Table Of ContentMu lamadhyamakakarika
of
Nagarjuna
THE PHILOSOPHYOFTHE MIDDLE WAY
Introduction, Sanskrit Text, English
Translation and Annotation
DAVID]. KALUPAHANA
MOTILAL BANARSIDASS. PUBLISHERS
PRIVATE LIMITED • DELHI
First Indian Edition: Delhi, 1991
Reprint: Delhi, 1996, 1999
© 1986 State University of New York
All Rights Reserved
No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner
whatsoever without written permission except in the case of
brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews.
ISBN: 81-208-0774-x
Alw available at:
MOTIIAL BANARSIDASS
41 U.A. Bungalow Road, Jawahar· Nagar, Delhi 110 007
8 Mahalaxmi Chamber, Warden Road, Mumbai 400 026
120 Royapettah High Road, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004
Sanas Plaza, 1302; Baji Rao Road, Pune 411 002
16 St. Mark's Road, Bangalore 560 001
8 Camac Street, Calcutta 700 017
Ashok Rajpath, Patna 800 004
Chowk, Varanasi 221 001
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Nagarjuna, 2nd cent.
Miilamadhyamakakarika : the philosophy of the middle way
Translation of : Madhyamakakarika
Includes bibliographical references and index
1. Madhyamika (Buddhism)-Early works to 1800
I. Kalupahana, David J., 1933- II. ·title
III. title: Philosophy of the middle way
BQ2792.E5K35 1986 294.3'85 85-14757
PRINTED IN INDIA
BY JAINENDRA PRAKASH JAIN AT SHRI JAINENDRA PRESS,
A-45 NARAINA, PHASE I, NEW DELHI 110 028
AND.PUBLISHED BY NARENDRA PRAKASH JAIN FOR
MOTILAL BANARSIDASS PUBLISHERS PRIVATE LIMITED,
BUNGALOW ROAD, DELHI 110 007
To Professor N. A. Jayawickrema
(yo) acariyo 'hosi mam' atthakamo (j 5.~0)
PREFACE
Almost ten years ago, I undertook a new translation of Candrakirti's en
cyclopaedic work the Prasannapadii, a commentary on Nagarjuna's
primary philosophical treatise, the Mulamadhyamakak7irik1i. Mter I had
completed nearly ten chapters, I learned through one of my students about
a similar attempt by Professor Marvin Sprung. I was about to give up my
project, when my student, who -had previously studied under Professor
Sprung, shared with me a copy of Professor Sprung's translation ofthe first
chapter. Comparing his and my translations, I discovered that Professor
Sprung's translation was to some extent influenced by Stcherbatsky's work
(The Conception of Buddhist Nirvana, 1927). I felt then that my effort
would not be in vain, especially because I had expressed strong disagree
ment with Stcherbatsky's interpretation of the Buddhist philosophical tradi
tion (see my Causality, The Central Philosophy ofB uddhism, 1975).
To my surprise; Professor Sprung's translation, consiting of only seven
teen chapters (including an incomplete rendering of Chapter I), appeared in
1979. As I plodded along through my own laborious work, I began to
realize how Candrakirti was gradually leading me away from Nagarjuna's
philosophical standpoint. My suspicions were strengthened in 1981 when I
visited India on a Smithsonian grant. Meeting with some scholars who were
brought up in the Vedantic tradition, I found them to be extremely comfort
able with .Nagarjuna as interpreted by Candrakirti and less impressed by the
teachings -of early Buddhism as recorded in the Nikayas and the Agamas.
My suspicion that Nagarjuna and Candrakirti were upholding two different
philosophical standpoints compelled me to take a fresh look at
Kumarajiva's Chung-lun, which is at least two centuries prior to Can
drakirti. Translating the entire Chung-lun into English and comparing it
with Nagarjuna's original Sanskrit text, I was pleasantly surprized by their
similaries: I found no justification whatsoever in l~oking at Nagarjuna
through Candrai<:Irti's eyes when there was a more faithful and closer disci
ple of Nagarjuna in Kumarajiva. This discovery diminished my enthusiasm
·for cleaning up my English fendeting of the Prasannapadii for possible
publication.
Mter translating both the Sanskrit and the Chinese versions of Nagar
juna's treatise, I proceeded to annotate both according to my understanding
, of early Buddhism as well as later Buddhist traditions before Nagarjuna.
The annotation of the Sanskrit text alorie turned out to be more extensive
viii THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE MIDDLE WAY
than anticipated. Furthermore, considering the difficulties that might arise
in publishing this work with Sanskrit and Chinese texts side by side, and
also with the Chinese characters in the body of the annotation, I decided
once again to modify my project. The Sanskrit text is h~re presented with
annotation and introduction. The Chinese text with commentary will ap
pear subsequently as a companion volume.
I am not unaware of the controversy this work may engender. Hoping
that it will be a healthy one, I intend to raise one major question regarding
Nagarj~na,. especially in the light of the more recent research in the history
of 13udclh1sm. Professor Hajime Nakamura's monumental work, Indian
Buddhism (1980), has provided more information regarding the history of
Buddhist literature than any other work published so far. This carefully ex
ecuted work not only deals with the contents and authorship as well as the
chronology of most of the Buddhist texts, but also compares the different
versions available in Sanskrit, Paii, Chinese, Tibetan, and Japanese. After a
careful reading of this work, I cannot help recognizing an earlier stratum of
literature that has so far been lumped together with all the literature that
came to be called Mahayanistic. This includes two famous pieces, the
IVifyapaparivarta and the Vajracchedika-prajnaparamt'ta (see Nakamura,
p. 159). I wonder whether the original versions of these te~ts can be ap
proriately called Mahayanistic, even though they were preserved by the
Mahayana schools. This objection, indeed, is not very difficult from that
raised against considering the Ntkayas and Agamas to be Hfnayanistic because
they were preserved by the Theravadins, the Sarvastivadins, or any other later
tradition.
The major question that can be raised is: "Where would a philosopher like
Nagarjuna go in order to discover the Buddha's teachings?" This historical
question has, to my knowledge, neither been raised nor answered. The
Saddharmapuf!t/aifka-sutra that highlights the Hfnayana-Mahayaha con
troversy was not yet written. That does not mean that the controversy was not
known before Nagarjuna. Even if the controversy had preceded Nagarjuna,
what were the canonical texts, embodying the pure Mahayana philosophical
standpoint, that Nagarjuna could have utilized in order to explain the
Buddha's message?
A careful reading of Nakamura's work shows it to be futile to attempt to
discover a pure Mahayana text that Nagarjuna might have been able to depend
upon. Before the compilation of the Saddharmapuf!f/aifka, one can hardly
expect to find a carefully executed treatise .that would explicate the Mahayana
philosophy as it is presented by modern scholars. Since such sohisticated
Mahayana sutras were not available to Nagarjuna, he could not help moving
on to the early discourses in the Nikayas and the Agamas in search of the Bud-
PREFACE ix
dha's teachings, especially at a time when he realized that the problems were
created not only by metaphysicians like the Sarvastivadins and the
Sautrantikas, but also by more popular religious teachers like Asvaghosa, who
over-emphasised the function of "faith" in the emerging belief in a trans
cendent Buddha. A careful reading of Nagarjuna's treatise will reveal that he
was. critical of both these trends. If Buddhaghosa were to be considered the
model of a Theravadin and Candrak1rti or Santideva were to be looked upon as
ideal Mahayanists, neither the Buddha, nor Moggallputta-tissa, nor Nagarjuna
would fit into their shoes. ·
The present work may come as a surprise to many who are familiar with my
previous publications, especially because it repudiates many things that I have
said about Nagarjuna. In those earlier works, my major endeavor was to show
how the Buddhism of the Buddha differed from both Sthaviravada and
Mahayana, and the latter included philosophers like Nagarjuna. My main con
tention with scholars like Stcherbatsky and Murti has been in regard to the_
manner in which the former equated Sarvastivada with early Buddhism and the
latter portrayed the Buddha as a half-hearted metaphysician introducing a
theory of elements that came to be rejected by Nagarjuna. I was prepared to ac
cept Murti's interpretation of Nagarjuna, while struggling to find ways in
which that interpretation could be justified without sacrificing the empiricism
of the Buddha. A more detailed study of both Magarjuna and CandrakTrti has
convinced me that the former still remains faithful to the Buddha, white the
latter has moved more towards a Vedantic interpretation, thereby initiating a
proces~ that culminated in the disappearance of Buddhism as a distinct
ideology from the Indian scene a few centuries later.
