Did Nagarjuna Commit Heresy (A Mystic or a Mistake) ?

Abstract: In one of the previous posts we discussed that the great philosopher and the bodhisattva Nagarjuna helped revitalizing Buddhism by presenting the Madhyamika philosophy to the world. Sadly many Buddhists do not accept his teachings due to its philosophical depth and the later timeline of his work. Sometimes his work is considered as heresy by certain sects. However real yogis and intellectuals from both Theravada and Maha-(Tantra)-yana traditions consider his work as a masterpiece that reflects the Buddhist wisdom. Did he really commit heresy ? Then whatever the practice that springs from his teachings should be heretical too. If so, why our root guru, Gautham Buddha had prophesized Nagarjuna's coming ? Let's analyze this issue.

Fig. 1: Nagarjuna presenting his teachings to his heart disciple, Aryadeva.

We have spoken about the topic "emptiness" in many occasions, to the level that is too overwhelming. In the west, this term became so popular thanks to Mahayana (Madhyamika) philosophy and is utilized as the baseline philosophy, practice for many Buddhist lineages. In Buddhist context, emptiness can be summarized into following definitions.

1. Emptiness of Self - Emptiness of our individual self as a concept in the philosophical sphere. Whatever we identify as self or self-related in the outside world lacks any inherent existence. Therefore the emptiness of all phenomena in the "philosophical sphere". This also decouples subjective/objective realities.

2. Emptiness of Self - As a "dynamic" meditation practice found in Vipassana to cut through our fetters.

3. Emptiness of Self - As the true nature or the "static" nature of our mind when experiencing clear light during meditation. This is where we disappear.

4. Emptiness of Self - Going beyond our mind, our body and even 5 elements. This is where the yogis "really" understand the emptiness of all phenomena. True nature of matter, the anti-matter. We call it five Buddha realization.

Nagarjuna's work mainly addresses point 1. With the aid of many illustrations, he crafted a masterpiece to teach this concept to the world, covering all extremes within the human mind. His work was so complete to the level that many scholars, practitioners did not grasp it at that time. But luckily after several centuries, his work is now embraced and recognized, thanks to the evolution of human consciousness. Among many of his famous quotes, I only take a few to illustrate point 1.

Case 1

"Error does not develop In one who is in error. Error does not develop In one who is not in error. Error does not develop In one in whom error is arising. In whom does error develop? Examine this on your own !”

― Nāgārjuna, The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way: Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamakakarika

Analysis 1

If one is in error and is unconscious about it, one cannot realize they are in error. The person hasn't developed a guilty conscience about it yet. To him, the error hasn't developed yet and his individual truth is free from any error. 

Certainly for the person who is in no error has no reason to produce a one to his conscience, nor to the outside world. 

For the first person, an error can only arise to his unawareness. So the error can only develop in the one who is in no error.

Only after he comes to the awareness of the issue, the "error" can produce in his individual conscience. This is the person whom, the error develops in. 

Case 2

“Motion does not begin in what has moved, nor does it begin in what has not moved, nor does it begin in what is moving. In what, then, does motion begin?”

― Nāgārjuna, The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way: Nāgārjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā

Analysis 2

Obviously a motion cannot begin in something that has already moved, nor it begins in something that is stationary. These two statements are straightforward. Third one ? 

The motion cannot certainly begin in a moving object. BUT,

Our observation of the "beginning of the motion" can only arise when we see the state change between the stationary mode of the object and its moving.     

Fig. 2: In what, then, does motion begin ?

At first glance, I see the beginning of the motion at the left-most point of the line. But if I stare long enough at the moving object, it looks like a continuous motion without any stop in between. If my perceivability is much deeper, I would notice hundreds of state changes along the line too. It all comes down to the dynamic nature of our mind (consciousness) and how fast our eye consciousness can detect these changes. So in my understanding, Nagarjuna here tries to elaborate the outside world as an outer projection of our own dynamic nature. 

Nagarjuna : A Mystic or a Mistake ?

Many won't be able to swallow his philosophical pills. However in this context, Nagarjuna tries to explain the difference between the subjective and objective realities and the significance of the relative and the individual truths in the world. If everyone lives in the absolute truth (which never happens), this world would have been an error-free place. Moreover the erroneous nature (or any nature) of any worldly phenomenon arises from the "self" notion and therefore, these two ends (cause and effect) are inseparable. In this way, Nagarjuna expounded his deeper understanding of emptiness by means of parables to his close disciples.  

Why making life more difficult and complicated like Nagarjuna ? A traditional practitioner might ask. "Nagarjuna is not enlightened", could be a response from another old master. Well in my opinion, the one who is free from mind has the ability to appear in this world in any form. Such individual could be at one end of the spiritual spectrum as a simple person or as a philosopher, in the other end. 

Nagarjuna : Did He Rewrite Buddhism ?

In the Pali Cannon (of early school of Buddhism), Shakyamuni had clearly stated about the view of emptiness and foresaw the disappearance of his teaching in the coming generations :

"In the same way, in the course of the future there will be monks who won't listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited. They won't lend ear, won't set their hearts on knowing them, won't regard these teachings as worth grasping or mastering". 

Reference: Read it here.

To me, what Nagarjuna did was augmenting this teaching and preserving its true meaning for the sake of future generations like you and me. What was missing in the Pali Cannon (the way of Bodhisattvas) was later presented to the world by the masters like Nagarjuna. I  believe he upheld the right view of Buddha's middle way and restored philosophical/hidden teachings of Buddhism.