Chapter 2 – Action/Motion [U2T-3S-motion]:

This chapter refutes independent/inherent/absolute action, motion/movement because the three spheres of action/motion/movement  – actor/goer, action/movement, result/destination – 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/characterizing/characterized, definition/defining/defined, origination/duration/cessation, before/during/after, past/present/future, and other dualities/triads/quads, including the two truths, conventionally/relatively, but never in absolute terms [U2T-in-action], using them without apprehending /opposing /unifying /accepting /rejecting /changing /increasing /decreasing /liberating anything in absolute terms.

There are no inherent action/motion/movement because we cannot find the true beginning/origination, middle/duration and ending/cessation of any thing, being, process or cycle; because all subjects/goers-at-origin are also objects/goers-at-destination, and because they are dependently co-arisen in a limitless and centerless cycle. The same for the objects/goers-at-destination.

.

Last update: December 27, 2025
AI Art from: Stoneflower013
Source Text: Garfield, PTG, Streng, Batchelor.   

Previous-chapter           Home           Next-chapter

A. Introduction – The illusion of continuity through change or movement

Chapter 2 introduces the inseparable relativity [T1] and emptiness of inherent existence [T2] of action  / motion / movement and rest, of goer, going and destination. It affirms that there is no inherent/absolute motion or rest. Meaning the three spheres of motion/rest – e.g., subject/goer, relation/going and object/destination – cannot be (i) identical/united/one/non-dual, (ii) different/separate/multiple/dual, (iii) both, or (iv) neither. Meaning there is no (i) continuity or (ii) discontinuity of any thing, being, process or cycle in the three times (before, during and after the actual action/motion); no (i) permanent or (ii) impermanent essence, self, or 5 aggregates. Instead of indulging in any to those four extreme positions (i-iv), Nagarjuna proposes a Middle Way free from all extremes (‘this’, ‘non-this’) and middle (both, neither), with nothing to accept/reject/change in absolute terms, only conventionally/relatively/temporarily if it helps on the path at this point.

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

B. Analysis – Like a limitless and centerless karmic fractal

• • There is no inherent moving in the three times.
    We cannot find the beginning of the activity in the three times.

  • The three spheres – goer, going, destination –
    are not inherently existent, not completely non-existent, not both, not neither [Tetralemma].

  • The three spheres – goer, going, destination –
    are not different/separate/multiple/dual, not identical/united/one/non-dual, not both, not neither [Tetralemma].

  • The three spheres – goer, going, destination –
    are not permanent/continuous/eternal, not impermanent/discontinuous/annihilated, not both, not neither [Tetralemma].

  • The three spheres – goer, going, destination –
    are thus empty of inherent existence [T2-3S] ⇐⇒ 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 (tathata, 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, thing, process, cycle, or karma, across the three times of any activity, association, aggregation, definition.

  • It is a limitless and centerless fractal cycle: All dharmas are both goer-at-origin and goer-at-destination; are multiple goers-at-origin and goers-at-destination depending on the perspective, all merely imputed by the mind in dependence of its past experience, conditioning, karma (individual, collective, cosmic).

  • It is like a limitless centerless empty fractal conditioning/causal/karmic cycle — the goer-at-destination becomes a new goer-at-origin: All phenomena/dharmas are both goer-at-origin and goer-at-destination; have/are an infinity of goers-at-origin and goers-at-destination in space, time and nature depending on the perspective; are ever changing, never the same for two consecutive infinitesimal moments. There is no first inherent/absolute goer-at-origin, no final inherent/absolute goer-at-destination, no middle inherent/absolute action/going /movement /displacement /change. Motion is conventionally/relatively functional/useful to navigate the world [T1], but never absolute [T2] [U2T]. Absolute planning and travel are impossible. The three spheres of motion – goer, going, destination – are interdependent, co-defined, co-evolving, co-imputed after the fact [T1-3S] ⇐⇒ empty of inherent existence [T2-3S] ⇐⇒ like illusions, reflections, mirages, dreams, echos, ‘there, yet not there’ [U2T-3S]. 

