In this paper I explore the extent to which the dialectical approach of Śrīharṣa can be identified as skeptical, and whether or how his approach resembles that of the first century Mādhyamika philosopher Nāgārjuna. In so doing, I will be primarily reading the first argument found in Śrīharṣa’s masterpiece, the Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍa-khādya. This argument grounds the position that the system of justification that validates our cognition to be true is not outside of inquiry. Closely adopting Śrīharṣa’s polemical style, I am neither (...) proposing a thesis in this paper that Śrīharṣa is a skeptic, nor am I denying such a possibility. I believe we can pursue our arguments on a neutral ground and let the facts speak for themselves. I will outline salient features that define skepticism in the mainstream philosophical discourse so that analyzing Śrīharṣa’s first argument becomes easier. In so doing, I will introduce some of the arguments of Nāgārjuna in light of Śrīharṣa’s position. This comparison, however, is restricted only to the salient features relevant to further the central argument of this paper and is therefore not aimed to encompass the overall positions of these two giants. (shrink)

Madhyamaka philosophy has been frequently characterized as nihilism, not just by its Buddhist and non-Buddhist opponents, but also by some contemporary Buddhologists. This characterization might well strike us as surprising. First, nihilism appears to be straightforwardly inconsistent. It would be curious if a philosophical school holding such an obviously deficient view would have acquired the kind of importance Madhyamaka has acquired in the Asian intellectual landscape over the last two millenia. Second, Madhyamaka by its very name proclaims to tread the (...) “middle way”, and what if anything would count as an extreme position but the view that there is nothing? This essay addresses both the systematic status of nihilist theories as well as the historical contexts in which Madhyamaka has been characterized as nihilistic, aiming to throw some light on plausible and implausible ways of understanding the Madhyamaka intellectual enterprise. (shrink)

This paper reconsiders the notion that Nagarjuna and Wittgenstein’s Tractatus may only be seen as comparable under a shared ineffability thesis, that is, the idea that reality is impossible to describe in sensible discourse. Historically, Nagarjuna and the early Wittgenstein have both been widely construed as offering either metaphysical theories or attempts to refute all such theories. Instead, by employing an interpretive framework based on a ‘resolute’ reading of the Tractatus, I suggest we see their philosophical affinity in terms of (...) a shared conception of philosophical method without proposing theses. In doing so, this offers us a new way to understand Nagarjuna’s characteristic claims both to have ‘no views’ and refusal to accept that things exist ‘inherently’ or with ‘essence’. Therefore, instead of either a view about the nature of a mind-independent ‘ultimate reality’ or a thesis concerning the rejection of such a domain, I propose that we understand Nagarjuna’s primary aim as ‘therapeutic’, that is, concerned with the dissolution of philosophical problems. However, this ‘therapy’ should neither be confined to the psychotherapeutic metaphor nor should it be taken to imply a private enlightenment only available to philosophers. Instead, for Nagarjuna and Wittgenstein, philosophical problems are cast as a source of disquiet for all of us; what their work offers is a soteriology, a means towards our salvation. (shrink)

In a recent article in this journal, Giuseppe Ferraro mounted a sustained attack on the semantic interpretation of the Madhyamaka doctrine of emptiness, an interpretation that has been championed by the authors. The present paper is their reply to that attack.

El mādhyamaka o camino medio, la reformulación de las enseñanzas budistas introducida por Nāgārjuna en el siglo II, causó profundos malentendidos en su contexto de recepción, como ocurre todavía entre los lectores occidentales. La interpretación de que se trata de otra forma más de nihilismo intelectualmente infructuoso y éticamente irresponsable ha acompañado siempre a esta exigente filosofía. Intentaremos responder a dicha objeción recurriendo a algunas herramientas que proporciona la vía media. En particular, comprenderemos a qué se refería Nāgārjuna con la (...) idea de abandonar la discusión filosófica; aclararemos la autocompresión como discurso práctico y útil a pesar de no capturar conceptualmente la verdad; exploraremos la nueva relación que establece este modo de razonamiento con la filosofía dominante; y revisaremos algunas de sus interpretaciones nihilistas erróneas de la actualidad. Como aliados para clarificar las palabras de los mādhyamika más conocidos, Nāgārjuna y Candrakīrti, nos apoyamos en Jeffrey Hopkins, C.W. Huntington, Juan Arnau, Giuseppe Ferraro y Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche y otros. (shrink)

This paper proposes an interpretation of Nāgārjuna’s doctrine of the two truths that considers saṃvṛti and paramārtha-satya two visions of reality on which the Buddhas, for soteriological and pedagogical reasons, build teachings of two types: respectively in agreement with (for example, the teaching of the Four Noble Truths) or in contrast to (for example, the teaching of emptiness) the category of svabhāva. The early sections of the article show to what extent the various current interpretations of the Nāgārjunian doctrine of (...) the dve satye—despite their sometimes even macroscopic differences—have a common tendency to consider the notion of śūnyatā as a teaching not based on, but equivalent to supreme truth. This equivalence—philologically questionable—leads to interpretative paths that prove inevitably aporetic: indeed, according to whether the interpretation of śūnyatā is ‘metaphysical’ or ‘anti-metaphysical’, it gives rise to readings of Nāgārjuna’s thought incompatible, respectively, with anti-metaphysical and realistic types of verses traceable in the works of the author of the Mūla-madhyamaka-kārikā (MMK). On the contrary, by giving more emphasis to the expression samupāśritya (“based on”), which recurs in MMK.24.8, and therefore, by epistemologically separating the notion of śūnyatā from the notion of paramārtha-satya (and of some of its conceptual equivalents such as nirvāṇa, tattva and dharmatā), we may obtain an interpretation—at once realistic and anti-metaphysical—of the theory of the two truths compatible with the vast majority (or even totality) of Nāgārjuna’s verses. (shrink)

This paper attempts to dissolve an apparent difficulty arising in the philosophy of language as discussed by the Indian Buddhist Madhyamaka school. On the one hand Madhyamaka seems to be claiming that every entity is fundamentally linguistic in nature, on the other hand it also asserts that language does not exist. I argue that the difficulty is to be dissolved by distinguishing two different senses of language appealed to by the Mādhyamikas. They argue that one specific understanding of language is (...) deficient (and that therefore language thus understood does not exist), but this is not the same sense of language according to which everything is linguistic in nature. The apparent contradiction is thereby resolved. (shrink)

RESUMO Entre os vários pontos da obra de Nāgārjuna que deram origem a análises e discussões, o tema das 'duas verdades' é um dos mais controversos. Com efeito, dentro da ampla bibliografia dedicada a essa temática, são muitas, e amiúde divergentes, as tentativas de explicar o que Nāgārjuna entendesse - no verso 24.8 das suas Mūla-madhyamaka-kārikā - com as expressões 'verdade convencional' e 'verdade suprema'. Esses pontos de vista interpretativos, entretanto, frequentemente, parecem prescindir daquele que talvez seja o critério mais (...) confiável para dirimir as controvérsias relativas às MMK: i. e., a leitura dos comentários indianos às mesmas MMK. Em contraste com essa tendência, este escrito objetiva investigar as passagens do Prajñāpradīpa e das Prasannapadā onde encontramos explicações, respectivamente de Bhāviveka e de Candrakīrti, que dizem respeito às duas verdades. O resultado dessa pesquisa se apresentará como nitidamente favorável à interpretação da doutrina das duas verdades que, em outros escritos, chamei de 'pedagógica'.ABSTRACT Among the many passages of Nāgārjuna's work that have generated analysis investigation and discussion, the issue of the 'two truths' is one of the most controversial ones. In fact, within the vast bibliography dedicated to this topic, attempts to explain what Nāgārjuna meant - in verse 24.8 of his Mūla-madhyamaka-kārikā - by 'conventional' and 'supreme truth' are many and frequently divergent. However, it often seems that these interpretative views neglect what probably is the most reliable criterion for solving controversies in the MMK: i. e., the reading of Indian commentaries to the MMK. Going against this trend, this paper aims to investigate passages of Bhāviveka's Prajñāpradīpa and of Candrakīrti's Prasannapadā where we find explanations that concern the two truths. The result of this research will look quite favorably on the interpretation of the two truths doctrine that I called, in other works of mine, "pedagogical". (shrink)

Some time ago I advanced on the pages of this journal a critique of the interpretation given by Jay L. Garfield and Mark Siderits (hereafter GS) of Nāgārjuna’s doctrine of the two truths (Ferraro, J Indian Philos 41(2):195–219, 2013.1); to my article the two authors responded with a ‘defense of the semantic interpretation’ of the Madhyamaka doctrine of emptiness (GS, J Indian Philos 41(6):655–664, 2013). Their reply, however, could not consider my personal understanding of Nāgārjuna’s notions of śūnyatā and dve (...) satye. My interpretation of these notions was in fact absent in the paper GS responded, and was only related in a second paper of mine (Ferraro, J Indian Philos 41(5):563–590, 2013.2), still unpublished at the time of GS’s drafting of their ‘defense’. Therefore, in the present rejoinder, I found it appropriate, rather than responding point by point to the passages of GS’s reply, to advance a comparison between the semantic interpretation and my ‘realist antimetaphysical’ understanding of Nāgārjuna’s thought. (shrink)