Nagarjuna
Nic nie ma stałej, niezależnej natury – wszystko istnieje tylko w relacji do innych rzeczy, a nawet ta pustka nie jest rzeczą.
Umiejscowienie
Madhyamaka: wszystkie rzeczy są puste (shunyata) – pozbawione samoistnego istnienia – nawet sama pustka.
Kluczowe idee
- Shunyata (pustka)
- Dwie prawdy
- Tetralemat
Wpływ
Pod wpływem 1
Budda Siakjamuni
pod wpływem
Nagarjuna’s Root Verses on the Middle Way open by praising the Buddha for teaching dependent origination, which Nagarjuna reads as the emptiness of intrinsic nature. Nagarjuna, Mulamadhyamakakarika, tr. J. L. Garfield, The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way (1995); SEP “Nagarjuna”
Źródło: szkic AI
Budda Siakjamuni › ok. 480–400 p.n.e. · datowane umownie 563–483 p.n.e.
Wpływ na 14
Wasubandhu
wpływ na
Vasubandhu’s Yogacara reinterprets the Mahayana emptiness taught by Nagarjuna through the doctrine of three natures; whether Vasubandhu drew on Nagarjuna’s own works is uncertain. Vasubandhu, Trisvabhavanirdesa; SEP “Vasubandhu”
Źródło: szkic AI
Wasubandhu › ok. 350–430
Czandrakirti
wpływ na ✓
Chandrakirti commented on Nagarjuna’s Root Verses in Clear Words (Prasannapada) and defended their method of reductio (prasanga) against Bhavaviveka. Candrakirti, Prasannapada; C. W. Huntington, The Emptiness of Emptiness (1989)
Źródło: także w Wikidanych · Wikidata
Czandrakirti › ok. 600–650
Huineng
wpływ na
The Platform Sutra ascribed to Huineng counts Nagarjuna among the Indian patriarchs and teaches the middle way by pairing opposites so that neither side is clung to. Platform Sutra (Dunhuang version), tr. P. Yampolsky, The Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch (1967)
Źródło: szkic AI
Huineng › według tradycji 638–713
Fazang
wpływ na
Fazang commented on the Twelve Gate Treatise ascribed to Nagarjuna and, in his five-teaching scheme, ranked emptiness teaching as elementary Mahayana below Huayan’s perfect teaching. Fazang, Shiermen lun zongzhi yiji; Huayan wujiao zhang; F. H. Cook, Hua-yen Buddhism: The Jewel Net of Indra (1977)
Źródło: szkic AI
Fazang › 643–712
Dōgen
wpływ na
In the fascicle ‘Buddha-nature’ (Busshō) of the Shōbōgenzō Dōgen discusses Nagarjuna, fourteenth Indian ancestor of the Zen lineage, whose body appeared as the round moon of Buddha-nature. Dōgen, Shōbōgenzō, Busshō; SEP “Japanese Zen Buddhist Philosophy”
Źródło: szkic AI
Dōgen › 1200–1253
Karl Jaspers
wpływ na
Jaspers devoted a chapter of The Great Philosophers (1957) to Nagarjuna, alongside Laozi among the metaphysicians whose thinking springs from the origin. K. Jaspers, Die großen Philosophen I (1957), “Aus dem Ursprung denkende Metaphysiker”
Źródło: szkic AI
Karl Jaspers › 1883–1969
Pokaż wszystko (14)Pokaż mniej
Zhiyi
wpływ na
From Nagarjuna’s verse equating dependent arising with emptiness, provisional designation and the middle way Zhiyi developed the threefold truth (Mohe zhiguan, 594). Zhiyi, Mohe zhiguan (594); Nagarjuna, Mulamadhyamakakarika, Chinese tr. Kumarajiva (Zhonglun); SEP “Tiantai Buddhism”
Źródło: szkic AI
Zhiyi › 538–597
Wǒnhyo
wpływ na
In his commentary on the Awakening of Faith Wonhyo held that Nagarjuna’s Madhyamaka negates without affirming, Yogacara affirms without negating, and the Awakening of Faith does both. Wonhyo, Daeseung gisillon so; Daeseung gisillon byeolgi; A. C. Muller (ed.), Wonhyo: Selected Works (Collected Works of Korean Buddhism 1, 2012)
Źródło: szkic AI
Wǒnhyo › 617–686
Śantideva
wpływ na
The wisdom chapter of Shantideva’s Guide to the Bodhisattva’s Way of Life (Bodhicaryavatara) defends Nagarjuna’s Madhyamaka against Yogacara and other schools. Santideva, Bodhicaryavatara, tr. K. Crosby & A. Skilton (1995)
Źródło: szkic AI
Śantideva › ok. 685–763
Shantarakshita
wpływ na
Shantarakshita’s Ornament of the Middle Way argues with Nagarjuna that nothing has intrinsic nature, since nothing is truly one or many, while accepting Yogacara conventionally. Santaraksita, Madhyamakalamkara, tr. J. Blumenthal, The Ornament of the Middle Way (2004); SEP “Śāntarakṣita”
Źródło: szkic AI
Shantarakshita › ok. 725–788
Kūkai
wpływ na
Kūkai counted Nagarjuna as third patriarch of esoteric Buddhism, who by legend received it in an iron stupa in South India (Record of the Transmission, 821). Kūkai, Himitsu mandara kyō fuhōden (821); R. Abé, The Weaving of Mantra: Kūkai and the Construction of Esoteric Buddhist Discourse (1999)
Źródło: szkic AI
Kūkai › 774–835
Atiśa
wpływ na
Atisha placed Nagarjuna’s Madhyamaka view of emptiness at the summit of the path and taught it in Tibet, in the reading of Chandrakirti. Atisha, Bodhipathapradipa, tr. R. Sherburne, A Lamp for the Path and Commentary (1983); Satyadvayavatara, tr. C. Lindtner (1981)
Źródło: szkic AI
Atiśa › ok. 982–1054
Shinran
wpływ na
Shinran honoured Nagarjuna as first of seven Pure Land masters and took from the ‘Chapter on Easy Practice’ ascribed to him the easy path of calling Amida’s name. Shinran, Kyōgyōshinshō, Shōshinge; D. Hirota et al. (tr.), The Collected Works of Shinran (1997)
Źródło: szkic AI
Shinran › 1173–1263
Congkhapa
wpływ na
Tsongkhapa commented on Nagarjuna’s Root Verses in Ocean of Reasoning and insisted that emptiness negates intrinsic nature, not the conventional existence of things. Tsongkhapa, Ocean of Reasoning, tr. Geshe Ngawang Samten & J. L. Garfield (2006)
Źródło: szkic AI
Congkhapa › 1357–1419
Krytyka
Krytyka ze strony 1
Adi Śankara
krytyka ze strony
Shankara dismissed the Madhyamaka doctrine that everything is empty as contradicted by every means of knowledge and not worth detailed refutation (Brahmasutrabhashya II.2.31). Śaṅkara, Brahmasūtrabhāṣya II.2.31
Źródło: szkic AI
Adi Śankara › ok. 700–750 · datowane umownie 788–820
Krytykuje 1
Gautama Akszapada
krytykuje sporne
Nagarjuna asked what establishes the Nyaya means of knowledge themselves (Vigrahavyavartani 31–51); whether he knew the Nyaya-sutra in its present form is disputed. Nāgārjuna, Vigrahavyāvartanī 31–51, tr. J. Westerhoff, The Dispeller of Disputes, 2010; F. Tola & C. Dragonetti, Nāgārjuna’s Refutation of Logic, 1995
Źródło: szkic AI
Gautama Akszapada › ok. 120–190
Dzieła
Dialektyczne obalenie wszelkiego samoistnego istnienia – pustka jako Droga Środka.
Stanowisko
Nagarjuna radicalised the Buddha’s teaching of dependent origination. If everything arises in dependence on other things, then nothing has svabhava – intrinsic, independent existence. All things are therefore “empty” (shunyata). Emptiness is not nothingness but the very fact of dependence, and emptiness itself is empty too. With sharp dialectical arguments he showed that every attempt to establish things as truly existing – causes, motion, a self – collapses into contradiction. He distinguished conventional from ultimate truth and taught that nirvana and samsara are not ultimately different. His thought is foundational for Tibetan, Chinese and Japanese Buddhism, Zen included.
Życie i kontekst
Nagarjuna was an Indian Buddhist monk and philosopher who probably lived in the second century CE in southern India. Many legends grew up around his name, and later tradition attributed numerous works to him. He is revered as the founder of the Madhyamaka, the “school of the middle”, and in Tibetan and East Asian Buddhism as a “second Buddha”.
Dalsze główne dzieła
- Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way (Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, c. 200 CE)
- The Dispeller of Disputes (Vigrahavyāvartanī, c. 200 CE)
- Precious Garland (Ratnāvalī, c. 200 CE)
Pojawia się w
- Podróż „Azja i Europa w dialogu” · Przystanek 3 z 11
- Podróż „Ścieżki myśli indyjskiej” · Przystanek 5 z 9
Stan na listopad 2026 · Źródła · Ulepsz tę stronę · Jak powstaje Agora