A note on the interpretation of the term sādhyasama in madhyamaka texts

✍ Scribed by Kamaleswar Bhattacharya

• Publisher: Springer
• Year: 1974
• Tongue: English
• Weight: 311 KB
• Volume: 2
• Category: Article
• ISSN: 0022-1791
• DOI: 10.1007/bf00184350

✦ Synopsis

The term sddhyasama occurs several times in the works of N~garjuna and Candrakirti. It is usually translated "petitio principii", "p6tition de principe". However, H. N. Randle said long ago: 'I am not sure whether the term is used here (i.e. MK. IV, 8-9) as the Nydyas~tra uses it' (H. N. Randle, Indian Logic in the Early Schools: A study of the Nydyadar~ana in its relation to the early logic of other schools (Oxford University Press, 1930), p. 15, n. 3). (Whether the translation petitio principii given to sddhyasarna in the Nydyasatra-s is accurate or not is a different question.) A close study of the passages in the works of N~tg~trjuna and Candrakirti in which this term occurs has led me to the conclusion that Randle's guess was partially right. The two Kdrikd-s mentioned by Randle run as follows: vigrahe yah parihdram, k.rte ggnyatayd vadet / sarva.rn tasydparih.rta.m samara, sddhyena jdyate // vydkhydne ya updlambham, k.rte g~nyatayd vadet / sarvam, tasydnupdlabdha.rn samara, sddhyena jdyate //

The gist is this: In a discussion led according to the principle of Voidness (g~nyatd), no objection of the opponent or of the disciple is valid, because everything becomes sddhyasama i.e. equal to the object or thesis to be established. -Why? -Because everything is equally void (~nya). This Naggrjuna clearly explains in the verse immediately preceding those quoted above (MK. IV, 7): vedandcittasam.jgdn~m, sam. skdrd~dm, ca sarvaga.h / sarve.sam eva bhavanam, r~pe~aiva sama.h krama.h // And Candrakirti comments: vedanddikam api sarvam, rftpavicdren, aiva sama.m yojyarn, yathaiva hy ekasya dharmasya gunyatd pratipddayitum i.st. d m~dhyamikena tathaiva sarvadharmdn. 6m apiti. Later on, in his corn-