Derge Kangyur/Tengyur e-text, Esukhia/Barom edition — public domain (mechanical reproduction)
This text, attributed to Nāgārjuna and translated by Jayānanda and Khu Dodebar, provides a philosophical analysis of bodhicitta through the lens of emptiness. The work argues that the mind and the components of sentient existence—specifically the aggregates, elements, and sense bases—lack inherent existence and are conceptually constructed. By systematically refuting the reality of the grasper and the grasped, the text asserts that the mind is by nature utterly pure and cannot be located spatially as within, without, or in between. The argument commits the reader to a view of awakening defined as the thorough knowledge of the mind exactly as it is, characterized by the absence of any subtlest phenomenon or object of observation. The text functions as a guide to cultivating bodhicitta by first dismantling the ontological status of the self and its constituent parts, thereby establishing the non-dual nature of the awakened mind.
Provenance
About this text
A commentary on the cultivation of bodhicitta, the Bodhicittavivaraṇa is attributed to the Indian author Nāgārjuna. It entered the Tibetan tradition through the work of the translators Jayānanda of Kaśmīr and Khu Dodebar. The work is preserved in the Tengyur, specifically within volume ངི, where it comprises six pages and is situated within the collection of the Guhyasamāja and Related Tantras. In the classical Tibetan tradition, it is known as the byang chub sems kyi 'grel pa. The work enacts a philosophical investigation into the nature of the mind, arguing that all phenomena are conceptually imputed. It specifically asserts that the mind is free from the nature of the aggregates, elements, and sense bases, as well as from the dichotomy of the grasped and the grasper. By dismantling the ontological status of these constituents, the text argues that the body and the feelings arising from it are not established in an ultimate sense. A scholar or serious reader consults this work today to examine how the dismantling of the self and its constituent parts serves as a prerequisite for the cultivation of bodhicitta.
Sanskrit title
Bodhicittavivaraṇa
Indian author
Nāgārjuna
Tibetan translators
Jayānanda (Kaśmīr), bod kyi lo tsa ba khu mdo sde ’bar
The work is significant for its attribution to Nāgārjuna, a foundational figure in Madhyamaka philosophy, and its focus on the intersection of emptiness and the cultivation of bodhicitta. It demonstrates the application of dialectical negation to the aggregates to reach a state of unsurpassed awakening. For the modern reader, it illustrates the technical precision of Indo-Tibetan Buddhist epistemology regarding the nature of consciousness.
Structure
Passages
Section
Description
1-5
Introduction and Refutation of Aggregates
The text begins with homages and proceeds to argue that the mind and the aggregates, elements, and sense bases are conceptually constructed and lack ultimate existence.
6-8
Nature of the Pure Mind and Awakening
The text describes the non-spatial nature of the pure mind and defines awakening as the direct knowledge of the mind's nature, concluding with colophon information.
Themes
Emptiness of the Aggregates (2-5)
Non-duality of Grasper and Grasped (2, 6)
Definition of Awakening (7)
Nature of the Mind (6-7)
Summary, significance and provenance note generated by gemma4:31b from the translation and the catalogue record.
In the language of India: Bodhicittavivaraṇa. In the language of Tibet: Byang chub sems kyi ’grel pa (Commentary on Bodhicitta). Homage to the noble Mañjuśrī.
Now, the commentary on the cultivation of bodhicitta shall be explained. Since the Blessed One has stated, "All phenomena are conceptually imputed by the mind," when one definitively investigates what the nature of that very mind is:
"Free from all entities,
Abandoning aggregates, elements, and sense bases,
And the duality of subject and object,
Through the equality of the selflessness of phenomena,
One's own mind is primordially unborn,
Its nature is emptiness."
Thus it was said. If one asks, "What is the meaning of this statement?" it is replied: "Free from all entities." By the term "entities," things such as a self and so forth are expressed. This means that the mind is not of the nature of a self, a sentient being, a life-force, a nourisher, a person, an individual, a human, a man, an agent, and so forth. Why is that? Because those [entities] do not possess the characteristics of functional activity. For that very reason, if entities such as a self do not exist, how could the mind possibly be their nature? This is what is being said.
If it is argued: "Because all afflictions are produced by the grasping at a self, the mind must be of that nature," [the response is:] It is produced by the mere grasping at a self, and thus it is free from all entities. If it is argued that the mind is of that nature because all afflictions are produced by the grasping at a self—
Because that mind is not of the nature of the aggregates, elements, and sense bases, it is said: "It is utterly free from aggregates, elements, and sense bases, as well as from the grasped and the grasper." Thus, if the entities of the aggregates and so forth themselves are not observed in an ultimate sense, how could that mind possibly be their nature? How so? First, the aggregates such as form are without any real entity. The aggregate of form is a collection of the primary elements and the derivatives of the primary elements. The primary elements are four: earth, water, fire, and wind. The derivatives of the primary elements are five: form, sound, odor, taste, and tangible objects. Each of these—the primary elements such as earth and the derivatives such as form—is not observed as a distinct entity, because wherever one exists, the others are also present. Therefore, form is merely a conceptual imputation by name. From the statement that "the aggregate of form is empty of the aggregate of form," it follows that the aggregate of form is also not established. Likewise, the aggregate of feeling is not established. How so? There are three types of feeling: pleasure, suffering, and that which is neither suffering nor pleasure. These are mutually dependent; in relation to suffering, one designates pleasure, and in relation to pleasure, one designates suffering. A phenomenon that exists as a solitary, independent entity is what exists as a substantial reality, like "long" and "short."
Furthermore, regarding the statement that "feeling is of two types: that arising from the body and that arising from the mind," for the time being, the body is not observed because it is subsumed within the aggregate of form. Therefore, since the body does not exist, feeling arising from the body is not established. As for the mind, it is taught to not abide in an object, not abide in a direction, to be formless, unindicatable, utterly non-abiding, non-apparent, and non-cognizable. If that is so, what kind of feeling could there be? Therefore, feeling arising from the mind is also not established. Consequently, because it is taught that "the aggregate of feeling is empty of the aggregate of feeling," the aggregate of feeling is also not established.
The aggregate of perception is also a mere name for a thing; perception is of the nature of grasping at signs. Since there is, for the time being, no thing to be grasped as a sign, and because there are no signs, that which possesses signs also does not exist. Because it is taught that "the aggregate of perception is empty of the aggregate of perception," the aggregate of perception is also not established.
The aggregate of formations is also not established, as it is a mere collection. If one speaks of the aggregate of formations as consisting of the associated factors—such as feeling, volition, perception, aspiration, contact, intellect, mindfulness, mental engagement, and resolve—as well as the non-associated factors such as the elements of earth, water, fire, and wind, and so forth, [it is likewise not established].
The mental factors and [the characteristics] such as arising and so forth also do not each have an arising. Furthermore, because the aggregate of formations has the characteristic of karma, it is non-existent. Since there is no agent, the action is also a non-entity. Because it is taught that the aggregate of formations is empty of the entity of the aggregate of formations, the aggregate of formations is not established. The aggregate of consciousness is also not established; for the aggregate of consciousness consists of the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mental consciousnesses, and each of these, such as the eye consciousness and so forth, is not observed to have its own intrinsic nature. Why is that? Eye consciousness arises in dependence upon the eye and form, and does not arise in their absence. If the eye and form do not exist, how could eye consciousness arise? Thus, for the time being, eye consciousness is not established. By that same reasoning, the ear, nose, tongue, and body consciousnesses are also [not established]. If the mental consciousness is the support for all past and future phenomena, how could past and future phenomena serve as conditions for the arising of mental consciousness? The Blessed One has taught that the past has already ceased along with its very nature, the future has not yet been attained, and that which is presently arisen does not abide together with the consciousness.
