[A. Establishing the Union of the Two Truths about all phenomena [U2T] (1–14)]
[1. Union of the Two Truths: Interdependence, co-definition, co-evolution and emptiness of various designations… (Verses 1–2)]
[1] Though the Buddhas have spoken of
duration, origination, destruction,
being, non-being,
low, moderate, and excellent
by force of worldly convention [T1],
[they] have not done [so] in an absolute sense [T2] [U2T].
-
(The Buddha used various adapted skillful means (ex. the 12 Links of Dependent Origination) to teach [T1 - conventional truths] ⇐⇒ but never proposed any absolute view / truth / method / goal [T2 - ultimate truth / emptiness of inherent existence] [U2T - one truth implies the other].)
.
[2] Designations [T1] are without significance [T2] [U2T],
for self, non-self, and self-non-self [T1]
do not exist [inherently] [T2] [U2T].
[For] like nirvāṇa, all expressible things [T1]
are empty (sunya) of own-being [T2] [U2T].
-
(All designations he used [T1] ⇐⇒ are empty of inherent existence, never absolute [T2] ⇐⇒ because they are dependently co-arisen, interdependent, co-defined, relative [T1] [U2T]. We may use his teachings as temporary imperfect tools or antidotes [T1] ⇐⇒ but never grasp them as absolute truths [T2] [U2T] – not even existence/being, non-existence/non-being, both, neither, or self, no-self, both, neither, or saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, or dependent origination [T1] and emptiness [T2], and the Union of the Two Truths [U2T] or Oneness [Uopp].)
.
(Madhyamaka Reasoning: Dependent Origination ⇐⇒ Emptiness ⇐⇒ Union of the Two Truths ⇐⇒ Illusory ⇐⇒ Tetralemma ⇐⇒ Middle Way ⇐⇒ One ⇐⇒ Cycle. Or any other permutation.
⇐⇒ [Dependent Origination / T1] Everything (ex. designations like duration, origination, destruction, being, non-being, duration, origination, destruction, self/non-self/both/neither, and nirvāṇa) is dependently co-arisen, ever changing, interdependent, co-defined, co-evolving, merely co-labeled / co-imputed / co-imagined by the mind in dependence of its past experiences / conditioning / karma (individual, collective, cosmic) [T1];
⇐⇒ [Emptiness / T2] thus everything is empty of inherent existence, never absolute [T2]; and vice versa;
⇐⇒ [Union of the Two Truths / U2T] those two aspect / truths, conventional truths / dependent origination [T1] and emptiness of inherent existence [T2], are inseparable, interdependent, co-defined, co-evolving, merely co-labeled / co-imputed / co-imagined by the mind in dependence of its past experiences / conditioning / karma (individual, collective, cosmic) [T1-2T] ⇐⇒ thus both empty of inherent existence, never absolute [T2-2T] [U2T-2T]; one implies the other. They are not ‘this’, not ‘non-this’, not both together, not neither, for whatever ‘this’ is. Like Illusions, pointing to the Middle Way about the two truths, Non-dual … part of the Limitless and Centerless Cycle of Creation, Bondage and Awakening;
⇐⇒ [Illusory] thus everything is like illusions, reflections, mirages, dreams, echos, 'there, yet not there';
⇐⇒ [Tetralemma] thus everything cannot be (a) existent / real, (b) non-existent / non-real, (c) both together, or (d) neither, and there is no fifth; all of these extreme positions lead to contradiction/absurdity;
⇐⇒ [Middle Way] pointing to the Middle Way free from all extremes and middle (nothing to accept / seek / do in absolute terms, nothing to reject / abandon / not-do in absolute terms, nothing to change / improve / purify in absolute terms, just relatively, conventionally, temporarily if it helps at this moment on the path);
⇐⇒ [One] everything is primordially interconnected, equal, pure, perfect, complete, divine, 'One' in the non-dual sense: not many, not one, not both together, not neither;
⇐⇒ [Cycle] everything is fully participant in a timeless, omnipresent, indivisible, continuous, limitless, centerless, fractal, holographic, karmic-like cycle/flux; an ocean of interdependence with nothing substantial, independent, separate, opposite, inherently existing in it.
Note: Where ‘⇐⇒’ means: one side implies the other.)
.
.
.
[2. Union of the Two Truths: Interdependence, co-definition, co-evolution and emptiness of the 12 Links of Dependent Origination, and of apparent opposites in any duality, triad, quad… (Verses 3–8)]
[3] Since all things altogether [T1]
lack substance [T2] [U2T] —
either in causes or conditions,
[in their] totality, or separately —
they are empty [T2] [U2T].
-
(Everything is empty of inherent existence, never absolute [T2] ⇐⇒ because everything is dependently co-arisen, interdependent, co-defined, co-evolving, merely labeled / imputed / imagined by the mind [T1] [U2T].
Because everything is both cause and effect, dependent on an infinity of causes and conditions in a continuous limitless centerless fractal-like holographic-like karmic-cycle / flux. We can never really say where or when something starts or ends.)
.
[4] Being does not arise, since it exists.
Non-being does not arise, since it does not exist.
Being and non-being [together]
do not arise, due to [their] heterogeneity.
Consequently they do not endure or vanish.
-
(The ‘origination’ of any composite, or of any of the 12 the Links, is empty [T2] ⇐⇒ because it is absurd for something existent, non-existent, both together, or neither [Tetralemma]. The three marks of composite – origination , duration and cessation – are thus empty of inherent existence [T2] [U2T]. And so are the composite and non-composite [Uopp]. They are dependently co-arisen, interdependent, relatively useful conventional truths [T1] ⇐⇒ but empty of inherent existence, never absolute [T2] [U2T]. Ex. The origination of the effect, and the cessation of the cause at the causal junction; or the duration of karmic imprints over time and even rebirths.)
.
[5] That which has been born cannot be born,
nor can that which is unborn be born.
What is being born now, being [partly] born, [partly] unborn,
cannot be born either.
-
(The ‘origination’ is empty of inherent existence [T2] ⇐⇒ because it cannot occur in any of the three times – before, during or after the event. The same for the ‘duration’ and ‘cessation’ of anything.)
.
[6] A cause has an effect when there is an effect,
but when there is no [effect] the [cause] amounts to no cause.
It is inconsistent that [the effect] neither exists nor does not exist.
It is illogical that [the cause is active] in the three times.
-
(A cause (any of the 12 links of Dependent Origination) is not a cause in any of the three times – before, during or after the event. So there is no inherent ‘causal relation’ [T2] ⇐⇒ just conventionally, relatively [T1] [U2T].)
.
[7] Without one (mind), there are not many (minds).
Without many, one is not possible.
Whatever arises [inter]dependently [T1]
is indeterminable [T2] [U2T].
-
(Opposites – like composite-non-composite, many-one (mind or moments of consciousness), continuity-discontinuity, cause-effect, perceiver-perceived – are dependently co-arisen, interdependent, co-defined, co-evolving [T1-opp] ⇐⇒ thus empty of inherent existence, never absolute [T2-opp] ]U2T-opp].)
.
[8] The twelve dependently arising members,
which result in suffering [T1],
are unborn [T2] [U2T].
They are possible neither in one mind nor in many.
-
(So there is no real origination (of the effect) / duration (of karma) / cessation (of the cause) related to any of the 12 links of Dependent Origination in one mind (continuity) or many minds (discontinuity). Each of them is both cause and effect, dependently co-arisen, interdependent, co-defined, co-evolving [T1] ⇐⇒ thus all empty of inherent existence, never absolute [T2] [U2T]. The whole karmic cycle, the 12 Links of Dependent Origination, and the chain of successive moments of consciousness with their concomitant mental factors, are an oversimplification of Reality, empty of inherent existence, not absolute truth.)
.
.
.
[3. Example with the first two Links: Ignorance and Formative Forces — Union of the Two Truths: Interdependence, co-definition, co-evolution and emptiness of perverted views, ignorance and formative forces (Verses 9–11)]
[9] Permanent is not, impermanent is not,
not-self is not, self is not,
impure is not, pure is not,
pleasure is not, and suffering is not.
Therefore the perverted views [T1]
do not exist [inherently] [T2] [U2T].
.
[10] Without these, ignorance (avidyā - 1st link)
based on the four bad views is not possible.
Without this [ignorance],
the formative forces do not arise.
The same [is true] for the [ten] remaining
[dependently arising members].
-
(Empty cause ⇐⇒ empty effect: Ignorance (Avidyā) is said to depend on four perverted views about permanence-impermanence, self-not-self, pure-impure, pleasure-suffering. But all of those opposites are empty of inherent existence [T2-opp] ⇐⇒ because they are interdependent, co-defined, co-evolving [T1-opp] [U2T-opp]. If the cause of ignorance is empty ⇐⇒ then ignorance, the first link, is also empty. And so is everything that follows in the cycle of the 12 Links of Dependent Origination (starting with the formative forces…). The whole karmic cycle (12 links) is empty of inherent existence: not really existent / functional, not completely non-existent / non-functional, not both together, not neither.)
.
[11] Ignorance does not occur
without the formative forces (saṅkhāra - 2nd link)
[and] without it the formative forces do not arise.
Caused by one another [T1],
they are not established by own-being [T2] [U2T].
.
(Interdependence / co-evolution of cause & effect: This verse highlights the mutual interdependence [T1] between ignorance (link #1) and formative forces (link #2). Ignorance fuels volitional activities (saṃskāra), as it prompts actions based on misperception (e.g., clinging to a self or craving pleasure). Conversely, formative forces reinforce ignorance by perpetuating karmic patterns that obscure reality’s true nature. For example, a deluded action (e.g., grasping at pleasure) strengthens the ignorant belief in inherent existence, which in turn generates more volitional impulses. Nāgārjuna stresses that both ignorance and formative forces “are not established by own-being” [T2]. Their interdependence [T1] ⇐⇒ means they lack independent essence [T2] [U2T], as each relies on the other to arise. This mutual emptiness [T2] underscores the illusory nature of the karmic cycle, where no link, including saṃskāra, stands as a substantial entity. In the context of Verses 9–11, the formative forces (saṃskāra) are the critical bridge between ignorance and the continuation of saṃsāra. They represent the conditioned, volitional activities that translate ignorance into action, setting the karmic cycle in motion.
-
The emptiness of the formative forces, as part of the empty karmic cycle, is central to the Śūnyatāsaptati’s soteriological aim. Verse 10’s assertion that “without this [ignorance], the formative forces do not arise” points to liberation: when ignorance is dispelled through realizing the true nature & dynamic of the cycle and its steps [U2T], the volitional impulses that drive the cycle cease to bind. This does not mean actions stop but that they no longer generate karmic bondage, as they are performed with wisdom. Verse 11’s mutual dependence further implies that disrupting ignorance undermines the formative forces, halting the cycle’s compulsive momentum, as echoed in Verse 65: “Ignorance ceases, and the twelve spokes [of the wheel] come to a halt.”
-
The text’s broader framework (e.g., Verses 63, 73) frames this as nirvāṇa, a state of “peace” where the apparent solidity of the karmic cycle dissolves. The formative forces, being empty, are seen as part of the “ocean of interdependence”, functioning conventionally [T1] ⇐⇒ but lacking inherent existence [T2] [U2T]. The enlightened one engages with actions (saṃskāra) skillfully, without being enslaved by the cycle, as they are “not really existent, not completely non-existent” (per the summary).
-
In Verses 9–11 of the Śūnyatāsaptati, the “formative forces” (saṃskāra) are the volitional activities, the second link of dependent origination, arising from ignorance, which itself stems from the four perverted views (permanence, self, purity, pleasure). These forces propel the karmic cycle by conditioning further links, but they are empty of inherent existence [T2] ⇐⇒ because their cause (ignorance) and their mutual dependence with ignorance [T1] lack own-being [T2]. The perverted views, being interdependent dualities [T1] ⇐⇒ are empty [T2] ⇐⇒ rendering ignorance and the formative forces illusory. This emptiness extends to the entire karmic cycle, which is neither truly existent nor non-existent but a dependently arisen process. Realizing this liberates one from the cycle’s bondage, allowing engagement with formative forces as conventional tools within the non-dual Middle Way, where all phenomena, including saṃskāra, are seen as empty [T2] ⇐⇒ yet functionally present in the interdependent web of reality [T1] [U2T].)
.
.
.
[4. Union of the Two Truths: Interdependence, co-definition, co-evolution and emptiness of cause, causality, effect in the 12 Links of Dependent Origination (Verses 12–14)]
[12] How can that which is not established by own-being create others?
