Putting the Madhyamaka Trick in Context

A Contextualist Reading of Huntington’s Interpretation of Madhyamaka

Authors

  • Michael Dorfman

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1558/bsrv.v31i1.91

Keywords:

C.W.Huntington, Madhyamaka, Nāgārjuna, Wittgenstein, contextualist-pragmatism, symbolic logic

Abstract

In a series of works published over a period of twenty five years, C.W. Huntington, Jr. has developed a provocative and radical reading of Madhyamaka (particularly Early Indian Madhyamaka) inspired by ‘the insights of post- Wittgensteinian pragmatism and deconstruction’ (1993, 9). This article examines the body of Huntington’s work through the filter of his seminal 2007 publication, ‘The Nature of the Madhyamika Trick’, a polemic aimed at a quartet of other recent commentators on Madhyamaka (Robinson, Hayes, Tillemans and Garfield) who attempt ‘to read Nagarjuna through the lens of modern symbolic logic’ (2007, 103), a project which is the ‘end result of a long and complex scholastic enterprise … [which] can be traced backwards from contemporary academic discourse to fifteenth century Tibet, and from there into India’ (2007, 111) and which Huntington sees as distorting the Madhyamaka project which was not aimed at ‘command[ing] assent to a set of rationally grounded doctrines, tenets, or true conclusions’ (2007, 129). This article begins by explicating some disparate strands found in Huntington’s work, which I connect under a radicalized notion of ‘context’. These strands consist of a contextualist/pragmatic theory of truth (as opposed to a correspondence theory of truth), a contextualist epistemology (as opposed to one relying on foundationalist epistemic warrants), and a contextualist ontology where entities are viewed as necessarily relational (as opposed to possessing a context-independent essence.) I then use these linked theories to find fault with Huntington’s own readings of Candrakirti and Nagarjuna, arguing that Huntington misreads the semantic context of certain key terms (tarka, drsti, paksa and pratijña) and fails to follow the implications of Nagarjuna and Candrakirti’s reliance on the role of the pramanas in constituting conventional reality. Thus, I find that Huntington’s imputation of a rejection of logic and rational argumentation to Nagarjuna and Candrakirti is unwarranted. Finally, I offer alternate readings of the four contemporary commentators selected by Huntington, using the conceptual apparatus developed earlier to dismiss Robinson’s and Hayes’s view of Nagarjuna as a charlatan relying on logical fallacies, and to find common ground between Huntington’s project and the view of Nagarjuna developed by Tillemans and Garfield as a thinker committed using reason to reach, through rational analysis, ‘the limits of thought.’

Author Biography

  • Michael Dorfman
    Michael Dorfman (1964–2013) was a student on the University of Sunderland online programme 2009–2011, for which he gained an MA with Distinction. This article was his excellent MA dissertation. American by birth, he gained a BA Critical Theory at Hampshire College, MA in 1989, where Jay Garfield was among his professors. Moving to Norway in 1998, he owned a software development company and was its chief technical officer until 2008. He read on Zen, then Chogyam Trungpa and did the Shambhala Training, also learning śamatha (which he continued to practise) and vipaśyanā. He had absorbed the 140 Bhikkhu Bodhi tapes on the Majjhima Nikāya, and his interests and reading included the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta, the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, Huayan, and books on meditation by authors such as Goldstein and Buddhadasa. His 600+ collection of books on Buddhism and Philosophy have been donated to the Buddhist Federation of Norway and will later be housed in a temple that is being built by the Karma Tashi Ling Buddhist Association in Oslo, as a library in his name.

References

Arnold, D. 2008. Buddhists, Brahmins, and Belief: Epistemology in South Asian Philosophy of Religion. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass (reprint of 2005, New York: Columbia University Press).

Berger, D.L. 2010. ‘Acquiring Emptiness: Interpreting Nagarjuna’s MMK 24: 18’. Philosophy East and West 60(1): 40–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/pew.0.0088

——— . 2011. ‘A Reply to Garfield and Westerhoff on “Acquiring Emptiness”’. Philosophy East and West 61(2): 368–372. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/pew.2011.0023

Bhattacharya, K. 1980–1981. ‘The Grammatical Basis of Nagarjuna’s Arguments: Some Further Considerations’. Indologica Taurinensia, 8–9: 35–43.

——— . 1998. The Dialectical Method of Nagarjuna: Vigrahavyavartani, 4th ed.. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass

Bodhi, Bhikkhu. 2000. The Connected Discourses of the Buddha: A Translation of the Samyutta Nikaya. Boston, MA: Wisdom Publications.

Bronkhorst, J. 1993. ‘On the Method of Interpreting Sanskrit Philosophical Texts: A Review Article’. Asiatische Studien / Études Asiatiques 47(3): 501–511

——— . 1996. ‘The Correspondence Principle and Its Impact on Indian Philosophy’. IndoShisoshi Kenkyu / Studies in the History of Indian Thought, 8: 1–19.

