Adi Shankara (8th century CE) and Nāgārjuna (c. 2nd–3rd century CE) were pivotal figures in the development of Advaita Vedānta and Madhyamaka Buddhism, respectively. While they belonged to different traditions—Shankara to the Vedic tradition and Nāgārjuna to Mahāyāna Buddhism—scholars have explored possible influences between their philosophies.
Influence and Philosophical Parallels:
• Gaudapāda’s Role: Gaudapāda, Shankara’s teacher’s teacher, authored the Māṇḍūkya Kārikā, which exhibits significant parallels with Buddhist philosophy, particularly Madhyamaka. He adopted the concept of “ajātivāda” (non-origination), reminiscent of Nāgārjuna’s notion of “anutpāda” (non-arising). Gaudapāda’s work suggests an integration of Buddhist terminology and ideas into Vedāntic thought.
• Shankara’s Position: While Shankara’s Advaita Vedānta shares similarities with Buddhist concepts—such as the illusory nature of the empirical world—he maintained a clear distinction between the two philosophies. Shankara critiqued Buddhist doctrines, particularly the concept of śūnyatā (emptiness), viewing them as nihilistic. He emphasized the existence of an unchanging, eternal self (Ātman), contrasting with Buddhism’s anatta (non-self) doctrine.
Direct Citations:
There is no evidence to suggest that Shankara directly quoted Nāgārjuna in his works. While Shankara engaged with Buddhist ideas, his critiques were often directed at general Buddhist doctrines rather than specific individuals like Nāgārjuna. This approach underscores the complex interplay between Hindu and Buddhist philosophies during Shankara’s time.
Conclusion:
While Shankara did not explicitly quote Nāgārjuna, the philosophical landscape of his era—shaped by interactions between Hindu and Buddhist thinkers—likely influenced his work. The incorporation of certain Buddhist concepts by predecessors like Gaudapāda suggests an indirect influence on Shankara’s Advaita Vedānta. However, Shankara’s critiques of Buddhist doctrines indicate his intent to delineate and establish the distinctiveness of his own philosophical system.
