Though often associated with the four-cornered negation 四句 (rejecting X is, X is not, X both is and isn't, X neither is nor isn't), that does not appear prominently in his arguments. These instead tend toward sophistic dialectics, drawing an opponentʼs position into either/or options and then rendering either option non-viable. Generally he demonstrates that what the opponent claims, while appearing on the surface to be rational and logical, is actually held together by one of three types of fallacies: infinite regress, tautology, or mutual exclusion. When oneʼs seemingly reasonable position is refuted, rather than dispassionately reconsidering matters, the more deeply one holds the theory, i.e., the more intimately constitutive it is of oneʼs self-identity and oneʼs view of the world, the more angrily and intemperately will be oneʼs reaction. The façade of rationality, when stripped away, unleashes the irrational attachments and passions that the logical façade was designed to suppress and conceal. Nāgârjuna ʼs method is designed to undermine these theoretical façades, which he calls dṛṣṭi ( 'views,' 'perspectives' , 見), exposing how tenaciously one clings to reassuring fantasies of svabhāva 自性，自體, 'self-essence' which hide in the most innocuous ideas, since all thinking presupposes the notions of identity and difference, which themselves presuppose stable essences, i.e., svabhāva. This method can be applied to an opponentʼs position in a debate, or to oneʼs own mental habits and attachments during meditation. He labeled his central tenet emptiness 空 (śūnyatā). By this he means that all things are empty of svabhāva, i.e., they have no permanent, independent, invariant, immutable substrate. While he warns that emptiness should not be reified 增益 and that it too must be emptied, many subsequent Mahayanists seem to have reified it nonetheless in one way or another.

We have no reliable biographical information on Nāgârjuna, aside from his association with the southern Indian region (nowadays called Nāgârjuna konda, in his honor). Legends associating him with dalliances with a kingʼs harem (which according to one account led to his execution), alchemy, and various magical accomplishments are amusing, but probably lack any historical veracity. Each of these elements can already be found in the biography written of him by Kumārajīva (T 2047.50; English translation by Li Rongxi in Lives of Great Monks and Nuns, Berkeley: Numata, 2002; cf. also Max Walleser, The Life of Nāgârjuna from Tibetan and Chinese Sources, New Delhi: Asian Educational Services, 1990 reprint or Asia Major, Hirth Anniversary Volume, 1923).

Because of his continued prominence, his name was attached posthumously to many texts and schools to which his philosophy as laid out in the works considered unquestionably authentic – namely Mūla-madhyamaka-kārikā and Vigraha-vyāvartanī – are at variance.

Nāgârjuna was introduced to China by the important translator, Kumārajīva 鳩摩羅什, in the early fifth century. Along with a translation of the Mūla-madhyamaka-kārikā (MMK), Kumārajīva also produced two additional texts that he attributed to Nāgârjuna, the Twelve Gate Treatise 十二門論, and Dazhidu lun 大智度論 (Treatise on the Mahāprajñāpāramitā). These three texts came to be called sanlun 三論, 'three treatises,' which became the name of the Madhyamaka school in East Asia. Unfortunately, only the Madhyamaka-kārikā is an authentic work of Nāgârjuna. The Twelve Gate Treatise is a pale echo of MMK, poorly argued; no mention of it is ever found outside Eastern Asia, hence pointing to it being a Chinese apocryphal text. The Dazhidu lun contains many elements hard to reconcile with the authentic Nāgârjuna, and, like the Twelve Gate Treatise, no mention of it is found anywhere outside Eastern Asia. Some scholars speculate that this may have been Kumārajīvaʼs own commentary. Of the three treatises, nine out of ten times when a subsequent Eastern Asian Buddhist text cites or quotes Nāgârjuna, it is the Dazhidu lun that is cited, not MMK. He was also invariably claimed as a patriarch by each school that established itself in East Asia, including the Pure Land school. Hence the East Asian image of Nāgârjuna is different from what developed in India and later in Tibet. Nāgârjuna is also translated into Chinese as 龍勝 (龍勝菩薩) and 龍猛. It is also transcribed as 那伽閼剌樹那, 那伽阿順那, and 那伽夷離淳那.

Works attributed to Nāgârjuna in East Asia

Authentic Works

Zhonglun 中論 [Mūla-madhyamaka-kārikā] T 1564.30. Indisputably Nāgârjuna ʼs most important work. Kumārajīvaʼs translation is quite good, and includes a commentary by 靑目  'Blue Eyes"' (arguably a rendering of Piṅgala, though other Indicizations have been proposed) that stays close to the root text, merely unpacking the arguments.

Huizhenglun 迴諍論 (Vigraha-vyāvartanī) T 1631.32. [Translation by Vimokṣaprajñāṛṣi 毘目智仙 and Gautama Prajñāruci 共瞿曇流支 in 541. Although this authentic work of Nāgârjuna is considered second in importance only to the Madhyamaka-kārikā, this Chinese translation is mediocre at best, leaving the arguments and meaning muddled, which may explain why this text has received little attention amongst Eastern Asian Buddhists.]

Longshu Pusa wei chantuojia wang shuo fayaojie 龍樹菩薩爲禪陀迦王說法要偈 (Suhṛllekha) T 1672.32 (1 fasc.) [tr. by Guṇavarman 求那跋摩 in 421.]

Quanfa zhuwang yaojie 勸發諸王要偈 (Suhṛllekha) T 1673.32 (1 fasc.) [tr. by Saṃghavarman 僧伽跋摩 between 434-442.]

Longshu Pusa quanjie wangsong 龍樹菩薩勸誡王頌 (Suhṛllekha) T 1674.32 (1 fasc.) [tr. by Yijing 義淨 ca.700-711]

Liushisong ruli lun 六十頌如理論 (Yuktiṣaṣṭikā-kārikā)[Sixty Verses] T 1575 [tr. by Dānapāla 施護, 10th c.]

Translations of Indian Commentaries on the MMK

Shunzhong lun 順中論 T 1565 [Commentary on Mūla-madhyamaka-kārikā attributed to Asaṅga, translated by Gautama Prajñāruci 瞿曇般若流支 in 543.]

Bore deng lun 般若燈論 [*Prajñā-pradīpa-mūla-madhyamaka-vṛtti] T 1566.30. [Commentary on Mūla-madhyamaka-kārikā by Bhāviveka, translated by Prabhākaramitra 波羅頗蜜多羅 in either 629 or 632.]

Dasheng zhongguan shi lun 大乘中觀釋論 (Commentary on mūla-madhyamaka-kārikā) T 1567.30 (18 fasc.) [Commentary by Sthiramati, translated by Weijing 惟淨 and Dharmarakṣa 法護, 11th c. The Taisho version only contains the first half, but the complete text is available in other editions, such as the Korean Canon K 1482.]

Other works attributed to Nāgârjuna

Dazhidulun 大智度論 (100 fasc.) T 1509.25, [A commentary on the Prajñāpāramitā sūtras attributed to Nāgârjuna, translated by Kumārajīva (early 5th c). No trace or mention of this text is found outside East Asia, making its association with Nāgârjuna questionable.]

Shier men lun 十二門論 [Twelve Gate Treatise] T 1568.30. [One of the three main texts of the Sanlun, attributed to Nāgârjuna, translation attributed to Kumārajīva.]

Jingang xianlun 金剛仙論 (2 fasc.) T 1512.25 [both the ascription of this text to Nāgârjuna and of its 'translation' to Bodhiruci are erroneous. It appears to be a sub-commentary to a Diamond Sutra commentary attributed to Vasubandhu that was translated by Bodhiruci - T 1511.25.]

Shizhu piposhalun 十住毘婆沙論 [Vibhāṣā on the Ten Abodes] (17 fasc.) T 1521.26, [Commentary on the Daśabhūmika-sūtra erroneously attributed to Nāgârjuna, translation attributed to Kumārajīva.]

Shibakong lun 十八空論 (*Aṣṭadaśa-śūnyatā-śāstra) [Eighteen Emptinesses] T 1616.31 [tr. by Paramârtha in the mid-sixth c.; extracts the list of 18 types of emptiness from a reading of the Madhyânta-vibhāga, a Yogâcāra text written later than Nāgârjuna, and thus the Eighteen Emptinesses Treatise cannot be a work by Nāgârjuna .]

Shi moheyan lun 釋摩訶衍論 [Treatise Explaining Mahāyāna] T 1668.32 (10 fasc.)[Supposedly translated by Vṛddhimata 筏提摩多 after 401; a commentary on Awakening of Faith attributed to Nāgârjuna with strong tantric leanings, hence popular in Shingon circles.]

Yishu lujia lun 壹輸盧迦論 (Ekaśloka-śāstra) (1 fasc.) T 1573.30 [translation by Gautama Prajñāruci 瞿曇般若流支 ca. 538-543. A short work that discusses the verse: 滅空住有體 則成於常見 若謂後時滅 則成於斷見, which warns of interpretations of emptiness and cessation that would fall into either eternalistic or annihilationist views.]

Puti ziliang lun 菩提資糧論 (Bodhisaṃbhāra-śāstra) T 1660.32 (6 fasc.)[tr. by Dharmagupta 達磨笈多 in 609]

Yinyuanxinlunsong, Yinyuanxinlunshi 因緣心論頌，因緣心論釋 (The Heart of Conditioned Co-arising, verse and explanation) T 1654.32 [No translator information available]

Dasheng poyou lun 大乘破有論 (1 fasc.) (*Bhava-saṅkranti-śāstra) T 1574.30 [tr. by Dānapāla 施護, 10th c.]

Dasheng ershi song lun 大乘二十頌論 (Mahāyāna-vimśaka) T 1576.30 [tr. by Dānapāla 施護, 10th c.]

Zan fajie song 讚法界頌 (Dharmadhātu-stotra) T 1675.32 (1 fasc.) [tr. by Dānapāla 施護, 10th c.]

Putixin lixiang lun 菩提心離相論 (Bodhicitta Detached from Marks) T 1661.32 [tr. by Dānapāla 施護, 10th c. Discusses, among other things, the ālaya-vijñāna, hence not a Nāgârjuna text.]

Guangda fayuan song 廣大發願頌 T 1676.32 (1 fasc.) [tr. by Dānapāla 施護, and others, 10th c.]

Putixing jing 菩提行經 (Bodhicaryâvatāra ) T 1662.32 [This work by Śāntideva, not Nāgârjuna, was translated in the late 10th c. by Tian Xizai 天息災, a Kashmiri colleague of Dānapāla who arrived with him in China.]

Fugai zhengxing suoji jing 福蓋正行所集經 T 1671.32 (12 fasc.) [tr. by Richeng 日稱 and Dharmarakṣa 法護, 11th c. (They also produced a Chinese translation of Śāntidevaʼs Śikṣā-samuccaya, 大乘集菩薩學論 T 1636.32).]

Dasheng baoyao yi lun 大乘寶要義論 (Sūtrasamuccaya) T 1635.32 (10 fasc.)[Translation by Dharmarakṣa 法護 and others, ca.1018-1058.]

Shier li 十二禮 ( Zan Emituofo wen 讚阿彌陀佛文) (X02, no. 57, p. 155, b20 // Z 1:2, p. 195, c5 // R2, p. 390, a5) [Twelve Verses of Veneration for Amitâbha attributed to Nāgârjuna by Jiacai 迦才 (7th c.) in his Treatise on Pure Land 淨土論 (T 1963.47), which claims Nāgârjuna as one of the Pure Land patriarchs. The verses are cited in several other texts and also circulated independently.]

Chimingzang Yuqie dajiao Zunna Pusa daming chengjiu yigui jing 持明藏瑜伽大教尊那菩薩大明成就儀軌經 (From The Dhāraṇī Canon, a Sutra Commentary on Yoga Practice, The Great Teaching of Cunda Bodhisattva on Accomplishing the Great Mantra) T 1169.20 (4 fasc.) [tr. by Faxian 法賢 ca. 989–999. From the title it is obvious that this is not even a Madhyamaka text.]

Ba dalingta minghao jing 八大靈塔名號經 (*Aṣṭa-mahā-sthâna-caitya-stotra) T 1685.32 [tr. by Faxian 法賢 ca. 989–999. A Tibetan version, also attributed to Nāgârjuna, also exists.

Bibliography

Ames, D. 1987. “Nāgârjuna ʼs Concept of 'śūnyatā' .” The Pacific World: Journal of the Institute of Buddhist Studies 3 : 15–23.

Ames, W.L. 1988. “The soteriological purpose of Nāgârjuna ʼs philosophy: a study of Chap.23 of the Mūla-madhyamaka-kārikās.” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 11(2) : 7–20.

Betty, L.S. 1983. “Nāgârjunaʼs masterpiece-logical, mystical, both or neither?”Philosophy East and West 33 : 123–138.

Bronkhorst, J. 1985. “Nāgârjuna and the Naiyāyikas.” Journal of Indian Philosophy 13 : 107–132.

Burton, D. 1999. Emptiness Appraised: A Critical Study of Nāgârjuna ʼs Philosophy. Richmond:  Surrey.

Lindtner, Christian. 1987. Nagarjuniana: Studies in the Writings and Philosophy of Nāgârjuna . Delhi:  Motilal Banarsidass. Reprint; first published in Copenhagen, Institute for indisk filologi, 1982

----. 1986. Master of Wisdom: Writings of the Buddhist Master Nāgârjuna . Berkeley:  Dharma Publishing.

Walleser, M. 1920. “The life of Nāgârjuna from Tibetan and Chinese sources.” Asia Major, Hirth Anniversary VolumeLondon:  : 421–455.

Walser, Joseph. 2005. Nāgârjuna in Context: Mahayana Buddhism and Early Indian Culture. New York:  Columbia University Press..

Westerhoff, Jan. 2009. Nagarjunaʼs Madhyamaka: A Philosophical Introduction. Oxford; New York:  Oxford University Press.

----, trans. 2010. The Dispeller of Disputes: Nāgārjunaʼs Vigrahavyāvartanī. Oxford; New York:  Oxford University Press.