Abstract

Nagarjuna is one of the few Buddhist thinkers that Western philosophers have begun to explore in detail and take seriously. Although primarily concerned with explaining Buddhist doctrine to the Buddhist and non-Buddhist traditions of India, Nagarjuna's significance for Western philosophers lies in the fact that he is addressing the same types of issues that Western thinkers have struggled with for centuries. He is thus portrayed not simply as a South Asian Buddhist thinker, but as a philosopher who has something important to say about philosophical issues such as causality, metaphysics, the nature of thinking, epistemological realism, and the inherent limitations of language. In this sense, Nagarjuna is considered a philosopher with status, on the same level, if not higher, than Kant, Hume, Wittgenstein, and Derrida. ;This thesis questions this portrayal of Nagarjuna by arguing that it relies on "theoretical" understanding of Buddhist doctrine. Western philosophers persistently view Nagarjuna as addressing "theoretical" problems, and assume that Buddhist liberation is contingent upon a correct "philosophical" understanding of the world, the mind, and the nature of language. This is a "theoretical" approach to Buddhism because it says one needs to adopt a certain "philosophical" viewpoint in order to attain liberation. The irony in this, however, is that Nagarjuna is trying to "cure" this exact way of thinking. For him, to approach Buddhist liberation in "theoretical" or "philosophical" terms is misleading because it forces us to adopt a detached perspective far removed from those who the Buddhist teachings are supposed to help. For Nagarjuna, Buddhist teachings arise only within the context of trying to solve certain life problems, and to adopt a "theory" of Buddhism, therefore, or to think that liberation depends on a "philosophical" understanding of the world, is to lose sight of what those problems really are. Thus, to say Nagarjuna addresses larger "philosophical" issues is to practice what he warns against. ;This thesis argues against a "philosophical" portrayal of Nagarjuna by examining the doctrine of "skillful means" which plays a distinctive role in Buddhist soteriology. The significance of "skillful means" is its rejection of a "theory of liberation" in favor of a contextual and multi-strategic approach to helping others. "Skillful means" begins with the assumption that there are concrete differences in people's lives, differences that cannot be resolved by appealing to philosophical principles. Because the doctrine of "skillful means" begins with such differences, it promotes innumerable soteriological "devices" and strategies for helping others. Thus, "emptiness," "dependent-arising," "impermanence," and nirvana are only a few of the many "skillful means" that Buddhists use to facilitate liberation, and Nagarjuna warns against turning such terms into "philosophical" problems. Operating within a "skillful means" tradition, Nagarjuna places Buddhist doctrine within a medicinal and heuristic context, and argues that its teachings are best understood within the soteriological practices of Buddhist life