Customer Reviews

Central Philosophy of Buddhism: A Study of Madhyamika System

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Since Murti's Central Philosophy of Buddhism seems to be out of fashion these days with some academic Buddhologists, I would like to add my vote in its favor. The winds of philosophical fashion are variable, and we may find that tomorrow this work might well be on the Best Seller list. Who knows?
Central Philosophy was first published in 1955 (revised in 1960), so this will be (in a couple of hours) its fiftieth anniversary. I had the good fortune to know and to take several courses with Professor Murti while he was on teaching leave at the University of Chicago in the late 1950's. I recall one of his offhand remarks that "Buddhism was Hinduism for export" and I questioned him at the time as to whether he thought that one system was "true" (as opposed to the other), or at least "better" (in the sense of more rationally coherent). His reply, as I recall, was that one system was based on "atman" (self) and the other on "anatman" (no-self); both rationalizations had their characteristic strengths and weaknesses, but, as an Indian raised in India, he happened to prefer the Vedanta (Hinduism). Had he been born elsewhere, he might just as likely have preferred Buddhism. . . That a committed Hindu could write such a sympathetic book on Buddhism still impresses me, living as I do in a society of believers one or another One-and-Only-True Faith.
I suspect that Murti's attitude may also shed some light on the current ambivalence about his work. The dangers of reifying the ineffable have always troubled Buddhists, but the issues can easily enough be resolved if we view all rational/mythological systems as "word games" (another of Murti's favorite phrases), some more plausible or interesting than others, but none as being "True" to the exclusion of all others.
Murti also had the temerity to compare the Madhyamika with philosophers in the Western tradition -- Kant, Hegel, and Bradley -- and no good Eurocentric philosopher is going to sit still for this. Well, maybe eventually, but not quite yet.
Meanwhile, the paperback is still print, inexpensive, and well worth a second look.

Though it is a few decades old now still trv murti's work is easily the single best exposition of the madhyamika system in english. Historically Buddhist philosophy in India only developed in opposition to its native cousins - the vedic and jain schools - and unless you clearly know the philosophies of the rival schools it is difficult to understand what the madhyamika dialectic was aimed at. trv murti was a professor of classical Indian philosophy from the famed and revered benaras hindu university and was also a student of the great s radhakrishnan (which didn't stop him from criticizing his teacher's evaluation of buddhist philosophy). Murti's knowledge of Indian philosophy enables him to understand the madhyamika system in its right perspective unlike many non-indian authors who due to their lack of knowledge of Indian philosophy as a whole, can only shed partial light on the madhyamika system and thus often misinterpret it. So little surprise that murti's work has stood the test of time. Additionally trv murti was also a strong believer in the validity of the madhyamika system.

This is how philosophy should be done. Murti is logical, readable, topical and brilliant. For all those who still think philosophy can be reduced to analysing concepts and doing away with "meaningless" questions, beware. There are answers out there and Murti shows that philosophy can lead us to them. One may have to give up metaphysics and the mindless piffle of language games that analytic philosphers play, philosophy by jargon and argots, but there are answers out there for those who have the guts to follow logical arguments to their limits.

Murti's study of the Madhyamika should be required reading for anyone interested in Buddhism. With questionable relevance, a number of people now seem to assume that 'post-modern' Western philosophy is moving in the same direction as Nagarjuna- and, mutatis mutandis, more than a few Western Buddhists seem happy to confirm this illusion, coining the idioms of post-modern Western philosophy to confirm 'Buddhist' truths.

Presumably, then, Nagarjuna and the 'post-modernists' are doing the same thing - viz. the recognition that all truth statements are infected with relativity and its corollary - the denial of any place for 'absolutes' in philosophy. In truth, however, as Murti makes clear, Nagarjuna's arguments (the prasanga) were put forth to make way for direct perception of the 'absolute' via prajna-intuition/Buddhi, a faculty entirely unknown to 'post-modernist' Western philosophy. Lacking this faculty, or any awareness of a higher truth (paramartha-satya), the 'post-modernists' are simply stranded in samvrti/samsara. Nagarjuna speaks as a Buddhist - someone advocating a path (marga), with a faculty of insight (bodhi) and a transcendental goal - nirvana. Nagarjuna's declared identity between 'samarara' and 'nirvana' is not therefore, a logical inference, but a potential dis-covery, awaiting those who awaken 'bodhi.' We can go in for as much 'deconstruction' as we like - disowning or abandoning concepts etc., but without prajna-intuition or a spiritual path, it boils down to mere scepticism. Many centuries ago, Sextus Empiricus advanced similar arguments, but that didn't make him a follower of the Madhyamika. On the contrary, it merely left him feeling confirmed in his ignorance.

