Refutation of Pratītya-samutpāda as Theory of Causality:

In the case of Mūlamadhyamakakārikā

1. Introduction

1.1: Theory of pratītya-samutpāda

1.2: Chronicle of Buddhist Canon

1.3: Nāgārjuna and Mūlamadhyamakakārikā

2. Critical Analysis of Pratītya-samutpāda in MMK

2-1. A Brief Remark on Three Modern Writers on MMK.

2-2. Therāvadin or Standard Theory of Pratītya-samutpāda.

2-3. Philological Analysis on MMK

2-3-1: Analysis on the chapters of MMK

2-3-2: Analysis on MMK’s Key Words.

3. Critical analysis on the dedicatory verse.

3-1. Importance and implication of the dedicatory verse.

3-2. A critical note on the authorship of the dedicatory verse.

4. Critical analysis on the chapter of examination on

pratyaya

1

5. Critical analysis on the chapter of 12 links.

6. Critical analysis on this and that

5. Critical analysis on the concept of PS.

7. Criticism on the analysis of PS of Nakamura.

8. Conclusion

1. Introduction

1.1: Theory of pratītya-samutpāda

Perhaps, there is no other theory that discussed and tried to

explain than the theory of pratītya-samutpāda (Sanskrit) or paṭicca-

samuppāda (Pāli)—a technical term which is generally rendered in to

English as dependent origination—in the field of Buddhist

philosophy. The number of discussions and the degree of debate

itself prove importance of the theory. Every philosophical book—

whether it is ancient one or modern one—necessarily mentions and

belabours its implication. Hence, no one can exaggerate importance

of the theory in the field. In spite of the fact, rather

disappointingly, its implication is not only yet fully explained but

it is considered as rather enigmatic.1 It is hardly sceptical about

the fact that the Buddha taught the theory of pratītya-samutpāda and it

1 Cf. Frauwallner, 1973: 169,2

was one of his main teachings that forms essential part and closely

related with other parts of the teaching. But the problem is we

don’t have the exact record of the teaching of the Buddha, and

almost every text and each philosopher gives slightly different or

completely different version of the theory. Under that circumstance,

the chaos occurs so that everyone comes to claim that I know and

understand what the core teaching of the Buddha, that is the theory

of pratītya-samutpāda, of which each one has different description and

understanding. Nevertheless, the situation rather proves that either

only a few people understood or none of them understood the theory

properly. Even if the second chance is not impossible to be

happened, we will not take it seriously as we have nothing to do

with it. What we actually can do with the theory is distinguish the

difference between all the major texts and its philosophers or its

schools, and then organize them chronically so that we can see the

difference and development of the theory.

1.2: Chronicle of Buddhist Canon

In order to proceed the work suggested above, it would be most

convenient if we have the actual record of the teaching of the

Buddha. Then, we no need to resort to various commentaries and

philosophical texts of disciples of the Buddha to know about the

theory. That’s because of it is not that we want to know the3

philosophy of the theory itself, rather we want to know how the

Buddha understood it and preached it. None of Buddhist or the

disciples would claim that I know or understand better than the

Buddha. They all will follow or understand it in the line of the

master’s enlightenment on the theory. Therefore, it sounds as simple

as we look at the canon, and list all of the records related to it

and simply compare it if there is any difference. It seems there is

no need of studying any other texts and thinkers of Buddhism for the

purpose. But the actual situation is not so simple as we might

thought above. Unfortunately, still many scholars seem to believe

that the teaching of the Buddha is well preserved and transmitted to

us through various councils and written materials from the very time

of the parinirvāṇa of the Buddha. However, the historicity of the

councils are not only questioned by various scholars, actual time of

inscription is quite late than we image. The Buddhist canon is

committed to inscribe first time in our historical record in the

time of the reign of King Vaṭṭagamiṇi (29-17 B.C.E.). This is also

called as Alu-vihāra redaction as this event was happen at Alu-

vihāra. Nonetheless, we don’t know regarding the actual contents and

scope of the recording of the redaction. What we definitely know

about the present form and contents of the canon is at the time of

Buddhaghoṣa(ca. 5th C.E.) or one century earlier than that, as we can

find in the Chinese translation of the canon. However, this is not4

to deny that the Buddhist canon contains the teaching of the Buddha,

but that is to say that its ideas and philosophies contain in the

canon would tend to reflect the current or little older fashion of

the society at the time of inscription. Thereby, tracing the

implication of the theory given by the Buddha through listing and

comparing of the Buddhist canon cannot be a legitimate option for

us.