The aggregate of consciousness is also empty of the aggregate of consciousness; thus, the aggregate of consciousness is not established as a reality. Since the aggregates themselves are taught to be the elements and sense bases, they need not be refuted separately. Just as there is no sprout without a seed, because the aggregates lack intrinsic nature, those [elements and sense bases] are also established as lacking intrinsic nature. Therefore, the mind is said to be free from the aggregates, elements, and sense bases. Regarding the phrase "completely abandoned of subject and object," the Perfectly Complete Buddha stated in the Tathāgata-guhyaka-sūtra: "The mind is not seen in the forms of blue, yellow, red, crimson, crystal, or the color of silver; nor is it seen in the forms of long, short, round, triangular, or square, nor in the forms of male, female, or neuter." Furthermore, he said: "Lord of Secrets, the mind is not of the nature of the desire realm, not of the nature of the form realm, and not of the nature of the formless realm. It is not of the nature of the realms of gods, nāgas, yakṣas, gandharvas, asuras, garuḍas, kinnaras, mahoragas, humans, or non-humans," and so on, up to: "When thoroughly sought in every way, it is not perceived." Thus, for the time being, that mind is not the apprehended object. How it is also not the apprehending subject shall now be explained.
In this regard, the Blessed One said to the Lord of Secrets: "That mind is neither within, nor without, nor in between the two. Why is that? Lord of Secrets, it is because that mind is by nature utterly pure. Therefore, when sought in every way, it is not apprehended; how then could it be a grasper or a grasped? Thus, that mind is said to be free from grasper and grasped. Regarding the phrase 'through the equality of the selflessness of phenomena,' just as all aggregates and so forth are selfless, so too is that mind. As the Blessed One has said: 'Just as all phenomena are empty, so too is the mind characterized by emptiness. Just as all phenomena are selfless, so too is that mind characterized by selflessness. All phenomena are utterly secluded, and likewise, that mind is characterized by utter seclusion.' Therefore, because that mind is equal through the equality of the selflessness of phenomena, one's own mind is primordially unborn. For that reason, its nature is emptiness. If one asks what the nature of emptiness is: emptiness is the nature of space. As it is said: 'Space is empty; all phenomena have the nature of space; awakening also has that nature; and the mind also has that nature.' Likewise, just as space is without intrinsic nature and is a mere name, so too the mind is without intrinsic nature and is a mere name. Furthermore, the realization that the mind is neither born nor ceases is awakening."
As it was said by the Blessed One: "What is awakening? It is the thorough knowledge of the mind exactly as it is; that itself is unsurpassed, perfectly complete awakening. Lord of Secrets, because even the subtlest phenomenon does not exist and is without an object of observation, it is called 'unsurpassed, perfectly complete awakening.' Why is that? Awakening has the characteristic of space; there is neither a realizer nor anything to be realized. Why is that? Because awakening has the characteristic of space," so he spoke.
Therefore, for one who knows their own mind exactly as it is, through the method of compassion, the thought arises toward sentient beings: "Alas! These sentient beings are suffering. Apart from the nature of the reality of their own minds, they are seized by the demons of distorted, incorrect conceptualization and experience various sufferings in saṃsāra. I shall strive so that they may realize the nature of the reality of their own minds." The generation of the mind that is embraced by great compassion is called the mind of awakening, the mind that benefits all sentient beings, the mind that brings happiness to all sentient beings, the unsurpassed mind, the mind that enters the expanse of phenomena (dharmadhātu), and the mind of awakening that arises in dependence upon all sentient beings.
This concludes the Commentary on the Spirit of Enlightenment composed by the master Nāgārjuna. It was translated by the Kashmiri paṇḍita Jayānanda and the Tibetan translator Khu Dodebar.
Translation status: Not among 84000's published translations. A bibliography of the canon lists 1 English-language publication(s) on this text, e.g. Lindtner, Christian, ″[Bodhicittavivarana]″ (1982). in Nagarjuniana. Copenhagen — these may include a full or partial translation. (source: 84000 catalogue + registry; checked 2026-11-10).
Set in Newsreader and EB Garamond; Tibetan in Noto Serif Tibetan; Chinese in Noto Serif SC.