Introduction to the Middle Way

Chandrakirtis Madhyamakavatara With Commentary by Khenchen Namdrol Motivation Please listen to this explanation with the supreme motivation of bodhichitta, wishing to attain perfect awakening for the sake of all sentient beings. Introduction to the Text The Collection of Middle Way Reasoning The great master Arya Nagarjuna was prophesied by the uddha himself in the Root Tantra of Manjushri (Manjushrimula Tantra) ! "our hundred years after #, The Tathagata, have passed away, A monk called Naga will appear $ho will benefit my teachings. %eaching the bhumi of Perfect &oy And living for six hundred years, This great being will perfect The science of the great peacock,'i( And will understand the meaning of various shastras And the meaning of the absence of reality. $hen he leaves behind his mortal body, )e will be reborn in *ukhavati. And ultimately, he will certainly gain The perfect fruit of buddhahood itself. )e was also prophesied in the Great Cloud Sutra (Mahamegha-sutra) and the Sutra of the Great Drum (Mahabherihara a!ari"arta-sutra) . Arya Nagarjuna+s two main treatises,the so-called .body+ treatises are Root #erses on the Middle Way (Mulamadhyama a ari a) and Si$ty #erses on Reasoning. The text we are concerned with here is the %ntroduction to the Middle Way or Madhyama a"atara by /handrakirti, which is a commentary on the meaning of the Root #erses. 0enerally speaking, Nagarjuna composed treatises on all five sciences. Those on the science of the inner meaning, i.e., the uddhadharma, primarily teach the aspects of view and conduct. #n describing the view and the conduct of the 1harma, Nagarjuna employs both scriptural 2uotations and reasoning. The treatise that mostly uses 2uotations from the scriptures is the Com!endium of Sutras (Sutrasamuccaya). #t draws from the sutras in order to explain and clarify the aspects of view and conduct. There are three collections that mainly employ reasoning in order to clarify the view and the conduct of the buddhist teachings. They are the /ollection of %easoning, the /ollection of Praises and the /ollection of Advice. The /ollection of Praises relates mainly to the final turning of the $heel of 1harma. #t includes eulogies in praise of the ground, the path and the fruition.

The /ollection of Advice relates mainly to the first turning. #t includes the advice to the king known as the &recious Garland'ii( as well as the 'etter to a (riend.'iii( According to some past scholars the /ollection of %easoning was originally referred to simply as .the collection+ or .the teachings+ of logical reasoning and the number of texts it contained was not specified. 3thers, such as 4abja /hangchub Ts5ndr6 'iv( and the omniscient 0owo %abjampa,'v( insist that the /ollection of %easoning contains a specific number of texts. They differ in the texts they identify7 yet they agree on the principle that the number of texts in the collection is fixed. 4abja /hangchub Ts5ndr6 said that the /ollection of %easoning contains six texts. Among these, he said, two texts are likened to the body, and this is clear because it is stated so in /handrakirti+s commentary to Si$ty #erses on Reasoning. The two body-like texts are Root #erses on the Middle Way and Si$ty #erses on Reasoning. #n addition, 4abja /hangchub Ts5ndr6 goes on, there are four branch or limb-like treatises. )e claims that this derives from /handrakirti+s Commentary to the Si$ty #erses on Reasoning, where it is explained how these four texts are elaborations upon the two fundamental treatises. )owever, this text only describes Refutation of )bjections'vi( and Se"enty Stan*as on +m!tiness'vii( as extensions of the main two treatises. #t does not mention Crushing to (ine &o,der'viii( or Con"entional +$istence,'ix( which are the other texts 4abja /hangchub Ts5ndr6 includes among the collection. 