Article61

Madhyamaka of Nagarjuna, Advaita Vedanta of Sankara,

Madhyamaka of Nagarjuna, Advaita Vedanta of Sankara, Logical Empiricism of the Vienna Circle, and Dialectical Materialism of Marx and Engels.  Can they co-exist?

The modern world has inherited two great categories of thought: the philosophies that try to reconcile reason with lived experience, and the religions that try to impose authority by fiat. The difference between them is not abstract. It explains why India could generate Advaita Vedanta and Madhyamaka Buddhism without burning their sages at the stake, while Europe and the Middle East drowned themselves in centuries of blood spilled between Jew, Christian, and Muslim. The former traditions seek complementarity; the latter demand exclusivity. It is possible to weave Dialectical Materialism, Logical Empiricism, Quantum Mechanics, Advaita Vedanta, and Madhyamaka Buddhism into a single coherent tapestry of understanding. What is impossible is to reconcile Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—not only with each other, but with any civilization that dares to stand outside their jealous gods.

Dialectical Materialism begins with the simplest of claims: matter is not static substance but restless process. Engels called it the “science of universal interconnection,” the refusal to see the world as dead atoms bouncing in the void but as contradictions that drive change, as negations that generate new forms. Logical Empiricism, the tough-minded school of Carnap, Schlick, and Neurath, insists that philosophy is not the invention of metaphysical castles in the air but the discipline of clarifying what can be observed, tested, and publicly verified. On the surface, one seems Marxist, the other positivist. Yet they meet in their contempt for theological fantasy. Dialectical Materialism rejects the idea of a creator God hovering above history; Logical Empiricism rejects the unverifiable babble of metaphysics. Both are militant guardians of reason against superstition.

Quantum Mechanics, when read honestly, does not overthrow materialism so much as radicalize it. The atom is no longer indivisible; particles are no longer little billiard balls with intrinsic properties. Instead, entities exist only in relation, their properties surfacing only in measurement, their being always provisional, probabilistic, contextual. This is nothing but dialectics written into the fabric of physics. As Niels Bohr admitted, “opposites are complementary,” and the observer is never absent from the observed. The so-called paradoxes of the quantum world—wave and particle, locality and nonlocality—are contradictions that do not annihilate but sustain reality. To interpret this as a license for mysticism is sloppy; but to deny its philosophical resonance with Madhyamaka Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta is blindness.

Madhyamaka, the school of Nāgārjuna, dismantled the notion of intrinsic essence nearly two millennia before physics caught up. His doctrine of śūnyatā—emptiness—does not mean nothingness, but the lack of svabhāva, independent self-existence. Every phenomenon arises only through pratītyasamutpāda, dependent origination. The self is empty, the world is empty, but precisely because of this interdependence, the flow of cause and effect operates with ruthless precision. Nothing escapes causality, yet nothing is eternally fixed. If that sounds uncannily like quantum contextuality, it is not because Nāgārjuna anticipated the double-slit experiment, but because his logical insight demolished the myth of self-sufficient substance.

Advaita Vedanta, especially as sharpened by Śaṅkara, declares non-duality: the split between subject and object, knower and known, is ultimately false. Brahman alone is real, the world is māyā, not illusion in the trivial sense but misapprehension of unity as multiplicity. Here too, consciousness is not a side-effect of matter but the ground in which both matter and mind appear. Critics may accuse Advaita of idealism, but its force lies in its refusal to absolutize categories. From the vantage of the ultimate, distinctions collapse; from the vantage of the empirical, distinctions persist. This two-tiered truth harmonizes easily with Madhyamaka’s distinction between conventional and ultimate truth, and even with the physicist’s distinction between classical approximations and quantum descriptions.

