THE RISE AND DEVELOPMENT OF MAHAYANA BUDDHISM 89down only when trying to describe the unconditioned. Still, the therapeutic
thrust is similar to that of the Sutra Pi taka's when dealing with metaphysical
views: to get the listener to abandon attachment to inappropriate modes of
thought and to gain the liberation that comes with freedom from clinging.
Nagaljuna insists that those who cling to emptiness as a view are incorrigible.
The use oflogic in presenting the teaching of emptiness is to short-circuit any
pattern of thinking that would provide a basis for clinging through such cate-
gories as being and non-being, same and different. In so doing, it brings about
the stilling of all preoccupations and mental proliferations. In this mode of
perception there is no view of anyone or anything or even of the Buddha
teaching at any time. This mode, similar to the tathata of the Prajiiii-piiramitii
Siltras, Nagaljuna simply calls tattva (reality); it is the goal of the Buddhist Path,
realized not by trying to attain a comprehensive view of reality, but by using
right view to abandon the view-making habits of the mind and simply letting
reality be.
Scholars have questioned whether Nagarjuna was a Mahayanist, largely
because none of the writings that are undoubtedly his make any mention of
the Prajiiii-piiramitii Siitras or of the bodhisattva ideal. Although it is true that
many of his ideas do not go beyond what we know of Mahasanghika doc-
trines, and that he gives positive expression to many early Buddhist teachings,
such as karma and dependent co-arising, his therapeutic use of the emptiness
approach so closely parallels that of the Mahayana Sutras that it is difficult not
to view him as part of the same movement. Given the task he had set for him-
self-to convert Abhidharmists from their attachment to views by using their
own methods-it would have been unwise for him to refer to any texts that
they would have objected to or t<? denigrate any teachings from the Sutra
Pi taka.
At any rate, whatever his own orientation, his immediate pupils were quick
to claim him for the Mahayana fold, and his major influence has been in the
Mahayana tradition up to this day. Although he did not succeed in putting a
stop to Abhidharma scholasticism, he did found a major school ofBuddhist
thought. His immediate disciple, Aryadeva, carried on the polemic tradition,
and Madhyamika became quite popular among academics. Still, it did not
make qualitative advances until about 500 c.E., when Bhavaviveka founded
the Sviintantrika (Independent) subschool by combining the Madhyamika ap-
proach with the epistemology and logic ofDignaga (see Section 6.2) and con-
fronting a host of problems that the school had previously ignored. Candraki:rti
(circa se~enth century c.E.) then criticized Bhavaviveka's use oflogic to arrive
at positive truths, maintaining that the only proper "empty" use oflogic was
,to reduce one's opponent's positions to absurdity, without taking a positive
position oneself. Candrakirti's subschool-which took the name of Pra-
'sangika, from the type of argument it espoused-came to dominate
:Madhyarnika thinking not only in India, but also in Tibet (see Section 11.3.3).
The emptiness doctrine, as taught both in the early Mahayana Sutras and
in the Madhyarnika treatises, had far-reaching consequences for Mahayana re-
~gious life. These consequences were elaborated and expanded especially in