Mulamadhyamakakarikas and Vigrahavyavartani by Nargarjuna

MulamadhyamakaKarikas
Vigrahavyavartani
("Fundamental of the Middle Way"
"Averting the Arguments")
by Nagarjuna
FROM: Emptiness - A Study in Religious Meaning,
by Frederick J. Streng,
!as"#ille and !e$ %ork: Abingdon &ress, '()*+,
Appendi- A . /, pp. '01-22*
A translation o3 Mulamad"yamaka4arikas by !agar5una, as preser#ed in 6andrakirti7s &rasannapada. 8"e
Sanskrit te-t used 3or t"is translation is 3ound in Mulamad"yamaka4arikas mad"yamikasutra+ de !agariuna
a#er la &rasannapada, 6ommentaire de 6andrakirti, 9ouis de 9a :all;e &oussin, ed. St &etersbourg, '('1+.
8"e $"ole te-t is mainly composed o3 2* c"apters o3 #arying number o3 #erses. Follo$ed by t"e
:igra"a#ya#artani.
<8e-t 9ayout by Jampa !amgyal = Milan, >taly, Marc" 2??(@
6O!8E!8S :
.
<>ntroductory :erses@
<6AA&8ER ' - An Analysis o3 6onditioning 6auses pratyaya+ conditions+ = 'B #erses =
6ausality, dependent origination, determinism, control@
<6AA&8ER 2 - An Analysis o3 CDoing toC c"ange or mo#ement+ = 2E #erses = 8"e illusion
o3 continuity t"roug" c"ange or mo#ement@
<6AA&8ER 1 - An Analysis o3 C:isionC and Ot"er Sense-Faculties t"e sense-3ields+ = (
#erses = 8"e si- senses, direct perception, t"e si- ob5ects F $orld@
<6AA&8ER B - An Analysis o3 t"e CDroups o3 Gni#ersal ElementsC skand"as+ t"e
aggregates+ - ( #erses = 8"e 3i#e aggregates, e-plainedFcaused by t"eir basic underlying
causes, emptiness o3 emptiness@
<6AA&8ER E - An Analysis o3 t"e C>rreductible ElementsC d"atus+ t"e elements+ = 0
#erses = 8"e irreducible elements de3ined by t"eir basic c"aracteristics@
<6AA&8ER ) - An Analysis o3 Hesire raga+ and One I"o Hesires rakta+ --in t"e 6onte-t
o3 8"eir Separateness and 6oncomitance@ a33ection and t"e person a33ected+ = '? #erses
= 6oncomitance, a person and "is acJuired strong "abits, t"e concomitant 3actors o3
consciousness@
<6AA&8ER * - An Analysis o3 6omposite &roducts samskrta+ origination, duration, and
decay+ = 1B = #erses = 8"e t"ree stages o3 becoming: origination, duration F
trans3ormation, cessation, impermanence o3 all products and moments o3 consciousness@
<6AA&8ER 0 - An Analysis o3 t"e &roduct 4arma+ and t"e &roducer 4araka+ action and
agent+ = '1 #erses = 8etralemma, cycle o3 samsara, and 9iberation@
<6AA&8ER ( - An Analysis o3 Ct"e &re-e-istent RealityC pur#a+ grasper and grasping+ =
'2 #erses = !o permanent o$ner o3 t"e si- senses, percei#er be3ore perception@
<6AA&8ER '? - An Analysis o3 Fire and 4indling 3ire and 3uel+ = ') #erses = !on-duality o3
sel3 . t"e 3i#e aggregates o3 clinging, non-duality o3 dependent origination and emptiness@
<6AA&8ER '' - An Analysis o3 t"e &ast pur#a+ and Future 9imits aparakiti+ --o3
E-istence@ samsara+ = 0 #erses = E-plaining samsara and Kno-sel3L $it"out using any
in"erent d"arma.@
<6AA&8ER '2 - An Analysis o3 Sorro$ dukk"a+ su33ering+ = '? #erses = Hukk"a cannot
be caused by a personality, internal, e-ternal, bot" or neit"er@
<6AA&8ER '1 - An Analysis o3 6onditioned Elements samskara+ t"e real+ = 0 #erses =
Hukk"a is not due to t"ings t"at e-ist and are impermanent@
<6AA&8ER 'B - An Analysis o3 Gni3ication samsarga+ combination+ = 0 #erses = 8"e
inseparability o3 t"e t"ree realms, or o3 body, speec" and mind@
<6AA&8ER 'E - An Analysis o3 a Sel3-e-istent 8"ing s#ab"a#a+ being and non-being+ =
'' #erses = 8"e pro#isional and de3initi#e teac"ings, a c"anging t"ing or being is not t"e
same, nor di33erent@
<6AA&8ER ') - An Analysis o3 /eing /ound band"ana+ and Release moksa+ bondage
and release+ = '? #erses = !o personal rebirt"s or 9iberation@
<6AA&8ER '* - An Analysis o3 Action karma+ and >ts &roduct p"ala+ action and its
results+ = 11 #erses = 8"e $"ole c"ain o3 karma 3ormation and its 3ruits is empty, like a
magic trick@
<6AA&8ER '0 - An Analysis o3 t"e >ndi#idual Sel3 atma+ t"e sel3 and p"enomena+ = '2
#erses = !ir#ana is realiMing t"e non-dual nature o3 t"e sel3 and e#eryt"ing, beyond
causality, production, conceptualiMation, or t"e 3our e-tremes@
<6AA&8ER '( - An Analysis o3 8ime kala+ time+ = ) #erses = !o real space-time limits o3
anyt"ing, no real space or time@
<6AA&8ER 2? - An Analysis o3 t"e Aggregate samagri+ o3 6auses and 6onditions cause
and e33ect+ - 2B #erses
<6AA&8ER 2' - An Analysis o3 Origination samb"a#a+ and Hisappearance #ib"a#a+
coming to be and passing a$ay+ - 2' #erses
<6AA&8ER 22 - An Analysis o3 t"e CFully 6ompletedC 8at"agata+ t"e /udd"a+ - ') #erses
<6AA&8ER 21 - An Analysis o3 Errors #iparyasa+ t"e per#erted #ie$s+ - 2E #erses
<6AA&8ER 2B - An Analysis o3 t"e Aoly 8rut"s aryasatya+ t"e noble trut"s+ - B? #erses
<6AA&8ER 2E - An Analysis o3 !ir#ana nir#ana+ - 2B #erses
<6AA&8ER 2) - An Analysis o3 t"e 8$el#e 6omponents d#adasanga+ t"e t$el#e spokes+ -
'2 #erses
<6AA&8ER 2* - An Analysis o3 t"e :ie$s drsti+ About Reality dogmas+ - 1? #erses
<6AA&8ER :>DRAAA:%A:AR8A!> : A:ER8>!D 8AE ARDGME!8S
<&AR8 ' - 8"e Arguments o3 t"e Opponents@
<&AR8 >> - !agar5una7s Reply to t"e Arguments o3 t"e Opponents@
<6AA&8ER >ntroductory :erses@
.
C> salute "im, t"e 3ully-enlig"tened, t"e best o3 speakers,
$"o preac"ed t"e non-ceasing and t"e non-arising,
t"e non-anni"ilation and t"e non-permanence,
t"e non-identity and t"e non-di33erence,
t"e non-appearance and t"e non-disappearance,
t"e dependent arising,
t"e appeasement o3 obsessions and t"e auspicious.C
.
<6AA&8ER ' - An Analysis o3 6onditioning 6auses pratyaya+ conditions+ = 'B #erses =
6ausality, dependent origination, determinism, control@
.
N'.
!e#er are any e-isting t"ings 3ound to originate
From t"emsel#es, 3rom somet"ing else, 3rom bot", or 3rom no cause.
.
N2.
8"ere are 3our conditioning causes
A cause "etu+ '+, ob5ects o3 sensations 2+, Cimmediately preceding condition,C 1+
and o3 course t"e predominant in3luence B+ t"ere is no 3i3t".
.
N1.
6ertainly t"ere is no sel3-e-istence s#ab"a#a+ o3 e-isting t"ings in conditioning causes,
etc,
And i3 no sel3-e-istence e-ists, neit"er does Cot"er-e-istenceC parab"a#a+.
.
NB.
8"e e33icient cause kriya = primary condition, root cause, moti#e+ does not e-ist
possessing a conditioning cause,
!or does t"e e33icient cause e-ist $it"out possessing a conditioning cause.
6onditioning causes are not $it"out e33icient causes,
!or are t"ere <conditioning causes@ $"ic" possess e33icient causes.
.
NE.
6ertainly t"ose t"ings are called Cconditioning causesC $"ereby somet"ing originates
a3ter "a#ing come upon t"em,
As long as somet"ing "as not originated, $"y are t"ey not so long i.e. during t"at
time+ Cnon-conditioning-causesCO
.
N).
8"ere can be a conditioning cause neit"er o3 a non-real t"ing '+ nor o3 a real t"ing 2+.
O3 $"at non-real t"ing is t"ere a conditioning causeO And i3 it is <already@ real, $"at
use is a causeO
.
N*.
>3 an element d"arma+ occurs $"ic" is neit"er real nor non-real B+ nor bot" real- and-
non- real 1+,
Ao$ can t"ere be a cause $"ic" is e33ecti#e in t"is situationO
.
N0.
Just t"at $"ic" is $it"out an ob5ect o3 sensation is accepted as a real element,
8"en i3 t"ere is an element "a#ing no ob5ect o3 sensation, "o$ is it possible to "a#e an
ob5ect o3 sensationO
.
N(.
I"en no elements "a#e originated, <t"eir@ disappearance is not possible.
8"ere3ore it is not proper to speak o3 an 77immediately preceding conditionC, 3or i3
somet"ing "as already ceased, $"at cause is t"ere 3or it.
.
N'?.
Since e-isting t"ings $"ic" "a#e no sel3-e-istence are not real,
>t is not possible at all t"at: C8"is t"ing 7becomes7 upon t"e e-istence o3 t"at ot"er
one.C
.
N''.
8"e product does not reside in t"e conditioning causes, indi#idually or collecti#ely,
So "o$ can t"at $"ic" does not reside in t"e conditioning cause result 3rom
conditioning causesO
.
N'2.
8"en t"e Cnon-realC $ould result 3rom t"ose conditioning-causes.
I"y t"en $ould a product not proceed also 3rom non-causesO
.
N'1.
On t"e one "and, t"e product <consists in its@ conditioning causes,
on t"e ot"er "and, t"e causes do not consist o3 t"emsel#es.
Ao$ can a product <resulting@ 3rom <conditioning causes@ not consisting o3 t"emsel#es
be consisting o3 t"ose causesO
.
N'B.
8"ere3ore, t"at product does not consist in t"ose causes, <yet@ it is agreed t"at a
product does not consist o3 non-causes.
Ao$ <can t"ere be@ a conditioning cause or non-cause $"en a product is not producedO
.
<6AA&8ER 2 - An Analysis o3 CDoing toC c"ange or mo#ement+ = 2E #erses = 8"e illusion
o3 continuity t"roug" c"ange or mo#ement@
.
N'.
<!agar5una:@ 8"at $"ic" is already gone to gatam = goer a3ter t"e going - iii+
is not t"at $"ic" is Cbeing gone toC gamyate+,
more so, Ct"at $"ic" is not yet gone toC agatam = goer be3ore t"e going - i+
is certainly not t"at Cbeing gone to.C gamyate+
Also, t"e Cpresent going toC gamyamana = actual goer - ii+
$it"out Ct"at $"ic" is already gone toC and Ct"at $"ic" is not yet gone toC
is not Cbeing gone toC.
.
N2.
<An opponent ob5ects:@
I"ere t"ere is acti#ity cesta - #isible acti#ity+ t"ere is a Cprocess o3 goingC gatis = real
going process+, and t"at acti#ity #isible acti#ity+ is in t"e Cpresent going toC gamyamane
- ii+.
8"en Cprocess o3 goingC gatis - real going process+ is in"erent in t"e Cpresent going
toC gamyamane - ii+ <since@ t"e acti#ity #isible acti#ity+ is not in Ct"at $"ic" is already
gone toC iii+ nor in Ct"at $"ic" is not yet gone to.C i+
.
N1.
<!agar5una ans$ers:@
Ao$ $ill t"e Cact o3 goingC gamanam - #isible acti#ity . displacement+ o3 Cpresent
going toC gamyamana - ii+ be produced,
Since bot" kinds o3 t"e Cact o3 goingC #isible acti#ity . displacement+ <as applied to an
acti#e process and to t"e acti#ity o3 going t"roug" space@ simply are not produced i.e.
originating+ in t"e Cpresent going toC ii+O
.
NB.
Aa#ing t"e Cact o3 goingC gamanam - #isible acti#ity . displacement+ o3 Cpresent going
toC gamyamanasya - ii+ "as necessarily resulted in a lack o3 Ct"e present going toC ii+ o3
t"e Cprocess o3 goingC gati - real going process+,
For t"e Cpresent going toC gamyamana - ii+ is t"e Cbeing gone toC gamyate+.
.
NE.
<RecogniMing@ t"e Cact o3 goingC #isible acti#ity . displacement+ o3 Cpresent going toC
ii+ results in t$o <kinds o3@ Cacts o3 goingC gamanad#aya - #isible acti#ity .
displacement+:
One by $"ic" t"ere is Cpresent going toC gamyamana - ii+, t"e ot"er $"ic" is t"e Cact
o3 goingC gamana - #isible acti#ity . displacement+.
.
N).
8$o CgoersC gantarau+ $ould 3allaciously 3ollo$ as a conseJuence o3 t$o Cacts o3
going,C #isible acti#ity . displacement+
Since certainly t"e Cact o3 goingC #isible acti#ity . displacement+ is not produced
$it"out a CgoerC.
.
N*.
>3 t"ere is no going gamana+ i.e. gamana P Cact o3 goingC+ $it"out a CgoerC
gantara+,
Ao$ $ill t"e CgoerC ganta F sel3-e-isting sub5ect+ come into being $"en t"ere is no
CgoingC gamana+ i.e. gamana P Cact o3 goingC+O
.
N0.
8"e CgoerC does not go mo#e+,
conseJuently a Cnon-goerC certainly does not go mo#e+.
I"at t"ird <possibility@ goes mo#es+ ot"er t"an t"e CgoerC and Cnon-goerCO
.
N(.
>t is said: C8"e 7goer7 goesC mo#es+ Ao$ is t"at possible,
I"en $it"out t"e Cact o3 goingC gamana - #isible mo#ement+ no CgoerC is producedO
.
N'?.
8"ose $"o "old t"e #ie$ t"at t"e CgoerC CgoesC mo#es+ must <3alsely@ conclude
8"at t"ere is a CgoerC $it"out t"e Cact o3 goingC #isible acti#ity . displacement+ since
t"e Cact o3 goingC #isible acti#ity . displacement+ is obtained icc"ata+ by a Cgoer.C
.
N''.
>3 t"e CgoerC CgoesC mo#es+, t"en t$o acts o3 going #isible acti#ity . displacement+
<erroneously@ 3ollo$,
<One is@ t"at by $"ic" t"e Cgoing onC ganta+ is designated, and <t"e second is@ t"e
real CgoerC ganta F sel3-e-isting sub5ect+ $"o CgoesCmo#es+.
.
N'2.
8"e Cstate o3 going toC gatum+ is not begun in Ct"at $"ic" is already gone toC gatam
- iii+, nor in Ct"at $"ic" is not yet gone toC agatam - i+,
!or is t"e Cstate o3 going toC begun in Cpresent going toC gamyamana - ii+.
I"ere t"en is it begunO
.
N'1.
C&resent going toC ii+ does not e-ist pre#ious to t"e beginning o3 t"e Cact o3 going,C
#isible acti#ity . displacement+
nor does Ct"at $"ic" is already gone toC iii+ e-ist $"ere t"e Cact o3 goingC #isible
acti#ity . displacement+ s"ould begin.
Ao$ can t"e Cact o3 goingC #isible acti#ity . displacement+ <begin@ in Ct"at $"ic" is not
yet gone toC i+O
.
N'B.
>t is mentally 3abricated $"at is Ct"at $"ic" is already gone toC gatam - iii+, Cpresent
going toC gamyamana - ii+ and Ct"at $"ic" is not yet gone toC agatam - i+,
8"ere3ore, t"e beginning o3 t"e Cact o3 goingC #isible acti#ity . displacement+ is not
seen in any $ay.
.
N'E.
A CgoerC does not remain unmo#ed na tistati+, t"en certainly t"e Cnon-goerC does not
remain unmo#ed.
I"at t"ird <possibility@ ot"er t"an CgoerC and Cnon-goerC can t"us remain unmo#edO
.
N').
>t is said t"at a CgoerC continues to be <a CgoerC@.
/ut "o$ can t"at be possible,
Since a CgoerCganta F sel3-e-isting sub5ect+ lacking t"e Cact o3 goingC gamanam -
#isible acti#ity . displacement+ is simply not producedO
.
N'*.
<8"e CgoerC@ does not continue to be <a goer@ as a result o3 Cpresent going toC ii+ or
Ct"at $"ic" is already gone toC iii+ or Ct"at $"ic" is not yet gone to,Ci+
For t"en t"e act o3 going gamana - #isible acti#ity . displacement+ <$ould be@
origination $"ile t"e Cprocess o3 goingC gati - real going process+ $ould be t"e same as
cessation.
.
N'(.
And i3 t"e Cact o3 goingC #isible mo#ement+ and t"e CgoerC are identical,
8"e 3allacy logically 3ollo$s t"at t"e Cperson actingC kartus+ and t"e action karma+ are
identical.
.
N2?.
Alternati#ely, i3 t"e CgoerC is di33erent 3rom t"e Cprocess o3 goingC gati - - real going
process+,
8"e Cact o3 goingC gamana - #isible acti#ity . displacement+ $ould e-ist $it"out t"e
CgoerC and t"e CgoerC $ould e-ist $it"out t"e Cact o3 going.C #isible acti#ity .
displacement+
.
N2'.
!eit"er t"e identity nor t"e essential di33erence is establis"ed sidd"i+ regarding t"e t$o
<conceptions CgoerC and Cact o3 goingC #isible acti#ity . displacement+@.
>3 t"ese t$o <alternati#es@ are not establis"ed, in $"at $ay is <t"is problem@ to be
understoodO
.
N22.
8"e CgoerC is de3ined by t"at $"ic" is in t"e Cprocess o3 goingC real going process+,
"e does not go to t"at <destination@ $"ic" is determined by t"e Cprocess o3 goingC real
going process+
because t"ere is no prior Cprocess o3 goingC. gati - real going process+
>ndeed someone goes some$"ere.
.
N21.
8"e CgoerC does not go to t"at <destination@ ot"er t"an t"at Cprocess o3 goingC real
going process+- by $"ic" "e is de3ined as CgoerC,
/ecause $"en one goes <some$"ere@ i.e. else+ t$o Cprocesses o3 goingC real going
processes+ cannot be produced.
.
N2B.
A real CgoerC does not moti#ate t"ree kinds o3 Cacts o3 goingC: <real, non-real, and real-
and-non-real@,
!or does a non-real <CgoerC@ moti#ate t"ree kinds o3 motion.
.
N2E.
Also, a real-non-real <CgoerC@ does not moti#ate t"ree kinds o3 motion.
8"ere3ore,
t"e Cprocess o3 goingC gati - real going process+,
t"e CgoerC ganta F sel3-e-isting sub5ect+
and Ca destination to be gone toC ganta#yam+
do not e-ist in"erently+.
<6AA&8ER 1 - An Analysis o3 C:isionC and Ot"er Sense-Faculties t"e sense-3ields+ = (
#erses = 8"e si- senses, direct perception, t"e si- ob5ects F $orld@
.
N'.
:ision, "earing, smelling, tasting, touc"ing and t"oug"t
Are t"e si- sense 3aculties.
8"e area o3 t"eir concern is t"at $"ic" is seen <"eard, smelled@ and so 3ort".
.
N2.
6ertainly #ision does not in any $ay see its o$n sel3.
!o$ i3 it does not see its o$n sel3, "o$ can it possibly see somet"ing elseO
.
N1.
An understanding o3 #ision is not attained t"roug" t"e e-ample o3 3ire <$"ic", itsel3,
burns@.
On t"e contrary, t"at <e-ample o3 3ire@ toget"er $it" #ision is re3uted by <t"e analysis
o3@ Cpresent going to,C Ct"at $"ic" is already gone to,C and Ct"at $"ic" is not yet gone
to.C in 6"apter 2+
.
NB.
I"en no #ision occurs, not"ing $"atsoe#er is being seen.
Ao$, t"en, is it possible to say: :ision seesO
.
NE.
8"ere3ore, #ision does not see, and Cno-#isionC does not see.
!e#ert"eless, it is e-plained t"at also t"e CseerC is to be kno$n only by "is #ision.
.
N).
8"ere is no CseerC $it" #ision or $it"out #ision,
8"ere3ore, i3 t"ere is no Cseer,C "o$ can t"ere be #ision and t"e ob5ect seenO
.
N*.
As t"e birt" o3 a son is said to occur presupposing t"e mot"er and t"e 3at"er,
4no$ledge is said to occur presupposing t"e eye being dependent on t"e #isible 3orms.
.
N0.
Since t"e Cob5ect seenC and t"e #ision do not e-ist independently, on t"eir o$n+,
t"ere is no 3our-3old <conseJuence@: kno$ledge, etc. <cogniti#e sensation, a33ecti#e
sensation, and CdesireC@.
Also, t"en, "o$ $ill t"e acJuisition upadana+ <o3 karma@ and its conseJuences <i.e.,
e-istence, birt", aging, and deat"@ be producedO
.
N(.
<9ike$ise@ "earing, smelling, tasting, touc"ing and t"oug"t are e-plained as #ision.
>ndeed one s"ould not appre"end t"e C"earer,C C$"at is "eard,C etc. <as sel3-e-istent
entities@.
<6AA&8ER B - An Analysis o3 t"e CDroups o3 Gni#ersal ElementsC skand"as+ t"e
aggregates+ - ( #erses = 8"e 3i#e aggregates, e-plainedFcaused by t"eir basic underlying
causes, emptiness o3 emptiness@
.
N'.
:isible 3orm rupa+ is not percei#ed $it"out t"e basic cause o3 #isible 3orm
rupakarana+,
9ike$ise t"e basic cause o3 #isible 3orm does not appear $it"out t"e #isible 3orm.
.
N2.
>3 t"e #isible 3orm e-isted apart 3rom its basic cause, it $ould logically 3ollo$ t"at #isible
3orm is $it"out cause,
/ut t"ere is not"ing any$"ere <arising@ $it"out cause.
.
N1.
On t"e ot"er "and, i3 t"ere $ould be a basic cause apart 3rom #isible 3orm,
8"e basic cause $ould be $it"out any product, but t"ere is no basic cause $it"out a
product.
.
NB.
Just as $"en t"ere is #isible 3orm no basic cause o3 3orm obtains,
So $"en t"ere is no #isible 3orm no basic cause o3 3orm obtains.
.
NE.
Furt"ermore, it does not obtain t"at no #isible 3orm e-ists $it"out a basic cause,
One s"ould not construe any constructs concerning t"e 3orm.
.
N).
Just as it does not obtain t"at t"e product is t"e same as t"e cause,
So it does not obtain t"at product is not t"e same as t"e cause.
.
N*.
Also, sensation, t"oug"t, mental conception, conditioned elements samskara+ and
All Ct"ingsC b"a#a+ are to be dealt $it" in t"e same $ay as #isible 3orm.
.
N0.
I"oe#er argues against CemptinessC in order to re3ute an argument,
For "im e#eryt"ing, including t"e point o3 contention sad"ya+ is kno$n to be
unre3uted.
.
N(.
I"oe#er argues by means o3 CemptinessC in order to e-plain an understanding,
For "im, e#eryt"ing including t"e point to be pro#ed sad"ya+ is kno$n to be
misunderstood.
<6AA&8ER E - An Analysis o3 t"e C>rreductible ElementsC d"atus+ t"e elements+ = 0
#erses = 8"e irreducible elements de3ined by t"eir basic c"aracteristics@
.
N'.
Space does not e-ist at all be3ore t"e de3ining c"aracteristic o3 space akasalaksana+.
>3 it $ould e-ist be3ore t"e de3ining c"aracteristic, t"en one must 3alsely conclude t"at
t"ere $ould be somet"ing $it"out a de3ining c"aracteristic.
.
N2.
>n no case "as anyt"ing e-isted $it"out a de3ining c"aracteristic.
>3 an entity $it"out a de3ining c"aracteristic does not e-ist, to $"at does t"e de3ining
c"aracteristic applyO
.
N1.
8"ere is no 3unctioning o3 a de3ining c"aracteristic in a case $"ere t"ere is <already@ a
de3ining c"aracteristic or $"ere t"ere is not a de3ining c"aracteristic.
And it can 3unction in not"ing e-cept $"ere t"ere is a de3ining c"aracteristic or $"ere
t"ere is not a de3ining c"aracteristic.
.
NB.
I"en t"ere is no related 3unction sampra#rtti+ i.e. de3ining process+, it is not possible
to "a#e Ct"at to $"ic" a de3ining c"aracteristic applies.C
And i3 Ct"at to $"ic" a de3ining c"aracteristic appliesC is not possible, t"en a de3ining
c"aracteristic cannot come into e-istence.
.
NE.
8"ere3ore, Ct"at to $"ic" a de3ining c"aracteristic appliesC does not e-ist i.e
independently+, and certainly a de3ining c"aracteristic itsel3 does not e-ist i.e
independently+.
!o$, somet"ing does not e-ist $it"out Ct"at to $"ic" a de3ining c"aracteristic appliesC
and t"e de3ining c"aracteristic.
.
N).
>3 t"e e-isting t"ing '+ b"a#a+ does not e-ist, "o$ t"en $ould t"e non-e-isting t"ing
2+ ab"a#a+ come into e-istenceO
And $"o "olds: t"e e-isting-and-non-e-isting 1+ t"ing $"ic" does not "a#e t"e
properties o3 an e-isting-and-non-e-isting t"ing B+O
.
N*.
8"ere3ore space is
neit"er an e-isting t"ing
nor a non-e-isting t"ing,
neit"er somet"ing to $"ic" a de3ining c"aracteristic applies i.e. separate 3rom a
de3ining c"aracteristic+
nor a de3ining c"aracteristic. i.e. t"e same as a de3ining c"aracteristic+
.
Also, t"e ot"er 3i#e irreducible elements can be considered in t"e same $ay as space.
.
N0.
/ut t"ose unenlig"tened people $"o eit"er a33irm reality or non-reality
Ho not percei#e t"e blessed cessation-o3-appearance o3 e-isting t"ings.
.
<6AA&8ER ) - An Analysis o3 Hesire raga+ and One I"o Hesires rakta+ --in t"e 6onte-t
o3 8"eir Separateness and 6oncomitance@ a33ection and t"e person a33ected+ = '? #erses
= 6oncomitance, a person and "is acJuired strong "abits, t"e concomitant 3actors o3
consciousness@
.
N'.
>3 t"e Cone $"o desiresC $ould e-ist be3ore desire itsel3, t"en desire may be regarded.
I"en desire becomes related to Cone $"o desires,C t"en desire comes into e-istence.
.
N2.
>3 t"ere is no one $"o desires, "o$ t"en $ill desire come into beingO
<And t"e Juestion@ $"et"er desire e-ists or does not e-ist like$ise "olds true 3or t"e
one $"o desires.
.
N1.
Furt"er, it is not possible 3or bot" desire and t"e one $"o desires to be produced
concomitantly.
>ndeed, desire and t"e one $"o desires come into being independent o3 eac" ot"er.
.
NB.
6oncomitance does not e-ist in t"at $"ic" is only one t"ing, <3or@ certainly somet"ing
$"ic" is only one t"ing cannot be concomitant.
/ut yet, "o$ $ill concomitance come into being i3 t"ere are separate prt"ak+ t"ingsO
.
NE.
>3 concomitance applied to t"at $"ic" is only one t"ing, t"en t"at one C$it"
concomitanceC $ould be t"at one C$it"out <concomitance@.C
>3 concomitance applied to separate t"ings, t"en t"at one C$it" concomitanceC $ould
be t"at one C$it"out <concomitance@.C
.
N ).
And i3 concomitance applied to separate t"ings, $"at is t"e proo3 3or t"e separation o3
bot" desire and t"e one $"o desires,
<Since@ t"at $"ic" is non-separate is concomitant.
.
N*.
Or, i3 t"e separateness o3 desire and t"e one $"o desires really $ere pro#ed,
I"y do you imagine t"e concomitance o3 t"em bot"O
.
N0.
%ou postulate concomitance by saying: neit"er is pro#ed separate 3rom <t"e ot"er@.
<And@ you postulate separateness e#en more to pro#e concomitance.
.
N(.
/ecause separateness is not pro#ed, concomitance is not pro#ed.
I"at kind o3 separateness must e-ist 3or you to establis" concomitanceO
.
N'?.
8"us t"ere is no proo3 t"at t"e desire is concomitant $it" or not concomitant $it" one
$"o desires.
From <t"is analysis o3@ desire <it can be s"o$n t"at 3or@ e#ery 3undamental element
d"arma+ t"ere is no proo3 o3 concomitance or non-concomitance.
.
<6AA&8ER * - An Analysis o3 6omposite &roducts samskrta+ origination, duration, and
decay+ = 1B = #erses = 8"e t"ree stages o3 becoming: origination, duration F
trans3ormation, cessation, impermanence o3 all products and moments o3 consciousness@
.
N'.
>3 origination utpada+ is a composite product, t"en t"e t"ree c"aracteristics <o3
e-istence: Corigination,C Cduration,C and CdissolutionC@ are appropriate.
/ut i3 origination is a non-composite asamstrta+, t"en "o$ <could t"ere be@
c"aracteristics o3 a composite productO
.
N2.
I"en t"e t"ree are separate, origination o3 eit"er o3 t"e ot"er t$o c"aracteristics does
not su33ice to 3unction as a c"aracteristic.
>3 united in a composite product, "o$ could t"ey all be at one place at one timeO
.
N1.
>3 origination, duration, and dissolution are ot"er <secondary@ c"aracteristics o3
composite products,
>t is an in3inite regress. >3 t"is is not so, t"ey are not composite products.
.
NB.
8"e Coriginating originationC utpadotpada+ i.e. t"e beginning o3 t"e origination+ is only
t"e origination o3 t"e basic origination mulotpada+ i.e. t"e beginning o3 t"e product+,
Also t"e origination o3 t"e basic <origination@ i.e. t"e beginning o3 t"e beginning o3 t"e
product+ produces t"e Coriginating origination.C i.e. t"e beginning o3 t"e origination+
.
NE.
/ut i3, according to you, t"e originating origination i.e. sel3-originating origination+
produces basic origination, i.e. also causes t"e beginning o3 t"e product+
Ao$, according to you, $ill t"is <originating origination@ i.e. sel3-originating origination+
produce t"at <basic origination@ i.e. t"e beginning o3 t"e product+ i3 <it itsel3@ is not
produced by basic origination i.e. t"e beginning o3 t"e product+O
.
N).
>3, according to you, t"at $"ic" "as originated t"roug" basic <origination@ i.e. re3erring
to t"e dependent originating origination+ produces basic <origination@, i.e. like a33irming
t"at t"e e33ect e-ist be3ore t"e cause+
Ao$ does t"e basic <origination@, $"ic" is yet unproduced by t"at <originating
origination@ i.e. sel3-originating origination+, cause t"at <originating origination@ i.e. sel3-
originating origination+ to be originatedO
.
N*.
According to you, t"is, $"ile originating, $ould certainly cause t"at to originateQ
>3 t"is, not being produced, $ould be able to cause origination.
.
N0.
<8"e opponent claim:@
As a lig"t is t"e illuminator o3 bot" itsel3 and t"at $"ic" is ot"er t"an itsel3,
So origination $ould originate bot" itsel3 and t"at $"ic" is ot"er t"an itsel3.
.
N(.
8"ere is no darkness in t"e lig"t and t"ere $"ere t"e lig"t is placed.
I"at could t"e lig"t illumineO >ndeed illumination is t"e getting rid o3 darkness.
.
N'?.
Ao$ is darkness destroyed by t"e lig"t being originated,
I"en t"e lig"t, being originated, does not come in contact $it" darknessO
.
N''.
/ut t"en, i3 darkness is destroyed by a lig"t "a#ing no contact $it" <darkness@,
<A lig"t@ placed "ere $ill destroy t"e darkness o3 t"e entire $orld.
.
N'2.
>3 t"e lig"t illuminated bot" itsel3 and t"at $"ic" is ot"er t"an itsel3,
8"en, $it"out a doubt, darkness $ill co#er bot" itsel3 and t"at $"ic" is ot"er t"an
itsel3.
.
N'1.
>3 it "as not yet originated, "o$ does origination produce itsel3O
And i3 it "as already originated, $"en it is being produced, $"at is produced a3ter t"at
$"ic" is already producedO
.
N'B.
>n no $ay does anyt"ing originate
by $"at is being originated ii+,
by $"at is already originated iii+,
or by $"at is not yet originated i+Q
Just as it "as been said in <t"e analysis o3@ Cpresently going to ii+,C Ct"at $"ic" is
already gone to i+C and Ct"at $"ic" is not yet gone to iii+.C
.
N'E.
I"en, in t"at-$"ic"-is-originated iii+, t"ere is not"ing $"ic" acti#ates t"at $"ic" is
being originated ii+,
Ao$ can one say: 8"at $"ic" is being originated ii+ <e-ists@ presupposing t"at $"ic" is
producedO
.
N').
I"ate#er comes into e-istence presupposing somet"ing else is $it"out sel3-e-istence
stab"a#a+.
<As t"ere is@ an allayment o3 Cbeing originated,C so <also@ o3 t"at $"ic" is originated
iii+.
.
N'*.
>3 some particular t"ing $"ic" is not yet originated i+ is indeed kno$n to e-ist,
8"at t"ing $ill be originated. I"at originates i3 it does not e-istO
.
N'0.
And i3 t"e origination originates t"at $"ic" is being originated ii+,
I"at origination, in turn, $ould originate t"at originationO i.e. in3inite regress+
.
N'(.
>3 anot"er origination originates t"at <origination@, t"ere $ill be an in3inite regress o3
originations.
/ut i3 non-origination is t"at $"ic" is origination, t"en e#eryt"ing <$it"out Juali3ication@
$ould originate.
.
N2?.
>t is not possible t"at $"at "as originated eit"er e-ists or does not e-ist,
!or t"at $"at "as not originated eit"er e-ists or does not e-ist, t"is "as been
demonstrated earlier.
.
N2'.
8"e origination o3 somet"ing being destroyed is not possible,
And $"ate#er is not being destroyed, t"at entity is not possible.
.
N22.
!eit"er an Centity t"at "as endured iii+C st"itab"a#a+ nor an Centity t"at "as not
endured i+C endures,
!ot e#en somet"ing enduring ii+ endures.
And $"at endures i3 it is not originatedO
.
N21.
Huration is not possible o3 a t"ing t"at is being destroyed.
/ut $"ate#er is not being destroyed, t"at t"ing b"a#a+ is <also@ not possible.
.
N2B.
/ecause e#ery entity al$ays <remains in@ t"e la$ o3 old age and deat",
I"at entities are t"ere $"ic" endure $it"out old age and deat"O
.
N2E.
8"e enduring Juality o3 a di33erent duration is as impossible as o3 t"at same duration,
So t"e origination o3 origination is neit"er itsel3 nor t"at $"ic" is ot"er t"an itsel3.
.
N2).
C8"at $"ic" "as ceased iii+C nirudd"a+ does not cease, and Ct"at $"ic" "as not
ceased i+C does not cease,
!or e#en Ct"at $"ic" is ceasing ii+.C
For, $"at can cease <i3 it is@ producedO i.e. or i3 it is not really producedO+
.
N2*.
8"ere3ore cessation o3 an enduring entity is not possible.
Moreo#er, cessation o3 a non-enduring entity is not possible.
.
N20.
>ndeed, a state <o3 e-istence@ does not cease because o3 t"is state,
And a di33erent state <o3 e-istence@ does not cease because o3 a di33erent state.
.
N2(.
So, i3 t"e production o3 all d"armas is not possible,
8"en neit"er is t"e cessation o3 all i.e. anyO+ d"armas possible.
.
N1?.
8"ere3ore cessation o3 a real e-isting entity is not possible,
And certainly bot" an e-isting entity and a non-e-isting entity cannot be possible in t"e
same case.
.
N1'.
E#en more, cessation o3 a non-real e-isting entity is not possible.
Just as t"ere is no second decapitationR
.
N12.
8"ere is no cessation by means o3 itsel3, nor cessation by somet"ing ot"er t"an itsel3,
Just as t"ere is no origination o3 origination by itsel3 nor by anot"er.
.
N11.
/ecause t"e e-istence o3 production, duration, and cessation is not pro#ed, t"ere is no
composite product samskrta+,
And i3 a composite product is not pro#ed, "o$ can a non-composite product
asamskrta+ be pro#edO
.
N1B.
As a magic trick, a dream or a 3airy castle.
Just so s"ould $e consider origination, duration, and cessation.
.
<6AA&8ER 0 - An Analysis o3 t"e &roduct 4arma+ and t"e &roducer 4araka+ action and
agent+ = '1 #erses = 8etralemma, cycle o3 samsara, and 9iberation@
.
N'.
A real producer does not produce a real product.
E#en more so, a non-real producer does not seek a non-real product.
.
N2.
8"ere is no producing action o3 a real t"ing, <i3 so,@ t"ere $ould be a product $it"out
someone producing.
Also, t"ere is no producing by a real t"ing, <i3 so,@ t"ere $ould be someone producing
$it"out somet"ing produced.
.
N1.
>3 a non-e-istent producer $ould produce a non-real product,
8"e product $ould be $it"out a causal source and t"e producer $ould be $it"out a
causal source.
.
NB.
>3 t"ere is no causal source, t"ere is not"ing to be produced nor cause-in-general
karana+.
8"en neit"er do t"e producing action, t"e person producing, nor t"e instrument o3
production karana+ e-ist.
.
NE.
>3 t"e producing action, etc. do not e-ist, t"en neit"er can t"e true reality d"arma+ nor
3alse reality ad"arma+ e-ist.
>3 neit"er t"e true reality nor t"e 3alse reality e-ists, t"en also t"e product p"ala+ born
3rom t"at does not e-ist.
.
N).
>3 t"ere is no real product, t"en t"ere also e-ists no pat" to "ea#en nor to ultimate
release.
8"us it logically 3ollo$s t"at all producing actions are $it"out purpose.
.
N*.
And a real-nonreal producer does not produce in a real-nonreal manner.
For, indeed, "o$ can CrealC and Cnon-real,C $"ic" are mutually contradictory, occur in
one placeO
.
N0.
A real producer kartra+ does not produce $"at is non-real, and a non-real producer
does not produce $"at is real.
<From t"at@ indeed, all t"e mistakes must logically 3ollo$.
.
N(.
8"e producer, $"o is neit"er real nor non-real, does not produce a product $"ic" is
eit"er real or non-real,
/ecause o3 t"e reasons $"ic" "a#e been ad#anced earlier.
.
N'?.
8"e non-real producer does not produce a product $"ic" is not real, nor bot" real-and-
non-real,
/ecause o3 t"e reasons $"ic" "a#e been ad#anced earlier.
.
N''.
And a real-non-real producer does not produce a product $"ic" is neit"er real nor non-
real.
8"is is e#ident 3rom t"e reasons $"ic" "a#e been ad#anced earlier.
.
N'2.
8"e producer proceeds being dependent on t"e product, and t"e product proceeds
being dependent on t"e producer.
8"e cause 3or realiMation i.e. !ir#ana+ is seen in not"ing else.
.
N'1.
>n t"e same $ay one s"ould understand t"e CacJuiringC i.e. o3 karma - upadana+ on
t"e basis o3 t"e Cgi#ing up,C etc. o3 t"e producer and t"e product.
/y means o3 <t"is analysis o3@ t"e product and t"e producer all ot"er t"ings s"ould be
dissol#ed.
.
<6AA&8ER ( - An Analysis o3 Ct"e &re-e-istent RealityC pur#a+ grasper and grasping+ =
'2 #erses = !o permanent o$ner o3 t"e si- senses, percei#er be3ore perception@
.
N'.
6ertain people say: &rior to seeing "earing, and ot"er <sensory 3aculties@ toget"er $it"
sensation and ot"er <mental p"enomena@
>s t"at to $"ic" t"ey belong.
.
N2.
<8"ey reason:@ Ao$ $ill t"ere be seeing, etc. o3 someone i.e. as t"e sub5ect seeing+
$"o does not e-istO
8"ere3ore, t"ere e-ists a de3inite #ya#ast"ita+ entity be3ore t"at <seeing, etc.@.
.
N1.
/ut t"at de3inite entity is pre#ious to sig"t, "earing, etc., and sensation, etc --
Ao$ can t"at <entity@ be kno$nO
.
NB.
And i3 t"at <entity@ is determined $it"out sig"t <and ot"er sensory 3aculties@,
8"en, undoubtedly, t"ose <sensory 3aculties@ $ill e-ist $it"out t"at <entity@.
.
NE.
Someone becomes mani3est by somet"ing i.e. like #ision+, somet"ing is mani3est by
someone.
Ao$ $ould someone e-ist $it"out somet"ingO Ao$ $ould somet"ing e-ist $it"out
someoneO
.
N).
<8"e opponent admits:@
Someone does not e-ist pre#ious to pur#a+ sig"t and all t"e ot"er <3aculties@ toget"er.
<Rat"er,@ "e is mani3ested by any one o3 <t"em:@ sig"t, etc., at any one time.
.
N*.
/ut i3 not"ing e-ists pre#ious to sig"t and all t"e ot"er <3aculties@ toget"er,
Ao$ could t"at <being@ e-ist indi#idually be3ore sig"t, etc.O
.
N0.
<Furt"er,@ i3 t"at <being@ $ere t"e Cseer,C t"at <being@ $ere t"e C"earer,C t"at <being@
$ere t"e one $"o senses,
8"en one <being@ $ould e-ist pre#ious to eac". 8"ere3ore, t"is <"ypot"esis@ is not
logically 5usti3ied.
.
N(.
On t"e ot"er "and, i3 t"e CseerC $ere someone else, or t"e C"earerC $ere someone
else, or t"e one $"o senses $ere someone else,
8"en t"ere $ould be a C"earers $"en t"ere $as already a Cseer,C and t"at $ould mean
a multiplicity o3 Csel#esC atma+.
.
N''.
I"en "e to $"om seeing, "earing, etc., and 3eeling, etc. belong does not e-ist,
8"en certainly t"ey do not e-ist.
.
N'2.
For "im $"o does not e-ist pre#ious to, at t"e same time, or a3ter seeing, etc.
8"e conception CAe e-ists,C CAe does not e-ist,C is dissipated.
.
<6AA&8ER '? - An Analysis o3 Fire and 4indling 3ire and 3uel+ = ') #erses = !on-duality o3
sel3 . t"e 3i#e aggregates o3 clinging, non-duality o3 dependent origination and emptiness@
.
N'.
>3 3ire is identical to its kindling, t"en it is bot" producer and product.
And i3 3ire is di33erent 3rom kindling, t"en surely <3ire@ e-ists $it"out kindling i.e.
separate+.
.
N2.
A <3ire@ $"ic" is perpetually burning $ould e-ist $it"out a cause, $"ic" is kindling,
Since anot"er beginning $ould be pointless, in t"is case <3ire@ is $it"out its ob5ect <i.e.,
burning o3 kindling@.
.
N1.
<Fire@ is $it"out a cause, namely kindling, i3 it $ere independent o3 anyt"ing else,
>n $"ic" case anot"er beginning $ould be pointless, and t"ere is perpetual burning.
.
NB.
>3 it is maintained: 4indling is t"at $"ic" is being kindled,
/y $"at is kindling kindled, since kindling is only t"at <kindling@O
>t is in"erent e-istence t"at $ould make e-tinguis"ing F liberation impossible
.
NE.
<Fire@, $"en di33erent and not obtained <t"roug" kindling@, $ill not obtain, not burning,
it $ill not burn later,
Iit"out e-tinction, it $ill not be e-tinguis"ed, i3 t"ere is no e-tinction, t"en it $ill
remain $it" its o$n c"aracteristics.
.
N).
<8"e opponent claims:@
>3 3ire is di33erent 3rom kindling it could obtain t"e kindling
As a $oman obtains a "usband, and a man <obtains@ a $i3e.
.
N*.
8"oug" 3ire is di33erent 3rom kindling, it could indeed obtain t"e kindling,
On t"e condition t"at bot" 3ire and kindling can be reciprocally di33erentiated <Qbut,
t"is is impossible@.
.
N0.
>3 t"e 3ire is dependent on t"e kindling, and i3 t"e kindling is dependent on t"e 3ire
I"ic" is attained 3irst, dependent on $"ic" t"ey are 3ire and kindlingO
.
N(.
>3 3ire is dependent on kindling, so is t"e proo3 o3 t"e pro#ed 3ire.
8"us, being kindling it $ill e-ist $it"out 3ire.
.
N'?.
I"en a t"ing b"a#a+ is pro#ed by being dependent on somet"ing else, t"en it pro#es
t"e ot"er by being dependent <on it@.
>3 t"at $"ic" is reJuired 3or dependence must be pro#ed, t"en $"at is dependent on
$"atO
.
N''.
>3 t"at t"ing is pro#ed by being dependent, "o$ can t"at $"ic" "as not been pro#ed be
dependentO
So, t"at $"ic" is pro#ed is dependent, but t"e dependence is not possible.
.
N'2.
Fire does not e-ist in relation to kindling, and 3ire does not e-ist unrelated to kindling.
4indling does not e-ist in relation to 3ire, and kindling does not e-ist unrelated to 3ire.
.
N'1.
Fire does not come 3rom somet"ing else,
and 3ire does not e-ist in kindling.
8"e remaining <analysis@ in regard to kindling is described by <t"e analysis o3@ Ct"at
$"ic" is being gone to,C Ct"at $"ic" is gone toC and 77t"at $"ic" is not yet gone to.C
.
N'B.
Fire is not identical to kindling, but 3ire is not in anyt"ing ot"er t"an kindling.
Fire does not "a#e kindling as its property, also, t"e kindling is not in 3ire and #ice
#ersa.
.
N'E.
/y <t"e analysis o3@ 3ire and kindling t"e syllogism o3 t"e indi#idual sel3 atma+ and Ct"e
acJuiringC upadana+
>s 3ully and completely e-plained, as $ell as Ct"e 5arC and Ct"e clot"C and ot"er
<analogies@.
.
N').
8"ose $"o speci3y t"e nature o3 t"e indi#idual sel3 and o3 e-isting t"ings b"a#a+ as
radically di33erentQ
8"ose people > do not regard as ones $"o kno$ t"e sense o3 t"e teac"ing.
.
<6AA&8ER '' - An Analysis o3 t"e &ast pur#a+ and Future 9imits aparakiti+ --o3
E-istence@ samsara+ = 0 #erses = E-plaining samsara and Kno-sel3L $it"out using any
in"erent d"arma.@
.
N'.
8"e great ascetic </udd"a@ said: C8"e e-treme limit koti+ o3 t"e past cannot be
discerned.C
CE-istence-in-3lu-C samsara+ is $it"out bounds, indeed, t"ere is no beginning nor
ending o3 t"at <e-istence@.
.
N2.
Ao$ could t"ere be a middle portion o3 t"at $"ic" "as no Cbe3oreC and Ca3terC,
>t 3ollo$s t"at Cpast,C C3uture,C and Csimultaneous e#entsC do not obtain.
/irt" and deat" are not separate F di33erent, not simultaneous F t"e same.
.
N1.
>3 birt" <is regarded as@ t"e 3ormer, and gro$ing old and dying <are regarded as@
coming into being later,
8"en birt" e-ists $it"out gro$ing old and dying, and <somet"ing@ is born $it"out
deat".
.
NB.
>3 birt" $ere later, and gro$ing old and dying $ere earlier,
Ao$ $ould t"ere be an uncaused gro$ing old and dying o3 somet"ing unbornO
.
NE.
And a birt" $"ic" is simultaneous $it" gro$ing old and dying is like$ise impossible,
For, t"at $"ic" is being born $ould die, and bot" $ould be $it"out cause.
.
N).
Since t"e past, 3uture, and simultaneous acti#ity do not originate,
8o $"at purpose <do you@ e-plain in detail <t"e e-istence o3@ birt", gro$ing old and
dyingO
.
N*.
8"at $"ic" is produced and its cause, as $ell as t"e c"aracteristic and t"at $"ic" is
c"aracteriMed,
8"e sensation and t"e one $"o senses, and $"ate#er ot"er t"ings t"ere are --
.
N0.
!ot only is t"e 3ormer limit o3 e-istence-in-3lu- samsara+ not to be 3ound,
/ut t"e 3ormer limit o3 all t"ose t"ings is not to be 3ound.
.
<6AA&8ER '2 - An Analysis o3 Sorro$ dukk"a+ su33ering+ = '? #erses = Hukk"a cannot
be caused by a personality, internal, e-ternal, bot" or neit"er@
.
N'.
Some say:
Sorro$ dukk"a+ is produced by onesel3 i+,
or by anot"er ii+,
or by bot" <itsel3 and anot"er@ iii+,
or 3rom no cause at all i#+,
/ut <to consider@ t"at <sorro$ dukk"a+@ as $"at is produced is not possible.
.
N2.
>3 it $ere produced by itsel3 i.e. sel3-causation+, it $ould not e-ist dependent on
somet"ing else.
6ertainly t"ose Cgroups o3 uni#ersal elementsC skand"as+ e-ist presupposing t"ese
Cgroups.C
.
N1.
>3 t"ese $ere di33erent 3rom t"ose, or i3 t"ose $ere di33erent 3rom t"ese,
Sorro$ dukk"a+ $ould be produced by somet"ing ot"er t"an itsel3 i.e. ot"er-
causation+, because t"ose $ould be made by t"ese ot"ers.
.
NB.
>3 sorro$ dukk"a+ is made t"roug" one7s o$n personality i+ s#apudgala+, t"en one7s
o$n personality $ould be $it"out sorro$ dukk"a+,
I"o is t"at Co$n personalityC by $"ic" sorro$ dukk"a+ is sel3-produced i+O
.
NE.
>3 sorro$ dukk"a+ $ere produced by a di33erent personality ii+ parapudgala+,
Ao$ $ould "e, to $"om is gi#en t"at sorro$ dukk"a+ by anot"er a3ter "e "ad
produced it, be $it"out sorro$ dukk"a+O
.
N).
>3 sorro$ dukk"a+ is produced by a di33erent personality, $"o is t"at di33erent
personality
I"o, $"ile being $it"out sorro$ dukk"a+, yet makes and transmits t"at <sorro$
dukk"a+@ to t"e ot"erO
.
N*.
>t is not establis"ed t"at sorro$ dukk"a+ is sel3-produced i+, <but@ "o$ is <sorro$
dukk"a+@ produced by anot"er ii+O
6ertainly t"e sorro$ dukk"a+, $"ic" $ould be produced by anot"er ii+, in "is case
$ould be sel3-produced iS+.
.
N0.
Sorro$ dukk"a+ is not sel3-produced i+, 3or t"at $"ic" is produced is certainly not
produced by t"at <personality@.
>3 t"e Cot"erC para+ is not produced by t"e indi#idual sel3 atma+, "o$ $ould sorro$
dukk"a+ be t"at produced by anot"erO
.
N(.
Sorro$ dukk"a+ could be made by bot" <sel3 and t"e Cot"erC@ iii+ i3 it could be
produced by eit"er one.
</ut@ not produced by anot"er, and not sel3-produced i#+ Q"o$ can sorro$ dukk"a+
e-ist $it"out a caused
.
N'?.
!ot only are t"e 3our <causal@ interpretations not possible in respect to sorro$
dukk"a+,
<but also@ none o3 t"e 3our <causal@ interpretations is possible e#en in respect to
e-ternal t"ings b"a#a+.
.
<6AA&8ER '1 - An Analysis o3 6onditioned Elements samskara+ t"e real+ = 0 #erses =
Hukk"a is not due to t"ings t"at e-ist and are impermanent@
.
N'.
A t"ing o3 $"ic" t"e basic elements are deception is #ain, as t"e glorious one said.
All conditioned elements samskara+ are t"ings t"at "a#e basic elements d"arma+
$"ic" are deception, t"ere3ore, t"ey are #ain.
.
N2.
C>3 t"at $"ic" "as decepti#e basic elements is #ain, $"at is t"ere $"ic" decei#esOC
8"is $as spoken by t"e glorious one to illuminate Cemptiness.C
.
N1.
<An opponent says:@
8"ere is non-sel3-e-istence o3 t"ings <since@ a t"ing, by obser#ation, <becomes@
somet"ing else. i.e. impermanence+
A t"ing $it"out sel3-e-istence does not e-istQdue to t"e emptiness o3 e-isting t"ings.
.
NB.
>3 sel3-e-istence does not e-ist, $"ose Cot"er-e-istenceC $ould t"ere beO
.
>3 sel3-e-istence does e-ist, $"ose Cot"er-e-istenceC $ould t"ere beO
.
NE.
Just as t"ere is no ot"er-e-istence o3 a t"ing, so also <an-ot"er-e-istence@ o3 somet"ing
else is not possibleQ
Since a yout" is not aging 5iryate+, and since C$"o "as already agedC is not aging
5iryate+.
.
N).
>3 t"ere $ould be an ot"er-e-istence o3 a t"ing, milk $ould e-ist as curds.
</ut@ surely Cbeing curdsC $ill be somet"ing ot"er t"an milk.
.
N*.
>3 somet"ing $ould be non-empty, somet"ing $ould <logically also@ be empty
/ut not"ing is non-empty, so "o$ $ill it become emptyO
.
N0.
Emptiness is proclaimed by t"e #ictorious one as t"e re3utation o3 all #ie$points,
/ut t"ose $"o "old CemptinessC as a #ie$pointQ<t"e true percei#ers@ "a#e called t"ose
CincurableC asad"ya+.
.
<6AA&8ER 'B - An Analysis o3 Gni3ication samsarga+ combination+ = 0 #erses = 8"e
inseparability o3 t"e t"ree realms, or o3 body, speec" and mind@
.
N'.
8"at $"ic" is seen, sig"t, and t"e CseerC: t"ese t"ree
Ho not combine toget"er eit"er in pairs or altoget"er.
.
N2.
Hesire, t"e one $"o desires, and t"e ob5ect o3 desire "a#e to be regarded in t"e same
$ay,
<As also@ t"e impurities $"ic" remain and t"e t"ree kinds o3 Cbase o3 senseC ayatana+
$"ic" remain.
.
N1.
<Some "old:@ 8"ere is uni3ication samsarga+ o3 one di33erent t"ing $it" anot"er
di33erent t"ing, <but@ since t"e di33erentness
O3 $"at is seen, etc. does not e-ist, t"ose <3actors@ do not enter into uni3ication.
.
NB.
!ot only does t"e di33erentness o3 t"at $"ic" is seen, etc. not e-ist,
Also t"e di33erentness o3 somet"ing coming 3rom anot"er does not obtain.
.
NE.
A t"ing is di33erent inso3ar as it presupposes a second di33erent t"ing.
One t"ing is not di33erent 3rom anot"er t"ing $it"out t"e ot"er t"ing.
.
N).
>3 one di33erent t"ing is di33erent 3rom a second di33erent t"ing, it e-ists $it"out a
second di33erent t"ing,
/ut $it"out a second di33erent t"ing, one di33erent t"ing does not e-ist as a di33erent
t"ing.
.
N*.
Hi33erentness does not e-ist in a di33erent t"ing, nor in $"at is not di33erent.
I"en di33erentness does not e-ist, t"en t"ere is neit"er $"at is di33erent nor Ct"isC
<3rom $"ic" somet"ing can be di33erent@.
.
N0.
Gni3ication is not possible by <uniting@ one t"ing $it" t"at one t"ing, nor by <uniting@
one t"ing $it" a di33erent t"ing,
8"us, t"e becoming uni3ied, t"e state o3 being united, and t"e one $"o unites are not
possible.
.
<6AA&8ER 'E - An Analysis o3 a Sel3-e-istent 8"ing s#ab"a#a+ being and non-being+ =
'' #erses = 8"e pro#isional and de3initi#e teac"ings, a c"anging t"ing or being is not t"e
same, nor di33erent@
.
N'.
8"e production o3 a sel3-e-istent t"ing by a conditioning cause is not possible,
<For,@ being produced t"roug" dependence on a cause, a sel3-e-istent t"ing $ould be
Csomet"ing $"ic" is producedC krtaka+.
.
N2.
Ao$, indeed, $ill a sel3-e-istent t"ing become Csomet"ing $"ic" is producedCO
6ertainly, a sel3-e-istent t"ing <by de3inition@ is Cnot-producedC and is independent o3
anyt"ing else.
.
N1.
>3 t"ere is an absence o3 a sel3-e-istent t"ing, "o$ $ill an ot"er-e-istent t"ing
parab"a#a+ come into beingO
6ertainly t"e sel3-e-istence o3 an ot"er-e-istent t"ing is called 77ot"er-e-istence.C
.
NB.
Furt"er, "o$ can a t"ing <e-ist@ $it"out eit"er sel3-e-istence or ot"er-e-istenceO
>3 eit"er sel3-e-istence or ot"er e-istence e-ist, t"en an e-isting t"ing, indeed, $ould be
pro#ed.
.
NE.
>3 t"ere is no proo3 o3 an e-istent t"ing, t"en a non-e-istent t"ing cannot be pro#ed.
Since people call t"e ot"er-e-istence o3 an e-istent t"ing a Cnon-e-istent t"ing.C
.
N).
8"ose $"o percei#e sel3-e-istence and ot"er-e-istence, and an e-istent t"ing and a
non-e-istent t"ing,
Ho not percei#e t"e true nature o3 t"e /udd"a7s teac"ing.
.
N*.
>n C8"e >nstruction o3 4atyayanaC bot" Cit isC and Cit is notC are opposed
/y t"e Dlorious One, $"o "as ascertained t"e meaning o3 Ce-istentC and non-e-istent.C
.
N0.
>3 t"ere $ould be an e-istent t"ing by its o$n nature, t"ere could not be Cnon-
e-istence7 o3 t"at <t"ing@.
6ertainly an e-istent t"ing di33erent 3rom its o$n nature $ould ne#er obtain.
.
N (.
<An opponent asks:@
>3 t"ere is no basic sel3-nature prakti+, o3 $"at $ill t"ere be Cot"ernessCO
.
>3 t"ere is basic sel3-nature, o3 $"at $ill t"ere be Cot"ernessCO
.
N'?.
C>t isC is a notion o3 eternity. C>t is notC is a ni"ilistic #ie$.
8"ere3ore, one $"o is $ise does not "a#e recourse to CbeingC or Cnon-being.C
.
N''.
8"at $"ic" e-ists by its o$n nature is eternal since Cit does not not-e-ist.C
>3 it is maintained: C8"at $"ic" e-isted be3ore does not e-ist no$,C t"ere anni"ilation
$ould logically 3ollo$.
.
<6AA&8ER ') - An Analysis o3 /eing /ound band"ana+ and Release moksa+ bondage
and release+ = '? #erses = !o personal rebirt"s or 9iberation@
.
N'.
I"en conditioned elements dispositions, conditioningO+ continue to c"ange t"roug"
rebirt"sO+, t"ey do not continue to c"ange as eternal t"ings t"e same be3ore and a3ter+.
9ike$ise t"ey do not continue to c"ange as non-eternal t"ings di33erent be3ore and
a3ter+.
8"e arguments "ere is t"e same as 3or a li#ing being.
.
N2.
>3 t"e personality $ould c"ange $"en it is soug"t 3i#e $ays in t"e CgroupsC skand"a+,
Cbases o3 sense perceptionC ayatana+, and t"e Cirreducible elementsC d"atu+,
8"en it does not e-ist. I"o <is it $"o@ $ill c"ange i.e. transmigrate+O
.
N1.
Mo#ing 3rom CacJuisitionC upadana+ to CacJuisitionC $ould be Ct"at $"ic" is $it"out
e-istenceC #ib"a#a+.
I"o is "e $"o is $it"out e-istence and $it"out acJuisitionO 8o $"at $ill "e c"ange
i.e. transmigrate+O
.
NB.
8"e 3inal cessation nir#ana+ o3 t"e conditioned elements certainly is not possible at all.
!or is t"e 3inal cessation o3 e#en a li#ing being possible at all.
.
NE.
8"e conditioned elements, $"ose nature d"arma+ is arising and destruction, neit"er
are bound nor released.
9ike$ise a li#ing being neit"er is bound nor released.
.
N).
>3 t"e acJuisition upadana+ $ere t"e Cbinding,C t"at one <"a#ing@ t"e acJuisition is not
bound,
!or is t"at one not "a#ing t"e acJuisition bound.
8"en in $"at condition is "e boundO
.
N*.
6ertainly i3 t"e CbindingC $ould e-ist be3ore Ct"at $"ic" is bound,C t"en it must bind,
/ut t"at does not e-ist. 8"e remaining <analysis@ is stated in <t"e analysis o3@ Ct"e
present going to,C Ct"at $"ic" "as already gone toC and Ct"at $"ic" "as not yet gone to.C
.
N0.
8"ere3ore, Ct"at $"ic" is boundC is not released and Ct"at $"ic" is not boundC is
like$ise not released.
>3 Ct"at $"ic" is boundC $ere released, Cbeing boundC and CreleaseC $ould e-ist
simultaneously.
.
N(.
C> $ill be released $it"out any acJuisition.C
C!ir#ana $ill be mine.C
8"ose $"o understand t"us "old too muc" to Ca "olding onC <i.e., bot" to t"e
acJuisition o3 karma, and to a #ie$point@.
.
N'?.
I"ere t"ere is a super-imposing o3 nir#ana <on somet"ing else@, nor a remo#al o3
e-istence-in-3lu-,
I"at is t"e e-istence-in-3lu- t"ereO
I"at nir#ana is imaginedO
.
<6AA&8ER '* - An Analysis o3 Action karma+ and >ts &roduct p"ala+ action and its
results+ = 11 #erses = 8"e $"ole c"ain o3 karma 3ormation and its 3ruits is empty, like a
magic trick@
.
N'.
8"e state o3 mind $"ic" is sel3-disciplined, being 3a#orably disposed to$ard ot"ers,
And 3riends"ip: t"at is t"e d"arma, t"at is t"e seed 3or t"e 3ruit no$ and a3ter deat".
.
N2.
8"e most percepti#e seer </udd"a@ "as said t"at t"ere is action karma+ as #olition and
as a result o3 "a#ing $illed.
8"e #ariety o3 acts o3 t"at <action@ "as been e-plained in many $ays.
.
N1.
8"us, t"at action $"ic" is called C#olitionC: t"at is considered <by tradition@ as mental,
/ut t"at action $"ic" is a result o3 "a#ing $illed: t"at is considered <by tradition@ as
p"ysical or #erbal.
.
NB.
Sound '+, gesture 2+ and t"at $"ic" does not rest $"ic" is considered as unkno$n
1+,
Also t"e ot"er unkno$n $"ic" is considered to be at rest B+,
.
NE.
8"at $"ic" is pure as a result o3 en5oyment E+, t"at $"ic" is impure as a result o3
en5oyment )+,
And #olition *+: t"ese se#en basic elements d"arma+ are considered <by t"e tradition@
as t"e modes o3 action.
.
N).
>3 an action <e-ists@ by enduring to t"e time o3 its 3ul3illment, t"at <action@ $ould be
eternal.
>3 <an action@ $ere stoppedQbeing stopped, $"at $ill it produceO
.
N*.
8"ere is 3ruit p"ala+ $"en a process, a sprout, etc., starts 3rom a seed,
/ut $it"out a seed t"at <process@ does not proceed.
.
N0.
>nasmuc" as t"e process is dependent on a seed and t"e 3ruit is produced 3rom t"e
process,
8"e 3ruit, presupposing t"e seed, neit"er comes to an end nor is eternal.
.
N(.
8"ere is a product p"ala+ $"en a mental process starts 3rom a t"oug"ts,
/ut $it"out a t"oug"t t"at <process@ does not proceed.
.
N'?.
>nasmuc" as t"e process is dependent on a t"oug"t and t"e product p"ala+ is
produced 3rom t"e process,
8"e product, presupposing t"e t"oug"t, neit"er comes to an end nor is eternal.
.
N''.
8"e ten pure Cpat"s o3 actionC are means 3or realiMing t"e d"arma.
And t"e 3i#e Jualities o3 desired ob5ects <i.e., desire to kno$ t"e 3orm, sound, odor,
taste, and touc" o3 e-istence@ are 3ruits p"ala+ o3 t"e d"arma bot" no$ and a3ter deat".
.
N'2.
8"ere $ould be many great mistakes i3 t"at e-planation <$ere accepted@.
8"ere3ore, t"at e-planation is not possible.
.
N'1.
>n rebuttal > $ill e-plain t"e interpretation $"ic" can be made to 3it <t"e 3acts@,
8"at $"ic" is 3ollo$ed by t"e /udd"a, t"e sel3-su33icient enlig"tened ones
pratyekabudd"a+ and t"e disciples <o3 /udd"a@.
.
N'B.
As Ct"at $"ic" is imperis"ableC is like a credit <on an account statement@, so an action
karma+ is like a debt.
<8"e imperis"able is@ o3 3our kinds in its elements d"atu+ <i.e., desire, 3orm, non-3orm,
and pure@, in its essential nature it cannot be analyMed.
.
N'E.
<An imperis"able 3orce@ is not destroyed Jua destruction, rat"er it is destroyed
according to spiritual discipline.
8"ere3ore, t"e 3ruit o3 actions originates by t"e imperis"able 3orce.
.
N').
>3 <t"e imperis"able 3orce@ $ere t"at $"ic" is destroyed by <usual@ destruction or by
trans3erence o3 action,
Fallacies <like@ t"e destruction o3 action $ould logically result.
.
N'*.
At t"e moment o3 transition t"at <imperis"able 3orce@
O3 all identical and di33erent actions belonging to t"e same element d"atu+ originates.
.
N'0.
8"at <imperis"able 3orce@ is t"e d"arma, "a#ing arisen by one action a3ter anot"er in
#isible e-istence,
And it remains <constant@ e#en in t"e de#elopment o3 all bi3urcating action.
.
N'(.
8"at <imperis"able 3orce@ is destroyed by deat" and by a#oiding t"e product p"ala+ .
8"ere t"e di33erence is c"aracteriMed as impure and pure.
.
N2?.
CEmptiness,C Cno anni"ilation,C e-istence-in-3lu-, Cnon-eternity,C
And t"e imperis"able reality o3 action: suc" $as t"e teac"ing taug"t by t"e /udd"a.
.
<!agar5una re3utes t"e abo#e arguments:@
2'.
I"y does t"e action not originateO
/ecause it is $it"out sel3-e-istence.
Since it does not originate, it does not peris".
.
N22.
>3 an action did e-ist as a sel3-e-istent t"ing, $it"out a doubt, it $ould be eternal.
An action $ould be an unproduced t"ing, certainly, t"ere is no eternal t"ing $"ic" is
produced.
.
N21.
>3 t"e action $ere not produced, t"en t"ere could be t"e 3ear attaining somet"ing 3rom
Csomet"ing not producedC,
8"en t"e opposite to a saintly discipline $ould 3ollo$ as a 3allacy.
.
N2B.
8"en, undoubtedly, all daily a33airs $ould be precluded.
And e#en t"e distinction bet$een saints and sinners is not possible.
.
N2E.
8"en an act $"ose de#elopment "ad taken place $ould de#elop again,
>3 an act, because it persists, e-ists t"roug" its o$n nature.
.
N2).
An action is t"at $"ose Csel3C atman+ is desire, and t"e desires do not really e-ist.
>3 t"ese desires do not really e-ist, "o$ $ould t"e action really e-istO
.
N2*.
Action and desire are declared to be t"e conditioning cause o3 t"e body.
>3 action and desire are empty, $"at need one say about CbodyCO
.
N20.
<An opponent tries to establis" an identi3iable entity by saying:@
8"e man s"rouded in ignorance, and c"ained by cra#ing trsna+
>s one $"o seeks en5oyment. Ae is not di33erent 3rom t"e one $"o acts, nor identical to
it.
.
N2(.
Since action is not Coriginated presupposing t"e conditionsC nor 3ails to arise 3rom
presupposing t"e conditions,
8"ere is no one acting.
.
N1?.
>3 t"ere is no action, "o$ could t"ere be one $"o acts and t"e product o3 actionO
And i3 t"ere is no product, "o$ can t"ere be an en5oyer o3 t"e productO
.
N1'.
Just as a teac"er, by "is magical po$er, 3ormed a magical 3orm,
And t"is magical 3orm 3ormed again anot"er magical 3ormQ
.
N12.
Just so t"e Cone $"o 3ormsC is "imsel3 being 3ormed magically, and t"e act per3ormed
by "im
>s like a magical 3orm being magically 3ormed by anot"er magical 3orm.
.
N11.
Hesires, actions, bodies, producers, and products
Are like a 3airy castle, resembling a mirage, a dream.
.
<6AA&8ER '0 - An Analysis o3 t"e >ndi#idual Sel3 atma+ t"e sel3 and p"enomena+ = '2
#erses = !ir#ana is realiMing t"e non-dual nature o3 t"e sel3 and e#eryt"ing, beyond
causality, production, conceptualiMation, or t"e 3our e-tremes@
.
N'.
>3 t"e indi#idual sel3 atma+ $ere <identical to@ t"e CgroupsC skand"a+, t"en it $ould
partake o3 origination and destruction.
>3 <t"e indi#idual sel3@ $ere di33erent 3rom t"e Cgroups,C t"en it $ould be $it"out t"e
c"aracteristics o3 t"e Cgroups.C
.
N2.
>3 t"e indi#idual sel3 does not e-ist, "o$ t"en $ill t"ere be somet"ing $"ic" is Cmy
o$nCO
8"ere is lack o3 possessi#eness and no ego on account o3 t"e cessation o3 sel3 and t"at
$"ic" is Cmy o$n.C
.
N1.
Ae $"o is $it"out possessi#eness and $"o "as no ego Q Ae, also, does not e-ist.
I"oe#er sees C"e $"o is $it"out possessi#enessC or C"e $"o "as no egoC <really@ does
not see.
.
NB.
I"en C>C and CmineC "a#e stopped, t"en also t"ere is not an outside nor an inner sel3.
8"e CacJuiringC <o3 karma@ upadana+ is stopped, on account o3 t"at destruction, t"ere
is destruction o3 #erse e-istence.
.
NE.
On account o3 t"e destruction o3 t"e pains klesa+ o3 action t"ere is release 3or pains o3
action e-ist 3or "im $"o constructs t"em.
8"ese pains result 3rom p"enomenal e-tension prapanca+, but t"is p"enomenal
e-tension comes to a stop by emptiness.
.
N*.
I"en t"e domain o3 t"oug"t "as been dissipated, Ct"at $"ic" can be statedC is
dissipated.
8"ose t"ings $"ic" are unoriginated and not terminated, like nir#ana, constitute t"e
8rut" d"armata+.
.
N0.
E#eryt"ing is CactualC tat"yam+ or Cnot-actual,C or bot" Cacts actual-and-not-actual,C
Or Cneit"er-actual-nor-not-actualC:
8"is is t"e teac"ing o3 t"e /udd"a.
.
N(.
C!ot caused by somet"ing else,C Cpeace3ul,C Cnot elaborated by discursi#e t"oug"t,C
C>ndeterminate,C Cundi33erentiatedC: suc" are t"e c"aracteristics o3 true reality tatt#a+.
.
N'?.
I"ate#er e-ists, being dependent <on somet"ing else@, is certainly not identical to t"at
<ot"er t"ing@,
!or is a t"ing di33erent 3rom t"at, t"ere3ore, it is neit"er destroyed nor eternal.
.
N''.
8"e immortal essence o3 t"e teac"ing o3 t"e /udd"as, t"e lords o3 t"e $orld, is
Iit"out singleness or multiplicity, it is not destroyed nor is it eternal.
.
N'2.
>3 3ully-de#eloped /udd"as do not arise <in t"e $orld@ and t"e disciples <o3 t"e /udd"a@
disappear,
8"en, independently, t"e kno$ledge o3 t"e sel3-produced enlig"tened ones
pratyekabudd"a+ is produced.
.
<6AA&8ER '( - An Analysis o3 8ime kala+ time+ = ) #erses = !o real space-time limits o3
anyt"ing, no real space or time@
.
N'.
>3 Ct"e presentC and C3utureC e-ist presupposing Ct"e past,C
C8"e presentC and C3utureC $ill e-ist in Ct"e past.C
.
N2.
>3 Ct"e presentC and C3utureC did not e-ist t"ere <in Ct"e pastC@,
Ao$ could Ct"e presentC and C3utureC e-ist presupposing t"at CpastO
.
N1.
Iit"out presupposing Ct"e pastC t"e t$o t"ings <Ct"e presentC and C3utureC@ cannot be
pro#ed to e-ist.
8"ere3ore neit"er present nor 3uture time e-ist.
.
NB.
>n t"is $ay t"e remaining t$o <times@ can be in#erted.
8"us one $ould regard C"ig"est,C Clo$estC and Cmiddle,C etc., as oneness and
di33erence. or Ca3ter,C Cbe3oreC and CmiddleC, or Crig"t,C Cle3tC and CmiddleC T+
.
NE.
A non-stationary CtimeC cannot be CgraspedC, and a stationary CtimeC $"ic" can be
grasped does not e-ist.
Ao$, t"en, can one percei#e time i3 it is not CgraspedCO
.
N).
Since time is dependent on a t"ing b"a#a+, "o$ can time <e-ist@ $it"out a t"ingO
8"ere is not any t"ing $"ic" e-ists, "o$, t"en, $ill time become <somet"ing@O
.
<6AA&8ER 2? - An Analysis o3 t"e Aggregate samagri+ o3 6auses and 6onditions cause
and e33ect+ - 2B #erses
.
N'.
>3 a product p"ala+ is produced t"roug" t"e aggregate o3 causes and conditions,
And e-ists in an aggregate, "o$ $ill it be produced in t"e aggregateO
.
N2.
>3 a product is produced in t"e aggregate o3 causes and conditions,
And does not e-ist in t"e aggregate, "o$ $ill it be produced in t"e aggregateO
.
N1.
>3 t"e product is in t"e aggregate o3 causes and conditions,
Iould it not be CgraspedC <i.e., located@ in t"e aggregateO /ut it is not CgraspedC in t"e
aggregate.
.
NB.
>3 t"e product is not in t"e aggregate o3 causes and conditions,
8"en t"e causes and conditions $ould be t"e same as non-causes and non-conditions.
.
NE.
>3 a cause, "a#ing gi#en t"e cause 3or a product, is stopped,
8"en t"at $"ic" is Cgi#enC and t"at $"ic" is stopped $ould be t$o identities o3 t"e
cause.
.
N).
>3 a cause $it"out "a#ing gi#en t"e cause 3or a product is stopped
8"en, t"e cause being stopped, t"e product $ould be produced as somet"ing deri#ed
3rom a non-cause a"etuka+.
.
N*.
>3 t"e product $ould become #isible concomitantly $it" t"e aggregate <o3 causes and
conditions@,
8"en it $ould logically 3ollo$ t"at t"e producer and t"at $"ic" is produced <e-ist@ in
t"e same moment.
.
N0.
>3 t"e product $ould become #isible be3ore t"e aggregate,
8"en t"e product, $it"out being related to causes and conditions, $ould be somet"ing
deri#ed 3rom a non-cause.
.
N(.
>3, $"en t"e cause o3 t"e product is stopped, t"ere $ould be a continuation o3 t"e
cause,
>t $ould logically 3ollo$ t"at t"ere $ould be anot"er production o3 t"e pre#ious
producing cause.
.
N'?.
Ao$ can t"at $"ic" is stopped, i.e., somet"ing $"ic" "as disappeared, produce t"e
arising o3 a productO
Ao$ could a cause $"ic" is enclosed by its product, e#en t"oug" it persists, originate
<t"at product@O
.
N''.
Or i3 t"at <cause@ $ere not enclosed by t"e product, $"ic" product $ould it produceO
For t"e cause does not produce t"e product, "a#ing seen or not "a#ing seen <t"e
product@.
.
N'2.
8"ere is no concomitance o3 a past product $it" a past cause, a 3uture <cause@ or
present <cause@.
.
N'1.
6ertainly t"ere is no concomitance o3 t"e present product $it" 3uture cause, past
<cause@ or present <cause@.
.
N'B.
6ertainly t"ere is no concomitance o3 a 3uture product $it" a present cause, 3uture
<cause@ or past <cause@.
.
N'E.
>3 t"ere is no concomitance $"ate#er, "o$ $ould t"e cause produce t"e productO
Or i3 a concomitance e-ists, "o$ $ould t"e cause produce t"e productO
.
N').
>3 t"e cause is empty o3 a product, "o$ $ould it produce t"e productO
>3 t"e cause is not empty o3 a product, "o$ $ould it produce t"e productO
.
N'*.
A non-empty product $ould not be originated, <and@ a non-empty <product@ $ould not
be destroyed.
8"en t"at is non-empty $"ic" $ill not originate or not disappear.
.
N'0.
Ao$ $ould t"at be produced $"ic" is emptyO
Ao$ $ould t"at be destroyed $"ic" is emptyO
>t logically 3ollo$s, t"en, t"at $"ic" is empty is not originated and not destroyed.
.
N'(.
6ertainly a oneness o3 cause and product is not possible at all.
!or is a di33erence o3 cause and product possible at all.
.
N2?.
>3 t"ere $ere a oneness o3 t"e cause and product, t"en t"ere $ould be an identity o3
t"e originator and $"at is originated.
>3 t"ere $ere a di33erence o3 product and cause, t"en a cause $ould be t"e same as
t"at $"ic" is not a cause.
.
N2'.
6an a cause produce a product $"ic" is essentially e-isting in itsel3 s#ab"#a+O
6an a cause produce a product $"ic" is not essentially e-isting in itsel3 s#ab"a#a+O
.
N22.
>t is not possible to "a#e C$"at is by its nature a causeC "etut#a+ o3 Ct"at $"ic" is not
producing.C
>3 C$"at is by its nature a causeC is not possible, $"ose product $ill e-istO
.
N21.
Ao$ $ill t"at <aggregate o3 causes and conditions@ produce a product $"en
8"at $"ic" is t"e aggregate o3 causes and conditions does not produce itsel3 by itsel3O
.
N2B.
8"e product is not produced by t"e aggregate,
nor is t"e product not produced by t"e aggregate.
Iit"out t"e product, "o$ is t"ere an aggregate o3 conditionsO
.
<6AA&8ER 2' - An Analysis o3 Origination samb"a#a+ and Hisappearance #ib"a#a+
coming to be and passing a$ay+ - 2' #erses
.
N'.
8"ere is no disappearance eit"er $it" origination or $it"out it.
8"ere is no origination eit"er $it" disappearance or $it"out it.
.
N2.
Ao$, indeed, $ill disappearance e-ist at all $it"out originationO
<Ao$ could t"ere be@ deat" $it"out birt"O
8"ere is no disappearance $it"out <prior@ origination.
.
N1.
Ao$ can disappearance e-ist concomitantly $it" originationO
Since, surely, deat" does not e-ist at t"e same moment as birt".
.
NB.
Ao$, indeed, $ill origination e-ist at all $it"out disappearanceO
For, impermanence does not 3ail to be 3ound in e-istent t"ings e#er.
.
NE.
Ao$ can origination e-ist concomitantly $it" disappearanceO
Since, surely, deat" does not e-ist at t"e same moment as birt".
.
N).
I"en t$o t"ings cannot be pro#ed eit"er separately or toget"er,
!o proo3 e-ists o3 t"ose t$o t"ings.
Ao$ can t"ese t$o t"ings be pro#edO
.
N*.
8"ere is no origination o3 t"at $"ic" is destructible, nor o3 t"at $"ic" is not-
destructible.
8"ere is no disappearance o3 t"at $"ic" is destructible nor o3 t"at $"ic" is non-
destructible.
.
N0.
Origination and disappearance cannot e-ist $it"out an e-istent t"ing.
Iit"out origination and disappearance an e-istent t"ing does not e-ist.
.
N(.
Origination and disappearance does not obtain 3or t"at $"ic" is empty.
Origination and disappearance does not obtain 3or t"at $"ic" is non-empty.
.
N'?.
>t does not obtain t"at origination and disappearance are t"e same t"ing.
>t does not obtain t"at origination and disappearance are di33erent.
.
N''.
<%ou argue:@ Origination, as $ell as disappearance, is seen.
<8"ere3ore@ it $ould e-ist 3or you.
</ut@ origination and disappearance are seen due to a delusion.
.
N'2.
An e-istent t"ing does not originate 3rom <anot"er@ t"ing,
and an e-istent t"ing does not originate 3rom a non-e-istent t"ing.
Also, a non-e-istent t"ing does not originate 3rom anot"er non-e-istent t"ing,
and a non-e-istent t"ing does not originate 3rom an e-istent t"ing.
.
N'1.
An e-istent t"ing does not originate eit"er by itsel3 or by somet"ing di33erent.
Or by itsel3 and somet"ing di33erent <at t"e same time@. Ao$, t"en, can it be producedO
.
N'B.
For someone assuming an e-istent t"ing, eit"er an eternalistic or ni"ilistic point o3 #ie$
$ould logically 3ollo$,
For t"at e-istent t"ing $ould be eit"er eternal or liable to cessation.
.
N'E.
<An opponent ob5ects:@
For someone assuming an e-istent t"ing, t"ere is not <only@ eternalism or ni"ilism,
Since t"is is e-istence: namely, t"e continuity o3 t"e originating and stopping o3 causes
and product.
.
N').
<!agar5una replies:@
>3 t"is is e-istence: namely, t"e continuity o3 originating and stopping o3 causes and
product,
>t $ould logically 3ollo$ t"at t"e cause is destroyed because t"e destroyed t"ing does
not originate again.
.
N'*.
>3 t"ere is sel3-e-istence o3 somet"ing $"ic" is intrinsically e-isting, t"en non-e-istence
does not obtain.
At t"e time o3 nir#ana t"ere is destruction o3 t"e cycle o3 e-istence b"a#asamtana+ as
a result o3 t"e cessation.
.
N'0.
>3 t"e last <part o3 e-istence@ is destroyed, t"e 3irst <part o3@ e-istence does not obtain.
>3 t"e last <part o3 e-istence@ is not destroyed, t"e 3irst <part o3@ e-istence does not
obtain.
.
N'(.
>3 t"e 3irst <part o3 e-istence@ $ere produced $"ile t"e 3inal part $ere being destroyed,
8"ere $ould be one t"ing being destroyed and being produced <bot" at t"e same
time@.
.
N2?.
>3 t"e one Cbeing destroyedC and t"e one Cbeing producedC cannot e-ist toget"er,
6an someone be produced in t"ose Cgroups o3 uni#ersal elementsC skand"as+ in $"ic"
"e is <also@ CdyingCO
.
N2'.
8"us, t"e c"ain o3 e-istences is not possible in any o3 t"e tree times <i.e. past, present,
and 3uture@,
And i3 it does not e-ist in t"e t"ree times, "o$ can t"e c"ain o3 e-istences e-istO
.
<6AA&8ER 22 - An Analysis o3 t"e CFully 6ompletedC 8at"agata+ t"e /udd"a+ - ') #erses
.
N'.
8"at one <$"o is C3ully-completedC@ is not t"e Cgroups o3 uni#ersal elementsC
skand"a+,
nor somet"ing ot"er t"an t"e CgroupsC,
t"e CgroupsC are not in "im, nor is "e in t"em,
8"e C3ully completedC does not possess t"e Cgroups.C
I"at, t"en, is t"e C3ully completedCO
.
N2.
>3 t"e /udd"a e-ists dependent on t"e Cgroups,C t"en "e is not Ct"at $"ic" e-ists by
itsel3C s#abba#a+
And "o$ can "e e-ist as somet"ing else parab"a#a+ Cot"er-e-istenceC+ i3 "e is not
Ct"at $"ic" e-ists by itsel3C s#abba#a+O
.
N1.
8"at $"ic" e-ists presupposing anot"er e-istent t"ing is properly called a Cnon-
indi#idual sel3C anatma+.
Ao$ $ill t"at $"ic" is a non-indi#idual sel3 become t"e C3ully completedCO
.
NB.
And i3 t"ere is no sel3-e-istence s#ab"a#a+, "o$ $ould it "a#e an Cot"er-e-istenceC
parab"a#a+O
I"at $ould t"at C3ully completedC <reality@ be $it"out eit"er a sel3-e-istence or ot"er-
e-istenceO
.
NE.
>3 some kind o3 C3ully completedC <t"ing@ $ould e-ist $it"out dependence on t"e
Cgroups,C
>t is dependent no$, t"ere3ore it e-ists dependent <on somet"ing@.
.
N).
8"ere is no kind o3 C3ully completedC <being@ $"ic" is not dependent on t"e Cgroups.C
And $"ate#er is not non-dependentQ"o$ $ill it become dependentO
.
N*.
8"ere is not"ing $"ate#er t"at is dependent on <t"e CgroupsC@ and t"ere is no t"ing
$"ate#er on $"ic" somet"ing does not depend.
8"ere $ould not e-ist in any $ay a C3ully completedC <being@ $it"out being dependent
on <t"e CgroupsC@.
.
N0.
8"at <3ully completed being@ $"ic" does not e-ist by its actual reality tatt#a+ or by
some ot"er reality anyat#a+ according to t"e 3i#e-3old e-aminationQ
Ao$ is t"e C3ully completedC <being@ percei#ed by being dependentO
.
N(.
So $"en t"ere is dependence, sel3-e-istence does not e-ist,
And i3 t"ere is no sel3-e-istence $"ate#er, "o$ is an ot"er-e-istence possibleO
.
N'?.
8"us CdependenceC and Ct"at $"ic" is dependentC are completely empty sunya+.
Ao$ is t"at empty C3ully completed oneC kno$n t"roug" t"at $"ic" is emptyO
.
N''.
One may not say t"at t"ere is CemptinessC sunya+ '+
nor t"at t"ere is non-emptiness. 2+C
!or t"at bot" <e-ist simultaneously@ 1+,
nor t"at neit"er e-ists B+,
t"e purpose 3or saying <CemptinessC@ is 3or t"e purpose o3 con#eying kno$ledge.
.
N'2.
Ao$, t"en, $ill Ceternity,C Cnon-eternity,C and <t"e rest o3@ t"e 8etralemma apply to
bliss santa+O
Ao$, t"en, $ill Ct"e end,C C$it"out end,C and <t"e rest o3@ t"e 8etralemma apply to
blissO
.
N'1.
8"at image o3 nir#ana <in $"ic"@ t"e /udd"a 8at"agata+ eit"er CisC or Cis notCQ
/y "im $"o <so imagines nir#ana@ t"e notion is crudely grasped.
.
N'B.
6oncerning t"at $"ic" is empty by its o$n nature s#ab"a#a+, t"e t"oug"ts do not
arise t"at:
8"e /udd"a Ce-istsC or Cdoes not e-istC a3ter deat".
.
N'E.
8"ose $"o describe in detail t"e /udd"a, $"o is unc"anging and beyond all detailed
descriptionQ
8"ose, completely de3eated by description, do not percei#e t"e C3ully completedC
<being@.
.
N').
8"e sel3-e-istence o3 t"e C3ully completedC <being@ is t"e sel3-e-istence o3 t"e $orld.
8"e C3ully completedC <being@ is $it"out sel3-e-istence <and@ t"e $orld is $it"out sel3-
e-istence.
.
<6AA&8ER 21 - An Analysis o3 Errors #iparyasa+ t"e per#erted #ie$s+ - 2E #erses
.
N'.
>t is said t"at desire raga+, "ate, and delusion are deri#ed 3rom mental 3abrication
samkalpa+,
/ecause t"ey come into e-istence presupposing errors as to $"at is salutary and
unsalutary.
.
N2.
8"ose t"ings $"ic" come into e-istence presupposing errors as to $"at is salutary and
unsalutary
Ho not e-ist by t"eir o$n nature s#ab"a#a+, t"ere3ore t"e impurities klesa+ do not
e-ist in reality.
.
N1.
8"e e-istence or non-e-istence o3 t"e indi#idual sel3 atma+ is not pro#ed at all.
Iit"out t"at <indi#idual sel3@, "o$ can t"e e-istence or non-e-istence o3 t"e impurities
be pro#edO
.
NB.
For impurities e-ist o3 somebody, and t"at person is not pro#ed at all.
>s it not so t"at $it"out someone t"e impurities do not e-ist o3 anybodyO
.
NE.
>n re3erence to t"e #ie$ o3 "a#ing a body o3 one7s o$n, t"e impurities do not e-ist in
$"at is made impure according to t"e 3i#e-3old manner.
>n re3erence to t"e #ie$ o3 "a#ing a body o3 one7s o$n, t"at $"ic" is made impure
does not e-ist in t"e impurities according to t"e 3i#e-3old manner.
.
N).
8"e errors as to $"at is salutary and non-salutary do not e-ist as sel3-e-istent entities
s#ab"a#atas+
Hepending on $"ic" errors as to $"at is salutary and non-salutary are t"en impuritiesO
.
N*.
Form, sound, taste, touc", smell, and t"e d"armas: t"is si--3old
Substance #astu+ o3 desire, "ate, and delusion is imagined.
.
N0.
Form, sound, taste, touc", smell, and t"e d"armas are
Merely t"e 3orm o3 a 3airy castle, like a mirage, a dream.
.
N(.
Ao$ $ill Ct"at $"ic" is salutaryC or Ct"at $"ic" is non-salutaryC come into e-istence
>n a 3ormation o3 a magical man, or in t"ings like a re3lectionO
.
N'?.
Ie submit t"at t"ere is no non-salutary t"ing unrelated to a salutary t"ing.
<And in turn@ depending on $"ic", t"ere is a salutary t"ing, t"ere3ore, a salutary t"ing
does not obtain.
.
N''.
Ie submit t"at t"ere is no salutary t"ing unrelated to a non-salutary t"ing,
<And in turn@ depending on $"ic", t"ere is a non-salutary t"ing, t"ere3ore a non-
salutary t"ing does not obtain.
.
N'2.
>3 C$"at is salutaryC does not e-ist, "o$ $ill t"ere be desire <3or it@O
And i3 C$"at is non-salutaryC does not e-ist, "o$ $ill t"ere be "atred <3or it@O
.
N'1.
E#en i3 t"e notion CI"at is permanent is in somet"ing impermanentC is in error,
Ao$ can t"is notion be in error since C$"at is impermanentC does not e-ist in
emptinessO
.
N'B.
E#en i3 t"e notion C$"at is permanent is in somet"ing impermanentC is in error,
>s not t"en t"e notion concerning emptiness, i.e., t"at it is impermanent, in errorO
.
N'E.
8"at by $"ic" a notion is 3ormed, t"e notion, t"ose $"o "a#e notions, and t"at $"ic"
is grasped <in t"e notion@:
All "a#e ceased, t"ere3ore, t"e notion does not e-ist.
.
N').
>3 a notion is not e-isting eit"er as 3alse or true,
I"ose is t"e errorO I"ose is t"e non-errorO
.
N'*.
!or do errors o3 someone $"o "as erred come into e-istence.
!or do errors o3 someone $"o "as not erred come into e-istence.
.
N'0.
And errors o3 someone $"o is at present in error do not come into e-istence.
!o$ you e-amine o3 $"om do errors really come into e-istenceR
.
N'(.
Ao$ in all t"e $orld $ill errors $"ic" "a#e not originated come into e-istenceO
And i3 errors are not originated, "o$ can t"ere be someone in#ol#ed in errorO
.
N2?.
Since no being is produced by itsel3, nor by somet"ing di33erent,
!or by itsel3 and somet"ing di33erent at t"e same time, "o$ can t"ere be someone
in#ol#ed in errorO
.
N2'.
>3 t"e indi#idual sel3, C$"at is pure,C C$"at is eternal,C and "appiness really e-ist,
8"en t"e indi#idual sel3, C$"at is pure,C C$"at is eternal,C and "appiness are not errors.
.
N22.
/ut i3 indi#idual sel3, C$"at is pure,C C$"at is eternal,C and "appiness do not e-ist,
8"en non-indi#idual sel3, C$"at is impure,C C$"at is impermanentC and sorro$ dukk"a+
do not e-ist.
.
N21.
From t"e cessation o3 error ignorance ceases,
I"en ignorance "as ceased, conditioning 3orces samskara+ and e#eryt"ing else cease.
.
N2B.
>3 any kind o3 sel3-e-istent impurities belong to somebody,
Ao$ in all t"e $orld $ould t"ey be eliminatedO I"o can eliminate t"at $"ic" is sel3-
e-istentO
.
N2E.
>3 any kind o3 sel3-e-istent impurities do not belong to somebody,
Ao$ in all t"e $orld $ould t"ey be eliminatedO I"o can eliminate t"at $"ic" is non-
sel3-e-istentO
.
<6AA&8ER 2B - An Analysis o3 t"e Aoly 8rut"s aryasatya+ t"e noble trut"s+ - B? #erses
.
N'.
>3 e#eryt"ing is empty, t"ere is no origination nor destruction.
8"en you must incorrectly conclude t"at t"ere is non-e-istence o3 t"e 3our "oly trut"s.
.
N2.
>3 t"ere is non-e-istence o3 t"e 3our "oly trut"s, t"e sa#ing kno$ledge, t"e elimination
<o3 illusion@,
8"e CbecomingC <enlig"tened@ b"a#ana+, and t"e CrealiMationC <o3 t"e goal@ are
impossible.
.
N1.
>3 t"ere is non-e-istence, t"en also t"e 3our "oly C3ruitsC do not e-ist.
>n t"e non-e-istence o3 3ruit t"ere is no Cresiding in 3ruitC nor obtaining.
.
NB.
I"en t"e community <o3 /udd"ists@ does not e-ist, t"en t"ose eig"t Ckinds o3 personsC
<i.e., 3our abiding in t"e 3ruit and 3our $"o are obtaining@ do not e-ist.
/ecause t"ere is non-e-istence o3 t"e 3our "oly trut"s, t"e real d"arma does not e-ist.
.
NE.
And i3 t"ere are no d"arma and community, "o$ $ill t"e /udd"a e-istO
/y speaking t"us, <t"at e#eryt"ing is empty@ certainly you deny t"e t"ree 5e$els <i.e.,
t"e /udd"a, t"e d"arma, and t"e community@.
.
N).
%ou deny t"e real e-istence o3 a product, o3 rig"t and $rong,
And all t"e practical be"a#ior o3 t"e $orld as being empty.
.
N*.
Ie reply t"at you do not compre"end t"e point o3 emptiness,
%ou eliminate bot" CemptinessC itsel3 and its purpose 3rom it.
.
N0.
8"e teac"ing by t"e /udd"as o3 t"e d"arma "as recourse to t$o trut"s:
8"e $orld-ensconced trut" 8'+ and t"e trut" $"ic" is t"e "ig"est sense 82+.
.
N(.
8"ose $"o do not kno$ t"e distribution #ib"agam+ o3 t"e t$o kinds o3 trut"
Ho not kno$ t"e pro3ound CpointC tatt#a+ 81+ in t"e teac"ing o3 t"e /udd"a.
.
N'?.
8"e "ig"est sense <o3 t"e trut"@ 82+ is not taug"t apart 3rom practical be"a#ior 8'+,
And $it"out "a#ing understood t"e "ig"est sense 82+ one cannot understand nir#ana
81+.
.
N''.
Emptiness, "a#ing been dimly percei#ed, utterly destroys t"e slo$-$itted.
>t is like a snake $rongly grasped or <magical@ kno$ledge incorrectly applied.
.
N'2.
8"ere3ore t"e mind o3 t"e ascetic <Duatama@ $as di#erted 3rom teac"ing t"e d"arma,
Aa#ing t"oug"t about t"e incompre"ensibility o3 t"e d"arma by t"e stupid.
.
N'1.
8ime and again you "a#e made a condemnation o3 emptiness,
/ut t"at re3utation does not apply to our emptiness.
.
N'B.
I"en emptiness C$orksC, t"en e#eryt"ing in e-istence C$orksC. A+
>3 emptiness Cdoes not $orkC, t"en all e-istence Cdoes not $orkC. /+
.
N'E.
%ou, $"ile pro5ecting your o$n 3aults on us, i.e. ob5ecti3ying emptiness+
Are like a person $"o, "a#ing mounted "is "orse, 3orgot t"e "orseRi.e. a tool+
.
N').
>3 you recogniMe real e-istence on account o3 t"e sel3-e-istence o3 t"ings,
%ou percei#e t"at t"ere are uncaused and unconditioned t"ings.
.
N'*.
%ou deny C$"at is to be produced,C cause, t"e producer, t"e instrument o3 production,
and t"e producing action,
And t"e origination, destruction, and C3ruit.C
.
N'0.
8"e Coriginating dependentlyC $e call CemptinessC,
8"is appre"ension, i.e., taking into account <all ot"er t"ings@, is t"e understanding o3
t"e middle $ay.
.
N'(.
Since t"ere is no d"arma $"ate#er originating independently,
!o d"arma $"ate#er e-ists $"ic" is not empty.
.
N2?.
>3 all e-istence is not empty, t"ere is neit"er origination nor destruction.
%ou must $rongly conclude t"en t"at t"e 3our "oly trut"s do not e-ist.
.
N2'.
Aa#ing originated $it"out being conditioned, "o$ $ill sorro$ dukk"a+ come into
e-istenceO
>t is said t"at sorro$ dukk"a+ is not eternal, t"ere3ore, certainly it does not e-ist by its
o$n nature s#abba#a+.
.
N22.
Ao$ can t"at $"ic" is e-isting by its o$n nature originate againO
For "im $"o denies emptiness t"ere is no production.
.
N21.
8"ere is no destruction o3 sorro$ dukk"a+ i3 it e-ists by its o$n nature.
/y trying to establis" Csel3-e-istenceC you deny destruction.
.
N2B.
>3 t"e pat" <o3 release@ is sel3-e-istent, t"en t"ere is no $ay o3 bringing it into e-istence
b"a#ana+,
>3 t"at pat" is broug"t into e-istence, t"en Csel3-e-istence,C $"ic" you claim does not
e-ist.
.
N2E.
I"en sorro$ dukk"a+, origination, and destruction do not e-ist,
I"at kind o3 pat" $ill obtain t"e destruction o3 sorro$ dukk"a+O
.
N2).
>3 t"ere is no complete kno$ledge as to sel3-e-istence, "o$ <can t"ere be@ any
kno$ledge o3 itO
>ndeed, is it not true t"at sel3-e-istence is t"at $"ic" enduresO
.
N2*.
As in t"e case o3 complete kno$ledge, neit"er destruction, realiMation, Cbringing into
e-istence,C
!or are t"e 3our "oly 3ruits possible 3or you.
.
N20.
>3 you accept Csel3-e-istence,C and a C3ruitC is not kno$n by its sel3-e-istence,
Ao$ can it be kno$n at allO
.
N2(.
>n t"e non-e-istence o3 C3ruit,C t"ere is no Cresiding in 3ruitC nor obtaining <t"e C3ruitC@,
I"en t"e community <o3 /udd"ists@ does not e-ist, t"en t"ose eig"t Ckinds o3 personsC
do not e-ist.
.
N1?.
/ecause t"ere is non-e-istence o3 t"e 3our "oly trut"s, t"e real d"arma does not e-ist.
And i3 t"ere is no d"arma and community, "o$ $ill t"e /udd"a e-istO
.
N1'.
For you, eit"er t"e one $"o is enlig"tened budd"a+ comes into being independent o3
enlig"tenment,
Or enlig"tenment comes into being independent o3 t"e one $"o is enlig"tened.
.
N12.
For you, some one $"o is a non-budd"a by "is o$n nature s#ab"a#a+ but stri#es 3or
enlig"tenment i.e. a /od"isatt#a+
Iill not attain t"e enlig"tenment t"oug" t"e C$ay o3 li3e o3 becoming 3ully
enlig"tened.C
.
N11.
!eit"er t"e d"arma nor non-d"arma $ill be done any$"ere.
I"at is produced $"ic" is non-emptyO 6ertainly sel3-e-istence is not produced.
.
N1B.
6ertainly, 3or you, t"ere is a product $it"out <t"e distinction@ o3 d"arma or non-
d"arma.
Since, 3or you, t"e product caused by d"arma or non-d"arma does not e-ist.
.
N1E.
>3, 3or you, t"e product is caused by d"arma or non-d"arma, be non-emptyO
Ao$ can t"at product, being originated by d"arma or non-d"arma emptyO
.
N1).
%ou deny all mundane and customary acti#ities
I"en you deny emptiness <in t"e sense o3@ dependent co-origination patytya-
samutpada+.
.
N1*.
>3 you deny emptiness, t"ere $ould be action $"ic" is unacti#ated.
8"ere $ould be not"ing $"ate#er acted upon, and a producing action $ould be
somet"ing not begun.
.
N10.
According to <t"e doctrine o3@ Csel3-e-istenceC t"e $orld is 3ree 3rom di33erent
conditions,
8"en it $ill e-ist as unproduced, undestroyed and immutable.
.
N1(.
>3 non-emptiness does not e-ist, t"en somet"ing is attained $"ic" is not attained,
8"ere is cessation o3 sorro$ dukk"a+ and actions, and all e#il is destroyed.
.
NB?.
Ae $"o percei#es dependent co-origination patytya-samutpada+
Also understands sorro$ dukk"a+, origination, and destruction as $ell as t"e pat" <o3
release@.
.
<6AA&8ER 2E - An Analysis o3 !ir#ana nir#ana+ - 2B #erses
.
N'.
>3 all e-istence is empty, t"ere is no origination nor destruction.
8"en $"ose nir#ana t"roug" elimination <o3 su33ering@ and destruction <o3 illusion@
$ould be postulatedO
.
N2.
>3 all e-istence is non-empty, t"ere is no origination nor destruction.
8"en $"ose nir#ana t"roug" elimination <o3 su33ering@ and destruction <o3 illusion@
.
N1.
!ir#ana "as been said to be neit"er eliminated nor attained, neit"er anni"ilated nor
eternal,
!eit"er disappeared nor originated.
.
NB.
!ir#ana is certainly not an e-isting t"ing, 3or t"en it $ould be c"aracteriMed by old age
and deat".
>n conseJuence it $ould in#ol#e t"e error t"at an e-isting t"ing $ould not become old
and be $it"out deat".
.
NE.
And i3 nir#ana is an e-isting t"ing, nir#ana $ould be a constructed product samskrta+,
Since ne#er e#er "as an e-isting t"ing been 3ound to be a non-constructed-product
asamskrta+.
.
N).
/ut i3 nir#ana is an e-isting t"ing, "o$ could <nir#ana@ e-ist $it"out dependence <on
somet"ing else@O
6ertainly nir#ana does not e-ist as somet"ing $it"out dependence.
.
N*.
>3 nir#ana is not an e-isting t"ing, $ill nir#ana become a non-e-isting t"ingO
I"ere#er t"ere is no e-isting t"ing, neit"er is t"ere a non-e-isting t"ing.
.
N0.
/ut i3 nir#ana is a non-e-isting t"ing, "o$ could <nir#ana@ e-ist $it"out dependence <on
somet"ing else@O
6ertainly nir#ana is not a non-e-isting t"ing $"ic" e-ists $it"out dependence.
.
N(.
8"at state $"ic" is t"e rus"ing in and out <o3 e-istence@ $"en dependent or
conditionedQ
8"is <state@, $"en not dependent or not conditioned, is seen to be nir#ana.
.
N'?.
8"e teac"er <Dautama@ "as taug"t t"at a CbecomingC and a Cnon-becomingC #ib"a#a+
are destroyed,
8"ere3ore it obtains t"at: !ir#ana is neit"er an e-istent t"ing nor a non-e-istent t"ing.
.
N''.
>3 nir#ana $ere bot" an e-istent and a non-e-istent t"ing,
Final release moksa+ $ould be <bot"@ an e-istent and a non-e-istent t"ing, but t"at is
not possible.
.
N'2.
>3 nir#ana $ere bot" an e-istent and a non-e-istent t"ing,
8"ere $ould be no nir#ana $it"out conditions, 3or t"ese bot" <operate $it"@ conditions.
.
N'1.
Ao$ can nir#ana e-ist as bot" an e-istent t"ing and a non-e-istent t"ing,
For nir#ana is a non-composite-product asamskrta+, $"ile bot" an e-istent t"ing and a
non-e-istent t"ing are composite products samskrta+.
.
N'B.
Ao$ can nir#ana e-ist as bot" an e-istent and a non-e-istent t"ingO
8"ere is no e-istence o3 bot" at one and t"e same place, as in t"e case o3 bot"
darkness and lig"t.
.
N'E.
8"e assertion: C!ir#ana is neit"er an e-istent t"ing nor a non-e-istent t"ingC
>s pro#ed i3 <t"e assertion@: C>t is an e-istent t"ing and a non-e-istent t"ingC $ere
pro#ed.
.
N').
>3 nir#ana is neit"er an e-istent t"ing nor a non-e-istent t"ing,
I"o can really arri#e at <t"e assertion@: Cneit"er an e-istent t"ing nor a non-e-istent
t"ingCO
.
N'*.
>t is not e-pressed i3 t"e Dlorious One <t"e /udd"a@ e-ists '+ a3ter "is deat",
Or does not e-ist 2+, or bot" 1+ or neit"er B+.
.
N'0.
Also, it is not e-pressed i3 t"e Dlorious One e-ists '+ $"ile remaining <in t"e $orld@,
Or does not e-ist 2+, or bot" 1+ or neit"er B+.
.
N'(.
8"ere is not"ing $"ate#er $"ic" di33erentiates t"e e-istence-in-3lu- samsara+ 3rom
nir#ana,
And t"ere is not"ing $"ate#er $"ic" di33erentiates nir#ana 3rom e-istence-in-3lu-.
.
N2?.
8"e e-treme limit koti+ o3 nir#ana is also t"e e-treme limit o3 e-istence-in-3lu-,
8"ere is not t"e slig"test bit o3 di33erence bet$een t"ese t$o.
.
N2'.
8"e #ie$s <regarding@ $"et"er t"at $"ic" is beyond deat" is limited by a beginning or
an end or some ot"er alternati#e
Hepend on a nir#ana limited by a beginning pur#anta+ and an end aparanta+,
.
N22.
Since all d"armas are empty, $"at is 3initeO I"at is in3initeO
I"at is bot" 3inite and in3initeO I"at is neit"er 3inite nor in3initeO
.
N21.
>s t"ere anyt"ing $"ic" is t"is or somet"ing else, $"ic" is permanent or impermanent,
I"ic" is bot" permanent and impermanent, or $"ic" is neit"erO
.
N2B.
8"e cessation o3 accepting e#eryt"ing <as real@ is a salutary si#a+ cessation o3
p"enomenal de#elopment prapanca+,
!o d"arma any$"ere "as been taug"t by t"e /udd"a o3 anyt"ing.
.
<6AA&8ER 2) - An Analysis o3 t"e 8$el#e 6omponents d#adasanga+ t"e t$el#e spokes+ -
'2 #erses
.
N'.
CI"at is "idden by ignorance '+C a#idyani#rta+ "as caused t"e t"ree kinds o3
conditioned t"ings 2+ samskara+ to be made 3or rebirt" Q
/y t"ose actions it <i.e., C $"at is "idden by ignoranceC@ goes 3or$ard.
.
N2.
6onsciousness 1+, presupposing t"at $"ic" is conditioned samskara+, enters on its
course.
I"en consciousness is begun, t"e Cname-and-3orm7- namarupa+ B+ is instilled.
.
N1.
I"en t"e Cname-and-3ormC is instilled, t"e si- domains o3 sense perceptions E+
ayatana+ are produced.
Aa#ing arri#ed at t"e si- domains o3 sense perceptions, t"e process o3 perception
begins to 3unction.
.
NB.
6onsciousness begins to 3unction presupposing t"e eye, t"e #isual 3orms, and ability o3
mental associationQ
&resupposing Cname-and-3orm.C
.
NE.
8"at $"ic" is t"e coincidence )+ samnipata+ o3 #isual 3orm, consciousness, and t"e
eye:
8"at is sensual perception, and 3rom perception, sensation *+ begins to 3unction.
.
N).
C6ra#ing 0+C trsna+ <3or e-isting t"ings@ is conditioned by sensation.
6ertainly <a person@ cra#es 3or t"e sake o3 sensation.
8"e one $"o cra#es acJuires t"e 3our-3old acJuisition (+ upadana+
<namely se-ual pleasure, 3alse #ie$s, ascetic morality and #o$s, and t"e doctrine o3
sel3-e-istence@.
.
N*.
I"en t"e acJuisition e-ists, t"e acJuirer begins to 3unction '?+ i.e. e-istence,
becoming+.
>3 "e $ere someone $it"out acJuisition, t"at being $ould be released, and $ould not
e-ist.
.
N0.
8"at being is t"e 3i#e Cgroups o3 uni#ersal elementsC skand"a+. /ecause o3 a being,
birt" ''+ begins to 3unction.
Dro$ing old, dying, sorro$ dukk"a+ '2+, etc., grie3 and regrets,
.
N(.
Hespair and agitation: all t"is results 3rom birt",
8"at Cproduced beingC is a single mass o3 sorro$s dukk"a+.
.
N'?.
8"us t"e ignorant people construct t"e conditioned t"ings samskara+, <t"at is@ t"e
source 3or e-istence-in-3lu-.
8"e one $"o constructs is ignorant, t"e $ise person is not <one $"o constructs@
because "e percei#es true reality.
.
N''.
I"en ignorance ceases, t"e constructed p"enomena do not come into e-istence.
A person7s cessation o3 ignorance proceeds on t"e basis o3 CbecomingC <enlig"tened@
t"roug" kno$ledge.
.
N'2.
8"roug" cessation o3 e#ery <component@ none 3unctions,
8"at single mass o3 sorro$ dukk"a+ is t"us completely destroyed.
.
<6AA&8ER 2* - An Analysis o3 t"e :ie$s drsti+ About Reality dogmas+ - 1? #erses
.
N'.
8"ose <#ie$s@ relating to t"e limits o3 t"e past reality are: C8"e $orld is eternal,C etc.,
<And C> "a#e e-isted in t"e past,C C> "a#e not e-isted in t"e past,C etc.@
.
N2.
8"e assertion: C> $ill not become somet"ing di33erent in a 3uture time,C
C> $ill become <somet"ing di33erent@,C and t"e alternati#e, etc., are relating to an end
<in t"e 3uture@.
.
N1.
<8"e assertion:@ C> e-isted in a past time '+C does not obtain,
Since t"is <present being@ is not i.e. CiiC is not t"e same as CiC+ t"at one $"o <$as@ in a
3ormer birt".
.
NB.
Iere "e <in a pre#ious birt"@, t"at indi#idual sel3 atma+ $"ic" "e acJuires <in coming
into e-istence@ $ould be di33erent.
Moreo#er, $"at kind o3 indi#idual sel3 is t"ere $it"out acJuisition upadana+O
.
NE.
>3 it $ere "eld t"at: C8"ere is no indi#idual sel3 $it"out t"e acJuisition,C
8"en t"e indi#idual sel3 $ould be <only@ t"e acJuisition or it is not an indi#idual sel3 <at
all@.
.
N).
8"e indi#idual sel3 is not t"e acJuisition, since t"at <acJuisition@ appears and
disappears.
!o$ really, "o$ $ill C"e $"o acJuiresC become Ct"at $"ic" is acJuiredO
.
N*.
Moreo#er, it does not obtain t"at t"e indi#idual sel3 is di33erent 3rom t"e acJuisition.
>3 t"e indi#idual sel3 $ere di33erent, it $ould be percei#ed $it"out t"e acJuisition, but
<in 3act@ it is not so percei#ed.
.
N0.
8"us t"at <indi#idual sel3@ is not di33erent 3rom nor identical to t"e acJuisition.
8"e indi#idual sel3 is not $it"out acJuisition, but t"ere is no certainty t"at C>t does not
e-ist.C
.
N(.
<8"e assertion:@ C> "a#e not e-isted in a past time 2+C does not obtain,
For t"at one <no$ li#ing@ is not di33erent i.e. CiiC is not di33erent t"an CiC+ 3rom t"at one
$"o $as in a 3ormer birt".
.
N'?.
>3 t"at <present person@ $ere di33erent, "e $ould e-ist in e-clusion o3 t"at <3ormer@ one.
8"ere3ore eit"er t"at <3ormer person@ persists, or "e $ould be born eternalR
.
N''.
-- note B : :erse '' is not a#ailable in t"e Sanskrit test, but it is kno$n 3rom t"e
8ibetan translation
.
N'2.
8"ere is no e-isting t"ing $"ic" is Ct"at $"ic" "as not e-isted prior.C 8"ere3ore, t"e
error logically 3ollo$s t"at
Eit"er t"e indi#idual sel3 is C$"at is producedC or it originates $it"out a cause.
.
N'1.
8"us t"e #ie$ concerning t"e past $"ic" <asserts@ C> "a#e e-isted '+,C or C> "a#e not
e-isted 2+,C
/ot" <Ce-isted and not e-istedC@ 1+ or neit"er B+: t"is does not obtain at all.
.
N'B.
<8"e #ie$s:@ C> $ill become somet"ing in a 3uture time '7+,C
Or C> $ill not become 27+ <somet"ing@,C etc. 17+ B7+, <s"ould be considered@ like t"ose
<#ie$s@ o3 t"e past.
.
N'E.
>3 C8"is is a man, t"is is a godC <obtains@, t"en eternity i+ e-ists,
For god is unproduced, and certainly somet"ing eternal $ould not be born.
.
N').
>3 man is di33erent 3rom god, t"ere $ould e-ist somet"ing non-eternal ii+.
>3 man is di33erent 3rom god, t"en a continuity does not obtain.i.e. t"ey cannot be
di33erent+
.
N'*.
>3 one part $ere di#ine and anot"er part "uman, i.e. a man $it" an eternal soul+
8"en t"ere $ould be somet"ing non-eternal <toget"er $it"@ t"at $"ic" is eternal iii+,
but t"at is not possible.
.
N'0.
>3 somet"ing bot" non-eternal and eternal $ere pro#ed,
8"en, no doubt, somet"ing Cneit"er eternal nor non-eternal i#+C is pro#ed.
.
N'(.
>3 someone, "a#ing come 3rom some$"ere, in some $ay goes some$"ere again,
8"en t"ere $ould be e-istence-in-3lu- $it" no beginning, but t"is is not t"e case.
.
N2?.
>3 someone $"o is eternal does not e-ist, $"o $ill e-ist being non-eternal,
Or $"o being bot" eternal and non-eternal, or de#oid o3 t"ese t$o <c"aracteristics@O
.
N2'.
>3 t"e $orld $ould come to an end, "o$ $ould an ot"er-$orld come into e-istenceO
>3 t"e $orld $ould not come to an end, "o$ $ould an ot"er-$orld come into beingO
.
N22.
Since t"e continuity o3 t"e Cgroups o3 uni#ersal elementsC skand"as+ <3rom one
moment to t"e ne-t@ 3unctions like 3lames o3 lamps,
<8"e #ie$:@ Cbot" "a#ing an end and not "a#ing an endC is not possible.
.
N21.
>3 t"e 3ormer <CgroupsC@ $ould disappear, t"ose <ne$@ CgroupsC $"ic" are dependent
on t"ose <3ormer@ CgroupsC $ould not arise,
8"ere3ore, t"e $orld $ould come to an end ii+.
.
N2B.
>3 t"e 3ormer <CgroupsC@ $ould not disappear, t"ese <ne$@ CgroupsC $"ic" are
dependent on t"ose <3ormer@ CgroupsC $ould not arise,
8"ere3ore, t"e $orld $ould be eternal i+.
.
N2E.
>3 one part $ere 3inite and t"e ot"er $ere in3inite,
8"e $orld $ould be bot" 3inite and in3inite iii+, but t"is is not possible.
.
N2).
8"ere3ore, "o$ can it be t"at one part o3 Cone $"o acJuiresC <karma@ $ill be
destroyed, i.e. t"e body = manO+
And one part not destroyedO i.e. t"e #ery subtle mind -- t"e di#ine partO+ 8"is is not
possible.
.
N2*.
Ao$, indeed, can it be t"at one part o3 t"e acJuisition <o3 karma@ i.e. t"e learning
stored in t"e body+ $ill be destroyed,
And one part not destroyedO i.e. t"e learning stored in t"e mind+ 8"at, certainly does
not obtain.
.
N20.
>3 t"e <#ie$@ Cbot" 3inite and in3initeC $ere pro#ed,
8"en no doubt, Cneit"er 3inite nor in3initeC i.e. not"ing at all+ could be pro#ed.
.
N2(.
/ecause o3 t"e emptiness o3 all e-isting t"ings,
Ao$ $ill t"e #ie$s about Ceternity,C etc., come into e-istence, about $"at, o3 $"om,
and o3 $"at kindO
.
N1?.
8o "im, possessing compassion, $"o taug"t t"e real d"arma
For t"e destruction o3 all #ie$sQto "im, Dautama, > "umbly o33er re#erence.
.
<6AA&8ER :>DRAAA:%A:AR8A!> : A:ER8>!D 8AE ARDGME!8S
A traduction o3 :igra"a#ya#artani by !agar5una.
8"e Sanskrit te-t used 3or t"is translation is 3ound in C8"e :igra"a#ya#artani o3
!agar5una,C E. A. Jo"nston and Arnold 4unst, eds., M6/, >U July, '(E'+, '?0-E'.
.
<&AR8 ' - 8"e Arguments o3 t"e Opponents@
.
N'.
>3 sel3-e-istence s#ab"a#a+ does not e-ist any$"ere in any e-isting t"ing,
%our statement, <itsel3@ being $it"out sel3-e-istence, is not able to discard sel3-
e-istence.
.
N2.
/ut i3 t"at statement "as <its o$n@ sel3-e-istence, t"en your initial proposition is
re3uted,
8"ere is a <logical@ inconsistency in t"is, and you oug"t to e-plain t"e grounds o3 t"e
di33erence <bet$een t"e principle o3 #alidity in your statement and ot"ers@.
.
N1.
S"ould your opinion be t"at <your statement@ is like CHo not make a sound,C t"is is not
possible,
For in t"is case by a <present@ sound t"ere $ill be a <3uture@ pre#ention o3 t"at <sound@.
.
NB.
>3 <your statement@ $ere t"at: C8"is is a denial o3 a denial,C t"at is not true,
8"us your t"esis, as to a de3ining mark laksanata+ - not mine - is in error.
.
NE.
>3 you deny e-isting t"ings $"ile being seen by direct perception,
8"en t"at direct perception, by $"ic" t"ings are seen, also does not e-ist.
.
N).
/y <denying@ direct perception in3erence is denied, as also Scripture and analogy.
<As $ell as@ t"e points to be pro#ed by in3erence and Scripture and t"ose points to be
pro#ed by a similar instance drstanta+.
.
N*.
8"e people $"o kno$ t"e modes o3 t"e d"armas kno$ <t"ere is@ a good sel3-e-istence
o3 good d"armas.
As to t"e ot"ers, t"e application is t"e same.
.
N0.
8"ere is a sel3-e-istence o3 liberation in t"ose <d"armas@ mentioned as liberati#e modes
o3 d"armas.
9ike$ise, t"ere is t"at $"ic" is non-liberati#e, etc.
.
N(.
And, i3 t"ere $ould be no sel3-e-istence o3 d"armas, t"en t"at $ould be Cnon-sel3
e-istenceC,
>n t"at case t"e name nama+ $ould not e-ist, 3or certainly t"ere is not"ing $it"out
substance <to $"ic" it re3ers@.
.
N'?.
>3 <one asserts:@ 8"at $"ic" is sel3-e-istent e-ists, but t"e sel3-e-istence o3 t"e d"armas
does not e-ist,
One s"ould gi#e t"e e-planation concerning t"at o3 $"ic" t"ere is sel3-e-istence
$it"out d"armas.
.
N''.
As t"ere must be a denial o3 somet"ing t"at e-ists, as <in in t"e statement:@ C8"ere is
not a pot in t"e "ouse,C
8"at denial o3 yours $"ic" is seen must be a denial o3 sel3-e-istence t"at e-ists.
.
N'2.
Or i3 t"at sel3-e-istence does not e-ist, $"at do you deny by t"at statementO
6ertainly, t"e denial o3 $"at does not e-ist is pro#ed $it"out a $ordR
.
N'1.
Just as c"ildren erroneously appre"end t"at t"ere is Cnon-$aterC in a mirage,
So you $ould erroneously appre"end a non-e-isting t"ing as deniable.
.
N'B.
>3 t"is is so, t"en t"ere is t"e appre"ensions C$"at is appre"endedC and t"e one $"o
appre"ends,
Also t"e denial, C$"at is deniedC and t"e one $"o denies-- si--all toget"er.
.
N'E.
Ao$e#er, i3 t"e appre"ension, C$"at is appre"endedC and t"e one $"o appre"ends do
not e-ist.
8"en is it not true t"at denial, C$"at is denied,C and t"e one $"o denies do not e-istO
.
N').
>3 denial, C$"at is denied,C ant t"e one $"o denies do not e-ist,
8"en all e-isting t"ings as $ell as t"e sel3-e-istence o3 t"em are pro#ed <since you "a#e
eliminated t"eir denial@.
.
N'*.
/ecause o3 non-sel3-e-istence t"ere is no proo3 o3 any grounds <o3 kno$ledge@, $"ence
are your groundsO
8"ere is no proo3 o3 a CpointC possible 3or you i3 it "as no grounds.
.
N'0.
>3 t"e proo3 o3 your denial o3 a sel3-e-istent t"ing is not a result o3 grounds o3
kno$ledge,
8"en my a33irmation o3 t"e e-istence o3 a sel3-e-istent t"ing is pro#ed $it"out grounds.
.
N'(.
Or i3 you maintain: C8"e real e-istence o3 grounds is suc" t"at it is a non-sel3-e-istent
t"ing as#ab"a#a+ t"is is not 5usti3ied,
/ecause no t"ing $"ate#er in t"e $orld e-ists lacking it o$n nature nis"#ab"a#a+.
.
N2?.
I"en it is mid: 8"e denial precedes C$"at is denied,C t"is is not 5usti3ied.
<Henial@ is not 5usti3ied eit"er later or simultaneously. 8"ere3ore sel3-e-istence is real.
.
<&AR8 >> - !agar5una7s Reply to t"e Arguments o3 t"e Opponents@
.
2'.
>3 any t"esis does not bear on t"e totality o3 causes and conditions, or on t"em
separately,
>s not emptiness pro#ed because o3 t"e 3act t"at t"ere is no sel3-e-istence in e-isting
t"ings '+O
.
N22.
8"e Cbeing dependent natureC o3 e-isting t"ings: t"at is called Cemptiness.C
8"at $"ic" "as a nature o3 Cbeing dependentCQo3 t"at t"ere is a non-sel3-e-istent
nature.
.
N21.
Just as a magically 3ormed p"antom could deny a p"antom created by its o$n magic,
Just so $ould be t"at negation.
.
N2B.
8"is statement <regarding emptiness@ is not Ct"at $"ic" is sel3-e-istentC, t"ere3ore,
t"ere is no re3utation o3 my assertion.
8"ere is no inconsistency and <t"us@ t"e grounds 3or t"e di33erence need not be
e-plained.
.
N2E.
<Regarding@ CHo not make a soundCQt"is e-ample introduced by you is not pertinent,
Since t"ere is a negation o3 sound by sound. 8"at is not like <my denial o3 sel3
-e-istence@ .
.
N2).
For, i3 t"ere is pre#ention o3 t"at $"ic" lacks sel3-e-istence by t"at $"ic" lacks sel3-
e-istence,
8"en t"at $"ic" lacks sel3-e-istence $ould cease, and sel3-e-istence $ould be pro#ed.
.
N2*.
Or, as a p"antom could destroy t"e erroneous appre"ension concerning a p"antom
$oman t"at:
C8"ere is a $oman,C 5ust so t"is is true in our case.
.
N20.
Or else t"e grounds <o3 proo3@ are t"at $"ic" is to be pro#ed, certainly sound does not
e-ist as real.
For $e do not speak $it"out accepting, 3or practical purposes, t"e $ork-a-day $orld.
.
N2(.
>3 > $ould make any proposition $"ate#er, t"en by t"at > $ould "a#e a logical error,
/ut > do not make a proposition, t"ere3ore > am not in error.
.
N1?.
>3 t"ere is somet"ing, $"ile being seen by means o3 t"e ob5ects o3 direct perceptions,
etc.,
<>t is@ a33irmed or denied. 8"at <denial@ o3 mine is a non-appre"ension o3 non-t"ings.
.
N1'.
And i3, 3or you, t"ere is a source <o3 kno$ledge@ o3 eac" e#ery ob5ect o3 proo3,
8"en tell "o$, in turn, 3or you t"ere is proo3 o3 t"ose sources.
.
N12.
>3 by ot"er sources <o3 kno$ledge@ t"ere $ould be t"e proo3 o3 a source Q t"at $ould
be an Cin3inite regressC,
>n t"at case neit"er a beginning, middle, nor an end is pro#ed.
.
N11.
Or i3 t"ere is proo3 o3 t"ose <ob5ects@ $it"out sources, your argument is re3uted.
8"ere is a <logical@ inconsistency in t"is, and you oug"t to e-plain t"e cause o3 t"e
di33erence <bet$een t"e principles o3 #alidity in your statement and ot"ers@.
.
N1B.
8"at reconciliation o3 di33iculty is not <realiMed in t"e claim:@ CFire illumines itsel3.C
6ertainly it is not like t"e non-mani3est appearance o3 a pot in t"e dark.
.
N1E.
And i3, according to your statement, 3ire illumines its o$n sel3,
8"en is t"is not like a 3ire $"ic" $ould illumine its o$n sel3 and somet"ing elseO
.
N1).
>3, according to your statement, 3ire $ould illumine bot" its Co$n sel3C and an Cot"er
sel3,C
8"en also darkness, like 3ire, $ould darken itsel3 and an Cot"er sel3.C
.
N1*.
Harkness does not e-ist in t"e glo$ o3 a 3ire, and $"ere t"e glo$ remains in an Cot"er
indi#idual sel3,C
Ao$ could it produce lig"tO >ndeed lig"t is t"e deat" o3 darkness.
.
N10.
<>3 you say:@ CFire illumines $"en it is being produced,C t"is statement is not true,
For, $"en being produced, 3ire certainly does not touc" prapnoti+ darkness.
.
N1(.
!o$ i3 t"at glo$ can destroy t"e darkness again and again $it"out touc"ing it,
8"en t"at <glo$@ $"ic" is located "ere $ould destroy t"e darkness in Ce#ery cornerC o3
t"e $orld.
.
NB?.
>3 your sources <o3 kno$ledge@ are pro#ed by t"eir o$n strengt" s#atas+, t"en, 3or
you, t"e sources are pro#ed $it"out respect to Ct"at $"ic" is to be pro#edC,
8"en you "a#e a proo3 o3 a source, <but@ no sources are pro#ed $it"out relation to
somet"ing else.
.
NB'.
>3, according to you, t"e sources <o3 kno$ledge@ are pro#ed $it"out being related to
t"e ob5ects o3 Ct"at $"ic" is to be pro#ed,C
8"en t"ese sources $ill not pro#e anyt"ing.
.
NB2.
Or i3 <you say@: I"at error is t"ere in t"inking, C8"e relations"ip o3 t"ese <sources o3
kno$ledge to t"eir ob5ects@ is <already@ pro#edCO
<8"e ans$er is:@ 8"is $ould be t"e pro#ing o3 $"at is pro#ed. >ndeed Ct"at $"ic" is not
pro#edC is not related to somet"ing else.
.
NB1.
Or i3 t"e sources <o3 kno$ledge@ in e#ery case are pro#ed in relation to C$"at is to be
pro#ed,C
8"en C$"at is to be pro#edC is pro#ed $it"out relation to t"e sources
.
NBB.
And i3 C$"at is to be pro#edC is pro#ed $it"out relation to to t"e sources <o3
kno$ledge@,
I"at <purpose@ is t"e proo3 o3 t"e sources 3or youQsince t"at 3or t"e purpose o3 $"ic"
t"ose <sources@ e-ist is already pro#edR
.
NBE.
Or i3, 3or you, t"e sources <o3 kno$ledge@ are pro#ed in relation to C$"at is to be
pro#ed,C
8"en, 3or you, t"ere e-ists an interc"ange bet$een t"e sources and C$"at is to be
pro#ed.C
.
NB).
Or i3, 3or you, t"ere are t"e sources <o3 kno$ledge@ being pro#ed $"en t"ere is proo3 o3
C$"at is to be pro#ed,C and i3 C$"at is to be pro#edC e-ist $"en
8"e source is pro#ed, t"en, 3or you, t"e proo3 o3 t"em bot" does not e-ist.
.
NB*.
>3 t"ose t"ings $"ic" are to be pro#ed are pro#ed by t"ose sources <o3 kno$ledge@,
and t"ose t"ings $"ic" are pro#ed
/y C$"at is to be pro#ed,C "o$ $ill t"ey pro#e <anyt"ing@O
.
NB0.
And i3 t"ose sources <o3 kno$ledge@ are pro#ed by $"at is to be pro#ed, and t"ose
t"ings $"ic" are pro#ed
/y t"e sources, "o$ $ill t"ey pro#e <anyt"ing@O
.
NB(.
>3 a son is produced by a 3at"er, and i3 t"at <3at"er@ is produced by t"at #ery son <$"en
"e is born@,
8"en tell me, in t"is case, $"o produces $"omO
.
NE?.
%ou tell meR I"ic" o3 t"e t$o becomes t"e 3at"er, and $"ic" t"e son-
Since t"ey bot" carry c"aracteristics o3 C3at"erC and CsonCO >n t"at case t"ere is doubt.
.
NE'.
8"e proo3 o3 t"e sources <o3 kno$ledge@ is not <establis"ed@ by itsel3, not by eac"
ot"er, or not by ot"er sources,
>t does not e-ist by t"at $"ic" is to be pro#ed and not 3rom noting at all.
.
NE2.
>3 t"ose $"o kno$ t"e modes o3 t"e d"armas say t"at t"ere is good sel3-e-istence o3
good d"armas,
8"at <sel3-e-istence@ must be stated in contradistinction to somet"ing else.
.
NE1.
>3 a good sel3-e-istence $ere produced in relation to <somet"ing else@,
8"en t"at sel3-e-istence o3 t"e good d"armas is an Cot"er e-istence.C Ao$ t"en, does
<sel3-e-istence@ e-istO
.
NEB.
Or i3 t"ere is t"at sel3-e-istence o3 good d"armas, $"ile not being related to somet"ing
else,
8"ere $ould be no state o3 a spiritual $ay o3 li3e.
.
NEE.
8"ere $ould be neit"er #ice nor #irtue, and $orldly practical acti#ities $ould not be
possible,
Sel3-e-istent t"ings $ould be eternal because t"at $it"out a cause $ould be eternal.
.
NE).
Regarding <your #ie$ o3@ bad, Cliberati#e,C and unde3ined <d"armas@, t"ere is an error,
8"ere3ore, all composite products samskrta+ e-ist as non-composite elements
asamskrta+.
.
NE*.
Ae $"o $ould impute a really e-isting name to a really e-isting t"ing
6ould be re3uted by you, but $e do not assert a name.
.
NE0.
And t"at <assertion@: C8"e name is unrealCQ$ould t"at relate to a real or a non-real
t"ingO
>3 it $ere a real t"ing, or i3 it $ere a non-real t"ingQin bot" cases your entire
proposition is re3uted.
.
NE(.
8"e emptiness o3 all e-isting t"ings "as been demonstrated pre#iously,
8"ere3ore, t"is attack is against t"at $"ic" is not my t"esis.
.
N)?.
Or i3 <it is said@: CSel3-e-istence e-ists, but t"at <sel3-e-istence@ o3 d"armas does not
e-istCQ
8"at is Juestionable, but t"at $"ic" $as said <by me@ is not Juestionable.
.
N)'.
>3 t"e denial concerns somet"ing real, t"en is not emptiness pro#edO
8"en you $ould deny t"e non-sel3-e-istence o3 t"ings.
.
N)2.
Or i3 you deny emptiness, and t"ere is no emptiness,
8"en is not your assertion: C8"e denial concerns somet"ing realC re3utedO
.
N)1.
Since anyt"ing being denied does not e-ist, > do not deny anyt"ing,
8"ere3ore, <t"e statement@: C%ou denyCQ$"ic" $as made by youQis a 3alse
accusation.
.
N)B.
Regarding $"at $as said concerning $"at does not e-ist: C8"e statement o3 denial is
pro#ed $it"out a $ord,C
>n t"at case t"e statement e-presses: C<8"at ob5ect@ does not e-istC, <t"e $ords@ do
not destroy t"at <ob5ect@.
.
N)E.
Regarding t"e great censure 3ormerly made by you t"roug" t"e instance o3 t"e mirage
Q
!o$ "ear t"e ascertainment $"ereby t"at instance is logically possible.
.
N)).
>3 t"at appre"ension <o3 t"e mirage@ is Csomet"ing $"ic" is sel3-e-istent,C it $ould not
"a#e originated presupposing <ot"er t"ings@,
/ut t"at appre"ension $"ic" e-ists presupposing <ot"er t"ings@Qis t"at not emptinessO
.
N)*.
>3 t"at appre"ension is Csomet"ing $"ic" is sel3-e-istent,C $it" $"at could t"e
appre"ension be negatedO
8"is understanding <applies@ in t"e remaining <3i#e 3actors:
C$"at is appre"ended,C
t"e one $"o appre"ends,
t"e denial,
C$"at is denied,C
and t"e one $"o denies@,
t"ere3ore t"at is an in#alid censure.
.
N)0.
/y t"is <argument@ t"e absence o3 a cause <3or denying sel3-e-istence@ is re3utedQon
t"e basis o3 t"e similarity <$it" t"e 3oregoing@:
!amely, t"at $"ic" $as already said regarding t"e e-clusion o3 t"e instance o3 t"e
mirage.
.
N)(.
8"at $"ic" is t"e cause 3or t"e t"ree times is re3uted 3rom $"at is similar to t"at
<gi#en@ be3ore,
!egation o3 cause 3or t"e t"ree times a33irms emptiness.
.
N*?.
All t"ings pre#ail 3or "im 3or $"om emptiness pre#ails,
!ot"ing $"ate#er pre#ails 3or "im 3or $"om emptiness pre#ails.
.
<End@
omments on
Nagarjuna!s MulamadhyamakaKarikas
"Fundamental of the Middle Way"
.
!ote: 8"is is a copy o3 a $orking document, > reser#e t"e rig"t to c"ange my mind anytime about any o3 t"is.+
.
:ERSES FROM :
Frederick J. Streng,
Emptiness - A Study in Religious Meaning
!as"#ille and !e$ %ork: Abingdon &ress, '()*+,
Appendi- A . /, pp. '01-22*
9': <6ontents@
.
9': <6O!8E!8S@
9': <>!8ROHG68>O! 8O 8AE A&&E!H>U A@
9': <>!8ROHG68OR% :ERSES
9': <>S 8AERE A!%8A>!D 8AA8 >S 8AE 6AGSE OF SAMSARA A!H 8AA8 IE 6A!
6O!8RO9: A &A8A@
92: <SE68>O! ' - A! A!A9%S>S OF 6O!H>8>O!>!D 6AGSES &RA8%A%A+ 6O!H>8>O!S+
= 'B :ERSES = <6AGSA9>8%, HE&E!HE!8 OR>D>!A8>O!, HE8ERM>!>SM, 6O!8RO9@
91: <!o real F in"erent causes, but not completely non-e-istent eit"er@
9B: <!o absolute cause any$"ere, but not"ing is $it"out a cause@
9B: <!ot"ing e-ist and c"ange: A cause cannot remain t"e same, nor c"ange into
somet"ing di33erent F ot"er-e-istence, nor become completely non-e-istent@
9B: <!o e33ect $it" or $it"out a cause. !o cause $it" or $it"out an e33ect. = using t"e
case o3 moti#e.@
9B: <6auses are con#entional trut"s, but ne#er absolute@
9B: <!o cause 3or anyt"ing real, non-real, bot", or neit"er@
9B: <&re#ie$ o3 t"e cases o3 perception and consciousness moments: conceptual
interdependence . non-duality@
91: <!o real F in"erent e33ects or products, but not completely non-e-istent eit"er@
9B: <Empty causes can result only in an empty product@
9B: <8"e product is not inside, nor outside o3 t"e aggregate@
9B: <&roducts are not completely non-e-istent or useless eit"er, t"ey are 5ust ne#er
absolute@
91: <!o real F in"erent causality, but not completely non-e-istent eit"er@
9B: <!o absolute causality F determinism 3rom empty causes@
9B: <6ausal relations are not completely non-e-istent or useless eit"er, t"ey are 5ust
ne#er absolute@
91: <9>!EAR RVSGMV OF SE68>O! ' = O! 6O!H>8>O!S@
9B: <!o in"erent causes, but not completely non-e-istent@
9B: <!o in"erent products, but not completely non-e-istent@
9B: <!o in"erent causality, but not completely non-e-istent@
91: <8AEMA8>6 RVSGMV OF SE68>O! '@
91: <A/OG8 9>!ES . 6%69ES OF 6AGSA9>8%@
92: <SE68>O! 2 - A! A!A9%S>S OF CDO>!D 8OC 6AA!DE OR MO:EME!8+ = 2E :ERSES
= <8AE >99GS>O! OF 6O!8>!G>8% 8AROGDA 6AA!DE OR MO:EME!8@@
91: <8"e t$o arguments@
9B: <!o permanent goer, no di33erent goers, no real going@
9B: <Opponent: 8"e goer is c"anged by t"e going and t"is is #isible by "is acti#ity .
displacement@
91: <Arguments against a goer t"at c"ange $it" its acti#ity@
9B: <8"e emptiness o3 K#isible acti#ity and displacementL@
9E: <8"e beginning o3 t"is acti#ity or displacement cannot be 3ound@
9E: <8"e problems $it" in"erent independent acti#ity and displacement@
9): <8"ere $ould be a going process $it"out a goer@
9): <8"ere $ould be t$o kinds o3 acti#ity and displacement@
9): <8"ere $ould be t$o goers@
9B: <8"e emptiness o3 t"e goer: not e-istent, not non-e-istent@
9E: <8"e goer going+ is not in"erently e-isting@
9E: <8"e goer going+ is not completely non-e-isting eit"er@
9B: <8"e emptiness o3 t"e going@
9E: <8"ere is no real F in"erent going@
9E: <8"e problems $it" an in"erent going@
9): <8"ere $ould be a goer $it"out a going@
9): <8"ere $ould be t$o kinds o3 acti#ity . displacement@
9B: <8"e emptiness o3 t"e origination and cessation o3 t"e going@
9E: <8"e origination o3 t"e going cannot be 3ound@
9E: <8"e t"ree states o3 t"e goer relati#e to t"e limits o3 t"e going are not real, t"ey
cannot be 3ound@
9E: <8"ey are mere co-dependently arisen concepts, ne#er absolute@
9B: <8"e emptiness o3 t"e t"ree times relati#e to t"e going@
9E: <8"e goer not-going-yet+ is not in"erently e-isting, not completely non-e-isting
eit"er@
9E: <8"e goer continuing-t"e-going+ is not in"erently e-isting@
9E: <8"e goer not-going-anymore+ is not in"erently e-isting@
9E: <8"ere is no permanent goer coming 3rom any o3 t"e t"ree times@
9B: <8"e goer and going are not t"e same, not di33erent F separate@
9E: <>3 t"e goer and t"e acti#ity $ere t"e same@
9E: <>3 t"e goer and t"e goingFaction $ere separate F di33erent@
91: <I"at are t"ey t"en O@
9B: <!on-duality: not one, not t$o@
9B: <6onceptual interdependence, not e-istent, not non-e-istent@
9B: <8"is applies to t"e t"ree, including t"e destination@
91: <6onclusions@
9B: <8"e reality: not e-istent, not non-e-istent, not bot", not neit"er@
9B: <Emptiness o3 t"e t"ree: no continuity, no discontinuity@
91: <RVSGMV OF SE68>O! 2 = O! 6AA!DE F MO:EME!8@
9B: <8"e emptiness o3 acti#ity and mo#ement, goer, going@
9B: <!o origination . cessation o3 going, no real c"ange in t"e goer@
9B: <8"e relation bet$een t"e goer, t"e going, and t"e destination@
9B: <6onclusions: non-duality -- emptiness and interdependence@
91: <>nitial-goeri+Fmoti#e -- W goer goingii+ -- W resulting-goeriii+@
91: <8"e illusion o3 continuity t"roug" c"ange or mo#ement@
9': <8AE E9EME!8AR% 6OM&O!E!8S OF REA9>8% A%A8A!AS, S4A!HAAS, HAA8GS,
6E8AS>4A+, A!H 8AE 8AREE S8ADES OF /E6OM>!D OF A99 &ROHG68S A!H MOME!8S
OF 6O!S6>OGS!ESS@
92: <SE68>O! 1 - A! A!A9%S>S OF C:>S>O!C A!H O8AER SE!SE-FA6G98>ES 8AE
SE!SE-F>E9HS+ -- ( = <8AE S>U SE!SES, H>RE68 &ER6E&8>O!, 8AE S>U O/JE68S F
IOR9H@@
91: <8"e traditional understanding@
91: <!agar5una maintains: same conclusions as section 2@
91: <6onseJuences on Hependent Origination@
91: <RVSGMV OF SE68>O! 1 = O! O/JE68S OF SE!SA8>O!S@
9B: <8"e emptiness o3 perception, seer, seeing@
9B: <!o origination . cessation o3 seeing, no real c"ange in t"e seer@
9B: <8"e relation bet$een t"e seer, t"e seeing, and t"e ob5ects@
91: <>nitial-seeri+F sense-organ -- W seer seeingii+ -- W resulting-seeriii+ $it" kno$ledge@
91: <8"e illusion o3 a sel3 acJuiring kno$ledge@
92: <SE68>O! B - A! A!A9%S>S OF 8AE CDROG&S OF G!>:ERSA9 E9EME!8SC
S4A!HAAS+ 8AE ADDREDA8ES+ - ( = <8AE F>:E ADDREDA8ES, EU&9A>!EHF6AGSEH /%
8AE>R /AS>6 G!HER9%>!D 6AGSES, EM&8>!ESS OF EM&8>!ESS@@
91: <Emptiness o3 C#isible 3ormC #s. CelementsC because interdependent@
91: <!o absolute, no discontinuity@
91: <!on-duality o3 C#isible 3ormC #s. CelementsC@
91: <DeneraliMation to all composites skand"as+@
91: <E#en emptiness is not t"e Cprimal causeC eit"er@
92: <SE68>O! E - A! A!A9%S>S OF 8AE C>RREHG68>/9E E9EME!8SC HAA8GS+ 8AE
E9EME!8S+ = 0 = <8AE >RREHG6>/9E E9EME!8S HEF>!EH /% 8AE>R /AS>6
6AARA68ER>S8>6S@@
91: <>nterdependence o3 t"e trio: t"e c"aracteristic de3ines a c"aracteriMed@
91: <8"eir con#entional e-istence@
91: <8"e real nature o3 !ir#ana, not an ordinary cessation@
92: <SE68>O! ) - A! A!A9%S>S OF HES>RE RADA+ A!H O!E IAO HES>RES RA48A+ <>!
8AE 6O!8EU8 OF 8AE>R SE&ARA8E!ESS A!H 6O!6OM>8A!6E@ AFFE68>O! A!H 8AE
&ERSO! AFFE68EH+ = '? = <6O!6OM>8A!6E, A &ERSO! A!H A>S A6XG>REH S8RO!D
AA/>8S, 8AE 6O!6OM>8A!8 FA68ORS OF 6O!S6>OGS!ESS@@
91: <>nterdependence o3 t"e sub5ect-"a#ing-dispositions and t"e complementFdispositions@
91: <8"e case o3 t"e #erb-"a#ing F concomitance F being one@
91: <8"e duality: being one same+ or t$o separate F di33erent+@
91: <!on-duality o3 e#eryt"ing, o3 samsara and !ir#ana@
92: <SE68>O! * - A! A!A9%S>S OF 6OM&OS>8E &ROHG68S SAMS4R8A+ OR>D>!A8>O!,
HGRA8>O!, A!H HE6A%+ = 1B = <8AE 8AREE S8ADES OF /E6OM>!D: OR>D>!A8>O!,
HGRA8>O! F 8RA!SFORMA8>O!, 6ESSA8>O!, >M&ERMA!E!6E OF A99 &ROHG68S A!H
MOME!8S OF 6O!S6>OGS!ESS@@
91: <6ase ': Origination T cannot be basic c"aracteristics.@
91: <6ase 2: Origination T cannot be acJuired secondary c"aracteristics.@
9B: <2.' Origination T cannot be caused by anot"er cause $it"out creating in3inite
regress.@
9B: <2.2 Origination T cannot be caused by t"e product.@
9B: <2.1 Origination T cannot be sel3-caused and causing t"e origination T o3 t"e
product.@
9E: <8"e 3alse simile o3 t"e lig"t illuminating itsel3 and ot"er.@
9): <9ig"t and darkness cannot be t"e same, or di33erent.@
9): <9ig"t and darkness cannot be t"e simultaneous, or separate in time.@
9): <So sel3-caused origination T cannot be 5usti3ied $it" t"is simile.@
9E: <Searc"ing 3or t"is sel3-caused origination also causing t"e beginning o3 t"e product.@
9): <8"e e-act time o3 t"e beginning o3 t"is sel3-caused origination cannot be 3ound@
9): <8"e e-act time o3 t"e beginning o3 t"e originatingForigination cannot be 3ound O
emptiness o3 t"e actionForigination@
9B: <8"e emptiness o3 t"e t"ree c"aracteristics@
9E: <!o in"erent origination@
9E: <!o in"erent duration@
9E: <About t"e duration o3 causality@
9E: <!o cessation o3 anyt"ing real, non-real, bot", or neit"er@
91: <6onclusion = emptiness o3 all products because t"ere is no real origination, duration
and cessation = but t"ey e-ist con#entionally@
9': <A/OG8 8AE ADE!8@
92: <SE68>O! 0 - A! A!A9%S>S OF 8AE &ROHG68 4ARMA+ A!H 8AE &ROHG6ER
4ARA4A+ A68>O! A!H ADE!8+ = '1 = <8E8RA9EMMA, 6%69E OF SAMSARA, A!H
9>/ERA8>O!@@
91: <Reality cannot be e-istent, non-e-istent, bot", neit"er.@
9B: <AnalyMing t"e cases $"ere e#eryt"ing is eit"er in"erently e-istent or completely non-
e-istent@
9B: <AnalyMing t"e cases o3 a reality t"at is bot" e-istent and non-e-istent toget"er.@
9B: <AnalyMing t"e cases o3 a reality t"at is neit"er e-istent nor non-e-istent.@
91: <>nterdependence: t"e cycle producer O product O producer.@
91: <8"e samsaric cycle being-in-samsara O karma O being-in-samsara, a cycle $it"out
anyt"ing in"erently e-isting in it.@
92: <SE68>O! ( - A! A!A9%S>S OF C8AE &RE-EU>S8E!8 REA9>8%C &GR:A+ DRAS&ER
A!H DRAS&>!D+ = '2 = <!O &ERMA!E!8 OI!ER OF 8AE S>U SE!SES, &ER6E>:ER
/EFORE &ER6E&8>O!@@
91: <8"e a33irmation o3 a pree-isting o$ner T@
91: <O$ner and senses are bot" empty because interdependent@
91: <8"ere is no o$ner o3 eac" senses@
91: <!o o$ner in t"e basic parts eit"er@
91: <!o o$ner, no possessions: si- senses@
91: <8"e real non-dual nature o3 t"e o$ner@
92: <SE68>O! '? - A! A!A9%S>S OF F>RE A!H 4>!H9>!D F>RE A!H FGE9+ = ') = <!O!-
HGA9>8% OF SE9F . 8AE F>:E ADDREDA8ES OF 69>!D>!D, !O!-HGA9>8% OF
HE&E!HE!8 OR>D>!A8>O! A!H EM&8>!ESS@@
91: <Fire and kindling are not t"e same, not di33erent@
91: <Fire and kindling are interdependent@
91: <>t is in"erent e-istence t"at $ould make e-tinguis"ing F liberation impossible@
91: <8"ey cannot e-ist separately and be united later@
91: <Hependence o3 t"e illusory-sel3 cannot be used to pro#e in"erent e-istence o3 t"e 3i#e
aggregates@
91: <8"ere is no real dependent origination, but it is not completely non-e-istent eit"er@
91: <!on-duality o3 3ire and kindling, o3 t"e sel3 and t"e 3i#e aggregates@
91: <!on-duality o3 dependent origination and emptiness@
92: <SE68>O! '' - A! A!A9%S>S OF 8AE &AS8 &GR:A+ A!H FG8GRE 9>M>8S
A&ARA4>8>+ <OF EU>S8E!6E@ SAMSARA+ = 0 = <EU&9A>!>!D SAMSARA A!H K!O-SE9FL
I>8AOG8 GS>!D A!% >!AERE!8 HAARMA.@@
91: <!o in"erent birt", li3e, deat", rebirt"@
91: </irt" and deat" are not separate F di33erent, not simultaneous F t"e same.@
91: <!ot"ing e-ist and is impermanent@
9': <8AE REA9 !A8GRE OF HG44AA !EU8 1 6AA&8ERS+@
92: <SE68>O! '2 - A! A!A9%S>S OF SORROI HG44AA+ SGFFER>!D+ = '? = <HG44AA
6A!!O8 /E 6AGSEH /% A &ERSO!A9>8%, >!8ER!A9, EU8ER!A9, /O8A OR !E>8AER@@
91: <Hukk"a is not produced by a personality internal, e-ternal, bot", neit"er+@
9B: <Hukk"a is not caused by our o$n personality@
9B: <Hukk"a is not caused by anot"er personality@
9B: <Hukk"a is not caused by bot" sel3 and ot"er personality@
91: <E-ternal t"ings are not produced by a personality internal, e-ternal, bot", neit"er+@
92: <SE68>O! '1 - A! A!A9%S>S OF 6O!H>8>O!EH E9EME!8S SAMS4ARA+ 8AE REA9+
= 0 = <HG44AA >S !O8 HGE 8O 8A>!DS 8AA8 EU>S8 A!H ARE >M&ERMA!E!8@@
91: <8"e essential dukk"a nature o3 all t"ings = because impermanent@
91: <>n"erent e-istence $ould make impermanence impossible@
91: <A c"anged t"ing is not t"e same t"ing, nor a di33erent t"ing@
91: <!ot"ing e-ists and c"ange, e-ists and is impermanent@
91: <!ot"ing e-ists and is empty eit"er = emptiness o3 emptiness@
91: <Emptiness is not t"e absolute nature o3 e#eryt"ing@
92: <SE68>O! 'B - A! A!A9%S>S OF G!>F>6A8>O! SAMSARDA+ 6OM/>!A8>O!+ = 0 =
<8AE >!SE&ARA/>9>8% OF 8AE 8AREE REA9MS, OR OF /OH%, S&EE6A A!H M>!H@@
91: <All trio Ysub5ect, #erb-action, complementS are interdependent, inseparable, non-dual@
91: <Hi33erentness, t"en uni3ication are impossible@
9': <A/OG8 A!% SE9F-!A8GRE -- 8AA8 IOG9H 8RA!SM>DRA8E@
92: <SE68>O! 'E - A! A!A9%S>S OF A SE9F-EU>S8E!8 8A>!D S:A/AA:A+ /E>!D A!H
!O!-/E>!D+ = '' = <8AE &RO:>S>O!A9 A!H HEF>!>8>:E 8EA6A>!DS, A 6AA!D>!D
8A>!D OR /E>!D >S !O8 8AE SAME, !OR H>FFERE!8@@
91: <!o possible t"ree stages o3 becoming o3 an in"erent t"ing origination, duration and
trans3ormation, cessation+@
91: <K8"ose sutras t"at are de3initi#e and t"ose reJuiring 3urt"er interpretationL AAH9+@
91: <A c"anging t"ing or being is not t"e same, nor di33erent@
91: <>ncompatibility o3 in"erent e-istence and dependent origination@
91: <8"e Middle Iay bet$een t"e t$o e-tremes o3 e-istence and non-e-istence o3 t"ings
and beings@
92: <SE68>O! ') - A! A!A9%S>S OF /E>!D /OG!H /A!HAA!A+ A!H RE9EASE MO4SA+
/O!HADE A!H RE9EASE+ = '? = <!O &ERSO!A9 RE/>R8AS OR 9>/ERA8>O!@@
91: <!ot"ing permanent in any d"arma t"at could support real rebirt"s, and indi#idual
9iberation@
9B: <8"e acJuisitions F conditioning, causes o3 conditioned rebirt"s, are not in"erently
e-isting, nor completely non-e-isting@
9B: <!o permanent d"arma t"at could e-plain real rebirt"s@
9B: </ut rebirt"s are not completely non-e-istent eit"er@
9B: <8"ere is no real binding, puri3ication, 9iberation@
91: <8"e analysis o3 KacJuisitions binding t"e sel3 like Kgoer going to t"e destinationL@
91: <8"ere is no personal 9iberation or puri3ication@
92: <SE68>O! '* - A! A!A9%S>S OF A68>O! 4ARMA+ A!H >8S &ROHG68 &AA9A+
A68>O! A!H >8S RESG98S+ = 11 = <8AE IAO9E 6AA>! OF 4ARMA FORMA8>O! A!H
>8S FRG>8S >S EM&8%, 9>4E A MAD>6 8R>64@@
91: <8"e opponents t"eories@
9B: <An opponent presents t"e traditional causal t"eory o3 action:@
9B: <Anot"er opponent argues by t"e imagery o3 a process:@
9B: <A t"ird opponent argues 3or an imperis"able element:@
91: <!agar5unaSs ans$ers@
9B: <>n"erent actions $ould imply no utility 3or any morality@
9B: <!o absolute $"olesome or un$"olesome actions and t"eir 3ruits@
9B: <Emptiness o3 t"e $"ole c"ain o3 karma and its 3ruits@
9B: <8"e $"ole c"ain is like a magical trick@
92: <SE68>O! '0 - A! A!A9%S>S OF 8AE >!H>:>HGA9 SE9F A8MA+ 8AE SE9F A!H
&AE!OME!A+ = '2 = <!>R:A!A >S REA9>Z>!D 8AE !O!-HGA9 !A8GRE OF 8AE SE9F
A!H E:ER%8A>!D, /E%O!H 6AGSA9>8%, &ROHG68>O!, 6O!6E&8GA9>ZA8>O!, OR 8AE
FOGR EU8REMES@@
91: <8"e real nature o3 t"e sel3@
91: <8"e result o3 seeing t"e real non-dual nature o3 sel3 and e#eryt"ing@
91: <&ro#isional and de3initi#e teac"ings about t"e sel3@
9B: </eyond t"e t$o e-tremes@
9B: </eyond conceptualiMation@
9B: </eyond accepting or re5ecting t"e 3our e-tremes@
9B: <8"e union o3 dependent origination and emptiness@
9': <E9EME!8S OF A H>S6RE8E MOHE9@
92: <SE68>O! '( - A! A!A9%S>S OF 8>ME 4A9A+ 8>ME+ = ) = <!O REA9 S&A6E-8>ME
9>M>8S OF A!%8A>!D, !O REA9 S&A6E OR 8>ME@@
91: <Emptiness o3 t"e 1 times because o3 interdependence@
91: <Emptiness o3 any space-time limits@
91: <!o absolute space-time or space-time inter#al@
92: <SE68>O! 2? - A! A!A9%S>S OF 8AE ADDREDA8E SAMADR>+ OF 6AGSES A!H
6O!H>8>O!S 6AGSE A!H EFFE68+ - 2B@
91: <A real product sel3+ cannot emerge 3rom its aggregate o3 causes and conditions, nor
3rom anot"er@
91: <A cause and t"e product cannot be simultaneous, nor separate in time@
91: <8"e aggregate and t"e product cannot be simultaneous, nor separate in time@
91: <A cause doesnSt stay t"e same, nor c"ange into somet"ing di33erent@
91: <8"e product is not caused by its parts or by ot"er parts@
91: <8"ere is no real origination, nor cessation o3 a product@
91: <!on-duality@
91: <8"e Middle Iay bet$een e-istence and non-e-istence o3 t"e t"ree: cause
aggregate+, production, product@
92: <SE68>O! 2' - A! A!A9%S>S OF OR>D>!A8>O! SAM/AA:A+ A!H H>SA&&EARA!6E
:>/AA:A+ 6OM>!D 8O /E A!H &ASS>!D AIA%+ - 2'@
91: <8$o consecuti#e moments cannot be simultaneous or separate in time@
9B: <6essation o3 t"e cause and origination o3 t"e e33ect cannot be simultaneous or
separate in time@
9B: <8"ere is no real origination and cessation@
9B: <8"ere cannot be any real origination and cessation o3 anyt"ing e-istent, non-e-istent,
bot", neit"er@
9B: <8"ere is no sel3-origination, ot"er-origination, bot", neit"er@
91: <Emptiness doesnSt deny t"e continuity, dependent origination, and t"e possible
9iberation@
91: <Emptiness o3 t"e c"ain o3 e-istence F rebirt"s@
9': <A/OG8 8AE DOA9 . G98>MA8E REA9>8%@
92: <SE68>O! 22 - A! A!A9%S>S OF 8AE CFG99% 6OM&9E8EHC 8A8AADA8A+ 8AE
/GHHAA+ - ')@
91: <A. IAA8 >S 8AE !A8GRE OF 8AE 8A8AADA8A O 6A! IE GSE HE&E!HE!8
OR>D>!A8>O! 8O EU&RESS 8AE 8A8AADA8A O@
91: </. 6A! IE GSE CEM&8>!ESSC 8O EU&RESS 8AE 8A8AADA8A O@
91: <6. IAA8 6A! IE GSE 8O EU&RESS 8AE 8A8AADA8A O@
92: <SE68>O! 21 - A! A!A9%S>S OF ERRORS :>&AR%ASA+ 8AE &ER:ER8EH :>EIS+ -
2E@
92: <SE68>O! 2B - A! A!A9%S>S OF 8AE AO9% 8RG8AS AR%ASA8%A+ 8AE !O/9E
8RG8AS+ - B?@
91: <An opponent claims:@
91: <!agar5una replies:@
91: </ - Sel3-e-istence -- o3 emptiness -- do not permit t"e 3lo$ F H.O.+@
91: <A - Emptiness -- o3 emptiness -- recogniMes t"e 3lo$, H.O., t"e &at"+@
92: <SE68>O! 2E - A! A!A9%S>S OF !>R:A!A !>R:A!A+ - 2B@
91: <IAA8 >S !>R:A!AO@
9B: <An opponent says:@
9B: <!agar5una replies:@
9E: <6ASE ' - an ordinary t"ing@
9E: <6ASE 2 - a non e-istent anymore - t"e negation o3 t"e 3irst@
9E: <6ASE 1 - it is bot"@
9E: <6ASE B - it is neit"er - t"e negation o3 bot"@
9B: <IAA8 6AA!DES FROM SAMSARA 8O !>R:A!AO >S /E>!D H>FFERE!8O@
9B: <!O8 8AE SAME, !O8 H>FFERE!8 -- 8AE! IAA8 6AA!DESO@
92: <SE68>O! 2) - A! A!A9%S>S OF 8AE 8IE9:E 6OM&O!E!8S H:AHASA!DA+ 8AE
8IE9:E S&O4ES+ - '2@
91: <8AE 6ASE OF SAMSARA :+@
91: <8AE 6ASE OF !>R:A!A :+@
92: <SE68>O! 2* - A! A!A9%S>S OF 8AE :>EIS HRS8>+ A/OG8 REA9>8% HODMAS+ -
1?@
91: < A. SEAR6A>!D FOR A /E>!D >! 8AE 6%69E OF SAMSARA +@
9B: <A/OG8 8AE HGA9>8% CSE9FC #s. CA6XG>S>8>O!C:+@
91: </. SEAR6A>!D FOR A CH>:>!E SOG9C >! A 8EM&ORAR% C/OH%C+@
91: <6. 6O!69GS>O! A/OG8 A SE9F >! SAMSARA+@
91: <H. SEAR6A>!D FOR 8AE 6%69E OF SAMSARA >8SE9F
9': <>ntroduction to t"e Appendi- A@
.
[ A translation o3 Mulamad"yamaka4arikas by !agar5una, as preser#ed in
6andrakirti7s &rasannapada. 8"e Sanskrit te-t used 3or t"is translation is 3ound in
Mulamad"yamaka4arikas mab"yamikasutra+ de !agariuna a#er la &rasannapada,
6ommentaire de 6andrakirti, 9ouis de 9a :all;e &oussin, ed. St &etersbourg, '('1+.
.
8"e Fundamental o3 t"e Middle Iay Mulamad"yamaka4arikas + is a series o3 about BE?
mnemonic #erses. >n t"e 3amous commentary &rasannapada o3 6andrakirti, it is di#ided
into t$enty-se#en c"apters o3 uneJual lengt". 8"ere is a de#elopment o3 t"oug"t 3rom t"e
3irst t"roug" t"e t$enty-3i3t" c"apter $"ic" may originally "a#e been t"e 3inal c"apter+. >t
is t"e mo#ement 3rom a rat"er 3ormal and styliMed analysis to an almost impassioned
e-pression o3 t"e "ig"est trut". 6"apter ' inaugurates t"e critical met"od $"ic"
!agar5una $ill use: prasanga, a logical met"od o3 necessary conseJuence. Iit" t"is
met"od !agar5una demolis"es t"e t"eories o3 elements d"armas+ and o3 cause until in
c"aps. --ii on t"e 8at"agata+, --i# on t"e Four Aoly 8rut"s+, and --# on nir#ana+ t"ere
appears a reinterpretation o3 t"e most important notions in /udd"ism. 8"e logical critiJue
o3 CcauseC in 6"apter ' is a direct e-pression o3 t"e insig"t into t"e emptiness o3 reality
$"ic" is emp"asiMed again in 6"apter --# $it" t"e declaration t"at t"ere is no di33erence
bet$een nir#ana and samsara. Ao$e#er, one can note a di33erence in t"e "andling o3 t"is
perspecti#e. I"at is dealt $it" in logical terms in 6"apter i is "andled in a $ay t"at is
practical 3or attaining release in 6"apter --#.
.
8"e di33erent c"apters represent t"e analyses o3 di33erent elements or CcategoriesC by
$"ic" muc" o3 past /udd"ism "ad understood reality. For instance, 6"apters iii-# analyMe
t"e traditional classi3ications o3 d"armas: skand"as, ayatanas, and d"atus. >n subseJuent
c"apters t"ere is a similar analysis o3 suc" notions as Cpassion,C t"e CpastC pur#a+,
CturmoilC dukk"a+, Cimpulses o3 transient e-istences samskara+, CactionC karma+, and
t"e Csel3C atman+. 6ertain topics o3 special signi3icance, suc" as CactionC and Ce#ilC
klesa+, are treated in t$o considerations. 8"e 3irst is a s"ort 3ormal consideration in $"ic"
t"e notion is s"o$n to be logically 3alse $"en considered as a sel3-e-istent reality,
secondly, t"ere is a more 3ully de#eloped discussion s"o$ing t"e practical implications 3or
spiritual insig"t. Special note s"ould also be taken o3 6"apter ii $"ic" is a logical critiJue
o3 Cmotion.C 8"e met"od o3 analysis appears to be rat"er arid and o3ten simply a play on
$ords, $"ile e-pressing a minute and systematic rigor. !e#ert"eless, t"is met"od is used
as a model o3 demonstration in ot"er c"apters o3 t"e 4arikas , so it cannot be disregarded.
8"e 3acetious appearance o3 t"e argument is instructi#e since it seeks to point out t"e
#ulnerability o3 t"e e33ort in t"e Ab"id"arma $"ic" took so seriously t"e task o3 classi3ying
and de3ining t"e elements o3 e-istence.
.
See commentary: 8"inking in /udd"ism: !agar5una7s Middle Iay

