Nāgārjuna

1. Introduction

Nāgārjuna (c. 2nd–3rd century CE) is widely regarded as the founding figure of the Mādhyamaka (“Middle Way”) school of Mahāyāna Buddhism and as one of the most influential philosophers of classical India. His works develop a radical analysis of emptiness (śūnyatā) and dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda), arguing that all phenomena lack intrinsic nature (svabhāva) and arise only through relations and conceptual designation.

The centerpiece of his surviving corpus, the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (“Root Verses on the Middle Way”), offers tightly constructed verse arguments that target essentialist views held by both Buddhist and non‑Buddhist schools. Rather than proposing a new metaphysical system, Nāgārjuna is commonly interpreted as deploying a critical method—prasaṅga (reductio reasoning)—that exposes contradictions in any attempt to posit independent essences, while preserving the everyday, conventional world in which causality, moral responsibility, and the Buddhist path remain meaningful.

Later traditions read his work in sharply different ways. Some see in Nāgārjuna a thoroughgoing anti‑realist or even a kind of skeptic about metaphysics; others emphasize his role as a faithful interpreter of early Buddhist teachings on non‑self and impermanence. Indian, Chinese, Korean, Japanese, and Tibetan scholastics built extensive commentarial traditions on his verses, and modern philosophers have enlisted his ideas in debates about reference, realism, and the nature of persons.

Because early biographical data are sparse and much of his life story is legendary, contemporary scholarship focuses less on personal details and more on his arguments, historical context in the Kushan and Sātavāhana periods, and the subsequent reception of his thought across Asia and in global philosophy.

2. Life and Historical Context

2.1 Biographical Outline

Direct historical information about Nāgārjuna’s life is limited. Most modern scholars, using internal textual evidence and later doxographical sources, place him roughly in the 2nd–3rd century CE, active somewhere between the Sātavāhana domains of South India and emerging Buddhist centers of North India.

Traditional accounts portray him as a monk born into a Brahmanical or high-status family in the Andhra region, who converted to Buddhism, mastered mainstream Abhidharma and early Mahāyāna scriptures, and eventually taught at major monastic institutions, sometimes linked (though not securely) with Nālandā. Hagiographies attribute to him miraculous deeds and esoteric connections with nāga serpent-kings, but historians generally treat these as later religious embellishments.

2.2 Socio‑Political Setting

Nāgārjuna’s floruit coincides with the Kushan Empire in the north and Sātavāhana rule in the Deccan. These polities presided over:

• Extensive trade networks (Indic, Central Asian, and maritime routes),
• Cultural and doctrinal pluralism, with Brahmanical, Buddhist, Jaina, and heterodox movements,
• Patronage for monastic communities and scholastic activity.

This environment fostered intense philosophical competition among different Indian schools (e.g., early Nyāya, Sāṃkhya, various Buddhist Abhidharma traditions). Nāgārjuna’s works presuppose familiarity with such debates, often directly engaging rival analyses of causality, motion, self, and liberation.

2.3 Religious and Intellectual Milieu

The period saw the consolidation of Mahāyāna currents within broader Buddhism. New sūtras elaborated the bodhisattva ideal, vast cosmologies, and doctrines such as emptiness and skillful means. Scholars debate whether Nāgārjuna was a “founder” of Mahāyāna philosophy or a synthesizer of earlier currents, but his writings clearly reflect:

• Knowledge of Mahāyāna scriptures (especially Prajñāpāramitā literature),
• Engagement with non-Mahāyāna Abhidharma systems,
• Participation in a scholastic culture that valued rigorous dialectical argument.

His ethical advice to a king in texts like the Ratnāvalī suggests close contact between monastic intellectuals and royal courts, where Buddhist ideas informed discussions of just governance and statecraft.

3. Sources and Problems of Chronology

3.1 Types of Sources

Information about Nāgārjuna’s life and dates comes from several heterogeneous sources:

3.2 Dating Difficulties

Several factors complicate establishing a precise chronology:

• Multiple Nāgārjunas: Later traditions attribute tantric, alchemical, and even medical works to “Nāgārjuna,” leading many scholars to distinguish between two or more historical figures sharing the name.
• Sparse epigraphic evidence: Unlike some contemporaries, Nāgārjuna leaves no securely identified inscriptions.
• Evolving attributions: Texts such as the Śūnyatāsaptati or Yuktiṣaṣṭikā are attributed to him in some traditions but not others, affecting judgments about his doctrinal development.
• Relative rather than absolute dating: Much evidence is of the form “X cites Nāgārjuna,” which only establishes that Nāgārjuna predates X.

