NAGARJUNA Mulamadhyamakakarika 7 Transla

NAGARJUNA
Mulamadhyamakakarika
7 translations
Compiled by Frederic Lecut
Volume I
Horizontal
What this is, why I did it and how to use it.
1 - What this is
I took 7 translations of Nagarjuna’s famous Mulamadhyamakakarika (hereafter “MMK”) and put them side by
side. The book is composed of 27 chapters, each chapter includes several verses. I put side by side the texts 6
translations, verse by verse, so you can read on one row the 7 different translations of this verse.
I did not include any of the translators’ comment
The numbers I used : first number is the chapter number, second number is the verse within the chapter : 10.2
means : Verse 2 of Chapter 10.
2 - Why I did it
I practice Zen. Zen does not requires to spend too much time studying Buddhist scriptures, but I love books and
the written word.
I got interested in Nagarjuna's MMK when I read an article by Gudo Nishijima about what he perceives as a deep
connection between Nagarjuna - writing in India during the 2 nd century - and Master Dogen writing in Japan
1000 years later.
So I started researching the MMK online and on paper.
There are many English translations of Nagarjuna's MMK. These translations are wildly different. There are
many reasons for that.
1. Translations were made from different languages, namely :
• Sanskrit
• Tibetan
• Chinese
Nagarjuna originally wrote his book in India and Sanskrit around the late 2 nd century AD.
It was later translated to Tibetan and/or Chinese. Sometimes not directly. Some versions may have been
translated from Sanskrit to Tibetan, then to Chinese, some could have followed the other way around.
2. Some of the translators have no practical clue what they are talking about.
Let me explain : When I was studying engineering, I had some brilliant professors with PhD in mechanical
sciences or applied thermodynamics. These men could not have held a hammer, or God forbid a wood chisel
without creating lots of damages around them. They were extremely knowledgeable in their very narrow field
of expertise, but their knowledge was quite useless (or even down right dangerous) in everyday life.
Many of these translations were made by scholars who are certainly very good at Sanskrit, Tibetan and Chinese,
but may not be Buddhist themselves.
Those Buddhist scholars know a great amount of things, but their knowledge is of little use to me.
As for actual Buddhist teachers, you would think they would try to get down to earth and provide a useful
translation, but I have not been convinced by them either.
It is basically very disappointing. It feels as if there is this great story written in this book I can’t read it for I
don’t know the language. I really want to hear that story, because it is about a problem I have had since before
the day as was born (that’s what they say !), and I can’t read the damn book. And then there are many people
out there telling me they can read it, will translate and explain it to me, but the fools don’t make any sense…
Being on my own and having no time or intention to learn Sanskrit, Chinese or Tibetan. I had to be creative and
do something quite unconventional...
Think of democracy. There is wisdom in crowds. Even if all the voters are stupid, the result of the vote of a very
great number of them will likely determine the best outcome for the group. Among all these translators, it is
possible than none of them has it right, but if you consult several of them, side by side, you may get a more
accurate understanding than any of them has. If you do not believe me, ask yourself how the big social media
platform make their money.
This is what I am trying to use by putting side by side many translations.
3 - How to use this
1. Read the various translations of one verse. Don’t try to analyze and think too much about them, just
impregnate yourself with the various renditions of one verse, or one chapter, without using any critical
thinking.
2. Meditate, not on the text, but try to empty your mind, to let something happen, if it wants to !
3. Something might come up. Or not, maybe at that time, maybe later, when you are in the middle of
something else, doing the dishes, driving…
This way of studying is not conventional. Sometimes it works.
I hope it helps you too.
Frederic Lecut
Headland, Alabama, USA

June 2020
Note : Because different people study differently, I have compiled an other version (Volume II) of the
same text where each verse is presented as a vertical sequence.
NAGARJUNA’s Mulamadhyamakakarika
7 translations
Chapter 1
McCagney Nishijima Kalupahana Garfield Batchelor Tolokojumi.net Streng

An Analysis of
Analysis of Examination of the Examination of Examination of Investigation of
1 Causality Conditioning
Conditions Reliable facts Conditions Conditions Conditions
Causes (pratyaya)
Never, nowhere do The reliable facts No existents Neither from itself No thing anywhere Nothing Never are any
any beings occur are] not that which whatsoever are nor from another, is ever born from whatever arises. existing things
arisen from is subjective evident anywhere Nor from both, Nor itself, from Not from itself, found to
themselves, from [thoughts], not that that are arisen from without a cause, something else, not from another, originate From
others, from both or which is objective themselves, from Does anything from both or not from both themselves, from
from no cause. [sense stimuli], not another, from both, whatever, anywhere without a cause. itself and something else,
a mixture of the or from a non-cause. arise. another, and not from both, or
two, but never without a cause from no cause.
1.1 unreasonable at all.
Phenomena are just
recognized as they
are, and existence
as we conceive it
never exists
anywhere; it is just
nonexistence.
There are only four The four reliable There are only four There are four There are four There are just There are four
conditions, namely facts are reason, the conditions, namely, conditions: efficient conditions: Causes, four conditions of conditioning
hetu (cause), external world, the primary condition, condition; Percept- objects, immediate the existence of causes: A cause
alambana present moment, objectively object condition; and dominant. anything: (hetu), objects of
1.2
(supporting and reality—this supporting immediate There is no fifth. efficient cause, sensations,
condition), world—which condition, condition; Dominant supporting "immediately
anantaram seems to be similar immediately condition, just so. condition, preceding
(contiguous to God. A fifth contiguous There is no fifth precipitating condition," and of
Nagarjuna’s MMK – 7 translations. Frederic Lecut, June 2020 page 4

condition) and reliable fact never condition, and condition. condition, and course the
adhipati (dominant exists at all. dominant condition. dominant predominant
condition). There is A fifth condition condition. There influence—there
no fifth condition. does not exist. is no fifth is no fifth.
condition.
Indeed, no self- Subjective existence The self-nature of The essence of The essence of Among the four Certainly there is
nature (own-being, can never be existents is not entities Is not things does not conditions of the no self-existence
essence) of beings recognized in evident in the present in the exist in conditions existence of a ((svabhava)) of
occurs in the miscellaneous conditions, etc. In conditions, etc ..If and so on. If an own thing, there is existing things in
conditions of existences or in the the absence of self- there is no essence, thing does not exist, found no conditioning
beings. Since self- reliable facts. nature, other-nature There can be no an other thing does substantial causes, etc.; And
nature is not Phenomena are just too is not evident. otherness-essence. not exist. essence if no self-
present, other recognized as they [svabhava = self- existence exists,
nature does not are, and existence nature] of the neither does
1.3
occur. as we conceive it thing. If things "other-existence"
never exists have no (parahhdva) .
anywhere; it is just substantial
nonexistence. essences, then
there can be no
real relations
between
different things.
Causal efficacy is Real action at the Activity is not Power to act does There is no activity There are no The efficient
not to be associated present moment is constituted of not have conditions. which has causes with cause (kriya) does
with conditions, never an imitation conditions nor is it There is no power to conditions. There is conditions; there not exist
causal efficacy is not of the reliable facts, not non-constituted act without no activity which are no causes possessing a
associated with non- so there is no of conditions. conditions. There does not have without conditioning
conditions, possibility of an Conditions are are no conditions conditions. There conditions. There cause, Nor does
conditions are not imitation of a neither constituted without power to are no conditions are no conditions the efficient
associated with reliable fact being nor non-constituted act. Nor do any have which do not have without causes; cause exist
1.4
causal efficacy or real action. The of activity. the power to act. activity, and none there are no without
non-causal efficacy. reliable facts are which do have conditions with possessing a
not different from activity. causes. conditioning
real action, and cause.
there exists Conditioning
something real, causes are not
which is very similar without efficient
to real action itself. causes. Nor are

there
[conditioning
causes] which
possess efficient
causes.
What arises Conspicuous things These are These give rise to Since something is Things arise from Certainly those
“depends” on these and phenomena are conditions, because those, So these are born in dependence conditions, but if things are called
so-called conditions. manifesting depending upon called conditions. As upon them, then there is no "conditioning
So long as there is themselves as this them these [others] long as those do not they are known as arising, aren't causes" whereby
no arising, how are world, and that arise. So long as come from these, “conditions”. As conditions not something
these not non- which is called these [others] do Why are these not long as it is not conditions? originates after
conditions? “things and not arise, why are non-conditions? born, why are they having come
phenomena” are they not non- not non-conditions? upon them; As
just the reliable conditions? long as
1.5 facts. Inasmuch as something has
that which not originated,
manifests itself why are they not
shows itself as so long "non-
things and conditioning
phenomena, that causes" ?
which is different
from the reliable
facts can never
really exist at all.
Neither being nor Either in the case of A condition of an For neither an It is impossible for There are no There can be a
non-being are something abstract effect that is either existent nor a non- something that conditions of conditioning
associated with or in the case of non-existent or existent thing Is a either exists or not existing things, cause neither of a
conditions of something concrete, existent is not pro- condition to have conditions. nor are there non-real thing nor
usefulness. Of what a reliable fact is per. Of what non- appropriate. If a If it were non- conditions of that of a real thing. Of
[use] are conditions never tied to any existent [effect] is a thing is non- existent, of what which does not what non-real
for non-being? And aim other than condition? Of what existent, how could would they be the exist. How can thing is there a
1.6 to whom [is there itself. It is use is a condition of it have a condition? conditions? If it the nonexistent conditioning
use] in conditions impossible for an the existent If a thing is already were existent, why have a condition? cause? And if it is
for being? abstract reliable [effect)? existent, what would it need If something [already] real,
fact to belong to would a condition conditions? exists, does it what use is a
something, and it is do? need a condition? cause?
also impossible for a
concrete thing to
produce anything

relying upon a
reliable fact.
Whenever an event When the real Since a thing that is When neither When things cannot If there are no If an element
that is existent, non- universe, [which is] ·existent or non- existents nor Non- be established as existents, nor (dharma) occurs
existent, or both in fusion between existent or both. existents nor either existent, non- non-existents, which is neither
existent and non- the stable and the existent and non- existent non- existent or both, nor existent non- real nor non-real
existent does not unstable, or in existent is not existents are how can one speak existents, how nor both real-
originate, how can a fusion between the produced, how established, How of an “establishing can there be any and-non-real.
cause that thus real and the unreal, pertinent in that could one propose a cause.” Such would causes? If there How can there be
brings [events] has not become context' would a "productive cause?" be impossible. were a cause, a cause which is
about be clear, the universe, producing cause be? If there were one, it what would it effective in this
1.7 reasonable? which should be would be pointless. cause? situation?
clear, will never
become clear at all,
because [in that
case] even reason,
which should be
perfectly free, has
been fixed
concretely.
This event that When the real world A thing that exists is An existent entity An existent If there are Just that which is
exists is described is different from the indicated as being (mental episode) phenomenon is events (for without an object
as without a external world without objective Has no object. Since clearly said to have example, mental of sensation is
supporting [which is support. When a a mental episode is no object at all. If states) without accepted as a real
condition. But superficially seen thing is without without an object, the phenomenon supporting element; Then if
where an event is from the objective support, How could there be has no object, conditions, why there is an
without a materialistic for what purpose is any percept- where can the should we speak element having
supporting viewpoint], the real an objective condition? object exist? of supporting no object of
1.8 condition, again, rule of the universe support? conditions at all? sensation, how is
why [talk of] a will manifest itself. it possible to
supporting When we follow the have an object of
condition? real rule of the sensation?
universe, how is it
possible for the
external world to
manifest itself again
at any place at all?

When events do not When the rule of When things are not Since things are not If phenomena are If things do not When no
arise, cessation does the universe has not arisen [from arisen, . Cessation is not born, it is invalid begin to exist, elements have
not happen. Hence yet manifested conditions], not acceptable. for there to be then they cannot originated, [their]
what condition is itself, the ability of cessation is not Therefore, an cessation. cease to exist. If disappearance is
suitable for a non- self-regulation has appropriate. When immediate Therefore, an things do not not possible.
contiguous not yet appeared. [a thing has] ceased, condition is not immediate begin to exist, Therefore it is
condition in When our ceaseless what is [it that reasonable. If [condition] is how can they not proper to
cessation? mental functions serves as] a something has unreasonable. have speak of an
1.9 have not yet been condition? ceased, how could it What, having precipitating "immediately
regulated, the Therefore, an be a condition? ceased, can also be conditions? If preceding
reliable facts are immediate a condition? something has condition"; for if
also very vague. condition is not ceased to exist, something has
proper. how can it be a already ceased,
condition or what cause is
cause of anything there for it?
else?
Since beings lacking In abstract Since the existence If things did not Because the If things have no Since existing
self-nature do not existences or in of existents devoid exist Without existence of substantial things which have
occur as existence erasing of self-nature is not essence, The essence-less things essences, then no self-existence
per se, this characteristics, evident, the phrase, "When this does not exist, it is they have no real are not real, It is
[statement] “when reality is not statement: "When exists so this will incorrect to existence; and, in not possible at all
that is, this comes recognized, and so, that exists, this be," Would not be say:“When this that case, the that: "This thing
1.10
to be” does not the simple fact that comes to be," will acceptable. exists, that arises.” statement, "This 'becomes' upon
obtain. this real world not be appropriate. is the cause or the existence of
exists never condition of that other one."
manifests itself that," is
meaningless.
The effect is not in A concrete result The effect does not In the several or There is no effect at An effect cannot The product does
the conditions never really exists in exist in the united conditions all in the conditions be found in a not reside in the
either separately or the accumulation of conditions that are The effect cannot individually or single cause or conditioning
together. How could separated things or separated or be found. How together. How can condition, nor can causes,
that which is not in in the reliable facts. combined. could something that which is not in an effect be individually or
1.11
the conditions be How is there even Therefore, how can not in the the conditions itself found in all collectively. So
from the the slightest that which is not conditions Come be born from causes and how can that
conditions? possibility for the found in the from the conditions? conditions which does not
concrete fact of a conditions come to conditions? together. How reside in the
result to exist 'be from ·the can something conditioning

among conditions? not found in cause result from
miscellaneous causes and conditioning
reliable facts? conditions arise causes?
from them?
Moreover, if the In such a situation, If that effect, being However, if a If, although the If an effect arises Then the "non-
effect, non-existent something real or non-existent [in the nonexistent effect effect is not there, from causes or real" would result
in those something concrete conditions] were to Arises from these it is born from those conditions in from those
[conditions], is set in goes forward proceed from the conditions, Why conditions, why is an which it does not conditioning-
motion from those following concrete conditions, why does it not arise effect not born pre-exist, then causes. Why then
conditions, why is it things or following does it not proceed From non- from what are not couldn't it arise would a product
not set in motion the reliable facts. from non- conditions? its conditions? from no causes or not proceed also
1.12 from no conditions? Even in that which conditions? conditions at all? from non-causes?
does not have any
relation with the
reliable facts, it is
impossible for a
result to begin any
kind of real action.
The effect is A result does not The effect is made If the effect's Effects [are of] the If an effect is On the one hand,
created by have any power to of conditions, but essence is the nature of created by its the product
conditions, but the destroy reliable the conditions are conditions, But the conditions. conditions, but [consists in its]
conditions are not facts, and it also themselves not self- conditions don't Conditions do not the conditions conditioning
created by does not have any made. How can that have their own have own nature. are not self- causes; on the
themselves. How power to destroy effect made of essence, How could How can those created, how other hand, the
can an effect unreliable facts. conditions [arise] an effect whose effects of what could the effect causes do not
created by When we deny the from what is not essence is the does not have own ever come to be? consist of
conditions be from idea that [what we self-made? conditions Come nature [be of] the themselves. How
1.13
what is not created call a] result really from something nature of can a product
by itself? exists, where is it that is essenceless? conditions? [resulting] from
possible for us to [conditioning
find the real world, causes] not
which is the fusion consisting of
of the reliable facts themselves be
and the unreliable consisting of
facts? those causes?
1.14 The effect is Therefore, a result An effect made Therefore, neither Therefore, [it does] Therefore, Therefore, that

created neither never injures the either of conditions with conditions as not have the nature effects cannot product does not
from conditions nor reliable facts, and it or of non-conditions their essence, Nor of conditions, nor is arise from causes consist in those
from no conditions. never has any power is, therefore, not with non-conditions there an effect with or conditions, nor causes; [yet] it is
How can an effect at all even to evident. Because of as their essence are the nature of non- can they arise agreed that a
be obtained from destroy an the absence of the there any effects. If conditions. Since from non-causes product does not
non-existent unreliable fact. If effect, where could there are no such there is no effect, or non- consist of non-
conditions and no we deny the idea conditions or non- effects, How could what could [be its] conditions. If causes. How [can
conditions? that results do not conditions be conditions or non- non-conditions or there are no there be] a
exist really, how is it evident? conditions be conditions? effects conditioning
possible for us to evident. whatsoever, how cause or non-
find the real world can there be any cause when a
where we find the causes or product is not
fusion between the conditions (or, for produced?
reliable facts and that matter, any
the unreliable facts non-causes or
to exist as it does in non-conditions)?
this world?

Chapter 2

Examination of Examination of the
Analysis of Coming Examination of Investigations of What’s An Analysis of
2 “Gone” and “Not Moved and the Not-
and Going Motion Coming and Going Happening ? "Going to"
Gone” Moved
What has already The memory of What has been What has been Then there is no What has already That-which-is-
gone is not what is having gone in the moved, in the first moved is not moving. going in what has happened is not already-gone-to
going as much as past does not instance, is not being What has not been gone; there is no now happening. (gatam) is not that
what has not yet actually go, as much moved. What has not moved is not moving. going also in what What has not yet which is "being
gone is not what is as the thought of been moved is also Apart from what has has not [yet] gone. happened is not gone to"
going. Separated going in the future not being moved. been moved and Motion is now happening. (gamyate) ; more
from what has never actually goes. Separated from what what has not been unknowable apart What is now so, "that which is
already gone and The memory of has been moved and moved, Movement from what has gone happening has not not yet gone to"
that which has not having gone in the has not been moved, cannot be conceived. and not [yet] gone. already happened, (agatam) is
yet gone, the past, the thought of present moving is nor has it not yet certainly not that
present process of going in the future, not known. happened. "being gone to."
2.1
going does not go. and even the fact of Doesn't this mean Also, the "present
going at the present that nothing can going to"
moment do not happen? (gamyamana)
actually go. without "that
which is already
gone to" and "that
which is not yet
gone to" is not
"being gone to"
(gamyate).
Where there is When the concrete Where there is Where there is Where there is What is happening [An opponent
moving there is physical motion of movement, there is change, there is moving, there there is in the process of objects] Where
going and it is in the hands and legs is motion. For which motion. Since there is going. happening now. there is activity
present process of going on, the motion reason movement is is change in the Furthermore, What has already (cesta) there is a
going. Moving is not of hands and legs in the present moving, And not in because moving is happened and "process of going
2.2 in what has already always exists in the moving, and not the moved or not- within motion -- and what has not yet to" (gatis), and
gone nor in what has concrete fact of either in the moved moved, Motion is in is neither gone nor happened are not that activity is in
not yet gone, but in “going on” [at the or in the not moved, that which is moving. not [yet] gone, in the process of the "present going
going. present moment]. for that reason therefore, there is happening now. to" (gamyamana) .
When the motion of motion is available in going within motion. Then "the process

hands and legs has the present moving. of going to" (gatis)
departed from [the is inherent in the
memory of] “having "present going to"
gone” or [the (gamyamana)
thought of] “not [since] the activity
having gone,” the is not in "that
motion of going is which is already
always the same as gone to" nor in
the fact of “going "that which is not
on” [just at the yet gone to."
present moment].
How would this When just within the How appropriate How would it be How can going be How is the [Nagarjuna
going of the present fact of “going” a real would be the acceptable For possible within happening of the answers] How will
process of going act of “going” is movement. of the motion to be in the motion? Because now-happening the "act of going"
take place? Indeed, actually done as a present moving? For, mover? When it is motion that is not possible? If there (gamanam) of
whenever there is no real act of “going,” the non-movement not moving, it is not going is impossible. is no happening at "present going to"
going, the present even though we may in the present acceptable To call it all, then the now- (gamyamana) be
process of going express such a moving is certainly a mover. happening cannot produced, Since
does not take place. situation with words, not appropriate. happen. both kinds of the
it is impossible for "act of going" [as
the fact to be applied to an
2.3 described with active process and
words. When one of to the activity of
the two—the fact of going through
going on, or real space] simply are
action itself—is not produced in
really going on, it is the "present going
impossible for us to to"?
describe the real fact
completely with
words.
His whose present The idea that the For him who asserts For whomever there For whomever there What is happening Having the "act of
process of going is a real act of going is the movement of the is motion in the is going within now might not going" (gamanam)
consequence of included in the fact present moving, it mover, There could motion, for him it happen, but it o£ "present going
2.4 going, has already of going is attached follows that there be non-motion will follow that there seems that what is to" (gamyamana)
gone without the to the one-sided idea could be present Evident in the mover. [could be] no going happening now is has necessarily
present process of relating with both moving without But having motion within motion, happening now, resulted in a lack
going. But, indeed, the real act of going motion. [However,] follows from being a because there is doesn't it? of "the present

the present process and the simple fact the present moving, mover. going within motion. going to" of the
of going is going. of going. [This is] indeed, means being Or, following the "process of going
because the real fact moved [i.e., the structure and to" (gatis). For the
of going begins to present moving, wording of v. 10: “To "present going to"
move when we have indeed, takes place]. claim that there is (gamyamana) is
forgotten the going within motion the "being gone
consciousness of implies that there to" (gamyate) .
going, and the real could be no going
fact of going begins within motion,
to be realized then. because it is asserted
there is going within
motion.”
Two goings are It is a twofold A twofold movement If motion is in the If there were going If what is [Recognizing] the
implied in the going problem that we is implied in the mover, There would within motion, it happening now is "act of going" of
of the process of usually attach the movement of the have to be a twofold would follow that happening now, "present going to"
going; that by which fact of going to the present moving: that motion: One in virtue going would be then, in the results in two
there is a present real act of going. by which there of which it is a twofold: that by happening of what [kinds of] "acts of
process of going and However, the fact of comes to be present mover, And one in which one becomes is happening now, going"
again, the going going is included in moving and, again, virtue of which it someone in motion there are two (gamanadvaya) :
2.5 therein. the real act of going, the movement itself. moves. [in a place] and [that happenings: (1) One by which
and the real act of by which one] goes that which is there is "present
going is included in in that [place]. happening now going to"
the fact of going. and (2) the (gamyamana), the
happening of that other which is the
which is "act of going"
happening now. (gamana) .
Where there are two It is attachment to If two movements If there were a If going were If there are two Two "goers"
goings implied, two divide the motion of are allowed, it would twofold motion, The twofold, the goer happenings, then (gantarau) would
goers result. A goer going into two parts, follow that there subject of that also would be there must be two fallaciously follow
separated from and it is also would be two motion would be twofold, because things that as a consequence
going does not attachment to divide movers. For, twofold. For without going is impossible happen (two of two "acts of
happen. the real act of going separated from a a subject of motion, without a goer. happeners), for going," Since
2.6 into two parts. mover, a movement There cannot be there cannot be a certainly the "act
Because when we do is not appropriate. motion. happening of going" is not
not look at the without a produced without
motion of going, the happener. a "goer."
real act of going may
not manifest itself
into this world

actually.
Going and a goer do When a person who If it is thought that a If without a mover It If there were no If we can't say that If there is no going
not occur as goes has not movement would not be correct goer, going would be anything is (gamana) without
separate thoughts. manifested [himself separated from a to say that there is impossible. If there happening unless a "goer"
Where going does or herself], it is mover is not motion, Then if there were no going, there is a (gantara) , How
not exist, where then impossible for the appropriate, then, were no motion, where could a goer happener will the "goer"
will there be a goer? real act of going to when no movement How could there be a be existent? (something that (ganta) come into
manifest itself in the exists, how could mover? happens), then if being when there
2.7 real world actually. there be a mover? nothing is is no "going"
When the abstract happening, how (gamana) ?
concept “to go” now could there be a
is not the real act of happener
going, where is it (something that
possible for it to happens)?
exist at all?
So long as a non- As the motion of As much as a mover Inasmuch as a real When a goer does Whatever happens The "goer" does
goer does not go, a going itself does not does not move, a mover does not not go, a non-goer must be either not go;
goer also does not go at all, the act of non-mover too does move, And a non- cannot go; what something that consequently a
go. Other than a not going also never not move. Other mover does not third one other than happens (a "non-goer"
goer and a non-goer, goes at all. A motion than a mover and a move, A part from a a goer and a non- happener) or certainly does not
who is the third that that is different from non-mover, what mover and a non- goer could go? [15] something that go. What third
goes? the motion of going third party moves? mover, What third does not happen [possibility] goes
2.8 is just the motion not thing could move? (a non-happener). other than the
to go, therefore a If neither a "goer" and "non-
third one [a type of happener nor a goer"?
motion that is non-happener
different both from happens, what
going and not going] else is there that
never goes at all. could happen?
How does it just How is it possible for Indeed, how When without When a goer* is If nothing It is said: "The
happen that the the abstract concept appropriate will be motion, It is impossible without happens, there 'goer' goes." How
“goer as much as “to go” to appear at the view that a unacceptable to call going, then how is it cannot be a is that possible,
goes”? When is there all? Without the real mover moves? For, a something a mover, possible to say: “a happener. 1 If When without the
2.9
a goer where there is act of going, the mover without How will it be goer goes”? there is no "act of going"
no going that takes motion of going can movement is acceptable To say happener, then we (gamana) no
place? never manifest itself certainly not that a mover moves? cannot say that a "goer" is
in the universe at all. appropriate. happener produced?

happens.
His whose position The idea that one of For him who For him from whose To claim that a goer Someone who Those who hold
implies “the goer the two, a person entertains the view: perspective a mover goes implies that thinks that a the view that the
goes” seeks going who goes or [the "A mover moves," moves, There would there could be a goer happener happens "goer" goes must
and a goer where the idea of] the motion and who looks for be the consequence who does not go, (that is, that [falsely] conclude
going is without a of going, really goes the movement of a that Without motion because it is asserted something that That there is a
goer. is completely mover, it follows that there could be a that a goer goes. [4] happens happens) "goer" without the
attached to a wrong there is a mover mover. Because a must also think "act of going"
belief. If we rely without movement. mover moves. that there can be since the "act of
completely upon the a happener even going" is obtained
2.10 real act of going, it is when nothing is (icchata) by a
impossible both for a happening. "goer."
person who goes and
the motion of going
to exist, and it is
impossible for us to
separate the real act
of going from a
person who goes or
the motion to go.
If a goer goes, that Even though the real If a mover were to If a mover were to If the goer goes, it If a happener were If the "goer" goes,
results in two goings, act of going clings to move, then it would move, There would would follow that to happen, then then two acts of
one called “goer” both a person who follow that there will be a twofold motion: going would be we would have going
and the other an goes and the motion be two movements; One in virtue of twofold: that which two happenings: [erroneously]
existing goer who of going as its two one in virtue of which he is a mover, reveals* the goer (1) the happening follow: [One is]
goes. component factors, which he is spoken of And one in virtue of and that which goes of the happener that by which the
the real act of going as a mover, and the which the mover once [he] has and (2) the "going one"
actually exists as it is. other in terms of moves. become a goer. happening of the (ganta) is
When the abstract which an existing happening. designated, and
2.11
concept of a person mover is said to [the second is] the
who goes and the move. real "goer" (ganta)
motion to go [as an who goes.
abstract
interpretation]
haven’t been born, a
concrete person
himself just goes.

To go does not begin The real act of going Movement is not Motion does not If a beginning of What is happening The "state of
in what has already is never realized in begun in the moved, begin in w hat has going does not exist now doesn't begin going to" (gatum)
gone, the goer does the memory of nor is it begun in the moved, Nor does it in what has gone, [if] with what has is not begun in
not begin in what having gone, and the not moved. Neither begin in what has a beginning of going already happened, "that which is
has not yet gone. To real act of going is is it initiated in the not moved, N or do does not exist also in nor does it begin already gone to"
go does not begin in never realized in the present moving. es it begin in w hat is what has not [yet] with what has not (gatam), nor in
the present process thought of not Wherein is then moving. In what, gone [and if] there yet happened, nor "that which is not
of going. Where having yet gone. movement initiated? then, does motion does not exist a does it begin with yet gone to"
2.12 does it begin? Since the real act of begin ? beginning within what is happening (agatam) ; Nor is
going is never motion, wherein is a now (that is, with the "state of going
realized in the beginning of going itself). 3 Where, to" begun in
memory of going, it made? then, is the "present going to"
is impossible for us beginning of what (gamyamana) .
to decide exactly is happening now? Where then is it
when the real act of begun?
going begins.
Prior to the Before the time Prior to the Prior to the Before a beginning We cannot find "Present going to"
beginning of going, when a real act of commencement of beginning of motion, of going, there is not the beginning of does not exist
there is neither a going has begun, movement, there is There is no any motion or what is happening previous to the
present process of that is, when there is neither the present beginning of motion anything which has now in that which beginning of the
going nor what has nothing yet, the moving or the moved in The going or in the gone wherein going is prior to the "act of going," nor
already gone. Where recognition of going from which gone. How could could begin. How beginning of what does "that which
is there a beginning at the present movement is there be motion in can going exist in is happening now is already gone to"
of going in what has moment does not initiated. How could the not-gone? what has not [yet] (that is, in that exist where the
not yet gone? Where exist, and the there be a gone? which has already "act of going"
is the going? memory of having movement in the not come and gone), should begin. How
2.13
gone in the past also moved? nor can we find it can the "act of
does not exist. In in that which has going" [begin] in
such a situation, the not yet happened. "that which is not
real act of going can Where, then, is it? yet gone to"?
begin, but the real
act of going never
exists in the thought
of having not yet
gone.
Who has already [The memory of] When the Since the beginning If a beginning of We can distinguish It is mentally
2.14 gone, the present having gone, [the commencement of of motion Cannot be going is simply not between (1) what fabricated what is
process of going, consciousness of] movement is not conceived in any way, apparent in any way, has already "that which is

who is not yet gone going, and [the being perceived in What gone thing, examine: what has happened, (2) already gone to"
is presumed. The thought of] having any way, what is jt what going thing, gone? what is what is happening (gatam), "present
beginning of going is not gone are all that is discriminated And what non-going motion? what has now, and (3) what going to"
not in any way seen. individual concrete as the moved, the thing can be posited? not [yet] gone? has not yet (gamyamana) and
cases, so it is present moving, or happened; but we "that which is not
impossible for any the not moved? cannot find the yet gone to"
one case to replace beginning of what (agatam) ;
another case. When is happening now Therefore, the
such situations [of anywhere. beginning of the
memory, "act of going" is
recognition, or not seen in any
thought] have way.
‘begun to cease,
then it is possible for
everything to exist in
the real act of going.
The goer does not The motion of going As much as a mover When we have When a goer does We can distinguish A "goer" does not
stay as much as the is not fixed and the is not stationary, so become completely not stay, a non-goer between (1) things remain unmoved
non-goer does not motion of not going is a non-mover not free from the cannot stay; what that happen (na tistati) ; then
stay. Other than the is also not fixed. stationary. Other recognition of going, third one other than (happeners) and certainly the "non-
goer and the non- Apart from the than a mover and a the memory of a goer and a non- (2) things that do goer" does not
goer, who is the third motion of going and non-mover, what having gone, or the goer could stay? not happen (non- remain unmoved.
that stays? the motion of not third party is thought of not happeners).] "What third
going, a third [type stationary? having gone, it is Happeners are not [possibility] other
of motion] that is absolutely standing still, but than "goer" and
completely different impossible for any non-happeners "non-goer" can
from these two is kind of fixed are not standing thus remain
2.15 also not fixed at all. situation to exist. In still either. 4 unmoved?
any case, the fact of Other than
going manifests happeners and
itself just at the non-happeners,
present moment what else is there
instantly, and it also that could be
hides itself instantly standing still?
at the present
moment. Relying
upon this fact, the
real act of going is
really produced.

How can [the How is it possible for How appropriate If without motion It When a goer is not
The idea of a non- It is said that a
statement] “a goer the abstract concept would it be [to say]: is not appropriate to possible without
moving happener "goer" continues
who stays” obtain? A “to go” to be fixed "A mover, at the posit a mover, How going, how then is it
(that is, of to be [a "goer"].
goer without going even slightly? When moment, is could it be possible [to say]: “a
something But how can that
just never happens. there is no real act of stationary"? For, a appropriate to say goer stays.”
happening that be possible, Since
going, it is mover without that a moving thing doesn't happen) is a "goer" (ganta)
2.16
completely movement is not is stationary? nonsensical. lacking the "act of
impossible for the appropriate. Something going" (gamanam)
motion of going to happening is simply not
manifest itself in this without produced?
world at all. happening never
happens.
He does not stay When we have One does not come One does not hall There is no reversal Something that [The "goer"] does
because [the goer] is become completely to be stationary from moving, Nor of motion*, nor also happens does not not continue to be
either presently free from the because one is either from having moved of what has gone stop happening (1) [a goer] as a result
going, has already recognition of going, moving, or has or not having moved. [and] what has not because it is of "present going
gone, or has not yet the memory of moved, or has not Motion and coming [yet] gone. [Reversal happening, or (2) to" or "that which
gone. Going is the having gone, or the moved. Movement, to rest And starting of] going, because it has is already gone to"
same as origination, thought of not commencement and to move are similar. engagement [to already happened, or "that which is
and already having having gone, it is cessation (of stay] and reversal or (3) because it not yet gone to,"
gone is the same as absolutely movement) are all [of staying] are has not yet For then the act of
cessation. impossible for any comparable to similar to going. happened. going (gamana)
kind of fixed motion: Happening is the [would be]
situation to exist. In same as beginning origination while
2.17
any case, the fact of to happen, and the "process of
going manifests having already going to" (gati)
itself just at the happened is the would be the
present moment same as ceasing to same as cessation.
instantly, and it also happen.
hides itself instantly
at the present
moment. Relying
upon this fact, the
real act of going is
really produced.
The statement “the It is not so attached The view that that motion just is It is inappropriate to It doesn't make Thus it does not
2.18 goer is the same as an idea [to believe] movement is the mover itself Is say: “going and a sense to say that obtain that the
going” is not that the motion of identical with the not correct. Nor is it goer are the same.” "the happener is "goer" is simply

reasonable. The going realizes the mover is not proper. correct that They are It is inappropriate to the same as the "what is going"
statement “the goer real act of going. In The view that the completely different. say: “going and a happening" or (gamana) .
is different from other words, this mover is different goer are different.” that "the Likewise it does
going” is not means that the from motion is also happener is not obtain that:
reasonable. motion of going is not proper. different from the "Then the 'goer' is
included in the happening." something other
behavior of going, than what is in the
and this idea is also 'process of going'
not an attached idea (gatis) ."
at all.
If the goer would be Like this, the motion If movement were to It would follow from If whatever is going If the happener And if the "act of
the same as going, of going actually be identical with the The identity of were a goer, it would were the same as going" and the
then it would follow produces the real act mover, it would mover and motion follow that the actor the happening, "goer" are
that the doer and of going, and such a follow that· there is that agent and and the act would be then actor and identical, The
the deed become fact can occur as a identity of agent and action Are identical. the same too. action, deed and fallacy logically
one [are identi real fact. Therefore, action. doer, would be follows that the
the motion of going identical. "person acting"
2.19 and the real act of (kartus) and the
going are fused into action (karma) are
one, and the action identical.
of realizing
something and
practice itself have
been fused into one.
If it is assumed the Another [way of] If the discrimination It would follow from If going and a goer If the happener Alternatively, if
goer differs from understanding [it] is is made that the A real distinction were conceived as were different the "goer" is
what has gone, then if we imagine that mover is different between motion and different, there from the different from the
there would be the fact of going and from motion, then mover that there could be going happening, then it "process of going"
going without a goer the motion of going there would be could be a mover without a goer and a would follow that (gati), The "act of
and there would be a change places with movement without a without motion And goer without going. there could be going" (gamana)
goer without going. each other. The real mover, and mover motion without a happeners would exist
2.20
act of going might without movement. mover. without without the "goer"
move without happenings and and the "goer"
recognizing the fact happenings would exist
of going, and the act without without the "act
of going might move happeners. of going."
without recognizing
the real act of going.

Of what is either A concrete real Whose When neither in If things are not If happener and Neither the
identity or entity exists establishment is not identity Nor in established as the happening are identity nor the
difference sometimes as only evident either difference Can they same and as neither identical essential
established? Now one totality, and through identity or be established, How different, how can nor different, then difference is
that their sometimes its through difference, can these two be they be established? how should we established
establishment is not expansion exists in how is their established at all? understand them? (siddhi) regarding
evident, how then the form of establishment the two
does it occur? miscellaneous evident at all? [conceptions
individual things. If it "goer" and "act of
is impossible for us going"]. If these
to recognize that the two [alternatives]
2.21 real entity is not are not
recognized as the established, in
expansion of itself what way is [this
and that it exists as problem] to be
all things and understood?
phenomena, which
are scattered as they
are, we may be
doubtful whether
they really exist or
not.
Whatever goer is Relying upon the Whatever motion in The motion by That very going by When something The "goer" is
said to have gone, he motion of going terms of which a means of which a which a goer is made that happens defined by that
does not go by that itself, the motion of mover is spoken of, mover is manifest evident does not happens, it isn't which is in the
going because he going promotes the he does not move by Cannot be the [enable a goer to] go. caused to happen "process of going
does not exist prior motion of going, and that motion. Because motion by means of Because there is no by its happening to"; he does not
to going. So is there it is not a fact that he does not exist which he moves. He [goer] before going, since it has no go to that
anyone who goes? going itself makes prior to motion, who does not exist who would be going existence before it [destination]
going go ahead. or what is it that before that motion, where? happens. So is which is
2.22
Therefore before the moves? So what and where is there, in fact, determined by the
motion of going the thing that anything that "process of going
itself really exists, moves? happens? to" Because there
there is no fact that is no prior
something like a "process of going
receptacle [for to" (gati). Indeed
example, a concept] someone goes
really goes on. somewhere.

Whatever goer is Relying upon the Whatever motion in A mover does not [A going] which is Something that The "goer" does
said to have gone, he motion of going, first terms of which a carry out a different other than the going happens doesn't not go to that
does not go by this the concrete motion mover is spoken of, motion From that by by which a goer is show itself in a [destination]
[being a goer] or that of going exists, and he does not carry out means of which he is made evident does happening other other than that
[having gone]. Two following that the a motion that is manifest as a mover. not [enable a goer than the "process of going
goings do not occur motion of going is completely different Moreover, in one to] go. Because it is happening by to" by which he is
because there is only promoted, so there from it. A twofold mover A twofold impossible for going which it shows defined as "goer,"
one setting out. is no possibility that motion is not motion is to be twofold within itself. Something Because when one
the expansion of appropriate, since it unacceptable. a single goer. that happens goes [somewhere]
other [factors] goes is only one person cannot show itself two "processes of
ahead actually. There that moves. in two distinct going to" cannot
is no possibility for happenings. be produced.
2.23 the motion of going
to be divided into
two parts [the fact of
going and a person
who goes] and for
both [of these] to
manifest themselves
as two factors.
Therefore there is
only one fact of
going, which goes
ahead as one.
A true goer going It is not a real fact An existent mover A really existent One who is a goer An existent A real "goer" does
does not go in three that three entities— does not carry out mover Doesn't move does not go in the happener's not motivate
ways. Neither does the real world, the the movement in any in any of the three three aspects of happening does three kinds of
one who does not real act of going, and of the three ways. ways. A non-existent going. Also one who not happen in any "acts of going":
exist as going go in a person who goes— Neither does a non- mover Doesn't move is not [a goer] does of "the three [real, non-real, and
three ways. go ahead. It is existent mover carry in any of the three not go in the three ways" (that is, real-and-non-
completely out the movement in ways. aspects of going. neither in the real] ; Nor does a
2.24
impossible for an any of the three past, nor in the non-real ["goer"]
unreal world and a ways. future, nor [even] motivate three
real act of going to in the present). A kinds of motion.
be identified as one, non-existent
so it is also happener's
completely happening also
impossible for the does not happen

three kinds of in any of "the
entities [the real three ways."
world, a real act of
going, and a person
who goes] to go
ahead together at
all.
An existent or non- The three types of Nor does a person Neither an entity One who is and is not Therefore, neither Also, a real-non-
existent going does real facts—a real act carry out a nor a non-entity [a goer] also does an existent nor a real ["goer"] does
not go in three ways. of going, the real movement, both Moves in any of the not go in the three non-existent not motivate
Therefore, the going, world, and an unreal existent and non- three ways. So aspects of going. happener's three kinds of
the goer, and the world—all belong to existent, in any of motion, mover and Therefore, going and happening motion.
gone do not occur. reality, so it is the three ways. And route are non- a goer and also that happens in any of Therefore, the
completely Therefore, neither existent. which is gone over "the three ways." "process of going"
impossible for these motion, nor the do not exist. The happening, (gati), the "goer"
three factors to go mover, nor the space the happener, and (ganta) and "a
ahead newly at all. to be moved is the happened are destination to be
2.25 Therefore it is evident. all non-existent. gone to"
completely (gantavyam) do
impossible for the not exist.
motion of going, the
fact to go, and the
state of
accomplishment of
going to be
recognized
intellectually at all.

Chapter 3
Analysis of the Eye, Examination of the Examination of the Examination of the Investigations of the An Analysis of
3 etc., the Faculties Eye and other Sense Faculty of Eye Senses Sense Organs "Vision" and Other
Organs (Seeing) Sense-Faculties
Seeing, hearing, The sense of sight, Seeing, hearing, Seeing, hearing, Seeing and hearing Vision, hearing,
smelling, tasting, the sense of sound, smelling, tasting, smelling, Tasting, and smelling and smelling, tasting,
touching, and the sense of smell, touching, and mind touching, and mind tasting and touching, touching and
thinking are the six the sense of taste, are the six faculties. Are the six sense mind are the six thought Are the
faculties and the the sense of touch, Their spheres consist faculties. Their sense organs; their six sense faculties.
sphere, their objects and the sense center. of the object of spheres are the experienced objects The area of their
3.1
of seeing, etc. These six senses are seeing, etc. visible objects, etc . are what-is-seen and concern is that
familiar to us, and … so forth. which is seen
what is seen, and so [heard, smelled]
forth, are the objects and so forth.
of these sense
functions.
Indeed, seeing does The function of Seeing does not That very seeing Seeing does not see [Nagarjuna
not see itself. How seeing produces perceive itself, its does not see itself at itself. How can what maintains]
can that which does one’s own mind, and own form. How can all. How can does not see itself Certainly vision
not see itself see so the function of that which does not something that see anything else? does not in any
others? seeing never looks at perceive itself, see cannot see itself See way see its own
one’s own mind. As others? another? self. Now if it does
3.2 the function of not see its own
seeing never looks at self, how can it
one’s own mind, the possibly see
function of seeing something else?
itself does not look
at any other things
at all.
The example of fire Images that we The example of fire The example of fire The example of fire An understanding
{which burns but grasp directly by is not adequate for Cannot elucidate is not able to fully of vision is not
does not burn itself] seeing, like fire, are the establishment of seeing. Along with establish seeing. It, attained through
3.3 is not sufficient for not the perfect seeing. That [fire] the moved and not- along with seeing, the example of
the explanation of experience of reality together with seeing moved and motion has been refuted by fire [which, itself,
seeing. That, and in the function of are refuted by [a That has been “gone”, “not gone” burns]. On the
seeing, is refuted by seeing. Expressions refutation of] the answered. and “going.” contrary, that

the already gone, the of that which is seen present moving, the [example of fire]
present process of are just explanations; moved and the not together with
going and the not the difference moved. vision is refuted
yet gone. [between verbal by [the analysis of]
expressions and real "present going
facts] is like the to," "that which is
difference between already gone to,"
the concepts “being and "that which is
gone,” “gone,” and not yet gone to."
“not gone” and the
real facts at the
present moment
[described in ].
If there is seeing If there is no When some form of When there is not When not seeing the When no vision
which is not consideration, which seeing that is not even the slightest slightest thing, there occurs, nothing
presently in the is different from the perceiving does not Non-seeing seer, is no act of seeing. whatsoever is
process of seeing, ability to see things exist, how pertinent How could it makes How can it [then] be being seen. How,
then how can this and phenomena, it is is the view that sense to say That reasonable to say: then, is it possible
statement “seeing completely seeing perceives? seeing sees? “seeing sees”? to say: Vision
sees” obtain? impossible for the sees?
ability of seeing
things and
3.4
phenomena to exist
at all. When we
consider whether the
ability of seeing
things can be seen by
others, it is
completely
impossible for such a
thing to occur at all.
Seeing does not see It is completely Seeing does not Seeing itself does Seeing does not see; Therefore, vision
nor does non-seeing impossible for the perceive, nor does not see. Non-seeing non-seeing does not does not see, and
see. And moreover, ability of seeing to non-seeing perceive. itself does not see. see. It should be "no-vision" does
the seer has been be seen by One should admit Through seeing itself understood that not see.
3.5 explained above by something, and it is that a seer is The clear analysis of seeing explains the Nevertheless, it is
and as the seeing. also completely explained by [the the seer is seer too. explained that
impossible for the analysis of] seeing understood. also the "seer" is
state of not seeing itself. to be known only
to be seen at all. by his vision.

Relying upon seeing
things and
phenomena, it is
possible for us to
explain the things
and phenomena in
detail, but the
function of seeing
things and
phenomena is just
facing those things
and phenomena, and
it is difficult for [that
function] itself to
grasp the reality of
things and
phenomena.
The seer does not The ability of seeing A seer does not exist Without detachment Without letting go of There is no "seer"
exist separated or should never be held either separated or from vision there is [seeing] a seer does with vision or
not separated from in low esteem, not separated from no seer. Nor is there not exist; in letting without vision;
seeing. If the seer because the seeing. When a seer a seer detached from go of seeing, there is Therefore, if there
does not exist, estimation of does not exist, it. If there is no seer also [no seer]. If is no "seer," how
where is the seeing something as [being] whence can there be How can the re be there is no seer, can there be vision
and the seen? low is also a kind of seeing and the seeing or the seen? where can there be and the object
interpretation. The object of seeing? what-is-seen and seen?
fact that things and seeing?
3.6
phenomena are seen
concretely and the
function of seeing
things are just one
reality, and so there
is nothing other than
that, the real fact of
seeing is just what is
real.
As the birth of a son Missing Just as the birth of a Just as the birth of a Just as it is said that As the birth of a
is said to be son is said to be son is said to occur In a child emerges in son is said to occur
3.7 dependent upon a dependent upon the dependence on the dependence on a presupposing the
mother and father, mother and the mother and father, father and a mother, mother and
so the arising of father, even so, the So consciousness is likewise it is said that father, Knowledge

consciousness is arising of [visual] said to arise In consciousness is said to occur
dependent upon eye consciousness is said dependence on the emerges in presupposing the
and form [material to be dependent eye and material dependence upon an eye being
objects seen]. upon eye and form. eye and a visual dependent on the
material form. form. visible forms.
From the non-- Departing from the If it is the view that From the Because there is no Since the "object
existence of seeing wrong idea that the· four factors, nonexistence of what-is-seen and no seen" and the
and the object seen, there is no oneness beginning with seeing and the seen seeing, the four such vision do not exist,
consciousness and between seeing and consciousness, do it follows that The as consciousness do there is no four-
the other four [form, that which is seen, not exist, because of other four facuIties not exist. How can fold
sensation, the four kinds of the absence of of knowledge do not clinging etc. exist? [consequence] :
perception, and entities seeing and the exist. And all the knowledge, etc.
disposition] do not [understanding, object of seeing, aggregates, etc„ Are [cognitive
exist. perception, action, how then can there the same way. sensation,
and reality] can be grasping? affective
3.8
really exist. If we sensation, and
think that the things "desire"]. Also,
and phenomena of then, how will the
this world do not acquisition
exist at all, how is it (upadana) [of
possible to believe karma] and its
that anything really consequences [i.e.,
exists even in the existence, birth,
future? aging, and death]
be produced?
What has been In explaining What has been Like the seen, the It should be [Likewise] hearing,
explained for seeing hearing, smelling, explained as hearing, heard, the smelled, understood that smelling, tasting,
{applies equally to] tasting, touching, smelling, tasting, The tasted, and the seeing explains touching and
hearing, smelling, and the sense center, touching, and mind, touched, . The hearing and smelling thought are
tasting, touching, we can use the same as well as the hearer, hearer, sound, etc., and tasting and explained as
and thinking as well explanation as that the sound, etc. And consciousness touching, mind, vision. Indeed one
as the origin of the used to explain should be known in should be hearer, what is should not
3.9
hearer and the seeing. A person who the same way as understood. heard, etc. apprehend the
sound, etc. hears and so forth, seeing. "hearer," "what is
and the object that is heard," etc. [as
heard and so forth, selfexistent
can also be explained entities].
using the example of
seeing.
Chapter 4

An Analysis of the
"Groups of
Analysis of the Examination of the Examination of Examination of the Investigations of the
4 Universal
Personality Skeins Aggregates Aggregates Aggregates Aggregates (Body)
Elements"
(skandhas)
Material form When form and Material form, Apart from the cause Apart from the cause Visible form (rupa)
separated from the content are distinct from the of form, Form cannot of form, form is not is not perceived
cause of material separate, even form cause of material be conceived. Apart perceived. Apart without the basic
form is not obtained, itself cannot form, is not from form, The cause from “form”, the cause of visible
And the cause of manifest. It is not obtained. Similarly, a of form is not seen. cause of form also form
material form that content cause of material does not appear. (rupakarana) ;
4.1
separated from manifests itself form, distinct from Likewise the basic
material form is not because of form; material form, is also cause of visible
seen. instead, form and not seen . form does not
content are always a appear without
fusion. the visible form.
If material form When form and When material form If apart from the If there were form If the visible form
separated from the content exist is [considered to be] cause of form, there apart from the cause existed apart from
cause of material separately, form can distinct from the were form, Form of form, it would its basic cause, it
form occurs, then be seen only as form. cause of material would be without follow that form is would logically
there is material [In the real world] form, it follows that cause. But nowhere without cause; there follow that visible
form without a nothing material form is is there an effect is no object at all form is without
cause. But there is unreasonable ever without a cause. Without a ~use. that is without cause; But there is
4.2
not any effect exists at all, but if Nowhere is there any cause. nothing anywhere
without a cause there is even a bit of effect (arthah) [arising] without
anywhere. an aim, it becomes without a cause. cause.
possible for the
unreasonable to
exist.
But if, in material In relying upon the If there were to be a If a part from form If a cause of form On the other
form, there would be thought of form and cause of material There were a cause existed apart from hand, if there
4.3 material form and content, although form distinct from of form, It would be form, it would exist would be a basic
the cause of material they are seen as material form, there a cause without an as a cause without cause apart from
form separated in separate, form and would then be a effect. But there are fruit; causes without visible form, The

two parts, then there content may be only cause without an no causes without fruit do not exist. basic cause would
would be a cause the two fused into effect. There effects. be without any
without an effect. one. When certainly is no product; but there
There is no cause something is ineffective cause. is no basic cause
without an effect. illogical, it can never without a product.
exist in this world,
and both that
illogical something
and content might
be different from
what really exists in
this world.
Where material form Content can never When a material When form exists, A If form existed, a Just as when
is, the cause of manifest itself in a form exists, a cause cause of the arising cause of form would there is visible
material form does situation that is of material form is of form is not be untenable; if form form no basic
not occur. Where easily seen or that is not appropriate. tenable. When form did not exist, a cause cause of form
material from is not, included by form. When a material is non-existent, A of form would be obtains. So when
the cause of material And content can form does not exist, cause of the arising untenable. there is no visible
4.4
form does not occur. never manifest itself a cause of material of form is not form no basic
in a situation that is form is also not tenable. cause of form
not easily seen or is appropriate. obtains.
not included by
form.
Again, material form That which does not Furthermore, a Form itself without a Forms which do not Furthermore, it
without a cause does have any cause or material form cause Is not possible have a cause are not does not obtain
not occur. Therefore, form can never, without a cause is or tenable. at all tenable. that no visible
one should not never manifest in absolutely Therefore, think Therefore, do not form exists
conjecture about any this world. Therefore inappropriate. about form, but Do conceive the concept without a basic
false discrimination the form [of Therefore, one not construct of form at all. cause. One should
4.5 about material something without should not theories about form. not construe any
forms. cause] can never discriminatively think constructs
manifest itself, and of anything confined concerning the
real change does not to material form. form.
occur in the real
world.
The statement “the A comfortable state The view that. the The assertion that It is untenable to say, Just as it does not
4.6 effect is similar to does not exist in effect is identical the effect and cause “the fruit is like the obtain that the

the cause” does not action that is actually with the cause is not are similar Is not cause.” It is also product is the
obtain. The occurring at the appropriate. The acceptable. The untenable to say, same as the cause,
statement “the present moment, but view that the effect assertion that they “the fruit is unlike So it does not
effect is not similar work that is is not identical with are not similar Is also the cause.” obtain that
to the cause” does accomplished the cause is also not not acceptable. product is not the
not obtain. already manifests appropriate. same as the cause.
itself in the real
world as a concrete
fact. An
uncomfortable state
does not exist in
action that is actually
occurring at the
present moment, but
work that is
accomplished
already manifests
itself in the real
world as a concrete
fact.
Feelings, thoughts, The intention to The method of Feelings, Feeling and Also, sensation,
perceptions, and acquire knowledge treatment of all discriminations, and perception, impulses thought, mental
dispositions in always exists in the existents such as dispositions And and mind and all conception,
general, as well as inclusive totality and feeling, thought, consciousness and all things are conditioned
the totality of beings in clear perception and such things Should comparable in every elements
follow the same rule understanding. All dispositions is in be thought of In the aspect, at every (samskara) and All
4.7 as material form. acquisition of every way similar to same way as material stage with form. "things" (bhava)
knowledge is done in that. of material form. are to be dealt
diverse existences, form. with in the same
and relying upon way as visible
visible facts, form.
progress occurs.
Whoever argues When one exists When an analysis is When an analysis is When having argued Whoever argues
against openness for independently, one made in terms of made through by means of against
the sake of refuting can keep one’s emptiness, emptiness, If emptiness, "emptiness" in
4.8 an argument, all his attentive attitude whosoever were to someone were to everything of that order to refute an
refutations do not and can speak from address a refutation, offer a reply, that one who objects is argument. For him
refute for he is the balanced state. all that is left reply will fail, since it not an objection; it is everything,

conquered by the In actual situations, unrefuted by him will will presuppose similar to what is to including the
same proof. although nothing is be equal to what is Exactly what is to be be established . point of
shunned, all things yet to be proved. proven. contention
and phenomena can (sadhya) is known
manifest themselves to be unrefuted.
in the state of
regulation.
Whoever explains by Even when one must When an explanation When an explanation When having "Whoever argues
means of openness address another's in terms of is made through explained by means by mean* of
for the sake of faults, if one explains emptiness is given, emptiness, Whoever of emptiness, "emptiness" in
ascertaining, all his it in the balanced whosoever were to would find fault with everything of that order to explain
ascertainments do state one can address a censure, all it Will find no fault, one who finds fault an understanding,
not ascertain for he express one’s that is left since the criticism is not a fault; it is For him,
is conquered by the opinion well. If the uncensored by him will presuppose similar to what is to everything
4.9 same demonstration. person who will be equal to what Exactly what is to be be established. including the
addresses another's is yet to be proved. proven. point to be proved
faults does not have (sadhya) is known
any fault at all, all to be
things and misunderstood.
phenomena manifest
themselves in the
regulated condition

Chapter 5

An Analysis of the
Analysis of the Examination of Examination of the Examination of Investigations of the
5 "Irreducible
Elements Physical substances Elements Elements Elements (Spaces)
Elements" (dhatus)
Space does not Before space and its No space is evident Prior to a Not the slightest bit Space does not exist
occur prior to some characteristics have prior to the spatial characteristic of of space exists prior at all before the
characteristic of been identified, characteristics. If it space There is not to the characteristics defining
space. If it would what is called space exists prior to the the slightest space. of space. If [space] characteristic of
can never become
exist prior to having characteristics, then If it arose prior to existed prior to its space (akasalaksana)
a characteristic, itthe object of real it would follow that the characteristic characteristics, it . If it would exist
follows that there experience at all. it is without Then it would, would follow that it before the defining
would be space The fact that characteristics. absurdly, arise would be without characteristic, then
5.1 without a something without without a characteristics. one must falsely
characteristic. characteristics characteristic. conclude that there
appears may suggest would be something
that there is without a defining
something real characteristic.
before [we identify
it and when] it has
not departed from
its original condition.
Not any existent How is it possible for An existent that is A thing without a A thing without In no case has
without a that which does not without characteristic Has characteristics does anything existed
characteristic is have characteristics characteristics is never existed. If not exist anywhere without a defining
found anywhere. to exist anywhere? nowhere evident. nothing lacks a at all. If a thing characteristic. If an
Where a being When what occurs in When an existent characteristic, without entity without a
without a front of us does not without Where do characteristics does defining
5.2 characteristic does have any characteristics does characteristics come not exist, to what do characteristic does
not exist, where characteristics and not exist, where can to be? characteristics not exist, to what
does that does not exist, that characteristics extend? does the defining
characteristic which is called a appear? characteristic apply?
appear? characteristic can
never be anywhere
at all.
A characteristic The manifestation of The occurrence of a Neither in the Characteristics do There is no
5.3 appears not in what characteristics does characteristic does uncharacterized nor not extend to that functioning of a

has a characteristicnot exist in non- not take place either in the characterized which has no defining
nor in what does notcharacteristics, and in something Does a characteristic characteristics; nor characteristic in a
have a characteristic.
at the same time the without arise. Nor does it to what possesses case where there is
Nor is it set in manifestation of characteristic or in arise In something characteristics. They [already] a defining
motion from any characteristics does something with different from these also cannot extend characteristic or
(existent) other than
not occur in that characteristic. Nor two. to something other where there is not a
what neither has norwhich is not a does it proceed from than what either defining
does not have a characteristic. The something other possesses or does characteristic. And it
characteristic. manifestation of than those with or not have can function in
characteristics does without characteristics. nothing except
not occur in a place characteristic. where there is a
other than in the defining
oneness between characteristic or
concrete where there is not a
characteristics and defining
that which is not a characteristic.
characteristic.
If neither When a When the If characteristics do If characteristics do When there is no
characteristic is characteristic has characteristic does not appear, Then it is not extend [to related function
present, the not yet appeared, not occur, the not tenable to posit something] , (sampravrtti) , it is
characterized does that characteristic is characterized is not the characterized something not possible to have
not occur. If there is never recognized at appropriate. In the object. If the characterized would "that to which a
no occurrence of the all. When the image absence of the characterized object be impossible. If defining
characterized, there of a characteristic is characterized, there is not posited, There something characteristic
5.4 is no occurrence of not yet recognized, is no occurrence of will be no characterized is applies." And if "that
the characteristic. the characteristic the characteristic. characteristic either. impossible, to which a defining
itself never exists in characteristics too characteristic
this world at all. would not exist. applies" is not
possible, then a
defining
characteristic cannot
come into existence.
Therefore the Therefore, when the Therefore, the From this it follows Therefore, Therefore, "that to
characterized does recognition of a characterized is not that there is no something which a defining
not occur nor does characteristic has evident. Neither is characterized And characterized does characteristic
the characteristic not appeared in our the characteristic no existing not exist and applies" does not
5.5 occur, Separate from consciousness, there evident. Distinct characteristic. Nor is characteristics do exist; and certainly a
the characteristic is no chance that the from the there any entity not exist. There also defining
and the existence of the characterized and Other than the does not exist a characteristic itself
characterized, no characteristic is the characteristic, a characterized and thing which is apart does not exist. Now,

existent occurs, recognized at all. n existent is the characteristic. from being something does not
When the certainly not something exist without "that
recognition of a evident. characterized or a to which a defining
characteristic and characteristic. characteristic
recognition itself are applies" and the
separated from each defining
other clearly, the characteristic.
existence of
characteristics is
never realized at all.
How will there be a When ignorance Who could f there is no existent If there is not a If the existing thing
being where a being really exists, how comprehend the thing, Of what will thing, of what can (bhava) does not
is not occurring ? will it be possible for distinct things: there be there be a non- exist, how then
And who favors the it not to exist at all? existent and non- nonexistence? Apart thing? By whom are would the non-
statement “existents The discussion of existent as well as from existent and the opposites thing existing thing
and non-existents whether existence is existence and non- nonexistent things and non-thing (abhava) come into
are beings and non- or is not real existence? Who knows known [as] a thing existence? And who
5.6 beings devoid of opposes the existence and and a non-thing? holds: the existing-
attributes’? Dharma, and how is nonexistence? and-non-existing
it possible for the thing which does not
discussion of have the properties
whether existence is of an existing-and-
or is not real to be non-existing thing?
useful even in the
future?
Therefore space is Therefore, not Therefore; there is Therefore, space is Therefore, space is Therefore space is
neither an existent existence, not neither an existent not an entity. It is not a thing; it is not neither an existing
nor a non-existent, nonexistence, not nor a non-existent, not a nonentity. Not a non-thing; it is not thing nor a non-
neither the the image of a neither the characterized, not something existing thing,
characterized nor a characteristic, and characterized nor without character. characterized; it is neither something
characteristic. The not the the characteristic, The same is true of not a characteristic. to which a defining
other five elements characteristic itself, neither space nor the other live The other five characteristic
5.7 are the same as But open space and the other five elements. elements too are applies nor a
space. the other material elements similar to similar to space. defining
elements are the space. characteristic. Also,
five kinds of matter, the other five
which are separated irreducible elements
and independent can be considered in
from each other. the same way as
space.

But those of inferior Reality can be seen Those who are of Fools and Those of small minds But those
insight who see only as the things and little intelligence, reificationists who see things as unenlightened
the existence and phenomena before who perceive the perceive The existent and non- people who either
non-existence of us, and denial of this existence as well as existence and existent. They do affirm reality or non-
beings do not see world is only the the non-existence of nonexistence Of not behold the utter reality Do not
the emancipating habit of stupid existents, do not objects Do not see pacification of what perceive the blessed
5.8 cessation of people. Those perceive the the pacification of is seen. cessation-of-
appearances. people do not wish appeasement of the objectification. appearance of
to look at object, the existing things.
miscellaneous things auspicious.
and phenomena as
something quiet and
benevolent.

Chapter 6

An Analysis of
Desire (rdga) and
Examination of the Investigation of
Examination of One Who Desires
Analysis of Passion Fusion of the Examination of Lust Desire and the
6 Desire and the (rakta) [in the
and the Impassioned Excitement and the and the Lustful Desirous one
Desirous Context of Their
Excited (Addictions)
Separateness and
Concomitance]
If an impassioned Before departing If a lustful one, If prior to desire And If a desirous one If the "one who
one would exist prior from the abstract separated from lust, without desire there without desire exists desires" would
to passion and concept of were to exist prior to were a desirous one, before desire, desire exist before desire
separate from excitement, the lust, then depending Desire would depend would exist itself, then desire
passion, then passion concrete state of upon him there will on him. Desire would dependent on that may be
would depend on excitement exists be lust. Lust exists exist when there is a [desirous one]. disregarded.
him and passion neglecting the when there is a desirous one. [When] a desirous When desire
would exist only abstract concept of lustful one. one exists, desire becomes related
6.1 where there is an excitement. It is exists. to "one who
impassioned one. possible for the desires," then
concrete state of desire comes into
excitement to exist existence.
clearly, and for
excitement itself
really to exist in the
excited state itself.
Again, where an At the same time When a lustful one Were there no If there were no If there is no one
impassioned one how is it at all does not exist, desirous one, desirous one, how who desires, how
does not exist, possible that whence can there be moreover, Where could there be then will desire
where will there be excitement is not lust? Whether lust would desire occur? desire? The same come into being?
passion? The passion real existence in the exists or not, the Whether or not follows for the [And the question]
6.2 neither exists nor state of excitement? method (of analysis) desire or the desirous one too: [it whether desire
does not exist in the In concrete cases or even of the lustful desirous one exist, depends on] whether exists or does not
impassioned and vice in abstract cases, the one would be The analysis would desire exists or not. exist likewise
versa. real situations that comparable. be the same. holds true for the
occur in real one who desires.
circumstances are all

balanced and stable
and they are always a
process [occurring]
at the present
moment.
Again, the At the same time, Again, the Desire and the It is not reasonable Further, it is not
conjunction of the because being simultaneous desirous one Cannot for desire and the possible for both
passion along with together is just what occurrences of lust arise together. In desirous one to arise desire and the one
the impassioned is interpreted as and the lustful one is that case, desire and as co-existent. In who desires to be
does not exist. being so, it is not a not proper. Lust and the desirous one this way desire and produced
Indeed, that would combination of the lustful one Would not be the desirous one concomitantly.
make passion and conceptual sensation would then be mutually contingent. would not be Indeed, desire and
the impassioned and the state of mutually non- mutually contingent. the one who
6.3
independent of one sensation. Because— contingent. desires come into
another. aha!—the conceptual being
sensation and the independent of
state of sensation each other.
may exist mutually
neglecting each
other.
There exists no Inseparability does In identity, there is In identity there is no Identity has no co- Concomitance
concomitance in not really exist in no coexistence. That simultaneity. A thing existence: does not exist in
identity because one oneness, because which is associated is not simultaneous something cannot be that which is only
is not with the other. what exists as does not arise with itself. But if co-existent with one thing, [for]
Moreover, in inseparable just together. In there is difference, itself. If there were certainly
difference where will relies upon discreteness, how Then how would difference, how something which
there be inseparability. can there be there be could there be co- is only one thing
6.4 concomitance? Furthermore, when: coexistence? simultaneity? existence? cannot be
inseparability exists concomitant. But
in individual yet, how will
separations, how will concomitance
it be possible for the come into being if
oneness to exist at there are separate
all? (prthak) things?
Would identity be When inseparability If, in identity, there If in identity there If the identical were If concomitance
6.5 with as well as is in oneness, the were to be were simultaneity. co-existent, [co- applied to that
without this situation may be that coexistence, it could Then it could occur existence] would which is only one

concomitance? something real exists occur even without without association. also occur between thing, then that
Would difference be without any association. If, in If in difference there the unrelated; if the one "with
with as well as companion. Even in discreteness, there were simultaneity, It different were co- concomitance"
without this the case that were to be could occur without existent, [co- would be that one
concomitance? inseparability exists coexistence, it could association. existence] would "without
in separate occur even without also occur between [concomitance]." If
existences, the association. the unrelated. concomitance
situation may be also applied to
that something real separate things,
exists without any then that one
companion. "with
concomitance"
would be that one
"without
[concomitance]."
If there is When the If there were to be If in difference there If the different were And if
concomitance of the inseparability of the coexistence in were simultaneity, co-existent, how concomitance
passion and the conceptual side of a discreteness, is it the How could desire would desire and the applied to
impassioned in the sensation and the case that lust and and the desirous desirous one be separate things,
difference, what is state of sensation the lustful one are one, Being different, established as what is the proof
distinct and how is are in separation, completely be established? If different or, if that for the separation
their concomitance how is it possible for separated, as a result they were, they were so, [how of both desire and
established in it? anything to belong of which their would be would] those two be the one who
to the fusion of the coexistence is also simultaneous. co-existent? desires, [Since]
conceptual side of a established. that which is non-
sensation and the separate is
6.6
state of sensation. concomitant.
When a real situation
exists in separation,
even the
inseparability of the
conceptual side of a
sensation and the
state of sensation is
different from what
they are.
If the individuality of Even if the real f complete If desire and the If desire and the Or, if the
6.7 passion and the situation exists in separation between desirous one Are desirous were separateness of
impassioned is separated lust and the lustful established as established as desire and the one

established, for what existences, the real one is established, different, Then why different, because of who desires really
purpose do you situation can also for what purpose do would you think That what could one were proved. Why
determine their belong to the fusion you conceive of their they are understand them as do you imagine
concomitance? of the conceptual coexistence? simultaneous? co-existent? the concomitance
side of a sensation of them both?
and the state of
sensation. Indeed,
for what purpose do
you put together the
conceptual side of a
sensation and the
state of sensation?
You aim at Even though reality You fancy Since difference is If one asserts them You postulate
concomitance and is not separate, you coexistence not established, If to be co-existent concomitance by
thus difference is expect the assuming that the you assert that they because they are not saying: neither is
not “established.” conceptual side of discrete is not are simultaneous, established as proved separate
You look for the sensation and the established. You, Since they are different, then from [the other].
existence of state of sensation to again, look for established as because they would [And] you
difference for the come together from discreteness for the simultaneous, Do be very much postulate
6.8
purpose of a state of separation. purpose of you also assert that established as co- separateness even
explaining Thinking that the aim establishing they are different? existent, would one more to prove
concomitance. is to accomplish this coexistence not also have to concomitance.
bringing together, assert them to be
you long for the different?
separated condition.
Concomitance is not When a state of When discreteness is Since nothing Since different Because
established and being separate is not not established, different has been things are not separateness is
individuality is not settled, the state of coexistence is not established, If one is established, co- not proved,
explained. You are inseparability is not established. In the asserting existent things are concomitance is
looking to which, realized. From what presence of what simultaneity, Which not established. If not proved. What
individuality or reason do you want kind of discreteness different thing Do there existed any kind of
6.9
difference? to have the state of would you expect you want to say is different things, one separateness must
actually being coexistence. simultaneous? could assert them as exist for you to
together within the co-existent things. establish
state of being concomitance?
separate?
6.10 Thus nothing is In this way, because Thus, with or without Thus desire and the Since different Thus there is no

established about it is a sensation, the the lustful one, there desirous one Cannot things are not proof that the
passion with or realization of is no establishment be established as established, co- desire is
without the sensation itself is not of lust. Like lust, simultaneous or not existent things are concomitant with
impassioned. Like the coming together there is no simultaneous. So, not established. If or not
passion, nothing is of the two and not establishment of like desire, nothing there existed any concomitant with
established about the separation of the anything with or whatever Can be different things, one one who desires.
events with or two. Being similar to without established either as could assert them as From [this analysis
without all others. sensation, the reality [accompaniments]. simultaneous or as co-existent things. of] desire [it can
of the whole Dharma non-simultaneous. be shown that for]
is not the coming every
together of the two, fundamental
and not separation element (dharma)
of the two. there is no proof
of concomitance
or non-
concomitance.

Chapter 7

An Analysis of
Investigation of
Analysis of the Examination of the Examination of the Examination of the Arising, Enduring, Composite
7 Birth, Abiding and
Conditioned External World Conditioned Conditioned and Dissolving Products
Perishing (Birth)
(samskrta)
If arising is If we suppose that If arising is If arising were If birth were If arising arises, If origination
conditioned, then the external world conditioned, therein produced, Then it compounded, it then it would have (utpada) is a
possessing three has appeared in the three characteristics would also have the would possess the the three composite
marks is entailed past, it must be are proper. If arising three characteristics. three characteristics characteristics of product, then the
{origination, yoked by the three is unconditioned, If arising is not [of a compound]. If that which arises three
duration, characteristics— how can there be produced, How could birth were (arising, enduring, characteristics [of
destruction]. But if appearance, characteristics of the the characteristics of uncompounded, how and dissolving). 2 existence:
arising is not continuity, and conditioned? the produced exist? would it be a If arising does not "origination,"
conditioned, how is it destruction, But if characteristic of a arise, how could it "duration," and
7.1 a mark of the the external world is compound? be a characteristic "dissolution"] are
conditioned? what has appeared, of that which appropriate. But if
how is. it possible for arises? origination is a
the external world to non-composite
show the (asamskrta) , then
characteristics that how [could there
the external world be] characteristics
shows now in front of a composite
of us? product?
When the three, The three. When the triad If the three, arising, The three such as If the arising, "When the three
origination, etc., are characteristics consisting of arising, etc., are separate, birth cannot enduring, and are separate,
separated, they are [appearance, etc. are discrete, They cannot function individually be that dissolving of origination of
not sufficient for the continuity, and they are not as the characteristics which characterizes arising occur either of the other
functions of the destruction] are adequate to function of the produced. But compounds. How is separately, then two
marks of never very clear. The as characteristics of how could they be it possible for one at they cannot be characteristics
7.2
conditioning. If they whole external the conditioned. If joined In one thing one time to be the characteristics does not suffice to
were combined, how world, which they were to be simultaneously? compounded [of all of arising. 3 But function as a
would they occur at includes many combined, how can three]? how could they characteristic. If
one place at one and miscellaneous things they be in the same occur united in a
the same time? and phenomena, place at the same simultaneously? 4 composite
might be at a place, time? product, how

but never only at one could they all be
occasion. at one place at
one time?
If there are other What is different If there were to be a If arising, abiding, If birth, abiding and If arising has If origination,
marks of from serial time characteristic of the and ceasing Have perishing had an characteristics duration, and
conditioning than [appearance, conditioned other characteristics other other characteristic other than arising, dissolution are
those of origination, continuity, and than arising, than tho5e of the of being enduring, and other [secondary]
duration, and destruction] is the duration_, and produced, There compounded, this dissolving, then characteristics of
destruction, there is characteristic of the destruction, there would be an infinite would be endless. If there will be an composite
an infinite regress. If external world. would be infinite regress. · If they not, they would not infinite regress. 5 products. It is an
there is not, then When there really regress. If there don'!, they would not be compounded. If it has no infinite regress. If
they are not are unstable were to be no such be produced. characteristics at this is not so, they
7.3 conditioned. situations [like [characteristics], all, then it cannot are not composite
appearance, these would not be arise. products.
continuity, and conditioned.
destruction], the
characteristics of the
external world do
not really exist, and
the external world is
never plural.
Origination is the A phenomenon, a The arising of arising The arising of arising The birth of birth Perhaps there is a The "originating
arising of arising, the phenomenon, and a is exclusively the only gives rise To the gives birth to the non-arising arising origination"
isolated beginning of phenomenon, they arising of primary basic arising. ' The root birth alone. The of arising; 6 and (utpadotpada) is
origination. Again, are independent arising. Again, the arising of the basic root birth also is that perhaps this non- only the
origination is caused from the so-called primary arising arising Gives rise to which gives birth to arising arising of origination of the
to arise by the fundamental produces the arising arising. the birth of birth. arising gives rise basic origination
aboriginal arising of phenomenon. A of arising. to the arising of (mulotpada) ; Also
7.4 arising. phenomenon ordinary the origination of
manifests a phenomena. the basic
phenomenon itself [origination]
as a phenomenon, produces the
and the fundamental "originating
[phenomenon] is also origination."
newly produced.
If origination is the A phenomenon, a If arising of arising is If, as you say, the If your birth of birth If there is a non- But if, according
7.5 arising of arising, it is phenomenon, and a the primary arising, arising of arising gives birth to the arising arising of to you, the

the source of arising phenomenon, if they not being produced Gives rise to the root birth, how does arising, then it is originating
for you. How, for belong to the so- by the primary, how basic arising, that which is not yet the primary origination
you, will it arise out called fundamental can it (the former] born from your root source of all produces basic
of what has not phenomenon, How is produce that (the give birth to that arising. But if it is origination. How,
arisen originally? it possible for latter]? [root birth]? non-arising, how according to you,
phenomena to can it be the will this
produce the so- arising of arising? [originating
called fundamental origination]
phenomenon? produce that
[basic origination]
if [it itself] is not
produced by basic
origination?
If what has arisen If we assume that If, produced by the If, as you say, that If that which is born If the arising of If, according to
out of the aboriginal the real primary, it produces which is arisen from from your root birth ordinary you, that which
is, for you, given rise miscellaneous the primary, how can basic arising Gives gives birth to the phenomena arises has originated
to by the aboriginal, phenomena have that primary, not rise to the basis, How root, how does that from the through basic
how does the been produced by produced by it, does that nonarisen root which is born foundational [origination]
aboriginal occur out the fundamental produce it? basis Give rise to it? from that give birth arising of all produces basic
of that which has not phenomenon, and to that [from which it arising, what [origination]. How
arisen. further that such real is born]? explains the does the basic
miscellaneous existence of that [origination],
phenomena produce foundational which is yet
the fundamental arising? unproduced by
phenomenon, We that [originating
7.6 have to believe that origination], cause
the fundamental that [originating
phenomenon has not origination] to be
been produced by originated?
the real world, and
so it is impossible for
us to believe that the
fundamental
phenomenon
produces something
that is related with
the real world.
7.7 This present arising, Just this world This, while arising, if If this nonarisen If that which has not If the arising of According to you,

for you, intends that manifests itself as it may so desire, Could give rise to been born is able to the arising of this, while
which would arise miscellaneous things produce that, so that that, Then, as you give birth to that, ordinary originating, would
unless this was able and phenomena, and it, being not yet wish, It will give rise that of yours which is phenomena is certainly cause
to not give rise to so those things and born, will be able to to that which is being born should be non-arisin. , [then that to originate
that which is to arise. phenomena manifest produce that. arising. able to give birth to its existence — If this, not
themselves in that. cannot be being produced,
perfect freedom. If explained]. would be able to
we assume that the cause origination.
world is produced by [The opponent
anyone, we have to claims:]
accept that what has
not been born [that
is, God] produces
unfavorable things
and phenomena
departing from
favorable situations.
As light causes Brightness manifests As a light illuminates Just as a butterlamp Just as lamplight Can we say that As a light is the
illumination of itself itself as a real entity, itself as well as Illuminates itself as illuminates itself and the arising of the illuminator of
as well as others, so which is a fusion others, so does well as others, So others, likewise birth arising of ordinary both itself and
arising would give between the arising produce both arising gives rise to too gives birth to phenomena gives that which is other
rise to itself as well subjective and the itself and others. itself And to other both itself and the rise to itself as than itself, So
as others. objective. In such arisen things. thing of others. well as to the origination would
cases individual arising of ordinary originate both
7.8
phenomena manifest phenomena, just itself and that
themselves as real as a lamp which is other
phenomena, which illuminates itself than itself.
are a fusion between as well as other [Nagarjuna
the subjective and thing. ? answers:]
the objective.
There is no darkness Darkness does not There exists no In the butterlamp Wherever lamplight There is no
in light or where this exist really in darkness either in and its place, There is present there is no darkness in the
[light] is situated. brightness, and so the light or in is no darkness. What darkness. What does light and there
What does a lamp things and whatever place it is then does the lamplight illuminate? where the light is
7.9 illumine when light phenomena in the situated. What does butterlamp It illuminates by placed. What
indeed destroys world are light illuminate? For, illuminate? For dispelling darkness. could the light
darkness? manifesting illumination is illumination is the illumine? Indeed
themselves before indeed the clearing of darkness. illumination is the

us really as they are. destruction of getting rid of
Therefore it is never darkness. darkness.
true that brightness
causes something to
be seen, but
brightness is just the
destroyer of
darkness.
How is darkness How is it possible for How can darkness be If the arising If, when lamplight is How is darkness
destroyed by the darkness to be destroyed by the butterlamp Does not being generated, it destroyed by the
shining of light? destroyed by the emergent light , reach darkness, How does not encounter light being
Indeed there is no appearance of when the emerging could that arising darkness, how does originated, "When
shining when light is things, or by light, indeed, does butterlamp Have the generation of the light, being
reached by darkness. darkness itself? The not teach darkness? cleared the lamplight dispel originated, does
appearance of things darkness? darkness? not come in
and phenomena is contact with
different from darkness?
7.10
darkness itself, and
so brightness can be
effective because
the appearance of
things and
phenomena is
different from
darkness itself.
But if darkness is Even when nothing On the contrary, if If the illumination of If darkness is But then, if
overwhelmed by the can be seen because darkness is darkness occurs dispelled even darkness is
light without having of brightness, it can destroyed by light Without the though it does not destroyed by a
reached it, then in be said that darkness without reaching it, butterlamp reaching encounter lamplight, light having no
that case, it will has produced a then that [light) darkness, All of the this [lamplight] contact with
destroy the darkness situation in which remaining here will darkness in the dwelling here would [darkness], [a
7.11 abiding in all the there is difficulty in destroy the darkness world Should be eliminate the light] placed here
world. seeing [things and present in all the illuminated. darkness that dwells will destroy the
phenomena]. The worlds. in all the worlds. darkness of the
fact that something entire world.
exists here exactly
means that that
something really

exists in the
universe, and even in
such a case we can
say that real
darkness has the
ability to erase the
scenery of things
and phenomena.
if light is illuminated When brightness is If light were to If, when it is If lamplight If the light
by itself or by illuminating reality, illuminate both itself illuminated, The illuminated itself and illuminated both
another [source], which is the fusion of and others, then butterlamp the thing of others, itself and that
then darkness will the subjective and certainly darkness illuminates itself and darkness too would which is other
undoubtedly conceal the objective, too will conceal itself others, Darkness without doubt than itself. Then,
itself as well as Darkness might also and others. should, without a obscure itself and without a doubt,
others. be the fusion of the doubt, Conceal itself the thing of others. darkness will
7.12 subjective and the and others. cover both itself
objective, and and that which is
darkness confirms other than itself.
itself as something
absolutely different
from any unreliable
fact.
How would this What has not How can this non- How could this How can unborn If the arising of If it has not yet
arising, which has appeared is this arisen arising arising, being birth give birth to the arising of originated, how
not arisen, give rise world, which produce itself? If it is nonarisen, Give rise itself? If the born ordinary does origination
to itself? Besides, if manifests [itself] in the arisen that to itself? And if it is gives birth, when it phenomena is produce itself?
it is the arisen that is front of us already, produces, then being arisen from another, has been born, what non-arising, how And if it has
given rise to, again, and so how is it born, what is it that Having arisen, what would be born? could it give rise already
the arisen is given possible for the is produced again? is the need for to itself? If it is originated, when
7.13 rise to by what? world ever to another arising? given rise to either it is being
produce the by itself or by produced, what is
subjective soul? In something else, produced after
such a case, what has then it is not non- that which is
manifested itself is arising. already produced?
vigorously working in
front of us, and it is
completely
impossible for

anything to be born
once again.
How do neither the What is not Neither the present The arisen, the The born and the The non-arising, In no way does
non-arising, the non- manifesting itself arising, nor the nonarisen, and that unborn, the being the not-yet-arisen, anything originate
arisen, or the arisen can never be a arisen, nor the non- which is arising Do born do not in any and the arising: by what is being
[not unarisen] arise? phenomenon, and arisen, is being not arise in any way way give birth. That there is no arising originated, by
They are known in what has not yet arisen in any way. at all. Thus they has been explained in any of them. what is already
the [same] way as manifested itself can This has already should be by the gone, not They are like the originated, or by
going, gone, and not never be anything at been explained by understood Just like gone and going. nonhappening, what is not yet
gone. all. This world means of [the the gone, the not- the not-yet- originated — Just
manifests itself as concepts of] present gone, and the going. happening, and as it has been said
that which cannot be moving, the moved the happening. in [the analysis of]
explained with and the not yet "presently going
words, and its moved. to," "that which is
concrete situation already gone to"
7.14
can be explained by and "that which is
the same method not yet gone to."
[used in ] as the
difference between
[the memory of]
“having gone,” [the
consciousness of]
“going,” and [the
supposition of] “not
yet gone,” and the
real act of going in
the real world.
If this present arising What has manifested When this present When there is arising When being born If the now-arising When, in that-
is not preceeded by in front of us is just arising does not but not yet That does not arise in is not given rise to which-is-
arising, how is the phenomenon proceed from within which is arising, How what is born, then by a prior arising, originated, there
present arising itself, and so the arising, indeed, how can we say that that how can one say “[it then how can its is nothing which
called dependent world is not can the present which is arising is] being born in arising be activates that
7.15 arising? something that is arising be spoken of Depends on this dependence on the dependent? which is being
always approaching as dependent arising? born”? originated. How
us [on the basis of arising? can one say: That
linear time]. which is being
Therefore it is originated [exists]
completely presupposing that

impossible for the which is
fact that manifests produced?
before us to have
familiar relation with
clear and concrete
birth.
That which comes hings and Whatever that Whatever is Whatever is If the now- Whatever comes
into being phenomena existing comes to be dependently arisen, dependently arising, arising's arising is into existence
dependently, that is clearly one by one dependently, that is Such a thing is that is by nature dependent on that presupposing
inherently peaceful. are the world, and inherently peaceful. essentially peaceful. pacified. Therefore, which gives rise to something else is
Therefore arising this world is Therefore, that Therefore that which being born and what it, then the now- without self-
and presently arising subjectively thought which is presently is arising and arising is born too are arising is peaceful. existence
are peaceful. of as a very stable arising as well as itself Are themselves pacified. Both the (svabhava). [As
7.16 existence. Therefore arising itself are peaceful. nowarising and there is] an
situations that can peaceful. that which gives allayment of
be seen in front of us rise to it are "being
as very stable are peaceful. originated," so
just real existence, [also] of that
which is actually which is
seen in front of us. originated.
If there is any non- What can never exist If a certain non- If a nonarisen entity If any unborn thing If the non-arising If some particular
arisen being, it in this world can arisen existent is Anywhere exists, existed anywhere, on exists, then it thing which is not
would be arisen by never be thought to evident somewhere, That entity would being born that must have arisen. yet originated is
being found exist at all. Even then that would have to arise. But if it [unborn] thing would If the non-arising indeed known to
anywhere. Where when existence is arise. When such a were nonexistent, not exist. If so, what does not exist, exist, That thing
the being does not not clear in concrete thing does not exist, what could arise? would be born? then how could it will be originated.
exist, it is arisen by situations, such how can an existent arise? What originates if
7.17
what? situations are arise? it does not exist?
accepted as what is
not real, and even
the word existence
can manifest itself as
not real.
If the arising of the When we have begun If arising were to If this arising Gave If that which has If the arising of And if the
presently arising is to notice that the produce this present rise to that which is been born gives birth the now-arising origination
7.18 caused by having facts that manifest in arising, which arising arising, By means of to what is being arises, what gives originates that
arisen, again, which front of us must be would again produce what arising Does born, what [other rise to it? which is being

arising would give just the [true] that arising of that that arising arise? thing] that has been originated. What
rise to that arising? phenomena, then arising? born would be giving origination, in
the external world birth to that which turn, would
manifests as it is. has been born? originate that
When the world origination?
manifests as
phenomena, then we
prefer to grasp the
phenomena
themselves [rather
than our concept of
the external world].
If another causes this If the world If this arising were to If another arising If another [thing] If an earlier arising If another
arising, then arising manifests as produce another, gives rise to this one, that has been born gives rise to the origination
is an infinite regress. different [from what arising would turn There would be an gives birth [to it], this arising of the now- originates that
In that way, then, all is described in the out to be infinite infinite regress. If would be endless. If arising, then there [origination],
non-arising is arisen previous verse], the regression. If the something nonarisen it is born without is an infinite there will be an
by the arisen. world of phenomena non-arising is arisen, is arisen, Then all [another] which has regress. 3 But if infinite regress of
would actually then it will produce things co u Id arise in been born [OR if it is that which gives originations. But if
become a very everything in this this way. born without being rise to all arising is non-origination is
unstable world. In manner. born], everything non-arising, then that which is
such a situation what would be born like the now-arising origination, then
7.19 has not manifested that causelessly]. could arise. everything
seems to have [without
manifested already, qualification]
and then it is would originate.
necessary to take the
view that all things
and phenomena
have manifested
already since the
beginning.
Therefore the arising To the same degree As such, neither the Neither an existent Thus it is not Therefore, neither It is not possible
of what exists and as real phenomena arising of an existent nor a nonexistent reasonable for what being nor non- that what has
the arising of what manifest themselves nor the arising of a Can be properly said exists or does not being can arise, as originated either
7.20 does not exist do not in the real world, all non-existent is to arise. exist to be born. It stated above in 1, exists or does not
occur. "Existence and that is abstract is p_roper. Even so is has been shown Verse 6. exist, Nor that
non-existence” have never restricted by the arising of that above that there is what has not

been discussed anything in the world which is both no existent or non- originated either
previously [I. 6-7]. at all. Before existent and non- existent. exists or does not
anything subjective existent, and this has exist; this has
or anything objective been previously been
has yet appeared in explained. demonstrated
this world, what has earlier.
been realized
already manifests
itself in front of us as
the real world.
The arising of a The real The arising of an As it is taught before It is not tenable for a We cannot say The origination of
presently ceasing circumstances of the existent that is with "For neither an thing that is that the dissolving something being
being does not occur. world, which ceasing is not existent nor a perishing to be born. of a thing arises destroyed is not
That being which is manifest themselves appropriate. nonexistent." 21. The It is not tenable for because that possible; And
not now presently in the condition of Whatever existent arising of a ceasing that which is not which is dissolving whatever is not
ceasing does not self-regulation, can that is non-arising, thing Is not tenable. perishing to be a is no longer being destroyed,
occur. never manifest that existent too is But to say that it is thing. arising. Nor can that entity is not
themselves in [the not appropriate. not ceasing Is not we say that the possible.
abstract concept of] tenable for anything. arisen is not
existence at all. At dissolving because
7.21 the same time, when all things that
the real have arisen are
circumstances are dissolving.
not regulated by the
real circumstances
themselves, it is
impossible for the
concept of existence
to manifest itself at
all.
No being that has It I is perfectly An existent that has A static existent A thing that has An enduring thing Neither an "entity
endured stays, and a impossible for that endured is not does not endure. A remained does not that has arisen that has endured"
being that has not which is unstable to stationary, nor i s an nonstatic existent remain. A thing that does not endure. (sthitabhava) nor
endured does not exist in the state of existent that has not does not endure. has not [yet] A non-enduring an "entity that has
7.22 stay. The presently stability, and it is endured. The Stasis does not remained does not thing does not not endured"
enduring does not impossible for that presently enduring is endure. What remain. That which endure. That endures; Not even
stay and so which which has been not stationary. What nonarisen can is remaining also which has arisen is something
non-arisen stays? realized already to non-arisen can stay? endure? does not remain. dissolving [and enduring endures.

newly become What unborn [thing] therefore not And what endures
stable. Because that can remain? enduring]. How if it is not
which is actually can that which has originated?
stable already can not arisen be
never newly become enduring?
stable, it is
absolutely
impossible for that
which has not yet
appeared to become
stable at all.
The endurance of a The stable state Duration of an The endurance of a It is not possible for That which is Duration is not
presently ceasing [always] exists in the existent that is ceasing entity Is not a thing that is dissolving is not possible of a thing
being does not occur. self-regulated ceasing is not tenable. But to say perishing to remain. enduring. All that that is being
That being which is condition and _ appropriate. that it is not ceasing It is not possible for has arisen is destroyed. But
not now presently never manifests into Whatever existent Is not tenable for that which is not dissolving. whatever is not
ceasing does not existence. If the that is non-ceasing is anything. perishing to be a being destroyed,
occur. stable state [some also not appropriate. thing. that thing (bhava)
other hypothetical is [also] not
kind of state, which possible.
7.23 is not self-regulated]
existed in an
unbalanced
situation, it would be
completely
impossible for such a
stable state to
manifest into
existence.
All of the beings The things and When all existents Inasmuch as the If all things at all All living beings Because every
always [experience] phenomena of the are always of the nature of all things Is times are aging and that have arisen entity always
the events of old age universe, including nature of decay and aging and death, dying phenomena, are subject to [remains in] the
and death. Where do aging and death, death, which Without aging and what things are aging and death. law of old age and
7.24 which beings endure occur in all existents that are death, What there which could Are there any death. What
without old age and existences, and at without decay and existents can remain without living beings that entities are there
death? every moment. If death can stay? endure? aging and dying? do not age and which endure
they do not have die? without old age
aging or death, it is and death?

completely
impossible for them
to keep their
stability.
Enduring should When relying upon The endurance of an Stasis cannot endure It is not reasonable Enduring cannot The enduring
endure with the the stable state, or enduring thing based through itself Or for what remains to endure through quality of a
having endured but when relying upon on the endurance of through another remain due to itself, nor can it different duration
neither of them is an unstable state, itself or of another is stasis. Just as arising something else that endure through is as impossible as
reasonable. just as the established not proper. It is like cannot arise from remains or due to another enduring, of that same
the arising of arising stability of the world the absence of itself Or from itself. This is like just as arising can duration. So the
is not from itself or can never be arising of arising, another arising. how what has been neither arise from origination of
another. regulated by either from itself or born is not given itself nor from origination is
anything other than from another. birth to by itself or another arising [as neither itself nor
7.25
the real world itself. another. [cf. v.18-19] shown above]. that which is other
Even in such a than itself.
situation the real
phenomenon never
relies upon the
subjective soul or
the objective spirit at
all.
Neither that which What is not That which has not The ceasing of What has ceased The dissolved "That which has
has ceased ceases regulated can never ceased does not whahas ceased does does not cease. does not dissolve. ceased"
nor that which has be regulated at all, cease. That which not happen. What What has not ceased The not-yet- (nin'iddha) does
not ceased ceases, and even what is has ceased also does has not yet ceased also does not cease. dissolved does not not cease; and
so also the presently regulated already not cease. Even so is does not cease. Nor Likewise what is dissolve. The "that which has
ceasing. What ceases can never be that which is ceasing. does that which is ceasing also does dissolving of that not ceased" does
that has not arisen? regulated again. In Is it the unborn that ceasing. What not. What unborn which is dissolving not cease; Nor
such a real situation cease nonarisen can cease? [thing] can cease? does not dissolve. even "that which
7.26 there is just the [22] Can the non-arisen is ceasing." For,
simple fact that dissolve? what can cease [if
something has been it is] produced?
regulated really
already, and at the
same time it is
completely
impossible for that
which has not been

born to have been
regulated already.
Therefore the The more the real The cessation of an The cessation of It is not possible for Neither the Therefore
cessation of the state of existence is existent that has what is static Is not a thing which has enduring nor the cessation of an
enduring being does fixed, the more endured is not tenable Nor is the remained to cease. non-enduring enduring entity is
not occur. Moreover, difficult it is for the appropriate. The cessation of It is also not possible dissolves. not possible.
the cessation of a state of self- cessation of an Something not static for a thing which has Moreover,
non-enduring being regulation to exist. existent that has not tenable. not remained to cessation of a «o«-
does not occur. When the state of endured is also not cease. enduring entity is
7.27
existence is not appropriate. not possible.
fixed, the state of
self-regulation — can
realize itself much
easier than in any
other condition.
Indeed, a state does When relying upon Indeed, a certain Being static does not A particular state [of The endurance of Indeed, a state [of
not cease on account concrete facts or state [of existence] cease Through being something] does not a thing cannot existence] does
of itself, and a state relying upon does not cease from static itself. Nor does cause that particular explain its ceasing not cease because
does not cease on circumstances, a state identical with being static cease state itself to cease. to endure, nor can of this state; And a
account of another things and its own. Nor does a Through another Moreover, another its ceasing to different state [of
state. phenomena do not state [of existence] instance of being particular state does endure be existence] does
enter into the self- cease from another static. not cause that explained through not cease because
regulated state state different from particular state to the endurance of of a different
newly. Even when its own. cease. something else state.
relying upon abstract [for example, the
7.28 concepts, which are endurance of
different from dissolving?].
concrete facts, or
when relying upon
circumstances, it is
completely
impossible for
abstract concepts to
newly come into the
self-regulated state.
When the arising of When the highest Indeed, when the When the arising of When the birth of all No arising, no So if the
7.29 all events does not state among all arising of all things is any entity Is not phenomena is not dissolving. production of all

take place, then the balanced states has not appropriate, tenable, Then the possible, then the dharmas is not
cessation of all not yet appeared, then the cessation of cessation of any cessation of all possible, Then
events does not The highest self- all things is also not entity Is not tenable. phenomena is not neither is the
happen. regulation among all appropriate. possible. cessation of all
balanced states dharmas possible.
never manifests
itself at all.
Therefore, the The more we depart Furthermore, the For an existent thing Cessation is not That which is Therefore
cessation of a being from reality, the cessation of a real Cessation is not possible in an [being] cannot cessation of a real
that exists does not more self-regulation existent is not tenable. A single existent thing. dissolve. That existing entity is
take place. In does not manifest appropriate. Indeed, thing being an entity Thingness and which is [being] not possible; And
identity, indeed, itself. It is completely in ' the context of and A nonentity is nothingness are not cannot not-be. certainly both an
neither a being or a impossible for identity, neither not tenable. possible in one. existing entity and
7.30
non-being happen. existence to exist existence nor non- a non-existing
only at one place, so existence is entity cannot be
nonexistence can appropriate. possible in the
never manifest itself same case.
anywhere at all.
And the cessation of That which is The cessation of an Moreover, for a Cessation is not That which is not Even more,
a being that does not abstract can never unreal existent is nonentity, Cessation possible also in what [non-being] cessation of a «o«-
exist does not take manifest itself as also not appropriate, would be untenable. is not a thing. This is cannot dissolve. real existing entity
place, just as a existence, which is just as a second Just as a second similar to how there Can the beheaded is not possible.
second beheading self-regulated [in the beheading [of a beheading Cannot is no cutting off a be beheaded a Just as there is no
does not occur. real world], at all. person] is not be performed. second head. a second time? second
That which is evident. person cannot be decapitation!
abstract is plainly beheaded twice]
7.31 intellectual
consideration and
can never grasp that
individually
independent things
and phenomena are
just the real world
itself.
There is no cessation Self-regulation can There is no cessation Cessation does not Cessation does not Dissolving does There is no
7.32 on account of itself never be realized by by itself or by cease by means of exist by its own self, not dissolve itself, cessation by
or on account of relying upon the another entity, just itself. Nor does it nor does cessation nor is it dissolved means of itself;

another, just as the personal soul, and as the arising of cease by means of [exist] by something by another nor cessation by
arising of arising is self-regulation is arising is neither by another. Just as else. This is like how dissolving, just as something other
not out of itself or never the same as itself nor by another. arising cannot arise what has been born arising can neither than itself; Just as
out of another. the function of the from itself Or from is not given birth to arise from itself there is no
objective spirit. The another arising. by itself or another nor from another origination of
true phenomena in [cf. 25] arising [as shown origination by
their pure meaning above]. itself nor by
do not rely upon the another.
human subjective
soul [or mind]; in the
same manner neither
do phenomena in
their true meaning
rely upon the
objective spirit.
With the non- The external world With the non- Since arising, Because birth and Since arising, Because the
establishment of can never really exist establishment of ceasing, and abiding remaining and enduring, and existence of
arising, duration, and in appearance, arising, duration and Are not established, perishing are not dissolving cannot production,
cessation, continuity, and destruction, the there are no established, there is happen, there are duration, and
conditioning does destruction, and at conditioned does not compounded things. no conditioned. no real things that cessation is not
not exist. Where the same time it can exist. With the non- If all compounded Because the arise, endure, or proved, there is no
there is no never really exist in establishment of the things are conditioned is dissolve. If there composite
establishment of what is not real. If conditioned, how unestablished, How utterly are no such things, product
conditioning, how the external world could there be the could the unestablished, how how can the (samskrta) ; And if
7.33
will the has not become real unconditioned? uncompounded be can the ordinary a composite
unconditioned be to a sufficient established? unconditioned be phenomenal world product is not
proved? degree, it is also established? exist? proved, how can a
impossible for any non-composite
world other than the product
external world to (asamskrta) be
actually manifest proved?
itself.
As illusion, as dream, For example As an illusion, a Like a dream, like an Like a dream, like a It is all a dream, an As a magic trick, a
as an imaginary city illusions, dreams, or dream, a city of the illusion, Like a city of magician’s illusion, illusion, like a city dream or a fairy
7.34 in the sky, so have the fantastic city of gandharvas, so have Gandharvas, So have like a city of of the gods castle. Just so
arising, endurance, Gandharva, These arising, endurance arising, abiding, And gandharvas, likewise floating in the should we
and destruction been are all just abstract and destruction ceasing been birth and likewise heavens. So much consider
illustrated. expressions of been exemplified. explained. remaining, likewise for arising, origination,

words, which are perishing are taught. enduring, and duration, and
absolutely — the dissolving. cessation.
same as the verbal
expressions of
appearance,
continuity, and —
destruction.

Chapter 8

An Analysis of the
Examination of the
Analysis of Action Examination of Examination of
Investigation of Act The Agent and the Product (Karma)
8 Fusion of Action and
and Agent Action and the Agent Agent and Action
and Actor (Actors) Action and the Producer
Conduct
(Karaka)
A true agent does What really exists is This really existent This existent agent One who exists as an A real agent is not A real producer
not do this true act. called conduct or agent does not Does not perform an actor does not do an agent [that is, does not produce
Nor does a true action, but it is not perform a really existent action. Nor that which exists as cannot act]. An a real product.
agent attempt a true true that what exists existent action. does some an act. One who unreal (non- Even more so, a
act. in the real world Neither is it intended nonexistent agent does not exist as an existent) agent is non-real producer
[already] produces that a really non- Perform some actor also does not not an agent [that does not seek a
the world. Conduct existent agent nonexistent action. do that which does is, cannot act]. non-real product.
can never be performs a really not exist as an act.
8.1
something abstract, non-existent action.
and the abstract
concept of action has
its natural tendency
to pursue its
character, which is
abstract.
There is no activity Without the real A really existent An existent entity One who exists has That which is There is no
of a true action and practice of actual entity has no· has no activity. There no activity; [being] does not producing action
so it would be conduct, the abstract activity. Therefore, would also be action [something] would act. Action in a of a real thing; [if
without an agent. concept of action action would be without an agent. An also exist as an act world of real so,] there would
There is no activity might not have any without an agent. A existent entity has without an actor. beings would be be a product
of a true agent and relation with the really existent entity no activity. The re One who exists has action without an without someone
so it would be doing of a real act. has no activity. would also be agent no activity; agent. An agent in producing. Also,
8.2
without action. Without real action Therefore, even an without action. [something] would a world of real there is no
in the real world a agent would be also exist as an actor beings would be producing by a
person who acts without action. without an act. an agent without real thing; [if so,]
might not have any action. there would be
relation with the real someone
act of doing. producing without
something

produced.
If an untrue agent When the abstract If a non-existent If a nonexistent If one who does not If a non-existent If a non-existent
does an untrue act, world is recognized agent were to agent Were to exist as an actor did agent performs a producer would
the act would be clearly as the perform a non- perform a that which does not non-existent produce a non-real
without a cause and abstract world, existent action, the nonexistent action, exist as an act, the action, then both product, The
the agent would be action and the action would be Then the action act would have no action and agent product would be
without a cause. practice of action are without a cause, and would be without a cause; the actor too would be without a causal
identified as one. It is the agent too would cause And the agent would have no cause. uncaused. source and the
possible that action be without a cause. would be without a producer would
8.3 might exist as cause. be without a
something that is causal source.
not understandable,
and a person who
acts might also exist
as something which
is not
understandable.
Where the cause When we do not When a cause does Without a cause, the If there were no No cause, no If there is no
does not exist, have a sincere not exist both the effect and Its cause cause, effect and effect. No cause, causal source,
neither the attitude, it is effect and the will not occur. cause would not be no agent. No there is nothing to
antecedent cause impossible for us to sufficient condition Without this, activity evident. If they were agent, no activity be produced nor
nor the act to be recognize either the are not evident. and Agent and action non-existent, activity [no power to act]. cause-in-general
done occur. Where accomplishment of When these are non- are not possible. and agent and doing No activity, no (karana) . Then
these do not exist, an act or the cause existent, activity, would not be action. neither do the
the activity, the of action at all. When agent and evident. producing action,
agent, and the act to we do not have a performance of the person
8.4 be done do not sincere attitude, it is action are also not producing, nor the
occur. impossible for us to evident. instrument of
recognize that the production
real act of doing and (karana) exist.
the practice of action
can be perfectly
identified. When we
do not have the
attitude of practicing
Neither [action] in The real world, which With the non- If activity, etc., are If activity etc. did not If there is no If the producing
8.5 accord with the is just the fusion of occurrence of not possible, Entities appear, dharma and action [as implied action, etc. do not
teaching nor [action] the universal rule activity, etc., good and nonentities are adharma would not by both exist, then neither

not in accord with and the non- and bad are also not not possible. If there be evident. If essentialism and can the true
the teaching occurs universal rule, can evident. When both are neither entities dharma and adharma nihilism], then reality (dharma)
in the existence of never be recognized good and bad do not nor nonentities, did not exist, there nothing arises. If nor false reality
activity, etc. The really when the real exist, a fruit arising Effects cannot arise would be no fruit nothing arises, (adharma) exist. If
effect does not exist act, and so forth, from these would from them. that comes from then there is no neither the true
in [action] in accord never exist at all. also not be evident; them. phenomenal Reality nor the
with the teaching When the world of world. false reality exists,
nor in [action] not in the universal system then also the
accord with the is not real and the product (phala)
teaching, so it does world of the non- born from that
not occur. universal system is does not exist.
not real, it is
impossible for any
result, which has
been produced
concretely, to be
recognized at all.
Where the effect In reference to When the fruit does f there are no If there were no If there is no If there is no real
does not exist, the effects, when our not exist, the path of effects, liberation fruit, the path of phenomenal product, then
path goes not to attitudes are not release or of heaven and Paths to higher liberation and higher world, then there there also exists
heaven and not to realistic, and we are is not appropriate. rea lms will not exist. states would not be is no path of no path to heaven
liberation, and the not perfectly free, This would imply the So all of activity appropriate. Also it liberation, and nor to ultimate
8.6 purposelessness of Then the supreme futility of all activity Would be without would follow that all ordinary existence release. Thus it
all activities follows. happiness does not purpose. activities are is without logically follows
manifest itself. meaningless. purpose. that all producing
actions are
without purpose.
A true or untrue The practice of real An agent who is both An existent and One who exists and It cannot be that And a real-non-
agent does not do action is just the real existent and nonexistent agent does not exist as an an agent that is real producer
what is true or world as the fusion nonexistent does not Does not perform an actor does not do both real and does not produce
untrue, because of the concrete perform an action existent and what exists and does unreal performs in a real-non-real
existence and non- world and the that is both existent nonexistent action. not exist [as an act]. actions that are manner. For,
8.7 existence are indeed abstract world, but it and non-existent, for Existence and Since existence and both real and indeed, how can
mutually is not true that the they are self- nonexistence cannot non-existence are unreal. (It is "real" and "non-
contradictory. fusion of the contradictory. Where pertain to the same mutually impossible for the real," which are
concrete and the can existence and thing. For how could contradictory in one same thing to be mutually
abstract actually non-existence they exist together? [thing], where can both real and contradictory,
produces the coexist? they exist? unreal at the same occur in one

practice of action. time.) place?
The mutual
opposition between
the concrete and the
abstract is just
reality, and so there
is no place where the
abstract solely exists
by itself.
An existent [act] is It is completely A non-existent An actual agent Does One who exists as an It cannot be that a A real producer
not done by a non- impossible for the action is not not perform a actor does not do an real agent (kartra) does not
existent agent and a abstract to be performed by a nonactual action. act which is not performs an produce what is
non-existent [act] is produced by the presently existing Nor by a nonactual existent. One who unreal action. It non-real, and a
not done by an concrete, and it is agent. Nor is an one is an actual one does not exist [as an cannot be that an non-real producer
existent agent. also completely existent action performed. From actor] also does not unreal agent does not produce
Indeed, in that case, impossible for the performed by a this, all of those do what exists [as an performs a real what is real. [From
all these errors concrete to be presently non- errors would follow. act]. Here too faults action. (From that] indeed, all
follow. produced by the existent agent. will follow for one. believing these the mistakes must
8.8
abstract at all. (This Indeed, if that were things, all sorts of logically follow.
is so] because even to be the case, all errors follow.)
miscellaneous vices errors relating to the
also rely upon a agents [mentioned
person, who really earlier] would follow.
acts, in order to
realize them
concretely.
No true agent does It is absolutely For reasons stated An existent agent One who exists as an It cannot be that a The producer, who
an untrue or both impossible for the above, an agent who Does not perform an actor does not do real agent is neither real nor
true and untrue act abstract world or the has come to be action that Is unreal what does not exist performs an non-real, does not
for the reasons concrete world to existent does not or both real and as an act and what action that is produce a product
above. produce the real perform an action unreal As we have neither exists or not either unreal or which is either real
world, which is the that is non-existent already agreed. [as an act], because both real and or non-real.
8.9
fusion of the or both existent and of what was unrea. . Because of the
abstract world and non-existent. demonstrated by the reasons which
the concrete world. proof above. have been
Before it is discussed advanced earlier.
with words or
considered in the

brain, a real act as a
fact has disappeared
from the area of
discussion already.
Also no untrue agent It is also completely For reasons 'Stated A nonexistent agent One who does not It cannot be that The non-real
does an act that is impossible for the above, an agent who Does not perform an exist as an actor an unreal agent producer does not
real or both a real abstract world to has come to· be non- action that Is unreal does not do what performs an produce a product
and unreal act for produce the existent does not or both real and exists as an act and action that is which is not real,
the reasons above. concrete world or perform an action unreal As we have what neither exists either real or both nor both real-and-
the fusion of the that is existent or already agreed. or not [as an act], real and unrea. . non-real, Because
concrete world and both existent and because of what was of the reasons
8.10 the abstract world at non-existent. demonstrated by the which have been
all. Before it is proof above. advanced earlier.
discussed with words
or considered in the
brain, the real
practice of action is
already complete.
A true or untrue The real world, which An agent that has An existent and One who neither It cannot be that And a real-non-
agent does not do a is just the fusion of come to be both nonexistent agent exists nor does not an agent that is real producer
real or unreal act. the concrete and the existent and non- does not perform an exist as an actor both real and does not produce
This too is abstract, is solely existent does not action that Is unreal does not do that unreal performs a product which is
understood from the moving as it is, and perform an action or both real and which exists and an action that is neither real nor
reasons above. neither the concrete that exists and does unreal As we have does not exist as an either unreal or non-real. This is
nor the abstract can not exist . This too agreed. act. Here too this is both real and evident from the
ever be the same as should be to be known through unrea. . reasons which
8.11 the practice of action understood in terms the proof have been
itself. Before it is of the reasons demonstrated advanced earlier.
discussed with words adduced above . above.
or considered in the
brain, a real act as a
fact has disappeared
from the area of
discussion already.
The agent depends It is very clear that An agent proceeds Action depends upon An actor depends on We must say that The producer
8.12 on action and that behavior is a kind of depending upon the agent. The agent acts and acts too action depends proceeds being
depends on an action, and it is also action and action itself depends on occur in dependence upon the agent, dependent on the

agent. We see no clear that an action is proceeds depending action. One cannot on an actor. Apart and the agent product, and the
other established behavior. It is upon the agent. We see any way To from this, one does depends upon the product proceeds
reason action sets in completely do not perceive any establish them not see a cause action. Agent and being dependent
motion. impossible for action other way of differently. which is established. action cannot on the producer.
to begin to move as establishing (them). exist The cause for
if it is different from independently of realization is seen
action, and the cause each other. in nothing else.
of happiness is the
ability to look at
everything without
any prejudice.
Thus from the Although there may Following this From this elimination Likewise, one should From this In the same way
“rejection” of the be moments when method of the of agent and action, understand clinging, negation of one should
agent and of actions we do not notice our rejection of agent One should elucidate because act and independently understand the
and agents, the action, the state in and action, one appropriation in the actor are dispelled. existing agents "acquiring" on the
method for which action has not should understand. same way. Through Remaining things too and actions, an basis of the
knowledge of stopped is just the grasping. The action and agent All should be understanding of "giving up," etc. of
clinging and all the real situation of remaining existents remaining things understood by clinging should the producer and
rest about beings action. The fact that should be critically should be means of actor and arise. Through this the product. By
should come to light. the real practice of examined in terms of understood. act. analysis of action means of [this
real action is really the concepts of and agent all else analysis of] the
8.13 accomplished always action and agent. should be product and the
exists in the real comprehended. producer all other
situation of the things should be
fusion between dissolved.
action and a person
who acts, and such
action maintains and
develops all other
things and
phenomena.

Chapter 9

Investigation of the
Examination of the An Analysis of
Analysis of Prior Examination of the Examination of the
Presence of
9 moment just before "the Pre-existent
Existence Prior Entity Prior EntitySomething Prior
the Present Reality" (Purva)
(Already)
Some say: “He, Seeing, hearing, and "For whomsoever Since sight and Some say that Certain people
whose seeing, other sense there exists hearing, etc., and whatever is involved say: Prior to
hearing, etc., and perceptions are just seeing,hearing, etc., Feeling, etc„ exist, in seeing, hearing seeing, hearing,
also feeling, etc., manifested at the and feeling, etc., he He who has and uses etc. and feeling etc. and other [sensory
exist, exists prior to present moment. exists prior to them Must exist exists prior to them. faculties] together
these.” And before those these." So do some prior to those, some with sensation
9.1
sense perceptions declare. say. and other [mental
on, it is said that phenomena] Is
something real exists that to which they
in the identified belong.
situation.
Indeed, how will When sense How can there be If there were no If [that] thing is not [They reason:]
there be seeing, etc., perceptions such as seeing, etc. of an existent thing, How evident, how can How will there be
belonging to one not seeing and so forth existent who is not could seeing, etc., there be seeing etc? seeing, etc. of
present? Therefore, are not perceived, it evident? Therefore, arise? It follows Therefore, the someone who
prior to these, he is impossible for it is determined that, from this that prior presence [of that] does not exist?
exists as a being that anything to exist at prior to 'these to this, there is an thing [must] exist Therefore, there
is present. all, therefore, Even in things, such an existent thing. before them. exists a definite
existences, or even existent is. (vyavasthita)
9.2
just before the entity before that
present moment, [seeing, etc.].
reality actually
abides as the
regulated and stable
existence in front of
us.
Whichever being Just in seeing, Whatever existent is How is an entity What But that definite
9.3 present previous to hearing, and so determined as existing prior to configures/makes entity is previous
seeing, hearing, etc., forth, therefore just existing prior to Seeing, hearing, etc., known that thing to sight, hearing,

and to feeling, etc., in the sense seeing, hearing, etc., and The felt, etc., which is present etc., and
by what means is he perceptions, Things and also feeling, etc., itself known? before seeing and sensation, etc. —
caused to be and phenomena by what means is he hearing etc. and How can that
discerned? have existed before [it] made known? feeling etc.? [entity] be known?
the ordered
situations have
begun, and reality
itself has been found
there without relying
upon anything other
than reality.
If this [being] is Even when the sense If he is determined If it can abide If it were present And if that [entity]
present without perceptions such as as existing even Without the seen, even without seeing is determined
seeing, etc., these seeing and so forth without seeing, etc., etc., Then, without a etc., there would be without sight [and
will doubtless exist do not exist at all, undoubtedly even doubt, They can no doubt that they other sensory
without him. things and these [i.e., seeing, abide without it. would exist even faculties]. Then,
phenomena exist in etc.] will exist without it. undoubtedly,
stable situations as without him. those [sensory
they are. Those faculties] will exist
things and without that
9.4
phenomena will [entity].
continue to exist in
the future, because
if they did not exist,
there would be no
place where we
could rest
comfortably.
Someone is driven by Things go on relying Someone is made Someone is It is illuminated by Someone

something, upon things, and known by something. disclosed by them; they are becomes manifest
something is driven things are compelled Something is made something. illuminated by it. by something;
by someone. Where to move forward known by someone. Something is How could it exist something is
is there someone relying upon things. How could there be disclosed by without them? How manifest by
9.5 without something, Even though there is someone without someone. Without could they exist someone. How
and where is there nothing to be seen, something and something how can without it? would someone
something without something moves something without someone exist? exist without
someone? forward, and someone? Without someone something? How
something is how can something would something

compelled by exist exist without
something [else] to someone?
move forward in due
course, and
something is
produced
somewhere even
though there is
nothing to be seen.
Someone does not Relating with Someone is not White prior to all of It is not evident prior [The opponent
occur prior to all, to everything, and evident prior to all of seeing, etc., That to the totality of admits:] Someone
seeing, etc. Again, by relating with sense seeing, etc. Again, on prior entity doesn't seeing etc. From does not exist
contrast, he is driven perceptions such as different occasions, exist, Through among seeing etc. a previous to
by means of seeing, seeing and so forth, one could be made seeing, etc., by different one (purva) sight and
etc. it is completely known by things another one, That illuminates [it] at all the other
impossible for the different from other one becomes different times. [faculties]
moment just before seeing, e disclosed. together. [Rather,]
to be recognized at he is manifested
all. In the case of its by any one of
9.6 being in sense [them:] sight, etc.,
perceptions, such as at any one time.
seeing and so forth,
or even in the case of
its relying upon
something different,
or upon a different
time, the moment
just before has gone
ahead already.
If someone does not Relating with all If someone existing If prior to all of If it is not evident [Nagarjuna
occur prior to all, to things and prior to all of seeing, seeing, etc„ No prior prior to the totality answers:] But if
seeing, etc., how phenomena, the etc. is not evident, entity exists, How of seeing etc., how nothing exists
does he occur prior moment just before how can someone could an entity prior can it be evident previous to sight
9.7 to a single seeing, never becomes the existing prior to each To each seeing exist? prior to [each of and all the other
etc. object of recognition of seeing, etc. be them] seeing etc. [faculties]
by sense perceptions evident. individually? together. How
such as seeing and so could that [being]
forth. Departing exist individually

from concrete and before sight, etc.?
individual things and
phenomena, how is it
possible for the
moment just before
to be recognized as
something real
relying upon the
sense perceptions
such as seeing and so
forth?
If he is a seer while Action, which is If a seer is, at the If the seer itself is If the seer itself [Further,] if that
he is a hearer and seeing, is just reality, same time, a hearer the hearer itself, And [were] the hearer [being] were the
while he is a feeler, and reality is just and feeler, then the feeler itself, at and the feeler [were] "seer," that
he would be prior to action, which is someone would exist different limes, Prior it too, if it existed [being] were the
each single one and hearing. In that case prior to each one [of to each of these he prior to each, in that "hearer," that
that is not the reality is just the functions]. But would have to arise. way it would not [being] were the
reasonable. action, which this is not proper. But this makes no make sense. one who senses.
actually realizes such sense. Then one [being]
9.8
an action. The would exist
moment just before previous to each.
can exist departing Therefore, this
from each concrete [hypothesis] is not
thing, and it is never logically justified.
yoked by any
concrete fact at all.
Again, if a different If seeing has If seer and hearer If the seer itself is If the seer were On the other
seer, a different changed, hearing has and feeler are distinct, The hearer different, the hearer hand, if the "seer"
hearer, a different changed, and even different, then, when is distinct and the different, the feeler were someone
feeler exists, a what has been there is a seer, there feeler is distinct, different, at the time else, or the
hearer would be memorized has also would be a Then when there is a the seer exists, there "hearer" were
where there is a seer changed. Such hearer, and as such seer the re would would be a hearer. someone else, or
9.9
and there would be a changes might have there would be a also be a hearer, And Many selves would the one who
plurality of selves, occurred from plurality of selves. there would have to come about. senses were
changes between be many selves. someone else.
seeing and hearing Then there would
or from the be a "hearer"
existence of too when there was

many human minds. already a "seer,"
and that would
mean a
multiplicity of
"selves" (atma) .
Seeing, hearing, etc., [However] It [i.e., the self] is not Seeing and hearing, Also it is not evident In those elements
and feeling, etc., also perceptions, such as evident in the etc„ And feeling, in the elements from (bhuta) from
exist, but [the self] seeing, hearing, and elements from which etc., And that from which seeing and which seeing,
does not occur from so forth, exist just at seeing, hearing, etc., which these are hearing etc. and hearing, etc., and
them or in these the present moment. and feeling, etc. arisen: There is no feeling etc. occur. sensation, etc.,
existents. Concrete things and come to be. existent there. arise — Even in
9.10 phenomena exist in those elements
sense perceptions, that [being] does
and those things and not exist.
phenomena can
never be found in
the past at all.
If he whose seeing, The sense If he, to whom Seeing and hearing, If that to which When he to whom
hearing, etc., and perceptions, such as belongs seeing, etc„ And feeling, etc„ seeing and hearing seeing, hearing,
feeling, etc., does seeing, hearing, and hearing, etc. and If that to which they etc. and feeling etc. etc., and feeling,
not occur, then these so forth, exist here feeling, etc., is not belong does not belong is not etc. belong does
are also not just at the present evident, then even exist, they evident, they too not exist. Then
observed. moment. If it is these would not be themselves do not could not be evident. certainly they do
impossible for us to evident. exist. not exist.
9.11 recognize real
situations like that, it
is also impossible for
things and
phenomena in the
world to be
perceived at all.
He who is prior to, Before things and Wherein someone For whomever prior Reject the concepts For him who does
simultaneous with, phenomena are prior to, to, simultaneous “it exists,” “it doesn’t not exist previous
or posterior to perceived by the simultaneous with or with, or after seeing, exist” about that to, at the same
9.12 seeing, etc., does not sense functions such posterior to, seeing, etc„ there is nothing, which is not evident time, or after
occur and thereby, as seeing, hearing, etc. is not evident, For such a one, prior to, now or after seeing, etc. The
fictions concerning and so forth, some therein thoughts of assertions like "it seeing etc. conception "He
existence and non- kind of very stable existence and non- exists" or "it does exists," "He does

existence are conditions have existence are also not exist"-Such not exist," is
renounced. already been renounced. conceptions will dissipated.
established. It is not cease.
clear whether such
conditions are reality
or not reality, but
something, which is
not exactly clear yet,
has been established
already.

Chapter 10
Analysis of Fire and Examination of the Examination of Fire Examination of Fire Investigation of Fire An Analysis of Fire
10 Fuel Fusion of Fire and and Fuel and Fuel and Firewood (Fire) and Kindling
Combustion
If fuel is fire, there is When what is called If fire were to be If fuel were fire Then If firewood were fire, If fire is identical
identity of agent and combustion is just fuel, then there agent and action actor and act would to its kindling,
action. if fire is fire, the oneness of would be identity of would be one. If fire be one. If fire were then it is both
different from fuel, these two is the agent and action. If were different from other than wood, it producer and
then it would surely same as fusion of fire were to be fuel, Then it could would occur even product. And if
exist without fuel. behavior and action. different from fuel, arise without fuel. without wood. fire is different
10.1 And if it were then it would exist from kindling,
possible for fire to even without the then surely [fire]
depart from fuel. exists without
combustion, fire kindling.
alone might be able
to exist actually.
A permanent An abstract concept A burning without a It would be forever [Fire] would burn A [fire] which is
burning would be like an eternal light cause would be aflame; Flames could permanently and perpetually
without a cause for might be much eternally aflame. be ignited without a would not arise from burning would
igniting. But thus the different from the Furthermore, its cause. Its beginning causes for burning. exist without a
beginning is without real situation of a commencement will would be Starting [a fire] cause, which is
purpose and no concretely burning be rendered meaningless. In that would be kindling. Since
action exists. light. It may be much meaningless case, it would be meaningless. If it another beginning
more realistic for us [useless]. When that without any action. were like that, there would be
10.2
to view such an happens, it will be would also be no act. pointless; in this
abstract discussion without a function. case [fire] is
as unworthy [and] it without its object
may be making a [i.e., burning of
poor show for us to kindling].
begin [such a
discussion].
Igniting without a In another case, if we A burning without a Since it would not Because [fire] does [Fire] is without a
10.3 cause is independent throw away our mind cause, because it is depend on another not depend on cause, namely

from the sequel. But of indifference, it not contingent on Ignition would be anything else, it kindling, if it were
thus the beginning is might be reasonable another and, without a cause. If it would not arise from independent of
without purpose and for us to think that therefore, eternally were eternally in causes for burning. anything else; In
a permanent burning [real] light is not aflame, would imply flames, Starting it If it burned which case
follows. existence. In this the meaninglessness would be permanently, another beginning
case also we would of its meaningless. starting it would be would be
begin what is not commencement. meaningless. pointless, and
useful; the idea of an there is perpetual
eternal light is too burning.
much attached to an
abstract idea.
In that case, Even relying upon Herein, if it is So, if one thinks that Concerning this, if If it is maintained:
therefore, if “the any method, it is assumed that fuel is That which is burning one thinks that while Kindling is that
fuel is presently completely the present burning is the fuel, If it is just burning it is which is being
being ignited,” by impossible for and, therefore, that. this, How is this fuel firewood, if it is such kindled, By what is
what means other combustion to create [i.e., burning] is being burned? only at that time, by kindling kindled,
than the fuel is that combustion, and in merely this [i.e., what could that since kindling is
by which this is here such a situation the fuel), by what is fuel firewood be ignited? only that
so much as [ignited]? many things and being burnt? [kindling]?
10.4
phenomena may be
the world itself. The
world may be
continuously
burning, and it may
be possible for
burning to exist.
If it is not fuel that is It may be impossible [Fuel] that is If they are different, Because [fire] is [Fire], when
not reached by what for that which has different is not and if one not yet other, it would not different and not
is other than fuel, not yet been reached; the un- connected isn't connect; if it did not obtained [through
the unburnable will accomplished to be reached is not connected, The not connect, it would not kindling], will not
not burn. Preserving esteemed as having ignited. yet burned will not ignite; if it did not obtain; not
the likeness of its been accomplished Furthermore, that be burned. They will ignite, it would not burning, it will not
10.5 own nature already, and it may which is not ignited not cease. If they do die; if it did not die, it burn later;
[permanent burning] be impossible for does, not cease. That not cease Then it will would also remain in Without
will not be that which cannot be which does not cease persist with its own possession of its own extinction, it will
maintained by the accomplished to remains, like one characteristic. characteristic. not be
non-extinction of the have the possibility that has its own extinguished; if
extinguished. of being mark. there is no

accomplished. That extinction, then it
which cannot be will remain with
extinguished can its own
never be characteristics.
extinguished at all,
and a grammatical
gender will be
maintained as it is
forever.
If fire is different However, when fire If fire is different Just as a man and a Just as a woman [The opponent
from fuel, it would is isolated from from fuel it would woman Connect to connects with a man claims:] If fire is
reach for fuel, just as combustion, even reach the fuel, just as one another as man and a man too with a different from
a woman reaches for combustion has a woman would and woman, So if fire woman, although kindling it could
a man and a man for departed from its reach for a man and were different from fire is other than obtain the
a woman. originally perfect a man for a woman. fuel, Fire and fuel wood, it is fit to kindling As a
condition. The would have to be connect with wood. woman obtains a
female gender fit .for connection. husband, and a
10.6 [combustion] can man [obtains] a
include the male wife.
gender [fire], and the
male gender [fire]
can include the
female gender
[combustion] within
it.
Fire is different from In another case, if The fuel that is And, if fire and fuel If fire and wood [Nagarjuna
fuel for fuel would fire has departed different from fuel Preclude each other, eliminated each answers:] Though
be reached only if a from combustion, it may reach the fuel Then fire being other, even though fire is different
separation of one may be possible for only if fire and fuel different from fuel, fire is something from kindling, it
from the other combustion to take were to exist It must stiIl be other than wood, it could indeed
would exist in fire whichever position it mutually separated. asserted that they would have to obtain the
10.7 and fuel. favors. However, connect. connect with wood. kindling, On the
when fire and condition that
combustion have both fire and
been fused into just kindling can be
one, aha, they might reciprocally
conceal themselves differentiated [ —
within each other as but, this is

a perfect fusion impossible].
without noticing this
fusion.
If fire is dependent The existence of If fuel is contingent If fire depends on If fire were If the fire is
on fuel and fuel is combustion is the upon fuel and fuel fuel, And fuel dependent on wood dependent on the
dependent on fire, recognition of flame, upon fire, which of depends on fire, On and wood were kindling, and if the
which is descended and the recognition them is pre- what are fire and dependent on fire, of kindling is
from which so that of flame creates accomplished so that fuel established as what becomes fire dependent on the
fire and fuel are combustion. Before fire could be dependent? Which and wood fire, Which is
dependent? either combustion or contingent upon one is established dependently, which attained first,
fire manifests itself, fuel? first? would be established dependent on
10.8
there is the fact of first? which they are fire
our ability to and kindling?
recognize concrete
flame, and then it is
just the creation of
combustion for us to
recognize fire as it is.
If fire is dependent If it is true that If fire were to be If fire depends on If fire were If fire is
on fire’s fuel, the combustion is just contingent upon fuel, It would be the dependent on wood, dependent on
establishment of the recognition of fuel, there would be establishment of an [already] established kindling, so is the
proof will thus be the existence of fire, proof of fire that is established fire. And fire would be proof of the
the existence of fuel we can say that the already proved [to the fuel could be fuel established [again]. proved fire. Thus,
where there is no real substance might exist]. When that is Without any fire. Firewood also would being kindling it
fire. exist in fire itself. the case, even fuel be [such] even will exist without
Even though real would exist without without fire. fire.
combustion exists fire.
10.9
actually here and
now, there may be
the simple fact of
fire actually not
existing in some
concrete place or at
some concrete time
in the future.
What demonstrates What is really If events are to be If that on which an If a thing (A) is When a thing
10.10 the dependence regarded as real truly contingent, entity depends Is established (bhava) is proved

demonstrated by the substance is 'then they should be established on the dependently (on B), by being
dependence of existence, and such mutually contingent basis Of the entity [but] if what it dependent on
which being? If what existence is realized or dependent. If any depending on it, depends upon (B) is something else,
is to be depended just by relying upon one of two mutually What is established established also in then it proves the
upon is what has what is realized. contingent entities is in dependence on dependence on that other by being
demonstrated that, When that which is to be found in a what? very thing (A), what dependent [on it].
which is dependent regarded is just real substantial or would be established If that which is
on which? existence, what is it essential way in the in dependence on required for
that is really in front other, then the what? dependence must
of us actually? notion of be proved, then
contingence is what is dependent
nullified. on what?
How is that Relying upon the Whatever existent What entity is How can a thing (A) If that thing is
dependence fact that we have that is established established through which is established proved by being
demonstrated by the interest in through dependence? If it is dependently (on B) dependent, how
being who is not something, what contingence, how not established, then be dependent (on B) can that which has
established in becomes concrete is can that, if it is not how could it depend? when it (A) is not not been proved
dependence? But the called “existence,” yet established, be However, if it is established? If one be dependent? So,
demonstration of and so it may be contingent? Even so established merely asks, “how can that which is
dependence does impossible for what (how can.] that which through establishment be proved is
not occur in has not been built up is already dependence, That dependent?” It is dependent; but
dependence. to become established be dependence makes not reasonable for it the dependence is
10.11
something contingent? For its no sense. (A) to be dependent. not possible.
interesting. In such a contingence is not
situation even what proper.
has been
accomplished
already is not
regarded as that
which is accepted as
interesting.
Fire is not The fact that Fire is not contingent Fire is not There is no fire that Fire does not exist
dependent on fuel combustion has been upon fuel; fire is not dependent upon is dependent on in relation to
and fire is not recognized is the non-contingent upon fuel. Fire is not wood; there is also kindling; and fire
10.12 independent of fuel. meaning of fire, and fuel. Fuel is not independent of fuel. no fire that is not does not exist
Fuel is not the meaning of contingent upon fire; Fuel is not dependent on wood. related to
dependent on fire combustion is not its fuel is not nondependent upon fire. There is no wood kindling. Kindling
and fuel is not indifference to fire. contingent upon fire. Fuel is not that is dependent on does not exist in

independent of fire. To be without regard independent of fire. fire; there is also no relation to fire;
to combustion does wood that is not and kindling does
not mean to be fire, dependent on fire. not exist
and to be indifferent unrelated to fire.
to fire does not
mean combustion.
Where fire does not What is different Fire does not come Fire does not come Fire does not come Fire does not
come from from the above does out of something from something else, from something else; come from
something other not come as fire, and different nor is fuel Nor is fire in fuel fire also does not something else;
than fuel, fire does it is not true that fire seen to be in the itself. Moreover, fire exist in wood. and fire does not
not occur. Certainly is found within fuel. Herein, with and the rest are just Likewise, the exist in kindling.
what has been said combustion. In that regard to fuel, the like The moved, the remainder of wood The remaining
about gone, going, sphere, we can rest is stated as in not-moved, and the has been shown by [analysis] in regard
and not gone, and understand even the the case of present goer. gone, not-gone and to kindling is
the rest applies in explanations of moving, the moved going. described by [the
the case of fuel. problems concerning and the not moved. analysis of] "that
combustion by which is being
10.13
relying upon the gone to," "that
same theory that which is gone to"
explained the and "that which is
problem on the basis not yet gone to."
of [the recognition
of] “going,” [the
memory of] “having
gone.” and [the
supposition of] “not
having gone.”
Again, fire is not fuel Combustion is not Furthermore, fuel is Fuel is not fire. Fire Wood itself is not Fire is not
and there is no fire the same as flame, not fire. Apart from does not arise from fire; fire is also not identical to
other than from fuel. yet it is not true that fuel there is no fire. anything different something other kindling, but fire is
Fire is not possessed flame exists in a Fire is not possessed from fuel. Fire does than wood. Fire not in anything
by fuel and the fuels different place of fuel. Fuel is not in not possess fuel. does not possess other than
10.14 are not in the fire, departing from the fuel, nor is it [i.e., Fuel is not in fire, nor wood; wood does kindling. Fire does
nor is it in them. combustion. A flame fire] in them. vice versa. not exist in fire; that not hare kindling
is not the imitation (fire) does not exist as its property;
of combustion, and it in it. also, the kindling
is not also true that is not in fire and
combustion is the vice versa.

same as concrete
individual things.
The process of self Real flame, which is Through the Through discussion By [the analysis
and grasping is the fusion of examples of fire and of fire and fuel, The of] fire and
explained from fire, [material] fire and fuel, together with self and the kindling the
and fuel, along with combustion, can be the examples of pot, aggregates, the pot syllogism of the
the jar and cloth, explained as the cloth, etc. every and cloth All individual self
etc., and all the rest continuity of the real method of analysis together, Without (atma) and "the
without exception. fusion between of the self and remainder have been acquiring"
conceptual grasping have been explained. (upadana) Is fully
consideration and explained without and completely
sense perception. All exception. explained, as well
things and as "the jar" and
10.15
phenomena include "the cloth" and
much more real other [analogies].
content than can be
seen, and they rely
upon much more
complicated
substances, which
are similar to the
texture of a woven
cloth.
Those who speak Thoughts and Those who posit the I do not think that Those who specify
about the self and concrete reality exist substantiality of the Those who teach the nature of the
existence as in things and self as well as of that the self is the individual self and
different from phenomena, and at discrete existents, same as or different of existing things
beings do not have, I the same time they these I do not from the entities (bhava) as
think, knowledge are also concrete consider to be Understand the radically different
about the meaning individual things. experts in the meaning of the — Those people I
10.16 of the teaching [of Thoughts and meaning of the doctrine. do not regard as
the Buddha]. concrete things do [Buddha's) message. ones who know
not always show the sense of the
their own reality as teaching.
things and
phenomena exactly
as they are, but you
[who do not believe

in Buddhism]
continuously make
efforts to destroy
the meaning and
value of those things
and phenomena
completely.

Chapter 11

An Analysis of the
Past (Purva) and
Examination of the Examination of the Examination of the Investigation of
Analysis of Past and Future Limits
11 Termination of Prior and Posterior Initial and Final Extremes of Before
Future Limits (Aparakoti) [of
Beginning and End Extremities Limits and After (Before)
Existence]
The great sage said, Before the end of The Great Sage has When asked about When asked, “is a The great ascetic
“The prior limit is life was noticed by stated that the prior the beginning, The before-extreme [Buddha] said:
unknown. Samsara is the Great Sage, he end is not known. Great Sage said that evident?” the great "The extreme limit
without beginning or said as follows. The The life-process is nothing is known of Muni said, “it is not.” (koti) of the past
end. Indeed, there is up and down without beginning it. Cyclic existence is Samsara has no cannot be
no beginning or changes in our daily and end. There is without end and beginning, no end; it discerned."
end.” lives are much more neither a beginning beginning. So there has no before, no "Existence-in-flux"
11.1 excellent than the nor an end. is no beginning or after. (samsara) is
best condition of our end. without bounds;
lives, they are never indeed, there is no
[a restriction like a beginning nor
nose ring at all, and ending of that
they never belong to [existence].
an inferior condition.
Where would the The highest does not How could there be Where there is no For that without How could there
middle of what has exist on the earth the middle of that beginning or end, beginning [and] end, be a middle
no beginning or of and the lowest does which has neither a How could there be a where can a middle portion of that
what has no end be? not exist on the beginning nor an middle ? It follows be in that? which has no
Therefore, the earth, so how is it end? Therefore, the that thinking about Therefore, it is not "before" and
processes of the possible for the methods of this in terms of Prior, possible for it to "after"? It follows
past, the present, middle of the two to (distinguishing) the posterior, and have before, after, that "past,"
11.2
and the future do exist on the earth? prior, the. posterior simultaneous is not and simultaneous "future," and
not take place here. Therefore, the time or both together appropriate. phases. "simultaneous
before a fact, the (i.e., the middle) are events" do not
time after a fact, and not appropriate. obtain.
the time at the
middle can never
really exist as a real

fact at all.
If birth is first, old Before birth has If birth were to come If birth came first, If birth were before If birth [is
age and death would occurred, aging and first and decay and And then old age and and aging/death regarded as] the
be later, then birth death might belong death were to death, Then birth after, there would be former, and
would be without old to facts in the future. follow, then birth would be ageless birth without aging/ growing old and
age and death and Youth, death, or would be without and deathless, And a death and also dying [are
an immortal would birth can exist, and decay and death, and deathless one would without dying one regarded as]
have been born. furthermore it is an immortal would be born. would be born. coming into being
11.3
possible for us to thus emerge. later, Then birth
expect the exists without
occurrence of growing old and
eternity too. dying, and
[something] is
born without
death.
If birth is later, there After birth has If birth were to be If birth were to come If birth were after If birth were later,
would be old age and occurred, then aging posterior and decay- after, And old age and aging/death and growing old
death from the and death might death anterior, then and death first, How before, how could and dying were
beginning. How have begun. What is the latter would be could there be a there be an earlier, How would
could the old age unreasonable can without a cause. How causeless aging and uncaused there be an
and death of the never be born into could there be death Of one not aging/death which uncaused growing
11.4
unborn be without a the world; therefore decay-death of one born? has no birth? old and dying of
cause? it may be very who is not born? something
difficult for us to unborn?
understand aging
and death.
Birth does not occur Birth is never yoked Indeed, decay-death Birth and age and It is not suitable for And a birth which
simultaneously with to either aging or as concomitant of death Cannot occur birth and is simultaneous
old age and death. death. Both the birth is not proper. at one time. Then aging/death to be with growing old
He would die by desire to die and the (In that case,] what is what is being born simultaneous; that and dying is
being born and both fact of being born in the process of would be dying And which is being born likewise
11.5 would be without a may not be so being born will also both would occur would be dying and impossible; For,
cause. reasonable. be dying and both without cause. both would be that which is being
would be rendered without cause. born would die,
causeless. and both would be
without cause.
11.6 Where the processes In such a situation, Wherever such When the series of Why fixate on that Since the past,

of the past, the the process before a methods of the prior, birth, that future, and
future, and the [particular] fact, the (discriminating) the simultaneous, and aging/dying, for simultaneous
present do not come process after a fact, prior, the posterior posterior Is not which the phases of activity do not
forth, what do they and the process at and the possible, Why are before, after, originate. To what
explain in detail the same time [as a simultaneous do not you led to posit This simultaneity are purpose [do you]
about birth, old age, particular fact] are arise, why be birth, aging, and impossible? explain in detail
and death? not clear in daily life. obsessed by such death? [the existence of]
Many kinds of aging birth and such decay- birth, growing old
and many kinds of death. . and dying?
birth manifest
themselves as they
are, so what are
aging and death at
last?
Cause and effect, The practice of Effect and cause as Not only is cyclic It is not just samsara That which is
characteristic and action and the well as characterized existence itself alone that has no produced and its
characterized, feeler method of action are and characteristic, without beginning, before-extreme, cause, as well as
and feeling, and the same fact, an the together with No existent has a cause and fruit the characteristic
whatever else, do form and feeling and feeler or beginning: Neither themselves, and and that which is
not meaningfully characteristics of whatever fruits there cause and effect; Nor characteristics and characterized. The
exist. things and are. character and the basis for sensation and the
phenomena are the characterized … characteristics one who senses,
same, In reality, themselves, and whatever
where perceptions other things there
and that which is are.
11.7
perceived are
completely fused
into one, there is a
simple fact before
us, and there nothing
other than that.
Therefore the fact
that there is nothing
other than that, is
the real fact.
The prior limit of Before the end of The prior end of Nor feeling and the feeling and the Not only is the
11.8 samsara does not our life has been these is not evident. feeler; Whatever feeler, whatever is former limit of
only not occur, but recognized, nothing Of the entire life- there is: All entities suitable to bear existence-in-flux

also every place prior pure and nothing process as well as of Are without meaning, also all (samsara) not to
to the limits of excellent can be all existents, the beginning. things have no be found, But the
beings does not found in our daily prior end is not before-extreme. former limit of all
occur. life. However, even evident. those things is not
before the end of to be found.
our life has been
recognized, all things
and phenomena of
the world already
really exist.

Chapter 12
Examination of Examination of Investigation of An Analysis of

12 Analysis of Suffering Examination of Pain
Suffering Suffering Anguish (Anguish) Sorrow (Dukkha)
Some say, ‘Suffering Conduct done by Some assume that Some say suffering is Some assert that Some say: Sorrow
is self-caused, caused oneself, conduct suffering is self- self-produced, Or anguish arises from (dukkha) is
by another, caused done by another caused, caused by produced from being made by self, produced by
by both or person, and conduct another, caused by another or from made by other, by oneself, or by
uncaused.” But it done both by oneself both or without a both. Or that it arises both, without cause. another, or by
[suffering] does not and another person cause. [Suffering as] without a cause. It is To do that is not both (itself and
occur as an effect. are not always such an effect is not the kind of thing suitable. another), or from
reasonable at all. indeed not to be produced. no cause at all; But
12.1 Even though the appropriate. [to consider] that
word pain wants to [sorrow] as what is
be a simple and produced is not
regulated single possible.
word, the word pain
is not so
accomplished and
fixed yet.
If it would be self- When something If [suffering were to If suffering came If it were made by If it were
caused, it would not that is produced be] self-caused, then from itself, Then it self, therefore it produced by itself,
be dependent. subjectively exists, it could not occur would not arise would not be it would not exist
Skandhas [separate the existence of dependently. Indeed, dependently. For contingently arising, dependent on
heaps of things and depending upon those aggregates because those something else.
conditionings that phenomena are not these aggregates, Arise in dependence aggregates arise Certainly those
make up a sense of so clear. Things and these other on these aggregates. contingently on “groups of
12.2 personality] arise phenomena have aggregates occur. these aggregates. universal
dependent on these already manifested elements”
boundless skandhas. aggregates and the (skandhas) exist
world, [and we know presupposing
this] because it is these “groups.”
very clear that
aggregates exist
really.

If these are different When things and If from these those If those were If that were other If these were
from those or those phenomena are seen that are different different from these, than this and if this different from
would be some place as different from were to come to be, Or if these were were other than those, or if those
other than these, their own form, this or if from those different from those, that, anguish would were different
suffering would be suggests that the these different Suffering could arise be made by other from these,
caused by others and things and [things] were to from another. These and that would be Sorrow would be
those caused by phenomena have come to be', then would arise from made by those produced by
means of these changed from their suffering would be those others. others. something other
others. original form to caused by another, than itself,
another. There is the for these are caused because those
possibility that by those that are would be made by
conduct done by different. these others.
12.3 another person can
produce some kind
of pain; however, this
suggests only that
things and
phenomena are
producing something
different relying
upon another’s
intention or relying
upon the person who
acts.
If suffering is caused ..When one’s own If suffering is caused If suffering were If anguish were If sorrow is made
by the person personality itself by one's own person, caused by a person made by one’s own through one’s own
himself, then [he produces pain, it is then that own himself, Then who is person, who would personality
would exist] without necessary to think person can exist that person-By that person be who (svapudgala), then
suffering. Who is this that [without one’s without suffering. whom suffering is has made anguish by one’s own
person himself by own mistakes] there Who is he by whom caused-Who exists himself, but is not personality would
means of whom might be no pain. suffering is self- distinct from included in the be without
12.4
suffering is self- Even in cases where caused? suffering? anguish? sorrow; Who is
caused? one’s own that “own
personality is only personality” by
part of the cause of which sorrow is
the occurrence of self-produced?
pain, it is also
necessary for one to

say that one has
produced the pain by
oneself.
If suffering is .When what has been If suffering were to If suffering comes If anguish arose from If sorrow were
produced by another produced by another be produced by one from another another person, how produced by a
person, to whom is the cause of pain, person and given person, Then who is could it be suitable different
does this suffering the situation might over to another, that that person-When for there to be personality
caused by another be only that a simple suffering is caused suffering is given by [someone] not (parapudgala),
apply since he is fact exists as it is. by the former. How another-Who exists included in the How would he, to
12.5 without suffering? When the pain is just can the latter be distinct from anguish, who has whom is given
what another has identified without suffering? been given it by that sorrow by
produced, then is suffering? another who made another after he
there anywhere to the anguish? had produced it,
which we could be without
possibly flee from sorrow?
the responsibility?
If suffering is When pain has been If suffering is caused If another person If anguish arose If sorrow is
produced by another produced by by another person, causes suffering, [from] another produced by a
person, who is the someone other than who is that other Who is that other person, who would different
other person I, who is it that we person who, himself one Who bestowed that other person be personality, who is
without suffering call people other without suffering, that suffering, who, having made it, that different
who caused and than I? Even though causes it and Distinct from gives it to someone personality Who,
bestows it on it is a natural fact for bestows it on suffering? else, but is not while being
another? the practice of action another? included in the without sorrow,
12.6 not to be followed anguish? yet makes and
by pain, many actual transmits that
cases of pain are [sorrow] to the
exaggerations other?
[resulting from]
putting the
responsibility on
another.
Since the self-nature When conduct has With the non- When self-caused is Since it is not It is not
of cause is not been establishment of not established, How established as made established that
unexplained for accomplished on the self-causation, how could suffering be by self, how can sorrow is self-
12.7 suffering, where is side of the person can there be caused by another? anguish have been produced, [but]
there cause by himself, the cause of suffering caused by Whoever caused the made by other? [For] how is [sorrow]
another? Indeed the the pain never exists an other? For, suffering of another whatever anguish is produced by

other, from whose in the conduct of indeed, if another Must have caused his made by other, that another? Certainly
cause there is another. Another were to cause that own suffering. has been made by his the sorrow, which
suffering, his person sometimes suffering, in relation self. would be
suffering would be explains that the to him it would be produced by
self-caused. cause of pain has self-caused. another, in his
come from their own case would be
conduct, but there self-produced.
may be many cases in
which the person
himself has
produced the pain.
Therefore, suffering ..As much as conduct So long as suffering No suffering is self- Anguish is not made Sorrow is not self-
is not self-caused, by oneself is not the is not self-caused, it caused. Nothing [by] self; that is not produced, for that
indeed it is not cause of pain, pain is is, indeed, not causes itself. If made by that itself. which is produced
caused by means of not produced by pain caused by oneself. If another is not self- If it is not made by an is certainly not
itself. How can itself, therefore, If the other were not made, How could other self, how can produced by that
[suffering] be caused the conduct of to do it by himself, suffering be caused anguish be made by [personality]. If
by another if [his] another has not how could suffering by another? other? the “other” (para)
12.8 suffering would not been done according be caused by is not produced by
be caused by an to an evil intention, another? the individual self
other not the self? there might not be (atma), how would
any possibility at all sorrow be that
that the pain has produced by
been produced by another?
the other person.
If suffering would be Even in the case that If suffering were to If suffering were If it is made by each, Sorrow could be
caused by both, it both oneself and be caused by both, it caused by each, anguish would be made by both [self
would be caused one another have would be caused by suffering could be made by both. Not and the “other”] if
by one. Where is the produced a cause of each individually. caused by both. Not made by self, not it could be
uncaused suffering pain, it may be Whence can there be caused by salf or by made by other, how produced by
that is not self- actions that were suffering that is other, How could can anguish have no either one. [But]
12.9 caused or caused by actually done one by caused neither by suffering be cause? not produced by
another? one separately. another nor by uncaused? another, and not
Therefore when ·oneself and is self-produced—
conduct done by without a cause? how can sorrow
someone other than exist without a
oneself is the cause cause?
of the pain, where

can we find an
unreasonable fact in
the interpretation
that the cause of
pain is not action
done by another, but
has just occurred
from action done by
oneself?
Indeed, not only Because the It is not that the Not only does Not only does Not only are the
does the fourfold concretely separated fourfold theory suffering not exist In anguish alone not four [causal]
account of suffering factors [birth, aging, applied exclusively any of the fourfold have the four interpretations
not occur, but the sickness, and death] to suffering is not ways: No external aspects, external not possible in
fourfold account of are not included in evident. The fourfold entity exists In any of things too do not respect to sorrow,
the downfall of pain, it is completely theory pertaining to the fourfold ways. have the four [but also] none of
beings also does not impossible for us to other existents too is aspects. the four [causal]
occur. recognize the four not evident. interpretations is
factors separately possible even in
and concretely. Only respect to
12.10
what can be seen by external things
our eyes really exists (bhava).
in the world, so it is
completely
recognize the four
factors separately
and clearly in our
experience at all.

Chapter 13

An Analysis of
Examination of
Analysis of Examination of Real Examination of Investigation of Conditioned
13 Compounded
Disposition Action Action and the Agent Samskaras (Change) Elements
Phenomena
(Samskara)
The Venerable One A society where the The Blessed One has The Victorious The Bhagavan said A thing of which
said, “whatever viewpoint of realism said that whatever is Conqueror has said that whatever the basic elements
event is deceptive, does not work at all of deceptive nature, that whatever Is dharma is deceptive, are deception is
that is false.” is the world of vice, that is delusion. All deceptive is false. that is false. All vain, as the
Deceptive events are and there is no things that are of Compounded conditions [are] glorious one said.
in all dispositions, so opportunity for deceptive nature phenomena are all deceptive dharmas, All conditioned
they are false. saints to be involve dispositions. deceptive. Therefore thus they are false. elements
13.1
discussed. In the Therefore, they are they are all false. (samskara) are
world of vice it is not delusions. things that have
meaningful for us to basic elements
rely upon reality and (dharma) which
to live in reality. are deception;
therefore, they
are vain.
If whatever A world where the If, whatever that is of If whatever is If whatever is a "If that which has
deceptive event is realistic attitude is deceptive nature is deceptive is false, deceptive deceptive basic
false, then it is refused is the world delusion , what is it What deceives? The phenomenon is false, elements is vain,
deceived by what? of vice, where about which there is Victorious what is deceptive what is there
This was said by the nothing is left to be delusion ? That too, Conqueror has said about it [in what way which deceives?"
Venerable One to stolen at all. This was namely, that which about this That is it deceptive]? That This was spoken
13.2
illuminate openness. taught by the saint, illuminates emptiness is statement by the by the glorious
and the quietness in emptiness, has been completely true. Bhagavan is a one to illuminate
the balanced state is spoken of by the complete "emptiness."
the guideline, which Blessed One. presentation of
is shining forever. emptiness.
Since beings are When real existence, Because of the All things lack Things have no [An opponent
viewed as having no which is not bound perception of entitihood, Since essential nature says:] There is
13.3 self-nature in a by subjective change, the absence change is perceived. because they are non-self-existence
changing nature and existence, cal be of self-nature of There is nothing seen to change into of things [since] a
a being lacking self- seen in things and existents is without entity something else. thing, by

nature does not phenomena, we can [recognized]. Because all things Things do not lack an observation,
exist, then openness look at Because of the have emptiness. essential nature [becomes]
[is the self-nature] of nonsubjective emptiness of because things are something else. A
beings. existence in front of existents, there is no emptiness. thing without self-
us. When objective existent without self- existence does
existence really nature. not exist—due to
exists there, the the emptiness of
balanced states existing things.
moving in things and
phenomena.
Whose would be the Even when it is Whose change would If there is no If there were no If self-existence
changing nature if impossible for there be, if self- entitihood, What essential nature, does not exist,
self-nature does not abstract existence to nature were not changes? If there whose [nature] whose "other-
occur? Whose would exist, where is it — evident? Again, were entity, How would it be to existence" would
be the changing possible for a world whose change would could it be correct change into there be?
nature if self-nature other than this world there be, if self- that something something else? If [Nagarjuna
does occur? to exist [in the nature were evident? changes? there were an answers:] If self-
univérse]? Even essential nature, existence does
13.4
when our mind is how would it be exist, whose
completely occupied possible to change "other-existence"
by abstract mental into something else? would there be?
functions, where is it
possible for another
world to exist [in the
universe] at all?
No changing nature, It is completely Neither change of A thing itself does This itself does not Just as there is no
either of itself or of impossible for a something in itself not change. change into other-existence of
another, occurs. This world other than this nor of something Something different something else. The a thing, so also
is because a youth world to be included different is proper. does not change. other itself too does [an-other-
does not age and an into this world, and The reason being Because a young not [either]. Because existence] of
aged one does not at the same time this that a youth does man doesn't grow youth does not age. something else is
13.5 age. world is never bound not age nor does an old, And because and Because age too not possible Since
by a world other aged person age. an old man doesn't does not age. a youth is not
than this at all. As grow old either. aging (jiryate), and
much as young since "who has
people do not already aged" is
become older (just at not aging (jiryate).
the present

moment) at the
same time even old
people do not
become older (just at
the present
moment) at all
If a changing nature If we think that there If change were to be If a thing itself If this itself changes If there would be
[were] of itself, then is a world other than of something in changed, Milk itself into something else, an other-existence
milk would be butter. this world, we could itself, then milk itself would be curd. Or milk itself would be of a thing, milk
Since milk differs, think that milk and would be butter. curd would have curds. Something would exist as
the nature of butter yogurt might be the Butterness would come to be An entity other than milk curds. [But] surely
will be of what? same. But milk might then be something different from milk. would be the being "being curds" will
13.6 be somewhat other than milk. of curds. be something
different [from other than milk.
yogurt],and so the
existence of yogurt
might be later [than
milk].
If something would If there exists the If there were to be If there were even a If a bit of the non- If something
be non-open, then slightest unbalance, something non- trifle nonempty, empty existed, a bit would be non-
nothing would be there might never empty, there would Emptiness itself of the empty would empty, something
“open.” If nothing is exist even a bit of then be something would be but a trifle. also exist. If there would [logically
non-open, why will the balanced state at called empty. But not even a trifle did not exist a bit of also] be empty But
there be open? all. If the unbalanced However, there is is nonempty. How the non-empty, how nothing is non-
13.7 state never exists nothing that is non- could emptiness be could the empty empty, so how will
really, where is it empty. How could an entity? exist? it become empty?
possible for the there be something
balanced state to empty?
exist even in the
future?
The conqueror The fact that the The Victorious Ones The victorious ones The Conquerors Emptiness is
taught openness as balanced state is the have announced that have said That taught emptiness as proclaimed by the
the refutation of all basis of all intuitive emptiness is the emptiness is the the forsaking of all victorious one as
13.8 views. But those who decisions is relinquishing of all relinquishing of all views. Those who the refutation of
hold openness as a proclaimed by many views. Those who are views. For whomever view emptiness are all view- points;
view are called people, who have possessed of the emptiness is a view, taught to be without But those who
irremediable. exactly grasped the view of emptiness That one will realization hold "emptiness"

truth. Relying upon are said to be accomplish nothing [incurable/incorrigibl as a viewpoint—
those people, it is incorrigible. e]. [the true
proclaimed that the perceivers] have
viewpoint based called those
upon the balanced "incurable"
state is just the (asddhya) .
eternal Truth itself.

Chapter 14

Investigation of An Analysis of
Analysis of Examination of Examination of Examination of
14 Connections Unification
Combination Fusion Associations Connection
(Connection) (Samsarga)
These three, seeing, The object of seeing, The object of seeing, The seen, seeing, The seen, the seeing That which is seen,
the seen, and the the act of seeing, the seeing and the and the seer: These and the seer: these sight, and the
seer, in pairs or and the person who seer, these three do three-pairwise or All three do not "seer": these three
collectively, also do sees are three kinds not function in together-Do not mutually connect Do not combine
not become mutually of strings, which mutual association connect to one [as] pairs or all together either in
combined. make a plaited cord either in pairs or all another. [together]. pairs or
of brilliant colors, together. altogether.
but they are just the
combination of two
14.1
and two. Generally
speaking, it is not
true that a mutual
relation is always
fusion, and there is
also a combination
of mutual relations
between two and
two.
Thus passion, the Excitement, the Lust, the lustful as Similarly desire, the Likewise desire, Desire, the one
impassioned, and excited condition, well as the object of desirous one, the desiring and the who desires, and
object of passion and the act of being lust should be seen object of desire, And desired, the the object of
would be seen by excited all are in the same waThe the remaining remaining afflictions desire have to be
means of these related with remaining afflictions And the and also the regarded in the
three, as well as the enjoyment. Relying defilements as well ~ remaining sources of remaining sense- same way, [As
14.2 remaining upon these three, the remaining perception Are fields do [not also] the
defilements and the there are serious spheres of sense understood in this connect] by three impurities which
remaining spheres of pains and at the should be seen in the threefold way. aspects. remain and the
sensation. same time there are triadic mode. three kinds of
places where we can "bases of sense"
rest. (dyatana) which
remain.
14.3 That combined Fusion does not rely Association is of the Since different If the other connects [Some hold:]

difference of some upon anything mutually different things connect to to the other, because There is
event with some different from [events]. Such one another, But in the seen and so forth unification
other does not occur.
fusion, and fusion difference is not seeing, etc., There is do not exist [as] (samsarga) of one
Hence, beginning does not belong to evident in the no difference, They other, therefore different thing
with seeing, which of
anything different objects of seeing, cannot connect. there is no with another
these do not becomefrom fusion. It is etc. Therefore, they connection. different thing;
combined? completely do not function in [but] since the
impossible for fusion mutual associati differentness Of
to be recognized as what is seen, etc.
anything different does not exist,
from fusion. Fusion those [factors] do
can be seen in front not enter into
of us as it is [and it] unification.
clearly manifests
already, so it is
completely
impossible for fusion
to progress further
[by] changing itself.
Not only does An independent and It is not only that the Not only in seeing, Not only are the Not only does the
difference [in concrete thing can difference with etc., Is there no such seen and so forth differentness of
reference to] seeing, never change into a regard to objects of difference: When alone not existing as that which is seen,
etc., not occur, even fundamentally seeing, etc. is not one thing and other, it is invalid for etc. not exist. Also
the difference of one different thing, and evident; the another are anything the differentness
event joined in such a fact can never possibility of simultaneous, It is simultaneous with of something
another does not be recognized by something also not tenable that something to be coming from
take place. relying upon sensory possessing there is difference. other [than it]. another does not
perceptions like difference jointly obtain.
seeing, and so forth. with another is also
14.4 In this world there is not appropriate.
some thing that is
excellent, but at the
same time it is
completely
impossible for
anything that really
exists to manifest
itself as something
different from its
original form.

Differences of one Between one thing Different things are A different thing The other is other in A thing is
event from another and another the dependent upon depends on a dependence upon different insofar
depend on [the fact difference is very different things. different thing for its the other. Without as it presupposes
that] one event is clear, and something Different things are difference. Without the other, the other a second different
not different from different and not without a different thing, a would not be other. thing. One thing is
another without that something non- different things. different thing It is invalid for not different from
other. Which which different are moving Because something wouldn't be whatever is another thing
depends on which so as things and depends upon different. It is not dependent on without the other
that from which it phenomena, which something, a tenable for that something to be thing.
differs does not take are different. Even different thing is not which depends on other than that.
place? though there exist appropriate. something else To be
cases of things and different from it.
phenomena that are
14.5 clear in their
characteristics, and
things and
phenomena that are
unclear it their
characteristics, it is
completely
impossible for these
two cases | manifest
themselves as
something that is
absolutely different
from their own
characteristics.
If one event is If we could overcome If a thing is different If a different thing If the other was If one different
different than the difference from another were different from other than the other, thing is different
another from which between two because it arises a different thing, then, without the from a second
it differs, it would be differences, we from a different Without a different other, it would be different thing, it
without that from would just imagine thing, then it would thing, a different other. Without the exists without a
which it differs. But the possibility of exist even without thing could exist. But other it would not be second different
14.6 that difference does movement that other thing. without that other. Therefore, it thing; But without
not exist without the overcoming However, that other different thing, that does not exist. a second different
one from which it difference. i thing does not exist different thing does thing, one
differs and so it does However, there is no without the other, not exist. It follows different thing
not exist. possibility for one and therefore, it that it doesn't exist. does not exist as a
difference and does not exist. different thing.
another difference

to actually move
overcoming
differences, and
even in the future
such a solution can
never be realized.
Where no difference ..Difference can A difference is not Difference is not in a Otherness does not Differentness
occurs, the never be found in evident in relation to different thing. Nor exist in the other. does not exist in a
difference in the only one individual a different thing. Nor is it in a non- Nor does it exist in different thing,
different does not [thing], and is it not evident in a different thing. If what is not other. If nor in what is not
occur. And where difference can never different thing. difference does not otherness does not different. When
difference is not be found in only one When difference is exist, Neither exist, neither the differentness
present, neither thing, which is not not evident, there is different nor other nor that itself does not exist,
identity nor different. If there is neither difference identical things exist. exists. then there is
14.7 difference exist. no existence, or if it nor identity. neither what is
is [considered] in the different nor
abstract concept of "this" [from which
difference, both the something can be
state that is different].
different from fusion
and fusion itself can
never exist in the
real world at all.
The combination of Fusion does not rely The association of That does not That does not Unification is not
identical events [of upon fusion itself, identical things or of connect to itself. Nor connect with that. possible by
one to another] or nor does fusion different things is do different things The other too does [uniting] one thing
different events [of belong to fusion not proper. Neither connect to one not connect with the with that one
one differing from itself, and fusion the associating nor another. Neither other. The thing, nor by
another] is not does not rely upon the associated nor connection nor connecting, the [uniting] one thing
found. The what is not fusion even die agent of Connected nor connection and the with a different
connecting, the itself, nor does association is connector exist connector too do not thing; Thus, the
14.8 connector, and the fusion belong to evident. exist. becoming unified,
connected is not what is not fusion the state of being
reasonable. itself. The relation united, and the
between fusion and one who unites
what is not fusion is are not possible.
not a combination,
nor is it an
accumulation [of
things] into one

place, nor can the
state in which fusion
and what is not
fusion are fighting
against each other
be

Chapter 15

An Analysis of a
Analysis of Self- Examination of Examination of Examination of Investigation of Essence and
15 Self-existent
Nature subjective Existence Self_Nature Essence Essences (Essence) Existence
Thing (Svabhava)
There is no arising of Total existence does The occurrence of Essence arising from It is unreasonable for It makes no sense The production of
self-nature not belong to self-nature through Causes and an essence to arise to say that a self-existent
connected with subjective existence, causes and conditions makes no from causes and essence arises thing by a
causes and and it is regulated by conditions is not sense. If essence conditions. Whatever from causes and conditioning
conditions. Self- reason as a reliable proper. self-nature carne from causes essence arose from conditions. If cause is not
nature from causes fact. ¥ Reason and that has occurred as and conditions, Then causes and essence were possible, [For,]
and conditions would the reliable facts are a result of causes it would be conditions would be caused or being produced
15.1 be artificial. always combined and conditions would fabricated. something that has conditioned, it through
into one, and be something that is been made. would not be dependence on a
subjective existence made. essence. cause, a self-
can be understood as existent thing
that which is would be
artificially produced "something which
by human beings. is produced"
(kriaka) .
Again, how will what Because subjective Again, how could How could it be How is it possible for Essence cannot How, indeed, will
is called self-nature existence is called there be a self- appropriate For there to be “an be created or a self-existent
be artificial? Self- that which is nature that is made? fabricated essence to essence which has otherwise come thing become
nature is not made produced by human Indeed, an unmade come to be? Essence been made?” to be. Essence is "something which
artificially and, beings artificially, self-nature is also itself is not artificial Essences are not not artificial, nor is produced"?
indeed, it is how is it possible for non-contingent upon And does not contrived and not does it depend on Certainly, a self-
independent of subjective existence another. depend on another. dependent on another. existent thing [by
others. to continue to exist anything else. definition] is "not-
15.2 even in the future? If produced" and is
subjective existence independent of
is not what is anything else.
produced by human
beings artificially,
such subjective
existence is not the
object of interest to
anyone, and it might

belong to some
world other than the
real world.
.. In a being having If subjective In the absence of If there is no If an essence does If there are If there is an
self-nature, where existence as thought self-nature, whence essence, How can not exist, how can essences, then absence of a self-
will other-nature be? does not exist in the can there be other- there be difference the thingness of the there are real existent thing,
The self-nature of real world, how is it nature? For, self- in entities? The other exist? [For] the differences how will an other-
other-nature is called possible for nature of other- essence of essence of the between thing. . existent thing
other-nature. objective existence nature is called difference in thingness of the (parabhava) come
as sensory other-nature. 1entities Is what is other is said to be into being?
excitement to exist called the entity of the thingness of the Certainly the self-
in the real world difference. other. existence of an
even in the future? other-existent
Subjective existence thing is called
15.3 as thought belongs "other-existence."
to objective
existence as sensory
excitement;
therefore it is
possible for
objective existence
as sensory
excitement to
become the object of
verbal discussion.
Again, where is the When subjective Without self-nature Without having Apart from an Are there entities Further, how can
being without self- existence as thought and other-nature, essence or essence and the without a thing [exist]
nature or other- and objective whence can there be otherness-essence, thingness of the essences? Then without either
natures? Indeed, it existence as sense an existent? For, the How can there be other, what things there are no real self-existence or
demonstrates that a excitement are fused existent is entities? If there are are there? If differences other- existence?
being exists in self- into one, there is no established only essences and entities essences and between the. . If either self-
15.4 nature or in other- place where the when there is self- Entities are thingnesses of existence or
nature. abstract concept of nature or other- established. others existed, other-existence
existence can exist at nature. things would be exist, then an
all.[This is] because established. existing thing,
the existence of the indeed, would be
real world is always proved.
realize when

subjective existence
as thought and
objective existence
as sen, excitement
are fused into one in
the real world.
The lack of We can think that When the· existent is If the entity is not If things were not If we cannot find If there is no
explanation of being something unreal not established, the established, A established, non- an entity with an proof of an
does not establish exists, but it is non-existent is also nonentity is not things would not be essence, that existent thing,
non-being. The necessary for us ti not established. It is, established. An established. [When] a does not prove then a non-
changing nature of think that what does indeed, the change entity that has thing becomes the non-existence existent thing
being is indeed not exist can never of the existent that become different Is a something else, of such entities. cannot be proved.
called non-being by be realized. if [This is] people generally call nonentity, people people say that it is a Some say that an Since people call
15.5 people. because it is just a the non-existent. · say. non-thing. entity that the other-
real fact that various changes is a existence of an
kinds of births in real nonentity. existent thing a
world manifest "non-existent
various existences thing."
and nonexistences
actually.
Those who see self- Even [in the case of] Those who perceive Those who see Those who view Those who think Those who
nature and other- subjective existence self-nature as well as essence and essence, thingness of in terms of perceive self-
nature, being and or objective other-nature, essential difference the other, things and essences and real existence and
non-being, do not existence, and even existence as well as And entities and non-things do not differences, and other-existence,
see the truth in the [in the case of] non-existence, they nonentities, They do see the suchness in who cannot and an existent
Buddha’s teaching. existence or do not perceive the not see The truth the teaching of the recognize entities thing and a non-
nonexistence, People truth embodied in taught by the awakened. without essences, existent thing. Do
who sometimes the Buddha's Buddha. do not grasp the not perceive the
15.6 observe them and message. truth taught by true nature of the
sometimes do not the Buddha. Buddha's
observe them are teaching.
people who are
strongly criticized by
Gautama Buddha
because of such a
fact.
15.7 In the instructions to Katyayana was In the admonition to The Victorious One, Through knowing The Buddh. In "The

Katyayana, both “it critical to the two Katyayana, the two through knowledge things and non- counseled against Instruction of
is” and “it is not” insistences that theories I implying] Of reality and things, the Buddha saying "it is" and Katyayana" both
were demonstrated something exists or 'exists' and 'does not unreality, In the negated both "it is not." "it is" and "it is
by the Buddha as that something does exist' have been, Discourse to existence and non- not" are opposed
causing the not exist. Discussions refuted by· the Katyayana, Refuted existence in his By the Glorious
appearance of being of something Blessed One who is both "it is" and "it is Advice to Katyayana. One, who has
and non-being. existing or not adept in existence as not." ascertained the
existing were well as in non- meaning of
refused by the saint existence. "existent" and
[Katyayana], because "non- existent."
such discussions
about existence or
nonexistence did not
have any special
brilliancy.
If existence would be When real existence If existence were to If existence were If [things] existed If only entities If there would be
unalterable, there in the real world be in terms of primal through essence, essentially, they with essences an existent thing
would not be its non- exists in the original nature, then there Then there would be would not come to [really] exist, then by its own nature,
existence. Indeed a conditions, then it is would not be its non- no nonexistence. A non-existence. It is there is no non- there could not
changing nature of impossible for any existence. A change change in essence never the case that existence, nor can be "non-
primordial substance fact not to exist in of primal nature is Could never be an essence could anything change. existence" of that
never happens. this world at all [This certainly not tenable. become something [thing]. Certainly
is] because it is appropriate. else. an existent thing
15.8 completely diflferent from its
impossible for some own nature
substitute, which has would never
been separated from obtain.
its original reality,
accidentally to
appear into this
world.
Where primordial If everything keeps When primal nature If there is no If essences did not Some will say, "If [An opponent
substance does not its own original is non-existent, essence, What could exist, what could there are no asks:] If there is
exist, what will have reality, it is whose change would become other? If become something essences, what is no basic self-
15.9 changing nature? completely impos: there be? When there is essence, else? Even if there to change?" nature (prakrti) ,
Where primordial sible for what is not primal nature is What could become essences existed, We reply, "If of what will there
substance exists, true to exist as a existent, whose other? what could become there are be "otherness"?
what will have substitute for what is change would there something else? essences, what is [Nagarjuna

changing nature? not true. If be ? there to change?" answers:] If there
everything keeps its is basic self-
own original reality, nature, of what
it is completely will there be
impossible for what "otherness"?
is true to exist as a
substitute for what is
true.
“It is” is grasping for ..If we believe in the "Exists' implies To say "it is" is to “Existence” is the To say "it is" is to "It is" is a notion
eternity. “It is not” is idea of the constant grasping after grasp for grasping at be attached to of eternity. "It is
the view of nihilism. grasp, it is eternalism. "Does permanence. To say permanence; “non- essentialism. 2 To not" is a nihilistic
Therefore, existence completely not exist" implies the "it is not" is to adopt existence” is the say "it is not" is to view. Therefore,
and non-existence impossible for us to philosophy of the view of nihilism. view of annihilation. lapse into one who is wise
would not be believe that annihilation. Therefore a wise Therefore, the wise nihilism. 3 does not have
resorted to by the instantaneousness Therefore, a person Does not say do not dwell, in Therefore, recourse to
wise. exists really. But in discerning person "exists" or "does not existence or non- judgments of "it "being" or "non-
the real world, where should not rely upon exist." existence. is" or "it is not" being."
something concrete either existence or are not made by
and something non-existence. the wise.
15.10
abatract are fused
into one, the real
situations of the real
world are not
individual or sharp,
but there is only the
simple fact that
something vague but
brilliant exists in
front of us.
“Whatever exists by If the world as a "Whatever that "Whatever exists “Since that which "An entity with an That which exists
self-nature, that receptacle does not exists in terms of through its essence exists by its essence essence cannot by its own nature
does not not exist” exist relying upon self-nature, that is Cannot be is not non-existent,” not-exist." This is is eternal since "it
and so is permanent. subjective existence, not non-existent'' nonexistent" is is [the view of] essentialism. "It does not not-
15.11 Annihilation follows the idea that the implies eternalism. eternalism. "It permanence. “That existed before, exist." If it is
from “it does not world as a receptacle "It does not exist existed before but which arose before is but now it maintained: "That
exist now but existed does not exist really now, but existed doesn't now" Entails now non- doesn't." This is which existed
before.” is eternal. When we before" implies the error of nihilism existent,”leads to nihilism. before does not
have the idea that annihilation. [the view of] exist now," there

there is nothing annihilation. annihilation
really before would logically
anything has been follow.
born, such an idea
might be too
influenced by the
idea of
instantaneousness.

Chapter 16

An Analysis of
Examination of the Investigation of
Analysis of Bondage Examination of Examination of Being Bound
16 Fusion of Restriction Bondage and
and Freedom Bondage and Release Bondage (Bandhajia) and
and Emancipation Freedom (Life)
Release (Moksa)
If dispositions When forms of If it is assumed that If compounded If it is said that "When conditioned
transmigrate, they conduct pass by, it is dispositions phenomena impulses are elements continue
transmigrate as not not the situation that transmigrate, they transmigrate, They “samsara”, if they to change, they do
permanent and they only what is would not do not transmigrate were permanent, not continue to
transmigrate as not instinctive is passing transmigrate as as permanent. If they they would not move change as eternal
impermanent. It is by. When what is not permanent entities. are impermanent around. Even if things. Likewise
the same process in a only instinctive Neither do they they do not impermanent, they they do not
16.1
sentient being. passes by, all things transmigrate as transmigrate. The would not move continue to change
and phenomena in impermanent same approach around. Sentient as non-eternal
front of us are just in entities. This method applies to sentient beings too are similar things. The
the state of (of analysis) is beings. in this respect. argument here is
movement. applicable even in the the same as for a
case of a sentient living being.
being.
If a person When a person It may be assumed If someone If it is said that If the personality
transmigrates five- passes through his that a person transmigrates, Then persons “move would change
fold in the elements, daily life, the five transmigrates. Yet, if, when sought in the around,” if they are when it is sought
sense spheres, and aggregates are such a person, sought five-fold way In the non-existent when five ways in the
personality skeins usually based on for in the five-fold aggregates and in the searched for in five "groups" (skandha)
pursuing what does physical matter. But way in the sense spheres and in aspects among the , "bases of sense
not exist, who will when the five aggregates, spheres the elements, He is aggregates, sense perception"
transmigrate? aggregates are real, (of sense) and not there, what fields and elements, (dyaiana) , and the
16.2
which is a kind of elements, does not transmigrates? what would move "irreducible
research, it is exist. Who then will around? elements" (dhatu).
impossible for us to transmigrate? Then it does not
find real wandering exist. "Who [is it
within our daily lives who] will change?
o for such wandering
to really exist even in
the future.

Migrating from When sense Moving from one If one transmigrates If one moves around Moving from
grasping to grasping perception has form of grasping to from grasping to in having clung [to "acquisition"
would be transcended sense another, there would grasping, then One something] and then (upadana) to
annihilation. Who is perception itself, be other becoming. would be clinging [to "acquisition" would
destroyed and [thus] where is the Who is this person nonexistent. Neither something else], be "that which is
not grasping? Who is possibility for us to who has ceased to be existent nor grasping, there would be no without existence"
he who will produce wandering in and is [therefore] Who could this becoming. If there (vibhava). Who is
transmigrate? our daily life non-grasping? transmigrator be? were no clinging and he who is without
everywhere even in Wherein does he no becoming, who existence and
16.3
the future? If our transmigrate? would move around? without
sense perceptions are acquisition? To
regulated what will he
everywhere, how is it change?
possible for our
wandering to be
realized at any place
even in the future?
How does the When the balanced The cessation of How could It is in no way feasible The final cessation
liberation from state does not dispositions is compounded that impulses go (nirvana) of the
dispositions even manifest itself in the somehow not phenomena pass into beyond misery. And it conditioned
happen? How does performance of real appropriate. The nirvana ? That would is in no way feasible elements certainly
the liberation of a action, nothing cessation even of a not be tenable. How that living beings go is not possible at
16.4 sentient being also occurs at all. When sentient being is also could a sentient beyond misery. all. Nor is the final
happen? the balanced state not appropriate in being pass int o cessation of even a
cannot be seen in the any way. nirvana? That would living being
real state, nothing not be tenable. possible at all.
occurs at all.
Rising and ceasing The universal system, Dispositions that are All compounded Impulses that have The conditioned
events are neither which is always of the nature of phenomena, as the properties of elements, whose
bound nor free. continuing its uprising and ceasing arising and ceasing being born and dying nature (dharma) is
Dispositions are appearances and are neither bound northings, Are not bound are not bound and arising and
neither bound by nor disappearances, is released. A sentient and not released. For will not be freed. In destruction,
16.5
released by the never restricted, yet being, like the this reason a sentient the same way as neither are bound
previously mentioned it is never foregoing, is neither being Is not bound, above living beings nor released.
sentient being. emancipated. Real bound n or released. not released. too are not bound Likewise a living
action in reality, and and will not be freed. being neither is
reality itself, is never bound nor

restricted and never released.
emancipated.
If grasping is Even if restriction has If grasping were to be If grasping were If clinging binds, the If the acquisition
bondage, he [who is manifested, such a considered a bondage, Then the one who has clinging (upadana) were the
grasping] is not manifestation is not bondage, one who is one who is grasping would not be bound. "binding," that one
bound by grasping restricted at all. And with grasping is not would not be bound. And there would be [having] the
nor is he bound by what has not being bound. Neither But one who is not no bondage without acquisition is not
16.6 not grasping. But manifested is not is one without grasping is not clinging. In what bound; Nor is that
who remains bound restricted; then how grasping being bound. In what situation would there one not having the
by grasping? is it possible for what bound. A per-son in circumstances will be bondage? acquisition bound.
has appeared to be which state is then one be bound? Then in what
restricted at all? bound? condition is he
bound?
.. If bondage would When real facts have If it is assumed that 7. If prior to binding If binding existed Certainly if the
be prior to what is existed before bondage exists prior There is a bound one, prior to one who is "binding" would
bound, freely it becoming restricted, to the binding of that There would be bound, [that unbound exist before "that
would bind what then we can easily which is to be bound, bondage, but there person] would which is bound,"
does not exist. The leave the restricted that does not exist. isn 't. The rest has depend on binding. then it must bind;
rest is discussed by situation and truly The rest has been been explained by That too cannot be. But that does not
going, gone, and not enter into perfect explained by [the the gone, the not- The rest has been exist. The
gone. freedom. And the analysis of] present gone, and the goer. explained by the remaining
fact that there is no moving, the moved gone, the not-gone [analysis] is stated
possibility other than and the not moved. and the going. in [the analysis of]
what is proclaimed "the present going
above can be to," "that which
16.7
explained by has already gone
referring to the fact to" and "that which
that the verbal has not yet gone
expressions having to."
gone, going on, and
not yet gone are
completely different
dimensionally from
the real act of going
just at the present
moment.
Therefore, the bound What is restricted is One who is bound is Whoever is bound is Those who are bound Therefore, "that
16.8 is not freed by the not emancipated, as not released, nor is not released. will not be free. And which is bound" is

unbound, nor is the much as what is not one who is not bound Whoever is not those who are not not released and
unbound freed by the restricted can never freed. When there is bound does not get bound will not be "that which is not
bound. In presently be emancipated at releasing of one who released. If a bound free. If those who are bound" is likewise
freeing the bound, all. Aha, it may be is bound, then. there one were being bound become free, not released. If
bondage and true that when a man would be released, Bondage bondage and "that which is
freedom would be exists both in simultaneous and release would freedom would be bound" were
simultaneous. restriction and occurrence of occur simultaneously. simultaneous. released, "being
emancipation, he bondage and release. bound" and
might exist in the "release" would
fusion between exist
restriction and simultaneously.
emancipation.
(For} those who say, When the attitude of "Non-grasping, l shall "I, without grasping, “I, without clinging, "I will be released
“Nirvana will be not relying upon be free. Freedom will will pass beyond am beyond misery. without any
mine,” their grasping sense perception has then be mine." For sorrow, And I will Nirvana is mine.” acquisition."
of the non-grasping become sufficient to whomsoever there is attain nirvana," one Those who grasp in "Nirvana will be
of freedom is a me, it may also be grasping in this says. Whoever grasps that way have great mine." Those who
gigantic grasping. possible that the manner, that will be a like this Has a great grasping and clinging. understand thus
balanced attitude gigantic grasping. grasping. hold too much to
may become "a holding on" [i.e.,
sufficient to me. A both to the
16.9 grasp of things and acquisition of
phenomena is just karma, and to a
the real fact, and viewpoint].
what is grasped by
sense perception is
just the great world,
which manifests as
the great image
itself.
Neither is nirvana Nirvana is not a place Wherein there is When you can't bring When nirvana is not Where there is a
only samsara nor is to wish to enter, and neither the about nirvana, Nor born and samsara not super-imposing of
samsara removed our wandering attribution of the purification of eliminated, then what nirvana [on
away. Where there is through daily life is freedom nor the cyclic existence, What is samsara? And what something else],
16.10 nirvana, there is not a place to wish to elimination of the is cyclic existence, is considered as nor a removal of
samsara. Which is depart. The place life-process, what is it And what is the nirvana? existence-in-flux.
falsely discriminated where something that is being nirvana you examine? What is the
from which? that can never be discriminated as life- existence-in-flux

expressed with words process or as there? What
exists is just the place freedom? nirvana is
of our daily life, so imagined?
how is it possible for
us to exchange our
daily life for the
balanced state of
Nirvana?

Chapter 17

An Analysis of
Examination of the Examination of Investigation of Action (Karma)
Analysis of Action Examination of the
17 Fusion of Action and Actions and their Actions and and its Product
and Effect Fruit of Action
Result Fruits Fruits(Acts) (phala)
Thinking [i.e., willing] It is a type of mental Self restraint as well Self-restraint and Restraining oneself [An opponent
self-restraint, function to restrain as benefiting others benefiting others well and loving presents the
kindness toward ourselves by relying this is the friendly With a thoughts that traditional causal
others, and upon the spiritual way and it compassionate mind benefit others are theory of action:]
friendliness is the viewpoint, and it is constitutes the seed is the Dharma. This is the Dharma which is The state of mind
teaching. It is that also a type of mental that bears fruit here the seed for Fruits in the seed of fruits which is self-
seed of the fruit now function to give as well as in the next this and future lives. here and elsewhere. disciplined, being
and after death. benevolence to life. favorably
others. Kindness, disposed toward
which was given by others, And
17.1
others, is just the friendship: that is
system of the the dharma; that
universe, and ideas, is the seed for the
which are born from fruit now and
thought, sometimes after death.
belong to the future
and sometimes
belong to the
present.
The Great Sage said The fact that things The Supreme Ascetic The Unsurpassed The great sage has The most
karman is volition and phenomena can has said that action Sage has said That taught all actions to perceptive seer
and will in action. be seen well is is volition. as well as actions are either be intention and [Buddha] has said
Actions of many related with the volitional. Many intention or what is intended. that there is
distinct kinds have mental function, but distinct varieties of intentional. The The specifics of action (karma) as
17.2 been expounded. it is necessary for us that action have also varieties of these those actions are volition and as a
to have patient been expounded. actions Ha".e been well known to be of result of having
endurance when announced in many many kinds. willed. The variety
speaking about real ways. of acts of that
action. When we talk [action] has been

about action, it is not explained in many
simple or arbitrary, ways.
but when we talk
about action, there is
a common tendency
to proclaim
conclusions as if they
were decisive.
Karman, which is In those situations, Herein, what is called Of these, what is In this respect action Thus, that action
here called problems related volition is reminisced called "intention" Is spoken of as which is called
“volition,” is with mind are the as mental action. mental desire. What “intention” is "volition": that is
mindfulness of what objects of discussion, Whatever is called is called "intentional" regarded as being considered [by
is present in the and the abstract volitional consists of Comprises the that of mind. That tradition] as
mind. Further, that concept of action is the bodily and physical and verbal. spoken of as “what is mental; But that
called will in action, just a memory in the verbal. intended” is action which is a
that is bodily and mind. Even though regarded as being result of having
verbal. problems related that of body and willed: that is
with mind are very speech. considered [by
good themes for tradition] as
17.3 discussion, and physical or verbal.
problems related
with mind are
inevitably related
with physical factors,
[if we limit the
dialogue to the area
of verbal discussions]
our discussion might
be also limited to the
mental world.
Uninterrupted words When talk continues Whatever words and Speech and action Whatever (1) speech Sound, gesture
and deeds, which are endlessly, it seems to deeds that are and all Kinds of and (2) movements and that which
false ideas that do be that only useless assisted with delight unabandoned and and (3) “unconscious does not rest
not inform, are talk and useless and designated as abandoned actions, not-letting-go,” (4) which is
17.4 called opposite to information non-intimation, and And resolve As well other kinds of considered as
cessations by means continues without those others as … unconscious letting- unknown. Also the
of mindfulness. ceasing. It is strange reminisced as non- go are also regarded other unknown
that information is intimation, but are like that. which is
not conveyed, and in associated with non- considered to be

such a state even delight. at rest;
memory may be
stopped completely.
Enjoyment and The pursuit of Similarly, merit as Virtuous and (5) Goodness that That which is pure
energy, merit and enjoyment, whether well as demerit nonvirtuous actions arises from as a result of
demerit, thought it is pure or not, is consequent upon Derived from enjoyment/use and enjoyment, that
and memories, and limited only to the enjoyment, and pleasure, As well as in the same manner which is impure as
volition, according to inside of the pursuit finally, volition these intention and (6) what is not a result of
the precepts, are the of enjoyment. What are reminisced as the morality: These goodness,[and] (7) enjoyment, And
seven events that we can grasp as seven things that are seven are the kinds intention. These volition: these
give rise to Karman. objective criteria are productive of action. of action. seven dharmas are seven basic
17.5 the seven kinds of clearly regarded as elements
balanced criteria and action. (dharma) are
they make our action considered [by the
beautiful, but they tradition] as the
are also memories of modes of action.
our action in the [Another
past. opponent argues
by the imagery of
a process:]
If karman endures Departing from the If it is assumed that If until the time of If the action If an action
throughout the time immature idea of action remains ripening Action bad remained until the [exists] by
of maturation, it time, real action at during the time it is to remain in place, it time of ripening, it enduring to the
would go on in the present moment maturing, then it will would have to be would become time of its
perpetuity. If it has has been established approach permanent. If it has permanent. If it fulfillment, that
ceased, then having already, and action permanence. If it is ceased, then having stopped, by having [action] would be
ceased, what itself promotes assumed to have ceased, How will a stopped, how could a eternal. If [an
existing fruit will action independently ceased, then having fruit arise? fruit be born? action] were
arise? as various things and ceased, how can it stopped—being
17.6 phenomena, and produce a fruit? stopped, what will
these expand in it produce?
scale. When
something unclear
goes on as
something unclear, it
is utterly impossible
for such a vague
situation to produce
a result even in the

future.
A continuity After new sprouts Whatever series that As for a continuum, The continuum of There is fruit
advances by a sprout have departed from begins with a sprout such as the sprout, It sprouts and so on (phala) when a
which is brought seeds, continuity proceeds from a comes from a seed. clearly emerges from process, a sprout,
forward from a seed. goes ahead. Even seed, and then From that arises the seeds, and from that etc., starts from a
And therefore, the though a result as produces a fruit. fruit. Without a seed, fruits. If there were seed; But without
fruit does not come development begins However, without a It would not come no seeds, they too a seed that
17.7 forward without a to go ahead, it is seed, such [a series] into being. would not emerge. [process] does not
seed. completely would not proceed. proceed.
impossible for a
result itself to
develop further
automatically.
Since from the seed Departing from the Since a series arises Since from the seed Because continuums Inasmuch as the
there is continuity stage of seeds, from a seed and a comes the are from seeds and process is
and from continuity, continuity goes on, fruit arises from a continuum, and from fruits emerge from dependent on a
the origin of the and relying upon series, a fruit that is the continuum continuums and seed and the fruit
fruit, the seed is continuity, there is a preceded by a seed comes the fruit, The seeds precede fruits, is produced from
prior to the fruit. result, which has is, therefore, neither seed precedes the therefore, there is the process, The
Therefore there is been gotten by interrupted nor fruit. Therefore no annihilation and fruit,
neither disruption continuity. Although eternal. there is neither no permanence. presupposing the
17.8
nor permanence. there is a result nonexistence nor seed, neither
before the seeds permanence. comes to an end
appear again, the nor is eternal.
result is never just an
instantaneous fact,
nor is it an eternal
fact.
Therefore, that Therefore a result is Therefore, whatever So, in a mental The continuum of There is a product
continuity of a continuity of thought series there continuum, From a mind clearly emerges (phala) when a
thought advances by consciousness, and a is, that proceeds preceding intention from mind, and from mental process
thinking. And thus result goes on from a thought and A consequent mental that fruits. If there starts from a
17.9 thought [the fruit] relying upon the from that fruit. That state arises. Without were no mind, they thought; But
does not come function of thought series would this, it would not too would not without a thought
forward without consideration. The not proceed without arise. emerge. that [process]
thinking. expansion of mental a thought. does not proceed.
function is working

as a result arising
from consciousness,
and it is not true that
a result itself goes
on really.
Since from thinking Therefore, departing Since a continuous Since from the Because continuums Inasmuch as the
there is continuity from mental series arises from intention comes the are from minds and process is
and from continuity, function, it is thought and from continuum, And from fruits emerge from dependent on a
the origin of the possible for the continuous the continuum the continuums and thought and the
thought, thought is continuity to exist, series the uprising of fruit arises, Action actions precede product (phala) is
prior to thinking. and the state that a fruit, the fruit that precedes the fruit. fruits, therefore, produced from
Therefore, there is has left continuity is is preceded by action Therefore there is there is no the process. The
17.10 neither disruption called a result. A is neither neither nonexistence annihilation and no product,
nor permanence. result exists as interrupted nor nor permanence. permanence. presupposing the
consciousness eternal. thought, neither
before an act is comes to an end
really done, and a nor is eternal.
result is neither
abrupt nor eternal.
The ten pure action The attitude of going The ten pure paths The ten pure paths The ten paths of The ten pure
paths are the means ahead directly of action are the of action Are the white action are the "paths of action"
leading straight to toward an aim is means of achieving method of realizing means of practising are means for
the goal of the suitable to the good. The five· the Dharma. These Dharma. Here and realizing the
teaching. The five system of the strands of sense fruits of the Dharma elsewhere, the fruits dharma. And the
objects of the senses universe, and such pleasure represent in this and other lives of Dharma are the five qualities of
[bear] fruit, pure behavior is just the fruit of good, Are the five five kinds of sensual desired objects
according to the [the same as] the ten here as well as in the pleasures. qualities. [i.e., desire to
teaching, both now kinds of pure morals next life. know the form,
17.11 and after death. in Buddhism. In that sound, odor, taste,
case, the results are and touch of
objects that are existence] are
desirable aims for fruits (phala) of
true people to the dharma both
develop further, and now and after
the results are our death. [A third
hope for the opponent argues
universe in the for an
future, and at the imperishable

same time they are element:]
just the contents of
our minds at the
present moment.
Many and great Increasing favor, If there were to be If such an analysis If it were as that There would be
errors would be greatness, and even such a thought, were advanced, investigation, many many great
assumed to be true vices, when they are there would be many There would be great mistakes mistakes if that
if, by means of combined with a great error. many great errors. would occur. explanation [were
imagining, these fantastic Therefore, such a Therefore, this Therefore, that accepted].
{actions} take place fictions .Things and thought is not analysis Is not investigation is not Therefore, that
here and not those phenomena may appropriate here. tenable here. valid here. explanation is not
[results]. become completely possible.
different from real
17.12
things and
phenomena [relying
upon those fantastic
fictions], and even
those things and
phenomena might
be the appearance of
fantastic fictions.
Again, I will explain Now again I would Moreover, I shall I will then explain I will fully declare the In rebuttal I will
where this like to emphasize expound the what is tenable here: investigation which explain the
assumption is that fantastic fiction following thought The analysis is taught by the interpretation
employed by is prone to combine which is appropriate propounded by all Buddhas, which can be
awakened ones, by itself with fantastic and which has been Buddhas, self- Pratyekabuddhas made to fit [the
self-awakened ones, fiction. Such facts extolled by the conquerors And and Sravakas, which facts]. That which
17.13 and by disciples who have been explained Buddhas, the self- disciples according is valid here. is followed by the
praised it. by Buddhas, enlightened ones to which … Buddha, the self-
pratyekabuddhas, and the disciples. sufficient
and iravakas. enlightened ones
(pratyekabuddha)
and the disciples
[of Buddha].
What is imperishable At the place where Like an imperishable Action is like an Just like a contract, As "that which is
is like a promissory an endless motion of promissory note, so uncancelled irrevocable action is imperishable" is
17.14 note and an action wings exists there is is debt as well as promissory note And like a debt. In terms like a credit [on an
like a debt. It [what is the continuity of the action. It is fourfold like a debt. Of the of realms, there are account

imperishable] has fact of flying, and in terms of realms realms it is fourfold. four types. statement], so an
four kinds of this fact is just the and indeterminate in Moreover, its nature Moreover, its nature action (karma) is
elements and it is reality of action. The terms of primal is neutral. is unspecified. like a debt. [The
indeterminable in four physical nature. imperishable is] of
primordial elements [earth, four kinds in its
substance. water, fire, and air] elements (dhatu)
belong to reality, but [i.e., desire, form,
although they are non-form, and
real entities, they are pure]; in its
just as they are. essential nature it
cannot be
analyzed.
[The imperishable is] When someone That [i.e., the By abandoning, that It is not let go of by [An imperishable
not abandoned by stops working imperishable karma] is not abandoned. letting go, but only force] is not
the act of completely, this is would not be Abandonment occurs let go of by destroyed qua
abandonment or by never the same as relinquished by through meditation. cultivation. destruction;
unabandoned someone stopping a simple relinquishing. Therefore, through Therefore through rather it is
meditation. task for a while, but It is to be the non-expired, The irrevocability are the destroyed
Therefore, by means these two kinds of relinquished only fruit of action arises. fruits of acts according to
of the imperishable, stopping are through cultivation. produced. spiritual discipline.
the fruit is born out common and these Thus, through the Therefore, the
17.15 of the action. two cases of imperishable arises fruit of actions
stopping do not the fruit of action. originates by the
discontinue their imperishable
existence. Therefore, force.
the results of action
are always born from
the simple fact that
time always goes on
without stopping.
If abandoned by the ..Even if the stopping If it is to be If abandonment If it perished If [the

act of abandonment of a task forever and relinquished through occurred through through being let go imperishable
or by means of the the stopping of a simple relinquishing abandoning, and If of by letting go and force] were that
transformation of task for a while were or through the action we re the transcendence of which is destroyed
17.16 what would be the same things and transformation of destroyed through the action, then by [usual]
karman, then errors were based on action, then there transformation, The faults would follow destruction or by
follow, such as the action, these exist would follow a destruction of such as the perishing transference of
denial of karman, only related with the variety of errors such action, etc., And of actions. action. Fallacies
etc. fact of what is as the destruction of other errors would [like] the

