Chapter 17 –  An Analysis of Action (karma) and Its Product (phala) – Refuting the traditional substantialist dualistic karma theories without completely rejecting the karmic cycle.

This chapter refutes independent/inherent/absolute
karma formation, rebirth and liberation
because the opposites –
(i) actor/producer,
(ii) action/production, and
(iii) result/product /consequences /rebirths/liberation
(or the actor/producer before, during and after the action/production /acquisition of new karma, and as enjoyer of its consequences) –
cannot be inherently
(i) dependently-arisen /existent /functional /changing /ceasing,
(ii) non-dependently-arisen /non-existent /non-functional /non-changing /non-ceasing,
(iii) both, or (iv) neither;
cannot be inherently
(i) different /separate /multiple /dual,
(ii) identical /united /one /non-dual,
(iii) both, or (iv) neither;
cannot be inherently
(i) permanent /continuous /eternal /’this’,
(ii) impermanent /discontinuous /annihilated /’non-this’,
(iii) both, or (iv) neither; etc. [Tetralemma]
⇐⇒ thus the three spheres are empty of inherent existence, never absolute [T2-3S]
⇐⇒ they are inseparable, dependently co-arisen, interdependent, co-defined, co-evolving, co-imputed by the mind, mere designations/names, conventional truths/tools [T1-3S]
⇐⇒ and vice versa, one truth supports/implies/enables the other [U2T-3S]
⇐⇒ they are like illusions, reflections, mirages, dreams, echos, ‘there, yet not there’ [Illusory]
⇐⇒ so we could use these models /concepts /dualities /triads / quads, like subject/relation/object, actor/action/result, cause/causality/effect, producer/production/product, goer/going/destination, perceiver/perception/perceived, knower/knowing/known, part/composing/aggregate, characteristic/characterising/characterized, definition/defining/defined, origination/duration/cessation, owner/ownership/possession, acquirer/acquiring/acquired, before/during/after, past/present/future, and other dualities/triads/quads, including the two truths, conventionally/relatively, but never in absolute terms [U2T-in-action], using them without apprehending /opposing /unifying /accepting /rejecting /changing /increasing /decreasing /liberating anything in absolute terms.

.

Last update: January 14, 2026
Image from: Stoneflower013
Source Text: Garfield, PTG, Streng, Batchelor.  

Previous-chapter           Home           Next-chapter

A. Introduction – The karmic cycle is impossible with inherently existing entities and functionalities

Chapter 17 of Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, titled "An Analysis of Action (Karma) and Its Product (Phala)," delves into the intricate relationship between karma (action) and its fruits (results) within Buddhist philosophy. Comprising 33 verses, the chapter begins with three distinct opponents presenting their theories on karma and its outcomes, which Nāgārjuna subsequently critiques using the Madhyamaka reasoning, particularly the Tetralemma, to reveal their ultimate emptiness [T2] and interdependence [T1] [U2T].
.

A. Notes:

Karma (action) and its fruits (Karma) form an intricate, universal law of cause and effect where every intentional physical, mental, or verbal deed creates corresponding consequences. Rooted in Eastern traditions, this principle dictates that positive actions yield positive results (Punya) and negative actions yield suffering (Papa). It is not mere fate, but a dynamic, often delayed process shaped by intention, where the "sower" inevitably reaps the results, sometimes across lifetimes.
Key aspects of the relationship between karma and its fruits include:
– Intention is Key: Karma is not just the action, but the intent behind it. Accidental actions generally carry no karma, while intended actions, whether good or bad, produce results.
– The "Sower" and "Reaper": An individual is the sole doer of their actions and the ultimate heir to their consequences.
– Time Delays and Types: Results are not always immediate. Scriptures classify karma into three types: Sanchita (accumulated past), Prarabdha (ripe/fructifying), and Agami (future/current). A "seed" of action may take time to sprout, similar to how a mango seed takes longer to grow than a mustard seed.
– The Law of Causation: It is a cosmic law of justice rather than arbitrary punishment. It is described as "as you sow, so you reap".
– Attachment to Results: The Bhagavad Gita advises acting with pure intention without attachment to the results, as obsession with the outcome creates anxiety and suffering, whereas detached action brings peace of mind.
– Modifiability: While the law is strict, it is not rigidly mechanical. New, conscious actions can modify or mitigate the effects of past, "ripe" karma.
In essence, the relationship is a complex web where the present is a manifestation of past actions, and the future is actively being created by present choices.
.

– "Fruit" (phala) is broader than just the immediate product (e.g., a single result). In Buddhist thought, phala encompasses all consequences of accumulated karma, including immediate effects (e.g., happiness from wholesome actions), long-term samsaric consequences (e.g., rebirth), and potential liberative outcomes (e.g., cessation of karma through wisdom). Chapter 17’s discussion of karma includes both samsaric fruits (perpetuating bondage) and liberative fruits (leading to awakening), suggesting a whole karmic cycle rather than a narrow triad.

– Chapter 17’s verses (e.g., 17.13–21) emphasize the interdependence of action and fruit, showing that karma operates conventionally through dependent origination [T1] ⇐⇒ not inherently [T2] [U2T]. Nagarjuna discusses how actions produce fruits (samsaric or liberative), which shape further actions, forming a cyclical process. The chapter also addresses cessation/liberation/awakening (nirodha, e.g., verse 17.25), where realizing the true nature and dynamic of karma and fruit [U2T] leads to liberation, implying a broader cycle that includes creation (actions), bondage (samsaric fruits), and awakening (liberation from the illusions).
.

B. Opponents’ Theories on Karma and Its Fruits

• • • Traditional Causal Theory (Verses 1–5)
      The first opponent articulates a conventional view rooted in Buddhist ethics. They propose that a disciplined mind, kindness toward others, and friendship constitute dharma — the virtuous seed yielding fruits in this life and beyond death. Karma is categorized as volition (mental action) and the physical or verbal actions resulting from volition, as taught by the Buddha. They enumerate seven modes of action: sound, gesture, two unspecified elements (one restless, one at rest), pure and impure results of enjoyment, and volition itself. This theory frames karma as a causal mechanism linking virtuous acts to meritorious outcomes.

    • Process-Based Imagery (Verses 6–11)
      The second opponent employs a dynamic analogy, likening karma to a seed-sprout process. They argue that if an action persists until its fruition (continuity, eternity), it would be eternal; if it ceases (discontinuity, annihilation), it could produce nothing. Just as a seed initiates a process leading to a sprout and fruit, a thought triggers a mental process yielding a product. The fruit depends on the seed (or thought), avoiding both eternalism (permanence) and annihilationism (complete cessation). They further identify ten pure "paths of action" as means to realize dharma, with the five sensory qualities (form, sound, odor, taste, touch) as fruits of dharma in this life and hereafter.

    • Imperishable Element Theory (Verses 12–20)
      The third opponent posits an imperishable force, possibly akin to a "karma seeds" concept, rejecting the prior views as flawed. They compare this imperishable to a credit offsetting the debt of action, existing in four elemental forms (desire, form, non-form, pure) and resisting analytical breakdown. Unlike ordinary destruction, it is undone only through spiritual discipline, serving as the source of action’s fruits. This force persists across actions within the same element, arising sequentially in visible existence and enduring despite bifurcating developments. It ceases through death or avoidance of its product, with distinctions of purity and impurity, aligning with the Buddha’s teachings on emptiness, flux, and non-eternity.
      .
      .

C. Nāgārjuna’s Madhyamaka Response

• • • Tetralemma: Nāgārjuna refutes these theories by applying the Tetralemma, a logical tool that examines phenomena across four possibilities: a thing is A, not A, both A and not A, or neither A nor not A. Applied to karma and its fruits, he questions whether they are:
      – Different or identical: Are the actor, actions/karma and its products and fruits different, identical, both or neither?
      – Separate or united: Are the actor, actions/karma and its products and fruits separate, united, both or neither?
      – Continuous or discontinuous: Are the actor, actions/karma and its products and fruits continuous, discontinuous, both or neither?
      – Independent or dependent: Are the actor, actions/karma and its products and fruits independent, dependent, both or neither?
      – Through this, Nāgārjuna demonstrates that karma and its fruits cannot be inherently existent in any of these modes. Instead:

    • Emptiness [T2]: Karma and its fruits lack self-existence (svabhava), as they do not independently arise or perish.

    • Dependent Origination [T1]: They emerge interdependently, conditioned by causes like desire and ignorance.

    • Union of the Two Truths [U2T]: They are conventionally functional (Truth 1) ⇐⇒ yet ultimately empty (Truth 2).

    • Illusory: They are like illusions—appearing real but lacking essence.

    • Middle Way: This points to the Middle Way, free from all extremes – like existence, non-existence, both neither; or affirmation and negation –. 

    • One: Ultimately, everything is primordially interconnected, pure, perfect, complete, divine, ‘one’ in a non-dual sense—not many, not one, not both, not neither—embodying the inseparability of the Two Truths rather than mere emptiness alone.

    • Cycle: Karma and its fruits form a boundless, fluid cycle — actions/karma beget fruits that become new actions/karma ad infinitum, interlinked across time and space. This cycle is continuous (non-discrete), limitless (unbounded), centerless (lacking a fixed core), and karmic-like (cyclically interdependent), reflecting a reality that is fractal, holographic, non-linear, and non-dual.
      .
      .

