Thursday, March 13, 2025

Please do a comparative study of Nagarjuna and Adi Shankara for me. (ChatGPT, 2025-3-13) (自體的心理學)(車行哲學)

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.