I. Cadrakirti's Life and Works

Cadrakirti(600-650)(1) was a well-known Madhyamikah scholar of Indian Mahavana in the seventh century, as well as the representative of Prasangika one of the two Madhyamikahs in the Indian mid-period. Since he redeveloped the Madhyamaka doctrines of Nagarjuna, founder of Mahayana theory, and became famous for inheriting Nagarjuna's Madhya-maka doctrines, so he is addressed with respect as one of the heirs of Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka thought. He occupies a high status in the story of the Indian Madhyamikah, so he is often mentioned in the same category as Nagarjuna and Aryadeva. For example, at the beginning of the late Madhyamikah's program book Madhyamakaratnapradipa, it says "Tothethree scholars Nagarjuna,Aryadeva and Cadrakirti."(2) His doctrines have had a very strong influence not only over Madhyamikah in Indian late period, but are also very popular in our country's Tibetan Buddhism. His doctrines were introduced into Tibet rather inextenso and almost all of his works were translated into Tibetan. It is Atisa(982-1054) who first introduced his doctrines into Tibet. Since Tibetan Buddhism advocates Madhyamaka as well as actual practice, so Cadrakirti was well respected, especially by the founder of the Gelugpa School Tsong Kha Pa(1357-1419). Tibetan Buddhism followed Cadrakirti's doctrines closely and praised his view of Madhyamaka as Nagarjuna's precisely(3). Atisa quoted many of Cadrakirti's arguments in his works, and appointed Cadrakirti's magnum opus Madhyamakavatara Nama as one of the five great works(4) that Tibetan Buddhism Gelugpa School Buddhists must learn. Cadrakirti also has a rather high status in Indian Madhyamaka School and Tibetan Buddhism, but his name is rather strange to Han Buddhism. None of his works were translated into Chinese and nobody knew his doctrines, even his name was never mentioned in Chinese writings. In more recent times, Master Fazun(1902-1980) introduced his doctrines into Han circles and advocated it energetically. This had some impact amongst scholars but due to various factors, the upsurge in interest was not sustained, so it's influence was rather limited. Not many people know Cadrakirti in modern Chinese Buddhist circles, so it goes without saying there is little comprehensive study or understanding. Therefore, this article tries to examine his life, and the study of his magnum opus-Madhyamakavatara Nama-to allow a more comprehensive understanding of him.

Details about Cadrakirti's life and deeds are rather scarce in Indian Buddhist literature. Chinese writing doesn't mention him and there are only a few records in Tibetan literature. The Tibetan records are not very detailed. In accordance with the Buddhist History of Buston(1290-1364) and the Indian Buddhist History of Taranatha(1573-1616)(5), he was born in Samanta, South Indian into the Brahmin caste. He was very clever and bookish from youth, and accomplished in all kinds of knowledge. After he became a monk, he learned Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka doctrines from the disciples of Bhavaviveka(500-570) and Buddhapalita's disciple Kamalabuddhi(470-540) etc, and became agreat scholar. Later he held the post of abbot in Nalanda Temple, which was Indian Buddhism's highest institution, where he preached Nagarjuna's and Buddhapalita's doctrines. During that period, he carried on a debate lasting seven years with Candradomi of Yugacara. After that, he preached Buddhist scriptures in the south and built temples; he finally died in Manubhamga. There were many legends such as, that  he was so successful in learning Tantra he could do many magic tricks such as milking a picture of a cow, piercing a stone column with his hand and passing through a wall...and so on. Besides the above information, there are no more useful Tibetan records on him. However, a lot of his works were kept in the Tibetan Canon, and there are nearly 20 of them if one includes works on Tantra, which were collected in Madhyamaka and Tantra respectively; of which there are II Madhyamaka parts and eight tantra parts. Here-after I will give an introduction to the Madhyamaka part.

1. Mulfimadhyamakawtti prasannapada nama(No.3860)(6)
 
2. Bodhisattva yogacaryacatuhasataka (No.3865)

3. Yuktisastika vrtti (No.3864)

4. sunyatasaptati vrtti (No.3867)

5. Madhyamakavatarakarika nama(PTP.5261)

6. Madhyamakavatara nama(No.3861)

7. Madhyamakavatarabhasya nama(No.3862)

8. Madhyamakaprajnavatara nama(No.3863)

9. pancaskandhaprakarana(No.3866)

10. Trisarana <gamana> saptati(No.3971)

11. Trigarana <gamana> saptati(No.4564)

In the above II Madhyamaka theory works, the first four are commentary books, and the other seven were written by him. The first book is the commentary on Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka Sfistra, and the only existing original Sanskrit book among all commentary books on it. British minister B.H.Hodgson(1800-1894)discovered this Sanskrit book in Nepal at the end of 19th century Since Cadrakirti copied the original article on Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka Sfistra when he made
the commentaries, the discovery of the book is not only the important data for studying Cadrakirti's doctrines, but also the most original data for studying Nagarjuna's thinking, so it is most studied by Buddhist scholars around the world and caused an upsurge in studying Madhyamaka doctrines in Europe. Especially in 1988, after it was revised and published by Belgian Buddhist scholar Dr. Loui De La Vallee(7), it was translated into many languages including English, German, French and Japanese, becoming one of the essential works for the world's Buddhist scholar to study Mahayana. If, including partial versions, there are morethan ten Japanese versions in Japan. The discovery of Cadrakirti's Sanskrit Mulamadhyamakavrtti prasannapada nama established a new milestone of Madhyamaka doctrine study in latter times;however, it is regretful that,more than a century has passed sincethe discovery of the Sanskrit book,China's Buddhist circle has almost no reaction to it and to date there is no Chinese version. In the future, the translation and study on the book will be an important subject for China's Buddhist circle. The second book is the cornmentaries for Catuhsatakasastra karika written by Nagarjuna's disciple Aryadeva,who was taught by Nagarjuna personally There were two commentaries including Vasubandhu and Dharmapla which weretransmitted to the Han Dynasty successively but they are not very complete(8). Cadrakirti's book is the most complete commentary book for Catuhsatakasastra Karika; therefore the world's Buddhist scholars regard it as one of the important literatures for studying Madhyamaka thought.

The existing snippets of Sanskrit original editions have already been revised and published, and some chapters have been given commentaries and studies(9). The third book Yuktisastika vrtti is the only existing commentary book on Nagarjuna's Yuktisastika Karika, so it is also one of the very important literatures. Nevertheless, maybe its Tibetan version is an ancient translation(10), so some translations are very hard to understand, and it is not a good version. Yamaguchi Susumu's "A Commentary Study on Nagarjuna's Yuktisastika Karika" carried out a thorough study of it(11). Uryuuzu Ryushin also translated it into Japanese from Tibetan, and his version was collected in Mahayana Buddhist Scriptures and Nagarjuna's Doctrines Collection. Shi Hu of Han Dynasty translated the Chinese version of Yuktisastika Karika,but with verses without notes (12). The fourth book of Sunyatasaptati vrtti is also the commentary book on Nagarjuna's Sunyatasaptari Karika. Yamaguchi Susumu's A Philological Study On Nagarjuna's Sunyatasaptari Karika(13) makes adetailed study of it from the angle of philology. In addition, Uryuuzu Ryushin also translated Nagarjuna's commentaries on the book into Japanese. The fifth and sixth are the eulogiums on Madhyamakavatara nama, and they are different versions of the same book. In accordance with the study(14) of Japanese scholar Dr.Ogawa Ichijo, the Tibetan translation of the fifth book is not as perfect as that of the sixth. Maybe it is due to this reason that, although the Tibetan Canon published in Beijing included the two books, the Derge edition only collected the sixth. By the way, the sixth, the first and the seventh books were all translated by Nimagrags and proofread by himself and Kanakavarman, therefore the Tibetan of the seventh and sixth are consistent on the whole, in particuliar as the translator and reviser, Nimagrags is the most authoritative expert in Madhyamaka doctrines, especially on Cadrakirti's works. The details on the seventh will be given below, so here it is omitted. There is only a Tibetan version of the eighth book and no Sanskrit one. The whole book is made up of 77 sentences, one sentence consisting of seven syllables. Although the book is also named "Madhyamaka-avatara", it has no direct relation with Madhyamakavatara nama. It mainly explains the subject-object negation of Madhyamaka Praj thought and the empty characteristic as empty doctrines. Among all of Cadrakirti's works, it seems that the book is not given much attention, and until now there is no scholar to study it. The ninth book Pancaskandhaprakarana only has a Tibetan version and no Sanskrit one. Its contents are an explanation of all doctrines(Five Aggregates) from the standpoint of Madhyamikah, a very important literature for studying the views of Madhyamikah on Abhidharma Buddhism. Yamaguchi Susumu had made some translations and studied some parts of it(15). The tenth and eleventh are two editions of the same book, and their translator is the same. The book adopts a verse style, seven syllables making up one sentence, altogether 272 sentences equal to 68 verses. Their contents are to explain the order, means, necessity and practice process of conversion from the standpoint of Madhyamikah. It first highly praises the Buddha then points out that the doctrine they translated is the true existence of dependent origin and the emptiness of nature, finally stating that the practicers practising Mahayana Bodhisattva should do ten perfections to reach correct Buddhist status. Ogawa Ichijo had made studies on the books, and published "Opinions on Cadrakirti's Trisarana(gamana)" saptati to carry through a detailed analysis and examination on the belief of Madhyamikah(16).

II. Cadrakirti's Position in the Development of Madhyamikah

The Madhyamaka doctrines established by Nagarjuna(150-250) and developed by his disciple Aryadeva(170-270) had been very popular in some periods. However, in the fourth century, due to the appearance of Reasoning, especially Yugacara taking Reasoning as its theoretical foundation, Madhyamikah gradually became weak. Athough the representatives of Yugacara School also regarded Nagarjuna as the originator of Mahayana, and committed to develop his Madhyamaka doctrines on the surface(17), their explanations on his thoughts were not accurate. It would be better to say that they misinterpreted the original idea of Nagarjuna's emptiness thought rather than developed his doctrines(18). In the sixth century two debaters, Buddhapalita and Bhavaviveka, stated they were Madhyamika. Both of them made commentaries for the Madhyamaka Sastra and advanced the real meaning of Nagarjuna's and Aryadeva's doctrines, especially Bhavaviveka's intense criticism of the Yugacare School's doctrines, which can be found in his existing works in Chinese and Tibetan Buddhism(19). Buddhapalita also published outspoken opinions, maniresting Madhyamaka's spirit; exploding popular sayings and false views in order to oppose Yugacara which was fashionable at that time. Through their joint efforts, Madhyamaka doctrines showed signs of resuscitation. However, it was due to Cadrakirti's sustained efforts that Nagarjuna's doctrines became popular in late period Indian Mahayana, and in opposition to Asanga's doctrines of mere consciousness. His contributions on Madhyamaka are mainly evident in the following aspects:

Firstly, Cadrakiri ascertained that "Prasangan-umana" advocated by Buddhapalita was the correct methodology of Madhyamikah. Buddhapalita thought that Nagarjuna's emptiness means "only refuting, not making any arguments, and only critisizing rather than expressing any views", so when he wrote the Commentaries on Madhyamaka Sastra, he combined the spirit of emptiness with Reasoning, and decided that the "Prasangika" means 'pointing out the rival's mistakes according to his words" to demonstrate his emptiness of thinking, which refers to finding the mistakes of the rival from aspects of the rivals' words and not putting forward any direct views. Therefore later generations called his method "Prasangika". However, Bhfivaviveka, who also holds a Madhyamaka standpoint, praised himself as a Madhyamika and was deeply influenced by Dignfiga's New Reasoning(480-540), which held the reverse opinions. In accordance with the opinions of Avalokitavrata(around the seventh century) who made commentaries for Prajnapradipa, Bhavaviveka criticized Buddhapalita's methodology at over 20 points of Prajnapradipa(20). For example when Buddhapalita demonstrated "everything does not arise by itself", he said, "Everything does not arise by itself, if it does asise by itself, then it's arising is useless, why do I say so? Because if everything arises by itself, then it is no need for it to arise again, if it has already existed, but it still asises, then it will never stop arising"(21). This is the refution of Buddhapalita on the view that everything arises by itself using Prasangaumana, but Bhavaviveka denounced this view,"The demonstration is not right. What is the meaning? It did not give reason and example, and cannot refute the rival's opinions, so people may reverse the original meaning. Why is there the reversal? Because people will consider-since everything does not arise by itself, then it arises by other things, and also its arising is useful and limited(22). Here Bhavaviveka listed three pieces of reason to refute Buddhapalita's reasons: first,Buddhapalita's argument is not complete, with only the "proposition" part of a syllogism's three parts and without obvious "reason" and "example", which is not coincident with the format of Reasoning; second, unable to give advance refution for other arguments that the rival will propose; third, it is easy to misunderstand the meaning, namely one's own proposition to be demonstated is reversed to contrary viewpoint. For example, since you denied that everything arises by itself and demonstated that its arising is useless and endless, then people may misunderstand that which you want to confirm: everything arises by other things, and its arising is useful and never endless, then the fault contrary-to Madhyamaka's opinions-will appear. So Bhavaviveka thought that although Prasangaumana may be efficient in refution, it ends only at refution without presentation of argument and can not fully show the theory of emptiness, thus it is hard to help people to really understand Madhyamaka's thought. Bhavaviveka stated that one should make his own point, and it is necessary to adopt the popular Reasoning theory to organize one's own deduction, by which one can understand and better grasp the tenets of Madhyamaka thoughts. He considered that, only by adopting SVatantranumana with complete proposition, reason, and example, can one not only avoid the various faults of Prasangaumana, but also actively express emptiness of thought, which is helpful for people to understand Madhy'amaka thoughts. Therefore, later ages called his methodology "Svatantrika". However, in Nagarjuna's Vigrahavayavartani, he definitely criticized measure theory. Why did Bhavaviveka advocate this theory? With regard to this point, the successor of Bhavaviveka's doctrines, Avalokitavrata, explained(23), "the people in Nagarjuna's time were all wise men who would know the reason and example when they learned the proposition, and know the proposition and example when they learned the reason, so they did not need complete deduction. But people now are different and do not have that kind of intellect, so it is necessary to adopt real and complete deduction to allow people to understand."

However, when Cadrakirti appeared after Bhavaviveka he did not agree with him and supported Buddhapalita's opinions. In Chapter I of his Mulamadhyamakavrtti prasannapada nama, while explaining Buddhapalita, Cadrakirti gave detained critiques on Bhavaviveka's opinions with a large amount of length. Firstly, Cadrakirti did not agree with Bhavaviveka's statement that Buddhapalita's argumentation had not stated reason and example and he refuted that(24): if we have already pointed out the flaw in the rival's proposition and revealed his argument to be self- contradictory, while the debate rival still did not admit his defeat, then it was still unnecessary even if we stated our own reason and example; secondly, Cadrakirti considered that it was the right attitude of a Madhyamika that Buddhapalita had not fixed deduction and criticized Bhavaviveka for flaunting that he was a Madhyamika but he used Svatantranumana, which can not explain emptiness thought. On the contrary, it caused confusion on his own standpoints, because a Madhyamika neither admitted other's opinions, nor made any points. For example Nagarjuna's Vigrahavyavartani said,"If I made any points, then I would have faults; since I do not make any points, then I will not have any faults."(25) Aryadeva's Catuhsatakasastra karika also said:"existence and nonexistence are all empty, all of the other schools will become quiet before Madhyamikah, to disprove Madhaymaka school is very difficult since they can not prove themselves successfully"(26), which pointed out that a Madhyamika should not make any points and even eliminated emptiness. Therefore, Cadrakirti thought that it was favorable for Buddhapalita not to have any fixed deduction and not leave the others with authority, so he thoroughly supported Buddhapalita's opinions and ascertained that Prasangaumana stresses by Prasangaumana as the most efficient one for Madhyamikah, while being opposed to using Svatantranumana to demonstrate emptiness thought. Prasangaumfina, namely "finding mistakes", refers to finding the missteps in the rival's arguments, then refuting the opinions. In complete Madhyamika's opinions, the arguments made up of languages and words are unable to avoid objections, and must have some incomplete flaws. Prasangaumana will refute the rival using the flaws. In other words, Madhyamika first follows the rival's opinion, and then points out the flaws or contradictions in it to destroy the argument. The major feature of Prasangaumana is not to put forward any direct opinions but take refutation of the rival argumentation as the final goal. Therefore, Cadrakirti considered that Prasangaumana that only refutes and  does not make any points is the most coincidental with Madhyamaka thought, as well as the best expression of Madhyamaka standpoints, since no matter how perfect an argumentation is, it will always have flaws which is incompatible with emptiness thought, while Prasangaumana can achieve its purpose that everything has no self-existence and is empty only by pointing out the flaw of the rival argument and making it self contradictory and not needing make any other points. Hence, Cadrakirti praised Prasangaumana to be "the proposition without proposition" and "the standpoint without standpoint"(27), and criticised Bhavaviveka to state himself to be a Madhyamaka scholar but advocate Svatantranumfina, which not only made him appear to be confused in theory and running counter to Madhyamaka tenet. Since he could not explain his argument clearly, how can he refute others? Cadrakirti thought that Svatantranumana could not demonstrate emptiness thought at all, and it is a kind of persistence itself to have any opinions or fixed deductions as a Madhyamika basing himself on emptiness thought, furthermore it would point out flaws in his opinions. Therefore Cadrakirti determined that Prasangaumvna advocated by Buddhapalita is the most correct methodology for Madhyamikah, and developed and perfected it actively to make its features more definite and concrete, therefore, people described him as the representative of Prasangaumana.

Secondly, to protect the authority of Madhyamikah, Cadrakirti thoroughly criticised the prevalent Yugacara at that time. Indian Buddhism in the sixth and seventh centuries achieved rapid development in epistemology and Reasoning became a very prevalent emphasis, so the period was called "the time of knowledge theory". The Yugacara doctrines of Asanga and Vasubandh were very prevalent, taking Reasoning as their theoretical foundation and tending to surpass Madhyamikah. However, as the representative of Prasangika, Cadrakirti strongly opposed that, unlike Bhavaviveka, the representative of Svatantrika, who almost completely assimilated Reasoning thought. Cadrakirti considered that Reasoning was fundamentally incompatible with Madhyamaka thought, and as a Madhyamika, he should persist in the standpoint of emptiness and always study the principal questions of Madhyamaka thought. To him logical epistemology was unnecessary for the Buddhist search for life liberation. At the same time he also realized that to reestablish the authority of Nagarjuna's and Aryadeva's doctrines and lift the status of Madhyamikah, he must strictly criticize Yugacara. In fact, the criticism of Madhyamikah over Yugacara started early with Bhavaviveka. He considered that it was unreasonable for Yugacara to explain Nagarjuna's emptiness thought by the three-nature theory, so, in his Madhyramakahridayakarika and the commentaries of Prajnapradipa's Chapter 25 "An Examination of Nirvana", he claimed to only explain Nagarjuna's "emptiness" by two-truth theory, then Nagarjuna's original idea can be demonstrated in contradiction of Yugacara's three-nature theory. In Bhavaviveka's opinions, the basis of Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka doctrines is to explain that our conventional truth is the existence of dependent-arising without self-existence, and emptiness cannot be achieved if we do not persist in on this, at the same time observing by the theory of dependent-arising we can grasp the emptiness of the ultimate truth and liberate from sermon. Therefore, the emptiness of Nagarjuna is the middle-way concept seeing emptiness from convention and demonstrating the ultimate truth from the conventional truth. However, Yugacara School, formed taking Samdhinirmocanasutra as its doctrines, objected to this opinion, and claimed to explain Nagarjuna's emptiness by three-nature theory. "Three natures" means that the conventional conditional arising is the nature of dependent origin; the conditional arising with illusory discriminations is the nature of universal imagination; To eliminate the nature of existence produced from attachment to illusory discrimination and recognize the original aspect of conditional arising is the highest nature of ultimate reality. For example, if we mistook a rope for a snake at night, then the rope is the nature of dependent origin, the fabricated snake is the nature of universal imagination, and to know the rope made of hemp is the nature of ultimate reality. So Yugacara considered that the "emptiness" of Nagarjuna means that the fabricated snake, namely the nature of universal imagination is empty, while the nature of dependent origin is its dependence, so it should not be empty. Supposing the nature of dependent origin is also empgy, then the nature of ultimate reality relying on conventional conditional arising to grasp the ultimate truth, namely the path to the ultimate truth taking the convention as the medium is impossible to exist, and the verification from confusion to consciousness is also impossible to achieve, hence, Yugacara considered that the nature of dependent origin (namely, convention) cannot be empty. Finally,the focus of the debate between the two schools concentrated on the problem of whether the nature of dependent origin is empty or not. Athough the two schools had no objection to the existence of "dependent-arising", they had quite different opinions on whether the existence of "dependent-arising" is empty or not, and had always debated it.

On every account, it started from Bhavaviveka criticising Yugacara doctrines from the standpoint of Madhyamaka, and his criticism led to a time-consuming "emptiness-being debate" in Indian Buddhist history. However, his criticism of Yugacara was rather inferior to that of Cadrakirti. He mainly determined Madhyamaka's two-truth theory through criticizing Yugacara's three-nature theory, while Cadrakirti's attitude towards all of Yugacara's doctrines was com-pletely negative. From Verse 34 to 97, in the 64 verses of Chapter VI of Madhyamakavatara nama, he made a mercilous criticism of Yugacara's major doctrines, including Alaya, self-verifying-division, the nature of dependent origin and no objects outside the mind and so on. First, he criticized Alaya; "Karma is like illusion without self-nature, and its potential over sensation will not disappear although we can not see its existence for the moment; no matter what karma we made, although they disappear temporarily, we do not know at what time in the future that the retribution will appear naturally when the time is right"(28). There are plenty of reasons for Yugacara to set Alaya up,of which the most important is to explain the karma-feeling theory of comeuppance. Yugacara thought that karma exists by the form of a seed in Alaya before it is rewarded or punished. When the time is correct, the retribution will appear, SO if there is no Maya to store the seed of karma,it is impossible to explain the continuity betWeen karma and retribution. Cadrakirti criticized the theory "the self-nature of karma does not arise, and has no end, so it can continue by itself without disappearance. Mthough the appearance of karma disappeared,its quality and function still exist, which is only the different states of karma, so it is no need to have an Alaya to store it." (29) So Cadrakirti considered that the Alaya mentioned in Samdhinirmocana sutra is a kind of provisional establishment, and there is no actual Alaya. Second, Yugacara considered that the reason for a person to have memory is that when he sees, listens, feels, and knows, he comes to an understanding of himself, and such an understanding is self-improvement. Cadrakirti criticized this; "what one knew is not what one can know. Other things do not create the effect-then the doer, what he did and the effect should be one. We have never seen such a thing. For example, a woodsman, a standing tree and a fallen tree are not one thing, so we know that self-improve-ment does not exist."(30) He thought that everything can not be the subject-object of itself. For example a sword cannot cut itself, a finger cannot touch itself, and consciousness cannot know itsef, so he denied the existence of self-improvement.

In the above the focus of the debate between Madhyamaka and Yugacara is whether the nature of dependent origin is empty or not. Yugacara thought that although the nature of dependent origin is also conditional arising, it is the reason that everything depends on and the key from confusion to conciousness, so it is practical and should not be empty. The "emptiness" that Yugacara mentioned refers to is the nature of dependent origin. However, Cadrakirti thought that such understanding on conditional arising is against Nagarjuna's original idea, and what Yugacara considered was halfway to "other-nature emptiness", not the "self-nature emptiness" stressed by Nagarjuna. Chapter 24 of Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka Sastra says, "Everything arising from conditions is empty"-which indicates that conditional arising(the nature of dependent origin) is empty. Therefore Cadrakirti considered that it is Nagarjuna's real meaning and the right understanding of conditional arising to consider conditional arising as emptiness, dependent designation and self-nature emptiness without self-nature. Since the nature of dependent origin is also conditional arising, then it is definitely without self-nature empty, and unable to get.

In addition, Cadrakirti also criticized Yugacara's doctrine that demonstrates "no objects outside mind" by taking dreams as a comparison. Yugacara considered that the exterior objects in a dream did not exist after a person became awake, but the person's consciousness can remember what he had seen and heard, hence it can prove that consciousness did exist, and the exterior objects were untrue, thus they claimed everything has consciousness without objects. To that Cadrakirti replied,"Akssuming that I said that there was no consciousness in a dream, then your comparison becomes nonexistent(31)", since the comparison is not the self-other common consent example regulated by Reasoning deduction, supposing we did not admit that there was consciousness existing in a dream, then the comparison was meaningless. In Cadrakirti's opinion, the consciousness and the exterior objects in a dream are all unreal illusional phenomena. He maintained that the parlance of consciousness without objects was meaningless. He also pointed out "since it proved that consciousness existed due to recalling what a person heard and said in a dream, and then it can also prove the existence of exterior objects when recalling them in the dream. If there was no object in the dream, then similarly, there should no consciousness as well(32)". Cadrakirti considered that there are objects if there is consciousness, and object and consciousness are equal, so he did not agree with that parlance of mere consciousness without exterior objects.

The above gives a brief introduction to Cadrakirti's criticisms over the main theories of Yugacara. These criticisms can be reduced to two points: one is the criticism of the transformation of consciousness doctrine, namely criticism of Alaya set as the turning point of epistemology in the verification process from confusion to consciousness and from secularity to sacredness; the other is the criticism of three-nature theory; namely criticism of the nature of dependent origin set as the medium of ontology. In later works of Yugacara's scholars, there was nobody to offer an explanation or rebuttal of Cadrakirti's criticisms on Yugacara, so it can be seen that Cadrakirti's criticisms were very precise and surpassed Yugacara's doctrines in theory completely, hence the status of Madhya-mikah was established, the pattern of running neck to neck with Yugacara was established, and Madhyamikah became one of the two main Mahayana schools in late India.

Furthermore, in order to reestablish Nagarjun's doctrines and choose correct Madhyamaka views, he carried out a systematic and detailed examination and study of earlier major works of Madhyamikah. He not only made commentaries for some important works including Nagarjun's Madhyamaka Sastra, Sunyata-saptati, Yuktisastika Karika, and Aryadeva's Catuhsatakasastra karika, and became one of the most authoritative exponents of Madhyamaka doctrine, but also wrote lots of important and incisive works. It can be seen from the above listed works, Cadrakirti's works on Madhyamaka accounted for over a half, so he may be the exponent with the most Madhyamaka works in Indian Buddhist history. His incomparable profundity can be shown in both his commentaries on other works and in his own works. In his time that theory of knowledge was very popular, it was more urgent to examine the real meanings of Nagarjuna and Aryadeva thinking and make commentaries for their works than to create new thinking and new principles, which may be the mission imposed by history Japanese scholar Dr. Yamaguchi, Susumu said,"the commentaries of Cadrakirti, who is hundreds of years later than Madhyamaka doctrines" master Nagarjuna and Aryadeva, can oppose the flourishing Yugacara of Asanga and Vasubandu, so it can be said that his cornmentaries reflect ancient ones of Madhyamikah(33)." Therefore, Cadrakirti's commentaries on early Madhvamaka works are not only the important theoretical evidences for reestablishing Madhyamaka thought and choosing right Madhyamaka doctrines, but also the demand for restoring Madhyamikah.

As above, to rebuild the status of Madhyamikah, after Cadrakirti had carefully examined and studied the early Madhyamaka doctrines of Nagarjuna and Aryadeva, he reorganized the system of Madhyamaka thinkging and ascertained the Prasangaumana emphasized by Buddhapalita as the correct methodology of Madhyamikah. In addition, he thoroughly examined Yugacara opposition to Madhyamikah. Therefore, Madhyamaka was not assimilated by new epistemology but instead became clearer. At the same time, to guarantee the purity of Nagarjuna's doctrines, he not only refuted other doctrines, except those of Madhyamikah, but also criticised the heterodoxies inside the school in order to eradicate them. Therefore, if we say that Svatantrika Bhavaviveka, by actively adopting Reasoning, is a"free school"person, then Prasangika Cadrakirti, who had always closely observed Nagariuna's tradition can be called a "strict school or cautious school" debater.

In a word, Cadrakirti appeared in the conditions produced by the opposition of Madhyamaka and Yugacaras and debated inside Madhyamikah on methodology. His appearance made the differentiation between the sections of Madhyamikah become more obvious and concrete, and caused Madhyamaka to flourish again in Mahayana in the Indian late period as one of the two Mahayana's mainstreams, completing his historical mission to restore Madhyamikah. In other words, if not for Cadrakirti's hard efforts, Madhyamaka could have been defeated by new Reasoning or even been inundated in the strong Yugacara School. Therefore, it is owing to Cadrakirti's continuous efforts that Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka doctrines were inherited and developed in late Mahayana, and formed the school pattern to confront Yugacara.

III. General Study Situation of Madhyamakavatara nama

MadhyamakaVatara nama is one of Cadrakirti's magnum opuses as well as the only monograph that expounds his Buddhist doctrines systematically. It is an indispensable book for understanding his Madhyamaka thought, as is his other book Mulamadhyamakavrtti prasannapadanama. His major opinions and standpoints are all explained in this book. Maybe this is one of his earlier books, for example Mulamadhyamakavrtti prasannapada nama often indicates that,"This point has been given detailed explanation in Madhyamakavatara nama", and "refer to Madhyamakavatara nama for this question(34)," which shows not only the earlier creation date of the book than that of Mulamadhyamakavrtti prasannapada nama, but also its important status among his other books, and many of his important opinions are explained in it. The whole book is composed of 332 verses and notes given by himself, divided into the Bodhisattva intention of ten stages in accordance with the organization of The Buddha Vatamsaka Mahavaipulya Sutra, Ten Stages Chapter, and cites over 30 kinds of works, including Dasabhumika sutra, Lan-kavatara Sutra, the Meeting of Father and Son, Madhyamaka Sastra and Catuhsatakasastra karika etc. to explain the ten paramitas needed to practise in the ten stages. The whole book is separated into 11 chapters. The first ten chapters have the names of the ten stages and the last one explains Buddha-state positions and virtues. Its purpose is to expound Mahayana Bodhisattva thought, describe the practises that Bodhisattvas and faquirs use to bring themselves to Buddhahood in accordance with the ten-place phrase through explanation of Bodhisattva's ten-paramita practice. It stresses the importance of Praj paramit in practice.

Madhyamakavatara nama has a great influence over later Indian Buddhism and Tibetan Buddhism. Boddhicaryavatara(35) of Santideva(650-700), a great Madhyamikah master inherited Cadrakirti's thought in Madhyamakavatara nama. For example the criticism of Yugacara's doctrines and explanation of two-truth theory in Chapter IX of Boddhicaryavatara can betraced to the same origin as "Madhyamakavatara nama". Boddhicaryavatarapanjika of Prajnakaramati (950-1030), which is the commentary book of Boddhicaryavatara, directly quoted plenty of the original texts of "Madhyamakavatara nana" to explain Santideva's views. So "Madhyamakavatara nana"'s large influence over the later Madhyamikah can be seen, and there should be lots of people making commentaries for it. However, there is only one commentary book for it, namely "Madbyamakavatara tika" written by the Indian Jayananda(36), but there is only a Tibetan edition without Sanskrit one. The commentary book explains "Madhyamakavatara nama" word for word faithfully and it is an essential, important literature for explaining and studying "Madhyamakavatara nana".

"Madhyamakavatara nana" is also very dominant in Tibetan Buddhism and has a large influence, but it was translated and spread to Tibet fairly late. Normally most of the scripture translators and missionary sages invited from Indian by Tibetan Buddhism are debaters of Madhyamikah, such as Santaraksita(725-790), Kamalasila(74-796), Padmasambhava, Vimalamitra and Buddaguhya. Moreover, Trisong Detsan had announced that only Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka doctrines(37) imparted by Santaraksita could be learned. However, in the history of the early missionary period, none of Cadrakirti's Madhyamaka books were translated. It is maybe because these debaters(38) did not belong to Cadrakirti's Prasangika but Bhavaviveka's Svatantrika or Yugacara, that they were prejudiced against Cadrakirti and turned a blind eye to his works. It was in the eleventh century that Cadrakirti's works were translated and spread to Tibet, and the earliest edition was introduced by Ni-ma-grags from Kashmir. At that time the reputable Sar-ba-pa of Bkahgdamspa School provided considerable support(39) for Nimagrags's translation and lectured on Cadrakirti's works. Nimagrags' disciples and their disciples all made commentaries for "Madhyamakavatara nana", and introduced and carried forward Cadrakirti's madhyamaka doctrines(40). Before long, Kun-dgav-grags and Jayananda translated Jayananda's "Madhyamakavatara tika" cooperatively. However in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, lectures and study of "Madhyamakavatara nana" declined rapidly. Almost nobody studied it. After that, Red Mdav Ba studied "Madhyamakavatara nana" by himself and gave lectures to others. From then on, lectures on and the spread of Cadrakirti's doctrines recovered in the earlier and later-period Tibet(41). The Gelugpa School founder Tsong Kha Pa, who resurrected Tibetan Buddhism, studied "Madhyamakavatara nana" from Red Mdav Ba. It is mentioned in the above that Tsong Kha pa adored Cadrakirti very much. He not only made commentaries for "Madhyamakavatara nana", but also designated it as one of the five works necessary to be read by monks of the Gelug-pa School. From then on, as the magnum opus of Madhyamikah, "Madhyamakavatara nana" became prominent in Tibetan Buddhism, and it was very popular to Iecture and study it. There were numerous dignitaries and sages making commentaries for it in past dynasties, and leave us with abundant information. At present the author does not have enough information to calculate the concrete figure(42) of existing commentary books relating to "Madhyamakavatara nana", but if to count the textbooks used by temples and Dratsang, the figure is at least no less than 20. In conclusion, through Tsong Kha Pa's recommendation and development, Cadrakirti's doctrines became the mainstream thinking of Tibetan Buddhism; especially his magnum opus "Madhyamakavatara nana" is always studied in Gelugpa school's temples and enjoys a large influence. Just like the Soviet Union Buddhist scholar Stcherbatsky said,"He built the image of Madhyamikah successfully, which is the Madhyamaka thought still spreading in present Mongolian and Tibetan temples.(Cadrakirti's)Madhyamaka doctrines are considered to be the foundation of Mahayana psychology in Tibet and Mongolia."(43)

In modern times, it is the world well-known Buddhist scholar DL Poussin who first discovered "Madhyamakavatara nana" and began a systematic study. In 1907, after he proofread and collated the Tibetan edition ot "Madhyamakavatara nana", he pubfished it in the Buddhism Library series of the Soviet Union Scholar Institute;(44) hence the revision edition became the model for Buddhist scholars to study "Madhyamakavatara nana" worldwide. At the same time that Dr.Poussin published the revision edition, he also translated it into French(45), but it is a pity that he only translated the sixth part and even of the sixth part he only translated the first 165 verses. In addition, he had tried to base the sixth part to the Sanskrit edition in accordance with the revised Tibetan edition. With the publication of Dr.Poussin's studies, European scholars gradually became interested in studying "Madhyamakavatara nana". However,since "Madhyamakavatara nana" does not have any Sanskrit or Chinese versions for reference, besides its Tibetan edition, restoring and studying it became very difficult. Besides at that time, namely 1913, Dr.Poussin revised and published Cadrakirti's other important book-the Sanskrit Mulamadhyamakavrttiprasannapadanama. It has been widely accepted that Mul8madhyamakavrttiprasannapadanamaisnot only the most important sourcefor  studying Cadrakirti's doctrines, but also for studying the doctrines of Nagarjuna,founder of Madhyamaka thought. Therefore, many scholars started to study Sanskrit Mulamadhyamakavrtti prasannapada nama in  succession,while "Madhyamakavatara nana" was neglected.

It was Japanese scholars who turned the focus to "Madhyamakavatara nana" again. In 1941, Japanese well-known Buddhist scholar Sankibo Shinkan published A Translation and Commentary on Tibetan Madhyamakfivatara nama(46) in Buddhism Studly. From then on, Japanese scholars again started to study "Madhyamakavatara nana". In 1951, Sankibo Shinkan again published Chapter I Translation and Commentary on Cadrakirti's "Madhyamakavatara nama"(47) in "Indian Philosophical and Buddhist Zuestions". In 1961, Kitabatake Rishin continued to translate and study Chapter 11-V following Sankibo Shinkan, and published A Translation and Commentary of Tibetan Madhyamakavatara nama in "Buddhology Study" and a Ryukoku University Theses respectively(48). In 1971, Ogawa Ichijo published "A Trial Translation of Madhyamakavatara nama's Chanter VI(49)" and in 1975.he published "An Explanation of Madhyamakavatara nama"(50). The publication of the above theses each played a role in promoting study of "Madhyamakavatara nama", especially in earlier time, these scholars committed themselves to translation, commentary and study of the original book, which laid a very good foundation for later comprehensive study of Madhyamakavatara nama's argumentation and thinking, and attracted lots of scholars to attend to study and make many academic achievements. For example the earlier studies of Madhyamakavatara nama include Takashi Hirano's "The Two-truth Theory of Madhyamakavatara nama"(51), TanjiTeruyoshi's "A Study on Cadrakirti's Convention Views(52)" Uryuuzu Ryushin's "Cadrakirti's Critique on Me"(53), Michio Sato's "Several Theories of Madhyamakavatora nama(54)" and Ogawa Ichijo's "A Study on Cadrakirti's Bodhisattva Views(55)". After that, to study Madhyamakavatara nama in Japanese academic circles had become common practice and the academic ethos that anybody who studies Indian Mahayana and Tibetan Buddhology would study "Madhyamakarvatara nana". Among them, Ogawa Ichijo is the most authoritative scholar and he spent his life on comprehensive and in-depth study of it. He published three studies of it, of which "A Study of Emptiness Thinking(I)" translated "Madhyamakavatara nama"'s Chapter VI "Praj Paramit" by referring to Tsong Kha Pa's "Dbu ma la dgongs pa rab gsal" and Jayananda's "Madhyamakavatara tika". Since Jayananda's "Madhyamakavatara tika" is the only existing commentary book written by an Indian critic, while Tsong Kha Pa's "Dbu ma la dgongs pa rab gsal" is the most representative commentary in Tibet, it can be said that Ogawa Ichijo's book absorbed the opinions of Indian and Tibetan scholars on "Madhyamakgvatara nama". Just as Dr. Ogawa pointed out, each of the two books has its strong point: Jayananda's commentaries are faithful to the original book and give commentaries word by word, while Tsong Kha Pa's book stresses argumentation and discussion, as well as comments on misunderstanding of other schools over Madhyamaka doctrines. In addition, the book designs a special "study" item relating to Tsong Kha Pa's unique opinions and gives a detailed introduction. The transIation and publication of the book made the study of "Madhyamakavatara nama" to enter a new era. Dr. Ogawa's other masterpiece "A Study of Emptiness Thinking II" is an important achievement in the study of "Madhyamakavatara nama"'s thinking dogma. The book introduced the basic standpoints of Cadrakirti's Madhyamaka thought and his critical altitude towards other doctrines, examined Cadrakirti's Bodhisattva vieWS and the significance of "Madhyamakavatara nama" in detail, putting forward admirable views on questions such as an explanation of "Madhyamakavatara nama"'s obstruction of the known and conventional truth.

Moreover, Dr. Ogawa also published about 30 monographs including "An Explanation and Study of Chapter II 'SilaParamita' of Cadrakirti's Madhyamakavata nama, and Cadrakirti's Madhyamaka Doctrines-An Explanation on Madhyamakavatara nama's Ending Chapter(56)" etc. It can be said that Dr. Ogawa's study achievements represent the best of Japanese academic study on Madhyamakavatara nama.

Chinese Buddhism's attention to and study of "Madhyamakavatara nama" started from the modern times. In 1943, Master Fazun translated Cadrakirti's "Madhyamakavatara nama" and Tsong Kha Pa's "Dbu ma la dgongs pa rab gsal" into Chinese from Tibetan in Sichuan Chinese and the Tibetan Dogma Institute and gave lectures on it, which attracted the attention of Chinese Buddhist scholars. From then on, Yan Pei,Yin Shun.Long Lian and Miao Yin started to lecture and study it in accordance with Fazun's Chinese version of Madhyamakavatara nama, and published "An Explanation of Madhyamakavatara nama's Verses", "An Explanation Record of Madhyamakavatara nama", and "An Explanation of Madhyamakavatara nama". As these names indicate, these books mainly paraphrase Madhyamakavatara nama's hymns and verse word by word, and are not the academic works examining and study Madhyamakhvatara nama from the point of view of philology. Only four academic study theses of Master Fazun were published in "Modem Buddhology" relating to Cadrakirti's Madhyamaka thought. It seems there are no other study achievements, thus it can be seen that the Chinese Buddhist circle's study of Cadrakirti's doctrines mainly consist of explanation of "Madhyamakavatara nama", and it is almost empty of the aspects of philology and thinking dogma study. And nobody has an interest in studying the only existing Sanskrit original book "Mulamadbyamakavrtti prasannapada nama" found in the nineteenth century, and Tibetan Sunyatasaptati vrtti, Yuktisastika vrtti and Bodhisattva yogacaryacatuhsataka tika etc. It is rather regretful that Chinese Buddhism in the Mahayana country does not understand very much of or make any achievements on Cadrakirti's doctrines which made great contributions in the late period of Mahayana, occupied an important position in Madhyamaka Buddhism and were studied in depth in Tibetan Buddhist temples. It is an urgent important topic for China's Buddhist academic circle to strengthen it's study of Cadrakirti's doctrines.

Here a brief introduction to the Sanskrit edition of "Madhyamakavatara nama" kept in the China Tibetology Research Center, and the Sanskrit pieces existing in other works will be given. The Sanskrit edition of "Madhyamakavatara nama" kept in China Tibetology Research Center was copied from the Potala Palace. Till now there is no other hand-copied book found in other places, so this Sanskrit edition is maybe the only one in the world, and it is very precious. The whole book includes 97 pieces of palm-leaves, without the second page. Each leaf is 56.1cm long and 5cm wide with 2 perforates. On each side there are five-row Nepalese hook Sanskrit written in Indian ink. The handwriting is rather thin and small and some places are blurry. There was only Tibetan "Madhyamakavatara nama" all along, and those experts and scholars studying Madhyamaka doctrines had expected the Sanskrit edition for a long time, so they were very interested in the restoration and revision of the Sanskrit edition. "Madhyamakavatara nama" is not only Cadrakirti's magnum opus, but is also an important book of Prasangika, so some hymns and contents are often quoted by other works. What we know now is four books quoting some contents of "Madhyamakavatara nama", incluing "Mulamadhyamakavrtti prasannapada nama", "Subhasitasamgraba", "Bodhicaryavatarapajika" and "Namasamgati". We can see some original Sanskrit versions of "Madhyamakavatara nama" in these books, of which "Subhasitasamgraha" quotes the most with 28 verses. "Mulamadhyamakavrtti prasannapada nama" has the second most quotations, altogether eleven verses, of which "Subhasitasamgraha" also quotes the eleventh, and it only quotes half of the eighth, fifth and hundredth respectively. "Bodhicaryavatarapajika" quotes seven hymns, and "Subhasitasamgraha" also quotes the first half of the eightieth and the whole eighty-ninth. In this way, now 44 verses of "Madhyamakavatara nama"'s 332 can be found their original Sanskrit. All of these hymns are quoted from Chapter VI "Praj Paramita" of "Madhyamakavatara nama", which are important sources for explaining Madhyamaka's doctrines and criticizing other schools. These contents mainly include emptiness of non-existence, two truths, criticism on mere consciousness theory, distinguishment of ultimate and non-ultimate teaching and critique of other religions' doctrines, and thus we can understand the basic positions dnd views of Madhyamaka doctrines. In addition, Namasamgiti and Bodhicaryavatarapajika also quote the original Sankirt of "Madhyamakavatara nama"'s long rows. These Sanskrit fragments will be the essential important reference for us to explain its Sanskrit's handwriting.

Notes:

1 There are many different views on the dates of the birth and death year of Cadrakirti, for example, Uryuuzu Ryushin's Boddhisattva Path Expandedness of Madhyamaka Buddhism (Suzuki Academic Financial Group Research Annals I) says it is from 560 to 640, but generally the academic circle thinks it is from 600 to 650.

2 Yamaguchi Susumu: An Explanation on Madhyamaka Sastra(I), Kyoto: Kobundou, 1947, Page 5.

3 Ogawa Ichijo: A Study on Emptiness(II), Kyoto: Buneidou, 1975, Page 7.

4 The other 4 great works include: Pramanavarttika, Abhisamayalamkara-sastra, Vinaya Treatise, and Abhidharma-kosasastra.

5 Written by Buston, translated by Guo Heqing: Buddhist History Treasure, Beijing: Nationality Publishing House, 1986, Page 133; Written by Taranatha, translated by ZhangJianmu: Indian Buddhist History, Beijing Nationality Publishing House, 1983, after Page151

6 The book number listed here refers to the number of Derge edition Total Contents of Tibetan Canon compiled by Japanese Northeast University, and it is the same hereinafter.

7 Mulamadhyamaka karikas de Nagarjuna avec la Prasannapada Commentaire de Candrakirti, publie par Louis de la Vallee Poussin.

8 Vasubandhu only gave commentaries for the first eight articles, which were translated by Kumarajiva; while Dharmapla gave commentaries for the last eight articles, which were translated by Xuan Zang. Tibetan Canon, Vol.30, No.1569 and 1571.

9 Yamada Ryuja's Literatures of Sanskrit Buddhist Scriptures gives a detailed introduction to the revision and publication of Catuhsatakasastra Karika's Sanskrit snippets. In addition, with regard to Catuhsatakasastra Karika study Yamaguchi Susumu wrote "A Study on the Preface of Cadrakirti's Commentaries on Catuhsatakasastra Karika", and "An Examination of 100 Buddhist Doctrines Expounding Important Items of Aryadeva's Catuhsatakasastra karika", and "An Explanation on the Rtag Part of Cadrakirti's Bodhisattva yogacaryacatuhsataka tika". All these discourses are collected in "A Study on Madhyamaka Buddbist Doctorine" and "Suzuki Academic Financial Group Study Annuals I" respectivelly.

10 Inaba Shoju: "A Translation of Prajna Madhyamaka Theory In Tibetan Beginning Period of the Mid-century"(First), Buddhism Study, No.4, Pagel8.

11 Yamaguchi Susumu's thesis was collected in A Study on Madhyamaka Buddhism Doctrines, Tokyo: Sankibo Bussborin, 1965, page 29 and l09.

12 Tibetan Canon, Vol.30, No.1575.

13 The thesis is collected in Yamaguchi Susumu Buddhism Corpus, Tokyo:Shunjusha, 1972.

14 Ogawa Ichijo: A Study on Emptiness(II), Koto: Buneidou, 50th Year of Emperor Showa, Page 4.

15 Yamaguchi Susumu: collected in Yamaguchi Susumu Buddhism Corpus, Tokyo: Shunjusha,1972.

16 Ogawa Ichijo: India Buddhism Study, 47(24-1), 1975.

17 Historically there were plenty of Yugacara School debaters to make commentaries for Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka Sastra and Aryadeva's Catuhsatakasastra karika, for example Yugacara's founder Asanga's Shun-chung-lun(Tibetan Canon, Vol.30, No.1565) and Yuuichi's Commentaries for Mahayana Madhyamaka Sastra(Tibetan Canon, Vol.30, No.1567) made commentaries for the Madhyamaka Sastra, and Vasubandhu's Commentaries for Catuhsatakasastra karika(Tibetan Canon, Vol.30, No.1569), translated by Luo Shi,and Dharmapla's Commentaries for Mahayana Catuhsatakasastra karika(Tibetan Canon, Vol.30, No.1571), translated by Xuan Zang, made commentaries for Catuhsatakasastra karika.

18 For example, Japanese scholar Yasui Kosai's Standpoints of Madhyamaka's Two-Truth Theory and Yugacara's Three Nature Theory points out that the Yugacara School of Asanga and Vasubandhu did not explain Nagarjuna's non-acquisition emptiness thought. They thought the two-truth theory is a kind of unreasonable nihilistic minus view, and put forward an explaination of Nagarjuna's non-acquirable emptiness thought by three-nature theory. Refer to Yasui Kosai's A Study of Madhyamaka Thoughts, Kyoto: Feb. 55th Year of Emperor Showa, Hozkan, Page 224. In addition, Madhyamakavatara nama also clearly point out that Vasubandhu, Dignaga and Dharmapla cannot show the emptiness in the meaning of dependent-arising. Refer to Madhyamakavatara nama, written by Cadrakirti, translated by Fazun, Taipei: Xinwenfeng Publishing House, July 1976, Page 27.

19 For example Karatalarama, Nadhyamaka-hrdaya-karika and Chapter 25 of Prajnapradipa all have a concrete critique on doctrines of mere consciousness.

20 Mitsukawa Toyoki: "Bhavaviveka's Critique on Buddhapalita in Prajnapradipa", Ryukoku University Theses, No.389/390, P157-171, 1969.

21 Cadrakirti: The Sanskrit texts of Mulamadhyamakavrtti prasannapada nanla in Vaidya(the same hereinafter), Line 19 of Page 5.

22 Tibetan Canon: Vol. 80, the lower part of Page 52.

23 Nozawa Josho: "Madhyamaka's Two-school Opposition and Their Truth Views", edited by Miyamoto Shoson: "The Basic Truth of Buddhism", Tokyo: Sanshengtan, 1956, Page 461.

24 Cadrakirti: Sanskrit edition of Mulamadhyamakavrtti prasannapada nama, Line 25, Page 5-Line 7, Page 6.

25 Original Sanskrit text: yadi kacana pratijna syan me tataeva me bhaved dosa/nasti ca mama pratij a tasman na ivasti me dosah "If I made any points, then I would have faults; since I do not make any points, then I will not have any faults". Tibetan Canon, Vol.32, No.14 First.

26 Tibetan Canon, Vol.30, Page 186 Second. Origianl Sanskrit text: sad asat sad asac ceti yasya pakso na vidyate/upalambhas cirenapi tasya vaktum na sakyate//

27 Ogawa Ichijo: A Study on Emptiness Thought, Kyoto: Buneidou, 50th Year of Emperor Showa, Page 13.

28 Written by Cadrakirti, translated by Fazun: Madhyamakavatara nama, Taibei:Xinwenfeng Publishing House, July 1976, Page 27.

29 Idem.

30 Idem, Page 20.

31 Idem, Page 3.

32 Idem.

33 Written by Cadrakirti, and translated by Yamaguchi Susumu: An Explanation on Madhyamaka Sastra(I), Kyoto: Kobundou, 1947, Page 5.

34 Cadrakirti: the Sanskrit edition of Mulamadhyamakavrtti prasannapada nanma, Row 3 of Page z41: etacca madhyamakavatare vistarenoktam/tato veditavyam//and Row 13 of the same page: anayosca satyayor vibhago vistarena madhyamakavatarad avaseyah//.

35 The book has a Sanskrit version, and Tianxizai of Song Dynasty had Chinese translation with the name of Bodhi Scripture.

36 It is said in Tibet that he had attended the Buddhist scripture translation of Atisa and lived in the eleventh and twelfth ceturies.

37 Lu Tiegang and Hu Heping: Master Fazun Buddhism Theses, Beijing: China Buddhism Association, 1990, P39.

38 For example the second section of Thuhu-bkwan Sect Origin translated by Liu Liqian points out: Shantarakshita(namely Santaraksita), Zhizang and Kamalasila are three eastern Svatantrika.

39 Wang Sen: Tibetan Buddhism Development History, Beijing: China Social Sciences Publishing House, 1987, P55.

40 Written by Langnup Xunlubo, translated by Guo Heqing: Annals of History, Tibet: Tibet People's Publishing House, 1985, P229.

41 Wang Sen: Tibetan Buddhism Development History, Beijing: China Social Sciences Publishing House, 1987, P293.

42 There are 7 discourses relating to Madhyamakavatara nama in Tibetan Buddhism Literature of Japan Otani University. Refer to CATALOGUE of TIBETAN WORKS. Otani University Library, Kyoto, 1973, and the catalog numbers are: 11076,11547,11548,11549,11551,13957,13962.

43 Quoted from the secondary source Madhyamaka Psychology(First) of world Buddhism masterpiece translation series, Taipei:Huayu Publishing House, the 73rd year of the Repubic of China, P159.

44 L.de la Vallee Poussin, Madhyamakavatara, Bibliotheca Buddhica IX 1907-1912.

45 The French translation of Dr. Poussin was published in Le Museon VIII, XI, XII 1907-1911.

46 Buddhism Study, Vol.4 No.3, 1940. This is the translation, commentary and study on the preface of Madhyamakavatara nama.

47 Collected in Dr. Ui Hakuju Commemoration Theses, 26th year of Emperor Showa 26.

48 Buddhology Study, Vol.18, No.19, 36th year of Emperor Showa; Ryukoku University Theses, No.374, 38th year of Emperor Showa.

49 Otani Journal, Vol.51, No.2-3, Otani Academy of Otani University, 1971.

50 An Explanation of Madhyamakavatara nama, Kyoto:1975, Buneidou.

51 Otani Journal, Vol.39, No.3, Otani Academy of Otani University, 1959.

52 Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies, Vol.13(7-I)1958.

53 Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies, Vol.27(14-I), 1965.

54 Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies, Vol.22(II-2), 1963.

55 The Journal of the Nippon Buddhist Research Association, Vol.51, 1986.

56 Rear to A study of Commandment Thinking, P127-156, 1981, and Otani Journal, 206(55-2), 1975.