Scholars unanimously agree that Nāgārjuna is arguably the most influential Buddhist philosopher, most likely second after Buddha. Nāgārjuna’s concept of emptiness (Sunyata) has dramatically influenced Indian philosophy among other regions around the world, including but not limited to Japan, Tibet, and China. According to Nāgārjuna, emptiness is something void, often called svabhava. Even though different English terms are trying to explain svabhava, including words like intrinsic nature and essence, none explains the concept of Nāgārjuna from an emic perspective (Smith, 2022). Assuming an emic approach based on Buddhism, the brief will relate the custom to its meaning by synthesizing Nāgārjuna’s teachings and thoughts on what constitutes emptiness in human lives.
Svabhava has further cataloged into two conceptual dimensions, namely ontological and cognitive models. The former is associated with how objects exist, whereas the latter delves into explaining how humans conceptualize living things. What is more is that understanding svabhava demands analyzing the works of Madhyamaka authors proceeding with the teachings of Nāgārjuna as heuristic components of philosophy (Stepien, 2021). In essence, svabjhava considers properties to objects that maintain their authenticity and value even when disassociated with their intended purpose. Likewise, the fusion of Madhyamaka teachings with Nāgārjuna’s philosophy dictates the nature of substances presenting specific qualities called svalaksana. Svalaksana enables humans to identify particular language and accessories associated with an object and its properties to derive meaning. For instance, the description of fire encompasses the analysis of its environment and products, including items like firewood or gas.
Buddha’s teaching of no-self denotes that personal identity is delusional. X points out that the no-self theory divides humans into two sets primary existent (dravyasat) and secondary existent (prajnaptisat). On the one hand, the no-self primary existent asserts that humans are objective and fundamental constituents of their environment. On the other hand, the secondary existence is delusional as it depends on human conceptual and linguistic capabilities. Buddha’s metaphysics states that primary existents that are basic dharmas are real, and everything else is delusional, and sociocultural construct dharmas like furniture and currencies (Siderits, 2022). Therefore, the Buddhist philosophical theory of no-self draws from anatta that discounts anything foreign to the human body and breeds the sense of autonomous Self. Buddhism and Nāgārjuna’s notion of emptiness is that the former teaches about egolessness as humans are not permanent, they change, and eternity is not promised (John, 2021). On the flipside, Nāgārjuna’s emptiness denotes that it is incorrect to state that we either exist or do not since the middle way enables humans to find a balance between negation and affirmation.
Indian schools like Theravadins Nāgārjuna Madhyamaka are nihilistic since their teachings try to associate atman with Buddhism. In so doing, Nāgārjuna Madhyamaka perceives Buddha-nature as the original and true Self, discounting other philosophical opinions about human lives (John, 2021). Theravadins consider Nāgārjuna Madhyamaka nihilistic since it is ethnocentric, branding Buddha-nature as big self while individual personages as small Self. The brief, thus, considers enlightenment as an elevation that helps us have a deeper understanding of self and the surrounding through self-referential lenses.
Abhinavagupta’s philosophy is based on the principle of nonduality, which holds that there is only one reality and that all things are a part of this one reality. The true Self is not something that can be grasped by the mind or understood through reasoning; it is beyond the reach of the intellect. One thing that came out is that confusion in people is caused by negligence (Bansat-Boudon & Törzsök, 2018). The only way to know the true Self is through direct experience. People understand that their physical bodies or minds do not limit them (Timalsina, 2020). They are one with the universe and connected to all that is. Humans have to realize that there is nothing outside of themselves that can hurt or harm them. Humans are complete and whole and do not need anything from anyone. People are free and also at peace.
On the other hand, Śaṅkara teaches that the individual Self is not separate from the universal Self. The individual Self is like a wave on the ocean of the universal Self. Just as a wave is not separate from the sea, the individual Self is not different from the universal Self. The individual Self is not an independent reality but is dependent on the universal Self for its existence (Bansat-Boudon & Törzsök, 2018). The goal of human life is to realize the true nature of the Self, which is infinite, eternal, and absolute (Mishra, 2018). The Self is not an object that the senses or the mind can know. It is beyond the realm of thought and experience. The Self is the subject of consciousness, the pure consciousness that is aware of all objects of consciousness. The individual Self is not an independent reality but is dependent on the universal Self for its existence.
The true Self, according to Śaṅkara and Abhinavagupta, is the absolute, eternal, unchanging, infinite, and perfect reality that is the underlying ground of all existence. In other words, the true Self is the fundamental reality that underlies and sustains all existence. This absolute reality is perfect in every way and is the ultimate goal of human existence. Śaṅkara and Abhinavagupta both believed that the true Self is the only reality that truly exists (Mishra, 2018). All other things are mere illusions. This is because all other things are subject to change and are therefore not truly real.
There are several differences between the Śaṅkara and Abhinavagupta theories. Firstly, Śaṅkara’s theory is based on the Upanishads, while Abhinavagupta’s theory is based on the Shaiva Agamas. Secondly, Śaṅkara holds that the individual soul is an illusion, while Abhinavagupta has that the individual soul is a reflection of Shiva (Whitehead, 2019). Thirdly, Śaṅkara argues that the world is an illusion, while Abhinavagupta contends that the world is a manifestation of Shiva. Fourthly, Śaṅkara’s theory is known as Advaita Vedanta, while Abhinavagupta’s theory is known as Kashmir (Timalsina, 2020). The true Self is the most crucial concept in Śaṅkara and Abhinavagupta’s philosophy. It is the absolute reality that underlies and sustains all of existence. It is perfect in every way and is the ultimate goal of human existence.
The Confucian Sage is someone who has attained the highest level of human development and who serves as a model for others to aspire to. The Sage is wise, virtuous, and generous and lives in harmony with the natural order. The concept of the Sage is important in Confucian thought as it provides a standard by which to measure human behavior (Wang et al., 2020)). A Confucian sage is someone who embodies the highest ideals of Confucianism and serves as a role model for others. The Sage is wise, virtuous, and altruistic and lives in harmony with the natural order (Shao, 2019). The Sage is someone who has attained a deep understanding of the way and who can act by it.
The ideal Sage is someone who has cultivated themselves to live in harmony with the Dao or the universe’s natural order. In many occurrences, the Daoist notions of the Sage emphasize personal and social morality, honesty, simplicity, self-cultivation, and individualism. They are virtuous, wise, and harmonious. The Sage is a role model for others to emulate, and they are someone who can help others find their path to enlightenment (Matthyssen, 2021). The Sage is not perfect, but they are someone who has realized the Dao and is living by it. The Daoist and Confucian notions of the Sage differ in a few key ways. For one, the Daoist Sage is more of a mystical figure, someone who has achieved a state of oneness with the Dao and thus embodies its qualities.
On the other hand, the Confucian Sage is more of a moral exemplar, someone who has mastered the Confucian virtues and thus can serve as a model for others. Another key difference is that the Daoist Sage is often seen as above the law, while the Confucian Sage is typically seen as subject to it. On the other hand, the Confucian Sage is still seen as a part of society and is thus subject to its rules and conventions (Zhaoyuan, 2021). Finally, the Daoist Sage is often seen as a hermit or recluse who has renounced the world and withdrawn from it. On the other hand, the Confucian Sage is usually seen as an active participant in society, someone who engages with others and works to improve the world.
Nature is one of the ideas of human perfection on the philosophies covered. In general, whereas Daoism embodies nature and what is dynamic and ever changing in human experience to the point of denouncing much of China’s advanced civilization, learning, and ethics. (Amir, 2021). Confucianism views human social systems the family, school, neighborhood, and state—as critical to life thriving and virtue because they are the only domain in which those accomplishments, as Confucius envisioned them, are possible.
Buddha’s nature is the “true self” or “original nature,” according to Huineng. This means that Buddha is the embodiment of perfection and that his teachings show us the path to suffering. Huineng, the Sixth Patriarch of Zen Buddhism, elaborated on the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path (Wirth, 2019). He taught that the Four Noble Truths are not four different truths but four aspects of one reality. The truth is that all things are empty, and the suffering we experience is due to our attachment to ultimately meaningless things. The Eightfold Path is the way to end our attachment to things and experience the emptiness of all things. By following the Eightfold Path, people can learn to see things as they are and find true peace and contentment.
In his philosophical work, Dōgen argues that all beings are Buddha which means that they have the potential to awaken to the true nature of reality and achieve enlightenment. He argued that, by understanding the interdependent nature of the fact, we could come to see that everything is connected and that all beings have the potential to achieve enlightenment. This way, we can develop compassion for all beings and learn to cherish and respect all life.
There are several key differences between the philosophies of Buddha Huineng and Dōgen. For one, Huineng was a proponent of the sudden enlightenment tradition, while Dōgen was a proponent of the gradual enlightenment. This means that Huineng believed that enlightenment could be achieved in a single moment, while Dōgen thought it was a process that took place over time. Another critical difference between the two philosophers is their view of the role of the Buddha (Menon et al., 2022). For Dōgen, the Buddha was someone who was still on the path to enlightenment and thus could only offer guidance to others. Finally, Huineng and Dōgen had different views on the nature of reality (Jorgensen, 2021). Huineng believed that reality was an illusion, while Dōgen thought that reality was eventually actual. The different views on the role of Buddha are enlightened, according to Huineng’s belief, while Dogen that Buddha is a path to enlightenment. Huineng saw reality as an illusion that could be overcome; on the other hand, Dogen saw reality as something that could be worked with and transformed.
Both Huineng and Dōgen state that Buddha was someone who was to be respected and revered. They both saw him as a teacher who could help guide people to enlightenment. In addition, they both believed that Buddha was someone who was able to transcend the physical world and reach a higher state of being. Furthermore, they both felt that Buddha was a source of wisdom and knowledge that anyone could access, regardless of their social status or position (Bingquan et al., 2019). Both Huineng and Dōgen emphasize the importance of practice and realization to achieve Buddha-nature. Finally, they both saw Buddha as a compassionate being who was always willing to help those in need.
References
Amir, L. (2021). The laughing Sage: Chinese and western perspectives. International Communication of Chinese Culture, 8(1), 23-45.
Bansat-Boudon, L., & Törzsök, J. (2018). Abhinavagupta on the Kashmirian Gītā. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 46(1), 31-64.
Bingquan, L., Haixin, D., & Xudong, Z. (2019). On Hui-Neng’s Ontology That Regards Xin as the Origin. International Journal of Philosophy, 7(2), 82.
Bolokan, E. (2020). Zen words of the unsayable: An inquiry into Dōgen Zenji’s apophatic terminology. Asian Philosophy, 30(3), 195-213.
Jorgensen, J. (2021). Huineng. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Religion.
John, J. D. (2021). Emptiness and the Changing Self: Nāgārjuna, Whitehead, and a Defense of Process Metaphysics (Doctoral dissertation, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale).
Menon, S., Rajaraman, S., & Todariya, S. (2022). Aesthetic Delight and Beauty: A Comparison of Kant’s Aesthetics and Abhinavagupta’s Theory of Rasa. Journal of Dharma Studies, 5(1).
Mishra, G., & Mishra, H. (2021). Non-dualism: Vedāntic and Āgamic (Advaita as Expounded by Śaṅkara and Abhinavagupta). Journal of Indian Council of Philosophical Research, 38(2), 137-154.
Matthyssen, M. (2021). The Daoist Sage Fool and the Confucian Learned Man. In Ignorance is Bliss: The Chinese Art of Not Knowing (pp. 17-72). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
Shao, Y. (2019, April). An Analysis of Chinese Traditional Confucian and Taoist Views on Happiness. In 3rd International Conference on Culture, Education and Economic Development of Modern Society (ICCESE 2019) (pp. 704-707). Atlantis Press.
Siderits, M. (2022). Nāgārjuna. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Religion.
Smith, J. W. (2022). ” Emptiness” as Aspect—Nāgārjuna and the later Wittgenstein. Philosophy East and West.
Stepien, R. K. (2021). Substantialism, Essentialism, Emptiness: Buddhist Critiques of Ontology. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 49(5), 871-893.
Timalsina, S. (2020). Vimarśa: The Concept of Reflexivity in the Philosophy of Utpala and Abhinavagupta. Acta Orientalia, 80, 98-121.
Wang, Y., Bao, Q., & Guan, G. (2020). Sage (sheng ren, 圣人). History of Chinese Philosophy Through Its Key Terms (pp. 369-380). Springer, Singapore.
Whitehead, J. (2019). An understanding of Maya: the philosophies of Sankara, Ramanuja, and Madhva (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pretoria).
Wirth, J. M. (2019). Dōgen and Continental Philosophy: An Essay on the Powers of Thinking. Research in Phenomenology, 49(3), 287-300.
Zhaoyuan, W. A. N. (2021). A New Sage. In Science and the Confucian Religion of Kang Youwei (1858–1927) (pp. 31-67). Brill.