मूलमध्यमककारिका (आचार्य नागार्जुन - चन्द्रकीर्ति प्रणीत प्रसन्नपदा व्याख्या सहित)

बौद्ध-संस्कृत-ग्रन्थावली - १०
Buddhist Sanskrit Texts - No. 10

[Left Page]

Buddhist Sanskrit Texts – No. 10
MADHYAMAKAŚĀSTRA
OF
NĀGĀRJUNA
WITH THE COMMENTARY :
PRASANNAPADĀ BY CANDRAKĪRTI
Edited by
Dr. P. L. VAIDYA
Published by
THE MITHILA INSTITUTE
OF
POST-GRADUATE STUDIES AND RESEARCH
IN SANSKRIT LEARNING
DARBHANGA
1960

[Right Page]

बौद्ध-संस्कृत-ग्रन्थावली – १०
नागार्जुनीयं
मध्यमकशास्त्रम् ।
आचार्यचन्द्रकीर्तिविरचितया प्रसन्नपदाख्यव्याख्यया संवलितम् ।
वैद्योपाह्वश्रीपरशुरामशर्मणा
कारिकासूची-ग्रन्थादिसूची-टिप्पण्यादिभिः संस्कृतम् ।
दरभङ्गास्थ-
मिथिलाविद्यापीठेन प्रकाशितम् ।
शकाब्दः १८८१    संवत् २०१६    ऐश्वीयाब्दः १९६०

Copies of this Volume can be had from your usual Bookseller
or from The Director, Mithila Institute, Darbhanga, on pre-
payment of Rs. 10.00 for Ordinary edition and Rs. 12.50 for
Library edition either in cash, Postal Order or M. O.
The entire cost of preparation and production of this Volume has been met
out of a subvention kindly placed at the disposal of the Institute
jointly by the Government of India, Ministry of Scientific Research
and Cultural Affairs and by the State of Bihar
Printed by S. B. DHAWALE, at KARNATAK PRINTING PRESS, Karnatak House,
Chira Bazar, Bombay 2, and Published by Dr. P. L. VAIDYA, for the Director
MITHILA INSTITUTE, Darbhanga, Bihar.
अनुक्रमणिका
Introduction in English and Hindi ... VII
Abbreviations ... xxxi
१ प्रत्ययपरीक्षा ... ... १
२ गतागतपरीक्षा ... ... ३३
३ चक्षुरादीन्द्रियपरीक्षा ... ... ४३
४ स्कन्धपरीक्षा ... ... ४८
५ धातुपरीक्षा ... ... ५१
६ रागरक्तपरीक्षा ... ... ५५
७ संस्कृतपरीक्षा ... ... ५९
८ कर्मकारकपरीक्षा ... ... ७२
९ पूर्वपरीक्षा ... ... ८१
१० अग्नीन्धनपरीक्षा ... ... ८६
११ पूर्वापरकोटिपरीक्षा ... ... ९५
१२ दुःखपरीक्षा ... ... १००
१३ संस्कारपरीक्षा ... ... १०४
१४ संसर्गपरीक्षा ... ... ११०
१५ स्वभावपरीक्षा ... ... ११४
१६ बन्धमोक्षपरीक्षा ... ... १२३
१७ कर्मफलपरीक्षा ... ... १३२
१८ आत्मपरीक्षा ... ... १४५
१९ कालपरीक्षा ... ... १६३
२० सामग्रीपरीक्षा ... ... १६८
२१ संभवविभवपरीक्षा ... ... १७८
२२ तथागतपरीक्षा ... ... १८७
२३ विपर्यासपरीक्षा ... ... १९७
२४ आर्यसत्यपरीक्षा ... ... २०९
२५ निर्वाणपरीक्षा ... ... २२७
२६ द्वादशाङ्गपरीक्षा ... ... २३८
२७ दृष्टिपरीक्षा ... ... २४९
प्रथमं परिशिष्टम् — कारिकासूची ... २६१
द्वितीयं परिशिष्टम् — उद्धृतपद्यांशसूची ... २६७
तृतीयं परिशिष्टम् — उद्धृतगद्यांशसूची ... २७२
चतुर्थं परिशिष्टम् — ग्रन्थ-ग्रन्थकृन्नामसूची ... २७४
पञ्चमं परिशिष्टम् — विग्रहव्यावर्तनी सटीका ... २७७
षष्ठं परिशिष्टम् — रत्नावली ... २९६
CRITICAL NOTES ... 311

Śūnyavada
BY
Dr. S. Bagchi
'Chronological Background
Though Nāgārjuna is probably the first systematizer of
Śūnyavāda which we call the Mādhyamikadarśana, it is perfectly
legitimate to presume that this doctrine was current among the
Mahāyāna Buddhists for a long time before his advent. In the
Buddhist Āgamas, viz. the Prajñāpāramitā, the Laṅkāvatārasūtra
and others, the doctrine of Śūnyatā has been broached and treated
of in a laconic and desultory manner. But the Āgama is written in
a diffuse style of the Purāṇas in which philosophical matters are
entangled with religious dogmas. It is difficult to draw a definite
conclusion as to whether it is the doctrine of Śūnyavāda or Vijñāna-
vāda that is preached in these works. It is an intriguing matter
that both the exponents of Vijñānavāda and Śūnyavāda have drawn
upon these source books in confirmation of their philosophical con-
clusions. The Laṅkāvatāra contains long passages which lend coun-
tenence to the idealistic view that consciousness is the ultimate
reality. On the other hand there are passages in it which have
definite link with Śūnyavāda—Absolute Negativism. These Āgamas
play the same role as the Upaniṣads in the evolution of the schools
of the Vedānta philosophy with their uncompromising rivalry.
It is also presumable that Nāgārjuna may have had predeces-
sors who tried to systematize the tenets of Śūnyavāda in the style
of professional philosophers. Śūnyavāda has been discussed and criti-
cized in the Nyāyasūtra of Akṣapāda and it is quite natural to
assume that the doctrine criticized was sponsored by Nāgārjuna
for the first time. Nāgārjuna has also quoted from the Nyāyasūtra.
In the Vigrahavyāvartanī he has criticized the Nyāya theory. In
the state of our present knowledge which is confined to the availa-
ble works of Nāgārjuna and the Nyāyasūtra, it is not far from risk
to assign priority or posteriority to these two authors. It is defi-
nite that the Mahāyāna schools of Yogācāra—Vijñānavāda and
Śūnyavāda were linked into shape in the early christian era, if not
before. The word Śūnyatā or Śūnya is also found in the Pāli Nikā-
yas, though its connotation is a matter of dispute. We must wait
for further light which may be derived from fresh discovery of old
texts. The chances, however, are very remote. We have to remain
content with this atmosphere of chronological uncertainty and to be
on the safe side, it is expedient to keep our judgement in reserve.

( 2 )
Mādhyamika Philosophy of Nāgārjuna
Let us now consider the Mādhyamikakārikā of Nāgārjuna.
It is a pity that the auto-commentary of Nāgārjuna called Akutobhayā
on his Kārikā and the commentaries of Buddhapālita and Bhāva-
viveka are lost in original. They are preserved in Tibetan trans-
lation. The Mādhyamika school was latterly divided into Svātan-
trika sub-school sponsored by Bhāvaviveka or Bhavya and the
Prāsaṅgika school of Buddhapālita and Candrakīrti. A fragment
of Bhāvaviveka's Tarkajvālā has been discovered and also edited
with an English annotation by Dr. V. V. Gokhale of Delhi Univer-
sity. From the portions published, it is not easy to deduce the
philosophical position of Bhāvaviveka. It appears from the article
of Professor Y. Kajiyama, published in the Research Publication
Vol. 1 of Nava-Nalanda-Mahavihara that the difference between
the two Mādhyamika schools is more logical than metaphysical.
The critical problem concerning the Mādhyamika school is the
determination of the nature and content of Śūnyatā. Dr. Satkari
Mookerjee, the greatest living authority on Indian Philosophy has
made this pertinent observation: Candrakīrti, the commentator of
Nāgārjuna, whose original work in Sanskrit has come down to us,
does not seem to leave any loophole to foist a positivistic interpre-
tation upon the concept of Śūnyatā.¹
The issue in a nutshell is whether Śūnyatā means absolute
unqualified negation or affirmation of a positive reality. Dr. Suzuki,
Prof. Stcherbatsky, and Prof. T. R. V. Murti are of opinion that
Śūnyatā is not a pure voidity. The Yogācāra philosophers such as
Asaṅga and Vasubandhu on the contrary have criticized the doc-
trine of Absolute Negation and assert the reality of transcendental
consciousness bereft of subject-object polarization. They call it
non-dual consciousness (advaya-jñāna). It is extremely unsafe to
voice the hypothesis that Nāgārjuna was a Negativist or Positivist.
It is however clear that Śūnyatā is not regarded by Nāgārjuna
as of the nature of consciousness. It is definite that the latter
orthodox exponents of the Mādhyamika doctrine, viz. Candrakīrti
and Prajñākaramati—the commentator on the Bodhicaryāvatāra
(Chapter I) are vehemently opposed to the concept of pure con-
tentless consciousness.
1 Introduction to The Absolutist's Standpoint In Logic, P. 3.
( 3 )
Candrakīrti's Prasannapadā was discovered and edited by
Professor De la Vallee Poussin. He thoroughly exploited the
Tibetan translation and for the first time presented a materially
correct text. The edition of the Mādhyamikakārikā with Candra-
kīrti's commentary by the late Saratchandra Shastri was full of
corruptions. The present text has been prepared by Dr. P. L.
Vaidya, the former Director of the Mithila Research Institute on
the basis of Poussin's edition.
Nāgārjuna's Kārikās have been elaborately explained by
Candrakīrti and his commentary is intelligible even to a person
possessing a modicum of knowledge of Mahāyāna Buddhism. It is
obviously needless to point out that his exposition is to be under-
stood as that of the Prāsaṅgika school and its unequivocal mode
of expression seals the path for palming off a positivistic construc-
tion on the text.
The matters of historical interest have been touched upon
by Dr. P. L. Vaidya in his Introduction and it is in the same posi-
tion of uncertainty as the chronology of older writers. What is of
central importance to a student of Indian Philosophy is the logical
assessment of the philosophical position of Nāgārjuna. If Candra-
kīrti be a faithful exponent, it may be asserted more or less cate-
gorically that Śūnyatā is not a positive concept. Dr. Vaidya has
alluded to the similarity of Śūnyatā and Māyāvāda. I am not so
categorically sure as Dr. Vaidya seems to be that Śaṅkara's Māyā-
vāda is derived from Nāgārjuna's conception of Śūnyatā. Rival
philosophers have censured Saṅkara by the designation of crypto-
Buddhist. The relative positions of philosophers are to be deter-
mined with a detached mind free from all preconceptions. Śrīharṣa
and his commentator Ānandapūrṇa have raised the issue of lender
and borrower.¹ Saṅkarācārya has deduced his Māyāvāda from the
Vedic sources. It is quite presumable that he may have exploited
the arguments of the Buddhist. But Saṅkara's repugnance to the
Buddhist doctrine is conspicuous and unambiguous. He has criti-
cized the central doctrine of negativism in his commentary on the
Bhagavadgītā. Saṅkara's philosophy is not capable of being equated
with Māyāvāda or Śūnyavāda. He believes in one eternal mono-
lithic existence-cum-consciousness-cum-bliss which is the nature of
Brahman. The two systems are diametrically opposed. Nāgārjuna
does not believe in a positive reality which is not subject to birth,
1 Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya, p. 125.

( 4 )

decay and death.¹ Negation is also a false fiction. According to
him negation is another entity. Candrakīrti has made it abun-
dantly clear that absolute negation with reference to the background
of a positive entity is unthinkable. It is only a name and a word
without a meaning. Śaṅkarācārya on the other hand distinguishes
the phenomenal world from a fiction and Absolute Reality. The
world of plurality, both mental and physical is logically indeter-
minable. He admits empirical and pragmatic validity but denies
it the nature of Absolute Reality. Reality is always Absolute
and Śūnyatā is also Absolute. Nāgārjuna repudiates that it is
reality (bhāva) and also that it is negative. But the negative
according to Nāgārjuna is always another positive real. Negation
is relative and this leads him to deny that Śūnyatā is pure negation.
Because that would invest it with a positive character.
We leave apart the interpretation of modern philosophers.
It will remain a moot question. But it should be remembered that
Candrakīrti denies the doctrine of triple reality (trisvabhāva).
In the Madhyāntavibhāga, Asaṅga the putative author of it
criticizes the concept of Śūnyatā as pure voidity. He posits the
Ultimate Reality as consciousness. In the Mahāyānasūtrālaṁkāra
there are texts which unequivocally posit an Ultimate Reality of the
nature of pure consciousness at the back of phenomenal universe,
and this reality is monistic in character and metaphysically
indistinguishable from the Brahman of the Upaniṣads. Dignāga,
Dharmakīrti, Śāntarakṣita and their later followers are found to
assert categorically that consciousness is momentary. There are
good reasons to believe that Dignāga and his school deny the Ālaya-
consciousness. Śaṅkarācārya has criticized in his commentary on
the Brahmasūtra the philosophical theory advocated by this school.
Dignāga's popularity and powerful dialectic threw the old Yogācāra
school of Maitreyanātha and Asaṅga into utter oblivion.
We do not consider that the characterization of Śūnyatā as
a relative validity by Dr. P. L. Vaidya a happy appraisal. Relative
validity is only a euphemism for philosophical invalidity. Whatever
is found to be relative is dismissed by Nāgārjuna as unreal
appearance.

1 Bhāvas tāvan na nirvāṇaṁ jarāmaraṇalakṣaṇam | Prasajyetāsti bhāvo hi
na jarāmaraṇaṁ vinā || MS. 4. P. 229.

( 5 )

Before concluding our brief survey, it may not be out of
place to reproduce the philosophical appraisal of Śūnyavāda as
distinct from Brahmavāda by Śrīharṣa in his Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhā-
dya. Śrīharṣa observes that the doctrine of anirvacanīyatā, i. e.
logical indeterminancy¹ is not to be confounded with the Buddhist
doctrine of Śūnyatā. The Buddhist regards everything relative or
absolute as logically indeterminable, whereas the Vedāntists believe
that Brahman is capable of being characterized as the transcenden-
tal reality and everything else is indeterminate². Indeterminency
and metaphysical unreality are synonymous terms. We again
reiterate the historical fact that Śūnyavāda has been criticised by
all schools of philosophers as the doctrine of pure Negativism. In
this respect the Buddhist school other than Śūnyavāda, the Jains,
and all the Brahmanical schools are unambiguously unanimous.
A positivistic interpretation, even if legitimate, would make
Nāgārjuna immune from the attack of his critics. We do not
mean to prejudge the issue and leave it to genuine students of
Mahāyāna Buddhism to draw their conclusions.

1 We have borrowed this expression from Dr. Mookerjee's monograph entitled
The Absolutist's Standpoint In Logic, p. 138.
2 Evamca sati saugatabrahmavādinor ayaṁ viśeṣo yad ādimaḥ sarvam evā-
nirvacanīyaṁ varṇayati. Tad uktam Bhagavatā Laṅkāvatāre: Buddhyā
vivicyamānānāṁ svabhāvo nāvadhāryate | Ato nirabhilapyāste nis svabhā-
vāśca deśitāḥ || iti. Vijñānavyatiriktaṁ punar idaṁ viṣayaṁ sadasadbhyāṁ
vilakṣaṇaṁ brahmavādinaḥ saṅgirante. Tathā hi ne' dam sad bhavitum
arhati, vakṣyamāṇadūṣaṇa-grastatvāt, nā' py asad eva, tathā sati laukika-
vicārakāṇām, sarvavyavahāravyāhatyāpatteḥ. Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya,
p. 125...... Vastutas tu vayaṁ prapañcasattvavyavasthāpanavinivṛttāḥ svata-
ḥsiddhe cidātmani Brahmatattve kevale bharam avalambya caritārthāḥ
sukham āsmahe. Ibid. p. 131.

INTRODUCTION

1. The Edition
   This edition of the Madhyamakaśāstra of Nāgārjuna with the commentary
   called Prasannapadā by Candrakīrti is mainly based on the one edited by Louis de
   la Valleé Poussin and published in the BIBLIOTHECA BUDDHICA, Vol. IV, St. Peters-
   burg, Russia, in 1912 (referred to as B in the margin). There was an earlier
   edition of this work, published by BUDDHIST TEXT SOCIETY, Calcutta, in 1897 and
   edited by Śaraccandra Śāstri. This Calcutta edition is full of mistakes, and its
   value is no more than a manuscript in print. It was used by Poussin for what
   it was worth, but he also used two Mss., one from Paris and the other from
   Cambridge. Further, he checked his Text of Kārikās as well as of Candrakīrti's
   commentary with the help of Tibetan Translations. He added a number of
   useful indices and exhaustive foot-notes, textual and exegetical. Out of his
   notes, textual ones are retained with some modifications by me at the foot of the
   page below the text, while I have made as much use as possible of his exegetical notes
   in my CRITICAL NOTES printed at the end of the Volume. Since Poussin's edition
   was out in 1912, many Buddhist works in original Sanskrit have been printed in
   Europe, India, America and Japan, and I have added references to them in the
   body of my text as well as in Critical Notes. Poussin's edition is long out of
   print. I had the good fortune of studying this very work at his feet in 1921–
   22, and hence I thought it my duty to bring out a new edition with a number of
   additions and alterations. I have made use of additional material published since
   then, and therefore I hope this edition will be more useful than the former to our
   Indian scholars. The foot-notes of Poussin containing Tibetan translation of
   Kārikās and of extracts of the commentary have been omitted from this edition
   as they are no longer useful to Sanskrit scholars. I do not, however, underrate
   the value of Poussin's edition, and of extracts from Tibetan given by him, but
   once the purpose of checking the accuracy of Sanskrit text is achieved, the value
   of Tibetan translations to Sanskrit paṇḍits becomes secondary.
2. Philosophical Systems under Mahāyāna
   There are two important philosophical schools of the Mahāyāna Buddhism,
   viz, the Mādhyamika School founded by Nāgārjuna and his followers,
   Buddhapālita, Bhāvaviveka, Candrakīrti and Śāntideva, and the Yogācāra School
   founded by Maitreyanātha and his followers Asaṅga, Vasubandhu, Sthiramati,
   Vimuktisena, Haribhadra etc. Both these schools take Prajñāpāramitā
   literature and other Mahāyāna Sūtras as their sacred sources. Ācāryas of both
   these schools seem to have written commentaries on texts like Aṣṭasāhasrikā
   with interpretations which would support the special doctrines of their respective
   schools as Śaṁkara, Rāmānuja etc. interpreted Upaniṣads and the Bādarā-
   yaṇasūtras differently to support Advaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita etc. We have not yet
   discovered in original Sanskrit any such commentary on Prajñāpāramitā from the
   school of Nāgārjuna, but we propose to give in the present series of Buddhist Sans-
   krit Texts Haribhadra's commentary called Āloka on Aṣṭasāhasrikā which may be
   regarded as a specimen of Yogācāra interpretation of the Prajñāpāramitā
   literature. It may be said here that corresponding to Nāgārjuna's Kārikās of
   the Madhyamakaśāstra, we have Abhisamayālaṁkārakārikās from Maitreya-
   nātha to explain the Yogācāra stand,

viii Madhyamaka-Śāstra
There is one more school of the Mahāyāna Buddhists which cannot be
accurately called a philosophical school. It is a school of Logicians headed by
Dignāga. The writers like Dignāga and Dharmakīrti specialised in logic; they,
however, could not escape the influences of the two schools mentioned above,
and a majority of them show a strong inclination towards the Yogācāra system
as the Mādhyamika school did not give much scope for logical treatment of
their metaphysics. It will be shown later that the Prāsaṅgika branch of the
Mādhyamikas did not give much room to logical treatment as Nāgārjuna's
Vigrahavyāvartanī amply demonstrates. Dignāga, who wrote a short philoso-
phical treatise in about 57 stanzas called Prajñāpāramitāpiṇḍārtha, seems
clearly to follow the Yogācāra view as also Dharmakīrti.
3. Origin and Teaching of the Mādhyamika School of Buddhists
The religion founded by the Buddha got divided into various schools of
thought and customs within a few centuries after his nirvāṇa. The two earliest of
these schools were the Sthaviravādins and Mahāsāṁghikas. Their differences
were due to certain rules of conduct or interpretation of Buddha's teaching. The
fissiparous tendency did not stop there, and there soon appeared a number of
them drawing their names either from a locale, or mode of living, or adherence to
a particular book or tenet. Many of these schools had their own sacred canon,
complete or partial, which was written in a variety of dialects such as Pāli,
Sanskrit, Prakrit or even Apabhraṁśa. Some of these canons have come down to
us in these languages, at least in fragments, but many appear to have been lost in
their original form. This variety of dialects was but natural; for Buddha was a
native of Kapilavastu, and must have preached in his mother-tongue or in
a language which was capable of being understood by natives of Mithilā,
Magadha, Kāśī and Kosala in which countries he spent his life as a religious
teacher. His sermons were rendered by his pupils in their own native tongue,
from which they were given different standard forms of a language such as
Pāli, Sanskrit, Prakrit and Apabhraṁśa. Of these, Tipiṭaka in Pāli seems to be a
compact canon, but that was not the case with other canons. Improvements in
linguistic forms as also in doctrinal tenets must have been introduced from time
to time, and Buddhist literature which is found in dialects of Northern and North-
eastern regions remained scattered. Side by side, there were some changes in
ideals and ideologies of the original form of the religion due to influences of
adherents and their pre-occupations. All this resulted in forming a new and vast
mass of literature commonly known as Sūtras and written in a language which
shows an admixture of Sanskrit and popular or Prakrit forms and idioms. These
sūtras had a vast volume, and there were traces of lack of cohesion in their
teaching. Among these works, there is a class of literature called Vaipulyasūtras
numbering nine and various recensions of the Prajñāpāramitā. There is also a
very large number of sūtras known under the class of Mahāyānasūtras dating
from about the 2nd or even 3rd century B. C. Nāgārjuna (2nd century A. D.)
in his Sūtrasamuccaya draws upon nearly seventy such titles. A large number of
them seems to have been lost in their original Sanskrit form, but they are
preserved in their Tibetan and/or Chinese translations.
Buddhism in this new form also showed fissiparous tendencies and it was felt
necessary to maintain their strength and unity. To evolve a uniform philoso-
phical system from out this vast literature embodying apparently conflicting
Introduction ix
views leading to chaos, was a task in the post-Christian age before scholars like
Aśvaghoṣa, Nāgārjuna, Maitreyanātha, Asaṅga, Vasubandhu and Dignāga. It is
the effort of these scholars which is responsible for bringing into existence two
famous philosophical schools of Mahāyāna Buddhism, viz., the Mādhyamika
School and the Yogācāra School.
Among these scholars, Nāgārjuna picked up, to name his school, one
of the most striking tenets of Buddhism, viz., Madhyamā or Madhyamā
Pratipad, the Middle Path, preached in his first sermon by Buddha, and
which, consequently, no follower of Buddha could renounce. He named his
system Madhyamaka (मध्यमैव मध्यमकम्, संज्ञायां कन्-पा. ५.३.८७) or Madhyamaka-
śāstra, and his followers come to be known as Mādhyamika (मध्यमकमीयते विदन्ति
वा-तदधीते तद्वेद-पा. ४. २. ५९). Under this title he codified the contents of this vast
mass of conflicting sūtras so as to yield a philosophically uniform teaching, and
embodied it in over 400 Kārikās in anuṣṭubh metre divided into 27 chapters.
In one of these Kārikās, he explicitly refers to the Kātyāyanāvavādasūtra, which,
by-the-bye, is accepted as authority by all Buddhist scholars holding different
shades of views :
कात्यायनाववादे च अस्ति नास्तीति चोभयम् ।
प्रतिषिद्धं भगवता भावाभावविभाविना ॥
[ म. शा. १५.७ ]
On this Candrakīrti remarks :
इदं च सूत्रं सर्वनिकायेषु पठ्यते (म. शा. १५. ७)
The statement of asti and nāsti, two conflicting, contradictory and extreme
categories which have been denied by Buddha, recommends or suggests the
way out of these, which the founder called Madhyamā (मध्यमया धर्मं देशयति ).
Expanding the concepts of asti and nāsti into bhāva and abhāva, saṁsāra and
nirvāṇa, he evolves a solution negating these extremes, and thus founding the
Middle Path. Nāgārjuna, following this line of thought, classifies the contents
of the sūtras into two classes of tenets, one recommending a view which is
ultimately to be abandoned, and the other as final and absolute; the one practical,
vyāvahārika, and the other as absolute, final or pāramārthika. That this is the
ultimate objective of the system of Nāgārjuna is clear from the following kārikā:
द्वे सत्ये समुपाश्रित्य बुद्धानां धर्मदेशना ।
लोकसंवृतिसत्यं च सत्यं च परमार्थतः ॥ [ म. शा. २४.८ ]
Candrakīrti, at the end of his commentary on Madhyamaka Śāstra, confirms
the above view when he says :-
समाप्तं चेदं मध्यमशास्त्रं सकल्लौकिकलोकोत्तरप्रवचननीतनेयार्थव्याख्याननैपुण्याविशारदम् ।
(MS p. 259)
The system of Nāgārjuna thus classifies all discourses of Buddha into
Nītārtha, i. e., absolute or final, and Neyārtha, i. e. vyāvahārika or practical, and
arrives at the conclusion that although from the point of lower philosophical
plane all notions or concepts of worldly existence stand valid, from the point of
view of higher or absolute philosophical plane, these notions have but a relative
validity, and therefore one should reject both existence and non-existence and
follow a middle path or relative validity. Nāgārjuna says :-
अस्तीति शाश्वतग्राहो नास्तीत्युच्छेददर्शनम् ।
तस्मादस्तित्वनास्तित्वे नाश्रीयेत विचक्षणः ॥ [ म. शा. १५.१० ]
म. प्र. २

