efa me bhaved dofah I niisti ca mama
pratijii.ii tasman naiviisti me dofah II
17. Rorty 1982,161.
18. Ibid., 86.
19. See, e.g. , MS 15. 10: astlti fiiJvatagriiho niistlty ucchedadarfanam I tasmiid
astitvaniistitue niiJrlyeta uicakfartah II(" Existence" is grasping at the eternal,
"nonexistence" is the philosophy of nihilism: Therefore the wise man does not
rely on "existence" or "nonexistence.") Candraklrti comments (PSP, 273):
"These teachings of 'existence' and 'nonexistence' create obstacles [even] on
the path to heaven and cause great misfortune."\
20. PSP, 247-248: yo na kim cid api te parzyam diisyiimlty uktal; saced dehi bhos
tadeua mahyam na kim cin niima pa7JJam iti briiyiit . . . I
21. See, e.g., MS 15.7~11 (especially v. 10), and Candraklrti's comments in
PSP, 269-279. Also see §3.3: "History and doctrine of the Middle Way."
22. See §2, n. 5, above.
23. MS 24.1: yadi fiinyam idam saruam sarvam udayo niisti na uyayal; I catiirrziim
iiryasatyiiniim abhiiuas te prasajyate I I
24. MS 24 .Sed: euam tr17J.Y api ratniini bruuiirziih pratibiidhase II
25. See MS 24.7 and Candraklrti's comments (PSP, 491): ato nirauafefa-
prapaiicopafamiirtham fiinyatopadifyate I tasmiit sarvaprapaiicopafamal; fiinyatiiyiim pra-
yojanam I bhauiims tu niistituam fiinyatiirtham parikalpayan prapaii.cajiilam eva samuar-
dhayamiino na fiinyatiiyiim prayojanam uetti II (Emptiness is taught in order ~o calm
conceptual diffusion completely; therefore, its purPQse is the calming of all
conceptual diffusion. You, however, in imagining that the meaning of empti-
ness is nonexistence, actually reinforce the net of conceptual diffusion. On this
account you do not understand the purpose of emptiness.) Sprung's translation
is particularly unreliable here and can be compared with this one as an example
of the absolutist interpretation at work.
26. See his comments at PSP, 490, where he cites MS 18.5.
27. Gimello 1976a, 8-9.
28. This synopsis of Gudmunsen's argument parallels the one offered in
Huntington 1983a.
29. Gudmunsen 1977,8.
30. Ibid.
31. See Ruegg 1981, 4-5 n. 11, on the problem of dating Nagarjuna.
32. Ibid.,6.
33. The small amount of biographical information is discussed in Walleser
1922 and Murti 1960, 88-91. See the reference to Ruegg in n. 31 above for
other available sources.
34. See in particular Huntington 1986 for an edition and text-critical study of
the Akutobhayii.
35. On the date of Aryadeva, see Lamotte 1944-1980, 3:1373. For general
information on his life and writings, see Ruegg 1981, 50-54, and May 1979,
4 79ff.
36. Ruegg 1981,54-56.
37. Ibid., 60.
38. See Saito 1984 for an edition and partial English translation of this text.
39. Cf. Obermiller 1931-1932, 135. The immensely influential taxonomic
labels that 'gyur ba (priisangika) and rang rgyud pa (sviitantrika) probably originated
in the writings ofPa tshab Nyi rna grags (see Mimaki 1982, 45).
40. Chimpa and Chattopadhyaya 1970, 197.
41. Ruegg 1981, 71 n. 228.
42. Chimpa and Chattopadhyaya 1970, 206.
43. Ibid. Could this explain the lack of interest in Candraklrti's writings on
the part of the Chinese? In fairness to him, see MAB, 218 (translated in part 2,
note to 6.108).
44. Cf. Ruegg 1971, 453 n. 25. The positing oftantric masters supposed to
be identical with early Indian teachers is quite common in late Indian and Tibe-
tan Buddhist literature.
45. The most comprehensive bibliography ofCandraklrti's works appears in
Lindtner 1979, 87-90.
46. There is good reason to suspect that the tantric texts are mistakenly
attributed to the Candraklrti who wrote MAB, PSP, and so forth: cf. Lindtner
1979, 87 n. 12.
47. Ruegg 1981, 61; and May 1979,482.
48. For studies of Bhavaviveka and his philosophy, see Lopez 1987, Iida
1980, and Ruegg 1981, 61-63. Kajiyama 195 7 presents an interesting analysis
of the Svatantrika-Prasangika debate. Also see Mookerjee 1975 for a discussion
of the prasanga technique and its historical roots as a rhetorical device.
49. From the time of Bhavaviveka on, the Madhyamika became more and
more preoccupied with logical and epistemological problems and much les1
concerned with pragmatics ( cf. Ruegg 1983, 239).
50. See PSP, 16: na ca miidhyamikasya svata~ svatantram anumiinam kartum yuktari
pakfiintariibhyupagamiibhiiviit I (It is not suitable for a Madhyamika, because he
does not accept the premises of his opponent, to present his own independently
valid inferential judgment.)
51. Cf. §1, n. 11, above. _ _
52. See §3.4: "Major philosophical themes of The Entry into the Middle Way."
. 53. Modern Western scholars who see th~. Madhyamik,a as mysticism rather
than philosophy are similar in this regard to Bhavavive~a. Cf. Betty 1983.
54. PSP, 24: na hi fabdii diirrdapiisikii iva vaktiiram asvatantrayanti I kim tarhi saryiim
faktau vaktur vivakfiim anuvidhiyante I tataf ca parapratijniipratiftdhamiitraphalatviit
prasangiipiidanasya niisti prasangaviparitiirthiipatti~ I
55. See Ruegg 1981, 1-3, on the name "Madhyamaka" (Madhyamika).
56. Vl, 10-17(1. B. Horner'stranslation).
57. SN3, 134.30-135.19;andSN2, 17.8-30.
Notes to Pages 3 7-41 207
58. PSP, 269.11.

59. V1, 10.18-20.
60. V1, 10.36-37.
61. MS 18.6: iitTTU!ty api prajiiapitam aniitTTU!ty api deiitam I buddhair niitmii na
ciiniitmii kaicid ity api deiitam II
62. Cf. MS 22 and, in particular, 25.24cd: na kva cit kasya cit kai cid dharmo
buddhena deiita!z I (The buddha did not teach anything to anyone at any place.)
Also seen. 65, below.
63. Tenzin Gyatso 1975, 62-63.
64. Candrakirti discusses this distinction at length in PSP, 41-44.
65. MS 25.18: ti$_lhamiino 'pi bhagaviin bhavatlty eva nohyate Ina bhavaty ubhayam
ceti nobhayam ceti nohyate II (Even though he is present, it is not said that the bud-
dha exists, that he does not exist, that he both exists and does not exist, or that
he neither exists nor does not exist.)
66. Wittgenstein 1953, §304. Cf. RV2.4, Candrakirti's insistence that the
Madhyamika is not compelled to accept the antithesis of his opponent's view
and my own reluctance to call Murti's concept of a "subjacent ground" wrong.
67. Cf. RV 1. 98: ajiiiinakalpitam piirvam paiciit tattviirthanirrtaye I yadii na labhate
bhiivam eviibhiivas tadii kuha II (What was previously conceived through spiritual
ignorance is subsequently discerned as the meaning of reality: When a thing is
not found, how can there be a nothing?); and VV 43ab: prati$edhayiimi niiham
kimcit prati$edhyam asti na ca k£rhcit I (I do not negate anything, nor is there any-
thing to negate.)
68. Here is the crux of the difference between the Madhyamika and modern
Western philosophers like Wittgenstein and Rorty, who have not pursued their
work in soteriological dimensions.
69. Cf. MS 22.11: iiinyam iti na vaktavyam aiiinyam iti vii bhavet I ubhayam
nobhayam ceti prajiiapty artham tu kathyate II (Nothing is to be called empty or not
empty, nor is anything to be called both e111pty and not empty, or neither empty
nor not empty: [the word emptiness] is, ho~ever, used in conversation as a con-
ventional designation.) And, like all conventional designations, emptiness finds
its meaning in its ability to accomplish a specific purpose defined in the speak-
er's intention (see PSP, 24), a purpose which is explained in MS 24.10: vyava-
hiiram aniiiritya paramiirtho na deiyate I paramiirtham aniigamya nirviirtam niidhigamyatel
I (The [truth of the] highest meaning cannot be taught without relying on con-
ventional practice, and without having appreciated the [truth of the] highest
meaning, one will not realize nirvaQ.a.) -
70. May 1979, 474: That is-pace May: "its highest, soteriological value." I
think it would be a serious mistake to read the Madhyamika as saying that,
e.g., water is not valuable for quenching thirst.
71. Cf. MS 25.19: na sarhsiirasya nirviirtiit kim cid asti viieJartam Ina nirviipasya
samsiiriit kim cid asti viie$artam II (The everyday world is not the slight.est bit dif-
ferent from nirvaQ.a, nor is nirvaQ.a the slightest bit different from the everyday
world.) In Ch'an and ·Zen, the Chinese, and later the Japanese, developed a
particularly forceful interpretation of this element of Nagarjuna's thought.
72. PSP, 504: cakriidfny upiidiiya rathiirigiini rathafz prajiiapyate I tasya yii sviirigiiny
upiidiiya prajitapti!z sii svabhiiveniinutpattih yii ca svabhiive[ n ]iinutpattih sii iiinyatii I
4
I saiva svabhiiviinutpattila~arzii iu'!)'atii madhyamii pratipad iti vyavasthiipyate I yasya hi

svabhiiveniinutpattis tasyiistitviibhiiva/1 svabhiivena ciinutpannasya vigamiibhiiviin niistit-
viibhiiva iti I ato bhiiviibhiiviintadvayarahitatviit sarvasvabhiiviinutpattiiak!a~ii iu'!)'atii
madhyamii pratipan madhyamo miirga ity ucyate II tad evam pratftyasamutpiidasyaivaitii
viie$asamjnii/l iunyatii upiidiiya prajnaptir madhyamii pratipad iti II
73. R. Taylor 1967, 66. Nagarjuna recognizes the same problem in MS
20. 20: ekatve phalahetvob syiid aikyam janakaja'!)'ayob I prthaktve phalahetvob syiit tulyo
hetur ahetunii II (If cause and effect were identical, then producer and produced
would be the same; if cause and effect were different, then a cause would be
equivalent to a noncause.)
74. MA 6. 168ab: I gal te rgyu yis hskyed par hya skyed de lta na de rgyu yin zhing 1
I gal te 'bras bu mi skyed na ni de med rgyu med can du 'gyur I
75. Hetob phalasyl' caikatvam na hi jiitupapadyate I hetob phalasya ciinyatvariz na h
jiitupapadyate II
76. MA 6.170ab: I gang phyir 'di dag g'!)'is char yang ni sgyu ma dang 'dra dey
phyir II bdag la skyon du mi 'gyur 'jig rten pa yi dngos po rnams kyang yoiLI1liid 159d
I 'jig rten grags pa 'i kun rdzob ma brlag cig I
77. A. E. Taylor 1903, 167.
78. James 1963, 135.
79. Ibid., 138.
80. Ibid.
81. Ibid., 138-139.
82. Tenzin Gyatso 1975, 70.
83. MS 10. 16: iitmanai ca satattvam ye bhiiviiniiriz ca prthak prthak I nirdiianti na tiin
manye fiisanasyiirthakovidiin II Nor, or course, is one therefore to jump to the con-
clusion that the "I" and objective things lack individualized reality. Cf. the for-
mula for the catu,ko.ti.
84. Cf. MA 6. 78cd: "All the ordered structure of everyday experience is laid
waste by this clinging to a real substance inherent in our opponents' philosophi-
cal views." In his commentary to this verse (MAB, 174) Candrakirti writes: 'jig
rten ba 'i rnam par bzhag pa ]'ig rten kho na las grub pa I. . de !tar slob. dpon phyin ci
log las rang gi mam par rtog pas shyar ba 'i lugs kyi lam kho nar zhugs pa I (The ordered
structure of everyday experience is only established on the basis of this same
everyday experience . . . . Those scholars [who posit a transcendental ground)
have wandered down the path of a philosophical system created out of their own
erroneous reified concepts.)
85. Feyerabend 1975, 73.
86. Ibid., 76.
87. Wittgenstein 1953, §133.
88. MA 6.110a-c: I de nyid du 'diji ltar skye med kyang II [mo gsham bu ltar] gang
phyir 'jig rten gyi II mthong ba 'i yul du mi 'gyur ma yin pa I
89. MA 6.112a-c: I de phyir 'di /tar ston pas chos rnams kun II gdod nas zhi zhing
skye bra/ rang bzhin gyis II yongs su mya ngan 'das pa gsungs gyur pa I
90. MA 6. 118ab: I bstan bcos las dpyad rtsod Ia chags pa 'i phyir II ma mdzad rnam
grot phyir ni de '!)'id hstan I
91. MV, 1.23.
92. Cf Huntington 1983b, §4, "The ambivalent meaning of the term
93. PSP, 265: sarvadanutpiida eva hy agnyiidiniim paranirapelqatviid akrtrimatviit

svabhiiva iry ucyate I I
94. cr. MA 6.168.
95. Cf.MA6.117.
96. Cf. MA 6. 25a-c: I gnod pa wd pa 'i dbang po drug rnams lcyis II hzung ha gang
zhig 'jig rten gyis rtogs te II 'jig rten nyid las bden yin ... (Understanding based on
apprehension by any of the six unimpaired faculties is true by the standard of
everyday experience.) The sixth faculty is mind, with concepts as its objective
referents.
97. Cf. MA 6.81cd: I 'bras phyir 'di dag med kyangyod do zhes II 'jig rten ngor byas
bdag ni smra bar byed I (With reference to the nature of everyday experience, we
say: "Even though things do not exist, they exist"-and this is done for a spe-
cific purpose.) See also 6. 166; and VV 28: samvyavahiiram ca vayam niinahhyu-
pagamya lcathayiima/:1 I (We always speak with reference to everyday practice.)
Soteriological truth is not expressed by a special metaphysical language but by
using everyday words and expressions in their conventional, pragmatically
grounded meanings. Even to say that, from the perspective of the truth of the
highest meaning, "nothing exists" is to speak with a purpose in mind, and not
with the idea that one's words link up with or point to an objectively present
reality defined by these words. Cf. MS 24.10cd: vyavahiiram aniiirirya paramiirtho
na deiyate I (The truth of the highest meaning is taught only by relying on con-
ventional practice.) Emptiness (iiinyatii) is itself only a conventional designation
(prqjnapti), its meaning dependent (upiidiiya) on everyday experience '(MS
24.18).
98. MAB, 225: btags par yod bzhin Ia sogs pa 'i tshogs pa Ia hrten nas me long Ia gzugs
binyan btags pa tsam dmigs pa dang I htags par yod pa lea ba Ia sags pa la brten nas lchyim
du btags pa nang Irk hzhin du shing gi rten can nags btags pa dangji /tar rmi lam nama
skyes pa 'i rang bzhin can gyi sa bon las ma skyes pa 'i rang bzhin can kyi myu gu skye bar
dmigs pa rk bzhin du I dngos po btags par yod pa thams cad kyi btags pa yang dngos po
btags par yod pa 'i rten can du rigs te I Cf. VV 66: sa yadi svabhiivatafz syiid griiho na syiit
pratirya sambhiita/1 (If perception were to come about in and of itself, it would not
be dependent.)
99. These criteria are not drawn together in this way in any Miidhyamika
text that I know. I have inferred them from my study of the levels of samvrti (cf.
Huntington 1983b, §3.1.3).
100. Tenzin Gyatso 1975, 64.
101. PSP, 491 (see above, n. 25). Prapaiica is actually not confined to concep-
tual mechanisms. As several modern commentators have noted, Indian texts do
not always distinguish clearly between external objects and ideas. Cf. Lindtner
~982, 271 and n. 240, where he mentions in particular artha 'object' or 'mean-
Ing,' upalabdhi 'existent' or 'conceived,' sarya 'truth' or 'reality,' sad 'real' or
'good,' and prapaiica, which refers both to ontic and to epistemic diffusion-
both to the universe as the totality of the contents of perception and to language
a~d conceptual thought. Thus, when conceptual thought becomes confused and
d 1_ffuse, so does the external world. (The translations here are mine, not
Lmdtner's.} This ambiguity is graphically represented in the Buddhist doctrine
of the six senses and their objects (tfyatanas). For an extended discussion of
Papanca (;= prapanca) in the Piili literature, see NiiQ.ananda 1976.
210 Notes to Pages 51-5~
102. Cf. MAB, 105-106, andSN2, 95.1-9.

103. Wittgenstein calls it "language on holiday" (1953, §38). Cf. ibid.,
§ 132 : "The confusions that occupy us arise when language is like an en gin(
idling, not when it is doing work."
104. MA 6.158: I de ni de nyid du 'am 'jig rten du II [mam pa bdun gyis] 'grul
'gyur min mod kyi II rnam dpyad TTll!d par 'jig rten nyid las 'dir II rang giyan lag br~~
nas 'dogs pa yin I
105. MA 6.159ab, d: I de nyidyan lag can de cha shas can II shing rta de nyid byeG
po zhes 'gror bsnyad I (I skye bo rnams Ia len po nyid du'ang grub IJ I 'jig r~ grags pa'i
kun rdzob ma brlag cig I
106. Cf. PSP, 24.
107. Terminology of this sort follows directly on the heels of neo· Kant ian
epistemological distinctions such as subject and object, representation and the
real, etc.
108. Cf. my comments on Murti's idealization of the Madhyamika, aoove,
as well as RV2.4 .
109. Here and in the preceding paragraph I have paraphrased the material
inMA 6. 171-176.
110. VV 29, commentary: [tasmat] sarvabhave~u iiinye~v atyantopaiante~u pra/crti-
vivi~!U kula/! pratijna I kuta!z pratijrialalqarzaprapti~ I kut~ pratijniilak!arzapraptikrto
doia(l I Cf. ibid., 38-39 and MS 7.11, where the same concept of connection is
used in a deconstructive analysis oflight and darkness. Nagarjuna was particu-
larly suspicious of any technical use of prapti, as the term had already been used
by the Sarviistivadins as a sort of glue for establishing a necessary connection
between dharmas.
111 . .MA 6. 120: I nyon mongs skyon rnams ma Ius 'Jig tshogs Ia //Ita las byung bar
blo yis mthong gyur zhing II btkzg ni 'di yiyul du rtogs byas nas II rna/ 'byor pa yis bdog
ni 'gog por byed I
. 112. MS 24.14ab: sarvam cayujya~ tasya iiinyatayasyayujya~ I
i 13. MA 6.37: I dngos po stong po gzugs brnyan la sogs pa II tshogs la bltos rnams
ma grags pa yang min II ji lt4r tier ni gzugs brnyan sogs stong las II shes pa de yi rnam par
skye 'gyur ll4r I
114. MA 6.38: I de bzhin dngos po thams cad stong nayang II stong nyid dag las rab
tu skye bar 'gyur II bden pa gnyis su 'ang rang bzhin med po 'i phyir II de dag rtag pa ma
yin chad pa 'ang min I
115. Cf. PSP, 24.
116. All of the statements of the Madhyamika texts are situation-bound
teachings. Compare, e .g., RV 3.63 : I gang la dug ni phan 'gyur na II de Ia dug
kyang sbyin par bgyi II kha zas mchog kyang mi phan na II de Ia de ni sbyin mi bgyi I
(Give even poison to those whom it will help, but do not give the best food to
those whom it will not help); and 4.94-96: yathaiva vaiyakararzo matrkam api
pii.thayet I buddho 'vadat tatha dharmam vinryanam yathiikJamam II ke~·am cid avadad
dharmam papebhyo vinivrttaye I ke~am cit purzyasiddhyartham ke!iim cid dvayaniiritam II
dvayaniiritam eke~am gambhlram bhirubhi!apam I iiinyatiikarurziigarbham eke~iirn bodhi-
sadhanam II (Just as a grammarian would teach even the alphabet, so the bud-
dha taught the Dharma to his disciples according to the dictates of the particular I.
situation. To some he taught a doctrine that would discourage sinning; to some,
l1
I
a doctrine to aid in earning merit; and to some, a doctrine based on duality. To

some he taught a doctrine not based on duality, a means to attain awakening,
profound and frightening, the source of emptiness and compassion.) Also CS
8.20: sad asat sadasac ceti nobhayam ceti kathyate I nanu vyii.dhiva.Sat sarvam arqadham
namajiiyate II ([The buddha's teachings] mention the existent, the nonexistent,
the existent-and-nonexistent, and what is neither. Everything whatsoever
becomes medicine on account of[ the various J diseases [that must be treated].)
117. Death is the paradigm of unforeseen change, and therefore meditation
on death is considered to be the single most valuable spiritual practice.
118. See VV29, commentary, discussed at n. 110, above.
119. PSP, 248-249, where Candraklrti quotes from the Ratnakii..tasritra.
Upalambha is the mental component of perception, the mental image that corre-
t sponds with the sensory impression. The point here is that the word emptiness
does not derive its meaning from the interaction between a mental image and
its objective referent.
120. TKP, 139.13-140.1, in particular: rtog pas bzhag pa de la rang rang gi bya
byed 'thad pa ni . . . dbu ma 'i lta ba mthar thug pa 'i dka' sa yang 'di nyid do I The
entire passage is translated and discussed in Huntington 1983a, 331. I have
translated ita ba here as "philosophy," taking into account the fact that the Tibe-
tan serves as a translation for both darfana (as in the present instance) and dr~.ti
(cf. Ruegg 1983, 206).
121. Cf. Matilal 1971, 162-165; Kajiyama 1966, 38-39; and Ruegg 1981,
78ff. and 1983, esp. 225-227.
122. Cf. the citation from Wittgenstein at n. 66 above, and nn. 66 and 67.
123. Cf. PSP, 3 73: tatra ntismin parapratyayo 'stlty aparapratyayam paropadefiiga·
"!)lam svayam eviidhigantavyam ity artha/1 I yathii hi taimirikii vitatham kefama.Saka·
~ikii.diriipam pa.Syanto vitimiropadeieniipi na faknuvanti keiiiniim yathiivad avasthitam
svariipam adarfananyiiyeniidhiganlavyam alaimirikii ivii.dhigantum kim tarhy ataimirikopa-
desiin mithyaitad ity etiivanmiilrakam eva pratipadyante I yadii tu timiropaghiityavipanta-
fiinyatiidarfanii~janiinjitabuddhinayanii/1 santa~ samutpannatattvajniinii bhavanli tadii tal
lattvam anadhigamanayogena svayam adhigacchantiti I (That reality is "not depen-
dent on anything else" means that it can only be realized personally, and not by
relying on instruction from another source. Those with an optical defect see the
forms of hairs, flies, gnats, and other such things which are not real, but even
with instruction from someone with healthy eyes they are not capable of realiz-
ing the intrinsic nature of these hairs-that is, they are incapable of not seeing
them as a person with healthy eyes docs not see them. Rather, they only reflect,
on the basis of instruction from those with healthy eyes, that [the hairs] are illu-
sory. When they are treated with the medicine of direct perception of emptiness,
which reverses the damage of their optical defect, and they acquire the eyes of a
buddha, then they realize for themselves the reality of [those hairs, etc.)-by
non realization.) Also Mtl/3, 109- t 10 (translated and discussed in §5.2, below),
and BCA, 364.
124. See in particular §4.6.2: "The relationship of perfect wisdom to the
other perfections."
125. Several of the earliest Yogacara texts are ascribed to a mysterious Mai-
treyanatha. An ancient Indian tradition tells us that th«Se texts were dictated to
Asanga by the bodhisattva Maitreya, who is responsible for their content. The
opinion of modern scholars is divided as to whether or not Maitreya[natha] is
an historical figure (see Willis 1979, 3-12). For information on the various edi-
tions and translations ofYogacara texts, see Conze 1962, 3.3, and the biblio-
graphies in Anacker 1984, Kochumuttom 1982, and Willis 1979. And for a dis-
cussion of the historical development of Yogiiciira thought, see Frauwallner
1976, 255-407.
126. The Yogiiciira doctrine of reflexive awareness is discussed in Mookerjee
1975, 319-336. Candrakirti devotes quite a few stanzas to criticism of this con-
cept.
127. DP 1-2: manopubbangamii dhammii manose.t.thii manomayii, manasii ce padu.t-
_thena bhiisati vii karoti vii tato nam dukkham anveti cakkam va vahato padam . . . manasii
ce pasannena bhiisati vii karoti vii tato nam sukham anveti chiiyii va anapiiyinl.
128. TSNhas been discussed in a number of places. See in particular Kochu-
muttom 1982, 90-126, and Anacker 1984, 287-298. Scriptural authority for
the doctrine is found in SN, chaps. 6 and 7 and LA §55.
129. TSN 37ab: dvayor anupalambhena dharmadhiitiipalambhatii I and TSN 4cd:
tasya kii niistitii tena yii tatriidvayadharmatii I (What is it that is brought about by the
nonexistence of[duality]?-There is the nondual dharmatii.) Cf. MAB, 132-133
(translated in part 2, note to 6.43) and ibid., 161-162 (part 2, note to 6.68),
where Candrakirti uses this same expression in a different context.
130. TSN 4ab: tatra kim khyiity asatkalpa~ katham khyiiti dvayiitmanii I and 35a, d:
viruddhadhlkiirarratviid . . . mok;iipatter ayatnat~ I
131. Ibid., 23a: kalpito vyavahiiriitmii and 33: dvayasyiinupalambhena dvayiikiiro
vigacchati I vigamiit tasya ni!panno dvayiibhiivo 'dhigamyate I
132. Ibid., 23cd: vyavahiirasamuccheda/1 svabhiivaf ciinya i~yate I
133. Ibid., 16: dvayiibhiivasvabhiivatviid advayaikasvabhiivata~ I svabhiiva~ parini!-
panno dvayaikatviitmako ma~ I and 37: dvayor anupalambhena dharmadhiitiipalam-
bhatii I dharmadhiitiipalambhena syiid vibhutvopalambhatii I
134. Ibid., 2: yat khyiiti paratantro 'sau yathii khyati sa kalpit~ I pratyayiidhlna-
v.rttitviit kalpaniimiitrabhiiva~ I
135. Ibid.
136. Ibid., 4ab {cf. n. 130, above).
137. Ibid., 5a: asatkalpo 'Ira koicittam.
138. MVK 1.2: abhiitaparikalpo 'sti.
139. MVKB 1.2: tatriibhiitaparikalpo griihyagriihakavikalpa~ I; MVK 1.2: dvayam
tatra na vidyate I; MVKB 1.2: dvayam griihyam griihakam ca I Cf. TSN 26: trayo 'py
ete svabhiivii hi advayiilambha~a~ I abhiiviid atathiibhiiviit tad abhiivawabhiivat~ I
140. TSN 27-30: miiyiikrtam mantravoiiit khyiiti hastyiitmanii yathd I iikiiramiitra1J1
tatriisti hast! niisti tu sarvathii II svabhiiv~ kalpito hastl paratantras tadiikrti~ I yas tatra
hastyabhiivo 'sau parini!panna ~yate II asatkalpas tathii khyiiti miilacittiid dvayiitmanii I
dvayam atyantato niisti tatriisty iikrtimiitrakam II mantravan miilavijiiiinam kii$.thaval
tathatii matii I hastyiikiiravad e!.tavyo vikalpo hastivad dvayam II (Here and below I use
Kochumuttom's translation, with minor alterations.)
141. TSN 34: hastino 'nupalambhoi ca vigarnaf ca tadiikrte~ I upalambhaf ca k~.tha·
.rya miiyiiyii1J1 yugapadyathii II .
142. See Kochumuttom 1982, 198-200, where he gives several examples ol
such interpretations in the work of A. K. Chatterjee, T. Stcherbatsky, C . D .

Sharma, P. T. Raju, and S. N. Dasgupta.
143 . Ibid., 118-119. This is not typical ofKochumuttom's approach to the
Yogaciira texts, and although I am not convinced of his thesis that "the Yogii-
ciira writings ... are open to interpretation in terms of realistic pluralism" (p .
6 n. 1, p. 197, and passim), I find his book well researched and written in a
clear, engaging style . Compare the introduction to Willis 1979, 1-66, for an
alternative to the idealistic interpretation.
144. PSP, 248-249, translated and discussed in §3.4.3.
145 . VV29 andMA 6. 171-176.
146. TSN 32cd: upalambhanimittii tu prtiptib.
147 . BB, 47 .22-25: atas tad riiptidi-samjnakam uastu[tena riip'iidi-samjiiakena] pra-
jiiapti-uiid 'iitmanii fiinyam. kim punab tatra riip'iidi-samjiiake uastuny auafi~.tam . yad uta
tad eva riipam ity evam-iidi-prajiiapti-viid'iiirayab.
148. Ibid . , 47 .25-48 .2: tac cobhayam yathtibhiitam prajiiniiti yad uta vastumiitram ca
uidyamiinam vastu-miitre ca prajiiapti-miitram.
149. Ibid., 4 7. 16-19: katham ca punab su-grhltii fiinyatii bhauati . . yat punar
atriiuafi!.lam bhavati. tat sad iluistlti yathiibhiitam prajiiniiti.
!50. Willis 1979, 56 n . 64.
151. MS 22.11: Seen. 69, above. Unfortunately, the gerundive/passive con-
struction loses much of its original force in English translation .
152. PSP, 444-445: sarvam elan na vaktavyam asmiibhib II kim Ivan ukte yathiiuad
avasthitam svabhtivam pratipattii (?) pratipattum na samartha iti I ato uayam apy riropato
vyavaharasatya eva sthituii vyavahiiriirtham vinryajaniinurodhena siinnyam ity api briima~
I afiinyam ity api siinyiiiiinyam ity api naiua siinyam niiiiinyam ity api briimab I . . . na
fiinyam niipi ciiiiinyam tasmiit sarvam vzdhlyate I sattviid asattviic ca madhyamii pratipac
c'a sii II iti I
153. R V 2.4 : dntafrutiidyam muninii na satyam na mr~oditam I pak~iid dhi prati-
pak~a~ syiid ubhayam tac ca niirthatab II This is a clear statement of the Madhyami-
ka's attitude toward all philosophical views.
154. Cf. MA 6.94.
155. MA 6. 86d: I rgyal bas sems tsam 'jig rten byed por gsungs I
156. MA 6.90 : I gal te gzugs yod mod kyi de Ia ni II sems bzhin byed pa po nyid
yod ma yin II des na sems las gzhan pa 'i byed pa po II bzlog gi gzugs ni bkag pa ma
yin no I
157 . MA 6.92ab: l_gzugs med na ni sems yod ma 'dzin zhig II sems yod nyid na 'ang
gzugs med ma 'dzin zhig I
158 . MA 6.81 : I ji /tar khyod kyis gzhan dbang dngos 'dod /tar II kun rdzob kyang ni
bdag gis khas ma blangs II 'bras phyir 'di dag med kyangyod do zhes II 'jig rten ngor byas
bdag ni smra bar byed I
159 . MAB, I 79 : I ji /tar khyod kyi rang dbang du gnas nas I rang gi gzhung lugs kyis
gzhan gyi dbang gi ngo bo 'phags pa 'i ye shes kyis thugs su chud par bya ba zhig smra ba de
ltar ni kho bos kun rdzob pa ma yin te I 'o na ci zhe na I yod pa ma yin yang 'jig rten kho
na la grags par gyur pas yod do zhes 'jig rten gyi ngo bo kho nar brjod pa yin te I de rjes su
h1]od pa ni de !dog pa 'i thabs yin pa 'i phyir ro II ji skad du I beam /dan 'das kyis 'jig rten
~ga dang lhan cig rtsod kyi I nga ni 'jig rten dang mi rtsod de I gang jig rten na yod par
dod Pa de ni ngas lr.yang yod par bzhed do II gang 'jig rten na .med par 'dod pa de ni nga
yang med par bzhed do zhes gsungs pa ita bu 'o I Candraklrti is quoting SN 22,
64.103; cf. also PSP, 370.
SECTION FOUR
1. The dates here are proposed by May (1979, 483). Siintideva's biography
was written by Pezzali (1968) and reviewed by Jong (1975). His most famous
work, the Bodhicaryiivatiira, was translated into English by Matics (1970) and by
Bachelor (1979) . See the "Liste des sources indiennes" in Mimaki 1982 for
other translations. Siintideva's other main composition, the Silqiisamuccaya (SS),
was translated into English by Bendall and Rouse (1922).
2. BCA 7.25 .
3. ss, 16.6-7 .
4. MPPS644c; cf. Ramanan 1966, 97.
5. MPPS63c; translated in Ramanan 1966, 132.
6. ss, 22.26.
7. BB, 140.
8. ss, 66.27-30.
9. BB, 189.
10. SS, 104. 10.
11. DB, 60, 64; SS, 212; BB, 20.
12. MSA, 49.
13. Ibid., 68.
14. See part 2, 3.12, n . 7, for the three bodies of a buddha.
15. BB, 200ff.
16. BCA 7.2 .
17. BCA 7.49.
18. Cf. Dhargyey 1974, 46-48.
19. Ibid., 47,
20. Ibid.
21. AK6 .29.
22. Horner 1954, 301.
23. BCA 5.4-6.
24. ss, 68.25-26.
25. BB, 109. 11-17.
26. Sometimes translated "discernment."
27. Gimello 1976a, 33.
28. :feyerabend 1975, 168.
29. Ibid., 72 .
30. Gimello 1976b, 132-133; cf. idem 1976a, 34-35. Italics are mine.
31. VM 14. Also cf. Nyanatiloka 1972, 122.
32. BB, 109 .18-22.
33. The conceptual scheme behind this use of meditation and the other per
fections is discussed in greater detail below in §5 .
34. SS, 67 .24.
35. Ibid., 67 .22.
..
36. Nanamoli 1976, 8 (VM 1.19).

37. This is a paraphrase of VM 1.20; cf. Nanamoli 1976, 8, for the entire sec-
tion in translation.
38. Cf. Nanamoli 1976, 84- (VM 3.2) and 91 (VM 3.8): "[Concentration)
should be developed by one who has taken his stand on virtue that has been
purified by means of the special qualities of fewness of wishes, etc. and per-
fected by observance of the ascetic practices."
39. Ibid., 84--86, and esp. VM 3.6.
4-0. A 4-, 203; U, 56; V2, 239.
4-1. Nanamoli 1976, 4-79-4-81.
4-2. Cf. VM 14-A, and Nanamoli 1976, 4-80.
4-3. Dhargyey 1974-, 168-169.
H. Becker 1973,87.
4-5. BCA 9.1.
4-6. See part 2, 1.16, n. 20 for this threefold emptiness.
4-7. Seepart2,3.12,n. 7.
4-8. From here to the end of this section, my discussion follows Prajiiiikara-
mati's commentary on BCA 9.1 (= pp. 34-9-351 ).
4-9. BCA, 34-9.
50. MVl, 7.14-.
51. AK6.3, p. 326.13-16.
52. Becker 1973, 282-283.
53. Cf. MA 6. 78. My account of these "extreme views" owes much to the
discussion in Ramanan 1966, 151ff.
54. Whitehead, among others, has written on the problems created by naive
and total reliance on logic as the sole arbiter of truth: "Sharp cut scientific clas-
sifications are essential for scientific 'method, but they are dangerous for philos-
ophy, because such classification hides the truth that the different modes of nat-
ural existence shade off into each other" (Whitehead 1938, lecture 8, "Nature
Alive").
55. CS 16.25, as cited in PSP, 16: sad asat sadasac cetiyasya pak~o na vidyate I
upalambhaf cirq~iipi tasya vaktum na fakyate II Cf. also May 1978, 239: "Just as
empty things only can_ act as causes, because if they are not empty they are self-
contained and consequently have neither ground nor power to produce any
effect, just so a non-empty word would be self-contained and consequently
totally devoid of application and inefficient and useless as philosophy."
56. MAB, 298-299; cf. also RV2A.
57. On the various numbers and types of these illustrations, see Murti 1960,
160 n. 1, and the relevant appendix; Conze 1975, lH; Lamotte 194-4--1980,
2028ff. and 2045; and Tauscher 1981, 18-26. The pedagogical intention of
these is indicated by MA 6.186cd.
58. For a discussion of the problem of the "original" six perfections, see
Warder 1970, 357fT.; and Dayal1932, 167fT. Dayal considers the last three per-
fections superfluous (269), but it is not clear why.
59. Without having first divested oneself of reified concepts it is not possible
to act in harmony with any situation, since, from the Buddhist perspective,
these misconceptions and the affiictions associated with them result in a radi-
b·
216 Notes to Pages I 00-1 I I
cally misleading situation. As Conze has written , " The reader should always
bear in mind that false views are not merely wrong knowledge, but wrong
knowledge on the part of a viewer who is in a false position and surrounded by
distorted objects" (1967, 234) .
60. Cf., e.g., BCA 5.99.
61. ss, 15.12-15.
62. See part 2, 6.211, n. 218 .
63 . BB, 43 .1-:-22.
64. Evans-Wentz 1951,271.
65 . SS, 15. 12-15.
66 . Cf. Dayall932 , 148fT.
67 . DB, 49 .8-9.
68 . Ibid ., 52-53.
69 . Ibid ., 55.22-23.
70. It is difficult to distinguish clearly between the conceptsjnana and prajnii
primarily because there seems to be some ambiguity in the use of these terms in
the Mahayana literature (see, e .g., LA, §66). Many modern Western scholars
are conient to identify the two of them (e. g., Dayal1932, 269). Lindtner 1982,
268fT. , gives a more sensitive analysis , with useful references. Guenther 1958,
20 n . 9, offers a dissenting opinion and an interesting discussion of alternative
meanings of the wordjnana in Buddhist philosophy.
SECTION FIVE
1. Cf. §4.6.3: "Candrakirti's presentation of the Sixth Stage."

2. Feyerabend 1975, 31-32.
3. VV29; see also VV43 and RV 1.98, discussed in §3.1.
4. Feyerabend 1975, 32.
5. Ibid ., n. 23. Study of the Madhyamika may provide new responses to Put·
nam, Davidson, and other critics of incommensurability. See Feyerabend 1987
for a continuing discussion of the problems.
6 . MA 6.30-31 ; also cf. Kuhn 1962 , 111.
7. Cf. VV30-49 .
8 . VV30.
9. Cf., for example, MA 6.80ab: ltha snyad bden pa thabs su gyur pa dang I don
dam bden pa thabs byung gyur pa sle I (Conventional truth is the means, the truth of
the highest meaning is the goal); also 6 . 78cd and 158-159; and MS 24.10 , 36.
10. PSP, 10-11: tad evam hetupratyayiipe/qam bhiiviiniim utpiidam paridipayatii bha-
gavatii ahetvekahetuvi~amahetusambhiitatvam svaparobhayakrtatvam ca bhiiviiniim ni~id
dham bhavati I tan mjedhiic ca siimvrtiiniim padiirthiiniim yathiivasthitam siimv.rtam svarii-
pam udbhiivitam bhavati I sa evediinim siimvrta/1 pratityasamutpiida!l svabhiiveniinut-
pannatviid I iiryajnaniipe/qayii nasmin nirodho vidyate I yavan niismin nirgamo vid-
yate . ..
11. MAB, 109-110; cf. BCA, 364. Also see §3 , n . 123 .
12. Cf. Rorty 1979, 325 : "In order to guard against the confusions of tradi-
tional empiricism, we need make no more of the gestalt-switch in question
Notes to Pages I I 3-1 2 7 217
[from Aristotle's 'constrained fall' to Galileo's 'pendulum'] than the fact that
people became able to respond to sensory stimulations by remarks about pen-
dulums, without having to make an intervening inference."
13. Cf. MS 14.7 and §3.1: "Sources for the study ofMadhyamika thought."
14. Thurman 1980,327.
15. See the citation from Cavell in § 1, at n. 17.
16. MA 11, epilogue, v. 4. "Previous cultivation" (Tib. sngongoms; Skt. piir-
vabhiivani.i) refers first to "the wisdom composed of meditative cultivation"
(bhiivaniimayi-prajiiii), and secondarily to practice of the other perfections.
17. Bateson 1980, 232.
18. MS 25.19: na samsiirasya nirviiruit kim cid asti vife~artam Ina nirviirtasya sam-
siiriit kim cid asti vife~artam II
19. Cf. §1, n. 24.
20. Cf. Rorty 1979, 8-9: "It is the notion that human activity (and inquiry,
the search for knowledge, in particular) takes place within a framework which
can be isolated prior to the conclusion of inquiry-a set of presuppositions dis-
coverable a priori-which links contemporary philosophy to the Descartes-
Locke-Kant tradition."
21. Cf. once again PSP, 24, cited at the close of §3. 2.
22. Compare VV 29, where Nagarjuna denies the possibility of any fallacy
accruing to his arguments, because he has no proposition.
23. MA 6.35: I gang phyir dngos po 'di dag mam dpyad na II de nyid bdag can dngos
las tshu rol tu II gnas myed ma yin de phyir 'jig rten gyi II tha snyad bden la mam bar
dpyad mi bya I See the accompanying note to this verse and to 6.158.
24. MA 6.112a-c: I de phyir 'di ltar ston pas chos mams kun II gdod nas zhi zhing
skye bral rang bzhin gyis II yongs su mya ngan 'das pa gsungs gyur pa I
25. VP, §3, pp. 28-29.
26. In this area we can expect to learn much from the work of later Indian
and Tibetan philosophers who strove to integrate the Yogacara and the Madhy-
amika so as to recognize and reflect the centrality of this interaction between
consciousness and its objects. Owen Barfield provides an interesting discussion
of this and related issues from a non-Buddhist perspective (see the bibliog-
raphy).
27. Cf. MS 24.14ab: "One who is in harmony with emptiness is in harmony
with all things."
28. Rorty 1979, 12; also cf. his chap. 8 on the distinction between "edifying"
and "systematic" philosophy.
29. Cf. BCA, chap. 9, where Santideva describes his concept of "the same-
ness of self and other" (pariitmasamatii), which forms the theoretical foundation
for a meditation practice called "the substitution of one's self for another"
(pariitmaparivartanii).
30. Cavell1966, 167 n.
31. Betty 1983, 134.
32. Ibid., 131.
33. The mystical interpretation of the Madhyamika is closely aligned with
references to an ineffable dimension. Cf. §3, n. 12.
34. Rorty 1981, 165 .
__
..... .
218 Notes to Pages I 2 7- I 49
35. MS 24.7: atra briiTTUJl,l fiinyatayam na tvam vetsi prayoJanam I . .. tata~ roam
vihanyase I
36. Wittgenstein 1965, 28.
37. Gouldner 1973, 2.
38. Ibid.
39. Ibid., 3. Cf. my discussion of the Priisangika-Sviitantrika debate above
in §3.2.
40. Gouldner 1973, 10-11.
41. Rorty 1979, 361.
42. MS 15 .6: svabhavam parabhiivam ca bhavam cabhavam eva ca I ye paiyanti na
paiyanti te tattvam buddhafrisane II
43. The same kind of comph::xity and tension is present in the advaitavedii.nta
of Saii.kariiciirya and his followers. Early medieval Indian philosophers had
clearly begun to sense that talk of an absolute in rationalist or idealist terms was
soteriologically ineffective . In the modern West, a growing disillusionment with
neo-Kantian scientific rationalism has made the use of this vocabulary similarly
inefficacious.
44. M. C . Taylor 1978, 53-54.
45. Ibid. , 45.
46. Ibid.
47 . Cf. MA 6. 186andMS22 .11.
48. The charge of relativism is brought against the Priisaii.gika in MA 6.171 .
49. The attempt to escape these charges by retreating into a mystical inter-
pretation has already been discussed above.
50. Rorty 1982, 168.
51. Ibid., 171-173.
52. Rorty 1979, 346.
53. Gadamer 1976, 101.
54. Ibid., 121.
55. SeeJong's remarks, cited above in §1.
56. Rorty 1979, 371-372. The Miidhyamika, of course, reduces this claim as
well to emptiness: The meditator sees the intrinsic nature of things "as it is" by
not seeing it (cf. §3, n. 123).
57. RV4.94-96(see §3, n. 116).
58. Hamilton 1950, 151.
59. Twilight of the Idols: translated in Kaufmann 1968, 482-483.
60. Gadamer 1988, 244 .
61. Culler 1983, 150-151.
62. Ibid., 149.
63. Becker1973, 189.
64. Ibid., 202.
65. PV, 260-261. Cf. the note to 6.173.
STAGE ONE
1, In MPPS, the sriivaka (hearer) is identified by five primary characteristics

(Ramanan (1966), pp. 288 ff.J: (1) distaste for the world, (2) constant thought
..
Notes to Page 149 219
of liberation for himself alone, (3) renunciation of the world, (4) extinction of
the mental affiictions, and (5) eventual attainment of escape from fear and suf-
fering. When he learns of the emptiness of the self and hears the four noble
truths, the sravaka feels contempt for old age, disease, and death, and he fol-
lows a path of aversion leading toward escape from his own suffering. He seizes
on the teaching of impermanence as an objective, ultimate truth and fails to
penetrate to the soteriological truth of emptiness revealed in the scriptures of
the Prajii.iiparamitii and the Madhyamika treatises. The pratyekabuddha (solitary
buddha), referred to here as the "middling buddha," differs from the sravaka
insofar as his understanding of emptiness is greater, though it is still meager in
comparison with the nondualistic knowledge of a fully awakened buddha (cf.
TKP, 7). Also, his merit is less, and he is born only during an epoch when there
is no incarnate buddha (MS 18.12). Both the sriivaka and the pratyekabuddha
-·are followers of the Hlnayiina. They contrast with the Mahayanists in their lack
of universal compassion and in their failure to develop skillful means, yet they
can enter the bodhisattva path by deepening their appreciation of emptiness.
_2, "Knowledge" (Tib. blo; Skt. mati, buddhi, orjiiana) could also be translated
as.:'intelligence," but in any case the reference to advayajiiiina is clear.
3. Candraklrti mentions three types of compassion (MAB, 10): (1) compas-
sion which has for its object all sentient beings; (2) compassion which has for its
object all sentient and insentient beings; and (3) compassion devoid of object.
This last type is alluded to in MA 1.4 .
4. Cf. TKP, 19: "Like buckets traveling round and round on a paddlewheel,
so sentient beings wander without self-determination back and forth between
the highest heaven and the lowest hell." The generation of the thought of awak-
ening represents striving for freedom from bondage to volitional action (karma).
5. "Grows" (Tib. rab bsngos; Skt. pari'(liimita) is also used as a technical term
referring to the transfer of merit.
6. Tib. kun tu bzang po 'i smon pa; Skt. samantabhadrapra'(lidhiina: This must be
read as a reference to the vow taken by the bodhisattva Samantabhadra in the
presence of the buddha. The description of this vow, given in SP, chap. 26, enu-
merates the ways in which the bodhisattva resolves to serve for the good of all
living beings .
7. Tathii coktam candraklrtinii: ;ata/1 kule bhavati cai!a tatluigatanam samyojanatrayam
api k!atam asya sarvam I modam bibharti ca param sa hi bodhisattva{! syallokadhiitufatake
Parijataiakti~ II (See La Vallee Poussin 1907, 264 n. 2, where this Sanskrit is
cited from a commentary on the Namasamglti.)
8. "Tathagata" (Tib. dt bzhin gshegs pa) is an epithet commonly applied to
any buddha, meaning "thus come" or "thus gone." It can be understood as a
reference to the doctrine that all buddhas travel the same path to awakening.
For the Madhyamika, "tathagata" refers to the harmony between the buddha
and the "thusness" or "suchness" of the world. Cf. MS 22.16: "The intrinsic
nature of the tathagata is the same as that of the world: just as the tathagata is
devoid of intrinsic being, so is the world"; AS, 154.18-19: "This is the thusness
~rough which the bodhisattva, the Great Being, comes to absolute realization
In perfect and unsurpassable awakening, and thereby obtains the title 'tatha-
gata.' "
9. Tib. kun tu sbyor ba; Skt. samyojana: These are: (1) attachment to philosoph-
ical views (Tib. Ita ba mchog 'dzin; Skt. dr~#pariimaria); (2) attachment to conven-
tional standards of morality, custom, and ritual practices (Tib. tshul khrims brtul
zhugs mchog 'dzin; Skt. illavratapariimaria); (3) doubt or confusion about the possi-
bility of attaining awakening (Tib. the tshom; Skt. vicikitsii).
10. The Tibetan gyo bar nus par gyur ba is quite clear in itself, but it does not
seem to concur with the Sanskrit parijiitaiakti!J,. The Sanskrit, however, is
obscure, and there is no adequate evidence about its meaning or the reason for
the Tibetan translation.
11. During the first stage ( cf. TKP, 40).
12. A "bad migration" (Tib. ngan 'gro; Skt. durgat1) includes birth in any of
the hell regions and birth as an animal or a hungry ghost (preta). Bad migrations
are also realms of experience accessible through meditation as well as states of
mind occurring spontaneously when the requisite conditions are present. With
reference to this last aspect in relation to all six realms of samsiira, cf. Conze
1962, 256: "One and the same object, say a river, leads to a transformation of
inward thought, a 'pure fantasy' as we might say, and that for all practical pur-
poses the external object does not exist. The hungry ghosts, by way of retribu-
tion of their past deeds, see nothing but pus, urine and excrement; the fishes
find there a home; men see fresh and pure water which can be used for washing
,..
I
and drinking; and the gods of the station of infinite space see only space."
13. Tib. 'phags pa brgyad pa; Skt. ~.tamaka iirya: Both Candrakirti (MAB, 17)
and Tsong kha pa ( TKP, 41) identify this as a reference to the irotiipanna (stream
enterer), who would normally be assigned the first (lowest) rank in the series of
iiryapudgalas, or Buddhist saints.
14. Cf. PSP, 353: (MA 1.8d) diirati.gamiiyiim tu dhlyiidhika!J, I
15. The reference here is to severaljiitaka tales, stories of the buddha's pre-
vious incarnations, when on occasion he is said to have sacrificed even his own
flesh as an act of generosity. Candrakirti explains this passage in MAB, 24, by
pointing out that just as one infers fire from smoke, so the bodhisattva's insight
into the emptiness of all things can be inferred from his generosity.
16. An "object of pleasure" (Skt. bhoga) is food or material property of any
kind, or anything that can be possessed and enjoyed.
17. Here and in 1. 7 we have followed the translation suggested by La Vallee
Poussin. The idea expressed in this verse is that by giving offerings to Buddhist
monks, the donor will eventually find a suitable teacher for himself.
18. See MAB, 28, where the reference to nirviiQa is made specific.
19. "Inner (subjective) and outer (objective) possessions" are thoughts, feel-
ings, and concepts, and external objects of all kinds, sentient and insentient.
20. Here is the critical distinction between generosity as a mundane perfec-
tion (laulcikii piiramitii) and generosity practiced as a supramundane perfection
(lokottarii piiramitii). Each perfection is divided in this way. For a bodhisattva
practicing supramundane generosity, every aspect of the circumstances sur-
rounding the act of giving is perceived in the full context of its active relations.
This is technically referred to as trimarz(iala-pariiodhana "purification of the three
spheres," which is the recognition that the three aspects of any practice-the
actor, the action, and the object or recipient of that action-are interdependent
and have no independent meaning or existence (ni!J,svabhiiva). An attitude of
nonclinging is cultivated on the basis of this understanding.
21. "Joy" (muditti) is the source from which this first stage takes its name, as
the initial phase in the generation of the thought of awakening. Cf. TKP, 82:
"That thought of the truth of the highest meaning, associated with this first
stage, is itself most pure; and the heart (or mind) in which it abides is an excel-
lent receptacle, because just as the moon makes beautiful through its white light
the sky which is its receptacle, so this [heart or mind) is made beautiful with the
radiant light of wisdom." "Receptacle" (iifraya) refers to the intellectual, emo-
tional, and volitional elements of the bodhisattva and to his physical body.
,.r~~,eee
tete€f?~ ecsr~~~'-'oeco (~ e·~ael)
STAGE TWO
~te~~.
1. The "ten paths of pure conduct" involve abstention from killing, stealing,
and sexual misconduct (three physical acts); lying, causing dissension among
others by means of slander, abusive language, and idle or senseless speech (four
verbal acts); and covetousness, thoughts of harming others, and attachment to
beliefs and philosophical views (three mental acts). Cf. R V 1. 8-9.
,..
I
2 . Cf. MAB, 37: "By 'peace' is meant restraint of the senses (indriyasariwara),
and 'radiant light' means that his body has a luminous appearance." The peace
of mind associated with restraint of the senses is considered prerequisite to the
practice of meditation at the fifth stage.
3. Cf. MAB, 37-38: "In theAryaratnakutasutra [the buddha gave the following
teaching to Kiisyapa]: Kiisyapa, if there is any monk practicing morality, bound
to regular discipline, whose conduct in religious rites and observances is most
distinguished, who sees danger in the smallest faults, who correctly practices
the fundamental teachings he has learned, who through purification of the
action of body, speech, and mind has completely purified his life, and yet he
holds some doctrine of a real self, this, Kasyapa, is a transgression of the moral
code (vinaya), and the primary type of hypocrisy among those who are possessed
of morality. 0 Kii.Syapa, the rest are as follows: If there is any monk who cor-
rectly assumes the twelve practices of an ascetic, and yet he holds some philo-
sophical view of the objective supports [of his practice as possessing indepen-
dent meaning or existence] and continues seizing at 'I' and 'mine,' this,
Kiisyapa, is a transgression of the moral code, and completes the four types of
hypocrisy among those who practice morality." Regarding the "objective sup-
ports" (Tib. dmigs pa; Skt. iilambana) of the bodhisattva's practice, cf. MAB, 39:
"He is without any dualistic thinking about the 'existence' or 'nonexistence,'
etc., of the objective supports of his morality : viz. , the being with respect to
which he abstains [from immoral action), the act [of abstinence], and the actor"
(i.e., himself) . This same point was made with reference to the practice of gen-
erosity (see stage 1, n. 20). Morality is not considered pure, as long as there is
any thought of individual gain or loss .
4. Cf. MAB, 40: "If he is independent and lives in a divine or human or
sorne such migration like a brave man freed from bondage and living in some
agreeable country, and if he does not then take a firm hold of himself, then like a
~rave rnan bound and cast over a steep precipice he will fall into a bad migra-
hon . Once this has happened, who can pull him up? From then on he will be
entrenched in this bad migration where he must suffer inju•y, and later, if he
r
I
should be born among humans, he will have to endure the double ripening [of
his immoral behavior)" (i.e., short life and frequent illness). Buddhist teachers
continually stress the importance of recognizing the unusual opportunity pre-
sented by life as a human being.
5. Tib. rang byang chub la bdag nyid nges; Skt. pratyekabuddhtiyiitmanlya: La Vallee
a
Poussin 1907-1911, pt. 1, 289, translates: "les predestines I' illumination des
pratyekabuddhas."
6. "Incomparable bliss" (nai/.zireyasasukha) or "awakening" (bodhz) is realized
only when reified thought and the associated mental afflictions end. "Tempo-
rary happiness" (abhyudayasamsiirasukha) refers to the enjoyment of privileged
birth-that is, birth as either a human being or a god. Birth in divine realms
insures continual happiness for the duration of that particular lifespan, until the
results of previous volitional action (karma) are exhausted. Because in life like
this there is no immediate dissatisfaction with circumstances, Buddhist teachers
point out that there is also no incentive, and consequently no opportunity, to
work toward liberation from the cycle of reified thought, volitional action, and
I
suffering. Even the bliss of the gods is not eternal, though, and reentry into
states of misery is only a matter of time: "One person experiences pleasure for b
hundreds of years during a dream, and then he awakens; another experiences
pleasure for a single moment only, then he also awakens. For both of them,
when they have awakened, the pleasure is gone, and just this is the similarity, at
the time of death, between a person whose life is long and one whose life is
short" (BCA 6.57-58). The greatest physical suffering in the whole of cyclic
existence is said to be inflicted in the lowest realm of hell; but the most acute
mental anguish is experienced by the gods of the highest heaven at the moment
when it first becomes evident that they will soon fall from what had appeared to
be eternal bliss. For this reason, birth as a human being is considered preferable
to birth as a god. The human experience of constant vacillation between pain
and pleasure provides the impetus to search for a radical solution to the prob-
lem offear and suffering.
7. See CV, 301 (Horner's translation): "And the Blessed One said to the
Bhikkhus: "There are, 0 Bhikkhus, in the great ocean, then, eight astonishing
and curious qualities, by the constant perception of which the mighty creatures
take delight in the great ocean. And what are the eight? ... 0 Bhikkhus, the
great ocean will not brook association with a dead corpse. Whatsoever dead
corpse there be in the sea, that will it-and quickly-draw to the shore, and cast
it out on the dry ground. This is the third [of such qualities)." Cf. the third of
the eight "marvelous, wonderful things" (acchariyii abbhutti dhammii) of the ocean
(A 4, 197fT; V 2, 236fT.; U 53ff.): "As the ocean rejects a corpse, so the
monkhood rejects evildoers." Tsong kha pa attributes this quality of the ocean
to the "extremely pure divine serpents" who live in its waters (TKP, 91). Can-
drakirti makes no mention of this particular expression in his autocommentary,
and La Vallee Poussin 1907-1911, pt. 1, 292, seems to have misunderstood it:
"de meme qu'il y a incompatibilite entre I' ocean et Ia saveurdouce."
8. See above, stage I, note 20.
9. Cf. AfAB, 45-46: " 'Immaculate' (vimalii), because it is made stainleso
through the tenfold path of virtuous conduct; this name is in accordance with
the meaning attributed to the second stage of the bodhisattva. Just as the
r I
Notes to Page I 53 223
immaculate light from the autumn moon dispels the heat that torments living
beings, so this [stage called) ' Immaculate' radiates from that moon which is the
bodhisattva and dispels the heat kindled by immorality that burns in [their)
hearts . Even though it is not entangled in cyclic existence and so is not worldly,
still it is the glory (in) of the world because all the most excellent qualities are
associated with it, and because it engenders the majesty of a sovereign of the
four quarters (ciiturdvlpaka-iivara-sampad). "
STAGE THREE
1. Cf. TKP, 92: "Why is it called 'Luminous'? This is in conformity with the
symbolic character [of the name), because at the moment that the third stage is
attained there appears a light which is capable of stabilizing and tranquilizing
all the conceptual diffusion of dualistic appearances-[ the light of) the fire of
I (nondualistic) knowledge which burns away without remainder its fuel, the
object(s) of knowledge."
h 2. Candrakirti points out (MAB, 48) that the bodhisattva's patience is in part
based on his understanding of the horrible consequences that such an act of
mutilation will bring down upon its perpetrator at some future time.
3. La Vallee Poussin seems to have misinterpreted the ji /tar gcod (Skt. yathii
chidyate) in the second line of this stanza. It is probable that this line must be
read in accord with our translation here, that is, as a reference to the "three
aspects" of the act of mutilation. This example is often used to illustrate the vir-
tue of patience. (See BCA, chap. 6, which · contains a number of similar
instances of patience.)
4. Any action produces two consequences. The immediate and gross suffer-
ing endured in bad migrations is the first and most severe, called the "ripened
consequence" (vipiilcaphala). The secondary consequence (ni!Yflndaphala) is man-
ifest in afflictions (kleias) like clinging, antipathy, and so forth, which function as
the provocation for acts like the one described above in 3.2. By patiently endur-
ing the suffering of this life(= world), which is the latest and most benign of the
vipiilcaphala, a person can finally eradicate the nifyandaphala that would otherwise
cause further misery. Cf. MAB, 50~ "The suffering inflicted on the body by the
worst enemies through the use of a razor-sharp blade is the final consequence
(of murder) . One who has previously committed the act of murder must (first)
suffer the horrible ripened consequence in hell, or under the conditions of an
animal birth, or in the realm ofYama. (This ripened consequence) results in the
elimination of unpleasant consequences for beings who still must endure the
remaining secondary consequences, that is, the mental afflictions . Why should
one give way to anger, injuring another being so that this ripened consequence
(already being experienced) is transformed all over again into the cause for the
appearance of further consequences that in turn result in even greater suffer-
ing? It is as though (a patient) were to [transform) the last swallow of medicine
intended to cure his sickness (into the cause of a still more serious disease).
Therefore it is only reasonable to exercise extreme patience with the cause of
immediate suffering, just as one would behave toward a doctor who resorts to
the use of a razor-sharp scalpel in order to cure a disease."
+
5. The five "higher mental faculties" (abhijiiiis) are listed by Candraklrti

