Book Reviews

Author(s): J W De Jong
Publisher: J W De Jong

Page 10

228
REVIEWS
na jayeta. Sprung translates: "Indeed, Buddhapalita says: "Things do not arise of themselves because such spontaneous origination would be purposeless and because it entails an absurdity. There would be no purpose in the repeated origination of things which are in existence already. That is, if something exists it would not arise again and yet there would never be a time when it was not arising."" Sprung has made complete nonsense of the last part of this section beginning with atha: "But if something would arise although it exists already, there would never be a time when it was not arising". The word atha or atha va is often used by Candrakirti to introduce the second member of an alternative, a fact which, of course, has not escaped previous translators of the Prasannapada. Words which are very common in Sanskrit philosophical texts are sometimes completely misunderstood by the translator. For instance, on p. 64 the Madhyamika asks his opponent, the logician, the following questlon: yadi jñānam karanam visayasya paricchede kaḥ karta." If knowledge is an instrument, who, in discerning the object, is the agent?" Sprung translates: "If an act of perception (jñānam) is a means, and the object (visaya) is separate from it, who is the agent?" On p. 71 the text explains that the word pratyakṣa (perception) is used both for the object which is actually present (sākṣadabhimukha) and for the knowledge which discerns it (tatparicchedakam jñānam). Sprung translates this latter term with "the act of knowledge distinct from the object". On p. 13 Candrakirti quotes a verse from the Madhyamakāvatāra (VI.8): tasmad dhi tasya bhavane na guno 'sti kaścit / jätasya janma punar eva ca naiva yuktam. L. de La Vallée Poussin translated it as follows: "Il n'y a aucun avantage à ce que ceci naisse de ceci; il est inadmissible qu'une chose née naisse à nouveau" (Le Muséon 11, 1910, p. 280). Sprung translates: "Therefore, if something, of whatever kind, has arisen there can be no point at all in a subsequent birth of this birth: it would be nonsense." This translation is indeed utter nonsense!
It is not surprising to see that the translator goes completely wrong when a passage presents a real difficulty. In his introduction Sprung points out that Nagarjuna declares that he advances no thesis (p. 8). Sprung quotes Candrakirti's explanation: "But the Madhyamika brings no reason or ground (hetu) against his adversary: he makes no use of reasons and examples but pursues his own thesis only until the opponent gives up his." Obviously, Sprung has not seen any contradiction at all between Nagarjuna's statement and Candrakirti's explanation, the first declaring that he advances no thesis but the second explaining that the Madhyamika pursues his own thesis. It is perhaps useful to examine Candrakirti's explanation because it seems to me that not only Sprung but also Stcherbatsky has misunderstood this passage. The Sanskrit text is as follows: tasmad eṣa tavan nyayaḥ / yat parenaiva svabhyupagatapratijñātārthasādhanam upadheyam/na cayam param prati [hetuḥ] / hetudṛṣṭantasambhavat pratijñānusäratayaiva kevalam svapratijñātārthasādhanam upadatta iti nirupapattikapakṣabhyupagamāt svātmānam evayam kevalam visamvadayan na śaknoti pareṣām niscayam adhatum iti /idam eväsya spastataraduṣanam yaduta svapratijñātärthasādhanäsämarthyam (p. 19.3-7). Sprung translates: "Of course anyone making a positive assertion must establish his argument with his adversary and the latter should be persuaded to accept it. But the Madhyamika brings no reason against his adversary; he makes no use of reasons and examples but pursues his own thesis only until the adversary gives up his. He proceeds on assumptions which are not provable claims; he goes so far as to contradict himself and is not capable of convincing his opponent. This is, surely, a clearer refutation that the opponent's own thesis is not adequately established." Sprung did not find it necessary to add a note. One wonders how he made sense of this passage according to which the Madhyamika contradicts himself, is incapable of convincing his opponent, but, nevertheless, shows that the opponent's thesis is not adequately established. Candrakirti would have been a poor thinker if he had said what Sprung makes him say. La Vallée Poussin inserted in the text the word hetu on the strength of the Tibetan translation. It seems to me that it has to be left out. The opponent is a Samkhya philosopher who declares without giving any arguments that things arise of themselves. I would like to suggest the following translation of this passage: "Therefore there is the general rule that it is the opponent who must adduce proof