Madhyamakvatra: Collection of Reasoning

Oral commentary by Khen Rinpoche Namdrol

Motivation
Please listen to this explanation with the supreme motivation of bodhicitta, 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 rya Ngrjuna was prophesied by the Buddha himself in the Root
Tantra of Majur (Majurmla Tantra):

Four hundred years after I,

The Tathgata, have passed away,
A monk called Nga will appear
Who will benefit my teachings.
Reaching the bhmi of Perfect Joy
And living for six hundred years,
This great being will perfect
The science of the great peacock,1
And will understand the meaning of various stras
And the meaning of the absence of reality.
When he leaves behind his mortal body,
He will be reborn in Sukhvat.
And ultimately, he will certainly gain
he perfect fruit of buddhahood itself.

He was also prophesied in the Great Cloud Stra (Mahmegha-stra) and the Stra of
the Great Drum (Mahbherhrakaparivarta-stra).

rya Ngrjuna's two main treatisesthe so-called body treatisesare Root Verses
on the Middle Way (Mlamadhyamakakrik) and Sixty Verses on Reasoning. The text
we are concerned with here is the Introduction to the Middle Way or
Madhyamakvatra by Candrakirti, which is a commentary on the meaning of the
Root Verses.

Generally speaking, Ngrjuna composed treatises on all five sciences. Those on the
science of the inner meaning, i.e., the Buddhadharma, primarily teach the aspects of
view and conduct. In describing the view and the conduct of the Dharma, Ngrjuna
employs both scriptural quotations and reasoning. The treatise that mostly uses
quotations from the scriptures is the Compendium of Stras (Strasamuccaya). It

1
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 Collection of Reasoning, the
Collection of Praises and the Collection of Advice.

The Collection of Praises relates mainly to the final turning of the Wheel of Dharma.
It includes eulogies in praise of the ground, the path and the fruition.

The Collection of Advice relates mainly to the first turning. It includes the advice to
the king known as the Precious Garland2 as well as the Letter to a Friend.3

According to some past scholars the Collection of Reasoning was originally referred
to simply as the collection or the teachings of logical reasoning and the number of
texts it contained was not specified. Others, such as Mabja Changchub Tsndr4 and
the omniscient Gowo Rabjampa,5 insist that the Collection of Reasoning contains a
specific number of texts. They differ in the texts they identify; yet they agree on the
principle that the number of texts in the collection is fixed.

Mabja Changchub Tsndr said that the Collection of Reasoning contains six texts.
Among these, he said, two texts are likened to the body, and this is clear because it is
stated so in Candrakrtis commentary to Sixty Verses on Reasoning. The two body-
like texts are Root Verses on the Middle Way and Sixty Verses on Reasoning. In
addition, Mabja Changchub Tsndr goes on, there are four branch or limb-like
treatises. He claims that this derives from Candrakrtis Commentary to the Sixty
Verses on Reasoning, where it is explained how these four texts are elaborations upon
the two fundamental treatises. However, this text only describes Refutation of
Objections 6 and Seventy Stanzas on Emptiness7 as extensions of the main two
treatises. It does not mention Crushing to Fine Powder8 or Conventional Existence, 9
which are the other texts Mabja Changchub Tsndr includes among the collection.

Gorampa disagrees with Mabja Changchub Tsndr because of this very point. It is
clear, he says, that Refutation of Objections and Seventy Verses on Emptiness are
branch-like treatises, because the way in which they are extensions of the main two
treatises is clearly explained. As for Crushing to Fine Powder, Gorampa 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. He also agrees that the main topic of Crushing
to Fine Powder is the refutation of the so-called sixteen topics (Skt. padrtha) of the
dialecticians. As it says in the text itself:

2
 With the pride of intellectual knowledge,
They seek to engage in debate.
In order that they might relinquish such pride,
I shall explain the Crushing to Fine Powder.10

So, Crushing to a Fine Powder is included among the branch-like treatises.

