Nāgārjuna (fl. c. 200 CE)

a CRUP-OMAF case study

...
Label Description
Domain Existence, Reality, Causality
Theorist/s Nāgārjuna (c. 150–250 CE)
Assessor(s) DeepSeek
Date 2025-10-16
Version of OMAF Used v0.1

1. Overview of the Ontology

Purpose & Scope:

Nāgārjuna's ontology of Śūnyatā (Emptiness) aims to deconstruct all substantialist views of reality by demonstrating that nothing possesses inherent existence (svabhāva). Its scope encompasses all phenomena—physical, mental, and abstract—arguing that they exist only through dependent co-arising (pratītyasamutpāda) and are ultimately empty of independent nature.[1]

Core Claims:

  1. All phenomena are empty (śūnya) of inherent existence (svabhāva)
  2. Reality is characterized by dependent co-arising (pratītyasamutpāda)
  3. The conventional truth (saṃvṛtisatya) and ultimate truth (paramārthasatya) are non-dual
  4. Neither existence nor non-existence adequately describes reality
  5. The Middle Way (Madhyamaka) avoids all extreme metaphysical positions

Theoretical Influences:

Early Buddhist teachings on impermanence and dependent origination, Prajñāpāramitā literature, and critical engagement with Abhidharma metaphysics.[2]

2. Application of OMAF

Refer to the rubric for ratings

Axis I — Completeness

Criterion Score (1–5) Notes / Justification
Grounding 5 Foundation in dependent co-arising is exceptionally clear and consistently applied across all phenomena. The rejection of svabhāva provides a coherent negative grounding.
Manifestation 4 Detailed account of how phenomena appear through dependent co-arising, though operationalization requires significant philosophical training.
Persistence 3 Explains recurrence through causal conditions but lacks detailed mechanism for temporal persistence beyond conventional designation.
Boundaries 5 Boundaries between conventional and ultimate reality are explicitly defined and rigorously maintained through the two-truths doctrine.

Axis II — Robustness

Criterion Score (1–5) Notes / Justification
Internal Coherence 5 Remarkably coherent despite radical claims; employs rigorous logic (prasaṅga) to demonstrate consistency through negation.
Domain Validity 4 Applies universally within its domain of existential inquiry, though some argue it handles certain metaphysical questions via dissolution rather than solution.
Objectivity / Reflexivity 5 Exceptionally self-aware; applies its own principles to itself ("emptiness of emptiness"), avoiding self-contradiction.
Explanatory Power 4 Powerful explanation for ontological puzzles and metaphysical dilemmas, though some find it overly negative in approach.
Resilience to Critique 4 Withstands most critiques through its non-position position, though some argue it risks nihilism or incoherence.

Axis III — Pragmatic Usefulness

Criterion Score (1–5) Notes / Justification
Operational Clarity 3 Clear for philosophical analysis but requires significant mental training for practical application in daily life.
Integrability 4 Integrates well with other Buddhist systems and surprisingly compatible with certain interpretations of quantum mechanics and process philosophy.
Heuristic Utility 5 Exceptionally generative; has spawned numerous philosophical schools and continues to inspire new interpretations across disciplines.

Axis IV — Transformative Potential

Criterion Score (1–5) Notes / Justification
Cognitive Shift 5 Profoundly transformative; capable of completely restructuring one's understanding of reality and existence.
Experiential Depth 5 Radically deepens engagement with experience by dissolving reification and opening direct perception of dependent arising.
Generativity 5 Spawned entire philosophical traditions (Madhyamaka, Zen) and continues to generate new frameworks 1800 years later.

3. Visualisation

Radar Chart:

Dimensions Average Score
Completeness 4.25
Robustness 4.4
Pragmatic Usefulness 4.0
Transformative Potential 5.0
radar-beta
    title "Nāgārjuna's ontology of Śūnyatā "
    axis Completeness, Robustness, Usefulness, Potential
    curve Score{4.25, 4.4, 4.0, 5.0}
    max 5

4. Summary & Observations

Strengths:

Weaknesses:

Trade-offs / Tensions:

5. Recommendations

  1. Develop bridging frameworks to make the ontology more accessible for practical application without compromising its depth
  2. Expand the account of conventional reality to provide more detailed guidance for operational use while maintaining ultimate emptiness
  3. Create integration protocols for combining with complementary ontologies that address practical concerns
  4. Develop training methodologies to help users navigate the profound cognitive shift required for full understanding

6. References

· Nāgārjuna, Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way) · Garfield, Jay L. "The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way" · Westerhoff, Jan. "Nāgārjuna's Madhyamaka: A Philosophical Introduction" · Siderits, Mark. "Buddhism as Philosophy" · Buddhist epistemological tradition (Dignāga, Dharmakīrti) for operational development


Footnotes

  1. Primary Source: Mūlamadhyamakakārikā ↩︎

  2. Influence of early Buddhist texts like the Pali Canon ↩︎


License: JIML v.1