D. The karmic cycle in Chapter 17 encompasses:

– a) Creation: Actions (karma) arise through dependent origination, enabled by emptiness (no inherent essence).
– b) Bondage: Fruits (phala) perpetuate saṃsāra through ignorance and attachment, as beings cling to results (e.g., pleasure, rebirth), accumulating karma.
– c) Awakening: Realizing the true nature and dynamic of specific actions, products and fruits [U2T] liberates beings, transforming karmic fruits into liberative outcomes (e.g., transcendence of karma).

– Conclusion: Chapter 17 is about the whole karmic cycle, not just a triad (actor, action, result). While the actor is implied, the chapter focuses on the duality of action and fruit, with "fruit" encompassing all consequences (samsaric and liberative), aligning with a broader interpretation.
.

– All actions/karma are themselves resulting fruits from previous actions/karma ad infinitum;
all fruits are themselves actually actions/karma for future fruits ad infinitum; and
all relations have an infinity of actions/karma and fruits in nature, space and time.
The fruits is integrated into an updated / new actions/karma in an endless cycle.

– Everything, as both action/karma and result/fruit, forms a continuous (fluid, non-discrete), limitless (unbounded), centerless (without fixed reference), karmic-like (cyclically interdependent) cycle of karma through dependent origination (interdependent co-arising), empty of inherent existence (lacking independent essence) yet interdependently functional within the two truths unified (balancing conventional functionality and ultimate emptiness). All of those creations of the interconnected reality of the karmic cycle, arise together through emptiness and co-evolve all-together, become bondage through ignorance and attachment to relational constructs, and transform into awakening through the gradual wisdom of realizing the emptiness [U2T] of more and more subtle concepts, looping fluidly as beings mature toward the natural conclusion of general relativity and interconnection of everything [U2T]. It is fractal (self-similar across all scales), holographic (each part reflecting the whole), non-linear (not bound by sequential causality), non-dual (without inherent separation), and follows the Middle Way (transcending extremes and fixity).

B. Analysis

• • There is no inherent karma formation, rebirth and liberation in the three times.

  • There are no inherent three spheres, like
    (i) actor/producer,
    (ii) action/production, and
    (iii) result/product /consequences /rebirths/liberation
    (or the actor/producer before, during and after the action/production /acquisition of new karma, and as enjoyer of its consequences) –
    they are all relative = Middle Way.

  • The three spheres –
    (i) actor/producer,
    (ii) action/production, and
    (iii) result/product /consequences /rebirths/liberation
    (or the actor/producer before, during and after the action/production /acquisition of new karma, and as enjoyer of its consequences) –
    are not inherently existent/functional,
    not completely non-existent/non-functional,
    not both, not neither [Tetralemma].

  • The three spheres –
    (i) actor/producer,
    (ii) action/production, and
    (iii) result/product /consequences /rebirths/liberation
    (or the actor/producer before, during and after the action/production /acquisition of new karma, and as enjoyer of its consequences) –
    are not different/separate/multiple/dual/’this’,
    not identical/united/one/non-dual/’non-this’,
    not both, not neither [Tetralemma].

  • The three spheres –
    (i) actor/producer,
    (ii) action/production, and
    (iii) result/product /consequences /rebirths/liberation
    (or the actor/producer before, during and after the action/production /acquisition of new karma, and as enjoyer of its consequences) –
    are not permanent/continuous/eternal,
    not impermanent/discontinuous/annihilated,
    not both, not neither [Tetralemma].

  • The three spheres –
    (i) actor/producer,
    (ii) action/production, and
    (iii) result/product /consequences /rebirths/liberation
    (or the actor/producer before, during and after the action/production /acquisition of new karma, and as enjoyer of its consequences) –
    are thus empty of inherent existence [T2-3S] ⇐⇒ inseparable, dependently co-arisen, interdependent, co-defined, co-evolving, co-imputed by the mind, mere designations/names, conventional truths/tools [T1-3S] [U2T-3S] ⇐⇒ like illusions, reflections, mirages, dreams, echos, ‘there, yet not there’ [Illusory].

  • The three stages of becoming – origination/beginning/coming, duration/middle/transformation, cessation/ending/going — relative to any composite/product
    are not inherently existent,
    not completely non-existent,
    not both, not neither [Tetralemma].

  • The three times relative to any phenomena/dharmas – before/past, during/present, after/future –
    are not inherently existent,
    not completely non-existent,
    not both, not neither [Tetralemma].

  • Acting without acting: So we can use those concepts conventionally/relatively but never in absolute terms; without attachment, reification, effort or absolute; without apprehending anything in absolute terms; non-dualistically, without opposing/uniting anything in absolute terms; without accepting/rejecting/changing anything in absolute terms; thus acting more and more in accord with the Middle Way free from all extremes and middle, and with the true nature of reality as it is (tathātā, suchness) as pointed out by the Union of the Two Truths [U2T] and its corollaries [U3S / Uopp / U3T / UGM / U3K / U2T-2T].

  • There is no continuity or discontinuity of any being (e.g., actor, perceiver, acquirer, owner or continuum), thing (e.g. 5-aggregates), process, cycle, or karma, across the three times of any activity, association, aggregation, definition.

  • The three spheres of relation/opposition, and other dualistic concepts, are an oversimplification of an inconceivable continuous limitless and centerless nonlinear fractal-like cycle / flux / continuum of interconnection, interdependence, co-definition, co-conditioning, co-evolution, co-creation [creation, bondage, awakening].

  • A timeless multidimensional fluid dance of related/opposite appearances (non-duality), with nothing existing independently, separately, inherently, or individually within it.

  • Everything is fully continuous and dynamic (not discrete or static), interconnected (not just in the triad), equal, pure, perfect, complete, divine, ‘One’ in the non-dual sense: not many, not one, not both together, not neither.

  • No absolute view to grasp.

  • Emptiness is absolute freedom, even from emptiness.

C. Verses – 4 translations – 33 verses – Refuting traditional substantialist dualistic theories of karma. Everything in the karmic cycle (e.g., the 12 links, the three spheres, producer, production, product, consequences, rebirth or liberation, enjoyer) is dependently co-arisen, interdependent, co-defined, co-imputed by the mind, mere designations/names, conventional truths/tools ⇐⇒ thus empty of inherent existence, never absolute, not really arising, conditioned, lasting, changing, ceasing, bound or liberated ⇐⇒ like illusions, reflections, mirages, dreams, echos, ‘there, yet not there’. There is no continuity nor discontinuity of any being, things, process, karma seed, cycle.

D. Summary – Karma and its fruits (the three spheres +) cannot be inherently different/identical/both/neither, separate/united/both/neither, continuous/discontinuous/both/neither, independent/dependent/both/neither [Tetralemma] ⇐⇒ they are thus empty of inherent existence, never absolute [T2] ⇐⇒ yet arise interdependently and are relatively functional [T1] ⇐⇒ embodying the Union of the Two Truths [U2T] and the Middle Way.

Chapter 17 critiques three theories of karma and its fruits: (1) a traditional causal model, (2) a process-based analogy, and (3) an imperishable force concept. Nāgārjuna employs the Tetralemma to dismantle their claims of inherent existence, showing that karma and its fruits cannot be inherently different or identical, separate or united, continuous or discontinuous, independent or dependent. Karma and its fruits are empty [T2] ⇐⇒ yet arise interdependently [T1] ⇐⇒ embodying the Union of the Two Truths [U2T].

The karmic cycle is a fluid, limitless, centerless process where actions and results interweave endlessly, like a dreamlike dance of appearances. This insight points to the Middle Way, where we navigate the cycle’s conventional functionality without clinging to it as ultimately real, realizing its non-dual, interconnected nature.

.

Chapter 17 of Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, titled "An Analysis of Action (karma) and Its Product (phala)," spans 33 verses and systematically examines and ultimately refutes traditional Abhidharma theories about karma and its results (which reify them).

The chapter unfolds in four distinct parts, with the first three presenting various Abhidharma perspectives through imagined opponents, and the final part delivering Nāgārjuna’s Madhyamaka critique.

The Abhidharma views collectively attempt to explain how actions (karma) generate fruits (phala) within the framework of Buddhist causality, emphasizing volition, processes, and enduring mechanisms while avoiding the extremes of eternalism and annihilationism.

Nāgārjuna, however, dismantles these theories by applying his doctrine of the Union of dependent origination [T1] and emptiness (śūnyatā) [T2] [U2T], arguing that karma, phala, and all related phenomena are dependently arisen (T1: conventional truths) thus lack inherent existence (svabhāva) (T2: absolute truth) [U2T] (and vice versa), thus rendering the Abhidharma’s reified concepts illusory (‘there, yet not there’).

• • • The first part (verses 1–5) introduces a foundational Abhidharma view, portraying karma as rooted in volition — a mental act that manifests as physical or verbal actions. It identifies seven elements (sound, gesture, the changing aggregates, an illusory self, pure and impure results, and volition) as the modes of action, with virtuous mental states like self-discipline and friendliness acting as seeds for karmic fruits in this life and beyond.

    • The second part (verses 6–11) shifts to a process-oriented model, using the analogy of a seed sprouting into a plant to depict karma’s continuity. It asserts that actions, dependent on an initial cause (seed or thought), produce results through a process, yielding sensory pleasures (the five qualities of form, sound, odor, taste, and touch) as fruits of the ten wholesome paths of action.

