As Funayama has shown, Dharmakīrti’s successors had an animated discussion on the nature and function of the initial statement of scientific treatises in terms of its effectiveness and requisites. Arcaṭa in his comments on the initial statement of the Hetubindu considers that the initial statement, which contains the purpose of the treatise, is useless in prompting people to undertake the activity of reading the treatise because judicious people are supposed to undertake action only due to certainty which never arises from (...) something that is not a pramāṇa. For Arcaṭa, the initial statement is set forth only to dispel the objection of an opponent who criticizes the treatise for not having a purpose. Kamalaśīla criticizes Arcaṭa on this point; for him the initial statement is effective to prompt people to undertake the reading of the treatise because people act also on the basis of doubt, which arises from the initial statement that is not a pramāṇa but an abhyupāya for action. This paper attempts to consider how such doubt can cause reading by examining the debate in the Tattvasaṅgrahapañjikā and related texts. As Kamalaśīla presupposes, when people act due to doubt, they may attain the desired purpose by chance but cannot escape the risks of not attaining an desired purpose and also of attaining an undesired purpose. Taking these risks into consideration, it is reasonable for Granoff to take up Kamalaśīla’s position as an example of the maxim of kākatālīya in the introduction of her paper in the present volume. However, the probability for the readers of the Tattvasaṅgraha to achieve easy comprehension of tattva as a result of reading a full treatise, which they undertake due to doubt out of the initial statement, is higher than that for a crow being suddenly killed by a falling palm-fruit. According to Kamalaśīla, the risk of not attaining the desired purpose does not prevent people from reading because such fear equally occurs in activities based on certainty. Furthermore, there is no risk of attaining an undesired purpose from the treatise because authors are supposed to undertake action only for the sake of others. Therefore, doubt which arises from an abhyupāya can make people undertake action. (shrink)

Traditional as well as contemporary interpreters of Indian Yogācāra divide that tradition into a variety of doxographical camps depending on whether awareness is understood tobe endowed with phenomenal content (ākāra) and, if so, whether that content is understood to be real or true. Kamalaśīla’s extensive commentary on his teacher Śāntarakṣita’s Tattvasaṃgraha contains passages that throw into question certain doxographical equivalencies, especially the equivalencies sometimes proposed betweenthe doctrine that awareness is endowed with phenomenal content (sākāravāda) and the doctrine that such (...) content is true or real (satyākāravāda) and between the doctrine that awareness is devoid of phenomenal content (nirākāravāda) and the doctrine that such content is false or unreal (alīkākāravāda). Further, in accord with his broadly rhetorical approach to the application of reason, Kamalaśīla is seen in this commentary to endorse a range of seemingly contradictory positions vis-à-vis ākāra. This article argues that this situation can be explained by way of reference to Kamalaśīla’s larger philosophical and soteriological program as a Mādhyamika thinker, a program not made explicit in the text yet nonetheless present in nascent form. That is, while various theories of awareness as endowed or not endowed with phenomenal content are useful in different rhetorical contexts as well as at different stages of philosophical analysis, at the end of the day such distinctions are moot since neither awareness nor its content is upheld as ultimately real. Instead, soteriologically efficacious phenomenal content is said to be like a “true dream” (satyasvapna), an illusion that satisfies only for as long as it remains unanalyzed. (shrink)

Śāntarakṣita was an important 8th century CE Indian Buddhist philosopher who introduced Indian Buddhism to Tibet and is believed to have created what the Tibetans call the Yogācāra-Svātantrika School of Madhyamaka Indian Buddhism. He composed the "Compendium of Reality" (Tattva¬saṃgraha), which is a comprehensive critical examination of the major Indian philosophical theories of his time. Kamalaśīla was Śāntarakṣita’s eminent disciple who wrote a commentary on the "Compendium of Reality", entitled "Commentary on the Difficult Points of the Compendium of Reality" (...) (Tattva¬saṃgraha¬pañjikā), which we shall call the Commentary. Here we translate and briefly comment upon the Commentary discussion of Śāntarakṣita’s examination in verses 285–310 of the classical Sāṃkhyas’ theory of a self (ātman). Śāntarakṣita, Kamalaśīla, and the Sāṃkhyas all believed that a self is consciousness, but according to Śāntarakṣita and Kamalaśīla, consciousness is a causal continuum of momentary consciousnesses of objects and exists merely by convention; according to the Sāṃkhyas, it is a permanent and partless witness of objects that has independent existence. We give a brief explanation of the Sāṃkhya philosophy, and a brief explanation of the Buddhism of Śāntarakṣita and Kamalaśīla. Then we translate one or more of Śāntarakṣita’s verses on the Sāṃkhya theory of a self, along with Kamalaśīla’s commentary, follow the translation with our own comments upon what is translated, and repeat this sequence until the examination of the Sāṃkhya theory is completed. We expand our comments when dealing with a few basic philosophical issues that arise from the arguments presented in the Commentary. We briefly evaluate the effectiveness of the arguments by Śāntarakṣita and Kamalaśīla and the Sāṃkhya replies as they are represented. The basic philosophical questions upon which we shall comment concern the Sāṃkhya theories that a self is one (eka) in the sense that it has no parts, permanent (nityam) in the sense that it continues to exist without changing in any way, a witness of objects presented to it, and the experiencer of the objects presented to it without being an agent that produces them. (shrink)