x Madhyamaka - Śāstra
The main authority for this view, of course, is the passage in the
Kātyāyanāvavādasūtra admitted as authority by all Buddhists. The passage
runs :-
यद्भूयसा कात्यायन अयं लोकोऽस्तितां वा अभिनिविष्टो नास्तितां च । तेन न परिमुच्यते !......
अस्तीति काश्यप अयमेकोऽन्तः । नास्तीति काश्यप अयमेकोऽन्तः । यदेतयोरन्तयोर्मध्यम्, तदरूप्यम्,
अनिदर्शनम्, अप्रतिष्ठम्, अनाभासम्, अनिकेतम्, अविज्ञप्तिकम् । इयमुच्यते काश्यप मध्यमा प्रतिपत्,
भूतानां भूतप्रत्यवेक्षा । ( MŚ p. 118 )
The right view of the world thus runs through the two extremes. Therefore,
when a Mādhyamika is categorically asked to state his view-point, he would
declare the eight Nos :
अनिरोधमनुत्पादमनुच्छेदमशाश्वतम् ।
अनेकार्थमनानार्थमनागममनिर्गमम् ॥
[ म. शा. १.१ ]
leading ultimately to the doctrine of Pratītyasamutpāda, of relative or
dependent origination, which is the first revelation of Buddha on attainment of
enlightenment. So the Mādhyamikas maintain that they alone represent
correctly the doctrine as propounded by the Buddha. Candrakīrti vehemently
refutes the charge that Mādhyamika is no better than a Nāstika, in this way:-
अत्रैके परिचोदयन्ति-नास्तिकादविशिष्टा माध्यमिकाः, यस्मात् कुशलाकुशलं कर्म कर्तारं च फलं च सर्वं
च लोकं भावस्वभावशून्यमिति ब्रुवते । नास्तिका अपि हि एतन्नास्तीति ब्रुवते । तस्मान्नास्तिकादविशिष्टा माध्यमिका
इति । नैवम् । कुतः ? प्रतीत्यसमुत्पादवादिनो हि माध्यमिकाः हेतुप्रत्ययान् प्राप्य प्रतीत्य समुत्पन्नमेतत् सर्वमेव
इहपरलोकं निःस्वभावं वर्णयन्ति । यथास्वभाववादिनो नैव नास्तिकाः प्रतीत्यसमुत्पन्नत्वाद् भावस्वभावशून्यत्वेन न
परलोकाद्यभावं प्रतिपन्नाः, किं तर्हि ऐहलौकिकं वस्तुजातमुपलभ्य स्वभावतः तस्य परलोकादिहाभवनम् इहलोकाच्च
परलोकगमनमपश्यन्तः इहलोकोपलब्धपदार्थसदृशपदार्थान्तरापवादं कुर्वन्ति । तथापि वस्तुस्वरूपेण अविद्यमानस्यैव
ते नास्तित्वं प्रतिपन्नाः, इत्यमुना तावद्दर्शनेन साम्यमस्तीति चेत्, न हि । कुतः ? संवृत्या माध्यमिकैः अस्तित्वेना-
भ्युपगमान्न तुल्यता । वस्तुतस्तुल्यतेति चेत्, यद्यपि वस्तुतोऽसिद्धितुल्या, तथापि प्रतिपत्तृभेदादतुल्यता । यथा
हि कृतचौर्यं पुरुषमेकः सम्यगपश्यन्नेव तदमित्रप्रेरितः तं मिथ्या व्याचष्टे—चौर्यमनेन कृतमिति, अपरस्तु साक्षाद्
दृष्ट्वा दूषयति, तत्र यद्यपि वस्तुतो नास्ति भेदः, तथापि परिज्ञातृभेदादेकस्तत्र मृषावादीत्युच्यते, अपरस्तु सत्य-
वादीति, एकश्च अयशसा च अपुण्येन च सम्यक् परीक्ष्यमाणे युज्यते नापरः, एवमिहापि यथावद्विदितवस्तुस्वरू-
पाणां माध्यमिकानां श्रुतवतोऽवगच्छतां च वस्तुस्वरूपाभेदेऽपि यथावद्विदितवस्तुस्वरूपैर्नास्तिकैः सह ज्ञानाभिमान-
योर्नास्ति साम्यम् । यथैव हि उपेक्षासामान्येऽपि अप्रतिसंख्याय प्रतिसंख्याय उपेक्षकयोरिव पृथग्जनार्हतोः
जात्यन्धचक्षुष्मतोश्च विषमप्रपातप्रदेशविनिक्षिप्तसामान्येऽपि यथास्ति महान् विशेषः, तथा नास्तिकानां माध्य-
मिकानां च विशेषो भविष्यतीति पूर्वाचार्याः ॥ ( pp, 156-157 )
Nāgārjuna does not refer in his Kārikās to any sūtra by name other
than the Kātyāyanāvavāda; but Candrakīrti in his commentary refers to a large
number of them, and draws on them profusely in support of each and every
tenet of the School.
The method of dialectics to refute the views of the opponent adopted by
Nāgārjuna and his followers like Buddhapālita and Candrakīrti is known as the
Prasaṅga, i. e., reducing the opponent to an absurd position contradictory to
his accepted views; Bhāvaviveka or Bhavya, though belonging to Nāgārjuna's
school, follows an independent or rational method called Svatantra. Candrakīrti,
however, holds the view that a Mādhyamika as such should not adopt that
mothod :-
न च माध्यमिकस्य सतः स्वतन्त्रमनुमानं कर्तुं युक्तम्, पक्षान्तराभ्युपगमाभावात् ।
He further says that Nāgārjuna himself adopted the Prasaṅga method in
his work Vigrahavyāvartanī as well as in his Kārikās (see pp. 6-8). It is on
account of this difference in the method of approach that the Mādhyamika
Introduction xi
school stands divided into two branches, viz., Prāsaṅgika and Svātantrika
Schools, Nāgārjuna, Buddhapālita and Candrakīrti belonging to the former, and
Bhavya or Bhāvaviveka to the latter. Candrakīrti explains the advantages of
this Prāsaṅgika method as follows :
यो हि यमर्थं प्रतिजानीते, तेन स्वनिश्चयवद् अन्येषां निश्चयोत्पादनेच्छया यया उपपत्त्या असावर्थोऽधिगतः,
सैवोपपत्तिः परस्मै उपदेष्टव्या । तस्मादेष तावन्न्यायः, यत् परेणैव स्वाभ्युपगतप्रतिज्ञातार्थसाधनमुपादेयम्, न
चान्येन परं प्रति । हेतुदृष्टान्तासंभवात् प्रतिज्ञानुसारतयैव केवलं स्वप्रतिज्ञातार्थसाधनमुपादत्ते इति निरुपपत्तिक-
पक्षाभ्युपगमात् स्वात्मानमे

वाप्ताभिलाषः" or "बोध्यवाप्ताभिलाषः".

Let's check line 71:
"तदलं भवता तथागतमहादित्यप्रच्छादकेन आकालिकघनघनावलिविसरणेन जगदन्धकारोपपादनेनेति । उच्यते ।"
Wait, look at line 71:
"जगदन्धकारोपपादनेनेति । उच्यते ।"
Letters:
ज - ग - द - न्ध - का - रो - प - पा - द - ने - ने - ति । उ - च्य - ते ।
Yes, "जगदन्धकारोपपादनेनेति । उच्यते ।" (producing darkness in the world)!

Line 72:
"अस्माकमेव हता प्रत्याशा भवद्विधेष्वबुधजनेषु, ये हि नाम भवन्तः मोक्षकामतया अन्यतीर्थ्यमतानि परित्यज्य"
Wait, look at "भवद्विधेष्वबुधजनेषु":
Letter: भ - व - द्वि - धे - ष्व - बु - ध - ज - ने - षु -> "भवद्विधेष्वबुधजनेषु"!

