Prasaṅgika

Prasaṅgika ("Consequentialist") Madhyamaka is a Tibetan category of Madhyamaka viewpoints ascribed to the Indian author Buddhapalita and his defender Candrakirti. The viewpoints ascribed to Buddhapalita's critic, Bhavaviveka is termed Svatantrika ("Autonomous").

Buddhapalita's commentary on Nagarjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā used the method of logical consequence (prasanga in Sanskrit) to refute the Samkhyas. Bhavaviveka criticized this approach as he preferred autonomous arguments.

Buddhapalita's Rebuttal of the Samkhyas

In his rebuttal of Samkhya, Buddhapalita states:

Entities do not arise from their own intrinsic nature, because their arising would be pointless and because they would arise endlessly. For entities that [already] exist as their own intrinsic nature, there is no need to arise again. If they were to arise despite existing [already], there would be no time when they do not arise; [but] that is also not asserted [by the Enumerators].

Bhavaviveka's Critique of Buddhapalita

Bhavaviveka did not like the consequentialist manner in which Buddhapalita argued against the Samkhyas. Bhavaviveka states:

This [refutation by Buddhaplita] is inappropriate, (1) because he does not state a reason and an example, (2) because he fails to eliminate the [possible] flaws adduced by others [against him], and (3) because it is a [consequential] statement that affords an opportunity [for objections by an opponent]. The [third reason] means that, through reversal of the meaning stated [in Buddhaplita’s consequence], a probandum and a reason with reversed meanings would appear. Thus, entities would arise from something other, because their arising would be fruit-ful and because their arising would come to an end. [However, this] would contradict [Buddhaplita’s own] position.

Candrakriti's Defense of Buddhapalita and Rebuttal of Bhavaviveka's Critique

In the Prasannapadā, Candrakırti declares that Bhvaviveka’s entire critique of Buddhaplita is unfounded. He starts with the former’s accusation (1) that the latter “does not state a reason and an example.” He says that the Centrists’ own system does not state a reason and an example that are established through valid cognition but that this is not a fault. He explains why by saying that the system of Centrists means to be free from all discursiveness—including valid cognition—on both levels of reality. This does not prevent Centrists from stating reasons and examples that are acknowledged by others. However, in the case of the Enumerators who assert that entities arise from themselves, it is possible to put an end to their wrong ideas by just confronting them with the internal contradictions of their position. Thus, the Enumerators are challenged by their own consequences that demonstrate the internal contradictions of their system and have the same effect of negating arising from itself as the autonomous arguments and examples of someone who chooses the Autonomist approach. Candrakırti gives examples from the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, to show that Nagarjuna also eliminates the theses of others mostly by means of adducing consequences.

See also

• Buddhapālita
• Svatantrika

Additional Reading

• Brunnholzl, Karl. The Center of the Sunlit Sky. Snow Lion Publications. 2004.
• Lopez, Donald. A Study of Svatantrika. Snow Lion Publications. Ithaca, New York. (1987)
• della Santina, Peter. Madhyamaka Schools in India. Motilal Banarsidass. Delhi. (1986)
• Shantarakshita and Ju Mipham (2005) The Adornment of the Middle Way Padmakara Translation ISBN 1-59030-241-9

External links

• The Buddha Within by S. K. Hookham on Rangtong and Shentong