NĀGĀRJUNA’S INFLUENCE ON THE FORMATION OF THE EARLY YOGĀCĀRA THOUGHTS –FROM MŪLAMADHYAMAKAKĀRIKĀ TO BODHISATTVABHŪMI–
SAITO, Akira
JAPAN
ABSTRACT
It is indeed true that The Bodhisattvabhūmi (BBh) has no direct reference to Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (MMK); however, when viewed from the contents of MMK, the BBh shows some significant traces in which we can find clear development of thoughts given in the MMK concerning the key concepts such as tattva “truth, lit., thatness”, sugŗhīta-śūnyatā “well-grasped emptiness”, prapañca “verbal proliferation” and vikalpa “conceptual discrimination”, etc. Although a number of studies have so far been carried out on each text of the highest importance, a comparative approach to them is now extremely needed since the philosophical role that Nāgārjuna played in the history of Buddhism and his influence on the formation of the early Yogācāra tenets still remains our future task. The present paper, therefore, aims at clarifying how the author of BBh deepened and defined the meanings of the above-mentioned key concepts, all of which were in fact used as significant terms both in MMK and BBh.
Key Words: Nāgārjuna, Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, Bodhisattvabhūmi, śūnyatā.
It is indeed true that the Bodhisattvabhūmi (BBh) has no direct reference to Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (MK); however, when viewed from the contents of MK, the BBh shows some significant traces in which we can find clear development of thoughts given in the MK concerning the key concepts such as tattva “truth”, or lit. “thatness”, sugŗhīta-śūnyatā ”well seized emptiness”, prapañca “verbal proliferation” and vikalpa “conceptual discrimination”, etc. Although a number of studies have so
far been carried out on each text of the highest importance, a comparative approach to them is now extremely needed since the philosophical role that Nāgārjuna played in the history of Buddhism and his influence on the formation of the early Yogācāra tenets still remain our future task. The present paper, therefore, aims at clarifying how the author of BBh deepened and defined the meanings of the above-mentioned key concepts, all of which were in fact used as significant terms both in MMK and BBh.
Before analyzing the relationship of the above two works, it seems fitting to briefly refer to the result of my previous paper* in which I examined whether Nāgārjuna can legitimately be called a Mādhyamika or not As was discussed by the above article, the answer must primarily depend on our approach – traditional, historical, or philosophical – to the question. The topic of this paper has closely related to the last, i.e. philosophical approach. I. Traditional or Doxographical Approach Nāgārjuna has traditionally been regarded as belonging to, or rather being the forerunner of, the early stage of the Mādhyamika school2). It is, therefore, usual that we commence our description of the history of the Mādhyamika school by referring to the life, works and thought of Nāgārjuna. This type of description appears to make sense since, putting aside the problematic account of his teacher having been Rāhulabhadra teacher given by some of the Tibetan historiographers and doxographers, no master is reported to have preceded Nāgārjuna, the author of the MK. Further, the early period of the Mādhyamika school may, above all, rightly be characterized by the appearance of the MK and its commentaries, together with Nāgārjuna’s disciple’s, viz. Āryadeva’s (c.170-270) Śataka or CatuHśataka.
In his well-known doxographical work, Grub pa’i mtha’i rnam par bzhag pa, lCang skya Rol pa’i rdo rje (1717-1786), therefore, gives the designation “Mādhyamikas of the Basic Texts” (gzhung phyi mo’i dbu ma pa) to both Nāgārjuna and Āryadeva, and that of “Sectarian Mādhyamikas” (phyogs ‘dzing pa’i dbu ma pa) to other later followers such as Buddhapālita, Bhāviveka and Candrakīrti3). lCang skya explains why he gives the former designation, i.e., “Mādhyamikas of the Basic Texts”, to Nāgārjuna and Āryadeva as follows:
“Although the final thought of the father [[[Nāgārjuna]]] and son [[[Āryadeva]]] lies in the Prāsaģgika system, in terms of what is taught in their texts,
there is no clearly delineated presentation of whether they conventionally accept things as having their own character (rang mtshan, *svalakşaňa), whether they accept the existence of external objects, and whether or not it is suitable to generate an inference against the opponent only from the viewpoint of what is well known to others, and so forth. Therefore, since [their texts] remain common to both the *Prāsaģgika and *Svātantrika factions, they are called ‘Basic’.”4)
II. Historical Approach
The above-mentioned doxographical approach is no doubt one of the possible avenues for understanding the important role that Nāgārjuna played in the history of Buddhism. It is to be noted that in the doxographical material Nāgārjuna is often considered not on the basis of his own statements but rather from the point of view of the later developed aspects of the Mādhyamika school. Incidentally, the first and third points of controversy to which lCang skya referred in the above explanation are those believed to have been differences between *Svātantrika (Bhāviveka) and *Prāsaģgika (Candrakīrti), while the second point was between
- Sautrāntika-Mādhyamika (Bhāviveka, Jñānagarbha, etc.) and *Yogācāra-
Mādhyamika (Śāntarakşita, Kamalaśīla, etc.).