actually done. When actions. arise. destruction of
various vices spread action would
through the world, logically result.
even acts of
destruction would
tend to become too
harsh.
When all similar and All pursuits belong Of all these actions, From all these The very At the moment of
dissimilar karmans to many kinds of whether dissimilar or actions in a realm, [irrevocability] of all transition that
have been put divisions, and such similar, belonging to Whether similar or actions in similar or [imperishable
together again with pursuits exist in certain realms, only dissimilar, At the dissimilar realms, force] Of all
the elements, only mutual relation; at one would arise at moment of birth that one alone is identical and
one arises. the same time they the moment of birth Only one will arise. born when crossing different actions
are absolutely [of a being) . the boundary belonging to the
related with real reborn]. same element
17.17 action itself. Among (dhatu) originates.
miscellaneous
material factors,
which have the
tendency to change,
only one factor
manifests itself, that
is, just reality.
The view’s teaching A fact that is related That [imperishable] In this visible world, In the visible world That [imperishable
is it [the with action arises in the present All actions of the two there are two kinds. force] is the
imperishable] arises manifests itself as a life, corresponding kinds, Each Actions of all [types] dharma, having
from the action of fact related with to all the actions comprising action and that arisen by one
the two karmans action [in front of having dual natures and the unexpired [irrevocability] of action after
[similar and us], and the universe [similar and separately, Will actions are produced another in visible
dissimilar]. And it itself manifests itself dissimilar, good and remain while as different things existence; And it
17.18 endures in the just as reality. The bad, etc.] and stays ripening. and remain [so?] remains [constant]
maturation of two existences [the so even when even on ripening. even in the
everything from the universe itself and matured. development of
two scattered heaps. facts that are the all bifurcating
fusion of action] are action.
just established as
fundamental
existence, and they

are established as
everything that has
already been
established just as a
mature form.
It [the imperishable] A result manifests That [imperishable] That fruit, if When the fruit is That [imperishable
ceases either from itself in the form of ceases as result of extinction or death transcendent and force] is destroyed
escaping the effect being independent the interruption of Occurs, ceases. when one dies, that by death and by
or from death. A from passing time, the fruit or as result Regarding this, a ceases. One should avoiding the
distinction between and, being of death. Herein, a distinction between know its divisions to product (phala) .
passion and purity independent from distinction between the stainless And the be without- There the
[outflows and the real death, the result one with influxes and stained is drawn. corruption and with- difference is
17.19 drying up of manifests itself in an the one without corruption. characterized as
outflows] would be isolated form. In influxes is to be impure and pure.
drawn. such a case, both signified.
what is painful and
what is not painful
can be recognized as
images of results.
Openness is not The balanced state is Emptiness, however, Emptiness and non- Emptiness is not "Emptiness," "no
disruption, and never interrupted or is not annihilation; annihilation; Cyclic annihilation and annihilation,"
samsara is not instantaneous, and life-process is also existence and non- samsara is not existence-in-flux,
permanence. The even wanderings in not eternal; the permanence: that permanent. The "non-eternity,"
imperishability [i.e., our daily lives do not imperishability is of action is non- dharma of the And the
continuing through continue forever. action such is the expiring Is taught by irrevocability of imperishable
their fruits] of the The theory that what doctrine taught by the Buddha. actions is taught by reality of action:
two actions is the is related with action the Buddha. the Buddha. such was the
17.20
teaching elucidated always has teaching taught by
by the Buddha. characteristics of the Buddha.
eternity and is also [Nagarjuna
the rule of the refutes the above
universe itself has arguments:]
been preached by
Gautama Buddha.
Why does karman When a real act has Why does action not Because action does Because actions are Why does the
17.21 not arise? Because it not yet appeared, arise? Because it is not arise, It is seen to not born, in this way action not
is without self- how is it possible for without self-nature. be without essence. they have no nature. originate? Because

nature. Since it does the denial of Since it is non-arisen, Because it is not Therefore, because it is without self-
not arise, therefore subjective it does not perish. arisen, It follows that they are not born, existence. Since it
it does not perish. consideration to it is non-expiring. therefore they are does not
occur? Because no irrevocable. originate, it does
concrete things or not perish.
phenomena have
appeared at all,
there is no situation
in which things and
phenomena can
conceal their forms
at all, even in the
future.
If Karman had self- If an act is only If it is assumed that If action had an If actions existed [by] If an action did
nature, it would subjective existence, action comes to be essence, It would, nature, without exist as a self-
certainly be such an abstract from self-nature, it without doubt, be doubt they would be existent thing,
permanent. Karman action might seem certainly will be eternal. Action permanent. Actions without a doubt, it
that would be sometimes to be eternal, and action would be uncreated. would not be done would be eternal.
uncaused is indeed absolutely eternal would also be Because there can be [by an agent] An action would
not caused by and might seem uncaused, for that no creation of what because what is be an unproduced
permanence. sometimes to be an which is eternal is, is eternal. permanent cannot thing; certainly,
unstable situation indeed, not caused. be done. there is no eternal
17.22
without rest. [This is] thing which is
because if real action produced.
in the real world is
not done actually, it
may be impossible
for any kind of
eternity to be
produced at all.
If karman would be When [there is] fear If an action were not If an action were If actions were not If the action were
uncaused, there is of the difficulty of performed [by the uncreated, Fear done [by anyone], not produced,
fear of encountering arriving at the real individual], then would arise of one would fear then there could
[what one did] not fact of something there would be fear encountering meeting what [one] be the fear of
17.23 cause. In that case, being done, the real of being confronted something not done. has not done. Also attaining
an unsaintly life and situation might by something not And the error of not the fault would something from
error would follow. suggest that the act performed [by him]. preserving One's follow for that "something not
has not actually been An ignoble life as vows would arise. [person] of not produced"; Then

done at all in the real well as error would dwelling in the pure the opposite to a
world. In such a follow from this. life. saintly discipline
situation we can say would follow as a
that it may be a real fallacy.
fact that the state of
continuing the
practice is not
sufficient, and even
extreme vices
pervade throughout
the world actually.
Undoubtedly all Even when practice Undoubtedly, all All conventions All conventions also Then,
practices would be is hindered, it is conventions would would then Be without doubt would undoubtedly, all
hindered. The never true that then be contradicted, be contradictory. daily affairs would
difference between everything rests. In contradicted. The without doubt. It Also the distinction be precluded. And
causing merit or evil real situations, in distinction between would be impossible between doing good even the
does not occur. which a true act and the performance of to draw a distinction and evil would not distinction
17.24 an untrue act have merit and evil will Between virtue and be valid. between saints
been mixed, it is also not be proper. evil. and sinners is not
completely possible.
impossible to
distinguish a true act
and an untrue act.
If Karman is An act that is If action were to be Whatever is mature [When] the ripening Then an act whose
unchanging because matured may mature determined, because would mature Time of that [action] has development had
it arises from its own further, and it will it possesses self- and time again. If ripened it would taken place would
nature, then mature further in the nature, then a there were essence, ripen again and develop again. If
maturity that has future. When an act maturity that has this would follow, again, because if it an act, because it
matured will has been established matured will again Because action existed [by] nature, it persists, exists
17.25 therefore mature as a true condition, mature. would remain in would [always] through its own
again. following just the place. remain. nature.
true conditions, the
true original factors
actually manifest
themselves.
If karman has Action itself and If this action is While this action has This action has the An action is that
17.26 defilements as self, daily painful associated with affliction as its character of whose "self"

the defilements are conditions have just defilements, these nature This affliction affliction and (atma) is desire,
not real. If they are accomplished the defilements, in tum, is not real in itself. If afflictions are not and the desires do
not real defilements, real world, and those are not found in affliction is not in real. If affliction is not really exist. If
how would karman things and themselves. If itself, How can action not real, how can these desires do
be real? phenomena are just defilements are not be real in itself? action be real? not really exist,
the painful condition in themselves, how how would the
itself, but such could there be an action really exist?
painful conditions action in itself?
are just reality. If
those things and
phenomena are
neither reality nor
hard pains, it might
become impossible
for us to recognize
reality.
Actions and Action and severe Action and Action and affliction Actions and Action and desire
defilements are pain are both related defilements are Are taught to be the afflictions are taught are declared to be
mentioned as with the physical specified as the conditions that to be the conditions the conditioning
conditioning causes problem, and the conditions of the produce bodies. If for bodies. If actions cause of the body.
of the body. How are reliable facts are [different] bodies. action and affliction and afflictions are If action and
actions and verbal expressions However, if these Are empty, what empty, how can one desire are empty,
defilements open if alone. When action actions and would one say about speak of bodies? what need one say
17.27 they are that [open] and severe pain are defilements are bodies? about "body"? [An
in bodies? both in the balanced empty, what could opponent tries to
state, it is impossible be said about the establish an
to know what is bodies?. identifiable entity
included into various by saying:]
physical things and in
what situations.
A sentient being When someone who A sentient being, Obstructed by People who are The man shrouded
unturned from cannot stop beclouded by ignorance, And obscured by in ignorance, and
ignorance is bound ignorance manifests ignorance, is also consumed by ignorance, those chained by craving
by craving. He is the his usual personality, fettered by craving. passion, the with craving, are the (trsna) Is one who
17.28 experiencer and he is the fact that he is As an experiencer, he experiencer Is consumers [of the seeks enjoyment.
not the same and he just restricted by is neither neither different fruits of action]. They He is not different
is not different from desire is reality itself. identical_with nor from the agent Nor are not other than from the one who
the agent. A person who is so different from the identical with it. those who do the acts, nor identical

pleasure-seeking can age action and they are to it. [Nagarjuna
never be a person also not those very answers:]
who produces ones.
something useful,
but at the same time
it is impossible for
him to select any
other way, and such
a fact without
selection is just
called reality.
Because this action It is not true that the Since this action Since this action Is Because the action Since action is not
does not exist arisen reliable facts does not exist as not arisen from a does not emerge "originated
from conditions or manifest totally in arisen from a condition, Nor arisen from conditions and presupposing the
not exist arisen from front of us, and it is condition nor as causelessly, It does not emerge conditions" nor
conditions, therefore not true that issuing forth from a follows that there is from non-conditions, fails to arise from
the agent does not something different non-condition, even no agent. therefore, the agent presupposing the
even exist. from the reliable an agent does not too does not exist. conditions. There
facts manifests exist. is no one acting.
17.29
totally in front of us.
The world really
exists just as action
itself, and therefore
it is never true that a
person who acts
really exists at all.
If action and agent Because action does If both action and If there is no action If neither the action If there is no
do not exist, where not exist really in the agent are non- and agent, Where co nor the agent exists, action, how could
would there be fruit real world as a existent, where u Id the fruit of where can there be a there be one who
born of action? person who acts, the could there be the action be? Without a fruit of the action? If acts and the
Where there is no supposition that fruit born of action? fruit, Where is there the fruit does not product of action?
fruit, where will the what is born from When there is no an experiencer? exist, where can the And if there is no
17.30 experiencer be? action may be a fruit, where can consumer exist? product, how can
result, may not be there be an there be an
anywhere at all. experiencer? enjoyer of the
Although a pleasure- product?
seeking person
expects that there

may be something
real in the
interpretation [that
there exists
something that can
be called a] result,
such a result as a real
existence can never
exist anywhere at all,
even in the future.
As a teacher has The fact that Just as a teacher, Just as the teacher, Just as a teacher Just as a teacher,
within him the power something has through by magic, Makes a creates a creation by by his magical
to magically create a already been actually psychokinetic power, magical illusion, and a wealth of magical power, formed a
magical illusion and accomplished is were. to create a By that illusion powers, and just as if magical form. And
that magical illusion absolute authority, figure, and this Another illusion is that creation too this magical form
magically creates and the fact that created figure were created, created, again formed again
another magical something has to create another, another would be another magical
illusion, already been t~t in turn would be created, form —
accomplished makes a created
the value of the
accomplishment
much higher than an
abstract [idea of]
perfection. The fact
17.31 that something is
being constructed is
much different from
the fact that
something has
already been
accomplished, and
the fact that
something is being
constructed
suggests that the
construction has not
yet been
accomplished.

in the same way, an In this manner, the In the same way, an In that way are an Like this, whatever Just so the "one
agent is a magical formal image of agent is like a agent and his action: action too done by who forms" is
creator and his something that is created form and his The agent is like the that agent [is ]also himself being
action a magical going to be action is like his illusion. The action Is like the aspect of a formed magically;
illusion. It is as a produced is just the creation. It is like the like the illusion's creation. It is just and the act
magical illusion fact that someone is created form created illusion. like, for example, a performed by him
magically created by producing by another who is creation creating Is like a magical
a magical illusion. something, and that created. another creation. form being
is just a real act of magically formed
producing something by another
itself, and so it also magical form.
suggests the
contents of what is
going to be
produced now.
17.32
Therefore a real act,
which is producing
something actually,
is different from the
contents that have
been produced
already, and the
situation in which
something is going
to be produced is
never different from
the situation that
something is going
to be produced, now.
Defilements, actions, Various severe pains, Defilements, .actions Afflictions, actions, Afflictions, actions Desires, actions,
bodies, doers, and various acts, bodies, and bodies, agents bodies, Agents and and bodies and bodies, producers,
effects are like performing action, as well as fruits, all fruits are Like a city agents and fruits are and products Are
dreams and mirages, and results too these are similar to of Gandharvas and like a city of like a fairy castle,
made up imaginary [when compared the cities of the Like a mirage or a gandharvas, a resembling a
17.33
cities in the sky. with real action gandharvas, are dream. mirage, a dream. mirage, a dream.
itself], they are all comparable to
similar to a mirage, mirages and dreams.
sleep, or Gandharva,
the city without a

jail, and they are
never real existences
in the real world at
all.

Chapter 18

An Analysis of the
Examination of the Examination of Self Investigation of Self
18 Analysis of the Self Examination of Self Self and Reality Individual Self
Soul and Entities and Things (Self)
(Atma)
If the self would be If the soul really If the self were to be If the self were the If the aggregates If the self were If the individual
the skandhas, it exists like the five identical with the aggregates, It would were self, it would the empirical self (atma) were
would rise and pass aggregates, which aggregates, it will have arising and be possessed of personality [ego], [identical to] the
away. If it would be are real entities in partake of uprising ceasing (as arising and decaying. then it would arise "groups"
different from the the world, it may be and ceasing. If it properties). If it were If it were other than and dissolve. If it (skandha), then it
skandhas, it would possible for the soul were to be different different from the the aggregates, it were different would partake of
not have the too to have its from the aggregates, aggregates, It would would not have the from the empirical origination and
characteristics of the appearance, it would have the not have the characteristics of the personality, then destruction. If [the
skandhas. disappearance, and characteristics of characteristics of the aggregates. it would neither individual self]
maintenance. If the· non-aggregates. aggregates. arise nor dissolve. were different
there is any kind of from the "groups,"
18.1
real entity that is then it would be
different from the without the
five aggregates, it characteristics of
may be inevitable to the "groups."
find some real entity
that has suitable
characteristics to
that real entity, [and]
that is different from
the five aggregates.
If the self does not How is it possible for In the absence of a If there were no self, If the self did not No self: no If the individual
exist, what will be a fantastic fact [such self, how can there Where would the exist, where could properties of self. self does not
one’s own? There is as that of] a real be something that self's (properties) what is mine exist? In No self: no "I" or exist, how then
no “I,” no “mine” person living relying belongs to the self? be? From the order to pacify self "mine." will there be
from the calming of upon a soul ever to From the pacification of the and what is mine, something which
18.2
what pertains to exist in reality? The appeasement of the salf and what grasping I and is "my own"? There
both senses of self. fact that one denies modes of self and belongs to it, One grasping mine can is lack of
oneself suggests self-hood, one abstains from exist no more. possessiveness
that that person abstains from grasping onto "!" and and no ego on
concretely sacrifices creating the notions "mine." account of the

himself [or herself], of "mine" and "I." cessation of self
and in such a and that which is
situation the stable "my own."
condition of mind is
lost, and the
situation seems to
be that a soul and a
soul have met and
then have lost
themselves together.
He who has no “I” To deny oneself Whosoever is free One who does not The one who does No "I" or "mine," He who is without
and no “mine” does means to sacrifice from selfishness and grasp onto ''I'' and not grasp at me and no separate possessiveness
not occur. Who seesoneself concretely, egoism, he too is not "mine," that one mine likewise does existence. No "I" and who has no
and although such a
no “I” and no “mine” evident. Whoever does not exist. One not exist. Whoever or "mine," no ego—He, also,
does not see. situation is just real, perceives someone who does not grasp sees the one who belief in essential does not exist.
such a situation as free _from onto "!"and "mine," does not grasp at me differences. Whoever sees "he
usually is not selfishness and He does not and mine does not who is without
recognized. The egoism, he too does perceive. see. possessiveness" or
18.3 attitude of denying not perceive. "he who has no
ourselves produces ego" [really] does
the real fact of not see.
sacrificing ourselves,
but the fact of really
sacrificing ourselves
sometimes can be
seen and sometimes
cannot be seen.
Where “I” and “mine” The word “my” and When views When views of ''I" When one ceases No "I" or "mine," When "I" and
are internally and the word “I” have pertaining to "mine" and ''mine" are thinking of inner and neither internally "mine" have
externally destroyed, been used for many and "I", whether they extinguished, outer things as self nor externally — stopped, then also
grasping has ceased. years, but the words are associated with Whether with and mine, clinging clinging ceases. there is not an
From that are looking at the internal or the respect to the will come to a stop. No clinging, no outside nor an
destruction birth is ourselves from the external, have internal or external, Through that rebirth. inner self. The
18.4
destroyed. outside. The self- waned; then The appropriator ceasing, birth will "acquiring" [of
regulated state and grasping comes to ceases. This having cease. karma] (tipadana)
the real cease. With the ceased, birth ceases. is stopped; on
phenomenon are just wailing of that account of that
one entity, but [grasping], there is destruction, there
[when “my” or “I” is waning of birth. is destruction of

used], the real very existence.
situation has left the
dominant viewpoint
of real phenomena,
and the creative
mental function
becomes dominant.
Because of the The perfectly free On the waning of Action and misery Through the ceasing When clinging and On account of the
destruction of action state, which has defilements of having ceased, there of action and misery cease, destruction of the
and defilement, overcome the action, there is is nirvana. Action and affliction, there is there is Nirvana. pains (klesa) of
there is liberation. painfulness of release. Defilements misery come from freedom. Action and Clinging and action there is
There are actions practice, and the of action being to conceptual thought. affliction [come] misery arise from release; for pains
and defilements for various concrete one who This comes from from thoughts and false of action exist for
one having false pains themselves are discriminates, and mental fabrication. they from fixations. consciousness, him who
notions. They must always changing these in turn result Fabrication ceases Fixations are from delusion. constructs them.
be constructed from their positions from obsession. through emptiness. stopped by Delusion ceases These pains result
false imagining and reciprocally. Those Obsession, in its emptiness. when emptiness from phenomenal
18.5
stopped by situations are just turn, ceases within (shunyata) is extension
openness. the visible real the context of realized. (prapaiica) ; but
world, which has emptiness. this phenomenal
already overcome extension comes
the visible world, and to a stop by
the world that exists emptiness.
in the balanced state
is just regulating
itself.
The term “atman” What is called the The Buddha's have 6. That there is a self It is said that “there Some teach self There is the
pointed out causes it soul has a character make known the has been taught, And is a self,” but “non- (atman). Some teaching of
to be distinct from that should be conception of self the doctrine of no- self” too is taught. teach no-self "individual self"
the term “anatman.” grasped intuitively, and taught the self, By the buddhas, The buddhas also (anatman). The (atma) , and the
Neither a self nor a so it is better if we doctrine of no-self. as well as the teach there is buddhas teach teaching of
non-self are pointed are negative toward At the same time, Doctrine of neither nothing which is neither self nor "nonindividual
18.6
out by the buddhas. the existence of the they have not self nor nonself. “neither self nor non- no-self. self" (anatma) ;
soul. By many spoken of something self.” But neither
Buddhas, who have as the self or as the "individual self"
grasped the truth, non-self. nor "non-
the soul sometimes individual self"
has been denied, and whatever has

what is not soul has been taught by
been denied the Buddhas.
strongly, but it
seems that those
insistences are much
more persuasive
[than the simple
affirmation of the
soul].
Where the range of The abstract world When the sphere of What language That to which What language When the domain
thought is has been described though has ceased, expresses is language refers is describes is non- of thought has
renounced, that only by verbal that which is to be nonexistent. The denied, because an existent. What been dissipated,
which can be stated expression, and such designated also has sphere of thought is object experienced thought describes "that which can be
has ceased to be an abstract world has ceased. Like nonexistent. by the mind is is non-existent. stated" is
valid. Indeed, the characteristics that freedom, the nature Unarisen and denied. The unborn Things neither dissipated. Those
nature of events is are prone to be of things is non- unceased, like and unceasing arise nor dissolve, things which are
like liberation, non- useful to soothe the arisen and non-cease nirvana Is the nature nature of reality is just as in Nirvana. un-originated and
arising and non- human mind. The of things. comparable to not terminated,
18.7 ceasing. . world, which has not nirvana. like nirvana,
manifested itself in constitute the
an image, is just the Truth (dharmatd) .
world, which has not
been disturbed at all,
therefore the
balanced condition is
just the system of
the universe, and
that is just the world.
Everything is factual, Is it true that all Everything is such, Everything is real Everything is real, The world is real. Everything is
non-factual, both things and not such, both such and is not real, Both not real; both real The world is not "actual" (tathyam)
factual and non- phenomena do not and not such, and real and not real, and not real; neither real. The world is or "not-actual," or
factual, neither really exist, or is if neither such and not Neither real nor not not real nor real: this both real and not both "actual-and-
factual nor non- true that what really such: this is the real. This is Lord is the teaching of the real. The world is not-actual," Or
18.8 factual. This is the exists actually exists, Buddha's Buddha's teaching. Buddha. neither real nor "neither-actual-
instruction of the or that what does admonition. not real. None of nor-not-actual":
Buddha. not really exist does these is true, This is the
not really exist at all? according to the teaching of the
The opinions that teaching of the Buddha.
the world does not Buddha.

exist at all or that
the world really
exists are strongly
prohibited by
Gautama Buddha.
Unconditioned by The reliable facts, Independently Not dependent on Not known through Not dependent. "Not caused by
another, peaceful, which are rieither realized, peaceful, another, peaceful others, peaceful, not Quiescent. Not a something else,"
not constructed by extraordinary nor unobsessed by and Not fabricated fixed by fixations, product of false "peaceful," "not
means of false unfavorable, obsessions, without by mental without conceptual consciousness. elaborated by
imaginings, free manifest their discriminations and a fabrication, Not thought, without Not a mental discursive
from false balanced and serene variety of meanings: thought, without differentiation: construct at all. thought,"
discriminations and condition, and what such is the distinctions, That is these are the Without "Indeterminate,"
without purpose, has not been seen characteristic of the character of characteristics of distinctions. No "undifferentiated"
this is the mark of will become visible truth. reality (that-ness). suchness. purpose. This is : such are the
reality. through what is the nature of characteristics of
18.9 seen. Original ultimate reality. true reality
existence, which can (tattva).
never be converted
by something
different, really
exists as it is, and
such a real world
manifests itself
having its own
characteristics.
First off, what arises It is clear that each Whatever that arises Whatever comes into Whatever arises Something whose Whatever exists,
depending on that is individual thing depending upon being dependent on dependent on arising depends being dependent
neither identical to exists distinctly, whatever, that is not another Is not something else is at on another is [on something
nor different from because each identical nor identical to that that time neither neither identical else], is certainly
that. Therefore that individual thing can different from it. thing. Nor is it that very thing nor to nor different not identical to
is neither disrupted never be identified Therefore, it is different from it. other than it. Hence from the other. that [other thing].
18.10
nor permanent with another at all. neither annihilated Therefore it is it is neither severed Therefore, it is Nor is a thing
[neither annihilated As each individual nor eternal. neither nonexistent nor permanent. neither non- different from
nor eternal]. thing can never be in time nor existent nor that; therefore, it
identified with permanent. eterna. . is neither
something different, destroyed nor
what is not eternal.
instantaneous can

never be eternal at
all.
Non-differentiated, [The world] does not That is without a By the buddhas, That ambrosial The immortal
non-identical, non- have more than one variety of meanings patrons of the world, teaching of the essence of the
momentary, non- aim, it never has or one single This immortal truth buddhas, those teaching of the
permanent, this is several aims, it is meaning, it is not is taught: Without guardians of the Buddhas, the lords
the immortal never interrupted, annihilation nor is it identity, without world, is neither the of the world, is
teaching of the and it is never eternal. Such, it is distinction; Not same nor different, Without
18.11 buddhas, lords of all eternal. The idea reminisced, is the nonexistent in time, neither severed nor singleness or
the worlds. that such a world is immortal message of not permanent. permanent. multiplicity; it is
included among the the Buddhas, the not destroyed nor
gods is denied by the patrons of the world. is it eternal.
many people who
have got the Truth.
When accomplished [The idea of soul] When the fully When the fully When perfect If fully-developed
buddhas do not arise does not appear enlightened ones do enlightened ones do buddhas do not Buddhas do not
and sravakas cease among people who not appear; on the not appear, And appear, and when arise [in the world]
to be, pratyeka are called Buddhas waning of disciples; when the disciples their disciples have and the disciples
buddhas with [who have arrived at the wisdom of the have disappeared, died out, the wisdom [of the Buddha]
independent the Truth], and self-enlightened The wisdom of the of the self-awakened disappear. Then,
knowledge come among the people ones proceeds self-enlightened ones will vividly arise independently,
forth. who are called without association. ones , Will arise without reliance. the knowledge of
iravakas [who revere completely without a the self-produced
theoretical teacher. enlightened ones
explanations] the (pratyekabuddha)
idea of soul has also is produced.
18.12
vanished. Only
among people who
are called
pratyekabuddhas
[who revere general
circumstances] is the
problem of soul
pushed forward as a
problem of
knowledge that is
isolated from the
real circumstances.

Chapter 19

Investigation of Time An Analysis of
19 Analysis of Time Examination of Time Examination of Time Examination of Time
(Time) Time (Kala)
If the present and The time when the If the present and If the present and If the present and If "the present"
the future are to be present moment has the future exist the future Depend the future were and "future" exist
dependent on the not yet arrived may contingent upon the on the past, Then contingent on the presupposing "the
past, the present be the past, [and so] past, then the the present and the past, then the past," "The
and future will be in The fact that the present and the future Would have present and the present" and
19.1 past ti present moment has future would be in existed in the past. future would have "future" will exist
yet not arrived may the past time. existed in the past. in "the past."
mean that the
process of time had
been maintained in
the past.
Again, if the present The time when the Again, if the present If the present and If the present and If "the present"
and the future do present moment has and the future were the future Did not future did not exist and "future" did
not exist there, how not yet arrived may not to exist therein exist there, How there, then how not exist there [in
would the present be the time when [i.e., in the past), could the present could the present "the past"]. How
and the future the solidity at the how could the and the future Be and the future be could "the
depend on it? present moment has present an,d the dependent upon it? contingent on it? present" and
not yet been future be contingent "future" exist
19.2 realized, [And] the upon that? presupposing that
fact that the present "past"?
moment has not yet
arrived may be a
perfectly real fact,
which is originally
impossible to
express with words.
Again, no When the real Moreover, non- If they are not Without being Without
demonstrated past situation has not yet contingent upon the dependent upon the contingent on the presupposing "the
occurs independent been realized, past, their of the past, Neither of the past neither can be past" the two
of both. Therefore, relating with the real present and future] two would be established. Hence things ["the
19.3
present and future facts or relating with establishment is not established. the present and the present" and
time do not occur. recognition, it is very evident. Therefore, Therefore neither future times also do "future"] cannot
difficult for the past neither a present nor the present Nor the not exist. be proved to exist.
to become a future time is future would exist. Therefore neither

recognized actually. evident. present nor future
The fact that the time exist.
present moment has
not yet arrived may
suggest that "time"
has not yet been
recognized.
By this method, Both the real world Following the same By the same method, These very stages In this way the
neither of the two on the earth and the method, the The other two can be applied to the remaining two
remainders are world above move remaining two divisions-past and other two. Superior, [times] can be
concluded [to exist]: relying upon action. periods of [time] future, Upper, ! inferior, middling inverted. Thus one
and [the same [And in such as~well ~ related lower, middle, etc., etc., singularity and would regard
conclusion situations, for the concepts such as the Unity, etc., should be so on can also be "highest,"
concerning] above, first time] that which highest, die lowest understood. understood [thus]. "lowest" and
19.4
below, middle, etc., is the highest, that and the middle, and "middle," etc., and
identity, etc., would which is the lowest, also identity, etc. oneness and
be drawn. and that which is the should be difference.
middle are combined characterized.
into one reality
relying upon our own
action.
What does not Time cannot be A non-static time is A nonstatic time is Non-dwelling time A non-stationary
endure is not grasped without pot observed. A not grasped. cannot be "time" cannot be
grasped by time and continuity, and time static time is not Nothing one could apprehended. Since "grasped"; and a
enduring time does without continuity evident. Even if the grasp as Stationary time which can be stationary "time"
not occur. And how is cannot be unobserved time time exists. If time is apprehended, does which can be
time caused to be recognized. Time is were to be observed, not grasped, how is not exist as grasped does not
known by what is not the real situation of how can it be made it known? something which exist. How, then,
grasped by grasping? the fusion between known? dwells, how can one can one perceive
19.5
that which is grasped talk of time if it is not
and that which is not unapprehendable "grasped"?
grasped, and it is time?
impossible for the
real situation of time
to become the
object of
recognition.
If time depends on a When it is clear that If it is assumed that If time depends on If time depended on Since time is
19.6 being, where is there time produces time exists an entity, Then things, where would dependent on a
time without a existence, how is it depending upon an without an entity time which is a non- thing (bhava) ,

being? Not any being possible for time to existent, how ca. how could time thing exist? If there how can time
exists, so where will move departing there be time exist? The re is no were no things at all, [exist] without a
time exist? from existence? without an existent? existent entity. So where would a view thing? There is not
When the idea of No existent how can time exist? of time exist? any thing which
existence never whatsoever is found exists; how, then,
exists at all, how will to exist. Where can will time become
it be possible for time be? [something]?
time to exist even in
the future?

Chapter 20

An Analysis of the
Investigation of Aggregate
Analysis of the Examination of the Examination of Examination of
20 Combination (Samagri) of
Whole inclusive Grasp Harmony Combination
(Combination) Causes and
Conditions
If an effect is When reason If the effect were to If, arising from the If a fruit is born from If a product
produced by the pervades the reliable arise from a harmony combination of the combination of (phala) is
whole of cause and facts, the inclusive of cause and Causes and cause and conditions produced through
conditions and exists grasp has been born conditions, and if it conditions, The and exists in the the aggregate of
in the whole, how is and is working. But were to exist in the effect is in the combination, how causes and
it produced by the when we notice that harmony, how can it combination, How can it be born from conditions. And
whole? the idea of a result arise from the could it arise from the combination exists in an
20.1 has been realized harmony? the combination? itself? aggregate, how
already relying upon will it be produced
the inclusive grasp, in the aggregate?
there is no
possibility for the
inclusive grasp to be
born newly at all.
If an effect is When reason If the effect were to If, arising from the If a fruit is born If a product is
produced by the pervades the reliable arise from a harmony combination of from the produced in the
whole of cause and facts, the inclusive of cause and Causes and combination of aggregate of
conditions and does grasp is born. But if conditions and if it conditions, The cause and conditions causes and
not exist in the the idea of result is were not to exist in effect is not in the and does not exist in conditions. And
20.2 whole, how is it not really included in the harmony, how combination, How the combination, does not exist in
produced by the the inclusive grasp, can it arise from the could it arise from how can it be born the aggregate,
whole? the inclusive grasp harmony? the combination? from the how will it be
does not have to combination itself? produced in the
work newly again. aggregate?
If an effect exists in Even when reason If it is assumed that f the effect is in the If the fruit exists in If the product is in
the whole of cause pervades the reliable the effect exists in combination Of the combination of the aggregate of
20.3
and conditions, all of facts, it may be the harmony of causes and cause and causes and
the whole would possible that a result cause and conditions, Then it conditions, it would conditions. Would

never be included in really exists relying conditions, should it should be grasped in be correct for it to it not be
it and all of the upon the inclusive not be observed in the combination. But be apprehendable in "grasped" [i.e.,
whole is not included grasp itself. If we the harmony? it is not grasped in the combination but located] in the
by it. decide that it is However, it is not the combination. it is not aggregate? But it
absolutely observed in the apprehendable in is not "grasped" in
impossible to grasp harmony. the combination. the aggregate.
the real world, it is
also absolutely
impossible for the
inclusive grasp to
work further.
If the effect does When a result really If the effect were If the effect is not in f the fruit does not If the product is
not exist in the exists in the reliable not to exist in the the combination Of exist in the not in the
whole of cause and facts and in the harmony of cause causes and combination of aggregate of
conditions, causes inclusive grasp, what and conditions, then conditions, Then cause and causes and
and conditions is called result can the cause and actual causes and conditions, the conditions, Then
would be the same never exist really. conditions would be conditions Would be causes and the causes and
as uncaused by Perhaps it is true comparable to non- like noncauses and conditions would be conditions would
20.4 means of conditions. that both reason and cause and non- nonconditions. comparable to non- be the same as
the reliable facts are conditions. causes and non-causes and
supported by conditions. nonconditions.
something that is
completely different
from reason and the
reliable facts.
If the cause is If reason was Missing If the cause, in If the cause stops If a cause, having
stopped by the produced by the having its effect, once it has given the given the cause
causality having benevolence of Ceased to have its cause to the fruit, for a product, is
been given to the result, reason itself causal status, there there would be a stopped. Then
effect, that given would not manifest would be two kinds double nature of the that which is
and that stopped [because of its] of cause: With and cause: one that gives "given" and that
20.5 would be two forms being suppressed by without causal and one that stops. which is stopped
of cause. result. If those status. would be two
benevolences from identities of the
result produced a cause.
suffocated situation,
it may be that
because of that

situation of reason,
the mind has been
divided into two
parts.
If the cause is If reason has been Missing If the cause, not yet If the cause stops If a cause without
stopped by the produced without having Produced its without having given having given the
causality not having any influence from effect, ceased, Then the cause to the cause for a
been given to the result, reason is having arisen from a fruit, those fruits product is
effect, that effect regulated by itself. ceased cause, The which are born after stopped Then, the
produced where the What has been born effect would be the cause has cause being
cause stopped would in the self-regulated without a cause. stopped would be stopped, the
20.6
be without cause. condition is just the uncaused. product would be
world, so it is produced as
possible for result to something derived
exist only as from a non-cause
something (ahetuka) .
unreasonable.
Again, if the effect When the idea of Missing If the effect were to If the fruit were also If the product
would arise together result is realized arise simultaneously born at the same would become
with the whole, it relying upon the with the collection, time as the visible
follows that the inclusive grasp, the Then the produced combination, it concomitantly
producer and the image of result is and the producer would follow that with the
produced are also seen. The power Would arise the producer and the aggregate [of
simultaneous. that has ability to simultaneously. produced would be causes and
20.7 produce things and simultaneous. conditions], Then
phenomena also has it would logically
ability to produce follow that the
[result and reason] in producer and that
parallel, and that which is produced
power is manifesting [exist] in the same
itself really. moment.
If the effect would There is a case that Missing If the effect were to If the fruit were born If the product
arise prior to the before result arise Prior to the prior to the would become
whole, the effect, manifests itself in combination, Then, combination, there visible before the
20.8 separated from the inclusive grasp, it without causes and would occur an aggregate. Then
cause and may be that result conditions, The uncaused fruit which the product,
conditions, would be manifests itself in effect would arise has no cause and without being

without cause. this world. When causelessly. conditions. related to causes
reason has been and conditions,
regulated, it is would be
possible for result to something derived
exist as something from a non-cause.
unreasonable.
If, where the cause When result is Missing ...become If, the cause having If [when] a cause If, when the cause
has ceased, the regulated by the the transformation ceased, the effect stops, it is forever of the product is
cause would power of reason, of the cause, then it Were a complete transferred to the stopped, there
transmigrate to the there is the follows that there is transformation of fruit, then it would would be a
effect, a rebirth of possibility of parallel a rebirth of a cause the cause, Then a follow that the cause continuation of
an already-born coexistence on the that was already previously arisen which was born the cause. It
20.9
cause follows. basis of reason. | born. cause Would arise before would be would logically
Even before the again. born again. follow that there
birth of reason, the would be another
fact of birth is also production of the
much related with it. previous
producing cause.
How would what is Even if it were How can a cause that How can a cause, How can the How can that
stopped and ceased possible for result to has ceased, has having ceased and production of fruit which is stopped,
give rise to an arisen produce reached its end, give dissolved, Give rise be produced by the i.e., something
effect? And how phenomena, it is not rise to an effect. that to a produced stopping and which has
would an enduring possible for the self- is already arisen? effect? How can a disappearing [of disappeared,
cause be an occasion regulated situation How can a cause, cause joined with its something]? Also produce the
that gives rise to an to follow the even though effect produce it If how can fruit be arising of a
effect? downward way at all. enduring, produce they persist produced by related product? How
| How is it possible an effect, when it is together? causes which persist could a cause
20.10
for reason to be a separated from the with it? which is enclosed
kind of fixed latter? by its product,
existence? But it is j even though it
possible for what is persists, originate
concealed to [that product]?
manifest itself being
helped by the idea of
result.
Moreover, the What is concealed What cause, even if Moreover, 'if not If cause and fruit are Or if that [cause]
20.11 occasion which now has the it were not joined with its cause, not related, what were not enclosed
would give rise to possibility of separated from the What effect can be fruit can be by the product,

the effect is not that manifesting as effect, will give rise made to arise? produced? Causes which product
effect. Indeed, the miscellaneous things to the effect ? A Neither seen nor do not produce would it produce?
effect is not and phenomena cause does not unseen by causes fruits they either see For the cause does
produced by either a utilizing the idea of produce an effect Are effects or don’t see. not produce the
seen or an unseen result, but it is either imperceptibly produced. product, having
cause, completely or perceptibly. seen or not having
impossible to seen [the
produce what is product].
called result. In cases
of invisibility or
cases of visibility, it
is completely
impossible for
reason to be brought
into the world at all.
Indeed, a past cause If [result and reason] Indeed, the There is never a The simultaneous There is no
is not together with do not belong to the assemblage of a past simultaneous connection of a past concomitance of a
a past effect. What past and do not rely effect with a past or connection Of a past fruit with a past, a past product with
arises does not occur upon the past, that a future or a present effect With a past, a future and a present a past cause, a
accompanied by which is included by cause is not evident. non-arisen, Or an cause never exists. future [cause] or
what is present nor result and that which arisen cause. present [cause].
by what is not relies upon reason
present. are the same, and so,
Without having any
20.12
relation with
whether [result and
reason] have been
born or not, the
inclusive grasp [of
result and reason]
can be found
everywhere.
Indeed, a non- Because the state of Indeed, an There is never a The simultaneous Certainly there is
present cause is not having been born assemblage of the simultaneous connection of a no concomitance
together with a and the state of present effect with a connection Of a non- present fruit with a of the present
20.13 present effect. What having not being future or a past or a arisen effect · With a future, a past and a product with
arises does not occur born are completely present cause is not past, a non-arisen, present cause never future cause, past
accompanied by the different in their evident. Or an arisen cause. exists. [cause] or present

past nor by the dimensions, cases of [cause].
present. being included in
result and cases of
relying upon reason
both have the same
opportunity to exist.
When there is no
reliance upon the
past or upon having
been born, the
inclusive grasp [of
result and reason]
can be found
everywhere.
Indeed, a present Because there is a Indeed, as Without connecting, The simultaneous Certainly there is
cause is not together dimensional assemblage of the How can a cause connection of a no concomitance
with a non-present difference between future effect :with a produce an effect? future fruit with a of a future
effect. What arises the state of not present or a future Where there is present, a future and product with a
does not occur being born and the or a past cause is not connection, How can a past cause never present cause,
accompanied by state relying upon evident. a cause produce an exists. future [cause] or
what is not present having been born, it effect? past [cause].
nor by what has is possible that what
perished. is included in result
and what relies upon
20.14 reason can occur
together. In cases
without birth, and
not relying upon
destruction, it is
possible to recognize
that the inclusive
grasp [of result and
reason] exists
everywhere.
Where there is no Reason can never be When an assemblage If the cause is empty When there is no If there is no
real association, how the accumulation of does not exist, how of an effect, How connection, how can concomitance
20.15 is the effect born by concrete individual can a cause produce can it produce an a cause produce whatever, how
the cause? Or where things, so it is an effect ? When a n effect? If the cause is fruit? Even when would the cause

there is a real impossible for assemblage exists, not empty of an there is connection, produce the
association, how is reason to produce how can a cause effect, How can it how can a cause product? Or if a
the effect produced result at all. Even if produce an effect? produce an effect? produce fruit? concomitance
by the cause? reason exists really exists, how would
and manifests itself the cause produce
in concrete the product?
individual things, it is
impossible for
reason to produce
result at all.
If the cause is open Even if reason keeps If it is assumed that A nonempty effect If a cause is empty of If the cause is
to an effect, how is the balanced state the cause is empty of does not arise. The fruit, how can it empty of a
an effect produced? relying upon result, an effect, how can it nonempty would not produce fruit? If a product, how
If the cause is not result is never produce an effect? If cease. This cause is not empty would it produce
open to an effect, produced in the real it is assumed that nonempty would be of fruit, how can it the product? If the
how is an effect world at all. Even if the cause is not The non-ceased and produce fruit? cause is not empty
produced? reason does not empty of an effect, the non-arisen. of a product, how
20.16 maintain the how can it produce would it produce
balanced state being an effect ? the product?
disturbed by result,
result to be
produced in the real
world at all?
An effect will not Even if it is A non-empty effect How can the empty Unempty fruit would A non-empty
arise by being non- unbalanced, it is will not arise; a non- arise? How can the not be produced; the product would not
open and will not impossible for result empty effect will not empty cease? The unempty would not be originated,
cease by being non- to manifest itself in cease. For, the nonempty will hence stop. That unempty [and] a non-empty
open. What is not the real world at all, ceased and non- also Be the non- is unstoppable and [product] would
open will be non- and unbalanced arisen will also be ceased and non- also producible. not be destroyed.
arising and non- conditions will not the non-empty. arisen. Then that is non-
20.17
ceasing. maintain themselves empty which will
in the regulated not originate or
conditions at all. It is not disappear.
not always clear for
the self-regulated
state to be
recognized, and it is

also probable that
unbalanced
situations will
naturally continue
further.
How will what is The balanced state How will the empty For cause and effect How would empty How would that
open arise, how will does not have any arise and how will to be identical Is not [fruit] be produced? be produced
what is open cease? natural tendency to the empty cease? If tenable. For cause And how would the which is empty?
Surely it follows that appear, and the something is empty, and effect to be empty stop? It How would that
what is open is non- balanced state never it follows that it is different Is not follows that that be destroyed
ceasing and non- has any natural non-ceased and non- tenable. empty too is which is empty? It
arising. tendency to vanish in arisen. unstoppable and logically follows,
the future. The also unproducible. then, that which is
20.18 balanced state never empty is not
has any tendency to originated and not
vanish in future at destroyed.
all, and it is much
related with that
which does not have
the tendency to
appear newly.
Indeed, an identity The oneness of The identity of cause If cause and effect It is never possible Certainly a
of cause and effect reason and result and effect is indeed were identical, that cause and fruit oneness of cause
does not take place. never occurs at all, not appropriate. The Produced and are identical. It is and product is not
Indeed, a difference And it does not difference between producer would be never possible that possible at all. Nor
between cause and occur also that cause and effect is identical. cause and fruit are is a difference of
20.19
effect does not reason and result do indeed not other. cause and product
happen. not have any relation appropriate. possible at all.
with each other at
all.
In the identity of If result and reason f there were to be Examination of If cause and fruit If there were a
cause and effect, the are one, this identity of cause and Combination If cause were identical, oneness of the
producer would be suggests that the effect, then there and effect were produce and cause and
20.20 one with the oneness is a would be oneness of different, Cause and producer would be product, then
product. In the combination producer and the non-cause would be. identical. If cause there would be an
difference of cause between that which produce. If there alike. and fruit were other, identity of the
and effect, the cause produces and that were to be cause and non-cause originator and

would be equal to no which is produced. If difference be , would be similar. what is originated.
cause. result and reason are tween cause and If there were a
separate, it may be effect, then the difference of
because the cause would be product and
reasonable and the equal to a non-cause. cause, then a
unreasonable are cause would be
combined into one the same as that
and are related to which is not a
each other. cause.
What cause will give When result is How is it that a cause If an effect bad If fruit existed Can a cause
rise to an effect that strong as a will produce an entitihood, What essentially, what produce a product
truly exists as self- combination of effect which comes could have caused it would a cause which is
nature? What cause subjective existence to be on its own to arise? If an effect produce? If fruit did essentially
will give rise to an and concrete fact, it nature? How is it bad no entitihood, not exist essentially, existing in itself
effect that does not is impossible for that a cause will What could have what would a cause (svabhava) ? Can a
truly exist as self- reason to produce produce an effect caused it to arise? produce? cause produce a
nature? anything at all. When which does not come product which is
result is strong to be on its own not essentially
20.21 because of the nature? existing in itself
combination of (svabhava) ?
and abstract
situations, it may be
impossible for
reason to produce
anything even in the
future.
Causation of what is When nothing has Moreover, the q1usal If something is not If it were not It is not possible
not arising does not yet appeared, it is efficacy· of producing an effect, productive, the to have "what is by
take place. And in also impossible for something that is It is not tenable to cause itself would be its nature a cause"
failing to prove what is reasonable not producing is not attribute causality. If impossible. If the (hetutva) of "that
causation, the effect to appear at all. appropriate. In the it is not tenable to cause itself were which is not
20.22 will be of what? When what is absence of causal attribute causality, impossible, whose producing." If
reasonable has not efficacy, to what will Then of what will the would the fruit be? "what is by its
yet manifested at all, the effect belong? effect be? nature a cause" is
it is impossible for not possible,
result to exist at all whose product
anywhere in the will exist?

universe.
Since that whole of The world, which is Whatever harmony If the combination If whatever is a How will that
causes and based upon reason of causes and Of causes and combination of [aggregate of
conditions is not as one of the reliable conditions there is, it conditions Is not causes and causes and
produced by itself or facts, never is not produced by self-produced, How conditions does not conditions]
by means of a non- produces soul, in any itself or by another. does it produce an produce itself by produce a product
self, how would it case, and it never If so, how can it effect? itself, how could it when That which
produce an effect? relies upon soul at produce an effect ? produce fruit? is the aggregate
20.23
all. How is it possible of causes and
for the world, which conditions does
has been produced not produce itself
by the inclusive by itself?
grasp, to produce
result in any case?
The effect is not What is really The effect is not Therefore, not made Therefore, there is The product is not
made by the whole, produced as the made by the by combination, And no fruit which has produced by the
and the effect is not inclusive grasp is harmony, nor is it not without a been made by aggregate; nor is
made by what is not different from not made by a combination can the combination [or] the product not
the whole. Where result, and what has harmony. Where effect arise. If there made by non- produced by the
does the whole of not been produced indeed can there be is no effect, Where combination. If fruit aggregate.
conditions exist by the inclusive a harmony of can there be a does not exist, Without the
without an effect? grasp is also not conditions without a combination of where can a product, how is
result. Now that the n effect. conditions? combination of there an
20.24
inclusive grasp really conditions exist? aggregate of
exists as the reliable conditions?
fact [of reason], it is
also completely
neglect the
existence of result
anywhere at all.