Line 73:
"भगवन्तं तथागतमपि अविपरीतशास्त्रारं प्रतिपद्य परमगम्भीरमनुत्तरं सर्वतीर्थ्यवादासाधारणं नैरात्म्यसिंहनादमसह-"
Wait,

Left Page

xiv Madhyamaka-Śāstra
For details of the Mādhyamika School and its followers, the reader is
referred to my work ‘Etudes sur Āryadeva et son Catuḥśataka’, Paris, 1923.
Tradition also, almost uniformly, makes him a contemporary of Kaniṣka
who seems to be friendly to Nāgārjuna, and a letter called Suhṛllekha addressed
by Nāgārjuna to him also exists in Tibetan translation. It is, therefore, safe to
assume that Nāgārjuna lived in the latter half of the second century A. D.
(about 170-200 A. D.).
According to the biography of Nāgārjuna, translated into Chinese by
Kumārajīva (circa 405 A. D.) he was born in a Brahmin family in southern
India, studied the Vedas, and became well-versed in other Brahmanical
lores. He was also known as a mighty magician. Bāṇa records a reference to
Nāgārjuna having received a necklace of pearls from a Nāga king. Tibetan
chronicles almost invariably refer to him as a mighty magician. He had a
pretty long life of 400 years! All this looks like a legend, and to build up history
from such records is very difficult. Laṅkāvatārasūtra, a work belonging to
the Nine Dharmas or Āgamas of Nepal, says (10. 164–166):-
निर्वृते सुगते पश्चात्कालोऽतीतो भविष्यति ।
महामते निबोध त्वं यो नेत्री धारयिष्यति ॥
दक्षिणापथवेदल्यां भिक्षुः श्रीमान् महायशाः ।
नागाह्वयः स नाम्ना तु सदसत्पक्षदारकः ॥
प्रकाश्य लोके मद्यानं महायानमनुत्तरम् ।
आसाद्य भूमिं मुदितां यास्यतेऽसौ सुखावतीम् ॥
One important thing to be noted about the above-quoted stanzas is that they
are found in the 10th and last chapter of the work, This last chapter generally
puts together the stanzas occurring in the first nine chapters of the sūtra, but
precisely these stanzas are not found in the first nine chapters, and therefore,
their antiquity and genuineness become questionable. In any case, Nāgārjuna
is associated in them with Dakṣiṇāpatha. The term Vedalī is of uncertain
significance; it has been confounded with Vidarbha; and so Nāgārjuna is made a
resident or native of Vidarbha. I think we should rather go further south to
find out his native land, and it may not be far from wrong to take his associa-
tion with Nāgārjunikoṇḍā where Buddhist antiquities are recently discovered.
After his conversion to Buddhism, he went to the North upto Kaśmīra and made
a name there. It is said that he spent his last days on Śrīśaila in modern
Āndhra State.
Candrakīrti in his Bhāṣya on Madhyamakāvatāra records a tradition that
Nāgārjuna was an incarnation of Ānanda, the famous attendant of Buddha.
Leaving aside its value as a piece of history, we may take it that Nāgārjuna was
held to be as faithful an interpreter or chronicler of Buddha's teaching as Ānanda
was. Says Candrakṛti:-
अथ तावत् कथं तस्यार्यनार्जुनस्य अविपरीतागमनिर्णयः स्यादिति ? आगमात्......
आर्यद्वादशसहस्रमहामेघसूत्रेउक्तम्-
लिच्छविकुमारोऽयं सर्वसत्त्वानां दर्शने नन्दक इत्यानन्दः निर्वाणाच्चतुःशतेषु वर्षेषु व्यतीतेषु नागाह्वयो
भिक्षुर्भूत्वा मद्देशनां विस्तरेण प्रकाश्य अनुपूर्वेण सुविशुद्धप्रभामूमिनामकलोकधातो तथागतोऽर्हन् सम्यक्संबुद्धो
ज्ञानकरप्रभामिधो भविष्यति ।
There is a very large number of works, no less than 122, ascribed to him in
Tanjur and Kanjur (see Tohoku Catalogue). Leaving apart works on Tantra
or Vaidyaka (आचार्यनागार्जुनभाषित-अवभेषजकल्प, Tohoku No. 4308), most of which

Right Page

Introduction xv
seem to have been composed by another and positively later Nāgārjuna, we feel
certain that philosopher Nāgārjuna composed the following works :
(1) Prajñā or Kārikās of the Madhyamakaśāstra and its commentary called
Akutobhayā;
(2) Vigrahavyāvartanī and its commentary;
(3) Yuktiṣaṣṭikā;
(4) Śūnyatāsaptati and its commentary;
(5) Mahāyānaviṃśikā;
(6) Akṣaraśataka and its commentary;
(7) Pratītyasamutpādahṛdaya and its commentary;
(8) Catuḥstava;
(9) Prajñāpāramitāstotra (found at the beginning of Aṣṭasāhasrikā);
(10) Bhāvanākrama;
(11) Sūtrasamuccaya or anthology of Mahāyāna Sūtras;
(12) Suhṛllekha or Ārya Nāgārjuna Bodhisattva Suhṛllekha;
(13) Bhāvasaṃkrānti;
(14) Ratnāvalī; and
(15) Vaidalyaprakaraṇa.
The work under the title Dharmasaṃgraha, which is a collection of
Buddhist Technical Terms and edited in Anecdota Oxoniensia, Vol. I, part V, is
attributed to Nāgārjuna in the colophon, but it does not seem to be a genuine
work of this philosopher, and may be by his later namesake, most probably a
Hīnayānist.
Some of the works above mentioned are available in the original Sanskrit,
but many are still known only from their Tibetan or Chinese translations.
Tārānātha (Geschichte, p. 71) says that adherents of Hīnayāna ascribe the
authorship of the Śatasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā to Nāgārjuna, but this does not
seem likely. The Prajñāpāramitā Literature, at least some works like Pañcavi-
ṃśati and Aṣṭasāhasrikā were already in existence. The ascription may be due
to the confusion between Prajñā which figures as an alternative title of
Madhyamakaśāstra Kārikā in Tibetan tradition and Prajñāpāramitā. In fact,
Nāgārjuna has codified the contents of Prajñāpāramitā literature and other
Mahāyānasūtras in his Kārikās, as Bādarāyaṇa codified the teaching of the
Upaniṣads in his Śārīrakasūtras.
Of the 122 works found in Tohoku Catalogue under Nāgārjuna or Klu-
sgrub or Nāgārjunagarbha, the most important and genuine works of the philo-
sopher have been mentioned in the above list. Other works are minor and
belong more or less to the class of Tantras.
5. Nāgārjuna's Followers
Āryadeva or Deva is mentioned as his direct pupil, who is the author of
Catuḥśataka, Hastavālaprakaraṇa and a few minor works. Among his
successors and commentators, we may mention Buddhapālita, Bhavya or Bhāva-
viveka and Candrakīrti. Of Budhapālita we have only his commentary on
Madhyamakaśāstra found in Tibetan. Bhavya or Bhāvaviveka seems to be
more prolific than Buddhapālita. He wrote, in addition to the commentary on
Madhyamakaśāstra, called Prajñāpradīpa, and some handbooks on the
Mādhyamika system, viz., (1) Madhyamakaratnapradīpa (2) Madhyamika

xvi Madyamaka-Śāstra
hṛdayakārikā with its commentary called Tarkajvālā and (3) Madhyamakār-
thsaṃgraha, all of them available in Tibtan Translation; (4) Karatalaratna is
known only from Chinese translation (Nanjio No. 1237, recently restored into
Sanskrit by Prof. N. Aiyaswami Śastrī: (5) Nikāyabhedavibhaṅgavyākhyā
describing 18 schools of Buddhism, and (6) Tattvāmṛtāvatāra referred to twice
in (4) above.
Tārānātha (XXVI) and following him Schiefner (p. 174) mention that
Devaśarmā wrote a commentary on Madhyamakāśāstra called Sitābhyudaya
to refute the views of Candrakīrti. The Sanskrit original is not available, nor
there is any trace of it in Tanjur or Kanjur.
But of all commentaries on the Madhyamakāśāstra the most important one
is the Prasannapadā of Candrakīrti. He was the follower of the Prāsaṅgika
school of the Mādhyamikas and claims to have interpreted the Kārikās truly to
bring out the views held by Nāgārjuna. He has referred to the commentaries of
both Buddhapālita and Bhavya, and refuted the views of Bhavya at places. His
commentary is truly Prasannapadā, and in point of view of elegance of style, is
a forerunner of Śaṁkarācārya's Bhāṣya on the Brahmasūtras. I have given above
some extracts from his commentary, which will convince the reader of his
remarkable qualities of argument. He cites in support of his views numerous
extracts from Mahāyānasūtras. Like Bhavya, he also wrote a few handbooks
on the Mādhyamika system, viz. (1) Madhyamakāvatāra, a work in six chapters
in verse with his own Bhāṣya on it; (2) Madhyamakaprajñāvatāra; (3)
Pañcaskandhaprakaraṇa, besides commentaries on Nāgārjuna's Yuktiṣaṣṭikā and
Śūnyatāsaptati as also on Āryadeva's Catuḥśataka. Except his Prasannapadā
and fragments of his commentary on Catuḥśataka, all other works are preserved
only in Tibetan translations.
Śāntideva, the author of Śikṣāsamuccaya and Bodhicaryāvatāra and Prajñā-
karamati are the only two noteworthy writers of the Mādhyamika School after
Candrakīrti.
Poona, }
1st January, 1959 } P. L. Vaidya
प्रस्तावना
१. प्रस्तुत संस्करण।
नागार्जुनप्रणीत मध्यमकशास्त्र का, चंद्रकीर्तिकृत प्रसन्नपदा टीका से संवलित, यह
संस्करण लुइ द ला वैली. पूसैं द्वारा संपादित तथा बिब्लिओथिका बुद्धिका ग्रंथ ४ (सेंट पीटर्स-
बर्ग, रूस, १९१२) के रूप में प्रकाशित (हाशिये में ‘B’ चिह्नसे अंकित) संस्करण पर
मुख्यतः आधारित है। इस रचना का इसके पूर्व का और एक संस्करण श्री शरच्चंद्र शास्त्री के
संपादकत्व में बुद्धिस्ट टेक्स्ट सोसाइटी, कलकत्ता द्वारा १८९७ ई० में प्रकाशित हुआ
था। कलकत्तेवाला यह संस्करण त्रुटियों से भरा हुआ है, अतः इसका मूल्य छपी पांडुलिपि
से अधिक नहीं माना जा सकता। पूसैं ने उसके मूल्यानुसार उस संस्करण से काम लिया
था, किन्तु और दो पांडुलिपियों को भी वे काम में लाये थे, एक पैरिस वाली और दूसरी
केंब्रिज वाली। इसके अलावा कारिकाओं के मूलपाठ तथा चंद्रकीर्ति की टीका की जाँच
उन्होंने तिब्बती अनुवादों के आधार पर की थी। आपने कई उपयुक्त अनुसूचियाँ भी
समाविष्ट की थीं, तथा पाठविषयक और शास्त्रार्थविवरणात्मक प्रभूत पादटिप्पणियाँ भी। इन
टिप्पणियों में से पाठसंबंधी टिप्पणियाँ कुछ परिवर्तनों के साथ मैंने मूलपाठ के नीचे उद्धृत
की हैं, और विवरणात्मक टिप्पणियों से भी पुस्तक के अंत में दी हुई अपनी टिप्पणियों में
यथासंभव लाभ उठाया है। १९१२ में जब यह संस्करण प्रकाशित हुआ, तब से लेकर
आज तक बहुत से बौद्धधर्मविषयक संस्कृत ग्रंथ युरोप, अमेरिका, भारत, जापान जैसे
देशों में छप चुके हैं। उन सबका उल्लेख पाठान्तरों में तथा अपनी टिप्पणियों में मैंने किया
है। पूसैं का संस्करण लंबे अरसे से अप्राप्य रहा है। सन १९२१-२२ में इसी ग्रंथ का
अध्ययन आप ही के चरणों में बैठकर करने का सौभाग्य मुझे मिला था। अतः इसका
पुनःसंस्करण करना मैंने अपना कर्तव्य माना, और कुछ संशोधन, कुछ उचित परिवर्तन करके
अब उसे प्रकाशित करने जा रहा हूँ। इस संस्करण में मैंने अद्ययावत प्रकाशित सामग्री
का यथेष्ट उपयोग किया है, अतः मुझे आशा है कि यह संस्करण भारतीय पंडितों को
पहले से अधिक उपयोगी सिद्ध होगा। पूसैं के संस्करण में जो, कारिकाओं और टीका के
अंशों के तिब्बती अनुवाद, पादटिप्पणियों में समाविष्ट थे उन्हें मैंने हटाया है, क्योंकि
उनकी उपयोगिता संस्कृत विद्वानों की दृष्टि से अब नहीं रही है। तो भी पूसैं के संस्करण का
तथा उनके तिब्बती उद्धरणों का मूल्य मैं बिलकुल कम नहीं मानता। लेकिन संस्कृत पाठ
की शुद्धता की जाँच का काम संपूर्ण हो जाने पर तिब्बती अनुवादों का मूल्य संस्कृत
पंडितों की दृष्टि से नगण्य रह जाता है।
२. महायान पंथ की दार्शनिक प्रणालियाँ ।
महायान पंथ के दो प्रमुख दार्शनिक संप्रदाय है। एक माध्यमिक नागार्जुन और
उनके अनुयायियों - बुद्धपालित, भावविवेक, चंद्रकीर्ति तथा शांति-देव द्वारा स्थापित तथा
म. प्र. ३

Here is the accurate transcription of the provided image, line by line, preserving the original Hindi, Sanskrit, and English terms.

[Left Page]

xxviii मध्यमकशास्त्र
(५) महायानविंशिका ;
(६) अक्षरशतक और उसकी व्याख्या;
(७) प्रतीत्यसमुत्पादहृदय और उसकी टीका;
(८) चतुःस्तव;
(९) प्रज्ञापारमितास्तोत्र;
(१०) भावनाक्रम;
(११) सूत्र-समुच्चय यानी महायान सूत्रों का संग्रह;
(१२) सुहृल्लेख या आर्य नागार्जुनबोधिसत्त्व सुहृल्लेख ;
(१३) भवसंक्रान्ति;
(१४) रत्नावली; और
(१५) वैद्यल-प्रकरण
धर्मसंग्रह नामक रचना, जो बौद्ध पारिभाषिक शब्दों का संग्रह है (अॅनेक्डोटा
ऑक्सोनिऐंशिया जिल्द-१ भाग ५ में संपादित और जो पुस्तक के अंत के संकल्प में
नागार्जुन लिखित बतायी गयी है, इस तत्त्वज्ञ की असली कृति नहीं प्रतीत होती। उनके
बाद के किसी और नागार्जुन की हो सकती है, जो कि संभवतः हीनयानी हो।
उपर्निर्दिष्ट रचनाओं में से कतिपय मूल संस्कृत में उपलब्ध हैं, किन्तु बाकी
रचनाएँ तिब्बती और चीनी अनुवादों से ही ज्ञात हैं।
तारानाथ (Geschichte पृ. ७१) कहते हैं कि हीनयानियों ने शतसाहस्रिका
प्रज्ञापारमिता का कर्त्ता नागार्जुन को बताया है, लेकिन यह संभवनीय नहीं मालूम होता।
प्रज्ञापारमिता - वाङ्मय - पंचविंशति और अष्टसाहस्रिका जैसी रचनाएँ -- पहले ही से विद्य-
मान था । तिब्बती परंपरा में मध्यमकशास्त्रकारिका के वैकल्पिक नाम 'प्रज्ञा' तथा
'प्रज्ञापारमिता' में जो शब्दसादृश्य है उसीके कारण यह भ्रम संभव दीखता है। वास्तव में
नागार्जुनने प्रज्ञापारमिता वाङ्मय तथा अन्य महायानसूत्रों का संहितीकरण अपनी कारिकाओं
में किया है जिस प्रकार बादरायण ने उपनिषदों की शिक्षा का शारीरकसूत्रों में ।
नागार्जुन या (Klu-sgrub) नागार्जुनगर्भ के नाम पर तोहोकू सूची में
निर्दिष्ट १२२ रचनाओं में से महत्वपूर्ण और असली रचनाएँ ऊपर की सूची में समाविष्ट
हैं। अन्य रचनाएँ अप्रधान तथा अधिकांश तंत्रविषयक हैं।
५. नागार्जुन और उनकी शिष्यपरंपरा
आर्यदेव या देव नागार्जुन का खास व्यक्तिगत अंतेवासी बतलाया गया है। उसकी
रचनाएँ हैं चतुःशतक, हस्तवालप्रकरण, और कतिपय छोटी रचनाएँ। उनके उत्तराधिकारी
टीकाकारों में बुद्धपालित, भव्य या भावविवेक, तथा चंद्रकीर्ति के नाम बताये जा सकते
हैं। बुद्धपालित की एक ही रचना मध्यमकशास्त्र की टीका तिब्बती में प्राप्त है। उसकी
अपेक्षा भव्य या भावविवेक की रचना अधिक विपुल है । प्रज्ञाप्रदीप नामक मध्यमकशास्त्र

[Right Page]

प्रस्तावना । xxix
की टीका के अतिरिक्त उसकी माध्यमिक सिद्धान्त-विषयक कई रचनाएँ हैं, जिनके नाम ये
हैं; — १. मध्यमकरत्नप्रदीप २. मध्यमकहृदय -- तर्कज्वाला टीकासंबलित ३. मध्यमक build-अर्थ-
संग्रह (तीनों तिब्बती अनुवाद में प्राप्त); ४. करतलरत्न — चीनी अनुवादसे ज्ञात हाल में
संस्कृत में रूपान्तरित (Nanjio क्र-१२३७); ५. निकायभेदविभंगव्याख्या, बौद्ध धर्म
की १८ शाखाओं का विवरणः और ६ तत्त्वामृतावतार (ऊपर क्रमांक ४ में दो बार
निर्दिष्ट)।
तारानाथ और उनका अनुसरण करते हुए शिएफ्नर (पृ. १७४) कहते हैं कि
देवशमनिने मध्यमकशास्त्र पर सीताभ्युदय नामक टीका लिखी है, जिसमें चन्द्रकीर्ति के
मतों का खंडन किया है। मूल संस्कृत रचना अप्राप्य है, और उसका निर्देश तक 'तंजुर'
या 'कंजुर' में नहीं मिलता।
मध्यमकशास्त्र पर जो टीकाग्रंथ रचे गये हैं उनमें सबसे महत्वपूर्ण चंद्रकीर्ति-कृत
प्रसन्नपदा है। चंद्रकीर्ति माध्यमियों के 'प्रसंग संप्रदाय' का अनुयायी था। उसका दावा
है कि नागार्जुन की स्थापनाओं का आशय सच्चाई के साथ समझाने का सफल प्रयास
उसने कारिकाओं की टीका में किया है। बुद्धपालित और भव्य की टीकाओं का उल्लेख
उसने किया है, और कई स्थलों में भव्य की मान्यताओं का खंडन भी किया है। उसकी
टीका यथार्थ ही प्रसन्नपदा है, और शैली की प्रसन्नता की दृष्टि से वह शंकराचार्य के
ब्रह्मसूत्रभाष्य की पूर्ववर्ती पथ-निर्देशिका है। ऊपर इस टीकाके कई उद्धरण दिये गये हैं,
जिनसे पाठक उसकी विवेचनशैली की झांकी पा सकते हैं। अपनी स्थापनाओं के पुष्ट्यर्थ
उसने महायानसूत्रों से पर्याप्त उद्धरण लिये हैं। भव्य के समान ही उसने माध्यमिक संप्रदाय
पर छोटी छोटी पुस्तिकाएँ लिखी हैं: — (१) मध्यमावतार-पद्यमय षडध्यायी सटीक
रचना; (२) मध्यमक-प्रज्ञावतार; (३) पंचस्कंध प्रकरण। इनके अलावा उसने
नागार्जुन कृत युक्तिषष्टिका और शून्यतासप्तति पर तथा आर्यदेवविरचित चतुःशतक पर
टीकाएँ भी लिखी हैं। प्रसन्नपदा तथा चतुःशतक-टीका के कुछ खंडों को छोड़कर बाकी
सब रचनाएँ तिब्बती में सुरक्षित हैं।
चंद्रकीर्ति के बाद माध्यमिक संप्रदाय के लेखकों में दो ही नाम उल्लेखनीय हैं —
(१) शिक्षासमुच्चय तथा बोधिचर्यावतार का कर्ता शांतिदेव और (२) बोधिचर्यावतार
का टीकाकार प्रज्ञाकरमति।
पूना प. ल. वैद्य
१ जनवरी, १९५९

ABBREVIATIONS
AK (अ०क०)—Avadāna-kalpalatā of Kṣemendra, Bibliotheca Indica
edition; our edition in BST Nos. 22-23.
AŚ (अ० श०)—Avadāna-Śataka by J. S. Speyer, Bibliotheca Buddhica
edition; our edition is BST No. 19.
Aṣṭa (अष्ट०)—Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā, ed. by Rajendralal Mitra.
BC—Buddhacarita of Aśvaghoṣa, edns. by Cowell and Johnstone;.
BCA—Bodhicaryāvatāra of Śāntideva, with Pañjikā of Prajñākaramati,
ed. by Poussin; bare text in Zapiski.
BCP—Bodhicaryāvatārapañjikā of Prajñākaramati, ed. by Poussin.
CP—Cariyāpiṭaka, PTS edition; also by B. C. Law.
CS—Catuhstava of Nāgārjuna (I. Nirupama, II. Lokātīta, III.
Acintya, and IV. Paramārtha).
DA (दिव्या०) Divyāvadāna, our edition in BST No. 20; also Cowell
and Neil's edition.
DBh (द० भ०)—Daśabhūmikasūtra ed. by Rahder.
GM—Gilgit Mss. ed. by N. Dutt.
GV (गण्ड०)—Gaṇḍavyūhasūtra, ed. by Suzuki and Idzumi, Kyoto,
Japan, 1949.
J (जा०)—Jātaka, ed. by Fausböl.
JM (जा०मा०) Jātakamālā of Ārya Śūra, ed. by H. Kern, HOS.; our
edition in BST No. 21.
KV (कारण्ड°)—Kāraṇḍavyūha, BTS edition.
(लङ्का०)—Laṅkāvatārasūtra, ed. by B. Nanjio, Kyoto, Japan, 1923;
reprint 1956.
LV (ललित०)—Lalita-Vistara, our edition in BST No. 1.
MŚ (म०शा०)—Madhyamakaśāstra of Nāgārjuna, our edition in BST
No. 10.
MV (म०वृ०)—Madhyamakavṛtti called Prasannapadā of Candrakīrti, our
edition in BST No. 10.
MVastu (म० व०)—Mahāvastu, ed. by E. Senart.
MVy (म०व्यु०)—Mahāvyutpatti ed. by I. P. Minayeff, Bibliotheca
Buddhica.
RP(राष्ट्र०)—Rāṣṭrapālaparipṛcchā, ed. by L. Feer, Bibliotheca Buddhica.
ŚS (शिक्षा०)—Śikṣāsamuccaya of Śāntideva, ed. by Bendall in Bibliotheca
Buddhica; our edition in BST No. 11.
SA (सूत्राल०) Sūtrālaṁkāra of Asaṅga, ed. by S. Lévi.
SN—Saundarananda of Aśvaghoṣa, edns. by H. P. Shastri and Johnstone.
SR (समाधि)—Samādhirājasūtra ed. by N. Dutt, in GM; our edition in
BST No. 2.

xxxi Abbreviations
SDP (सद्धर्म०)—Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra, ed. by N. Dutt; also by Kern
and Nanjio.
SP (सुवर्ण०)—Suvarṇaprabhāsasūtra. ed. by B. Nanjio and H. Idzumi,
Kyoto, Japan, 1931; also by J. Nobel.
SV (सुखा०)—Sukhāvatīvyūha, ed. by Max Müller.
T—Tibetan translation.
T—(followed by number)—Tohoku Catalogue.
TG (तथा०)—Tathāgataguhyasūtra or Guhyasamāja, GOS edn.
TS (तत्त्वसं०)—Tattvasaṁgraha of Śāntarakṣita, GOS edition.
TTP—Taisho Tripiṭaka, Tokyo, 1924-1934.
VCh (वज्र०)—Vajracchedikā, ed. by Max Müller.
(N.B.—Most of the works mentioned above are planned to be
included in the BUDDHIST SANSKRIT TEXTS Series. The list will
be found at the end of the Volume.)

