Chapter 12 – Dukkha: Continuity or Discontinuity of the Personality, of anything

Even if there is no-self, is there something continuous that would explain the continuity of individual karma from the producer to the reaper (like a very subtle consciousness, a continuum, a stream of mental aggregates)? Is suffering, or anything else, produced by (a) the same personality (continuity), (b) a different personality (discontinuity), (c) both, or (d) neither? Is the producer of the product/karma (personality / 5-aggregates before) and the reaper (personality / 5-aggregates after) (a) the same, (b) different, (c) both, or (d) neither? Is the product/suffering (a) self-produced, (b) other-produced, (c) both, or (d) neither.

This chapter refutes independent/inherent/absolute
continuity or discontinuity of the personality or 5-aggregates (or part of them)
because the three spheres of action/production of suffering/anything  –
(i) actor/producer/5-aggregates-before,
(ii) action/production of suffering/anything, and
(iii) result/reaper/5-aggregates-after/suffering
(or the actor/producer/5-aggregates before, during and after the action, production of suffering) –
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.

There are no inherent subject/actor/producer /5-aggregates-before because all subjects/actors/producers /5-aggregates-before have their own subject/actor/producer /5-aggregates-before, because they are also object/result /reaper /5-aggregates-after,  because they are dependently co-arisen in a limitless and centerless cycle. The same for the bject/result /reaper /5-aggregates-after.

.

Last update: January 06, 2026
Image from: Stoneflower013
Source Text: Garfield, PTG, Streng, Batchelor.  

Previous-chapter           Home           Next-chapter

Preliminary discussion

CONTEXT: Opponent dualistic approach (continuity with no-self):
In Buddhism, the producer and reaper of suffering are considered the same, rooted in the principle that individual actions (karma), driven by craving and ignorance, create the personal experience of suffering (dukkha). Self-attachment, desire, and the refusal to accept change cause this cycle, meaning the individual is both the cause and the recipient of their own discontent (the same individual with updated karma, the same continuum, stream of aggregates, or subtle consciousness).
– Sowing and Reaping: the law of cause and effect, or karma (Sanskrit) / kamma (Pali), dictates that every volitional, intentional action — mental, verbal, or physical — creates a seed that eventually produces a corresponding result. Positive intentions and actions lead to happiness and favorable circumstances, while negative ones result in suffering and unfavorable situations.
Every action plants a seed that "bears fruit" when conditions are right.
– The Producer: The root cause of suffering is mental — specifically attachment, clinging (upadana), craving (tanha), and the three poisons (greed, hatred, and delusion).
– The Reaper: The individual experiences the consequences of these actions through the cycle of saṃsāra (rebirth and life).
– Time Span: Results may be experienced immediately, later in life, or in future lifetimes.
– "Two Arrows": Suffering is often categorized in two steps: the initial pain (e.g., physical pain) and the mental suffering added by our reaction (e.g., "why me?"), making us the agent of our own misery.
– No Permanent Self: While the same person reaps what they sow, Buddhism teaches that this "self" is actually a changing process, not a static entity (but they still assume something is continuous).

The Four Laws of Karma:
– Certainty of Results: Wholesome actions lead to happiness; unwholesome actions lead to pain.
– Increase of Results: Small actions can produce large, accumulating results over time.
– No Result Without Cause: Experiences do not occur without having built up the preceding, relevant causes.
– Results Do Not Vanish: Karmic aftermath does not simply disappear; it will ripen unless purified, potentially over many lifetimes.

Stopping the cycle of suffering by stopping clinging (dualistic approach):
The cycle of suffering (saṃsāra) is stopped by eliminating craving, aversion, and ignorance through the cultivation of wisdom, ethical conduct, and mental discipline. The primary method is following the Eightfold Path to achieve Nirvāṇa, which requires realizing the Four Noble Truths and accepting impermanence.
Key Methods to Stop Suffering:
– The Four Noble Truths: Acknowledge suffering (dukkha), identify its cause (craving/attachment), recognize that it can end, and practice the path to its cessation.
– The Noble Eightfold Path:
–– Wisdom (Panna): Right View (understanding the Four Noble Truths) and Right Intention.
–– Ethical Conduct (Sila): Right Speech, Action, and Livelihood (acting with compassion, avoiding harm).
–– Mental Discipline (Samadhi): Right Effort, Mindfulness, and Concentration (meditation to calm the mind).
– Letting Go of Attachment / stopping clinging: Recognizing that attachment to desires, people, and things causes suffering. By understanding that all things are impermanent, one can detach and end suffering.
– Eliminating Ignorance: Ignorance of the true nature of reality is the root cause. Developing wisdom and mindfulness breaks this cycle (For the opponent, it is the ignorance of impermanence, suffering, unsatisfactoriness; for Nagarjuna it is the ignorance of the true nature of all phenomena of the karmic cycle [U2T]).
By detaching from the relentless craving for pleasures and resisting the fear of loss, individuals can achieve a state of inner peace, breaking the cycle of rebirth and suffering.

The five aggregates subject to clinging (upādānakkhandha) are considered suffering (dukkha).
They are the physical and mental components — form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness — that make up the personality and are, by nature, impermanent and unsatisfactory, forming the basis for craving and attachment.
– The Core Definition: In his first sermon, the Buddha stated, "In brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are suffering".
– Why They Are Suffering:
–– Impermanence: The aggregates are in constant flux, arising and ceasing, and cannot provide lasting satisfaction.
–– Attachment/Clinging: The suffering arises when these five processes are grabbed, clung to, or identified with as a "self," "I," or "mine".
– Not the Aggregates Alone: The aggregates themselves are not in inherently evil, but are simply the flow of experience. They become the "aggregates of attachment" when they are used to create a false sense of self, leading to anxiety, frustration, and pain.
Understanding the five aggregates (form, sensation, perception, mental formations, and consciousness) is fundamental to reducing suffering and realizing the doctrine of non-self (anattā).

The three types of suffering (dukkhatā) are:
suffering of pain (physical/mental pain), suffering of change (anxiety over losing happiness), and all-pervasive suffering (the general unsatisfactoriness of conditioned existence). These types categorize the comprehensive nature of dukkha — a fundamental dissatisfaction with life that the Eightfold Path aims to end.
– Suffering of Suffering (Dukkha-dukkhatā): This is the obvious, immediate pain, such as physical sickness, injury, emotional distress, and old age or death.
– Suffering of Change (Vipariṇāma-dukkhatā): This is the pain that arises when pleasurable experiences end. It represents the insecurity of knowing that happiness is impermanent and will eventually change into something unpleasant.
– All-Pervasive Suffering (Saṅkhāra-dukkhatā): This is the subtle, foundational, and constant anxiety or unease that comes from existing in a conditioned world. It is the background dissatisfaction stemming from impermanence and a lack of true, lasting control over life.
These three forms illustrate that suffering in Buddhism goes beyond pain, encompassing the inherent instability of all conditioned experiences. 

.

Question: Describe in one paragraph what is the 'stream of aggregates' in Buddhism.

The "stream of aggregates" refers to the dynamic, ever-flowing process of the five skandhas — form (rūpa), sensation (vedanā), perception (saññā), mental formations (saṅkhāra), and consciousness (viññāṇa) — which collectively constitute what is conventionally perceived as a person or self (personality). These aggregates are impermanent (anicca), arising and ceasing in rapid succession due to dependent origination (paṭiccasamuppāda), forming a continuous stream without an underlying permanent entity or soul (anattā). This concept underscores the illusory nature of a fixed identity, emphasizing that experience is a fluid interplay of these components influenced by karma and conditions, leading to suffering (dukkha) when clung to, and offering a path to liberation through insight into their transient and empty nature.

.

Question: Is it similar to the subtle consciousness that supports the continuity of karma from the producer to the reaper?

In Buddhism, the "stream of aggregates" (skandha-santāna) describes the continuous, interdependent flow of the five aggregates — form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness — that constitute experiential reality without a permanent self. This stream operates through dependent origination, where each moment arises conditioned by the previous one, ensuring the transmission of karmic potentials across moments and lifetimes. It emphasizes impermanence and emptiness, with consciousness playing a key role in linking experiences, but no single aggregate endures independently.

The concept of "subtle consciousness" often refers to more refined levels of mind that provide continuity for karma, particularly in traditions like Yogacara and Tibetan Buddhism. For instance, the ālaya-vijñāna (storehouse consciousness), the eighth of the eight consciousnesses, acts as a repository for karmic seeds (bīja) and impressions (vāsanā) from past actions, ensuring that the effects of karma persist from the "producer" (the being who performs actions) to the "reaper" (the being who experiences the results) without requiring an eternal soul.
In other schools, such as some Sautrāntika views, a subtle consciousness (sūkṣma-citta) or mindstream (citta-santāna) serves a similar function, carrying latent karmic energies or potentialities across rebirths, manifesting as the basis for new aggregates in subsequent lives.