C. Verses – 3 translations – 25 verses

D. Questions and Answers

Question: Anything else? 

Q: Is there anything else we should mention about chapter 2?

Answer 1: Your enthusiasm for tracing this cyclic pattern across the chapters is infectious, and I’m excited to dive deeper with you! Before we move on from Chapter 2, there are a couple of additional points worth highlighting that complement the dynamic interdependence and karmic cycle we’ve unpacked. 

First, Nāgārjuna’s use of the tetralemma in this chapter — neither the "goer" goes, nor the "non-goer," nor both, nor neither — extends beyond just negating motion’s inherent existence. It’s a deliberate strategy to exhaust all logical possibilities, forcing us to confront the limits of conceptual thinking itself. This isn’t just about debunking movement; it’s a meditative tool to shift us from grasping at fixed entities (like a "goer" or "going") to recognizing the fluid, relational reality we’ve been exploring. The cyclic updating of goer-to-goer, step-by-step, fits here as a practical illustration of this fluidity, but the tetralemma reminds us that even this cycle can’t be reified into an ultimate truth.

Second, Chapter 2 subtly foreshadows broader implications for agency and identity, which tie into the karmic cycle you’ve identified. By showing that the "goer" and "act of going" can’t be separated or independently established, Nāgārjuna hints at the emptiness of a self that "moves" or "acts" — a theme that will likely deepen in later chapters (like Chapter 3 on perception or Chapter 18 on the self). The goer’s constant redefinition through movement parallels how karma updates the actor without a solid "self" enduring behind it, reinforcing that this triad (goer/actor, going/action, destination/object) is a process, not a set of essences. This sets the stage for analyzing how other phenomena — like seeing, time, or suffering — might also reveal this centerless, cyclic interdependence.
.
.

Answer 2: Chapter 2 of Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā serves as a pivotal extension of his critique of inherent existence, moving from causality in Chapter 1 to motion — a fundamental aspect of how we experience the world.

One additional point worth noting is how this chapter challenges our intuitive understanding of time and change. By deconstructing motion into temporal stages (not yet gone to, present going to, already gone to), Nāgārjuna implicitly critiques the notion of time as an inherently real framework, showing that these stages are mental constructs, dependently arisen, and thus empty of svabhāva. This sets the stage for later chapters (e.g., Chapter 19 on time) where he explicitly addresses temporality, reinforcing that time, like motion, lacks inherent existence.

Another key aspect is the chapter’s relevance to the Abhidharma’s momentary theory of dharmas. The Abhidharma posits that dharmas (fundamental elements) exist momentarily and change through processes like motion, each with a minimal svabhāva. Nāgārjuna’s analysis in Chapter 2 directly undermines this by showing that motion — and by extension, change — cannot be inherently real, thus challenging the Abhidharma’s foundational ontology. This critique is not merely destructive; it invites a profound shift in perspective, encouraging practitioners to see motion, time, and change as part of the interdependent web of phenomena, free from reification.

Finally, Chapter 2 exemplifies Nāgārjuna’s dialectical method, which avoids positing a positive theory of motion or reality. Instead, he uses reductio ad absurdum to expose the incoherence of inherent motion, reflecting the "emptiness of emptiness"—the idea that emptiness itself is not a thing to grasp but a tool to dismantle misconceptions.

This chapter, like Chapter 1, is not just an intellectual exercise but a meditative prompt, urging us to let go of fixed concepts and encounter the fluid, non-dual nature of reality directly, beyond the illusions of inherent motion, time, or agency.

.
.
.

Question: A Limitless and Centerless Cycle of Motion with Nothing Existing Independently / Separately / Inherently / Individually in It; Nothing Remains the Same Even for Two Infinitesimal Consecutive Moments.

Q: Something about the cyclic nature of action / movement … co-evolution of the three spheres …

Answer 1: In Chapter 2 of Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, "An Analysis of ‘Going To’ (Change or Movement)," the causal cycle from Chapter 1 — where effect-1 becomes cause-2, producing effect-2 — finds a parallel in the dynamic interplay of the "goer" and the "act of going." Just as an effect transitions into a new cause in Chapter 1,
here the "goer-1" engages in an "act of going" (movement),
which redefines them as "goer-2" (at a new starting position)
for the next phase of motion.