0orampa disagrees with 4abja /hangchub Ts5ndr6 because of this very point. #t is clear, he says, that Refutation of )bjections and Se"enty #erses on +m!tiness are branch-like treatises, because the way in which they are extensions of the main two treatises is clearly explained. As for Crushing to (ine &o,der, 0orampa believes that it too may be counted as a branch-like treatise, and in this it seems he is in agreement with many past scholars. )e also agrees that the main topic of Crushing to (ine &o,der is the refutation of the socalled .sixteen categories of words and meaning 8*kt. !adartha9 of the dialecticians.+ As it says in the text itself! $ith the pride of intellectual knowledge, They seek to engage in debate. #n order that they might relin2uish such pride, # shall explain the Crushing to (ine &o,der.'x( *o, Crushing to a (ine &o,der is included among the branch-like treatises. 4abja /hangchub Ts5ndr6 includes Con"entional +$istence among the branch-like treatises. This is because the teachings of the Root #erses of the Middle Way on how all phenomena are naturally beyond arising and empty might cause one to doubt whether all phenomena are non-existent even at the conventional level, rather like the horns of a rabbit or the horns of a donkey. Therefore Con"entional +$istence was taught, it is said, in order to dispel this misunderstanding, and to show how at the conventional level all phenomena are illusory and dream-like. *o 4abja /hangchub Ts5ndr6 claims that there are six texts in the /ollection of %easoning, and that one of them is Con"entional +$istence. The 3mniscient :ongchenpa also states that there are six texts in the /ollection of %easoning, the sixth being Con"entional +$istence. 0orampa disputes the inclusion of Con"entional +$istence. #n the first place, he objects to this on the grounds that it was not translated into Tibetan. )e goes on to say that it probably did not exist even in #ndia because /handrakirti fails to mention it at the end of his Clear Words'xi( commentary upon the Root #erses on the Middle Way when listing all

the 4adhyamaka texts that he had studied. #f Con"entional +$istence really was the work of Nagarjuna, 0orampa argues, then /handrakirti would certainly have studied it. This is the relevant section of Clear Words! $hat # have shown here is based on my study of the Com!endium of Sutras, the -d"ice of the &recious Garland and %n &raise of the -uthentic, and also, for a long time and with great effort, the .ari as from the treatise of Arya 'Nagarjuna(, and the Si$ty #erses on Reasoning, Crushing to (ine &o,der and Se"enty Stan*as on +m!tiness as well as Refutation of )bjections too. # also looked into the '(our/ 0undred #erses and so on, and many profound sutras, as well as the commentary composed by uddhapalita and that which was well explained by havaviveka,all these texts one after another,and # have also included what # have discovered through my own investigations, bringing everything together in order to delight all those with intelligence. 'xii( #t is because it is not among the works listed here that 0orampa felt Con"entional +$istence was unknown in #ndia. As stated earlier, 4abja /hangchub Ts5ndr6 was amongst those earlier scholars who believed that Con"entional +$istence should be included in the /ollection of %easoning. 4abja /hangchub Ts5ndr6+s main teacher was :otsawa Patsab Nyima 1rakpa 'xiii( who actually translated the %ntroduction to the Middle Way from *anskrit into Tibetan, as it says clearly in the translator+s colophon at the end of the text! by the #ndian abbot Tilaka ;alasha and the Tibetan translator, the monk Patsab Nyima 1rak<. And, what is more, 4abja /hangchub Ts5ndr6 was not just an average student7 he was one of the four great disciples of Patsab Nyima 1rakpa, the so-called .four sons+ of Patsab , i.e., 0eshe Putowa from /entral Tibet, *okpa =eshe &ungne from /hangthang, and Tsangpa *arb5 and 4abja /hangchub Ts5ndr6 from Tsang. 