Indian Buddhist Skepticism?

The critique of epistemology in Madhyamaka Buddhism

Madhyamaka Buddhism

Major philosophical trend of Mahayana Buddhism Founder N g rjuna ! "nd century #$

%For general introduction see Nakamura %&'()**

N g rjuna

"nd century #$ Buddhist monk+ originally South Indian Brahmin Founder of Madhyamaka ,eaction against -.hidharma and Ny ya /r sagika method

Major 0orks

M1lamadhyamakak rik 21nyat saptati Vigrahavyvartan Vaidalyaprakaraa 34ya5ah rasiddhi 6ukti ika #atusta5a ,atn 5al7 /rat7tyasamutp dahdayak rika S1trasamuccaya Bodhicitta5i5araa Suhllekha 3Bodhisa.h ra8ka9 %for discussion of authenticity see :indtner %&'';**

#entral philosophical ideas

$5erything lacking svabhva %essence?* $5erything ha5ing the nature of nyat %emptiness* T0o!truths doctrine <etailed discussions of causality+ motion+ self+ epistemology+ language

%For an o5er5ie0 of Madhyamaka philosophy see= >esterhoff %";;'**

>ider influence

Immense impact on Madhyamaka <octrinal influence on -d5aita 4ed nta ,ole in the history of Indian ?skepticism@ Some doctrinal influence on Aain philosophy

#ritique of epistemology

Vigrahavyvartan B!C+ D&!B; Vaidalyaprakaraa "!";

Vigrahavyvartan

); stras ,esponse to &; different criticisms <irected against E.hidharmikas %:indtner%&'';**

%source teFt from :indtner %&'';**

$sta.lishment of the pramas possi.le hypotheses %44*

Intrinsically %s5ata*

By each other >ithout pramas By themsel5es By the prameyas Mutually interesta.lished 0ith the prameyas

$Ftrinsically %parata*

For similar interpretation see Siderits %&'(;*

Inter!esta.lishment of the pramas

anyai yadi pram ai pram asiddhir .ha5aty ana5asth sy n G n de siddhis tatr sti nai5a madhyasya n ntasya GG Nag45HD" GG If the esta.lishment of the cogniti5e instruments 0ere to arise through other cogniti5e instruments then there 0ould .e a regressus ad infinitumI There 0ould .e no esta.lishment of the .eginning+ middle nor end thereI

Pramas esta.lished 0ithout prameyas

te m atha pram air 5in prasiddhi 5ih7yate 5 da G 5aiamikat5a tasmin 5iJeahetuJ ca 5akta5ya GG The position 8according to 0hich9 the esta.lishment of cogniti5i instruments is 0ithout 8other9 cogniti5e instruments 8should .e9 a.andonedI 8There is9 an inequality there+ 8requiring9 a special reason to .e gi5enI

Pramas esta.lished ex se

:amp analogy

5iamopany so Kya na hy tm na prak Jayaty agni G na hi tasy nupala.dhi d tamas75a kum.hasya GG yadi ca s5 tm nam aya t5ad5acanena prak Jayaty agni G param i5a na t5 tm na paridhakyaty api hut Ja GG yadi ca s5apar tm nau t5ad5acanena prak Jayaty agni G prach dayiyati tama s5apar tm nau hut Ja i5a GG n sti tamaJ ca j5alane yatra ca tihate par tmani j5alana G kurute katha prak Ja sa hi prak Jo andhak ra5adha GG utpadyam na e5a prak Jayaty agnir ity asad5 da G utpadyam na e5a pr pnoti tamo na hi hut Ja GG apr pto Kpi j5alano yadi 5 punar andhak ram upahany t G sar5eu lokadh tuu tamo Kyam iha sasthita upahany t GG This 8iIeI the lamp analogy9 thesis is 0rong 8.ecause9 fire doesnKt illuminate itselfI Nor is non!perception like the pot seen in the darkI If 8according to9 your 0ords fire illuminates itself like another 8o.ject9 does fire also not .urn itself? If 8according to9 your 0ords fire illumines itself and others 8then9 darkness conceals itself and others like fireI There is no darkness in flaming nor else0here 0here there occurs flamingI Lo0 does it illuminate+ 8as9 illumination is the anihilation of darknessI ?The arrising fire illuminates@ ! this is a 0rong thesisI 8For9 the arising fire does not contact darknessI If an unconnected fire 0ere to remo5e darkness+ then it 0ould remo5e the darkness present in all the 0orldsI

prama!prameya interdependence

yadi ca s5ata pram asiddhir anapekya te pramey i G .ha5ati pram asiddhi n par pek hi siddhir iti GG an peks hi pramey n arth n yadi te pram asasiddhi G .ha5ati na .ha5anti kasyacid e5am im ni pram ni GG If the esta.lishment of the epistemic instruments is intrinsic 8then9 the esta.lishment of the epistemic instruments is irrespecti5e of the epistemic o.jects+ 8.ecause9 the esta.lishment is irrespecti5e of 8anything9 elseI If the esta.lishment of the epistemic instruments is irrespecti5e of the epistemic o.jects 8then9 they are not the epistemic o.jects of anythingI

Pramas esta.lished .y prameyas

atha matam apekya siddhis te m iti atra .ha5ati ko doa G siddhasya s dhana sy n n siddho pekate hy anyat GG sidhyanti hi pramey y apekya yadi sar5ath pram ni G .ha5anti prameyasiddhir anapekyai5a pram ni GG yadi ca prameyasiddhir anapekyai5a .ha5ati pram ni G kin te pram asiddhy t ni yadartha prasiddha tat GG atha tu pram asiddhir .ha5aty apekyai5a te pramey i G 5yatyaya e5a sati te dhru5a pram apramey GG 8,egarding the9 5ie0 ?Their esta.lishment is dependant@ 0hat is the fault here? There 0ould .e the esta.lishment of 8something9 esta.lished+ 8.ecause9 the non!esta.lished does not depend on 8anything9 differentI 8If9 the epistemic instruments are esta.lished dependently on the epistemic o.jects in all aspects 8then9 the esta.lishment of the epistemic o.jects is certainly not dependant on the epistemic instrumentsI -nd if the esta.lishment of the epistemic o.jects is irrespecti5e of the epistemic instruments+ 8then9 0hat 8is achie5ed9 .y the esta.lishment of these epistemic instruments? Their purpose is 8already9 esta.lishedI >hile 8if9 the esta.lishment of the epistemic instruments is dependant on the epistemic o.jects 8then9 in this state 8there is a9 re5ersal of the epistemic instruments and epistemic o.jectsI

Pramas and prameyas interesta.lished

atha te pram asiddhy prameyasiddhi prameyasiddhy ca G .ha5ati pram asiddhi n sty u.hayasy pi te siddhi GG sidhyanti hi pram air yadi pramey i t ni tair e5 G s dhy ni ca prameyais t ni katha s dhayiyanti GG sidhyanti ca prameyai yadi pram ni t ni tair e5a G s dhy ni ca pram ais t ni katha s dhayiyanti GG pitra yady utp dya putro yadi tena cai5a putrea G utp dya sa yadi pit 5ada tatrotp dayati ka ka GG kaJ ca pit ka putra tatra t5a .r1hi katha t 5 u.h 5 api ca G pitreputralakaadharau yato nas tatra sadeha GG -lso+ if the esta.lishment of the epistemic o.jects is .y the esta.lishment of the epistemic instruments then there is no esta.lishment of eitherI If .y these epistemic instruments the epistemic o.jects are esta.lished 8and9 these are to .e esta.lished .y the epistemic o.jects 8then9 ho0 0ill they esta.lish? If .y these epistemic o.jects the epistemic instruments are to .e esta.lished 8and9 these are to .e esta.lished .y the epistemic instruments 8then9 ho0 0ill they esta.lish? If .y the father the son is produced 8or9 if .y this son the father is produced 8then9 say 0ho produces 0homI >ho is the father and 0ho is the son+ here+ do say+ ho0 .oth of them 8are9 .earers of the signs of father8hood9 and son8hood9M for us 8there is an9 am.iguity hereI

Vaidalyaprakaraa

$Ftant only in Ti.etan translation )D sutras Structure paralleling that of the Nyya-sutra refutation of the entire Ny ya system

Prama!prameya pro.lem in the Vaidalyaprakaraa

/ramanas and prameyas are miFed %miJra* and not intrinsically %s5ata* eFistent %sI "!D* Three ways of mutual establishment (sat, asat, sadasat) first alternative (sat) %sI N*

