Chapter 15 – Transcendence of all dualistic extremes, dualistic conceptual proliferation, without complete rejection – Refuting the four extremes of (i) inherent existence (svabhāva, self-existence, or identity, permanence, continuity, eternity), (ii) complete non-existence (parabhāva, other-existence, or difference, impermanence, discontinuity, annihilation), (iii) both, and (iv) neither.

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

.

Last update: January 12, 2026
Image from: Stoneflower013
Source Text: Garfield, PTG, Streng, Batchelor. 

Previous-chapter           Home           Next-chapter

A. Introduction – Transcending (without rejecting) the four extremes of any duality/relation/action; ex. (i) inherent existence (svabhāva, self-existence, or identity, permanence, continuity, eternity), (ii) complete non-existence (parabhāva, other-existence, or difference, impermanence, discontinuity, annihilation), (iii) both, and (iv) neither.

Notes: The dependent arising of inherently existing things is impossible; because things arise in dependence, they are empty of self-existence.

[Chapter 15 of Nāgārjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (Examination of Svabhāva or Essential Nature) refutes the existence of any inherent, independent essence [T2] in things [T1] [U2T]. Nāgārjuna argues that if things had intrinsic, unchanging natures, they could not exist due to dependent origination. Consequently, he declares that both existence (holding a permanent essence) and non-existence (nihilism) are wrong views, and that all phenomena [T1] are empty of svabhāva [T2] [U2T].
Key Takeaways from Chapter 15:
– Definition of Svabhāva: Svabhāva refers to an intrinsic, self-existent nature — something that is independent, not produced by causes, and unchanging.
– The Argument against Essence: If an object had a svabhāva (an essential nature), it could never change or cease to exist, as an essential nature is inherent. Since all things change and depend on conditions, they cannot possess such an essence.
– No Origination or Cessation: If things do not have an independent essence, they cannot truly arise or cease, supporting the doctrine of empty, dependent origination.
– Refutation of Extremes: Nāgārjuna states that to see a thing as having a permanent essence is "existence" (substantialism), and to see it as having no causal function is "non-existence" (nihilism). He refutes both.
– Emptiness and Convention: The chapter concludes that "truth" lies in understanding that because things are empty of svabhāva (ultimate truth) [T2], they can arise dependently (conventional truth) [T1], and vice versa [U2T].

-

In many Buddhist traditions, especially Madhyamaka, svabhāva (own-being/self-nature) and "inherent existence" are effectively synonymous, representing the concept that things exist independently, permanently, and substantially. Emptiness (śūnyatā) is the refutation of this inherent existence; all phenomena are considered empty of svabhāva [T2] because they are dependently originated [T1], and vice versa [U2T].
Key nuances regarding svabhāva and inherent existence include:
– Definition: Svabhāva is often translated as "self-nature," "own-being," "essence," or "intrinsic existence”. It refers to a thing's inherent, unchanging identity.
– Inherent Existence: This is a common translation for svabhāva used to describe the mistaken perception that objects have a truly established, separate existence.
– Madhyamaka View: Nagarjuna argued that if things had svabhāva (inherent existence), they would be unchanging and independent, making change and causation impossible. Therefore, because things arise dependently [T1], they lack svabhāva [T2], and vice versa [U2T].
– Alternative Uses: While often used synonymously in Madhyamaka, some schools (like Vaibhāṣika) historically argued that dharmas do have a constant svabhāva (own-nature) that defines them.
– "Empty of What?": In emptiness, svabhāva is exactly what things are empty of.
In essence, while svabhāva translates to "self-nature," it is understood in this context as the illusion of independent, inherent existence that Mahayana Buddhism claims to be empty.

.

In Mahayana Buddhism, particularly the Madhyamaka school, the production of inherently existent phenomena is refuted by demonstrating that all things are empty (śūnyatā) of independent, permanent, or intrinsic nature (svabhāva). Through logical analysis, phenomena are proven to be dependently originated — dependent on causes, parts, and mental labeling — and thus, they cannot inherently arise or produce themselves.
Core Arguments Refuting Inherent Production:
– Dependent Origination (pratītyasamutpāda): The primary, most profound argument is that if things exist only in dependence upon causes, conditions, and parts, they cannot possess an independent, fixed essence.
– Refutation of the Four Alternatives (catukoi): Nagarjuna, in the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, systematically refutes that phenomena are produced from:
  — Self (identity / continuity): An entity cannot produce itself, as it would already exist, causing an infinite regress.
  — Other (difference / discontinuity): A cause cannot produce a fundamentally different effect (e.g., milk producing yogurt) because if they were inherently distinct, anything could produce anything, which is absurd.
  — Both Self and Other: Fails for the same reasons as above.
  — Neither: A phenomenon cannot come from absolutely nothing (non-cause).
– Dependent Designation: Objects are argued to be mere imputations or designations of the mind, lacking any objective, self-existent reality.
– The "No-Finding" Analysis: When searching for an object’s inherent nature (e.g., looking for a table within its legs and top), it cannot be found.
Key Concepts in the Refutation:
– Non-affirming Negation: Emptiness is not a nihilistic "non-existence," but a "non-affirming negation," which negates inherent existence (svabhāva) without substituting another existence in its place.
– Prāsaṅgika Madhyamaka: This perspective asserts that all phenomena exist only conventionally (as dependently arising) but are absolutely empty of inherent, intrinsic, or self-sufficient existence.
Therefore, Mahayana refutes inherent production by showing that because things arise in dependence, they are empty of self-existence; production is not inherently "real," but a functional, dependent process, likened to an illusion or dream.] 

.
.

Transcending the Four Extremes of any duality

“Adopting the Middle Way in everything is the logical practical solution from realizing the true nature & dynamic of Reality as it is. The Middle Way (Madhyamaka) is freedom from all extremes and middle(s) – like existence (naïve realism), non-existence (nihilism), both together (dualism), or neither (monism or radical oneness). The same thing can be said for the extremes positions and middle(s) of any duality, triad, quad, etc. The Middle Way is the transcendence of all dualistic conceptual proliferation / thinking. Not by accepting them as absolute, not by completely rejecting them as if useless, but by being fully aware of their true nature & dynamic while using them as possible imperfect temporary adapted skillful means, or antidotes to our usual extremist positions, until we can transcend them all.”

Verse 1.3. Certainly there is no self-existence (i) (svabhava)
of existing things in conditioning causes, etc;
And if no self-existence (i) exists,
neither does "other-existence (ii)" (parabhava).

Chapter 15 of Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, titled "An Analysis of a Self-existent Thing (Svabhava)," embarks on a profound exploration of the Madhyamaka Middle Way, a path that transcends all dualistic conceptual proliferation and liberates the mind from the extremes that obscure the true nature of reality. These extremes of any duality — like (i) existence (realism or eternalism), (ii) non-existence (nihilism or annihilationism), (iii) both together (a form of dualism), and (iv) neither (a form of monism) — represent the conceptual traps that bind beings to suffering through grasping at false absolutes. Nāgārjuna’s Middle Way, free from these extremes and any middle ground, reveals reality as the non-dual Union of the Two Truths [U2T]: the interplay of dependently co-arisen relatively functional appearances [T1] and their emptiness of inherent existence [T2]. This realization unveils all phenomena as illusory, like mirages or dreams, shimmering with apparent reality yet devoid of intrinsic essence. Beyond dualistic opposites, it discloses the primordial interconnection, equality, purity, perfection, completeness, and divinity of all things — a non-dual “Oneness” that is neither many, nor one, nor both, nor neither. The Middle Way invites practitioners to engage with conventional karma without affirming or negating it in absolute terms, acting relatively and temporarily to alleviate suffering while resting in the direct realization of emptiness. To study Chapter 15, readers should be familiar with dependent origination, emptiness, the two truths, and the tetralemma, as well as the Abhidharma’s realist view of dharmas with momentary svabhāva, which Nāgārjuna critiques. Through logical rigor and scriptural wisdom, this chapter guides us to transcend dualistic conceptual extremes, awakening to the boundless clarity of reality as it is.
.

From: Kaccayanagotta Sutta: To Kaccayana Gotta (on Right View) SN 12.15
"Lord, 'Right view, right view,' it is said. To what extent is there right view?"
"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.
"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is in bondage to attachments, clingings (sustenances), & biases. But one such as this does not get involved with or cling to these attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases, or obsessions; nor is he resolved on 'my self.' He has no uncertainty or doubt that just stress, when arising, is arising; stress, when passing away, is passing away. In this, his knowledge is independent of others. It's to this extent, Kaccayana, that there is right view.
"'Everything exists': That is one extreme.
'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme.
Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the Middle Way [U2T]:…
(via the 12 links of dependent origination – see Chapter 26)
.

From: Lokayatika Sutta: The Cosmologist SN12.48
… "Now, then, Master Gotama, does everything exist?"
"'Everything exists' is the senior form of cosmology (extreme), brahman."
"Then, Master Gotama, does everything not exist?"
"'Everything does not exist' is the second form of cosmology (extreme), brahman."
"Then is everything a Oneness?"
"'Everything is a Oneness (neither)' is the third form of cosmology (extreme), brahman."
"Then is everything a Manyness?"
"'Everything is a Manyness (both)' is the fourth form of cosmology (extreme), brahman.
Avoiding these two extremes,
the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the Middle Way [U2T]: …
(via the 12 links of dependent origination – see Chapter 26)
.
.