Conditions established by others cannot create others.
-
(These verses (12-14) deepen the analysis of causality, emphasizing the interdependence [T1] ⇐⇒ and ultimate emptiness [T2] [U2T] of cause, causality, and effect, using logical arguments and evocative metaphors. They build directly on the themes of Verses 9–11, which focused on the emptiness of ignorance, formative forces, and the four perverted views, extending the critique to the broader mechanics of the karmic cycle.
-
Causes and conditions cannot create effects if they are themselves empty: Everything in the 12 Links of Dependent Origination is both cause and effect, each dependent on an infinity of causes & conditions [T1] ⇐⇒ thus each empty of inherent existence [T2] [U2T]. So there are no inherent causes, causal relations and effects. They are mere designations, over-simplification of reality as it is.)
.
[13] A father is not a son, a son is not a father.
Neither exists except in correlation with the other.
Nor are they simultaneous.
Likewise for the twelve members.
-
(Relational phenomena are empty: Like father and son, the twelve links of dependent origination exist only in correlation [T1] ⇐⇒ lacking independent essence [T2 ] [U2T].
This verse uses the analogy of a father and son to illustrate the relational nature of phenomena [T1], extending the critique of causality to the twelve links of dependent origination. Father and son are co-defined, interdependent [T1] ⇐⇒ thus empty of inherent existence [T2] [U2T]. There is no inherent / absolute father or son. They are mere designations, over-simplification of reality as it is. The verse then applies this logic to “the twelve members” (the links of dependent origination, including ignorance, formative forces, consciousness, etc.). Just as father and son are empty [T2] ⇐⇒ because they are correlative [T1], the twelve links are empty [T2] ⇐⇒ because each depends on the others for its arising [T1] [U2T].)
.
[14] Just as pleasure and pain depending on an object [T1]
in a dream do not have [a real] object,
so neither that which arises dependently
nor that which it arises in dependence on [T1]
exists [inherently] [T2] [U2T].
-
(Dependence is illusory: Causes and effects, like dream objects, appear real ⇐⇒ but are empty ⇐⇒ functioning conventionally ⇐⇒ but not ultimately.
This verse employs a powerful metaphor — dreams — to illustrate the illusory nature of dependent phenomena. In a dream, pleasure or pain seems to depend on objects (e.g., a dream object causing joy or fear), but upon waking, one realizes these objects have no real, inherent existence. Similarly, in the conventional realm, phenomena appear to arise dependently — effects from causes, or experiences from conditions [T1] ⇐⇒ but neither the dependent phenomenon (the effect) nor what it depends on (the cause) exists inherently [T2] [U2T]. Both are empty [T2] ⇐⇒ like dream objects [Illusory] ⇐⇒ because their existence is contingent and relational [T1] [U2T].
The phrase “that which arises dependently” refers to effects (e.g., the twelve links or any conditioned phenomenon), while “that which it arises in dependence on” refers to causes or conditions (e.g., ignorance for formative forces). Both are empty of own-being [T2] ⇐⇒ as their interdependence [T1] [U2T] precludes independent existence. This verse encapsulates the Union of the Two Truths [U2T]: conventionally, phenomena arise and function through dependence [T1] ⇐⇒ but ultimately, they lack inherent reality [T2] ⇐⇒ appearing like illusions within the karmic cycle.
-
Together, these verses reinforce the text’s core claim: the karmic cycle, driven by causality, is a dependently arisen process [T1] ⇐⇒ that is ultimately empty [T2] [U2T]. This insight liberates by dissolving the apparent solidity of the cycle (without rejecting it completely), allowing one to engage with it skillfully without bondage, as phenomena are “not really existent, not completely non-existent” (per the summary of Verses 9–11).
-
Verses 12–14 of the Śūnyatāsaptati argue that causality and the twelve links of dependent origination are empty [T2] ⇐⇒ because causes, effects, and their relations lack inherent existence [T2] ⇐⇒ arising only through interdependence [T1] [U2T].
– Verse 12 questions the causal power of empty conditions,
– Verse 13 illustrates the relational emptiness of the links via the father-son analogy, and
– Verse 14 likens dependent phenomena to dream objects, emphasizing their illusory nature.
These verses build on Verses 9–11, which establish the emptiness of ignorance and formative forces ⇐⇒ due to their dependence on empty perverted views and mutual causation.
– While Verses 9–11 focus on specific links,
– Verses 12–14 generalize the critique to causality itself, showing that the entire karmic cycle is empty [T2] ⇐⇒ yet conventionally functional [T1] [U2T].
Together, they advance the text’s [U2T] framework, revealing the cycle’s insubstantiality to liberate practitioners from delusion, enabling skillful action within the non-dual Middle Way where phenomena are seen as empty [T2] ⇐⇒ interdependent [T1] [U2T] ⇐⇒ and dream-like [Illusory].)
.
.
.
[B. Refuting objections (15–26)]
(In Nāgārjuna’s Śūnyatāsaptati, Verses 15–26 form a critical section under the heading “Refuting Objections” (Section B), specifically addressing opponents’ challenges to the Madhyamaka doctrine of emptiness (śūnyatā) and its integration with dependent origination within the Union of the Two Truths [U2T] framework. This section is divided into two thematic parts:
– Verses 15–20 refute objections to emptiness by demonstrating the interdependence [T1-2T] and emptiness [T2-2T] of the apparent opposites of dependent origination [T1] and emptiness [T2] [U2T-2T], while
– Verses 21–26 point to the Middle Way, free from extreme views such as eternalism, annihilationism, dualism, or monism.
These verses build on the earlier sections (e.g., Verses 9–14) by defending the coherence of emptiness (in the sense of Union of the Two Truths) against misconceptions and clarifying its soteriological implications, particularly regarding liberation and nirvāṇa.)
.
[5. Refutation of Opponent’s Objections to Emptiness – Union of the Two Truths about the two truths themselves (Verses 15–20)]
(This subsection addresses opponents who argue that emptiness undermines the conventional world or causality, asserting that dependent origination and emptiness are not contradictory but mutually supportive within the [U2T] framework.)
[15] Opponent (thinks emptiness means complete non-existence):
If things do not exist by own-being [inherently],
then low, moderate, and excellent
and the manifold world are not established
and cannot be established, even through a cause.
-
(Emptiness is not non-existence: The opponent claims that if phenomena lack inherent existence [T2], conventional distinctions (e.g., “low, moderate, and excellent”) and the diverse world [T1] cannot exist or be caused. This reflects a common misunderstanding that emptiness [T2] equates to non-existence, negating the functionality of the conventional realm [T1]. The opponent fears that without inherent existence, causality itself collapses, leaving no basis for the world’s diversity or moral gradations. or even liberation.)
.
[16] Reply:
If own-being were established,
dependently arising things would not occur.
If [they were] unconditioned, how could own-being be lacking?
True being also does not vanish.
-
(The two truths support each other: Nāgārjuna counters that if phenomena had own-being (inherent existence), they would be fixed and unconditioned, incapable of arising dependently [T1]. Dependent origination [T1] requires phenomena to lack inherent essence [T2], as fixed entities cannot interact or change. The question “If [they were] unconditioned, how could own-being be lacking?” highlights the contradiction in assuming inherent existence: if phenomena were truly unconditioned, they would not depend on causes, yet the opponent’s own reliance on causality (in Verse 15) implies dependence. Finally, “true being also does not vanish” suggests that emptiness [T2] does not negate conventional existence [T1] but clarifies its dependent nature, preserving the world’s functionality [T1] without requiring inherent reality.)
.
[17] How can the non-existing have own-being,
other-being, or non-being?
Consequently, own-being, other-being, and non-being
[result from] perverted views [T1].
-
(This verse addresses the opponent’s conflation of emptiness with non-existence. Nāgārjuna argues that if something is truly non-existent, it cannot possess own-being (inherent existence), other-being (existence derived from another), or non-being (absolute absence). These categories—own-being, other-being, non-being—are themselves empty, arising from “perverted views” [T1], akin to the distorted perceptions in Verse 9 (e.g., permanence-impermanence). By labeling them as perverted views, Nāgārjuna underscores that such ontological assertions are conventional misapprehensions, not ultimate truths [T2], reinforcing the [U2T]’s non-dual perspective.)
.
[18] Opponent (thinks emptiness denies origination and cessation):
If things were empty,
origination and cessation would not occur.
That which is empty of own-being:
How does it arise and how does it cease?
-
(Emptiness doesn’t deny the cycle of origination and cessation: In Verse 18, the opponent challenges the doctrine of emptiness (śūnyatā), arguing that if phenomena lack inherent existence [T2], the causal processes of origination and cessation—understood here as the arising of an effect (being) and the cessation or transformation of a cause (non-being)—become impossible. The opponent assumes that for an effect to arise (e.g., formative forces emerging from ignorance in the twelve links of dependent origination) or a cause to cease (e.g., ignorance exhausting its causal power), these phenomena must have own-being (inherent existence). This objection reflects a reification of the causal junction — the point where a cause gives rise to an effect — viewing the effect’s origination and the cause’s cessation as inherently real events requiring substantial entities. The opponent fears that emptiness negates the conventional functionality [T1] of causality (ex. conventional origination of the effect and cessation of the cause at the junction), rendering the karmic cycle (the 12 Links) and the Buddhist path incoherent.
-
The opponent’s question, “That which is empty of own-being: How does it arise and how does it cease?” reveals their misunderstanding that emptiness equates to absolute non-existence, which would preclude the arising of effects or the cessation of causes. In the context of the twelve links (e.g., Verses 9–11), the opponent might be concerned that if ignorance and formative forces are empty, how can ignorance (cause) cease to produce formative forces (effect)? This objection sets the stage for Nāgārjuna’s response in Verses 19–20, where he shows that the causal junction — effect’s arising (being) and cause’s cessation (non-being) — is possible ⇐⇒ precisely because phenomena are empty [T2] ⇐⇒ arising interdependently [T1] ⇐⇒ without inherent reality [T2] [U2T]. The processes are neither simultaneous (coexisting as inherent entities / continuity of something) nor separate in time (as independent events / discontinuity), but part of a fluid, relational web, as clarified in subsequent verses.
-
Verse 18 articulates a key misunderstanding that emptiness [T2] undermines causality [T1], specifically the problematic junction where effects arise and causes cease. It highlights the opponent’s tendency to reify the karmic cycle’s processes, setting up Nāgārjuna’s defense of the [U2T] framework, where emptiness [T2] ⇐⇒ enables conventional interdependence [T1] [U2T], including the arising and ceasing at the causal junction.)
.
[19] Reply:
Being and non-being are not simultaneous (overlapping).
Without non-being, no being.
Being and non-being would always be.
There is no being independent of non-being.
-
(In this verse, Nāgārjuna addresses the causal junction — the point where a cause gives rise to an effect — by framing “being” as the arising of the effect (e.g., the emergence of formative forces from ignorance in the twelve links of dependent origination) and “non-being” as the cessation or exhaustion of the cause (e.g., ignorance’s transformation as it produces formative forces). The opponent in Verse 18 assumes that origination (effect’s arising) and cessation (cause’s cessation) require inherent existence, but Nāgārjuna shows that these processes are interdependent [T1] ⇐⇒ and empty [T2] [U2T].
-
The statement “Being and non-being are not simultaneous” indicates that the effect’s arising (being) and the cause’s cessation (non-being) cannot occur at the exact same moment, as this would imply a contradiction: the cause would both exist (to produce the effect) and not exist (having ceased) simultaneously. However, “Without non-being, no being” reveals their interdependence: the effect’s arising depends on the cause’s cessation or transformation, as the cause’s activity enables the effect to emerge. For example, in dependent origination, ignorance (cause) ceases or transforms as it conditions formative forces (effect), but this is not a strictly sequential process.
-
The phrase “Being and non-being would always be” warns that if being (effect’s existence) were inherent, it would be permanent, existing independently of the cause’s cessation. Similarly, if non-being (cause’s cessation) were inherent, it would imply absolute absence, negating causality. Instead, “There is no being independent of non-being” underscores that the effect’s arising (being) relies on the cause’s cessation (non-being), and vice versa, within the conventional realm [T1]. This interdependence means ⇐⇒ both are empty of own-being [T2], as neither exists independently at the causal junction. Temporally, they are neither simultaneous (coexisting) nor separate in time (as independent events), but part of a fluid, relational process, like the links of dependent origination (e.g., Verse 13’s father-son analogy).