'xiv( *o it seems strange that one of the principal students of this great Tibetan translator who worked in collaboration with an #ndian scholar to translate /handrakirti+s text would consider a non-existent text to exist, and, not only that, but also for it to be the work of Nagarjuna, and to be included within his /ollection of %easoning. #f there were a reason to doubt the existence of the text in #ndia or its authorship, 4abja /hangchub Ts5ndr6 would surely have been aware of it. There is no obvious reason why he would endorse a spurious text, or its subject matter, or why he might wish to see it included in the /ollection of %easoning. :otsawa Patsab Nyima 1rakpa was one of the great translators and 4abja /hangchub Ts5ndr6 was his direct disciple. They would certainly have known whether or not there was a text by Arya Nagarjuna called Con"entional +$istence. And they would certainly not have attributed existence to such a text if there were no grounds for doing so. This must be our conclusion too, if we investigate the matter. )ence, 0yalse *henpen Tay>, the 3mniscient :ongchenpa and others include Con"entional +$istence in the /ollection of %easoning and the reasons for its exclusion provided by 0orampa may be considered insufficient. The Treasury of Secret Mantra Scri!ture'xv( is a text belonging to the category of terma related to the cycle of 1eshek 16pa, and it includes statements by ?imalamitra, 0uru %inpoche, Namkh> Nyingpo and ?airotsana. This text also refers to a six-fold /ollection of %easoning, but it gives the sixth text as 1eyond -ll (ear.'xvi( According to #ndian scholars and the earlier Tibetan commentators 1eyond -ll (ear is a work of Arya Nagarjuna. Nevertheless, it is a commentary on the Root #erses on the Middle Way, and therefore differs from the other body-lilke or branch-like treatises of the collection. All the same, earlier scholars considered it an .auto-commentary+ to the Root #erses composed by Nagarjuna himself. 4ore recently however, 0orampa and others have expressed doubts about this, primarily because the text includes a citation from Aryadeva+s (our 0undred

#erses.'xvii( Aryadeva was Nagarjuna+s pupil, and it seems unlikely that in commenting upon a text that he himself had written, Nagarjuna would 2uote his own student. *o there are those who doubt the attribution of 1eyond -ll (ear to Nagarjuna. 0orampa and others who have 2uestioned its attribution to Nagarjuna have also expressed further misgivings about 1eyond -ll (ear. $hy, they ask, would /handrakirti have composed his Clear Words commentary to the Root #erses if Nagarjuna himself had already composed an auto-commentary@ And, furthermore, why is it that there are no 2uotations drawn from 1eyond -ll (ear in the writings of uddhapalita@ The answer can only be, 0orampa and the others claim, that the text in 2uestion is not in fact a genuine work of Nagarjuna. $hether or not Nagarjuna wrote 1eyond -ll (ear, it is perhaps best not to include it in the /ollection of %easoning. #t is preferable to classify it as a commentary on the Root #erses. #f all the commentaries composed by Nagarjuna were to be included in the /ollection of %easoning we would have to include his commentary on Refutation of )bjections and other texts and we might end up with something more like an eight-fold collectionA There are eight commentaries on the Root #erses in the Tengyur, one of which is 1eyond -ll (ear. There are also those by 1evasharma, 0unamati, 0unashri, *thiramati, uddhapalita, havaviveka and /handrakirti. Although there is some controversy over whether or not 1eyond -ll (ear is an auto-commentary 8i.e. by Nagarjuna himself9, the fact that it is a commentary is beyond dispute. And according to the Treasury of Secret Mantra 2uotations it is one of the six treatises in the /ollection of %easoning. According to 0orampa, there are only five texts in the /ollection of %easoning. 'xviii( Among these, the two likened to the body are Root #erses on the Middle Way and Si$ty #erses on Reasoning. Although they are both body-like texts we can draw a distinction between the two. *ome past scholars explained that the Root #erses teach a freedom from the eight extremes of elaboration, i.e., ceasing and arising, non-existence and eternalism, coming and going, multiplicity and singularity, whereas the Si$ty #erses on Reasoning teaches a freedom from four extremes, i.e., arising, ceasing, existence and non-existence. 