The Middle Way free from all extremes and middle

The Middle Way (madhyamā pratipad in Sanskrit; majjhimā paṭipadā in Pali) in Buddhist philosophy, particularly as articulated in "The Instruction of Katyayana" (Kaccāyanagotta Sutta) and elaborated by Nāgārjuna in his Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, is a profound approach to understanding reality that transcends all dualistic conceptual extremes and even the notion of a "middle" as a fixed position.

It is not a compromise or a midpoint between opposites but a radical reorientation that avoids reifying any stance — ex. whether existence, non-existence, both, or neither [tetralemma] ⇐⇒ ultimately pointing to the Union of the Two Truths [U2T] — dependent co-origination / interdependence [T1] ⇐⇒ and emptiness of inherent existence (śūnyatā) [T2] — about all phenomena. 

Let’s break this down by examining how it navigates the four extremes: ex. (i) existence (it-is, naïve realism), (ii) non-existence (it-is-not, nihilism), (iii) both together (dualism, manyness), and (iv) neither (monism, radical oneness).
.
.

1. The Four Extremes and the Middle Way’s Transcendence

• • • [1] Extreme of Existence / ‘It-Is’ / Naïve Realism / ‘This’
      – Description: This extreme posits that phenomena have inherent, independent existence (svabhāva) — a "real" self, world, or entities that exist in an absolute sense.
      Naïve realism assumes things are as they appear: solid, permanent, and self-existent.
      – Problem: In "The Instruction of Katyayana," the Buddha critiques this as eternalism (sassatavāda), the view that "everything exists" (sabbaṃ atthi). It contradicts impermanence (anicca) and non-self (anatta), leading to attachment and suffering when these "real" things change or cease.
      – Middle Way Response: Nāgārjuna, in chapters like 15 (Examination of Intrinsic Nature), argues that if phenomena were inherently existent, they couldn’t arise or cease — yet they do, due to dependent origination (15.1–2). The Middle Way rejects this extreme by showing that existence is conditional, not absolute, thus empty of inherent being.
      .

    • [2] Extreme of Non-Existence / ‘It-Is-Not’ / Nihilism / ‘Non-this’
      – Description: This view asserts that nothing exists at all, denying any reality to phenomena, actions, or consequences.
      Nihilism suggests an absolute void, negating causality and ethical responsibility.
      – Problem: The Buddha, in the sutta, calls this annihilationism (ucchedavāda), the view that "everything does not exist" (sabbaṃ natthi). It undermines dependent arising and the possibility of liberation, leading to despair or moral indifference.
      – Middle Way Response: Nāgārjuna counters this in Chapter 13 (13.1): if phenomena were utterly non-existent, arising and ceasing wouldn’t occur — yet they do, conventionally. The Middle Way avoids nihilism by affirming dependent phenomena while denying their inherent non-existence, preserving the efficacy of the path.
      .

    • [3] Extreme of Both Together / Dualism / Manyness / Both ‘this’ and ‘non-this’ together
      – Description: This extreme combines existence and non-existence, positing a dualistic reality where phenomena are partly real and partly unreal, or where multiple independent entities coexist (e.g., self and other, subject and object). It suggests a fragmented "manyness."
      – Problem: Dualism reifies opposites as inherently distinct, creating a proliferation of entities (prapañca) that fuel delusion and suffering. It’s implicitly critiqued in the sutta’s refutation of clinging to any fixed view.
      – Middle Way Response: In Chapter 14 (14.3–4), Nāgārjuna dismantles the combination of seer and seen, showing that neither separate nor unified existence holds. The Middle Way transcends dualism by revealing interdependence: opposites like existence and non-existence co-arise [T1] ⇐⇒ without inherent status [T2] [U2T], dissolving manyness into emptiness (no many, not one, not both, not neither).
      .

    • [4] Extreme of Neither / Monism / Radical Oneness / Neither ‘this’ nor ‘non-this’, for whatever ‘this’ is
      – Description: This view denies both existence and non-existence, positing a singular, undifferentiated reality — an absolute unity or "oneness" beyond all distinctions.
      – Problem: Monism risks reifying a single essence or void, subtly reverting to eternalism under a different guise. It’s not explicitly named in the sutta but conflicts with the dynamic nature of dependent origination.
      – Middle Way Response: Nāgārjuna avoids this in Chapter 25 (Examination of Nirvana) (25.19–20), where even nirvana is not existent (not ‘this’), not non-existent (not ‘non-this’), not both together, not neither – but interdependent [T1] ⇐⇒ and empty [T2] [U2T]. The Middle Way rejects radical oneness by refusing to posit any ultimate entity — emptiness itself is not a thing but the absence of inherent nature in all phenomena.
      .
      .

2. Free from All Extremes and "Middle-Like" Positions

The Middle Way, as taught by the Buddha and refined by Nāgārjuna, isn’t a static "middle ground" between two extremes (‘this’ and ‘non-this’) — like a compromise or third option (both together). Nor is it a rejection of extremes that lands on a reified "neither" position. Instead, it’s a dynamic non-position that:

• • • Avoids Ontological Commitment: It doesn’t affirm (accept) or deny (reject) existence (or ‘this’) in an ultimate sense but points to the relational nature of phenomena (e.g., Chapter 1: “Neither from itself, nor from another, nor from both, nor without cause, do phenomena arise”).

    • Embraces Dependent Origination [T1]: As in the Kaccāyanagotta Sutta, reality is a process of arising and ceasing due to conditions, not a fixed state (Chapter 26 maps this explicitly).

    • Reveals Emptiness [T2]: Nāgārjuna’s tetralemma (e.g., Chapter 14.8: “freed from the four extremes”) exhausts all conceptual possibilities, showing that clinging to any view — ex. existence (‘this’), non-existence (‘non-this’), both (both ‘this’ and ‘non-this’ together), or neither (neither ‘this’ not ‘non-this’ for whatever ‘this’ is) — misses the mark. Emptiness is the transcendence without rejection of such views, not a new doctrine.

    • This is the Middle Way free from all extremes: nothing to accept / seek / do in absolute terms, nothing to reject / abandon / not-do in absolute terms, nothing to change / improve / purify in absolute terms, just conventionally / relatively when necessary.
      .
      .

3. Practical and Philosophical Depth

• • • Practical: For practitioners, the Middle Way, as in the sutta, is right view: seeing phenomena as neither eternal nor annihilated fosters detachment and liberation.

    • Philosophical: Nāgārjuna’s Middle Way (e.g., Chapter 24.18: “Dependent origination we call emptiness”) unites conventional truth (phenomena function) [T1] ⇐⇒ and ultimate truth (they’re empty) [T2] [U2T], avoiding the trap of a "middle-like" stance that could itself become an extreme.
      .
      .

4. In essence, the Middle Way free from all extremes and middle-like positions is a liberating perspective: it neither affirms nor denies reality in absolute terms but reveals the conditional [T1] ⇐⇒ empty nature of all things [T2] [U2T].

B. Analysis – Transcending without rejecting all dualities, triads, quads.

• • There is no inherent dualities like existence/non-existence, inherent-existence/dependent-origination in the three times.
    We cannot find the beginning of the relation/opposition in the three times.

  • There are no absolute
    opposite-1/existence/self-existence/inherent-existence,
    relation/opposition,
    opposite-1/non-existence/other-existence/dependent-origination,
    they are all relative = Middle Way.

  • The three spheres –
    opposite-1/existence/self-existence/inherent-existence,
    relation/opposition,
    opposite-1/non-existence/other-existence/dependent-origination,
    are not inherently existent/functional,
    not completely non-existent/non-functional,
    not both, not neither [Tetralemma].

  • The three spheres –
    opposite-1/existence/self-existence/inherent-existence,
    relation/opposition,
    opposite-2/non-existence/other-existence/dependent-origination –
    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/existence/self-existence/inherent-existence,
    relation/opposition,
    opposite-2/non-existence/other-existence/dependent-origination –
    are not permanent/continuous/eternal,
    not impermanent/discontinuous/annihilated,
    not both, not neither [Tetralemma].

  • The three spheres –
    opposite-1/existence/self-existence/inherent-existence,
    relation/opposition,
    opposite-2/non-existence/other-existence/dependent-origination –
    are thus empty of inherent existence [T2-3S] ⇐⇒ inseparable, dependently co-arisen, interdependent, co-defined, co-evolving, co-imputed by the mind, mere designations/names, conventional truths/tools [T1-3S] [U2T-3S] ⇐⇒ like illusions, reflections, mirages, dreams, echos, ‘there, yet not there’ [Illusory].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • No absolute view to grasp.

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

  • Emptiness is absolute freedom, even from emptiness.

C1. Verses – 4 translations – 11 verses - Refuting all extremes like: inherent existence, other-existence, both, neither; existence, non-existence, both, neither; difference, identity, both, neither; separation, union, both, neither; continuity, discontinuity, both, neither.

D. Summary – The Middle Way, beyond opposites like: inherent existence and dependent origination; existence and non-existence.

