Indian Logic Forum

tantidharo · Posted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 9:03 am Post subject: Curt retort to Candrakirti

Madhyamakavatara Chapter 6 (8c):

"It would be entirely pointless..."

Why make a point of pointed-ness when It along with it's palpable dullness is presumed by you to be anything but a point to advance the specious voice sucking up to a bauddha grant in the subterfuge of non-origination.

Reference: Candrakirti-Madhyamakavatara, pp. 158-59, trans. by CW Huntington, The Emptiness of Emptiness, 1992, 1995, 1999 [?], as scanned and posted at http://nyaya.darsana.org/download.php?id=32

JohnW · Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 1:21 pm Post subject: Seeking the point of 6:8

Hi tantidharo!

I was happy to see another thread on Candrakirti, and i'm trying to learn from your post. I wasn't sure if you would be interested in pursuing an exchange on your ideas (sometimes i prefer my retorts to remain without response); i hope at least that i'm not entirely missing the boat by trying to understand your ideas, or to discuss them with you.

Since i'm not entirely sure i understand all the points you were making, i'll begin by stating what i understand your posting to mean. Here is how i would express my best interpretation of it:

"Why does C bother to make this point in 6:8c (namely, that arising from self is meaningless, or fruitless, or "pointless"; that is, that it "yields nothing" so to speak)? Clearly he believes that the thesis of self-production is ridiculous, and totally devoid of any interest to anyone (or: clearly C's musings are of no interest whatsoever?). He is carrying on with his specious reasoning in a pathetic attempt to appear (?) wise, or enlightened, by playing word games with the concept of non-origination. (Or perhaps: by weaving specious arguments using the erroneous or meaningless concept of non-origination?)"

(i'm assuming "bauddha" means "Buddha"; is that correct? And what does "grant" mean in this context?)

And of course we must agree on what C wrote in 6:8. Here is how i would translate this stanza (i'm not translating the Tibetan, unfortunately; i'm just compiling this English from several translations):

6:8a Things are not caused by themselves, and how could they be caused by something other than themselves?
6:8b Things are not caused by a combination of themselves and other things, and how could they be caused randomly?
6:8c If things are caused by themselves, then nothing new is created when they are caused.
6:8d And furthermore, something that already exists cannot be brought into existence a second time from non-existence.

(The translation you quoted from 6:8c sounds like the one from the Padmakara Translation Group; it goes something like "It would be pointless for things to arise again," i think.)

Does it seem to you that i have correctly understood your points, and correctly translated 6:8?

Thanks for starting this thread. I hope you will want to bear with me and pursue it.

All the best,
john

tantidharo · Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 3:52 pm Post subject:

John,

Thank you for your attentive reading. I do my best to shape a course that calls on as many ports as possible, and try to tender goods that appeal to a broad array tastes as well. If I fail to respond to your shopping list, please note that I call here regularly, and each time carry fresh consignment. So yes, and by all means, let us convene - in the Javanese quarter, say, adjacent to the quayage. You may find me sitting on the shaded planks, or on the lonely pier beyond the murmur of the net menders... They protect me.

tantidharo

First of all, forgive my failing to announce the version of the Madhyamakavatara Chapter 6 (8c) text translation that was the object of my tort. Kindly look at the post again, it stands redacted in scientific grace; or else just go here http://bauddhamata.blogspot.com/2006/07/curt-retort-to-candrakirti.html

All in all this has acted unexpectedly to ricochet attention toward the very source of the rendering itself, and thereby a writer worthy of note. In The Emptiness of Emptiness CW Huntington refreshingly suggests that 'the insights of a post-Wittgensteinian pragmatism combined with the deconstructional approaches of Richard Rorty and the textual analytical ideas of Gadamer ought to provide us with a nice new range of bauddhamatic interpretive tools,'(9) and even lenses 'through which we may come to see certain things that would otherwise remain undiscovered' (1998). His approving citation of Hans-Georg Gadamer's positional statement vis-a-vis a patently valid textual criticism is, at least to my mind, an additional welcomed breath of air.

JohnW · Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 12:58 pm Post subject: Continuing Candrakirti?

Hi tantidharo!

Your post (and additions) are great! Thank you for taking the time to spell out some things for me. I think i understand better, now.

Huntington's study was a great help to me (and will be of far greater help when i have time to work on it more); i was sorry to learn that he has moved on from Candrakirti work.

Your post gives me much to work on (including Sells's entire book). Until i've done that work i cannot hope to do justice (as a reader) to what you wrote. In the hope that you might be willing to put up with the awkwardness and concerns of a novice, i will post here some questions that come up for me, and that you could help me with.

The first is my uncertain interpretation of what i understood you to say about the "performative" aspect of "performative apophasis" as applied to the image of the "Bauddha grant":

'"performative" precisely, jumping through the hoops of pratitya-samutpada in open competition for lucrative posts"

I was not sure whether "performative" in this quote refers to the practical business of impressing others so as to be awarded some kind of paid employment (speaking loosely), in which case it would fall into the domains of domestic and political economy; or if it concerns more directly the very creation of negative divinity (speaking loosely) through the use of the language of negative theology (something akin to self-fulfilling prophesy, in a very strong sense). Perhaps both? More generally, i was not sure how the notion of paid employment figures in your reflection on Candrakirti, in particular, and on Madhyamika, in general. Any insight you could give me on this would be a great help; these notions seem important to me.

Next, i was not sure how you understand the "privileged perspective" you refer to, and how you would explain it:

"an unseemly sort of 'privileged perspective' that our Ancient Indian Bauddha Logicians from Nargajuna onwards appear to have adopted."

And perhaps more importantly, do you believe that Candrakiri has anything important to offer us (and i mean in particular: you and me)? For my part, i have found the study of his text to be rewarding (even if extremely frustrating at times; mainly because i have had only limited success connecting with my contemporaries on this subject), and even after a year of working on it, i'm still eager to pursue it with whoever is willing to speak with me. If i could travel to the Javanese quarter, i would do it!

And if you do feel such a study would be beneficial, would you be willing to post on your reflections? In particular, i would love to hear more of what you see as the usefulness (or uselessness) of 6:8, and so on. Would a discussion of some points in Candrakirti be of any interest to you?

And i would also welcome an exchange on the relevance of the Gadamer quote you posted, especially on the notion of "claim[s] to truth" and on the "fundamental suspension" as applied to Candrakirti (and Madhyamaka in general). Would you be interested in discussing some of the main points in Huntington's book? And so forth: i would love to find some topic relevant to Candrakirti that you could help me with.

Would this forum be the best place for that? Can you think of a better place?

All the best,
john