Now place these side by side. Dialectical Materialism gives us a method for understanding historical change through contradictions. Logical Empiricism keeps us honest, tethered to what can be observed and tested. Quantum Mechanics shows that the very fabric of matter is relational, dynamic, without fixed essence. Madhyamaka Buddhism teaches that emptiness is not nihilism but the insight that all is dependent, contextual, non-substantial. Advaita Vedanta reminds us that the deepest split—between self and world—is itself a construct, a useful but ultimately dissolvable fiction. These do not clash. They reinforce one another, each supplying what the other might lack: DM guards against slipping into quietism; LE guards against mystical vagueness; QM demonstrates at the most concrete level that substance metaphysics is dead; Madhyamaka supplies the ruthless logic of emptiness; Advaita the expansive vision of unity. Together they form a circle of steel. No violence is required to make them cohabit; indeed, they thrive in dialogue.

Contrast this with the Abrahamic faiths. Judaism insists that God chose one people. Christianity insists that no one comes to the Father except through Christ. Islam insists that Muhammad is the seal of the prophets and that no law can supersede the Qur’an. These are not differences of method or emphasis; they are mutually exclusive truth-claims. If Christ is savior, Muhammad is a false prophet. If Muhammad is the seal, Christ’s resurrection is a deception. If God made an eternal covenant with Israel, then both Christ and Muhammad are usurpers. The contradictions here are not dialectical but antagonistic. They cannot coexist because each demands total submission, delegitimizing the other. History confirms this: Crusades, jihads, inquisitions, pogroms. The soil of three continents is soaked in the blood of Abraham’s children, and still the quarrel has not ended.

Meanwhile, Hindu and Buddhist thinkers debated for centuries with no rivers of blood. Śaṅkara’s Advaita sparred with Rāmānuja’s Viśiṣṭādvaita, with Madhva’s Dvaita, with the Buddhist logicians Dharmakīrti and Candrakīrti. They argued with ferocity, but they preserved each other’s texts. They sharpened each other’s logic. They coexisted. The debates were not trivial—they struck at the heart of whether the self is real, whether liberation is possible—but the outcome was philosophical enrichment, not extermination. That alone makes Advaita and Madhyamaka natural allies for modern philosophies like Dialectical Materialism and Logical Empiricism, which also thrive by criticism, not by slaughter.

The most extraordinary feature of the five traditions—Dialectical Materialism, Logical Empiricism, Quantum Mechanics, Advaita Vedanta, and Madhyamaka—is that they not only coexist but reinforce one another by eliminating each other’s weaknesses. Dialectical Materialism has been accused of dogmatism, of reducing everything to economic struggle. Yet when it encounters the subtlety of emptiness in Nāgārjuna, it remembers that contradictions are not blunt weapons but the very engines of reality. Logical Empiricism has been accused of narrowness, of refusing to think about anything beyond the observable. Yet when it brushes against Advaita’s insistence that the subject–object divide is provisional, it realizes that “experience” itself can be studied, refined, and clarified without descending into metaphysical speculation. Quantum Mechanics might tempt physicists to mystical hand-waving, but when guarded by the empiricism of the Vienna Circle and the rigor of dialectics, it can remain sober without lapsing into the illusion of classical determinism. These are not hostile camps but complementary correctives, each preventing the others from hardening into ideology.

Compare this to the Abrahamic triad. When Christianity encountered Judaism, it declared itself the “fulfillment” of the covenant, thereby branding Jews as obstinate rejecters of their own Messiah. When Islam encountered both, it declared itself the final revelation, thereby reducing both Jews and Christians to “People of the Book” who must accept second-class citizenship under Sharia. The quarrels are not friendly debates but mutually delegitimizing claims. Christianity cannot admit Muhammad’s prophethood without abandoning its creed; Islam cannot admit the Trinity without collapsing its tawḥīd. Judaism cannot admit Christ’s divinity or Muhammad’s finality without denying its election. This is a structural antagonism. It is not the fault of “bad actors,” it is written into the DNA of the doctrines. To deny this is to deny history itself.

By contrast, Śaṅkara could admit that the Buddhist denial of self sharpened his own insistence on the Self. Dharmakīrti could admit that the Vedāntic appeal to Brahman forced him to clarify what emptiness really meant. These thinkers did not burn each other alive; they wrote commentaries, staged debates, refined their logic. The Indian philosophical record is a dialogue across centuries, preserved rather than erased. What passes in the West for “interfaith dialogue” is, at its best, a ceasefire. What India managed between Advaitins and Mādhyamikas, and what modern philosophy can manage between dialecticians, empiricists, and physicists, is genuine coexistence: the sharpening of ideas without the spilling of blood.

Quantum Mechanics, in particular, is the bridge that reveals why this coexistence is possible. When Bohr spoke of complementarity, he was not inventing mysticism; he was acknowledging that light behaves as both wave and particle depending on the context of measurement. This is not a contradiction to be resolved but a polarity to be embraced. The lesson is dialectical: reality is not static, it unfolds through opposites. It is also Madhyamaka: properties have no intrinsic essence, they arise dependently. And it resonates with Advaita: the dualities we cling to are provisional, tools of understanding, not ultimate boundaries. Logical Empiricism enters here as the stern parent, reminding us that no interpretation is worth more than the experiments that sustain it. Dialectical Materialism reminds us that these paradoxes are not scholastic puzzles but the living logic of matter itself. Thus the most advanced science, the sharpest empiricism, the most revolutionary politics, and the deepest contemplative traditions converge without annihilation.

This is precisely what the Abrahamic religions cannot manage. Each of them operates not by complementarity but by exclusivity. The Torah is true or it is not. The Gospel is the only way or it is false. The Qur’an is the final revelation or it is counterfeit. No dialectical accommodation is possible because the claims are totalizing. The result is centuries of theological warfare, each side weaponizing metaphysics to justify political domination. The Crusader who slaughters Muslims in Jerusalem, the jihadi who bombs Shi‘a mosques, the Inquisitor who burns Protestants—these are not anomalies, they are logical outcomes of exclusive truth-claims. Violence is not the betrayal of Abrahamic faith, it is its faithful execution.

It matters today because the choice between violent exclusivism and peaceful complementarity is not merely historical. We live in a world where physics classrooms, philosophy seminars, meditation halls, and political movements can learn from one another without annihilation, but where interfaith “dialogue” between Jew, Christian, and Muslim remains fragile, provisional, often a matter of diplomatic expedience rather than genuine philosophical openness. Imagine a symposium where a Marxist dialectician, a logical empiricist, a quantum physicist, a Buddhist monk, and a Vedānta scholar argue fiercely about the status of consciousness. No one leaves in chains. Imagine a symposium where a rabbi, a priest, and an imam argue about the divinity of Jesus. The outcome is predictable: each leaves convinced the others are damned. The difference is not one of temperament but of structure. One system is built to accommodate contradiction; the other is built to expel it.

And this brings us to the deepest irony: those who accuse Dialectical Materialism or Advaita Vedanta of “totalitarianism” misunderstand what true totalitarianism looks like. The dialectician insists on contradiction because reality itself is contradictory. The Advaitin insists on non-duality because all dualities are provisional. Neither insists that every other view be exterminated. By contrast, the Abrahamic faiths insist not only that their truth is exclusive, but that its denial is blasphemy, punishable by eternal torment or by death on earth. The gulags of Marxism were political perversions of a philosophical method that itself thrives on debate. The inquisitions of Christianity, by contrast, were the direct application of a theology that insisted on one truth and one Church. One can abuse dialectics; one cannot apply Trinitarian dogma without demanding conformity. That is the crucial distinction.

It is precisely the openness to dialogue, the refusal to absolutize categories, that makes the five traditions we are discussing so powerful together. Dialectical Materialism gives the macro-logic of history: classes in struggle, technology in contradiction with relations of production. Logical Empiricism gives the micro-logic of inquiry: hypotheses tested, language clarified, metaphysics banished. Quantum Mechanics gives the deepest ontology yet discovered: reality as probability, relation, and context. Madhyamaka gives the metaphilosophical warning: all concepts are empty, all categories provisional. Advaita Vedanta gives the existential ground: all distinctions collapse in the realization of unity. Together they form a philosophy that is not only non-violent but mutually enriching, a vision where science, politics, and spirituality sharpen one another rather than suppress.

The peaceful coexistence of Dialectical Materialism, Logical Empiricism, Quantum Mechanics, Advaita Vedanta, and Madhyamaka is not accidental. It arises from the very structure of their claims. Each recognizes, in its own idiom, that truth is layered, provisional, and contextual. Each recognizes that categories can be overturned, that the apparent solidity of things conceals a deeper fluidity. None of them demand exclusive allegiance to a final prophet or immutable scripture. They are not jealous gods; they are rigorous disciplines. Their harmony comes from humility before reality, from the recognition that reality itself outruns any doctrine, any formula, any creed.

Dialectical Materialism insists that history itself is a process of contradiction and transformation. This is not a closed dogma but an open method, a way of analyzing reality that welcomes being revised by new discoveries. Logical Empiricism insists that statements must be verifiable in principle to be meaningful. This too is not a creed but a discipline, a hygiene of thought. Quantum Mechanics insists that properties are not fixed essences but relational, probabilistic outcomes of interaction. Madhyamaka insists that no phenomenon has svabhāva, independent self-existence, that everything is empty and therefore connected. Advaita Vedanta insists that the deepest division, the split between knower and known, is provisional, and that ultimate truth is non-dual. Put together, the message is clear: the world is process, relation, interdependence, non-duality. And our task is not to cling to dogma but to refine our understanding through disciplined inquiry, logical clarity, and contemplative insight.

It is fashionable in some circles to pit Marx against mystics, or empiricists against Vedāntins, as if they must belong to warring camps. But such antagonism arises only if we absolutize each perspective. Take each as a method, not as an idol, and they harmonize. Dialectics teaches us how contradictions generate transformation; empiricism teaches us how to test claims; quantum mechanics shows that substance metaphysics is dead; Madhyamaka teaches us to see through the illusion of intrinsic essence; Advaita teaches us to loosen our grip on the subject–object divide. None requires us to burn the others. Each requires us to think more carefully. The polemics are sharp, but they sharpen thought, not swords.

This makes their coexistence not merely an intellectual curiosity but a political necessity. In a world drowning in exclusive fundamentalisms—Christian nationalism in America, Islamist absolutism in the Middle East, Zionist exclusivism in Israel—the reminder that philosophies can coexist without violence is urgent. The Abrahamic triad cannot escape its structure of exclusivity. When a Christian insists that Christ alone saves, he implicitly condemns both Jew and Muslim. When a Muslim insists Muhammad is the seal of the prophets, he annuls both Torah and Gospel. When a Jew insists the covenant is eternal, he delegitimizes both Christ and Muhammad. These are not harmless differences of emphasis; they are mutually exclusive absolutes. No amount of “dialogue” can make them philosophically consistent. At best they can make a truce. At worst they relapse into holy war.

By contrast, Advaitins and Buddhists have debated for centuries without exterminating each other. Dialectical materialists can learn from logical empiricists without ceasing to be dialecticians. Physicists can meditate without ceasing to be physicists. The cross-fertilization strengthens rather than weakens. The history of Indian philosophy demonstrates that ferocious debate is compatible with peaceful coexistence. The history of Europe and the Middle East demonstrates that when truth is declared exclusive, debate collapses into bloodshed. The difference is structural, not accidental.

