Encyclopedia of Buddhism Volume One A -L Robert E. Buswell

C ANON
CANDRAKIRTI
Candrakrti (ca. 600–650 C.E.) is best known as a
Madhyamaka-school Indian philosopher and commentator.
Little is known of his life, though later Tibetan
biographies associate him with the north Indian
monastic university of Nalanda. His two major works
are the Madhyamakavatara (Introduction to Madhyamaka)
and Prasannapada (Clear Words).
The Madhyamakavatara is a versified introduction
to Madhyamaka thought, organized into ten chapters
that correspond to the ten perfections (paramita) mastered
by Mahayana BODHISATTVAS. The sixth chapter,
corresponding to the perfection of wisdom, is the
longest and most important. In it, Candrakrti refutes
a variety of Buddhist and non-Buddhist views, and explores
the meaning of such basic Buddhist ontological
categories as the two truths, no-self, and emptiness.
The Prasannapada is a prose commentary on the
Madhyamakakarika (Verses on the Middle Way; second
century C.E.), Nagarjuna’s foundational MADHYAMAKA
SCHOOL text. In his commentary, Candrakrti brilliantly
adumbrates Nagarjuna’s critique of philosophical
categories, and insists, contrary to his predecessor
Bhavaviveka (ca. 490–570 C.E.) that the Madhyamika
philosopher must avoid syllogistic reasoning, and must
defeat opponents solely through drawing out the absurd
consequences of their own statements. This
methodological approach was later known as Prasaṅgika
(consequentialist) Madhyamaka, in contradistinction
to the approach that favored using formal inference to
establish Madhyamaka views independently, the
Svatantrika.
Candrakrti was influential among later Indian
Madhyamikas, but achieved his greatest fame in Tibet,
where he came to be regarded by many as the Madhyamaka
commentator par excellence. He was particularly
important for the founder of the DGE LUGS
(GELUK) tradition, TSONG KHA PA (1357–1419), who
placed his work at the center of monastic education on
Madhyamaka, and made him a thinker whose views are
discussed and debated by Tibetan scholars to this day.
Bibliography
Huntington, C. W., and Wangchen, Geshé Namgyal. The Emptiness
of Emptiness: An Introduction to Early Indian Madhyamika.
Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1989.
Sprung, Mervyn; Murti, T. R. V.; and Vyas, U. S., trans. Lucid
Exposition of the Middle Way: The Essential Chapters from the
Prasannapada of Candraklrti. Boulder, CO: Prajña Press,
1979.
CANON
ROGER R. JACKSON
There is no such thing as the Buddhist canon. In fact,
the concepts of canon and canonicity are especially
problematic in Buddhism, given the wide geographical
spread and great historical variety of the religion, together
with the absence of any central authority. If the
term canon is defined loosely as a more or less bounded
set of texts accorded preeminent authority and sanctity,
then each Buddhist school or tradition to evolve
developed its own canon in the process. While agreeing
on the centrality of the notion of BUDDHAVACANA
(WORD OF THE BUDDHA) as capable of leading others
to awakening, Buddhists may and do differ over what
actually constitutes this buddhavacana.
In view of the perennial possibility of disagreement
and misunderstanding, Buddhists formulated explicit
guidelines for authenticating religious teachings as
true buddhavacana and interpreting them correctly.
These guidelines include the four great authorities
(mahapadeśa), which directed that teachings were to
be accepted as authentic if they were heard from (1)
the Buddha himself; (2) a SAṄGHA of elders; (3) a
group of elder monks specializing in the transmission
of dharma (i.e., sutra), VINAYA or matrkas (the matrices
or mnemonic lists that became the ABHIDHARMA);
or (4) a single elder specializing therein. But teachings
heard from any of these authorities could only be accepted
if they conformed with existing scriptural tradition
(i.e., with the sutra and vinaya), and also,
according to a variant formulation, if they did not
contradict the nature of things (dharmata). Another
set of principles, not subscribed to by all Buddhist
groups, held that in receiving and interpreting teachings
one should follow the four refuges or reliances
(pratiśarana), relying on the dharma taught in preference
to the person teaching it, the meaning (or
spirit) of it rather than the letter, sutras of definitive
or explicit meaning (nltartha) rather than implicit
meaning requiring interpretation (neyartha), and direct
understanding (jñana) rather than discursive
knowledge (vijñana).
Even while emphasizing seniority and tradition,
these interpretative principles place a higher premium
E NCYCLOPEDIA OF B UDDHISM
111