In Tibetan Buddhism, Nagarjuna is the most important philosophical figure. It is like Thomas Aquinas for Roman Catholics. Madhyamaka is the basis for understanding Buddhism and Vijñanavada is a close correlate.
Contrary to the Tibetans, Madhyamaka is not given the same exalted status in the history of Chinese Buddhism. Their conclusion was that the eight-fold negation of Nagarjuna set the framework for a final negation of all elements (dharmas) of experience, whether material, psychological, or celestial. However, according to them, this very conclusion cannot be final. That is because any negation (no matter how subtle or all encompassing) is by definition the opposite of an affirmation - not merely logically but in final meaning and result. It is therefore merely relative and is neither final nor absolute. Consequently, Madhyamaka was superseded by various other Buddhist schools until Hwa-Yen became the view that encompassed all other schools and all other elements of experience. That view about Madhyamaka was echoed by Shankara who characterized Madhyamaka as shunyavada and dismissed it rather swiftly. Shankara in fact saved some of his most pointed criticisms for the Buddhists of his day, particularly Vijnanavada. In spite of this, there are parallels between some of Gaudapada’s statements and the views of Vijnanavada because they both draw from the same milieu of philosophic discourse. This is one reason that assertions that Advaita was a secret Buddhism demonstrate ignorance of the issues and shallow scholarship. As pointed out by K. A. Krishnaswamy Aiyer, Buddhism and Advaita are fundamentally opposed in five key points: 1. Both say that the world is “unreal”, but Buddhists mean that it is only a conceptual construct (vikalpa), while Shankara does not think that the world is merely conceptual. 2. Momentariness is a cardinal principal of Buddhism – consciousness is fundamentally momentary for them. However, in Advaita, consciousness is pure (shuddha), without beginning or end (anadi) and is thoroughly continuous. The momentariness of empirical states of consciousness overlies this continuity. 3. In Buddhism, the “self” is the ego (the “I”) – a conceptual construct that is quite unreal. In Advaita, the Self is the only “really Real” and is the basis of all concepts. 4. In Buddhism, avidya causes us to construct continuities (such as the self) where there are none. In Advaita, avidya causes us instead to take what is unreal to be real and what is real to be unreal. 5. Removal of avidya leads to nirvana/blowning out for Buddhists but for Shankara it leads to perfect knowledge (vidya).
