David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Indian Philosophy 39 (4-5):427-439 (2011)
How is it possible to say that truth can be of one kind at the conventional level and totally different in the ultimate plane? As Matilal ( 1971 , p. 154) points out, Kumārila (ca. 600–650), a Mīmāṃsaka philosopher, claims that the Buddhist doctrine of two truths is “a kind of philosophical ‘double-talk’.” It is Prajñākaragupta (ca. 750–810), a Buddhist logician, who tries to give a direct answer to this question posed by Kumārila from the Buddhist side. He argues that even a Mīmāṃsaka cannot demonstrate the validity ( prāmāṇya ) of the Veda without accepting two truth levels. His point is this. Consider the proposition to be proved: the Veda is valid. If the Veda is already known as valid, then it is useless to prove this proposition. But if it is already known as invalid, then it is impossible to prove this proposition. Therefore in the argument to prove the proposition, the Veda is not to be regarded either as valid or as invalid. This means that at the first stage of the argument one has the concept of the Veda as neutral in validity. However, as soon as one acquires the knowledge of the Veda as valid through the argument, one has to repudiate such a conception of the Veda. The acceptance of the Veda as neutral in validity is to the acceptance of the Veda as valid as the conventional truth is to the ultimate truth
|Keywords||Buddhist epistemology Two truths Prajñākaragupta Kumārila Veda|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Bimal Krishna Matilal (1971). Epistemology, Logic, and Grammar in Indian Philosophical Analysis. The Hague,Mouton.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Mario Gómez-Torrente (2000). A Note on Formality and Logical Consequence. Journal of Philosophical Logic 29 (5):529-539.
Jan Westerhoff, Jay Garfield, Tom Tillemans, Graham Priest, Georges Dreyfus, Sonam Thakchoe, Guy Newland, Mark Siderits, Brownwyn Finnigan & Koji Tanaka (2011). Moonshadows. Conventional Truth in Buddhist Philosophy. Oxford University Press.
Alexis Pinchard (2011). The Argumentative Value of Āgamic Quotations in the Sphoṭasiddhi by Bharata Miśra. Journal of Indian Philosophy 39 (4-5):461-477.
Guy Newland (2001). “Will This Potato Grow?”. The Proceedings of the Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy 2001:61-72.
Andrew Chrucky (1998). Teaching Validity with a Stanley Thermos. Philosophy Now 22:22-23.
Sonam Thakchoe (2003). 'The Relationship Between the Two Truths': A Comparative Analysis of Two Tibetan Accounts. Contemporary Buddhism 4 (2):111-127.
Veda Cobb-Stevens (1986). Imagery. International Philosophical Quarterly 26 (1):87-91.
Veda Cobb-Stevens (1988). Semiotics. International Philosophical Quarterly 28 (2):235-236.
Michel Hulin (2009). The Status of the Veda in the Two Mimansas. In M. T. Stepani͡ant͡s (ed.), Knowledge and Belief in the Dialogue of Cultures. Council for Research in Values and Philosophy
Veda Cobb-Stevens (1981). Hume and Husserl. International Philosophical Quarterly 21 (2):223-225.
Veda Cobb-Stevens (1988). Moral Action. International Philosophical Quarterly 28 (2):236-239.
Achille C. Varzi (2007). Supervaluationism and Its Logics. Mind 116 (463):633-675.
Veda Cobb-Stevens (1982). Myth, Symbol, and Reality. International Philosophical Quarterly 22 (2):216-218.
Added to index2011-07-20
Total downloads11 ( #384,245 of 1,940,955 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #457,798 of 1,940,955 )
How can I increase my downloads?