The article details the biography and teachings of Śāntarakṣita, a famous Buddhist scholar and enlightener, a leading figure in the spread of Buddhism in Tibet and his closest student Kamalaśīla. Śāntarakṣita is the author of several treatises, including Compendium of Entities - Tattvasaṃgraha, a monumental work that can rightfully be called the Buddhist Philosophical Encyclopedia, consisting of 26 sections, in which all key philosophical schools of India, namely: Mīmāṃsa, Vedānta, Sāṃkhya, Yoga, Nyāya, Vaiśeṣika, Lokāyata, Jainism and Buddhism of other (...) sects) are analyzed and subsequently refuted. Kamalaśīla is a direct student of Śāntarakṣita, the author of a word-to-word commentary on the teacher's Tattvasaṃgraha. The article also dwells on the history of the discovery and study of the Tattvasaṃgraha. The novelty of the study lies in a full-length encyclopedic presentation of the philosophy of Śāntarakṣita and his immediate student Kamalaśīla. A special contribution of the author to the study of the topic is the demonstration that Śāntarakṣita, as a representative of the Yogācāra-Madhyamaka school, worked in the genre of synthesis of the teachings of Yogācāra and Madhyamaka, and in the field of epistemology he continued the theories of Dignāga and Dharmakīrti. (shrink)

The so-called Buddhist momentarists, such as Dharmakīrti and his followers, defend the momentariness of all things. However, with equal force they also defend the persistence of all things, not just within a single lifetime but over an indefinite cycle of rebirth. Naturally, they have an interesting theory of persistence, according to which things persist without being self-identical over time. The theory is best presented in the Lokāyatāparīkṣā chapter of Śāntarakṣita’s Tattvasaṃgraha and Kamalaśīla’s Paṅjikā, as they clearly articulate the criteria (...) of persistence without identity. The purpose of this paper is to formulate a Buddhist theory of persistence through the analysis of these texts. Here is the basic formula: Things persist as series, which is constituted by momentary entities that are causally related as upādāna and upādeya. Upādāna causal relation is demarcated from other causal relations by the principle of changeability with temporal restriction, and the principle adopts further qualifications to accommodate complex cases and personal persistence. I have addressed a problem that contemporary physicalism might pose a threat to the Buddhist account of personal persistence, and argued that the problem can be evaded by regarding persons as psycho-physical entities rather than strictly non-physical. In its general outlook, the Buddhist theory of persistence is close to Theodore Sider’s stage theory in that persistence is a matter of distinct individuals standing in a special causal relationship. As regards personal persistence, the Buddhist has a stricter condition than Parfit’s IDM thesis, which states that psychological connectedness with any cause is what matters for survival. The Buddhist would say it is moral connectedness with a special cause called upādāna. (shrink)

A close reading of the three Bhavanakramah texts, written by Kamalasila, reveals that their author was aware of two competing concepts of meditation prevalent in Tibet at the time of their composition. The two concepts of meditation,associated with the Sanskrit words bhavana and dhyana, can be related respectively to the Indian and Chinese sides of the well-known debates at bSam yas. The account of the Mahayana path outlined in these texts implies an acceptance of the precedence of bhavana over dhyana. (...) In this paper I argue that Kamalasila advocated bhavana – a conception of meditation which encompasses non-conceptual dhyana, but which also includes a discernment of reality that is conceptual in nature. Such conceptual discernment should not be understood simply as a process of ordinary rational understanding but rather as constituting a special kind of meditative wisdom. A failure to recognize the subtle differences between Kamalasila’s employment of the terms dhyana and bhavana, along with his advocacy of the latter, could easily lead to mistranslation and, with this, a basic misunderstanding of his position. In particular, it could lead to a conception of insight that is overly intellectual in nature. Given the historically important role that these texts played in the formation of Tibetan Buddhism, the implications of such a misconception could be far-reaching. This paper attempts to clarify the key meditation terminology found in the Bhavanakramas as well as demonstrate the rationale for using ‘meditation’ as the default translation for bhavana. (shrink)

This article examines Śāntarakṣita’s and Kamalaśīla’s understandings of svatantra and prasaṅga proofs in the attempt to clarify how and why Tibetan Prāsaṅgikas came to portray svatantra inference as an instance of the very thing Madhyamaka rejects. The article proceeds in four parts. A brief comparison of Patsap Nyimadrak’s portrayal of svatantra inference with Bhāviveka’s and Candrakīrti’s employment of this expression shows that Patsap expanded the meaning of it, charging its users with embracing a realism at odds with Madhyamaka emptiness. (...) Patsap’s arguments against Śāntarakṣita’s “neither one nor many” proof lead us consider the latter’s and Kamalaśīla’s understanding of svatantra and prasaṅga proofs, which turns out to be consistent with, if more sophisticated than, Bhāviveka’s and Candrakīrti’s usage. An exploration of Kamalaśīla’s development of the proof of the naturelessness of all things, real and imagined, calls into question the svatantra-prasaṅga distinction but still leaves us without a source for Patsap’s characterization. A consideration of Śāntarakṣita’s and Kamalaśīla’s use of svatantra to characterize Mīmāṃsā conceptions of an authorless Veda and “intrinsic validity,” as well as their own view of “self-awareness,” offers potential sources for characterizing valid cognition and, by extension, inference as “autonomous.”. (shrink)

In a triad of practice manuals collectively titled _The Process of Meditation_ (_Bhāvanākrama I, II, III_), the eight century Indian Buddhist philosopher Kamalaśīla singles out _vipaśyanā_ (insight meditation) to be of particular importance on the early stages of the Buddhist path. This paper provides a reconstruction of _vipaśyanā_ based on how it is depicted in that work. I make two primary claims. First, _vipaśyanā_ is a technique for facilitating the direct perceptual ascertainment of a select set of properties, and (...) second, it accomplishes this by reconditioning the practitioner’s conceptual habitation. I further enrich this reconstruction by suggesting a series of stages that a practitioner progresses through, based on a list of intrinsically and extrinsically epistemic cognitions that Kamalaśīla gives in his _Commentary on the Compendium on Reality_ (_Tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā_). I end the paper with a potential method to use during meditation for altering one’s conceptual habitation. Kamalaśīla does not explicitly state these claims, but they can be inferred based on the theories on cognition found in both Kamalaśīla’s other works as well as the works of the Pramāṇavāda philosophers who influenced him. This reconstruction of _vipaśyanā_ thus remains consistent with Kamalaśīla’s own philosophical commitments, and is, I argue, the best way to explain the cognitive function of _vipaśyanā_ given those commitments. (shrink)

The great Buddhist writer Santaraksita (725-88) was central to the Buddhist traditions spread into Tibet. He and his disciple Kamalasila were among the most influential thinkers in classical India. They debated ideas not only within the Buddhist tradition but also with exegetes of other Indian religions, and they both traveled and nurtured Buddhism in Tibet during its infancy there. Their views, however, have been notoriously hard to classify. The present volume examines Santaraksita's encyclopedic Tattvasamgraha and Kamalasila's detailed commentary on that (...) text in his Panjika, two works that have historically been presented together. The works cover all conceivable problems in Buddhist thought and portray Buddhism as a supremely rational faith. One hotly debated topic of their time was omniscience -- infinite, all-compassing knowledge -- whether it was possible and whether one could defensibly claim it as a quality of the Buddha. (shrink)

Nichts bleibt Nichts. Der buddhistische Zurückweisung von Kumarilas abhavapramana. Übersetzung und Interpretation von Santaraksitas Tattvasamgraha vv.1647-1690 mit Kamalasilas Tattvasamgrahapanjika. Birgit Kellner. Vienna 1997. xxxiii, 154 pp. No price/ISBN given.

In his *Bāhyārthasiddhikārikā (BASK), “Verses on the Establishment of the External Object”—extant only in Tibetan translation—Śubhagupta (720–780 CE), a philosopher connected with the logical-epistemological school of Buddhism, argues the reality of external objects of cognitions. In this article, I shall provide an account of Śubhagupta's theory of the cognitive process, as expressed in BASK 35–44, particularly in light of his view that the images (ākāra) of those objects do not appear in cognition. BASK is part of an internal Buddhist debate (...) over the reality of external supports of perceptions, wherein Śubhagupta disproves the views of thinkers like Diṅnāga and Vasubandhu. On the other hand, he is one of the main opponents addressed in the Bahirarthaparīkṣā (BAP) of the Tattvasaṅgraha (TS) by Śāntarakṣita (725–788 CE) and the Tattvasaṅgrahapañjikā (TSP) by Kamalaśīla (740–795 CE). Therein, the two authors, while demonstrating the absence of the characteristics of apprehended (grāhya) and apprehender (grāhaka) with regard to cognition, keenly refute his ideas and quote selected Sanskrit verses that can be identified as the original Sanskrit of stanzas in BASK. Accordingly, I shall examine Śubhagupta’s theory of the cognitive process in two steps: (i) analyzing the arguments that Śāntarakṣita and Kamalaśīla advance against him based on their interpretation of Śubhagupta’s views; and (ii) analyzing the arguments that he brings forward against his opponents (namely, Diṅnāga and Vasubandhu), by means of the investigation of BASK 35–44 in their original context. (shrink)

The study provides an insight into the structural features of the famous VIII century Buddhist treatise Tattvasaṅgrāha by Śāntarakṣita with regard to the text’s main purpose ( prayojana ) as it is treated in Kamalaśīla’s commentary Pañjikā. Any text along with its referential (representational) function of conveying message - meaning to the addressee, or its expressive function, reflecting the author's attitude to what is communicated, also performs the ‘appellative’ function, encouraging the recipient of the message to act. This function (...) which could also be called praxiological was always significant in Indian text culture, since from the times of Veda-s it was embedded in its very core. This function is of paramount importance in the case of Indian religious and philosophical texts, whose main aim is to convince and transform the consciousness of their percipients. Along with linear models of message transfer, Sanskrit texts could demonstrate non-linear semantic structures, transmitting the main idea of the text indirectly. It is exactly how one should perceive the message of Śāntarakṣita’s Tattvasaṅgrāha according to the suggested by Śāntarakṣita’s prominent student Kamalaśīla in his Pañjikā -commentary to the treatise. He proposes to consider Tattvasaṅgrāha not as a thematically heterogeneous encyclopaedic or doxographic work, whose main objective is to refute different non-Buddhist views (as it is often treated by scholars now), but as a text, which by its very design exposes one of the most important Buddhist principles - the law of the dependent origination ( pratītyasamutpāda ). The themes, discussed in a number of the chapters of Tattvasaṅgrāha, indeed, appear to have direct correlation with the characteristics of pratītyasamutpāda given to it in Śālistamba-sūtra - an early Mahāyāna text, which explains this universal law. Kamalaśīla suggests looking at Tattvasaṅgrāha as at one big unit-sentence - mahāvākya, with the exposition of pratītyasamutpāda as its unitary purpose-meaning ( abhidheya ). In this context, the treatise functions as a praxiological tool for the ‘installing’ into the consciousness of the text’s addressee the knowledge of ‘true principles’ (tattva-s) of pratītyasamutpāda. This interpretation of the main message of the text raises also a question of the adequate translation of the name of the treatise into other languages, because, according to Kamalaśīla, ‘ Tattvasaṅgrāha’ means the ‘Assembly of Principles-(tattva’-s)’ which specify precisely pratītyasamutpāda (pratītyasamutpāda-viśeṣaṇāni tattvāni). (shrink)

Although rhetoric is not a category of ancient Indian philosophy, this paper argues that Śāntarakṣita and Kamalaśīla, 2 eighth-century Indian Buddhist philosophers, can nonetheless be seen to embrace a rhetorical conception of rationality. That is, while these thinkers are strong proponents of rational analysis and philosophical argumentation as tools for attaining certainty, they also uphold the contingent nature of all such processes. Drawing on the categories of the New Rhetoric, this paper argues that these Buddhist thinkers understand philosophical argumentation (...) to be directed at a universal audience of rational beings, where this universal audience is not an actual audience but a rhetorical one constructed through the author’s particular and historically contingent conception of what counts as rational. A reception theory of rationality is one that holds that the rationality of an argument depends upon its acceptance by a rational audience. When philosophers recognize the historically contingent nature of what counts as rational, they can embrace a reception theory of rationality that neither reduces the rational to mere opinion nor restricts it to a single, absolute, and timeless standard. (shrink)

Towards the end of the eighth century CE there occurred a debate over the future direction of Buddhism in Tibet. It pitted an Indian side, with their Tibetan sympathizers, against a Chinese side, with their Tibetan and perhaps even some Indian sympathizers too. The philosophy of Kamalaśīla, the leader of the Indian side, of meditation and yogic perception concords by and large with mainstream Indo‐Tibetan Buddhist theoretical accounts. The exchange between Kamalaśīla and Heshang, the Chinese leader, was heatedly (...) polemical. Details of the debate and its historical context are found in the classic work of the Sinologist Paul Demiéville, Le Concile de Lhasa. The debate is in part about the efficacy of various types of meditation, but, more broadly, it is about the respective worth of analysis and meditation as approaches to knowledge and enlightenment. The debate, as the chapter shows, is fundamentally about epistemological issues, problems of knowledge. (shrink)

This work focuses on a narrow Buddhist epistemological tradition that begins with the Abhidharma philosopher Vasubandhu’s analyses of perception and is developed by Dignāga, Dharmakīrti, Kamalaśīla, and Śāntarakṣita. Coseru explains how Buddhist epistemology evolved in dialogue with competing conceptions internal to Buddhism and against orthodox Indian philosophies, particularly Nyāya and Mīmāṃsā. Coseru’s main argument is that although widespread interpretations of Buddhist epistemology are foundationalist, a more useful way to understand it is as a form of phenomenology consistent with enactivism (...) and a naturalism based in descriptive accounts of cognition. Coseru engages his analysis with contemporary Western philosophical concerns in philosophy of mind and language, cognitive science, and enactivism. (shrink)

This Book Is An In-Depth Study Of Buddhist Philosophy In India And Tibet. The Concentration Is On Ontology/Epistemology And, To A Somewhat Lesser Extent, Soteriology. It Is Based On The Writings Of The Buddhist Philosophers Themselves, From The Unknown Authors Of The Pali `Abhidhamma' Books Down To The Present Dalai Lama Of Tibet. It Takes Into Consideration The Work Of Many Twentieth Century Scholars Of Buddhism In Order To Bring Our Knowledge Of Buddhist Philosophy Up-To-Date. An Exhaustive Index (And Glossary) (...) Has Been Prepared In Order To Help The Reader With The Technical Terms Of Buddhist Philosophy.;;The Two Parts And Fourteen Chapters Of The Book Are As Follows: Part I (India): Ch.I: The Theravada. Ch.Ii: The Sarvastivada. Ch.Iii: The Madhyamaka (1) The Prasangikas Nagarjuna And Candrakirti. Ch.Iv: The Madhyamaka (2) The Prasangikas Aryadeva And Santideva. Ch.V: The Madhyamaka (3) The Svatantrikas. Ch.Vi: The Yogacara (1) Two Yogacara Sutras And Asanga And Vasubandhu. Ch.Vii: The Yogacara (2) Dignaga And Dharmakirti. Ch.Viii: The Yogacara (3) Santarakshita And Kamalasila. Ch.Ix: The `Tathagata-Garbha'. Part Ii (Tibet): Ch.X: The Vajrayana, General Features. Ch.Xi: The Nyingmapa. Ch.Xii: The Sakyapa. Ch.Xiii: The Kagyupa. Ch.Xiv: The Gelugpa. (shrink)

This paper mainly addresses the following issues: how Buddhists deal with future existence, the difference between yogic perception and the cognition of ordinary people with regard to future entities, and how Buddhists resolve the contradiction between the theory of momentariness and that of action and its fruit. According to the Sarvāstivādins, a future entity exists in reality as long as there is cognition that has this entity as its object. According to the Sautrāntikas, however, that theory does not hold true. (...) A future entity is just what will occur hereafter, and it is never the case that such an entity exists at present. Śāntarakṣita and Kamalaśīla do not directly negate an opponent’s argument that the distinction between past and future entities is made by yogic perception, but implicitly accept it. They state that because a future entity is situated in a causal stream, yogis can cognize it through purified worldly cognition. As for an effect that will occur in the future, Buddhists do not seem to follow the model that one and the same agent of action will necessarily receive the fruit of past action, which is often seen in other schools such as the Naiyāyikas and Mīmāṃsakas. Rather, Buddhists adopt the theory of the uninterrupted succession of cause and effect. (shrink)

The introduction to the topic of this issue is an overview of the research articles authored by Russian, Lithuanian, and Indian scholars on various problems of Mahayana Buddhist philosophy. While explaining the status of the terms “Mahāyāna” and “Hīnayāna,” the author emphasizes that since they are represent the apologetic conceptualizations of Mahayanists, the appellation “Hīnayāna” (“Lesser Vehicle”, etc.) is not recognized either by those Buddhists who are supposed to be characterized by it, or by scholars striving for a neutral appellation. (...) This creates difficulties, including the need for a generally accepted designation for this Buddhist tradition. However, despite the apologetic nature of the Mahāyāna - Hīnayāna opposition, the difference between the two is captured very plausibly. The first one teaches about the individual way of achieving liberation from the cycle of endless rebirths (saṃsāra) through a personal, individual self-perfection (the path of the arhat) leading to enlightenment (bodhi) and nirvāṇa (extinction of passions). The second one develops a full-fledged religion with its own pantheon and rituals, in which nirvāṇa and individual liberation, while remaining, more or less theoretically, the ultimate goal, are pushed to a distant plane. At the same time, the idea of compassion and the ideal of bodhisattva who, having taken a vow to help all living beings to get rid of sufferings, continues to remain in saṃsāra, is put forward in the center. However, despite this major difference a Buddhist discipline known as Abhidharma which consists in analysis and classification of discrete states of consciousness (dharmas), identified in meditation, remains a reference point in both traditions. Three authors touch upon it (Helen Ostrovskaya, Pradeep Gokhale, and Vladimir Korobov). Two of them (Ostrovskaya and Gokhale) focus on the problems of murder and death, and the third one (Korobov) dwells on the methodology of Abhidharma. Vladimir Ivanov offers a new interpretation of the structure of Śāntarakṣita’s treatise “Tattva-saṃgraha” with Kamalaśīla’s “Pañjikā” commentary. Yangutov and Lepekhov explore the specificity of Buddhism reception in China, Tibet, Mongolia, and Russia. Nesterkin publishes for the first time B. Baradiin’s theses for Agvan Dordjiev’s lecture, which exemplifies the Buryat Buddhist Renovationists’ interpretation of Buddhism. Burmistrov analyzes the views of Indian historians of philosophy on the history of Buddhism, Volkova - the concepts of Buddhist ethics in contemporary analytical philosophy. (shrink)

The Madhyamaka Buddhist philosopher Nāgārjuna (2nd c. CE) is best known for his works on emptiness in which he advances a program for the relinquishing of all philosophical views (_dṛṣṭi_) in light of the impossibility of establishing the true existence of any kind of entity. At the same time, he is famous also for his theory of two truths, according to which conventional or transactional language is both a legitimate and a necessary factor on the path to the ultimate abandonment (...) of views. Although more than 100 works are ascribed to Nāgārjuna in the Tibetan canon, none is specifically dedicated to an exploration of conventional or transactional truth. So it is of great interest to find that two eighth-century Madhyamaka thinkers, Śāntarakṣita and Kamalaśīla, have in their writings preserved and commented on six verses from a treatise they ascribe to Nāgārjuna entitled _Establishing the Transactional_ (_Tha snyad grub pa = *Vyavahārasiddhi_). The present article provides a translation of the six verses from the Tibetan (the Sanskrit of all these writings is lost) along with a translation for the first time in English of Śāntarakṣita’s commentary and Kamalaśīla’s subcommentary upon the verses. The multi-part translation is framed by a consideration of the nature and role of philosophical views in relation to Nāgārjuna’s other writings, based on a reading of these few tantalizing verses from an apparently lost text, the commentaries of Śāntarakṣita and Kamalaśīla, and the theories of contemporary Madhyamaka scholars. (shrink)