-
Verse 19 refutes the opponent’s reification of causality by showing that the junction between cause and effect — effect’s arising (being) and cause’s cessation (non-being) — is an interdependent [T1] ⇐⇒ empty process [T2] [U2T]. This aligns with the [U2T], where causality operates conventionally [T1] ⇐⇒ but lacks inherent reality [T2] [U2T], dissolving the karmic cycle’s apparent solidity.)
.
[20] Without being there is no non-being.
[Being] neither arises from itself
nor from [something] else.
This being so, this [being] [T1]
does not exist [inherently] [T2] [U2T]:
So there is no being, and [therefore] no non-being.
-
(This verse reinforces Verse 19’s insight by emphasizing that the causal junction — where the effect arises (being) and the cause ceases (non-being) — is empty [T2] ⇐⇒ because both are mutually dependent [T1] [U2T]. “Without being there is no non-being” means that the cessation of the cause (non-being) is defined relative to the arising of the effect (being). For instance, in the karmic cycle, the cessation of ignorance (non-being) is meaningful only because it conditions the arising of formative forces (being). This mutual reliance precludes their separation in time as independent events, as the cause’s cessation is inseparable from the effect’s emergence.
-
Nāgārjuna further argues that “being” (the effect’s arising) “neither arises from itself nor from [something] else.” If the effect arose from itself (self-origination / identity / continuity), it would already exist inherently, negating the need for a cause. If it arose from an inherently existent “other” (the cause) (other-origination / difference / discontinuity), it would require the cause to have own-being, which Verse 12 refutes (“How can that which is not established by own-being create others?”). Since neither self-arising nor other-arising is tenable [Tetralemma] ⇐⇒ “this [being] does not exist [inherently]” [T2], meaning the effect’s arising lacks intrinsic reality. Consequently, “there is no being, and [therefore] no non-being,” (no continuity / identity / simultaneity, no discontinuity / difference / separation) as the cause’s cessation (non-being) also lacks inherent existence, being dependent on the effect.
-
This interdependence [T1] ⇐⇒ ensures that the causal junction is neither simultaneous (cause and effect coexisting as inherent entities) nor temporally separate (as independent, sequential events). Instead, it is a relational process within the conventional realm [T1] ⇐⇒ like a dream (Verse 14) [Illusory] ⇐⇒ where cause and effect appear to interact [T1] ⇐⇒ but are empty [T2] [U2T]. The [U2T] framework holds that this emptiness [T2] ⇐⇒ enables causality to function conventionally [T1] ⇐⇒ without inherent reality [T2] [U2T] ⇐⇒ liberating one from attachment to the karmic cycle.
-
Verse 20 completes the refutation of inherent causality by showing that the junction of cause and effect — effect’s arising (being) and cause’s cessation (non-being) — is empty [T2] ⇐⇒ due to mutual dependence [T1] [U2T]. This insight undermines the opponent’s fear that emptiness [T2] negates origination and cessation [T1] (Verse 18) ⇐⇒ affirming the Middle Way where causality is both functional [T1] ⇐⇒ and empty [T2] [U2T] (i.e. One truth implies the other: they are not different / two, identical / one, both, or neither).)
.
.
.
[6. Pointing to the Middle Way free from all extremes and middle(s), like: (i) existence / eternalism, (ii) non-existence / annihilationism, (iii) both together / dualism, (iv) monism / neither, or like (i) dependent origination only [T1], (ii) emptiness only [T2], (iii) both truths together [2T], (iv) neither of the two truths [1T] (Verses 21–26)]
[21] If there is being there is permanence;
if there is non-being there is necessarily annihilation.
When there is being, these two [dogmas] occur.
Therefore [one should] not accept being.
-
(With the causal junction in focus, “being” is now understood as the arising of an effect (e.g., formative forces emerging from ignorance in the twelve links), and “non-being” as the cessation or transformation of the cause (e.g., ignorance exhausting its causal power).
– Eternalism arises from assuming continuity or identity at the junction—treating cause and effect as inherently overlapping or sharing a persistent essence, such that the cause’s nature continues in the effect, implying permanence. For instance, one might mistakenly believe that ignorance (cause) endures in formative forces (effect), suggesting a fixed, unchanging substance across the junction.
– Annihilationism, conversely, arises from assuming complete discontinuity—treating the cause as utterly ceasing and the effect as arising independently, implying a radical temporal separation or destruction of the cause, as if ignorance vanishes entirely before formative forces emerge.
-
Nāgārjuna’s warning, “If there is being there is permanence; if there is non-being there is necessarily annihilation,” indicates that
– reifying the effect’s arising (being) as inherent leads to eternalism, assuming a continuous essence (cause and effect are identical or overlapping in time).
– Reifying the cause’s cessation (non-being) as inherent leads to annihilationism, assuming a complete break (cause and effect are separate in time).
The phrase “When there is being, these two [dogmas] occur” suggests that both extremes stem from positing inherent existence at the causal junction—whether as continuity (eternalism) or discontinuity (annihilationism).
By advising to “not accept being,” Nāgārjuna urges rejection of inherent existence for the effect’s arising, recognizing that the junction is interdependent [T1] ⇐⇒ and empty [T2], neither temporally overlapping (simultaneous continuity) nor wholly separate (discontinuous).
-
This aligns with Verses 18–20, where being and non-being are neither simultaneous nor separate in time (Verse 19), as their interdependence ⇐⇒ precludes inherent existence.
– Eternalism implies a near-simultaneity or overlap (cause persisting in effect),
– while annihilationism implies temporal disconnection (cause ceasing before effect arises).
The Middle Way, echoing Verses 19–20, sees the junction as a fluid, empty process, neither continuous (identical) nor discontinuous (separate), but relationally defined within the karmic cycle.
-
Verse 21 reframes eternalism and annihilationism as misinterpretations of the causal junction’s dynamics — continuity (identity/overlapping, permanence) versus discontinuity (difference/separation, annihilation). Rejecting inherent being ensures the junction is seen as empty ⇐⇒ yet conventionally functional (T1/T2) ⇐⇒ aligning with the [U2T] ⇐⇒ and the Middle Way’s non-dual harmony.)
.
[22] Opponent (choses continuity):
These [dogmas] do not occur due to continuity:
Things cease after having caused [an effect].
Reply:
As before [see v. 19], this [continuity] is unestablished.
It also follows that the continuity would be interrupted.
-
(In the context of the causal junction, the opponent’s “continuity” is an attempt to resolve the extremes of eternalism (continuity) and annihilationism (discontinuity) by positing a seamless temporal flow between cause and effect — suggesting that the cause (e.g., ignorance) ceases only after producing the effect (e.g., formative forces), implying a partial identity or overlap at the junction. This view assumes an inherent continuity, where the cause’s essence persists long enough to ensure the effect’s arising, avoiding complete disconnection (annihilationism, temporal separation) or permanent existence (eternalism, full identity). For example, the opponent might argue that ignorance transitions smoothly into formative forces, maintaining a kind of causal continuity across the junction.
-
Nāgārjuna’s reply, “As before [see v. 19], this [continuity] is unestablished,” invokes Verse 19’s argument that being (effect’s arising) and non-being (cause’s cessation) are interdependent [T1] ⇐⇒ and empty [T2] [U2T] ⇐⇒ neither simultaneous nor separate in time [Tetralemma]. Continuity at the junction is unestablished because cause and effect, being empty [T2], lack the inherent substance required for a stable, continuous essence. The phrase “It also follows that the continuity would be interrupted” indicates that any assumed continuity would collapse, as empty phenomena cannot sustain an inherent causal link across time. For instance, if ignorance and formative forces are empty (Verses 9–11), there is no fixed essence connecting them at the junction — neither identical/overlapping (continuity, eternalism) nor wholly separate (discontinuity, annihilationism).
-
The temporal dynamics from Verses 18–20 are crucial: the opponent’s continuity suggests a near-simultaneity or prolonged overlap (cause persisting into effect), but Verse 19’s logic precludes this, as cause and effect are relationally defined [T1] ⇐⇒ not inherently connected or disconnected [T2] [U2T]. The Middle Way sees the junction as a fluid [T1] ⇐⇒ empty process [T2] ⇐⇒ neither continuous (eternalism) nor interrupted (annihilationism) ⇐⇒ but interdependent ⇐⇒ and insubstantial ⇐⇒ echoing the non-dual temporality of Verses 18–20.
-
Verse 22 refutes inherent continuity at the causal junction, showing that cause and effect are neither identical/overlapping (eternalism) nor completely different/separate (annihilationism). This reinforces the [U2T], where the junction operates conventionally [T1] ⇐⇒ but is empty [T2], dissolving reified views of causality within the karmic cycle.)
.
[23] Opponent (thinks the two truths are in opposition):
[No!] The Buddha's teaching of the path aims at showing
origination and cessation [T1], not śūnyatā [T2] [2T]!
Reply:
To experience the two [truths] as mutually exclusive is a mistake [2T].
-
(The opponent claims that the Buddha’s teachings focus on origination and cessation (at the junction) [T1], not emptiness [T2], implying that the two truths are opposed.
Nāgārjuna corrects this, asserting that viewing the two truths as mutually exclusive [2T] is a misunderstanding.
The [U2T] framework integrates dependent origination [T1] ⇐⇒ and emptiness [T2]: phenomena arise and cease [T1] ⇐⇒ because they are empty [T2] [U2T], and emptiness [T2] ⇐⇒ enables their conventional functionality [T1] [U2T].
This non-dual understanding is the Middle Way.
-
With the causal junction in focus, the opponent’s emphasis on “origination and cessation” refers to the arising of effects (being) and the cessation of causes (non-being) at the junction, as seen in Verse 18.
The opponent assumes that the Buddha’s path prioritizes these conventional processes [T1] — e.g., ignorance producing formative forces and ceasing — over emptiness [T2], fearing that emptiness [T1] negates the karmic cycle’s causal dynamics [T1]. This reflects a reification of the junction as inherently real, either continuous (eternalism) or discontinuous (annihilationism), as critiqued in Verses 21–22.
-
Nāgārjuna’s reply, “To experience the two [truths] as mutually exclusive is a mistake [U2T],” clarifies that origination (effect’s arising) and cessation (cause’s cessation) at the junction are possible [T1] ⇐⇒ because of emptiness [T2]. The [U2T] integrates conventional interdependence [T1] — where cause and effect arise relationally, neither simultaneous nor separate in time (Verses 19–20) — ⇐⇒ with ultimate emptiness [T2], where the junction lacks inherent existence.
Misinterpreting the junction as continuous (identity/overlapping) or discontinuous (difference/separation) stems from separating the two truths [2T], whereas the Middle Way sees them as non-dual: the junction functions conventionally [T1] ⇐⇒ because it is empty [T2] [U2T] ⇐⇒ avoiding the extremes of eternalism (continuity) and annihilationism (discontinuity) [Tetralemma].
-
Verse 23 reframes the two truths as unified [U2T] in the causal junction’s dynamics, countering the opponent’s reification of origination and cessation as inherent. It reinforces the Middle Way, where the junction’s emptiness [T2] ⇐⇒ enables its conventional functionality [T1] [U2T] ⇐⇒ dissolving extremes of continuity or discontinuity [Tetralemma].)
.
[24] Opponent (thinks emptiness denies the possibility of cessation / liberation):
If there is no origination and cessation,
then to the cessation of what is nirvāṇa due?
Reply:
Is not liberation this:
that by nature nothing arises and ceases [inherently] [U2T]?
-
(The opponent’s objection assumes that nirvāṇa requires the cessation of an inherently existent phenomenon at the causal junction — e.g., the cessation of suffering or ignorance as a cause producing an effect like liberation. They fear that emptiness negates the junction’s dynamics (effect’s arising as being, cause’s cessation as non-being, per Verses 18–20), rendering nirvāṇa incoherent. This reflects a reification of the junction as involving inherent continuity (eternalism, cause persisting in effect) or discontinuity (annihilationism, cause and effect separated), as critiqued in Verses 21–22.