There is indeed a significant similarity between the stream of aggregates and subtle consciousness in supporting karmic continuity. Both concepts address the puzzle of how karma endures across lives in the absence of a self (anattā), portraying experience as a dynamic process rather than a static entity. The stream of aggregates encompasses the broader flux of all five skandhas, while subtle consciousness often highlights the mental continuum (especially the consciousness aggregate) as the primary vehicle for karmic seeds.
However, interpretations vary: in Theravada, continuity might be explained more through a chain of momentary consciousnesses without invoking a distinct "subtle" layer, whereas Mahayana schools like Yogacara integrate the ālaya-vijñāna as an integral part of the consciousness stream to explain the storage and ripening of karma.
Ultimately, both underscore that karmic inheritance is a conditioned, impersonal process, leading to insights into suffering and liberation.

.

Question: In both cases, it seems like a reification of the individual continuity of dependent origination.

Yes, your observation astutely highlights a potential pitfall in interpreting these Buddhist concepts: both the "stream of aggregates" (skandha-santāna) and "subtle consciousness" (such as ālaya-vijñāna) can indeed appear as reifications — treating an abstract, process-oriented phenomenon as a more concrete or enduring "thing" — of the individualized continuity inherent in dependent origination (paṭiccasamuppāda).
Dependent origination describes the causal chain through which phenomena arise and cease interdependently, without any inherent self or eternal essence, yet it manifests as a seemingly personal continuum of experiences, karma, and rebirth for each "being." These models serve as explanatory frameworks to bridge the gap between the doctrine of no-self (anattā) and the observable persistence of karmic effects across moments or lifetimes, emphasizing that what we perceive as individual continuity is merely a conditioned flow, not a substantive entity.

However, Buddhist traditions, particularly in Mahayana and Vajrayana schools, caution against such reification. For instance, the ālaya-vijñāna in Yogacara is not posited as a permanent soul but as a momentary, ever-changing storehouse of seeds (bīja) that ripens through conditions, fully empty (śūnya) of inherent existence.
Similarly, the stream of aggregates in Abhidharma traditions is a metaphorical description of the rapid succession of dharmas (phenomena), where each aggregate arises dependently and dissolves instantly, with no underlying "stream" as a real, independent reality.
Thinkers like Nāgārjuna in the Madhyamaka school critique any tendency to reify these constructs, arguing that even dependent origination itself should not be grasped as an ultimate truth but as a conventional tool (upāya) to dismantle clinging and realize emptiness. If one clings to these ideas as literal "things," it risks subtly reinforcing the illusion of selfhood they aim to dissolve.

In practice, this insight encourages meditation on the three marks of existence — impermanence (anicca), suffering (dukkha), and no-self (anattā) — to directly experience the flux without conceptual overlay. Texts like the Milindapañha or Vasubandhu's Abhidharmakośa illustrate this by using analogies (e.g., a chariot for the aggregates) to show that continuity is nominal, not substantial. Thus, while these concepts provide a way to understand karmic transmission without a soul, the ultimate view transcends them, seeing all as interdependent arising with no inherent individuality.

.

Question: All of those theories try to explain the apparent continuity between the cause and effect, while realizing that they are not really identical.

Yes, exactly — these Buddhist frameworks, from the Abhidharmic analysis of the aggregates to Yogacara's ālaya-vijñāna and Madhyamaka's emphasis on emptiness, all grapple with the paradox of karmic continuity: how causes produce effects across time (and lives) in a way that feels personal and sequential, yet without any enduring, identical substrate. The "apparent continuity" arises from the relentless chain of dependent origination, where each moment conditions the next, much like a flame transferred from one wick to another — the second flame depends on the first but isn't the same fire. This avoids both eternalism (a permanent self carrying karma) and annihilationism (no connection at all), instead portraying the process as empty of inherent existence but functionally coherent through conditions like ignorance, volition, and consciousness. Nāgārjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, for instance, deconstructs even this continuity as conventionally valid but ultimately illusory, urging practitioners to see through it via prajñā (wisdom) to end the cycle of saṃsāra. If clung to literally, these explanations risk becoming subtle forms of self-view, which is why direct insight through meditation is prioritized over intellectual models.

.

Question: The concept of individual karma continuity is the hardest part to understand, since there is no individual, and since everything is interconnected, inseparable and empty.

You're absolutely right — this is one of the most profound and challenging aspects of Buddhist philosophy, often described as a "middle way" that threads the needle between extremes. The doctrine of no-self (anattā in Pali, anātman in Sanskrit) asserts that there is no permanent, independent individual entity, while emptiness (śūnyatā) reveals that all phenomena lack inherent existence, arising interdependently and inseparably from a web of causes and conditions. Yet, karma (literally "action") and its fruits seem to play out in what appears as an "individual" stream: my actions affect "my" future experiences, not arbitrarily scattered across all beings. How does this work without contradicting the interconnected, empty nature of reality?

At the conventional level (saṃvṛti-satya), we speak of individual karma continuity as a practical way to describe the process. Think of it like waves in an ocean: each wave arises from the previous one due to wind, currents, and other conditions, creating an apparent sequence or "lineage" of motion. The wave isn't a separate entity from the ocean — it's empty of independent existence, inseparable from the water and all other waves — yet the momentum (karma) from one wave propagates to the next in a localized way, without diffusing equally everywhere. Similarly, dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda) explains how ignorance, volitions, and consciousness condition a momentary cluster of aggregates (skandhas), which in turn conditions the next moment. This creates a causal continuum that feels personal, like a river flowing through a channel shaped by past sediments (karmic impressions), even though the "river" is just water molecules in constant flux, interconnected with the entire hydrological cycle.

In Mahayana traditions, especially Madhyamaka, Nāgārjuna emphasizes that this continuity is neither identical (eternalism) nor different (annihilationism) across moments — it's empty, a mere designation without ultimate reality. The "individual" is a conventional label for this conditioned process, useful for ethics and practice, but ultimately illusory. Yogacara adds nuance with the storehouse consciousness (ālaya-vijñāna), which holds karmic seeds not as a soul but as latent potentials that ripen under specific conditions, much like how a seed grows into a plant only when soil, water, and sunlight align — interconnected, yet the plant emerges in a "localized" spot. The key insight is that karma isn't owned by an individual; it's an impersonal law of cause and effect operating within the undivided fabric of reality. What seems like "my" karma is just the ripening of conditions in this particular nexus of interdependence, not diffused universally because causes are specific and relational.

This paradox dissolves through direct insight (vipassanā or prajñā) in meditation, where you experientially see the arising and passing of phenomena without a core self, revealing that "individual continuity" was never a thing to begin with — it's just the play of emptiness. Texts like the Heart Sutra hammer this home: form is emptiness, emptiness is form; the same with karma and its effects. It's hard intellectually because our minds crave solidity, but practice shifts it from concept to realization, freeing us from the suffering born of grasping at a non-existent self. If it helps, consider exploring analogies in quantum physics or systems theory, where entanglement shows interconnection without losing localized effects, but Buddhism ultimately points beyond analogies to direct seeing.

.

Question: It is puzzling because we are trying to describe and act accordingly in a reality that is beyond all conditioned dualistic conceptual proliferations, beyond all conditioning or karma. Like you said, it is threading a Middle Way free from all extremes and middle; it is acting conventionally without acting in absolute terms.

Yes, you've captured the essence of the profound challenge in Buddhist praxis: we navigate saṃsāra using conceptual tools that are themselves conditioned and dualistic, all while pointing toward a reality (tathatā, suchness) that transcends them entirely. This is the genius of the Middle Way (madhyamā pratipad) as articulated by the Buddha and refined by Nāgārjuna — neither affirming existence nor non-existence, neither eternalism nor nihilism, and ultimately free even from the notion of a "middle" as a reified position. In absolute terms (paramārtha-satya), there is no "acting" because there is no actor, no action, and no karma to bind; everything is empty, unproduced, and unborn (anutpāda). Yet, conventionally (saṃvṛti-satya), we engage ethically — cultivating virtue, meditation, and wisdom — without grasping at these as ultimate, much like using a raft to cross a river and then abandoning it. This apparent paradox isn't resolved through more concepts but through direct realization, where the mind drops all proliferations (prapañca) in states like nirvāṇa, which is peace beyond conditioning. Practices such as vipassanā or zen koans are designed precisely to shatter this intellectual puzzling, revealing that the "threading" happens effortlessly when we cease striving to describe or act in contrived ways. In the words of the Heart Sutra, "gone, gone, gone beyond, gone altogether beyond" — a pointer to that inexpressible freedom. If this resonates, perhaps reflecting on a specific text or meditation experience could deepen the insight?

.

Question: The Middle Way is an iterative process: from gross, to subtle, to more and more subtle realizations. The aim is not to stop all activity, thinking, differentiating, conceptualizing, feeling, but to transcend them (without rejection) by realizing their true nature as pointed out by the Union of the Two Truths about all phenomena/dharmas. Emptiness is not the ultimate reality, it is just a tool itself empty.