Chapter 15 of Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, titled "An Analysis of a Self-existent Thing (Svabhava)," comprises eleven verses that systematically dismantle the concept of inherent existence (svabhāva, self-existence) and its relational counterpart, other-existence (parabhāva), alongside the dualistic notions of existence (bhāva) and non-existence (abhāva).

Through rigorous dialectical reasoning, Nāgārjuna employs the Madhyamaka framework of the tetralemma to expose the logical contradictions inherent in assuming that phenomena possess intrinsic reality, whether independently (svabhāva) or relatively (parabhāva).

The chapter challenges realist ontologies, such as the Abhidharma’s view of dharmas with momentary svabhāva, and dualistic perspectives that cling to extremes of eternalism (“it is”) or nihilism (“it is not”).

• • Verses 1–2 initiate the critique by demonstrating that a self-existent thing cannot be produced, as production implies dependence, contradicting its inherent independence. The tetralemma transcends the duality of self-existence vs. produced existence, showing both are empty and interdependently arisen, like illusions.

  • Verse 3 extends this to parabhāva, arguing that other-existence depends on an impossible self-existence, rendering it incoherent and empty, reinforcing the illusoriness of relational existence.

  • Verse 4 refutes the existence of any “thing” (bhāva), as neither svabhāva nor parabhāva provides a basis for inherent reality, applying the tetralemma to existence vs. non-existence.

  • Verse 5 shows that non-existence (abhāva) is equally incoherent, as it relies on empty existent things, affirming the emptiness of both poles of the duality.

  • Verse 6 critiques those who perceive these dualities — self-existence, other-existence, existence, non-existence — as real, missing the Buddha’s non-dual teaching of emptiness.

  • Verse 7 invokes the Kātyāyana Sūtra, affirming the Buddha’s rejection of existence and non-existence, pointing to the Middle Way.

  • Verse 8 refutes svabhāva by showing it implies eternalism, contradicting impermanence, while cessation implies annihilation, both absurd.

  • Verse 9 addresses an opponent’s objection, showing that otherness (parabhāva) is incoherent with or without svabhāva, as both are relational and empty.

  • Verse 10 articulates the Middle Way, urging the wise to avoid eternalism and nihilism, embracing non-dual wisdom.

  • Verse 11 concludes by negating svabhāva and parabhāva, as eternalism and annihilationism are incoherent, affirming the Middle Way’s transcendence of all opposites / dualities / triads / quads…

Each verse applies the tetralemma to dualities like self-existence vs. other-existence or existence vs. non-existence, ⇐⇒ revealing their emptiness [T2] ⇐⇒ dependent origination [T1] ⇐⇒ illusoriness ⇐⇒ and the necessity of the Middle Way [U2T]. 

The chapter builds on Chapter 14’s negation of unification (saṃsarga), extending the critique to the foundational concept of inherent existence, and aligns with your Chapter 13 titles, particularly the formula: “Dependently Originated ⇔ Empty ⇔ Illusory.”

E. Conclusion – Liberation lies in transcending without rejecting the extremes of any duality, triad, quad...

Chapter 15 stands as a cornerstone of Madhyamaka philosophy, offering a profound refutation of inherent existence (svabhāva) and its relational derivatives, other-existence (parabhāva), existence (bhāva), and non-existence (abhāva).

Nāgārjuna’s incisive use of the tetralemma dismantles dualistic and realist assumptions, demonstrating that no phenomenon — whether a pot, a seed, or a mental state — can possess an intrinsic, independent essence.

By showing that self-existence contradicts production, other-existence lacks a basis, and existence and non-existence are relational illusions ⇐⇒ Nāgārjuna reveals all phenomena as empty of inherent reality [T2] ⇐⇒ yet interdependently arisen as conventional appearances [T1] ⇐⇒ embodying the non-dual Union of the Two Truths [U2T]. ⇐⇒ These phenomena are illusory, like mirages or dreams, shimmering with apparent reality but devoid of fixed substance ⇐⇒ inviting practitioners to adopt the Middle Way — neither grasping at existence as absolute (eternalism) nor rejecting it as non-existent (nihilism), but engaging with life’s appearances conventionally while realizing their emptiness.

The chapter’s invocation of the Buddha’s teaching, particularly through the Kātyāyana Sūtra, grounds this critique in the heart of Buddhist wisdom, affirming that liberation lies in transcending dualistic extremes (balancing opposites).

By negating svabhāva and its implications, Nāgārjuna not only challenges Abhidharma’s realist ontology but also liberates practitioners from the conceptual proliferations that fuel suffering.

Chapter 15 thus serves as a clarion call to the Middle Way, where the interdependent, illusory nature of reality is directly realized, dissolving all illusions of inherent existence and ⇐⇒ [One:] revealing the primordially pure, interconnected unity of samsara and nirvana. 

This non-dualistic non-conceptual direct realization invites practitioners to embrace the world’s fleeting dance with the Union of wisdom and compassion, free from the shackles of absolute truths, and fully awake to the boundless clarity of emptiness.

F. Questions and Answers - Generalization

Q1: This Middle Way free from all extremes and middle doesn't apply only to the duality of existence vs. non-existence, it applies to any duality / triad / quad ... any group of apparent opposites. And since everything is defined in terms of opposites / relations, then it applies to all dharmas, no exception at all, including the two truths themselves -- dependently co-arisen relatively functional appearances [T1] and emptiness of inherent existence [T2] --, including the Ground and its Manifestations. There is no view to grasp as absolute. The Middle Way also means that there is nothing to accept, nothing to reject, nothing to change in absolute terms, just conventionally, relatively.

This beautifully captured the expansive scope and radical implications of the Middle Way as articulated in Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā and rooted in the Buddha’s teaching, such as "The Instruction of Katyayana." Your insight — that the Middle Way transcends not just the duality of existence versus non-existence but all dualities, triads, quads, or any group of apparent opposites, applying universally to all dharmas without exception — is precisely the heart of Nāgārjuna’s Madhyamaka philosophy.

It extends to every conceivable framework, including the two truths (conventional and ultimate), the Ground and its Manifestations, and indeed all relational definitions, leaving no view to grasp as absolute.

Let’s unpack this comprehensive application and its implications for suffering, the karmic cycle, and liberation.
.

A. The Middle Way Beyond Existence and Non-Existence

The Middle Way isn’t limited to the initial duality addressed in the Kaccāyanagotta Sutta (existence vs. non-existence). It’s a universal principle that dismantles all conceptual oppositions or groupings — whether dual (self/other), triadic (actor/action/result), quadral (the tetralemma: is/is-not/both/neither), or beyond — because all phenomena (dharmas) are defined relationally. Nāgārjuna demonstrates this across the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā:

• • • Chapter 14 (Combination): The seer and seen, or any pair, neither unite nor remain separate inherently.

    • Chapter 7 (Conditioned): Arising, abiding, and ceasing (a triad) lack intrinsic nature.

    • Chapter 1 (Conditions): Cause, effect, both, or neither—no causal relation holds absolutely.

Since all dharmas — mental, physical, or otherwise — are dependently co-arisen, they exist only in terms of relations or opposites (e.g., light/dark, self/other, good/bad).

The Middle Way reveals that these apparent opposites [T1] ⇐⇒ are empty of inherent existence [T2] [U2T], applying universally with no exceptions.
.
.

B. Application to All Dharmas, Including the Two Truths

The fact that this extends to the two truths — conventional truth (saṃvṛti-satya, T1: dependently co-arisen, relatively functional appearances) and ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya, T2: emptiness of inherent existence) — is crucial and aligns with Nāgārjuna’s radical insight in Chapter 24 (Examination of the Four Noble Truths), especially verse 24.18: “We call dependent origination emptiness; it is a provisional designation, and it is the Middle Way.” Here’s how:

• • • Conventional Truth [T1]: Appearances — tables, minds, karma — function relatively ⇐⇒ but they’re not inherently real. They’re defined by opposites (e.g., table vs. non-table) and conditions, thus empty.

    • Ultimate Truth [T2]: Emptiness itself isn’t a standalone absolute but the absence of inherent existence in all dharmas. It’s not “something” to grasp but a negation of fixed being, itself dependently designated (e.g., empty because of conditions).

Nāgārjuna insists these two truths are not separate realities or a duality to reconcile but two perspectives on the same dependently arisen phenomena. In 24.19, he warns: “Without relying on the conventional, the ultimate cannot be shown; without the ultimate, nirvana cannot be attained.”

The Middle Way applies to them: neither T1, nor T2, nor both together, not neither, is absolute; both truths are interdependent [T1-2T] ⇐⇒ and empty of inherent status [T2-2T] [U2T-2T], dissolving any graspable "truth."
.
.

C. The Ground and Its Manifestations

Extending this to the Ground and its Manifestations — a concept more explicit in later Mahāyāna traditions like Dzogchen or Yogācāra but implicit in Madhyamaka — the Middle Way holds:

• • • Ground: Often conceived as the unconditioned basis (e.g., emptiness, buddha-nature), it’s not an inherent essence. If it were, it’d be an extreme of existence.

    • Manifestations: The arising phenomena (samsara, nirvana) aren’t truly separate from or identical to the Ground. Their "combination" or distinction is empty, as in Chapter 14.

Nāgārjuna avoids positing a Ground as a monistic absolute, or Manifestations as inherently real, or booth together, or neither; applying the Middle Way to this apparent duality too. In Chapter 25 (Nirvana) (25.19–20), even samsara and nirvana are neither existent, non-existent, both, nor neither—freeing them from all extremes.
.
.

