Turning a madhyamaka trick: Reply to Huntington [Book Review]

Journal of Indian Philosophy 36 (4):507-527 (2008)

Jay Garfield
Smith College
Huntington ; argues that recent commentators 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
Keywords Madhyamaka  Nāgārjuna  Candrakīrti  Huntington  Positionlessness   Mūlamadhyamakakārikā   Madhyamakāvatāra   Vigrahavyāvartanī
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s10781-008-9045-9
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 39,669
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Nägarjuna's Appeal.Richard P. Hayes - 1994 - Journal of Indian Philosophy 22 (4):311.

View all 10 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Nāgārjuna's Critique of Language.Chien-Hsing Ho - 2010 - Asian Philosophy 20 (2):159-174.

View all 6 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles


Added to PP index

Total views
79 ( #92,628 of 2,326,114 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
3 ( #538,129 of 2,326,114 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes

Sign in to use this feature