9': <>ntroductory :erses
.
... 8"is is ec"oed by !agar5una in t"e pre3ace to "is Muulamad"yamikakaarikaas, $"ic"
uses eig"t negations to describe t"e true nature o3 t"ings:
.
[ '. t"ey do not die
[ 2. and are not born,
[ 1. t"ey do not cease to be
[ B. and are not eternal,
[ E. t"ey are not t"e same
[ ). and are not di33erent,
[ *. t"ey do not come
[ 0. and do not go.
.
Jona" Iinters: !agar5una7s religious piety and "is trenc"ant p"ilosop"y are in no $ay
contradictory. 8"is "armony bet$een "is 3ait" and "is intellect is e-pressed by t"e t$o
dedicatory #erses $it" $"ic" "e opens t"e 4arikas :
.
[ NNN
[ C> salute "im, t"e 3ully-enlig"tened, t"e best o3 speakers,
[ $"o preac"ed t"e non-ceasing and t"e non-arising,
[ t"e non-anni"ilation and t"e non-permanence,
[ t"e non-identity and t"e non-di33erence,
[ t"e non-appearance and t"e non-disappearance,
[ t"e dependent arising,
[ t"e appeasement o3 obsessions and t"e auspicious.C
.
>n actuality, t"eir signi3icance is great, 3or t"ey summariMe, in a mere eig"teen $ords in
Sanskrit+, t"e entirety o3 t"e Mad"yamika p"ilosop"ical approac". All o3 t"e p"ilosop"ical
aspects contained in t"ese #erses "a#e been or $ill be discussed at lengt" else$"ere in
t"is t"esis.+

