In the 7th chapter of the Madhyamakaratnapradīpa, a work traditionally attributed to Bhāviveka, while discussing some fundamental concepts of the cittamātra doctrine, the author inserts an interesting quotation which is attributed to (the tantric?) Candrakīrtipāda (zLa-ba-grags-pa’i-źal-sṅa-na). Unfortunately, the original text from which the citation was taken remains still untraced. Nevertheless, what is interesting here, is [...]

The term used by early Buddhists to refer to what we know as “world” is, usually, the Pāli term loko. This word has more or less the same semantic extent of the French monde whose meaning is both «world» and «people» (consider, for instance, the compounds loka-visargaḥ, «distruction of the world» and loka-vikruṣṭaḥ, «offensive for [...]

Let us consider Mūlamadhyamakakārikā VIII, 4ab, where Nāgārjuna seems to accept a sort of “priority” of hetu on both pratyaya and utpanna: hetāv asati kāryaṃ ca kāraṇaṃ ca na vidyate | («when the [primary] cause does not exist, both the effect and the [secondary] cause are not evident»). Jacques May, reflecting on this half a [...]

According to Nāgārjuna, only a modifiable (not permanently identical with, nor permanently different from, himself/herself) person can be a concrete enjoyer of good and bad results of his/her own actions. But to be modifiable means to lack svabhāvaḥ. Now, to avoid both the svabhāvaḥ and the parabhāvaḥ positions, Nāgārjuna prefers to adopt a “neither A, [...]

If it is true that both the Pāli Canon and Nāgārjuna consider the conditional relations on the basis of the positive and negative (α and β) twofold formulae (αβ.1 and αβ.2) (see Nāgārjuna on “cause” and “condition”: pars construens (1)), nonetheless between the two perspectives there is a crucial difference: although, according to SN I, [...]

Let us consider the Pāli Canon (see also: A brief note on the distinction between “cause” and “condition” in early Buddhism). The kind of relation indicated by the term “condition” is in the canonical literature pointed out generally in two manners, a positive and a negative one. The (α) positive way runs as follows: imasmiṃ [...]

Let us examine one by one the four alternatives listed by Nāgārjuna in his MMK I,1 (and referred to in Nāgārjuna on “cause” and “condition”: pars destruens (1)).1 (1) The alternative na svatas («not from itself») is clearly the rejection of the Sarvāstivāda-like position. Here Nāgārjuna criticizes the conception of svabhāvaḥ («intrinsic nature»). If the [...]

As far as the causal and conditional dependence between effect and cause is concerned, we have to note that the conception of svabhāvaḥ, and consequently of parabhāvaḥ (as a preliminary discussion see A brief note on the distinction between “cause” and “condition” in early Buddhism), during Nāgārjuna’s times had developed some problematic aspects, which Nāgārjuna [...]

When we speak of “relation” in Buddhism, we mainly refer to what in Pāli language is called paṭicca-samuppādo, in Sanskrit pratītya-samutpādaḥ, and in Tibetan rten cing ’brel bar ’byung ba (or, in short, rten ’brel). The term pratītya-samutpādaḥ litterally means «conditioned co-production» or «dependent co-origination», and indicates the particular nature of the relation existing among [...]

The activity of saññā can be distinguished according to two acceptations, that is, in a “normal” state of consciousness and, in a state of meditation.1 Generally, compounds like anicca-saññā, «saññā concerning to what is impermanent»,2 anatta-saññā, «saññā concerning not-self»,3 etc. are used in passages in which the meditative aspect of saññā is involved but, of [...]