1.3: Nāgārjuna and Mūlamadhyamakakārikā2

2 Henceforth, use abbreviation MMK for the text. 5

Nāgārjuna is the most prominent personality in Tibetan and East

Asian Buddhism. He born at South India and lived around 150 to 250

C.E. His position in those countries is even much higher than the

blessed commentator Buddhaghoṣa in Therāvadin countries. Thence two

grand epithets are given to him: The second Buddha and the patriarch

of eight schools(八八八八). Here, the eight schools do not mean just

eight among numerous schools, rather all the important schools of

China at the time when the epithet is coined. Numerous texts are

attributed to him.3 Among them, some attribute only Root Verses of

the Middle Way and Teaching on 12 Doors, while some others are tend

to do it to Root Verses of the Middle Way and the End of Disputes.

The only sure thing is that Root Verses of the Middle Way is his own

writing. The importance of the text lies on the fact that there are

not many philosophical texts before him. As modern research reveals

that the date of composition of Mahā-Vibhāshā of Sarvāstivāda, that

which is the major result of Fourth Buddhist Council in Kashmir

3 1.Mūlamadhyamaka-kārikā (Root Verses of the Middle Way); 2.Dvadasa-dvara-Sastra (Teaching on 12 doors); 3. Śūnyatāsaptati (Seventy Verses onEmptiness); 4. Vigrahavyāvartanī (The End of Disputes); 5. Yuktiṣāṣṭika(Sixty Verses on Reasoning); 6. Mahā-Prajñāpāramitā-Sastra (Teaching onGreat Wisdom); 7. Vaidalyaprakaraṇa (Pulverizing the Categories); 8.Vyavahārasiddhi (Proof of Convention); 9. Catuḥstava (Hymn to the AbsoluteReality); 10. Ratnāvalī (Precious Garland); 11.Pratītyasamutpādahṝdayakārika (Constituents of Dependent Arising);12.Bodhicittavivaraṇa (Exposition of the Enlightened Mind); 13. Suhṛllekha(Letter to a Good Friend); 14. Bodhisaṃbhāra (Requisites of Enlightenment),etc.

6

convened by the Kushan emperor Kanishka (r. 127-151 CE)4, is not

much earlier than that of Root Verses of the Middle Way, we may

legitimately refer the text as one of oldest Buddhist philosophical

writing. By the way, Nāgārjuna is also generally called the founder

of Mahāyāna Buddhism. The tradition says that he went to the Nāga’s

palace and got Mahāyāna scripture, thereafter he learned and

preached Mahāyāna Buddhism. In spite of this legend is hardly

believable as historical fact, it seems that there is hardly anyone

who is sceptical about Nāgārjuna as the founder of Mahāyāna

Buddhism. Such phenomenon comes to be largely, not because of the

legend, from late commentators and followers. The difference of

philosophical position with preexisting schools also contributed to

the tendency. Nevertheless, if we look at the text critically there

is no any internal evidence that we can attribute him as Mahāyāist.

Most people would point out that the frequent use of the term and

concept of emptiness(śūnya) is the evidence. But if one says so,

it just proves that he simply does not know how frequently the

term appears in the Āgama/Nikāya literature or in other canonical

literature. The term ‘middle path’ also occurs in the canonical

literature. Then the only base to call him as Mahāyāist or

unorthodox is either from attribution of late follower or

philosophical difference with other schools. But none of them appear

4 Falk (2001), pp. 121–136; Falk (2004), pp. 167–176.7

to me as a legitimate reason to call him as Mahāyāist or unorthodox.

From the above consideration, I will avoid the terms Mahāyāna and

Hīnayāna intentionally as much as possible. Instead of them, I

prefer to use the terms Southern tradition and Northern tradition.

2. Critical Analysis of Pratītya-samutpāda in MMK

2-1. A Brief Remark on Three Modern Writers on MMK.

Although MMK was a subject of serious study for most Buddhists

scholastics, that is inclusive of many of Southern traditions of

ancient time, for nearly two millenniums, the remain writings and

exegetic are mostly based on the Chinese translation of Kumārajīva

(334–413 CE). Although his translations are most preferred by

scholastics of Chinese based culture or East Asia, hence was studied

by the most, it shows serious problems for the right understanding

of MMK when we do comparative study with Sanskrit text of MMK,

especially the topic of PS and that is related with causality.5 The

study of PS or causality of the past, when scholastics are using

only Chinese translations of MMK, having serious problems in their

analysis and understanding of the topic, if it was not simply

wasting of their time. There were publications on several good

transitions and commentarial books on MMK, and on distinct books in

5 I will discuss it in detail at . See also at Kajiyama, 195 and Nakamura, 143.

8

which MMK is systematically analyzed. I would like to mention three

of them briefly: Yūichi Kajiyama, Hajime Nakamura and Jan

Westerhoff. They are distinct in their field of study: Yūichi

expertise both in Western and Buddhist philosophy and Nakamura shows

great knowledge on traditional Buddhist philosophy while Jan

demonstrates very critical and systematical analysis on the text.

Yūichi Kajiyama gives amazing inspiration and much great suggestion

in his book.6 His analysis is not only based on orthodox Buddhist

philosophy, but also very creative and imaginative. There is no

doubt that he inspired so many modern scholars and infused excellent

sense to then the dry and tedious Buddhist exegetics. Even if he

mentioned about PS and causality in the text intermittently, didn’t

dedicated a chapter for it unlike others. Therefore, his

contribution to the topic is pretty limited. On the other hand,

Hajime Nakamura served great contribution to the topic through

sharing one chapter for the purpose. This writing must be worked out

in early time as one of his article7 in 1965. He is a great

philologist. He listed all the previous arguments given by renowned

figure or text of past time exhaustively. Then, they are

systematically arranged it in a certain order. His acquaintances on

Sarvāstivāda literature as well as Madhyamaka commentaries are

6 Yūichi Kajiyama, 八八八八, 1969.7 Hajime Nakamura, 『八八 八八八八八』「八八八」 八八= The Concept of Pratiyasamutpada in the Madhyamaka-sastra by Nagarjuna.

9

remarkable. Most themes that we going to discuss are already

introduced and explained. Nonetheless, his explanations are less

critical and discussions are given rather in a superficial way. For

example, he quotes a Buddhist claim from Abhidharma-kośa that PS is

Asaṃskāra. This claim is very exotic and rare for any Buddhist. In

stead of giving any justification for the claim, he just introduces

the position of Sarvāstivādin as opponent to the claim rather

disappointing way8. Another example that can be presented here is he

claims, “Thus, it is impossible to interpret Pratītya as ‘by the reason

of,’9 therefore Pratītya should not be interpreted as ‘by the cause

of.’” I cannot see any impossibility in interpret Pratītya in either

way as the two meaning is not contradictory. Since he uses the

ambiguous term ‘mutual dependency’ to refute and justify all his

position, his explanations and justifications are not very sound.

Lastly, Jan Westerhoff gives very logical and systematic

explanation. Each line requires great care and attention to be read

properly. He dealt with all most important topics of MMK and present

very systematic analysis. However, he seems not much showing

philological approach. Accuracy in translation of lines and words

are taken for granted, he trying to analyze it in a systematical and

logical way. He also hardly suggests any acquaintance of former

8 Nakamura, 154.9 This seems not consistent with the context. It is better to be ‘by the cause of’ rather than ‘by the reason of.’

