Some Problems Concerning Textual Reuses

in the Madhyamakaratnapradpa, with a

Discussion of the Quotation from Sarahas
Dohkoagti
Krishna Del Toso

Journal of Indian Philosophy

ISSN 0022-1791
Volume 43
Combined 4-5
J Indian Philos (2015) 43:511-557
DOI 10.1007/s10781-014-9246-3

1 23

Your article is protected by copyright and all

rights are held exclusively by Springer Science
+Business Media Dordrecht. This e-offprint
is for personal use only and shall not be selfarchived in electronic repositories. If you wish
to self-archive your article, please use the
accepted manuscript version for posting on
your own website. You may further deposit
the accepted manuscript version in any
repository, provided it is only made publicly
available 12 months after official publication
or later and provided acknowledgement is
given to the original source of publication
and a link is inserted to the published article
on Springer's website. The link must be
accompanied by the following text: "The final
publication is available at link.springer.com.

1 23

Author's personal copy

J Indian Philos (2014) 43:511557
DOI 10.1007/s10781-014-9246-3

Some Problems Concerning Textual Reuses

in the Madhyamakaratnapradpa, with a Discussion
of the Quotation from Sarahas Dohkoagti
Krishna Del Toso

Published online: 3 September 2014

Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Abstract The aim of the present study is to shed light on why the citation taken from
Sarahas Dohkoagti and occurring in the Madhyamakaratnapradpa, chapter 7,
opens the door to some fundamental reflections concerning the authority and the
nature of this latter text. On the basis of a historical and doctrinal analysis, here a new
interpretation is put forward, according to which the Madhyamakaratnapradpa
should be considered a tenth century CE handbook, written by some unknown Buddhist teacher perhaps as a manual for his lessons. The primary purpose of this teacher
seems to have been the discussionin the light of textual sources compiled up to this
timeof the doctrinal and philosophical perspectives contained in the sixth century
CE Bhavivekas Madhyamakahdayakrik and Tarkajvl. The Madhyamakaratnapradpa could have been composed on the basis of notes written down for the benefit
of this teachers students. Moreover, the analysis of the general style and quotes or
references of the text, on the one hand, compared with the passage containing the quote
from Saraha, on the other hand, lead us to take seriously into consideration the possibility that the citation borrowed from the Dohkoagti could have been embedded
into the text a little after its composition, by someone different from its original author.
Keywords Bhaviveka/Bhavya Tibetan translations Madhyamaka
Madhyamakaratnapradpa Saraha Textual reuse
1 General Introduction
In this essay the quotation from a work of Saraha, the Dohkoagti (henceforth: DKG;
Tib. Do ha mdzod kyi glu), which occurs in chapter 7 (titled bsGom pai rim pa,
*Bhvankrama) of the Madhyamakaratnapradpa (henceforth: MRP; the Tibetan
title being dBu ma rin po chei sgron ma)ascribed to Bhavyais taken into account.
K. Del Toso (&)
Department of Humanistic Studies, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy
e-mail: [email protected]

123

Author's personal copy

512

K. Del Toso

The primary aim of the present study is to shed light on why this citation opens the door
to some fundamental reflections concerning the MRP, a work that has in itself the
aspect of aso to speakpatchwork writing. The patchs that constitute the MRP
have been put together by its Authoras we will seepossibly around the beginningto-mid of the tenth century CE. In what follows I will discuss a concrete case of how
one can or could tread possible interpretative paths when context, style, citations and
historical and philosophical analysis of a text are dialectically taken into account. At
the same time I will do this by enlivening in new directions the debate about the epoch,
purposes and nature of a text that still remains problematic. But before tackling our
primary subject, it will be helpful here to put forward some introductory notes
concerning the text and its compiler/s, along with its general cultural background, as is
inferable from the quotes that constellate the chapter 7 of the MRP.
1.1 The Text and Its Author
1.1.1 The Text, Its Content, Its Scope
The MRP, extant only in Tibetan translation, since the original Sanskrit is to be
considered lost and no Chinese version is available, is a work clearly devoted to the
affirmation of the Madhyamaka philosophy over all the other points of view, either
Buddhists and non-Buddhists. It is divided into nine chapters, as follows:1
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

bDen pa gis kyi skabs (*Satyadvayaprakaraa, Explanation of the two truths);

this is a first assessment of the doctrine of the two truths according to the
Madhyamaka viewpoint.
Kun rdzob khrul pai es rab kyi skabs (*Savtibhrntaprajprakaraa,
Explanation of the erroneous discrimination of the conventional truth); this
chapter deals with the wrong non-Buddhist perspectives, which are said to be
363 in number.2
Dra bai don gyi ya dag pai kun rdzob kyi es rab kyi skabs (*Neyrthatathyasavtiprajprakaraa, Explanation of the discrimination of the right
conventional truth in a provisional sense); here the examination and refutation
of the Vaibhasika doctrines are provided.

Dra bai don gyi ya dag pai kun rdzob kyi es rab kyi gis pa
(*Neyrthasavtiprajdvitya, Second [explanation] of the discrimination
of the right conventional truth in a provisional sense); this is the exposition and
rejection of the Yogacara teachings.
es pai don gyi ya dag pai kun rdzob kyi skabs (*Ntrthatathyasavtiprajprakaraa, Explanation of the right conventional truth in a definitive sense);
in this chapter the Madhyamaka point of view is dealt with from a conventional level.
Don dam pai es rab kyi skabs (*Paramrthapraj, Explanation of the
discrimination of the ultimate truth); the aim of this short chapteronly five
stanzasis to point out the ineffable nature of paramrtha.

For a more detailed survey of the contents of the MRP, I refer here the reader to: Lindtner (1984), Potter
(2003, pp. 443457).

On the 363 wrong views see in particular the illuminating Folkert (1993, pp. 229245).

123

Author's personal copy

Textual Reuses in the Madhyamakaratnapradpa

7.

8.

9.

513

bsGom pai rim pai skabs (*Bhvankramaprakaraa, Explanation of the

progress in meditation); here some reflections are put forward on the practical
aspects of the meditation.
sLob dpon gyi al sa nas kyi che ba brjod pai skabs (*cryapdamhtmybhidhnaprakaraa, Explanation of the discourse on the greatness of
the venerable teacher); this chapter is devoted to the affirmation of Nagarjunas
grandeur.
PHan yon gyi skabs (*Anuasaprakaraa, Explanation of the benefits [of the
Buddhist life]); this chapter explains why the Buddhist perspective should be
embraced.

Some of these chapters have already been studied, edited and translated, therefore I
refer the reader to the existing essays for a clear aperu of them.3 What is relevant to
notice here is instead that the MRP, in more than one place, filches many passages from
the sixth century Bhaviveka/Bhavyas works, such as the Prajpradpavtti (PPV),
the Madhyamakahdayakrik (MHK) and the Tarkajvl (TJ), as both Yasunori
Ejima (1980, pp. 950947) and Christian Lindtner (1982, pp. 178182) clearly
demonstrated some decades ago. These passages are unmarked, inserted as if they
were part of the original text and referred verbatim or almost verbatim. Notwithstanding these borrowings from Bhaviveka/Bhavyas writings, only the title of the TJ
is mentioned, and only once throughout all the MRP (D, dBu-ma, TSHa, 266b4): bdag
gis bkod pa rtog ge bar ba (on this passage we will come back later on). By virtue of
these unmarked excerpts one could really get the impression that the MRP is actually a
work by the sixth century Bhaviveka/Bhavya. Yet, as it will be pointed out in the next
section, it would be hard to uphold consistently such a perspective.
What is essential to stress, for the moment, is the importance and centrality
attributed to the Madhyamaka philosophy and philosophers by the Author of the
MRP, whose aim seems to have been entirely celebratory. This eulogistic purpose
emerges from several textual clues, such as:
(a)

The title itself reveals that the main scope of the work is to shed light (pradpa)
on the Madhyamaka viewpoint, which is compared to a jewel (ratna).
(b) In many occasions the Author defines the Madhyamikas as we Madhyamikas (bdag cag dbu ma pa; D, dBu-ma, TSHa, 260a34, 261a7, 261b6, 266b1,
273b7 and so on), clearly showing that he belongs to this school.
(c) After the chapters 24 of the MRP, where wrong and imperfect perspectives
are dealt with, in chapter 5 the reader is instructed on what the right vision is,
namely, on Madhyamaka philosophy.
(d) The entire chapter 8 is completely devoted to the exaltation of the figure of
Nagarjuna.
(e) In the colophon, as we will see in a while, we are told that the MRP is written
in compliance of Nagarjunas teachings.

Translation of chapter 1 in Lindtner (1981, pp. 169177); translation of chapter 3 in Lindtner (1986b,
pp. 182190); edition of chapter 4 in Lindtner (1986b, pp. 192197) and translation of the same in
Lindtner (1986a, pp. 246254).

123

Author's personal copy

514

K. Del Toso

1.1.2 The Author of the MRP and His Epoch

The first information that we have about the Author of the MRP comes from the
colophon, where we are told that his name was Bhavya and that he was a follower of
Nagarjuna (D, dBu-ma, TSHa, 289a6): slob dpon mkhas pa chen po bha byas slob dpon
phags pa klu sgrub kyi gsu bin du mdzad pa rdzogs so (Written by the great erudite
crya Bhavya in conformity with the teachings of the noble Nagarjuna). Different
opinions have been put forward on who this Bhavya could have been and when might
he have flourished. To cite only a few studies on this subject, we can here remind that
according to Christian Lindtner, this Bhavya was the sixth century Bhaviveka/Bhavya,
author of the MHK along with its commentary TJ, and of the PPV commentary on
Nagarjunas Mlamadhyamakakrik.4 On the contrary, Yasunori Ejima (1980, p.
951) argued that the MHK and the PPV were written by the sixth century Bhaviveka/
Bhavya, whereas the TJ (or, at least, part of it) and the MRP should be ascribed to a later
Bhavya. Seyfort Ruegg, after having suggested (1981, p. 106, note 339) that the MRP
could have been compiled by a certain Bhavyakrti (on whom we shall return in a
while), later on (1990, p. 66) seems to have given credit to Ejimas opinion, accepting
the possible attribution of both the MRP and the TJ to one and the same author. Only
few years ago, Eckel (2008, pp. 2526) pinpointed that the MRP contains remarkable
traces of Buddhist philosophical theories that we know developed not before the eighth
century CE.5 This fact of course implies in itself that the MRP cannot be assigned to the
sixth century Bhaviveka/Bhavya, as also Krasserwho refers his readers to Eckels
argumentshas recently underlined in two different works, (2011a, pp. 231232, note
100) and (2011b, p. 50). Accordingly, both Eckel and Krasser uphold that the MHK, TJ
and PPV are all ascribable to the sixth century Bhaviveka/Bhavya, whereas the MRP is
actually the work of an author who fourished after at least the eighth century CE.
Nevertheless, besides and before the modern debate just outlined in brief above, it is
interesting to notice the fact that right from at least the eighteenth century, the learned
Tibetan Buddhist thinker lCan-skya Rol-pai-rdo-rje (17171786) argued that the
MRP is to be undoubtedly considered a work written by a later namesake of the wellknown sixth century Madhyamaka philosopher. This observation, unfortunately,
seems not to have received the due attention by modern scholars. In his monumental
work Grub pai mthai rnam par bag pa gsal bar bad pa thub bstan lhun poi mdzes
rgyan, indeed, Rol-pai-rdo-rje introduces a long quote from the TJ ad MHK 9.19 (in
which the 363 incorrect perspectives are listed, and that corresponds to D, dBu-ma,
DZa, 278a5279a3) with the following words: (ed. 1983, 9b4): slob dpon legs ldan
byed kyi rtog ge bar ba las | (In the Tarkajvl of the crya Bhaviveka []). At
the end of the citation we meet with the usual closing formula (ed. 1983, 10b6) es
byu (Thus it is said). Immediately after this reference, Rol-pai-rdo-rje hastens to
4

See Lindtner (1982, pp. 172184, 1986a, p. 239, 1986b, p. 179).

On account of the identity of the author of the MRP, and on the basis of the quotations inserted in that
work, Eckel (2008, p. 27) cautiously maintains: Either we are dealing with a very mellow scholar, who
had lived long enough to leave these controversies behind, or we have an author who found it useful to
attribute this summary of Madhyamaka to the earlier Bhaviveka []. Without knowing more about the
intellectual development in later Madhyamaka thought, and also about the compositional strategies that
were popular in Indian monastic communities at this time, all we can do is speculate.

123

Author's personal copy

Textual Reuses in the Madhyamakaratnapradpa

515

specify that (ed. 1983, 10b611a1): legs ldan phyi mar grags pai dbu ma rin chen
sgron ma las kya lta bai dbye ba sum brgya sogs yod tshul bad mod | (Also in the
Madhyamakaratnapradpa, of a well-known later Bhavya, the existing three-hundred
different doctrines and so forth are expounded). What Rol-pai-rdo-rje hints at, is a
passage in chapter 2 of the MRP (see D, dBu-ma, TSHa, 263a1263b2) that repeats
almost verbatim the portion of the Tarkajvl he has just quoted. This witness testifies
that since centuries, within the Tibetan tradition the notion was accepted that the MRP
is not a work authored by the sixth century Bhaviveka/Bhavya.
Accordingly, the following questions arise: who was this later Bhavya? Could he have
been the above-mentioned Bhavyakrti, whom Seyfort Ruegg refers to?6 And when did he
flourish? Let us tackle the point step by step. To begin with, it is worth noting that it seems
that at least two Bhavyakrti-s existed roughly during the same epoch.7 The first one
whom, for the sake of convenience, I will call Bhavyakrti Iwas abbot of the
Vikramasla vihra, where he is reputed to have taught tantric doctrines related to the
Cakrasamvara cycle. He allegedly flourished in the early tenth century CE and compiled a

commentary on the Cakrasavaratantra. The problem of identifying our Author with this
Bhavyakrti I lies in the fact that from the study of the quotes in the chapter 7 of the MRP
(see Sect. 1.2) it emerges that there is no presence of references to texts or doctrines
belonging to the Cakrasamvara tradition, nor is it detectable any strong doctrinal

proximity of the MRP with Bhavyakrti Is works, which seemas has been remarked by
some scholarto be philosophically more indebted to the Yogacara and Pramana schools

of Buddhism, than to Madhyamaka.8 In my opinion these observations have enough value

to make us suspect that the Author of the MRP was not Bhavyakrti I. The second
BhavyakrtiI will call him Bhavyakrti IIwas affiliated to the Guhyasamaja circles
and wrote a short commentary on Nagarjunas Pacakrama and an impressive
commentary on Candrakrtis Pradpoddyotana. Also Bhavyakrti II may have lived in
the tenth century, or straddling the tenth and eleventh centuries CE. In this case, since in
the MRP we meet with some quotes from the Pacakrama, along with some further work
ryadeva,9 we could suppose that, behind our Bhavya, this
authored by the tantric A
Bhavyakrti II is foreshadowed. However, if we admit such a conclusion, some urgent
questions arise on account of theso to speakintellectual honesty of our Author. For
6

Recently also other scholars have shared Seyfort Rueggs suggestion. For instance, Vose (2009, p. 32).

