CANDRAKIRTI
Candrakrti (ca. 600–650 C.E.) is best known as a
Madhyamaka-school Indian philosopher and com-
mentator. Little is known of his life, though later Ti-
betan biographies associate him with the north Indian
monastic university of Nalanda. His two major works
are the Madhyamakavatara(Introduction to Madhya-
maka) and Prasannapada (Clear Words).
The Madhyamakavatarais a versified introduction
to Madhyamaka thought, organized into ten chapters
that correspond to the ten perfections (paramita) mas-
tered 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 ex-
plores the meaning of such basic Buddhist ontological
categories as the two truths, no-self, and emptiness.
The Prasannapadais a prose commentary on the
Madhyamakakarika(Verses on the Middle Way; second
century C.E.), Nagarjuna’s foundational MADHYAMAKA
SCHOOLtext. In his commentary, Candrakrti bril-
liantly adumbrates Nagarjuna’s critique of philosoph-
ical 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 ab-
surd consequences of their own statements. This
methodological approach was later known as Prasan ̇gika
(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 Mad-
hyamaka commentator par excellence. He was partic-
ularly 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 Empti-
ness 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: PrajñaPress,
1979.ROGERR. JACKSONCANONThere is no such thing as theBuddhist 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, to-
gether with the absence of any central authority. If the
term canonis defined loosely as a more or less bounded
set of texts accorded preeminent authority and sanc-
tity, then each Buddhist school or tradition to evolve
developed its own canon in the process. While agree-
ing on the centrality of the notion of BUDDHAVACANA
(WORD OF THEBUDDHA) 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 buddhavacanaand interpreting them correctly.
These guidelines include the four great authorities
(mahapades ́a), which directed that teachings were to
be accepted as authentic if they were heard from (1)
the Buddha himself; (2) a SAN ̇GHAof elders; (3) a
group of elder monks specializing in the transmission
of dharma (i.e., sutra), VINAYAor matrkas(the matri-
ces 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 ac-
cepted if they conformed with existing scriptural tra-
dition (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 teach-
ings one should follow the four refuges or reliances
(pratis ́arana), relying on the dharma taught in pref-
erence 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 di-
rect understanding (jñana) rather than discursive
knowledge (vijñana).
Even while emphasizing seniority and tradition,
these interpretative principles place a higher premiumCANON