Chapter 16 – The limitless centerless fractal cycle of creation/manifestation, ignorance/clinging /bondage/saṃsāra and wisdom/awakening /liberation/nirvāṇa – Transcending without rejecting the cycle for beings or things (aggregates).

This chapter refutes independent/inherent/absolute
(i) bondage/saṃsāra and (ii) liberation/nirvāṇa
because the opposites –
(i) creations/manifestations,
(ii) ignorance/clinging/bondage/saṃsāra, and
(iii) wisdom/awakening/liberation/nirvāṇa,
(or a personality/continuum that (i) creates, (ii) is bound though karma and clinging, and (iii) is ultimately freed from his illusory creations without rejecting them) –
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 opposites 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 duality Bondage/Saṃsāra and Liberation/Nirvāṇa

Chapter 16 of the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā examines the nature of bondage (being bound to saṃsāra through karma and clinging) and release (liberation or nirvāṇa), core concepts in Buddhist philosophy. Nāgārjuna challenges the conventional understanding that beings or phenomena (aggregates) are inherently bound or released, showing that such notions rely on the mistaken assumption of intrinsic existence (svabhāva). The chapter critiques the realist views of schools like the Abhidharma, which posit that phenomena (dharmas) or beings have momentary inherent existence that can be bound or liberated.

Instead, Nāgārjuna argues that all phenomena — whether the conditioned elements (samskaras, the five aggregates) or the self (or continuum) — are dependently co-arisen [T1] ⇐⇒ empty of inherent existence [T2] [U2T] ⇐⇒ and thus illusory, like a dream or mirage. ⇐⇒ This realization points to the Middle Way, free from extremes such as eternalism (bondage as inherently real), nihilism (liberation as complete cessation), dualism (both together), or monism (neither).

The chapter builds on themes from earlier sections, such as Chapter 2 (on motion) and Chapter 15 (on svabhāva), and anticipates later discussions, like Chapter 25 on nirvāṇa. It requires familiarity with key Madhyamaka concepts: dependent origination, emptiness, the two truths, and the tetralemma. Nāgārjuna’s method involves logical analysis and scriptural references to reveal that bondage and liberation are not absolute states but relational, empty designations, leading to a non-dual understanding where saṃsāra and nirvāṇa are not inherently distinct.
.

Chapter 16 of Nāgārjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, titled "An Analysis of Being Bound and Release," offers a profound exploration of the concepts of bondage (bandhana) and liberation (moksa), central to Buddhist philosophy.

In this chapter, Nāgārjuna applies the Madhyamaka method to unravel the apparent duality between saṃsāra — the cycle of conditioned existence — and nirvāṇa, the state of ultimate freedom. With ten concise yet dense verses, he challenges the notion that beings, phenomena, or processes possess inherent existence or undergo real transitions, such as from bondage to release.

By weaving together the Union of the Two Truths [U2T] — the interplay of dependently co-arisen appearances [T1] and their emptiness of inherent existence [T2] — and the tetralemma, Nāgārjuna seeks to liberate the mind from clinging to fixed categories, revealing the interdependence and ultimate insubstantiality of all things.

This chapter builds on the broader Madhyamaka project of dismantling reified views, here focusing on the mechanisms of karmic acquisition and the illusion of a self that binds or is freed. Nāgārjuna questions the very possibility of origination, duration, or cessation in any absolute sense, whether applied to conditioned elements (like the five aggregates) or a purported living being.

The text invites readers to reconsider conventional assumptions about change — across moments, actions, or rebirths — and to see that neither saṃsāra nor nirvāṇa stands as an independent reality to be grasped or attained.

Instead, through rigorous logical analysis and paradoxical negation, Chapter 16 points to a Middle Way that transcends dualistic extremes, setting the stage for a transformative understanding of freedom beyond conceptual fabrication.

B. Analysis – Transcending without rejecting the duality Bondage/Saṃsāra and Liberation/Nirvāṇa

• There is no inherent dualities like (i) bondage/saṃsāra and (ii) liberation/nirvāṇa in the three times.

• No inherent beings or things/aggregates are reborn/bound and ultimately liberated/released. There is nothing to reject/abandon, nothing to accept/seek in absolute terms. There are no real creation, clinging, rebirth, bondage/saṃsāra and liberation/nirvāṇa. Nirvāṇa is realising the true nature & dynamic of saṃsāra as it is here & now, and living more and more in accord with it. The limitless centerless fractal karmic cycle (creation, clinging/bondage, awakening to the true nature of the creation) is a spontaneous continuous unceasing natural process. It is the Union of the Ground and its unceasing spontaneous empty manifestations [UGM-in-action] – in accord with the Union of the Two Truths [U2T-in-action].

• There are no inherent three stages of the cycle [creation, bondage, awakening], like
  (i) creations/manifestations,
  (ii) ignorance/clinging/bondage/saṃsāra, and
  (iii) wisdom/awakening/liberation/nirvāṇa,
  (or a personality/continuum who, again and again, (i) creates something (physical, conceptual or mental), (ii) is bound though karma and clinging to this fabrication, and (iii) is ultimately freed through wisdom from this illusory creation without rejecting it as meaningless or useless) –
  they are all relative = Middle Way.

• The three stages of the cycle [creation, bondage, awakening] –
  (i) creations/manifestations,
  (ii) ignorance/clinging/bondage/saṃsāra, and
  (iii) wisdom/awakening/liberation/nirvāṇa,
  (or a personality/continuum who, again and again, (i) creates something (physical, conceptual or mental), (ii) is bound though karma and clinging to this fabrication, and (iii) is ultimately freed through wisdom from this illusory creation without rejecting it as meaningless or useless) –
  are not inherently existent/functional,
  not completely non-existent/non-functional,
  not both, not neither [Tetralemma].

• The three stages of the cycle [creation, bondage, awakening] –
  (i) creations/manifestations,
  (ii) ignorance/clinging/bondage/saṃsāra, and
  (iii) wisdom/awakening/liberation/nirvāṇa,
  (or a personality/continuum who, again and again, (i) creates something (physical, conceptual or mental), (ii) is bound though karma and clinging to this fabrication, and (iii) is ultimately freed through wisdom from this illusory creation without rejecting it as meaningless or useless) –
  are not different/separate/multiple/dual/’this’,
  not identical/united/one/non-dual/’non-this’,
  not both, not neither [Tetralemma].

• The three stages of the cycle [creation, bondage, awakening] –
  (i) creations/manifestations,
  (ii) ignorance/clinging/bondage/saṃsāra, and
  (iii) wisdom/awakening/liberation/nirvāṇa,
  (or a personality/continuum who, again and again, (i) creates something (physical, conceptual or mental), (ii) is bound though karma and clinging to this fabrication, and (iii) is ultimately freed through wisdom from this illusory creation without rejecting it as meaningless or useless) –
  are not permanent/continuous/eternal,
  not impermanent/discontinuous/annihilated,
  not both, not neither [Tetralemma].

• The three stages of the cycle [creation, bondage, awakening] –
  (i) creations/manifestations,
  (ii) ignorance/clinging/bondage/saṃsāra, and
  (iii) wisdom/awakening/liberation/nirvāṇa,
  (or a personality/continuum who, again and again, (i) creates something (physical, conceptual or mental), (ii) is bound though karma and clinging to this fabrication, and (iii) is ultimately freed through wisdom from this illusory creation without rejecting it as meaningless or useless) –
  are thus empty of inherent existence [T2-3S] ⇐⇒ inseparable, dependently co-arisen, interdependent, co-defined, co-evolving, co-imputed by the mind, mere designations/names, conventional truths/tools [T1-3S] [U2T-3S] ⇐⇒ like illusions, reflections, mirages, dreams, echos, ‘there, yet not there’ [Illusory].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• No absolute view to grasp.

• Emptiness is absolute freedom, even from emptiness.

C. Verses – 4 translations – 10 verses – No inherent beings or things/aggregates are reborn/bound and ultimately liberated/released. There is nothing to reject/abandon, nothing to accept/seek in absolute terms. There are no real creation, clinging, rebirth, bondage/saṃsāra and liberation/nirvāṇa. Nirvāṇa is realising the true nature & dynamic of saṃsāra as it is here & now, and living more and more in accord with it. The limitless centerless fractal karmic cycle (creation, clinging/bondage, awakening to the true nature of the creation) is a spontaneous continuous unceasing natural process. It is the Union of the Ground and its unceasing spontaneous empty manifestations [UGM-in-action] – in accord with the Union of the Two Truths [U2T-in-action].

D. Summary – Transcending without rejecting the three stages of the limitless centerless fractal cycle: (i) creation/manifestation, (ii) ignorance/clinging /bondage/saṃsāra and (iii) wisdom/awakening /liberation/nirvāṇa.

Chapter 16 systematically deconstructs the notions of bondage and release, showing that neither the conditioned elements (aggregates) nor a living being (self) can be inherently bound or released.
– Verses 1–2 establish that change (rebirth) and the self lack inherent existence, as they cannot be found in the aggregates, sense bases, or elements.
– Verses 3–4 argue that acquisition (clinging) and cessation (liberation) are empty, as they rely on an inherent self or essence, which doesn’t exist.
– Verses 5–8 apply the tetralemma to bondage and release, showing they are not inherent states—neither bound, nor released, nor both, nor neither—because all phenomena are empty and interdependent.
– Verses 9–10 warn against grasping at liberation as an inherent goal and affirm the non-duality of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, aligning with the Middle Way free from extremes.
.

