The Process of Soteriological Ontology Through the Hermeneutics of Nāgārjuna’s Mulamadhyamakakārikā

This paper will examine interpretations of the writings of the 2nd-century Indian Buddhist philosopher Nāgārjuna. I specifically concentrate on debates as to whether he is best regarded as a “mystic” or a “philosopher,” with the goal of examining the efficacy of, what I argue to be, non-native terms that have been constructed around certain modes of Western discourse and therefore do not accurately describe Nāgārjuna’s thought. I argue that Nāgārjuna is attempting a project of soteriological ontology. He explains existence in what we would consider a rational manner so as to understand the transcendental. Nāgārjuna clearly states that it is only possible to understand the Buddha’s soteriological goal through understanding emptiness, and emptiness is how one can understand existence. Therefore, to Nāgārjuna, ontology is inseparable from soteriology. Thus, I would argue that the understanding of Nāgārjuna’s ontological doctrine is inseparable from his soteriological purpose. I frame my essay in homage to Nāgārjuna’s tetralemma structure and argue that he is a mystic, a philosopher, both, and neither. To do this I look at Nāgārjuna’s Mulamadhyamakakārikā and various modern debates on the interpretation of Nāgārjuna as a mystic and as a philosopher