聞分館君 Ask BunKanKun

迴諍論

5 min read

Text ID
KR6o0004
Date
541–541
Dynasty
後魏

Huí zhèng lùn 迴諍論

Treatise Refuting Disputation (Vigrahavyāvartanī) by 龍樹菩薩 (Lóngshù púsà / Nāgārjuna, 造), 毘目智仙 (Pímù-zhì-xiān / Vimokṣaprajñā-ṛṣi, 譯) and 瞿曇流支 (Qútán Liúzhī / Gautama Prajñāruci, 譯)

About the work

A short philosophical poem of one juǎn by Nāgārjuna (龍樹菩薩, c. 150–250) — verses with auto-commentary — defending the Madhyamaka doctrine of universal emptiness (śūnyatā) against an opponent’s charge that to assert “all is empty” is itself self-defeating. The opening objection is the classic “if all things are without intrinsic nature, then words too are without intrinsic nature, and therefore cannot effect the negation they purport to perform”; Nāgārjuna’s reply turns on the distinction between conventional and ultimate truth and the Mādhyamika thesis that śūnyatā is itself empty. The text is universally classed in modern Mādhyamika studies as a companion to the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā and is one of Nāgārjuna’s most logically sophisticated works, anticipating Buddhist logical theory by several centuries. The Chinese version, the only canonical East Asian translation, was produced under the Eastern Wèi 東魏 by the Indian monk 毘目智仙 (Vimokṣaprajñā-ṛṣi, of the kṣatriya royal lineage of Uḍḍiyāna) together with 瞿曇流支 (Gautama Prajñāruci) at Jīnhuá-sì 金華寺 in the capital Yè 鄴 in Xīnghé 興和 3 (541).

Structural Division

CANWWW (T32N1631) records four sections in the Taishō text:

  1. Huí zhèng lùn jì chū fēn 迴諍論偈初分 — Introductory verses (first set)
  2. Huí zhèng lùn jì shàng fēn 迴諍論偈上分 — Verses, upper section
  3. Huí zhèng lùn jì chū fēn 迴諍論偈初分 — Initial verses (second set, repeated)
  4. Huí zhèng lùn shì shàng fēn 迴諍論釋上分 — Auto-commentary (釋), upper section

These reflect the structure of the underlying Sanskrit Vigrahavyāvartanī (kārikā-section + vṛtti-section). CANWWW lists no related-text cross-references for this title.

Abstract

The 序迴諍論翻譯之記 prefacing the Taishō text gives an unusually full translation colophon: the translation took place “大魏都鄴興和三年” (Eastern Wèi capital Yè, Xīnghé 3 = 541), with 毘目智仙, a Tripiṭaka master “of the kṣatriya royal lineage of Uḍḍiyāna” (烏萇國人剎利王種), and 瞿曇流支, a brāhmaṇa from India, working together at Jīnhuá-sì 金華寺 in Yè-chéng 鄴城; the recording (筆受) was done by Tánlín 曇林, and the patron was Gāo Zhòngmì 高仲密 (the elder brother of 高歡 / Gāo Huān’s general, holding the title 驃騎大將軍開府儀同三司御史中尉勃海). The text occupies “約二十餘功” (twenty-odd days of work) and the resulting Chinese contains 11,098 characters; the original is given as 32 ślokas per śloka-block and 600 verse-units total. The Sanskrit Vigrahavyāvartanī survives and was edited by E. H. Johnston and A. Kunst (Mélanges chinois et bouddhiques 9, 1948–51) on the basis of Rāhula Sāṅkṛtyāyana’s Tibet-recovered manuscripts; the Chinese has been collated and used as primary witness in subsequent editions. The Chinese version differs from the Sanskrit at several points and from the Tibetan; it preserves a less polished but in some places more conservative recension. The 後魏 attribution in the catalog and CANWWW reflects the convention of using 後魏 (Eastern Wèi) for translations made during the Wèi-Northern Qí period.

Translations and research

  • Bhattacharya, Kamaleswar (with E. H. Johnston and A. Kunst). The Dialectical Method of Nāgārjuna: Vigrahavyāvartanī. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1978; rev. ed. 1986. — Sanskrit edition with English translation; the standard reference.
  • Westerhoff, Jan. The Dispeller of Disputes: Nāgārjuna’s Vigrahavyāvartanī. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. — Major analytical English translation and commentary.
  • Yamaguchi Susumu 山口益. “Chibetto-yaku Eshōron no kenkyū” 西藏譯廻諍論之研究. Ōtani gakuhō 9.2 (1928); 11.2 (1930). — Foundational Japanese study of the Tibetan version.
  • Lindtner, Christian. Nāgārjuniana: Studies in the Writings and Philosophy of Nāgārjuna. Copenhagen, 1982. — Includes attribution-status discussion.
  • Tola, Fernando, and Carmen Dragonetti. “The Vigrahavyāvartanī of Nāgārjuna.” Journal of Indian Philosophy 23 (1995): 21–58.

Other points of interest

The 迴諍論 is the only Indian Mādhyamika work to address the pramāṇa problem head-on (the question of whether the means of valid cognition can themselves be the targets of Madhyamaka critique), and was much used in later Tibetan polemic literature. Its placement in KR6o (the yīnmíng / Buddhist-logic section) rather than the Mādhyamika section KR6c reflects the East Asian classification of Indian śāstras by their formal subject (here: dialectical method) rather than by their philosophical school.

Graph View

Backlinks