3thers have explained that the Root #erses refute the assertions of true existence made by both uddhist proponents of true entities and non- uddhist tirthika philosophers7 whereas the Si$ty #erses on Reasoning refutes only the assertions of true existence made by proponents of entities within the uddhist tradition. 4abja /hangchub Ts5ndr6 explained the difference between the two texts in the following way. )e said that the Root #erses teaches emptiness of inherent nature by means of elimination and negation7 whereas the Si$ty #erses on Reasoning teaches emptiness of inherent nature by exclusively establishing the illusory nature of the conventional. #n any case, these are the two .body-like treatises+ and the so-called .branch-like treatises+ extend from these. According to 0orampa, the first .branch-like treatise+ is the .treatise refuting the views imputed by others+. The .views imputed by others+ are the sixteen categories of words and meanings of the dialecticians, and the treatise that refutes these is Crushing to (ine &o,der. According to our own tradition, once again the two body-like treatises are the Root #erses on the Middle Way and the Si$ty #erses on Reasoning. Then, among the branch-like treatises, Refutation of )bjections is said to be an expansion of the first section of the Root #erses on .Bxamining /onditions+. The Root #erses teaches how there can be no arising of something from itself or from something other than itself, and therefore brings

certainty in the non-arising of all phenomena. The proponents of entities respond by saying that if this were the case, then even 4adhyamika reasoning is without true nature. And since this reasoning is without true nature then it is not able to refute the claims made in favour of true existence. #t is therefore unreasonable, they say, to claim that all phenomena are ultimately beyond arising, or beyond the two extremes of eternalism and nihilism. #t is said that Refutation of )bjections was composed in order to refute such arguments. #n the text, it is stated that from the point of view of reality itself, the 4adhyamikas have nothing to refute, and have no reasoning by which they might do so. "rom the conventional perspective however, even though reasoning is not truly existent, the 4adhyamikas are still able to refute the assertions made by the proponents of entities, rather like a magically-created, illusory army warding off attack. "or example, in the first verse of the Refutation of )bjections, it is said!'xix( #f all entities are non-existent y their very nature, then =our words also lack reality And can not refute true existence.C #n his response, Nagarjuna makes such statements as! 'xx( *ince there is nothing whatsoever to refute # do not refute anything. Therefore when you say that # refute That itself is incorrect. Se"enty Stan*as on +m!tiness is an expansion of the section of the Root #erses on .Bxamining the /onditioned+, which includes a discussion of how arising, dwelling and ceasing cannot be established. The proponents of true entities respond to this by pointing out that in many profound sutras taught by the uddha, it is stated that conditioned phenomena are subject to arising, dwelling and ceasing. The 4adhyamika replies that this is true only from the mistaken viewpoint of the conventional. This is the essence of the discussion found in the Se"enty Stan*as on +m!tiness. *o Refutation of )bjections and Se"enty Stan*as on +m!tiness are direct extensions from the body-like treatises. 0orampa, as it was said earlier, identifies only five texts in the /ollection of %easoning. The omniscient :ongchenpa identifies six texts, and his list accords with that of 4abja /hangchub Ts5ndr6. Among the New Translation schools, the 0elugpas claim that the &recious Garland is the sixth text in the collection. 0orampa opposed this by pointing out that the &recious Garland is classified as advice, and therefore belongs to the /ollection of Advice, not the /ollection of %easoning. #n /handrakirti+s Clear Words, for instance, which # 2uoted earlier, it is referred to as Dthe -d"ice of the &recious Garland.C #n any case, whether five or six texts are included, this is what is known as Arya Nagarjuna+s /ollection of %easoning.