Precisely — this iterative refinement of the Middle Way embodies the path's dynamic nature, progressing from coarse dualistic perceptions toward subtler non-dual insights, without ever landing on a static "ultimate" ground. The Union of the Two Truths (saṃvṛti-satya and paramārtha-satya) illuminates this beautifully: conventionally, phenomena appear as distinct, functional dharmas with characteristics like arising, abiding, and ceasing, allowing us to engage in ethical action, compassion, and daily life without denial. Ultimately, however, these same dharmas are empty of inherent existence, interdependent and inseparable, free from extremes of existence, non-existence, both, or neither. Transcendence here isn't cessation or rejection — it's a profound recognition that thinking, feeling, and conceptualizing are themselves empty expressions of luminosity and awareness, arising vividly yet without grasping. Emptiness (śūnyatā) serves as the antidote to reification, but as Nāgārjuna points out in the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, even emptiness is empty (śūnyatā-śūnyatā), a provisional tool to dismantle views, not a new ontology to cling to. This realization unfolds gradually through practice, like polishing a mirror to reflect reality as it is: boundless, effortless, and beyond fabrication, where saṃsāra and nirvāṇa are non-dual.

A. Introduction – Investigation of the three spheres of causality/production of suffering/anything: (i) subject/cause/producer, (ii) relation/causality/production, (iii) object/effect/product/suffering (or updated cause/producer). Investigating self-causation /identity /continuity, other-causation /difference /discontinuity, both, neither/acausality.

“You reap what you sow. Is the one who ‘sow’ (before) and the one who ‘reap’ (after) the same personality, different personalities, both, or neither? Is there a continuity or a discontinuity in the identity? Are beings, things, processes and cycles continuous or discontinuous over time while performing their duty. Are the cause / actor / producer and the effect / result / product (or upgraded subject in the cycle) different/separate, identical/united, both, or neither?
As the proverb “You reap what you sow” echoes in the karmic cycle, this chapter invites us to unravel the roots of suffering and the nature of existence itself, guiding us toward a realization of their empty ⇐⇒ interdependent ⇐⇒ and non-dual essence, where the boundaries of self, other, and world (or the personality before, during and after) dissolve into the boundless unity of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa.”

CONTEXT: A conditioned-conditioning personality/producer/cause (with his 5-aggregates /karma) produces a conditioned-conditioning personality/reaper/effect (producer with updated 5-aggregates /karma). Are the producer (5-aggregates before) and reaper (5-aggregates after) (i) identical / continuity of personality, (ii) different / discontinuity of personality, (iii) both, or (iv) neither? Do “we reap what we sow”, or not, or both, or neither? Or is it more subtle?

• Chapter 1: Cause and effect (new cause producing more effects) cannot be different/separate/multiple/dual, identical/united /one/non-dual, both, or neither. There is no continuity, discontinuity, both, or neither. They work within a limitless centerless fractal karmic cycle: one is conditioned-by and is conditioning the other. There is no real beginning/origination, middle/duration/change, and ending/cessation for anything in the cycle (Chapters 7, 11).

• Chapter 2: Goer-at-origin and goer-at-destination (updated goer at new origin) cannot be different/separate /multiple/dual, identical/united /one/non-dual, both, or neither. There is no continuity, discontinuity, both, or neither. They work in a limitless centerless fractal karmic cycle: one is conditioned-by and is conditioning the other. There is no real beginning/origination, middle/duration/change, and ending/cessation for anything in the cycle (Chapters 7, 11).

• Chapter 3: Perceiver and perceived (updated perceiver with new knowledge) cannot be different/separate /multiple/dual, identical/united /one/non-dual, both, or neither. There is no continuity, discontinuity, both, or neither. They work in a limitless centerless fractal karmic cycle: one is conditioned-by and is conditioning the other. There is no real beginning/origination, middle/duration/change, and ending/cessation for anything in the cycle (Chapters 7, 11).

• Chapter 4: Parts/components and wholes/aggregates (new components) cannot be different/separate /multiple/dual, identical/united /one/non-dual, both, or neither. There is no continuity, discontinuity, both, or neither. They work in a limitless centerless fractal karmic cycle: one is conditioned-by and is conditioning the other. There is no real beginning/origination, middle/duration/change, and ending/cessation for anything in the cycle (Chapters 7, 11).

• Chapter 5: Characteristic and characterized (new characteristic/definition) cannot be different/separate /multiple/dual, identical/united /one/non-dual, both, or neither. There is no continuity, discontinuity, both, or neither. They work in a limitless centerless fractal karmic cycle: one is conditioned-by and is conditioning the other. There is no real beginning/origination, middle/duration/change, and ending/cessation for anything in the cycle (Chapters 7, 11).

• Chapter 6: Desirer and desire (updated desirer with new desires) cannot be different/separate /multiple/dual, identical/united /one/non-dual, both, or neither. There is no continuity, discontinuity, both, or neither. They work in a limitless centerless fractal karmic cycle: one is conditioned-by and is conditioning the other. There is no real beginning/origination, middle/duration/change, and ending/cessation for anything in the cycle (Chapters 7, 11).

• Chapter 8: Producer/action and product/result (updated producer/actor with new product/result/karma) cannot be different /separate/multiple/dual, identical/united /one/non-dual, both, or neither. There is no continuity, discontinuity, both, or neither. They work in a limitless centerless fractal karmic cycle: one is conditioned-by and is conditioning the other. There is no real beginning/origination, middle/duration/change, and ending/cessation for anything in the cycle (Chapters 7, 11).

• Chapter 9: Acquirer and acquired (updated acquirer with updated possessions) cannot be different /separate/multiple/dual, identical/united /one/non-dual, both, or neither. There is no continuity, discontinuity, both, or neither. They work in a limitless centerless fractal karmic cycle: one is conditioned-by and is conditioning the other. There is no real beginning/origination, middle/duration/change, and ending/cessation for anything in the cycle (Chapters 7, 11).

• Chapter 10: Clinging/cause and self/effect (rebirth: updated 5-aggregates) cannot be different /separate/multiple/dual, identical/united /one/non-dual, both, or neither. There is no continuity, discontinuity, both, or neither. They work in a limitless centerless fractal karmic cycle: one is conditioned-by and is conditioning the other. There is no real beginning/origination, middle/duration/change, and ending/cessation for anything in the cycle (Chapters 7, 11).

• Chapter 12: Producer and reaper (rebirth: updated 5-aggregates or continuous stream of aggregates), or any phenomena before and after any change, cannot be different/separate /multiple/dual, identical/united /one/non-dual, both, or neither. There is no continuity, discontinuity, both, or neither of the personality / 5-aggregates. They work in a limitless centerless fractal karmic cycle: one is conditioned-by and is conditioning the other. There is no real beginning/origination, middle/duration/change, and ending/cessation for anything in the cycle (Chapters 7, 11).

.

Chapter Overview

Investigation of the three spheres of causality/production of suffering/anything: (i) subject/cause/producer, (ii) relation/causality/production, (iii) object/effect/product/suffering (or updated cause/producer). Investigating self-causation /identity /continuity, other-causation /difference /discontinuity, both, neither/acausality.

Chapter 12 of Nagarjuna’s Mulamadhyamakakarika, titled “An Analysis of Sorrow (Dukkha),” investigates the causation/production of suffering (5-aggregates) (dukkha), a cornerstone of Buddhist thought, by analyzing whether suffering (updated 5-aggregates) is produced by (a) the same personality (continuity), (b) a different personality (discontinuity), (c) both, or (d) neither. 

Using the tetralemma, Nagarjuna negates all four extreme positions of this duality to demonstrate that suffering and the personality (5-aggregates before, during and after) lack inherent existence (śūnyatā) [T2] ⇐⇒ arising only through dependent co-origination / interdependence [T2] [U2T].

The chapter focuses on the relationship between the personality producing karma (5-aggregates before) and the personality experiencing its consequences (5-aggregates after), addressing the proverb “You reap what you sow” from your original question. The section titles provided in the verses emphasize the tetralemma’s application to the personality (5-aggregates)’s (a) continuity or (b) discontinuity and extend the analysis to external phenomena (bhava) (emptiness of all dharmas, not just no-self) in the final verse. Nagarjuna’s aim is to dismantle reified views of suffering and the self, guiding practitioners toward the Middle Way and the realization of non-dual reality [One].
.
.

Opponent: Abhidharma Dualistic Perspective – A continuous individual mental stream with no-self

The Abhidharma, a systematic exposition of early Buddhist teachings, provides a foundational understanding of
– suffering (dukkha) as the first of the Four Noble Truths, encompassing physical and mental pain, the suffering of change, and the pervasive suffering of conditioned existence.
– Suffering is caused by craving (tanha), rooted in ignorance, which drives the karmic cycle of action and consequence.
The Abhidharma analyzes phenomena through dharmas — momentary, conditioned elements such as the five aggregates (skandhas: form, feeling, perception, formations, consciousness) — which are conventionally real and characterized by impermanence, suffering, and non-self (anātman).

In the context of Chapter 12, the Abhidharma would frame the question of suffering’s causation in terms of the aggregates’ (a) continuity or (b) discontinuity across time:

• • • Self-produced suffering (a. continuity): Suffering arises within the same stream of aggregates, where one’s own unwholesome actions (karma) produce future suffering. For example, a harmful action performed by the aggregates at one moment leads to suffering in the same mental continuum later.