Chapter 21

An Analysis of
Analysis of Examination of Examination of Examination of Investigation of Origination
21 Origination and Coexistence and Occurrence and Becoming and Rising and Passing (Sambhava) and
Dissolution Universal Existence Dissolution Destruction (Disappearance) Disappearance
(Vibhava)
Dissolution does notIf nothing exists at Dissolution does not Destruction does not Passing does not There is no
exist either with orall, or if various exist either without occur without exist without or disappearance
without origination.things exist or with occurrence. becoming. It does together with rising. either with
Origination does nottogether, universal Occurrence does not not occur together Rising does not exist origination or
exist either with orexistence never exist either without with it. Becoming without or together without it. There
without dissolution.relies upon or with dissolution. does not occur with passing. is no origination
21.1 coexistence. If without destruction. either with
nothing exists at all, It does not occur disappearance or
or if various things together with it .. without it.
exist together,
coexistence never
relies upon universal
existence.
What will dissolution If coexistence does How can there be How could there be How can passing How, indeed, will
then be without not exist, it is dissolution without destruction Without exist without rising? disappearance
origination, death impossible for occurrence, death becoming? How Is there death exist at all without
without birth, universal existence without birth, could there be death without birth? There origination? [How
dissolution without to exist at all even in dissolution without without birth? There is no passing without could there be]
generation? a nominal way. The uprising? is no destruction rising. death without
state in which there without becoming. birth? There is no
21.2 is no birth or death is disappearance
called “death,” and without [prior]
so it is not origination.
permissible for us
even to deny the
appearance of the
world.
How will there be Even if universal How can there be How could How could passing How can
21.3 dissolution together existence relied dissolution along destruction and exist together with disappearance

with origination? upon coexistence, with occurrence? becoming Occur rising? Death does exist
Indeed, death how is it possible Indeed, simultaneously? not exist at the same concomitantly
contemporary with [for universal simultaneous birth Death and birth Do time as birth. with origination?
birth does not occur. existence and and death are not occur Since, surely,
coexistence] ever to similarly not evident. simultaneously. death does not
be thought of exist at the same
together at the same moment as birth.
moment? This is
because it is difficult
for us to have the
real feeling that
birth and death
actually exist
together.
What will origination How would it be How can there be How could there be How could rising How, indeed, will
then be without possible for occurrence without becoming Without exist without origination exist
dissolution? Indeed, coexistence to exist dissolution, foe the destruction? For passing? Things are at all without
never does the even in a nominal impermanence in impermanence Is never not disappearance?
impermanence of way without the existences is never never absent from impermanent. For,
beings not occur. existence of not evident. entities. impermanence
universal existence? does not fail to be
It is impossible ever found in existent
21.4
to recognize an things ever.
individual concrete
thing as being
included in abstract
concepts of
miscellaneous
existences at all.
How will there be How would it be How can occurrence How could How could rising How can
origination without possible for be evident along destruction And exist together with origination exist
dissolution? Indeed, coexistence ever to with dissolution? becoming occur passing? Birth does concomitantly
death contemporary stop its mutual Indeed, simultaneously? Just not exist at the same with
21.5 with birth does not relationship with simultaneous birth as birth and death time as death. disappearance?
occur. universal existence? and death are Do not occur Since, surely,
It is absolutely similarly not evident. simultaneously. death does not
impossible for the exist at the same
birth and death [of moment as birth.

one person] to
simultaneously be
recognized just at
the present moment
at all.
The establishment of It is the real situation The occurrence of How, when things How can those that When two things
them either of the world that things, either cannot Be are not established cannot be proved
conjoined by mutually different together or established as either mutually either separately
difference or things and separately, is not existing, With, or together or not or together, No
without difference phenomena exist at evident: If so, how apart from one mutually together be proof exists of
does not occur. How the present moment, can their another, Can they be established? those two things.
then does the and at the same time establishment be established at all? How can these
establishment of when we have begun evident? two things be
both occur? not to be conscious proved?
of the mutual
relations of things
and phenomena, this
is just the next
development. In
21.6
such cases of
development, the
real situation does
not become the
object of recognition
[by the brain or
sense perception],
and further
development after
this recognition can
never become the
object of recognition
at all.
Origination of decay Coexistence does Occurrence of that There is no he finished does not There is no
does not exist, not exist really in a which is waning does becoming of the rise; the unfinished origination of that
origination of non- concrete place; not exist, nor is disappeared. There too does not rise; which is
21.7 decay does not exist. coexistence does not there occurrence of is no becoming of the finished does not destructible, nor
Dissolution of decay exist really in space. that which is not the nondisappeared. pass; the unfinished of that which is
and dissolution of Coexistence cannot waning. Dissolution There is no too does not pass. non-destructible.
non-decay do not be found in an of that which is destruction of the There is no

exist. abstract area, and waning does not disappeared. There disappearance of
universal existence exist, nor is there is no destruction of that which is
cannot be found in dissolution of the the nondisappeared. destructible, nor
any abstract area at not waning. of that which is
all. non-destructible.
Without a being, When there is no Without an existent, When no entities Rising and passing Origination and
origination and existence, both occurrence as well as exist, There is no do not exist without disappearance
dissolution do not coexistence and dissolution are not becoming or the existence of cannot exist
occur. Without universal existence evident. Without destruction. Without things. Things do without an
origination and can never be occurrence as well as becoming and not exist without the existent thing.
dissolution, a being recognized at all. dissolution, an destruction, There existence of rising Without
does not occur. When both existent is not are no existent and passing. origination and
21.8
coexistence and evident. entities. disappearance an
universal existence existent thing
do not exist, it is does not exist.
impossible for
existence itself to be
recognized.
Origination and ..[ At the same time] Either occurrence or It is not tenable for Rising and passing Origination and
dissolution of what both coexistence dissolution of the the empty To are not possible for disappearance
is open does not and universal empty is not become or to be the empty; rising, does not obtain
take place. existence never appropriate. Either destroyed. It is not passing are not for that which is
Origination and appear in the occurrence or tenable for the possible for the nonempty.
21.9 dissolution of what unbalanced state. dissolution of the nonempty To empty also. Origination and
is not open does not non-empty is also become or to be disappearance
happen. not appropriate. destroyed. does not obtain
for that which is
non-empty.
“Origination and Both coexistence It is not appropriate It is not tenable That Rising and passing It does not obtain
dissolution are and universal to assume that destruction and cannot possibly be that origination
identical” is not said. existence never occurrence and becoming are one; rising and and
“Origination and appear as oneness. dissolution are identical. It is not passing also cannot disappearance are
21.10 dissolution are Both coexistence identical. It is not tenable that possibly be other. the same thing. It
different” is not said. and universal appropriate to destruction and does not obtain
existence never assume that becoming are that origination
appear as two. occurrence and different. and
dissolution are disappearance are

different. different.
As origination and Coexistence is just It may occur to you If you think you see If you think that you [You argue:]
disappearance is what is seen, and so that both occurrence both Destruction can see rising and Origination, as
seen by you, so it it may be that and dissolution are and becoming, Then passing, rising and well as
could exist. But universal existence seen. However, both you see destruction passing are seen by disappearance, is
origination and exists similarly to occurrence and and becoming delusion. seen. [Therefore]
disappearance is coexistence. dissolution are seen Through impaired it would exist for
21.11 exactly so seen out Coexistence is just only through vision. you. [But]
of delusion. what is seen, and so confusion. origination and
universal existence disappearance are
has also departed seen due to a
from the state of delusion.
delusion without fail.
A being could not be There is no case that An existent does not An entity does not Things are not An existent thing
born by a being, a existence is born arise from an arise from an entity. created from things; does not originate
being is not born by from existence, and existent; neither An entity does not things are not from [another]
a non-being. A non-- there is no case that does an existent arise from a created from thing; and an
being could not be existence is born arise from a non- nonentity. A nothing; nothing is existent thing
born by a non-being, from nonexistence. existent. A non- nonentity does not not created from does not originate
a non-being is not Nonexistence is not existent does not arise from a nothing; nothing is from a «ow-
born by a being. born from arise from a non- nonentity. A not created from existent thing.
nonexistence, and existent; neither nonentity does not things. Also, a non-
21.12
nonexistence is not does a non-existent arise from an entity. existent thing
born from existence. arise from an does not originate
existent from another non-
existent thing; and
a non-existent
thing does not
originate from an
existent thing.
A being is not born In cases of subjective An existent does not An entity does not Things are not An existent thing
by itself nor born by ideas and in cases of arise from itself, or arise from itself. It is created from does not originate
another, nor by both objective from another or not arisen from themselves, nor are either by itself or
21.13 itself and another. It perceptions, how is from both itself and another. It is not they created from by something
is born by what? it possible for both another. Whence can arisen from itself something else; they different. Or by
subjective ideas and it then arise? and another. How are not created from itself and
objective can it be arisen? [both] themselves something

perceptions to be and something else. different [at the
born at all? How are they same time]. How,
created? then, can it be
produced?
He who has agreed The fact that the For him who is If one accepts the If you assert the For someone
to the continuity of eternal and the engrossed in existence of entities, existence of things, assuming an
existence, the view instantaneous are existence, Permanence and the the views of existent thing,
of permanence and combined into one eternalism or view of complete eternalism and either an
annihilation follows, produces existence annihilationism will nonexistence follow. annihilationism will eternalistic or
for existence would in the phenomena necessarily follow, For these entities follow, because nihilistic point of
indeed certainly be before us. Because for he would assume Must be both things are view would
either permanent or existence is seen that it is either permanent and permanent and logically follow,
21.14
impermanent. before us as real permanent or impermanent. impermanent. For that existent
existence, there is impermanent. thing would be
the possibility that either eternal or
what is essential and liable to cessation.
what is not essential
can exist at the same
time.
The continuity of It is impossible for [On the contrary,] If one accepts the If you assert the [An opponent
rising and passing the instantaneous, for him who is existence of entities existence of things, objects:] For
away is indeed the which is included in engrossed in Nonexistence and eternalism and someone
continuity of both the phenomena existence, there permanence will not annihilationism will assuming an
cause and effect. before our eyes, to would be neither follow. Cyclic not be, because the existent thing,
produce existence, annihilationism nor existence is the continuity of the there is not [only]
and it is also eternalism, for, continuous rising and passing of eternalism or
impossible for the indeed, becoming is Becoming and cause -effect is nihilism, Since this
eternal to produce the series of up~ing destruction of becoming. is existence:
21.15
existence. This is and ceasing of cause causes and effects. namely, the
because appearance, and effect. continuity of the
disappearance, and originating and
continuity are stopping of causes
absolutely the same and product.
as existence, which is
just a combination of
result and reason.
21.16 If the continuity of When appearance, If it is assumed that If cyclic existence is If the continuity of [Nagarjuna

rising and passing disappearance, and becoming is the the continuous the rising and replies:] If this is
away is the continuity are series of uprising Becoming and passing of cause- existence: namely,
continuity of cause interpreted as and ceasing of the destruction of effect is becoming, the continuity of
and effect, it follows existence, which cause and effect, causes and effects, because what has originating and
that only one includes result and then with the Then from the passed will not be stopping of causes
[occurrence] of reason being as one, repeated non-arising nonarising of the created again, it will and product, It
arising and of Even disintegration, of that which ceases, destroyed Follows follow that the cause would logically
passing away is the which can be it will follow that the nonexistence of is annihilated. follow that the
annihilation of considered on the there will. be cause. cause is destroyed
causality. basis of the intellect, annihilation of the because the
follows the idea that cause. destroyed thing
disappearance can does not originate
occur only once, and again.
we can consider the
problem on the basis
of instantaneous
reason.
By means of the self- It is not true that The non-existence of If entities exist with If things exist If there is self-
nature of a real abstract existence is that which possesses entitihood, Then essentially, it would existence of
existent, a non-real included within real existence in terms of their nonexistence be unreasonable [for something which
existent does not existence, and it is self-nature is not would make no them] to become Is intrinsically
occur. At the time of also never true that appropriate. [On the sense. But at the nothing. At the time existing, then
nirvana there is abstract existence is contrary,] at the time of nirvana, of nirvana [they] nonexistence does
annihilation of the restricted by and time of freedom, Cyclic existence would be not obtain. At the
uninterrupted series relies upon there will be ceases completely, annihilated, because time of nirvana
21.17 of births and subjective existence annihilation as a having been pacified. the continuity of there is
transmigrations on at all. When it is result of the becoming is totally destruction of the
account of calmness. balanced, even appeasement of the pacified. cycle of existence
instantaneousness stream of becoming. (bhavasamtana) as
itself can exist as a result of the
continuous existence cessation.
departing from an
arrested condition.
A being first occurs In the ultimate state, It is not proper to If the final one has If the end stops, it is If the last [part of
where the last has the state of being assume that there is ceased, The unreasonable for existence] is
21.18 not ceased [or] a completely free, the first coming when existence of a first there to be a destroyed, the
being first occurs most excellent the last has ceased. one makes no sense. beginning of first [part of]
where the last has situations are not Nor is it proper to If the final one has becoming. When the existence does

not not ceased. restricted as assume that there is not ceased, The end does not stop, it not obtain. If the
existence. In the first becoming when existence of a first is unreasonable for last [part of
ultimate state, even the last has not one makes no sense. there to be a existence] is not
though there is no ceased: beginning of destroyed, the
suppression, the becoming. first [part of]
most important existence does
thing is restricted as not obtain.
existence.
If the first is born When self-regulation If the first were to If when the final one If the beginning is If the first [part of
where the last is has been realized, be born when the was ceasing, Then created while the existence] were
presently ceasing, that which is the last is ceasing, then the first was arising, end is stopping, the produced while
what is ceasing most excellent has that which is ceasing The one ceasing stopping would be the final part were
would be one and been born into the would be one and would be one. The one and the creating being destroyed.
what is being born ultimate situation. that which is being one arising would be would be another. There would be
would be another. The only situation, born would be another. one thing being
that is, the self- another. destroyed and
regulated situation, being produced
21.19 solely exists, so the [both at the same
fact is that the self- time].
regulated situation
exists before our
eyes at the present
moment, and such a
situation exists only
as one moment
before and after.
If not, presently The state of being If it is asserted that If, absurdly, the one If it is also If the one "being
ceasing and self-regulated and the ceasing is also arising And the one unreasonable for destroyed" and
presently being born the state of being the being born, this ceasing we re the stopping and the one "being
occur where those born are not always would not be proper same, Then whoever creating to be produced" cannot
skandhas being born combined. All things For, in that. case, is dying with the together, aren’t the exist together,
are the same as and phenomena are whatever that is aggregates Is also aggregates that die Can someone be
21.20
these dying. dying as things and born in relation to arising. also those that are produced in those
phenomena, and at the aggregates, created? "groups of
the same time would also be dying universal
among those things at the same time. elements"
and phenomena all (skandhas) in
things are being which he is [also]

born as aggregates. "dying"?
Thus the continuing In the three times Thus, the stream of Since the series of Likewise, if the Thus, the chain of
series of births and (past, present, and becoming is not cyclic existence is continuity of existences is not
transmigrations is future), the proper in the not evident In the becoming is not possible in any of
not reasonable in restricted situations context of the three three times, If it is reasonable at any of the three times
the three times. How do not always periods of time. How not in the three the three times, how [i.e., past, present,
can that which does continue as birth or can there be a times, How could can there be a and future]; And if
not exist in the three wandering, which stream of becoming there be a series of continuity of it does not exist in
times be [regarded] seems to be that does not exist cyclic existence? becoming which is the three times,
as a “‘series”? continuing forever. during the three non-existent in the how can the chain
In the three times it periods of time? three times? of existences
21.21
is not true that those exist?
restricted conditions
are continuing and
really exist as birth
and limitless
wandering at all, and
the restricted
conditions never
continue as birth and
wandering.

Chapter 22

Investigation of the An Analysis of the
Analysis of the Thus Examination of Examination of the Examination of the
22 Tathagata "Fully Completed"
Come/Thus Gone Realization Tathagata Tathagata
(Buddhanature) (Tathagata)
Not the skandhas It is not true that the The tathagata is Neither the Not the aggregates, That one [who is
nor different from aggregates are neither the aggregates, nor not other than the "fully-completed"]
the skandhas, nor nothing more than aggregates nor different from the aggregates; the is not the "groups
are the skandhas in what the definition different from them. aggregates, The aggregates are not of universal
him nor is he in of aggregate The aggregates are aggregates are not in him; he is not in elements"
them. The Tathagata suggests, but it is not in him; nor is he in him, nor is he in them: the Tathagata (skandha), nor
is not possessed of also not true that in the aggregates. the aggregates. The does not possess the something other
skandhas. Who then the contents of the He is not possessed Tathagata does not aggregates. What is than the "groups";
is the Tathagata? aggregates are not of the aggregates. In possess the the Tathagata? the "groups" are
always the same as such a context, who aggregates. What is not in him, nor is
the definition of is a tathagata? the Tathagata? he in them; The
aggregates; the "fully completed"
22.1
contents of the five does not possess
aggregates are the "groups."
sometimes real What, then, is the
individual things "fully completed"?
themselves.
Realization is not
separate from the
real aggregates, so
what is the real
situation of
realization?
If the Buddha is When Gautama If a Buddha were to If the Buddha If the buddha If the Buddha
clinging to skandhas, Buddha, departing be dependent upon depended on the depends on the exists dependent
he does not exist by from the five the aggregates, he d aggregates, He aggregates, he does on the "groups,"
self-nature. He who aggregates, es not exist in terms would not exist not exist from an then he is not
22.2
does not exist by accepted all things of self-nature. He through an essence. own-nature. How can "that which exists
self-nature, how and phenomena as who does not exist in Not existing through that which does not by itself"
does he exist by they were, subjective terms of self~ an essence, How exist from an own- (svabhava) . And
other- nature? existence [thoughts nature; how can he could he exist nature exist from an how can he exist

within the brain] exist in terms of through otherness- other-nature? as something else
never existed in the other nature? essence? (parabhava) if he
real world at all. is not "that which
When subjective exists by itself"?
existence never
exists at all,
objective existence
[sense stimuli from
the external world]
can never be
recognized as
existing at all.
He who is dependent To a person who He who is dependent Whatever is It is not tenable for That which exists
upon other-nature knows what upon other nature dependent on something presupposing
occurs as “not self.” objective existence would appropriately another entity, Its dependent on other- another existent
And how will he who is, something be without self. Yet, selfhood is not nature to be self- thing is properly
is not self be the different from soul how can he who is appropriate. It is not existent. How can called a "non-
Tathagata? really appears without self be a tenable that what that which has no individual self"
clearly. And that tathagata? lacks a self Could be self-existence be (anatma) . How
which is different a Tathagata. tathagata? will that which is a
22.3 from soul exists non-individual self
clearly as a real become the "fully
entity, so how is it completed"?
possible for
realization to be
something that is
realized only in the
future?
If self-nature does When subjective If there exists no If there is no If self-nature does And if there is no
not exist, how would existence [that self-nature, how essence, How could not exist, how can self-existence
other-nature exist? which is considered could there be other- there be otherness- there be the ((svabhava)), how
Without self-nature by the brain] does nature? Without essence? Without existence of other- would it have an
or other-nature, who not really exist, how both self-nature and possessing essence nature? What is a "other-existence"
22.4
is he, the Tathagata? is it possible for other-nature, who is or otherness- Tathagata apart (parabhava) What
objective existence this tathagata? essence, What is the from own-nature and would that "fully
to exist at all? When Tathagata? other-nature? completed"
we have left both [reality] be
subjective existence without either a

and objective self-existence or
existence, other-existence?
something that
begins to move is
just realization.
If any Tathagata When [interpretative If there were to be a If without depending If there exists a If some kind of
would be not ideas such as] the tathagata because of on the aggregates tathagata [who is] "fully completed"
clinging to the aggregates have not non-grasping on to There were a not depending on [thing] would exist
skandhas, he would intervened at all, the aggregates, he Tathagata, Then now the aggregates, he without
now cling and then there is the should still depend he would be exists in depending dependence on
would be clinging. possibility that upon them in the depending on them. [on them] now and the "groups," It is
realization will occur present. As such he Therefore he would will henceforth dependent now;
actually. But when will be dependent. exist through depend. therefore it exists
22.5 realization has been dependence. dependent [on
emancipated from something],
all kinds of
interventions too
freely, ironically
there is the tendency
for realization to be
disturbed.
Not any Tathagata However if we do There exists no Inasmuch as there is If there does not There is no kind of
exists not clinging to not have any relation tathagata no Dependent upon exist a tathagata "fully completed"
skandhas. How will with the five independent of the the aggregates, How [who is]not [being] which is
he who does not aggregates, there is aggregates. How can could something depending on the not dependent on
exist by not clinging no possibility for he who does not that is not aggregates, how the "groups." And
be grasped? realization. When exist dependently be dependent Come to does he grasp whatever is not
there is no gasped? be so? [depend on? them]? non-dependent—
22.6
recognition of the how will it become
five aggregates, dependent?
there is no
possibility for reality
to manifest itself at
all.
Nothing is unseized Without a somewhat There is no sphere of There is no [Since] there is There is nothing
22.7 and no one is unmoved attitude, non-grasping, nor is appropriation. There nothing to be whatever that is
clinging. Does the even the function of there something ~ is no appropriator. grasped/dependent dependent on

Tathagata somehow perception does not grasping. Neither is Without on, there can be no [the "groups"] and
not exist without appear at all. When there someone who appropriation How grasping/depending. there is no thing
clinging? desire and is without grasping. can the re be a There is no whatever on
attachment are How can there be a Tathagata? tathagata at all who which something
without restriction, tathagata? is without grasping/ does not depend.
it is completely depending. There would not
impossible for exist in any way a
realization to exist at "fully completed"
all. [being] without
being dependent
on [the "groups"].
He who does not It is not true that He who, sought for Having been sought If having examined in That [fully
exist is presently relying upon the in the five-fold in the five-fold way, five ways, how can completed being]
being sought for by combination of manner, does not What, being neither that tathagata who which does not
means of five real reality and exist in the form of a identical nor does not exist as exist by its actual
and distinct forms of abstraction, different identity, different, Can be that one or the other reality (tattva) or
clinging. By what is realization really how can that thought to be the be [conventionally] by some other
the Tathagata exists. The mental tathagata be made Tathagata Through understood by reality (anyatva)
known? function of grasping known through grasping? grasping/depending? according to the
something and the grasping? fivefold
22.8 five aggregates are examination
just one thing, which
is a combination of
the two. How is it
possible for reliance
upon the function of
sense perception to
make it possible to
get realization?
Because of this One who looks at This grasping is not Whatever grasping That which is How is the "fully
clinging, what has the real world just as found in terms of there is Does not grasped/depended completed"
self-nature does not the object of sense self-nature. How can exist through on does not exist [being] perceived
occur. What does not perception without that which does not essence. And when from its own nature. by being
exist by self-nature, subjective existence exist in terms of self- something does not It is impossible for dependent? 9. So
22.9
how does that exist cannot recognize nature come to be in exist through itself, that which does not when there is
by other nature? anything. Such terms of other- It can never exist exist from its own dependence, self -
subjective existence nature.? through otherness- nature to exist from existence does
is not a real entity, essence. another nature. not exist; And if
so it is impossible for there is no self-

subjective existence existence
to really exist at any whatever, how is
place at all. an other-existence
possible?
And thus the one In this way, the Thus, grasping and Thus grasping and In that way, what is Thus
who clings is clinging balanced situation grasper are empty in grasper Together are grasped/depended "dependence" and
to what is produces the true every way. How can empty in every on and what grasps/ "that which is
everywhere open. function of sense an empty tathagata respect. How can an depends are empty dependent" are
How is the open perception, and be made known by empty Tathagata Be in every aspect. How completely empty
22.10 Tathagata known by therefore what is something that is known through the can an empty (sunya) . How is
means of what is perceived is all of empty? empty? tathagata be that empty "fully
open? the world. [conventionally] completed one"
understood by what known through
is empty? that which is
empty?
I am not saying that What is called the "Empty;'' "non- "Empty" should not Do not say “empty,” One may not say
“what is open” or balanced state is not empty," "both" or be asserted. or “not empty,” or that there is
“what is not open” only an expression "neither" these "Nonempty" should “both,” or “neither:” "emptiness"
could exist or “both” by the lips, and the should not be not be asserted. these are mentioned (sunya) , nor that
or “neither.” They expression of the declared. It is Neither both nor for the sake of there is "non-
are said only for the unbalanced state can expressed only for neither should be [conventional] emptiness." Nor
purpose of teaching. also exist. The the. purpose of asserted. They are understanding. that both [exist
question of whether communication. only used nominally. simultaneously],
those two situations nor that neither
22.11
[the balanced state exists; the
and the unbalanced purpose for saying
state] are originally ["emptiness"] is
two facts, or not two for the purpose of
facts, is a question conveying
that should be knowledge.
concluded
intuitively.
Where within If we assume that How can the How can the Where can the four How, then, will
fourfold both something tetralemma of tetralemma of such as permanence "eternity," "non-
permanence, eternal and eternal, non-eternal, permanent and and impermanence eternity," and [the
22.12 impermanence, etc., something etc., be in the impermanent, etc., exist in this peaceful rest of] the
is peace? Where noneternal exist, peaceful? · How can Be true of the one? Where can the tetralemma apply
within fourfold how is it possible for the tetralemma of peaceful? four such as end and to bliss (santa) ?
finitude, infinity, the four reliable finite, infinite, etc., no-end [of the How, then, will

etc., is happiness? facts [reason, the be in the peaceful? world] exist in this "the end,"
external world, peaceful one? "without end,"
action, and reality] and [the rest of]
to exist in the very the tetralemma
stable state? If it is apply to bliss?
true that both
something that ends
and something
unending exist, it
might be impossible
for the four reliable
facts to ever exist in
the very stable
condition.
You are grasped and It is just the Discriminating on One who grasps the Those who hold the That image of
destroyed by accomplishment of the basis of grasping view that the dense apprehension, nirvana [in which]
grasping false the aim to maintain or the grasped, and Tathagata exists, “the tathagata the Buddha
imaginings that the the stable state, and firmly insisting that a having seized the exists” conceive the (tathagata) either
Tathagata “exists” or relying upon it, what tathagata"exists" or Buddha, Constructs thought, “he does "is" or "is not" —
“does not exist.” He really exists is "does not exist," a conceptual not exist in nirvana.” By him who [so
would be imagined realization itself. The person would think fabrications About imagines nirvana]
to the same as one opinion that the fact similarly even of one one who has the notion is
who is deceased. that is called who has ceased. achieved nirvana. crudely grasped.
realization never
really exists might
22.13
change gradually,
and the idea [that
realization does not
exist] might change
in future; then it may
be possible for us to
peacefully change
the idea [that
realization never
exists].
In that is open by When subjective When he is empty in Since he is by nature For that one empty Concerning that
22.14 nature, this thought: existence [which has terms of self-nature, empty, The thought of own-nature, it is which is empty by
“The Buddha exists been considered by the thought that the that the Buddha entirely its own nature

or does not exist the brain] is in the Buddha exists or Exists or does not inappropriate to (svabhava) , the
after death” does balanced state, there does not exist after exist After nirvana is think that once the thoughts do not
not occur. is no possibility for death is not not appropriate. buddha has nirvana- arise that: The
any kind of appropriate. ed he either “exists” Buddha "exists" or
apprehension to or “does not exist.” "does not exist"
occur. [At the same after death.
time when] objective
existence [which is
the opposite of
subjective existence]
departs from the
self-regulated
situation, it is also
said that it is
impossible for a
person who has
grasped the Truth to
exist.
Those who imagine When people who Those who generate Those who develop Those who make Those who
the Buddha, who is are expanding the obsessions with mental fabrications fixations about describe in detail
beyond being Truth, which has great regard to the with regard to the Buddha who is the Buddha, who
described by false been gotten already, Buddha who has Buddha, Who has beyond fixations and is unchanging and
statements, are all have some kind of gone beyond gone beyond all without beyond all
destroyed by idle characteristics it may obsessions and is fabrications, As a deterioration -- all detailed
22.15 fancy. They do not be difficult to constant, all of them, consequence of those who are description.
see the Tathagata. change them. People impa4ed by those cognitive damaged by Those, completely
who want to hurt all obsessions, do not fabrications, Fail to fixations do not see defeated by
kinds of expansion perceive the see the Tathagata. the tathagata. description, do
have difficulty tathagata. not perceive the
meeting realization. "fully completed"
[being].
What self-nature is Realization has some Whatever is the self- Whatever is the Whatever is the own- The self-existence
the Tathagata, that characteristics like nature of the essence of the nature of the of the "fully
self-nature is the subjective existence, tathagata, that is Tathagata, That is tathagata, that is the completed"
world. The Tathagata and such subjective also the self-nature the essence of the own-nature of this [being] is the self-
22.16 is without self- existence is made by of the universe. The world. The Tathagata world. The tathagata existence of the
nature and the world the world, and by tathagata is devoid has no essence. The has no own-nature. world. The "fully
is without that self- human societies. of self-nature. This world is without This world has no completed"
nature. Realization is never universe is also essence. own-nature. [being] is without

meager in contents devoid of self- self-existence
and it is not coarse, nature. [and] the world is
and something that without self-
is not meager in existence.
contents and not
coarse is the world in
which we are living
now, and it is the
earth itself.

Chapter 23
Examination of Examination of the Examination of Investigation of An Analysis of

23 Analysis of Error
Delusion Perversions errors Error (Confusion) Errors (Viparyasa)
Desire, hatred, and What is born from Lust, hatred, and Desire, hatred, and It is said that desire, It is said that
delusion are said to desire, or from confusion are said confusion all Arise hatred, stupidity desire (raga), hate,
rise from false violent emotion, have thought as from thought, it is arise from and delusion are
discrimination. They hate, and delusion, is their source. said. They all depend conceptuality; they derived from
develop depending discussed only on Perversions on The pleasant, the arise in dependence mental fabrication
on errors of purity the basis of words. regarding the unpleasant, and on the pleasant, the (samkalpa) ,
and impurity. [This is] because pleasant and the errors unpleasant and Because they
23.1
delusions of that unpleasant arise confusion. [they come into
which is favorable depending upon arise in dependence existence
and that which is thes on confusion about presupposing
undesirable pervade the pleasant and errors as to what
throughout the unpleasant] is salutary and
world without any unsalutary.
doubt.
Whichever develop People usually Whatever Since whatever Whatever arises in Those things
depending on errors maintain what is perversions of the depends on the dependence upon which come into
of purity and favorable and what pleasant and the pleasant and the the pleasant, the existence
impurity, they do not is undesirable in a unpleasant that unpleasant Does not unpleasant and presupposing
occur as self-natures. completely deluded occur dependently exist through an confusion, (whatever errors as to what
Therefore, in truth, arrangement. They are not evident in essence, The arises in dependence is salutary and
the defilements do do not wish to terms of self-nature. defilements Do not on confusion about unsalutary Do not
23.2 not exist. recognize [things Therefore, the really exist. the pleasant and exist by their own
and phenomena] defilements are not unpleasant) they nature
adequately [by] in themselves. have no own-nature, (svabhava) ;
departing from therefore, afflictions therefore the
subjective existence, do not really exist impurities (klesa)
so even serious pain (do not exist in do not exist in
has already lost its themselves). reality.
reality.
Where the existence Images in the mind The existence or the The self's existence The existence or The existence or
23.3 or non-existence of do not exist in reality non-existence of the or nonexistence Has non-existence of self non-existence of
the self is not in any or in unreality, so self is not in no way been is not established in the individual self

way even what is the meaning established in any established. Without any way. Without (atma) is not
established, without of the perfect things way. Without that, that, how could the that, how can the proved at all.
it in existence or not and phenomena that how can the defilements' existence or non- Without that
in existence, how are are considered inside existence or the non- Existence or existence of [individual self],
the defilements the mind? The existence of nonexistence be afflictions be how can the
established? perfect things and defilements be established? established? existence or non-
phenomena that are established? existence of the
considered in the impurities be
mind do not exist proved?
either in reality or in
unreality, so it is very
difficult to actually
find such
accomplished
images of things and
phenomena within
serious pain.
Indeed, whose are Even if we permit These defilements, The defilements are These afflictions are For impurities
these defilements the existence of the indeed, belong to somebody's. But someone’s. But that exist of
since he is not world of space as a someone. Yet, such a that one has not [someone] is not somebody, and
established? Who receptacle, it is person is not been established. established. that person is not
says, without completely established. In other Without that Without [someone], proved at all. Is it
anyone, defilements impossible to permit words, in the possessor, The the afflictions are not so that
exist that belong to the real existence of absence of anyone, defilement are not anyone’s. without someone
no one? severe pains as the these defilements nobody's. the impurities do
23.4
real things and seem lo exist not exist of
phenomena. Even if without belonging to anybody?
there were nothing, anyone.
or even if something
exists, there is no
possibility for severe
pains to exist
anywhere at all.
Having The situation that is The defilements are View the Like [the self In reference to
demonstrated that similar to us looking like the view of one's defilements as you apprehended in] the the view of having
one’s own nature is at our own body is a own personality. view yourself: They view of one’s own a body of one's
23.5 not five-fold, where real example of what Within the defiled, are not in the defiled body, the afflictions own, the
are the defilements is called pain, so it is they are not found in in the fivefold way. do not exist in five impurities do not
in the afflicted one? not true that real the five-fold way. View the defiled as ways in the afflicted. exist in what is
Having entities like the five The defiled is like you view your self: It Like [the self made impure

demonstrated that [aggregates] are the view of one's is not in the apprehended in] the according to the
one’s own nature is included within pain. own personality, for defilements in the view of one’s own five-fold manner.
not five-fold, where § It is similar to even within the fivefold way. body, the afflicted In reference to
is the afflicted one in looking at our own defilements it is not does not exist in five the view of having
the defilements? body; therefore it is found in the five-fold ways in the a body of one's
not true that real way. afflictions. own, that which is
entities like the five made impure does
aggregates exist not exist in the
within pain at all. impurities
according to the
five-fold manner.
Errors of purity and The substance of The perversions The pleasant, the If confusion about The errors as to
impurity do not subjective existence regarding the unpleasant, and the the pleasant and what is salutary
occur naturally. How can never become pleasant and the errors Do not exist unpleasant does not and non-salutary
are defilements the object of unpleasant are not through essence. exist from its own do not exist as
dependent on errors recognition, because evident from the Which pleasant, nature, what self-existent
of purity and [subjective existence standpoint of self- unpleasant, and afflictions can entities
impurity? is just] the confusion nature. Depending errors could the depend on confusion (svabhavatas)
of favorable and upon which defilements depend about the pleasant Depending on
23.6
unfavorable things. perversions of the upon? and unpleasant? which errors as to
It is very clear that pleasant and the what is salutary
pain is producing unpleasant are these and non-salutary
something, and the defilements? are then
confused situation impurities?
of favorable and
undesirable things
has been produced.
Physical form, sound, . Form, sound, taste, Material form, Form, sound, taste, Colour/shape, sound, Form, sound,
taste, touch, smell, touch, smell, and the sound, taste, touch, touch, Smell, and taste, tactile taste, touch,
and events are rule of the universe smell and concepts, concepts of things: sensation, smell and smell, and the
imagined as six are the six [objects these are These six Are dharmas: these six dharmas: this six-
substantially existing of the sense orgaThe discriminated as the thought of as the are conceived as the fold Substance
23.7 things having desire, real situation of the six-fold foundations foundation of basis of desire, (vasiu) of desire,
hatred, and delusion. world includes of lust, hatred, and Desire, hatred, and hatred and stupidity. hate, and delusion
strong desire, confusion. confusion. is imagined.
darkness, and
illusion and is always
changing.
Physical form, sound, Form, sound, taste, Material form, Form, sound, taste, Colour/shape, sound, Form, sound,
23.8 taste, touch, smell, touch, smell, and the sound, taste, touch touch, Smelł, and taste, tactile taste, touch,

and events are rule of the universe smell as well as concepts of things: sensation, smell and smell, and the
made-up imaginary are individually concepts, all these These six Should be dharmas: these are dharmas are
cities in the sky, like independent. [They are comparable to seen as only like a like gandharva-cities Merely the form
dreams and mirages. are] similar to the city of the city of the and similar to of a fairy castle,
Gandharva, the city gandharvas and Gandharvas and Like mirages, dreams. like a mirage, a
without a jail, or to a resemble mirages a mirage or a dream. dream.
mirage, or to sleep. and dreams.
Where will purity or Where is it possible How can the How could the How can the How will "that
impurity be in these for undesirable pleasant and the Pleasant and pleasant and which is salutary"
people equal to conditions or unpleasant come to unpleasant arise In unpleasant occur in or "that which is
illusions and like desirable conditions be in people who are those that are like an those [things] which non-salutary"
shadows? to exist even in the fabrications of illusory person And are like phantoms come into
future? Although illusion or who are like a reflection? and similar to existence In a
demons and human comparable to reflections? formation of a
beings live according mirror images? magical man, or in
23.9
to social habits, even things like a
the images of sun reflection?
and moon reflected
on the surface of
water also belong to
circumstances
similar to social
habits.
Indeed, we teach When something We make known that We say that the Something is called We submit that
that purity is to undesirable is not the unpleasant does unpleasant Is “pleasant” in there is no non-
depend on impurity regarded, neither not exist without dependent upon the dependence on the salutary thing
not existing and that which is being contingent pleasant, Since unpleasant. Since unrelated to a
purity depends on desirable nor that upon the pleasant, without depending that would not exist salutary thing.
that. Therefore, which is undesirable and that the on the pleasant without relation to [And in turn]
23.10 purity does not manifest pleasant, in its turn, there is none. It the pleasant, depending on
happen. themselves. And in is dependent upon follows that the therefore, the which, there is a
such a situation even that the unpleasant]. pleasant is not pleasant is not salutary thing;
that which is Therefore, the tenable. tenable. therefore, a
beautiful never pleasant [in itself] is salutary thing
manifests itself at not appropriate. does not obtain.
all.
Indeed, we teach [At the same time] We make known that We say that the Something is called We submit that
that impurity is to when that which is the pleasant does pleasant Is “pleasant” in there is no
23.11 depend on purity not undesirable seems not exist without dependent upon the dependence on the salutary thing
existing and impurity to be clear, it will not being contingent unpleasant. Without unpleasant. Since unrelated to a

depends on that. be necessary [for upon the unpleasant, the unpleasant there that would not exist non-salutary
Therefore, impurity such a fact] to and that the wouldn't be any. It without relation to thing, [And in
does not occur. become clear again unpleasant, in its follows that the the pleasant, turn] depending
at all. turn, is dependent unpleasant is not therefore, the on which, there is
upon that [i.e., the tenable. pleasant is not a non-salutary
pleasant]. Therefore, tenable. thing; therefore a
the unpleasant [in non-salutary thing
itself] is not evident. does not obtain.
Where purity is Without noticing When the pleasant is Where there is no Something is called If "what is
present, from where when we are in a not evident, whence pleasant, How can “unpleasant” in salutary" does not
will passion arise? preferable condition, can there be lust? there be desire? dependence on the exist, how will
Where impurity is it is impossible to When the Where there is no pleasant. Since that there be desire
not present, from find strong passion unpleasant is not unpleasant, How can would not exist [for it]? And if
where will hatred in any place at all. evident, whence can there be anger? without relation to "what is non-
23.12 arise? Even when we are in there be hatred? the unpleasant, salutary" does not
a very undesirable therefore, the exist, how will
condition, if we do unpleasant is not there be hatred
not know this fact, it tenable. [for it]?
may be impossible
for hatred to occur in
any place at all.
If the error “there is The idea that the If there were to be If to grasp onto the If the pleasant does Even if the notion
permanence in eternal is included grasping on to the view '"The not exist, how can "What is
impermanence” is so within the view, "What is impermanent is desire exist? If the permanent is in
seized, changeable may be impermanent is permanent" were an unpleasant does not something
impermanence does incoherent. The idea permanent," then error, Since in exist, how can impermanent" is
not occur. Where is that it is impossible there is perversion. emptiness there is hatred exist? in error. How can
error seized in what to find anything The impermanent is nothing this notion be in
is open? changeable within not evident in the impermanent, How error since "what
23.13 the balanced state is context of the could that grasping is impermanent"
never wrong. The empty. How can be an error? does not exist in
idea that something there be grasping or emptiness?
eternal is included perversion?
within that which is
changeable is not
logical, and so it is
not true.
If the error “there is If we can maintain a If grasping on to the If to grasp onto the If such an Even if the notion
23.14 permanence in state of relaxation view, "What is view '"The apprehension as “the "what is

impermanence” is so toward the idea that impermanent is impermanent is impermanent is permanent is in
seized, nothing is ever permanent," is permanent'' were an permanent” is something
“impermanence” is eternal, it is perversion, how is it error, Why isn 't confused, since impermanent" is
also grasped. What is completely that even the grasping on to the impermanence does in error, Is not
without error in impossible to hold a grasping after the view 65 "In not exist in the then the notion
what is open? confused idea even view, "What is empty emptiness there is empty, how can such concerning
in the balanced is impermanent," nothing an apprehension be emptiness, i.e.,
state. does not constitute a impermanent" an confused? that it is
perversion? error? impermanent, in
error?
What is grasped by When we think That through which That by means of [The means] by That by which a
the grasper and about things and there is grasping, which there is which one notion is formed,
whoever is grasped phenomena, the whatever grasping grasping, and the apprehends, the the notion, those
by means of main action is i there is, the grasper grasping, And the apprehension who have notions,
grasping are all method of thinking as well as that which grasper, and all that [itself], the and that which is
calmed. Therefore itself, and the is grasped all these is grasped: All are apprehender and the grasped [in the
grasping does not method of thinking are appeased. being relieved. It apprehended: all are notion]: All have
occur. itself has begun to Therefore, its follows that there is completely pacified, ceased; therefore,
23.15 become the object grasping is evident. no grasping. therefore there is no the notion does
of thinking. Because apprehending. not exist.
the real situation is
that everything is
completely serene, it
is not so easy to
know the method of
consideration itself.
And where grasping Even when it is When grasping; If there is no If there is neither If a notion is not
is present, either unclear how to wrongly or rightly, is grasping, Whether confused nor right existing either as
rightly or wrongly, consider the thinking not evident, for erroneous or apprehension, who is false or true.
whose error would it method toward whom would there otherwise, Who will confused and who is Whose is the
be, whose non-error things and be perversion and come to be in error? not confused? error? Whose is
would it be? phenomena, there for whom would Who will have no the non-error?
23.16 can be a distinction there be non- error?
between whether perversion?
the direction is
opposite or the
same. Where is it
possible for the
deluded thinking

method to exist?
When is it possible
for the nondeluded
thinking method to
exist?
The errors of an If the matter of the Perversions do not Error does not Confusions do not Nor do errors of
erring one do not methods of thinking occur to one who is develop In one who occur for those who someone who has
develop. The errors is not solved, already subjected to is in error. Error does are [already] erred come into
of a non-erring one deluded methods of perversion. not develop In one confused; confusions existence. Nor do
also do not develop. thinking will be Perversions do not who is not in error. do not occur for errors of someone
maintained. If the occur to one who has those who are not who has not erred
matter of not been subjected [yet] confused; come into
23.17 nondeluded to perversions. existence.
methods of thinking
is not solved,
deluded methods of
thinking will be
maintained.
The errors of what is If we do not wish to Perversions do not Error does not confusions do not And errors of
presently erring do dissolve the deluded occur to one who is develop In one in occur for those who someone who is at
not develop. ideas, these deluded being subjected to whom error is are being confused. present in error
Consider for yourself ideas may be perversions. Reflect arising. In whom For whom do do not come into
whose errors come maintained. If we on your own! To does error develop? confusions occur? existence. Now
about. reflect upon our own whom will the Examine this on your Examine this by you examine of
23.18
situation even a perversions occur? own ! yourself! whom do errors
little, how is it really come into
possible for deluded existence!
methods of thinking
to be maintained?
How will whatever is How is it possible for How could there be If error is not arisen, If confusions are not How in all the
non-arising be called things and non-arisen How could it come to born, how can they world will errors
errors? Where error phenomena that perversions? When exist? If error has not exist? If confusions which have not
23.19 is unborn, where has have not yet been perversions are not arisen, How could are not born, where originated come
error gone? born to continue born, whence can one be in error? can there be into existence?
existing in the world there be a person someone who has And if errors are
further, even who is subjected to confusion? not originated,

nominally? If perversions? how can there be
deluded ideas have someone involved
not yet been born, in error?
deluded ideas to
depart actually?
A being is “not born

The subjective has An existent does not Since an entity does Things are not born Since no being is
from itself, not born
not been born as arise from itself, nor not arise from itself, from themselves, produced by itself,
from another, nor existence, and the does it arise from Nor from another, not born from nor by something
from both itself and
objective has not another, nor both Nor from another others. If they are different. Nor by
another.” Where hasbeen born at all. itself and other. If so, and from itself, How also not from self itself and
error gone? Both the subjective whence can there be could one be in error. and others, where something
23.20
and the objective do a person who is can there be different at the
not exist anywhere, subject to someone who has same time, how
and so where is it perversions? confusion? can there be
possible for deluded someone involved
thinking to depart at in error?
all?
If the self, purity, When the soul, If either the self, the If the self and the If self and purity and If the individual
permanence, and natural brightness, pleasant, the pure, The permanent permanence and self, "what is
happiness occur, the or comfort is permanent, or the and the blissful happiness were pure," "what is
self, purity, recognized, Soul, happy is evident, existed, The self, the existent, self and eternal," and
permanence, and natural brightness, then neither the self, pure, the purity and happiness really
23.21 happiness are not or comfort is never a the pleasant, the permanent, And the permanence and exist, Then the
errors. deluded idea at all. permanent, nor the blissful would not be happiness would not individual self,
happy constitutes a deceptive. be confusions. "what is pure,"
perversion. "what is eternal,"
and happiness are
not errors.
If the self, purity, When it is If neither the self, If the self and the If self and purity and But if individual
permanence, and recognized, the soul the pleasant, the pure, The permanent permanence and self, "what is
happiness do not is pure and that permanent, nor the and the blissful did happiness were non- pure," "what is
occur, neither the which is innate is happy is not evident, not exist, The existent, eternal," and
non-self, impurity, brilliant. [The then neither the nonself, the impure, selflessness, happiness do not
23.22
impermanence, or seriously painful non-self, the the permanent, And impurity, exist. Then non-
suffering occur. facts that] the soul is unpleasant, the suffering would not impermanence and individual self,
impure and that impermanent, nor exist. anguish would not "what is impure,"
which is innate is the suffering would exist. "what is
never brilliant can also be evident. impermanent"

never be recognized and sorrow do not
at all. exist.
Thus from the When ignorance is Thus, with the Thus, through the Thus by stopping From the
cessation of errors,
not recognized and cessation of cessation of error confusion, ignorance cessation of error
ignorance is [ignorance] has been perversions, ignorance ceases. will stop. If ignorance ceases;
stopped. Where concealed, the ignorance ceases. When ignorance ignorance is When ignorance
ignorance has deluded thinking When ignorance has ceases The stopped, impulsive has ceased,
ceased, disposition,
method has ceased, the compounded acts etc. will stop. conditioning
etc., is stopped. manifested itself dispositions, etc. phenomena, forces (samskara)
23.23
already here and come to cease. etc„ cease. and everything
now. [Instances of] else cease.
ignorance,
destruction, and
everything other
than real action can
be destroyed.
If any beings are If the world relies If, indeed, certain If someone's If the afflictions of If any kind of self-
defiled by their own upon subjective defilements of defilements Existed some existed by existent
nature, whose existence, even our someone have come through his essence, their own nature, impurities belong
(defilements] are pain is also some to be on the basis of How could they be how could they be to somebody, How
they? How would kind of existence, self-nature, how relinquished? Who let go of? Who can in all the world
they be called and it seems that the could they be could relinquish the let go of what exists would they be
abandoned? Who universe, as a kind of relinquished? Who existent? by nature? eliminated? Who
will abandon self- receptacle, might ever could relinquish can eliminate that
nature? exist somewhere. self-nature? which is self-
23.24 Even if it is only existent?
nominally, it is not
true that such a
situation will be
promoted, or that
will be promoted
further even in the
future.
If not any beings are When worlds that If, indeed, certain If someone's If the afflictions of If any kind of self-
defiled by their own are different from defilements of defilements Did not some did not exist existent
23.25 nature, whose this world are someone have not exist through his by their own nature, impurities do not
[defilements] are thought of, it may be come to be on the essence, How could how could they be belong to

they? How would possible that pain basis of self-nature, they be let go of? Who can somebody, How in
they be called can exist, and the how could they be relinquished? Who let go of what does all the world
abandoned? Who world that is similar relinquished? Who could relinquish the not exist? would they be
will abandon what to a receptacle ever could relinquish nonexistent? eliminated? Who
does not really exist? seems to exist non-existence? ' can eliminate that
somewhere really. which is non-self-
However, even it is existent?
only nominally, it is
impossible for such
strange ideas to be
promoted further, or
for the unreal world
to be promoted
further.

