Averting Arguments: Nagarjuna’s Verse 29 Essay -- Nagarjuna Verse 29 E

Averting Arguments: Nagarjuna’s Verse 29 ABSTRACT: I examine Nagarjuna’s averting an opponent’s argument (Verse 29 of Averting the Arguments), Paul Sagal’s general interpretation of Nagarjuna and especially Sagal’s conception of "averting" an argument. Following Matilal, a distinction is drawn between locutionary negation and illocationary negation in order to avoid errant interpretations of verse 29 ("If I would make any proposition whatever, then by that I would have a logical error. But I do not make a proposition; therefore, I am not in error.") The argument is treated as representing an ampliative or inductive inference rather than a deductive one. As Nagarjuna says in verse 30: "That [denial] of mine [in verse 29] is a non-apprehension of non-things" and non-apprehension is the averting of arguments or "the relinquishing of all views." "Not making a proposition P" would be not speaking P or silence with regard to P (where P is some opposing view) and, as Sagal argues, not meaning a global l inguistic silence (where P stands for any proposition whatsoever). Such an interpretation would lead to attributing wholesale irrationalism to Nagarjuna-something I wish to avoid. In this paper I examine Nagarjuna averting an argument of an opponent (Verse 29 of Averting the Arguments), Paul Sagal's general interpretation of Nagarjuna, (1) and the former's conception of "averting" an argument. Since I focus my discussion around verse 29, we shall begin with it, then possible interpretations of it, and finally move to considerations of how to best characterize Nagarjuna's "stance" (for lack of a better word) given that verse. Verse 29: If I would make any proposition whatever [P], then by that I would have a logical error [E]... ...ent way (83). (5) See The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way: Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamkakarika, translation and commentary by Jay L. Garfield (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995). (6) Consult, e.g., J. N. Mohanty, "Indian Theories of Truth: Thoughts on Their Common Framework," Philosophy East and West, vol. 30, no. 4 (October, 1980): 439-451, esp. 441. (7) Garfield (note 5), 352: Verse "30. I prostrate to Gautama/Who through compassion/Taught the true doctrine,/Which leads to the relinquishing of all views." (8) Reprinted in Understanding Non-Western Philosophy, 180-181; and World Philosophy, 107-110. (9) David Michael Levin has an interesting, recent interpretation along these lines; see his "Liberating Experience from the Vice of Structuralism: The Methods of Merleau-Ponty and Nagarjuna," Philosophy Today, vol. 41, no. 1 (Spring 1997): 96-111. Averting Arguments: Nagarjuna’s Verse 29 Essay -- Nagarjuna Verse 29 E Averting Arguments: Nagarjuna’s Verse 29 ABSTRACT: I examine Nagarjuna’s averting an opponent’s argument (Verse 29 of Averting the Arguments), Paul Sagal’s general interpretation of Nagarjuna and especially Sagal’s conception of "averting" an argument. Following Matilal, a distinction is drawn between locutionary negation and illocationary negation in order to avoid errant interpretations of verse 29 ("If I would make any proposition whatever, then by that I would have a logical error. But I do not make a proposition; therefore, I am not in error.") The argument is treated as representing an ampliative or inductive inference rather than a deductive one. As Nagarjuna says in verse 30: "That [denial] of mine [in verse 29] is a non-apprehension of non-things" and non-apprehension is the averting of arguments or "the relinquishing of all views." "Not making a proposition P" would be not speaking P or silence with regard to P (where P is some opposing view) and, as Sagal argues, not meaning a global l inguistic silence (where P stands for any proposition whatsoever). Such an interpretation would lead to attributing wholesale irrationalism to Nagarjuna-something I wish to avoid. In this paper I examine Nagarjuna averting an argument of an opponent (Verse 29 of Averting the Arguments), Paul Sagal's general interpretation of Nagarjuna, (1) and the former's conception of "averting" an argument. Since I focus my discussion around verse 29, we shall begin with it, then possible interpretations of it, and finally move to considerations of how to best characterize Nagarjuna's "stance" (for lack of a better word) given that verse. Verse 29: If I would make any proposition whatever [P], then by that I would have a logical error [E]... ...ent way (83). (5) See The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way: Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamkakarika, translation and commentary by Jay L. Garfield (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995). (6) Consult, e.g., J. N. Mohanty, "Indian Theories of Truth: Thoughts on Their Common Framework," Philosophy East and West, vol. 30, no. 4 (October, 1980): 439-451, esp. 441. (7) Garfield (note 5), 352: Verse "30. I prostrate to Gautama/Who through compassion/Taught the true doctrine,/Which leads to the relinquishing of all views." (8) Reprinted in Understanding Non-Western Philosophy, 180-181; and World Philosophy, 107-110. (9) David Michael Levin has an interesting, recent interpretation along these lines; see his "Liberating Experience from the Vice of Structuralism: The Methods of Merleau-Ponty and Nagarjuna," Philosophy Today, vol. 41, no. 1 (Spring 1997): 96-111.