Śāntideva (fl. 8th C. CE)

Śāntideva (literally "god of peace") was the name given to an Indian
Mahāyāna Buddhist philosopher-monk, known as the author of two texts,
the Bodhicaryāvatāra and the Śikṣāsamuccaya. These works both express
the ideal of the bodhisattva — the ideal person of Mahāyāna Buddhism.
The term Mahāyāna, literally "Great Vehicle," came into use to mean
the idea of attempting to become a bodhisattva (and eventually a
buddha) oneself, rather than merely following the teachings set out by
Siddhārtha Gautama (considered the original Buddha). This was the
earliest usage of the term mahāyāna in Sanskrit, although even by
Śāntideva's time, understandings of what becoming a bodhisattva
involved had undergone many changes; the Mahāyāna had come to be
understood as a separate school rather than as a vocation (see Nattier
2003; Harrison 1987).

Both of Śāntideva's texts explore the bodhisattva ideal as an ethical
one, in that they prescribe how a person should properly live, and
provide reasons for living in that way. Śāntideva's close attention to
ethics makes him relatively unusual among Indian philosophers, for
whom metaphysics (or theoretical philosophy more generally) was more
typically the primary concern. Śāntideva's ethical thought is widely
known, cited and loved among Tibetan Buddhists, and is increasingly
coming to the attention of Western thinkers. Śāntideva's metaphysics
is of interest primarily because of its close connection to his
ethics.

1. History and Works
a. Writings

The name "Śāntideva" is associated above all with two extant texts:
the Bodhicaryāvatāra (hereafter BCA) and the Śikṣāsamuccaya (hereafter
ŚS). The Bodhicaryāvatāra (often rendered "Guide to the Bodhisattva's
Way of Life"), in its most widely known form, is a work of just over
900 verses. Tibetan legends suggest that the text was originally
recited orally (see de Jong 1975), as do the text's own literary
features. Although it has been translated into Tibetan multiple times
and is revered throughout Tibetan Buddhist tradition, it was
originally composed and redacted in Sanskrit. Its Sanskrit is
relatively close to Pānini's official standards of grammar, with a
Buddhist vocabulary. Its ten chapters lead their reader through the
path to becoming a bodhisattva — which is to say a future Buddha, and
therefore a being on the way to perfection, according to Mahāyāna
tradition.

The Śikṣāsamuccaya ("Training Anthology") is a longer prose work in
nineteen chapters. The ŚS is organized as a commentary on twenty-seven
short mnemonic verses known as the Śikṣāsamuccaya Kārikā (hereafter
ŚSK). It consists primarily of quotations (of varying length) from
sūtras, authoritative texts considered to be the word of the Buddha —
generally those sūtras associated with Mahāyāna tradition. Most
scholars have taken the ŚS to be composed almost entirely of such
quotations. However, Paul Harrison (2007) has recently claimed that a
substantial portion of it is original to the redactor.

Like the BCA, the ŚS was originally composed in Sanskrit, as were the
sūtras it quotes. However, while Śāntideva's own portions are in
relatively standard Sanskrit, the quotations are mostly in the heavily
vernacularized language usually known as Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit. It
is considerably less accessible to a novice reader than the BCA, and
its organization can be bewildering. Richard Mahoney (2002) has
recently provided a clear account of the text's structure, which will
be discussed later in this article.

Who were these texts written for? One can infer from the texts that
they are intended for an audience of men whose sexual desires are
directed toward women, as the auditor's sexual cravings are always
discussed in those terms. Therefore, the use of masculine forms to
refer to the implied audience is unproblematic. This auditor also
understands Sanskrit, and lives in or after the seventh century CE.
His knowledge of Sanskrit implies, at the least, that he is well
educated, and therefore well versed in the ideas of classical
Sanskritic culture. And he is not necessarily on the bodhisattva path
when he begins reading or hearing the texts, but is motivated to enter
that path by studying them.

The texts' implied audience includes monks, and may also include
householders (nonmonks). While monks are a significant component of
the text's implied audience (Onishi 2003), and are in some respects
the ideal audience, they are not necessarily the only such audience.
The principles of conduct put forth in the BCA's fifth chapter
resemble those of vinaya monastic codes, and indeed some of them have
been taken directly from the prātimokṣa monastic rule books (Crosby
and Skilton 1995, 32), but few of them would be impossible or absurd
for a householder to follow. In the ŚS, too, Śāntideva certainly
considers monasticism better and more praiseworthy than the
householder life, but part of his task is to convince householding
readers to pursue the monastic life. He claims that "in every birth
the great bodhisattva goes forth [as a monk] . . . from the household
life" (ŚS 14). But this is a process renewed in every lifetime,
beginning with the household life; and Śāntideva does refer on
multiple occasions to householding bodhisattvas (for example at ŚS 120
and 267). This text, then, is addressed in part to householders.
b. Life

Tibetan hagiographic histories (Bu ston, Tāranātha, Ye shes dPal 'byor
and Sum pa mKhan po) provide the most detailed accounts of Śāntideva's
life, although most contemporary historians doubt their veracity. In
brief, they tell of a prince from Saurāstra (in contemporary Gujarat)
who joined the great monastic university of Nālandā. His fellow monks,
unaware of his wisdom, saw only a lazy man unworthy of their company.
To prove his presumed lack of knowledge, they asked him to recite a
Buddhist sūtra text. Śāntideva, undaunted, asked whether they would
like to hear something old or something new. Asked for something new,
he proceeded to recite the BCA. When he reached verse IX.34 — "When
neither an entity nor a nonentity remain before thought, then thought,
with no object, is pacified because it has no other destination" — he
rose into the air and his body disappeared. The remainder of the text
was recited by a disembodied voice. The written text of the ŚS, the
voice told the audience, could be found in Śāntideva's room, along
with a text called the Sūtrasamuccaya (Pezzali 1968, 4-20). There is
some debate among scholars as to the nature of the latter work, but
all agree that the title does not refer to any additional surviving
work of Śāntideva's, and that the BCA and ŚS constitute his extant
corpus (see Lele 2007, 17n8).

Beyond the hagiographies, most of what we know of Śāntideva comes from
the ideas found in extant recensions of his texts. This article treats
Śāntideva's works together, as the works of a single author, as Indian
and Tibetan Buddhist tradition has always done; similarly, it refers
to the ideas found in the canonical Sanskrit recensions of the texts,
not to the Tibetan or to the BCA recension found at Dunhuang. Since
the article's approach is to examine the ideas of this author,
Śāntideva, it spends relatively little time on the structure of each
of his two texts as separate units. For an overview of the relevant
textual issues and a defense of this article's approach to the texts,
see Lele 2007, 9-31. More specifically, for a discussion of the
Dunhuang recension, see Saito 1993. For discussions of the structure
of the BCA, see Crosby and Skilton 1995; Saito 1993. For discussions
of the structure of the ŚS, see Clayton 2006; Griffiths 1999, 133-43;
Hedinger 1984; Mahoney 2002; Mrozik 2007. On both, see Pezzali 1968.

It is difficult to learn much about the texts' historical composer, or
their redactor, beyond what is found in the texts themselves. As
noted, Tibetan historians recount the life story of a Śāntideva
identified as the texts' author, but it is difficult to sort fact from
legend with so little corroborating evidence. There seems little
reason to doubt that someone by the name of Śāntideva wrote some
portion of the two texts, or that he was a monk at Nālandā. (The
Tibetan historians agree on this last point, and based on what we know
of Indian Buddhist history it seems a likely place for historically
significant Buddhist works to have been composed.) Paul Griffiths
(1999, 114-24) uses the accounts of Chinese and Tibetan visitors to
reconstruct a detailed account of what life and literary culture at
Nālandā might have looked like.

Beyond these points, we can say relatively little beyond the
approximate date of the texts' composition. The Tibetan translator Ye
shes sde, who rendered the BCA into Tibetan, worked under the king
Khri lde srong brtsan (816-838 CE), so it must have been composed
before that time (Bendall 1970, v). Since the Chinese pilgrim Yijing
(or I-tsing) mentions all the major Indian Mahāyāna thinkers known in
India but does not mention Śāntideva, it is likely that these texts
were composed, or at least became famous, after Yijing left India in
685 CE (Pezzali 1968, 38). We may therefore assign Śāntideva an
approximate date of sometime in the eighth century.
c. Reception and Influence

As historical evidence on India is difficult to come by, it is
relatively difficult to ascertain Śāntideva's influence in the later
Indian Buddhist philosophical tradition. Nevertheless, a significant
number of later Indian texts do refer to the BCA and ŚS (Bendall 1970,
viii-x), so Śāntideva's work must have been relatively important
there.

It is far easier to speak of Śāntideva's influence in Tibet. Tibetan
Buddhists revere Śāntideva and his work, especially the BCA. All the
major Tibetan texts on the stages of the bodhisattva path, such as
those of Tsong kha pa and sGam po pa, quote it at length (Sweet 1977,
4-5); it is a key source for the entire Tibetan literary genre of blo
sbyong or lojong ("mental purification") (Sweet 1996, 245). The
present Dalai Lama cites it as the highest inspiration for his ideals
and practices (Williams 1995, ix). Tibetan commentators have written
many commentaries on the text over the years, several of which are now
available in English translation (e.g. Gyatso 1986; Rinpoche 2002;
Tobden 2005). While the ŚS was less influential overall, the tradition
has not ignored it. In 1998 the present Dalai Lama gave public
teachings on the ŚS, referring to it as a "key which can unlock all
the teachings of the Buddha" (quoted in Clayton 2006, 2). Śāntideva's
work has played a significant role in other cultures influenced by
Tibetan Buddhism, such as Mongolia (see, for example, de Rachewiltz
1996; Kanaoka 1963). A less influential translation of the BCA was
also made into Chinese (Bendall 1970, xxix-xxx).