Mabja Changchub Tsndr includes Conventional Existence among the branch-like

treatises. This is because the teachings of the Root Verses 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 Conventional Existence 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. So Mabja Changchub
Tsndr claims that there are six texts in the Collection of Reasoning, and that one
of them is Conventional Existence.

The Omniscient Longchenpa also states that there are six texts in the Collection of
Reasoning, the sixth being Conventional Existence.

Gorampa disputes the inclusion of Conventional Existence. In the first place, he

objects to this on the grounds that it was not translated into Tibetan. He goes on to
say that it probably did not exist even in India because Candrakrti fails to mention it
at the end of his Clear Words11 commentary upon the Root Verses on the Middle Way
when listing all the Madhyamaka texts that he had studied. If Conventional Existence
really was the work of Ngrjuna, Gorampa argues, then Candrakrti would
certainly have studied it. This is the relevant section of Clear Words:

What I have shown here is based on my study of the Compendium of Stras,

the Advice of the Precious Garland and In Praise of the Authentic, and also, for
a long time and with great effort, the Kriks from the treatise of rya
[Ngrjuna] , and the Sixty Verses on Reasoning, Crushing to Fine Powder and
Seventy Stanzas on Emptiness as well as Refutation of Objections too. I also
looked into the [Four] Hundred Verses and so on, and many profound sutras,
as well as the commentary composed by Buddhaplita and that which was
well explained by Bhvavivekaall these texts one after anotherand I have
also included what I have discovered through my own investigations,
bringing everything together in order to delight all those with intelligence.12

It is because it is not among the works listed here that Gorampa feltConventional
Existence was unknown in India.

As stated earlier, Mabja Changchub Tsndr was amongst those earlier scholars
who believed that Conventional Existence should be included in the Collection of

3
Reasoning. Mabja Changchub Tsndrs main teacher was Lotsawa Patsab Nyima
Drakpa13 who actually translated the Introduction to the Middle Way from Sanskrit
into Tibetan, as it says clearly in the translators colophon at the end of the text:

by the Indian abbot Tilaka Kalasha and the Tibetan translator, the monk
Patsab Nyima Drak.

And, what is more, Mabja Changchub Tsndr was not just an average student; he
was one of the four great disciples of Patsab Nyima Drakpa, the so-called four sons
of Patsab , i.e., Geshe Putowa from Central Tibet, Sokpa Yeshe Jungne from
Changthang, and Tsangpa Sarb and Mabja Changchub Tsndr from Tsang.14

So it seems strange that one of the principal students of this great Tibetan translator
who worked in collaboration with an Indian scholar to translate Candrakrtis text
would consider a non-existent text to exist, and, not only that, but also for it to be
the work of Ngrjuna, and to be included within his Collection of Reasoning. If
there were a reason to doubt the existence of the text in India or its authorship,
Mabja Changchub Tsndr 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 Collection of Reasoning. Lotsawa Patsab Nyima Drakpa
was one of the great translators and Mabja Changchub Tsndr was his direct
disciple. They would certainly have known whether or not there was a text by rya
Ngrjuna called Conventional Existence. 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. Hence, Gyalse Shenpen Taye, the
Omniscient Longchenpa and others include Conventional Existence in the Collection
of Reasoning and the reasons for its exclusion provided by Gorampa may be
considered insufficient.

The Treasury of Secret Mantra Scripture15 is a text belonging to the category of terma
related to the cycle of Deshek Dpa, and it includes statements by Vimalamitra,
Guru Rinpoche, Namkhe Nyingpo and Vairotsana. This text also refers to a six-fold
Collection of Reasoning, but it gives the sixth text as Beyond All Fear.16 According to
Indian scholars and the earlier Tibetan commentators Beyond All Fear_is a work of
rya Ngrjuna. Nevertheless, it is a commentary on the Root Verses 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
Verses_composed by Ngrjuna himself. More recently however, Gorampa and
others have expressed doubts about this, primarily because the text includes a
citation from ryadevas Four Hundred Verses.17 ryadeva was Ngrjunas pupil,
and it seems unlikely that in commenting upon a text that he himself had written,
Ngrjuna would quote his own student. So there are those who doubt the
attribution of Beyond All Fear to Ngrjuna.

