NÃÂgÃÂrjuna (, ; ) was an Indian philosopher and MahÃÂyÃÂna Buddhist monk of the Madhyamaka (Centrism, Middle Way) school. NÃÂgÃÂrjuna is widely considered one of the most important Buddhist philosophers. He was the founder of the Madhyamaka school of Buddhist philosophy and a defender of the MahÃÂyÃÂna movement. His Mà «lamadhyamakakÃÂrikà(Root Verses on Madhyamaka, MMK) is the most important text on the Madhyamaka philosophy of emptiness. The MMK inspired a large number of commentaries in Sanskrit, Chinese, Tibetan, Korean and Japanese and continues to be studied today.
India in the first and second centuries CE was politically divided into various states, including the Kushan Empire and the Satavahana Kingdom. At this point in Buddhist history, the Buddhist community was already divided into various Buddhist schools and had spread throughout India.
At this time, there was already a small and nascent MahÃÂyÃÂna movement. MahÃÂyÃÂna ideas were held by a minority of Buddhists in India at the time. As Joseph Walser writes, "MahÃÂyÃÂna before the fifth century was largely invisible and probably existed only as a minority and largely unrecognized movement within the fold of nikÃÂya Buddhism." By the second century, early MahÃÂyÃÂna Sà «tras such as the Aá¹£á¹ÂasÃÂhasrikàPrajñÃÂpÃÂramitàwere already circulating among certain MahÃÂyÃÂna circles.
Very little is reliably known of the life of NÃÂgÃÂrjuna and modern historians do not agree on a specific date (1st to 3rd century CE) or place (multiple places in India suggested) for him. The earliest surviving accounts were written in Chinese and Tibetan centuries after his death and are mostly hagiographical accounts that are historically unverifiable.
Some scholars such as Joseph Walser argue that NÃÂgÃÂrjuna was an advisor to a king of the SÃÂtavÃÂhana dynasty which ruled the Deccan Plateau in the second century. This is supported by most of the traditional hagiographical sources as well. Archaeological evidence at AmarÃÂvatë indicates that if this is true, the king may have been Yajña à Ârë à ÂÃÂtakará¹Âi (c. second half of the 2nd century). On the basis of this association, NÃÂgÃÂrjuna is conventionally placed at around 150âÂÂ250 CE.
Walser thinks that it is most likely that when NÃÂgÃÂrjuna wrote the Ratnavali, he lived in a mixed monastery (with MahÃÂyÃÂnists and non-MahÃÂyÃÂnists) in which MahÃÂyÃÂnists were the minority. The most likely sectarian affiliation of the monastery according to Walser was Purvasailya, Aparasailya, or Caityaka (which were MahÃÂsÃÂá¹Âghika sub-schools).
He also argues that "it is plausible that he wrote the Ratnavali within a thirty-year period at the end of the second century in the Andhra region around Dhanyakataka (modern-day Amaravati)."
According to Walser, "the earliest extant legends about NÃÂgÃÂrjuna are compiled into KumÃÂrajëvaâÂÂs biography of NÃÂgÃÂrjuna, which he translated into Chinese in about 405 CE." According to this biography, NÃÂgÃÂrjuna was born into a Brahmin family and later became a Buddhist. The traditional religious hagiographies place NÃÂgÃÂrjuna in various regions of India (KumÃÂrajëva and Candrakirti place him in Vidarbha region of South India, Xuanzang in south Kosala)
Traditional religious hagiographies credit NÃÂgÃÂrjuna with being associated with the teaching of the PrajñÃÂpÃÂramitàsà «tras as well as with having revealed these scriptures to the world after they had remained hidden for some time. The sources differ on where this happened and how NÃÂgÃÂrjuna retrieved the sutras. Some sources say he retrieved the sutras from the land of the nÃÂgas.
NÃÂgÃÂrjuna himself is often depicted in composite form comprising human and nÃÂga characteristics. NÃÂgas are snake-like supernatural beings of great magical power that feature in Hindu, Buddhist and Jain mythology. NÃÂgas are found throughout Indian religious culture, and typically signify intelligent serpents or dragons that are responsible for rain, lakes, and other bodies of water. In Buddhism, a naga can be a symbol of a realised arhat or wise person.
