Editorial Reviews. Review. ” Westerhoff’s commentary is lucid, philosophically engaging, and included ample references for the serious student of Indian or. The Dispeller of Disputes This page intentionally left blank The Dispeller of Disputes N¯ag¯arjuna’s Vigrahavy¯avar. The Dispeller of Disputes – Nagarjuna’s Vigrahavyavartani — translated and commented by Jan Westerhoff · A short work by the.

Author: Shaktiktilar Meztitilar
Country: Tajikistan
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Sex
Published (Last): 8 November 2009
Pages: 93
PDF File Size: 17.22 Mb
ePub File Size: 2.80 Mb
ISBN: 230-5-58345-429-5
Downloads: 40558
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Yonris

For an analogous example of curing one illusion by another one that involves no illusionists apart from our own mind, consider the following case.

Consider the following example. This does not amount to the paradoxical claim of someone asserting that he is not asserting anything. Imagine the integers arranged on a line with zero in the middle, the positive integers to the left and the negative integers to the right.

But this response has the unwelcome consequence that we now have a hard time explaining why lighting a candle in my room does not remove the darkness in the room next door, but only the darkness immediately surrounding it. In the passage from the Vaidalyaprakaran.

Twelve Examples of Illusion Jan Westerhoff. But I do not negate anything, since there is not anything to be negated. So emptiness seems to be both empty and exist substantially, which is a contradiction.

This is because we do not negate the substance of things, or assert the substance of some object distinct from things.

The Dispeller of Disputes: Nagarjuna’s Vigrahavyavartani

For this reason, b cannot be part of a, since the parts of an object are simultaneous with it. Taking into account the realist assumptions built into this semantics, he would be ill-advised to do so.


At the conventional level, we can infer the conventional to be insubstantial, even though it will still appear to us as substantial. These objects have their characteristics by nature: Because this is the denial of dependent origination.

This is because an apprehension of non-existent dependent origination cannot be obtained.

For a further discussion of this point, see Siderits The last of these asks: It is to be understood by each one for himself according to this instruction; only some of it can be taught verbally. To this extent everything compounded is just not compounded for you.

Perception is not established by something else, by inference, likeness, or testimony; inference by perception, likeness, or testimony; likeness by perception, inference, or testimony; testimony by perception, inference, or likeness.

Although it thus makes sense to say that light and darkness do not come into contact with each other, this particular view is hardly one the opponent would want to adopt. Neither the beginning, the middle, or the end are established there.

As ignorant people wrongly perceive water in a mirage, in the same way there would be a wrong perception for you in this case, for a non-existent object is negated. It is also not the case that each one—perception, inference, likeness, or testimony— is established by another perception, inference, likeness, or testimony.

We declared the emptiness of things, not their non-emptiness. But in verse 28 things get considerably more interesting. Both are empty dsipeller substancehood, and since everything depends on causes and conditions, the Madhyamaka infers the general conclusion that everything is empty of diputes.


The most mundane ones are those of things like chariots, pots, and so forth, which are dependently originated and therefore empty while The purpose of this book is to disputtes In the Phena Sutta; Feer — End Matter Bibliography Index.

The Dispeller of Disputes

This reply is immune from the objection just made, that an unconnected illumination would illuminate all darkness whatsoever. Lf there is no name whatsoever without a referent.

Of the two just mentioned, father and son, which one is the father and which one is the son? Because of the lack of connection it does not destroy darkness, and because darkness is not prevented there is no illumination. It is also evident how the example of illusion presented in verse 23 refutes the above discussion in six points.

The Dispeller of Disputes: Nagarjuna’s Vigrahavyavartani – PDF Free Download

It is hard to understand the meaning of this passage as given in dispdller Sankskrit, while the Tibetan just reiterates the argument formulated in the preceding point. The Dispeller of Disputes: But a causally produced thing cannot be at the bottom of such a chain, since it in turn depends for its existence on the cause which brought it into being.

Search my Subject Specializations: