{"title":"Candrakīrti on lokaprasiddhi:一手烂牌,还是洞中王牌?","authors":"","doi":"10.1007/s10781-024-09557-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Abstract</h3> <p>The Indian Buddhist Mādhyamika master Candrakīrti (ca. 7th century CE) grounds his philosophy in <em>lokaprasiddhi</em> / -<em>prasiddha</em>, “that which is common knowledge / generally accepted among people in the world.” This raises the question of whether Candrakīrti accepts <em>everything</em> that is “common knowledge” or instead distinguishes and privileges certain justifiable beliefs within common knowledge. Tom J.F. Tillemans has argued that Candrakīrti advocates a “lowest common denominator” version of <em>lokaprasiddhi</em> instead of a model which promotes “in some areas at least, more of a qualitative hierarchy of opinions and thus criticism by optimally qualified, insightful individuals.” In this way Candrakīrti is characterized as a “typical Prāsaṅgika” who advocates “a populist <em>lokaprasiddha</em> and global error theory,” leading to “a dismal slough of relativism” in which Candrakīrti is compelled to uncritically acquise in the opinions of “average worldlings.” I argue that Candrakīrti instead employs a version of <em>lokaprasiddhi</em> that distinguishes expert knowledge from the untutored notions of the <em>hoi polloi</em>. This argument is based upon a new interpretation of <em>āgama</em> Candrakīrti twice quotes, and Candrakīrti’s usage of the terms <em>lokaprasiddhi</em> / -<em>prasiddha</em>, <em>loka</em>- / <em>laukikavyavahāra</em>, <em>saṃvṛti</em> and <em>saṃvṛtisatya</em>, and <em>laukika paramārtha</em>. I conclude that Candrakīrti presents himself as an expert in the determination of mundane affairs (<em>laukikārthaviniścayanipuṇa</em>), the foremost of which is the “mundane ultimate” (<em>laukika paramārtha</em>), the Buddha’s teaching of the path to liberation. Candrakīrti illucidates this for those following “the Victor’s path of reasoning” (<em>jinasya yuktipathānuyāyin</em>). He bases his philosophy in a position that is simply mundane (<em>laukika eva pakṣe sthitvā</em>), but which is nevertheless rationally demonstrable within the parameters of that which is common knowledge among people in the world (<em>lokaprasiddhi</em>).</p>","PeriodicalId":51854,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF INDIAN PHILOSOPHY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Candrakīrti on lokaprasiddhi: A Bad Hand, or an Ace in the Hole?\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10781-024-09557-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<h3>Abstract</h3> <p>The Indian Buddhist Mādhyamika master Candrakīrti (ca. 7th century CE) grounds his philosophy in <em>lokaprasiddhi</em> / -<em>prasiddha</em>, “that which is common knowledge / generally accepted among people in the world.” This raises the question of whether Candrakīrti accepts <em>everything</em> that is “common knowledge” or instead distinguishes and privileges certain justifiable beliefs within common knowledge. Tom J.F. Tillemans has argued that Candrakīrti advocates a “lowest common denominator” version of <em>lokaprasiddhi</em> instead of a model which promotes “in some areas at least, more of a qualitative hierarchy of opinions and thus criticism by optimally qualified, insightful individuals.” In this way Candrakīrti is characterized as a “typical Prāsaṅgika” who advocates “a populist <em>lokaprasiddha</em> and global error theory,” leading to “a dismal slough of relativism” in which Candrakīrti is compelled to uncritically acquise in the opinions of “average worldlings.” I argue that Candrakīrti instead employs a version of <em>lokaprasiddhi</em> that distinguishes expert knowledge from the untutored notions of the <em>hoi polloi</em>. This argument is based upon a new interpretation of <em>āgama</em> Candrakīrti twice quotes, and Candrakīrti’s usage of the terms <em>lokaprasiddhi</em> / -<em>prasiddha</em>, <em>loka</em>- / <em>laukikavyavahāra</em>, <em>saṃvṛti</em> and <em>saṃvṛtisatya</em>, and <em>laukika paramārtha</em>. I conclude that Candrakīrti presents himself as an expert in the determination of mundane affairs (<em>laukikārthaviniścayanipuṇa</em>), the foremost of which is the “mundane ultimate” (<em>laukika paramārtha</em>), the Buddha’s teaching of the path to liberation. Candrakīrti illucidates this for those following “the Victor’s path of reasoning” (<em>jinasya yuktipathānuyāyin</em>). He bases his philosophy in a position that is simply mundane (<em>laukika eva pakṣe sthitvā</em>), but which is nevertheless rationally demonstrable within the parameters of that which is common knowledge among people in the world (<em>lokaprasiddhi</em>).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51854,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JOURNAL OF INDIAN PHILOSOPHY\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JOURNAL OF INDIAN PHILOSOPHY\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10781-024-09557-9\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"ASIAN STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JOURNAL OF INDIAN PHILOSOPHY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10781-024-09557-9","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ASIAN STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Candrakīrti on lokaprasiddhi: A Bad Hand, or an Ace in the Hole?
Abstract
The Indian Buddhist Mādhyamika master Candrakīrti (ca. 7th century CE) grounds his philosophy in lokaprasiddhi / -prasiddha, “that which is common knowledge / generally accepted among people in the world.” This raises the question of whether Candrakīrti accepts everything that is “common knowledge” or instead distinguishes and privileges certain justifiable beliefs within common knowledge. Tom J.F. Tillemans has argued that Candrakīrti advocates a “lowest common denominator” version of lokaprasiddhi instead of a model which promotes “in some areas at least, more of a qualitative hierarchy of opinions and thus criticism by optimally qualified, insightful individuals.” In this way Candrakīrti is characterized as a “typical Prāsaṅgika” who advocates “a populist lokaprasiddha and global error theory,” leading to “a dismal slough of relativism” in which Candrakīrti is compelled to uncritically acquise in the opinions of “average worldlings.” I argue that Candrakīrti instead employs a version of lokaprasiddhi that distinguishes expert knowledge from the untutored notions of the hoi polloi. This argument is based upon a new interpretation of āgama Candrakīrti twice quotes, and Candrakīrti’s usage of the terms lokaprasiddhi / -prasiddha, loka- / laukikavyavahāra, saṃvṛti and saṃvṛtisatya, and laukika paramārtha. I conclude that Candrakīrti presents himself as an expert in the determination of mundane affairs (laukikārthaviniścayanipuṇa), the foremost of which is the “mundane ultimate” (laukika paramārtha), the Buddha’s teaching of the path to liberation. Candrakīrti illucidates this for those following “the Victor’s path of reasoning” (jinasya yuktipathānuyāyin). He bases his philosophy in a position that is simply mundane (laukika eva pakṣe sthitvā), but which is nevertheless rationally demonstrable within the parameters of that which is common knowledge among people in the world (lokaprasiddhi).
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Indian Philosophy publishes articles on various aspects of Indian thought, classical and modern. Articles range from close analysis of individual philosophical texts to detailed annotated translations of texts. The journal also publishes more speculative discussions of philosophical issues based on a close reading of primary sources.