Traditional sources also claim that NÃÂgÃÂrjuna practised ayurvedic alchemy (rasÃÂyana). KumÃÂrajëva's biography, for example, depicts NÃÂgÃÂrjuna making an elixir of invisibility, and Buton Rinchen Drub, Taranatha and Xuanzang all state that he could turn rocks into gold.
Tibetan hagiographies also state that NÃÂgÃÂrjuna studied at NÃÂlanda University. However, according to Walser, this university was not a strong monastic center until about 425. Also, as Walser notes, "Xuanzang and Yijing both spent considerable time at NÃÂlanda and studied NÃÂgÃÂrjunaâÂÂs texts there. It is strange that they would have spent so much time there and yet chose not to report any local tales of a man whose works played such an important part in the curriculum."
Some sources (Buton Rinchen Drub and the other Tibetan historians) claim that in his later years, NÃÂgÃÂrjuna lived on the mountain of à Ârëparvata near the city that would later be called NÃÂgÃÂrjunakoá¹Âá¸Âa ("Hill of NÃÂgÃÂrjuna"). The ruins of NÃÂgÃÂrjunakoá¹Âá¸Âa are located in Guntur district, Andhra Pradesh. The Caitika and Bahuà Ârutëya nikÃÂyas are known to have had monasteries in NÃÂgÃÂrjunakoá¹Âá¸Âa. The archaeological finds at NÃÂgÃÂrjunakoá¹Âá¸Âa have not resulted in any evidence that the site was associated with Nagarjuna. The name "NÃÂgÃÂrjunakoá¹Âá¸Âa" dates from the medieval period, and the 3rdâÂÂ4th century inscriptions found at the site make it clear that it was known as "Vijayapuri" in the ancient period.
There are a multitude of texts attributed to "NÃÂgÃÂrjuna", many of these texts date from much later periods. This has caused much confusion for the traditional Buddhist biographers and doxographers. Modern scholars are divided on how to classify these later texts and how many later writers called "NÃÂgÃÂrjuna" existed (the name remains popular today in Andhra Pradesh).
Some scholars have posited that there was a separate Aryuvedic writer called NÃÂgÃÂrjuna who wrote numerous treatises on Rasayana. Also, there is a later Tantric Buddhist author by the same name who may have been a scholar at NÃÂlandÃÂ University and wrote on Buddhist tantra. According to Donald S. Lopez Jr., he originally belonged to a Brahmin family from eastern India and later became Buddhist.
There is also a Jain figure of the same name who was said to have travelled to the Himalayas. Walser thinks that it is possible that stories related to this figure influenced Buddhist legends as well.
There exist a number of influential texts attributed to NÃÂgÃÂrjuna; however, as there are many pseudepigrapha attributed to him, lively controversy exists over which are his authentic works.
The Mà «lamadhyamakakÃÂrikàis NÃÂgÃÂrjuna's best-known work. It is "not only a grand commentary on the Buddha's discourse to Kaccayana, the only discourse cited by name, but also a detailed and careful analysis of most of the important discourses included in the Nikayas and the Agamas, especially those of the Atthakavagga of the Sutta-nipata.
In the Mà «lamadhyamakakÃÂrikÃÂ, "[A]ll experienced phenomena are empty (sunya). This did not mean that they are not experienced and, therefore, non-existent; only that they are devoid of a permanent and eternal substance (svabhava) because, like a dream, they are mere projections of human consciousness. Since these imaginary fictions are experienced, they are not mere names (prajnapti)."
According to David Seyfort Ruegg, the Madhyamakasastrastuti attributed to Candrakirti (<abbr>c.</abbr> 600 â c. 650) refers to eight texts by Nagarjuna:<blockquote>the (Madhyamaka)karikas, the Yuktisastika, the Sunyatasaptati, the Vigrahavyavartani, the Vidala (i.e. Vaidalyasutra/Vaidalyaprakarana), the Ratnavali, the Sutrasamuccaya, and Samstutis (Hymns). This list covers not only much less than the grand total of works ascribed to Nagarjuna in the Chinese and Tibetan collections, but it does not even include all such works that Candrakirti has himself cited in his writings.</blockquote>According to one view, that of Christian Lindtner, the works definitely written by NÃÂgÃÂrjuna are:
Other scholars have challenged and argued against some of the above works being Nagarjuna's. David F. Burton notes that Christian Lindtner is "rather liberal" with his list of works and that other scholars have called some of these into question. He notes how Paul Williams argued convincingly that the must be a later text. In his study, Burton relies on the texts that he considers "least controversial": Mà «lamadhyamaka-kÃÂrikÃÂ, VigrahavyÃÂvartanë, à Âà «nyatÃÂsaptati, , , and RatnÃÂvalë.