For instance, a person walking from point A to B (goer-1) performs the "act of going" (effect-1: reaching B), but reaching B updates their state to goer-2, who then initiates a new "act of going" toward point C (effect-2). The result of one movement isn’t an endpoint but folds into the next, creating a continuous cycle where the "goer", "going" and “destination” perpetually redefine each other.

Nāgārjuna argues that neither the "goer" nor the "act of going" nor the “destination” has inherent existence — motion cannot occur in the past ("already gone to"), future ("not yet gone to"), or even the present ("present going to") without collapsing into logical absurdities, like requiring two goers or two acts of going.

This mirrors Chapter 1’s boundless causal chain: just as a cause is an effect of prior conditions, the "goer" is defined by prior movement (resulting in his actual position), and each "act of going" becomes the condition for the next "goer" (at a new position; continually redefining the status of the goer; as in the case of the karmic cycle). There’s no independent / separate / permanent / inherently existing "goer" outside the process, nor a self-existent "going" apart from the goer — both are empty, existing only relationally within an infinite, centerless cycle of motion. The "result-1" (a moment of going) being included in the "goer-2" parallels how karmic actions update the actor, with no fixed entity enduring through the process. In both chapters, this interconnected flux — causality in Chapter 1, movement in Chapter 2 —
reveals a reality without a core [T2]
⇐⇒ where distinctions like cause/effect or goer/going
dissolve into mutual dependence [T1] [U2T],
reinforcing Nāgārjuna’s insight that
all phenomena are empty of inherent existence [T2]
⇐⇒ functioning only as provisional appearances in an endless dance of relativity [T2] [U2T].
.
.

Answer 2: Chapter 2 of the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā reveals the cyclic, interconnected nature of motion, where the goer, act of going, and destination(goer at a new position) co-evolve in a limitless and centerless continuum [T1] ⇐⇒ with nothing existing independently, separately, inherently, or individually within it.

Nāgārjuna begins by negating the idea that motion can occur inherently in any of the three temporal stages — not yet gone to, present going to, or already gone to —
showing that these stages are interdependent [T1]
⇐⇒ and lack svabhāva [T2] [U2T]. 

This interdependence extends to the three spheres of motion: (i) the goer (subject), (ii) the act of going (action), and (iii) the destination (object) (goer at a new position, or producer with updated karma). For example, a person walking (goer) engages in walking (act of going) to reach a location (destination), but upon arriving, that destination becomes a new starting point, making the person a goer again in a new cycle of motion. This reflects a cyclic process where each destination (effect) transforms into a new goer (cause) (goer at a new position, or producer with updated karma), perpetuating an endless chain of motion with no absolute beginning or end.

This cycle mirrors the karmic process, where each moment’s result feeds into the next moment’s cause, with no fixed identity persisting even for two infinitesimal consecutive moments. The goer is not a static entity — it changes with each step, conditioned by countless factors (physical, mental, environmental), and the act of going evolves as conditions shift, while the destination itself is a moving target, redefined by context and perspective. Nothing remains the same because everything is in flux, co-evolving within this interdependent web [T1]. For instance, in the Abhidharma’s momentary view, a goer might be a series of dharmas (e.g., body and consciousness) arising and ceasing each moment, but Nāgārjuna shows that even these moments lack inherent existence, as their arising depends on prior conditions, which are themselves empty [T2].

This limitless, centerless cycle — where everything is simultaneously a goer, act of going, and destination (goer at a new position, or producer with updated karma) [T1] ⇐⇒ underscores the emptiness of inherent existence [T2] [U2T]. There is no "first goer" to start the motion, no "final destination" to end it, and no "absolute" goer, act of going, or destination in the middle that exists independently of this relational flux. Each element has an infinity of conditions in nature, space, and time, making individual, independent, separate, or inherent existence an oversimplification of reality as it is. These concepts are relatively useful [T1] (we describe motion to navigate the world) ⇐⇒ but they are never absolute [T2] ⇐⇒ merely co-labeled, co-imputed, or co-imagined by the mind within the limitless and centerless karmic cycle (individual, collective, cosmic) [T1] [U2T].

Nāgārjuna’s insight invites us to see motion not as a fixed process but as a dynamic, dreamlike interplay of interdependent phenomena, pointing to the non-dual, interconnected nature of reality.

E. Summary

In Chapter 2 of Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā,
titled "An Analysis of ‘Going To’ (Change or Movement),"
[3. Dependent origination:] ⇐⇒ Nāgārjuna deconstructs the concept of action / motion [T1]
[2. Emptiness:] ⇐⇒ to reveal its lack of inherent existence [T2] [U2T],
extending the logic of emptiness from causation to the phenomenon of change.

[1. Tetralemma:] He begins by dividing motion into
three temporal aspects / stages
– (i) "that which is already gone to" (past),
– (ii) "that which is not yet gone to" (future), and
– (iii) "present going to" (present) —
and argues that none of these can sustain the "act of going."

The past and future are not currently "being gone to,"
while the present, if separated from past and future,
lacks a basis for movement.

When an opponent suggests that motion resides in
the "present going to" due to visible activity,

[1. Tetralemma:] Nāgārjuna counters that this leads to absurdities:
if motion occurs in the present, it implies two acts of going
(the activity and the displacement),
necessitating two goers, which is illogical. 

[1. Tetralemma:] He systematically shows that
– a "goer" (subject / actor) cannot exist without "going" (action),
– nor can "going" (action) exist without a "goer" (subject / actor), and
– neither can be pinned down as independently real
  neither a "goer" nor a "non-goer" moves, nor does any third option.

This analysis culminates in the CONCLUSION that:
[3. Dependent origination:] ⇐⇒ action / motion [T1], like causation in Chapter 1,
[2. Emptiness:] ⇐⇒ is empty of inherent existence [T2] [U2T];
[4. Illusory:] ⇐⇒ Like illusions, reflections, mirages, dreams, echos, ‘there, yet not there’;
[5. Middle Way:] ⇐⇒ true understanding lies in the middle way beyond extremes.
[6. One:] ⇐⇒ Everything is primordially interconnected, pure, perfect, complete, divine, ‘One’ in the non-dual sense: not many, not one, not both together, not neither. They may be relatively useful conventionally [T1], but never absolute [T2] [U2T].

[1. Tetralemma:] Nāgārjuna rejects both the identity of the "goer" and "going"
(which collapses the actor into the action)
and their essential difference (which implies independent existence),
leaving no coherent ground for understanding motion as intrinsically real.

The three spheres of action / motion:
(i) the "process of going (relation / action),"
(ii) the "goer" (subject / actor) and
(iii) the "destination" (object / result)
[3. Dependent origination:] ⇐⇒ are mere mental fabrications [T1],
[2. Emptiness:] ⇐⇒ lacking self-existence [T2] [U2T]
[3. Interdependence:] ⇐⇒ because they depend on each other (interdependence) [T1]
[2. Emptiness:] ⇐⇒ without a foundational starting point (origination), middle (duration) or endpoint (cessation).

Echoing Chapter 1,
[4. Illusory:] ⇐⇒ he portrays movement as dreamlike
[3. Dependent origination:] ⇐⇒ apparent [T1]
[2. Emptiness:] ⇐⇒ yet insubstantial [T2]
[1. Tetralemma:] ⇐⇒ neither fully existent nor non-existent [nor both, not neither].

This chapter reinforces the Madhyamaka view that all phenomena,
including change, are relational constructs,
inviting us to release attachment to fixed notions and
recognize the interdependent [T1] ⇐⇒ empty nature of reality [T2] [U2T].

F. Conclusion

We can analyse ‘motion’ / ‘dependent origination’ in terms of the three spheres of any relation/action (physical, conceptual, mental), and in terms of the opposites of any duality, triad, quad … Why? Because that is the way our ordinary conditioned dualistic conceptual mind(s) operates/creates; and because our goal is to transcend (without rejecting) it by realizing the way it naturally functions and the real nature of its fabrications.

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

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

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