D. No View to Grasp, Nothing Absolute

The assertion — “There is no view to grasp as absolute” — is the essence of Nāgārjuna’s non-conceptual Middle Way. In Chapter 13.8, he states: “The cessation of views about conditioned things is the cessation of suffering.” Every dharma, defined by opposites or relations [T1] ⇐⇒ collapses under analysis [T2] [U2T]:

• • • All Dharmas: From the three poisons (greed/hatred/delusion) to the sense bases, all are empty, as seen in Chapters 14 and 23.

    • No Exception: Even emptiness, the Middle Way, or liberation isn’t exempt — grasping them as absolute reintroduces extremes (25.3: “Nirvana is not an entity; it is the cessation of delusion”).

This universality ties to saṃskāra-duḥkhatā: the suffering of conditioned existence arises from grasping any dharma as inherently real, a delusion the Middle Way uproots.
.
.

E. Nothing to Accept, Reject, or Change Absolutely

A final point — “nothing to accept, nothing to reject, nothing to change in absolute terms, just conventionally, relatively” — is a profound practical and philosophical conclusion:

• • • Absolute Terms: Since all dharmas are empty, there’s no inherent entity to affirm, deny, or alter. Acceptance or rejection implies a real object, which Nāgārjuna refutes (e.g., 14.8: “freed from the four extremes”).

    • Conventional Terms: Relatively, actions matter — ethics, meditation, and wisdom function within samsara to liberate (24.10: “The cessation of suffering is taught dependently”). The Middle Way doesn’t paralyze action but reorients it without fixation.

This aligns with the karmic cycle’s cessation (Chapter 26): ignorance drives grasping at extremes, perpetuating suffering; realizing emptiness ends it, not by changing an absolute reality but by shifting perception conventionally.
.
.

F. Implications for Suffering and Liberation

• • • Three Types of Suffering: The Middle Way addresses duḥkha-duḥkhatā (pain isn’t inherently real), vipariṇāma-duḥkhatā (change isn’t a loss of something solid), and saṃskāra-duḥkhatā (conditioned existence isn’t ultimately binding) — all [T1] dissolve in emptiness [T2] [U2T].

    • Karmic Cycle: Its limitless, centerless nature is an appearance sustained by grasping opposites [T1] ⇐⇒ the Middle Way reveals its insubstantiality [T2] [U2T], freeing beings without altering an "absolute" samsara.
      .
      .

G. In sum

The Middle Way’s freedom from all extremes — applied to every duality, triad, or relational group, including the two truths and beyond — means no dharma escapes the Union of the Two Truths [U2T]. It’s a path of non-grasping, where conventional function persists [T1] ⇐⇒ without absolute reification [T2] ⇐⇒ perfectly balancing wisdom and compassion [U2T]

G. Exploration - Detailed Analysis of the Verses

Verse 1 - Self-existence

[1. Refutation of self-existence because its production is impossible: Tetralemma (self-existence and other-existence (dependent origination) are contradictory) ⇐⇒ Emptiness ⇐⇒ Interdependence of self-existence and other-existence ⇐⇒ Illusory ⇐⇒ Middle Way.]
.
1. The production of a self-existent thing
by a conditioning cause is not possible,
[For,] being produced through dependence on a cause,
a self-existent thing would be "something which is produced" (krtaka).
.
This verse critiques the concept of svabhāva (self-existence, inherent existence) by examining its production. The duality analyzed is self-existent thing vs. produced thing (or independent vs. dependent existence). Nāgārjuna uses the tetralemma to show that a self-existent thing cannot be produced, as production implies dependence, contradicting its inherent independence.
.
[Reasoning: Tetralemma ⇐⇒ Emptiness ⇐⇒ Interdependence ⇐⇒ Illusory ⇐⇒ Middle Way ⇐⇒ One:]

• • • Tetralemma: [Uopp: Apparent opposites cannot be ‘this’, ‘non-this’, both together, or neither, and there is no fifth, because each extreme position lead to absurdity [Tetralemma] ⇐⇒ implying that apparent opposites, and their relation, are empty of inherent existence [T2-opp] ⇐⇒ dependently co-arisen, interdependent [T1-opp] [U2T-opp].]

      • (a) Self-existent (independent): A self-existent thing (e.g., a pot with svabhāva) cannot be produced by causes (e.g., potter, clay), as production requires dependence, negating its independence. This leads to a contradiction: a self-existent thing would be krtaka (produced), which is absurd by definition.

      • (b) Not self-existent (dependent): If the thing is not self-existent but fully dependent, it lacks svabhāva, contradicting the premise of inherent existence. A wholly dependent thing cannot be inherently real, as it relies on causes.

      • (c) Both self-existent and not self-existent: A thing cannot be both inherently independent and dependent, as these are mutually exclusive, leading to logical absurdity.

      • (d) Neither self-existent nor not self-existent: A thing cannot be neither, as this implies a fifth state outside causality, which is incoherent in dependent origination.

      • No fifth possibility: The tetralemma refutes all extreme dualistic views ⇐⇒ implying the Union of opposites [Uopp] ⇐⇒ the Union of the Two Truths about all phenomena [U2T] ⇐⇒ the Middle Way free from all extremes.

    • Emptiness [T2]: The tetralemma’s contradictions demonstrate that a self-existent thing is empty of inherent existence, as it cannot be produced without dependence, negating its svabhāva.
      i.e. All phenomena are empty of inherent existence, never absolute.

    • Dependent Origination [T1]: The thing’s apparent production (e.g., a pot) arises interdependently from causes (potter, clay), co-defined and co-imputed by the mind based on conditions and karma.
      i.e. All phenomena like these, all opposites, are dependently co-arisen and relatively functional, interdependent, co-defined, co-evolving, co-ceasing, merely co-labeled, co-imputed, co-imagined by the mind in dependence of its past experiences, conditioning, karma (individual, collective, cosmic.

    • Union of the Two Truths [U2T]: The pot appears produced [T1] ⇐⇒ but is empty of inherent existence [T2], inseparable truths forming a non-dual reality [U2T].
      i.e. The two truths – dependently co-arisen relatively functional appearances [T1] and emptiness of inherent existence [T2] – are inseparable, interdependent, co-labeled, dependently co-arisen relatively functional appearances [T1-2T] ⇐⇒ and emptiness of inherent existence, never absolute [T2-2T] [U2T-2T].

    • Illusory: The self-existent thing and its production are illusory, like a mirage — appearing real conventionally ⇐⇒ but lacking intrinsic reality.
      i.e. All phenomena are like illusions, reflections, mirages, dreams, echos, ‘there, yet not there’.

    • Middle Way: The Middle Way neither accepts svabhāva as absolute (eternalism) nor rejects conventional production (nihilism), using it relatively without grasping, as in your Chapter 13, verse 1 title: “Dependently Originated ⇔ Empty ⇔ Illusory.”
      i.e. From this we can conclude that the best attitude toward these apparent opposites is the Middle Way free from all extremes and middle: with nothing to accept / seek / do in absolute terms, nothing to reject / abandon / not-do in absolute terms, nothing to change / improve / purify in absolute terms, just conventionally, relatively, temporarily if it helps on the path at a particular point. Avoiding affirming or negating them in absolute terms, engaging with conventional karma ⇐⇒ while realizing emptiness.

    • Implications: By negating svabhāva in produced things, Nāgārjuna sets the stage for examining svabhāva itself.
      .
      .
      .

Verse 2 - Self-existence (confirmation)

[2. Refutation of self-existence because it is contrary to dependent origination: Tetralemma (self-existence and produced existence cannot coexist because unproduced nature contradicts causality, and this would lead to contradiction) ⇐⇒ Emptiness ⇐⇒ Interdependence of self-existence and produced existence ⇐⇒ Illusory ⇐⇒ Middle Way.]
.
2. How, indeed, will a self-existent thing [T0]
become "something which is produced [T1]"?
Certainly, a self-existent thing [T0] [by definition]
is "not-produced" and is independent of anything else.
.
This verse reinforces verse 1’s critique, emphasizing the definitional contradiction of a self-existent thing being produced. The duality is self-existent (unproduced, independent) vs. produced (dependent). The tetralemma shows this is incoherent.
.
[Reasoning: Tetralemma ⇐⇒ Emptiness ⇐⇒ Interdependence ⇐⇒ Illusory ⇐⇒ Middle Way ⇐⇒ One:]

• • • Tetralemma: [Uopp: Apparent opposites cannot be ‘this’, ‘non-this’, both together, or neither, and there is no fifth, because each extreme position lead to absurdity [Tetralemma] ⇐⇒ implying that apparent opposites, and their relation, are empty of inherent existence [T2-opp] ⇐⇒ dependently co-arisen, interdependent [T1-opp] [U2T-opp].]

      • (a) Self-existent (unproduced): A self-existent thing (e.g., a seed with svabhāva) is defined as akṛtaka (not-produced), independent of causes. If it were produced, it would be krtaka, contradicting its essence (absurdity).

      • (b) Not self-existent (produced): If the thing is produced, it lacks svabhāva, as it depends on causes (e.g., soil, water), negating inherent existence.

