Editorial Reviews. Review. ” Westerhoff’s commentary is lucid, philosophically engaging, and included ample references for the serious student of Indian or. The Dispeller of Disputes This page intentionally left blank The Dispeller of Disputes N¯ag¯arjuna’s Vigrahavy¯avar. The Dispeller of Disputes – Nagarjuna’s Vigrahavyavartani — translated and commented by Jan Westerhoff · A short work by the.

Author:	Daigis Kigat
Country:	Turkmenistan
Language:	English (Spanish)
Genre:	Music
Published (Last):	22 October 2011
Pages:	216
PDF File Size:	18.95 Mb
ePub File Size:	7.11 Mb
ISBN:	629-5-69686-267-5
Downloads:	88497
Price:	Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader:	Tebar

For in this case the negation of a future sound is brought about by an existent sound. There it was noted that this would entail that epistemic instruments which already have to dieputes in place to generate knowledge of objects are established once more, and would furthermore reverse the ordinary view that it is the objects which are established, not the instruments.

However, this is a good reason to attempt to do without this particular kind of semantics. Because as this is all dependently originated, when diseller is no dependent origination where should it come from? Further references to western commentarial literature on this verse are given in Lopez For whom there is emptiness there is dependent origination.

The Dispeller of Disputes: Nagarjuna’s Vigrahavyavartani

For if the two establish each other mutually, this is exactly what we would expect: If the substance of all things is not to be found anywhere, your assertion which is devoid of substance is not able to refute substance. Or, if this is given up, the establishment of epistemic objects would be like the establishment of the epistemic instruments. The Positionless Middle Way: Neither the beginning, the middle, nor the end is established there.

Find it on Scholar.

For further discussion of this point, see section 3. Print Save Cite Email Share. But it is not like this in the present case. Both cases can easily be given a cinematic analogue. Thus the following are auspicious in one of their aspects: Nevertheless, our statements are meaningful because there is the appearance of substance and the appearance of water.

Some passages in his works might be interpreted as a denial of abstract objects altogether. For if illumination and darkness are understood as mutual absences, rather than as independent objects, it is clear why the darkness in the room next door is not illuminated by the candle in here.

Similarly items lack of gentleness and lack of omniscience do not seem to be auspicious, let alone wholly so. It is to be understood by each one for himself dispelleg to this instruction; only some of it xispeller be taught verbally.

The Dispeller of Disputes

For there are still epistemic instruments that dispellerr instruments in a certain context of inquiry, even though they are no such instruments substantially, by their intrinsic nature.

For the commentary, however, I have chosen a different approach. In this case it is unclear to us which of the two is the father and which is the son.

For whom there is dependent origination there are the four noble truths. Peculiar as this position may seem, it was certainly considered by disepller Indian authors, even though none of them seem to have adopted it.

How can it be that while all things are empty your assertion by which, because of its nonemptiness, the substance of all things is negated is not empty?

Dispeller of Disputes: Nagarjuna’s Vigrahavyavartani – Oxford Scholarship

Talk of appearances is pragmatically useful, but the mere usefulness of some set of terms does not indicate the existence of substantially existent referents of these terms. Those which are not conducive to liberation have a substance not conducive to liberation, the limbs of enlightenment have a substance which is the limbs of enlightenment, those which are not the limbs of enlightenment have a substance which is not the limbs of enlightenment, the factors harmonious with enlightenment have a substance which is harmonious with enlightenment, 24 THE DISPELLER OF DISPUTES those which are not harmonious with enlightenment have a substance which is not harmonious with enlightenment.

The qualities of buddhahood are something which is not there all the time but which is brought about through the practice of the Buddhist path.

Rather it is a mere absence of light.

For whom there is the righteous and the unrighteous, their cause and their result there are the obscurations, their origin, and their bases. Causality relates cause and effect which exist at different times; we can only squeeze one of these relata into the present moment, so the other must be supplied by our mind, either as a memory or as an expectation.

Therefore there is no religious practice. For once the object of negation is established, what does the negation do?

Hence they are permanent because they are substantially permanent. The obvious and most common way to acquire such dispellrr is by sensory perception. It is dispellerr very same with your epistemic instruments and objects: If the epistemic instruments are self-established, the epistemic objects will be independent of the establishment of the epistemic instruments for you, for selfestablishment is not dependent on anything else.

In this way the auspicious things have an auspicious substance. Here I also explain disputrs I chose to arrange the text differently in the translation and in the commentary. A Great Commentary on Nagarjuna’s Mulamadhyamakakarika. The opponent therefore helped himself to a denial of the thesis which is under discussion.

As such, emptiness provides the basis both for everyday worldly existence as well as for the path leading beyond it. If there were objects but they were all unknowable, nothing could exist that would make off objects known. Statements as tokens are evidently causally produced in the same way as sprouts, though by different causes and conditions: Modern scholars have Disputee some similarities, the two concepts are not identical, however: What the precise nature of such a theory would be need not worry us too much here.

The reason he is not contradicting his own earlier assertion that the example is in fact a non-example is that the discussion is now conducted at a different level.

This verse describes a dilemma for the type of realist semantics defended by the opponent. But the opponent might be aware of the problem that follows if he accepts auspicious and inauspicious mental states as causally produced.