10

commentary so that misses all the important point made by ancient

commentators. As the consequence, it seems that he faces hardship in

understanding of the author and the text by saying, ‘it also has to

be noted that Nāgārjuna asserts, somewhat puzzlingly, that the

absence of svabhāva, that is, emptiness, is not compatible with

causation either.’10 With the inspiration and information given by

those scholars, we may can go further and present more systematical

and philological approach to the topic.

2-2. Therāvadin or Standard Theory of Pratītya-samutpāda.

Before we examine concept of PS in MMK, it would be useful to review

it in its standard form appears in Southern traditions. The

importance of PS cannot be more exaggerated in those traditions as

they all consider it as ultimate reality through which one can

obtain liberating knowledge, hence achieve summon bonum of the

tradition. Such fact can be confirmed from a proposition which

appears numerous places in the canon: The one who sees PS sees the

reality, and the one who sees reality sees PS.11 In addition, the

Buddha is described as being enlightened while he contemplate and

realize the twelve links in the beginning of Mahāvagga of Vinaya

Piṭaka. The traditions explain PS in terms of three distinct

10 Westerhoff, P. 99.11 E.g. MN I 190: Yo paṭiccasamuppādaṁ passati so dhammaṁ passati, yo dhammaṁ passati so paṭiccasamuppādaṁ passati.

11

entities: the term or concept Pratītya-samutpāda, idappaccayatā that which

is generally rendered into English as the four-fold formula, and

dvādaśâṅgika or the twelve links. These three entities are identified

in the course of time so that they play role as either definition or

definiendum to each other. However, close examination and

philological analysis proves that they existed or developed

separately. We will leave it here as those are subject of further

investigation in the next chapters.

2-3. Philological Analysis on MMK

In ancient India, pseudepigraphy and pseudepigrapha was wide spread

fashion or common practice. Hence, enormous number of sutras is

composed under the name of the Buddha, that are obviously not the

case. It is not the different case for Nāgārjuna, as most of texts

attributed to him are proven to be pseudepighapha. They are not only

composed an entire book and ascribed it to a very renown figures in

the history, but also corrupted texts of the people through

modification and interpolation of a few entire chapter to the text.

The fact can be illustrated with the example of Milindapañha. The

text in Pāḷi is much larger, and later portions are not appearing in

its Chinese parallel. Hence, modern scholarship such as Mrs. Rhys

Davids left following comment on the text: ‘the detached first

portion of the Milinda Pañha is in no way to be matched in style or12

ideals with the quite different dilemmas and the following portions.

…... The latter portions, i.e. V-VII are evidently written

composition, dummy conversation.12 Moreover, some Western scholars

also find out that some texts have stratification in which many

layers of different time and authors are arranged in order. The

purposes of such interpolations are recognized as to fade out or

distort the previous messages. Even if there are disputes going on

to scope and extension of the text that involved such matter, the

fact that ancient Indian texts are subjected to later interpolation,

thus existence of strata or layers in it is hardly deniable.13 Those

practices could happen easier in India as they transmitted important

texts verbally rather than write or inscribe in a safe place. Thus,

we can conclude that there are mainly three kinds of textual

corruptions that is practiced widely in ancient India: 1. Ascribing

an entire book to a renown figure; 2. Insert a number of chapters to

a text; 3. Insert new paragraphs to a text. In the case of MMK, the

first kind of problem cannot be applied. Among numerous texts that

ascribed to Nāgārjuna, MMK is the only one what we can sure about

its authorship. Thus we can take a look in the second and third kind

of problem in MMK.

2-3-1: Philological Analysis on the chapters of MMK12 Law, p. 361.13 Gombrich, pp. 8~11.