      • (c) Both self-existent and not self-existent: A thing cannot be both unproduced and produced, as this is contradictory.

      • (d) Neither self-existent nor not self-existent: A thing cannot be neither, as this implies a non-relational state outside dependent origination, which is incoherent.

      • No fifth possibility: The tetralemma refutes all extreme dualistic views ⇐⇒ implying the Union of opposites [Uopp] ⇐⇒ the Union of the Two Truths about all phenomena [U2T] ⇐⇒ the Middle Way free from all extremes.

    • Emptiness [T2]: The contradiction shows that a self-existent thing is empty of inherent existence, as it cannot be produced without losing its defining independence.
      i.e. All phenomena are empty of inherent existence, never absolute.

    • Dependent Origination [T1]: The thing’s apparent existence (e.g., a seed sprouting) is dependently co-arisen, co-imputed by the mind based on causes and conditions.
      i.e. All phenomena like these, all opposites, are dependently co-arisen and relatively functional, interdependent, co-defined, co-evolving, co-ceasing, merely co-labeled, co-imputed, co-imagined by the mind in dependence of its past experiences, conditioning, karma (individual, collective, cosmic.

    • Union of the Two Truths [U2T]: The seed appears to arise [T1] ⇐⇒ but is empty [T2], a non-dual reality [U2T].
      i.e. The two truths – dependently co-arisen relatively functional appearances [T1] and emptiness of inherent existence [T2] – are inseparable, interdependent, co-labeled, dependently co-arisen relatively functional appearances [T1-2T] ⇐⇒ and emptiness of inherent existence, never absolute [T2-2T] [U2T-2T].

    • Illusory: The self-existent seed is illusory, like a dream, appearing real ⇐⇒ but lacking intrinsic essence.
      i.e. All phenomena are like illusions, reflections, mirages, dreams, echos, ‘there, yet not there’.

    • Middle Way: The Middle Way neither reifies svabhāva (eternalism) nor denies conventional arising (nihilism), using production as a teaching tool without grasping.
      i.e. From this we can conclude that the best attitude toward these apparent opposites is the Middle Way free from all extremes and middle: with nothing to accept / seek / do in absolute terms, nothing to reject / abandon / not-do in absolute terms, nothing to change / improve / purify in absolute terms, just conventionally, relatively, temporarily if it helps on the path at a particular point. Avoiding affirming or negating them in absolute terms, engaging with conventional karma ⇐⇒ while realizing emptiness.

    • Implications: The rhetorical question solidifies the negation of svabhāva, preparing for parabhāva in verse 3.
      .
      .
      .

Verse 3 - Other-existence

[3. Refutation of other-existence because it depends on a self-existent thing to be other: Tetralemma (self-existence and other-existence cannot define a thing because other-existence depends on an impossible self-existence, and this would lead to absurdity) ⇐⇒ Emptiness ⇐⇒ Interdependence of self-existence and other-existence ⇐⇒ Illusory ⇐⇒ Middle Way.]
.
3. If there is an absence of a self-existent thing [¬T0],
how will an other-existent thing [T0’] (parabhava) come into being?
Certainly the self-existence of an other-existent thing
is called ''other-existence."
.
This verse critiques parabhāva (other-existence), the existence of a thing relative to a self-existent thing. The duality is self-existence (svabhāva, independent) vs. other-existence (parabhāva, dependent on another). The tetralemma shows parabhāva is incoherent without svabhāva.
.
[Reasoning: Tetralemma ⇐⇒ Emptiness ⇐⇒ Interdependence ⇐⇒ Illusory ⇐⇒ Middle Way ⇐⇒ One:]

• • • Tetralemma: [Uopp: Apparent opposites cannot be ‘this’, ‘non-this’, both together, or neither, and there is no fifth, because each extreme position lead to absurdity [Tetralemma] ⇐⇒ implying that apparent opposites, and their relation, are empty of inherent existence [T2-opp] ⇐⇒ dependently co-arisen, interdependent [T1-opp] [U2T-opp].]

      • (a) Self-existent: Parabhāva requires a self-existent thing to be “other” to (e.g., a pot other than clay). If svabhāva exists, parabhāva might be possible, but verses 1–2 refuted svabhāva, so this fails.

      • (b) Not self-existent (other-existent): Without svabhāva, parabhāva cannot arise, as it depends on a self-existent reference. A pot cannot be “other” than clay if clay lacks svabhāva.

      • (c) Both self-existent and not self-existent: Parabhāva cannot be both dependent on svabhāva and independent, as this is contradictory.

      • (d) Neither self-existent nor not self-existent: Parabhāva cannot be neither, as it is defined relationally, requiring a reference point.

      • No fifth possibility: The tetralemma refutes all extreme dualistic views ⇐⇒ implying the Union of opposites [Uopp] ⇐⇒ the Union of the Two Truths about all phenomena [U2T] ⇐⇒ the Middle Way free from all extremes.

    • Emptiness [T2]: Parabhāva is empty of inherent existence ⇐⇒ as it depends on svabhāva, which is itself empty.
      i.e. All phenomena are empty of inherent existence, never absolute.

    • Dependent Origination [T1]: The apparent “otherness” (e.g., pot relative to clay) is dependently co-arisen, co-imputed by the mind based on conditions.
      i.e. All phenomena like these, all opposites, are dependently co-arisen and relatively functional, interdependent, co-defined, co-evolving, co-ceasing, merely co-labeled, co-imputed, co-imagined by the mind in dependence of its past experiences, conditioning, karma (individual, collective, cosmic.

    • Union of the Two Truths [U2T]: Otherness appears conventionally [T1] ⇐⇒ but is empty [T2], inseparable truths [U2T].
      i.e. The two truths – dependently co-arisen relatively functional appearances [T1] and emptiness of inherent existence [T2] – are inseparable, interdependent, co-labeled, dependently co-arisen relatively functional appearances [T1-2T] ⇐⇒ and emptiness of inherent existence, never absolute [T2-2T] [U2T-2T].

    • Illusory: Parabhāva is illusory, like a reflection, appearing real ⇐⇒ but lacking intrinsic reality.
      i.e. All phenomena are like illusions, reflections, mirages, dreams, echos, ‘there, yet not there’.

    • Middle Way: The Middle Way neither reifies parabhāva (eternalism) nor denies conventional relations (nihilism), using them without grasping.
      i.e. From this we can conclude that the best attitude toward these apparent opposites is the Middle Way free from all extremes and middle: with nothing to accept / seek / do in absolute terms, nothing to reject / abandon / not-do in absolute terms, nothing to change / improve / purify in absolute terms, just conventionally, relatively, temporarily if it helps on the path at a particular point. Avoiding affirming or negating them in absolute terms, engaging with conventional karma ⇐⇒ while realizing emptiness.

    • Implications: The negation of parabhāva prepares for negating existence itself.
      .
      .
      .

Verse 4 - Existence / Realism

[4. Refutation of ‘existence’ (naïve realism / eternalism) because its modes of production are all impossible: Tetralemma (existence through self-existence (self-production) or other-existence (other-production) cannot define a thing because both are incoherent, and this would lead to contradiction) ⇐⇒ Emptiness ⇐⇒ Interdependence ⇐⇒ Illusory ⇐⇒ Middle Way.]
.
4. Further, how can a thing [exist]
without either self-existence [T0] or other-existence [T0’]?
If either self-existence [T0] or other existence [T0’] exist,
then an existing thing, indeed, would be proved.
.
This verse refutes the existence of any “thing” (bhāva) by showing that neither svabhāva nor parabhāva provides a basis for inherent existence. The duality is existent thing (bhāva, with svabhāva or parabhāva) vs. non-existent thing (abhāva).
.
[Reasoning: Tetralemma ⇐⇒ Emptiness ⇐⇒ Interdependence ⇐⇒ Illusory ⇐⇒ Middle Way ⇐⇒ One:]

• • • Tetralemma: [Uopp: Apparent opposites cannot be ‘this’, ‘non-this’, both together, or neither, and there is no fifth, because each extreme position lead to absurdity [Tetralemma] ⇐⇒ implying that apparent opposites, and their relation, are empty of inherent existence [T2-opp] ⇐⇒ dependently co-arisen, interdependent [T1-opp] [U2T-opp].]

      • (a) Existent (self-existent): A thing cannot exist with svabhāva, as verses 1–2 showed production contradicts independence.

      • (b) Existent (other-existent): A thing cannot exist with parabhāva, as verse 3 refuted other-existence without svabhāva.

      • (c) Both self-existent and other-existent: A thing cannot have both, as they are mutually exclusive (independent vs. dependent).

      • (d) Neither self-existent nor other-existent: A thing cannot be neither, as existence requires some relational basis, which is empty.

      • No fifth possibility: The tetralemma refutes all extreme dualistic views ⇐⇒ implying the Union of opposites [Uopp] ⇐⇒ the Union of the Two Truths about all phenomena [U2T] ⇐⇒ the Middle Way free from all extremes.

    • Emptiness [T2]: No thing (bhāva) has inherent existence, as neither svabhāva nor parabhāva is coherent.
      i.e. All phenomena are empty of inherent existence, never absolute.