——— . 1997. ‘Nagarjuna’s Logic’. In P. Kieffer-Puelz P and J.U. Hartmann, eds. Studies in Honour of Heinz Berchert on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, 29–37. Swisttal-Odendorf: Indica et Tibetica Verlag.

Cabezón, J.I. 1988. ‘The Prasangikas’ Views on Logic: Tibetan dGe lugs pa Exegesis on the Question of Svatantras’. Journal of Indian Philosophy 16: 217–224. http://dx.doi. org/10.1007/BF00203442

——— . 1990. ‘Review: The Emptiness of Emptiness: An Introduction to Early Indian Madhyamaka’. Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 13(2): 152–161.

——— . 1992. ‘On Retreating to Method and Other Postmodern Turns: A Response to C.W. Huntington’. Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 15(1): 134–143.

——— . 1993. A Dose of Emptiness: An Annotated Translation of the sTong thun chen mo of mKhas grub dGe legs dpal bzang. Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications (reprint of 1992, Albany: State University of New York Press).

The Cowherds. 2011. Moonshadows: Conventional Truth in Buddhist Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cox, C. 2004. ‘From Category to Ontology: The Changing Role of dharma in Sarvastivada Abhidharma’. Journal of Indian Philosophy 32: 543–597. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s10781-004-8635-4

Crittenden, C. 1981. ‘Everyday Reality as Fiction — A Madhyamika Interpretation’. Journal of Indian Philosophy 9: 323–333. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00164314

D’Amato, M. 2009. ‘Why The Buddha Never Uttered A Word’. In M. D’Amato, et al, eds., Pointing at the Moon: Buddhism, Logic, Analytic Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 41–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195381559.003.0004

Derrida, J. 1978. Writing and Difference, tr. Alan Bass. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Dreyfus, G.B.J and S.L. McClintock. 2003. The Svatantrika-Prasangika Distinction: What Difference Does a Difference Make? Boston, MA: Wisdom Publications.

Eklund, M. 2007. ‘Fictionalism’. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http: //plato.stanford. edu/entries/fictionalism/, accessed May 15, 2011.

Finnigan, B. and K. Tanaka. 2011. ‘Carnap’s Pragmatism and the Two Truths’. In The Cowherds, 2011: 181–188. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Garfield, J.L. 1995. The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way: Nagarjuna’s Mulamadhyamakakarika. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

——— . 2002. Empty Words: Buddhist Philosophy and Cross-Cultural Interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

——— . 2006. ‘Reductionism and Fictionalism: Comments on Siderits’ Personal Identity and Buddhist Philosophy’. http: //www.smith.edu/philosophy/documents/ ReductionismandFictionalism.pdf, accessed May 15, 2011

——— . 2008. ‘Turning a Madhyamaka Trick: Reply to Huntington’. Journal of Indian Philosophy 36: 507–527. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10781-008-9045-9

Garfield, J.L., and G. Priest. 2003. ‘Nagarjuna and the Limits of Thought’. Philosophy East and West 53(1): 1–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/pew.2003.0004

Garfield,J.L. and J. Westerhoff. 2011. ‘Acquiring the Notion of a Dependent Designation: A Response to Douglas L. Berger’. Philosophy East and West 61(2): 365–367. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1353/pew.2011.0028

Harris, I.C. 1991. The Continuity of Madhyamaka and Yogacara in Indian Mahayana Buddhism. Leiden: E.J. Brill.

Hayes, R.P. 1994. ‘Nagarjuna’s Appeal’. Journal of Indian Philosophy 22: 299–378. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01095223

Holder, J.J. 1996. ‘The Early Buddhist Theory of Truth: A Contextualist Pragmatic Interpretation’. International Philosophical Quarterly XXXVI(4): 443–459. http:// dx.doi.org/10.5840/ipq199636443

Huntington, Jr., C.W. 1983a. ‘The System of the Two Truths in the Prasannapada and the Madhyamakavatara: A Study in Madhyamika Soteriology’. Journal of Indian Philosophy 11: 77–106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00221064

——— . 1983b. ‘A Nonreferential View of Language and Conceptual Thought in the Work of Tson-kha-pa’. Philosophy East and West 33(4): 325–339. http://dx.doi. org/10.2307/1398592

——— . 1992. ‘The Theatre of Objectivity: Comments on José Cabezón’s Interpretations of mKhas grub rje’s and C.W. Huntington, Jr.’s Interpretations of the Tibetan Translation of a Seventh Century Indian Buddhist Text’. Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 15(1): 118–133.

——— . 1995. ‘A Way of Reading’. Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, 18: 279-308.

——— . 2003. ‘Was Candrakirti a Prasangika?’. In The Svatantrika-Prasangika Distinction: What Difference Does a Difference Make?, edited by G.B.J Dreyfus, and S.L. McClintock, 67–91. Boston, MA: Wisdom Publications.

——— . 2007. ‘The nature of the Madhyamika trick’. Journal of Indian Philosophy 35: 103–131.

Huntington, Jr., C.W., with Wangchen, Geshé Namgyal. 1993. The Emptiness of Emptiness: An Introduction to Early Indian Madhyamika. Delhi: Motilall Banarsidass. (reprint of 1989, Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10781- 007-9018-4

Inada, K.K. 1993. Nagarjuna: A Translation of his Mulamadhyamakakarika with an Introductory Essay. Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications.

Jayatilleke, K.N. 1963. Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. (reprint of 1963, London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd).

Kalupahana, D.J. 1991. Mulamadhyamakakarika of Nagarjuna: The Philosophy of the Middle Way. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers. (reprint of 1986, Albany: State University of New York Press).

Kang, S.Y. 2010. ‘An Inquiry into the Definition of tarka in Nyaya Tradition and Its Connotation of Negative Speculation’. Journal of Indian Philosophy 38: 1–23. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10781-009-9078-8

Lindtner, C. 1987. Nagarjuniana: Studies in the Writings and Philosophy of Nagarjuna. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers (reprint of 1982, Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag).

Loizzo, J.J., trans. 2007. Nagarjuna’s Reason Sixty (Yuktisastika) With Chandrakirti’s Commentary (Yuktisastikavrtti). New York: American Institute of Buddhist Studies.

Mabbett, I. 1996. ‘Is There A Devadatta In The House? Nagarjuna’s Vigrahavyavartani and the Liar Paradox’. Journal of Indian Philosophy 24: 295–320. http://dx.doi. org/10.1007/BF01792028

——— . 1998. ‘The Problem of the Historical Nagarjuna Revisited’. Journal of the American Oriental Society 118(3): 332–346. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/606062

Matilal, B.K. 1971. Epistemology, Logic, and Grammar in Indian Philosophical Analysis. The Hague: Mouton & Co.

Oetke, C. 1994. ‘Remarks on the Interpretation of Nagarjuna’s Philosophy’. Journal of Indian Philosophy 19: 315–323.

——— . 2007. ‘On MMK 24.18’. Journal of Indian Philosophy 35: 1–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10781-006-9010-4

——— . 2011. ‘Two Investigations on the Madhyamakakarikas and the Vigrahavyavartani’. Journal of Indian Philosophy 39: 245–325. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10781-010- 9123-7

Priest, G. 2009a. ‘The Structure of Emptiness’. Philosophy East and West 59(4): 467–480. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/pew.0.0069

——— . 2009b. ‘Paraconsistent Logic’. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http: //plato. stanford.edu/entries/logic-paraconsistent/, accessed May 15, 2011.

Priest, G., M. Siderits and T.J.F. Tillemans. 2011. ‘The (Two) Truths About Truth’. In The Cowherds, 2011, 131–150. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Robinson, R.H. 1957. ‘Some Logical Aspects of Nagarjuna’s System’. Philosophy East and West 6(4): 291–308.

——— . 1972. ‘Did Nagarjuna Really Refute All Philosophical Views?’. Philosophy East and West 22(3): 325–331. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1397681

Ronkin, N, 2005. Early Buddhist Metaphysics: The Making of a Philosophical Tradition. New York: RoutledgeCurzon.

Ruegg, D.S. 1981. The Literature of the Madhyamaka School of Philosophy in India. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.

——— . 1983. ‘On the Thesis and Assertion in the Madhyamaka/dbu ma’. In Contributions on Tibetan and Buddhist Religion and Philosophy: Proceedings of the Csoma de Körös Symposium, 1981, Volume 2, edited by E. Steinkellner and H. Tauscher, 205–241. Vienna: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien Universität Wien.

——— . 2010. The Buddhist Philosophy of the Middle: Essays on Indian and Tibetan Madhyamaka. Boston, MA: Wisdom Publications Samten, Geshe N., and J. L. Garfield. 2006. Ocean of Reasoning: A Great Commentary on Nagarjuna’s Mulamadhyamakakarika by rJe Tsong Khapa. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Shulman, E. 2010. ‘The Commitments of a Madhyamaka Trickster: Innovation in Candrakirti’s Prassana-pada’. Journal of Indian Philosophy 38: 379–417. http://dx.doi. org/10.1007/s10781-010-9087-7

Siderits, M. 1979. ‘A Note on the Early Buddhist Theory of Truth’. Philosophy East and West 29(4): 491–499. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1398817

——— . 1980. ‘The Madhyamaka Critique of Epistemology. I’. Journal of Indian Philosophy 8: 307–335. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01793836

——— . 1981. ‘The Madhyamaka Critique of Epistemology. II’. Journal of Indian Philosophy 9: 121–160. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00164035

——— . 1988. ‘Nagarjuna as Anti-Realist’. Journal of Indian Philosophy 16: 311–325. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00160698

——— . 1989. ‘Thinking on Empty: Madhyamika Anti-Realism and Canons of Rationality’. In Rationality In Question: On Eastern and Western Views of Rationality, edited by S. Biderman and B.A. Schaufstein, 231–259. Dordrecht: Brill.

——— . 2003a. Personal Identity and Buddhist Philosophy: Empty Persons. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

——— . 2003b. ‘Deductive, Inductive, Both, Neither?’. Journal of Indian Philosophy 31: 303– 321. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1024691426770

——— . 2004. ‘Causation and Emptiness in Early Madhyamaka’. Journal of Indian Philosophy 32: 393–419. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:INDI.0000044422.42295.6a

Siderits, M., and J.D. O’Brien. 1976. ‘Zeno and Nagarjuna on Motion’. Philosophy East and West 26(3): 281–299. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1397860

Smith College Symposium. 2010. Video recordings of ‘Madhyamaka & Methodology: A Symposium on Buddhist Theory and Method’, April 23–25, 2010, http: //www. smith.edu/buddhism/event-mmsymp.php. Accessed May 15, 2011.

Streng, F.J. 1967. Emptiness: A Study in Religious Meaning. Nashville: Abingdon Press.

Taber, J. 1994. ‘On Nagarjuna’s So-Called Fallacies: A Comparative Approach’. Indo-Iranian Journal 41: 213–244. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/000000098124992664

Tachikawa, M. 1997. An Introduction to the Philosophy of Nagarjuna, trans. R.W. Giebel. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers.

Tillemans, T.J.F. 1999. Scripture, Logic, Language: Essays on Dharmakirti and his Tibetan Successors. Somerville, MA: Wisdom Publications.

——— . 2004a. ‘Trying to be Fair to Madhyamika Buddhism’. In Expanding and Merging Horizons: Contributions to South Asian and Cross-Cultural Studies in Commemoration of Wilhelm Halbfass, edited by K. Preisendanz, 507–523. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

——— . 2004b. ‘What are Madhyamikas refuting? Santaraksita, Kamalasila et alii on Superimpositions (samaropa)’. In S. Hino and T. Wada, Three Mountains and Seven Rivers: Prof. Musashi Tachikawa’s Felicitation Volume, 225–237. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers.

——— . 2011. ‘How Far Can a Madhyamika Reform Conventional Truth? Dismal Relativism, Fictionalism, Easy-Easy Truth and the Alternatives’. In The Cowherds, 2011: 151– 166. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Tsöndrü, Mabja Jangchub. 2011. Ornament of Reason: The Great Commentary to Nagarjuna’s Root of the Middle Way, trans. The Dharmachakra Translation Committee. Ithaca, NY: Snow Lion.

Tuck, A.P. 1990. Comparative Philosophy and the Philosophy of Scholarship: On the Western Interpretation of Nagarjuna. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Walser, J. 2005. Nagarjuna in Context: Mahayana Buddhism and Early Indian Culture. New York: Columbia University Press.

Wayman, A. 1996. ‘The Secret of Nagarjuna’s Position on Dependent Origination and Sunyata’. In Indo-Tibetan Madhyamika Studies, 82–109. Delhi: Tibet House.

Westerhoff, J. 2009. Nagarjuna’s Madhyamaka: A Philosophical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195375213.001.0001

——— . 2010a. The Dispeller of Disputes: Nagarjuna’s Vigrahavyavartani. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199732692.001.0001

——— . 2010b. Twelve Example of Illusion. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Williams, P. 1985. ‘rMa bya pa Byang chub brtson ‘grus On Madhyamaka Method’. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 13: 205–225. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00163222

Wood, T.E. 1995. Nagarjunian Disputations: A Philosophical Journey Through An Indian Looking Glass. Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications. (reprint of 1994, Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press).

Young, J.O. 2009. ‘The Coherence Theory of Truth’. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http: //plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-coherence/. Accessed May 15, 2011.

Yün-hua, J. 1970. ‘Nagarjuna, One or More? A New Interpretation of Buddhist Hagiography’. History of Religions 10(2): 139–155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/462624

Downloads

Published

2014-07-24

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Dorfman, M. (2014). Putting the Madhyamaka Trick in Context: A Contextualist Reading of Huntington’s Interpretation of Madhyamaka. Buddhist Studies Review, 31(1), 91-124. https://doi.org/10.1558/bsrv.v31i1.91