Once more, ajyate.

• Author: De Jong, J.W.
• Position: Nagarjuna's 'Mulamadhyamakakarikas'

In de La Vallee Poussin's edition of the Mulamadhyamakakarikas (MMK) of Nagarjuna together with Candrakirti's Prasannapada (Bibliotheca Buddhica IV, 1903-13) the text of karika II.11 is as follows:

gamane dve prasajyete ganta yady uta gacchati ganteti cocyate yena ganta san yac ca gacchati

In his translation of the Tibetan version (Die Mittlere Lehre des Nagarjuna, nach der tibetischen Version ubertragen [Heidelberg, 1911]) Max Walleser remarked that one must read ajyate for ucyate. He translated accordingly: "Wenn der Geher gert, so trifft zweifaches Gehen zu: Das, durch welches er als Geher oftenbar wird (ajyate), und das, welches er, als Geher, geht." His excellent conjecture is fully confirmed by the reading of manuscript R (cf. Indo-Iranian Journal 20 [1978]: 37, sub 99.6). In karikas 22 and 23 the same manuscript reads yayajyate for yayocyate. This reading has been generally accepted and is also found in Chr. Lindtner's edition of MMK (Nagarjunas filosofiske vaerker [Kobenhavn, 1982]). However, Alex Wayman rejected this reading because "the verb aj- means 'to drive, propel'" (JAOS 105 [1985]: 586, n. 35). In a brief note I pointed out that ajyate is the third person singular passive of the root anj- (JAOS 106 [1986]: 803).

In a recently published collection of his essays (Untying the knots in Buddhism [Delhi, 1997], 304-5) Alex Wayman declares himself not convinced and writes:

Neither J. May nor any other competent translator could have rendered that verse using the anj- ("to anoint"); J. May, in fact, accepted the reading ucyate. It was in William Dwight Whitney, The Roots . . . of the Sanskrit Language (reprint, New Haven, 1945) that I noticed the form ajyate as the passive for both aj- and anj-; but in my published essay I mentioned aj- which was the only possibility for de Jong's readings to be correct. I rejected his suggested solution because the Tibetan translation mngon apparently disagrees with him.

I do not understand at all how aj- 'to drive' was the only possibility "for de Jong's readings to be correct." It is true that Jacques May translated ucyate, but in a note he remarked that Walleser read ajyate for ucyate and that in the karikas 11, 22, 23 and their commentaries "les racines VAC- et ANJ- interferent" (Candrakirti Prasannapada Madhyamakavrtti [Paris, 1959], 62, n. 46 - n.b. not n. 45). Without doubt Jacques May would have preferred the reading ajyate if he had known that it is found in manuscript R.

In my note I did...