Similarly, Jan Westerhoff notes how there is uncertainty about the attribution of Nagarjuna's works (and about his life in general). He relies on six works: MMK, VigrahavyÃÂvartanë, à Âà «nyatÃÂsaptati, , and RatnÃÂvalë, all of which "expound a single, coherent philosophical system", and are attributed to Nagarjuna by a variety of Indian and Tibetan sources.
The Tibetan historian Buston considers the first six to be the main treatises of NÃÂgÃÂrjuna (this is called the "yukti corpus", rigs chogs), while according to TÃÂranÃÂtha only the first five are the works of NÃÂgÃÂrjuna. TRV Murti considers RatnÃÂvalë, PratëtyasamutpÃÂdahá¹Âdaya and Sà «trasamuccaya to be works of NÃÂgÃÂrjuna as the first two are quoted profusely by Chandrakirti and the third by Shantideva.
In addition to works mentioned above, numerous other works are attributed to NÃÂgÃÂrjuna, many of which are dubious attributions and later works. There is an ongoing, lively controversy over which of those works are authentic. Christian Lindtner divides the various attributed works as "1) correctly attributed, 2) wrongly attributed to him, and 3) those which may or may not be genuine."
Lindtner further divides the third category of dubious or questionable texts into those which are "perhaps authentic" and those who are unlikely to be authentic.
Those which he sees as perhaps being authentic include:
Ruegg notes various works of uncertain authorship which have been attributed to Nagarjuna, including the Dharmadhatustava (Hymn to the Dharmadhatu, which shows later influences), Mahayanavimsika, Salistambakarikas, the Bhavasamkranti, and the DasabhumtkavibhÃÂsÃÂ. Furthermore, Ruegg writes that "three collections of stanzas on the virtues of intelligence and moral conduct ascribed to Nagarjuna are extant in Tibetan translation": Prajñasatakaprakarana, Nitisastra-Jantuposanabindu and Niti-sastra-Prajñadanda.
Meanwhile, those texts that Lindtner considers as questionable and likely inauthentic are: <blockquote>Aksarasataka, Akutobhaya (Mulamadhyamakavrtti), Aryabhattaraka-Manjusriparamarthastuti, Kayatrayastotra, Narakoddharastava, Niruttarastava, Vandanastava, Dharmasamgraha, Dharmadhatugarbhavivarana, Ekaslokasastra, Isvarakartrtvanirakrtih (A refutation of God/Isvara), Sattvaradhanastava, Upayahrdaya, Astadasasunyatasastra, Dharmadhatustava, Yogaratnamala.</blockquote>Meanwhile, Lindtner's list of outright wrong attributions is: <blockquote>MahÃÂprajñÃÂpÃÂramitopadeà Âa (Dàzhìdù lùn), Abudhabodhakaprakarana, Guhyasamajatantratika, Dvadasadvaraka, Prajñaparamitastotra, and Svabhavatrayapravesasiddhi.</blockquote>Notably, the Dàzhìdù lùn (Taisho 1509, "Commentary on the great prajñaparamita") which has been influential in Chinese Buddhism, has been questioned as a genuine work of NÃÂgÃÂrjuna by various scholars including Lamotte. This work is also only attested in a Chinese translation by KumÃÂrajëva and is unknown in the Tibetan and Indian traditions.
Other works are extant only in Chinese, one of these is the Shih-erh-men-lun or 'Twelve-topic treatise' (*Dvadasanikaya or *Dvadasamukha-sastra); one of the three basic treatises of the Sanlun school (East Asian Madhyamaka).
Several works considered important in esoteric Buddhism are attributed to NÃÂgÃÂrjuna and his disciples by traditional historians like TÃÂranÃÂtha from 17th century Tibet. These historians try to account for chronological difficulties with various theories, such as seeing later writings as mystical revelations. For a useful summary of this tradition, see Wedemeyer 2007. Lindtner sees the author of some of these tantric works as being a tantric Nagarjuna who lives much later, sometimes called "Nagarjuna II".