9': <>S 8AERE A!%8A>!D 8AA8 >S 8AE 6AGSE OF SAMSARA A!H 8AA8 IE 6A!
6O!8RO9: A &A8A@
92: <Section ' - An Analysis o3 6onditioning 6auses pratyaya+ conditions+ = 'B #erses =
<6ausality, dependent origination, determinism, control@
.
RVSGMV: Section ' is mostly about s"o$ing t"at t"ere is no cause t"at is not itsel3 an
e33ect, t"at doesnSt "a#e its o$n causes and conditions.
-- 8"is means t"at t"ere is no '??\ sure cause, t"ere are al$ays an in3inity o3 ot"er
#ariables t"at can come and c"ange t"e outcome. 8"e result is ne#er e-actly t"e same
t$ice because o3 t"at.
-- So t"ere cannot be any product, $it" it o$n absolute essence, t"at can come out o3 t"is
#ery uncertain causal process dependent on causes and conditions t"at are not
t"emsel#es not '??\ sure+.
-- 8"ere is no in"erent or absolute+ cause, no in"erent e33ect, no in"erent causal relation.
/ut t"at doesnSt mean t"at t"ey are completely non-e-istent, t"at $e s"ould drop t"em all
rig"t no$, t"at t"ey are all useless concepts. Ie 5ust need to understand t"eir real
nature, t"eir conceptual interdependence, $"ile using t"em.
-- 8"is "as conseJuences on our interpretation o3 t"e 9a$ o3 Hependent Origination, o3
t"e 9a$ o3 4arma, and on our understanding o3 t"e pat" and o3 9iberation.
-- !ote: 8"e causing is assumed instantaneous "ere, but t"e going is assumed longer and
$it" #isible motion in section 2. So t"ere is no mention o3 t"e origination, duration and
cessation o3 t"e causing "ere.+
.
91: <!o real F in"erent causes, but not completely non-e-istent eit"er@
9B: <!o absolute cause any$"ere, but not"ing is $it"out a cause@
.
[ NNN
[ '.
[ !E:ER ARE A!% EU>S8>!D 8A>!DS FOG!H 8O OR>D>!A8E
[ FROM 8AEMSE9:ES, FROM SOME8A>!D E9SE, FROM /O8A, OR FROM !O
6AGSE.
.
EM&8>!ESS OF 8AE 6AGSES: not"ing is sel3-caused, ot"er-caused, bot", or neit"er F
$it"out any cause. -- Hiamond Sli#ers: !ote t"e Juadruple negation $it"out a33irming
anyt"ing. !ot"ing is $it"out its o$n causes and conditions $it"out a cause+, but t"ere is
no absolutely sure cause 3or t"at t"ing, not internal sel3-causation: cause . e33ect being
t"e same+, not e-ternal ot"er-causation: cause . e33ect being t"e di33erent+, not bot"
toget"er. Meaning not"ing, including all causes, e-ist $it"out t"eir o$n causes and
conditions, no e-ception at all. !o 3irst cause t"at is not an e33ect. And since no cause is
absolute, no aggregate o3 causes and conditions can e#er be absolutely sure, t"en no
causing can be absolute, and no e33ect can be absolutely sure. 8"ere is no essence o3 t"e
product coming 3rom t"e aggregate. 8"ere are al$ays ot"er causes and conditions t"at
can c"ange t"e outcome, t"e e33ect is ne#er t$ice t"e same.
-- Many $ays to say t"is: 6auses are empty o3 in"erent e-istence because o3 dependent
on ot"er causes and conditions. !o absolute cause any$"ere, but not"ing is $it"out a
cause. 6auses are not in"erently e-isting, but not completely non-e-isting eit"er. !ot"ing
e33ect or cause+ $it" or $it"out a cause. !o 3irst cause. 6ause . e33ect cannot be t"e
sameFsimultaneous, nor di33erentF separateT+
.
[ NNN
[ 2.
[ 8"ere are 3our conditioning causes
[ A cause "etu+ '+, ob5ects o3 sensations 2+, Cimmediately preceding condition,C
1+ and o3 course t"e predominant in3luence B+ t"ere is no 3i3t".
.
8AE FOGR GSGA9 6O!:E!8>O!A9 6O!H>8>O!>!D 6AGSES: So t"ere is no absolute
cause, but causes are not completely non-e-istent eit"er, t"ere are use3ul con#entional
causes = con#entional trut"s. >n some te-ts t"ere are muc" more types o3 causes, but
t"ey all come do$n to t"ese 3our "ere. 8"ere is no need to e-amine ot"er types o3
causes. Eac" one is brie3ly e-amined in t"is section, and analyMed in more details in ot"er
sections. I"y !agar5una t"ink t"ere s"ould be only 3our, t"at is a good Juestion, and >
donSt kno$ yet.
-- KAetu, moti#eL is co#ered in section 2,
-- KOb5ects o3 sensationsL is co#ered i sectio 1,
-- K>mmediately preceding conditionL is co#ered in sections * . 2',
-- K&redominant in3luenceL is co#ered in section ' . ).+
.
9B: <!ot"ing e-ist and c"ange: A cause cannot remain t"e same, nor c"ange into
somet"ing di33erent F ot"er-e-istence, nor become completely non-e-istent@
.
[ NNN
[ 1.
[ 6ertainly t"ere is no sel3-e-istence s#ab"a#a+ o3 e-isting t"ings in conditioning
causes, etc,
[ And i3 no sel3-e-istence e-ists, neit"er does Cot"er-e-istenceC parab"a#a+.
.
>F 8AERE >S !O >!AERE!89% EU>S8E!8 6AGSE, 8AE! 8AERE >S !O O8AER-
EU>S8E!6E, OR 6OM&9E8E9% !O!-EU>S8E!6E &OSS>/9E: >3 t"ere is no cause in"erently
e-istent, t"en t"ere cannot be Kot"er-e-istenceL, or Kcomplete non-e-istenceL o3 t"ose
causes eit"er. Ob#iously, i3 somet"ing is not e-istent 3irst, t"en it cannot c"ange into
somet"ing else, or cease completely. = Anot"er $ay to look at t"is: a cause is not t"e
same be3ore, during and a3ter t"e causing. >t needs to be triggered to be come acti#e,
t"en later to be stopped. All o3 t"is is done t"roug" ot"er causes and conditions t"at come
and in3luence t"e so called cause. >t is not t"e same t"ing t"at is about to cause, is
causing, and "as caused. = On t"e ot"er "and, t"e cause is not completely di33erent
be3ore, during and a3ter t"e causing. 8"e cause doesnSt c"ange into somet"ing else, or
become a non-cause at t"e end. >t is not a completely di33erent t"ing t"at is about to
cause, is causing, or "as caused. 8"is $ill be analyMed more in section 2.
-- 8"ere is no absolute continuity o3 identity o3 t"e cause. 8"ere is no complete
discontinuity o3 identity. !ot"ing e-ist and c"ange.
-- 8"is $ill lead to t"e realiMation t"at t"ere is no permanent sel3 moti#ating and doing all
actions, nor are t"e one doing t"e action and t"e one su33ering its conseJuences totally
di33erent. !o in"erent sel3, not complete absence o3 sel3.+
.
9B: <!o e33ect $it" or $it"out a cause. !o cause $it" or $it"out an e33ect. = using t"e
case o3 moti#e.@
.
[ NNN
[ B.
[ 8"e e33icient cause kriya = primary condition, root cause, moti#e+ does not e-ist
possessing a conditioning cause,
[ !or does t"e e33icient cause e-ist $it"out possessing a conditioning cause.
[ 6onditioning causes are not $it"out e33icient causes,
[ !or are t"ere <conditioning causes@ $"ic" possess e33icient causes.
.
!O &R>MAR% 6AGSE 9>4E MO8>:E: So no cause like moti#e+ is $it"out its o$n causes
and conditions no e33ect $it"out a cause+, but none o3 t"ese causes, indi#idually or
toget"er, are absolute F determining no e33ect $it" a cause+ because t"ey "a#e t"eir
o$n causes . conditions, ad in3initum. 8"at doesnSt mean t"at t"ese causes are
completely non-e-istent, completely imagined, t"ey are not $it"out any in3luence on t"e
moti#e, $it"out any e33ect no cause $it"out an e33ect+, 5ust t"at moti#e t"e e33ect "ere+
is ne#er entirely determined by t"ose causes no cause $it" an e33ect+ since t"ere can
al$ays be ot"er #ariables t"at can c"ange t"e outcome. -- Aere $e are talking about
Kmoti#e F "etuLt"e 3irst type o3 conditioning causes listed in #erse ':2+ as t"e primary
cause o3 all o3 our actions, and karma 3ormation. >t is also an e33ect, also dependent on its
o$n causes and conditions, but not totally determined by t"ose causes and conditions.
Moti#e is not a primary cause. So t"ere is no total 3ree $ill, nor total determinism in our
c"oices and actions. Meaning t"at our c"oices are also conditioned by our o$n
accumulated karma, but t"at $e can transcend t"is conditioning.
-- More on moti#e: section 2, especially #erses 2:2B-2E+
.
9B: <6auses are con#entional trut"s, but ne#er absolute@
.
[ NNN
[ E.
[ 6ertainly t"ose t"ings are called Cconditioning causesC $"ereby somet"ing
originates a3ter "a#ing come upon t"em,
[ As long as somet"ing "as not originated, $"y are t"ey not so long i.e. during t"at
time+ Cnon-conditioning-causesC O
.
8AE% ARE 6O!:E!8>O!A9 8RG8AS, !E:ER A/SO9G8E 6AGSE: So t"e causes are not
in"erently e-isting sel3-e-isting+, not completely non-e-istent, t"ey are not absolute
determining+, but not $it"out any e33ect. So $"at are t"ey O 8"ey are con#entional
trut"s, "ypot"esis and imper3ect t"eories o3 causality based on obser#ed regularity in a
limited conte-t. And in t"at role t"ey are #ery use3ul con#entional trut"s e#en i3 ne#er
absolute. 6auses are names gi#en to t"ings or p"enomena a3ter t"e apparent obser#ed
3act and regularity bet$een t"em and somet"ing else. /ut $e s"ould be a$are t"at
not"ing can be called a Ksure causeL o3 somet"ing until it is done and con#entionally
accepted, because ot"er causes and conditions can come and c"ange t"e outcome any
time, or it can be interpreted di33erently con#entionally. 8"ey are ne#er Ksure causeL or
Kin"erent causeL, but it is use3ul to con#entionally call t"em causes, e33ects, and causal
relations, in order to be able to use t"is regularity in a limited $ay. = >n science it is use3ul
to describe regularity in a limited conte-t $it" eJuations in#ol#ing t"e most important
parameters, but t"ere can al$ays be ot"er #ariables t"at can come and c"ange t"e
results. 8"ere is ne#er a per3ectly controlled e-perience.+
.
9B: <!o cause 3or anyt"ing real, non-real, bot", or neit"er@
.
[ NNN
[ ).
[ 8"ere can be a conditioning cause neit"er o3 a non-real t"ing '+ nor o3 a real
t"ing 2+.
[ O3 $"at non-real t"ing is t"ere a conditioning causeO And i3 it is <already@ real,
$"at use is a causeO
.
[ *.
[ >3 an element d"arma+ occurs $"ic" is neit"er real nor non-real B+ nor bot" real-
and-non- real 1+,
[ Ao$ can t"ere be a cause $"ic" is e33ecti#e in t"is situationO
.
8AERE >S !O !EEH FOR A 6AGSE OF A! EFFE68 8AA8 >S REA9, !O!-REA9, /O8A, OR
!E>8AER: 8"ere are only 3our possibilities o3 e-istence 3or a t"ing real, non-real, bot", or
neit"er. A non-real e33ect doesnSt need a cause since it is not real, a real e33ect doesnSt
need a cause since it is sel3-caused. And no cause can be e33ecti#e in t"e cases o3
somet"ing t"at is bot" real and non-real, or neit"er real nor non-real. So in t"e conte-t o3
in"erently e-istent causes and e33ects, not"ing $orks. >n"erent e-istence $ould make
dependent origination impossible, and as $e $ill see later, it $ould also make 9iberation
impossible.
-- Ot"er possible meanings: !o cause 3or anyt"ing e-istent, or non-e-istent, no cause 3or
t"e origination, trans3ormation, or cessation o3 anyt"ing, 3or t"e birt", e#olution, or deat"
o3 any being, 3or somet"ing in"erently e-isting or empty o3 in"erent e-istence.+
.
9B: <&re#ie$ o3 t"e cases o3 perception and consciousness moments: conceptual
interdependence . non-duality@
.
[ NNN
[ 0.
[ Just t"at $"ic" is $it"out an ob5ect o3 sensation is accepted as a real element,
[ 8"en i3 t"ere is an element "a#ing no ob5ect o3 sensation, "o$ is it possible to
"a#e an ob5ect o3 sensationO
.
6O!6E&8GA9 >!8ERHE&E!HE!6E OF 6AGSE . EFFE68 = 8AE EUAM&9E OF 8AE
A%A8A!AS: Aere $e are talking about Kob5ects o3 sensations F t"e ) senses organs and
t"e si- types o3 ob5ects o3 t"e sensesLt"e second type o3 conditioning causes listed in
#erse ':2+ as t"e primary causes o3 all o3 our perceptions and acJuired kno$ledge. >t is
t"oug"t t"at real independent ob5ects o3 t"e $orld are directly percei#ed by real ob5ecti#e
senses. So t"e t$el#e o3 t"em are t"oug"t to be independent causes, and t"eir e33ect, in
combination $it" t"e si- consciousnesses, is true direct perception o3 an independent
reality. /ut, as stated in #erse ':', t"e senses organs and t"e ob5ects o3 t"e senses cannot
e-ist on t"eir o$n, t"ey cannot be sel3-caused, independent o3 e#eryt"ing else. 8"ey
s"ould not be considered as primary causes.
= Also, e#en in t"e case o3 perception, t"e senses organs are called t"is $ay only
con#entionally. Gntil t"ere is perception, t"ere is no reason to call somet"ing an organ o3
t"e senses. And i3 it $ould e-ist in"erently independently o3 any ob5ect o3 t"e senses, t"en
it $ould not be in3luenced by an ob5ect o3 t"e senses a sel3-e-isting t"ing is independent,
and unin3luenced by ot"er t"ings+, and t"ere $ould be no perception at all. -- More on t"e
ayatanas in section 1.+
.
[ NNN
[ (.
[ I"en no elements "a#e originated, <t"eir@ disappearance is not possible.
[ 8"ere3ore it is not proper to speak o3 an 77immediately preceding conditionC, 3or i3
somet"ing "as already ceased, $"at cause is t"ere 3or it.
.
!O! S>MG98A!E>8%, !O! H>FFERE!6E = 8AE EUAM&9E OF 8AE >MMEH>A8E9%
&RE6EH>!D 6O!H>8>O!: Aere $e are talking about Kimmediately preceding
conditionLt"e t"ird type o3 conditioning causes listed in #erse ':2+ as t"e necessary real
cause 3or t"e ne-t moment o3 consciousness. >n a comple- Ab"id"arma model o3 t"e $ay
t"e continuity o3 t"e mind is assumed necessary to e-plain t"e continuity o3 karma+,
t"ere is a succession o3 in3initesimal moments o3 consciousness 3or $"ic" t"e preceding
moment is one o3 t"e necessary causes. >t is t"oug"t t"at $it"out a preceding moment o3
consciousness t"ere is no possible ne-t consciousness, because consciousness cannot
arise 3rom not"ing, or 3rom material conditions only. 8"ese successi#e moments o3
consciousness are t"oug" to be real, in"erently e-isting. 8"e stream o3 consciousness is
t"oug"t to be a series o3 discrete moments. 8"e problem is t"at t"e 5unction bet$een t$o
consecuti#e moments, acting as cause and e33ect, cannot be e-plained: cause . e33ect
cannot be simultaneous or o#erlapping+, nor can t"ey be in seJuence separate in time+.
>3 t"ey $ere simultaneous, t"en t"ere $ould be no need to cause t"e e33ect anymore. >3
t"ey $ere separate in time, t"en t"ere $ould be no direct link bet$een cause and e33ect,
and i3 t"at could "appen, t"en anyt"ing could cause anyt"ing else. So t"ose moments o3
consciousness cannot really e-ist as real causes and real e33ects. And t"ey cannot be
directly obser#ed by a %ogi in deep meditation.
-- More on t"e immediately preceding condition: sections * and 2'.+
.
91: <!o real F in"erent e33ects or products, but not completely non-e-istent eit"er@
9B: <Empty causes can result only in an empty product@
.
[ NNN
[ '?.
[ Since e-isting t"ings $"ic" "a#e no sel3-e-istence are not real,
[ >t is not possible at all t"at: C8"is t"ing 7becomes7 upon t"e e-istence o3 t"at ot"er
one.C
.
EM&8% G!SGRE+ 6AGSES 6A! RESG98 O!9% >! A! EM&8% G!SGRE+ EFFE68S. 8"e
con#ergence o3 an in3inity o3 causes and conditions t"at are not sel3-e-isting, not
in"erently e-isting, ne#er absolute, because depending on t"eir o$n causes and
conditions, can certainly ne#er cause a Ksure e33ectL, a so-called real e33ect, or produce a
Ksure precise productL. !O A/SO9G8E, &ERMA!E!8, ESSE!6E OF A &ROHG68 6A! 6OME
OG8 OF 8A>S. /ecause o3 t"e number o3 #ariables $e can ne#er produce t"e same
product t$ice in a billion eons. >n 3act t"ere is no indi#idual product coming out o3 t"is at
all. 8"ere is 5ust t"e continuity o3 t"e endless 3lo$ $it"out any indi#iduality in it.
.
[ NNN
[ -- 8"ere is no in"erently e-isting product because t"ere is no beginning to its
causes and conditions, and no end to its e33ects.
.
9B: <8"e product is not inside, nor outside o3 t"e aggregate@
.
[ NNN
[ ''.
[ 8"e product does not reside in t"e conditioning causes, indi#idually or collecti#ely,
[ So "o$ can t"at $"ic" does not reside in t"e conditioning cause result 3rom
conditioning causesO
.
A! >!AERE!8FREA9 EFFE68 6A!!O8 6OME OG8 OF >8S EM&8% ADDREDA8E OF
6AGSES A!H 6O!H>8>O!S: 8"e essence o3 t"e product cannot come 3rom its causes and
conditions indi#idually or toget"er aggregate+, since t"ey t"emsel#es are not sel3-e-isting.
Since all participating causes t"e aggregate o3 causes and conditions+ are empty o3
in"erent e-istence, ne#er absolute, ne#er sure to produce a particular e33ect indi#idually,
or a particular product toget"er, because t"ey are all depending on t"eir o$n causes and
conditions, ad in3initum, t"en t"ere cannot be any essence o3 t"e product in t"e aggregate
o3 t"ose causes and conditions not be3ore, not during, not a3ter+. Any$ay $e look at t"is,
t"e resulting product is ne#er sure to be t"is or t"at, t"e number o3 #ariables is in3inite. An
empty aggregate can cause only an empty product. >t is called t"is e33ect or t"at e33ect
only con#entionally. >t is like gi#ing a name to a small s$irl in t"e middle o3 t"e ocean, and
$atc"ing it Kli#eL, interact and e#ol#e, and getting attac"ed to it, and su33ering because it
e#entually dies. Q 8"e case o3 t"e aggregate o3 causes and conditions $ill be analyMed in
more details in section 2?.
An e33ect cannot not come out o3 its empty aggregate o3 causes and conditions eit"er: >t
cannot come out o3 a di33erent aggregate eit"er. Ot"er$ise anyt"ing $ould cause anyt"ing
else.+
.
9B: <&roducts are not completely non-e-istent or useless eit"er, t"ey are 5ust ne#er
absolute@
.
[ NNN
[ '2.
[ 8"en t"e Cnon-realC $ould result 3rom t"ose conditioning-causes.
[ I"y t"en $ould a product not proceed also 3rom non-causesO
.
/G8 8AA8 HOES!S8 MEA! 8AA8 8AERE >S !O EFFE68 OR &ROHG68 A8 A99: >t is not
because t"e product is empty o3 in"erent e-istence because depending on empty causes
and conditions or empty aggregate+ t"at it is completely non-e-istent, useless,
meaningless, or 3rom t"e mind only. Ie cannot deny t"e obser#ed regularity, t"e
obser#ed dependent origination. Ot"er$ise t"at $ould mean t"at anyt"ing could come out
o3 anyt"ing else $it"out any causality at all. 8"at $ould be total c"aos. /ut t"at is not
$"at is obser#ed, t"ere is regularity, t"ere is apparent dependent origination. >t is 5ust
t"at t"is s"ould be understood $it"out t"e need 3or any in"erently e-isting causes and
e33ect.+
.
91: <!o real F in"erent causality, but not completely non-e-istent eit"er@
9B: <!o absolute causality F determinism 3rom empty causes@
.
[ NNN
[ '1.
[ On t"e one "and, t"e product <consists in its@ conditioning causes,
[ on t"e ot"er "and, t"e causes do not consist o3 t"emsel#es.
[ Ao$ can a product <resulting@ 3rom <conditioning causes@ not consisting o3
t"emsel#es be consisting o3 t"ose causesO
.
8AERE >S !O REA9 6AGSA9>8%: A product cannot be determined by causes and
conditions t"at are t"emsel#es not absolute or in"erent because depending on t"eir o$n
causes and conditions, ad in3initum. 8"ere is ne#er a sure causal link bet$een any
aggregate o3 causes and conditions and a product because t"ere are al$ays ot"er causes
and conditions t"at can come and c"ange t"e outcome.+
.
9B: <6ausal relations are not completely non-e-istent or useless eit"er, t"ey are 5ust
ne#er absolute@
.
[ NNN
[ 'BA.
[ 8"ere3ore, t"at product does not consist in t"ose causes, <yet@ it is agreed t"at a
product does not consist o3 non-causes.
[ Ao$ <can t"ere be@ a conditioning cause or non-cause $"en a product is not
producedO
.
/G8 8AA8 HOES!S8 MEA! 8AA8 8AERE >S !O 6AGSA9>8% A8 A99: So t"ere is no
absolute F in"erent causality, no sure causality, because t"ere are al$ays ot"er causes
and conditions, ad in3initum, because all causes and conditions are empty o3 in"erent
e-istence, and because t"e e33ects are also empty o3 in"erent e-istence. /ut t"at doesnSt
mean t"at t"ere is no causal relations at all, t"at all causality is meaningless, useless, 3rom
t"e mind only, and t"at $e s"ould drop e#eryt"ing rig"t no$. All causes, e33ects, causal
relations, are merely imputed by t"e mind, con#entional trut"s, but being t"at t"ey are
#ery use3ul and Juite e33icient in most cases, t"e results o3 sciences and tec"nologies all
around us is a proo3 o3 t"at, t"e e33iciency o3 t"e /udd"ist pat"s is anot"er proo3.
-- So t"ere is no absolute causality, no total absence o3 causality.+
.

91: <9>!EAR RVSGMV OF SE68>O! ' = O! 6O!H>8>O!S@
9B: <!o in"erent causes, but not completely non-e-istent@
.
-- '. Assumed: All e33ects are causes, no last e33ect e#eryt"ing is produced 3or its o$n
e33ects, ot"er$ise it is as good as non-e-istent+.
.
-- 2. EM&8>!ESS OF 6AGSES /E6AGSE HE&E!HE!8 8AE>R OI! 6AGSES: ':'+
!ot"ing is $it"out its o$n causes and conditions, or uncaused,
no e33ect or cause+ $it"out a cause, all causes are e33ects, no 3irst,
but t"ere is no absolute cause, not internal, not e-ternal, not bot".
no e33ect $it" a cause, t"at is $it" an absolute F sure cause.
!O8 8AE SAME, !O8 H>FFERE!8 : 6ause . e33ect cannot be t"e same sel3-caused,
internal+, di33erent ot"er-caused, e-ternal+, bot", or neit"er.
.
-- 1. 8"ere are 3our con#entional types o3 conditioning causes only. ':2+
.
-- B. A 6AGSE HOES!S8 REMA>! 8AE SAME F 6AA!DE F 6EASE 6OM&9E8E9%.':1+
A cause cannot remain t"e same, nor c"ange into somet"ing di33erent F ot"er-
e-istence, nor become non-e-istent.
!ot"ing remains t"e same, or c"ange, in a line or cycle o3 causality. !o continuity F
discontinuity.
!o absolute o$ners"ip F responsibility, no total absence o3 o$ners"ip.
.
-- E. !on-duality o3 t"e 1: on t"e edge bet$een determinism and c"aos.
!o e33ectFcause $it" or $it"out its o$n causeT. andFor causing+
!o primary causeF3ree $ill t"at is not an e33ect, no total determinism,
!o causeFe33ect $it" or $it"out its o$n e33ectT. andFor causing+
!o absolutely sure cause, no cause $it"out some regular in3luence.
also: no causing $it" or $it"out its o$n cause andFor conditionT.+
8"e case o3 moti#e: !o 3ree $ill, no absolute conditioning, but some o3 bot". So
t"ere is samsara, and 9iberation is possible. ':B+
.
-- ). 8AE M>HH9E IA%: bet$een e-istence and non-e-istence+ 6auses are not
completely non-e-istent eit"er, t"ey e-ist con#entionally. ':E+
.
-- *. !O REA9 6AGSE 8O 6REA8E OR HES8RO%: 8"ere is no cause o3 a real, non-real
e33ect, or bot", or neit"er. !o cause 3or anyt"ing e-istent, or non-e-istent, 3or t"e
origination, trans3ormation or cessation o3 anyt"ing, 3or t"e birt", e#olution, or deat" o3
any being, 3or somet"ing in"erently e-isting or empty o3 in"erent e-istence. ':)-*+
.
-- 0. >!SE&ARA/>9>8%, 6O!6E&8GA9 >!8ERHE&E!HE!6E OF 6AGSE . EFFE68.
8"e case o3 T t"e senses and t"eir ob5ects are interdependent conceptually,
inseparable, one cannot e-ist $it"out t"e ot"er. ':0+
.
-- (. !O8 S>MG98A!EOGS, !O8 SE&ARA8E non-duality+: cause . e33ect cannot be
simultaneous or o#erlapping+, nor in seJuence separate in time+.
8"e case o3 t"e preceding consciousness moment. ':(+
.
9B: <!o in"erent products, but not completely non-e-istent@
.
-- '. EM&8>!ESS OF &ROHG68S: ':'?+ Empty unsure+ causes can result only in a mist
o3 empty 3uMMy+ e33ects, ne#er t"e same t$ice no essence+.
.
-- 2. !O8 8AE SAME, !O8 H>FFERE!8: !on-duality: not t$o, not one+ ':''+
8"e product does not reside in t"e causes indi#idually or collecti#ely, nor outside o3
t"e aggregate.
.
-- 1. 8AE M>HH9E IA%: E33ects and products are not completely non-e-istent or useless
eit"er, t"ey are 5ust con#entional entities. ':'2+
.
9B: <!o in"erent causality, but not completely non-e-istent@
.
-- '. EM&8>!ESS OF 6AGSA9 RE9A8>O!S F 6AGSA9>8%: ':'1+
!o absolute causality F determinism 3rom empty unsure+ causes.
.
-- 2. 8AE M>HH9E IA%: 6ausal relations are not completely non-e-istent or useless
eit"er, t"ey are 5ust ne#er absolute. ':'B+
.
8AE 8AREE 6AGSE, EFFE68, 6AGS>!D RE9A8>O!+ are empty because dependent,
because conceptually interdependent, not in"erently e-istent, not completely non-e-istent,
not bot", not neit"er. 8"ey are inseparable, not t"e same nor di33erent, not simultaneous
nor separate, non-dual: not one, not t$o, not t"ree. E#eryt"ing is caused . causing, "as
an in3inity o3 causes . conditions, "as in3luence on an in3inity o3 ot"er t"ings, and is
related to e#eryt"ing. Ie imagine a net$ork o3 indi#idual causes, e33ects, causalities,
linesFcycles o3 causality, only t"roug" "abituation and ignorance, but t"ere is only t"e
3lo$. !ot"ing is produced, e-ists . c"anges $"ile remaining t"e same, c"anges into
somet"ing else di33erent, or completely ceases. !o absolute continuity or discontinuity.
!ot"ing is permanent or impermanent. E#eryt"ing is on t"e edge bet$een determinism
and c"aos, bet$een e-istence and non-e-istence. !o absolute control possible, no total
absence o3 control eit"er. 8"e la$s, sciences and pat"s are ne#er absolute, nor completely
useless eit"er i3 used $it" t"e $isdom seeing t"eir real nature.
.

91: <8AEMA8>6 RVSGMV OF SE68>O! '@
.
-- '. EM&8>!ESS OF 6AGSES: All causes are empty because dependent on t"eir o$n
causes and conditions, no in"erent, absolute '??\ sure+, permanent, independent, or
primary cause, no possible essence o3 t"e e33ect residing in t"e cause. !o pure moti#e,
3ree $ill, ob5ecti#e senses, independent $orld, stream o3 discrete moments o3
consciousness ... elementary d"armas and relations.
.
-- 2. 6AGSES ARE !O8 !O!-EU>S8E!8 E>8AER: E#en i3 ne#er absolute, t"ey are not
completely non-e-istent, or $it"out any in3luence, or unrelated to t"eir e33ect in similarity,
space and time. 8"ere is t"e obser#ed regularity, e#en i3 imper3ect. 8"ere is not"ing, no
e33ect $it"out a cause.
.
-- 1. /OG!H9ESS 6AA>! OF 6AGSA9>8%: All causes areF$ere e33ects, all e33ects areF$ill-
be causes. 8"ere is no 3irst cause, no 3inal e33ect. All e33ect "asF"ad an in3inity o3 causes,
all cause "asF$ill-"a#e an in3inity o3 e33ect.QSee also ne-t page on t"is.
.
-- B. EM&8>!ESS OF 8AE 6AGS>!D, A!H OF 8AE EFFE68: >3 t"ere is no absolute causes
because o3 t"eir o$n causes and conditions, ad in3initum+, t"en t"ere cannot be any
absolute causing, or e33ect. All e33ects and causing causal relations+ are empty because
dependent on empty causes.
.
-- E. EFFE68S A!H 6AGS>!D ARE !O8 !O!-EU>S8E!8 E>8AER: 8"e e33ect and causing+,
e#en i3 ne#er absolute, is not completely non-e-istent, or unrelated to its cause in
similarity, space and time. 8"ere is t"e obser#ed regularity e#en i3 imper3ect. 8"ere is
not"ing, no cause $it"out an e33ect.
.
-- ). EM&8% ADDREDA8E: >3 no cause is absolute, t"en no aggregate o3 causes and
conditions can be absolute eit"er. 8"e product does not reside in t"e causes indi#idually or
collecti#ely, nor is it outside o3 t"e aggregate.
.
-- *. EM&8>!ESS OF HES8RO%>!D: 8"ere is no positi#e causing making somet"ing ne$
to appear+, and no negati#e causing making somet"ing to disappear, or not appear, or
causing somet"ing not-real+.
.
-- 0. 6O!6E&8GA9 >!8ERHE&E!HE!6E: All trio - cause, causing and e33ect - are empty
because conceptually interdependent. One cannot e-ist $it"out t"e ot"er and t"en 5oin
$it" t"e ot"er. !o cause $it" or $it"out e33ect, no e33ect $it" or $it"out a cause T Same
bet$een t"e #erbFcausing and t"e ot"er t$o.
.
-- (. !O8 8AE SAME, !O8 H>FFERE!8 = !O!-HGA9: 8"e cause . e33ect . causing+
cannot be t"e same sel3-causation, internal+, nor di33erent ot"er-causation, e-ternal+, nor
bot" toget"er, nor neit"er no cause at all+.
.
-- '?. !O8 S>MG98A!EOGS, !O8 SE&ARA8E = !O!-HGA9: 8"e cause . e33ect cannot be
t"e simultaneous o#erlapping at t"e 5unction+, nor separate $it" a gap bet$een t"em+,
nor bot", nor neit"er. Aere causing is assumed instantaneous.
.
-- ''. EM&8>!ESS OF 8AE 8>ME OF 8AE 6AGS>!D: So t"e e-act time o3 t"e causing
cannot be 3ound. 8"e e-act time o3 t"e beginning o3 t"e e33ect, its origination, cannot be
3ound. And i3 t"ere is no real origination o3 t"e e33ect, t"en t"ere is no possible cessation,
and no possible duration o3 t"e e33ect. As 3or t"e origination, duration and cessation o3 a
KlongerL causing, see section 2.
.
-- '2. EM&8>!ESS OF 8AE 8AREE 8>MES: So t"ere is no real be3ore i+, during ii+ and
a3ter iii+ t"e causing, or origination o3 t"e e33ect, since t"is point in time does not really
e-ist. And i3 t"is point is empty, "o$ could t"ere be cause be3ore, causing during, and
e33ect a3terO Or e#en cause be3ore, during and a3terO I"at $e call cause, e33ect and
causing are establis"ed con#entionally a3ter t"e 3act.
.
-- '1. !O 6O!8>!G>8%, !O H>S6O!8>!G>8%: !o t"ing cause+ remain t"e same by going
t"roug" t"e causing process in"erent e-istence+, nor c"ange into somet"ing completely
di33erent ot"er e-istence+, nor cease completely non-e-istence+. 8"e cause be3ore i+,
during ii+ and a3ter iii+ t"e causing is not t"e same, nor di33erent. 8"e same 3or t"e
e33ect and t"e causing.+
.
-- 'B. 8AE M>HH9E IA%: So $e s"ould stay a$ay 3rom t"e 3our e-treme p"ilosop"ical
positions in regard to causes, e33ects, causal relations, causal lines or cycles, causality and
dependent origination in general.
.

91: <A/OG8 9>!ES . 6%69ES OF 6AGSA9>8%@
.
-- '. /OG!H9ESS 6AA>! OF 6AGSA9>8%: All causes areF$ere e33ects, all e33ects areF$ill-
be causes. 8"ere is no 3irst cause, no 3inal e33ect. All e33ect "asF"ad an in3inity o3 causes,
all cause "asF$ill-"a#e an in3inity o3 e33ect.
.
-- 2. A !E8IOR4 OF MA!% 8O MA!% EA6A 8>ME: Eac" time T
-- -- a. /A64: Eac" e33ect is immediately depending on an in3inity o3 causes and
conditions. /ut $e con#entionally designate one cause Kt"e primary causeL.
-- -- b. FORIARH: Eac" cause is immediately in3luencing an in3inity o3 ot"er t"ings
simultaneously. /ut $e con#entionally designate one Kt"e primary e33ectL.
-- -- c. So anytime anyt"ing is at t"e con#ergence o3 an in3inity o3 causes and conditions,
and t"e starting point o3 an in3inity o3 in3luences. /ut $e usually concentrate on one cause
be3ore, one e33ect a3ter, and call t"e rest Kot"er conditionsL and Kside e33ectsL.
-- -- d. More so, t"is net$ork o3 in3inite causes con#erging on one t"ing, and t"e 3anning
out o3 t"e net$ork o3 discrete in3luences on ot"er t"ings are 5ust like an illusion. 8"ere is
causality and in3luence but not"ing discrete, no indi#idual t"ings cause, e33ect or relation+
in it. Ie are t"e ones $"o are gi#ing names to small s$irls in t"e middle o3 an ocean.
.
-- 1. 8AE >HEA OF 9>!ES A!H 6%69ES OF 6AGSES . EFFE68S:
-- -- a. 9>!ES OF 6AGSA9>8%:
-- -- -- i. /A64: 8"e e33ect "as a cause, t"is cause "ad its cause, t"is cause "ad its cause,
T ad in3initum. Eac" e33ect is t"e result o3 an in3inity o3 causes successi#ely in line. Ie
mig"t call t"is t"e line o3 past causality, or o3 past causes. All o3 t"is assuming t"at $e can
use one to one causality.
-- -- -- ii. FORIARH: 8"e cause "as its e33ect, t"is e33ect $ill "a#e its e33ect, t"is e33ect
$ill "a#e its e33ect,T ad in3initum. Eac" cause $ill result in an in3inity o3 e33ects
successi#ely in line. All o3 t"is assuming t"at $e can use one to one causality.
-- -- -- iii. So $e usually concentrate on a one-to-one-causality along t"is linear seJuence
o3 e#ents: one cause be3ore, one e33ect a3ter, and call t"e rest Kot"er minor conditionsL
and Kside e33ectsL, t"en $e go to t"e ne-t step.
-- -- -- i#. /ut $e "a#e no #alid absolute basis to concentrate on only one cause and one
e33ect at eac" step, or to concentrate on only one line o3 causality, because eac" step is at
best a many to many point, or a mist o3 causes producing a mist o3 e33ects, or e#en 5ust
an apparent t"ing in t"e middle o3 an empty luminous space T
-- -- b. EUAM&9ES:
-- -- -- i. >t is t"e same t"ing $it" cycles o3 causes and e33ects like $it" t"e '2 steps on
t"e I"eel o3 9i3e. Ie concentrate on one cause, one e33ect at a time, e#en i3 eac" point is
t"e con#ergence o3 an in3inity o3 causes and conditions, and t"e point o3 origin o3 an
in3inity o3 in3luence. More so, t"e $"ole cycle is t"oug"t as being somet"ing real.
-- -- -- ii. And i3 t"e cycle can go one $ay, $"y $ould it not go t"e ot"er $ay around.
One mig"t t"ink t"at i3 "e could control one part o3 t"e cycle, t"en one $ould be able to
control t"e $"ole cycle, or re#erse it, or to make it stop. /ut t"at is 5ust an illusion based
on t"e idea o3 in"erent causes, e33ects, and causal links.
-- -- -- iii. >t is t"e same t"ing $it" t"e stream o3 consciousness: some t"ink t"ere is a
series o3 discrete moments o3 consciousness 3orming a continuous line o3 causes and
e33ects, and t"at t"e rest are 5ust ot"er conditions or side e33ects. More so, t"e $"ole line
o3 causality stream o3 consciousness+ is t"oug"t as being somet"ing real by itsel3,
somet"ing to Kpuri3yL or K9iberateL.
-- -- -- i#. 8"e sel3 is also like t"at. Ie t"ink t"ere is a continuity, eit"er a permanent
cause, or a permanent indi#idual stream.
.
-- B. D9O/A9 >!8ERHE&E!HE!6E:
-- -- a. Eac" e33ect is dependent on e#eryt"ing else, eac" cause "as in3luence on
e#eryt"ing else.
-- -- b. E#eryt"ing is interdependent $it" e#eryt"ing else.
-- -- c. 8"ere is no o$ners"ip, no real net$ork o3 discrete relations, no real lines or
streams, no real cycle o3 causes and e33ects.
.
92: <Section 2 - An Analysis o3 CDoing toC c"ange or mo#ement+ = 2E #erses = <8"e
illusion o3 continuity t"roug" c"ange or mo#ement@@
.
RVSGMV: Section 2: 8"e illusion o3 continuity t"roug" c"ange or mo#ement.
-- Section 2 is about t"e K"etuL or moti#e, t"e second conditioning cause listed in t"e
#erse ':2.
-- Section 2 is mainly about t"e #erb, $"ile section ' is about t"e sub5ect, and section 1
about t"e ob5ect. /ut all t"ree sections co#er t"e t"ree.
-- I"ile section ' concentrated on t"e emptiness o3 t"e sub5ects, t"e causes like moti#e
T+, t"is section 2 concentrates on t"e emptiness o3 t"e #erbs like t"e moti#ated actions+,
its non-origination, and on "o$ t"is sub5ect is c"anged by moti#ating and doing t"e action
no continuity, no discontinuity+. /ut bot" sections co#ered t"e interdependence o3 t"e
t"ree: sub5ect, #erb, ob5ect F complement. /ot" tec"niJues can be applied to any trio, to
any sentence, t"ey are complementary.
-- 8"e opponent needs to belie#e in Kreal in"erent actionsL because "is $"ole
understanding o3 karma is based on t"e real e-istence o3 absolute actions t"at are eit"er
$"olesome, un$"olesome or neutral. Ae also needs to belie#e in somet"ing permanent in
a sel3 t"at is c"anged by t"e actions, like planting a karma seed, and $ill su33er t"e
conseJuences o3 "is actions in ot"er rebirt"s. For "im t"ere is a #ery subtle permanent
consciousness to $"ic" karma seeds are added until t"ey mature. Ae also t"ink t"e
origination and cessation o3 t"ose real actions are directly obser#able.
-- !agar5una demonstrates t"at t"e goer be3ore, during and a3ter t"e action is not t"e
same, nor completely di33erent, t"at t"ere is no real actions, not"ing added to t"e goer
$it" t"e actions, t"at t"e origination, duration and cessation o3 t"e action cannot be
directly obser#able, or logically pro#en.
-- I"en generaliMed to t"e person and its actions: 8"ere is no permanent person t"at is
t"e same be3ore, during and a3ter moti#ating and doing an action, but it is not a
completely di33erent person eit"er t"at is su33ering t"e conseJuences o3 t"e 3irst. 8"ere is
no real absolute $"olesome, un$"olesome or neutral actions t"at are moti#ated by a real
in"erent sel3, but t"ese could be use3ul moral concepts since t"ey are not completely non-
e-istent eit"er. An un$"olesome action $ill al$ays bring bad results to t"e doer.
-- !ote: 8"e causing is assumed instantaneous in section ', but, in section 2, t"e
#erbFgoing is assumed to last and is $it" #isible acti#ity and displacement. So t"ere is
discussion about t"e origination, duration and cessation o3 t"e going F action "ere.+
.
91: <8"e t$o arguments@
9B: <!o permanent goer, no di33erent goers, no real going@
.
[ NNN
[ '.
[ <!agar5una:@ 8"at $"ic" is already gone to gatam = goer a3ter t"e going - iii+
[ is not t"at $"ic" is Cbeing gone toC gamyate+,
[ more so, Ct"at $"ic" is not yet gone toC agatam = goer be3ore t"e going - i+
[ is certainly not t"at Cbeing gone to.C gamyate+
[ Also, t"e Cpresent going toC gamyamana = actual goer - ii+
[ $it"out Ct"at $"ic" is already gone toC and Ct"at $"ic" is not yet gone toC
[ is not Cbeing gone toC.
.
8AERE >S !O >!AERE!8 DO>!D = A68>O! OF DO>!D = A!H !O REA9 6AA!DE >! 8AE
DOER: 8"e goer a3ter t"e going iii+ is not KgoingL anymore, not t"e same as t"e goer
actually-going ii+. 8"e goer be3ore going i+ is not KgoingL yet, not t"e same as t"e goer
actually-going ii+. /ut t"e goer actually-going ii+ is not completely di33erent t"an or
unrelated to+ t"e goer a3ter t"e going iii+ and t"e goer be3ore going i+. So t"e goer is not
t"e same nor di33erent be3ore, during and a3ter t"e action. Also, t"ere is no real going 8"e
KgoingL is eit"er already done iii+ or not at all i+, t"ere cannot be a Kduring a goingL, or
an K"al3 done goingL. KDoingL is a concept attributed a3ter t"e 3act, or con#entionally
imagined.
-- 6ause, causing and e33ect are not t"e sameFone, not di33erentFt$o, t"e initial goer i+,
t"e goer going ii+, and t"e resulting goer iii+ are not t"e same, not di33erent.+
.
9B: <Opponent: 8"e goer is c"anged by t"e going and t"is is #isible by "is acti#ity .
displacement@
.
[ NNN
[ 2.
[ <An opponent ob5ects:@
[ I"ere t"ere is acti#ity cesta - #isible acti#ity+ t"ere is a Cprocess o3 goingC gatis
= real going process+,
[ and t"at acti#ity #isible acti#ity+ is in t"e Cpresent going toC gamyamane - ii+.
[ 8"en Cprocess o3 goingC gatis - real going process+ is in"erent in t"e Cpresent
going toC gamyamane - ii+
[ <since@ t"e acti#ity #isible acti#ity+ is not in Ct"at $"ic" is already gone toC iii+
nor in Ct"at $"ic" is not yet gone to.C i+
.
8AE O&&O!E!8 : t"e goer is c"anged by a real actionFgoing directly #isible by t"e
acti#ity and displacement o3 t"e goer going. 8"ere is a real going process $"en t"ere is
#isible acti#ity . displacement, and a goer actually-going ii+ "as t"is #isible acti#ity, but
not t"e goer be3ore going i+ nor t"e goer a3ter t"e going iii+. So t"is real going process is
c"aracteristic o3 t"e goer actually-going ii+ only.
-- So t"e opponent is using t"e concept o3 #isible acti#ity to try to pro#e t"e in"erent
e-istence o3 a real going process or Kreal actionL. And "e t"inks t"at t"e goer be3ore,
during and a3ter is di33erent, because only t"e middle one "as t"is added real going
process discernable by its #isible acti#ity. >n t"is t"ere are t$o problems: t"e problem o3
t"e real going process discernable by its #isible acti#ity in a goer actually-going ii+, and
t"e problem o3 t"e sub5ect being di33erent be3ore i+, during ii+ and a3ter iii+ t"e going.
Aidden in t"is is also t"e problem o3 t"e origination and cessation o3 t"is acti#ity, or o3 t"is
real going process, used as an absolute re3erence points in time, t"e de3inition o3 time is
depending on it.+
.
91: <Arguments against a goer t"at c"ange $it" its acti#ity@
9B: <8"e emptiness o3 K#isible acti#ity and displacementL@
9E: <8"e beginning o3 t"is acti#ity or displacement cannot be 3ound@
.
[ NNN
[ 1.
[ <!agar5una ans$ers:@
[ Ao$ $ill t"e Cact o3 goingC gamanam - #isible acti#ity . displacement+ o3 Cpresent
going toC gamyamana - ii+ be produced,
[ Since bot" kinds o3 t"e Cact o3 goingC #isible acti#ity . displacement+
[ <as applied to an acti#e process and to t"e acti#ity o3 going t"roug" space@
[ simply are not produced i.e. originating+ in t"e Cpresent going toC ii+O
.
8AE &RO/9EM I>8A 8AE /ED>!!>!D OF 8AE A68>:>8% OR H>S&9A6EME!8: %ou say
t"e real going process is directly #isible by its #isible acti#ity . displacement, but $"en
does t"is acti#ity start O >t doesnSt start in t"e goer actually-going ii+ since "e is ob#iously
already going -- t"e #isible acti#ity, and t"e #isible displacement are already in progress.
And it doesnSt start in t"e goer be3ore going i+, nor in t"e goer a3ter t"e going iii+. So $e
cannot 3ind t"e beginning o3 t"e #isible acti#ity . displacement in any o3 t"e t"ree times o3
t"e goer. So "o$ do $e kno$ $"en t"e goer is actually goingO I"ere is t"e proo3 o3 real
acti#ity . displacement, real going process, real actions.+
.
9E: <8"e problems $it" in"erent independent acti#ity and displacement@
9): <8"ere $ould be a going process $it"out a goer@
.
[ NNN
[ B.
[ Aa#ing t"e Cact o3 goingC gamanam - #isible acti#ity . displacement+ o3 Cpresent
going toC gamyamanasya - ii+
[ "as necessarily resulted in a lack o3 Ct"e present going toC ii+ o3 t"e Cprocess o3
goingC gati - real going process+,
[ For t"e Cpresent going toC gamyamana - ii+ is t"e Cbeing gone toC gamyate+.
.
8AE &RO/9EM I>8A A REA9 >!HE&E!HE!8 A68>:>8%: >3 $e assume t"at t"e #isible
acti#ity . displacement and t"e goer actually-going ii+ are t$o di33erent separate in"erent
t"ings, t"en t"ere $ould be a real going process $it"out a goer actually-going ii+. /ut
t"at ob#iously doesnSt make sense. So t"ey cannot be t$o separate in"erent t"ings. One
is depending on t"e ot"er.+
.
9): <8"ere $ould be t$o kinds o3 acti#ity and displacement@
.
[ NNN
[ E.
[ <RecogniMing@ t"e Cact o3 goingC #isible acti#ity . displacement+ o3 Cpresent going
toC ii+
[ results in t$o <kinds o3@ Cacts o3 goingC gamanad#aya - #isible acti#ity .
displacement+:
[ One by $"ic" t"ere is Cpresent going toC gamyamana - ii+, t"e ot"er $"ic" is t"e
Cact o3 goingC
[ gamana - #isible acti#ity . displacement+.
.
MORE &RO/9EM I>8A A REA9 >!HE&E!HE!8 A68>:>8%: Again, i3 $e assume t"e #isible
acti#ity . displacement and t"e goer actually-going ii+ are t$o di33erent separate in"erent
t"ings, t"en t"ere $ould be t$o kinds o3 #isible acti#ity . displacement, one $it" t"e goer
actually-going ii+, one $it" t"e in"erent #isible acti#ity . displacement. /ut t"at ob#iously
doesnSt make sense. So t"ey cannot be t$o separate in"erent t"ings. One is depending on
t"e ot"er.+
.
9): <8"ere $ould be t$o goers@
.
[ NNN
[ ).
[ 8$o CgoersC gantarau+ $ould 3allaciously 3ollo$ as a conseJuence o3 t$o Cacts o3
[ Since certainly t"e Cact o3 goingC #isible acti#ity . displacement+ is not produced
$it"out a CgoerC.
.
MORE &RO/9EM I>8A A REA9 >!HE&E!HE!8 A68>:>8%: And i3 t"ere is t$o kinds o3
#isible acti#ity . displacement, t"en t"ere $ould be t$o goers, one 3or eac" kind o3 #isible
acti#ity . displacement. An acti#ity cannot e-ist $it"out a somebody going t"roug" t"e
#isible acti#ity . displacement. /ut t"at ob#iously doesnSt make sense.
-- So t"e concept o3 real #isible acti#ity . displacement directly #isible in a real goer
actually-going ii+ is 3la$ed. 8"is cannot be used to pro#e t"e e-istence o3 a real going
process or Kreal actionL, nor to pro#e t"at t"e goer be3ore, during and a3ter are di33erent,
is c"anged by a real action.+
.
9B: <8"e emptiness o3 t"e goer: not e-istent, not non-e-istent@
9E: <8"e goer going+ is not in"erently e-isting@
.
[ NNN
[ *.
[ >3 t"ere is no going gamana+ i.e. gamana P Cact o3 goingC+ $it"out a CgoerC
gantara+,
[ Ao$ $ill t"e CgoerC ganta F sel3-e-isting sub5ect+ come into being $"en t"ere is
no CgoingC gamana+
[ i.e. gamana P Cact o3 goingC+O
.
!O DOER I>8A OR I>8AOG8 A DO>!D = 8AE DOER >S !O8 >!AERE!89% EU>S8>!D:
%ou talk about a goer actually-going ii+. /ut since t"ere is no goer $it"out a going, "o$
could a goer e-ist and t"en be going. So a KgoerL does not go.
-- >t also means t"at t"e going is not completely non-e-istent.+
.
9E: <8"e goer going+ is not completely non-e-isting eit"er@
.
[ NNN
[ 0.
[ 8"e CgoerC does not go mo#e+,
[ conseJuently a Cnon-goerC certainly does not go mo#e+.
[ I"at t"ird <possibility@ goes mo#es+ ot"er t"an t"e CgoerC and Cnon-goerCO
.
!O DO>!D I>8A OR I>8AOG8 A DOER = 8AE DOER >S !O8 6OM&9E8E9% !O!-
EU>S8E!8 E>8AER: From t"e preceding #erse $e kno$ t"at a KgoerL does not go. /ut t"at
doesnSt mean t"at t"ere is nobody going at all, it 5ust means t"at "e cannot be a goer
be3ore going and t"en be going. So t"e indi#idual going is not an absolute permanent
goer, not a completely non-e-istent goer eit"er. Ie need to stay a$ay 3rom t"ese t$o
e-tremes: in"erent Fabsolute goer, and completely non-e-istent goer. Ae is not bot", or
somet"ing else eit"er.
-- >t also means t"at t"e going is not in"erently e-isting.+
.
9B: <8"e emptiness o3 t"e going@
9E: <8"ere is no real F in"erent going@
.
[ NNN
[ (.
[ >t is said: C8"e 7goer7 goesC mo#es+ Ao$ is t"at possible,
[ I"en $it"out t"e Cact o3 goingC gamana - #isible mo#ement+ no CgoerC is
producedO
.
!O DO>!D I>8A OR I>8AOG8 A DOER = !O >!AERE!8 DO>!D: >n Kt"e goer goesL
bot" are assumed in"erently e-isting. /ut $e kno$ t"at a goer $it"out t"e going is not a
goer. So, i3 t"ere is no real independent goer, "o$ could t"ere be real independent going.
An empty sub5ect can only moti#ate an empty action.+
.
9E: <8"e problems $it" an in"erent going@
9): <8"ere $ould be a goer $it"out a going@
.
[ NNN
[ '?.
[ 8"ose $"o "old t"e #ie$ t"at t"e CgoerC CgoesC mo#es+ must <3alsely@ conclude
[ 8"at t"ere is a CgoerC $it"out t"e Cact o3 goingC #isible acti#ity . displacement+
[ since t"e Cact o3 goingC #isible acti#ity . displacement+ is obtained icc"ata+ by a
Cgoer.C
.
&RO/9EM I>8A A REA9 >!HE&E!HE!8 DO>!D: >3 t"ere $ere a real goer actually-going
ii+ "a#ing real #isible acti#ity . displacement, t"at $ould mean t"at t"ose t$o are
independent o3 eac" ot"er, and t"at t"ey could be a goer actually-going ii+ $it"out any
#isible acti#ity . displacement, and a real #isible acti#ity . displacement $it"out any goer
actually-going ii+.+
.
9): <8"ere $ould be t$o kinds o3 acti#ity . displacement@
.
[ NNN
[ ''.
[ >3 t"e CgoerC CgoesC mo#es+, t"en t$o acts o3 going #isible acti#ity .
displacement+ <erroneously@ 3ollo$,
[ <One is@ t"at by $"ic" t"e Cgoing onC ganta+ is designated,
[ and <t"e second is@ t"e real CgoerC ganta F sel3-e-isting sub5ect+ $"o
CgoesCmo#es+.
.
MORE &RO/9EM I>8A A REA9 >!AERE!8 DOER AA:>!D REA9 A68>:>8% F MO:EME!8:
>3 t"ere could e-ist a goer actually-going ii+ $it"out any #isible acti#ity . displacement,
t"at $ould mean t"at t"ere are t$o kinds o3 #isible acti#ity . displacement: one 3rom t"e
in"erent a goer actually-going ii+, and one 3rom t"e added #isible acti#ity . displacement.
/ut t"at ob#iously doesnSt make sense. So t"e concept o3 a real goer actually-going ii+,
directly #isible by its #isible acti#ity . displacement is 3la$ed. 8"is cannot be used to pro#e
t"e e-istence o3 a real goerL, nor to pro#e t"at t"e goer be3ore, during and a3ter are
di33erent, is c"anged by a real action.+
.
9B: <8"e emptiness o3 t"e origination and cessation o3 t"e going@
9E: <8"e origination o3 t"e going cannot be 3ound@
.
[ NNN
[ '2.
[ 8"e Cstate o3 going toC gatum+ is not begun in Ct"at $"ic" is already gone toC
gatam - iii+,
[ nor in Ct"at $"ic" is not yet gone toC agatam - i+,
[ !or is t"e Cstate o3 going toC begun in Cpresent going toC gamyamana - ii+.
[ I"ere t"en is it begunO
.
8AE &RO/9EM OF 8AE OR>D>!A8>O! OF 8AE DO>!D F A68>O!: %ou say t"ere is a real
in"erent going F action, but $"en does it startsO >t doesnSt start $it" t"e goer a3ter t"e
going iii+ since "e is not going anymore, it doesnSt start in t"e goer be3ore going i+ since
"e is not going yet, it doesnSt start $it" t"e goer actually-going ii+ since "e is already
going. Ie cannot 3ind t"e beginning o3 t"is supposedly in"erent going F action.
-- 8"e origination o3 t"e action is not caused by t"e resulting goer iii+, nor by t"e initial
goer i+, nor by t"e goer going ii+.+
.
9E: <8"e t"ree states o3 t"e goer relati#e to t"e limits o3 t"e going are not real, t"ey
cannot be 3ound@
.
[ NNN
[ '1.
[ C&resent going toC ii+ does not e-ist pre#ious to t"e beginning o3 t"e Cact o3
[ nor does Ct"at $"ic" is already gone toC iii+ e-ist $"ere t"e Cact o3 goingC #isible
acti#ity . displacement+ s"ould begin.
[ Ao$ can t"e Cact o3 goingC #isible acti#ity . displacement+ <begin@ in Ct"at $"ic"
is not yet gone toC i+ O
.
8AE &RO/9EM OF 8AE 8AREE 8>MES RE9A8>:E 8O 8AE OR>D>!A8>O! A!H 6ESSA8>O!
OF 8AE A68>O!: 8"ere is no goer actually-going ii+ be3ore t"e #isible acti#ity .
displacement = so t"e beginning o3 t"e #isible acti#ity . displacement is not $it" t"e goer
actually-going ii+. 8"ere is no goer a3ter t"e going iii+ at t"e moment o3 t"e beginning o3
t"e #isible acti#ity . displacement = so t"e beginning o3 t"e #isible acti#ity . displacement
is not $it" t"e goer a3ter t"e going iii+. 8"ere is no #isible acti#ity . displacement in t"e
goer be3ore going i+ = so t"e beginning o3 t"e #isible acti#ity . displacement is not $it"
t"e goer be3ore going i+.
-- > t"ink t"e problem "ere is t"at t"e t"ree times i, ii, iii+ relati#e to t"e origination and
cessation o3 t"e supposedly directly obser#able acti#ity and displacement cannot really be
de3ined since $e cannot 3ind t"e e-act moment o3 t"e origination and cessation. And #ice
#ersa, t"e e-act time o3 t"e origination and cessation cannot be deduced 3rom t"ose t"ree
goers be3ore, during and a3ter t"e action+ since t"eir o$n limits cannot be 3ound. 8"e
problem o3 t"e origination and cessation $ill be in#estigated 3urt"er in section *. 8"e
problem o3 t"e t"ree times $ill be analyMed 3urt"er in section '(T
--I"o $ould be t"e cause o3 t"e origination o3 t"e acti#ityO: 8"e goer going ii+ doesnSt
e-ist be3ore t"e origination, t"e resulting goer iii+ doesnSt e-ist at t"e origination, t"e
initial goer cannot be t"e cause o3 t"e origination eit"er.
.
9E: <8"ey are mere co-dependently arisen concepts, ne#er absolute@
.
[ NNN
[ 'B.
[ >t is mentally 3abricated $"at is Ct"at $"ic" is already gone toC gatam - iii+,
[ Cpresent going toC gamyamana - ii+ and Ct"at $"ic" is not yet gone toC agatam -
i+,
[ 8"ere3ore, t"e beginning o3 t"e Cact o3 goingC #isible acti#ity . displacement+ is
not seen in any $ay.
.
8AE REA9 !A8GRE OF 8AE OR>D>!A8>O!, 6ESSA8>O! A!H OF 8AE 8AREE 8>MES:
be3ore, during and a3ter t"e action: So i3 $e cannot 3ind t"e e-act moment in time o3 t"e
beginning or cessation o3 t"e going, or o3 t"e #isible acti#ity . displacement, t"en $e
cannot pro#e t"at t"e goer c"ange 3rom being a goer be3ore going i+ to goer actually-
going ii+ , and t"en to goer a3ter t"e going iii+. >n 3act $e see t"at t"ose 3our concepts
are de3ined on eac" ot"er and t"at t"ere is no absolute basis to really pro#e t"eir
e-istence.
-- 8"ose t"ree -- t"e initial goer i+, t"e goer going ii+, and t"e resulting goer iii+ -- are
mental 3abrications and cannot be used 3ind or pro#e t"e origination. And i3 t"ere is no
origination, t"ere cannot be any cessation, nor duration.+
.
9B: <8"e emptiness o3 t"e t"ree times relati#e to t"e going@
9E: <8"e goer not-going-yet+ is not in"erently e-isting, not completely non-e-isting
eit"er@
.
[ NNN
[ 'E.
[ A CgoerC does not remain unmo#ed na tistati+, t"en certainly t"e Cnon-goerC does
not remain unmo#ed.
[ I"at t"ird <possibility@ ot"er t"an CgoerC and Cnon-goerC can t"us remain
unmo#edO
.
EM&8>!ESS OF 8AE DOER /EFORE DO>!D >+ A!H OF KREMA>!>!D G!MO:EHL: 8"e
goer be3ore t"e going is not going yet, so "e is not a real goer t"at is not going yet, not a
goer remaining unmo#ed. /ut t"at doesnSt mean t"at "e is completely non-e-isting eit"er,
or t"at "e is a non-goer remaining unmo#ed. 8"e sub5ect o3 Kremaining unmo#edL is not a
goer, not a non-goer, not bot", not neit"er. 8"is sub5ect is empty o3 in"erent e-istence,
but not completely non-e-istent. Since t"ere is no real sub5ect, t"ere cannot be any real
Kremaining unmo#edL. So t"e Kremaining unmo#edL is also empty o3 in"erent e-istence.
-- 8"e initial goer i+ F moti#e is not in"erently e-isting, not completely non-e-isting. 8"is
initial goer i+ is not e-istent, not non-e-istent, not bot", not neit"er. And i3 t"ere is no
sub5ect, t"en t"e Kremaining unmo#edL is also empty.+
.
9E: <8"e goer continuing-t"e-going+ is not in"erently e-isting@
9E: <8"e goer not-going-anymore+ is not in"erently e-isting@
.
[ NNN
[ ').
[ >t is said t"at a CgoerC continues to be <a CgoerC@.
[ /ut "o$ can t"at be possible,
[ Since a CgoerCganta F sel3-e-isting sub5ect+ lacking t"e Cact o3 goingC
[ gamanam - #isible acti#ity . displacement+ is simply not producedO
.
EM&8>!ESS OF 8AE DOER AF8ER DO>!D >>+, A!H OF K6OM>!D 8O RES8L: 8"e goer
a3ter t"e going is not going anymore, so "e is not a real goer t"at is not going anymore,
not a goer coming to rest. /ut t"at doesnSt mean t"at "e is completely non-e-isting eit"er,
or t"at "e is a non-goer coming to rest. 8"e sub5ect o3 Kcoming to restL is not a goer, not
a non-goer, not bot", not neit"er. 8"is sub5ect is empty o3 in"erent e-istence, but not
completely non-e-istent. Since t"ere is no real sub5ect, t"ere cannot be any real Kcoming
to restL. So t"e Kcoming to restL is also empty o3 in"erent e-istence.
--8"e resulting goer iii+ at t"e destination is not in"erently e-isting, not completely non-
e-isting. 8"is resulting goer ii+ at t"e destination is not e-istent, not non-e-istent, not
bot", not neit"er. And i3 t"ere is no sub5ect, t"en t"e Kcoming to restL is also empty.+
>n s"ort, t"e t"ree states o3 t"e goer be3ore, during and a3ter t"e going, are all empty o3
in"erent e-istence, but not completely non-e-istent eit"er. So it is not t"e same goer in
t"e t"ree times, not is it somet"ing completely di33erent eac" time. 8"ere is no goer, or
non-goer, remaining at rest i+, going ii+, coming to rest iii+.+
.
9E: <8"ere is no permanent goer coming 3rom any o3 t"e t"ree times@
.
[ NNN
[ '*.
[ <8"e CgoerC@ does not continue to be <a goer@ as a result o3 Cpresent going toC ii+
[ or Ct"at $"ic" is already gone toC iii+ or Ct"at $"ic" is not yet gone to,Ci+
[ For t"en t"e act o3 going gamana - #isible acti#ity . displacement+ <$ould be@
origination
[ $"ile t"e Cprocess o3 goingC gati - real going process+ $ould be t"e same as
cessation.
.
EM&8>!ESS OF 8AE 8AREE 8>MES RE9A8>:E 8O 8AE OR>D>!A8>O! A!H 6ESSA8>O! OF
8AE A68>O!FDO>!D: t"is #erse is not clear yet+ 8"ere is no same permanent goer t"at
goes t"roug" t"ree stages be3ore, during and a3ter t"e going+, ot"er$ise t"e #isible
acti#ity . displacement $ould be origination, $"ile real going process $ould be t"e same
as cessation. Or: 8"e #erbs Kremaining unmo#edL, Lcoming to restL, Knot mo#ingL s"ould
be seen t"e same as t"e #erb KgoingL: empty o3 in"erent e-istence because o3
interdependence.
Maybe: !ot"ing is not-going. 8"e goer be3ore going is not not-going, t"e goer going is not
not-going, t"e goer a3ter going is not not-going. >3 t"ere $as a real not-going, t"en at t"e
transition bet$een going and not-going t"at $ould be simultaneous origination and
cessation. Maybe t"is $ill become more clear $it" c"apter * on origination and cessation.
= >3 cause . e33ect $ere o#erlapping t"ere $ould be origination and cessation at t"e same
time.
--8"e resulting goer iii+ at t"e destination+
.
9B: <8"e goer and going are not t"e same, not di33erent F separate@
.
[ NNN
[ '0.
[ 8"us it does not obtain t"at t"e CgoerC is simply C$"at is goingC gamana+ i.e.
gamana P Cact o3 goingC+.
[ 9ike$ise it does not obtain t"at: C8"en t"e CgoerC is somet"ing ot"er t"an $"at is
in t"e Cprocess o3 goingC
[ gatis - real going process+.C
.
8"e sub5ect going is not t"e same sub5ect t"at is 5ust mo#ing, nor is "e a completely
dissociated $it" t"e action. >t is not t"e same sub5ect to $"om $as added #isible acti#ity
. displacement, nor a sub5ect not mo#ing.+
.
9E: <>3 t"e goer and t"e acti#ity $ere t"e same@
.
[ NNN
[ '(.
[ And i3 t"e Cact o3 goingC #isible mo#ement+ and t"e CgoerC are identical,
[ 8"e 3allacy logically 3ollo$s t"at t"e Cperson actingC kartus+ and t"e action
karma+ are identical.
.
>!SE&ARA/>9>8% OF SG/JE68FDOER A!H :ER/FDO>!D: not t"e same, not di33erent: 8"e
sub5ect and #erb-action are not in"erently e-isting and t"en broug"t toget"er during t"e
#isible acti#ity . displacement. 8"ey cannot e-ist independently o3 eac" ot"er. 8"ey are
inseparable: not t"e same, not di33erent or separate, not, not t$o, not one.+
.
9E: <>3 t"e goer and t"e goingFaction $ere separate F di33erent@
.
[ NNN
[ 2?.
[ Alternati#ely, i3 t"e CgoerC is di33erent 3rom t"e Cprocess o3 goingC gati - - real
going process+,
[ 8"e Cact o3 goingC gamana - #isible acti#ity . displacement+ $ould e-ist $it"out
t"e CgoerC
[ and t"e CgoerC $ould e-ist $it"out t"e Cact o3 going.C #isible acti#ity .
displacement+
.
SG/JE68 A!H A68>O! 6A!!O8 /E H>FFERE!8 OR SE&ARA8E: !or can t"e sub5ect and
t"e action be totally separate, di33erent. Ot"er$ise $e $ould "a#e a sub5ect $it"out any
#isible acti#ity . displacement, or #isible acti#ity . displacement $it"out any sub5ect. Or a
person $it"out any karma, or karma $it"out any person.+
.
91: <I"at are t"ey t"en O@
9B: <!on-duality: not one, not t$o@
.
[ NNN
[ 2'.
[ !eit"er t"e identity nor t"e essential di33erence is establis"ed sidd"i+
[ regarding t"e t$o <conceptions CgoerC and Cact o3 goingC #isible acti#ity .
displacement+@.
[ >3 t"ese t$o <alternati#es@ are not establis"ed, in $"at $ay is <t"is problem@ to be
understoodO
.
8AE SG/JE68 A!H A68>O! ARE !O8 SE&ARA8E OR H>FFERE!8, !O8 8AE SAME. 8"ese
t$o cannot e-ist independently o3 eac" ot"er, t"ey are interdependent, t"us empty o3
in"erent e-istence. 8"ey are not e-isting, not non-e-isting, not bot", not neit"er. 8"ey are
t$o co-dependently arisen concepts, not absolute but con#entional trut"s.+
.
9B: <6onceptual interdependence, not e-istent, not non-e-istent@
.
[ NNN
[ 22.
[ 8"e CgoerC is de3ined by t"at $"ic" is in t"e Cprocess o3 goingC real going
process+,
[ "e does not go to t"at <destination@ $"ic" is determined by t"e Cprocess o3 goingC
real going process+
[ because t"ere is no prior Cprocess o3 goingC. gati - real going process+
[ >ndeed someone goes some$"ere.
.
8AE >!8ERHE&E!HE!6E OF 8AE 8AREE: SG/JE68, :ER/, 6OM&9EME!8: 8"e goer,
going and destination are interdependent de3initions or concepts. !one o3 t"em can e-ist
alone independently o3 t"e ot"er t$o. So t"ey are all empty o3 in"erent e-istence because
interdependent, but t"at doesnSt mean t"at t"ey are completely non-e-istent eit"er. 8"ey
are 5ust ne#er absolute.+
.
9B: <8"is applies to t"e t"ree, including t"e destination@
.
[ NNN
[ 21.
[ 8"e CgoerC does not go to t"at <destination@ ot"er t"an t"at Cprocess o3 goingC
real going process+
[ - by $"ic" "e is de3ined as CgoerC,
[ /ecause $"en one goes <some$"ere@ i.e. else+ t$o Cprocesses o3 goingC real
going processes+ cannot be produced.
.
8AE HES8>!A8>O! >S !O8 >!AERE!89% EU>S8E!8, !O8 6OM&9E8E9% !O!-EU>S8E!8
E>8AER: >3 t"e sub5ect-action and its complement $ere t$o in"erently e-isting t"ings,
t"ere $ould be t$o actions, and t$o destinations.+
.
91: <6onclusions@
9B: <8"e reality: not e-istent, not non-e-istent, not bot", not neit"er@
.
[ NNN
[ 2B.
[ A real CgoerC does not moti#ate t"ree kinds o3 Cacts o3 goingC: <real, non-real, and
real-and-non-real@,
[ !or does a non-real <CgoerC@ moti#ate t"ree kinds o3 motion.
.
[ 2E.
[ Also, a real-non-real <CgoerC@ does not moti#ate t"ree kinds o3 motion.
.
E:ER%8A>!D AERE >S !O!-HGA9: !O8 EU>S8E!8, !O8 !O!-EU>S8E!8, !O8 /O8A,
!O8 !E>8AER. First, bot" t"e goer moti#ating, and its moti#ated actions like going, are
not e-istent, not non-e-istent, not bot", not neit"er. All t"e B-B combinations o3 t"ose are
impossible. 8"ere is no goer $it" or $it"out a going, no going $it" or $it"out a goer.
8"ey are inseparable, non-dual: not t$o, not one. >3 $e $ere to include t"e
ob5ectFcomplement t"ere $ould be B-B-B combinations to e-amine, all impossible. 8"e
meaning is t"at none o3 t"ose 3our e-treme p"ilosop"ical positions can describe reality:
$orld . mind.
Empty moti#e -- W empty actions -- W empty ob5ects: Second, by re3ormulating t"e
problem o3 t"e duality Kgoer goingL as t"e trio Kgoer-moti#e, moti#ating, going-actionL, it
is demonstrated t"at t"e tec"niJue and conclusions o3 section ', on Kcause, causing,
e33ectL, can be applied "ere T and #ice #ersa = t"e t$o tec"niJues are complementary.
8"e cause is t"e moti#e, t"e e33ect is t"e action moti#ated. >n t"at sense it is t"e
continuation o3 t"e case o3 Kmoti#eL as a primary cause as co#ered by #erses ':B-*.
Section ' s"o$ed t"at e#en Kmoti#eL is an empty cause because dependent on its o$n
empty causes and conditions. Section 2, s"o$s t"at all actions caused by t"is empty
moti#e are also empty o3 in"erent e-istence. Also, all ob5ects o3 t"eses actions are also
empty o3 in"erent e-istence, like t"e case o3 t"e destination "ere.
.
9B: <Emptiness o3 t"e t"ree: no continuity, no discontinuity@
.
[ NNN
[ 2E/.
[ 8"ere3ore,
[ t"e Cprocess o3 goingC gati - real going process+,
[ t"e CgoerC ganta F sel3-e-isting sub5ect+
[ and Ca destination to be gone toC ganta#yam+
[ do not e-ist in"erently+.
.
6O!69GS>O! = !O 6O!8>!G>8%, !O H>S6O!8>!G>8% OF A /E>!D MO8>:A8>!D
A68>O!S: >n s"ort, t"ere is no permanent person same+ moti#ating real $"olesome or
un$"olesome+ actions, and being c"anged by t"ose actions like accumulating karma or
conditioning+, nor is "e c"anging into a completely di33erent person a di33erent person
su33ering because o3 t"e 3irst+. 8"e moti#ator goer+ doesnSt stay t"e same be3ore during
and a3ter, nor is "e di33erent, not is "e ceasing completely. 8"e moti#atorFmoti#e is empty,
t"e actions moti#ated are empty, t"e ob5ects o3 t"ose actions are empty. Empty o3
in"erent e-istence but also not completely non-e-istent, not bot", not neit"er, as seen in
t"e pre#ious #erse. 8"e $"ole c"ain is composed o3 co-dependently arisen concepts,
ne#er absolute, but could be Juite use3ul is used $it" $isdom.
.
!ote: 8"e tec"niJues o3 t"e t$o 3irst sections are eJui#alent and could be apply to any
action. 8"e 3orm o3 section ' Ksub5ect causing e33ect-actionL makes more e#ident t"e
emptiness o3 t"e sub5ect and t"e inseparability o3 sub5ect . ob5ect-action. 8"e 3orm o3
section 2 Ksub5ect #erb-action ob5ectL makes more e#ident t"e non-arising o3 t"e #erb-
action, and t"e 3act t"at t"e sub5ect is not t"e same nor di33erent because o3 t"e action.
So tec"niJue 2 could be used to analyMe t"e arising o3 an e33ect, and t"e 3act t"at t"e
sub5ect is not t"e same, not di33erent $it" t"e coming o3 t"e e33ect = t"ere is a 3eedback
like $it" karma, but it is not absolute.+
.
91: <RVSGMV OF SE68>O! 2 = O! 6AA!DE F MO:EME!8@
.
-- '. A DOER HOES!S8 REMA>! 8AE SAME F 6AA!DE IA>9E DO>!D F 6EASE
6OM&9E8E9%. A goer cannot remain t"e same all along, nor c"ange into somet"ing
di33erent F ot"er-e-istence, nor become non-e-istent. 8"e goer going is not t"e same, nor
di33erent be3ore, during ii+ and a3ter. 8"ere3ore t"ere is no real going t"at $ould make
"im di33erent. 2:'+
.
-- 2. Opponent: 8"e goer actually going ii+ is di33erent because o3 "is added #isible
acti#ity . displacement, $"ic" is proo3 o3 t"e occurrence o3 a real going process a real
action F karma+ moti#ated by a real goer. 2:2+
.
9B: <8"e emptiness o3 acti#ity and mo#ement, goer, going@
.
-- '. 8AE :>S>/9E A68>:>8%: 8"e #isible acti#ity . displacement can "ardly be used to
pro#e t"e e-istence o3 anyt"ing since its o$n origination cannot be directly obser#ed or
pro#ed. An independent #isible acti#ity . displacement is impossible, it cannot e-ist
$it"out a goer, ot"er$ise t"ere $ould be t$o kinds o3 acti#ity, and t$o goers 2:1-*+.
.
-- 2. 8AE M>HH9E IA% A/OG8 8AE DOER: A goer going ii+ is not in"erently e-isting
since "e cannot e-ist $it"out a going+, "e is not completely non-e-istent eit"er
somebody is going+, "e is 5ust not absolute. 2:*-0+ Section ': t"e sub5ect F moti#e is
empty because dependent on its o$n causes and conditions, and interdependent $it" its
e33ects actions+.
.
-- 1. 8AE EM&8>!ESS OF DO>!D: An empty goer cannot really go, so t"ere is no real
in"erent going. A real going $ould mean t"at t"ere could be a goer $it"out a going, t"en
t"ere $ould be t$o acts o3 going. So t"e duality Kgoer goesL is 3la$ed since one cannot
e-ist $it"out t"e ot"er. 2:(-''+ Also, t"e #isible acti#ity . displacement o3 a going
process can "ardly be used to pro#e t"e di33erence in a goer be3ore, during and a3ter t"e
going Faction, since its o$n origination cannot be directly obser#ed or pro#ed. 2:'2+
.
9B: <!o origination . cessation o3 going, no real c"ange in t"e goer@
.
-- '. 8AE M>HH9E IA% A/OG8 8AE 8AREE S8A8ES OF 8AE DOER F 8AE OR>D>!A8>O!
A!H 6ESSA8>O! OF 8AE DO>!D: >t is easy to s"o$ t"at none o3 t"ese t"ree are in"erent
or permanent. /ut t"ey are not completely non-e-istent eit"er, t"ey are co-dependently
arisen concepts. So t"ey cannot be used to pro#e t"e origination o3 t"e going Faction.
2:'1-'B+ 8"e goer be3ore t"e going i+ is not in"erently e-isting, not completely non-
e-istent or useless eit"er, 5ust ne#er absolute. 2:'E+ 8"e goer a3ter t"e going iii+ is not
in"erently e-isting, not completely non-e-istent or useless eit"er, 5ust ne#er absolute.
2 :')+ 8"ere is no permanent goer coming 3rom any o3 t"e t"ree times i, ii, iii+. 2:'*+
.
-- 2. !O 6O!8>!G>8%, !O H>S6O!8>!G>8% OF 8AE DOER: !on-duality: not t$o, not
one+ So t"ere is no permanent goer t"at e-ist and c"ange $it" t"e going, nor is "e
c"anging into t"ree di33erent in"erent t"ings. 2:'0+
.
9B: <8"e relation bet$een t"e goer, t"e going, and t"e destination@
.
-- '. !O8 8AE SAME, !O8 H>FFERE!8: 8"e essence o3 t"e goer does not reside in or
come 3rom+ t"e acti#ity or displacement, nor is t"e goer 3ound outside o3 t"e going
process. 2:'(-2'+
.
-- 2. >!8ERHE&E!HE!6E, >!SE&ARA/>9>8%, !O!-HGA9>8% /ot" empty because
conceptually interdependent, inseparable, one cannot e-ist $it" or $it"out t"e ot"er, non
dual: not t$o, not one. 2:2'-21+
.
-- 1. 8AE 6ASE OF 8AE HES8>!A8>O!: 8"ere is no independent destination, it is
interdependent $it" t"e process o3 going, and $it" t"e goer. 8"us it is not in"erently
e-istent, nor completely non-e-istent. 2:22-21+
.
.
-- '. EXG>:A9E!8 8O SE68>O! ': 8"e duality Kgoer, goingL, or Kmoti#e, actionsL, are like
Kcause . e33ectL. So t"ey are inseparable, non-dual: not t$o, not one. !o goerFcause $it"
or $it"out a goingFe33ect, no goingFe33ect $it" or $it"out a goerFcause, etc. 2:2B-2E+
.
-- 2. 6O!8>!GA8>O! OF 8AE 6ASE OF KMO8>:EL: So t"e moti#eFdoer is empty, t"e
actions moti#ated are empty, t"e ob5ects o3 t"eses actions are empty. All are not e-istent,
not non-e-istent, not bot", not neit"er. 8"ey are co-dependently arisen concepts, not
absolute, but use3ul.
.
>n s"ort, t"ere is no 3ree permanent person same+ moti#ating real $"olesome or
un$"olesome+ actions, and being c"anged by t"ose actions like accumulating karma or
conditioning+, nor is "e c"anged into a completely di33erent person a di33erent person
su33ering+. 8"e action $e imagine is a mist o3 3uMMy e33ects caused by an in3inity o3 empty
causes and conditions, ne#er indi#idual or absolute, but not 3rom t"e mind only eit"er.
!ot"ing e-ist and c"ange.
.

91: <>nitial-goeri+Fmoti#e -- W goer goingii+ -- W resulting-goeriii+@
.
-- '. EM&8>!ESS OF DOERFMO8>:E: All goersi+ Fmoti#e are empty because t"ey "a#e
t"eir o$n initial-goersi+ and conditions, no in"erent, absolute, permanent, independent
'??\ 3ree+, or primary goer Fmoti#e, no possible essence o3 action coming 3rom t"e
goers Fmoti#e. !o absolute 3ree $ill. '+
.
-- 2. DOERSFMO8>:E ARE !O8 !O!-EU>S8E!8 E>8AER: E#en i3 ne#er absolute, t"ey are
not completely non-e-istent, or $it"out any in3luence, or unrelated to t"eir moti#ated
results in similarity, space . time. 8"ere is t"e obser#ed relations. 8"ere is no resulting-
goer c"ange, action+ $it"out a goer Fmoti#e.
.
-- 1. /OG!H9ESS 6AA>! OF 6AA!DE FMO:EME!8: All initial-goersi+ Fmoti#e areF$ere
resulting-goeriii+, all resulting-goers areF$ill-be initial-goers. !o 3irst goerFmoti#e, no 3inal
goerFdestination. !o 3irst positionFstate, no 3inal positionFstate 3or anyt"ing or anybody.
.
-- B. A F9OI I>8AOG8 A!% >!H>:>HGA9>8% >! >8: Eac" resulting-goeriii+ "asF"ad an
in3inity o3 initial-goersi+ in time+, and ot"er causes and conditions eac" time, is
dependent on e#eryt"ing else. Eac" initial-goeri+ "asF$ill-"a#e an in3inity o3 resulting-
goersiii+ in time+, and in3luence many t"ings eac" time+, "as in3luence on e#eryt"ing
else. Eac" initial-goeri+ is doing a multitude o3 goingFactions simultaneously eac" one
relati#e to a di33erent t"ing+, and eac" actions are done by a multitude o3 agents
simultaneously. 8"ere is no o$ners"ip.
.
-- E. EM&8>!ESS OF 8AE A68>O!, A!H OF 8AE RESG98: >3 t"ere is no absolute
goeri+Fmoti#e because o3 its o$n causes and conditions+, t"en t"ere cannot be any
goingii+Faction, or absolute resulting-goeriii+ Fdestination. All resulting-goers iii+ and
going all actions+ are empty because dependent on empty initial-goers i+ Fmoti#e.
.
-- ). RESG98>!D-DOERS A!H DO>!D A68>O!S+ ARE !O8 !O!-EU>S8E!8 E>8AER: 8"e
resulting-goer iii+ and goingFaction+, e#en i3 ne#er absolute, is not completely non-
e-istent, or unrelated to its initial-goeri+ Fmoti#e in similarity, space and time. 8"ere is t"e
obser#ed regularity e#en i3 imper3ect. 8"ere is no initial-goeri+ Fmoti#e $it"out a
resulting-goer iii+ or action.
.
-- *. EM&8% ADDREDA8E: >3 no initial-goeri+ F moti#e is absolute, an aggregate o3 cause
and conditions including it cannot be absolute eit"er. 8"e product does not reside in t"e
causes indi#idually or collecti#ely, nor outside o3 t"e aggregate.
.
-- 0. EM&8>!ESS OF !O8-DO>!DFS8O&&>!DF!O8-HO>!D: 8"ere is no positi#e
goingFaction, and no negati#e goingFaction remaining unmo#ed or stopping+.
.
-- (. 6O!6E&8GA9 >!8ERHE&E!HE!6E: All trio = goer i+, goingii+ Facting and
destination F resulting-goer iii+ - are empty because conceptually interdependent. One
cannot e-ist $it"out t"e ot"er, but t"ey are ne#er absolute. !o initial-goeri+Fmoti#e $it"
or $it"out a resulting-goeriii+ Fdestination, no resulting-goeriii+ Fdestination $it" or
$it"out an initial-goeri+ Fmoti#e T !o initial-goeri+Fmoti#e $it" or $it"out a goingii+
Facting, no goingii+ Facting $it" or $it"out an initial-goeri+ Fmoti#e. Same bet$een #erb
and complement.
.
-- '?. !O8 8AE SAME, !O8 H>FFERE!8: 8"e goer be3ore, during . a3ter are not t"e
same sel3-mo#ement+, not di33erent ot"er-mo#ement+, nor bot" toget"er, nor neit"er
no initial-goeri+ Fmoti#e at all+.
.
-- ''. !O8 S>MG98A!EOGS, !O8 SE&ARA8E: 8"e goer be3ore, during . a3ter a
displacement cannot be t"e simultaneous or o#erlapping at t"e 5unctions+, not separate
$it" gaps+. 8"e e-act time o3 t"e beginning and ending o3 t"e going Faction, its
origination and cessation, cannot be 3ound = so t"ere cannot be duration eit"er.
.
a3ter iii+ t"e going Faction, since t"ese points in time do not really e-ist. So, t"e t"ree
goers be3ore, during and a3ter t"e going Factions are also empty.
.
-- '1. !O 6O!8>!G>8%, !O H>S6O!8>!G>8%: !o goer remain t"e same by going t"roug"
t"e goingFaction process in"erent e-istence+, nor c"ange into somet"ing completely
di33erent ot"er e-istence+, nor cease completely non-e-istence+. 8"e goer be3ore i+,
during ii+ and a3ter iii+ t"e goingFaction is not t"e same, nor di33erent. 8"e same 3or t"e
e33ect and t"e causing.+
.
.