The BCA has also been widely translated, studied, and admired in the
West. (See Onishi 2003 for a thesis-length discussion of the text's
Western reception.) Luís Gómez (1999, 262-3) even suggests that it is
now the third most frequently translated text in all of Indian
Buddhism, after the Dhammapāda and the Heart Sūtra. A recent
introductory text (Cooper 1998) also treats the BCA as one of "the
classic readings" in ethics, alongside such works as Plato's Gorgias
and Mill's Utilitarianism. The BCA is an appropriate choice for a
reading in Buddhist ethics, for relatively few Buddhist texts make
explicit ethical arguments. This situation even leads one scholar
(Keown 2005, 50) to proclaim that Buddhism "does not have normative
ethics," though he does not appear to have taken Śāntideva's work into
account in making this claim (see Lele 2007, 48-52).
2. The Progress of the Bodhisattva

The central concern of both of Śāntideva's texts is the bodhisattva,
literally "awakening-being." A bodhisattva is a being aiming to become
a buddha (literally "awakened one"); the process of the final
transformation into a buddha is called bodhi, "awakening," sometimes
referred to as "enlightenment." The title Bodhicaryâvatāra,
"introduction to conduct for awakening," is usually taken to be short
for Bodhisattvacaryâvatāra — "introduction to the conduct of a
bodhisattva," or "A Guide to the Bodhisattva Way of Life," as one
major translation (Wallace and Wallace 1997) has it. "Introduction to
the conduct of a bodhisattva" is an appropriate description of the
contents of the text, although "introduction to conduct for awakening"
would be equally appropriate. Śāntideva also introduces the
Śikṣāsamuccaya by claiming he will explain the
sugatâtmajasamvārâvatāra, a similar phrase meaning "introduction to
the requirements for the sons of the Sugatas" (ŚS 1). (Throughout
Buddhist literature sugata, literally "gone well," is a common term
for buddhas, and Mahāyāna literature regularly refers to bodhisattvas
as the buddhas' sons.) The term "bodhisattva" occurs at least seven
times in the nineteen chapters of the ŚS. This section examines the
bodhisattva's progress from being an ordinary person through to being
a buddha, as this progress is discussed in Śāntideva's texts.

To describe those who are neither bodhisattvas nor buddhas, Śāntideva
most frequently uses the term "ordinary person," prithagjana. He
refers at one point to "all buddhas, bodhisattvas, solitary buddhas,
noble searchers and ordinary people" (ŚS 9) — suggesting that ordinary
people are the residual category of all those who do not fall into the
previous categories. It is standard in Mahāyāna texts to refer to
three "vehicles" (yāna) or paths, with the vehicles of the searcher
(śrāvaka) and solitary buddha (pratyekabuddha) being distinguished
from the Great Vehicle (mahāyāna) of the bodhisattva. It is quite
rare, however, for Śāntideva to refer to searchers and solitary
buddhas, and even buddhas appear relatively infrequently, so in
practice the most important distinction in his texts is between
bodhisattvas and ordinary people.

Śāntideva's view of ordinary people is not flattering. The term
"ordinary person" frequently occurs in his work alongside the term
"fool" (bāla) — sometimes with the latter as a modifier ("foolish
ordinary person," bālaprithagjana, as at ŚS 61) and sometimes with the
two terms used synonymously and interchangeably, as at ŚS 194.
Ordinary people's foolishness traps them in suffering; the way for
them to escape from suffering is to enter the bodhisattva path and
become a bodhisattva.

To become a bodhisattva, one must possess the awakening mind
(bodhicitta). This mental transformation brings one out of the status
of ordinary person and points one toward awakening. Śāntideva makes an
important distinction between two kinds of the awakening mind: the
mind resolved on awakening (bodhipraṇidhicitta) and the mind
proceeding to awakening (bodhiprasthānacitta). The first, he tells us,
can be reached quickly; it exists when the thought "I must become a
buddha" arises as a vow (ŚS 8). He is not as explicit about the nature
of the second, but in describing the first he notes that "the
awakening mind is productive even without conduct" (ŚS 9), suggesting
that conduct (caryā, bodhicaryā) may be what makes the difference
between the mind resolved on awakening and the mind proceeding to
awakening. (Brassard 2000 is a book-length study of the awakening mind
and the BCA.)

It would appear, however, that possession of the mind resolved on
awakening is sufficient to make its possessor into a bodhisattva.
The BCA, recall, suggests that it is intended to be ritually recited.
Its reader develops the awakening mind while reciting the third
chapter sincerely — saying "Therefore I will produce the awakening
mind for the welfare of the world" (BCA III.23). Two verses later, the
reciter, apparently not having done anything else in the intervening
time, declares: "Today I have been born into the family of the
buddhas; now I am a child of the buddhas," which is to say a
bodhisattva(BCA III.25).

This is not, of course, the end of the story. Such a beginning
bodhisattva has just started on the path; he has a long task ahead of
him. Śāntideva does not spell out the different levels of attainment
that a bodhisattva may reach, but he suggests that he agrees with the
account of ten stages (bhūmi) of a bodhisattva's achievement, as set
out in the Daśabhūmika Sūtra and followed in Candrakīrti's
Madhyamakâvatāra (see Sprung 1979 for a partial translation of, and
commentary on, this latter text). The ŚS quotes the Daśabhūmika six
times. In this context, Śāntideva distinguishes between "one who has
entered a stage" (bhūmipraviṣṭa) and a beginning (ādikarmika)
bodhisattva (ŚS 11), suggesting that beginning bodhisattvas have not
even entered the first of the ten stages.

Notice, however, that the BCA's reciter does not become a bodhisattva,
even a beginning one, until taking the vow in the third chapter. So
Śāntideva's audience, it would seem, is not limited to bodhisattvas —
a point strengthened by the profuse praises of the awakening mind in
the opening chapters of both texts. The reader who starts the text
might not have generated the awakening mind, hence not have started
trying to become a bodhisattva, and needs to be convinced of the
importance of doing so.

The eighteenth chapter of the ŚS gives some account of the end of the
path. It gives a fantastical description of the buddhas — their great
beauty, virtue and power (ŚS 318-22). Shortly afterwards, it also
describes the qualities of bodhisattvas in similar terms and at
greater length. It is difficult to imagine how a reader who had just
become a bodhisattva, taking the vow, could see himself as described
by these qualities — spontaneously emitting perfumes and garlands and
pearls from his body, for example (ŚS 327) — so this is likely the
culmination of a long period of effort, in the last stages of which
one becomes a fully realized bodhisattva. The distinctions between
buddhas and fully realized bodhisattvas are not clearly spelled out;
one suspects that being one of these advanced bodhisattvas is almost
as good as being an actual buddha.
3. Excellence in Means

To interpret Śāntideva's ethics in the BCA and ŚS, it is important to
turn to the concept of excellence in means (upāyakauśalya). This
common Mahāyāna concept is best known as a way of explaining the
existence of other Buddhist traditions, as in texts like the Lotus
Sūtra: the Buddha preached mainstream Buddhism as a clever way to
reach people who were not ready to receive the superior teaching of
the Mahāyāna. (See Pye 1978 for a book-length discussion.)

The term has a number of different senses in Buddhist tradition (see
Harvey 2000, 134-40). Some Mahāyāna texts treat excellence in means as
the seventh of ten perfections or virtues (pāramitā); Śāntideva does
not do this, as he adheres to the conception that there are only six
perfections (on which see below). For him, there are two senses in
which the idea is important. The first is hermeneutical: different
teachings are intended for people at different levels of ability, with
the idea of ultimate truth at the very highest level (see BCA IX.2-8).
For this reason the BCA is usually understood as a progressive text,
leading its audience through progressively deeper levels of practice
and understanding (e.g. see Crosby and Skilton 1995, 83-6). Śāntideva
does not specifically use the term "excellence in means" to refer to
this idea, although it is a common name for the idea in other Mahāyāna
texts (Harvey 2000, 134). The second sense of the term is ethical; the
idea most frequently comes up when he quotes the Upāyakauśalya Sūtra,
a text which claims that bodhisattvas may break standard precepts or
rules out of compassion. (The sūtra exists in Chinese and has been
translated into English twice: Chang 1991, 427-68, and Tatz 1994.)

This second sense of excellence in means takes on considerable
importance in contemporary discussions of Śāntideva's ethics (e.g.
Clayton 2006, 102-9) because it is under this rubric that Śāntideva
comes closest to addressing the "hard cases" so beloved of
contemporary moral philosophy, such as situations when one seems
called on to kill in order to prevent a greater evil. While discussing
excellence in means, he explains that behaviors normally forbidden,
including sexual activity, can be permitted out of compassion. So too,
it is to explain the importance of excellence in means that Śāntideva
notes that one is permitted to kill someone about to commit a grave
wrong. The idea is important to this article for similar reasons, in
that it seems to be a key principle involved in what we might call
Śāntideva's casuistry — his examination of particular cases where
different pieces of advice seem to collide.

For Śāntideva, a key component of excellence in means is that it is an
excellence — a skill and a virtue which allows one to respond
appropriately to difficult situations, if not a virtue on the official
list of six perfections. There is no one formula or principle for
action that Śāntideva sets out in advance (along the lines of "act to
bring about the greatest happiness for the greatest number" or "act
only according to that maxim you can also will to be a universal
law"). As we will shortly see, there are definite elements of
consequentialist reasoning in Śāntideva, but more often the
bodhisattva is called on to exercise judgment, once his character is
already well developed: When Śāntideva says that "even the forbidden
is permitted," it is specifically "for a compassionate one who has
sight of the purpose" (BCA V.84); that is, it depends on the agent's
ability to exercise discretion in the name of compassion.

This level of discretion is evinced in the numerous places in
Śāntideva's work where difficult cases are considered. When he
approves of the killing of someone about to commit a grave wrong, he
says only that there is "permission" (anujñāna), not that it must be
done. Similarly, in the case of alcoholics, alcohol may be given;
Śāntideva uses the gerundive form deya (ŚS 271), and the gerundive in
-ya does not have the imperative force of the gerundive in -tavya.

