Ch'ing-mu 青目 (Blue-Eyes) is the author of the Chung-lun 中論, preserved in Chinese translation, but the only historical information on him is that found in Seng-jui's 僧叡 preface. The section that is particularly problematic in this preface is the phrase “the Indian Brahman named Pin-chia-lo 賓伽羅 (or Pin-lo-chia 賓羅伽) ,in the Ch'in language ‘Blue-Eyes’.” While it was probably B. Nanjio (1883) who first associated Pin-chia-lo with Pirngala, and he identified Ch'ing-mu with Aryadeva or Candrakirti. While it was soon shown that he could not possibly correspond to Candrakirti, there have been numerous scholars down to the present day who have recognized the former possibility. These include É. Teramoto (1937), P. Demiéville (1953), É. Lamotte (1970), J. May (1979), and K. Mimaki (1987). M. Walleser (1912), on the other hand, deemed Pin-lo-chia to be the correct form and speculated that this might correspond to a corrupt form of Pirngalakkha (a vernacular form of Pirngalaksa) or Vimalaksa, pointing out that the latter could refer to Kumarajiva's Vinaya master, Pei-mo-lo-ch'a 毘摩羅叉. R. H. Robinson (1967) added further corroborating evidence for this latter possibility, but he considered Pei-mo-lo-ch'a to be the name of an unknown scholar rather than the Vinaya master, while B. Bocking (1985) suggested that “Blue-Eyes” might have been the sobriquet of Pei-mo-lo-ch'a (Vimalaksa) in China. This was because Peimo-lo-ch'a was known as the “blue-eyed Vinaya master” (ch'ing-yen lü-shih 眼律師) on account of the blueness of his eyes.
The reason that Nanjio identified Ch'ing-mu with Aryadeva was that he relied completely on the English translation by S. C. Das (1882) of the Tibetan doxography Grub mtha' shel gyi me long (A Crystal Mirror of Siddhanta). But the original has “blue-eyed acarya” (slob dpon mthing mig can), and there is no mention of Aryadeva. Das presumably thought that the blue-eyed acarya referred to Aryadeva. This means that the thesis identifying Ch'ing-mu with Aryadeva was invented by Das and has no basis in source materials. Furthermore, according to Coblin (1994), the character pin 賓 can be used to transcribe pin(g)-, but not vim-, vin-, bim-, etc., and the character chia 伽 is not used to transcribe -kkha or -ksa. In other words, when considered from a phonological point of view, the form Pin-lo-chia for Vimalaksa is untenable, and the form Pin-chia-lo, equating with Pirngala, is more probable. If this is the case, then the arguments of Walleser (who suggested vim-) and others such as Robinson and Bocking lose their foundation.