Mūlamadhyamakakārikā

Overview

The Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (MMK, “Root Verses of the Middle Way”) is Nāgārjuna’s foundational text of Madhyamaka philosophy, consisting of 27 chapters examining core Buddhist concepts (causation, motion, aggregates, self, time, etc.) and demonstrating that none possesses intrinsic nature (svabhāva). The text’s method is primarily negative — showing the incoherence of positions that assume svabhāva — rather than advancing a positive metaphysical thesis.

Key passages (relevant to current paper)

• 13:18 — “Emptiness is taught by the Victorious Ones as a means for getting rid of all views. Those for whom emptiness is a view have been called incurable.” Central to the emptiness-of-emptiness doctrine and the rejection of reified non-existence. Discussed by Westerhoff in westerhoff-nihilist-2016 (p. 365).

• 15:7 — Nāgārjuna’s only named citation in MMK, referring to the Kaccāyanagotta Sutta (SN 12.15). The Right View free from “existence” and “non-existence.”

• 15:8-11 — Rejection of both eternalism (śāśvatagrāha) and annihilationism (ucchedadarśana). If things existed by essential nature, they could never change (eternalism). Claiming they existed substantially in the past but not now yields annihilationism. Discussed by Westerhoff in westerhoff-nihilist-2016 (pp. 363–364) as one of the five forms of nihilism Madhyamaka rejects.

• 18:7-8 — The Buddha’s graded teaching: “All is real, or all is unreal, all is both real and unreal, all is neither unreal nor real — this is the Buddha’s graded teaching.” Candrakīrti’s commentary on 18:7 contains the “theft” example — conceding ontological sameness between Mādhyamika and nihilist while insisting on soteriological difference. Key passage for westerhoff-nihilist-2016 (pp. 351–352).

• 24:7-10 — The Two Truths passage. Candrakīrti’s commentary on 24:7 states that “dependent origination” means “emptiness” but “non-existence” does not mean “emptiness.” 24:8-10: “Those who do not understand the distinction between the two truths do not understand the profound truth in the Buddha’s teaching.” Central to the paper’s argument about framework necessity.

Commentarial tradition

• Buddhapālita (c. 470–540 CE): prasaṅga (consequentialist) method
• Bhāviveka (c. 500–578 CE): svātantrika (independent reasoning); critique of Buddhapālita
• Candrakīrti (c. 600–650 CE): defence of Buddhapālita; the Madhyamakāvatāra and Prasannapadā as interpretive keys to MMK
• Tsongkhapa (1357–1419): systematic reading through Candrakīrti’s lens; Ocean of Reasoning
• Gorampa (1429–1489): critique of Tsongkhapa’s systematisation; Distinguishing the Views

Modern reception

• Westerhoff — in westerhoff-madhyamaka-2009, presents MMK as part of a unified Nāgārjunian project (the Yukti-corpus) whose arguments converge on the denial of substance; threefold svabhāva analysis, emphasis on cognitive dimension, and metaphysical anti-realism as the philosophical conclusion. In westerhoff-nihilist-2016, argues a sophisticated nihilist reading is compatible with MMK; engages closely with Candrakīrti’s commentary
• Burton — argues MMK’s philosophy entails nihilism (Emptiness Appraised)
• Williams — raises nihilism concerns; the Williams-Burton argument on dependence requiring foundation
• Kalupahana — reads MMK as “commentary on the Kaccāyanagotta Sutta”; empirical pragmatist reading; four-part structural analysis (I–II causality, III–XV dharma-nairātmya, XVI–XXI pudgala-nairātmya, XXVI–XXVII conclusion); rejects Candrakīrti’s commentarial lens entirely (kalupahana-mmk-1986)
• Śāntarakṣita — does not comment directly on MMK but presupposes its conclusions; the Madhyamakālaṅkāra extends MMK’s emptiness reasoning through the “neither one nor many” argument and integrates it with Yogācāra epistemology (shantarakshita-madhyamakalankara)
• Garfield — translation and commentary engaging traditional and Wittgensteinian perspectives
• Atiśa — followed the Akutobhayā (attributed to Nāgārjuna) for his interpretation of MMK verses. Cited MMK (v. 51) in his Bodhipathapradīpa on the necessity of insight. Understood Nāgārjuna’s devotional praises (Dharmadhātustava) as complementary to the reasoning works, not separate — a holistic reading that differs from the Tibetan “Six Reasonings” classification imposed by the Eastern Vinaya tradition (apple-jewels-middle-way-2018)

Gorampa’s readings

Gorampa reads MMK through a fourfold negation of the catuṣkoṭi: the Madhyamaka critique negates existence, non-existence, both, and neither — without qualification. This is directed against Tsongkhapa’s reading, which confines the negation to “true existence” (bden grub) at the first koṭi. Gorampa argues that Tsongkhapa’s approach renders MMK 22:11 (“empty,” “non-empty,” “both,” and “neither” should not be stated) and the broader catuṣkoṭi passages pointless.

Gorampa also reads MMK through his two-level ultimate truth: the emptiness that emerges from rational analysis of MMK’s arguments is the quasi-ultimate (rnam grangs pa), not the real ultimate (don dam mtshan nyid pa). The real ultimate is beyond the discursive reasoning that MMK employs — MMK’s own reasoning must be transcended, not reified. (From gorampa-distinguishing-views-1469)

Kalupahana’s structural reading

Kalupahana proposes a four-part structure for the MMK that follows the logic of the Kaccāyanagotta Sutta:

1. Part I (Ch. I–II): Causality and change — refutation of four causal theories (Sarvāstivāda and Sautrāntika interpretations of pratyaya) and the metaphysical theory of moments (kṣaṇavāda)
2. Part II (Ch. III–XV): Dharma-nairātmya — non-substantiality of phenomena; analysis of Abhidharma categories (aggregates, spheres, elements) to remove substantialist interpretations without rejecting the categories themselves
3. Part III (Ch. XVI–XXV): Pudgala-nairātmya — non-substantiality of the person; bondage and freedom, action and consequence, the self, the tathāgata, the four noble truths, and nirvāṇa
4. Part IV (Ch. XXVI–XXVII): Conclusion — Ch. XXVI as the positive elaboration of the Kaccāyanagotta Sutta’s twelve-factor formula; Ch. XXVII on views, concluding with Nāgārjuna’s salutation to the Buddha

Kalupahana insists that Ch. XXVI–XXVII are integral, not appendices — they represent Nāgārjuna’s positive conclusion, completing the Kaccāyanagotta Sutta’s teaching. (From kalupahana-mmk-1986)

Tenpa’s working notes

The paper’s core argument turns on how MMK is read. The interpretive divergence surveyed in the paper — nihilism (Burton), deflationary pragmatism (Kalupahana), sophisticated engagement (Westerhoff, Garfield) — maps onto whether and how the interpreter engages the Mahāyāna hermeneutical framework. MMK 24:8-10 is the text’s own signal that it presupposes the Two Truths framework.