Thanks to a personal communication of Peter-Daniel Szanto, dated 8th June 2012, I can here report
some of the major clues that allow us to suppose that there have been two Bhavyakrti-s: The
Guhyasamaja Bhavyakrti constructs a very clear edifice of what tantric Buddhist revelation is/should be,
and generally has a later feel to it. On the contrary, one clearly gets the idea from the Cakrasamvara

Bhavyakrti that his concerns are not so far-reaching, there is plenty of material he is not aware of, simply
I thinkbecause it was not still circulating during this time (I think he was active sometime in the early
tenth century, or perhaps a little earlier). For example he does not quote the Hevajra, most later tenth
century authors, and later ones usually do. More concrete evidence is that both authors quote roughly the
same passage from the Catupha (3.1.4347 and 4350ab), but in different ways. It is somewhat
unlikely that the same author would have done this. To finish with, the Cakrasamvara Bhavyakrti makes
recourse to a stylistic device that, simply put, works as follows: X says 1, Y says 2, Z says 3, but I
Bhavyakrti say it is actually 4. This feature does never occur in the works of the Guhyasamaja
Bhavyakrti. On Bhavyakrti I see Szanto (2012, pp. 4248).
8

See in particular: Gray (2007, p. 697).

For a detailed reference see Lindtner (1982, pp. 175176).

123

Author's personal copy

516

K. Del Toso

instance: why a fine and glib commentator on texts belonging to the Guhyasamaja
tradition, as Bhavyakrti II undoubtedly was, felt the need to borrow many passagesas
pointed out abovefrom the sixth century Madhyamika Bhaviveka/Bhavyas works,
keeping at the same time concealed these textual sources to his readers, while, on the
contrary, he marked meticulously plenty of other quotes? This one seems quite an odd
consuetude that with difficulty I would expect from a learned author like Bhavyakrti II.
Well, exactly this discrepancy of treatment between the citations taken from the sixth
century Bhaviveka/Bhavyas writings and those taken from all the other sources, along
with the above-mentioned theoretical distance of the MRP from the Cakrasamvara

horizon, makes me suspect that we are in presence, here, of a work authored neither by
Bhavyakrti I, nor by Bhavyakrti II, rather by anas it wereemulator of Bhaviveka/
Bhavya.
A further clue that could strengthen such an opinion emerges from the analysis of the
colophons. Indeed, the colophon of Bhavyakrti Is Cakrasavarapajikramanoj
(D, bsTan-gyur, rGyud, Ma, 41a1) reports the Tibetan rendering of the authors name as
sKal-ldan-grags-pa (= Bhavyakrti), and the same occurs in his *Vramanoram, whereas
both the colophons of Bhavyakrti IIs Pacakramapajik (D, bsTan-gyur, rGyud, CHi,
7b7) and Pradpoddyotanbhisandhiprakik (D, bsTan-gyur, rGyud, KHi 155a5) bear
the Tibetan transliteration Bha-bya-k-rti. On the contrary, in the three colophons of,
respectively, the MRP (partially referred to above), the MHK and the TJ (see D, bsTangyur, dBu-ma, DZa, 40b6 and 329b2, where we read: slob dpon chen po bha byas mdzad
pa rdzogs so), the same Tibetan transliteration Bha-bya is used. In none of these three
colophons is there mention of a second part of the name, i.e., grags-pa or krti.
Interestingly enough, not only Bha-bya lacks krti/grags-pa, but it also lacks viveka/
byed (the name Bhaviveka being generally rendered into Tibetan with Legs-ldan-byed).
This fact suggests that the Author of the MRP was allegedly reputed to be (one) Bhavya
tout court. Since Bhavya is the recorded name of the compiler of the MHK and TJ, whereas
Legs-ldan-byed (Bhaviveka, or even Bhavyaviveka) is the name of the same person as it
occurs in the PPV, the suspect arises that the Author of the MRP took somehow
inspiration, for writing his work, more from the MHK and TJ (from which a considerable
series of quotations are taken and embedded unmarked into the MRP), than from the PPV
(which provides material for only few quotes, unmarked as well). Accordingly, he may
have borrowed the name Bhavya instead of Bhaviveka. Put it in other words, the Author of
the MRP is said to be (one) Bhavya because the name of the author of the MHK and TJ is
Bhavya. This is an interesting hypothesis, on which we will come back in a while.
Let us for the moment turn our attention towards the possible date of the
compilation of the MRP. In this respect, we have, hence, to notice that in the MRP
several quotes taken from the tantric Nagarjunas works, such as the Pacakrama and
the Piiktasdhana, are met with. As Wright (2010, p. 16) has made it clear, it is
likely that the P[ii]K[ta]S[dhana] did not exist until at least 800 CE and probably
did exist by 950 CE. This range is about fifty years earlier than that proposed by
ryadeva which is subject to
Wedermeyer [sic!] for the Carymelpakapradpa of A
the same lineage and dating. Wright, here, makes reference to the observations put
forward by Christian Wedemeyer (2007, p. 13), according to whom it seems we
must move the C[ary]M[elpaka]P[radpa] [] into at least the mid-to-late ninth
ryadeva is the author of other tantric texts
century as its terminus post quem. This A

123

Author's personal copy

Textual Reuses in the Madhyamakaratnapradpa

517

that are quoted as well in the MRP, in particular the Svdhihnakrama.10 This fact
if we accept the dating established by Wedemeyermakes our Authors oruit
shift at least later than the end of the ninth century.
As regards the terminus ante quem, it can be derived from the colophon of the
MRP, of which the concluding part runs as follows (D, dBu-ma, TSHa, 281a12):
bla ma rje btsun zas gli pa dge bsen mgon po la | pai ta chen po d pa
ka ra r dz nas bka drin us pa las | phyis so ma pu rii gtsug lag kha du
rgya brtson grus se ge da | nag tsho tshul khrims rgyal ba gis kyis ya da
ya du us nas bsgyur ci gtan la phab pao ||
That is: Having the great paita Atisa Dpamkarasrjnana requested the

venerable Ceylonese teacher dGe-bsnen-mgon-po (*Upasakanatha?) to receive [a

copy of the MRP], later on, in the Somapur vihra, both Vryasimha from India and

TSHul-khrims-rgyal-ba from Nag-tsho translated and arranged [the MRP into

Tibetan], after having asked again and again. Since Atisa Dpamkarasrjnana

flourished between 9801054 CE, we can accordingly conclude that the MRP was
compiled allegedly before the eleventh century. Therefore, it should have seen the
light at some time in the tenth century, and probably not after the first half.
1.1.3 What Kind of Text is the MRP? A Working Hypothesis, and Again on Its Author
The colophon of the MRP quoted above provides us with interesting material for
some further consideration related to theas it weretextual nature of the MRP.
First of all, it is worth noting that, we are told, Atisa asked a copy of the text for
himself. This suggests to us that, for some reason, he was very interested in
possessing a personal manuscript. Thence, the obvious question is: why Atisa felt
the need to have that copy? Well, I am persuaded that a plausible answer to this
enigma cannot leave aside Atisas teaching activity. Let us clarify this point,
beginning by saying that Atisa spent a long period of his life as teacher at the
Vikramasla vihra,11 the place in which TSHul-khrims-rgyal-ba fetched him from
Tibet for the first time. Yet, from the colophon of the MRP it emerges beyond any
doubt that TSHul-khrims-rgyal-ba was already a well reputed disciple of Atisa when
he translated the MRP in the Somapur vihra, together with Vryasimha. Otherwise,

it would be hard to imagine that Atisa would have assigned to the two monks this
translation, or allowed them translating the MRP more or less under his guidance or
with his placet (consider the expression ya da ya du us nas). This suggests that
the period spent at the Somapur came after Atisas stay at the Vikramasla.
However, as Chattopadhyaya (1996, pp. 127128) points out, we know also that
Atisa actually left India for Tibet when he was residing at the Vikramasla vihra.
Since all the sources at our disposal agree on the fact that Atisa, once arrived in
Tibet, spent over there the rest of his life, and died without ever coming back to
10
For more references see Lindtner (1982, pp. 173174). On the authorship of the Svdhihnakrama
see Wedemeyer (2007, p. 56).
11

On the time spent and the role played by Atisa at the Vikramasla vihra see Chattopadhyaya (1996,
pp. 128130).

123

Author's personal copy

518

K. Del Toso

India, it is quite safe to suppose that his permanence at Somapur took place
between two distinct periods spent at Vikramasla. We can therefore imagine that
Atisa was called at Somapur as aso to speakvisiting teacher, his natural
place being Vikramasla. What is interesting to notice at this point is that, while
residing at the Somapur vihra, Atisa taught Bhaviveka/Bhavyas TJ to the students
of that monastery. This fact, Chattopadhyaya (1996, p. 124) informs us, is
corroborated by Jayaslas [i.e., TSHul-khrims-rgyal-bas] stotra to Dpamkara [i.e.,

Atisa]. When, says Jayasla in his stotra, you were at the Somapur vihra
expounding (gsu) the Tarka-jvl (rTog-ge-bar-ba) []. By virtue of the abovementioned textual affinities existing between the MRP and the TJ, therefore, it is not
an outlandish idea to suppose that Atisa brought his copy of the MRP from
Vikramasla to the Somapur vihra (the presence of phyis, later on, in the MRP
colophon makes it clear that Atisa reqested the copy before the time spent at
Somapur) in order to get at his disposal a work that could help him while preparing
his scheduled lessons on the TJ. This consideration, if accepted, opens the door to
the idea that Atisa might have made use of the MRP as a manual or a handbook, in
so far as it contains good explanations of several passages of the TJ, drawn in the
light ofso to speakupdated Madhyamaka viewpoints and textual sources.
Keeping this supposition in mind, let us now turn our attention back to the Author of
the MRP for further observations. We have said that he seems to have been an emulator
of the sixth century Bhaviveka/Bhavya. However, we have not yet explained the sense
of such an assertion. In other terms, and in the light of what we have so far argued, the
problem concerns how we can unravel, as consistently as possible, the enigma of the
paternity of the MRP. The best answer I can find is grounded on the following
arguments. (a) We have the fact that the colophon of the MRP records Bhavya as its
author, as it happens in the MHK and the TJ, not Bhaviveka like in the PPV. (b) We
have also the fact that the MHK and the TJ are two works, of which several excerpts are
embedded into the MRP without quotation marks, as if they were part of the main text;
the PPV undergoes a similar treatment, except for that the cases of textual reuse are
sensibly fewer. On the contrary, all the other quotations from other texts are in one way
or another indicated by the usual marks. (c) We have, moreover, the fact that Atisa
wanted a copy of the MRP before he delivered his lessons on the TJ at the Somapur
vihra. Therefore, even if we cannot be entirely sure of this conclusion and hence we
shall take it as a working hypothesis, we may nonetheless suppose that the MRP was a
sort of instruction manual focusing on the TJ, written perhaps for the sake of clarifying
some particular aspect of the Madhyamaka point of view. Probably it is nothing but the
collection of some notes, functional for, or taken during, lessons on Madhyamaka
philosophy, delivered on the basis of, or inspired by, considerations contained mainly
in the MHK and TJ (and secondly in the PPV). This would also justify why the Author
is said to be Bhavya (the same name used in the MHK and TJ) and not Bhaviveka
(Legs-ldan-byed, the name used in the PPV): Bhavya, because the teachings written
by the author of the TJ represent the primary theoretical inspiration for the Author of
the MRP. For these reasons, since we cannot be sure of his real name, the compiler of
the MRP, in what follows, will be referred to as simply our Author, or the Author.
In the following section some further textual evidence in support of this
hypothesis is gathered.

123

Author's personal copy

Textual Reuses in the Madhyamakaratnapradpa

519

1.1.4 In Support of the Thesis: Some Textual Clues

Let us consider, now, those passages that could corroborate our perspective, namely,
that the MRP might have been a work, in which notes carefully taken during, or
written for, a class have been collected and arranged in the form of a consistent text.
I have organized these evidences in five points, as follows.
In the colophon of the MRP we read the long sentence slob dpon mkhas pa chen po
bha byas slob dpon phags pa klu sgrub kyi gsu bin du mdzad pa rdzogs so (which
points at stressing the sense that Bhavya was a follower of Nagarjuna, namely, a
Madhyamika: a quite redundant clarification that learned people of this time surely
gave for granted; the suspect arises, hence, that this was an information for, for
instance, beginner students), whereas in both the colophons of the MHK and TJ we
read simply (and obviously) slob dpon chen po bha byas mdzad pa rdzogs so.
(b) So many times throughout the MRP we meet with the expression we
Madhyamikas (bdag cag dbu ma pa), that nowhere occurs in the MHK and TJ
(nor in the PPV) and therefore seems not to be in accordance with the typical
style of the sixth century Bhaviveka/Bhavya. This expression has indeed in
itself a somewhat homiletic or conversational aspect/function, as if it were the
result of the transcription of some direct speech, like when, while speaking to
an audience, one says: on this respect we of this school uphold so and so or
they of that school affirm this but we of this school argue thus.
(c) In some cases, we find passages that look like instructions or advices for students.
These passages contain either (c.1) suggestions for further readings or (c.2)
rhetorical advices on how to refute some opponents argument or defend ones own
viewpoint. To the first group (c.1) belong excerpts like the following one (D, dBuma, TSHa, 281a12): mdo sde du mar gsus pas de da der blta bar bya (Since [this
argument] has been enunciated in many Sutras, you may/should look in those
particular [writings for further details]); in other similar cases (see for instance
points 11. and 16. of the list in Sect. 1.2.1) the title of some specific Sutra is
mentioned. The impression is that these references have the purpose of, so to say,
giving some homework to students, that a teacher assigns in order to integrate what
he is explaining but cannot be dealt with in depth during the lessons. As concerns the
second group (c.2), we can consider for example D, dBu-ma, TSHa, 269a2: da ni
rigs pa de dag rim pa bin du brjod par bya (Now, [against] these reasonings, in due
order you may/should declare), or 271a1, 273b2 etc.: dir brjod par bya (To this,
you may/should declare). All these expressions have, again, a very conversational
feature of the kind: if someone tells you so and so, you could retort in this way.
(d) Sometimes our Author informs us that, although the treatment of the argument
he is dealing with would need in itself a more complex explication, he
nonetheless prefers not to go further in its analysis, as in the case of D, dBuma, TSHa, 270b1, where the exposition of some mistakes related to the
Yogacara self-cognition theory (svasavedana) is concluded with the words:
gan ya skyon ma du yod de | re ig gag go || (There are many other faults
[in the opponents viewpoint, however], let us stop [here] for the moment).
Such sentence, once again, has a conversational aspect and seems to be