'i( i.e., alchemy. 'ii( Ratna"ali 8Tib. rin chen !hreng ba9 see Nagarjuna, 1uddhist -d"ice for 'i"ing and 'iberation3 4agarjuna5s &recious Garland, trans. &effrey )opkins, #thaca! *now :ion, EFFG. 'iii( Suhrle ha 8Tib. s!ring yig9, see Nagarjuna+s 'etter to a (riend ,ith Commentary by .yabje .angyur Rin!oche, trans. Padmakara Translation 0roup, #thaca! *now :ion, HIIJ. 'iv( rma bya byang chub brtson .grus 8@-EEGK9. 'v( go ram pa bsod nams seng ge, the famous *akyapa scholar 8ELHF-ELGF9. 'vi( #igraha"ya-"artani- ari a (Tib6 rtsod !a b*log !a5i le5ur byas !a). *ee The Dialectical Method of 4agarjuna, trans. ;. hattacharya, 1elhi! 4otilal anarsidass, EFMG. 'vii( Shunyata-sa!tati ari a 8Tib. stong !a nyid bdun cu !a5i tshig le5ur byas !a9. *ee 4agarjuna5s Se"enty

Stan*as3 - 1uddhist &sychology of +m!tiness, 1avid %oss ;omito, *now :ion, EFFF 'viii( #aidalya-sutra 8Tib. *hib mo rnam !ar 7thag !a9 'ix( #ya"aharasiddhi 8Tib. tha snyad grub !a9 'x( rtog ge shes pa+i nga rgyal gyisNN gang Ohig rtsod par mngon .dod paNN de yi nga rgyal spang ba+i phyirNN Ohib mo rnam .thag bshad par byaNN 'xi( &rasanna!ada 8Tib. tshig gsal)8 see 'ucid +$!osition of the Middle Way, trans. 4. *prung, :ondon! %outledge P ;egan Paul, EFMF. 'xii( mdo sde kun las btus dang gtam bya rin chen phreng dang yang dag bstod pa dangN Qbad pas shin tu yun ring Qphags paQi bstan bcos las bstan tsig ler byas de dangN rigs pa drug cu Ohes bya rnam par Qthag bcas stong nyid bdun cu pa de dangN gang yang rtsod pa rnam par bOlog pa bkod pa de dag kyang ni mthong gyur OhingN brgya pa la sogs de dag dang ni de bOhin mdo sde Oab mo rnam mang dangN sangs rgyas bskyangs kyis mdOad paQi Qgrel pa mthong nas legs ldan byed kyis legs bshad gangN gcig nas gcig tu brgyud las Qongs dang bdag gis rnam par phye las rnyed pa gangN de dag bsdams te blo chen ldan rnams mgu bar bya phyir yang dag bstan pa yinNN 'xiii( pa tshab nyi ma grags pa 8EIKK-EELK@9. 'xiv( There so-called ."our *ons of Patsab+ are referred to in a verse of Taktsang :otsawa! As regards the 0reat 4iddle $ay, the supreme tradition of Nagarjuna, The excellent clarifications made by /handra'kirti(, translated by Nyima '1rak(, /ame down to the four sons<. There are different ways of listing them. According to one, they were! 8E9 0angpa *he+u, who was learned in the words, 8H9 Tsangpa 1regur 8gtsang pa .bre sgurNskur9, who was learned in the meaning, 8R9 4abja /hangchub Ts5ndr6, who was learned in both words and meaning, and 8L9 *hangthang *akpa =eshe &ungne, who was learned in neither words nor meaning. *hakya /hokden names Tsangpa *arb5 8gtsang pa sar sbos9 as the son who was learned in the words and 1aryulwa %inchen 1rak as the son learned in the meaning. *ee Tashi Tsering, Madhyama a"atara of -carya Candra irti, *arnath! /entral #nstitute of )igher Tibetan *tudies, HIIK, p. LG and *hakya /hokden, Three Te$ts on Madhyama a, trans. ;omarovski #aroslav, 1haramsala! :ibrary of Tibetan $orks and Archives, HIIH. p. HR. 'xv( gsang sngags lung gi bang mdOod 'xvi( Mulamadhyama a"rittya utobhaya 8Tib. dbu ma rtsa ba5i 7grel !a ga las 7jigs med9 'xvii( Chatuhshata a-shastri a 8Tib. b*hi brgya !a9 *ee *onam, %. 8trans.9 9ogic Deeds of 1odhisatt"as8 Gyel-tsa! on -ryade"a5s (our 0undred, *now :ion, EFFL. 'xviii( This is also the assertion of ;henpo Namdrol+s teacher, ;henpo Ts5ndr6. *ee Preliminaries to the Bxplanation of the PrajSaparamita 'xix( gal te dngos po thams cad kyiNN rang bOhin kun la yod min naNN khyod kyi tsig kyang rang bOhin medNN rang bOhin bOlog par mi nus soNN 'xx( ?erse JL! dgag bya ci yang med pas naNN nga ni ci yang mi Qgog goNN de phyir Qgog pa byed do OhesNN yang dag min te khyod kyis smrasNN