본문 바로가기
  • Home

Reframing Bhāviveka

Jundo Nagashima 1

1Taisho University

Candidate

ABSTRACT

According to Tibetan accounts, Madhyamaka bifurcated into the Svātantrika of Bhāviveka and the Prāsaṅgika of Buddhapālita and Candrakīrti. However, we can hardly find any trace concerning the Svātantrika-Prāsaṅgika distinction in later Indian sources. This paper attempts to explain why this discrepancy occurred by analysing the works of Candrakīrti, Bhavya and Atiśa. Firstly, I examine what is svatantra anumāna in the Prasannapadā to elucidate the cause of the problem and the point of controversy between Bhāviveka and Candrakīrti. It is a widespread view that the dispute over the use of probative inference in the Prasannapadā resulted in this division of the Svātantrika and the Prāsaṅgika. It is, however, possible to read it in a different way. Then, I focus on Atiśa’s works to show the widespread view was not shared by him, who endorses both Bhāviveka and Candrakīrti. In order to bolster my argument, I look into how Candrakīrti’s position regarding inference was transmitted to him, and point out that Bhavya’s Madhyamakaratnapradīpa played a crucial role in the formation of the later Indian Prāsaṅgika lineage. A close examination of these texts makes it clear that Candrakīrti succeeded in handing down his view by misleading the later Mādhyamikas.

Citation status

* References for papers published after 2023 are currently being built.