Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Chicago, Commitee on History of Culture, December 2000. / Includes bibliographical references. Also available on the Internet.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--UCLA, 2009. / Vita. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 289-327).

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, 2005. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 256-278). Also available in electronic version.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Chicago, Divinity School, 2002. / Includes bibliographical references. Also available on the Internet.

Thesis (PhD--Anthropology)--University of Auckland, 2009. / Includes bibliographical references. Also available online.

This thesis examines Ratnakarasanti's (ca. 970-1045 C.E.) explication of Prajnaparamita in his doxographical works and his Saratama. Based on extant Sanskrit and Tibetan primary sources, it argues that Ratnakarasanti's main teacher was Dharmakirtisri (late 10th C.E.) and that Ratnakarasanti's Saratama sought to replace his teacher's Yogacara-Madhyamika framework with a causal explanation of Prajnaparamita through redefining the term Prajnaparamita as the path to awakening, rather than its goal. By unpacking that causal explanation in light of his broader system, the thesis demonstrates the way that Ratnakarasanti's own version of Nirakaravadin-Yogacara-Madhyamika refutes cognitive images (akara) as unreal ultimately, but claims they are still perceived by buddhas out of compassion. This conclusion debunks the long-standing theory that Ratnakarasanti was an Indian proponent of the controversial Tibetan gZhan-stong despite later gZhan-stong propon-ents' attempts to claim him as their own. There are two parts to the study. The first part introduces Ratnakarasanti's life, philosophy and doxography based upon evidence from a Tibetan colophon to his Madhyamika commentary and the Tibetan hagiography of his student Adhisa (a.k.a. Atisa) and upon a comparative analysis of his doxographical works that are prerequisites for reading his Saratama. The second part consists of an annotated translation of the Saratama's introductory section, contrasted with the prior standard interpretation by Haribhadra's (9th century C.E.). In the two appendices are included a Tibetan critical edition and a separate hybrid Sanskrit and Tibetan critical edition of the Saratama's first parivarta based on the extant 11th and 13th century incomplete MSS and on the Tibetan translations in the sDe dge, Peking and sNarthang editions. The hybrid edition also includes my provisional critical edition of the root text - i.e. the first parivarta of the Aryasta - sahasrikaprajnaparamitasutra - and my own translation of two small sample sections of the Saratama, which are extant only in Tibetan, back into Sanskrit.