World of Philosophy

Author(s): Christopher Key Chapple, Intaj Malek, Dilip Charan, Sunanda Shastri, Prashant Dave
Publisher: Shanti Prakashan

Page 885

Again, Dr. Warder triad to prove Nāgārjuna's non-affiliation to Mahāyāna' on the basis of only one work viz., Mülamadhyamakakārikā. It is certainly not proper to draw a conclusion only on the basis of one work. At present substantial volume of Nāgārjuna's authentic writing is available and we can know something of his thought by making a careful study of it. Before we come to the conclusion, whether Nāgārjuna is Mahāyānist or not, it is in fitness of things to consider some of those authentic works of Nāgārjuna. Many works have been attributed to Nāgārjuna. All of them may not be his, but on the basis of style, language, subject matter, systematic presentation of the doctrines, we can definitely say that, Mūlamadhyama-kakārikā, Vigrahavyāvartani. Sūnyatāsaptati. Yuktisastika, Vadalyasūtra, and Prakarana, Ratnāvali and Suhrllekha24 are the works of Philosopher Nāgārjuna. If we accept Nāgārjuna as the author of M. K. then there is no reason to doubt about authorship of Nāgārjuna's other works mentioned above, because their content, style and language agree with that of the M. K. In addition to these, Catustava, Pratityasamutpadahrdaya and Bhavanasankrānti are attested by quotations in Candrakirti's Prasannapadā.25 The Suhrllekha was translated into Chinese twice shortly after 430 A. D. Once by Gunavarma and once by Sanghavarma.26 Both these treat this work as work of great Nāgārjuna. If we accept Ratnavali and Suhrllekha as the works of Nāgārjuna then there is no question about Nāgārjuna's Mahāyānisthood, because these two works are written to propagate Mahāyāna in clear terms.
The Chinese and Tibetan sources clearly mention that Nāgārjuna was a great Master of Tripitakas and Mahāyānasūtras.27 These sources are not historically very very authentic on account of their legendary form, but they.cannot be completely turned as mere fabrication of Chinese and Tibetan minds. They show some positive truth and indicate that Nāgārjuna was a historical person and the great Mahāyānist. The Lankāvatārasūtra, one of the profound Mahāyanasūtras predicts that after preaching Mahāyāna Nāgārjuna would go to the Sukhāvatiloka.28 This protion of Lankavatāra seems to be a later addition but it tells us that he was Mahāyānist.
Again, we cannot easily dismiss the views of post Nāgārjuna Buddhist writers, Biographers, commentators and historians, who considered Nāgārjuna as the great Champion of Mahāyāna Buddhism. Nāgārjuna's followers such as Aryadeva, Buddhapālita, Bhāvaviveka, Candrakirti and Sāntideva, treat him as the great Mahāyānist. Kumārajīva, who flourished in the 4th century A.D. (343-413 A.D.) and translated biography and many other works of Nāgārjuna into Chinese states that "Nāgārjuna wrote a number of works and fostered the practice of Mahāyāna."29 Hui-Yuan, who flourished in 5th century AD., states that "Nāgārjuna considered the Prajñāpāramitā to be the sublime gate to the
836