Public Lecture
“Cittamātrising” Nāgārjuna: Śāntarakṣita, Kamalaśīla and Ratnākaraśānti on Yuktiṣaṣṭikā 21 & 34
Invited Speaker
Dr. Daisy Sze Yui Cheung
Date: 24 September 2025 (Wed)
Time: 7:30 – 9:00 pm
(** As it is expected that the weather will be adverse on Wednesday, 24 Sep 2025, Dr. Daisy Cheung’s lecture will be held at the same time and date online via Zoom. In-person participation will be cancelled)
Zoom webinar link (passcode: 2025)
About the speaker
Daisy Sze Yui Cheung is a postdoctoral research fellow at the Institute for the Cultural and Intellectual History of Asia, Austrian Academy of Sciences. She studied Architecture (BA(AS) 2002; MArch 2005) and Buddhist Studies (MBS 2011) at the University of Hong Kong, and holds a PhD in Indology from the University of Hamburg (2021). She is currently the principal investigator of the FWF-funded project “Rationalising Tantra in Late Indian Buddhism: Ratnākaraśānti on maṇḍala Rituals and Tantric Spiritual Practices”. Her research interests focus on the history of tantric Buddhism in India, Tibet and China; Buddhist philosophy; tantric Buddhist rituals; possession; omens in tantric texts; Buddhist Sanskrit manuscripts; Tibetan and Chinese translations of Buddhist texts; tantric Buddhist art and architecture; and cross-cultural exchanges between South and East Asia.
Lecture abstract
Previous research has shown that both Śāntarakṣita (c. 725-788) and Ratnākaraśānti (c. 970-1045) quote Nāgārjuna’s Yuktiṣaṣṭikā 21 & 34 as a set of proof verses and interpret them according to Yogācāra theory. However, the reading of Yuktiṣaṣṭikā 21 as quoted by Śāntarakṣita and Ratnākaraśānti differs from the canonical Tibetan translation of the text. Kajiyama (1978) is of the opinion that Śāntarakṣita quotes Yuktiṣaṣṭikā 21 in the Madhyamakālaṃkāravṛtti and “changes the original reading so that the verses may be interpreted according to his own theory.” Mimaki (1982) maintains that Ratnākaraśānti follows Śāntarakṣita in quoting Yuktiṣaṣṭikā 21 with a different reading. On the other hand, Tsong kha pa (1357-1419) points out in the Drang nges legs bshad snying po the following: Kamalaśīla (c. 740-795) said in the Madhyamakālaṃkārapañjikā that the “altered verse” was from the Laṅkāvatārasūtra, and it was Ratnākaraśānti who attributed the “altered verse” to Nāgārjuna. The editors of Ichigō 1989 (Gómez and Silk) also maintain that the “altered verse” is from the Laṅkāvatārasūtra. In this paper, I will re-examine all the evidence and propose alternative possibilities.
The second part of this paper focuses on the differences in interpretations of Śāntarakṣita and Kamalaśīla vs. Ratnākaraśānti on Yuktiṣaṣṭikā 21 & 34. While Śāntarakṣita and Kamalaśīla’s interpretation of Yuktiṣaṣṭikā 21 & 34 is still within the framework of the two truths of Madhyamaka, Ratnākaraśānti interprets these two verses according to the Yogācāra theory of the three natures. In other words, Śāntarakṣita and Kamalaśīla interpret the verses in a Yogācāra-Madhyamaka way, but Ratnākaraśānti is really “cittamātrising” Nāgārjuna in order to show that Nāgārjuna also teaches the “Madhyamaka of the three natures (rang bzhin gsum gyi dbu ma)” he upholds. This paper focuses on passages from Śāntarakṣita’s Madhyamakālaṃkāravṛtti, Kamalaśīla’s Madhyamakālaṃkārapañjikā, Ratnākraśānti’s *Madhyamakālaṃkāropadeśa and Ratnākaraśānti’s hitherto understudied tantric Guhyasamāja commentary *Kusumāñjali.
Conducted in English | Free Admission
All are welcome | First come first served
Enquiry | hkucbs@hku.hk
Organizer: HKU Centre of Buddhist Studies
Sponsor: Tung Lin Kok Yuen
