Skip to main content



BUDDHAPĀLITA (c. 470540), Indian Buddhist dialectician belonging to the Madhyamaka (Mādhyamika) school. According to the Tibetan historian Tāranātha, Buddhapālita (Tib., Sangs rgyas skyangs; Chin., Fo-hu; Jpn., Butsugo) was born at Hasakrīa (Ngang pas rtse ba) in the South Indian district of Tambala. Having taken religious ordination there, he learned much about the scriptures of Nāgārjuna from Sagharakita (Dgeʾ dun bsrung ba), a disciple of Nagāmitra (Kluʾi bshes gnyen). He attained the highest knowledge through intense meditation and had a vision of Mañjuśrī. Residing in the Dantapurī monastery, he delivered many sermons on the Dharma and composed commentaries on treatises by such authors as Nāgārjuna and Āryadeva. Finally, he attained the miraculous powers (siddhi ). More or less the same account of his life is given in Buston's Chos 'byung (History of Buddhism) and Sum pa mkhan po's Dpag bsam ljon bzang, although these works exist only in fragments.

Buddhapālita is one of the traditionally reported "eight commentators" on Nāgārjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, the seven others being Nāgārjuna himself, Bhāvaviveka, Candrakīrti, Devaśarman, Guaśrī, Gunamati, and Sthiramati (the last four commentators are Yogācāras). According to tradition, he composed commentaries on many Madhyamaka treatises, but only one has survived: the (Buddhapālita ) Mūlamadhyamakavtti. The original Sanskrit text is actually lost; the work is only preserved in the Tibetan translation made by Jñānagarbha and Klu'i rgyal mtshan in the beginning of the ninth century. This commentary is one of the six extant commentaries on the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, the five others being: (1) the Akutobhayā (Derge edition of the Tibetan Tripiaka 3829, hereafter cited as D.; Beijing edition of the Tibetan Tripiaka 5229, hereafter cited as B.); (2) Qingmu's (Pigala?) Zhonglun (T.D. no. 1824); (3) Bhāvaviveka's Prajñāpradīpa (D. 3853, P. 5253); (4) Sthiramati's Dasheng zhong guan shilun (T.D. no. 1567); (5) Candrakīrti's Prasannapadā (Sanskrit ed. by L. de La Vallée Poussin in Bibliotheca Buddhica 4; D. 3860, P. 5260).

Buddhapālita's commentary consists of twenty-seven chapters in accordance with its basic text the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā. Chronologically, it was composed between the Akutobhayā and the Prajñāpradīpa. It incorporates most of the Akutobhayā' s passages; the last five chapters are almost identical. Chapter titles in Buddhapālita's commentary are the same as those of the Akutobhayā and the Prajñāpradīpa (perhaps because the translators of these three commentaries are the same: Jñānagarbha and Klu'i rgyal mtshan), but they differ slightly from the titles of Candrakīrti's Prasannapadā (particularly chapters 2, 3, 7, 11, 13, 15, 18, and 20). Buddhapālita's titles thus represent an older text of the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, which was known to these translators before the revision by Pa tshab Nyi ma grags (b. 1055) and his collaborators when they translated the Prasannapadā. The main authorities cited by Buddhapālita in his commentary are Nāgārjuna (Mūlamadhyamakakārikā ), Āryadeva (Catuśataka ), Rāhu-labhadra (Prajñāpāramitāstotra ), and 'Phags pa 'jigs med (Āryābhaya?).

Buddhapālita's main philosophical methodological approach consisted of his explaining the philosophy of Nāgārjuna by the method of prasagavākya (reductio ad absurdum ). That is, without himself maintaining any thesis or proposition to be established, he tried to point out the necessary but undesired consequences resulting from a non-Madhyamaka opponent's thesis. This method was strongly criticized by Bhāvaviveka, who wanted to make use of independent inferences (svatantrānumāna ) to prove the Madhaymaka standpoint, but it was later defended by Candrakīrti. The Tibetan doxographers accordingly classified Buddhapālita with Candrakīrti as members of the Prāsagika (Thal 'gyur ba) school, while Bhāvaviveka was classed in the Svātantrika (Rang rgyud pa) school.

See Also



Lindtner, Christian. "Buddhapālita on Emptiness." Indo-Iranian Journal 23 (1981): 187217.

Ruegg, David S. The Literature of the Madhyamaka School of Philosophy in India. Wiesbaden, 1981.

Saito, A. "A Study of the Buddhapālita-Mūlamadhyamakavtti." Ph.D. diss., Australian National University, 1984.

New Sources

Ames, William. "Bhavaviveka's Own View of His Differences with Buddhapalita." In The Svatantrika-Prasangika Distinction: What Difference Does a Difference Make?, edited by Georges B. J. Dreyfus and Sara L. McClintock, pp. 4166. Boston, 2003.

Ames, William L. "Buddhapalita's Exposition of the Madhyamaka." Journal of Indian Philosophy 14, no. 4 (1986): 313348.

Heine, Steven. "Visions, Divisions, Revisions: The Encounter Between Iconoclasm and Supernaturalism in Koan Cases about Mount Wu-t'ai." In The Kōan: Texts and Contexts in Zen Buddhism, edited by Steven Heine and Dale S. Wright, pp. 137167. New York, 2000.

Mimaki Katsumi (1987)

Revised Bibliography

Cite this article
Pick a style below, and copy the text for your bibliography.

  • MLA
  • Chicago
  • APA

"Buddhapālita." Encyclopedia of Religion. . 19 Aug. 2018 <>.

"Buddhapālita." Encyclopedia of Religion. . (August 19, 2018).

"Buddhapālita." Encyclopedia of Religion. . Retrieved August 19, 2018 from

Learn more about citation styles

Citation styles gives you the ability to cite reference entries and articles according to common styles from the Modern Language Association (MLA), The Chicago Manual of Style, and the American Psychological Association (APA).

Within the “Cite this article” tool, pick a style to see how all available information looks when formatted according to that style. Then, copy and paste the text into your bibliography or works cited list.

Because each style has its own formatting nuances that evolve over time and not all information is available for every reference entry or article, cannot guarantee each citation it generates. Therefore, it’s best to use citations as a starting point before checking the style against your school or publication’s requirements and the most-recent information available at these sites:

Modern Language Association

The Chicago Manual of Style

American Psychological Association

  • Most online reference entries and articles do not have page numbers. Therefore, that information is unavailable for most content. However, the date of retrieval is often important. Refer to each style’s convention regarding the best way to format page numbers and retrieval dates.
  • In addition to the MLA, Chicago, and APA styles, your school, university, publication, or institution may have its own requirements for citations. Therefore, be sure to refer to those guidelines when editing your bibliography or works cited list.