Comparative Study of Nāgārjuna and Adi Shankara: Two Philosophical Giants of Non-Dualism
Nāgārjuna (c. 2nd century CE) and Adi Shankara (c. 8th century CE) are two of the most profound thinkers in Indian philosophy, both presenting radical non-dualistic (advaya/advaita) systems—Nāgārjuna within Mādhyamika Buddhism and Shankara within Advaita Vedanta. Though separated by centuries and traditions, their philosophies engage deeply with emptiness (śūnyatā) and non-duality (advaita/advaya), offering critical insights into the nature of reality, selfhood, and liberation.
1. Core Philosophical Frameworks
|
Aspect |
Nāgārjuna (Mādhyamika Buddhism) |
Adi Shankara (Advaita Vedanta) |
|
Metaphysical Basis |
Śūnyatā (Emptiness)—All phenomena, including self and dharma, are empty of intrinsic essence (svabhāva). |
Brahman (Absolute Reality)—Only the non-dual, formless Brahman is ultimately real. The world is mithyā (an illusory appearance). |
|
Epistemology |
Two Truths Doctrine: (1) Conventional truth (saṁvṛti-satya)—pragmatic reality, and (2) Ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya)—the realization of emptiness. |
Levels of Reality: (1) Vyāvahārika (empirical)—the everyday world, (2) Pāramārthika (ultimate)—non-dual Brahman, (3) Prātibhāsika (illusory)—mere hallucination/dreamlike errors. |
|
Ontological Position |
Anti-Essentialism: Neither existence (sat) nor non-existence (asat) is ultimately real (Madhyamaka avoids all ontological extremes). |
Non-Dualism: Only Brahman exists. The world and the individual self (jīva) are illusory appearances due to māyā. |
|
Method of Inquiry |
Prasaṅga (Reductio ad absurdum)—Deconstructing all views to reveal their contradictions. |
Adhyāropa-Apavāda (Superimposition and Sublation)—First affirming the world’s reality, then negating it in favor of Brahman. |
|
Ethical & Soteriological Goal |
Nirvāṇa as the realization of Emptiness—not as a state but as the collapse of dualistic grasping. |
Mokṣa as self-realization—realizing that one is always Brahman, and māyā (illusion) was obscuring this knowledge. |
2. Key Philosophical Parallels & Divergences
(A) Non-Dualism (Advaya vs. Advaita)
• Nāgārjuna’s advaya (non-duality) is a radical middle way that denies any absolute ontological commitment (śūnyavāda rejects both existence and non-existence).
• Shankara’s advaita (non-duality) asserts Brahman as the sole reality while treating the world as an illusory appearance (māyā).
Key Difference: Nāgārjuna deconstructs all ontological claims (including “emptiness” itself), whereas Shankara establishes a singular, positive ontological reality (Brahman) after negating false appearances.
(B) Nature of Reality
• Nāgārjuna critiques any form of intrinsic essence (svabhāva), arguing that all phenomena are interdependent and empty (śūnyatā).
• Shankara accepts that Brahman alone is ultimately real and that the phenomenal world is a product of avidyā (ignorance).
Key Difference: Nāgārjuna collapses all distinctions (even between nirvāṇa and saṁsāra), whereas Shankara retains a metaphysical hierarchy (Brahman > empirical world > illusory perceptions).
(C) The Role of Illusion
• For Nāgārjuna, all views, including “illusion” itself, must be negated—even emptiness is empty (śūnyatā-śūnyatā).
• For Shankara, the world is real at the empirical level (vyāvahārika) but ultimately subsumed into Brahman, like a dream dissolving upon waking.
Key Difference: Nāgārjuna refuses to assert an ultimate substratum (Brahman-like entity), while Shankara affirms Brahman as the non-dual reality behind illusion.
3. Methodological Comparison
(A) Dialectical Method: Prasaṅga vs. Adhyāropa-Apavāda
• Nāgārjuna employs prasaṅga (reductio ad absurdum), showing that any philosophical claim leads to contradiction.
• Shankara follows adhyāropa-apavāda—a method of superimposing a provisional view and then negating it to reveal non-dual truth.
Key Difference: Nāgārjuna’s deconstructive approach prevents all reification, while Shankara initially affirms the world’s reality before negating it.
(B) Linguistic Strategy: Silence vs. Affirmation
• Nāgārjuna often suggests that ultimate reality is beyond conceptualization (tūṣṇīṁ bhāva—silence).
• Shankara, though recognizing Brahman as beyond language, still asserts its positive existence.
Key Difference: Nāgārjuna leans toward linguistic negation, whereas Shankara maintains a positive ontology of Brahman.
4. Soteriology: Liberation as Knowledge vs. Deconstruction
• Nāgārjuna: Liberation (nirvāṇa) is the deconstruction of all conceptual attachments, including self and nirvāṇa itself.
• Shankara: Liberation (mokṣa) is self-realization—the direct knowledge (jñāna) that one is Brahman.
Key Difference: Nāgārjuna’s path is intellectual deconstruction (leading to non-clinging), while Shankara’s path is self-inquiry (leading to self-identification with Brahman).
5. Influence & Legacy
|
Influence |
Nāgārjuna (Mādhyamika Buddhism) |
Adi Shankara (Advaita Vedanta) |
|
Impact on Later Traditions |
Zen, Yogācāra-Mādhyamika syntheses, Tibetan Buddhism. |
Advaita Vedanta, Neo-Vedanta (e.g., Vivekananda). |
|
Philosophical Successors |
Candrakīrti, Śāntideva, Tsongkhapa. |
Sureśvara, Vācaspati Miśra, Ramana Maharshi. |
|
Modern Influence |
Deconstruction (Derrida), Process Philosophy. |
Neo-Hinduism, Non-Dual Mysticism. |
Key Observation: Nāgārjuna’s emptiness became foundational for Buddhist thought across Asia, while Shankara’s non-dualism became the dominant Vedantic interpretation of Hinduism.
6. Final Assessment: Two Paths to Non-Duality
Nāgārjuna and Shankara are not simply opposites, but parallel thinkers working through different traditions:
1. Nāgārjuna’s Mādhyamika is an absolute negation—removing all conceptual and ontological ground to reach a state of non-attachment and radical freedom.
2. Shankara’s Advaita Vedanta is a transformative realization—lifting the veil of illusion (māyā) to directly experience the pure, undivided nature of Brahman.
Both reject duality and essentialism, yet their strategies differ:
• Nāgārjuna destabilizes all positions.
• Shankara affirms an ultimate substratum.
Thus, Nāgārjuna is the deconstructive mystic, while Shankara is the metaphysical absolutist. Two paths, one horizon—non-duality.