In Chapter 16 of Nāgārjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, titled "An Analysis of Being Bound and Release," the text delves into the intricate relationship between bondage (saṃsāra) and liberation (nirvāṇa), ultimately arguing that neither possesses inherent existence or undergoes real transformation. Across its ten verses, Nāgārjuna employs Madhyamaka reasoning, specifically the Union of the Two Truths [U2T] and the tetralemma, to deconstruct conventional notions of change, identity, and cessation. 

The chapter begins by asserting that nothing—whether beings, things, actions, or cycles—truly exists or changes in an inherent sense, from one moment to the next, across rebirths, or between saṃsāra and nirvāṇa.

This is rooted in the interdependence [T1] ⇐⇒ and emptiness [T2] of all phenomena, encapsulated in the U2T framework: dependently co-arisen appearances [T1] are inseparable ⇐⇒ from their emptiness of inherent existence [T2] [U2T]. The tetralemma further illustrates this by negating all extremes—e.g., not bound, not liberated, not both, not neither—revealing the futility of grasping at fixed states or transitions. (dependence ⇐⇒ emptiness ⇐⇒ tetralemma)

The verses systematically unpack this insight.
– Verse 1 challenges the notion of continuity or discontinuity in conditioned elements (like the five aggregates) and living beings, suggesting that change cannot be pinned to either permanence or impermanence.
– Verse 2 questions the existence of a personality that changes across the aggregates, sense bases, and elements, concluding that no inherent "who" undergoes transformation.
– Verse 3 extends this to the process of acquisition (karmic clinging), positing that if it is empty of inherent existence, no real entity moves through saṃsāra or toward liberation.
– Verse 4 denies the possibility of a final cessation/liberation for either phenomena or beings, as such an endpoint would imply inherent existence.
– Verse 5 reinforces this with the tetralemma, stating that conditioned elements and beings are neither bound nor released, transcending dualistic categories.

– Verses 6 and 7 analyze the concept of "binding" itself, questioning how bondage could occur if neither the possessor of acquisition nor the acquisition precedes the other—both lack independent reality.
– Verse 8 argues that release cannot apply to what is bound or unbound, as simultaneous bondage and liberation would be contradictory.
– Verse 9 critiques the grasping at liberation as a future state ("I will be released"), showing it to be another form of attachment.
– Finally, Verse 10 encapsulates the Middle Way: where nirvāṇa is neither superimposed nor saṃsāra eradicated, both dissolve as conceptual extremes, leaving no absolute distinction between them.

E. Conclusion – Refuting the inherent reality and opposition of bondage/saṃsāra and liberation/nirvāṇa, without rejecting them completely

Chapter 16 reinforces the Madhyamaka Middle Way by negating the inherent reality of bondage and liberation. 

Nāgārjuna reveals that all phenomena and beings are empty of intrinsic nature [T2] ⇐⇒ yet appear interdependently [T1], embodying the Union of the Two Truths [U2T]. 

This non-dual realization dissolves the illusion of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa as separate, inviting practitioners to engage with conventional reality without grasping, thus attaining liberation through the Middle Way—a path of wisdom and compassion that transcends all conceptual extremes.
.

In conclusion, Chapter 16 dismantles the dualities of bondage and liberation, revealing them as empty of inherent existence [T2] ⇐⇒ and interdependent in their apparent functionality [T1] [U2T]. 

Nāgārjuna’s analysis, through the U2T and tetralemma, underscores that saṃsāra and nirvāṇa are not separate realities to be traversed but are misconceived when viewed through the lens of inherent existence.

The chapter urges a release from all grasping — whether to existence, non-existence, rebirth or liberation itself — pointing to a Middle Way free from extremes.

This radical deconstruction invites practitioners to transcend conventional frameworks, recognizing the illusory nature of the very cycles and states they seek to escape or attain.
.

Consolidated Framework: Chapter 16 invites us to see that what we often think of as opposites — like creation, bondage and awakening, bondage and liberation, or even saṃsāra and nirvāṇa — aren’t truly separate or fixed at all. Instead, they flow together in a vast, interconnected cycle that has no beginning, no end, and no center, weaving in everything, even space and time themselves. Imagine a dance where every step of change, every moment of feeling stuck, and every glimpse of freedom are all part of the same rhythm, endlessly evolving and embracing more and more of reality as it unfolds. 

We often create models to understand this reality, much like the ancient Abhidharma philosophers did with their detailed categories of existence, or like modern sciences and philosophies do with theories of physics, psychology, or metaphysics. These models — like labeling things as “real” or “unreal,” “self” or “other” — are helpful tools we craft to make sense of the world.

But when we forget that we tentatively created these ideas, they become binding, like invisible threads that tie us to rigid ways of seeing. We mistake the map for the territory, believing these concepts are absolute truths rather than useful sketches, and this attachment creates a sense of bondage, keeping us caught in cycles of struggle and separation.

Yet, liberation comes as we awaken to the true nature and dynamic of these creations — not as solid, separate things, but as interdependent, shimmering reflections in a boundless dance. This awakening isn’t a one-time event, a final escape to a distant nirvāṇa, but a continual process of seeing through the illusions of more and more subtle creations. Each time we recognize that a concept we’ve clung to — like “I must achieve perfection” or “this suffering is permanent” — is just a temporary construct, we free ourselves a little more, stepping deeper into the flow of reality.

This is the limitless and centerless cycle of creation, bondage, and awakening: a fractal, holographic process where each moment of creation sparks new understanding, each attachment offers a chance to see through illusion, and each awakening opens the door to even subtler insights. There’s no final liberation or ultimate awakening to reach, because the cycle itself is the path — a fluid, harmonious flow where every piece reflects the whole, drawing in all things in a timeless, boundless embrace. In this view, saṃsāra and nirvāṇa aren’t two different places but part of the same melody, revealing their unity when we let go of rigid ideas and simply join the dance, finding peace in the ever-changing, interwoven beauty of it all.

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

Question: In the context of Mahayana Buddhism (Mulamadhyamakakarika), describe the limitless and centerless fractal-like cycle of (i) creation of something (physical, conceptual or mental), (ii) clinging/bondage to that thing because of ignorance, and (iii) liberation through awakening to the true nature of that thing. This cycle repeats for everything we create / acquire. This view is in opposition to a unique ultimate awakening. Use as much space as necessary.

In Mahayana Buddhism, particularly as articulated in Nāgārjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (MMK), the philosophical framework revolves around the doctrine of emptiness (śūnyatā), dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda), and the critique of inherent existence (svabhāva). The text, composed around the 2nd century CE, is a foundational work of the Madhyamaka school, which emphasizes the Middle Way between eternalism (the belief in permanent, self-existent entities) and nihilism (the denial of all existence). Nāgārjuna systematically deconstructs all phenomena — physical, conceptual, and mental — showing that they arise interdependently, lack any core essence, and are ultimately empty. This leads to a profound understanding of reality as a boundless, centerless process, often described in modern interpretive terms as fractal-like: self-similar patterns repeating at every scale, without a fixed origin, center, or endpoint.

The query posits a cyclical process involving (i) the creation of something (physical, conceptual, or mental), (ii) clinging or bondage to it due to ignorance, and (iii) liberation through awakening to its true nature. This cycle is said to repeat for everything we create or acquire, forming a limitless and centerless fractal structure. This view stands in opposition to notions of a singular, ultimate awakening (e.g., a one-time enlightenment that permanently transcends all delusion, as sometimes emphasized in certain interpretations of Theravada or non-Mahayana paths).

Below, I unpack this cycle in detail, drawing directly from the MMK's key chapters and concepts, while explaining its fractal-like, repetitive nature. I'll structure the response around the three phases of the cycle, then discuss its infinite, non-centered quality and its contrast with "unique ultimate awakening."
.

(i) Creation of Something: Dependent Arising Without Inherent Existence

In the MMK, "creation" does not imply an absolute origination from nothing or a divine creator but refers to the conditioned arising of phenomena through interdependent causes and conditions. Nāgārjuna begins the text (Chapter 1: Examination of Conditions) by negating four possible modes of production: self-production, production from another, production from both, or causeless production. He argues that nothing arises with an inherent, independent essence (svabhāva); instead, all things — whether physical objects (like a table), conceptual constructs (like "self" or "time"), or mental states (like desire or perception) — emerge via pratītyasamutpāda. This is the chain of dependent origination, famously outlined in Buddhist teachings as the twelve links (nidānas), starting from ignorance and leading through craving, grasping, becoming, birth, and so on, to suffering and death.

For example:

• • • Physical creation: A pot "arises" not as a self-existent entity but dependent on clay, a potter's hands, fire, and cultural concepts of utility. Without these conditions, there is no pot (MMK Chapter 5: Examination of Elements).

    • Conceptual creation: Ideas like "causality" or "emptiness" themselves are constructed through language and thought, dependent on prior concepts and contexts (MMK Chapter 24: Examination of the Noble Truths).

    • Mental creation: Emotions or perceptions, such as fear, arise from contact between sense organs, objects, and consciousness, all interlinked (MMK Chapter 26: Examination of the Twelve Links).

This phase is "creation" only in a conventional sense (saṃvṛti-satya); ultimately (paramārtha-satya), nothing truly originates or exists independently. Nāgārjuna uses reductio ad absurdum (prasanga) to show that assuming inherent existence leads to contradictions. Thus, every "thing" we create or acquire — through perception, thought, or action — is a provisional designation, like a mirage or a dream, setting the stage for the next phase.
.

(ii) Clinging/Bondage Due to Ignorance

Ignorance (avidyā) is the root affliction in this cycle, as it veils the empty nature of phenomena, leading us to reify them as solid, permanent, or inherently valuable. In the MMK, Nāgārjuna links this to the proliferation of views (dṛṣṭi) and attachments (upādāna), which bind us in saṃsāra (the cycle of birth, death, and rebirth). Ignorance manifests as the mistaken belief in svabhāva, causing us to cling to created things as if they possess an independent reality. This clinging generates suffering (duḥkha), desire (tṛṣṇā), and karmic formations that perpetuate existence.

Key dynamics:

• • • Mechanism of bondage: When we "create" something via dependent origination, ignorance prompts us to grasp it as "mine" or "real." For instance, in Chapter 16 (Examination of Bondage and Liberation), Nāgārjuna explains that bondage arises from appropriating the five aggregates (skandhas — form, sensation, perception, formations, consciousness) as a self. We cling to physical possessions (e.g., wealth) because we ignore their impermanence and interdependence; to concepts (e.g., ideologies) because we treat them as absolute truths; to mental states (e.g., ego) because we fail to see their fabricated nature.

    • Fractal repetition: This clinging isn't linear but self-reinforcing. Clinging to one thing generates new creations — e.g., clinging to a physical body leads to mental concepts of identity, which spawn further attachments like relationships or status. Ignorance here is not mere lack of knowledge but a fundamental misapprehension (viparyāsa), fractal in that it applies to every layer: we cling to the clinging itself, creating meta-layers of delusion.

    • Examples from MMK: In Chapter 23 (Examination of Errors), Nāgārjuna dissects how passions arise from erroneous views of purity/impurity, leading to bondage. Chapter 17 (Examination of Actions and Fruits) shows how karmic actions, born of ignorance, bind us to future existences. This phase traps beings in endless saṃsāra, where every acquisition (material or immaterial) reinforces the illusion of separateness.

Without intervention, this leads to perpetual suffering, but the cycle includes a path out—though not a final escape, as we'll see.
.

(iii) Liberation Through Awakening to the True Nature

Liberation (mokṣa or nirvāṇa) in the MMK is the direct realization of emptiness [T2] inseparable from dependent origination [T1] [U2T], which dissolves clinging by revealing the true nature of all phenomena as dependently originated and devoid of essence. This awakening (bodhi) is not the creation of something new but the cessation of ignorance, allowing one to see things "as they are" (yathābhūta). Nāgārjuna famously states in Chapter 25 (Examination of Nirvāṇa): "There is not the slightest difference between saṃsāra and nirvāṇa," meaning liberation is not a separate realm but a transformed perspective on the same reality.

Process of awakening:

• • • Insight into emptiness: Through analytical meditation and the Middle Way dialectic, one deconstructs phenomena (e.g., via the tetralemma: a thing is neither existent, nor non-existent, nor both, nor neither). This shatters the basis for clinging. For physical things, one realizes their composite, impermanent nature; for concepts, their conventional designation; for mental states, their momentary arising.

    • Freedom from bondage: Awakening liberates by ending appropriation. In Chapter 16, Nāgārjuna notes that when the appropriator (self) is seen as empty, bondage ceases. This is not annihilation but peace (śānti), where desires subside because there's nothing inherent to grasp.

    • Mahayana nuance: Unlike some views, liberation here is compassionate and active. Bodhisattvas awaken repeatedly, vowing to liberate all beings, embodying upāya (skillful means).

However, this liberation is not terminal; it's part of the cycle's fractal nature.
.

The Limitless and Centerless Fractal-Like Cycle: Repetition for Everything Created/Acquired

The MMK portrays reality as a vast, interdependent web without a center (anātman extended to all dharmas), limit, or hierarchy. The cycle — creation → clinging → liberation— is fractal-like because:

• • • Self-similarity at every scale: It applies recursively to all phenomena. For instance, after liberating from clinging to a physical object (e.g., realizing a car's emptiness), one might create and cling to the concept of "liberation" itself, requiring further awakening. Even śūnyatā is empty (MMK Chapter 24: "If emptiness were graspable, it would be dependent"), preventing reification.

    • Limitless repetition: There's no "end" because new creations arise endlessly in saṃsāra. Every acquisition — a new idea, relationship, or even spiritual insight — triggers the cycle anew. This is centerless: no ultimate "thing" (e.g., a primordial essence or final nirvāṇa) anchors it; everything is relational, like Indra's net (a Mahayana metaphor where jewels reflect each other infinitely).

    • Non-linear and boundless: Unlike a circle with a center, it's more like a Mandelbrot set — patterns repeating infinitely without boundary. Ignorance generates infinite layers of delusion, but awakening penetrates them layer by layer, without exhausting the process.

This view aligns with Mahayana's emphasis on ongoing practice: bodhisattvas traverse infinite worlds, awakening beings in an endless compassionate endeavor.
.

Opposition to a Unique Ultimate Awakening

This fractal cycle directly opposes notions of a singular, ultimate awakening — a one-time event that eradicates all ignorance forever, often associated with arhats in Theravada (where parinirvāṇa is final cessation). In the MMK, Nāgārjuna critiques essentialist views (e.g., Chapter 15: Examination of Essence), arguing that if awakening were a unique, inherent state, it would contradict emptiness. Instead:

• • • Awakening is provisional and contextual, repeating as needed. There's no "ultimate" because ultimacy implies svabhāva.

    • Mahayana contrasts this with the bodhisattva path: enlightenment is not selfish finality but infinite (anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi), where one returns to saṃsāra out of compassion (as in the Prajñāpāramitā sutras, which influenced MMK).

    • Critiquing uniqueness: If awakening were singular, it would reify a "self" that achieves it, perpetuating duality. The fractal model avoids this, emphasizing process over endpoint.

In summary, the MMK's cycle reveals a dynamic, empty reality where creation, clinging, and liberation interweave endlessly. This fosters wisdom and compassion without closure, inviting practitioners to engage the world as illusory yet workable.

.
.

Question: Give examples of (i) creation of something, (ii) clinging/bondage to it because of ignorance of its true nature,  and (iii) liberation for it through awakening to its true nature (Union of the Two Truths). Give three examples: physical, conceptual mental fabrications. Give examples simple enough for non-experts to understand.

Physical Example: A Smartphone

• • • (i) Creation: Imagine you buy or receive a new smartphone. It "arises" through a web of interdependent factors — like raw materials mined from the earth, factory workers assembling it, designers creating its software, and your decision to purchase it based on needs or ads. In Mahayana terms, it's not a self-existent thing but a temporary collection of parts and conditions, appearing solid but actually dependently originated.

    • (ii) Clinging/Bondage Due to Ignorance: Out of ignorance, you start seeing the phone as inherently "yours" or essential, ignoring its fabricated nature. You cling to it obsessively — checking it constantly, fearing loss or damage, or upgrading endlessly for status. This bondage creates suffering: anxiety over battery life, jealousy of better models, or distraction from real life, trapping you in a cycle of desire and dissatisfaction.

    • (iii) Liberation Through Awakening (Union of the Two Truths): Awakening happens when you realize the phone's true nature — conventionally, it's a useful tool (relative truth), but ultimately, it's empty of independent existence, just like a mirage (ultimate truth). These truths aren't separate; the phone functions while being empty. This insight frees you: you use it mindfully without attachment, reducing stress and opening compassion for others caught in similar consumer traps.
      .

Conceptual Example: The Idea of "Success"

• • • (i) Creation: The concept of "success" emerges from cultural and personal influences — society's stories of wealth and fame, your upbringing, media portrayals, and experiences like getting a good job. It's not a fixed truth but a mental construct built on interdependent ideas, varying by time and place.

    • (ii) Clinging/Bondage Due to Ignorance: Ignorance leads you to treat "success" as an absolute, inherent goal, ignoring its subjective, empty basis. You cling by chasing promotions, accolades, or validation, leading to bondage: burnout from overwork, envy of others, or despair if you "fail." This creates a mental prison where happiness depends on an illusion.

    • (iii) Liberation Through Awakening (Union of the Two Truths): You awaken by seeing "success" as conventionally helpful for motivation (relative truth) yet ultimately empty, without a core essence—it's just a label we apply (ultimate truth). Uniting these, you pursue goals lightly, without obsession, freeing yourself to find joy in the process and help others redefine their own paths.
      .

Mental Fabrication Example: A Feeling of Anger

• • • (i) Creation: Anger arises in your mind from a chain of conditions — like someone cutting you off in traffic, combined with your stress, past memories, and bodily sensations. It's not spontaneous but dependently originated, a fleeting mental event shaped by perceptions and habits.

    • (ii) Clinging/Bondage Due to Ignorance: Through ignorance, you reify anger as "real" and "justified," ignoring its conditional, empty nature. You cling by dwelling on it, replaying the incident, or lashing out, which bonds you to suffering: ruined relationships, health issues, or a cycle of more anger from regret.

    • (iii) Liberation Through Awakening (Union of the Two Truths): Awakening reveals anger's true nature — conventionally, it's a signal for boundaries (relative truth), but ultimately, it's empty, arising and passing without a solid core (ultimate truth). In their union, you acknowledge the feeling without letting it control you, leading to liberation: responding calmly, fostering inner peace, and extending empathy to the "offender."

.
.

Question: From a more technical perspective, In each case liberation/awakening is gained by realizing the true nature of the three spheres  involved-- subject/actor/cause, relation/action/causality and object/result/effect -- that they are impermanent, ever-changing, unsatisfactory,  inseparable, dependently co-arisen, interdependent, co-defined, co-evolving, co-imputed by the mind, mere designations/names, conventional truths/tools <==> thus always empty of inherent existence, not really arising/existing/changing/ceasing, never absolute <==> like illusions, reflection, mirages, dreams, echos, 'there, yet not there' <==> with no absolute basis for any differentiation, acceptation, rejection, or improvement. Give three more subtle examples for creating a physical thing, a conceptual thing, and a mental thing.

