Nāgārjuna (Sanskrit:नागार्जुन,Nāgārjuna;c. 150 – c. 250 CE) was an Indianphilosopher andMahāyāna Buddhist monk of theMadhyamaka (Centrism, Middle Way) school.[2] Nāgārjuna is widely considered one of the most important Buddhist philosophers.[3] He was the founder of the Madhyamaka school ofBuddhist philosophy and a defender of theMahāyāna movement.[3][4] HisMūlamadhyamakakārikā (Root Verses on Madhyamaka, MMK) is the most important text on the Madhyamaka philosophy ofemptiness. The MMK inspired a large number of commentaries in Sanskrit, Chinese, Tibetan, Korean and Japanese and continues to be studied today.[5]
A map of the Satavahana Kingdom, showing the location ofAmaravathi (where Nāgārjuna may have lived and worked according to Walser) andVidarbha (the birthplace of Nāgārjuna according to Kumārajīva)
India in the first and second centuries CE was politically divided into various states, including theKushan Empire and theSatavahana Kingdom. At this point inBuddhist history, the Buddhist community was already divided into variousBuddhist schools and had spread throughout India.
At this time, there was already a small and nascent Mahāyāna movement. Mahāyāna ideas were held by a minority of Buddhists in India at the time. As Joseph Walser writes, "Mahāyāna before the fifth century was largely invisible and probably existed only as a minority and largely unrecognized movement within the fold of nikāya Buddhism."[6] By the second century, earlyMahāyāna Sūtras such as theAṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā were already circulating among certain Mahāyāna circles.[7]
Very little is reliably known of the life of Nāgārjuna and modern historians do not agree on a specific date (1st to 3rd century CE) or place (multiple places in India suggested) for him.[8] The earliest surviving accounts were written in Chinese and Tibetan centuries after his death and are mostlyhagiographical accounts that are historically unverifiable.[8]
Some scholars such as Joseph Walser argue that Nāgārjuna was an advisor to a king of theSātavāhana dynasty which ruled theDeccan Plateau in the second century.[9][1] This is supported by most of the traditional hagiographical sources as well.[10] Archaeological evidence atAmarāvatī indicates that if this is true, the king may have beenYajña Śrī Śātakarṇi (c. second half of the 2nd century). On the basis of this association, Nāgārjuna is conventionally placed at around 150–250 CE.[9][1]
Walser thinks that it is most likely that when Nāgārjuna wrote theRatnavali, he lived in a mixed monastery (with Mahāyānists and non-Mahāyānists) in which Mahāyānists were the minority. The most likely sectarian affiliation of the monastery according to Walser was Purvasailya, Aparasailya, orCaityaka (which wereMahāsāṃghika sub-schools).[11]
He also argues that "it is plausible that he wrote theRatnavali within a thirty-year period at the end of the second century in theAndhra region around Dhanyakataka (modern-dayAmaravati)."[9]
According to Walser, "the earliest extant legends about Nāgārjuna are compiled intoKumārajīva’s biography of Nāgārjuna, which he translated into Chinese in about 405 CE."[10] According to this biography, Nāgārjuna was born into aBrahmin family[12][13][14][15] and later became a Buddhist. The traditional religious hagiographies place Nāgārjuna in various regions of India (Kumārajīva and Candrakirti place him inVidarbha region of South India,[16][17]Xuanzang in southKosala)[10]
Traditional religious hagiographies credit Nāgārjuna with being associated with the teaching of thePrajñāpāramitā sūtras 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 Nāgārjuna retrieved the sutras. Some sources say he retrieved the sutras from the land of thenāgas.[18]
A Tibetan depiction of Nagarjuna; the snakes are depicted as protectors around Nagarjuna's head and thenagas rising out of the water are offering Buddhist sutras.Nicholas Roerich "Nagarjuna Conqueror of the Serpent" (1925)
Nāgārjuna himself is often depicted in composite form comprising human andnāga characteristics. Nāgas are snake-like supernatural beings of great magical power that feature inHindu,Buddhist andJain mythology.[19] Nāgas 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 realisedarhat or wise person.[20]
Traditional sources also claim that Nāgārjuna practisedayurvedic alchemy (rasāyana). Kumārajīva's biography, for example, depicts Nāgārjuna making an elixir of invisibility, andButon Rinchen Drub,Taranatha andXuanzang all state that he could turn rocks into gold.[21]
Tibetan hagiographies also state that Nāgārjuna studied at Nālanda 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 Nālanda and studied Nāgārjuna’s 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."[22]
Some sources (Buton Rinchen Drub and the other Tibetan historians) claim that in his later years, Nāgārjuna lived on the mountain of Śrīparvata near the city that would later be calledNāgārjunakoṇḍa ("Hill of Nāgārjuna").[23][24] The ruins of Nāgārjunakoṇḍa are located inGuntur district,Andhra Pradesh. TheCaitika andBahuśrutīya nikāyas are known to have hadmonasteries in Nāgārjunakoṇḍa.[23] The archaeological finds at Nāgārjunakoṇḍa have not resulted in any evidence that the site was associated with Nagarjuna. The name "Nāgārjunakoṇḍa" dates from the medieval period, and the 3rd–4th century inscriptions found at the site make it clear that it was known as "Vijayapuri" in the ancient period.[25]
There are a multitude of texts attributed to "Nāgārjuna", many of these texts date from much later periods. This has caused much confusion for the traditional Buddhist biographers anddoxographers. Modern scholars are divided on how to classify these later texts and how many later writers called "Nāgārjuna" existed (the name remains popular today in Andhra Pradesh).[26]
Some scholars have posited that there was a separate Aryuvedic writer called Nāgārjuna who wrote numerous treatises onRasayana. Also, there is a later Tantric Buddhist author by the same name who may have been a scholar atNālandā University and wrote onBuddhist tantra.[27][26] According toDonald S. Lopez Jr., he originally belonged to a Brahmin family from eastern India and later became Buddhist.[28]
There is also aJain 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.[26]
There exist a number of influential texts attributed to Nāgārjuna; however, as there are manypseudepigrapha attributed to him, lively controversy exists over which are his authentic works.
TheMūlamadhyamakakārikā is Nāgārjuna's best-known work. It is "not only a grand commentary on the Buddha's discourse toKaccayana,[29] the only discourse cited by name, but also a detailed and careful analysis of most of the important discourses included in theNikayas and theAgamas, especially those of theAtthakavagga of theSutta-nipata.[30]
Utilizing the Buddha's theory of"dependent arising" (pratitya-samutpada), Nagarjuna demonstrated the futility of [...] metaphysical speculations. His method of dealing with such metaphysics is referred to as "middle way" (madhyama pratipad). It is the middle way that avoided the substantialism of theSarvastivadins as well as the nominalism of theSautrantikas.[31]
In theMūlamadhyamakakārikā, "[A]ll experienced phenomena areempty (sunya). This did not mean that they are not experienced and, therefore, non-existent; only that they are devoid ofa permanent and eternal substance (svabhava) because, like a dream, they are mere projections of human consciousness. Since these imaginary fictions are experienced, they are notmere names (prajnapti)."[31]
the(Madhyamaka)karikas, theYuktisastika, theSunyatasaptati, theVigrahavyavartani, theVidala (i.e.Vaidalyasutra/Vaidalyaprakarana), theRatnavali, theSutrasamuccaya, andSamstutis (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.[32]
According to one view, that of Christian Lindtner, the works definitely written by Nāgārjuna are:[33]
Mūlamadhyamaka-kārikā (Fundamental Verses of the Middle Way, MMK), available in threeSanskrit manuscripts and numerous translations.[34]
Śūnyatāsaptati (Seventy Verses on Emptiness), accompanied by a prose commentary ascribed to Nagarjuna himself.
Bodhisaṃbhāraśāstra (Requisites ofawakening), a work the path of the Bodhisattva andparamitas, it is quoted by Candrakirti in his commentary onAryadeva's four hundred. Now only extant in Chinese translation (Taisho 1660).[37]
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 theBodhicittavivaraṇa must be a later text.[38] In his study, Burton relies on the texts that he considers "least controversial":Mūlamadhyamaka-kārikā, Vigrahavyāvartanī, Śūnyatāsaptati,Yuktiṣāṣṭika,Catuḥstava,Vaidalyaprakaraṇa andRatnāvalī.[38]
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,Vigrahavyāvartanī, Śūnyatāsaptati,Yuktiṣāṣṭika,Vaidalyaprakaraṇa andRatnāvalī, all of which "expound a single, coherent philosophical system", and are attributed to Nagarjuna by a variety of Indian and Tibetan sources.[39]
The Tibetan historianBuston considers the first six to be the main treatises of Nāgārjuna (this is called the "yukti corpus",rigs chogs), while according toTāranātha only the first five are the works of Nāgārjuna. TRV Murti considersRatnāvalī,Pratītyasamutpādahṝdaya andSūtrasamuccaya to be works of Nāgārjuna as the first two are quoted profusely by Chandrakirti and the third byShantideva.[40]
In addition to works mentioned above, numerous other works are attributed to Nāgārjuna, 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."[41]
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 asperhaps being authentic include:[42]
Mahāyānavimsika, it is cited as Nagarjuna's work in theTattvasamgraha as well as by Atisha, Lindtner sees the style and content as compatible with the yukti corpus. Survives in Sanskrit.
Bodhicittotpādavidhi, a short text that describes the sevenfold write for a bodhisattva,
Dvadasakāranayastotra, a madhyamaka text only extant in Tibetan,
(Madhyamaka-)Bhavasamkrānti, a verse from this is attributed to Nagarjuna byBhavaviveka.
Nirālamba-stava,
Sālistambakārikā, only exists in Tibetan, it is a versification of theŚālistamba Sūtra
Stutytitastava, only exists in Tibetan
Danaparikatha, only exists in Tibetan, a praise of giving (dana)
Cittavajrastava,
Mulasarvāstivadisrāmanerakārikā, 50 karikas on the Vinaya of theMulasarvastivadins
Bhāvanākrama, contains various verses similar to theLankavatara, it is cited in theTattvasamgraha as by Nagarjuna
Rasaratnākara deals with the formation of mercury compounds.
Ruegg notes various works of uncertain authorship which have been attributed to Nagarjuna, including theDharmadhatustava (Hymn to theDharmadhatu, which shows later influences),Mahayanavimsika, Salistambakarikas, theBhavasamkranti, and theDasabhumtkavibhāsā.[43] 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 andNiti-sastra-Prajñadanda.[44]
Notably, theDà zhìdù lùn (Taisho 1509, "Commentary on the greatprajñaparamita") which has been influential in Chinese Buddhism, has been questioned as a genuine work of Nāgārjuna by various scholars includingLamotte. This work is also only attested in a Chinese translation byKumārajīva and is unknown in the Tibetan and Indian traditions.[47]
Other works are extant only in Chinese, one of these is theShih-erh-men-lun or 'Twelve-topic treatise' (*Dvadasanikaya or *Dvadasamukha-sastra); one of the three basic treatises of the Sanlun school (East Asian Madhyamaka).[48]
Several works considered important inesoteric Buddhism are attributed to Nāgārjuna and his disciples by traditional historians like Tāranātha 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".[49]
Nāgārjuna's major thematic focus is the concept ofśūnyatā (translated into English as "emptiness") which brings together other key Buddhist doctrines, particularlyanātman "not-self" andpratītyasamutpāda "dependent origination", to refute the metaphysics of some of his contemporaries. For Nāgārjuna, as for the Buddha in the early texts, it is not merelysentient beings that are "selfless" or non-substantial; all phenomena (dhammas) are without anysvabhāva, literally "own-being", "self-nature", or "inherent existence" and thus without any underlying essence. They areempty of being independently existent; thus the heterodox theories of svabhāva 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 becoming—coming intoexistence—as opposed tobeing.
Nāgārjuna means by real any entity which has a nature of its own (svabhāva), which is not produced by causes (akrtaka), which is not dependent on anything else (paratra nirapeksha).[50]
Chapter 24 verse 14 of theMūlamadhyamakakārikā provides one of Nāgārjuna's most famous quotations on emptiness and co-arising:[51]
sarvaṃ ca yujyate tasya śūnyatā yasya yujyate sarvaṃ na yujyate tasya śūnyaṃ yasya na yujyate All is possible when emptiness is possible. Nothing is possible when emptiness is impossible.
As part of his analysis of the emptiness of phenomena in theMūlamadhyamakakārikā, Nāgārjuna critiques svabhāva in several different concepts. He discusses the problems of positing any sort of inherent essence to causation, movement, change and personal identity. Nāgārjuna makes use of the Indian logical tool of thetetralemma to attack any essentialist conceptions. Nāgārjuna's logical analysis is based on four basic propositions:
All things (dharma) exist: affirmation of being, negation of non-being
All things (dharma) do not exist: affirmation of non-being, negation of being
All things (dharma) both exist and do not exist: both affirmation and negation
All things (dharma) neither exist nor do not exist: neither affirmation nor negation[52]
To say that all things are 'empty' is to deny any kind of ontological foundation; therefore Nāgārjuna's view is often seen as a kind of ontologicalanti-foundationalism[53] or a metaphysicalanti-realism.[54] Understanding the nature of the emptiness of phenomena is simply a means to an end, which isnirvana. Thus Nāgārjuna's philosophical project is ultimately a soteriological one meant to correct our everyday cognitive processes which mistakenly positssvabhāva on the flow of experience.
Some scholars such asFyodor Shcherbatskoy and T.R.V. Murti held that Nāgārjuna 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 Nāgārjuna was not an innovator by putting forth this theory,[55][56][57] but that, in the words of Shi Huifeng, "the connection between emptiness and dependent origination is not an innovation or creation of Nāgārjuna".[58]
Nāgārjuna was also instrumental in the development of thetwo truths doctrine, which claims that there are two levels of truth in Buddhist teaching, the ultimate truth (paramārtha satya) and the conventional or superficial truth (saṃvṛtisatya). The ultimate truth to Nāgārjuna is the truth that everything is empty of essence,[59] this includes emptiness itself ('the emptiness of emptiness'). While some (Murti, 1955) have interpreted this by positing Nāgārjuna as aneo-Kantian and thus making ultimate truth a metaphysicalnoumenon or an "ineffable ultimate that transcends the capacities of discursive reason",[60] others such as Mark Siderits andJay L. Garfield have argued that Nāgārjuna's view is that "the ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth" (Siderits) and that Nāgārjuna is a "semantic anti-dualist" who posits that there are only conventional truths.[60] Hence according to Garfield:
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.[61]
In articulating this notion in theMūlamadhyamakakārikā, Nāgārjuna drew on an early source in theKaccānagotta Sutta,[62] which distinguishes definitive meaning (nītārtha) from interpretable meaning (neyārtha):
By and large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by a polarity, that of existence and non-existence. But when one reads the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, "non-existence" with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one reads the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, "existence" with reference to the world does not occur to one.
By and large, Kaccayana, this world is in bondage to attachments, clingings (sustenances), and biases. But one such as this does not get involved with or cling to these attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases, or obsessions; nor is he resolved on "my self". He has no uncertainty or doubt that just stress, when arising, is arising; stress, when passing away, is passing away. In this, his knowledge is independent of others. It's to this extent, Kaccayana, that there is right view.
"Everything exists": That is one extreme. "Everything doesn't exist": That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle...[63]
The version linked to is the one found in the nikayas, and is slightly different from the one found in theSamyuktagama. Both contain the concept of teaching via the middle between the extremes of existence and non-existence.[64][65] Nagarjuna does not make reference to "everything" when he quotes the agamic text in hisMūlamadhyamakakārikā.[66]
Jay L. Garfield describes that Nāgārjuna approached causality from theFour Noble Truths anddependent origination. Nāgārjuna distinguished two dependent origination views in a causal process, that which causes effects and that which causes conditions. This is predicated in thetwo 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 Nāgārjuna'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 theMiddle Way in both causal existence and nonexistence as casual emptiness within theMūlamadhyamakakārikā doctrine. Although seeming strange to Westerners, this is seen as an attack on a reified view of causality.[67]
Nāgārjuna also taught the idea of relativity; in the Ratnāvalī, 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 (svabhāva). This idea is also found in the Pali Nikāyas and Chinese Āgamas, 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."[68]
Nāgārjuna was fully acquainted with the classical Hindu philosophies ofSamkhya and even theVaiseshika.[69] Nāgārjuna assumes a knowledge of the definitions of the sixteen categories as given in theNyaya Sutras, the chief text of the Hindu Nyaya school, and wrote a treatise on the pramanas where he reduced thesyllogism of five members into one of three. In the Vigrahavyavartani Karika, Nāgārjuna criticises the Nyaya theory ofpramanas (means of knowledge).[70]
Nāgārjuna was conversant with many of theŚrāvaka philosophies and with the Mahāyāna tradition; however, determining Nāgārjuna's affiliation with a specificnikāya 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 Māhayānist, but his philosophy holds assiduously to the ŚrāvakaTripiṭaka, and while he does make explicit references to Mahāyāna texts, he is always careful to stay within the parameters set out by the Śrāvaka canon.
Nāgārjuna may have arrived at his positions from a desire to achieve a consistent exegesis of the Buddha's doctrine as recorded in theāgamas. In the eyes of Nāgārjuna, the Buddha was not merely a forerunner, but the very founder of the Madhyamaka system.[71] David Kalupahana sees Nāgārjuna as a successor toMoggaliputta-Tissa in being a champion of the middle-way and a reviver of the original philosophical ideals of the Buddha.[72]
Because of the high degree of similarity between Nāgārjuna's philosophy andPyrrhonism, particularly the surviving works ofSextus Empiricus,[73] According toThomas McEvilley this is because Nagarjuna was likely influenced by Greek Pyrrhonist texts imported into India.[74]Pyrrho of Elis (c. 360 – c. 270 BCE), the founder of this school ofsceptical philosophy, was himself influenced by Indian philosophy. Pyrrho travelled to India withAlexander the Great's army and studied with thegymnosophists. According toChristopher I. Beckwith, Pyrrho's teachings are based onBuddhism, because the Greek termsadiaphora,astathmēta andanepikrita in theAristocles Passage resemble the Buddhistthree marks of existence.[75] According to him, the key innovative tenets of Pyrrho's scepticism were only found in Indian philosophy at the time and not in Greece.[76]However, other scholars, such asStephen Batchelor[77] and Charles Goodman[78] question Beckwith's conclusions about the degree of Buddhist influence on Pyrrho.
^"Notes on the Nagarjunikonda Inscriptions", Dutt, Nalinaksha.The Indian Historical Quarterly 7:3 1931.09 pp. 633–53 "..Tibetan tradition which says that Nāgārjuna was born of a brahmin family ofAmaravati."
^Geri Hockfield Malandra,Unfolding A Mandala: The Buddhist Cave Temples at Ellora, SUNY Press, 1993, p. 17
^Shōhei Ichimura,Buddhist Critical Spirituality: Prajñā and Śūnyatā, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers (2001), p. 67
^Bkra-śis-rnam-rgyal (Dwags-po Paṇ-chen), Takpo Tashi Namgyal,Mahamudra: The Quintessence of Mind and Meditation, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers (1993), p. 443
^Buddhist Text & Research Society (1895).Journal. Vol. 3–5. p. 16.
^Transaction - Indian Institute of World Culture, Issue 73, Indian Institute of World Culture, 1987, p. 5
^Hsing Yun, Xingyun, Tom Manzo, Shujan Cheng Infinite Compassion, Endless Wisdom: The Practice of the Bodhisattva Path Buddha's Light Publishing Hacienda Heights California
^A.K. Warder,A Course in Indian Philosophy. Motilal Banarsidass Publ., 1998, pp. 55–56
^For the full text of both versions with analysis see pp. 192–95 of Choong Mun-keat,The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism: A comparative study based on the Sutranga portion of the Pali Samyutta-Nikaya and the Chinese Samyuktagama; Harrassowitz Verlag, Weisbaden, 2000.
^Stephen Batchelor "Greek Buddha: Pyrrho's encounter with early Buddhism in central Asia",Contemporary Buddhism, 2016, pp 195-215
^Charles Goodman, "Neither Scythian nor Greek: A Response to Beckwith's Greek Buddha and Kuzminski's "Early Buddhism Reconsidered"",Philosophy East and West, University of Hawai'i Press Volume 68, Number 3, July 2018 pp. 984-1006
Lamotte, E.,Le Traite de la Grande Vertu de Sagesse, Vol I (1944), Vol II (1949), Vol III (1970), Vol IV (1976), Institut Orientaliste: Louvain-la-Neuve.
Lindtner, Christian (1982). Nagarjuniana: Studies in the Writings and Philosophy of Nāgārjuna Akademisk forlag.
Mabbett, Ian, (1998), “The problem of the historical Nagarjuna revisited”,Journal of the American Oriental Society, 118(3): 332–46.
Murti, T. R. V. (1955),The Central Philosophy of Buddhism. George Allen and Unwin, London. 2nd edition: 1960.
Murty, K. Satchidananda (1971),Nagarjuna. National Book Trust, New Delhi. 2nd edition: 1978.
Ramanan, K. Venkata (1966),Nāgārjuna's Philosophy. Charles E. Tuttle, Vermont and Tokyo. Reprint: Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi. 1978.
Ruegg, D. Seyfort (1981),The literature of the Madhyamaka school of philosophy in India (A History of Indian literature), Harrassowitz,ISBN978-3-447-02204-0.
Sastri, H. Chatterjee, ed. (1977),The Philosophy of Nāgārjuna as contained in the Ratnāvalī. Part I [ Containing the text and introduction only ]. Saraswat Library, Calcutta.
Streng, Frederick J. (1967),Emptiness: A Study in Religious Meaning. Nashville: Abingdon Press.
Tuck, Andrew P. (1990),Comparative Philosophy and the Philosophy of Scholarship: on the Western Interpretation of Nāgārjuna, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Walser, Joseph (2005),Nāgārjuna in Context: Mahāyāna Buddhism and Early Indian Culture. New York: Columbia University Press.
Westerhoff, Jan (2010),The Dispeller of Disputes: Nāgārjuna's Vigrahavyāvartanī. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Westerhoff, Jan (2009),Nāgārjuna's Madhyamaka. A Philosophical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wedemeyer, Christian K. (2007),Āryadeva's Lamp that Integrates the Practices:The Gradual Path of Vajrayāna Buddhism according to the Esoteric Community Noble Tradition. New York: AIBS/Columbia University Press.
.svg)