नागार्जुनीयं
मध्यमकशास्त्रम् ।
आचार्यचन्द्रकीर्तिविरचितया प्रसन्नपदाख्यव्याख्यया
संवलितम् ।
१
प्रत्ययपरीक्षा नाम प्रथमं प्रकरणम् । B 1
आर्यमञ्जुश्रिये कुमारभूताय नमः ।
योऽन्तर्द्वयावास¹विधूतवासः संबुद्धधीसागरलब्धजन्मा ।
सद्धर्मतोयस्य गभीरभावं यथानुबुद्धं कृपया जगाद ॥ १ ॥
यस्य दर्शनतेजांसि परवादिमतेन्धनम् ।
दहन्त्यद्यापि लोकस्य मानसानि तमांसि च ॥ २ ॥ 5
यस्यासमज्ञानवचःशरौघा निघ्नन्ति निःशेषभवारिसेनाम् । B 2
त्रिधातुरराज्यश्रियमार्दधाना विनेयलोकस्य सदेवकस्य ॥ ३ ॥
नागार्जुनाय प्रणिपत्य तस्मै तत्कारिकाणां विवृतिं करिष्ये ।
उत्तानसत्प्रक्रियवाक्यनद्धां तर्कानिलाव्याकुलितां प्रसन्नाम् ॥ ४ ॥
तत्र 'न स्वतो नापि परतो न द्वाभ्याम्' (१.३) इत्यादि वक्ष्यमाणं शास्त्रम् । तस्य 10
कानि संबन्धाभिधानप्रयोजनानि इति प्रश्ने, मध्यमकावतारविहितविधिना अद्वयज्ञानालंकृतं
महाकरुणोपाय³पुरःसरं प्रथमचित्तोत्पादं तथागतज्ञानोत्पत्तिहेतुमार्दिं कृत्वा यावदाचार्यनागार्जुनस्य B 3
विदिताविपरीतप्रज्ञापारमितानीतेः करुणया परावबोधार्थं शास्त्रप्रणयनम्, इत्येष तावच्छास्त्रस्य
संबन्धः —
यैञ्छास्ति वः क्लेशरिपूनशेषांस्त्रायते दुर्गतिंतो भवाच्च । 15
तच्छासनात्त्राणगुणाच्च शास्त्रमेतद्द्वयं⁴ चान्यमतेषु नास्ति ॥
इति । स्वयमेव चाचार्यो वक्ष्यमाणसकलशास्त्राभिधेयार्थं सप्रयोजनमुपदर्शयन्, तद्विपरीत-
संप्रकाशत्वेन माहात्म्यमुद्भाव्य तत्स्वभावाव्यतिरिक्तवर्तिने परमगुरवे तथागताय शास्त्रप्रणयन-
निमित्तकं प्रणामं कर्तुकाम आह —
१. Mss. योऽन्तर्द्वयावास० for योऽन्तद्वयावास० which is confirmed by T. २. T
सद्धर्मकोषस्य for सद्धर्मतोयस्य. ३. T om. उपाय०. ४. T om. this stanza.

पृष्ठम् २ [१.१-]

२ मध्यमकशास्त्रे [१.१-
अनिरोधमनुत्पादमनुच्छेदमशाश्वतम् ।
अनेकार्थमनानार्थमनागममनिर्गमम् ॥
यः प्रतीत्यसमुत्पादम्
[B 4] इत्यादि । तदत्रानिरोधाद्यष्टविशेषणविशिष्टः प्रतीत्यसमुत्पादः शास्त्राभिधेयार्थः । सर्वप्रपञ्चोपशम-
५ लक्षणं निर्वाणं शास्त्रस्य प्रयोजनं निर्दिष्टम् ।
तं वन्दे वदतां वरम् ।
इत्यनेन प्रणामः । इत्येष तावच्छ्लोकद्वयस्य समुदायार्थः ॥
अवयवार्थस्तु विभज्यते । तत्र निरुद्धिर्निरोधः । क्षणभङ्गो निरोध इत्युच्यते । उत्पाद-
मुत्पादः । आत्मभावोन्मज्जनमित्यर्थः । उच्छित्तिरुच्छेदः । प्रबन्धविच्छित्तिरित्यर्थः । शाश्वतो नित्यः ।
१० सर्वकाले स्थाणुरित्यर्थः । एकश्चासावर्थश्चेत्येकार्थोऽभिन्नार्थः । न पृथगित्यर्थः । नानार्थो भिन्नार्थः ।
पृथगित्यर्थः । आगतिरागमः, विप्रकृष्टदेशावस्थितानां संनिकृष्टदेशागमनम् । निर्गतिर्निर्गमः,
[B 5] संनिकृष्टदेशावस्थितानां विप्रकृष्टदेशगमनम् । एतिर्गम्यर्थः, प्रतिः प्राप्यर्थः । उपसर्गवशेन
धात्वर्थविपरिणामात् —
उपसर्गेण धात्वर्थो बलादन्यत्र नीयते ।
१५ गङ्गासलिलमाधुर्यं सागरेण यथाऽम्भसा ॥
प्रतीत्यशब्दोऽत्र ल्यबन्तः प्राप्तावपेक्षायां वर्तते । समुत्पूर्वः पदिः प्रादुर्भावार्थ इति समुत्पादशब्दः
प्रादुर्भावे वर्तते । ततश्च हेतुप्रत्ययापेक्षो भावानामुत्पादः प्रतीत्यसमुत्पादार्थः ॥
अपरे तु ब्रुवते—इतिर्गमनं विनाशः । इतौ साधव इत्याः । प्रतिर्वीप्सार्थः । इत्येवं
तद्धितान्तमित्यशब्दं व्युत्पाद्य प्रति प्रति इत्यानां विनाशिनां समुत्पाद इति वर्णयन्ति । तेषां
[B 6] २० “प्रतीत्यसमुत्पादं वो भिक्षवो देशयिष्यामि”, “यः प्रतीत्यसमुत्पादं पश्यति स धर्मं
पश्यति” इत्येवमादौ विषये वीप्सार्थस्य संभवात् समाससद्भावाच्च स्याज्ज्यायसी व्युत्पत्तिः । इह
तु “चक्षुः प्रतीत्य रूपाणि च उत्पद्यते चक्षुर्विज्ञानम्” इत्येवमादौ विषये साक्षादङ्गीकृतार्थ-
विशेषे चक्षुः प्रतीत्येति प्रतीत्यशब्दः एकचक्षुरिन्द्रियहेतुकायामप्येकविज्ञानोत्पत्तावभीष्टायां
[B 7] कुतो वीप्सार्थता ? प्राप्यर्थस्त्वनङ्गीकृतार्थविशेषेऽपि प्रतीत्यशब्दे संभवति—प्राप्य संभवः, प्रतीत्य
२५ समुत्पाद इति । अङ्गीकृतार्थविशेषेऽपि संभवति—चक्षुः प्रतीत्य, चक्षुः प्राप्य, चक्षू रूपं चापेक्ष्येति
व्याख्यानात् । तद्धितान्ते चेत्यशब्दे “चक्षुः प्रतीत्य रूपाणि च उत्पद्यते चक्षुर्विज्ञानम्”
इत्यत्र प्रतीत्यशब्दस्याव्ययत्वाभावात् समासासद्भावाच्च विभक्तितौ सत्यां चक्षुः प्रतीत्य विज्ञानं
रूपाणि च इति निपातः स्यात् । न चैतदेवम् । इत्यव्ययस्यैव ल्यबन्तस्य व्युत्पत्तिरभ्युपेया ॥

१. Mss. स्थाणुः for स्यास्नुः (?) २. Mss. बोधि for वो which is confirmed by T.
३. Mss. P चक्षुः प्रेक्ष्येति for चक्षू रूपं चापेक्ष्य which is confirmed by T.

पृष्ठम् ३ [१.१]

