Buddha’s silence on the ten metaphysical questions led to the emergence of more than a hundred Buddhist schools after his passing. Even if he had chosen to answer them, I doubt the outcome would have been any different, as language itself is so inherently ambiguous that people interpret the same words in different ways. We see a similar pattern in Vedanta, where Shankaracharya presented a dramatically different philosophy from Madhvacharya, even though both interpreted the same Vedantic texts.
Among the most philosophically profound schools of Buddhism is Madhyamaka Shunyavada. Ashvaghosha is said to have introduced it in the Buddhacharita, and Nagarjuna later developed it to its highest philosophical expression in the Madhyamakasastra. Nagarjuna is regarded as an exceptionally learned figure. Beyond Shunyavada, he is credited with contributions to diverse fields such as chemistry, Jyotisha (Vedic astrology), and Ayurveda. His dialectical skill is vividly displayed in the Madhyamakasastra, where he does not merely present a philosophy, but a metaphilosophy, dismantling every assumption about reality until it collapses like a palace of cards on sand.
Shunyavada has often been mistaken by philosophers around the world as a form of nihilism. This misunderstanding arises from interpreting shunya (zero) as mere void or emptiness. Nagarjuna, however, does not regard shunya as emptiness in the simple sense, but as something deeper.
In our world, the intellect perceives reality through the lens of duality:
- If there’s an object, there’s a subject
- If there’s light, there’s darkness
- If there’s one, there’s zero
But what is darkness? Light is a substance in itself, while darkness is not a material substance, which means it is not a metaphysical reality. Yet how can something that is “not real” inspire such intense fear? If we redefine a substance as something capable of producing an effect, then darkness qualifies as one. While technically just the absence of light, removing all light does not leave behind an empty void. Instead, darkness can be thought of as a kind of substratum on which light appears. This substratum is simply “what remains” once all light is removed, and it cannot be defined further.
Our limited intellect can only grasp darkness in relation to light, framing it as the absence of light or “zero light.” Yet this absence does not produce a blank emptiness; what remains is indescribable. In the same way, Nagarjuna sees shunya not as “void,” but as “devoid and indescribable.” The failure to grasp this subtlety has led many philosophers to dismiss Shunyavada as nihilism or skepticism.
Nagarjuna explains that the phenomenal world (Samvriti Satya) in which we exist is the domain where Buddha’s teachings on Nirvana, Pratitya Samutpada (dependent origination), and the Four Noble Truths apply. Before going further, it is important to note that in Indian philosophy, something is considered real (Sat) if it is eternal, meaning its existence is absolute and independent. Conversely, something is considered unreal (Asat) if its existence is impossible. For example, a unicorn, a sky-flower, or a rabbit’s horn would be considered unreal.
For Nagarjuna, nothing in the empirical world is wholly real or wholly unreal. Every phenomenon in this world, when examined deeply, reveals a self-contradictory nature. Let us try to understand the world from Nagarjuna’s perspective.
He first presents his theory of “No Origination,” where he argues that nothing in this world has an independent arising. He considers two possibilities:
- Can a thing be produced out of itself?
If cause A gives rise to effect B, then A and B are the same for Nagarjuna as A is just “B in the past”. This raises the question of whether an effect is truly a new production. To understand his argument, consider the example of curd and milk. If curd is produced from milk, is the curd already present in the milk? If yes, then curd is an already existing reality, not a new origination. If we say that curd is not in milk and yet it gets produced, then logically anything should be producible from anything. Why then can a rabbit not have a horn? - Can a thing be produced out of something else?
If a thing cannot be produced out of itself, how can it be produced from what is not itself? If the transformation of milk into curd cannot be considered the “production” of curd, how could curd possibly be produced from water?
Thus, nothing in the world has an independent arising, and everything’s existence depends on a web of interconnected causes. This means that nothing in the world is “real” in the absolute sense, as everything is relative and conditional. Following this reasoning, Nagarjuna reinterprets Buddha’s statement that the world is beginningless and endless to mean that “the world never began and therefore will never end,” rather than the common interpretation that “the world is eternal.”.
Nagarjuna then asks: if something never began and has no ending, how can it have a real middle? It is important to note that the empirical world, for him, is not unreal, but is only an illusion. Just as we mistake a rope for a snake due to ignorance, this world is the product of ignorance, also called Avidya. This is the same Avidya that Buddha described as the first link in the Dvadasa Nidanas, the Twelve Links of Dependent Origination.
In both Buddha’s and Nagarjuna’s view, the world ceases to exist as soon as ignorance is removed. An illusion is neither real nor unreal. A dream is real as long as we are in it, but the dream ends the moment we realize it is a dream. A rope mistaken for a snake can cause trembling and fear, but that fear vanishes the instant we recognize the truth. In this way, an illusion is real only so long as we remain in ignorance. Similarly, the world is phenomenally real, but not absolutely real. It is neither wholly real nor wholly unreal, but lies in between. This “middle” is what Madhyamaka in Madhyamaka Shunyavada refers to.
Nagarjuna’s philosophy is neither affirmation (the world absolutely exists) nor negation (the world is absolutely unreal), but the middle path. In his view, the world is like a dream or an illusion, and it is real only while we are in ignorance, but ultimately unreal.
Shunyavadins have compared the world to a moving firebrand, a dream, an illusion, a reflection, an echo, a mirage, and other fleeting appearances to express their view. Despite this, they have often been accused of nihilism. Nagarjuna rejects the idea that his philosophy is nihilism, pointing out that pure negation is meaningless because it necessarily presupposes affirmation. The empirical world should be understood as phenomenally real and we cannot condemn it using logic we have developed from functioning in this very world. Just as a dreamer cannot condemn his own dream while still dreaming, we cannot condemn the world while still within it.
Still, Nagarjuna analyzes many worldly phenomena and reveals their self-contradictory nature. As an example, let us consider how he rejects the concept of motion. Imagine traveling from point A to point B, and you are currently at point X between them. At any given moment, are you moving on the path that has already been traveled? If AX has already been traveled, then it is not where movement is happening now. Are you moving on the path that is yet to be traveled? If XB is yet to be traveled, then movement on it has not yet begun. Where then is motion taking place, and who is moving?
He applies similar reasoning to the act of seeing. At any moment, are you seeing what has already been seen, or are you seeing what is yet to be seen?
Nagarjuna also examines time and concludes that it is relative and dependent. The past and future do not exist in the present moment, yet the present moment is caused by the past. Its existence is therefore dependent and conditional. Since nothing in the world has true origination, time too is beginningless, and no kshan or moment within this beginningless time has ever had an independent existence.
He further analyzes the relationship between a substance and its attributes. We know only the attributes, not the actual substance itself. For example, we identify an orange fruit as a circular, solid object that is orange in color and tangy in taste. Yet the orange fruit as a substance might be something more than the sum of these qualities. Nagarjuna asks: are the attributes dependent on the substance? Yes, for without the substance, where would the attributes exist? Redness, for example, needs a red object to exist. Is the substance dependent on its attributes? Also yes, for a “red object” without redness would no longer be a red object.
Thus, both substance and attributes depend on each other and have only a relative existence. Do attributes exist within the substance? This cannot be the case, since even if you cut the tail off a cow, its “cowness” remains; it is still a cow. Do attributes exist outside the substance? This too cannot be the case. Therefore, we do not truly know what a substance is beyond its attributes, nor do we know where its attributes exist.
Nagarjuna even rejects Nirvana as being absolutely real. Liberation necessarily depends on bondage, and bondage depends on liberation. This means that Nirvana and bondage are also relative, dependent, and therefore mere illusions.
But we can ask: even the illusion of mistaking a rope for a snake requires a rope, a reflection requires a reflecting surface, and a dream requires a mind. Something absolute is necessary for an illusion to appear, just as a rotating wheel requires a stable, non-rotating center. Nagarjuna accepts the existence of a non-dual absolute reality (Paramartha Satya) that is hidden behind the relative and illusory empirical reality. This transcendental absolute reality is the state where all plurality is dissolved.
We can read about a brownie, study it, examine it under a microscope, know its ingredients, and hear about its sweetness, yet still have no real idea of what a brownie is. A brownie is something that must be experienced, not merely described. In the same way, the absolute truth, according to Nagarjuna, is beyond description. Paramartha Satya is beyond the reach of the intellect and can only be experienced directly. Any description of it will always be incomplete, and for this reason, this transcendental reality is best expressed as “neti neti,” meaning not this, not that. This is the same as Spinoza’s claim: “determinatio est negatio”, meaning “every determination is a negation.”
Where does Shunya come into all this? We saw earlier that Shunya means “devoid” and “indescribable.” We have just seen that Paramartha Satya is indescribable, but what is it devoid of? It is devoid of plurality. It is devoid of the phenomenal reality, the Samvriti Satya. Thus, Paramartha Satya is prapancha shunya.
The empirical world is also indescribable because it does not fit into any of the four ways in which our intellect categorizes things (Chatushkoti Vinirmukta):
- Affirmation: The world is not real, as it is relative and conditional.
- Negation: The world is not completely unreal, like a hare’s horn.
- Affirmation and negation: The world cannot be both real and unreal, as this would imply that light and darkness could exist together.
- Neither affirmation nor negation: The world cannot be neither real nor unreal, because then what would it be?
The phenomenal reality is therefore indescribable to the intellect. It is devoid of absolute reality and is called Swabhava Shunya, meaning everything in this world is devoid of swabhava.
Swabhava is the essential quality that makes an object what it is and is unique to the object, such as fieriness is the essence of fire. The relative, conditional, and dependent nature of the world means that objects lack swabhava. For example, curd can be produced only from milk, and thus “curdness” must exist in the milk, because nothing can be a completely new arising in Nagarjuna’s philosophy. If curdness is already in milk, then it is not unique to curd. Furthermore, if curdness is in milk, why do we not call milk curd itself?
What this shows is that both the phenomenal world and the absolute reality are indescribable and beyond the reach of our intellect. Thus, Nagarjuna declares all philosophies that attempt to explain or understand the world, creation, self, soul, and similar concepts through logic and reason as futile. According to Nagarjuna, Buddha realized that nothing in either the empirical or the transcendental realm can be explained through the intellect, and for this reason, he remained silent.
Nagarjuna also warns against using Shunya as a mere intellectual or philosophical concept. Shunyata is meant to help us rise above the entangling categories of thought. It is beyond pure affirmation, pure negation, both, and neither. Shunyata is the negation of all views, but it is not a view in itself.
While Nagarjuna denies the ultimate reality of the world, he accepts its phenomenal reality. He teaches that it is only through the intellect that we can recognize the self-contradictory nature of the world and rise beyond it. Appearances are not to be wholly condemned, because it is only through the lower that we can reach the higher. Ultimately, the intellect must be transformed into spiritual experience in order to realize the absolute reality, where all the cries of the intellect are finally satisfied.
When all views have fallen away, what remains is not nothing, but the space where truth breathes. Thanks for reading!