Malcolm wrote:(having already defined parabhāva as a species of svabhāva) "Where is there a bhāva which is not included in svabhāva or parabhāva?"
This is all irelevant, as you know. This is Nagarjuna arguing against the existence of essences. No one is claiming that. Sophistry will not win the day here, although you may impress the credulous.
Malcolm wrote:The clause "therefore, since that is so...", only intends go affirm that sense organs and so on are products of the ripening of action, as previously stated, in conformity with worldly convention -- but it is not a statement of commitment on Candrakirit's part that worldly convention is truthful, which is why he remarks that one should not get involved with how it actually is.
Affriming that eyes are products is all I need. Since they are produced according to worldly convention, they must exist according to worldly convention. How could something that did not exist be produced? You may be tempted to produce some quote that refutes production, but it's too late for that, since that quote will only refute production by nature. You've already ceded the argument.
Malcolm wrote:he translation (in this instance) is not successful and does not convey the meaning Candrakirti intends. Therefore, when you use it as a citation in support of a reason, the reason also fails.
We can simply refer to your translation, it serves my purpose just as well for those who are willing to think it through, although it is not as explicit. The translation I provided actually does a good job making the hidden meaning explicit, whereas you are happy to obfuscate for the sake of supporting your point.
Malcolm wrote:No, I did not have it lying around. Since the translation seemed a bit too pat to me, I examined the source of the citation ....
I'm always impressed by your willingness to do some tranlation work on the spot. it's a kindness, and you always raise the level of the discussion.
Malcolm wrote:On the other hand I am certainly happy to talk about Indian Madhyamaka as long as it is understood that citations from Tibetans are excluded from the discussion, since I decided long ago that Tibetan Madhyamaka was a waste of time.
Well, as always, please participate at whatever level you please. If you have an issue with translation, I'm sure you will speak up, but of course translations other than your own, including those from Tibetans, will be cited. It's somewhat preposterous to think that you could be the sole arbiter of what is accepted as legitimate.