Overview
A concise treatise of 28 verses laying out Atiśa’s understanding of the two realities (satyadvaya). Composed as a response to his teacher Serlingpa (Dharmakīrti of Suvarṇadvīpa), who inquired about Atiśa’s philosophical views — and, according to Kadampa tradition, composed to convert Serlingpa from a Yogācāra to a Madhyamaka view. Considered by Gelukpa historians as one of Atiśa’s two foremost textual teachings on the view, alongside the Madhyamakopadeśa. Lindtner (1981) regards it as the culmination of Indian Madhyamaka theory on the two realities.
Structure: Verses 1–3 define the two realities (conventional twofold: mistaken and correct; ultimate one). Verses 4–9 characterise ultimate reality as one, undifferentiated, nonconceptual, nondual. Verses 10–13 reject valid cognition for realising emptiness. Verses 14–17ab prescribe the lineage of Nāgārjuna and Candrakīrti. Verses 17c–20 warn against neglecting conventional cause and effect. Verses 21–23 establish the unfindable as ultimate; all appearances as dependently arisen. Verses 24–28 conclude with exhortation and dedication.
Key passages
- v. 1: “The Dharma taught by Buddhas perfectly relies on two realities: the conventional reality of the world and ultimate reality.”
- v. 3: “Something that is pleasing only as long as it is not examined, which arises and ceases to exist and which is capable of causal efficiency, is held to be correct convention.” — Atiśa’s definition of correct conventional reality as valid only when unanalysed
- v. 5: “There is neither a subject (chos can) nor its property (chos nyid) [for inferential reasoning]” — foundational for his rejection of pramāṇa
- v. 10: “The deluded whose vision is narrow say that emptiness is understood by [direct perception and inference]” — explicit rejection of pramāṇa for realising emptiness
- v. 15: “Who has understood emptiness? Nāgārjuna… and his disciple Candrakīrti.” — the lineage claim
- v. 19: Citation of Candrakīrti: “Conventional reality functions as a means, and ultimate reality functions as the goal”
- v. 21: “When the conventional that appears is analytically examined just as it, nothing whatsoever is found. The unfindable is itself the ultimate” — the unfindable as ultimate
- v. 23: “If the continuance of conditions is interrupted, they do not arise even conventionally” — basis for no wisdom-continuum at buddhahood
Sources and influences
Apple traces influences from: Nāgārjuna’s MMK (vv. 1, 18cd, 20ab), Bhāviveka’s Madhyamakahṛdaya (vv. 20cd), Madhyamakaratnapradīpa (vv. 2, 3, 14, 21), Candrakīrti’s Madhyamakāvatāra (v. 19), and Śāntideva’s Bodhicaryāvatāra (v. 23).
Commentarial tradition
- Kadampa “Collection on the Two Realities”: anonymous 12th-century commentary, likely preserving oral teachings from Atiśa himself. Combines Candrakīrti and Bhāviveka. Does not mention subdivisions within Madhyamaka. All arguments directed against Yogācāra tenets and the use of valid cognition for realising emptiness.
- Sherab Dorjé’s Explanation: attributed to a direct disciple of Sharawa Yönten Drak (c. 1125), the latest among early Kadampa commentaries. Posits four types of Madhyamaka, equating Atiśa’s “Mere-Appearance Madhyamaka” with “Great Madhyamaka.”
- “General Explanation of the Two Realities”: an extended work attributed to Atiśa, providing the fullest articulation of his two realities system.
Tenpa’s working notes
This text is key evidence for the paper’s argument about hermeneutical framework necessity: Atiśa structures his Madhyamaka entirely through the Two Truths, while arriving at a position quite different from Tsongkhapa’s later systematisation. The text also demonstrates the framework’s Indian pedigree at the moment of transmission to Tibet — it was composed in India/Sumatra before Atiśa’s Tibetan journey.