    • The third part (verses 12–20) refines this further, proposing an “imperishable force” likened to a karmic credit that persists across four realms (desire, form, formless, and pure). This force ensures causal continuity, arising from actions and ripening into results unless neutralized by spiritual discipline or death, balancing impermanence with efficacy.

    • In the fourth part (verses 21–33), Nāgārjuna steps in to refute these Abhidharma theories with a rigorous application of the tetralemma and Union of the Two Truths [U2T].

      • He begins by asserting that actions do not truly originate (inherently) because they lack self-existence [T2]; without origination, they neither persist nor perish, undermining the Abhidharma’s causal framework (verse 21).

      • He argues that if actions were inherently real, they would be eternal — an impossibility for produced phenomena — exposing a contradiction in the Abhidharma’s assumptions (verse 22).

      • Nāgārjuna then addresses their concern that unproduced actions could yield results, suggesting this fear reflects their own flawed logic, not his, as emptiness negates inherent production [T2] without disrupting conventional function [T1] [U2T] (verses 23–24).

      • He critiques the notion of persistent karma (e.g., the imperishable force), noting that if actions had inherent nature, they’d repeat endlessly, which is absurd (verse 25).

      • Linking action to desire [T1], he declares both empty [T2] [U2T], collapsing the basis for karma and its products like the body (verses 26–27).

      • When an opponent posits a conditioned agent — a man bound by ignorance and craving — Nāgārjuna denies any real “doer,” as action neither arises inherently from conditions nor independently (verses 28–29).

      • This leads to a domino effect: no action means no doer (subject), no product (object), and no enjoyer [T2] [U2T] (verse 30).

      • Using a metaphor of magical forms creating more illusions, he illustrates that agents, actions and results/consequences are interdependent appearances [T1], not substantial realities [T2] [U2T] (verses 31–32).

      • Finally, he likens desires, actions, bodies, producers, and products to mirages and dreams — empty of inherent existence [T2] yet functional in a conventional sense [T1] [U2T] (verse 33).

E. Conclusion – Refuting the traditional karma theories without completely rejecting the karmic cycle

Chapter 17 reveals the karmic cycle as an illusory ⇐⇒ yet functional interplay of actions and results [T1] ⇐⇒ devoid of inherent existence [T2] ⇐⇒ yet vibrant in its interdependence [T1] [U2T]. Through the Tetralemma, Nāgārjuna dismantles notions of fixed actors or outcomes (products, fruits), showing that the cycle’s elements — desires, actions, bodies — are like mirages, arising and dissolving in a boundless, non-dual flow. The Union of the Two Truths [U2T] frames this cycle as conventionally valid [T1] ⇐⇒ yet ultimately empty [T2] ⇐⇒ guiding us to the Middle Way. Here, we engage with life’s cycles mindfully, free from attachment to any extremes, like permanence or nihilism, embracing the radiant Union of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa where all is primordially interconnected, pure, and complete.
.

In conclusion, Chapter 17 showcases Nāgārjuna’s methodical deconstruction of the Abhidharma’s theories of karma and phala, which rely on notions of real, conditioned phenomena (reification)—whether volitional acts, seed-like processes, or imperishable forces—to explain causality. While the Abhidharma seeks to uphold the Buddha’s teachings on action and consequence within a systematic framework, Nāgārjuna argues that their reification of these elements contradicts the deeper truth of dependent origination and impermanence [T1]. His refutation hinges on emptiness [T2] [U2T]: karma and its fruits, along with agents and enjoyers, lack self-existence [T2] ⇐⇒ existing only as interdependent [T1] ⇐⇒ illusory phenomena. This doesn’t negate conventional morality or causality but reframes them as provisional, dreamlike realities without ultimate substance. By dismantling the Abhidharma’s inherent realism/dualism, Nāgārjuna aligns with the Madhyamaka middle way, affirming the Buddha’s insight into the flux of existence while rejecting any fixed essence, offering a profound philosophical corrective to the Abhidharma’s analytical approach.

F. Questions and Answers – It is like living in a limitless centerless fractal-like cycle of (i) creation/manifestation, (ii) clinging /bondage /saṃsāra and (iii) awakening /liberation /nirvāṇa to more and more subtle creations, more and more global.

See a similar discussion in Chapter 16 Q&A section.

Question: A limitless and centerless fractal cycle or conditioning

Q: From this chapter (#17) could you expand on the cyclic nature of the karmic cycle. Explaining it as a cosmic fractal cycle of conditioning/karma and awakening at all levels. As above, so below.

Answer:  Let’s expand on the cyclic nature of the karmic cycle as it emerges from Chapter 17 of Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, weaving in the idea of a cosmic fractal cycle that reflects conditioning (karma) and awakening at all levels, resonating with the principle of “as above, so below.”

While Nāgārjuna’s primary focus in this chapter is to refute the Abhidharma’s reified notions of karma (action) and phala (fruit) through the Tetralemma, interdependence [T1] and emptiness [T2] [U2T] ⇐⇒ the text implicitly engages with the cyclic dynamics of saṃsāra [T1] — the wheel of conditioned existence — and offers a lens through which we can explore karma as a self-replicating, fractal-like pattern that operates across microcosmic and macrocosmic scales. By integrating the Abhidharma’s traditional views (from verses 1–20) with Nāgārjuna’s critique (verses 21–33), we can envision this continuous cycle as a cosmic interplay of delusion (creation and bondage) and liberation (awakening), mirrored at every level of existence.
.

The Karmic Cycle in Chapter 17: Abhidharma’s Foundation

The Abhidharma perspectives in the first three parts of Chapter 17 lay out a detailed framework for the karmic cycle, portraying it as a continuous loop of action (karma) and result (phala) driven by volition and conditioning.
– In verses 1–5, karma begins with mental states — volition rooted in desire or virtue — acting as seeds that sprout into physical or verbal acts, yielding fruits like sensory experiences or future rebirths.
– This seed metaphor extends in verses 6–11, where actions initiate a process (like a sprout from a seed) that ripens into phala, such as the five sensory qualities (form, sound, odor, taste, touch), perpetuating existence through the ten wholesome or unwholesome paths.
– The third part (verses 12–20) introduces an “imperishable force,” a latent karmic potential that persists across realms (desire, form, formless, pure), ensuring continuity from one life to the next. This force, destroyed only by spiritual discipline or fruition at death, underscores the cyclic nature: actions condition future states, which in turn generate new actions, ad infinitum.

This Abhidharma view presents karma as a self-sustaining cycle within saṃsāra, where each action plants a seed that grows into a result, which then conditions further actions. It’s inherently repetitive — desire and ignorance fuel volition, producing karma that shapes bodies, minds, and worlds, only to restart the process. The cycle operates at multiple levels: individual (personal actions and their fruits), communal (shared karmic tendencies), and cosmic (the structure of samsaric realms). The imperishable force, in particular, suggests a mechanism that transcends a single lifetime, linking past, present, and future in a seamless loop of cause and effect.
.

Nāgārjuna’s Reframing: Emptiness and the Fractal Insight

Nāgārjuna’s refutation in verses 21–33 doesn’t deny the cyclic appearance of karma but radically reframes it through emptiness, opening the door to a fractal interpretation. He argues that actions, desires, bodies, producers, and products lack inherent existence (svabhāva) — they don’t truly originate or perish (verse 21), nor do they persist as real entities (verses 22–25). Desire, the engine of karma, is empty (verse 26), as are the bodies and results it conditions (verse 27). Even the notion of an agent — a “man shrouded in ignorance and craving” (verse 28) — is illusory, with no real “doer” behind the cycle (verse 29).
Nāgārjuna’s magical analogy (verses 31–32) and final simile of a “fairy castle, mirage, or dream” (verse 33) cast the karmic cycle as an interdependent play of appearances [T1], not a chain of substantial events [T2] [U2T].

This emptiness reveals the karmic cycle’s fractal nature: it’s a pattern that repeats at every scale, self-similar [T1] ⇐⇒ yet insubstantial [T2] [U2T].
– At the microcosmic level, an individual’s thoughts and actions mirror this cycle — desire sparks volition, producing karma that shapes their experience, which then feeds back into new desires.
– Zoom out to the collective level, and societies reflect the same dynamic: shared ignorance and craving generate cultural patterns, institutions, and conflicts that condition future generations.
– At the macrocosmic level, the samsaric realms (desire, form, formless) emerge as vast iterations of this cycle, each conditioned by the karma of countless beings, perpetuating a cosmic wheel.
– “As above, so below” fits here — the smallest act of craving in a single mind echoes the structure of entire worlds, each level conditioning and reflecting the others in a fractal cascade.
.

The Cosmic Fractal Cycle: Conditioning and Awakening

The karmic cycle, as a cosmic fractal, is both a trap of conditioning (creation and bondage) and a potential path to awakening, continuously operating at all levels simultaneously.
– In its conditioned aspect (creation), it’s a recursive loop of delusion (bondage). Ignorance (avidyā) and craving (tṛṣṇā) — highlighted by the opponent in verse 28 — act as the fractal seeds, generating karma that fractalizes into phala: personal suffering, relational strife, or cosmic rebirths.
– Each result reinforces the conditions for more karma, like a Mandelbrot set where zooming in reveals endless iterations of the same pattern. The Abhidharma’s imperishable force (verses 14–19) amplifies this, suggesting a latent potential that fractally bridges lifetimes and realms, embedding the cycle in the fabric of existence. From a single harsh word to the arising of a hell realm, the pattern scales up and down, self-replicating through dependent origination.

