THE ADYAR LIBRARY SERIES

VOLUME ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY THREE

GENERAL EDITOR

K. KUNJUNNI RAJAHonorary Director

1fitIi4C6&:~f(

~Madhyamakahfdayam of Bhavya

A

1

2

3Madhyamakahrdayam: TarkajvaHinama s'iitram

Specimen pages of the MS.

~~JiCfi~~~

~&i~a~

Madhyamakahrdayamof Bhavya

Edited by

CHR. LINDTNER

THE ADYAR LIBRARY AND RESEARCH CENTREThe Theosophical Society, Adyar, Chennai 600 020, India

© 2001 The Adyar Library and Research CentreAdyar, Chennai 600020, India

First Edition 2001

ISBN: 81-85141-40-1

Distributors

Americas and Japan:

The Theosophical Publishing House,p.a. Box 270, Wheaton,Illinois 60189-0270, D.S.A.

India and Other Countries:

The Theosophical Publishing House,

The Theosophical Society.

Adyar, Chennai 600 020, India.

PRINTED IN INDIA

At the Vasanta Press, The Theosophical Society,Adyar, Chennai 600 020.

DEDICATED TO

the memory of

Two great Madhyamaka scholars:

l.W. DE lONG and YASUNORl EJIMA

and to

Two unflinching gentlemen:

OLUF KRABBE and l0RGEN LINDTNER

PREFACE

I am glad that Bhavya's Madhyamakahrdaya, criti­cally edited by Christian Lindtner on the basis of allavailable manuscripts and secondary sources, transla­tions in Tibetan, Pali, Chinese etc., to the extentpossible, is . now being published in the AdyarLibrary Series fully in DevanagarI script for the firsttime. In May 1999 I had the pleasure of staying withLindtner at Copenhagen for more than a .week andreading through his critical edition of the text inRoman transliteration and discussing the problem ofidentifying the ur-text. At my request he gave me acopy of his critical edition (in Roman script) togetherwith his detailed introduction, variant readings andnotes. Radha Burnier, the International President ofthe Theosophical Society, readily agreed to mysuggestion to include it in the Adyar Library Series.T.M. Ramani transliterated the text to the Devanaganscript and prepared the half verse index. The type­setting in Sanskrit was also done by her. I have alsoseen the proofs; so has Lindtner. His English trans­lation has not been included in this edition. It is likelyto be published from Europe.

viii

The chapter on MrmaIpsa of Bhavya's Madhya­makahrdaya together with Lindtner's English transla­tion and introduction has already been published inthe Adyar Library Bulletin (1999) and is being issuedas a separate pamphlet. Lindtner has published muchbasic material and advanced some important originalviews on Buddhism and its relation to other religions.I am sure that this Devanagari edition of Bhavya'sMadhyamakahrdaya will be welcomed by all studentsof Indian Buddhism and Hinduism.

K. KUNJUNNI RAJAHonorary Director

INTRODUCTION

The Author and His Works

The name .of our author is handed down in variantforms. Candrakirti~ in his Prasannapada~ based onrather late Sanskrit MSS. from Nepal~ calls himBhava-viveka~ but the corresponding Tibetan trans­lation is Legs Idan ~byed~ which presupposes Bhavi­viveka rather than Bhavaviveka. Legs ldan byed (or~byed) is also found in the colophons to two otherworks by our author, Prajnapradipa and Madhyama­kiirthasarrzgraha. The commentator on Prajnapradipa,Avalokitavrata~ presupposes the same form, namely,Bhavi-viveka. Elsewhere, Candrakirti uses the formBhavi(n)~ which would seem to be a short form ofBhavi-viveka. Considering that a and i in these manu­scripts are often confounded, the evidence for Bhava­viveka is~ therefore, as opposed to Bhavi-viveka~

poorly supported.

Various Chinese transliterations and translationspoint to the form Bha-viveka. KamalasIla knows Bha­viveka as well as Bhavya. The Mahlivyutpatti hasBhavya (Tib. sKal Idan, Mong. Tegiis qubitu - Cleardistinction). Bhavya (or Bha bya) is also the form

attested in the colophons of Madhyamakaratnapradipaas well as MH and TJ. Assuming that the authoralludes to his own name, the form Bhavya is alsosupported by internal evidence provided by Madhya­makahrdaya (MH 111.268 ; XLI). On the other hand,the unique Sanskrit MS. of the MH gives the author'sname as Bhagavadviveka (fo1. 1a).

Taking Bhavya, Bhavi(n) and Bhagavat as moreor less synonyms, the most authentic form of ourauthor's name may have been Bhavyaviveka, thoughnever met with in actual usage.

On this basis it seems safe to conclude thatBhavya is the most proper and certainly most con­venient form to use.

The Madhyamakahrdaya (MH) is the only workof Bhavya that has come down to us in Sanskrit. Pra­jiilipradipa is only available in Tibetan and Chinese.Madhyamakaratnapradipa is only transmitted inTibetan, as is the short Madhyamakiirthasa,!,graha,whereas the Zhang-zhen lun (or Karatalaratna) onlyexists in a Chinese translation.

References to the sources, translations, modemstudies can be found in the 'Bibliographie zur Bhavya­Literatur' by A.L. Heitmann, published in Glimpses ofthe Sanskrit Buddhist Literature, Kameshwar NathMishra (Ed.), Sarnath 1997, pp. 106-54.

Originally the MH, which is in verse (kiirikii) , wastransmitted along with the author's own commentary,in prose, called Tarkajvlila (T1). This is still extant in

INTRODUCTION xi

a Tibetan translation. The colophons describe theTarkajvlilli as the vrtti to the Madhyamakahrdaya. Inthe unique Sanskrit MS. Tarkajvlilli is referred to assiltram. While the possibility that Bhavya used bothtitles - MH and TJ - to refer to his work as a whole(i.e. verses and prose) cannot be excluded - he, infact, does so in his MRP - it seems practical here todistinguish between MH (the verses) and TJ (theprose-commentary).

The authenticity of the MH is beyond any doubt.Not only do later 'good' authors such as Candrakirti,Kamalasila and others refer to it and quote from it asthe work of Bhavya, but Bhavya himself refers to itin his (therefore probably) later works Prajnlipradlpa(PP) and Madhyamakaratnapradlpa (MRP). TheKaratalaratna, even in Chinese, often reads like anabbreviated version of MH / TJ (to which it alsoexplicitly refers). The authenticity of the TJ is like­wise beyond doubt (though the possibility of laterinterpolations cannot be entirely ruled out), forpassages are explicitly taken over in the MRP and,moreover, the author of TJ once refers to some versesin the MH as having been composed by himself.

Further arguments in support of the authenticity ofthe MH and TJ may be found in previous paperswhere this issue (still considered controversial bysome modem scholars) has been taken up fromvarious angles (pp. 42-3).

About t~e life and date of Bhavya there is little to

xii

be said with certainty. There are various indications tothe effect that he was born in a noble family in SouthIndia and that he lived from about 500 to 570. (ThatBhavya was a native of South India, perhaps theMalayagiri country, may be true. Unfortunately, noneof the nearly 500 Buddhist inscriptions now reportedfrom Andhra Pradesh contain any reference to hisname). Internal evidence suggests that he was a con­temporary of Dharmapala, Dharmakirti and Candra­klrti. He was known to Dharmapala and Candraklrti,and he himself mentions (in the MRP, for the reasongiven above probably his latest work) Dharmakirti andCandraklrti by name.

The Philosophy of Bhavya

The only safe way to form a picture of Bhavyaas a philosopher and writer is through .a careful studyof his extant works and the tradition to which hebelongs.

Bhavya can certainly be described as a philoso­pher - a lover of wisdom - in the sense that hismajor concern is with tattvajiilinai~a!,li (MH 1.5 ; 111.1).But since virtually all Indian philosophers areconcerned with the quest for tattvajiilina, furtherqualifications would be required to specify his positionas opposed to that of the other Indian philosophers.Bhavya's tattvajiilinai~a!,li corresponds to brahma­jijiilisli of Brahmasutra 1.1.1, and to dharma-jijiilisli ofMimli'flslisiitra 1.1.1, as well as to the initial jijiilisli of

INTRODUCTION xiii

Sli",khya'kari'ka 1. For Bhavya tattva, brahman anddharma(tli) are synonyms, passim. Each of the termsused in 1.1-5 can be traced back to earlier sources,thus showing the encyclopaedic inclusivism of hisapproach to philosophy.

The fundamental concept attested in all his extantworks is that of prajiili. This term, however, is funda­mental to Mahayana philosophy in general. Mahayana,therefore, is also known as the Prajiia-paramitayana.Numerous writings, canonical (sutra) as well as scho­lastic (slistra), are concerned with the exposition anddevelopment of prajiili.

The specific value and importance of prajiili liesin the fact that it is instrumental in bringing aboutjiilina of tattva. Different schools, obviously, entertaindifferent notions about th~ nature of tattva. Their wayof looking upon (darsana) tattva varies to the extentthat they follow the words of different teachers.

Common is the distinction between three kinds ofprajiili. The first is concerned with (-mayi), the studyof the scriptures (sruta), the second with logicalreasoning (cintli) , and the third with personal develop­ment (bhlivanli). The first kind of knowledge is thecause of the second and third kind.

Speaking of erudition, Bhavya makes it clear thatthis also implies secular sciences such as sabda, hetu,cikitsli, adhylitmavidyli, as well as numerous othersubjects. Science as well as religion, in other words,starts out with a sound training in Sanskrit.

xiv

At the second state, cinta (yukti, tarka, anu­mana) enables the learned and intelligent student(dhimlin, matimlin, prlijna, buddhiman) to distinguishwhat is true from what is false in the varioustraditions that he has studied. Critical reason - thesecond fonn of prajna - therefore, is necessary forsupporting the validity and truthfulness of the state­ments handed down by· tradition. Without any palqa­pata the student should only accept what cintlimayiprajnli proves to be reasonable.

'Nothing without reason is to be proposed; noth­ing against reason is to be believed. Scripture is to betaken in a rational sense'. These are the words of theCambridge Platonist Benjamin Whichcote (Aphorism880), and they could well serve as the motto ofBhavya's attitude to the problem of faith (fides) andscripture versus reason and understanding (intellectus).In the broader context of the universal history of theconflict between faith and reason, his MH is animportant document.

At the time of Bhavya the common rules ofdebate required that in order to uphold one's position(palqa, pratijnli), one had to prove it by argumentsconsisting of logical reasons (hetu) and examples(dr~!linta). Moreover, one was obliged to refute, in thesame way, the counter positions (pratipalqa) andobjections of one's opponents. One's position must notbe in conflict with perception, reason, one's ownwords, or common sense accepted by all others, or the

INTRODUCTION

majority of nonnal people. One's reasons for main­taining a position should neither be contradictory, un-certain or otherwise lacking in validity. .

