XVIIIth Congress of the International Association of Buddhist Studies

University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

Atiśa and Ratnākaraśānti as Philosophical Opponents with attention to Yuktiṣaṣṭikā, verse 34

James B. Apple, Ph.D.

University of Calgary
jbapple@ucalgary.ca
Scheduled Friday, August 25, 2017, 2:00 p.m.

This paper examines philosophical differences between Atiśa Dīpaṃkaraśrījñāna (982-1054

CE) and Ratnākaraśānti (ca. 1000 CE) based on evidence from newly published Tibetan
manuscripts of The Collected Works of the Kadampas (bka’ gdams gsung ’bum). Atiśa is famous
for his journey to Tibet and his teaching there for thirteen years. His teachings on Mahāyāna and
Vajrayāna Buddhist thought and practice came to influence all subsequent traditions of
Buddhism in Tibet. Ratnākaraśānti (ca. 1000 CE), also known as Śāntipa in Tibetan sources, was
a formidable figure at Vikramaśīla monastery, renowned for his enormous breadth of learning
and prolific scholarship. Traditional Tibetan historians describe Atiśa as Ratnākaraśānti’s student
in the study of Mahāyāna works at Vikramaśīla. Ratnākaraśānti is also recorded in these sources
as being a tantric master in a number of lineages upheld by Atiśa. Yet, as this paper demonstrates
based on newly published manuscripts, these two important Indian Buddhist scholars had
significant differences in their philosophical views.
Based on these newly available materials, the paper initially outlines how the Madhyamaka
teachings that Atiśa received in his youth were in conflict with the views of Ratnākaraśānti that
Atiśa learned while studying under him at Vikramaśīla. The paper briefly compares doctrines
found in the works of Ratnākaraśānti and Atiśa to clearly demonstrate how they differed on a
number of points of thought and exegesis. Although both Atiśa and Ratnākaraśānti claimed to
follow the Middle Way (madhyamā pratipat) of Nāgārjuna, Atiśa’s thought was influenced by
Candrakīrti, while Ratnākaraśānti expounded his system based on Yogācāra sources. The paper
outlines their differences in the application of the tetralemma, the use of negation in realizing the
ultimate, their understanding of conventional reality, the role of the means of valid cognition
(pramāṇa) in the path, and their understanding of Buddhahood.
As a specific example to illustrate the differences between these two scholars, the paper
focuses on the interpretation of Nāgārjuna’s Yuktiṣaṣṭikā (verse 34), where Atiśa posited mental
qualities as mere appearances that dependently arise while Ratnākaraśānti framed the ultimate
nature of mental qualities as their “mere shining forth of non-duality” (advayaprakāśamātra).
Ratnākaraśānti criticized positions that advocated “mere appearance” (snang ba tsam≈
*pratibhāsamātra) and Atiśa clearly articulated an interpretation of Madhyamaka emphasizing
mere appearances based on the interpretation of this verse.
The paper concludes that the philosophical differences between these two scholars provides
evidence that Atiśa’s Madhyamaka was a minority viewpoint at Vikramaśīla monastery, that
these philosophical differences effected their master/disciple relationship in esoteric Buddhist
practice, and that these differences were influential, in part, upon Atiśa’s decision to leave
Vikramaśīla for Tibet.