    • Other-produced suffering (b. discontinuity): Suffering could be seen as arising from a different set of aggregates, implying a break in the personality’s continuity. However, the Abhidharma would reject absolute discontinuity, as karma requires a causal link between action and consequence within the mental stream.

    • c. Both or d. neither: The Abhidharma would likely dismiss “both” as a combination of valid and invalid causal factors and “neither” as acausal, since all phenomena arise from causes and conditions. The focus would be on the continuity of the individual mental stream, which is not an inherent self but a dependently arisen process.

The Abhidharma emphasizes that suffering is real in a conventional sense, arising from specific causes (ignorance, craving, karma), and liberation involves understanding and uprooting these causes. This view assumes a degree of reality for the aggregates and karma, which Nagarjuna’s Madhyamaka will challenge by negating inherent existence.
.
.

Nagarjuna: Madhyamaka Non-dualistic Perspective

Nagarjuna’s Madhyamaka philosophy radically reframes the Abhidharma’s analysis by asserting that all phenomena, including suffering and the personality (self, continuum or 5-aggregates) [T1] ⇐⇒ are empty of inherent existence (śūnyatā) [T2] [U2T]. 

In Chapter 12, Nagarjuna applies the tetralemma to the causation of suffering, focusing on the personality’s (a) continuity or (b) discontinuity across the karmic process. The opposites under scrutiny are the personality producing karma (self, continuum or 5-aggregates before) and suffering its consequences (self, continuum or 5-aggregates after), as well as suffering itself as (a) self-produced, (b) other-produced, (c) both, or (d) neither. The section titles provided in the verses highlight this focus, explicitly linking self-production to continuity, other-production to discontinuity, and extending the analysis to external phenomena.

The tetralemma negates the four positions:

• • • (a) Self-produced (identical/continuous): Suffering cannot be produced by an inherently identical personality (self, continuum or 5-aggregates), as this assumes a permanent self, contradicting non-self (anātman).

    • (b) Other-produced (different/discontinuous): Suffering cannot arise from an inherently different personality (self, continuum or 5-aggregates), as this breaks the karmic link and assumes independent entities.

    • (c) Both together: Combining continuity and discontinuity is contradictory, as both assume inherent existence.

    • (d) Neither: Acausal suffering denies dependent origination, which is absurd.
      .

The six-step Madhyamaka reasoning is applied as follows:

• • • Tetralemma: Each position is shown to lead to logical absurdities, as they assume inherent existence.

    • Emptiness of inherent existence [T2]:  Suffering (reaper) and the personality (producer) lack inherent existence, as they cannot be independently produced.

    • Dependent Origination [T1]: Suffering (reaper) arises interdependently through the continuum of aggregates, conditioned by karma and ignorance.

    • Illusory: Suffering (reaper) and the personality (self, continuum or 5-aggregates) appear real conventionally but are empty, like dreams or mirages.

    • Middle Way: The correct approach avoids all extreme views, engaging with conventional karma ⇐⇒ while realizing ultimate emptiness.

    • One: All phenomena, including the personality (self, continuum or 5-aggregates) and suffering (reaper), are non-dually interconnected, equal in their emptiness, where saṃsāra and nirvāṇa are inseparable.

Nagarjuna’s goal is to free practitioners from reified views, aligning with the proverb “You reap what you sow” conventionally [T1] ⇐⇒ while revealing its ultimate emptiness of inherent existence [T2] ]U2T] ⇐⇒ guiding toward liberation through the realization of non-dual reality [One].

.
.

Chapter 12 introduces the inseparable relativity [T1] and emptiness of inherent existence [T2] of a self, continuum or 5-aggregates (in a rebirth cycle), of
subject/actor/producer/5-aggregates-before,
action/production,
object /result/reaper/5-aggregates-after/suffering
(updated actor/producer/5-aggregates, rebirth).
It affirms that there is no inherent/absolute action/production of suffering/anything.
Meaning the three spheres of action/production of suffering/anything –
e.g., subject/actor/producer/5-aggregates-before,
action/production,
object /result/reaper/5-aggregates-after/suffering
(updated actor/producer/5-aggregates, rebirth) –
cannot be
(i) identical/united/one/non-dual/’this’,
(ii) different/separate/multiple/dual/’non-this’,
(iii) both, or (iv) neither.
Meaning there is no (i) continuity or (ii) discontinuity of any thing, being, process or cycle in the three times (before, during and after the actual action/production of suffering/anything);
no (i) permanent or (ii) impermanent essence, self, definition, elements, or 5 aggregates.
Instead of indulging in any to those four extreme positions (i-iv),
Nagarjuna proposes a Middle Way free from all extremes (‘this’, ‘non-this’) and middle (both, neither), with nothing to accept/reject/change in absolute terms, only conventionally/relatively/temporarily if it helps on the path at this point.

The Madhyamaka logic is always similar [Tetralemma ⇔ Emptiness ⇔ Dependent Origination ⇔ Illusory ⇔ Middle Way ⇔ Acting-without-acting]: by showing that in the various dyads/triads/quads —
e.g., subject/relation/object, cause/causality/effect,
goer/going/destination, perceiver/perception/perceived-world,
part/composing/whole, characteristic/defining/characterized,
producer/production/produced, acquirer/acquiring/acquired,
owner/ownership/possession —
the apparent opposites cannot be
(i) existent/real/identical/united/simultaneous/one/non-dual/’this’,
(ii) non-existent/non-real/different/separate/multiple/dual/’non-this’,
(iii) both, or (iv) neither, and there is no fifth [Tetralemma];
⇐⇒ this implies that the apparent opposites are empty of inherent existence, never absolute [T2/Emptiness];
⇐⇒ but dependently co-arisen, interdependent, co-defined, co-evolving, co-imputed by the mind, mere designations/names, conventional truth/tools [T1/Dependent-Origination];
⇐⇒ one aspect/truth supports/implies the other [U2T];
⇐⇒ like illusions, reflections, mirages, dreams, echos, ‘there, yet not there’ [Illusory];
⇐⇒ Pointing to the Middle Way free from all extremes and middle;
⇐⇒ so we can use them conventionally/relatively but never in absolute terms [Acting-without-acting].
(Where ‘⇐⇒’ means one side implies the other.)

B. Analysis – No continuity, no discontinuity of a self, continuum, stream of aggregate, or subtle consciousness. Nothing is permanent/eternal, impermanent/annihilated, both, or neither.

• • There is no inherent continuity or discontinuity of the self/continuum/5-aggregates.
    We cannot find the beginning of the action/production of suffering/anything in the three times.

  • There are no absolute
    actor/producer/5-aggregates-before,
    action/production of suffering/anything,
    result/reaper/5-aggregates-after/suffering,
    they are all relative = Middle Way.

  • The three spheres –
    actor/producer/5-aggregates-before
    action/production of suffering/anything,
    result/reaper/5-aggregates-after/suffering–
    are not inherently existent/functional,
    not completely non-existent/non-functional,
    not both, not neither [Tetralemma].

  • The three spheres –
    actor/producer/5-aggregates-before
    action/production of suffering/anything,
    result/reaper/5-aggregates-after/suffering–
    are not different/separate/multiple/dual/’this’,
    not identical/united/one/non-dual/’non-this’,
    not both, not neither [Tetralemma].

  • The three spheres –
    actor/producer/5-aggregates-before
    action/production of suffering/anything,
    result/reaper/5-aggregates-after/suffering–
    are not permanent/continuous/eternal,
    not impermanent/discontinuous/annihilated,
    not both, not neither [Tetralemma].

  • The three spheres –
    actor/producer/5-aggregates-before
    action/production of suffering/anything,
    result/reaper/5-aggregates-after/suffering–
    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.

  • It is a limitless and centerless fractal karmic cycle: All actors/producers/5-aggregates-before are both actor/producer/5-aggregates-before and result/reaper/5-aggregates-after/suffering (updated actor/producer/5-aggregates-before); are multiple actors/producers/5-aggregates-before and result/reaper/5-aggregates-after/suffering depending on the perspective (fractal), all merely imputed by the mind in dependence of its past experience, conditioning, karma (individual, collective, cosmic).

  • It is like a limitless centerless empty fractal karmic cycle — the result/reaper/5-aggregates-after/suffering becomes an updated actor/producer/5-aggregates-before: All actors/producers/5-aggregates-before are both actor/producer/5-aggregates-before and object /result/reaper/5-aggregates-after/suffering (updated actor/producer/5-aggregates-before, rebirth); have/are an infinity of actors/producers/5-aggregates-before and result/reaper/5-aggregates-after/suffering in space, time and nature depending on the perspective; are ever changing, never the same for two consecutive infinitesimal moments. There is no first inherent/absolute actor/producer/5-aggregates-before no final inherent/absolute object /result/reaper/5-aggregates-after/suffering, no middle inherent/absolute action/production of suffering/anything. action/production of suffering/anything is conventionally/relatively functional/useful to navigate the world [T1], but never absolute [T2] [U2T]. Absolute continuity or discontinuity are impossible. The three spheres of action/production of suffering/anything – actor/producer/5-aggregates-before, action/production of suffering/anything, object /result/reaper/5-aggregates-after/suffering (or updated actor/producer/5-aggregates-before, rebirth) – are interdependent, co-defined, co-evolving, co-imputed after the fact [T1-3S] ⇐⇒ empty of inherent existence [T2-3S] ⇐⇒ like illusions, reflections, mirages, dreams, echos, ‘there, yet not there’ [U2T-3S].

