What do you think?
Rate this book
Nagarjuna: Buddhism's Most Important Philosopher
Nagarjuna stands second only to the Buddha in his importance in Buddhist thought. The concept of "emptiness (shuntaya)" became the central ontological concept in Mahayana Buddhism thanks to his effort. Not only did he found the Madhyamaka tradition in India, understanding his philosophy is needed to understand the Zen tradition and the Dalai Lama's Tibetan tradition.
Included here are translations from the Sanskrit of his most important philosophical works into plain English, so that the general educated public interested in Buddhism or philosophy can understand his thought. Also included are separate commentaries, an essay on Nagarjuna's thought, and a bibliography of further readings.
The works presented here collectively constitute what the Tibetans call Nagarjuna's "analytic corpus." Translated from the original Sanskrit are:
* The Fundamental Verses of the Middle Way (the Mula-madhyamaka-karikas)
* Overturning the Objections (the Vigraha-yavartani) with Nagarjuna's own commentary
* The philosophical portions of the Jewel Garland of Advice (the Ratnavali).
Three works that are no longer extant in Sanskrit are summarized here:
* Seventy Verses on Emptiness (Shunyata-saptati-karikas)
* Sixty Verses on Argument (Yukti-shashtikas)
* Pulverizing the Categories (Vaidalya-prakarana).
Included here are translations from the Sanskrit of his most important philosophical works into plain English, so that the general educated public interested in Buddhism or philosophy can understand his thought. Also included are separate commentaries, an essay on Nagarjuna's thought, and a bibliography of further readings.
The works presented here collectively constitute what the Tibetans call Nagarjuna's "analytic corpus." Translated from the original Sanskrit are:
* The Fundamental Verses of the Middle Way (the Mula-madhyamaka-karikas)
* Overturning the Objections (the Vigraha-yavartani) with Nagarjuna's own commentary
* The philosophical portions of the Jewel Garland of Advice (the Ratnavali).
Three works that are no longer extant in Sanskrit are summarized here:
* Seventy Verses on Emptiness (Shunyata-saptati-karikas)
* Sixty Verses on Argument (Yukti-shashtikas)
* Pulverizing the Categories (Vaidalya-prakarana).
- GenresBuddhismPhilosophy
190 pages, Paperback
First published May 22, 2010
3 people are currently reading
67 people want to read
About the author
Nāgārjuna
159 books131 followersAcharya Nāgārjuna (Telugu: నాగార్జున) (c. 150 - 250 CE) was an Indian philosopher and the founder of the Madhyamaka school of Mahāyāna Buddhism.
His writings are the basis for the formation of the Madhyamaka school, which was transmitted to China under the name of the Three Treatise (Sanlun) School. He is credited with developing the philosophy of the Prajnaparamita sutras, and was closely associated with the Buddhist university of Nalanda. In the Jodo Shinshu branch of Buddhism, he is considered the First Patriarch.
His writings are the basis for the formation of the Madhyamaka school, which was transmitted to China under the name of the Three Treatise (Sanlun) School. He is credited with developing the philosophy of the Prajnaparamita sutras, and was closely associated with the Buddhist university of Nalanda. In the Jodo Shinshu branch of Buddhism, he is considered the First Patriarch.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
August 8, 2013
I found this book generally useful as background reading around Nagarjuna and his thought. However, some key points proved to be somewhat of a misrepresentation (in my opinion) of aspects of Nagarjuna's thought. For example, Jones seems to commit to a contradiction when he claims that Nagarjuna's bone with Sarvastivadin thought is dharmas and their existence in a 'narrowly ontological' paradigm and not in an epistemic one. This assertion does not seem to make too much sense when one considers the importance of dharmas to the Sarvastivadins in both an ontological sense *and* an epistemic one. What this means is that Jones thinks that Nagarjuna is concerned not with whether or not dharmas exist, and if they exist, *how* their existence may be categorised, but rather that he takes for granted that they exist and is merely trying to ascertain if they are empty of essence or not.
This might not seem too problematic upon first glance, but a moments reflection tells us that this is a little too straightforward. Nagarjuna is challenging the epistemic status of dharmas indirectly by questioning if they are empty. This is not a mere ontological exercise, it affects both paradigms necessarily - if dharmas exist in some way that is different to the Sarvastivadin account, then this directly impinges on their assumed ontological status *and* how they are to be understood epistemically.
In any case, Nagarjuna explicitly states that no phenomena exist with essence be it here or in any other realms in the very first karika of the MMK, so needless to say, I do not think that Jones' point here holds too much water.
On the same topic, Jones also seems to think that dharmas need not be categorised as eternal as they migrate from another realm (where? How? Why?) to this conditioned realm and so arise, display and decay according to dependent origination whilst here. It is my contention that this is an over-simplification of the Sarvastivadin view of dharmas, which says that they exist in some sort of other-realm waiting room - outside of conditioned space and time - and migrate here, display momentarily, and migrate *back* to their other realm, where they reside timelessly. This surely means that we have to say dharmas are eternal, lest we make a mockery of what we understand by finitude and conditioning.
As a result, I feel that Nagarjuna calls into question both the ontological and epistemic status of dharmas implicitly - if dharmas exist in some other-realm timelessly (as Jones and the Sarvastivadins seem forced to concede), they are necessarily detached from Dependent Origination - as karaika I states: no realm exists in which phenomena exist outside of Dependent Origination!
This might not seem too problematic upon first glance, but a moments reflection tells us that this is a little too straightforward. Nagarjuna is challenging the epistemic status of dharmas indirectly by questioning if they are empty. This is not a mere ontological exercise, it affects both paradigms necessarily - if dharmas exist in some way that is different to the Sarvastivadin account, then this directly impinges on their assumed ontological status *and* how they are to be understood epistemically.
In any case, Nagarjuna explicitly states that no phenomena exist with essence be it here or in any other realms in the very first karika of the MMK, so needless to say, I do not think that Jones' point here holds too much water.
On the same topic, Jones also seems to think that dharmas need not be categorised as eternal as they migrate from another realm (where? How? Why?) to this conditioned realm and so arise, display and decay according to dependent origination whilst here. It is my contention that this is an over-simplification of the Sarvastivadin view of dharmas, which says that they exist in some sort of other-realm waiting room - outside of conditioned space and time - and migrate here, display momentarily, and migrate *back* to their other realm, where they reside timelessly. This surely means that we have to say dharmas are eternal, lest we make a mockery of what we understand by finitude and conditioning.
As a result, I feel that Nagarjuna calls into question both the ontological and epistemic status of dharmas implicitly - if dharmas exist in some other-realm timelessly (as Jones and the Sarvastivadins seem forced to concede), they are necessarily detached from Dependent Origination - as karaika I states: no realm exists in which phenomena exist outside of Dependent Origination!
Displaying 1 of 1 review