(MAB, 56): (1) the ability to perform apparent miracles (Tib. rdzu 'phrul; Skt.
rddhi:); (2) the ability to hear sounds outside the range of normal perception
(Tib. lha 'i rna ba; Skt. divyairotra:); (3) the ability to read the thoughts of others
(Tib. pha rot gyi sems shes pa; Skt. paracittajiiii.na); (4) the knowledge of former
births (Tib. sngon gyi gnas rjes su drang pa; Skt. purvaniviisii.nusmrtz); and (5) the
ability to see beyond the range of normal vision, as well as to perceive the char-
acter and destiny of other beings (Tib. lha 'i mig; Skt. divyacalc;us).
6. Sugata 'one who has proceeded well.' Cf. stage 1, n. 8, about tathagata.
7. Generosity, morality, and patience can all be practiced by laypeople as
mundane perfections which will lead to favorable rebirth-ideally, to rebirth
under conditions more conducive to the cultivation of wisdom and compassion.
As supramundane perfections, however, these same three are the cause of the
buddha's "body of form" (riipakii.ya), which comprises both the "body of bliss"
(sambhogakii.ya) and the "body of transformation" (nirmiirzakiiya). The body of
form is distinguished from the "body of the Dharma" ( dharmakiiya). Cf. MAB,
62-63: "The provisions (sambhiiras) which are the cause ofbuddhahood are two-
fold: the provision of merit (purzya) and the provision of knowledge (jiiiina).
Here, the provision of merit comprises the first three perfections, and the provi-
sion of knowledge is composed of meditation (dhyiina) and wisdom (prajiiii).
Energy (vlrya) is assigned as a cause of both. In this particular context, the pro-
vision of merit is cited as the cause of the body of form possessed by the blessed
buddhas, which appears in various marvelous and incomprehensible guises.
The body of the Dharma is unproduced, and the cause [of its realization) is the
provision of knowledge." This doctrine of the two (or three) bodies of a buddha
was taken up by the Yogacara as an elaboration of an original conception within
the Hlnayana Abhidharma. There, dharmakii.ya referred either to the entire cor-
pus of the teachings in general, or to the buddha himself as a particular embodi-
ment of those teachings. The dharmakiiya can be understood in this context as
the intrinsic nature of all buddhas, in opposition to the particular spatiotempo-
ral manifestation of each individual buddha, which is his riipakiiya. The Yoga-
cara innovation seems to have consisted primarily in giving a metaphysical
interpretation to the original doctrine. The dharmakiiya is, for that school, the
eternally present buddha nature, the principle of awakening. The riipakiiya h
further subdivided into: the sambhogakiiya, a "perfect" form embodying all tht
characteristics attributed to the buddhas, and enthroned in appropriately splen·
did surroundings; and the nirmiirzakiiya, a magical apparition finding its sourn
in the sambhogakiiya and appearing in the world for the edification of all livin~
beings. The "provisions" and their relationship to the bodies of the buddha an
discussed in MA 11.5-18 and by N agarjuna in R V 3. See Conze 1962, 172, 232
ff., for further discussion of this doctrine and its classical sources.
STAGE FOUR
1. Cf. MAB, 64: "He who lacks enthusiasm for good action is completely
incapable of engaging in [the practice of] generosity [and the other perfections),
and therefore these other qualities are never produced."
2. " Discernment" is Tib. blo gros [kyiJ tslwgs, Skt. matisambhiira or dhlsambhiira.
Here blo gros is synonymous with ye shes(= [advaya).jnana).
3. Cf. MAB, 68 : "At this stage, within [the bodhisattva) the philosophical
view of a real, substantial 'I' is eradicated. So it is said: 'Sons of the conquer·
ors, situated at this bodhisattva stage [called] "The Radiant," the bodhisattva i1
devoid of all arising and descending concepts, reflections, notions of perma·
nence , notions of mine-ness, and notions of property-that is, any [idea] fol·
lowing from belief in a real, substantial self which is founded on strong clingin~
to the [conventional] "1," to a sentient being, to a life force, a nourisher, a mar
[not in DB), a person, or to the psychophysical aggregates, the dhatus, or th<
ayatanas. ' " (Cf. DB, chap . 4, p. 25: tasya khalu punar bhavantojinaputra bodhisat-
tvasyiisyam arci~matyam bodhisattvabhtimau sthitasya yanlmlini satkiiyadr~.tiptirvangamlin;
atmasattvajlvapo~apudgalaskandhadhiitvayataniibhinivtiasamucchritany unmiiijitani ni·
miiijitani vicintitani vitarkitani keltiyitiini mamliyitiini dhaniiyitiini niketasthiiniini tan
sarvarzi vigatani bhavanti sma I For kelayita MAB has brtan pa (= sthira, drdha , nitya):
the Sanskrit is also sometimes translated as bstsal pa.) For "arising and descend·
ing concepts ," see La Vallee Poussin 1907, 311 n . 2: "Je pense que unmiiijita,
nimiiijita sont de simples variantes de samaropa, apaviida, ou iivytiha, nirvy tiha, et
signifient: affirmation, negation." "The philosophical view of a real , substan-
tial self" (Tib. 'jig tshogs Ia Ita ba = raT!g du Ita ba; Skt. satkayadntz) is a technical
expression specific_ally denoting the concept of a personal (subjective) self; that
is , the concept of an "I" as opposed to the apprehension of any other sentiem
self external to the conceptualizing "L" The expanded form of the expression
reads: 'jig tshogs Ia Ita ba 'i ri 'i rise mo nyi su mtho ba; in Sanskrit, vimiatifikhara-
samudgatab satkayadr~.tifailiib . Although there is a slight discrepancy between the
Tibetan gloss and the Sanskrit original, both refer to the "twenty towering
peaks of the mountain, which is the belief in a real, substantial (abiding) 'I'
within transitory, composite things." The twenty aspects of the reified concept
of a self are discussed in MA 6.144-145 ; actually these aspects are four types of
reified ·concepts applied to each of the five psychophysical aggregates. The four
basic types, as associated with the first of the aggregates, form (rtipa), are ( 1) the
self is form, like a sovereign ; (2) form qualifies the self, like an ornament; (3)
form is possessed by the self, like a slave ; and (4) form contains the self, like aves-
sel (cf. MVP 208) . Also see MAB 5. 7 (commentary), and Lamotte (1944-1980) ,
2:737 n . 3; and 4:15-17, for his lengthy note on the expression.
STAGE FIVE
1. Cf. MSA 20.35 : "Bringing living beings to [spiritual] maturity and guard-
ing their own thoughts , the wise conquer suffering [at this stage), and therefore
it is called 'The Unconquerable' " (sattviinam paripiikai ca svacittasya ca rak~arza
dhlmadbhir jfyate du!zkham durjaya lena kathyate !).
2 · Cf. MAB, 69 : "A bodhisattva abiding at the fifth bodhisattva stage cannot
be subdued even by the devaputramaras found in all world systems , to say nothing
of their servants and minions . Because of that, this stage is called 'The Uncon-
~uerable. ' " All evil is rooted in spiritual ignorance (auidya), which is manifest
In innately occurring patterns of reilied thought. Cf. BCA , 177: . "All intellec-
226 Notes to Page I 57
tual processes have the intrinsic nature of reified thought, because their objec-
tive supports are [themselves) without any objective support. And all reified
thought whatsoever has the intrinsic nature of spiritual ignorance, because it
grasps at nonentities. So it is said: 'Reified thought itself takes the form of spir-
itual ignorance' " (sarva hi buddhir alambananiralambanataya vikalpasvabhfiva vikalpa
ca sarva evavidyasvabhfiva/1 avastugrfihitvat yad aha I vikalpab svayam evayam avidya-
nlpatam gata/1 iti 1). Spiritual ignorance in the form of reified thought is one of
several mental afflictions (kksas) that are associated with the experience of evil,
usually subdivided into four principal types: ( 1) klesamfira: evil experienced
through the mental afflictions of clinging, antipathy, pride, attachment to philo-
sophical views, and doubt or incurable cynicism; (2) skandhamfira: evil that
comes from the reified concept of a real, substantial self felt to abide within or
among the psychophysical aggregates; (3) mrtyumfira: the transient nature of all
things, experienced most dramatically as death; and (4) devaputramfira: the
anthropomorphic personification of evil.
STAGE SIX
1. MAB, 73: "This stage is [called] 'The Directly Facing' because [the bodhi-
sattva J directly faces the Dharma of a perfect buddha."
2. Conditionality is the same as dependent origination (pratityasamutpada).
"Things are by nature similar to a reflection" (MAB, 73) .
3. The reference here to "cessation" (nirodha) is multifaceted. The reader
should consult Conze 1962, 113-116 and 236, for a brief discussion of the
meaning of this concept in VM and AK.
4. "Discrimination" (Tib. blo; Skt. matz) is here synonymous with "wisdom"
(Tib. shes rab; Skt. prajna). The same simile is used in BCA 9.1 and AS, 87 .3.
5. MAB, 77: "This treatise, which bears the fruit of teachings in perfect
accord with [the concept of] dependent origination, should be revealed only to
one who has through previous meditative cultivation planted the seeds of empti-
ness in his [psychophysical) continuum-it is not for any others. This is because
even though they may hear about emptiness, these others [derive from such
teachings] the most meaningless noti(lns stemming from misconceptions about
emptiness. On the one hand, those who are relatively unintelligent [simply]
abandon the teachings on emptiness and travel on to bad mig1ations; while on
the other hand, [strict rationalists) imagine that emptiness means nonexistence.
Relying on this erroneous interpretation, they develop and propagate nihilistic
philosophical views."
6. Cf. SBS, fol. 14 (p. 387): prthagjanatve 'pi nisamya siinyatiim pramodam antar
labhate muhur muhub I prasfitio:jasriivallipata-(pramodajiisravinayata-) locana/1 taniir-
uhotphullatanui ca jiiyate II Here and in following citations from SBS, the paren-
theses contain La Vallee Poussin's reading where it differs from the one adopted
by Bendall.
7. Ibid ., )I<JI tasya sambuddhadhiyo 'sti hijam tattvopadesasya ca bhajanam sa/1 I iikhy'
~am asmai paramarlhasatyam tadanvayiis tasya gurza bhavanti II
8 . Ibid .• fol. 15 (p. 387): si1arn samiidiiya sadaiva vartate dadD.ti danam karorzam ca
seva~ I titi~·ate tatkuialam ca hodhayc pra(fmri-?)rzfimayaty evajagadvimuktaye II
T-
9. MAB, 81: "That is to say, he who desires the stage [called] 'The joyous.'
This [path] has the characteristics that are about to be explained. Now, in order
to furnish information on the nature of the right view of things there are [pas-
sages] in the sutras, as for example the words of the Aryadafabhiimilca (DB, 31 ):
'Sons ofthe conquerors, the bodhisattva who has completely fulfilled the path at
the fifth bodhisattva stage passes on to the sixth bodhisattva stage by virtue of
[his comprehension of] the ten [types of] sameness of all things. What are these
ten? (1) All things are the same insofar as they lack any causal sign (nimitta); (2)
all things are the same insofar as they lack any distinguishing characteristic
(la/qarza); (3) likewise they are unoriginat~d; (4) unborn; (5) isolated; (6) pure
from the beginning; (7) devoid of conceptual diffusion; (8) neither accepted nor
rejected (cf. La Vallee Poussin 1907, 278 n. 2, about iivyiiha and nirvyiihii); (9) all
things are the same insofar as they are like a mirage, a dream, an optical illu-
sion, an echo, the moon in water, a reflection, or a magical creation; and (10)
all things are the same insofar as they are exempt from the duality of existence
and nonexistence. Comprehending in this way the intrinsic nature of all things,
he [develops] great patience (TTUJhii/qiint1) in accord [with his understanding] and
so reaches the sixth bodhisattva stage, "The Directly Facing." Therefore, the
master [Nagarjuna] determined in this connection that through rational
instruction in the sameness of things as regards their non-origination, the other
[types of] sameness would easily follow, and so he placed [the following verse] at
the beginning of his Miidhyamikaiiistra: 'Neither from itself, nor from another,
nor from both, and certainly not devoid of cause; no things whatsoever are pro-
duced at any time or in any place.' "MS 1.1 is here cited by Candrakirti as an
introduction to MA 6.8. After presenting the four alternatives, he proceeds to
analyze the implications of each one in greater detail.
10. Cf. PSP, 13: tasrruid dhi tasya bhavane na gu~o 'sti kai &ijjiitasya janma punar eva
&a naiva yuktam I
11. MAB, 82: " 'An (entity]' refers to that which is being produced or that
which accomplishes the action of production, that is, to the sprout. 'From itself
means from the individual essence of just that [entity) which is being produced.
Therefore the sense of the statement is as follows: 'This sprout's own individu-
ality is not produced from its own individuality.' Why is this? Because there is
nothing to be gained from an existing sprout's own individuality arising from
the same existing individuality, just because [this individuality] has already-
previously-come into existence.''
12. 'jig rten 'dir is supplied in TKP, 152. In other words, such an assumption
would contradict direct perception .
13. MAB, 83: "If one asserts that the seed already produced is produced ,_
again, [then in this event] what obstacle would there be to its being born all
over again? And yet, the continual reproduction [of the seed] must be stopped
somehow so that the sprout can be produced.'' Cf. TKP, 152: "Just this seed
would be reproduced without interruption until the end of all existence ."
. 14. MAB, 83: "It may be supposed that the contributing conditions asso-
Ciated with the production of the sprout-the water, time, and so forth-trans-
form the seed and give birth to the sprout; and this sprout [then] destroys the
s~ed, since it would be contradictory for it to exist simultaneously along with
[ns] creator. hi this way the abovementioned fallacy would be avoided, and
because the seed and the sprout would still be different [from each other], pro-
duction from self would indeed be possible . .. . This [argument] also is inad-
missible, however. . . . Because the seed and the sprout are not different, it is
unreasonable that the sprout should destroy the [seed], which would be tanta-
mount to its destroying its own individuality."
15. Tib. nus; Skt. vi:rya. La Vallee Poussin 1907-1911, pt. 2, 281 n. 5, calls
the term problematic, and suggests that it is some kind of medico-magical
potential for healing. "Flavor" (rasa) and "ripening" (vipiika) are also medical
terms:
16. If a cause and its effect are absolutely identical, then on what grounds are
we to distinguish between the two of them, and how is it that they appear to be
different?
17 . MAB, 85: "Since, appearing as the sprout, the individuality of the seed
would not be perceived as it is in its essence, so, because of its not being differ-
ent from the seed, the individuality of the sprout should also not be perceived-
just as the seed's individuality [is not perceived]."
18. Cf. SBS, fols. 18-19 (p. 390): loko 'pi caikyam anayor iti niibhyupaiti n~.te 'pi
pafyati yata~ phalam e$a hetau I tasmiin na tattvata idam na tu lokataf ca yuktam svato
bhavati bhiiva iti prahJlpyam II
19. MAB, 86: "For just that [reason], the master [Nagarjuna] made a dis-
tinction [between soteriological and conventional perspectives in this matter]
and repudiated production in a general way, stating that it is not from self."
20. MAB, 87: "It may be said that entities do not arise out of themselves :
This is certainly the case, and the [first) alternative is reasonable. But you have
[also] said: 'How can it [arise] from others?' (6.8a), and that is not reasonable."
Candrakfrti devotes more space to this second alternative than to any other,
probably because it most closely conforms to common sense and empirical
observation (see 6.22). The Prasangika directs these arguments toward the fol-
lowing Buddhist schools: the Svatantrika-madhyamika, the Yogacara, the
Sautantrika, and the Vaibha~ika. With the exception of the Samkhya (included
under the first alternative), the Jain (the third alternative), and the Carvaka
(the fourth alternative), all non-Buddhists are included in this category.
21. Cf. SBS, fols. 19-20 (p. 390) and PSP, 36: anyat prati:tya yadi niima paro
'bhavi$yajjiiyet[a] tarhi bahul~ iikhino 'ndhakiir~ I sarvasyajanma ca bhavet khalu sar-
vataf ca tulyam paratvam akhile janake ( 'janake) 'pi yasmiit II
22. MAB, 89 : "That is, because of[ its] quality of being other."
23 . MAB, 90 : "Just as the grain of rice, because it is the producer, is different
from the rice sprout, its result, so fire, coal, a barley seed, and so forth-which
are not producers [of a rice sprout]-are also [different from the rice sprout).
And just as the rice sprout is produced from the grain of rice which is different
[from it], so it would be produced from fire, coal, a barley seed, and so forth.
And just as the rice sprout which is different [from it] arises from the grain of
rice, so a jug and cloth will also [arise from the rice grain]. This is, however, not
perceived, and therefore there is no [production from another]." According to
this second alternative, a cause and its effect are absolutely separate or self-suf-
ficient. If this were true, the Prasanglka argues, the gap between the two could
never be bridged, there could be no possible context for a relationship, and the
distinction between a cause and a non-cause of any given effect would be alto-
gether negated. The flame, for example, is different from darkness : By what
criteria are the two not related as cause and effect?
24. Cf. SBS, Col. 20 (p. 390): iakyam prakartum iti kiiryam ato niruktam iaktamyad
asya janaru sa para 'pi hetu~ I janmaikasamtatigataj janakiic ca yasma1 cJ chalyamkurasya
ca tathii [pi na kodraviide~ J II La Vallee Poussin has janakiic ca tasmiic chalyamkurasya
na tatha --- --II and the following note . "Le manuscrit porte ... yasmiit cha-
lyamkurasya ca. -On peut lire : na tathajananam yaviide~."
25 . MAE, 91 : "The nature [of the relationship between] cause and effect
rests upon a particular mode of 'otherness,' and not on otherness in general."
The opponent here is attempting, through the use of his notion of a continuum,
to reestablish the normal context of relationship that must exist between two
things he has previously defined as completely separate. The continuum would
seem to make it possible for cause and effect to be simultaneously different and
yet not different.
26. The flower seeds are by definition different from the rice sprout simply
because they do not possess its characteristic qualities; and if the grain of rice is
designated as "other" than the rice sprout, then it must be so designated for the
same reason.
27 . Cf. ibid.: asry amkurai ca na hi bijasamiinakiilo (na samiinakiilo) bijam kut~
paratayiistu vina paratvam I janmamkurasya na hi sidhyati tena bljiit samryajyatiim parata
udbhavatiti p~~ II
28 . MAB, 92-93 : "One can see that {two individuals named] Maitreya and
Upagupta (cf. n. 89, below) are interdependent and different [from each other]
only because they exist simultaneously, but the seed and its sprout are not such
that they can be imagined as simultaneously [existent], since until the seed has
been altered the sprout does not exist . When, in this way, the seed and the
sprout do not exist simultaneously, then the seed can possess no {quality of]
'otherness' with respect to the sprout. And if this {quality of] otherness is not
present, then it is false to say that the sprout is produced from another."
29. MAB, 94: "The above claim that the seed and the sprout do not exist
simultaneously may be challenged as unreasonable, as follows : Just as the
ascent and descent of [the two ends of] a scale's balance occur simultaneously,
so it is at the moment when a seed is being destroyed and the sprout being pro-
duced . This comes about in such a way that at exactly the moment when the
seed is destroyed, at precisely that moment-simultaneously-the sprout is
produced ."
30. Cf. PSP, 545: janmonmukham na sad idam yadijiiyamiinam niiionmukham sad
~pi niima nirudhyamiinam I i~_tam tatM katham idam tulayii samiinam kartrii vinii janir
zyam na ca yuktariipii II
31 . Candrakirti provides the following explanation (MAE, 95): "In this case,
'what is being produced' inclines in the direction of production {and is not yet
actually produced], therefore it belongs to the future; while 'what is being de-
stroyed' inclines in the direction of destruction [and is not yet actually de-
stroyed], and so it belongs to the present. In this way, that which does not exist
because it is not yet produced is produced ; and that which does exist because it
Is already present is destroyed. Given this state of affairs, what possible resem-
blance is there to the circumstances surrounding the operation ofthe scale? The
two ends of the scale's balance are actually present, and therefore the ascending
and descending movements can [logically be said to] occur simultaneously;
however, the seed belongs to the present and the sprout to the future, and on
this account [one cannot logically assert that] they exist simultaneously. The
[problem with the seed and the sprout] is therefore not in any way analogous to
the example of the scale. And if our opponent should happen to believe that
even though two things do not in fact exist simultaneously, still their actions can
take place simultaneously-then [we must object] : This also is untenable, for it
cannot be admitted that the actions of things are independent of the things
themselves."
32 . MAB, 96 : "The agent (kartr) of the impending action of being produced,
that is to say, the sprout, belongs to the future, and so does not [yet] exist.
Granted that [the sprout] does not exist, there is then no basis (tifraya).[for its
action], and that [action], does not exist [either]. And since no [action] exists,
how can it be simultaneous with the destruction [of the seed]? On this account it
is illogical [to assume] that the two actions [of production and destruction) are
simultaneous. As [Niigiirjuna] has written (MS 7 .17): 'If any unproduced entity
whatsoever existed anywhere, then it would be produced; [but] why would an
entity be produced when it is nonexistent? ' The meaning of this [verse) is as fol-
lows: If any entity, as, for example, a sprout, were to exist unproduced prior to
production, then it would [eventually) be produced. However, prior to produc-
tion nothing whatsoever or wheresoever can be established as existent, because
it is unproduced . Therefore, prior to being produced, the entity that furnishes
the basis for the action of production does not exist, and without this [basis),
what will be produced?" The argument is summarized (CSt 1.18): " Because
the sprout arises neither from a destroyed seed nor from an undestroyed seed,
you declare that all production is like the manifestation of a magical illusion."
33 . MAB, 97: "[An opponent might propose the following:] The seed and
the sprout do not exist simultaneously. Consequently there is no 'otherness'
(paratva), and production is illogical [under such circumstances] (according to
the terms of the second alternative) . However, when there is simultaneity, then
in that event, because 'otherness' would be present, production also would be
feasible . As for example the eye and form, and so on, along with feeling (vedo.nii)
and the other coappearing [factors, are causes which] act to produce the simul-
taneous [and related effect of] visual cognition." (Visual perception is produced
from a simultaneously existing array of causal factors.) The response to this
claim is (MAB, 98): "If you assert that the eye and so on and perception (sam -
jnii), etc., exist simultaneously [along with visual cognition J and serve as the
conditions for that visual cognition, then they most certainly are 'other' with
respect to the [existing visual cognition]. However, because there is absolutely
no need for the arising of that which [already) exists, so there would be no pro-
duction; and if you want to avoid the negation of production by asserting that
[visual cognition) does not exist, then in that case the eye <~.nd so forth would not
be different from a nonexistent visual cognition . The fallacy entailed in this
[thesis] has already been explained . Therefore, if you insist on production from
another, then even when 'otherness' is possible, production is impossible, and
J
when production is impossible, duality [between cause and effect] is impossible.

And if production is possible, then there is no 'otherness,' and here again dual-
ity is impossible . Consequently, [one must admit that] appearances in no way
represent the existence of external objects and are empty of any external object:
[And where appearances] have disappeared, only words remain."
34. Cf. MS 20.21-22: "What cause produces an effect that is intrinsically
existent? And what cause produces an effect that is intrinsically nonexistent?
The quality of being a cause is not present in that which is not producing, and
when the quality of being a cause is not present, what is the effect attributed
to?" These two alternatives have already been dealt with in the preceding
verses .
35. MAB, 100: "The simultaneous possession of [two] essences, one entail-
ing existence and one nonexistence, is simply not possible in a single [entity);
and therefore an entity in possession of this intrinsic nature does not exist. And
because it does not exist, what [influence) can producing causes exert over it?"
The argument against simultaneous possession of neither existence nor nonex-
istence is analogous to the one just presented. A single entity that is neither
existent nor nonexistent at one and the same moment is not only never per-
ceived, but would by nature be self-contradictory. All four alternatives in the
tetralemma have now been presented and discussed in some detail with regard
to causation , and Candrakirti takes up the system of the two truths.
36. MAB, 101: "Since it is grounded simply in individual perception of all
[things), everyday experience is endowed with tremendous power. And it is evi-
dent [on this basis) that one entity is produced from another. Appeal to reason
is appropriate only in the case of that which is not directly perceived, but it is
inappropriate where direct perception is involved. Therefore, even in lieu of
any adequate [inferential support), it must still be true that entities are pro-
duced from other [entities)." Also cf. TKP, 172-173: "There are those who
have imperfectly understood the sense of scriptures [dealing with emptiness],
who have planted and matured on the beginningless wheel of samsara the
potentialities for apprehension of entities as [intrinsically} existent. They have
become strongly attached to the [supposed] existence of these entities, and for a
long time have had no spiritual friend. As a result of this deprivation they have
also been deprived of repeated teaching on the absence of intrinsic being, and
have become entrenched in misguided opinions that are actually invalidated by
everyday experience. Without explaining the various ways in which everyday
experience comes to be, it is impossible to reverse these misguided opinions.
Therefore it is necessary to isolate the specificyu/ ('object' or 'meaning') that
must be rejected, through stating that 'such and such yul is invalidated by
everyday experience,' and the specific yul that is not to be rejected, through ·stat-
ing that 'such and such anyu/ is not invalidated by everyday experience.' "
37. Cf. BCA, 174: samyagmr~adarianalabdhabhavam riipadvayam bibhrati sarva-
bhava~ I samyagdrsam yo vi~aya~ sa tattvam mr~adrsam samvrtisatyam uktam II
38. MAB, 102-103 : "The blessed buddhas, who understand perfectly the
intrinsic nature of the two truths, taught of the two categories of intrinsic nature
possessed by all concepts and all material things ... as follows : [the intrinsic
L
nature of] the screened (samvrta); and (that of) the highest meaning (paramartha).
232 Notes to Page 160
The highest meaning is that nature [of all things] revealed through being the
specific object of the wisdom that entails accurate perception. However, [this
highest meaning] is in no way established through any intrinsic quality of self.
This is one nature of all things. The other is the intrinsic nature obtained on the
strength of false perceptions made by common people in whom the eye of intel-
ligence has been completely covered by the cataract of spiritual ignorance. This
intrinsic nature is as well not established in itself, but is simply the object
[revealed] through the perception of naive people. In this way all things bear a
dual intrinsic nature."
39. Both of these are, however, illusory from the perspective of the truth of
the highest meaning. ·
40. BCA, 171: vinopaghiitena yad indriyiirtiirh !artrtiim api griihyam avaiti loka/.! I
satyam hi tallokata evam ie!arh vikalpitam lokata eva mithyii II
I
41. Defects of the five senses can be either internal or external. Internal
defects are constituted by disease or by any malfunction of the sense organ.
External defects are magical or optical illusions of any sort, reflections, echoes,
and so forth. Defects of the sixth faculty (mind) come about not only by false
cognition grounded in any of the above problems, but also by faulty reasoning
or misconceptions that may or may not be bound up with particular philosophi- t
cal views. Dreams fall into this category.
42. MAB, 105-106: "These non-Buddhist [philosophers] want to penetrate
to Reality, they want to ascend ever upward toward perfection in determining
accurately and without confusion matters concerning production and destruc-
tion-things taken for granted even by impure people like cowherds and
women. Consequently, they are like someone climbing a tree, first letting go of
one branch and then clinging to another, until they take a mighty fall into the
abyss of philosophical views. Then, because they are deprived of perception of
the two truths, they will not obtain the result [of liberation, for which they
strive]. Those/things conceptualized by them [as for instance] the three qualities
(gurtas) [of the Saritkhya system], and so on, are nonexistent even within the
context of the screened [truth] of everyday experience."
43. Cf. BCA, 178: na biidhatejfiiinam ataimiriirtiimyathopalabdham timire/qartiiniim
I tathiimalaJfi.iinatiraskrtiiniim dhiyiisti biidhii na dhiyo 'maliiyii/.! II
44. MAB, 106: "Exposition of the refutation of production from another is
not [accomplished] by confining oneself to the perspective of everyday experi-
ence. How is it [accomplished] then? By accepting the vision of the Buddhist
saint." Cf. the discussion of incommensurability in part 1, §5.1. The percep-
tion of emptiness characteristic of stainless knowledge (amalqjiiiina) does not con-
tradict everyday experience, but only the various forms of conscious (philo-
sophically contrived) and unconscious (innately occurring) reified concepts
imputed over and above the consensus of everyday practice. These ideas are
referred to as "conceptual diffusion" (prapaiica).
45. BCA, 171: moho/.! svabhiiviivarartiid dhi samvrti/.! satyam tayii khyiiti yad eva krtri-
mam I jagiida tat samvrtisatyam ity asau muni/.! padiirtham krtakam ca samvrtim II
46. Here svabhiiva is used as a synonym for iiinyatii.
47. MAB, 107-109: "Here 'delusion' is that which causes sentient beings to
become muddled in the view of entities as they are [in the full context of every-
r
Notes to Pages /60- 161 233
day experience, and this] spiritual ignorance is (called] a 'screen' (samvrti)

because, in imputing to entities the existence of an individual essence which
does not exist, it is characterized by its being an obstruction to awareness of
[their] intrinsic nature (i.e., emptiness). The [entity so perceived] appears to be
real on account of this screen, and where there is no intrinsic being, the appear-
ance of intrinsic being is manifest to common people. (This entity] is real [only]
within the context of the screen, which is worldly error; it is the fabrication
which constitutes dependent origination. Some [of the things] which have origi-
nated dependently, like reflections, echoes, and so on, appear unreal even to
spiritually ignorant people. However, there are others-for example, [the col-
ors] blue and so forth, form, mind, feeling, etc.-that appear to be real. Their
intrinsic nature (emptiness) does not appear in any manner to the spiritually
ignorant. Therefore, this [emptiness], along with whatever appears as unreal
even within the context of the screen, is not [called] the truth of the screen. The
[balance of] what is perceived to exist under the influence of the spiritual igno-
rance of afflicted beings is designated the truth of the screen. For the sravakas,
the pratyekabuddhas, and the bodhisattvas who are free from the spiritual igno-
rance of afflicted beings, [conventionally real] composite things are seen to have
the same quality of existence as reflections and the like. These things have the
i.ntrinsic nature of a fabrication; they are perceived as unreal because (the
sravakas, pratyekabuddhas, and bodhisattvas] are without any inflated con-
cepts of 'truth' (satyabhimana). That which is deceptive for naive people (reified
concepts of 'self,' 'intrinsic being,' etc.), as well as other things like magical illu-
sions and so forth, are mere screen [still included in the "screen" of everyday
life] because they [too] are dependently originated. Accordingly, the blessed one
has spoken about the truth of the screen, and the mere screen. That which is of
the highest meaning for common people is a mere screen for the Buddhist saints
dwelling in the realm of appearances . Emptiness, the intrinsic nature of that
screen, is of the highest meaning for them. The highest meaning for buddhas is
just that intrinsic nature [of entities] (emptiness). And although it is the truth of
the highest meaning, because it is not deceptive they must each come to know it
through personal experience (de yang bslu ba med pa nyid kyis don dam pa 'i bden pa
yin la I de ni de rnams kyi so sor rang gis rig par bya bayin no 1). Because the truth of
the screen is deceptive, it is not [called] the truth of the highest meaning. Hav-
ing taught about the truth of the screen, the author (Candrakirti) desires to
teach the truth of the highest meaning. However, because itis inexpressible and
not within the realm governed by (dualistic] knowledge, so it is impossible to
teach of it as though it were an [objectively present] fact (dngos su bstan parmi nus
Pa). Therefore he will provide an example for those who want to learn, so that
(they may] clarify its intrinsic nature through their own experience" (rang gis
rnyong ba nyid dude 'i rang bzhin gsa[ bar bya ba 'j phyir dpe bshad pa 1).
48. Cf. BCA, 176: vikalpitam yat timiraprabhavat keiiidiriipam vitatham tad eva I
yenatmana paiyati iuddhadn.tis tat tattvam ity evam ihiipy avehi ( avaihi) I I
49. MAB, 111 (cited from the Satyadvayavatara(?]): "How is it that [this truth]
cannot be verbalized as 'the truth of the highest meaning'? All things are
screened and deceptive . . . . Thus the truth of the highest meaning cannot be
taught. Why is this? Because teacher, teaching, and listener are unborn in the
truth of the highest meaning, and unborn things cannot be described by unborn
things." Under the influence of spiritual ignorance and clinging even the ques-
tions one asks turn back on themselves in a spiral of reified thought and confu-
sion. The movement to a radically different form oflife must be made by grad-
ually learning to abandon the old questions and the entire way of thinking that
endowed them with significance.
50. Candrakirti is concerned here with what Tsong kha pa has called "the
most profound and subtle matter within the Madhyamika system" (TKP, 139)
-the concept of causal efficacy as the sole criterion for conventional validity.
Essentially, the point here is that soteriological and conventional truths do not
interfere with each other because they are set in a hierarchical structure (as
opposed to a mutually exclusive relationship). They are incommensurable, not
contradictory, because they deal with different realms of experience and entirely
different needs. Causal efficacy is sufficient evidence of conventional reality
despite the circumstance that, from a "higher" perspective, both cause and
effect are interrelated in such a way that neither exists in and of itself. Accord-
ing to the Madhyamika, any attempt to justify everyday experience through
something other than consensus leads to spiritual and intellectual problems.
51. This intuition of a direct relationship between cause and effect is the basis
of reified concepts of ''necessary connection" and the like.
52. MAB, 116: "The actual meaning here is this: If both the seed and the
sprout did possess some intrinsic being, then they would have to be either iden-
tical or different. But when neither one of them has any intrinsic being, then as
with the seed and the sprout apprehended in a dream-how can there be [any
question of] identity or otherness?" Cf. MS 18.10: "That which exists in depen-
dence on [something else] is to that extent not identical with that thing nor dif-
ferent from it; on this account there is no annihilation and no permanence."
53. MAB, 11 7: "If an intrinsic distinguishing characteristic of things [like]
form, feeling, and so forth-an individual essence or intrinsic being-was pro-
duced by causes and conditions, then when the yogi perceived things as empty
of any intrinsic being and [so] understood that all things are without intrinsic
being, emptiness would certainly be understood through negation of this intrin-
sic being which had been produced. Emptiness would then be the cause of nega-
tion of this intrinsic being just as surely as a hammer is the cause of the destruc-
tion of a jug." In this context, an ''intrinsic distinguishing characteristic"
(svalak~arza) is a logical mark posited in order to define the single quality that
endows an entity with intrinsically valid existence: this would be the individual
essence of intrinsic being of the entity as defined by the Madhyamika's oppo-
nent. The Madhyamika responds that things are without any intrinsic being
whatsoever, and consequently there is for him no question of the production or
destruction of such a being, or of any logical mark indicating its presence. The
concept of existence through an intrinsic distinguishing characteristic (sva-
l~arzasiddha) is grounded in the writings of Vasubandhu as interpreted by the
two famous Yogacara epistemologists Diimaga and Dharmakirti. It is a concept
that had far-reaching and subtle implications for later Madhyamika develop-
ments in India and Tibet. See Kochumuttom 1982, 25-26, for a brief discus-
sion of the concept with reference to the relevant classical sources.
54. Candrakirti's commentary provides the following illustration: Suppose

