The Reading of śubhāśubhaviparyāsa in the Twenty-third
Chapter of the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā:
With a Special Focus on Candrakīrti’s Interpretation
Kosaka Arihiro
1. Introduction
The compound śubhāśubhaviparyāsa1) appears in three verses including the first verse in the twenty-third chapter of Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (MMK) entitled “Analysis of viparyāsa” (Viparyāsaparīkṣā, Phyin ci log brtag pa, Guan diandao pin 観顚倒 品).2) The earlier commentaries on the MMK, i.e., the Akutobhayā (ABh), Buddhapālita’s
Madhyamakavṛtti (BP), and Bhāviveka’s Prajñāpradīpa (PP), read this compound as
meaning “viparyāsa (reverse) of śubha and aśubha” (sdug dang mi sdug pa’i phyin ci log).3) In his Prasannapadā, Candrakīrti, in turn, interprets it as dvandva compound consisting of śubham and aśubham and viparyāsāḥ.4) Thus, Candrakīrti’s solution differs from that of the earlier commentators. In this paper, I would like to examine Candrakīrti’s interpretation of the compound and his understanding of the entire chapter, which is, in my view, consistent with this compound interpretation.5)
2. What is śubhāśubhaviparyāsa?
The compound śubhāśubhaviparyāsa appears in its plural form śubhāśubhaviparyāsāḥ consisting of the three words, śubha (pure), aśubha (impure), and viparyāsa (which refers to the four reverse/false conceptions). One can see this compound in the first, second, and sixth verses of the twenty-third chapter of the MMK. To my knowledge, apart from the MMK and its commentaries, only the fifty-ninth verse of Nāgārjuna’s Śūnyatāsaptati (ŚS) contains this compound.6) In all cases, śubhāśubhaviparyāsa is explained as the cause of kleśa (defilements), specifically the three defilements of rāga (desire), dveṣa (hatred), and moha (delusion). Moreover, this explanation serves to confirm that the
（172） Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies Vol. 65, No. 3, March 2017
three defilements, insofar as they arise in dependence upon the cause, lack their own nature (niḥsvabhāva).
3. Candrakīrti’s Interpretation of the Compound and the Twenty-third
Chapter
3.1. Candrakīrti’s Interpretation of the Compound
As mentioned above, Candrakīrti interprets the compound śubhāśubhaviparyāsa differently from his predecessors. Although Candrakīrti’s interpretation seems unique, the same interpretation as that of Candrakīrti is found in a commentary attributed to Nāgārjuna. Namely, the Śūnyatāsaptati-vṛtti (ŚSV) comments on the above-mentioned fifty-ninth verse of the ŚS, explaining the compound śubhāśubhaviparyāsa as dvandva.7) Therefore, one can speculate that this interpretation was shared by some Madhyamaka scholars.
Here I would like to point out another problem in Candrakīrti’s interpretation of the twenty-third chapter of the MMK. This chapter is called “Analysis of viparyāsa.”8) Whereas the earlier commentators’ interpretation, according to which śubha and
aśubha qualify viparyāsa conforms to this chapter title, it is hard to understand viparyāsa
as the central theme of the chapter if one follows Candrakīrti in reading the compound as consisting of the parallel three words, śubha, aśubha, and viparyāsa.
3.2. Candrakīrti’s Understanding of the Twenty-third Chapter
What is the main theme of the twenty-third chapter for Candrakīrti? According to his commentary, it is kleśa. In his view, the chapter aims to negate the existence of kleśa through five arguments: 1. “niḥsvabhāvatā or self-naturelessness of kleśa, which arises in dependence on causes” (vv. 1–2);9) 2. “the negation of the basis on which kleśa relies” (vv. 3–4);10) 3. “the negation of the simultaneous occurrence of kleśa and citta” (v. 5);11) 4. “the negation of the causes of kleśa” (vv. 6–22);12) and 5. “the negation of the measure to destroy kleśa” (vv. 23–24).13) The fourth argument is based on his interpretation of the compound śubhāśubhaviparyāsa. He identifies śubha, aśubha, and viparyāsa respectively with the cause of kleśa or three defilements, rāga (desire), dveṣa (hatred), and moha (delusion), which appear in the first verse of the MMK. Based on this identification, he understands verses 7 to 22 to present the negation of śubha, aśubha, and viparyāsa which are regarded as the causes of kleśa. Specifically, in the verses 7–12, śubha as the cause of
The Reading of śubhāśubhaviparyāsa in the Twenty-third
Chapter of the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā:
With a Special Focus on Candrakīrti’s Interpretation
Kosaka Arihiro
1. Introduction
The compound śubhāśubhaviparyāsa1) appears in three verses including the first verse in the twenty-third chapter of Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (MMK) entitled “Analysis of viparyāsa” (Viparyāsaparīkṣā, Phyin ci log brtag pa, Guan diandao pin 観顚倒 品).2) The earlier commentaries on the MMK, i.e., the Akutobhayā (ABh), Buddhapālita’s
Madhyamakavṛtti (BP), and Bhāviveka’s Prajñāpradīpa (PP), read this compound as
meaning “viparyāsa (reverse) of śubha and aśubha” (sdug dang mi sdug pa’i phyin ci log).3) In his Prasannapadā, Candrakīrti, in turn, interprets it as dvandva compound consisting of śubham and aśubham and viparyāsāḥ.4) Thus, Candrakīrti’s solution differs from that of the earlier commentators. In this paper, I would like to examine Candrakīrti’s interpretation of the compound and his understanding of the entire chapter, which is, in my view, consistent with this compound interpretation.5)
2. What is śubhāśubhaviparyāsa?
The compound śubhāśubhaviparyāsa appears in its plural form śubhāśubhaviparyāsāḥ consisting of the three words, śubha (pure), aśubha (impure), and viparyāsa (which refers to the four reverse/false conceptions). One can see this compound in the first, second, and sixth verses of the twenty-third chapter of the MMK. To my knowledge, apart from the MMK and its commentaries, only the fifty-ninth verse of Nāgārjuna’s Śūnyatāsaptati (ŚS) contains this compound.6) In all cases, śubhāśubhaviparyāsa is explained as the cause of kleśa (defilements), specifically the three defilements of rāga (desire), dveṣa (hatred), and moha (delusion). Moreover, this explanation serves to confirm that the
（172） Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies Vol. 65, No. 3, March 2017
three defilements, insofar as they arise in dependence upon the cause, lack their own nature (niḥsvabhāva).
3. Candrakīrti’s Interpretation of the Compound and the Twenty-third
Chapter
3.1. Candrakīrti’s Interpretation of the Compound
As mentioned above, Candrakīrti interprets the compound śubhāśubhaviparyāsa differently from his predecessors. Although Candrakīrti’s interpretation seems unique, the same interpretation as that of Candrakīrti is found in a commentary attributed to Nāgārjuna. Namely, the Śūnyatāsaptati-vṛtti (ŚSV) comments on the above-mentioned fifty-ninth verse of the ŚS, explaining the compound śubhāśubhaviparyāsa as dvandva.7) Therefore, one can speculate that this interpretation was shared by some Madhyamaka scholars.
Here I would like to point out another problem in Candrakīrti’s interpretation of the twenty-third chapter of the MMK. This chapter is called “Analysis of viparyāsa.”8) Whereas the earlier commentators’ interpretation, according to which śubha and
aśubha qualify viparyāsa conforms to this chapter title, it is hard to understand viparyāsa
as the central theme of the chapter if one follows Candrakīrti in reading the compound as consisting of the parallel three words, śubha, aśubha, and viparyāsa.
3.2. Candrakīrti’s Understanding of the Twenty-third Chapter
What is the main theme of the twenty-third chapter for Candrakīrti? According to his commentary, it is kleśa. In his view, the chapter aims to negate the existence of kleśa through five arguments: 1. “niḥsvabhāvatā or self-naturelessness of kleśa, which arises in dependence on causes” (vv. 1–2);9) 2. “the negation of the basis on which kleśa relies” (vv. 3–4);10) 3. “the negation of the simultaneous occurrence of kleśa and citta” (v. 5);11) 4. “the negation of the causes of kleśa” (vv. 6–22);12) and 5. “the negation of the measure to destroy kleśa” (vv. 23–24).13) The fourth argument is based on his interpretation of the compound śubhāśubhaviparyāsa. He identifies śubha, aśubha, and viparyāsa respectively with the cause of kleśa or three defilements, rāga (desire), dveṣa (hatred), and moha (delusion), which appear in the first verse of the MMK. Based on this identification, he understands verses 7 to 22 to present the negation of śubha, aśubha, and viparyāsa which are regarded as the causes of kleśa. Specifically, in the verses 7–12, śubha as the cause of
rāga and aśubha as the cause of dveṣa are negated; in the verses 13–22, viparyāsa as the
cause of moha is negated. One can read the same idea in verses 12, 13, 22 of the MMK: that śubha, aśubha, and viparyāsa are respectively the cause of rāga, dveṣa, and avidyā. (Candrakīrti identifies avidyā or ignorance with moha.)14)
3.3. Candrakīrti’s Intention Underlying His Unique Interpretation of the Compound and the Entire Chapter
What motivates Candrakīrti’s understanding of the twenty-third Chapter that the main purpose of the chapter is the negation of kleśa? On one hand, it is problematic to take the focus of the entire chapter to be on viparyāsa, although it has the title “Analysis of
viparyāsa,” because only 10 verses of the 24 (verses 13–22) speak of viparyāsa. The word viparyāsa is otherwise seen only as a part of the compound śubhāśubhaviparyāsa in the
first, second, and sixth verses, which, however, mainly talk about kleśa. On the other hand, there is no mention of kleśa in the ten verses 13–22, where viparyāsa is discussed. (Verse 22 can be taken to mention kleśa if one takes avidyā as kleśa.) Thus, one can hardly specify a single, unified topic of this chapter. In order to solve this problem, one should first clarify the role of viparyāsa and the relationship between viparyāsa and
kleśa.
Candrakīrti seems to have intended to solve this problem using his unique interpretation of both the compound and the subject of the chapter, for it is obvious that he assigns viparyāsa as the cause of kleśa, and in particular, that of moha. In his view, viparyāsa is the cause and kleśa is its effect. The reason why there is no mention of
kleśa in the verses 13–22, where viparyāsa is mainly discussed, is clear if one
understands, following Candrakīrti, that these verses aim to negate the cause of kleśa, i.e., viparyāsa. Thus one may conclude that Candrakīrti’s interpretation of both the compound and the entire chapter is consistent and comprehensive. He intends to unify to the chapter under one subject: the negation of kleśa, including its cause, viparyāsa.
4. Conclusion
Candrakīrti reads śubhāśubhaviparyāsa as dvandva compound consisting of śubha and
aśubha, and viparyāsa. He identifies śubha, aśubha, and viparyāsa respectively with the
cause of kleśa or three defilements, rāga, dveṣa, and moha. In conformity with this interpretation of the compound, he considers that the chapter aims to negate the
（174） The Reading of śubhāśubhaviparyāsa in the Twenty-third Chapter of the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā（Kosaka）
existence of the kleśa. His interpretation of the compound does not agree with the earlier commentaries on the MMK, and his view that the main subject of the entire chapter is kleśa deviates from the chapter title, “Analysis of viparyāsa.” However, one may justly recognize his intention to give a consistent theme to the entire chapter with his compound interpretation. One can read in this his attitude as a commentator that he does not think it necessary to follow his predecessors’ understanding and the traditional chapter title.
Notes
1）Although I put the compound in a singular form in this paper, one should note that it appears as śubhāśubhaviparyāsāḥ in the MMK as well as the Prasannapadā, and viparyāsa usually counts four, i.e., the four reverse/false conceptions of permanence, enjoyment, self, and purity.
2）PSP and de Jong 1978 consider the sentence “na svato jāyate bhāvaḥ parato naiva jāyate | na
svataḥ parataś ceti viparyayagataḥ kutaḥ ||,” which is appered after the nineteenth verse, in the Prasannapadā to be a verse. In turn, Tanji 2006, 96 fn. 212 and Ye 2011, 400 consider to be just a
comment on the nineteenth verse, not a verse. I follow the latter understanding. Therefore, I consider the twenty-third chapter of MMK consists of twenty-four verses in total.
3）ABh, D 85b2, P 98b8; BP, D 267a4, P 302a2–3; PP, D 220a1, P 276a1.
4）PSP 452,4: tatra hi śubham ākāraṃ pratītya rāga utpadyate | aśubhaṃ pratītya dveṣaḥ | viparyāsān
pratītya moha utpadyate |.
5）In terms of modern translation of the MMK, translators choose between the two kinds interpretation. Saigusa 1984, 1985 chose the interpretation as earlier commentator’s, in turn, Siderits and Katsura 2013 chose the interpretation as Candrakīrti’s.
6）ŚS, D 26b1, P 29b7–8: sdug dang mi sdug phyin ci log | rkyen las chags sdang gti mug dngos || ’byung
phyir chags sdang gti mug dang || rang bzhin gyis ni yod ma yin |.
7）ŚSV, D 119b5, P 136b5–6: gang gi phyir sdug pa’i rkyen dang | mi sdug pa’i rkyen dang | phyin ci log gi
rkyen las ’dod chags dang zhe sdang dang gti mug rnams byung ba de’i phyir rang bzhin gyis ’dod chags dang zhe sdang dang gti mug rnams med do ||.
8）All the commentaries on the MMK including Piṅgala’s and Sthiramati’s commentaries give the title viparyāsaparīkṣā to this chapter.
9）PSP 451,1–453,5. 10）PSP 453,6–454,5. 11）PSP 454,6–455,11. 12）PSP 455,12–470,3. 13）PSP 470,4–472,2.
14）Cf. AKBh 56,6 (ad k. 2.26): tatra moho nāmāvidyā ’jñānam asaṃprakhyānam.
rāga and aśubha as the cause of dveṣa are negated; in the verses 13–22, viparyāsa as the
cause of moha is negated. One can read the same idea in verses 12, 13, 22 of the MMK: that śubha, aśubha, and viparyāsa are respectively the cause of rāga, dveṣa, and avidyā. (Candrakīrti identifies avidyā or ignorance with moha.)14)
3.3. Candrakīrti’s Intention Underlying His Unique Interpretation of the Compound and the Entire Chapter
What motivates Candrakīrti’s understanding of the twenty-third Chapter that the main purpose of the chapter is the negation of kleśa? On one hand, it is problematic to take the focus of the entire chapter to be on viparyāsa, although it has the title “Analysis of
viparyāsa,” because only 10 verses of the 24 (verses 13–22) speak of viparyāsa. The word viparyāsa is otherwise seen only as a part of the compound śubhāśubhaviparyāsa in the
first, second, and sixth verses, which, however, mainly talk about kleśa. On the other hand, there is no mention of kleśa in the ten verses 13–22, where viparyāsa is discussed. (Verse 22 can be taken to mention kleśa if one takes avidyā as kleśa.) Thus, one can hardly specify a single, unified topic of this chapter. In order to solve this problem, one should first clarify the role of viparyāsa and the relationship between viparyāsa and
kleśa.
Candrakīrti seems to have intended to solve this problem using his unique interpretation of both the compound and the subject of the chapter, for it is obvious that he assigns viparyāsa as the cause of kleśa, and in particular, that of moha. In his view, viparyāsa is the cause and kleśa is its effect. The reason why there is no mention of
kleśa in the verses 13–22, where viparyāsa is mainly discussed, is clear if one
understands, following Candrakīrti, that these verses aim to negate the cause of kleśa, i.e., viparyāsa. Thus one may conclude that Candrakīrti’s interpretation of both the compound and the entire chapter is consistent and comprehensive. He intends to unify to the chapter under one subject: the negation of kleśa, including its cause, viparyāsa.
4. Conclusion
Candrakīrti reads śubhāśubhaviparyāsa as dvandva compound consisting of śubha and
aśubha, and viparyāsa. He identifies śubha, aśubha, and viparyāsa respectively with the
cause of kleśa or three defilements, rāga, dveṣa, and moha. In conformity with this interpretation of the compound, he considers that the chapter aims to negate the
（174） The Reading of śubhāśubhaviparyāsa in the Twenty-third Chapter of the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā（Kosaka）
existence of the kleśa. His interpretation of the compound does not agree with the earlier commentaries on the MMK, and his view that the main subject of the entire chapter is kleśa deviates from the chapter title, “Analysis of viparyāsa.” However, one may justly recognize his intention to give a consistent theme to the entire chapter with his compound interpretation. One can read in this his attitude as a commentator that he does not think it necessary to follow his predecessors’ understanding and the traditional chapter title.
Notes
1）Although I put the compound in a singular form in this paper, one should note that it appears as śubhāśubhaviparyāsāḥ in the MMK as well as the Prasannapadā, and viparyāsa usually counts four, i.e., the four reverse/false conceptions of permanence, enjoyment, self, and purity.
2）PSP and de Jong 1978 consider the sentence “na svato jāyate bhāvaḥ parato naiva jāyate | na
svataḥ parataś ceti viparyayagataḥ kutaḥ ||,” which is appered after the nineteenth verse, in the Prasannapadā to be a verse. In turn, Tanji 2006, 96 fn. 212 and Ye 2011, 400 consider to be just a
comment on the nineteenth verse, not a verse. I follow the latter understanding. Therefore, I consider the twenty-third chapter of MMK consists of twenty-four verses in total.
3）ABh, D 85b2, P 98b8; BP, D 267a4, P 302a2–3; PP, D 220a1, P 276a1.
4）PSP 452,4: tatra hi śubham ākāraṃ pratītya rāga utpadyate | aśubhaṃ pratītya dveṣaḥ | viparyāsān
pratītya moha utpadyate |.
5）In terms of modern translation of the MMK, translators choose between the two kinds interpretation. Saigusa 1984, 1985 chose the interpretation as earlier commentator’s, in turn, Siderits and Katsura 2013 chose the interpretation as Candrakīrti’s.
6）ŚS, D 26b1, P 29b7–8: sdug dang mi sdug phyin ci log | rkyen las chags sdang gti mug dngos || ’byung
phyir chags sdang gti mug dang || rang bzhin gyis ni yod ma yin |.
7）ŚSV, D 119b5, P 136b5–6: gang gi phyir sdug pa’i rkyen dang | mi sdug pa’i rkyen dang | phyin ci log gi
rkyen las ’dod chags dang zhe sdang dang gti mug rnams byung ba de’i phyir rang bzhin gyis ’dod chags dang zhe sdang dang gti mug rnams med do ||.
8）All the commentaries on the MMK including Piṅgala’s and Sthiramati’s commentaries give the title viparyāsaparīkṣā to this chapter.
9）PSP 451,1–453,5. 10）PSP 453,6–454,5. 11）PSP 454,6–455,11. 12）PSP 455,12–470,3. 13）PSP 470,4–472,2.
14）Cf. AKBh 56,6 (ad k. 2.26): tatra moho nāmāvidyā ’jñānam asaṃprakhyānam.
Abbreviations
ABh Akutobhayā: D no. 3829, P no. 5229.
AKBh Vasubandhu, Abhidharmakośabhāṣya: Pralhad Pradhan, ed. Abhidharmakośabhāṣya. Patna: Kashi Prasad Jayaswal Research Institute, 1967.
BP Buddhapālita-mūlamadhyamaka-vṛtti: D no. 3842, P no. 5242.
PSP Prasannapadā: La Vallée Poussin, ed. Mūlamadhyamakakārikās (Mādhyamikasuūtras) de Nāgārjuna, avec la Prasannapadā Commentaire de Candrakīrti. Bibliotheca Buddhica IV.
St.-Pétersbourg, 1903–1913. Reprint, Tokyo: Meicho-Fukyū-kai, 1977.
MMK Nāgārjuna, Mūlamadhyamakakārikā: Ye Shaoyong 葉少勇, ed. Zhonglun song 中論頌 (Mūla‐
madhyamakakārikā). Shanghai: Zhangxi Shuju, 2011.
PP Bhāviveka, Prajñāpradīpa: D no. 3853, P no. 5253.
ŚS Nāgārjuna, Śūnyatāsaptati: D no. 3827, P no. 5227.
ŚSV Nāgārjuna, Śūnyatāsaptati-vṛtti: D no. 3831, P no. 5231.
Bibliography
de Jong, J. W. 1978. “Text Critical Notes on the Prasannapadā.” Indo-Iranian Journal 20: 25–59, 217– 252.
Nakamura Hajime 中村元. 1980. Nāgārujuna ナーガールジュナ. Jinrui no chiteki isan 人類の知的 遺産 13. Tokyo: Kōdansha.
Saigusa Mitsuyoshi 三枝充悳. 1984. Chūron 中論. Regurusu bunko レグルス文庫 158. Tokyo: Daisan Bunmeisha.
———. 1985. Chūron geju sōran.中論偈頌総覧. Tokyo: Daisan Bunmeisha.
Siderits, Mark, and Katsura Shōryū. 2013. Nāgārjuna’s Middle Way: Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, Classics of
Indian Buddhism. Boston: Wisdom Publications.
Tanji Teruyoshi 丹治昭義. 2006. Chūronshaku akirakana kotoba 中論釈 明らかなことば II. Osaka: Kansai Daigaku Shuppanbu.
Ye Shaoyong 葉少勇. 2011. Zhonglun song 中論頌 (Mūlamadhyamakakārikā). Shanghai: Zhangxi Shuju.
Key words viparyāsa, Candrakīrti, Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, kleśa
（Graduate Student, University of Tsukuba） （176） The Reading of śubhāśubhaviparyāsa in the Twenty-third Chapter of the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā（Kosaka）
An Analysis of the Conditioned Forces Dissociated
from Thought in the Madhyamakapañcaskandhaka
Yokoyama Takeshi
1. Introduction
Candrakīrti’s Madhyamakapañcaskandhaka (MPSk),1) preserved only in its Tibetan translation, is one of the most important sources for investigating the Madhyamakas’ understanding of Abhidharma categories of the Sarvāstivādas. The section on the forces aggregate (saṃskāraskandha) consists of two subgroups: conditioned forces associated with thought (cittasaṃprayuktasaṃskāra) and conditioned forces dissociated from thought (cittaviprayuktasaṃskāra). This section, therefore, covers the most of the conditioned factors (saṃskṛta), and offers significant evidence for investigating the sources of Abhidharma theories of the MPSk. Previous studies pointed out that the MPSk was established in the same Abhidharma tradition as Skandhila’s Abhi‐
dharmāvatāra, due to the fact that these two treatises include almost identical
components of the conditioned forces associated with thought. However, few studies have been devoted to dissociated forces in the MPSk, with Uryūzu 1978 being an exception, which provides an overview of them in introducing the outline of the MPSk.
At the beginning of the section on the force aggregate, the MPSk enumerates nineteen factors of the dissociated forces in presenting the components of this aggregate (D 245b2–5, P 281a2–6): (1) possession (prāpti), (2) non-possession (aprāpti), (3) non-conscious absorption (asaṃjñisamāpatti), (4) absorption of suppression (nirodhasamāpatti), (5) non-consciousness (āsaṃjñika), (6) vital faculty (jīvitendriya), (7) homogeneity (sabhāgatā), (8) acquisition of the corporal basis (*āśrayapratilābha, *upadhipratilābha), (9) acquisition of the given entity (*vastupratilābha), (10) acquisition of the sense spheres (*āyatanapratilābha), (11) arising (jāti), (12) deterioration (jarā), (13) duration (sthiti), (14) destruction (anityatā), (15) name set (nāmakāya), (16) phrase
