What question did this study set out to answer?

To assess whether the Mahāyāna Buddhist doctrine of mutual dependence constitutes begging the question.

April 4, 2026Comparative Philosophy An International Journal of Constructive Engagement of Distinct Approaches toward World Philosophy0 citationsOpen Access

Is the Mahāyāna Buddhist Doctrine of Mutual Dependence a Case of Begging the Question?

AJA. K. JAYESH

Key Points

To assess whether the Mahāyāna Buddhist doctrine of mutual dependence constitutes begging the question.
Analysis of Nāgārjuna's arguments in the Yukti-corpus
Interpretation of mutual dependence and ontological independence
Examination of dynamic holism as a philosophical concept
Demonstrated that mutual dependence does not imply circular reasoning
Concluded both A and B lack ontological independence
Argued for the understanding of mutual dependence as a dynamic, interdependent state

Abstract

This paper employs a number of argumentative strategies that the Buddhist philosopher Nāgārjuna employs in his Yukti-corpus to demonstrate that the Mahāyāna Buddhist doctrine of mutual dependence is not a case of begging the question. More precisely, this paper demonstrates that to say that A and B are mutually dependent is not to say that what grounds B is grounded in what it itself grounds; it is to say that both A and B lack ontological independence, and that they are a part of a changing, interdependent whole. Mutual dependence thus is a case of dynamic holism, and not of begging the question.

KI fragen

Bookmark

View Full Paper