NÃÂgÃÂrjuna's major thematic focus is the concept of à Âà «nyatà(translated into English as "emptiness") which brings together other key Buddhist doctrines, particularly anÃÂtman "not-self" and pratëtyasamutpÃÂda "dependent origination", to refute the metaphysics of some of his contemporaries. For NÃÂgÃÂrjuna, as for the Buddha in the early texts, it is not merely sentient beings that are "selfless" or non-substantial; all phenomena (dhammas) are without any svabhÃÂva, literally "own-being", "self-nature", or "inherent existence" and thus without any underlying essence. They are empty of being independently existent; thus the heterodox theories of svabhÃÂva circulating at the time were refuted on the basis of the doctrines of early Buddhism. This is so because all things arise always dependently: not by their own power, but by depending on conditions leading to their becomingâÂÂcoming into existenceâÂÂas opposed to being.
NÃÂgÃÂrjuna means by real any entity which has a nature of its own (svabhÃÂva), which is not produced by causes (akrtaka), which is not dependent on anything else (paratra nirapeksha).
Chapter 24 verse 14 of the Mà «lamadhyamakakÃÂrikàprovides one of NÃÂgÃÂrjuna's most famous quotations on emptiness and co-arising:
As part of his analysis of the emptiness of phenomena in the Mà «lamadhyamakakÃÂrikÃÂ, NÃÂgÃÂrjuna critiques svabhÃÂva in several different concepts. He discusses the problems of positing any sort of inherent essence to causation, movement, change and personal identity. NÃÂgÃÂrjuna makes use of the Indian logical tool of the tetralemma to attack any essentialist conceptions. NÃÂgÃÂrjuna's logical analysis is based on four basic propositions:
To say that all things are 'empty' is to deny any kind of ontological foundation; therefore NÃÂgÃÂrjuna's view is often seen as a kind of ontological anti-foundationalism or a metaphysical anti-realism. Understanding the nature of the emptiness of phenomena is simply a means to an end, which is nirvana. Thus NÃÂgÃÂrjuna's philosophical project is ultimately a soteriological one meant to correct our everyday cognitive processes which mistakenly posits svabhÃÂva on the flow of experience.
Some scholars such as Fyodor Shcherbatskoy and T.R.V. Murti held that NÃÂgÃÂrjuna was the inventor of the Shunyata doctrine; however, more recent work by scholars such as Choong Mun-keat, Yin Shun and Dhammajothi Thero has argued that NÃÂgÃÂrjuna was not an innovator by putting forth this theory, but that, in the words of Shi Huifeng, "the connection between emptiness and dependent origination is not an innovation or creation of NÃÂgÃÂrjuna".
NÃÂgÃÂrjuna was also instrumental in the development of the two truths doctrine, which claims that there are two levels of truth in Buddhist teaching, the ultimate truth (paramÃÂrtha satya) and the conventional or superficial truth (saá¹Âvá¹Âtisatya). The ultimate truth to NÃÂgÃÂrjuna is the truth that everything is empty of essence, this includes emptiness itself ('the emptiness of emptiness'). While some (Murti, 1955) have interpreted this by positing NÃÂgÃÂrjuna as a neo-Kantian and thus making ultimate truth a metaphysical noumenon or an "ineffable ultimate that transcends the capacities of discursive reason", others such as Mark Siderits and Jay L. Garfield have argued that NÃÂgÃÂrjuna's view is that "the ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth" (Siderits) and that NÃÂgÃÂrjuna is a "semantic anti-dualist" who posits that there are only conventional truths. Hence according to Garfield:
<blockquote>Suppose that we take a conventional entity, such as a table. We analyze it to demonstrate its emptiness, finding that there is no table apart from its parts [...]. So we conclude that it is empty. But now let us analyze that emptiness [...]. What do we find? Nothing at all but the table's lack of inherent existence. [...]. To see the table as empty [...] is to see the table as conventional, as dependent.</blockquote>
In articulating this notion in the Mà «lamadhyamakakÃÂrikÃÂ, NÃÂgÃÂrjuna drew on an early source in the KaccÃÂnagotta Sutta, which distinguishes definitive meaning (nëtÃÂrtha) from interpretable meaning (neyÃÂrtha):
The version linked to is the one found in the nikayas, and is slightly different from the one found in the Samyuktagama. Both contain the concept of teaching via the middle between the extremes of existence and non-existence. Nagarjuna does not make reference to "everything" when he quotes the agamic text in his Mà «lamadhyamakakÃÂrikÃÂ.