(a)

123

Author's personal copy

520

(e)

K. Del Toso

directed to someone who does not handle very well the argument, someone
like a student, for whom complex matters need to be simplified.
In the MRP there is a problematic passage, in which we read (D, dBu-ma, TSHa,
266b4): bdag gis bkod pa rtog ge bar ba. The problem lies in the fact that here we
find the title of the TJ in its Tibetan translation (rTog ge bar ba). The
hermeneutical key term of the sentence is undoubtedly the verb bkod pa, which is
the perfect of god pa. This verb has several meanings and, according to many of
them, the expression bdag gis bkod pa could be translated as compiled/written/
accomplished by me, or similar expressions. Being so, the sentence would
convey the sense that the Author of the MRP also wrote the TJ, a sense that, in the
light of what precedes, could now be accepted with difficulty. How to unravel this
point, then? Thanks to a short but illuminating study of Izumi Miyazaki, we are
made aware that bkod pa, along with the significance of written, compiled
(Miyazaki: , arawashita), may also convey the meaning of included,
incorporated, embedded (Miyazaki: , kumiireta) or quoted,
cited, referred to (Miyazaki: , iny shita). Interestingly enough,
bkod pa seems to occur exactly with this last acceptation for instance in Atisas
Bodhimrgadpapajik, which is an auto-commentary on the Bodhipathapradpa
and whose Sanskrit text is now lost. While explaining his Bodhipathapradpa 45,
Miyazaki indeed argues, Atisa makes known that he took this stanza from (a work
of?) his master Bodhibhadra, and inserted it into the Bodhipathapradpa root
text (see D, bsTan-gyur, dBu-ma, KHi, 278a34).12 Since the Bodhimrgadpapajik, like the MRP, has been translated into Tibetan by TSHulkhrims-rgyal-ba, I think that we are allowed to assume that the same translator
translated in the same manner the same word in both cases. Therefore, in the light
of the above mentioned last group of three meanings of bkod pa noticed by
Miyazaki, the sentence of the MRP under discussion here would signify something
like: The Tarkajvl [passages] that I have quoted/included. This is an important
observation because, since throughout all the MRP none of the cited TJ passages
are marked, we can find in this sentence a strong element in support to the thesis
according to which the TJ is the text that standsas it werebehind the MRP, as
said above. Moreover, the lack, on the one hand, of any quotation mark indicating
explicitly the TJ excerpts, and the presence, on the other hand, of the expression
bdag gis bkod pa, which foreshadows the fact that the text here somehow reports a
speech in the first person, lead us to argue that the MRP with all probability was not
originally meant to be a written text in the way a Sastra or similar treatises have
been written. Otherwise, we may suppose that if this had been the case, also the
quotes from the TJ would have been marked, like indeed all the other citations in

12
For the study of the Bodhimrgadpapajik passage in which bkod pa occurs and the analysis of its
context see Miyazaki (2006, p. 452). The excerpt runs as follows: bla ma dpal bya chub bza poi al nas
di skad du | es rab pha rol phyin spas pai || sbyin pai pha rol phyin la sogs || dge bai tshogs rnams
thams cad dag | rgyal ba rnams kyis thabs su bad || [= Bodhipathapradpa 45] ces gsus pa de bdag gi
rtsa bar bkod pa yin no ||. See also Miyazaki (2007, p. 69), where he translates: I inserted the words of
my master, Bodhibhadra, into the root text, [the Bodhipathapradpa], that the Jinas assert that skillful
means are all the accumulation of virtues, i.e. the perfection of giving and so on, excluding the perfection
of wisdom.

123

Author's personal copy

Textual Reuses in the Madhyamakaratnapradpa

521

the MRP are, and not simply included in the discussion. Accordingly, if this
perspective is correct, we conclude that the MRP might have been written down in
consequence of some direct speech.
All these points, I think, provide altogether good reasons to believe that the MRP
was originally assembled as a manual of Madhyamaka philosophy, with particular
attention to the arguments contained in the TJ, and compiled on the basis of a course
held, at some time around the beginning of the tenth century CE, by some teacher to
a class of Buddhist students, probably at the Vikramasla vihra. Moreover, the lack
of quotation marks for all the TJ passages suggests that the teacher, during the
lessons, could have had a copy of the TJ at hand. It was therefore clear to everybody
which source those passages were taken from, making it unnecessary the insertion
of any quotation mark in the text of the MRP.
Having thus arrived at such a preliminary consideration, we can now turn our
attention towards the reuse of texts in MRP, chapter 7. This will help us to better
contextualize the citation from the DKG.
1.2 The Cultural Horizon of the MRP, Chapter 7, as can be Inferred
from Its Quotations
In order to sketch with more precision the cultural and scriptural horizon of the MRP, in
what follows I have provided a list of all the quotations detectable in its chapter 7, which
is devoted to the discussion of the bhvankrama (progression of meditation). But
before considering the list, two preliminary specifications are needed. Firstly, I assume
that the analysis of the quotes of the sole chapter 7 will here suffice for our purposes to
study the citation from Saraha, since in the preceding and subsequent chapters the MRP
deals with subjects that have nothing to do with the bhvankrama practice. Sarahas
text, indeed, occurs in the explanation of the cittamtra concept, which is assumed in the
MRP as a fundamental notion involved in the progression into meditation, explained
says our Authorfrom a Madhyamaka viewpoint.13 For this reason, I will handle the
chapter 7 as if it were a sort of independent section of the MRP. Secondly, with
quotations I mean all those textual reuses that are introduced by, and/or ended with,
the usual quotation marks, such as the particle las after the title of a work, opening
expressions like ji skad du, and so on, or closing expressions as es bya ba, es gsus so,
etc. In this list I have recorded the citations that are referred verbatim or almost verbatim,
all the cited titles of works and the indications of authors and thinkers, both those that are
mentioned by name in the MRP and those that remain unmentioned, but are hinted at by
general appellations, like slob dpon, phags pa slob dpon and so on. The textual
references are all from the D edition of the bKa-gyur and bsTan-gyur.
1.2.1 List of Quotations of Textual Material, Titles and Authors in the MRP, Chapter 7
The references I have been able to detect are organized in the following table.

13

See the opening section of the excerpt edited and translated below, section 2.1.

123

123

277a45

277a5

277a56

277a7b1

277b14

No. Locus

PHags pa ye es kyi phyag

rgyai ti e dzin gyi mdo
(ryatathgatajna
mudrsamdhistra;
D, bKa-gyur, mDo-sde,
Da, 230b4253b5)

rGyal ba skyed ma
(Jinajanan ?; see No. 33)3

es rab kyi pha rol tu phyin

pa mon par rtogs pai
rgyan (Abhisamaylakraprajpramitopadeastra)

Works referred,
whose titles are
mentioned

Kind of references

gan nas kya

(unknown)

Works referred,
whose titles are
unmentioned

mGon po byams
pa (Maitreya
[natha])

rje btsun PHags

pa lhai zal sna
ryadeva)
nas (A

Authors referred,
whose names are
mentioned
(Maitreyanatha,
third-fourth
century CE ?)

Authors hinted at,

whose names are
unmentioned

Even if certain
sentences in the
citation can remind
us of passages in
that Sutra, I have
been unable to trace
the exact wording

Corresponds to
Abhisamaylakraprajpramitopadeastra
4.7ab,d

Citation corresponds
to Cittaviuddhi
prakaraa 842

Citation
corresponds to
Abhisamaylakraprajpramitopadeastra 4.6

Correspondence(s)
of quoted texts

One stanza. Although

untraced,
its Sanskrit
version occurs also
in the Subhitasagraha1

Untraced

Author's personal copy

522
K. Del Toso

277b4

277b5

277b57

277b7

278a2

10

No. Locus

Works referred,
whose titles are
mentioned

Kind of references

2) (Unknown ?)

1) (Madhyamakvatra).

Works referred,
whose titles are
unmentioned

Authors hinted at,

whose names are
unmentioned

No quoted texts

No quoted texts

1) First quoted stanza

corresponds to
Madhyamakvatra
6.4. Subsequent
three pdas
correspond to
Madhyamakvatra
6.5a,cd

No quoted texts.
Reference to
Nagarjunas
authoritative
teachings
concerning
Madhyamaka
philosophy (gu
lugs bdu ma chen
poi don)

Correspondence(s)
of quoted texts

2) Last four pdas

remain untraced

One stanza
on the
two truths

Untraced

Textual Reuses in the Madhyamakaratnapradpa

2) phags pa THogs med

(Asanga)

1) slob dpon kLu sgrub

kyi zal sna nas
(Nagarjuna)

phags pa kLu sgrub kyi

zal sna nas (Nagarjuna)

slob dpon rje btsun zLa ba

grags pai zal sna nas
(Candrakrti)

bDe ba chen po
(*Mahasukha or
*Mahadeva)4

slob dpon phags pa kLu

sgrub kyi zal sna nas
(Nagarjuna)

Authors referred,
whose names are
mentioned

Author's personal copy

523

123

123

11

278a56

No. Locus
Works referred,
whose titles are
unmentioned

Authors referred,
whose names are
mentioned

Authors hinted at,

whose names are
unmentioned
No quoted texts. Our
Author only refers
his reader to these
Sutras for further
details on the
subject he is dealing
with

Correspondence(s)
of quoted texts

Untraced

524

5) Nam mkha si poi mdo

(kagarbhastra; D,
bKa-gyur, mDo-sde, Za,
264a4283b2)

4) PHags pa e ba khor gyis

us pa (Upliparipcchstra; D, bKa-gyur,
dKon-brtsegs, Ca 115a1
131a7)

3) PHags pa las kyi sgrib

rgyun gcod pai mdo
(ryakarmvaraapratiprasravitistra;
D, bKa-gyur, mDo-sde,
TSHa, 297a5307b6)

2) PHags pa phu
po gsum pa (ryatriskandhakastra; D, bKa-gyur,
mDo-sde, Ya,
57a377a3)

1) PHags pa chos bii mdo

(ryacaturdharmakastra; D, bKa-gyur
mDo-sde, Za,
60b161a2)

Works referred,
whose titles are
mentioned

Kind of references

Author's personal copy

K. Del Toso

278a7b3

278b34

12

13

No. Locus
Correspondence(s)
of quoted texts

To compare with
Vajracchedikprajpramit 32:
ita prajpramity
dharmaparyyd
antaa catupdikm
api gthm udghya
dhrayed deayed5

Authors hinted at,

whose names are
unmentioned

Yum chen mo (Prjapramit)

Authors referred,
whose names are
mentioned

Citation corresponds to D,
bKa-gyur, mDo-sde,
Ba, 271b25

Works referred,
whose titles are
unmentioned

PHags pa theg pa chen poi

man ag gi mdo
(ryamahynopadeastra;
D, bKa-gyur, mDo-sde, Ba,
260a1307a7)

7) gZus kyi mdo sde

(Dhrastraperhaps
the rDo rje si poi
gzus kyi mdo,
Vajramaadhrastra;
D, bKa-gyur,
mDo-sde, Na, 278a1289b4)

6) PHags pa sman gyi

bla bai rya od
kyi rgyal poi mdo
(ryabhaiajyaguruvairyaprabhrjastra;
D, bKa-gyur, rGyud,
Da, 274a1283b7)

Works referred,
whose titles are
mentioned

Kind of references

Although this excerpt

is untraced, it is
cited also in TJ ad
MHK 2.106

Untraced

Author's personal copy

Textual Reuses in the Madhyamakaratnapradpa

525

123

123

278b46

278b56

278b67

14

15

16

No. Locus
Untraced

526

2) Las kyi sgrib pa rnam par

dag pai mdo,
(Karmvaraaviuddhistra; D, bKa-gyur,
mDo-sde, TSHa, 284a3
297b5)

No quoted texts. Our

Author only refers
his reader to these
Sutras for further
details on the
subject he is dealing
with

1) De bin gegs pas gsa bai

mdo (ryatathgatcintyaguhyanirdea; the full
Tibetan title being: PHags
pa de bin gegs pai gsa ba
bsam gyis mi khyab pa bstan
pai mdo; D, bKa-gyur,
dKon-brtsegs, Ka, 100a2
203a7)7

Correspondence(s)
of quoted texts

Citation corresponds
to D, bKa-gyur,
mDo-sde, PHa,
170a34

Authors hinted at,

whose names are
unmentioned

kLui rgyal po rgya mtshos

us pa (Sgarangarjaparipcchstra; D,
bKa-gyur, mDo-sde, PHa,
116a1198a3)

Authors referred,
whose names are
mentioned
Citation corresponds
to D, bKa-gyur,
mDo-sde, Ma,
275b3

Works referred,
whose titles are
unmentioned

PHags pa chos thams cad

byu ba med par bstan pa
(ryasarvadharmapravttinirdeastra; D,
bKa-gyur, mDo-sde, Ma,
267a1296a6)

Works referred,
whose titles are
mentioned

Kind of references

Author's personal copy

K. Del Toso

279b23

19

279b4

279a34

18

20

279a34

17

No. Locus

dBu ma srid pa pho ba

(Bhavasakrntiparikhat)

Yum chen mo
(Prajapramit)

Works referred,
whose titles are
mentioned

Kind of references
Works referred,
whose titles are
unmentioned

slob dpon zLa ba

grags pai zal nas
(Candrakrti)

slob dpon chen po

phags pa kLu
sgrub kyi zal sna
nas (Nagarjuna)

Authors referred,
whose names are
mentioned

To compare with: es
rab kyi pha rol tu
phyin pa sto phrag
i u la pai man
ag gi bstan bcos
mon par rtogs pai
rgyan gyi grel pa
(Pacaviatishasrikaprajpramitopadeastrbhisamaylakravtti; see: D,
bsTan-gyur, Sescin, Ka, 45a4)
Citation corresponds
to Bhavasakrntiparikhat 58

slob dpon gyi al sa

nas (Nagarjuna)

No quoted texts

No quoted texts. The

Author only refers
to the transmission
(man ag) of
Nagarjunas
Madhyamaka
teachings

Correspondence(s)
of quoted texts

(Vimuktasena, sixth
century CE) ?