91: <8"e illusion o3 continuity t"roug" c"ange or mo#ement@
.
-- '. /OG!H9ESS 6AA>! OF 6AGSA9>8%: All initial-goersi+ Fmoti#e areF$ere resulting-
goersiii+, all resulting-goers areF$ill-be initial-goers. !o 3irst goerFmoti#e, no 3inal
goerFdestination. !o 3irst positionFstate, no 3inal positionFstate 3or anyt"ing or anybody. All
resulting-goeriii+ "asF"ad an in3inity o3 initial-goersi+ Fmoti#e, all initial-goeri+ Fmoti#e
"asF$ill-"a#e an in3inity o3 resulting-goersiii+. '+
.
-- -- a. /ack: Eac" resulting-goeriii+ is immediately depending on an in3inity o3 causes
and conditions. /ut $e con#entionally designate one cause Kt"e initial-goeri+, t"e
immediately preceding conditionL, like i3 t"ere $as a continuity o3 somet"ing.
-- -- b. For$ard: Eac" initial-goeri+is immediately in3luencing an in3inity o3 ot"er t"ings
simultaneously. /ut $e con#entionally designate one Kt"e resulting-goeriii+, t"e
immediately 3ollo$ing e33ectL, like i3 t"ere $as a continuity o3 somet"ing.
be3ore, one e33ect a3ter, t"e continuity o3 a goer, and call t"e rest Kot"er conditionsL and
Kside e33ectsL.
-- -- d. More so, t"is net$ork o3 in3inite c"anging-causes con#erging on one goerFt"ing,
and t"e 3anning out o3 t"e net$ork o3 discrete in3luences on ot"er t"ings are 5ust like an
illusion. 8"ere is causality, in3luence, c"ange, mo#ement but not"ing discrete, no
indi#idual t"ings initial-goer, resulting-goer or mo#ementFc"ange+ in it. Ie are t"e ones
$"o are gi#ing names to small s$irls in t"e middle o3 an ocean and 3ollo$ing t"eir
Ke#olutionL.
.
-- -- a. 9>!ES OF 6AGSA9>8%:
-- -- -- i. /ack: 8"e resulting-goer "as a initial-goer, t"is initial-goer "ad its initial-goer,
t"is initial-goer "ad its initial-goer, T ad in3initum. Eac" resulting-goer is t"e result o3 an
in3inity o3 initial-goers successi#ely in line. Ie mig"t call t"is t"e line o3 past states o3 t"e
same goer. All o3 t"is assuming t"at $e can use one to one causality.
-- -- -- ii. For$ard: 8"e initial-goer "as its resulting-goer, t"is resulting-goer $ill "a#e its
resulting-goer, t"is resulting-goer $ill "a#e its resulting-goer,T ad in3initum. Eac" initial-
goer $ill result in an in3inity o3 resulting-goers successi#ely in line. 9ike i3 it $as t"e same
goer all t"e time and t"at all ot"er causes and conditions are pus"ed to a secondary role.
All o3 t"is assuming t"at $e can use one to one causality.
-- -- -- iii. So $e usually concentrate on t"e continuity o3 somet"ing F some-being along
t"is linear seJuence o3 e#ents: one being be3ore, one being a3ter, and call t"e rest Kot"er
minor conditionsL and Kside e33ectsL, t"en $e go to t"e ne-t step.
e33ect at eac" step, or to concentrate on t"e continuity o3 a goer, because eac" step is at
-- -- b. EUAM&9ES:
-- -- -- i. >t is t"e case $it" mo#ement, $e t"ink t"ere is an ob5ect, or being, mo#ing t"at
is t"e same be3ore, during and a3ter t"e mo#ement. AeFit is not di33erent eit"er.
-- -- -- ii. >t is t"e case $it" c"ange, $e t"ink t"ere is an ob5ect, or being, c"anging t"at
is t"e same be3ore, during and a3ter t"e c"ange. !ot di33erent eit"er.
-- -- -- iii. >t is t"e case $it" action, $e t"ink t"ere is a being, moti#ating and acting t"at
is t"e same be3ore, during and a3ter t"e action F acJuisition o3 karma. Ae is not di33erent
eit"er.
-- -- -- i#. >t is t"e case $it" rebirt", $e t"ink t"ere is a being "a#ing rebirt" t"at is t"e
same be3ore, during and a3ter t"e rebirt". Ae is not di33erent eit"er.
-- -- -- #. >t is t"e case $it" consciousness or perception, $e t"ink t"ere is a being "a#ing
perception t"at is t"e same be3ore, during and a3ter t"e perception or consciousness.
AeFit is not di33erent eit"er.
-- -- -- #i. 8"e sel3 is also like t"at. Ie t"ink t"ere is a continuity, eit"er a permanent
cause, or a permanent indi#idual stream. !ot di33erent eit"er.
.
-- -- a. Eac" being is dependent on all ot"er beings, eac" being "as in3luence on all ot"er
beings.
-- -- b. All beings are interdependent $it" all ot"er beings.
.
9': <8"e elementary components o3 reality ayatanas, skand"as, d"atus, cetasika+, and
t"e t"ree stages o3 becoming o3 all products and moments o3 consciousness@
92: <Section 1 - An Analysis o3 C:isionC and Ot"er Sense-Faculties t"e sense-3ields+ -- ( =
<8"e si- senses, direct perception, t"e si- ob5ects F $orld@@
.
RVSGMV : Section 1 is about t"e Kob5ects o3 sensationsL or t"e percei#ed $orld, t"e t"ird
conditioning cause listed in t"e #erse ':2. 8"is c"apter pro#es t"at t"ere is no real
conditioning cause "ere eit"er, so t"ere cannot be any real e33ect 3rom t"is type o3
causes: e33ects like kno$ledge, sensations, etc. >3 t"e Kob5ects o3 sensationsL are empty o3
in"erent e-istence, t"en t"e acJuired kno$ledge is also empty, so are cogniti#e
sensations, a33ecti#e sensations, desire, T+
-- Section 2 is mainly about t"e ob5ect or complement o3 t"e #erb, $"ile section ' is about
t"e sub5ect, and section 2 about t"e #erb. /ut all t"ree sections co#er t"e t"ree.
-- >t is di33erent t"an section 2 because t"ere is no eJui#alent "ere o3 t"e K#isible acti#ity
and displacementL 3or t"e #erb.+
.
91: <8"e traditional understanding@
.
[ NNN
[ '.
[ :ision, "earing, smelling, tasting, touc"ing and t"oug"t
[ Are t"e si- sense 3aculties.
[ 8"e area o3 t"eir concern is t"at $"ic" is seen <"eard, smelled@ and so 3ort".
.
AFF>RM>!D H>RE68 &ER6E&8>O!, A!H A! >!HE&E!HE!8 IOR9H: 8"e opponent is
saying t"at t"e 3ollo$ing trio: sense organs, percei#ing, ob5ects o3 perception F e-ternal
$orld, are all real. Ae is saying t"at t"ose t"ree are in"erently e-isting, and t"at t"ere is
ob5ecti#e direct perception o3 an e-ternal independent $orld by true impartial sense
organs and consciousnesses.+
.
91: <!agar5una maintains: same conclusions as section 2@
.
[ NNN
[ 2.
[ 6ertainly #ision does not in any $ay see its o$n sel3.
[ !o$ i3 it does not see its o$n sel3, "o$ can it possibly see somet"ing elseO
.
!O H>RE68 &ER6E&8>O! OF 8AE E%E /% 8AE E%E: >3 direct perception $as possible, i3
t"ere $as true perception o3 t"e essence o3 an ob5ect $"ile seeing it, Ki3 t"e nature o3 all
t"ings 3irst appears in t"emsel#esL, t"en t"e eye $ould be able to see itsel3. /ut t"at is
not t"e case. So direct perception o3 t"e ob5ect is not possible. And t"is applies to t"e si-
senses.+
.
[ NNN
[ 1.
[ An understanding o3 #ision is not attained t"roug" t"e e-ample o3 3ire <$"ic",
itsel3, burns@.
[ On t"e contrary, t"at <e-ample o3 3ire@ toget"er $it" #ision is re3uted by
[ <t"e analysis o3@ Cpresent going to,C Ct"at $"ic" is already gone to,C and Ct"at
$"ic" is not yet gone to.C in 6"apter 2+
.
8AE F>RE S>M>9E: 8"e opponent t"ink t"at i3 t"e trio K3ire burns kindlingL is #alid, t"en
Kseer sees ob5ectsL is also #alid. And since 3ire doesnSt burn itsel3, $"y $ould t"e eye sees
itsel3 O
!agar5una replies: E#en in t"e case o3 K3ire burns kindlingL t"e trio sub5ect, action-#erb,
complement is also empty o3 in"erent e-istence as e-plained in section 2 $it" Kinitial-
goeri+, goingii+, destination Fresulting-goeriii+L. All t"e arguments o3 section 2 apply to
bot" cases "ere.
-- 6onclusions: 8"ere is no real seeing, and t"e seer is not t"e same nor di33erent
be3orei+, duringii+ and a3teriii+ t"e seeing, and t"ere is no ob5ect e-isting independently
o3 t"e ot"er t$o.
-- 8"ey also apply to t"e trio Ka person clings to ob5ects o3 t"e sensesL 3or $"ic" t"e 3ire
simile $as 3irst introduced. >t is taug"t t"at liberation is like a 3ire $it" no more kindling.
-- So Kpercei#erL, Kpercei#ingL, Kt"e $orldL, as $ell as KbeingsL, KclingingL, Kob5ects o3 t"e
sensesL are all empty o3 in"erent e-istence, but not completely non-e-istent, not bot", not
neit"er. 8"ose elements cannot e-ist on t"eir o$n, t"ey are interdependent, co-
dependently arisen concepts. 8"ey are not separate or di33erent, not t"e same. 8"ey are
inseparable, non-dual: not t$o, not one. 8"ey e-ist con#entionally but s"ould be seen 3or
$"at t"ey really are. 8"e teac"ings o3 Hependent Origination uses t"em in t"e model, but
t"e per3ection o3 understanding t"is model, $ould be to unite it $it" t"e realiMation o3 t"e
emptiness o3 all o3 its elements.+
.
[ NNN
[ B.
[ I"en no #ision occurs, not"ing $"atsoe#er is being seen.
[ Ao$, t"en, is it possible to say: :ision seesO
.
!O K&ER6E>:>!D SE!SE ORDA!L I>8A OR I>8AOG8 A! KO/JE68L: !o Ksense organ
seeingL prior F $it"out an Kob5ectL being seen. So "o$ could it e-ist on its o$n and t"en
KseeL an ob5ect. A real sense organ e-isting on its o$n is impossible.+
.
[ NNN
[ E.
[ 8"ere3ore, #ision does not see, and Cno-#isionC does not see.
.
!o Kpercei#ingL $it" or $it"out a Ksense organL: From t"e preceding #erse $e kno$ t"at
a Ksense organL does not percei#e. /ut t"at doesnSt mean t"at t"ere is no sense organs at
all, it 5ust means t"at it cannot be a sense organ be3ore percei#ing and t"en be percei#ing
somet"ing. So t"e indi#idual sense organ is not an absolute permanent sense organ, not a
completely non-e-istent sense organ eit"er. Ie need to stay a$ay 3rom t"ese t$o
e-tremes: in"erent Fabsolute sense organ, and completely non-e-istent sense organ. >t is
not bot", or somet"ing else eit"er. >t also means t"at t"e percei#ing is not in"erently
e-isting.+
.
[ NNN
[ !e#ert"eless, it is e-plained t"at also t"e CseerC is to be kno$n only by "is #ision.
.
[ NNN
[ ).
[ 8"ere is no CseerC $it" #ision or $it"out #ision,
[ 8"ere3ore, i3 t"ere is no Cseer,C "o$ can t"ere be #ision and t"e ob5ect seenO
.
EM&8>!ESS OF 8AE A68>O!-:ER/ = SEE>!D, A!H OF 8AE O/JE68: >3 t"ere cannot be a
seer be3ore any #ision, t"en t"ere cannot be any seer during t"e seeing, t"en t"ere
cannot be any real seeing. An empty sub5ect can only result in empty actions. And i3 t"ere
is no real seer or sense organs, no real seing F perception, t"en t"re is no real ob5ect
being percei#ed.+
.
91: <6onseJuences on Hependent Origination@
.
[ NNN
[ *.
[ As t"e birt" o3 a son is said to occur presupposing t"e mot"er and t"e 3at"er,
[ 4no$ledge is said to occur presupposing t"e eye being dependent on t"e #isible
3orms.
.
EM&8>!ESS OF 8AE 6OM&9EME!8: 8"e simile o3 3at"er and son: 8"e opponent t"ink
t"at i3 t"e duality K3at"er and sonL is #alid and implies t"at t"e 3at"er e-ist be3ore t"e son,
t"en in t"e duality Kperception and kno$ledgeL t"ere must be real perception cause or
action-#erb+ be3ore kno$ledge e33ect or complement+. 8"is is $"at is taug"t by t"e
/udd"a in t"e la$ o3 Hependent Origination, so t"ere must be real in"erent perception
cause or action-#erb+, and real kno$ledge e33ect or complement+ because e#eryt"ing
else is depending on t"is.
-- !ote: t"is problem could be approac"ed using t"e arguments in section 2 about t"e trio
sub5ect, action-#erb, complement, or $it" t"e arguments o3 section ' about t"e duality
cause and e33ect. 8"e logic similar and t"e conclusions t"e same.
-- !agar5una $ould reply: 8"e cases o3 K3at"er and sonL and o3 Kt$o consecuti#e steps in
t"e t"eory o3 Hependent OriginationL are e-actly like any duality cause-e33ect as described
in section '. All t"e arguments o3 section ' apply to bot" cases "ere. 8"e conclusions are
t"at t"e t$o poles o3 any cause-e33ect duality are bot" empty o3 in"erent e-istence, but
not completely non-e-istent, not bot", not neit"er. 8"ose elements cannot e-ist on t"eir
o$n, t"ey are interdependent, co-dependently arisen concepts. 8"ey are not separate or
di33erent, not t"e same. 8"ey are inseparable, non-dual: not t$o, not one. 8"ey e-ist
con#entionally but s"ould be seen 3or $"at t"ey really are. 8"e teac"ings o3 Hependent
Origination uses t"em in t"e model, but t"e per3ection o3 understanding t"is model, $ould
be to unite it $it" t"e realiMation o3 t"e emptiness o3 all o3 its elements.+
.
[ NNN
[ 0.
[ Since t"e Cob5ect seenC and t"e #ision do not e-ist independently, on t"eir o$n+,
[ t"ere is no 3our-3old <conseJuence@: kno$ledge, etc. <cogniti#e sensation,
a33ecti#e sensation, and CdesireC@.
[ Also, t"en, "o$ $ill t"e acJuisition upadana+ <o3 karma@
[ and its conseJuences <i.e., e-istence, birt", aging, and deat"@ be producedO
.
EM&8>!ESS OF 8AE RES8 OF 8AE 6AA>! OF HE&E!HE!8 OR>D>!A8>O!: Empty causes
can only produce empty results as e-plained in section '. 8"e $"ole c"ain o3 dependent
origination, t"e '2 steps, are all empty o3 in"erent e-istence because dependently arisen.
All not in"erently e-isting, not completely non-e-isting, not bot", not neit"er. E#ery pairs
is like a duality cause and e33ect, and it is non-dual: not t$o, not one.
-- An empty sub5ect and action-#erb can only result in an empty complement as e-plained
in section 2. All sub5ect, action-#erb, complement, in any description, any
conceptualiMation, any t"eory, are al$ays all empty o3 in"erent e-istence.
-- /ut t"at doesnSt mean t"at $e s"ould drop t"e t"eory o3 dependent origination
immediately, drop all morality, drop all #irtues, al met"ods, all pat"s. >t s"ould be #ery
clear t"at emptiness doesnSt in#alidate dependent origination, on t"e contrary, t"ey
implies eac" ot"er. >t is 5ust t"at $e need to per3ect our understanding o3 dependent
origination, t"at $e need to per3ect our practices o3 skill3ul means, morality and #irtues, by
combining t"em $it" more $isdom t"e $isdom gradually realiMing t"e emptiness o3 t"e
t"ree.+
.
[ NNN
[ (.
[ <9ike$ise@ "earing, smelling, tasting, touc"ing and t"oug"t are e-plained as #ision.
[ >ndeed one s"ould not appre"end t"e C"earer,C C$"at is "eard,C etc. <as sel3-
e-istent entities@.
.
8AE SAME FOR A99 S>U SE!SES.+
.
91: <RVSGMV OF SE68>O! 1 = O! O/JE68S OF SE!SA8>O!S@
.
-- '. Opponent: 8"e Kob5ects o3 sensationsL are real causes o3 sensations and kno$ledge.
8"e percei#er actually percei#ing ii+ is di33erent because o3 "is added perception, $"ic" is
proo3 o3 t"e occurrence o3 a real percei#ing process by real sense organs o3 a real
independent $orld+. 1:'+
.
-- 2. >t is di33erent t"an $it" t"e Kgoer going destinationL, t"ere is no eJui#alent o3 t"e
#isible acti#ity . displacement, t"e eye doesnSt see itsel3 in K#isible acti#ityL. Ao$ t"en can
t"ere be real perception o3 anyt"ing else. 1:2+
.
-- 1. >n #erse 1:1 it is mentionned t"at t"e analysis o3 section 2 applies "ere. So:
.
-- B. A SEER, OR SE!SE ORDA!, HOES!S8 REMA>! 8AE SAME F 6AA!DE IA>9E
SEE>!D F 6EASE 6OM&9E8E9%. A seer cannot remain t"e same all along, nor c"ange into
somet"ing di33erent F ot"er-e-istence, nor become non-e-istent. 8"e seer seeing is not t"e
same, nor di33erent be3ore, during ii+ and a3ter. 8"ere3ore t"ere is no real seeing t"at
$ould make "im di33erent. 2:'+
.
9B: <8"e emptiness o3 perception, seer, seeing@
.
-- '. 8AE FEE9>!D OF &ER6E&8>O!: 8"e perception can "ardly be used to pro#e t"e
e-istence o3 anyt"ing since its o$n origination cannot be directly obser#ed or pro#ed. An
independent perception is impossible, it cannot e-ist $it"out a seer, ot"er$ise t"ere
$ould be t$o kinds o3 acti#ity, and t$o seers 2:1-*+.
.
-- 2. 8AE M>HH9E IA% A/OG8 8AE SEER: A seer seeing ii+ is not in"erently e-isting
since "e cannot e-ist $it"out a seeing+, "e is not completely non-e-istent eit"er
somebody is seeing+, "e is 5ust not absolute. 2:*-0+
.
-- 1. 8AE EM&8>!ESS OF SEE>!D: An empty seer cannot really see, so t"ere is no real
in"erent seeing. A real seeing $ould mean t"at t"ere could be a seer $it"out a seeing,
t"en t"ere $ould be t$o acts o3 seeing. So t"e duality Kseer seesL is 3la$ed since one
cannot e-ist $it"out t"e ot"er. 2:(-''+ Also, t"e perception o3 a seeing process can
"ardly be used to pro#e t"e di33erence in a seer be3ore, during and a3ter t"e seeing
Faction, since its o$n origination cannot be directly obser#ed or pro#ed. 2:'2+
.
9B: <!o origination . cessation o3 seeing, no real c"ange in t"e seer@
.
-- '. 8AE M>HH9E IA% A/OG8 8AE 8AREE S8A8ES OF 8AE SEER F 8AE OR>D>!A8>O!
A!H 6ESSA8>O! OF 8AE SEE>!D: >t is easy to s"o$ t"at none o3 t"ese t"ree are in"erent
or permanent. /ut t"ey are not completely non-e-istent eit"er, t"ey are co-dependently
arisen concepts. So t"ey cannot be used to pro#e t"e origination o3 t"e seeing
Fperception. 2:'1-'B+ 8"e seer be3ore t"e seeing i+ is not in"erently e-isting, not
completely non-e-istent or useless eit"er, 5ust ne#er absolute. 2:'E+ 8"e seer a3ter t"e
seeing iii+ is not in"erently e-isting, not completely non-e-istent or useless eit"er, 5ust
ne#er absolute. 2 :')+ 8"ere is no permanent seer coming 3rom any o3 t"e t"ree times i,
ii, iii+. 2:'*+
.
-- 2. !O continuity, no discontinuity o3 t"e seer: !on-duality: not t$o, not one+ So t"ere
is no permanent seer t"at e-ist and c"ange $it" t"e seeing, nor is "e c"anging into t"ree
di33erent in"erent t"ings. 2:'0+
.
9B: <8"e relation bet$een t"e seer, t"e seeing, and t"e ob5ects@
.
-- '. !O8 8AE SAME, !O8 H>FFERE!8: 8"e essence o3 t"e seer does not reside in t"e
perception, nor is t"e seer 3ound outside o3 t"e seeing process. 2:'(-2'+
.
-- 2. >!8ERHE&E!HE!6E, >!SE&ARA/>9>8%, !O!-HGA9>8%: /ot" empty because
conceptually interdependent, inseparable, one cannot e-ist $it" or $it"out t"e ot"er, non
dual: not t$o, not one. 2:2'-21+
.
-- 1. 8AE 6ASE OF 8AE O/JE68: 8"ere is no independent ob5ect o3 sensation, it is
interdependent $it" t"e process o3 seeing, and $it" t"e seer. 8"us it is not in"erently
e-istent, nor completely non-e-istent. 2:22-21+
.
.
-- '. EXG>:A9E!8 8O SE68>O! ': 8"e duality Kseer, seeingL, or Kseer, ob5ectL, are like
Kcause . e33ectL. So t"ey are inseparable, non-dual: not t$o, not one. !o seerFcause $it"
or $it"out a seeingFob5ect, no seeingFob5ect $it" or $it"out a seerFcause, etc. 2:2B-2E+
.
-- 2. So t"e sub5ect is empty, t"e perceptionsFactions are empty, t"e ob5ects o3 t"eses
perceptionsFactions are empty, t"e conseJuences o3 t"ese ob5ects, t"e sensations,
kno$ledge, T are empty. All are not e-istent, not non-e-istent, not bot", not neit"er.
8"ey are 6O-HE&E!HE!89% AR>SE! 6O!6E&8S, not absolute, but use3ul.
.
91: <>nitial-seeri+F sense-organ -- W seer seeingii+ -- W resulting-seeriii+ $it" kno$ledge@
.
-- '. EM&8>!ESS OF SEERF:>S>O!: All seersi+ Forgan o3 t"e senses are empty because
t"ey "a#e t"eir o$n initial-seersi+ and conditions, no in"erent, absolute, permanent,
independent '??\ 3ree+, or primary seer Fmoti#e, no possible essence o3 action coming
3rom t"e seers Fmoti#e. !o absolute 3ree $ill. '+
.
-- 2. SEERSFMO8>:E ARE !O8 !O!-EU>S8E!8 E>8AER: E#en i3 ne#er absolute, t"ey are
not completely non-e-istent, or $it"out any in3luence, or unrelated to t"eir moti#ated
results in similarity, space . time. 8"ere is t"e obser#ed relations. 8"ere is no resulting-
seer c"ange, action+ $it"out a seer Fmoti#e.
.
-- 1. /OG!H9ESS 6AA>! OF 6AA!DE FMO:EME!8: All initial-seersi+ Fmoti#e areF$ere
resulting-seeriii+, all resulting-seers areF$ill-be initial-seers. !o 3irst seerFmoti#e, no 3inal
seerFdestination. !o 3irst positionFstate, no 3inal positionFstate 3or anyt"ing or anybody.
.
-- B. A F9OI I>8AOG8 A!% >!H>:>HGA9>8% >! >8: Eac" resulting-seeriii+ "asF"ad an
in3inity o3 initial-seersi+ in time+, and ot"er causes and conditions eac" time, is
dependent on e#eryt"ing else. Eac" initial-seeri+ "asF$ill-"a#e an in3inity o3 resulting-
seersiii+ in time+, and in3luence many t"ings eac" time+, "as in3luence on e#eryt"ing
else. Eac" initial-seeri+ is doing a multitude o3 seeingFactions simultaneously eac" one
relati#e to a di33erent t"ing+, and eac" actions are done by a multitude o3 agents
simultaneously. 8"ere is no o$ners"ip.
.
-- E. EM&8>!ESS OF 8AE A68>O!, A!H OF 8AE RESG98: >3 t"ere is no absolute
seeri+Fmoti#e because o3 its o$n causes and conditions+, t"en t"ere cannot be any
seeingii+Faction, or absolute resulting-seeriii+ Fdestination. All resulting-seers iii+ and
seeing all actions+ are empty because dependent on empty initial-seers i+ Fmoti#e.
.
-- ). RESG98>!D-SEERS A!H SEE>!D A68>O!S+ ARE !O8 !O!-EU>S8E!8 E>8AER: 8"e
resulting-seer iii+ and seeingFaction+, e#en i3 ne#er absolute, is not completely non-
e-istent, or unrelated to its initial-seeri+ Fmoti#e in similarity, space and time. 8"ere is t"e
obser#ed regularity e#en i3 imper3ect. 8"ere is no initial-seeri+ Fmoti#e $it"out a
resulting-seer iii+ or action.
.
-- *. EM&8% ADDREDA8E: >3 no initial-seeri+ F moti#e is absolute, an aggregate o3 cause
and conditions including it cannot be absolute eit"er. 8"e product does not reside in t"e
causes indi#idually or collecti#ely, nor outside o3 t"e aggregate.
.
-- 0. EM&8>!ESS OF !O8-SEE>!DFS8O&&>!DF!O8-HO>!D: 8"ere is no positi#e
seeingFaction, and no negati#e seeingFaction remaining unmo#ed or stopping+.
.
-- (. 6O!6E&8GA9 >!8ERHE&E!HE!6E: All trio = seer i+, seeingii+ Facting and
destination F resulting-seer iii+ - are empty because conceptually interdependent. One
cannot e-ist $it"out t"e ot"er, but t"ey are ne#er absolute. !o initial-seeri+Fmoti#e $it"
or $it"out a resulting-seeriii+ Fdestination, no resulting-seeriii+ Fdestination $it" or
$it"out an initial-seeri+ Fmoti#e T !o initial-seeri+Fmoti#e $it" or $it"out a seeingii+
Facting, no seeingii+ Facting $it" or $it"out an initial-seeri+ Fmoti#e. Same bet$een #erb
and complement.
.
-- '?. !O8 8AE SAME, !O8 H>FFERE!8: 8"e seer be3ore, during . a3ter are not t"e
same sel3-mo#ement+, not di33erent ot"er-mo#ement+, nor bot" toget"er, nor neit"er
no initial-seeri+ Fmoti#e at all+.
.
-- ''. !O8 S>MG98A!EOGS, !O8 SE&ARA8E: 8"e seer be3ore, during . a3ter a
displacement cannot be t"e simultaneous or o#erlapping at t"e 5unctions+, not separate
$it" gaps+. 8"e e-act time o3 t"e beginning and ending o3 t"e seeing Faction, its
origination and cessation, cannot be 3ound = so t"ere cannot be duration eit"er.
.
a3ter iii+ t"e seeing Faction, since t"ese points in time do not really e-ist. So, t"e t"ree
seers be3ore, during and a3ter t"e seeing Factions are also empty.
.
-- '1. !O 6O!8>!G>8%, !O H>S6O!8>!G>8%: !o seer remain t"e same by seeing
t"roug" t"e seeingFaction process in"erent e-istence+, nor c"ange into somet"ing
completely di33erent ot"er e-istence+, nor cease completely non-e-istence+. 8"e seer
be3ore i+, during ii+ and a3ter iii+ t"e seeingFaction is not t"e same, nor di33erent. 8"e
same 3or t"e e33ect and t"e causing.+
.
.

91: <8"e illusion o3 a sel3 acJuiring kno$ledge@
.
-- '. /OG!H9ESS 6AA>! OF 6AGSA9>8%: All initial-seersi+ Fmoti#e areF$ere resulting-
seersiii+, all resulting-seers areF$ill-be initial-seers. !o 3irst seerFmoti#e, no 3inal
seerFdestination. !o 3irst positionFstate, no 3inal positionFstate 3or anyt"ing or anybody. All
resulting-seeriii+ "asF"ad an in3inity o3 initial-seersi+ Fmoti#e, all initial-seeri+ Fmoti#e
"asF$ill-"a#e an in3inity o3 resulting-seersiii+. '+
.
-- -- a. /A64: Eac" resulting-seeriii+ is immediately depending on an in3inity o3 causes
and conditions. /ut $e con#entionally designate one cause Kt"e initial-seeri+, t"e
immediately preceding conditionL, like i3 t"ere $as a continuity o3 somet"ing.
-- -- b. FORIARH: Eac" initial-seeri+is immediately in3luencing an in3inity o3 ot"er t"ings
simultaneously. /ut $e con#entionally designate one Kt"e resulting-seeriii+, t"e
immediately 3ollo$ing e33ectL, like i3 t"ere $as a continuity o3 somet"ing.
be3ore, one e33ect a3ter, t"e continuity o3 a seer, and call t"e rest Kot"er conditionsL and
Kside e33ectsL.
-- -- d. More so, t"is net$ork o3 in3inite c"anging-causes con#erging on one seerFt"ing,
and t"e 3anning out o3 t"e net$ork o3 discrete in3luences on ot"er t"ings are 5ust like an
illusion. 8"ere is causality, in3luence, c"ange, mo#ement but not"ing discrete, no
indi#idual t"ings initial-seer, resulting-seer or mo#ementFc"ange+ in it. Ie are t"e ones
$"o are gi#ing names to small s$irls in t"e middle o3 an ocean and 3ollo$ing t"eir
Ke#olutionL.
.
-- -- a. 9>!ES OF 6AGSA9>8%:
-- -- -- i. /A64: 8"e resulting-seer "as a initial-seer, t"is initial-seer "ad its initial-seer,
t"is initial-seer "ad its initial-seer, T ad in3initum. Eac" resulting-seer is t"e result o3 an
in3inity o3 initial-seers successi#ely in line. Ie mig"t call t"is t"e line o3 past states o3 t"e
same seer. All o3 t"is assuming t"at $e can use one to one causality.
-- -- -- ii. FORIARH: 8"e initial-seer "as its resulting-seer, t"is resulting-seer $ill "a#e its
resulting-seer, t"is resulting-seer $ill "a#e its resulting-seer,T ad in3initum. Eac" initial-
seer $ill result in an in3inity o3 resulting-seers successi#ely in line. 9ike i3 it $as t"e same
seer all t"e time and t"at all ot"er causes and conditions are pus"ed to a secondary role.
All o3 t"is assuming t"at $e can use one to one causality.
-- -- -- iii. So $e usually concentrate on t"e continuity o3 somet"ing F some-being along
t"is linear seJuence o3 e#ents: one being be3ore, one being a3ter, and call t"e rest Kot"er
minor conditionsL and Kside e33ectsL, t"en $e go to t"e ne-t step.
e33ect at eac" step, or to concentrate on t"e continuity o3 a seer, because eac" step is at
-- -- b. EUAM&9ES:
-- -- -- i. >t is t"e case $it" mo#ement, $e t"ink t"ere is an ob5ect, or being, mo#ing t"at
is t"e same be3ore, during and a3ter t"e mo#ement. AeFit is not di33erent eit"er.
-- -- -- ii. >t is t"e case $it" c"ange, $e t"ink t"ere is an ob5ect, or being, c"anging t"at
is t"e same be3ore, during and a3ter t"e c"ange. !ot di33erent eit"er.
-- -- -- iii. >t is t"e case $it" action, $e t"ink t"ere is a being, moti#ating and acting t"at
is t"e same be3ore, during and a3ter t"e action F acJuisition o3 karma. Ae is not di33erent
eit"er.
-- -- -- i#. >t is t"e case $it" rebirt", $e t"ink t"ere is a being "a#ing rebirt" t"at is t"e
same be3ore, during and a3ter t"e rebirt". Ae is not di33erent eit"er.
-- -- -- #. >t is t"e case $it" consciousness or perception, $e t"ink t"ere is a being "a#ing
perception t"at is t"e same be3ore, during and a3ter t"e perception or consciousness.
AeFit is not di33erent eit"er.
-- -- -- #i. 8"e sel3 is also like t"at. Ie t"ink t"ere is a continuity, eit"er a permanent
cause, or a permanent indi#idual stream. !ot di33erent eit"er.
.
-- -- a. Eac" being is dependent on all ot"er beings, eac" being "as in3luence on all ot"er
beings.
-- -- b. All beings are interdependent $it" all ot"er beings.
.
92: <Section B - An Analysis o3 t"e CDroups o3 Gni#ersal ElementsC skand"as+ t"e
aggregates+ - ( = <8"e 3i#e aggregates, e-plainedFcaused by t"eir basic underlying
causes, emptiness o3 emptiness@@
.
i.e RVSGMV : Section B:
-- O&&O!E!8: 8"ere are real in"erent+ causes, basic causes e-plaining t"e apparent 3i#e
aggregates. >t is important to understand t"e composition o3 t"e skand"as body, and
mind processes+ in term o3 elementary elements basic causes+. 8"ese elements compose
and condition t"e skand"as. 8"ey 3orm t"e $"ole 3oundation 3or t"e t"eories e-plaining
t"e conditioning and t"e possibility o3 9iberation.
-- 4AA!HAA F S4A!HAA: Aeap, group, aggregate. &"ysical and mental components o3
t"e personality and o3 sensory e-perience in general. 8"e 3i#e skand"as F t"e 3i#e
aggregates o3 clingingFsustenance are : 3orm, 3eeling, perception, 3abrications,
consciousness, $"en clinging to t"em, $"en accompanied $it" mental 3ermentations,
$"en t"e sel3 is identi3ied $it" any o3 t"em, $"en being obsessed by any o3 t"em t"inking
t"ey are >, or mine, $"en "a#ing desire or passion to$ard t"em. /ut i3 $e kno$ t"eir
real non-dual nature, and t"us do not cling to t"em, t"en t"ey are as pure as e#eryt"ing
else.+
-- EU. 8AE ADDREDA8E OF FORM corresponds to $"at $e $ould call material, or p"ysical,
3actors o3 e-perience. >t includes not only our o$n bodies but also t"e material ob5ects
t"at surround us -- t"e eart", t"e trees, t"e buildings, and t"e ob5ects o3 e#eryday li3e.
Speci3ically, t"e aggregate o3 3orm includes t"e 3i#e p"ysical sense organs and t"e
corresponding material ob5ects o3 t"ose sense organs: t"e eyes and #isible ob5ects, t"e
ears and audible ob5ects, t"e nose and ol3actory ob5ects, t"e tongue and ob5ects o3 taste,
and t"e skin and tangible ob5ects.
.
.
-- !O8E: Ie need to understand #ery $ell t"e t"eory o3 t"e 3i#e skand"as, t"eir #ariety
and composition, t"eir dynamic, to appreciate t"is section as is. Or $e need to be able to
translate all o3 t"is in terms o3 our current modern scienti3ic t"eories about our body,
speec" and mind, and about t"e $"ole perceptible $orld, and all t"eories, la$s, concepts
$e "a#e, all t"e material and immaterial entities $e can imagine. A skand"as is t"en any
grouping a more apparent macroscopic le#el+ t"at can be e-plained or caused+ by more
basic components a more basic or microscopic le#el o3 reality eit"er p"ysical or non-
p"ysical+.
-- >t is easy to understand t"at a grouping o3 more elementary components can be
e-plained 3ully by t"e dynamic o3 t"ose basic components, $e can accept t"at t"e
e-istence o3 a macroscopic entity biological or not+ could be e-plained totally by t"e
interactions o3 its more basic components like cells, molecules, atoms, sub-atomic
particles, Juarks, strings, energy, etc. Ie can accept t"at all t"e macroscopic be"a#iors
and la$s could be deduced 3rom suc" microscopic e#en i3 $e "a#e ne#er been able to do
it+. /ut still, because $e t"ink t"ere are real in"erently e-isting basic components
elementary particles+, $e also t"ink t"e macroscopic entities are real, solid, in"erently
e-isting. 8"e same t"ing applies at t"e le#el o3 ideas, concepts, uni#ersal la$s, and at t"e
le#el o3 t"e sel3.
-- 8"is section demonstrate t"at no suc" elementary particles at any o3 t"e t"ree le#els:
p"ysical F perceptible, conceptual F 3orm, or sel3 F non-3orm+ can e-ist on t"eir o$n,
in"erently, and be t"e basic causes o3 e#eryt"ing else. !O /AS>6 9E:E9 MA8ER>A9 OR
!O!-MA8ER>A9+, 6A! 6AGSE OR FG99% EU&9A>! 8AE MA6ROS6O&>6 A&&ARE!8 9E:E9.
8AA8 >S !O8 8AE IA% REA9>8% >S.
-- 8"e need to realiMe t"e emptiness o3 our 3i#e aggregates as a 3irst step in t"e
de#elopment o3 t"e transcending $isdom is #ery $ell e-plained in t"e Aeart Sutra copied
at t"e end o3 t"is document+. >t is also mentioned t"at realiMing t"e no-sel3 is not enoug",
$e need to realiMe t"e emptiness o3 all d"armas $it"out any e-ception, including any
basic le#el d"arma o3 any skand"as o3 any o3 t"e t"ree realms.
.
]]]]]]]]]]
.
-- Applying t"e met"ods de#eloped in section ' to t"e 3i#e skand"as p"ysical or mental+
and t"eir respecti#e basic causes O bot" are empty, non-dual.
.
-- -- A!O8AER 6OG&9E 6AGSE A!H EFFE68: all t"e skand"as and t"eir basic causes 3orm
a couple cause-e33ect. 9ike t"e more basic microscopic le#el e-plaining F causing t"e
apparent macroscopic le#el. E-ample, s"ape, color, elementary particles, can be seen as
t"e causes o3 t"e #isible 3orm. Mental 3actors are t"e basic causes o3 consciousness. 8"ere
are di33erent basic causes depending on t"e type o3 skand"as p"ysical or mental. All t"e
arguments o3 section ' apply "ere. 8"e conclusions are also t"e same. /ut t"ey gi#es
#ery surprising results $"en applied to t"e sub5ects "ere.+
-- -- A9SO A/OG8 8AE EM&8>!ESS OF EM&8>!ESS. Emptiness is not a basic cause eit"er,
it is not t"e absolute nature o3 e#eryt"ing.
.
]]]]]]]]]]
.
-- So, i3 $e copy t"e r;sum; o3 section ', c"ange a 3e$ $ords like: cause -- W basic
cause, e33ect -- W skand"as+, and add some p"rases $e "a#e:
.
-- -- A/OG8 8AE S4A!HAAS A!H 8AE>R /AS>6 6AGSES F about t"e elements composing
t"e personality and about t"e perceptible $orld t"e ob5ects o3 t"e si- senses, o3 t"e t"ree
realms+, t"e real nature o3 t"is $orld, about causality as in section '. About t"e
macroscopic apparent le#el being e-plained or caused+ by a more basic or microscopic+
le#el o3 reality composed o3 elementary, in"erent components = t"e real d"armas and
relations described in t"e Ab"id"arma, or t"e elementary particles and la$s o3 science.
-- -- 8AE M>HH9E IA%: 8"ere is no absolute basic causes basic le#el+, no absolute e33ect-
skand"as macroscopic le#el+, no absolute causality as co#ered in section '+, no absolute
control o3 t"e macroscopic by controlling t"e microscopic or basic le#el. /ut t"is doesnSt
mean t"at t"ere is absolutely no causes or more elementary 3unctional components t"at
could partially e-plain t"e more macroscopic le#el, no e33ect-skand"as, no causality, no
control at all. 8"ings are still being dependently arisen and 3unctional at any le#el, or in
any realms+, t"ey do e-ist con#entionally and are #ery use3ul, t"ere is partial control.
8"ings are called t"is or t"at elementary basic causes or macroscopic e33ects F skand"as+
based on obser#ed con#entions and regularity, but t"ey are ne#er absolute. 8"ey are not
in"erently e-istent as basic causes or e33ect-skand"as+, not completely non-e-istent, not
bot", not neit"er. So e#en i3 $e cannot 3ind any absolute elementary particles 3or t"e
p"ysical, or component 3or t"e mind, t"e la$s o3 p"ysics, c"emistry, bio-c"emistry,
biology, psyc"ology, sociology, T are still use3ul. E#en i3 all sub5ects, #erb-action and
complement in all p"rases are empty o3 in"erent e-istence, $e still 3ind conceptualiMation
#ery use3ul. Emptiness doesnSt mean total c"aos, total non-e-istent, total meaningless, or
t"at e#eryt"ing is 3rom t"e mind only. Ie s"ould not 5ump 3rom total realism, to total
idealism or ni"ilism.
-- -- 8"e Middle Iay: !o total determinism o3 t"e skand"as by t"eir basic causes, no total
c"aos. !o total conditioning o3 our body, speec" and mind by t"eir conditioning causes,
no total 3ree-$ill or independent e-istence. !o ob5ecti#e direct perception o3 an
independent $orld by impartial sense organs and consciousness, and actions moti#ated by
3ree moti#e, no total impersonal conditioning o3 t"e skand"as by more elementary
components. Also meaning t"at t"e macroscopic is not totally determined by t"e
microscopic, no more t"an any e33ect can be totally determined by any grouping o3 causes
and e33ect. Microscopic and macroscopic, like cause and e33ect, cannot e-ist one $it"out
t"e ot"er, t"ey are interdependent, t"us bot" empty o3 in"erent e-istence, inseparable,
non-dual: not t$o, not one.
-- -- 8AERE >S !O A/SO9G8E C8A>S 8AA8C, OR CHE&E!HE!8 OR>D>!A8>O!C $it"
in"erent basic causes, skand"as-e33ects and elementary causal relations, as taug"t in t"e
Ab"id"arma. So no absolute pat" t"at can surely cause 9iberation. /ut t"ere is a
con#entional dependent origination $it" empty causes, e33ects and causality. 8"ere are
possible adapted skill3ul means, #irtues and use3ul #ie$s, t"ey are 5ust ne#er absolute.
Emptiness doesn7t deny Hependent Origination t"e 8$o 8rut"s are not in opposition+,
t"ey are not mutually e-clusi#e, on t"e contrary, t"ey are interdependent, one cannot
e-ist $it"out t"e ot"er, one implies t"e ot"er, t"ey are inseparable: not t$o, not one.
8A>S >S AOI OGR G!HERS8A!H>!D OF /O8A HE&E!HE!8 OR>D>!A8>O! A!H
EM&8>!ESS SAOG9H /E K&ERFE68EHL, /% G!>8>!D 8AEM, /% REA9>Z>!D 8AE>R
>!SE&ARA/>9>8%, 8AE>R !O!-HGA9>8%, AS >! 8AE &ERFE68 G!>O! OF 8AE 8IO
8RG8AS. 8"us, e#en i3 e#eryt"ing is empty o3 in"erent e-istence, t"at doesn7t mean t"at
$e s"ould drop all skill3ul means, all #irtues, all pat"s as i3 t"ey $ere completely non-
e-istent, useless, meaningless. Ie 5ust need to per3ect t"ose met"ods by combining t"em
$it" more $isdom emptiness+ Ie need bot" met"od and emptiness toget"er all t"e
time. One alone is not enoug".
-- -- A99 EFFE68S ARE 6AGSES, /G8, A9SO, A99 6AGSES ARE EFFE68S. E#eryt"ing is
produced 3or its e33ect. Any cause or condition "as causes and conditions o3 its o$n, and
t"ere is no beginning to t"is, and no end. And, since e#eryt"ing is dependent, t"en
e#eryt"ing is empty o3 in"erent e-istence. 8"at co#ers all 3unctional t"ings, e#eryt"ing in
t"e t"ree realms. 8"ere is only t"e c"ain o3 causality, endless in bot" directions, $it" no
in"erent elements in it. = 8"ere is no basic le#el $it"out a more macroscopic apparent
le#el, and no more macroscopic apparent le#el $it"out a more basic or microscopic+
le#el. 8"ey are bot" empty o3 in"erent e-istence because interdependent like cause and
e33ect.
-- -- 8AE IAO9E 6O!6E&8 OF K6AGSA9>8% F A /AS>6 9E:E9 6AGS>!D 8AE A&&ARE!8
9E:E9L >S F9AIEH. 8"e moment o3 production cannot be 3ound. 8"e cause and e33ect
cannot be t"e simultaneous as t$o separate in"erent entities+, nor can t"ey be in
seJuence separate in time+. 8"e cause and e33ect cannot be t"e same, nor can t"ey be
di33erent. One cannot be included in t"e ot"er scienti3ic reductionism, or pure idealism+.
One cannot e-ist independently o3 t"e ot"er. 8"ey are interdependent, co-dependently
arisen, inseparable not t$o, not one+, dependent on t"e mind labeling t"em toget"er.
-- -- >!AERE!8 EU>S8E!6E >S >!6OM&A8>/9E I>8A HE&E!HE!8 OR>D>!A8>O!: !o
in"erent basic causes $ould be able to suddenly produce somet"ing real, non-real, bot",
or neit"er+ $"at $ould e-plain t"e emergence o3 ne$ more macroscopic entities 3orm a
more basic le#el o3 in"erent entities+. !o in"erent skand"as-e33ect real, non-real, bot", or
neit"er+ $ould need to be caused. >n"erent e-istence $ould in"ibit any possible c"ange.
So it is t"e assumption o3 in"erent e-istence o3 basic elements or macroscopic apparent
elements+ t"at is incompatible $it" Hependent Origination, $it" t"e teac"ings o3 t"e
/udd"a. An empty cause can only produce an empty e33ect-skand"as. And an empty
e33ect- skand"as can only be produced by an empty basic cause. Empty basic le#el ^ -- --
W empty apparent le#el. 6ause, e33ect and t"eir causal relations are empty o3 in"erent
e-istence because interdependent, and interdependent because empty o3 in"erent
e-istence.
-- -- >n resume, IE SAOG9H S8A% AIA% FROM 8AE FOGR EU8REMES: e#eryt"ing is not
in"erently e-isting, not completely non-e-isting, not bot", not neit"er. E#ery cause-e33ect
dualities, t"e t$o opposites o3 any relation, e#eryt"ing in t"e t"ree realms is non-dual: not
t$o not di33erent+, not one not t"e same+.
-- -- E-. 8"ere is no in"erent basic causes e-plaining F causing t"e apparent more
macroscopic e33ect-skand"as, no in"erent skand"as, no basic causes, no basic particles,
no basic mental 3actors T All so called basic causes are e33ects, dependent on t"eir o$n
causes and conditions, e#eryt"ing is continually c"anging, ne#er e-actly t"e same 3or
e#en an in3initesimal moment, but still ne#er completely di33erent -- t"ere is continuity.
8AERE >S !O8A>!D &ERMA!E!8 >! OGR /OH%, S&EE6A A!H M>!H, !O8 E:E! SOME
E9EME!8AR% 6OM&O!E!8S MA8ER>A9 OR >MMA8ER>A9, !O8 E:E! EM&8>!ESS. IE
ARE 6O!8>!GA99% 6AA!D>!D, !E:ER EUA689% 8AE SAME, !OR 6OM&9E8E9%
H>FFERE!8 FROM O!E >!F>!>8ES>MA9 MOME!8 8O A!O8AER, FROM O!E RE/>R8A 8O
A!O8AER. 8AERE >S !O &ERMA!E!8 SE9F, /G8 8AERE >S 6O!8>!G>8%.+
.

91: <Emptiness o3 C#isible 3ormC #s. CelementsC because interdependent@
.
[ NNN
[ '.
[ :isible 3orm rupa+ is not percei#ed $it"out t"e basic cause o3 #isible 3orm
rupakarana+,
[ 9ike$ise t"e basic cause o3 #isible 3orm does not appear $it"out t"e #isible 3orm.
.
:>S>/9E FORM A!H >8S /AS>6 6AGSE FORM A! A&&ARE!8 6AGSE-EFFE68 HGA9>8%:
8"e opponent a33irm t"at t"ere could be direct perception o3 t"e 3orm by t"e eye, as
somet"ing in"erently e-isting. !agar5una a33irms t"at t"ere is no direct perception o3 t"e
essence o3 t"e 3orm, but t"at t"e 3orm is merely imputed on a #alid basis t"at is also
empty. 8"is basis is t"e cause o3 t"e appearance o3 t"e 3orm t"e e33ect+. 8"e basic
causes o3 #isible 3orms could be color, s"ape, elementary particles, maybe e#en e-istence
or non-e-istence T depending on t"e t"eory+. 8"ey are eit"er c"aracteristics or parts. For
t"e opponent t"ese and t"e #isible 3orm are bot" in"erent entities t"at can e-ist
independently o3 eac" ot"er. For !agar5una, since t"ey 3orm a couple cause-e33ect, all t"e
arguments and conclusions o3 section ' apply to t"is case. Aere it is 3irst mentioned t"at
neit"er t"e #isible 3orm e33ect+, not its basic cause cause+ can e-ist $it"out t"e ot"er.
8"ey are interdependent, t"us bot" are empty o3 in"erent e-istence.
= 8"e basic le#el cannot e-ist $it"out t"e more apparent macroscopic le#el, and #ice
#ersa. 9ike, a uni#erse cannot e-ist $it"out its elementary particles, and t"ose particles
cannot e-ist $it"out an uni#erse. 8"e same 3or a body and its components, a cell and its
components, an atom and its components, a mind and its memory or assimilation sc"eme
T+
.
Streng1 : 8"e skand"as, like$ise, are analyMed and t"eir independent reality denied in
c"apter i# An Analysis o3 t"e CDroups o3 Gni#ersal ElementsC skand"as++. /udd"ist
Ab"id"arma accepted 3i#e skand"as groups o3 uni#ersal elements+. Again, t"e basic
argument is against t"e indi#idual reality o3 any d"arma considered among t"e skand"as,
and takes t"e 3orm o3 denying e#ery causal t"eory as an e-planation 3or a skand"a, e.g.,
rupa 3orm+. 8"e pattern o3 t"e argument can be seen in t"e 3irst t"ree #erses.
.
[ NNN
[ 2.
[ >3 t"e #isible 3orm e-isted apart 3rom its basic cause, it $ould logically 3ollo$ t"at
#isible 3orm is $it"out cause,
[ /ut t"ere is not"ing any$"ere <arising@ $it"out cause.
.
8AERE >S !O EFFE68 I>8AOG8 A 6AGSE as mentioned in section '. An in"erent #isible
3orm directly percei#able $ould be totally independent o3 e#eryt"ing else, but, t"ere is no
#isible 3orm $it"out a color and s"ape, $it"out being composed o3 particles, T So t"e
#isible 3orm is empty o3 in"erent e-istence because dependent on its basis s"ape, color,
particles, T+.
.
= >3 t"e apparent macroscopic le#el could e-ist $it"out its more basic le#el, t"at $ould
mean t"at t"e apparent macroscopic le#el is not caused by its more basic components.+
.
[ NNN
[ 1.
[ On t"e ot"er "and, i3 t"ere $ould be a basic cause apart 3rom #isible 3orm,
[ 8"e basic cause $ould be $it"out any product, but t"ere is no basic cause $it"out
a product.
.
8AERE >S !O 6AGSE I>8AOG8 A! EFFE68 as mentioned in section '. An in"erent basic
cause $ould not be able to c"ange, and produce an e33ect like a #isible 3orm. >t $ould
e-ist independently o3 t"e #isible 3orm. /ut, t"ere is no basic cause, like color and s"ape,
$it"out a #isible 3orm. So t"e basic cause o3 t"e 3orm = its s"ape, color, particles = are all
empty o3 in"erent e-istence because dependent on t"e #isible 3orm.
= >3 t"e more basic le#el could e-ist $it"out its apparent macroscopic le#el, t"at t"e more
basic components are not causing anyt"ing, no apparent macroscopic e33ects. A bunc" o3
elementary particle $it"out an uni#erse O
.
EM&8>!ESS OF /O8A 6AGSE A!H EFFE68 = /AS>6 6AGSE A!H :>S>/9E FORM =
/E6AGSE >!8ERHE&E!HE!8. 8"ere is direct perception o3 an in"erent #isible 3orm, and
no in"erent components composing t"e #isible 3orm = like color, s"ape, particles. = 8"e
macroscopic and more basic microscopic le#el are bot" empty o3 in"erent e-istence
because interdependent, inseparable, non-dual: not t$o, not one.+
.
>n brie3 t"e relation bet$een elements and 3orms is t"e same as t"e relation bet$een
cause . e33ect:
.
Iarning: t"ere is a distinction bet$een CmaterialityC and C#isible 3ormC:
-- >n t"e Sautrantika Sc"ool, 3orm and matter are synonymous.
-- /ut in t"e &rasangika Sc"ool, matter is not asserted.
.
8"e point "ere is to demonstrate t"at t"ere is no CmaterialityC be"ind t"e C#isible 3ormC.
.
91: <!o absolute, no discontinuity@
.
[ NNN
[ B.
[ Just as $"en t"ere is #isible 3orm no basic cause o3 3orm obtains,
[ So $"en t"ere is no #isible 3orm no basic cause o3 3orm obtains.
.
A! EM&8% 6AGSE 6A! O!9% A!H HO &ROHG6E A! EM&8% EFFE68. 8"e e33ect = t"e
#isible 3orm = is not in"erently e-istent, not completely non-e-istent, not bot", not neit"er.
8"ere is a 3lo$ o3 interdependence, but no in"erent entities in it. = An apparent
macroscopic le#el caused by t"e more basic le#el cannot be in"erently e-istent, not can it
be totally non-e-istent, not bot", nor neit"er.+
.
[ NNN
[ E.
[ Furt"ermore, it does not obtain t"at no #isible 3orm e-ists $it"out a basic cause,
[ One s"ould not construe any constructs concerning t"e 3orm.
.
A! EM&8% EFFE68 6A! O!9% /E A!H >S &ROHG6EH /% A! EM&8% 6AGSE. 8"e cause =
color, s"ape, particles, T = are not in"erently e-istent, not completely non-e-istent, not
bot", not neit"er. 8"ere is a 3lo$ o3 interdependence, but no in"erent entities in it. = A
more basic le#el causing an apparent macroscopic le#el cannot be in"erently e-istent, not
can it be totally non-e-istent, not bot", nor neit"er.
.
8AE M>HH9E IA%: S8A%>!D AIA% FROM 8AE FOGR EU8REMES: $e s"ould not 5ump to
any o3 t"e 3our e-tremes positions: e-istence, non-e-istence, bot", neit"er. All #ie$s
concerning t"e 3orm, all t"eories, $ould be necessarily 3la$ed. = So $e s"ould not 5ump to
any o3 t"e 3our e-treme conception concerning t"ose t$o le#els: suc" as, e-istence, non-
e-istence, bot", neit"er.+
.
91: <!on-duality o3 C#isible 3ormC #s. CelementsC@
.
[ NNN
[ ).
[ Just as it does not obtain t"at t"e product is t"e same as t"e cause,
[ So it does not obtain t"at product is not t"e same as t"e cause.
.
8AE 6AGSE A!H EFFE68 ARE !O8 SE&ARA8E OR H>FFERE!8, !O8 8AE SAME. 9ike 3or
any ot"er duality cause-e33ect, t"ey are inseparable, non-dual: not t$o, not one. 8"is $as
demonstrated in section '. = 8"e t$o le#els, t"e apparent macroscopic le#el and t"e
supposedly more basic causing le#el, are not di33erent or separate, not t"e same. 8"ey are
non-dual: not t$o, not one.+
.
91: <DeneraliMation to all composites skand"as+@
.
[ NNN
[ *.
[ Also, sensation, t"oug"t, mental conception, conditioned elements samskara+ and
[ All Ct"ingsC b"a#a+ are to be dealt $it" in t"e same $ay as #isible 3orm.
.
DE!ERA9>ZA8>O! 8O A99 S4A!HAAS, 8O A99 6OM&OS>8E. 8"e $"ole set o3 t"e 3i#e
aggregates are empty o3 in"erent e-istence because interdependent $it" t"eir parts. !ot
e-istent, not completely non-e-istent, not bot", not neit"er. 8"ey are not di33erent or
separate 3rom t"eir basic cause, not t"e same. 8"ey are inseparable, non-dual: not t$o,
not one. So $e s"ould stay a$ay 3rom any #ie$s concerning t"em. All #ie$s are 3la$ed,
all conceptualiMation 3la$ed. /ut t"at doesnSt means t"at $e s"ould drop e#eryt"ing rig"t
no$, t"at e#eryt"ing is non-e-istent, useless, meaningless. >t only means t"at $e s"ould
use t"em $it" more $isdom realiMing t"e emptiness o3 t"e t"ree+.
= 8"is discussion about t"e relation bet$een t$o le#els o3 t"e material $orld, can also be
applied to any apparent ob5ect o3 t"e mental $orld and its supposedly basic mental
causes. So it applies to any idea, t"eory, or concept e-plained in terms o3 more basic
concepts. >t applies to any 3eeling, consciousness, mental state T e-plained in terms o3
more basics mental 3actors. All occurrences o3 t"e 3i#e aggregates and t"eir particular
basic causes are empty o3 in"erent e-istence because interdependent.+
.
91: <E#en emptiness is not t"e Cprimal causeC eit"er@
.
[ NNN
[ 0.
[ I"oe#er argues against CemptinessC in order to re3ute an argument,
[ For "im e#eryt"ing, including t"e point o3 contention sad"ya+ is kno$n to be
unre3uted.
.
E:E! EM&8>!ESS >S EM&8% OF >!AERE!8 EU>S8E!6E: Some mig"t t"ink t"at e-istence,
non-e-istence, permanence, impermanence, T are also basic elements o3 t"ings. Since
e#eryt"ing is empty o3 in"erent e-istence, some mig"t t"ink t"at t"e basic building block
o3 t"e $"ole uni#erse is emptiness itsel3, or elementary particles o3 space, or energy
Juanta T /ut using t"e arguments o3 t"is c"apter one can realiMe t"at t"ey are all also
empty o3 in"erent e-istence because dependent on t"e ob5ect t"ey are inseparable $it". =
Again, pro#ing t"at emptiness is also empty o3 in"erent e-istence doesnSt make it
completely non-e-istent, useless, meaningless. >t only means t"at $e s"ould use it $it"
more $isdom = kno$ing its emptiness = like $e $ould use an antidote only to cure a
speci3ic illness. !ot"ing is absolute, t"ere are only adapted skill3ul means.
.
[ NNN
[ (.
[ I"oe#er argues by means o3 CemptinessC in order to e-plain an understanding,
[ For "im, e#eryt"ing including t"e point to be pro#ed sad"ya+ is kno$n to be
misunderstood.
.
8o 5ump on t"e ot"er e-treme 3rom realism and t"ink t"at emptiness is real, t"at it is t"e
basic cause o3 e#eryt"ing, t"at it is t"e absolute trut", t"e real nature o3 e#eryt"ing, $ould
be a mistake e#en $orst t"at t"e initial position. Ie need to stay a$ay 3rom t"e 3our
e-tremes: e-istence, non-e-istence, bot" toget"er, neit"er.
-- >n ot"er $ords to stay a$ay 3rom t"e 3our e-tremes o3 t"inking t"at Hependent
Origination as e-plained in t"e Ab"id"arma is t"e absolute trut", t"at emptiness is t"e
absolute trut", t"at bot" toget"er is t"e absolute trut", t"at it is somet"ing else including
none o3 t"em.+
.
Emptiness is not t"e primal cause o3 e#eryt"ing. Emptiness is also 5ust a mental
construction.
.
92: <Section E - An Analysis o3 t"e C>rreductible ElementsC d"atus+ t"e elements+ = 0 =
<8"e irreducible elements de3ined by t"eir basic c"aracteristics@@
.
RVSGMV:
-- Opponent: 8"e elementary d"armas e-ist and t"ey "a#e #ery precise c"aracteristics and
relations t"at e-plain e#eryt"ing. 8"ey are primal causesFconditions: t"ey are not
produced, not composed, permanent, totally independent, and "a#e de3inite e33ects. 8"ey
are sel3-e-isting causeFconditions. 8"ey are t"e one $e s"ould obser#e, understand and
try to control.
.
]]]]]]]]]]
.
-- Anot"er $ay to analyMe t"ose basic causes, beside describing t"eir interdependence
$it" t"e skand"as t"ey are supposed to e-plain F cause, is to e-amine t"eir relation $it"
t"eir o$n de3ining c"aracteristics. For t"is $e could take t"e e-ample o3 8AE MOS8
>RREHG6>/9E &AR8>69ES: EAR8A, IA8ER, F>RE, I>!H, A>R, A!H 8AE>R
6AARA68ER>S8>6S. Aardness is t"e c"aracteristic o3 eart". 6o"esion is t"e c"aracteristic
o3 $ater. Aeat is t"e c"aracteristic o3 3ire. Motion is t"e c"aracteristic o3 air. 8AESE
>RREHG6>/9E E9EME!8S ARE SA>H 8O /E 8AE MOS8 /AS>6 6AGSE OF A99
MA8ER>A9>8%.
.
-- -- K!o$ all material p"enomena possess t"ese 3our elements to some degree. I"at
distinguis"es t"em is t"e proportion in $"ic" t"e primary elements are combined. Ie
discriminate t"e types o3 matter on t"e basis o3 t"e dominant element. 8"us $e 3ind solid
bodies, liJuids, gases and 3orms o3 energy depending on t"e proportions or predominance
o3 t"e 3our primary elements. /ut all 3our elements are present to some degree in e#ery
unit o3 matter.L
.
-- And on t"e side o3 t"e non-materiality, 8AE >!F>!>8ES>MA9 MOME!8 OF
6O!S6>OGS!ESS is said to be t"e most basic cause o3 t"e mind. Iit"out a pre#ious
consciousness moment, t"ere cannot be a ne-t consciousness moment.
.
-- Again t"e met"od de#eloped in section t$o can be applied "ere:
.
-- -- A/OG8 A!O8AER 8R>O SG/JE68, :ER/ A!H 6OM&9EME!8: t"e c"aracteristic, t"e
#erb Kto de3ineL, and c"aracteriMed, and any ot"er so called elementary component t"at is
t"oug"t to be $it"out any parts, $it"out any causes, $"ile "a#ing its o$n c"aracteristics
like elementary particles, Juarks, strings, energy Juanta T or t"e eJui#alent 3or t"e
mind+. All t"e arguments o3 section 2 . 1 apply "ere. 8"e conclusions are also t"e same.
.
-- -- A/OG8 8AE HGA9>8% 6AARA68ER>ZEH A!H >8S 6AARA68ER>S8>6S:
.
]]]]]]]]]]
.
So, i3 $e copy t"e r;sum; o3 section 2 or 1 and c"ange a 3e$ $ords like sub5ect O
c"aracteristic, action-#erb O to de3ine, complement O c"aracteriMed or irreducible
elements+, $e "a#e:
.
-- A/OG8 8AE 8AREE: SG/JE68, A68>O!-:ER/ A!H 6OM&9EME!8 = A/OG8
6AARA68ER>S8>6S, HEF>!>8>O!S, O/JE68S HEF>!EH OR >RREHG6>/9E E9EME!8S.
-- 8AE M>HH9E IA%: 8"ere is no absolute sub5ect-c"aracteristics, no absolute action-o3-
de3ining-somet"ing, no absolute ob5ect-being de3ined absolute P in"erent+. /ut t"is
doesnSt mean t"at t"ere is absolutely no c"aracteristics, no de3inition, no ob5ects being
de3ined, no irreducible elements, at all. 8"ings are still being dependently arisen and
3unctional, t"ey do e-ist con#entionally. 8"ings are called speci3ic sub5ect, action, or
complement based on con#entions, t"ey are 5ust ne#er absolute, in"erently e-isting, on
t"eir o$n, $it" t"eir essence. 8"ey are not in"erently e-istent as c"aracteristics,
de3inition, c"aracteriMed or irreducible elements+, not completely non-e-istent, not bot",
not neit"er.
-- 8"e Middle Iay: !o absolute basis 3or t"e $"ole uni#erse, or mind, no total absence o3
basis, no absolute irreducible elements, but t"ey do e-ist con#entionally, no absolute
de3inition process, not absolute de3inition, no absolute c"aracteristics, no absolute ob5ect
being de3ined, no ob5ecti#e disco#ery o3 t"e c"aracteristics o3 real in"erent elementary
particles, but t"ey do e-ist con#entionally and t"eir relati#e de3initions are use3ul.
-- 8AERE >S !O A/SO9G8E CHE&E!HE!8 OR>D>!A8>O!C $it" in"erent c"aracteristics,
de3initions, and elementary components like skand"as, basic causes or irreducible
elements+, as taug"t in t"e Ab"id"arma. !o real absolute '2 steps. So no absolute rules
t"at needs to be 3ollo$ed in order to create good or bad karma, or to ultimately attain
9iberation. /ut t"ere is a con#entional dependent origination $it" empty sub5ect, action
and complement. 8"ere are possible adapted skill3ul means, #irtues and use3ul #ie$s, t"ey
are 5ust ne#er absolute. Emptiness doesn7t deny Hependent Origination t"e 8$o 8rut"s
are not in opposition+, t"ey are not mutually e-clusi#e, on t"e contrary, t"ey are
interdependent, one cannot e-ist $it"out t"e ot"er, one implies t"e ot"er, t"ey are
inseparable: not t$o, not one. 8"is is "o$ our understanding o3 bot" Hependent
Origination and Emptiness s"ould be Kper3ectedL, by uniting t"em, by realiMing t"eir
inseparability, t"eir non-duality, as in t"e &er3ect Gnion o3 8"e 8$o 8rut"s. 8"us, e#en i3
e#eryt"ing is empty o3 in"erent e-istence, t"at doesn7t mean t"at $e s"ould drop all
morality, all skill3ul means, all #irtues, all pat"s as i3 t"ey $ere completely non-e-istent,
useless, meaningless. Ie need to per3ect t"ose met"ods and #irtues by uniting t"em $it"
t"e $isdom realiMing t"e emptiness o3 t"e t"ree: sub5ect, ob5ect, complement. Ie need
bot" met"od and $isdom toget"er all t"e time. One alone is not enoug".
-- A99 6AARA68ER>ZEH F >RREHG6>/9E E9EME!8S ARE 6AARA68ER>S8>6S, /G8, A9SO,
A99 6AARA68ER>S8>6S ARE 6AARA68ER>ZEH. E#eryt"ing is t"e c"aracteristics o3
somet"ing all 3unctional t"ings are produced 3or t"eir e33ect+. Any c"aracteristics "as
been a c"aracteriMed all causes are also e33ects, dependent on ot"er causes and
conditions+, and t"ere is no beginning to t"is, and no end. And, since e#eryt"ing is a
dependent ob5ect o3 t"e sense, t"en e#eryt"ing is empty o3 in"erent e-istence. 8"at
co#ers all 3unctional t"ings, e#eryt"ing in t"e t"ree realms. 8"ere is only t"e c"ain o3
percei#er-perception-ob5ects-o3-t"e-sense, endless in bot" directions, $it" no in"erent
elements in it. Surprising R !o O
-- 8AE IAO9E 6O!6E&8 OF CHEF>!>8>O!C >S F9AIEH. 8"e e-act beginning o3 a
de3inition cannot be 3ound, so t"e t"ree times de3ined relati#e to t"is point o3 re3erence
are also empty o3 in"erent e-istence. A de3inition being done is not directly obser#able by
seeing its acti#ity, t"e de3inition is eit"er done or not done, t"ere is no Kin t"e middleL,
and its acti#ity is not somet"ing separate 3rom t"e de3inition, t"at is added to t"e
de3inition $it"out acti#ity. 8"e cause-c"aracteristics o3 t"e de3inition+ and e33ect-
c"aracteriMed t"e de3inition+ cannot be t"e simultaneous, nor can t"ey be in seJuence
separate in time+. 8"e sub5ect c"aracteristics+, action-de3inition and complement ob5ect
being de3ined, c"aracteriMed, or irreducible element+ cannot be t"e same, nor can t"ey be
di33erent or separate. One cannot include t"e ot"ers. One cannot e-ist independently o3
t"e ot"ers no action $it"out a sub5ect, no sub5ect $it"out an action, no complement
$it"out an action ...+. 8"ey are all empty o3 in"erent e-istence because interdependent,
co-dependently arisen concepts, inseparable not t$o, not one+, dependent on t"e mind
labeling t"em toget"er.
-- >!AERE!8 EU>S8E!6E >S >!6OM&A8>/9E I>8A HE&E!HE!8 OR>D>!A8>O!: !o
in"erent sub5ect-c"aracteristics $ould be able to suddenly produce an process-o3-
de3inition real, non-real, bot", or neit"er+. !o in"erent action-o3-de3inition real, non-real,
bot", or neit"er+ $ould need to be caused. >n"erent e-istence $ould in"ibit any possible
c"ange. So it is t"e assumption o3 in"erent e-istence t"at is incompatible $it" Hependent
Origination, $it" t"e teac"ings o3 t"e /udd"a. An empty sub5ect can only produce an
empty action. And an empty action can only be produced by an empty sub5ect.
6"aracteristics, action-de3inition, t"eir c"aracteriMed or irreducible elements, and t"eir
relations are all empty o3 in"erent e-istence because interdependent, and interdependent
because empty o3 in"erent e-istence. All o3 our de3initions, all #ie$s, all t"eories, all
sentences are 3la$ed: not absolute, but maybe skill3ul means depending on t"e situation.
-- >n resume, IE SAOG9H S8A% AIA% FROM 8AE FOGR EU8REMES: e#eryt"ing is not
in"erently e-isting, not completely non-e-isting, not bot", not neit"er. All dualities <like
sub5ect-action, action-complement, sub5ect-complement@, t"e t$o opposites o3 any
relation, e#eryt"ing in t"e t"ree realms is non-dual: not t$o not di33erent+, not one not
t"e same+.
-- E-. 8"ere is no c"aracteristic $it"out a de3inition, no de3inition $it"out a c"aracteristic,
no de3inition $it"out de3ining somet"ing a c"aracteriMed, or, in t"e case "ere, irreducible
element+, no c"aracteriMed $it"out any c"aracteristic de3ining. /ut t"e c"aracteristic,
de3inition and c"aracteriMed are not t"e same. 8"ere is no c"aracteristic be3ore t"e
de3inition, no c"aracteristic de3ining, no c"aracteristic a3ter t"e de3inition, no permanent
c"aracteristic. 8"ey are empty o3 in"erent e-istence because interdependent, co-
dependently arisen concepts. /ut it is still use3ul to "a#e con#entional c"aracteristic,
de3inition, c"aracteriMed or irreducible elements, past, present, 3uture relati#e to not
in"erently e-isting c"aracteriMed. Ie 5ust "a#e to try to al$ays be a$are t"at t"ose
concepts are ne#er pointing to somet"ing absolute, in"erently e-isting. 8"ey are 5ust s"ort
cuts, assumptions, "ypot"esis, imper3ect models, play o3 our o$n mind. 8"ey are t"e
result o3 karma accumulation based on "abituation, and need to be seen 3or $"at t"ey
really are, ot"er$ise t"ey become t"e causes o3 gra#e mistakes based on our ignorance+
and create a lot o3 conseJuential illusions, attac"ments and su33ering t"e $"ole
unsatis3ying samsara+.+
.
]]]]]]]]]]
.
91: <>nterdependence o3 t"e trio: t"e c"aracteristic de3ines a c"aracteriMed@
.
[ NNN
[ '.
[ Space does not e-ist at all be3ore t"e de3ining c"aracteristic o3 space
akasalaksana+.
[ >3 it $ould e-ist be3ore t"e de3ining c"aracteristic, t"en one must 3alsely conclude
[ t"at t"ere $ould be somet"ing $it"out a de3ining c"aracteristic.
.
8AE 6OM&9EME!8-6AARA68ER>ZEH >S HE&E!HE!8 O! >8S SG/JE68-
6AARA68ER>S8>6S: E#en t"e most irreducible elements, basic causes, like eart", $ater,
3ire, air, cannot e-ist $it"out t"eir de3ining c"aracteristics. Ot"er$ise t"at $ould mean
t"at t"ere could be eart" t"at "as no "ardness $"atsoe#er, air $it" no mo#ement, T
-- 8"is is like t"e duality sub5ect #s. complement as described in section 2. Since t"ey 3orm
a couple sub5ect-complement, all t"e arguments and conclusions o3 section 2 apply to t"is
case.
-- 8"is is like a duality cause #s. e33ect. Since t"ey 3orm a couple cause-e33ect, all t"e
arguments and conclusions o3 section ' apply to t"is case.
-- 8"ey are like any ot"er duality.+
.
8"ere is no space 6+ $it"out its de3ining c"aracteristic A+. Ie don7t say: CAa, t"ere is
spaceR I"at is its c"aracteristicO Or, lets put some de3inition on it.C Ie see it by its
de3ining c"aracteristics. >t doesn7t e-ist independently o3 a mind discriminating, or $it"out
a sc"ema to assimilate it.
.
Streng1: 6"apter # An Analysis o3 t"e C>rreductible ElementsC d"atus++ analyMes t"e
nature o3 t"e Cirreducible elementsC d"atus+. 8"ese too are denied sel3-su33icient reality
by t"e argument t"at t"ey can not e-ist as d"atus be3ore t"ey are de3ined as suc", and
t"ere can be no de3inition $it"out somet"ing to be de3ined. !agar5una7s basic argument is
t"at t"e ob5ect o3 de3inition and t"e de3inition are dependent on eac" ot"er and t"ere3ore
t"e ob5ect, in t"is case akesa, cannot be said to e-ist by itsel3 as akesa. >t e-ists only
because it "as been named. %et, t"is position s"ould not be taken as t"e type o3
p"enomenalism $"ereby t"e naming CcreatesC t"e ob5ect o3 naming. 8"is is also denied.
!agar5una, it must be noted, ne#er does say "o$ t"e naming and t"e named are related,
3or "is position is t"at ultimately Ct"eyC as ob5ects o3 kno$ledge are empty o3 reality as
suc", and t"ere3ore suc" a concern is #ain speculation -- unconduci#e to realiMing t"eir
basic emptiness.
8"e #erses in t"is c"apter attempt to s"o$ "o$ t"e Ce-istenceC o3 d"atus are dependent
on mental acti#ity. E#en suc" a primal 3actor, claims !agar5una, cannot be said to e-ist or
not-e-ist+ by its o$n sui generis reality. /y means o3 t"is rigorous dialectic to $"ic"
!agar5una sub5ected t"e elements o3 e-istence, "e denied t"at t"ere $ere any sel3-
e-istent entities $"ic" possessed static absolute c"aracteristics. >n doing so, "e attempted
to dislodge t"e seeker a3ter trut" 3rom t"e assumption t"at trut" $as to be 3ound in
identi3ying concepts $it" segments o3 e-istence as i3 t"ey e-isted as suc".
.
[ NNN
[ 2.
[ >n no case "as anyt"ing e-isted $it"out a de3ining c"aracteristic.
.
E:ER%8A>!D >S 9>4E 8AA8, A! HE&E!HE!89% AR>SE! 6OM&9EME!8-6AARA68ER>ZEH:
E#eryt"ing is like t"at, possessing a de3inition, some c"aracteristics. So e#eryt"ing is
empty o3 in"erent e-istence because dependent on c"aracteristics.+
.
Jona" Iinters: CAn e-istent t"at is $it"out c"aracteristics is no$"ere e#identC+
.
[ NNN
[ >3 an entity $it"out a de3ining c"aracteristic does not e-ist, to $"at does t"e
de3ining c"aracteristic applyO
.
EM&8>!ESS OF >!AERE!8 EU>S8E!6E OF 8AE A68>O!-HEF>!>!D: >3 t"e sub5ect-
c"aracteriMed is empty o3 in"erent e-istence because dependent on its complement-
c"aracteristics, t"en to $"at is t"e action-de3ining applied.+
.
[ NNN
[ 1.
[ 8"ere is no 3unctioning o3 a de3ining c"aracteristic in a case $"ere t"ere is
<already@ a de3ining c"aracteristic
[ or $"ere t"ere is not a de3ining c"aracteristic.
[ And it can 3unction in not"ing e-cept $"ere t"ere is a de3ining c"aracteristic or
$"ere t"ere is not a de3ining c"aracteristic.
.
8"e action o3 de3ining is impossible on an entity $it"out any de3ining c"aracteristics t"is
entity cannot e-ist as stated be3ore+, not can it be use3ul on an entity t"at already "as its
de3ining c"aracteristics. And t"ere is no ot"er possibility. SO t"ere is no in"erent action o3
de3ining a c"aracteriMed $it" c"aracteristics.+
.
[ NNN
[ B.
[ I"en t"ere is no related 3unction sampra#rtti+ i.e. de3ining process+,
[ it is not possible to "a#e Ct"at to $"ic" a de3ining c"aracteristic applies.C
[ And i3 Ct"at to $"ic" a de3ining c"aracteristic appliesC is not possible, t"en a
de3ining c"aracteristic cannot come into e-istence.
.
EM&8>!ESS OF >!AERE!8 EU>S8E!6E OF 8AE 8AREE: >3 t"e action-de3ining is not
possible, t"en t"e complement-c"aracteriMed t"at is suppose to be de3ined is not possible,
and t"e sub5ect-c"aracteristics are all also not possible. 8"ey are all empty o3 in"erent
e-istence.+
.
Jona" Iinters: Cin t"e absence o3 t"e <e-istent@, t"ere is no occurrence o3 t"e
c"aracteristic.C+
.
91: <8"eir con#entional e-istence@
.
[ NNN
[ E.
[ 8"ere3ore, Ct"at to $"ic" a de3ining c"aracteristic appliesC does not e-ist i.e
independently+,
[ and certainly a de3ining c"aracteristic itsel3 does not e-ist i.e independently+.
[ !o$, somet"ing does not e-ist $it"out Ct"at to $"ic" a de3ining c"aracteristic
appliesC and t"e de3ining c"aracteristic.
.
/G8 8AE% EU>S8 6O!:E!8>O!A99%: t"ey are not in"erently e-istent, not completely
non-e-istent, not bot", not neit"er. !ot"ing con#entionally e-ist $it"out being de3ined by
its o$n c"aracteristics. !ot e#en t"e most basic constituent o3 t"e uni#erse, or o3 t"e
mind, t"ey are all dependent on t"eir de3ining c"aracteristics, t"us empty o3 in"erent
e-istence.+
.
[ NNN
[ ).
[ >3 t"e e-isting t"ing '+ b"a#a+ does not e-ist, "o$ t"en $ould t"e non-e-isting
t"ing 2+ ab"a#a+ come into e-istenceO
[ And $"o "olds: t"e e-isting-and-non-e-isting 1+ t"ing
[ $"ic" does not "a#e t"e properties o3 an e-isting-and-non-e-isting t"ing B+O
.
8E8RA9EMMA - !O8 EU>S8>!D, !O8 !O!-EU>S8>!D, !O8 /O8A, !O8 !E>8AER: >3
not"ing is in"erently e-isting, t"en "o$ could $e talk about t"e cessation o3 somet"ing.
8"ere is no real birt", no real deat", no real origination, no real cessation, no real
creation, no real anni"ilation T no real being in samsara being attac"ed to ob5ects o3 t"e
senses, no real 9iberation by t"e cessation o3 t"ose.+
.
Streng: 8"e concluding #erse o3 t"e initial argument states:+
.
[ NNN
[ *.
[ 8"ere3ore space is
[ neit"er an e-isting t"ing
[ nor a non-e-isting t"ing,
[ neit"er somet"ing to $"ic" a de3ining c"aracteristic applies i.e. separate 3rom a
de3ining c"aracteristic+
[ nor a de3ining c"aracteristic. i.e. t"e same as a de3ining c"aracteristic+
.
!O!-HGA9>8%: t"e c"aracteriMed and t"e c"aracteristics are not e-istent, not non-
e-istent. 8"ey are not separate or di33erent, not t"e same. 8"ey are inseparable, non-
dual: not t$o, not one.+
.
[ NNN
[ */.
[ Also, t"e ot"er 3i#e irreducible elements can be considered in t"e same $ay as
space.
.
A!H >8 >S 8AE SAME FOR A!% >MAD>!A/9E >RREHG6>/9E E9EME!8S FROM A!%
A%&O8AE8>6A9 MOHE9 6OM>!D OG8 OF RE9>D>O! OR S6>E!6E.+
.
91: <8"e real nature o3 !ir#ana, not an ordinary cessation@
.
[ NNN
[ 0.
[ /ut t"ose unenlig"tened people $"o eit"er a33irm reality or non-reality
[ Ho not percei#e t"e blessed cessation-o3-appearance o3 e-isting t"ings.
.
8AE M>HH9E IA% = A!H !>R:A!A: 8"ere is no real in"erent e-istence, and s no real
possible cessation. So !ir#ana is more subtle t"an a simple cessation. !ir#ana is certainly
not accepting e#eryt"ing as in"erently e-isting, not re5ecting e#eryt"ing as completely
non-e-istent, not bot", not neit"er. So s"ould be t"e Middle Iay t"en. 8"e Middle Iay
consists o3 staying a$ay 3rom t"ose 3our e-tremes conceptions, $"ile still using t"e
combination o3 adapted skill3ul means and $isdom toget"er all t"e time. I"yO /ecause
only t"en can $e get more and more close to respecting t"e real non-dual nature o3
e#eryt"ing. 8"e real nature o3 e#eryt"ing is beyond any description, beyond all
conceptualiMation: it is not e-istence, not non-e-istence, not bot" not neit"er. 8"ere is
absolute basis 3or discrimination or non-discrimination. E#eryt"ing is non-dual: not t$o,
not one.
!ot"ing is in"erently e-isting or can be caused to ceased. !ir#ana is not caused by doing
somet"ing, or not-doing somet"ing else, not getting somet"ing or dropping e#eryt"ing,
not by understanding somet"ing or by abandoning all #ie$s. !ir#ana is more subtle t"an
t"is. !ir#ana is beyond causality, and t"ere cannot be any permanent entity being
9iberated.
!ir#ana is described as t"e &er3ect Gnion o3 8"e 8$o 8rut"s, $"ere Hependent
Origination and Emptiness are directly seen simultaneously, $"en t"ey are completely
inseparable, non-dual: not t$o, not one. /ut t"at is 5ut pointing at t"e moon, because any
description is necessarily 3la$ed. All trio sub5ect, #erb, complement are necessarily empty
o3 in"erent e-istence because interdependent.+
.
StrengE: 8"is #erse reminds us $"o a33irm eit"er reality or nonreality cannot percei#e
!ir#ana.+
.
9ike #erse 2E.2B C8"e cessation o3 accepting e#eryt"ing <as real@ is a salutary si#a+
cessation o3 p"enomenal de#elopment prapanca+, !o d"arma any$"ere "as been taug"t
by t"e /udd"a o3 anyt"ing.C
.
92: <Section ) - An Analysis o3 Hesire raga+ and One I"o Hesires rakta+ <in t"e 6onte-t
o3 8"eir Separateness and 6oncomitance@ a33ection and t"e person a33ected+ = '? =
<6oncomitance, a person and "is acJuired strong "abits, t"e concomitant 3actors o3
consciousness@@
.
RVSGMV:
-- O&&O!E!8: C6oncomitanceC is used as an e-pression to denote t"ings t"at comes
toget"er, t"at t"ey are inseparable. E-amples: Cdependent origination and emptiness are
concomitantC, Cattraction and re5ection, greed and a#ersion, are concomitant $it"
ignoranceC, Cdesire and dukk"a are inseparable concomitantsC.
-- 8AERE ARE E2 FA68ORS OF 6O!S6>OGS!ESS t"at are concomitant $it" eac" moment
o3 consciousness, $"ic" are o3 '2' types o3 consciousness according to t"e Ab"id"arma+.
-- 8"is section is about anot"er type o3 so-called basic constituents o3 reality ultimate
constituents o3 e-istence+ part o3 t"e Gltimate 8rut" according to t"e Ab"id"arma+, but
t"ere it is not about p"ysicality, but about t"e mental skand"as. C8"e so-called CbeingC is
composed o3 3i#e aggregates or groups, namely, p"ysical body, 3eeling, perception,
#olitional 3ormations, and consciousness. >3 consciousness is taken as t"e mind, t"en
3eeling, perceptions and #olitional 3ormations are t"e concomitants or 3actors o3 t"at mind.
6onsciousness and its 3actors are al$ays related and interdependent. 6onsciousness
cannot arise and 3unction independently o3 its 3actors, nor can its 3actors arise and
3unction $it"out it.C
-- >t seems to me t"at concomitance in causality $as in#ented because o3 a lack o3
understanding o3 "o$ karma $orks, "o$ "abits t"at rede3ine a being can be gradually
de#eloped, "o$ sel3-conditioning and de-conditioning can $ork $it"out any in"erent
entities in t"e 3lo$.
-- 8O H>S&RO:E 8AE REA9>8% OF C6O!6OM>8A!8 FA68ORSC !agar5una uses "ere t"e
e-ample o3 t$o concomitant elements t"at are more macro, or more e#ident. >t is said,
once a bad "abit is solidly implanted it becomes t"e person, $e t"en say t"at person Cis
like t"is, or like t"atC t"is person is a liar, a killer, a t"ie3, a greedy personC. So it is as i3
t"ose predicates are necessarily coming $it" t"is person, t"ey are inseparable $it" t"at
person, t"ey are concomitant $it" "im. 8"e e-ample used "ere is Ct"e one-$"o-desires
desires, or necessarily "a#e desireC. 8"e acJuired dispositions become concomitant $it"
t"at being.
-- A &ERSO! A!H A>S AA/>8S ARE SOR8 OF >!SE&ARA/9E, but t"at doesnSt mean t"at
t"ey are t"e same, or di33erent and concomitant. 6oncomitance assumes t"e inseparability
o3 t$o di33erent t"ings, $it" t"eir o$n sel3-e-istence t"at are al$ays coming toget"er. >3 it
$as t"e case t"en somebody $ould ne#er be able to get rid o3 "is bas "abits, or
dispositions. On t"e ot"er "and it is not t"at easy to get rid o3 t"em, it is not like t"ro$ing
out a bad s"oe.
-- I"at $e call consciousness and its 3actors are like t"at too.
-- A person and "is "abits are interdependent, one de3ines t"e ot"er, one cannot e-ist
$it"out t"e ot"er. 8"ey cannot e-ist independently and be concomitant.
-- 6oncomitance is a 3alse concept, not"ing is concomitant or non-concomitant, not"ing is
separate or t"e same, t$o or one. E#eryt"ing is non-dual.
-- So t"e $"ole Ab"id"arma t"eory about concomitant 3actors o3 consciousness moments
is 3la$ed. Ie "a#e to look some$"ere else to get a better understanding o3 t"e mind and
its conditioning.+
.
Streng1: 6"apter #i An Analysis o3 Hesire raga+ and One I"o Hesires rakta+ <in t"e
6onte-t o3 8"eir Separateness and 6oncomitance@+ is a similar analysis <as o3 section 2@ o3
t"e one $"o desires rakta+ and desire raga+.+
.

91: <>nterdependence o3 t"e sub5ect-"a#ing-dispositions and t"e complementFdispositions@
.
[ NNN
[ '.
[ >3 t"e Cone $"o desiresC $ould e-ist be3ore desire itsel3, t"en desire may be
regarded.
[ I"en desire becomes related to Cone $"o desires,C t"en desire comes into
e-istence.
.
8"is is about an indi#idual "a#ing dispositions in samsara, and being 9iberated $"en "e
no longer "as t"em. See ne-t #erse.+
.
[ NNN
[ 2.
[ >3 t"ere is no one $"o desires, "o$ t"en $ill desire come into beingO
[ <And t"e Juestion@ $"et"er desire e-ists or does not e-ist like$ise "olds true 3or
t"e one $"o desires.
.
SG/JE68-AA:>!D A!H 6OM&9EME!8-AAH ARE >!8ERHE&E!HE!8 -- W EM&8>!ESS OF
/O8A: 8"e sub5ect-"a#ing-dispositions cannot e-ist independently o3 its complement-
dispositions. 8"e dispositions are called as suc" only con#entionally $"en associated $it"
an indi#idual. 8"e complement-dispositions cannot e-ist independently o3 t"e sub5ect-
"a#ing-dispositions. So one cannot e-ist $it"out t"e ot"er, t"ey are interdependent,
inseparable.+
.
[ NNN
[ 1.
[ Furt"er, it is not possible 3or bot" desire and t"e one $"o desires to be produced
concomitantly.
[ >ndeed, desire and t"e one $"o desires come into being independent o3 eac"
ot"er.
.
>!8ERHE&E!HE!8 /G8 !O8 &ROHG6EH 8ODE8AER, !O8 8AE SAME: 8"ey cannot e-ist
separately, but t"at doesnSt mean t"at t"ey are produced toget"er because t"ey "a#e
t"eir o$n causes and conditions. 8"ey are not separate, but still not t"e same, not one.+
.
91: <8"e case o3 t"e #erb-"a#ing F concomitance F being one@
.
[ NNN
[ B.
[ 6oncomitance does not e-ist in t"at $"ic" is only one t"ing,
[ <3or@ certainly somet"ing $"ic" is only one t"ing cannot be concomitant.
[ /ut yet, "o$ $ill concomitance come into being i3 t"ere are separate prt"ak+
t"ingsO
.
8AE 8R>O, SG/JE68, :ER/-AA:>!D, 6OM&9EME!8 ARE >!8ERHE&E!HE!8: A sub5ect
and #erb-"a#ing $it"out a complement doesnSt make sense. A complement and #erb-
"a#ing $it"out a sub5ect doesnSt make sense eit"er. 8"ere is no K#erb-"a#ingL $it"out
bot" a sub5ect and a complement. One o3 t"em alone $it" "a#ing $ould not make sense.
>3 t"e sub5ect-"a#ing and t"e complement-being-"ad $ere in"erently e-isting,
independently o3 eac" ot"er, separate, t"en t"ere could be no K"a#ingL, no KassociationL.
And i3 t"e sub5ect and complement are t"e same t"en t"ere is no need to speci3y
K"a#ingL.+
.
[ NNN
[ E.
[ >3 concomitance applied to t"at $"ic" is only one t"ing,
[ t"en t"at one C$it" concomitanceC $ould be t"at one C$it"out <concomitance@.C
[ >3 concomitance applied to separate t"ings, t"en t"at one C$it" concomitanceC
$ould be t"at one C$it"out <concomitance@.C
.
8AE SG/JE68 . O/JE68 OF AA:>!D 6A!!O8 /E 8IO OR SE&ARA8E, !O8 O!E OR 8AE
SAME. A sub5ect-"a#ing $"ic" "as no-complement is not a sub5ect-"a#ing. And i3 t"e
sub5ect and complement e-ist separately t"en one is not "a#ing t"e ot"er. -- >3 sub5ect
and complement $ere one, t"en t"ere is no need 3or "a#ing, i3 t"ey are t$o t"en t"ere is
no possible "a#ing.+
.
[ NNN
[ ).
[ And i3 concomitance applied to separate t"ings, $"at is t"e proo3 3or t"e
separation o3 bot" desire and t"e one $"o desires,
[ <Since@ t"at $"ic" is non-separate is concomitant.
.
>F 8AE% ARE O!E 8AE% ARE !O8 SE&ARA8E - 8AERE 6A!!O8 /E A!% KAA:>!DL
/E8IEE! 8IO SE&ARA8E 8A>!DS: So t"ere is no possible K"a#ingL bet$een t$o
separate sub5ect-"a#ing-dispositions, and dispositions, because t"ose t$o cannot e-ist
independently, because K"a#ingL implies not being separate.+
.
[ NNN
[ *.
[ Or, i3 t"e separateness o3 desire and t"e one $"o desires really $ere pro#ed,
[ I"y do you imagine t"e concomitance o3 t"em bot"O
.
>F 8AE% ARE SE&ARA8E 8AE% 6A!!O8 /E O!E = t$o separate t"ings cannot be united
in one "a#ing t"e ot"er. So t"ey cannot be separate, not one, not bot", not neit"er.+
.
91: <8"e duality: being one same+ or t$o separate F di33erent+@
.
[ NNN
[ 0.
[ %ou postulate concomitance by saying: neit"er is pro#ed separate 3rom <t"e
ot"er@.
[ <And@ you postulate separateness e#en more to pro#e concomitance.
.
8AE HGA9>8%: SE&ARA8E, 8AE SAME: Most people t"ink t"at, in a duality like t"is, it is
eit"er one side or t"e ot"er t"at is t"e trut". 8"ey t"ink t"at t"e negation o3 one side
implies t"e ot"er. Or t"at t"ey "a#e to c"oose bot" sides as true, or re5ect bot" sides.
8"ose are t"e 3our e-tremes conceptions. 8"e Middle Iay points out t"e 3act t"at $e can
transcend t"is duality, t"e t$o opposites, by seeing t"eir interdependence and emptiness.
>n t"is case "ere: it is not because t"ey are not separate t"at t"ey are one, or t"e same.
!or is it because t"ey are not one t"at t"ey are separate, or di33erent. 8"is is like saying
t"at t"ings are completely non-e-istent because not in"erently e-isting, or not empty
because dependently arisen.
Emptiness o3 K"a#ingL doesnSt mean completely Kno-"a#ingL: >t is not because t"e #erb
K"a#ingL is empty o3 in"erent e-istence t"at t"ere is no K"a#ingL at all. 8"e K"a#ingL is not
completely non-e-istent, useless, meaningless. 8"ere is con#entional K"a#ingL and it is
#ery use3ul. Emptiness doesnSt deny Hependent Origination T+
.
91: <!on-duality o3 e#eryt"ing, o3 samsara and !ir#ana@
.
[ NNN
[ (.
[ /ecause separateness is not pro#ed, concomitance is not pro#ed.
[ I"at kind o3 separateness must e-ist 3or you to establis" concomitanceO
.
!O8A>!D >S REA99% SE&ARA8E, OR O!E: 8"ose t$o, being not separate, and being not
t"e same, are not contradictory, not in opposition. On t"e contrary t"ey are
interdependent, one implies t"e ot"er, t"ey are inseparable, non-dual: not t$o, not one.
!ot being separate implies not being one, and not being one implies not being separate.+
.
[ NNN
[ '?.
[ 8"us t"ere is no proo3 t"at t"e desire is concomitant $it" or not concomitant $it"
one $"o desires.
[ From <t"is analysis o3@ desire <it can be s"o$n t"at 3or@ e#ery 3undamental
element d"arma+
[ t"ere is no proo3 o3 concomitance or non-concomitance.
.
E:ER%8A>!D >S !O!-HGA9>8%: so all sub5ect-"a#ing-somet"ing and t"e complement-
being-"ad are not separate or di33erent, not one or t"e same. 8"ey are inseparable, non-
dual: not t$o, not one.
-- >3 in"erent K"a#ingL doesnSt e-ist, t"en in"erent Knot-"a#ingL doesnSt e-ist eit"er. One
cannot "a#e somet"ing, and t"en not "a#e it.
-- 8"e indi#idual in samsara and "is dispositions F conditioning F accumulated karma, are
not separate or di33erent, not one or t"e same. 8"ey are inseparable, non-dual: not t$o,
not one. !o indi#idual in samsara is "a#ing dispositions, and being 9iberated $"en "e non
longer "a#e t"ose dispositions.
-- SO SAMSARA A!H !>R:A!A ARE !O8 A/OG8 AA:>!D SOME8A>!D OR !O8 AA:>!D
SOME8A>!D. Samsara and 9iberations are not about getting somet"ing or dropping
somet"ing, not about doing somet"ing or not doing somet"ing, not about understanding
somet"ing or not understanding somet"ing T+
.

