Abstract
Huntington (2007); argues that recent commentators (Robinson, 1957; Hayes, 1994; Tillemans, 1999; Garfield and Priest, 2002) err in attributing to Nāgārjuna and Candrakīrti a commitment to rationality and to the use of argument, and that these commentators do violence to the Madhyamaka project by using rational reconstruction in their interpretation of Nāgārjuna’s and Candrakīrti’s texts. Huntington argues instead that mādhyamikas reject reasoning, distrust logic and do not offer arguments. He also argues that interpreters ought to recuse themselves from argument in order to be faithful to these texts. I demonstrate that he is wrong in all respects: Nāgārjuna and Candrakīrti deploy arguments, take themselves to do so, and even if they did not, we would be wise to do so in commenting on their texts.
References
Arnold D. (2005). Buddhists, brahmins and belief: Epistemology in South Asian Philosophy of Religion. New York, Columbia University Press
Bhattacharya, K., Johnston, E. H., & Kunst, A. (1978). The dialectical method of Nāgārjuna. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Candrakīrti. (1992). dBu ma la ‘jugs pa’i shad pa. Sarnath: Kargyud Relief and Protection Committee.
Candrakīrti. (2003). dBu ma rtsa ba’i ‘grel pa tshig gsal ba. Sarnath: Gelukpa Student Welfare Committee.
Candrakīrti. (2007). In J. Loizzo (Ed.), Nāgārjuna’s Reason Sixty with Candrakīrti’s Reason Sixty Commentary. New York: Columbia University Press.
Dreyfus G., McClintock S. (2003). The Prāsaṇgika-Svātantrika distinction: What difference does a difference make?. Boston: Wisdom Publications
Fauré B. (1993). Chan insights and oversights: An epistemological critique of the Chan tradition. Princeton, Princeton University Press
Garfield J. (1995). Fundamental wisdom of the middle way. New York, Oxford University Press
Garfield J. (2002). Empty words. New York, Oxford University Press
Garfield J., Priest G. (2002). Nāgārjuna and the limits of thought. In: Garfield J. (eds) Empty words. New York, Oxford University Press, pp. 86–108
Hayes R. (1994) Nāgārjuna’s appeal. Journal of Indian Philosophy 22: 299–378
Huntington C. (1995). A way of reading. Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 18, 279–308
Huntington, C. (2003). In G. Dreyfus & S. McClintock (Eds.), Was Cānrakīrti a Prasaṇgika? (pp. 66–91).
Huntington C. (2007). The nature of the Mādhyamika trick. Journal of Indian Philosophy 35, 103–131
Huntington C., Wangchen G.N. (1985). The emptiness of emptiness. Honolulu, University of Hawai’i Press
Pye, M. (1978). Skillful means: A concept in Mahāyāna buddhism. London: Duckworth.
Robinson R.H. (1957). Some logical aspects of Nāgārjuna’s system. Philosophy East and West 6, 291–308
Thakchöe, S. (unpublished). The Prāsaṇgika Account of Prāmaṇa. University of Tasmania.
Tillemans T. (1999). Scripture, language, logic. Boston, Wisdom Publications
Tsong khapa. (2007). Ocean of reasoning. (trans: Samten & Garfield) New York: Oxford University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Garfield, J.L. Turning a Madhyamaka Trick: Reply to Huntington. J Indian Philos 36, 507–527 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10781-008-9045-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10781-008-9045-9