Nāgārjuna’s reply redefines nirvāṇa as the realization that “by nature nothing arises and ceases [inherently].” In terms of the causal junction, this means understanding that the arising of effects (being) and the cessation of causes (non-being) ⇐⇒ are empty [T2] ⇐⇒ neither continuous (identical/overlapping, eternalism) nor discontinuous (separate in time, annihilationism). For example, the transition from ignorance to formative forces (Verses 9–11) is seen as an illusory process ⇐⇒ with no inherent essence linking or separating the links. Nirvāṇa is the insight that the karmic cycle’s junctions are empty ⇐⇒ neither simultaneous nor temporally distinct, as per Verses 19–20. Conventionally, nirvāṇa appears as the cessation of suffering [T1] ⇐⇒ but ultimately [T2], it is the non-dual awareness of the junction’s emptiness ⇐⇒ transcending reified continuity or discontinuity.
Verse 24 frames nirvāṇa as the realization of the causal junction’s emptiness [T2] ⇐⇒ dissolving the extremes of eternalism (continuity) and annihilationism (discontinuity) [Tetralemma]. It aligns with the [U2T], where liberation is the non-dual understanding of conventional arising/ceasing [T1] ⇐⇒ as empty [T2] [U2T], connecting to Verses 21–22’s critique of junctional reification.)
.
[25] If nirvāṇa [resulted] from cessation,
[then there would be] destruction [annihilationism].
If the contrary, [there would be] permanence [eternalism].
Therefore it is not logical that nirvāṇa is being or non-being.
(i.e. the coming into being of something, or the going into non-being of something)
-
(Verse 25 addresses misconceptions about nirvāṇa as the cessation of suffering, situated at the conventional junction between saṃsāra (the karmic cycle) and nirvāṇa (its cessation). The opponent reifies this junction, assuming nirvāṇa involves the cessation of an inherently existent phenomenon, such as suffering or the cycle’s deluded processes (e.g., ignorance, per Verses 9–11).
Two extremes arise:
– eternalism, positing continuity where “something” persists from saṃsāra to nirvāṇa (e.g., a self or consciousness as a permanent liberated state), and
– annihilationism, positing discontinuity where suffering or the saṃsāric entity is destroyed, implying a different or non-existent entity is liberated (e.g., a temporally separate cessation).
-
Nāgārjuna’s statement, “If nirvāṇa [resulted] from cessation, [then there would be] destruction [annihilationism],” critiques the view that nirvāṇa is the cessation of an inherent phenomenon, like suffering, as a complete, disconnected end (non-being). This assumes a radical discontinuity at the saṃsāra-nirvāṇa junction, where the saṃsāric cycle is annihilated, leaving nothing or a new entity, contradicting the emptiness of all phenomena (Verse 20’s “no being, and no non-being”).
Conversely, “If the contrary, [then there would be] permanence [eternalism],” critiques the view that nirvāṇa is a persistent state (being), such as an enduring self or bliss, implying continuity where saṃsāra’s essence overlaps with nirvāṇa, contradicting the not-self doctrine (Verse 9’s “self is not”).
-
Nāgārjuna asserts that “it is not logical that nirvāṇa is being or non-being,” meaning nirvāṇa is neither an inherent cessation (non-being, annihilationism) nor an inherent state (being, eternalism).
Instead, nirvāṇa is empty of inherent existence, like saṃsāra’s karmic junctions (Verses 18–20), where effects arise (being) and causes cease (non-being) interdependently [T1] ⇐⇒ without own-being [T2] [U2T].
The saṃsāra-nirvāṇa junction is not a real transition [T2] ⇐⇒ but a conventional designation [T1] [U2T], as saṃsāra (suffering’s cycle) and nirvāṇa (its cessation) are both empty [T2] ⇐⇒ neither continuous (a persistent self) nor discontinuous (a destroyed entity) [Tetralemma].
Nirvāṇa is the realization that the cycle’s deluded junctions—e.g., ignorance to formative forces (Verses 9–11)—are empty ⇐⇒ dissolving the illusion of a substantive junction or cessation.
As a conventional truth and skillful means (upāya, Verse 44), nirvāṇa appears as suffering’s end [T1] ⇐⇒ but ultimately, it is the non-dual awareness of emptiness [T2] [U2T] ⇐⇒ transcending temporal reifications of continuity or discontinuity [Tetralemma].
-
Verse 25 positions nirvāṇa as empty, not a reified cessation or state at the saṃsāra-nirvāṇa junction, avoiding eternalism (continuity, persistent essence) and annihilationism (discontinuity, destruction). It reinforces the Middle Way, where the junction’s emptiness [T2] integrates with its conventional appearance [T1], revealing saṃsāra and nirvāṇa as non-dual designations.)
.
[26] If a definite cessation did abide,
it would be independent of being.
It does not exist without being,
nor does it exist without non-being.
-
(Verse 26 refines Verse 25’s insight by addressing the notion of nirvāṇa as a “definite cessation” — a fixed, independent event at the saṃsāra-nirvāṇa junction, such as the permanent end of suffering or the karmic cycle (e.g., ignorance’s cessation, Verses 9–11). The opponent might assume this cessation is a substantive stopping, separate from saṃsāra’s processes, implying discontinuity (annihilationism, a temporally distinct end) or continuity (eternalism, a persistent liberated state).
-
Nāgārjuna counters that “if a definite cessation did abide, it would be independent of being,” meaning an inherent cessation would exist apart from the conventional arising of effects (being, e.g., liberation’s appearance or the cycle’s continuation). However, “It does not exist without being, nor does it exist without non-being,” indicating that cessation depends on both the arising of liberation (being) and the cessation of saṃsāra’s deluded processes (non-being, e.g., suffering or ignorance). This interdependence [T1], rooted in Verses 19–20’s causal junction (effect’s arising and cause’s cessation) ⇐⇒ ensures the cessation is empty [T2] ⇐⇒ as being and non-being lack own-being (Verse 20’s “no being, and no non-being”).
-
The saṃsāra-nirvāṇa junction is thus not a real, independent transition [T2] ⇐⇒ but a conventional designation [T1] [U2T], as saṃsāra and nirvāṇa are empty [T2], neither continuous (a self persisting, eternalism) nor discontinuous (an entity destroyed, annihilationism). There is “no real cessation,” as you noted, because nirvāṇa is not a substantive event but the realization that the cycle’s junctions—e.g., ignorance to formative forces—are empty, dissolving the illusion of a fixed junction between saṃsāra’s suffering and nirvāṇa’s freedom. As a conventional truth and skillful means (Verse 44), nirvāṇa appears as the cessation of suffering [T1], guiding practitioners ⇐⇒ but ultimately, it is the non-dual emptiness of all phenomena [T2], where distinctions like saṃsāra-nirvāṇa vanish, as per Verse 70’s “in reality [the Tathāgata] has not taught the Dharma.”
-
Verse 26 ensures nirvāṇa is not reified as an independent cessation at the saṃsāra-nirvāṇa junction, but seen as empty and interdependent, transcending continuity (eternalism) and discontinuity (annihilationism). It reinforces the Middle Way, where the junction’s conventional appearance [T1] is inseparable from its ultimate emptiness [T2], revealing saṃsāra and nirvāṇa as non-dual.)
.
.
.
[C. Addressing specific phenomena (karma, form, consciousness…) (Verses 27-55)]
[7. Generalization: Union of the Two Truths:
Interdependence, co-definition, co-evolution
and emptiness of the apparent opposites of any dyad / triad / quad…
like: cause-causality-effect, actor-action-result, perceiver-perception-perceived, part-composing-whole, characteristic-characterizing-characterized, desirer-desiring-object, origination-duration-cessation, producer-production-product, owner-owning-possession, beginning-middle-end, producer-production-reaper, elements-unification-result, past-present-future … existence-non-existence, real-unreal, self-existence-other-existence, self-origination-other-origination, difference-identity, separation-union, diversity-unity, permanence-impermanence, continuity-discontinuity, pleasure-suffering, bondage-liberation, saṃsāra-nirvāṇa, dependence-independence, relative-absolute, empty-non-empty, dependent-origination-emptiness, pure-impure, true-false, good-evil, accepting-rejecting, causality-things-space-time, the 12 links … (examples borrowed from MMK) (Verses 27–32)]
(Verses 27–32 form a cohesive unit that generalizes the Śūnyatāsaptati’s critique of inherent existence to various triads and dyads, showing that their components — whether characteristics, causes, times, or conditioned marks — are empty [T2] ⇐⇒ because they are mutually established, interdependent, and co-defined [T1] [U2T]. These verses broaden the scope beyond the twelve links or nirvāṇa, deconstructing conceptual frameworks that traditional views rely on to reify phenomena, causality, temporality, and existence. Each verse contributes to the [U2T] framework, where conventional interdependence [T1] ⇐⇒ reveals ultimate emptiness [T2] ⇐⇒ aligning with the Middle Way’s non-dual vision [U2T].
These verses (27–32) continue the Śūnyatāsaptati’s project of refuting [T2] traditional views (conventional truths, without rejecting them [T1] [U2T]) about the karmic cycle, the twelve links, and liberation/nirvāṇa, as you observed, by broadening the critique to conceptual triads and dyads that underpin these views.
Verses 27–32 of the Śūnyatāsaptati analyze triads (characteristic-characterization-characterized, cause-causality-effect, past-present-future, origination-duration-cessation) and dyads (composite-non-composite), showing their components are empty of inherent existence [T2] ⇐⇒ because they are interdependent, co-defined, and co-evolving [T1] [U2T]. These verses continue the text’s refutation of traditional views by deconstructing the conceptual frameworks underpinning the karmic cycle, its twelve links, and liberation/nirvāṇa, aligning with your observation that “almost all verses” focus on this refutation. They build on Verses 9–11’s emptiness of ignorance and formative forces, extend Verses 18–20’s causal junction framework, and reinforce Verses 24–26’s empty saṃsāra-nirvāṇa junction, portraying saṃsāra and nirvāṇa as conventional truths [T1] and skillful means within the [U2T]. The emptiness of these triads and dyads dissolves reified views, revealing reality as a non-dual, empty expanse, liberating through insight into interdependence and emptiness, as the Middle Way affirms.)
.
[27] The marked is established through a mark [T1]
different from the marked;
it is not established by itself.
Nor are the [two] established by each other,
[since what is] not established
cannot establish the not-established.
-
(Verse 27 analyzes the triad of characteristic (lakṣaṇa, the mark), characterization (the act of marking), and characterized (lakṣya, the marked entity), a conceptual framework used to describe how phenomena are defined or identified. Traditional views might reify these as inherently existent — e.g., a phenomenon (the marked) has a real characteristic (mark) that defines it through an independent act of characterization. Nāgārjuna deconstructs this, showing their emptiness [T2] ⇐⇒ due to interdependence [T1] [U2T].
-
The “marked” (e.g., a phenomenon like a pot) is conventionally established through a “mark” (e.g., its shape or color) that is distinct from it [T1]. However, the marked cannot be established by itself, as it requires the mark to be defined, negating inherent existence [T2]. Nor can the mark and marked establish each other, as “what is not established cannot establish the not-established.” If the mark is itself unestablished (dependent on the marked or other conditions), it cannot independently define the marked, and vice versa. This mutual dependence — co-definition and co-evolution [T1] ⇐⇒ means both are empty of own-being [T2] [U2T] ⇐⇒ as neither exists without the other [Tetralemma].
-
For example, in the karmic cycle (Verses 9–11), ignorance might be the marked, characterized by the mark of delusion (a perverted view). Neither ignorance nor delusion is inherently existent [T2] ⇐⇒ as they co-define each other [T1] [U2T] (Verse 11’s mutual causation), echoing this verse’s logic. The triad’s components are thus conventional designations [T1] ⇐⇒ not ultimate realities [T2] [U2T].
-
Verse 27 refutes the reification of phenomena through their defining characteristics, showing that triads like characteristic-characterization-characterized are empty ⇐⇒ due to interdependence [U2T]. This undermines traditional views that treat phenomena (e.g., karmic links) as inherently defined, aligning with the [U2T]’s deconstruction of reified concepts.)
.
[28] In this [way], cause, effect,
feeling, feeler, and so forth (i.e. all dyads, triads…),
the seer, the visible, and so forth — whatever may be — [T1]
all are explained, without exception.
-
(Verse 28 extends Verse 27’s logic to all triads and related dyads, generalizing the emptiness [T2-opp] of interdependent opposites [T1-opp] [U2T-opp]. It lists examples like cause-causality-effect, feeler-feeling-object, and seer-seeing-seen, covering a range of conceptual frameworks used to describe causality, perception, and experience. Traditional views might reify these triads — e.g., assuming a real cause produces a real effect through an inherent causal process, or a real feeler experiences a real feeling about a real object. Nāgārjuna asserts that “in this [way]” (referring to Verse 27’s interdependence) all such triads are empty [T2-opp] ⇐⇒ because their components are co-defined and mutually established [T1-opp] [U2T-opp].