92: <Section * - An Analysis o3 6omposite &roducts samskrta+ origination, duration, and
decay+ = 1B = <8"e t"ree stages o3 becoming: origination, duration F trans3ormation,
cessation, impermanence o3 all products and moments o3 consciousness@@
.
RVSGMV:
-- 8AE O&&O!E!8 :>EI: All composite products including consciousness moments+ go
t"roug" t"ree stages o3 becoming: origination, duration F trans3ormation, cessation.
-- >n t"is section t"e real nature o3 t"e t"ree so-called essential c"aracteristics o3 all
products is e-amined.
-- First, t"e possibility o3 t"em being K/AS>6 6AARA68ER>S8>6SL is eliminated, because,
ob#iously, t"e t"ree o3 t"em cannot e-ist at t"e same time in t"e same product.
-- Second, i3 t"ey $ere REA9 A6XG>REH SE6O!HAR% 6AARA68ER>S8>6S, t"en t"ey must
also "a#e t"eir o$n t"ree stages o3 becoming: origination, duration and cessation. 8"at
creates an in3inite regress.
-- 8"e opponent argues t"en t"at t"e cause o3 origination is t"e product itsel3. /ut t"at is
impossible because t"e product is t"e e33ect, it cannot be t"e cause o3 t"e origination.
-- 8"en t"e opponent argues t"at origination is sel3-caused and also cause t"e arising o3
t"e product. /ut not"ing is sel3-originated, ot"er-originated, bot", or neit"er, as
demonstrated in section '.
-- So no real origination at all can be 3ound any$"ere. >t is not-e-istent, not completely
non-e-istent, not bot", not neit"er. >t e-ist only con#entionally, but t"at is use3ul enoug".
-- >3 t"ere is !O REA9 OR>D>!A8>O!, t"en t"ere is !O REA9 HGRA8>O! F
8RA!SFORMA8>O!, !O REA9 6ESSA8>O! possible, no product.
-- All o3 t"ese are like illusions.+
.
91: <6ase ': Origination T cannot be basic c"aracteristics.@
.
[ NNN
[ '.
[ >3 origination utpada+ is a composite product,
[ t"en t"e t"ree c"aracteristics <o3 e-istence: Corigination,C Cduration,C and
CdissolutionC@ are appropriate.
[ /ut i3 origination is a non-composite asamstrta+, t"en "o$ <could t"ere be@
c"aracteristics o3 a composite productO
.
OR>D>!A8>O! 6A!!O8 /E A K/AS>6 6AARA68ER>S8>6L = >8 AAS 8O /E K&ROHG6EHL:
>t is said t"at all products, all aggregates, "a#e t"ree essential c"aracteristics: origination,
duration and cessation. >t is said by some t"at t"e goal o3 t"e deep meditation o3 a yogi is
to ultimately directly see t"ose t"ree and t"en "a#e a direct realiMation o3 t"e
impermanence o3 e#eryt"ing. /ut $"at is KoriginationLO = >3 t"ey are Kbasic c"aracteristicsL
as described in section E+ t"en "o$ could t"ey be applied to composite products t"at are
not t"emsel#es permanent, t"at c"ange. Ob#iously t"e t"ree c"aracteristics $ould not be
able to apply to t"e same product at t"e same time. So t"ey must be t"emsel#es
KproducedL.+
.
Jona" Iinters: 8"e ob#ious $ay out o3 t"e dilemma is to say t"at a t"ing merely can be
described in terms o3 one o3 t"e t"ree processes, rat"er t"an partaking o3 t"e nature o3
one o3 t"e t"ree. 8"is response may, at 3irst, seem to be t"e proper one. For e-ample, a
p"enomenon can be said to arise, but t"at does not mean t"at it partakes o3 a separate
and real t"ing called Carising.C
>3 arising, enduring, and ceasing $ere real, t"en t"ey $ould be discrete entities and t"us
Cnot adeJuate to 3unction as c"aracteristics o3 t"e composite <t"ing@.C
8"e reason 3or t"is is t"at i3 t"ey $ere real and discrete entities, t"en a p"enomenon
could ob#iously not partake o3 all t"ree at t"e same time, $"ic" $ould mean t"at it $ould
be arising at t"e same time t"at it $as ceasing. !eit"er could it partake o3 one a3ter t"e
ot"er, 3or t"is $ould imply t"at at t"e time o3 arising a t"ing $as permanent, non-arisen,
and t"en becomes temporary bet$een t"e moments o3 arising and ceasing, and t"en
suddenly s"i3ts 3rom a state o3 enduring to t"e process o3 decaying. One could ne#er 3ind
t"e precise moment $"en, 3or e-ample, endurance gi#es $ay to cessation. >n3inite regress
becomes una#oidable. Eac" o3 t"e t"ree processes $ould itsel3 "a#e to arise, endure, e#en
i3 only but 3or an instant, and t"en cease. C>3 arising $ere to produce t"is present arising,
$"ic" arising $ould again produce t"at arising o3 t"at arisingOC !agar5una $ryly asks.
'0++
.
[ NNN
[ 2.
[ I"en t"e t"ree are separate, origination o3 eit"er o3 t"e ot"er t$o c"aracteristics
does not su33ice to 3unction as a c"aracteristic.
[ >3 united in a composite product, "o$ could t"ey all be at one place at one timeO
.
8AE% HO !O8 E:E! AA:E IAA8 >8 8A4ES 8O /E A 6O!:E!8>O!A9 /AS>6
6AARA68ER>S8>6S: Ob#iously, t"ey cannot be t"ree basic c"aracteristics o3 t"e same
product at t"e same time, and i3 t"ey $ere separate, t"en t"ey are not basic
c"aracteristics.+
.
91: <6ase 2: Origination T cannot be acJuired secondary c"aracteristics.@
9B: <2.' Origination T cannot be caused by anot"er cause $it"out creating in3inite
regress.@
.
[ NNN
[ 1.
[ >3 origination, duration, and dissolution are ot"er <secondary@ c"aracteristics o3
composite products,
[ >t is an in3inite regress. >3 t"is is not so, t"ey are not composite products.
.
>F 8AE% IERE REA9 KA6XG>REH 6AARA68ER>S8>6SL, t"en t"e Juestion about t"eir o$n
origination, duration and cessation brings t"e problem o3 in3inite regress. So "o$ can $e
e-plain t"e origination o3 t"e acJuired c"aracteristic called KoriginationL, and t"e
origination o3 duration, and cessation, i3 t"ose are assumed real O 8"ere seems to be only
t$o possibilities: eit"er $e accept in3inite regress, or $e assume t"at t"e KoriginationL is
sel3-caused O+
.
[ NNN
[ B.
[ 8"e Coriginating originationC utpadotpada+ i.e. t"e beginning o3 t"e origination+
[ is only t"e origination o3 t"e basic origination mulotpada+ i.e. t"e beginning o3
t"e product+,
[ Also t"e origination o3 t"e basic <origination@ i.e. t"e beginning o3 t"e beginning
o3 t"e product+
[ produces t"e Coriginating origination.C i.e. t"e beginning o3 t"e origination+
.
8AERE 6A!!O8 /E >!F>!>8E REDRESS: A real KoriginationL $ould mean an origination o3
origination, and ad in3initum T /ut t"ere is no real origination o3 t"e acJuired
c"aracteristic called KoriginationL di33erent t"an t"e real KoriginationL. 8"ey are t"e same
t"ing. 8"ere is no in3inite regress. 8"at lea#es only t"e possibility o3 sel3-origination o3 t"e
origination an origination t"at doesnSt need its o$n origination ad in3initum+, but t"at also
$ill be pro#en to be absurd in t"e ne-t #erses.+
.
9B: <2.2 Origination T cannot be caused by t"e product.@
.
[ NNN
[ E.
[ /ut i3, according to you, t"e originating origination i.e. sel3-originating origination+
produces basic origination,
[ i.e. also causes t"e beginning o3 t"e product+
[ Ao$, according to you, $ill t"is <originating origination@ i.e. sel3-originating
origination+ produce t"at <basic origination@
[ i.e. t"e beginning o3 t"e product+ i3 <it itsel3@ is not produced by basic origination
i.e. t"e beginning o3 t"e product+O
.
8AE O&&O!E!8 >S 9EAH>!D 8OIARH: SE9F OR>D>!A8>O! OF 8AE OR>D>!A8>O!: 8"e
opponent a33irms t"at origination, e#en i3 it is a real acJuired secondary c"aracteristic, is
sel3-caused and also+ cause t"e origination o3 t"e product itsel3.O /ut "o$ could t"ere be
an independent sel3-+originating origination be3ore t"e beginning o3 t"e product itsel3 O --
8"e reality is t"at it is t"e ot"er $ay around, t"e originating origination is dependent on
t"e product as said in t"e pre#ious #erse. >t is called like t"at only a3ter t"e 3act, as a co-
dependently arisen concepts.+
.
[ NNN
[ ).
.
[ >3, according to you, t"at $"ic" "as originated t"roug" basic <origination@
[ i.e. re3erring to t"e dependent originating origination+ produces basic
<origination@,
[ i.e. like a33irming t"at t"e e33ect e-ist be3ore t"e cause+
[ Ao$ does t"e basic <origination@, $"ic" is yet unproduced by t"at <originating
origination@
[ i.e. sel3-originating origination+, cause t"at <originating origination@ i.e. sel3-
originating origination+ to be originatedO
.
8"e opponent a33irms t"at t"e beginning o3 t"e product depend on its origination $"ic"
$ould depend on t"e beginning o3 t"e product. 8"ere is a #icious circular re3erence "ere.
8AE &ROHG68 6A!!O8 EU&9A>! >8S OI! OR>D>!A8>O! 6AARA68ER>S8>6: 8"e product
itsel3 cannot produced its o$n acJuired c"aracteristic called KoriginationL, since t"is
product is not e-isting yet. So t"e cause o3 t"e KoriginationL cannot be 3ound t"ere eit"er.
8"is lea#es only sel3-origination o3 t"e origination.+
.
[ NNN
[ *.
[ According to you, t"is, $"ile originating, $ould certainly cause t"at to originateQ
[ >3 t"is, not being produced, $ould be able to cause origination.
.
8AE% 6A!!O8 /E 6O!6OM>8A!8: 8$o simultaneous e33ects, t"e origination and t"e
product, cannot originate or e-plain eac" ot"er. 8"is is like t"e concomittance analyMed in
section ).+
.
9B: <2.1 Origination T cannot be sel3-caused and causing t"e origination T o3 t"e
product.@
9E: <8"e 3alse simile o3 t"e lig"t illuminating itsel3 and ot"er.@
.
[ NNN
[ 0.
[ <8"e opponent claim:@
[ As a lig"t is t"e illuminator o3 bot" itsel3 and t"at $"ic" is ot"er t"an itsel3,
[ So origination $ould originate bot" itsel3 and t"at $"ic" is ot"er t"an itsel3.
.
SE9F-OR>D>!A8>O! OF OR>D>!A8>O!O: 8"e opponent a33irms: KoriginationL can
originate itsel3 and t"e product, like lig"t illuminates itsel3 and ot"er stu33 at t"e same
time. Meaning t"e origination is $it"out its o$n causes and conditions, it is sel3-caused. --
K9ig"t illuminating itsel3 and darknessL is like Ka cause causing itsel3, and causing some
ot"er e33ectLT 8"is could be compared $it" t"e analysis and conclusions o3 section '.+
.
9): <9ig"t and darkness cannot be t"e same, or di33erent.@
.
[ NNN
[ (.
[ 8"ere is no darkness in t"e lig"t and t"ere $"ere t"e lig"t is placed.
[ I"at could t"e lig"t illumineO >ndeed illumination is t"e getting rid o3 darkness.
.
8AERE >S !O !EEH FOR A 9>DA8 8O >99GM>!A8E >8SE9F: As s"o$n in section ', in t"e
case o3 a Kcause causing e33ectL, t"e e33ect cannot be t"e same as t"e cause itsel3,
because t"en t"ere $ould be no need to cause it. >n t"e case "ere o3 a Klig"t illuminating
darknessL, t"e darkness cannot be t"e same as t"e lig"t itsel3 because t"en t"ere $ould
be no need to cause it = t"ere is already no more darkness in t"e lig"t.
As s"o$n in section ', in t"e case o3 a Kcause causing e33ectL, t"e e33ect cannot be totally
di33erent t"an t"e cause itsel3, because t"en it $ould mean t"at anyt"ing can cause
anyt"ing else anytime = total c"aos. >n t"e case "ere o3 a Klig"t illuminating darknessL,
t"e darkness cannot be totally di33erent t"an lig"t itsel3 ot"er$ise it $ould mean t"at
anyt"ing could illuminate anyt"ing anytime. .
-- Anot"er $ay to look at it $ould be to consider t"e duality lig"t-darkness. One cannot be
imagined $it"out imagining t"e ot"er one. One cannot be t"e same as t"e ot"er one,
e#en i3 t"ey are not separate or di33erent. 8"ey are bot" empty o3 in"erent e-istence
because interdependent, co-dependently arisen concepts. +
.
9): <9ig"t and darkness cannot be t"e simultaneous, or separate in time.@
.
[ NNN
[ '?.
[ Ao$ is darkness destroyed by t"e lig"t being originated,
[ I"en t"e lig"t, being originated, does not come in contact $it" darknessO
.
8AE OR>D>!A8>O! OF 8AE >99GM>!A8>O! SGFFERS 8AE SAME &RO/9EM = >8 6A!!O8
/E FOG!H: And i3 $e look at t"e illumination o3 somet"ing else t"an itsel3: at t"e moment
o3 t"e cause, be3ore t"e illuminating, t"ere is still darkness. At t"e moment o3 t"e e33ect,
a3ter t"e illuminating, t"ere is no more darkness. /ut, t"e e-act time o3 t"e beginning o3
t"e actionFillumination t"e origination o3 t"e action+ cannot be 3ound. As s"o$n in section
', t"e cause and t"e e33ect cannot be simultaneous, o#erlapping, because t"en t"ere
$ould be no need to produce t"e e33ect, meaning "ere t"at lig"t and darkness cannot be
simultaneous.+
.
[ NNN
[ ''.
[ /ut t"en, i3 darkness is destroyed by a lig"t "a#ing no contact $it" <darkness@,
[ <A lig"t@ placed "ere $ill destroy t"e darkness o3 t"e entire $orld.
.
Also, as s"o$n in section ', t"e cause and t"e e33ect 6A!!O8 /E SE&ARA8E >! 8>ME
E>8AER, because t"en t"ere $ould be no direct link bet$een t"e cause and e33ect, and, i3
t"at could result in causing somet"ing, t"en anyt"ing can cause anyt"ing. Meaning "ere
t"at i3 it $as t"e case, t"en illumination any$"ere could be caused by any lig"t any$"ere
else.+
.
9): <So sel3-caused origination T cannot be 5usti3ied $it" t"is simile.@
.
[ NNN
[ '2.
[ >3 t"e lig"t illuminated bot" itsel3 and t"at $"ic" is ot"er t"an itsel3,
[ 8"en, $it"out a doubt, darkness $ill co#er bot" itsel3 and t"at $"ic" is ot"er t"an
itsel3.
.
8AERE >S !O SE9F-6AGSA8>O!: >3 any cause could cause itsel3 sel3-causation+ and ot"er
e33ects, t"at $ould mean total c"aos because anyt"ing could be sel3-caused and produce
anyt"ing. !o, t"ere is not"ing t"at doesnSt "a#e its o$n cause and e33ect as pro#ed in
section '.+
.
Streng: /y de3ining lig"t and darkness as mutually e-clusi#e essences, !agar5una logically
demonstrates t"at t"ey can "a#e no e33ecti#e relations"ip.+
.
9E: <Searc"ing 3or t"is sel3-caused origination also causing t"e beginning o3 t"e product.@
9): <8"e e-act time o3 t"e beginning o3 t"is sel3-caused origination cannot be 3ound@
.
[ NNN
[ '1.
[ >3 it "as not yet originated, "o$ does origination produce itsel3O
[ And i3 it "as already originated, $"en it is being produced, $"at is produced a3ter
t"at $"ic" is already producedO
.
SE9F-6AGSA8>O! OF 8AE OR>D>!A8>O! >S >M&OSS>/9E: 8"e sel3-caused origination is
eit"er already originated or not. At t"e moment or t"e cause, t"e e33ect cannot e-ist,
ot"er$ise t"ere is no need to cause it again. At t"e moment o3 t"e e33ect, t"e cause
cannot still e-ist ot"er$ise t"ere $ould be more causing. So t"ey cannot be t"e same, or
simultaneous. On t"e ot"er "and, i3 t"e cause and t"e e33ect are di33erent or separate,
t"en t"ere is no relation bet$een t"e t$o, and i3 t"is could $ork t"en anyt"ing could
produce anyt"ing else. So t"e cause and t"e e33ect cannot be t"e same or simultaneous,
not di33erent or separate. I"en does t"e beginning o3 t"e causing starts t"en O I"en is
t"e origination starts originating t"en O!o origination o3 origination can be 3ound. 8"ere is
no sel3-caused origination possible. Ao$ could it t"en cause t"e beginning o3 t"e
product O+
.
9): <8"e e-act time o3 t"e beginning o3 t"e originatingForigination cannot be 3ound O
emptiness o3 t"e actionForigination@
.
[ NNN
[ 'B.
[ >n no $ay does anyt"ing originate
[ by $"at is being originated ii+,
[ by $"at is already originated iii+,
[ or by $"at is not yet originated i+Q
[ Just as it "as been said in <t"e analysis o3@ Cpresently going to ii+,C
[ Ct"at $"ic" is already gone to i+C and Ct"at $"ic" is not yet gone to iii+.C
.
8AERE >S !O >!AERE!8 A68>O!-OF-OR>D>!A8>!D: As stated in #erse ', section 2:
8"ere cannot be any in"erently e-isting actingFaction, and t"is applies "ere to
KoriginatingL. >magine 1 states: i+ be3ore t"e actionForiginating, ii+ during t"e
actionForiginating, iii+ a3ter t"e actionForiginating. 8"e actionForiginating is eit"er already
done iii+ or not at all i+, t"ere cannot be a Kduring an actionForiginatingL, or an K"al3
produced actionForiginatingL. 8"e $"ole discussion o3 section 2 co#ers all o3 t"is in details.
So t"ere is no actionForigination t"at is directly obser#able by a yogi in deep meditation.
.
8AE EUA68 8>ME OF 8AE /ED>!!>!D OF 8AE A68>O!-OF-OR>D>!A8>O! 6A!!O8 /E
FOG!H. As stated in #erse '2, section 2: >n t"e past it is not done yet, in t"e 3uture it is
already done. And in t"e present it "as already started. So $"at $e call an
actionForigination is not really $"at $e t"ink o3 it, it is not a really e-isting t"ing by itsel3.
>t is merely a con#entional trut"s. And since t"ere is no absolute point o3 re3erence, like
t"e beginning o3 an actionForigination, t"ere is no absolute t"ere times relati#e to it:
be3ore, during, a3ter. = From section ', $e "a#e anot"er proo3 t"at t"e point o3
origination o3 t"e action cannot be 3ound: by realiMing t"at t"e cause o3 t"e action and t"e
e33ect t"e action itsel3+ cannot be simultaneous, nor be separate in time.+
.
[ NNN
[ 'E.
[ I"en, in t"at-$"ic"-is-originated iii+, t"ere is not"ing $"ic" acti#ates t"at $"ic"
is being originated ii+,
[ Ao$ can one say: 8"at $"ic" is being originated ii+ <e-ists@ presupposing t"at
$"ic" is producedO
.
So t"at is anot"er reason to stay t"at t"e origination cannot be caused by t"e product
itsel3. >3 t"e action o3 originating cannot be e-plained by t"e origination itsel3, "o$ could it
be e-plained by t"e product itsel3. 8"e present is not determined by t"e 3uture.+
.
[ NNN
[ ').
[ I"ate#er comes into e-istence presupposing somet"ing else is $it"out sel3-
e-istence stab"a#a+.
[ <As t"ere is@ an allayment o3 Cbeing originated,C so <also@ o3 t"at $"ic" is
originated iii+.
.
!O A/SO9G8E FG8GRE RE9A8>:E 8O 8A>S EM&8% /ED>!!>!D OF A68>O!: !o e-act
time o3 t"e beginning o3 t"e origination means no real origination originated a3ter. 8"e
3act t"at $e cannot 3ind t"e e-act moment o3 t"e beginning o3 t"e action o3 origination o3
t"e origination+, means t"at t"e t"ree times relati#e to t"is empty point o3 re3erence are
also empty o3 in"erent e-istence, t"ere is no real origination originated.+
.
[ NNN
[ '*.
[ >3 some particular t"ing $"ic" is not yet originated i+ is indeed kno$n to e-ist,
[ 8"at t"ing $ill be originated. I"at originates i3 it does not e-istO
.
!O A/SO9G8E &AS8 RE9A8>:E 8O 8A>S EM&8% /ED>!!>!D OF A68>O!: 8"ere is no
origination about to be produced eit"er. >3 it e-isted, t"at $ould mean t"at t"e origination
is certain, t"at is already e-isting.+
.
[ NNN
[ '0.
[ And i3 t"e origination originates t"at $"ic" is being originated ii+,
[ I"at origination, in turn, $ould originate t"at originationO i.e. in3inite regress+
.
!O A/SO9G8E &RESE!8 RE9A8>:E 8O 8A>S EM&8% /ED>!!>!D OF A68>O!: And t"ere
is no Kduring an actionForiginatingL, or an K"al3 produced actionForiginatingL, ot"er$ise
t"at $ould mean t"at $e can di#ide t"e actionForigination into sub-action and $ill "a#e to
e-plain t"eir o$n origination, duration and cessation. 8"is $ould imply an in3inite regress.
-- So t"ere is no real origination be3ore, during or a3ter t"e origination. !o real origination
can be 3ound in t"e t"ree times. Meaning t"at t"e origination is empty o3 in"erent
e-istence. /ut $e do obser#e regularity, and apparent origination, duration and
cessation.+
.
[ NNN
[ '(.
[ >3 anot"er origination originates t"at <origination@, t"ere $ill be an in3inite regress
o3 originations.
[ /ut i3 non-origination is t"at $"ic" is origination, t"en e#eryt"ing <$it"out
Juali3ication@ $ould originate.
.
O!9% 8AE EM&8>!ESS OF OR>D>!A8>O! 6A! EU&9A>! 8AE HE&E!HE!8 OR>D>!A8>O!O
Origination is empty o3 in"erent e-istence, but still not completely non-e-istent non-
origination+, or 3rom t"e mind only. Ot"er$ise t"at $ould mean t"at anyt"ing $ould be
able to originate $it"out any #alid causes and conditions. -- Origination, and t"e product
being originated, e-ist con#entionally. Ie arbitrarily accept t"at somet"ing "as passed t"e
t"res"old o3 e-istence, "as originated, $"en t"ere is enoug" appearance o3 e-istence 3or
us to accept it and be able to $ork $it" it, $"en t"ere is enoug" elements on t"e basis to
assume t"at it con#entionally e-ists. /ut t"ere is ne#er anyt"ing t"at really e-ists on its
o$n, and t"ere is ne#er any origination o3 anyt"ing.+
.
9B: <8"e emptiness o3 t"e t"ree c"aracteristics@
9E: <!o in"erent origination@
.
[ NNN
[ 2?.
[ >t is not possible t"at $"at "as originated eit"er e-ists or does not e-ist,
[ !or t"at $"at "as not originated eit"er e-ists or does not e-ist, t"is "as been
demonstrated earlier.
.
8AERE >S !O REA9 OR>D>!A8>O! OF SOME8A>!D /E>!D &ROHG6EH: 8"ere is no real
product be3ore origination, during origination, or a3ter origination, and t"e t"ree times
relati#e to t"e e-act beginning o3 t"e origination are also empty because t"is e-act time
cannot be 3ound. /ut t"ey are is not completely non-e-istent eit"er. 8"ey e-ist
con#entionally, in interdependence. 8"ose t"ree are not t"e same, not di33erent.+
.
[ NNN
[ 2'.
[ 8"e origination o3 somet"ing being destroyed is not possible,
[ And $"ate#er is not being destroyed, t"at entity is not possible.
.
8AERE >S !O REA9 OR>D>!A8>O! OF SOME8A>!D /E>!D HES8RO%EH: As 3or t"e
opposite action, t"e destruction o3 somet"ing t"e getting closer and closer to old age and
cessation+, t"e same conclusions applies. 8"e e-act moment o3 t"e beginning o3 t"e
destruction cannot be 3ound. 8"ere is no real origination o3 t"e destruction. 8"ere is no
real ob5ect about to be destroyed, or t"at "as started to be destroyed, T And t"e t"ree
times relati#es to t"is empty moment are also empty. /ut t"ey are is not completely non-
e-istent eit"er. 8"ey e-ist con#entionally, in interdependence. 8"ose t"ree are not t"e
same, not di33erent.+
.
9E: <!o in"erent duration@
.
[ NNN
[ 22.
[ !eit"er an Centity t"at "as endured iii+C st"itab"a#a+ nor an Centity t"at "as not
endured i+C endures,
[ !ot e#en somet"ing enduring ii+ endures.
[ And $"at endures i3 it is not originatedO
.
8"e same $ay $e can pro#e t"at t"ere could be no in"erent duration. 8"e e-act time o3
t"e beginning o3 duration cannot be 3ound. = Also, i3 t"ere is no real origination, t"en
t"ere is no possible real duration. And t"e t"ree times relati#es to t"is are also empty o3
in"erent e-istence.
.
8AERE >S !O >!AERE!8 A68>O!-OF-E!HGR>!D: As stated in #erse ', section 2: 8"ere
cannot be any in"erently e-isting actingFaction, and t"is applies "ere to KenduringL.
>magine 1 states: i+ be3ore t"e actionFenduring, ii+ during t"e actionFenduring, iii+ a3ter
t"e actionFenduring. 8"e actionFenduring is eit"er already done iii+ or not at all i+, t"ere
cannot be a Kduring an actionFenduringL, or an K"al3 produced actionFenduringL. 8"e
$"ole discussion o3 section 2 co#ers all o3 t"is in details. So t"ere is no enduring t"at is
directly obser#able by a yogi in deep meditation.
.
8AE EUA68 8>ME OF 8AE /ED>!!>!D OF 8AE A68>O!-OF-E!HGR>!D 6A!!O8 /E
FOG!H. As stated in #erse '2, section 2: >n t"e past it is not done yet, in t"e 3uture it is
already done. And in t"e present it "as already started. So $"at $e call an
actionFenduring is not really $"at $e t"ink o3 it, it is not a really e-isting t"ing by itsel3. >t
is merely a con#entional trut"s. And since t"ere is no absolute point o3 re3erence, like t"e
beginning o3 an actionFenduring, t"ere is no absolute t"ere times relati#e to it: be3ore,
during, a3ter. = From section ', $e "a#e anot"er proo3 t"at t"e point o3 origination o3 t"e
action cannot be 3ound: by realiMing t"at t"e cause o3 t"e action and t"e e33ect t"e action
itsel3+ cannot be simultaneous, nor be separate in time.+
.
[ NNN
[ 21.
[ Huration is not possible o3 a t"ing t"at is being destroyed.
[ /ut $"ate#er is not being destroyed, t"at t"ing b"a#a+ is <also@ not possible.
.
8AERE >S !O REA9 HGRA8>O! OF SOME8A>!D &ROHG6EH: 8"ere is no real product
be3ore duration, during duration, or a3ter duration, and t"e t"ree times relati#e to t"e
e-act beginning o3 t"e duration are also empty because t"is e-act time cannot be 3ound.
/ut t"ey are is not completely non-e-istent eit"er. 8"ey e-ist con#entionally, in
interdependence. 8"ose t"ree are not t"e same, not di33erent.+
.
8AERE >S !O REA9 HGRA8>O! OF SOME8A>!D /E>!D HES8RO%EH: As 3or t"e opposite
action, t"e destruction o3 somet"ing, t"e same conclusions applies. 8"e e-act moment o3
t"e duration o3 t"e destruction cannot be 3ound. 8"ere is no real duration o3 t"e
destruction. 8"ere is no real ob5ect about to be enduring destruction, or t"at "as started
to endure destruction, T And t"e t"ree times relati#es to t"is empty moment are also
empty. /ut t"ey are is not completely non-e-istent eit"er. 8"ey e-ist con#entionally, in
interdependence. 8"ose t"ree are not t"e same, not di33erent.+
.
[ NNN
[ 2B.
[ /ecause e#ery entity al$ays <remains in@ t"e la$ o3 old age and deat",
[ I"at entities are t"ere $"ic" endure $it"out old age and deat"O
.
E:ER%8A>!D >S 6O!8>!GA99% 6AA!D>!D, !O8A>!D S8A%S 8AE SAME E:E! FOR A!
>!F>!>8ES>MA9 MOME!8. E#eryt"ing is continually being dependent on causes and e33ect,
t"at are t"emsel#es being sub5ect o3 t"eir o$n causes and e33ect, ad in3initum. /ecause o3
t"at e#eryt"ing is empty o3 in"erent e-istence. So not"ing really KendureL, not"ing really
e-ist and c"ange, not"ing really e-ist and is being impermanent. 8"ere is only t"e 3lo$ o3
interdependence $it"out any in"erent entities in it = like t"e sur3ace o3 t"e ocean.+
.
9E: <About t"e duration o3 causality@
.
[ NNN
[ 2E.
[ 8"e enduring Juality o3 a di33erent duration is as impossible as o3 t"at same
duration,
[ So t"e origination o3 origination is neit"er itsel3 nor t"at $"ic" is ot"er t"an itsel3.
.
A/OG8 8AE HGRA8>O! OF 6AGSA9>8%FOR>D>!A8>!D: OO Since t"ere is no real duration,
t"e cause and e33ect cannot "a#e o#erlapping duration, nor separate duration. 8"ere is no
possible sel3-causation o3 origination, nor ot"er-causation o3 origination.
.
!O A/SO9G8E 8>ME A!H 8>ME >!8ER:A9: Since not"ing really originate and endure, t"en
t"ere is no possible absolute time relati#e to an absolute duration, not time inter#al
relati#e to an absolute duration. So $e cannot really compare time, and time inter#als:
t"ey are al$ays non-dual: not t$o, not one.+
.
9E: <!o cessation o3 anyt"ing real, non-real, bot", or neit"er@
.
[ NNN
[ 2).
[ C8"at $"ic" "as ceased iii+C nirudd"a+ does not cease, and Ct"at $"ic" "as not
ceased i+C does not cease,
[ !or e#en Ct"at $"ic" is ceasing ii+.C
[ For, $"at can cease <i3 it is@ producedO i.e. or i3 it is not really producedO+
.
6ESSA8>O! 6A!!O8 /E FOG!H: 8"e same $ay $e can pro#e t"at t"ere could be no
in"erent cessation. 8"e e-act time o3 t"e beginning o3 cessation cannot be 3ound. And t"e
t"ree times relati#es to t"is are also empty o3 in"erent e-istence. = Also, i3 t"ere is no real
origination and duration, t"en t"ere is no possible real cessation.
.
8AERE >S !O >!AERE!8 A68>O!-OF-6ESSA8>O!: As stated in #erse ', section 2: 8"ere
cannot be any in"erently e-isting actingFaction, and t"is applies "ere to KceasingL.
>magine 1 states: i+ be3ore t"e actionFceasing, ii+ during t"e actionFceasing, iii+ a3ter t"e
actionFceasing. 8"e actionFceasing is eit"er already done iii+ or not at all i+, t"ere cannot
be a Kduring an actionFceasingL, or an K"al3 produced actionFceasingL. 8"e $"ole
discussion o3 section 2 co#ers all o3 t"is in details. So t"ere is no ceasing t"at is directly
obser#able by a yogi in deep meditation.
.
8AE EUA68 8>ME OF 8AE /ED>!!>!D OF 8AE A68>O!-OF-6EAS>!D 6A!!O8 /E FOG!H.
As stated in #erse '2, section 2: >n t"e past it is not done yet, in t"e 3uture it is already
done. And in t"e present it "as already started. So $"at $e call an actionFceasing is not
really $"at $e t"ink o3 it, it is not a really e-isting t"ing by itsel3. >t is merely a
con#entional trut"s. And since t"ere is no absolute point o3 re3erence, like t"e beginning
o3 an actionFceasing, t"ere is no absolute t"ere times relati#e to it: be3ore, during, a3ter.
= From section ', $e "a#e anot"er proo3 t"at t"e point o3 origination o3 t"e action cannot
be 3ound: by realiMing t"at t"e cause o3 t"e action and t"e e33ect t"e action itsel3+ cannot
be simultaneous, nor be separate in time.+
.
[ NNN
[ 2*.
[ 8"ere3ore cessation o3 an enduring entity is not possible.
[ Moreo#er, cessation o3 a non-enduring entity is not possible.
.
SOME8A>!D >!AERE!89% EU>S8>!D, OR 6OM&9E8E9% !O!-EU>S8E!8, IOG9H !O8
6EASE: >3 t"e cessation o3 somet"ing in"erently e-isting and enduring is impossible, more
so t"e cessation o3 somet"ing completely non-e-isting is impossible.+
.
[ NNN
[ 20.
[ >ndeed, a state <o3 e-istence@ does not cease because o3 t"is state,
[ And a di33erent state <o3 e-istence@ does not cease because o3 a di33erent state.
.
>ndeed: Somet"ing in"erently e-isting lasting+ $ould not be dependent on any causes
and conditions, $ould not c"ange, and $ould not e#entually ceased. As 3or somet"ing
completely non-e-istent, it $ould not need to be ceased. As 3or somet"ing bot", or
neit"er, t"at is also impossible.+
.
[ NNN
[ 2(.
[ So, i3 t"e production o3 all d"armas is not possible,
[ 8"en neit"er is t"e cessation o3 all i.e. anyO+ d"armas possible.
.
SOME8A>!D EM&8% OF >!AERE!8 EU>S8E!6E 6A!!O8 6EASEH = A!H E:ER%8A>!D >S
9>4E 8AA8: >3 no d"arma at all can originate and e-ist, t"e cessation o3 any d"arma at all
is also impossible. 8"ere is indeed not"ing to terminate because t"ey "a#e ne#er e-isted
in t"e 3irst place. >t $as all merely imputed by t"e mind.+
.
[ NNN
[ 1?.
[ 8"ere3ore cessation o3 a real e-isting entity is not possible,
[ And certainly bot" an e-isting entity and a non-e-isting entity cannot be possible
in t"e same case.
.
A9SO, SOME8A>!D /O8A EU>S8>!D A!H !O!-EU>S8>!D IOG9H !O8 6EASEH E>8AER:
So 3ar $e "a#e co#ered t"e cases o3 somet"ing real, or not-real. As 3or t"e origination and
cessation o3 somet"ing t"at is bot" real and non-real toget"er, t"at is also impossible.+
.
[ NNN
[ 1'.
[ E#en more, cessation o3 a non-real e-isting entity is not possible.
[ Just as t"ere is no second decapitationR
.
9AS89%, SOME8A>!D !E>8AER EU>S8>!D !OR !O!-EU>S8>!D IOG9H !O8 6EASEH
E>8AER: As 3or t"e origination and cessation o3 somet"ing t"at is neit"er real nor non-
real, t"at is also impossible. So t"ere is no cessation possible 3or anyt"ing real, not-real,
bot", or neit"er. 8"ere is no ot"er possibility. 8"at means t"at $e "a#e looked 3or
cessation e#ery$"ere and "a#e not 3ound any.+
.
[ NNN
[ 12.
[ 8"ere is no cessation by means o3 itsel3, nor cessation by somet"ing ot"er t"an
itsel3,
[ Just as t"ere is no origination o3 origination by itsel3 nor by anot"er.
.
!O SE9F-6ESSA8>O!, O8AER 6ESSA8>O!, /O8A, !E>8AER: As 3or t"e case o3 t"e
origination o3 origination $"ere it $as s"o$ t"at origination cannot be sel3-caused, t"ere
cannot be sel3-cessation. 8"is is like #erse ' o3 section '.+
.
91: <6onclusion = emptiness o3 all products because t"ere is no real origination, duration
and cessation = but t"ey e-ist con#entionally@
.
[ NNN
[ 11.
[ /ecause t"e e-istence o3 production, duration, and cessation is not pro#ed, t"ere
is no composite product samskrta+,
[ And i3 a composite product is not pro#ed, "o$ can a non-composite product
asamskrta+ be pro#edO
.
A99 &ROHG68S ARE EM&8% OF >!AERE!8 EU>S8E!6E, /G8 !O8 6OM&9E8E9% !O!-
EU>S8E!8: So t"ere is no in"erent origination, duration, cessation. Ie cannot 3ind t"e
e-act time o3 t"e beginning o3 any o3 t"ose t"ree KacJuired c"aracteristicsL. 8"us, t"ere
can be no real product t"at $ould be really originating, lasting and e#entually ceasing. All
products are empty o3 in"erent e-istence. /ut t"at doesnSt mean t"at t"ey are completely
non-e-istent, useless, meaningless, or 3rom t"e mind only. 8"ey do e-ist con#entionally,
and it is #ery use3ul to consider t"em t"at $ay.+
.
[ NNN
[ 1B.
[ As a magic trick, a dream or a 3airy castle.
[ Just so s"ould $e consider origination, duration, and cessation.
.
A99 9>4E >99GS>O!S: Gntil $e truly understand t"eir real non-dual nature, $e s"ould
consider origination, duration, and cessation as like illusions. E#eryt"ing is not in"erently
e-isting, not completely non-e-isting, not bot", not neit"er. 8o put t"is into one single
concept is impossible e#en i3 t"ere is no contradiction "ere. !on-duality cannot be
conceptualiMed, it "as to be directly seen by directly seeing t"e real nature o3 our o$n
mind in action in t"e present. Gntil t"en, to be in accord $it" t"e real non-dual nature o3
e#eryt"ing, $e s"ould adopt t"e Middle Iay: not accepting anyt"ing as absolute F
in"erently e-isting, nor re5ect e#eryt"ing as completely non-e-istent, useless, meaningless
or 3rom t"e mind only. Ie need bot" met"od and $isdom toget"er all t"e time.+
.
Jona" Iinters: 8"e ineluctable conclusion o3 a close e-amination o3 t"e t"ree processes
is t"at not one o3 t"em e-ists as real, and so t"e abo#e response, t"oug" seemingly
acceptable, also breaks do$n. CAs an illusion, a dream, a <myt"ical city@, so "a#e arising,
endurance, and destruction been e-empli3ied.C And, 3urt"er, C$it" t"e non-establis"ment
o3 arising, duration, and destruction, t"e composite <t"ing@ does not e-ist.C 8"at is, i3 t"e
t"ree p"ases o3 t"e process are negated, t"en t"e processed t"ing itsel3 must be illusory.
8"ere3ore, e#en t"e notion t"at a t"ing can be described in terms o3 one o3 t"e t"ree
processes must 3ail, e#en i3 t"e processes t"emsel#es are not rei3ied.+
.
9': <A/OG8 8AE ADE!8@
92: <Section 0 - An Analysis o3 t"e &roduct 4arma+ and t"e &roducer 4araka+ action and
agent+ = '1 = <8etralemma, cycle o3 samsara, and 9iberation@@
.
RVSGMV: 8"is is t"e same as section ' or 2 $"ere Kcause causing e33ectL, Kgoer going
destinationL or Kdoer doingFaction result-o3-action, are analyMed in order to s"o$ t"e
emptiness and non-duality o3 t"e t"ree: sub5ect, action-#erb, complement. Aere t"e case
o3 K&ROHG6ER &ROHG6>!D &ROHG68F4ARMAL is re#isited, $"ile stressing some details
mostly about t"e 8etralemma and t"e beginning and endless loop o3 causality+.
-- Eac" entity can "a#e only 3our possible state: in"erently e-isting real+, completely non-
e-isting not-real+, bot" e-isting and non-e-isting toget"er real-notreal+, neit"er e-isting
nor non-e-isting neit"er+. 8"ere is no ot"er possibility. So i3 $e take t"e t"ree = sub5ect,
#erb, complement, as in Kproducer producing productFkarmaL, $e "a#e B]B]B possible
combinations. For e-ample, t"e sub5ect could be real, t"e #erb real, and t"e complement
not-real, t"at is real, real, non-real+.
-- 8"is c"apter analyMe t"e most important o3 t"e )B possibilities, in order to s"o$ t"e real
nature o3 e#eryt"ing and t"e relation bet$een a producerFbeing-in-samsara, and it
productFkarma.
-- >t is s"o$n t"at e#eryt"ing is: not e-istent, not non-e-istent, not bot", not neit"er, and
t"at t"e relation bet$een t"e producer and its productFkarma is one o3 interdependence,
o3 a sel3-conditioning loop. /ut a loop o3 sel3-conditioning t"at is ne#er absolute, lea#ing
room 3or 9iberation.+
.
91: <Reality cannot be e-istent, non-e-istent, bot", neit"er.@
9B: <AnalyMing t"e cases $"ere e#eryt"ing is eit"er in"erently e-istent or completely non-
e-istent@
.
[ NNN
[ '.
[ A real producer does not produce a real product.
[ E#en more so, a non-real producer does not seek a non-real product.
.
8AE% 6A!!O8 /E /O8A EU>S8E!8, OR /O8A !O!-EU>S8E!8:
real, ___ , real
real, ___, real+
.
[ NNN
[ 2.
[ 8"ere is no producing action o3 a real t"ing, <i3 so,@ t"ere $ould be a product
$it"out someone producing.
[ Also, t"ere is no producing by a real t"ing, <i3 so,@ t"ere $ould be someone
producing $it"out somet"ing produced.
.
O!E 6A!!O8 EU>S8 I>8AOG8 8AE O8AER: >3 t"e producer or t"e product are real, t"en
t"ere is no producing possible.
___, real, real
real, real, ___+
.
[ NNN
[ 1.
[ >3 a non-e-istent producer $ould produce a non-real product,
[ 8"e product $ould be $it"out a causal source and t"e producer $ould be $it"out
a causal source.
.
8AE% 6A!!O8 /E /O8A !O!-EU>S8E!8: >3 t"e producer and t"e product are bot" not-
real, t"en e#eryt"ing is completely illusory, 3rom t"e mind only, and t"ere is no regularity
at all, no causality at all. /ut t"at is not $"at $e obser#e.
real, ___, real+
.
[ NNN
[ B.
[ >3 t"ere is no causal source, t"ere is not"ing to be produced nor cause-in-general
karana+.
[ 8"en neit"er do t"e producing action, t"e person producing, nor t"e instrument o3
production karana+ e-ist.
.
8AE 6O!SEXGE!6ES OF A !O!-EU>S8E!8 REA9>8%: >3 e#eryt"ing is non-e-istent, 3rom
t"e mind-only t"en $"o cares about anyt"ing. 8"ere is no action, no sel3, no karma, no
pat", T+
.
[ NNN
[ E.
[ >3 t"e producing action, etc. do not e-ist, t"en neit"er can t"e true reality
d"arma+ nor 3alse reality ad"arma+ e-ist.
[ >3 neit"er t"e true reality nor t"e 3alse reality e-ists, t"en also t"e product p"ala+
born 3rom t"at does not e-ist.
.
8AE 6O!SEXGE!6ES OF A !O!-EU>S8E!8 REA9>8%: >3 e#eryt"ing is non-e-istent, 3rom
t"e mind only, t"en t"ere is no rig"t and $rong at all, no good or bad karma.+
.
[ NNN
[ ).
[ >3 t"ere is no real product, t"en t"ere also e-ists no pat" to "ea#en nor to ultimate
release.
[ 8"us it logically 3ollo$s t"at all producing actions are $it"out purpose.
.
8AE 6O!SEXGE!6ES OF A !O!-EU>S8E!8 REA9>8%: >3 t"ere is no good or bad karma,
t"en t"ere is no meaning to any morality, no meaning to any pat", no possible 9iberation.+
.
StrengE: 8"e same conclusion is reac"ed in c"apter #iii by s"o$ing t"at t"e ob5ect o3
action karma+ and t"e person acting kartaka+ do not e-ist as suc". :erses E and ) deny
t"e reality o3 d"arma trut"+, t"e pat" to "ea#en, and 3inal release moksa+ as t"ings in
t"emsel#es.+
.
Jona" Iinters: A 3lat denial o3 acti#ity $ould undercut t"e entire 3oundation o3 t"e
/udd"a7s teac"ings on morality and, by e-tension, t"e !oble &at" leading to
enlig"tenment $ould be lost.+
.
9B: <AnalyMing t"e cases o3 a reality t"at is bot" e-istent and non-e-istent toget"er.@
.
[ NNN
[ *.
[ And a real-nonreal producer does not produce in a real-nonreal manner.
[ For, indeed, "o$ can CrealC and Cnon-real,C $"ic" are mutually contradictory,
occur in one placeO
.
S>MG98A!EOGS EU>S8E!6E A!H !O!-EU>S8E!6E OF 8AE SAME 8A>!D >S >M&OSS>/9E:
realreal, realreal, ___+
.
[ NNN
[ 0.
[ A real producer kartra+ does not produce $"at is non-real, and a non-real
producer does not produce $"at is real.
[ <From t"at@ indeed, all t"e mistakes must logically 3ollo$.
.
O!E 6A!!O8 EU>S8 I>8AOG8 8AE O8AER:
real, ___ , real
real, ___, real+
.
9B: <AnalyMing t"e cases o3 a reality t"at is neit"er e-istent nor non-e-istent.@
.
[ NNN
[ (.
[ 8"e producer, $"o is neit"er real nor non-real, does not produce a product $"ic"
is eit"er real or non-real,
[ /ecause o3 t"e reasons $"ic" "a#e been ad#anced earlier.
.
A &ROHG6ER 8AA8 >S !E>8AER >S >M&OSS>/9E:
neit"er real nor real, ___, real
neit"er real nor real, ___, real+
.
[ NNN
[ '?.
[ 8"e non-real producer does not produce a product $"ic" is not real, nor bot" real-
and-non-real,
[ /ecause o3 t"e reasons $"ic" "a#e been ad#anced earlier.
.
A &ROHG68 8AA8 >S !E>8AER >S >M&OSS>/9E:
real, ___, real
real, ___, realreal
or is it suppose to be : real, ___,neit"er real nor real+
.
[ NNN
[ ''.
[ And a real-non-real producer does not produce a product $"ic" is neit"er real nor
non-real.
[ 8"is is e#ident 3rom t"e reasons $"ic" "a#e been ad#anced earlier.
.
/O8A /E>!D !E>8AER EU>S8E!8 !OR !O!-EU>S8E!8 >S >M&OSS>/9E:
realreal, ___,neit"er real nor real+
.
91: <>nterdependence: t"e cycle producer O product O producer.@
.
[ NNN
[ '2.
[ 8"e producer proceeds being dependent on t"e product, and t"e product
proceeds being dependent on t"e producer.
[ 8"e cause 3or realiMation i.e. !ir#ana+ is seen in not"ing else.
.
IAA8 >S 8AE REA9 !A8GRE OF 8AE &ROHG6ERF/E>!D A!H >8S &ROHG68F4ARMA
8AE! O: Empty o3 in"erent e-istence because interdependent in a cycle, but still not
completely non-e-istent. 8"ey do arise in dependence o3 eac" ot"er, t"ey do e-ist
con#entionally.
>3 $e compare t"is to section ',
-- t"e producerFbeing-in-samsara is t"e cause, t"e productFkarma is t"e e33ect, t"e
production-o3-karma is t"e causing.
And i3 $e map t"e conclusions o3 section ' "ere $e "a#e:
-- 8"ere is no in"erently e-isting producerFbeing-in-samsara, producing or productFkarma.
/ut t"at doesnSt mean t"at t"ey are totally non-e-istent, useless, meaningless, or 3rom t"e
mind only. 8"ey do e-ist con#entionally.
-- 8"ey are interdependent. One cannot e-ist alone $it"out t"e ot"er, independently.
-- 8"ey cannot be separate in time, nor simultaneous. 8"ey cannot be di33erent, nor t"e
same. 8"ey are inseparable, non-dual: not t$o, not one.
All causes are also e33ect means t"at t"e producerFbeing-in-samsara is also a
productFkarma. And all e33ect are also causes means t"at t"e productFkarma is also a
producerFbeing-in-samsara. 8"e beginningless and endless c"ain o3 causality cause-- W
e33ect -- W cause+ becomes beginningless and endless c"ain o3 production producerO
productO producer+ or t"e cycle o3 samsara beingO karmaO being+.
-- E#eryt"ing is bot" produced and producing, bot" conditioned by past karma, and
conditioning 3uture karma. /ut t"ere is no permanent identity in t"is, nor total
discontinuity o3 identity. And at eac" step, t"ere is no total 3ree $ill, nor total determinism.
8"e productFkarma is ne#er totally determined by t"e actual 3i#e aggregates producer+,
t"ere are al$ays ot"er causes and conditions t"at can come and c"ange e#eryt"ing. And
t"e ne-t 3i#e aggregates producer+ are ne#er totally determined by already accumulated
karma.
-- So all producersFbeings-in-samsara, and productFkarma are empty o3 in"erent e-istence
because dependent on ot"er causes and conditions, because interdependent $it" t"eir
respecti#e causeFe33ect and causingFcausality one cannot e-ist $it"out t"e ot"er+,
because merely imputed by t"e mind, t"ey are called producers or products con#entionally
only a3ter obser#ing patterns o3 regularity in t"e 3lo$. 8"ey are not in"erently e-istent, not
completely non-e-istent, not bot", not neit"er.
-- 8"at means t"ere is no being stuck in samsara, no being t"at are really creating karma,
no real karma, not"ing to produce or not produce in order to reac" !ir#ana, no being t"at
is ultimately 9iberates, no produced 9iberation, no absolute causal pat". /ut t"at doesnSt
mean t"at t"ey are all completely non-e-istent, useless, meaningless, or 3rom t"e mind
only, or t"at t"ere is no possibility o3 9iberation at all.
-- 8"e pat", t"ose causes and e33ect, are con#entional trut"s, use3ul adapted skill3ul
means and #irtues, t"at $e need to combine t"em $it" t"e $isdom seeing t"eir real
nature in order to per3ect t"em. Only by 3inally directly seeing t"e real non-dual nature o3
e#eryt"ing can t"ere be total 9iberation.
-- 9iberation is gained by transcending t"e samsaric cycle o3 conditioned O conditioning O
conditioned, by seeing t"roug" its appearance and directly seeing its real non-dual
nature.+
.
StrengB: 9ike$ise, t"e CmakerC and t"e Cmaking7 cannot be regarded as independent
realities, 3or eac" reJuires t"e ot"er to appear in e-istence. At t"e same time one cannot
deny t"at t"ey e-ist p"enomenally. 8"ere3ore t"e conclusion is t"at eac" is produced
depending on t"e ot"er:+
.
Jona" Iinters: 8"e proper relation bet$een agent and action is once again not"ing more
t"an dependent arising, 3or neit"er o3 t"e t$o can "a#e eit"er a real or an unreal status.
CIe do not percei#e any ot"er $ay o3 establis"ing <t"em@,C "e concludes T #erse '2.+
.
91: <8"e samsaric cycle being-in-samsara O karma O being-in-samsara, a cycle $it"out
anyt"ing in"erently e-isting in it.@
.
[ NNN
[ '1.
[ >n t"e same $ay one s"ould understand t"e CacJuiringC i.e. o3 karma - upadana+
[ on t"e basis o3 t"e Cgi#ing up,C etc. o3 t"e producer and t"e product.
[ /y means o3 <t"is analysis o3@ t"e product and t"e producer all ot"er t"ings s"ould
be dissol#ed.
.
8AE 6%69E OF 6O!H>8>O!>!D F SAMSARA . 8AE &OSS>/>9>8% OF 9>/ERA8>O!: /ot"
are empty o3 in"erent e-istence because interdependent. 8"ey are interdependent not
only in terms o3 being co-dependently arisen concepts, but dependent in a causal loop,
t"e cycle o3 samsara: a producer, "a#ing a set o3 actual 3i#e aggregates, make c"oices
and do actions creating good or bad karma t"e product+, t"is product at t"e ne-t cycle
become t"e ne-t set o3 3i#e aggregates. So t"e 3i#e aggregates are bot" conditioned by
past karma, and conditioning t"e production o3 t"e ne-t karma. 4arma is conditioned by
t"e actual 3i#e aggregates, and conditions t"e ne-t 3i#e aggregates. 8"is is t"e
beginningless and endless cycle o3 conditioning F t"e cycle o3 samsara as described on t"e
I"eel o3 9i3e. 8"e only di33erence "ere is t"at t"is description doesnSt need any in"erently
e-isting entities in it. E#eryt"ing $orks because empty o3 in"erent e-istence.+
.
StrengB: 8"e same basic argument is used in t"e analysis o3 t"e process by $"ic" t"e
sub5ect, ob5ect, and t"e sensation coalesce to 3orm a p"enomenon, i.e., samsarga
uni3ication+. 8"e dilemma $"ic" !agar5una presents is t"at eit"er t$o basically di33erent
t"ings become united, or somet"ing unites $it" itsel3. 8"e conclusion, similar to ot"er
analyses -- see U>:+
.
92: <Section ( - An Analysis o3 Ct"e &re-e-istent RealityC pur#a+ grasper and grasping+ =
'2 = <!o permanent o$ner o3 t"e si- senses, percei#er be3ore perception@@
.
RVSGMV: 8"is is a continuation o3 t"e case Kpercei#er, percei#ing, ob5ects o3 t"e senses F
$orldL co#ered in section 1.
-- 8"e opponent is a33irming t"at t"ere is a permanent Kpercei#erFo$ner o3 t"e sensesL,
like a Kpercei#erL be3ore any perception case i+.
-- /ut, as demonstrated in section 1, a permanent percei#er is impossible because t"en it
$ould not be able to c"ange and start percei#ing, and t"en stop to stop t"e percei#ing. >t
$ould not c"ange to be a$are and react to t"e result o3 t"e perception.
-- A con#entional o$ner e-isting be3ore i+, during ii+, and a3ter any perception is not t"e
same, not di33erent. 8"ere is no permanent indi#iduality, no complete discontinuity.
-- A percei#er cannot e-ist alone $it"out an ob5ect o3 perception. 8"ey are
interdependent, t"us empty o3 in"erent e-istence and inseparable, non-dual: not t$o, not
one.
-- So t"e percei#er is not in"erently e-isting on its o$n+, not completely non-e-istent, not
bot", not neit"er.
-- 8"e o$ner and t"e senses are inseparable, non-dual: not t$o, not one. 8"ey are co-
dependently arisen concepts.+
.
91: <8"e a33irmation o3 a pree-isting o$ner T@
.
[ NNN
[ '.
[ 6ertain people say: &rior to seeing "earing, and ot"er <sensory 3aculties@ toget"er
$it" sensation and ot"er <mental p"enomena@
[ >s t"at to $"ic" t"ey belong.
.
>n section 1, Kpercei#er, percei#ing, ob5ects o3 t"e sensesL, it "as been s"o$n t"at t"e
percei#er cannot be a permanent entity, ot"er$ise it $ouldnSt c"ange, making perception
possible. 8"e a33irmation o3 t"e opponent "ere comes do$n to saying: t"ere is a percei#er
be3ore any perception i+, a permanent percei#er. So t"is "as already been co#ered 3rom
t"e point o3 #ie$ o3 a permanent percei#er, it is 5ust generaliMed "ere to any kind o3
permanent o$ner o3 t"e si- senses = or o3 t"e 3i#e aggregates.+
.
[ NNN
[ 2.
[ <8"ey reason:@ Ao$ $ill t"ere be seeing, etc. o3 someone i.e. as t"e sub5ect
seeing+ $"o does not e-istO
[ 8"ere3ore, t"ere e-ists a de3inite #ya#ast"ita+ entity be3ore t"at <seeing, etc.@.
.
S8G64 >! 8AE HGA9>8% OF EU>S8E!6E :S. !O!-EU>S8E!6E: 8"e opponent t"ink t"at
t"e only ot"er solution ne-t to a completely non-e-istent o$ner is an in"erently e-istent
o$ner, a permanent sel3. For "im it is eit"er e-istent or non-e-istent. !agar5una $ill s"o$
t"at it is none o3 t"ose t$o e-tremes.+
.
Jona" Iinters: 8"e speculati#e approac" to establis"ing t"e reality o3 t"e agent is logical
induction. ...
C8"ere3ore, it is determined t"at, prior to <perceptions@, suc" an e-istent is,C asserts t"e
opponent.+
.
91: <O$ner and senses are bot" empty because interdependent@
.
[ NNN
[ 1.
[ /ut t"at de3inite entity is pre#ious to sig"t, "earing, etc., and sensation, etc --
[ Ao$ can t"at <entity@ be kno$nO
.
A SE9F-EU>S8>!D >!HE&E!HE!8 OI!ER >S >M&OSS>/9E: >3 a o$ner e-ists on its o$n,
independently o3 t"e senses, t"en "o$ could $e be sure, since $it"out t"em $e cannot
percei#e it.+
.
Jona" Iinters: >3 t"e sub5ect is said to e-ist prior to perception, t"en Cby $"at means is
it made kno$nOC+
.
[ NNN
[ B.
[ And i3 t"at <entity@ is determined $it"out sig"t <and ot"er sensory 3aculties@,
[ 8"en, undoubtedly, t"ose <sensory 3aculties@ $ill e-ist $it"out t"at <entity@.
.
SE9F-EU>S8>!D >!HE&E!HE!8 SE!SES ARE A9SO >M&OSS>/9E: And i3 t"e o$ner can
e-ists on its o$n, independently o3 t"e senses, t"en t"ose senses s"ould also be able to
e-ist on t"eir o$n, independently o3 t"e o$ner, and be added to t"e o$ner later. /ut t"at
doesnSt make sense.+
.
[ NNN
[ E.
[ Someone becomes mani3est by somet"ing i.e. like #ision+, somet"ing is mani3est
by someone.
[ Ao$ $ould someone e-ist $it"out somet"ingO Ao$ $ould somet"ing e-ist $it"out
someoneO
.
8AE% ARE >!8ERHE&E!HE!8: 8"e o$ner is kno$n in dependence o3 t"e senses, t"e
senses are dependent on an o$ner. One cannot e-ist $it"out t"e ot"er. 8"ey are
interdependent, t"us bot" empty o3 in"erent e-istence. 8"at s"ould be t"e end o3 t"is
discussion.+
.
91: <8"ere is no o$ner o3 eac" senses@
.
[ NNN
[ ).
[ <8"e opponent admits:@
[ Someone does not e-ist pre#ious to pur#a+ sig"t and all t"e ot"er <3aculties@
toget"er.
[ <Rat"er,@ "e is mani3ested by any one o3 <t"em:@ sig"t, etc., at any one time.
.
A o$ner t"at o3 only one o3 t"e senses at a time O+
.
[ NNN
[ *.
[ /ut i3 not"ing e-ists pre#ious to sig"t and all t"e ot"er <3aculties@ toget"er,
[ Ao$ could t"at <being@ e-ist indi#idually be3ore sig"t, etc.O
.
A SE9F-EU>S8>!D >!HE&E!HE!8 OI!ER >S >M&OSS>/9E: A o$ner cannot e-ist on its
o$n, independently o3 all senses toget"er, so "o$ could "e e-ist be3ore only one o3
t"em.+
.
[ NNN
[ 0.
[ <Furt"er,@ i3 t"at <being@ $ere t"e Cseer,C t"at <being@ $ere t"e C"earer,C t"at
<being@ $ere t"e one $"o senses,
[ 8"en one <being@ $ould e-ist pre#ious to eac". 8"ere3ore, t"is <"ypot"esis@ is not
logically 5usti3ied.
.
8"at $ould also mean t"at t"ere is a o$ner 3or eac" senses, one at a time.+
.
[ NNN
[ (.
[ On t"e ot"er "and, i3 t"e CseerC $ere someone else, or t"e C"earerC $ere
someone else, or t"e one $"o senses $ere someone else,
[ 8"en t"ere $ould be a C"earers $"en t"ere $as already a Cseer,C and t"at $ould
mean a multiplicity o3 Csel#esC atma+.
.
Or it $ould means t"at t"ere are multiple simultaneous o$ners.+
.
91: <!o o$ner in t"e basic parts eit"er@
.
[ NNN
[ '?.
[ >n t"ose elements b"uta+ 3rom $"ic" seeing, "earing, etc., and sensation, etc.,
ariseQ
[ E#en in t"ose elements t"at <being@ does not e-ist.
.
8AERE >S !O &ERMA!E!8 A/SO9G8E /AS>S FOR A &ERMA!E!8 OI!ER A!%IAERE:
8"ere is no pre-e-istent reality in t"e elementary components eit"er. Any basic causes
e-plaining t"e skand"as and a sel3 $ould also be empty o3 in"erent e-istence as s"o$n in
section B. Any basic c"aracteristics, or irreducible elements $ould also be empty o3
in"erent e-istence as s"o$n in section E.+
.
91: <!o o$ner, no possessions: si- senses@
.
[ NNN
[ ''.
[ I"en "e to $"om seeing, "earing, etc., and 3eeling, etc. belong does not e-ist,
[ 8"en certainly t"ey do not e-ist.
.
!O >!AERE!89% EU>S8>!D OI!ER SE9F+, !O &OSSESSEH S>U SE!SES M>!E+: >3 t"e
o$ner is not e-istent, t"en t"e si- senses, and t"e 3i#e aggregates, are also not e-istent.
!ot"ing permanent is "a#ing rebirt"s and acJuiring a set o3 3i#e aggregates..+
.
91: <8"e real non-dual nature o3 t"e o$ner@
.
[ NNN
[ '2.
[ For "im $"o does not e-ist pre#ious to, at t"e same time, or a3ter seeing, etc.
[ 8"e conception CAe e-ists,C CAe does not e-ist,C is dissipated.
.
!O &ERMA!E!8 SE9F OI!ER OF 8AE S>U SE!SES, /G8 !O8 6OM&9E8E9% !O!-
EU>S8E!8 E>8AER: As s"o$n in section 1, t"ere is no same permanent percei#er t"at
doesn7t c"ange $"ile percei#ing t"e ob5ect o3 t"e senses, t"at is t"e same be3ore i+,
during ii+ and a3ter iii+ t"e percei#ing. >t is not t"e same t"ing t"at is about to percei#e,
is percei#ing, and "as percei#ed. 8"e percei#er needs to c"ange into somet"ing else to
start t"e percei#ing, t"en c"ange again into somet"ing else to stop t"e percei#ing.
On t"e ot"er "and, t"ere is no completely di33erent percei#er be3ore i+, during ii+ and
a3ter iii+ t"e percei#ing -- ot"er$ise t"ere $ould be a complete discontinuity in t"e
identity. >t is not a completely di33erent t"ing t"at is about to percei#e, is percei#ing, or
"as percei#ed.
!on-duality o3 t"e percei#er . ob5ects o3 t"e senses: 8"e percei#er is not in"erently
e-isting, not completely non-e-istent, not bot", not neit"er. 8"e percei#er is inseparable,
non-dual $it" its ob5ect o3 t"e senses: not one, not t$o.
!on-duality o3 t"e o$ner . senses 8"e o$ner is not in"erently e-isting, not completely
non-e-istent, not bot", not neit"er. 8"e o$ner is inseparable, non-dual $it" its senses:
not one, not t$o.
8"e Middle Iay consists o3 staying a$ay 3rom all e-tremes, like e-istence, non-e-istence,
bot", neit"er.+
.
Jona" Iinters: CSomeone prior to, simultaneous $it", or posterior to <perception@ is not
e#ident,C and t"ere3ore neit"er are t"e e-periences t"emsel#es e#ident ''+. 8"e ups"ot is
t"at Ct"oug"ts o3 e-istence and non-e-istence are also renounced.C+
.
92: <Section '? - An Analysis o3 Fire and 4indling 3ire and 3uel+ = ') = <!on-duality o3 sel3
. t"e 3i#e aggregates o3 clinging, non-duality o3 dependent origination and emptiness@@
.
RVSGMV: 8"is is about t"e relation bet$een t"e sel3 and t"e 3i#e aggregates o3 clinging F
t"e acJuiring o3 karma, about t"e causes o3 su33ering and t"e $ay to gain 9iberation, and
bet$een dependent origination and emptiness o3 in"erent e-istence.
-- 8"e analogy K4>!H9>!DF6AGSE, sustainingFcausing-t"e-dependent-origination-o3, F>REF
EFFE68L is used to describe t"e possibility o3 9iberation. Meaning, i3 $e cut out t"e causeF
kindling, t"en t"e e33ectF3ire $ill e-tinguis"es itsel3, going no$"ere. >t is interesting
because it s"o$s t"at 9iberation is not a product, an e33ect, but somet"ing like a letting go
o3 t"e causes o3 su33ering.
-- So $e "a#e Kt"e-acJuiringFt"e-3i#e-aggregates-o3-clinging, sustainingFcausing-t"e-
dependent-origination-o3, t"e-illusory-sel3Fall-t"e-su33eringL. Meaning, i3 $e cut out t"e
t"e-acJuiringFclinging, t"en t"e illusory-sel3Fsu33ering $ill e-tinguis"es itsel3, going
no$"ere.
-- /ut t"at could assume t"at t"ere are real 3i#e aggregates, real acJuiring, real clinging,
real causingFsustaining. 8"at is "o$ it is presented in t"e teac"ing o3 t"e la$ o3
Hependent Origination.
-- >t could also assume t"at t"e 3i#e aggregates o3 clinging must be real because t"e
illusion o3 a sel3 is depending on t"em, and because su33ering is real.
-- 8o remo#e t"is misunderstanding, t"e analogy is re#isited in more details to s"o$ t"at
t"at it could still be #alidFuse3ul $it"out t"e assumption o3 in"erent e-istence, and t"at in
3act it $ouldnSt $ork any ot"er $ay.+
.
91: <Fire and kindling are not t"e same, not di33erent@
.
[ NNN
[ '.
[ >3 3ire is identical to its kindling, t"en it is bot" producer and product.
[ And i3 3ire is di33erent 3rom kindling, t"en surely <3ire@ e-ists $it"out kindling i.e.
separate+.
.
8AE 6AGSEF4>!H9>!DF8AE-A6XG>R>!DF69>!D>!D A!H 8AE EFFE68FF>REF>99GSOR%-
SE9FFSGFFER>!D 6A!!O8 /E 8AE SAME OR H>FFERE!8: >n t"e case o3
KcauseFkindlingFt"e-acJuiring sustainingFcausing-t"e-dependent-origination-o3 t"e
e33ectF3ireFillusory-sel3Fsu33eringL, t"ere is a sel3-ampli3ying loop. = Actions Klike t"ro$ing
dried grass, dried co$ dung, . dried timber time and again into a great mass o3 3ireL, or
Klike $"en one keeps 3ocusing on t"e allure o3 clingable p"enomena, like t"e 3i#e
aggregatesL = Kt"us nouris"ed, t"us sustainedL 3rom S! '2.E2 = Meaning, i3 $e cut out
t"e causeFkindlingFt"e-acJuiringFclinging, t"en t"e e33ectF3ireFillusory-sel3Fsu33ering $ill
e-tinguis"es itsel3, going no$"ere. +
.
Gpadana seems to be CclingingC and Ct"e 3i#e aggregatesC, one may be seen 3rom t"e
cause point o3 #ie$, t"e ot"er 3rom t"e e33ect point o3 #ie$.
Attac"ment F grasping Gpadana+ -- acJuisition upadana+ <o3 karma@ - Drasping is
clinging to sense-ob5ects and t"e E aggregates
-- 6linging to sensuality
-- 6linging to #ie$s
-- 6linging to mere rules and ritual
-- 6linging to ego-belie3 belie3 t"at t"e E aggregates are Sel3+
.
!ote: kindling : Easily ignited material, suc" as dry sticks o3 $ood, used to start a 3ire.
.
91: <Fire and kindling are interdependent@
.
[ NNN
[ 2.
[ A <3ire@ $"ic" is perpetually burning $ould e-ist $it"out a cause, $"ic" is kindling,
[ Since anot"er beginning $ould be pointless, in t"is case <3ire@ is $it"out its ob5ect
<i.e., burning o3 kindling@.
.
!O >!HE&E!HE!8 F>REF>99GSOR%-SE9FFSGFFER>!D: An in"erent e33ectF3ireFillusory-sel3F
su33ering $ould e-ist $it"out its causeFkindlingFt"e-acJuiringFclinging, and not need to be
causedFsustainedFdependently-arisen.+
.
[ NNN
[ 1.
[ <Fire@ is $it"out a cause, namely kindling, i3 it $ere independent o3 anyt"ing else,
[ >n $"ic" case anot"er beginning $ould be pointless, and t"ere is perpetual
burning.
.
An independent e33ectF3ireFillusory-sel3Fsu33ering $ould not "a#e rebirt"s, it $ould be
permanent.+
.
[ NNN
[ B.
[ >3 it is maintained: 4indling is t"at $"ic" is being kindled,
[ /y $"at is kindling kindled, since kindling is only t"at <kindling@O
.
!O >!HE&E!HE!8 4>!H9>!DFA6XG>R>!D E>8AER: 4indle is said to be t"e cause o3 3ire,
and it is also said t"at t"e kindle is $"at is set alig"t. I"at t"en starts t"e cause, or t"e
3ire O-- So i3 causeFkindlingFt"e-acJuiringFclinging is causingFsustainingFdependently-
arising t"e e33ectF3ireFillusory-sel3Fsu33ering, t"en $"at is causing causeFkindlingFt"e-
acJuiringFclingingO >t cannot be sel3-caused.+
.
91: <>t is in"erent e-istence t"at $ould make e-tinguis"ing F liberation impossible@
.
[ NNN
[ E.
[ <Fire@, $"en di33erent and not obtained <t"roug" kindling@, $ill not obtain, not
burning, it $ill not burn later,
[ Iit"out e-tinction, it $ill not be e-tinguis"ed, i3 t"ere is no e-tinction, t"en it $ill
remain $it" its o$n c"aracteristics.
.
An e33ectF3ireFillusory-sel3Fsu33ering $it"out causeFkindlingFt"e-acJuiringFclinging $ould
not originate, last, and be possibly e-tinguis"edF9iberated.+
.
91: <8"ey cannot e-ist separately and be united later@
.
[ NNN
[ ).
[ <8"e opponent claims:@
[ >3 3ire is di33erent 3rom kindling it could obtain t"e kindling
[ As a $oman obtains a "usband, and a man <obtains@ a $i3e.
.
8"e opponent a33irms t"at t"e e33ectF3ireFillusory-sel3Fsu33ering can e-ist be3ore and
acJuire t"e causeFkindlingFt"e-acJuiringFclinging.+
.
[ NNN
[ *.
[ 8"oug" 3ire is di33erent 3rom kindling, it could indeed obtain t"e kindling,
[ On t"e condition t"at bot" 3ire and kindling can be reciprocally di33erentiated <Q
but, t"is is impossible@.
.
For t"em to be di33erent or separate and t"en united, like man and $oman, $ould mean
t"at t"ey could e-ist one $it"out t"e ot"er. /ut t"is "as ne#er been seen. A 3ire cannot
e-ist $it"out its 3uel, and #ice #ersa.+
.
[ NNN
[ 0.
[ >3 t"e 3ire is dependent on t"e kindling, and i3 t"e kindling is dependent on t"e 3ire
[ I"ic" is attained 3irst, dependent on $"ic" t"ey are 3ire and kindlingO
.
>3 t"ey $ere di33erent or separate, and interdependent, t"en $itc" one $ould come 3irst
to e-plain t"e ot"er.+
.
91: <Hependence o3 t"e illusory-sel3 cannot be used to pro#e in"erent e-istence o3 t"e 3i#e
aggregates@
.
[ NNN
[ (.
[ >3 3ire is dependent on kindling, so is t"e proo3 o3 t"e pro#ed 3ire.
[ 8"us, being kindling it $ill e-ist $it"out 3ire.
.
HE&E!HE!6E OF 8AE >99GSOR%-SE9F 6A!!O8 /E GSEH 8O &RO:E >!AERE!8
EU>S8E!6E OF 8AE F>:E ADDREDA8ES: 8"e opponent point "ere is t"at i3 t"e
3ireFillusory-sel3 is dependently arisen 3rom t"e kindlingF3i#e aggregates o3 clingingFbeing,
t"en t"at must pro#e t"at t"e 3i#e aggregates are real, t"at only t"e sel3 is not real. /ut
t"is $ould mean t"at t"ere is causeFkindlingFt"e-acJuiringFclinging $it"out
e33ectF3ireFillusory-sel3Fsu33ering. /ut t"at is impossible.+
.
[ NNN
[ '?.
[ I"en a t"ing b"a#a+ is pro#ed by being dependent on somet"ing else, t"en it
pro#es t"e ot"er by being dependent <on it@.
[ >3 t"at $"ic" is reJuired 3or dependence must be pro#ed, t"en $"at is dependent
on $"atO
.
8AE>R >!8ERHE&E!HE!6E 6A!!O8 /E GSEH 8O &RO:E 8AE>R >!AERE!8 EU>S8E!6E.
8"ey are bot" empty o3 in"erent e-istence because interdependent, co-dependently
originated. 8"ere is no absolute solid basis to pro#e anyt"ing real "ere.+
.
91: <8"ere is no real dependent origination, but it is not completely non-e-istent eit"er@
.
[ NNN
[ ''.
[ >3 t"at t"ing is pro#ed by being dependent, "o$ can t"at $"ic" "as not been
pro#ed be dependentO
[ So, t"at $"ic" is pro#ed is dependent, but t"e dependence is not possible.
.
>! FA68 8AERE >S !O REA9 HE&E!HE!8 OR>D>!A8>O!, >8 >S A9SO EM&8%: 8"e
concept o3 dependence, interdependence, or dependent origination, assumes t$o sel3-
e-isting t"ings, and a relation bet$een t"e t$o. 9ike saying: t"ey could e-ist alone but are
interdependent. = 8"e reality is t"at t"ey are bot" empty o3 in"erent e-istence because
interdependent, and #ice #ersa. 8"ey "a#e ne#er been di33erentFseparated, or t"e same.
8"ey are inseparable, non-dual: not t$o, not one. = So t"e real meaning o3 Kdependent
originationL "as to be per3ected by uniting it $it" t"e understanding o3 t"e emptiness o3
in"erent e-istence, and #ice #ersa. One doesnSt deny t"e ot"er one, t"ey imply eac"
ot"er. 8"at is t"e meaning o3 t"e &er3ect Gnion o3 t"e 8$o 8rut"s.+
.
[ NNN
[ '2.
[ Fire does not e-ist in relation to kindling, and 3ire does not e-ist unrelated to
kindling.
[ 4indling does not e-ist in relation to 3ire, and kindling does not e-ist unrelated to
3ire.
.
/G8 8AA8 HOES!S8 MEA! 8AA8 8AERE >S !O HE&E!HE!8 OR>D>!A8>O! A8 A99:
8"ere is no real interdependent origination bet$een t"e t$o. /ut t"ey are not
completely unrelated eit"er. 8"e interdependence bet$een t"e causeFkindlingFt"e-
acJuiringFclinging and t"e e33ectF3ireFillusory-sel3Fsu33ering is not in"erently e-isting, not
completely non-e-istent, not bot", not neit"er.+
.
91: <!on-duality o3 3ire and kindling, o3 t"e sel3 and t"e 3i#e aggregates@
.
[ NNN
[ '1.
[ Fire does not come 3rom somet"ing else,
[ and 3ire does not e-ist in kindling.
.
IE 6A!!O8 F>!H A SE9F >! 8AE F>:E ADDREDA8ES OR OG8S>HE OF 8AEM: 8"e
e33ectF3ireFillusory-sel3Fsu33ering is not sel3-caused, not ot"er-caused, not bot", not neit"er
or $it"out any cause. 8"e causeFkindlingFt"e-acJuiringFclinging and t"e
e33ectF3ireFillusory-sel3Fsu33ering are not t"e same nor di33erent, not simultaneous not
separate. +
.
[ NNN
[ 8"e remaining <analysis@ in regard to kindling is described by <t"e analysis o3@
Ct"at $"ic" is being gone to,C Ct"at $"ic" is gone toC and 77t"at $"ic" is not yet gone to.C
.
8"is is like t"e case o3 Kgoer going to a destinationL in section 2 or Kproducer producing
productL.
.
8AERE >S !O SAME &ERMA!E!8 8AE EFFE68FF>REF>99GSOR%-SE9FFSGFFER>!D t"at
doesn7t c"ange $"ile being produced by t"e causeFkindlingFt"e-acJuiringFclinging, t"at is
t"e same be3ore i+, during ii+ and a3ter iii+ sustaining. >t is not t"e same t"ing t"at is
be3ore its origination, during its origination, and a3ter its origination, ot"er$ise t"ere
$ould be no need to sustain it. 8"e e33ectF3ireFillusory-sel3Fsu33ering doesnSt e-ist and
c"ange. !o e33ectF3ireFillusory-sel3Fsu33ering is really impermanent. 6ase: real, real, sel3-
e-istent+
.
8AERE >S !O 6OM&9E8E9% H>FFERE!8 EFFE68FF>REF>99GSOR%-SE9FFSGFFER>!D be3ore
i+, during ii+ and a3ter iii+ t"e sustaining -- ot"er$ise t"ere $ould be a complete
discontinuity in t"e identity. >t is not a completely di33erent t"ing t"at is be3ore its
origination, during its origination, and a3ter its origination. 8"ere is a relation bet$een
t"ose. 8"ere is #alid basis 3or con#entional e33ectF3ireFillusory-sel3Fsu33ering $it" its t"ree
marks: origination, duration, cessation., or to call it impermanent e33ectF3ireFillusory-
sel3Fsu33ering. 6ase: real, real, no-continuity+
.
!O!-HGA9>8% OF 6AGSEF4>!H9>!DF8AE-A6XG>R>!DF69>!D>!D A!H 8AE
EFFE68FF>REF>99GSOR%-SE9FFSGFFER>!D: 8"e causeFkindlingFt"e-acJuiringFclinging and
t"e e33ectF3ireFillusory-sel3Fsu33ering are not in"erently e-isting, not completely non-
e-istent, not bot", not neit"er. 8"e causeFkindlingFt"e-acJuiringFclinging and t"e
e33ectF3ireFillusory-sel3Fsu33ering are inseparable, non-dual: not one, not t$o.
.
8AE M>HH9E IA% 6O!S>S8S OF S8A%>!D AIA% FROM A99 EU8REMES, like e-istence,
non-e-istence, bot", neit"er.+
.
[ NNN
[ 'B.
[ Fire is not identical to kindling, but 3ire is not in anyt"ing ot"er t"an kindling.
[ Fire does not "a#e kindling as its property, also, t"e kindling is not in 3ire and #ice
#ersa.
.
8"e causeFkindlingFt"e-acJuiringFclinging and t"e e33ectF3ireFillusory-sel3Fsu33ering are not
t"e same nor di33erent, not simultaneous not separate. 8"ey are inseparable, non-dual:
not one, not t$o.+
.
91: <!on-duality o3 dependent origination and emptiness@
.
[ NNN
[ 'E.
[ /y <t"e analysis o3@ 3ire and kindling t"e syllogism o3 t"e indi#idual sel3 atma+ and
Ct"e acJuiringC upadana+
[ >s 3ully and completely e-plained, as $ell as Ct"e 5arC and Ct"e clot"C and ot"er
<analogies@.
.
8"e parallel: Kkindling causingFsustaining 3ireL is an analogy 3or Kt"e-acJuiringFt"e-3i#e-
aggregates-o3-clinging causingFsustaining t"e-illusory-sel3Fall-t"e-su33eringL. +
.
[ NNN
[ ').
[ 8"ose $"o speci3y t"e nature o3 t"e indi#idual sel3 and o3 e-isting t"ings b"a#a+
as radically di33erentQ
[ 8"ose people > do not regard as ones $"o kno$ t"e sense o3 t"e teac"ing.
.
!O!-HGA9>8% OF 8AE SE9F A!H 8AE IOR9H: 8o t"ink t"at t"ere is no-sel3 t"at t"ere
is an illusory-sel3+, but t"at t"ere are real e-istent d"armas real acJuiring or 3i#e
aggregates o3 clinging+ is $rong. All d"armas $it"out any e-ception are empty o3 in"erent
e-istence, non-dual. 8"e illusory-sel3 and t"e 3i#e aggregates are bot" empty o3 in"erent
e-istence because interdependent, t"ey are inseparable, non-dual: not t$o, not one.
Hependent origination doesnSt imply in"erent e-istence, or deny emptiness. On t"e
contrary dependent origination and emptiness are inseparable, non-dual: not t$o, not
one.+
.
8"ose $"o oppose a sel3 to its productions or conditions, e-istent t"ings perception,
acJuiring o3 karma, dispositions, actions, ...+ do not understand Hependent origination.
.
92: <Section '' - An Analysis o3 t"e &ast pur#a+ and Future 9imits aparakiti+ <o3
E-istence@ samsara+ = 0 = <E-plaining samsara and Kno-sel3L $it"out using any in"erent
d"arma.@@
.
RVSGMV: 9i3e F e-istence as a product $it" t"e t"ree stages o3 becoming.
-- 8"ere is no need 3or any real d"arma to e-plain samsara and no-sel3.
-- Samsara "as no beginning because all causes necessarily "a#e t"eir o$n causes and
conditions, t"ere is no cause t"at is not an e33ect.
-- Samsara "as no end because all e33ects necessarily "a#e t"eir o$n e33ects, e#eryt"ing is
caused 3or its o$n e33ect, t"ere is no e33ect t"at is not a cause.
-- So t"e beginning o3 production o3 anyt"ing, and t"e end o3 t"e e33ects o3 anyt"ing, are
limitless as time itsel3.
-- 8"ere is no real birt", li#ing or gro$ing old, deat", rebirt" o3 beings.
-- And t"ere is no origination, duration, cessation o3 any d"arma at all.
-- So t"ere is no in"erent indi#idual beings, no sel3. /ut t"at doesnSt mean t"at t"ere is no
sel3 at all.
-- Ie cannot say t"at t"e indi#idual li3e o3 a being "as started only $it" "is birt" and $ill
end $it" "is deat", because causes and e33ects are beginningless and endless. 8"ere is no
discontinuity be3ore li3e, and a3ter li3e, no cause birt"+ $it"out its o$n causes and
conditions like: past karma, and pre#ious rebirt"s+, no e33ect deat"+ $it"out its o$n
e33ects like: karma, ne-t rebirt"s+.
-- And $e cannot say t"ere is no indi#idual li3e o3 a being at all , or t"at t"ere is no sel3 at
all, t"at it is completely non-e-istent, useless, meaningless, 3rom t"e mind only. 8"ere is
regularity.
-- And $e did it $it"out using any in"erently e-isting d"armas.