Physical Example: A Shadow Cast by a Tree

• • • (i) Creation: A shadow "arises" through the interplay of sunlight (cause), the tree's form (actor/subject), and the ground's surface (effect/object), all dependent on conditions like the time of day, weather, and the observer's position. It's not a self-originating entity but a transient phenomenon co-arisen from these inseparable elements — impermanent and ever-changing with the sun's movement, co-defined by the mind's perception as "shadow," a mere conventional designation for this relational event.

    • (ii) Clinging/Bondage Due to Ignorance: Ignorance veils the shadow's true nature, leading you to reify it as a stable, inherent "thing" — perhaps fearing it as ominous in a superstitious way or relying on it for shade as if it's permanently reliable. This bondage manifests as unsatisfactory attachment: disappointment when it shifts, or subtle anxiety in projecting meanings onto it, ignoring its interdependence and emptiness, trapping you in dualistic views of light vs. dark without seeing their co-evolution.

    • (iii) Liberation Through Awakening (Union of the Two Truths): Awakening reveals the three spheres — sun/tree as subject/cause, the casting as relation/causality, ground/shadow as object/effect — as inseparable, dependently co-arisen, co-imputed by the mind, and empty of inherent existence. They don't truly arise, exist, change, or cease independently; like a mirage or echo, they're "there, yet not there," with no absolute basis for differentiation (e.g., solid vs. illusory). Conventionally useful (relative truth) for navigation, yet ultimately illusory (ultimate truth), this union frees you from clinging — no acceptance, rejection, or improvement needed — allowing equanimity as shadows come and go.
      .

Conceptual Example: The Notion of "Time"

• • • (i) Creation: The concept of "time" emerges from mental imputation based on observed changes — past events (cause), the mind's sequencing (actor/subject), and future projections (effect/object) — dependent on cultural conventions, clocks, and experiences like aging. It's co-evolving with perceptions, unsatisfactory in its relentless flow, a mere name/designation for this interdependent framework, not an absolute entity but co-defined by the mind's habits.

    • (ii) Clinging/Bondage Due to Ignorance: Through ignorance, you grasp "time" as inherently real and linear, ignoring its emptiness — perhaps obsessing over deadlines (clinging to future effects) or regretting the past (bondage to causes). This leads to suffering: anxiety about "wasting time," unsatisfactory pressure from its perceived scarcity, without recognizing the spheres as co-imputed and inseparable, perpetuating a cycle of mental unrest.

    • (iii) Liberation Through Awakening (Union of the Two Truths): Realizing the three spheres — mind/events as subject/cause, sequencing as relation/causality, durations as object/effect — as impermanent, ever-changing, interdependent, and empty dissolves bondage. They're not really arising or ceasing absolutely, like a dream's timeline or reflection in water, with no basis for rejecting "now" or improving "later." In their union, time functions conventionally (relative truth) for planning while being ultimately non-absolute (ultimate truth), liberating you to live present without attachment or aversion.
      .

Mental Example: A Fleeting Thought of Desire

• • • (i) Creation: A thought of desire (e.g., craving a distant memory) arises from sensory triggers (cause), the mind's habitual patterns (actor/subject), and emotional impulses (effect/object), all co-arisen in a momentary flash — impermanent, unsatisfactory if unfulfilled, co-evolving with attention, and merely designated as "desire" by the imputing mind, dependent on prior conditions without independent origin.

    • (ii) Clinging/Bondage Due to Ignorance: Ignorance causes you to solidify this thought as inherently "your" desire, overlooking its interdependence — clinging by indulging or suppressing it, leading to bondage: inner conflict, distraction, or cycles of more desires. The spheres feel separate, fostering unsatisfactory rumination without seeing their co-definition and emptiness.

    • (iii) Liberation Through Awakening (Union of the Two Truths): Awakening uncovers the three spheres — mind/triggers as subject/cause, arising process as relation/causality, emotional pull as object/effect — as inseparable, dependently co-arisen, co-imputed, and empty of inherent existence. They never truly exist or change absolutely, akin to an echo or illusion, "there, yet not there," eliminating any absolute ground for acceptance (pursuit) or rejection (denial). United as conventional signals (relative truth) yet ultimately dream-like (ultimate truth), this insight liberates the mind to observe desires arise and pass without entanglement.

.
.

Question: These examples make our limitless centerless fractal-like karmic cycle -- of creation, clinging/bondage and awakening/liberation -- come alive in our daily life. It seems that the path is simply enabling it with more and more subtle creations.

Yes, your observation captures the essence of the Madhyamaka path beautifully — it's not about escaping the cycle once and for all but skillfully navigating it through ever-deepening awareness. In Nāgārjuna's framework, this "enabling" of the cycle at subtler levels isn't a flaw but the very mechanism of bodhisattva practice: each awakening reveals new layers of dependent origination, allowing compassion to permeate even the most refined fabrications of mind and world. This keeps the process alive and dynamic, preventing stagnation into rigid views.

To build on that, consider how this manifests in meditation or daily mindfulness. For instance, as one awakens to the emptiness of gross physical attachments (like possessions), subtler conceptual ones emerge (e.g., clinging to "progress" on the path itself), then even finer mental ones (e.g., the subtle preference for clarity over confusion). The path thus refines itself fractally: enabling subtler creations means intentionally engaging them — not to proliferate suffering, but to illuminate their empty, interdependent nature. This aligns with the Mahayana emphasis on upāya (skillful means), where the bodhisattva voluntarily "descends" into saṃsāra to liberate beings, turning the cycle into a tool for universal awakening.

If you'd like, we could explore a specific subtle example from your own experience or dive into how this relates to texts like the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa Sūtra, which illustrates non-dual engagement with illusions. What aspect resonates most for you?

.
.

Question: It is like living in a limitless centerless fractal-like cycle of (i) creation/manifestation, (ii) clinging /bondage /saṃsāra and (iii) awakening /liberation /nirvāṇa to more and more subtle creations, more and more global. It is like the Union of the Ground and its unceasing spontaneous manifestations [UGM]; the Ground generated manifestations whose sole purpose is to ultimately return to the Ground -- either through their inevitable cessation or their awakening. Could you clarify this thought.

Yes, I see the depth in this reflection — it's a poetic and insightful way to frame the Madhyamaka perspective we've been exploring, while weaving in elements that echo Dzogchen or broader non-dual Mahayana/Vajrayana teachings. Your thought elegantly captures the dynamic, non-linear process of existence as an endless unfolding, where the "Ground" (a term often used in Tibetan Buddhism to denote the primordial, empty basis of reality, akin to dharmakāya or ultimate śūnyatā) isn't static but inseparably united with its own radiant expressions. Let me clarify and unpack this step by step, correcting minor typos (e.g., "clingning" to "clinging," and assuming "of their awakening" might mean "or their awakening") for smoothness, while staying true to the spirit of your idea. I'll ground it in Nāgārjuna's framework from the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (MMK), but also bridge to the "Union of the Ground and Manifestations" (UGM) as a resonant analogy.
.

1. The Fractal-Like Cycle: A Recap and Refinement

You're describing life as immersion in a boundless, non-centered loop of:

• • • (i) Creation/Manifestation: Phenomena (physical, conceptual, or mental) arise spontaneously from interdependent conditions, without inherent essence. In MMK terms, this is pratītyasamutpāda (dependent origination) — things "manifest" not from nothing or a creator, but as empty appearances emerging from the Ground's potentiality.

    • (ii) Clinging/Bondage/Saṃsāra: Ignorance (avidyā) causes us to reify these manifestations as solid, leading to attachment, suffering, and the wheel of cyclic existence. This is the "bondage" phase, where we get entangled in duality (self/other, existence/non-existence).

    • (iii) Awakening/Liberation/Nirvāṇa: Insight into emptiness dissolves the clinging, revealing the manifestations' true nature as inseparable from the Ground. This isn't an endpoint but a return to openness, allowing the cycle to refine itself.

The "limitless and centerless fractal-like" quality means this isn't a flat circle but a self-similar pattern repeating at every scale: gross to subtle, individual to global. As you awaken to one layer (e.g., letting go of attachment to a physical object like a possession), subtler manifestations emerge (e.g., conceptual views about "awakening" itself), and the process iterates. It becomes "more and more global" because deeper realizations encompass broader interdependence — not just personal delusions, but collective ones like societal constructs or cosmic phenomena. There's no "center" (no fixed self or ultimate origin) and no limit (no final transcendence), aligning with MMK Chapter 25's famous line: "There is not the slightest difference between saṃsāra and nirvāṇa." The cycle is the path itself, alive and evolving.
.

2. The Union of the Ground and Its Unceasing Spontaneous Manifestations (UGM)

This is a brilliant analogy, drawing from traditions like Dzogchen (where the Ground, or kun gzhi, is the pure, aware emptiness from which all arises) or the Prajñāpāramitā sutras' non-dual view. In Madhyamaka, we can interpret the "Ground" as ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya): the empty, luminous nature of reality, beyond concepts. Its "unceasing spontaneous manifestations" are the conventional truth (saṃvṛti-satya): the endless play of appearances — forms, thoughts, worlds — that arise effortlessly from this Ground, like waves from an ocean or rainbows from sky.

The UGM emphasizes their inseparability: the Ground isn't a barren void but inherently dynamic, "generating" manifestations not out of need or purpose in a teleological sense, but as its natural expression (lhun grub in Dzogchen terms, or spontaneous accomplishment). These manifestations aren't separate creations; they're the Ground appearing as diversity. Your point about their "sole purpose" being to return to the Ground is profound — it's not a literal goal (which would imply duality) but an intrinsic telos: all phenomena, being empty, are destined to dissolve back into undifferentiated openness. This return happens in two intertwined ways:

• • • Through Inevitable Cessation: Impermanence (anitya) ensures everything manifested eventually ceases—physical things decay, concepts fade, mental states pass. This is the natural "return" without effort, as seen in MMK Chapter 7 (Examination of the Conditioned): arising and ceasing are empty processes, revealing the Ground.