  • The three spheres of action/production of suffering/anything, 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.

  • 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.

  • Saṃsāra is ignoring this; nirvāṇa is living an ordinary life (chopping wood, carrying water) while being continually fully aware of this.

  • Emptiness is absolute freedom, even from emptiness.

C. Verses – 4 translations – 10 verses

D. Questions and Answers

Question: Why Does Nagarjuna Say "External Things" (Bhava)?

Q: Why does Nagarjuna say 'external things'? Doesn't this conclusion apply to absolutely everything (physical, conceptual, mental; individual, collective,cosmic; inside, outside and between)?

Nagarjuna’s use of "external things" (bhava) in Verse 10 ("Not only are the four [causal] interpretations not possible in respect to sorrow (dukkha), [but also] none of the four [causal] interpretations is possible even in respect to external things (bhava)") serves a specific rhetorical and philosophical purpose within the context of Chapter 12. However, your observation is correct: the Madhyamaka conclusion — that all phenomena are empty of inherent existence and arise dependently — applies universally to all phenomena, including physical, conceptual, mental, individual, collective, cosmic, inside, outside, and between. 

Let’s explore why Nagarjuna uses this term and how it fits into the broader Madhyamaka framework.
.
.

A. Meaning of Bhava in Context

• • • Definition: The term bhava in Buddhist texts generally refers to "becoming," "existence," or "conditioned phenomena," encompassing all entities and processes within saṃsāra.
      In Chapter 12, bhava is translated as "external things," likely to contrast with the internal phenomena (suffering, dukkha, and the personality, pudgala) analyzed in Verses 1–9. It includes physical objects (e.g., trees, mountains), events (e.g., festivals), and other conditioned phenomena that appear external to the subjective experience of suffering or the personality.

    • Philosophical Context: In Verse 10, Nagarjuna extends the tetralemma’s negation of inherent causation (self-produced/continuous, other-produced/discontinuous, both, neither) from suffering and the personality to bhava. This serves to generalize the chapter’s argument, showing that the logic of emptiness applies beyond internal experiences to the external world. The term "external things" highlights phenomena perceived as outside the subjective self, such as physical or social entities, to ensure the reader understands that emptiness is not limited to mental or personal phenomena.

    • Rhetorical Purpose: Nagarjuna’s focus on "external things" addresses a potential misunderstanding: readers might assume that emptiness applies only to subjective phenomena (e.g., suffering, the personality’s continuity/discontinuity) and not to seemingly solid, external entities. By explicitly mentioning bhava, he counters essentialist views that external objects or events have inherent, independent existence, a common assumption in non-Madhyamaka schools like Abhidharma or in ordinary perception.
      .
      .

B. Does the Conclusion Apply to Absolutely Everything?

Yes, the conclusion of Chapter 12—that the tetralemma negates inherent causation, revealing emptiness and dependent origination—applies to absolutely everything, including:

• • • Physical: Objects like trees, mountains, or houses.

    • Conceptual: Ideas, categories, or linguistic constructs like "self" or "time."

    • Mental: Thoughts, emotions, or consciousness.

    • Individual: Personal experiences, such as suffering or karma.

    • Collective: Social structures, cultures, or shared phenomena like economies.

    • Cosmic: Universal processes, such as the arising and ceasing of worlds.

    • Inside, Outside, and Between: Phenomena perceived as internal (e.g., thoughts), external (e.g., objects), or relational (e.g., interactions).

This universal applicability is a cornerstone of Madhyamaka philosophy, as articulated in Nagarjuna’s broader work, particularly in the Mulamadhyamakakarika. The text consistently argues that all phenomena are empty of inherent existence (śūnyatā), arise interdependently through dependent origination, and are illusory, pointing to the Middle Way and non-dual unity. Chapter 12’s focus on bhava is a specific application of this principle, not a limitation to external phenomena alone.
.
.

C. Why Specify "External Things" Instead of "All Phenomena"?

Nagarjuna’s choice of "external things" (bhava) in Verse 10, rather than a broader term like "all phenomena" (sarva dharma), can be explained by:

• • • Chapter-Specific Focus: Chapter 12 primarily analyzes suffering (dukkha) and the personality’s continuity/discontinuity (internal phenomena). Verse 10 extends the tetralemma to bhava to ensure the argument covers phenomena perceived as external, addressing a key category of conditioned existence. This is strategic, as external phenomena are often reified as inherently existent in ordinary perception or other Buddhist schools (e.g., Abhidharma’s view of dharmas as conventionally real).

    • Contrast with Internal Phenomena: By specifying "external things," Nagarjuna contrasts the subjective (suffering, personality) with the objective (external objects, events), ensuring the tetralemma’s logic is seen to apply across this apparent duality. This reinforces the Madhyamaka rejection of any inherent inside/outside distinction, as all phenomena are empty.

    • Pedagogical Clarity: Mentioning bhava makes the generalization tangible for readers, who may more readily grasp the emptiness of concrete external things (e.g., a table) before applying it to abstract or cosmic phenomena. It serves as a stepping stone to the broader realization that all phenomena are empty.

    • Textual Consistency: The term bhava aligns with Buddhist terminology, where it denotes conditioned existence within saṃsāra. While bhava technically encompasses all conditioned phenomena, its translation as "external things" in some editions emphasizes the external aspect to highlight the extension from internal to external.

However, your point is well-taken: the tetralemma’s conclusion is not limited to external phenomena but applies universally. Nagarjuna’s broader argument in the Mulamadhyamakakarika (e.g., in chapters like 1 on causality or 25 on nirvāṇa) consistently applies emptiness to all phenomena, without restriction to physical, mental, or other categories. The use of bhava in Chapter 12 is thus a context-specific choice, not a limitation on the scope of emptiness.
.
.

D. Context of Universal Application

The tetralemma’s negation of inherent causation applies to all phenomena in the following contexts:

• • • Philosophical Context: Madhyamaka asserts that all phenomena lack inherent existence ⇐⇒ because they arise dependently. The tetralemma dismantles any notion of inherent continuity (self-production), discontinuity (other-production), both, or neither, revealing emptiness across all domains. This applies to physical objects (e.g., a chair), mental states (e.g., anger), conceptual constructs (e.g., time), collective phenomena (e.g., a society), and cosmic processes (e.g., the universe’s arising).

    • Soteriological Context: Realizing the emptiness of all phenomena — internal, external, individual, collective, cosmic — liberates practitioners from attachment, aversion, and ignorance, the roots of suffering. This universal realization dissolves distinctions between saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, leading to non-dual liberation.

    • Practical Context: Understanding that all phenomena are empty ⇐⇒ and dependently arisen reduces clinging to any entity or process, fostering ethical action, compassion, and equanimity in daily life. For example, recognizing the emptiness of a conflict (a collective phenomenon) prevents reactive anger, while seeing the emptiness of a thought (mental) reduces fixation on it.
      .
      .

E. Examples of Tetralemma Applied to All Phenomena

To illustrate the universal application of the tetralemma, here are examples across different categories, showing how no phenomenon can be inherently self-produced (continuous), other-produced (discontinuous), both, or neither:
.

1) Physical Phenomenon: A River

• • • Tetralemma:

      • Self-produced (continuous): If a river were inherently continuous, it would persist unchanged without depending on rainfall, terrain, or evaporation. This is absurd, as rivers constantly change and rely on conditions.

      • Other-produced (discontinuous): If a river were produced by entirely separate causes (e.g., unrelated water sources), it would lack a causal link to its own tributaries, which contradicts dependent origination.

      • Both: A river cannot be both inherently continuous and discontinuous, as these are contradictory.

      • Neither: An uncaused river is impossible, as it depends on specific conditions.

    • Conclusion: The river is empty, dependently arisen, illusory, and part of the non-dual reality, encouraging non-attachment to it (e.g., not clinging to its beauty) and compassionate action (e.g., preserving it).
      .

2) Conceptual Phenomenon: The Concept of Time

• • • Tetralemma:

      • Self-produced (continuous): If time were inherently continuous, it would exist independently as a fixed, unchanging entity, unaffected by events or perception. This is absurd, as time depends on moments, events, and mental imputation.

      • Other-produced (discontinuous): If time were produced by separate causes (e.g., unrelated moments), it would lack coherence as a sequence, which contradicts experience.

      • Both: Time cannot be both inherently continuous and discontinuous, as this assumes intrinsic existence.

      • Neither: Uncaused time is impossible, as it arises from interdependent events and perception.

    • Conclusion: Time is empty, dependently arisen (imputed by the mind), illusory, and non-dually unified, reducing fixation on past or future.
      .

3) Mental Phenomenon: A Thought

• • • Tetralemma:

      • Self-produced (continuous): If a thought were inherently continuous, it would persist independently without prior thoughts, emotions, or stimuli. This is absurd, as thoughts arise from conditions like perception or memory.

      • Other-produced (discontinuous): If a thought were produced by entirely separate causes, it would lack a connection to the mental continuum, which contradicts experience.

      • Both: A thought cannot be both continuous and discontinuous inherently.

      • Neither: An uncaused thought is impossible, as it depends on mental conditions.

    • Conclusion: Thoughts are empty, dependently arisen, illusory, and non-dual, encouraging mindfulness without clinging to thoughts.
      .

4) Collective Phenomenon: A Society

• • • Tetralemma:

      • Self-produced (continuous): If a society were inherently continuous, it would exist unchanged without individuals, laws, or culture. This is absurd, as societies depend on these factors.

      • Other-produced (discontinuous): If a society were produced by entirely separate causes, it would lack a link to its history or members, which is untenable.

      • Both: A society cannot be both inherently continuous and discontinuous.

      • Neither: An uncaused society is impossible, as it arises from conditions.

    • Conclusion: Societies are empty, dependently arisen, illusory, and non-dual, fostering compassionate engagement without attachment to social structures.
      .

5) Cosmic Phenomenon: The Universe

• • • Tetralemma:

      • Self-produced (continuous): If the universe were inherently continuous, it would exist independently without causes like cosmic processes or physical laws. This is absurd, as it depends on conditions.

      • Other-produced (discontinuous): If the universe were produced by separate causes, it would lack a causal link to its own processes, which contradicts cosmology.

      • Both: The universe cannot be both inherently continuous and discontinuous.

      • Neither: An uncaused universe is impossible, as it arises from conditions.

    • Conclusion: The universe is empty, dependently arisen, illusory, and non-dual, encouraging awe without reification.
      .

6) Between Phenomenon: A Relationship

• • • Tetralemma:

      • Self-produced (continuous): If a relationship were inherently continuous, it would persist independently without individuals or interactions. This is absurd, as relationships depend on these.

      • Other-produced (discontinuous): If a relationship were produced by separate causes, it would lack a link to the individuals involved, which is untenable.

      • Both: A relationship cannot be both inherently continuous and discontinuous.

      • Neither: An uncaused relationship is impossible, as it arises from conditions.

    • Conclusion: Relationships are empty, dependently arisen, illusory, and non-dual, fostering harmonious interactions without clinging.
      .
      .

F. Why "External Things" Might Seem Limiting

The translation of bhava as "external things" in some editions (e.g., Garfield’s or Inada’s) may suggest a narrower scope, focusing on physical or objective phenomena. However, in the broader Madhyamaka context, bhava encompasses all conditioned phenomena within saṃsāra, including mental, conceptual, and relational aspects. The term’s use in Verse 10 likely reflects a contrast with the internal focus of Verses 1–9 (suffering, personality), but the tetralemma’s logic is universal, as your question correctly implies. The conclusion’s universal applicability is consistent with Nagarjuna’s intent, as seen in other chapters (e.g., Chapter 1 on causality, Chapter 25 on nirvāṇa), where emptiness applies to all phenomena without exception.

.
.

Question: Why It’s Harder to Perceive External Things as Not Continuous

Q: It is indeed harder to perceive that external things like a table, a car, a house, a proton or electron, or universal laws are not continuous.

A. Why It’s Harder to Perceive External Things as Not Continuous

The perception that external things like a table, car, house, proton/electron, or universal laws are continuous—persisting as “the same” entity from one day to another—is deeply rooted in our experience, making it challenging to recognize their lack of inherent identity, as Nagarjuna’s Madhyamaka philosophy asserts. This difficulty stems from the illusion of inherent existence, which we project onto external phenomena due to their apparent stability and our conceptual habits. Unlike the personality or suffering (dukkha), which Chapter 12 analyzes through the tetralemma to negate their causal production (self-produced, other-produced, both, neither) and continuity/discontinuity, external things (bhava) are addressed in Verse 10 to show that they, too, lack inherent existence. The continuity we perceive in a table (e.g., “it’s the same table today as yesterday”) is not about causal production between cause and effect, as with suffering, but about an imputed, enduring identity over time, which Madhyamaka reveals as empty and dependently arisen.

The reasons for this perceptual challenge include:

1) Apparent Stability and Endurance:

• • • External objects like a table or car appear stable in daily life. A table looks “the same” each day, with consistent shape and function, creating an illusion that it persists as a single, enduring entity. Unlike suffering, which is visibly impermanent (e.g., pain fades), or the personality, which Buddhism questions as non-self (anātman), external things seem to have a fixed identity over time.

    • For example, a house remains “the same house” despite minor wear, reinforcing the sense of continuity.
      .

2) Linguistic and Conceptual Labeling:

• • • We assign fixed labels to external things, such as “my table” or “the car,” imputing a continuous identity across time. This linguistic habit masks the object’s impermanence and dependence on conditions, as we rarely question its identity unless it undergoes significant change (e.g., a table breaking apart).

    • Scientific terms like “proton” or “gravity” further suggest enduring entities or laws, embedding continuity in our conceptual framework.
      .

3) Functional Consistency:

• • • External things serve consistent purposes, which we equate with an enduring identity. A table holds objects daily, a car drives, and a house provides shelter, creating a functional continuity that obscures their reliance on parts or conditions. Even after repairs, we perceive them as “the same” due to their ongoing utility.

    • Universal laws like gravity appear continuous because their effects (e.g., objects falling) are predictable, suggesting an inherent, unchanging nature.
      .

4) Cultural and Social Reinforcement:

• • • Cultural practices treat external objects as stable possessions. A table may be seen as “the family table” passed down generations, and a house is a fixed “home,” embedding continuity in social narratives.

    • Scientific paradigms describe protons/electrons as stable particles or gravity as a constant, reinforcing the perception of continuity, despite their dependence on complex conditions.
      .

5) Ignorance of Emptiness and Dependent Origination:

• • • In Madhyamaka, ignorance (avidya) leads us to reify external things as inherently existent, overlooking their emptiness and dependent origination. We fail to see that a table depends on wood, assembly, and mental imputation, or that gravity relies on physical conditions. This prapañca (conceptual proliferation) creates the illusion of an enduring, self-sustaining identity, making it hard to perceive external things as not continuous.
      .
      .

B. How the Tetralemma Applies to External Things

In Chapter 12, the tetralemma negates the causation of suffering (dukkha) as self-produced, other-produced, both, or neither, focusing on whether the personality producing karma (before) and suffering its consequences (after) is continuous (identical) or discontinuous (different). 

Verse 10 extends this logic to “external things” (bhava), but not in the same causal sense as suffering. Instead, it applies the tetralemma to negate the inherent existence of all phenomena, including their perceived continuity over time (e.g., a table as “the same” from one day to another). For external things, the tetralemma challenges the notion that they are inherently existent (continuous identity), non-existent (discontinuous or unrelated), both, or neither, revealing their emptiness and dependent origination.

To clarify, the tetralemma for external things is adapted to address their inherent existence rather than causal production:

• • • Inherently existent (continuous/identical): The phenomenon has an enduring, self-sustaining identity over time.

    • Inherently non-existent (discontinuous/different): The phenomenon lacks any identity or causal connection, arising independently.

    • Both together: The phenomenon is both inherently existent and non-existent.

    • Neither: The phenomenon is neither existent nor non-existent in an inherent sense.

Below, I’ll analyze the table in detail, addressing the perception of continuity as an enduring identity, and briefly summarize the other examples (car, house, proton/electron, universal laws).
.
.

1. Table

• • • Perception of Continuity:
      We perceive a table as continuous because it appears as “the same table” from one day to another, retaining its shape, function (e.g., holding objects), and label (“my table”). This stability, reinforced by consistent use, naming, and cultural significance (e.g., “the family table”), creates the illusion that the table has an inherent, enduring identity that persists independently over time.

    • Tetralemma:
      – Inherently existent (continuous/identical): If the table were inherently existent, it would persist as “the same table” with an enduring, self-sustaining identity, independent of its parts (wood, nails), assembly (carpenter’s work), environmental conditions (e.g., humidity), or mental imputation (labeling it “table”). This is absurd because:
      –– The table is impermanent: it wears out, gets scratched, or may break, showing it does not have an unchanging identity.
      –– It depends on parts: without wood or nails, the table ceases to exist, proving it lacks an inherent, self-sustaining essence.
      –– It relies on conditions: the table’s form depends on the carpenter, materials, and environment, contradicting an independent identity.
      –– It’s imputed by the mind: the “table” is a conceptual label for an assembly of parts, not an inherently continuous entity. If dismantled, the “table” disappears, revealing its dependence on imputation.
      –– The perception of continuity arises from our habitual labeling, functional consistency, and failure to notice these dependencies, not from an inherent essence.
      – Inherently non-existent (discontinuous/different): If the table were inherently non-existent, it would lack any identity or causal connection, arising independently without relation to its parts or conditions. This is absurd because:
      –– The table’s existence is tied to specific conditions (e.g., wood, carpenter), giving it a conventional identity.
      –– Even if repaired with new parts, the table retains a causal link to its original form, contradicting absolute non-existence or disconnection.
      –– Inherent non-existence denies the table’s conventional functionality, which Madhyamaka accepts as dependently arisen.
      Both: The table cannot be both inherently existent and non-existent, as these are contradictory and assume some form of inherent reality.
      Neither: The table cannot be neither existent nor non-existent in an inherent sense, as this implies a reified negation, which Madhyamaka rejects. The table exists conventionally through dependent origination, not inherently.
      .

    • Six-Step Framework:
      ⇐⇒ Emptiness of inherent existence [T2]: The table lacks inherent existence, as it cannot have an enduring, continuous identity or be inherently non-existent. The perception of continuity is a mental imputation, not an intrinsic reality.
      ⇐⇒ Dependent Origination [T1]: The table arises interdependently from wood, nails, labor, environmental conditions, and mental labeling as “table.”
      ⇐⇒ Illusory: The table appears as a continuous, solid entity but is empty, like a mirage, existing only through conditions.
      ⇐⇒ Middle Way: Do not cling to the table as inherently continuous (e.g., “my eternal table”) or non-existent; use it conventionally (e.g., for dining) ⇐⇒ while realizing its emptiness.
      ⇐⇒ One: The table is non-dually interconnected with all phenomena in its emptiness, part of the unified reality where distinctions like “table” dissolve.
      .

    • Why Continuity is Hard to Deny: The table’s apparent stability (unchanging appearance), consistent function (holding objects), fixed label (“my table”), and cultural reinforcement (e.g., “heirloom table”) create a strong illusion of an inherent, continuous identity. We overlook its impermanence (e.g., wear, potential destruction) and dependence on parts, conditions, and imputation, making it challenging to see it as not inherently continuous.
      .
      .

2. Car (Summary)

• • • Perception of Continuity: A car is seen as “the same car” due to its consistent appearance, function (driving), and label (“my car”), even after repairs, creating the illusion of an enduring identity.

    • Tetralemma Negation: It cannot be inherently existent (continuous), as it depends on parts (engine, wheels), assembly, and conditions (maintenance), nor inherently non-existent (discontinuous), as it retains a causal link to these conditions. The perception of continuity stems from functional consistency and labeling.

    • Conclusion: The car is empty ⇐⇒ dependently arisen ⇐⇒ and illusory ⇐⇒ requiring the Middle Way to avoid reifying its continuity.
      .
      .

3. House (Summary)

• • • Perception of Continuity: A house is perceived as “the same house” due to its stable structure, role as “home,” and fixed label, despite renovations, suggesting an inherent identity.

    • Tetralemma Negation: It cannot be inherently existent (continuous), as it depends on materials (bricks, wood), construction, and conditions, nor inherently non-existent, as it has a conventional identity. Continuity is an illusion driven by its enduring function and social significance.

    • Conclusion: The house is empty ⇐⇒ dependently arisen ⇐⇒ and illusory ⇐⇒ part of the non-dual reality.
      .
      .

4. Proton/Electron (Summary)

• • • Perception of Continuity: Protons/electrons seem continuous due to their stable properties (e.g., charge) and scientific descriptions as fundamental particles, implying an enduring identity.

    • Tetralemma Negation: They cannot be inherently existent (continuous), as they arise from quarks, gluons, and quantum fields, nor inherently non-existent, as they are causally linked to these conditions. Continuity is a scientific imputation.

    • Conclusion: Protons/electrons are empty ⇐⇒ dependently arisen ⇐⇒ and illusory ⇐⇒ requiring the Middle Way.
      .
      .

5. Universal Laws (e.g., Gravity) (Summary)

• • • Perception of Continuity: Gravity is perceived as continuous due to its consistent effects (e.g., objects falling) and status as a “universal law,” suggesting an enduring identity.

    • Tetralemma Negation: It cannot be inherently existent (continuous), as it depends on mass, spacetime, and conditions, nor inherently non-existent, as it functions conventionally. Continuity is a conceptual construct.

    • Conclusion: Gravity is empty ⇐⇒ dependently arisen ⇐⇒ and illusory ⇐⇒ part of the non-dual unity.
      .
      .

Revised Conclusion for Chapter 12

Chapter 12 of Nagarjuna’s Mulamadhyamakakarika, “An Analysis of Sorrow (Dukkha),” employs the tetralemma to negate the four possible positions regarding the causation of suffering (dukkha): (a) self-produced (implying a continuous personality between producing karma and suffering its consequences), (b) other-produced (implying a discontinuous personality), (c) both together, and (d) neither.

Through this negation, Nagarjuna demonstrates that neither suffering nor the personality (pudgala or aggregates) possesses inherent existence, as each position assumes an intrinsic self or other, leading to logical absurdities.

The personality producing karma (before) and suffering its consequences (after) cannot be inherently identical/continuous, different/discontinuous, both, or neither, as these rely on reified notions of identity or separation.

Instead, suffering and the personality are empty of inherent existence (śūnyatā) ⇐⇒ arising interdependently through the continuum of aggregates, conditioned by karma and ignorance ⇐⇒ and are thus illusory, like dreams or mirages.

In Verse 10, Nagarjuna extends this tetralemma’s logic to all phenomena, referred to as “external things” (bhava), but encompassing absolutely everything — physical (e.g., tables, cars, protons), conceptual (e.g., time, laws), mental (e.g., thoughts), individual (e.g., karma), collective (e.g., societies), cosmic (e.g., universes), inside (e.g., experiences), outside (e.g., objects), and between (e.g., relationships). 

While the tetralemma negates the causation of suffering and the personality’s continuity, for other phenomena it negates their inherent existence, challenging the perception of an enduring identity over time.

For example, a table is perceived as continuous because it appears as “the same table” from one day to another, retaining its shape, function, and label (“my table”) ⇐⇒ yet it cannot be inherently existent [T2] (continuous) ⇐⇒ as it depends on wood, assembly, conditions, and mental imputation [T1] [U2T] ⇐⇒ nor inherently non-existent (discontinuous), as it has a conventional identity linked to these conditions [Tetralemma]. 

Similarly, a car seems continuous as “my car,” but relies on parts and maintenance;
a proton appears continuous as a stable particle, but arises from quantum interactions;
and gravity seems continuous as a universal law, but depends on physical conditions.

The difficulty in perceiving these phenomena as not inherently continuous stems from their apparent stability, functional consistency, linguistic labeling, and cultural reinforcement, which create an illusion of enduring identity, obscuring their emptiness and dependence on impermanent conditions.

This aligns with the proverb “You reap what you sow” on a conventional level, where actions within the personality’s continuum lead to consequences, encouraging ethical mindfulness. Ultimately, the emptiness of the personality, suffering, and all phenomena frees practitioners from reified views. 

By extending the tetralemma’s logic to all phenomena, Nagarjuna underscores that the emptiness of inherent existence [T2] ⇐⇒ and dependent origination [T1] [U2T] of suffering and the personality apply universally, dismantling the reified perception of continuity in phenomena like tables, cars, or protons. ⇐⇒ This guides practitioners toward liberation through the Middle Way, where the true nature of reality — as empty ⇐⇒ dependently arisen ⇐⇒ illusory ⇐⇒ and non-dually unified — is directly realized, transforming engagement with all aspects of existence.

E. Summary – Suffering cannot be (a) self-produced (continuity of the personality), (b) other-produced (discontinuity of the personality), (c) both together, or (d) neither, and there is no fifth ⇐⇒ Emptiness of inherent existence [T2] ⇐⇒ Dependent Origination [T1] [U2T] ⇐⇒ Illusory.

Chapter 12 of the Mulamadhyamakakarika analyzes the causation of suffering (dukkha), focusing on whether the personality producing karma (before) and suffering its consequences (after) is (a) identical/continuous (self-produced), (b) different/discontinuous (other-produced), (c) both together, or (d) neither. 

Using the tetralemma, Nagarjuna negates all four positions, showing their logical absurdities due to the assumption of inherent existence. The section titles emphasize the personality’s continuity (self-production) or discontinuity (other-production), with Verse 10 extending the analysis to external phenomena (bhava) (all phenomena/dharmas internal or external). The six-step reasoning is applied consistently:

• • Tetralemma: The personality and suffering cannot be inherently continuous, discontinuous, both, or neither, as each position leads to contradiction. Not: the personality is the five aggregates before, during and after; suffering is the five aggregates after.

  • Emptiness of inherent existence [T2]:  Suffering and the personality lack inherent existence, as no independent self or other exists. The three spheres of causality/production, or the personality/5-aggregates before, during and after the activity, are empty of inherent existence, never absolute ⇐⇒ because they are dependently co-arisen, interdependent, co-defined, co-evolving, co-imputed by the mind, mere designations/names, conventional truths/tools.

  • Dependent Origination [T1]: Suffering (and everything) arises interdependently through the continuum of aggregates (stream of aggregates), conditioned by karma and ignorance. It is a cycle of personality / 5-aggregates before, during and after. The five aggregates ‘are’ suffering when clinging to them because of ignorance of their true nature and karmic dynamic.