Authors hinted at,

whose names are
unmentioned

Untraced

Author's personal copy

Textual Reuses in the Madhyamakaratnapradpa

527

123

123

279b6

279b67

280a1

21

22

23

No. Locus

bDe ba chen po
(*Mahasukha or
*Mahadeva)

Correspondence(s)
of quoted texts

Untraced

One stanza
To compare with:
Candraharis or
Candrarahilas
(rahula?)
Ratnaml (Rin po
chei phre ba; see:
D, bsTan-gyur,
dBu-ma, A, 71b34)

Citation corresponds
to ryaghanavyhastra 4.72cd73
74ab (D, bKagyur, mDo-sde,
CHa, 48b67)

Authors hinted at,

whose names are
unmentioned

PHags pa rgyan stug poi mdo

(ryaghanavyhastra; D,
bKa-gyur, mDo-sde, CHa,
1b155a7)

Authors referred,
whose names are
mentioned
No quoted texts

Works referred,
whose titles are
unmentioned

PHags pa od srus kyis us

pai mdo
(ryakyapaparivartastra)

Works referred,
whose titles are
mentioned

Kind of references

Author's personal copy

528
K. Del Toso

280a3281a3
(see
section 2.1.
below).

281a57

281b5

24

25

26

No. Locus

Works referred,
whose titles are
mentioned

Kind of references

(Yuktiaikkrik)

4) (Piiktasdhana)

3) (Mahynaviik)

2) ya (Bodhicittavivaraa)

1) (Prattyasamutpdahdayakrik)

Works referred,
whose titles are
unmentioned

Authors referred,
whose names are
mentioned

slob dpon gyi al sa

nas (Nagarjuna).

slob dpon gyi al sa

nas (Nagarjuna)

Authors hinted at,

whose names are
unmentioned

Citation corresponds
to Yuktiaikkrik 11ab

4) Piiktasdhana 43d44ab

3) Mahynaviik 18ab

2) Bodhicittavivaraa 2

1) Prattyasamutpdahdayakrik 7

Correspondence(s)
of quoted texts

Untraced

Author's personal copy

Textual Reuses in the Madhyamakaratnapradpa

529

123

123

282a2

282a56

282b45

27

28

29

No. Locus

PHags
pa sas rgyas
thams cad kyi yul la jug
pa (ryasarvabuddhaviayvatrajnloklakrastra; D, bKa-gyur,
mDo-sde, Ga, 276a1
305a7)

4) sMon lam bdun cu pa

(Praidhnasaptati)11

2) PHags pa
bza po spyod pai
smon lam (ryasamantabhadracryapraidhna;
D, bKa-gyur, gZuns,
Wam, 262b5-266a3)9

3) sMon lam i u pa
(*Praidhnaviik)10

1) PHags
pa es rab
kyi pha rol tu
phyin pai mdo
(ryaprajpramitstra)

Works referred,
whose titles are
mentioned

Kind of references
Works referred,
whose titles are
unmentioned
slob dpon Ma ti tsi
tras (Maticitra,
mentioned by our
Author as
compiler of the
sMon lam bdun
cu pa)

Authors referred,
whose names are
mentioned
No quoted texts

Correspondence(s)
of quoted texts

Citation corresponds
to D, bKa-gyur,
mDo-sde, Ga,
299a45

slob dpon gyi al

No quoted texts
sa nas (Nagarjuna ?)

slob dpon gyi al sa

nas (Nagarjuna,
hinted at by our
Author as compiler
of the sMon lam i u
pa)

Authors hinted at,

whose names are
unmentioned

Untraced

Author's personal copy

530
K. Del Toso

283a23

283a3

283a45

30

31

32

No. Locus

PHags
pa sas rgyas
thams cad kyi yul la
jug pa (ryasarvabuddhaviayvatrajnloklakrastra; see No. 29)

PHags pa la kar gegs pa

(Lakvatrastra)

Works referred,
whose titles are
mentioned

Kind of references

mdo a las kya

(Unknown)

Works referred,
whose titles are
unmentioned

Authors referred,
whose names are
mentioned

Authors hinted at,

whose names are
unmentioned

Inaccurate quotation:
the passage from the
Sutra that our Author
presumably had in
mind runs quite
differently (compare
with: D, bKa-gyur,
mDo-sde, Ga,
299a7b1)

Sanskrit original
preserved in
Vasubandhus
Bhya ad
Abhidharmakoa
4.12c12

Citation corresponds
to Lakvatrastra
2.167 = 10.128

Correspondence(s)
of quoted texts

One stanza from a

Sutra

Untraced

Author's personal copy

Textual Reuses in the Madhyamakaratnapradpa

531

123

123

283a56

283a67

283b1

283b2

33

34

35

36

No. Locus

Don dam par stod pa

(Paramrthastava)

(Pacakrama)

slob dpon id kyi al

sa nas (Nagarjuna)

Correspondence(s)
of quoted texts

Untraced

532

Citation corresponds to
Paramrthastava 8

Citation corresponds
to Pacakrama 5.13

Citation corresponds
to D, bKa-gyur,
mDo-sde, Ga,
284b45

Authors hinted at,

whose names are
unmentioned

PHags pa sas
rgyas thams
cad kyi yul la
jug pa (ryasarvabuddhaviayvatrajnloklakrastra;
see No. 29)

Authors referred,
whose names are
mentioned
Citation
corresponds
to PHags pa es
rab kyi pha rol tu
phyin pa rdo rje
gcod pai mdo
(ryavajracchedikprajpramitstra;
D, bKa-gyur,
Ser-phyin, Ka,
131a7b1; 26 of
the Sanskrit
version)13

Works referred,
whose titles are
unmentioned

rGyal ba bskyed
ma sum brgya
pa (*Jinajanantriat or *Jinaprabodhatriat ?; see No. 4)

Works referred,
whose titles are
mentioned

Kind of references

Author's personal copy

K. Del Toso

283b34

284a23

284a4b1

284b46

37

38

39

40

No. Locus

Works referred,
whose titles are
mentioned

Kind of references

2) gan las kya

(ryasarvabuddhaviayvatrajnloklakrastra;
see No. 29)

1) ji skad du
(Majurnmasagti)

ji skad du
(Dharmadhtustava)

2) ya
mdo sde las
(unknown)

1) mdo las
(ryasamantabhadracryapraidhna;
see No. 27)

Works referred,
whose titles are
unmentioned
PHags pa lhai
zal nas
ryadeva)
(A

Authors referred,
whose names are
mentioned

slob dpon gyi

al sa nas
(Nagarjuna)

Authors hinted at,

whose names are
unmentioned

2) Sarvabuddhaviayvatrastra
(see: D, bKagyur, mDo-sde, Ga,
300b5)

1) Majurnmasagti 116117abc14

Citation corresponds to
Dharmadhtustava
91-96 (compare to: D,
bsTan-gyur, bsTodtshogs, Ka, 67a47)

1) The ryasamantabhadracryapraidhna passage

corresponds, with a
negligible variant, to
D, bKa-gyur, gZuns,
Wam, 265a4

Correspondence(s)
of quoted texts

2) The excerpt from

the unknown Sutra
seems to have been
quoted with some
variants also by
Atsa in his
Bodhipathapradpapajik
(see: D, bsTangyur, dBu-ma,
KHi, 248b7249a1)

Apparently
one stanza

Untraced

Author's personal copy

Textual Reuses in the Madhyamakaratnapradpa

533

123

123

284b6

285a14

41

42

No. Locus

Two excerpts
from the PHags
pa ye es kyi phyag
rgyai mdo (in its
entire Sanskrit title,
this is the ryatathgatajnamudrsamdhistra;
D, bKa-gyur, mDo-sde,
Da, 230b4253b5)

Works referred,
whose titles are
mentioned

Kind of references
Works referred,
whose titles are
unmentioned
slob dpon zLa ba
grags pai zal sna
nas (Candrakrti)

Authors referred,
whose names are
mentioned

Authors hinted at,

whose names are
unmentioned

The first excerpt

reproduces two
stanzas (that we find
in D, bKa-gyur,
mDo-sde, Da,
236b24), whereas
the second one is a
passage in prose in
which two brief
excerpts are put
together in one
single citation
(corresponding
respectively to D,
bKa-gyur, mDosde, Da, 234b45
and 234b7)

Correspondence(s)
of quoted texts

Two pdas, although

untraced are
identical with
Vasubandhus
Vykhyyukti 1bc

Untraced

Author's personal copy

534
K. Del Toso

285a4

285a46

43

44

No. Locus
Correspondence(s)
of quoted texts

Untraced

2) De bin
gegs pai leu
(*Tathgataparivarta)15

2) The *Tathga1) The rynantataparivarta excerpt,

mukhasdhakadhra
although untraced,
excerpt is actually a
is cited also in the
free rendering of a
TJ (see: D, bsTanpassage occurring twice
gyur, dBu-ma,
in that text (see: D,
DZa, 130b6131a1)
bKa-gyur, mDo-sde,
Na, 292b and 293a)

Authors hinted at,

whose names are
unmentioned

1) PHags pa
sgo mtha yas pa
sgrub pa gzus (rynantamukhasdhakadhra; this
text occurs thrice in the
bKa-gyur: D,
bKa-gyur, mDo-sde, Na,
289b4299a5; rGyud,
Na, 62a6-71a1; gZuns, E,
244b6254b7)

Authors referred,
whose names are
mentioned
The quoted excerpt
is a sentence that occurs
several times throughout
the ryadaashasrikprajpramit

Works referred,
whose titles are
unmentioned

Yum chen
mo (Prajpramit)

Works referred,
whose titles are
mentioned

Kind of references

Author's personal copy

Textual Reuses in the Madhyamakaratnapradpa

535

123

123

45

285a7b1

No. Locus

PHags pa blo gros mi zad

pas us pao mdo
(rykayamatiparipcchstra; D, bKagyur, dKon-brtsegs, CHa,
175b2182b6)

Works referred,
whose titles are
mentioned

Kind of references
Works referred,
whose titles are
unmentioned

Authors referred,
whose names are
mentioned

Authors hinted at,

whose names are
unmentioned
In the TJ (see: D,
bsTan-gyur, dBuma, DZa, 131a24),
the same passage is
cited and attributed
to the Blo gros mi zad
pas bstan pai mdo
(Akayamatinirdeastra;
D, bKa-gyur,
mDo-sde, Ma 79a1
174b7). In reality,
this excerpt is a sort
of rsumin which
sentences quoted
verbatim are mixed
up with passages that
are only summarized
of a long
discussion that we
find in the
Akayamatinirdeastra
(beginning at 86b)

Correspondence(s)
of quoted texts

Untraced

Author's personal copy

536
K. Del Toso

285b2

285b4286a3

286a34

46

47

48

No. Locus

2) PHags pa sas rgyas rjes

su dran pai mdo chen po
(ryabuddhnusmtimahstra; D, bKa-gyur, mDosde, Ya, 54b655a7)

1) PHags pa da ltar gyi

sas rgyas mgon sum
du bugs pai mdo
(ryapratyutpannabuddhasamukhvasthitastra;
D, bKa-gyur, mDo-sde,
Na, 1b170b2)

Works referred,
whose titles are
mentioned

Kind of references

ji skad du
(Unknown)

Works referred,
whose titles are
unmentioned

slob dpon id kyi al

sa nas (Nagarjuna ?)

Authors hinted at,

whose names are
unmentioned

No quoted texts16

No quoted texts. Our

Author only tells his
reader s/he will find
in these Sutras teachings similar to those
expounded in the
Sutras quoted
previously

Correspondence(s)
of quoted texts

Although untraced,
this same excerpt is
cited also in the TJ
(see: D, bsTangyur, dBu-ma,
DZa, 129b5130a4)

Untraced

Textual Reuses in the Madhyamakaratnapradpa

2) Thogs med
(Asanga; fourth
century CE)

1) rDo rje sde

(Vajrasena,
alias Vajrasr, a
fourth-fifth
century CE
disciple of
Vasubandhu)

Authors referred,
whose names are
mentioned

Author's personal copy

537

123

123

286a7b1

286b12

49

50

No. Locus

Works referred,
whose titles are
mentioned

Kind of references

(Dharmadhtustava)

2) (Unknown)

1) (Niraupamyastava)

Works referred,
whose titles are
unmentioned

Authors referred,
whose names are
mentioned

Correspondence(s)
of quoted texts

1) The first stanza

is Niraupamyastava 24

Citation corresponds to Dharmadhtustava 101

Authors hinted at,

whose names are
unmentioned
slob dpon id kyi al
sa nas (Nagarjuna)

slob dpon gyi al

sa nas (Nagarjuna)

2) One stanza from an

untraced text (allegedly by Nagarjuna),
quoted also in two
short works attributed
to Advayavajra (tenth
eleventh century CE):
the Kudinirghta
(lTa ba an pa sel ba;
D, bsTan-gyur,
rGyud, Wi, 104b7
110a2; quotation in
105a45) and the
Tattvaratnval (De
kho na id rin po chei
phre ba: see D,
bsTan-gyur, rGyud,
Wi, 115a6120a1;
quotation in 119b45)

Untraced

Author's personal copy

538
K. Del Toso

Works referred,
whose titles are
unmentioned

Authors referred,
whose names are
mentioned

See Bendall (1903, p. 389). The stanza is inserted in a discussion on the prajpramit

Works referred,
whose titles are
mentioned

Kind of references
Authors hinted at,
whose names are
unmentioned

Correspondence(s)
of quoted texts

Untraced

See Heitmann (2004, p. 76)

Vaidya (1961, p. 89)

The two possible Sanskrit names are due to the interpretation of bDe-ba, whether it is taken as a translation, sukha, or as a kind of phonetical transliteration, deva

See Aiyaswami Sastri (1938, p. 74)

Vaidya (1961, p. 87)

On these excerpts see Eckel (1992, p. 231, notes 7 and 8)

For the Sanskrit, see Davidson (1981, p. 58)

The entire passage occurs also in the TJ (D, bsTan-gyur, dBu-ma, DZa, 130a7b3). As usual, the Author of the MRP does not indicate by means of quotation marks
that he is borrowing it

16

15

14

13

11
In the Tibetan Canon we have no trace of this work, however, there is a sMon lam bdun cu pa tshigs su bcad pa (Praidhnasaptatigth; D, bsTan-gyur, sNa-tshogs,
o, 320b5324a5), authored by a certain gZan-la-phan-pai dByans-dgon-pa (*Parahita Ghosaranya?). This text has been studied by Beresford (1979), who however
N

ryasurya (sic!)
upheld that its author was A
12
Sastr (1998, p. 476)

On this text see van Schaik and Doney (2007). Interestingly enough, on this Sutra it exists a commentary attributed to Nagarjuna, the PHags pa bza po spyod pai
smon lam gyi rgyal po chen poi bad sbyar
10
in-ma collection of several philosophical works. See Bibliography s.v. Nagarjuna, Praidhnaviik
This text is preserved in a rN

The title De bin gegs pas gsa bai mdo can refer also to the Tathgataguhyakastra, that is, the Guhyasamjatantra. Nevertheless, the general contents of the ryatathgatcintyaguhyanirdea show higher affinity with the discussion in the MRP (several affinities can also be detected between some passages of this Sutra and the quoted passage
from the Sgarangarjaparipcchstra, referred to in the preceding point 15.) than those of the Guhyasamjatantra. Therefore, we can safely assume that it is the ryatathgatcintyaguhyanirdea the text towards which our Author wants to draw his readers attention

Unclear reference. In Kamalaslas Madhyamaklakrapajik (D, bsTan-gyur, dBu-ma, Sa, 114b4) we are told that rGyal ba skyed ma (Jinajanan) refers to es rab kyi pha rol
tu phyin pa (Prajpramit)

ryadeva who compiled the

According to Wedemeyer (2007, p. 57), many a reason should make us suspect that this text has not been written by the same A
Carymelpakapradpa

No. Locus

Author's personal copy

Textual Reuses in the Madhyamakaratnapradpa

539

123

Author's personal copy

540

K. Del Toso

1.2.2 Analysis of the Scriptural References: A General Assessment

From the list just provided, we can notice the following fundamental points.
In the MRP, chapter 7, the recourse to Sutra sources is definitely preferred to
the recourse to Tantra sources.
(b) The few Tantra works cited here are functional to the explanation of
Madhyamaka viewpoints.
(c) The tantric writings taken into account in the text are mostly those authored by
the tantric namesakes of the great Madhyamika teachers, which are however
ryadevas and
indistinctly mixed up with quotations from Nagarjunas, A
Candrakrtis Madhyamaka works. This fact embodies a well-known tendency
that took place from at least the tenth century CE onwardsto attribute, as
Wedemeyer (2007, p. 8) clearly pointed out, the authorship of the esoteric
works [] to those authors bearing the same names who composed the
exoteric philosophical works of the Centrist (Madhyamika) School. That is,
they maintain that the famous Nagarjuna who penned the Fundamental Verses
of Centrism [i.e., Mlamadhyamakakrik] was also a tantric yogin who wrote
the Five Stages [i.e., Pacakrama] and other important works of Buddhist
esoterism.14
(d) The presence of a (single) quotation from the Majurnmasagti, which is a
work of tantric lore, can be easily explained by reference to the tantric circles,
ryadeva and Candrakrti belonged to. Indeed,
which the tantric Nagarjuna, A
we owe to Ronald M. Davidson a study, in which he points out that the
Majurnmasagti presents many similarities with the Guhyasamjatantra,15 to the extent that this text played a very important, not to say a central,
role within the Jnanapada hermeneutical tradition of the Guhyasamaja.16
Thanks to its conceptual proximity to the Guhyasamjatantra, it is not out of
place here to suspect that the Majurnmasagti may have been taken into a
certain consideration also among the, or among some, adherents or students of
rya school.
the Guhyasamaja A
(a)

14

On this very point see also the illuminating Wedemeyer (2010).

15

Davidson (1981, p. 2): there is a distinct morphological similarity [] between the N[ma]S[agti]
and the samdhi chapter (chapter 3) of the Guhyasamjatantra. Moreover, Davidson (1981, pp. 23):
their ultimate common inspiration appears to be the abhisabodhikrama of the Sarvatathgatatattvasagraha. Davidson, then, concludes that (1981, p. 3): we may probably safely assume that the
earliest coherent stratum of the text [scil. the Majurnmasagti] encompasses verses 26162.
16
Davidson (1981, pp. 57) explains that the earliest commentator on the Majurnmasagti was
Manjusrmitra (eighth century). Manjusrmitra was the teacher of Vilasavajra (and both were teachers of
Buddhajnanapada, the founder of the Jnanapada school), who compiledamong other worksan
important commentary on the Majurnmasagti and a commentary on the Guhyasamjatantra. This
confirms the strict link between these two texts. Therefore, the well-known connection of the
Majurnmasagti with the Klacakratantra should have taken place only in later times, presumably
around the epoch of Naropa (tentheleventh centuries CE). The reasons of this tying up are explained in
Wayman (1999, p. 7).

123

Author's personal copy

Textual Reuses in the Madhyamakaratnapradpa

541

In addition, it is worth noting that the reference to the Majurnmasagti is

the only one in chapter 7 concerning a so-called root tantric text.17 Indeed, the sole
other scripture mentioned here, which at a later time, during the period of
constitution of the bKa-gyur collection, was listed under the rGyud (Tantra)
category in the Tibetan Buddhist Canon, namely the ryabhaiajyaguruvairyaprabhrjastra (see point 11. of the list), is not a Tantra stricto sensu, but a Sutra
devoted to the Buddha of medicine and health.18
Interestingly enough, to conclude with, (e) except for the single quotation from
the DKG, which we are going to deal with, nowhere else in chapter 7, nor in the rest
of the MRP, the Author shows, directly or indirectly, that he was somehow involved
or interested in the so-called Doh literature, or in the Mahamudra doctrine (whose
father is reputed to be Saraha) and/or in their tantric or pseudo-tantric matrix.

2 The Quotation from the DKG

After having thus introduced the MRP and its chapter 7, let us come to the point of
our discussion, namely, a quotation of a stanza from a work attributed to a certain
gurus guru (bla mai bla ma), whose name, unfortunately, remains unmentioned.
The MRP reports that the stanza belongs to the Don dam par rigs pai glu, that
might be restored into Sanskrit with *Paramrthanyyagti, as Lindtner (1982, pp.
175176) pointed out years ago. But as we will see in a while, the quoted stanza
correspondswith little variantsto Sarahas DKG 41 (21 in Bhayanis ed.).
Before taking into account this citation, however, let us consider the entire passage,
into which it is inserted.
2.1 The Context into Which the Quotation is Inserted
Sarahas stanza occurs in a discussion concerning the concept of cittamtra. Our
Author distinguishes two main perspectives over reality. According to his treatment,
indeed, there would be a coarse (rags pa yin) interpretation of reality, which is said
to be related to what he calls the external or essoteric Madhyamaka (phyi rol gyi dbu
ma) approach, and a subtle (phra ba) interpretation, related to the internal or
esoteric Madhyamaka (na gi dbu ma). The understanding of reality according to
the coarse manner, the Author informs us, corresponds to the conventional truth
(kun rdzob kyi bden pa) of the rvakas (an thos), which consists in taking the
dharmas as existent. This perspective has been explained in MRP, chapter 3. The
understanding of reality according to the subtle manner, on the contrary, consists in
taking all the dharmas as non-existing in themselves, since they appear in, or by
means of, mind-only. This second perspective seems to be very near to the Yogacara
17

Lindtner (1982, p. 176) remarked that in the MRP (D, dBu-ma, TSHa, 267a7b1) there is also a verse
from the Vairocanbhisabodhitantra. Wayman (1998, pp. 2734) stressed the particular link existing
between, once again, this Tantra and the Jnanapada school of the Guhyasamaja tradition, since the text
has been variously commented upon by Buddhajnanapadas pupil Buddhaguhya.

18

More on this subject in Nakamura (1987, p. 181).

123

Author's personal copy

542

K. Del Toso

viewpoint on cittamtra. Our Author, however, argues that also such an approach
belongs to the sphere of the conventional truth (D, dBu-ma, TSHa, 281a4): kun
rdzob kyi bden par nam mkha da | bag chags bii mthus sems sgyu ma rdzas su
med pa brdzun pa id phyi da na du sna ste | (By means of the conventional
truth, [one sees that] the illusionary mind manifests externally and internally an
unsubstantial falsity by virtue of the space (ka) and the four habitual tendencies
(vsan)).19 Consequently, the higher Madhyamaka comprehension of reality, we
are led to conclude, takes place when one becomes aware that also mind-only is
illusionary and empty (D, dBu-ma, TSHa, 281a45): don dam par na sems sgyu ma
de gdod ma nas ma skyes pa | bsal ba med pa | gag pa med par ya di lta buo es
es par byao || (When [considered] according to the ultimate meaning, the
illusionary mind should be recognized like [something that is] never originated, not
revealed, nor abandoned). In order to corroborate his perspective with textual
evidences, the Author makes recurse here to some quotes from works of Nagarjuna,
namely, those indicated in point 25 of the list in Sect. 1.2.1.
The stanza taken from Sarahas DKG, on the other hand, closes a list of quotes
that are meant to explain the above-mentioned Yogacara-like viewpoint on
cittamtra (according to the conventional truth). The Author opens his citations with
the well-known stanzas 10.256257 form the Lakvatrastra. Subsequently, we
come across two stanzas from Nagarjunas Pacakrama: 3.17 (with variants) and
ryadevas work(s), the first of
3.22, followed by three untraced stanzas from some A
which is quoted separately from the remaining two. Next, there are three short but as
well untraced quotations from Candrakrti. All these quotes are followed by an
explanation by the Author, which is grounded on a verse of the MHK and a passage
ryadeva
of the TJ. After this, we meet with another untraced stanza attributed to A
and only at this point we find Sarahas verse.
In what follows, I will provide the Tibetan text of the entire excerpt (D, dBu-ma,
TSHa, 280a3281a3) along with its English translation. For the sake of clarity, and
in order to make easier the reading of the passage, I have underlined the references
to texts and authors (either by name or through some title) in the Tibetan version.
Moreover, I have put in bold type Sarahas passage, under concern here.

19
This is an interesting passage, since in it there is reference to the four vsans. Originally, and
according to Asangas Mahynasagraha, which is a core text of the Yogacara school extant only in
Chinese and Tibetan translations, the vsansnegative tendencies that bond men to rebirthare instead
grouped according to three, not four, types (D, bsTan-gyur, mDo-grel, Ri, 12a1): abhilpavsan
(mgon par brjod pai bag chags; habitual tendency of speech), tmadtivsan (bdag tu lta bai bag
chags; habitual tendency of the view of self) and bhavgavsan (srid pai yan lag gi bag chags;
habitual tendency of the branches of existence). However, in the Mahynasagraha mention is made
also of a somehow positive fourth vsan, namely, rutavsan (thos pai bag chags; habitual tendency
of hearing), which is said to lead to liberation, and to which an extensive treatment is devoted by
Asanga. In other writings, such as the Mahynastrlakra (see the commentary on 18.88; Bagchi
1970, p. 146), Asanga mentionsonly once, as far as I can sayalso a karmavsan (las kyi bag chags;
habitual tendency of action) that could be considered, or could have provided the basis for a sort of
fourth type of negative vsan, besides the three mentioned above.

123

Author's personal copy

Textual Reuses in the Madhyamakaratnapradpa

543

[D 280a3] phags pa la kar gegs pa las |

sems tsam la ni brten nas su ||
phyi rol don la mi brtag go ||
de bin id la brten nas ni ||
sems tsam las kya das par bya ||
sems tsam las ni das gyur na ||
[4] sna ba med la gnas par gyur ||
sna med gnas pai rnal byor pa ||
de yis theg pa chen po mtho ||20
es gsus so || phags pa glu sgrub da | slob dpon phags pai lha da | slob
dpon rje btsun zla ba grags pa ni di skad du gsus pa yin te | di ltar kun rdzob
kyi [5] bden pa an thos kyi tshul du smras pa ni phyi rol gyi dbu ma rags pa
yin la | de id ra gi sems tsam du gnas pa na gi dbu ma es bya ba phra ba
yin no es gsungs pai don rgyas par ni ji skad du | slob dpon gyi al sa nas |
dir ni ga ya skye ba med ||
ga ya gag pa yod ma yin ||
[6] sems kyi ra bin rnam gnas pa ||
chos rnams id ni es par bya ||
mig la sogs da yul rnams id ||
ye es la po id dag ste ||
phyi da na du rnam phye ba ||
thams cad sems las gan ma yin ||21
es bya ba la sogs pa ma du gsus so || slob dpon phags pa lhai [7] al sa nas |
phyi rol don ni yod ma yin ||
ra gi sems ni mtho bar gyur ||
de ya sgyu mar bsgom bya i ||
de bin id kya rjes dran bya ||
ya gsus pa |
Sanskrit in Vaidya (1963, p. 124): cittamtra samruhya bhyam artha na kalpayet | tathatlambane
sthitv cittamtram atikramet || cittamtram atikramya nirbhsam atikramet | nirbhsasthito yog
mahyna sa payati ||. Our Tibetan text is quite different from the Sanskrit one. In particular, it is worth of
note the fact that samruhya has been rendered with brten nas su, and atikramet with gnas par gyur.
20

21

In the Tibetan version of the Pacakrama the stanza quoted first in the MRP runs as follows, with some
interesting textual differences (Mimaki and Tomabechi 1994, p. 33): dir ni ga ya skye ba med || ga ya
chi ba yod ma yin || sems kyi ra bin rnam gnas par || khor ba id ni es par bya ||. I must say that although
the Sanskritquoted here belowpoints to an intransitive meaning (maraa, chi ba in Tibetan), I am
focusing on a translation of the Tibetan version as is contained in the MRP, for which a transitive sense (gag
[pa]) is better attested and is, furthermore, indirectly confirmed by the Pacakrama itself. The second stanza
and also in this case note the few differences from the text preserved in the MRPreads (Mimaki and
Tomabechi 1994, p. 34): mig la sogs da yul rnams id || es pa la po id dag ste || phyi da na du rnam phye
ba || thams cad sgyu ma las gan min ||. Sanskrit in Isaacson (2007), respectively: na ctrotpadyate kacin
maraa npi kasyacit | sasra eva jtavya cittarpktisthita ||, and: aki viay caiva
jnapacakam eva ca | adhytmabhyato bhinna sarva myaiva nnyath ||.

123

Author's personal copy

544

K. Del Toso

gzugs sogs la da de bin skye mched bcu gis da ||

bco brgyad ces bad khams ni de rnam da ||
[D 280b1] es pa la da gro ba ma lus pa ||
thams cad ra gi sems id yin gyi gan ma yin ||
ga ya ri brgyad da ni rgya mtsho brgyad rnams da |
gli la sogs da dmyal ba la sogs dbye ||
ga ya brtan da g.yo ba id du mtho ba de ||
thams cad sems id yin gyi gan ma yin ||
[2] es ma du gsus so || slob dpon zla ba grag pai al sa nas kya | ji skad du |
de bas na phyi rol gyi dos po lta bu dmigs su med ci yod pa ma yin te |
sems kyi ra bin yin pai phyir ro
es pa da | ya
chos thams cad sems las phyi rol na mi gnas te | mig [3] yor tsam du sna ba
ga yin pa de thams cad ni ra gi sems te | ra gi sems id las gan ni ci ya
med do
es pa da | ya gsus pa |
sems las dos po tha dad pa yod do e na | chos med ces byao
es rgyas par gsus so || dir tshigs su bcad pa ni |
autpala [4] rtsa ba m la las ||
lo ma la sogs rgyun byu ltar ||
de bin sems rdzas med pa ya ||
chos rnams kun gyi o bor gnas ||22
de yi don ni di yin te || autpalai rtsa ba gan da ma brel i chu id la gnas i
rtsa ba der gar ya zug pa med kya | mtsho in tu rgya che ba [5] dag lo ma
da me tog la sogs pas khyab par nus pa bin du sems rdzas su med pa id yin
ya kun rdzob tu phyi na gi chos thams cad kyi o bor gnas so || ya smras pa |
ji ltar lu mai s lu ka ||
rtsa ba med kya thams cad khyab ||
rtsa ba med pai sems id kya ||
[6] nam mkhai mthas gtugs khyab par gnas ||
dii don ni di yin te || mtsheu da | lu ma dag ba s lu ka es bya bai so ig
phan tshun brel pas | me tog ser po ig gis lu mai kha chod par skye la de la
rtsa ba ni zug pa med do || de bin du sems rtsa ba [7] med pa bin du nam
mkhas ji tsam khyab ba de tsam du chos thams cad kyi o bor gnas so ||
22
This stanza is very similar to MHK 5.48 (see Eckel 2008, p. 414), the Tibetan version of which runs
indeed as follows: autpala rtsa ba m la las || lo ma la sogs rgyun byu ltar || de bin sems rdzas med pa
las || rgyun rnams sna tshogs byu bar gyur ||; Sanskrit: yath pardisantna lkabahuaktita |
tathdravyasata cittc citr satativttaya ||. Also the explanation is akin in both cases (see Eckel
2008, pp. 258, 414). Unfortunately, I have been unable to identify the subsequent stanza, which deals with
the same subject based on a similar example.

123

Author's personal copy

Textual Reuses in the Madhyamakaratnapradpa

545

slob dpon phags pa lhai al sa nas kya |

de ltar ra gi sems kyi ra bin gro ba ma lus pa ||
rnam es thar pa srid pai brtags las gro ba ga ||
srid pai [D 281a1] sdug bsal mtsho chen na du mi khor bai ||
dus byas kun gyi pha rol so ba de la phyag tshal dud ||
ces gsus so || bla mai bla mas kya don dam par rigs pai glu las ||
ra gi sems id kun gyi sa bon te ||
ga la srid da mya an das phro ba ||
[2] dod pai bras bu ster bar byed pa yi ||
yid bin dra bai sems la phyag tshal lo ||
es gsus pas khor ba da mya an las das pa thams cad sems id sgyu mar
es par byao || de bas de dag bdag gi gu chen po ma po dag bkod pa ni |
phyi rol gyi dbu ma yin no es [3] es par byao ||
Translation:
In the Lakvatra it is said:
Relying on mind-only, [one] should not conceptualize external objects;
relying on tathat, [one] should go beyond even mind-only.
Having gone beyond mind-only, one abides in [the state] without
fallacious appearances; a yogin abiding in [the state] without fallacious
appearances sees the Mahayana.
ryadeva and the venerable crya Candrakrti have
rya Nagarjuna, crya A
expounded [this subject] in these words: such is the coarse [explanation of the]
external Madhyamaka, [which is] expressed in the manner of the rvakas
conventional truth, [but] by means of the detailed meaning of what is enunciated,
[one should understand that] the subtle [explanation of the] so-called internal
Madhyamaka [according to the conventional truth] is that reality abides in ones
own mind-only, as has been said by the venerable crya [Nagarjuna]:
Here, nothing is born, there is not destruction of anything; what is to be
known are only the dharmas, which abide in the condition of nature of mind.
Even the eye etc., and the objects, even the five [kinds] of knowledge,
every partinternal and externalis not different from the mind.
ryadeva [explained]:
Thus and so on he profusely said. The venerable crya A
The external objects are not existent, [only] ones own mind is
perceived; moreover, one should meditate [even] upon its (scil. minds)
illusion and recollect the tathat.
He also said:
The five [skandhas of] form etc., and also the twelve yatanas, the
classes of dhtus [that are] taught to be eighteen, the five [kinds of]

123

Author's personal copy

546

K. Del Toso

knowledge and the living creatures without exception, being all [nothing
but] ones own mind, [all these things] are not other [than mind].
Whatever among the eight mountains, the eight oceans, the continents
etc., the classes of infernal realms etc., whatever perception concerning
the very inanimate and animate [beings], being all [nothing but] ones
own mind, [all these things] are not other [than mind].
Thus he abundantly said. Furthermore, by the venerable crya Candrakrti it
has been said:
Therefore, the external events are similarly unperceivable and inexistent because [only] of the nature of the mind.
And again:
All the dharmas do not dwell outside the mind, all there is merely appears
as an optical illusion, [thus,] all those [dharmas] are ones very own mind,
[and what is] other than ones very own mind is nothing at all.
And it is said also:
If one says: the various events exist out of the mind, [accordingly] it is
declared: the dharmas are inexistent [in themselves].
Thus it is explained at length. Here there is a stanza:
Just as the stream of leaves and so on derives from the principal root of a
lotus, similarly the mind, thought unreal, exists as the nature of all the
dharmas.
The meaning of that [stanza] is this: the root of the lotus is not connected with
anything else, it dwells only in the water and, although the root does not thrust
anywhere into that [place where it grows], it has the power to cover, with
leaves and flowers, lakes extraordinarily extensive; similarly, the mind, albeit
its being unreal, exists as the nature of all the external and internal dharmas,
[which are] related to savti. It is also said:
Like the luka [lotus sprout] of a pool, that covers all [the surface],
though it has no roots, [so] the mind-only, that has no root, dwells by
covering [all,] up to the limit of the space.
The meaning of this [stanza] is this: in lakelets and pools, some sprouts called
luka, being mutually connected, bud by covering the [entire surface of the]
pool with yellow flowers, and [nonetheless] the[ir] root does not thrust into
that [place]; similarly, as the mind without root covers as much space [as there
is], in so much [place] the nature of all the dharmas dwells.
ryadeva said:
Moreover, the venerable crya A
Thus, [all] the living creatures without exception [have] the nature of ones
own mind; after having [thus] examined the occurrence of the liberation of
consciousness, I pay homage to whoever [among the] living creatures

123

Author's personal copy

Textual Reuses in the Madhyamakaratnapradpa

547

[whom], not roaming [any longer] within the great ocean of existential
sorrow, is gone to the other side of all the composed [dharmas].
Also, by the masters master in the *Paramrthanyyagti it is said:
The nature of ones mind alone is the seed of all, from where [both]
sasra and nirva emanate; pay homage to the mind, which is
similar to the wish-fulfilling [gem] dispensing the fruits of desire.23
By [these words] the whole sasra and nirva should be understood [as
rooted] in the illusionary mind-only. Thus, those are expressions from the
many great main sources of our [school, which] should be understood as socalled external Madhyamaka [teachings].
2.2 Reflections and Considerations 1: The Title *Paramrthanyyagti
The first question we have to answer now is: Why does our Author refer to
*Paramrthanyyagti instead of mentioning the title DKG? Such a question could be
in its turn divided into a set of two further interrogatives: should we perhaps suppose
that *Paramrthanyyagti is the title of a lost work of Saraha that shared this stanza
with the DKG? Or, should we suppose rather that *Paramrthanyyagti, at the time
the quotation was inserted into the MRP, was another title of the same collection of
songs known to us as DKG? Personally, I think that these suppositionsalthough
plausibleare in themselves unnecessary, and as a working hypothesis I suggest
another way of interpretation. Indeed, if we translate into English don dam par rigs
pai glu, we obtain something like The song of the argument(s) for/concerning the
supreme meaning. Interestingly enough, this definition is akin, in its content, to what
is written in the colophon of the DKG (D, bsTan-gyur, rGyud, Wi, 77a3):
rnal byor gyi dba phyug chen po dpal sa ra ha chen poi al sa nas mdzad
pa do ha mdzod ces bya ba de kho na id rnal du mtshon pa don dam pai yi ge
rdzogs so ||
That is: Here ends the writing (lekha) concerning the supreme meaning [that]
actually exhibits reality, called Dohkoa and composed by the great master of
yoga, the great venerable Saraha. On the basis of the comparison between the
colophon of the DKG and the alleged title *Paramrthanyyagti, a suspect is in
sight according to which here we would be more in presence of an attempted
description of (the main content of) Sarahas work, than of the reference to its real
title (or of a variant of the title). A possible/plausible explanation of don dam par
23
The Tibetan version of this stanza (as we find it in D, bsTan-gyur, rGyud, Wi, 72b5) runs thus: sems id
gcig pu kun gyi sa bon te || ga la srid da mya an das phro ba || dod pai bras bu ster bar byed pa yi || yid
bin nor drai sems la phyag tshal lo ||. The Apabhramsa version is: cittekka saalava bhavanivvo vi

jasma viphuranti | ta cintmaira paamaha icchphala

denti ||. The Sanskrit chy runs as follows:
citta eka sakalabja bhavanirvau api yasya visphurata | tat cintmairpa praamata
icchphala dadti ||. It is worth noting, here, that there are doubts on whether the Apabhramsa were the
(and, more
language into which the DKG was originally written or not. According to some scholars, the DKG
in general, all the other writings attributed to Saraha) could have been compiled by Saraha into Sanskrit. See,
in particular: Guenther (1973, pp. 89), Braitstein (2004, pp. 2021).

123

Author's personal copy

548

K. Del Toso

rigs pai glu could, therefore, be conjectured in the light of the following lexical
suppositions: (a) glu conceptually stands for do ha mdzod [kyi glu] in the DKG
colophon; (b) rigs pa conceptually stands for (de kho na id) rnal du mtshon pa in
the colophon; and (c) obviously don dam pa refers to the same expression in the
colophon.
In order to corroborate this suggestion, another text can be taken here into
account. In the commentary on the DKG called Dohkoahdayrthagtak (Do ha
mdzod kyi si po don gyi glui grel pa), attributed in its colophon to Advaya
is-med A-wa-dhu-t; see: D, bsTan-gyur, rGyud, Zi, 106b3), the DKG
Avadhuti (gN
is referred to as (106b2): Mi g.yo bai chos id kyi don du mgur, which could be
restored into *Nicaladharmatrthagti (The song for/concerning the meaning of
the immovable dharmat).24 Now, if we compare Mi g.yo bai chos id kyi don du
mgur with Don dam par rigs pai glu, once againeven if in a very broad sense
we can find some conceptual proximity between: (a) mgur and glu; (b) don and rigs
pa (both pointing to the argument of the song); (c) mi g.yo bai chos id and don
dam pa. On the basis of all what precedes, the reader may easily infer also the
semantic parallels existing between Mi g.yo bai chos id kyi don du mgur and the
above-mentioned colophon of the DKG. To that, it must be added also that no
recension of the DKG has reached us under the title *Paramrthanyyagti, nor does
any other reference to the *Paramrthanyyagti exist in other works, at least as far
as my knowledge can go.
Now, since obviously *Nicaladharmatrthagti represents nothing but an
explanation of the main purpose of the text commented upon in the Dohkoahdayrthagtak, we can accordingly conclude that also *Paramrthanyyagti
could very well be the paraphrase, which a certain person made use of in order to
fix, explain or communicate the general content or purpose of the DKG, from which
he took the quote.
2.3 Reflections and Considerations 2: Saraha and the Expression bla mai bla
ma
A fundamental aspect for our discussion consists in noticing the presence of the
appellation bla mai bla ma, which could stand for the Sanskrit compound guruguru
(the masters master or the teachers teacher). The problem raised by this
expression depends on the fact that bla mai bla ma is a hapax legomenon.25 To be
more precise, this is the only place in all the MRP in which our Author makesso
to speakvoluntarily recourse to an expression including the term bla ma (guru). In
fact, there are other two occurrences of bla ma in the MRP, but both areas it were
independent from the Author. The first occurrence is, indeed, in a pda of a
quoted stanza, taken from Dharmakrtis Tattvanikara (D, dBu-ma, TSHa, 272b7)
24

I owe this information to the kindness of Joy Vriens.

25

As is well known, the expression bla mai bla ma can convey also the meaning of Sanskrit uttarottara,
and it is occasionally used, along with its synonym phyi mai phyi ma, to indicate a well-known class of
Tantra (whereas bla ma, uttara and bla na med pa, anuttara, refer to the other two classes). In our case,
however, the sense uttarottara is completely out of context.

