Prajñākaragupta on the Two Truths and Argumentation
Journal of Indian Philosophy 39 (4-5):427-439 (2011)
| Abstract | 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 | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,709 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesMario 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 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.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2011-07-20Total downloads6 ( #145,761 of 549,754 )Recent downloads (6 months)0How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