Śāntideva explicitly refers to consequences in the case of giving a
weapon: one may do so after the "consideration of good or bad
consequences" (ŚS 271). This is still a consideration or reflection
rather than a maximizing or weighing; "consideration," vicāra, is
literally "moving around (in the mind)." A weighing of some sort comes
across in introducing the possibility that one might have sex out of
compassion: "even then, if one should see a greater benefit (artha) to
beings, one may discard the training" (ŚS 167). Some sort of
consequentialist maximizing appears to be at work here. Clayton (2006,
107) suggests that such concern for consequences means that these
"examples of upāya become problematic from the perspective of a virtue
ethic." However, for Śāntideva, any true "benefit" to other beings
will ultimately be an increase in their virtue. Goodman (2008) argues
strongly for a consequentialist interpretation of Śāntideva's ethics,
but on the understanding that it is a "perfectionist
consequentialism," in which the consequences to be maximized consist
of virtue in oneself and others.
4. Good and Bad Karma

The terms "good karma" and "bad karma," respectively, translate the
Sanskrit terms puṇya and pāpa. These terms appear very frequently in
Śāntideva's work — often as justifications for acting and feeling in a
certain way. They refer to a kind of ethical causality: the process by
which ethically good and bad actions (respectively) have positive and
negative results. These results most characteristically, but not
exclusively, include better and worse rebirths. The Sanskrit terms
parallel the English usage of "good and bad karma," thought of as the
way in which one's good or bad actions come back to affect one
positively or negatively in the future. This usage corresponds exactly
to the meaning of the Buddhist terms puṇya and pāpa, even though those
terms do not themselves involve the Sanskrit word karma or karman
(which simply means "action"). There is, at any rate, no disputing the
close connection between Sanskrit karma, on the one hand, and puṇya
and pāpa on the other; the latter are typically referred to in
Sanskrit as karmaphala, the fruits of action.

The concepts of good and bad karma are central to Śāntideva's thought.
The ŚS is typically thought to be structured around the idea,
presented inŚSK 4, that one should "protect, purify and enhance" one's
person, one's possessions and one's good karma, though one should also
be prepared to give all of these things away (Bendall 1970, xi). ŚS
356 connects each of these verbs to good and bad karma: to "protect"
something is to prevent new karmically bad mental states (dharmas)
related to it; to "purify" it is to reduce the existing karmically bad
states related to it; and to "enhance" it is to increase the
karmically good states related to it. (Mahoney 2002, 32-9 identifies
the significance of these verbs with respect to the traditional
Buddhist samyakprahānas or "right strivings".) In a certain sense, one
might see the ŚS as being all about good and bad karma — a sense
strengthened by the long discussions of bad karma in ŚS III, IV and
VIII, and of the good karma deriving from worship in ŚS XVII. In the
BCA, too, the final chapter — the highest and most important, if one
adheres strictly to a progressive understanding of the text — deals
with the redirection (pariṇāmanā) of good karma. Dayal (1970, 189-90)
goes so far as to say that Śāntideva substituted karmic redirection
for metaphysical insight as the ultimate goal of the bodhisattva path.
Clayton (2006, 83) and Lele (2007, 96-7) argue that Dayal's claim is
overstated, but neither dispute that good and bad karma are vitally
important to Śāntideva's work. Clayton (2006, 67) identifies three
terms closely related to good karma (kuśala, śīla and puṇya) as the
most central ethical concepts in the ŚS, and even as "probably the
most important ethical concepts in Indian Buddhism" more generally.

The redirection of good karma (often called "transference of merit")
is a central part of Śāntideva's understanding of karma's workings. He
urges his readers to redirect any good karma that they acquire, so
that it does not merely result in a worldly form of well-being, such
as a more prosperous rebirth for oneself. This redirection can
sometimes be to ensure that the good karma brings one closer to
awakening instead of worldly rebirths (bodhipariṇāmanā, ŚS 158); see
Kajiyama 1989 for a discussion of this first form, which is often
neglected in studies of karmic redirection. More frequently, though,
it means the giving up of one's good karma to others (puṇyotsarga).
This is a common idea in Buddhist texts. Buddhist stories often
emphasize the supernatural nature of karmic redirection. Especially,
they commonly claim or imply that ghosts (pretas or petas) are
incapable of receiving physical gifts. If one wishes to give them
something, it must be one's good karma(Kajiyama 1989, 7-8).

In contemporary philosophical terms, Śāntideva's idea of karma
suggests, though not conclusively, an internal connection between
virtue or ethical excellence and well-being. That is, he often uses
these terms in a way that suggests that virtue is well-being in many
significant senses. He does this by using puṇya in ways that make it
equivalent both to virtue or excellence and to well-being or
flourishing. Śāntideva uses the term for good karma (puṇya)
interchangeably with the terms for good conduct (śīla) and excellence
(kuśala) (see Lele 2007, 79-82)(Clayton 2006, 73). Even more
frequently, however, he equates it with well-being or welfare, śubha,
as Clayton (2006, 48-51) notes. This equivalence suggests a sense in
which, on Śāntideva's understanding, good karma not only produces
well-being, but is well-being — constitutive of a good life, at least
at the level of conventional truth. There does remain some ambiguity,
however, in the sense that Śāntideva's work also suggests that
well-being is the product of the result or "ripening" (vipāka) of good
karma.

This ambiguity may be compared to that in Greek conceptions of
eudaimonia, which also means human welfare or flourishing, but
includes a strong element of excellence (aretē) as well. To the extent
that good karma is equated with excellence, Śāntideva's thought
resembles that of the Stoics, who thought that excellence alone
constituted well-being. To the extent that good karma is equated with
the results of excellent action, however, it looks more like
Aristotle's view, where "external goods," outside the control of the
agent's excellence or lack thereof, are intrinsic components of
well-being. (See Greek Philosophy and Stoicism.) However, Śāntideva
does not ever suggest, as Aristotle does, that everyone aims at
well-being but not everyone knows what it is (NE 1095a).

However we interpret the relation between action and result, it would
seem that for Śāntideva good karma, as a complex of virtue and
well-being, effectively constitutes its own intrinsic reason for
action, as eudaimonia does. That a given action or mental state is
karmically good, and that it is good per se, seem to be one and the
same; Śāntideva does not make claims of the form "one should refrain
from an action or mental state in spite of the good karma it
generates," or "one should have an action or mental state even though
it is karmically bad." Amod Lele argues that "there are a number of
cases where it would seem like Śāntideva is saying it is not good to
have more good karma, but in nearly all such cases, he actually ends
up saying that the apparent loss of good karma turns out to bring more
good karma" (Lele 2007, 85-7, emphasis in original).
5. The Perfections

Śāntideva typically describes the bodhisattva in terms of his six
"perfections" (pāramitās); e.g., ŚS 97, 187. The perfections are
beneficial and valuable traits of character, similar to Aristotelian
virtues or excellences. This article renders Śāntideva's term pāramitā
as the literal "perfection" rather than as "virtue" because Śāntideva
does discuss other virtues — beneficial traits of character — which
are not themselves considered pāramitās, such as nonattachment and
esteem.

The six perfections are nearly always arranged in ascending order:
giving or generosity (dāna), good conduct (śīla), patient endurance
(kṣānti), heroic strength (vīrya), meditation (dhyāna) and
metaphysical insight (prajñā). An observer might be tempted to apply
Aristotle's classification of the virtues here and identify the
first four as "moral" virtues, the sixth (and possibly the fifth) as
"intellectual." However, one should bear in mind the significance of
Aristotle's distinction: intellectual virtues are primarily attained
through teaching, moral virtues through habituation (NE 1103a).
Śāntideva does not distinguish the perfections in this regard; as we
will see in the section on metaphysical insight below, in many ways it
too is acquired through habituation.

The perfections are sufficiently important to Śāntideva's ethical
thought that both of his texts are to some extent structured around
them. The final four perfections are explicitly identified, in turn,
as the topics of the BCA's chapters VI through IX. Patient endurance
and heroic strength are also identified as the topics of ŚS chapters
IX and X. While the first two perfections — giving or generosity
(dāna) and good conduct (śīla) — do not receive their own chapter
headings, they do have an important place in Śāntideva's ethical
worldview, as we will see.
a. Giving

Śāntideva uses the term dāna to refer both to the act of giving, and
to the perfection which might more idiomatically be rendered into
English as generosity (dānapāramitā). He does not usually distinguish
between the two. This article follows his usage and uses "giving" and
"generosity" as synonyms.

Giving has relatively little role in the BCA except for its role in
the redirection of good karma, mentioned above. In the ŚS, however, it
takes pride of place. The first chapter of the ŚS closes by claiming
that "giving alone is the bodhisattva's awakening" (ŚS 34). Richard
Mahoney (2002), undertaking a detailed study of the ŚS's structure,
has demonstrated that the entire text is effectively organized around
the idea of protecting, purifying and enhancing one's person,
possessions and good karma — culminating in giving each of these three
things away.

Why is giving so important to Śāntideva? For him, giving serves at
least three important and distinct purposes: first, the development of
nonattachment; second, the "upward" expression of esteem (śraddhā);
and third, "downward" compassionate benefit to others. Each of these
three, for him, is an essential component of the bodhisattva path, and
giving allows one to realize each component, though in different ways.
i. Giving as Giving Up

The first reason Śāntideva offers for giving is that one should not be
attached to things in the first place; one should be ready to give
them away. Śāntideva sometimes uses terms, utsarga and tyāga, which
have both the sense of "giving" and of "renunciation." By giving
something to another person, one both demonstrates one's own lack of
attachment to it and minimizes the risk that it will cause future
attachment. As a result, one generates a great deal of good karma.
Here giving is primarily "giving up"; "giving to" is a secondary
function. Śāntideva expresses this rationale for giving most
forcefully in a long passage excerpted here:

What is given must no longer be guarded; what is at home must be
guarded. What is given is [the cause] for the reduction of craving
(triṣṇā); what is at home is the increase of craving. What is given is
nonattachment (aparigraha); what is at home is with attachment
(saparigraha). What is given is safe; what is at home is dangerous.
What is given is [the cause] for supporting the path of awakening;
what is at home is [the cause] for supporting Māra [the demonic
tempter]. What is given is imperishable; what is at home is
perishable. From what is given [comes] happiness; having obtained what
is at home, [there is] suffering. (ŚS 19)

This passage indicates a common theme in Śāntideva's work, one more
radical than some other Buddhist takes on attachment and possession.
It is not merely that a bodhisattva should avoid attachment to
possessions, but that the possessions are themselves potentially
harmful, because having them creates a danger of increasing one's
attachment to them. Thus Śāntideva claims elsewhere that a bodhisattva
"should have fear of material gain (lābha) and of honour," (ŚSK 16)
and that "great gain is among the obstacles to the Mahāyāna" (ŚS 145).
ii. Upward Gifts: Expressing Esteem

The second reason for giving is to express one's esteem or trust
(śraddhā) in beings who have achieved a higher level on the
bodhisattva path. The term śraddhā has a number of different and
related senses, usually blending together: esteem, trust, confidence,
devotion, faith. Maria Hibbets's (2000) rendering "esteem" may come
closest overall to the sense in which Śāntideva uses the term, though
it loses the important connotation of trust. Śraddhā, Śāntideva says,
is the prasāda (peaceful pleasure) of an unsoiled mind, rooted in
respect (gaurava, literally "weightiness," like the Latin gravitas),
without arrogance (ŚS 5). Those without esteem oppose or ridicule
buddhas (ŚS 174). One with esteem will listen whenever the Buddha's
word is spoken (ŚS 15); esteem is that by which one approaches the
noble ones (Buddhas) and does not do what should not be done (ŚS 316).