/ramanas esta.lished .y a* each other? .*0ithout pramanas? %sI B* /ramanas self!esta.lished? %sI C!&&*

Temporal relation pro.lem %traiklysiddha* %sI &"*

E isten!e through negation" %sI &D!&C* #ramanas providing !orre!t understanding" %sI &)! ";*

Pramas eFist through negation?

smras paG
dus gsum du tshad ma dang gOal .ya dag ma gru. pas Kgag pa mi Kthad do G&D

.rjod par .ya ste

dgag pa gru. na tshad ma dang gOal .ya yang gru. po Per .a ni ma yin le G sngar khas .langs paKi phyir ro G &N gal te tshad ma dang gOal .ya dag ma gru. par khas .langs pa yin na ni khas .langs pa dang dus mnyam pa kho nar rtsod pa rdPogs pa yin no G &B

dgag par .yed pa med na Kgag pa Oes .ya med do Oe na G de ni ma yin te

ma gru. paKi rtog pa spong .a yin no G &C

?It is said=
Because the means of 5alid kno0ledge and the kno0a.le %o.ject* are not esta.lished %as eFisting* in %any of* the three times %its* denial is not logically possi.leI G&D

it must .e ans0ered=
To say that if negation is esta.lished %as eFisting*+ the means of 5alid kno0ledge and the kno0a.le %o.ject* are also esta.lished %as eFisting* this is not %possi.le*+ .ecause of the pre5ious acceptanceI G&N If there is acceptance of the non!eFistence of the means of 5alid kno0ledge and the kno0a.le %o.ject*+ in the 5ery moment of this acceptance+ the discussion is o5erI G&B

If it is said that 0hen non!eFistence is to .e negated+ the so!called negation does not eFist+ %0e ans0er=* that is not %so*+
%Because+ in the negation+ only* the idea of %something* non!esta.lished %as eFisting* is eliminatedI G &C@ %teFt and translation from Tola!<ragonetti &''N*

Pramas pro5iding correct understanding?

smras pa G
mngom sum la sogs pa ni yod pa yin te G gang las Je na G yang dag pa rtogs paKi phyir ro G &)

.rjod par .ya ste G

mngom sum la sogs pa gru. kyang gOal .ya ni Kthad pa ma yin no G &(

smras pa G .um pa la G .um paKi .lo ni tshad ma yin la .um pa ni gOal .ya yin no Oe na .rjod par .ya ste G
de rkyen du gyur pa nyid paKi phyir Jes pa yang ma yin Oing Jes .ya yang ma yin no G &'

gOang yang G
.lo ni tshad ma ma yin te G gOal .ya yin par mngom par .rjod paKi phyir ro G ";

?%-nd* it is said=
The perception etcI eFistI It it is asked= >hy? %the ans0er is=* .ecause %they pro5ide* a correct kno0ledgeI G &)

it must .e said=
$5en if the perception etcI $Fist+ the kno0a.le %o.ject* is not admittedI G &(

It is said= In regard to the pot+ the idea of pot is the means of 5alid kno0ledge and the pot itself is the kno0a.le %o.ject* if it is %thus* said+ it must .e replied=
Because if %the pot* is %only* a determining condition+ %it* is not the cognition and %it* is not the cogniPa.le eitherI G &'

Moreo5er=
The idea is not a means of 5alid kno0ledge+ .ecause it has .een said to .e a kno0a.le %o.ject*I G ";@ %teFt and translation from Tola!<ragonetti &''N*

,eferences

:indtner+ #hristian Nagarjuniana: Studies in the NagarjunaI Motilal Banarsidass+ <elhi &'';I

ritings and Phil!s!phy !"

Nakamura+ Lajime= #ndian $uddhismI Motilal Banarsidass+ <elhi &'()I Siderits+ Mark ?The Madhyamaka #ritique of $pistemologyI I@ %!urnal !" #ndian Phil!s!phy& ( %&'(;* Tola+ FernandoM <ragonetti+ #armen Nagarjuna's (e"utati!n !" )!gi* +Nyaya,- Vaidalyaprakarana Motilal Banarsidass+ <elhi &''NI >esterhoff+ Aan= Nagarjuna's .adhyamaka: / Phil!s!phi*al #ntr!du*ti!nI QFford Rni5ersity /ress ";;'

TL-NS 6QR FQ, 6QR, -TT$NTIQN