Mūlamadhyamakakārikā
"Root Verses on the Middle Way" by Nagarjuna
Chapter 13 - Clarifying the nature of conditioned phenomena
(dependent origination, causality, production, change, transformation) [T1]
and emptiness [T2] [U2T-2T]
Embedded Files
Chapter 13 – Clarifying the nature of conditioned phenomena (dependent origination, causality, production, change, transformation) [T1] and emptiness [T2] [U2T-2T]
This chapter refutes independent/inherent/absolute
dependent origination, causality, change, transformation and emptiness
because the three spheres of the Union of the Two Truths –
opposite-1, dependent origination, existence, change, transformation,
relation/opposition, difference/identity, separation/union, duality/non-duality,
opposite-2, cessation, non-existence, emptiness –
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 [T2-2T]
⇐⇒ they are inseparable, dependently co-arisen, interdependent, co-defined, co-evolving, co-imputed by the mind, mere designations/names, conventional truths/tools [T1-2T]
⇐⇒ and vice versa, one truth supports/implies/enables the other [U2T-2T]
⇐⇒ 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, opposite-1-relation-opposite-2, 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 opposite-1, dependent origination, existence, change, transformation because all opposite-1, dependent origination, existence, change, transformation have their own opposite-1, dependent origination, existence, change, transformation, because they are also opposite-2, cessation, non-existence, emptiness, because they are dependently co-arisen in a limitless and centerless cycle. The same for the opposite-2, cessation, non-existence, emptiness.
.
Last update: January 08, 2026
Image from: Stoneflower013
Source Text: Garfield, PTG, Streng, Batchelor.
Content
Content
A. Introduction
B. Analysis
C. Verses
D. Summary
E. Conclusion
F. Questions and Answers
G. AI Art
A. Introduction – Exploration of conditioned phenomena, dependent origination, change, transformation, emptiness, and the Middle Way
A. Introduction – Exploration of conditioned phenomena, dependent origination, change, transformation, emptiness, and the Middle Way
“What if everything we see, feel, and think — our world of objects, emotions, and experiences — is like a dream, a mirage, or a reflection, seeming real but not quite what it appears? Is there something solid behind it all, or could it be that emptiness, the idea that nothing has a fixed, independent essence, is the key to understanding reality? And what about emptiness itself — is it a final truth to hold onto, or just a gentle guide to set us free? Chapter 13 welcomes us to explore these questions with curiosity, unraveling the dance of life’s appearances through simple analogies like aging or milk turning to curds. It invites us to walk the Middle Way, where we embrace the world’s beauty without clinging, discovering a freedom where illusions fade, and nothing absolute remains, only the wisdom of letting go.”
Chapter 13 of Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, titled "An Analysis of Conditioned Elements (Samskara)," is a pivotal exploration of the Madhyamaka philosophy, focusing on the nature of conditioned phenomena (samskāra), their basic elements (dharma), and the concept of emptiness (śūnyatā). Comprising eight verses, this chapter systematically deconstructs the notion of inherent existence (svabhāva) in all conditioned phenomena, critiques misunderstandings of emptiness, and articulates the Madhyamaka Middle Way, which integrates the two truths: the conventional truth of dependently arisen phenomena (saṃvṛti-satya) and the ultimate truth of their emptiness (paramārtha-satya).
To fully appreciate Chapter 13, readers need a foundational understanding of Buddhist philosophy, particularly the concepts of dependent origination, emptiness, and the two truths, as well as the contrasting perspectives of the Abhidharma traditions and Nāgārjuna’s Madhyamaka. This introduction outlines the prerequisites for studying Chapter 13, contrasts the Abhidharma and Madhyamaka viewpoints, and sets the stage for the chapter’s dialectical approach.
.
Prerequisites for Studying Chapter 13
Prerequisites for Studying Chapter 13
To engage with Chapter 13 effectively, readers should be familiar with the following key concepts and contexts within Buddhist philosophy:
Dependent Origination (Pratītyasamutpāda) [T1]:
– Central to all Buddhist traditions, dependent origination is the principle that all phenomena arise due to causes and conditions, lacking independent existence. It explains the interdependence of phenomena, such as physical objects, mental states, and processes, and is the foundation for understanding samsaric existence and liberation.
– In Chapter 13, dependent origination is crucial, as Nāgārjuna argues that conditioned phenomena (samskāra) are dependently arisen and thus empty of inherent existence. Familiarity with this concept helps readers grasp why phenomena lack intrinsic reality.Emptiness (Śūnyatā) [T2]:
– Emptiness is the absence of inherent existence (svabhāva) in all phenomena, meaning they do not exist independently or possess a fixed, self-sustaining essence. In Madhyamaka, emptiness is synonymous with dependent origination: phenomena are empty because they arise interdependently (and vice versa).
– Chapter 13 explores emptiness as the core characteristic of conditioned phenomena (inseparable from dependent origination) and extends this to emptiness itself (to the two truths [U2T-2T]), requiring readers to understand it as a non-reified, non-dual concept, not a nihilistic void or a substantial entity.Union of the Two Truths (Satyadvaya) [U2T / U2T-2T]:
– The two truths framework is essential to Madhyamaka:
– Conventional Truth (saṃvṛti-satya): The apparent reality of phenomena that function in everyday experience due to causes, conditions, and mental imputation (e.g., tables, persons, or processes like aging).
– Ultimate Truth (paramārtha-satya): The emptiness of all phenomena, their lack of inherent existence, revealed through analytical insight.
– The two truths are interdependent (inseparable, one supports/implies the other): phenomena exist conventionally because they are empty, and emptiness is only meaningful in relation to phenomena. Chapter 13 emphasizes this interdependence, requiring readers to appreciate how the two truths operate as complementary antidotes/perspectives on reality, avoiding extremes of eternalism (reifying phenomena) and nihilism (denying conventional existence).Conditioned vs. Unconditioned Phenomena:
– Conditioned Phenomena (samskāra): Phenomena that arise due to causes and conditions, are impermanent, and include physical objects, mental states, and processes. In Chapter 13, these are the primary focus, analyzed as empty and illusory.
– Unconditioned Phenomena: Realities like nirvana (and sometimes space in Abhidharma) that are not subject to causes and conditions, considered permanent and inherently existent in some traditions. Chapter 13 excludes unconditioned phenomena, focusing solely on conditioned phenomena, so readers should understand this conventional distinction.
– Conditioned phenomena vs. aggregates: All five aggregates (skandhas) are conditioned phenomena, but "conditioned phenomena" is a broader category encompassing everything arising from causes and conditions, while the aggregates specifically describe the components of perceived existence (form, feeling, perception, formations, consciousness) that people mistakenly identify as a permanent "self". The key difference lies in scope and application: aggregates are the building blocks of experience, highlighting impermanence and "not-self," while conditioned phenomena (sankhārā) is the vast universe of all impermanent, causally-dependent things, including the aggregates, but also external objects and events.Madhyamaka Dialectical Method: Tetralemma ⇐⇒ Emptiness ⇐⇒ Dependent Origination ⇐⇒ Illusory ⇐⇒ Middle Way ⇐⇒ Primordial Purity ⇐⇒ Action without action..
– Nāgārjuna employs a dialectical approach, using logical arguments, analogies (e.g., aging, milk and curds), and the tetralemma (neither identical, nor different, nor both, nor neither) to deconstruct fixed views and reveal emptiness [U2T]. Readers should be prepared for this method, which often involves refuting opponents’ positions (e.g., nihilism or inherent existence) to point to the Middle Way.
– Familiarity with Indian philosophical debate, where arguments are presented and countered, aids in following Nāgārjuna’s refutations of rival schools.Basic Buddhist Context:
– Understanding the Four Noble Truths, impermanence (anicca), suffering (dukkha), and non-self (anattā) provides context for why emptiness [U2T] is liberative. These concepts underpin Nāgārjuna’s arguments, as emptiness negates (without rejection) the causes of suffering (ignorance and grasping) by revealing the non-inherent nature of phenomena [U2T].
– Knowledge of the Buddha’s teachings, particularly the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtras (which emphasize emptiness [U2T]), helps readers appreciate Nāgārjuna’s references to the Buddha (“the glorious one” or “the victorious one”) as the source of his insights.
With these prerequisites, readers can approach Chapter 13’s exploration of conditioned phenomena, emptiness [U2T], and the Middle Way, understanding Nāgārjuna’s arguments and their implications for liberation.
.
.
Is Nirvana compounded or uncompounded?
Is Nirvana compounded or uncompounded?
Question: Isn't nirvana also a conditioned phenomena since it is dependent on the mind?
Answer: You're right to question conditionality, but
– traditional dualistic Buddhism sees Nirvana as unconditioned (asankhata), the cessation of conditions (greed, hate, delusion) that create samsara (cycle of rebirth/suffering), not a mental construct opposing samsara;
– non-dualistic Mahayana deepens this, viewing Samsara as Nirvana from ultimate reality's perspective, emphasizing that liberation isn't escaping the world but seeing its true nature (emptiness/Buddha-nature) within experience, not a separate state.
Opponent: Traditional (Theravada/Early Buddhism) Dualistic View
Nirvana as Unconditioned: Nirvana (Pali: Nibbana) is fundamentally asaṃskṛta (uncompounded/unconditioned). It's not a place or something new, but the absence of the causes (craving, ignorance, etc.) that condition existence in samsara.
Conditioned Path, Unconditioned Goal: The path to Nirvana (meditation, ethics) involves conditioned actions, but the result (Nirvana) transcends all conditions, becoming the unconditioned "deathless" state, a peace beyond concept.
"Imagining" vs. "Realizing": It's not just imagining; it's realizing the true nature of reality, seeing that the "self" and phenomena are empty of inherent existence, which breaks the cycle.
Nagarjuna: Mahayana Non-dualistic View (Madhyamaka, Zen, etc.)
Union of samsara and nirvana [Uopp]: A key Mahayana teaching (especially in Madhyamaka) is that ultimately, there's no inherent difference/identity between Samsara and Nirvana.
Union of the Two Trushs about samsara and nirvana [U2T-opp]: Both Samsara (conditioned reality) and Nirvana (liberation) [T1] are empty of independent existence [T2] [U2T-opp].
Perceiving with ignorance vs. perceiving with wisdom: The difference isn't in the world but in perception. Ignorance (avidyā) sees Samsara; wisdom (vijñā) sees Nirvana within that same reality, seeing beyond both conditioned and unconditioned.
Bodhisattva Path – living in the world with more and more wisdom: Mahayana emphasizes the Bodhisattva, who plunges into Samsara (not escaping it) to liberate all beings, showing the path isn't away from life but through it with awakened wisdom. In short the Mahayana Path is more and more non-dualistic.
Key Distinction
Traditional is dualistic: Nirvana is a distinct, unconditioned goal achieved by ending the conditioned cycle. (dualistic)
Mahayana is non-dualistic: Nirvana is the realization that Samsara, when seen with wisdom, is Nirvana; it's about awakening within experience, not escaping it. (Middle Way – non-dualistic: nothing to accept, nothing to reject)
In essence, the Mahayana view addresses your point: the "mind imagining" is the ignorance of Samsara (Creating). Awakening is realizing that the "imagined" separation between suffering (Samsara) and peace (Nirvana) is transcended when the true nature of reality is understood [U2T], revealing the inseparability of the conditioned and unconditioned; transcending all dualities without rejecting their conventional usefulness.
.
.
Opponent: Abhidharma dualistic approach (opposing samsara and nirvana)
Opponent: Abhidharma dualistic approach (opposing samsara and nirvana)
The Abhidharma traditions, particularly the Sarvāstivāda and Theravāda schools, provide a contrasting perspective to Nāgārjuna’s Madhyamaka, which is essential to understanding the philosophical debates Chapter 13 engages with. Abhidharma is a systematic analysis of reality, aiming to categorize and understand phenomena to support the path to liberation. Key aspects relevant to Chapter 13 include:
Ontology of Dharmas:
– Abhidharma posits that reality consists of fundamental, irreducible elements called dharmas (e.g., form, consciousness, volition), which are the building blocks of conditioned phenomena (samskāra) (like the aggregates). These dharmas are considered to have inherent existence (svabhāva), meaning they possess a momentary, self-defining essence, even if impermanent.
– For example, in Sarvāstivāda, dharmas exist in past, present, and future, with their svabhāva enduring across time, though their activity is momentary. This contrasts with Nāgārjuna’s view that dharmas are empty of inherent existence.Conditioned vs. Unconditioned Phenomena:
– Abhidharma distinguishes between conditioned phenomena (samskāra), which arise due to causes and conditions and are impermanent, and unconditioned phenomena (asaṃskṛta), such as nirvana and sometimes space, which are permanent and inherently existent, not subject to causation.
– Nirvana is seen as an unconditioned reality, a true refuge with intrinsic existence, unlike conditioned phenomena, which are analyzed to reveal their impermanence and non-self nature. Space, in some Abhidharma systems, is also unconditioned, existing independently of causes.Purpose of Analysis:
– Abhidharma analyzes phenomena to break down the illusion of a permanent self (ātman), showing that what appears as a self or enduring entity is a composite of momentary dharmas. This supports meditation and ethical practice by reducing attachment to phenomena.
– However, the assertion of svabhāva in dharmas implies a degree of ultimate reality, even if momentary, which Nāgārjuna critiques as a form of subtle eternalism.View of Emptiness:
– In Abhidharma, “emptiness” (śūnyatā) often refers to the absence of a permanent self or independent entity in composites (e.g., a person is empty of a self but composed of real dharmas). It does not extend to the emptiness of dharmas themselves, which are seen as ultimately real due to their svabhāva.
– This limited view of emptiness contrasts with Nāgārjuna’s universal emptiness, where even dharmas, emptiness, and dependent origination lack inherent existence.Relevance to Chapter 13:
– The opponent in verse 3, who misinterprets emptiness as nihilism, may reflect an Abhidharma-influenced view, assuming that without inherent existence (svabhāva), phenomena cannot exist or function. Nāgārjuna critiques this by showing that emptiness enables conventional functionality, not negates it.
– The Abhidharma’s treatment of unconditioned phenomena (e.g., nirvana as inherently existent) is implicitly contrasted in verse 1, which excludes unconditioned phenomena and focuses on conditioned phenomena as empty, and in verses 7–8, which treat emptiness itself as conditioned and empty, not an unconditioned absolute.
.
.
Nāgārjuna’s non-dualistic approach – Union of opposites like samsara and nirvana, and Union of the two truths
Nāgārjuna’s non-dualistic approach – Union of opposites like samsara and nirvana, and Union of the two truths
Nāgārjuna’s Madhyamaka, particularly in Chapter 13, offers a radical critique of the Abhidharma and other realist philosophies, arguing that all phenomena, including dharmas and the two truths themselves – dependent origination and emptiness – are empty of inherent existence. Key aspects include:
Universal Emptiness:
– Nāgārjuna asserts that all conditioned phenomena (samskāra) and their basic elements (dharma) are empty of inherent existence [T2] ⇐⇒ because they are dependently originated [T1] (and vice versa) [U2T]. Emptiness is not a limited attribute (e.g., absence of a self) but the universal lack of intrinsic reality in all phenomena, including dharmas, change, and even emptiness itself.
– Unlike Abhidharma, which grants dharmas momentary svabhāva, Nāgārjuna argues that any inherent existence contradicts dependent origination, as phenomena arise interdependently [T1] ⇐⇒ and thus cannot have self-sustaining essences [T2] [U2T] (verse 1).Emptiness as Conditioned:
– Chapter 13 treats emptiness (the two truths) as a conditioned phenomenon (samskāra), not an unconditioned reality like nirvana or space in Abhidharma. Emptiness is dependently arisen, arising in relation to phenomena to negate their inherent existence [T1-2T] ⇐⇒ and is itself empty [T2-2T] [U2T-2T] (verses 7–8). This contrasts with Abhidharma’s view of unconditioned phenomena as inherently existent.
– Your verse 1 title encapsulates this: “All conditioned phenomena … are Dependently Originated ⇔ Empty of inherent existence ⇔ Illusory / Deception,” applying the same formula to the two truths themselves [U2T-2T].Two Truths and the Middle Way:
– Nāgārjuna’s framework of the two truths integrates conventional and ultimate perspectives:
[T1] Conventional Truth: Phenomena appear and function interdependently, like illusions or mirages, due to dependent origination (verses 4–6).
[T2] Ultimate Truth: All phenomena, including dharmas and emptiness, are empty of inherent existence (verses 1, 7–8).
– The Middle Way avoids eternalism (reifying phenomena, dharmas, or dependent origination as absolute) and nihilism (denying conventional functionality, or clinging to emptiness as an reality), as seen in your titles for verses 1–8. It uses the two truths conventionally [T1-2T] without reifying them [T2-2T], fully aware of their empty nature [U2T-2T].