However, if we turn to the following, rather historical facts, Nāgārjuna’s place in the history of Mahāyāna Buddhism looks somewhat different. (1) It is indeed true that Nāgārjuna was the author of the influential MK, which came to be called Zhōng-lùn (中論), i.e. Madhyamaka-śāstra at the latest in the beginning of 5th century A.D. However, Nāgārjuna recognized himself only as a “Śūnyatāvadin” in his Vigrahavyāvartanī (VV) and Vaidalyaprakaraňa 5), and not as a “Mādhyamika” or “dBu ma pa”. (2) As far as our present knowledge goes, in the history of the so-called Mādhyamika school Bhāviveka was the first to call himself a “dBu ma pa” (Mādhyamika) or “dBu ma(r) smra ba” (Madhyamaka-vādin)6), opposing the then influential Yogācāra tenet of “Three Natures” (trisvabhāva) and its related idea of practice, asallakşaňānupraveśopāya “the expedient for entry into the characteristic of non-existence”. The same designation “Mādhyamika” was further used by Candrakīrti (c.600-650) who, following Buddhapālita’s example7), once called himself a “Pratītyasamutpādavādin”
(3) Asaģga and Sthiramati wrote commentaries on the MK, both of which are extant only in Chinese translation9). As was discussed by
Kajiyama[1963] and Ejima[1980], Sthiramati criticized the explanation given by Bhāviveka in the Prajñāpradīpa.10) According to Avalokitavrata, comments on the MK by other Yogācāras, viz. Guňamati and Devaśarman, are also critically referred to by Bhāviveka in his Prajñāpradīpa.11) Also well known is the fact that Dharmapāla wrote the commentary Dà-chéngguăng- băi- lùn-shì-lùn (大乗廣百論釈論) on the second half of Āryadeva’s CatuHśataka, and in it refuted both Bhāviveka’s way of commenting on the MK12) and his understanding of several verses quoted from the Bhavasaņkrāntisūtra and Laģkāvatārasūtra.13)
The above-mentioned facts tell us that historically speaking, Nāgārjuna should be placed in the pre-Mādhyamika as well as pre-Yogācāra stage, that is, in the earliest stage of the history of the Mahāyāna-Abhidharma movement,14) which is mainly based on the early Aşţasāhasrikā- Prajñāpāramitāsūtra. It is most probable that the MK was therein regarded as common property to the advocates and followers of the Mahāyāna scriptures, though a slight difference in the understanding of some of the key concepts of the Prajñāpāramitāsūtra such as śūnyatā “emptiness” and niHsvabhāva “absence of own-nature” later caused the Yogācāra group to appear and thereafter the Mādhyamika school.
Let us now take a philosophical approach to Nāgārjuna’s position in
the history of how to interpretations of some of the key concepts of the
Prajñāpāramitāsūtra such as śūnyatā and niHsvabhāva.
Since a discussion of this topic in detail would require more than this
paper, let me confine myself here to referring to the following four points
in regard to his philosophical contribution:
First, it is certain from his argumentation in the MK and its related works that in the late 2nd century A.D. Nāgārjuna had already faced rather severe criticism concerning his interpretation of and justification for śūnyatā. This can easily be traced in the discussion in the MK and VV, in which he quotes, or introduces, the opponents’ objection that the teaching of śūnyatā – more or less taken by them to mean “non-existence” – not only destroys the traditional teachings such as “The Four Noble Truths”, “The Three Jewels” and so on, but also makes impossible our common word usage and moral criteria.
Secondly, what Nāgārjuna tried to do in response to this kind of criticism set forth by the then influential Abhidharma thinkers such as the Sarvāstivāda
and Sāņmitīya was to justify his understanding of the meaning of śūnyatā by means of the well-known Kātyayānāvavāda “The [[[Buddha’s]]] Teachings to Kātyāyana” regarding the teaching of Middle Path (madhyamā pratipat). In its Pāli counterpart, Kaccāyana-gotta “A Man of Kaccāyana lineage” of the Nidāna-saņuyutta (SN XII.15), the Buddha, when asked what the right view (sammā diţţhi) would be, explains it as seeing things as they are, with the right wisdom, from the viewpoint of middle [[[path]]] which denies both extremes, viz. existence and non-existence.
Thirdly, as concerns the meaning of śūnyatā, Nāgārjuna stresses the following two points: (1) The word “śūnyatā”, on the one hand, means “absence of own-nature” (niHsvabhāva), as already defined in the early Aşţasāhasrikā-Prajñāpāramitāsūtra. The teaching of niHsvabhāva is therein emphasized in order to criticize the then influential Sarvāstivāda’s understanding of dharmas as having their own-nature. In his main work, the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, Nāgārjuna rather constantly criticized such essentialistic or elementalistic understanding of dharmas as typically shown by the Sarvāstivāda thinkers. What Nāgārjuna stressed in this regard is that the teaching of śūnyatā is significant because it is able to lead the Mahāyāna practitioner to the quiescence of verbal proliferation (prapañcopaśama). According to his understanding, it is verbal proliferation that causes imagination (vikalpa) from which defilements (kleśa) and actions (karman) arise. Therefore, the teaching of śūnyatā in the sense of niHsvabhāva is crucial for one’s attainment of liberation (mokşa)15).
(2) On the other hand, according to Nāgārjuna’s definition of svabhāva in MK 15.2cd16), niHsvabhāva at the same time means “dependence on others” (paratra apekşaH) or “artificially made” (kŗtrima). This idea is also attested in his identification of śūnyatā with pratītyasamutpāda “dependent-arising” in MK 24.18ab17). Therefore, because of the absence of own-nature, all things can be dependently produced, can be dependently named (upādāya prajñaptiH), and can bring their own purpose (kārya/ prayojana) into being. This message of Nāgārjuna’s is worth noting, for, though often overlooked, it was clearly asserted in MK 24 and VV. Śūnyatā in the sense of pratītyasamutpāda is stressed there in the context of removing a nihilistic understanding of śūnyatā in the sense of “nonexistence”. Forthly, it is to be noted that the above two points regarding the meaning of śūnyatā or niHsvabhāva were later keenly discussed and further developed in early Yogācāra works such as the Bodhisattvabhūmi,
Saņdhinirmocanasūtra and the Viniścayasaņgrahaňī section of the Yogācārabhūmi, etc. It seems certain that without Nāgārjuna’s contribution to the elucidation of the concept of śūnyatā, the so-called Yogācāra tenets of Five Categories (pañca vastūni 五事or pañca dharmaH 五法) and Three Natures (trisvabhāva三性) would not have later come into being. And it also appears certain that without the foundation of the Yogācāra school by Asaģga and Vasubandhu in the 5th century A.D., the Mādhyamika as a school would not have been brought into being by Bhāviveka (c.490- 570). Lastly, in regard to the above-mentioned relationship between Nāgārjuna’s thought and those found in the early Yogācāra treatises, let me point out the following key concepts such as tattva, sugŗhīta-śūnyatā, vikalpaprapañca, and the religio-philosophical tension between paramārtha/ nirabhilāpyasvabhāvatā and the role of vyavahāra/ abhilāpa. Although these significant terms were already used in the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, it was thereafter in the Bodhisattvabhūmi, especially in Chapter 4 entitled tattvārtha “meaning of tattva” that, as far as our present knowledge goes, they were fully analysed and developed with, more or less, a slight modification.
MK: tattvasya lakşaňam (18.9, see below), tattva-darśana (26.10), etc.
BBh: tattvārtha
- divividha: 1) yathāvadbhāvikatā: dharmāňāņ bhūtatā 2) yāvadbhāvikatā: dharmāňāņ sarvatā - caturvidha: 1) lokaprasiddha 2) yuktiprasiddha 3) vikalpāvaraňaviśuddhijñānagocara 4) jñeyāvaraňaviśuddhijñānagocara (2) On sugŗhīta-śūnyatā “well seized emptiness” vs. durgŗhīta-śūnyatā “badly…”
MK: vināśayati durdŗşţā śūnyatā mandamedhasam/ sarpo yathā durgŗhīto vidyā vā duşprasādhitā// (24.11) “A wrongly seen ‘emptiness’ ruins a feeble-minded person.
