Nāgārjuna’s treatises in Tibetan

[Huifeng]

Dear worthy Lotsawas!

Thank you for your recent help with my Saṃdhinirmocana question. I wish to trouble you again with some questions about Ārya Nāgārjuna’s treatises in Tibetan. I would like to know the Tibetan names of the following texts. I have the present Sanskrit names of these texts already, but sometimes it appears that the name that the Tibetans had differs a little, so if you could provide the Sanskrit name that the Tibetans have, that would be great, too. I have Cabezon's "A Dose of Emptiness", eg. pg. 78, but want to just check. Moreover, "Dose" doesn't have #5 below.

1. The Madhyamaka Śāstra (Verses) (中論(頌) Prajñāmūla = *Madhyamaka Kārikā).

2. The Sixty Verses in Accord with Reason Treatise (六十頌如理論 Yuktiṣaṣtikā-kārikā).

3. The Seventy Emptiness Treatise (七十空性論 Śūnyatā-saptati).

4. The Refutation of Dispute Treatise (迴諍論 Vigraha-vyāvartanī).

5. The Mahāyāna Refutation of Existence Treatise (大乘破有論 *Mahāyāna Bhavasaṃkrānti Śāstra?).

I am told that these are known as the “five collections on correct reasoning (Tib: rigs tshogs drug?, 五正理聚)”. Is this Tibetan correct? Is there a Sanskrit source / equivalent term for this?

Thanks in advance,
~~ Huifeng

[Jnana]

I would like to know the Tibetan names of the following texts. I have the present Sanskrit names of these texts already, but sometimes it appears that the name that the Tibetans had differs a little, so if you could provide the Sanskrit name that the Tibetans have, that would be great, too. I have Cabezon's "A Dose of Emptiness", eg. pg. 78, but want to just check. Moreover, "Dose" doesn't have #5 below.

According to Resources for Kanjur & Tanjur Studies here is how the titles are given in Tibetan and Sanskrit in the Tengyur (the titles in some cases may vary a bit across the different Tengyur collections):

1. dbu ma rtsa ba'i tshig le'ur byas pa shes rab ces bya ba (prajñānāmamūlamadhyamakakārikā)
2. rigs pa drug cu pa'i tshig le'ur byas pa (yuktiṣaṣṭikākārikā)
3. stong pa nyid bdun cu pa'i tshig le'ur byas pa (śūnyatāsaptatikārikā)
4. rtsod pa bzlog pa'i tshig le'ur byas pa (vigrahavyāvartanīkārikā)

And I think the fifth title on your list is this (at least it's attributed to Nāgārjuna):

5. srid pa 'pho ba (bhavasaṃkrānti)

I am told that these are known as the “five collections on correct reasoning (Tib: rigs tshogs drug?, 五正理聚)”. Is this Tibetan correct?

The rigs tshogs drug (or rigs pa'i tshogs drug) are six in number (drug = six). These texts include the first four on your list plus the following two:

rgyal po la gtam bya ba rin po che'i phreng ba (rājaparikathāratnāvali)

and the:

zhib mo rnam par 'thag pa zhes bya ba'i rab tu byed pa (vaidalya-nāma-prakaraṇa)

[or possibly the zhib mo rnam par 'thag pa zhes bya ba'i mdo (vaidalyasūtra). Both of these latter two seem to be attributed to Nāgārjuna and different secondary sources appear to be inconsistent as to which title is to be included in the list of six.]

Is there a Sanskrit source / equivalent term for this?

I don't know if this list is given as such in any Indian commentaries or if it's a Tibetan innovation. Maybe Malcolm or someone else can clarify further (and correct any mistakes that I may have made in the above).

[Huifeng]

Thanks, old buddy.

~~ Huifeng

[Jnana]

I am told that these are known as the “five collections on correct reasoning (Tib: rigs tshogs drug?, 五正理聚)”. Is this Tibetan correct?

After replying earlier I remembered that there's also a fivefold list of Nāgārjuna's texts on reasoning, Tib: rigs tshogs lnga. Maybe that's what you were thinking of? This list includes the first four from your list plus the zhib mo rnam par 'thag pa text. And it seems that the zhib mo rnam par 'thag pa title in both the fivefold and sixfold lists is the zhib mo rnam par 'thag pa zhes bya ba'i mdo (P5226).

[Huifeng]

Okay, that set of five and six matches up with Cabezon pg. 78.
I've just clicked that my original *Bhavasamkranti was incorrect,
and it should be the Vaidalya. Can't remember where I got the
*Bhavasamkranti reading from in the first place, it was a while ago.
Starting to fit nicely into place, now.

Thanks!

~~ Huifeng