– Unlike Abhidharma, which posits dharmas as ultimately real, Nāgārjuna sees both truths as empty [T2-2T] ⇐⇒ and dependently arisen [T1-2T] [U2T-2T], with no ultimate reality underlying phenomena.Dialectical Method and Non-Grasping:
– Nāgārjuna employs a dialectical approach, refuting opponents’ views (e.g., verse 3’s nihilism, verse 4’s inherent functionality) and using analogies (aging in verse 5, milk and curds in verse 6) and the tetralemma to negate fixed notions. His goal is not to establish a new doctrine but to dissolve conceptual fixations, leading to non-grasping (verses 7–8).
– Emptiness is a skillful means (upāya), a “conventional tool” (your verse 8 title) to refute all viewpoints, not an absolute truth to grasp. This contrasts with Abhidharma’s analytical approach, which seeks to categorize reality to support practice.Soteriological Aim:
– The purpose of Nāgārjuna’s critique is liberation from suffering by uprooting ignorance and grasping, which arise from reifying phenomena or concepts. Chapter 13 culminates in a non-grasping realization where even the two truths dissolve as explanatory tools, as your verse 7 title articulates: “Fully realizing all phenomena as dependently arisen and empty leaves no illusions to counter … with nothing absolute to grasp.”
– This differs from Abhidharma’s aim of analyzing dharmas to reduce attachment to a self, as Nāgārjuna extends emptiness to all concepts, including dharmas and emptiness, to achieve complete non-attachment.Relevance to Chapter 13:
– Chapter 13 critiques Abhidharma-like views by negating inherent existence in dharmas (verse 1), refuting nihilistic misinterpretations (verse 3), and showing that emptiness enables functionality (verse 4) and apparent change (verses 5–6).
It treats emptiness (and dependent origination) as conditioned [T1-2T] ⇐⇒ and empty [T2-2T] [U2T-2T] (verses 7–8), directly challenging Abhidharma’s unconditioned absolutes.
– Your titles reflect this critique, emphasizing the Middle Way [U2T] [U2T-2T], non-reification, and the use of emptiness as a liberative tool, not an ultimate reality. (The two truths are complementary antidotes, interdependent, thus both empty of inherent existence.)
.
.
Setting the Stage for Chapter 13
Setting the Stage for Chapter 13
Chapter 13 is a rigorous yet accessible exploration of Madhyamaka, engaging with Abhidharma and other realist philosophies to clarify the nature of conditioned phenomena [T1] and emptiness [T2] [U2T].
– It begins by establishing the emptiness of all conditioned phenomena (verse 1),
– addresses objections and misunderstandings (verses 2–3),
– refutes notions of inherent functionality and change (verses 4–6),
– and culminates in a profound reflection on emptiness itself as a non-reified, conventional tool (verses 7–8).
– Through logical arguments, analogies, and the tetralemma, Nāgārjuna guides readers to the Middle Way, where the interdependent two truths — dependent origination and emptiness — are used skillfully without grasping, leading to liberation.
For readers new to Madhyamaka, Chapter 13 requires an openness to questioning fixed views and an appreciation for the non-dual interplay of appearance and emptiness. By contrasting the Abhidharma’s realist ontology with Nāgārjuna’s universal emptiness, the chapter challenges readers to let go of reified concepts, including emptiness itself, and embrace the Middle Way’s non-grasping realization. Your titles for verses 1–8 beautifully capture this arc,
– emphasizing the Union of dependent origination [T1] ⇐⇒ and emptiness [T2] [U2T],
– the transcendence of the two truths as tools =
Union of the Two Truths about the two truths themselves [U2T-2T], and
– the practical role of skillful means,
providing a clear framework for understanding Nāgārjuna’s transformative vision.
.
.
Final Answer
Final Answer
To study Chapter 13 of Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, readers need a foundational understanding of dependent origination, emptiness, the two truths, conditioned vs. unconditioned phenomena, the Madhyamaka dialectical method, and basic Buddhist concepts like impermanence and non-self. The Abhidharma perspective posits that reality consists of inherently existent dharmas with momentary svabhāva, distinguishing conditioned phenomena (samskāra) from unconditioned realities like nirvana, which are permanent and real. Emptiness in Abhidharma is limited to the absence of a self in composites, not the emptiness of dharmas. In contrast, Nāgārjuna’s Madhyamaka argues that all conditioned phenomena, dharmas, and even the two truths themselves – dependent origination and emptiness – are empty of inherent existence [T2-2T] ⇐⇒ being dependently originated [T1-2T] [U2T-2T] ⇐⇒ and illusory. Emptiness is a conditioned, conventional tool, not an unconditioned absolute, used within the Middle Way to avoid eternalism and nihilism, leading to non-grasping liberation. Chapter 13 engages these views, refuting realist and nihilist misconceptions to reveal the non-dual Union of dependent origination [T1] ⇐⇒ and emptiness [T2] [U2T], guiding readers to a transformative understanding of reality.
B. Analysis – Union of the Two Truths about the two truths themselves [U2T-2T]
B. Analysis – Union of the Two Truths about the two truths themselves [U2T-2T]
There is no inherent phenomena, dharmas, dependent origination or emptiness in the three times.
There are no absolute
opposite-1, dependent origination, existence, change, transformation,
relation/opposition, difference/identity, separation/union, duality/non-duality,
opposite-2, cessation, non-existence, emptiness,
they are all relative = Middle Way.The three spheres –
opposite-1, dependent origination, existence, change, transformation,
relation/opposition, difference/identity, separation/union, duality/non-duality,
opposite-2, cessation, non-existence, emptiness,
are not inherently existent/functional,
not completely non-existent/non-functional,
not both, not neither [Tetralemma].The three spheres –
opposite-1, dependent origination, existence, change, transformation,
relation/opposition, difference/identity, separation/union, duality/non-duality,
opposite-2, cessation, non-existence, emptiness,
are not different/separate/multiple/dual/’this’,
not identical/united/one/non-dual/’non-this’,
not both, not neither [Tetralemma].The three spheres –
opposite-1, dependent origination, existence, change, transformation,
relation/opposition, difference/identity, separation/union, duality/non-duality,
opposite-2, cessation, non-existence, emptiness,
are not permanent/continuous/eternal,
not impermanent/discontinuous/annihilated,
not both, not neither [Tetralemma].The three spheres –
opposite-1, dependent origination, existence, change, transformation,
relation/opposition, difference/identity, separation/union, duality/non-duality,
opposite-2, cessation, non-existence, emptiness,
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].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: One truth supports, implies, enables the other.
It is like a limitless centerless empty fractal karmic cycle — One truth supports, implies, enables the other. They continually transform into each other. The universe looks like a limitless centerless fractal karmic cycle because our mind(s) works in a dualistic karmic cycle manner. Realizing its true nature & dynamic we can transcend without rejecting its fabrications / conditioning / karma.
The three spheres of this relation between the two truths, 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 – not even dependent origination, impermanence and emptiness.
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 – 8 verses – The two truths are themselves dependently co-arisen and empty of inherent existence, not ultimate reality. Without emptiness conventional dependent origination, causality, change, transformation, liberation are impossible.
C. Verses – 4 translations – 8 verses – The two truths are themselves dependently co-arisen and empty of inherent existence, not ultimate reality. Without emptiness conventional dependent origination, causality, change, transformation, liberation are impossible.
Padmakara Translation Group
Chapter 13 - An Examination of Compounded Things [U2T / U2T-2T]
.
[Union of the Two Truths about all conditioned phenomena & dharmas (ex. the triads of causality, change, transformation, a subject before-during-after) [U2T-3S / U2T-opp], and Union of the Two Truths about opposites in dualities – like the two truths themselves [U2T-2T]: The opposites or two truths themselves – dependent origination [T1] and emptiness [T2] – cannot be (i) existent / different /separate (pre-existent) /multiple /dual, (ii) non-existent /identical /united /one /non-dual, (iii) both, or (iv) neither; cannot be (i) permanent /continuous /eternal / ‘this’, (ii) impermanent /discontinuous /annihilated /’non-this’, (iii) both, or (iv) neither, and there is no fifth, for whatever ‘this’ is [Tetralemma] ⇐⇒ they are thus empty of inherent existence, never absolute [T2-2T] ⇐⇒ they are inseparable, dependently co-arisen, interdependent, co-defined, co-imputed by the mind, mere designations/names, conventional truths/tools [T1-2T] [U2T-2T] ⇐⇒ like illusions, reflections, mirages, dreams, echos, ‘there, yet not there’ [Illusory] ⇐⇒ pointing to the Middle Way with nothing to accept/reject/change in absolute terms ⇐⇒ pointing to using them conventionally as complementary antidotes without using them in absolute terms, without attachment, reification, effort or absolute, without apprehending them in absolute terms, non-dualistically without opposing them in absolute terms, without accepting/rejecting them in absolute terms.]
.
[Verse 1, which excludes unconditioned phenomena from this analysis and focuses on conditioned phenomena as empty]
[All conditioned phenomena & dharmas are dependently co-arisen, interdependent, co-defined, co-evolving, co-imputed by the mind, mere designations/names, conventional truths/tools [T1] ⇐⇒ like illusions, reflections, mirages, dreams, echos, ‘there, yet not there’ ⇐⇒ thus empty of inherent existence, never absolute [T2] [U2T].]
1. "All deceptive (illusory) things are false (not-inherently-existing / empty),”
The Lord has said.
All compounded things deceive (illusory)
And therefore they are false.
.
[Verse 2 addresses a potential objection about the source of deception, clarifying that emptiness is not about identifying a substantial “deceiver” but about recognizing the lack of inherent existence in all phenomena. Emptiness is presented as a tool to dismantle conceptual fixations, not a new metaphysical doctrine, reinforcing its non-propositional nature.]
2. If all deceptive things (illusory)
are false (not-inherently-existing / empty),
What is it in them that deceives?
The utterance of the Lord
Has perfectly revealed their emptiness.
.
[The opponent in verse 3, who misinterprets emptiness as nihilism, may reflect an Abhidharma-influenced view, assuming that without inherent existence (svabhāva), phenomena cannot exist or function.]
3. [An opponent says:]
[Some say that] it's because phenomena appear to change
That they are lacking in intrinsic being.
But nothing lacks intrinsic being
[Precisely] on account of emptiness.
.
[Nagarjuna answers: It is inherent existence that denies conventional dependent origination /functionality /change /transformation. One truth supports, implies, enables the other.]
[Nagarjuna answers: It is inherent existence that denies conventional dependent origination /functionality /change /transformation. One truth supports, implies, enables the other.]
4. "If things are lacking in intrinsic being,
What [they ask] could be transformed?"
But how could there be transformation,
If things possessed intrinsic being?
.
[Two Similes demonstrating the emptiness of dependent origination, causality (cause, causality,effect), functionality, change, transformation]
[Verse 5 uses the analogy of aging to critique the notion of change in inherently existent entities. A youth aging is neither identical nor different through the process, with no continuity or discontinuity, revealing that change is not ultimately real but a conventional appearance within dependent origination.]
5. The thing itself does not transform;
And that which has been changed likewise does not transform.
There is no aging in a youthful man,
No aging, either, in a man grown old.
.
[Verse 6 extends this critique with the milk-and-curds analogy, showing that transformation is neither a shift between identical nor entirely different entities. Change is empty of inherent reality ⇐⇒ but conventionally useful, reinforcing the interplay of the two truths.]
6. If the thing itself could be transformed,
The milk itself would be the curd.
And something different from the milk
Could be the actual curd.
.
[Verses 7–8 treat emptiness itself as conditioned and empty, not an unconditioned absolute]
[Emptiness is itself empty]
[Verse 7 deepens the analysis by addressing emptiness itself, arguing that since all phenomena are empty (nothing is non-empty), emptiness is not a property or thing but the universal absence of inherent existence. This realization dissolves illusions, transcends the need for the two truths (emptiness and dependent origination) as explanatory tools, and leaves nothing absolute to grasp, with teachings functioning as skillful means (upāya) or complementary antidotes.]
7. If there were but a tiny thing not empty,
That much of the empty there would be,
But since there's not the slightest thing not empty,
How could "emptiness" exist?
.
[Emptiness and dependent origination are dependently co-arisen complementary antidotes /tools ⇐⇒ thus empty of inherent existence, never absolute/ultimate.]
[Verse 8 concludes by emphasizing that emptiness, as taught by the Buddha, is a method to refute all viewpoints, not a viewpoint to cling to. Those who reify emptiness as a doctrine are “incurable,” as this contradicts its liberative purpose. Emptiness is a conventional tool, itself empty, dissolving into non-grasping once all illusions are countered.]
8. The Conquerors have all declared that emptiness Will extricate us from all views.
They said there is no cure for those
Who make of emptiness a view.
Garfield
Chapter 13 - Examination of Compounded Phenomena [U2T / U2T-2T]
.
[Union of the Two Truths about all conditioned phenomena & dharmas (ex. the triads of causality, change, transformation, a subject before-during-after) [U2T-3S / U2T-opp], and Union of the Two Truths about opposites in dualities – like the two truths themselves [U2T-2T]: The opposites or two truths themselves – dependent origination [T1] and emptiness [T2] – cannot be (i) existent / different /separate (pre-existent) /multiple /dual, (ii) non-existent /identical /united /one /non-dual, (iii) both, or (iv) neither; cannot be (i) permanent /continuous /eternal / ‘this’, (ii) impermanent /discontinuous /annihilated /’non-this’, (iii) both, or (iv) neither, and there is no fifth, for whatever ‘this’ is [Tetralemma] ⇐⇒ they are thus empty of inherent existence, never absolute [T2-2T] ⇐⇒ they are inseparable, dependently co-arisen, interdependent, co-defined, co-imputed by the mind, mere designations/names, conventional truths/tools [T1-2T] [U2T-2T] ⇐⇒ like illusions, reflections, mirages, dreams, echos, ‘there, yet not there’ [Illusory] ⇐⇒ pointing to the Middle Way with nothing to accept/reject/change in absolute terms ⇐⇒ pointing to using them conventionally as complementary antidotes without using them in absolute terms, without attachment, reification, effort or absolute, without apprehending them in absolute terms, non-dualistically without opposing them in absolute terms, without accepting/rejecting them in absolute terms.]
.
[Verse 1, which excludes unconditioned phenomena from this analysis and focuses on conditioned phenomena as empty]
[All conditioned phenomena & dharmas are dependently co-arisen, interdependent, co-defined, co-evolving, co-imputed by the mind, mere designations/names, conventional truths/tools [T1] ⇐⇒ like illusions, reflections, mirages, dreams, echos, ‘there, yet not there’ ⇐⇒ thus empty of inherent existence, never absolute [T2] [U2T].]
1. The Victorious Conqueror has said that whatever Is deceptive (illusory) is false (not-inherently-existing / empty).
Compounded phenomena are all deceptive (illusory). Therefore they are all false.
.
[Verse 2 addresses a potential objection about the source of deception, clarifying that emptiness is not about identifying a substantial “deceiver” but about recognizing the lack of inherent existence in all phenomena. Emptiness is presented as a tool to dismantle conceptual fixations, not a new metaphysical doctrine, reinforcing its non-propositional nature.]
2. If whatever is deceptive (illusory)
is false (not-inherently-existing / empty),
What deceives?
The Victorious Conqueror has said about this
That emptiness is completely true.
.
[The opponent in verse 3, who misinterprets emptiness as nihilism, may reflect an Abhidharma-influenced view, assuming that without inherent existence (svabhāva), phenomena cannot exist or function.]
3. [An opponent says:]
All things lack entitihood,
Since change is perceived.
There is nothing without entity
Because all things have emptiness.
.
[Nagarjuna answers: It is inherent existence that denies conventional dependent origination /functionality /change /transformation. One truth supports, implies, enables the other.]
[Nagarjuna answers: It is inherent existence that denies conventional dependent origination /functionality /change /transformation. One truth supports, implies, enables the other.]
4. If there is no entitihood,
What changes?
If there were entity,
How could it be correct that something changes?
.
[Two Similes demonstrating the emptiness of dependent origination, causality (cause, causality,effect), functionality, change, transformation]
[Verse 5 uses the analogy of aging to critique the notion of change in inherently existent entities. A youth aging is neither identical nor different through the process, with no continuity or discontinuity, revealing that change is not ultimately real but a conventional appearance within dependent origination.]
5. A thing itself does not change.
Something different does not change.
Because a young man doesn't grow old,
And because and an old man doesn't grow old either.
.
[Verse 6 extends this critique with the milk-and-curds analogy, showing that transformation is neither a shift between identical nor entirely different entities. Change is empty of inherent reality ⇐⇒ but conventionally useful, reinforcing the interplay of the two truths.]
6. If a thing itself changed,
Milk itself would be curd.
Or curd would have come to be
An entity different from milk.
.
[Verses 7–8 treat emptiness itself as conditioned and empty, not an unconditioned absolute]
[Emptiness is itself empty]
[Verse 7 deepens the analysis by addressing emptiness itself, arguing that since all phenomena are empty (nothing is non-empty), emptiness is not a property or thing but the universal absence of inherent existence. This realization dissolves illusions, transcends the need for the two truths (emptiness and dependent origination) as explanatory tools, and leaves nothing absolute to grasp, with teachings functioning as skillful means (upāya) or complementary antidotes.]