When a householder makes a gift to a monk, especially a gift of food,
it is called a śraddhādeya, a gift by esteem (ŚS 137-8). Similarly,
when the aspiring bodhisattva makes offerings to advanced bodhisattvas
and buddhas as part of the seven-part Anuttarapūjā ritual worship in
BCA II.10-19, the act expresses esteem. Śāntideva does not use the
word śraddhā in this passage, but the feelings it evokes match his
descriptions of esteem elsewhere: a pleasurable trust in more advanced
beings, recognizing their status as more advanced, that leads to
better actions. Just before describing the fabulous offerings he
gives, Śāntideva's narrator describes the esteem he places in the
buddhas and bodhisattvas and the good action that will result from
doing so:

by becoming your possession, I am in a state of fearlessness; I make
the well-being of all beings. I overcome previous bad karma and will
make no further bad karma. (BCA II.9)

This esteem has deeply important benefits. It is a pleasure taken in
good actions; it is "a maker of gladness about renunciation, a maker
of excitement about the Jinas' (Buddhas') dharma" (ŚS 3). This
combination of trust and pleasure leads one on to good action; as
Śāntideva says, those who always have esteem toward a respectable
Buddha will abandon neither good conduct nor training (ŚS 3). So the
practice of esteem helps increase one's good karma (ŚS 317).
Moreover, to encourage the growth of esteem in a giver, when an
aspiring bodhisattva receives a gift, he encourages the giver and
makes him feel excited about giving it (ŚS 150).
iii. Downward Gifts: Attracting Others

When one gives for either of the above reasons (expressing
nonattachment or expressing esteem), one effectively does so for one's
own spiritual benefit. But Śāntideva also says that one gives to all
beings (sarvasatvebhyas, ŚSK 4), for their enjoyment (ŚSK 5), adding
that one also preserves the gift for the sake of their enjoyment
(satvôpabhogārtham, ŚSK 6). Here he is advocating a different kind of
giving, motivated by compassion and aimed at benefitting the
recipient. The distinction between the second two types of giving
corresponds to Maria Heim's (Heim 2004, 74-5) distinction between
"upward" and "downward" giving, out of esteem and out of compassion.

The reasons Śāntideva offers for downward giving are not as
straightforward as they may first appear. For Śāntideva, the recipient
of a gift benefits less from possessing the gift object, and more from
receiving it in a gift encounter. When a bodhisattva gives a gift, he
attracts the recipient to the bodhisattva path, so that the recipient
is more likely to become a virtuous bodhisattva. The gift object
itself provides little benefit, and could even be harmful (2007,
136-75).

As well as giving possessions and more conventional goods, one also
gives good karma to others through its redirection (parināmanā), as
noted above. Since Śāntideva tends to see good karma as intrinsically
good, in this case the recipient is more likely to benefit from the
gift itself. Even so, good karma involves a potential danger, since if
it is not redirected it can lead merely to dangerous wealth rather
than to awakening.
b. Good Conduct

Of all the perfections, Śāntideva tells us the least about the second
one, śīla. This Sanskrit and Pali term has a general sense of "good
conduct" or "good habits," but its particular meaning is less clear.
Unlike the final four perfections, it is not identified specifically
as the single topic of a chapter in the BCA, and the chapters
identified with it in the ŚS (II and V) make little reference to it.
Unlike giving, it is not discussed at systematic length in either
text. Śāntideva sometimes uses the term in a broad sense that would
seem to encompass all of the perfections, to the point of using it
interchangeably with puṇya, good karma, or śubha, well-being (Clayton
2006, 73). ŚS chapter V, entitled Śīlapāramitāyām Anarthavarjanam —
abandoning of the worthless with respect to the perfection of good
conduct — seems like a miscellany of topics, describing a wide variety
of actions that Śāntideva endorses. A reader may then be tempted to
take up the common usage in which this good conduct refers to
"morality," "virtue" or "ethics" in a general sense (see Clayton 2006,
72-3) — perhaps even a sense that includes the other perfections.

Yet Śāntideva does give some further specification of a way in which
he understands "good conduct," conceptually distinct from the other
perfections, even though he does not stick consistently to this usage.
His one reference to the perfection of good conduct in the BCA
proclaims: "when the mind of cessation (viraticitta) is obtained, the
perfection of good conduct is understood [to exist]" (BCAP 53). The ŚS
specifies the goal of good conduct in a similar vein, but is more
specific about what constitutes good conduct: "whichever practices are
causes of meditative concentration (samādhi), those are included in
good conduct" (ŚS 121). It seems that good conduct, when understood as
a single perfection, consists primarily of practices that aid one to
concentrate one's mind and still its uncontrolled activity.

This suggestion is borne out by the content of the fifth BCA chapter,
which, following up the claim about the mind of cessation, details
exactly these sorts of practices. (Since this chapter comes
immediately before the chapter on patient endurance — the third
perfection — it would be a logical place for Śāntideva to discuss good
conduct, the second perfection.) The chapter begins by warning the
reader of the dangers of an unrestrained mind, comparing it to a mad,
rutting elephant, and then specifies a number of practices that
Śāntideva claims will help the mind remain under control. We may
imagine, then, that this chapter gives us some idea of what Śāntideva
means by the perfection of good conduct.

The practices bear some resemblance to Buddhist monastic rules
(vinaya), although they could all be followed by lay householders and
the text does not restrict them to monks. Śāntideva urges his readers
to walk with a downcast gaze, as if continually meditating, but notes
that they may look outward to rest their eyes or to greet someone. One
should look ahead (or behind) before moving there, he says, and think
about one's actions before undertaking them; one should continually
observe the positioning of one's body. Each of these actions,
Śāntideva specifies, allows one to restrain the mind (BCA V.35-40).
Similarly, one should avoid idle chatter, or purposeless nervous tics
(BCA V.45-6). In general, as Susanne Mrozik notes, "Close careful
attention to one's bodily movements and gestures generates mindfulness
and awareness. Disciplining the body is thus a means of disciplining
one's thoughts and feelings" (Mrozik 1998, 63).

Śāntideva notes that the relationship between good conduct and
meditative concentration is two-way: "One aiming at meditative
concentration should have good conduct, for mindfulness and
introspection; so too, one aiming at good conduct should make effort
at meditative concentration." He claims that the "complete perfection
of mental action" will comes from the two "mutually enhancing causes"
that are good conduct and meditative concentration (ŚS 121).

The second half of the fifth BCA chapter involves details about bodily
comportment which aim at pleasing others, rather than at focusing the
mind; similar instructions are found in the sixth chapter of the ŚS.
It is possible, though not clear, that Śāntideva also intends these to
be included under good conduct. Śāntideva here enjoins etiquette of
various kinds (do not spit in public, do not make noises while eating)
and a pleasant tone of speaking (BCA V.71-96, ŚS 124-7). Mrozik (2007,
75-6) notes that such actions are intended to generate prasāda, a kind
of peaceful pleasure, in those who observe the bodhisattva. Lele
(2007, 151-9) suggests further that the goal of generating this
prasāda is to attract them to the bodhisattva path, making them more
likely to enter that path and increase their well-being.
c. Patient Endurance

Śāntideva divides patient endurance (kṣānti) into three major
varieties: first, enduring suffering (duṣkhâdhivāsanakṣānti); second,
dharmic patience, the patient endurance that comes from reflecting on
the Buddha's teaching, the dharma (dharmanidhyānakṣānti); and third,
patience toward others' wrongdoing (parâpakāramarṣanakṣānti, ŚS 179).
The first, which Śāntideva opposes to frustration (daurmanasya), is
closer to the English word "endurance"; the third, which Śāntideva
opposes to anger (dveṣa), is closer to the English word "patience."
For this reason it is helpful to use a two-word term like "patient
endurance" to encapsulate the idea of kṣānti as a whole. Śāntideva
does not link these phenomena under the rubric of patient endurance
merely for the sake of convenience or etymology; rather, patient
endurance has common elements that pervade them all. In all three
cases, one remains calm and even happy in the face of various
undesired events — pains, frustrations, wrongs — that one might face.

Dharmic patience, the second variety — as Śāntideva describes it in
BCA VI.22-32 — is juxtaposed against anger, and involves being patient
with others' bad actions. For this reason, it seems largely like a
subtype of the third type, patience toward wrongdoing, which involves
reflecting on the fact that their actions all have causes. Śāntideva
likely treats the two as distinct in order to emphasize the particular
importance of metaphysical reasons for patient endurance. In terms of
the actions and mental dispositions that they entail, they do not
appear to be different from each other. So we may here subsume this
second variety under the third, except as otherwise specified.

There are at least two ways in which enduring suffering and patience
toward wrongdoing are closely related in Śāntideva's work. First,
there is a logical or analytical relationship. When one is wronged by
others, it is likely to be an undesired event, and therefore
experienced as suffering. So, effectively, the events that evoke
patience toward wrongdoing are a subset of those that evoke the
endurance of suffering. The appropriate reactions are intertwined as
well. We see this when Śāntideva discusses being the victim of theft.
While he addresses theft in the context of anger, and more generally
of patience toward wrongdoing, the reason he gives to remain patient
is that possessions are dangerous to have anyway (BCA VI.100) — a
central part of Śāntideva's justifications for nonattachment, which
itself is very closely tied to enduring suffering.