13

MMK consists of 27 chapters. But, can we be sceptical about the

authorship of all the chapters as Nāgārjuna? The claim that any of

the chapter of MMK is later interpolation or is not written by the

author seems very bold and might not be accepted all monastic orders

and monastic universities. Nonetheless, Nīlanetra (八八 ca. 4th C.E.)

distinguishes and indentifies the last two chapter as the teaching

of Śrāvakayāna by adding following question at the beginning of the

26th chapter: ‘Question: you have been taught the ultimate meaning

through Mahāyāna, but I like to listen the path to the ultimate

meaning through propagation of Śrāvakayāna.’14 Mūlamadhyamaka

abhaya vṛtti, that is another text which traditionally ascribed its

authorship to Nāgārjuna, also says exactly the same things.15

Accordingly, renown Chinese Madhyamaka scholastic Jizang (八八 549–

623), who is also considered as the founder of Chinese Madhyamaka

school, purposes that MMK can be divided into two section, and the

last two chapters are the teaching of Hināyana in his own vṛtti of

MMK.16 Kajiyama, who is most representative modern scholarship, also

subscribe to the matter on the basis of that unlike other chapters,

the last two chapters are not meant for criticize other’s views.

From above descriptions, we can clearly see that many eminent thinks

considered the last two chapters as either heretical or extraneous.

14 T 30 1564 36b18: 八八八八八八八八八 八八八八八八一 八八八八八 八 一 八 八 .15 Nakamura, p. 147.16 八八八八八八一(八): T 42 1824 13a18.

14

Even if Nakamura and some others consider the last chapters of

Hināyana are being added by Nāgārjuna himself at the end, it is

hardly probable and they themselves are not convinced about the

event.17 It is better to understand the event when we consider that

the last two chapters were interpolated at later time by someone

with certain purpose as it was happen to many Ancient Indian

literatures. However, there is big problem to think that the last

chapter is the teaching of Hināyana. That’s because of the verse

says that the Buddha taught in order to eliminate all views.18

Hināyana schools cannot accept such bold claim as they all accept

right views (samyag-dṛṣṭi) as in Noble Eightfold Path

(āryāṣṭāṅgamārga). Moreover, it is not only the last two chapters that

do not criticize other’s views—that Kajiyama suggested, but other chapters,

such as 24th chapter on Examination of the Noble Truths also feces

the same problem. No Hināyana school denies the existence of the

four noble truths. In addition, the two truths principle is somewhat

extraneous to the earlier chapters. If it is true it had to be

mentioned in earlier chapter and repeatedly, as it has utmost

importance in his system of ideas. I may suggest that chapter 20th is

also later interpolation on the ground of two reasons. Firstly,

examination and discussion on cause is completed in chapter 1st.

17 Nakamura, p. 147.18 MMK 27-30: sarvadṛṣṭiprahāṇāya.

15

There was no need of any separate discussion for assemblage or

harmony (sāmagrī) of cause. If there was a need for it, the author

also could discuss it in the first chapter. The other reason for the

suspicion is the relation of hetu and pratyaya is disrupted. In the

first chapter, hetu is defined as one of four pratyayas.19 But the

relation between the two terms is no more in use in the 20th chapter.

Overall, the chapters after 20th seem interpolated after some time

since the former part is composed by the author. In addition, the

verses after 8th of 4th chapter and 28th of 17th chapter are also

subject to criticism. It appears to me that discussion is completed

at the previous lines and the remaining verses are standing

awkwardly in the chapter. Hence, we may infer that these are later

stratum of the text. I, of course, know that such reasons cannot

give definite answer to the matter. The only sure thing that can

answer the question is that we can find earlier manuscript to

confirm the suggestions. Nonetheless, further research and

discussion might give us more firm and definite answer to the

question. As the conclusion of this section, I like to remind that

the chapter 26th is identified by many eminent scholars, if it is not

unanimous, from ancient to modern time as heretical teaching and we

should keep in mind in order to continue the investigation.

19 MMK 1-4: catvāraḥ pratyayā hetuścālambanamanantaram tathaivādhipateyaṁ16

2-3-2: Analysis on MMK’s Key Words.

