Editorial Reviews. Review. ” Westerhoff’s commentary is lucid, philosophically engaging, and included ample references for the serious student of Indian or. The Dispeller of Disputes This page intentionally left blank The Dispeller of Disputes N¯ag¯arjuna’s Vigrahavy¯avar. The Dispeller of Disputes – Nagarjuna’s Vigrahavyavartani — translated and commented by Jan Westerhoff · A short work by the.
|Published (Last):||16 September 2014|
|PDF File Size:||9.93 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||18.91 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Dsputes the substance of the auspicious things was not produced in dependence on anything, there would be no religious practice. The Mirage Analogy [13—16, 65—67] Those things which are dependently arisen are not endowed with substance, because there is no substance. While these do not exist there is no fruit of religious practice, since this fruit is obtained by the apprehension of these truths.
Dispeller of Disputes: Nagarjuna’s Vigrahavyavartani – Oxford Scholarship
The Mirage Analogy [13—16, 65—67] 3. Unfortunately this does not present us with a general way of seeing how an instance of an epistemic instrument could be established by more instances of the same kind. Ontological Categories Jan Westerhoff.
But it is not like this and therefore there is no inequality. Of the two just mentioned, father and son, which one is the father and which one is the son?
Dispjtes the Phena Sutta; Feer — There is nothing non-empty, also it is not the case that all things are non-empty. The motivation for this may be the intuition that the objects known are somehow prior to the instruments that bring about knowledge of them. Dispures references to western commentarial literature on this verse are given in Lopez The reason that it is included at all, one must suppose, is that is was introduced by someone in defense of the Madhyamaka position.
If the substance of all things is not to be found anywhere, your assertion which is devoid of substance is not able to refute substance. In particular we need an account of what exactly this substance which is now supposed to exist is like. It is, however, not the only way to understand the Sanskrit. This is because an apprehension of non-existent dependent origination cannot be obtained.
In this way there there will an argumentational deadlock where all each side can do is insist that their position is right.
The translation here follows the Chinese translation, which appears to me djspeller make most philosophical sense. We could make the same point for epistemic instruments and objects. Ebook This title is available as an ebook. For the commentary, however, I have chosen a different approach. For there is no referring name of what is substantially without a referent. In this text, which is written in a lively question-and-answer style he addresses a number of objections coming both from Buddhists and from non-Buddhists which have been put forward against his theory of emptiness discussed in dispellsr main work – the Mulamadhyamakakarika.
The opponent might consider the fact that the epistemic instruments and objects can be reversed in the way described in the last verse as not much of a problem. Therefore it negates the substance of all things, dispells the substance of all things. Because of that emptiness, the negation fails to be accomplished.
Print Save Cite Email Share. This is now disppeller easily available as a reprint in Bhattacharya et al. In verse 8 of the Vaidalyaprakaran.
Sispeller you negate the insubstantiality of things.
The Dispeller of Disputes: Nagarjuna’s Vigrahavyavartani
The opponent wants to argue that the epistemic instruments and objects are establishers and established by nature; however, this claim turns out to be inconsistent with assuming that they are mutually dependent.
This speech does not disutes substantially, therefore there is no destruction of my position. Even if the relata have the same ontological status, the relations employed in the two examples are very different.
While there is no negation, no object of negation, and no negator, all things are unnegated and the substance of all things exists.
But if the substance he negates is existent, the process of negation must somehow make an existent thing nonexistent, which dispputes problematic. The text is divided into two parts: The only or we worry about the epistemic instruments is because we want to use them as a means of getting at the epistemic objects.
But if this is what the opponent thinks, it is unclear what the purpose of the entire debate is. Therefore they are said to be without substance, and because they are without substance, empty. Those which are not conducive to liberation have a substance not conducive to liberation, the limbs of enlightenment have a substance which is the limbs of enlightenment, those which are not the limbs of enlightenment have a substance which is not the limbs of enlightenment, the factors harmonious with enlightenment have a substance which is harmonious with enlightenment, 24 THE DISPELLER OF DISPUTES those which are not harmonious with enlightenment have a substance which is not harmonious with enlightenment.
When it is said that emptiness itself does not make everything empty, what is it that does not do so, and what is the cause of not doing so? Look, if all things are empty, this implies that your statement is empty too because it is included among all things. But how do we know that this property does not rather mark the epistemic practices that are not epistemic instruments? First, whether darkness should be included among the substances was a matter of debate.
For there are still epistemic instruments that are instruments in a certain context of inquiry, even though they are no such instruments substantially, by their intrinsic nature.
Moreover, if that statement exists substantially, your earlier thesis is refuted. It is similarly possible that we might end up with a different mutually coherent set of instruments and beliefs about objects than the one we in fact acquired. The sprout is not already present in the seed: This negation would be just like that.
Because of the lack of connection it does not destroy darkness, and because darkness is not prevented, there is no illumination. We can position the twins in such a way that the effects of the striped clothing are offset by the effects of the Ames room, so that the two once more look as if they have the same height. Amazon Giveaway allows you to run promotional giveaways in order to create buzz, reward your audience, and attract new followers and customers.
Nagarjuna is never an easy read at the The negation of the appearance the statement of the guide must exist, given the way the example is set up. Some people believe that there are rules which are grounded in something distinct from a set of human conventions.