Characteris'.:1c of Bhavya is his introduction of thedistinction between two truths (satyadvayavibhliga) inthis context. The distinction between the two truths is,in itself, old and not merely confIned to Madhyamaka.(It can be traced back to ]Jgveda 129.3, cf. my paper'From Brahmanism to Buddhism', in Asian Philo­sophy, vol. 9, no. 1, 1999, pp. 5-37).

In the perspective of satyadvaya, there are also,fIrst, two kinds of prajiili. One is based on sa7!Jvrti­satya, the other aims at paramlirthasatya. The tennsused by Bhavya are sli'!Jketiki (I0.9) and plira­mlirthiki (IlL I I), respectively.

Partly for reason of metre and style, Bhavya doesnot always distinguish consistently between the use ofprajiili and jiilina, and their synonyms. As a rule,however, prajiili is analytical, critical and discursive,and, as such, instrumental in gradually bringing aboutjiilina, which is, in principle, intuitive and visual. Oneanalyses with the sword of prajiili and sees with theeye of jiilina. Prajiili as opposed to jiilina always pre­supposes a plurality of objects.

By combining the old distinction between satya­dvaya with the traditional tripartition of prajiili,Bhavya took a new step and thus made an originalcontribution to Madhyamaka scholarship which largelyhad to do with the proper exegesis (naya) of prajiili

xvi

brought to perfection (pliramitli).

We shall have to compare Bhavya with his pre­cursors to see why he chose. to take this step. Thenotion of tattvajiilina was undoubtedly endorsed by allhis predecessors. Their use of prajiili, however, waslargely negative. Critical analysis shows that allconcepts (dharma) and things (bhliva) admitted by theopponents (and by the Madhyamika-s themselves onthe level of sa'!'vrtisatya), actually lack svabhliva.This was because all things depend on certain causesand conditions for coming into being. They are, there­fore, void of independent existence (svabhlivasunya).

Bhavya, on the other hand, sets out to prove thatall things are actually empty. He attempts to do so bym~ans of a syllogism that is qualified - and this isquite new - with the vise~a,:,a: in the ultimate sense(paramlirthata~, tattvata~).

The distinction is subtle, but unmistakable. WhatBhavya is doing is to make tattva an object not onlyof jiilina, but also of prajiili, Le. discursive knowl­edge, or analytical reason. He admits that prajiili canhave tattva as its object in a very special and indirectsense. (In Prajiilipradipa V.8, he says that para­mlirthasatya, in a very subtle fonn sin tu cha phra ba,is the gocara of lirya-prajiilicalqu~). But again adistinction must be made. Bhavya does not claim thattattva is the direct object (vi~aya, gocara) of prajiili,but rather that prajiili is instrumental in rejectingwrong notions' about tattva. Bhavya wants to make

INTRODUCTION xvii

tattva consistent with reason (yukti, tarka). In the end,he does not deny that tattva is the object (or rathercontents, for the two are the same) of jiilina - a sva­yarrzbhiijiilina - not of prajiili. Typically, he usestenns such as ekalqa~ajiilina, svayarrzbhiijiilina, jiilina­sarrzbhlira, and even prajiilijiilina (i.e. jiilina achievedby means of prajiili). Once prajiili has been perfected(pliramitli), it is jiilina. It becomes perfect only byworking itself up from the level of sarrzvrtisatya tothat of paramlirthasatya. For this purpose bhlivanli isa must. However, bhlivanli does not belong to thecontext of debate (vlida). It is not a matter of com­munication, but rather of personal perfonnance andexperience (svasarrzvedya).

In order to understand why Bhavya goes throughsuch pains to prove that the Madhyamaka concept oftattva is perfectly reasonable, one must call to mindthe extremely competitive intellectual climate at thetime of Bhavya. Had Bhavya failed .to establish hisown position, be would have exposed himself to thecharge of sophistry Ualpa) and cavilling (vita~ljli),

thereby excluding himself from any serious scholarlydebate. Cavilling fails to establish the position counterto that of the .theory attacked (pratipalqasthlipanli­hina). It is, in other words, the wish not to be ex­cluded from· vlida that provides the main motivationfor Bhavya to distinguish prajiili on the basis ofsatyadvaya.

This distinction between two kinds of prajiili had

xviii

some practical consequences that proved highly con­venient when Bhavya had to classify the varioustattva-s rejected from the point of view of Madhya­maka. This gradual classification comes out clearlyfrom the titles of the chapters of the MRP. Allopponents belong to the level of sa'!lvrtiprajna. Theheretics belong to the category of sa'!Zvrtibhranta­prajna. Buddhist opponents fall into two groups, bothof which, as fellow Buddhists, are graciously endowedwith tathyasa'!Zvrtiprajna..

Thus~ on the level of sa'!Zvrtiprajna~ a distinctionis made between those who are wrong (bhranta) andthose (the Buddhists) who are on the right track(tathya). When it comes to tathyasa'!Zvrtiprajna~ a dis­tinction can be made between neyartha (the Sravaka-sand Yogacara-s)~ and nitartha (the Madhyamika-s).Apart from that~ only Madhyamaka represents para­marthaprajna. (For ref., see my paper 'On Bhavya~s

Madhyamakaratnapradrpa~~ in Indologica Taurinensia12. 1984~ p. 170).

Reviewing the titles and contents of Bhavya'sworks we can conclude that Bhavya is the greatsystematizer of prajnaparamita. In his darSana thereis~ at various levels~ room for any kind of traditionalSanskrit learning.

His attitude was not typical of Madhyamakaauthors. To some extent it was shared by Nagar­juna - the author of the basic Madhyamakaslistra(also entitled Prajna) - and~ -later on, by Santarak~ita,

INTRODUCTION xix

the author of Madhyamakiila'!lklira, Tattvasa'!lgrahaand other learned Sanskrit works. It is reasonable toassume that these authors, before converting toBuddhism, had enjoyed a good traditional training inSanskrit.

Bhavya's Sources and Syncretism

On this subject, materials are available for anentire monograph. Such a monograph can hardly bewritten before all the extant works of Bhavya areavailable in modem critical editions. Here I shall haveto confine myself to a few hints. It goes withoutsaying, that even the most original and independentphilosophical author is consciously or unconsciouslyindebted to his predecessors. To understand Bhavya,therefore, it is not sufficient to understand hisarguments; the historian must also try to identify hissources and see how he makes use of them.

Bhavya's sources naturally fall into two maingroups, namely Buddhist and non-B~ddhist.

The Buddhist sources, again, fall into two maingroups, namely the siitra-s and the slistra-s.

Numerous Buddhist siitra-s are used by Bhavya.In some cases he merely mentions their titles, in somecases he does not, in' some cases he provides extracts.

Most important are the celebrated Prajnlipliramitli­~tra-s. Most frequently quoted among these is the'SuvikrlintavikramiparipTcchli (Ed. R. Hikata, Fukuoka1958). Bhavya's terminology displays several traces

from this canonical text. The same goes for theBhavasa7Jlkriintisiltra and the Siilistambasutra (Ed.10. Schoening, Wien 1995; my rev. BSR 15/1, pp.107-16). Both are often quoted. The Dasabhumika­siltra is Bhavya's authority for the spiritual develop­ment of the bodhisattva, and from the A~ayamati­

nirdesasutra (Ed. J. Braarvig, Oslo 1993) he has someof his statements (following Nagatjuna) about satya­dvaya and prajnii as being apraciira. In criticizingYogacara he often calls upon the authority of theLanklivatiirasutra.

Frequently cited is also the Kiisyapaparivarta (Ed.A. von Stael-Holstein, Shanghai 1926). It is also, asone sees from numerous quotations, one of Nagar­juna's main authorities (cf. my remarks in Indo­Iranian Journal 42, 1999, pp. 121-40). When Nagar­juna (VV 69), and Bhavya likewise (passim), describethemselves as silnyatiiviidin-s, the sources for thisterminology may well be KP § 123. This sutra ismost probably also the source for the term Madhya­maka that has given name to the darsana (or siistra)professed by sijnyatiiviidin-s. Thus, Madhyamika is theterm for a follower of the Madhya-maka-darsana (orsiistra). Madhyamaka is derived from madhya, andfrom madhyama. In KP §§ 52-63 (to which allMadhyamika-s refer or from which they quote) welearn about the madhyamii pratipad dharmli!zii7Jlbhutapratyave~ii. It is an approach, a path betweenthe antas of asti and niisti, and it is a path that leads

INTRODUCTION xxi

to a madhyam - the Middle - described as ariipyamanirdarsanam aniibhiisam avijiiaptikam apratif!hitamaniketam (KP §§ 56-7, 60). These are the terms thatBhavya employs to describe the tattva as realized andpreached by the Buddha. Madhyam (as a substantive)is, in other words, for silnyatavadin-s, a paryaya oftattvam (originally not a Buddhist term), as is tathata,paramiirthasatya, etc. found in other Mahayanas.iltra-s.

When it comes to Bauddha scholasticism (theterm is not in~ppropriate), the most authoritativesiistrakiira for Bhavya is, of course, Nag3Ijuna. In TJhe quotes from his Ratnavali (Ed. M. Hahn, Bonn1982), and the Prajiiiipradipa (itself a canonical terme.g. Lalitavistara) is a commentary on the Prafiia­the Miilamadhyamakakiirikli - of NagaIjuna. The veryexistence of the Prajiiapradipa proves Bhavya's inti­mate knowledge of the works of NagaIjuna.

The stotrakiira par excellence, is Mafrceta.Bhavya knows, quotes and uses his Varniirhavarnaand Satapaiicasatka. Matrce~'s tendency to interp;et(anuvada) Vedic and Brahmanical texts in tenns ofBuddhism (especially VAV 7, entitled Brahmlinuvlida)is also outspoken in Bhavya. Thus the Savitri (RV TII.62.10) becomes pratityasamutpada, Brahman becomesDh!1rma, Buddha (as a teacher) becomes Brahma etc.Buddhism, in other words, is the true fonn ofBrahmanism.

From the Bodhisattvabhiimi (Ed. N. Dutt, Patna

xxii

1966) Bhavya has borrowed not only some phrases(MK V.83), but, possibly, also the distinction betweentwo kinds of prajiili, one that is laukiki, and the otherthat is lokottarli (p. 146). Compare also Abhidhanna­kosa VIA (quoted in Prajiilipradipa XXII.2) for thisdistinction:

yasmin bhinne na tadbuddhir

anylipohe dhiyli ca tat.

gha{limbuvat sarrzvrtisatparamlirthasad anyathli.