-- /eings and d"armas are not di33erent, not t"e same.+
.
91: <!o in"erent birt", li3e, deat", rebirt"@
.
[ NNN
[ '.
[ 8"e great ascetic </udd"a@ said: C8"e e-treme limit koti+ o3 t"e past cannot be
discerned.C
[ CE-istence-in-3lu-C samsara+ is $it"out bounds, indeed, t"ere is no beginning nor
ending o3 t"at <e-istence@.
.
8AERE >S !O F>RS8 6AGSE, !O F>!A9 EFFE68, 8O A!%8A>!D FG!68>O!A9. All causes
also "a#e t"eir o$n causes and conditions. All e33ects are also causes o3 some more
e33ects o3 t"eir o$n. -- 8"ere is no real cause and e33ect, not real causal relation, $e 5ust
arbitrarily gi#e names to obser#ed regularity. 8"is doesnSt mean t"at t"ere is no cause, no
e33ect, no interdependence at all, it is 5ust like gi#ing names to s$irls at t"e sur3ace o3 an
in3inite ocean, or names to 3igures appearing on clouds. = >n 3act t"ere is not only one, or
a certain number o3 causes and conditions 3or one e33ect, e#eryt"ing is depending on
e#eryt"ing else. Ie concentrate on a 3e$ imagined causes and conditions based on more
3reJuent obser#ed regularities.+
.
[ NNN
[ 2.
[ Ao$ could t"ere be a middle portion o3 t"at $"ic" "as no Cbe3oreC and Ca3terC,
[ >t 3ollo$s t"at Cpast,C C3uture,C and Csimultaneous e#entsC do not obtain.
.
8AERE >S !O REA9 &AS8, &RESE!8, FG8GRE E:E!8S: 8"e origin o3 anyt"ing, t"e
beginning o3 its causes, goes back in time as 3ar as t"e beginning o3 time itsel3 t"ere is no
real birt"+, and t"e end o3 anyt"ing, t"e end o3 its e33ects, is pus"ed as 3ar as t"e end o3
time itsel3 t"ere is no real deat"+. So t"e e-act moment o3 t"e beginning o3 t"e
production o3 anyt"ing, or t"e end o3 its cessation, cannot be 3ound. 8"ese are all
arbitrarily imagined, are co-dependently arisen concepts $it" t"e e-istence itsel3 o3 t"e
t"ing. = Ie cannot pinpoint any absolute time o3 any e#ent any$"ere, not its origination,
not its cessation, not its duration t"ere is no real indi#idual li3e bet$een birt" and deat"+.
So t"ere is no absolute basis 3or t"e t"ree times relati#e to any point o3 re3erence. 8"ere
is no absolute time, and no absolute time inter#al, no absolute past, present and 3uture.
8"ose concepts are al$ays merely con#entional, based on con#entional origination,
duration, cessation o3 con#entionally determined t"ings. = 8"ere is no real past li#es,
present li3e, 3uture li#es and rebirt"s, t"ey are 5ust adapted skill3ul means 3or t"ose $"o
are stuck in samsara. And t"e use3ulness o3 t"is skill3ul means is to con#ey t"e important
message t"at Kit is not because e#eryt"ing is empty o3 in"erent e-istence, t"at e#eryt"ing
is completely non-e-istent, or could be anni"ilated = beings are and $ill al$ays be
dependent on t"eir actions.L+
.
91: </irt" and deat" are not separate F di33erent, not simultaneous F t"e same.@
.
[ NNN
[ 1.
[ >3 birt" <is regarded as@ t"e 3ormer, and gro$ing old and dying <are regarded as@
coming into being later,
[ 8"en birt" e-ists $it"out gro$ing old and dying, and <somet"ing@ is born $it"out
deat".
.
/>R8A 6A!!O8 EU>S8 I>8AOG8 HEA8A = A 6AGSE I>8AOG8 >8S EFFE68 =
SE&ARA8E F 8IO: >3 birt" and deat", like origination and cessation, like cause and e33ect,
$ere in"erent, t"en t"ey $ould be able to e-ist independently o3 eac" ot"er. /ut $e "a#e
ne#er seen one $it"out t"e ot"er, t"ere is no cause $it"out an e33ect.+
.
[ NNN
[ B.
[ >3 birt" $ere later, and gro$ing old and dying $ere earlier,
[ Ao$ $ould t"ere be an uncaused gro$ing old and dying o3 somet"ing unbornO
.
/>R8A 6A!!O8 6OME AF8ER HEA8A OF 8AE SAME /E>!D = A! EFFE68 I>8AOG8 >8S
6AGSE = SE&ARA8E F 8IO: >3 birt" and deat", like origination and cessation, like cause
and e33ect, $ere in"erent, t"en t"ey $ould be able to appear in any order. /ut t"at is non-
sense, t"ere is no e33ect $it"out a cause.+
.
[ NNN
[ E.
[ And a birt" $"ic" is simultaneous $it" gro$ing old and dying is like$ise
impossible,
[ For, t"at $"ic" is being born $ould die, and bot" $ould be $it"out cause.
.
/>R8A A!H HEA8A 6A!!O8 A&&EAR S>MG98A!EOGS9% = 6AGSE A!H EFFE68 /E>!D
S>MG98A!EOGS F O!E: >3 birt" and deat", like origination and cessation, like cause and
e33ect, $ere in"erent, t"en t"ey $ould be able to appear in any order. /ut t"at is non-
sense.+
.
91: <!ot"ing e-ist and is impermanent@
.
[ NNN
[ ).
[ Since t"e past, 3uture, and simultaneous acti#ity do not originate,
[ 8o $"at purpose <do you@ e-plain in detail <t"e e-istence o3@ birt", gro$ing old
and dyingO
.
!O8A>!D A8 A99 AAS OR>D>!A8>O!, HGRA8>O!, 6ESSA8>O!. 8o "old on to t"ose ideas
is not proper. 8"ere is no real origination, lasting, and cessation acti#ity, no real birt",
li#ing and dying. So $"at is t"e use to grasp at t"ose ideas.+
.
[ NNN
[ *.
[ 8"at $"ic" is produced and its cause, as $ell as t"e c"aracteristic and t"at $"ic"
is c"aracteriMed,
[ 8"e sensation and t"e one $"o senses, and $"ate#er ot"er t"ings t"ere are --
.
[ 0.
[ !ot only is t"e 3ormer limit o3 e-istence-in-3lu- samsara+ not to be 3ound,
[ /ut t"e 3ormer limit o3 all t"ose t"ings is not to be 3ound.
.
EM&8>!ESS OF A99 F>:E ADDREDA8ES: !o only is t"e li3e o3 a being empty no-sel3+, but
all d"armas $it"out any e-ception are empty o3 in"erent e-istence: not e-istent, not
completely non-e-istent, not bot", not neit"er. !ot"ing starts, lastsFages, and ceases.
!ot"ing e-ist and is impermanent.+
.
9': <8"e real nature o3 dukk"a ne-t 1 c"apters+@
92: <Section '2 - An Analysis o3 Sorro$ dukk"a+ su33ering+ = '? = <Hukk"a cannot be
caused by a personality, internal, e-ternal, bot" or neit"er@@
.
RVSGMV:
-- Opponent: /ut dukk"a during t"is li3e is real. /udd"a said: CHukk"a s"ould be kno$n,
8"e origin o3 dukk"a s"ould be kno$n, 8"e cessation o3 dukk"a s"ould be kno$n, And t"e
&at" leading to t"e cessation o3 dukk"a s"ould be kno$n.C Hukk"a is /irt", old age, and
deat". ... 8"ose are t"e Four !oble 8rut"s. Also, t"e 8$el#e-linked 6"ain t"e I"eel o3
Samsara+ describes 8AE 6%69E OF HG44AA. and i3 t"ere is dukk"a, t"en t"ere is a sel3
su33ering.
-- /ut t"ere is no real dukk"a, and t"ere is no real ob5ecti#e $orld.
-- About t"e nature and origin o3 su33ering itsel3.
-- About t"e gross de3inition o3 su33ering, p"ysical su33ering, /OH>9% SGFFER>!D. Hukk"a
is eit"er sel3-a33licted, caused by ot"ers or ot"er e-ternal t"ings, or bot". >t cannot be
$it"out cause+
-- 8"ere is no real dukk"a:
-- -- Hukk"a cannot be sel3 produced, sel3-e-istent.
-- -- Hukk"a cannot be caused by onesel3, internal cause -- t"e same as our o$n
personality
-- -- Hukk"a cannot be produced by an e-ternal cause anot"er personality+ -- di33erent
t"an our o$n personality
-- -- Hukk"a cannot be produced by bot" an internal cause sel3+ and an e-ternal cause
anot"er personality+
-- -- Hukk"a is not $it"out cause
-- 8"e same 3or e-ternal t"ings t"e ob5ecti#e $orld+:
-- -- 8"e $orld cannot be sel3 produced, sel3-e-istent. like independent o3 our
aggregates+
-- -- 8"e $orld cannot be caused by onesel3, internal cause -- t"e same as our o$n
personality like only illusions+
-- -- 8"e $orld cannot be produced by an e-ternal cause anot"er personality+ -- di33erent
t"an our o$n personality like a Dod, Gni#ersal la$s, determinism+
-- -- 8"e $orld cannot be produced by bot" an internal cause sel3+ and an e-ternal cause
anot"er personality+ like Dod and sel3+
-- -- 8"e $orld is not $it"out cause completely random+
-- More: 8"e ne-t steps $ould be to propose t"at dukk"a is mental, caused by t"e
dispositions, or cosmic in t"e sense t"at e#eryt"ing is essentially impermanent, t"us
unsatis3actory. 8"ose are e-amined in t"e ne-t section.+
.
91: <Hukk"a is not produced by a personality internal, e-ternal, bot", neit"er+@
.
[ NNN
[ '.
[ Some say:
[ Sorro$ dukk"a+ is produced by onesel3 i+,
[ or by anot"er ii+,
[ or by bot" <itsel3 and anot"er@ iii+,
[ or 3rom no cause at all i#+,
[ /ut <to consider@ t"at <sorro$ dukk"a+@ as $"at is produced is not possible.
.
HG44AA >S !O8 A &ROHG68: 8"ere are #arious types o3 dukk"a: birt", aging, disease,
deat", sorro$, lamentation, pain, grie3 and despair, union $it" t"e unpleasant, separation
$it" t"e pleasant, not to get $"at $e desire. 8"en t"e /udd"a sums up: Kin brie3 t"e 3i#e
aggregates o3 clinging are dukk"aL. Iit" t"is statement t"e /udd"a indicates t"at all our
e-perience is included in dukk"a. 8"e reason t"ey are all included in Hukk"a is t"at t"ey
are all impermanent, c"anging 3rom moment to moment. -- I"at is t"e cause o3 dukk"a,
or t"e 3i#e aggregates o3 clingingO 8"is #erse says t"at dukk"a s"ould not be considered
as an in"erent product, or as an in"erent e33ect, like $e usually t"ink o3 t"em.+
.
9B: <Hukk"a is not caused by our o$n personality@
.
[ NNN
[ 2.
[ >3 it $ere produced by itsel3 i.e. sel3-causation+, it $ould not e-ist dependent on
somet"ing else.
[ 6ertainly t"ose Cgroups o3 uni#ersal elementsC skand"as+ e-ist presupposing
t"ese Cgroups.C
.
!O >!AERE!89% EU>S8>!D, >!HE&E!HE!8, SE9F-6AGSEH HG44AA: As an in"erent
product dukk"a $ould be sel3-caused and independent o3 any ot"er causes and
conditions. /ut dukk"a, or our actual 3i#e aggregates o3 clinging, are certainly dependent
on pre#ious aggregates. So dukk"a, our 3i#e aggregates o3 clinging, our personality, are
not sel3-produced, or in"erently e-isting.+
.
[ NNN
[ 1.
[ >3 t"ese $ere di33erent 3rom t"ose, or i3 t"ose $ere di33erent 3rom t"ese,
[ Sorro$ dukk"a+ $ould be produced by somet"ing ot"er t"an itsel3 i.e. ot"er-
causation+,
[ because t"ose $ould be made by t"ese ot"ers.
.
!O O8AER 6AGSA8>O!, /% OGR OI! F>:E ADDREDA8ES: So one set o3 3i#e aggregates
and t"e ne-t set are not t"e same or permanent, meaning t"at dukk"a is not in"erent or
sel3-caused. /ut, on t"e ot"er "and, one set o3 3i#e aggregates and t"e ne-t set are not
completely di33erent eit"er, meaning t"at dukk"a is not ot"er-caused eit"er.+
.
[ NNN
[ B.
[ >3 sorro$ dukk"a+ is made t"roug" one7s o$n personality i+ s#apudgala+,
[ t"en one7s o$n personality $ould be $it"out sorro$ dukk"a+,
[ I"o is t"at Co$n personalityC by $"ic" sorro$ dukk"a+ is sel3-produced i+O
.
O8AER-6AGSA8>O!, /% OGR OI! &ERSO!A9>8%: 6auseFour-o$n-personality and
e33ectFdukk"a cannot be di33erent or separate. One cannot e-ist $it"out t"e ot"er. 8"ere
is no personality $it"out dukk"a, t"at is t"en producing its o$n dukk"a.+
.
9B: <Hukk"a is not caused by anot"er personality@
.
[ NNN
[ E.
[ >3 sorro$ dukk"a+ $ere produced by a di33erent personality ii+ parapudgala+,
[ Ao$ $ould "e, to $"om is gi#en t"at sorro$ dukk"a+ by anot"er a3ter "e "ad
produced it, be $it"out sorro$ dukk"a+O
.
O8AER-6AGSA8>O!, /% A!O8AER &ERSO!A9>8%: 6auseFanot"er-personality and e33ectF
dukk"a cannot be di33erent or separate. One cannot e-ist $it"out t"e ot"er. 8"ere is no
personality $it"out dukk"a, t"at is t"en gi#en dukk"a.+
.
[ NNN
[ ).
[ >3 sorro$ dukk"a+ is produced by a di33erent personality, $"o is t"at di33erent
personality
[ I"o, $"ile being $it"out sorro$ dukk"a+, yet makes and transmits t"at <sorro$
dukk"a+@ to t"e ot"erO
.
O8AER-6AGSA8>O!, /% A!O8AER &ERSO!A9>8%: 6auseFanot"er-personality and e33ectF
dukk"a cannot be di33erent or separate. One cannot e-ist $it"out t"e ot"er. 8"ere is no
personality $it"out dukk"a, t"en producing dukk"a, and t"en gi#ing it a$ay.+
.
[ NNN
[ *.
[ >t is not establis"ed t"at sorro$ dukk"a+ is sel3-produced i+, <but@ "o$ is <sorro$
dukk"a+@ produced by anot"er ii+O
[ 6ertainly t"e sorro$ dukk"a+, $"ic" $ould be produced by anot"er ii+, in "is
case $ould be sel3-produced iS+.
.
O8AER-6AGSA8>O!, /% A!O8AER &ERSO!A9>8% >S 8AE SAME AS /% OGR OI!
&ERSO!A9>8% FOR 8AE O8AER: 6auseFanot"er-personality and e33ectFdukk"a cannot be
di33erent or separate. One cannot e-ist $it"out t"e ot"er. 8"ere is no personality $it"out
dukk"a, t"en producing dukk"a, and t"en gi#ing it a$ay. Meaning t"at 3rom our point o3
#ie$ it $ould be produced by anot"er personality, but 3rom "is point o3 #ie$ it $ould be
produced by "is o$n personality. /ut in any case t"e personality is considered di33erent
t"an dukk"a, so it is ot"er-caused in bot" cases.+
.
[ NNN
[ 0.
[ Sorro$ dukk"a+ is not sel3-produced i+, 3or t"at $"ic" is produced is certainly
not produced by t"at <personality@.
[ >3 t"e Cot"erC para+ is not produced by t"e indi#idual sel3 atma+, "o$ $ould
sorro$ dukk"a+ be t"at produced by anot"erO
.
>! /O8A 6ASES O8AER-6AGSEH >S !O8 &OSS>/9E.+
.
9B: <Hukk"a is not caused by bot" sel3 and ot"er personality@
.
[ NNN
[ (.
[ Sorro$ dukk"a+ could be made by bot" <sel3 and t"e Cot"erC@ iii+ i3 it could be
produced by eit"er one.
[ </ut@ not produced by anot"er, and not sel3-produced i#+ Q"o$ can sorro$
dukk"a+ e-ist $it"out a caused
.
O8AER-6AGSA8>O!, /% /O8A &ERSO!A9>8>ES 8ODE8AER: >3 ot"er-causation by eit"er
one our o$n personality, or by anot"er personality+ is impossible, t"en ot"er-causation
by bot" simultaneously is also impossible.
.
!E>8AER-6AGSA8>O!, /% !O &ERSO!A9>8% A8 A99: On t"e ot"er "and, dukk"a is not
$it"out any cause.+
.
91: <E-ternal t"ings are not produced by a personality internal, e-ternal, bot", neit"er+@
.
[ NNN
[ '?.
[ !ot only are t"e 3our <causal@ interpretations not possible in respect to sorro$
dukk"a+,
[ <but also@ none o3 t"e 3our <causal@ interpretations is possible e#en in respect to
e-ternal t"ings b"a#a+.
.
DE!ERA9>ZA8>O!: E-ternal t"ings t"e $orld+ are not sel3-caused, ot"er-caused caused
by ot"er causes, our personality, ot"er personalities, bot", neit"er+, bot", or neit"er. 8"at
is t"e same as #erse ':'. +
.
92: <Section '1 - An Analysis o3 6onditioned Elements samskara+ t"e real+ = 0 = <Hukk"a
is not due to t"ings t"at e-ist and are impermanent@@
.
RVSGMV:
-- Opponent: 8"e dukk"a you "a#e described is t"e 3irst le#el o3 description o3 dukk"a. /ut
dukk"a can also be understood at t"e second le#el as mental su33ering, caused by t"e
samskara dispositions embedded in t"e body and mind+. At a t"ird le#el, dukk"a can
3inally be seen as t"e uni#ersal c"aracteristic o3 all aggregates: because e#eryt"ing is
impermanent, e#eryt"ing is su33ering.
-- /ut, $e "a#e already seen t"at t"ere is no dispositions in section ). And since not"ing
is, not"ing is impermanent. So t"is is not a good e-planation 3or su33ering eit"er. !ot"ing
is, and c"ange.
-- About 8AE 6AGSE OF SGFFER>!D &AR8 >>+ 8AE H>S&OS>8>O!S $"ic" cause all
p"enomena to be e-perienced as su33ering, and impermanence F unsatis3actoriness. --
>ntention, #olitional or mental 3ormations or disposition, mental tendencies, any #olitional
acti#ity or "abitual tendency, good and bad, t"at creates karma, conditioning 3orces,
conditioned consciousness.
-- I"at is t"e root cause o3 su33ering:
-- -- Ie "a#e co#ered in t"e pre#ious section t"e gross de3inition o3 dukk"a.
-- -- Mental pain: t"e t"ree poisons, t"e dispositions $"ic" cause all p"enomena to be
e-perienced as su33ering -- 6onditioned elements P Sank"ara :olitional acti#ities+ HO-2,
"abits, reactions, dispositions, discrimination, desire section )+, "atred, ... based on
ignorance FF 8"e 3ourt" constituent aggregate o3 t"e indi#idual is samskara, mental
3ormations and dispositions. 8"ese dispositions include any #olitional acti#ity or "abitual
tendency, good and bad, t"at creates karma and t"us binds one to t"e cycle o3 birt"-and-
deat". Hispositions include con3idence and conceit, $isdom and ignorance, lust and
"atred.
-- -- 6osmic su33ering: t"e impermanence o3 all t"ings: birt", c"angeFdecay, deat"
-- First, all dispositions $ould "a#e t"e basic cause 3or su33ering, $"at is it t"enO Ie "a#e
seen in section ) t"at t"ere is no real dispositions, and in section 2 t"at t"ere is no real
actions.
-- Opponent: t"e real root cause is non-sel3, due to impermanence o3 t"ings. probably
meaning t"at t"e root disposition is t"at $e "a#e t"e bad "abit o3 t"inking t"ey are
permanent P ignorance o3 impermanence+. /ut t"ings e-ist because t"ey are
impermanent and empty. 8"ings e-ist and c"ange. 8"ings are e-isting, impermanent, and
empty.
-- /ut, not"ing CisC, ot"er$ise t"ey $ould not c"ange
-- So not"ing Cis impermanentC, not"ing Cc"angesC. !ot"ing goes t"roug" birt", aging,
deat".
-- And not"ing Cis emptyC. Emptiness cannot be used to pro#e t"e e-istence.
-- Emptiness is not somet"ing to apply to sel3-e-istence.
-- Emptiness is not absolute, a real t"ing, an absolute #ie$
-- More: So not"ing is su33ering. !o birt", aging, deat". !o dukk"a. Hependent Origination
or t"e Four !oble trut"s+ "as to be seen $it"out sel3-e-istence, and not as an absolute
#ie$, a system. !ot"ing e-ist, c"ange, or cease. E#eryt"ing is pure and indestructible in
emptiness.
-- For more on t"e dispositions :
-- -- Section ) - An Analysis o3 Hesire raga+ and One I"o Hesires rakta+ - concomitance
-- -- Section '1 - An Analysis o3 6onditioned Elements samskara+ -- as mental su33ering
-- -- Section ') - An Analysis o3 /eing /ound band"ana+ and Release moksa+
-- -- Section 2) - An Analysis o3 t"e 8$el#e 6omponents d#adasanga++
.
91: <8"e essential dukk"a nature o3 all t"ings = because impermanent@
.
[ NNN
[ '.
[ A t"ing o3 $"ic" t"e basic elements are deception is #ain, as t"e glorious one said.
[ All conditioned elements samskara+ are t"ings t"at "a#e basic elements d"arma+
$"ic" are deception, t"ere3ore, t"ey are #ain.
.
8AE 8AREE MAR4S OF A99 8A>!DS: All conditioned t"ings are impermanent,
unsatis3ying, not-sel3. So, according to t"is, t"e real cause o3 dukk"a is t"e impermanence
o3 e#eryt"ing. /ut t"e opponent t"ink t"ese t"ings are still composed o3 real basic
elements and "a#e some in"erent c"aracteristics like impermanence, deception, T 8"e
Ainayana denies t"at t"ere is a sel3, but accepts t"e reality o3 some d"arma.+
.
[ NNN
[ 2.
[ C>3 t"at $"ic" "as decepti#e basic elements is #ain, $"at is t"ere $"ic" decei#esOC
[ 8"is $as spoken by t"e glorious one to illuminate Cemptiness.C
.
8A>!DS HO !O8 EU>S8 A!H ARE ESSE!8>A99% >M&ERMA!E!8, G!SA8>SF%>!D: Ie
"a#e already co#ered t"e cases o3 t"e origination, duration and cessation o3 products.
8"ere is no real origination, duration and cessation, no real product. 8"is c"apter is about
t"e cause o3 mental su33ering, $"at is it about t"ings t"at causes mental su33ering. -- >t is
not necessarily somet"ing in t"e t"ings, but in t"e $ay $e see t"em.+
.
[ NNN
[ 1.
[ <An opponent says:@
[ 8"ere is non-sel3-e-istence o3 t"ings <since@ a t"ing, by obser#ation, <becomes@
somet"ing else. i.e. impermanence+
[ A t"ing $it"out sel3-e-istence does not e-istQdue to t"e emptiness o3 e-isting
t"ings.
.
8AE O&&O!E!8 AFF>RMS 8AA8 8A>!DS EU>S8, A!H ARE HE6E&8>O! /E6AGSE 8AE%
ARE >M&ERMA!E!8, 8AE% 6AA!DE: 8"e opponent denies t"e possibility o3 emptiness,
because t"ings c"ange and are impermanent. Ae t"inks emptiness means t"e opposite o3
e-istence, t"at it means complete non-e-istence, and t"e impossibility o3 t"e obser#ed
c"ange.+
.
[ NNN
[ B.
[ >3 sel3-e-istence does not e-ist, $"ose Cot"er-e-istenceC $ould t"ere beO
.
8AE O&&O!E!8 8A>!4S 8AA8 EM&8>!ESS 6O!8RAH>68S 8AE O/SER:EH
>M&ERMA!E!6E OF REA9 8A>!DS. 8"e opponent t"inks t"at somet"ing non-e-istent
empty+ $ould not be able to c"ange. And t"at $ould contradict our obser#ations.+
.
91: <>n"erent e-istence $ould make impermanence impossible@
.
[ NNN
[ >3 sel3-e-istence does e-ist, $"ose Cot"er-e-istenceC $ould t"ere beO
.
O! 8AE 6O!8RAR%, >8 >S >!AERE!8 EU>S8E!6E 8AA8 6O!8RAH>68S HE&E!HE!8
OR>D>!A8>O!: On t"e contrary, says !agar5una, it is in"erent e-istence t"at makes
con#entional c"ange, dependent origination, birt", gro$ing old and deat", totally
impossible. Somet"ing in"erently e-isting, independent o3 e#eryt"ing else $ould not
c"ange.+
.
91: <A c"anged t"ing is not t"e same t"ing, nor a di33erent t"ing@
.
[ NNN
[ E.
[ Just as t"ere is no ot"er-e-istence o3 a t"ing, so also <an-ot"er-e-istence@ o3
somet"ing else is not possibleQ
[ Since a yout" is not aging 5iryate+, and since C$"o "as already agedC is not aging
5iryate+.
.
8AE O/JE68 /EFORE >8S 6AA!DE A!H AF8ER 8AE 6AA!DE ARE !O8 8AE SAME, !O8
H>FFERE!8: 8"ere is apparent c"angeFimpermanence but not"ing is c"anging. !ot"ing
stays t"e same 3or e#en an in3initesimal moment. So not"ing e-ist and is essentially
impermanent, or unsatis3ying.+
.
Jona" Iinters: First, "e repeats "is negation o3 t"e possibility o3 real c"ange. C!eit"er
c"ange o3 somet"ing in itsel3 nor o3 somet"ing di33erent is proper. 8"e yout" does not age
nor does an aged person age.C 4arikas U>>>.E+
An entity cannot bot" "a#e a real identity and e-perience a c"ange. >3, in t"e e-ample,
t"e person $ere yout"3ul, t"en "e or s"e $ould partake o3 no agedness and t"us could
not remain a yout" and still age. >3 t"e person $ere aged, t"en it $ould be ludicrous to
say t"at "e or s"e ages. 8"is $ould be tantamount to saying, 3or e-ample, t"at a red
t"ing turns red: real c"ange $ould not "a#e occurred. 8"e solution is to say t"at all
e-istent t"ings "a#e no sel3-nature, s#ab"a#a. Substances do not "a#e attributes---t"ey
are Cempty.C+
.
91: <!ot"ing e-ists and c"ange, e-ists and is impermanent@
.
[ NNN
[ ).
[ >3 t"ere $ould be an ot"er-e-istence o3 a t"ing, milk $ould e-ist as curds.
[ </ut@ surely Cbeing curdsC $ill be somet"ing ot"er t"an milk.
.
8A>!DS HO !O8 EU>S8 A!H 6AA!DE, !O8A>!D >S >M&ERMA!E!8: 8o say t"at
somet"ing e-ist and c"ange $"ile keeping its identity, $ould mean t"at being young and
old is t"e same t"ing. /ut t"at doesnSt make sense.+
.
91: <!ot"ing e-ists and is empty eit"er = emptiness o3 emptiness@
.
[ NNN
[ *.
[ >3 somet"ing $ould be non-empty, somet"ing $ould <logically also@ be empty
[ /ut not"ing is non-empty, so "o$ $ill it become emptyO
.
!O8A>!D EU>S8 A!H >S EM&8% E>8AER: Ie are not replacing t"e essential c"aracteristic
o3 being KimpermanentL $it" t"e c"aracteristic o3 being KemptyL. 8"at is not t"e meaning
o3 emptiness. !ot"ing is really e-isting in t"e 3irst place, so t"ey cannot e-ist and be
empty.+
.
91: <Emptiness is not t"e absolute nature o3 e#eryt"ing@
.
[ NNN
[ 0.
[ Emptiness is proclaimed by t"e #ictorious one as t"e re3utation o3 all #ie$points,
[ /ut t"ose $"o "old CemptinessC as a #ie$pointQ<t"e true percei#ers@ "a#e called
t"ose CincurableC asad"ya+.
.
8AE EM&8>!ESS OF EM&8>!ESS: Emptiness s"ould not be considered as t"e absolute
essential c"aracteristic o3 e#eryt"ing. Emptiness is merely anot"er adapted skill3ul means,
t"e antidote o3 t"e belie3 in in"erent e-istence. /ut $"en t"is belie3 no longer ensla#e t"e
mind o3 a being, t"en t"ere is no more need 3or its antidote: emptiness.+
.
92: <Section 'B - An Analysis o3 Gni3ication samsarga+ combination+ = 0 = <8"e
inseparability o3 t"e t"ree realms, or o3 body, speec" and mind@@
91: <All trio Ysub5ect, #erb-action, complementS are interdependent, inseparable, non-dual@
.
[ NNN
[ '.
[ 8"at $"ic" is seen, sig"t, and t"e CseerC: t"ese t"ree
[ Ho not combine toget"er eit"er in pairs or altoget"er.
.
8AE >M&OSS>/9E G!>O! OF SG/JE68, :ER/-A68>O!, O/JE68F6OM&9EME!8: 8"ey
cannot become united because t"ey "a#e ne#er been separated in t"e 3irst place. Sub5ect,
#erb, complement are al$ays interdependent, one cannot e-ist $it"out t"e ot"er. 8"ey
are inseparable, non-dual: not t$o, not one, not t"ree.+
.
[ NNN
[ 2.
[ Hesire, t"e one $"o desires, and t"e ob5ect o3 desire "a#e to be regarded in t"e
same $ay,
[ <As also@ t"e impurities $"ic" remain and t"e t"ree kinds o3 Cbase o3 senseC
ayatana+ $"ic" remain.
.
A99 8R>O SG/JE68, :ER/, 6OM&9EME!8 ARE 9>4E 8AA8. E-. Sel3, interacting $it", t"e
$orld. E-. &ercei#ing, 3eeling, clinging, cra#ing, su33ering, T+
.
91: <Hi33erentness, t"en uni3ication are impossible@
.
[ NNN
[ 1.
[ <Some "old:@ 8"ere is uni3ication samsarga+ o3 one di33erent t"ing $it" anot"er
di33erent t"ing, <but@ since t"e di33erentness
[ O3 $"at is seen, etc. does not e-ist, t"ose <3actors@ do not enter into uni3ication.
.
O&&O!E!8: 8A>!DS 6A! G!>8E /E6AGSE 8AE% ARE H>FFERE!8: 8"e opponent a33irms
t"at sub5ect, #erb-action and ob5ects o3 t"e t"ree $orlds unite to interact. And t"is
possible because t"ey are e-isting independently o3 eac" ot"er be3ore t"e interaction.+
.
[ NNN
[ B.
[ !ot only does t"e di33erentness o3 t"at $"ic" is seen, etc. not e-ist,
[ Also t"e di33erentness o3 somet"ing coming 3rom anot"er does not obtain.
.
!O 8R>O SG/JE68, :ER/, 6OM&9EME!8 ARE 6OM&OSEH OF 8AE G!>O! OF H>FFERE!8
8A>!DS: Ie "a#e already seen in section 1 t"at percei#er, percei#ing, and ob5ects o3 t"e
senses are not di33erent, not t"e same, t"at t"ey are inseparable, non-dual. Ie "a#e seen
t"e same t"ing about ot"er trios like: goer, going, destination, doer, doing-action, result
o3 action, producer, producing, product, cause, causing, e33ect, c"aracteristics, de3ining,
c"aracteriMed, young, c"anging into, old, etc. Ie e#en "a#e seen t"e same t"ing about
somet"ing coming 3rom anot"er personality in section '2: internal or e-ternal personality,
causing, producing, dukk"a or e-ternal ob5ects. -- So in all cases t"e sub5ect, #erb,
complement are al$ays inseparable, non-dual. 8"ey cannot e-ist on t"eir o$n and t"en
be united.++
.
[ NNN
[ E.
[ A t"ing is di33erent inso3ar as it presupposes a second di33erent t"ing.
[ One t"ing is not di33erent 3rom anot"er t"ing $it"out t"e ot"er t"ing.
.
H>FFERE!8!ESS >S >M&OSS>/9E /E6AGSE >8 &RESG&&OSES 8IO RE9A8EH 8A>!DS:
8"e concept o3 di33erentness presuppose t$o independent t"ings t"at are t"en combined
in a comparison. >t al$ays presupposes at least t$o t"ings. One t"ing alone cannot be
di33erent. So $e cannot say t"at t"ose t$o t"ings $ere independent 3irst, be3ore t"e
comparison.+
.
[ NNN
[ ).
[ >3 one di33erent t"ing is di33erent 3rom a second di33erent t"ing, it e-ists $it"out a
second di33erent t"ing,
[ /ut $it"out a second di33erent t"ing, one di33erent t"ing does not e-ist as a
di33erent t"ing.
.
O!E 6A!!O8 EU>S8 I>8AOG8 8AE O8AER: One di33erent t"ing cannot e-ist $it"out t"e
ot"er t"ing.+
.
[ NNN
[ *.
[ Hi33erentness does not e-ist in a di33erent t"ing, nor in $"at is not di33erent.
[ I"en di33erentness does not e-ist, t"en t"ere is neit"er $"at is di33erent nor Ct"isC
<3rom $"ic" somet"ing can be di33erent@.
.
8AERE >S !O H>FFERE!8!ESS A!%IAERE: One di33erent t"ing cannot e-ist $it"out t"e
ot"er t"ing.+
.
[ NNN
[ 0. Gni3ication is not possible by <uniting@ one t"ing $it" t"at one t"ing, nor by
<uniting@ one t"ing $it" a di33erent t"ing,
[ 8"us, t"e becoming uni3ied, t"e state o3 being united, and t"e one $"o unites are
not possible.
.
8AERE >S !O G!>F>6A8>O! A!%IAERE: Since t"ere is no di33erentness o3 sub5ect, #erb,
complement. 8"e $orld and t"e mind are inseparable. 8"e t"ree realms are inseparable,
non-dual. 8"at is t"e per3ect inseparability o3 t"e body, speec" and mind o3 a /udd"a.+
.
9': <A/OG8 A!% SE9F-!A8GRE -- 8AA8 IOG9H 8RA!SM>DRA8E@
.
-- >n general, in e-isting t"ings
-- >n t"e dispositions in t"e aggregates+
-- Iit" karma
-- 6onseJuence, and CI"at t"enOC
.
92: <Section 'E - An Analysis o3 a Sel3-e-istent 8"ing s#ab"a#a+ being and non-being+ =
'' = <8"e pro#isional and de3initi#e teac"ings, a c"anging t"ing or being is not t"e same,
nor di33erent@@
.
RVSGMV:
-- 8"e t"ree stages o3 becoming are pro#isional teac"ings, $"en c"anging a t"ing is not
t"e same, nor di33erent.
-- Rebirt" is also a pro#isional teac"ing, $"en reborn a being is not t"e same, nor
di33erent.
-- All t"ings and beings are not in"erently e-istent, not completely non-e-istent, not bot",
not neit"er. 8"ey are ne#er t"e same or di33erent.
-- One "as to be able to make t"e distinction bet$een pro#isional teac"ings and de3initi#e
teac"ings o3 t"e /udd"a.+
.
91: <!o possible t"ree stages o3 becoming o3 an in"erent t"ing origination, duration and
trans3ormation, cessation+@
.
[ NNN
[ '.
[ 8"e production o3 a sel3-e-istent t"ing by a conditioning cause is not possible,
[ <For,@ being produced t"roug" dependence on a cause, a sel3-e-istent t"ing $ould
be Csomet"ing $"ic" is producedC krtaka+.
.
A! >!AERE!89% EU>S8>!D 8A>!D IOG9H !O8 /E &ROHG6EH >! HE&E!HE!6E O!
6AGSES A!H 6O!H>8>O!S: /y de3inition an in"erently e-isting t"ing $ould be
independent o3 e#eryt"ing else, it $ould not depend on causes and conditions. So to say
t"at somet"ing dependently arisen is in"erently e-isting is absurd.+
.
[ NNN
[ 2.
[ Ao$, indeed, $ill a sel3-e-istent t"ing become Csomet"ing $"ic" is producedCO
[ 6ertainly, a sel3-e-istent t"ing <by de3inition@ is Cnot-producedC and is independent
o3 anyt"ing else.
.
8AE &ROHG68>O! OF A! >!AERE!89% EU>S8E!8 8A>!D IOG9H /E GSE9ESS: >3 it is
in"erently e-isting t"en it already e-ist, t"ere is no need to produce it.+
.
[ NNN
[ 1.
[ >3 t"ere is an absence o3 a sel3-e-istent t"ing, "o$ $ill an ot"er-e-istent t"ing
parab"a#a+ come into being O
[ 6ertainly t"e sel3-e-istence o3 an ot"er-e-istent t"ing is called 77ot"er-e-istence.C
.
8AE 8RA!SFORMA8>O! >!8O SOME8A>!D E9SE >S A9SO >M&OSS>/9E: >3 t"ings are not
in"erently e-iting t"en t"ey cannot c"ange and become somet"ing else. 8"e Kbecoming
somet"ing elseL is also impossible.+
.
[ NNN
[ B.
[ Furt"er, "o$ can a t"ing <e-ist@ $it"out eit"er sel3-e-istence or ot"er-e-istenceO
[ >3 eit"er sel3-e-istence or ot"er e-istence e-ist, t"en an e-isting t"ing, indeed,
$ould be pro#ed.
.
So t"ere is no in"erent e-istence or trans3ormation o3 an e-isting t"ing.+
.
[ NNN
[ E.
[ >3 t"ere is no proo3 o3 an e-istent t"ing, t"en a non-e-istent t"ing cannot be
pro#ed.
[ Since people call t"e ot"er-e-istence o3 an e-istent t"ing a Cnon-e-istent t"ing.C
.
!O8A>!D >S 6OM&9E8E9% HES8RO%EH F !O!-EU>S8E!8 E>8AER: >3 t"ings are not
in"erently e-iting t"en t"ey cannot c"ange and cease completely.
-- 8etralemma: So not"ing is in"erently e-isting, completely non-e-isting, bot", neit"er.+
.
91: <K8"ose sutras t"at are de3initi#e and t"ose reJuiring 3urt"er interpretationL AAH9+@
.
[ NNN
[ ).
[ 8"ose $"o percei#e sel3-e-istence and ot"er-e-istence, and an e-istent t"ing and
a non-e-istent t"ing,
[ Ho not percei#e t"e true nature o3 t"e /udd"a7s teac"ing.
.
&RO:>S>O!A9 8EA6A>!DS: 8"e teac"ings about t"e t"ree stages o3 becoming s"ould not
be taken literally as absolute trut"s. 8"ey are all merely adapted skill3ul means.+
.
[ NNN
[ *.
[ >n C8"e >nstruction o3 4atyayanaC bot" Cit isC and Cit is notC are opposed
[ /y t"e Dlorious One, $"o "as ascertained t"e meaning o3 Ce-istentC and non-
e-istent.C
.
HEF>!>8>:E MEA!>!D 8EA6A>!DS = 8AE M>HH9E IA%: 8"e Sutras t"at teac" t"e need
to stay a$ay 3rom bot" e-tremes are o3 t"e second kind: de3initi#e meaning teac"ings.
See some e-tracts bello$ like: 4accayanagotta Sutta - 8o 4accayana Dotta on Rig"t
:ie$+ - S! U>>.'E+
.
91: <A c"anging t"ing or being is not t"e same, nor di33erent@
.
[ NNN
[ 0.
[ >3 t"ere $ould be an e-istent t"ing by its o$n nature, t"ere could not be Cnon-
e-istence7 o3 t"at <t"ing@.
[ 6ertainly an e-istent t"ing di33erent 3rom its o$n nature $ould ne#er obtain.
.
IAE! 6AA!D>!D, A 8A>!D >S !O8 8AE SAME, !O8 H>FFERE!8: An in"erently e-istent
t"ing $ould be permanent and $ould not c"ange, it $ould be t"e same be3ore and a3ter a
c"ange. I"at is t"e purpose o3 any c"ange t"enO On t"e ot"er "and, it cannot be a
totally di33erent t"ing eit"er. Ot"er$ise anyt"ing $ould be able to c"ange into anyt"ing
else.+
.
91: <>ncompatibility o3 in"erent e-istence and dependent origination@
.
[ NNN
[ (.
[ <An opponent asks:@
[ >3 t"ere is no basic sel3-nature prakti+, o3 $"at $ill t"ere be Cot"ernessCO
.
[ >3 t"ere is basic sel3-nature, o3 $"at $ill t"ere be Cot"ernessCO
.
>8 >S >!AERE!8 EU>S8E!6E 8AA8 >S >!6OM&A8>/9E I>8A HE&E!HE!8 OR>D>!A8>O!:
An in"erently e-isting t"ing $ould not be able to c"ange into somet"ing else. On t"e ot"er
"and dependent origination and emptiness are mutually supporti#e, one implies t"e ot"er.
8"ey are inseparable, non-dual: not t$o, not one.+
.
91: <8"e Middle Iay bet$een t"e t$o e-tremes o3 e-istence and non-e-istence o3 t"ings
and beings@
.
[ NNN
[ '?.
[ C>t isC is a notion o3 eternity. C>t is notC is a ni"ilistic #ie$.
[ 8"ere3ore, one $"o is $ise does not "a#e recourse to CbeingC or Cnon-being.C
.
EU>S8E!6E A!H !O!-EU>S8E!6E ARE 8IO EU8REMES. 8"e Middle Iay consists o3
staying a$ay 3rom bot" e-tremes.+
.
[ NNN
[ ''.
[ 8"at $"ic" e-ists by its o$n nature is eternal since Cit does not not-e-ist.C
[ >3 it is maintained: C8"at $"ic" e-isted be3ore does not e-ist no$,C t"ere
anni"ilation $ould logically 3ollo$.
.
8o talk about t"e cessation o3 in"erently e-isting t"ings is to prone anni"ilation.+
.
92: <Section ') - An Analysis o3 /eing /ound band"ana+ and Release moksa+ bondage
and release+ = '? = <!o personal rebirt"s or 9iberation@@
.
RVSGMV:
-- As seen in t"e pre#ious sections, not"ing dependently arisen, t"ings or beings, can e-ist
and c"ange, go t"roug" trans3ormations, or rebirt"s, or be completely terminated, or
ceased, or puri3ied.
-- So t"ere is not"ing permanent t"at is carried 3rom one rebirt" to t"e ot"er. Ie certainly
"a#e 3ound not"ing in"erently e-isting in t"e 3i#e aggregates, t"e '2 ayatana, or t"e
d"atu.
-- /ut rebirt"s are not completely non-e-istent eit"er.
-- 8"e analysis o3 KA6XG>S>8>O!S />!H>!D 8AE SE9FL like Kgoer going to a destinationL
permits to eliminate $rong conceptions about rebirt"s and 9iberation.
-- Ie 3ind out t"at t"e sub5ect acJuisitions+, t"e #erb binding, or not binding+, and t"e
complement sel3+ are not independent o3 eac" ot"er, t"ey are not in"erently e-isting and
5oining to produce t"e action. 8"ey are interdependent, inseparable, non-dual.
-- 8"at means no sel3 is really bound in samsara, and no sel3 is 3inally not-bound F
9iberated $it" !ir#ana. !o indi#idual samsara, or indi#idual puri3ication or 9iberation. /ut
t"ey do e-ist con#entionally, dependently.+
.
91: <!ot"ing permanent in any d"arma t"at could support real rebirt"s, and indi#idual
9iberation@
9B: <8"e acJuisitions F conditioning, causes o3 conditioned rebirt"s, are not in"erently
e-isting, nor completely non-e-isting@
.
[ NNN
[ '.
[ I"en conditioned elements dispositions, conditioningO+ continue to c"ange
t"roug" rebirt"sO+,
[ t"ey do not continue to c"ange as eternal t"ings t"e same be3ore and a3ter+.
[ 9ike$ise t"ey do not continue to c"ange as non-eternal t"ings di33erent be3ore
and a3ter+.
[ 8"e arguments "ere is t"e same as 3or a li#ing being.
.
!O8A>!D &ERMA!E!8 >! 8AE F>:E ADDREDA8ES 8AA8 >S 8A4>!D RE/>R8AS: As
demonstrated in section '1, not"ing e-ist and c"ange, not"ing e-ist and is impermanent,
unsatis3actory, empty. !ot"ing is in"erently e-isting, completely non-e-isting, bot", or
neit"er. = As demonstrated in section 'E, t"ere is no permanent sel3 t"at can e-ist and
take rebirt". All c"anging t"ings and beings are ne#er t"e same, nor di33erent. = So t"ere
cannot be anyt"ing in t"e 3i#e conditioned aggregates t"at $ould remain t"e same and go
t"roug" a rebirt" process: no permanent dispositions, no permanent karma, no permanent
subtle consciousness, T+
.
8AE &RO/9EM: O3 all t"e aggregates, $"ic" one can be say to e#ol#e in samsaraO I"at
does take rebirt"O 8"e best c"oice $ould be t"e dispositions, t"ey are t"e product o3
karma. Hispositions $it" karma and rebirt"+ account 3or innate and acJuired+ di33erences
in abilities and attitudes. Hispositions e-plain t"e perception o3 t"e si- realms. 8"e body is
easily seen as not continuing. &erceptions and 3eelings are also #ery impermanent. And
t"ere is not muc" personality in basic a$areness.
.
So, one may t"ink t"at in t"e dispositions, t"at take rebirt", t"ere is A :ER% SG/89E SE9F.
So t"e &at" consist o3 Cpuri3ying t"is sel3C -- remo#ing t"e taints -- remo#al o3 e-istence-
in-3lu- -- as mentioned in t"e last #erse.
.
Jona" Iinters: 8"e dilemma is, once again, 3ound to be caused by a C&ersonalistC
misunderstanding o3 t"e t"eory o3 t"e aggregates skand"as+. 8"e dispositions, as t"e
primary embodiment o3 t"e 3orces o3 grasping and greedy passions, are also t"e c"ie3
3orces causing rebirt". 8"e erroneous tendency $as to posit a substantial sel3-nature in
t"ese dispositions. 8"e popular belie3, !agar5una e-plains, $as t"at only a real entity $it"
real soul can be bound to p"enomenal e-istence and transmigrate.+
.
9B: <!o permanent d"arma t"at could e-plain real rebirt"s@
.
[ NNN
[ 2.
[ >3 t"e personality $ould c"ange $"en it is soug"t 3i#e $ays in t"e CgroupsC
skand"a+,
[ Cbases o3 sense perceptionC ayatana+, and t"e Cirreducible elementsC d"atu+,
[ 8"en it does not e-ist. I"o <is it $"o@ $ill c"ange i.e. transmigrate+O
.
!O8A>!D &ERMA!E!8 >! 8AE E9EME!8AR% HAARMA 8AA8 6OG9H 8A4E RE/>R8A:
From t"e pre#ious c"apters $e "a#e seen t"at t"ere is no in"erent e-istence or
permanence+ in any o3 t"e 3i#e aggregates - skand"a, in any o3 t"e '2 sense-3ields -
ayatanas, in any supposedly irreducible elements = d"atu. So t"ere is no absolute basis 3or
any permanent sel3 t"at $ould be going t"roug" rebirt"s t"ere.+
.
Jona" Iinters: 8"e ob#ious di33iculty t"at t"e /udd"ist 3aced $as in reconciling t"e 3act
o3 bondage and its con5unct, transmigration, $it" t"e /udd"a7s teac"ing t"at t"ere is no
sel3. 8"is is t"e problem t"at is !agar5una7s ma5or concern in section si-teen,
`È-amination o3 /ondage and Release.77 C>t may be assumed t"at a person
transmigrates,C "e agrees. %et, "e "as demonstrated in t"e pre#ious sections t"at t"ere is
no person-"ood, no sel3, to be 3ound in any o3 t"e elements o3 e-istence. CI"o t"en $ill
transmigrateOC 4arikas U:>.2+
...
8"ere can be no sel3- nature in t"e dispositions. >3 t"ere $ere an entity $it" a permanent
nature, t"en it could not transmigrate. 8ransmigration, 4alupa"ana points out, Cimplies
mo#ing 3rom one position to anot"er, disappearing in one place and appearing in
anot"er.C 4alupa"ana '(0), EB+ 8"e notion o3 permanence "olds t"at an entity is al$ays
present, and so t"ere is no Juestion o3 its ceasing and arising.+
.
9B: </ut rebirt"s are not completely non-e-istent eit"er@
.
[ NNN
[ 1.
[ Mo#ing 3rom CacJuisitionC upadana+ to CacJuisitionC $ould be Ct"at $"ic" is
$it"out e-istenceC #ib"a#a+.
[ I"o is "e $"o is $it"out e-istence and $it"out acJuisitionO 8o $"at $ill "e
c"ange i.e. transmigrate+O
.
/G8 IAA8 >S 8A4>!D RE/>R8AS >S !O8 6OM&9E8E9% !O!-EU>S8E!8 E>8AER: E#en i3
t"ere is no in"erently e-istent sel3 in any o3 t"ose skand"as, ayatanas and d"atus, as
stated in t"e pre#ious #erse, t"at doesnSt mean t"at t"is sel3 is completely non-e-istent
eit"er. A completely non-e-istent sel3 $ould not e-plain t"e continuity across rebirt"s, t"e
continuity o3 t"e conditioning, o3 t"e acJuisitions. As seen in section '?, t"ere is no 3ire
$it"out kindling, and #ice #ersa.+
.
Jona" Iinters: !eit"er can an entity $it"out an enduring sel3-nature transmigrate, 3or, i3
t"e entity is truly temporary, t"en it $ill completely cease, and no discussion o3 its
continuance, eit"er 3rom one moment to t"e ne-t or 3rom one li3e to t"e ne-t, is
appropriate. 8"is met"od o3 analysis, !agar5una says, applies not 5ust to one 3actor o3 t"e
indi#idual, but to t"e sentient being as a $"ole.+
.
9B: <8"ere is no real binding, puri3ication, 9iberation@
.
[ NNN
[ B.
[ 8"e 3inal cessation nir#ana+ o3 t"e conditioned elements certainly is not possible
at all.
[ !or is t"e 3inal cessation o3 e#en a li#ing being possible at all.
.
!O8A>!D EU>S8 A!H 6AA!DE, A!H 8AE! 6EASE: !ot"ing, t"ings or beings, e-ist and
"a#e rebirt"s, and ultimately are eliminated or 9iberated. 8"ere is no beginning and no
end to t"e kindling-3ire cycle.+
.
[ NNN
[ E.
[ 8"e conditioned elements, $"ose nature d"arma+ is arising and destruction,
neit"er are bound nor released.
[ 9ike$ise a li#ing being neit"er is bound nor released.
.
8AERE >S !O REA9 />!H>!D OR !O!-/>!H>!D: All dependently arisen t"ings are empty
o3 in"erent e-istence. So t"ey cannot e-ist and continue t"roug" trans3ormations, rebirt"s,
nor cease or be 9iberated F puri3ied. 8"at applies to all t"ings and beings.+
.
Jona" Iinters: >t cannot transmigrate $"et"er it "as or does not "a#e a sel3-nature, and
t"ere3ore it can e-perience neit"er bondage nor release 3rom bondage. >3 one t"inks in
terms o3 sel3- nature, t"en t"e ine#itable conclusion is t"at Ca sentient being, like
<dispositions@, is neit"er bound nor released.C 4arikas U:>.E+
.
91: <8"e analysis o3 KacJuisitions binding t"e sel3 like Kgoer going to t"e destinationL@
.
[ NNN
[ ).
[ >3 t"e acJuisition upadana+ $ere t"e Cbinding,C t"at one <"a#ing@ t"e acJuisition
is not bound,
[ !or is t"at one not "a#ing t"e acJuisition bound.
[ 8"en in $"at condition is "e boundO
.
!O >!HE&E!HE!8 O/JE68 F SE9F /OG!H: 8"is KacJuisitions, binding, t"e sel3L is similar
to Kgoer, going, destinationL o3 section 2. 8"e analysis is t"e same and t"e conclusions are
t"e same.
-- 8"ere is no binding acJuisitions o3 a sel3 real, real, real+. 8"ere is no non-binding
acJuisitions o3 a sel3 not-real, not-real, real+. So t"ere is no sel3 bound.
-- >3 Kbinding acJuisitionsL and Ksel3L are real t"en t"ey s"ould e-ist independently o3 eac"
ot"er. >n t"at case t"e sel3 is essentially not KboundL $it" or $it"out acJuisitions.+
.
[ NNN
[ *.
[ 6ertainly i3 t"e CbindingC $ould e-ist be3ore Ct"at $"ic" is bound,C t"en it must
bind,
[ /ut t"at does not e-ist. 8"e remaining <analysis@ is stated in <t"e analysis o3@ Ct"e
present going to,C Ct"at $"ic" "as already gone toC and Ct"at $"ic" "as not yet gone to.C
.
!O >!HE&E!HE!8 />!H>!D: !o sel3 is bound --, real, real+, no non-sel3 is bound --,
real, not-real+. 8"ere is no binding.
!ote: >n section 2 t"ere is mention o3 Kt"at $"ic" is already gone toL, not o3 Kt"at $"ic"
"as already gone toL. So one is talking about t"e relation bet$een t"e sub5ect and t"e
#erb, t"e ot"er one is talking about t"e relation bet$een t"e #erb and t"e ob5ect, or
complement.+
.
[ NNN
[ 0.
[ 8"ere3ore, Ct"at $"ic" is boundC is not released and Ct"at $"ic" is not boundC is
like$ise not released.
[ >3 Ct"at $"ic" is boundC $ere released, Cbeing boundC and CreleaseC $ould e-ist
simultaneously.
.
!O >!HE&E!HE!8 !O8-:ER/ F !O8-/>!H>!D F RE9EASE: !o sel3 is not-bound --, not-
real, real+, no non-sel3 is not-bound --, not-real, not-real+. 8"ere is no not-binding or
release.
-- >3 t"ere is no real KbindingL, t"en t"ere is no real Knon-bindingL. 9ike 3or Kt"e goer going
to a destinationL, i3 t"ere is no real origination o3 going, t"en t"ere is no real Kduration o3
goingL, no Kcessation o3 goingL or Kcoming to restL+
.
91: <8"ere is no personal 9iberation or puri3ication@
.
[ NNN
[ (.
[ C> $ill be released $it"out any acJuisition.C
[ C!ir#ana $ill be mine.C
[ 8"ose $"o understand t"us "old too muc" to Ca "olding onC <i.e., bot" to t"e
acJuisition o3 karma, and to a #ie$point@.
.
!O >!HE&E!HE!8 O/JE68 F SE9F RE9EASEH: 8o say t"at t"ere could be a sel3
independent o3 any acJuisitions, o3 any binding, is to 3all into t"e e-treme o3 t"inking t"e
complement is in"erently e-isting. >3 "e is in"erently e-isting t"en t"ere is no acJuisitions
and binding e#en in samsara. So t"e case Knot-real, not-real, realL is not an acceptable
case eit"er.
-- >3 t"ere is no real binding or non-binding, t"en t"ere is no real sel3 bound or nor-
bound F released. 9ike no goer is coming to rest.+
.
[ NNN
[ '?.
[ I"ere t"ere is a super-imposing o3 nir#ana <on somet"ing else@, nor a remo#al o3
e-istence-in-3lu-,
[ I"at is t"e e-istence-in-3lu- t"ereO
[ I"at nir#ana is imaginedO
.
!O >!AERE!8 SE9F >S K9>/ERA8EHL OR K&GR>F>EHL: 9ike saying Kbinding acJuisitionsL
are remo#ed 3rom a Kbound sel3L. /ut t"ere is no permanent sel3 t"at is t"e same be3ore,
during and a3ter t"e action positi#e or negati#e+. 8"ere is no Cpermanent beingC to $"ic"
$e add or remo#e somet"ing. !ot"ing e-ist and c"ange.+
.
92: <Section '* - An Analysis o3 Action karma+ and >ts &roduct p"ala+ action and its
results+ = 11 = <8"e $"ole c"ain o3 karma 3ormation and its 3ruits is empty, like a magic
trick@@
.
Similar to sections 2, 0, T+
.
91: <8"e opponents t"eories@
9B: <An opponent presents t"e traditional causal t"eory o3 action:@
.
S8A8>6 :>EI
MO8>:E --W A68>O!SF4ARMA lasting until:+ --W FRG>8S
A68>O!S: p"ysical, #erbal, mental, $"olesome, un$"olesome
8"at $"ic" does not rest OO+ -- like t"e mind stream O
8"at $"ic" is considered to be at rest OO+ -- like t"e permanent, #ery subtle sel3 O
8"e action Fkarma is real, and last until t"e 3ruit.
.
[ NNN
[ '.
[ 8"e state o3 mind $"ic" is sel3-disciplined, being 3a#orably disposed to$ard
ot"ers,
[ And 3riends"ip: t"at is t"e d"arma, t"at is t"e seed 3or t"e 3ruit no$ and a3ter
deat".
.
Morality and its 3ruits no$ and as 3a#orable rebirt"s.+
.
[ NNN
[ 2.
[ 8"e most percepti#e seer </udd"a@ "as said t"at t"ere is action karma+ as
#olition and as a result o3 "a#ing $illed.
[ 8"e #ariety o3 acts o3 t"at <action@ "as been e-plained in many $ays.
.
8"e di33erent kinds o3 actions.+
.
[ NNN
[ 1.
[ 8"us, t"at action $"ic" is called C#olitionC: t"at is considered <by tradition@ as
mental,
[ /ut t"at action $"ic" is a result o3 "a#ing $illed: t"at is considered <by tradition@
as p"ysical or #erbal.
.
Actions are one part mental, one part p"ysical.+
.
[ NNN
[ B.
[ Sound '+, gesture 2+ and t"at $"ic" does not rest $"ic" is considered as
unkno$n 1+,
[ Also t"e ot"er unkno$n $"ic" is considered to be at rest B+,
.
8"e 3i#e aggregates, including t"e parts t"at c"ange, and t"e part t"at doesnSt c"ange:
t"e o$ner, t"e sel3O+
.
[ NNN
[ E.
[ 8"at $"ic" is pure as a result o3 en5oyment E+, t"at $"ic" is impure as a result o3
en5oyment )+,
[ And #olition *+: t"ese se#en basic elements d"arma+ are considered <by t"e
tradition@ as t"e modes o3 action.
.
Modes o3 action O O3 body, speec" and mind. I"olesome and un$"olesome, neutral.+
.
9B: <Anot"er opponent argues by t"e imagery o3 a process:@
.
&RO6ESS :>EI
SEEH --W &RO6ESS --W FRG>8
8AOGDA8 --W ME!8A9 &RO6ESS --W &ROHG68
8"e process is real, and last until t"e 3ruit.
.
[ NNN
[ ).
[ >3 an action <e-ists@ by enduring to t"e time o3 its 3ul3illment, t"at <action@ $ould
be eternal.
[ >3 <an action@ $ere stoppedQbeing stopped, $"at $ill it produceO
.
6ritiJue o3 t"e pre#ious e-planation. 8"e action doesnSt last until its conseJuences, and it
doesnSt not last eit"er..+
.
[ NNN
[ *.
[ 8"ere is 3ruit p"ala+ $"en a process, a sprout, etc., starts 3rom a seed,
[ /ut $it"out a seed t"at <process@ does not proceed.
.
4arma seeds O+
.
[ NNN
[ 0.
[ >nasmuc" as t"e process is dependent on a seed and t"e 3ruit is produced 3rom
t"e process,
[ 8"e 3ruit, presupposing t"e seed, neit"er comes to an end nor is eternal.
.
8"ere is continuity o3 a process.+
.
[ NNN
[ (.
[ 8"ere is a product p"ala+ $"en a mental process starts 3rom a t"oug"ts,
[ /ut $it"out a t"oug"t t"at <process@ does not proceed.
.
8"e origin o3 karma is t"e moti#e.+
.
[ NNN
[ '?.
[ >nasmuc" as t"e process is dependent on a t"oug"t and t"e product p"ala+ is
produced 3rom t"e process,
[ 8"e product, presupposing t"e t"oug"t, neit"er comes to an end nor is eternal.
.
8"e process continues.+
.
[ NNN
[ ''.
[ 8"e ten pure Cpat"s o3 actionC are means 3or realiMing t"e d"arma.
[ And t"e 3i#e Jualities o3 desired ob5ects <i.e., desire to kno$ t"e 3orm, sound,
odor, taste, and touc" o3 e-istence@
[ are 3ruits p"ala+ o3 t"e d"arma bot" no$ and a3ter deat".
.
8"ere are ten absolute $"olesome actions t"at "a#e real bene3its in t"e 3orm o3 ob5ects
o3 t"e realm o3 desire 3or t"e ne-t rebirt"s.+
.
9B: <A t"ird opponent argues 3or an imperis"able element:@
.
ActionFkarma is like a debt
--W A68>O!F4ARMA --W FRG>8S
t"e actionFkarma is real, and indestructible.
.
[ NNN
[ '2.
[ 8"ere $ould be many great mistakes i3 t"at e-planation <$ere accepted@.
[ 8"ere3ore, t"at e-planation is not possible.
.
6ritiJue o3 t"e pre#ious e-planation.+
.
[ NNN
[ '1.
[ >n rebuttal > $ill e-plain t"e interpretation $"ic" can be made to 3it <t"e 3acts@,
[ 8"at $"ic" is 3ollo$ed by t"e /udd"a, t"e sel3-su33icient enlig"tened ones
pratyekabudd"a+ and t"e disciples <o3 /udd"a@.
.
[ 'B.
[ As Ct"at $"ic" is imperis"ableC is like a credit <on an account statement@, so an
action karma+ is like a debt.
[ <8"e imperis"able is@ o3 3our kinds in its elements d"atu+ <i.e., desire, 3orm, non-
3orm, and pure@,
[ in its essential nature it cannot be analyMed.
.
[ NNN
[ 'E.
[ <An imperis"able 3orce@ is not destroyed Jua destruction, rat"er it is destroyed
according to spiritual discipline.
[ 8"ere3ore, t"e 3ruit o3 actions originates by t"e imperis"able 3orce.
.
[ ').
[ >3 <t"e imperis"able 3orce@ $ere t"at $"ic" is destroyed by <usual@ destruction or
by trans3erence o3 action,
[ Fallacies <like@ t"e destruction o3 action $ould logically result.
.
[ '*.
[ At t"e moment o3 transition t"at <imperis"able 3orce@
[ O3 all identical and di33erent actions belonging to t"e same element d"atu+
originates.
.
[ NNN
[ '0.
[ 8"at <imperis"able 3orce@ is t"e d"arma, "a#ing arisen by one action a3ter anot"er
in #isible e-istence,
[ And it remains <constant@ e#en in t"e de#elopment o3 all bi3urcating action.
.
[ '(.
[ 8"at <imperis"able 3orce@ is destroyed by deat" and by a#oiding t"e product
p"ala+ .
[ 8"ere t"e di33erence is c"aracteriMed as impure and pure.
.
[ 2?.
[ CEmptiness,C Cno anni"ilation,C e-istence-in-3lu-, Cnon-eternity,C
[ And t"e imperis"able reality o3 action: suc" $as t"e teac"ing taug"t by t"e
/udd"a.
.
91: <!agar5unaSs ans$ers@
9B: <>n"erent actions $ould imply no utility 3or any morality@
.
[ NNN
[ <!agar5una re3utes t"e abo#e arguments:@
[ 2'.
[ I"y does t"e action not originateO
[ /ecause it is $it"out sel3-e-istence.
[ Since it does not originate, it does not peris".
.
EM&8>!ESS OF 8AE A68>O!: As seen in section 2, t"e action is empty o3 in"erent
e-istence because dependently originated. 8"ere is no real origination, duration and
cessation o3 an action. 8"ere is no absolute $"olesome or un$"olesome actions.+
.
[ NNN
[ 22.
[ >3 an action did e-ist as a sel3-e-istent t"ing, $it"out a doubt, it $ould be eternal.
[ An action $ould be an unproduced t"ing, certainly, t"ere is no eternal t"ing $"ic"
is produced.
.
A! G!&ROHG6EH >!AERE!8 A68>O!O : An in"erently e-isting action $ould be
independent o3 any causes and conditions, and $ould be eternal. >t $ould t"en be
unproduced and "a#ing no e33ect. 8"is $ould be completely incompatible $it" dependent
origination.+
.
[ NNN
[ 21.
[ >3 t"e action $ere not produced, t"en t"ere could be t"e 3ear attaining somet"ing
3rom Csomet"ing not producedC,
[ 8"en t"e opposite to a saintly discipline $ould 3ollo$ as a 3allacy.
.
8A>S IOG9H /E >!6OM&A8>/9E I>8A MORA9>8%: >n"erently e-isting actions $ould be
incompatible $it" t"e need 3or morality.+
.
[ NNN
[ 2B.
[ 8"en, undoubtedly, all daily a33airs $ould be precluded.
[ And e#en t"e distinction bet$een saints and sinners is not possible.
.
8A>S IOG9H MEA! 8AERE >S !O H>FFERE!6E A8 A99 /E8IEE! &GRE A!H >M&GRE.+
.
[ NNN
[ 2E.
[ 8"en an act $"ose de#elopment "ad taken place $ould de#elop again,
[ >3 an act, because it persists, e-ists t"roug" its o$n nature.
.
>8 IOG9H /E 8O8A9 6AAOS.+
.
9B: <!o absolute $"olesome or un$"olesome actions and t"eir 3ruits@
.
[ NNN
[ 2).
[ An action is t"at $"ose Csel3C atman+ is desire, and t"e desires do not really e-ist.
[ >3 t"ese desires do not really e-ist, "o$ $ould t"e action really e-istO
.
!O REA9 HES>RES, !O REA9 A68>O!S: >n section ), t"e emptiness o3 desires and t"e
one $"o desires "a#e been demonstrated. >3 t"ere is no real desires, t"en t"ere is no real
actions moti#ated by t"em.+
.
[ NNN
[ 2*.
[ Action and desire are declared to be t"e conditioning cause o3 t"e body.
[ >3 action and desire are empty, $"at need one say about CbodyCO
.
8AERE >S !O A/SO9G8E IAO9ESOME OR G!IAO9ESOME A68>O!S A!H 8AE>R
FRG>8S: >n section ', t"e emptiness o3 causes, causality and e33ects "a#e been
demonstrated. So i3 t"e empty desires and actions are t"e conditioning causes, and t"e
body is t"e e33ect, t"en t"e body is also empty o3 in"erent e-istence. So t"e $"ole cycle o3
moti#e, action, karma, and results o3 karma is an empty cycle.+
.
MO8>:E HES>RE ...+ --W A68>O!S --W FRG>8S /OH% ...+
A99 EM&8%
.
9B: <Emptiness o3 t"e $"ole c"ain o3 karma and its 3ruits@
.
[ NNN
[ 20.
[ <An opponent tries to establis" an identi3iable entity by saying:@
[ 8"e man s"rouded in ignorance, and c"ained by cra#ing trsna+
[ >s one $"o seeks en5oyment. Ae is not di33erent 3rom t"e one $"o acts, nor
identical to it.
.
[ 2(.
[ Since action is not Coriginated presupposing t"e conditionsC nor 3ails to arise 3rom
presupposing t"e conditions,
[ 8"ere is no one acting.
.
!O REA9 HOER: >n section 2, t"e emptiness o3 t"e doer, t"e action, and t"e ob5ect o3 t"e
action, $ere demonstrated. 8"e doer be3ore, during and a3ter t"e action is not t"e same,
nor di33erent. 8"e doer is not in"erently e-isting, not completely non-e-isting, not bot",
not neit"er.+
.
[ NNN
[ 1?.
[ >3 t"ere is no action, "o$ could t"ere be one $"o acts and t"e product o3 actionO
[ And i3 t"ere is no product, "o$ can t"ere be an en5oyer o3 t"e productO
.
!O REA9 FRG>8S, !O REA9 E!JO%ME!8 OF 8AE FRG>8S: >n section 2, it "as been
s"o$n t"at t"ere is no real origination o3 any action, t"us no real duration, and ending o3
an action, >3 t"ere is o real action, t"en t"ere is no real sub5ect o3 t"e action, and no real
ob5ect o3 t"e action. And i3 t"ere is no ob5ect o3 t"e action, t"en nobody can en5oy it.+
.
9B: <8"e $"ole c"ain is like a magical trick@
.
[ NNN
[ 1'.
[ Just as a teac"er, by "is magical po$er, 3ormed a magical 3orm,
[ And t"is magical 3orm 3ormed again anot"er magical 3ormQ
.
[ 12.
[ Just so t"e Cone $"o 3ormsC is "imsel3 being 3ormed magically, and t"e act
per3ormed by "im
[ >s like a magical 3orm being magically 3ormed by anot"er magical 3orm.
.
[ 11.
[ Hesires, actions, bodies, producers, and products
[ Are like a 3airy castle, resembling a mirage, a dream.
.
A F9OI OF >!8ERHE&E!HE!6E I>8AOG8 A!% >!AERE!8 E!8>8>ES >! >8: 8"e $"ole
c"ain o3 karma and its 3ruits is like a cascade o3 illusions.+
.
92: <Section '0 - An Analysis o3 t"e >ndi#idual Sel3 atma+ t"e sel3 and p"enomena+ = '2
= <!ir#ana is realiMing t"e non-dual nature o3 t"e sel3 and e#eryt"ing, beyond causality,
production, conceptualiMation, or t"e 3our e-tremes@@
.
RVSGMV:
-- 8"e sel3 is not t"e same nor di33erent t"an t"e 3i#e aggregates
-- 8"ere is no pree-istent o$ner o3 t"e 3i#e aggregates, no possessions.
-- 8"ere is no empty sel3.
-- I"en all actions based on t"e belie3 o3 in"erent e-istence stops, t"ere is no more
actions based on ignorance, no more sel3-conditioning, no more becoming, no more
conseJuential su33ering.
-- 8"e sel3 is not e-istent, not non-e-istent, not bot", not neit"er.
-- 8"is real non-dual nature is beyond causality, conceptualiMation, direct perception,
discrimination, e-istence and non-e-istence.
-- E#eryt"ing is empty o3 in"erent e-istence because dependently arisen. 8"ese t$o trut"s
are interdependent, inseparable, non-dual: not t$o, not one. 8"is is called t"e per3ect
Gnion o3 8"e 8$o trut"s.
-- 8"is absolute non-dual nature o3 e#eryt"ing is not added to e#eryt"ing, it is not a
c"aracteristic or a product, it is not a #ie$, or anot"er adapted skill3ul means. Ie use
$ords to point to$ard it, but no $ords can describe it.+
.
91: <8"e real nature o3 t"e sel3@
.
[ NNN
[ '.
[ >3 t"e indi#idual sel3 atma+ $ere <identical to@ t"e CgroupsC skand"a+, t"en it
$ould partake o3 origination and destruction.
[ >3 <t"e indi#idual sel3@ $ere di33erent 3rom t"e Cgroups,C t"en it $ould be $it"out
t"e c"aracteristics o3 t"e Cgroups.C
.
8AE SE9F >S !O8 8AE SAME !OR H>FFERE!8 8AA! 8AE F>:E ADDREDA8ES: I"en
soug"t, t"ere is no sel3 $it"in t"e 3i#e aggregates, nor outside o3 t"e aggregated.+
.
[ NNN
[ 2.
[ >3 t"e indi#idual sel3 does not e-ist, "o$ t"en $ill t"ere be somet"ing $"ic" is Cmy
o$nCO
[ 8"ere is lack o3 possessi#eness and no ego on account o3 t"e cessation o3 sel3 and
t"at $"ic" is Cmy o$n.C
.
8AERE >S !O &REEU>S8E!8 OI!ER OF 8AE F>:E ADDREDA8ES: Since a sel3 $it"out t"e
3i#e aggregates is not possible, t"en t"ere is no permanent o$ner o3 t"e 3i#e aggregates
o3 eac" rebirt". So t"ere is no o$ners"ip as demonstrated in section ( about o$ners"ip o3
t"e si- senses. 8"ere is no real me, mysel3 and my stu33.+
.
[ NNN
[ 1.
[ Ae $"o is $it"out possessi#eness and $"o "as no ego Q Ae, also, does not e-ist.
[ I"oe#er sees C"e $"o is $it"out possessi#enessC or C"e $"o "as no egoC <really@
does not see.
.
EM&8>!ESS OF EM&8>!ESS: 8"ere is no empty sel3, or sel3 $it"out possessions.+
.
91: <8"e result o3 seeing t"e real non-dual nature o3 sel3 and e#eryt"ing@
.
[ NNN
[ B.
[ I"en C>C and CmineC "a#e stopped, t"en also t"ere is not an outside nor an inner
sel3.
[ 8"e CacJuiringC <o3 karma@ upadana+ is stopped, on account o3 t"at destruction,
t"ere is destruction o3 #erse e-istence.
.
IAE! A99 A68>O!S /ASEH O! 8AE /E9>EF OF >!AERE!8 EU>S8E!6E S8O&S: 8"e sel3
and t"e $orld are not di33erent, not t"e same. 8"ey are inseparable, non-dual: not t$o,
not one. So t"ere is no absolute basis 3or discrimination or non-discrimination. !ot"ing
pure or impure in absolute terms. !ot"ing to do, or not do in absolute terms. From t"is
t"e uncontrolled sel3-conditioning stops, and t"e conseJuential su33ering stops.
-- /ut t"at doesnSt mean t"at all actions stops, it 5ust mean t"at all actions based on
ignorance stops. An action based on t"e $isdom realiMing t"e real non-dual nature o3
e#eryt"ing is a /udd"a acti#ity. Emptiness doesnSt deny dependent origination. One "as to
be per3ectly united $it" t"e ot"er, as t"ey "a#e al$ays been: inseparable, non-dual: not
t$o, not one.+
.
[ NNN
[ E.
[ On account o3 t"e destruction o3 t"e pains klesa+ o3 action t"ere is release 3or
pains o3 action e-ist 3or "im $"o constructs t"em.
[ 8"ese pains result 3rom p"enomenal e-tension prapanca+, but t"is p"enomenal
e-tension comes to a stop by emptiness.
.
I"en actions based on ignorance o3 t"e real non-dual nature o3 e#eryt"ing stops t"eir
conseJuential su33ering stops. 8"is $"at is called !ir#ana. And t"ere is no sel3 in t"ere.+
.
91: <&ro#isional and de3initi#e teac"ings about t"e sel3@
9B: </eyond t"e t$o e-tremes@
.
[ NNN
[ ).
[ 8"ere is t"e teac"ing o3 Cindi#idual sel3C atma+, and t"e teac"ing o3 Cnon-
indi#idual sel3C anatma+,
[ /ut neit"er Cindi#idual sel3C nor Cnon-indi#idual sel3C $"ate#er "as been taug"t by
t"e /udd"as.
.
8AE M>HH9E IA% /E8IEE! A! >!AERE!8 SE9F A!H A 6OM&9E8E9% !O!-EU>S8E!8
SE9F: As seen in section 'E, some teac"ings are pro#isional, and some teac"ings are
de3initi#e. One "as to be able to make t"e distinction bet$een t"e t$o. 8"e teac"ings t"at
talk about an indi#idual sel3, absolute $"olesome and un$"olesome action and t"eir
conseJuences, t"e I"eel o3 9i3e, t"e strict la$ o3 Hependent Origination, etc, are
pro#isional teac"ings 3or t"ose not ready 3or t"e teac"ings o3 emptiness. 8"e teac"ings o3
no indi#idual sel3 are also pro#isional teac"ings. 8"e Sutras t"at teac" t"e need to stay
a$ay 3rom bot" e-tremes are o3 t"e second kind: de3initi#e meaning teac"ings. >n t"at
sense t"e /udd"a "as ne#er taug"t anyt"ing because any #ie$ is necessarily based on
eit"er in"erent e-istence, non-e-istence, bot", or neit"er. 8"e de3initi#e teac"ings about
t"e Middle Iay prone to stay a$ay 3rom all 3our e-tremes.+
.
9B: </eyond conceptualiMation@
.
[ NNN
[ *.
[ I"en t"e domain o3 t"oug"t "as been dissipated, Ct"at $"ic" can be statedC is
dissipated.
[ 8"ose t"ings $"ic" are unoriginated and not terminated, like nir#ana, constitute
t"e 8rut" d"armata+.
.
/E%O!H A99 6O!6E&8GA9>ZA8>O! >S !>R:A!A: All #ie$s, all statements based on
Ksub5ect, #erb, ob5ectL, all conceptions based on causality, all #ie$s based on e-istence,
non-e-istence, bot", or neit"er, are all empty o3 in"erent e-istence. 8"at $as
demonstrated in t"e pre#ious c"apters. All trio sub5ect, #erb, complement, are
interdependent, inseparable, non-dual. 8"e real nature o3 e#eryt"ing cannot be described
using conceptualiMation. >t "as to be directly seen by directly seeing t"e real nature o3 our
o$n mind, and t"us o3 e#eryt"ing, in t"e present, $it"out conceptualiMation. Once $e
directly see t"is, t"en it is like $"at $e call !ir#ana.
-- /ut t"at doesnSt mean t"at all conceptualiMation are KbadL, t"at $e s"ould drop t"em
all, re5ect t"em. 8"at $ould be 5umping to t"e ot"er e-treme. !ot"ing is good, or bad in
absolute terms. 8"ere is not"ing to do or not do in absolute terms. Ie 5ust "a#e to see
t"e real nature o3 e#en conceptualiMation. 6onceptualiMing $it" ignorance is binding,
conceptualiMing $it" $isdom is /udd"a speec". 8"at is t"e meaning o3 t"e union o3 t"e
8$o 8rut"s: dependent origination, and emptiness.+
.
9B: </eyond accepting or re5ecting t"e 3our e-tremes@
.
[ NNN
[ 0.
[ E#eryt"ing is CactualC tat"yam+ or Cnot-actual,C or bot" Cacts actual-and-not-
actual,C
[ Or Cneit"er-actual-nor-not-actualC:
[ 8"is is t"e teac"ing o3 t"e /udd"a.
.
6O!:E!8>O!A9 8RG8AS F AHA&8EH S4>99FG9 MEA!S: 8"e absolute nature o3
e#eryt"ing is beyond any conceptualiMation, it cannot be described or taug"t like any ot"er
ordinary kno$ledge. So t"e /udd"a uses adapted skill3ul means to "elp all sentient beings
stuck $it" t"eir o$n obsessions and 3ears. :ie$s based on any o3 t"e 3our e-tremes are
t"en used depending on t"e particular situations. 6on#entional trut"s, $"en used $it" t"e
$isdom realiMing t"e emptiness o3 t"e t"ree, become /udd"a teac"ings. 8"ere is no KbadL
conceptualiMation, 5ust conceptualiMation $it" ignorance or $it" $isdom. /ut e#en t"at
cannot be really described $it" conceptualiMation.+
.
[ NNN
[ (.
[ C!ot caused by somet"ing else,C Cpeace3ul,C Cnot elaborated by discursi#e
t"oug"t,C
[ C>ndeterminate,C Cundi33erentiatedC: suc" are t"e c"aracteristics o3 true reality
tatt#a+.
.
A/SO9G8E 8RG8A: /ut t"e real non-dual nature o3 e#eryt"ing is beyond causality
section '+, beyond conceptualiMation section 2+, beyond any perceptions or
discrimination section 1+, non-dual. >t is beyond t"e 3our e-tremes o3 e-istence, non-
e-istence, bot", neit"er.+
.
/ut Ctrue realityC is beyond t"ose 3our possibilities t"e 8etralemma+
/eyond mental constructions, discriminations, beyond description, $it"out t"e stress o3
origination and cessation.
.
9B: <8"e union o3 dependent origination and emptiness@
.
[ NNN
[ '?.
[ I"ate#er e-ists, being dependent <on somet"ing else@, is certainly not identical to
t"at <ot"er t"ing@,
[ !or is a t"ing di33erent 3rom t"at, t"ere3ore, it is neit"er destroyed nor eternal.
.
E:ER%8A>!D >S EM&8% OF >!AERE!8 EU>S8E!6E /E6AGSE HE&E!HE!89%
OR>D>!A8EH: 6ause and e33ect are not t"e same, not di33erent. !ot"ing really originates,
last, is being trans3ormed, or ceases. !ot"ing e-ist and c"ange. !ot"ing stays t"e same
e#en 3or an in3initesimal moment. = 8"e t$o trut"s: dependent origination and emptiness
are mutually supporti#e, inseparable, non-dual: not t$o, not one.+
.
[ NNN
[ ''.
[ 8"e immortal essence o3 t"e teac"ing o3 t"e /udd"as, t"e lords o3 t"e $orld, is
[ Iit"out singleness or multiplicity, it is not destroyed nor is it eternal.
.
8A>S >S !O8 A &ROHG68: 8"is absolute non-dual nature o3 e#eryt"ing beyond any
conceptualiMation is not somet"ing added to e#eryt"ing, it is not t"e c"aracteristic o3
e#eryt"ing. >t is not anot"er 3abricated #ie$, anot"er adapted skill3ul means. >t is beyond
e-istence and non-e-istence, beyond causality space . time, beyond e#eryt"ing. So it
cannot be destroyed.+
.
[ NNN
[ '2.
[ >3 3ully-de#eloped /udd"as do not arise <in t"e $orld@ and t"e disciples <o3 t"e
/udd"a@ disappear,
[ 8"en, independently, t"e kno$ledge o3 t"e sel3-produced enlig"tened ones
pratyekabudd"a+ is produced.
.
>8 >S !O8 HE&E!HE!8 O! A!%8A>!D OR >!HE&E!HE!8+: 8"is same absolute non-dual
nature o3 e#eryt"ing beyond any conceptualiMation can be disco#ered by any being in any
realms $"o seeks t"e trut" until "e disco#ers it.+
.
9': <E9EME!8S OF A H>S6RE8E MOHE9@
.
-- '. time,
-- 2. t"e "armony e-isting bet$een t"e elements constituting a p"enomenon,
-- 1. and t"e occurrence appearance+ and dissolution o3 suc" composite p"enomena.
.
92: <Section '( - An Analysis o3 8ime kala+ time+ = ) = <!o real space-time limits o3
anyt"ing, no real space or time@@
.
RVSGMV:
-- &ast, present and 3uture are e#idently de3ined in interdependence. 8"ose are relati#e
terms e#en con#entionally. Ie al$ays assume Kt"e past be3ore somet"ingL, Kt"e 3uture
a3ter somet"ingL, Kt"e present simultaneous $it" somet"ingL. And $"en it is not e-plicitly
mentioned it is assumed relati#e to t"e actual e-istence.
-- 8"e interdependence o3 past, present and 3uture can also be s"o$n using t"e analysis
o3 t"e interdependence o3 cause and e33ect as described in section '. 6ause and e33ect
cannot be t"e same or di33erent.
-- Ie "a#e already seen in section '', An Analysis o3 t"e &ast pur#a+ and Future 9imits
aparakiti+ <o3 E-istence@, t"at i3 t"ere is no limits to t"e beginning or ending o3 e-istence,
t"en t"ere is no Kin t"e middleL o3 e-istence.
-- Ie "a#e also seen in section 2 and *, t"at t"ere is no real origination, no real, cessation
and no real duration F e-istence o3 any action or product.
-- Ie "a#e also seen in section E, t"at t"ere is no absolute space e-isting independently
o3 its de3ining c"aracteristic.
-- >n t"e present section, t"e Juestion o3 t"e space-time limits o3 anyt"ing is e-amined.
-- 8"ere cannot be any be3ore, a3ter or in t"e middle in space or time+ o3 anyt"ing empty
o3 in"erent e-istence. And since space and time are dependent on t"ings 3or t"eir
de3inition, t"en space and time are empty o3 in"erent e-istence.+
.
91: <Emptiness o3 t"e 1 times because o3 interdependence@
.
[ NNN
[ '.
[ >3 Ct"e presentC and C3utureC e-ist presupposing Ct"e past,C
[ C8"e presentC and C3utureC $ill e-ist in Ct"e past.C
.
8AE EFFE68 &RESE!8 . FG8GRE+ >S !O8 >!69GHEH >! 8AE 6AGSE &AS8+ -- 8AE
SAME. >3 t"e e33ect e-ists presupposing t"e cause, t"en t"e e33ect $ould e-ist in t"e
cause. >3 $e assume t"e e33ect e-ist because t"ere is an absolute cause 3or it, t"en t"e
e33ect must be included in t"e cause. /ut i3 t"ey $ere t"e same or simultaneous t"en
t"ere $ould be no need to cause t"e e33ect again.+
.
[ NNN
[ 2.
[ >3 Ct"e presentC and C3utureC did not e-ist t"ere <in Ct"e pastC@,
[ Ao$ could Ct"e presentC and C3utureC e-ist presupposing t"at CpastO
.
8AE EFFE68 &RESE!8 . FG8GRE+ >S !O8 !O8->!69GHEH >! 8AE 6AGSE &AS8+ --
H>FFERE!8: >3 t"e e33ect did not e-ist at all in t"e cause, t"e "o$ could t"e e33ect be
similar to t"e causeO >3 t"ey $ere completely di33erent, t"en it $ould mean t"at anyt"ing
can cause anyt"ing.+
.
[ NNN
[ 1.
[ Iit"out presupposing Ct"e pastC t"e t$o t"ings <Ct"e presentC and C3utureC@
cannot be pro#ed to e-ist.
[ 8"ere3ore neit"er present nor 3uture time e-ist.
.
8AE EFFE68 &RESE!8 . FG8GRE+ >S EM&8% OF >!AERE!8 EU>S8E!6E /E6AGSE
HE&E!HE!8 O! 8AE 6AGSE &AS8+: 8"e e33ect is necessarily dependent on t"e cause,
t"ere is no e33ect $it"out a cause not di33erent+. /ut t"is dependence is not absolute not
t"e same+. And since t"e e33ect is dependent on t"e cause it is empty o3 in"erent
e-istence.+
.
[ NNN
[ B.
[ >n t"is $ay t"e remaining t$o <times@ can be in#erted.
.
8AE 6AGSE &AS8+ >S !O8 >!69GHEH >! 8AE EFFE68 &RESE!8 . FG8GRE+ -- 8AE
SAME. >3 t"e cause e-ists presupposing t"e e33ect, t"en t"e cause $ould e-ist in t"e
e33ect. >3 $e assume t"e cause e-ist because t"ere is an absolute e33ect o3 it, t"en t"e
cause must be included in t"e e33ect. /ut i3 t"ey $ere t"e same t"en t"ere $ould be no
need 3or a cause again.
.
8AE 6AGSE &AS8+ >S !O8 !O8->!69GHEH >! 8AE EFFE68 &RESE!8 . FG8GRE+ -- 8AE
SAME. >3 t"e cause did not e-ist at all in e33ect, t"e "o$ could t"e cause be similar to t"e
