Editing Nagarjuna (section)

=== Attributions which are likely to be false ===
Meanwhile, those texts that Lindtner considers as questionable and likely inauthentic are: <blockquote>''Aksarasataka, Akutobhaya (Mulamadhyamakavrtti), Aryabhattaraka-Manjusriparamarthastuti, Kayatrayastotra, Narakoddharastava, Niruttarastava, Vandanastava, Dharmasamgraha, Dharmadhatugarbhavivarana, Ekaslokasastra, Isvarakartrtvanirakrtih (A refutation of God/Isvara), Sattvaradhanastava, Upayahrdaya, Astadasasunyatasastra, Dharmadhatustava, Yogaratnamala.''<ref>Lindtner 1982, pp. 14-17.</ref></blockquote>Meanwhile, Lindtner's list of outright wrong attributions is: <blockquote>''[[Da zhidu lun|Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa]] (Dà zhìdù lùn), Abudhabodhakaprakarana'', ''Guhyasamajatantratika'', ''Dvadasadvaraka'', ''Prajñaparamitastotra,'' and ''Svabhavatrayapravesasiddhi.''<ref>Lindtner 1982, pp. 11-12.</ref></blockquote>Notably, the ''[[Mahāprajñāpāramitāupadeśa|Dà zhìdù lùn]]'' ([[Taishō Tripiṭaka|Taisho]] 1509, "Commentary on the great [[Prajnaparamita|prajñaparamita]]") which has been influential in Chinese Buddhism, has been questioned as a genuine work of Nāgārjuna by various scholars including [[Étienne Lamotte|Lamotte]]. This work is also only attested in a Chinese translation by [[Kumārajīva]] and is unknown in the Tibetan and Indian traditions.<ref>Ruegg, David Seyfort, ''<nowiki>''The Literature of the Madhyamaka School of Philosophy in India,''</nowiki>'' Otto Harrassowitz Verlag, 1981, p. 32.</ref>

Other works are extant only in Chinese, one of these is the ''Shih-erh-men-lun'' or 'Twelve-topic treatise' (*''Dvadasanikaya'' or *''Dvadasamukha-sastra''); one of the three basic treatises of the Sanlun school ([[East Asian Mādhyamaka|East Asian Madhyamaka]]).<ref>Ruegg, David Seyfort, ''<nowiki>''The Literature of the Madhyamaka School of Philosophy in India,''</nowiki>'' Otto Harrassowitz Verlag, 1981, p. 28.</ref>

Several works considered important in [[Vajrayana|esoteric Buddhism]] are attributed to Nāgārjuna and his disciples by traditional historians like Tāranātha from 17th century Tibet. These historians try to account for chronological difficulties with various theories, such as seeing later writings as mystical revelations. For a useful summary of this tradition, see Wedemeyer 2007. Lindtner sees the author of some of these tantric works as being a tantric Nagarjuna who lives much later, sometimes called "Nagarjuna II".<ref>Lindtner 1982, p. 11.</ref>