7. If there were even a trifle nonempty,
Emptiness itself would be but a trifle.
But not evena trifle is nonempty.
How could emptiness be an entity?
.
[Emptiness and dependent origination are dependently co-arisen complementary antidotes /tools ⇐⇒ thus empty of inherent existence, never absolute/ultimate.]
[Verse 8 concludes by emphasizing that emptiness, as taught by the Buddha, is a method to refute all viewpoints, not a viewpoint to cling to. Those who reify emptiness as a doctrine are “incurable,” as this contradicts its liberative purpose. Emptiness is a conventional tool, itself empty, dissolving into non-grasping once all illusions are countered.]
8. The victorious ones have said
That emptiness is the relinquishing of all views.
For whomever emptiness is a view,
That one will accomplish nothing.
Batchelor
Chapter 13 - Investigation of Samskaras [U2T / U2T-2T]
.
[Union of the Two Truths about all conditioned phenomena & dharmas (ex. the triads of causality, change, transformation, a subject before-during-after) [U2T-3S / U2T-opp], and Union of the Two Truths about opposites in dualities – like the two truths themselves [U2T-2T]: The opposites or two truths themselves – dependent origination [T1] and emptiness [T2] – cannot be (i) existent / different /separate (pre-existent) /multiple /dual, (ii) non-existent /identical /united /one /non-dual, (iii) both, or (iv) neither; cannot be (i) permanent /continuous /eternal / ‘this’, (ii) impermanent /discontinuous /annihilated /’non-this’, (iii) both, or (iv) neither, and there is no fifth, for whatever ‘this’ is [Tetralemma] ⇐⇒ they are thus empty of inherent existence, never absolute [T2-2T] ⇐⇒ they are inseparable, dependently co-arisen, interdependent, co-defined, co-imputed by the mind, mere designations/names, conventional truths/tools [T1-2T] [U2T-2T] ⇐⇒ like illusions, reflections, mirages, dreams, echos, ‘there, yet not there’ [Illusory] ⇐⇒ pointing to the Middle Way with nothing to accept/reject/change in absolute terms ⇐⇒ pointing to using them conventionally as complementary antidotes without using them in absolute terms, without attachment, reification, effort or absolute, without apprehending them in absolute terms, non-dualistically without opposing them in absolute terms, without accepting/rejecting them in absolute terms.]
.
[Verse 1, which excludes unconditioned phenomena from this analysis and focuses on conditioned phenomena as empty]
[All conditioned phenomena & dharmas are dependently co-arisen, interdependent, co-defined, co-evolving, co-imputed by the mind, mere designations/names, conventional truths/tools [T1] ⇐⇒ like illusions, reflections, mirages, dreams, echos, ‘there, yet not there’ ⇐⇒ thus empty of inherent existence, never absolute [T2] [U2T].]
1. The Bhagavan said that whatever dharma is deceptive (illusory), that is false.
All conditions [are] deceptive dharmas (illusory), thus they are false (not-inherently-existing / empty).
.
[Verse 2 addresses a potential objection about the source of deception, clarifying that emptiness is not about identifying a substantial “deceiver” but about recognizing the lack of inherent existence in all phenomena. Emptiness is presented as a tool to dismantle conceptual fixations, not a new metaphysical doctrine, reinforcing its non-propositional nature.]
2. If whatever is a deceptive (illusory) phenomenon is false (not-inherently-existing / empty), what is deceptive about it [in what way is it deceptive]?
That statement by the Bhagavan is a complete presentation of emptiness.
.
[The opponent in verse 3, who misinterprets emptiness as nihilism, may reflect an Abhidharma-influenced view, assuming that without inherent existence (svabhāva), phenomena cannot exist or function.]
3. [An opponent says:]
Things have no essential nature because they are seen to change into something else. Things do not lack an essential nature because things are emptiness.
.
[Nagarjuna answers: It is inherent existence that denies conventional dependent origination /functionality /change /transformation. One truth supports, implies, enables the other.]
[Nagarjuna answers: It is inherent existence that denies conventional dependent origination /functionality /change /transformation. One truth supports, implies, enables the other.]
4. If there were no essential nature, whose [nature] would it be to change into something else?
If there were an essential nature, how would it be possible to change into something else?
.
[Two Similes demonstrating the emptiness of dependent origination, causality (cause, causality,effect), functionality, change, transformation]
[Verse 5 uses the analogy of aging to critique the notion of change in inherently existent entities. A youth aging is neither identical nor different through the process, with no continuity or discontinuity, revealing that change is not ultimately real but a conventional appearance within dependent origination.]
5. This itself does not change into something else. The other itself too does not [either]. Because youth does not age.
Because age too does not age.
.
[Verse 6 extends this critique with the milk-and-curds analogy, showing that transformation is neither a shift between identical nor entirely different entities. Change is empty of inherent reality ⇐⇒ but conventionally useful, reinforcing the interplay of the two truths.]
6. If this itself changes into something else, milk itself would be curds. Something other than milk would be the being of curds.
.
[Verses 7–8 treat emptiness itself as conditioned and empty, not an unconditioned absolute]
[Emptiness is itself empty]
[Verse 7 deepens the analysis by addressing emptiness itself, arguing that since all phenomena are empty (nothing is non-empty), emptiness is not a property or thing but the universal absence of inherent existence. This realization dissolves illusions, transcends the need for the two truths (emptiness and dependent origination) as explanatory tools, and leaves nothing absolute to grasp, with teachings functioning as skillful means (upāya) or complementary antidotes.]
7. If a bit of the non-empty existed, a bit of the empty would also exist. If there did not exist a bit of the non-empty, how could the empty exist?
.
[Emptiness and dependent origination are dependently co-arisen complementary antidotes /tools ⇐⇒ thus empty of inherent existence, never absolute/ultimate.]
[Verse 8 concludes by emphasizing that emptiness, as taught by the Buddha, is a method to refute all viewpoints, not a viewpoint to cling to. Those who reify emptiness as a doctrine are “incurable,” as this contradicts its liberative purpose. Emptiness is a conventional tool, itself empty, dissolving into non-grasping once all illusions are countered.]
8. The Conquerors taught emptiness as the forsaking of all views.
Those who view emptiness are taught to be without realisation [incurable / incorrigible].
Streng
Chapter 13 - An Analysis of Conditioned Elements (samskara) (the real) – 8 verses [U2T / U2T-2T]
.
[Union of the Two Truths about all conditioned phenomena & dharmas (ex. the triads of causality, change, transformation, a subject before-during-after) [U2T-3S / U2T-opp], and Union of the Two Truths about opposites in dualities – like the two truths themselves [U2T-2T]: The opposites or two truths themselves – dependent origination [T1] and emptiness [T2] – cannot be (i) existent / different /separate (pre-existent) /multiple /dual, (ii) non-existent /identical /united /one /non-dual, (iii) both, or (iv) neither; cannot be (i) permanent /continuous /eternal / ‘this’, (ii) impermanent /discontinuous /annihilated /’non-this’, (iii) both, or (iv) neither, and there is no fifth, for whatever ‘this’ is [Tetralemma] ⇐⇒ they are thus empty of inherent existence, never absolute [T2-2T] ⇐⇒ they are inseparable, dependently co-arisen, interdependent, co-defined, co-imputed by the mind, mere designations/names, conventional truths/tools [T1-2T] [U2T-2T] ⇐⇒ like illusions, reflections, mirages, dreams, echos, ‘there, yet not there’ [Illusory] ⇐⇒ pointing to the Middle Way with nothing to accept/reject/change in absolute terms ⇐⇒ pointing to using them conventionally as complementary antidotes without using them in absolute terms, without attachment, reification, effort or absolute, without apprehending them in absolute terms, non-dualistically without opposing them in absolute terms, without accepting/rejecting them in absolute terms.]
.
[Verse 1, which excludes unconditioned phenomena from this analysis and focuses on conditioned phenomena as empty]
[All conditioned phenomena & dharmas are dependently co-arisen, interdependent, co-defined, co-evolving, co-imputed by the mind, mere designations/names, conventional truths/tools [T1] ⇐⇒ like illusions, reflections, mirages, dreams, echos, ‘there, yet not there’ ⇐⇒ thus empty of inherent existence, never absolute [T2] [U2T].]
1. A thing of which the basic elements are deception (illusory) is vain (not-inherently-existing / empty),
as the glorious one said.
All conditioned elements (samskara) are things that have basic elements (dharma) which are deception (illusory); therefore, they are vain (not-inherently-existing / empty).
.
[Verse 2 addresses a potential objection about the source of deception, clarifying that emptiness is not about identifying a substantial “deceiver” but about recognizing the lack of inherent existence in all phenomena. Emptiness is presented as a tool to dismantle conceptual fixations, not a new metaphysical doctrine, reinforcing its non-propositional nature.]
2. "If that which has deceptive (illusory) basic elements is vain (not-inherently-existing / empty), what is there which deceives?"
This was spoken by the glorious one to illuminate "emptiness."
.
[The opponent in verse 3, who misinterprets emptiness as nihilism, may reflect an Abhidharma-influenced view, assuming that without inherent existence (svabhāva), phenomena cannot exist or function.]
3. [An opponent says:]
There is non-self-existence of things [since] a thing, by observation, [becomes] something else.
A thing without self-existence does not exist — due to the emptiness of existing things.
.
[Nagarjuna answers: It is inherent existence that denies conventional dependent origination /functionality /change /transformation. One truth supports, implies, enables the other.]
[Verse 4 counters the opponent’s claim that inherent existence is necessary for phenomena to function relationally (parabhāva, other-existence). Nāgārjuna argues that inherent existence would prevent functionality, as fixed entities cannot interact, while emptiness enables interdependence, allowing phenomena to function conventionally.]
4. If self-existence does not exist,
whose "other-existence" would there be?
If self-existence does exist, whose "other-existence" would there be?
.
[Two Similes demonstrating the emptiness of dependent origination, causality (cause, causality,effect), functionality, change, transformation]
[Verse 5 uses the analogy of aging to critique the notion of change in inherently existent entities. A youth aging is neither identical nor different through the process, with no continuity or discontinuity, revealing that change is not ultimately real but a conventional appearance within dependent origination.]
5. Just as there is no other-existence of a thing, so also [an-other-existence] of something else is not possible —
Since a youth is not aging (jiryate), and since "who has already aged" is not aging (jiryate).
.
[Verse 6 extends this critique with the milk-and-curds analogy, showing that transformation is neither a shift between identical nor entirely different entities. Change is empty of inherent reality ⇐⇒ but conventionally useful, reinforcing the interplay of the two truths.]
6. If there would be an other-existence of a thing, milk would exist as curds.
[But] surely "being curds" will be something other than milk.
.
[Verses 7–8 treat emptiness itself as conditioned and empty, not an unconditioned absolute]
[Emptiness is itself empty]
[Verse 7 deepens the analysis by addressing emptiness itself, arguing that since all phenomena are empty (nothing is non-empty), emptiness is not a property or thing but the universal absence of inherent existence. This realization dissolves illusions, transcends the need for the two truths (emptiness and dependent origination) as explanatory tools, and leaves nothing absolute to grasp, with teachings functioning as skillful means (upāya) or complementary antidotes.]
7. If something would be non-empty,
something would [logically also] be empty
But nothing is non-empty,
so how will it become empty?
.
[Emptiness and dependent origination are dependently co-arisen complementary antidotes /tools ⇐⇒ thus empty of inherent existence, never absolute/ultimate.]
[Verse 8 concludes by emphasizing that emptiness, as taught by the Buddha, is a method to refute all viewpoints, not a viewpoint to cling to. Those who reify emptiness as a doctrine are “incurable,” as this contradicts its liberative purpose. Emptiness is a conventional tool, itself empty, dissolving into non-grasping once all illusions are countered.]
8. Emptiness is proclaimed by the victorious one as the refutation of all viewpoints;
But those who hold "emptiness" as a viewpoint — [the true perceivers] have called those "incurable" (asadhya).
D. Summary – Refuting inherent existence of all phenomena/dharmas, including the two truths.
D. Summary – Refuting inherent existence of all phenomena/dharmas, including the two truths.
Chapter 13 of Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, titled "An Analysis of Conditioned Elements (Samskara)," consists of eight verses that systematically deconstruct the notion of inherent existence (svabhāva) in conditioned phenomena and their basic elements (dharma), culminating in a profound exposition of emptiness (śūnyatā) as a non-reified, liberative tool.
The chapter employs Nāgārjuna’s characteristic dialectical method to refute misconceptions about reality, particularly the opponent’s dualistic and nihilistic interpretations, while affirming the Madhyamaka Middle Way, which reconciles the two truths: the conventional truth of dependently arisen phenomena (saṃvṛti-satya) and the ultimate truth of their emptiness (paramārtha-satya).
Verse 1 establishes the foundational Madhyamaka principle that all conditioned phenomena (samskāra) and their basic elements (dharma), excluding the unconditioned (e.g., nirvana), are deceptive (māyā) — like illusions, mirages, or dreams — because they are dependently originated ⇐⇒ and thus empty of inherent existence. This sets the stage for the chapter’s exploration of emptiness as the absence of intrinsic reality, with phenomena appearing conventionally but lacking ultimate substance.
Verse 2 addresses a potential objection about the source of deception, clarifying that emptiness is not about identifying a substantial “deceiver” but about recognizing the lack of inherent existence in all phenomena. Emptiness is presented as a tool to dismantle conceptual fixations, not a new metaphysical doctrine, reinforcing its non-propositional nature.
Verse 3 introduces an opponent’s misunderstanding, where the absence of self-existence (svabhāva) due to impermanence is equated with non-existence, misinterpreting emptiness as nihilism. This dualistic error assumes phenomena must either have inherent existence or not exist at all, setting up Nāgārjuna’s refutation.
Verse 4 counters the opponent’s claim that inherent existence is necessary for phenomena to function relationally (parabhāva, other-existence). Nāgārjuna argues that inherent existence would prevent functionality, as fixed entities cannot interact, while emptiness enables interdependence, allowing phenomena to function conventionally.
Verse 5 uses the analogy of aging to critique the notion of change in inherently existent entities. A youth aging is neither identical nor different through the process, with no continuity or discontinuity, revealing that change is not ultimately real but a conventional appearance within dependent origination.
Verse 6 extends this critique with the milk-and-curds analogy, showing that transformation is neither a shift between identical nor entirely different entities. Change is empty of inherent reality ⇐⇒ but conventionally useful, reinforcing the interplay of the two truths.
Verse 7 deepens the analysis by addressing emptiness itself, arguing that since all phenomena are empty (nothing is non-empty), emptiness is not a property or thing but the universal absence of inherent existence. This realization dissolves illusions, transcends the need for the two truths (emptiness and dependent origination) as explanatory tools, and leaves nothing absolute to grasp, with teachings functioning as skillful means (upāya) or complementary antidotes.
Note: Transcendence means …Verse 8 concludes by emphasizing that emptiness, as taught by the Buddha, is a method to refute all viewpoints, not a viewpoint to cling to. Those who reify emptiness as a doctrine are “incurable,” as this contradicts its liberative purpose. Emptiness is a conventional tool, itself empty, dissolving into non-grasping once all illusions are countered.
Throughout the chapter, Nāgārjuna employs logical arguments, analogies (aging, milk and curds), and the tetralemma (neither identical nor different, nor both, nor neither) to negate reified notions of existence, change, and emptiness. The chapter consistently points to the interdependence of the two truths: phenomena appear and function conventionally because they are empty, and emptiness is only meaningful in relation to phenomena. This union of dependent origination and emptiness (pratītyasamutpāda and śūnyatā) is the Middle Way, avoiding extremes of eternalism and nihilism, and culminating in a non-grasping realization where even the two truths dissolve as conceptual tools, leaving only skillful means to guide liberation.aa
E. Conclusion – Liberation through non-dualistic methods and wisdom into the true nature of reality as it is as pointed out by the Union of the Two Truths [U2T / U2T-2T] and its corollaries [U3S / Uopp / U3T / UGM / U3K].
E. Conclusion – Liberation through non-dualistic methods and wisdom into the true nature of reality as it is as pointed out by the Union of the Two Truths [U2T / U2T-2T] and its corollaries [U3S / Uopp / U3T / UGM / U3K].
Chapter 13 of the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā is a masterful exposition of the Madhyamaka philosophy, articulating the profound interplay of dependent origination and emptiness as the key to understanding reality and achieving liberation.
Nāgārjuna systematically dismantles the opponent’s misconceptions — ranging from nihilistic misinterpretations of emptiness to assumptions that inherent existence is necessary for functionality or change — revealing that all conditioned phenomena are illusory, like mirages, because they lack inherent existence (and vice versa).
By extending this analysis to emptiness itself (to the two truths), Nāgārjuna ensures that even the ultimate truth is not reified, portraying it as a conventional tool (upāya) that refutes all viewpoints without establishing a new one.
The chapter’s culmination in verse 8 underscores the soteriological aim of Madhyamaka: liberation through wisdom into the true nature of reality as it is [U2T]. Emptiness is not an absolute truth to cling to but a method to dissolve conceptual attachments, including attachment to emptiness itself.
