Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Acquiring the Notion of a Dependent Designation: A Response to Douglas L. Berger

Acquiring the Notion of a Dependent Designation: A Response to Douglas L. Berger COMMENT AND DISCUSSION Acquiring the Notion of a Dependent Designation: A Response to Douglas L. Berger Jay L Garfield Department of Philosophy, Smith College Department of Philosophy, Central University of Tibetan Studies Department of Philosophy, University of Melbourne Jan Westerhoff Department of Philosophy, University of Durham School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London In a recent issue of Philosophy East and West Douglas Berger defends a new reading of Mlamadhyamakakrik XXIV : 18, arguing that most contemporary translators mistranslate the important term prajnaptir updya, misreading it as a compound ~ indicating "dependent designation" or something of the sort, instead of taking it simply to mean "this notion, once acquired." He attributes this alleged error, pervasive in modern scholarship, to Candrakrti, who, Berger correctly notes, argues for the interpretation he rejects. Berger's analysis, and the reading of the text he suggests is grounded on that analysis, is insightful and fascinating, and certainly generates an understanding of Ngrjuna's enterprise that is welcome amid the profusion of such understandings. We have learned much from it. The central argument, nonetheless, is vitiated by two significant fallacies, to which we draw attention, not in order to refute Berger's reading, but to http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Philosophy East and West University of Hawai'I Press

Acquiring the Notion of a Dependent Designation: A Response to Douglas L. Berger

Philosophy East and West , Volume 61 (2) – Apr 27, 2011

Loading next page...
 
/lp/university-of-hawai-i-press/acquiring-the-notion-of-a-dependent-designation-a-response-to-douglas-U9ay4SQakc
Publisher
University of Hawai'I Press
Copyright
Copyright © University of Hawai'I Press
ISSN
1529-1898
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

COMMENT AND DISCUSSION Acquiring the Notion of a Dependent Designation: A Response to Douglas L. Berger Jay L Garfield Department of Philosophy, Smith College Department of Philosophy, Central University of Tibetan Studies Department of Philosophy, University of Melbourne Jan Westerhoff Department of Philosophy, University of Durham School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London In a recent issue of Philosophy East and West Douglas Berger defends a new reading of Mlamadhyamakakrik XXIV : 18, arguing that most contemporary translators mistranslate the important term prajnaptir updya, misreading it as a compound ~ indicating "dependent designation" or something of the sort, instead of taking it simply to mean "this notion, once acquired." He attributes this alleged error, pervasive in modern scholarship, to Candrakrti, who, Berger correctly notes, argues for the interpretation he rejects. Berger's analysis, and the reading of the text he suggests is grounded on that analysis, is insightful and fascinating, and certainly generates an understanding of Ngrjuna's enterprise that is welcome amid the profusion of such understandings. We have learned much from it. The central argument, nonetheless, is vitiated by two significant fallacies, to which we draw attention, not in order to refute Berger's reading, but to

Journal

Philosophy East and WestUniversity of Hawai'I Press

Published: Apr 27, 2011

There are no references for this article.