Nagarjuna's Middle Way: Mulamadhyamakakarika (Classics of Indian Buddhism)

This was a very interesting read indeed, Nagarjuna is definitely worthy of the hype behind his name.The translation is great, although I don't speak Sanskrit so who knows maybe it isn't, but I definitely liked it.The commentary, although short, was good enough to make sense of the book. Its not an extremely detailed commentary, but its good enough.

Good printing. Good translation/interpretation. A valuable text for serious Buddhist studies.

I am a student of Shambhala Buddhism and have been wanting to learn Madhyamaka for some time, it being an integral part of the Mahayana teachings. I had come across other translations of Nagarjuna's famous treatise but found it to be mostly incomprehensible. In this current translation professors Siderits and Katsura have provided a verse by verse commentary which is invaluable and makes this challenging text understandable. I have thoroughly enjoyed reading it and would recommend it to any student of the Mahayana.

A very difficult study but essential to one's Buddhist studies. I recommendsimultaneously studying the Surangama Sutra while tackling Nagarjuna, which, I believe, will help one to better comprehend both teachings.

Very detailed, scholarly but not detached, presentation and translation. The best I’ve found so far of a very difficult to grasp Buddhist text.

Really good translation and commentary based on the 4 known historical commentaries: the anonymous' Akutobhayā, Bhāviveka's, Buddhapālita's and Candrakīrti's, giving a profound view on the main buddhist principle: śunyatā, emptiness. A must-read for any serious buddhist and serious truth seeker! Question everything!

There are not to many translations of Nagarjuna, so to find a book that clearly deciphers meaning is such a value. This book is conscice and worded in such a clear manor. The book itself as a package was clean and in prestine condition. It came in super fast. I am very happy with this order. !!

This edition has extensive explanations of each verse of Nagarjuna's intellectual justification for Buddhism. His writing is terse and requires extensive experience with the literature and period which this book offers well. It is long and somewhat repetitive and mostly of interest to philosophers and logicians rather than those interested in Buddhist theology. A very well done book on itsown terms of logic and philosophy.

Blew my mind

A useful tool to understand this ancient text.

Good

This influential system hinges on denying the applicability of words and concepts beyond practical purposes (including Buddhist doctrine!). This is done by revealing internal contradictions in various philosophical theories, if interpreted literally, often using arguments like those of Zeno. I don't claim to follow all the arguments, but I'm attracted by some of the ideas here e.g. the generalisation of the early Buddhist denial of the self into the broader notion of 'emptiness'; the idea of 'two truths', and the difference between the everyday world and nirvana being merely a matter of one's attitude. Siderits & Katsura provide an introduction and summary for each chapter, and they interweave Nagarjuna's cryptic verses (given in Sanskrit and English) with a new commentary, which draws mainly on the four early Indian commentators, but also includes some illuminating insights of their own; all of which makes the ideas more accessible for modern readers.

Complex and difficult to read, but certainly worth an attempt. I am a Zen practitioner and not an 'academic' student of Buddhism. Although MMK, with all its intricate logical arguments, may appear to have very little with meditation, it in fact provides some very cogent 'whack' for a practitioner who may inadvertently fall into a trap of delusion. A case in point: "If defilements existed with permanent intrinsic property, how would one get rid of it? Who gets rid of something with an essence? If defilements were unreal, how would one get rid of it? who gets rid of something unreal?" Another example of valuable insights: "Can an eye see itself? If it cannot, how can one argue that it has an intrinsic property?" This is in essence(:-D) the same point to reflect upon as "if the knower knows the known, how is the knower known?"