– Yet, this fractal cycle also contains the seeds of “awakening”, as Nāgārjuna’s emptiness implies liberation at every level. If karma and phala are empty — mere appearances without inherent reality — then the cycle’s grip is illusory, breakable at any point. Spiritual discipline, noted in verse 15 as transcending the imperishable, becomes the fractal pivot: a single moment of insight in an individual mind (microcosm) can unravel the delusion, mirroring the potential for collective awakening (mesocosm) or the cessation of samsaric realms (macrocosm). The Buddha’s teaching of “emptiness, no annihilation, existence-in-flux, non-eternity” (verse 20) encapsulates this dual nature: the cycle flows endlessly [T1] ⇐⇒ yet is insubstantial [T2] [U2T], allowing awakening to fractalize outward. Just as conditioning scales from a thought to a cosmos, so too can liberation—from one practitioner’s realization to the dissolution of samsaric patterns everywhere.
.

Conclusion: A Unified Cyclic Vision

Chapter 17, through the Abhidharma’s detailed mechanisms and Nāgārjuna’s deconstruction, paints the karmic cycle as a cosmic fractal — a self-similar, recursive pattern of conditioning (creation and bondage) and awakening that spans all levels of existence, and applies to more and more subtle objects. The Abhidharma sees it as a real, operative loop: volition plants karmic seeds, processes or imperishable forces carry them forward, and phala ripens to restart the wheel, from personal acts to universal realms. Nāgārjuna reveals its emptiness, showing that this cycle, while appearing relentless [T1] ⇐⇒ lacks inherent substance [T2] [U2T] ⇐⇒ making it a dreamlike fractal rather than a fixed reality [Illusory]. 

“As above, so below” emerges vividly: the interplay of karma and awakening in a single mind reflects the rise and fall of worlds, each level a microcosm of the whole. This fractal vision unites the cyclic nature of saṃsāra with the possibility of liberation, suggesting that the same pattern that binds us — repeating across scales — also holds the key to freedom when seen as empty, interdependent, and ultimately transcendent.
.
.
.

Question: 

Q: By fractal it could also mean that this oscillation between creation, bondage and awakening is happening at all levels every instant. Liberation is not a one time thing for an individual, collective or universe. It is a continual process: (i) Creation: we invent things (physical, conceptual, mental); (ii) Bondage: then we get use to them, and finally think they are existing on their own, independently, inherently, we get attached to them and suffer because of our illusions about them; (iii) Awakening: then we awaken, realize their true nature & dynamic and get free to continue to use them without being slaves to them. This fractal cycle operates continually as we live in saṃsāra. In that sense, there is no final liberation, just this continuous cycle of bondage and awakening about everything we invent / create / imagine.

Your interpretation of the karmic cycle as a fractal oscillation between creation, bondage and awakening, occurring at all levels and in every instant, offers a profound and dynamic expansion of the themes in Chapter 17 of Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā. By framing liberation not as a singular, final event but as a continual process — an ever-present dance of invention, attachment, and awakening — you align beautifully with Nāgārjuna’s emphasis on emptiness (śūnyatā) and dependent origination, while also resonating with the Abhidharma’s detailed mapping of karma and phala. Let’s explore this fractal cycle as a perpetual, multi-scaled rhythm of conditioning and liberation, unfolding across the individual, collective, and cosmic dimensions, and tie it back to the chapter’s insights.
.

The Fractal Cycle: A Three-Phase Oscillation

Your model of the fractal karmic cycle — (i) invention / creation, (ii) attachment and delusion / bondage, (iii) awakening and freedom — captures the essence of saṃsāra as a continuous self-replicating pattern that operates continuously at every level of existence. In the context of Chapter 17, this can be seen as an implicit undercurrent in both the Abhidharma’s causal frameworks and Nāgārjuna’s refutation, reimagined as an ongoing process rather than a linear progression toward a fixed endpoint.

1. 1. 1. Invention (Creation of Phenomena) [T1]: At every moment, we invent — whether physical objects (tools, homes), conceptual frameworks (beliefs, ideologies), or mental constructs (emotions, identities). The Abhidharma’s first part (verses 1–5) reflects this in its depiction of volition as the seed of karma: a mental act invents an intention, which manifests as actions (sound, gesture) and conditions results (pure or impure fruits). Similarly, the seed-and-process analogy (verses 6–11) shows how thoughts and deeds sprout into tangible outcomes, like sensory experiences or new states of being. This inventive phase is fractal — it happens in a single mind crafting a thought, in collectives building societies, and in the cosmos generating realms of existence. Each invention is a creative act, a ripple in the fabric of dependent origination.

      2. Attachment and Delusion (Reification and Bondage) [T0]: Once invented, we habituate to these creations, mistaking them for independent, inherent realities. This aligns with the Abhidharma’s tendency — critiqued by Nāgārjuna — to treat karma, phala, and agents as real entities with functional existence. Verses 12–20 introduce the “imperishable force,” suggesting a persistent karmic potential we cling to as a stable mechanism, reinforcing the cycle. We get used to our inventions — our bodies, relationships, worldviews — and assume they exist “on their own,” forgetting their conditioned nature. This attachment breeds suffering, as Nāgārjuna notes in verse 26: desire, the root of action, becomes a “self” we grasp, leading to bondage. Fractally, this delusion scales up: an individual clings to ego, a society to its norms, a universe to its samsaric structure — each level suffering from the illusion of inherent existence.

      3. Awakening and Freedom (Realization and Release) [T2] [U2T]: Awakening occurs when we see through the illusions (more and more subtle ones), recognizing the true nature of our inventions as empty [T2], interdependent [T1], and dynamic [U2T]. Nāgārjuna’s refutation (verses 21–33) drives this home: actions don’t originate or perish inherently (verse 21), desire and its products are empty (verses 26–27), and all phenomena are dreamlike (verse 33). This insight liberates us — not by destroying our creations but by freeing us to engage them without enslavement. The Abhidharma hints at this in verse 15, where spiritual discipline destroys the imperishable force, suggesting a way out of the cycle. Fractally, this awakening ripples outward: a single moment of clarity in one mind mirrors a collective shift in understanding or a cosmic dissolution of delusion, yet it’s not final — it’s a continual fractal process as new inventions arise.
         .

The Perpetual Fractal Oscillation

This three-phase cycle — invention/creation, attachment/bondage, awakening — cycles endlessly in saṃsāra, not just across lifetimes but in every instant, at every scale. Unlike a one-time liberation (e.g., a final nirvāṇa), your interpretation posits a dynamic, fractal rhythm where creation, bondage and awakening coexist perpetually.
– In a single breath, I invent a thought (e.g., “I need to succeed”), grow attached to it as real, then one day awaken to its emptiness — only for the cycle to continue with other creations.
– Collectively, societies invent technologies or ideologies, reify them as essential, and awaken to their contingency.
– Cosmically, entire realms emerge from karmic patterns, solidify in delusion, and are transcended as beings realize their nature—yet new realms arise.
– “As above, so below” manifests here: the microcosmic flicker of a mind’s delusion and liberation mirrors the macrocosmic churn of samsaric worlds, each instant a fractal iteration of the whole.

Nāgārjuna’s magical analogy (verses 31–32) amplifies this: a teacher’s illusory form creates another, which creates yet another — an endless cascade of interdependent appearances (creations). There’s no static “self” or “thing” to liberate, just a continual process of creation, bondage, and seeing through illusions. The Abhidharma’s imperishable force (verses 14–19) could be reinterpreted fractally — not as a fixed entity but as a recurring potential, re-invented and re-dissolved in each moment. Liberation, then, isn’t a one-off escape but a constant awakening to the emptiness of whatever we create, use, and cling to (bondage) (individually, collectively, universally) — whether a fleeting emotion or a cosmic epoch.
.

Living in Saṃsāra: No Final Liberation

In this view, saṃsāra isn’t a prison to exit once and for all but a living, breathing cycle of creation / conditioning, bondage and awakening that we navigate continually. Every invention — physical, conceptual, mental — sparks the fractal loop: we craft it (creation), get entangled in it (bondage), and free ourselves from it (awakening), continually with all kinds of creations. Suffering arises not from the inventions (creation) themselves but from our delusion about their inherent existence (bondage), as Nāgārjuna critiques in verses 26–27. Freedom (awakening) comes not by stopping the cycle but by engaging it lucidly — using our creations (bodies, ideas, worlds) without being enslaved by them. This aligns with Nāgārjuna’s conclusion (verse 33): all phenomena are like mirages — functional [T1] ⇐⇒ yet insubstantial [T2] [U2T] — allowing us to live within saṃsāra’s flux without being bound by our illusions (while awakening to the true nature & dynamic of more and more subtle creations).

Fractally, this operates at all levels every instant: my attachment to a cup dissolves as I see its impermanence, a community awakens from a divisive myth, a realm shifts as beings transcend craving — all in the same moment, all recurring. There’s no final liberation because the cycle itself is the field of practice — each awakening feeds back into new inventions, new challenges, new insights. The karmic cycle, as Chapter 17 implies through its tension between Abhidharma realism and Nāgārjuna’s emptiness, becomes a cosmic fractal dance: creation, bondage and awakening oscillate endlessly, not toward an end but as the very texture of existence.
.

Conclusion

Chapter 17, through its interplay of Abhidharma theories and Nāgārjuna’s refutation, supports this vision of the karmic cycle as a perpetual fractal oscillation. The Abhidharma maps the mechanics — volition, processes, imperishable forces — showing how karma loops through invention and result ⇐⇒ while Nāgārjuna reveals its emptiness, freeing us from reification at every turn. The three-phase model — inventing/creation, attaching/bondage, awakening — casts this as a continual process across all scales, where liberation is not a destination but a moment-to-moment realization within saṃsāra’s flow. “As above, so below” emerges as the fractal unity of this cycle: from a single thought to the vastness of existence, we’re always creating, clinging, and waking up, living the karmic dance without a final curtain.
.
.
.

Question: Anything else?

Q: Is there anything else we should say about this chapter?

Chapter 17 of Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā is indeed a rich tapestry, and we’ve covered a lot: the Abhidharma’s detailed theories of karma and phala, Nāgārjuna’s piercing refutation through emptiness, and the fractal, cyclic interplay of bondage and awakening.

But there are a few additional threads we could weave in to round out our exploration, especially given the depth of your fractal perspective. 

Let’s touch on three aspects that might enhance our understanding of this chapter:
– the ethical implications,
– the role of conventional truth,
– and a nod to the broader Madhyamaka project.
These can deepen our appreciation of how Nāgārjuna’s critique in Chapter 17 fits into both practical life and his philosophical vision.
.

Ethical Implications: Karma Without Essence

One striking element of Chapter 17 is how Nāgārjuna’s refutation of inherent karma doesn’t dismiss ethical action but reframes it. The Abhidharma (e.g., verses 1–5, 11) ties karma to morality—virtuous volition and the ten pure paths yield positive fruits, while unwholesome acts perpetuate suffering. Nāgārjuna’s insistence on emptiness (verses 21–33) might seem to undermine this: if actions, agents, and results are empty, why bother with ethics? Yet, he doesn’t negate the conventional efficacy of karma—daily affairs and distinctions between saints and sinners (verse 24) persist as interdependent phenomena, not as inherent realities. In the fractal cycle, this fits perfectly: we invent ethical frameworks (creation), attach to them as absolute (bondage), then awaken to their true nature [U2T], using them skillfully without clinging. This suggests a fluid ethics within saṃsāra — every instant of invention (a moral choice) oscillates between bondage (rigid dogma) and awakening (compassionate flexibility), guiding action without a fixed essence. It’s a subtle point in the chapter: emptiness liberates ethics from reification, making it a living practice rather than a cosmic ledger.
.

Conventional vs. Ultimate Truth: The Two Truths in Play

Chapter 17 also implicitly engages the Madhyamaka doctrine of the Union of the Two Truths  [U2T] — conventional (saṃvṛti-satya) [T1] ⇐⇒ and ultimate (paramārtha-satya) [T2] — which we haven’t fully highlighted.
– The Abhidharma views (verses 1–20) operate at the conventional level, treating karma and phala as real within the framework of dependent origination to explain saṃsāra’s workings.
– Nāgārjuna’s critique (verses 21–33) shifts to the ultimate level, revealing their emptiness: actions don’t originate inherently (verse 21), and all phenomena are dreamlike (verse 33).
– Yet, he doesn’t discard the conventional — he uses metaphors like magical forms (verses 31–32) to bridge the two, showing how the karmic cycle functions provisionally [T1] ⇐⇒ while lacking ultimate substance [T2] [U2T].
– In the fractal model, this duality fractalizes too: at every scale (individual, collective, cosmic), we oscillate between conventional attachment (treating our inventions as real) [T1] ⇐⇒ and ultimate awakening (seeing their emptiness) [T2] ⇐⇒ with each moment holding both truths [U2T]. This interplay enriches the chapter, affirming that the cycle’s continuity and its transcendence coexist, not as a contradiction but as a dynamic unity.
.

The Broader Madhyamaka Project: Beyond Karma

Finally, Chapter 17 isn’t an isolated argument but part of Nāgārjuna’s broader mission to dismantle all inherent existence, pointing toward liberation through the Middle Way free from all extremes and middle(s).
– The Abhidharma’s theories — volition (verses 1–5), processes (verses 6–11), imperishable forces (verses 12–20) — represent attempts to substantialize dependent origination, which Nāgārjuna sees as a misstep.
– His refutation here echoes other chapters (e.g., Chapter 1 on conditions, Chapter 2 on motion) where he negates inherent causality, selfhood, and phenomena. In the context of your fractal cycle,
– this suggests the karmic oscillation isn’t just about karma but all experience: we invent concepts (time, self, reality) (creation), cling to them (bondage), and awaken to their true nature [U2T], endlessly (awakening). Chapter 17 thus serves as a microcosm of the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā’s aim — to free us from grasping at any fixed essence, revealing saṃsāra and nirvāṇa as two sides of the same empty, fractal coin [Uopp]. The chapter’s closing (verse 33) with its mirage-like imagery hints at this vast scope: karma is just one thread in the tapestry of illusion we continually weave and unravel.
..

Tying It All Together

Adding these layers — ethics, the Union of the two truths, and the Madhyamaka context — completes our picture of Chapter 17. It’s not just a debate about karma but a profound meditation on existence itself, on its cyclic nature.
– The Abhidharma offers a meticulous map of the karmic cycle,
– which Nāgārjuna dissolves into emptiness,
– yet both illuminate this fractal vision: an ceaseless oscillation of invention (creation), attachment (bondage), and awakening at every level, every instant, with all types of creations by anybody, and collective, any thing, any cosmos.
Ethically, it guides us to act with wisdom amid the flux; conventionally, it validates the cycle’s appearance while unveiling its true nature;
– and philosophically, it situates karma within the Madhyamaka liberation project.

Perhaps the final note is this: Chapter 17 invites us to live this fractal dance fully — creating, suffering, awakening — not toward a distant goal but as the very pulse of samsaric life, where creation, bondage and freedom are never separate, just endlessly refracting.

G. Detailed analysis of the verses

[CHAPTER 17 - An Analysis of Action (karma) and Its Product (phala) (fuits) – 33 verses;
– The whole chain of karma formation and its fruits is empty, like a magic trick.]

[A. The opponents theories:]

[a. An opponent presents the traditional causal theory of action:]

In the Abhidharma tradition, a foundational system of Buddhist philosophy, "karma" (action) is understood as the mechanism that drives the cycle of existence (saṃsāra) through intentional actions and their consequences (phala, or "fruit"). The Abhidharma categorizes actions and their results meticulously, emphasizing the role of volition (intention) as the core of karma. This traditional view is what the opponent (likely a proponent of Abhidharma) presents in these verses, setting the stage for Nāgārjuna’s eventual refutation.
.
.

1. The state of mind which is self-disciplined, being favorably disposed toward others,
And friendship: that is the dharma; that is the seed for the fruit now and after death.
.
The opponent begins by defining "dharma" in this context as a virtuous mental state characterized by self-discipline, goodwill toward others, and friendliness. This mental state is seen as the "seed" that produces karmic results (phala), both in the present life and in future existences after death. In Abhidharma, wholesome mental states generate positive karma, leading to favorable outcomes, while unwholesome states do the opposite. Here, the focus is on the ethical quality of the mind as the origin of action.
.
.

2. The most perceptive seer [Buddha] has said that there is
action (karma) as volition and as a result of having willed.
The variety of acts of that [action] has been explained in many ways.
.
The opponent attributes this view to the Buddha, emphasizing that karma is fundamentally tied to volition (cetanā in Pali/Sanskrit), the intentional aspect of the mind. Karma is twofold: (1) the act of willing itself (mental intention), and (2) the actions that arise from that intention (what one does after willing). The "variety of acts" refers to the diverse ways karma manifests, which the Abhidharma elaborates through detailed classifications of actions (e.g., wholesome, unwholesome, neutral) and their consequences.
.
.

3. Thus, that action which is called "volition":
that is considered [by tradition] as mental; (i.e mental part of action)
But that action which is a result of having willed:
that is considered [by tradition] as physical or verbal. (i.e physical part or action)
.
Here, the Abhidharma tradition distinguishes between two types of karma:
– Mental karma: The initial volition or intention, which is purely a mental event.
– Physical and verbal karma: The subsequent actions (e.g., bodily movements or speech) that arise from that intention.
For example, if one intends to help someone and then physically assists them, the intention is mental karma, and the act of helping is physical karma. This reflects the Abhidharma’s systematic analysis of action into mental and expressed components.
.
.

4. Sound (1), gesture (2) and that which does not rest
which is considered as unknown (3), (i.e. changing 5-aggregates)
Also the other unknown which is considered to be at rest (4); (i.e. unchanging self / owner)
.
This verse begins to list specific elements traditionally associated with action, though the phrasing is somewhat cryptic and open to interpretation:
– Sound (1): Verbal action, such as speech.
– Gesture (2): Physical action, such as bodily movements.
– That which does not rest, considered as unknown (3): Likely refers to the ever-changing five aggregates (skandhas: form, feeling, perception, mental formations, consciousness), which are impermanent and not fully graspable as a fixed entity.
– The other unknown which is considered to be at rest (4): Possibly alludes to a mistaken notion of an unchanging self or essence (e.g., an ātman), which some non-Buddhist traditions might posit as the agent behind actions, though Buddhism denies this.
The "unknown" aspect may suggest these are debated or misunderstood in their true nature, setting up a contrast with Buddhist insights.
.
.