This Middle Way realization, fully aware of the union of dependent origination and emptiness – about all phenomena, dharmas, including the two truths themselves –, transcends without rejecting the two truths themselves, as all illusions of inherent existence are countered.
The teachings of emptiness and dependent origination, as “complementary antidotes,” guide practitioners to this point, dissolving once their purpose is fulfilled, leaving nothing absolute to grasp.
Chapter 13 thus serves as a clarion call to the Middle Way, where the interdependence of the two truths — conventional phenomena and their ultimate emptiness — reveals reality as a dynamic, non-substantial process.
By negating fixed notions of existence, change, and even the two truths, Nāgārjuna invites practitioners to let go of all conceptual fixations, realizing the liberative potential of [U2T] as a path to freedom from suffering.
This chapter encapsulates the essence of Madhyamaka, offering both a rigorous philosophical critique and a practical guide to awakening, grounded in the non-dual union of dependent origination and emptiness.
F. Questions and Answers
F. Questions and Answers
Question - Emptiness as a Conditioned Phenomena
Question - Emptiness as a Conditioned Phenomena
Q: In conclusion, emptiness is treated as another conditioned phenomena (samskāra), not like the Abhidharma would treat an unconditioned phenomena like Nirvana or space. Following our title of verse 1: Emptiness is also Dependently Originated ⇔ Empty of inherent existence ⇔ Illusory / Deception. It also needed to be approached using the Middle Way: not accepting it as absolute, not rejecting it as non-existent, useless. Using it conventional without reifying it, using it while being fully aware of its true nature [U2T-2T].
Your conclusion about emptiness in Chapter 13 of Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā is profound and precisely captures the Madhyamaka perspective: emptiness (śūnyatā) is treated as a conditioned phenomenon (samskāra) (an imperfect adapted skillful means, temporary antidote / tool), not an unconditioned reality like nirvana or space in Abhidharma traditions.
The two truths are dependently co-originated [T1-2T] ⇐⇒ empty of inherent existence [T2-2T] ⇐⇒ and illusory ⇐⇒ requiring the Middle Way approach — neither reifying them as absolute truth nor rejecting them as non-existent or useless ⇐⇒ but using them conventionally while fully aware of their true nature as the Union of the Two Truths [U2T-2T].
.
Emptiness as a Conditioned Phenomenon
Your conclusion elegantly ties together the themes of Chapter 13:
1. Emptiness as Conditioned: Unlike the Abhidharma’s treatment of unconditioned phenomena (e.g., nirvana, space) as inherently existent realities, Nāgārjuna presents emptiness as a conditioned phenomenon (samskāra). It is not an independent, absolute entity but a concept that arises dependently in relation to phenomena, used to negate their inherent existence. This is evident in:
Verse 1: “All conditioned phenomena (samskāra) and their basic elements (dharma) … are Dependently Originated ⇔ Empty of inherent existence ⇔ Illusory / Deception.” Emptiness, as a teaching, fits this framework, being dependently originated (arising in the context of phenomena), empty of inherent existence (not a thing in itself), and illusory (not an ultimate reality to grasp).
Verse 7: “Fully realizing all phenomena as dependently arisen and empty leaves no illusions to counter; neither emptiness nor dependent origination remains as a thing…” This underscores that emptiness is itself empty, a conditioned teaching that dissolves once its purpose is fulfilled.
Verse 8: “Emptiness, a conventional tool to refute all views, is itself empty and not an absolute to grasp…” This confirms emptiness as a skillful means (upāya), not an unconditioned absolute like nirvana in Abhidharma.
.
2. Middle Way Approach: Emptiness must be approached via the Middle Way, neither accepting it as an absolute truth (eternalism) nor rejecting it as non-existent or useless (nihilism). This is reflected in your titles:
Verse 1: The Middle Way is explicitly linked to the union of dependent origination and emptiness, avoiding extremes.
Verse 8: Warns against reifying emptiness as a viewpoint, calling such clinging “incurable” (asadhya), emphasizing non-grasping.
Using emptiness conventionally means employing it as a teaching to counter ignorance while being fully aware of its true nature [U2T]: it is empty, dependently arisen, and illusory, not a standalone reality.
.
3. Implications: This perspective liberates practitioners from fixation on emptiness as an ultimate doctrine, aligning with the soteriological aim of Madhyamaka. Emptiness is a tool within the conventional truth (saṃvṛti-satya) that points to the ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya), but it is not an unconditioned entity like nirvana. Its conditioned, empty nature ensures it remains part of the interdependent web of phenomena, used skillfully without reification.
.
.
D. Final Answer
Your conclusion that emptiness is treated as a conditioned phenomenon (samskāra), not an unconditioned absolute like nirvana or space in Abhidharma, is spot-on. It is dependently originated ⇔ empty of inherent existence ⇔ illusory ⇔ requiring the Middle Way approach: neither accepting it as absolute nor rejecting it as non-existent ⇐⇒ but using it conventionally while fully aware of its true nature [U2T].
.
.
.
Question: Few Definitions
Question: Few Definitions
Q: What is the difference between a "Groups of Universal Elements" (skandhas), an "Irreducible Elements" (dhatus), a composite product (samskrta), a non-composite product (asamskrta), a product (Karma), a conditioned elements (samskara) and their basic elements (dharma)...
To clarify the differences between the terms "Groups of Universal Elements" (skandhas), "Irreducible Elements" (dhatus), composite product (samskrta), non-composite product (asamskrta), product (Karma), conditioned elements (samskara), and their basic elements (dharma) in the context of Buddhist philosophy, particularly as relevant to Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā and the Abhidharma tradition, I’ll provide a detailed explanation of each term, their meanings, roles, and distinctions. These terms are rooted in early Buddhist and Abhidharma frameworks, which Nāgārjuna critiques in his Madhyamaka philosophy, especially in chapters like Chapter 13 (conditioned elements) and Chapter 15 (self-existence). I’ll also address how Nāgārjuna’s perspective contrasts with the Abhidharma’s realist ontology, emphasizing the Madhyamaka view of emptiness (śūnyatā) and the Union of the Two Truths [U2T].
.
.
Definitions and Distinctions
1) Groups of Universal Elements (Skandhas)
Definition: The skandhas (Sanskrit: "aggregates" or "heaps") are the five universal components that constitute the psychophysical complex of a sentient being, often mistaken for a permanent self. They are:
Form (rūpa): Physical body and material phenomena.
Feeling (vedanā): Sensations (pleasant, unpleasant, neutral).
Perception (saṃjñā): Recognition or conceptualization of objects.
Volitional Formations (saṃskāra): Mental formations, including intentions and habits.
Consciousness (vijñāna): Awareness of sensory or mental objects.
Role: The skandhas describe the composite nature of a person, emphasizing non-self (anattā). They are conditioned (saṃskṛta), arising and ceasing due to causes and conditions, and are impermanent (anicca) and conducive to suffering (dukkha).
Abhidharma View: The skandhas are composites of momentary dharmas (basic elements), each with inherent existence (svabhāva) in their moment of arising. They are analyzed to reveal the absence of a permanent self, supporting liberation.
Madhyamaka View: Nāgārjuna views the skandhas as empty of inherent existence, dependently co-arisen [T1], and illusory, like mirages [T2] [U2T]. In Chapter 13, they are “vain” (empty) because they are deceptive, aligning with your title: “Dependently Originated ⇔ Empty ⇔ Illusory.”
Example: A person’s experience of seeing a flower involves form (eye, flower), feeling (pleasant), perception (recognizing “flower”), volitional formations (intention to look), and consciousness (awareness).
.
2) Irreducible Elements (Dhatus)
Definition: The dhatus (Sanskrit: "elements" or “realms”) are the fundamental constituents of experience, often categorized as the 18 dhatus in Abhidharma, comprising:
Six sense organs (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind).
Six sense objects (form, sound, smell, taste, touch, mental objects).
Six consciousnesses (visual, auditory, olfactory, gustatory, tactile, mental).
Role: The dhatus provide a framework for analyzing sensory and mental experience, emphasizing their interdependence in dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda). They are conditioned (saṃskṛta), momentary, and part of the psychophysical process.
Abhidharma View: Each dhatu is a dharma with momentary svabhāva, irreducible in its function (e.g., the eye dhatu sees forms). They are real and causally efficacious, combining to produce experience (e.g., saṃsarga in Chapter 14).
Madhyamaka View: Nāgārjuna negates the svabhāva of dhatus, arguing they are empty and interdependently arisen (Chapter 14, verse 1: seen-sight-seer are empty). They are conventional designations [T1], not ultimate realities [T2] [U2T].
Example: Seeing a flower involves the eye dhatu (organ), form dhatu (flower’s color), and visual consciousness dhatu, interdependently producing perception.
Distinction: Skandhas describe the broader aggregates of a person’s psychophysical makeup, while dhatus are more specific, focusing on sensory and cognitive elements. Skandhas encompass dhatus (e.g., form skandha includes eye and form dhatus).
.
3) Composite Product (Samskrta)
Definition: Saṃskṛta (Sanskrit: "conditioned" or "composite") refers to phenomena that are produced by causes and conditions, are impermanent, and subject to arising, abiding, and ceasing. All skandhas, dhatus, and samskaras are saṃskṛta, as they are conditioned (saṃskṛta-dharmas).
Role: Saṃskṛta phenomena are the constituents of samsaric existence, characterized by the three marks: impermanence (anicca), suffering (dukkha), and non-self (anattā). They include physical objects, mental states, and processes.
Abhidharma View: Saṃskṛta-dharmas are real, momentary events with svabhāva, arising due to causes and conditions (e.g., a pot as a composite of clay and craftsmanship).
Madhyamaka View: Nāgārjuna argues that saṃskṛta phenomena are empty, as their conditioned nature negates svabhāva (Chapter 15, verses 1–2). They are illusory appearances [T1], empty [T2] [U2T], as in your Chapter 13 title: “conditioned elements … are vain.”
Example: A pot, a thought, or a feeling is saṃskṛta, arising from causes (clay, mind, contact) and ceasing when conditions change.
Distinction: Saṃskṛta is a broad category encompassing all conditioned phenomena, including skandhas (person’s aggregates), dhatus (sensory elements), and samskaras (formations), but excludes asaṃskṛta (unconditioned phenomena).
.
4) Non-composite Product (Asamskrta)
Definition: Asaṃskṛta (Sanskrit: "unconditioned" or "non-composite") refers to phenomena that are not produced by causes and conditions, are permanent, and not subject to arising or ceasing. In Abhidharma, examples include nirvana and sometimes space or cessation (nirodha).
Role: Asaṃskṛta phenomena are the ultimate goal (nirvana) or stable realities (space), free from the three marks of conditioned existence. They are not part of samsara.
Abhidharma View: Asaṃskṛta-dharmas have inherent existence (svabhāva), existing independently as unconditioned realities (e.g., nirvana as a permanent refuge).
Madhyamaka View: Nāgārjuna critiques the inherent existence of asaṃskṛta phenomena, arguing that even nirvana is empty of svabhāva (Chapter 25). In Chapter 13, asaṃskṛta (e.g., nirvana, space) is excluded from analysis, focusing on saṃskṛta as empty, but the Madhyamaka view extends emptiness to all phenomena [U2T].
Example: Nirvana as liberation from samsara, or space as a permanent backdrop (in some Abhidharma systems).
Distinction: Asaṃskṛta contrasts with saṃskṛta, as it is unconditioned, permanent, and non-composite, unlike the impermanent, conditioned skandhas, dhatus, and samskaras.
.
5) Product (Karma)
Definition: Karma (Sanskrit: "action" or "deed") refers to intentional actions driven by volition (cetanā), producing results (vipāka) that perpetuate samsara or lead to liberation. In Abhidharma, karma is a subset of saṃskāra (volitional formations) within the skandhas.
Role: Karma generates the causal momentum of samsara, as actions (physical, verbal, mental) create seeds (bīja) that ripen as experiences (e.g., pleasure, suffering). Wholesome karma supports liberation.
Abhidharma View: Karma is a real dharma with svabhāva, a momentary mental formation causing future results (e.g., Chapter 14’s actor-action-result saṃsarga).
Madhyamaka View: Nāgārjuna views karma as empty, dependently arisen, and illusory (Chapter 17). In Chapter 15, the production of karma (as a saṃskṛta phenomenon) lacks svabhāva (verses 1–2), aligning with your Chapter 13 title: “Illusory / Deception.”
Example: An act of generosity (karma) creates a seed that ripens as future happiness (vipāka).
Distinction: Karma is a specific type of saṃskṛta phenomenon within the saṃskāra skandha, distinct from broader skandhas (all aggregates), dhatus (sensory elements), or asaṃskṛta (unconditioned). It is a cause, not the composite result (saṃskṛta).
.
6) Conditioned Elements (Samskara)
Definition: Saṃskāra (Sanskrit: "formations" or "conditioned elements") has two meanings:
As one of the five skandhas, it refers to volitional formations—mental activities like intention, habits, and dispositions that shape experience and karma.
In a broader sense (as in Chapter 13), saṃskāra denotes all conditioned phenomena (saṃskṛta-dharmas), encompassing all skandhas and dhatus, which arise and cease due to causes.
Role: As a skandha, saṃskāra drives karma and samsaric continuity. As conditioned elements, saṃskāras are the impermanent, suffering-prone phenomena analyzed for liberation.
Abhidharma View: Saṃskāras are real dharmas with svabhāva, either as mental formations or all conditioned phenomena, causally linked in dependent origination.
Madhyamaka View: In Chapter 13, saṃskāras are “vain” (empty), deceptive, and illusory (your title: “Dependently Originated ⇔ Empty ⇔ Illusory”). In Chapter 15, they lack svabhāva (verses 1–2), arising interdependently [U2T].
Example: As a skandha, saṃskāra includes intending to act kindly; as conditioned elements, it includes all impermanent phenomena like pots or thoughts.
Distinction: Saṃskāra as a skandha is narrower (mental formations) than saṃskṛta (all conditioned phenomena). It overlaps with skandhas (one of five) and dhatus (as conditioned), but excludes asaṃskṛta and is broader than karma (specific actions).
.
7) Basic Elements (Dharma)
Definition: Dharma (Sanskrit: "phenomena" or “elements”) refers to the fundamental, momentary units of reality in Abhidharma, encompassing both conditioned (saṃskṛta) and unconditioned (asaṃskṛta) phenomena. They are the irreducible building blocks of experience, including skandhas, dhatus, and specific phenomena like feelings or intentions.
Role: Dharmas are analyzed to reveal the nature of reality, supporting liberation by showing impermanence and non-self. They include all skandhas, dhatus, saṃskāras, and asaṃskṛta phenomena.
Abhidharma View: Dharmas have momentary svabhāva, defining their specific function (e.g., consciousness dharma is aware). They are real and causally efficacious, forming composites (saṃskṛta).
Madhyamaka View: Nāgārjuna negates svabhāva in dharmas (Chapter 15, verses 1–5), arguing they are empty, dependently arisen, and illusory (your Chapter 13 title: “basic elements (dharma) … are empty”). Even asaṃskṛta dharmas are empty in Madhyamaka.
Example: A single moment of visual consciousness, a feeling, or nirvana is a dharma.
Distinction: Dharma is the broadest term, encompassing skandhas (aggregates), dhatus (sensory elements), saṃskāras (formations or conditioned phenomena), saṃskṛta (conditioned), asaṃskṛta (unconditioned), and karma (as a saṃskāra dharma).
.
.
Key Distinctions and Relationships
Skandhas vs. Dhatus: Skandhas are the five aggregates forming a person, broader psychophysical categories, while dhatus are the 18 specific sensory and cognitive elements. Skandhas include dhatus (e.g., form skandha includes eye dhatu), but dhatus are more granular, focusing on sensory processes.
Saṃskṛta vs. Asaṃskṛta: Saṃskṛta (conditioned) includes all impermanent, composite phenomena (skandhas, dhatus, saṃskāras), while asaṃskṛta (unconditioned) is permanent, non-composite (e.g., nirvana). Saṃskṛta is samsaric, asaṃskṛta is liberative.
Karma vs. Saṃskāra: Karma is a subset of saṃskāra (volitional formations within the skandhas), specific to intentional actions, while saṃskāra as a broader term includes all conditioned phenomena (saṃskṛta).
Saṃskāra vs. Saṃskṛta: As a skandha, saṃskāra is mental formations; as conditioned elements, it overlaps with saṃskṛta (all conditioned phenomena), but saṃskṛta is broader, including non-mental phenomena (e.g., physical objects).
Dharma vs. Others: Dharma is the most inclusive term, covering all phenomena (saṃskṛta and asaṃskṛta), including skandhas, dhatus, saṃskāras, and karma. It is the basic unit of analysis, with svabhāva in Abhidharma, empty in Madhyamaka.