    • Dependent Origination [T1]: Things (e.g., a table) appear to exist interdependently, co-imputed by the mind based on parts and conditions.
      i.e. All phenomena like these, all opposites, are dependently co-arisen and relatively functional, interdependent, co-defined, co-evolving, co-ceasing, merely co-labeled, co-imputed, co-imagined by the mind in dependence of its past experiences, conditioning, karma (individual, collective, cosmic.

    • Union of the Two Truths [U2T]: Things function conventionally [T1] ⇐⇒ empty ultimately [T2] [U2T].
      i.e. The two truths – dependently co-arisen relatively functional appearances [T1] and emptiness of inherent existence [T2] – are inseparable, interdependent, co-labeled, dependently co-arisen relatively functional appearances [T1-2T] ⇐⇒ and emptiness of inherent existence, never absolute [T2-2T] [U2T-2T].

    • Illusory: Things are illusory, like dreams, appearing existent but lacking intrinsic reality.
      i.e. All phenomena are like illusions, reflections, mirages, dreams, echos, ‘there, yet not there’.

    • Middle Way: The Middle Way neither reifies things as real (eternalism) nor denies their conventional appearance (nihilism).
      i.e. From this we can conclude that the best attitude toward these apparent opposites is the Middle Way free from all extremes and middle: with nothing to accept / seek / do in absolute terms, nothing to reject / abandon / not-do in absolute terms, nothing to change / improve / purify in absolute terms, just conventionally, relatively, temporarily if it helps on the path at a particular point. Avoiding affirming or negating them in absolute terms, engaging with conventional karma ⇐⇒ while realizing emptiness.

    • Implications: The verse sets up the negation of non-existence in verse 5.
      .
      .
      .

Verse 5 - Non-existence / Nihilism

[5. Refutation of ‘non-existence’ (nihilism / annihilationism) because it depends on an existent thing to be non-existent: Tetralemma (existent and non-existent things cannot be proved because non-existence depends on empty existence, and this would lead to absurdity) ⇐⇒ Emptiness ⇐⇒ Interdependence of existent and non-existent things ⇐⇒ Illusory ⇐⇒ Middle Way.]
.
5. If there is no proof of an existent thing,
then a non-existent thing cannot be proved.
Since people call the other-existence of an existent thing
a "non-existent thing."
.
This verse refutes non-existence (abhāva), showing it is as incoherent as existence (bhāva). The duality is existent thing (bhāva) vs. non-existent thing (abhāva), or any other group of apparent opposites.

• • • Tetralemma: [Uopp: Apparent opposites cannot be ‘this’, ‘non-this’, both together, or neither, and there is no fifth, because each extreme position lead to absurdity [Tetralemma] ⇐⇒ implying that apparent opposites, and their relation, are empty of inherent existence [T2-opp] ⇐⇒ dependently co-arisen, interdependent [T1-opp] [U2T-opp].]

      • (a) Existent: Verse 4 refuted existent things, as they lack svabhāva or parabhāva.

      • (b) Non-existent: Non-existent things (e.g., a unicorn’s absence) depend on the concept of existent things, which are empty. Without a real bhāva, abhāva cannot be proved, as it is the “other-existence” of bhāva.

      • (c) Both existent and non-existent: A thing cannot be both, as this is contradictory.

      • (d) Neither existent nor non-existent: A thing cannot be neither, as this implies a non-relational state, incoherent in dependent origination.

      • No fifth possibility: The tetralemma refutes all extreme dualistic views ⇐⇒ implying the Union of opposites [Uopp] ⇐⇒ the Union of the Two Truths about all phenomena [U2T] ⇐⇒ the Middle Way free from all extremes.

    • Emptiness [T2]: Non-existent things are empty, as they rely on empty existent things.
      i.e. All phenomena are empty of inherent existence, never absolute.

    • Dependent Origination [T1]: Non-existence (e.g., absence of a pot) is a mental imputation, dependently co-arisen based on concepts and conditions.
      i.e. All phenomena like these, all opposites, are dependently co-arisen and relatively functional, interdependent, co-defined, co-evolving, co-ceasing, merely co-labeled, co-imputed, co-imagined by the mind in dependence of its past experiences, conditioning, karma (individual, collective, cosmic.

    • Union of the Two Truths [U2T]: Non-existence appears conventionally [T1] ⇐⇒ empty ultimately [T2] [U2T].
      i.e. The two truths – dependently co-arisen relatively functional appearances [T1] and emptiness of inherent existence [T2] – are inseparable, interdependent, co-labeled, dependently co-arisen relatively functional appearances [T1-2T] ⇐⇒ and emptiness of inherent existence, never absolute [T2-2T] [U2T-2T].

    • Illusory: Non-existence is illusory, like a shadow, appearing real ⇐⇒ but lacking essence.
      i.e. All phenomena are like illusions, reflections, mirages, dreams, echos, ‘there, yet not there’.

    • Middle Way: The Middle Way neither reifies non-existence (nihilism) nor denies its conventional use (e.g., absence in language).
      i.e. From this we can conclude that the best attitude toward these apparent opposites is the Middle Way free from all extremes and middle: with nothing to accept / seek / do in absolute terms, nothing to reject / abandon / not-do in absolute terms, nothing to change / improve / purify in absolute terms, just conventionally, relatively, temporarily if it helps on the path at a particular point. Avoiding affirming or negating them in absolute terms, engaging with conventional karma ⇐⇒ while realizing emptiness.

    • Implications: The verse prepares for rejecting dualistic perceptions in verse 6.
      .
      .
      .

Verse 6 - All Dualistic Views

[6. Refutation of dualistic conceptual thinking, all dualistic extremes: Tetralemma (apparent opposites cannot be different / separate / multiple, identical / united / one, both together, or neither, because all of those extreme views lead to contradiction / absurdity) ⇐⇒ Emptiness ⇐⇒ Interdependence of apparent opposites ⇐⇒ Illusory ⇐⇒ Middle Way.]
.
6. Those who perceive
self-existence [T0] and other-existence [T0’],
and an existent thing and a non-existent thing,
Do not perceive the true nature of the Buddha's teaching.
.
This verse critiques dualistic perceptions of svabhāva, parabhāva, bhāva, and abhāva, asserting they miss the Buddha’s non-dual teaching of the Middle Way [Uopp] [U2T-opp].

• • • Tetralemma: [Uopp: Apparent opposites cannot be ‘this’, ‘non-this’, both together, or neither, and there is no fifth, because each extreme position lead to absurdity [Tetralemma] ⇐⇒ implying that apparent opposites, and their relation, are empty of inherent existence [T2-opp] ⇐⇒ dependently co-arisen, interdependent [T1-opp] [U2T-opp].]

      • (a) Existent (self-existent or other-existent): Perceiving svabhāva or parabhāva (e.g., a pot as inherently real) is eternalism, refuted by verses 1–3.

      • (b) Non-existent: Perceiving abhāva (e.g., a pot’s absence as real) is nihilism, refuted by verse 5.

      • (c) Both existent and non-existent: Holding both views is contradictory, as they are mutually exclusive.

      • (d) Neither existent nor non-existent: Rejecting both without understanding emptiness misses the Middle Way, as it avoids relationality.

      • No fifth possibility: The tetralemma refutes all extreme dualistic views ⇐⇒ implying the Union of opposites [Uopp] ⇐⇒ the Union of the Two Truths about all phenomena [U2T] ⇐⇒ the Middle Way free from all extremes.

    • Emptiness [T2]: Dualistic categories are empty, lacking inherent reality.
      i.e. All phenomena are empty of inherent existence, never absolute.

    • Dependent Origination [T1]: Perceptions of opposites are mental imputations, dependently co-arisen based on conditioning.
      i.e. All phenomena like these, all opposites, are dependently co-arisen and relatively functional, interdependent, co-defined, co-evolving, co-ceasing, merely co-labeled, co-imputed, co-imagined by the mind in dependence of its past experiences, conditioning, karma (individual, collective, cosmic.

    • Union of the Two Truths [U2T]: Dualities appear conventionally [T1] ⇐⇒ empty ultimately [T2] [U2T].
      i.e. The two truths – dependently co-arisen relatively functional appearances [T1] and emptiness of inherent existence [T2] – are inseparable, interdependent, co-labeled, dependently co-arisen relatively functional appearances [T1-2T] ⇐⇒ and emptiness of inherent existence, never absolute [T2-2T] [U2T-2T].

    • Illusory: Dualistic views are illusory, like reflections, appearing real but lacking substance.
      i.e. All phenomena are like illusions, reflections, mirages, dreams, echos, ‘there, yet not there’.

    • Middle Way: The Middle Way avoids clinging to opposites like existence or non-existence, or rejecting them, aligning with the Buddha’s teaching.
      i.e. From this we can conclude that the best attitude toward these apparent opposites is the Middle Way free from all extremes and middle: with nothing to accept / seek / do in absolute terms, nothing to reject / abandon / not-do in absolute terms, nothing to change / improve / purify in absolute terms, just conventionally, relatively, temporarily if it helps on the path at a particular point. Avoiding affirming or negating them in absolute terms, engaging with conventional karma ⇐⇒ while realizing emptiness.

    • Implications: The verse introduces scriptural support in verse 7.
      .
      .
      .