Chapter 24

Investigation of the An Analysis of the
Analysis of Noble Examination of the Examination of the Examination of the Emptiness and the
24 Ennobling Truths Holy Truths
Truth supreme Truth Noble Truths four Noble Truths Four Noble Truths
(Awakening) (Aryasatya)
If all this is open, f the balanced state If all this is empty, If all of this is empty, “If all were empty, "If all were empty [An opponent
there is neither is the total situation then there exists no Neither arising nor nothing could come of essence, then claims]If
arising nor of the world, the fact uprising and ceasing. ceasing, Then for about or perish. It nothing could everything is
dissolution. The non- of appearance does These imply the non- you, it follows that would follow for you arise or dissolve. It empty, there is no
existence of the four not exist really, and existence of the four The Four Noble that the four would follow that origination nor
noble truths follows the fact of noble truths. Truths do not exist. ennobling truths even the Four destruction. Then
for you. disappearance does could not exist. Noble Truths you must
24.1 not exist really. But could not exist. incorrectly
if we dare say that conclude that
there are not the there is non-
four aspects of the existence of the
Supreme Truth, such four holy truths.
an insistence is too
attached.
Knowledge, The content of our In the absence of the f the Four Noble “Since the four "If the Four NobleIf there is non-
abandonment, recognition, four noble truths, Truths do not exist, ennobling truths Truths did not existence of the
practice, and abandonment, and understanding, Then knowledge, would not exist, exist, then true four holy truths,
realization do not the sense functions relinquishing, abandonment, understanding, knowledge, the saving
take place by the that are the basis of cultivation, and Meditation and letting go, renunciation of knowledge, the
non-existence of the sense perceptions, realization will not manifestation Will cultivating and the world, elimination [of
24.2 four noble truths. These could never be appropriate. be completely realizing would no spiritual progress,
illusion], The
manifest themselves impossible. longer be valid. and "becoming"
if not for the enlightenment [enlightened]
existence of the four would be (bhavana) , and
supreme truths. impossible. the "realization"
[of the goal] are
impossible.
With that non- If we deny the In the absence of If these things do “Since they would "If knowledge, If there is non-
existence, the four supreme truths, it is this [fourfold not exist, The four not exist, the four renunciation, existence, then
24.3 noble fruits do not impossible for us to activity}, the four fruits will not arise. fruits would also not spiritual progress, also the four holy
occur. Where the recognize the four noble fruits would Without the four exist. If the fruits did and "fruits" do not

fruit is non-existent, supreme results. not be evident. In fruits, there will be not exist, there enlightenment did exist. In the non-
the stage in which When there is no the absence of the no attainers of the could be no abiding not exist, then the existence of fruit
the fruits are result, it is fruits, neither those fruits. Nor will there in the fruits. four fruits [stages there is no
enjoyed and those impossible for us to who· have attained be the faithful. Experiencing them of advancement "residing in fruit"
who have arrived at maintain the stability the fruits nor those would also not exist. along the Noble nor obtaining.
the goal do not exist. of result, and so it is who have reached Eightfold Path] 2
impossible to really the way [to such would not exist;
arrive at the result. attainment] exist. and if the fruits
did not exist, then
there would be no
attaining of the
fruits and thus no
advancement
toward Nirvana.
If the above eight If the Buddhist If the eight types of If so, the spiritual 4. “If those eight "If those eight
When the
kinds of persons or Order does not individuals do not community will not beings did not exist, things [mentioned
community [of
human beings do not really exist, the eight exist, there will be exist. N or will the the Community in verses 2 and 3]
Buddhists] does
exist, the Buddhist kinds of Buddhists no congregation. eight kin ds of would not exist. did not exist, then
not exist, then
community does not can never really From the non- person. If the Four Since there would be there could be no
those eight "kinds
exist. From the non- exist. If we do not existence of the Noble Truths do not no ennobling truths, Buddhist of persons" [i.e.,
existence of the get rid of the idea noble truths, the exist, There will be the sublime Dharma community four abiding in the
24.4 Noble Truths, the that there is nothing true doctrine would no true Dharma. could also not exist. (Sangha); and
fruit and four who
true Teaching does in the supreme truth, also not be evident. without the Four
are obtaining] do
not occur. even the real Noble Truthsnot exist. Because
universe can never [verse 1], there
there is non-
be recognized at all. could be no true
existence of the
teaching four holy truths,
(Dharma). the real dharma
does not exist.
Where the Teaching If it is true that the When the doctrine If there is no “If the Community "If the Sangha and And if there are
and the Buddhist universe is nothing, and the doctrine and and the Dharma did the Dharma did no dharma and
community do not then such a situation congregation are spiritual community, not exist, how could not exist, then community, how
exist, how will the exists really in the non-existent, how How can there be a Buddha exist? When how could the will the Buddha
Buddha exist? Thus Buddhist Order, so can there be an Buddha? If you talk of Buddha exist? The exist? By speaking
24.5 speaking, the three how is it possible for enlightened one? emptiness is emptiness, the three [Madhyamaka] thus, [that
jewels are denied by the people who get conceived in this Jewels are maligned. doctrine of everything is
you. the Truth to exist at way, The three emptiness empty] certainly
all, even in the jewels are destroys the you deny the
future? Even though contradicted. Three Jewels [of three jewels [i.e.,
the three supreme Buddhism – the the Buddha, the

values are precious, Buddha, the dharma, and the
you [who do not Dharma, and the community].
believe in Buddhism] Sangha].
refuse even to talk
about them.
Openness, good or The balanced state Speaking in this Hence you assert “The existence of "Thus, the You deny the real
bad results, the (Siinyata), the secular manner about that there are no actions and fruits, doctrine of existence of a
Teaching, and all world, that which is emptiness, you real fruits. And no what is not Dharma emptiness product, of right
worldly everyday against the rule of contradict the three Dharma. The Dharma and what is Dharma, negates the and wrong, And all
activities are denied the universe, and jewels, as well as the itself And the the conventions of existence of the practical
by you. even the rule of the reality of the fruits, conventional truth the world: all these actions, of the behavior of the
universe itself, And both good and bad, Will be contradicted. too are maligned.” four fruits, of the world as being
24.6 furthermore, all and all such worldly Dharma, and also empty.
secular work, and convention$. of the things
improper conduct— taken for granted
you who do not in the ordinary
believe in Buddhism and everyday
refuse even to talk thought of the
of them. unenlightened."
We reply that here In such a situation, We say that you do We say that this An explanation for Your [Ngarjuna replies]
you have not although usual not comprehend the understanding of that: since you do understanding of We reply that you
experienced the conversations are purpose of yours Of emptiness not understand the our teaching on do not
purpose in openness, done in a stable emptiness. As such, and the purpose of need for emptiness, emptiness is comprehend the
and thus the use of condition, you do you are tormented emptiness And of emptiness, and the defective and, by point of
openness is severed not want to know by emptiness and the significance of point of emptiness, failing to emptiness; You
from openness by the reason why the meaning of emptiness is therefore in that way understand it, you eliminate both
you. those conversations emptiness. incorrect. As a you malign. are in danger of "emptiness" itself
24.7
are done so consequence you are losing the truth, and its purpose
peacefully. You are harmed by it. which will cause from it.
completely you suffering.
overwhelmed by the
balanced situation
itself, and by the
actual importance of
the balanced state.
The instruction of ..T he situation in The teaching of the The Buddha's The Dharma taught n the Dharma The teaching by
24.8 the teachings of the which we have doctrine by the teaching of the by Buddhas perfectly taught by the the Buddhas of

buddhas are based experienced Buddhas is based Dharma Is based on relies on two truths: buddhas, there is the dharma has
on two truths: thesufficiently the two upon two truths: two truths: A truth the ambiguous a distinction recourse to two
truth of common Truths is the truth relating to of worldly truths of the world between two truths: The world-
sense conventions teaching of the rule worldly convention convention And an and the truths of the levels of truth: (1) ensconced truth
about the world and
of the universe by and truth in terms of uItimate truth. sublime meaning. the conventional and the truth
truth in the higher
the teachers who ultimate fruit. and confused which is the
sense of the word.have gotten the "truth" of ordinary highest sense.
Truth. The true consciousness and
guidance in the (2) the "true
world is just the truth" revealed to
Truth, and that is just superconsciousne
the Truth in the ss.
world of action.
Those who do not Those who cannot Those who do not Those who do not Those who do not If you don't Those who do not
understand the experience really understand the understand The understand the understand the know the
distinction between that there are two distinction between distinction drawn division into two two-truth distribution
the two truths do kinds of Truth, which these two truths do between these two truths, cannot distinction, then (vibhagam) of the
not understand the are dimensionally not understand the truths Do not understand the you cannot two kinds of truth
profound reality in different but which profound truth understand The profound reality of understand the Do not know the
the teaching of the exist together, embodied in the Buddha's profound the Buddha’s profound teaching profound "point"
Buddha. similarly to Buddha's message. truth. teaching. of the Buddha. (tattva) in the
24.9 [inhalation and teaching of the
exhalation in] Buddha.
breathing.-.are
criticized by
Gautama Buddha as
those who cannot
grasp reality as
something profound.
Higher truth is not When action is Without relying Without a Without relying on Understanding The highest sense
taught performed in a upon convention, the foundation in the conventions, the conventional [of the truth] is
independently of hopeless condition, ultimate fruit is not conventional truth, sublime meaning "truth" is a not taught apart
common practice. it is difficult to taught. Without The significance of cannot be taught. prerequisite to from practical
24.10 Liberation is not notice the world of understanding the the ultimate cannot Without grasping ultimate behavior. And
accomplished by the action. When the ultimate fruit, be taught. Without understanding the truth; and without without having
unattainable higher world of action has freedom is not understanding the sublime meaning, an understanding understood the
truth. not yet arrived, the attained. significance of the one will not attain of ultimate truth, highest sense one
solitary and serene ultimate, Liberation nirvana. you cannot attain cannot
state does not yet is not achieved. Nirvana. understand

occur. nirvana.
Openness wrongly When wrong ideas A wrongly perceived By a misperception If their view of By failing to Emptiness, having
conceived destroys are denied, the emptiness ruins a of emptiness A emptiness is wrong, understand been dimly
the dimly witted. It is balanced state does person of meager person of little those of little emptiness, those perceived, utterly
like a snake grasped not seem to be intelligence. It is like intelligence is intelligence will be of little destroys the slow-
by the head or a special, and it seems a snake that is destroyed. Like a hurt. Like handling a intelligence can witted. It is like a
garbled incantation. to be very common. wrongly grasped or snake incorrectly snake in the wrong be destroyed, like snake wrongly
In such a situation, knowledge that is seized Or like a spell way, or casting a someone grasped or
24.11
that which wrongly cultivated. incorrectly cast. spell in the wrong grabbing a snake [magical]
approaches us way. by the head or knowledge
creeping [wickedly] casting a spell incorrectly
is wrong judgment, improperly. applied.
and it is also wrong
preparation.
And hence the In such a situation Thus, the Sage's (the For that reason - that Therefore, knowing Thus, realizing Therefore the
Sage’s thought was we should express Buddha's) thought the Dharma is Deep how difficult it is for how few are mind of the
turned against everything recoiled from and difficult to the weak to capable of ascetic [Gautama]
causing the Truth to positively, and such teaching the understand and to understand the learning the deep was diverted from
be taught. The teachings were doctrine having learn - The Buddha's depths of this truths of the teaching the
purpose of the taught by Gautama reflected upon the mind despaired of Dharma, the heart of Dharma, the dharma. Having
Teaching is difficult Buddha. [But in my difficulty of Being able to teach the Muni strongly Buddha was thought about the
to fathom for the case] my idea about understanding the it. turned away from reluctant to teach incomprehensibilit
lazy. the universe has doctrine by people teaching the it [to the many]. y of the dharma by
24.12
become firm already of meager Dharma. the stupid.
as my own personal intelligence.
interpretation, so
that which is vague
and difficult to be
clarified is
maintained in its
vagueness.
But what objection The tendency to Furthermore, if you You have presented Since [those] Your attempted Time and again
to openness is made make our mind were generate any fallacious erroneous refutation of our you have made a
by the twelve-fold cautious is included obsession with refutations That are consequences do not teaching on condemnation of
24.13 causal chain of in the balanced regard to emptiness, no' relevant to apply to emptiness, emptiness is off- emptiness, But
becoming? The state, and such the accompanying emptiness. Your whatever rejections target. Your that refutation
condemnation is not cautiousness makes error is not ours. confusion about you make of criticisms to not does not apply to

ours. It does not us cautious toward That [obsession] is emptiness Does not emptiness do not apply. Our our emptiness.
apply in what is miscellaneous not appropriate in be long to me. apply to me. understanding of
open. existences. An the_ context of the emptiness is quite
attitude of worry empty. different from
about censure is not yours.
adequate for us, and
such an attitude can
never manifest itself
in the balanced state
at all.
Because openness When all things and Everything is For him to whom Those for whom A correct When emptiness
works, therefore phenomena are pertinent for whom emptiness is clear, emptiness is understanding of "works," then
everything works. If governed by reality, emptiness is proper: Everything be comes possible, for them emptiness makes everything in
openness does not even the solitary Everything is not clear. For bim to everything is everything clear. existence "works."
work, then serene state is also pertinent for whom whom emptiness is possible. Those for For those with a If emptiness does
everything does not governed by reality. the empty is not not clear, Nothing whom emptiness is defective noi "work," then
24.14 work. When every thing is proper. becomes clear. not possible, for understanding of all existence does
not governed by them everything is emptiness, not "work."
reality, the solitary not possible. nothing works
and serene state is out.
not governed by
reality.
You have projected You [who do not You, attributing your When you foist on us You are transferring You are You, while
your errors on us. believe in Buddhism] own errors to us, are All of your errors your own mistakes attributing your projecting your
You are like one who are just producing like one who has You are like a man onto me. This is like own own faults on us.
mounts a horse vices, [such as] the mounted his horse who has mounted his mounting a horse misunderstanding Are like a person
forgetting the personal soul, or the and confused about horse And has but forgetting about s to us. That's like who, having
saddle. objective Soul, and it. forgotten that very the horse itself. someone who mounted his
you are producing horse. mounts a horse horse, forgot the
that which you can and then forgets horse!
24.15 plead are the things that he is
and phenomena of mounted.
the earth. You are
still continuing a
thoughtless attitude,
like riding a horse as
if you think that you
are sitting on a dog.

If you consider that If you have departed If you perceive the If you perceive the If you view all things If you view all If you recognize
the existence of from subjective existence of the existence of all as existing from existing things as real existence on
beings is from self- existence you will existents in terms of things In terms of their own nature, having essences, account of the
nature, you see find reality in various self-nature, then you their essence, Then then you would view then you must self-existence of
beings existing existences. You will will also perceive this perception of all all things as not view all things as things. You
without cause or look precisely upon these existents as n things Will be having causes and having no causes perceive that
24.16 conditions. the situation of on causal conditions. without the conditions. and no conditions. there are
reality, which perception of causes uncaused and
actually exists as and conditions. unconditioned
various existences, things.
as just the true
situation.
You deny effect, Relying just upon You will also Effects and causes Cause and effect [If essentialism is You deny "what is
cause, agent, action, doing real action, we contradict [the And agent and itself, agents, tools true,] then there to be produced,"
and activity as well just realize the cause notions of] effect, action And and acts, production can be no causes, cause, the
as arising, cessation, of action, and both cause , agent, conditions and and cessation, the no effects, no producer, the
and the fruit [of the doing of an act performance of arising and ceasing effects too would agents, no actions, instrument of
action}. and the cause of action, activity, And effects will be be undermined. no conditions, no production, and
action produce the arising, ceasing, as rendered impossible. arising, no the producing
real act itself. But well as fruit. cessation, and no action. And the
24.17
you [who do not consequences of origination,
believe in Buddhism] action. destruction, and
completely refuse "fruit."
the phenomena in
front of your eyes—
self-regulation,
result, and so forth.
What is I am teaching you We state that Whatever is Whatever is Whatever The "originating
interdependent that such very clear whatever i s dependently co- contingently related, emerges out of dependently" we
origination, that is phenomena produce dependent arising, arisen That is that is explained as the process of call "emptiness";
called openness by the various balanced that is emptiness. explained to be emptiness. That is interdependent This
us. It [openness] states and various That is dependent emptiness. That, contingently arising, we call apprehension, i.e.,
24.18 makes use of reality. Such upon convention . being a dependent configured; it is the emptiness. taking into
convention and is information from That itself is the designation, Is itself central path. Speaking of account [all other
the practice of the reality is the middle path. the middle way. interdependent things], is the
middle way. function of our sense arising as understanding of
perception, and emptiness is a the middle way.
what is perceived is standard practice

just the Middle Way. of those who
follow the middle
way
(Madhyamaka).
Not any event not When we are looking A thing that is not Something that is Because there are no Since there are no Since there is no
interdependently at the total dependently arisen not dependently things at all, which things that are not dharma whatever
originated occurs, phenomena that is not evident. For arisen, Such a thing are not contingently interdependently originating
Indeed, not any manifest in front of that reason, a thing does not exist. emergent, therefore, originated, it independently, No
event that is not us clearly on the that is non-empty is Therefore a there are no things follows that there dharma whatever
open occurs. basis of doubt, it is indeed not evident. nonempty thing at all, which are not are no things that exists which is not
absolutely Does not exist. empty. are not empty [of empty.
impossible for us to essence].
recognize the
universe at all. Just
24.19 because of such
complicated
conditions, it is
difficult for us to
find the balanced
state, and so there is
no possibility for the
rule of the universe
to be recognized at
all.
If all this is not open, When unbalanced If all this is non- If all this were If all were not If all things were If all existence is
arising and situations pervade empty, there exists nonempty, as in your empty, nothing not empty [of not empty, there
dissolution do not throughout the no uprising and view, There would be could come about or essence], then is neither
exist. For you, the whole world, it is ceasing. These imply no arising and perish. It would (contrary to your origination nor
non-existence of the completely the non-existence of ceasing. Then the follow for you that view) nothing destruction. You
four noble truths impossible for any the four noble Four Noble Truths the four ennobling could arise or must wrongly
follows. creations to really truths. Would become truths could not dissolve. It is conclude then
24.20 exist in their original nonexistent. exist. actually your view that the four holy
state, and even the that rules out the truths do not
real existence of existence of the exist.
death can never be Four Noble Truths!
recognized at all. But
[to believe in] the
idea that the four
supreme truths do

not really exist is [to
be] much too
attached to one’s
own opinion.
How will there be When it is difficult How can there be If it is not If things were not If all things were Having originated
suffering that is not for us to look at only suffering that is not dependently arisen, contingently not without being
interdependently the total dependently arisen? How could suffering emergent, how could interdependently conditioned, how
originated? Suffering phenomena, how is it Suffering has, indeed come to be? anguish exist? originated, then will sorrow come
is said to be possible for what is been described as Suffering has been Impermanent things there could be no into existence? It
impermanent. called pain to exist impermanent. As taught to be are taught to be suffering. is said that sorrow
Indeed, it does not even in the future? such, it is not evident impermanent, And anguish; in their very Suffering is is not eternal;
occur in what is Because that which in terms of self- so cannot come from own nature they do impermanent and therefore,
imagined to have is wrong among nature. its own essence. not exist. cannot exist in certainly it does
self-nature. [what we think of as] something that not exist by its
facts is discussed has a self-nature own nature
24.21
wrongly as pain, it is [substantial ((svabhava)).
impossible for us to essence].
recognize pain as
something different
from the facts that
are discussed, and it
is impossible for us
to recognize the true
fact of our subjective
ideas.
Again, why will what Subjective existence How can that which If something comes If it did exist from its Something with a How can that
is presently existing exists already in the is evident in terms of from its own own nature, why self-nature cannot which is existing
as a consequence of mind as what has self-nature rise essence, How could would it have an originate. by its own nature
self- nature rise been recognized, so again? Therefore, for it ever be arisen? It origin? Therefore, Therefore, if you originate again?
again? Therefore, it is impossible for one who contradicts follows that if one for those who deny emptiness, For him who
from the denial of something to appear emptiness, there denies emptiness undermine there can be no denies emptiness
24.22 openness, there is again even in the exists no The re can be no emptiness, it can arising. there is no
the non-existence of future. In such a [conception of] arising (of suffering). have no origin. production.
arising. situation the arising.
aggregates do not
exist really, and even
the balanced state is
erased completely.

The cessation of Self-regulation can The cessation of If suffering had an If anguish existed by Something with a There is no
suffering existing by never be found by suffering that exists essence, Its its own nature, there self-nature cannot destruction of
means of self-nature relying upon ideas in terms of self- cessation would not could be no originate. sorrow if it exists
does not occur. that have been nature is not exist. So if an cessation. Because Therefore, if you by its own nature.
Cessation by produced in the evident. You essence is posited, its own nature would deny emptiness, By trying to
contradictions in mind, which is just contradict cessation One denies be totally present, there can be no establish "self-
self-nature is denied real suffering. The by adhering to a cessation. cessation too would arising. existence" you
by you. subjective idea notion of self-nature. be undermined. deny destruction.
24.23 produces various
kinds of self-
contradictions,
therefore you [who
do not believe in
Buddhism] strongly
deny [the value of]
self-regulation.
In what is conceived If our subjective When self-nature If the path had an If the path existed If the Noble If the path [of
to be existing by thoughts seem to be exists, the essence, CuItivation by its own nature, Eightfold Path had release] is self-
self-nature, practice real, the real cultivation of the would not be cultivation would a self-nature, then existent, then
of the path does not existence of morals path is not appropriate. If this not be appropriate. it could not be there is no way of
take place. But were will not manifest. appropriate. And if path is indeed If the path is to be followed. Since bringing it into
this path caused to When morals exist the path were to be cuItivated, It cannot cultivated, your own the Path is existence
24.24 exist by you, what is really here and now, cultivated, then no have an essence. nature cannot exist. followed, it (bhavana) ; If that
imagined to be self- the concrete facts self-nature cannot have a self- path is brought
nature does not can never be associated with it nature. into existence,
occur. recognized as our [i.e., the path] would then "self-
thoughts. be evident. existence," which
you claim, does
not exist.
If suffering, arising, When pain is seen as When suffering as If suffering, arising, When anguish, If suffering, When sorrow,
and cessation does a disorderly well as its arising and and Ceasing are origins and cessation arising, and origination, and
not occur, which accumulation of ceasing are not nonexistent, By what cannot exist, what cessation did not destruction do not
path will result in the things and evident, through the path could one seek ceasing of anguish exist, then there exist, What kind of
24.25 cessation of phenomena, it is cessation of To obtain the could one seek to could be no path path will obtain
suffering? impossible for self- suffering where will cessation of attain by the path? leading to the the destruction of
regulation to be the path lead to? suffering? cessation of sorrow?
recognized at all. suffering.
When morality does

not have any relation
with pain or self-
regulation, morality
can never be
grasped as a
concrete entity at all.
There is no thesis by Because of If non-understanding If nonunderstanding If non-understanding If suffering, If there is no

means of self-nature. subjective thinking, is due to self-nature, comes to be Through existed by its very arising, and complete
How is there a thesis we lack the ability to how can one come to its essence, How will own nature, how cessation did not knowledge as to
or proposition about regulate things and possess understanding arise? could one ever exist, then there self-existence,
it if self-nature is phenomena well; so understanding Isn't essence stable? understand? Doesn’t could be no path how [can there be]
never assuredly how is it possible for subsequently. Is it it abides by nature? leading to the any knowledge of
established? anything to exist in not the case that cessation of it? Indeed, is it not
24.26
the world originally? self-nature is fixed? suffering. true that self-
When the ability to existence is that
know things well which endures?
does not work, then
stubborn sitting still
will continue further.
Practice in the When we give up As in the case of In the same way, the In the same way, For the same As in the case of
intuitive perception utilizing our intuitive understanding, this activities of your letting go, reason, complete
of letting go and ability, what exists in [i.e., the explanation Relinquishing, realizing, cultivating renunciation, knowledge,
thus possession of a the world are just in terms of self- realizing, and and the four fruits realization, neither
thesis and also the the things and nature] is not proper meditating And the too are as impossible following the destruction,
four noble fruits do phenomena in front in relation to the four fruits Would not as understanding. Path, and the four realization,
24.27 not occur for you. of us. The four kinds activities of be possible. fruits [stages of "bringing into
of practical relinquishing, attainment] would existence," Nor
processes and their realizing as well as also be are the four holy
effects are never the cultivating. And so impossible. fruits possible for
same as simple would the four fruits you.
knowledge. be [improper].
Again, how is which Relying upon How could it be For an essentialist, How can any fruits, For the same If you accept "self-
fruit attained by subjective ideas, possible for a Since the fruits which totally hold reason, existence," and a
means of self- what is difficult to person, who upholds through their their own nature and renunciation, "fruit" is not
24.28 nature? Self-nature grasp is just result, a theory of self- essence Are already by their own nature realization, known by its self-
would be able to so what is result nature, to realize a unrealized, In w hat are unattained, be following the existence, How
encompass and after all? Something fruit that has already way could one attain attained? Path, and the four can it be known at

completely grasp it. that has not been been realized them? fruits [stages of all?
grasped [by our through self-nature? attainment] would
intellectual ability] also be
seems to be result, impossible.
and so result may be
something difficult
to grasp.
Where the fruits do If there were no real In the absence of the Without the fruits, If the fruits did not If the four fruits In the non-
not exist, the stage result that exists, it fruits, there are there are no exist, there could be did not exist, then existence of
in which the fruits would also be neither those who attainers of the no abiding in the they could not be "fruit," there is no
are enjoyed and impossible for the have attained the fruits, Or enterers. fruits. Experiencing attained or "residing in fruit"
those who have four kinds of fruits nor those who From this it follows them would also not experienced. nor obtaining [the
arrived at a goal do progressive have reached the that The eight kinds exist. If those eight Without the fruits, "fruit"]; When the
not exist. If the eight processes way [to such of persons do not beings did not exist, and without community [of
kinds of persons or recognized by attainment]. If the exist. If these don't the Community attainers and Buddhists] does
human beings do not Hinayana Buddhism eight types of exist, there is no would not exist. experiencers not exist, then
24.29 exist, the Buddhist to really exist at all. individuals do not spiritual community. thereof, there those eight "kinds
community does not If the Buddhist exists, there will be could be no of persons" do not
exist. Sangha did not exist, no congregation. Sangha (Buddhist exist.
then it would be community).
completely
impossible for eight
kinds of members of
the Sangha to really
exist.
From the non- Without putting from the non- From the Since there would be Without the Four Because there is
existence of the aside the idea that existence of the nonexistence of the no ennobling truths, Noble Truths, non-existence of
noble truths, the there is no method noble truths, the Noble Truths Would the sublime Dharma there would be no the four holy
true Teaching does to research the true doctrine would follow the could also not exist. Dharma. If the truths, the real
not occur. Where the Truth, it is also not be evident. nonexistence of the If the Community Sangha and the dharma does not
Teaching and the completely In the absence of the true doctrine. If and the Dharma did Dharma did not exist. And if there
24.30 Buddhist community impossible for us to doctrine and the there is no doctrine not exist, how could exist, then how is no dharma and
do not exist, how will look at the real congregation, how and no spiritual Buddha exist? could the Buddha community, how
the Buddha exist? universe at all. If the can there be ari community, How exist? will the Buddha
rule of the universe enlightened one? could a Buddha exist?
were not real, and arise?
the Buddhist
Organization were

not real, how could it
be possible for a
person who has
gotten the Truth to
really exist even in
the future?
It follows for you As long as perfect Your [conception of For you, it would It would also follow The view that you For you, either the
that the Buddha is wisdom is not the) enlightened one folio w that a that your Buddha [the critic of one who is
independent of sufficiently clear, implies an Buddha Arises does not depend on Madhyamaka] enlightened
enlightenment. And even one who is independent independent of awakening. It would have expounded (buddha) comes
it follows for you thought of as a enlightenment. Also, enlightenment. And also follow that your implies that the into being
that enlightenment person who arrived your [conception of] for you, awakening does not Buddha arises independent of
is independent of at the Truth seems enlightenment enlightenment depend on Buddha. independently of enlightenment. Or
the Buddha. to be strongly implies an would arise enlightenment enlightenment
attached to his independent Independent of a and also that comes into being
24.31
thoughts. As long as ·enlightened one. Buddha. enlightenment independent of
it is not clear what arises the one who is
kind of person one independently of enlightened.
who has grasped the the Buddha.
Truth is, the Truth,
which you conceive
of, seems to be too
strongly attached.
Whoever is not a Because of the bad Whosoever is by self- For you, one who For you, someone For you, someone For you, some one
buddha by means of effect of subjective nature un- through his essence who by his very who by nature who is a non-
self-nature, he is ideas, people who enlightened, even Was unenlightened, . nature is not Buddha [i.e., by essence] is buddha by his own
striving after are not so excellent though he were to Even by practicing could not attain not enlightened nature
enlightenment. For in consideration are contend with the path to awakening however can never attain ((svabhava)) but
you, he will not much too busy enlightenment, enlightenment Could much he strove in enlightenment, no strives for
attain thinking of would not attain not achieve the practice of matter how enlightenment
24.32 enlightenment in the miscellaneous enlightenment enlightenment. awakening for the diligently he Will not attain the
practices of problems. When the through a career off sake of awakening. might strive to enlightenment
bodhisattvas. practice of Buddhism a Bodhisattva. follow the [Noble though the "way
is not practical, it Eightfold] Path. of life of
may be very rare for becoming fully
them to meet reality enlightened."
actually.

Not anyone at all will Both the rule of the No one will, indeed, Moreover, one could No one would ever If your view were Neither the
do good or bad universe and that do good or bad. never perform Right do what is Dharma correct,] then no dharma nor non-
deeds. Indeed, self- which is against the What could the non- or wrong actions. If and what is not one could ever do dharma will be
nature is not made rule can never be empty do? For, self- this were all Dharma. What can either right or done anywhere.
by what is to be produced by nature does not nonempty what that which is not wrong as defined What is produced
made of what is not intentional effort. perform. could one do? That empty do? Inherent in the Dharma. which is non-
open. Action that lacks the with an essence nature is inactive. What can that empty? Certainly
24.33 balanced state can cannot be produced. which is not self-existence is
never exist in the empty of essence not produced.
world at all because do? Essence is
subjective existence unchanging and
[which is thought in thus inactive.
the brain] can never
be action itself at all.
Indeed, for you the When what follows As for you, the fruit For you, from Even without Since, for you, the Certainly, for you,
fruit occurs without the rule of the would be evident neither right nor Dharma and not- four fruits are there is a product
good and bad deeds. universe and what is even without good wrong actions Would Dharma, you would essences, they without [the
But for you the fruit against the rule both or bad. This means the fruit arise. If the have the fruits. You cannot arise from distinction] of
does not occur cannot be found in that for you a fruit fruit arose from right would not have the right or wrong dharma or non-
without being your minds [who do occasioned by good or wrong actions, fruits which have actions; and if dharma. Since, for
caused by good or not believe in and bad would not According to you, it arisen from the they did arise you, the product
bad deeds. . Buddhism], the be evident. wouldn't exist. causes of Dharma from right or caused by dharma
concept of result and not-Dharma. wrong actions, or non-dharma
emerges without then they would does not exist.
fail. In the real world, not exist
24.34 where what follows [because, in
the rule of the essentialism,
universe and what is arising is unreal].
against the rule are
combined into one, it
may be impossible
even for you [who do
not believe in
Buddhism] to affirm
the idea of result [in
real situations].
If the fruit occurs for If the real situations If, on the contrary, a If, for you, a fruit If you have the fruits If, however, you If, for you, the
24.35 you without being of both the rule of fruit occasioned by arose Prom right or which have arisen claim that the four product is caused

caused by good or the universe and good or bad is wrong actions, Then, from the causes of fruits can arise by dharma or non-
bad deeds, how is what is against the evident to you, how having arisen from Dharma and not- from right or dharma, How can
the fruit produced rule are seen can you maintain the right or wrong Dharma, why are the wrong actions and that product,
by good or bad separately, it will fruit that has arisen actions, How could fruits which have still exist, then (on being originated
deeds not open? become possible for from good or bad to that fruit be arisen from the your assumptions) by dharma or non-
what is called result be [at the same nonempty? Dharma and not- the fruits cannot dharma, be non-
to be recognized in time] non-empty? Dharma not empty? be empty of empty?
either the rule of the essence [because,
universe or in what is in essentialism,
against the rule. only essences can
[But] in the world, exist].
where the rule of the
universe and what is
against the rule ] are
combined into one, it
is impossible for the
total phenomena to
be the unbalanced
state or result.
All worldly everyday You [who do not You will contradict If dependent arising Whoever In denying that You deny all
activities are denied believe in Buddhism] all the worldly is denied, Emptiness undermines interdependent mundane and
by you. That deny all value of conventions when itself is rejected. This emptiness which is arising is customary
openness is what is secular work, and all you contradict the would contradict All contingent emptiness and activities "When
interdependently value of secular life. emptiness of the worldly emergence also that emptiness is you deny
originated is denied You [who do not associated with conventions. undermines all the interdependent emptiness [in the
by you. believe in Buddhism] dependent arising. conventions of the arising, you also sense of]
24.36
do not wish to world. negate all of the dependent co-
recognize that the conventions of origination
total phenomena, everyday thought (pratitya-
which are seen in and action. samutpada) .
front of us, are just
the very balanced
diverse phenomena.
From the denial of Even in cases in For one who If emptiness itself is If one undermines The denial of If you deny
openness, there which an action has contradicts rejected, No action emptiness, there emptiness implies emptiness, there
would be nothing to not been emptiness there will be appropriate. would be no actions (1) that there are would be action
24.37 be done, activity accomplished, it is would be nothing There would be at all and actions no actions [which which is
would not be a bit possible for that that ought to be action which did not without an author is contrary to the unactivated. There
commenced, and the unaccomplished done; activity would begin, And there and agents who do facts of would be nothing

doer would not be action to exist as an be un-initiated and would be agent not act. experience], (2) whatever acted
doing. [abstract] idea that an agent would be without action. that there are upon, and a
can never be non-acting. actions without producing action
accomplished at all. beginning or end would be
An intention to [which is something not
practice action may incredible], and (3) begun.
suggest that action that there are
has not yet been agents without
accomplished, and so actions [which is
the balanced state contradictory
may be placed out of since an agent is,
the range of vision. by definition, a
performer of
actions].
In the self-nature Even when the In a substantialist If there is essence, If there were In a world of According to [the
doctrine, the world, ability to regulate view, the universe the, whole world Will inherent nature, all essences, doctrine of] "self-
void of a state of oneself has not will be unborn, non- be unarising, beings would be everything would existence" the
diversity, will be begun working, ceased, remaining unceasing, And unborn and be unchanging, world is free from
unborn, unceasing, there is the immutable and static. The entire unceasing, would be there would be no different
and unchanging. possibility for devoid of variegated phenomenal world fixed in place changes of conditions; Then it
everyone to arrive at states. Would be forever, separated circumstances will exist as
the highest state in immutable. from the variety of from time to time, unproduced,
the future. Being situations. and nothing undestroyed and
24.38
decorated by would either immutable.
brilliant colors, the begin or end.
fact that everything
is totally in the state
of splendid stability
is just the real
situation of the
world.
If what is not open The fact, that we If the non-empty [is If it (the world) were If [things] were not If all is empty of If non-emptiness
does not occur, there have not arrived [at evident), then not empty, Then empty, there could essence [as we does not exist,
is abandonment of the understanding of reaching up to what action would be be no attainment of claim], then then something is
24.39 all defilements and the supreme state] has not been without profit. The what had not been renunciation of all attained which is
action that is the end yet suggests that we reached; the act of act of ending attained, no ending actions and not attained;
of suffering and have the possibility terminating suffering and of anguish and no worldly There is cessation
attainment of the to arrive at the suffering as well as Abandoning misery letting go of all defilements, the of sorrow and

unattained. destination in the the relinquishing of and defilement actions and ending of actions, and all
future, and the fact all defilements would not exist. afflictions. suffering, and the evil is destroyed.
that we are in the would not be attainment of
area of pain is also a evident. enlightenment are
kind of action. When all possible.
we can accept even
our severe pain as
the rule of the
universe, it is
completely
find any kind of
unbalanced
situations anywhere
at all.
He who sees A person who can Whoever perceives Whoever sees He who sees He who sees He who perceives
interdependent look at this world as dependent arising dependent arising contingent interdependent dependent co-
origination sees this; the clear world of also perceives Also sees suffering emergence sees arising sees origination
suffering, arising and phenomena as they suffering, its arising, And its arising And anguish and origins suffering, the (pratitya-
ceasing, and also the are is a person who its ceasing and the its cessation as well and cessation and arising and samutpada) Also
path. can look at the world path [leading to its as the path. the path itself. cessation thereof, understands
directly. The ceasing]. and the Noble sorrow,
philosophy of pain Eightfold Path. origination, and
[idealism], the destruction as
philosophy of well as the path
24.40
accumulation [of release].
[materialism], the
philosophy of the
present moment
[philosophy of
action], and the
philosophy of reality
[the philosophy of
morality] are also
the same.

Chapter 25
Examination of Examination of Examination of Investigation of An Analysis of

25 Analysis of Nirvana Nirvana
Nirvana Freedom Nirvana Nirvana (Nirvana) Nirvana
If all this is open, When the balanced If all this is empty, If all this is empty, If everything were If as empty [of [An opponent
there is neither state pervades there exists neither Then there is no empty, there would essence], then says:] If all
arising nor passing through the world, arising nor ceasing. arising or passing be no arising and there is no [real] existence is
away. Whose the balanced state [As such,] through away. By the perishing. From the arising and no empty, there is no
liberation is does not have any the relinquishing relinquishing or letting go of and [real] dissolving. origination nor
presupposed either characteristic of and. ceasing of what ceasing of what ceasing of what Through what destruction. Then
through appearance or does one expect Does one wish could one assert dissolving can whose nirvana
abandonment or disappearance. If we freedom? nirvana to arise? nirvana(-ing)? Nirvana arise? through
through cessation? refuse the soft elimination [of
attitude of suffering] and
25.1
abandoning things destruction [of
and following illusion] would be
circumstances, or if postulated?
we depart from self-
regulation, the
chance to realize the
free and serene
state called Nirvana
can never appear.
If all this is not open, Even when the If all this is non- If all this is If everything were If all is non-empty [Nagarjuna
there is neither unbalanced state empty, there exists nonempty, Then not empty, there [of essence], then replies:] If all
arising nor passing pervades neither arising nor there is no arising or would be no arising there is no [real] existence is non-
away. Whose throughout the ceasing, [As such,] passing a way. By the and perishing. From arising and no empty, there is no
freedom is world, it is through relinquishing or the letting go of and [real] dissolving. origination nor
presupposed either impossible for the relinquishing and ceasing of what Do ceasing of what Through what destruction. Then
25.2
through unbalanced state to ceasing of what does es one wish nirvana could one assert dissolving can whose nirvana
abandonment or appear newly, or for one expect freedom? to arise? nirvana(-ing)? Nirvana arise? through
cessation? the unbalanced state elimination [of
to disappear. If a suffering] and
person refuses destruction [of
abandonment illusion] would be

completely or postulated?
departs from
selfregulation, it is
completely
impossible for the
free and serene
state to be realized.
What is not (Nirvana is) not Unrelinquished, not Unrelinquished, No letting go, no Not abandoned. Nirvana has been
abandoned and not isolated, it is not reached, un- unattained, attainment, no Not attained. Not said to be neither
attained, not accumulated as are annihilated, non- Unannihilated, not annihilation, no annihilated. Not eliminated nor
interrupted and not things, it is not eternal, non-ceased permanent, permanence, no permanent. Not attained, neither
permanent, not instantaneous, it is and non-arisen this is Unarisen, unceased: cessation, no birth: arisen. Not annihilated nor
destroyed and not not eternal. It is not called freedom. This is how nirvana is that is spoken of as dissolved. This is eternal. Neither
25.3 produced, this is concealed, nor has it described. nirvana. Nirvana. disappeared nor
called nirvana. appeared. Such a originated.
state is just the free
and serene state,
which people delight
in.
Firstly, nirvana is not It is not true that Freedom, as a matter Nirvana is not Nirvana is not a If Nirvana were Nirvana is
an existent existence is just the of fact, is not existent. It would thing. Then it would [phenomenally] certainly not an
characterized by old free and serene existence, for if it then have the follow that it would existent, it would existing thing, for
age and death. state itself, but the were, it would follow characteristics of have the then be subject to then it would be
Indeed, no being is characteristic of the that it has the age and death. There characteristics of aging and death. characterized by
without old age and free and serene characteristics of is no existent entity aging and death. Whatever is old age and death.
death. state to appear and decay arid death. Without age and There does not exist [phenomenally] In consequence it
to disappear serves Indeed, there is no death. any thing that is existent ages and would involve the
to suggest its existence without without aging and dies. error that an
25.4
existence. Because if decay and death. death. existing thing
the free and serene would not become
state could not old and be
appear or disappear, without death.
the fact that the free
and serene state
really exists would
vanish naturally at
once.

If nirvana is an When existence is Moreover, if If nirvana were If nirvana were a If Nirvana were And if nirvana is
existent, nirvana just Nirvana, the free freedom were to be existent, nirvana thing, nirvana would [phenomenally] an existing thing,
would be and serene state, it is existence, then would be be a conditioned existent, it would nirvana would be
conditioned. Not any possible that Nirvana freedom would be compounded. A phenomenon. There be compounded. a constructed
unconditioned can exist as the conditioned. Yet, an noncompounded does not exist any Whatever is product
existent occurs whole external existence that is existent Does not thing anywhere that [phenomenally] (^samskrta), Since
anywhere. world. Because it is unconditioned is not exist anywhere. is not a conditioned existent is never ever has an
impossible for us to evident anywhere. phenomenon. compounded. existing thing
25.5 recognize any world been found to be
that is different from a non-constructed
the external world, product
certainly such a (asamskrta).
different world does
not exist anywhere,
and such existence is
as nothing.
If nirvana is existent, When existence is Furthermore, if If nirvana were If nirvana were a If Nirvana were But if nirvana is an
how is it non- just in Nirvana, the freedom were to be existent, How could thing, how would [phenomenally] existing thing,
grasping? For not free and serene existence, how can nirvana be nirvana not be existent, it would how could
any non-grasping state, what is this that freedom be nondependent? A dependent? There be dependent. [nirvana^ exist
nirvana occurs as world that just independent, for an nondependent does not exists any Whatever is without
existent. continues its independent existent Does not thing at all that is [phenomenally] dependence [on
existence like this? existence is certainly exist anywhere. not dependent. existent is something else]?
What is called the not evident? dependent. Certainly nirvana
free and serene does not exist as
state might be something
different from without
25.6
something that can dependence.
be grasped by sense
perception. Because
[if Nirvana could be
perceived by the
senses] such an
existence would be
recognized by some
kind of method
without fail.

If nirvana is not Existence is different If freedom is not If nirvana were not If nirvana were not a If Nirvana is not If nirvana is not an
existent, will nirvana from the free and existence, will existent, How could thing, how could it [phenomenally] existing thing, will
be non-existent? serene state; freedom be non- it be appropriate for possibly be nothing? existent, does nirvana become a
Where there is no therefore it is existence? Wherein it to be nonexistent? The one for whom that mean that it non-existing
existent, there is no completely there is no existence, Where nirvana is not nirvana is not a is a non-being? If thing? Wherever
non-existent. impossible for the therein non- existent, It cannot be thing, for him it is Nirvana is not there is no
free and serene existence is not a nonexistent. not nothing. [phenomenally]exi existing thing,
state, which is evident. stent, it is not neither is there a
different from necessarily a non- non-existing thing.
existence, to become being.
25.7
existence at all.
Because the free and
serene state is not
existence, it is
completely
impossible for what
is not existence to
become the object
of recognition at all.
If nirvana is non- If we think that what If freedom is non- If nirvana were not If nirvana were If Nirvana were a But if nirvana is a
existent, how is does not exist is just existence, how can existent, How could nothing, how could non-being, how non-existing thing,
nirvana not grasping the free and serene freedom be nirvana be nirvana possibly be could it be non- how could
it [existence]? state, what is the independent? For nondependent? not dependent? dependent? [nirvana] exist
Indeed, no non- world that is seen in there exists no non- Whatever is There does not exist Whatever is non- without
grasping non- front of us really? existence which nondependent Is not any nothing which is dependent is not a dependence [on
existent occurs. Because the free and evidently is nonexistent. not dependent. non-being. something else]?
serene state is not independent. Certainly nirvana
existence, the fact is not a non-
25.8
that the free and existing thing
serene state really which exists
exists might be without
recognized as dependence.
something different
from the world that
can be recognized by
sense perception.
That state of moving Existences, which are Whatever is of the hat which comes and Whatever things That which comes That state which is
25.9 restlessly to and fro esteemed as slow or nature of coming goes Is dependent come and go are and goes is the rushing in and

[samsara] is grasping fast, are both facts and going that and changing. That, dependent or dependent and out [of existence]
and dependent. But that can be occurs contingently when it is not caused. Not being changing. But when dependent
nirvana is taught as perceived by the or dependently. dependent and dependent and not Nirvana is not or conditioned —
without grasping senses, and the facts Freedom is, changing, Is taught being caused is dependent and This [state], when
and without are very clear. therefore; indicated to be nirvana. taught to be changing. not dependent or
dependence. [However] what is as being non- Nirvana. not conditioned, is
not so clear, and contingent and seen to be
cannot be perceived independent. nirvana.
by the senses, is
accepted as Nirvana,
or the free and
serene state.
The Teacher We have many The teacher has The teacher has The teacher taught If Nirvana were The teacher
[Buddha] taught the experiences of spoken of spoken of [it] to be the letting [phenomenally] [Gautama] has
abandonment of giving up things or relinquishing both relinquishing go of arising and existent, it would taught that a
becoming and non- talking about things becoming and other Becoming and perishing. then be subject to "becoming" and a
becoming. in which we have no becoming. dissolution. Therefore, it is aging and death. "non-becoming"
Therefore, the interest; in such Therefore, it is Therefore, it makes correct that nirvana Whatever is (vibhava) are
assertion “nirvana is cases we rely upon proper to assume sense that nirvana is is not a thing or [phenomenally] destroyed;
neither existent nor endurance, [and] that freedom is neither existent nor nothing. existent ages and Therefore it
non-existent” is such chances exist neither existence nonexistent. dies. obtains that:
reasonable. almost everywhere. nor non-existence. Nirvana is neither
25.10
Therefore the an existent thing
opinions that nor a nonexistent
Nirvana, the free and thing.
serene state, must
exist or not exist are
certainly insistences
that are much too
attached to fixed
consideration.
If nirvana would be It is possible to say If freedom were to If nirvana were both If nirvana were both If Nirvana were If nirvana were
both existent and both that Nirvana be both existence Existent and a thing and nothing, both a both an existent
non-existent, does not exist and and non-existence, nonexistent, Passing it would follow that [phenomenal] and a non-existent
25.11 liberation would be that it does exist, so then release would beyond would, it would be a thing existent and a thing, Final
both existent and Nirvana has those also be both impossibly, Be both and nothing. That is non-being, release (moksa)
non-existent. But two characteristics. existence and non- existent and incorrect. liberation would would be [both]
that is not Because both the existence. This too is nonexistent. both happen and an existent and a

reasonable, ideas of not proper. not happen. But non-existent
nonexistence and of that is impossible thing; but that is
existence are [because it is not possible.
available, perfect contradictory].
freedom itself, which
exists on the basis of
Nirvana, is never
restricted by
anything at all.
If nirvana would be The world that can If freedom were to f nirvana were both If nirvana were both If Nirvana were If nirvana were
both existent and be perceived by the be both existence Existent and a thing and nothing, both a both an existent
non-existent, nirvana senses is not the and non-existence, nonexistent, nirvana nirvana would not be [phenomenal] and a non-existent
would not be non- world of Nirvana, freedom could not would not be non- not-dependent, existent and a thing, There
grasping for both are because the world be independent, for dependent. Since it because it would non-being, would be no
grasping. that can be existence and non- would depend on depend on those Nirvana would not nirvana without
perceived by the existence are, both of these. two. be non-dependent conditions, for
25.12 senses and the world indeed, dependent since both these both
that cannot be upon one another. existing [operate with]
perceived by the phenomena and conditions.
senses are combined non-beings are
into one world, dependent [on
which is just the real whatever causes
world. them].
How could nirvana Although it is How could freedom How could nirvana How could nirvana How could How can nirvana
be both existent and possible for both “to be both existence Be both existent and be both a thing and Nirvana be both a exist as both an
non-existent? exist” and “not to and non-existence, nonexistent? nirvana nothing? Nirvana is [phenomenal] existent thing and
Nirvana is exist” to be affirmed, for freedom is is uncompounded. unconditioned; existent and a a non-existent
unconditioned, and it is completely unconditioned while Both existents and things and nothings non-being? thing, For nirvana
both existent and impossible for existence and non- nonexistents are are conditioned. Nirvana is is a non-
non-existent are Nirvana to be both existence are compounded. uncaused. Both composite-
25.13 conditioned. existence and conditioned? existing product
nonexistence. phenomena and (asamskrta) , while
Because the world non-beings are both an existent
that is different from caused. thing and a non-
the external world is existent thing are
Nirvana, [Nirvana] composite
may be the real products
world, which may be (samskrta).