that through the proper combination of wood, strings, and workmanship a lute
is built. When a wise man listens to the sound of this lute and examines what he
hears he will discover that it actually comes from nowhere and goes nowhere-
the tone is simply the end result of a skillful assemblage of wood and strings . In
the same way, when a yogi examines any composite thing produced from causes
and conditions, he finds there only emptiness. "The distinguishing characteris-
tic of things is of the essence of space" (MAB, 122). When an entity accepted as
existent on the basis of conventional truth is closely examined, one discovers
that the only actual "mark" or characteristic feature of this entity is its empti-
ness. There is no "real, discrete object" to be found, despite the fact that in
everyday experience the entity is produced and destroyed . Nevertheless, the
truth of the screen which governs the world is not to be absolutely discredited:
"Just as a foreigner cannot be made to understand through any language other
(than his own], so the world cannot be made to understand without the use of a
conventional language" (CS 8.19). The Tibetan here is very idiomatic, and our
English rendering strays far from any so-called literal translation . One could
say, "Because when entities are examined no abode is found other than the
entity characterized by the reality [expressed in the truth of the highest mean-
ing], therefore the conventional truth of the world is not to be critically exam-
ined ." The point is that rational analysis of conventional truths will yield no
absolute, objective truth. Cf. MA 6. 158-159 and notes 104, 123,124 and 191,
below.
55 . MAB, 123-124: "No entity whatsoever remains exempt from [the rela-
tions of] cause and effect. Once he understands how even reflections without
any intrinsic being (svabhiiva) also adhere to causal relations , then what intelli-
gent person would determine that form, feeling, and so on are endowed with
intrinsic being? One need only understand them as they exist in the context of
their causal relationships, and it follows that no [entity] is produced through its
intrinsic nature, despite its being apprehended as existent."
56. Cf. MS 21.14: "When one accepts the [intrinsic] existence of the entity,
then he must consequently [accept J either the philosophical view of absolutism
or of nihilism, because an [intrinsically existent] entity must be either perma-
nent or impermanent ." Also ibid., 17.31-33: "Just as the magician creates
through his magical power a magical creature, and that magical creature,
(itself] created, goes on to create another magical creature; so the agent of any
action (kartr) is like the [first] magical creature, and the action (karma) taken [by
that agent] is like the second magical creature created by the (first] . The various
rnental afflictions, action, the body, the agent of action, and the results of that
action are like visions of an imaginary fairyland, like mirages or dreams."
57. A given action exists only as an effect dependent on a particular colloca-
tion of causes and conditions, and as a contributing factor toward the produc-
tion of its own related effect(s). The efficacy of this action is so determined only
Within the context of everyday experience, where it can be construed as taking
its proper place in the network of cause and effect that makes up the relations
governed by conventional truth. The component parts of the network, which
are necessarily perceived in the form of causes and effects, are devoid of intrin-
sically valid existence, and the network itself is nothing more than the matrix of
1
day-to-day reality. The postulation of an epistemologically or ontologically iso-
lated " truth" or "reality" set entirely apart from this fabric is both arbitrary
and meaningless for the Madhyamika philosopher, because from his perspec-
tive truth and reality can be defined only through relationship. Cf. MAB, 126:
"From the point of view of one for whom action is not produced through an
intrinsic quality of self, in this case neither is [any action] terminated . It is cer-
tainly not impossible for the result to arise from an undestroyed action; [and
because] the action is not destroyed, the relationship [through time] between
cause and effect is perfectly justifiable."
58. MAB, 127-129 (citing from the Bh(U)asamkriintisiitra) : " 'Mighty king, it is
(to be understood)like this: Suppose for example that some man is sleeping and
dreams that he is in the company of a beautiful woman . She is [simply] an
object in his dream, [yet] when he has awakened he becomes [obsessed with]
the memory of her. Mighty king, what do you think?: Would an intelligent man
[behave in this way]?' 'No he would not, blessed one. Why not? Because,
blessed one , this beautiful woman in the dream does not exist and is not appre-
hended [in waking life]. What chance would there be for him to engage in any
activity with her? Therefore he is a poor and unfortunate man.' The blessed one
then said: ' Mighty king, in just this way, naive and spiritually ignorant people
perceive forms with their eyes and devdop a strong craving for those [forms)
that are agreeable, and having developed this craving they become attached [to
them] . Once attached they go on to perform acts of body, mind, and speech that
arise out of clinging, antipathy, or delusion. Once performed, these actions are
terminated; and once terminated, for some interval they remain neither in the
east . ,.. nor toward any cardinal point . But some time later this person will
draw near to the moment of death, and the activity that was his destiny [in that
life] will have been exhausted. When the terminal moment in the last phase of
consciousness has arrived, then his mind will directly confront that very activ-
ity, [which is] just like the beautiful woman who served as the object for that
[other] person even after his having awakened. And so, mighty king, once the
last phase of consciousness has terminated, the first phase of consciousness asso-
ciated with birth will arise among the gods, or the hungry ghosts, [or in what-
ever appropriate realm]. And in the interval immediately following the termi-
nation of that first phase of consciousness, there issues forth a mental
continuum in accordance with his immediate destiny, wherein he will experi-
ence the ripening [of that former activity which confronted him during the ter-
minal phase of consciousness in his previous existence]. Mighty king, termina-
tion of the last phase of consciousness is called death/transmigration, and
arising of the first phase of consciousness is called birth. Mighty king, even at
its terminal moment, the last phase of consciousness does not go anywhere ; and
when the phase of consciousness associated with birth arises, it does not come
from anywhere. Why is this? Because [they are] devoid of intrinsic being.
Mighty king, the last phase of consciousness is empty of death/transmigration .
Action is empty of action. Birth is empty of birth. Even so, it is a matter of
direct experience that actions are inexhaustible.' "
59 . There is no ultimately valid reason for a diseased eye's seeing drifting
hair where a healthy eye perceives nothing-this is simply a characteristic of the

237
disease, and a matter of direct experience for the person with ophthalmia. Simi-
larly, within the context of daily life a given action produces its own result, and
when this result has been produced, that action will have realized its full poten-
tial. A single blow from a single hammer breaks a single specific jug, and once
the blow has been struck and the jug broken, there will be no other jug in any
other time or place broken through that blow. From the perspective of the truth
of the highest meaning, the result produced no more exists than any number of
other nonsensical consequences that have not and never will take place (e.g. ,
the destruction of a jug not present when the blow was struck). Both results are
equally void of any noncircumstantial reality. Both are empty. However, at the
level of conventional truth it is simply a matter of direct experience that the first
result is accepted as true, while the second is imaginary.
60. MAE, 131: "The blessed one thought: 'Common people who become
excessively rational will denounce both action and its consequences and so
negate the screen [of conventional truth .' Therefore he declared that] the ripen-
ing of the consequences of action is incomprehensible, and he rejected [rationa-
·~·
~'f! . listic] thinking leading to [philosophical views concerning) action and its conse-
quences ."
61. Cf. SES, fol. 25 (pp. 393-394): evam hi gambhlrataran padarthan na vetti yas
tam prati ddaneyam I asry alaya~ pudgala eva ciisti skandha ime va khalu dhatavai ca II
62. "Bases of consciousness" (dhatus) is not in the Tibetan text.
63. MAE, 132-133: "The disciples who have cultivated non-Buddhist philo-
sophical views for quite some time are unable to penetrate to the profound
meaning of the dharmata. When they hear about the dharmata as taught in the
words [of the Prajnaparamitiisutras]-'There is no self,' 'There is no production'
-they are at the beginning simply frighteqed . They consider the teachings on
emptiness like an abyss, and having turned their backs they find no meaning [in
such teachings. However, if] through having been previously taught about
repository consciousness they have rejected these non-Buddhist systems, they
will then find great meaning [in the concept of emptiness]. Later on when they
have correctly understood the significance of the siitras, these [notions of reposi-
tory consciousness and so on] will be spontaneously abandoned. Consequently,
[in such teachings) there is only advantage, and no fault need arise. As Ary-
adeva has written (CS 5.10): 'In the beginning one should practice that which is
agreeable, for he who is broken can never be a vessel for [teachings on] the true
Dharma (saddharma).' "
64. Cf. SES, fol. 25 (p. 394): aham mamery evayad iidideia satkayadnter vigame 'pi
buddha~ I tathiisvabhavan api sarvabhavii.n astfti neyarthatayiidideia II
65. On the problem of using language to break free of unexamined presup-
positions, cf. Whorf 1956, 121 : "The background linguistic system of each lan-
guage is not merely a reproducing system for voicing ideas, but rather is itself a
shaper of ideas, the programme and guide for the individual's mental activity,
for his analysis of impressions, for his synthesis of his mental stock in trade."
Nevertheless, in order to teach anything at all, even a buddha must use lan-
guage and the conceptual presuppositions embodied in it, and in order to
explain the most profound and subtle meaning of emptiness it is necessary to
238 Notes to Pages /62-163
use as expedients certain concepts that are ultimately incommensurable with

the true sense of the Madhyamika critique. Candraklrti writes that Nagarjuna
composed his Madhyamakafiistra specifically in order to distinguish between
those siitras which are definitive (nltiirtha), and those which are nondefinitive
(neyartha) (PSP, 41). In various places throughout the scriptures teachings can
be found that are ostensibly in conflict with each other. Authors of commenta-
ries created a distinction between definitive and nondefinitive meaning as a
hermeneutical device and used it to account for this problem by pointing out
that certain texts are not literally true, but are designed to meet the demands of
particular situations. Naturally there has been considerable disagreement as to
just which passages are "literally true," and which are not. For a general dis-
cussion of the types of teaching and the implications of each, see Ramanan
1966, chap. 5. Also see Ruegg 1985 .
66. Cf. SBS, fol. 23 (p. 392): prajiiiivihiirl sa hi bodhisattvo vijiiiinamatra-
pratibuddhatattva/1 I griihyam vinii grahakatiim apaiyad (apafyan) vijiiiinamatram tribha-
vam paraiti II I
I
67 . Cf. ibid.: yathii tarangii mahato 'mburiiie/1 samirar~aprerar~ayodbhavanti I tathiila-
yiikhyiid api sarvabijiid vijiiiinamatral'fl bhavati svafakte/1 II
68. MAB, 137-138: "Just as one knows that when a breeze stirs across the
ocean , [which is the aggregate of) the particles of water that constitute the sub-
stratum of waves, and the waves which were apparently sleeping are propelled
through the intervention of this merely circumstantial wind so that they obtain
r
individual corporeal being and disperse in every [direction); in this case as well,
from the ripening of traces [formed through) coming together of the apprehen-
der and the apprehended-[traces which) have been deposited since beginning-
less time in a serial continuum-consciousness obtains existence [as) individual
entities which [subsequently) perish . A particular trace is then deposited in the
repository consciousness, (a trace) that becomes the cause of production of
another phase of consciousness in accordance with the representation of the
[previous phase). And when this [trace) has progressively attained maturity
through the intervention of its own ripening conditions, it then produces a
'dependent [form)' which is impure . Although naive people conceptualize the
mental abstractions of 'apprehended' and 'apprehender,' still no such 'appre-
hended' [object) whatsoever exists in isolation from consciousness ... . Just as
those who assert a cause such as God, and so forth, [also) assert that this God is
the creator of all beings, so those who assert the repository consciousness main-
tain that this repository consciousness is [itself) all seeds, because it is the recep-
tacle of the seeds associated with apprehension of all entities. The distinction is
simply that while God is called eternal , the repository consciousness is not."
69. Cf. SBS, fol. 23 (p. 392): samvidyate 'ta/1 paratantrariipam prajiiaptisiddhis tu
(prajiiaptisadvastu-) nibandhanam yat (sac) I biihyam vinii griihyam udeti sac ca sarva-
prapaiiciivi~ayasvariipam II
70. See "The Yogidi.ra doctrine of the three marks," §3.5.2 , above . These
characteristics are reinterpreted by the Prii.sangika-midhyamika. First, the dis-
tinguishing characteristic of the perfectly accomplished (parinifpannal~ar~a) is,
for the Yogii.cii.rin, the ultimate absence of any distinction between mind and its
object. According to the Prisangika, however, it is the ultimate absence of any
1 Notes to Page 163 239
quality of intrinsic being-that is, the lack of any transcendent ground underly-
ing everyday experience. It is the emptiness of the highest meaning (paramiirtha-
ni/lsvabhavata). Second, the distinguishing characteristic of that which is depen-
dent (paratantrala/qa7J.a) characterizes entities as the objects of relative, dualistic
knowledge and as unique, discrete entities dependent on a particular colloca-
tion of causes and conditions. For the Yogiiciirin, discrete entities exist intrinsi-
cally, each arising out of repository consciousness through its own potentiality.
The Priisangika recognizes this characteristic as the mark of the absence of any
quality of intrinsic being within manifest phenomena. It is the logical mark
which designates their relational nature, their emptiness through being pro-
duced in dependence on each other (pratityasamutpanna). Third is the distin-
guishing characteristic of that which is imagined (parikalpitala/qa7J.a). While the
first two characteristics have to do with the truth of the highest meaning, this is
the mark of the purely imaginary character of all things, imputed through
assigning them names. For the Yogiiciirin, names contribute to the mistaken
I
belief that things are independent of the perceiving mind, but the Priisangika
I
~
identifies the mistaken impression fostered by conceptual labels as the belief in
intrinsically valid existence.
71. Cf. SBS, fol. 23 (pp. 392-393): vinaiva bahyam na (bahyam vina kva (?])
yathiisti cittam svapne yatha ced idam eva cintyam I svapne 'pi me naiva hi cittam asti yadii
1
tada niisti nidO.iJIJnam te II
72. Or simply: "there is no thought." Because thought has no intrinsic
being, it is not produced, nor does it pass away. Cf. 6.52, below.
73. The Prasangika maintains that the opposition between consciousness and
its object is upheld even in dream states. One must, of course, distinguish an
object perceived while dreaming from a similar object perceived while awake.
However, such a distinction is relevant only from the point of view of conven-
tional truth. From the perspective of the highest truth, according to the Prii-
sangika, neither consciousness nor its objective referent is produced, and there-
fore both are nonexistent (cf. MAB, 140).
74. Cf. SBS, fol. 23 (p. 393): svapnasya bodhe smarapatmano (smarapan mano) 'sti
yady asti bahyo vi!ayo 'pi tadvat I yatha maya dr!.lam iti smrte tu bahyeti (smrtis te bahye
'pi) tadvat smrtisambhavo 'sti II
75. Cf. MAB, 141: "Just as thought is [established as] existent from memory
of what was experienced in the dream, there is also a memory of the object
experienced in the dream, and so it too exists, or else it is necessary to conclude
that consciousness as well does not exist [in the dream]."
76. Cf. SBS, fol. 24 (p. 393): ca/qurdhiya/1 sambhava (cak,urdhiyo 'sambhava) eva
svapne niisty asti vai manasam eva etta/! I tada/crtau bahyataya niveia(/1] svapne yathehapi
tatha matam cet II
77. Cf. SBS, fol. 24 (p. 393): bahyo yatha te vi,ayo najata/1 svapne tatha naiva mano
'pi jatam I ca/qui ca ca/qurvi$ayai ca tajjam riipam (cittam) ca sarvam trayam apy
alilcam II
78. MAB, 142: "Just as, when a form is seen [in waking life], the eye, the
form, and the mind are all three present. so during a dream, when an object is
discerned, the full ensemble of these three must be apprehended; and just as
there [in the dream] the eye and the form do not [intrinsically] exist, likewise
visual cognition does not [intrinsically] exist. And it is the same for all other
types of cognition."
79. The "mental triad" includes mind (manas), the mental object which acts
as its objective referent (dharma), and mental cognition (manovy·nana).
80. MAB, 144: "As in a dream the object, the sense organ, and the cognition
are not real, so it is in waking life also. Thus one must understand, and there-
fore it has been clearly stated [in the siitras]: 'Just as magical creations appear
to be apprehended, while actually they are not real, so all things are like magi-
cal [creations], or like a dream, according to the teaching of the sugata.' And
similarly: 'The [various] migrations of existence are like a dream, here no one
is born and no one dies, there are no sentient beings, no names, and no life:
these thi~gs are like bubbles, [empty]like a banana tree.' "
81. MAB, 145: "This is just like the [example of the] dream. With respect to
the vision of the person affiicted with ophthalmia, the appearance of the hair
also exists [and not simply the cognition of that hair]; while with respect to the
vision of a person not so affiicted, both of the two are unproduced [and not
merely the appearance of the hair]. Therefore it is difficult to discern conscious-
ness in the absence of any object.''
82. MAB, 146: "If awareness ofthe appearance of hair is produced in a per-
son affiicted with ophthalmia when no hairs exist, then it follows that, when a
person not so affiicted looks toward the place where the person with ophthalmia
sees the hair, he also should have a cognition of hair ... because the absence of
the object is common [to both the healthy and the diseased eye]."
83. MAB, 146: "If the existence of an object is the cause for production of a
cognition, then [the situation] will be just as [described above]. However, it
may be that ripening or nonripening of a previously deposited cognitive trace
(vy·nanaviisanii) is the cause [respectively] of the production or nonproduction of
the cognition. Consequently, that [particular] image would be manifest only to
him in whom the trace [previously] deposited by a different knowledge of the
hair would [already] have completely ripened, and it would not be [manifest] to
anyone else.''
84. MAB, 147-148: "In this case, if there is to be any awareness of the poten-
tiality, then it must occur in association with present, past, or future cognition;
and for each of these, the potentiality to produce a cognition is impossible. In
the event that the potentiality is involved in a genitive relationship [with the
cognition-that is, the cognition is possessed by or contained by its potential-
ity], then it is illogical to say that the cognition, having the nature of an effect,
also exists as the cause. If this were the case, then the effect would have no
cause, and even when the sprout had been produced, still the seed would not be
destroyed. Therefore, potentiality is impossible for a cognition [already] pro-
duced. In the event that the potentiality is involved in ari ablative relationship
[with the cognition-that is, the cognition proceeds out of its potentiality), then
it is illogical to say that the cognition [already] produced becomes manifest for
the potentiality-because it exists, as was explained above (in 6.8cd). In this
way, no potentiality exists for a [cognition already] produced.'' Either way, for
there to be any relation between a cognition and its potentiality, both of them
must already exist.
85. MAE, 148: "In the absence of a qualification, that which is to be quali-
fied does not exist. Why is this? [In the expression] 'potentiality of a cognition'
(vijniinasya fakti~) 'cognition' is the qualifier of 'potentiality,' and 'potentiality' is
the base of the qualifier. But one cannot cogently demonstrate anything by
refuting or affirming an unproduced entity, [designating it] either 'cognition' or
'noncognition.' When such is the state of affairs concerning [the unproduced),
then in stating 'this is the potentiality of this' (the genitive relationship), what is
[intended) to qualify the potentiality? And likewise, when the qualifier does not
exist, the statement 'this becomes manifest from this' demonstrates nothing
whatsoever, because it fails to mention a qualifier. Furthermore, if one
attributes potentiality to the unproduced, then it must also be attributed even to
the son of a barren woman."
86. MAE, 149: "Anything that will come to be at any time whatsoever might
indeed be called 'imminent.' However, that which most certainly never will
become manifest, like the son of a barren woman, or space, cannot be [immi-
nent). Therefore, in this case, if the potentiality did exist then the cognition
might be imminent; but when the potentiality does not exist on account of the
nonexistence of the future cognition (as in the present proposition), then, like
the son of a barren woman, for want of potentiality the [cognition] cannot be
imminent."
87. MAE, 150: "When the existence of the cognition is" [necessary to) the
potentiality for that [same cognition], and the cognition is manifest from that
potentiality, then [we have an instance of] 'dependence on a reciprocal object.'
If such is indeed the case, then it must be admitted that cognition does not exist
through any intrinsic being. For example: Just as the existence of long is
[dependent] on short, while the existence of short is [dependent] on long; or the
existence of the far bank is (dependent] on the near bank, while the existence of
the near bank is [dependent) on the far bank -so it is that what is designated in
this way does not have existence through any intrinsic being. And if such is the
state of affairs, then this is in complete agreement with what we ourselves have
been saying." Cf. MS 10.10: "That entity which exists in dependence does so in
dependence on [another entity, and) if that which is to be depended upon would
also exist-then what is dependent on what?" and MS 10.11: "When that
entity which exists in dependence is [not yet) existent, then how is it dependent?
Even when it [already) exists in dependence, its dependence is not logical." A
nonexistent entity cannot logically be said to "depend" on anything, and if
entities have anything other than purely conventional existence, then they must
exist independently of one another, for if the existence of x rests entirely on the
existence of y, and vice versa, then both are like unreal phantoms produced
from nowhere.
88. MAE, 152: "If the future cognition arises, as an effect, through [the force
of] a cognition that has been produced and terminated-that is, from the rip-
ened potentiality of a terminated cognition which deposited [that) particular
potentiality in the repository consciousness-then one [cognition] would arise
from the potentiality of a different [cognition]."
89. Our translation here is based on Tsong kha pa, since the autocommen-
tary did not provide any help in interpreting the two names. TKP, 268, shows
nyer sbas for La Vallee Poussin's nyer spras, and adds "because they are two sepa-
rate persons" (gang zag so so'i gzang nyidyin pa'i phyir na /). La Vallee Poussin
1907-1911, pt. 2, 340, translates byams pa rryer spras La as "de !'affection et de
I' aversion."
90. MAB, 155: "The trace of visual cognition is deposited in reJ?Ository con-
sciousness by a different cognition that is in the process of terminating: Subse-
quently, from the ripened trace is produced a cognition that assumes its image.
That immediate moment associated with the potentiality which is the source [of
the cognition] is understood to be the physical organ of the eye by spiritually
ignorant people. However, there is no organ of the eye apart from cognition;
and the other organs are just the same in this respect."
91. MAB, 156: "The [flowers of the] Bandhujivaka, Kimsuka, and so on an
produced with a red image which does not rely on shifting external colors a!
does a gem; on the contrary, one apprehends the continuum of the sprout and
so forth produced as a particular image in accordance with the potentiality pro·
jected [into repository consciousness] by its own seed. Likewise, in the absenct
of an external form [colored] blue or the like, a cognition arises appearing a1
blue, etc.; and common people are persuaded that this appearance ... is oftht
nature of an external object." The autocommentary goes on to draw the anal·
ogy of a ruby reflected in clear water. The reflection, like the appearance of<
cognition, is perceived as a genuine external object by those who are unawan
of the nature of the illusion.
92. MAB, 158: "Vision in a dream-just as in the case of a blind man who is
awake-is without [its] instrument (the eye), which is the source of [visual] cog-
nition; [however,] it affects the image that rests in a cognition associated with
the ripened potentiality of the visual organ, and not [the image that rests in] a
mental cognition that develops from the ripened potentiality of a [previous]
mental cognition. Therefore, as in [the case of] the blind man who is awake,
where absence of the eye is not sufficient cause for [a mental cognition as
vision], so sleep during a dream is no cause for the ripening of a trace belonging
to [such a] cognition." Tsong kha pa adds the following comments (TKP, 270):
"In a dream mental cognition appearing as blue and so on arises in the absence
of a visual organ: Why is it, then, that vision of form and the like, such as that
enjoyed by a man with good eyes, is not produced as [in the dream] to the blind
man who is awake, since the absence of a visual organ is common to both the
dream and waking [states of the blind man]? And furthermore, if production of
cognition is established through intrinsic being without any external form, then
it is so [established] in both waking life and sleep through some unspecified and
mysterious quality. [The Yogiiciirin] may think: 'In a blind man who is awake
there is cause for the non-arising of clearly appearing mental cognition of forms
like that in the dream. However, this is not due to the absence of the eye, but
rather to the unripened potentiality for the arising of such mental cognition.
Consequently, where there exists a ripened potentiality, it is [a cause of] the
arising of a similar mental cognition. And [such potentiality] exists in sleep, in
dream OQly, and not in waking life.' This. is unreasonable. If according to [the
Yogiciirin] the ripened potentiality for the sixth mental [sense] cognition exists
in a dream but not in waking life; then [we ask], why is it unreasonable [to
Notes to Poge 165 243
assert as follows J: As here in waking life there is for a blind man no ripenec
potentiality clearly appearing as form and so forth, so, in the same way, durin~
a dream it should not exist. [Such an assertion] would be reasonable (i.e., i1
would be in accord with the Yogadirin's premises)." ·
93. "Unsubstantiated thesis" (Tib. dam bca ';here most likely for Skt. stitlhya.
the major term [probandum] of the syllogism). As Niigiirjuna has no proposi·
tion (pratiJna) of his own and therefore no fallacy ( VV 29), so Candrakirti reject:
the theoretical claims of the Yogiiciira as misguided attempts to provide a tran·
scendental ground for the sociolinguistic matrix of everyday experience. MAB,
158: "If you maintain [such arguments] merely on the authority of words .. .
then we [Madhyamikas] must also be allowed to maintain [our arguments:
strictly on the strength of words."
94. MAB, 161-162 (cited from an unidentified source): "Blessed one, it i:
through entry into the sense faculties that one enters into the dharmadhiitu.
There are twenty-two faculties (here follows a list of the six faculties, includin~
the faculty of conceptualization, and sixteen others drawn from the Abhi·
dharma, including such "faculties" as pleasure and pain). The visual faculty i:
not apprehended in any of the three times, and that which is not apprehendec
in any of the three times is not a visual faculty. How is it, then, that what is no1
the visual faculty actively manifests [itself) as a conventional reality? As, f01
example, an empty clenched fist, which is deceptive and actually does not exis1
[as perceived] (i.e. , it does not actually contain anything) . Despite their bein~
imputed in name, neither emptiness nor the fist is apprehended in any ultimat«
sense (piiramartika{l.). Like this empty fist, the visual faculty is deceptive and doe:
not actually exist [as apprehended]; it possesses a false and seductive nature
that deceives naive people. It does not exist, it is not real, and although it i:
imputed in name, nevertheless the visual faculty is not apprehended in any ulti·
mate sense. When the blessed one attained spiritual omniscience, for the pur·
pose of winning over in some measure sentient creatures dwelling in error, he
acknowledged the visual faculty [as a conventional reality], but it does not exis·
in any ultimate sense. The faculty is without intrinsic being, empty of any qual·
ity of being a faculty; the eye does not exist through the quality of being an eye
the faculty does not exist through the quality of being a faculty. How is this!
The eye is without any intrinsic being. That thing which has no intrinsic beint
is not a real entity, and [when erroneously perceived] what is not a real entity i:
not perfected (aparinifpanna, not of the highest, soteriological truth). [In the
highest, soteriological sense] it neither arises nor passes away, nor can it be
imputed as past, (present,] or future .. . . Faculties are like a dream, and simi·
larly all things whatsoever are not apprehended through any essence. Therefore
they are inexpressible."
95 . This is a visualization performed as a meditation on impurity (afubhabhii.
vanii), specifically intended to counter inordinate passion and attachment tha
may interfere with other study or practice .
96. The three factors of sensation are the object, the sense organ, and the
cognition associated with these two .
97. Rive rs flowing in the realm of the hungry ghosts are said to be filled wit!
pus.
98. That is to say, the cognition and its object exist only in the context of their
relations with each other, and whether or not they are "real" is a matter to be
decided on conventional, pragmatic grounds. A meditator or a hungry ghost
may well perceive and be affected by objects that are fictitious by everyday stan-
dards.
99. "Dependent entity" (paratantrauastu) is a synonym for "dependent form"
(paratantrariipa). MAB, 165: "Having demonstrated the impossibility of cogni-
tion in the absence :>fan external [object, these lines] are intended to refute the
existence of the entity alone."
100. MAB, 166: "If the dependent exists empty of both the 'apprehended
[object]' and the 'apprehender,' then according to you, what knower would
apprehend the existence [of such an entity]? It is illogical that it should appre-
hend itself, because there is an implicit contradiction in [the notion of] introcep-
tive activity (svlitmanivrtti): a sword edge does not cut itself; the tip of a finger
does not touch itself; even a well-trained and expert acrobat cannot climb up on
his own shoulders; fire does not burn itself; and the eye is not visible to itself.
(For the Yogacarin,J neither is the [entity] apprehended by another awareness,
because this would contradict his own tenets, for it would entail [the following
consequence]: If one cognition is the object of another cognition, then this
would [describe] the conditions of 'mind alone'; therefore, the apprehender [of
the entity] would be totally nonexistent, and that which is not apprehended [by
anything] has no claim to existence." But the Yogacarin asserts that "mind
alone" is the apprehender of all objects, and that it, and not the objects, is ulti-
mately existent.
101. The Yogacarin wants to establish his doctrine of reflexive awareness in
the following way (summarized from MAB, 167-168): "The memory of a given
event is simply 'memory of an object' and not 'memory of the experience of an
object.' Why is this so? If memory included 'memory of an experience,' then a
second 'experiential cognition' .would be required to experience the memory
itself, and a third to experience this second 'experiential cognition.' ... This
would involve the fallacy of eternal regression. Furthermore, the cognition
must experience itself, because otherwise one cognition must experience
another, discrete cognition, which would require a third cognition, and so on
and on. The same fault would be applicable. (The Prasangika's rejoinder] If
this is supposed to be proven from the ultimate point of view, that is, by postu-
lating the presence of intrinsically existent realities referred to as 'cognition,'
'memory,' and 'object,' then we suggest that our opponent consult our previous
arguments concerning this issue. If, however, it is to be proven from the per-
spective of everyday experience, then there is a logical fallacy in such an argu-
ment which must be acknowledged. Reflexive awareness is taken as the proof of
memory, while at the same time memory is used as the proof of reflexive aware-
ness. The argument is circular and therefore invalid.''
102. MAB, 169: "In this case, if such a claim can be made on the strength of
each and every [entity's] having been established as a real substance, then pro-
duction from self and from another are [both] untenable, and consequently
memory itself is an impossiblity: How could the unsubstantiated [concept of]
reflexive awareness be proven by the unsubstantiated [concept oil memory?
l
Moreover, if it is [to be proven] on the strength of everyday convention, then

from this perspective as well [it must be admitted that] memory as the cause oJ
reflexive awareness is an impossibility. Why is this? If in this case reflexive
awareness is to be proven by [a syllogism incorporating] 'cognition' [as the
major (i.e., unproven) term]-like [the term] 'fire' (in the classic syllogism
used to infer the existence of fire from the presence of smoke), and if because oJ
the existence [of this cognition], as in [the syllogism involving] smoke and fire,
the existence [of reflexive awareness] is to be proven through the medium of a
subsequently arising memory, then reflexive awareness is not conclusively
proven. In this event, how is it that there can exist a memory 'having reflexive
awareness as its cause,' and 'not arising without awareness'? The existence of a
'magic water stone' does not follow from the mere sight of water, and the exis-
a
tence of 'magic fire stone' does not follow from the mere sight of fire. This is
so becau~e even without such miraculous gems water can be produced from
rain, and fire from friction. In the same way, even without postulating the exis-
tence of reflexive awareness, one can account for the arising of memory [as a
purely conventional phenomenon]."
103. The argument here is a bit obscure, but the main point is clear enough.
With or without the reflexive awareness postulated by the Yogacarin, a memory
must always be different from the cognition of the original experience, and the
nature of the relationship which obtains between two such distinct events
remains to be explained. Cf. MAE, 171: "This argument-namely, 'because it
is different'-supersedes all other particularities such as the fact of being
included in a single continuum or the fact of being entities [related as] cause
and effect. Because the moment of the memory-cognition (smrtiJiiiina) arises
subsequent to the [remembered] experience, it is different. Therefore, just like
the cognition belonging to another continuum, it cannot be included in a single
continuum with the cognition of .the original experience (anubhavaJiiiina), nor
can it participate in the state of affairs defined by two entities [related as] cause
and effect."
104. The memory of an experience is no different from the actual experience
insofar as both are presented in the form of a dichotomy between perceiving
subject and perceived object. Cf. MAE, 172: "This is the practice current in the
context of everyday experience, and as such it is not to be [rejected through]
excessive recourse to analysis (shin tu dpyad par bya ba ni rna yin te), for conven-
tional reality survives through the grace of these fictions."
105. MAE, 172:" 'It is aware of itself': [In this assertion] the self which is
being known is the object (karmabhava), the same [self] is the agent (kartr, i.e.,
the knower), and the activity [of knowing] is also not separated [from this self].
As a consequence, the agent, the object, and the action are identical. The same-
ness of these [three] is nowhere actually perceived-as though a carpenter, the
wood, and the activity of cutting were identical!"
. 106. TKP, 302-303: "Because his philosophical view lacks the subtlety asso-
Cl.ated with the wisdom that discriminates [between the nondefinitive] and the
highest, definitive meaning [in the scriptures], our opponent the Cittamatrin
L
(Yogacarin) has developed strong attachment to a mere part of the body of
[explanation of] the dependent, as though (this part] were the (highest] truth.
l
246 Notes to Pages 166-/6 7
On account of this, he has thrown out the ambrosia contained in the.jug of

[explanation of) the dependent and refilled it with a watery, unsystematic
rational analysis. For the sake of his own poorly ordered thinking he has used
reason to negate the ordered conditions taken for granted throughout everyday
experience-things that can be proven only from the perspective of that experi-
ence: expressions like 'remain,' 'go,' 'act'; external form and things produced
from externally apprehended [objects]: for example, feeling, and so on. There-
fore all that remains for the the Cittamatrin is trouble, and he will never attain
to success, that is, to the highest station [of a buddha]. When the external
[object] is rejected, it is only reasonable that whatever is related to it, like [the
expression] 'go,' and so forth, would also be negated. What he teaches is
entirely divorced from the truth of the screen ... . The [Cittamatrin] philoso-
pher erroneously explains nondefinitive meaning as though it were definitive
meaning. In so doing he strays from the intention ofthe buddha's teaching and
sirltply treads the path of a system constructed out of his own imagination ." (In
acco;dance with Tsong kha pa, we should probably read rgud pa in place of the
rgyud pa of La Vallee Poussin's Tibetan edition [1907-1912, 174.12].)
107 . Cf. SBS, fol. 28 (p. 396): iiciiryaniigiirjunapiidamiirgad bahirgatiiniim na iivii-
bhyupiiya!l (five 'sry upiiya/1) I bhr~.tii hi te samvrti-saryamiirgiit (-tattvasaryiit) tadbhram-
iatai ciisti na mo~asiddhi~ II
108. Cf. ibid.; and BCA, 179: upiiyabhiitam vyavahiirasaryam upeyabhiitam para-
miirthasatyam I tayor vibhiigam na paraitiyo vai mithyiivikalpai~ sa kumiirgayiitafl II
109. MAB, 175-178: "The knower of the world, without having learned
them from another, taught the two truths-the truth of the screen and the truth
of the highest meaning: there is no third truth. The conqueror taught the truth
of the screen in the interest of all living creatures, for the benefit of the world,
through which these beings would develop faith in the sugata with the object of
[finding] joy [in liberation from suffering]. The lion among men designated as a
'screen' teachings concerning the six migrations of the mass of sentient beings:
hell creatures, animals, hungry ghosts, demons, men, and gods. Low families
and high, wealthy homes and poor, slaves, servants, women, men, and
eunuchs: Whatever particularities that are found among living beings, incom-
parable one, these you have assigned to the world.. And having penetrated,
through wisdom, the truth of the screen, the knower of the world taught it to
men. Living beings are content to circle in the round of transmigration, where
they enter into the eight worldly qualities of gain, loss, fame, obscurity, praise,
blame, joy, and misery. Those who gain cling [to their possessions], while those
who Jose become angry. The others not discussed here are also similarly under-
stood as infected with one or the other of these eight diseases. Those who
declare that this screen Is of the highest meaning must be seen as misguided.
They confound happiness with misery and misery with joy, claiming that the
non-self has the intrinsic nature of self, and that impermanent things are eter- I·
nal. Content to live in this way, when they hear what the buddha has spoken,
they become afraid, and without understanding anything they reject what they
have heard. Once they have rejected the words of the buddha, these living
beings go on to experience intolerable suffering in the hell regions. Without any
means they search for happiness, but because of their foolishness they endure
hundreds of miseries. Whoever comprehends with a clear mind [the truth of the
screen] taught for the benefit of the world will pass beyond all desire, like a
snake shedding an old skin. 'All things are without intrinsic being, empty, and
devoid of any distinguishing characteristic': [This is the truth of) the highest
meaning. He who hears this and becomes happy will obtain unsurpassed awak-
ening . . . . Teachings on conventional truth are the means, and so it is written
(PSP, 264): 'What hearing and what teaching is there of a Dharma without
words? Yet what is without words is taught and heard, through a process of met-·
aphorical imputation (samiiropiid). ' "
110. Cf. §3.5.3, "The Prasarigika critique," for the concept of paratan-
trabhiiva. Tsong kha pa explains what is meant here by "for a specific purpose"
(TKP, 308): "First, because it is necessary; second, in order to persuade stu-
dents of the Miidhyamika to reject philosophical views; and third, as the means
of gradually engendering an appreciation of the reality [expressed in the truth
of the highest meaning]."
111. MAE, 180: "The screen is to be accepted strictly in dependence on the
consensus of others, and not on our own authority. Thus it is accepted only with
reference to everyday experience. Consequently, if the refutation [of any ele-
ment of conventional experience J is accomplished for the benefit of one who
[normally] accepts it, then this is indeed a proper refutation-but not [if such a
refutation J is attempted for the benefit of anyone else."
112. LA, 50.32: cittadriyavikalpamiitram idamyaduta traidhiitukam I Also cf. DB,
32.9: cittamiitram idam yaduta traidhiitukam I
113. If the Yogacarin intends to use these words in support of his argument,
then the Madhyamika offers an extract from the Yogacarin's own scriptural
authority in response (DB, 6, 31-32): "The bodhisattva completely compre-
hends dependent origination according to its form . . . . He realizes that this
mass of suffering, this tree of suffering alone is present, devoid of anyone who
acts or feels. He realizes that 'the object of action' (karman) is defined through
clinging to [the reified concept of) 'agent.' Where no agent exists, there the
object of action as well is not apprehended in an ultimate sense. The triple
world is mind only. The twelve limbs of existence distinguished and proclaimed
by the tathiigata all rest on mind alone."
114. MAE, 184-185: "The expression 'non-Buddhist philosophers' (tirthikas)
is used in a generic sense, as it must also include any Buddhists ( dhiirmikas) who
postulate a 'person' or the like. In a manner of speaking, these Buddhists are
not Buddhists at all, since like the non-Buddhists they have not correctly pene-
trated the meaning of the teaching [on emptiness]. Therefore this designation
applies to all of them."
115. Concerning the definition of "mind alone" provided here cf. LA, 34.2-
3: "The person, the continuum, the psychophysical aggregates, conditions and j
atoms, a creator god, the high lord, and the 'agent'-these are [all] simply
mind alone" (pudgala~ samtati~ skandh~ pratyayii ar'avas tathii I pradhiinam iiviira~
kartii cittamiitram vikalpyate I/).
116. The argument here is based on a bit of scholastic exegisis. La Vallee
Poussin's translation of the first line differs from ours. He has, "De meme que,
bien que le mot buddha n'apparaisse pas devant [les mots] tattva, vistara, il y est
I
248 Notes to Page 16 7
cependant sous-entendu." In the footnote to this section, he sp._ggests the follow-

ing interpretation: "Lalitavistara est dit pour Euddhalalitavistata, -Tattvavatiira pour
Euddhatattvavatara (??)"(La Vallee Poussin 1907-1911, pt. 2, 242). Tsong kha
pa explains the line quite differently (TKP, 314): "Sangs rgyas is explained as 'he
whose wisdom concerning reality is rgyas (expansive).' The first word, that is,
sangs, is not actually present [in the explanation J, yet the title sangs rgyas is still
explained in this way. In an analogous fashion, [when the sutras say 'mind
alone' for the full expression] 'mind alone is preeminent in the dichotomy of
form and mind,' then the final word, 'preeminent,' is not actually present [in
the abbreviated expression]." In deciphering the meaning of this stanza it is
helpful to take into account the ancient, explanation of the term buddha sup-
plied by Yasomitra, for this definitio~ pfovides the key to the etymology of the
Tibetan translation equivalent sangs rgyas (awakened-expansive). Cf. AK 1.2:
"On account of the blossoming of intelligence buddha means 'blossomed' (or
'expansive': vi-buddha), as with a lotus that has blossomed. Or else, on account
of the casting off of duality which is the sleep of ignorance, buddha means
'awakened' (pra-buddha), as with a man who has awakened."
11 7. Cf. SES, fol. 24 (p. 393): nipam eva yadi tatra ni#ddham cittamatram idam ity
adhigamya (avagamya) I mohakarmajam uviica kim artham cittam atra punar efa ma-
hatma II
118. MAE, 186: ."In the Daiabhumikasiitra (31.30-31) mind is said to have as
its causes spiritual ignorance and the prenatal dispo~it!ons (samskaras). There-
fore it does not exist through any intrinsic distinguishing char<~.cteristic. If it did
exist in this way, then it would not be dependent on spiritual ignorance or on
the prenatal dispositions; but it is dependent on them. Therefore, mind is not
intrinsically existent. Like the hair and so forth apprehended by someone
afflicted with ophthalmia, it exists when the necessary conditions are present to
create such erroneous [perception], and it ceases to exist when the requisite
causes are no longer present." The problem is summarized a few pages later
(MAE, 190): "What sensible person would look at [this] self-explanatory text
and imagine that [it asserts that] mind exists as a real substance? A fantastic
notion like this is the result of(previously formed] philosophical views."
119. Cf. SES, fol. 24 (p. 393), and EGA, 222: sattvalokam atha bhiijanalokam cit-
tam eva racayaty aticitram I karmajam hi jagad uktam aiefam karma cittam avadhiiya ca
niisti II
120. MAE, 190-191: "Here· 'the sentient world' is made up of sentient
beings who receive their individual character (atmabhiiva) on the basis of their
own volitional actions and afflictions (klefas); 'the insentient world,' from a
whirlwind all the way up to the palace of the AkaniHha [gods], is composed of
th;lt which is produced through common action. All such diverse [creatures] as,
for example, a peacock-even to the eyes on his feathers-are produced by the
J>'jlrticular (asadhiirarza) action of the peacock. [Insentient things such as, for
exarhple,Jlotuses,. are produced from the common action of all sentient beings.
Other [things of both sentient and insentient worlds] are to be understood in
this way. . . . Therefore, the entire univei:se is produced from volitional action,
but such action is dependent on mind. Only action associated with mind is
accumulated [for retribution], and without mind there is no volitional action.
Consequently, mind alone is the preeminent cause of the creation of the uni-
verse ." The relationship between mind (or 'thought,' citta) and volitional action
(ko."rma) described here and in 6.88 should not be thought of as linear or chrono-
logical. Mind and action are interdependent, since one does not exist without
the other. Of the two, however, mind is primary, because it alone provides the
"intent" or "will" (cetanii) which distinguishes the purposive action of living
beings from the random movements of insentient things. Cf. MS 17.2-3, where
action is defined as either cetanii 'mental' or cetayitvii 'physical' or 'verbal .' The
force of such action is said to function as the cause of retribution either in the
same or in some future life .
121. Among the various philosophical schools which make up the Prasangi-
ka 's opponents, there is a considerable difference of opinion as to the identity of
the agent. Some maintain that the only real agent is God , some say that it is a
"principle of action," and still others assert that it is "mind." According to the
Prasangika, in identifying the agent as "mind alone" (cittamiitram), ·the siitras
do not negate the external, objective world, since it was never competing for the
title of" agent." Cf. MAB, 192: "If two kings desire power in a single land, and
one of the two rivals is expelled, while the other assumes control of the country,
still the citizens would not be harmed in any case, because they are inc;!ispens-
able to both kings. It is the same here, because material form (riipa) is indispens-
able to both [mind and any other possible agent) . Form remains unscathed [by
the debate over the nature of the agent), and therefore one can unqualifiedly
maintain that form exists."
122 . "Them" (de dag) refers specifically to form and mind, but it also , ac-
cording to Candraklrti, includes all the psychophysical aggregates.
123 . Cf. LA, 22: "Just as a physician prescribes medicine for various dis-
eases, so the buddhas taught to sentient beings [the doctrine of] ' mind alone.' "
Also ibid . , 33: "Mahamati the great bodhisattva addressed the blessed one in
these words: 'In the teachings of the highest scriptures the tathiigatagarbha is
described by the blessed one . It was described by you as being naturally bril-
liant , pure from the start with [all) purities, bearing the thirty-two marks [of a
realized buddha], immanent in the bodies of all creatures. It was described as a
jewel of immense value wra_pped in soiled cloth: wrapped in the cloth of the psy-
chophysical aggregates, of the elements of sensation ( dhatus), of the sense organs
along with their objects (iiyatanas); dominated by clinging, antipathy, and delu-
sion; soiled by the fllth of conceptualization; [but] permanent , firm , and eter-
nal . How is it, blessed one, that this talk of a tathiigatagarbha is not equivalent to
the talk of the non-Buddhist philosophers concerning a self (iitman)? Non-Bud-
dhist philosophers as well, blessed one, teach about the self as permanent, as a
non-agent, without qualities, all-powerful, and devoid of parts.' The blessed
one responded: 'Mahamati, my teachings on the tathiigatagarbha are not at all
equivalent to the talk of non-Buddhist philosophers concerning a self. But why
is thi~, Mahamati? The fully awakened saints, the tathagatas, teach about the
lathagatagarbha as emptiness, as the limit of existence (bhiitak.o.ti), as nirviil)a, as
unborn , uncaused, unceasing, and as other such things . Although the supreme
lathiigatagarbha is not susceptible to reification (nirvikalpa) and devoid of any
irnage (niriibhiisa), [still] they teach about it in this way so as to mitigate the
..,
object of terror of those naive people [who are afraid of] selflessness. And yet
here there is no clinging to this self, Mahamati, on the part of present or future
bodhisattvas. Just as, Mahiimati, a potter fashions a variety of pots from one
mound of clay particles through applying a hand, technique, a stick, water, a
string, and effort; so, Mahamati, the same selflessness of phenomena which is
absolutely free from all conceptualized distinguishing characteristics is taught
by the tathagatas by a variety of synonymous words and phrases, either through
instruction on the tathtigatagarbha or on selflessness-and as with the potter,
through application of diverse forms of wisdom or skillful means. Thus, Maha-
mati, they teach about the tathtigatagarbha [for the purpose of attracting those
who are attached to some reified concept of self]. The most profound knowledge
of the scriptures of all the buddhas is characterized by emptiness, by nonpro-
duction, by nonduality, and by the lack of any distinguishing characteristic."
124. MAB, 199: "The blessed buddhas introduce the disciples into the
absence of intrinsic being by degrees. Just as giving and the other [perfections]
are extolled from the beginning as means toward entering into the dharmatti,
because those who have practiced giving and so forth easily enter into the dhar-
matti, so also refutation of the object of knowledge is a means toward penetra-
tion into selflessness. Therefore the blessed one initially taught the refutation of
the object of knowledge. Those who comprehend the selflessness of the object of
knowledge will easily penetrate to the selflessness of the knower. Among those
who comprehend the absence of intrinsic being of the object of knowledge,
some will arrive unaided at an understanding of the absence of intrinsic being
of the knower, and some will arrive there with a little supplementary instruc-
tion. Therefore the buddhas initially taught about negation of the object of
knowledge." "Refutation of the object of knowledge" refers to the Madhyami-
ka's rejection of any concept of an intrinsically existent entity, an entity sup-
posed to exist entirely outside the context of its relationship with other entities
and with the consciousness through which it is known. Once this refutation is
appreciated, one can proceed to examine the relationship between the empty
entity and the mind which takes it as an object of knowledge.
125. MAB, 206: "If entities were produced fortuitously, then just as the
Panasa tree would not be the cause of its own fruit, so [that fruit] could just as
well be produced from the Nimba, the Amra, and so forth, since all of them
would be the same insofar as they have the quality of not being a cause. And
just as [a fruit] would be produced from the Panasa tree even though [the
Panasa tree] would not be the cause [of that fruit], so the same fruit might just
as well be produced at any time in the past, present, or future. Fruit produced
from the ripening of the Amra, the Lakura, and the rest, which appears at fixed
times in dependence on the seasons, would exist perpetually, because it would
not be dependent on the seasons. Likewise, because the peacock would not be
the cause for its own feathers, such eyes might be found on the raven as well;
and the peacock might just as well be born with the feathers of a parrot! In this
way all the things of the world would be produced perpetually, or else they
would not exist at all. On this account talk of spontaneous (svabhtivena) [produc-
tion] is unreasonable."
Notes to Pages 169-1 70 251
126. Cf. PSP, 38: (6 . 100ab) grhyeta naiva cajagadyadi hetuiiinyam syadyadvad eva
gaganotpalavarrwgandhau I
127 . The argument there is directed against the Carviika or the Lokayata.
The discussion about the afterlife (paraloka 'another world') is with reference to
transmigration. Candrakirti characterizes the position of these philosophers as
follows (MAB, 212) : "[These philosophers] have two positions: (1) the position
entailing belief in a form of intrinsic being associated with the material elements
(bhiitasvabhiiva) (that the self or mind originates within one or a combination of
the material elements); and (2) the position entailing negation of any possibility
of an afterlife (a denial of transmigration)."
128. "Object of knowledge" =the material elements.
129. According to Candrakfrti, when one negates the possibility of transmi-
gration and assumes that the present material world is the only reality, he ele-
vates the physical body to the status of an ultimately real entity. If the material
elements of the body are intrinsically existent, and consciousness has its origin
in these elements, then this is simply another way of positing the existence of a
real (transcendental) self. The philosophical view which negates the possibility
of an afterlife has, in this case , its foundation in the concept of intrinsic being
associated with the material elements. Therefore, in holding such a view one
tacitly postulates the existence of a real, intrinsically existent self within the ele-
ments of the physical body. Strict materialism (or rationalism) is in this impor-
tant respect no different from idealism , for both positions are founded on pre-
suppositions of an essence (iitman) supposed to provide everyday experience
with meaning and structure, and both have failed to see through the constraints
of our natural interpretations and associated observational languages .
130. Cf. SBS, fol. 21 (p. 391 ): bhiitiini tiini na hi santi yathii tathoktam siimiinyatalz
svaparato dvayataf ca janma I ahetukam ca khalu yena purii ni#ddham bhiitiiny amuni
anuditiini na santi tasmiit II
131. Cf. SBS, fol. 22 (pp . 391-392): bhiivii~ svabhiivarahitii/1 svaparobhayasmiij
janmiisti hetum anapelcyya ca naiva yasmiit I mohas tu yena bahulo ghanavrndatulyo loka-
sya te na (tena) vi1ay~ khalu bhiinti mithyii II
132. MAB, 216: "The clouds of a profound delusion cover over perception of
the intrinsic nature of [everyday things like the colors) blue and so forth, pre-
venting naive common people from perceiving this intrinsic nature (emptiness) .
In its place they mistakenly cling to an individual essence that appears a reality
to them."
133. Cf. SBS, fol. 22 (p. 392): kaicid yathaiva vitatham timiraprabhiiviit keiadvi-
candraiikhicandrakamalcyikadi I grh'(liiti tadvad abudha~ khalu mohado!iid buddhyii vici-
tram avagacchati samskrtam hi II
134. TKP, 342: "[The Madhyamika] philosophy makes it clear that voli-
tional action stemming from prenatal dispositions arises from the foundation of
delusion or spiritual ignorance, and without delusion that volitional action
would not arise. Ordinary people should certainly know this and be governed
by it, but when particularly adept people hear that the problem of spiritual
ignorance itself [creates] the prenatal dispositions [to volitional action], they not
only penetrate the emptiness of the absence of an intrinsic being within prenatal
dispositions, but they also clear away and abandon the profound delusion of
spiritual ignorance with the sun of their noble minds-the comprehension of
dependent origination. They no longer engage in volitional action stemming
from prenatal dispositions because they have eliminated such action, and they
are thereby released from the cycle of existence."
135. MAB, 218: "For now, this objection should be raised only against those
whose eyes are afflicted with ophthalmia: 'Why is it that although you see non-
existent objects lih floating hairs, still [you do not see] the son of a barren
woman?' Later on, those whose eye of wisdom is clouded over with the ophthal-
mia of spiritual ignorance can also be questioned as follows: 'Why is it that
although you see the [psychophysical aggregates of] form and so forth, which
have an unproduced intrinsic nature, still [you do not see] the son of a barren
woman?' We ourselves ought not to be questioned in this way. The yogis have
directly perceived entities as [empty], and we~ others who desire to obtain the
wisdom of the yogis have our highest aspiration directed toward those words
that explain the intrinsic nature of all things. Although we do endeavor to
explain the absence of any intrinsic being within entities, still this is done
through the medium of philosophical treatises like this one, which are infused
with the wisdom of the yogis. [These words] do not represent my own personal
opinion, for in fact my eyes are still clouded by the ophthalmia of spiritual igno-
rance . . . . Nor are the yogis to be questioned about these things, for they do
not perceive any intrinsic being within things either from the perspective of the
screen, or from the perspective of the highest meaning."
136. The following objection has been raised: If material forms, including all
their attributes such as color and shape, are not actually produced, then why
should they still be perceived, while such other unproduced things as "the son
of a barren woman" are not? That is, why should some nonexistent things be
perceived, while other equally nonexistent things are not? The Madhyamika's
response is that such a problem cannot in fact be solved, but can only be dis-
posed of by moving beyond the presuppositions responsible for it. This is
accomplished by acquiring facility in using the contrasting set of presupposi-
tions embodied in the soteriological truth of the highest meaning. In making the
transition to an incommensurable, alternative set of presuppositions, one grad-
ually comes to appreciate the depth of the conditioning that gives meaning and
structure to our normal, everyday experience, and at the same time the built-in
limitations of this conditioning also become more and more apparent. As Rorty
and others have pointed out, questions of conventional reality have never been
adjudicated through reference to philosophical concepts of production and non-
production, but rather through recourse to the consensus of everyday, prag-
matic experience. Chairs and tables are "objectively real" simply because most
people perceive them and make use of them, while other objects that appear in
dreams, mirages, and magic are only "subjectively real." They are perceived,
but only under extraordinary conditions, such that they are generally consid-
ered to be deceptive and of little or no use to the community at large. The son of
a barren woman, however, is completely unreal, because he is unproduced and
inefficacious both in terms of the higher, soteriological truth and within the con-
text defined by everyday concerns.
137. MAB, 202-221: "As the blessed one said (cited from an unidentified
siitra): 'The things of the world are like a dream , for in the reality [expressed in
the truth of the highest meaning] they are not grounded . And yet the deluded
mind becomes attached even to a dream where nothing exists. Although fairy
cities may appear, they do not exist in any of the ten directions or anywhere
else . A fairy city is established in name only, and the sugata perceives the entire
world in just this way. There is no water in a mirage, even though it is seen
there by someone who has the perception (samjnii) of water. In the same man-
ner, one who is misled by his imagination conceives of the disagreeable as
agreeable. Just as in a highly polished mirror a reflection appears without any
intrinsic being, so one must understand all other things as well. Even paradise
itself[is not grounded in any intrinsic reality].' "
138. La Vallee Poussin's translation differs substantially from the one
adopted here. He has: "De meme toutes chases ne naissent pas en substance au
point de vue de ce meme monde [ou: de Ia realite du monde] ." Candraklrti
offers no clue in his autocommentary, but Tsong kha pa interprets the stanza as
it appears in our translation (TKP, 342): gzugs sogs kyi dngos po 'di kun 'jig rten gyi
tha snyad dang I de kho na nyid gnyis kar rang gi ngo bo nyid kyis ma skyes so II
139. Tib. rang gyis yongs su nrya ngan las 'das pa; Skt. svabhiivena parinirvrtta. In
their innermost nature, all things [already] participate in complete nirviiJ;Ia.
140. MAB, 223 : "The word ii.di (from the beginning) indicates that [things]
are unproduced not only as they occur in the [nondualistic] knowledge of the
yogi (yogijnii.niivasthiiyiim), but even before this. Things are not produced by vir-
tue of any quality of individuality even as they occur in the context of everyday
convention ( lokavyavahii.riivasthiiyiim).
141. MAB, 224-225: " Objection: If the foundation of a designation (prajnap-
tyii.iraya) exists, as must be the case with for example, earth , water, fire and
wind, form, odor, flavor, and tangible [objects], then it is reasonable to say that
the designation has a cause . But in the event that things are mere designations
(prajnaptimii.tra), and there is no real substance serving as the foundation for the
designation, then the conclusion that they are like the son of a barren woman is
incontrovertible. Response: This also is unreasonable, because it is impossible to
establish any real substance as the foundation for the designation . ... As it has
been said : 'Earth, water, fire, and wind do not exist as separate essences. Any
one is nonexistent without the other three, and without that one the other three
also do not exist. And when each of them does not itself exist, how is the com-
posite produced?' Just as one does not assert that the impermanent is produced
from the permanent, so an unreal substance is not produced from a real sub-
stance . As it has been sa·id, once again: 'How is the impermanent produced
from the permanent? One never perceives any disparity between the distin-
guishing characteristics of a cause and [its] effect.' Therefore, in a similar man-
ner, a reflection, for example, that is a mere designation is nevertheless appre-
hended in a mirror, being founded on a collocation [of causes and conditions]
including a face and other things which themselves exist as mere designations.
A house is designated as dependent on its beams and other structural compo-
nents which are also mere designations. And a forest is similarly designated as
dependent on trees . Just as in a dream one apprehends a sprout that is unpro-
254 Notes to Pages I 71-1 72
duced through any intrinsic being, so it is equally reasonable that no entity

exists apart from its own designation. This designation is founded on [a colloca-
tion of) other entities which are themselves mere designations."
142. According to the Priisailgika, all the erroneous hypotheses developed to
account for production of entities stem from the fundamental ontological confu-
sion involved in the notion that such entities actually exist in some a priori,
atemporal manner, subject neither to perception nor to conceptualization.
When, under the force of deconstructive analysis and meditative insight, enti-
ties are recognized as entirely contingent on a complex web of interrelationships
involving both "psychological," sociological, and ontological factors, then theo-
retical accounts of production that go beyond what is given in everyday experi-
ence become superfluous.
143 . Cf. SBS. fol. 26 (p. 394): yii kalpaniiniim vinivrttir etat phalam viciirasya
buddhii vado.nti I p.rthagjanii~ lcalpanayaiva buddhii alcalpayan muktim upaitiyogi II
144. "Analysis" (Tib. mam dpyod; Skt. viciira) here refers specifically to the
deconstructive, reductio ad absw;dum analysis epitomized in the catu~ko.ti.
145. Cf. PSP, 340: satkiiyadn.tiprabha[v]iin aJe~iin klesiims ca do~iims ca dhiyii vipa-
iyan I iitmiinam asya vi~ayam ca buddhviiyogi lcaroty iitmanzjedham eva II
146. See stage 4, n. 3.
14 7. Cf. PSP, 344: iitmii tirthyai~ lcalpyate nityariipo 'kartii bhoktii nirgu11o ni~knyaJ
ca I lcamcit lcamcid bhedam iiSritya tasya bhedam yiitii prakriyii tirthikiiniim II
148. According to the Priisangika-miidhyamika, the cognitive basis for this
deluded clinging to an "I" is the conventional, dependently originated "I."
149. Cf. MA 6.14-21, concerning "production from another."
150. MAB, 243: "Those sentient beings who even now, after the passing of
numerous eons, have not escaped from the condition of birth as an animal, they·
also do not apprehend this kind of [eternal] self. The word also indicates those
born in hell and so on."
151. Cf. PSP, 342: skandhii iitmii ced atas tad bahutviid iitmiinaft .ryus te 'pi bhiiyiim sa
eva I dravyam ciitmii priipnuyiit tiidrsaJ ca dravye vrttau vaiparityam ca na .ryiit II
152. This objection holds even if the self is considered to be simply mind.
MAB, 246, says, "If according to [another] view the self is mind [alone], then in
this case as well cognition is divided into visual and so forth ; and because cogni-
tion is multiple and produced and terminated from one moment to the next, so
the self also (would be subject to these qualifications]." The Pudgalaviidin iden-
tifies the self with all five of the aggregates, and the Yogiiciirin identifies it with
mind alone.
153. MAB, 245-246: "The self would become a [conventionally] real sub-
stance ( dravyam ciitmii priipnuyiit): Because the psychophysical aggregates are
referred to as [conventionally] real substances-being differentiated through
the divisions of past, (present, future], and so on; and because the self would be
designated as just those [aggregates]: so the self would exist as a [convention-
ally J real substance. But [other Buddhists] would not want to admit this, on
account of [contradictory testimony from the sutras]: 'Monks, there are five
things that are nothing but names, mere conventionalities, simple designations .
Which five? Time past, time future, space, nirviiJ.la, and the person.' And like-
wise: 'Just as one refers to a carriage as being founded on its composite parts, so
one acknowledges the sentient beings of the screen (the conventional existence
Notes to Pages I 72- I 73 255
ofliving beings) as founded (not equivalent to) the psychophysical aggregates.'

