Mar 15 2012

♦ The third Āryadeva!

To solve the problem of who the author of the Skhalitapramathanayuktāhetusiddhi (SPHYS) was, is a very difficult task. In order to fix a starting point, however, let us begin by admitting that his name was really Āryadeva, as is referred in all the colophons.1 Moreover, I take for granted that he was a later namesake […]

May 10 2011

♦ Lokākṣa on causation: Avalokitavrata’s apparently discordant perspectives

In what follows, I  provide the English translation of some passages from Avalokitavrata’s Ṭīkā on Bhāviveka’s Prajñāpradīpa on Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakarika, from which some apparently discordant perspectives on the theory of causation of *Lokākṣa (’Jig rten mig), a mahārṣi among the Lokāyatas, are outlined. This is only a preliminary and incomplete collection (based only on the […]

Jul 25 2010

♦ To conclude on Mūlamadhyamakakārika VIII, 4: philosophical notes

In a previous post I have taken into consideration Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā VIII, 4 in its Sanskrit and Tibetan versions. The Sanskrit texts runs thus: hetāv asati kāryaṃ ca kāraṇaṃ ca na vidyate | tadabhāve kriyā kartā karaṇaṃ ca na vidyate || That is: If there is no cause, both effect and cause are not found; […]

Jun 23 2010

♦ Again on Mūlamadhyamakakārikā VIII, 4 (in brief)

If we compare de Jong’s and de la Vallée Poussin’s editions of MMK, 4cd (we have already dealt with this kārikā here), we can notice the following difference: de Jong: hetāv asati kāryaṃ ca kāraṇaṃ ca na vidyate | tadabhāve kriyā kartā kāraṇaṃ ca na vidyate || de la Vallée Poussin: hetāv asati kāryaṃ ca […]

May 26 2010

♦ Some open reflections on Mūlamadhyamakakārikā VIII, 4ab

Let us consider Mūlamadhyamakakārikā VIII, 4ab, where Nāgārjuna seems to accept a sort of “priority” of hetu on both pratyaya and utpanna: hetāv asati kāryaṃ ca kāraṇaṃ ca na vidyate | («when the [primary] cause does not exist, both the effect and the [secondary] cause are not evident»). Jacques May, reflecting on this half a […]

Apr 28 2010

♦ Nāgārjuna on cause/condition: moral implications

According to Nāgārjuna, only a modifiable (not permanently identical with, nor permanently different from, himself/herself) person can be a concrete enjoyer of good and bad results of his/her own actions. But to be modifiable means to lack svabhāvaḥ. Now, to avoid both the svabhāvaḥ and the parabhāvaḥ positions, Nāgārjuna prefers to adopt a “neither A, […]

Feb 8 2010

♦ Nāgārjuna on “cause” and “condition”: pars construens (2)

If it is true that both the Pāli Canon and Nāgārjuna consider the conditional relations on the basis of the positive and negative (α and β) twofold formulae (αβ.1 and αβ.2) (see Nāgārjuna on “cause” and “condition”: pars construens (1)), nonetheless between the two perspectives there is a crucial difference: although, according to SN I, […]

Jan 16 2010

♦ Nāgārjuna on “cause” and “condition”: pars construens (1)

Let us consider the Pāli Canon (see also: A brief note on the distinction between “cause” and “condition” in early Buddhism). The kind of relation indicated by the term “condition” is in the canonical literature pointed out generally in two manners, a positive and a negative one. The (α) positive way runs as follows: imasmiṃ […]

Jan 4 2010

♦ Nāgārjuna on “cause” and “condition”: pars destruens (2)

Let us examine one by one the four alternatives listed by Nāgārjuna in his MMK I,1 (and referred to in Nāgārjuna on “cause” and “condition”: pars destruens (1)).1 (1) The alternative na svatas («not from itself») is clearly the rejection of the Sarvāstivāda-like position. Here Nāgārjuna criticizes the conception of svabhāvaḥ («intrinsic nature»). If the […]

Dec 29 2009

♦ Nāgārjuna on “cause” and “condition”: pars destruens (1)

As far as the causal and conditional dependence between effect and cause is concerned, we have to note that the conception of svabhāvaḥ, and consequently of parabhāvaḥ (as a preliminary discussion see A brief note on the distinction between “cause” and “condition” in early Buddhism), during Nāgārjuna’s times had developed some problematic aspects, which Nāgārjuna […]