Jay L. Garfield describes that NÃÂgÃÂrjuna approached causality from the Four Noble Truths and dependent origination. NÃÂgÃÂrjuna distinguished two dependent origination views in a causal process, that which causes effects and that which causes conditions. This is predicated in the two truth doctrine, as conventional truth and ultimate truth held together, in which both are empty in existence. The distinction between effects and conditions is controversial. In NÃÂgÃÂrjuna's approach, cause means an event or state that has power to bring an effect. Conditions, refer to proliferating causes that bring a further event, state or process; without a metaphysical commitment to an occult connection between explaining and explanans. He argues nonexistent causes and various existing conditions. The argument draws from unreal causal power. Things conventional exist and are ultimately nonexistent to rest in the Middle Way in both causal existence and nonexistence as casual emptiness within the Mà «lamadhyamakakÃÂrikàdoctrine. Although seeming strange to Westerners, this is seen as an attack on a reified view of causality.
NÃÂgÃÂrjuna also taught the idea of relativity; in the RatnÃÂvalë, he gives the example that shortness exists only in relation to the idea of length. The determination of a thing or object is only possible in relation to other things or objects, especially by way of contrast. He held that the relationship between the ideas of "short" and "long" is not due to intrinsic nature (svabhÃÂva). This idea is also found in the Pali NikÃÂyas and Chinese ÃÂgamas, in which the idea of relativity is expressed similarly: "That which is the element of light ... is seen to exist on account of [in relation to] darkness; that which is the element of good is seen to exist on account of bad; that which is the element of space is seen to exist on account of form."
NÃÂgÃÂrjuna was fully acquainted with the classical Hindu philosophies of Samkhya and even the Vaiseshika. NÃÂgÃÂrjuna assumes a knowledge of the definitions of the sixteen categories as given in the Nyaya Sutras, the chief text of the Hindu Nyaya school, and wrote a treatise on the pramanas where he reduced the syllogism of five members into one of three. In the Vigrahavyavartani Karika, NÃÂgÃÂrjuna criticises the Nyaya theory of pramanas (means of knowledge).
NÃÂgÃÂrjuna was conversant with many of the à ÂrÃÂvaka philosophies and with the MahÃÂyÃÂna tradition; however, determining NÃÂgÃÂrjuna's affiliation with a specific nikÃÂya is difficult, considering much of this material has been lost. If the most commonly accepted attribution of texts (that of Christian Lindtner) holds, then he was clearly a MÃÂhayÃÂnist, but his philosophy holds assiduously to the à ÂrÃÂvaka Tripiá¹Âaka, and while he does make explicit references to MahÃÂyÃÂna texts, he is always careful to stay within the parameters set out by the à ÂrÃÂvaka canon.
NÃÂgÃÂrjuna may have arrived at his positions from a desire to achieve a consistent exegesis of the Buddha's doctrine as recorded in the ÃÂgamas. In the eyes of NÃÂgÃÂrjuna, the Buddha was not merely a forerunner, but the very founder of the Madhyamaka system. David Kalupahana sees NÃÂgÃÂrjuna as a successor to Moggaliputta-Tissa in being a champion of the middle-way and a reviver of the original philosophical ideals of the Buddha.
Because of the high degree of similarity between NÃÂgÃÂrjuna's philosophy and Pyrrhonism, particularly the surviving works of Sextus Empiricus, According to Thomas McEvilley this is because Nagarjuna was likely influenced by Greek Pyrrhonist texts imported into India. Pyrrho of Elis (c. 360 â c. 270 BCE), the founder of this school of sceptical philosophy, was himself influenced by Indian philosophy. Pyrrho travelled to India with Alexander the Great's army and studied with the gymnosophists. According to Christopher I. Beckwith, Pyrrho's teachings are based on Buddhism, because the Greek terms adiaphora, astathmÃÂta and anepikrita in the Aristocles Passage resemble the Buddhist three marks of existence. According to him, the key innovative tenets of Pyrrho's scepticism were only found in Indian philosophy at the time and not in Greece. However, other scholars, such as Stephen Batchelor and Charles Goodman question Beckwith's conclusions about the degree of Buddhist influence on Pyrrho.
Carlo Rovelli discusses Nagarjuna's views in Helgoland.