    • Or Through Their Awakening: Active insight accelerates this — by recognizing a manifestation's emptiness, we "liberate" it on the spot, dissolving clinging and allowing it to rest in the Ground. This is the bodhisattva's skillful engagement: not rejecting manifestations but seeing through them, turning saṃsāra into nirvāṇa.

In essence, the UGM frames the cycle as non-dual: manifestations aren't flaws to escape but the Ground's way of knowing itself. The "purpose" isn't imposed; it's the inherent logic of emptiness — appearances arise to highlight their own illusoriness, fostering awakening. This avoids nihilism (manifestations are vivid and functional) and eternalism (they're not permanent).
.

3. Living in This Cycle: Practical and Philosophical Implications

Your thought portrays existence as a vibrant, self-refining process: we "live in" this fractal by continually enabling subtler creations through awareness. For example:

• • • At a gross level: Manifest a desire for comfort → cling to material security → awaken to its emptiness → this opens space for subtler manifestations, like ethical dilemmas in society.

    • At subtler/global levels: Manifest collective ideologies (e.g., nationalism) → societal bondage in conflict → global awakening through interdependence (e.g., environmental awareness), revealing even vaster layers like cosmic impermanence.

This isn't endless drudgery but liberating: each iteration deepens wisdom and compassion. In Mahayana, the bodhisattva embodies this by choosing to "return" to manifestations out of karuṇā (compassion), helping others awaken. It's "more and more global" because realizations expand from self to all beings, aligning with the bodhicitta vow.

If there's a subtle caution, it's that even the UGM concept can become a manifestation to cling to—Nāgārjuna warns against reifying "emptiness" itself (MMK Chapter 13). True clarification comes from practice: meditation on the two truths unites the Ground (ultimate emptiness) and manifestations (conventional play), making the cycle a dance rather than a trap.

Does this resonate with your original thought, or would you like me to expand on a specific part, like how this plays out in meditation or relates to modern analogies (e.g., quantum fields as "Ground" with particle manifestations)?

.
.

Question. The french philosopher of science Michel Bitbol, use a similar description to explain the development of scientific knowledge: through observation and experimentation we create new concepts and theories, then we get attached to them thinking they really represent reality as it is, then we seek to disprove them by searching for counter-examples that would ‘refute’ the concepts and theories, then we create new concepts and theories and go back to the beginning of the cycle. Again the cycle is limitless and centerless; only ignorance makes us cling to this or that. Is that a proper description of his ideas?

The description you provided aligns well with key aspects of Michel Bitbol's philosophy of science, particularly his anti-realist stance, his emphasis on scientific theories as human constructs shaped by relational and contextual factors, and his integration of insights from Kantian epistemology, quantum mechanics, and Buddhist philosophy (especially Madhyamaka). However, it's not a direct quote or verbatim summary from his works; instead, it captures a interpretive synthesis that resonates with his ideas on how scientific knowledge evolves. I'll explain this step by step, drawing from his writings and influences, to clarify why it's a proper (though not literal) description.
.

1. Bitbol's Core Views on Scientific Knowledge and Theories

Bitbol, a French philosopher and researcher at CNRS, argues that science does not "discover" an independent, objective reality but constructs models, concepts, and theories based on human practices, observations, and experimental contexts. This is evident in works like De l'Intérieur du monde: Pour une philosophie et une science des relations (2010) and La pratique des possibles (2015), where he emphasizes a "relational ontology" — the idea that phenomena are interdependent and inseparable from the observer's framework, rather than self-existent entities.

• • • Theories as Constructs: He draws from quantum mechanics (e.g., in Mécanique quantique: Une introduction philosophique, 1997) to show that scientific theories arise from "elementary conditions for formulating physical theories," such as measurement contexts and informational bounds. They are not mirrors of "reality as it is" but pragmatic tools derived from human interaction with the world. This echoes your point about creating concepts and theories through observation and experimentation.

    • Influence from Kant and Phenomenology: Bitbol is heavily inspired by Immanuel Kant, viewing scientific knowledge as shaped by cognitive and instrumental preconditions (e.g., sensorial and rational structures). Theories are thus "constructed" rather than revealed, aligning with your cycle's starting point.

This constructive process is not static; science progresses by revising or replacing theories when they encounter limitations, which ties into your notion of seeking counter-examples or refutations.
.

2. Attachment to Theories and the Role of Ignorance

Your description's emphasis on "getting attached to them thinking they really represent reality as it is" and "only ignorance makes us cling to this or that" is particularly apt, as Bitbol critiques scientific realism—the belief that theories directly correspond to an mind-independent reality.

• • • Critique of Realism: In essays like "A Cure for Metaphysical Illusions: Kant, Quantum Mechanics, and Madhyamaka" (referenced in scholarly discussions on Buddhism and physics), Bitbol argues that clinging to realist interpretations stems from "metaphysical illusions." We mistakenly reify theories as absolute truths, ignoring their relational and contextual nature. This "attachment" leads to dogmatic views, much like ignorance (avidyā) in Buddhist terms veils the interdependent, empty nature of phenomena.

    • Buddhist Influences: Bitbol has actively engaged in dialogues between science and Buddhism, participating in Mind and Life Institute conferences (e.g., 2002 and 2013) with the Dalai Lama. He explicitly references Madhyamaka Buddhism's concept of pratītyasamutpāda (dependent arising), where things lack inherent existence and arise interdependently. In quantum mechanics, he sees parallels: Phenomena are not "real" in isolation but co-emerge with experimental setups. Ignorance here is the failure to recognize this relationality, leading to attachment to fixed theories. Your phrasing of "ignorance makes us cling" directly evokes this Buddhist flavor in his work, where scientific progress requires letting go of such illusions.

This isn't just metaphorical; Bitbol uses these ideas to explain why scientists often resist paradigm shifts — attachment to old models blinds them to anomalies.
.

3. Refutation, Disproof, and the Cyclical Nature

The cycle you describe — creating theories, attaching to them, disproving via counter-examples, then creating new ones — mirrors Bitbol's view of scientific evolution as an ongoing, non-linear process without a final "truth."

• • • Refutation and Counter-Examples: While Bitbol doesn't strictly adhere to Karl Popper's falsificationism (he critiques it for assuming an objective reality to refute against), he acknowledges that science advances by confronting theories with experimental limits or inconsistencies. In quantum contexts, theories are "refuted" not by absolute falsity but by their failure to account for relational aspects (e.g., wave-particle duality challenges classical realism). New theories emerge from these breakdowns, often incorporating broader contexts.

    • Limitless and Centerless Cycle: Bitbol describes scientific knowledge as a "tangled dialectic" (e.g., in discussions of body and consciousness) or an endless refinement, without a foundational center or ultimate endpoint. This is "centerless" because there's no independent reality anchoring it — everything is relational, like a web of interdependent conditions. It's "limitless" as science continually generates new constructs in response to new phenomena, without converging on a complete picture. He contrasts this with dogmatic realism, where ignorance fixes us on one "truth."

    • Parallels to Popper with a Twist: Your cycle resembles Popper's "conjectures and refutations," but Bitbol infuses it with anti-realist and Buddhist elements: Refutation isn't just empirical but reveals the illusory nature of attachment. In Physique et Philosophie de l'Esprit (2005), he explores how quantum mechanics forces us to abandon absolute representations, cycling toward more relational views.

This cyclical process is implicit in his relational philosophy: Science is a perpetual dialogue between human constructs and experiential bounds, echoing Buddhist notions of samsara (cyclic existence driven by ignorance) but applied to epistemology.
.

4. Is This a 'Proper' Description? Strengths and Nuances

• • • Yes, It's Proper as an Interpretation: Your summary faithfully captures Bitbol's anti-realist, relational approach and his Buddhist-inspired critique of attachment/ignorance. It's especially fitting given his explicit use of Madhyamaka to "cure metaphysical illusions" in science — e.g., viewing theories as empty of inherent truth, much like phenomena in Buddhism. Scholars (e.g., in papers on "Emptiness and Wholeness") note how Bitbol uses these ideas to explain scientific progress as shedding illusions through relational insight.

    • Nuances and Limitations: Bitbol doesn't explicitly frame it as a "cycle" in the exact terms you used (no direct mentions of "attachment" or "ignorance" in a Popperian loop), but the elements are there. His focus is more on quantum mechanics and consciousness than general science history, and he leans toward pragmatism (theories as "practices of possibilities") rather than strict refutation. If anything, your description adds a Buddhist emphasis that Bitbol would likely endorse, given his dialogues.

For deeper reading, check De l'Intérieur du monde or his Mind and Life contributions. If you'd like, I can explore a specific work or analogy further!

.
.

Question: Hummm, that is something worth exploring: compare the pragmatism of Michel Bitbol and Richard Feynman with the Madhyamaka approach to knowledge.

Pragmatism in Michel Bitbol, Richard Feynman, and Madhyamaka: A Comparative Approach to Knowledge

The query invites a fascinating exploration of how pragmatism — broadly understood as an emphasis on practical utility, relational contexts, and provisional tools over absolute or metaphysical truths — manifests in the philosophies of Michel Bitbol and Richard Feynman, and how these align with or diverge from the Madhyamaka school's approach to knowledge (epistemology). 

Madhyamaka, founded by Nāgārjuna around the 2nd century CE, critiques inherent existence (svabhāva) through the lens of emptiness (śūnyatā) and dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda), treating knowledge as interdependent and non-foundational. 

All three share a skeptical stance toward reified "reality" and prioritize what "works" in practice, but they differ in their metaphysical commitments and applications:
– Bitbol explicitly bridges science and Madhyamaka,
– Feynman embodies a no-nonsense empirical pragmatism, and
– Madhyamaka offers a soteriological (liberative) framework.

To structure this comparison, I'll first outline each thinker's pragmatic epistemology, then highlight key similarities and differences. This draws on their shared anti-realist tendencies — rejecting knowledge as a direct mirror of an independent reality — while noting how Madhyamaka's non-dual "two truths" doctrine (conventional and ultimate) provides a unifying lens.
.

Michel Bitbol's Pragmatism: Relational Constructs and Anti-Realism

Bitbol, a philosopher of science influenced by Kant, quantum mechanics (QM), and Madhyamaka, views scientific knowledge as constructed through human practices, not as discoveries of an objective, mind-independent reality. His "relational ontology" posits that phenomena emerge interdependently from observer-context interactions, akin to QM's wave-particle duality or entanglement, where properties are not intrinsic but relational. Theories are pragmatic "practices of possibilities" — tools for navigating experience, refined endlessly without converging on a final truth.

• • • Epistemological Pragmatism: Bitbol critiques "metaphysical illusions" (e.g., realism's assumption of inherent essences) as arising from ignorance of relationality. Knowledge progresses cyclically: create theories via observation/experiment, attach to them as "real," refute via counterexamples, and iterate. This avoids foundationalism, emphasizing utility over essence. He explicitly draws on Madhyamaka's emptiness to interpret QM, seeing parallels between śūnyatā (lack of inherent nature) and QM's non-separability or relativity of properties. For Bitbol, pragmatism "cures" illusions by reframing metaphysics as reflective, not substantive — echoing conventionalism and logical empiricism.

    • Key Feature: Knowledge is contextual and anti-essentialist, serving practical ends like prediction, but always provisional. This aligns with his Buddhist-inspired view: appearances are "reality" when seen relationally, without a hidden essence.
      .

Richard Feynman's Pragmatism: Empirical Utility and Doubt

Feynman, the Nobel-winning physicist, exemplified a "radical empiricism" in his approach to knowledge: theories must work empirically, judged solely by experiment, not intuition or metaphysics. Famous for "shut up and calculate" in QM, he dismissed philosophical interpretations as distractions, focusing on mathematical tools that predict outcomes. He celebrated doubt, ignorance, and confusion as drivers of progress, warning against self-deception in assuming theories capture "reality as it is."

• • • Epistemological Pragmatism: Feynman treated concepts like energy or probability as pragmatic tools: if you can't redefine them without jargon, you've gained no real knowledge. In statistical mechanics, probabilities are used "because they work," not because they reflect essence. His path integral formulation of QM prioritizes utility over intuitive sense — QM "doesn't make sense" intuitively, but its math succeeds. Knowledge evolves by testing and refining, with no finality; he likened physics history to "myth-stories" retold pragmatically. Though skeptical of philosophy (famously comparing it to ornithology for birds), his method is inherently philosophical: start from experience, embrace limits.

    • Key Feature: Pragmatism as anti-dogmatic empiricism — tools are validated by results, not ontology. This dispels "Feynman mystery" (QM's counterintuitiveness) by shifting focus to what functions.
      .

Madhyamaka's Approach: Emptiness, Two Truths, and Skillful Means

Madhyamaka epistemology rejects foundationalism, viewing knowledge as provisional and interdependent. The "middle way" avoids extremes: neither absolute existence (eternalism) nor total non-existence (nihilism). All phenomena are empty of inherent nature, arising dependently; knowledge thus operates via two truths — conventional (saṃvṛti-satya, practical designations) and ultimate (paramārtha-satya, realization of emptiness).

• • • Epistemological Pragmatism: Conventional knowledge (e.g., logic, perception) is a skillful means (upāya) for navigation and liberation, but empty itself — no ultimate foundation. Arguments use reductio (prasanga) to deconstruct views, fostering skepticism without nihilism. Insight into emptiness liberates from clinging, but even this is provisional (emptiness is "empty"). Knowledge is soteriological: pragmatic for ending suffering, not theoretical. Anti-foundationalist like Quine/Sellars, it preserves pragmatic distinctions without essence.

    • Key Feature: Pragmatism as non-dual: Conventional truths "work" relationally, but ultimate insight reveals their emptiness, enabling freedom from views.
      .

Similarities: Shared Pragmatic Threads

• • • Anti-Realism and Provisionality: All reject knowledge as grasping inherent reality. Bitbol's relational constructs mirror Madhyamaka's dependent origination; Feynman's empirical tools echo conventional truths as useful fictions. Cycles of creation-attachment-refutation (Bitbol/Feynman) parallel Madhyamaka's deconstruction of views.

    • Relational/Contextual Knowledge: Bitbol's QM-inspired relationality directly invokes Madhyamaka emptiness. Feynman's doubt-driven empiricism aligns with Madhyamaka skepticism, avoiding metaphysical commitments.

    • Utility Over Essence: Knowledge as "what works" — predictive (Feynman), possible (Bitbol), liberative (Madhyamaka)—without finality, fostering endless refinement.
      .

Differences: Scope, Metaphysics, and Goals

• • • Metaphysical Depth: Madhyamaka is overtly metaphysical (emptiness as ultimate), though pragmatic in application. Bitbol engages metaphysics reflectively via Madhyamaka-Kant synergy, but pragmatically. Feynman avoids it outright, focusing on physics' "myths."

    • Epistemological Focus: Feynman is empirical/experimental; Bitbol relational/philosophical; Madhyamaka soteriological, using epistemology for liberation.

    • Skepticism's Flavor: Madhyamaka's Pyrrhonian-like skepticism (freedom from views) is liberative; Feynman's celebrates doubt for discovery; Bitbol's cures illusions for scientific progress.

In essence, Bitbol's pragmatism most closely mirrors Madhyamaka, using it to interpret science; Feynman's is more tacit but compatible, emphasizing empirical utility. Together, they illustrate how pragmatism bridges science and philosophy, with Madhyamaka offering a timeless framework for non-foundational knowledge. 

.
.

Question: Sometimes your sources fail you. You said "Madhyamaka is overtly metaphysical (emptiness as ultimate), though pragmatic in application". Madhyamaka is indeed pragmatic with the Union of the Two Truths; but emptiness is not the ultimate; emptiness is also empty, also a conventional truth or tool.

Yes, you're absolutely right — thank you for catching that and prompting a sharper clarification. My phrasing in the previous response was imprecise and could indeed suggest a reification of emptiness as a standalone "ultimate" in a metaphysical sense, which runs counter to the core of Madhyamaka. Let me refine that here, drawing on Nāgārjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (MMK), and then revisit how this impacts the pragmatism comparison with Bitbol and Feynman. This adjustment actually strengthens the parallels, as it underscores Madhyamaka's thoroughgoing pragmatism.

Clarifying Emptiness and the Two Truths in Madhyamaka

In Madhyamaka, the doctrine of the two truths — conventional (saṃvṛti-satya) and ultimate (paramārtha-satya) — is indeed a pragmatic framework, not a dualistic ontology. The "ultimate truth" isn't a positive, inherent reality or metaphysical ground; it's simply the realization of the emptiness (śūnyatā) of all phenomena, which dissolves erroneous views and clinging. Crucially, as you noted, emptiness itself is empty (śūnyatā-śūnyatā): it lacks inherent existence and shouldn't be grasped as an absolute or final essence. Nāgārjuna emphasizes this in MMK Chapter 24, Verse 18–19: "We say that emptiness is the relinquishing of all views. For whomever emptiness is a view, that one will accomplish nothing." Emptiness is thus a provisional designation, a skillful means (upāya) or "tool" to counteract reification — much like a thorn used to remove another thorn, then discarded.

• • • Not Metaphysical in Essence: Madhyamaka critiques all metaphysical positions (eternalism, nihilism, etc.) through dialectical analysis (prasanga), showing they lead to absurdities. Emptiness isn't posited as an "overtly metaphysical" ultimate realm but as the absence of svabhāva (inherent existence) in everything, including itself. This makes the two truths inseparable and non-hierarchical: the ultimate is the empty nature of the conventional, and vice versa. As Candrakīrti later elaborates in the Prasannapadā, clinging to emptiness as "ultimate" would just create another conventional delusion.

    • Pragmatic Orientation: The entire system is soteriological — aimed at liberation from suffering (duḥkha) via insight. Knowledge, views, and even emptiness function conventionally as tools for practice, without claiming absolute status. This avoids foundationalism: there's no "ultimate" to stand on, only relational, interdependent processes.

Your point highlights how Madhyamaka's anti-essentialism is even more radical than I initially framed, aligning it closely with pragmatic epistemologies that treat concepts as useful fictions rather than truths.
.

Revisiting the Pragmatism Comparison

With this correction, the parallels to Bitbol and Feynman become even more pronounced, as all three emphasize provisionality, relationality, and utility without ontological commitments. Here's an updated comparison, focusing on how they handle "ultimates" or absolutes pragmatically:

• • • Bitbol's Pragmatism: Bitbol explicitly invokes Madhyamaka to interpret quantum mechanics (QM), arguing that phenomena lack inherent properties and arise relationally from experimental contexts. He treats "reality" or scientific laws as pragmatic constructs — tools for prediction and navigation, not mirrors of an independent essence. Like Madhyamaka, he warns against reifying emptiness-like concepts (e.g., QM's non-separability) as metaphysical ultimates; they're "cures for illusions," provisional and empty of fixed status. In works like his Mind and Life dialogues, Bitbol describes scientific progress as deconstructing attachments to theories, much as emptiness deconstructs views — both are tools that must themselves be seen as relational to avoid dogmatism.

    • Feynman's Pragmatism: Feynman's approach is implicitly Madhyamaka-like in its skepticism toward absolutes. He dismissed QM interpretations (e.g., Copenhagen or many-worlds) as unnecessary metaphysics, insisting on "shut up and calculate" because the math works empirically, without claiming it reveals an "ultimate" reality. Concepts like probability or wave functions are tools judged by utility, not essence — echoing how emptiness is a tool, not a view to cling to. Feynman embraced doubt as essential ("I can live with doubt and uncertainty"), paralleling Madhyamaka's relinquishment of all views. He avoided reifying even successful theories, noting physics advances by recognizing limits, similar to how emptiness empties itself to prevent stagnation.

    • Shared Madhyamaka Resonance: All three treat knowledge as fractal-like and centerless: Bitbol's cycles of theory construction/refutation, Feynman's iterative experimentation amid ignorance, and Madhyamaka's endless deconstruction via the two truths. None posits a final "ultimate" — emptiness (Madhyamaka), relationality (Bitbol), or empirical success (Feynman) are pragmatic devices that function conventionally while being "empty" of inherent truth. This avoids the trap of metaphysics: as you said, emptiness (or its analogs) is also a conventional tool, enabling ongoing refinement without closure.
      .

In sum, Madhyamaka's pragmatism is holistic — epistemological tools serve ethical/liberative ends — while Bitbol's is philosophical/scientific and Feynman's empirical/practical. Yet they converge on viewing knowledge as relational play, free from absolutes.

G. Detailed analysis of the verses

[CHAPTER 16 - An Analysis of Being Bound (bandhana) and Release (moksa) (bondage and release) – 10 verses;
– Nothing (being, thing, action / process, cycle) really exists and changes – from one moment to the next, from one action to another; from one rebirth to the next, from saṃsāra / bondage to nirvāṇa / liberation.
– No real origination / beginning, duration / middle, cessation / ending / liberation about any being, thing, action/process, characteristic / property / quality, or cycle.
– [U2T-3S] Interdependence / co-definition / co-evolution [T1] and emptiness [T2] [U2T] of the three spheres of acquisition, like: (i) acquirer, (ii) acquisition (iii) acquired (or updated acquirer) [U2T-3S].
– [U2T-opp] Interdependence / co-definition / co-evolution [T1] and emptiness [T2] [U2T] of opposites, like: bondage / saṃsāra and liberation / nirvāṇa, self and 5-aggregates, existence and non-existence, subject and relation and object, difference and identity, separation and union, and continuity, discontinuity, both, neither [U2T-opp].]
.
.

[Tetralemma: Something that goes through action/change cannot be different / separate, identical / united / overlapping, both together, or neither – in the three times: before, during and after the action / change.
It cannot be continuous / permanent / eternal, discontinuous / impermanent / annihilated, both together, or neither. The same for all beings, things, processes, and cycles.
This implies: ⇐⇒ Emptiness ⇐⇒ Interdependence ⇐⇒ Illusory ⇐⇒ Middle Way ⇐⇒ One.]

Verse 1 - Bondage and Change

1. When conditioned elements (object: phenomena / composite / 5-aggregates)
continue to change (rebirth), they do not continue to change
as eternal things (no continuity / permanence)
Likewise they do not continue to change (rebirth)
as non-eternal things (no discontinuity / impermanence).
The arguments here is the same as for a living being (subject: self).

Analysis: This verse examines the conditioned elements (samskaras, the five aggregates: form, feeling, perception, formations, consciousness) and their changes (e.g., rebirth in saṃsāra). The duality analyzed is permanence (eternalism) vs. impermanence (annihilationism). Nāgārjuna applies the tetralemma to show that change cannot be inherently real.

• • • Tetralemma:
      (a) Eternal (permanent): If the aggregates were eternal, they couldn’t change or undergo rebirth, contradicting their conditioned nature (absurd).
      (b) Non-eternal (impermanent): If they were inherently impermanent, their cessation would imply annihilation, but this requires an inherent essence to cease, which they lack (Chapter 15).
      (c) Both eternal and non-eternal: This is contradictory, as permanence and impermanence are mutually exclusive.
      (d) Neither eternal nor non-eternal: This implies a state outside causality, which is incoherent in dependent origination.
      No fifth possibility: The tetralemma exhausts all extremes, pointing to the Middle Way.

    • Emptiness [T2]: The aggregates lack inherent permanence or impermanence, as both concepts assume svabhāva, which Chapter 15 refuted.

    • Dependent Origination [T1]: The aggregates appear to change (e.g., rebirth) due to interdependent conditions, co-imputed by the mind.

    • Union of the Two Truths [U2T]: The aggregates appear to change [T1] ⇐⇒ but are empty of inherent nature [T2], a non-dual reality [U2T]. Nothing exists and changes; no continuity, no discontinuity.

    • Illusory: Change is illusory, like a mirage — appearing real but lacking intrinsic essence.

    • Middle Way: Neither reify change as permanent (eternalism) nor deny it as non-existent (nihilism), using it conventionally without grasping.

    • Implications: The same logic applies to a "living being" (self), setting up the critique of a self that changes.
      .
      .
      .

Verse 2 - Non-existence of the Self

2. If the personality would change
when it is sought five ways in the "groups" (skandha),
"bases of sense perception" (ayatana), and the "irreducible elements" (dhatu) [T1],
Then it does not exist [T2] [U2T].
Who [is it who] will change?

Analysis: This verse critiques the notion of a self (personality) that undergoes change (e.g., rebirth). The duality is self-existent personality vs. non-existent personality, analyzed through the Abhidharma categories of skandhas (aggregates), ayatanas (sense bases), and dhatus (elements).

• • • Tetralemma:
      (a) Self-existent personality: If a self exists inherently in the aggregates, sense bases, or elements, it should be findable, but it isn’t (per the Buddha’s anatta doctrine).
      (b) Non-existent personality: If the self is entirely non-existent, who undergoes change or rebirth? This leads to nihilism, which is incoherent.
      (c) Both existent and non-existent: This is contradictory, as existence and non-existence are mutually exclusive.
      (d) Neither existent nor non-existent: This implies a self outside relationality, which contradicts dependent origination.
      No fifth possibility: The tetralemma refutes all extremes.

    • Emptiness [T2]: The self is empty of inherent existence, as it cannot be found in the aggregates, sense bases, or elements.

    • Dependent Origination [T1]: The self is a conventional imputation, dependently co-arisen based on the aggregates.

    • Union of the Two Truths [U2T]: The self appears conventionally [T1] ⇐⇒ but is empty ultimately [T2]. Nothing exists and changes; no continuity, no discontinuity.

    • Illusory: The self is illusory, like a reflection—appearing real but lacking substance.

    • Middle Way: Avoid reifying the self (eternalism) or denying its conventional role (nihilism).

    • Implications: Without an inherent self, the concept of "who changes" collapses, preparing for the next verse on acquisition.
      .
      .
      .

[The whole karmic cycle, and everything in it, is like that.
Appearance of continuity in rebirths, but ultimately empty of inherent existence, non-dual.]

Verse 3 - Acquisition and Change

3. Moving from "acquisition" (upadana) to "acquisition" [T1: acquiring / karmic cycle / saṃsāra]
would be "that which is without existence" [T2] (vibhava).
Who is he who is without existence and without acquisition [T2] [U2T]?
To what will he change (rebirth or liberation?

Analysis: This verse examines upadana (clinging or acquisition), a key link in dependent origination that fuels saṃsāra. The duality is acquisition (clinging) vs. non-acquisition (freedom from clinging).

• • • Tetralemma:
      (a) With acquisition: If a being inherently clings, moving from one clinging to another implies an inherent self, which verse 2 refuted.
      (b) Without acquisition (vibhava, without existence): If there’s no clinging, there’s no inherent self to be free of clinging, undermining the idea of a "who" that changes.
      (c) Both with and without acquisition: This is contradictory.
      (d) Neither with nor without acquisition: This implies a non-relational state, incoherent in dependent origination.
      No fifth possibility: All extremes are negated.

    • Emptiness [T2]: Acquisition and the self are empty, as both depend on an inherent essence that doesn’t exist.

    • Dependent Origination [T1]: Acquisition appears in the karmic cycle, dependently co-arisen.

    • Union of the Two Truths [U2T]: Acquisition functions conventionally [T1] ⇐⇒ but is empty [T2].

    • Illusory: Acquisition is illusory, like a dream.

    • Middle Way: Neither affirm acquisition as real nor deny its conventional role in saṃsāra.

    • Implications: Questions the agent of change, leading to the next verse on cessation.
      .
      .
      .

[The change from saṃsāra to nirvāṇa is also like that. Appearance of continuity in liberation, but ultimately empty of inherent existence, non-dual. There is no real origination / beginning / birth, duration / middle / aging, cessation / ending / death / liberation for any thing, being, process or cycle.]

Verse 4 - Impossibility of Final Cessation / Liberation

4. The final cessation (ending / liberation / nirvāṇa) of
the conditioned elements certainly is not possible at all [T2].
Nor is the final cessation of even a living being possible at all [T2].

Analysis: This verse critiques the idea of final cessation (nirvāṇa) as an inherent state. The duality is cessation vs. non-cessation.

• • • Tetralemma:
      (a) Cessation (existent): If cessation were inherent, the aggregates or self would need an essence to cease, which they lack (Chapter 15).
      (b) Non-cessation: If there’s no cessation, this implies eternalism, which contradicts impermanence.
      (c) Both cessation and non-cessation: Contradictory.
      (d) Neither cessation nor non-cessation: Incoherent, as phenomena are relational.
      No fifth possibility: All extremes are refuted.