It is of some note that Murti's account of the Madhyamika has not been framed in terms of a critique of the Theravada - or Southern Buddhism. Murti makes it expressly clear that - going by the classical sources, the Madhyamika (i.e. Mahayana)seems to have arisen as a criticism of proto-typical schools, quite other than those in the Pali-based Theravada tradition. In short, contrary to what is often assumed, the Madhyamika was not a critique of 'Southern' Buddhism - by 'Northern' Buddhists - but a critique which emerged within a corpus of related teachings, arising from internal contradictions. Northern Buddhists have been accused of holding prejudicial views, by coining the terms 'Hinayana' and 'Mahayana.' In the not too distant past, The World Fellowship of Buddhists decided to place a moratorium on the use of the term 'Hinayana' - even though all the textual evidence shows that it acquired meaning in the context of Northern Budhist sources.

Murti's careful account shows the way that the Madhyamika came into being, relating it to primitive Buddhism and the various schools or systems that emerged from it. He also explores the relationship between the Madhyamika and non-Buddhist schools, such as the Upanishadic tradition, the Vedanta etc. Murti's work is accompanied by helpful footnotes, pin-pointing key terms and phrases. This study of the Madhyamika will not make popular reading - but, it will prove satisfying to those who wish to make sense of the rather complex web of notions and matrix of ideas which helped to shape Buddhist schools as we know of them today.

The Central Philosophy of Buddhism--A Study of Madhyamika System (T.R.V. Murti) is rare jewel; a true masterpiece for any serious minded student interested in a bed-rock spiritual journey. If you think your faith is secure and the only way to God, be prepared to be stripped naked. But by the time you've reached the end of Murti's exposition you'll realize that naked is the needed condition for genuine spiritual release and communion. Don't hesitate--rush to this book. Never mind that you think of yourself as non-Buddhist. Whatever your brand of religious persuasion Murti will fill the void you don't even know that you have.

If this profoundly insightful exposition and explication of Madhyamika (the central philosophy of Buddhism) was read by every Zen/Buddhist practitioner, scholar, and teacher in the West, a number of distortions would immediately be eradicated.

Debunking the persistent misunderstandings and misrepresentations concerning the teachings of emptiness (sunyata) expounded by Mahayana Buddhism (including Zen), and especially focusing their highest expression by the Indian philosopher (and Zen "ancestor") Nagarjuna, Mr. Murti invites us to explore the true wonder of this unparalleled doctrine.

If you have ever struggled with Buddhist teachings regarding the ideas of emptiness and form, cause and effect, the relative and the absolute, enlightenment and delusion, Buddhas and ordinary beings, etc. Professor Murti's book will quickly set you on the path to Right Understanding.

Form is indeed emptiness, but have you realized that emptiness is form?

Read this book, you will never see things the same again!

This classic is a wonderful exposition of the Buddhist Madhyamika philosophy. Of course, this is not an easy read. Before you start, you probably should have some idea what Madhyamika is about. Some knowledge of European philosophy is also helpful. But you can understand it, e.g., without the knowledge of Sanskrit. (I never studied Sanskrit.)

The author starts with how Madhyamika fits into the history of philosophy in India and how it builds on them. He then explains and elaborates on the core technique of Madhyamika, namely the Dialectic. Then he shows how the Dialectic is used to arrive at the concept of emptiness (sunyata). In the last part of the book, the author compares Madhyamika with other philosophical systems.

I am reading this book after I have heard many talks and read quite a lot of literature of Buddhist teachers about sunyata. It is fantastic how Murti pulls all the things together that I half know and that I have half forgotten so that they actually make sense to me. It is certainly helpful that Murti has a knowledge of European philosophy so that he can compare Madhyamika's concepts to ideas of Western philosophy.

I am very grateful to Murti for this book!

I found this a rather difficult read. There are a ton of Sanskrit terms mixed into the text and although there are often some explanations to their meaning that is not always the case. There are also a ton of foot notes, some of which are entirely in Sanskrit with no attempt at an english explanation or translation. But that aside I also found the explanation of the Madhyamika dialectic itself somewhat inaccessible. It seems as though the mindset of the logic is different than Western logic as I understand it. When it comes down to the details of the actual refutations there are assumptions that I don't think are valid. Assumptions about the nature of things that are the "same" or "different" or "changing" or "unchanging" with particular reference to intrinsic characteristics. For instance the idea that something that changes cannot be permanent. The assumption of the dialectic seems to be that if it changes it is not what it was and therefore it has become something different and therefore whatever it was to start with was impermanent. Although this makes a sort of sense, to my Western way of thinking this is not a valid argument. Water can exist as ice or liquid, does that mean that if it is converted from one to the other and then back again that it was not the same thing all along? The dialectic is however filled with these types of assumptions and ways of thinking so that some ideas are presented as given, or logically folowing others, when in fact they seem to be based on assumptions about reality that differ from Western thought. The author makes reference to Kant's Critic on Reason quite often as a comparison and I plan to check that out and see if it holds up any better under critical analysis. Having said all of that though, I appreciate the underlying idea that the essential philosphy of Buddhism is that no statements regarding anything, either positive or negative, can be accurately made. There is no place whatsoever in which to stand which includes the place of standing for this idea.