/lit/ - Literature

>>14994483
>Lastly we come to the Richard Robinson critique of Nagarjuna's logic (pic related), which still stands as having undisputedly shown that Nagarjuna used flawed logic in his main work, nobody has ever shown how any of his criticisms of Nagarjuna's logic are wrong. Usually Buddhists try to cope by saying "well Richard Robinson is only critiquing the logic that Nagarjuna uses in an attempt to show that his opponents are wrong but he is not attacked the doctrines of Madhyamaka itself", there is just one problem with this though; Nagarjuna never offered any independent logical arguments for emptiness and Madhyamaka doctrine being true (aside from citing Buddhist texts which are not accepted by non-Buddhists) he tried to refute other views as being illogical to show that Madhyamaka was right but he doesn't offer any independent logical arguments for Madhyamaka being right;
Nagarjuna wasn't merely a deconstructionist, he employ plenty of positive logical arguments for Madhyamaka, not just prasanga. In fact it is Robinson himself who analyzed these arguments (pic related). Clearly you need more reading outside of wikipedia.

>hence Robinson's critique undermines the one thing that tries to show Madhyamaka is correct using logic acceptable to non-Buddhists. Nagarjuna presumed to show that all views involving any sort of permanent or unconditional existence/essence result in contradictions and antinomies but as Robinson shows Nagarjuna uses demonstrably flawed logic in his attempt to do this, hence the Madhyamaka dialectic does not really refute all views, at which point there is no point to take his ideas seriously anymore if you are non-Buddhist because the one attempt he made to prove them with logic (via refuting opposing views) floundered and is rendered worthless to non-Buddhists because of the mistakes involved.
If it was rendered worthless, why did Shankara plagiarize the shit out of it?