    • Emptiness [T2]: Cessation is empty, as there’s no inherent entity to cease.

    • Dependent Origination [T1]: Cessation appears conventionally in the cessation of suffering (Third Noble Truth).

    • Union of the Two Truths [U2T]: Cessation / Liberation is conventional [T1] ⇐⇒ and empty [T2].

    • Illusory: Cessation is illusory, like an echo.

    • Middle Way: Avoid reifying cessation (nihilism) or denying its conventional role (eternalism).

    • Implications: Prepares for the critique of bondage and release as inherent states.
      .
      .
      .

[There is no real bondage (saṃsāra) and liberation (nirvāṇa) – for any being, or chain of aggregates.
Tetralemma: Apparent opposites like bondage/saṃsāra and liberation/nirvāṇa cannot be different / separate, identical / united / overlapping, both together, or neither.
The self or aggregates cannot be continuous / permanent / eternal, discontinuous / impermanent / annihilated, both together, or neither. The same for all beings, things, processes, and cycles.
This implies: ⇐⇒ Emptiness ⇐⇒ Interdependence ⇐⇒ Illusory ⇐⇒ Middle Way ⇐⇒ One.]

Verse 5 - Neither Bound Nor Released

5. The conditioned elements, whose nature (dharma) is
arising and destruction (3 stages of becoming of composite products),
neither are bound nor released.
Likewise a living being
neither is bound nor released [tetralemma: not bound, not liberated, not both together, not neither].

Analysis: This verse directly applies the tetralemma to bondage and release, denying their inherent reality. The duality is bound vs. released.

• • • Tetralemma:
      (a) Bound: If the aggregates or self were inherently bound, they’d have svabhāva, which they lack.
      (b) Released: If inherently released, they’d need an essence to be released, which is incoherent.
      (c) Both bound and released: Contradictory.
      (d) Neither bound nor released: This implies a non-relational state, which contradicts dependent origination.
      No fifth possibility: All extremes are negated.

    • Emptiness [T2]: Bondage and release are empty, as they rely on an inherent entity.

    • Dependent Origination [T1]: They appear conventionally in saṃsāra and nirvāṇa.

    • Union of the Two Truths [U2T]: They (bondage and release) function conventionally [T1] ⇐⇒ but are empty [T2].

    • Illusory: Bondage and release are illusory, like reflections.

    • Middle Way: Avoid reifying bondage or release as absolute.

    • Implications: Sets up the analysis of what binds.
      .
      .
      .

Verse 6 - Nature of Binding

6. If the acquisition (upadana) were the "binding,"
that one [having] the acquisition is not bound;
Nor is that one not having the acquisition bound.
Then in what condition is he bound?

Analysis: This verse examines whether upadana (clinging) is the binding force. The duality is bound by acquisition vs. not bound by acquisition.

• • • Tetralemma:
      (a) Bound by acquisition: If acquisition binds, the self with acquisition isn’t inherently bound, as acquisition is empty (verse 3).
      (b) Not bound (no acquisition): Without acquisition, there’s no inherent self to be unbound.
      (c) Both bound and not bound: Contradictory.
      (d) Neither bound nor not bound: Incoherent in dependent origination.
      No fifth possibility: All extremes are refuted.

    • Emptiness [T2]: Binding via acquisition is empty.

    • Dependent Origination [T1]: Binding appears conventionally through clinging.

    • Union of the Two Truths [U2T]: Binding is conventional [T1] ⇐⇒ and empty [T2].

    • Illusory: Binding is illusory, like a shadow.

    • Middle Way: Neither affirm nor deny binding absolutely.

    • Implications: Questions the condition of binding, leading to the next verse.
      .
      .
      .

[The real action / rebirth / release cannot be found in the three times: before, during or after the actual action / rebirth / liberation.]

Verse 7 - Temporal Analysis of Binding

7. Certainly if the "binding" would exist before
"that which is bound," then it must bind;
But that does not exist.
The remaining [analysis] is stated in
[the analysis of] "the present going to,"
"that which has already gone to" and
"that which has not yet gone to." (Chapter 2)

Analysis: This verse critiques the temporal relationship between binding and the bound, referencing Chapter 2’s analysis of motion. The duality is binding (existent) vs. not binding (non-existent).

• • • Tetralemma:
      (a) Binding exists before the bound: If binding exists inherently, it must precede the bound, but this implies svabhāva, which doesn’t exist.
      (b) Binding doesn’t exist: If binding is non-existent, there’s nothing to bind, undermining bondage.
      (c) Both exists and doesn’t exist: Contradictory.
      (d) Neither exists nor doesn’t exist: Incoherent.
      No fifth possibility: All extremes are negated.

    • Emptiness [T2]: Binding is empty, as it lacks inherent existence.

    • Dependent Origination [T1]: Binding appears relationally, like motion in Chapter 2.

    • Union of the Two Truths [U2T]: Binding is conventional [T1] ⇐⇒ and empty [T2].

    • Illusory: Binding is illusory, like a mirage.

    • Middle Way: Avoid reifying binding.

    • Implications: Links to Chapter 2, preparing for the next verse on release.
      .
      .
      .

Verse 8 - Simultaneity of Bondage and Release

8. Therefore, "that which is bound" is not released
and "that which is not bound" is likewise not released.
If "that which is bound" were released,
"being bound" and "release" would exist simultaneously.

Analysis: This verse argues that bondage and release cannot coexist inherently. The duality is bound vs. released.

• • • Tetralemma:
      (a) Bound and released: If the bound is released, bondage and release coexist, which is contradictory.
      (b) Not bound, not released: If not bound, there’s no need for release, undermining liberation as an inherent state.
      (c) Both bound and not bound while released: Contradictory.
      (d) Neither bound nor released: Already addressed in verse 5.
      No fifth possibility: All extremes are negated.

    • Emptiness [T2]: Both bondage and release are empty.

    • Dependent Origination [T1]: They appear conventionally but not simultaneously.

    • Union of the Two Truths [U2T]: They (bondage and release) are conventional [T1] ⇐⇒ and empty [T2].

    • Illusory: They are illusory, like dreams.

    • Middle Way: Avoid affirming simultaneous bondage and release.

    • Implications: Prepares for the critique of grasping at liberation.
      .
      .
      .

[No continuity, no discontinuity: The individuality (self and aggregates) between two consecutive moments, changes, rebirths, or across liberation, cannot be continuous / permanent / eternal, discontinuous / impermanent / annihilated, both together, or neither ⇐⇒ Emptiness ⇐⇒ Interdependence ⇐⇒ Illusory ⇐⇒ Middle Way ⇐⇒ One.]

Verse 9 - Grasping at Liberation

9. "I will be released without any acquisition."
"Nirvāṇa will be mine."
Those who understand thus hold too much to "a holding on" (grasping)
[i.e., both to the acquisition of karma, and to a viewpoint].

Analysis: This verse critiques grasping at liberation as an inherent goal. The duality is grasping vs. non-grasping.

• • • Tetralemma:
      (a) Grasping at liberation: Viewing nirvāṇa as a possession ("mine") implies a self, which is empty.
      (b) Not grasping: Without grasping, there’s no inherent self to seek liberation.
      (c) Both grasping and not grasping: Contradictory.
      (d) Neither grasping nor not grasping: Incoherent in relational terms.
      No fifth possibility: All extremes are negated.

    • Emptiness [T2]: Grasping at liberation is empty, as is the self that grasps.

    • Dependent Origination [T1]: Grasping arises conventionally through delusion.

    • Union of the Two Truths [U2T]: Grasping appears [T1] ⇐⇒ but is empty [T2].

    • Illusory: Grasping is illusory, like an echo.

    • Middle Way: Avoid grasping at liberation as an absolute goal.

    • Implications: Leads to the final verse on saṃsāra and nirvāṇa.
      .
      .
      .

[This is the Middle Way free from all extremes & middle: Where there is nothing to accept / seek / do in absolute terms (ex. nirvāṇa), nothing to reject / abandon / not-do in absolute terms (ex. saṃsāra), nothing to change / improve / purify in absolute terms (e. the body, speech and mind), just conventionally / relatively / temporarily. Nirvāṇa is realizing the true nature & dynamic of saṃsāra as it is here & now.]

Verse 10 - Non-Duality of Saṃsāra and Nirvāṇa

10. Where there is a super-imposing of nirvāṇa [on something else],
nor a removal of existence-in-flux,
What is the existence-in-flux (saṃsāra) there?
What nirvāṇa is imagined?

Analysis: This verse concludes by denying the inherent distinction between saṃsāra and nirvāṇa. The duality is saṃsāra vs. nirvāṇa.

• • • Tetralemma:
      (a) Saṃsāra as distinct: If saṃsāra is inherently real, it cannot be removed, implying eternalism.
      (b) Nirvāṇa as distinct: If nirvāṇa is superimposed as a separate state, it implies an inherent essence, which is empty.
      (c) Both distinct: Contradictory, as they’d be inherently separate.
      (d) Neither distinct: Aligns with non-duality, as they are empty and interdependent.
      No fifth possibility: All extremes are negated.

    • Emptiness [T2]: Saṃsāra and nirvāṇa are empty of inherent distinction.

    • Dependent Origination [T1]: They appear conventionally as concepts.

    • Union of the Two Truths [U2T]: They (saṃsāra and nirvāṇa) are conventional [T1] ⇐⇒ and empty [T2].

    • Illusory: They are illusory, like reflections.

    • Middle Way: Avoid reifying saṃsāra or nirvāṇa as separate.

    • Implications: Affirms the non-dual nature of reality.