For Buddhapalita's consequences are clearly nonimplicative…
““For Buddhapalita's consequences are clearly nonimplicative negations, which is underlined by the fact that he-just like Nagarjuna-exhaustively negates all four possibilities of arising. Moreover, when commenting on Nagarjuna's own consequences in The Fundamental Verses, Bhavaviveka explicitly regards them as negating one alternative without implying any other or committing Nagarjuna to their reversed meaning."" But when he turns to Buddhapalita's consequences, as we have seen, he takes the exact opposite stance. That Bhavaviveka so obviously changes his way of evaluating consequences, depending on whether they were put forward by Nagarjuna or Buddhapalita, is hard to interpret as anything other than Bhavaviveka simply treating Buddhapalita unfairly here.””
About This Quote
This interpretation was drafted with AI assistance. It is one reading of the quote, not the author's own explanation.
Bhavaviveka treats Nagarjuna and Buddhapalita differently, showing bias in evaluating philosophical consequences.
In simple terms: He judges opponents inconsistently.
Key Takeaway
Beware of double standards in analysis.
Themes
philosophy
bias
logic
interpretation
Mood
critical
analytical
Type
philosophical
scholarly
When to use this quote
- academic debate
- textual criticism
- philosophical study
Key Concepts
Madhyamaka
negation
critical analysis
Questions to Reflect On
- How does bias affect philosophical interpretation?
- Can we trust his evaluations?
A Different Perspective
His inconsistency may stem from sectarian loyalty.