When we consider the non-Buddhist sourcesstudied and quoted by Bhavya, a similar distinctioncan be made. The chapters on Vedanta and MimaI!lsa,in particular, contain numerous quotations not onlyfrom the Veda-s and the Upani~ad-s, but also from theMahlibhlirata. Bhavya knows the Bhagavadgitli (asdid Nagarjuna, Matrce~a and Aryadeva). K.r~r:ta provesconspicuously anliryacarita (cf. Bhagavadgitli 11.2)and thus excludes himself from the rank of a pu~o­ttama (Bhagavadgitli XV.l8 and MH IX.73).

Bhavya knew Kumarila (MH IX. 15) and Bhartr­hari (MH IX. 14), whose Vlikyapadtya is quoted (alsoin the Prajiilipradipa). One of Bhavya's favouriteterms, tattvajiilinlimrta, can be traced back to Sataka­traya 88 (Ed. 0.0. Kosambi Bombay 1948).

Bhartrhari's celebrated line (VP n. 489): prajiilivivekarrz labhate bhinnair ligamadarsanai~, could havebeen written by Bhavya himself (MH III.13 and V.9).The initial verses of MR, on tattvam as anlidi-

INTRODUCTION xxiii

nidhanam and apratarkyam aVlJneyam (= MBH XII.212.32) contain echoes of the initial verses ofBhartrhari's VP as well as Manu's Smrti. Bhavya'scontemporary learned reader would probably havebeen immediately aware of these echoes that are aptto escape the attention of later readers (in Tibet andelsewhere).

The view that tarka (cf. the title Tarka-jvlilli)must not be in conflict with ligama, he shares, almostliterally, with Manu as well as Bhartrhari (cf. myremarks in Asiatische Studien 47/1, 1993, pp. 195-213;and add :4.mrtabindu 1.16: ligamasylivirodhena iiha­na'!l tarka ucyate). Such great emphasis on tarka isnot typical in Madhyamaka before Bhavya (though itis comparable to the use of yukti, as. in the dis­tinction between ligama and yukti, explicitly men­tioned by NagaIjuna, see Ratnlivali 111.14). Bhavya(TJ ad IX.14, against those who are anumlinapra­dhlina) quotes the verse found ad Manusmrti XII. III :

purli1'}a'!l mlinavo dharma~ slingoplingacikitsaka~

lijnlisiddhlini catvliri na hantavylini hetubhi~.

(Wezler edn, 1992)

In principle, this also reflects Bhavya's position.Some things must be accepted on the authority oftradition, but never without the support of reason.Reason supports faith, but is never isolated from faith.This is the typical position of scholasticism, Indian aswell as European.

To some extent Bhavya actually agrees that

xxiv

tattvam is not the gocara of tarka or anumlina.Dhannapala and Candrakirti had criticized Bhavya forspeaking about paramlirthasatya on the level of sa'!'­vrtisatya. He seemed to be speaking about that whichcannot, in his own opinion, be spoken about. Bhavyawas not unaware of this objection. the purpose oflogic (anumlina, tarka, yukti) is, therefore, merely toreject any thesis Qpposed to tattvajnlina (MH V.104­13). It is not sufficient merely to contradict one'sopponents, or reduce them to absurdity. One must alsorefute their opinions and their objections. Such apratipa~anirlikriyli, as already explained, can onlytake place on the basis of satyadvaya, for, as alreadyemphasiied by Nagarjuna, without sa,!,vrtisatya therecan be no paramlirthlidhigama. .

Nagarjuna defmed prajnli as satylirthaniscaya~

(Ratnlivali V.37b). This defmition is consistent withBhavya's usage of (vi)niscaya found in the title of fivechapters of MH / TJ. It suggests that each chapter isan exercise in prajnli, exactly as each parilqli of thePrajnlipradipa is an exercise in prajnli (cf. dharmli­1)li,!, bhiitapratyave~li, in KP, quoted above).

MH / TJ 10 shows that Bhavya was also familiarwith Jaina sources. Unfortunately, he mentions notitles. He may have known the Aptamimli'!'sli. Histo­rically remarkable is the list of 363 views given in TJand IX.19 (repeated in MRP). To the best of myknowledge it is otherwise only to be found in Jainasources (cf. K.W. Folkert, Scripture and Community:

INTRODUCTION

Collected Essays on the Jains, Atlanta, G. 1993).

During his travels in India (A.D. 629-645), theChinese pilgrim Hsiian-tsang (or Xuan zang) also paida visit (about A.D. 640) to the famous Dhanyakataka(or DhaJ!U1aka4aka, Dhanaka4aka), situated in theSattenapalli taluk of Guntur district on the right bankof the river Krishna (for details, see B.S.L. Hanu­mantha Rao et al., Buddhist Inscriptions of Andhra­desa, Secunderabad 1998, pp. 39-94). Not far south ofthe city, the pilgrim reports, is a mountain cavern, orcliff, where the slistrliclirya Bhaviveka in the Asura'spalace awaits the arrival of Maitreya, the futureBuddha. 'This slistrliclirya was widely renowned forhis elegant scholarship and for the depth of his vastattainments. Externally he displayed the S~ya

garb, internally he propagated the learning of Nagar­juna.' We then hear about Bhavya's walking to Patali­putra to meet Dharmapala, and of his returning toDhanyakataka. Finally, he enters a rock cavern, andthe stone walls close behind him - a curious legendthat reminds us of the story of Ali Baba and 'OpenSesame' (as Samuel Beal pointed out).

Xuan Zang must be considered a good witness.He knew Sanskrit, he translated some works ofDharmapala and Bhaviveka / Bhavya into Chinese, andhe was on the location. He confirms that Bhavya wasa follower of Nagarjuna (also from Andhra Pradesh),and that he was widely renowned for his elegantscholarship. He attests to the controversy between

xxvi

Bhavya and Dharmapala, well known to us also fromthe extant works of these authors themselves. Butwhat does he mean, when· he says that Bhavya exter­nally displayed the SaI!lkhya garb? It has been sug­gested (by myoid friend Shotaro Iida) that S~yahere may be an error for sa,!,gha, but that hardlyseems likely, for on that assumption the point aboutBhavya's doctrinal duplicity will be lost. Being amember of the Buddhist sa,!,gha would hardly preventhim from 'internally propagating the learning ofNagaIjuna'.

Bhavya's familiarity with Saf!1khya is amplyattested by all his extant works. Nothing suggests thathe was a follower of Saf!lkhya. On the other hand weknow that Bhavya was unusually open-minded. Heavoids pa~aplita and is prepared to accept almost anyligama to the extent that it is consistent with yukti.Typical statements of his 'inclusivism' are foundMH III.289 and VIII. 95. In the penultimate sloka ofMH (XI. 3) he describes the text that he has nowfinished, the Madhyamakahrdayaslistra, as naikasutrli­ntabimbadarSanadarpa1}am. This compound is an echoof the final stanza of the Sli,!,khyakiirikii (not allrecensions) :

tasmlit samlisadr~!a,!,

slistram ida,!, nlirthataS ca parihlnam.

tantrasya ca brhanmurter

darpa1}asa,!,krlintam iva bimbam.

This along with other references to SK, merely

INTRODUCTION xxvii

shows that Bhavya was familiar with Sa~khya. WhatXuan Zang meant to say was probably just thatBhavya was a remarkable polymath with an unusualknowledge of Saf!lkhya and other dadana-s, but atheart still a good Madhyamika.

Or perhaps we should rather recall that Sfu!lkhyawas characterized by the great weight it assigned toanumiina - often a synonym of yukti and tarka - inestablishing its fundamental principles (tattva). Whenwe consider the logical style of Bhavya's works, whenwe keep the term tarka in the title Tarkajvii/ii in mind,when we recall that Candrakirti (Prasannapadii, p. 16)accused Bhavya of being (too) fond of reasoning(priyiinumiinatii), we can be sure that Bhavya's predi­lection for tarka was somewhat of a thorn in the eyeof some of his contemporaries, or at least quiteremarkable. This understanding would fit well withXuan Zang's remark if we understand it to the effectthat Bhavya was famous for having devoted mucheffort to refute outsiders on their own grounds bymeans of reasoning, while, in his heart still remainingtrue to the tenets of NagaIjuna. Bhavya's love ofsyllogisms (prayoga) is the most immediately con­spicuous feature of all his extant works. Even todaywe can imagine the situation with our divya- or jiiiinacalqu~. In order to defend Madhyamaka, Bhavyanecessarily had to devote a good deal of his timestudying and refuting the manifold tenets of hisopponents. Evidently, the great polymath had set it up

xxviii

as his time-consuming task to acquire a thoroughfirst-hand knowledge of all the most importantbranches of Sanskrit learning.

This was new. To the best of our knowledge, noMadhyamika before Bhavya - not even Nagarjunahimself - ever displayed such a broad and profoundknowledge of all branches of Sanskrit learning asdid Bhavya, while still remaining a Madhyamika atheart - thanks to the unifying principle of prajnli.Most characteristic in this regard are the words in thecolophon to Madhyamakaratnapradipa : sakala.siisana­siirasa'!'grahatattvapra!disa. Bhavya, then, was thefirst great encyclopaedic writer in the tradition ofNagarjuna. And for this achievement he was,deservedly, 'widely renowned'.

Still. Bhavya was not without precursors. Arya­deva, in his Catuhsataka, had refuted non-Buddhistopponents, and so' had Udbhatasiddhasvamin in hisdelightful hymn to 'The Best Bhagavat' (V;si~!astava)

(Ed. 1. Schneider 1993). From these works. too, thereare numerous echoes in Bhavya's MH.

The Heart of Madhyamaka

The following analytical survey of the contentsand the main course of arguments of the MH is notintended to replace a full translation, but rather toassist the reader of the original Sanskrit in gaining ageneral view of the text as a whole.

MH consists of eleven chapters of unequal length

INTRODUCTION xxix

and purpose. The first three chapters form an inde­pendent unit the purpose of which is to present acurriculum (caryli) that guides the intelligent studentof Madhyamaka to sarvlirthasiddhi (1.5).

The two following chapters (IV and V) presentthe pfirvapa~a of the Sravaka-s and Yogacara-s, res­pectively. Chapters VI and VII present and refute thetattva-s maintained by Sarpkhya and Vaise~ika.

Among the non-Buddhist opponents these two schoolsare also the main target of criticism in Bhavya's otherworks, above all Prajnlipradipa.

The tenets of Vedanta and Mimarpsa are statedand rejected in two chapters full of interestinginformation from the doxographical point of view.Chapter X refutes the Jaina (Nirgrantha) criticism ofthe Buddhist claims about their Bhagavat beingomniscient (sarvajna). The last chapter, entitled Stuti­lak~af.lanirdesa, pays homage to the Buddha, the greatTeacher of the two Truths, and describes the presenttext - Madhyamakahrdaya - as a naikasfitrlinta­bimbadarsanadarpa~a for intelligent students (XL3).(It should be compared with the final chapters or ppand MRP).