१.१] प्रत्ययपरीक्षा प्रथमं प्रकरणम् । ३
[B 8] यस्तु,—“वीप्सार्थत्वात्प्रत्युपसर्गस्य, एतेः प्राप्यर्थत्वात्, समुत्पादशब्दस्य च संभवार्थ-
त्वात्, तांस्तान् प्रत्ययान् प्रतीत्य समुत्पादः प्राप्य संभव इत्येके । प्रति प्रति विनाशिनामुत्पादः
प्रतीत्यसमुत्पाद इत्यन्ये ”—इति परव्याख्यानमनूद्य दूषणमभिधत्ते, तस्य परपक्षानुवादकौशलत्व-
मेव तावत्संभाव्यते । किं कारणम् ? यो हि प्राप्यर्थं प्रतीत्यशब्दं व्याचष्टे, नासौ प्रतिं वीप्सार्थं
५ व्याचष्टे, नान्येति प्राप्यर्थम्, किं तर्हि प्रतिं प्राप्यर्थम्, समुदितं च प्रतीत्यशब्दं प्राप्तावेव वर्णयति ॥ ५
तेन इदानीं प्राप्य संभवः प्रतीत्यसमुत्पाद इत्येवं व्युत्पादितेन प्रतीत्यसमुत्पादशब्देन
यदि निरवशेषसंभविपदार्थपरामर्शो विवक्षितः, तदा तां तां हेतुप्रत्ययसामग्रीं प्राप्य संभव
प्रतीत्य समुत्पाद इति वीप्सासंबंधः क्रियते । अथ विशेषपरामर्शः, तदा चक्षुः प्राप्य रूपाणि
चेति न वीप्सायाः संबन्ध इति ॥ एवं तावदनुवादकौशलमाचार्यस्य ॥
१० एतद्वा अयुक्तम् । किं च । अयुक्तमेतत् “चक्षुः प्रतीत्य रूपाणि च उत्पद्यते चक्षु-
र्विज्ञानम्” इति, अत्रार्थद्वयासंभवात् इति यदुक्तं दूषणम्, तदपि नोपपद्यते । किं कारणम् ?
[B 9] कथमनेनैव तत्राप्तेः संभव इति युक्त्यनुपादानेन प्रतिज्ञामात्रत्वात् । अथायमभिप्रायः स्यात्—
अरूपित्वाद्धिविज्ञानस्य चक्षुषा प्राप्तिर्नास्ति, रूपिणामेव तत्राप्तिदर्शनादिति, एतदपि न युक्तम्,
‘प्राप्तफलोऽयं भिक्षुः’ इत्यत्रापि प्राप्यर्थाभ्युपगमात् । प्राप्यशब्दस्य च अपेक्ष्यशब्दपर्यायत्वात् ।
१५ प्राप्यर्थस्यैव आचार्येणार्यनागार्जुनेन प्रतीत्यशब्दस्य
तत्प्राप्य यदुत्पन्नं नोत्पन्नं तत्स्वभावतः ।
इत्यभ्युपगमात् । ततो दूषणमपि नोपपद्यते इत्यपरे ॥
यच्चापि स्वमतं व्यवस्थापितम्—“किं तर्हि, अस्मिन् सति इदं भवति, अस्योत्पादादिद-
[B 10] मुत्पद्यते, इति इदंप्रत्ययतायाः प्रतीत्यसमुत्पादार्थ इति”, तदपि नोपपद्यते, प्रतीत्यसमुत्पाद-
२० शब्दयोः प्रत्येकमेकविशेषानभिधानात्, तद्व्युत्पादस्य च विवक्षितत्वात् ॥
अथापि रूढिशब्दं प्रतीत्यसमुत्पादशब्दमभ्युपेत्य अरण्येतिलकादिवदेवमुच्यते, तदपि
नोपपन्नम्, अवयवार्थानुगतस्यैव प्रतीत्यसमुत्पादस्य आचार्येण
तत्प्राप्य यदुत्पन्नं नोत्पन्नं तत्स्वभावतः ।
इत्यभ्युपगमात् । अथ
२५ अस्मिन्सतीदं भवति ह्रस्वे दीर्घं यथा सति ।
इति व्याख्यायमानेन ननु तदेवाभ्युपगतं भवति, ह्रस्वं प्रतीत्य, ह्रस्वं प्राप्य, ह्रस्वमपेक्ष्य
दीर्घं भवतीति । ततश्च यदेव दूष्यते तदेवाभ्युपगम्यते इति न युज्यते । इत्यलं प्रसङ्गेन ॥

१. T प्रतीत्यसमुत्पादशब्दं for प्रतीत्यशब्दं. २. T om. एतद्वा अयुक्तम् । किं च. ३. P विज्ञान-
मित्यत्राह यार्थाभिसंभवादिति येति यदुक्तम्; C यार्थाभिसंबन्धादिति for विज्ञानमिति अत्रार्थद्वयासंभवात्
which is confirmed by T. ४. Mss. विवर्जितत्वात् for विवक्षितत्वात् which is based
on T. ५. T प्रतीत्य for अपेक्ष्य,

[पृष्ठम् ४]

४ | मध्यमकशास्त्रे | [ १.१-
तदेवं हेतुप्रत्ययापेक्षं भावानामुत्पादं परिदीपयता भगवता अहेत्वेकहेतुविषमहेतुसंभूतत्वं
स्वपरोभयकृतत्वं च भावानां निषिद्धं भवति, तन्निषेधाच्च सांवृतानां पदार्थानां यथावस्थितं
सांवृतं स्वरूपमुद्भावितं भवति । स एवेदानीं सांवृतः प्रतीत्यसमुत्पादः स्वभावेनानुत्पन्नत्वाद्
B 11 आर्यज्ञानापेक्षया नास्मिन्निरोधो विद्यते यावन्नास्मिन्निर्गमो विद्यते इत्यनिरोधादिभिरष्टाभिर्विशे-
षणैर्विशिष्यते । यथा च निरोधादयो न सन्ति प्रतीत्यसमुत्पादस्य तथा सकलशास्त्रेण
प्रतिपादयिष्यति ॥
अनन्तविशेषणसंभवेऽपि प्रतीत्यसमुत्पादस्य अष्टानामेवोपादानमेषां प्राधान्येन विवादाङ्ग-
भूतत्वात् । यथावस्थितप्रतीत्यसमुत्पाददर्शने सति आर्यागार्मेभिधेयादिलक्षणस्य प्रपञ्चस्य
सर्वथोपरमात्, प्रपञ्चानामुपशमोऽस्मिन्निति स एव प्रतीत्यसमुत्पादः प्रपञ्चोपशम इत्युच्यते ।
चित्तचैत्तानां च तस्मिन्नप्रवृत्तौ ज्ञानज्ञेयव्यवहारनिवृत्तौ जातिजरामरणादिनिरवशेषोपद्रवरहितत्वात्
शिवः । यथामिहितविशेषणस्य प्रतीत्यसमुत्पादस्य देशनाक्रिया ईप्सिततमत्वात् कर्मणा
निर्देशः ॥
अनिरोधमनुत्पादमनुच्छेदमशाश्वतम् ।
अनेकार्थमनानार्थमनागममनिर्गमम् ॥ १ ॥
यः प्रतीत्यसमुत्पादं प्रपञ्चोपशमं शिवम् ।
देशयामास संबुद्धस्तं वन्दे वदतां वरम् ॥ २ ॥
[ मङ्गलश्लोकौ ]
यथोपरिवर्णितप्रतीत्यसमुत्पादावगमाच्च तथागतस्यैवैकस्याविपरीतार्थवादित्वं पश्यन् सर्वपर-
B 12 प्रवादांश्च बालप्रलापानिवावेत्य अतीव प्रसादानुगत आचार्यो भूयो भगवन्तं विशिष्यति-वदतां
वरमिति ॥
अत्र च निरोधस्य पूर्वं प्रतिषेधः उत्पादनिरोधयोः पौर्वापर्यावस्थायाः सिद्धयभावं
द्योतयितुम् । वक्ष्यति हि-
पूर्वं जातिर्यदि भवेज्जरामरणमुत्तरम् ।
निर्जरामरणा जातिर्भवेज्जायेत चामृतः ॥ [ म० शा० ११.३ ]
इति । तस्मान्नायं नियमो यत् पूर्वमुत्पादेन भवितव्यं पश्चान्निरोधेनेति ॥
इदानीमनिरोधादिविशिष्टप्रतीत्यसमुत्पादप्रतिपिपादयिषया उत्पादप्रतिषेधेन निरोधादि-
प्रतिषेधसौकर्यं मन्यमान आचार्यः प्रथममेवोत्पादप्रतिषेधमारभते । उत्पादो हि परैः परिकल्प्य-
मानः स्वतो वा परिकल्प्येत, परतः, उभयतः, अहेतुतो वा परिकल्प्येत । सर्वथा च नोपपद्यत
इति निश्चिंत्याह-
न स्वतो नापि परतो न द्वाभ्यां नाप्यहेतुतः ।
उत्पन्ना जातु विद्यन्ते भावाः क्वचन केचन ॥ ३ ॥
१. T अभिधेयाभिधानलक्षणस्यादिप्रपञ्चानां for अभिधेयादिलक्षणस्य प्रपञ्चस्य. २. T यज्जन्म पूर्वं
भवति जरामरणं पश्चात् for यत्पूर्वं... निरोधेनेति,

[पृष्ठम् ५]

-१.३ ] | प्रत्ययपरीक्षा प्रथमं प्रकरणम् । | ५
तत्र जातिरिति कदाचिदित्यर्थः । क्वचनशब्द आधारवचनः कचिच्छब्दपर्यायः । केचन- B 13
शब्द आधेयवचनः केचिच्छब्दपर्यायः । ततश्चैवं संबन्धः - नैव स्वत उत्पन्ना जातु विद्यन्ते
भावाः, क्वचन, केचन । एवं प्रतिज्ञात्रयमपि योज्यम् ॥
ननु च-नैव स्वत उत्पन्ना इत्यवधार्यमाणे परत उत्पन्ना इत्यनिष्टं प्राप्नोति । न
प्राप्नोति । प्रसज्यप्रतिषेधस्य विवक्षितत्वात्, परतोऽप्युत्पादस्य प्रतिषेत्स्यमानत्वात् । यया चोप-
पत्त्या स्वत उत्पादो न संभवति, सा-
तस्माद्धि तस्य भवने न गुणोऽस्ति कश्चि-
ञ्जातस्य जन्म पुनरेव च नैव युक्तम् ।
[ मध्यमावतार-६.८ ]
इत्यादिना मध्यमावतारादिद्वारेणावसेया ॥
आचार्यबुद्धपालितस्त्वाह-न स्वत उत्पद्यन्ते भावाः, तदुत्पादवैयर्थ्यात्, अतिप्रसङ्ग- B 14
दोषोच्च । न हि स्वात्मना विद्यमानानां पदार्थानां पुनरुत्पादे प्रयोजनमस्ति । अथ सन्नपि
जायेत, न कदाचिन्न जायेत इति ॥
अत्रैके दूषणमाहुः- तदयुक्तम्, हेतुदृष्टान्तानभिधानात्परोक्तदोषापरिहाराच्चै । प्रसङ्ग- B 15
वाक्यत्वाच्चै प्रकृतार्थविपर्ययेण विपरीताद्यसाध्यतद्धर्मव्यक्तौ परस्मादुत्पन्नाभावाजन्मसाफल्यात्
जन्मविरो(बो ?) धाच्चेति कृतान्तविरोधः स्यात् ॥
सर्वमेतद्दूषणमयुज्यमानं वयं पश्यामः । कथं कृत्वा ? तत्र यत्तावदुक्तं हेतुदृष्टान्तानभि-
धानादिति, तदयुक्तम् । किं कारणम् ? यस्मात्परः स्वत उत्पत्तिमभ्युपगच्छंश्च पृच्छयते-
स्वत इति हेतुत्वेन तदेव चोत्पद्यते इति ? न च विद्यमानस्य पुनरुत्पत्तौ प्रयोजनं
पश्यामः, अनवस्थां च पश्यामः । न च त्वया उत्पन्नस्य पुनरुत्पाद इष्यतेऽनवस्था
चाभ्युपेहिते । तस्मान्निरुपपक्तिक एव त्वद्वादः स्वाभ्युपगमविरोधश्चेति । किमिति चोदिते परो
नाभ्युपैति यतो हेतुदृष्टान्तोपादानसाफल्यं स्यात् ? अथ स्वभ्युपगमविरोधंचोदनायापि परो न
निवर्तते, तदा निर्लज्जतया हेतुदृष्टान्तान्यामपि नैव निवर्तेत । न चोन्मत्तकेन सहास्माकं विवाद
इति । तस्मात्सर्वथा प्रियानुमानतामेवात्मनः आचार्यः प्रकटयति अस्थानेऽनुमानं प्रवेशयन् । B 16
न च माध्यमिकस्य सतः स्वतन्त्रमनुमानं कर्तुं युक्तं पक्षान्तराभ्युपगमाभावात् । तथोक्तमार्यदेवेन -
सदसत्सदसच्चेति यस्य पक्षो न विद्यते ।
उपालम्भश्चिरेणापि तस्य वक्तुं न शक्यते ॥
( चतुःशतक - १६.२५ )
१. T om. दोष. २. Mss. om. च. ३. T om. च. ४. After 'गच्छन् Mss. and P add:
विद्यमानस्य पुनरुत्पादे which T om. ५. Mss. • विरुद्धचोदनयापि for • विरोध०. ६. T om. सर्वथा.
७. Mss. प्रवेशयेत् for प्रवेशयन्. ८. P स्वतः for सतः which is not rendered in T,

यहाँ दोनों पृष्ठों का पंक्ति-दर-पंक्ति लिप्यन्तरण प्रस्तुत है:

[पृष्ठ ६]

६            मध्यमकशास्त्रे           [ १.३-
विग्रहव्यावर्त्तन्यां चोक्तम्—
     यदि काचन प्रतिज्ञा स्यान्मे तत एव मे भवेद्दोषः।
     नास्ति च मम प्रतिज्ञा तस्मान्नैवास्ति मे दोषः॥
     यदि किंचिदुपलभयेयं प्रवर्तयेयं निवर्त्तयेयं वा।
5     प्रत्यक्षादिभिरर्थैस्तदभावान्मेऽनुपालम्भः॥
                 [ विग्रहव्यावर्

Here is the complete, line-by-line transcription of the Sanskrit text from both pages, including all sutras, karikas, commentary, and footnotes.

