Abstract

Garfield and Priest have rationally reconstructed Nāgārjuna’s doctrine of emptiness as an endorsement of the contradictory nature of reality. According to them, Nāgārjuna can be seen to argue that the way in which things exist in reality and what we can truly say about them must be contradictory. What would be the reasons for thinking that Nāgārjuna would accept their radical interpretation? In raising this question, the main concern is not with how their interpretation coheres with Nāgārjuna’s texts but with the internal coherence (or consistency) within their interpretation. By identifying the incoherence within the resources that Garfield and Priest themselves find in Nāgārjuna, their interpretation will be rejected.

pdf

Additional Information

ISSN
1529-1898
Print ISSN
0031-8221
Pages
pp. 1292-1306
Launched on MUSE
2016-10-13
Open Access
No
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.