Verse 7 - Middle Way

[7. The Buddha taught the Middle Way free from all extremes and middle: Tetralemma (existence and non-existence cannot be affirmed because they imply eternalism or nihilism, and this would lead to absurdity) ⇐⇒ Emptiness ⇐⇒ Interdependence of existence and non-existence ⇐⇒ Illusory ⇐⇒ Middle Way.]
.
7. In "The Instruction of Katyayana"
both "it is" (existence) and "it is not" (non-existence)
are opposed
By the Glorious One, who has ascertained
the meaning of "existent" and non-existent."
.
This verse cites the Kātyāyana Sūtra to support the refutation of existence and non-existence, affirming the Middle Way. The opposites are existence (“it is”) vs. non-existence (“it is not”).
.
Verse 7 is about the Middle Way free from all extremes and middles: Like existence (naïve realism), non-existence (nihilism), both together (dualism), or neither (monism). The same for the four extremes of any duality. And this could be generalized to all dyads, triads, quads, etc.

• • • Tetralemma: [Uopp: Apparent opposites cannot be ‘this’, ‘non-this’, both together, or neither, and there is no fifth, because each extreme position lead to absurdity [Tetralemma] ⇐⇒ implying that apparent opposites, and their relation, are empty of inherent existence [T2-opp] ⇐⇒ dependently co-arisen, interdependent [T1-opp] [U2T-opp].]

      • (a) Existence (“it is”): Affirming inherent existence (e.g., a pot is real) is eternalism, refuted by verses 1–4.

      • (b) Non-existence (“it is not”): Affirming non-existence (e.g., a pot is unreal) is nihilism, refuted by verse 5.

      • (c) Both existence and non-existence: Holding both is contradictory.

      • (d) Neither existence nor non-existence: Rejecting both without emptiness is incoherent.

      • No fifth possibility: The tetralemma refutes all extreme dualistic views ⇐⇒ implying the Union of opposites [Uopp] ⇐⇒ the Union of the Two Truths about all phenomena [U2T] ⇐⇒ the Middle Way free from all extremes.

    • Emptiness [T2]: Existence and non-existence are empty, lacking inherent reality.
      i.e. All phenomena are empty of inherent existence, never absolute.

    • Dependent Origination [T1]: They are mental imputations, dependently co-arisen.
      i.e. All phenomena like these, all opposites, are dependently co-arisen and relatively functional, interdependent, co-defined, co-evolving, co-ceasing, merely co-labeled, co-imputed, co-imagined by the mind in dependence of its past experiences, conditioning, karma (individual, collective, cosmic.

    • Union of the Two Truths [U2T]: They appear conventionally [T1] ⇐⇒ empty ultimately [T2] [U2T].
      i.e. The two truths – dependently co-arisen relatively functional appearances [T1] and emptiness of inherent existence [T2] – are inseparable, interdependent, co-labeled, dependently co-arisen relatively functional appearances [T1-2T] ⇐⇒ and emptiness of inherent existence, never absolute [T2-2T] [U2T-2T].

    • Illusory: Dualistic views are illusory, like echoes, appearing real but empty.
      i.e. All phenomena are like illusions, reflections, mirages, dreams, echos, ‘there, yet not there’.

    • Middle Way: The Buddha’s teaching avoids all extremes, embracing the Middle Way.
      i.e. From this we can conclude that the best attitude toward these apparent opposites is the Middle Way free from all extremes and middle: with nothing to accept / seek / do in absolute terms, nothing to reject / abandon / not-do in absolute terms, nothing to change / improve / purify in absolute terms, just conventionally, relatively, temporarily if it helps on the path at a particular point. Avoiding affirming or negating them in absolute terms, engaging with conventional karma ⇐⇒ while realizing emptiness.

    • Implications: The verse prepares for logical refutation of dualism.
      .
      .
      .

Verse 8 - Impermanence

[8. Refutation of self-existence because it contradicts dependent origination and impermanence: Tetralemma (existence and non-existence / impermanence are contradictory) ⇐⇒ Emptiness ⇐⇒ Interdependence of existence and non-existence ⇐⇒ Illusory ⇐⇒ Middle Way.]
.
8. If there would be an existent thing by its own nature,
there could not be "non-existence' of that [thing].
Certainly an existent thing different
from its own nature would never obtain.
.
This verse refutes svabhāva by showing that an inherently existent thing would be eternal, contradicting impermanence. The duality is existence (eternal, with svabhāva) vs. non-existence (impermanent cessation).

• • • Tetralemma: [Uopp: Apparent opposites cannot be ‘this’, ‘non-this’, both together, or neither, and there is no fifth, because each extreme position lead to absurdity [Tetralemma] ⇐⇒ implying that apparent opposites, and their relation, are empty of inherent existence [T2-opp] ⇐⇒ dependently co-arisen, interdependent [T1-opp] [U2T-opp].]

      • (a) Existent (eternal): If a thing (e.g., a pot) has svabhāva, it is eternal, as its nature cannot cease, contradicting impermanence (absurdity).

      • (b) Non-existent (impermanent): If it ceases, it lacks svabhāva, as cessation implies dependence, negating inherent existence.

      • (c) Both existent and non-existent: A thing cannot be both eternal and impermanent, as this is contradictory.

      • (d) Neither existent nor non-existent: A thing cannot be neither, as it must relate to causality.

      • No fifth possibility: The tetralemma refutes all extreme dualistic views ⇐⇒ implying the Union of opposites [Uopp] ⇐⇒ the Union of the Two Truths about all phenomena [U2T] ⇐⇒ the Middle Way free from all extremes.

    • Emptiness [T2]: The thing is empty, as svabhāva implies impossible eternity.
      i.e. All phenomena are empty of inherent existence, never absolute.

    • Dependent Origination [T1]: Its arising and ceasing are dependently co-arisen, co-imputed by the mind.
      i.e. All phenomena like these, all opposites, are dependently co-arisen and relatively functional, interdependent, co-defined, co-evolving, co-ceasing, merely co-labeled, co-imputed, co-imagined by the mind in dependence of its past experiences, conditioning, karma (individual, collective, cosmic.

    • Union of the Two Truths [U2T]: It appears impermanent [T1] ⇐⇒ but is ultimately empty [T2] [U2T].
      i.e. The two truths – dependently co-arisen relatively functional appearances [T1] and emptiness of inherent existence [T2] – are inseparable, interdependent, co-labeled, dependently co-arisen relatively functional appearances [T1-2T] ⇐⇒ and emptiness of inherent existence, never absolute [T2-2T] [U2T-2T].

    • Illusory: The thing is illusory, like a reflection, appearing real ⇐⇒ but empty.
      i.e. All phenomena are like illusions, reflections, mirages, dreams, echos, ‘there, yet not there’.

    • Middle Way: The Middle Way avoids all extreme views, like eternalism (existence), nihilism (non-existence), dualism (both together), monism (neither), using impermanence conventionally ⇐⇒ without making it an absolute.
      i.e. From this we can conclude that the best attitude toward these apparent opposites is the Middle Way free from all extremes and middle: with nothing to accept / seek / do in absolute terms, nothing to reject / abandon / not-do in absolute terms, nothing to change / improve / purify in absolute terms, just conventionally, relatively, temporarily if it helps on the path at a particular point. Avoiding affirming or negating them in absolute terms, engaging with conventional karma ⇐⇒ while realizing emptiness.

    • Implications: The verse sets up the opponent’s objection in verse 9.
      .
      .
      .

Verse 9 - Refuting an Objection

[9. Self-existence inhibit dependent origination and impermanence: Tetralemma (with self-existence other-existence, dependent-origination, and relative-functionality are impossible) ⇐⇒ Emptiness ⇐⇒ Interdependence ⇐⇒ Illusory ⇐⇒ Middle Way.]
.
9. [An opponent asks:]
If there is no basic self-nature (prakti),
of what will there be "otherness"?
[Nāgārjuna answers:]
If there is basic self-nature,
of what will there be "otherness"?
.
This verse addresses an opponent’s challenge that negating svabhāva undermines parabhāva (otherness). The duality is self-existence (svabhāva) vs. other-existence (parabhāva).
It is not emptiness of inherent existence [T2] that contradicts the dependent origination [T1] and relative functionality of appearances in the world, it is self-existence [T0] that contradicts them.

• • • Tetralemma: [Uopp: Apparent opposites cannot be ‘this’, ‘non-this’, both together, or neither, and there is no fifth, because each extreme position lead to absurdity [Tetralemma] ⇐⇒ implying that apparent opposites, and their relation, are empty of inherent existence [T2-opp] ⇐⇒ dependently co-arisen, interdependent [T1-opp] [U2T-opp].]

      • (a) Self-existent: If svabhāva exists (e.g., a pot’s essence), otherness (parabhāva, e.g., pot vs. clay) is impossible, as a self-existent thing is independent, not relational (absurdity).

      • (b) Not self-existent (other-existent): Without svabhāva, parabhāva cannot arise, as it requires a self-existent reference (verse 3).

      • (c) Both self-existent and not self-existent: Both are contradictory.

      • (d) Neither self-existent nor not self-existent: Neither is incoherent, as otherness is relational.

      • No fifth possibility: The tetralemma refutes all extreme dualistic views ⇐⇒ implying the Union of opposites [Uopp] ⇐⇒ the Union of the Two Truths about all phenomena [U2T] ⇐⇒ the Middle Way.