e33ectO >3 t"ey $ere completely di33erent, t"en it $ould mean t"at anyt"ing can be caused
by anyt"ing.
.
8AE 6AGSE &AS8+ >S EM&8% OF >!AERE!8 EU>S8E!6E /E6AGSE HE&E!HE!8 O! 8AE
6AGSE &RESE!8 . FG8GRE+: 8"e cause is necessarily dependent on t"e e33ect, t"ere is
no cause $it"out a e33ect not di33erent+. /ut t"is dependence is not absolute not t"e
same+. And since t"e cause is dependent on t"e e33ect it is empty o3 in"erent e-istence
.
!O!-HGA9>8% OF 8AE 8AREE 8>MES: 8"e t"ree times are interdependent like t"at. 8"ey
are empty o3 in"erent e-istence because interdependent. 8"ey are not t"e same, not
di33erent. 8"ey are inseparable, non-dual: not t$o, not one. 8"ey are co-dependently
arisen concepts.+
.
91: <Emptiness o3 any space-time limits@
.
[ NNN
[ 8"us one $ould regard C"ig"est,C Clo$estC and Cmiddle,C etc., as oneness and
di33erence. or Ca3ter,C Cbe3oreC and CmiddleC, or Crig"t,C Cle3tC and CmiddleC T+
.
>3 Ct"e middleC and C"ig"estC e-ist presupposing Ct"e lo$est,C
C8"e middleC and C"ig"estC $ill e-ist in Ct"e lo$est.C
>3 Ct"e middleC and C"ig"estC did not e-ist t"ere <in Ct"e lo$estC@,
Ao$ could Ct"e middleC and C"ig"estC e-ist presupposing t"at Clo$estO
Iit"out presupposing Ct"e lo$estC t"e t$o t"ings <Ct"e middleC and C"ig"estC@ cannot be
pro#ed to e-ist.
8"ere3ore neit"er middle nor "ig"est e-ist.
>n t"is $ay t"e remaining t$o can be in#erted.+
.
!O &RE6>SE S&A6E-8>ME 9>M>8S OF A!%8A>!D: 9ike t"ere is no sub5ect, #erb, or
complement $it"out t"e ot"er t$o, t"ere is no a3ter, be3ore, or middle in any direction o3
space or time+ $it"out t"e ot"er t$o.
-- 8"ere is no be3ore, a3ter, or middle in time o3 any action or p"enomenon. 8"ere is no
be3ore, a3ter, or in t"e middle in space o3 any ob5ect. 8"ere is no bello$, on top, or in t"e
middle in space o3 any ob5ect. 8"e e-treme space-time limits o3 anyt"ing, in any direction,
cannot be 3ound.
-- 8"e e-act time o3 t"e origination, or cessation, o3 any action or p"enomenon cannot be
3ound among t"e in3inite 3lo$s o3 empty causes and e33ects.
-- 8"e e-act spatial boundary o3 any ob5ect cannot be 3ound among all t"e in3inite parts
and $"oles.
-- 8"ose space-time limits, like t"e action or ob5ect itsel3, are merely imputed by t"e mind,
empty o3 in"erent e-istence.+
.
91: <!o absolute space-time or space-time inter#al@
.
[ NNN
[ E.
[ A non-stationary CtimeC cannot be CgraspedC, and a stationary CtimeC $"ic" can be
grasped does not e-ist.
[ Ao$, t"en, can one percei#e time i3 it is not CgraspedCO
.
IE 6A!!O8 H>RE689% &ER6E>:E A! A/SO9G8E S&A6E-8>ME OR S&A6E-8>ME
>!8ER:A9. 8o deduce time $e need at least t$o moments o3 consciousness, but t"ose
t$o moments cannot percei#e eac" ot"er and establis" an inter-moment entity. And e#en
$it" space, t"ere is no direct perception o3 anyt"ing as seen in section 1.+
.
[ NNN
[ ).
[ Since time is dependent on a t"ing b"a#a+, "o$ can time <e-ist@ $it"out a t"ingO
[ 8"ere is not any t"ing $"ic" e-ists, "o$, t"en, $ill time become <somet"ing@O
.
8>ME A!H S&A6E ARE EM&8% OF >!AERE!8 EU>S8E!6E /E6AGSE HE&E!HE!8 O!
8A>!DS: Our notion o3 space-time is dependent on our notions o3 t"ings. 8"ere is no
space-time $it"out making a re3erence to t"e beginning o3 somet"ing, or its ending, or its
durationFlengt". 8"ere is no space-time $it"out a t"ing, and no t"ing $it"out a space-
time.
.
8AERE >S !O A/SO9G8E /AS>S FOR S&A6E-8>ME OR S&A6E-8>ME >!8ER:A9 8AA8
6OG9H /E H>RE689% O/SER:EH: 8"ere is no absolute basis to de3ine space-time or a
space-time durationFlengt". A precise space-time $ould be dependent on t"e beginning
in space or time+ o3 somet"ing, but $e "a#e seen in section 2 and * t"at t"ere is no real
origination o3 any action or product, so $e cannot de3ine a precise time on t"at basis.
Also, i3 t"ere is no real origination, t"ere is no real cessation and no real duration, so $e
cannot de3ine an absolute time duration on t"is basis. And ot"er$ise time is not directly
perceptible. 8"e same 3or t"e space coordinates.+
.
92: <Section 2? - An Analysis o3 t"e Aggregate samagri+ o3 6auses and 6onditions cause
and e33ect+ - 2B@
91: <A real product sel3+ cannot emerge 3rom its aggregate o3 causes and conditions, nor
3rom anot"er@
.
A! EMERD>!D SE9FO: Suppose t"e sel3 is t"e result o3 t"e aggregation o3 our 3i#e
aggregates o3 clinging, like a ne$ emerging le#el o3 reality, like a $"ole t"at is more t"an
t"e aggregate o3 its parts.+
.
[ NNN
[ '.
[ >3 a product p"ala+ is produced t"roug" t"e aggregate o3 causes and conditions,
[ And e-ists in an aggregate, "o$ $ill it be produced in t"e aggregateO
.
!O SE9F-EMERD>!D E!8>8% RES>H>!D >! 8AE &AR8S: >nstead o3 "a#ing 5ust one cause
causing one e33ect like in section ', "ere $e "a#e an aggregate o3 multiple causes and
conditions resulting in a ne$ emerging product. 6an t"e aggregate o3 causes and
conditions result in a ne$ emerging sel3 O -- 9ike t"ere is no real e33ect caused by a real
cause, t"ere is no real product emerging 3rom a real aggregate, and residing in t"e
aggregate.+
.
[ NNN
[ 2.
[ >3 a product is produced in t"e aggregate o3 causes and conditions,
[ And does not e-ist in t"e aggregate, "o$ $ill it be produced in t"e aggregateO
.
!O O8AER-EMERD>!D RES>H>!D OG8S>HE OF 8AE &AR8S: 9ike t"ere is no real e33ect
caused by a real cause, t"ere is no real product emerging 3rom a real aggregate, and not
residing in t"e aggregate.+
.
[ NNN
[ 1.
[ >3 t"e product is in t"e aggregate o3 causes and conditions,
[ Iould it not be CgraspedC <i.e., located@ in t"e aggregateO /ut it is not CgraspedC
in t"e aggregate.
.
8AE &ROHG68 >S !O8 >! 8AE 6AGS>!D &AR8S = 8AE SAME: I"en soug"t, t"e product
is not 3ound in t"e aggregate. 9ike t"e $"ole is not inside o3 its parts.+
.
[ NNN
[ B.
[ >3 t"e product is not in t"e aggregate o3 causes and conditions,
[ 8"en t"e causes and conditions $ould be t"e same as non-causes and non-
conditions.
.
8AE &ROHG68 >S !O8 OG8S>HE OF 8AE 6AGS>!D &AR8S -- H>FFERE!8: I"en soug"t,
t"e product is not 3ound outside o3 t"e aggregates. 9ike t"e $"ole is not outside o3 its
parts.+
.
91: <A cause and t"e product cannot be simultaneous, nor separate in time@
.
[ NNN
[ E.
[ >3 a cause, "a#ing gi#en t"e cause 3or a product, is stopped,
[ 8"en t"at $"ic" is Cgi#enC and t"at $"ic" is stopped $ould be t$o identities o3
t"e cause.
.
!O >!H>RE68 6AGS>!D 8AROGDA A! >!8ERMEH>AR% /E8IEE! 8AE 6AGSE A!H
EFFE68: A participating cause cannot be acti#e $"ile t"e e33ect is present ot"er$ise it
$ould continue to participate. So t"e cause and t"e e33ect cannot be simultaneous. On t"e
ot"er "and, t"e participating cause and t"e e33ect cannot be separate in time ot"er$ise
t"e participation $ill "a#e no direct link $it" t"e e33ect. As 3or an indirect participation
t"roug" an intermediary Ktoken to causeL t"at $ould bridge t"e gap bet$een t"e t$o
separated cause and e33ect, t"at doesnSt make sense eit"er because t"en t"at token $ould
be t"e ne$ produced cause and t"e problem $ould still remain.+
.
[ NNN
[ ).
[ >3 a cause $it"out "a#ing gi#en t"e cause 3or a product is stopped
[ 8"en, t"e cause being stopped, t"e product $ould be produced as somet"ing
deri#ed 3rom a non-cause a"etuka+.
.
On t"e ot"er "and, i3 t"e participating cause is stopped be3ore t"e e33ect, $it"out "a#ing
3ound a $ay to contribute, t"en it $ill be too late. 8"e e33ect $ould be $it"out t"is cause.+
.
91: <8"e aggregate and t"e product cannot be simultaneous, nor separate in time@
.
[ NNN
[ *.
[ >3 t"e product $ould become #isible concomitantly $it" t"e aggregate <o3 causes
and conditions@,
[ 8"en it $ould logically 3ollo$ t"at t"e producer and t"at $"ic" is produced <e-ist@
in t"e same moment.
.
8AE &ROHG68 6A!!O8 /E 6O!6OM>8A!8 I>8A 8AE ADDREDA8>O! OF 8AE 6AGSES
A!H 6O!H>8>O!S: Ot"er$ise t"ey $ould be t"e same.+
.
[ NNN
[ 0.
[ >3 t"e product $ould become #isible be3ore t"e aggregate,
[ 8"en t"e product, $it"out being related to causes and conditions, $ould be
somet"ing deri#ed 3rom a non-cause.
.
8AE &ROHG68 6A!!O8 /E SE&ARA8E >! 8>ME A!H /EFORE 8AE ADDREDA8>O! OF
8AE 6AGSES A!H 6O!H>8>O!S. 8"ere is no e33ect $it"out a cause.+
.
91: <A cause doesnSt stay t"e same, nor c"ange into somet"ing di33erent@
.
[ NNN
[ (.
[ >3, $"en t"e cause o3 t"e product is stopped, t"ere $ould be a continuation o3 t"e
cause,
[ >t $ould logically 3ollo$ t"at t"ere $ould be anot"er production o3 t"e pre#ious
producing cause.
.
8AE 6AGSE 6A!!O8 6O!8>!GE 8O /E 8AE SAME /EFORE, HGR>!D A!H AF8ER 8AE
6AGS>!D, ot"er$ise it $ill still continue to cause a3ter t"e production o3 t"e e33ect..+
.
[ NNN
[ '?.
[ Ao$ can t"at $"ic" is stopped, i.e., somet"ing $"ic" "as disappeared, produce
t"e arising o3 a productO
.
8AE 6AGSE 6A!!O8 /E H>FFERE!8 /EFORE, HGR>!D A!H AF8ER 8AE 6AGS>!D,
ot"er$ise t"ere $ould be no continuity.+
.
91: <8"e product is not caused by its parts or by ot"er parts@
.
[ NNN
[ Ao$ could a cause $"ic" is enclosed by its product, e#en t"oug" it persists,
originate <t"at product@O
.
A part o3 t"e product cannot be one o3 its cause.+
.
[ NNN
[ ''.
[ Or i3 t"at <cause@ $ere not enclosed by t"e product, $"ic" product $ould it
produceO
[ For t"e cause does not produce t"e product, "a#ing seen or not "a#ing seen <t"e
product@.
.
A non-part o3 t"e product cannot be one o3 its cause.+
.
[ NNN
[ '2.
[ 8"ere is no concomitance o3 a past product $it" a past cause, a 3uture <cause@ or
present <cause@.
.
[ NNN
[ '1.
[ 6ertainly t"ere is no concomitance o3 t"e present product $it" 3uture cause, past
<cause@ or present <cause@.
.
[ NNN
[ 'B.
[ 6ertainly t"ere is no concomitance o3 a 3uture product $it" a present cause, 3uture
<cause@ or past <cause@.
.
OOO A product in any o3 t"e t"ree times, could ne#er be concomitant $it" a cause in any
o3 t"e t"ree times.+
.
[ NNN
[ 'E.
[ >3 t"ere is no concomitance $"ate#er, "o$ $ould t"e cause produce t"e productO
[ Or i3 a concomitance e-ists, "o$ $ould t"e cause produce t"e productO
.
A cause and t"e product be ne#er be concomitant simultaneous+ or separate in time.+
.
91: <8"ere is no real origination, nor cessation o3 a product@
.
[ NNN
[ ').
[ >3 t"e cause is empty o3 a product, "o$ $ould it produce t"e productO
[ >3 t"e cause is not empty o3 a product, "o$ $ould it produce t"e productO
.
8"e cause is not absolute. 8"e cause doesnSt include t"e product, nor does it e-clude t"e
product.+
.
[ NNN
[ '*.
[ A non-empty product $ould not be originated, <and@ a non-empty <product@ $ould
not be destroyed.
[ 8"en t"at is non-empty $"ic" $ill not originate or not disappear.
.
8"ere is no real origination, no real cessation o3 a real product.+
.
[ NNN
[ '0.
[ Ao$ $ould t"at be produced $"ic" is emptyO
[ Ao$ $ould t"at be destroyed $"ic" is emptyO
[ >t logically 3ollo$s, t"en, t"at $"ic" is empty is not originated and not destroyed.
.
8"ere is no real origination, no real cessation o3 a non-real product.+
.
StrengE: 9ike$ise, in con#entional speec", sunya empty+ designates t"at $"ic" is
beyond "uman e-pression, as suc" t"is term indicates t"e nature o3 ultimate reality.
/ecause o3 t"e non-substantiality o3 t"is ontology, CemptinessC is not used to designate a
state o3 e-istence, but rat"er a condition $"ic" precludes a static ontological c"aracter.
8"is usage is e-empli3ied in 2?.'0: +
.
91: <!on-duality@
.
[ NNN
[ '(.
[ 6ertainly a oneness o3 cause and product is not possible at all.
[ !or is a di33erence o3 cause and product possible at all.
.
!O!-HGA9>8% OF 6AGSE A!H EFFE68: 8"e cause and e33ect cannot be t"e same, or
di33erent. 8"ey are inseparable, non-dual: not t$o, not one.+
.
[ NNN
[ 2?.
[ >3 t"ere $ere a oneness o3 t"e cause and product, t"en t"ere $ould be an identity
o3 t"e originator and $"at is originated.
[ >3 t"ere $ere a di33erence o3 product and cause, t"en a cause $ould be t"e same
as t"at $"ic" is not a cause.
.
>3 t"ey $ere t"e same t"ere $ould be no need 3or production. >3 t"ey $ere totally
di33erent t"en t"ere could be no causal link.+
.
91: <8"e Middle Iay bet$een e-istence and non-e-istence o3 t"e t"ree: cause
aggregate+, production, product@
.
[ NNN
[ 2'.
[ 6an a cause produce a product $"ic" is essentially e-isting in itsel3 s#ab"#a+ O
[ 6an a cause produce a product $"ic" is not essentially e-isting in itsel3 s#ab"a#a+
O
.
!O >!AERE!8 &ROHG68, !O 6OM&9E8E9% !O!-EU>S8E!8 &ROHG68: 8"ere is no
production o3 a real product, or o3 a non-real product.+
.
[ NNN
[ 22.
[ >t is not possible to "a#e C$"at is by its nature a causeC "etut#a+ o3 Ct"at $"ic" is
not producing.C
[ >3 C$"at is by its nature a causeC is not possible, $"ose product $ill e-istO
.
!O >!AERE!8 6AGSE, !O 6OM&9E8E9% !O!-EU>S8E!8 6AGSE: 8"ere is no production
3rom a real cause, or 3rom a non-real cause.+
.
[ NNN
[ 21.
[ Ao$ $ill t"at <aggregate o3 causes and conditions@ produce a product $"en
[ 8"at $"ic" is t"e aggregate o3 causes and conditions does not produce itsel3 by
itsel3O
.
!O F>RS8 6AGSE: !o in"erent cause t"at is not itsel3 dependent on ot"er causes and
conditions.+
.
[ NNN
[ 2B.
[ 8"e product is not produced by t"e aggregate,
[ nor is t"e product not produced by t"e aggregate.
[ Iit"out t"e product, "o$ is t"ere an aggregate o3 conditionsO
.
!O >!AERE!8 &ROHG68>O!, !O 6OM&9E8E9% !O!-EU>S8E!8 &ROHG68>O!: !o
in"erent production, no complete absence o3 production eit"er. !o in"erent cause and
e33ect, but no cause $it"out an e33ect, and no e33ect $it"out a cause. One cannot e-ist
$it"out t"e ot"er. 8"ey are empty o3 in"erent e-istence because interdependent.+
.
92: <Section 2' - An Analysis o3 Origination samb"a#a+ and Hisappearance #ib"a#a+
coming to be and passing a$ay+ - 2'@
.
RVSGMV:
-- All products are assumed to go t"roug" t"e t"ree stages o3 becoming: origination,
duration, and cessation. 8"is s"ould also apply to t"e successi#e moments o3 a single
consciousness.
-- 8"e problem is: Ao$ to account 3or t"e 5unction bet$een t$o consecuti#e moments
$"ere t"e cessation o3 t"e cause t"e pre#ious moment o3 consciousness+ and t"e
origination o3 t"e e33ect t"e ne-t moment o3 consciousness+ s"ould be some"o$
sync"roniMed in order to assure t"e continuity o3 t"e consciousness stream.
-- From t"e analysis o3 section ', it can be s"o$n t"at cause and e33ect cannot be t"e
same or simultaneous, nor di33erent or separate in time.
-- So t"ere cannot be any gap bet$een t"e cessation o3 t"e preceding cause and t"e
origination o3 t"e ne-t e33ect, nor can t"ere be o#erlapping.
-- I"at is le3t O !ot"ing. 8"e $"ole concept o3 t"e continuity o3 a consciousness is 3la$ed.
8"ere is continuity but not"ing in"erently e-isting in it.
-- As seen in sections T not"ing e-ist and c"ange. >t is not t"e same consciousness t"at
goes 3rom one moment to t"e ot"er.
-- As seen in sections T t"ere is not"ing permanent t"at goes 3rom one rebirt" to t"e
ot"er, or t"at is 3inally 9iberated.+
.
91: <8$o consecuti#e moments cannot be simultaneous or separate in time@
9B: <6essation o3 t"e cause and origination o3 t"e e33ect cannot be simultaneous or
separate in time@
.
[ NNN
[ '.
[ 8"ere is no disappearance eit"er $it" origination or $it"out it.
[ 8"ere is no origination eit"er $it" disappearance or $it"out it.
.
8"e cessation o3 t"e cause and t"e arising o3 t"e e33ect cannot be simultaneous or
separate in time. Heat" and rebirt" cannot be simultaneous or separate in time.
/irt" and deat" o3 t"e same t"ing cannot e-ist independently or in concomitance. 8"ere is
no deat" $it" or $it"out an birt". 8"ere is no birt" $it" or $it"out a deat".+
.
[ NNN
[ 2.
[ Ao$, indeed, $ill disappearance e-ist at all $it"out originationO
[ <Ao$ could t"ere be@ deat" $it"out birt"O
[ 8"ere is no disappearance $it"out <prior@ origination.
.
8"e cause cannot disappear be3ore t"e e33ect, ot"er$ise t"ere $ould be a cause $it"out
an e33ect, a deat" $it"out a rebirt".
8"ere cannot be deat" $it"out a birt" o3 t"e same t"ing -- independently.+
.
[ NNN
[ 1.
[ Ao$ can disappearance e-ist concomitantly $it" originationO
[ Since, surely, deat" does not e-ist at t"e same moment as birt".
.
8"e cessation o3 t"e cause and t"e origination o3 t"e e33ect cannot be simultaneous,
ot"er$ise t"ere $ould be deat" at t"e same time as t"e ne-t rebirt".
Heat" cannot be concomitant $it" birt" o3 t"e same t"ing, since t"ere is no deat" at t"e
moment o3 birt".+
.
[ NNN
[ B.
[ Ao$, indeed, $ill origination e-ist at all $it"out disappearanceO
[ For, impermanence does not 3ail to be 3ound in e-istent t"ings e#er.
.
8"e origination o3 t"e e33ect and t"e cessation o3 t"e cause cannot be separate in time.
8"ere is no origination o3 t"e e33ect $it"out t"e cessation o3 t"e cause, no rebirt" $it"out
t"e deat" o3 t"e pre#ious.
8"ere is no birt" $it"out a deat" o3 t"e same t"ing -- independently.+
.
[ NNN
[ E.
[ Ao$ can origination e-ist concomitantly $it" disappearanceO
[ Since, surely, deat" does not e-ist at t"e same moment as birt".
.
8"e origination o3 t"e e33ect and t"e cessation o3 t"e cause cannot be simultaneous,
ot"er$ise t"ere $ould be rebirt" at t"e same time as t"e pre#ious deat".
/irt" cannot be concomitant $it" deat" o3 t"e same t"ing, since t"ere is no deat" at t"e
moment o3 birt"+
.
[ NNN
[ ).
[ I"en t$o t"ings cannot be pro#ed eit"er separately or toget"er,
[ !o proo3 e-ists o3 t"ose t$o t"ings.
[ Ao$ can t"ese t$o t"ings be pro#edO
.
So t"e cause and t"e e33ect cannot e-ist simultaneously or separately. 8"e deat" and t"e
ne-t rebirt" cannot be simultaneous or separate in time. !eit"er can be pro#en.
So birt" and deat" o3 t"e same t"ing cannot be pro#en toget"er concomitance+ or
separately independently+.+
.
9B: <8"ere is no real origination and cessation@
.
[ NNN
[ *.
[ 8"ere is no origination o3 t"at $"ic" is destructible, nor o3 t"at $"ic" is not-
destructible.
[ 8"ere is no disappearance o3 t"at $"ic" is destructible nor o3 t"at $"ic" is non-
destructible.
.
8"ere is no origination o3 an impermanent or permanent e33ect. And no cessation o3 an
impermanent or permanent cause. !o deat" and rebirt" o3 an impermanent or permanent
being.
>3 t"ere is no birt" o3 an impermanent t"ing, t"ere is certainly no birt" o3 a permanent
t"ing. >3 t"ere is no deat" o3 an impermanent t"ing, t"ere is certainly no deat" o3 a
permanent t"ing.+
.
[ NNN
[ 0.
[ Origination and disappearance cannot e-ist $it"out an e-istent t"ing.
[ Iit"out origination and disappearance an e-istent t"ing does not e-ist.
.
Origination, cessation and duration are interdependent. One cannot e-ist $it"out t"e
ot"er t$o. /irt", deat" and li3e are interdependent. One cannot e-ist $it"out t"e ot"er.+
.
[ NNN
[ (.
[ Origination and disappearance does not obtain 3or t"at $"ic" is empty.
[ Origination and disappearance does not obtain 3or t"at $"ic" is non-empty.
.
8"ere is no origination and cessation o3 somet"ing t"at "as no durationFe-istence. 8"ere
is no origination and cessation o3 somet"ing t"at "as real e-istence. 8"ere is no birt" and
deat" o3 somet"ing $it"out li3e. 8"ere is no birt" and deat" o3 somet"ing $it"out in"erent
li3e.+
.
[ NNN
[ '?.
[ >t does not obtain t"at origination and disappearance are t"e same t"ing.
[ >t does not obtain t"at origination and disappearance are di33erent.
.
So t$o consecuti#e moments are not t"e same, not di33erent.
9ike cause and e33ect, birt" and deat" are not t"e same, not di33erent.+
.
9B: <8"ere cannot be any real origination and cessation o3 anyt"ing e-istent, non-e-istent,
bot", neit"er@
.
[ NNN
[ ''.
[ <%ou argue:@ Origination, as $ell as disappearance, is seen.
[ <8"ere3ore@ it $ould e-ist 3or you.
[ </ut@ origination and disappearance are seen due to a delusion.
.
8"ere is no direct perception o3 origination and cessation as stated in t"e Ab"id"arma.+
.
[ NNN
[ '2.
[ An e-istent t"ing does not originate 3rom <anot"er@ t"ing,
[ and an e-istent t"ing does not originate 3rom a non-e-istent t"ing.
[ Also, a non-e-istent t"ing does not originate 3rom anot"er non-e-istent t"ing,
[ and a non-e-istent t"ing does not originate 3rom an e-istent t"ing.
.
8AERE 6A!!O8 /E A!% REA9 OR>D>!A8>O! A!H 6ESSA8>O! OF A!%8A>!D EU>S8E!8,
!O!-EU>S8E!8, /O8A, !E>8AER: 6ases: real-real, real-non-real, non-real-non-real, non-
real-real+
.
9B: <8"ere is no sel3-origination, ot"er-origination, bot", neit"er@
.
[ NNN
[ '1.
[ An e-istent t"ing does not originate eit"er by itsel3 or by somet"ing di33erent.
[ Or by itsel3 and somet"ing di33erent <at t"e same time@. Ao$, t"en, can it be
producedO
.
EM&8>!ESS OF 8AE OR>D>!A8>O!: !o sel3-causation o3 moments o3 consciousness,
ot"er-causation, bot", neit"er.+
.
91: <Emptiness doesnSt deny t"e continuity, dependent origination, and t"e possible
9iberation@
.
[ NNN
[ 'B.
[ For someone assuming an e-istent t"ing, eit"er an eternalistic or ni"ilistic point o3
#ie$ $ould logically 3ollo$,
[ For t"at e-istent t"ing $ould be eit"er eternal or liable to cessation.
.
>n"erent e-istence $ould lead to t"e e-tremes o3 eternalism or anni"ilationism.+
.
[ NNN
[ 'E.
[ <An opponent ob5ects:@
[ For someone assuming an e-istent t"ing, t"ere is not <only@ eternalism or ni"ilism,
[ Since t"is is e-istence: namely, t"e continuity o3 t"e originating and stopping o3
causes and product.
.
[ NNN
[ ').
[ <!agar5una replies:@
[ >3 t"is is e-istence: namely, t"e continuity o3 originating and stopping o3 causes
and product,
[ >t $ould logically 3ollo$ t"at t"e cause is destroyed because t"e destroyed t"ing
does not originate again.
.
On t"e contrary it is in"erent e-istence t"at $ould make dependent origination
impossible.+
.
[ NNN
[ '*.
[ >3 t"ere is sel3-e-istence o3 somet"ing $"ic" is intrinsically e-isting, t"en non-
e-istence does not obtain.
[ At t"e time o3 nir#ana t"ere is destruction o3 t"e cycle o3 e-istence
b"a#asamtana+ as a result o3 t"e cessation.
.
>n"erent e-istence $ould make !ir#ana impossible.+
.
91: <Emptiness o3 t"e c"ain o3 e-istence F rebirt"s@
.
[ NNN
[ '0.
[ >3 t"e last <part o3 e-istence@ is destroyed, t"e 3irst <part o3@ e-istence does not
obtain.
[ >3 t"e last <part o3 e-istence@ is not destroyed, t"e 3irst <part o3@ e-istence does
not obtain.
.
Iit" real deat" t"ere is no rebirt". Iit" no deat" at all t"ere is no rebirt".
>3 deat" is de3initi#e, t"ere is no rebirt". >3 deat" is not de3initi#e, t"ere is no rebirt".+
.
[ NNN
[ '(.
[ >3 t"e 3irst <part o3 e-istence@ $ere produced $"ile t"e 3inal part $ere being
destroyed,
[ 8"ere $ould be one t"ing being destroyed and being produced <bot" at t"e same
time@.
.
8"e cessation o3 one li3e and t"e origination o3 t"e ne-t rebirt" cannot be simultaneous.
>3 t"e deat" o3 t"e pre#ious li3e $ere to occur simultaneously $it" t"e rebirt" o3 t"e ne-t
li3e, t"ere $ould be deat" and birt" simultaneously.+
.
[ NNN
[ 2?.
[ >3 t"e one Cbeing destroyedC and t"e one Cbeing producedC cannot e-ist toget"er,
[ 6an someone be produced in t"ose Cgroups o3 uni#ersal elementsC skand"as+ in
$"ic" "e is <also@ CdyingCO
.
6an t"ere be a person be dying and reborn simultaneouslyO+
.
[ NNN
[ 2'.
[ 8"us, t"e c"ain o3 e-istences is not possible in any o3 t"e tree times <i.e. past,
present, and 3uture@,
[ And i3 it does not e-ist in t"e t"ree times, "o$ can t"e c"ain o3 e-istences e-istO
.
So t"e c"ain o3 rebirt"s is impossible.+
.
9': <A/OG8 8AE DOA9 . G98>MA8E REA9>8%@
.
-- 8"e state o3 a 3ully completed being - 8at"agata -- G.8. is beyond conceptualiMation
not H.O., not Emptiness+
-- 8"e state o3 an impure being - errors -- not"ing to puri3y, no rig"t and $rong,
e#eryt"ing is pure in emptiness
-- 8"e middle $ay - t"e 8$o 8rut"s -- t"e duality H.O. and Emptiness, a con#entional tool
to stay on t"e raMor edge
-- !ir#ana - 8"e cessation o3 accepting e#eryt"ing as real -- samsara and nir#ana, not
di33erent, not t"e same
-- 8"e met"od -- "o$ $e are conditioned, and "o$ to break all t"e conditioning, t"e
$isdom o3 seeing t"roug"
-- Anybody being 9iberated O -- not"ing is taking rebirt" or being liberated, t"ere is 5ust
t"e 3lo$
.
8"us, seeing t"roug" t"e cyclic conditioning, all constructions body, mind, kno$ledge+
are based on ignorance about sel3-e-istence+, e-pecting, but t"ere is 5ust t"e 3lo$.
.
92: <Section 22 - An Analysis o3 t"e CFully 6ompletedC 8at"agata+ t"e /udd"a+ - ')@
.
RVSGMV:
-- So 3ar $e "a#e talked about impermanent t"ings, con#entional reality.
-- I"at is t"e nature o3 t"e 8at"agata, t"e true nature o3 t"e C#ery 3inal absolute trut"C F
C t"e #ery ultimate realityC O
-- I"ic" concepts, #ie$s, can e-press t"ose O Hependent Origination or Emptiness or ... O
-- A. 6an $e use t"e #ocabulary o3 CHependent OriginationC to e-press t"e nature o3 t"e
8at"agata O
-- -- Ae cannot be in t"e aggregates or outside o3 t"e aggregates
-- -- Ae cannot be dependent or independent o3 t"e aggregates
-- -- !ot"ing is dependent or independent, t"ere is no dependence or independence
-- /. 6an $e use t"e term CemptinessC to e-press t"e nature o3 t"e 8at"agata O
-- -- Emptiness itsel3 is empty, a mental 3abrications dependent o3 t"ings being not
independent.
-- 6. 6an $e ans$er t"e Juestions about t"e e-istence or not .. o3 t"e 8at"agata a3ter
deat" O
-- -- 8"ese Juestions are Cunans$erableC because:
-- -- >n emptiness t"ere is no e-istence, no non-e-istence, no bot", no neit"er
-- H. 6an $e use any concepts to e-press t"e nature o3 t"e 8at"agata or o3 t"e C#ery 3inal
absolute trut"CO
-- -- !o concepts can e-press t"ose. All concepts are mental 3abrications, dependent,
temporary, based on t"e idea o3 sel3-e-istence and opposition duality+.
-- -- 8"ere is no /udd"a to describe, no absolute reality be"ind to describe.
-- E. >mplicit:
-- -- 8"e C#ery ultimate trut"C is not CHependent OriginationC, not CEmptinessC, not /ot",
not some ot"er concepts.
-- -- >t is beyond t"is duality : CHependent OriginationC #s. CEmptinessC.
-- -- >t is C8AE G!>O! OF 8AE 8IO 8RG8ASC
-- -- /ut bot" 8rut"s are use3ul tools to clear up t"e $ay 3or CtranscendenceC.+
.
91: <A. IAA8 >S 8AE !A8GRE OF 8AE 8A8AADA8A O 6A! IE GSE HE&E!HE!8
OR>D>!A8>O! 8O EU&RESS 8AE 8A8AADA8A O@
.
[ NNN
[ '.
[ 8"at one <$"o is C3ully-completedC@ is not t"e Cgroups o3 uni#ersal elementsC
skand"a+,
[ nor somet"ing ot"er t"an t"e CgroupsC,
[ t"e CgroupsC are not in "im, nor is "e in t"em,
[ 8"e C3ully completedC does not possess t"e Cgroups.C
[ I"at, t"en, is t"e C3ully completedCO
.
8AE HGA9>8% C8A8AADA8AC #s. CS4A!HAASC
8AE 8A8AADA8A >S !O8 8AE SAME AS 8AE S4A!HAAS
8AE 8A8AADA8A >S !O8 SE&ARA8E FROM 8AE S4A!HAAS
.
6ould be about t"e sel3 o3 t"e 8at"agata. 9ike in section '0, t"e sel3 is denied: it cannot
be 3ound in t"e aggregates or outside o3 t"e aggregates.
8"e sel3 is not to be 3ound in t"e 3i#e aggregates, neit"er $it"out independent o3+ t"e
3i#e aggregates, because it is imputed on t"e 3i#e aggregates. 8"ey are not t"e same.
8"ey are not di33erent -- 8"e sel3 doesn7t o$n t"e aggregates - like most people t"ink
.
Jona" Iinters: One tendency $as to "old t"at t"e 8at"agata $as composed o3 some
substance not 3ound in ordinary unenlig"tened "umans. 8"is propensity to belie#e t"at t"e
person7s nature under$ent some essential trans3ormation upon t"e ac"ie#ement o3
enlig"tenment $as e#idenced e#en in t"e /udd"a7s time. 8"e t"eory $as t"at t"e soul
$"ic" is unenlig"tened partakes o3 t"e Juality o3 bondage, and, $"en t"is soul becomes
3ree, t"en its essence s"i3ts to no$ partake o3 t"e Juality o3 3reedom. FOO8!O8E: 8"is
notion $as likely a product o3 t"e in3luence o3 Jainism, $"ic" belie#ed t"at t"e de3iling
karma is an actual substance t"at ad"eres to t"e soul 5i#a+.+
!agar5una e-plains clearly t"at t"e nature o3 t"e /udd"a is identical to t"at o3 any ot"er
person, and it "as neit"er t"e CJualityC o3 bondage nor t"e CJualityC o3 3reedom. 8"ere is
no sel3 to be 3ound in eit"er t"e bound or t"e 3reed person, bot" are composed o3 not"ing
but t"e soulless aggregates, and t"ere is no real sel3 $"ic" can be t"us Juali3ied. C8"e
8at"agata is neit"er t"e aggregates nor di33erent 3rom t"em. 8"e aggregates are not in
"im, nor is "e in t"e aggregates. Ae is not possessed o3 t"e aggregates.C 8"is de3inition o3
t"e 8at"agata is no di33erent t"an t"at o3 any and all persons. 8"us, Cin suc" a conte-t,
$"o is a 8at"agataOC 4arikas UU>>.'+
8"e e-istence o3 a sel3 in t"e /udd"a is denied 3or t"e same reasons t"at it is denied in
any person. >3 t"e /udd"a is independent o3 t"e aggregates, t"en "e $ill not e#idence
t"eir c"aracteristics, e.g. "e $ill not "a#e a body, sensations, or consciousness. >3 t"e
/udd"a depends on t"e aggregates, t"en C"e does not e-ist in terms o3 sel3-nature.C
.
[ NNN
[ 2.
[ >3 t"e /udd"a e-ists dependent on t"e Cgroups,C t"en "e is not Ct"at $"ic" e-ists
by itsel3C s#abba#a+
[ And "o$ can "e e-ist as somet"ing else parab"a#a+ Cot"er-e-istenceC+ i3 "e is
not Ct"at $"ic" e-ists by itsel3C s#abba#a+O
.
-- >S AE HE&E!HE!8 O like an e33ect cause by t"e skand"as O+
.
/eing dependent on t"e skand"as, "e $ould not be sel3-e-isting.
Assuming t"at enlig"tenment is a c"ange in nature:
8o c"ange to ot"er-e-istence, you "a#e 3irst to e-ist.
/ut, since t"ere $as ne#er an e-istent being in t"e 3irst place, "o$ could "e c"ange to
somet"ing-ot"erO
So t"ere is not"ing being dependent on t"e skand"as.
.
Jona" Iinters: Furt"er, i3 "is essence $ere to c"ange upon enlig"tenment, t"en "e
$ould no$ "a#e a di33erent, or Cot"er- nature.C /ut, i3 "e does not e-ist in terms o3 sel3-
nature, t"en C"o$ can "e e-ist in terms o3 ot"er-natureOC 4arikas UU>>.2+
.
[ NNN
[ 1.
[ 8"at $"ic" e-ists presupposing anot"er e-istent t"ing is properly called a Cnon-
indi#idual sel3C anatma+.
[ Ao$ $ill t"at $"ic" is a non-indi#idual sel3 become t"e C3ully completedCO
.
>3 "e is CdependentC t"en "e is a Cnon-indi#idual sel3C a group sel3O+
Ao$ could "e become a C3ully completedC an indi#idual sel3 -- not composed O+
.
[ NNN
[ B.
[ And i3 t"ere is no sel3-e-istence s#ab"a#a+, "o$ $ould it "a#e an Cot"er-
e-istenceC parab"a#a+O
[ I"at $ould t"at C3ully completedC <reality@ be $it"out eit"er a sel3-e-istence or
ot"er-e-istenceO
.
8AE !A8GRE OF 8AE 8A8AADA8A i3 "e is dependent+
8E8RA9EMMA: >t is not sel3-e-istence, it is not ot"er-e-istence, it is not somet"ing else.
.
[ NNN
[ E.
[ >3 some kind o3 C3ully completedC <t"ing@ $ould e-ist $it"out dependence on t"e
Cgroups,C
[ >t is dependent no$, t"ere3ore it e-ists dependent <on somet"ing@.
.
[ NNN
[ ).
[ 8"ere is no kind o3 C3ully completedC <being@ $"ic" is not dependent on t"e
Cgroups.C
[ And $"ate#er is not non-dependentQ"o$ $ill it become dependentO
.
-- >S AE >!HE&E!HE!8 O like an e33ect $it"out being cause by t"e skand"as O+
8AE &RO/9EM OF 8AE 8RA!S>8>O!S+
.
>s t"ere a state completely separate 3rom t"e skand"as, a3ter Enlig"tenment O
.
>3 t"ere is a #ery subtle /udd"a nature independent o3 t"e aggregates, t"at e-ist be3ore,
during and a3ter samsara.
/ut it is dependent on t"e aggregates in samsara.
Ao$ could it s$itc" 3rom independence to dependence ... O
.
Or, i3 a3ter being dependent, "e becomes independent $it" enlig"tenment. 8"en
enlig"tenment is dependent on t"is pre#ious state.
And i3 "e is an e33ect $it"out a cause, "o$ $ill "e be produced O
.
So t"ere is not"ing independent o3 t"e skand"as
.
Jona" Iinters: As all t"at e-ists is ruled by t"e process o3 dependent arising, one cannot
say t"at t"e 8at"agata "as an independent and transcendent e-istential status. E#en
t"oug" t"e /udd"a "as ceased to grasp on to t"e aggregates, C"e s"ould still depend
upon t"em in t"e present. As suc" "e $ill be dependent... 8"ere e-ists no 8at"agata
independent o3 t"e aggregates.C 4arikas UU>>.E-)+
.
[ NNN
[ *.
[ 8"ere is not"ing $"ate#er t"at is dependent on <t"e CgroupsC@
[ and t"ere is no t"ing $"ate#er on $"ic" somet"ing does not depend.
[ 8"ere $ould not e-ist in any $ay a C3ully completedC <being@ $it"out being
dependent on <t"e CgroupsC@.
.
8"ere is no e33ect 8at"agata+ t"at is dependent caused+ on t"e skand"as.
And t"ere is no real skand"as.
9ike, t"e e33ect o3 emptiness is emptiness.
/ut t"e e33ect 8at"agata+ is not $it"out cause skand"as+
.
[ NNN
[ 0.
[ 8"at <3ully completed being@ $"ic" does not e-ist by its actual reality tatt#a+
[ or by some ot"er reality anyat#a+ according to t"e 3i#e-3old e-aminationQ
[ Ao$ is t"e C3ully completedC <being@ percei#ed by being dependentO
.
8AE !A8GRE OF 8AE 8A8AADA8A
8AE! IAA8 O
.
8"e e33ect 8at"agata+ is not sel3-caused, or ot"er-caused like 3rom t"e skand"as+.
8"en $"atO
.
[ NNN
[ (.
[ So $"en t"ere is dependence, sel3-e-istence does not e-ist,
[ And i3 t"ere is no sel3-e-istence $"ate#er, "o$ is an ot"er-e-istence possibleO
.
[ NNN
[ '?.
[ 8"us CdependenceC and Ct"at $"ic" is dependentC are completely empty sunya+ .
.
>n resume:
/ecause t"ere is dependence, t"ere is no sel3-e-istence.
And i3 t"ere is no sel3-e-istence, t"ere cannot be ot"er-e-istence.
8"en not"ing is dependent, and t"ere is no dependence, no independence.
.
8"us, $e cannot use t"e #ocabulary o3 CHependent OriginationC to e-press t"e nature o3
t"e 8at"agata.
Hependent Origination is not t"e C#ery 3inal absolute trut"C because it is empty, merely
$ords.
.
91: </. 6A! IE GSE CEM&8>!ESSC 8O EU&RESS 8AE 8A8AADA8A O@
.
6an $e use t"e term CemptinessC to e-press t"e nature o3 t"e 8at"agata O
Ans$er:
-- First emptiness is empty, it is 5ust a mental 3abrications dependent on Ct"ing being not
independentC
-- 8"us, $e cannot use t"e #ocabulary o3 CEmptinessC to e-press t"e nature o3 t"e
8at"agata.
-- /eing empty is not t"e C#ery 3inal absolute trut"C because it is empty, merely $ords.
.
[ NNN
[ Ao$ is t"at empty C3ully completed oneC kno$n t"roug" t"at $"ic" is emptyO
.
[ NNN
[ ''.
[ One may not say t"at t"ere is CemptinessC sunya+ '+
[ nor t"at t"ere is non-emptiness. 2+C
[ !or t"at bot" <e-ist simultaneously@ 1+,
[ nor t"at neit"er e-ists B+,
[ t"e purpose 3or saying <CemptinessC@ is 3or t"e purpose o3 con#eying kno$ledge.
.
Ans$er: !opR Emptiness too is empty. >t is 5us a tool.
SO EM&8>!ESS 6A!!O8 /E GSEH 8O HES6R>/E 8AE 8A8AADA8A.
.
!o, emptiness is not t"e cause &at"+ or t"e result 8at"agata+, $e are using CemptinessC
as an antidote only. Emptiness is not t"e 8at"agata, not t"e Gltimate 8rut". >t is a
con#entional trut".
-- emptiness is t"e antidote to in"erent-e-istence or Eternalism O
-- dependent origination t"ere is t$o $ays+ is t"e antidote to !i"ilism O
.
Streng: >n #erses '?, '', and 'B o3 t"is c"apter $e see t"at t"e terms CemptyC and
CemptinessC are used to denote t"e 8at"agata, yet, to a#oid any interpretation o3 a
substantial reality in emptiness, #erse '' emp"atically states t"at CemptinessC is simply a
designation 3or con#eying kno$ledge.+
.
91: <6. IAA8 6A! IE GSE 8O EU&RESS 8AE 8A8AADA8A O@
.
StrengE: 8"e ne-t si- #erses including t"e pre#ious one+ in 6"apter --ii deny t"at any
term, including Cempty,C can properly e-press t"e trut" o3 t"e /udd"a i3 it is used in an
absolute $ay, 3or t"e terms do not re3er to Jualities- or substances-in -t"emsel#es. I"at
"uman beings designate as t"e 8at"agata actually is $"at "uman beings also designate as
Ct"e $orldC, and t"is trut" must be realiMed be3ore one can percei#e t"e C3ully attained.C +
Streng: :erses '2-') indicate t"at no de3inition re#eals t"e 8at"agata, not because t"e
8at"agata is some absolute reality standing aloo3 and unrelated to "uman acti#ity, but
because t"e 8at"agata precludes - pre#ent - t"e t"oug"t o3 in"erent ultimacy 3rom arising.
8"e 3inal t"ree #erses summariMe t"is position+
.
[ NNN
[ '2.
[ Ao$, t"en, $ill Ceternity,C Cnon-eternity,C and <t"e rest o3@ t"e 8etralemma apply
to bliss santa+O
[ Ao$, t"en, $ill Ct"e end,C C$it"out end,C and <t"e rest o3@ t"e 8etralemma apply
to blissO
.
[ NNN
[ '1.
[ 8"at image o3 nir#ana <in $"ic"@ t"e /udd"a 8at"agata+ eit"er CisC or Cis notCQ
[ /y "im $"o <so imagines nir#ana@ t"e notion is crudely grasped.
.
8AE !A8GRE OF 8AE 8A8AADA8A O
.
6an $e use t"e 3ollo$ing concepts to e-press t"e nature o3 t"e 8at"agata:
-- Done 3rom non-eternity to eternal bliss.
-- 8"e end o3 su33ering $it"out end.
-- Ae is in !ir#ana. Ae is not in samsara.
.
All o3 t"ose Juestions presuppose t"e e-istence o3 somet"ing, or t"e non-e-istence o3
somet"ing else. /ut according to emptiness, not"ing is, or is not, or bot", or neit"er.
.
Jona" Iinters: 8"is is not to say t"at t"e /udd"a "as a sel3 $"ic" e-ists e#en in t"e
present. Aa#ing abandoned grasping and soul-t"eoriMing, it is only t"e e-ternal
appearance o3 "im $"ic" e-ists. >t is grasping $"ic" causes t"e aggregates to continue
coming toget"er in li3e a3ter li3e, grasping 3or sel3-assertion, 3or sense-3ul3illments, and 3or
continued e-istence. Since t"e /udd"a "as become enlig"tened by #irtue o3 "a#ing
released "is tendency to grasp, "e no longer belie#es t"at t"ere is a sel3 comprising "im in
t"e present, and so "e kno$s t"at "e $ill not e-ist a3ter deat", eit"er. >t is only,
!agar5una says, t"e misguided dri#e to attribute reality to t"e ob5ects o3 grasping, t"e
grasping itsel3, and t"e one $"o grasps t"at embroils t"e ignorant person in t"e tangle o3
e-istence-t"eoriMing. >t is only t"is misguided person, C3irmly insisting t"at a 8at"agata
7e-ists7 or 7does not e-ist,7C $"o ascribes a present or post"umous e-istence to t"e
/udd"a. 4arikas UU>>.'1 +
.
[ NNN
[ 'B.
[ 6oncerning t"at $"ic" is empty by its o$n nature s#ab"a#a+, t"e t"oug"ts do not
arise t"at:
[ 8"e /udd"a Ce-istsC or Cdoes not e-istC a3ter deat".
.
8AE EU>S8E!6E OR !O8 OF 8AE 8A8AADA8A O
A FEI OF 8AE CG!A!SIERA/9ESC
.
8"ere Juestions are unans$erable because:
>n emptiness: t"ere is no e-istence, no non-e-istence, no bot", or neit"er
.
!ote: 8"ey are re3erred to as t"e A#yakrta, t"e CGnans$erables,C or t"e CJuestions $"ic"
tend not to edi3ication.C ... 8"e Juestions represent t"e most basic and deepest
insecurities "eld by unenlig"tened persons, and all stem ultimately 3rom a belie3 in t"e sel3
and a 3ear o3 its dissolution.
.
6ula-Malunkyo#ada Sutra M! )1+ -- 8"e S"orter >nstructions to Malunkya. :en.
Malunkyaputta t"reatens to disrobe unless t"e /udd"a ans$ers all "is speculati#e
metap"ysical Juestions. Gsing t"e 3amous simile o3 a man s"ot by a poison arro$, t"e
/udd"a reminds "im t"at some Juestions are simply not $ort" asking.
8"ese positions t"at are undisclosed, set aside, discarded by t"e /lessed One
-- -- `8"e cosmos is eternal,7
-- `8"e cosmos is not eternal,7
-- `8"e cosmos is 3inite,7
-- `8"e cosmos is in3inite,7
-- `8"e soul . t"e body are t"e same,7
-- `8"e soul is one t"ing and t"e body anot"er,7
-- À3ter deat" a 8at"agata e-ists,7
-- À3ter deat" a 8at"agata does not e-ist,7
-- À3ter deat" a 8at"agata bot" e-ists . does not e-ist,7
-- À3ter deat" a 8at"agata neit"er e-ists nor does not e-ist7 --
.
8"e ot"er CGnans$erables,C are co#ered in section 2* on :ie$s.
.
[ NNN
[ 'E.
[ 8"ose $"o describe in detail t"e /udd"a, $"o is unc"anging and beyond all
detailed descriptionQ
[ 8"ose, completely de3eated by description, do not percei#e t"e C3ully completedC
<being@.
.
.
Ie cannot use t"e #ocabulary o3 CHependent OriginationC to e-press t"e nature o3 t"e
8at"agata.
Ie cannot use t"e #ocabulary o3 CEmptinessC to e-press t"e nature o3 t"e 8at"agata.
Ie cannot use any #ocabulary to e-press t"e nature o3 t"e 8at"agata.
8"ere is no #ie$ t"at can e-press t"e nature o3 t"e 8at"agata or t"e C#ery 3inal absolute
trut"C because it is beyond $ords.
All $ords e-press some sel3-e-istence, some duality, some trans3ormation o3 one reality to
anot"er, t"at is t"e role o3 $ords. /ut t"ey are 5ust $ords, mental 3abrications, dependent
and temporary.
.
Jona" Iinters: 8"at is, e#en t"oug" t"e /udd"a no longer 3alsely belie#es t"at "e e-ists,
it is still possible 3or t"ose $"o do imagine reality to attribute an e-istence to "im.
!agar5una e-plains t"at t"ese people are seeing not"ing more t"an a 3igment o3 t"eir
imaginations. C8"ose $"o generate obsessions $it" great regard to t"e /udd"a..., all o3
t"em, impaired by obsessions, do not percei#e t"e 8at"agata.C 4arikas UU>>.'E++
.
[ NNN
[ ').
[ 8"e sel3-e-istence o3 t"e C3ully completedC <being@ is t"e sel3-e-istence o3 t"e
$orld.
[ 8"e C3ully completedC <being@ is $it"out sel3-e-istence <and@ t"e $orld is $it"out
sel3-e-istence.
.
8"ere is a duality: C3ully completed oneC #s. Ct"e $orldC.
One is non-dependent, eternal, non 3inite, eternally bliss3ul.
8"e ot"er is dependent, impermanent, 3inite, cycling in su33ering.
8"ey are not t$o real opposites, t"ey are t$o mental constructions based on eac" ot"er.
8"at is t"e $ay t"e mind operates.
.
92: <Section 21 - An Analysis o3 Errors #iparyasa+ t"e per#erted #ie$s+ - 2E@
.
RVSGMV:
-- Opponent: ignorance --W errors, per#ersion --W klesa, de3ilements, impurities, desire,
"atred, delusion, ...
-- /ut
-- /ut all is empty: ob5ects, 5udgment #alues, notions, errors, klesa, someone in error,
making an error
-- -- Men c"aracteriMe t"ings, beings and processes as :
-- -- rig"t #s. $rong, salutary #s. unsalutary, pleasant #s. unpleasant, good #s. bad in
essence+ ...
-- -- sub5ecti#e #alue 5udgments, discriminatory 5udgments, duality t"inking - al$ays
opposing concepts.
-- /ut not"ing is essentially good or bad. So t"ere is no rig"t or $rong about t"at.
-- E:ER%8A>!D >S &GRE in emptiness+
-- /ut men t"ink some t"ings are pure, some impure, so t"ey "old #ie$s on rig"t and
$rong, desire purity, "ate impurity, ignore true nature, build, 3ig"t ... su33er.
-- 8"e problem is not t"e per#ersions #s. t"e &at"+, but t"e discrimination, t"e #alue
5udgments, t"e buying into t"e dualities, t"e belie3 in sel3-e-istence.+
.
.
[ NNN
[ '.
[ >t is said t"at desire raga+, "ate, and delusion are deri#ed 3rom mental 3abrication
samkalpa+,
[ /ecause t"ey come into e-istence presupposing errors as to $"at is salutary and
unsalutary.
.
8AE HGA9>8% 6AGSE ERROR+ #s. EFFE68 >M&GR>8>ES+
O&&O!E!8: A99 REA9
.
Opponent: 8"e t"ree roots are based on errors, per#ersions. 8"ere are t"ings t"at are
salutary #irtues+, and t"ings t"at are unsalutary non-#irtues+. One s"ould kno$ and not
mi--up. See :ipallasa Sutra - A! >:.B(+ - &er#ersions bello$.
.
6AGSE: errors, per#ersions
EFFE68: de3ilements, impurities, desire, "ate, delusion, ...
.
e-. Ie "a#e desire 3or an ob5ect because $e t"ink it is permanent, pleasant, attracti#e ...
e#en t"oug" it is not. Hesire is based on an error, a per#ersion. >mplicitly accepting t"e
dualities: permanent #s. impermanent, pleasant #s. non-pleasant, ...
.
Jona" Iinters: 8"e de3ilements suc" as passionate attraction and a#ersion lust and
"atred+, !agar5una says, C"a#e t"oug"t as t"eir source,C and it is on t"e basis o3 t"ese
de3ilements t"at #alue 5udgments suc" as pleasant and unpleasant come to be. 4arikas
UU>>>.'++ -- 8"is translation is again #ery di33erent.
.
[ NNN
[ 2.
[ 8"ose t"ings $"ic" come into e-istence presupposing errors as to $"at is salutary
and unsalutary
[ Ho not e-ist by t"eir o$n nature s#ab"a#a+, t"ere3ore t"e impurities klesa+ do
not e-ist in reality.
.
8AE HGA9>8% ERROR #s. >M&GR>8>ES
>M&GR>8>ES ARE !O8 SE9F-EU>S8>!D
.
>3 t"ey impurities+ are dependent on errors per#ersions+, t"en t"ey are not sel3-e-isting.
8"us t"ey t"e de3ilements, impurities, passion, a#ersion, and delusion in t"eir #arious
3orms+ do not sel3-e-ist.
8"ey are dependent, empty o3 sel3-e-istence.
.
8AE 6ASE OF SOMEO!E AA:>!D >M!&GR>8>ES+
.
[ NNN
[ 1.
[ 8"e e-istence or non-e-istence o3 t"e indi#idual sel3 atma+ is not pro#ed at all.
[ Iit"out t"at <indi#idual sel3@, "o$ can t"e e-istence or non-e-istence o3 t"e
impurities be pro#edO
.
8AE HGA9>8% >M&GR>8>ES #s. SOMEO!E >M&GRE t"e o$ner o3 t"ose de3ilements, t"e
one to puri3y+
6A!!O8 /E GSEH 8O &RO:E >M&GR>8>ES
.
>3 a sel3 is not pro#ed, "o$ can "e be "a#e de3ilements, impurities, klesa.
So t"ose are not pro#ed eit"er.
.
[ NNN
[ B.
[ For impurities e-ist o3 somebody, and t"at person is not pro#ed at all.
[ >s it not so t"at $it"out someone t"e impurities do not e-ist o3 anybodyO
.
[ NNN
[ E.
[ >n re3erence to t"e #ie$ o3 "a#ing a body o3 one7s o$n,
[ t"e impurities do not e-ist in $"at is made impure according to t"e 3i#e-3old
manner.
[ >n re3erence to t"e #ie$ o3 "a#ing a body o3 one7s o$n,
[ t"at $"ic" is made impure does not e-ist in t"e impurities according to t"e 3i#e-
3old manner.
.
8AE HGA9>8% >M&GR>8>ES #s. SOMEO!E >M&GRE
!O8 8AE SAME, !O8 SE&ARA8E
.
[ NNN
[ ).
[ 8"e errors as to $"at is salutary and non-salutary do not e-ist as sel3-e-istent
entities s#ab"a#atas+
[ Hepending on $"ic" errors as to $"at is salutary and non-salutary are t"en
impuritiesO
.
8AE HGA9>8% 6AGSE ERROR+ #s. EFFE68 >M&GR>8>ES+
8AE EFFE68 OF EM&8>!ESS >S EM&8>!ESS
.
8"e proo3 o3 t"e emptiness o3 t"e cause error+ 3ollo$s:
Opponent:
-- 8"e error is to "a#e t"e $rong notion about an ob5ect.
-- 8"e ob5ect is eit"er 3orm, sound, taste, smell, ... any ob5ect o3 t"e senses.
-- 8"en t"ere is a sub5ecti#e #alue 5udgment, a discriminatory 5udgment on t"e ob5ect
based on a duality: e-. salutary, or non-salutary.
-- >3 it is 5udged CsalutaryC t"en t"ere is desire. >3 it is 5udged Cnon-salutaryC t"en t"ere is
"atred. ...
-- 8"e notion t"e 5udgment o3 ... on t"e ob5ect+ may be rig"t or $rong.
-- >t is $rong i3 it cause desire 3or somet"ing impermanent, unsatis3ying, non-salutary, ...
.
!agar5una $ill s"o$ t"at
-- t"e ob5ect is empty
-- t"e attribute o3 t"e ob5ect is empty
-- t"e generated de3ilements, impurities, desire, ... is empty
-- t"e notion is empty
-- e#eryt"ing surrounding t"e notion is empty
-- t"e error or non error+ is empty
-- t"e p"rase Csomebody makes an errorC is empty no permanent being in i, ii, iii+, no
origination o3 Cmaking an errorC
.
[ NNN
[ *.
[ Form, sound, taste, touc", smell, and t"e d"armas: t"is si--3old
[ Substance #astu+ o3 desire, "ate, and delusion is imagined.
.
[ NNN
[ 0.
[ Form, sound, taste, touc", smell, and t"e d"armas are
[ Merely t"e 3orm o3 a 3airy castle, like a mirage, a dream.
.
[ NNN
[ (.
[ Ao$ $ill Ct"at $"ic" is salutaryC or Ct"at $"ic" is non-salutaryC come into
e-istence
[ >n a 3ormation o3 a magical man, or in t"ings like a re3lectionO
.
8AE O/JE68S ARE EM&8%
AOI 6OG9H 8AE% /E SA9G8AR% OR !O!-SA9G8AR% O
.
E#eryt"ing is empty.
So "o$ could anyt"ing be good or bad in essence.
So "o$ could t"ere be errors, per#ersions
.
Jona" Iinters: :isual 3orm, sound, taste, touc", smell, and concepts mental sensations+
are t"e Csi-3old 3oundationsC o3 de3ilements and discriminatory 5udgments. /ut, as
demonstrated abo#e, c3. sections >:, CE-amination o3 AggregatesC and U:>>>,
CE-amination o3 Sel3.C+ all si- sensory 3oundations Care comparable to <a myt"ical city@ and
resemble mirages and dreams. Ao$ can t"e pleasant and t"e unpleasant come to be in
people $"o are 3abrications o3 illusion or $"o are comparable to mirror imagesOC 4arikas
UU>>>.0-(++
.
[ NNN
[ '?.
[ Ie submit t"at t"ere is no non-salutary t"ing unrelated to a salutary t"ing.
[ <And in turn@ depending on $"ic", t"ere is a salutary t"ing, t"ere3ore, a salutary
t"ing does not obtain.
.
[ NNN
[ ''.
[ Ie submit t"at t"ere is no salutary t"ing unrelated to a non-salutary t"ing,
[ <And in turn@ depending on $"ic", t"ere is a non-salutary t"ing, t"ere3ore a non-
salutary t"ing does not obtain.
.
8AE HGA9>8% SA9G8AR%, !O!-SA9G8AR% >S EM&8%
.
Dood and bad 3orm a duality. /ot" are dependent o3 t"e ot"er. !one is sel3-e-isting F
absolute.
.
[ NNN
[ '2.
[ >3 C$"at is salutaryC does not e-ist, "o$ $ill t"ere be desire <3or it@O
[ And i3 C$"at is non-salutaryC does not e-ist, "o$ $ill t"ere be "atred <3or it@O
.
HGA9>8% 6AGSE O/JE68S+ #s. EFFE68 HEF>9EME!8S, >M&GR>8>ES+
8AE EFFE68 OF EM&8>!ESS >S EM&8>!ESS
.
>3 not"ing is absolutely, ob5ecti#ely good, t"en "o$ could t"ere be desire 3or any.
>3 not"ing is absolutely, ob5ecti#ely bad, t"en "o$ could t"ere be "atred 3or any.
.
[ NNN
[ '1.
[ E#en i3 t"e notion CI"at is permanent is in somet"ing impermanentC is in error,
[ Ao$ can t"is notion be in error since C$"at is impermanentC does not e-ist in
emptinessO
.
8AE !O8>O! >! ERROR+ AS 8AE ROO8 6AGSE FOR HEF>9EME!8S, >M&GR>8>ES
EM&8>!ESS OF 8AE !O8>O!
.
Opponent: 8"is is an e-ample o3 an error: 76onstant7 $it" regard to t"e inconstant is a
per#ersion o3 perception, a per#ersion o3 mind, a per#ersion o3 #ie$.
.
Since not"ing CisC permanent or impermanent -- all empty
8"en t"ere cannot be an error o3 taking one 3or t"e ot"er.
.
[ NNN
[ 'B.
[ E#en i3 t"e notion C$"at is permanent is in somet"ing impermanentC is in error,
[ >s not t"en t"e notion concerning emptiness, i.e., t"at it is impermanent, in errorO
.
[ NNN
[ 'E.
[ 8"at by $"ic" a notion is 3ormed, t"e notion, t"ose $"o "a#e notions, and t"at
$"ic" is grasped <in t"e notion@:
[ All "a#e ceased, t"ere3ore, t"e notion does not e-ist.
.
All notions e-. trut" or errors, per#ersions+ are t"emsel#es impermanent mental
3abrications. 8"ey are not permanent sel3-e-isting.
So "o$ could t"ey be essentially true or 3alse O
.
[ NNN
[ ').
[ >3 a notion is not e-isting eit"er as 3alse or true,
[ I"ose is t"e errorO I"ose is t"e non-errorO
.
So t"ere is no real Cerrors, per#ersionsC or non-per#ersions.
.
[ NNN
[ '*.
[ !or do errors o3 someone $"o "as erred come into e-istence.
[ !or do errors o3 someone $"o "as not erred come into e-istence.
.
[ NNN
[ '0.
[ And errors o3 someone $"o is at present in error do not come into e-istence.
[ !o$ you e-amine o3 $"om do errors really come into e-istenceR
.
8"ere is no error o3 ... i, ii, iii
8"ere is nobody in error permanent in i, ii, iii+.
.
[ NNN
[ '(.
[ Ao$ in all t"e $orld $ill errors $"ic" "a#e not originated come into e-istenceO
[ And i3 errors are not originated, "o$ can t"ere be someone in#ol#ed in errorO
.
8"ere is no origination o3 CerrorC
So no ii distinct t"at t"e ot"er t$o: i, iii
.
[ NNN
[ 2?.
[ Since no being is produced by itsel3, nor by somet"ing di33erent,
[ !or by itsel3 and somet"ing di33erent at t"e same time, "o$ can t"ere be someone
in#ol#ed in errorO
.
8"ere is no cause 3or Csomeone in errorC: no sel3-causation, no ot"er-causation, no
bot" ...
.
[ NNN
[ 2'.
[ >3 t"e indi#idual sel3, C$"at is pure,C C$"at is eternal,C and "appiness really e-ist,
[ 8"en t"e indi#idual sel3, C$"at is pure,C C$"at is eternal,C and "appiness are not
errors.
.
[ NNN
[ 22.
[ /ut i3 indi#idual sel3, C$"at is pure,C C$"at is eternal,C and "appiness do not e-ist,
[ 8"en non-indi#idual sel3, C$"at is impure,C C$"at is impermanentC and sorro$
dukk"a+ do not e-ist.
.
Maybe: >t is not error, it is not non-error, ...
For any duality, apply t"e 8etralemma.
.
[ NNN
[ 21.
[ From t"e cessation o3 error ignorance ceases,
[ I"en ignorance "as ceased, conditioning 3orces samskara+ and e#eryt"ing else
cease.
.
StrengE: I"ate#er notions are assumed to possess sel3-su33icient reality are sub5ects to
!agar5una7s analysis, t"us, e#en t"e notion o3 CmisunderstandingC is regarded as a
misunderstanding i3 it is distinguis"ed 3rom correct understanding in an absolute $ay. >n
c"apter --iii, Cmisunderstanding,C Cgood,C and CbadCQ$"ic", in t"e Ab"id"arma, are "eld
to be t"e conditions 3or mental 3abricationQare s"o$n to be #oid o3 sel3-e-istence. 8"ey
are also s"o$n to be insigni3icant on t"e grounds o3 dependent co-origination, 3or t"en
t"ey are already regarded as empty. :erses 2B ant 2E sum up t"e irrele#ancy o3 deciding
i3 Cmisunderstanding,C Cgood,C and CbadC e-ist as suc" or not: +
.
[ NNN
[ 2B.
[ >3 any kind o3 sel3-e-istent impurities belong to somebody,
[ Ao$ in all t"e $orld $ould t"ey be eliminatedO I"o can eliminate t"at $"ic" is
sel3-e-istentO
.
[ NNN
[ 2E.
[ >3 any kind o3 sel3-e-istent impurities do not belong to somebody,
[ Ao$ in all t"e $orld $ould t"ey be eliminatedO I"o can eliminate t"at $"ic" is
non-sel3-e-istentO
.
>mpurities: t"ey do not e-ist, t"ey do not not e-ist, ...
.
92: <Section 2B - An Analysis o3 t"e Aoly 8rut"s aryasatya+ t"e noble trut"s+ - B?@
.
RVSGMV:
-- 8AE 8IO 8RG8AS: t"e duality CemptinessC #s. Ccon#entional trut" - H.O.
-- MOS89% A/OG8 8AE EM&8>!ESS OF EM&8>!ESS
-- Opponent: Emptiness --W no con#entional trut", no &at"
-- 8"e t$o trut"s 3orm an apparent duality, but t"ey are not t$o sel3-e-isting opposite
reality
-- 8"ey are bot" tools, $e need to transcend bot" to reac" !ir#ana
-- 8"ere is a danger o3 ob5ecti3ying emptiness, it leads to ni"ilism, or re5ection o3
emptiness
-- a sel3-e-isting emptiness leads to absurdity, to re5ection o3 t"e 3lo$, o3 all cause . e33ect
-- an empty emptiness ackno$ledges t"e 3lo$, it does not lead to ni"ilism
-- Emptiness is a mental construction based on t"e dependence origination o3 t"ings
-- 8"e middle $ay consist in $alking on t"e raMor edge bet$een emptiness and H.O.+ --
d"armaksanti
-- -- accepting t"at e#eryt"ing is dependent
-- -- accepting t"at e#eryt"ing is empty
-- -- accepting t"at e#eryt"ing is pure
-- >t is not emptiness, it is not non-emptiness, it is not bot", it is not neit"er+
-- >t is not emptiness, it is not H.O., it is not bot", or neit"er
-- Ie "a#e to transcend bot": 8AE G!>O! OF 8AE 8IO 8RG8AS+
.
91: <An opponent claims:@
.
[ NNN
[ '.
[ >3 e#eryt"ing is empty, t"ere is no origination nor destruction.
[ 8"en you must incorrectly conclude t"at t"ere is non-e-istence o3 t"e 3our "oly
trut"s.
.
[ NNN
[ 2.
[ >3 t"ere is non-e-istence o3 t"e 3our "oly trut"s, t"e sa#ing kno$ledge, t"e
elimination <o3 illusion@,
[ 8"e CbecomingC <enlig"tened@ b"a#ana+, and t"e CrealiMationC <o3 t"e goal@ are
impossible.
.
[ NNN
[ 1.
[ >3 t"ere is non-e-istence, t"en also t"e 3our "oly C3ruitsC do not e-ist.
[ >n t"e non-e-istence o3 3ruit t"ere is no Cresiding in 3ruitC nor obtaining.
.
[ NNN
[ B.
[ I"en t"e community <o3 /udd"ists@ does not e-ist, t"en t"ose eig"t Ckinds o3
personsC
[ <i.e., 3our abiding in t"e 3ruit and 3our $"o are obtaining@ do not e-ist.
[ /ecause t"ere is non-e-istence o3 t"e 3our "oly trut"s, t"e real d"arma does not
e-ist.
.
[ NNN
[ E.
[ And i3 t"ere are no d"arma and community, "o$ $ill t"e /udd"a e-istO
[ /y speaking t"us, <t"at e#eryt"ing is empty@ certainly you deny t"e t"ree 5e$els
<i.e., t"e /udd"a, t"e d"arma, and t"e community@.
.
[ NNN
[ ).
[ %ou deny t"e real e-istence o3 a product, o3 rig"t and $rong,
[ And all t"e practical be"a#ior o3 t"e $orld as being empty.
.
8AE HGA9>8% EM&8>!ESS #s. 6O!:E!8>O!A9 8RG8A H.O.+ -- 8AE 8IO 8RG8AS+
8"e t$o trut"s as seen by t"e opponent as t$o real opposites, it is one or t"e ot"er, like
in a duality.
.
Opponent: i3 t"ere is emptiness t"en ... no &at", no realiMation, no t"ree 5e$els -- ni"ilism.
9ike: EM&8>!ESS PPW !O 6O!:E!8>O!A9 8RG8A, !O &A8A
.
Dar3ield: 8"e 3irst si- #erses present a reply by an opponent c"arging t"e doctrine $it"
ni"ilism. -- i3 t"e entire p"enomenal $orld $ere empty not"ing $ould in 3act e-ist, a
conclusion absurd on its 3ace and, more importantly, contradictory to 3undamental
/udd"ist tenets suc" as t"e Four !oble 8rut"s as $ell as to con#entional $isdom.+
.
91: <!agar5una replies:@
.
[ NNN
[ *.
[ Ie reply t"at you do not compre"end t"e point o3 emptiness,
[ %ou eliminate bot" CemptinessC itsel3 and its purpose 3rom it.
.
[ NNN
[ 0.
[ 8"e teac"ing by t"e /udd"as o3 t"e d"arma "as recourse to 8IO 8RG8AS:
[ 8"e $orld-ensconced trut" 8'+ and t"e trut" $"ic" is t"e "ig"est sense 82+.
.
[ NNN
[ (.
[ 8"ose $"o do not kno$ t"e distribution #ib"agam+ o3 t"e t$o kinds o3 trut"
[ Ho not kno$ t"e pro3ound CpointC tatt#a+ 81+ in t"e teac"ing o3 t"e /udd"a.
.
[ NNN
[ '?.
[ 8"e "ig"est sense <o3 t"e trut"@ 82+ is not taug"t apart 3rom practical be"a#ior
8'+,
[ And $it"out "a#ing understood t"e "ig"est sense 82+ one cannot understand
nir#ana 81+.
.
8AE% ARE !O8 8IO SE9F-EU>S8>!D REA9>8% independent o3 eac" ot"er, and o3 t"e
mind+
8AE% ARE !O8 SE&ARA8E OR 8AE SAME
IE AA:E 8O 8RA!S6E!H /O8A
.
/y re5ecting t"e emptiness o3 emptiness making it real+, you re5ect its purpose it is 5ust a
tool+.
>3 $e take CemptinessC as an absolute trut", t"en $e end up in Cni"ilismC.
>3 $e take Cdependent originationC too literally, t"en $e end up in CrealismC.
/ot" are tools to 3ig"t t"e ot"er e-treme, none is t"e 3inal #ie$.
.
8"ose $"o do not kno$ t"e distinction bet$een t"e t$o trut"s cannot understand t"e
pro3ound nature o3 t"e /udd"a7s teac"ing.
Iit"out relying on e#eryday common practices t"at is, relati#e trut"s+, t"e absolute trut"
cannot be e-pressed.
Iit"out approac"ing t"e absolute trut", !ir#ana cannot be attained.
.
8"is seems to mean t"at bot" t$o trut"s are CmeansC to reac" !ir#ana, none o3 t"en is
t"e ultimate point.
6on3irming t"at it is t"e Gnion o3 t"e 8$o trut"s t"at is t"e 3inal point.
So CEmptinessC is not a C3inal #ie$C o3 reality.
>t is not absolute, a Cprimal causeC, or Cprimal e-planationC.
.
So one possibilities is :
-- 8"e t$o trut"s 3orm a duality, one side 3ig"ting t"e e-treme tendency o3 t"e ot"er.
8"ose t$o trut"s are not real opposites, t"ey imply eac" ot"er, t"ey are dependent on
eac" ot"er, like 3or any ot"er duality.
-- !ir#ana is going beyond t"is duality.
-- 8': 6on#entional, conceptual trut"s -- based on dependent origination -- it 3ig"ts non-
e-istence.
-- 82: Supreme trut"s, aiming at t"e 3inal 3ruit -- based on emptiness -- it 3ig"ts e-istence.
-- /E%O!H: !ir#ana, 8at"agata, ...
.
see Section 22 3or:
8AE HGA9>8% CHE&E!HE!8 OR>D>!A8>O!C #s. CEM&8>!ESSC -- in order to describe t"e
8at"agata
Ie cannot use Hependent Origination or its negation ...+ to e-press t"e 8at"agata
Ie cannot use Emptiness or its negation ...+ to e-press t"e 8at"agata
>mplicit: 8"e Gnion o3 t"e 8$o 8rut"s
.
[ NNN
[ ''.
[ Emptiness, "a#ing been dimly percei#ed, utterly destroys t"e slo$-$itted.
[ >t is like a snake $rongly grasped or <magical@ kno$ledge incorrectly applied.
.
[ NNN
[ '2.
[ 8"ere3ore t"e mind o3 t"e ascetic <Duatama@ $as di#erted 3rom teac"ing t"e
d"arma,
[ Aa#ing t"oug"t about t"e incompre"ensibility o3 t"e d"arma by t"e stupid.
.
HA!DER OF A SE9F-EU>S8>!D EM&8>!ESS
.
Aere, t"e Cd"armaC is t"e real c"aracter o3 all d"armas -- Emptiness.
>3 emptiness is t"oug"t as an CabsoluteC t"en t"ere is su33ering.
.
[ NNN
[ '1.
[ 8ime and again you "a#e made a condemnation o3 emptiness,
[ /ut t"at re3utation does not apply to our emptiness.
.
OGR EM&8>!ESS >S A9SO EM&8% -- a dependent mental 3abrications+
8"e utiliMation o3 CemptinessC is dangerous i3 t"oug"t as an CabsoluteC.
Emptiness is not t"e denial o3 e#eryt"ing, but 5ust o3 sel3-e-istence.
%ou re5ect $"at you understand as CemptyC, but do not understand our emptiness
.
[ NNN
[ 'B.
[ I"en emptiness C$orksC, t"en e#eryt"ing in e-istence C$orksC. A+
[ >3 emptiness Cdoes not $orkC, t"en all e-istence Cdoes not $orkC. /+
.
-- A SE9F-EU>S8>!D EM&8>!ESS 9EAHS 8O A/SGRH>8%, REJE68>!D 8AE F9OI
-- A! EM&8% EM&8>!ESS A64!OI9EHDES 8AE F9OI
8AGS 8AERE >S !O SE9F-EU>S8>!D EM&8>!ESS -- EM&8>!ESS OF EM&8>!ESS
.
On t"e contrary to your ob5ections,
/+ it is $"en t"ere is no emptiness t"at not"ing $orks
-- or, $"en emptiness itsel3 is static F sel3-e-isting F not dynamic F not $orking ... t"at
t"ere is ni"ilism, no 3lo$.
A+ our emptiness is necessary 3or e#eryt"ing to $orks
-- or, $"en emptiness is itsel3 empty, t"en Ct"ere is a 3lo$C
.
9ike 3or any mental 3abrication, emptiness s"ould not be t"oug"t as anyt"ing more t"an
t"at.
>3 e#eryt"ing is empty, t"en not"ing is empty, t"en t"ere is no emptiness.
.
.
[ NNN
[ 'E.
[ %ou, $"ile pro5ecting your o$n 3aults on us, i.e. ob5ecti3ying emptiness+
[ Are like a person $"o, "a#ing mounted "is "orse, 3orgot t"e "orseRi.e. a tool+
.
[ NNN
[ ').
[ >3 you recogniMe real e-istence on account o3 t"e sel3-e-istence o3 t"ings,
[ %ou percei#e t"at t"ere are uncaused and unconditioned t"ings.
.
[ NNN
[ '*.
[ %ou deny C$"at is to be produced,C cause, t"e producer, t"e instrument o3
production, and t"e producing action,
[ And t"e origination, destruction, and C3ruit.C
.
-- A SE9F-EU>S8>!D EM&8>!ESS 9EAHS 8O A/SGRH>8%, REJE68>!D 8AE F9OI
.
8"e t$o trut"s as seen by t"e opponent as t$o real opposites, it is one or t"e ot"er.
Accepting emptiness is seen as re5ecting all causality, all production, t"e pat".
.
%ou are t"e one $"o is ob5ecti3ying, idealiMing emptiness.
%ou use emptiness as a tool, and 3orget about t"e tool itsel3 its o$n emptiness+.
%ou take emptiness as an absolute.
Ob5ecti3ying a real emptiness, e#eryt"ing else is negated, and t"ere is no cause . e33ect at
all no dependent origination+.
.
Dar3ield: 8"e important p"ilosop"ical $ork begins $it" 2B: 'E. From t"is point !agar5una
o33ers a t"eory o3 t"e relations"ip bet$een emptiness, dependent origination, and
con#ention, and argues not only t"at t"ese t"ree can be understood as co-relati#e, but
t"at i3 con#entional t"ings or emptiness itsel3+ $ere nonempty, t"e #ery ni"ilism $ould
ensue $it" $"ic" t"e rei3icationist opponent c"arges Maad"yamika. 8"is tactic o3 arguing
not only against eac" e-treme but also t"at t"e contradictory e-tremes are in 3act
mutually entailing is a dialectical trademark o3 !agar5una7s p"ilosop"ical met"od.+
.
Dar3ield: 8"oug" t"is is not made as e-plicit in t"e te-t as one mig"t like, it is important
to note t"at t"e mis-+ understanding !agar5una "as in mind is one t"at, in t"e terms o3
Maad"yamika, rei3ies emptiness itsel3. :erse 2B:') pro#ides a clue. -- t"e danger o3 seeing
emptiness as an absolute.
.
>3 t"e e-istence o3 all t"ings
>s percei#ed in terms o3 t"eir essence,
8"en t"is perception o3 all t"ings
Iill be $it"out t"e perception o3 causes and conditions.
.
8"e opponent is seeing actual e-istence as a discrete entity $it" an essence. it $ould
3ollo$ t"at 3or t"e opponent, t"e reality o3 emptiness $ould entail t"at emptiness itsel3 is
an entity, and at t"at an in"erently e-isting entity. 8o see emptiness in t"is $ay is to see
it as radically di33erent 3rom con#entional, p"enomenal reality. >t is to see t"e con#entional
as illusory and emptiness as t"e reality standing be"ind it. 8o adopt t"is #ie$ o3 emptiness
is indeed to deny t"e reality o3 t"e entire p"enomenal, con#entional $orld. >t is also to
ascribe a special, noncon#entional, nondependent "yperreality to emptiness itsel3.
Ordinary t"ings $ould be #ie$ed as none-istent, emptiness as substantially e-istent. >t is
important and central to t"e Maad"yamika dialectic to see t"at t"ese go toget"er -- t"at
ni"ilism about one kind o3 entity is typically paired $it" rei3ication o3 anot"er.+ 8"is #ie$ is
not uncommon in /udd"ist p"ilosop"y, and !agar5una is clearly a$are t"at it mig"t be
suggested by "is o$n position. So !agar5una7s reply must begin by distancing "imsel3
3rom t"is rei3ied #ie$ o3 emptiness itsel3 and "ence 3rom t"e dualism it entails. Only t"en
can "e s"o$ t"at to rei3y emptiness in t"is $ay $ould indeed entail t"e di33iculties "is
imaginary opponent adumbrates, di33iculties not attac"ing to !agar5una7s o$n #ie$. +
.
91: <A - Emptiness -- o3 emptiness -- recogniMes t"e 3lo$, H.O., t"e &at"+@
.
[ NNN
[ '0.
[ 8"e Coriginating dependentlyC $e call CemptinessC,
[ 8"is appre"ension, i.e., taking into account <all ot"er t"ings@, is t"e understanding
o3 t"e middle $ay.
.
[ NNN
[ '(.
[ S>!6E 8AERE >S !O HAARMA IAA8E:ER OR>D>!A8>!D >!HE&E!HE!89%,
[ !O HAARMA IAA8E:ER EU>S8S IA>6A >S !O8 EM&8%.
.
-- A! EM&8% EM&8>!ESS A64!OI9EHDES 8AE F9OI
8AE% ARE !O8 8AE SAME, 8AE% ARE !O8 SE&ARA8E, 8AE% ARE 6O-HE&E!HE!8
IE AA:E 8O 8RA!S6E!H /O8A
/G8, MEA!IA>9E, HAARMA4SA!8>, t"e intuiti#e tolerance o3 t"e ultimate
incompre"ensibility o3 all t"ings+
.
Emptiness is a mental construction, a name gi#en to a t"ing, meaning it is not
independent, sel3-e-isting, it is co-dependently arisen. Emptiness is not an absolute, or a
primal cause.
>t also means t"at emptiness is not separate 3rom H.O.
So emptiness does not stop t"e 3lo$, it ackno$ledges t"e 3lo$, and re5ect sel3-e-istence in
t"e 3lo$.
8"is approac", to indeed take all into consideration not ob5ecti3ying anyt"ing -- making
t"em real, sel3-e-isting+ and not re5ecting e#eryt"ing+, is t"e middle $ay not eternalism,
not ni"ilism+.
/ecause t"ere is not"ing e-isting t"at is independent, t"en not"ing e-isting is not empty.
All d"armas are empty.
.
So t"e middle $ay is simply :
-- not e-istence, not non e-istence implicit: not bot", not neit"er+
-- not real H.O., not real emptiness, not bot", not neit"er -- on t"e raMor edge
-- !ote: real H.O. $ould mean real t"ings t"at c"ange.
-- accepting t"e 8etralemma on t"e t$o trut"s, , e#en $it"out proo3, $it"out t"e 3inal
realiMation -- /od"isatt#a $ay :
-- ne#er taking anyt"ing as absolute --- but do take t"em ---
-- al$ays seeing t"e 3lo$, ne#er interrupting t"e 3lo$
-- ne#er assuming t"ere is a beginning in t"e c"ain o3 causality: a primal cause
-- ne#er assuming t"ere is an end to t"e c"ain o3 causality: a 3inal product
-- ne#er assuming t"ere is a real cause, a real e33ect, a real relation
-- ne#er assuming t"ere are real e#ents or ob5ects in t"e c"ain o3 causality: t"ings to get
attac"ed to
-- ne#er assuming somet"ing is not dependent, or primal, or 3inal, or absolute
-- and not assuming it is total anarc"y eit"er -- indeed taking t"ing into account.
.
StrengB: 8"e arguments against causal relations bet$een sel3-e-istent entities $"ic" $e
"a#e gi#en abo#e are based on a logical critiJue o3 t"eories t"emsel#es. >t is important to
note t"at no$"ere does !agar5una "imsel3 gi#e a t"eory describing t"e operation o3
causal relations. As $e "a#e seen, "e denies t"at t"e entities e-ist by #irtue o3 t"eir o$n
being and t"at, e#en i3 suc" an impossible assumption o3 sel3-e-istence $ere accepted, no
causal relations"ip could obtain. >n $"at sense, t"en, does !agar5una understand t"e
reality o3 t"e p"enomenal $orld arising at allO Or, to 3ormulate t"e Juestion in /udd"ist
terminology: Ao$ is t"e notion o3 Cdependent cooriginationC to be understoodO 8"e
ans$er is dramatically gi#en in MM4, --i#. '0 . '(. 6onsidered in t"e conte-t o3
emptiness sunyata+, co-originating dependency loses its meaning as t"e link bet$een t$o
Ct"ingsC, rat"er it becomes t"e 3orm 3or e-pressing t"e p"enomenal CbecomingC as t"e
lack o3 any sel3-su33icient, independent reality.
A consideration 3or t"e p"enomenal aspect o3 Coriginating dependentlyC is gi#en in c"ap.
--#i An Analysis o3 t"e 8$el#e 6omponents d#adasanga++ $"ere t"e root cause 3or
constructed p"enomena is designated as ignorance. 8"e CrealiMationC o3 sunyata t"e
emptiness o3 s#ab"a#a+, on t"e ot"er "and, pre#ents t"e continuation o3 3abrication. 8"is
is made clear in #erses '?-'2.
From t"e ultimate point o3 #ie$ Coriginating dependentlyC is t"e realiMation o3 emptiness,
$"ile at t"e same time it is t"e causal la$, or Cc"ain o3 causationC 3rom t"e mundane
point o3 #ie$. For !agar5una, CemptinessC became t"e best #erbal e-pression 3or
Coriginating dependently.C >t a#oided t"e illusion o3 sel3-e-istence s#ab"a#a+ most
completely, and omitted t"e necessity 3or a la$ o3 causation $"ic" related entities t"at
$ere presupposed in a Cs#ab"a#a perspecti#e.C
See also in section 2? ...
8o sum up !agar5una7s concern $it" constructed p"enomena in lig"t o3 emptiness, $e
$ould point to "is assertion t"at mental distinctions are only imaginary 3abrication, t"at
t"ere are no sel3-establis"ing c"aracteristics o3 Ct"ings,C and t"at t"ere is no real
di33erence bet$een accepted dic"otomies suc" as !ir#ana and samsara 3lu- o3 e-istence+.
6orrelati#e to t"is assertion is t"e denial o3 real entities in conditioned p"enomena or t"e
Cunconditioned,C t"e denial o3 a succession o3 moments in time, and a denial o3 t"e triple
3actors: sub5ect, ob5ect, and acti#ity. >3 all t"is is true, t"en $it"out real entities t"ere is no
real cause. 8"e causal process itsel3, concei#ed as a c"ain o3 e#ents, is a mere 3abrication