... Furthermore, because the philosophical view of a real, substantial self
would have as its object a [conventionally) real substance, it would not be erro-
neous [in the context of everyday experience)."-,
154. CF. PSP,· 342: iitmocchedo nirvrtau syiid avafyam I niiSotpiidau nirv.rte!z priik
/qarLe~u I kartur niiSiit tatphaliibhiiva eva bhuiijltiinyeniirjitam karma ciinya!z II
155. Because the five psychophysical aggregates no longer exist from the
moment when nirviii_la is realized, as a consequence of this thesis the self also
would be destroyed at that time. Candrakirti condemns this as nihilism-one of
the extreme views (antagriihadr~.tis) proscribed by the buddha (MAB, 247-248),
yet it would seem that the same condemnation would apply to the idea that the
aggregates themselves cease to exist.
156. MAB, 248: "[If ·the self is the aggregates, then)like these aggregates
which are produced and terminated from one moment to the next, the self
would be produced and terminated from moment to moment prior to realiza-
tion ofnirviiQ.a, because it would have the intrinsic nature of these aggregates."
If this were so, the self, like the physical body, would not continue from one life-
time to the next. Also, the self of one moment would endure the consequences
of action performed by a different self, the self of a previous moment, and
would escape the consequences of its own action.
15 7. The reference here is to the "inexpressibles" ( avyiik.rtavastus), fourteen
points which, according to traditional accounts, were neither to be accepted nor
denied. One should not consider the world eternal or not eternal, or both, or
neither; nor understand it as subject to termination, or not subject to termina-
tion, or both, or neither (cf. PSP, 446; see SN 4, 475ff., for the classical source
of this doctrine). In this passage it seems that Candrakirti has used the expres-
sion "everyday experience" (loka 'universe,' 'world') with reference to all that
goes to make up the objective and subjective constituents of conventional reality
-that is, as a synonym for the five psychophysical aggregates. Cf. MAB, 251-
252: "Therefore, if the expression 'everyday experience' implie~ the psy-
chophysical aggregates, then because the aggregates are not eternal [being sub-
ject to production and destruction,) this is tantamount to saying that the world
is not eternal. The same conclusion follows from the fact that there are no psy-
chophysical aggregates in nirviii_la. However, speculation to the effect that the
world is subject to termination is expressly forbidden [as soteriologically use-
less], and consequently it is inappropriate to claim that the self is simply the
aggregates." The syllogism constructed here is: (1) the world is the aggregates;
(2) the aggregates are not eternal; therefore (3) the world is not eternal. Such a
conclusion is in direct conflict with a doctrine accepted by all Buddhists and is
for this reason unacceptable. On the other hand, it is not at all clear just what
this has to do with the self, and no adequate explanation is to be found either in
MAB or in TKP. The entire stanza is problematic.
158. MAB, 252-253: "If the self is either the aggregates or mind, then when
the meditator realizes the [four noble] truths and the truth of suffering as repre-
sented in selflessness-that is, 'all things are without any self,' at that moment,
in realizing selflessness, he would realize the nonexistence of the aggregates.
This also is not admitted (by our opponents), and therefore the self is not the
aggregates. But it may be suggested that the term self is employed when dealing
256 Notes to Page 17~
with the connection between action and its effect, because at that time no other
self is possible, and [in this particular case self) implies 'aggregates.' But when i
is a matter of the realization of selflessness, then it implies the real, internai
agent imagined by others (i.e., non-Buddhists). Therefore when he realize~
selflessness [the meditator] realizes that there are only prenatal disposition:
devoid of any real, internal agent, and he does not consequently realize tht
nonexistence of [all] entities . ... If (our opponent] fears the consequence tha·
there would be realization of the nonexistence of [all] entities, and so takes tht
term self to mean 'eternal self,' then he does not consider the self to be either
mind or the aggregates, and he has in this case strayed from [his own original:
proposition ."
159. If selflessness is understood as " the absence of an eternal self," ther
realization of selflessness affords no necessity for abandoning clinging and tht
other affiictions which take material form (riipa 'the body') as their object
According to the Priisangika, however, the meditator actually perceives selfless·
ness as the absence of intrinsic being(= dependent origination, and emptiness) .
160. Cf. SN22, 85.30; and MV 1, 6.38.
161. MAR, 255-256: "This siitra holds that the correct view is expressed in
the thought of the self as [dependent] on the five aggregates, and it certainly i~
intended as a rejection of any 'self [supposed to be] different from the aggre·
gates . (Cf. MA 6.135.) One needs to appreciate how it rejects the [supposition
that] form and the other aggregates are themselves the self, and from this, thai
the dependently designated self-the (actual] object of the philosophical view ot
a real, substantial self-does not take the aggregates as its appropriated substra·
turn . This is meant to be conducive to awareness of reality [as expressed in tht
truth of the highest meaning]. If no subject (upadatr 'appropriator') is appre·
hended , then its object (upiidiina 'the appropriated substratum') is also nonexist·
ent, and so there is no clinging to form and the other [aggregates]."
162. MAB, 256: "Just as when one says, for example, 'The forest is the
trees,' [this implies that] the forest is the composite of trees, and not that it is the
nature of (each individual] tree, since this would entail the consequence that
every tree is a forest."
163 . "The protector," "the one to be subdued," and "the witness" are three
expressions traditionally used to characterize the strictly conventional self. Cf.,
e.g., DP, 157, 159-160.
164. CF. MAB, 258-259: "[The self) is not the mere composite of parts that
are the appropriated substratum of the designation ['self], that on which the
designation is founded, precisely because it is designated in dependence on
them, like something fashioned from the material elements. Even though a
color like blue and the visual organ of the eye [associated with color perception]
are "caused" by the material elements , still neither is simply the composite of
these elements. Likewise, even though the self is a designation taking the psy-
chophysical aggregates as its cause, still it would be unreasonable to maintain
that it is simply the composite of these aggregates." In the example of the car-
riage , we can define the Miidhyamika's terms in this way : (I) "Carriage" is the
name , or designation (prajiiapti), which is also referred to as the " appropriator"
(upiidiitr); (2) the composite parts (axles , wheels, etc.) are that which . is desig-
nated, or "appropriated," hence the term "approptiated substratum" (upa-
diina). A sort of reciprocity obtains, then, between the appropriator and the
appropriated substratum . In the context defined by such a relationship, we
must further acknowledge the formal existence of at least two distinct but mutu-
ally dependent participants.
165. Karma is both '(volitional) action' and 'the object of action.'
166. MAB, 259-260: "Here 'the appropriator' is that which performs the
function of appropriating, hence 'the agent'; and 'the appropriating substra-
tum' is that which is taken up, hence 'the object of action.' The appropriator is
the self, and the appropriated substratum is any of the five aggregates. In this
case, if the composite of form and so on were equivalent to the self, then the
agent and the object of action would be identical. This also is undesirable,
because it would entail the consequence that the material elements and the
forms which take [these elements] as their cause, for example, potter's clay and
ajug, would be identical. As it has been said (MS 10.1): 'If the fire is the fuel,
then the agent and the action are identical.' And further (ibid., 10.15): 'The
whole relationship between the self and the appropriated substratum is com-
pletely explained through [the analogy of] fire and fuel, as well as [all other rela-
tionships like those between] fabric [and its thread], or the jug [and its clay].' "
167. MAE, 260-261: "This could not be the case. If one does not assert an
agent, then without its cause one also cannot assert an action . . .. Therefore,
just as one designates action in dependence on an agent, and the agent in
dependence on action, likewise one designates the appropriator in dependence
on the appropriated substratum, and the appropriated substratum in depen-
dence on the appropriator. Also (MS 27 .8): 'The self is not different from the
appropriated substratum, nor is it just that same appropriated substratum; it is
not [present in] the absence of the appropriated substratum, and it is certainly
not the case that it does not exist.' Consequently, it must be understood that in
the absence of the agent, action also does not exist. Moreover, those scriptures
that teach that although the agent is not apprhended, still the action and the rip-
ening [of that action] does exist, must be understood as [intended to] refute the
existence of the agent through any intrinsic being. One must not understand
this as a refutation [of the self], which does exist as a conventional part desig·
nated in dependence [on other such parts)."
168. That is, because none of these things is actually the self, the concept of
an "I" which becomes the object of clinging cannot be based on the aggregates
themselves. Cf. MAB, 263: "The aggregates are not the 'I' which is the object
of [this clinging], nor does this 'I' exist apart from the aggregates. Therefore,
because no such 'I' exists to serve as the object , the meditator realizes that the
self is unapprehended, and from there [he goes on to realize that] 'mine-ness'
also is devoid of substance . Once he has so exposed all composite things as
devoid of any appropriated substratum, he attains nirval)a. Therefore this anal-
ysis is extremely beneficial." ("Mine-ness" refers to all objects of clinging
external to the "I.")
169. Cf. SBS, fol. 26 (p. 394): pai_}\ 11111 ahitn chidragatam svagehe gajo 'tra 11iistiti
nirastaiamka!z l.fahiiti sarpiid api nama bhilim aho hi niimarjat•atii parasya II
170. Cf. PSP, 434: skandht!IJ iitmii t•irlyate naiva tami santi ,·kandhii niitmanitiha yas·
mat I sary anyat/Je syiid ryam kalpanii t•ai lac ciinyalt•am niis~y atah kalpanaisii II
171. MAR, 265: "When there is a dillerencc (bctwl'en the two], then it is rea-
r
I
258 Notes to Pages I 74- I 76
'}
sonable that there be a container and a contained entity. For example, one can
say, 'There is yogurt in the bowl,' The bowl and the yogurt are distinct in the
context of everyday experience, ~d are perceived as container and contained
entity. However, the psychophysical aggregates are not different from the self,
nor is the self different from them, so there is in this case no [relationship analo-
gous to that which obtains between] 'container' and 'contained entity.' "
172. Cf. PSP, 434-435: if.to niitmii riipaviin niisti yasmiid iitmii mattviirthopayogo hi
niitaft I bhede gomiin riipaviin apy abhede tattviinyatve riipato niitmana~ sta~ II
173. Cf. MAB, 266: "Any identity or difference between the self and the
aggregates has already been refuted. The suffix which marks the genitive (mat-
or vat-pratyaya) is applied in the case of 'identity,' for example, 'Devadatta pos-
sesses form' (riipaviin devadat~); or in the case of 'difference,' for example,
'(Devadatta] possesses a cow' (gomiin devadatt~). But there is neither identity
nor difference between form and the self, and therefore it is not possible to
assert reasonably that the self is in possession ofform."
174. Cf. SBS, fol. 26 (pp. 394-395): riipam niitmii riipaviin naiva ciitmii riipe niitmii
riipam iitmany asac ca I skandhiin evam viddhi sarviims caturdhii vimiatyamsii eta i~.tii~
svadr~.te~ II
175. See stage 4, n. 3.
176. Cf. SBS, fols. 26-27 (p. 395): etiini tiini iikhariirzi samudgatiini satkiiyadnti-
vipuliicalasamsthitiini I nairiitmyabodhakuliiena vidiiritiitmii bhedam prayiiti sahasaiva tu
(saha yair. - J dr~.tiiaila~ II
177. The argument here is directed against the Sammitlyas, or Pudgalava-
dins, an early Buddhist sect which, according to Candrakirti, claimed as one of
their essential doctrines the view that the self is a "transcendental substance"
not susceptible to expression in language or conceptual thought. The same
argument could be used against the absolutist interpretation discussed in the
first part of §3. For a more sympathetic presentation of this doctrine, see Conze
1962, 122-134.
178. La Vallee Poussin seems to have had some trouble with this stanza. He
translated this pada as "il soutiennent qu'il est la connaissance des six vijitiinas
(?)(sic.)." He could apparendy make no sense of his interpretation.
179. This and the following three stanzas are crucial to the Prasangika's con-
cept of emptiness. According to the Prasangika, it makes no sense to speak of a
"real entity" that does not exist in a context defined by its identity with its char-
acteristic qualities and its difference from other similarly real entities. This
means that all entities are real only insofar as they participate in the relation-
ships that make up everyday experience (the truth of the scr.:en: samv.rtisatya).
From the perspective of the truth of the highest meaning there is only the empti-
ness of this maze of interpenetrating reflections, and so it must be stressed that
the concept of emptiness has not4ing to do with an epistemological or ontologi-
cal monism.
180. MAB, 269: "Like the jug, one must also think of the self as existing
[merely) as a designation."
181. MAB, 271: "In order to clarify both positions, that is, that [the self] as
both container (iidhiira) and contained (iidheya), the compound skandhiidhiira sub-
sumes the two (meani11gs) .•.. Therefore, when one properly considers the
r
I
self a [mere] designation, unapprehended, then one should not accept the self
by means of any of the alternatives which have been discussed."
182. MAB, 271: "There is no production without a cause, [nor is there sponta-
neous production, nor is there production from another, nor from both 'self and
'other,') yet we accept the statement 'this originates in dependence on that' so as
not to fall into conflict with what is given in the context defined by the truth of the
screen. Similarly, in this case as well (the sel~ is entirely dependent on [another
such] dependently designated entity. (All other alternatives for explaining the
relationship between the self and the aggregates] must be relinquished, because
they are marked by the fallacies that have been described in the preceding stan-
zas. One must accept the conclusion that the self is simply designated in depen-
dence on the psychophysical aggregates. By doing this, one conforms to conven-
tion, for the self is designated as a matter of conventional practice."
183 . Candrakirti has already discussed the first five alternatives listed here,
so that only the theses concerning the composite and the shape remain to be
dealt with .
184. The carriage cannot be the composite of its parts or the shape divorced
from its parts, for if we cease to postulate the existence of the carriage (the pos-
sessor of the parts, or the possessor of the shape of the assembled parts), then
the "parts" are parts of what? Just as there is no carriage without carriage
parts, so there are no carriage parts without a carriage. (For another argument
dealing with shape, cf. 6.136 .)
185. MAB, 273: "If within the carriage the particular shape of the wheel and
so on is exactly the same as it was before [assembly o~ the carriage, then it is
certain that, as it was nonexistent in the midst of the disassembled parts, so the
carriage does not exist even when it [is assembled), because the shape of the
[individual] parts is no different (from what it was before assembly] ."
186. MAB, 274: "If within the carriage any difference at all has been pro-
duced in the shape of the (parts] as compared with the previous width, length,
circularity, and so forth of such things as the wheels, axles, and bolts, then it
should be apprehended-but no difference is apprehended. The [individual]
wheel possesses a particular shape composed of its spokes, rim, hub, [and the
other parts], and when the carriage is [assembled), no difference at all can be
perceived. Likewise the width and so on of the axle and [other parts) does not
change, and therefore it is unreasonable to say that the carriage is [merely) the
shape of its parts."
187 . MAB, 275 : "If any entity whatsoever called 'the composite' did in fact
exist, then one might legitimately designate a shape as dependent on it. The so-
called composite , however, does not exist in any sense, and how could [the car-
riage] be designated as a shape dependent on that which does not even exist?
According to [our opponent), a designation can be founded only on a real sub-
stance ." For both the Prasangika and his opponent, the composite is not real
because it is only a composite-an assemblage of real parts. The shape of this
I "composite" is like "the scent of a flower growing in midair."
I, 188. Th'lt is, just as your reasoning leads inevitably to the conclusion that the
shape is merely a conventional designation dependent on another designation
(the composite) dependent on yet another designation . .
260 Notes to Pages I 76-1 77
189. MAB, 275: "Composite things which possess a deceptive intrinsic

nature are produced in dependence on falsehood [generated out] of spiritual
ignorance. For example, the sprout that possesses a deceptive intrinsic nature is
produced in dependence on a seed that itself possesses a deceptive intrinsic
nature. One must recognize the nature of all causes and effects without remain-
der as possessing a deceptive intrinsic nature. What good is this nonsensical
clinging to an entity which is like the shadow of a deer, when one is incapable of
eating [real] meat even after a hundred thousand attempts?" If one cannot eat
real meat (cannot find a real person), then why try to obtain meat from an illu-
sory deer (why try to construct a real person out of illusory "composites")?
190. MAB, 276: "It has already been explained how form and so forth are
not produced. Therefore, since they are not produced, they do not exist. How
is it reasonable that [things] that do not exist should be characterized as the
cause of designations like 'jug' and so forth? Consequently, the jug and so on
are not in possession of a quality of self characterized by the shape of thei; form
(and their other characteristic qualities]. It is unreasonable that such things as
jugs should be considered to have a real substance for an appropriated sub-
stratum." ·
191. MAB, 276-277: "Objection: If indeed, when searched for according to
the seven alternatives in the system just described, the carriage did not exist,
then because it did not exist in the world the conventional reality designated
"carriage" would be totally destroyed, and one would not encounter such
expressions as 'Bring the carriage!' 'Buy a carriage! ' and 'Prepare the car-
riage!' Therefore, because they are taken for granted in the context of everyday
experience, carriages and [other such thin.;s] do exist. Response: This problem is
yours alone. The carriage is not discovered when searched for according to the
seven alternatives previously discussed, and still you devise methods to estab-
lish it through rational analysis as an [objectively real] entity, without accepting
any alternative means of proof. Consequently, just how will you establish the
everyday, conventional realities represented in expressions like 'Bring the car-
riage!' and so forth? ... Although the carriage will not be established through
any of the seven alternatives (discussed] in rhe system above, whether from the
perspective of the highest meaning or from that of the screen, still the world
abandons rational analysis and designates the carriage in dependence on its
parts, the wheel and so on . In the same way (the colors] blue and the like, and
(the psychophysical aggregates] feeling and so on (are designated in depen-
dence on their parts]. We, however, accept 'designation in dependence' as the
sole condition of origination in dependence, and therefore our position does not
lead to the consequence of destroying everyday convention . It would behoove
our opponent as well to accept this [concept]."
192. MAB, 278: "With reference to its appropriation of the substratum
[composed of] wheels and so on, it is an 'agent'; and with reference to its own
appropriated substratum it is an 'appropriator.' "
193. MAB, 279: "[Everyday experience] must be completely turned around .
The everyday experience of the screen does not exist when subjected to analy-
sis, but it does exist when it is unexamined and taken for granted. For just this
reason, when the meditator systematically analyzes it in this way he quickly
plumbs the depths of the reality [expressed in the truth of the highest
meaning]."
194. MAB, 280: "Although one who conceptualizes does indeed conceive of
the wheel and so forth as a carriage simply through knowing them in conjunc-
tion with each other, another person [who is not entirely dependent on concep-
tualization] does not do this. The [first person] conceives of a 'possessor' of
parts like the wheel, which is dependent on it own parts. But if the wheel and
the other parts are completely disassembled and scattered about, then they will
not be thought of as parts of a carriage."
195. MAB, 281: "For example, when a carriage-the possessor of parts-is
burned, its parts as well will certainly be burned. Similarly, when the fire of dis-
crimination springs from the friction caused by rubbing together the wood of
analysis, and the carriage is completely burned by this fire, which has nonap-
prehension as its flame, then the parts also become fuel for wisdom, and they
inflict no harm (through being conceptualized as possessing some] quality of
self, because they too are incinerated."
196. MAB, 281-282: "Just as the carriage is designated in dependence on the
wheels and so forth-the wheels and other parts serving as the appropriated
substratum (upiidiina) and the carriage as the appropriator (upadiitr), likewise, in
accord with the truth of the screen, so as not to destroy everyday convention
completely, the self is considered an appropriator. The five psychophysical
aggregates, the six elements, and the six sense organs with their particular
objective referents constitute the appropriated substratum of the self, and the
self is conceptualized in dependence on these aggregates, and so on. As the
wheels and other parts make up the appropriated substratum of the carriage, so
the psychophysical aggregates make up the appropriated substratum of the
self."
197. Upiidiina 'appropriation'= 'the appropriated substratum,' just as karma
'action' = 'the object of the action.'
198. MAB, 282: "In the same way that this relationship between 'appro-
priated substratum' and 'appropriator' is ordered according to convention, [in
the case of the self] the relationship-between 'object of the action' and 'agent' is
to be accepted as, for example, with the carriage . . . . The so-called appro-
priated substratum of the psychophysical aggregates is the object of the action,
while the self is the agent. This is the [conventional] relationship. The self,
which is entirely dependent on [other] dependent designations (upiidiiyaprajii.apti-
samiifrita), provides no basis for concepts of absolutism or nihilism, or any other
(such extreme views]. Consequently, concepts like permanence and imperma-
nence are easily refuted."
199. MAB, 285-286: "ObJection: But why is it that concepts like imperma-
nence and so on do not properly apply to the self? Response: Because [in terms of
the truth of the highest meaning] there is no such entity. If there were any self
whatsoever with the intrinsic nature of an entity, then concepts of imperma-
nence would be applicable, but no such self exists, and because it does not exist
(these concepts and any others do not apply to it] . . . . When searched for
through the seven alternatives, a permanent or impermanent ['I'] is impossi-
. ble. He who does not perceive [its] unreality, who is attached to [its] existence
I
~
T
through the force of spiritual ignorance and clings to the notion 'This is the self
because of his philosophical view of a real, substantial '1'-he transmigrates
from one life to the next."
200. MAE, 286-287: "One should know the 'self as that with reference to
which the idea of an 'I' becomes manifest to numberless creatures wrapped in
spiritual ignorance and dwelling in various migrations: humans, hungry
ghosts, animals, [gods, demons, and those tormented in the hell regions]. The
cognition of 'mine' appears with reference to the internal [things J sharing in the
quality of self, like the eye and so forth, which are the foundation of the designa-
tion [of a self], as well as the external [possessions of the self]. That is, anything
there may be with reference to which [the self] becomes a 'possessor.' This self is
established through spiritual ignorance, and not through any intrinsic essence.
Although it does not exist, it is conventionally so designated through spiritual
ignorance. The meditators, however, do not apprehend it in any way; and
when it is not apprehended, the eye and so forth which constitute its appro-
priated substratum also do not appear. The meditator apprehends no essence in
any entity, and he is liberated from the round oftransmigration."
201. MAE, 287-288: "Just as a jug is impossible without potter's clay, so in
the absence of the self there is also nothing to be called 'mine.' Consequently
the meditator apprehends neither 'I' nor 'mine.' He perceives no round of
transmigration and is liberated. When form and the [psychophysical aggre-
gates] are not apprehended, then [affiictions]like clinging and the rest which
depend on them also do not arise. [Having perceived] no appropriated substra-
tum, the pratyekabuddhas and sriivakas abide in nirviiQa. But the bodhisattvas
are dominated by compassion, and even though they have already perceived
selflessness they remain in the current of existence until [all beings have
attained] awakening. On this account, those who are skillful should strive
toward [perception of] selflessness as it has been explained here." La Vallee
Poussin's sred pa'i (1907-1912, 288.7) iserroneous, as he surmises. Cf. TKP,
406.13, for srid pa'i 'current of existence' on which we have based our transla-
tion.
202. TKP, 408: "Not only are parts and so forth interdependently estab-
lished, but cause and effect as well are interdependent. ... Accordingly, in the
event that they are established through an intrinsic being, then: (1) It would be
unreasonable [to suppose that] the cause is primary, since when the cause exists
the effect is established in dependence on it; and (2) it would be unreasonable to
suppose that the effect is primary, since it would [in that case] emerge without
any cause. Therefore, it must be understood that, like the carriage, cause and
effect are designations dependent on each other, and not intrinsically existing."
203. MAE, 291: "In this case, if the cause produces the effect through con-
nection with it, then as there is no difference between a river and the water of
the ocean with which it merges, the merged [cause and effect] would be identi-
cal. Consequently there would be no difference between saying 'This is the
cause' and 'This is the effect.' ... If there is production without connection,
then just as something else which is not the effect does not connect [with the
J
cause, the effect would not connect with it cause] and would not be produced.
T
Or else, if there is production without connection, then everything might as

well be produced [from a single, identical cause]. For one who advocates a
cause and effect ~ith intrinsic being, no third concept [of the causal relation·
ship] is possible aside from [the two alternatives of] connection or nonconnec·
tion, so an effect is.not produced from a cause with intrinsic being."
204. MAB, 291-292: "A cause that has the quality of being a cause (hetutva) is
a cause from which an effect follows. If, even in the absence of any effect, a
cause could have the quality of being a cause, then the 'quality of being a cause'
possessed by this cause would be characterized by the nonexistence of any
cause; this is unacceptable."
205. MAB, 292: "We have conducted [the preceding] analysis of the intrinsic
distinguishing characteristics of the produced and the producer, [demonstrating
that] production depends on erroneous conceptualization. Entities are like
magical apparitions, for their intrinsic nature is unproduced . Nevertheless, like
the hair and other things apprehended by someone afflicted with ophthalmia,
even without any intrinsic being [these entities] are taken as the objects of
.
'
reified concepts, without [further] reflection. [Given this understanding,] the
previously discussed fallacies do not apply to us. Also, insofar as the things of
everyday experience are established without analysis, .they are established."
206. MAB, 293-294: "Here is why we say that you negate all things without
any reason. Indeed, what is reasonable about [your claim] that a cause uncon-
nected with its effect does not produce [that effect)? Without connection a mag-
net attracts the iron which is its proper object, whiie it does not attract every-
thing. Similarly, without connection the eye perceives form, which is its proper
object, while it does not [perceive] anything (i.e., it does not perceive sounds or
other nonmaterial things). In this same way, (1) a cause lacks any connection
[with the effect] it produces; but (2) a cause does not produce just anything that
is not connected [with it]-it produces only its proper effect. Therefore noble
men would never agree with you, because you unreasonably negate all things.
Moreovet·, in arguing you resort to any refutation at all. Without any cogent
position of your own, you argue just to destroy your opponent's position ."
207. TKP, 412 (cf. MAB, 294-295): "The opponent's thesis presupposes
'existence'; that is, it presupposes the assertion of an ultimate meaning estab-
lished through reference to [a concept of] intrinsic being. But we hold no such
thesis, and therefore the fallacy implicit in both 'connection' and 'nonconnec-
tion,' and the consequences thereof, do not apply to us . . . . As it has been said
(PV, 260-261): ' "Subhiiti, does something (dhamw.) unproduced attain an
unproduced goal?" Subhiiti responds: "Honorable Siiriputra, I would not con-
sider an unproduced attainment to be attained by somethin~ produced , nor
would I consider it to be attained by something unproduced." Siiriputra contin-
ues: "Honorable Subhiiti, is there no goal and no full realization (abhisamaya)
(of that goal]?" Subhiiti responds : "Honorable Sariputra, the goal and full
realization [of that goal) certainly do exist, but not in the form of both [sote-
riological and conventional truths] . Sariputra, both the goal and full realization
are simply everyday realities. [All of the various levels of spiritual attainment
l
including] the bodhisattva are mere conventional realities. From the perspec-
264 Notes to Pages I 79-183
tive of the highest meaning, however, there is no goal and no full realiza-
tion.",,,
208. "Objective fact" (Tib. dngos grub) is an atemporal, noncontextualized
truth, as opposed to a statement designed to suit the needs of a particular time
and place.
209. See the discussion ofthese stanzas in §3.4.2, "Dependent designation,"
and at the close of"The perfection of wisdom," in §4.6.3.
210. The same list of sixteen examples is given in MVP §933-957,
211. "Being" (bhiiva) is the object of reified concepts of intrinsic existence.
Cf. MS 22 .11 : translated and discussed in § 3, n. 69.
212. MAB, 313: " 'Extreme' refers to the extremes of absolutism and
nihilism ."
213. The eighteen elements are the six senses, with their respective objects
and the cognitions associated with them.
214. The various types of meditation are discussed in the context of the rele-
vant classical sources in Dayal 1932, 229fT; see also Lamotte 1944-1980 for
extended discussion of the dhyiinas and other special powers referred to in these
closing stanzas of stage 6.
215. The "gateways to deliverance" (vimok$amiikhas}are a series of medita- 1~
tions on three aspects of emptiness. They lead to the recognition that everyday
experience (samsara) is the freedom of nirv~a. The first of these, "deliverance [
through emptiness" (iiinyatiiuimok$a), is associated with composite things and
their absence of a self (aruitman). The second, "deliverance through signless-
ness" (animittavimok$a), relates to the absence in conventional things of any
"sign" or logical mark which could be seized upon and held by the mind . This
is the recognition of any discrete thing's inability to provide lasting satisfaction
to the craving that comes from ignorance of their deeper nature. The third,
"deliverance through wishlessness" (aprarzihitavimok$a), is the cessation of all
hope and fear previously connected with the idea that enduring security could
be found in any composite thing. This is the renunciation of desire for nirv~a,
because the possibility of nirv~a is seen to be present not in some form of secu-
rity that can be desired, but here and now in the world as it is. For a more
detailed discussion of these three, see Conze 1962, 59-64.
216. La Vallee Poussin 1907-1912 numbers 6.209 as 6.210.
217 . La Vallee Poussin 1907-1912 numbers both this stanza and the next
6.211.
218 . These four types are: (1) knowledge of the teachings arrived at through
analysis and logic; {2) knowledge of their meaning; (3) knowledge of the ety-
mology of the words used in the texts; and (4) confidence in one's grasp of the
first three types. See Dayal 1932, 259fT., for a brief discussion of the pratisamvids
with references to classical sources.
219. Or "the emptiness ofnonbeing."
220. Or "the emptiness of being."
221 . See stage 6, n. 3 above, for "cessation."
222. The "common flock" is a reference to the sravakas. The two wings are .
skillful' means, which has to do with conventional truth, and wisdom, which has
to do with the truth of the highest meaning.
·.~
STAGE SEVEN
1. La Vallee Poussin numbers the five stanzas which describe stages 7-10
across chapter boundaries. His decision to group these last four stages together
probably reflects their common concern with the development of skillful means.
2. Cf. TKP, 442: "It is called 'cessation in suchness' because at the time of
[his J noble balanced concentration (tifyasamiidhi) all conceptual diffusion asso-
ciated with the appearance of dualism ceases in ' suchness.' "
STAGE EIGHT
1. That is, the buddhas turn the bodhisattva away from reified concepts of
isolated, individual liberation and direct him back into the stream of everyday
life, where his resolution to act for the benefit of all living beings is reaffirmed
and brought to perfection. The event is discussed in DB, 43 .
STAGE NINE
1. Meaning unclear.
QUALITIES AND FRUITS OF THE TEN STAGES
1. We have used La Vallee Poussin's numbering.

2. Cf. MAB, 355 : "Only in a stainless sky can the moon illuminate all living
beings, and similarly . .. the powers [of a buddha] are produced [in order to
contribute indirectly] to the eradication of any delusion that obstructs attain-
ment of the [totality of] the blessed buddha 's qualities ." The powers of a bud-
dha remove the stain of delusion from the bodhisattva (the sky) so that the light
of the buddha's qualities (the moon) can illuminate all beings.
3. Cf. ibid., 356: "For example, even though jugs, bowls, and other such
vessels are different, still they are equivalent insofar as they are [all] hollow, and
the space inside them is not different. Similarly, even though form, feeling, and
the other psychophysical aggregates are different [from each other], they are
real in that each possesses the distinguishing characteristic of nonproduction . In
this way they are without difference and should be understood as identical."
This is the "sameness" (samatii) of all things, their emptiness of any intrinsically
valid existence.
4. TKP, 456: "If there is no arising, that is, no production of a concept which
penetrates reality, then in the absence of a knower of reality, who is it that can
reasonably be credited by you with having taught to other disciples: 'I have
completely penetrated reality, which possesses the distinguishing characteristic
[of nonproduction]'? [Such a claim] would be unreasonable."
5. Cf. ibid.: "If one asserts that although the reality of form and so forth is
intrinsically unproduced, (this reality] is known by the intellect, [then we raise
266 Notes to Pages 190-/94
the following objection]. When one asserts that reality is intrinsically the peace
of nonproduction, then it must also be accepted [as a consequence] that the
intellect-that is, wisdom (prajna)-would in no way penetrate to such an
object. And on this account, if one goes on to maintain that the intellect does
indeed penetrate to a reality intrinsically devoid of production, then what image
of an object will that intellect (cognition) possess? No image at all, it would
seem. Therefore, in the absence of any object whatsoever, the intellect cannot
penetrate to reality." The Prasangika offers the following cryptic response to
this objection (cf. MAE, 358): "It is not that there is some knowledge or another
of a given object such that reality is understood through the medium of a reified
concept. This is the case simply because both knowledge and the object of
knowledge are unproduced." Perhaps the argument here is that the intellect can
conceive of reality only indirectly, through the concepts and sensory impres-
sions which act as its objects. It must always function in the context of conven-
tional truth, recognizing distinctions between things in time and space and
defining their relationships to one another. The nondualistic knowledge of a
buddha, however, is immersed both in conventional truth and in the truth of
the highest meaning, where all such distinctions are perceived as interdepen-
dent features of everyday experience. See the remarks on nondualistic knowl-
edge in §4.10 and in §5.4: "Nondualistic knowledge." Dualistic knowledge
divides; nondualistic knowledge contextualizes. TKP, 459: "Like water mixed
with water, this [nondualistic] knowledge is fixed in sameness."
6. The most obvious "sound" is the voice of a buddha.
7. The deeds of a buddha are accomplished without any effort, since the
body of a buddha, as well as any acts that he may perform, are all produced
through the merit gained during his time as a bodhisattva.
8. This last line is not entirely clear. An alternative translation is "this
[peace] is directly experienced as the body [of the buddha]."
9. A wish-fulfilling crystal (cintiimarzi) is able to grant any wish to the person
who possesses it. Even though the gem is responsive to the thoughts and feelings
of its owner, it is devoid of any conceptual mechanism.
10. That is, it is realized through the body of bliss (cf. TKP, 466).
11. Jambudvipa is the southernmost continent of the four which surround
the mythological mount Meru. It includes (or is equivalent to) India.
12. It is unclear here whether khams (Skt. dhiitu) refers to material elements or
to the realms governed by the buddhas.
13. "Intentions" or "motivations" are of two broad types. MAE, 378:
" 'Intentions' are misleading doubts that remain, and these intentions are 'fac-
ulties' in the sense that they facilitate production of clinging and so on. The
word 'various' alludes to intentions [of a second type] which are the causes of
virtues like conviction, and so forth."
14. This refers to the twenty-two faculties enumerated in MVP, § 108.
15. See note to 6.207.
16. Cf. RV5.61-64; also CS.
17. The Inferior Vehicle {Hinayana) and the Great Vehicle (Mahayana).
18. There are five "impurities" (paiicakG.!iiyas) enumerated in MVP, §124.
First is ayu!zkG.!iiya, the decrease in lifespan in this epoch, then dr~.tikG.!iiya, dog-
matic philosophical or religious beliefs grounded in reified thought, kleialca!iiya,

the affiictions, primarily the affiiction of clinging, sattvak~iiya, the impurity of
• existence as an ignorant living being, and kalpalca!iiya, the problem of living in a
degenerate time. . '
19. See MAB, 403, for the information in these brackets.
EPILOGUE
1. Cf. MAB, 77, translated and discussed in stage 6, n. 5.

l
I
- I
l
r
I
I
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abbreviated references to editions and translations of Sanskrit, Tibe-

tan, and Chinese texts are listed under "Primary Sources." Full refer-
ences to these and other works are found under "Secondary Sources."
i
This is a select bibliography; the works included here are only those
cited within the text and notes of this book. For more information on
particular topics, the reader should consult the bibliographies men-
p tioned in §3, n. 1.
!
PRIMARY SOURCES
PALl
References are to Pali Text Society editions and translations unless specified
otherwise.
A Anguttara Nikiiya
U Udiina
CV Cullavagga
D Dfttha Nikiiya
DP Dhammapada
Piilied., Eng. trans., Radhakrishnan 1950.
MV Mahiivagga
VVinaya
VM Buddhaghosa. Visuddhimagga
Eng. trans., Nanamoli 1976.
S Samyutta Nikiiya
SANSKRIT
AK Abhidharmakoia ofVasubandhu
Skt. ed., Pradhan 1975 (with Vasubandhu 's bhii$ya).
Fr. trans., La Vallee Poussin 1971.
269
270 Bibliograph)
AS A~_tasiihasri!caprajiiiipiiram£tii
Skt. ed., Vaidya 1960a.
Eng. trans., Conze 1975.
CS Catu!lfataka of Aryadeva
Tib. ed. with Skt. fragments, Lang 1986.
CSt Catu!tstava of N agarjuna
Skt./Tib. ed., Eng. trans., Lindtner 1982.
TSN Trisvabhiivanirdefa ofVasubandhu
Skt./Tib. ed., Fr. trans., La Vallee Poussin 1932-1933.
Eng. trans., Kochumuttom 1982, 90-126; Anacker 1984, 287-298.
DB Dafabhiimika
Skt. ed., Vaidya 1967.
PV Paiicavimsatisiihasrikiiprajiiiipiiramitii
Skt. ed., Dutt 1934.
PSP Prasannapadii ofCandraklrti
Skt. ed., see under MS.
Eng. trans., Sprung 1979 (chaps. 1-10, 13, 15, 18, 19, 22-25); Stcherbatsky
1927, 79-212 (chaps. 1 and 25).
(Fr. trans.,)Jong 1949, 1-86 (chaps. 18-22); May 1959,51-298 (chaps. 2-4,
6-9, 11' 23-24, 26-27).
Ger. trans., Schayer 1931a (chaps. 5 and 12-16) and 1931b (chap. 10).
BCA Bodhicaryiivatiira of Siintideva, with the paiijilca of Prajiiakaramati
Skt. ed., Vaidya 1960b.
Eng. trans., Matics 1970; Batchelor 1979.
Fr. trans., La Vallee Poussin 1907.
BB Bodhisattvabhiimi
Skt. ed., Wogihara 1971.
Eng. trans. (ofpart 1:4 Tattviirthapa.talam), Willis 1979.
MA Madhyamakiivatiirakiirilca ofCandraklrti
Tib. ed. ,La Vallee Poussin 1907-1912 (with Candrakirti's bhif.!ya).
Eng. trans. of 1-5, Hopkins 1980; and of6, Rabten & Batchelor 1983.
Fr. trans. of 1-5, 6.1-165, La Vallee Poussin 1907-1911.
Ger. trans. of6.166-226, Tauscher 1981.
MAB Madhyamakiivatiirabhif.!ya of Candraklrti
Tib. ed. and trans., see MA.
Chin. trans., Fa zun 7;1;~ 1975.
Jap. trans. of6, Ogawa 1976.
MPPS Mahiiprajiiiipiiramitii-siistra (also -upadeia), attributed to Niigiirjuna
Chin. trans., T.1509, vol. 25, pp. 57A-756B.
Eng. trans. of extracts, Ramanan 1966.
Fr. trans. of 1 and 2.20, Lamotte 1944-1980.
MVA Mahiivastu avadiina
Skt. ed., Senart 1882-1897.
MVK Madhyiintavibhiigakiirikii of Maitreyaniitha
Skt. ed., Nagao 1964 (with Vasubandhu's bhif.!ya).
Eng. trans., Anacker 1984, 191-286 (with Vasubandhu's bhii~ya); Kochu-
muttom 1982, 27-89 (with extracts from Vasubandhu's bhif.!ya).
MVKB Madhyiintavibhiigakiirikiibhii~ya ofVasubandhu
Bibliography 271
Skt. ed., see MVK.

Eng. trans., see MVK.
MS Madhyamakaiiistra of Nagarjuna
Skt. ed., La Vallee Poussin 1903-1916 (with Candrakirti's PrasanMpado.};
t- Jong 1977.
Eng. trans., Inada 1970.
MSA Mahiiyiinasiitriilaillciira of Asanga
Skt . ed., Levi 1907-1911.
MVP Mahiivyutpatti
Tib. ed., Sakaki 1916-1925.
MMV Miilarruuihyamakavrttibuddhapiilita of Buddhapiilita
Tib. ed. , Eng. trans . of1-21, Saito 1984.
RV Ratniivall of Nagarjuna
Skt./Tib./Chin. ed., Hahn 1982.
Eng. trans., Hopkins 1975.
LA Lankiivatiirasiitra
Skt. ed., Vaidya 1963.
Eng. trans . , Suzuki 1932.
VP Vajracchedikii prajiziipiiramitii
Skt. ed., Conze 1974.
Eng. trans., Conze 1958.
VV Vigrahavyiivartanl
Skt . ed., Eng. trans. , Bhattacharya, Johnston, and Kunst 1978.
VN Vimalaklrtinirdefasiitra
Tib. ed., Oshika 1970.
Eng. trans., Thurman 1976.
Fr. trans., Lamotte 1962.
SS Si/qiisamuccaya of Santideva
Skt. ed ., Vaidya 1961.
Eng. trans ., Bendall and Rouse 1922 .
SP Saddharmapu!l¢arlka
Skt . ed., Dutt 1953.
Eng. trans ., Kern 1884.
SN Samdhinirmocanasiitra
Tib . ed . , Fr. trans., Lamotte 1935.
SBS SubhiiJitasamgraha
Skt. ed., Bendall1903-1904.
TIBETAN
TKP Tsong kha pa. dBu ma Ia 'jug pa 'i rgya cher bshad pa dgongs pa rab gsa/
Tib. ed., P6143, vol. 154.
Tib. ed., Sarnath 1971.
Eng. trans. of 1-5, Hopkins 1980.
C Co ne bs Tan 'gyur
Microfiche ed . of the Tibetan canon. New York: Institute for Advanced
Studies of World Religions.
D sDe dge bsTan 'gyur
272 Bibliography
Xylograph of the Tibetan canon. Sarnath, India: Central Institute of Higher

Tibetan Studies.
N sNar thang bsTan 'gyur
Xylograph of the Tibetan canon. Dharamsala, India: Library of Tibetan
Works and Archives.
P Peking bsTan 'gyur
Edition of the Tibetan canon. Suzuki 1958.
CHINESE
T TaisM-shinshii-daiziikyii
Edition of the Chinese canon. Takakusu and Watanabe 1922-1933. Tokyo.
SECONDARY SOURCES
Anacker, S.
1984. Seven works of Vasubandhu. Delhi.
Barfield, 0.
1965. Saving the appearances: a study in idolatry. New York.
Batchelor, S.
1979. A guide to the Bodhisattva's way of life. Dharamsala.
Bateson, G.
1980. Mind and nature, a necessary unity. Toronto.
Becker, A. L.
1982. Beyond translation: esthetics and language description. In Heidi
Byrnes, ed., Georgetown University round table on languages and linguistics,
1982: 124-138.
Becker, E.
1973. The denial of death. New York.
Bendall, C.
1903-1904. Subh~ita-samgraha. An anthology of extracts from Buddhist
works compiled by an unknown author, to illustrate the doctrines of
scholastic and of mystic (Tantric) Buddhism. Museon, n.s. 4:375-402;
5:5-46, 245-274.
Bendall, C., and W. H. D. Rouse
1922. Sik$iisamuccaya: a compendium of Buddhist doctrine. London.
Betty, L. S.
1983. Nagarjuna's masterpiece-logical, mystical, both or neither? Philoso-
phy East and West 33 (2): 123-138.
Bhattacharya, K.
197 4. A note on the interpretation of the term siidhyasama in Madhyamaka
texts. journal of Indian Philosophy 2:225-230.
Bibliography 273
Bhattacharya, K., E. H. Johnston, and A. Kunst

1978. The dialectical 1Mhod of NagarjuTUJ. Delhi.
Blofeld,J.
1970. The tantric mysticism of Tibet. New York.
Cavell, S.
1966. The availability of Wittgenstein's later philosophy. Philosophical
Review 71:67-93. Reprinted in George Pitcher, ed., Wittgenstein: the
philosophical investigations, 151-185. Notre Dame, Ind.
Chimpa, L ., and A. Chattopadhyaya
1970. Taraniitha 's history of Buddhism in India. Simla.
Conze, E.
1958. Buddhist wisdom hooks. London .
1959. Buddhist scnptures. Harmondsworth .
1962. Buddhist thought in India. London.
1967. Spurious parallels to Buddhist philosophy. Philosophy East and West 13
(2): 105-116. Reprinted in Thirty years of Buddhist studies (Oxford):
229-242. .
197 4. Vajracchedilca prajiiaparamita. Rome.
1975. The klrge siitra on perfect wisdom. Berkeley.
Culler,].
1983. On tkconstruction. London .
Dayal, H.
193 2. The bodhisattva doctn'ne in Buddhist literature. London .
Daye, D.
1975. Miidhyamika. In C . S. Prebish, ed., Buddhism: a motkrn perspective.
Pennsylvania.
Demieville, P.
1929-1979. Hobogirin : dictionTUJire encyclopidique du bouddhisme d'apres les
sources chinoises etjaponaises. Tokyo and Paris.
1973. Choix d'itutks bouddhiques. Leiden.
Dhargyey, N .
197 4. Tibetan tradition of mental tkvelopment. Dharamsala.
Dutt,N.
1934. The paiicavimiatisahasn'lca prajiiapiiramita. London.
1953. The saddharmapuru;lan7c4. Calcutta.
Edwards, P.
1967. Encyclopedia ofphilosophy. New York.
Evans-Wentz, W. Y.
1951 . Tibet's great yogi, Milarepa. London.
Fann, K . T .
1969. Wittgenstein ~ conception ofphilosophy. Berkeley.
Fa zun (?!~)
1975. Ru zhong lun (.A.q:. ~) . Taipei.
27-4 Bibliography
Fenner, P. G.
1983. Candrakirti's refutation of Buddhist idealism. Philosophy East and West
33 (3): 251-262.
Feyerabend, P.
1975. Againstmethod. London.
1987. Farewell to reason. London.
Frauwallner, E.
1956. Die Philosophie des Buddhismus. Berlin.
Gadamer, H.
1976. Philosophical hermeneutics. Edited and translated by David E. Linge.
Berkeley.
1988. Truth and method. Translated by Garrett Barden and john Cumming.
New York. Reprint.
Gimello, R. M.
1976a. Chih-Yen (602-668) and the foundations of Hua-Yen Buddhism.
Ph.D. diss., Columbia University.
1976b. Apophatic and kataphatic discourse in Mahayana: a Chinese view.
Philosophy East and West 26 (2): 11 7-136.
Gouldner, A.
1973. The do.rk silk of the dialectic: toward a new objectivity. Dublin.
Gudmunsen, C.
1977. Wittgenstein and Buddhism. New York.
Guenther, H. V.
1958. The levels of understanding in Buddhism. journal of the American Ori-
ental Society 78: 19-28.
Hahn,M.
1982. Niigiirjuna's Ratniivall. Vol. 1, The basic texts (Sanskrit, Tibetan, Chinese).
Bonn.
Hamilton, C. H.
1950. The idea of compassion in Mahayana Buddhism. journal of the Ameri-
can Oriental Society 70:145-151.
Hanayama, S.
1961. Bibliography on Buddhism. Tokyo.
Hastings, J. 1
1916. Encyclopedia of religion and ethics. Edinburgh.
Hopkins,].
1975. The precious garland and the song of the four mind.fulnesses. New York.
1980. Compassion in Tibetan Buddhism. London.
Homer, I. B.
1938-1952. The book of discipline. 5 vols. Vol. 1, Vinaya, Suttavibhanga, 1938;
vol. 2, Vinaya, Suttavibhanga, 1940; vol. 3, Vinaya, Suttavibhanga, 1942;
vol. 4, Mahiivagga, 1951; vol. 5, Cullavagga, 1952. Oxford.
1954. The middle length sayings (Majjhimanikiiya). Vol. 1. London.
Bibliography 275
Huntington, C . W.
1983a. A non-referential view of language and conceptual thought in the
work ofTs01'1-kha-pa. Philosophy East and West 33 (4): 325-340.
1983b. The system of the two truths in the Prasannapadii and the Madhyama-
kiivatiira: a study in Madhyamaka soteriology. journal of Indian Philoso-
phy 11 (1) : 77-107.
1986. The Akutobhaya and early Indian Madhyamaka. Ph.D. diss., Univer-
sity of Michigan.
lida, S.
1980. Reason and emptiness. Tokyo.
lnada, K.
1970. Niigarjuna: a translmion of his M ulamadhyamakakarikii with an introduc-
tory essay. Tokyo .
James, W.
[1910) 1963. Pragrnatism and other essays. New York.,
Jones,]. J.
1949-1956. The Mahavastu. Vols. 16, 18, and 19 in Sacred books of the Bud-
dhists. London .
Jong,J . W. de
1949. Cinq chapitres de la Prasannapada. Paris .
1974. The study of Buddhism: problems and perspectives. Studies in Indo-
Asian Art and Culture 4 (Vira Commemorative Volume): 13-26.
1975. LalegendedeSiintideva. Indo-/ranianjournal16(3): 161-182.
1977 . Nagarjuna: Miilamadhyamakakiirikti/1. Madras.
Kajiyama, Y.
195 7. Bhiivaviveka and the Priisarigika school. Nava- Nalanda Research Publi-
cation 1:289-331.
1966. An introduction to Buddhist philosophy : an annotated translation of
the Tarkabh~a of Mok~iikaragupta . Memoirs of the Faculty of Letters,
Kyoto University (Kyotodaigaku bungakubu kiyo), no. 10:1-173.
Kaufmann, W .
1968. The Portable Nietzsche. New York.
Kawamura, L .
1975. Goldenzep~yr. Emeryville, Calif.
Keith, A. B.
1923. Buddhist philosophy in India and Ceylon. Oxford.
Kern,J . H. C.
1884. The Saddharmapur:u;larika, or the lotus of the true law. Vol. 21 in Sacred
Books of the East. Oxford.
1896. Manual of Indian Buddhism. Strasbourg.
King,W.
1980. Theraviida Meditation . Philadelphia.
Kochumuttom, T.
I 1982 . A Buddhist doctrine of experience. Delhi .
I
'I
276 Bibliography
Kuhn, T . S.
1962. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago.
Lamotte, E.
1935. Samdhinimwcana siitra: I' explication des mysteres. Tibetan text, edited
and translated. Louvain.
1944-1980. Lt traiti dt Ia grande vtrtu dt sagesse dt Niigiirjuna (Mahiiprajniipiira-
mitiiiiistra). 5 vols. Louvain .
1962. L 'enseignemmLdt Vimalakfrti (Vimalalcfrtinirdtia). Lou vain.
Lang, K .
1986. Aryadeva's Catub§ata.ka: on the bodhisattva's cultivation of merit and knowl-
edge. Copenhagen.
La Vallee Poussin, L. de
1903-1916. Miilamadhyama.ka.karikas (Madhyamikasutras) dt Nqgiirjuna
avec Ia Prasannapada commmtaire dt Candraklrti. Bibliotheca Buddhica
4. St. Petersburg.
1907. Bodhicaryiivatiira: introduction a Ia pratique dtsjuturs Bouddhas. Poeme de
Santideva. Paris.
1907-1911. Madhyama.kavatara: introduction au traiti du milieu de l'iiciirya
Candralcfrti, avec /e commentaire dt / 'auteur. Translated from the Tibetan.
Parts 1-3 . Muston 8:249-317 (Avant-propos, MA 1-5); 11 :271-358
(MA 6. 1-80); 12:235-328(MA 6.81-165).
1907-1912. Madhyamalciivatiira par Candrakfrti (Tibetan trans .). Bibliotheca
Buddhica 9. St. Petersburg. Reprint, Osnabriick (1970); Tokyo
(1977).
1916. Bodhisattva. Encyclopedia of religion and ethics 2:739-7 53.
1932-1933. Le petit traite de Vasubandhu-Nii.gii.rjuna sur les trois natures.
Milanges chino is et bouddhiques 2: 14 7-161. Brussels.
1971. L'Abhidharmalcoia dt Vasubandhu. 6 vols. Melanges chinois et bouddhi-
ques 16. Bruxelles. Reprint.
Levi, S.
1907-1911. Asariga, Mahiiyiina-Siitriilamkiira. Expose de Ia doctrine du grand
vehicule selon le systeme Yogacii.ra. Edited and translated . 2 vols.
Paris.
Lindtner, C.
1979. Candra.kirti's Pancaskandhaprakararta. Acta Orientalia 40:87-145 .
1982 . Niigiirjuniana: studies in the writings and philosophy of Niigiirjuna. Copen-
hagen.
Lopez, D. S.
198 7. A study of Sviitantrika. Ithaca.
Matics, M .
1970. Entning the path to enlightenment. London.
Matilal, B. K .
1971. Epistemology, logic and grammar in Indian philosophical analysis. The
J
Hague.
Bibliography 277
1974. A note on the Nyaya fallacy sadhyasama and petitio principii. journal of
Indian Philosophy 2:211-224.
May,J.
1959. Candraklrti. Prasannapadii Madhyamo.lcnvrtti. Douze chapitres traduits
du sanskrit et du tibetain, accompagnes d'une introduction, de notes
et d'une edition critique de Ia version tibetaine. Paris.
1978. On Madhyamaka philosophy. journal of Indian Philosophy 6 (3): 233-
241.
1979. Chugan. In Hobogirin 5:470-493.
Mimaki, K.
1982. Blogsalgrubmtha'. Kyoto.
Mookerjee, S.
1975. The Buddhist philosophy of universal flux. Delhi. Reprint.
Moore, G. E.
1955. Wittgenstein's lectures. Mind 64:1-27.
Murti, T. R. V.
1960. The central philosophy of Buddhism. London.
Nagao, G. M.
1964. Madhytintavibhagabh~ya: a Buddhist philosophical. treatise., Edited
from the Sanskrit. Tokyo.
Nanamoli 1
1976. The path of purification. Berkeley. Reprint.
NaQananda
1976. Concept and reality in early Buddhist thought. Kandy.
Naudou,J.
1968. Les bouddhistes Kafmlrens au Moyen Age. Paris.
Nyanatiloka
1972. Buddhist dictionary: manual of Buddhist terms and doctn.nes. Colombo.
Obermiller, H.
1931-1932. Bu-ston: history of Buddhism. Leipzig.
Ogawa, I.
1976. Kiisho Shiso no Kenkyii ~tl:.~.:m(.T)jijf1£ (Research on the concept of su;
yata). Kyoto.
Olson, R. F.
1974. Candrakirti's critique of the Vijiianavada. Philosophy East and West 24
(4): 405-411.
Oshika,J.
1970. Tibetan text of Vimalaklrtinirdeia. Acta Indologica I: 137-240.
Pezzali, A. C.
1968. Stintideva: mystique bouddhiste des VIle et VIlle siecles. Florence.
Potter, K.
1970. The encyclopedia of Indian philosophies, Vol. 1, Bibliography. Bombay.
1
278 Bibliography
Pradhan, P.
1978. Abhidharmalcoiabh(iiyam of Vasubandhu. Deciphered and edited by
Prahlad Pradhan. Revised with introduction and indexes by Aruna
Haldar. Patna.
Rabten, G., and S. Batchelor
1983 . Echoes of voidness. London.
Radhakrishnan , S.
1950. The Dhammapada. With introduction , Piili text, English trans ., and
notes. Oxford .
Ramanan , K . V.
1966 . Niigiirjuna's philosophy as presented in the Mahiiprajnapiiramitii-siitra.
Tokyo.
Richards, G .
1978. Siinyatii: objective referent or via negativa? Religious Studies 14 (2) : 251- :1
260.
Robinson, R.
1957 . Some logical aspects of Nagarjtina's system. Philosophy East and West 6
(4): 291-308.
1967 . Early Madhyamilca in India and China. Madison, Wis.
1972 . Did Nagarjuna really refute all philosophical views? Philosophy East
and West 22 (3): 325-331 .
Rorty, R .
1979. Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton .
1982 . Consequences of pragmatism. Minneapolis.
Ruegg, D . S.
1967 . The study of Indian and Tibetan thought. Leiden.
1971. Le Dharmadhiitustava de Nagarjuna. Etudes tibitaines dediies a Ia mimoire
de Marcelle Lalou, 448-4 71. Paris .
1981. The literature of the Madhyamaka school ofphilosophy in India. Wiesbaden. Ill.
1983 . On the thesis and assertion in the MadhyamakaldBu rna . Contribu- ,.
tions on Tibetan and Buddhist Religion and Philosophy 2:205-242 . Vienna .
1985. Purport, implicative and presupposition : Sanskrit abhipraya and !
Tibetan dgm1s paldgons g:!i as hermeneutical concepts . journal of I j,

Indian Philosophy 13 :309-325 . 1
Rtines, D . D .
1942. Dictionary ofphilosophy. New York.
Saito, A.
1984. Buddhapiilita-miilamadhyamalca-vrtti. Ph.D. diss., Australian National
University.
Sakaki , R .
1916-1925 . Bon-zo-kan-wa Shiyaku-taii>O Honyaku Myogi Taishii. Text of thj
Mahiivy utpatti in Sanskrit , Tibetan , Chinese, and J apanese . 2 vols
Kyoto. Reprint , l bkyo (1965).
Bibliography 279
Sarnath
1971. Dbu ma Ia 'jug pa 'i rgya chn- bsluzd pa dgongs pa rah gsal. P 6143 (vol.
154). Edited and published by Vii na mtho dge !dan spyi las khang.
Schayer, S.
1931a. Ausgewahlte Kapitel aus tier PrasannapadQ.. (Chaps. 5, 12-16.) With
introduction, translation, and remarks . Cracow.
1931b. Feuer· und Brennstoff: Ein Kapitel aus dem Miidhyamikaiastra des
Nagarjuna mit der vrtti des Candrakirti. Rocznilc Orientalistyczny 7:26-
52.
Senart, E.
1882-1897. Le Mahavastu. Sanskrit text with introduction and commentary.
3 vols. Paris.
Sprung, M .
! 1 1979. Tht lucid exposition oftht middle way. Boulder, Colo.
Stcherbatsky, T.
1923. Tht central conception of Buddhism and tht meaning of the word "dlw.rma."
London .
192 7. The conception of Buddhist nirvana. Leningrad.
Streng, F.
1967. Emptiness: a study in religious meaning. Nashville.
Suzuki, D . T.
1900. Afvaghosa's discourse on tht awakening of bodhicitta (Mahayiinairaddhotpii-
do.Sastra). Chicago.
1930. Studies in tht Lanlciivatarasiitra. London.
1932. The Lanlciivatiirasiitta-a Mahayana text. London .
1958. (ed.) The Tibetan Tripitaka. Tokyo-Kyoto.
1963. Outlines of MalziiyantJ. Buddhism. New York .
Tauscher, H.
1981. Candralcirti. Madhyamalciivatiira und Madhyamalciivatarabh(#yam. German
translation of6.166-266 with commentary. Vienna.
1983. Some problems of textual history in connection with the Tibetan
translations of the Madhyamalciivatiira!z and its commentary. Contribu-
tions on Tibetan and Buddhist Religion and Philosophy 2:293-304. Vienna.
Taylor, A. E.
1903. Elemerztsofmetaphysics. London .
Taylor, M. C.
1978. Towards an ontology of relativism . Journal of tht American Academy of
Religion 46:41-62.
Taylor, R .
1967. Causation. Encyclopedia ofphilosophy 2:56-66.
Tenzin Gyatso
197 5. The Buddhism of Tibet and the lcey to the middlr Wt!Y· London .
280 Bibliography
Thurman, R. A. F.
1976. TheholyteochingofVimalalr:lrti. University Park, Pa.
1980. Philosophical nonegocentricism in Wittgenstein and Candrakirti in
their treatment of the private language problem. Philosophy East and
West 30 (3): 321-337.
Ui,H.
1924. The works ofMaitrey as a historical person and of Asaitga.Journal of
Indian and Jjuddhist Studies (Indogaku Bulckyogaku Kenkyii), 306-414.
Vaidya, P. L.
1960a. A!.tasiihasrikaprajiiiipiiramitii Buddhist Sanskrit Texts 4. Darbhanga.
1960b. Bodh.icaryiivatiira of Siintideva. Buddhist Sanskrit Texts 12. Dar-
bhanga.
1961. Sik;riisamuccaya of Siintideva. Buddhist Sanskrit Texts 11. Darbhanga.
1963. Saddharma-Lmilr.iivatiirasiitram. Buddhist Sanskrit Texts 3. Darbhanga.
1967. Daiabhiimikasiitra. Buddhist Sanskrit Texts 7. Darbha,nga.
Wallesar, M.
1922. The life of Niigiirjuna from Tibetan and Chinese sources. Asia Major
(HirthAnniversary Volume), 421-455.
Warder, A. K.
1970. Indian Buddhism. Bombay.
Whitehead, A. F. N.
1938. Modes of thought. New York.
Whorf, B. L.
1956. Language, thought and reality. Boston.
Williams. P.
1984. Review of Lindtner, Niigiirjuniana: studies in the writings and philosophy of
Niigiirjuna. journal of Indian Philosophy 2: 73-104.
Willis,].
1979. On knowing reality: the Tattviirtha chapter ofAsariga 's Bodhisattvabhiimi.
New York.
Wittgenstein, L.
1953. Philosophical investigations. New York.
1965. Lectures and conversations. Berkeley.
Wogihara, U.
1971. Bodh.isattvabhiimi: a statement of [the) whole course of the bodhisattva (being
[theJfifteenth section of[ the) Yogiiciirahhiimi). Tokyo.
Zurcher, E.
1972. The Buddhist conquest of China. 2 vols. Leiden. Reprint.
INDEX
Abhidharma: and correspondence theory ophy, 34-35; and Yogii.cara, 61. See also
of truth, 31; ideation in, 85-86; percep- Svatantrika
tion in, 85-86; as soteriological philoso- Bloom, H., 8
phy, 84 Bodhisattva: central characteristics of, 19;
Abhidha1711JJkoia on suffering, 93 etymology of the name, 19; literature
Absolutism (iaivaliiviida), Madhyamika's on, 19
rejection of, 29 Bodies of the buddha, three, 224n. 7
~
Absolutist interpretation: conflict with Bonds (samyojanas), three, 149; definition
classical Mii.dhyamika, 26; history of, of, 219n. 9
26-30; limitations of, 28 Brahman and emptiness, 26
Action (nonvolitional), bodhisattva's Buddhapalita, life and works of, 33
commitment to, 103 Bu stan, 25
I
Actualization of study and. reason in

meditation, 81. See aLso Emptiness Calming (iamotluJ), characteristics of, 77
Afflictions (lcl.eias), annihilation of, 91 Candragomin, 33
Aggivesana, 75 Candrakirti, life and works of, 33-34
Agitation (vikfepa), reduction of, 76 Carriage: meaning of the word, 53; reality
Analytical knowledge (pratisamvid), 100, of, 52-53; as a simile for the self, 173,
182, 187, 264n. 218 177; 256-257n.164
Appearance: for the bodhisattva, 120; Causal efficacy: as mark of empirical
significance of, 110 truth, 23, 234n. 50; nature of, 235-
Application: of emptiness, 116-: 117; and 236n. 57; and reality, 58
meaning, 118; and understanding, 113; Causality: analysis in MA, 96; and empti-
and validity, 51. See also Purpose; Use ness, 55; and illusion, 57-58; impor-
Aryadeva, 237 n. 63; life and works, 33; on tance of, in Buddhism, 47; for Nagar-
philosophical views, 98 juna and Candrakirti, 43 ; necessity for,
Asailga, 60, 64, 65; on patience, 73 250; and ontology, 41, 45; in Western
Asian religion, study of, 5-8 philosophy, 41-42
Attitude, significance of, 121-122 Causa-sui project, 141
Cavell, S., 125
Balanced concentration (samtidhi): and Cittamii.tra. See Yogacara
good character, 77; highest form of, 82; Clinging: to an "I," cognitive basis of,
and morality, 71; and nondualistic 172, 174; and referential meaning, 39;
knowledge, 103; and nonreferential and spiritual ignorance, 123; and suffer-
meaning, 39; opponent to, 71 ing, 106
Bateson, G., 117 Compassion, three types of, 219n. 3
Becker, A. L., 9-10 Concept: and experience, 53; invalid, 51;
Becker, E., 87, 141; on suffering, 93 valid, 80
Being (bluiva), reified concepts of, 30 Conceptual diffusion (prapanca),
Bhavaviveka: characteristics of his phi los- 209n. 101, 232n. 44; calming of,
281
282 Index
205n. 25; cessation of, 136; and empti- Dewey,J., 7

ness, 55; and invalid concepts, 51; and Dhnmmapada and mind, 60
meditation, 77; and objectivity, 96; as Dharma: definition of, for Hinayana, 17-
root of suffering, 30; in Yogaciira, 63 18; in Hinayana and Mahayana, 49; in
Conceptualization in Abhidharma, 85-86 Hinayana philosophy, 202 n. 2
Conceptual thought, dichotomous nature Dharma, body of the, 89; and patience,
of, 121 73. &ealso Bodies of the buddha, three
Confidence (maM) as a quality of energy, Dhamuulhiitu, 243n. 94; in Yogiicira, 61,
73-74 64
Connection (priipti): between argument Dhnrmatii, significance of, for Miidhya-
and counter argument, 54; in Sarviis- mika, 237n. 63, 250n.124
tivida, 210n. 110; in Yogiicira, 64 Diamondlike convictions, 74-75
Consciousness and suffering, 124 Diimaga, 60
Context: and illusion, 56-57; and knowl- DiparilrorajiiJalrll, 19
edge, 119; philosophical problem of, Disputation, abandoning of, 70
124 Distinguishing characteristics, three
Continuum (samtiina), 164, 172 (trilakiaruu), 61. &e also Intrinsic distin-
Conventional experience: significance of, guishing characteristic .
67, 101-102, 107, 123, 142, 227n.l2, Dream: in discussion of mind alone, 163;
231 n. 36, 245n.l04, 260n.l91, in discussion of potentiality, 165
263 n. 205; in Yogiiciira, 61
Culler, J., 139, 140 Edifying philosophy, xiii, 125
Cultural illusion, 141 Elements of attraction (samgrahnvastus),
99-100
Dalai Lama: on causality, 44-45; on the Emotional disturbances, freedom from , 71
two truths, 38-40 Empirical, definition of, 200n . 11
Deconstruction, 139; ambiguous status of, Empirical reality and causality, 48
140 Empirical truth. &eTruth, conventional
Deconstructive analysis, xiii; susceptibility Empiricism, radical, 43
to nihilism, 30. &ealso Deconstructive Emptiness: actualization of, 39, 40, 59,
critique; Reductio ad absurdum 82, 100-102, 106, 112, 114, 117; and
Deconstructive critique, susceptibility to causality, 55; contextually real, and
nihilism of, 26. &ealso Deconstructive wisdom, 91; as a conventional designa-
analysis; Reductio ad absurdum tion, 59, 65,111, 207n.69, 209n . 97;
Deconstructive philosophy and the Middle dangers in understanding, 22; and
Way, 36 deconstruction, 116; emptiness of, 26,
Dejong,J. W. &ejong,J. W. de 131-132, 180; and generosity, 70; and
Dependent, the (parataniTa), 61; and intro- meditation, 80; mental image of, 57; as
ceptive activity, 244 n. 100. &e also a natural interpretation, 82; not cling-
Intrinsic nature, three types of ing to, 112; and philosophical views, 15,
Dependent being (paratanlrabhiiva), 161 58, 59; self-deconstruction of, 136;
Dependent entity (paratanlravastu), 166 sixteen illustrations of, 99; and sote-
Dependent form (parataniTariipa), 63, 163, riology, 118; as a synonym for reality,
166 18; threefold, 89; of truth, 137; of
Dependent origination (pratftyasamutpiidq.): words, 215n. 55; in Yogiiciira, 64-65.
in Hinayana, 47 &e also Causality; Conceptual diffusion
Derrida,J., 7,138,199n.3 Energy, emptiness of, 181
Descartes, R., 115 Enthusiasm as a quality of energy, 7'J
Designation alone (prajnaptimatram) in Entity alone (vastumatram) in Yogiiciira, 64
Yogiiciira, 64 Entrustments, four, 74
Designation, conventional (prajnaptt): Entry into the Middle Way, composition of, xi
emptiness as a, 59; and existence, 50 Epistemological philosophy and objectiv-
Designation, dependent (prajnaptirupii- ity, 127
dtiya): and conventional experience, Epistemology in Hlnayiina and Maha-
260 n . 191 ; discussion of, in MAB, 253-· yana, 18
254 n. 141 ; significance of, xii Esoteric, 135
Desperation, need for, 92, 93 Essence, 130; and delusion, 251 n . 132;
Index 283
existentialist view of, 130; lack of, 105; 88-89, 91; in Yogacira, 61-62. See also
as a metaphysical concept, 52. &e also Causality; Cultural illusion
Intrinsic being Imagination of the unreal ( abhiitapari-
Evil: roots of all (akuialamU/4s), 71; types lcalpita), 62
of, 225-226n. 2 Imagined, the (parilcalpita), 61. &e also
Example ( dn_tiinta) in Svatantrika syllo- Intrinsic nature, three types of
gism, 34 Impartiality (samiiniirtha) as an element of
Existence: association with conceptualiza- attraction, 100
tion and perception, 50; and illusion, Impurities, five (pancalcaiiiyas), 266-
56-57; and language, 52 267n _18 ·
Incommensurability, 132, 202n. 9; of the
Faith as a source of energy, 75 two truths, 108
Feyerabend, P., 46, 78, 132; on incom- Inexpressibles (avyiikrtavastus), 255 n. 157
mensurability, 202 n. 9; on prejudice, Insight (vipaiyanii), 142; characteristics of,
107 81; and wisdom, 77. &ealso Meditation
Form, body of, 154. See also Bodies of the Intellectual flexibility as a quality of
buddha, three patience, 73
Form oflife; of a bodhisattva, 122; and Interdependence in the text of MA, 96. &e
understanding, 59 also Dependent origination
Foucault, M., 7 Intrinsic being (svabhiiva): definition of,
48; in Mahayana ontology, 18. &e also
Gadamer, H .: criticism of objectivism, 7; Essence; Intrinsic nature
on understanding, 202 n ..7 Intrinsic distinguishing characteristic
Gateways to deliverance (vimok,amiikhas), (svalak!a!lll), 161, 181; emptiness of,
182, 264n. 215 182; significance of the concept,
Generosity as an element of attraction, 99 234n. 53, 238-239n. 70. &ealso Distin-
Gimello, R . M., 79; on the linguistic guishing characteristics, three
interpretation, 30-31; on meditation, 78 Intrinsic nature (svabhiiva): definition of,
Giving, emptiness of, 181 49; emptiness of, 183; as perceived by
Goal: relationship with path, 94 wisdom, 91; three types of, 61-62. &e
Gouldner, A., on objectivity, 128-130 also Essence; Intrinsic being
Gudmunsen, C., and the linguistic inter- lntroceptive activity (sviitmanivrttz),
pretation, 31-3·2 244n.100
Irrationalism, 132, 133
Hearer (friivalca), characteristics of, 218-
219n. 1 James, W., 7; on causality, 43; on truth,
Heidegger, M ., 7, 134 43-44
Hermeneutical circle, 134 Jong, J . W. de, 14
Hinayana: as a genre ofliterature, 17-19; Justification: and causality, 42, 45; in
literature, and the Middle Way, 36-37 Madhyamika, 138, 139
Human life, significance of, 222 n . 6 Justified prejudice, 138, 139
Hume, D., and Candrakirti, 42
Kant, I., 115; abandoning his distinc-
Idealism: presuppositions of, 49; and tions, 29; and Murti, 28; and Yogacara,
reality, 52; in Yogacara, 63 63-64
Ideation (vi.fti6na) in Abhidharma, 85-86 Kasyapa, 57, 221 n . 3
Illusion, 141, 211 n. 123; of all spiritual Katyayana and the Middle Way, 37
practice, 192; clinging to, 87, Keith, A. B., 25
253n.l37; and existence, 56-57; Kern, H., 25
ground in language of, 110; and lan- Knowledge, nature of, 113. See also Non-
guage, 57; in Madhyamika, 55-57; and dualistic knowledge
the Necker cube, 121; no transcent Kochumuttom, T . , 63
ground of, 142; of personal liberation, Kuhn, T. S., 117, 132, 138, 202n . 9
101-105; and philosophical views, 57; of
production, 230n . 32 ; of self, in Hina- Language : antiphilosophical, 130; connec-
yana, 86; of self, reason for clinging to, tion with reality, 54; and existence , 52;
87; in the text of MA, 95; and wisdom, and illusion, 57 ; Madhyamika's use of,
284 Index
54; and mental affiictions, 55; and Metaphorical imputation (samtiroptid),

presuppositions, 237-238n. 65; Yoga- 247 n. 109
dira's use of, 60, 64, 66. Sualso Meta- Metaphysical language: definition of, 31;
physical language lack of justification, 32
Learning, nature of, 113 Metaphysical reality and Madhyamika, 45
Liberation for Hinayiina, 87. Su also Methodology: as controlled alienation, 13;
Conventional experience and objectivity, 7, 128; and privileged
Linguistic interpretation: history and vocabulary, 8. Stt also Scholarship
characteristics of, 30-32; as holistic, 12; Methodology, philological/text-critical,
uniqueness of, xi 126, 134; characteristics of, 5-7; and
Living status, changes in, 74 knowledge, 115
Logic and soteriology, 35 Methodology, proselytic, characteristics
Logical analysis as normative, 10, 95 of, 6-7
Migration (gat1), 149, 151; bad, 220n. 12
Madhyamika, three phases of Western Milarepa on wisdom, 101
scholarship on, 25-32 Mind: faculties of the, 85-86; influence of,
Magic as illustration of the three types of on experience, 76; as a monkey, 51
intrinsic nature, 62 Mind alone, 162; purpose of the expres·
Mahayana as a genre ofliterature, 17-18 sion, 66; and tathtigatagarbha, 249-
Mara, 156 250n.123
May,J., 215n.55 Mindfulness (smrti), 76-77, 116
Meaning: anticipation of, 134; and appli- Morality, emptiness of, 181
cation, 118; definitive (niltirtlw.), 38, 66, Murti, T. R. V.: and absolutism, 27-29;
168, 238n. 65; historicity of, 200n. 10; and negation, 27-28
necessity for distinction between defini- Mystical intuition, 116-117, 137
tive and nondefinitive, 245-246n. 106; Mysticism, 118, 126-127, 129, 204n. 12,
nondefinitive (neytirtha), 38, 168, 206n.53, 217n.33
238n. 65; nonegocentrist, 113; nonref-
erential, 31-32, 38-39, 57, 113; philo- Nagiirjtma, life and works of, 32
sophical, 135; as pragmatically deter· Naiyayika, 28
mined, 53; prescriptive, 53; referential, Natural interpretation: in association with
31,39 intrinsic and relative being, 48-49;
Meditation: emptiness of, 181-182; and definition of, 46; emptiness as a, 82; and
energy, 75; as a tod,, 114. See also Bal- the four noble truths, 105; limitations
anced concentration; Calming; Concep· of, 96; and meditation, 78; power of,
tual diffusion; Insight 84; and prejudice, 107; and reified
Meditative cultivation as the third type of thought, 55, 97; role of, in philosophy,
wisdom (bhtiuantimayi-prajiiti), 80-81 46; seeing and seeing through, 83;
Memory (smrtijntina) in discussion of significance of, for Madhyamika, 140
reflexive awareness, 166 Necessary connection and truth, 45
Mms auctoris, 134; as distinguished from Necessary fiction, 110, 141
the fundamental concern of the text, I~; Necker cube, 120-121
and proselytic methodology, 6 Negation: nonimplicative, 35; and philo-
Mental afflictions (klefas) and language, 55 sophical views, 59; two types of, 58
Mental discipline and patience, 72 Nietzsche, F., 7, 138
Mental faculties (abhijniis), five higher, 22, Nihilism (ucchedautida), 132, 255n. 155;
224n. 5 definition of, 202 n . 5; Madhyamika's
ll(f.entalllexibility, 72 . &e alSo Intellectual rejection of, 29; as misapplied to
flexibility Madhyamika, 18
Mental image (upalambha): definition of, Nihilistic interpretation: classical origin
211 n.119; of emptiness, 57; in Yoga- of, 30; history of, 25-26; and relativism,
cara, 62, 64 26
Mental processes, three categories of, 85- Nirviil:la and wisdom, 90
86 Noble truths, four; as basis of Buddhism,
Mental purification (cittauiiuddJu), 77-78; 92
degrees of, 83 Nonbeing (abhtiua), reified concepts of, 30
Mental triad, 240 n . 79 Non-Buddhist philosophers, 160; generic
Merit (purzya) and skillful means, 100 sense of the eJ~pression , 247 n. 114
f
!
Index 285
Nonclinging: and emptiness, 22, 59, 84; Philosophy: early Buddhist, 84; role of, in
and generosity, 69-70; and study of Miidhyamika, 47
philosophy, 40 Pleasing speech (prlyaviida), 99
Nondualistic knowledge (advayajnaM), Position, rejection of, 178. See also Proposi-
149; and balanced concentration, 103; tion; Thesis; View, philosophical
and Mahayana epistemology, 18; and Practice and theory, 78, 81
sameness, 266n. 5; and wisdom, 90, 104 Pragmatism, relevance to Miidhyamika
Nondual unity in Yogiiciira, 64 of, 10-11
Nonrealization, 211 n. 123 Prasruigika: debate with Sviitantrika, 34-
Nonseeing, 111, 211n.123 36; origin of name, 33, 206n·. 39
Prejudice: inescapability of, 139; justified,
Object, discovery or creation of, 50 . 138, 139; and natural interpretations,
Objective support (iilambaM), 151, 221 n. 3 107; and observational languages, I 07.
Objectivity, 126, 128-130; and alienation, See also Presuppositions
13; and epistemological philosophy, Prenatal dispositions (samskiiras ), dispel-
127; as a metaphysical view, 107; and ling of, 91
method, criticism of, 7; problem of, Presuppositions: as basis of views and
138; and relativism, circle of, 136; and beliefs, 117; and language, 237-
the urge to transcend conventional 238n.65
experience, 39. See also Conceptual Private object: and clinging, 39; and
diffusion referential meaning, 32
Observational language: and meditation, Propaganda: as cause for the actualization
78; power of, 84; and prejudice, 107; of emptiness, 111-112; and the empti-
relation with natural interpretation, 46; ness of emptiness, 132; reason for using
significance of, 140 --- the term, 125-126; third noble truth as,
Occular metaphor, 131 94; use of, 11
Ontology: and causality, 41, 45; Hinayana Proposition (pratijna): and negation, 59;
and Mahayana, 17-18 and privileged vocabulary, 8; in Sviitan-
Ophthalmia, 162, 163, 164, 165, 169-170, trika, 34. See also Thesis; View, philo-
252n.135 sophical
Optical defect (= ophthalmia), 111, Psychophysical aggregates (skandhas), list
211n.123 of, 173
Ostensive definition, 118, 126; insuffi- Pudgalaviida, 258 n. 177
ciency of, 92 Purification of the three spheres (trimart-
Ostensive train_ing, 118 (lala-pansodluma), 220 n. 20
Purpose (prayojaM), !5, 30, 47, 127,
Pain: ontological status of, 119; types of, 205n. 25, 247 n.110; of the expression
90. See also Suffering "mind alone," 66; fulfilling of, 136; and
Path: relationship with goal, 94; signifi- meaning, xiii; and truth, 50. See also
cance of, 94 Application; Use
Patience, emptiness of, 181 Purposeful behavior (arthacaryii), 99-100
Perception (samjna): in Abhidharma, 85-
86; correct (= veridical), 160; direct Riihulabhadra, life and works of, 33
(pratyalqa), 182; incorrect(= nonveridi- Rationalism: presuppositions of, 49; as a
cal), 160; veridical, 50, 160 problem, 116; and reality, 52; roots of,
Perfection (piiramitii): mundane (laulci- 115. See also Reason
lcii-), 220n. 20; supramundane (lokotld- Rationalist discourse, paradigmatic form
rii-), 220n. 20 of, 54
Perfectly accomplished, the (parini~panM), Rational thinking: importance of, 107; as
61. See also Intrinsic nature, three types a tool, 112
of Real: metaphysical import, 51-52; prag-
Person (pwigala), 167 matic definition of, 51
Petitio principii, 28 Reality: and causal efficacy, 58; and
Philosophical hermeneutics as critique of language, 54, 57; nature of, 122; nega-
method, 7 tion of the concept, 58; as a translation
Philosophical paradigm, 117 for /attva, 202 n. 3
Philosophical view. See View, philosophi- Reason: legitimate demands of, 137;
cal limitations of, 129, 139; necessity for,
286 Index
160; presuppositions of, 138; as the struction, 129; and generosity, 70; of the
second type of wisdom (cintamayi-prajfiii), knower, 250n. 124; and the Middle
80; and soteriology, 35; and tradition, Way, 37; and morality, 71; of the object
139 of knowledge, 250n.124; of the person
Reductio ad absurdum (prasangaviikya): (pudgala-), 97, 179; of things (dharma-),
defense of, 98; description of, 34-35; 97' 179
and edifying philosophy, xiii. Su also Shape (samsthiina- in discussion of self,
Deconstructive analysis; Deconstructive 173,176
critique Skillful means (upiiyakaufalya): philosophy
Reflexive awareness (svasariwitti; svasariwe- as, 129; and propaganda, 126; and
dana), 166, 244-245n.101; as Yogacara Yogacara use oflanguage, 65
doctrine, 60 Socialization and understanding, 114
Reified concept (vikalpa), 160; rejection of, Sociolinguistic community, 125
70; and wisdom, 90 Solitary buddha (pratyekabuddha), charac-
Reified thought: archetypal form of, 203; teristics of, 219 n. I
and associated presuppositions, 106; Soteriology: as application of philosophy,
freedom from, 115; as a mental afflic- 58, 59; Hlnayiina and Mahayana, 18-
tion, 55 19; importance for Madhyamika, 13-
Relation, philosophical problem of, 124 14; and reason, 35
Relativism, 131-133; and objectivity, 136,
138
Renunciation and generosity, 69
Specialized analysis, 14,117, 126
Spiritual ignorance (avidyii), 160; and
causality, 45; and clinging, 123; defini-
j
Repository consciousness (iilayavijfiiina),
96, 163; characteristics of, 238n. 68
Rorty, R., 10, 131, 138; on a priori pre-
tion of, 97; as ophthalmia, 170; as origin
of suffering, 94; and volitional action,
251-252n.134
'
suppositions, 217 n. 20; on edifying Stamina: as a quality of energy, 73; as a
philosophy, 125; on existentialist objec- quality of patience, 72
tivity, 130; on gestault switch, 216n. 12; Stcherbatsky, T., and absolutism, 27
on idealization and grounding, 28; on Study as the first type of wisdom (iriita-
not holding a view, 135; on the strong mayl-prajfiii), 80
textualist, 8 Subjacent ground, 27. See also Transcen-
Ruegg, D. S., 14; indiscussionofprag- dent ground
matics and deconstruction, 8-9 Subject/object dichotomy in Yogacara,
61-62,64
Saint (iirya), 150; transition to, 21 Substrate (iiiraya) in Yogacara, 64:-65
Sameness (samata), 265 n. 3; and non- Suchness (tathllta): cessation in, 265 n. 2;
dualistic knowledge, 266n. 5; ten types realization of, 82; and the two truths, 40
of, 227 n. 9 Suffering (du{lkhll): in the Abhidharmakoia,
Santideva: on confidence, 74; on energy, 93; and impermanence, 87; origins of,
73; on generosity, 69; on wisdom, 89 94; and philosophical views, 15; signifi-
Scholarship: on the Madhyamika, 25-32; cance of, 92-94; three types of, 105-
philological/text-critical, 139; prose- 106; transformation of, 124; and wis-
lytic, 139. SeealsoMethodology dom, 106. See also Clinging; Conceptual
Scientific rationalism and our form oflife, diffusion; Consciousness; Pain
II Supporting reason (hetu) in Sviitantrika
Self: according to non- Buddhist philoso- syllogism, 34
phers, 171; analysis of, in seven alterna- Sviitantrika: characteristics of, 34; origin
tives, 98; cognitive basis of, 254n.148; ofthe name, 206n. 39; and Yogiicara,
concept of, in Hlnayiina, 86; as a con- 61. See also Bhavaviveka
ventional designation, 259n.182; as it Syllogism in Sviitantrika, 34
appears in meditation, 262 n. 200; Syllogistic reasoning and the Madhya-
reified, as distinguished from "agent," mika, 35-36
86-87; two categories of, 97-98; view of Systematic philosophy: characteristics of,
(satkiiyadnti), 225 n. 3. See also View, xiii; and philosophical views, xiii
philosophical
Self-determination, 149 Taraniitha, 25
Selflessness (nairiilmya): as absence of Tathagata: meaning of the epithet,
intrinsic being, 256n. 159; and decon- 219n. 8
'
Index 287
'! Tathagatagarbha, 249 n. 123 V~suban~hu, 60.• 62; on suffering, 93

Taylor, A. E., on causality, 43 Vtew, phtlosophtcal (dnti): absence of in
Taylor, M. C., 130 Madhyamika, xii, 98; absence of i~
Tetralemma (cat~ko.ti), 94-96, 158; basic Wesr,rn philosophy, 135; associa;ion
formula of, 38; and reference to a tran- with privileged vocabulary, 8; associa-
scendent ground, 204n.12 tion with substance ontology, 166;
Theory: relationship with practice, 78 a~~ociation with systematic philosophy,
Thesis (~a): and presuppositions, xm; attachment and aversion to
263 n. 207; and privileged vocabulary, 8. 201 n. 26; of the buddha, 37, 38;' charac-
See also Proposition; View, philosophical teristics of, xii; as destroyed by depen-
Thesis, unsubstantiated (siidhya), 165, dent origination, 171; and emptiness,
243n. 93 58; as evidence of reified thought, 171;
Thirst (tmw) as origin of suffering, 94. See extreme (antagraha-), 95; implications of,
also Clinging 216n. 59; as meaningless, 66; and
Thought of awakening (bodhicitta): encour- negation, 59; and presuppositions, 117;
agement of, 21; generation of, 20; three and Rorty's "occular metaphor," 131;
gradations, 20-22 of the self(satkaya-), 37, 155, 171, 175,
Trace, cognitive (bija), 238 n. 68, 240 n. 83 225n. 3; and suffering, 15; Vediintic,
Tradition: and methodology, 7; and rea- 130. See also Emptiness; Position, rejec-
son, 139 tion of; Proposition; Thesis
Training, role of, 114-115 Vijiiiinavada. See Yogacara
Transcendent ground: inherent problem Vijiiaptimatra. See Yogacara
of, 109; in Murti, 27; and the tetra- Virtue, characteristics of, 83
lemma, 204n.12 Volitional action (kamUJ): significance of,
Transmigration, 236n. 58, 251 n.129 23; source of, in delusion, 170; as source
Truth: correspondence theory of, 31; of of mind, 167; and spiritual ignorance,
emptiness, 137; multiple, 18; and neces- 251-252n.134; and suffering, 91; two
sary connection, 45; objective and consequences of, 223n. 4. See also Action
"modern," 128-130; pragmatic defini- (nonvolitional)
tion of, 43-44; soteriological, and Vow (prarzidhana): definition of, 21-22; in
incommensurability, 109; and veridical Dfpatikarajataka, 20
perception, 50. See also Two truths
Truth, conventional (vyavaharasatya; sam- Whorf, B. L., on presuppositions, 237-
vrtisatya): levels of, 232-233n.47; and 238n.65
Mahayana epistemology, 18. See also Willis, J., 64-65
Causal efficacy; Two truths Wisdom (prajfiii): as a cause (hetubhiita-),
Truth of the highest meaning (paramiirtha- 90-92; as a cause, territory governed by,
satya), 39; and justification of knowl- 111-112; connection with theory, 88; as
edge, 10; and Mahayana epistemology, an effect, cultivation of, 109, 113-115;
18; necessity for noninferential experi- as an effect (phalabhiita-), 90-92; in
ence of, 233 n. 47. See also Two truths Hinayiina, 85-87; Madhyamika's
Tsong kha pa on causality, 58 redefinition of, 88-89; and Mahayana
Two truths (satyadvaya), 95, 162; and epistemology, 18; and meditation, 81;
causality, 4 7-49; definition of, 231 n. 38; and nondualistic knowledge, 104; and
incommensurability of, 108; purpose of, suffering, 106; threefold division of, 80-
246n.109; system of, 38. See also Dalai 81; two types of, 90-92
Lama; Truth, conventional; Truth of Wittgenstein, L., 7, 83, 138, 210n.103;
the highest meaning on the complexity of philosophy,
201 n. 28; and mysticism, 47; problems
Unapprehended, emptiness of the, 183 raised by, 10, 11; on propaganda, 127
Understanding: nature of, 59; and so- World, sentient and insentient, 248
cialization, 114; as a source of energy, Worldly person (Prthagjana), 20
75
Unifying principle, necessity for, 44 Ya8omitra, 248n. 116
Use, 36. See also Application; Purpose Yogacara, names of the school of, 60

The Emptiness of Emptiness

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Emptiness of Emptiness

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Emptiness of Emptiness

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

"'~'i.__,.

MOTILAL BANARSIDASS PUBLISHERS

First published by the Unil,ersity of Hawaii Press, 1989

(CJ 1989 University of Hawaii Press

FOR SALE IN INDIA ONLY

Also available at:

PART ONE: CANDRAKTRTI AND EARLY INDIAN MADHYAMIKA

4.5 The perfection of meditation 75

PART TWO: THE ENTRY INTO THE MIDDLE WAY

Sources for the Translation 145

Refutation of consciousness as an ultimate truth 162

The qualities associated with the stage of a fully

be used with care and accompanied by explicit qualifications. The

draldrti has no fixed position to defend, it does not necessarily follow

Modern deconstruction and pragmatism are especially valuable to us

nating conversations on just about everything, and Gregory Schopen,

CANDRAKTRTI AND EARLY INDIAN

The emptiness of the conquerors was taught in

Buddhism is not and never has pretended to be a

ous methodology resting on the firm intellectual foundation of philology

reatest prestige-d~e, no doubt, to i~s .dose asso~iation with what. ~s

The thing which hermeneutics teaches us is to see through the dogmatism

In the history of Buddhist studies in Europe and North America, the

influence on our understanding of Buddhism. This book is, however,

The historian ofthe Madhyamaka-and oflndian and Tibetan philoso-

Recourse to the insights of post-Wittgensteinian pragmatism and

posed toward considering a text's meaning. Throughout part 1 and the

rejecting the largely unstated presuppositions of "objectivity" that nor-

or philological study of Buddhist texts. J. W. de Jong, himself a highly

In the past European orientalists have applied themselves especially to the

Ruegg corroboratesjong's opinion:

CANDRAKTRTI'S HISTORICAL AND

2. 1 The E.ntry into the Middle Way as a Mahiyina text

The distinction between Hinayana (Inferior Vehicle) and Mahayana

objective, are emptied of any ontological content, whether defined as

2. 2 The bodhisattva ideal and the thought of awakening

The extremely powerful and heroic figure of the bodhisattva dominates

named Sumedha achieved arhatship as the result of his dedicated reli-

2. 3 The stages in the path to full awakening

prartidhiina, which is actually "a strong wish, aspiration, prayer, or

2.4 The perfections of the bodhisattva's path

causal efficacy, or lack of it, within the sociolinguistic nexus of conven-

THE PHILOSOPHICAL LANGUAGE

3. I Sources for the study of Mic:llyamika thought

cal texts, and they were confronted by a mountain of unedited manu-

what Candrakirti might have called an "absolutist interpretation."

to Hegelian historicism. They asked us to think of the Kantian project of

Murti's idealization of Nagarjuna should be viewed in much the

I suggest that the Madhyamika be read as a radical attempt at aban-

understanding a very subtle soteriological philosophy. A considerablt

Just as particular material forms lack ontological own-being, so all predi-

meaning. The Buddhist ultimate truth of emptiness is ineffable, then, but

Gudmunsen's book, Wittgenstein and Buddhism, is the most compre-

from its application in some particular sociolinguistic community, and

3.2 Major figures in the development of Madhyamika thought

Without a doubt, the central figure in all traditional accounts of the

tantric master named Nagarjuna. 44 (This is not the Madhyamika phi-

asangas), or better yet, the inherent contradictions invariably present

contextual structure. Language is not grounded outside itself, bu1

3.3 History and doctrine of the Middle Way