3.3 Scholarly Proposals

Modern scholars typically place Nāgārjuna’s floruit between c. 150–250 CE, but their arguments differ:

• Some rely primarily on Chinese translation dates, positing that Nāgārjuna must predate the earliest known translations of his works by a few decades.
• Others emphasize philosophical intertextuality, arguing from his engagement with specific Abhidharma systems or early Nyāya concepts, which they date independently.
• A further line of inquiry compares Nāgārjuna’s references to political entities (e.g., Sātavāhanas) with external historical data, though such references are often indirect or disputed.

There is no consensus on exact birth and death years; instead, scholarship tends to bracket him within a 2nd–3rd century “window”, recognizing both the provisional nature of this placement and the likelihood that some texts attributed to him stem from later authors.

4. Intellectual Development

Because reliable biographical data are limited, accounts of Nāgārjuna’s intellectual development are largely reconstructed from his attributed works and later testimonies. Scholars commonly distinguish several phases or aspects, without agreement on strict chronology.

4.1 Monastic and Scholastic Formation

Most reconstructions posit that Nāgārjuna first trained within mainstream Buddhist monasticism, studying Vinaya, sūtra, and Abhidharma:

• His detailed engagement with causal theories, aggregates, and elements suggests thorough familiarity with Sarvāstivāda and other Abhidharma traditions.
• Verses critiquing non‑Buddhist positions indicate exposure to Brahmanical schools (Sāṃkhya, Vaiśeṣika, early Nyāya) and possibly Jaina thought.

This phase is thought to have provided the conceptual targets for his later Madhyamaka critique.

4.2 Formulation of Madhyamaka

The composition of the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā is generally treated as a mature phase in which Nāgārjuna articulates:

• A systematic critique of svabhāva (intrinsic nature),
• The correlation between emptiness and dependent origination,
• A consistent use of prasaṅga reasoning.

Some scholars argue that shorter treatises like the Vigrahavyāvartanī and Yuktiṣaṣṭikā either precede or closely follow the MMK, refining his defense of the Madhyamaka method against critics.

4.3 Ethical and Political Engagement

Texts such as the Ratnāvalī and Suhṛllekha present Nāgārjuna as an advisor on ethics, royal governance, and practice. Whether these works are by the same author as the MMK is debated, but many traditions treat them as evidence of a phase in which:

• Madhyamaka insights are applied to social and political life,
• The bodhisattva ideal is integrated with concrete counsel on non‑violence, generosity, and administrative justice.

4.4 Later Attributions and Expanded Roles

Subsequent centuries associate Nāgārjuna with:

• Devotional hymns (stotras),
• Esoteric and tantric treatises,
• Alchemical and medical manuals.

Some historians posit multiple “Nāgārjunas” (e.g., a tantric Nāgārjuna) to account for doctrinal and stylistic differences; others suggest that a single figure’s legacy was gradually expanded. These later associations, regardless of authorship, shaped the perception of Nāgārjuna as a polymathic authority across doctrinal, ritual, and even scientific domains.

5. Major Works and Attributed Texts

5.1 Core Philosophical Treatises

Most scholars agree that Nāgārjuna’s central philosophical contribution lies in a cluster of works, with varying degrees of certainty regarding authorship:

The MMK functions as the foundational text for later Madhyamaka, while the other three are often read as complementary clarifications of its arguments.

5.2 Ethical and Didactic Works

Several works present Nāgārjuna as a moral and political advisor:

Indian, Tibetan, and East Asian traditions commonly attribute these to Nāgārjuna, though some modern scholars question single authorship on stylistic and doctrinal grounds.

5.3 Hymns and Devotional Texts

A group of stotras (hymns), such as the Acintyastava and Āryadevapraśaṃsā, are transmitted under Nāgārjuna’s name. They:

• Praise the Buddha and emptiness,
• Employ a more devotional tone than the MMK,
• Are variously accepted or doubted as authentic in different traditions.

5.4 Esoteric, Alchemical, and Other Attributions

Later Buddhist and non‑Buddhist traditions credit Nāgārjuna with:

• Tantric treatises (e.g., linked to early Vajrayāna),
• Rasāyana (alchemical) and medical works,
• Commentarial literature on diverse topics.

Most specialists treat these as works of later authors who adopted the prestigious name “Nāgārjuna.” However, Tibetan and some East Asian lineages sometimes maintain a more expansive canon of “Nāgārjunian” texts, reflecting doctrinal and institutional priorities as much as historical judgment.

