Is Nāgārjuna A Mahāyānist?

Abstract

This paper is intended as a contribution to the understanding of Nāgārjuna. In particular, it proposes to set aside certain assumptions of the commentators and many modern students regarding the interpretation of his statements. Should these assumptions turn out to be justified, well and good, but so far the necessary evidence has not been adduced. The later Mahāyāna schools claim him as their own, that is all. That claim ought to be investigated before we read their views into Nāgārjuna’s words. Our aim must be first to try to understand Nägärjuna in his own words, not in those of Candrakīrti or any one eise. This aim does not imply any lack of admiration for Candrakīrti, but merely a belief that philosophy did not stand still for four centuries and that the later philosopher might be more independent than is sometimes supposed. No school is ever faithful to its real or supposed founder. The mere fact of conforming to a school, whereas the founder was nothing if not original, excludes the possibility of an identity of outlook between the founder and those who later try to follow him. It is this which makes ‘Buddhism’ itself, as a ‘system’, impossible. There can be a philosophy of the Buddha, if we can find out what it was, but how can there be a philosophy of ‘Buddhists’ which remains identical with it? But we must not here pursue this question: the only point to retain here is that unwarranted assumptions concerning Nāgārjuna should be set aside.