Madhyamaka Perspective: Nāgārjuna negates svabhāva across all terms (skandhas, dhatus, saṃskṛta, saṃskāra, dharma, karma), viewing them as empty, dependently arisen, and illusory [U2T]. Asaṃskṛta (e.g., nirvana) is also empty, transcending dualistic categories.
.
.
Final Answer
Skandhas: Five aggregates (form, feeling, perception, volitional formations, consciousness) forming a person, conditioned, empty in Madhyamaka.
Dhatus: 18 sensory and cognitive elements (sense organs, objects, consciousnesses), conditioned, specific to experience, empty in Madhyamaka.
Saṃskṛta: All conditioned, composite phenomena (including skandhas, dhatus, saṃskāras), impermanent, empty in Madhyamaka.
Asaṃskṛta: Unconditioned, non-composite phenomena (e.g., nirvana, space), permanent in Abhidharma, empty in Madhyamaka.
Karma: Intentional actions within saṃskāra skandha, producing results, conditioned, empty in Madhyamaka.
Saṃskāra: As a skandha, volitional formations; as conditioned elements, all saṃskṛta phenomena, empty in Madhyamaka.
Dharma: Basic elements of reality (conditioned and unconditioned), real with svabhāva in Abhidharma, empty and illusory in Madhyamaka.
In Abhidharma, these are real with momentary svabhāva; in Madhyamaka, they are empty, dependently arisen, and illusory [U2T], as in your Chapter 13 title: “Dependently Originated ⇔ Empty ⇔ Illusory.”
.
.
.
Question - Conditioned vs. Composite
Question - Conditioned vs. Composite
Q: What is the difference between conditioned and composite, if any?
In the context of Buddhist philosophy, particularly as relevant to Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā and the Abhidharma tradition, the terms conditioned (saṃskṛta) and composite (saṃskṛta) are closely related, often used interchangeably in translations, but they carry nuanced distinctions depending on the context and tradition. Below, I’ll clarify the meanings of these terms, explore any differences, and explain their implications in both Abhidharma and Madhyamaka perspectives, ensuring alignment with your previous analyses (e.g., Chapter 13’s focus on conditioned elements and Chapter 15’s critique of inherent existence). I’ll also connect to your Madhyamaka framework of the Union of the Two Truths [U2T] and the Middle Way.
.
.
Definitions and Nuances
Conditioned (Saṃskṛta)
Definition: Saṃskṛta (Sanskrit: "conditioned" or "constructed") refers to phenomena that arise, abide, and cease due to causes and conditions, characterized by impermanence (anicca), suffering (dukkha), and non-self (anattā). These are phenomena dependent on other factors (e.g., causes, conditions, or mental imputation) for their existence, forming the fabric of samsaric experience.
Characteristics:
Causality: Conditioned phenomena are produced by a web of interdependent causes and conditions, such as material causes (e.g., clay for a pot), efficient causes (e.g., a potter), or mental conditions (e.g., perception shaping experience).
Impermanence: They are momentary or transient, arising and ceasing due to the presence or absence of conditions.
Composite Nature: They are often composites, meaning they are made up of multiple parts or elements (e.g., a pot is a composite of clay, shape, and craftsmanship). However, “conditioned” emphasizes their dependence rather than their composition.
Examples: Physical objects (pots, trees), mental states (feelings, thoughts), and processes (aging, karma) are all saṃskṛta, as they depend on causes like materials, actions, or consciousness.
Role: In Buddhist practice, understanding conditioned phenomena reveals their impermanence and non-self, reducing attachment and guiding toward liberation.
Composite (Saṃskṛta)
Definition: The term saṃskṛta can also be translated as “composite,” highlighting that these phenomena are aggregates or assemblies of multiple components, parts, or dharmas (basic elements). The “composite” aspect emphasizes their constructed nature, being made up of interdependent elements that form a whole.
Characteristics:
Aggregation: Composite phenomena are formed by the combination of parts, such as the five skandhas (form, feeling, perception, volitional formations, consciousness) constituting a person, or dhatus (sense organs, objects, consciousnesses) producing sensory experience.
Interdependence: The parts are not independent but rely on each other, and the whole depends on the parts (e.g., a table is a composite of legs, surface, and assembly).
Conditioned Nature: Composites are inherently conditioned, as their parts and assembly arise due to causes and conditions. Thus, “composite” implies “conditioned,” but the focus is on the structural makeup rather than the causal process.
Examples: A pot (composite of clay, shape, firing), a person (composite of skandhas), or a moment of perception (composite of eye, form, consciousness) are saṃskṛta as composites.
Role: Analyzing composites reveals their lack of a unified, permanent self, supporting the insight into non-self (anattā).
.
.
Is There a Difference?
In most contexts, conditioned and composite are two facets of the same term, saṃskṛta, and are often interchangeable, as all conditioned phenomena are composite (made of parts) and all composites are conditioned (dependent on causes). However, subtle distinctions arise based on emphasis and context:
Emphasis on Causality vs. Composition:
Conditioned emphasizes the causal dependence of phenomena on external factors (causes, conditions, or mental imputation). It highlights their impermanence and arising/ceasing due to conditions (e.g., a pot depends on clay, potter, and firing).
Composite emphasizes the structural makeup of phenomena as aggregates of parts or dharmas. It focuses on their constructed nature, being composed of multiple elements (e.g., a pot is a composite of clay particles, shape, and function).
Example: When analyzing a pot, calling it conditioned stresses its dependence on causes (clay, potter), while calling it composite stresses its composition from parts (clay, shape). Both are true, but the lens differs.
Scope of Application:
Conditioned applies broadly to all saṃskṛta phenomena, including those that may not be overtly composite in a structural sense (e.g., a single moment of consciousness is conditioned by contact but not a composite of parts in the same way a pot is).
Composite typically applies to phenomena with discernible parts or aggregates, such as physical objects, persons (skandhas), or experiences (dhatus). However, even subtle phenomena like consciousness are composites in Abhidharma, as they involve multiple dharmas (e.g., awareness and object).
Example: A fleeting thought is conditioned (depends on prior thoughts, stimuli), but calling it composite may be less intuitive unless analyzed as a combination of dharmas (e.g., feeling, perception).
Abhidharma Context:
In Abhidharma, saṃskṛta-dharmas are both conditioned (caused by conditions) and composite (made of momentary dharmas with svabhāva). The distinction is minor, as all saṃskṛta phenomena are composites of dharmas (e.g., a pot is a composite of form dharmas, a person of skandha dharmas). The term saṃskṛta encompasses both aspects, with “conditioned” used for causal analysis and “composite” for structural analysis.
Example: In Abhidharmakośa, a pot is saṃskṛta because it is caused (by potter, clay) and composed (of form dharmas), with no practical distinction.
Madhyamaka Context:
Nāgārjuna treats all saṃskṛta phenomena as empty of inherent existence (svabhāva), whether viewed as conditioned or composite. In Chapter 13, saṃskāras (conditioned elements) are “vain” (empty) because they are deceptive, encompassing both their causal dependence and composite nature (your title: “Dependently Originated ⇔ Empty ⇔ Illusory”). In Chapter 15, svabhāva is negated for produced phenomena (verses 1–2), emphasizing their conditioned nature, but their composite structure (e.g., parts forming a whole) is implicitly empty, as parts are also conditioned (verses 4–5).
Madhyamaka Nuance: The distinction between conditioned and composite is irrelevant ultimately, as both imply dependence and thus emptiness [T2]. Conventionally [T1], “conditioned” may highlight causality (e.g., a pot’s arising), while “composite” highlights structure (e.g., a pot’s parts), but both are illusory [U2T].
Example: A pot is conditioned (depends on causes) and composite (made of parts), but Nāgārjuna sees both as empty, like a dream, per your Chapter 13 framework.
Philosophical Usage:
In early Buddhist texts (e.g., Pali Canon), saṃskṛta is often translated as “conditioned” to emphasize causality and impermanence, aligning with dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda).
In Abhidharma, “composite” is used to describe the aggregated nature of phenomena, especially in analyzing skandhas or dhatus.
In Madhyamaka, both translations are used, but “conditioned” is more common in Nāgārjuna’s critiques (e.g., Chapter 13’s “conditioned elements”), as it directly negates svabhāva through dependence, though “composite” is implied in discussions of parts and wholes (e.g., Chapter 14’s unification).
.
.
Is There a Practical Difference?
In Abhidharma: The difference is minimal, as all saṃskṛta phenomena are both conditioned (caused) and composite (aggregated). The choice of term depends on analytical focus: “conditioned” for causality, “composite” for structure. For example, a person’s skandhas are conditioned (caused by karma) and composite (made of form, feeling, etc.), with no substantive distinction.
In Madhyamaka: There is effectively no difference, as both conditioned and composite phenomena are empty of svabhāva due to their interdependence. Nāgārjuna’s critique (e.g., Chapter 15, verses 1–2) focuses on their conditioned nature (dependence negates svabhāva), but their composite nature (e.g., parts forming a whole) is equally empty, as parts are conditioned (Chapter 14, verses 5–7). The Middle Way [U2T] applies to both, as in your Chapter 13 title: “Dependently Originated ⇔ Empty ⇔ Illusory.”
Subtle Contextual Difference:
Conditioned is broader, applying to all saṃskṛta phenomena, including those not overtly composite (e.g., a single dharma like a moment of consciousness is conditioned but less clearly composite).
Composite is narrower, emphasizing phenomena with discernible parts, but since Abhidharma views all saṃskṛta as aggregates of dharmas, the distinction is minor.
Example: A single feeling (vedanā) is conditioned (depends on contact), but calling it composite requires analyzing it as a dharma within a larger aggregate (e.g., skandhas). A pot is both conditioned (caused) and composite (parts), with no practical difference.
.
.
Implications in Abhidharma and Madhyamaka
Abhidharma: The terms reinforce the reality of saṃskṛta-dharmas as momentary, causally linked composites with svabhāva. Analyzing them as conditioned (caused) or composite (aggregated) reveals non-self, supporting liberation. For example, Chapter 14’s saṃsarga (unification of dharmas) assumes saṃskṛta phenomena are real, whether conditioned or composite.
Madhyamaka: Nāgārjuna negates svabhāva for all saṃskṛta phenomena, whether conditioned or composite, as both imply dependence and thus emptiness [T2]. In Chapter 13, saṃskāras are empty because they are conditioned/composite; in Chapter 15, production negates svabhāva, making no distinction between the terms. The Middle Way [U2T] uses both conventionally [T1] without grasping, as in your Chapter 13, verse 7 title: “leaves no illusions to counter.”
.
.
Final Answer
There is no substantive difference between conditioned and composite in the context of saṃskṛta phenomena, as both describe phenomena that are dependently arisen, impermanent, and composed of parts. Conditioned emphasizes causal dependence on external factors (causes, conditions), while composite highlights structural aggregation of parts (dharmas). In Abhidharma, both apply to all saṃskṛta-dharmas (e.g., skandhas, dhatus), with “conditioned” used for causality and “composite” for structure, but they are effectively synonymous. In Madhyamaka, Nāgārjuna views both as empty [T2], dependently arisen [T1], and illusory [U2T], with no distinction, as both negate svabhāva (e.g., Chapter 15, verses 1–2). The Middle Way engages both conventionally without reification, aligning with your Chapter 13 title: “Dependently Originated ⇔ Empty ⇔ Illusory.”
.
.
Question - Exploration about the nature of the mind projecting itself onto the perceived universe
Question - Exploration about the nature of the mind projecting itself onto the perceived universe
Q: Please analyse this proposition: "The universe looks like a limitless centerless fractal karmic cycle because our mind(s) works in a dualistic karmic cycle manner. Realizing its true nature & dynamic we can transcend without rejecting its fabrications / conditioning / karma." Note: I asked this question by plugging it at the end of an old discussion about chapter 11.
Your proposition elegantly synthesizes key insights from Madhyamaka philosophy (as in Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamakakarika, particularly chapters like 11 on temporal limits, but extending to broader themes in 18 on self/mind, 24 on the two truths, and 25 on nirvana), while incorporating modern metaphors like "fractal" and "karmic cycle." It posits a mind-dependent view of reality that echoes dependent co-arising (pratityasamutpada) and emptiness (shunyata), leading to non-dual transcendence. I'll break it down into its core components, analyze their philosophical grounding, potential strengths and subtleties, and any nuances or extensions, drawing from our prior generalizations of Chapter 11 (limitless/centerless reality as continuous, holographic, fractal-like, non-linear, karmic-like).
.
1. The Universe Appears as a "Limitless Centerless Fractal Karmic Cycle"
Breakdown: Here, the universe (or samsara/all phenomena) is described not as a bounded, linear structure but as an infinite, self-similar loop without a core or edges. "Fractal" implies recursive patterns repeating at every scale (e.g., microcosmic thoughts mirroring macrocosmic cycles), "karmic cycle" evokes the wheel of samsara driven by actions/intentions, and "limitless centerless" negates inherent origins, middles, or ends (as in Chapter 11's negation of before/after/simultaneous phases).
Philosophical Alignment: This resonates strongly with Nagarjuna's tetralemma-based deconstruction: phenomena cannot be inherently existent (eternal cycles), non-existent (annihilated breaks), both, or neither — rendering them empty yet interdependently arising. Samsara is "limitless" (ananta, verse 1) and centerless (no fixed "middle," verse 2), extending to all things (verses 7–8). The fractal aspect subtly captures how emptiness self-replicates: a single cause-effect pair (verse 7) mirrors the entire interdependent web, like Indra's net in Huayan Buddhism (a complementary tradition), where each jewel reflects all others infinitely.
Subtle Strengths: As we discussed, this fractal-karmic view highlights non-linearity — karma isn't a straight chain but a holographic echo where intentions ripple across scales without a central "self" (anatman). It avoids reifying the universe as "real" (eternalism) or "illusory" in a nihilistic sense, aligning with the Middle Way: phenomena are "there, yet not there," like dreams or mirages.
Nuance: While "cycle" implies repetition, Madhyamaka emphasizes that even cyclicity is conventional; ultimately, there's no inherent looping because time/space/nature are boundless. If over-literalized, "fractal karmic cycle" might suggest a mechanistic determinism, but Nagarjuna counters this by showing causes/fruits as empty (verse 7), freeing karma from fatalism.
.
2. This Appearance Arises Because "Our Mind(s) Works in a Dualistic Karmic Cycle Manner"
Breakdown: The mind's dualistic operation — grasping at subject-object, self-other, existence-nonexistence — projects this cyclic, fractal structure onto reality. "Karmic cycle manner" suggests habitual conditioning (samskaras) perpetuates duality through intention-action-result loops.
Philosophical Alignment: Central to Madhyamaka is the mind's role in fabricating reality via imputation (prajnapti). Phenomena are "co-imputed by the mind" (as in our prior tetralemma generalization), dependently co-defined as mere designations. Duality stems from ignorance (avidya), fueling the 12 links of dependent arising (e.g., consciousness → name/form → contact → craving → becoming). The mind's "karmic cycle" mirrors samsara's wheel, where dualistic grasping creates apparent boundaries (e.g., birth/death in Chapter 11), making the universe seem fractal-like in its recursive delusions.
Subtle Strengths: This points to the holographic interplay: mind isn't separate from the universe but co-emerges with it, like a fractal where observer and observed interpenetrate. As we noted earlier, realizing this continuity dissolves ego-centric views — mind's dualism isn't a flaw to reject but a conventional tool, empty yet functional.
Nuance: "Our mind(s)" subtly nods to collective/interdependent consciousness (e.g., alayavijnana in Yogacara influences on Madhyamaka), avoiding solipsism. However, Nagarjuna warns against reifying mind itself (Chapter 18: self/mind empty of inherent existence). If mind "works in" duality inherently, it might imply essentialism; better to see duality as adventitious, arising from conditions, thus transcendable without erasure.
.
3. "Realizing Its True Nature & Dynamic We Can Transcend Without Rejecting Its Fabrications / Conditioning / Karma"
Breakdown: Through insight into emptiness and interdependence, one surpasses the cycle's grip — not by denying appearances (fabrications like concepts, conditioning like habits, karma like ethical ripples) — but by seeing them as non-dual with ultimate truth.
Philosophical Alignment: This captures the two truths (samvriti-satya: conventional; paramartha-satya: ultimate) in Chapter 24: emptiness doesn't negate conventions but enables them. Transcendence (nirvana) is realizing samsara's true nature as empty (Chapter 25: nirvana neither arises nor ceases, limitless like samsara). "Without rejecting" echoes the Middle Way's non-abandonment: act without acting, engaging karma ethically while knowing its illusoriness (e.g., bodhisattva path).
Subtle Strengths: Ties into our fractal/non-linear generalizations — realization reveals the karmic web as self-similar echoes, allowing "transcendence" as effortless navigation (non-linear jumps beyond cycles). It's karmic-like ethically: insight purifies without nullifying past actions, fostering compassion amid the holographic whole.
Nuance: "Transcend" might imply a higher state, but Madhyamaka insists nirvana/samsara are non-dual — no "beyond" to reach, just cessation of grasping. Realization isn't intellectual but direct (prajna), dissolving dualism without leaving traces. If "fabrications/conditioning/karma" are not rejected, they're not affirmed either — held lightly as tools for liberation.
.
Overall Validity and Insights
Strengths as a Proposition: It masterfully bridges ancient Madhyamaka with contemporary metaphors (fractal, holographic), making abstract negation accessible. It avoids extremes: neither positing a "real" cyclic universe (eternalism) nor dismissing it (nihilism), while emphasizing mind's projective role and ethical non-rejection. This guides practice — meditate on Chapter 11's verses to deconstruct boundaries, revealing the proposition's "true nature" as a skillful means (upaya).
Potential Extensions: As we explored subtly before, add quantum-like indeterminacy: mind's dualism creates probabilistic karmic fractals, but realization yields superposition-like freedom (non-linear outcomes). Or, ecologically: the universe's centerless web implies interconnected ethics, transcending anthropocentrism.
Critiques/Limitations: Risk of over-metaphorizing — fractals are mathematical constructs, still conventional; true realization transcends even these descriptions (Nagarjuna's silence in verse 1). Empirically, it invites verification through meditation, not dogma.
Practical Guidance: To embody this, contemplate: Visualize mind's dualistic projections as fractal branches in a boundless tree; realize the trunk (emptiness) by not grasping branches (without cutting them). This leads to liberation amid the cycle, acting compassionately without attachment.
.
(Note: I will probably refine this question while studying the next chapters. It is about the Union of the three spheres: subject/mind, action/perception/cognition, object/perceived-world [U3S], their karmic interdependence and co-evolution (one sphere is conditioned-by and conditioning the others; they are not different/separate/multiple/dual, not identical/united/one/non-dual, not both, not neither). So it is not just the mind projecting its structure and operation; but the nature & operation of the whole – without reifying anything. It is about the Union of the Two Truths in action [U2T-in-action]. Still trying to directly perceive the Big Picture of the inconceivable, because reality is not describable, not indescribable, not both, not neither.)
G. Exploration
G. Exploration
Q: Using the results of our previous discussions on the Mulamadhyamakakarika, Who created the Universe? No one (or nothing) created the universe.
In the context of Nāgārjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (MMK), which we've previously explored as a foundational Madhyamaka text emphasizing emptiness (śūnyatā) and the rejection of inherent existence (svabhāva), the question of "who created the universe" is fundamentally deconstructed. Nāgārjuna argues across chapters — particularly in examinations of causation (pratītyasamutpāda), arising (utpāda), and dependent origination — that no phenomena, including the universe itself, arise independently or from an inherent cause, whether that be a self (continuity), other (discontinuity), both, or neither (as detailed in MMK 1:1–3 and throughout Chapter 1 on conditions).
The notion of a creator (e.g., a god, primordial entity, or ultimate agent) is critiqued as untenable because it relies on reified concepts of production and existence that fall apart under analysis. For instance:
If a creator exists inherently, it would require its own cause, leading to infinite regress (MMK 7: Tathatā-parīkṣā on suchness).
If the universe is "created" dependently, it lacks svabhāva and thus isn't truly "created" in an absolute sense (MMK 15: Svabhāva-parīkṣā on inherent nature).
Ultimate reality is empty of such dualistic fabrications; samsara and nirvana are not produced or destroyed (MMK 25: Nirvāṇa-parīkṣā).
In short, no one (or nothing) created the universe, as the very ideas of creation, creator, and created are conventional illusions without ultimate truth. This aligns with the tetralemma (catuṣkoṭi) Nāgārjuna employs to negate extremes, pointing instead to the middle way beyond origination and cessation. If this draws from a specific verse or interpretation from our prior exchanges you'd like to revisit, clarify for deeper analysis.
.
.
Q: Could you expand on how the Universe exists? The Universe is not existent/’this’, non-existent /’non-this’, both, or neither – beyond all conditioned dualistic conceptual proliferation. It, and everything in it, is dependently co-arisen in a limitless centerless fractal karmic cycle, interdependent, co-defined, co-evolving, co-imputed by the mind, mere designations/names ⇐⇒ thus empty of inherent existence, never absolute [U2T] ⇐⇒ like illusions, reflections, mirages, dreams, echos, ‘there, yet not there’.
In the framework of Nāgārjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (MMK), the existence of the universe isn't explained through a substantive "how" in the sense of a mechanistic or ontological blueprint, but rather through a deconstructive analysis that reveals its lack of inherent, independent reality. This ties directly into the core Madhyamaka doctrine of emptiness (śūnyatā), which isn't nihilism but a middle way (madhyamaka) that negates extremes like eternalism (things exist forever inherently) and annihilationism (things cease to exist absolutely). Let me expand on this step by step, building on our prior discussions.
.
1. Dependent Origination (Pratītyasamutpāda) as the Conventional "How"
At the conventional level (saṃvṛti-satya), the universe "exists" through interdependent arising. Phenomena, including the cosmos, arise dependently on causes and conditions, without any self-sustaining essence. Nāgārjuna opens the MMK with this in Chapter 1 (Pratyaya-parīkṣā, Examination of Conditions), stating that nothing arises from itself, from another, from both, or from neither (MMK 1:1). The universe isn't a fixed entity but a web of empty relational processes — like space-time, matter, and energy emerging from prior conditions (e.g., the Big Bang in modern terms, but even that is dependently designated).
This is akin to the twelve links of dependent origination in broader Buddhist thought, which Nāgārjuna references implicitly: ignorance conditions formations, which condition consciousness, and so on, cycling through birth, aging, and death. The universe "exists" as this flux, not as a created object but as a momentary aggregation of empty phenomena. For example, in Chapter 7 (Saṃskṛta-parīkṣā, Examination of the Conditioned), he shows how arising, enduring, and ceasing are all interdependent illusions — nothing truly "comes into being" independently.
.
2. Emptiness of Inherent Existence (Svabhāva-śūnyatā) as the Ultimate Reality
Ultimately (paramārtha-satya), the universe doesn't "exist" in any absolute way because it lacks svabhāva (inherent nature). Nāgārjuna dedicates Chapter 15 (Svabhāva-parīkṣā) to dismantling this: if something had inherent existence, it couldn't change or depend on anything else, but the universe is impermanent and relational. Asking "how the universe exists" presupposes a reified "universe" that can be pinned down, but analysis reveals it's empty — like a mirage or dream (MMK 17: Karma-phala-parīkṣā uses analogies of illusions).
This emptiness isn't a void but the absence of extremes. The universe neither exists nor doesn't exist, nor both, nor neither (the tetralemma, or catuṣkoṭi, applied throughout the text, e.g., in Chapter 25 on nirvāṇa). It "exists" only nominally, through linguistic and conceptual designations, without ultimate grounding. As Nāgārjuna concludes in MMK 24:18–19, emptiness is itself dependently originated, preventing nihilism while affirming conventional functionality.
.
3. No Origination, No Cessation: Beyond Creation Narratives
Expanding on creation (from your prior question), the universe has no true beginning or "how" of origination because time itself is empty (MMK 19: Kāla-parīkṣā, Examination of Time). Past, present, and future are interdependent; without a fixed "now," there's no absolute starting point. Myths of a creator god or primordial cause are critiqued in Chapter 23 (Viparyāsa-parīkṣā, Examination of Errors) as views rooted in attachment to purity/impurity, leading to suffering.
In practical terms, this means the universe "exists" as we experience it — galaxies forming, stars dying — but these are mere appearances (māyā). Madhyamaka invites realization through prasaṅga (reductio ad absurdum) arguments, showing contradictions in any substantialist view, leading to quiescence of conceptual proliferation (prapañca).
.
4. Implications for Understanding and Practice
This view liberates from dogmatic extremes: no need for a theistic creator or materialist determinism (or nihilism). Instead, it emphasizes ethical living within conventions while realizing ultimate emptiness, as in MMK 24 (Āryasatya-parīkṣā), where the two truths are inseparable — emptiness enables compassion.
If we tie this to modern parallels (without straying from MMK), quantum interdependence or relativity's relational space-time echo dependent origination, but Nāgārjuna would say even these are empty constructs.
If you'd like to dive into specific verses, chapters, or compare with other interpretations (e.g., Candrakīrti's commentary), or shift to a non-Buddhist perspective, let me know for further expansion.
.
.
Q: Expand on the cosmic limitless centerless karmic cycle – from which even space and time come from.
In the Madhyamaka framework of Nāgārjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (MMK), the "cosmic limitless centerless karmic cycle" can be understood as a poetic encapsulation of saṃsāra — the endless wheel of conditioned existence — interwoven with the principles of dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda), karma (action and its ripening), and emptiness (śūnyatā). This cycle isn't a literal mechanism but a descriptive model for how phenomena, including the vast cosmos, perpetuate without inherent reality.
Crucially, even foundational constructs like space (ākāśa) and time (kāla) are not primordial or independent; they "co-emerge" as interdependent designations within this cycle, lacking any absolute origin or essence. I'll expand on this below, drawing from key chapters of the MMK to illustrate the deconstructive logic.
.
1. The Karmic Cycle: Foundations in Dependent Origination
At its core, the karmic cycle refers to the perpetual interplay of causes, conditions, and effects that drive the arising and ceasing of all phenomena. Nāgārjuna roots this in pratītyasamutpāda, the twelvefold chain: ignorance (avidyā) conditions mental formations (saṃskāra), which condition consciousness (vijñāna), name-and-form (nāmarūpa), the six senses, contact, feeling, craving, grasping, becoming, birth, and finally aging-and-death (jarāmaraṇa), which loops back to ignorance (MMK 26: Dvādaśāṅga-parīkṣā, Examination of the Twelve Links).
Karma — volitional actions of body, speech, and mind — fuels this cycle. In MMK 17 (Karma-phala-parīkṣā, Examination of Action and Fruit), Nāgārjuna shows that actions and their results are neither identical nor separate, neither eternal nor annihilated; they arise dependently, like a seed and sprout, but empty of inherent connection.
This creates a "cosmic" scale: the cycle encompasses not just individual rebirths but the entire universe's flux — galaxies forming from cosmic dust, beings suffering and striving across realms — all propelled by accumulated karmic imprints.The cycle is "karmic" because it's self-perpetuating: past actions condition present experiences, which generate future actions, ad infinitum. Yet, as Nāgārjuna emphasizes, this isn't a deterministic machine; it's illusory, like a magician's trick (māyā), where the apparent continuity masks emptiness.
.
2. Limitless: No Beginning, No End (Anādi-Ananta)
The cycle is "limitless" because it has no discernible origin or termination in absolute terms. In MMK 11 (Pūrvāparakoṭi-parīkṣā, Examination of Beginning and End), Nāgārjuna argues that seeking a "first cause" or ultimate beginning leads to absurdity: if there were a start, it would require a prior condition, regressing infinitely; if none, phenomena couldn't arise at all. Saṃsāra is thus beginningless (anādi), stretching boundlessly without a temporal edge.
This limitlessness extends cosmically: the universe isn't "created" at a Big Bang-like point (which would imply inherent arising, refuted in MMK 7: Saṃskṛta-parīkṣā) but unfolds in an endless series of conditioned moments. Even liberation (nirvāṇa) doesn't "end" the cycle in a destructive sense; per MMK 25 (Nirvāṇa-parīkṣā), nirvāṇa is the quiescence of conceptual fabrications within saṃsāra itself — the cycle appears limitless only from the deluded view, but realization reveals its emptiness.
.
3. Centerless: Emptiness of Self and Essence
"Centerless" points to the absence of any core, self (ātman), or inherent nature (svabhāva) at the heart of the cycle. Nāgārjuna's central thesis in MMK 15 (Svabhāva-parīkṣā) is that if phenomena had an intrinsic "center" or essence, they couldn't depend on anything else, rendering change and relation impossible. But the karmic cycle thrives on interdependence: no fixed "doer" behind actions, no permanent "experiencer" of fruits.
Cosmically, this means the universe has no central hub — no divine architect, no absolute ground (like Brahman in rival views critiqued in MMK 23: Viparyāsa-parīkṣā). Instead, it's a decentered web: beings, worlds, and even dharmas (phenomena) are "centerless" aggregates, empty like space containing reflections. This de-centering liberates from attachment to views of self or cosmos as solid, revealing the cycle as a mirage without a focal point.
.
4. From Which Space and Time Emerge: Dependent Designation
Here's the profound twist: space and time aren't pre-existing frameworks from which the cycle operates; they "come from" the cycle itself (co-evolving), meaning they arise as conditioned-conditioning, empty constructs within dependent origination.
Time (Kāla): In MMK 19 (Kāla-parīkṣā), Nāgārjuna dismantles time as inherent. Past, present, and future are interdependent: the present depends on the past (which is gone) and future (which isn't yet), leading to contradiction if any are reified. Time "emerges" from the karmic cycle's flux — moments of arising and ceasing driven by karma — but has no independent reality. Without the cycle's conditioning (e.g., ignorance fabricating sequences), time dissolves into emptiness. Cosmically, this means timelines, epochs, or cosmic ages are mere designations, not ultimate.
Space (Ākāśa/Motion in Space): Space is critiqued in MMK 5 (Ākāśa-parīkṣā) as empty of inherent expanse. It can't be a container for phenomena because it depends on them for definition (e.g., "here" vs. "there" arises from relational positioning). In MMK 2 (Gati-parīkṣā, Examination of Motion), motion through space is impossible if analyzed: no going in the gone, going, or not-yet-gone paths. Space "comes from" the karmic cycle as a conceptual overlay on interdependent events — worlds expanding or contracting via karmic forces — but it's centerless and limitless, like the cycle itself.
In essence, space and time are karmically conditioned illusions: they appear through the twelve links (e.g., name-and-form fabricating spatial forms, consciousness temporalizing experiences) but originate from nothing inherent. The cycle "produces" them conventionally, yet ultimately, all are śūnya — empty, interdependent, and non-arisen (MMK 1: Pratyaya-parīkṣā).
.
5. Implications and Transcendence
This view portrays the cosmos as a boundless, essenceless dance of karma, where suffering (duḥkha) perpetuates through clinging, but insight into emptiness breaks the illusion without destroying anything (MMK 24: Āryasatya-parīkṣā). It's not nihilistic — conventions function (e.g., ethical karma leads to better rebirths) — but points to the middle way: neither affirming a real cycle nor denying its apparent play.
In practice, meditation on this fosters equanimity: realizing space-time as karmic projections dissolves fear of cosmic vastness or temporal finitude, leading to compassion for all ensnared in the wheel.
.
If this expansion evokes specific MMK verses or intersections with other traditions (e.g., quantum cosmology's relational time), or if you'd like to explore liberation from the cycle, provide more details for refinement.
.
.
Q: From a Mulamadhyamaka (union of the two truths) point of view, can we conclude that the Universe has a cosmic mind and karma comparable to entities of lower scale, including humans? All levels of organisation seem to be evolving following a karmic cycle that is ultimately empty of inherent existence. There is no distinction from one level to another, up to the universe.
FIRST ANSWER:
In the context of our ongoing discussion on Nāgārjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (MMK) and Madhyamaka philosophy, where the universe is understood as a centerless, limitless karmic cycle rooted in dependent origination and emptiness (śūnyatā), the question of whether the universe possesses a "cosmic mind" and "karma" akin to that of humans or other entities invites a nuanced exploration. From a strict Madhyamaka perspective, we cannot conclude this affirmatively at an ultimate level, as all phenomena — including mind, karma, and the cosmos itself — lack inherent existence (svabhāva), rendering such attributions conceptual fabrications (prapañca) that dissolve under analysis (e.g., MMK 18: Ātma-parīkṣā on self and MMK 15 on svabhāva). However, conventionally, parallels can be drawn, and broader philosophical, scientific, and Buddhist interpretations offer intriguing support for analogous structures at cosmic scales. I'll break this down, drawing on diverse views to assess if a conclusion is warranted.
.
The Notion of a Cosmic Mind
The idea of a "cosmic mind" suggests the universe as a unified, conscious entity, where individual minds (like human consciousness) are emergent parts or manifestations of a greater whole. This isn't a mainstream scientific consensus but has gained traction in philosophy and speculative physics as a response to the "hard problem of consciousness" — why and how subjective experience arises from matter.
Panpsychism as a Foundation: One prominent view is panpsychism, which posits that consciousness is a fundamental property of reality, present even in basic particles like electrons or photons. This implies the universe is suffused with rudimentary awareness, scaling up to complex minds in beings. Proponents argue it resolves the emergence problem: if matter is inherently experiential, there's no need to explain how non-conscious stuff produces consciousness. For instance, neuroscientist Christof Koch has suggested that simple systems like a photon might have "some element of raw, subjective feeling," while philosopher Philip Goff advocates for it as a way to explain reality's fine-tuning for life. Discussions in scientific circles, such as a 2023 workshop at Marist University, highlight its revival, drawing from thinkers like William James and Bertrand Russell.