6. Method and Style of Argumentation

6.1 Prasaṅga and Dialectical Strategy

Nāgārjuna’s argumentative hallmark is prasaṅga—a reductio method that derives untenable consequences from an opponent’s thesis without advancing a competing thesis. In the MMK, he repeatedly:

• Accepts an interlocutor’s assumptions for the sake of argument,
• Shows that these assumptions lead to contradictions, regress, or conflict with basic Buddhist tenets,
• Declines to posit any independent metaphysical position in their place.

Proponents of the Prāsaṅgika Madhyamaka interpretation emphasize this purely negative, therapeutic use of reasoning, while other traditions propose that Nāgārjuna implicitly endorses positive claims about dependent origination.

6.2 Use of the Catuṣkoṭi

Another key tool is the catuṣkoṭi (fourfold schema), which examines the possibilities that a proposition is:

1. True (X),
2. False (not‑X),
3. Both true and false,
4. Neither true nor false.

Nāgārjuna deploys this structure to dismantle rigid conceptual binaries—existence/non‑existence, same/different, permanent/impermanent—arguing that each alternative, when taken as ultimately valid, generates paradoxes. Commentators debate whether this amounts to a revision of classical logic or a pragmatic exposure of conceptual limits.

6.3 Linguistic and Rhetorical Features

Nāgārjuna writes mainly in kārikā (verse) form, using concise, often ambiguous formulations that invite extensive commentary. His style combines:

• Technical terminology familiar from Abhidharma and rival schools,
• Repetition and parallelism to explore all “corners” of a problem,
• Brief but pointed similes and paradoxical statements.

This compressed style has contributed both to the influence and to the interpretive difficulty of his work.

6.4 Self‑Reflexive Critique

In texts like the Vigrahavyāvartanī, Nāgārjuna anticipates objections that his own position is self‑refuting—if all views are empty, then so is Madhyamaka. He responds by distinguishing:

• The use of concepts as instruments (upāya) to undermine reification,
• From any commitment to those concepts as ultimately real.

Different schools disagree on how to formalize this stance philosophically, but most agree that Nāgārjuna’s method is self‑reflexive, turning its critique back on Madhyamaka formulations themselves.

7. Core Philosophy and the Middle Way

7.1 Emptiness and Dependent Origination

Nāgārjuna’s core philosophical orientation links emptiness (śūnyatā) with dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda). In MMK 24:18 he writes:

"

Whatever is dependently arisen, that is explained to be emptiness. That, being a dependent designation, is itself the middle way.

— Nāgārjuna, Mūlamadhyamakakārikā 24:18

On one influential reading, this equates emptiness with the absence of intrinsic nature (svabhāva): things exist only through causal conditions, mutual dependence, and conceptual imputation, not as self‑standing essences.

7.2 Avoiding Eternalism and Nihilism

Nāgārjuna presents his philosophy as a Middle Way between two extremes:

• Eternalism (śāśvatavāda): positing permanent entities (e.g., an eternal self, substances, or dharmas with intrinsic being).
• Nihilism (ucchedavāda): denying causal efficacy, moral responsibility, or the reality of the conventional world.

He argues that reifying things as ultimately existent leads to logical problems and contradicts impermanence, while treating things as utterly non‑existent undermines karma, ethics, and the path. Emptiness, understood as dependent origination, is intended to preserve the coherence of causality and practice without positing fixed essences.

7.3 Two Levels of Discourse

To articulate this middle position, Nāgārjuna distinguishes two truths (analyzed more fully in later sections):

• At the level of conventional truth (saṃvṛti-satya), persons, objects, and causal processes function and can be described.
• At the level of ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya), these same phenomena are seen as empty of intrinsic nature.

Interpretations diverge on whether these are two separate “realities” or two ways of speaking about one dependent world. Many scholars stress that, for Nāgārjuna, ultimate truth does not negate conventional functioning but clarifies its lack of essence.

7.4 Therapeutic Aim

A widely shared interpretation holds that Nāgārjuna’s core philosophy is soteriological: his critique of views aims to dissolve attachment and aversion rooted in reification. By undermining beliefs in inherent existence—of self, phenomena, or even Nirvāṇa—he seeks to remove cognitive distortions that sustain suffering, while leaving intact the conventional practices necessary for liberation.