-
For instance, in the cause-causality-effect triad, the cause (e.g., ignorance, Verse 9) is defined by the effect (formative forces), and both depend on the causal process [T1] ⇐⇒ none existing independently [T2] [U2T] (Verse 12’s “How can that which is not established by own-being create others?”). Similarly, the feeler (subject) and feeling (act) depend on the object, as in Verses 48–50’s later analysis of perception, all empty [T2] ⇐⇒ due to their relational nature [T1] [U2T]. The phrase “whatever may be — all are explained, without exception” universalizes this, applying emptiness to any triad or dyad, including those underpinning the karmic cycle (Verses 9–11) or liberation (Verses 24–26).
-
Verse 28 broadens the refutation to all conceptual triads and dyads, showing their emptiness [T2] ⇐⇒ due to interdependence, co-definition, and co-evolution [T1] [U2T]. This dismantles traditional views reifying causality, perception, or phenomena, reinforcing the [U2T]’s universal application to the karmic cycle and beyond.)
.
[29] The three times [T1]
do not exist (substantially) [inherently] [T2] [U2T]
since they are unfixed and are mutually established [T1],
since they change [and] are not self-established,
[and] since there is no being.
They are merely discriminations [T1].
-
(Verse 29 analyzes the temporal triad of past, present, and future, a framework central to traditional views of the karmic cycle, where causes (past) produce effects (present) that lead to future outcomes. These times are often reified as inherently existent containers or sequences. Nāgārjuna refutes this, showing they are empty [T2-opp] ⇐⇒ because they are interdependent and co-defined [T1-opp] [U2T-opp].
-
The three times are “unfixed and mutually established” because each depends on the others for definition: the present is defined relative to the past and future [T1], and none exists independently [T2]. They “change” (are impermanent) and are “not self-established,” as their relational nature precludes inherent existence [T2]. The phrase “since there is no being” ties to Verses 19–20, where being (effect’s arising) is empty, implying time itself lacks an inherent essence. The times are “merely discriminations” [T1], conventional designations used to navigate experience, not ultimate realities, akin to Verse 2’s empty designations.
-
In the karmic cycle (Verses 9–11), ignorance (past cause) leads to formative forces (present effect), shaping future suffering. Verse 29 shows this temporal sequence is empty, as past, present, and future co-evolve without inherent reality, undermining reified views of the cycle’s progression.
-
Verse 29 deconstructs the temporal framework of the karmic cycle, showing the three times are empty [T2-opp] ⇐⇒ due to mutual establishment [T1-opp] [U2T-opp], refuting traditional views that treat time as an inherent backdrop for causality or liberation. It aligns with the [U2T], where temporal distinctions are conventional [T1] ⇐⇒ yet empty [T2] [U2T].)
.
[30] Since the three marks of the conditioned
— origination, duration, and cessation — [T1]
do not exist [inherently] [T2] [U2T],
there is not the slightest conditioned
or unconditioned [phenomenon] [T2] [U2T].
-
(Verse 30 analyzes the triad of origination, duration, and cessation, the defining marks of conditioned phenomena in traditional Buddhist thought (e.g., the karmic cycle’s links). These marks are often reified as inherent processes — e.g., a phenomenon arises, endures, and ceases independently [T1]. Nāgārjuna refutes this, showing they are empty [T2] ⇐⇒ because they are interdependent [T1] [U2T].
-
Origination (arising), duration (persistence), and cessation (ceasing) are mutually defined [T1]: origination requires cessation to be meaningful (a beginning implies an end), duration depends on both, and none exists alone [T1]. Since they “do not exist [inherently],” they lack own-being [T2] [U2T], as their co-evolution precludes independence. This emptiness extends to all conditioned phenomena (e.g., the twelve links, Verses 9–11) and unconditioned phenomena (e.g., nirvāṇa, Verses 24–26), as both categories depend on these marks for definition. If the marks are empty, “there is not the slightest conditioned or unconditioned [phenomenon],” as all phenomena are conceptual designations [T1] ⇐⇒ not ultimate realities [T2] [U2T].
-
In the karmic cycle, ignorance originates, endures, and ceases, producing formative forces (Verses 9–11). Verse 30 shows this process is empty, undermining traditional views of the cycle as a series of real events.
-
Verse 30 refutes the reification of conditioned and unconditioned phenomena by showing their defining marks (origination, duration, cessation) are empty ⇐⇒ due to interdependence, challenging traditional views of the cycle and nirvāṇa as inherently real. It reinforces the [U2T]’s universality.)
.
[31] The non-destroyed does not cease,
nor does the destroyed.
The abiding does not abide, nor does the non-abiding.
The born is not born, nor is the unborn.
-
(Verse 31 complements Verse 30 by negating the inherent existence of the triad’s components (origination, duration, cessation) and their opposites, showing they are empty due to logical contradictions. Traditional views might assume that phenomena inherently cease, abide, or are born. Nāgārjuna deconstructs this:
– [Cessation:] “The non-destroyed does not cease, nor does the destroyed”: If something is inherently non-destroyed, it cannot cease (contradicting cessation); if destroyed, it is already ceased, making cessation redundant. Both are empty, as cessation depends on origination and duration [T1], not inherent reality [T2].
– [Duration:] “The abiding does not abide, nor does the non-abiding”: If something inherently abides, it cannot change (contradicting duration); if non-abiding, it cannot persist, making abiding meaningless. Both are empty, as duration is relational.
– [Origination:] “The born is not born, nor is the unborn”: If something is inherently born, it already exists, negating birth; if unborn, it cannot arise. Both are empty, as origination depends on cessation.
-
These contradictions [Tetralemma] show the triad’s components and opposites are co-defined [T1] ⇐⇒ lacking own-being [T2] [U2T]. [Middle Way:] In the karmic cycle (Verses 9–11), ignorance is neither inherently born nor unborn, abiding nor non-abiding, ceasing nor non-ceasing, as it is empty, undermining reified views of its causal role.
-
Verse 31 reinforces Verse 30’s deconstruction of the conditioned triad, showing its components are empty by negating their inherent opposites, refuting traditional views of phenomena as fixed processes. It aligns with the [U2T]’s relational emptiness.)
.
[32] Composite and non-composite (or any pair of opposites)
are not many [and] not one;
are not being [and] are not non-being;
are not being-non-being.
All [possibilities] are comprised within these limits.
.
(i.e. [Tetralemma] Opposites in any dyad, triad, quad … cannot be different / separate / multiple / dual, identical / united / one / non-dual, both together, or neither, and there is no fifth. Cannot be permanent / continuous / eternal, impermanent / discontinuous / annihilated, both together, or neither, and there is no fifth. Cannot be existent, non-existent, both together, or neither, and there is no fifth. Cannot be ‘this’, ‘non-this’, both together, or neither, and there is no fifth, for whatever ‘this’ is. That is why they are empty of inherent existence, dependently co-arisen, interdependent, co-defined, co-evolving, co-imputed, Union of the Two Truths, like illusions, reflections, mirages, dreams, echos, ‘there, yet not there’. Pointing to the Middle Way free from all extremes (’this’, ‘non-this’) and middle (both, neither).)
-
(Verse 32 analyzes the dyad of composite (saṃskṛta, conditioned phenomena like the karmic cycle) and non-composite (asaṃskṛta, unconditioned phenomena like nirvāṇa), traditionally viewed as inherently distinct categories. Nāgārjuna refutes this reification, showing they are empty [T2] ⇐⇒ due to interdependence [T1] [U2T].
-
Composite and non-composite are “not many [and] not one”: they are not inherently plural (distinct entities) nor singular (identical), as they are co-defined [T1]. They are “not being [and] not non-being; not being-non-being,” negating all ontological extremes (eternalism, annihilationism, dualism, monism, per Verses 21–26), as both depend on the conditioned triad (origination, duration, cessation, Verse 30) for definition. Since these marks are empty (Verse 30) ⇐⇒ the composite (e.g., twelve links) and non-composite (e.g., nirvāṇa) are empty [T2] ⇐⇒ conventional designations [T1] ⇐⇒ rather than ultimate realities. “All [possibilities] are comprised within these limits” universalizes this, encompassing all dyads and triads. (i.e. Tetralemma: Opposites in any dyads / triad / quad … are not ‘this’, not ‘non-this’ not both together, not neither, for whatever ‘this’ is; because all of these extreme positions lead to contradiction, absurdities.)
-
In the karmic cycle, the links (composite of saṃsāra) are empty (Verses 9–11), and nirvāṇa (non-composite) is empty (Verses 24–26), as both are interdependent, co-evolving concepts [T1] ⇐⇒ not inherently real [T2] [U2T].
-
Verse 32 deconstructs the dyad of composite-non-composite, showing their emptiness [T2] ⇐⇒ due to co-definition [T1] [U2T], refuting traditional views that reify conditioned (saṃsāra) and unconditioned (nirvāṇa) as distinct. It reinforces the [U2T]’s non-dual emptiness.)
.
.
.
[8. Union of the Two Truths: Interdependence, co-definition, co-evolution and emptiness of the apparent opposites of the triad – conditioned agent/producer (personality / 5-aggregates before), action/production-of-karma, result/reaper of the consequences (rebirth / personality / 5-aggregates after) – in a limitless and centerless karmic cycle; no continuity, no discontinuity from one moment to the next, one rebirth to the next, saṃsāra to nirvāṇa (Verses 33–43)]
(This section directly addresses the question of continuity versus discontinuity in the personality of the producer of karma (agent) and the enjoyer of its consequences (reaper) across various contexts: from one moment to the next, one action to the next, one rebirth to the next, and from saṃsāra to nirvāṇa. As your provided text indicates, these verses refute the inherent existence of karma, its agent, and results, likening them to illusions and showing they are empty [T2] ⇐⇒ yet conventionally functional [T1] ⇐⇒ within the Union of the Two Truths [U2T] framework. This refutation aligns with the broader project of dismantling reified views, as seen in Verses 1–32, and supports your insight that saṃsāra, nirvāṇa, and their junction are empty ⇐⇒ conventional designations.
-
Verses 33–43 analyze the triad of (i) conditioned agent/producer (the personality or five aggregates before an action), (ii) action/production-of-karma, and (iii) result/reaper of the consequences (the personality or five aggregates after, including rebirth). They refute the inherent existence of this triad, showing that karma, its agent, and its results are empty [T2] ⇐⇒ because they are interdependent, co-defined, and co-evolving [T1] [U2T]. The section addresses the opponent’s view of karma’s duration or continuity, arguing that there is neither inherent continuity (eternalism, a persistent self) nor discontinuity (annihilationism, a destroyed or different entity) across moments, actions, rebirths, or the saṃsāra-nirvāṇa junction. Instead, the karmic cycle is a “limitless and centerless” process ⇐⇒ illusory like a mirage ⇐⇒ where liberation arises from realizing the [U2T] of all components ⇐⇒ aligning with the non-dual Middle Way.)
.
[33] Opponent (thinks there is duration / continuity of personal karma):
The Bhagavat, the Teacher, has spoken of karma's duration,
of karma's nature, and of karma's result,
and also of the personal karma of living beings
and of the non-destruction of karma (continuity).
-
(The opponent, representing traditional Buddhist views, argues that karma’s “duration” implies continuity, where the personality or continuum (conventionally the five aggregates—form, feeling, perception, formations, consciousness) of the agent producing karma persists to experience its consequences, whether in the next moment, action, rebirth, or even liberation. They cite the Buddha’s teachings on karma’s nature (its moral quality), result (pleasant or unpleasant outcomes), personal karma (individual responsibility), and non-destruction (karma’s effects endure until fruition), suggesting an inherent link between the producer and enjoyer. This view assumes continuity of “somebody or something” across time — moment to moment, action to action, rebirth to rebirth, and potentially saṃsāra to nirvāṇa — implying a quasi-permanent essence or self, akin to eternalism.
-
Verse 33 articulates the traditional view that karma’s continuity explains the karmic cycle’s causality and liberation’s possibility, setting up Nāgārjuna’s refutation of inherent continuity or discontinuity, aligning with the [U2T]'s deconstruction of reified causality.)
.
[34] Reply:
Karma [T1] is said to lack own-being [T2] [U2T].
[Karma] that is not born is not destroyed.
From that again I-making is born.
But the belief that creates it is due to discrimination.
-
(Nāgārjuna counters that karma lacks own-being [T2] ⇐⇒ as it is dependently co-arisen [T1] ⇐⇒ not an inherently existent entity with duration or continuity [T2] [U2T]. Karma “is not born” inherently, as it arises from conditions (e.g., ignorance, kleśas), and thus “is not destroyed” inherently, as there is no real entity to destroy. The opponent’s view of continuity stems from “I-making” (ahaṃkāra), the deluded belief in a self that persists as the producer and enjoyer of karma. This belief is “due to discrimination” [T1], a conceptual imputation that reifies the personality or continuum (five aggregates) across moments, actions, or rebirths, as seen in Verses 9–11’s perverted views fueling ignorance.
-
There is neither continuity (a persistent self) nor discontinuity (a destroyed or different self), as karma and the personality are empty ]T2] ⇐⇒ like designations [T1] [U2T] (Verse 2). From moment to moment, action to action, rebirth to rebirth, or saṃsāra to nirvāṇa, the apparent continuity is illusory, a product of discrimination, not an inherent reality [T2].
-
Verse 34 refutes the opponent’s reification of karma’s continuity, showing it is empty and illusory, undermining traditional views of a persistent personality in the karmic cycle or liberation. It sets the stage for analyzing the agent-action-result triad, aligning with the [U2T].))
.
[35] If karma had own-being
the body created by it would be permanent.
So karma would not result in suffering
and would therefore be substantial.
-
(Nāgārjuna demonstrates the absurdity of assuming karma has own-being. If karma were inherently existent, its results (e.g., the body, a rebirth’s five aggregates) would be permanent, as an inherent cause would produce an unchanging effect, implying eternalism (continuity of a fixed self). This would contradict the karmic cycle’s nature, as karma produces suffering (impermanent states), not permanent ones. Moreover, inherently existent karma would be “substantial,” incapable of change or cessation, making liberation impossible, as suffering would persist eternally.
-
This refutes the opponent’s view of continuity, showing that karma, the agent (producer), and the enjoyer (body) are empty [T2] ⇐⇒ as their interdependence [T1] ⇐⇒ precludes permanence or discontinuity [Tetralemma]. The personality does not inherently persist or vanish across moments, actions, rebirths, or saṃsāra to nirvāṇa, as all are relational designations [T1].
-
Verse 35 exposes the logical flaws of reifying karma’s continuity, showing it cannot explain suffering or liberation if inherent, reinforcing the emptiness of the karmic cycle and its triad, aligning with Verses 9–11’s empty links.)
.
[36] Karma is not born from conditions
and by no means from non-conditions,
for karma-formations are like an illusion,
a city of gandharvas, and a mirage.
-
(Nāgārjuna likens karma to illusions, reinforcing its emptiness. Karma is “not born from conditions” inherently, as conditions are themselves empty (Verse 12), nor from “non-conditions,” as it depends on relational causes (e.g., kleśas, Verse 37). Karma-formations (saṃskāra, the second link, Verse 11) are “like an illusion, a city of gandharvas, and a mirage,” appearing real yet insubstantial (T1/T2), echoing Verse 14’s dream analogy. The personality — whether as producer or enjoyer — shares this illusory nature, lacking continuity (a persistent self) or discontinuity (a destroyed self) across moments, actions, rebirths, or saṃsāra to nirvāṇa, as it is “there, yet not there.”
-
Verse 36 portrays karma and the karmic cycle as illusory, refuting traditional views of a real, continuous personality, aligning with the [U2T]'s emphasis on emptiness [T2] ⇐⇒ and conventional functionality [T1] [U2T], and connecting to Verses 18–20’s empty causal junction.)
.
[37] Karma has klesas as its cause.
[Being] klesas, the karma-formations
are of impassioned nature (klesatmaka).
A body (rebirth) has karma as its cause.
So [all] three [T1] are empty of own-being [T2] [U2T].
-
(This verse analyzes the triad of (i) cause (kleśas, afflictive emotions like desire or ignorance), (ii) action (karma-formations), and (iii) result (body, rebirth’s five aggregates). Kleśas (e.g., ignorance, Verse 9) cause karma, which is “impassioned” (driven by delusion), and karma causes the body (rebirth). All three spheres are interdependent [T1]: kleśas depend on karma to manifest, karma on kleśas to arise, and the body on karma to form. This co-definition means they are empty of own-being [T2] [U2T], as none exists independently.
-
The personality, as the five aggregates before (agent) and after (enjoyer), is part of this empty triad, with no inherent continuity (same self) or discontinuity (different self) across moments, actions, rebirths, or saṃsāra to nirvāṇa, as all are relational and illusory, like Verse 36’s mirages.
-
Verse 37 refutes the inherent existence of the karma-producing triad, showing the emptiness of the personality’s role in the cycle, undermining traditional views of a continuous or discontinuous self, and aligning with the [U2T].)
.
[38] Without karma, no agent.
Without these two, no result.
Without these, no enjoyer.
Therefore things [T1] are void [T2] [U2T].
-
(This verse directly addresses the triad (3 spheres) of (i) agent (producer, personality before), (ii) action (karma), and (iii) result/enjoyer (reaper, personality after). The agent (five aggregates) depends on karma to act, karma on the agent to be produced, and the result/enjoyer (rebirth’s aggregates) on both. This mutual dependence [T1-3S] ⇐⇒ means none exists inherently [T2-3S] [U2T-3S]: “things are void.” There is no continuous self linking the producer and enjoyer across moments, actions, rebirths, or saṃsāra to nirvāṇa, nor a discontinuous, destroyed, or different self, as all are empty designations [T1].
-
For example, in Verses 9–11, ignorance (agent’s delusion) produces formative forces (action), leading to rebirth (result). Verse 38 shows this triad is empty, refuting traditional views of a real personality enduring or changing inherently.
-
Verse 38 refutes the reification of the agent-action-result triad, showing the personality’s emptiness, with no inherent continuity or discontinuity, aligning with the [U2T] and reinforcing Verses 9–11’s empty cycle.)
.
[39] When — because the truth is seen —
one correctly understands that karma is empty,
karma does not arise.
When [karma] is no more,
what arises from karma arises no more.
(i.e. The result of our actions is no binding anymore.)
-
(Liberation arises from realizing the U2T: karma (relation / action), its agent (subject / actor), and results (object) are empty [T2-3S] ⇐⇒ dependently co-arisen [T1-3S] [U2T-3S]. When this “truth is seen,” the delusion of I-making (Verse 34) ceases to be binding, and karma “does not arise” as a binding force, as one no longer reifies it as real. Consequently, “what arises from karma” (e.g., suffering, rebirth) ceases, not as a destruction (discontinuity) but as the dissolution of delusion, like waking from a dream (Verse 14). From moment to moment, action to action, rebirth to rebirth, or saṃsāra to nirvāṇa, there is no continuous or discontinuous personality, as the cycle is empty, liberating through insight.
-
Verse 39 articulates liberation as realizing the karmic cycle’s true nature & dynamic [U2T], ending its binding power without reifying cessation, aligning with Verses 24–26’s empty nirvāṇa and the [U2T]'s non-dual Middle Way.)
.
[40] Just as when the Lord Tathagata
magically projects an apparition
and this apparition again projects another apparition-
(i.e. Everything in the karmic cycle is like illusions, reflections, mirages, dreams, echos, ‘there, yet not there’; not good, not bad, not both, not neither.)
-
(Nāgārjuna uses the metaphor of a Tathāgata’s magical apparition creating further apparitions to illustrate the illusory nature of the karmic triad (3 spheres). The agent (producer), action (karma), and enjoyer (reaper) are like apparitions [T1-3S] ⇐⇒ empty [T2-3S] [U2T-3S], producing more illusions (conventional truths) without inherent reality. From moment to moment, action to action, rebirth to rebirth, or saṃsāra to nirvāṇa, the personality appears continuous [T1] ⇐⇒ yet is insubstantial [T2] [U2T] ⇐⇒ neither persisting (coming, lasting) nor destroyed (going) [Tetralemma] ⇐⇒ as it is “there, yet not there,” like Verse 36’s mirages [Illusory].
-
Verse 40 reinforces the illusory, empty nature of the karmic cycle, refuting continuity or discontinuity of the personality, aligning with the [U2T] and connecting to Verses 18–20’s dream-like junction.)
.
[41] In that case
the Tathagata's apparition [T1] is empty [T2] [U2T]
(not to mention the apparition [created] by the apparition!).
Both of them are but names,
merely insignificant discriminations [T1].
-
(Everything in both saṃsāra and nirvāṇa is like that: [Tetralemma] ⇐⇒ [U2T] ⇐⇒ [Illusory] ⇐⇒ [Middle Way] ⇐⇒ [One].
-
The Tathāgata’s apparition and its secondary apparition are empty [T2] ⇐⇒ as they are dependently arisen [T1] [U2T], “but names, merely insignificant discriminations.” The agent, karma, and enjoyer are similarly empty designations, like the cycle’s links (Verses 9–11) or nirvāṇa (Verses 24–26). There is no continuous personality (self) or discontinuous entity (destroyed/different self) across moments, actions, rebirths, or saṃsāra to nirvāṇa ⇐⇒ as all are illusory labels [T1] ⇐⇒ not real [T2] [U2T]. ⇐⇒ The tetralemma (not existent, not non-existent, not both, not neither) ⇐⇒ and Middle Way underscore this non-dual emptiness [U2T].
-
Verse 41 emphasizes the karmic triad’s illusory, empty nature, refuting reified continuity or discontinuity, aligning with the [U2T] and reinforcing the saṃsāra-nirvāṇa junction’s emptiness (Verses 25–26).)
.
[42] Just so, the agent is like the apparition,
and karma is like the apparition [created] by the apparition [T1].
By nature [they are] without significance [T2] [U2T]:
mere discriminations [T1].
-
(The agent (producer, five aggregates) and karma are likened to apparitions [Illusory] ⇐⇒ empty [T2] and “without significance” as inherent entities ⇐⇒ existing as “mere discriminations” [T1] [U2T]. The personality’s apparent continuity across moments, actions, rebirths, or saṃsāra to nirvāṇa is illusory, like apparitions creating more apparitions, with no real self persisting or ceasing. This refutes traditional views of a continuous or discontinuous enjoyer, echoing Verse 38’s interdependent triad.
-
Verse 42 reiterates the agent and karma’s illusory emptiness, dismantling reified views of the personality in the karmic cycle, aligning with the [U2T] and connecting to Verses 9–11’s empty links.)
.
[43] If karma possessed own-being,
there would be no nirvāṇa nor deeds [of an] agent.
If [karma] [T1] does not exist [inherently] [T2] [U2T],
the pleasant or unpleasant result created by karma [T1]
does not exist [inherently] [T2] [U2T].
.
-
(If karma were inherently existent, it would be permanent, preventing nirvāṇa (liberation from suffering) and rendering deeds fixed, implying eternalism (continuity). Since karma is empty [T2] ⇐⇒ dependently co-arisen [T1] ⇐⇒ its results (pleasant or unpleasant, e.g., rebirth) are also empty, not inherently real. From moment to moment, action to action, rebirth to rebirth, or saṃsāra to nirvāṇa, there is no continuous or discontinuous personality, as agent, karma, and enjoyer are empty. Nirvāṇa is realizing this non-dual emptiness, dissolving the cycle’s apparent reality without reifying a junction or cessation, as per Verses 25–26.
-
Verse 43 refutes inherent karma and its results, showing the karmic cycle and nirvāṇa are empty, aligning with the [U2T] and reinforcing the Middle Way’s liberation through insight.)
.
(The question about continuity versus discontinuity in the personality (five aggregates) across moments, actions, rebirths, and saṃsāra to nirvāṇa is central to Verses 33–43. These verses refute both extremes:
Continuity (Eternalism): The opponent’s view (Verse 33) assumes a persistent personality (self or aggregates) as the producer and enjoyer, implying continuity across moments (e.g., one thought to the next), actions (e.g., act to consequence), rebirths (e.g., one life to another), or saṃsāra to nirvāṇa (a liberated self). Verses 34–35 show karma and the personality are empty, not permanent, and Verses 36–42 liken them to illusions, precluding an inherent self. Verse 43’s “no nirvāṇa” with inherent karma confirms no continuous essence exists.
Discontinuity (Annihilationism): Assuming the personality is destroyed or replaced (a different entity [T1], not inherently real, as the cycle’s junctions are empty [T2], neither continuous nor discontinuous, as per Verses 9–11’s empty links.