5. That which is pure as a result of enjoyment (5),
that which is impure as a result of enjoyment (6),
And volition (7): these seven basic elements (dharma)
are considered [by the tradition] as the modes of action.
.
The opponent concludes by summarizing seven key "dharmas" (elements or phenomena) that constitute action in the Abhidharma view:
1. Sound: Verbal action (from verse 4).
2. Gesture: Physical action (from verse 4).
3. That which does not rest: The changing aggregates (from verse 4).
4. That which is at rest: The (illusory) unchanging self (from verse 4).
5. That which is pure as a result of enjoyment: Positive karmic results arising from wholesome actions (e.g., happiness or merit).
6. That which is impure as a result of enjoyment: Negative karmic results arising from unwholesome actions (e.g., suffering).
7. Volition: The mental intention driving all karma (reiterated from verses 2-3).
These seven are seen as the fundamental "modes" or building blocks of karma, encompassing both the actions themselves and their fruits.
.
.
.

[b. Another opponent argues by the imagery of a process:]

Here, another opponent—likely still rooted in the Abhidharma tradition—offers a perspective using the imagery of a process, such as a seed sprouting into a plant, to explain the causal relationship between karma and its results. This explanation reflects the Abhidharma’s attempt to address the mechanics and temporality of karma while avoiding extremes like eternalism or annihilationism.
– Context: The Abhidharma tradition seeks to clarify how actions (karma) lead to results (phala) in a way that aligns with the Buddha’s teachings on dependent origination (pratityasamutpada)—the idea that phenomena arise dependently, not independently. In this section, the opponent uses analogies (seeds and thoughts) to illustrate this process, emphasizing continuity without implying permanence or total cessation. This sets the stage for Nāgārjuna’s later critique, but here we’ll focus solely on explaining the traditional view as presented.
.
.
6. If an action [exists] by enduring to the time of its fulfillment, (i.e. enduring karma until it ripens)
that [action] would be eternal.
If [an action] were stopped— being stopped, what will it produce? (i.e. non-enduring karma)
.
The opponent raises a dilemma about the nature of karma’s existence over time:
– If an action (karma) persists unchanged until its result manifests (i.e., "enduring to the time of its fulfillment"), it would imply the action is eternal, which contradicts the Buddhist principle of impermanence (anicca).
– Conversely, if an action ceases immediately after being performed ("were stopped"), how could it produce a result later, since it no longer exists?
This reflects the Abhidharma concern with explaining how karma connects cause and effect across time without falling into eternalism (the action lasts forever) or nihilism (the action disappears and produces nothing). The Abhidharma resolves this through a process model, introduced in the next verses.
.
.

7. There is fruit (phala) when a process, a sprout, etc., starts from a seed;
But without a seed that [process] does not proceed.
.
The opponent introduces an agricultural analogy: just as a seed initiates a process (e.g., sprouting into a plant) that eventually yields fruit, karma operates similarly. The "seed" represents the initial action or intention, and the "process" (like the growth of a sprout) is the causal chain that leads to the "fruit" (phala), the result of the action. Without the seed (the originating karma), no process begins, and thus no fruit emerges. This underscores the dependent relationship between cause (seed/action) and effect (fruit/result) in the Abhidharma view.
.
.

8. Inasmuch as the process is dependent on a seed
and the fruit is produced from the process,
The fruit, presupposing the seed, neither comes to an end nor is eternal.
.
Here, the opponent elaborates on the seed analogy to address the dilemma from verse 6:
– The process (growth) depends on the seed (initial action), and the fruit (result) arises from that process.
– Because the fruit presupposes the seed, it maintains a causal continuity without requiring the seed/action to be eternal (since the seed transforms into the process) or to completely end (since the process carries forward the causal potential).
This model avoids eternalism (the action doesn’t persist unchanged forever) and annihilationism (the action doesn’t vanish without effect), aligning with the Buddhist middle way.
.
.

9. There is a product (phala) when a mental process starts from a thoughts;
But without a thought that [process] does not proceed.
.
Shifting from the physical seed analogy to a mental one, the opponent applies the same logic to the mind. A "thought" (likely referring to volition or intention, cetanā) acts as the seed, initiating a "mental process" that leads to a product (phala). Just as a plant requires a seed, the mental process requires an originating thought—reinforcing the Abhidharma view that intention is the root of karma. Without that initial thought, no karmic result can arise.
.
.

10. Inasmuch as the process is dependent on a thought
and the product (phala) is produced from the process,
The product, presupposing the thought, neither comes to an end nor is eternal.
.
Mirroring verse 8, this applies the process model to mental karma:
– The mental process depends on the initial thought (intention), and the product (karmic result) emerges from that process.
– The product presupposes the thought but doesn’t require the thought to persist eternally (it transforms into the process) or cease entirely (the process sustains the causal link).
This reinforces the idea of dependent origination, where mental actions produce results through a continuous yet impermanent process.
.
.

11. The ten pure "paths of action" are means for realizing the dharma.
And the five qualities of desired objects
[i.e., desire to know the form, sound, odor, taste, and touch of existence]
are fruits (phala) of the dharma both now and after death.
.
The opponent concludes by connecting karma to ethical practice and its results:
– Ten pure paths of action: These refer to the ten wholesome actions in Buddhist ethics—three of body (not killing, not stealing, not engaging in sexual misconduct), four of speech (not lying, not slandering, not using harsh speech, not gossiping), and three of mind (not coveting, not harboring ill will, holding right views). These are "pure" because they generate positive karma and lead toward realizing "dharma" (truth or liberation).
– Five qualities of desired objects: The “five qualities of desired objects” (form, sound, odor, taste, touch) are the sensory experiences that beings crave, and in this Abhidharma view, they are the “fruits” (phala) of virtuous actions (dharma) (the result of previous wholesome volition and actions). Practicing the ten pure paths—like refraining from harm or speaking truthfully—generates positive karma, which ripens into pleasant sensory experiences in this life or future ones (similar to being reborn in higher realms). They’re called “fruits of the dharma” because they stem from ethical conduct, showing how karma links actions to tangible rewards within saṃsāra.
.
.
.

[c. A third opponent argues for an imperishable element – Karma Seeds Theory?]

In this section, a third opponent introduces the concept of an “imperishable element” or “imperishable force” to explain how karma persists and produces results over time. This reflects a nuanced Abhidharma perspective that attempts to reconcile the continuity of karmic effects with Buddhist principles like impermanence and dependent origination. I’ll break it down verse by verse to clarify this traditional stance.
Context: The Abhidharma tradition seeks to explain how actions (karma) lead to results (phala) across lifetimes without implying an eternal self or substance. Earlier parts of Chapter 17 used analogies like seeds and processes, but here the opponent introduces a more technical concept—an “imperishable” (avināśin) force or element—to address the mechanism of karmic continuity. This is likely a response to perceived flaws in simpler models, aiming to avoid extremes like annihilationism (karma disappears) or eternalism (karma persists unchangingly). Nāgārjuna will later critique this, but for now, we’ll focus on unpacking the opponent’s view.
.
.
12. There would be many great mistakes if that explanation [were accepted].
Therefore, that explanation is not possible.
.
The third opponent begins by dismissing the prior explanation (likely the process model from verses 6–11). They argue that it leads to “great mistakes,” such as failing to account for how karma persists over time or produces results without contradicting impermanence. This sets the stage for their alternative theory involving an imperishable element.
.
.

13. In rebuttal I will explain the interpretation which can be made to fit [the facts],
That which is followed by the Buddha,
the self-sufficient enlightened ones (pratyekabuddha)
and the disciples [of Buddha].
.
The opponent claims their view aligns with the teachings of the Buddha, pratyekabuddhas (solitary enlightened ones), and śrāvakas (disciples). This appeal to authority suggests their theory is rooted in orthodox Abhidharma thought, aiming to explain karma in a way consistent with observed reality and Buddhist doctrine.
.
.

14. As "that which is imperishable" is like a credit [on an account statement],
so an action (karma) is like a debt.
[The imperishable is] of four kinds in its elements (dhatu)
[i.e., desire, form, non-form, and pure];
in its essential nature it cannot be analyzed.
.
The opponent introduces the core concept:
– Imperishable as credit: They liken the “imperishable” (avināśin) to a credit in an account—something that persists as a potential until it’s “cashed out” (produces a result). Conversely, karma is like a debt—an action that creates an obligation or potential for future consequences.
– Four elements (dhātus): The imperishable operates across four realms of existence:
1.  Desire realm (kāmadhātu): Where beings are driven by sensory craving.
2. Form realm (rūpadhātu): Higher meditative states with subtle form.
3. Formless realm (arūpadhātu): Purely mental meditative states.
4. Pure (likely nirvāṇa or liberated states): Beyond saṃsāra.
– Unanalyzable nature: The imperishable’s essence can’t be broken down into parts—it’s a fundamental force or condition that underlies karma, not a composite thing.
This suggests a latent karmic potential that endures across these realms until conditions ripen for its fruition.
.
.

