ermeneutics is the art of interpretation – we shall not forget that and we will return to it again and again, for that is what hermeneutics is – the art of interpretation. We might do well, however, to stare at the word ‘hermeneutics’ just by way of a starting point. Hermeneutics – the word goes back to a name, Hermes. Who is Hermes? Among the earliest references to him is made by no less than Plato in the dialogue, Cratylus.1 (...) The dialogue begins rather abruptly, with someone called Hermogenes inviting Socrates to be a party to an argument between him and Cratylus. Cratylus is therefore one of the characters in the dialogue, and it is his name that is also given to the dialogue. The other party to it is Hermogenes, a name which literally means ‘son of Hermes’. Socrates suspects that Cratylus is making fun of Hermogenes, saying that the latter is “no true son of Hermes, because always looking after a fortune and never in luck.” Hermogenes means ‘son of Hermes’. Who, then, is Hermes? The cue is that Hermes is what Hermogenes is not, making the latter not a true son of the former, because Hermes is always looking after a fortune and is apparently always lucky, something Hermogenes is not. Hermes is always in search of a fortune and is always lucky, always fortunate. Always to be in search is always to be on the move, always to be on the way, never still, a nomad. Indeed, as the dialogue ends we hear Cratylus admitting that “I incline to Heraclitus.”2 And why not? The argument between him and Hermogenes has all to do with names, with language. And it looks as though the debate between them is going nowhere, and so they are now intending to bring Socrates into the discussion, hoping that this third party will be able to come to their rescue, help them find the key and bring the restless journey to a quiet conclusion. Even Socrates, however, true to his form, properly excuses himself. “If I had not been poor,” he says, “I might have heard the fifty-drachma course of the great Prodicus, which is a complete education in grammar and language . . . and then I should have been at once able to answer your question about the correctness of names. But, indeed, I have only heard the single- drachma course, and therefore I do not know the truth about such matters.”. (shrink)

In this paper, Nāgārjuna’s philosophical interpretation of the terms kāraṇa and kārya is analysed after having methodologically confined the specific field of interest to the MMK. From the study of all the occurrences of kāraṇa and kārya in the MMK (listed in paragraph 2), it emerges that Nāgārjuna makes use of these two terms to refer to skandhas as causes (kāraṇa) of further skandhas as effects (kārya), hence conveying with this words the idea of, so to speak, subjectivity and (re)birth. (...) From the principal commentaries on the MMK (particularly Bhāviveka and Candrakīrti), we know also that, even when the reference of kāraṇa and kārya to skandhas is not explicitly pointed out by Nāgārjuna, it nonetheless can be inferred from the peculiar context in which these terms are employed. This conclusion seems to be confirmed also by the crosscheck analysis of the philosophical usage of the parallel terms hetu and phala, which refer either to, so to speak, objective (i.e., concerning general bhāvas) causes and effects, or – in the case of phala as consequence of karman/kriyā – to moral results (these two meanings are confirmed also by some passages from the Vigrahavyāvartanī), but in no cases Nāgārjuna makes recurse to hetu and phala to refer to what could be called a subjective (i.e., concerning skandhas) level of causality. To the paper an addendum is added, in which the commentaries on MMK 8.4 are taken into consideration. From this excursus it appears that at least Buddhapālita, Bhāviveka and Candrakīrti, by ‘overinterpreting’ the meaning of hetu in the kārika, are consequently forced to readapt the philosophical significance of kāraṇa and kārya in a way that does not fit so much with Nāgārjuna’s original message. (shrink)