Affirmative and Non-Affirmative Negation in Madhyamaka

[Пламен]

What is a view, what is it to negate a view, and more, which kind of a view-negation can be considered a negation at all.

A total negation is called a prasajyapratisedha, med 'gag
an affirming negation is a paryudaasa, ma yin 'gag

When we talk about negative statements, the generic term is abhAva (non-being, absence, negation). Out of the two terms listed above, only the second one is a kind of abhAva - and it is kind of abhAva that precludes interpretations in the sense of the examples of affirming negation the Madhyamakas are proposing. Later on I will explain why this is the case. The first term is not listed among the abhAvas, it is rather a kind of rhetoric means which can be translated as refutation. Moreover, the complete definition of refutation (pratisedha - pronounced pratishedha) is prasajya-pratisedhavAdasya arthAnusaMdheyaH - which is "close examination of the meaning of the doctrine implied by the refuted topic under discussion." Prasajya is of the same root as prasanga and means the discussed topic. So, prasajya-pratisedha is not only a mere, naked refutation of the discussed tenet, but also a full exposition of its positive meaning. Hence, prasajya-pratisedha by definition cannot be total negation. In order to be successful refutation of the pratipaksa-vAda (the opponent's doctrine), the "refutation of what is being discussed" must supply pretty well positive description of the refuted doctrine, otherwise it will fail to reach its goal - to let down the opponent.

Only in this sense of ballanced negation + positive explanation can pratisedha be considered kind of regular abhAva (negation), and ironically, it is subsumed just under the second negation, paryudAsa, because pratisedha is considered as example of paryudAsic speech (paryudAsa-Sabde dRSyam).

- What is paryudAsa?

- ParyudAsa is a synonym for anyonya-abhAva, mutual negation.

- What is mutual negation?

- Mutual negation is negation of one of the two opposites, which affirms, or leads us to the conclusion about the presence of the other opposite. When we say, it is not dark on the street, we mean that there is light on the street (no matter what - daylight or electric light). We should always have two excluding each other opposites, mutually excluding opposites. Do we have this relation in the Madhyamaka example of affirmative negation (The pot is not on the ground)? No! Because the implied opposite of the pot is lacking. What is the excluding opposite of the pot? The pot has no excluding opposite, hence it cannot be taken as a pratiyogin in the paryudAsa type of negative statements. It is a flawed example of paryudAsa.

If Madhyamaka is not complying with the meaning of the words it is using, how can we expect it to comply with the meaning of an entire positive view which implies a lot of logically connected words?!