    • Emptiness [T2]: Svabhāva and parabhāva are empty, as both are relational.
      i.e. All phenomena are empty of inherent existence, never absolute.

    • Dependent Origination [T1]: Svabhāva and parabhāva are mental imputations, dependently co-arisen, interdependent, co-labeled.
      i.e. All phenomena like these, all opposites, are dependently co-arisen and relatively functional, interdependent, co-defined, co-evolving, co-ceasing, merely co-labeled, co-imputed, co-imagined by the mind in dependence of its past experiences, conditioning, karma (individual, collective, cosmic.

    • Union of the Two Truths [U2T]: Svabhāva and parabhāva appear conventionally [T1] ⇐⇒ empty [T2] [U2T].
      i.e. The two truths – dependently co-arisen relatively functional appearances [T1] and emptiness of inherent existence [T2] – are inseparable, interdependent, co-labeled, dependently co-arisen relatively functional appearances [T1-2T] ⇐⇒ and emptiness of inherent existence, never absolute [T2-2T] [U2T-2T].

    • Illusory: Svabhāva and parabhāva are illusory, like a mirages, appearing distinct ⇐⇒ but empty.
      i.e. All phenomena are like illusions, reflections, mirages, dreams, echos, ‘there, yet not there’.

    • Middle Way: The Middle Way neither reifies nor rejects Svabhāva and parabhāva, using them conventionally.
      i.e. From this we can conclude that the best attitude toward these apparent opposites is the Middle Way free from all extremes and middle: with nothing to accept / seek / do in absolute terms, nothing to reject / abandon / not-do in absolute terms, nothing to change / improve / purify in absolute terms, just conventionally, relatively, temporarily if it helps on the path at a particular point. Avoiding affirming or negating them in absolute terms, engaging with conventional karma ⇐⇒ while realizing emptiness.

    • Implications: The verse prepares for refuting dualistic extremes without completely rejecting them.
      .
      .
      .

Verse 10 - Middle Way

[10. Middle Way: Avoiding all dualistic extreme views like existence/eternalism, non-existence/nihilism, both, neither: Tetralemma (existence is eternalism, non-existence is nihilism, all absurd) ⇐⇒ Emptiness ⇐⇒ Interdependence of existence and non-existence ⇐⇒ Illusory ⇐⇒ Middle Way.]
.
10. "It is" is a notion of eternity.
"It is not" is a nihilistic view.
Therefore, one who is wise
does not have recourse to "being" or "non-being."
.
This verse articulates the Middle Way, rejecting eternalism (“it is”) and nihilism (“it is not”). The opposites are being (existence) vs. non-being (non-existence).

• • • Tetralemma: [Uopp: Apparent opposites cannot be ‘this’, ‘non-this’, both together, or neither, and there is no fifth, because each extreme position lead to absurdity [Tetralemma] ⇐⇒ implying that apparent opposites, and their relation, are empty of inherent existence [T2-opp] ⇐⇒ dependently co-arisen, interdependent [T1-opp] [U2T-opp].]

      • (a) Being (“it is”): Affirming inherent existence (e.g., a pot is real) is eternalism, refuted by verses 1–4, 8.

      • (b) Non-being (“it is not”): Affirming non-existence (e.g., a pot is unreal) is nihilism, refuted by verse 5.

      • (c) Both being and non-being: Both are contradictory.

      • (d) Neither being nor non-being: Neither misses emptiness, as it avoids relationality.

      • No fifth possibility: The tetralemma refutes all extreme dualistic views ⇐⇒ implying the Union of opposites [Uopp] ⇐⇒ the Union of the Two Truths about all phenomena [U2T] ⇐⇒ the Middle Way free from all extremes.

    • Emptiness [T2]: Being and non-being are empty, lacking inherent reality.
      i.e. All phenomena are empty of inherent existence, never absolute.

    • Dependent Origination [T1]: They are mental imputations, dependently co-arisen.
      i.e. All phenomena like these, all opposites, are dependently co-arisen and relatively functional, interdependent, co-defined, co-evolving, co-ceasing, merely co-labeled, co-imputed, co-imagined by the mind in dependence of its past experiences, conditioning, karma (individual, collective, cosmic.

    • Union of the Two Truths [U2T]: They appear conventionally [T1] ⇐⇒ but are ultimately empty [T2] [U2T].
      i.e. The two truths – dependently co-arisen relatively functional appearances [T1] and emptiness of inherent existence [T2] – are inseparable, interdependent, co-labeled, dependently co-arisen relatively functional appearances [T1-2T] ⇐⇒ and emptiness of inherent existence, never absolute [T2-2T] [U2T-2T].

    • Illusory: Dualistic views are illusory, like dreams, appearing real but empty.
      i.e. All phenomena are like illusions, reflections, mirages, dreams, echos, ‘there, yet not there’.

    • Middle Way: The wise embrace the Middle Way, free from extremes, as in your Chapter 13, verse 10 title: “Middle Way beyond being and non-being.”
      i.e. From this we can conclude that the best attitude toward these apparent opposites is the Middle Way free from all extremes and middle: with nothing to accept / seek / do in absolute terms, nothing to reject / abandon / not-do in absolute terms, nothing to change / improve / purify in absolute terms, just conventionally, relatively, temporarily if it helps on the path at a particular point. Avoiding affirming or negating them in absolute terms, engaging with conventional karma ⇐⇒ while realizing emptiness.

    • Implications: The verse prepares for the final refutation.
      .
      .
      .

Verse 11 - Transcending all opposites

[11. Middle Way: Avoiding all dualistic extreme views like self-existence/eternalism, other-existence/annihilationism, both, neither about anything: Tetralemma (self-existence is eternalism, other-existence is annihilationism, all absurd) ⇐⇒ Emptiness ⇐⇒ Interdependence of self-existence and other-existence ⇐⇒ Illusory ⇐⇒ Middle Way.]
.
11. That which exists by its own nature (self-existence)
is eternal since "it does not not-exist."
If it is maintained:
"That which existed before does not exist now," (other-existence)
there annihilation would logically follow.
.
This verse concludes by negating svabhāva and parabhāva, because eternalism and annihilationism are incoherent. The opposites are eternal existence (with svabhāva) vs. annihilation (cessation).

• • • Tetralemma: [Uopp: Apparent opposites cannot be ‘this’, ‘non-this’, both together, or neither, and there is no fifth, because each extreme position lead to absurdity [Tetralemma] ⇐⇒ implying that apparent opposites, and their relation, are empty of inherent existence [T2-opp] ⇐⇒ dependently co-arisen, interdependent [T1-opp] [U2T-opp].]

      • (a) Eternal (existent): If a thing (e.g., a pot) has svabhāva, it is eternal, as it cannot cease (verse 8), contradicting impermanence (absurdity).

      • (b) Annihilated (non-existent): If it ceases (e.g., pot breaks), it implies annihilation, but this requires svabhāva to be refuted, which is incoherent (verse 5).

      • (c) Both eternal and annihilated: Both are contradictory.

      • (d) Neither eternal nor annihilated: Neither misses dependent origination, as phenomena arise and cease interdependently.

      • No fifth possibility: The tetralemma refutes all extreme dualistic views ⇐⇒ implying the Union of opposites [Uopp] ⇐⇒ the Union of the Two Truths about all phenomena [U2T] ⇐⇒ the Middle Way free from all extremes.

    • Emptiness [T2]: The thing, svabhāva and parabhāva, are empty, as neither eternalism nor annihilationism holds.
      i.e. All phenomena are empty of inherent existence, never absolute.

    • Dependent Origination [T1]: These concepts are interdependent, co-labeled, co-imputed by the mind.
      i.e. All phenomena like these, all opposites, are dependently co-arisen and relatively functional, interdependent, co-defined, co-evolving, co-ceasing, merely co-labeled, co-imputed, co-imagined by the mind in dependence of its past experiences, conditioning, karma (individual, collective, cosmic.

    • Union of the Two Truths [U2T]: They appear conventionally [T1] ⇐⇒ but are ultimately empty [T2] [U2T].
      i.e. The two truths – dependently co-arisen relatively functional appearances [T1] and emptiness of inherent existence [T2] – are inseparable, interdependent, co-labeled, dependently co-arisen relatively functional appearances [T1-2T] ⇐⇒ and emptiness of inherent existence, never absolute [T2-2T] [U2T-2T].

    • Illusory: They are illusory, like an echos, appearing real ⇐⇒ but empty.
      i.e. All phenomena are like illusions, reflections, mirages, dreams, echos, ‘there, yet not there’.

    • Middle Way: The Middle Way avoids all extremes, like: eternalism (existence), nihilism (non-existence), dualism (both together), monism (neither), using them conventionally ⇐⇒ without making them absolute.
      i.e. From this we can conclude that the best attitude toward these apparent opposites is the Middle Way free from all extremes and middle: with nothing to accept / seek / do in absolute terms, nothing to reject / abandon / not-do in absolute terms, nothing to change / improve / purify in absolute terms, just conventionally, relatively, temporarily if it helps on the path at a particular point. Avoiding affirming or negating them in absolute terms, engaging with conventional karma ⇐⇒ while realizing emptiness.

    • Implications: The verse concludes Chapter 15, affirming the Union of the Two Truths and the Middle Way.