8. Metaphysics and the Doctrine of Emptiness

8.1 Critique of Svabhāva

A central metaphysical target in Nāgārjuna’s work is svabhāva, often glossed as intrinsic, independent, or self‑grounding nature. Across multiple chapters of the MMK, he argues that if phenomena possessed svabhāva, they would:

• Be independent of conditions,
• Be unchanging,
• Not be genuinely produced or destroyed.

Since empirical experience and basic Buddhist teachings affirm impermanence and causality, Nāgārjuna contends that svabhāva is incoherent. His analyses of motion, time, fire and fuel, the self, and even Nirvāṇa are structured to show the untenability of intrinsic nature.

8.2 Emptiness as Lack of Inherent Existence

On the basis of this critique, Nāgārjuna characterizes all dharmas as empty (śūnya)—lacking svabhāva. Interpretive debates concern the ontological status of this claim:

• Some readings treat emptiness as a global anti‑realism: there is no foundation beyond interdependent processes and conceptual practices.
• Others see it as a form of “soft metaphysics”: phenomena are real as dependently arisen but not as self‑subsisting substances.
• A further view emphasizes that emptiness is itself empty (“the emptiness of emptiness”), cautioning against treating it as a new metaphysical ground.

This last point is often cited from passages where Nāgārjuna warns that clinging to emptiness as a view is as problematic as any other reification.

8.3 Dependent Origination as Metaphysical Principle

By aligning emptiness with dependent origination, Nāgārjuna reframes a basic Buddhist doctrine in metaphysical terms. Rather than presenting a catalog of ultimate building blocks, he emphasizes:

• Relationality: entities are what they are only in networks of conditions and conceptual contrasts.
• Non‑substantial process: arising and ceasing without an underlying substance.
• Mere designation: things are identified and bounded through linguistic and conceptual practices.

Some contemporary interpreters compare this to structuralist or process‑ontological views, though such analogies are contested.

8.4 Metaphysical Quietism?

A further line of interpretation holds that Nāgārjuna is fundamentally metaphysically quietist: he neither posits nor denies any ultimate ontology, restricting himself to showing the incoherence of essentialist claims. Supporters cite his refusal, in texts like the Vigrahavyāvartanī, to assert even the thesis “everything is empty” as an ultimate truth. Critics argue that the strong identification of emptiness with dependent origination nonetheless commits him to a substantive metaphysical stance.

The tension between these readings continues to animate scholarly debate about the precise metaphysical implications of Nāgārjuna’s doctrine of emptiness.

9. Logic, Language, and the Two Truths

9.1 The Two Truths Framework

Nāgārjuna employs the distinction between conventional truth (saṃvṛti-satya) and ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya) as a semantic and epistemic framework:

Some commentators interpret this as a strict hierarchy, with ultimate truth superseding conventional truth; others, especially in later Madhyamaka, emphasize their interdependence, arguing that ultimate insight cannot be expressed without conventional language.

9.2 Attitude to Logic

Nāgārjuna’s use of reasoning is sophisticated but does not explicitly appeal to a formal logical system. He:

• Exploits the catuṣkoṭi to reveal the limits of standard predication,
• Shows how assuming ordinary logical categories as ultimately valid leads to contradiction,
• Yet relies on inferential structure to make his case.

Scholars differ on whether this amounts to proposing a non‑classical logic (e.g., paraconsistent) or simply using classical reasoning to highlight its own domain of applicability.

9.3 Language, Designation, and Conceptual Construction

Nāgārjuna frequently characterizes phenomena as “mere designations” (prajñapti). He argues that:

• Words and concepts carve up a dependently arisen continuum into discrete entities,
• These designations function pragmatically at the conventional level,
• Reifying them as corresponding to intrinsic essences generates philosophical confusion.

This view has been compared to deflationary or instrumentalist accounts of reference, though such analogies are debated.

9.4 Paradox and Self‑Reference

His remarks on the status of his own teachings—e.g., “we do not assert emptiness nor non‑emptiness”—raise issues of self‑reference:

"

We do not assert “emptiness”. We do not assert “non‑emptiness”. We do not assert both, nor do we assert neither.

— Nāgārjuna, Vigrahavyāvartanī 29 (attributed)

Some interpreters see this as endorsing a form of semantic paradox acceptance; others read it as a pragmatic reminder that Madhyamaka statements function as therapeutic tools, not as truth‑apt claims about ultimate reality. The two‑truths framework provides a way of situating such statements as conventionally assertible while ultimately empty.

10. Epistemology and Critique of Views

10.1 Stance toward Pramāṇa (Means of Knowledge)

Nāgārjuna does not present a systematic pramāṇa theory comparable to later Buddhist logicians, but his works engage implicitly with questions of knowledge and justification. In the Vigrahavyāvartanī, he challenges opponents who demand that he establish his thesis using recognized means of knowledge (perception, inference, etc.). His response emphasizes:

• The dependence of pramāṇas on the very phenomena they are supposed to certify,
• The mutual interdependence of knower, known, and means of knowing,
• The consequent lack of intrinsic validity in any epistemic instrument.

Later figures differ on whether he thereby rejects pramāṇas entirely or only denies them ultimate status while accepting their conventional reliability.

10.2 Critique of Doctrinal Views

Nāgārjuna repeatedly warns against attachment to views (dṛṣṭi), including Buddhist ones. His critique targets:

• Eternalist views (e.g., of an unchanging self),
• Nihilistic views (e.g., denial of karma and moral responsibility),
• Subtle reifications of dharmas or even Nirvāṇa.

His method is not to replace false views with a true metaphysical doctrine but to dissolve reification by showing that each view, when analyzed, leads to contradiction or conflict with basic experience. Some scholars align this with therapeutic or Pyrrhonian forms of skepticism, though others stress the positive commitment to dependent origination and the path.

10.3 Emptiness and Cognitive Error

From an epistemic perspective, ignorance (avidyā) is understood as the misapprehension of dependently arisen phenomena as possessing intrinsic nature. Nāgārjuna’s arguments aim to correct this distortion by revealing:

• The constructed character of subject–object duality,
• The absence of a self‑subsisting substratum behind aggregates,
• The emptiness of conceptual distinctions taken as ultimately real.

Realization of emptiness is described not primarily as assent to a proposition, but as a transformative insight that alters how phenomena are experienced and responded to.

10.4 Knowledge, Certainty, and Practice

While Nāgārjuna undermines claims to ultimate certainty about ontological matters, he does not thereby discard all practical certainty. Conventional truths, though empty, are treated as:

• Sufficiently reliable for guiding conduct,
• Subject to correction through experience and reasoning,
• Context‑bound rather than absolutely grounded.

Debate continues over whether this yields a form of fallibilist conventionalism, a more radical epistemic skepticism, or a distinctively Buddhist conception in which non‑conceptual wisdom (prajñā) supersedes discursive knowledge without invalidating its everyday use.

11. Ethics, Politics, and Practical Counsel

11.1 Ethical Orientation

Although best known for his metaphysical and logical analyses, Nāgārjuna is also associated with substantial ethical teaching, especially in texts like the Ratnāvalī and Suhṛllekha. These works emphasize:

• Non‑harming (ahiṃsā) and compassion toward all beings,
• Generosity, ethical self‑discipline, and patience,
• The cultivation of wisdom alongside moral virtues.

They present the bodhisattva path as a framework that integrates personal liberation with altruistic commitment.

11.2 Political and Royal Counsel

In the Ratnāvalī, Nāgārjuna addresses a ruling king (often identified, though not securely, with a Sātavāhana monarch). He advises the ruler to:

• Avoid unjust warfare and harsh punishments,
• Reduce taxation and ensure fair distribution of resources,
• Support monastic communities and promote public welfare.

A representative verse states:

"

The conquering kings are conquered by their own hostility, while those who conquer hostility are themselves true conquerors.

— Nāgārjuna, Ratnāvalī (attributed)

Interpreters see this as framing political power within a moral and karmic perspective: rulers are urged to view their authority as an opportunity for merit and protection of the vulnerable rather than domination.

11.3 Emptiness and Ethics

A central question in scholarship is how Nāgārjuna’s doctrine of emptiness supports or constrains ethical commitments. Various interpretations include:

• Emptiness undercuts ego‑clinging and rigid group identities, thereby fostering compassion and reducing partiality.
• Recognition that actions and consequences are dependently arisen strengthens motivation for ethical vigilance, since nothing shields agents from karmic results.
• Alternatively, critics worry that radical emptiness could appear to undermine moral realism or objective grounds for obligation, a concern Nāgārjuna anticipates when insisting that ethics operates robustly at the conventional level.

11.4 Lay and Monastic Guidance

The Suhṛllekha addresses a lay or royal “good friend,” offering concise advice on:

• Avoiding intoxicants, harmful speech, and exploitative livelihood,
• Practicing generosity and supporting the Sangha,
• Reflecting on impermanence, death, and karmic accountability.

These counsels present Nāgārjuna not only as a dialectician but as a teacher concerned with concrete conduct across social roles, illustrating how Madhyamaka insights can inform everyday decisions without requiring withdrawal from active life.

12. Soteriology and the Path to Liberation

12.1 Emptiness and Liberation

Nāgārjuna situates his philosophical inquiry within a soteriological framework: the ultimate aim is liberation (nirvāṇa) from suffering. Emptiness is presented as indispensable to this goal:

"

For whom emptiness is possible, everything is possible. For whom emptiness is not possible, nothing is possible.

— Nāgārjuna, Mūlamadhyamakakārikā 24:14

Interpreters understand this to mean that without recognizing the emptiness of self and phenomena, practices such as ethical discipline and meditation cannot fully uproot ignorance.

12.2 Saṃsāra and Nirvāṇa

Nāgārjuna famously claims:

"

There is not the slightest difference between saṃsāra and nirvāṇa. There is not the slightest difference between nirvāṇa and saṃsāra.

— Nāgārjuna, Mūlamadhyamakakārikā 25:19–20

This has been taken in various ways:

• As asserting that both are equally empty of intrinsic nature,
• As indicating that liberation does not involve a change in some underlying reality but a transformation of cognitive grasping,
• As a warning against reifying Nirvāṇa as a separate metaphysical realm.

Commentators differ on whether this implies a non‑dual understanding of the path or simply extends the critique of svabhāva to all states.

12.3 Role of Practice

Nāgārjuna refers approvingly to traditional Buddhist paths, often aligned with the three trainings:

His writings suggest that conceptual analysis of emptiness and meditative cultivation of that insight are mutually reinforcing. Some traditions emphasize discursive reasoning as a stepping‑stone to non‑conceptual realization; others stress that mere intellectual assent is insufficient without transformative practice.

12.4 Bodhisattva Ideal

In attributed works like the Ratnāvalī, Nāgārjuna outlines a path oriented toward Buddhahood for the sake of all beings. This involves:

• Accumulation of merit (through generosity, ethical conduct) and wisdom (through insight into emptiness),
• Development of great compassion (mahākaruṇā),
• Engagement in altruistic activity while maintaining awareness of emptiness.

Different Buddhist traditions debate the exact relationship between Nāgārjuna’s Madhyamaka and specific bodhisattva practices, but most treat his thought as a major philosophical underpinning for Mahāyāna soteriology.

13. Reception in India and Central Asia

13.1 Immediate Indian Successors

Nāgārjuna’s ideas were systematized and elaborated by early Indian Madhyamaka thinkers such as Āryadeva, traditionally regarded as his direct disciple. Āryadeva’s Catuḥśataka develops:

• Critiques of rival schools along Madhyamaka lines,
• Practical reflections on overcoming afflictions.

Subsequent Indian authors, including Bhāviveka, Buddhapālita, and Candrakīrti, engaged deeply with the MMK, each offering distinctive interpretive strategies that later shaped Tibetan doxographies.

13.2 Interaction with Other Indian Schools

Within India, Nāgārjuna’s thought became a central reference point in debates with:

• Abhidharma Buddhists, who often defended more realist ontologies of dharmas,
• Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika philosophers, who articulated substance–attribute and pramāṇa theories criticized by Madhyamaka authors,
• Yogācāra Buddhists, who proposed alternative analyses of emptiness, often framed in terms of mind‑only doctrines.

These exchanges influenced the evolution of both Buddhist and non‑Buddhist philosophies, with some later critics portraying Madhyamaka as excessively skeptical, and defenders presenting it as the most coherent elaboration of the Buddha’s teaching.

13.3 Central Asian Transmission

Nāgārjuna’s works reached Central Asia via Buddhist scholastic networks along the Silk Road. Fragments and translations of Madhyamaka texts circulated in languages such as Tocharian, Sogdian, and Khotanese, although the textual record is uneven.

Central Asian monasteries served as intermediaries for the later translation of Nāgārjuna’s treatises into Chinese and Tibetan. Archaeological finds and manuscript caches (e.g., at Dunhuang) indicate that Madhyamaka materials formed part of a diverse scholastic curriculum, though detailed local reception histories remain incomplete.

13.4 Decline and Legacy in India

By the late first millennium CE, Indian Buddhist institutions faced significant challenges, including reduced royal patronage and competition from revitalized Brahmanical traditions. While Madhyamaka remained influential in some monastic centers, its Indian textual production eventually waned.

Nonetheless, Nāgārjuna’s Indian legacy endured through:

• Citations and critiques in non‑Buddhist works,
• Preservation and commentary within Nepalese and Kashmiri traditions,
• Transmission of texts and lineages to Tibet and East Asia, where they continued to develop long after Buddhism’s institutional decline in much of the Indian subcontinent.

14. Transmission to China, Korea, and Japan

14.1 Entry into China

Nāgārjuna’s works entered China primarily through translation from the late 4th century onward. Key milestones include:

Kumārajīva’s translations became especially authoritative, shaping Chinese readings of Nāgārjuna for centuries.

14.2 Formation of the Sanlun School

In China, Nāgārjuna’s MMK (as Zhonglun), along with two other treatises, formed the basis of the Sanlun (“Three Treatise”) school:

• Zhonglun (中論, MMK, Nāgārjuna),
• Shiermen lun (十二門論, Dvādaśadvāra-śāstra, attributed to Nāgārjuna),
• Bailun (百論, Śataśāstra, by Āryadeva).

Chinese thinkers such as Sengzhao (僧肇) and later Jizang (吉藏) developed distinctive interpretations of emptiness and the two truths, often integrating Nāgārjuna’s ideas with indigenous Chinese concerns about language, paradox, and practice.

14.3 Transmission to Korea

Sanlun thought spread to Korea through the movement of texts and monastics from China. Korean scholars engaged Nāgārjuna’s treatises both:

• Directly, through study of the Chinese translations,
• Indirectly, via assimilation into broader scholastic traditions such as Hwaeom (Huayan).

While Sanlun never became a dominant independent school in Korea, its Madhyamaka notions influenced debates about emptiness, Buddha‑nature, and the relationship between principle and phenomena.

14.4 Influence in Japan

In Japan, Nāgārjuna’s thought arrived mainly through:

• The importation of Sanlun materials in early periods,
• The later Tendai and Zen traditions, which incorporated Madhyamaka themes.

Japanese scholars and monastics used Nāgārjuna’s analyses to:

• Clarify the balance between emptiness and Buddha‑nature doctrines,
• Frame discussions about sudden vs. gradual enlightenment,
• Engage with questions of language and practice.

Although no enduring “Madhyamaka-only” sect emerged in Japan, Nāgārjuna’s treatises became foundational references within multi‑lineage curricula, and modern Japanese philosophers have revisited his ideas in dialogue with Western thought.

15. Influence on Tibetan Buddhist Thought

15.1 Canonical Status

In Tibet, Nāgārjuna is regarded as the supreme authority on Madhyamaka and a key figure among the Six Ornaments of the Buddhist world. His core texts—especially the MMK, Yuktiṣaṣṭikā, and Ratnāvalī—were translated into Tibetan and incorporated into the Kangyur and Tengyur canons, forming part of standard scholastic curricula.

15.2 Prāsaṅgika vs. Svātantrika

Tibetan interpreters developed influential categorizations of Madhyamaka into:

Most Tibetan lineages agree that Nāgārjuna himself exemplifies the prasaṅga style, though they differ on how explicitly he endorses it.

15.3 Sectarian Interpretations

Different Tibetan schools (Nyingma, Kagyu, Sakya, Gelug) adopt distinct hermeneutics of Nāgārjuna:

• Gelug thinkers, especially Tsongkhapa (1357–1419), present Nāgārjuna as articulating a precise ontological and epistemological position: all phenomena lack inherent existence yet function conventionally in dependence on conceptual imputation.
• Sakya scholars often integrate Nāgārjuna with Yogācāra‑Madhyamaka syntheses, emphasizing the role of mind and appearances.
• Kagyu and Nyingma traditions sometimes read Nāgārjuna through the lens of Mahāmudrā or Dzogchen, highlighting experiential realization and non‑conceptuality.

These interpretations shape debates over key issues such as the status of conventional truth, the nature of ultimate reality (e.g., “emptiness of self‑nature” vs. “emptiness of other”), and the role of conceptual reasoning on the path.

15.4 Tantra and Nāgārjuna

Tibetan lineages frequently identify a tantric Nāgārjuna, sometimes distinguished from the Madhyamaka author, as an early master of Vajrayāna. Regardless of historical accuracy, this association leads to:

• Linking Nāgārjuna’s emptiness doctrine to tantric deity yoga and subtle‑body practices,
• Viewing him as a bridge between sūtra and tantra, providing philosophical grounding for esoteric methods.

Thus, in Tibet, Nāgārjuna’s influence extends not only across scholastic philosophy but also into contemplative and ritual domains.

16. Nāgārjuna in Modern Philosophy and Comparative Thought

16.1 Early Western Reception

Nāgārjuna entered Western scholarly consciousness in the 19th and early 20th centuries through Sanskrit and Chinese text studies. Initial interpretations often:

• Viewed him as a nihilist or radical skeptic undermining all knowledge,
• Or, conversely, as a mystic pointing beyond discursive thought.

Subsequent research revised these portrayals, emphasizing the systematic character of his arguments and their roots in Buddhist doctrinal history.

16.2 Analytic and Continental Engagements

From the late 20th century onward, philosophers have compared Nāgārjuna’s ideas with various Western frameworks:

These comparisons vary in rigor; some scholars stress structural similarities, while others warn against assimilating Nāgārjuna too quickly to non‑Buddhist categories.

16.3 Cross‑Cultural Philosophy of Self and Ethics

Nāgārjuna’s critique of intrinsic selfhood influences cross‑cultural debates on personal identity, agency, and ethics:

• Comparisons with Humean bundle theory and no‑self views in contemporary philosophy of mind,
• Engagement with questions of responsibility and moral motivation in the absence of a substantial self,
• Dialogue with environmental ethics and relational ontologies, drawing on dependent origination.

Some ethicists explore how an emptiness‑based perspective might inform responses to social and political issues, while others question whether it can ground robust normative claims.

16.4 Methodological Reflections

Modern comparative philosophers also use Nāgārjuna as a case study in methodology:

• How to interpret texts from different logical and linguistic traditions,
• Whether concepts like “metaphysics,” “truth,” or “self” translate across cultures,
• How to avoid both exoticizing and domesticating non‑Western philosophies.

Nāgārjuna’s own warnings about clinging to views have been invoked as a resource for cultivating hermeneutic humility in cross‑cultural dialogue.

16.5 Contemporary Buddhist Thought

In global Buddhist communities, Nāgārjuna informs:

• Modern Madhyamaka expositions in Tibetan, East Asian, and Western settings,
• Engaged Buddhism’s reflections on interdependence and social ethics,
• Meditative programs that integrate analytic reflection on emptiness with mindfulness and compassion practices.

These appropriations vary widely, reflecting different doctrinal backgrounds and practical aims, but they all attest to the continuing versatility of Nāgārjuna’s thought.

17. Legacy and Historical Significance

17.1 Within Buddhist Tradition

Across Buddhist history, Nāgārjuna has been regarded as:

• The foundational philosopher of the Mādhyamaka school,
• A key architect of Mahāyāna interpretations of emptiness, two truths, and the bodhisattva path,
• An authoritative voice in both scholastic and contemplative lineages.

His works shaped curricula in India, China, Korea, Japan, Tibet, and beyond, becoming standard references for doctrinal classification and debate.

17.2 Impact on Philosophical Discourse

Nāgārjuna’s analyses have had lasting effects on:

• Buddhist metaphysics, redefining discussions of dharmas, causality, and Nirvāṇa,
• Logic and epistemology, stimulating responses from Nyāya, Yogācāra, and later Buddhist logicians,
• Cross‑cultural philosophy, where his critique of intrinsic nature informs debates on realism, skepticism, and the nature of persons.

He is frequently cited as an example of a non‑Western philosopher whose work bears comparison with major figures in the global philosophical canon.

17.3 Cultural and Religious Influence

Beyond philosophy narrowly construed, Nāgārjuna’s name and image appear in:

• Art and liturgy, where he is venerated as a bodhisattva or saintly master,
• Monastic lineages, where he is counted among the patriarchs of both sūtra and tantra,
• Literature and folklore, especially in East Asia and Tibet, where stories of his miracles and travels circulate widely.

These traditions often conflate historical, legendary, and symbolic elements, reflecting his elevation to a trans‑historical exemplar of wisdom.

17.4 Ongoing Reassessment

Modern scholarship continues to reassess Nāgārjuna’s:

• Authentic corpus, distinguishing early treatises from later attributions,
• Doctrinal position, debating whether he is best read as a metaphysician, skeptic, quietist, or some combination thereof,
• Historical context, drawing on new textual discoveries and comparative studies.

As these inquiries proceed, Nāgārjuna remains a central figure for understanding both the internal development of Buddhism and the possibilities of global philosophical dialogue, his work serving as a touchstone for discussions of emptiness, interdependence, and the critique of dogmatic views.