Chapter I: Homage to the Buddha for havingtaught the tattva that is apratarkyam avijneyam (cf.Manu L5c) etc. (1-3). The purpose of the MH is tointroduce the intelligent student to tattvlimrta andthereby to sarvlirthasiddhi (4-5). The bodhicitta mustnever be abandoned, all one's efforts should be al-

tnnstlc (parlirtha), devoted to the well-being andhappiness of others first. Such is the proper behaviourof a great man (mahlipuru~acaryli) (6-33).

Chapter 11: The bodhisattva should take a muni­vrata upon himself. By practising the traditionalvirtues of Mahayana the Buddhist muni strives for theanuttarapada (1-12).

Chapter Ill: Absolute "reality (tattva) is only to beachieved through the power of reason (prajiili). Asthere are two levels of truth (satya), thus there arealso two kinds of prajiili, a conventional, or practical,and an intuitive, or theoretical. The latter presupposesthe fonner. By means of prajiili (mati, dhi, buddhi),one makes distinctions by analysing all dharma-s, andthereby sees that they ultimately lack independentexistence (svabhliva). To employ one's faculty ofreason properly one must be concentrated, not fixed orupset, without any mental disturbanc.es (1-23).

After these introductory remarks (1-23) the condi­tioned dharma-s are the first to be analysed (24-129).All these dharma-s have, of course, a practical andconventional value, but from the ultimate point ofview reason shows them to be empty. They are noth­ing in themselves, they are empty of being and non­being. This applies to the five slamdha-s, especiallythe physical body derived from the material elements(25-70), but also to the eighteen elements and thetwelve bases (71). Then, by means of prajiili, someother fundamental concepts are analysed; they were

INTRODUCTION xxxi

already taken up by NagaIjuna (Bhavya's foremostauthority) in his magnum opus, the Millamadhyamaka­karika (MK) - appropriately also entitled Prajnli : Themarks of the dharma-s (72-6, cf. MK 5); movement(77-85, cf. MK 2), bondage and release (85-99, cf.MK 15), desire (100-8, cf. MK 6), nirvli1}a'(109-16, cf.MK 25), perversions (117-9, cf. MK 23), and svabhliva(120-8, cf. MK 15), etc. The four unconditioned dha­rma-s are treated in a similar manner (129-36).

Even though all these dharma-s in reality are un­born (an old Vedic idea), i.e. empty, most people stjllbelieve in the existence or non-existence of things(bhliva). This is largely because they have failed toanalyse the concept of causality in a scientific way(137-233). Actually, nothing has itself (138-46) oranything else as its cause (147-58). Also the tradi­tional four causes maintained by Buddhists are shownto be empty (159-75). Nor can causality be establishedscientifically on the basis of common experience andthe like (176-81). A cause cannot be defined as some­thing that manifests something (182-93). Surely, theconcept of causality has a conventional and practicalvalidity. Everything in this world is detennined by thelaws of cause and effect. Our present kanna is respon­sible for our future destiny. Kanna is bound to ourmind and our will. Rebirth is a fact, the continuity ofconsciousness is only discontinued by ultimate release(194-214).

There is, therefore, no room for God as a creator

xxxii

of the world. The only 'god' is one's own kanna.Refutation of God as a creator (215-23 - more aboutthis later, chapter IX.95-113). The continuity of life isa fact (224-9). Life is characterized by suffering. Suf­fering, however, only exists conventionally (230-3).The Buddha is beyond suffering (234-9), but even aBuddha can be seen .in the light of the two truths, i.e.in two different ways, both of which· are rational(240-6). One must awaken to the highest reality (Z47­56). Using his intelligence a scholar must see thateverything lacks independent being, that it is empty.Even emptiness - as a concept - is empty (257-65).

Bhavya concludes with a description of theBuddha who. cannot really be described (266-360).According to Buddhist tradition, supported by themeans of logic - the Buddha is identical with tattva ;he is unborn etc. But just as one must distinguishbetween two kinds of truth and, accordingly, betweentwo kinds of reason, thus one must also distinguishbetween the two (or even three) bodies of a Buddha.With numerous allusions to the siitra-s Bhavya nowmaintains that the Buddha's dharma-body is the sameas Emptiness, the absolute truth - and even withBralunan (266-91 ). (cf. chapter VII, Brahmlinuvlida, inMatrceta's celebrated Var'}lirhava17}astotra). His in­clusivism is obvious (as in chapters I and II).

Then follows a description of the bodhisattva, theyogi, the muni and his compassion (292-300), hisvirtues (301-7), his omnipotence and magical powers

INTRODUCTION xxxiii

(308-29), and his superknowledge (330-45). Finally,the bodhisattva himself becomes a Buddha - whichis, in fact, the ultimate purpose, as already stated, offollowing the Mahayana path - the mahiipuru~acaryii

(346-60).

Not all of the Buddhists, however, are prepared toagree with Bhavya's exposition of Buddhism, Le. withMadhyamaka. Some simply reject Mahayana as un­orthodox and irrational, others follow Mahayana, butreject the Madhyamaka interpretation of 'reason per­fected', prajiiiipiiramitii. Moreover, all Buddhists mustdefend themselves in the debate with many powerfulnon-Buddhists. Therefore, Bhavya cannot concludehere, but must take up the challenge of his opponents,Buddhist as well as non-Buddhist. (Here, it is perhapsworth mentioning that Bhavya never discusses thenumber and nature of the pramii1'}a-s as a separatetopic; this had already been done by Dignaga, in hisPramii1'}asamuccaya, etc. known to Bhavya).

Chapter IV: About Hlnayana (or Sravakayana).First the position of the opponent, the pfjrvapa~a

(1-14). One obtains bodhi as the Buddha, whosevirtues are extraordinary, but still quite human, byfollowing the eightfold Aryan path. In this way onemay destroy all emotional and intellectual obstruc­tions. Mahayana is partly unorthodox. Several of itscontentions are contradicted by perception (evidence)and common sense. It is absurd to maintain that things,are unborn in reality; nor is it true to claim that

xxxiv

everything is mind only (vijiiaptimlitratli).

Bhavya's answers (15-74): The bodhi of theBuddha consists in the cognition - without any objectat all - of the emptiness of all dharma-s. It is only ina relative sense, not in the ultimate sense, that theAryan truths are valid. The path of Hlnayana does notlead to bodhi. Mahayana is, in fact, orthodox, it canafford a good explanation of each of the four Aryantruths. The important thing is to realize emptinessthrough personal experience and meditation (bhlivanli).One does not deny that there are reasonable ideas tobe found, e.g. in Vedanta, and in a relative senseMadhyamaka of course accepts that there exists anatural relationship between cause and effect. InMadhyamaka it is exactly because one sees everythingin the perspective of two truths that one does notcome into conflict with perception and common sense.Because of ignorance most people never see theabsolute truth. Finally, Madhyamaka does not acceptthat everything is mind only in an absolute sense ofthat term. True reality cannot be described (cf. 1.1-3).It can only be experienced as such by advanced andcompetent yogins.

Chapter V: About Yogacara. These opponents,says Bhavya, claim that reality (tattva) can, in fact, bethe object of a cognition without images. The absoluteis described, in various works of Yogacara (Madhyli­ntavibhliga, etc.) in various terms such as absence ofthe imagined nature in the relative nature, etc. It is

INTRODUCTION

only by penetrating the three natures (svabhavatraya)that one achieves true understanding of the perfectionof reason (prajiiiipiiramitii) .

.The controversy between Madhyamaka and Yoga­carn is thus basically a question of the proper inter­pretation (naya) of the holy ~criptures of Prajiiii­piiramitii. In short, is tattva 'something', and are thethree natures the proper means to penetrate thattattva?

Bhavya's reply (8-114): Before an interpretationof the holy scriptures can be considered trustworthy, itmust be rational and consistent. This, however, ishardly the case with the interpretation (naya) offeredby Yogacara. Their interpretation of reality is notsound· (1 0-6). The same applies to their interpretationof Buddha's word about everything being mind-only.There is a long critique of Dignaga's arguments (17­54). Without success, Dignaga, in various ways, triesto explain everything as the projection of one's ownmind without assuming the existence of any externalobject. Mind, he thi~ks, has a double aspect, a sub­jective and an objective, the distinction being purelysubjective, determined by one's personal karma. Onthe basis of the distinction between two truths,Bhavya points out th~ contradictions to be found inDignaga's position.

Then he goes on to show the emptiness of thethree natures, first the imagined, including Dignaga'scurious theories about language and meaning (apoha)

xxxvi

(55-68), then the relative, or dependent nature (69-84),and finally the perfected or absolute nature (85-92).Other errors in the Yogacara exegesis are also pointedout. Only Madhyamaka exhibits the proper rationalexplanation of the holy writ. The highest cognition isreal, but it has no object, no content. It can be experi­enced, but cannot be described in words, it can onlybe suggested (93-114). (This chapter is summarized inPP, KTR and MRP, with reference to MH / TJ).

Chapter VI : About Samkhya. The presentation ofthe opponent's pilrvapalq~' follows that of the Sii'!l­khyaklirikii, which is often quoted (in the TJ, as alsoin the Prajiiiipradipa). Nature (prakrti) is unconscious,it consists of the three gu,!a-s, and it is productive(prasaviitmikii). The soul is exactly the opposite ofnature, namely conscious, etc. By seeing itself asdifferent from nature, it becomes free. Some autho­rities, however, opine that it is nature that, once hertask has been fulfilled, makes herself free by with­drawing from association with the soul (1-4).

Bhavya replies that the soul cannot be identifiedwith consciousness (cait~nya). A closer examinationshows that there is no such thing as a pennanent oromnipresent consciousness. A pennanent soul cannotchange or reflect its image in nature. Nor can it'enjoy' nature as an object. Lacking consciousness, itis, alternatively, not possible for nature to' makeherself free from association with a soul that does notexist as maintained by SaI!1khya. Most of the argu-

INTRODUCTION xxxvii

ments given are familiar from other chapters of MH.Summing up, Bhavya says (61) that the principles(tattva) of SaJ'!'lkhya are in conflict with one another(piirvliparavirodha, cf. VII1.87b) (5-64).

Chapter VII: About Vaise~ika. According to thisschool, the soul (litman) is a substance that has intel­ligence (buddhi) and other gu,:,a-s as its attributes.These attributes - corresponding to those listed inNyliyasutra 1.1. ~0 (icchli-dve~a-prayatna-sukha-du~­

kha-jnlinliny litmano lingam) - would imply that thesoul is· subject to change. Therefore, it cannot bepennanent. And thus it cannot become free. AsBhavya points out (2), an extensive refutation of thesoul as an entity (bhliva) has already been providedpreviously (above). Vaise~ika is irrational and notworthy of serious consideration. The entire chapterconsists of merely 28 stanzas of which only the finaltwo are available in Sanskrit.