Page 1 (८)

८ मध्यमकशास्त्रे [ १.३-
परप्रतिज्ञाप्रतिषेधमात्रफलत्वात्प्रसङ्गापादनस्य नास्ति प्रसङ्गविपरीताथर्पत्तिः । तथा च आचार्यो
भूयसा प्रसङ्गापत्तिमुखेनैव परपक्षं निराकरोति स्म । तथा —
नाकाशं विद्यते किंचित्पूर्वमाकाशलक्षणात् ।
अलक्षणं प्रसज्येत स्यात्पूर्वं यदि लक्षणात् ॥
[ म० शा० - ५.१ ]
रूपकारणनिर्मुक्ते रूपे रूपं प्रसज्यते ।
आहेतुकं न चास्त्यर्थः कश्चिदहेतुकः क्वचित् ॥
[ म० शा० - ४.२ ]
भावस्तावन्न निर्वाणं जरामरणलक्षणम् ।
प्रसज्येतास्ति भावो हि न जरामरणं विना ॥
[ म० शा० - २४.४ ]
इत्यादिना । अथ अर्थैक्यत्वादाचार्यवाक्यानां महार्थत्वे सति अनेकप्रयोगनिष्पत्तिहेतुत्वं

१० मध्यमशास्त्रे [ १. ३-
निदर्शनस्यापि नास्ति साध्यम् । तत्र हि शब्दसामान्यमनित्यतासामान्यं च अविवक्षित-
विशेषं द्वयोरपि संविद्यते । न त्वेवं चक्षुःसामान्यं शून्यताशून्यतावादिभ्यां संवृत्या अङ्गीकृतं नापि
परमार्थतः । इति नास्ति निदर्शनस्य साध्यम् ॥
यश्चायमसिद्धाधारपक्षदोषोद्भावने विधिः, एष एव सत्त्वादित्यस्य हेतोरसिद्धार्थतोद्भावनेऽ-
पि योज्यः ॥
इत्थं चैतदेवम्, यत्स्वयमप्यनेनायं यथोक्तोऽर्थोऽभ्युपगतस्तार्किकेन । सन्त्येवाध्यात्मिका-
यतनोत्पादका हेत्वादयः, तथा तथागतेन निर्देशाद् । यद्धि यथा तथागतेनास्ति निर्दिष्टं तत्तथा,
तद्यथा शान्तं निर्वाणमिति ॥
अस्य परोपक्षिस्य साधनस्येदं दूषणमभिहितमनेन—को हि भवतामभिप्रेतोऽत्र हेत्वर्थः ?
संवृत्या तथा तथागतेन निर्देशाद्, उत परमार्थत इति ? संवृत्या चेत्, स्वतो हेतोरसिद्धार्थता ।
परमार्थतश्चेत्,
न सन्नासन्न सदसद्धर्मो निर्वर्तते यदा ।
सदसदुभयात्मककार्यप्रत्ययत्वनिराकरणात्, तदा —
कथं निर्वर्तको हेतुरेवं सति हि युज्यते ॥
[ म० शा० – १.७ ]
नैवासौ निर्वर्तको हेतुरिति वाक्यार्थः । ततश्च परमार्थतो निर्वर्त्यनिर्वर्तकत्वासिद्धेः असिद्धार्थता
विरुद्धार्थता वा हेतोरिति ॥
यतश्चैवं स्वयमेवामुना न्यायेन हेतोरासिद्धिराङ्गीकृतानेन, तस्मात्सर्वेष्वेवानुमानेषु वस्तु-
धर्मोपन्यस्तहेतुकेषु स्वत एव हेत्वादीनामसिद्धत्वात् सर्वाण्येव साधनानि व्याहन्यन्ते । तद्यथा — न
परमार्थतः परेभ्यस्तत्प्रत्ययेभ्यः आध्यात्मिकायतनजन्म, परत्वात्, तद्यथा घटस्य । अथवा—न परे
परमार्थेन विवक्षिताः चक्षुराध्यात्मिकायतननिर्वर्तकाः प्रत्यया इति प्रतीयन्ते, परत्वात्, तद्यथा
तन्त्वादय इति । परत्वादिकमत्र स्वत एवासिद्धम् ॥
यथा चानेन — उत्पन्ना एव आध्यात्मिका भावाः, तद्विषयविशिष्टव्यवहारकरणात् – इत्यस्य
परामोहितस्य हेतोरसिद्धौर्यतामुद्भावयितुणा इदमुक्तम्, अथ समाहितस्य योगिनः प्रज्ञाचक्षुषा
भावयाथात्म्यं पश्यतः उत्पादगतादयः सन्ति परमार्थत इति साध्यते, तदा तद्विषयविशिष्टव्यवहार-
करणादिति हेतोरसिद्धार्थता, गतेरप्युत्पादनषेधादेव निषेधादिति । एवं स्वकृतसाधनेऽपि —
परमार्थतोऽगतं नैव गम्यते, अध्वत्वात्, गतावद्वदिति अध्वैत्वहेतोः स्वत एवासिद्धार्थता योज्या ॥
न परमार्थतः सभागं चक्षू रूपं पश्यति, चक्षुरिन्द्रियत्वात्, तद्यथा तत्सभागम् । तथा —
न चक्षुः प्रेक्षते रूपम्, भौतिकत्वात्, रूपवत् । खरस्वभावा न मही, भूतत्वात्, तद्यथानिलः,
इत्यादिषु हेत्वाचासिद्धिः स्वत एव योज्या ॥
१. Mss. सत्त्वादिभ्यः स्वहेतोः for सत्त्वादित्यस्य हेतोः which is confirmed T. २. T घटस्य
for पटस्य. ३. T आध्यात्मिकातयना for आध्यात्मिका. ४. T असिद्धि for असिद्धार्थतां. ५. After इति,
T adds उक्तम्. ६. Mss. अथ हेतोः for अध्वत्वहेतोः which is confirmed by T. ७. Mss.
स्वरूपवत् for रूपवत्. ८. Mss. नलिन for अनिलः.
-१. ३] प्रत्ययपरीक्षा प्रथमं प्रकरणम्। ११
सत्त्वादिति चायं हेतुः परतोऽनैकान्तिकः । किं सत्त्वात् चैतन्यवन्नाध्यात्मिकान्यायवत्नानि
स्वत उत्पद्यन्ताम्, उताहो घटादिवत् स्वत उत्पन्नन्तामिति घटादीनां साध्यसमत्वान्नानकान्ति-
कतेति चेत्, नैतदेवम्, तथानभिधानात् ॥
ननु च यथा परकीयेष्वनुमानेषु दूषणमुक्तम्, एवं स्वानुमानेष्वपि यथोक्तदूषणप्रसङ्गे
सति स एव असिद्धाधारासिद्धहेत्वादिदोषः प्राप्नोति, ततश्च यः उभयोर्दोषः, न तेनैकश्चोद्यो
भवतीति सर्वमेतद्भूषणमयुक्तं जायत इति । उच्यते । स्वतन्त्रमनुमानं ब्रुवतामयं दोषो जायते ।
न वयं स्वतन्त्रमनुमानं प्रयुंङ्गमहे परप्रतिज्ञातिषेधफलत्वादस्मदनुमानानाम् । तथा हि—परः चक्षुः
पश्यतीति प्रतिपन्नः । स तत्प्रसिद्धेनैवानुमानेन निराक्रियते — चक्षुषः स्वात्मादर्शनधर्ममिच्छसि,
परदर्शनधर्माविनाभावित्वं चाङ्गीकृतम्, तस्माद् यत्र यत्र स्वात्मादर्शनं तत्र तत्र परदर्शनमपि
नास्ति, तद्यथा घटे, अस्ति च चक्षुषः स्वात्मादर्शनम्, तस्मात् परदर्शनमप्यस्य नैवास्ति ।
ततश्च स्वात्मादर्शनविरुद्धं नीलादिपरदर्शनं स्वप्रसिद्धेनैवानुमानेन विरुध्यत इति एतावन्मात्रमस्म-
दनुमानेनोद्भाव्यत इति कुतोऽस्मत्पक्षे यथोक्तदोषावतारः, यतः समानदोषता स्यात् ?
किं पुनः—अन्यतरप्रसिद्धेनाप्यनुमानेनास्त्यनुमानबाधा । अस्ति, सा च स्वप्रसिद्धेनैव
हेतुना, न परप्रसिद्धेन, लोकत एवं दृष्टत्वात् । कदाचिद्धि लोके अर्थिप्रत्यर्थिभ्यां प्रमाणीकृतस्य
साक्षिणो वचनेन जयो भवति पराजयो वा, कदाचित् स्ववचनेन । परवचनेन तु न जयो
नापि पराजयः । यथा च लोके, तथा न्यायेऽपि । लौकिकस्यैव व्यवहारस्य न्यायशास्त्रे प्रस्तुतत्वात् ।
अत एव कैश्चिदुक्तम्-न परतः प्रसिद्धिवलादनुमानबाधा, परप्रसिद्धेरेव निराचिकीर्षितत्वादिति ।
यस्तु मन्यते—य एव उभयनिराश्चितवादी, स प्रमाणं दूषणं वा, नान्यतरप्रसिद्धसंदिग्धवाची इति,
तेनापि लौकिकीं व्यवस्थामनुरुध्यमानेन अनुमाने यथोक्त एव न्यायोऽभ्युपेयः ॥
तँथा हि नोभयप्रसिद्धेन वा आगमेन बाधा, किं तर्हि स्वप्रसिद्धेनापि ॥
स्वार्थानुमाने तु सर्वत्र स्वप्रसिद्धिश्चैव गरीयसी, नोभयप्रसिद्धिः । अत एव तर्कलक्षणा-
भिधानं निष्प्रयोजनम्, यथास्वप्रसिद्ध्या उपपत्त्या बुद्धैस्तदनभिज्ञाविनयोजनानुग्रहात् । इत्यलं
प्रसङ्गेन । प्रकृतमेव व्याख्यास्यामः ॥
परतोऽपि नोत्पद्यन्ते भावाः । पराभावादेव । एतच्च —
न हि स्वभावो भावानां प्रत्ययादिषु विद्यते ।
[ म० शा० – १.५ ]
इत्यत्र प्रतिपादयिष्यति । ततश्च पराभावादेव नापि परत उत्पद्यन्ते । अपि च —
अन्यत्वतीत्य यदि नाम परोऽभविष्य –
जायेत तर्हि बहुलः शिखिनोऽन्धकारः ।
१. Mss. प्रयुङ्जामहे for प्रयुङ्ग्महे. २. Mss. यथा for तथा.