Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, Chapter 18, Verse 2 and the
Prasannapadā’s Commentary Thereon
Niisaku Yoshiaki
Introduction
It is well known that Candrakīrti’s Prasannapadā (PsP) is the only commentary on Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (MMK) that can be read entirely in Sanskrit today. The original Sanskrit text of the MMK was not available until recent years and the MMK in Louis de La Vallée Poussin’s (LVP) edition of the PsP was mainly used as the MMK text. However, Ye Shaoyong identified another MMK manuscript and published a critical text of this MMK in 2011.
On the other hand, regarding the PsP text, LVP’s edition (PsPL), published in 1903– 1913, has been used; but recently, however, some scholars, including myself, have begun to revise the PsPL with the newly identified manuscripts and related works.
As is well known, the MMK has an old lineage, translated by Klu’i rgyal mtshan, and a new lineage, translated by Nyi ma grags. Ye (2007) and Saitō (2011) analyzed the newly identified MMK manuscript and pointed out that it belongs to an old one that is different from the PsP’s lineage. In chapter 18, there are differences in verses 2 and 8 between the MMK manuscript and the MMK in the PsP. Ye has already analyzed these differences, but it seems that there is call for further discussions concerning verse 2.
In this paper, I will examine the textual problems of the MMK chapter 18, verse 2 and the PsP’s commentary on this verse, which were revealed in the process of my making a critical text of the PsP, chapter 18.1)
1. Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, Chapter 18, Verse 2
1.1. MMK 18.2 and MMK 18.2 in the PsPFirst of all, the following are excerpts of the text from the MMK 18.2 and the MMK 18.2
（160） Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies Vol. 65, No. 3, March 2017
in the PsP.
MMK 18.2cd (MMK 300)
One is free from [the sense of] “mine” and the sense of “I,” due to the calming of the self and what belongs to the self (ātmanīya).
(ātmany asati cātmīyaṃ kuta eva bhaviṣyati/)
nirmamo nirahaṃkāraḥ śamād ātmātmanīyayoḥ// (MMK 18.2cd)
MMK 18.2cd in the PsP (PsPL 347.12; PsPN 115.8)
One is free from [the sense of ] “mine” and the sense of “I,” due to the calming of the self and what is beneficial to the self (ātmanīna).
nirmamo nirahaṃkāraḥ śamād ātmātmanīnayoḥ// (MMK 18.2cd)
Comparing the underlined parts of the above excerpts, one can see that there is a difference between the word “ātmanīya” and “ātmanīna” in the MMK 18.2cd and the MMK 18.2cd in the PsP.2) According to Ye (MMK 300), “ātmanīya” is attested in the MMK manuscript, and he adopted “ātmanīya” in his edition. The interpretation of this verse might not be changed, although there is a discernible difference between “ātmanīya” and “ātmanīna”; however, as far as the presently available Sanskrit texts are referred to, we can say that there are two different lineages. I agree with his decision to adopt “ātmanīya” as the MMK 18.2 if “ātmanīya” is attested in the MMK manuscript, but it would be possible to assume that “ātmanīna” was transmitted as the MMK 18.2 in the PsP on account of the following three reasons:
1. “ātmanīna” is attested in the six manuscripts3) that I used to make my critical text of the PsP, chapter 18.
2. “ātmanīna” is commented on in the PsP just after the quotation of the MMK 18.2. 3. taddhita affix “kha” (īna) seems to be mentioned in the *Lakṣaṇaṭīkā (*LṬ). 1.2. ātmanīya/ātmanīna
As Ye (2007: 159) points out, it is explained that “ātmanīna” is formed by introducing taddhita affix “kha” (īna) after “ātman” in Pāṇini (Pā) 5.1.9, and the meaning of “ātmanīna” is regulated as “beneficial to itself” (tasmai hitam) in Pā 5.1.5. Ye discusses that “ātmanīna” might not have the meaning of “beneficial to the self” and mentions the possibility of scribal error. On the other hand, Lindtner (1988: 246.12–14) to which Ye refers, points out that “ātmanīna” is not impossible but that “ātmanīya” was quite
Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, Chapter 18, Verse 2 and the
Prasannapadā’s Commentary Thereon
Niisaku Yoshiaki
Introduction
It is well known that Candrakīrti’s Prasannapadā (PsP) is the only commentary on Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (MMK) that can be read entirely in Sanskrit today. The original Sanskrit text of the MMK was not available until recent years and the MMK in Louis de La Vallée Poussin’s (LVP) edition of the PsP was mainly used as the MMK text. However, Ye Shaoyong identified another MMK manuscript and published a critical text of this MMK in 2011.
On the other hand, regarding the PsP text, LVP’s edition (PsPL), published in 1903– 1913, has been used; but recently, however, some scholars, including myself, have begun to revise the PsPL with the newly identified manuscripts and related works.
As is well known, the MMK has an old lineage, translated by Klu’i rgyal mtshan, and a new lineage, translated by Nyi ma grags. Ye (2007) and Saitō (2011) analyzed the newly identified MMK manuscript and pointed out that it belongs to an old one that is different from the PsP’s lineage. In chapter 18, there are differences in verses 2 and 8 between the MMK manuscript and the MMK in the PsP. Ye has already analyzed these differences, but it seems that there is call for further discussions concerning verse 2.
In this paper, I will examine the textual problems of the MMK chapter 18, verse 2 and the PsP’s commentary on this verse, which were revealed in the process of my making a critical text of the PsP, chapter 18.1)
1. Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, Chapter 18, Verse 2
1.1. MMK 18.2 and MMK 18.2 in the PsPFirst of all, the following are excerpts of the text from the MMK 18.2 and the MMK 18.2
in the PsP.
MMK 18.2cd (MMK 300)
One is free from [the sense of] “mine” and the sense of “I,” due to the calming of the self and what belongs to the self (ātmanīya).
(ātmany asati cātmīyaṃ kuta eva bhaviṣyati/)
nirmamo nirahaṃkāraḥ śamād ātmātmanīyayoḥ// (MMK 18.2cd)
MMK 18.2cd in the PsP (PsPL 347.12; PsPN 115.8)
One is free from [the sense of ] “mine” and the sense of “I,” due to the calming of the self and what is beneficial to the self (ātmanīna).
nirmamo nirahaṃkāraḥ śamād ātmātmanīnayoḥ// (MMK 18.2cd)
Comparing the underlined parts of the above excerpts, one can see that there is a difference between the word “ātmanīya” and “ātmanīna” in the MMK 18.2cd and the MMK 18.2cd in the PsP.2) According to Ye (MMK 300), “ātmanīya” is attested in the MMK manuscript, and he adopted “ātmanīya” in his edition. The interpretation of this verse might not be changed, although there is a discernible difference between “ātmanīya” and “ātmanīna”; however, as far as the presently available Sanskrit texts are referred to, we can say that there are two different lineages. I agree with his decision to adopt “ātmanīya” as the MMK 18.2 if “ātmanīya” is attested in the MMK manuscript, but it would be possible to assume that “ātmanīna” was transmitted as the MMK 18.2 in the PsP on account of the following three reasons:
1. “ātmanīna” is attested in the six manuscripts3) that I used to make my critical text of the PsP, chapter 18.
2. “ātmanīna” is commented on in the PsP just after the quotation of the MMK 18.2. 3. taddhita affix “kha” (īna) seems to be mentioned in the *Lakṣaṇaṭīkā (*LṬ). 1.2. ātmanīya/ātmanīna
As Ye (2007: 159) points out, it is explained that “ātmanīna” is formed by introducing taddhita affix “kha” (īna) after “ātman” in Pāṇini (Pā) 5.1.9, and the meaning of “ātmanīna” is regulated as “beneficial to itself” (tasmai hitam) in Pā 5.1.5. Ye discusses that “ātmanīna” might not have the meaning of “beneficial to the self” and mentions the possibility of scribal error. On the other hand, Lindtner (1988: 246.12–14) to which Ye refers, points out that “ātmanīna” is not impossible but that “ātmanīya” was quite
common in the MMK, and “ātmanīya” is found in the MMK 24.15 in the PsPL. However, we should be careful about the MMK 24.15 in the PsPL. Following is an excerpt from the MMK 24.15 in the PsPL.
PsPL 502.1–2
sa tvaṃ doṣān ātmanīyān asmāsu paripātayan/
aśvam evābhirūḍhaḥ sann aśvam evāsi vismṛtaḥ// (MMK 24.15)
LVP’s footnote (PsPL 502, n. 1) says that “ātmīyān” is attested in the manuscripts that LVP used, and he emends “ātmīyān” to “ātmanīyān.” However, the word “ātmīnān” is found in the five manuscripts that I referred to,4) instead of what we would expect for “ātmīyān.” On the other hand, according to Yonezawa (2009: 151.31–32), “ātmanīnām” is attested in the PsP Potala manuscript.
Yonezawa (2009: 151–152.31–32)
sa tvaṃ doṣān ātmanīnām asmāsu pariṇāmayan/
ghoṭām evābhirūḍhaḥ san ghoṭām evāsi vismṛtaḥ// (MMK 24.15)
Considering the śloka metre, it would be better to adopt the reading of “ātmanīnām” found in the Potala manuscript5) because “ātmīnān” in the five manuscripts is not suitable for the metrical reason. Thus, we have no evidence to support the reading of “ātmīyān,” which LVP mentions, in any manuscripts and therefore there is no basis for LVP’s emendation of “ātmanīyān.” Accordingly, the usage in the MMK 24.15 in the PsPL mentioned by Lindtner is not a usage of “ātmanīya” but of “ātmanīna.” Namely, there is another usage of “ātmanīna” in the MMK 24.15 apart from that in the MMK 18.2 in the PsP.
2. The PsP’s Commentary on ātmanīna
As mentioned above, “ātmanīna” is transmitted as the MMK 18.2 in the PsP and “ātmanīnā” is commented on just after the quotation of the MMK 18.2cd. However, there are interesting textual problems6) that I will attempt to explore with quotes from the PsPL and the PsPN.7)
PsPL 347.13
（162） Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, Chapter 18, Verse 2 and the Prasannapadā’s Commentary Thereon（Niisaku）
ātmani hitam ātmanīnaṃ skandhapañcakam ātmanīyam ity arthaḥ/
PsPN 115.9
ātmanei) hitam ātmanīnaṃ skandhapañcakam ātmanīyam ity arthaḥ/
[i) ātmane] (emendation); ātmani OPTCNR; bdag la PsP Tib]
As is noted above, the locative form of ātman, “ātmani,” is seen in the PsPL, and “ātmani” is attested in the six manuscripts that I referred to; however, I attempted to emend the text “ātmani” to “ātmane.” In this regard, let me show the basis for this. Firstly, as Ye points out, “ātmanīna” is regulated in Pā 5.1.9.
Pā 5.1.9 (Kāś 467.4)
ātmanviśvajanabhogottarapadāt khaḥ/
In Pā 5.1.9, it is explained that “ātmanīna” is formed by introducing taddhita affix “kha” (īna) after “ātman,” and its meaning is ruled by Pā 5.1.5 to be “beneficial to itself” (tasmai hitam). The same thing seems to be explained in the *LṬ.
*LṬ (Yonezawa 2006: 154.28)
ātmanīnnam iti khaḥ/8)
Ye mentions that “ātmani hitam ātmanīnaṃ” is close to what is regulated in Pā 5.1.5, but does not examine the text itself. However, interestingly, the same text, “ātmane hitam ātmanīnaṃ,” which I revised, is seen in the Kāśikāvṛtti (Kāś).
Kāś 467.7–8 (ad Pā 5.1.9)
ātmane hitam ātmanīnam/ . . . viśvajanebhyo hitaṃ viśvajanīnam/
In the commentary on Pā 5.1.9, it is explained that the dative form of “ātman” or “viśvajana” is connected with hita; namely, in the case of introducing taddhita affix “kha” (īna) after “ātman” or “viśvajana,” the dative form of “ātman” or “viśvajana” is required according to the rule of Pā 5.1.5.9) Therefore, in the commentary on “ātmanīna” in the PsP, it would be possible to emend “ātmani hitam ātmanīnaṃ” to “ātmane hitam ātmanīnaṃ,” though the locative form “ātmani” may grammatically be used instead of the dative “ātmane.”
common in the MMK, and “ātmanīya” is found in the MMK 24.15 in the PsPL. However, we should be careful about the MMK 24.15 in the PsPL. Following is an excerpt from the MMK 24.15 in the PsPL.
PsPL 502.1–2
sa tvaṃ doṣān ātmanīyān asmāsu paripātayan/
aśvam evābhirūḍhaḥ sann aśvam evāsi vismṛtaḥ// (MMK 24.15)
LVP’s footnote (PsPL 502, n. 1) says that “ātmīyān” is attested in the manuscripts that LVP used, and he emends “ātmīyān” to “ātmanīyān.” However, the word “ātmīnān” is found in the five manuscripts that I referred to,4) instead of what we would expect for “ātmīyān.” On the other hand, according to Yonezawa (2009: 151.31–32), “ātmanīnām” is attested in the PsP Potala manuscript.
Yonezawa (2009: 151–152.31–32)
sa tvaṃ doṣān ātmanīnām asmāsu pariṇāmayan/
ghoṭām evābhirūḍhaḥ san ghoṭām evāsi vismṛtaḥ// (MMK 24.15)
Considering the śloka metre, it would be better to adopt the reading of “ātmanīnām” found in the Potala manuscript5) because “ātmīnān” in the five manuscripts is not suitable for the metrical reason. Thus, we have no evidence to support the reading of “ātmīyān,” which LVP mentions, in any manuscripts and therefore there is no basis for LVP’s emendation of “ātmanīyān.” Accordingly, the usage in the MMK 24.15 in the PsPL mentioned by Lindtner is not a usage of “ātmanīya” but of “ātmanīna.” Namely, there is another usage of “ātmanīna” in the MMK 24.15 apart from that in the MMK 18.2 in the PsP.
2. The PsP’s Commentary on ātmanīna
As mentioned above, “ātmanīna” is transmitted as the MMK 18.2 in the PsP and “ātmanīnā” is commented on just after the quotation of the MMK 18.2cd. However, there are interesting textual problems6) that I will attempt to explore with quotes from the PsPL and the PsPN.7)
PsPL 347.13
ātmani hitam ātmanīnaṃ skandhapañcakam ātmanīyam ity arthaḥ/
PsPN 115.9
ātmanei) hitam ātmanīnaṃ skandhapañcakam ātmanīyam ity arthaḥ/
[i) ātmane] (emendation); ātmani OPTCNR; bdag la PsP Tib]
As is noted above, the locative form of ātman, “ātmani,” is seen in the PsPL, and “ātmani” is attested in the six manuscripts that I referred to; however, I attempted to emend the text “ātmani” to “ātmane.” In this regard, let me show the basis for this. Firstly, as Ye points out, “ātmanīna” is regulated in Pā 5.1.9.
Pā 5.1.9 (Kāś 467.4)
ātmanviśvajanabhogottarapadāt khaḥ/
In Pā 5.1.9, it is explained that “ātmanīna” is formed by introducing taddhita affix “kha” (īna) after “ātman,” and its meaning is ruled by Pā 5.1.5 to be “beneficial to itself” (tasmai hitam). The same thing seems to be explained in the *LṬ.
*LṬ (Yonezawa 2006: 154.28)
ātmanīnnam iti khaḥ/8)
Ye mentions that “ātmani hitam ātmanīnaṃ” is close to what is regulated in Pā 5.1.5, but does not examine the text itself. However, interestingly, the same text, “ātmane hitam ātmanīnaṃ,” which I revised, is seen in the Kāśikāvṛtti (Kāś).
Kāś 467.7–8 (ad Pā 5.1.9)
ātmane hitam ātmanīnam/ . . . viśvajanebhyo hitaṃ viśvajanīnam/
In the commentary on Pā 5.1.9, it is explained that the dative form of “ātman” or “viśvajana” is connected with hita; namely, in the case of introducing taddhita affix “kha” (īna) after “ātman” or “viśvajana,” the dative form of “ātman” or “viśvajana” is required according to the rule of Pā 5.1.5.9) Therefore, in the commentary on “ātmanīna” in the PsP, it would be possible to emend “ātmani hitam ātmanīnaṃ” to “ātmane hitam ātmanīnaṃ,” though the locative form “ātmani” may grammatically be used instead of the dative “ātmane.”
3. Concluding Remarks
Finally, I will summarize what has been made clear in this paper.
1. It is estimated that “ātmanīna” is transmitted as the MMK 18.2 in the PsP, although “ātmanīya” is attested in the MMK manuscript.
2. As far as the usage of Pā and the Kāś are referred to, in the commentary on MMK 18.2cd in the PsP, “ātmane hitam ātmanīnaṃ” could be adopted on the basis of the usage of the Kāś, although “ātmani hitam ātmanīnaṃ” is attested in the PsP manuscripts.
Notes
1）This paper is based on my PhD dissertation (Niisaku 2016), chapter 2 (2.3.2.1). Niisaku 2016 contains a critical text of the Prasannapadā, chapter 18.
2）Similarly, a difference of the text between the MMK 18.8 (manuscript) and the MMK 18.8 in the PsP can be found.
MMK 18.8 (MMK manuscript, see Ye 2011: 304)
sarvaṃ tathyaṃ na vā tathyaṃ tathyaṃ cātathyam eva ca/
naivātathyaṃ naiva tathyam etat tad buddhaśāsanam// (MMK 18.8)
MMK 18.8 in the PsP (PsPL 369.15; PsPN 136.14)
naivātathyaṃ naiva tathyam etad buddhānuśāsanam// (MMK 18.8cd)
In the MMK text (MMK 304), “etad buddhānuśāsanam,” which is seen in the PsP, is adopted; although, “etat tad buddhaśāsanam” is mentioned. In this regard, because (1) “etad
buddhānuśāsanam” is attested in the PsP manuscripts and (2) “anu” in “anuśāsana” is commented in
two ways, it is estimated that “etad buddhānuśāsanam” is transmitted as the MMK 18.8 in the PsP. Concerning the MMK 18.8, there are interesting problems with the Tibetan translations. For further information on this, see Ye 2007: 159–160.
3）For more information on the six “better” manuscripts, see MacDonald 2008; 2015: 33–67. However, the abbreviations of the manuscripts that I used are not the same as those used by MacDonald. The abbreviations I used are as follows: O(xford, Bodleian Library); P(otala Palace); T(okyo University Library no. 251); C(ambridge Library); N(epal-German Manuscript Preservation Project E 1294/3); R(ome). For a comparative table, see Niisaku 2016: 6.
4）I referred to the manuscripts OTCNR. Kishine (2002: 217, n. 82) reports that “ātmīnān” is attested in ten of the eleven manuscripts he used and “ātminān” in the remaining one.
5）The text “ātmanīnām” should be emended to ātmanīnān. 6）The PsP’s commentary on the MMK 18.2cd is as follows:
nirmamo nirahaṃkāraḥ śamād ātmātmanīnayoḥ// (MMK 18.2cd)
ātmane (ātmani PsPL) hitam ātmanīnaṃ skandhapañcakam ātmanīyam ity arthaḥ//
（164） Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, Chapter 18, Verse 2 and the Prasannapadā’s Commentary Thereon（Niisaku）
ātmano ’haṃkāraviṣayasyātmanīnasya ca skandhāder vastuno mamakāraviṣayasya śamād anutpādād anupalambhān nirmamo nirahaṃkāraś ca jāyate yogī// PsPL 347.13–348.2; PsPN 115.8–11.
7）Here, in order to avoid becoming complicated, I will show only those notes that are necessary for this discussion.
8）The text “ātmanīnnamitikhaḥ (?) /” is seen in Yonezawa (2006: 154.28), but I changed the division. I showed the text “ātmanīnnam” as it is because “ātmanīnnam” is found in the *LṬ manuscript, but it may be better to emend “ātmanīnnam” to “ātmanīnam.”
9）A similar usage is also found in Pā 6.4.169 and the Kāś ad Pā 6.4.169: “ātmādhvānau khe/ (Pā 6.4.169) . . . ātmane hitaḥ ātmanīnaḥ/” (Kāś 770.5–6).
Abbreviations
Kāś Kāśikā of Vāmana and Jayāditya. Kāśikā: A Commentary on Pāṇini’s Grammar. Part II. Ed.
Aryendra Sharma, Khanderao Deshpande, and D. G. Padhye. Hyderabad: Osmania University Press, 1970.
MMK Mūlamadhyamakakārikā of Nāgārjuna. Zhonglun song 中論頌. Ed. Ye Shaoyong 葉少勇. Shanghai: Zhongxi Book Company, 2011.
*LṬ *Lakṣaṇaṭīkā. See Yonezawa 2006.
Pā Aṣṭādhyāyī of Pāṇini. See Kāś.
PsP Prasannapadā.
PsPL Prasannapadā of Candrakīrti. Mūlamadhyamakakārikās de Nāgārjuna avec la Prasannapadā
Commentaire de Candrakīrti. Ed. Louis de La Vallée Poussin. St. Petersburg: Imperial Academy
of Sciences, 1903–1913. Reprint, Tokyo: Meicho-Fukyu-kai, 1977. PsPN Prasannapadā of Candrakīrti, chapter 18. See Niisaku 2016.
Tib Tibetan.
Bibliography
Kishine Toshiyuki 岸根敏幸. 2002. “Purasannapadā dai 24 shō ‘Seinaru shinri no kōkyū’ kōtei tekisuto (3)” 『プラサンナパダー』第 24 章「聖なる真理の考究」校訂テキスト（3）[A critical text of chap. XXIV “Āryasatyaparīkṣā” of Prasannapadā (3)]. Fukuoka Daigaku Jinbun ronsō 福岡大学人文論叢 [Fukuoka University review of Literature and Humanities] 34 (1): 197–232. Lindtner, Christian. 1988. Review of Chūron geju sōran 中論偈頌総覧, by Saigusa Mitsuyoshi 三枝充
悳. Cahiers d’Extrême-Asie 4 (1): 244–247.
MacDonald, Anne. 2008. “Recovering the Prasannapadā.” Pulgyohang nibyu 불교학리뷰 [Critical review for Buddhist studies] 3: 9–38.
———. 2015. In Clear Words: The Prasannapadā, Chapter One. Vol. I, Introduction, Manuscript
Description, Sanskrit Text. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences Press.
Niisaku Yoshiaki 新作慶明. 2016. “Purasannapadā dai 18 shō ‘ga (ātoman) no kōsatsu’ no kenkyū” 『プラサンナパダー』第 18 章「我（アートマン）の考察」の研究 [A Study of the
Prasannapadā chapter 18 “ātmaparīkṣā”]. PhD diss., The University of Tokyo.
3. Concluding Remarks
Finally, I will summarize what has been made clear in this paper.
1. It is estimated that “ātmanīna” is transmitted as the MMK 18.2 in the PsP, although “ātmanīya” is attested in the MMK manuscript.
2. As far as the usage of Pā and the Kāś are referred to, in the commentary on MMK 18.2cd in the PsP, “ātmane hitam ātmanīnaṃ” could be adopted on the basis of the usage of the Kāś, although “ātmani hitam ātmanīnaṃ” is attested in the PsP manuscripts.
Notes
1）This paper is based on my PhD dissertation (Niisaku 2016), chapter 2 (2.3.2.1). Niisaku 2016 contains a critical text of the Prasannapadā, chapter 18.
2）Similarly, a difference of the text between the MMK 18.8 (manuscript) and the MMK 18.8 in the PsP can be found.
MMK 18.8 (MMK manuscript, see Ye 2011: 304)
sarvaṃ tathyaṃ na vā tathyaṃ tathyaṃ cātathyam eva ca/ naivātathyaṃ naiva tathyam etat tad buddhaśāsanam// (MMK 18.8)
MMK 18.8 in the PsP (PsPL 369.15; PsPN 136.14)
naivātathyaṃ naiva tathyam etad buddhānuśāsanam// (MMK 18.8cd)
In the MMK text (MMK 304), “etad buddhānuśāsanam,” which is seen in the PsP, is adopted; although, “etat tad buddhaśāsanam” is mentioned. In this regard, because (1) “etad
buddhānuśāsanam” is attested in the PsP manuscripts and (2) “anu” in “anuśāsana” is commented in
two ways, it is estimated that “etad buddhānuśāsanam” is transmitted as the MMK 18.8 in the PsP. Concerning the MMK 18.8, there are interesting problems with the Tibetan translations. For further information on this, see Ye 2007: 159–160.
3）For more information on the six “better” manuscripts, see MacDonald 2008; 2015: 33–67. However, the abbreviations of the manuscripts that I used are not the same as those used by MacDonald. The abbreviations I used are as follows: O(xford, Bodleian Library); P(otala Palace); T(okyo University Library no. 251); C(ambridge Library); N(epal-German Manuscript Preservation Project E 1294/3); R(ome). For a comparative table, see Niisaku 2016: 6.
4）I referred to the manuscripts OTCNR. Kishine (2002: 217, n. 82) reports that “ātmīnān” is attested in ten of the eleven manuscripts he used and “ātminān” in the remaining one.
5）The text “ātmanīnām” should be emended to ātmanīnān. 6）The PsP’s commentary on the MMK 18.2cd is as follows:
nirmamo nirahaṃkāraḥ śamād ātmātmanīnayoḥ// (MMK 18.2cd)
ātmane (ātmani PsPL) hitam ātmanīnaṃ skandhapañcakam ātmanīyam ity arthaḥ//
ātmano ’haṃkāraviṣayasyātmanīnasya ca skandhāder vastuno mamakāraviṣayasya śamād anutpādād anupalambhān nirmamo nirahaṃkāraś ca jāyate yogī// PsPL 347.13–348.2; PsPN 115.8–11.
7）Here, in order to avoid becoming complicated, I will show only those notes that are necessary for this discussion.
8）The text “ātmanīnnamitikhaḥ (?) /” is seen in Yonezawa (2006: 154.28), but I changed the division. I showed the text “ātmanīnnam” as it is because “ātmanīnnam” is found in the *LṬ manuscript, but it may be better to emend “ātmanīnnam” to “ātmanīnam.”
9）A similar usage is also found in Pā 6.4.169 and the Kāś ad Pā 6.4.169: “ātmādhvānau khe/ (Pā 6.4.169) . . . ātmane hitaḥ ātmanīnaḥ/” (Kāś 770.5–6).
Abbreviations
Kāś Kāśikā of Vāmana and Jayāditya. Kāśikā: A Commentary on Pāṇini’s Grammar. Part II. Ed.
Aryendra Sharma, Khanderao Deshpande, and D. G. Padhye. Hyderabad: Osmania University Press, 1970.
MMK Mūlamadhyamakakārikā of Nāgārjuna. Zhonglun song 中論頌. Ed. Ye Shaoyong 葉少勇. Shanghai: Zhongxi Book Company, 2011.
*LṬ *Lakṣaṇaṭīkā. See Yonezawa 2006.
Pā Aṣṭādhyāyī of Pāṇini. See Kāś.
PsP Prasannapadā.
PsPL Prasannapadā of Candrakīrti. Mūlamadhyamakakārikās de Nāgārjuna avec la Prasannapadā
Commentaire de Candrakīrti. Ed. Louis de La Vallée Poussin. St. Petersburg: Imperial Academy
of Sciences, 1903–1913. Reprint, Tokyo: Meicho-Fukyu-kai, 1977. PsPN Prasannapadā of Candrakīrti, chapter 18. See Niisaku 2016.
Tib Tibetan.
Bibliography
Kishine Toshiyuki 岸根敏幸. 2002. “Purasannapadā dai 24 shō ‘Seinaru shinri no kōkyū’ kōtei tekisuto (3)” 『プラサンナパダー』第 24 章「聖なる真理の考究」校訂テキスト（3）[A critical text of chap. XXIV “Āryasatyaparīkṣā” of Prasannapadā (3)]. Fukuoka Daigaku Jinbun ronsō 福岡大学人文論叢 [Fukuoka University review of Literature and Humanities] 34 (1): 197–232. Lindtner, Christian. 1988. Review of Chūron geju sōran 中論偈頌総覧, by Saigusa Mitsuyoshi 三枝充
悳. Cahiers d’Extrême-Asie 4 (1): 244–247.
MacDonald, Anne. 2008. “Recovering the Prasannapadā.” Pulgyohang nibyu 불교학리뷰 [Critical review for Buddhist studies] 3: 9–38.
———. 2015. In Clear Words: The Prasannapadā, Chapter One. Vol. I, Introduction, Manuscript
Description, Sanskrit Text. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences Press.
Niisaku Yoshiaki 新作慶明. 2016. “Purasannapadā dai 18 shō ‘ga (ātoman) no kōsatsu’ no kenkyū” 『プラサンナパダー』第 18 章「我（アートマン）の考察」の研究 [A Study of the
Saitō Akira 斎藤明. 2011. “Shinshutsu Chūronju no keitō o megutte” 新出『中論頌』の系統をめ ぐって [On the lineage of the newly identified Mūlamadhyamakakārikā]. Indogaku Bukkyōgaku
kenkyū 印度学仏教学研究 [Journal of Indian and Buddhist studies] 59 (2): 111–119.
Ye Shaoyong. 2007. “A Re-examination of the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā on the Basis of the Newly Identified Sanskrit Manuscripts from Tibet.” Sōka Daigaku Kokusai Kōtō Kenkyūjo nenpō 創価大学 国際高等研究所年報 [Annual report of the International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology at Soka University] 10: 149–170.
Yonezawa Yoshiyasu. 2006. “*Lakṣaṇaṭīkā: Sanskrit Notes on the Prasannapadā (3).” Naritasan Bukkyō
Kenkyūjo kiyō 成田山仏教研究所紀要 [Journal of Naritasan Institute for Buddhist Studies] 29:
135–163.
———. 2009. “*Lakṣaṇaṭīkā: Sanskrit Notes on the Prasannapadā (5).” Naritasan Bukkyō Kenkyūjo kiyō 成田山仏教研究所紀要 [Journal of Naritasan Institute for Buddhist Studies] 32: 139–155.
Key words Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, Prasannapadā, *Lakṣaṇaṭīkā, Kāśikāvṛtti
（Research Associate, Musashino University, PhD） （166） Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, Chapter 18, Verse 2 and the Prasannapadā’s Commentary Thereon（Niisaku）
The Status of the Akutobhayā in the Madhyamaka
and the Uniqueness of *Piṅgala’s Zhonglun
Yasui Mitsuhiro
1. Introduction
In this paper, I shall focus on the Akutobhayā (ABh) and *Piṅgala’s Zhonglun 中論 (ZL) which are regarded as the oldest commentaries of the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (MMK). These two commentaries are known to have remarkable similarities. Thus, some preceding studies assume that both commentaries are originally identical, but this issue is still unclear. The ABh is preserved only in the Tibetan translation. It is considerably simple compared with other commentaries because of its minimum annotations to the verses of the MMK. The ZL is preserved only in Kumārajīva’s Chinese translation. The origin of this text is problematic, and the only clue to know about it is written in the preface of the commentary by Sengrui 僧叡. According to the preface, Kumārajīva revised the text of the ZL when he translates it, since the annotations of the original text of the ZL were somewhat imperfect. The ABh is quoted in other commentaries such as Buddhapālita’s Vṛtti (BP), Bhāviveka’s Prajñāpradīpa (PP), and Candrakīrti’s Prasannapadā (PSP). Nevertheless, all of the commentaries do not mention the name “Akutobhayā,” and the quotations from the ABh are not even stated to be the quotations. Moreover, there are some cases that these three commentaries all quote the same passages from the ABh. Meanwhile, the ZL tends to show different interpretations from the ABh in such cases.
Therefore, I shall pick up one appropriate example which shows these issues above.
2. The Variations of the Annotations of MMK 18.6
Firstly, I will examine MMK 18.61) and its annotations. The main topic of this chapter is