Critics may object: did not Marxism itself lead to gulags and purges? Did not Buddhism in Japan ally with imperialism? Did not Advaita become a tool of caste hierarchy? True, each of these traditions can be corrupted by power. But the distinction remains: when Dialectical Materialism is abused, it is abused by political regimes that silence its dialectical core. When Advaita is abused, it is abused by social elites who betray its non-dual ground. When Madhyamaka is abused, it is abused by scholastics who turn emptiness into another dogma. These are betrayals of method. But when Christianity burns heretics, when Islam executes apostates, when Judaism demands ethnic exclusivity, these are not betrayals but faithful applications of the logic of exclusive revelation. A philosophy can be perverted; a revelation-centered religion is violent by design.

The real challenge, then, is to choose. Do we wish to inhabit a world of complementarity or a world of exclusivity? Do we want our differences to sharpen thought or to spill blood? The example of DM, LE, QM, Advaita, and Madhyamaka shows that coexistence is possible without dilution. Marx does not have to become a mystic, Śaṅkara does not have to become a physicist, Nāgārjuna does not have to become a positivist. They can remain themselves and still enrich one another. By contrast, for Christianity to coexist with Islam, one must surrender its core claim—or both must reduce themselves to vague moral platitudes. The former is impossible; the latter is dishonest. The philosophies we have considered can sharpen one another without surrender. The Abrahamic religions cannot.

What we require today is precisely this kind of fearless synthesis: the refusal to be trapped in either/or, the courage to let contradictions stand without falling into violence. To embrace dialectics without dogma, empiricism without narrowness, physics without mysticism, Advaita without elitism, Madhyamaka without nihilism. This synthesis is not a luxury but a necessity if humanity is to survive the twenty-first century. For the weapons of modernity are too powerful to be wielded by exclusive gods. Nuclear fire cannot be managed by those who believe their tribe alone is chosen. Artificial intelligence cannot be guided by those who believe all but their creed are damned. Climate catastrophe cannot be solved by those who think this earth is a temporary station on the way to paradise. Only a philosophy that embraces contradiction, interdependence, and non-duality can provide the intellectual ground for survival.

It is not enough to tolerate. We must go further: we must learn to rejoice in contradiction. We must recognize that the most advanced science and the most ancient wisdom traditions converge in their rejection of fixed essence, their embrace of relation, process, and non-duality. The dialectician and the physicist, the empiricist and the monk, the Vedāntin and the Marxist, can stand together without demanding each other’s annihilation. They can sharpen one another. They can coexist. The Abrahamic triad cannot. That is the brutal truth. And until we recognize it, we will continue to mistake ceasefires for peace, truces for reconciliation, temporary armistices for genuine harmony.

The future will belong to those who learn the lesson of complementarity—not as a scientific curiosity, but as a civilizational principle. The logic of emptiness, the insight of non-duality, the rigor of empiricism, the method of dialectics, the relationality of quantum mechanics—these are not academic toys. They are survival strategies. They are the conditions for a future where human beings can argue ferociously without slaughtering one another. They are the antidote to the jealous gods. And they are our best hope for reason in revolt against dogma, for thought in defiance of exclusivity, for life against theologies of death.

---

Citations

• Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The German Ideology (1846).
• Friedrich Engels, Dialectics of Nature (1883).
• Rudolf Carnap, The Logical Structure of the World (1928).
• Moritz Schlick, “The Turning Point in Philosophy” (1930).
• Otto Neurath, Unified Science (1938).
• Niels Bohr, “The Quantum Postulate and the Recent Development of Atomic Theory” (1928).
• Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy (1958).
• Nāgārjuna, Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (c. 2nd century CE).
• Candrakīrti, Madhyamakāvatāra (7th century CE).
• Śaṅkara, Brahma Sūtra Bhāṣya (c. 8th century CE).
• Bhagavad Gītā, esp. ch. 2 and 13 (on the unity of self and world).
• T.R.V. Murti, The Central Philosophy of Buddhism (1955).
• Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, Indian Philosophy, vols. 1–2 (1923, 1927).
• Werner Heisenberg, Across the Frontiers (1974).
• A.N. Whitehead, Process and Reality (1929) [for comparison to DM and Madhyamaka].