15. [An imperishable force] is not destroyed qua destruction;
rather it is destroyed according to spiritual discipline.
Therefore, the fruit of actions originates by the imperishable force.
.
The imperishable isn’t destroyed in an ordinary sense (e.g., annihilation):
– Not destroyed qua destruction: It doesn’t simply vanish on its own or through mundane means.
– Destroyed by spiritual discipline: It’s neutralized or exhausted through practices like meditation, ethical living, or insight (e.g., the noble eightfold path), which uproot karmic tendencies.
– Source of fruit: The imperishable force carries the potential for karmic results (phala), bridging the gap between an action and its eventual outcome.
This implies that karma’s effects persist via this imperishable element until either the fruit manifests or spiritual practice eliminates it.
.
.

16. If [the imperishable force] were that which is destroyed
by [usual] destruction or by transference of action,
Fallacies [like] the destruction of action would logically result.
.
The opponent defends their model:
– If the imperishable were destroyed by ordinary means (e.g., time) or by transferring karma to something else (e.g., a self), it would lead to problems like: Destruction of action: Karma would cease to exist before producing results, contradicting the law of cause and effect.
– By positing an imperishable force that resists ordinary destruction, they avoid such fallacies, ensuring karma’s continuity until fruition or spiritual exhaustion.
.
.

17. At the moment of transition (rebirth) that [imperishable force]
Of all identical and different actions belonging to the same element (dhatu) originates.
.
The “moment of transition” likely refers to death or the shift between life states (rebirth):
– The imperishable force aggregates the potential of all actions (identical or different in nature) within a given realm (dhātu).
– It “originates” here in the sense that it becomes active or conditions the next existence, carrying forward karmic potential.
This reflects the Abhidharma idea that karma influences rebirth by persisting as a latent force across lifetimes.
.
.

18. That [imperishable force] is the dharma,
having arisen by one action after another in visible existence;
And it remains [constant] even in the development of all bifurcating action.
.
– Dharma as imperishable: Here, “dharma” means the karmic force or reality of action,
arising sequentially from one deed to the next in “visible existence” (saṃsāra).
– Remains constant: It persists steadily despite the “bifurcating” (diverging) nature of actions—
e.g., wholesome vs. unwholesome karma branching into different results.
.
.

19. That [imperishable force] is destroyed by death and by avoiding the product (phala) .
There the difference is characterized as impure and pure.
.
– Destroyed by death: The imperishable may exhaust itself when its fruit ripens at death (e.g., determining rebirth).
– Avoiding the product: Spiritual practice can prevent the fruit from manifesting, neutralizing the imperishable.
– Impure and pure: The distinction lies in the nature of the karma—
impure (unwholesome) leads to suffering, pure (wholesome) to happiness.
.
.

20. "Emptiness," "no annihilation," existence-in-flux, "non-eternity,"
And the imperishable reality of action: such was the teaching taught by the Buddha.
.
The opponent summarizes their view as consistent with the Buddha:
– Emptiness: Actions lack inherent existence.
– No annihilation: Karma doesn’t simply vanish.
– Existence-in-flux: Everything is impermanent and changing.
– Non-eternity: No action is eternal.
– Imperishable reality: Karma persists as a force until resolved.
This frames the imperishable as a middle-way concept, avoiding extremes.)
.
The opponent posits an “imperishable force” that acts like a karmic "seed"—a latent potential created by actions (karma) that persists across time and realms, ripening into results (phala) when conditions are right. Unlike a literal seed that grows into a plant (as in verses 6–11), this imperishable is more abstract, likened to a "credit" or enduring capacity that’s not destroyed ordinarily but can be exhausted by spiritual practice or fruition at death. It’s a mechanism to explain karmic continuity without an eternal self, fitting into the seed-like idea of karma storing potential for future effects.
.
.
.

[B. Nāgārjuna refutes the above arguments:]

Let’s dive into Nāgārjuna’s response to the traditional Abhidharma views on Action (karma) and Its Product/Fruit (phala) as presented in the fourth part of Chapter 17 of the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (verses 21–33). Here, Nāgārjuna systematically refutes the Abhidharma positions from the earlier parts of the chapter—namely, that karma and phala are real phenomena with causal efficacy, whether through volition, processes, or an imperishable force. His core argument is grounded in the Madhyamaka concept of emptiness (śūnyatā), asserting that all phenomena, including karma and its results [T1] ⇐⇒ lack inherent existence (svabhāva) [T2] [U2T]. I’ll explain his rebuttal verse by verse, showing how he dismantles the Abhidharma framework.
.

[a. Emptiness refutes inherent existence [T2], not valid conventional relative appearances & functionality [T1] [U2T]]

21. Why does the action not originate?
Because it is without self-existence.
Since it does not originate, it does not perish.
.
Nāgārjuna begins by questioning the Abhidharma assumption that actions originate as real entities. He argues that karma [T1] ⇐⇒ lacks self-existence (inherent, independent reality) [T2] [U2T]. If it doesn’t truly originate—meaning it’s not an autonomous thing—it can’t perish either. This undercuts the Abhidharma’s three marks of action (origination, duration, cessation), rendering their causal model [T1] ⇐⇒ empty of inherent basis [T2] [U2T].)
.
Nāgārjuna begins his refutation by targeting the core assumption of inherent existence in karma. Using the Tetralemma, he questions whether actions can truly originate as self-existent entities. If karma were inherently real, it would possess an independent essence (svabhava), making it eternal and unchangeable. However, since actions arise from conditions like volition, desire, or ignorance, they lack such intrinsic nature. Because they do not originate independently, they cannot perish independently either—challenging both eternalism (actions persist forever) and annihilationism (actions cease entirely). In the cyclic nature of existence, actions flow into results, which become new actions, but none possess a fixed essence. This aligns with the Union of the Two Truths [U2T]: actions function conventionally [T1] within the karmic cycle but are ultimately empty [T2], like waves in a stream that appear distinct yet are inseparable from the water.
.
.
.

22. If an action did exist as a self-existent thing,
without a doubt, it would be eternal.
An action would be an unproduced thing;
certainly, there is no eternal thing which is produced.
.
If karma had inherent existence (as the Abhidharma might imply by treating it as a functional reality), it would be eternal—unchanging and permanent. But eternal things can’t be produced (since production implies change), and the Abhidharma agrees actions are produced. This contradiction shows karma [T1] can’t be self-existent; it’s empty of intrinsic nature [T2] [U2T].
.
Expanding on Verse 21, Nāgārjuna applies the Tetralemma to examine whether karma could be eternal or produced. If an action were self-existent, it would be unchanging and eternal, immune to arising or ceasing. Yet, actions are observed to arise from conditions (e.g., volition) and lead to results, indicating they are produced. Eternal things, by definition, cannot be produced, as production implies change and dependence. Thus, karma cannot be inherently existent, as it would contradict its observed conditioned nature. In the karmic cycle, actions seem to persist from cause to effect, but this continuity is illusory—like a river that appears constant but is ever-changing. The U2T perspective reveals that while actions drive the cycle conventionally, their lack of inherent existence points to their dreamlike quality, guiding us to the Middle Way free from fixation on permanence or cessation.
.
.

23. If the action were not produced,
then there could be the fear attaining something
from "something not produced";
Then the opposite to a saintly discipline would follow as a fallacy.
.
The Abhidharma fears that if actions aren’t real (produced), results couldn’t arise, undermining ethical discipline. Nāgārjuna flips this: if actions lack inherent production (are empty), the idea of “something from nothing” is their worry, not his. Their reliance on real production leads to fallacies—like negating saintly discipline—whereas emptiness avoids such traps.) (i.e. The fallacy that real dependent origination proves inherent existence; it is the contrary: dependent origination proves emptiness of inherent existence, and vice versa.
.
Here, Nāgārjuna explores the opposite extreme: if actions were not produced at all, results could arise without causes, leading to absurdities. For example, moral discipline (e.g., generosity or mindfulness) would be meaningless if outcomes emerged from non-existent actions, undermining the ethical framework of Buddhism. The karmic cycle relies on the interdependence of actions and results—seeds grow into fruits, which bear new seeds. If this cycle lacked production, the distinction between virtuous and harmful actions would collapse, negating spiritual progress. Nāgārjuna’s Middle Way avoids this by affirming that actions arise dependently [T1] but are empty of inherent existence [T2], ensuring the cycle functions without requiring fixed entities. This insight invites us to engage in ethical actions without clinging to them as ultimately real.
.
.
.

24. Then, undoubtedly, all daily affairs would be precluded.
And even the distinction between saints
and sinners is not possible.
.
If actions were inherently real (per Abhidharma), and Nāgārjuna’s emptiness negates that, the Abhidharma might argue daily life and moral distinctions (saints vs. sinners) collapse. Nāgārjuna agrees this follows from their logic but counters that these distinctions only hold conventionally, not ultimately—empty phenomena [T2] don’t preclude function [T1] [U2T], just inherent existence.
.
Nāgārjuna extends the argument to practical implications. If karma were inherently existent or entirely unproduced, everyday activities—working, eating, or practicing virtue—would lose their coherence, as their causal relationships would be disrupted. Similarly, ethical distinctions between saints (who cultivate wholesome actions) and sinners (who perpetuate harmful ones) would vanish, as both rely on the functional reality of karma within the cycle. The U2T framework preserves these distinctions conventionally [T1] while recognizing their ultimate emptiness [T2]. The karmic cycle, like a dance of shadows, appears structured but lacks a solid core, guiding us to act mindfully without grasping at a fixed self or outcome.
.
.
.

25. Then an act whose development had taken place would develop again,
If an act, because it persists, exists through its own nature.
.
The Abhidharma’s imperishable force (part C) suggests actions persist to produce results. Nāgārjuna argues that if actions had inherent nature and persisted, they’d repeat indefinitely (e.g., one act ripening multiple times), which is absurd. Since they don’t, karma [T1] lacks self-existence [T2] [U2T].
.
If karma were inherently existent and persistent, its effects would redundantly re-manifest, leading to an illogical repetition of outcomes. For instance, a single act of generosity would perpetually generate the same result, disrupting the fluid, cyclic nature of karma where actions lead to varied fruits that spawn new actions. Nāgārjuna uses the Tetralemma to show that karma cannot persist inherently (eternalism) nor cease entirely (annihilationism). Instead, the cycle operates interdependently, with actions and results flowing seamlessly, like ripples merging into a stream. The Middle Way embraces this flow, recognizing its illusory yet functional nature, freeing us from fixation on permanence or loss.
.
.
.

[b. U2T of wholesome or unwholesome actions (cause) and their fruits (effect) (karma, 5-aggregates, body, speech and mind)]

26. An action is that whose "self" (atman) is desire,
and the desires do not really exist.
If these desires do not really exist,
how would the action really exist?
.
The Abhidharma ties karma to desire (a mental factor). Nāgārjuna says desire itself [T1] lacks real existence (is empty) [T2] [U2T], so actions driven by it can’t be real either. The “self” here isn’t a soul but the essence of action, which collapses if its basis (desire) is illusory.
.
Nāgārjuna zeroes in on desire, the driving force behind karma, as described by the opponents. Desire, whether wholesome (e.g., compassion) or unwholesome (e.g., greed), is empty of inherent existence because it arises from conditions like ignorance or perception. If desire lacks self-existence, the actions it fuels—whether virtuous or harmful—cannot be inherently real either. In the karmic cycle, desires spark actions, which yield results that ignite new desires, forming an endless loop. This loop appears vivid but is illusory, like a mirage. The U2T perspective shows that while desires and actions function conventionally to shape our experiences [T1], their ultimate emptiness [T2] frees us from clinging to them as fixed truths, pointing to the non-dual Middle Way.
.
.
.

27. Action and desire are declared to be
the conditioning cause of the body.
If action and desire are empty,
what need one say about "body"?
.
The Abhidharma sees action and desire as causes of the body (a karmic product). If both [T1] are empty [T2] [U2T], as Nāgārjuna argues, the body—dependent on them— [T1] must be empty too [T2] [U2T]. This dismantles the Abhidharma’s view of phala as a real outcome.
.
The body, a key component of the karmic cycle, is conditioned by actions and desires, as per Buddhist teachings (e.g., the five aggregates). If actions and desires are empty, the body they produce must also lack inherent existence. Nāgārjuna’s reasoning dismantles the notion of a solid, independent self that acts or experiences results. In the cyclic flow, the body arises from past actions, engages in new actions, and reaps further results, yet none of these possess an intrinsic core. Like a reflection in a mirror, the body appears functional [T1] but is ultimately empty [T2]. This insight invites us to navigate the cycle with mindfulness, recognizing its fluidity without grasping at a permanent self.
.
.
.

[c. U2T of the whole karmic cycle]

28. [An opponent tries to establish an identifiable entity by saying:]
The man shrouded in ignorance, and chained by craving (trsna)
Is one who seeks enjoyment.
He is not different from the one who acts, nor identical to it.
.
An Abhidharma opponent tries to salvage their view, positing a “man” defined by ignorance and craving as the agent who acts and enjoys results—neither fully separate from nor identical to the action (avoiding selfhood or nihilism). This reflects their attempt to maintain a conditioned entity linking karma and phala.
.
An opponent attempts to define the agent within the karmic cycle, suggesting that the person who acts and seeks results (enjoyment) is neither fully identical to nor entirely distinct from the action. This aligns with Buddhist attempts to avoid eternalism (a permanent self) and annihilationism (no continuity). However, it still assumes a definable agent, which Nāgārjuna challenges. The cyclic nature of karma blurs distinctions between actor and action, as each moment of acting creates results that shape the next actor, ad infinitum. This verse sets up Nāgārjuna’s deeper inquiry into the agent’s nature, using the Tetralemma to probe its identity or difference.
.
.
.

29. [Nāgārjuna answers:]
Since action is not "originated presupposing the conditions"
nor fails to arise from presupposing the conditions,
There is no one acting.
.
Nāgārjuna responds: action doesn’t inherently arise from conditions (as a real thing) nor does it arise independently (without conditions). This paradox shows action is empty, so there’s no real “one acting”—directly refuting the opponent’s agent in verse 28.)
(i.e. Dependent origination ⇐⇒ Emptiness ⇐⇒ Tetralemma (ex. not different / separate / impermanent / discontinuous, not identical / united / permanent / continuous, not both not neither) about the three spheres – cause / producer / self + 5-aggregates, action / production, effect / product / karma / 5-aggregates / body speech and mind / updated producer –; the three stages of becoming – origination, duration, cessation –; the three spheres before, during or after the action / rebirth / liberation; the whole karmic cycle / the 12 links of dependent origination.
.
Nāgārjuna refutes the opponent’s notion of an agent by applying the Tetralemma: actions neither arise inherently from conditions (as fixed entities) nor exist without conditions (as uncaused). Thus, there can be no inherently existent “one who acts.” In the karmic cycle, the actor is a provisional designation within the flow of interdependent events—actions lead to results, which become new actions, with no fixed doer at the core. This emptiness [T2] does not negate the conventional functionality [T1] of acting and experiencing but reveals their illusory nature, like a character in a dream who seems to act independently yet is part of the dream’s fabric.
.
.
.

30. If there is no action,
how could there be one who acts and the product of action?
And if there is no product,
how can there be an enjoyer of the product?
.
Without real action (production) (empty of svabhava), there’s no doer (cause / producer) or product (effect) (phala). Without a product, there’s no enjoyer—collapsing the Abhidharma’s entire karma-phala framework into emptiness.
.
Building on Verse 29, Nāgārjuna extends the logic: without inherently existent actions, there can be no inherently existent actor or result. Without a result, there’s no one to enjoy it. The karmic cycle—actor, action, result, enjoyer—is a web of interdependent appearances, not a chain of solid entities. Each element (e.g., a kind deed, its merit, the one who benefits) flows into the next, yet none stands alone. The U2T perspective highlights this cycle’s conventional validity [T1]—we act and experience outcomes—but its ultimate emptiness [T2] frees us from fixation, revealing the cycle as a seamless, non-dual flow, like ripples merging into a river.
.
.
.

31. Just as a teacher, by his magical power, formed a magical form,
And this magical form formed again another magical form—
.
Nāgārjuna introduces a vivid analogy to illustrate the illusory nature of the karmic cycle. A teacher’s magical creation (a conjured form) producing another form mirrors how actions and actors arise interdependently, each seeming real yet lacking substance. In the cycle, an action (e.g., a thought) creates a result (e.g., an experience), which sparks a new action, endlessly looping. This chain of “magical forms” lacks inherent existence, yet it functions within the conventional world [T1]. The analogy underscores the Middle Way: we engage with the cycle’s appearances without mistaking them for ultimate reality [T2], embracing their fluid interconnectedness.
.
.
.
32. Just so the "one who forms" is himself being formed magically; and the act performed by him
Is like a magical form being magically formed by another magical form.
.
Nāgārjuna uses a metaphor: a magically created teacher creates another magical figure, which creates yet another. Similarly, the “doer” is an illusion formed by conditions, and their actions are illusions formed by that illusion. This shows karma and agents [T1] lack inherent reality [T2] [U2T], unlike the Abhidharma’s functional view.
.
Extending the analogy, Nāgārjuna emphasizes that the actor is as illusory as the action. The “one who forms” (the agent) is itself a product of prior conditions, just as its actions produce further forms. In the karmic cycle, the actor, action, and result are mutually dependent, like reflections endlessly mirroring each other. This holographic quality—each part reflecting the whole—reveals the cycle’s non-dual, non-linear nature. The U2T framework shows that while actors and actions shape our lived experience [T1], their emptiness [T2] liberates us from grasping at them as fixed, guiding us to the Middle Way where all is interconnected yet free from essence.
.
.
.

33. Desires, actions, bodies, producers, and products
Are like a fairy castle, resembling a mirage, a dream.
.
Nāgārjuna concludes: all elements of the Abhidharma model—desires, actions, bodies, doers, and results—are empty, like a mirage or dream. They appear conventionally but lack ultimate reality, fully rejecting the Abhidharma’s reification of karma and phala.
.
In the concluding verse, Nāgārjuna encapsulates the karmic cycle’s nature with poetic imagery. Desires, actions, bodies, actors, and results—the entire cycle—appear vivid and functional, like a fairy castle, mirage, or dream, yet lack inherent reality. The cycle’s elements arise interdependently, weaving a tapestry of experiences that seem solid but dissolve under scrutiny. This fractal, holographic flow—where each action begets results that spawn new actions—reflects the Union of the Two Truths: conventionally real [T1] as the basis for ethical life, ultimately empty [T2] to free us from attachment. The Middle Way emerges as a path of joyful engagement with life’s cycles, recognizing their divine, non-dual unity without clinging to illusory fixity.

AI Art   (Next)