MHK 9, on the most basic level, consists of two parts: the official pūrvapakṣas (the Opponent’s Arguments; MHK 9.1-17) and the official uttarapakṣas (the Refutation of the Opponent’s Arguments; MHK 9.18-167). That is to say, Bhāviveka first reports and summarizes the arguments of the opponent, in this case, the Mīmāṃsakas, in the first seventeen verses of the chapter and then proceeds to refute those arguments in the remainder of the chapter. This is the common framework of all the polemical chapters (4-9) in the Madhyamakahṛdaya. The
representative work to adopt this structure in the Madhyamaka school is Nāgārjuna’s
Vigrahavyāvartanī, where Nāgārjuna introduces the opponent’s objections in the first part and then answers them in the latter part. In MHK 9, Bhāviveka first has the Mīmāṃsakas advance their arguments and then refutes them in sequence.
The official pūrvapakṣas are marked by Bhāviveka’s short introductory remark at the beginning of the chapter and by their initial location in the chapter. Bhāviveka indicates the beginning of a new chapter by introducing “some shameless people” (eke ... anapatrapāḥ) in the first verse of MHK 9108 and outlines their doctrines in the next sixteen verses. The first
seventeen verses (MHK 9.1-17), therefore, constitute the section of the official pūrvapakṣas. At the eighteenth verse, Bhāviveka notes that, from that verse (MHK 9.18) on, he will examine (parīkṣante) the doctrines introduced thus far equitably, without falling into partiality
108 MHK 9.1, “There are some shameless people who revile the right paths leading to liberation (apavarga), viz., meditation and wisdom, arguing that the attainment of it [is possible] by means of [performing] rituals (kriyā) alone.” (eke ’pavargasanmārgadhyānajñānāpavādinaḥ/ kriyāmātrena tatprāptiṃ pratipādyānapatrapāḥ//)
(pakṣapātaviṣaṃ hitvā).109
Although the subsequent verses of MHK 9 can be termed, as a whole, simply the
“uttarapakṣas,” I distinguish three different types among them: the official uttarapakṣas, the independent discussions on MHK 9.11, and the contextual pūrva-uttarapakṣas.
The official uttarapakṣas directly discuss and refute the Mīmāṃsakas’ claims addressed in the official pūrvapakṣas. Bhāviveka marks them in his critique by reiterating the keyword or paraphrasing the key point of the pūrvapakṣa verses. Such marker words or phrases resemble the use of pratīka by a commentator, which has the function of indexing the author’s comments to the relevant place of the root text. It should be noted, however, that Bhāviveka’s markers cannot be reduced merely to pratīkas, as they often, especially when he paraphrases, reveal Bhāviveka’s understanding of the opponent’s argument; in those cases, they are not simply pointers embedded only for referential purposes. TJ, as a commentary on MHK, also usually indicates the
pūrvapakṣa verse that the reader needs to refer to when Bhāviveka changes his object of critique.
The second type of text in MHK 9 is the independent discussions. Strictly speaking, these do belong to the “official uttarapakṣa” type, since they are Bhāviveka’s responses to one verse, MHK 9.11, located in the official pūrvapakṣas. However, I distinguish them from other uttarapakṣas because of their length and contents. They constitute more than half of the verses of MHK 9 (93 out of 167 verses; MHK 9.59-151) and their contents are most “problematic” in the sense that it seems unlikely that they are directed against the Mīmāṃsakas. They are subdivided into five sections. Each of the independent discussions is marked by the fixed phrase
“[therefore,] it is reasonable that the Three (that is, the Veda) is rejected” (yuktaṃ yat tyajyate
109 MHK 9.18, “The truth-seekers, who are specialized in words’ meaning (śabdārtha) and reasoning (nyāya), having abandoned the poison of falling into partiality, will examine it [that is, the Mīmāṃsaka positions propounded so far] here [in the following].” (tad atrāpi parīkṣante yathābhūtagaveṣiṇaḥ/
pakṣapātaviṣaṃ hitvā śabdārthanyāyakovidāḥ//)
trayī), constituting the fourth quarter (i.e., pāda d) of the five verses at which new independent discussions begin.110 This marker phrase is taken from the pūrvapakṣa verse, MHK 9.11d, which all five discussions seek to refute.111
In addition to these, the official pūrva-uttarapakṣas and the independent discussions, there is a third category of text in MHK 9. It may be called “contextual” pūrva-uttarapakṣas, since these texts treat topics derived from the main discussions. They appear intermittently to invite further rejoinders from various opponents on a given topic, like Q&A in which Bhāviveka responds to expected counter-arguments to his theses. The best example of this kind is MHK 9.32-42 in which Bhāviveka introduces a series of rejoinders to his thesis on the evil authorship of the Veda and then rebuts them.112 Such Q&A occurs throughout the chapter (except for the first seventeen official pūrvapakṣa verses) and they are clearly marked as such by words such as, cet, yadi, and atha, all of which can be understood to mean “against my thesis that has just been put forward, if you further argue that...”113 It is important to note that we cannot automatically assume that the opponent who challenges Bhāviveka in this type of contextual pūrvapakṣa is a Mīmāṃsaka. Bhāviveka sometimes provides a note on the identity of the opponent in the TJ
110 They are: MHK 9.59, 9.94, 9.120, 9.127, and 9.139.
111 Krasser (2012, 561, fn. 65) notes that this marker phrase is repeated in MHK 9 but mistakenly correlates the five independent discussions with the pūrvapakṣa verse MHK 9.17.
112 This part will be analyzed in Chapter Four Decline of the Buddhist Critique of Vedic Sacrifice.
113 This is not always the case in the present Sanskrit edition of MHK 9. For example, MHK 9.130ab (abhojanādau puṇyaṃ ca tyāgāt pāpanivṛttivat/; “It is meritorious to fast, as it is a form of renunciation, just as ceasing to perform evil actions.”), though being an opponent’s “contextual” objection to
Bhāviveka’s thesis advanced in MHK 9.129ab (nānnapānaparityāgaḥ svargaprāpaka iṣyate/; “abstaining from food and drink is not a means to attain heaven”), does not contain any of those markers. However, this reading of MHK 9.130ab common to both the Kawasaki and Lindtner editions might need an emendation. As Kawasaki notes, the underlined part of MHK 9.130ab is transcribed as “cetyāśāt” in Saṃkṛtyāyana’s copy (Gokhale 1994, 48) and Kawasaki changes it to “ca tyāgāt” based on Tucci’s photocopies of the manuscript and Tibetan translation of the passage. However, the Tibetan translation of the second quarter (pāda b) of MHK 9.130 does not only suggest “-tyāśāt” would change into “-tyāgāt”
but also that the word “cet” is also a part of the verse by containing its Tibetan equivalent “zhe na”
(spangs phyir sdig spangs bzhin zhe na). Therefore, it may need to be emended as “cet tyāgāt.”
commentary.
To summarize, MHK 9 is basically consists of three different types of text. The official pūrva-uttarapakṣas form the core of the chapter. In it, Bhāviveka first lays out the Mīmāṃsaka doctrines and criticizes them one by one in sequence. In the middle of official uttarapakṣas, we find a series of five independent discussions that occupy more than a half of MHK 9 and that are solely devoted to the refutation of one pūrvapakṣa verse. Lastly, throughout the chapter,
Bhāviveka, whenever the occasion arises, considers expected rejoinders to his arguments from various opponents. In the subsequent two sections, I will outline the contents of MHK 9 by dividing it into two parts, viz. the official pūrva-uttarapakṣas and the independent discussions.
The contextual pūrva-uttarapakṣas, as they do not discuss independent but derivative topics, and thus, do not form independent sections, will not be discussed separately. However, important ones among them will be referred to in the following summaries.