a combination of the
world that really
exists and the
abstract world that
does not really exist.
How could nirvana If there is positively How could freedom· How could nirvana How could nirvana How could How can nirvana
be both existent and no existence, what is be both existence Be both existent and exist as both a thing Nirvana be both a exist as both an
non-existent? There the relation between and .non-existence, nonexistent? These and nothing? Those [phenomenal] existent and a
is no existence of existence and for their two cannot be in the two do not exist as existent and a non-existent
both, as with light Nirvana? When both simultaneous same place. Like one. They are like non-being? These thing? There is no
and darkness, in the existence and existence in one light and darkness. light and dark. two cannot existence of both
same place. Nirvana do not exist place is not possible, occupy the same at one and the
25.14
and yet occur in one as in the case of light location. They are same place, as in
place, it seems to be and darkness? like light and the case of both
similar to the darkness. darkness and
situation in which light.
light and darkness
combine into one.
What is clear is the [Nirvana] is neither The proposition that Nirvana is said to be The presentation of Nirvana is neither The assertion:
statement “nirvana what does not exist freedom is neither Neither existent nor neither a thing nor a [phenomenal] "Nirvana is neither
is not existent and nor what exists at all, existence nor non- nonexistent. If the nothing as nirvana existent nor a an existent thing
not non-existent.” It and Nirvana is a kind existence could be existent and the will be established non-being. If only nor a non-existent
is demonstrated of decoration like established if and nonexistent were [only] if things and we could thing" Is proved if
where being and cosmetics. Nirvana when both existence established, This nothings are understand this! [the assertion]: "It
non-being are can be expressed by and non-existence would be established. is an existent
established as saying that it does are established. established. thing and a non-
25.15
existing. not exist, but at the existent thing"
same time it can be were proved.
expressed by saying
that it exists.
Therefore [we can
say that] Nirvana is
the real situation of
the real world.
If nirvana is known When it becomes If freedom as neither If nirvana is Neither If nirvana is neither a If Nirvana is If nirvana is
25.16 by neither existent clear that Nirvana is existence n or non- existent nor thing nor nothing, by neither a neither an
nor non-existent, it not what does not existence is evident, nonexistent, Then by who could “neither a [phenomenal] existent thing nor

can be made clear by exist, nor what by means of what is whom is it thing nor nothing” existent nor a a non-existent
whom as “neither exists, [It will it made known as expounded "Neither be perceived? non-being, who is thing, "Who can
existent nor non- become clear that] neither existence existent nor in a position to say really arrive at
existent”? the situation of nor non-existence? nonexistent"? so? [the assertion] :
Nirvana, which is "neither an
different from things existent thing nor
that exist and do not a nonexistent
exist, does not thing"?
develop or expand at
all.
It is not maintained That there is another It is not assumed Having passed into After the Bhagavan Having entered It is not expressed
that “the Venerable condition that has that the Blessed One nirvana, the has entered nirvana, Nirvana, the if the Glorious
One exists after departed from the exists after death. Victorious one cannot perceive Buddha does not One [the Buddha]
death” nor is it self-regulated Neither is it assumed Conqueror Is neither [him? it?] as exist, nor does he exists after his
maintained “he does condition and that he does not said to be existent “existing,” likewise not-exist, nor does death. Or does
not exist” or “both or deserves to be exist, or both, or Nor said to be as “not existing,” nor he both exist and not exist, or both
neither.” admired has never neither. nonexistent. Neither can one percieve non-exist, nor or neither.
been insisted even both nor neither are [him? it?] as “both” or does he neither
once. When both said. “neither”. exist nor not-exist.
self-regulation and
25.17
the admirable
condition do not
exist, a situation in
which there is no
self-regulation but
yet is an admirable
condition is never
possible to be
admired at all.
It is not maintained That a strongly It is not assumed So, when the Even when the During his Also, it is not
that “the Venerable established that even a living victorious one Bhagavan is alive, lifetime, the expressed if the
One exists while conviction just exists Blessed One exists. abides, he Is neither one cannot perceive Buddha did not Glorious One
remaining in the as an admirable fact Neither is it assumed said to be existent [him? it?] as exist, nor did he exists while
25.18 world” nor is it should never be that he does not Nor said to be “existing,” likewise not-exist, nor did remaining [in the
maintained that “he criticized. When exist, or both or nonexistent. Neither as “not existing,” nor he both exist and world], Or does
does not exist or neither a strongly neither. both nor neither are can one perceive not-exist, nor did not exist, or both
both or neither.” established said. [him? it?] as “both” or he neither exist or neither.
conviction nor what “neither”. not not-exist.

is admirable exist,
such a poor
condition can never
become the object
of discussion at all.
There is no When it is difficult The life-process has There is not the Samsara does not There is no There is nothing
distinction whatever for us to find Nirvana no thing that slightest difference have the slightest difference at all whatever which
between samsara in the wandering of distinguishes it from Between cyclic distinction from between Samsara differentiates the
and nirvana. There is our daily life, there freedom. Freedom existence and Nirvana. Nirvana and Nirvana! existence-in-flux
no distinction may be inadequacy. has nothing that nirvana. There is not does not have the There is no (samsara) from
whatever between If there is no Nirvana distinguishes it from the slightest slightest distinction difference at all nirvana; And there
25.19
nirvana and samsara. in the wandering of the life-process. difference Between from Samsara. between Nirvana is nothing
our daily life, there is nirvana and cyclic and Samsara! whatever which
something existence. [They are both differentiates
inadequate in our empty (shunya) of nirvana from
daily life really. essence.] existence-in-flux.
The limit of nirvana What exists in Whatever is the Whatever is the limit Whatever is the end
The limits of The extreme limit
is that of samsara. Nirvana is just time, extremity of of nirvana, That is of Nirvana, that is
Nirvana are the (koti) of nirvana is
The subtlest and time exists also freedom and the the limit of cyclic the end of Samsara.
same as the limits also the extreme
difference is not in the wandering of extremity of the existence. There is There is not even a
of Samsara. There limit of existence-
found between the daily life. Between life~ process, not even the very subtle slight
is not the slightest in-flux; There is
two. the two factors between them not slightest difference distinction between
shade of not the slightest
25.20
[Nirvana and the even a subtle between them, Or the two.
difference bit of difference
wandering of daily something is even the subtlest between the two. between these
life] even the evident. thing. [They are both two.
slightest gap cannot limited by their
be found at all. emptiness
(shunyata) of
essence.]
Views, such as When we lose our Metaphysical views Views that after Views about who Speculating about The views
permanence, etc., self-regulation, the relating to the finite, cessation there is a passes beyond, ends what lies beyond [regarding]
finitude, etc., after idea of ending has etc., to the eternal, limit, etc., And that it etc. and permanence Nirvana is whether that
death, are associated begun, and the idea etc., after death are is permanent, etc., etc. are contingent pointles. . which is beyond
25.21 with a past and of eternity has associated with [the Depend upon upon nirvana and death is limited by
future nirvana. begun. Nirvana is an problems of] nirvana, the final later ends and a beginning or an
end, a vague freedom as well as limit, And the prior former ends. end or some other
supposition, and a the posterior and limit. alternative
place for salvation. prior extremities. Depend on a

nirvana limited by
a beginning
(purvanta) and an
end (aparanta).
Since all events are In various balanced When all things are Since all existents In the emptiness of Since all existing Since all dharmas
open, what is states, or in all empty, why are empty, What is all things what ends phenomena are are empty, what is
infinite? What is things and [speculate on] the finite or infinite? are there? What empty [of finite? "What is
finite? What is phenomena in the finite, the infinite, What is finite and non-ends are there? essence], what is infinite? What is
infinite and finite universe, how is it both the finite and infinite? What is What ends and non- finite? What is both finite and
and what is neither possible for anything the infinite and neither finite nor ends are there? infinite? What is infinite? What is
infinite nor finite? to be eternal, and neither finite nor the infinite? What of neither are both finite and neither finite nor
how is it possible for infinite? there? infinite? What is infinite?
anything to be neither finite nor
25.22 limited? How can infinite?
something be
endless, and how can
something have a
finish? What is
something not
endless and what is
something having a
finish?
What has gone What is the world? Why [speculate on] What is identical and Is there this? Is there What is identity, Is there anything
away? What identity? What is another the identical, the what is different? the other? Is there and what is which is this or
What difference? world other than different, the What is permanent permanence? Is different? What is something else,
What is permanent this? What is eternal, the non- and what is there permanent, and which is
and impermanent or eternity? What is not eternal, both or impermanent? What impermanence? Is what is permanent or
neither and so forth? eternal? What is neither? is both permanent there both impermanent? impermanent,
25.23 something not and impermanent? permanence and What is both Which is both
eternal, and what is What is neither? impermanence? Is permanent and permanent and
something eternal? there neither? impermanent? impermanent, or
Those two might be What is neither which is neither?
nothing at all. permanent nor
impermanent?
Liberation is the In every case, it is The Buddha did not The pacification of Totally pacifying all Liberation is the The cessation of
25.24 cessation of all comfortable and teach the all objectification referents and totally cessation of all accepting
thought, the soothing for us to appeasement of all And the pacification pacifying fixations is thought, the everything [as
quieting of get something, and objects, the of illusion: No peace. The Buddha dissolution of all real] is a salutary

phenomena. Not any it is also a cause of appeasement of Dharma was taught nowhere taught any plurality. The (siva) cessation of
doctrine anywhere happiness for us to obsession, and the by the Buddha At dharma to anyone. Buddha taught phenomenal
has been taught to expand something. auspicious as some any time, in any nothing at any development
anyone by the At any place, in any thing to some one at place, to any person. time, in any place, (prapanca) ; No
Buddha. problem, or about some place. to any person. dharma anywhere
anything, Gautama has been taught
Buddha has never by the Buddha of
explained the rule of anything.
the universe with
words at all.

Chapter 26

Analysis of the Analysis of the The Twelve-Link An Analysis of the
Examination of the Examination of the
Twelve-fold Chain of Examination of the Twelve Links of Chain of Twelve
26 twelve chain of Twelve Causal
Interdependent twelve Links Becoming Interdependent Components
causes and effects. Factors
Origination (Contingency) Arising (Dvadasanga)
Three dispositions Following a new A person enveloped Wrapped in the In order to become Out of the "What is hidden by
leading to rebirth birth, various by ignorance forms darkness of again, those mystery of [I] ignorance"
are formed by inclusive acts are such dispositions in ignorance, One obscured by ignorance, there (avidyanivrta) has
unexplained actually performed, the threefold ways performs the three ignorance are moved arise the three caused the three
ignorance which and a state of chaos leading to kinds of actions into destinies by kinds of action kinds of
moves by means of [avidyd] and a rebecoming, and Which as actions which are (physical, verbal, conditioned
those actions. completely vacant through such actions dispositions impel impelled [by] the and mental), things (samskara)
consciousness he moves on to his one To continue to three kinds of which give rise to to be made for
[vijnana] exist destiny. future existences. formative impulses. [II] the impulsion rebirth — By
together, then the to continue those actions it
26.1 three factors are existing [through [i.e., "what is
combined into one. rebirth]. hidden by
Those three change ignorance"] goes
their form following forward.
the process of the
world, and the
behavior called
practice actually
goes ahead relying
upon action.
Consciousness is When the mental Consciousness, with Having dispositions Consciousness The disposition to Consciousness,
connected with past function has become disposition as its as its conditions, conditioned by continue existing presupposing that
disposition and stable, real action condition, enters Consciousness formative impulses [to be reborn which is
conditioning. and the reliable facts [the new] life. When enters enters into destinies. again and again] conditioned
Wherein become two factors, consciousness has transmigration. Once When consciousness gives rise to [III] (samskara), enters
26.2 consciousness which are related entered, the psycho- consciousness has has entered, name consciousness, on its course.
deeply enters, name with the act of physical personality entered and form develop. from which there When
and form going. In this is infused. transmigration, emerge [IV] mind consciousness is
[mind/body] is situation, and in the Name and form and body. begun, the "name-
infused. stable condition of come to be. and-form"

the mental function, (namarupa) is
real things and forms instilled.
[nama-riipa], which
are a combination of
name and substance,
are infused into the
real universe.
Where name and In this infused When the psycho- Once name and form When name and With mind and When the "name-
form is infused, six situation, and in the physical personality come to be, The six form develop, the six body, come [V] the and-form" is
sense-spheres arise. real things and has been infused, sense spheres come senses emerge. In six sense. , which instilled, the six
The six senses having phenomena [nama- the occurrence of into being. dependence upon result in [VI] domains of sense
arrived, contact riipa], which are a the six spheres (of Depending on the six the six senses, contact [with perceptions
comes forth. combination of name sense) takes place. sense spheres, impact actually objects of (dyatana) are
and real substance, Depending upon the. Contact comes into occurs. sensation. . produced. Having
the six organs and six spheres proceeds being. arrived at the six
inclusive existence contact. domains of sense
26.3 are combined into perceptions, the
one and exist. And process of
because the six perception begins
sense organs [sada- to function.
yatana] have arrived
in the real world
already, the function
of contact [sparsa]
begins.
Form and attention When the eyes are Thus, depending That is only Just as [it] only From contact, [VII] Consciousness
are dependent on clear to things, the upon the eye and dependent On eye arises in dependence feelings [of begins to function
the eye. Name and structure of all material form, and and form and on the eye, [visual] pleasure and pain] presupposing the
form is dependent things and attention too, and apprehension. Thus, form and attention, come forth. eye, the visual
on consciousness phenomena are depending upon the depending on name so consciousness forms, and ability
coming forth. similarly clear. When psycho-physical and form, And which arises in dependence of mental
26.4 the combination of personality proceeds produces on name and form. association —
name and form consciousness. consciousness Presupposing
[namarupa, or real "name-and-form."
things and
phenomena) are
similarly clear, the
inclusive recognition

begins to work.
The conjunction of The situation is one Whatever is the That which is The gathering of the From feelings, That which is the
the three, which are of encounters and harmonious assembled from the three: eye and comes [VIII] coincidence
eye, consciousness, contact among these concurrence of the three-Eye and form [visual] form and craving [for more
(samnipata) of
and form, is contact. [matter, awareness, three factors: and consciousness, Is consciousness, that pleasure and less
visual form,
And from contact, and the eyes]. material form, contact. From is “impact.” From pain]. From consciousness,
26.5 feeling comes forth. Therefore when consciousness, and contact Feeling impact feeling craving, come [IX]
and the eye: That
contact transcends eye, is .contact. comes to be. totally arises. grasping and is sensual
the contact itself, Feeling proceeds clingin. perception; and
perception [vedana] from such contact. from perception,
takes place. sensation begins
to function.
Craving is It is a very fine point Conditioned by Conditioned by Due to the condition From grasping and "Craving" (trsna)
conditioned by that perception feeling is craving. feeling is craving. of feeling, there is clinging, [X] he [for existing
feeling, indeed, itself is not included Indeed, craving is Craving arises craving; one craves who grasps and things] is
craves because of among the reliable feeling directed. The because of feeling. for what is felt. clings emerge. . conditioned by
feeling. He is laid facts, because what one who craves, When it appears, When one craves, sensation.
hold of by grasping a is truly desirable is grasps on to the there is grasping, one clings to the Certainly [a
fourfold craving. not perception fourfold spheres of The four spheres of four aspects of person] craves for
[vedana] itself— grasping. grasping. clinging [sense the sake of
what is the most objects, views, sensation. The
desirable is the morals and rules, one who craves
objects of and views of self]. acquires the four-
26.6
perception. And the fold acquisition
mind of desire for (upadana) [namely
something [trsya] sexual pleasure,
can be gotten relying false views,
upon the four ascetic morality
factors [the sense and vows, and the
organs, contact, doctrine of self-
objects of the existence] .
senses, and
perception].
Where grasping Relying upon When grasping When there is When there is He who grasps When the
exists, the being who perception [vedana], exists, becoming on grasping, the clinging, the and cling. grasps acquisition exists,
26.7 grasps is set in existence becomes the part of the grasper Comes into becoming of the and clings [i.e., the acquirer
motion. Indeed, if real, and perception grasper proceeds. If existence. If he did clinger fully arises. strives for begins to
there would be no itself works actually. he were to be the not grasp, Then When there is no pleasure, for function. If he

grasping, he would If we do not permit non-grasper, he being freed, he clinging, one is continued were someone
be released and the existence of the would be released, would not come into freed; there is no existence, etc.] without
there would be no world, which is like a and there would be existence. [more] becoming. and so arrives acquisition, that
being [who grasps]. receptacle, it is no further becoming. once more at [XI] being would be
impossible for us to rebirth, from released, and
recognize any kind of which there would not exist.
existence at all. inevitably follow
aging and dying,
sorrow and
weeping, misery
and grief.
He, the being, is five The five aggregates The five aggregates This existence is also Becoming is the five He who grasps That being is the
skandhas and from are just existence, constitute this the live aggregates. aggregates; from and cling. grasps five "groups of
being, rebirth is set and departing from becoming. From From existence becoming one is and clings [i.e., universal
in motion, together existence birth will becoming proceeds comes birth, Old age born. Aging, death, strives for elements"
with lamentations, take place. Aging birth, suffering and death and torment, pleasure, for (skandha).
afflictions, suffering, and death relating to decay and misery and suffering lamentation, pain, continued Because of a
etc., old age and [jaramarana] are pain death, etc., and grief an . existence, etc.] being, birth begins
death. and are just and so arrives to function.
26.8 lamentation. once more at [XI] Growing old,
rebirth, from dying, sorrow,
which there etc., grief and
inevitably follow regrets,
aging and dying,
sorrow and
weeping, misery
and grief.
Together with Relying upon our Grief, lamentation, Confusion and mental unhappiness, The force that Despair and
despair, all this is set endurance of dejection, and agitation. All these anxiety: these vividly fuels the agitation: all this
in motion from birth. undesirable dispair : all these arise as a emerge from birth. continuation of results from birth;
Thus is the origin of conditions, the real proceed from birth. consequence of Likewise, the entire samsara is the That "produced
this entire mass of world manifests its Such is the birth. Thus this mass of anguish impulsion to being" is a single
26.9 suffering. real situation occurrence of this entire mass of emerges. continue existing, mass of sorrows.
directly, and the real entire mass of suffering Comes into which arises from
world begins its suffering. being. ignorance.
function. And in such Therefore, the
a situation the total wise do not strive
world exists in for continued

individual concrete existence. The
situations in the real ignorant so strive,
world, and in the but the wise are
situation in which not ignorant.
pain and the
aggregates are
combined into one.
Hence the ignorant Relying upon those Thus, the ignorant The root of cyclic The root of life is With the cessation Thus the ignorant
compose situations, the forms dispositions existence is action. formative impulses. of ignorance, the people construct
dispositions, the fundamental that constitute the Therefore, the wise Therefore, the wise impulsion to the conditioned
roots of samsara. principles of the source of the life- one does not act. do not form continue existing things (samskara) ;
Therefore, the wandering of our process. Therefore, Therefore, the impulses. Therefore, will not arise. The [that is] the
ignorant create daily lives prepare it is the ignorant unwise is the agent. the unwise are cessation of source for
while the wise, various real acts and who is the agent, not The wise one is not formers, but not the ignorance results existence-in-flux.
seeing reality, do prepare various the wise one, because of his wise since they see from meditation The one who
26.10 not. instances of because of his [the insight. reality. and wisdom. constructs is
ignorance. It is not latter's] perception ignorant; the wise
that action produces of truth. person is not [one
ignorance, but when who constructs]
reality departs from because he
its observing perceives true
attitude, intelligence reality.
manifests itself.
Since the In various instances When ignorance has With the cessation of When ignorance With the cessation When ignorance
destruction of of ignorance or in ceased, there is no ignorance Action will stops, formative of ignorance, the ceases, the
dispositions is the various restricted occurrence of not arise. The impulses too do not chain is broken. constructed
cessation of conditions, it is not dispositions. cessation of occur. The stopping The entire mass of phenomena do
ignorance, cessation true that real acts However, the ignorance occurs of ignorance [comes] suffering ceases. not come into
of ignorance is from actually exist. cessation of that through Meditation through practising existence. A
practice based on Restrictions, which ignorance takes and wisdom. that with person's cessation
26.11 knowledge. are born from place as a result of understanding. of ignorance
ignorance, in the the practice of that proceeds on the
case of following [non-occurrence of basis of
knowledge or in the dispositions] "becoming"
case of pursuing through wisdom. [enlightened]
concrete things are through
always separate and knowledge.
far away from real

existence.
With the cessation of It is not that because With the cessation of Through the By the stopping of Through cessation
[ignorance], which each concrete thing these, these other cessation of this and the former, the of every
[link on the causal or phenomenon is factors [of the that This and that latter will clearly not [component] none
chain] advances to restricted, each twelve-fold formula] will not be manifest. occur. The entire functions; That
what [next link]? concrete thing or would not proceed. The entire mass of mass of anguish will single mass of
Thus this entire mass phenomenon begins In this way, this suffering Indeed likewise completely sorrow is thus
of suffering is rightly its work. Pain and entire mass of thereby completely stop. completely
ceased. the five aggregates suffering ceases ceases. destroyed.
26.12 are each individual completely.
aggregates that are
independent from
each other, and
because of such
independence, the
world is self-
regulated and
settled like this.

Chapter 27

An Analysis of the
Examination of Examination of Examination of Investigation of
27 Analysis of Views Views (Drsti)
Doctrines Views Views Views (Opinion)
about Reality
Wherever views Future Sect, Past Whatever views The views "in the Those views such as Those [views]
state “I neither Sect, Secular Sect, asserting an eternal past I was" or "I was “I occurred or did not relating to the
existed nor did not and Reality Sect are world, etc. based not" And the view occur in the past,” limits of the past
exist in the past,” the doctrines, upon [the that the world is the world is reality are: "The
they are supported Among them, the perception]: "Did I permanent, etc., All permanent, are world is eternal,"
by those about the Future Sect believes exist or not exist in of these views dependent on the etc., [And "I have
past, an eternal in eternity [relying the past?" are Depend on a prior extreme of before. existed in the
world, etc. upon the god Visnu], associated with the limit. past," "I have not
the Past Sect prior end [of existed in the
27.1
believes in existence). past," etc.].
determinism [relying
upon the god Saival,
the Secular Sect
affirms secular
morals, but the
Reality Sect relies
upon reality itself.
Wherever views It would be better if Whatever views The view "in the Those views such as I The assertion: "I
otherwise state “I there were no asserting the finite, future I will become will occur or not will not become
will exist or I will not doctrines, and it etc. based upon [the other" or "I will not occur at another something
exist in the future,” would better for perception]: "Would I do so" And that the time in the future, different in a
they are supported something other not exist in the world is limited, the world has an end, future time," "I
by the future, an than doctrines not to future or would I etc„ All of these are dependent on will become
end, etc. come, as well. It is become someone views Depend on a the extreme of Later. [something
27.2
too hasty to think else?" are associated final limit. different]," and
about the problems with the posterior the alternative,
of existence, end [of existence]. etc., are relating
because people are to an end [in the
too hasty to arrive at future].
a conclusion, and
there is too much

worrying about
taking refuge in the
Pure Land.
The statement “I [The doctrines that The view that I To say "I was in the It is incorrect to say: [The assertion:] "I
existed previously” is are called] the Future existed in the past is past" Is not tenable. “I occurred at a time existed in a past
not said. Indeed, this Sect, the Past Sect, not appropriate, for What existed in the in the past.” time" does not
one does not exist in and the Secular Sect whosoever was in past Is not identical Whatever occurred obtain, Since this
previous births. are not real entities. the previous birth, to this one. before, that is not [present being] is
27.3 This is because what he, indeed, is not this. not that one who
has not come to the identical with his [was] in a former
world concretely can person. birth.
never become a real
entity at all.
He is defined as “the If what is called the If it were to occur (to According to you, If you think that that Were he [in a
self’ but would be soul [atman] can someone]: "He, this self is that, But became me, then previous birth],
grasping. Again, how exist as a concrete indeed, is the self," the appropriator is that-which-is-clung- that individual
is your self exempt thing, that which has then grasping is different. If it is not to would be self (atma) which
from grasping? been perceived identified. Separated the appropriator, something else. he acquires [in
should be much from grasping, what What is your self? What is your self coming into
clearer. When constitute your self? apart from that- existence] would
27.4
perception is which-is-clung-to? be different.
liberated, what is it Moreover, what
that is called soul? kind of individual
self is there
without
acquisition
(upadana) ?
When a deed is done, The fact that the When it is assumed Having shown that Were you [to say] If it were held
“the self does not contents that have that there is no self there is no self Other that there exists no that: "There is no
exist exempt from been perceived are separated from than the self apart from that- individual self
grasping.” The self vague suggests that grasping, grasping appropriator, The which-is-clung-to, if without the
would be grasping the soul is not real itself would be the appropriator should the very that-which- acquisition," Then
27.5 and again, for us, existence at all. What self. Yet, this is be the self. But it is is-clung-to were the the individual self
that “self” does not we have perceived tantamount to not your self. self, your self would would be [only]
exist. may be something saying that there is be non-existent. the acquisition or
similar to what is no self. it is not an
called the soul but individual self [at
may not be the soul all].

itself.
As grasping rises and That which has been Grasping is not Appropriating is not The very that-which- The individual
falls, it is not the self. perceived and the identical with the the self. It arises and is-clung-to is not the self is not the
How will grasping be soul are never the self, for that [i.e., ceases. How can one self: it arises and acquisition, since
called the grasper? same at all, and a grasping] c;eases and accept that Future passes away. How that [acquisition]
concrete thing has arises. Furthermore, appropriating is the can that-which-has- appears and
always a surface, how can grasping be appropriator? been-clung-to be the disappears. Now
which covers the the grasper? one that clings? really, how will
thing itself, but at "he who acquires"
the same time the become "that
substantial contents which is
permeate acquired"?
27.6
throughout the
thing. How it is
possible for the
contents that have
been perceived to be
only nominal? What
has been perceived
will continue
constantly into the
future.
Again, a self In another case, the Furthermore, a self A self that is It is not correct for Moreover, it does
different from soul never manifests that is different from different Prom the the self to be other not obtain that
grasping does not itself departing from grasping is not appropriating is not than that-which-is- the individual self
happen. Indeed, if he the function of appropriate. A tenable. If it were clung-to. If it were is different from
would be grasped by perception. Because person who is different, then in a other, with nothing the acquisition. If
non-grasping, he if there is an example without grasping can nonappropriator to cling to, then the individual self
should not be in which what has be observed. There should be something the self] were different, it
27.7 grasped as different. been grasped is However, if he were appropriation. But fit to be would be
different from what to be different [from the re isn't. apprehended would perceived
has been perceived grasping}, he could not be apprehended. without the
through the sense not be observed. acquisition; but
organs, the [in fact] it is not
difference can never so perceived.
be understood at all.
27.8 Thus he is neither No real fact can exist Thus, he is neither So it is neither In that way, it is not If that [present

grasping nor departing from the different from different from the other than that- person] were
different than sense functions, and grasping nor appropriating Nor which-is-clung-to nor different, he
grasping. non- similarly that which is identical with it. A identical to the is it that-which-is- would exist in
grasping is not the perceived and the self does not exist. appropriating. There clung-to. The self is exclusion of that
self nor is he real conditions are Yet, it is not the case is no self without not not that-which-is- [former] one.
determined in these. never completely the that a person who appropriation. But it clung-to, nor can it Therefore either
same. That which has does not grasp does is not true that it be ascertained as that [former
no relation with the not exist . This much does not exist. nothing. person] persists,
sense functions can is certain. or he would be
never really exist born eternal!
relying upon what is
called the soul, but it
is impossible for the
concrete things and
phenomena of the
world not to exist
really.
The statement “I did That which is called The statement, "I did To say "in the past I It is incorrect to say: [The assertion:] "I
not exist previously” future, that which is not exist in the past," wasn't" Would not be “I did not occur at a have not existed
is not said, for this called past, and that is not appropriate, tenable. This person time in the past.” in a past time"
one is not other than which is called for this person is not is not different From Whatever occurred does not obtain,
whoever was in secular never appear different from whoever existed in before, this is not For that one [now
previous births. as real facts at all. whosoever existed in previous times. other than that. living] is not
[This is] because the previous lives. different from
27.9
those concepts do that one who was
not concretely exist in a former birth.
at all as some
expansion of other
things, before they
have been born.
If this one would be If it is possible for If this person were to If this one were If this were other, it If that [present
different {from the world to exist as be different [from different, Then if would arise even person] were
previous births], he something different that person in the that one did not without that. different, he
would be from what is now previous existence], exist, I would stiIl Likewise, that could would exist in
27.10 enumerated one by shown, it may be then he would come exist. If this were so, remain and be born exclusion of that
one. If he would possible to refuse to be even forsaking Without death, one without dying in that [former] one.
endure, then an the real world. But that person. In that would be born [former life]. Therefore either
immortal would be reality has been case he would that [former

born. established actually, remain the same and, person] persists,
and the situation of in such a context, an or he would be
birth and the immortal would born eternal!
situation of death emerge.
may be combined
into one [called
reality].
So, the fruit of The transient [If that were the Annihilation and the Cut off and actions Missing in
actions by one would moment in action is case,] there would be exhaustion of action wasted, acts Sanskrit texts but
be enjoyed by not always annihilation and would follow; committed by others only in Tibetan
another. Thus undesirable, and destruction of Different agents" would be translations.
annihilation and what is different actions. This implies actions Would be experienced by
destruction of from the result of that the fruit of experienced by each someone else. Such
actions follows. action is just action action performed by other. that and other would be the
at the present one will be such things would consequences.
27.11
moment. The desire experienced by follow.
to have others another.
recognize a world
other than this world
is too fixed an idea
from its starting
point.
No one, having not It is never true that Yet, in that context, Nothing comes to There is no There is no
existed previously, is the future exists the error of exist from something occurrence from existing thing
born. Otherwise an already; [if that were assuming an that did not . exist. what has not which is "that
error follows here so] then even vices emergent without Prom this errors occurred. In that which has not
either the self would are fixed in place. If prior existence does would arise. The self case faults would existed prior."
be produced an act that has been not follow. Either the would be produced follow: the self Therefore, the
spontaneously or the practiced already self would be caused Or, existing, would would be something error logically
27.12 one born is exists relying upon or, if it has occurred, be without a cause. made or even though follows that
uncaused, what is called the it would be without a it occurred it would Either the
soul, even cause. be uncaused. individual self is
miscellaneous things "what is
and phenomena will produced" or it
become incongruous originates
with reason. without a cause.
27.13 Thus the view “I People whose minds Thus, whatever view So, the views “I Therefore, “the self Thus the view

existed in the past, I completely belong to there is such as, "I existed," "I didn't occurred, did not concerning the
did not exist, or both the past are prone to existed in the past; I exist," Both or occur, both or past which
or neither,” does not think that the future did not exist; both or neither, Are neither:” all those [asserts] "I have
arise. does not have any neither," is not really untenable. views of the past are existed," or "I
relation with them, appropriate. invalid. have not existed,"
and in the opposite Both ["existed
case they think that and not existed"]
the future alone is or neither: this
related with them. does not obtain
[But] the fact that at all.
sometimes they do
not have relations
with the past and
sometimes they have
a familiar attitude to
the past suggests
that the world does
not manifest itself to
them in so regulated
a way.
The statement “TI It is never that the A view such as "Will I To say "in the future I “I will occur at [The views:] "I will
will exist in the traveler has not yet exist in the future?" will exist or Will not another time in the become
future, I will not exist arrived at his or "Will I not exist in exist," Such a view is future,” “I will not something in a
in the future,” is that destination, but the the future?" is like Those involving occur:” all those future time," Or "I
doctrine not the idea that he will comparable to those the past views are similar to will not become
same as the arrive in the future is associated with the [those of] the past. [something],"
statement about this very clear. That he past. etc., [should be
in the past? has not yet arrived is considered] like
27.14 the real situation at those [views] of
the present moment, the past.
and so the fact that
he has not yet
arrived and the fact
that he is traveling
are the back and the
face of one fact.
If divine is the same When the real God If it is thought that a If a human were a If the divine were If "This is a man,
27.15 as human, then exists in real human is the same as god, On such a view human, then there this is a god"

permanence exists. A humanity, there is a divine being, then there would be would be something [obtains], then
god is not born, the possibility for there would be the permanence. permanent. The eternity exists.
would not be born, something eternal to eternal. If the divine divine is utterly For god is
indeed, he is eternal. exist actually. being were to be The god would be unborn, because unproduced, and
Because what is not non-arisen, then he unborn. For any there is no birth in certainly
seen actually is God, would not be born permanent thing is permanence. something
eternity might be and that would unborn. eternal would not
something that does constitute the be born.
not appear. eternal.
If a human is What is different If it is thought that a If a human were If the human were If man is different
different from a god, from God is human is the same as different from a god, other than the from god, there
then interruptedness humanity, and so it is a divine being, then On such a view there divine, then there would exist
exists. If a human is possible for us to there would be the n would be would be no something non-
different from a god, have the idea of on-eternal. If it is impermanence. If the permanence. If the eternal. If man is
then what is different thought that a human were divine and the different from
uninterruptedness from eternity. What human is different different from the human were god, then a
27.16 does not happen. is different from God from a divine being, god, A continuum different, there continuity does
is humanity; then continuity is not would not be could be no not obtain.
therefore it is appropriate. tenable. continuity [between
completely them].
impossible for what
is called destiny to
exist at all.
If one part would be Even paradise might If a part were to be If one part were If one part were If one part were
human and the other be a concrete place, divine and the other divine and one part divine and one part divine and
part divine, there and so might also be part to be human, were human, were human, there another part
would be eternal and the same as common then there would be It would be both would be both human, Then
non-eternal, and that human societies. It is both the eternal and permanent and permanence and no there would be
does not occur. possible for both the non-eternal, and impermanent. that permanence. But something non-
27.17 what is eternal and this too would not be would be irrational. that is not eternal [together
what is not eternal to proper. reasonable. with] that which
exist together; is eternal; but
therefore the world that is not
never attaches to possible.
anything at all.
If both eternal and When both what is Supposing both the If it could be If both permanence If something both
27.18 non-eternal are eternal and what is eternal and the non- established that It is and impermanence non-eternal and

established, “neither not eternal exist eternal are both permanent and were established, eternal were
eternal nor non- together as a real established, then it is impermanent, Then you would have to proved, Then, no
eternal” are fact, Neither what is not possible to it could be assert non- doubt, something
intentionally both eternal nor what is either assert the established that It is permanence and "neither eternal
proved also. not eternal manifest eternal or the non- neither permanent non-impermanence nor non-eternal"
as we expect, and so eternal. nor impermanent. as established. is proved.
they are completely
the same.
If anyone who has The ineffable has If anyone has come If anyone bad come If something came If someone,
come from come from from somewhere and from anyplace And from somewhere and having come from
somewhere would somewhere again were to go were then to go went somewhere, somewhere, in
go anywhere else, unknown, and the somewhere, then the someplace, It would then samsara would some way goes
then samsara would ineffable has gone to life-process would be follow that cyclic be without somewhere
be beginningless, but somewhere beginningless. Such a existence was beginning. That is again. Then there
that does not exist. unknown. If situation does not beginningless. This is not the case. would be
existence, which has exist. not the case. existence-in-flux
27.19 come from the with no
limitlessly ancient beginning; but
past, is just the this is not the
wanderings of our case.
daily life today, it
may be impossible
for constant things
and phenomena to
exist at all.
If nothing eternal If what is eternal If it is thought that If nothing is If there were nothing If someone who is
exists, what will exist does not exist, how there is nothing permanent, What permanent at all, eternal does not
that is non-eternal is it possible for what eternal, what is it will be impermanent, what thing could be exist, who will
outside of both or is not eternal to that will be non- Permanent and impermanent, exist being non-
neither eternal and exist? Both what is eternal, both eternal impermanent, Or permanent and eternal. Or who
27.20 also non-eternal? eternal and what is and non-eternal, and neither? impermanent, free being both
not eternal are also what is of both? eternal and non-
concealed, so they separated from eternal, or devoid
are impossible to these two? of these two
see. [characteristics] ?
If the world has an The world that has If the world were to If the world were If this world had an If the world
27.21 end, how could there an end may be this have a limit, how limited, How could end, how would the would come to an
be another world? world, so how can could there be there be another next world come to end, how would

But if the world has the existence of another world? world? If the world be? If this world had an other-world
no end, how could another world be Furthermore, if the were unlimited, How no end, how would come into
there be another imagined? In the world were to have could there be the next world come existence? If the
world? world that has an no limit, how could another world? to be? world would not
end, it is impossible there be another come to an end,
for us to recognize world? how would an
the existence of other-world come
another world. into being?
Since the continuity The things and As this series of Since the continuum Because the Since the
of the personality phenomena that aggregates proceeds of the aggregates Is continuity of the continuity of the
heaps in these rolls constitute the five along like a flame of like the flame of a aggregates is similar "groups of
onward like a lamp of aggregates flow a lamp, [speculation butterlamp, It to the light of a universal
flame, having an end without any about) its finitude or follows that neither lamp, therefore the elements"
or not having an end interruption, and its infinitude is not its finitude Nor its very existence or (skandhas) [from
[finitude and infinity] they are earnestly proper. infinitude makes non-existence of an one moment to
thus does not occur. hoping to be sense. end is unreasonable. the next]
27.22 illuminated by light. functions the
That which can be flames of lamps,
seen as not having an [The view:] "both
end and that which having an end
can be seen as and not having an
having an end are end" is not
both caused by possible.
attachment.
If former skandhas Even when what is If the prior If the previous were If the former If the former
are to be destroyed, preferable goes aggregates were to disintegrating And perished and that ["groups"] would
and these depend on ahead, it is not be destroyed and these aggregates, [future] aggregate disappear, those
those skandhas always that good these aggregates which depend Upon did not arise in [new] "groups"
which are to be fortune appears to were also not to those aggregates, dependence upon which are
unarisen, then the us naturally. That the arise depending did not arise, Then this aggregate, then dependent on
world would have an five aggregates upon these other the world would be this world would those [former]
27.23
end (be finite]. produce the five [aggregates), then finite: have an end. "groups" would
aggregates the world would be not arise;
themselves is clear, finite. Therefore, the
and the real world world would
exists as something come to an end.
similar to an end.

If former skandhas When what is If the prior If the previous were If the former did not If the former
are not to be preferable does not aggregates were not not disintegrating perish and that ["groups"] would
destroyed, and these go ahead, we are not to be destroyed and And these [future] aggregate not disappear,
also depend on those always certain to these aggregates aggregates, which did not arise in these [new]
skandhas which are meet good fortune. were also not to depend Upon those dependence upon "groups" which
to be unarisen, then The aggregates rely arise depending this aggregate, then are dependent on
the world would be upon the aggregates upon these other this world would not those [former]
infinite. themselves, and the [aggregates], then have an end. "groups" would
27.24
various things and the world would be not arise;
phenomena exist, so infinite. · Therefore, the
it is possible for the world would be
world to be grasped eternal.
as just the present
moment, which does
not have an end.
But if one part is When the possibility If the world were to If one part were If one part had an If one part were
finite and one part is of ending is limited be partly finite and finite and One part end and one part did finite and the
infinite, the world to only the real also partly infinite, it were infinite, Then not have an end, the other were
would be finite and [present] moment, would be both finite the world would be world would be with infinite, The
infinite and that does the present moment and infinite, and this finite and infinite. and without an end. world would be
not occur. can be the only place too is also not This would make no That too is both finite and
where it is proper. sense. unreasonable. infinite; but this is
impossible for the not possible.
end to exist. The idea
27.25 of the possibility of
ending may suggest
the possibility for
[the present
moment] not to have
an end, which
suggests that the
world has never been
restricted at all.
How will one part of It is not a fact that How can it be How could one think How can one part of Therefore, how
a grasper be relying upon our possible that one that One part of the the one-who-clings can it be that one
27.26 destroyed and one approach to the real part of a grasper is appropriator is perish while one part part of "one who
part not destroyed? world, the real destroyed and the destroyed And one does not perish? acquires" [karma]
And thus that is not situation—which has other part is not part is not Likewise, that is will be destroyed.

reasonable. been limited to the destroyed. This too is destroyed? This unreasonable. And one part not
one concrete not proper. position makes no destroyed? This is
position of the sense. not possible.
present moment—
will approach the
place of the present
moment further. The
idea that the real
facts—which are
limited only to the
position of the
present moment—
can never approach
anything at all may
never be an attached
interpretation.
How will one part of When the function of How can it be How could one think How can one part of How, indeed, can
what is called perception is possible that one that One part of the that-which-is-clung- it be that one
grasping be working just at one part of grasping is appropriation is to perish while one part of the
destroyed and one place [the present destroyed and destroyed And one part does not perish? acquisition [of
part not be moment], even in the another part is not part is not Likewise, that is karina] will be
destroyed? That also usual meaning it is destroyed. This too is destroyed? This unreasonable. destroyed. And
does not take place. completely not appropriate. position makes no one part not
impossible for sense. destroyed? That,
concrete and certainly does not
individual things to obtain.
approach each other
27.27 [using serial lineal
time]. At the same
time, because there
are no situations
where [things and
phenomena]
approach one fact, it
is also completely
impossible for the
world to newly
manifest itself
[relying upon serial

lineal time].
If both finite and If the two situations Supposing both the If it could be If both the presence If the [view] "both
infinite are [having an end and finite and the infinite established that It is and absence of an finite and
established, then not having an end] are established, then both finite and end were infinite" were
“neither finite nor are both real facts, it is not possible to infinite, Then it could established, you proved.
infinite” are also There is no assert either the be established that It would have to assert
intentionally proved. possibility that finite or the infinite. is neither finite nor non-presence and
having an end is infinite. non-absence as
27.28
realized following established.
personal preference,
or that not having an
end is realized
following personal
preference.
Because of the In such a situation, Thus, because of the So, because all And because all Because of the
openness of all relating with all emptiness of all entities are empty, things are empty, emptiness of all
beings, why, which, things and existence. where, to Which views of about what and in existing things.
of what, and where phenomena, it is the whom, which and for permanence, whom do views such How will the
will views about real fact that things what reason views etc„ would occur, as that of views about
permanence, etc., and phenomena are such as the eternal And to whom, when, permanence spring "eternity," etc.,
develop? going on could ever occur? why, and about what forth? come into
transcending the Would they occur at existence, about
balanced state and all? what, of whom,
transcending and of what kind?
27.29
eternity. What are
called doctrines,
anywhere, in
anything, in any kind
of value, or
departing from
anything, can never
exist in the real
world at all.
I bow to him, Doctrines all belong I reverently bow to I prostrate to I bow down to To him,
Gautama, who, from to the world of Gautama who, out of Gautama Who Gautama, whose possessing
27.30 compassion, taught consideration and compassion, has through compassion kindness holds one compassion, who
the true Teaching for put the rule of the taught the true Taught the true close, who revealed taught the real

the purpose of universe in a wrong doctrine in order to doctrine, Which leads the sublime dharma dharma For the
abandoning all views. position. I worship relinquish all views. to the relinquishing in order to let go of destruction of all
Gautama Buddha as of all views. all views. views - to him,
a person who Gautama, I
perceived humbly offer
miscellaneous reverence.
doctrines as pitiable.

SOURCES :
Reference Translator Book Publisher Year ISBN

McCagney McCagney, Nancy Nagarjuna and the Philosophy of Openness Rowman & Littlefield 1997 ISBN 978-0-8476-8626-1
Nishijima Gudo Wafu Nishijima Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way: Monkfish Book Publishing 2011 ISBN 978-0-9833589-0-9
Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamakakarika
Kalupahana Kalupahana, David J. Nagarjuna: The Philosophy of the Middle State University of New York 1986 ISBN 978-81-208-0774-7
Way Press
Garfield Garfield, Jay L. The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Oxford University Press 1995 ISBN 978-0-19-509336-0
Way
Batchelor Batchelor, Stephen Verses from the Center Diane Publishing 2000 ISBN 978-0756760977
Tulkomuji.net Agita Baltgave The fundamentals of the middle way http://www.tulkojumi.net/ None
(mulamadhyamaka-karika) translations/Nagarjuna.
%20Madhyamika%20ENG.pdf
Streng Frederick Streng Emptiness: a study in religious meaning Abdingdon Press 1967 (predates ISBN)

Other Translations
(Wikipedia, May 2020)
Translator Title Publisher Date ISBN

Richard Jones Nagarjuna: Buddhism's Most Important Philosopher Jackson Square Books 2014 ISBN 978-1502768070
Mark Siderits and Shōryū
Nāgārjuna's Middle Way: Mūlamadhyamakakārikā Wisdom Publications 2013 ISBN 978-1-61429-050-6
Katsura
Ornament of Reason: The Great Commentary to
Mabja Jangchub Tsöndrü Snow Lion 2011 ISBN 978-1-55939-368-3
Nagarjuna's Root of the Middle Way
Padmakara Translation
The Root Stanzas on the Middle Way Éditions Padmakara 2008 ISBN 978-2-916915-44-9
Group
Luetchford, Michael J. Between Heaven and Earth - From Nagarjuna to Dogen Windbell Publications 2002 ISBN 978-0-9523002-5-0
Bocking, Brian Nagarjuna in China: A Translation of the Middle Treatise Edwin Mellen Press 1995 ISBN 978-0-7734-8981-3
Sprung, Mervyn Lucid Exposition of the Middle Way Prajna Press, Boulder 1979 ISBN 978-0-7100-0190-0
Nagarjuna: A Translation of his Mulamadhyamakakarika
Inada, Kenneth K. The Hokuseido Press 1970 ISBN 978-0-89346-076-1
With an Introductory Essay

NAGARJUNA Mulamadhyamakakarika 7 Transla

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

NAGARJUNA Mulamadhyamakakarika 7 Transla

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NAGARJUNA

Compiled by Frederic Lecut

So I started researching the MMK online and on paper.

1. Translations were made from different languages, namely :

This is what I am trying to use by putting side by side many translations.

3 - How to use this

This way of studying is not conventional. Sometimes it works.

I hope it helps you too.

Headland, Alabama, USA

McCagney Nishijima Kalupahana Garfield Batchelor Tolokojumi.net Streng

Nagarjuna’s MMK – 7 translations. Frederic Lecut, June 2020 page 4

Nagarjuna’s MMK – 7 translations. Frederic Lecut, June 2020 page 5

Nagarjuna’s MMK – 7 translations. Frederic Lecut, June 2020 page 6

Nagarjuna’s MMK – 7 translations. Frederic Lecut, June 2020 page 7

Nagarjuna’s MMK – 7 translations. Frederic Lecut, June 2020 page 8

Nagarjuna’s MMK – 7 translations. Frederic Lecut, June 2020 page 9

Nagarjuna’s MMK – 7 translations. Frederic Lecut, June 2020 page 10

McCagney Nishijima Kalupahana Garfield Batchelor Tolokojumi.net Streng

Nagarjuna’s MMK – 7 translations. Frederic Lecut, June 2020 page 11

Nagarjuna’s MMK – 7 translations. Frederic Lecut, June 2020 page 12

Nagarjuna’s MMK – 7 translations. Frederic Lecut, June 2020 page 13

Nagarjuna’s MMK – 7 translations. Frederic Lecut, June 2020 page 14

Nagarjuna’s MMK – 7 translations. Frederic Lecut, June 2020 page 15

Nagarjuna’s MMK – 7 translations. Frederic Lecut, June 2020 page 16

Nagarjuna’s MMK – 7 translations. Frederic Lecut, June 2020 page 17

Nagarjuna’s MMK – 7 translations. Frederic Lecut, June 2020 page 18

Nagarjuna’s MMK – 7 translations. Frederic Lecut, June 2020 page 19

Nagarjuna’s MMK – 7 translations. Frederic Lecut, June 2020 page 20

Nagarjuna’s MMK – 7 translations. Frederic Lecut, June 2020 page 21

Nagarjuna’s MMK – 7 translations. Frederic Lecut, June 2020 page 22

McCagney Nishijima Kalupahana Garfield Batchelor Tolokojumi.net Streng

Nagarjuna’s MMK – 7 translations. Frederic Lecut, June 2020 page 23

Nagarjuna’s MMK – 7 translations. Frederic Lecut, June 2020 page 24

Nagarjuna’s MMK – 7 translations. Frederic Lecut, June 2020 page 25

Nagarjuna’s MMK – 7 translations. Frederic Lecut, June 2020 page 26

Nagarjuna’s MMK – 7 translations. Frederic Lecut, June 2020 page 27

Nagarjuna’s MMK – 7 translations. Frederic Lecut, June 2020 page 28

Nagarjuna’s MMK – 7 translations. Frederic Lecut, June 2020 page 29

Nagarjuna’s MMK – 7 translations. Frederic Lecut, June 2020 page 30

McCagney Nishijima Kalupahana Garfield Batchelor Tolokojumi.net Streng

Nagarjuna’s MMK – 7 translations. Frederic Lecut, June 2020 page 31

Nagarjuna’s MMK – 7 translations. Frederic Lecut, June 2020 page 32

Nagarjuna’s MMK – 7 translations. Frederic Lecut, June 2020 page 33

Nagarjuna’s MMK – 7 translations. Frederic Lecut, June 2020 page 34

McCagney Nishijima Kalupahana Garfield Batchelor Tolokojumi.net Streng

Nagarjuna’s MMK – 7 translations. Frederic Lecut, June 2020 page 35

Nagarjuna’s MMK – 7 translations. Frederic Lecut, June 2020 page 36

Nagarjuna’s MMK – 7 translations. Frederic Lecut, June 2020 page 37

Nagarjuna’s MMK – 7 translations. Frederic Lecut, June 2020 page 38

Nagarjuna’s MMK – 7 translations. Frederic Lecut, June 2020 page 39

McCagney Nishijima Kalupahana Garfield Batchelor Tolokojumi.net Streng

Nagarjuna’s MMK – 7 translations. Frederic Lecut, June 2020 page 40

Nagarjuna’s MMK – 7 translations. Frederic Lecut, June 2020 page 41

Nagarjuna’s MMK – 7 translations. Frederic Lecut, June 2020 page 42

Nagarjuna’s MMK – 7 translations. Frederic Lecut, June 2020 page 43

Nagarjuna’s MMK – 7 translations. Frederic Lecut, June 2020 page 44

Nagarjuna’s MMK – 7 translations. Frederic Lecut, June 2020 page 45

Nagarjuna’s MMK – 7 translations. Frederic Lecut, June 2020 page 46

Nagarjuna’s MMK – 7 translations. Frederic Lecut, June 2020 page 47

Nagarjuna’s MMK – 7 translations. Frederic Lecut, June 2020 page 48

Nagarjuna’s MMK – 7 translations. Frederic Lecut, June 2020 page 49

Nagarjuna’s MMK – 7 translations. Frederic Lecut, June 2020 page 50