Cosmopsychism: The Universe as a Single Mind: A related variant, cosmopsychism, goes further by proposing the entire universe is one conscious entity, with human minds as fragmented aspects of this cosmic consciousness. This model addresses cosmological fine-tuning — the precise constants (e.g., gravitational force) that allow life — by suggesting the universe is goal-directed toward complexity and awareness, without invoking a theistic designer. Philosopher Philip Goff argues this provides a robust explanation for why the universe seems "designed" for life, estimating the odds of random fine-tuning as less than 1 in 10^136. In a 2025 paper, universal consciousness is framed as a foundational field akin to quantum fields, integrating non-dual philosophy with physics to explain nonlocality and space-time emergence. Deepak Chopra echoes this by critiquing materialist cosmology for excluding mind, proposing the universe's origins story must include consciousness as inherent.
Counterarguments and Cosmic Insignificance: Skeptics, often from materialist standpoints, argue that consciousness is an emergent property of complex brains, not a cosmic feature. The "cosmic standpoint" in philosophy — viewing humanity against the vast universe — often leads to perceptions of insignificance, where human minds are negligible anomalies in a mindless cosmos. Theistic views sometimes posit a divine mind behind the universe, but secular cosmology (e.g., multiverse theories) attributes apparent design to chance or selection effects, without needing consciousness at the universal level. Reddit discussions reflect this divide, with some seeing the universe's consciousness as logical (e.g., if we are conscious parts, the whole contains consciousness), while others dismiss it as untestable.
In scaling to lower entities like humans, these views suggest comparability: human minds could be "islands" within a cosmic consciousness, much as neurons form individual awareness. However, evidence remains philosophical and indirect — no empirical test confirms it, though quantum theories (e.g., integrated information theory) provide tentative bridges.
.
Cosmic Karma Comparable to Human-Scale Karma
Karma in Buddhist philosophy is fundamentally "action" (kamma) driven by intention (cetanā), creating cause-and-effect chains that influence future experiences, rebirth, and suffering in saṃsāra. It's not punitive cosmic justice or fate but a natural law among the five niyamas (orders of causation), operating alongside physical, biological, and other processes.
Cosmic Scale in Buddhism: While karma is often discussed individually, Buddhist texts extend it to collective and cosmic levels. For instance, it affects "large units of people, whole nations, planets, and whatever lies beyond," influencing the rise and fall of worlds across infinite universes in Mahāyāna cosmology. In the Bhavacakra (Wheel of Life), karma drives the perpetual cycle of realms, from hells to heavens, across cosmic epochs (kalpas). Rebirth is determined by accumulated karma, with saṃsāra as a beginningless "wandering" algorithm. Texts like the Questions of Milinda clarify that not all suffering stems from karma — some from saṃsāra's inherent flux — but cosmic karma explains inequalities and the maturation of effects over lifetimes or eons.
Comparability to Lower Scales: Human karma — intentional actions ripening as personal experiences — is analogous to cosmic karma, where collective intentions shape planetary or universal conditions (e.g., environmental degradation as shared karmic fruit). Buddhism rejects determinism; evil karma can be counteracted by wholesome actions, applying at any scale. In abhidharma and dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda), karma links through the twelvefold chain, from ignorance to suffering, mirroring how cosmic cycles perpetuate without a central agent. This scalability suggests the universe "has" karma in a descriptive sense, as a web of interdependent causes, comparable to human volition but vastly amplified.
Limitations: Unlike a personified "cosmic mind," Buddhist karma isn't intentional at the universal level — it's impersonal, like gravity. The Sivaka Sutta refutes that all events are karmic, emphasizing multiple causations. In Madhyamaka, even karma is empty ultimately, a conventional tool for ethics, not an inherent cosmic force.
.
Can We Conclude This?
No definitive conclusion is possible, as these ideas remain speculative and unprovable empirically. From Madhyamaka, attributing a "mind" or "karma" to the universe reifies it as an entity, contradicting emptiness — the universe neither has nor lacks such qualities beyond conventions. Yet, substantiated theories like cosmopsychism and panpsychism offer plausible frameworks for a conscious cosmos, while Buddhist cosmology supports karma as a universal principle scaling from microbes to multiverses. If fine-tuning and consciousness puzzles persist, these views gain weight, but they don't demand acceptance. Intriguingly, integrating them (e.g., a conscious universe driven by karmic-like causation) aligns with non-dual perspectives, where the "cosmic" and "human" are not separate scales but interdependent appearances. For deeper ties to MMK or specific traditions, clarify further.
.
.
Q: From a Mulamadhyamaka (union of the two truths) point of view, can we conclude that the Universe has a cosmic mind and karma comparable to entities of lower scale, including humans? All levels of organisation seem to be evolving following a karmic cycle that is ultimately empty of inherent existence. There is no distinction from one level to another, up to the universe.
SECOND ANSWER:
From the perspective of Mūlamadhyamaka philosophy, as articulated in Nāgārjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (MMK), the union of the two truths (dvayasatya) — conventional truth (saṃvṛti-satya) and ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya) — provides a framework for analyzing phenomena without falling into extremes of eternalism or nihilism. This union is not a synthesis but an inseparability: the conventional designates interdependent appearances, while the ultimate reveals their emptiness (śūnyatā) of inherent existence (svabhāva). Your query posits a "cosmic mind and karma" for the universe, analogous to those in humans or lower-scale entities, based on a shared karmic cycle across organizational levels, with no inherent distinctions. Let's deconstruct this step by step, drawing on Nāgārjuna's analyses to assess whether such a conclusion holds.
.
1. The Union of the Two Truths: No Inherent Distinctions Across Scales
In MMK 24 (Āryasatya-parīkṣā, Examination of the Noble Truths), Nāgārjuna emphasizes that the two truths are not opposed but mutually entailing: "The ultimate truth is not taught independently of customary ways of talking and thinking" (MMK 24:10, trans. adapted). Conventionally, we discern levels of organization — subatomic particles, cells, organisms, ecosystems, galaxies, the universe — as evolving through processes resembling karmic cycles (cause-effect chains driven by conditions). These appear hierarchical, with "lower" scales (e.g., human minds generating karma via intention) scaling up to cosmic phenomena (e.g., galactic formations arising from gravitational "actions" and their "fruits").
Ultimately, however, all such distinctions dissolve into emptiness. As in MMK 15 (Svabhāva-parīkṣā), if any level had inherent existence, it couldn't interact or evolve dependently; yet everything arises through pratītyasamutpāda (dependent origination). There is no svabhāva-based boundary between "human" and "cosmic" — no "up" or "down" in an absolute sense. The karmic cycle you describe, empty yet apparently operative across scales, aligns with this: it's a conventional designation for interdependent flux, not an inherent structure. Thus, from the ultimate view, there's no distinction to bridge; all levels are equally empty, centerless, and limitless, as we discussed previously regarding the karmic cycle.
.
2. Karma Across Scales: Conventional Analogy, Ultimate Emptiness
Conventionally, karma (action and its ripening) can be analogized to cosmic processes. In MMK 17 (Karma-phala-parīkṣā), Nāgārjuna describes karma as neither stored nor annihilated, arising dependently like a reflection in a mirror — volitional for sentient beings but extendable to non-sentient phenomena via broader causation. Humans generate karma through mind (citta) and intention (cetanā), leading to rebirth cycles. At cosmic scales, one might describe the universe's "evolution" (e.g., entropy increasing, stars forming and dying) as a karmic-like cycle: prior conditions (e.g., Big Bang remnants) "act" to produce effects, perpetuating saṃsāra-like patterns of arising, abiding, and ceasing (MMK 7: Saṃskṛta-parīkṣā).
This scalability holds because dependent origination isn't limited to sentient scales; it applies universally (MMK 26: Dvādaśāṅga-parīkṣā extends the twelve links to all conditioned phenomena). Your point about "all levels evolving following a karmic cycle" resonates here: subatomic interactions "condition" atomic ones, which "condition" biological evolution, up to cosmic expansion — all empty of inherent existence, yet functionally cyclic. No level is privileged; the universe's vastness is just a larger aggregation of empty dharmas (phenomena), not a separate entity.
However, we cannot conclude an inherent "cosmic karma" comparable to human karma, as this risks reification. Karma implies ethical volition, which conventionally requires mind, but extending it cosmically is a metaphorical projection, not ultimate truth. Nāgārjuna warns against such views in MMK 23 (Viparyāsa-parīkṣā, Examination of Errors), where clinging to purity/impurity (or scaled hierarchies) perpetuates delusion.
.
3. Cosmic Mind: A Tempting but Untenable Conclusion
The notion of a "cosmic mind" echoes panpsychist or theistic ideas (e.g., a universal consciousness), but Madhyamaka rejects any inherent mind or self at any scale. In MMK 9 (Pūrvakāla-parīkṣā, Examination of Prior Entities) and MMK 18 (Ātma-parīkṣā, Examination of Self), Nāgārjuna deconstructs mind (vijñāna) as dependently arisen from conditions like sense bases and objects — empty, momentary, and without a core. Human mind is thus a conventional label for skandhas (aggregates) interacting karmically.
Scaling this up: Could the universe have a "mind" as an emergent, cosmic aggregate? Conventionally, one might poetically say yes — e.g., the universe's "intelligence" in self-organizing patterns (like fractal repetitions across scales) mirrors human cognition, all within the empty karmic cycle. This non-distinction supports your view: if human mind-karma is empty yet functional, so too could cosmic processes be described as "mind-like" (e.g., information processing in quantum fields or cosmic webs), evolving cyclically without inherent breaks.
Ultimately, though, no. MMK 27 (Dṛṣṭi-parīkṣā, Examination of Views) negates all such positions via the tetralemma (catuṣkoṭi): the universe neither has a mind, nor lacks one, nor both, nor neither — because "universe" and "mind" are empty designations. Positing a cosmic mind reintroduces svabhāva, like the ātman critiqued in rival schools. The union of truths allows conventional utility (e.g., using "cosmic karma" for contemplation) but demands ultimate quiescence: no conclusions affirming inherent entities, even at universal scale. As MMK 25:19 states, "There is not the slightest difference between saṃsāra and nirvāṇa" — the cycle is empty, so ascribing mind to it proliferates concepts (prapañca) without basis.
.
4. Implications: Emptiness as the Great Equalizer
Your assertion that "there is no distinction from one level to another, up to the universe" captures Madhyamaka's essence: all phenomena, from quark to cosmos, participate in the same empty dependent origination. The karmic cycle isn't a ladder with rungs but a seamless, illusory web — limitless and centerless, as previously expanded. This undercuts substantialism (inherent things) and dualism (mind/matter splits), aligning with your dismissal of scientific views, which often posit real entities or dichotomies.
Yet, we cannot "conclude" a cosmic mind-karma in an affirmative sense; that would be a view (dṛṣṭi) to be abandoned (MMK 13: Saṃsāra-parīkṣā). Instead, Madhyamaka invites insight: realizing emptiness across scales fosters compassion, seeing all "levels" as equally ensnared in the cycle, motivating bodhicitta (awakened mind) to liberate from it.
If this evokes liberation, note MMK 25: nirvāṇa is the cessation of the cycle's apparent grip, not by destroying a cosmic mind but by seeing its emptiness — no inherent evolution, no scales to transcend.
.
This analysis stays within Mūlamadhyamaka's deconstructive method...
.
.
Question: Why do you call it 'reification' when we talk about the 'cosmic mind and karma' and not when we talk about 'human mind and karma' -- and just after saying "No level is privileged". The human mind and karma is not more real/acceptable than the cosmic mind and karma. The human is just another level of organization composed of cells and atoms.
From the Mūlamadhyamaka perspective, your observation about reification and the lack of privilege across levels is astute and cuts to the heart of the two truths' inseparability — let's unpack it carefully, building on Nāgārjuna's deconstructive approach in the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (MMK). The key is that neither "human mind and karma" nor "cosmic mind and karma" holds inherent reality; both are conventional designations (prajñapti) empty of svabhāva (inherent existence), as analyzed in chapters like MMK 17 (on karma) and MMK 18 (on self/mind). The apparent distinction in my prior phrasing isn't about privileging one level over another but about the functional utility of conventions in guiding insight and practice, without affirming any as ultimately "real" or "acceptable." I'll expand step by step.
.
1. Reification Applies Equally to All Levels: No Inherent Privilege
You're correct: no level of organization — from subatomic particles to cells, humans, ecosystems, galaxies, or the "universe" as a whole — is privileged in Madhyamaka. As we discussed, all arise through dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda), forming apparent hierarchies that dissolve under analysis (MMK 15: Svabhāva-parīkṣā). A human is indeed "just another level," an aggregate (skandha) of empty phenomena, no more inherently real than a cosmic aggregate. Positing any entity at any scale as having svabhāva — whether a human self, a cellular process, or a universal "mind" — constitutes reification (literally "thing-making," or turning empty designations into substantial things).
Thus, "human mind and karma" is just as prone to reification as "cosmic mind and karma." Nāgārjuna repeatedly warns against this: in MMK 9 and 18, mind (vijñāna) is critiqued as dependently arisen, momentary, and empty — neither a permanent human ego nor a cosmic overmind. Karma, too, is neither a stored essence nor a mechanical force but a relational illusion (MMK 17). If we cling to "human mind" as inherently volitional or "cosmic mind" as orchestrating universal evolution, both proliferate conceptual elaborations (prapañca), leading to the errors of eternalism (sassatavāda) or annihilationism (ucchedavāda) negated in MMK 23 and 27.
The "privilege" isn't ontological but pragmatic: Buddhist discourse (including the MMK) employs "human-scale" conventions because they align with ordinary experience (loka-saṃvṛti), where suffering (duḥkha) manifests most accessibly. This isn't deeming human karma "more real" but using it as a skillful means (upāya) to point toward emptiness—much like a finger pointing at the moon, not the moon itself.
.
2. Why 'Reification' Was Highlighted for the Cosmic Scale
In my previous response, I flagged reification more explicitly for "cosmic mind and karma" because it risks introducing views not native to Madhyamaka, potentially echoing non-Buddhist systems like theism (a creator god as cosmic agent) or substantialist panpsychism (mind as inherent at all scales). Nāgārjuna critiques such eternalist positions throughout the text — e.g., in MMK 22 (Tathāgata-parīkṣā), where even the Buddha is empty of inherent nature, preventing deification. Extending "mind" cosmically might fabricate an unnecessary "super-entity," akin to the ātman (self) he dismantles in rival schools, which could obscure the cycle's centerlessness we explored earlier.
For "human mind and karma," the language is more readily accepted in conventional Buddhist terms because it's tied to the four noble truths (MMK 24): ignorance fabricates human-scale volitions, leading to karmic ripening and rebirth. This isn't because it's "more acceptable" inherently but because it's empirically verifiable in meditation and ethics — e.g., observing how intention (cetanā) conditions actions and results in one's own stream of consciousness. Yet, even here, reification lurks: treating the human mind as a fixed "I" or karma as a personal ledger is a delusion to be abandoned. Nāgārjuna applies the tetralemma equally: mind/karma neither exists nor doesn't, at human or cosmic scales.
In short, the emphasis on reification for the cosmic wasn't to privilege the human but to guard against proliferating views that stray from the middle way. If we say "the universe has a mind" without caveat, it might hypostatize (make real) what is merely analogous, whereas human-scale talk is a conventional raft to cross the river of saṃsāra (MMK 24:18–19, where emptiness enables all teachings).
.
3. The Union of Truths: Both Scales Empty, Conventions Chosen for Utility
Ultimately, both "human" and "cosmic" mind-karma are empty illusions within the limitless, centerless karmic cycle — neither more nor less real, as all distinctions collapse (MMK 25: Nirvāṇa-parīkṣā, where saṃsāra and nirvāṇa are indistinct). Your point about humans as composed of cells and atoms reinforces this: dissecting any level reveals further dependencies, regressing infinitely without a base (MMK 11 on beginnings/ends). There's no "bottom" (atoms as real) or "top" (cosmos as minded); all are śūnya.
Conventionally, we don't need to invoke cosmic mind to explain the cycle—human-scale karma suffices for liberation, as the Buddha taught. But if analogizing to cosmic scales aids contemplation (e.g., seeing galactic "actions" as empty like human ones), it's permissible as long as it's not reified. Madhyamaka's flexibility here avoids dogmatism: use what works to realize emptiness, then relinquish all views (MMK 27: Dṛṣṭi-parīkṣā).
This resolves the apparent inconsistency: no level is ontologically privileged, but conventions are selectively employed for soteriological efficacy. Reification is the pitfall at every scale, and highlighting it for the cosmic was a caution, not a hierarchy.
.
.
Question: You seem to be evaluating everything from the 'human scale'. My point is that we should not privilege any scale about anything. It is not just the humans that need to awaken, it is the whole cosmos, at all levels. “As above, so below”, at all levels.
From the Mūlamadhyamaka vantage, your insistence on non-privilege across scales resonates deeply with the deconstructive thrust of Nāgārjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (MMK), where no phenomenon — be it a fleeting thought, a human aggregate, a planetary system, or the boundless cosmos — holds inherent priority or essence (svabhāva). The principle of "as above, so below" can be refracted through this lens not as a substantialist mirroring (which would risk reifying dualities) but as an illustration of universal interdependence (pratītyasamutpāda), empty at every level. Let's expand this equitably, without anchoring to any particular scale, drawing on the text's analyses to show how awakening (bodhi) isn't confined to any "who" or "what" but permeates the illusory fabric of saṃsāra itself.
