THE QUINTESSENCE OF THE MĀDHYAMIKA TEACHING BLOSSOMS AGAIN SOME CONSIDERATIONS IN VIEW OF THE 5th-7th C. A.D. (I) Reading the Alkhan’s document (Schøyen MSS 2241) in religious and political context1 CRISTINA SCHERRER-SCHAUB Paris & Lausanne Résumé Le document Schøyen (MSS 2241, publié par Gudrun Melzer en 2006, offre un bel exemple de la dynamique qui s’instaure entre les principes doctrinaires et religieux et leur reflet dans le discours politique. L’examen du contexte dans lequel s’inscrit cet acte de fondation d’un monument bouddhique, situé vraisemblablement dans les régions actuelles du Nord du Pakistan, met en lumière la complexité du réseau de communication mis en place par l’institution bouddhique sur l’aire très vaste sillonnée, notamment par les Kidarites et les Alkhans au cours du 5e s. de notre ère. Rédigé dans un milieu de fins lettrés, sans doute héritiers de l’école cachemirienne du Deutero Nāgārjuna et de son traducteur le Sérindien Kumārajīva, le document montre l’habilité de son auteur, scoliaste Mādhyamika, qui excelle à composer un texte où les motifs littéraires, religieux et politiques s’adressent à la fois à une société non nécessairement bouddhique (ou si peu) et à ses dirigeants, pour les convaincre de l’autorité du Dharma enseigné par le Buddha. S’il contribue à l’histoire complexe des Alkhans, cet acte de fondation atteste un chapitre inédit de l’histoire du bouddhisme indien et de l’école Madhyamaka en particulier et de son rôle en tant que médiateur dans les affaires du monde. Abstract The Schøyen document (MSS 2241) published by Gudrun Melzer in 2006, famous for having shed new light on the debated Alkhan’s chronology, invites the reader to question a precise chapter of the religious and political history of Buddhism in the north-western regions. It appears as a deed that commemorates the dedication of a monument, jointly made by a mixed body of religious and secular persons, in a region where, possibly, the Alkhan were trying to take control over the routes, and in particular the salt route. Most interesting a careful analysis of the narrative shows that the document has been redacted in a milieu of literati, in succession to the Kāśmīrian disciples of the Deutero Nāgārjuna and his translator, the Serindian Kumārajīva. In a sophisticated style, the text speaks to a large audience, not necessarily Buddhist (or not very) and to their rulers showing that the Buddha is the sole legitimate to teach the Dharma. If it contributes to the complex history of the Alkhan, the dedica- tory deed opens a novel chapter in the history of the Mādhyamikas, and of his role as mediator in secular affairs. I AUTHORITATIVE MASTERS AND AUTHORITATIVE TEXTS IN RELIGIOUS CUM POLITICAL CONTEXT presented at the International Workshop on Bhāviveka vs. Candrakīrti, organized by Akira Saito and Anne Macdonald at the University of Tokyo on August 26-28, 2015. The topic presented here is part of a One of the most intriguing question in investigating pluridecennial and still ongoing research on the history of Buddhism the history of textual transmission concerns the condi- with particular focus upon the textual tradition seen as invariably tions of reception of an author’s work. To the historian depending on the ternary relation linking the elements of all forms of communication or transmission, that is the actors of history. This dynam- of Buddhism in India the question is certainly crucial, ics is perse the cause of the infinite contingent possibilities of transfor- mation, that the micro-historical approach may contribute to clarify. See Sincere thanks are addressed to Michael Alram, Luca Maria ‘The Quintessence of the Mādhyamika Teaching Blossoms Again. Some Olivieri, Mathias Pfisterer, Nicolas Sims-Williams, Vincent Tournier and considerations in view of the 5th-7th c. A. D. Part II: Buddhism in Étienne de la Vaissière. Special thanks are due to Oskar von Hinüber. Āndhra after the Ikṣvāku’ (forthcoming); cf. Scherrer-Schaub ‘Copier, As the poet says: Lemériteleuréchoit,leserreurssontseulement Interpréter, transformer, représenter ou des modes de la diffusion des miennes! Écritures et de l’écrit dans le bouddhisme indien’. In Écrireettrans- 1 ‘The Quintessence of the Mādhyamika Teaching Blossoms Again. mettreenIndeclassique, edited by Gérard Colas and Gerdi Gerschhei- Some considerations in view of the 5th-7th c. A. D. Part I & II’ has been mer. Paris: École française d’Extrême-Orient, 2009: 151-172, 157. JournalAsiatique 306.1 (2018): 115-146 doi: 10.2143/JA.306.1.3284959 116 CRISTINA SCHERRER-SCHAUB though immensely difficult to answer. Due to the rarity with the epilogue appended to Candrakīrti’s Yuktiṣaṣṭi- of informative records, the inquiry starts usually with the kāvṛtti.4 survey of all existing quotations in other sources. When The Sanskrit and Tibetan translations of the *Madhya- however, the historian meets the uncertainty of dates — a makaśāstrastuti (Mśs) have been edited and translated fact frequently experienced — he is then confronted with into French by Jan W. de Jong. Despite the fact that the a sisyphean, and yet extremely stimulating, labour. date of its original composition is matter of conjecture, Our concern about the conditions in which a text is the Mśs is the first Indian evidence recording the names transmitted is motivated by the fact that, invariably, these of the preceding Mādhyamika Masters, starting with the lead to the context(s) which give(s) currency to a specific learned (sudhī) Nāgārjuna, the ancestor of the lineage, work; context(s) that, said in passing, may vary and even followed by Rāhulabhadra, [Ārya]deva, Buddhapālita be, apparently, diametrical opposed. This is the case with and Bhāvin, that is Bhā(va)viveka. In addition it also texts that move in philosophical circles, while their mes- contains the first list of Nāgārjuna’s treatises (kār 10). sage, doctrine, and/or ideology emerge into the discourse While to enter a detailed analysis of the *Madhyam- ofpolitics. In turn, text-transmission and text-reception akaśāstrastuti far exceeds the present scope, worth not- invite to analyze the various modalities ofreading the ing in passing is the interesting ‘extended epithet’ given addressed text that, obvious and trite, will determine the to Nāgārjuna in the final stanza (kār 14cd), where Can- reader/addressee’s interpretation, who is not necessarily drakīrti, in the first person singular, proclaims a singular person. This is the case for instance when the I bend down [to the feet of] Nāgārjuna who is like the eye text is adressed to and received by a specific society, as by means of which the infinite/boundless Buddha’s word in the case of the Alkhan’s document taken in considera- is made visible for the living beings; he who out of com- tion here. passion has composed the Madhyamakaśāstra! Since long we have been focussing our research upon the dynamic instaured by the doctrinal and religious cakṣurbhūtamanantabuddhavacanasyālocanedehināṃ/ yo‘muṃ madhyamakaṃ cakāra kṛpayā nāgārjunas taṃ tenets as they are reflected in the discourse of politics, in name//kār14cd5 India and outside. In the specific case of the early Madhya- maka school, while we know relatively little about the The list of Masters having commented Nāgārjuna’s way that the texts of these Masters were transmitted and Mūlamadhyamakaśāstra (MMK)6 that we find in the Mśs received, the historian may begin his inquiry with the *Madhyamakaśāstrastuti (Mśs). This Ode in praise (stuti) 4 See Cristina Scherrer-Schaub Yuktiṣāṣṭikāvṛtti.Commentaireàla of the Madhyamaka’s fundamental treatise and doctrine soixantainesurleraisonnement(Yuktiṣāṣṭikā)deNāgārjunaou‘Du nd of Nāgārjuna (2 c. CE) is attributed to Candrakīrti vraienseignementdelacausalité’parleMaîtreindienCandrakīrti. (7th c. CE). It appears at the end of a Nepalese manuscript Bruxelles, Institut Belge des hautes Études Chinoises, 1991. Mélanges of the Prasannapadā/Mūlamadhyamakakārikāvṛtti, kept chinois&bouddhiques (MCB) volume XXV: 97 (Tibetan), 312-313. Moreover, Candrakīrti, in commenting the introductory stanza in praise in the Keshar Library, Kathmandu (catalogue N° 9-182), of the Buddha, to the (rhetorical) question ‘Why the Master in his Śūn- 2 discovered by Giuseppe Tucci, and is preserved in the yatāsaptati and the Vigrahavyāvartanī has not added an introductory Tibetan translation of the Prasannapadā where the stanza in praise of the Buddha while he enounces it [in the Yuktiṣāṣṭikā] fourthteen stanzas figure as epilogue (sDe dge, mdo Ḥa that it equally deals with the Doctrine of the Madhyamaka’? — Can- fol. 198b5-200a3); in its tenor and literary genre, which drakīrti responds ‘The Śūnyatāsaptati and the Vigrahavyāvartanī originate 3 from the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā; given that these works do not exist as intensively favours the śleṣas, the Mśs may be compared indipendent and separate treatises (as the YṢ does), they do not include the introductory stanza in Praise of the Buddha’, see op.cit.107 and n. 14. 5 This interesting paraphrase rendering the epithet lokacakṣus 2 See Jan W. de Jong ‘La Madhyamakaśāstrastuti de Candrakīrti’ could, theoretically and possibly even practically, have been known to OriensExtremus 9 1962: 47-56, 47 and 57. The title of this Ode has Bu ston and other Tibetan scholars who considered it as the antecedent been borrowed by J. W. de Jong from the colophon appended to the of the term ‘translator’ (lotsāba), see Cristina Scherrer-Schaub ‘Con- manuscript discovered by G. Tucci. The *Madhyamakaśāstrastuti counts sidérations sur le travail de traduction et d’édition des textes indiens au 14 stanzas in śārdulavikrīḍita meter. See Anne MacDonald InClear Tibet’. In Anne Chayet, Cristina Scherrer-Schaub, Françoise Robin et Words.ThePrasannapadā,ChapterOne. Wien, ÖAW, 2015, vol. I: Jean-Luc Achard Ed. Édition,éditions:l’écritauTibet,évolutionet 59-60 where the manuscript figures as MsD. de Jong (1962: 47) noted devenir. Acte du Colloque, Paris 28-31 mai 2008. München, Indus ‘[L]e manuscrit qui n’est pas daté est écrit en écriture népalaise tar- Verlag – Collectanea Himalayica 3, 2010; 307-320, 308 and n.