Even from this brief review of chapters VI andVII, it will be seen that Bhavya's main concern isfocused on the nature of the soul. Specific theoriesabout other matters peculiar to Saf!lkhya and Vaise~ika

are only of little or incidental interest - and im­portance - to him. The soul must not be a substanceor exhibit attributes that are not compatible withrequirements for its being released from ignorance.One cannot have a soteriology without a psychology(in the literal sense of those terms). The dilemmaalways is that either the soul does or knows some-

xxxviii

thing, which makes it dependent and impermanent, orelse it knows or does nothing, which makes it super­fluous. Bhavya's nairlitmyavlida is designed to avoidthese two extremes. Further variations of the sametheme are to be found in the following chapter.

Chapter VIII: About Vedanta. The same perma­nent, universal and creative soul is found every­where in all individuals, it is claimed in the scripturesof Vedanta (many of which are quoted in the TJ). Bymeans of yoga (dhylina) and cognition each individualmust wake up in order to participate in the im­mortality of the soul. It is because one is normallyunder the sway of karma (and rebirth) that one fails torecognize the identity of the individual soul with theuniversal soul (1-17).

Bhavya's reply (18-104): The notion about theexistence of a soul is dangerous, and in various wayscontradictory and irrational. One cannot possibly attainrelease from ignorance by 'seeing the soul' (19-24).The soul cannot create anything (25-35). It cannot bebound and it cannot be set free (36-9), nor can itconsist of cognition (40-9). The individual soul can­not rest in the universal soul (50-3), and if it isassumed to be numerically one, then it cannot pos­sibly possess a manifold nature (54-8). Nor can it beconceived as a substance or as something thatsupports (59-64), just as the unity of all souls cannotbe conceived analogically with the identity of space inmany individual jars (65-70). The soul cannot be in-

INTRODUCTION xxxix

volved in the process of kanna (71-2), and it cannotbe one, universal, indescribable and inconceivable(73-7). The soul cannot be known as somethingunborn (78-83). It is true that the absolute in Vedantaoccasionally is understood in almost the same way asin Madhyamaka, but the reason for this must be thatVedanta has 'borrowed', Le. stolen, from Buddhism.There are, in fact, many things in Vedanta where thefonner is not consistent with the latter. The internalcontradictions show the lack of originality in Vedanta(84-8). The. adherents of Vedanta are, thus, most wel­come to convert to Madhyamaka! Bhavya concludesby restating his own persuasions about the absolute,lack of origination, emptiness, etc. (89-104).

Chapter IX: About Mimaqtsa, the ritual branch ofVedanta. Here the orthodox Brahmans opine that it isonly by means of rituals (kriyli) - as opposed to yogaand cognition - that one may achieve the desirablestate of liberation (apavarga). The three Veda-s pre-.scribe our duties (dharma), and the Veda is autho­ritative because it does not derive its high status fromfallible mortals. It consists of words that are per­manent. The Veda is the word. It rests upon re­velation and it has been transmitted down to us bytradition (ligama). As a source of knowledge the Vedathus has greater authority than other means of cogni­tion, such as perception and inference. In brief, it isonly by practising the rituals enjoined by Vedicauthority that students may achieve the release from

xl

this world that virtually all schools hold up as theultimate purpose of human existence (1-17).

Bhavya's reply (18-167): As usual, Bhavya takesthe position that statements must be rational, scientific,in order to be acceptable. This is seldom the case withMim~sa. Tradition never becomes true just becauseit is old. Many things are old without, for that reason,being true. Rituals are mere actions; they do not leadto release. That the Veda has no human origin provesnothing about its validity. Incidentally, it is not truethat all human beings cannot be relied upon. Certainobservations suggest that the Veda actually has a hu­man author, even an evil human author. Thus, theVeda prescribes ritual murder, the consumption ofalcohol, etc. This is simply immoral behaviour, nomatter what kind of explanation or excuse one maycome up with (18-42).

Moreover, the Veda cannot possibly consist ofanything so absurd as an 'eternal word' (43-9).Revelation and tradition (ligama) cannot possibly bean independent means of cognition different frominference (50-4). Unconditional duty cannot manifestitself in impennanent actions (55). Rituals are actions,and actions are, as a rule, motivated by desire andother passions. Hence, they do not lead to release(56-7). Moreover, one cannot fail to notice (whenreading the Mahlibhlirata etc.) how immorally theGods who proclaim and follow the Veda actuallybehave. The Vedic gods are vicious and ignorant, and

INTRODUCTION xli

anything but models of decent behaviour (58-94).As already pointed out (cf. Ill. 215-23), the belief

in God as creator of the world is fraught with contra­dictions and absurdities. He is nothing, and he createsabsolutely nothing! The true cause of the manifoldworld is, on the contrary, kanna (95-113). One cannot,therefore, overcome the misery of sa'!Jslira by medi­tating on God (114-9). The Veda-s are also in errorwhen they insist that one can become a good humanbeing by observing rituals such as fast etc. Karma ismerely a question of good and bad intentions. Eatingmeat, for instance, is, in itself, not a sin. One cansurely do so without being motivated by any evilintentions (125-38).

The Veda-s are also wrong, for instance whenthey assume that trees possess consciousness. Thegrowth of plants etc. is also due to kanna (139-47).Moreover, one cannot argue that the Veda-s must beauthoritative because they are sanctioned by variousauthors. Even the best authors can make mistakes!Tradition (ligama), therefore, is only authoritative tothe extent that it satisfies the demands of logic andreason (anumlina).

Rational investigation has shown that only theBuddha is reliable and omniscient, in the sense that heknows and propounds the path (mlirga) to heaven(svarga) and liberation (apavarga). He, therefore, isthe only true Bhagavat. It is not wrong to say that theNirgrantha-s (Jaina-s) also refute the authority of the

xlii

Veda-s using the same arguments as the Buddhist.This, however, does not imply that Buddhists areJaina-s (148-67).

Chapter X: On the Omniscience of the Buddha.The Nirgrantha-s point out various passages in theBuddhist scriptures that apparently show the Buddhato have been very human, indeed. Many of his actionscan only be accounted for by assuming his deep igno­rance of the motives of other human beings. Bhavyaargues that this is a misunderstanding. The Buddhamerely pretended to be ignorant, the reason being thathe was motivated by the desire to help ignorant hu­man beings overcome their passions. So he had toplay along their lines (upliyakauSalya). The Buddhaalways had a good reason to appear not to beomniscient. For the reasons already given above, theBuddha is, in fact, omniscient (sarvajna) (1-14).

Chapter XI: Here, Bhavy'a summarizes his posi­tion. The Buddha is praised for having preached twotruths. The true relative truth is a means of achievingthe absolute truth.

It is Bhavya's hope, as a scientific author of theMadhyamakahrdaya, to be able to help intelligentstudents in obtaining bodhi. The text itself isdescribed as a slistra that serves as a mirror in whichone can see the contents of numerous siltra-s reflectedin brief form (1-4).

INTRODUCTION xliii

The Sanskrit Text and Acknowledgment

The present edition of the MH is based on theonly available Sanskrit" MS., or rather, on an excellentphoto of the original, now deposited in the ChinaLibrary of Nationalities (Zhongguo Minzu Tushuguan)in Beijing.

The photographs were first made available to meby Professor Jiang Zhongxin, from the ChineseAcademy of Social Sciences, during his stay in Co­penhagen in 1987. The first western scholar to availhimself of the photographs was my student OBeQvamstrom, who edited the Vedantatattvaviniscayachapter of the MH in his book Hindu Philosophy inBuddhist Perspective, Lund 1989. A slightly revisededition of the Sanskrit text was published byQvamstrom in Wiener Zeitschrift fUr die KundeSiidasiens 34 (1990), pp. 181-98. The Sanskrit MS.,dating from about the eleventh century and written inthe so-called proto-Bengali-cum-Maithili (or simplyRaiijana) script of Northern India consists of 24palm-leaves measuring i.e.: 22Y2x2 inches, with sixor seven lines on recto and verso. The c.928anu~!Ubh verses are divided into 11 chapters ofunequal length. Parts of chapters VI and VII aremissing (about 41 verses, corresponding to one lostleaf, 18). The Tibetan contains a number of verses(about 41 especially in chapter IX) not found in theSanskrit MS.

The complete MS. was reproduced by Prof. Jiang

xliv

Zhongxin as an appendix (12 pages) to the first oftwo volumes of Papers in Honour of Pro! Dr. JiXianlin on the Occasion of His Eightieth Birthday,Beijing 1991. The quality of reproduction here is notalways quite as good as that of the photographsplaced at our disposal in 1987. (Here 3b should beread as 3a, and 3a as 3b.).

As known, the Sanskrit MS. was first discoveredin the summer of 1936 by Pandit Ven. Rahula Sa~­

1qtyayana in the Zha-Iu monastery in Tibet. Duringhis stay there the Pandit made a hand-copy of theMS. Later on'he passed this on to Prof. V.V. Gokhalewho prepared his own hand-copy. A photographic re­production of Prof. V.V. Gokhale's personal copy waspublished by one of his friends and students - alsoone of our own good friends - Shrikant S. Bahulkaras The Madhyamakahrdayaklirikli of Bhavaviveka(Nagoya Studies in Indian Culture and Buddhism:Sa'!Jbhli~li 15), Nagoya 1994. When Prof. V.V. Gok­hale prepared his own copy he could also make use ofphotgraphs of the MS. taken by G. Tucci. We, too,could also make use of these photographs, thanks tothe good offices of Prof. 1. Takasaki. Unfortunately,their quality was extremely poor. Likewise, severalJapanese scholars have made use of these secondarysource-materials (see Bahulkar, op.cit., pp. ii-iv). Imyself, at an early stage of this project, also enjoyedthe generous assistance of our late friend Prof. V.V.Gokhale who passed away on 5 December, 1991.

INTRODUCTION xlv

My own study of Bhavya started when I preparedmy book Nliglirjuniana (1982), and had to readthrough all the Madhyamaka texts still available inTibetan and Sanskrit. A critical edition of the MRPwas prepared; some chapters were published, inTibetan and English. The complete edition still awaitspublication.

An excellent translation of six chapters fromthe Prajnlipradipa was done by my student WilliamL. Ames, when I worked at the University ofWashington, in 1986. At the University of Copen­hagen, another student, Ms. Annette L. Heitmann, hasbeen working on a critical edition of the first threechapters of the MH and Tarkajvli/li since 1986.

I read chapter V of MH / TJ together with Dr.lens-Uwe Hartmann in G6ttingen. Prof. Hartmann(now in Munich, kindly compared my edition of TJwith the Cone edition, noting its variant readings).

For long I had the plan, together with MalcolmDavid Eckel, to publish chapters IV and V of MHwith TJ. Our work was, in fact, accepted and almostready for publication in the Harvard Oriental Series.Then (1995), however, my American colleaguechanged his mind, thus forcing me to change myoriginal plans.

In 1996 I received a grant from the DanishResearch Council in order to complete my own workon the MH. As a result of this I could publish aDanish translation of seven chapters of the MH (1-5

xlvi

and 8-9). They appeared in print in my bookMahliylina Den senere indiske buddhisme, Copen­hagen 1998, pp. 108-241.

Quite naturally, the many years of study - almostthree decades - of the sources of Bhavya (and thoseof his authorities, mainly NagaIjuna), brought upnumerous new facts and points of view. As a rule, Iwanted to fonn my own opinions, always based onmy own reading of the orginal sources. Most of thepapers that I have published within the last twodecades reflect, in various ways, the results of mystudy of Bhavya and his sources.

Acknowledgment

The present edition of the Sanskrit text of theMR, then, is, as everything else in this world, pratf­tyasamutpanna. Its appearance depends on numerouscauses and conditions. I am grateful to all those, who,dead or alive, have made it possible. My aim has beento establish a text that comes as close as possible tothe one that I assume left the hands of its learnedauthor (who has by now become an old friend ofmine).

Without the constant help of the Tibetan transla­tion of MR and TJ, I should not have dared to publishmy recension of the Sanskrit text. This does not meanthat the two are .identical. On the contrary, the Tibetantext has its own line of transmission independently ofthe Sanskrit MS. The translation into Tibetan and the

INTRODUCTION xlvii

contamination of its various editions that can beinferred to have taken place in the course oftransmission, and errors of various kinds, are of noimmediate concern in the present context.

This means that the apparatus criticus onlyreports variants from the Tibetan to the ·extent thatsuch readings serve to improve the Sanskrit text assuch. In a case such as ours I consider it the duty ofan editor not to burden the apparatus beyond neces­sity. Purely orthographical irregularities and obviousscribal lapses are, therefore, not consistently reported.Surely, from a purely palaeographical point of vieweven such minor errors may occasionally be of someinterest. But Bhavya, it is assumed, should not be heldresponsible for them.

An editor who wishes to establish a critical text ofan Indian text available in Tibetan should knowsufficient Sanskrit to be able to 'see and hear' theoriginal Sanskrit behind the Tibetan garb. This will,quite often, save him from the error of making'corrections' in the Tibetan text. Surely, the Tibetansas a rule translated their Sanskrit texts very faithfully.But Sanskrit is also, in all respects, an infinitely richerlanguage than Tibetan. An editor should, therefore, notpermit himself to be too much influenced by theTibetan translation, no matter how admirably it mayhave been done.

Compared to previous editions of selected chaptersof the MH, numerous improvements - I hope-

xlviii

could be made. It goes without saying that theeditions of Gokhale (1 and 2), Ejima (3), Qvamstrom(8) and Kawasaki (9) facilitated the course of my ownwork considerably, especially in its earliest stages.These scholars paved the way for me, just as I mayexpect to have paved the way for other scholars, who,hopefully, will take up the work that still remains tobe done in the field of Bhavya studies.

Also, some errors in my own editions of chaptersV (1995) and IX (1997) could be corrected. Some ofthese emendations I owe to the wonderful erudition ofmyoid and dear friend Dr. K.K. Raja, with whom Iread, once again, the MH in Copenhagen, in May1999, before the MS. could finally be handed over forpublication in India. Habent sua lata libe/li !

To all those other friends and colleagues who invarious ways helped me bring this project tocompletion, I extend my grateful thanks. Theseinclude Olle Qvarnstrom, Michael Hahn, Karl Potter,Shotaro Iida, Jan W. de Jong, William L. Ames,Georg von Simson, Emst Steinkellner, LambertSchmithausen, Bhikkhu Pasadika, Russell Webb,Carmen Dragonetti, Femando Tola, Helmut Eimer,A. Wezler, Siglinde Dietz, George Chemparathy,Kameshwar Nath Mishra, Klaus Mylius, the lateDaniel H.H. Ingalls, P.S. Jaini, and the lateB.K. Matilal. One of my earliest warm supporters wasthe late Etienne Lamotte. From Japan. ProfessorsEjima, Kawasaki, Mimaki, Ichigo and Kajiyama

INTRODUCTION

generously provided me with copies of their booksand learned papers.'

At an earlier stage I' received support from theCarlsberg Foundation in Copenhagen. This enabled menot only to bring out several books on Madhyamakain Danish, but also to invite foreign scholars toDenmark, and to enrich our public libraries with rareand costly Buddhist books.

Most grateful am I to Dr. K. K. Raja, whosuggested the publication of Bhavya's MH in theAdyar Library Series, and to the Danish ResearchCouncil that made it possible by supporting my workwith a generous grant.

C. LINDTNER

BmLIOGRAPHY

Adversaria Buddhica, in Wiener Zeitschrift flir die Kunde Siidasiens 26(1982), pp. 167-94.

A Note on Viikyapadlya, HA84, in The Adyar Library Bulletin 57(1993), pp. 1-6.

AtiSa's Introduction to the Two'Truths, and its Sources, in Journal ofIndian Philosophy 9 (1981), pp. 161-214.

Bhavya's Controversy with Yoglclira in the Appendix to Prajiiapradlpa,chapter XXV, in Acta Orientalia Hungarica 29 (1984), pp.77-97.

Bhavya's Critique of Yog~clira in MadhyamakaratnapradIpa, in Bud­dhist Logic and Epistemology, Dordrecht (1986), pp. 239-63.

Bhavya, the Logician, in The Adyar Library Golden Jubilee Volume SO(1987), pp. 58-84.

Bhavya's Madhyamakahrdaya (Pariccheda Five) Yogllcliratattvavinis­caylivatira, in The Adyar Library Bulletin 59 (1995), pp.37-65.

Bhavya, Legs Idan 'byed: Quoting and Quoted, in Studies in Centraland East Asian Religions 8 (1995), pp. 90-8.

Bhavya on Mimlirpsli, in Studia Indologiczne 4 (1997), Warszawa 1997,pp. 91-123.

Buddhist References to Old Iranian Religion, in Acta Iranica 12 (1988),pp. 433-44.

Candrakirti's Paiicaskandhaprakaral)a, in Acta Orientalia 40 (1979), pp.87-145.

Cittamiitra in Indian Mahllylina until KamalasI1a, in Wiener Zeitschriftflir die Kunde Sudasiens 41 (1997), pp. 159-206.

From Brahmanism to Buddhism, in Asian Philosophy 9/1 (1999), pp.5-37.

Linking up Bhartrhari and the Bauddhas, in Etudes Asiatiques 47

INTRODUCTION

(1993), pp. 195-213.Madhyamakas Hjerte, in Mahiiyiina. Den senere indiske buddhisme,

Ksbenhavn (1998), pp. 108-241.Madhyamakakarika-s, in Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies, Volume

8, Delhi (1999), pp. 98-124.Madhyamaka Causality, in Horin. Vergleichende Studien zur

japanischen Kultur 6 (1999), pp. 37-77.Materials for the study of Bhavya, in Kalyii!,amitrariiga~am. Oxford

(1986), pp. 179-202.NlIgllrjuna, in Companion Encyclopedia of Asian Philosophy, London

and New York 1997, pp. 349-70.On Bhavya's Madhyamakaratnapradipa, in Indologica Taurinensia 12

(1986), pp. 163-84.Remarks on the Gau~aplldiya-karika-s, in Indo-Iranian Journal 28

(1985), pp. 275-9.Studies on Bhavya, his works, etc. by Chr. Lindtner, 1979-99.The Lailkavatlrasutra in Early Madhyamaka Literature, in Etudes

Asiatiques 46 (1992), pp. 244-79.Yoga in Mahllyllna and Mahavajrayana, in The Esoteric Buddhist

Tradition. Selected Papers from the 1989 SBS Conference,Copenhagen (1994), pp. 1.-30.

A full bibliography in now available online :www.lindtner-myhre.dk

CONTENTS

PREFACE

INTRODUCTION

~Rl:~lIq fh·JOwl:

~~:

~

~ ~IClq:;('j~FciPir~:j<:lIqdl(:

~ JOi~j'lI'i1I«('j~FciPi~'i1J01lq('jI(:

G. 'BkcXji.'1~lq('jI(:

\9 ~~fqq:;i.'1~lq('jI(:

~ ~G}""i'1('j~FciPi~'i1J01Ii.'1i.'1I(:

~ J1"IJii'BI('j~PioMICl('jI(:

~ 0 'Bcf$~~Pi~~I:

~~~:

~APPARATUS CRlTICUS

Page

vii

ix

49

58

72

78

79

92

109

110

111

149

APPARATUS CRITICUS

Sigla :.

E Ejima (Ed. MH 3)Ec Eckel (Tr. 3, 266-360. p. 195)G Gokhale (Ed. MH I & 2)K Kawasaki (Ed. MH 9)M reading of the Sanskrit MS.N Nakada (Ed. MH 6, 1-4)Nk Nakamura (Ed. MH 8)Q Qvamstrom (Ed. MH 8, emendation by Lindtner)R emendation proposed by K.K. Raja (May 1999)S emendation proposed by L. Schmithausen

(MH 9, 139-46)T assumed reading in the Sanskrit MS. (MSS.) of

Tib. MH & TJ / based on (the editions of Nar,Pe, De, Co of MH/TJ)syll. lost or om. in M

M incipit : nama~ sarvabuddhabodhisattvebhya~ IIanyiiyamiirgiinugata'!J samikrYa priiyeT}a /oka'!lkarul)iiyamiina~ Ikudr~pjii/iisanitu/yam etac cakiira siistra'!lbhagavadviveka~ II

150 ~~

I2b Off : nixxxxxxx M3a na dvaya,!, Off : xxx M5e tattva- Off : sarva- M7b -duhkhlisa- a : duhkhe 'sa- MlOb gho'ra- a .lIe etlin R13a 1d'!J punaS cakra- aff : xxxxx M14b du~khlidyabhi- M15a -liveglid R15b duhkhlituresv Off : duhkhlintaresv M15d -Jriliropahli~avat O· .16c te~li'!J pratikriyli 0 : xxxxxx Ml7e -adbhiite(M M19b iva Off: api M19d na santo bhava- T : na te sa'!'Slira- a : na

sa xxx M24e satputrlin aff : saputrlin M29a -siira- M30b krtih M30c ~lin~yliylid Off : nli xx ylid M32e karu!'yat M33b -li~a!,a~ aff : li~a!,a- Mn4d pratatya- 06d dhyanajnlina Off : xxx na M7e hrirapatrapya 0: hrfpatrapya M9a mahliyana- Off : n~!a,!,ga- MIOd -asrayam OffIIIIb ca~uS ca~us Eff : ca xxx M2 T: M 32a andho 'pi Eff : aleo 'pi M

APPARATUS CRITICUS

2b didr~uviprakr~!akiin Err : M om.2d trailokyli- Err : traikiilya- M3 T: M 28b -piira!,e R : -piiraye E : xraye M (=BHS)12b na viyujyate M15c -samlihite citte Err : saxxxxtte M17a anitylidi- T17b uddhattam E17d saT!J~ipta- M18a ~ipram M19a -moha- T : -tamah E : xx M26a tatra bhiitasvabhiIva'!l E (er. 6, 45d) :

tatra xxxxx M28b asati Err : sati M30d -pa'!lktaya~ M31b -pavadanlidaya~ M32d dravyasat Err: xxsat M34c sravanatvlid M37b vano \ayav; Err: vanlivayavi M39a nlinekii- Err : nlineka- M40c saT!Jghlitatvlid Err : pratighlitlid M40d tathlipi T : athlipi ElM43a ete M46c saty anutpattes Err : xxxxx M47d T : dr~!lintlic ca tvaglidikiit ElM48c srlivanli- M50ab Err (= 49 cd): M om.51b tajFia- Err : rajju- M55c dharmantarlibhinirvrtte M58a athavlisarvlidgatvli~i M58b plirlirthyaT!J M (cf. SK 17)60-4: Err: 60-1, 62 ab, 63 ab 64 M68a ne~!li- Err : i~!li- M

151

152 ~

68d yathetarii Err: xxxrii M70b mana~ Err : mata~ M71d vii Ene /alqyasya (cf. 249) M : /alqya~ ca E73d vii yata~ Mff : viiyata~ E74e kiiyavijniina- Err : xxxxx M74d agnitve Err : anyatve M77d yathii gate : yathiigate Err78d jniiyate E : jiiyate M80b niigati xx !i-M: niisya gatir it;- E : na casya

gatir i!i- R83e gantryakalpanii ElM87a yujyete Err : yujyate M94a -sa~ghiito Err : sa~hiito M94b tattvato T : ca tattve E : cataxto M97 M ad. : d!~!iintiisa~bhavo yasmiit

siddhasiidhanatiipi viiiIDOe rajana~ E103d tadbuddhe R104b samvrt; M107e cii~y~- ElM108a samudiiyas- EIII b niisitiivat M (cf. 196c): nliSitavat Ellld ut lllb, supra112e citer T : cittiid E : citte M114b kalpaniiyii~ MIISc a~ayii~ayidharma-Err116a imiih ElM116d -odgiirii ElM118d yat M : yas E119a dvesam- Err : xx M123c par~kumbhasya M126b '~so T: 'ngo ElM

APPARATUS CRITICUS 153

143a tatadanyatviit M143b toranam M151a anirdeiasya ElM153b athavii T154c avikalpito M155a sviitmiibhamati- M (cf. 5, 36b)155d na~ T (cf. 3, 238d): ca ElM160d pratyayo pratyaya~ Mff172a ciisiinyii~ M176b naste M189c vy~ictika'!l tad svariipe!la E : vyaktixxxriipe!la M191 T: M 193193 T: M 191195d jiitito E201 a tasmiin naikatvam E : tasyiin naikatviij M203d tat E206a tasyiikara!liid E : tasya kara!liid M207b tadanyeniipi T : athiinyeniipi E : anyeniipi M209b caitanya'!l Err : caixx M210b hi te Err: heto M213c . hiiriirtham M219d Iso E: is~ M229b kas ten- M231b tasyiithotpiida Err241 a na tannii.vam M242d pradiyate it244c sa'!Zvrta'!Z M249a -karitva- R253c siddhavat M255c abhyudice M : yady arka E255d T : tica it; M : udeti ca E257a svabhiiviit M257c miiyebhagavan E

257d sarvabhiivatiim E258d sasvabhiivatiim E259a na sax M266a sar xx siddhe M268a -ni~!hiiniit E269b iixxxvii M269c mamatveniipi M270a analambaiva M270c uktah sambodhasambodhad M270d sa'!lbodh~ M .272b antapiipataT!" vivivarjyata M :

antapiitavivarjitam E272c agatinayena gatyii E275b nirabhasa M : niriibhiisat E : nirabhlisa- Ec278a 'nimittatviin Err280b mahatmana'!l E : mahiitmana~ Ec280d -amama- M282a buddhadyokti~ ElM283b cittasyiiyam E288b tyajyate M288c riitra M289b grahyate M290d tad T291 c tathiigato 'bhi~!o M292b upalambha~ M292c sanjyate E293b -bhaviisya kuto rujii E293c na lipyate M295c -cacitta M296a -sekharaT!' E297b cetasii M297d -jiita- M299b -manasii E

APPARATUS CRITICUS

300b -gamana- M300e niriiloke M301 a MIT : ya~ pir!yamana~ E301e -sattvah M!f: -cittah E302e yathas~ktya E .305b pratilqQ1}a'!l manorama~ E305e -phala- E305d kalpadrum iiyate E306e Ee: tad anyatra E306d -udite M308a daksa- ElT : diksv M308b -vijiiiiya ElT: x~x M313b ksetraniim T313d kayljt ElT314b sphara1}a'!J E315b -ratna- E317b asangena M320d -vinini~aya~ M322e -nihiniinam E324a ninnitair E325b sambuddhah M326b tadvat sva';' R : tasmin sva- E : .tadviin sau- M327b tiiryebhyo ElT : stfipebhyo ElM328a vyapta- E : xta M328d lokiina'!J pfiraya ElM (-ya'!l)331 b dehiniim ElT : dexx M332b -abhaiiji M333b -divya'!ls M : -vyaktaii ElT335e jatan E336a aprameyesu ElM337d san E : s~m M338a pa1}in ElT : pata M340b pare M : para~ E

155

156 JJl:.~

340e bhaktiirdra- M341b mukiima/a- M343 M ad. post ab : ma'.likiincanasopiina-

ruciriima/avedikaih344b ciisakrt Err : ca s~krt M346a savitii M: siivitro E346e xdhayaty M348a janmiivrto E : janmavartta- Ee : janmavartiid M348b mrtyudgrahad M : mrtyugriihiid E350a dravantam E: drxx M350b avidyiimarga- Eerr358a saprati- R : saprati-' ElM360e mahiitmya,!! EIV2e sariritvac T2d gotrasya M8d ca MlOb janyeti M10d blidha,!! M14d na ca M18b -siddhe M22d bhlivaniim M25b parodita~ M26d -vrtir M30b margo M32a bhriinte M34a vo M35a blidhato M38e -matah M41 e duhkh~s M45a ni~ddhis M45b sajiito M45e vidva,!!s M

APPARATUS CRITICUS 157

57c kuto M60c yathli yathli M67d hudhli M69b huddher R69d na M73d kuto M74a -vacana~ MVId yoglicxx M2b abhlivlid T : sadbhlivlid M3b -sthite~ M3d tasmai vli- M4 =Madhylintavibhliga I, 65a -/abdhis M5b cligraha~ M (fons?)6 =Asariga's *Vikhylipana (cf. III 28 (1985) 275-9)7d T: -paro naya~ M (cf. 9)8 cf. Vlikyapadiya 1.12912a svariipatyligitli yasya M12c hhaxta M13b T : darsanam M14d -sami- M15a naisli M16a up~/ambhlic ca hox M18c yac ca M19d vastuno 'py T : xxx py M20 cf. Pramii1}asamuccaya I, 9-1121c tatra T: tathii M22c dvyiihhiitii saktihhediin na R23a svapariixxx M23b sahakliyiinukliritva M24b dvyiisateti M25 cf. ad 20

158 Jp:.~

26e T (ef. PS 1. 5e: anirdeSya,!, riipam)anixxxxxsyam

27a cittabhavo M28e siitre~u T: sastreva M (pro .~astre ca?)2ge avikalpitartha- M (ef. 1, 54e)30b T: akaxxx M31 ef. Alambanaparflqa32 ibid. 233d T (ef. AP 2) : adravyaxxxxx M34a T : xx sa'!'cita- M35e riipantarai rupakrtais M36b T: tadabhimati- M (ef. 3, 155a)37e T : xxxxd M41aT: dvayapraxxxxx M (ef. Vi'!'satikli 9)43b ~'u1}':la,!, casanty anatma tad R: lqu1}1}asya-

dvaitasantata M44d T : xxxxpi M45d na ca- M48a palladisantana M48b T : salfixxxsaktikii M49b utpatti- M50b naparati- M (ef. 5. 4bd)51d T: asxxx M52b T : yada bhutavabodhata~M

(ef. 3, 138 yatha/yada)54a T : tannavayasa M54ed cf. Mahiibharata etc.55a T : ne~!a cax M55b T : samxx M55d T : pratfxxx M56d T : (cf. 19d): vastvapaxxx M59b -abhamati- T (ef. 36b, 61 b) : xxxx M62d T : xxyam M

APPARATUS CRITICUS 159