123

Author's personal copy

Textual Reuses in the Madhyamakaratnapradpa

549

that runs as follows: bla ma bza po bsten byas nas || (Taking shelter in a good
master).26 In this case, our Author is simply following the wording he found in one
of his source texts, and so he could not exempt himself from making recourse to this
term. The second occurrence is in the colophon of the Tibetan translation, as we
have seen above, and does not depend at all on the Author of the MRP, in so far as it
is due only to the translators intervention. We conclude, hence, that the term bla ma
and its derivatives (as bla mai bla ma) do not belong to the usual vocabulary of our
Author, who seems to be generally more inclined to make recourse to other terms,
such as slob dpon (Sanskrit crya), dpal (Sanskrit r), sometimes rje btsun
(Sanskrit bharaka), and so on, when he wants to indicate thinkers by appellation
and not by name.
On the basis of what precedes, therefore, and taken for granted that behind bla
mai bla ma Saraha is foreshadowed, we are led to consider that Saraha should have
lived not so much earlier than our Author, since bla mai bla ma might mean that
Saraha was the Authors masters master. Hence, since we have determined that the
tenth century is roughly the period in which the MRP was composed, it follows that
Sarahas oruit should be accordingly placed more or less in the ninth century. This
supposition appears to be substantiated by another source, namely, Bhavabhattas

Catuphanibandha on Catuphatantra 3.4.11, where DKG 74 is quoted.27

Bhavabhatta was a commentator that lived in the early tenth century CE and may

well have been one of the firsts, together with our Author, to reuse in one of his
writings a passage from a work of Saraha, since before this epoch the name and
writings of Saraha seem to have been completely unknown to other thinkers.
As last remark, if we accept the above-mentioned hypothesis that the MRP is a
text that collects the instructions delivered by a teacher during his lessons on
Madhyamaka, then it is to be noticed that bla mai bla ma can assume at least two
meanings. On the one hand, we may suppose that Saraha was the teachers teacher
of the scholar that delivered the lessons, on the basis of which the MRP was written
(by that very teacher himself as handbook on Madhyamaka, or as collection of notes
taken by one of his students). On the other hand, and considered the abovementioned uniqueness of the term bla ma in the MRP, we could also imagine that
someone inserted in a second time into the MRP the DKG stanza as a note, inspired
by his masters master teachings. In this case Saraha would have been the gurus
guru of, perhaps, a student who followed the lessons delivered by one of his
teachers (allegedly, the one who organized and arranged the textual and doctrinal
material that now constitutes the MRP). For reasons that will be clarified below, I

26

On this text see Lindtner (1980).

27

I owe this information to Peter-Daniel Szanto who kindly appended the complete reference in a
personal communication dated 5th June 2012: fol. 39v of the Vikramasla ms., this particular folio (the
codex is scattered) is in Kaiser Library 134 = NGMPP C 26/4. DKG 74 runs thus: jattu vi paisai jalahi
jalu tattau samarasu hoi | dosaguaru cittu t vaha paivakkhu a koi || (And as much water enters
the [great mass of] water, so much [water] becomes of the same character [of the entire mass]. Your mind
is the mine of faults and virtues; O foolish one!, there is no other adverse opinion). The chy is: yvat
api jale praviati jala tvat samarasa bhavati | doagukara citta tata mrkha pratipaka na
ka api ||.

123

Author's personal copy

550

K. Del Toso

am inclined to think that this second perspective should be taken as more plausible
than the former one.
2.4 Reflections and Considerations 3: Saraha and Madhyamaka
Another singular point is that, when considered in the light of the context into which it is
inserted, the presence of the DKG stanza sounds quite odd. Let us clarify why. First of
all in D, dBu-ma, TSHa, 280a4, at the very beginning of his explanation of the doctrinal
meaning of the two verses taken from the Lakvatrastra, our Author mentions only
ryadeva and Candrakrti as actual authorities in the field of Madhyamaka
Nagarjuna, A
(in this case it is pointless whether the following quotes are taken from the
Madhyamikas or from their tantric namesakes works, since as we have seen above the
ryadeva and Candrakrti were reputed to be identical with their
tantric Nagarjuna, A
Madhyamika predecessors), and no mention is made of Saraha in this preliminary list.
The suspect arises, hence, about the consistence of the presence of the DKG quotation in
this context. Such a suspect is strengthened at least by two textual clues.
In the first place, we have indeed to notice that at the end of the sequence of
citations, we meet with the words (D, dBu-ma, TSHa, 281a23): de bas de dag bdag gi
gu chen po ma po dag bkod pa ni | phyi rol gyi dbu ma yin no es es par byao ||
(Therefore, those are quotations from the many great main sources of our [school,
which] are to be recognized as external Madhyamaka [teachings]). Now, although
Saraha had undoubtedly his merit in the divulgation of the Buddhist message, we
cannot say that he was actually a great main source of Madhyamaka philosophy,
whereas to him is rather attributed the paternity of the Mahamudra viewpoint.
Moreover, it should be also remarked that, if the DKG had really represented a great
source of inspiration for our Author, one would expect to come across several other
quotations from Sarahas writings throughout the MRP (a fact even more expected if
Saraha had been the Authors teachers teacher!), as it abundantly happens indeed in
ryadevas and Candrakrtis texts. However, it is not so, and
the case of Nagarjunas, A
this one is the sole reference we have.
The second textual clue emerges from the structure and content of the last
ryadeva (D, dBu-ma, TSHa,
untraced stanza quoted from an unknown text of A
280b7281a1). Since this stanza has actually the aspect of a final verse of a work or
of a chapter, it is not so much outlandish to suppose that it may originally have been
stylistically employed here in order to give the idea of a somehow conceptual
conclusive statement on the subject dealt with before. This perspective, I suggest,
finds a point in its favor when we observe the disposition of the quotes: after the
ryadeva, then with
Lakvatrastra verses, we meet with Nagarjuna, then with A
Candrakrti (and this is exactly the sequence anticipated in D, dBu-ma, TSHa,
280a4). After Candrakrtis quotes we find an explanation of what precedes
(beginning with autpala and ending with chos thams cad kyi o bor gnas so ||),
which is roughly but evidently based on the teachings that the sixth century
Bhaviveka/Bhavya wrote in his MHK 5.48 (this stanza is indeed repeated almost
verbatim at the beginning of the explanation) and TJ thereon.28 This almost
28

See above, note 22.

123

Author's personal copy

Textual Reuses in the Madhyamakaratnapradpa

551

verbatim citation is not marked with the usual citation marks, as all the other quotes
from the MHK and TJ are not. Probably the explanation grounded on the verse MHK
5.48 serves to bring back the discussion so far developed to the philosophical texts
from which, as we have seen, the MRP takes inspirationthat is to say, the MHK
and TJ. This seems to have been done by our Author in order to expose the meaning
of the quotes, just cited above, in the light of a simple example (the lotus in the
pond), which Bhaviveka/Bhavya himself made recourse to in his works. This
particular example of the lotus in the pond may have been selected by our Author
with the purpose of facilitating his students understanding of the meaning of the
preceding quotes, which are quite technical.
ryadeva and Candrakrti, and the subsequent
After the citations from Nagarjuna, A
ryadeva again,
explanation based on MHK 5.48 and the corresponding TJ, we have A
whose presence here sounds quite strange. The suspect, indeed, arises on why the
ryadeva together with the other excerpts
Author did not quote the last stanza from A
taken from works of the same thinker, but preferred instead to put it after the citation of
Candrakrti and the subsequent explanation based on the MHK and TJ. One persuasive
ryadevas stanza functions as closing quote of the entire
answer could be that the last A
passage because of its above-mentioned stylistic nature, namely the fact that it looks
like a final verse of a work or chapter. If considered otherwise, the presence of this
stanza here would disrupt what seems to be, according to the explicit intentions of our
ryaAuthor, a sort of progressive disposition of the previous quotations (Nagarjuna A
deva Candrakrti). Accordingly, the presence of a citation from the DKG after this
ryadevas verse appears to be a bit jarring. In addition, we find that the excerpt from
last A
Sarahas work is followed in its turn by a short explanation (es gsus pas khor ba da
mya an las das pa thams cad sems id sgyu mar es par byao ||). This specification
sounds in my opinion totally unnecessary, because it is nothing but a simple (perhaps,
too simple) repetition of what the DKG stanza itself already explains very well. It does
not even add any further sense, unlike to what happens few lines before, with the
explanation based on MHK 5.48 and TJ thereon, which is very functional (by virtue of a
clear and simple example) to the comprehension of the previous quotes from
ryadevas and Candrakrtis works. Given these premises, we shall also
Nagarjunas, A
consider that if we erase from the Tibetan text the passage I have put in bold type, the
reading of the excerpt runs more fluently and seems to be more consistent with the aims
expressed by the Author himself, since all the remaining passages would in that case
focus exclusively and solely on teachings contained in works authored by well attested
ryadeva, Candrakrti, and also Bhaviveka/
Madhyamaka personalities (Nagarjuna, A
Bhavya, foreshadowed in the explanation). All this makes the citation from the DKG
have the aspect of a fragment that was not present in the original structure of the MRP.
However, we have to point out that even if Saraha did not begin his career as a
strong supporter of the Madhyamaka viewpoint, it may be possible that when the
MRP was compiled the tendency was taking place to draw Sarahas thought near
Madhyamaka philosophy. This tendency could have been subsequently inherited by
Advayavajra, aka Advaya Avadhuti or Maitrpa (10071085 CE),29 who was (and
29
This is the chronology proposed by Tatz (1987, pp. 696698). On the well-known, though
controversial, bond between Advayavajra and Atsa (who requested a copy of the MRP) see Tatz (1988).

123

Author's personal copy

552

K. Del Toso

his legacy was)30 so deeply involved in the so called Doh literature and in Sarahas
philosophy, up to the point that he wrote two commentaries on the DKG, namely,
the Dohkoapajik (Do ha mdzod kyi dka grel; D, bsTan-gyur, rGyud, Wi,
180b3207a7) and the above-mentioned Dohkoahdayrthagtak. Advayavajra
tried to interweave the Mahamudra practice, whose father is reputed to have been
Saraha, with the Prasangika Madhyamaka perspective, as Mathes (2007, pp. 546
547) clearly points out: It is well known that Maitrpa favours the Madhyamaka
tenet of not abiding in any phenomena (Sarvadharmapratisthanavada) []

Maitrpa informs us that mahmudr is also known as [the practice of] not abiding
(apratihna) in anything. [] Philosophically, this amounts to the Prasangika
attitude of not postulating any position of ones own, and in fact, for Ba ra ba
rGyal mtshan dpal bzan (13101391), the Apratisthana-Madhyamaka is identical

with Prasangika. However, it remains the fact that during the epoch of the

compilation of the MRP, unlike Nagarjuna, Aryadeva and Candrakrti (and

Bhaviveka/Bhavya as well), Saraha could really have been anyone but the author
of well renowned great main source texts (gu chen po ma po dag) of the
Madhyamaka tradition. This leads us to suppose that it had to be quite singular, for a
teacher who was delivering lessons strongly devoted to the exposition of
Madhyamaka philosophy and who was quoting from the great champions works
of that school, to have recourse also to Saraha as an actual and well attested
authority in the field, when nowhere else in the MRP we meet with other references
to Sarahas works. On the contrary, by the person who inserted the DKG quotation
into the MRP, Saraha, though not belonging to the well-known group of
Madhyamaka standard-bearers, was probably taken into a certain consideration as
a good witness to make use of, in order to clarify the concept of cittamtra in a
Madhyamaka perspective.
In the light of what precedes, hence, I think we have enough material for
suspecting that the passage containing the quotation from the DKG (which I have
put in bold type) was probably not due to the very Author of the MRP. Rather, it
should be an interpolation by someone else, allegedly a student, in a text he was
using as handbook during a class, or some similar situation.
2.5 Reflections and Considerations 4: Some Stylistic and Chronological
Annotations (in Form of Conclusion)
A particular aspect that could corroborate the conclusions, pointed out in the
preceding section, is the style used for introducing and closing the quotation of the
DKG, which is really singular in respect of the style of the rest of the excerpt.
Indeed, if we compare it with all the other citations of the entire passage D, dBu-ma,
TSHa, 280a3281a3, edited and translated above (which constitutes in itself a
coherent textual unit), we notice that: (a) this is the only case in which the name of
the author of the source is never mentioned and only here, throughout the entire
MRP, reference is made to the masters master (bla mai bla ma), which is a
wording actually unusual to our Author; (b) this is the only case in which we have
30

See Schaeffer (2005, pp. 6166).

123

Author's personal copy

Textual Reuses in the Madhyamakaratnapradpa

553

the attribution of the quoted excerpt to a certain source (in all the other occasions, in
fact, any mention of titles or other indication that could openly reveal the source
ryadevas versewhich, as we have seen,
texts are absent); (c) apart from the last A
probably serves as concluding citation of what precedes and hence, being
conclusive, does not need any further discussionthis is the only quote that has
a short and almost unnecessary explanation, independent from the main explanation
of the previous citations, based on MHK 5.48 and TJ thereon. Moreover, (d) when
we consider the DKG-related passage in its full length (in bold), we find that it
sounds like a sentence of the kind the master of my master, in the work dealing
with this subject, wrote this and this, which means this and this, which has more
the feature of a personal note, than of a real sastric quotation uttered by a teacher
during a lesson.
All these arguments come, again, in favour of the theory that the citation from the
DKG is an interpolation. Therefore, on the basis of what precedes and if we accept
the hypothesis that the MRP is a sort of manual for beginners, we mayonce again
suspect that probably this interpolation has been embedded into the text by some
student, while he was studying or hearing the lessons of his teacher.31
As regards the chronology, we have already seen that Saraha should have
flourished not after the ninth century, since Bhavabhatta quotes a stanza from the

DKG in a work he compiled in the early tenth century. Now, if Saraha was actually
the gurus guru of the person who inserted the DKG citation into the MRP, this
means that also our citation must have been embedded not after the first half
maybe near the middleof the tenth century (admitting a progressive chronology:
Saraha, Bhavabhatta, our Author). The first half of the tenth century, as we have

pointed out above, is the period in which we can allegedly place the compilation of
the whole MRP. This leads us to conclude that the DKG quotation has been inserted
into the MRP not so much after the first redaction of the text. Such a perspective
could be indirectly substantiated by the fact that the quote from Saraha was already
integrated as part of the main textand not considered as an addition or
interpolationin the MRP manuscript that was used as matrix for the copy
requested by Atisa, and subsequently translated into Tibetan by Vryasimha and

TSHul-khrims-rgyal-ba, at the beginning of the eleventh century CEthat is, less

31
I borrow the inspiration for this idea from a recent study by Helmut Krasser on the TJ. In his paper,
Krasser convincingly points out how certain passages in the TJ, which function as comments upon
previous sentences, look like notes taken for/by students. These notes had probably the purpose of
clarifying the semantic and logical role (subject-dharmin, property-sdhyadharma, logical reason-hetu,
etc.) played by single words/expressions contained in the discussion formerly developed. Interestingly
enough, according to Krasser, also the various occurrences of terms such as slob dpon (Sanskrit crya)
and bstan bcos byed pa (Sanskrit strakra), which are disseminated throughout the TJ and refer to its
author in the third person, (2011b, p. 70) can easily be explained by the fact that in such passages we are
most probably dealing with notes taken by a beginner student. In order to summarize Krassers
hypothesis, we can follow his own words (2011b, p. 62): I do consider the TJ to have been composed by
Bhaviveka and [t]he Sanskrit manuscript upon which the Tibetan translation of the TJ is based certainly
was not written down in this form by Bhaviveka himself, but more probably by a Buddhist student
monk. Being aware that Krassers study focuses on the TJ only, and therefore its conclusions cannot be
extended to other texts and contexts without a thorough analysis, on the basis of the textual clues
previously pointed out here, I nonetheless assume that also in our case we could suppose a similar
explanation, although I would not extend it to the whole text.

