Following my examination of Nāgārjuna’s image of Buddha(s) preaching Dharma in the Mūlamadhayamkakārikā (MMK), several observations may be made. In all occurrences of the words for Buddha, except in the introductory verses, Buddha in the singular form seems to point to Gautama Buddha who preached the traditional doctrines of Buddhism, while Buddha in the plural form refers to those who support Nāgārjuna’s thought (or Buddhas of Mahāyāna). The introductory verses, on the other hand, proclaim that Buddha in the singular form preached the doctrine of Dependent Origination marked by “non-arising and non-ceasing of things, etc.” Throughout the MMK Nāgārjuna tried to prove that Gautama Buddha preached Mahāyāna doctrine of Emptiness. In other words, he asserted that Emptiness is the teaching or words of Buddha (buddhaśāsana, buddhavacana). However, in the Yuktisastikā, which is attributed to Nāgārjuna, Buddha in the singular form preaches Mahāyānistic doctrine of Dependent Origination, while Buddhas in the plural preach the traditional doctrines, which suggests that the author may not be the same one as that of the MMK. I also examined Vigrahavyāvartanī, Sūnyatāsaptati, and Ratnāvalī from the same perspective and came to the conclusion that the authors of these works, though traditionally attributed to Nāgārjuna, might be different from that of the MMK. It is quite important that in the Ratnāvalī, Buddha in the plural form represents the universal and ideal Buddha who preaches both the traditional doctrines and Mahayanistic doctrine of Emptiness, while Buddha in the singular form refers to the historic Gautama Buddha as well as the leader of Mahāyāna movement (in other words, Gautama Buddha preaching Mahāyāna doctrine). The author seems to insist that both the traditional doctrines and the Mahāyānistic doctrine are equally the words of Buddha, which are supported by the universal Buddha in the plural form. He also asserts that Mahāyāna doctrine is superior to traditional doctrines. There passed more than one hundred years between the deaths of Nāgārjuna and Aryadevā (around the middle of the 3rd century), and Buddhapālita’s (c. 370-450) writing of his commentary on the MMK. I would like to imagine that during this period, which may be called ‘the productive period’, some anonymous authors wrote the so-called “Nāgārjuna literature”, freely using the logic of Nāgārjuna. Just as the appearance of the first Mahāyāna sūtra, the Praj˜nāpāramitāsūtra, stimulated other anonymous authors to produce many and various Mahāyāna sūtras by depending on its doctrine of Emptiness and the views of Bodhisattva, the appearance of the MMK, the first work of Mahāyāna-Abhidharma movement, stimulated other anonymous authors to produce various Mahāyāna treatises on the basis of the logic and thought of the MMK, by thinking how Nāgārjuna would treat the problems they were facing. During this period, the early literature of the Yogācāra school appeared and the theories of Mind-Only and Three Natures had started to become known among Buddhist philosophers. It is quite possible that some works ascribed to Nāgārjuna (e.g., Vigrahavyāvartanī or Catuh. stava) have some allusions to the Yogācāra doctrines and that they seem to try to argue against them. Those texts produced during the “productive period” were gradually ascribed to Nāgārjuna, being judged that they concord to the logic and reasoning of Nāgārjuna in the MMK.
