| Summary: | The aim of this thesis is an English translation and elucidation of the third
chapter, Tattvajnt1naianã, (vv. 137-266 ) of Madhyamaka-hdaya-kãrikt (MHK)of
Bhãviveka (A.D. c. 490-570). Bhaviveka was one of the commentators of
Madhyamaka-kãrik of Nagarjuna, the founder of the Madhyamika, and, at the
same time, was a significant philosopher. MHK is one of Bhãviveka’s most
important works. In the MHK, Bhaviveka gives a his own philosophy in
chapters 1-3, and thereafter, presents and criticizes Buddhist and non-Buddhist
systems opposing Madhyamaka philosophy in chapters 4-9.
The Sanskrit text of the third chapter was critically edited and translated
into Japanese by Yasunori Ejima. Shotaro lida, also, published a critical Sanskrit
edition of verses 1-136 of the same chapter and of the Tibetan text of
Madhyamaka-hrdaya-tarkajvala (TJ), a commentary on MHK, corresponding to
those verses, and produced an English translation.
The main subject of verses 137-256 is “the non-production of all dharmas.”
This is also the main subject of Madhyamaka philosophers beginning with
Nagarjuna. Many of them tried to explain it by means of their own methods and
to examine it from their own viewpoint.
Non-production of all dharmas implies the emptiness (unyata) of all
entities in our world. The idea of emptiness is, according to the Madhyamikas,
basic and very important among the Buddha’s teachings. It can be said that
without understanding this idea, no understanding of the philosophy of the
Madhyamika is possible. Therefore, I have decided to translate and explain in
this thesis Bha-viveka’s views on “non-production of entities.”
Nagarjuna, Buddhapalita and Candrakirti used prasañga-anumana in
order to clarify the philosophy of emptiness. That is to say, by pointing out the
absurdity of the opponent’s opinion, they tried to demonstrate the philosophy of
emptiness. In other words, they did not take firm stand on their claims in order
to have consensus by other schools.
Bhãviveka, on the other hand, was not satisfied with prasaHga-anumana,
and tried to clarify the philosophy of emptiness by means of independent
syllogism (svatantra-anumãna), including the three modifications: (1) adding of the
word paramãrthataz (from the standpoint of the highest truth) to propositions in
syllogisms, (2) specification that the negation in syllogisms should be understood
as prasajya-pratiedha (the negation of a proposition or the simple negation of a proposition) and (3) the condition that no counter-example (vipaka) is to be
given. In other words, he positively demonstrated the philosophy of emptiness
by using independent syllogism.
|
|---|