123

Author's personal copy

554

K. Del Toso

than a century after the period of the compilation of the MRP. Put it in other terms,
we can say that from at least the end of the tenth century the quote from the DKG
was no longer reputed to be something added to a pre-existing text, allegedly
becauseit can be arguedthe copy job that took place during the previous years
had already made the DKG passage part of the main body of the MRP. This, in its
turn, suggests that the interpolation was introduced some time before the end of the
tenth century, the first halfperhaps some moment near the middleof the same
century being, for the reasons pinpointed so far, a quite likely term.
2.5.1 Let Us Imagine
To sum up, the following scenario can be conceived: Let us imagine a teacher that
delivers lessons on Madhyamaka thought, taking the TJ as his conceptual starting
point; he comments upon that text and develops his reasoning by means of different
sources (and this could have been the reason for Atisas request of a personal copy of
the MRP before his own class on the TJ at the Somapur vihra). Maybe the teacher has
also a copy of the TJ at hand during his explanations, and perhaps for this reason the
passages from that text that constellate hither and thither the MRP are left unmarked,
since it was clear to everybody that they were from the TJ (the discussion developed
above on the expression bdag gis bkod pa rtog ge bar ba could support this point). At
the end of the classlet us continue to imagine, then, either the teacher alone, or the
teacher helped by one or more among his zealous students, whom perhaps have
accurately taken notes during the lessons, arrange the material used for the lessons into
a text, which is now the MRP. Little after, maybe during a similar class, the MRP was
used as a handbook, and another zealous student at a certain point writes down a note,
allegedly occasioned by a reflection of his teacher. This note concerns a work, the
DKG, not yet well-known, since written not much long before by a master that was not
a Madhyamika stricto sensu, but whom at this time someone probably begins to
consider a Madhyamika sui generis. Because he knows very well this source, the
person who inserts the quote does not feel the need to mention him by name, rather he
prefers to point out how he is bond to him: he is his teachers teacher. In order to
remember the text from which the quote is taken, the student adds also a short note
describing its general content: the song concerning the supreme meaning. Then, the
course of time and the copy job of the textwhich also Atisa contributed to, with his
request for a personal manuscripthelped to embed the note into the MRP as if it were
part of the original work.
Acknowledgments I would like to express my sincere gratitude to all the friends and scholars that
helped me, directly or indirectly, to find the path to the present paper. In particular, Per Srensen, PeterDaniel Szanto, Mark Tatz, Aldo Tollini, Joy Vriens and Stefano Zacchetti for their kind and useful
suggestions and advices. A special thanks goes to Elisa Freschi for the meticulous support and
forbearance, and to Grace Johnson for her help in improving my English. It goes without saying, of
course, that all the imperfections that the reader will possibly find in this essay must be attributed only to
its author.

123

Author's personal copy

Textual Reuses in the Madhyamakaratnapradpa

555

References
Primary Sources
Asanga, Mahynastrlakra: Bagchi, Sitansusekhar. 1970. Mahyna Strlakra of Asaga, The
Mithila Institute, Darbhanga.
Bhaviveka, Madhyamakahdayakrik: dBu mai si poi tshig leur byas pa (D, bsTan-gyur, dBu-ma,
DZa, 1a1-40b7).
Bhaviveka, Madhyamakahdayakrik: Lindtner, Christian. 2001. Madhyamakahdayam of Bhavya, The
Adyar Library and Research Center, Chennai.
Bhaviveka, Madhyamakaratnapradpa: dBu ma rin po chei sgron ma (D, bsTan-gyur, dBu-ma, TSHa,
259b3-289a7).
Bhaviveka, Tarkajvl: dBu mai si poi grel ba rTog ge bar ba (D, bsTan-gyur, dBu-ma, DZa, 40b7329b4).
Bhaviveka, Tarkajvl: Eckel, Malcolm D. 2008. Bhviveka and His Buddhist Opponents, Harvard
University Press, Cambridge-London [edition and translation of Tarkajvl, chapters 4 and 5].
Bhaviveka, Tarkajvl: Heitmann, Annette L. 2004. Nektar der Erkenntnis. Buddhistische Philosophie des
6 Jh.: Bhavyas Tarkajvl I-III, 26, Shaker Verlag, Aachen.
lCan-skya Rol-pai-rdo-rje, Grub pai mthai rnam par bag pa gsal bar bad pa thub bstan lhun poi
mdzes rgyan: - No name. 1983. A monumental survey of the Buddhist Philosophical Systems by the
Second Lca-skya Rol-pai-rdo-rje Reproduced from a Set of Clear Impressions from the Se-ra Smad
Grwa-tsha Blocks, Jayyed Press, Ballimaran (Delhi).
Lakvatrastra: Vaidya, Parasurama L. 1963. Saddharmalakvatrastram, The Mithila Institute,
Darbhanga.
Majurnmasagti: Davidson, Ronald M. 1981. The Litany of Names of Manjusr. Mlanges Chinois
et Bouddhiques [Tantric and Taoist Studies in honour of R.A. Stein, vol. 1], 20, 1-69.
Majurnmasagti: Wayman, Alex. 1999. Chanting the Names of Majur. The Majur-NmaSagti. Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi.
Nagarjuna, Bhavasakrntiparikhat: Aiyaswami Sastri, Natesa. 1938. Bhvasakranti Stra and
Ngrjunas Bhvasakranti stra with the Commentary of Maitreyantha, Adyar Library, Adyar
(Chennai).
Nagarjuna, Pacakrama: Isaacson, Harunaga. 2007. Nagarjunas Pacakrama. On-line edition based on
Toru Tomabechi, Etude du Pacakrama: introduction et traduction annote, The`se de doctorat,
Faculte des Lettres, Universite de Lausanne 2006, with a few corrections by Harunaga Isaacson:
http://tantric-studies.org/e-texts/bauddha/PaKra.txt (accessed 05 September 2011).
Nagarjuna, Pacakrama: Mimaki, Katsumi and Toru Tomabechi. 1994. Pacakrama: Sanskrit and
Tibetan Texts Critically Edited with Verse Index and Facsimile Edition of the Sanskrit Manuscripts,
Centre for East Asian Cultural Studies for UNESCO, Tokyo.
Nagarjuna, Praidhnaviik: No name. 1999. sMon lam ni su pa, in bKa ma in tu rgyas pa (vol. 1),
Kah thog mkhan po jam dbyans, Chendu. 147-150.
Saraha, Dohkoagti: Bhayani, Harivallabh, C. 1997. Doh-gti-koa of Saraha-pda and Cary-gtikoa. Restored Text, Sanskrit Chy and Translation. Prakrit Text Society, Ahmedabad.
Saraha, Dohkoagti: Jackson, Roger R. 2004. Tantric Treasures. Three collections of Mystical Verses
from Buddhist India, Oxford University Press, New York.
Subhitasagraha: Bendall, Cecil. 1903. Subhita-Sagraha. An Anthology of Extracts from Buddhist
Works Compiled by an Unknown Author, to Illustrate the Doctrine of Scholastic and of Mystic
(Tantrik) Buddhism. Le Muson 4: 375-402.
Vajracchedik: Vaidya, Parasurama L. 1961. Mahyna-stra-sagraha (part 1), The Mithila Institute,
Darbhanga.
Vasubandhu, Abhidharmakoabhya: Sastr, Dwarikadas. 1998. The Abhidharmakosa and Bhasya of

crya Vasubandhu with Sphutartha Commentary of crya Yaomittra (vol. 2), Bauddha Bharati,

Varanasi.

123

Author's personal copy

556

K. Del Toso

Secondary Sources
Beresford, B. C. (1979). ryaryas aspiration and a meditation on compassion. Library of Tibetan
Works and Archives: Dharamsala.
Braitstein, L. E. (2004). Sarahas adamantine songs: Texts, contexts, translations and traditions of the
Great Seal. A thesis submitted to McGill University in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the
degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Faculty of Religious Studies, McGill University, Montreal
[Introduction only].
Chattopadhyaya, A. (1996). Ata and Tibet. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass [reprint].
Eckel, M. D (1992). To see the Buddha. A philosopher's quest for the meaning of emptiness. Princeton,
US: Princeton University Press.
Ejima Yasunori . (1980). Madhyamakaratnapradpa ni tsuite Madhyamakaratnapradpa
[On the Madhyamakaratnapradpa], Indogaku Bukkygaku Kenky [Journal
of Indian and Buddhist Studies], 28(2), 951945.
Folkert, K. W. (1993). In J. E. Cort (Ed.), Scripture and community. Collected essays on the Jains. Atlanta:
Scholar Press.
Gray, D. B. (2007). The Cakrasamvara Tantra: Its history, interpretation and practice in India and Tibet.
Religion Compass, 1(6), 695710.
Guenther, H. V. (1973). The royal song of Saraha. A study in the history of Buddhist thought. Berkeley:
Shambala Publications.
Krasser, H. (2011a). Bhaviveka, Dharmakrti and Kumarila. In T. Funayama (Ed.), Chgoku-Indo
syky-shi tokuni bukky-shi ni okeru syomotsu no ryts-denpa to jinbutsu-id no chiiki-tokusei
[Regional characteristics of text dissemination and relocation of people in the history of Chinese and Indian
religions, with special reference to Buddhism (pp. 193242)] (A Report of Grant-in-Aid for Scientific
Research (B): Project Number 19320010. March, 2011).
Krasser, H. (2011b). How to teach a Buddhist Monk to refute the outsiders. Text-critical remarks on some
works by Bhaviveka. Dhi, 51, 4976.
Lindtner, C. (1980). Apropos Dharmakrti: Two new works and a new date. Acta Orientalia, 41, 2737.
Lindtner, C. (1981). Atsas introduction to the two truths and its sources. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 9,
161214.
Lindtner, C. (1982). Adversaria Buddhica. Wiener Zeitschrift fr die Kunde Sdasiens, 26, 167194.
Lindtner, C. (1984). On Bhavyas Madhyamakaratnapradpa. Indologica Taurinensia, 12, 163184.
Lindtner, C. (1986a). Bhavyas critique of Yogacara in the Madhyamakaratnapradpa, Chapter IV. In B.
K. Matilal & R. D. Evans (Eds.), Buddhist logic and epistemology. Studies in the Buddhist analysis of
inference and language (pp. 239263). Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
Lindtner, C. (1986b). Materials for the study of Bhavya. In E. Kahrs (Ed.), Kalyamitrrgaam. Essays
in honour of Nils Simonsson (pp. 179202). Oslo: Norwegian University Press, The Institute for
Comparative Research in Human Culture.
Mathes, K.-D. (2007). Can stra mahmudr be justified on the basis of Maitrpas Apratisthanavada? In
dedicated to
B. Kellner, H. Krasser, H. Lasic, M. T. Much, H. Tauscher (Eds.), Pramanakrti. Papers

Ernst Steinkellner on the occasion of his 70th birthday (Part 2, Wiener Studien
zur Tibetologie und
Buddhismuskunde 70.2, pp. 545566), Wien: Arbeitskreis fur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde.
Miyazaki Izumi . (2006). Chkan-h-t-ron ni mirareru bdag gis bkod pa rTog ge bar ba ni
tsuite bdag gis bkod pa rTog ge bar ba [On bdag gis
bkod pa rTog ge bar ba in the Madhyamakaratnapradpa]. Indogaku Bukkygaku Kenky
[Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies], 55(1), 453448.
Miyazaki, I. (2007). Atisa (Dpamkarasrjnana)His philosophy, practice and its sources. The Memoirs

of the Toyo Bunko, 65, 6189.

Nakamura, H. (1987). Indian Buddhism. A survey with bibliographical notes. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Potter, K. H. (2003). Encyclopedia of Indian philosophies: Buddhist philosophy from 350 to 600 A.D.
(Vol. IX). Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Schaeffer, K. R. (2005). Dreaming the great Brahmin. Tibetan traditions of the Buddhist poet-saint
Saraha. New York: Oxford University Press.
Seyfort Ruegg, D. (1981). The literature of the Madhyamaka school of philosophy in India. Wiesbaden:
Otto Harrassowitz.

123

Author's personal copy

Textual Reuses in the Madhyamakaratnapradpa

557

Seyfort Ruegg, D. (1990). On the authorship of some works ascribed to Bhaviveka/Bhavya. In D. S.

Ruegg & L. Schmithausen (Eds.), Panels of the VIIth world Sanskrit conference (Vol. II, pp. 5971),
Earliest Buddhism and Madhyamaka. Leiden: Brill.
Szanto, P.-D. (2012). Selected chapters from the Catuphatantra (1/2): Introductory study with the
annotated translation of selected chapters. DPhil Thesis, University of Oxford (unpublished).
Tatz, M. (1987). The life of the Siddha-Philosopher Maitrgupta. Journal of the American Oriental
Society, 107(4), 695711.
Tatz, M. (1988). Maitr-pa and Atsa. Tibetan Studies, 42, 474481.
Van Schaik, S., & Doney, L. (2007). The prayer, the priest and the Tsenpo: An early Buddhist narrative
from Dunhuang. Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, 30(12), 175217.
Vose, K. A. (2009). Resurrecting Candrakrti. Disputes in the Tibetan creation of Prsagika. Somerville,
MA: Wisdom Publications.
Wayman, A. (1998). Study of the Vairocanbhisabodhitantra. In A. Wayman & R. Tajima (Eds.), The
enlightenment of Vairocana (pp. 1205). Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Wedemeyer, C. K. (2007). ryadevas lamp that integrates the practices (Caryamelapakapradpa): The
gradual path of Vajrayna Buddhism according to the esoteric community noble tradition. New
York: Columbia University Press [Introduction only].
Wedemeyer, C. K. (2010). Cette fraude littraire ne peut tromper personne: Jo nang Taranatha and the
history of the gSang dus phags lugs. In M. Kark & H. Lasic (Eds.), Studies in the philosophy and
history of Tibet (Proceeding of the eleventh seminar of the International Association for Tibetan
Studies, Konigswinter 2006, pp. 145174). Andiast: International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist
Studies.
Wright, R. (2010). The Guhyasamaja Pindikrta-sadhana and its context. Prepared as part of the MA Study
African

of Religions, School of Oriental and

Studies, University of London, London.

123