Vada in Theory and Practice: Studies in Debates, Dialogues and Discussions in Indian Intellectual Discourses c6.s5.t9: Debates within Buddhist Schools
Vāda in Theory and Practice: Studies in Debates, Dialogues and Discussions in Indian Intellectual Discourses c6.s5.t9
- Language
- English
Debates within Buddhist Schools
c6.s5.t9.1
In the first millennium CE, various philosophical schools grew under the Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna Buddhism and *bhāṣyas* on the Sūtra texts were composed. This was the age of interpretation and reasoning. These Buddhist schools also initiated intense philosophical debates with non-Buddhist rivals on problems of universals, philosophies of logic, language and other issues. Nāgārjuna rejected the concept of *svabhāva* and emphasized the idea of *madhyamā pratipad* (the middle path). He also established the invariable relationship of the philosophy of Śūnyavāda with Buddha’s concept of *pratītyasamutpāda* (interdependent origination). *Nirvāṇa* and *saṃsāra* to him are the forms of one and the same reality.
c6.s5.t9.2
The difference between the Sautrāntika (Representationalism) and Vaibhāṣika (Direct Realism) lies in their view of cognition of external phenomena. The Vaibhāṣikas hold that all external things are known through perception. The Sautrāntikas say that they are known only through *anumāna* (inference). The Vaibhāṣika developed as a branch of Sarvāstivādin School under the Hīnayāna.
c6.s5.t9.3
Śūnyavāda and Vijñānavāda attempt a liberal interpretation of *buddha-vacanas* and they are more inclined towards metaphysical thinking. These two fall under the Mahāyāna (the great vehicle) and the other two, i.e. the Sautrāntika and Vaibhāṣika fall under the Hīnayāna (the little vehicle).
c6.s5.t9.4
But there were divergences of opinions and differences of views even amongst the followers of Śūnyavāda as well as those of Vijñānavāda. The different interpretations of Buddhapālita (CE 470–540) and Bhāvaviveka, also known as Bhavya (CE 490–570) created a split in the Mādhyamika system or Śūnyavāda. Buddhapālita stuck to the dialectical demolition of all theories. Bhavya, however, postulated that *śūnya* or *niḥsvabhāva* can be understood in a positive way.