Anātma in Early Madhyamaka: Nāgārjuna and Āryadeva
S. L. Burmistrov
Voprosy Filosofii April 12, 2026 DOI: 10.21146/0042-8744-2026-4-167-178 (opens in new tab)
Study at a glance
AI-extracted from the abstract| Characteristics | Theoretical or philosophical paper Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Key points | Argues that Nāgārjuna and Āryadeva took different approaches to anātmavāda: Nāgārjuna held that both ātman and anātmavāda are empty, treating the teaching as instrumental and therapeutic, while Āryadeva's "Four Hundred Stanzas" is more polemical, refuting ātman views of materialists, Jainas, Pudgalavādins, Sāṃkhya, Vedānta, and other schools. |
Abstract
Nāgārjuna (2nd–3rd centuries) and Āryadeva (3rd century) had somewhat different approaches to the interpretation of anātmavāda (the conception of the non-existence of unchanging “I”) in Buddhism. For Nāgārjuna, the founder of the Madhyamaka school, the concept of ātman is contradictory and therefore empty, since it is based not on a non-conceptual reality, but on other concepts and ideas. But anātmavāda is empty too, for it depends on the concept of ātman and is correlated with the conception of ātman. Therefore, the Buddhist principle of anātma has a purely instrumental character for him, being aimed only at the transformation of the adherent’s consciousness. The meaning of the word ātman depends on the context, including the entire range of situations in which it is used. Nāgārjuna’s philosophy is therefore therapeutic, aimed at healing disciples from ignorance. The treatise of his follower Āryadeva “Four Hundred Stanzas” has more polemical character. Āryadeva refutes the ideas about ātman held by Indian materialists, Jainas, Pudgalavādin Buddhists, followers of Sāṃkhya, Vedānta and other schools. This makes his treatise, despite its lesser philosophical depth, a valuable source on the history of religious and philosophical thought in ancient India.