4
Gorampa and others who have questioned its attribution to Ngrjuna have also
expressed further misgivings about Beyond All Fear. Why, they ask, would
Candrakrti have composed his Clear Words commentary to the Root Verses if
Ngrjuna himself had already composed an auto-commentary? And, furthermore,
why is it that there are no quotations drawn from Beyond All Fear in the writings of
Buddhaplita? The answer can only be, Gorampa and the others claim, that the text
in question is not in fact a genuine work of Ngrjuna.

Whether or not Ngrjuna wrote Beyond All Fear, it is perhaps best not to include it
in the Collection of Reasoning. It is preferable to classify it as a commentary on the
Root Verses. If all the commentaries composed by Ngrjuna were to be included in
the Collection of Reasoning we would have to include his commentary on Refutation
of Objections and other texts and we might end up with something more like an
eight-fold collection!

There are eight commentaries on the Root Verses in the Tengyur, one of which is
Beyond All Fear. There are also those by Devaarma, Guamati, Guar, Sthiramati,
Buddhaplita, Bhvaviveka and Candrakrti. Although there is some controversy
over whether or not Beyond All Fear is an auto-commentary (i.e. by Ngrjuna
himself), the fact that it is a commentary is beyond dispute. And according to the
Treasury of Secret Mantra Quotations it is one of the six treatises in the Collection of
Reasoning.

According to Gorampa, there are only five texts in the Collection of Reasoning.18
Among these, the two likened to the body are Root Verses on the Middle Way and
Sixty Verses on Reasoning. Although they are both body-like texts we can draw a
distinction between the two. Some past scholars explained that the Root Verses 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 Sixty Verses on Reasoning teaches a freedom from four extremes, i.e., arising,
ceasing, existence and non-existence. Others have explained that the Root Verses
refute the assertions of true existence made by both Buddhist proponents of true
entities and non-Buddhist trthika philosophers; whereas the Sixty Verses on
Reasoning refutes only the assertions of true existence made by proponents of
entities within the Buddhist tradition. Mabja Changchub Tsndr explained the
difference between the two texts in the following way. He said that the Root Verses
teaches emptiness of inherent nature by means of elimination and negation; whereas
the Sixty Verses on Reasoning teaches emptiness of inherent nature by exclusively
establishing the illusory nature of the conventional.

In any case, these are the two body-like treatises and the so-called branch-like
treatises extend from these.

5
According to Gorampa, 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 Fine Powder.

According to our own tradition, once again the two body-like treatises are the Root
Verses on the Middle Way and the Sixty Verses on Reasoning. Then, among the
branch-like treatises, Refutation of Objections is said to be an expansion of the first
section of the Root Verses on Examining Conditions. The Root Verses 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 Mdhyamika
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. It is therefore
unreasonable, they say, to claim that all phenomena are ultimately beyond arising,
or beyond the two extremes of eternalism and nihilism. It is said that Refutation of
Objections was composed in order to refute such arguments. In the text, it is stated
that from the point of view of reality itself, the Mdhyamikas have nothing to refute,
and have no reasoning by which they might do so. From the conventional
perspective however, even though reasoning is not truly existent, the Mdhyamikas
are still able to refute the assertions made by the proponents of entities, rather like a
magically-created, illusory army warding off attack. For example, in the first verse of
the Refutation of Objections, it is said:19

If all entities are non-existent

By their very nature, then
Your words also lack reality
And can not refute true existence.

In his response, Ngrjuna makes such statements as:20

Since there is nothing whatsoever to refute

I do not refute anything.
Therefore when you say that I refute
That itself is incorrect.

Seventy Stanzas on Emptiness is an expansion of the section of the Root Verses on

Examining the Conditioned, 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 Buddha, it is stated that
conditioned phenomena are subject to arising, dwelling and ceasing. The
Mdhyamika replies that this is true only from the mistaken viewpoint of the
conventional. This is the essence of the discussion found in the Seventy Stanzas on
Emptiness.

6
So Refutation of Objections and Seventy Stanzas on Emptiness are direct extensions
from the body-like treatises.

Gorampa, as it was said earlier, identifies only five texts in the Collection of
Reasoning. The omniscient Longchenpa identifies six texts, and his list accords with
that of Mabja Changchub Tsndr.

Among the New Translation schools, the Gelugpas claim that the Precious Garland is
the sixth text in the collection. Gorampa opposed this by pointing out that the
Precious Garland is classified as advice, and therefore belongs to the Collection of
Advice, not the Collection of Reasoning. In Candrakrtis Clear Words, for instance,
which I quoted earlier, it is referred to as the _Advice of the Precious Garland_.

In any case, whether five or six texts are included, this is what is known as rya
Ngrjunas Collection of Reasoning.

1. i.e., alchemy.

2. Ratnval (rin chen phreng ba). See Ngrjuna, Buddhist Advice for Living and
Liberation: Ngrjuna's Precious Garland, trans. Jeffrey Hopkins, Ithaca: Snow
Lion, 1998.

3. Suhllekha (spring yig). See Nagarjunas Letter to a Friend with Commentary by

Kyabje Kangyur Rinpoche, trans. Padmakara Translation Group, Ithaca: Snow
Lion, 2006.

4. (?-1185).

5. , the famous Sakyapa scholar (1429-1489).

6. Vigrahavyvartan-krik (rtsod pa bzlog pa'i le'ur byas pa). See _The

Dialectical Method of Ngrjuna, trans. K. Bhattacharya, Delhi: Motilal
Banarsidass, 1978.

7. nyat-saptatikrik (stong pa nyid bdun bcu pa'i le'ur byas pa). See
Nagarjunas Seventy Stanzas: A Buddhist Psychology of Emptiness, David Ross
Komito, Snow Lion, 1999.

8. Vaidalya-stra (zhib mo rnam par thag pa).

9. Vyavaharasiddhi (tha snyad grub pa).

10.

11. Prasannapad (tshig gsal). See Lucid Exposition of the Middle Way, trans. M.
Sprung, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1979.

12.

13. (1055-1145?).

14. There so-called Four Sons of Patsab are referred to in a verse of Taktsang
Lotsawa:

As regards the Great Middle Way, the supreme tradition of Nagarjuna,

The excellent clarifications made by Candra[krti], translated by Nyima
[Drak],
Came down to the four sons.

There are different ways of listing them. According to one, they were: (1)
Gangpa Sheu, who was learned in the words, (2) Tsangpa Dregur (
or ), who was learned in the meaning, (3) Mabja Changchub
Tsndr, who was learned in both words and meaning, and (4) Shangthang
Sakpa Yeshe Jungne, who was learned in neither words nor meaning. Shakya
Chokden names Tsangpa Sarb () as the son who was learned in the
words and Daryulwa Rinchen Drak as the son learned in the meaning. See
Tashi Tsering, Madhyamakavatara of Acarya Candrakirti, Sarnath: Central
Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies, 2005, p. 48 and Shakya Chokden, Three
Texts on Madhyamaka, trans. Komarovski Iaroslav, Dharamsala: Library of
Tibetan Works and Archives, 2002. p. 23.

15.

16. Mlamadhyamakavrittyakutobhaya ( )

17. Catuataka (bzhi brgya pa). See Sonam, R. (trans.) Yogic Deeds of Bodhisattvas,
Gyel-tsap on ryadevas Four Hundred, Snow Lion, 1994.

8
 18. This is also the assertion of Khenpo Namdrols teacher, Khenpo Tsndr. See
Preliminaries to the Explanation of the Prajpramit

19.

20. Verse 64:

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License.

PDF document automatically generated on Sat May 20 09:49:36 2017 GMT from
http://www.lotsawahouse.org/tibetan-masters/khenpo-namdrol-tsering/madhyamakavatara-1