The proof of emptiness : BhÄviveka's Jewel in the Hand
This study seeks to examine the SvÄtantrika-Madhyamaka proof of emptiness in BhÄvivekaâs Jewel in the Hand (*Karatalaratna, KR). The proof comprises two inferences, the first of which is to the ultimate emptiness of conditioned things and the other to the ultimate unreality of unconditioned things. However, emptiness and logical reasoning are seemingly mutually-exclusive, in that emptiness is non-conceptual and ineffable while logical reasoning is conceptual and verbal. How can BhÄviveka prove emptiness by logical reasoning? The thesis addresses this theoretical tension in two parts: Part I â an introduction to the proof, and Part II â a commentary with the translation of the objections raised by the opponents and BhÄvivekaâs responses related to the first inference. Chapter 1 in Part I explains the formation of the two inferences. Chapter 2 clarifies BhÄvivekaâs notions of the two truths in relation to the proof. The theoretical tension is solvable as the ultimate emptiness is understood as the expressible (paryÄya) ultimate truth, which is conceptual. The proof is further considered as the true (tathya) conventional truth, through which the realisation of the inexpressible (aparyÄya) ultimate
Fong, Lai Yan
The proof of emptiness : BhÄviveka's Jewel in the Hand. This study seeks to examine the SvÄtantrika-Madhyamaka proof of emptiness in BhÄvivekaâs Jewel in the Hand (*Karatalaratna, KR). The proof comprises two inferences, the first of which is to the ultimate emptiness of conditioned things and the other to the ultimate unreality of unconditioned things. However, emptiness and logical reasoning are seemingly mutually-exclusive, in that emptiness is non-conceptual and ineffable while logical reasoning is conceptual and verbal. How can BhÄviveka prove emptiness by logical reasoning? The thesis addresses this theoretical tension in two parts: Part I â an introduction to the proof, and Part II â a commentary with the translation of the objections raised by the opponents and BhÄvivekaâs responses related to the first inference. Chapter 1 in Part I explains the formation of the two inferences. Chapter 2 clarifies BhÄvivekaâs notions of the two truths in relation to the proof. The theoretical tension is solvable as the ultimate emptiness is understood as the expressible (paryÄya) ultimate truth, which is conceptual. The proof is further considered as the true (tathya) conventional truth, through which the realisation of the inexpressible (aparyÄya) ultimate
proof emptiness hand study_seek examine madhyamaka proof emptiness hand proof comprise_two inference first ultimate emptiness condition thing ultimate thing however emptiness logical reason seemingly mutually_exclusive emptiness non conceptual ineffable logical reason conceptual verbal prove emptiness logical reasoning address theoretical tension two_part part introduction proof part commentary translation objection raise opponent response relate first inference part explain formation inference clarifies notion truth relation proof theoretical tension ultimate emptiness understood ultimate truth conceptual proof consider true conventional truth realisation ultimate