Second, there is a causal relationship. Enduring suffering, as
Śāntideva discusses it, requires that one fight frustration; patience
toward wrongdoing requires that one fight anger. And both of
Śāntideva's texts (ŚS 179 and BCA VI.7-8) note that anger feeds on
frustration; so enduring suffering makes it easier to have patience
toward wrongdoing.
i. Happiness from Enduring Suffering

Śāntideva's case for enduring suffering is relatively straightforward:
one will feel less suffering and be happier. Early in his discussion
of frustration (daurmanasya), Śāntideva makes the pragmatic point that
it accomplishes little. So it is not only an unpleasant mental state,
but an unnecessary one: "If indeed there is a remedy, then what's the
point of frustration? And if there is no remedy, then what's the point
of frustration?" (BCA VI.10).

Enduring suffering can lead to happiness, for Śāntideva, in a
particularly extreme meditative state (samādhi). He refers to this
state as the sarvadharmasukhakrānta, "making happiness toward all
phenomena." The passage describing this meditative state is one of the
most provocative in the entire ŚS. Śāntideva says that "for a
bodhisattva who has obtained this meditative state, with respect to
all sense objects, pain is felt as happiness indeed, not as suffering
or as indifference" (ŚS 181). He proceeds to describe a panoply of
graphic tortures in a startlingly upbeat manner. For example:

[The bodhisattva who has attained this meditative state], while being
fried in oil, or while pounded like pounded sugarcane, or while
crushed like a reed, or while being burned in the way that oil or ghee
or yogurt are burned — has a happy thought arisen. (ŚS 181)

While a reader might cringe at the literal masochism in this passage,
it is also not hard to see the power of its appeal: It strongly
suggests that a bodhisattva can be happy anywhere, any time, in any
condition. And there is a particular practice that the bodhisattva
pursues to reach this state. Whenever he is subjected to such an
unpleasant fate, he makes a mental determination or vow (pranidhāna)
that everyone, from those who honor him to those who torture him,
should reach the great awakening (ŚS 182). In the BCA he suggests
starting with small pains to learn to endure bigger ones: "because of
the practice of mild distress, even great distress is tolerable" (BCA
VI.14). Prajñākaramati draws a direct connection between the two,
quoting the ŚS passage in his commentary on the BCA verse.
ii. The Case Against Anger

Śāntideva's arguments for patience toward wrongdoing consist of
arguments against anger, against which this patience is juxtaposed. He
lays out these arguments primarily in the sixth chapter of the BCA;
for a detailed commentary on this chapter, see Thurman 2004. His
arguments here derive from premises both naturalistic and
supernaturalistic: "One who destroys anger is happy in this world and
the next" (BCA VI.6).

Śāntideva's naturalistic arguments against anger rest first on
psychological grounds: "The mind does not get peace, nor enjoy
pleasure and happiness, nor find sleep or satisfaction, when the dart
of anger rests in the heart" (BCA VI.3). This set of psychological
claims has a strong intuitive plausibility, in our context as well as
his; it is probably not difficult for anyone to remember times that
anger has negatively affected her peace of mind or pleasure or sleep.

Beyond this, Śāntideva seeks to minimize the significance of others'
wrongdoing (apakāra). He is especially concerned to neutralize insults
and the destruction of praise. He asks: "The gang of contempt, harsh
speech and infamy does not bind my body. Why, O mind, do you get
enraged by it?" (BCA VI.53)

Śāntideva also offers severe warnings concerning the karmic
consequences of anger. There is no bad karma equal to anger, he says,
so patient endurance is the most effective means to reduce bad karma
(BCA VI.2). He warns that anger leads to suffering in the hell realms
far greater than the suffering that originally provoked the anger:

If suffering merely here and now cannot be endured, why is anger, the
cause of distress in hell, not restrained? In the same way, for the
sake of anger I have been placed in hells thousands of times; I have
done this neither for my own sake nor for anyone else's. (BCA VI.73-4)

There is only one kind of anger that Śāntideva seems to approve of,
effectively an exception that proves the rule. He approves of anger
when it is directed at anger itself: "Let anger toward anger be my
choice" (BCA VI.41). More generally, he suggests elsewhere that anger
at "my enemies, craving, anger and so on" (BCA IV.28) might be
valuable: "Lodged in my own mind, these well-stood ones still harm me.
In this very case I do not get angry. Damn, what unsuitable patience
(sahiṣṇutā)!" (BCA IV.29).

Śāntideva also makes the case for dharmic patience
(dharmanidhyānakṣānti) in BCA VI.22-32; this, as mentioned earlier, is
patience toward wrongdoing which is informed by metaphysical insight.
Śāntideva's point here is that the emotion of anger comes out of an
incorrect belief about the world — namely that other agents can
appropriately be blamed for their actions. "I have no anger at my bile
and so on, though they make great suffering. Why is there anger at
sentient beings? They too are angry due to a cause" (BCA VI.22).
Anger, whether my own or another's, has its causes. It is not chosen;
it is merely another product of the universe's dependent arising (BCA
VI.23-26). Moreover, there is no self which is capable of being an
agent of anger (BCA VI.27-30). And "therefore, whether one has seen an
enemy or a friend doing something wrong, having considered that the
act has causes, one should become happy" (BCA VI.33). Mark Siderits
(2005) refers to this argument for dharmic patience as
"paleo-compatibilist," and suggests that it can help resolve
contemporary debates on free will and determinism.

These arguments against anger are phrased in terms that could convince
someone not already on the path. Other arguments are directed
specifically at bodhisattvas. As has been mentioned before, it is
crucial for the bodhisattva to win beings over; and anger interferes
with this activity, where desire (rāga) might be able on some
occasions to help with it. This is why anger, in Śāntideva's eyes, is
far worse than desire, though desire and anger are both afflictions
(kleṣas) that cloud the mind and lead one on to suffering (ŚS 164).

He claims further that "bodhisattvas who are not excellent in means
(upāyakuśala) fear downfalls connected with desire (rāga);
bodhisattvas who are excellent in means fear downfalls connected with
anger, not downfalls connected with desire" (ŚS 164-5). Excellence in
means (upāyakauśalya), the ability to teach others in the appropriate
way to bring them onto the path, is deeply hindered by anger. Unlike
desire, anger has no saving graces. Anger both creates suffering for
oneself and interferes with one's ability to benefit others; this is
why nothing is as karmically bad as anger, or as karmically good as
patient endurance.
d. Heroic Strength

Śāntideva devotes relatively little attention to the fourth
perfection, heroic strength (vīrya). Each of his texts has a short
chapter (BCA VII and ŚS X) devoted to it; parallel discussions occur
in the fourth chapter of the BCA. He defines heroic strength as
"excellent effort" (kuśalotsaha, BCA VII.2), effort that is both
skillful and virtuous — a tireless striving on the bodhisattva path.
In BCA VII, he contrasts heroic strength with laziness (ālasya, BCA
VII.3). The primary point of BCA VII is to insist on the urgency of
the bodhisattva's task. It is rare to be born as a human, and a short
human life leaves one with little time for adequate spiritual
development, so it is crucial to devote oneself wholeheartedly to the
task.

ŚS X, the shortest chapter in the text — a mere four pages — explains
the importance of listening to sacred texts (śruta). The topic is
surprising, since it seems tangentially related, at best, to the more
straightforward heroic strength addressed in BCA VII. The connection
seems to be that, to listen to sacred texts properly, one must do so
tirelessly. If one does not do so, Śāntideva claims, even a sacred
text can lead to "destruction" (vināśa), probably because one reads
and applies the text too selectively (ŚS 189).
e. Meditation

The fifth perfection, discussed in BCA VIII and ŚS XI-XIII, is
meditation (dhyāna). Meditation for Śāntideva is very much an
intellectual and even philosophical exercise, not merely a stilling of
the mind; some of Śāntideva's most famous arguments appear in a
context of discussions of meditation. Śāntideva emphasizes that a
calming and stilling of the mind is essential to meditation, and
enjoins his reader to flee society and find a solitary spot in the
wilderness in order to achieve the proper degree of undistracted calm
(BCA VIII.1-40, ŚS 193-201). But becoming calm and solitary, in both
texts, is only the first step to grasping arguments and transformative
techniques with an explicit cognitive content.

In the BCA, the first meditation that Śāntideva describes sharpens his
emphasis on solitude: one considers the foulness of the human body.
Specifically, his male audience is urged to reflect on the foulness of
a potential female lover. He notes that the beloved will invariably
become a corpse, highlights the repulsiveness of corpses, and asks the
reader rhetorically why the living beloved seems any less repulsive
(VIII.41-7). He then calls attention to the repulsiveness of the
body's waste products, natural smells, and fluids (VIII.48-71). Next
he notes the great effort one must take in finding and keeping a
lover, and the ultimate vanity of such efforts (VIII.72-83).

This meditation takes on a strongly misogynist tone, describing as it
does the repulsiveness of female bodies. A contemporary reader should
keep in mind its intent as a critique of lust, the passion which so
easily distracts the mind from the bodhisattva's path. While the
argument is phrased in terms of the foulness of a woman's body, its
logic would apply equally well to the foulness of a man's body, if
imagined by a heterosexual female or homosexual male meditator.
(Śāntideva never inverts the argument this way himself. As Wilson 1996
notes, historically Buddhists have never turned the arguments about
female foulness around to have it apply to men, even when speaking to
a female audience. The point is noted here to stress the relevance of
these meditations for a contemporary philosophical audience, rightly
skeptical of misogynistic claims.) The ideal to achieve in this
lifetime, for Śāntideva, is that of a male or female monk who
forswears lust and sexuality, and he calls attention to the body's
repulsive aspects in order to convince his readers of this ideal's
value.
i. Equalization of Self and Other

The two meditations which follow in BCA VIII, on the relationship
between oneself and another, are Śāntideva's most famous. The first of
these is known as the equalization of self and other (parātmasamatā).
In this meditation Śāntideva argues for an ethical conclusion from a
metaphysical premise: because the self is empty and unreal, it makes
little sense to protect only oneself from suffering and not others.