  • Illusory: The personality and suffering (and everything) appear real but are empty, like illusions, reflection, mirages, dreams, echos, ‘there, yet not there’.

  • Middle Way: Avoid the four extreme views of any duality, engaging with conventional karma while realizing emptiness (acting without acting).

  • One: All phenomena are non-dually interconnected, equal in their emptiness, unifying saṃsāra and nirvāṇa. No many/dual, not one/non-dual, not both, not neither.

The chapter progresses from introducing the tetralemma (Verse 1), negating self-production/continuity (Verses 2, 4, 7, 8), other-production/discontinuity (Verses 3, 5, 6, 7, 8), both and neither (Verse 9), and universalizing the analysis to external phenomena (all phenomena/dharmas internal or external) (Verse 10).

(i.e. No thing, being, process or cycle (physical, conceptual, mental; individual, collective, cosmic) is (a) self-caused/self-produced, (b) other-caused/other-produced, (c) both together or (d) neither.
No thing, being, process or cycle (physical, conceptual, mental; individual, collective, cosmic) is (a) continuous, (b) discontinuous, (c) both together, or (d) neither – from one infinitesimal moment to the next, through activities and changes, through rebirths, even from saṃsāra to Nirvāṇa.)

F. Conclusion – Do not reify any personality, individual stream of aggregates, continuum, chain of moments of consciousness, karmic cycle, saṃsāra, or liberation from saṃsāra (nirvāṇa) by stopping the cycle by stopping clinging or anything else.

Chapter 12 of Nagarjuna’s Mulamadhyamakakarika, “An Analysis of Sorrow (Dukkha),”
[Tetralemma:] employs the tetralemma to negate the four
possible positions regarding the causation of suffering (dukkha):
– (a) self-produced (implying a continuous personality
producing karma (before) and suffering its consequences (after)),
– (b) other-produced (implying a discontinuous personality),
– (c) both together, and (d) neither.

Through this negation, Nagarjuna demonstrates that
⇐⇒ neither suffering nor the personality (pudgala or aggregates) possesses inherent existence [T2],
as each position assumes an intrinsic self or other, leading to logical absurdities. 

The personality producing karma (before) and suffering its consequences (after)
[Tetralemma:] cannot be inherently
(a) identical/continuous,
(b) different/discontinuous,
(c) both, or (d) neither,
as these extreme positions lead to contradictions / absurdities.

Instead, suffering and the personality are
⇐⇒ empty of inherent existence (śūnyatā) [T2]
⇐⇒ arising interdependently through the continuum
of aggregates, conditioned by karma and ignorance [T1] [U2T]
⇐⇒ and are thus illusory, like dreams or mirages [Illusory].
.

In Verse 10, Nagarjuna extends this tetralemma’s logic to all phenomena, referred to as “external things” (bhava), but encompassing absolutely everything — physical (e.g., tables, cars, protons), conceptual (e.g., time, laws), mental (e.g., thoughts), individual (e.g., karma), collective (e.g., societies), cosmic (e.g., universes), inside (e.g., experiences), outside (e.g., objects), and between (e.g., relationships). 

While the tetralemma negates the causation of suffering and the personality’s continuity,
for other phenomena it negates their inherent existence and continuity,
challenging the perception of an enduring identity over time.
(In this context the product becomes part of the updated producer,
forming a limitless and centerless fractal empty karmic cycle)

For example, a table is perceived as continuous
because it appears as “the same table” from one day to another,
retaining its shape, function, and label (“my table”) (even if it deteriorates over time)
[Tetralemma:] yet it cannot be inherently
– (a) existent (as it depends on wood, assembly, conditions, and mental imputation),
– (b) non-existent (as it has a conventional identity linked to these conditions),
– (c) both together, or (d) neither,
as these extreme positions lead to contradictions / absurdities,
⇐⇒ Emptiness (śūnyatā) [T2],
⇐⇒ Dependent Origination [T1] [U2T],
⇐⇒ [Illusory],
⇐⇒ [Middle Way],
⇐⇒ [One].

Similarly, a car seems continuous as “my car,” but relies on parts and maintenance;
a proton appears continuous as a stable particle, but arises from quantum interactions;
and gravity seems continuous as a universal law, but depends on physical conditions.

The difficulty in perceiving these phenomena as not inherently continuous stems from their apparent stability, functional consistency, linguistic labeling, and cultural reinforcement, which create an illusion of enduring identity, obscuring their emptiness and dependence on impermanent conditions. That is how we naturally create things, and ultimately awaken to their true nature – in an unceasing limitless centerless fractal cycle of creation and awakening in accord with the Union of the Two Truths [U2T-in-action].)

By extending the tetralemma’s logic to all phenomena,
Nagarjuna underscores that
⇐⇒ the emptiness of inherent existence [T2]
⇐⇒ and dependent origination [T1] [U2T] of suffering and the personality
apply universally, dismantling the reified perception of continuity in phenomena like tables, cars, or protons.
⇐⇒ This guides practitioners toward liberation through the Middle Way,
where the true nature of reality —
⇐⇒ as empty
⇐⇒ dependently arisen
⇐⇒ illusory
⇐⇒ and non-dually unified —
is directly realized, transforming engagement with all aspects of existence.

This aligns with the proverb “You reap what you sow” on a conventional level, where actions within the personality’s continuum lead to corresponding consequences, encouraging ethical mindfulness [T1]. ⇐⇒ However, the ultimate truth reveals that the personality, suffering, and external phenomena are empty of inherent existence [T2] [U2T] ⇐⇒ freeing practitioners from attachment to a fixed self or reified outcomes.
.
.
.
We can analyse ‘action/production of suffering/anything’ / ‘dependent origination’ in terms of the three spheres of any relation/action (physical, conceptual, mental), and in terms of the opposites of any duality, triad, quad … Why? Because that is the way our ordinary conditioned dualistic conceptual mind(s) operates/creates; and because our goal is to transcend (without rejecting) it by realizing the way it naturally functions and the real nature of its fabrications.

There is useful relative conventional dependent origination (causality) [T1] ⇐⇒ but it is never absolute, never reality as it is [T2] [U2T]. There are no independent/absolute/inherently-existing/sure causes, conditions, causal relations and effects about anything anytime. Reality as it is is not causal nor dual in absolute terms. So we can use those concepts conventionally/relatively [T1] but never in absolute terms [T2] [U2T-in-action]; without attachment, reification, effort or absolutes; 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, acting more and more in accord with reality as it is (tathata, suchness) as pointed out by the Union of the Two Truths [U2T] and its corollaries [U3S / Uopp / U3T / UGM / U3K / U2T-2T].

Union of the Two Truths [U2T]: All phenomena/dharmas are empty of inherent existence, never absolute, not really dependent, originating/coming, conditioned, existent, changing, increasing, decreasing, ceasing/going, /liberated [T2] ⇐⇒ precisely because they are dependently co-arisen, interdependent, co-defined, co-evolving, co-imputed by the mind, mere designations/names, conventional truths/tools [T1] [U2T] ⇐⇒ like illusions, reflection, mirages, dreams, echos, ‘there, yer not there’ [Illusory] ⇐⇒ not inherently existent/functional, not completely non-existence/non-functional, not both, not neither; not different/separate/multiple/dual, not identical/united/one/non-dual, not both, not neither; not permanent/continuous/eternal, not impermanent/discontinuous/annihilated, not both, not neither; not dependently-arisen [T1-only], not empty of inherent existence [T2-only], not both truths together and in opposition [2T], not neither of the two truths [1T]; not ‘this’, not ‘non-this’, not both, not neither, and there is no fifth, for whatever ‘this’ is [Tetralemma]. They are conventionally relatively functional and useful but never in absolute terms.

Union of opposites [Uopp]: The opposites of any duality/triad/quad (including the three spheres [3S] of any relation/activity, self-others [opp], the three times [3T], the two truths [2T], the Ground and its manifestations [GM], the three kayas [3K], the four noble truths, the 12 links or dependent oritination, saṃsāra and nirvāṇa [opp]) are empty of inherent existence, never absolute, not really dependent, originating/coming, conditioned, existent, changing, increasing, decreasing, ceasing/going, afflicted/liberated [T2] ⇐⇒ precisely because they are dependently co-arisen, interdependent, co-defined, co-evolving, co-imputed by the mind, mere designations/names, conventional truths/tools [T1] [U2T] ⇐⇒ like illusions, reflection, mirages, dreams, echos, ‘there, yer not there’ [Illusory] ⇐⇒ not inherently arising/existent/functional/changing/ceasing, not completely non-arising/non-existent/non-functional/non-changing/non-ceasing, not both, not neither; not different/separate/multiple/dual, not identical/united/one/non-dual, not both, not neither; not permanent/continuous/eternal, not impermanent/discontinuous/annihilated, not both, not neither; not dependently-arisen [T1-only], not empty of inherent existence [T2-only], not both truths together and in opposition [2T], not neither of the two truths [1T]; not ‘this’, not ‘non-this’, not both, not neither, and there is no fifth, for whatever ‘this’ is [Tetralemma]. They are conventionally relatively functional and useful but never in absolute terms.