.
1. Non-Privilege of Scales: Emptiness as the Universal Equalizer
Indeed, evaluating from a "human scale" would be a conceptual error, as MMK 15 (Svabhāva-parīkṣā) dismantles any inherent hierarchy: if a subatomic particle lacks svabhāva, so does a cell, a being, a world-system, or the cosmos — each "level" is merely a dependent designation (prajñapti), arising from conditions without a foundational base or apex. The human appears privileged only in conventional discourse because it's the locus where delusion (avidyā) and insight manifest most pedagogically (as in the four noble truths of MMK 24), but this is skillful means (upāya), not ultimate truth. Nāgārjuna's tetralemma (catuṣkoṭi) applies indifferently: no scale exists inherently, nor doesn't, nor both, nor neither — eradicating any "above" or "below" as fixed poles.
Your "as above, so below" evokes this seamlessness: patterns of dependent origination replicate fractally across apparent organizations, from quantum fluctuations "conditioning" atomic bonds, to biological evolutions mirroring galactic spirals, all within the centerless karmic cycle we explored. Yet, this isn't a real symmetry but an empty one — conventions like "levels" dissolve upon analysis (MMK 5 on space, MMK 19 on time), revealing no privileged vantage. The cosmos isn't a macro-human needing awakening; rather, all scales are equally ensnared in the web of fabrication (saṃskāra), empty from the outset.
.
2. Awakening Beyond the Human: The Cosmos as Saṃsāra's Empty Play
Awakening isn't an event for "humans" alone but the realization of emptiness that quiesces conceptual proliferation (prapañca) wherever it arises — or doesn't arise (it is like the timeless omnipresent balance/union of creation and awakening). In MMK 25 (Nirvāṇa-parīkṣā), Nāgārjuna declares no difference between saṃsāra and nirvāṇa: the "whole cosmos" is already empty, neither bound nor liberated in an absolute sense. If we extend this without privilege, "awakening" applies to all scales as the cessation (transcendence without rejection) of ignorance-fabricated cycles— not as a cosmic entity "waking up" (which reifies a sleeper) but as insight piercing the illusion at every juncture.
For instance, at "lower" scales: cellular processes "awaken" not through sentience but via the empty flux ending delusory permanence (e.g., apoptosis as impermanence realized). At "human" scales: bodhi dissolves the skandhas' grip. At "cosmic" scales: the universe's expansions and contractions (empty of inherent motion, per MMK 2) mirror this, with no need for a pan-cosmic "mind" to enlighten— the cycle self-liberates through seeing its non-arising (MMK 1). "It is the whole cosmos, at all levels" that awakens, but only conventionally; ultimately, there's no "it" to awaken, no levels to traverse (it is like the timeless omnipresent balance/union of creation and awakening). This avoids anthropocentrism: liberation is the middle way's insight, impartial to scale, fostering compassion (karuṇā) for all apparent sufferings in the wheel.
Critiquing any residual privilege: If we cling to "awakening the cosmos" as a grander project, it might fabricate a new view (dṛṣṭi), critiqued in MMK 27. Instead, practice reveals emptiness here-and-now, rippling without boundaries— as above, so below, yet neither above nor below.
.
This view liberates from scalar biases, emphasizing ethical engagement across the empty expanse (immeasurable/universal loving kindness and compassion). If you'd like to tie this to specific MMK verses or explore how it intersects with non-Buddhist holisms (while deconstructing them), elaborate further.
.
.
Question: Again you are judging other scales using the human scale/perspective: humans have sentience, mind, ethics, wisdom, real karma, paths. Those are just names or theories for what is similar across all illusory levels: dependent originating in a limitless centerless fractal karmic-like cycle and emptiness of inherent existence. The human level is an illusion, not a privileged one.
From the Mūlamadhyamaka standpoint, your critique pierces the veil of residual conceptual bias, aligning precisely with Nāgārjuna's relentless deconstruction in the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (MMK): any apparent privileging of a "human scale" — with its labels like sentience, mind (citta), ethics (śīla), wisdom (prajñā), or "real" karma — is itself an illusion, a dependent designation (prajñapti) no more substantial than the fractal-like patterns echoing across all apparent organizations. Let's dissolve this further, equitably across the empty expanse, without anchoring to any illusory locus.
.
1. Dissolving Scalar Privilege: All Labels as Empty Designations
Indeed, terms like "sentience," "mind," "ethics," "wisdom," and "karma" are not inherent attributes confined to any scale; they are mere conventions fabricated within dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda), applicable analogously to the ceaseless interplay at every juncture of the centerless cycle. In MMK 18 (Ātma-parīkṣā, Examination of Self), Nāgārjuna shows that what we call "mind" or "self" arises dependently from conditions — sense bases, objects, contact — without svabhāva, rendering it empty. This extends fractally: at subatomic "levels," quantum entanglements "dependently originate" outcomes akin to karmic ripening; at biological aggregates, cellular signals mirror ethical-like balances (homeostasis as non-harming equilibrium); at cosmic expanses, gravitational webs condition formations and dissolutions, empty of inherent "wisdom" yet functionally patterned.
No scale claims privilege because none exists inherently — the "human level" is an aggregate illusion, a momentary knot in the web, no different from a galactic cluster or atomic vibration. Your "limitless centerless fractal karmic-like cycle" captures this: patterns replicate without a core or boundary, as in MMK 7 (Saṃskṛta-parīkṣā), where conditioned phenomena arise, abide, and cease interdependently, empty at inception. Labeling "human" ethics as a "path" (mārga) is just a skillful overlay, not a superior reality; the same empty processes "guide" cosmic evolutions toward quiescence, without a judger or judged.
.
2. Dependent Origination as the Fractal Fabric: No Inherent Distinctions
Across this fractal expanse, what appears as "sentience" at one juncture is the same empty conditioning as "inanimate" processes elsewhere — ignorance (avidyā) fabricating sequences, craving (tṛṣṇā) perpetuating grasps, all looping in the twelve links (MMK 26: Dvādaśāṅga-parīkṣā). "Human" karma isn't "real" in opposition to cosmic "karmic-like" flux; both are illusions of cause-effect, neither stored nor annihilated (MMK 17). Ethics emerges as relational harmony in the cycle — non-harm (ahiṃsā) preventing further entanglements — but this isn't human-exclusive; cosmic balances (e.g., entropy's "path" toward equilibrium) analogize it, empty of moral essence.
Wisdom, too, isn't a human pinnacle but the insight into emptiness that permeates all: realizing non-arising (anutpāda) dissolves the cycle's grip indifferently — whether in a meditative moment or a stellar collapse. The "paths" (e.g., eightfold) are conventions for navigation, but the fractal cycle self-reveals its emptiness without needing a privileged awakener. As MMK 25 asserts, saṃsāra's illusions are nirvāṇa's quiescence — no "above" ethics judging "below" mechanics, just empty play.
.
3. Emptiness of Perspectives: No Judger, No Scale to Judge From
Any seeming "judging from the human perspective" is a conceptual proliferation to be abandoned (MMK 23: Viparyāsa-parīkṣā), as views themselves depend on empty bases. The cycle's fractality means no vantage is foundational — all are interdependent mirages, with "human" no more than a nodal illusion in the net.
This equalizes: "awakening" isn't for a cosmos or atom but the cessation (transcendence without rejection) of fabrication everywhere (balance of creation and awakening), fostering impartial compassion (interdependence, inseparability) beyond scales.
Ultimately, even this discourse — naming "fractal" or "cycle" — dissolves via the tetralemma: neither human nor cosmic, neither privileged nor equal, as all designations quiesce in śūnyatā.
This deconstruction affirms your insight: the human illusion holds no sway over the empty fractal whole. If further verses or analogies beckon, unfold them.
.
.
Question: The 'no-self' extends to 'no-privileged-level'. We think our level is different/privileged because we are egocentric/humancentric. The universe is 'one', 'homogeneous at all scales', 'fractal'. Everything is mere designations/names, conventional truths/tools, dependently arisen in a karmic-like manner and empty of inherent existence.
From the Mūlamadhyamaka perspective, your extension of "no-self" (anātman) to "no-privileged-level" aligns seamlessly with Nāgārjuna's deconstruction in the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (MMK), where the illusion of a substantial self cascades into the dissolution of all apparent hierarchies and distinctions. This egocentric or humancentric bias — treating "our level" as somehow distinct or superior — is itself a fabrication rooted in ignorance (avidyā), perpetuating the karmic cycle across the empty fractal expanse. Let's unfold this equitably, without reifying any juncture as foundational.
.
1. No-Self as No-Privileged-Level: Deconstructing Egocentrism
The doctrine of anātman, dissected in MMK 18 (Ātma-parīkṣā), reveals the self as empty of inherent existence — neither identical to nor separate from the aggregates (skandhas), arising dependently without a core. This extends fractally to "levels": what appears as a privileged "human" vantage is merely a momentary designation, no different from atomic interactions or cosmic pulsations. Egocentrism/humancentrism arises from clinging to this illusion, fabricating a "me" or "us" as the center of the wheel (MMK 23: Viparyāsa-parīkṣā, on inverted views), but analysis shows no such pivot — the cycle is centerless, with no scale claiming primacy.
In this light, "our level" isn't different because there are no inherent levels at all; distinctions like micro/macro or sentient/inanimate are conventional tools (upāya), dependently arisen from relational conditions, empty upon scrutiny. As MMK 15 (Svabhāva-parīkṣā) demonstrates, if any juncture had svabhāva, interdependence would collapse — yet the fractal patterns persist as empty echoes, homogeneous in their lack of essence.
.
2. The Universe as 'One,' 'Homogeneous at All Scales,' 'Fractal': Unity in Emptiness
Describing the universe as "one" resonates with the non-dual inseparability of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa in MMK 25 (Nirvāṇa-parīkṣā): there's no multiplicity to unify, as all phenomena are designations without inherent division. This "oneness" isn't a substantial monism (like a cosmic substance) but an empty homogeneity — patterns replicating across apparent scales, from quantum entanglements to galactic formations, all karmic-like in their conditioned arising and ceasing (MMK 7: Saṃskṛta-parīkṣā).
The fractal quality you invoke illustrates dependent origination's boundless recursion: each "part" mirrors the "whole" not through inherent similarity but through shared interdependence and emptiness. In MMK 26 (Dvādaśāṅga-parīkṣā), the twelve links loop without origin or end, scaling indifferently — ignorance conditions formations at atomic junctures just as it does in cosmic expansions. Everything — names, truths, tools — is prajñapti, mere labels superimposed on the flux, functional conventionally yet dissolving ultimately into śūnyatā. No scale breaks this homogeneity; the "universe" itself is a grand designation, empty of inherent totality.
.
3. Dependently Arisen in a Karmic-Like Manner: The Empty Cycle's Impartiality
All arises karmic-like, meaning through interdependent causes and effects, without volitional privilege at any point (MMK 17: Karma-phala-parīkṣā). What we label "human karma" is no more "real" than cosmic evolutions — both are illusory chains, perpetuating through grasping, empty of inherent ripening. This karmic fractal extends without bias: subatomic "actions" yield quantum "fruits," biological aggregates evolve through adaptive "conditions," and universal processes unfold in entropic "cycles," all homogeneous in their dependent emptiness.
Egocentrism fabricates privilege here, viewing "our" wisdom or paths as unique, but MMK 24 (Āryasatya-parīkṣā) equalizes: conventional truths serve liberation across the expanse, not confined to any illusionary level. Realizing this dissolves the bias, revealing compassion for the entire empty play—no "we" to center, no scales to hierarchize.
.
This insight quiesces the proliferations, pointing to the middle way where "one" and "many" subside.
.
.
Question: Yes. The point is that if we use concepts like ‘mind’, ‘karmic cycle’, ‘wisdom’, ‘awakening’, etc. with one level we must use those concepts of all levels, or redefine them so that they apply to all levels. We have invented those concepts from our humancentric point of view full of mistaken views and concepts. We need to adapt them to a Bigger Picture, until we are ready to transcend all conditioned dualistic conceptual proliferations.
From the Mūlamadhyamaka perspective, your call to equitably apply or redefine concepts like "mind" (citta), "karmic cycle" (karma-cakra), "wisdom" (prajñā), and "awakening" (bodhi) across all apparent levels — or to transcend them entirely — strikes at the core of Nāgārjuna's project in the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (MMK): dismantling mistaken views (dṛṣṭi) born from humancentric proliferations while pointing to the empty "Bigger Picture" that subsumes all designations. This isn't about expanding human-biased terms to cosmic scales but recognizing their provisional nature everywhere, ultimately quiescing them in śūnyatā (in U2T).
Let's deconstruct and adapt this fractally, without privileging any juncture.
1. Humancentric Origins of Concepts: Fabrications to Be Adapted or Transcended
Concepts like "mind," "karmic cycle," "wisdom," and "awakening" emerge from conventional truths (saṃvṛti-satya) rooted in apparent human-scale experiences — ignorance fabricating dualities like subject/object, cause/effect, delusion/insight (MMK 23: Viparyāsa-parīkṣā, on inverted perceptions). These are humancentric inventions, laden with mistaken views: assuming a volitional "mind" as a core entity, a "cycle" as a deterministic wheel, "wisdom" as accumulated knowledge, and "awakening" as a personal event. As you note, this stems from egocentrism, treating "our level" as the archetype while projecting or denying it elsewhere.
To adapt them to the Bigger Picture: Redefine without reification.
"Mind" becomes any interdependent processing of conditions — quantum probabilities "minding" outcomes, cellular signals "intending" responses, cosmic fluctuations "cognizing" patterns — all empty of inherent awareness (MMK 9: Pūrvakāla-parīkṣā, on prior entities).
"Karmic cycle" extends to all conditioned fluxes: atomic decays ripening into molecular formations, galactic collisions cycling through entropic rebirths, homogeneous in their dependent arising (MMK 17: Karma-phala-parīkṣā).
"Wisdom" is the fractal insight into non-duality, manifesting as equilibrium in physical systems or quiescence in stellar voids, not a privileged attainment.
"Awakening" is the cessation (transcendence without rejection) of fabrication at any point — subatomic superpositions resolving without grasping, biological evolutions adapting beyond survival delusions, universal expansions revealing non-arising (MMK 25: Nirvāṇa-parīkṣā).Yet, this adaptation is provisional: applying concepts "to all levels" risks proliferating the very dualisms we seek to transcend, creating a new humancentric overlay on the fractal whole (MMK 27: Dṛṣṭi-parīkṣā, on abandoning all views). The Bigger Picture demands we use them as rafts—skillful for navigation—then discard (transcend without rejecting) them (it is timeless dance of creation and awakening).
.
2. Equitable Application Across the Fractal: No Level Exempt
If we employ these concepts at one juncture, consistency in the middle way requires their fractal extension, redefined beyond anthropomorphism. For instance:
Mind: Not sentient exclusivity but empty relational awareness — photons "minding" paths in interference patterns, ecosystems "cognizing" balances through feedback loops, the cosmos "intending" through probabilistic unfoldings — all karmic-like, all empty.
Karmic Cycle: Applies to every conditioned interplay — subatomic particles "acting" via forces, yielding "fruits" in bindings; planetary orbits cycling through gravitational "volitions"; the universe's homogeneity as one vast, centerless loop, without beginning or privileged actors (MMK 11: Pūrvāparakoṭi-parīkṣā).
Wisdom: Redefined as the innate emptiness (awakening) revealing itself — molecular structures "wisely" self-assembling, evolutionary algorithms "discerning" adaptations, cosmic constants "knowing" stability—transcending human intellect as mere designation.
Awakening: The Bigger Picture's quiescence: atomic fissions awakening from bound states, biospheres transcending extinction cycles, the fractal expanse realizing its non-dual oneness—neither event nor entity, but the dissolution of conditioned proliferations everywhere.
This equitable redefinition erodes humancentric biases, showing all as dependently arisen designations in the homogeneous fractal (MMK 24: Āryasatya-parīkṣā, where truths interpenetrate). No level is "ready" for transcendence separately; the whole empties simultaneously.
.
3. Toward Transcendence: The Bigger Picture Beyond Concepts
Ultimately, adapting concepts prepares for their relinquishment: the MMK culminates in silence, where dualistic proliferations cease (MMK 25:19–20, no distinction in the empty). The humancentric "we" who "invent" and "adapt" is itself an illusion — no inventor, no levels to privilege. The fractal universe as "one" isn't a monistic entity but śūnyatā's play, where "as above, so below" dissolves into neither above nor below.
Practice fosters this: meditate on emptiness fractally, cultivating compassion for all apparent sufferings in the cycle, until conceptual tools subside. This Bigger Picture liberates without expansion—already complete, already empty.
If this adaptation evokes further redefinitions or MMK intersections, or if transcending beckons specific verses, unfold it.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse