Nāgārjuna’s No-Thesis Statement (Vigraha-vyāvartanī 29) as an Absurd Consequence Revisited

Author: Stanisław Jan Kania | AAV 37 (2024) | Pages: 67-84 | https://doi.org/10.60018/AcAsVa.orfe2808

Abstract

Made in Vigraha-vyāvartanī verse 29, Nāgārjuna’s claim that he does not have any thesis has long perplexed scholars as to both its meaning and the very reasonableness of its employment. In this paper I offer an alternative to the scholarly interpretations which assume that this claim can be abstracted from the context of the fictitious debate presented in the treatise. Rather than taking it to signal an actual standpoint of Nāgārjuna, I propose to read the no-thesis statement as an absurd consequence, part of an elaborate exchange which showcases the irrationality of a realist-antirealist debate.

This article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

References

Bhattacharya, Kamaleswar 1998. The Dialectical Method of Nāgārjuna. Fourth revised and enlarged edition. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. [1st ed. 1978].

Franco, Eli 2022. “Reading Notes on the Vigrahavyāvartanī”. [In:] Marciniak, Katarzyna, Stanisław Jan Kania, Małgorzata Wielińska-Soltwedel and Agata Bareja-Starzyńska, eds, Guruparamparā: Studies on Buddhism, India, Tibet and More in Honour of Professor Marek Mejor. Warsaw: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, pp. 119–144. https://doi.org/10.31338/uw.9788323558699.pp.119-144

Kania, Stanisław Jan 2014. “Does a Dialectician Always Mean What He Says? A Few Words On The No-Thesis Statement of Nāgārjuna and The Incommensurability of Philosophical Theories”. Studia Indologiczne 21: 17–23.

Kania, Stanisław Jan 2015. Metoda dialektyczna Nagardżuny na podstawie traktatu pt. Odrzucenie zarzutów (Vigraha-vyāvartanī). Warsaw: Research Centre of Buddhist Studies.

Lindtner, Christian 1982. Nagarjuniana. Studies in the Writings and Philosophy of Nāgārjuna. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag.

Lopez, Donald S. 1994. “dGe ’dun Chos ’phel’s Position on Vigrahavyāvartanī 29”. [In:] Skorupski, Tadeusz and Ulrich Pagel, eds, The Buddhist Forum III: Papers in honour and appreciation of Professor David Seyfort Ruegg’s contribution to Indological, Buddhist and Tibetan Studies. London: School of Oriental and African Studies, pp. 161–184.

Murti, T. R. V. 1955. The Central Philosophy of Buddhism. A Study of the Mādhyamika System. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd.

Oetke, Claus 1991. “Remarks on the Interpretation of Nāgārjuna’s Philosophy”. Journal of Indian Philosophy 19(3): 315–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00180494

Ruegg, David Seyfort 1983. “On the thesis and assertion in Madhyamaka/dBu ma”. [In:] Steinkellner, Ernst and Helmut Tauscher, eds, Contributions on Tibetan and Buddhist Religion and Philosophy. Proceedings of the Csoma the Kőrös Symposium Held at Velm-Vienna, Austria, 13–19 September 1981. Vol. 2. Vienna: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien, pp. 205–241.

Ruegg, David Seyfort 1986. “Does the Mādhyamika Have a Thesis and Philosophical Position?” [In:] Matilal, Bimal Krishna, ed., Buddhist Logic and Epistemology. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 229–237.

Westerhoff, Jan 2009. “The No-Thesis View: Making Sense of Verse 29 of Nāgārjuna’s Vigrahavyāvartanī”. [In:] D’Amato, Mario, Jay L. Garfield and Tom J.F. Tillemans, eds, Pointing at the Moon. Buddhism, Logic, Analytic Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 25–39. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195381559.003.0003

Westerhoff, Jan 2010. The Dispeller of Disputes. Nāgārjuna’s Vigrahavyāvartanī. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2010. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199732692.001.0001

Yonezawa, Yoshiasu 2008. “Vigrahavyāvartanī. Sanskrit Transliteration and Tibetan Translation”. Journal of Naritasan Institute of Buddhist Studies 31: 209–333.