Verses 33–43 portray the karmic cycle and nirvāṇa as empty [T2] ⇐⇒ conventional designations [T1] [U2T], not real entities or events ⇐⇒ aligning with the Middle Way’s non-dual liberation through insight into the illusory, interdependent nature of all phenomena, including the saṃsāra-nirvāṇa junction.)
.
.
.
[9. Union of the Two Truths: Interdependence and emptiness of Conventional Language (dualistic conceptual proliferation in a cycle) and Adapted Skillful Means / Antidotes (like real, unreal, both, neither) (Verse 44)]
[44] 'Is' and 'is not' and also 'is-is not' [T1]
have been stated by the Buddhas for a purpose.
It is not easy to understand!
-
(Nāgārjuna clarifies that these four extreme views — “‘Is’, ‘is not’, both together, or neither — are stated by the Buddhas “for a purpose” within the conventional realm [T1]. They are skillful means (upāya), adapted to the needs of practitioners [T1] ⇐⇒ not absolute truths [T2] [U2T]. These teachings serve to counteract specific delusions (antidotes) — e.g., asserting “is” to refute nihilism, “is not” to refute eternalism, or “both/neither” to navigate complex views — but they are not ultimate, as all designations are empty of own-being [T2], per Verse 2’s “like nirvāṇa, all expressible things are empty.”
-
The statement “It is not easy to understand!” underscores the subtlety of the [U2T] framework. Practitioners may misinterpret these conventional teachings as absolute, clinging to one extreme (e.g., existence of karma, Verse 33) or another (e.g., non-existence of phenomena, Verse 15). Understanding that they are purposeful, empty designations requires realizing their interdependence [T1] ⇐⇒ and emptiness [T2] [U2T], as seen in the karmic cycle’s links (Verses 9–11) or nirvāṇa’s cessation (Verses 24–26). The Buddha’s use of these extremes mirrors Verse 1’s “worldly convention,” where terms like being, non-being, or duration are pedagogical tools [T1] ⇐⇒ not ultimate realities [T2] [U2T].
-
Verse 44 refutes the reification of the four extreme views as absolute truths (without rejecting them), portraying them as conventional teachings [T1] and skillful means designed to lead practitioners to the ultimate truth of emptiness [T2] and to the Union of the Two Truths [U2T]. It reinforces the [U2T] framework, where all language — including ontological assertions — is empty [T2] ⇐⇒ interdependent [T1], and provisional ⇐⇒ aligning with the Middle Way’s non-dual transcendence of extremes (without rejection). This verse continues the text’s project of dismantling traditional views (without rejection) by showing that even the Buddha’s teachings are not ultimate, supporting your insight that saṃsāra, nirvāṇa, and their junction are empty, conventional designations.
-
Verse 44 of the Śūnyatāsaptati presents the four extreme views of the catuskoti (“is,” “is not,” “is-is not”) as conventional teachings [T1], stated by the Buddhas for a purpose, not absolute truths [T2], aligning with Verse 1’s [U2T] foundation. It refutes the reification of ontological assertions about the karmic cycle, its twelve links (Verses 9–11), and liberation/nirvāṇa (Verses 24–26), showing they are skillful means (upāya), empty and interdependent. This supports your insight that saṃsāra, nirvāṇa, and their junction are empty, conventional designations, not real entities or events, and continues the text’s deconstruction of traditional views. Within the [U2T] framework, Verse 44 reinforces the Middle Way’s non-dual realization, where language and logic are provisional tools guiding practitioners to the ineffable emptiness of reality, dissolving reified distinctions like continuity or discontinuity.)
.
.
.
[10. Union of the Two Truths: Interdependence and emptiness of Name and Form (ex. 5-aggregates, irreducible elements and their defining characteristics / marks (Verses 45–47)]
(Verses 45–47, part of the section labeled “Union of the Two Truths: Interdependence and emptiness of Name and Form (ex. the 5-aggregates, their irreducible elements with defining characteristics / marks),” deconstruct the concept of form (rūpa), the first of the five aggregates, and its relationship to the four great elements (mahābhūta: earth, water, fire, air) and defining characteristics or marks (lakṣaṇa). The mention of "mark" in Verse 47 highlights the connection to nāmarūpa (name and form), the fourth link in the twelve links of dependent origination, where "name" (nāma) refers to mental factors (feeling, perception, formations, consciousness) that conceptualize or designate "form" (rūpa), the material aspect, through characteristics like shape or color. These verses argue that form, the elements, and their marks are empty of inherent existence [T2] ⇐⇒ because they are dependently arisen, mutually defined, and co-evolving [T1] ⇐⇒ within the [U2T] framework. This refutation targets traditional views that reify nāmarūpa as an inherently existent basis for the personality or self in the karmic cycle, ⇐⇒ showing instead that it is illusory, like a mirage (Verse 36) ⇐⇒ and points to the non-dual Middle Way where phenomena lack inherent substance.)
[45] If form is material (bhautika) in itself,
it does not arise from the elements (bhuta).
It is not derived from itself — It does not exist, does it? —
nor from anything else.
Therefore it does not exist [at all] [T2] [U2T].
-
(Verse 45 examines form (rūpa), the material component of nāmarūpa and the first of the five aggregates, traditionally understood as arising from the four great elements (bhūta: earth, water, fire, air). Traditional views might reify form as an inherently existent, material substance (bhautika), either self-sufficient or derived from real elements, forming the physical basis of the personality in the karmic cycle (e.g., the body in rebirth, Verse 37). Nāgārjuna refutes this by showing form’s emptiness through logical analysis.
-
If form were “material in itself” (inherently existent with own-being), it would not depend on the elements, as an independent entity requires no external cause. However, form is conventionally understood to arise from the elements [T1], negating self-existence. The phrase “It is not derived from itself — It does not exist, does it?” rules out self-arising: if form arose from itself, it would already exist, making arising unnecessary, and thus “it does not exist” as a self-caused entity. Nor can form arise “from anything else” (e.g., the elements) if the elements lack inherent existence, as an empty cause cannot produce a real effect (echoing Verse 12’s “How can that which is not established by own-being create others?”). Therefore, form “does not exist [at all]” inherently [T2], as it lacks independent or dependent existence ⇐⇒ being a conventional designation [T1] ⇐⇒ within the [U2T] framework.
-
In the context of nāmarūpa, form’s emptiness undermines the material basis of the karmic cycle’s fourth link, which includes the body and mental factors (Verse 38’s agent/enjoyer). Traditional views reifying nāmarūpa as a real self or personality — persisting across moments, rebirths, or saṃsāra to nirvāṇa — are refuted, as form is insubstantial, setting the stage for analyzing its conceptual "name" aspect via marks in Verse 47.
-
Verse 45 refutes the inherent existence of form, the material aspect of nāmarūpa, showing it cannot arise independently or from elements, as it is empty [T2] ⇐⇒ and dependently arisen [T1] [U2T]. This challenges traditional views of a substantial body or self in the karmic cycle, aligning with the [U2T]'s relational emptiness.)
.
[46] The four [great elements] are not [found] in one [element],
nor is one of them [found] in [any of] the four.
How can form be established
With the four great elements as [its] cause?
-
(Verse 46 shifts to the four great elements (bhūta), traditionally seen as the irreducible constituents of form, underpinning the material aspect of nāmarūpa. Traditional views might assume the elements are inherently existent, individually or collectively, producing a real form as the basis for the body in the karmic cycle. Nāgārjuna refutes this by demonstrating the elements’ interdependence [T1] ⇐⇒ and emptiness [T2] [U2T].
-
The four elements (earth, water, fire, air) “are not [found] in one [element],” meaning no single element inherently contains the others (e.g., earth does not intrinsically include water). Nor is “one of them [found] in [any of] the four,” meaning each element is not inherently present in the collective combination (e.g., earth is not in the aggregate of water, fire, air). This mutual dependence [T1] implies that each element is defined relative to the others — e.g., earth’s solidity contrasts with water’s fluidity — ⇐⇒ lacking independent existence [T2] [U2T]. If the elements are empty, “How can form be established with the four great elements as [its] cause?” An empty cause cannot produce an inherently real effect, reinforcing Verse 45’s argument and echoing Verse 12’s causal critique.
-
In nāmarūpa, the elements’ emptiness undermines the material foundation of form, which is conceptualized by “name” (mental factors like perception). This challenges views of a real, material self in the karmic cycle (Verses 9–11’s links), as the body’s basis is insubstantial, preparing for Verse 47’s analysis of conceptual marks.
-
Verse 46 refutes the inherent existence of the four elements, showing their interdependence [T1] ⇐⇒ and emptiness [T2] [U2T], which precludes form’s establishment as a real effect. This deconstructs traditional views of nāmarūpa’s material basis, reinforcing the [U2T]'s emphasis on relational emptiness.)
.
[47] Since it is not conceived directly,
[it seems form does] [T1] not exist [T2] [U2T].
But if [you maintain it to be conceived] through a mark,
that mark, born from causes and conditions [T1],
does not exist [inherently] [T2] [U2T].
And it would be illogical [if form could exist] without a mark.
-
(Verse 47 examines how form is conceived or defined, focusing on the role of “marks” (lakṣaṇa), which ties directly to nāmarūpa’s “name” aspect — mental factors (perception, formations, consciousness) that designate or conceptualize form through characteristics like shape, color, or solidity. Traditional views might assume form is inherently real, directly perceivable, or defined by real marks, forming the basis of the karmic cycle’s personality (Verse 38’s agent/enjoyer). Nāgārjuna refutes this by showing that form and its marks are empty, as they are dependently arisen and mutually defined.
-
Form “is not conceived directly,” as it cannot be apprehended without conceptual mediation [T1] — e.g., a pot is perceived through its shape or color, not as “form itself.” If form is not directly perceivable, “it seems [form does] not exist” inherently [T2], as an unperceivable entity lacks own-being. The opponent might argue that form is conceived “through a mark” (e.g., solidity, a characteristic), but Nāgārjuna counters that the mark, being “born from causes and conditions” [T1] ⇐⇒ is itself empty [T2] [2T], as conditioned phenomena lack inherent existence (Verse 30’s origination-duration-cessation). For example, the mark of solidity depends on conditions like perception or contrast with fluidity, as seen in the elements’ interdependence (Verse 46). If the mark is empty, “it would be illogical [if form could exist] without a mark,” as form relies on these defining characteristics, which are insubstantial.
-
In nāmarūpa, “name” (nāma) involves mental designations (e.g., perception of marks) that conceptualize “form” (rūpa), the material aggregate. Verse 47 shows that both form and its marks (name’s conceptual basis) are empty [T2] ⇐⇒ as they co-define each other [T1] [U2T], undermining traditional views of nāmarūpa as a real, perceivable self or personality in the karmic cycle. This connects to Verse 27’s triad of characteristic-characterization-characterized, where marks are similarly empty, and reinforces the illusory nature of the aggregates (Verse 36’s mirages).
-
Verse 47 refutes the inherent existence of form’s defining marks, central to nāmarūpa’s name aspect, showing that form is empty [T2] ⇐⇒ because it depends on empty, conditioned marks [T1] [U2T]. This deconstructs traditional views of nāmarūpa as a substantial basis for the self, aligning with the [U2T]’s non-dual Middle Way where phenomena are illusory designations.)
.
.
(Verses 45–47 of the Śūnyatāsaptati argue that form (rūpa) and the four great elements, central to nāmarūpa (name and form), are empty [T2] ⇐⇒ because they are dependently arisen and mutually defined [T1] ⇐⇒ within the [U2T] framework. Your observation about the “mark” (lakṣaṇa) in Verse 47 ties these verses to nāmarūpa’s name aspect, as marks are conceptual designations enabling perception of form, both empty like the material elements (Verses 45–46). Verse 45 refutes form’s independent existence, Verse 46 shows the elements’ interdependence, and Verse 47 deconstructs form’s defining marks, portraying nāmarūpa as illusory and pointing to the non-dual Middle Way. These verses continue the refutation of traditional views by targeting nāmarūpa, a key link in the karmic cycle (Verses 9–11), and support the emptiness of saṃsāra, nirvāṇa, and their junction (Verses 18–26), as conventional truths and skillful means (Verse 44). They reinforce your insight that phenomena, including the aggregates, are empty designations [T1], not ultimate realities [T2], dissolving reified views of self or liberation.)
.
.
.
[11. Union of the Two Truths: Interdependence, co-definition, co-evolution and emptiness of the apparent opposites of the triads of Perception and Contact (Verses 48–55)]
(Verses 48–55 form a cohesive unit that deconstructs the processes of Perception and Contact, corresponding to the fifth and sixth links of dependent origination, and their outcome, feeling (seventh link). These verses analyze triads (3 spheres) central to sensory experience: (i) subject/perceiver (mind/consciousness), (ii) action/perception, (iii) object/perceived (form); and (i) sense-consciousness, (ii) sense-faculty (e.g., eye), (iii) sense-object (e.g., form), culminating in the unification of these three producing feeling. They argue that these triads’ components are empty of inherent existence [T2] ⇐⇒ because they are dependently arisen, interdependent, co-defined, and co-evolving [T1] [U2T], refuting traditional views that reify perception, contact, or feeling as real, independent processes in the karmic cycle. The analysis uses logical arguments and the tetralemma (e.g., Verse 50’s “not one”) ⇐⇒ showing phenomena are illusory, like mirages (Verse 36) ⇐⇒ and pointing to the non-dual Middle Way where the cycle and its cessation (nirvāṇa) are empty designations.)
[48] If mind (subject) could grasp form (object),
it would grasp its own own-being.
How could a [mind] (subject) [T1]
that does not exist [inherently] [T2] [U2T]
(since it is born from conditions [T1])
really conceive absence of form (object)?
-
(Verse 48 examines the triad (3 spheres) of Perception – (i) subject/perceiver (mind/consciousness), (ii) action/perception, and (iii) object/perceived (form), corresponding to the fifth link (ṣaḍāyatana, six sense bases, where consciousness engages objects via faculties). Traditional views might reify the mind as an inherent subject grasping a real form (e.g., visual form) or even the absence of form (e.g., non-existent objects). Nāgārjuna refutes this by showing the mind’s emptiness.
-
If the mind could “grasp form,” it would need to be inherently existent to perceive an object’s essence. However, this would mean the mind grasps “its own own-being” (its inherent existence), which is impossible, as an inherent mind would be self-contained, not relational. The mind “does not exist [inherently]” [T2] ⇐⇒ because it is “born from conditions” [T1] [U2T] — e.g., dependent on sense-faculties and objects, as in the six sense bases. If the mind is empty, “How could [it] really conceive absence of form?” Perceiving non-existence (e.g., an absent object) would also require inherent existence, as grasping any object (existent or not) presupposes a real subject. Since the mind, perception, and form are interdependent [T1-3S], they are empty [T2-3S], like the cause-effect triad (3 spheres) [U2T-3S] in Verses 27–28.
-
In the karmic cycle, perception (fifth link) arises from nāmarūpa (fourth link, Verses 45–47), conditioned by ignorance (Verses 9–11). Verse 48 shows this process is empty, undermining views of a real perceiver or perceived object.
-
Verse 48 refutes the inherent existence of the perceiving mind and its objects, showing the emptiness of the perception triad (3 spheres), aligning with the [U2T-3S] and deconstructing the fifth link’s role in the karmic cycle.)
.
[49] Since one moment of mind
cannot within [the very same] moment
grasp a form born (as explained),
how could it understand a past and a future form?
-
(Verse 49 continues analyzing the perception triad, focusing on its temporal dynamics. Traditional views might assume the mind inherently grasps form in a single moment or across time (past or future forms). Nāgārjuna refutes this by showing perception’s temporal interdependence [T1] ⇐⇒ and emptiness [T2] [U2T].
-
“One moment of mind” cannot “within [the very same] moment grasp a form born,” as perception requires the coordination of mind, faculty, and object, which are not simultaneous (echoing Verse 19’s “being and non-being are not simultaneous”). Form’s arising (being, Verse 18–20) and the mind’s perception are conditioned and relational [T1] ⇐⇒ not inherently real [T2], as explained in Verses 45–47’s empty form. If perception cannot occur in a single moment, “how could it understand a past and a future form?” Perceiving forms across time (e.g., remembering past forms or anticipating future ones) would require an inherent, enduring mind, which is empty (Verse 48). The three times are empty (Verse 29), so temporal perception is a conventional designation [T1], not an absolute process [T2].
-
In the karmic cycle, perception (fifth link) sustains the cycle’s continuity, but Verse 49 shows it is empty, undermining views of a real, persistent perceiver, as in Verses 33–43’s empty agent.
-
Verse 49 refutes the inherent temporality of perception, showing the mind and form are empty due to their conditioned, non-simultaneous nature, aligning with the [U2T] and deconstructing the fifth link’s causal role.)
.
[50] Since color and shape never exist apart,
they cannot be conceived apart.
Is form not acknowledged to be one?
-
(Verse 50 examines the object/perceived (form) in the perception triad, focusing on its attributes (color, shape), traditionally seen as inherent characteristics defining form. Nāgārjuna uses the tetralemma implicitly, refuting form’s inherent unity or multiplicity. Color and shape “never exist apart” [T1], as they are co-defined—e.g., a pot’s shape requires color to be perceived, and vice versa. Thus, they “cannot be conceived apart,” as perception depends on their interdependence. The question “Is form not acknowledged to be one?” challenges the view that form is inherently singular (one unified entity) or multiple (distinct attributes), as both unity and multiplicity are empty [T2], like Verse 32’s “not many [and] not one.”
-
Form’s attributes are conventional designations [T1], not real [T2], echoing Verse 47’s empty marks (lakṣaṇa) in nāmarūpa. In the karmic cycle, form (fifth link’s object) is perceived, but its emptiness undermines views of a real, unified object, as in Verses 45–47.
-
Verse 50 refutes the inherent unity or multiplicity of form’s attributes, showing form’s emptiness due to interdependent perception, aligning with the [U2T] and deconstructing the fifth link’s objects.)
.
[51] The sense of sight is not inside the eye,
not inside form, and not in between.
[Therefore] an image depending upon form and eye is false.
-
(Verse 51 shifts to another triad (3 spheres) of Perception – (i) sense-consciousness (visual consciousness), (ii) sense-faculty (eye), and (iii) sense-object (form), corresponding to the fifth link (ṣaḍāyatana) and preparing for contact (sixth link, Verse 55). Traditional views might reify sight as an inherent process located in the eye, form, or their interaction. Nāgārjuna refutes this, showing sight’s emptiness.
-
The “sense of sight” (visual perception) is not inherently “inside the eye” (faculty), “inside form” (object), or “in between” (a separate interaction), as none of these locations exists independently [T1]. The eye, form, and perception are co-defined [T1] — e.g., the eye’s function depends on form, and form’s perception on the eye — making them empty [T2] [U2T]. Thus, “an image depending upon form and eye is false,” as the perceived image (e.g., a pot) is an illusory designation [T1], not a real entity [T2], like Verse 36’s mirages. This undermines views of real visual perception in the karmic cycle’s sensory process.
-
Verse 51 refutes the inherent location of sight, showing the emptiness of the visual perception triad, aligning with the [U2T] and deconstructing the fifth link’s sensory basis.)
.
[52] If the eye does not see itself, how can it see form?
Therefore eye and form are without self.
The same [is true for the] remaining sense-fields.
-
(Verse 52 continues analyzing the sense-consciousness-sense-faculty-sense-object triad, focusing on the eye and form’s lack of inherent self (ātman). Traditional views might assume the eye inherently sees form, implying a real self in the faculty or object. Nāgārjuna refutes this: if the eye “does not see itself” (lacking self-perception), “how can it see form?” Perception requires interdependence [T1] — eye, form, and consciousness co-arise — precluding an inherent self in any component [T2] [U2T]. Thus, “eye and form are without self” [T2], empty of own-being, as are the “remaining sense-fields” (e.g., ear, sound).
-
In the karmic cycle, the six sense bases (fifth link) enable perception, but their selflessness undermines views of a real perceiver (subject) or perceived (object), echoing Verses 9–11’s empty ignorance and Verses 33–43’s empty agent.
-
Verse 52 refutes the inherent self of sensory faculties and objects, showing their emptiness, aligning with the [U2T] and deconstructing the fifth link’s perceptual process.)
.
[53] Eye is empty of its own self [and] of another's self.
Form is also empty.
Likewise [for the] remaining sense-fields.
-
(Verse 53 reinforces Verse 52, explicitly stating the emptiness of the sense-consciousness-sense-faculty-sense-object triad. The eye is “empty of its own self” (no inherent essence) and “of another’s self” (no essence derived from form or consciousness), as it depends on them [T1]. Form is “also empty,” lacking inherent existence (Verses 45–47), as are the “remaining sense-fields” (e.g., ear, sound, mind, mental objects). All components are co-defined [T1] ⇐⇒ empty [T2] [U2T], like Verse 38’s agent-action-result triad.
-
In the karmic cycle, sensory perception (fifth link) is empty, undermining views of a real sensory self, as in Verses 18–20’s empty junction.
-
Verse 53 confirms the emptiness of sensory triads, refuting their inherent existence, aligning with the [U2T] and deconstructing the fifth link’s components.)
.
[54] When one [sense-field] occurs simultaneously with contact,
the others are empty.
Empty does not depend upon non-empty,
nor does non-empty depend upon empty.
-
(Verse 54 transitions to the sixth link (sparśa, contact), the unification of sense-consciousness, sense-faculty, and sense-object. Traditional views might reify contact as an inherent event, assuming one sense-field (e.g., eye-form-consciousness) is “non-empty” (real) when active, while others (e.g., ear-sound) are “empty” (inactive). Nāgārjuna refutes this: when one sense-field “occurs simultaneously with contact” [T1], the others are not inherently empty or non-empty, as all are empty [T2] ⇐⇒ due to interdependence [T1] [U2T] (Verses 52–53). “Empty does not depend upon non-empty, nor does non-empty depend upon empty,” meaning emptiness is universal [T2], not contingent on a real/non-empty counterpart, as all phenomena are co-defined [T1].
-
In the karmic cycle, contact (sixth link) initiates feeling (seventh link), but its emptiness undermines views of real sensory interaction, as in Verses 9–11’s empty links.
-
Verse 54 refutes the inherent reality of contact, showing all sense-fields are empty, aligning with the [U2T] and deconstructing the sixth link’s unification.)
.
[55] Having no [independent] fixed nature,
the three [namely, indriya, visaya, and vijnana] (sense faculty, sense object, sense consciousness)
cannot come into contact.
Since there is no contact having this nature,
feeling [T1] does not exist [inherently] [T2] [U2T].
-
(Verse 55 concludes the section, analyzing the triad of unification (contact), producing, and feeling (vedanā, seventh link). The “three” (sense-faculty, sense-object, sense-consciousness) have “no [independent] fixed nature” [T2] ⇐⇒ as they are interdependent (T1, Verses 52–54) [U2T]. Without inherent existence, they “cannot come into contact” inherently, as contact (sparśa) is a relational event [T1] ⇐⇒ not a real unification [T2] [U2T].
-
Thus, “feeling does not exist [inherently]”[T2] ⇐⇒ as it depends on empty contact (T1/T2) [U2T]. Feeling, the seventh link, conditions craving (eighth link), but its emptiness undermines views of real sensory experience driving the cycle, as in Verses 33–43’s empty results.
-
Verse 55 refutes the inherent existence of contact and feeling, showing their emptiness, aligning with the [U2T] and deconstructing the sixth and seventh links, pointing to the cycle’s illusory nature.)
.
.
(Verses 48–55 of the Śūnyatāsaptati deconstruct the fifth (six sense bases), sixth (contact), and seventh (feeling) links of dependent origination, analyzing triads like subject-perception-object (Verses 48–50) and sense-consciousness-faculty-object (Verses 51–55). They show these are empty [T2] ⇐⇒ due to interdependence [T1] [U2T], refuting traditional views of real sensory processes in the karmic cycle. Verses 48–50 undermine the mind’s perception, Verses 51–54 deconstruct contact’s sensory triads, and Verse 55 negates feeling’s inherent existence, portraying the cycle as illusory within the [U2T] framework. These verses build on Verses 9–11’s empty links, Verses 18–26’s empty junction, and Verses 45–47’s empty nāmarūpa, reinforcing your insight that saṃsāra, nirvāṇa, and their junction are empty [T2] ⇐⇒ conventional designations [T1] ⇐⇒ not ultimate realities [T2] [U2T]. ⇐⇒ The Middle Way emerges as the non-dual realization of this emptiness, dissolving reified views of perception or liberation.)