63e T : ka/payata M63d T : cestam .. bhava M64a T : abhedasattvadravyabyam M65a anilanutpalam M (ef. PS 5. 15)66a T : nanyapoxxxmanya M66b T : dharmau M67e -tve tadvacya- T : M om.68b nabhilapyata M6ge clipy T : tad- M69d T (ef. 79b ) : xxxnnaviruddhata Mne T (cf. 7d) nanutpa xxx dhadi- M73 ef. Tibetan and Buddhist Studies, 1984, p. 87, n.7175a namna vai (ibid. p. 83, n. 38 ): namnato M76b -svaxve M (pro svabhavlit?)76c utpatti- M76d T : anvabhutataIJ M79d T : hyxxvya- M80c -prahatrya- M (cf. WackemageI 11, 2 § 651 f.)8Ie -tvan nato 'nya T: M om.82b bhave M (cf. Bodhisattvabhumi, p. 31 ;

MeB 2, p. 95)83b T (cf. BodMsattvabhiimi, p. 31) : parexxx

padaka~ M85d T: avaxxxxxx M86a jatasyanabhilapyatva M87a T : tatranya- M88e syatlim M89c visuddham T : xxx M90a akli~!a- T91d na T: ca M97d T: tathalambanatattvatah M98e khapu~pabha na R : khdpu~pa ca M100b T : xtulya'!l dapy M

160 lp:.~

102b sa M108e -anya~ T : -adya~ M108d -~amo T : ~ayo M114 M om.VI1d sada NfT : yata~ M3d ity ucyate NfT : xxxx M7a niidaha1!Z M7b -vat sa piirvavat T : xxxxvat M8a dadhana Mge T: anyac ca M (pro bodhananyae ca?)13a -vrtti- T: vrtya- M14a yapi T : yapx M16a laksanai M17b pr~kriis T18e ayukto 'nya~ T?19a T : nirvrttir M19d yatha M20b desabhedad M21 a -pratipattayo T21d adrsta M22c dadhyiit M27a eet sa- T : te 'sya aut eet te M30 mohasya M31 b arthakriyatmata T32a T : -tvadvi- M32e ce~!air T?38b ni~iddhii ciinu- melius?40e ukte M43e nanirdistiisena M43d bhik.yy; 'M .45e tathii : yathoktam M

M ad.: dr~!iintanyiinata eaiva ghat!asya

APPARATUS CRITICUS

dravyasattvata~

49-64 M om.VII1-26 M om.VIIIle kuta~ M2a -purastlit M3a pasya~ : pasyan Q/M3d slitmya,!, M6a tam abhyasya M6d mrte M8 M om.9d bhavaty MlOd -vyaye Qrr: -vyayam MlIb ced a- QfI': deha- MII d slimya,!, Qrr : slimye M ; yan Qrr : jan M14b -miinivat M : -miinavat Q16c Q/Grr : yunjiinaxxtti M18c -avrta- Qrr : -vika/a- M20d tvayli Qrr : bhiiya M21 c yato bhlivita~ Qrr : xxxxx M21d muktid M24a -visayad M25d ceian M27a dhvani- M28b gamiinliga- M28d dehajii kriyli M29b xjiiiinam M31 a karanoktas M31 d diitivat M32d va M (pro ca?)35d dvipa- M36a -vasaga M

16\

162 ~

36c xx mO~'e M (cf. 44a): nirmo~'e ca Q36d baddha~ M39c viipy litmii Q: viiyiite M40b QfT : xxbhiiva M40d kiiraniidi M41b QfT ~ tadva M42a QfT: ato M43a jiiiisya M43c QfT: vlivWstax M44c -atanyatviid'M44d vibhiivayo~ M45c piirvakas cittiin M46b na dahaty M .47a na taxxddhis M47c dahanavad asmin M48a ciijiiiijna~ M48d kupta M50a yat pitjiinu- Q: yatpitiinu- M50b na du~khiinu- Q50c niisau : hy asau Q: xsau M51 d am!ta~ QfT52d diyate M53b diyate M54a atisil~mo M61 c litamatiidyiitmano M62a naxxxviSesii M62b nidhiidhii~o M63a caikatra M64b mukto M65c asiddham M66a mukta66d vakiiSitiim M68a upiidiinnii- M

APPARATUS CRITICUS

73b pohylinapek..mna~ M73d tenannah M76b asxvikaipatli M77a ca vi~ayo M80a bodhye M80c satyabhlivad Q80d -samo Q: -Iqayo M82a ajasya Q/Nk: ajas ca M: bhedo 'sti QlNk:

ced asti M82b mata M83c xx~patta M84c cato M85a jiieya- M85b nyliyo M85c nirVrttau M85d agocara M86c tirthai~ M86d tam M87a ka~ Qff : x M88b ihaiva M91 a ajlitas cayam M91 b -ajarlimara~ M92b -anila~ M93a sarvasyasau M93b clidinlimata~ M94a -samaropa- M94b xcyo viicyas M95b tavatiim M96b bhityii Qff : dr~!yli M : va M97b na vliryate M97d tax idalJl padam M98b -tvlidi- M98c -graho M

163

164 ~

99a jati MIOla yata~ M101 b kartrx.xktrte M101 c -sutasyeha Ql03c dhir M : samiiropa Ml03d mata M

IX

1d -trapa~ k : -trapa M2d -yukta T : ukta k : bhukta M3c -tviit KIf : tva- M3d iti K: xx M6c 'rthe~u K: 'rthe~u~ M7b -pianatas KIf : -jiianas M7c sabdavac KIf : .~abdavic M8b -tvat KIf : tvii M8d athapi M : yathapi KIf1Oa -vyangya~ K : -vyaTJlga~ M10c vidvan K: vidvii M12d evan- M : naivan- K13d sva- KIf : sa- M14a ivandhaniiTJl KIf: ivxxx M (cf. VP 1. 42a)17b T : -dii~a'}adarsanat KJM17c tathoktaTJl tad ya- K : xxxxx M18b nyayakovida K : -ayatakovida M20a -lqamaTJl K : -lqasaTJl M21 d KIf: osavadyadhimuktivat M22a kriyatvan na KIf : kriyatvanu M23b KIf : itilqate M23d -carivan K24b krtrmatvata~ M : 'kartrmatvata~ K25b akartrkam KIf : atkartrkam M

APPARATUS CRITICUS

26a -tvlinumiiniic ca KIf : -iinumlinatvlic ca M27d tat kartrkam K29b var1}1}lirrz nliylid K30d yathegitam M : yathehitam K31 b asat- K!f : asa- M31 d kriyokter M : mithyokter K!f32a -vad dhimsli K!f : rthasiddhitsli M33a mantra- i<..rr : manu- M34b mantra- KIf : manu- M35a -slistra KIf : slistre M

-mocakah K: -mocakiih M35d anyatara'~ M : anyatara- K36a yajiio M36c hi M: ni K37a bhoktrarthli~ ... 'hhi~!ii K : hhoktrrthli~ ..

hhi~!ii~ M38b sarrzcintya- : sarrzcintya K : sarrzcitya M38c -phxla- M38d ayatylim K : livyatylim K39c sarrzcintya- : sarrzcintya K40b kriyii KIf : krPii M41 a vyiikhyiinarrz K41 d dhuntiira- KJM42a KIf : xxx piinam M43a dr~~!am KIf : i~!am M

ca K: catri M44b dViyenodvipravrttinli M : dipe 'py

advipravrttinii K46d 'drste KIf : iste M48b -ry~ngya~ KiT: vyarrzga~ M (cf. lOa)49a samketasambhavlidau K50c hetuh K : hetu- M52d asmac chabdiin K : asmlibdlin K

165

54a ehahdah K55a kriya- Krr : krya- M55d 'nitya i~yatam K : nityad!~yatam M56a -panadi-: panadi K56c yadvat te R: varttante KIM57b kriya KIT: Jerya M (cf. 55a)57c tvat KIT : -tva M58d viearaksama- KIf : viearaksama- M60a papa,!, ·KIf : maya,!, M .60d pratyapayita: pratyapayina K62a yogasiddho T62d nasitah KIT : niiSrita M63b na eeiyate: ni~edhyate K : xxxte M64b tri- KIT : tr- M64c saSada KIT : sasanta M66d tan KIf : ta M67d jita,!, K/M (pro jita~?)

69c tyaktadi- K70a adharmas eet priyo Rtf : adharmas eendriyo

KIM (athadharmas)70b -kiirita: -kiirite KIM71 a tr~1}aya KIT kr~1,Iaya M71 d samubhiibhuham M72b mrtyur M73b idrk-earitam K74a miirtti M74b yadi KIT : yayad M74c ya,!, na : yanti KIM74d punar M: na ye K75d sapara?76b aeyuta K : aeyuto M78a T : sabdavaeya- KIM80b sa'!'nasau M : sa,!,n~!a~- K : asa'!'s eatma- K

APPARATUS CRITICUS 167

80d asadiitmii? : samtmaka- M :82d M : niicyutes c;uta~ T? : niicyutas (.yuta~ K83b k!ptii K: kuptii M87d sandahyo M : sandehyo K90d ayuktima M92a -yogopadesiidi K : -yogapadesiidi M92b T: vitathatvata~ K/M (gloss!)93b parii'!'c K93c netii K : naitii M94b svalea/piidaujanmaleaxtam M : ka/paniijiilakalpitai~

Kff ???99b pUf}ya,!, krtam KJMIOOb akasamiic eet M : iikasmikam KIOla jiia- K: jiia~ Ml02d jagac K : jaga MI03b narake~v api Kff: naxxxx MI03c Kff: xxxxxpiike M104c drsto Kff : dusto MI06c s~',:yagatas T : sarvatas K/M106d tato 'param Kff : xxxx M107a kri~iirtha,!, tan- Kff: xxxx MI09b k/amiittarai~ M : klamiintarai~ KI lOa yad vii M : yat vii KIIOb siittviklih Kff : sxxx MI11b ciriiyu~ii~ KJM112d Id,!! : lean M : ko K : piipakrt KJT : piina/q't M113a vaicitryat M : vaicitryiit K114a susa'!'vrtabuddhi- T : xxxxxx' M : samyamaka-

mati-K114d dharaf}ii,!, KIM115c duhkhiirttam KJM115d as~n KJM .118a hetu yadi~a M

168 ~

120b -krayavikrayam K : kriyavikriyam M121c viisanlidhlinli M121 d -jiilina- K : -jiilinlit M122c -tvlit K: -tvli M122d -kapiiyavat T : kamlipnuvat M : kaphlipavat K123a /qaye KIf : /qa~a M123b prlikJerta- KIf: prii/qitli M124d -asat: asan K128b -lokiidyavliptaye K: loklidyathliptaye M128c prli,!lipakiiratvlic K : ·xxxxxxxc M130a ca tyliglit KIf : cetylisat M131 a hhukti- T : hhuiiji- K : hhuji M131 b yatkriyliyam apatakiit M : yatkriyaylim

aplipakiit K131 c -kiirasya KIf : xxx131 d manasikliratyligavat K : xxxxxxx M132a mlimsam KIf : masam M132d yathain~se KIf: yath~nase M134d asuci- K/M135c -Iqiradir KlM (pro-Iqiradi-?)136c -dharai M137c -kalaplidi K138c T: tadviniipi K: xviniipi M139c dr~rvii ... trayylim S : dr~!yli... trayyii KIM140d jatjatve S : jlitve M : jlitjyatve K141d -jali- K: -jala- M142a -ke~ayi~ S : -ke\~iidau K144c rtujatvat S : ritujaniit M : rtujaniit K144d niipi~!lis K : clipi~'!iis S145c riipli,!am M: riipa')am K: tarii'!am (& te

aut tair?) S145d na sidhyati sacittata S146b -siddhata~ KlM : ~'iddhatii S

APPARATUS CRITICUS

146d gadais K: ga1J4ais S (male, ut etiam vyabhi-carita etc.)

148b brahmokter K: brahmoktai M149-167 M om.X1-13ab M om.13c evam KIf: M om.14a prati- M: prati- K14b casyemam?: casya na M: casya nu KXI2b tathya M4 M om.

169