It is like a badly seized snake or a badly executed incantation.” BBh: yah kaścit śramaňo vā brāhmaňo vā tac ca necchati yena śūnyaņ tad api necchati yat tena śūnyam iyam evaņrūpā durgŗhītā śūnyatety ucyate//…// sarvābhāvāc ca kutra kiņ kena sunyaņ bhavişyati// (Takahashi ed., p.101)
yataś ca yad yatra na bhavati tat tena śūnyam iti samanupaśyati/ yat punar atrāvaśiştaņ bhavati tat sad ihāstīti yathābhūtaņ prajānāti// iyam ucyate śūnyatāvakrāntir yathābhūtā aviparitā//…iyam ucyate sugŗhītā śūnyatā samyakprajñayā supratividdheti// (ibid., pp.101-102) (3) On vikalpa “conceptual discrimination”and prapañca “verbal proliferation”
MK: karmakleśakşayān mokşah karmakleśā vikalpatah/ te prapañcāt prapañcas tu śūnyatāyāņ nirudhyate// (18.5) aparapratyayaņ śāntaņ prapañcair aprapañcitam/ nirvikalpam anānārtham etat tattvasya lakşaňam// (18.9) BBh: aşţavidho vikalpah: svabhāva-vikalpa, viśeşa-v., piňđagrāha-v., aham iti v., mameti v., priya-v., apriya-v., tadubhayaviparīta-v. (ibid., pp.107- 110 )
sa punar ayam aşţavidho vikalpah katameşāņ trayānāņ vastūnāņ janako bhavati// yaś ca svabhāvavikalpo yaś ca veśeşavikalpo yaś ca piňđagrāhavikalpa itīme trayo vikalpā vikalpaprapañcādhişţhānaņ vikalpaprapañcālambanaņ vastu janayanti rūpādisaņjñakam// yad vastv adhişţhāya sa nāmasaņjñābhilāpaparigŗhīto nāmasaņjñābhilāpaparibhāvito vikalpah prapañcayan tasminn eva vastuni vicaraty anekavidho bahunānāprakārah//( ibid., p.107) (4) On nirabhilāpyasvabhāvatā and abhilāpa MK: vyavahāram anāśritya paramārtho na deśyate/ paramārtham anāgamya nirvāňaņ nādhigamyate// (MK 24.10) BBh: evaņ nirabhilāpyasvabhāveşu sarvadharmeşu kasmād abhilāpaħ prayujyate// tathā hi vinābhilapena sā nirabhilāpyadharmatā pareşāņ vaktum api na śakyate śrotum api// vacane śravaňe cāsati sa nirabhilāpyasvabhāvatā jñātum api na śakyate/ tasmād abhilāpaħ prayujyate śravaňajñānāya// (Takahashi ed., p.106)
IIII. Conclusion
The following diagram shows a possible position for Nāgārjuna in the context of the development of not necessarily Mādhyamika thought, but rather of the Mahāyāna tenets related, in particular, to the concept of śūnyatā. Nāgārjuna is there placed as the originator of Mahāyāna- Abhidharma movement prior to the advent of the early Yogācāra, that is, long before the birth and formation of the Mādhyamika school which was, historically speaking, founded by Bhāviveka in the early 6th century A.D. A.D.1c. Prajñāpāramitāsūtra (early Aşţasāhasrikā-) Daśabhūmikasūtra
A.D.2c. [I. The Beginning of the Mahāyāna-Abhidharmas] (Pre-Yogācāra; Pre-Mādhyamika) A.D.3c. Nāgārjuna (c.150-250): “Śūnyatāvādin” Āryadeva (c.170-270) Rāhulabhadra (c.200-300) Prajñāpāramitāsūtra (early Pañcaviņśatisāhasrikā-) A.D.4c. *Piģgala(c.320-400), Zhōng-lùn (中論) Unknown author, Akutobhayā
[II-1. Early Yogācāra]
Yogācārabhūmi (Maulī bhūmiħ) (c.300-450) (Śrbh, Bbh → other bhūmis (?))
[II-2. The Birth of Vijnaptimātratā and Trisvabhāva theories] Saņdhinirmocanasūtra, Mahāyānābhidharmasūtra Yogācārabhūmi (Viniścayasaņgrahaňī etc.) Mahāyānasūtrālaņkāra( MSA), Madhyāntavibhāga (MAV) Buddhapālita (c.370-450): “Pratītya- samutpādavādin” A.D.5c. Asaģga (c.395-470), Abhidharmasamuccaya, Mahāyānasaņgraha,
Xiăn-yáng-shèng-jiào-lùn (顕揚聖教論) Shùn-zhōng-lùn (順中論), etc.