The arguments are framed against a hypothetical objector (pūrvapakṣin)
who wishes to prevent only his own suffering, but not that of others.
Suffering here has a strong normative force; that suffering is bad and
worthy of prevention is taken as self-evident, and Śāntideva assumes
that his readers will share that assumption. When an imagined objector
asks why suffering should be prevented at all, he responds, "No one
disputes that!" (BCA VIII.103) If we substitute "the absence of
suffering" for "pleasure," Śāntideva's claim here seems to work like
Alasdair MacIntyre's interpretation of Mill's claim that we know
pleasure is desirable because men desire it:

He treats the thesis that all men desire pleasure as a factual
assertion which guarantees the success of an ad hominem apeal to
anyone who denies his conclusion. If anyone denies that pleasure is
desirable, then we can ask him, But don't you desire it? and we know
in advance that he must answer yes, and consequently must admit that
pleasure is desirable. (MacIntyre 1966, 239)

To deny that suffering should be prevented at all, in other words, is
to argue in bad faith: anyone who makes such a claim does not really
believe it. It is not hard to see the intuitive force of Śāntideva's
claim about suffering; while one might come up with exceptions, in
general most human beings in most contexts have viewed suffering as
something bad and undesirable.

The selfish objector is right, then, to believe that suffering should
be prevented. Where he goes awry is in focusing only on his own
suffering; this focus turns out to be absurd. There is no self that
endures from moment to moment, so one's own future self is as
different from one's present self as other beings are: "If [someone
else] is not protected because his suffering cannot hurt me — the
sufferings of a future body are not mine. Why is that hurt protected
against?" (BCA VIII.97) Śāntideva's arguments here have been compared
to those of Derek Parfit (1984), who also attacks the metaphysical
premise of selfhood as a premise for an altruistic ethics.

Paul Williams (1998a, 30) notes that most commentators, including
Prajñākaramati, have read this verse so that the "future body"
(āgāmikāya) means only the bodies one will inhabit in future rebirths,
not the future state of one's body in the present life. A literal
reading of this verse and the next would suggest that they are right;
the next verse adds that "one is dead, a very different other one is
born" (BCA VIII.98). So Williams thinks that "from a textual point of
view" this verse must be correct. However, later Tibetan commentators,
especially rGyal tshab rje, interpret the verse so that it could refer
to any present suffering one might try to prevent (Williams 1998a,
32-6). The "death" and "birth" would likely then refer to the body's
non-enduring nature — dying as the present moment passes away and
being born anew in the following moment — rather than to literal death
and rebirth. Logically this seems a more satisfying reading. The
argument seems entirely superfluous if it refers only to future
births; based on everything else that Śāntideva says, one concerned
with better future births should, above all, prevent the suffering of
others.

Śāntideva makes an additional argument beyond the point about future
selves. Even the present self should be broken up into its parts. When
the opponent objects that one who suffers should only prevent the
suffering that belongs to him, Śāntideva retorts: "The foot's
suffering is not the hand's. Why does [the hand] protect [the foot]?"
(BCA VIII.99)

Williams (1998b) has attempted to refute Śāntideva's arguments against
egoism, claiming that the concept of suffering or pain makes little
sense without a subject or self to feel the suffering. Williams's
refutation has been controversial, provoking Barbra Clayton (Clayton
2001), John Pettit (1999) and Mark Siderits (Siderits 2000) all to
defend Śāntideva's claims.

Why do these arguments appear in the chapter on meditation, when the
primary focus of that chapter seems to concern the kind of
metaphysical insight that is the topic of the following chapter? Two
reasons suggest themselves. First, the arguments prepare the audience
for the more imaginatively focused practice of the exchange and self
and other. Second, as Crosby and Skilton suggest(1995, 84-5), these
meditations derive from Cittamātra (Yogācāra) metaphysical views on
the ultimate equivalence of self and other. Śāntideva considers
these Cittamātra views to be only a step on the road to the highest
Madhyamaka view (see BCA IX). These arguments, then, are really true
only at the level of conventional truth, not at the level of wordless
ultimate reality, the object of real metaphysical insight.
ii. Exchange of Self and Other

The last meditation in the chapter is called the exchange of self and
other (parātmaparivartana). In it, Śāntideva attempts to put the
equalization of self and other into practice, even taking it a step
further to dissolve all the meditator's vestiges of egoism. Here he
urges his readers to create "a sense of self in inferiors and others,
and a sense of other in oneself," (VIII.140) to literally form a
concept of "I" (ahamkāra) with respect to others, just as one would do
with respect to the "drops of semen and blood" (VIII.158) which
created the entity that one would normally consider a self. The
intervening verses manifest this idea in practice. Here Śāntideva
switches pronouns and grammatical persons so that the third person
refers to the meditator and the first person to "others." The new "I"
that is the others can then feel envy and contempt toward the "he"
that was oneself.

One now imagines how "he" — that is, oneself — seems happy, wealthy
and praised, while "I" — others — "am" miserable, poor and despised;
"I" should envy "him" (BCA VIII.141-2). Having imagined oneself from
the viewpoint of an envious inferior, one then imagines the inverse
viewpoint of a contemptuous superior:

We joyous ones see him finally mistreated, and the mocking laughter of
all the people here and there. That wretch even had a rivalry with me!
. . . Even if he were to have wealth, we should take it forcibly,
having given him a mere pittance, if he does any work for us. And he
should be caused to fall from happiness. (BCA VIII.150-4)

This sadomasochistic advice and the play of pronouns work together to
end feelings of egoism or attachment to self. Meditating in this way,
one comes to live entirely for others.
iii. Meditations Against the Three Poisons

The above meditations from the BCA, while Śāntideva's most famous, are
not the only meditations that he prescribes. In the ŚS, after briefly
advising solitude and the control of thoughts, Śāntideva presents in
turn three meditations intended to counter the three mental "poisons"
which, in Buddhist thought, are responsible for suffering: desire
(rāga), anger (dveṣa) and delusion (moha).

Against desire, Śāntideva describes a meditation on the foulness of
the body, as in the BCA (ŚS 209-12). To counteract anger, Śāntideva
prescribes the practice of friendliness or love (maitrī, ŚS 212-19).
This practice takes a number of forms, but the most notable is the
redirection (parināmanā) of good karma toward others' benefit. (This
will be discussed below under "good and bad karma.") Such acts are
discussed at a number of places in Śāntideva's texts; at ŚS 213-16 he
specifically refers to the practice of friendliness, which is intended
to counteract anger. The way that one redirects good karma, in
practice, is through an expressly stated wish: for example, "Whoever
is suffering distress of body or mind in any of the ten directions —
may they obtain oceans of happiness and joy through my good karma"
(BCA X.2). This rationale for karmic redirection could apply even to
those skeptical whether a supernatural process of karmic causality
will actually work: by regularly wishing that one's own good deeds
will benefit others' well-being, one can at least diminish the anger
that one feels toward them.

Finally, to counteract delusion, one meditates on dependent
origination (pratītyasamutpāda), the Buddhist theory that all things
come to exist in dependence upon other causes (ŚS 219-28). This
meditation leads into Śāntideva's discussion of the final perfection,
metaphysical insight.
f. Metaphysical Insight

The sixth and final perfection in Śāntideva's thought is prajñā, a
complex term which this article renders as "metaphysical insight." The
term "insight" emphasizes the depth and transformative nature of this
knowledge — as we will see, Śāntideva makes strong claims about the
effects that prajñā has on its possessor, so that it is classified as
a perfection alongside patient endurance and restrained good conduct.
The term "metaphysical" emphasizes the specific content of this
knowledge: claims about the nature of reality. This is a relatively
loose and nontechnical sense of the term "metaphysics" that one may
find in introductory textbooks on philosophy — for example,
"Metaphysics is the attempt to say what reality is" (Solomon 2006,
113). This section begins with a discussion of the ideas and arguments
that Śāntideva includes as the content of metaphysical insight, and
then proceeds to discuss their significance for ethics and the conduct
of life.
i. Content

Śāntideva's views on metaphysics follow those of the Madhyamaka school
of thought, associated with Nāgārjuna. (See Nagarjuna and Madhyamaka
Buddhism for more detail.) For Madhyamaka, all things, especially the
self, are empty (śūnya) and dependently originated
(pratītyasamutpanna) — they have no essential or abiding existence.
Tibetan tradition has typically associated Śāntideva with the more
radical Prāsangika Mādhyamika school, as his metaphysical arguments
follow their approach of reductio ad absurdum (prasanga) argument
rather than the independent syllogisms (svatantra) of the Svātantrika
school. On the other hand, Akira Saito (1996, 261) has argued that "we
cannot be too careful" in using the term Prāsangika with reference to
Śāntideva. (See McClintock and Dreyfus 2002 for a discussion of the
distinction between the Prāsangika and Svātantrika schools.)

Śāntideva's metaphysics is widely studied and commented on, both in
Tibetan tradition and in the West. (For Tibetan commentaries see Dalai
Lama XIV 1988; Palden and Seunam 1993. For Western commentaries see
Oldmeadow 1994; Sweet 1977.) Nevertheless, the content of Śāntideva's
metaphysics does not seem particularly original; as Michael Sweet's
book-length study of Śāntideva's metaphysics notes,

we do not find that his philosophical concerns or patterns of
argumentation differ in any significant manner from those of
Nāgārjuna, and especially from those of Candrakīrti, the great
systematizer of the Prāsangika-Mādhyamika who preceded Śāntideva by at
least a century. (Sweet 1977, 14)

Where Śāntideva's approach innovates is in the way that he draws
ethical conclusions directly from his metaphysical premises. Many
Buddhist texts draw soteriological conclusions of some sort from
metaphysical premises — the nature of the universe is such that
everyday life is filled with suffering but one can be liberated from
it. Moreover, texts often draw ethical conclusions from these
soteriological ideas. So in earlier texts there is an indirect
connection from metaphysics to ethics by way of soteriology.
Śāntideva, on the other hand, argues directly from metaphysics to
advice about conduct in life, in a way that is relatively unusual in
South Asian Buddhist literature. One exception is Candrakīrti himself,
who derives ethical conclusions from metaphysics in his Catuhṣataka
commentary (see Lang 2003), though his approach to doing so is
significantly different from Śāntideva's.

Śāntideva's prasanga arguments avoid foundational claims, in the
stricter sense of attempts to definitively establish a position from
which other claims can be deduced. Any such position would itself be
considered empty and therefore in some sense flawed. Indeed, an
earlier Madhyamaka text, the Vigrahavyāvartani of Nāgārjuna, famously
refuted its opponents by proclaiming: "If I had any position, then I
would have a flaw [in my argument]. But I have no position; therefore
I have no flaw at all" (VV 29). Rather, the approach is intended to be
purely dialectical and critical, examining alternative positions and
knocking them down, as Śāntideva does in BCA IX. Because Śāntideva is
deconstructing concepts and deriving ethical significance from this
deconstruction, William Edelglass (2007) compares his philosophy to
that of Emmanuel Lévinas.

Claims to have no position may seem absurd at first glance, especially
when associated with a thinker like Śāntideva who seems to make many
positive claims about how one should live. Śāntideva's response relies
on the central Madhyamaka distinction between conventional (samvriti)
and ultimate (paramārtha) truth (e.g. BCA IX.2). The ultimate truth is
inexpressible (anabhilāpya), untaught (adeṣita) and unmanifest
(aprakāśita, ŚS 256); it is nonconceptual, and therefore nonrational.
But because we are caught up in illusion, seeing substance, we still
need to make provisional statements at a conventional level to make
ourselves and others aware of this illusion and free ourselves from
it. Since the ultimate truth is inexpressible, all of Śāntideva's
actual claims need to be understood at the conventional level.

The above is what Śāntideva appears to say in his own words, at any
rate. It is worth noting here that the Tibetan dGe lugs (Geluk) school
argues that such claims cannot be taken literally and that in fact the
ultimate truth is accessible to the intellect, although other
commentators from the Sa skya (Sakya) and rNying ma (Nyingma) schools
accept a more literal interpretation like the one I have just provided
(Sweet 1977, 20).

The distinction between ultimate and conventional truth lends support
to a number of Śāntideva's practical arguments. Especially, it
supports his self-interested case for altruism on the grounds of the
bodhisattva's happiness: "All who are suffering in the world [are
suffering] because of desire for their own happiness. All who are
happy in the world [are happy] because of desire for others'
happiness" (BCA VIII.129). Śāntideva does not explain how this
psychological claim is supposed to work. Lele (2007, 65-6) ties the
claim to Śāntideva's theory of nonattachment (aparigraha); concern for
oneself and one's own particular interests leads to painful feelings
of grief, loss, and fear when, as inevitably happens, those interests
are harmed. But however such arguments are supposed to work, they
would seem to be undercut by another claim of Śāntideva's: namely,
that bodhisattvas still suffer in a sense, because of their compassion
for others. He claims: "Just as one whose body is on fire has no joy
at all, even through all pleasures, exactly so there is no way to joy
with respect to the distress of beings, for those made of compassion"
(BCA VI.123; see also ŚS 156, 166).

The distinction between conventional and ultimate, however, helps one
resolve this apparent problem — for the claim that bodhisattvas suffer
is made merely at the conventional level of truth. Śāntideva argues
that suffering itself is unreal (BCA IX.88-91); and only one who
realizes the ultimate truth, it seems, will be able to really
recognize this unreality. This recognition is the way in which it is
possible for suffering to end, as the Third Noble Truth of Buddhism
promises. It is also probably part of the reason that Śāntideva
proclaims that happy people are happy because they desire others'
happiness — a bodhisattva, who has lost the illusion of self, can also
lose the illusion of suffering and thereby escape it.

If suffering is unreal, however, one may wonder why it should be
prevented. A similar worry applies to good and bad karma. Śāntideva
claims, after all, that good and bad karma themselves arise out of
illusion (BCA IX.11); like everything else we can speak of, they are
ultimately empty. Clayton (2006, 97-8) argues that this point implies
that ethical action, good karma, or eliminating suffering are
unnecessary or insignificant. She quotes Richard Hayes (1994, 38) to
the effect that maintaining a sense of the importance of ethics in
such a philosophy is merely "philosophical rigour and integrity being
compromised by the perceived need to preserve a social institution."
She finds herself "not quite cynical enough" to doubt Śāntideva's
sincerity in accordance with Hayes's quote, but provides no
alternative explanation for why Śāntideva might have still believed in
ethical action. Lele (2007, 89-90) argues to the contrary that
Śāntideva maintains his philosophical integrity through the
conventional-ultimate distinction. Ultimately good and bad karma are
unreal, but they are very real at the conventional level. Most people
remain trapped in the conventional level, where suffering occurs, and
so they experience the suffering as real. For them, it is this
conventional level of truth that matters.
ii. Practical Implications

Metaphysical insight has three major ethical and soteriological
implications for Śāntideva, some of which we have already seen. First,
knowing the nonexistence of self will lead one to benefit others.
Second, one who knows dependent origination can become more patient
with others' wrongdoing, because he will know to avoid blaming them.
Finally, "one who knows emptiness is not emotionally attached to
worldly phenomena, because he is independent [of them]" (ŚS 264);
recognizing the emptiness of things allows one to attach less
significance to them.

These implications, for Śāntideva, are not merely a matter of logical
implication. There is also a practical, cause-and-effect relationship
between one's realization of the metaphysical claims and one's actions
and mental states. For this reason Luis Gómez (1994, 121) notes that
the closing verses of BCA IX "leave no room for doubt that we are
dealing with a technology of the self" which is also a philosophical
discourse. The passage quoted above does not merely state that one who
knows emptiness also knows that he should not be emotionally attached
to worldly phenomena; it states further that he himself is not in fact
so attached (na samhriyate). Elsewhere in the text Śāntideva makes
other, similar, causal claims that metaphysical insight will cause one
to feel and act differently. For example, after having made a series
of logical arguments for the equivalence of self and other, he
immediately comes to add: "Those whose mental dispositions are
developed in this way (evam), for whom the suffering of others is
equal to their loves, go down into the Avīci hell like geese [into] a
lotus pond" (BCA VIII.107, emphasis added). The "in this way"
(Sanskrit evam) indicates that the logical arguments themselves are a
way to develop mental dispositions; hearing these arguments is the
thing that develops one's mind to treat others' suffering equally to
one's own. Metaphysical insight is not merely an idea added to a stock
of knowledge, with which one can do as one pleases; it has direct
consequences for one's emotional states.

Such a view seems perplexing to contemporary Western ears, including
some informed by Buddhism. Understanding ideas often seems not to have
this liberating effect. David Burton puts the problem well, in terms
of his personal experience:

I do not seem to be ignorant about the impermanence of entities. I
appear to understand that entities have no fixed essence and that they
often change in disagreeable ways. I seem to understand that what I
possess will fall out of my possession. I apparently accept that all
entities must pass away. And I seem to acknowledge that my craving
causes suffering. Yet I am certainly not free from craving and
attachment. . . . How, then, might one preserve the common Buddhist
claim that knowledge of the three characteristics of existence [i.e.
nonself, impermanence and suffering] results in liberation in the face
of this objection? (Burton 2004, 31)

Burton explores several potential hypotheses to resolve his question.
He labels the hypothesis which seems to come closest to Śāntideva's
view as "insufficient attentiveness and reflection." That is, that for
those who have not experienced the beneficial ethical, emotional or
soteriological consequences that are presumed to accrue from knowledge
of Buddhist ideas, their belief in such ideas "is something they have
thought about from time to time perhaps, but they do not bring it to
mind often enough" (Burton 2004, 48-9).

Śāntideva suggests such a hypothesis in two ways. First, he frequently
mentions the shifting and changing nature of the mind; for example, he
notes that the mind is "like a river flow, unstable, broken up and
dissolved when produced," and "like lightning, unsteadily cut off in a
moment" (ŚS 234). Second, within the chapter of the BCA on
metaphysical insight, he speaks of "cultivating," or meditating on,
arguments: "this reasoning (vicāra) is meditated on as an antidote to
that [fixation on imagination]" (BCA IX.92). This point is reinforced
elsewhere in the text; as we have seen, his most famous metaphysical
argument, on the equivalence of self and other (BCA VIII.90-119),
occurs in the context of a particular meditation, within the BCA's
chapter on meditation (dhyāna). It is not enough, for Śāntideva, to
find an argument persuasive and then move on to other things; it must
be fixed in one's mind.
6. References and Further Reading
a. Primary Works

BCA — Śāntideva, Bodhicaryāvatāra. Edition: Bodhicaryāvatāra of
Śāntideva with the commentary Pañjikā of Prajñākaramati; ed. P.L.
Vaidya (1960), Buddhist Sanskrit Texts XII, Darbhanga, India: Mithila
Institute. References given are to chapter and verse numbers.

BCAP — Prajñākaramati, Bodhicaryāvatārapañjikā. Edition:
Bodhicaryāvatāra of Śāntideva with the commentary Pañjikā of
Prajñākaramati; ed. P.L. Vaidya (1960), Buddhist Sanskrit Texts XII,
Darbhanga, India: Mithila Institute. Page references given are to the
Poussin edition (listed with "P" in the Vaidya edition's margins).

NE — Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics. Edition: J. Bywater, available for
download and online search at www.perseus.tufts.edu as of 14 Aug 2007.

ŚS — Śāntideva, Śikṣāsamuccaya. Edition: Çikshāsamuccaya: a compendium
of Buddhistic teachings, compiled by Çāntideva chiefly from earlier
Mahāyāna sūtras; ed. Cecil Bendall (1970), Bibliotheca Buddhica I,
Osnabruck, Germany: Biblio Verlag.

ŚSK — Śāntideva, Śikṣāsamuccaya Kārikā, in the Bendall edition of the ŚS above.

VV — Nāgārjuna, Vigrahavyāvartani. Edition: Vigrahavyāvartani of
Nāgārjuna: Sanskrit Text, eds. Christian Lindtner and Richard Mahoney
(2003), available for download at http://indica-et-buddhica.org as of
14 Aug 2007.
b. Translations Cited

* Bendall, Cecil. 1970. Introduction. In Çikshāsamuccaya: A
Compendium of Buddhistic Teaching Compiled By Çāntideva Chiefly From
Earlier Mahāyāna-Sūtras. Osnabrück: Biblio Verlag.
* Crosby, Kate, and Andrew Skilton. 1995. The Bodhicaryāvatāra: A
New Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
* Wallace, Vesna A., and B. Alan Wallace, eds. 1997. A Guide to
the Bodhisattva Way of Life. Ithaca, NY: Snow Lion.

c. General Studies of Śāntideva

* Brassard, Francis. 2000. The Concept of Bodhicitta in
Śāntideva's Bodhicaryāvatāra. Albany, NY: State University of New York
Press.
* Clayton, Barbra. 2006. Moral Theory in Śāntideva's
Śikṣāsamuccaya: Cultivating the Fruits of Virtue. London and New York:
RoutledgeCurzon.
* Cooper, David E., ed. 1998. Ethics: The Classic Readings.
Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
* Dayal, Har. 1970. The Bodhisattva Doctrine in Buddhist Sanskrit
Literature. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
* Griffiths, Paul J. 1999. Religious Reading: The Place of Reading
in the Practice of Religion. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
* Gyatso, Geshe Kelsang. 1986. Meaningful to Behold: A Commentary
to Shantideva's Guide to the Bodhisattva's Way of Life. London: Tharpa
Publications.
* Harvey, Peter. 2000. An Introduction to Buddhist Ethics:
Foundations, Values and Issues. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
* Hedinger, Jürg. 1984. Aspekte der Schulung in der Laufbahn eines
Bodhisattva: Dargestellt nach dem Śikṣāsamuccaya des Śāntideva.
Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
* Lele, Amod. 2007. Ethical Revaluation in the Thought of
Śāntideva. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Harvard University.
* Mahoney, Richard. 2002. Of the Progress of the Bodhisattva: The
Bodhisattvamārga in the Śikṣāsamuccaya. University of Canterbury.
* Pezzali, Amalia. 1968. Śāntideva: Mystique Bouddhiste Des Viie
Et Viiie Siècles. Florence: Vallecchi Editore.
* Rinpoche, Thrangu. 2002. A Guide to the Bodhisattva's Way of
Life of Shantideva: A Commentary. Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications.
* Tobden, Geshe Yeshe. 2005. The Way of Awakening: A Commentary on
Shantideva's Bodhicharyavatara. Somerville, MA: Wisdom.
* Williams, Paul. 1995. General Introduction: Śāntideva and His
World. In The Bodhicaryāvatāra. Ed. Kate Crosby, and Andrew Skilton,
Oxford: Oxford University Press.

d. Specialized Studies

* Clayton, Barbra. 2001. Compassion as a Matter of Fact: The
Argument From No-Self to Selflessness in Śāntideva's Śikṣāsamuccaya.
Contemporary Buddhism 2 (1): 83-97.
* Dalai Lama XIV. 1988. Transcendent Wisdom: A Commentary on the
Ninth Chapter of Śāntideva's Guide to the Bodhisattva Way of Life.
Ithaca, NY: Snow Lion.
* de Jong, J.W. 1975. La légende de Śāntideva. Indo-Iranian
Journal 16 (3): 161-82.
* de Rachewiltz, Igor. 1996. The Mongolian Tanjur Version of the
Bodhicaryāvatāra, Edited and Transcribed, With a Word-Index and a
Photo-Reproduction of the Original Text (1748). Wiesbaden, Germany:
Harrassowitz.
* Edelglass, William. 2007. Ethics and the Subversion of
Conceptual Reification in Lévinas and Śāntideva. In Deconstruction and
the Ethical in Asian Thought. Ed. Youru Wang, London and New York:
Routledge.
* Gómez, Luis O. 1994. Presentations of Self: Personal Dimensions
of Ritualized Speech. In Other Selves: Autobiography and Biography in
Cross-Cultural Perspective. Ed. Phyllis Granoff, and Koichi Shinohara,
Oakville, ON and Buffalo, NY: Mosaic Press.
* Gómez, Luis O. 1999. The Way of the Translators: Three Recent
Translations of Śāntideva's Bodhicaryāvatāra. Buddhist Literature 1
262-354.
* Goodman, Charles. 2008. Consequentialism, Agent-Neutrality, and
Mahāyāna Ethics. Philosophy East and West 58 (1): 17-35.
* Harrison, Paul. 2007. The Case of the Vanishing Poet: New Light
on Śāntideva and the Śikṣā-Samuccaya. In Festschrift für Michael Hahn,
zum 65. Geburtstag von Freunden und Schülern Überreicht. Ed. Konrad
Klaus, and Jens-Uwe Hartmann. Vienna: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und
Buddhistische Studien.
* Kanaoka, S. 1963. Regional Characteristics of Mongolian
Buddhism: A Study on the Basis of the "Bodhicaryāvatāra". Bukkyo
Shigaku 10 (4): 15-24.
* Palden, Khentchen Kunzang, and Minyak Kunzang Seunam. 1993.
Comprendre La Vacuité: Deux Commentaires Du Chapitre Ix De La Marche
Vers L'éveil De Shāntideva. Peyzac-le-Moustier, France: Éditions
Padmakara.
* Mrozik, Susanne. 1998. The Relationship Between Morality and the
Body in Monastic Training According to the Śikṣāsamuccaya. Harvard
University.
* Mrozik, Susanne. 2007. Virtuous Bodies: The Physical Dimensions
of Morality in Buddhist Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
* Oldmeadow, P.R. 1994. A Study of the Wisdom Chapter
(Prajñāparamitā Pariccheda) of the Bodhicaryāvatārapañjikā of
Prajñākaramati. Australian National University.
* Onishi, Kaoru. 2003. The Bodhicaryāvatāra and Its Monastic
Aspects: On the Problem of Representation. University of Michigan.
* Pettit, John. 1999. Altruism and Reality: Studies in the
Philosophy of the Bodhicharyavatara. Journal of Buddhist Ethics 6.
* Saito, Akira. 1993. A Study of Akṣayamati (=Śāntideva)'s
Bodhisattvacaryāvatāra as Found in the Tibetan Manuscripts From
Tun-Huang. Faculty of Humanities, Miye University.
* Saito, Akira. 1996. Śāntideva in the History of Mādhyamika
Philosophy. In Buddhism in India and Abroad: An Integrating Influence
in Vedic and Post-Vedic Perspective. Ed. Kalpakam Sankarnarayan,
Motohiro Yoritomi, and Shubhada A. Joshi. Mumbai: Somaiya Publications
Pvt. Ltd.
* Siderits, Mark. 2000. The Reality of Altruism: Reconstructing
Śāntideva. Philosophy East and West 50 (3): 412-24.
* Siderits, Mark. 2005. Freedom, Caring and Buddhist Philosophy.
Contemporary Buddhism 6 (2): 87-113.
* Sweet, Michael J. 1977. Śāntideva and the Mādhyamika: The
Prajñāpāramitā-Pariccheda of the Bodhicaryāvatāra. University of
Wisconsin-Madison.
* Sweet, Michael J. 1996. Mental Purification (Blo Sbyong): A
Native Tibetan Genre of Religious Literature. In Tibetan Literature:
Studies in Genre. Ed. José Ignacio Cabezón, and Roger R. Jackson.
Ithaca, NY: Snow Lion.
* Thurman, Robert A.F. 2004. Anger: The Seven Deadly Sins. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
* Williams, Paul. 1998a. Altruism and Reality: Studies in the
Philosophy of the Bodhicaryāvatāra. Richmond, UK: Curzon Press.
* Williams, Paul. 1998b. The Absence of Self and the Removal of
Pain: How Śāntideva Destroyed the Bodhisattva Path. In Altruism and
Reality: Studies in the Philosophy of the Bodhicaryāvatāra, Richmond,
UK: Curzon Press.

e. Related Interest

* Burton, David. 2004. Buddhism, Knowledge, and Liberation: A
Philosophical Analysis of Suffering. Aldershot, England; Burlington,
VT: Ashgate.
* Chang, Garma C.C., ed. 1991. A Treasury of Mahāyāna Sūtras:
Selections From the Mahāratnakūṭa Sūtra. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
* Harrison, Paul. 1987. Who Gets to Ride in the Great Vehicle?
Self-Image and Identity Among Followers of the Early Mahāyāna. Journal
of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 10 (2): 67-89.
* Hayes, Richard. 1994. The Analysis of Karma in Vasubandhu's
Abhidharmakośabhāṣya. In Hermeneutical Paths to the Sacred Worlds of
India. Ed. Katherine K. Young, Atlanta: Scholars Press.
* Heim, Maria. 2004. Theories of the Gift in South Asia: Hindu,
Buddhist and Jain Reflections on Dāna. New York and Oxford: Routledge.
* Hibbets, Maria. 2000. The Ethics of Esteem. Journal of Buddhist
Ethics 7 26-42.
* Kajiyama, Yuichi. 1989. Transfer and Transformation of Merits in
Relation to Emptiness. In Studies in Buddhist Philosophy (Selected
Papers). Ed. Katsumi Minaki. Kyoto: Rinsen Book Co.
* Keown, Damien. 2005. Buddhism: Morality Without Ethics? In
Buddhist Studies From India to America: Essays in Honor of Charles S.
Prebish. Ed. Damien Keown. London: Routledge.
* Lang, Karen. 2003. Four Illusions: Candrakīrti's Advice to
Travelers on the Bodhisattva Path. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
* MacIntyre, Alasdair. 1966. A Short History of Ethics: A History
of Moral Philosophy From the Homeric Age to the Twentieth Century. New
York: Touchstone.
* McClintock, Sara, and Georges Dreyfus, eds. 2002. The
Svātantrika-Prāsaṅgika Distinction: What Difference Does a Difference
Make? Somerville, MA: Wisdom Publiccations.
* Nattier, Jan. 2003. A Few Good Men: The Bodhisattva Path
According to the Inquiry of Ugra (Ugraparipṛcchā). Honolulu:
University of Hawai'i Press.
* Parfit, Derek. 1984. Reasons and Persons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
* Pye, Michael. 1978. Skilful Means: A Concept in Mahayana
Buddhism. London: Duckworth.
* Solomon, Robert C. 2006. The Big Questions: A Short Introduction
to Philosophy. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
* Sprung, Mervyn. 1979. Lucid Exposition of the Middle Way: The
Essential Chapters From the Prasannapadā of Candrakīrti. Boulder, CO:
Prajñā Press.
* Tatz, Mark. 1994. The Skill in Means (Upāyakauśalya) Sūtra.
Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
* Wilson, Liz. 1996. Charming Cadavers: Horrific Figurations of
the Feminine in Indian Buddhist Hagiographic Literature. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.