We briefly introduced at the beginning part of 2-1 that there is a

serious problem in Kumārajīva’s translation of MMK in respect of

terms that related to PS and causality. Both Nakamura and Kajiyama

left a very short note on the matter. Nakamura says, ‘As Kumārajīva

translated PS (八八 yuánqǐ) as yīnyuán(八八), zhòng yīnyuán(八八八), zhū

yīnyuán(八八八), the theory of PS in MMK is cannot be grasped by

scholars.’20 On the other hand, Kajiyama pointed out a very important

problem: ‘PS in the title of the first chapter and hetu in 5th verse

of the 1st chapter, and Dvādaśāṅga in the title of 26th chapter are all

translated as yīnyuán.’21 For such puzzling and confounding

translation of MMK by Kumārajīva, Scholars who use the translation

as main text could not distinguish the difference, hence they

naturally perplexed in its meanings. There are mainly five terms

that that are used in MMK in respect of expressing dependency and

causality: pratītya-samutpāda, pratītya, pratyaya, hetu, phala. For the case of

PS, the implication of the term in MMK cannot be grasped easily.

Hence we will scrutinize it in the following chapters through

examine the usage and definition given by the author. And the last

term, that is phala, literally means fruit. It is coupled with the

20 Nakamura, p. 143.21 Kajiyama, p. 195.

17

term bīja, which means seed, hence used in the text rather as a

metaphor of result. The remaining three terms, that are pratītya,

pratyaya and hetu are translated as the same and used interchangeably

in Kumārajīva’s translation. Instead of giving etymological meaning

of the terms, which might can give us certain ideas of it, but

cannot applicable to a specific text, I suggest to grasp the meaning

of it in its context. By the way, we going to do the investigation

in the 4th chapter, hence leave it for a while. Instead of it, I like

to show some statistical data of the key words that which might make

us to see certain aspects of the text. The terms what I am going to

show here are pratītya, pratyaya, hetu and phala.

pratītya0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Figure 1. the number of appearance of the term pratītya per chapter (29

times in total).18

pratyaya0

5

10

15

20

25

Figure 2. the number of appearance of the term pratyaya per chapter

(46 times in total).

hetu0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

19

Figure 3. the number of appearance of the term hetu per chapter (61

times in total).

phala0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Figure 4. the number of appearance of the term phala per chapter (78

times in total).

1-19 Chapter20-27 Chapters

Figure 5. the number of appearance of the key words before/after 20th

chapter (85/129 verses).

20

We can see that the term pratītya is used from the beginning to the end

continuously, though the number of time that being used are less

than half of the synonymous term hetu, and less than 2/5 of the term

phala. However, the density of appearance is slightly higher in the

ending part. The term pratyaya is being used in the first chapter a

lot, but stopped to appear till the chapter 15. In the ending

portion, it again appear and used but little compare to the

beginning portion. The terms hetu and phala are being used remarkably

at the ending portion, especially at the 20th chapter, while it

hardly appear it the beginning portion. The proportion of the four

key words is much higher in the latter part in spite of the number

of chapters of the latter part are less than half of MMK. In

addition, the number of verses is higher in the latter portion by

almost 2/3, even if the number of chapters is less than half of the

former chapters. Those statistics appear to be a reasonable

corroboration of the argument of interpolation or corruption of the

text that I suggested at the end of 2-3-1.

3. Critical analysis on the dedicatory verse.

3-1. Importance and implication of the dedicatory verse.

The dedicatory verse of MMK comes to the very beginning of the text.

It consists of two lines of verses, play a role as an introduction

21

to MMK. Unlike that of Abhidharmakośa of Vasubandhu, the dedicatory

verse of MMK in not only eulogizes and expresses the author’s

respect to the Buddha but also proclaims essential philosophy of the

entire text. The proclaim plays a role as Mātikā (Matrix) of

Abhidhamma texts of Pāli canon or an abstract of modern academic

writing. The first line of the dedicatory verse consists of so-

called the eight negations, and then these characteristics are

attributed to the first half of the second verse, especially for the

term PS. Importance of the dedicatory lies on the fact that it

mentions our main theme, that is PS, and then defines the term with

the eight negations. But this interpretation or definition of the

term PS gives great difficulty to many, especially for the followers

of Southern tradition, as they learn the implication of PS as

causality through various sources such as the Buddhist canon. It is

unacceptable for certain modern scholars, particularly for

Kalupahana, who is one of most popular translator of MMK, and a

renown scholar from Southern tradition and a vehement propagator who

preaches that the essence of the teaching of the Buddha is

causality. Hence ha gave very different version of translation of

the verse, which we can find nowhere else. The following translation

is done by the translator:

anirodhamanutpādamanucchedamaśāśvatam| anekārthamanānārthamanāgamamanirgamam||1||yaḥ pratītyasamutpādaṁ prapañcopaśamaṁ śivam|

22

deśayāmāsa saṁbuddhastaṁ vande vadatāṁ varam||2||

I salute him, the fully enlightened, the best of speakers, who preached the non-ceasing and the non-arising, the non-annihilation and the non-permanence, the non-identity and thenon-difference, the non-appearance and the non-disappearance, the dependent arising, the appeasement of obsessions and the auspicious.22

He puts the relationship between PS and the eight negations in

rather parallel way. Therefore he denies the subordination relation

or definition and definiendum relationship between the two. But this

translation obviously misleads the meaning and the relation of the

words as he ignored the relative pronoun ‘yaḥ.’ The relative pronoun,

that which is generally rendered into English as ‘who’ or ‘which,’

marks the previous line of words indubitably. Thus, this translation

that which says the Buddha taught both non-arising and dependent

arising cannot be maintained. General translation and interpretation

in which non-arising is being attributed to dependent arising is

unanimous so that Tibetan translation also consists in that point,

although the order of the words in the translation is quite

different. I may tentatively translate the related Tibetan

translation into English:

Every phenomenon is dependently arising: the non-ceasing and the non-arising, the non-annihilation and

22 Kalupahana, p. 101.23

the non-permanence, the non-identity and the non-difference, the non-appearance and the non-disappearance. I salute to the excellent teaching ofthe complete Buddha who pacified futile discursion anddemonstrated the auspicious.23

In Tibetan translation, PS and the relative pronoun are located at

the very beginning of the verse. And the subordination of the eight

negations is being observed indubitably. Thereby, we can extract or

deduce from the dedicatory verse following two propositions: The

Buddha taught PS; the PS is being characterize by the eight

negations including non-arising.

3-2. A critical note on the authorship of the dedicatory verse.

I doubt the authorship of the dedicatory verse. It is not certain

when the tradition of beginning with dedicatory verse in a text of

Buddhist or Indian proper has started. Such verse is not appearing

in Milindapañha, which is one of oldest texts of a follower of the

Buddha. Standard text of Abhidharmakośa has two dedicatory verses:

the prior one is quite short, and simply homage to the Buddha in a

line.24 This fact suggests that either the latter dedicatory verse is

later interpolation or both are inserted in a later time. Otherwise,23 八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八 八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八 八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八 八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八 八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八 八 八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八 八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八八24 Poussein, P. 55.

24

there is no need of salutation to a same person twice continuously.

Likewise, it is not impossible that the dedicatory verse of MMK also

inserted in a later time. The term PS appears only four times in the

entire text. In spite of the fact that a similar term pratītya-utpattim

appears in chapter 17th, the term PS never occurs before

chapter 24th that I suggested before as possible later

interpolation.25 As the verse plays very crucial role as matrix

of the entire text, any insertion and manipulation will affect

the text enormously. Hence, it is the best place to do it for

one who has any intention to change or divert the overall

meaning and direction of MMK.

Asaṅga (ca. 4th C.E.) also

4. Critical analysis on the chapter of examination on pratyaya

5. Critical analysis on the chapter of 12 links.

6. Critical analysis on the this and that

5. Critical analysis on the concept of PS.

7. Criticism on the analysis of PS of Nakamura.

8. conclusion

25 See 2-3-1, 2-3-2.25

Bibliography

八 Falk, Harry (2001): "The yuga of Sphujiddhvaja and the era of the Kuṣâṇas." In: Silk Road Art and Archaeology VII, pp. 121–136. 八 Falk, Harry (2004): "The Kaniṣka era in Gupta records." In: Silk Road Art

and Archaeology X (2004), pp. 167–176.

26