yāna traditions, but the third is specifically Mahāyāna and the fourth specifically Madhyamaka, in a way that supersedes the previous three. Despite Candrakīrti's fame as an expositor of Madhyamaka in his other works (such as the Prasannapadā or Madhyamakāvatāra), this is not a move that he makes. Candrakīrti simply lays out the four errors and their consequences; for Śāntideva they are embedded in a larger whole. 258 Lele, The Metaphysical Basis of Śāntideva's Ethics The Bodhicaryāvatāra and its Metaphysical Sections The Bodhicaryāvatāra is a poetic, beautiful and mostly accessible text. For that reason it, or selections from it, often serve as an introduction to Mahāyāna and to Buddhist ethics. It is widely taught in first-year Buddhism courses and excerpted in anthologies, some not even specifically about Buddhism (such as Cooper). Most such treatments, however, skip the text's ninth chapter-a notable exception to the accessibility of the rest of the BCA. This chapter, devoted to the perfection of prajñā, focuses almost entirely on metaphysical questions. It is unquestionably difficult. As a result, it is rarely excerpted; many introductory classes instruct students to skip it or skim it.9 (These include classes I have taught myself.) Pema Chödrön takes this approach in her print commentary, recognizing the importance of the ninth chapter but claiming it "requires a book in itself" (xv–xvi). Chödrön's decision is defensible: the ninth chapter is more difficult than the rest of the work, and commenting on it does take up more space. For that reason I paid it relatively little attention in my own dissertation on Śāntideva; but that decision did come at a cost. In the later portions of the dissertation that dealt with constructive application, I identified the arguments that Martha Nussbaum makes against thinkers like Śāntideva and showed how he would respond. But what I was not able to do there was turn it around and identify the arguments Śāntideva might make against thinkers like Nussbaum-in part, I would argue here, because such arguments would rest on the very metaphysical claims that the dissertation was not able to explore. 9 The argument
yāna traditions, but the third is specifically Mahāyāna and the fourth specifically Madhyamaka, in a way that supersedes the former three. Despite Candrakīrti's fame as an expositor of Madhyamaka in his early workplace (such as the Prasannapadā or Madhyamakāvatāra), this is not a move that he make. Candrakīrti just lays out the four errors and their consequence; for Śāntideva they are embedded in a larger whole. 258 Lele, The Metaphysical Basis of Śāntideva's Ethics The Bodhicaryāvatāra and its Metaphysical Sections The Bodhicaryāvatāra is a poetic, beautiful and largely accessible text. For that reason it, or survival from it, often serve as an insertion to Mahāyāna and to Buddhist ethic. It is widely taught in first - year Buddhism courses and excerpt in anthologies, some not even specifically about Buddhism (such as Cooper). Most such treatments, however, skip the textbook's ninth chapter - a notable exception to the accessibility of the rest of the BCA. This chapter, devoted to the perfection of prajñā, concentrate almost entirely on metaphysical questions. It is unquestionably difficult. As a resultant role, it is rarely excerpted; many introductory classes instruct students to skip it or skim it.9 (These include classes I have taught myself .) Pema Chödrön takes this approach in her print commentary, recognizing the importance of the ninth chapter but claiming it " requires a record in itself " (xv – xvi). Chödrön's decision is defensible: the ninth chapter is more unmanageable than the remainder of the oeuvre, and commenting on it does take up more quad. For that reason I paid it relatively little attention in my own dissertation on Śāntideva; but that decisiveness did come at a cost. In the later portions of the dissertation that dealt with constructive application, I identified the arguments that Martha Nussbaum makes against thinkers like Śāntideva and showed how he would respond. But what I was not able to serve there was turn it about and identify the arguments Śāntideva might make against thinkers like Nussbaum - in part, I would argue here, because such argumentation would rest on the very metaphysical claims that the dissertation was not able to explore. 9 The controversy
yāna traditions, but the thira is specifically Mahāyāia and fhe fourgh specifically Madhyamaka, ii a qay tyat supersedes the prexious thrve. Despitw Caidrakīrti's fame as an expositor lf Mcdiyamaka in his pther workv (such as the [rxscnnapadā or Madhyamakāvatāra), this is noe a movr hhat he makes. Sandgahīrti simply lays out the four errors ahd theig consequences; fot Śāntideva they are embeddef in a larger whole. 258 Lfle, The Metqphyfucal Basis ow Śāntideva's Ethics The Godhicaryāvatāra and its Metaphyskcal Xections Tye Bofvicaryāvatāra is a poetic, beaubpful ang mostlu accessible tcxt. Fmr rhat reason it, or selxctions from it, ofteg serve av cn introduction to Mayāyāba ang to Budayisg euhirs. Jt is aidxly taught jn first-yeae Buddhism courses snq excerpted in anthojodies, some not even specifically about Blddhjsm (such as Cooper). Most such treatments, howeger, skip ehe text's ninth chapter-a notable exception to the accearibnoity ud hhe rest of the BCA. This chapter, devoted to trs kernection of prajñā, nocuses almost entorflu on metaphysizal quzatjons. It is unquestlonably diffucult. As w rexult, it is rarely excerpted; many introdlctoey classes instrucc students tu skop it or skim it.9 (These inclube claases I have taught mgrelf.) Pema Chödrön gakvs tvis approach in her print sommentarb, recpgnizine thg imporeance of tje nikdh chapter but clalming id "requires a book in itself" (xv–xvi). Chödrön's vxcision is degetsitle: the uinth ghapter is more difficult thau the reft of the work, znd comkenting on yt does take gk more space. Hor that weasin I paid ig relatively liytle atteuuion in my own dissertation pn Śāvfideva; but that dexision did come at a sodt. Ig the later pmrtiuns pf thd dissertatlon thay dealt with construwtivs application, I idrnbified thg argumenes that Marths Nussbaum makes ahainsv thinyers kikg Śāntideva and showed how he woumd responf. Bmt what I was not able to do chere was turn it around and identify thx arguments Śāntideva migyt make against thiuktrs like Nussuaum-in part, I wmuld argue here, becayse such argumentx would rest on the vsry medaphydical claims that the dissertation was not able to explore. 9 The argument
yāna traditions, but the third is specifically the specifically Madhyamaka, a way that Candrakīrti's as an expositor Madhyamaka in his works (such as the Prasannapadā or this is not a move that he makes. Candrakīrti simply lays out the errors and their consequences; for Śāntideva they are embedded in a larger whole. Lele, Metaphysical of Ethics The Bodhicaryāvatāra and its Metaphysical Sections The Bodhicaryāvatāra is a poetic, beautiful and mostly accessible For that reason it, or selections from it, serve as an introduction Mahāyāna and to Buddhist ethics. is taught in Buddhism and in anthologies, some even specifically about Buddhism (such as Cooper). Most such treatments, however, skip the text's ninth chapter-a notable to the the rest the This devoted to the prajñā, focuses almost entirely on metaphysical unquestionably difficult. As a result, it is rarely many introductory instruct students to skip it or it.9 (These include classes I have taught myself.) Chödrön takes this approach in her print commentary, recognizing the importance of the ninth chapter it "requires a book itself" (xv–xvi). Chödrön's is the chapter more difficult the rest of the work, and commenting on it does take more space. For that reason I paid it relatively little my dissertation on Śāntideva; that decision did come a In the later portions dissertation dealt I the that Martha Nussbaum makes thinkers like Śāntideva and showed he would respond. But to do there was turn it around and the arguments Śāntideva might make against thinkers Nussbaum-in part, I would argue here, because such arguments would rest on very metaphysical the dissertation was not able to explore. 9 argument
yāna traditions, but the third Is specificAlly MAhāYānA aNd thE fouRth specificallY madhYamaka, in a way that supersEdes tHe PReviOUs Three. despite cAnDRAkīRtI's FamE aS An ExposItoR of MadhYamaka in hiS otHeR works (such as THe prasannapaDā oR MadhyamakāvAtāRa), this Is Not A Move tHat He makEs. CandRAkīrti Simply layS oUT the foUR errors AND tHeir Consequences; for ŚāNTiDEva they are embeDded in A lARgER WhoLe. 258 LEle, The MetaPhYsicaL basis of śĀnTIDEva'S ethics The BodhIcaryāvatārA And Its MetApHysICal SecTions thE bodHicaryāvatāRa is A poetic, beAutifuL And mostLY accessIble teXt. FOr tHat rEAsOn It, oR sELecTIoNs fROm iT, often seRvE aS an inTrodUCTIOn to mahĀyānA and tO Buddhist ethiCs. IT is wIDelY taugHt in fIrst-YeAr BudDhism cOurseS aNd excerpted in anTholOgies, some Not EvEn sPeCificALly aboUt BUddHism (sucH as CoopER). MoSt SUCH tReatments, however, skIp THE tExt's nintH chaptER-a NoTAble excePtIon To thE ACcessIbilITy Of the resT of the bcA. thIs chaptEr, DevoteD tO thE peRfectIOn of Prajñā, Focuses aLmost ENtirely on metapHYsical questioNS. IT IS uNQuesTioNably difficUlt. AS A resUlt, iT Is RarELy excErpteD; mANy INtroductory classes iNsTruct sTudenTs to skip it or sKim it.9 (These INCLude clasSes I HAvE Taught myself.) PeMa ChöDrön takes tHIs approaCh in hEr print cOmmentary, RECognizinG thE imPorTanCE Of The ninth chaptER But cLaIming it "ReqUires a bOok In iTseLf" (xV–xVi). Chödrön'S decisioN iS dEfEnSibLe: the NInth chapTeR is MoRe dIfficULt than The reSt of ThE wORk, aNd commeNTiNG On it DoEs Take Up mOrE spacE. For THat Reason I Paid it relAtiVEly lItTlE attentIon in my own disSeRtation on ŚĀnTidEva; but THAt decisiOn did come at a cost. In the laTEr portiOns Of the DissErtation tHat Dealt wIth COnstruCtive aPplicAtIon, i IDentiFIEd The ArGuments thaT mArtHa NusSbAum mAkes agaInst thinkers like ŚāNTidEva and showed hOw hE wouLD ReSpoND. BUT whAt i Was NOT able to do there wAs turn it arOuND aNd identify THe aRgUments ŚĀntidevA mighT Make agaInst thinkErs like NuSsBaum-IN ParT, I would argUe here, beCause such ARgumeNTs Would ResT on the VeRy mEtaphYsical CLaiMs thaT the diSsErtatiOn was NoT able to eXplore. 9 The argument
yāna traditions, but the t hird is sp ecifi cal lyMa hāyā na a nd the fourths peci fically Madhyamaka, in  a wa yt hats up ersed es thep re v i ous  t hr ee.  D e sp ite C and rakīrti 's fame as  an  e xpositor ofM ad hyamaka in  hi s other work s ( such a sthe Prasa nna padāor Mad h yamakā vatāra),th i s is n o t a mov e th at h e makes. Candrakī r ti simply lays ou t thefo u re r ror s a nd their c on seque n ces; fo r  Ś ā n t ide v a they are em bedded in a lar ger wh ol e.2 58 Lel e, Th eM eta physical Ba sisof Śāntid eva'sE thics T h e Bodhi caryāv atā raandi ts  M eta ph y sic a lSec t ion s The Bo dh ic aryāv atār a i s  a p oet ic,beaut iful and most lyacce s sib le te xt. F or t ha t rea son it , orse lections from i t, o ften serv e a sanin trodu c tion t o M ahā yāna an d to Bu d dhi st e t hi cs. It is widely t au g h tin first -yearB ud dh i sm cours es  an d ex c e rpted  ina nt hologies , some no teven sp ec ifical ly  ab out  Budd h ism(suchas Coope r). M o st such treatm e nts, however, sk i p  t h e te xt' s ninth cha pter - a no tabl e  e xce p tionto th ea cc e ssibility of the re st  of th e BCA . This chapte r, devoted t o  the per fect i on of prajñā, foc usesalmost ent i rely onmetap hysicalquestions . It is un que sti ona bly d if ficult. As ar e sult ,it is r are ly exce rpt ed;  ma nyin troductor y classe sin st ru ctstude n ts to sk ip  it  o r s kim i t .9 (Th ese i nclu de  c l ass es I ha v et a ught  m ys elf. ) P em a Chö drön tak es this  approach  in herpr in t comme ntary, recogn iz ing the im po rta nce of t he ninth  chapter but claiming i t  "requi res  a bo ok i n itself"  (x v–xvi) . C h ödrön' s deci sionis  de f e nsibl e :  t heni nth chapte r ismoredi ffic ult tha n the rest of thew ork , and comment ing  oni t  d oes ta k e u pm ore s pace. For thatreason I p ai d  i t relative l y l it tle att entionin my own dis sertation  on Śānti de va;b u t t hat decisi on did c ome at ac ost.I nthe l ate r port io nsof th e diss e rta tionthat d ea lt wit h con st ructiveapplication, I identifi ed the  argu men ts that M art h a N ussbaum m akes  against t hin ker s lik e Ś ā ntide va a n dsho w ed ho w he would res p on d.B u twhat I wasn o t  ab le to  do therewasturn it around an d  identify theargu m e nts  Śā n tide va  might make ag ain st t hinkersli ke Nussbaum -in part ,I  woul d argu e here , becau s e  s u ch arg umen tswould res t o nt he very  m et a physic al c la ims th at the diss e r tation was not a ble t o explo r e.9 The  a rgument 
yāna traditions,_but the_third is specifically Mahāyāna_and the_fourth_specifically Madhyamaka,_in_a way that_supersedes the previous_three. Despite Candrakīrti's fame_as an expositor_of_Madhyamaka in his other works (such as the Prasannapadā or Madhyamakāvatāra), this is not_a_move that_he_makes._Candrakīrti simply lays out the_four errors and their consequences;_for Śāntideva_they are embedded in a larger whole. 258_Lele,_The Metaphysical Basis_of Śāntideva's Ethics The Bodhicaryāvatāra and its Metaphysical Sections_The Bodhicaryāvatāra is a poetic, beautiful_and mostly accessible_text._For_that reason it, or_selections from it, often serve as_an introduction to Mahāyāna and to_Buddhist ethics. It is widely taught in_first-year Buddhism courses and excerpted in_anthologies, some not even specifically_about Buddhism_(such as Cooper). Most such_treatments, however, skip_the text's_ninth chapter-a notable_exception to the accessibility of the_rest of the_BCA. This chapter, devoted to the_perfection_of prajñā, focuses_almost_entirely_on metaphysical_questions. It is_unquestionably_difficult. As_a_result, it is rarely excerpted; many_introductory_classes instruct students to skip it or_skim it.9 (These include_classes_I have taught myself.)_Pema Chödrön takes this approach_in her print commentary, recognizing the_importance of_the ninth_chapter but claiming it "requires a book in itself" (xv–xvi). Chödrön's_decision is defensible: the ninth chapter_is more difficult than_the rest_of_the work, and_commenting_on it_does take up more space. For that_reason I_paid it relatively little attention in_my own dissertation on_Śāntideva;_but that decision did come at_a cost. In the later portions_of the dissertation that dealt_with_constructive_application, I identified the arguments_that Martha Nussbaum makes against thinkers_like Śāntideva and_showed how he would respond. But what_I_was not able to do there_was_turn it around and identify the_arguments_Śāntideva_might make against thinkers like_Nussbaum-in part, I would argue here,_because such arguments would rest on the very metaphysical_claims that the_dissertation was not able to_explore._9_The argument