Qt"oug" indeed a 3abrication po$er3ul enoug" to bind man to more 3abrication. +
.
Dar3ield: t"e central #erses o3 t"is c"apter:
a '0. I"ate#er is dependently co-arisen
a 8"at is e-plained to be emptiness.
a 8"at, being a dependent designation
a >s itsel3 t"e middle $ay.
a '(. Somet"ing t"at is not dependently arisen,
a Suc" a t"ing does not e-ist.
a 8"ere3ore a non-empty t"ing
a Hoes not e-ist.+
.
Dar3ield: >n 2B:'0, !agar5una establis"es a critical t"ree-$ay relation bet$een emptiness,
dependent origination, and #erbal con#ention, and asserts t"at t"is relation itsel3 is t"e
Middle Iay to$ards $"ic" "is entire p"ilosop"ical system is aimed. As $e s"all see, t"is is
t"e basis 3or understanding t"e emptiness o3 emptiness itsel3. First, !agar5una asserts t"at
t"e dependently arisen is emptiness. Emptiness and t"e p"enomenal $orld are not t$o
distinct t"ings. 8"ey are rat"er t$o c"aracteriMations o3 t"e same t"ing. 8o say o3
somet"ing t"at it is dependently co-arisen is to say t"at it is empty. 8o say o3 somet"ing
t"at it is empty is anot"er $ay o3 saying t"at it arises dependently.
Moreo#er, $"ate#er is dependently co-arisen is #erbally establis"ed. 8"at is, t"e identity
o3 any dependently arisen t"ing depends upon #erbal con#entions. 8o say o3 a t"ing t"at it
is dependently arisen is to say t"at its identity as a single entity is not"ing more t"an its
being t"e re3erent o3 a $ord. 8"e t"ing itsel3, apart 3rom con#entions o3 indi#iduation, is
not"ing but an arbitrary slice o3 an inde3inite spatiotemporal and causal mani3old. 8o say
o3 a t"ing t"at its identity is a merely #erbal 3act about it is to say t"at it is empty. 8o #ie$
emptiness in t"is $ay is to see it neit"er as an entity nor as unreal -- it is to see it as
con#entionally real. Moreo#er, CemptinessC itsel3 is asserted to be a dependent designation
Skt pra5anaptir-upadaya <br8en !as gHasgs pa@+. >ts re3erent, emptiness itsel3, is t"ereby
asserted to be merely dependent and nominal -- con#entionally e-istent but ultimately
empty. 8"is is, "ence, a middle pat" $it" regard to emptiness. 8o #ie$ t"e dependently
originated $orld in t"is $ay is to see it neit"er as nonempty nor as completely
none-istent. >t is, #ie$ed in t"is $ay, con#entionally e-istent, but empty Ie t"us "a#e a
middle pat" $it" regard to dependent origination. 8o #ie$ con#ention in t"is $ay is to
#ie$ it neit"er as ontologically insigni3icant -- it determines t"e c"aracter o3 t"e
p"enomenal $orld -- nor as ontologically e33icacious -- it is empty. 8"us $e also "a#e a
middle $ay $it" regard to con#ention. And 3inally, gi#en t"e nice ambiguity in t"e
re3erence o3 Ct"at,C He !i+, not only are Cdependent arisingC and CemptinessC asserted to
be dependent designations, and "ence merely nominal, but t"e #ery relation bet$een
t"em is asserted to be so dependent, and t"ere3ore to be empty.
8"ese morals are dri#en "ome in 2B:'(, $"ere !agar5una emp"asiMes t"at e#eryt"ing --
and t"is must include emptiness -- is dependently arisen. So e#eryt"ing -- including
emptiness -- lacks in"erent e-istence.
So not"ing lacks t"e t"ree coe-tensi#e properties o3 emptiness, dependent-origination,
and con#entional identity. Iit" t"is in "and, !agar5una can reply to t"e critic.+
.
.
-- A SE9F-EU>S8>!D EM&8>!ESS 9EAHS 8O A/SGRH>8%, REJE68>!D 8AE F9OI, 8AE
&A8A
8"en e#eryt"ing is c"aotic.
.
[ NNN
[ 2?.
[ >3 all e-istence is not empty, t"ere is neit"er origination nor destruction.
[ %ou must $rongly conclude t"en t"at t"e 3our "oly trut"s do not e-ist.
.
[ NNN
[ 2'.
[ Aa#ing originated $it"out being conditioned, "o$ $ill sorro$ dukk"a+ come into
e-istenceO
[ >t is said t"at sorro$ dukk"a+ is not eternal, t"ere3ore, certainly it does not e-ist
by its o$n nature s#abba#a+.
.
[ NNN
[ 22.
[ Ao$ can t"at $"ic" is e-isting by its o$n nature originate againO
[ For "im $"o denies emptiness t"ere is no production.
.
[ NNN
[ 21.
[ 8"ere is no destruction o3 sorro$ dukk"a+ i3 it e-ists by its o$n nature.
[ /y trying to establis" Csel3-e-istenceC you deny destruction.
.
[ NNN
[ 2B.
[ >3 t"e pat" <o3 release@ is sel3-e-istent, t"en t"ere is no $ay o3 bringing it into
e-istence b"a#ana+,
[ >3 t"at pat" is broug"t into e-istence, t"en Csel3-e-istence,C $"ic" you claim does
not e-ist.
.
[ NNN
[ 2E.
[ I"en sorro$ dukk"a+, origination, and destruction do not e-ist,
[ I"at kind o3 pat" $ill obtain t"e destruction o3 sorro$ dukk"a+O
.
[ NNN
[ 2).
[ >3 t"ere is no complete kno$ledge as to sel3-e-istence, "o$ <can t"ere be@ any
kno$ledge o3 itO
[ >ndeed, is it not true t"at sel3-e-istence is t"at $"ic" enduresO
.
[ NNN
[ 2*.
[ As in t"e case o3 complete kno$ledge, neit"er destruction, realiMation, Cbringing
into e-istence,C
[ !or are t"e 3our "oly 3ruits possible 3or you.
.
[ NNN
[ 20.
[ >3 you accept Csel3-e-istence,C and a C3ruitC is not kno$n by its sel3-e-istence,
[ Ao$ can it be kno$n at allO
.
[ NNN
[ 2(.
[ >n t"e non-e-istence o3 C3ruit,C t"ere is no Cresiding in 3ruitC nor obtaining <t"e
C3ruitC@,
[ I"en t"e community <o3 /udd"ists@ does not e-ist, t"en t"ose eig"t Ckinds o3
personsC do not e-ist.
.
[ NNN
[ 1?.
[ /ecause t"ere is non-e-istence o3 t"e 3our "oly trut"s, t"e real d"arma does not
e-ist.
[ And i3 t"ere is no d"arma and community, "o$ $ill t"e /udd"a e-istO
.
Dar3ield: Ae 3irst points out 2B: 2?-1E+ t"at in #irtue o3 t"e identity o3 dependent
origination and emptiness on t"e one "and and o3 ontological independence and intrinsic
reality on t"e ot"er, suc" p"enomena as arising, ceasing, su33ering, c"ange,
enlig"tenment, and so on -- t"e #ery p"enomena t"e opponent c"arges !agar5una $it"
denying -- are possible only i3 t"ey are empty. 8"e tables are t"us turned: it appears t"at
!agar5una, in #irtue o3 arguing 3or t"e emptiness o3 t"ese p"enomena, $as arguing t"at in
reality t"ey do not e-ist, precisely because, 3or t"e rei3ication o3 emptiness, e-istence and
emptiness are opposites. /ut in 3act, because o3 t"e identity o3 emptiness and
con#entional e-istence, it is t"e rei3ication $"o, in #irtue o3 denying t"e emptiness o3
t"ese p"enomena, denies t"eir e-istence. And it is "ence t"e rei3ication o3 emptiness $"o
is impaled on bot" "orns o3 t"e dilemma sF"e "as presented to !agar5una: contradicting
t"e ultimate trut", sF"e denies t"at t"ese p"enomena are empty, contradicting t"e
con#entional, sF"e is 3orced to deny t"at t"ey e#en e-istR+
.
[ NNN
[ 1'.
[ For you, eit"er t"e one $"o is enlig"tened budd"a+ comes into being
independent o3 enlig"tenment,
[ Or enlig"tenment comes into being independent o3 t"e one $"o is enlig"tened.
.
[ NNN
[ 12.
[ For you, some one $"o is a non-budd"a by "is o$n nature s#ab"a#a+ but stri#es
3or enlig"tenment i.e. a /od"isatt#a+
[ Iill not attain t"e enlig"tenment t"oug" t"e C$ay o3 li3e o3 becoming 3ully
enlig"tened.C
.
[ NNN
[ 11.
[ !eit"er t"e d"arma nor non-d"arma $ill be done any$"ere.
[ I"at is produced $"ic" is non-emptyO 6ertainly sel3-e-istence is not produced.
.
[ NNN
[ 1B.
[ 6ertainly, 3or you, t"ere is a product $it"out <t"e distinction@ o3 d"arma or non-
d"arma.
[ Since, 3or you, t"e product caused by d"arma or non-d"arma does not e-ist.
.
[ NNN
[ 1E.
[ >3, 3or you, t"e product is caused by d"arma or non-d"arma, be non-emptyO
[ Ao$ can t"at product, being originated by d"arma or non-d"arma emptyO
.
[ NNN
[ 1).
[ %ou deny all mundane and customary acti#ities
[ I"en you deny emptiness <in t"e sense o3@ dependent co-origination patytya-
samutpada+.
.
-- A SE9F-EU>S8>!D EM&8>!ESS 9EAHS 8O A/SGRH>8%, REJE68>!D 8AE F9OI, 8AE
&A8A
.
Iit" your de3inition o3 emptiness or $it"out emptiness at all+ you deny t"e ob#ious, t"e
3lo$.
.
StrengE: A more complete de#elopment is gi#en in --i#, 2?-B?: analyMes t"e notion o3 t"e
3our "oly trut"s caturaryasatya+, "ere !agar5una insists t"at only i3 all t"ings are empty
can t"e "oly trut"s be e33ecti#e. As be3ore, emptiness re3ers to t"e conditioned co-
origination o3 all t"ings, and nonemptiness re3ers to t"e sel3-su33icient reality s#ab"a#a+ o3
all t"ings. Emptiness is t"e condition i.e., dependent co-origination+ $"ic" must e-ist
be3ore any p"enomenal causes and conditions can CproduceC entities, at t"e same time it
is t"e condition $"ic" denies t"e ultimate reality o3 p"enomenal entities. 8"e claim t"at
emptiness is t"e condition 3or bot" mundane action and t"e release 3rom sorro$ is seen in
t"e concluding 3i#e #erses o3 t"is c"apter:
.
Dar3ield: And so !agar5una can conclude 2B: 1)+:
.
>3 dependent arising is denied,
Emptiness itsel3 is re5ected.
8"is $ould contradict
All o3 t"e $orldly con#entions.
.
[ NNN
[ 1*.
[ >3 you deny emptiness, t"ere $ould be action $"ic" is unacti#ated.
[ 8"ere $ould be not"ing $"ate#er acted upon, and a producing action $ould be
somet"ing not begun.
.
[ NNN
[ 10.
[ According to <t"e doctrine o3@ Csel3-e-istenceC t"e $orld is 3ree 3rom di33erent
conditions,
[ 8"en it $ill e-ist as unproduced, undestroyed and immutable.
.
[ NNN
[ 1(.
[ >3 non-emptiness does not e-ist, t"en somet"ing is attained $"ic" is not attained,
[ 8"ere is cessation o3 sorro$ dukk"a+ and actions, and all e#il is destroyed.
.
>8 >S !O8 !O!-EM&8>!ESS E>8AER
.
[ NNN
[ B?.
[ Ae $"o percei#es dependent co-origination patytya-samutpada+
[ Also understands sorro$ dukk"a+, origination, and destruction as $ell as t"e pat"
<o3 release@.
.
Maybe: one "as to percei#e H.O. $"ile percei#ing emptiness.
.
>t is not emptiness, it is not non-emptiness, it is not bot", it is not neit"er+
>t is not emptiness, it is not H.O., it is not bot", or neit"er
Ie "a#e to transcend bot": 8AE G!>O! OF 8AE 8IO 8RG8AS
.
92: <Section 2E - An Analysis o3 !ir#ana nir#ana+ - 2B@
.
RVSGMV:
-- /ut
-- >t is about t"e nature o3 C#ery 3inal absolute trut"C F C t"e #ery ultimate realityC F I"at
is !ir#ana O
-- -- As in section 22, $"ere it is said t"at no concepts can e-press t"e nature o3 t"e
8at"agata: not dependent origination, not emptiness, not eternity, ..., $e cannot e#en ask
i3 "e e-ist or not a3ter deat".
-- !ir#ana is suppose to be non-dependent, a non-composite-product
-- -- >s !ir#ana a t"ing ... O
-- -- -- !ir#ana : is not an e-isting t"ing, is not a non-e-isting t"ing, is not bot", is not
neit"er
-- -- >s t"ere a c"ange in CbeingC 3rom samsara to nir#ana O :
-- -- -- As in section 22: 8"e Cunsans$erablesC
-- -- -- -- t"e Juestions about t"e e-istence or not .. o3 t"e 8at"agata a3ter deat" O
-- -- -- -- 8"ese Juestions are Cunans$erableC because:
-- -- -- -- >n emptiness t"ere is no e-istence, no non-e-istence, no bot", no neit"er.
-- -- -- Aere it is mentioned t"at it is t"e same be3ore or a3ter deat".
-- -- -- 8"ere is no di33erence.
-- -- -- 8"ere is no c"ange o3 CbeingC bet$een samsara and !ir#ana.
-- -- >s t"ere a di33erence bet$een samsara and !ir#ana
-- -- -- !ir#ana and Samsara are not di33erent, not t"e same
-- -- -- 8"ey are bot" mental 3abrications, a duality
-- -- 8"e Cunsans$erablesC
-- -- -- 8"e Juestions about t"e status o3 t"e 8at"agata a3er deat", t"ose #ie$s,
Cunans$erable JuestionsC, are based on t"e idea o3 somet"ing c"anging $it" !ir#ana.
Eit"er somet"ing ne$ added, or somet"ing ending.
-- -- -- /ut in emptiness, not"ing CisC, and not"ing Cc"angesC
-- -- -- So t"ose Juestions are 5ust t"e misguided, $it" no 3oundation.
-- -- 8"en $"at is !ir#ana O
-- -- -- 8"e cessation o3 accepting e#eryt"ing <as real@.
-- -- -- 8"en t"ere is t"e salutary si#a+ cessation o3 p"enomenal de#elopment prapanca+
-- More:
-- -- Seeing t"ings in t"e 3lo$.
-- -- 8"inking t"ere are 3irst causes, or 3inal products.
-- -- 8"inking t"ings e-ist and c"ange.+
.
91: <IAA8 >S !>R:A!AO@
9B: <An opponent says:@
.
[ NNN
[ '.
[ >3 all e-istence is empty, t"ere is no origination nor destruction.
[ 8"en $"ose nir#ana t"roug" elimination <o3 su33ering@ and destruction <o3 illusion@
.
Opponent: i3 e#eryt"ing is empty, t"en ... no !ir#ana.
.
Jona" Iinters: Ae opens t"e section $it" t"e opponent7s ob5ection t"at, i3 all is really
empty, t"en t"ere is no arising o3 t"ings and so t"ere is not"ing to be e-tinguis"ed
nir#ana+.+
.
!ote 3or t"e 3ollo$ing #erses: !ir#ana is suppose to be non-dependent, a non-composite-
product, +
.
9B: <!agar5una replies:@
.
[ NNN
[ 2.
[ >3 all e-istence is non-empty, t"ere is no origination nor destruction.
[ 8"en $"ose nir#ana t"roug" elimination <o3 su33ering@ and destruction <o3 illusion@
.
!agar5una: i3 e#eryt"ing is not empty, t"en ... no !ir#ana.
.
Jona" Iinters: !agar5una replies, as be3ore, t"at Ci3 all t"is is non- empty, t"ere e-ists
neit"er arising nor ceasing.C >3 t"ere is s#ab"a#a, a sel3-nature in t"ings, t"en it is t"at
$"ic" $ill pre#ent 3reedom. 4arikas UU:.2++
.
[ NNN
[ 1.
[ !ir#ana "as been said to be neit"er eliminated nor attained, neit"er anni"ilated
nor eternal,
[ !eit"er disappeared nor originated.
.
Jona" Iinters: Aa#ing re5ected sel3- nature by saying t"at all is empty, "e is no$ 3aced
$it" a problem. >3 t"ere are no t"ings, t"en $"at is 3reedom, and "o$ can one speak o3 it
or stri#e 3or itO 8"e /udd"a o33ered #arious de3initions o3 nir#ana, one o3 $"ic" !agar5una
no$ makes use o3. CGnrelinJuis"ed, not reac"ed, unanni"ilated, non-eternal, non-ceased
and non-arisen---t"is is called 3reedom.C 4arikas UU:.1+
-- One substantialist notion o3 3reedom $as t"at t"e bound person partakes o3 t"e Juality
o3 bondage. Freedom, t"en, $ould be t"e relinJuis"ing o3 t"is nature and t"e adoption o3
a ne$ and $"olly disparate mode o3 e-istence---t"e 3reed state. 8"is does not apply.
-- 8"ere is not a person $"o partakes o3 Jualities, and 3reedom is not a concrete goal t"at
can be stri#en 3or.
-- An eternalist soteriology $ould "old t"at t"e state o3 3reedom transcends temporality,
and t"e one $"o ac"ie#es 3reedom also becomes eternal. !ir#ana is not suc", 3or it is
non- eternal.
-- !eit"er, "o$e#er, is it a temporal state o3 sal#ation, 3or it is Cunanni"ilated.C
-- >t cannot "a#e any relation to temporality, $"ic" is measured by arising and ceasing,
3or it is Cnon-ceased and non-arisen.C
Freedom is t"us not obtainable, not a transcendent reality, and not, like t"e :edanta
atman, a pree-isting immanent substratum.+
.
9E: <6ASE ' - an ordinary t"ing@
.
[ NNN
[ B.
[ !ir#ana is certainly not an e-isting t"ing, 3or t"en it $ould be c"aracteriMed by old
age and deat".
[ >n conseJuence it $ould in#ol#e t"e error t"at an e-isting t"ing $ould not become
old and be $it"out deat".
.
[ NNN
[ E.
[ And i3 nir#ana is an e-isting t"ing, nir#ana $ould be a constructed product
samskrta+,
[ Since ne#er e#er "as an e-isting t"ing been 3ound to be a non-constructed-
product asamskrta+.
.
[ NNN
[ ).
[ /ut i3 nir#ana is an e-isting t"ing, "o$ could <nir#ana@ e-ist $it"out dependence
<on somet"ing else@O
[ 6ertainly nir#ana does not e-ist as somet"ing $it"out dependence.
.
Streng: !ir#ana is not an e-istent entity #erse B-)++
.
Jona" Iinters: Furt"er, nir#ana "as absolutely no relation to t"e concepts o3 eit"er
e-istence or non-e-istence. >3 it $ere a 3orm o3 e-istence, t"en, like all e-istent t"ings, it
$ould partake o3 birt" and deat", arising and ceasing. >t $ould be relati#e and t"us
conditioned, 3or t"ere are no e-istent t"ings t"at are unconditioned. >3 conditioned, it
could not be independent. 8"ese $ould necessitate t"at nir#ana, like all conditioned and
dependent t"ings, be c"aracteriMed by impermanence and su33ering, $"ic" $ould make
3or a poor enlig"tenment, indeed.+
.
9E: <6ASE 2 - a non e-istent anymore - t"e negation o3 t"e 3irst@
.
[ NNN
[ *.
[ >3 nir#ana is not an e-isting t"ing, $ill nir#ana become a non-e-isting t"ingO
[ I"ere#er t"ere is no e-isting t"ing, neit"er is t"ere a non-e-isting t"ing.
.
[ NNN
[ 0.
[ /ut i3 nir#ana is a non-e-isting t"ing, "o$ could <nir#ana@ e-ist $it"out
dependence <on somet"ing else@ O
[ 6ertainly nir#ana is not a non-e-isting t"ing $"ic" e-ists $it"out dependence.
.
[ NNN
[ (.
[ 8"at state $"ic" is t"e rus"ing in and out <o3 e-istence@ $"en dependent or
conditionedQ
[ 8"is <state@, $"en not dependent or not conditioned, is seen to be nir#ana.
.
[ NNN
[ '?.
[ 8"e teac"er <Dautama@ "as taug"t t"at a CbecomingC and a Cnon-becomingC
#ib"a#a+ are destroyed,
[ 8"ere3ore it obtains t"at: !ir#ana is neit"er an e-istent t"ing nor a non-e-istent
t"ing.
.
Streng: !ir#ana is not a none-istent entity #erses *-'?++
.
Jona" Iinters: !eit"er can 3reedom be said to be non-e-istence, 3or, C$"erein t"ere is
no e-istence, t"erein non-e-istence is not e#ident.C 4arikas UU:.*+
8"e t$o e-istence . non-e-istence+ are relati#e concepts. Moreo#er, i3 3reedom $ere
said to be non-e-istence, it $ould, as one "al3 o3 a dual conception, still not be
independent. !agar5una ec"oed t"e /udd"a7s clear assertion t"at nir#ana is neit"er
transcendent e-istence nor post"umous anni"ilation. >n discussing t"e nature o3 t"e
enlig"tened one in an earlier section, "e clearly stated t"at Ct"e t"oug"t t"at t"e /udd"a
e-ists or does not e-ist a3ter deat" is not appropriate.C 4arikas UU>>.'B+
!ot$it"standing suc" di33iculties, nir#ana must be seen as non-contingent and
independent. >3 it $ere not, t"en it $ould not be 3ree 3rom t"e contingency and
dependence o3 t"e su33ering $orld. 8"e solution, t"e /udd"a said, is to relinJuis" t"e
notions o3 becoming and being in all 3orms. 8"ere3ore, Cit is proper to assume t"at
3reedom is neit"er e-istence nor non-e-istence.C 4arikas UU:.'? na b"a#o nab"a#o
nir#anam++ 8"at is, i3 one completely ceases to t"ink in terms o3 being, t"en neit"er
arising nor ceasing, origination nor anni"ilation $ill be posited.+
.
9E: <6ASE 1 - it is bot"@
.
[ NNN
[ ''.
[ >3 nir#ana $ere bot" an e-istent and a non-e-istent t"ing,
[ Final release moksa+ $ould be <bot"@ an e-istent and a non-e-istent t"ing, but
t"at is not possible.
.
[ NNN
[ '2.
[ >3 nir#ana $ere bot" an e-istent and a non-e-istent t"ing,
[ 8"ere $ould be no nir#ana $it"out conditions, 3or t"ese bot" <operate $it"@
conditions.
.
[ NNN
[ '1.
[ Ao$ can nir#ana e-ist as bot" an e-istent t"ing and a non-e-istent t"ing,
[ For nir#ana is a non-composite-product asamskrta+,
[ $"ile bot" an e-istent t"ing and a non-e-istent t"ing are composite products
samskrta+.
.
[ NNN
[ 'B.
[ Ao$ can nir#ana e-ist as bot" an e-istent and a non-e-istent t"ingO
[ 8"ere is no e-istence o3 bot" at one and t"e same place, as in t"e case o3 bot"
darkness and lig"t.
.
Streng: !ir#ana is not bot" an e-istent and none-istent entity at t"e same time #erses
''-'B++
.
Jona" Iinters: 8"ere is anot"er possible interpretation o3 t"e /udd"a7s e-"ortation to
relinJuis" notions o3 being. One could say t"at, instead o3 seeing 3reedom as neit"er
e-istence nor non-e-istence, one could see it as bot", as a transcendence o3 t"e t$o
categories or, in Aegelian terms, a synt"esis o3 t"esis and antit"esis. 8"is $ould declare
3reedom to be some sort o3 mystical consciousness $"ic" is bot" e-istence and non-
e-istence by #irtue o3 being a transcendence o3 t"e dualities. 8"is $ill not $ork, eit"er,
!agar5una no$ s"o$s, 3or nir#ana can contain no aspect o3 eit"er "al3 o3 t"e duality. >3 it
$ere bot" e-istence and non- e-istence, t"en, rat"er t"an being independent, it $ould be
dependent on bot" and t"us doubly contingent. Furt"er, since e-istence and non-
e-istence are mutually e-clusi#e opposites, Ct"eir simultaneous e-istence in one place is
not possible, as in t"e case o3 lig"t and darkness.C 4arikas UU:.'B+
8"at $"ic" precipitated t"e debate $as t"e /udd"a7s teac"ing t"at 3reedom is attainable,
and t"e 3ollo$ing speculations o3 "is 3ollo$ers about $"at sort o3 e-istence t"e /udd"a
en5oyed a3ter deat", a3ter "is 3ull attainment o3 nir#ana.+
.
9E: <6ASE B - it is neit"er - t"e negation o3 bot"@
.
[ NNN
[ 'E.
[ 8"e assertion: C!ir#ana is neit"er an e-istent t"ing nor a non-e-istent t"ingC
[ >s pro#ed i3 <t"e assertion@: C>t is an e-istent t"ing and a non-e-istent t"ingC $ere
pro#ed.
.
[ NNN
[ ').
[ >3 nir#ana is neit"er an e-istent t"ing nor a non-e-istent t"ing,
[ I"o can really arri#e at <t"e assertion@: Cneit"er an e-istent t"ing nor a non-
e-istent t"ingCO
.
Streng: !ir#ana is not neit"er an e-istent nor none-istent entity at t"e same time #erses
lE-')++
.
8AE HGA9>8% C!>R:A!AC #s. CSAMSARAC
EM&8>!ESS OF !>R:A!A
.
9B: <IAA8 6AA!DES FROM SAMSARA 8O !>R:A!AO >S /E>!D H>FFERE!8O@
.
[ NNN
[ '*.
[ >t is not e-pressed i3 t"e Dlorious One <t"e /udd"a@ e-ists '+ a3ter "is deat",
[ Or does not e-ist 2+, or bot" 1+ or neit"er B+.
.
[ NNN
[ '0.
[ Also, it is not e-pressed i3 t"e Dlorious One e-ists '+ $"ile remaining <in t"e
$orld@,
[ Or does not e-ist 2+, or bot" 1+ or neit"er B+.
.
!O 6AA!DE OF S8A8GS /E8IEE! 8AE 8IO
EM&8>!ESS OF A C/E>!DC >! /O8A
.
As in section 22: t"e Juestions about t"e e-istence or not .. o3 t"e 8at"agata a3ter deat" O
8"ese Juestions are Cunans$erableC because: >n emptiness t"ere is no e-istence, no non-
e-istence, no bot", no neit"er.
Aere it is mentioned t"at it is t"e same be3ore or a3ter deat".
8"ere is no di33erence. 8"ere is no c"ange o3 status bet$een samsara and !ir#ana.
.
Jona" Iinters: 8"at $"ic" precipitated t"e debate $as t"e /udd"a7s teac"ing t"at
3reedom is attainable, and t"e 3ollo$ing speculations o3 "is 3ollo$ers about $"at sort o3
e-istence t"e /udd"a en5oyed a3ter deat", a3ter "is 3ull attainment o3 nir#ana.
--- 8"ere are t$o 3orms o3 nir#ana: t"e one ac"ie#ed during li3e is a state o3 3reedom but,
since t"e 3reed one still "as a karmically-bound body, it is not complete nir#ana. 6omplete
3reedom, Ctotal e-tinctionC parinir#ana+, only occurs at deat" $"en t"e body, too, is
e-tinguis"ed. As !agar5una "as 5ust s"o$n, no t"eories o3 t"e /udd"a7s e-istential status
seem to be possible. 8"us, Cit is not assumed t"at t"e /lessed One <t"e /udd"a@ e-ists
a3ter deat". !eit"er is it assumed t"at "e does not e-ist, or bot", or neit"er.C 4arikas
UU:.'*++
An immediate Juestion 3ollo$ing t"is statement is Ct"en $"at "appened to "imO Ae
ob#iously e-isted at one point, and no$ "e doesn7t, so $"ere did "e goOC !agar5una7s
ans$er is startling: C>t is not assumed t"at e#en a li#ing /lessed One e-ists. !eit"er is it
assumed t"at "e does not e-ist, or bot", or neit"er.C 4arikas UU:.'0+
8"e ans$er, t"en, is t"at not"ing "appened to t"e /udd"a. Ais e-istential status did not
c"ange $"en "e attained nir#ana, 3or "e could not e#en be said to "a#e e-isted be3ore it.
>3 t"e /udd"a7s nature be3ore "is nir#ana $as t"e same as "is nature a3ter enlig"tenment,
t"en t"e only t"ing t"at c"anged $as "is sub5ecti#e understanding. Ais actual nature did
not c"ange.+
.
[ NNN
[ '(.
[ 8AERE >S !O8A>!D IAA8E:ER IA>6A H>FFERE!8>A8ES 8AE EU>S8E!6E->!-
F9GU SAMSARA+ FROM !>R:A!A,
[ And t"ere is not"ing $"ate#er $"ic" di33erentiates nir#ana 3rom e-istence-in-3lu-.
.
8AE HGA9>8% !>R:A!A #s. SAMSARA
!O8 H>FFERE!8
.
Jona" Iinters: An e#en more startling conclusion 3ollo$s 3rom t"is: i3 "is nature did not
c"ange, t"en t"e $orld o3 su33ering, samsara, must not be di33erent 3rom t"e $orld
e-perienced by t"e 3reed person. 8"is is e-actly $"at !agar5una concludes. C8"e li3e-
process "as no t"ing t"at distinguis"es it 3rom 3reedom. Freedom "as no t"ing t"at
distinguis"es it 3rom t"e li3e- process.C 4arikas UU:.'(+ 8"ere is no transcendent reality,
no uniJue state o3 3reedom e-perienced by t"e enlig"tened one. 8"e $orlds e-perienced
by t"e one bound by su33ering and t"e one 3reed 3rom su33ering are not di33erent $orlds.
!ir#ana is not"ing more t"an a s"i3t in understanding t"e $orld and a ne$ $ay o3 reacting
to it.+
.
[ NNN
[ 2?.
[ 8"e e-treme limit koti+ o3 nir#ana is also t"e e-treme limit o3 e-istence-in-3lu-,
[ 8"ere is not t"e slig"test bit o3 di33erence bet$een t"ese t$o.
.
8AE HGA9>8% !>R:A!A #s. SAMSARA
!O8 8AE SAME
.
Streng: 8"e rationale 3or "andling !ir#ana as any mental 3abrication is e-pressly stated in
#erses '( and 2?.+
.
Jona" Iinters: Ao$e#er, !agar5una is Juick to say, t"is does not mean t"at t"e cycle o3
li3e-and- deat" and 3reedom are t"e same. CI"ate#er is o3 t"e e-tremity o3 3reedom and
t"e e-tremity o3 t"e li3e-process, bet$een t"em not e#en a subtle somet"ing is e#ident.C
4arikas UU:.2?+
>3 t"ey $ere simply declared to be identical, t"en t"ere $ould be neit"er t"e e-perience o3
su33ering nor t"e e-perience o3 release 3rom it. Alt"oug" t"e cycle o3 birt"-and-deat" and
nir#ana are not di33erent, t"en, t"ey are nonet"eless e-perienced di33erently and are not
simply one and t"e same.+
.
9B: <!O8 8AE SAME, !O8 H>FFERE!8 -- 8AE! IAA8 6AA!DESO@
.
[ NNN
[ 2'.
[ 8"e #ie$s <regarding@ $"et"er t"at $"ic" is beyond deat" is limited by a
beginning or an end or some ot"er alternati#e
[ Hepend on a nir#ana limited by a beginning pur#anta+ and an end aparanta+,
.
8"ose #ie$s, Cunans$erable JuestionsC, are based on t"e idea o3 somet"ing c"anging
$it" !ir#ana. Eit"er somet"ing ne$ added, or somet"ing ending.
.
[ NNN
[ 22.
[ Since all d"armas are empty, $"at is 3inite O I"at is in3inite O
[ I"at is bot" 3inite and in3inite O I"at is neit"er 3inite nor in3inite O
.
[ NNN
[ 21.
[ >s t"ere anyt"ing $"ic" is t"is or somet"ing else, $"ic" is permanent or
impermanent,
[ I"ic" is bot" permanent and impermanent, or $"ic" is neit"er O
.
/ut not"ing CisC, so "o$ can anyt"ing c"ange O
.
Jona" Iinters: 8"e cause o3 t"is $"ole sp"ere o3 con3usions and misunderstandings
about t"e nature o3 3reedom is t"e "uman tendency to speculate and t"eoriMe. Iere t"ere
not t"is tendency, t"en one $ould ne#er percei#e transitory p"enomena as enduring in
t"e 3irst place, $"ic" $ould pre#ent one 3rom de#eloping passionate attractions and
a#ersions regarding p"enomena. Iit"out suc" passions, t"e dispositions, grasping and
cra#ing $ould not de#elop, and t"us su33ering $ould not come to be. Iit"out t"ese
passions, one $ould not create t"e concepts o3 eternal li3e, identity or di33erence, or
in3inity o3 t"e uni#erse, concepts $"ic" t"e /udd"a repeatedly re3used to discuss. 8"e
notion o3 emptiness is an antidote to t"is c"ain $"ic" "as its birt" in con3used
understanding and its result in su33ering. For, C$"en all t"ings are empty, $"y <speculate
on@ t"e 3inite, t"e in3inite, bot" t"e 3inite and t"e in3inite and neit"er t"e 3inite nor t"e
in3initeO I"y speculate on t"e identical, t"e di33erent, t"e eternal, t"e non-eternal, bot",
or neit"erOC 4arikas UU:.22-21+
I"en one completely and utterly ceases to grasp onto t"eories and perceptions,
speculation comes to an end, and dispositions are Cblo$n out.C 8"is is nir#ana. +
.
[ NNN
[ 2B.
[ 8AE 6ESSA8>O! OF A66E&8>!D E:ER%8A>!D <AS REA9@
[ >S A SA9G8AR% S>:A+ 6ESSA8>O! OF &AE!OME!A9 HE:E9O&ME!8
&RA&A!6A+,
[ !O HAARMA A!%IAERE AAS /EE! 8AGDA8 /% 8AE /GHHAA OF A!%8A>!D.
.
8AE% ARE !O8 H>FFERE!8, 8AE% ARE !O8 8AE SAME
-- A HGA9>8%, A ME!8A9 FA/R>6A8>O!
-- SO 8AE H>FFERE!6E >S >! 8AE M>!H
.
>3 not"ing CisC, t"en not"ing Cc"angesC.
All is empty, dependent on t"e mind ...
So t"e c"ange is in t"e mind, in t"e perception.
.
/ut t"is does not mean t"at t"ere is no di33erence at all:
8"e di33erence is in not being 3ooled by our o$n mind, t"inking its o$n constructions are
real or represent real t"ings or processes, "olding to #ie$s or rig"t and $rong, 5udging
t"ings accordingly, grasping, su33ering 3rom any c"ange.
.
!ir#ana is : ne#er 3alling 3or any absolute, any #ie$, any perception, ne#er stopping t"e
3lo$, al$ays seeing /ot" 8rut"s at t"e same time.
.
8"e C#ery ultimate realityC is still ine-pressible.
.
StrengE: !ir#ana, 3or !agar5una, is not a term $"ic" darkly re3lects an absolute Gltimate
Reality, it, too, is simply a 3abrication o3 t"e mind $"ic", i3 misunderstood as re3erring to a
sel3-su33icient and independent Gltimate Reality, $ill misguide t"e one $"o seeks release.
Only as a con#entional i.e., relati#e, term can it be pro3itably used to direct t"e mind 3rom
ignorance and greedy 8"e Gltimate 8rut" to $"ic" t"e term !ir#ana points is t"at it is
$it"out any designations in actuality t"ere is no CitC and no designation, 5ust as #isible
3orms are not t"ings-in-t"emsel#es $"ic" "a#e certain attributes.
8"e di33erence bet$een !ir#ana and samsara applies only to t"e con#entional norms o3
trut", 3or ultimately bot" o3 t"em are empty sunya+. 8"e Cnegati#e tendencyC in dealing
$it" !ir#ana and samsara as Cundi33erentiatedC rat"er t"an as Ct"e sameC is important to
pre#ent t"e misunderstanding t"at emptiness is an Absolute in t"e sense o3 /ra"man in
Ad#aita-#edanta t"oug"t. !ir#ana and samsara "a#e a Cnegati#e identityC $"ereby t"e
nature o3 reality in !ir#ana consists in t"e lack o3 sel3-su33icient reality in t"e 3actors t"at
constitute samsara. 8"e emptiness o3 t"e p"enomenal $orld is also t"e emptiness o3 any
Cnon-p"enomenal realityC t"at is concei#ed as sel3-e-istent. Samsara is no more CemptyC
t"an !ir#ana, nor is !ir#ana more CemptyC t"an samsara 3rom t"e "ig"est point o3 #ie$Q
t"oug" !ir#ana is more CemptyC t"an samsara 3rom t"e con#entional, practical
perspecti#e.
.
See muc" more in 6"apter E o3 Streng+
.
Iilliams: !ir#ana, 3or !agar5una, is 7t"e calming o3 all representations, t"e calming o3 all
#erbal di33erentiations, peace7 M4 2E:2B+.
.
Since 3or !agar5una !ir#ana is t"e result o3 calming t"e categoriMing, conceptualiMing
mind, so any tendency to conceptualiMe !ir#ana is re3uted. !ir#ana, "e says, is neit"er an
e-istent nor a none-istent, neit"er bot" toget"er nor neit"er alternati#e.
-- >t could not be an e-istent, since all e-istents are part o3 t"e realm o3 causal
conditioning M4 2E:E-)+. >t $ould t"en be sub5ect to decay and peris"ing literally: birt"
and deat": M4 2E:B+.
-- >t could not be a none-istent, "o$e#er, since i3 t"ere are really no e-istents so t"ere
can be no none-istent !one-istence occurs $"en somet"ing goes out o3 e-istence, and
also t"e #ery notion o3 none-istence depends upon t"e notion o3 e-istence. !on-e-istents
are any$ay not independent entities M4 2E:*-0+. >3 t"ere is really, 3rom an ultimate point
o3 #ie$, not"ing t"at is, not"ing "as in"erent e-istence+, t"en !ir#ana could not come
about eit"er.
-- Moreo#er !ir#ana could not be bot" an e-istent and a none-istent, since t"ese are
contradictory M4 2E:'B+.
-- And !ir#ana as a really e-isting t"ing $"ic" is neit"er e-istent nor none-istent is simply
incompre"ensible M4 2E:'D+. in 3act, !agar5una says:
.
8"ere is not"ing $"atsoe#er di33erentiating samsara t"e round o3 rebirt"+ 3rom !ir#ana.
8"ere is not"ing $"atsoe#er di33erentiating !ir#ana 3rom samsara.
8"e limit o3 !ir#ana is t"e limit o3 samsara.
/et$een t"e t$o t"ere is not t"e slig"test bit o3 di33erence.
M4 2E:'(-2?+
.
According to 8song k"a pa in "is commentary to t"e Mad"yamaka4arikas 3.2)1b+ t"is is
not to be taken as t"e e-pression o3 some mystical identity. Rat"er, !ir#ana and samsara
are identical in t"e sense t"at t"ey "a#e in all respects t"e same nature - absence o3
in"erent e-istence. Ie s"ould not t"ink t"at t"is $orld is empty but !ir#ana is some really
e-isting alternati#e realm or $orld. !ir#ana is attainable "ere and no$ t"roug" t"e correct
understanding o3 t"e "ere and no$. +
.
92: <Section 2) - An Analysis o3 t"e 8$el#e 6omponents d#adasanga+ t"e t$el#e
spokes+ - '2@
.
RVSGMV:
-- Section 22 mentionned t"at t"e C#ery ultimate trut"C is not CHependent OriginationC or
CEmptinessC, and t"at no conceptual t"oug"t can e-press it.
-- Section 21 a33irmed t"at t"ere is no suc" t"ing as rig"t #s. $rong.
-- Section 2B introduced t"e 8$o 8rut"s and t"e Middle Iay -- raMor edge, d"armaksanti
-- Section 2E ended $it": I"at is nir#ana t"en O : t"e cessation o3 accepting e#eryt"ing
<as real@.
-- All o3 t"ese suggest t"at, e#en i3 $e cannot conceptualiMe t"e goal or t"e C#ery ultimate
realityC, $e s"ould adopt a certain con#entional $ay -- a middle $ay -- based on
Hependent Origination and Emptiness.
.
So "o$ to do t"at O -- necessarily a con#entional trut" met"od =
.
-- Hependent Origination e-plains samsara and t"e possibility o3 !ir#ana t"e cessation o3
accepting e#eryt"ing <as real@+. E#en t"oug" t"e elements o3 t"is model s"ould not be
seen as real like in t"e Ab"id"arma+, t"ey 3orm a use3ul model.
-- -- 8"e $"ole set o3 3i#e aggregates is t"e result o3 a cycle iteration or 3lo$+, $"ere
kno$ledge is stored in t"e body and mind and in some $ay passed accross li#es+. A cycle
$it" more and more adaptations, constructions, 3abrications, classi3ications,
discriminations, t"eories, #ie$s.
-- -- All ne$ construction, 3abrication, t"eories, #ie$s, ..., are ultimately based on t"e
"ypot"esis o3 somet"ing being in#ariant, a sel3-e-isting somet"ing, somet"ing t"at can be
e-pected, planned, control -- t"is is ignorance.
-- -- Ie construct because o3 t"is ignorance, $e t"ink t"ere are in#ariants, sel3-e-istence,
rig"t and $rong, pure and impure, real cause and e33ect.
-- -- /ut all constructions are dependent, impermanent, unsatis3actory, empty. 8"ey
necessarily 3ail at one point, because t"ere is no in#ariant, no absolute, no sel3-e-istence.
-- -- 8"e structure and mind stream e-pect, and is decei#ed P dukk"a.
-- &arado-ically: i3 it is t"e accumulation o3 kno$ledge in t"e 3i#e aggregates t"at
perpetuates samsara, it is also kno$ledge t"at permits to e-cape 3rom it not s"utting
do$n t"e mind 3rom t"e start+.
-- 8"e key to escape+ is to remo#e ignorance, $"ic" can be done by culti#ating
kno$ledge and $isdom.
-- 8"e trut" in Juestion is dependent arising and its concomitant, emptiness.
-- -- t"ey may not be t"e C#ery ultimate trut"C, but t"ey are #ery use3ul tools to clear t"e
$ay.+
-- -- I"en all t"ings are seen as being empty ...+, one can 3orm no dispositions about
t"em and $ill cause neit"er passionate attractions nor a#ersions to come into play. FF 8"e
CrealiMationC o3 sunyata t"e emptiness o3 s#ab"a#a+ pre#ents t"e continuation o3
3abrication.
-- -- 8"is $ill pre#ent grasping t"e $eak link o3 t"e c"ain+.
-- -- >t is not a linear process, it is like breaking a "abit, de-programming t"e 3i#e
aggregates.
-- -- Iit" kno$ledge, t"e person is no more 3ooled by Csel3-e-istenceC, t"ere is no more
constructions,
-- -- t"e cessation o3 accepting e#eryt"ing <as real@.
-- -- Iit" no more constructions, no more accumulation o3 kno$ledge, no more #ie$s, no
more 3alse e-pectations, no more deceptions PPW !ir#ana.
-- 8"e Eig"t3old &at" is still+ t"e $ay to do t"is. -- but not"ing s"ould be CcrystalliMedC, all
d"armas are empty. 8"ere is 5ust t"e 3lo$, not"ing in t"e 3lo$.+
.
91: <8AE 6ASE OF SAMSARA :+@
.
[ NNN
[ '.
[ CI"at is "idden by ignorance '+C a#idyani#rta+ "as caused t"e t"ree kinds o3
conditioned t"ings 2+ samskara+
[ to be made 3or rebirt" Q
[ /y t"ose actions it <i.e., C $"at is "idden by ignoranceC@ goes 3or$ard.
.
>gnorance and #olitional 3ormations are considered to be 3rom past li3e -- in a t"ree li#es
model o3 t"e '2 links.
.
I"at is "idden by ignorance .. and t"at goes 3or$ard : OO -- maybe t"e result o3 t"ose
actions, t"e 3i#e aggregates t"emsel#es. Doing 3or$ard may t"en mean CbecomingC.
.
8"e t"ree kinds o3 conditioned t"ings are maybe : p"ysical, mental and #erbal actions FF
or $"olesome, un$"olesome and neutral.
>n t"e conte-t o3 dependent arising, t"e most important aspect o3 #olitional 3ormations is
t"eir po$er to generate a ne$ e-istence in t"e 3uture, its po$er to bring about rebirt".
8"ese #olitional 3ormations, depending on $"et"er t"ey are $"olesome or un$"olesome
#olitions, $ill bring about a good or bad rebirt".
.
!ote: in section '1 . '), conditioned t"ings are CdispositionsC.
6onditioned elements P Sank"ara :olitional acti#ities+ HO-2, "abits, reactions,
dispositions, discrimination, desire section )+, "atred, ... based on ignorance FF 8"e 3ourt"
constituent aggregate o3 t"e indi#idual is samskara, mental 3ormations and dispositions.
8"ese dispositions include any #olitional acti#ity or "abitual tendency, good and bad, t"at
creates karma and t"us binds one to t"e cycle o3 birt"-and-deat". Hispositions include
con3idence and conceit, $isdom and ignorance, lust and "atred.
.
[ NNN
[ 2.
[ 6onsciousness 1+, presupposing t"at $"ic" is conditioned samskara+, enters on
its course.
.
A3ter rebirt" F 3rom pre#ious karma:
>3 #olitional 3ormations are accumulated in t"e mind and ignorance is still present, $"en
deat" occurs, a ne$ moment o3 consciousness $ill be generated 3ollo$ing deat". 8"is is
t"e 3irst moment o3 consciousness o3 t"e ne$ li3e. t"e 3irst o3 a series o3 moments+
8"e 3ormula states -- CHependent upon Acti#ities arises 6onsciousness.C /y consciousness
is "ere meant re-linking consciousness or re-birt" consciousness. /y t"is 3ormula is
t"ere3ore meant t"at t"e conscious li3e o3 man in "is present birt" is conditioned by "is
#olitional acti#ities, "is good and bad actions, "is 4arma o3 t"e past li3e. 8o put it in
anot"er $ay, t"e consciousness o3 "is present li3e is dependent on "is past 4arma. 8"is
3ormula is "ig"ly important since it in#ol#es a linking o3 t"e past li3e $it" t"e present and
t"ereby implies re-birt". Aence, t"is t"ird link is called FFpatisand"i #innanaFF or re-linking
consciousness or re-birt" consciousness.
.
[ NNN
[ I"en consciousness is begun, t"e Cname-and-3orm7- namarupa+ B+ is instilled.
.
Mentality-materiality is a term 3or t"e psyc"o-p"ysical organism. I"en t"e rebirt"
consciousness springs up at t"e time o3 conception it does not arise in isolation. >t arises
in association $it" t"e totality o3 t"e psyc"o-p"ysical organism, $"ic" also comes into
being at t"e time o3 conception. A li#ing being is a compound o3 3i#e aggregates, t"e
material 3actor being 3orm and 3our mental 3actors being 3eeling, perception, mental
3ormations and consciousness.
.
[ NNN
[ 1.
[ I"en t"e Cname-and-3ormC is instilled, t"e si- domains o3 sense perceptions E+
ayatana+ are produced.
[ Aa#ing arri#ed at t"e si- domains o3 sense perceptions, t"e process o3 perception
begins to 3unction.
.
As t"e psyc"o-p"ysical organism gro$s and e#ol#es, t"e 3i#e p"ysical sense 3aculties
appear, t"e eye, ear, nose, tongue and body. 8"ere is also t"e mind 3aculty, t"e organ o3
t"oug"t, $"ic" coordinates t"e ot"er sense data and also cogniMes its o$n ob5ects - ideas,
images, concepts, etc.
8"e si- sense 3aculties ser#e as our means 3or gat"ering in3ormation about t"e $orld.
Eac" 3aculty can recei#e t"e type o3 sense data appropriate to itsel3. 8"e eye recei#es
3orm, t"e ear sounds, nose smells etc. 8"us $e come to t"e ne-t link.
.
[ NNN
[ B.
[ 6onsciousness begins to 3unction presupposing t"e eye, t"e #isual 3orms, and
ability o3 mental associationQ
[ &resupposing Cname-and-3orm.C
.
[ NNN
[ E.
[ 8"at $"ic" is t"e coincidence )+ samnipata+ o3 #isual 3orm, consciousness, and
t"e eye:
.
.
6ontact means t"e coming toget"er o3 t"e consciousness $it" t"e sense ob5ects t"roug"
t"e sense 3aculty,
e.g. t"e eye consciousness contacts 3orm t"roug" t"e eye.
.
Aere consciousness means Cundi33erentiated cognitionC -- $it"out discrimination or
recognition, $"ic" is perception.
.
[ NNN
[ 8"at is sensual perception, and 3rom perception, sensation *+ begins to 3unction.
.
.
&erceptions is recognition, discrimination.
.
Sensation F 3eeling : Feeling is t"e Ce33ecti#e toneC $it" $"ic" t"e mind e-periences t"e
ob5ect.
-- 8"ere can be si- kinds o3 3eeling as determined by t"e organ t"roug" $"ic" t"e 3eeling
arises
e.g. t"ere is 3eeling born o3 eye contact, 3eeling born o3 ear contact, etc.
-- /y $ay o3 its e33ecti#e Juality, 3eelings are o3 t"ree types, pleasant, pain3ul and neutral
3eelings.
-- >t is t"roug" t"ese 3eeling t"at our past karmas $ork t"emsel#es out and bring t"eir
3ruit.
.
[ NNN
[ ).
[ C6ra#ing 0+C trsna+ <3or e-isting t"ings@ is conditioned by sensation.
.
8"e $eak link, according to /ikk"u /od"i
.
Iit" t"is link $e take a ma5or step 3or$ard in t"e mo#ement o3 t"e $"eel o3 e-istence. All
t"e 3actors $e "a#e mentioned so 3ar - consciousness, mentality-materiality, t"e si- sense
3aculties, contact and 3eeling - represent t"e results o3 past karma. 8"ey arise t"roug" t"e
maturation o3 karma 3rom our past, 3rom #olitional 3ormations.
/ut no$ $it" t"e arising o3 cra#ing e-perience mo#es 3rom t"e past to t"e causes
operating in t"e present, t"ose causes $"ic" generate a ne$ e-istence in t"e 3uture.
-- I"en $e e-perience pleasant 3eelings $e become attac"ed to t"em. Ie en5oy t"em,
relis" t"em, cra#e 3or a continuation o3 t"em. 8"us cra#ing arises.
-- I"en $e e-perience pain3ul 3eeling, t"is pain a$akens an a#ersion, a desire to
eradicate its source, or to 3lee 3rom t"em.
.
/ut t"is pattern, by $"ic" 3eeling leads to cra#ing, does not occur as a necessity.
8"is is a #ery important point./et$een 3eeling and cra#ing t"ere is a space, a gap $"ic"
can become a battle3ield $"ere t"e round o3 e-istence is broug"t to an end. 8"e battle
3oug"t in t"is space determines $"et"er bondage $ill continue inde3initely into t"e 3uture
or $"et"er it $ill be replaced by enlig"tenment and liberation. For i3, instead o3 yielding to
cra#ing, $e contemplate our 3eeling $it" mind3ulness and a$areness and understand
t"em as t"ey really are, t"en $e can pre#ent cra#ing 3rom arising and 3rom generating
rene$ed e-istence in t"e 3uture.
.
8an"a 6ra#ing+ is depicted in t"e image o3 a man smoking opium. Ae is an addict $"o
al$ays cra#es 3or more and more o3 t"e drug. Aa#ing no contentment, "e cannot "a#e
enoug" o3 it. 6ra#ing cannot be 3ul3illed. >t is t"e mind $"ic" causes impulses and
emotions.
6ra#ing 8an"a+ 8"ere are ) kinds o3 cra#ing corresponding to t"e ) sense ob5ects.
-- '. 6ra#ing 3or 3orms
-- 2. 6ra#ing 3or sounds
-- 1. 6ra#ing 3or odours
-- B. 6ra#ing 3or tastes
-- E. 6ra#ing 3or tangible ob5ects
-- ). 6ra#ing 3or mental ob5ects.
.
Gp to t"is point, t"e succession o3 e#ents "as been determined by past karma. 6ra#ing,
"o$e#er, leads to t"e making o3 ne$ karma in t"e present and it is possible no$, and only
no$, to practice H"arma. I"at is needed "ere is mind3ulness sati+, 3or $it"out it no
H"arma at all can be practiced $"ile one $ill be s$ept a$ay by t"e 3orce o3 past "abits
and let cra#ing and unkno$ing increase t"emsel#es $it"in one7s "eart. I"en one does
"a#e mind3ulness one may and can kno$ Ct"is is pleasant 3eeling,C Ct"is is unpleasant
3eeling,C Ct"is is neit"er pleasant nor unpleasant 3eelingC -- and suc" contemplation o3
3eelings leads one to understand and be$are o3 greed, a#ersion and delusion, $"ic" are
respecti#ely associated $it" t"e t"ree 3eelings. Iit" t"is kno$ledge one can break out o3
t"e I"eel o3 /irt" and Heat". /ut $it"out t"is H"arma-practice it is certain t"at 3eelings
$ill lead on to more cra#ings and $"irl one around t"is $"eel 3ull o3 dukk"a. As :enerable
!agar5una "as said:
.
CHesires "a#e only sur3ace s$eetness,
"ardness $it"in and bitterness --
decepti#e as t"e kimpa-3ruit.
8"us says t"e 4ing o3 6onJuerors.
Suc" links renounce -- t"ey bind t"e $orld
Iit"in samsara7s prison grid.
.
>3 your "ead or dress caug"t 3ire
in "aste you $ould e-tinguis" it,
Ho like$ise $it" desire --
I"ic" $"irls t"e $"eel o3 $andering-on
and is t"e root o3 su33ering.
!o better t"ing to doRC
-- 9.4. 21, '?B
.
>n Sanskrit, t"e $ord trisna tan"a+ means t"irst, and by e-tension implies Ct"irst 3or
e-perience.C For t"is reason, cra#ing is s"o$n as a toper guMMling into-icants and in my
picture > "a#e added t"ree bottles -- cra#ing 3or sensual sp"ere e-istence and t"e cra#ing
3or t"e "ig"er "ea#ens o3 t"e /ra"ma-$orlds $"ic" are eit"er o3 subtle 3orm, or 3ormless.
.
[ NNN
[ 6ertainly <a person@ cra#es 3or t"e sake o3 sensation.
[ 8"e one $"o cra#es acJuires t"e 3our-3old acJuisition (+ upadana+
[ <namely se-ual pleasure, 3alse #ie$s, ascetic morality and #o$s, and t"e doctrine
o3 sel3-e-istence@.
.
Attac"ment F grasping Gpadana+ -- acJuisition upadana+ <o3 karma@ - Drasping is
clinging to sense-ob5ects and t"e E aggregates
-- 6linging to sensuality
-- 6linging to #ie$s
-- 6linging to mere rules and ritual
-- 6linging to ego-belie3 belie3 t"at E aggregates are Ego+
.
8"is is an intensi3ication and di#ersi3ication o3 cra#ing $"ic" is directed to 3our ends:
sensual pleasures, #ie$s $"ic" lead astray 3rom H"arma, e-ternal religious rites and
#o$s, and attac"ment to t"e #ie$ o3 soul or sel3 as being permanent. I"en t"ese become
strong in people t"ey cannot e#en become interested in H"arma, 3or t"eir e33orts are
directed a$ay 3rom H"arma and to$ards dukk"a. 8"e common reaction is to redouble
e33orts to 3ind peace and "appiness among t"e ob5ects $"ic" are grasped at. Aence bot"
pictures s"o$ a man reac"ing up to pick more 3ruit alt"oug" "is basket is 3ull already.
.
Jona" Iinters: 8"e $eak link, according to Jona" Iinters O - $it" t"e ability to re3rain
3rom grasping O+
8"is leads to grasping, $"ic" takes t"e t$o 3orms o3 passionate desire to partake o3
pleasant sensations and a#oid unpleasant ones.
Iit" t"e de#elopment o3 grasping, t"e one $"o grasps no$ becomes bound to t"e cycle
o3 birt"-and-deat".
!agar5una "ere points out a con#erse progression. C>3 <t"e grasper@ $ere to be a non-
grasper, "e $ould be released, and t"ere $ould be no 3urt"er becoming.C 4arikas UU:>.*+
8"is, !agar5una points out, is a $eak link in t"e c"ain. 8"is is $"ere t"e cycle o3 su33ering
can be broken and 3reedom $on. One may not "a#e control o#er t"e earlier links o3 t"e
c"ain, suc" as primal ignorance or past karma, but one assuredly "as t"e ability, "ere and
no$, to re3rain 3rom grasping. Iit" detac"ed eJuanimity, bondage $ould be broken. >3
one does grasp, t"en t"e 3i#e aggregates constituting t"e psyc"op"ysical personality $ill
be bound by dispositionally-conditioned karma and $ill continue to arise again and again.
8"is $ill lead to unending rebirt"s, $"ic" in turn $ill lead to unending deat"s. 8"is is t"e
3inal link o3 t"e c"ain. CSuc" is t"e occurrence o3 t"is entire mass o3 su33ering.C 4arikas
UU:>.(++
.
[ NNN
[ *.
[ I"en t"e acJuisition e-ists, t"e acJuirer begins to 3unction '?+ i.e. e-istence,
becoming+.
[ >3 "e $ere someone $it"out acJuisition, t"at being $ould be released, and $ould
not e-ist.
.
/"a#a is t"e CkammiclyC accumulati#e side o3 e-istence,
-- t"e p"ase o3 li3e in $"ic" $e act and accumulate karma,
-- in $"ic" $e generate more #olitional 3ormations,
-- in $"ic" $e build up t"ese 3ormations,
-- accumulate t"em in t"e 3lo$ o3 consciousness.
.
I"en t"ese karmas are accumulated a3ter deat" t"ey bring about a ne$ e-istence.
.
Iit" "earts boiling $it" cra#ing and grasping, people ensure 3or t"emsel#es more and
more o3 #arious sorts o3 li3e, and pile up t"e 3uel upon t"e 3ire o3 dukk"a. 8"e ordinary
person, not kno$ing about dukk"a, $ants to stoke up t"e blaMe, but t"e /udd"ist $ay o3
doing t"ings is to let t"e 3ires go out 3or $ant o3 3uel by stopping t"e process o3 cra#ing
and grasping and t"us cutting o33 Gnkno$ing at its root. >3 $e $ant to stay in samsara $e
must be diligent and see t"at our FFbecomingFF, $"ic" is "appening all t"e time s"aped by
our karma, is FFbecomingFF in t"e rig"t direction. 8"is means FFbecomingFF in t"e direction
o3 purity and 3ollo$ing t"e $"ite pat" o3 H"arma-practice. 8"is $ill contribute to $"ate#er
$e become, or do not become, at t"e end o3 t"is li3e $"en t"e pat"$ays to t"e #arious
realms stand open and $e FFbecomeFF according to our practice and to our deat"-
consciousness.
.
[ NNN
[ 0.
[ 8"at being is t"e 3i#e Cgroups o3 uni#ersal elementsC skand"a+. /ecause o3 a
being, birt" ''+ begins to 3unction.
.
/irt" in t"e 3uture li3e is conditioned by t"e actions in t"is li3e and pre#ious ones.
8"ere is accumulation o3 kno$ledge, dispositions, structures, 3rom li3e to li3e.
And any o3 t"ose kno$ledge, dispositions, structures+ are necessarily imper3ect,
impermanent, conducti#e to sorro$ and deat".
.
[ NNN
[ Dro$ing old, dying, sorro$ dukk"a+ '2+, etc., grie3 and regrets,
.
[ NNN
[ (.
[ Hespair and agitation: all t"is results 3rom birt",
[ 8"at Cproduced beingC is a single mass o3 sorro$s dukk"a+.
.
!ecessarily 3ollo$ing birt".
.
[ NNN
[ '?.
[ 8"us t"e ignorant people construct t"e conditioned t"ings samskara+, <t"at is@
t"e source 3or e-istence-in-3lu-.
.
Maybe:+ 9ike, t"e $"ole set o3 3i#e aggregates is t"e result o3 a cycle, $"ere kno$ledge
is stored in t"e body and mind and in some $ay passed across li#es+. A cycle $it" more
and more constructions, 3abrications, classi3ications, discriminations, t"eories, #ie$s.
All ne$ construction, 3abrication, t"eories, #ie$s, ..., are ultimately based on t"e
"ypot"esis o3 somet"ing being in#ariant, a sel3-e-isting somet"ing, somet"ing t"at can be
e-pected, planned, control.
8"e structure and mind stream e-pect, and is decei#ed P sorro$.
Xuestion: >s progress a s"ort sided perspecti#e, a catastrop"e $aiting to "appen, or is t"e
"umanity as a $"ole getting better, closer to transcendence O
.
91: <8AE 6ASE OF !>R:A!A :+@
.
[ NNN
[ 8"e one $"o constructs is ignorant, t"e $ise person is not <one $"o constructs@
because "e percei#es true reality.
.
[ NNN
[ ''.
[ IAE! >D!ORA!6E 6EASES, 8AE 6O!S8RG68EH &AE!OME!A HO !O8 6OME
>!8O EU>S8E!6E.
[ A person7s cessation o3 ignorance proceeds on t"e basis o3 CbecomingC
<enlig"tened@ t"roug" kno$ledge.
.
[ NNN
[ '2.
[ 8"roug" cessation o3 e#ery <component@ none 3unctions,
[ 8"at single mass o3 sorro$ dukk"a+ is t"us completely destroyed.
.
9ead by ignorance o3 emptiness, one builds kno$ledge, "ard$are and so3t$are,
discriminati#e grids, ..., "oping to 3ind t"e C#ery ultimate #ie$C, t"e 3inal adaptation, t"e
3inal kno$ledge, total security and "appiness.
All kno$ledge are ultimately based on t"e "ypot"esis o3 somet"ing being in#ariant, a sel3-
e-isting somet"ing, somet"ing t"at can be e-pected, planned, control.
8"e structure and mind stream e-pect, and is decei#ed P sorro$, because t"ere is no sel3-
e-istence, no in#ariant, no absolute cause . e33ect, no control.
I"en ignorance ceases, t"is building up ceases.
8"e parado-: 8"e cessation o3 ignorance, is also+ t"roug" building kno$ledge
Hependent Origination, Emptiness+. Gntil t"ere is t"e Gnion o3 t"e 8$o 8rut"s.
.
92: <Section 2* - An Analysis o3 t"e :ie$s drsti+ About Reality dogmas+ - 1?@
.
RVSGMV:
-- >s t"ere a CbeingC in t"is C3lo$CO >s t"ere anyt"ing to 9iberate or &uri3y.
-- >s t"ere any #ie$ e-plaining it all.
-- About #ie$s on sel3 and t"e $orld. About rebirt" and $"at is taking rebirt".
-- Searc"ing 3or a Csel3C in samsara
-- -- Obsessi#e #ie$s about t"e past and t"e 3uture
-- -- 8"e duality Csel3C #s. CacJuisitionC, not t"e same, not di33erent
-- -- >t is not C> "a#e e-istedC, not C> "a#e not e-istedC, not bot", not neit"er
-- -- 8"e same 3or t"e 3uture
-- Searc"ing 3or a di#ine soul in a temporary body dualism+
-- -- 8"e primal mind, #ery subtle 6itta, basic kno$er, conscience base de tout
-- 6onclusion about a Csel3C in samsara
-- -- 8"us, t"ere is no eternal part t"at goes 3rom li3e to li3e in samsara. 8"ere is no
samsara eit"er.
-- -- 8"e sel3 is not eternal, non-eternal, bot" or neit"er
-- Searc"ing 3or t"e cycle o3 samsara itsel3 -- t"e $orlds
-- -- 6ould t"ere be a $orld, eternal, in3inite or any ot"er possibilities+
-- -- S"o$ing t"e absurdity o3 t"is c"ain o3 rebirt", o3 t"ese $orlds
-- 8"us all #ie$s are 3la$ed, absurd.+
.
91: < A. SEAR6A>!D FOR A /E>!D >! 8AE 6%69E OF SAMSARA +@
.
[ NNN
[ '.
[ 8"ose <#ie$s@ relating to t"e limits o3 t"e past reality are: C8"e $orld is eternal,C
etc.,
[ <And C> "a#e e-isted in t"e past,C C> "a#e not e-isted in t"e past,C etc.@
.
&reoccupations about t"e past.
9ike : 8"e cycle o3 samsara Hependent Origination+ "as no beginning, and no end.
9ike : > "a#e been cycling in Samsara since beginningless time.
So t"e $orld is seen as eternal because $e t"ing t"ere are t"ing t"at continues t"roug" it
-- like a Csel3C going t"roug" t"e endless samsara.
8"ere is a lot o3 stories about t"e past li#es o3 t"e /udd"a. - 8"e Sutra o3 t"e &ast 9i#es o3
t"e /od"isatt#a.
C>3 "e $ants, "e recollects "is mani3old past li#es ...
.
[ NNN
[ 2.
[ 8"e assertion: C> $ill not become somet"ing di33erent in a 3uture time,C
[ C> $ill become <somet"ing di33erent@,C and t"e alternati#e, etc., are relating to an
end <in t"e 3uture@.
.
&reoccupations about t"e 3uture.
9ike: > $ill continue in t"is cycle 3or endless time.
9ike: > $ill become 9iberated at one point.
.
XGES8>O!S:
>s it t"e same being t"at is cycling in samsara.
9ike can > remember past li3eO
Somet"ing t"at stays t"e same in i, ii, iii -- a permanent Csel3C O
.
First, lets look at one cycle o3 t"is eternity in samsara.
-- Ias > t"e same in t"e past O -- or Iill > be t"e same in t"e 3uture O
-- Ias > di33erent in t"e past O -- or Iill > be di33erent in t"e 3uture O
-- /ot" in t"e past O -- /ot" in t"e 3uture O
-- !eit"er in t"e past O -- !eit"er in t"e 3uture O
.
8"e trio i be3ore acJuisition+, ii a3ter acJuisition+, iii a3ter liberation, or anot"er cycle+:
>t $ill be remembered t"at t"ey are not t"e same, not di33erent, all empty.
.
[ NNN
[ 1.
[ <8"e assertion:@ C> e-isted in a past time '+C does not obtain,
[ Since t"is <present being@ is not i.e. CiiC is not t"e same as CiC+ t"at one $"o
<$as@ in a 3ormer birt".
.
9B: <A/OG8 8AE HGA9>8% CSE9FC #s. CA6XG>S>8>O!C:+@
.
[ NNN
[ B.
[ Iere "e <in a pre#ious birt"@, t"at indi#idual sel3 atma+ $"ic" "e acJuires <in
coming into e-istence@ $ould be di33erent.
[ Moreo#er, $"at kind o3 indi#idual sel3 is t"ere $it"out acJuisition upadana+O
.
[ NNN
[ E.
[ >3 it $ere "eld t"at: C8"ere is no indi#idual sel3 $it"out t"e acJuisition,C
[ 8"en t"e indi#idual sel3 $ould be <only@ t"e acJuisition or it is not an indi#idual
sel3 <at all@.
.
[ NNN
[ ).
[ 8"e indi#idual sel3 is not t"e acJuisition, since t"at <acJuisition@ appears and
disappears.
[ !o$ really, "o$ $ill C"e $"o acJuiresC become Ct"at $"ic" is acJuiredO
.
[ NNN
[ *.
[ Moreo#er, it does not obtain t"at t"e indi#idual sel3 is di33erent 3rom t"e
acJuisition.
[ >3 t"e indi#idual sel3 $ere di33erent, it $ould be percei#ed $it"out t"e acJuisition,
but <in 3act@ it is not so percei#ed.
.
[ NNN
[ 0.
[ 8"us t"at <indi#idual sel3@ is not di33erent 3rom nor identical to t"e acJuisition.
[ 8"e indi#idual sel3 is not $it"out acJuisition, but t"ere is no certainty t"at C>t does
not e-ist.C
.
8AE HGA9>8% CSE9FC #s. CA6XG>S>8>O!C
!O8 8AE SAME, !O8 H>FFERE!8, A99 EM&8%
.
4arma c"anges t"e 3i#e aggregates.
And t"ere is no Csel3C outside o3 t"e aggregates, or di33erent 3rom t"e acJuisition. see
pre#ious c"apters+
.
Jona" Iinters: !agar5una ne-t addresses t"e issue o3 t"e relation bet$een t"e soul and
t"e body IAR!>!D: > t"ing t"e section about CgodC #s. CmanC is t"e section about Csoul C
and CbodyC+ by 3ocusing on grasping, 3or it is grasping $"ic" causes t"e belie3 in sel3-
"ood. 8"ere is certainly an appearance o3 continuous sel3"ood. 8"is illusion arises 3rom
t"e agglomeration o3 t"e aggregates, but it is only dispositions and grasping t"at cause
one to see a sel3 in t"e aggregates. CI"en it is assumed t"at t"ere is no sel3 separated
3rom grasping, grasping itsel3 $ould be t"e sel3. %et, t"is is tantamount to saying t"at
t"ere is no sel3.C 4arikas UU:>>.E++
.
Jona" Iinters: /ut, "e cautions, t"is does not mean t"at t"ere is a sel3 di33erent 3rom
grasping. 8"e sel3, t"en, Cis neit"er di33erent 3rom grasping nor identical $it" it.C 4arikas
UU:>>.0+
I"at "as been re3uted "ere is any natural e-istential status o3 t"e sel3, not t"e sel3 as it
"as come to be in t"ose $"o grasp. CA sel3 does not e-ist. %et, it is not t"e case t"at a
person $"o does not grasp does not e-ist. 8"is muc" is certain.C 4arikas UU:>>.0+ 8"at
is, $"en t"ere is grasping, t"ere is a belie3 in sel3"ood, and a sel3 comes to be.
!agar5una7s point is t"at t"is sel3 is not ultimately real.+
.
[ NNN
[ (.
[ <8"e assertion:@ C> "a#e not e-isted in a past time 2+C does not obtain,
[ For t"at one <no$ li#ing@ is not di33erent i.e. CiiC is not di33erent t"an CiC+ 3rom t"at
one $"o $as in a 3ormer birt".
.
[ NNN
[ '?.
[ >3 t"at <present person@ $ere di33erent, "e $ould e-ist in e-clusion o3 t"at <3ormer@
one.
[ 8"ere3ore eit"er t"at <3ormer person@ persists, or "e $ould be born eternalR
.
[ NNN
[ ''.
[ -- note B : :erse '' is not a#ailable in t"e Sanskrit test, but it is kno$n 3rom t"e
8ibetan translation
.
[ NNN
[ '2.
[ 8"ere is no e-isting t"ing $"ic" is Ct"at $"ic" "as not e-isted prior.C 8"ere3ore,
t"e error logically 3ollo$s t"at
[ Eit"er t"e indi#idual sel3 is C$"at is producedC or it originates $it"out a cause.
.
Jona" Iinters: !agar5una opens $it" a discussion o3 #ie$s about eternalism. All #ie$s o3
t"e sur#i#al o3 t"e sel3 are based on t"e belie3 t"at t"e sel3 e-isted in t"e past andFor t"at
t"e sel3 $ill e-ist in t"e 3uture. Ao$e#er, it $ould not be appropriate to say t"at t"e sel3
e-isted in t"e past, 3or t"is $ould reJuire t"at t"e sel3 $"o e-isted in t"e past is identical
$it" t"e sel3 $"o e-ists no$, in t"e present. 8"is "as already been re3uted in section
ele#en. Ao$e#er, t"e /udd"a also said t"at it is incorrect to say t"at t"e sel3 is not
eternal. >3 t"e /udd"a "ad denied continuity o3 e-istence, t"en, as discussed abo#e,
morality $ould be undercut, 3or Ct"e 3ruit o3 action per3ormed by one $ill be e-perienced
by anot"er.C 4arikas UU:>>.''+ 8"is $as discussed in section se#enteen.+
.
[ NNN
[ '1.
[ 8"us t"e #ie$ concerning t"e past $"ic" <asserts@ C> "a#e e-isted '+,C or C> "a#e
not e-isted 2+,C
[ /ot" <Ce-isted and not e-istedC@ 1+ or neit"er B+: t"is does not obtain at all.
.
[ NNN
[ 'B.
[ <8"e #ie$s:@ C> $ill become somet"ing in a 3uture time '7+,C
[ Or C> $ill not become 27+ <somet"ing@,C etc. 17+ B7+, <s"ould be considered@ like
t"ose <#ie$s@ o3 t"e past.
.
EM&8>!ESS OF 8AE SG/JE68 OF EU>S8>!D >! 8AE &AS8. &RESE!8, OR FG8GRE
8AERE >S !O CSE9FC DO>!D 8AROGDA i, ii, iii
.
91: </. SEAR6A>!D FOR A CH>:>!E SOG9C >! A 8EM&ORAR% C/OH%C+@
.
[ NNN
[ 'E.
[ >3 C8"is is a man, t"is is a godC <obtains@, t"en eternity i+ e-ists,
[ For god is unproduced, and certainly somet"ing eternal $ould not be born.
.
[ NNN
[ ').
[ >3 man is di33erent 3rom god, t"ere $ould e-ist somet"ing non-eternal ii+.
[ >3 man is di33erent 3rom god, t"en a continuity does not obtain.i.e. t"ey cannot be
di33erent+
.
6ontinuity means: "o$ can one become t"e ot"er -- 3rom samsara to !ir#ana.
8"ere "as to be a dependent relation -- cause . e33ect.
.
[ NNN
[ '*.
[ >3 one part $ere di#ine and anot"er part "uman, i.e. a man $it" an eternal soul+
[ 8"en t"ere $ould be somet"ing non-eternal <toget"er $it"@ t"at $"ic" is eternal
iii+, but t"at is not possible.
.
>3 t"ey cannot e-ist separately, t"en maybe t"ere is already a Cdi#ine partC in man. And it
$ould be t"at part t"at realiMe !ir#ana F eternal "appiness.
.
8AE HGA9>8% CDOHC #s. CMA!C
--- or CH>:>!E &AR8C #s. CORH>!AR% &AR8C in man
--- or CE8ER!A9C #s. C!O! E8ER!A9C
8"ey are not t"e same, t"ey are not di33erent bot"+, all empty
.
!ote: 8"is is not t"e same Dod as in 8ibetan 6osmology, because t"ey $ould be non-
eternal and produced.
>t looks like t"e dualism Ceternal soulC #s. Cnon-eternal bodyC.
9ike in : At a time o3 contraction, beings are mostly reborn in t"e Ab"assara /ra"ma
$orld.
So t"e Juestion is about t"e e-istence o3 an eternal Cbu33er-MoneC $"ile t"e $orld
collapse, and regenerate.
.
Or maybe it is about t"e C8at"agatagarbaC P a part o3 us t"at is C/udd"a likeC, eternal, to
puri3y.
.
Jona" Iinters: One may ob5ect t"at per"aps t"ere are 3orms o3 Csubtle e-istenceC $"ic"
do not 3ace t"e abo#e problems. 8"e /udd"a did allo$ 3or t"e possibility o3 "ig"er realms
o3 e-istence, suc" as realms o3 Dods or spirits. 8"is $as a natural corollary o3 t"e doctrine
o3 rebirt", 3or one li#ing t"e Eig"t3old &at" may impro#e "is or "er station but not ac"ie#e
t"e 3inal enlig"tenment $"ic" $ould ob#iate 3urt"er e-istences. 8"is person $ould t"en
"a#e to be reborn, but $ould be reborn in a better $orld. Ao$e#er, t"ese di#ine sp"eres
o3 reality, $"ile better, $ere still not eternal and ultimately no more satis3actory t"an t"e
"uman sp"ere. !agar5una de#otes t"ree #erses to clari3ying t"e 3act t"at di#ine e-istences
s"are t"e same limitations as "uman e-istence.+
.
[ NNN
[ '0.
[ >3 somet"ing bot" non-eternal and eternal $ere pro#ed,
[ 8"en, no doubt, somet"ing Cneit"er eternal nor non-eternal i#+C is pro#ed.
.
91: <6. 6O!69GS>O! A/OG8 A SE9F >! SAMSARA+@
.
[ NNN
[ '(.
[ >3 someone, "a#ing come 3rom some$"ere, in some $ay goes some$"ere again,
[ 8"en t"ere $ould be e-istence-in-3lu- $it" no beginning, but t"is is not t"e case.
.
8"us, t"ere is no eternal part t"at goes 3rom li3e to li3e in samsara.
8"us t"ere is no samsara eit"er.
.
[ NNN
[ 2?.
[ >3 someone $"o is eternal does not e-ist, $"o $ill e-ist being non-eternal,
[ Or $"o being bot" eternal and non-eternal, or de#oid o3 t"ese t$o
<c"aracteristics@ O
.
t"ere is no non eternal-part t"at is in samsara.
Or bot", or neit"er.
8"us EM&8>!ESS OF A SE9F >! SAMSARA
.
Jona" Iinters: /ut, Ci3 it is t"oug"t t"at t"ere is not"ing eternal, $"at is it t"at $ill be
non-eternal, bot" eternal and non-eternal, and also $"at is separated 3rom t"ese t$o
<7neit"er7@OC 4arikas UU:>>.2?++
.
91: <H. SEAR6A>!D FOR 8AE 6%69E OF SAMSARA >8SE9F
-- A ROG!H OF RE/>R8AS F A SER>ES OF IOR9HS+@
.
Mi-ing: Iorlds, aggregates, karma, rebirt", space and time
Maybe 5ust an e-ercise s"o$ing t"at t"ey are all t"e same.
.
[ NNN
[ 2'.
[ >3 t"e $orld $ould come to an end, "o$ $ould an ot"er-$orld come into
e-istenceO
[ >3 t"e $orld $ould not come to an end, "o$ $ould an ot"er-$orld come into
beingO
.
9ike, eac" period o3 contraction and e-pansionO -- t"e bu33er Mone:+ At a time o3
contraction, beings are mostly reborn in t"e Ab"assara /ra"ma $orld.
Or like, eac" o3 t"e si- realms.
Or like, a $orld disappears $it" t"e 3i#e aggregates, and anot"er $orld is created based
on karma
-- t"ere is no $orld outside o3 t"e 3i#e aggregates t"at $as understood in t"e Ainayana+
-- see sutras bello$.
-- t"ere is no space and time $it"out ob5ects -- any Juestions about t"e e-tent o3 t"ese,
are ans$ered by t"e e-tent o3 t"ose.
.
8"e problem o3 iteration as in 6"apter 2'.
>t is a problem, i3 $e insist on seeing t"e series o3 $orlds as real, like 3or t"e 3i#e
aggregates.
.
[ NNN
[ 22.
[ Since t"e continuity o3 t"e Cgroups o3 uni#ersal elementsC skand"as+
[ <3rom one moment to t"e ne-t@ 3unctions like 3lames o3 lamps,
[ <8"e #ie$:@ Cbot" "a#ing an end and not "a#ing an endC is not possible.
.
[ NNN
[ 21.
[ >3 t"e 3ormer <CgroupsC@ $ould disappear, t"ose <ne$@ CgroupsC $"ic" are
dependent on t"ose <3ormer@ CgroupsC $ould not arise,
[ 8"ere3ore, t"e $orld $ould come to an end ii+.
.
9ike: 6ase C"a#ing an endC -- t"e cause does end.
-- t"e CoriginationC o3 a moment or t"e $"ole is impossible, a3ter its CcessationC
-- or t"e CoriginationC o3 t"e ne-t moment is impossible, a3ter t"e Canni"ilationC o3 t"e
pre#ious one
-- or t"e production o3 t"e e33ect is impossible, a3ter t"e CstoppingC o3 t"e cause
.
8"at $ould be an CendC, but t"en not"ing $ould $ork eit"er.
9ike, at t"e deat" o3 t"e body, not"ing $ill continue, t"ere $ould be no conseJuences o3
bad actions.
.
[ NNN
[ 2B.
[ >3 t"e 3ormer <CgroupsC@ $ould not disappear,
[ t"ese <ne$@ CgroupsC $"ic" are dependent on t"ose <3ormer@ CgroupsC $ould not
arise,
[ 8"ere3ore, t"e $orld $ould be eternal i+.
.
9ike: 6ase Cnot "a#ing an endC -- t"e cause does not end.
-- t"e CoriginationC o3 a moment or t"e $"ole is impossible, be3oreF$it"out its CcessationC
-- or t"e CoriginationC o3 t"e ne-t moment is impossible, be3oreF$it"out t"e Canni"ilationC
o3 t"e pre#ious one
e,c+
-- or t"e production o3 t"e e33ect is impossible, be3oreF$it"out t"e CstoppingC o3 t"e cause
.
8"at $ould be CeternityC, but t"en not"ing $ould $ork eit"er.
9ike, t"e sel3 does not die, e#eryt"ing continue, t"ere $ould be no conseJuences o3 bad
actions.
.
[ NNN
[ 2E.
[ >3 one part $ere 3inite and t"e ot"er $ere in3inite,
[ 8"e $orld $ould be bot" 3inite and in3inite iii+, but t"is is not possible.
.
!ote: Finite being, in3inite gods
Aere 3inite seems to take t"e meaning o3 CimpermanentC not about limited space+.
Finite and in3inite PP conditioned and unconditioned PP dependent and independent
So 3inite and in3inite $ould mean: a permanent /udd"a !ature in an impermanent body
and mind.
.
9ike, 3inite up-and-do$n, and in3inite across O
Or 3inite in space, in3inite in time.
Or like, a 3inite body and an in3inite subtle mind.
Or a sel3 3inite or in3inite -- like t"e in3inite /udd"a-!ature o3 HMogc"en.
Ao$ can $e "a#e part o3 t"e aggregates t"at continue, and part t"e totally ceaseO
9ike some o3 t"e CcauseFconditionsC do not stop, some do.
See #erse 2E.22-21 :
.
Since all d"armas are empty, $"at is 3inite O I"at is in3inite O
I"at is bot" 3inite and in3inite O I"at is neit"er 3inite nor in3inite O
.
!ote: Finite: Aa#ing bounds, limited: a 3inite list o3 c"oices, our 3inite 3ossil 3uel reser#es.
b. E-isting, persisting, or enduring 3or a limited time only, impermanent.
.
[ NNN
[ 2).
[ 8"ere3ore, "o$ can it be t"at one part o3 Cone $"o acJuiresC <karma@ $ill be
destroyed, i.e. t"e body = man O+
[ And one part not destroyedO i.e. t"e #ery subtle mind -- t"e di#ine part O+ 8"is is
not possible.
.
[ NNN
[ 2*.
[ Ao$, indeed, can it be t"at one part o3 t"e acJuisition <o3 karma@ i.e. t"e learning
stored in t"e body+ $ill be destroyed,
[ And one part not destroyedO i.e. t"e learning stored in t"e mind+ 8"at, certainly
does not obtain.
.
[ NNN
[ 20.
[ >3 t"e <#ie$@ Cbot" 3inite and in3initeC $ere pro#ed,
[ 8"en no doubt, Cneit"er 3inite nor in3initeC i.e. not"ing at all+ could be pro#ed.
.
Jona" Iinters: 8"e t"oug"ts o3 t"e soul7s eternity or lack t"ereo3 $ere negated abo#e,
and no$ !agar5una negates t"oug"ts o3 t"e uni#erse7s temporal eternity or lack t"ereo3
and its spatial in3inity or lack t"ereo3. 8"e popular metap"or o3 candle 3lames is "ere used
to illustrate t"e nature o3 t"e uni#erse7s e-istence. >3 t"e 3lame o3 one candle is used to
ignite t"e $ick o3 anot"er candle, and t"en t"at ne$ly-ignited candle is used to ignite a
t"ird one, t"en t"ere is t"e appearance o3 a 3lame passing 3rom one candle on to t"e ne-t.
>t cannot be said t"at t"ere is one identical 3lame passing on, 3or it is burning on di33erent
$icks, using di33erent 3uel sources, and in di33erent times. %et neit"er can t"ere said to be
t"ree di33erent 3lames, 3or t"ere is an ob#ious continuity 3rom one to t"e ne-t. >n t"e same
$ay are t"e elements o3 $"ic" t"e uni#erse is composed. 8"e uni#erse cannot be said to
end, because continuity is obser#ed in t"e series o3 dependently-arising elements. !or can
it be said to endure, because eac" entity in eac" moment is composed o3 di33erent
elements. Finally, t"e spatial e-tension o3 t"e uni#erse cannot be t"eoriMed about in any
$ay. C>t is not possible to assert eit"er t"e 3inite or t"e in3inite,C !agar5una concludes.
4arikas UU:>>.20+ +
.
[ NNN
[ 2(.
[ /ecause o3 t"e emptiness o3 all e-isting t"ings,
[ Ao$ $ill t"e #ie$s about Ceternity,C etc., come into e-istence, about $"at, o3
$"om, and o3 $"at kindO
.
/ecause o3 emptiness,
-- t"ere is no Ct"ingsC being dependent CHependent OriginationC+,
-- no CbeingC $"o passed 3rom li3e to li3e in CsamsaraC,
-- t"ere is no cycling $orld, no si- realms, no contraction and e-pansion,
.
[ NNN
[ 1?.
[ 8o "im, possessing compassion, $"o taug"t t"e real d"arma
[ For t"e destruction o3 all #ie$sQto "im, Dautama, > "umbly o33er re#erence.
<End@

Mulamadhyamakakarikas and Vigrahavyavartani by Nargarjuna

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Mulamadhyamakakarikas and Vigrahavyavartani by Nargarjuna

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

MulamadhyamakaKarikas

Potrebbero piacerti anche