Vasubandhu (c.400-480), MSAbh, MAVbh, etc. [II-3. The Establishment of Buddhist Logic and Epistemology; The Age of Commentary Works on Asaģga and Vasubandhu’s treatises] Dignāga (c.480-540), Pramāňasamuccaya, Ālambanaparīkşā, etc. A.D.6c. [III. The Birth and Formation of the Mādhyamika School] Bhāviveka(c.490-570):”Mādhyamika”, “*Madhyamaka-vādin” Sthiramati (c.510-570), SAVbh, MAVT, Triņśikaţīkā, Dà-chéng- Zhōng-guāng-shì-lùn, (大乗中観釈論), etc. Dharmapāla (530-561), *Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi, Dà-chéngguăng- băi-lùn-shì-lùn (大乗廣百論釈論), etc. A.D.7c. Candrakīrti(c.600-650):”Mādhyamika” “Pratītyasamutpādavādin” Dharmakīrti (c.600-660)
Notes
- “Is Nāgārjuna a Mādhyamika?”, Hokekyō to Daijōkyōten no Kenkyū
(Studies in the Saddharmapuňđarīkasūtra and Mahāyāna Scriptures, 2006, pp.153-164. 1) See Warder[1970] p.376; Kalpahana[1986] pp.5-8; Tachikawa[1994] pp.(3)-(5), etc.
In addition to Tachikawa’s pertinent comment on Kalpahana[1986], it is worthy of note that in MK 24.32 Nāgārjuna clearly acknowledges the importance of bodhisattvacaryā, which runs: yaś cābuddhaH svabhāvena sa bodhāya ghaţann api/ na bodhisattvacaryāyāņ bodhiņ te ‘dhigamişyati//. (Hereafter, verses of MK are cited from de Jong[1977].) 2) See, e.g., Seyfort Ruegg[1981] pp.4-47 and [1982];Kajiyama[1982] pp.2-7; Saito [1988][1996].
3) Grub pa’i mtha’i rnam par bzhag pa, Peking ed., Śatapiţaka Series 233, New Delhi, 1978, p.433.2-3 (Kha 8a2-3); see also Lopez[1987] p.253.
4) Ibid., p.433.4-p.434.1 (Kha 8a4-b1) ; Tada Collection preserved in the University of Tokyo, Kitamura Catalogue, no.85 (Ser-byes ed.), Nga 6a5-6: yab sras gnyis kyi dgongs pa mthar thug thal ‘gyur pa’i lugs su gnas kyang gzhung gi bstan tshod la tha snyad du dngos po la rang mtshan zhal gyis bzhes mi bzhes dang/ phyi rol gyi don zhal gyis bzhes mi bzhes dang/ gzhan grags tsam gyi sgo nas phyi rgol la rjes dpag bskyed du rung mi rung sogs kyi rnam bzhag (pzhag P; gzhag Ser-byes) gsal bar phye ba med pas thal rang gi phyogs gnyis ka’i (ga’i P) spyi la bzhugs pas na phyi mo zhes zer ro//.
5) See Seyfort Ruegg[1981] p.2(n.2); Saito[2000] pp.94-98, 111(n.8,9); Mochizuki [2004] p.209. 6) See Saito[1988] p.(40). 7) See Saito[2000] pp.98-103. 8) See Ejima[1985] pp.144, 150, 156(n.25). 9) Asaģga,Shùn-zhōng-lùn (順中論), tr. by Prajñāruci (般若流支) in 543, Taisho no.1565; Sthiramati, Zhōng-guāng-shì-lùn (大乗中観釈論), tr. by Wéi-Jīng (惟浄) et al. from 1009-1050, Taisho no.1567+ 卍 26-1. 10) See Kajiyama[1963] and Ejima[1980] pp.165-171. 11) See Ejima[1980] pp.159-165. 12) See Kajiyama[1963] pp.149-152. 13) See Ejima[1992].
14) Cf. The colophon of Prajñā-nāma-MK (D Tsa 19a1; P Tsa 22a4): dBu ma rtsa ba’i tshig le’ur byas pa shes rab ces bya ba theg pa chen po’i chos mngon pa rnam par gzhag pa/…, “The Prajñānāma- mūlamadhyamakakārikā, in which Mahāyāna- Abhidharma is established, …”. In his Prajñāpradīpaţīkā, Avalokitavrata also considers the well-known reverential verse of MK, which contains eight negations characterizing pratītyasamutpāda, as a “*Paramārtha-abhidharma (don dam pa’i chos mngon pa)”, and those given in the traditional Tripiţaka as “*Samvŗty-abhidharmas (kun rdzob pa’i chos mngon pa)” (D Wa 39b6-7; P Wa 46a5-6). 15) MK 18.5: karmakleśakşayān mokşaH karmakleśā vikalpataH/ te prapañcāt prapañcas tu śūnyatāyāņ nirudhyate// 16) MK 18.2cd: akŗtrimaH svabhāvo hi nirapekşaH paratra ca//. 17) MK 24.18ab: yaH pratītyasamutpādaH śūnyatāņ tāņ pracakşmahe/.
References
De Jong, J. W.[1977]: Nāgārjuna MūlamadhyamakakārikāH, Madras: The Adyar Library and Research Centre. Ejima, Y.[1980]: Chūgan-shisō no Tenkai (Development of the Mādhyamika Philosophy in India), Tokyo: Shunjūsha. – [1985]: “Chūron Shochūshaku niokeru ‘Engi’ no Gogi-kaishaku” (The Interpretations of the meaning of pratītyasamutpāda given in the Commentaries on the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā), Bukkyo-shiso no Shomondai (Problems in the Buddhist Thoughts), Tokyo: Shunjūsha, pp.139-157. – [1992]: “Bhāviveka no Gengokan – Yugagyō-gakusetsu tono Kanren nioite" (Bhāviveka’s View on Language, in relation to his critique of the Yogācāra tenets), Journal of Naritasan Institute for Buddhist Studies 15, pp.75-93.
Kajiyama, Y.[1963]: “Shōben, Anne, Gohō" (Bhāviveka, Sthiramai and Dharmapāla), Mikkyōbunka 64/65, pp.144-159. – [1982]: “Chūganha no Rekishi to Bunken” (The History and Literature of the Mādhyamika Philosophy), Kōza Daijō Bukkyō (Series Mahāyāna Buddhism) 7, Tokyo: Shunjūsha, pp.1-83. Kalupahana, D.[1986]: Nāgārjuna: The Philosophy of the Middle Way, New York: State University of New York Press. Lopez, D.S.[1987]: A Study of Svātantrika, New York: Snow Lion Publications. Mochizuki, K.[2004]: “Are the Mādhyamikas Śūnyatāvādins?”, Three Mountains and Seven Rivers, Prof. Musashi Tachikawa’s Felicitation Volume, ed. by Sh. Hino and T. Wada, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, pp.209-
Saito, A.[1988]: “’Shoki’ Chūganha to Buddhapālita” (Buddhapālita as Placed in the Early Mādhyamika), Bukkyōgaku 24, pp.29-51. – [1996]: “Śāntideva in the History of Mādhyamika Philosophy”, Buddhism in India and Abroad, Mumbai: Somaiya Publications, pp.422-
– [1998]: “Kū to Kotoba – Chūron Dai 24 Sho, Dai 7 Ge no Kaishaku
o megutte” (Emptiness and Words: On the Different Interpretations of the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā 24.7), Journal of Religious Studies 316, pp.27- 52.
– [2000]: “Kūshōronja kara Engironja e – Buddhapālita o Chūshin toshite” (From Śūnyatāvādin to Pratītyasamutpādavādin, with special reference to Buddhapālita), Kū to Jitsuzai (Śūnyatā and Reality), Volume in Memory of Professor Y. Ejima, Tokyo: Shunjūsha, pp.93-115. Seyfort Ruegg, D.[1981]: The Literature of the Madhyamaka School of Philosophy in India, A History of Indian Literature 7-1, Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
– [1982]: “Towards a Chronology of the Madhyamaka School”, Indological and Buddhist Studies, Volume in Honour of Professor J.W. de Jong on his Sixtieth Birthday, ed. by L.A. Hercus et al., Canberra: Faculty of Asian Studies.
Tachikawa, M.[1994]: “Kinnen no Kaigai niokeru Kūshisō-Kenkyū” (Contemporary Studies on the Thought of Emptiness (Śūnyatā) in Foreign Countries), Bukkyōgaku 36, pp.(1)-(17). Takahashi, K.[2005]: Bosatsuji Shin’jitsugi-bon kara Shokecchakubun- chu-Bosatsuji eno Shiso-tenkai (Philosophical Developments from the Bodhisattvabhūmi to the Bodhisattvabhūmiviniścaya), Tokyo: Sankibo Press. Warder, A. K.[1970]: Indian Buddhism, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass
