Religions· 2026Q1
Refutation Without Vitaṇḍā: Dialectical Burdens in the Fangbian Xin Lun (*Upāyahṛdaya)
- 0citations
- Q1SCImago
- 2026year
Short summary
The earliest Buddhist debate manual, the Fangbian Xin Lun (*Upāyahṛdaya*), distributes distinct burdens and entitlements between proponent and objector, rather than solely focusing on refutation.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Key points
- The Fangbian Xin Lun (*Upāyahṛdaya*) is the earliest extant Buddhist manual of debate, translated into Chinese in 472 CE.
- The treatise distributes distinct burdens and entitlements between proponent and objector, not solely focusing on refutation.
- Key features supporting this include its epistemology (perception over scripture), the objector's positive thesis, penalties for misunderstanding, and reciprocal procedural rules.
- The distinction between the Fangbian Xin Lun and the Nyāyasūtra lies in the allocation of burdens, not the repertoire of argument-forms.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Abstract
The Fangbian Xin Lun 方便心論 (*Upāyahṛdaya, T 1632), rendered into Chinese in 472, is the earliest extant Buddhist manual of debate. Because it trains its reader chiefly to object, it is readily read as instruction in refutation alone. This paper argues that the treatise instead distributes distinct burdens and entitlements between proponent and objector. Four features show this. Its epistemology ranks perception above scripture. Its objector advances a positive thesis, though only after the opponent’s alternative has failed. Its catalogue of defeat penalizes failures of understanding as well as failures of speaking. And its procedural rules bind both parties, denying a debater who has himself erred the standing to press his opponent’s error. The argument-forms it licenses as proper responses (相應), the Nyāyasūtra classifies as erroneous objections (jāti). What separates the two texts is not a repertoire but an allocation of burdens.
The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Religions, 2026 · DOI ↗
The rest is in the Pofolia app
Takeaways and questions to the paper; new summaries every day for your field. Free.
Sign in on the web to openField: Religious studies
Religious studiesArts and Humanities