Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Vada in Theory and Practice: Studies in Debates, Dialogues and Discussions in Indian Intellectual Discourses c6.s5.t10: Debates between Buddhist Logicians and Naiyāyikas

Vāda in Theory and Practice: Studies in Debates, Dialogues and Discussions in Indian Intellectual Discourses c6.s5.t10

Language
English

Debates between Buddhist Logicians and Naiyāyikas

c6.s5.t10.1

The history of intellectual debate between the orthodox schools of Indian philosophy on one hand and the schools of Buddhist philosophy on the other is a unique phenomenon as far as world philosophy is concerened. It presents one of the finest examples of intellectual refinement through *vāda*. As both the sides sharpened their weapons for attacking their adversaries, they enriched and sharpened their own systems of thought and tools of analysis. Nāgārjuna was the forerunner of one of the most prolonged traditions of scholastic debate. He vehemently criticized Gautama's logic in his *Vigrahavyāvartanī* and *Vaidalyasūtra*. While acknowledging the greatness of Nāgārjuna as a philosopher, it must also be accepted that he was able to take the argumentative traditions to the peaks through the steps of logic as envisaged by Gautama in his *Nyāyasūtra*.

c6.s5.t10.2

Nāgārjuna flourished between CE 150–250. The essence of his Mādhyamikaśāstra lies in shunning all standpoints:

c6.s5.t10.3

When one accepts any standpoint, one is captured by the cunning poisonous serpent of the impurities. Those, having their mind cleansed of every standpoint, are not captured.¹⁰⁶

c6.s5.t10.4

His *Mūlamādhyamikakārikā* of twenty-seven chapters and approximately 450 verses is the greatest sourcebook for Mādhyamikaśāstra. *Dvādaśadvāraśāstra* and *Vigrahavyāvartanī* are his other works. *Vigrahavyāvartanī* heralded an era of debate between the Buddhist philosophers and Naiyāyikas, which became one of the most enduring, most fruitful and long-living intellectual fights. Nāgārjuna was also the first philosopher to have used the method of *vitaṇḍā* (cavil) through which he could dismantle his opponents on the basis of their own arguments.

c6.s5.t10.5

Nāgārjuna provided a firm footing to the intellectual discourse leading to a prolonged series of *vāda* between the Buddhist logicians and the orthodox Naiyāyikas. He became a legendary name subsequently. In *Laṅkāvatārasūtra*, the Buddha is made to issue the following prophesy:

c6.s5.t10.6

In Vedālī, in the southern part, a *bhikṣu*, most illustrious and distinguished [will be born], his name is Nāgāhvaya (Nāgārjuna), he will be the destroyer of the one-sided views based on being and non-being.
He will declare my vehicle, the unsurpassed Mahāyāna, to the world; attaining the stage of joy he will go to the land of bliss.¹⁰⁷

c6.s5.t10.7

In fact, Nāgārjuna came to be deified as second Buddha.

c6.s5.t10.8

Nāgārjuna challenged the followers of the rival schools of orthodox philosophies and initiated debate with them. He discarded all labels and ideologues — absolutism, monism, radical pluralism, nihilism, negativism, relativism or any form of dialectics. He appears of be elusive but his philosophy is solely based on the middle path “which can be termed the ontological inclusiveness, excellence, purity and supreme state of being”.¹⁰⁸ He restrained himself from adopting any counter-thesis, “because that would entail yet another position”.¹⁰⁹ His philosophy is defined as the philosophy of no-position. He himself declares that “he has no views to offer and therefore he must be absolved from all errors”.¹¹⁰ Nāgārjuna asserted that common intellect is unmindful of the four relational conditions: *hetu-pratyaya* (causal component), *ālambana-* pratyaya (objective component), *samānāntara-pratyaya* (sequential component) and *ādhipateya-pratyaya* (dominant component).¹¹¹ Any reality or experience therefore can only be categorized in negative terms, viz. non- extinction, non-origination, non-destruction, non-eternal, non-identity, non-differentiation, non-coming into being and non-being. In fact, by *śūnyatā*, Nāgārjuna gave a potential tool for reasoning and refuting the opponents view:

c6.s5.t10.9

When a refutation is based on *śūnyatā*, and an opponent refuses, he is not able to counter everything since counter-refutation will be the same nature as the contention (*sādhya*). When an exposition is based on *śūnyatā*, and an opponent censures, he is not able to censure everything since the censorship will be the same (nature) as contention.¹¹²

c6.s5.t10.10

Gautama, the author of *Nyāyasūtras*, is said to have criticized Nāgārjuna in some places, but these portions appear to be interpolations.¹¹³ Vātsyāyana, the author of *Nyāyabhāṣya*, certainly gives a refutation to Nāgārjuna’s *Mādhyamikakārikā* in his discussion on *Nyāyasūtra* V.1.39-40 (without naming him) for his (Nāgārjuna’s) acceptance of only three categories (*pratijñā*, *hetu* and *dṛṣṭānta*) out of the group of five as propounded by Gautama. The Buddhist institutions and Buddhism were confronted with forceful challenges of a reinvigorated Brāhmanism.

c6.s5.t10.11

Āryadeva flourished around CE 200. He is also referred as Kāṇadeva for being blind with one eye. He was one of the most renowned direct disciples of Nāgārjuna. Candrakīrti who commented on Āryadeva’s *Catuḥśataka* informs that he was the son of a king and was born in Siṁhala. Having renounced the world as a crown prince, he came to south India and studied Mādhyamikaśāstra with Nāgārjuna to become one of its foremost champions. He is said to have moved to Nālandā from Śrīparvata to defeat Mātṛceṭa in debate.

c6.s5.t10.12

Asaṅga and Vasubandhu are also referred to as brothers, the former being the elder. They probably belonged to Puruṣapura (modern Peshavar) and flourished around CE 320–400.

Linked texts (6)