BuddhapÃÂlita (; , fl. 5th-6th centuries CE) was an Indian Mahayana Buddhist commentator on the works of Nagarjuna and Aryadeva. His Mà «lamadhyamaka-vá¹Âtti is an influential commentary to the Mà «lamadhyamakakarikÃÂ.
BuddhapÃÂlita's commentarial approach works was criticised by his contemporary BhÃÂviveka, and then defended by the later Candrakërti (<abbr>c.</abbr>âÂÂ600âÂÂ650).
Later Tibetan scholasticism (11th century onwards) would characterize the two approaches as the prasaá¹ gika (BuddhapÃÂlita-Candrakërti) and svatantrika (BhÃÂviveka's) schools of Madhyamaka philosophy (but these terms do not appear in Indian Sanskrit sources).
Little is known about BuddhapÃÂlita's life. According to some sources, he is believed to have been born in South India.
BuddhapÃÂlita's only work that survives is his BuddhapÃÂlita-Mà «lamadhyamakavá¹Âtti, a commentary on Nagarjuna's Mà «lamadhyamakakarikà(MMK). The commentary survives in Tibetan (not in the original Sanskrit) and contains 27 chapters and divided into ten sections. The Tibetan translation was completed by JñÃÂnagarbha and Klu'i rgyal mtshan in the beginning of the 9th century. According to Taranatha and to the colophon to BuddhapÃÂlita's commentary, BuddhapÃÂlita composed various other commentaries, but they have not survived.
The BuddhapÃÂlita-Mà «lamadhyamakavá¹Âtti (Tibetan: dbu ma rtsa ba'i 'grel pa buddhapalita) is closely related to the earlier commentary on Nagarjuna's MMK called the AkutobhayÃÂ. Indeed, in various places (particularly the last five chapters), the Tibetan texts are very similar or identical and about a third of BuddhapÃÂlita's commentary comes from the AkutobhayÃÂ. In this text, BuddhapÃÂlita also sometimes quotes Aryadeva.
As noted by Jan Westerhoff, BuddhapÃÂlita's method exclusively relies on the prasaá¹ gavÃÂkya (reductio ad absurdum, literally "consequentialist") philosophical method. This method relies on drawing out the necessary but undesired consequences of an opponent's thesis without maintaining any counter thesis or proposition to be established in turn.
As David Seyfort Ruegg explains:<blockquote>BuddhapÃÂlita represents a conservative current in Madhyamaka thought that resisted the adoption of the logico-epistemological innovations which were at the time being brought into MahÃÂyÃÂnist philosophy (e. g. by DignÃÂga, c. 480âÂÂ540). Thus he did not make use of independent inferences to establish the MadhyamikaâÂÂs statements; and he employed the well-established prasanga method, which points out the necessary but undesired consequence resulting from a thesis or proposition intended to prove something concerning an entity. From the MÃÂdhyamikaâÂÂs standpoint this method has the advantage of not committing the critic who uses the prasanga to taking up a counter-position and maintaining the contradictory of what he has denied, which as a MÃÂdhyamika he would consider to be just as faulty as the position he has negating. BuddhapÃÂlitaâÂÂs procedure appears accordingly to be in keeping with NÃÂgÃÂrjunaâÂÂs as expressed in the MMK and the Vigrahavyavartani.</blockquote>Similarly, according to Saito, the "fundamental rule of inference" which Buddhapalita uses in his commentary is the reductio ad absurdum based on Modus tollens.
BuddhapÃÂlita's main philosophical methodological approach consisted of his explaining the philosophy of NÃÂgÃÂrjuna by the method of prasaá¹ gavÃÂkya (reductio ad absurdum ). That is, without himself maintaining any thesis or proposition to be established, he tried to point out the necessary but undesired consequences resulting from a non-Madhyamaka opponent's thesis.
Another Madhyamaka thinker, BhÃÂviveka, criticized BuddhapÃÂlita's method of commentary, for not making use of logical autonomous inferences (svatantranumana; ) in developing Madhyamaka arguments. A later commentator, Candrakërti (7th century CE), wrote the Clear Words (PrasannapadÃÂ) commentary to the MMK based on Buddhapalita's work. Candrakërti defends Buddhapalita's method and refutes BhÃÂviveka's assertion of autonomous syllogisms.
Due to this debate, Tibetans name BhÃÂviveka as the first svÃÂtantrika (a modern back-translation from the Tibetan term Rang rgyud pa) distinguishing his Madhyamaka system from prasangika (Tibetan: Thal 'gyur ba), the system of Candrakërti and Buddhapalita. However, these classifications of Madhyamaka philosophy do not exist in Indian sources and were invented by Tibetan scholars.