Mūlamadhyamakakārikā
"Root Verses on the Middle Way" by Nagarjuna
Chapter 4 - The Aggregates and their basic underlying causes or basic-elements [U2T-3S-composition].
Composing/decomposing conventionally without composing/decomposing in absolute terms.
Chapter 4 – The Aggregates and their basic underlying causes / basic-elements [U2T-3S-composition]:
This chapter refutes independent/inherent/absolute objects/effects/aggregates (as products of the aggregation of parts or irreducible elements) because the three spheres of causality/composition/aggregation – causes/basic-elements/parts, causality/composition/aggregation, effects/5-aggregates – cannot be inherently (i) dependently-arisen /existent /functional /changing /ceasing, (ii) non-dependently-arisen /non-existent /non-functional /non-changing /non-ceasing, (iii) both, or (iv) neither; cannot be inherently (i) different /separate /multiple /dual, (ii) identical /united /one /non-dual, (iii) both, or (iv) neither; cannot be inherently (i) permanent /continuous /eternal /’this’, (ii) impermanent /discontinuous /annihilated /’non-this’, (iii) both, or (iv) neither; etc. [Tetralemma] ⇐⇒ thus the three spheres are empty of inherent existence, never absolute [T2-3S] ⇐⇒ they are inseparable, dependently co-arisen, interdependent, co-defined, co-evolving, co-imputed by the mind, mere designations/names, conventional truths/tools [T1-3S] ⇐⇒ and vice versa, one truth supports/implies/enables the other [U2T-3S] ⇐⇒ they are like illusions, reflections, mirages, dreams, echos, ‘there, yet not there’ [Illusory]
⇐⇒ so we could use these models /concepts /dualities /triads / quads, like subject/relation/object, actor/action/result, cause/causality/effect, producer/production/product, goer/going/destination, perceiver/perception/perceived, knower/knowing/known, part/composing/aggregate, characteristic/characterising/characterized, definition/defining/defined, origination/duration/cessation, 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 subjects/causes/conditions/parts because all subjects/causes/conditions/parts have their own subjects/causes/conditions/parts, because they are also objects/effects/aggregates/wholes, because they are dependently co-arisen in a limitless and centerless cycle. The same for the objects/effects/aggregates/wholes.
.
Last update: December 27, 2025
AI Art from: Stoneflower013
Source Text: Garfield, PTG, Streng, Batchelor.
A. Introduction
B. Analysis
C. Verses
D. Questions and Answers
E. Summary
F. Conclusion
Note: The five aggregates / skandhas: form, feeling, perception, fabrications, consciousness,.
The most irreducible elements: earth, water, fire, wind, space – and their defining-characteristics (solidity, liquidity, heat, mobility, unobstructiveness). Maybe we could add ‘consciousness’ which is ‘pure and bright’; functioning to cognize or be aware of sensations.
Chapter 4 introduces the inseparable relativity [T1] and emptiness of inherent existence [T2] of composition/aggregation, of parts/basic-elements, composition/aggregation, and wholes/5-aggregates. It affirms that there is no inherent/absolute composition/aggregation. Meaning the three spheres of composition/aggregation – e.g., causes/parts/basic-elements, causality/composition/aggregation and effects/wholes/5-aggregates – cannot be (i) identical/united/one/non-dual/’this’, (ii) different/separate/multiple/dual/’non-this’, (iii) both, or (iv) neither. Meaning there is no (i) continuity or (ii) discontinuity of any thing, being, process or cycle in the three times (before, during and after the actual action/aggregation); no (i) permanent or (ii) impermanent essence, self, elements, or 5 aggregates. Instead of indulging in any to those four extreme positions (i-iv), Nagarjuna proposes a Middle Way free from all extremes (‘this’, ‘non-this’) and middle (both, neither), with nothing to accept/reject/change in absolute terms, only conventionally/relatively/temporarily if it helps on the path at this point.
The Madhyamaka logic is always similar [Tetralemma ⇔ Emptiness ⇔ Dependent Origination ⇔ Illusory ⇔ Middle Way ⇔ Acting-without-acting]: by showing that in the various dyads/triads/quads — e.g., subject/relation/object, cause/causality/effect, goer/going/destination, perceiver/perception/perceived-world, part/composing/whole, characteristic/defining/characterized, producer/production/produced, acquirer/acquiring/acquired —
the apparent opposites cannot be
(i) existent/real/identical/united/simultaneous/one/non-dual/’this’,
(ii) non-existent/non-real/different/separate/multiple/dual/’non-this’,
(iii) both, or (iv) neither, and there is no fifth [Tetralemma];
⇐⇒ this implies that the apparent opposites are empty of inherent existence, never absolute [T2/Emptiness];
⇐⇒ but dependently co-arisen, interdependent, co-defined, co-evolving, co-imputed by the mind, mere designations/names, conventional truth/tools [T1/Dependent-Origination];
⇐⇒ one aspect/truth supports/implies the other [U2T];
⇐⇒ like illusions, reflections, mirages, dreams, echos, ‘there, yet not there’ [Illusory];
⇐⇒ Pointing to the Middle Way free from all extremes and middle;
⇐⇒ so we can use them conventionally/relatively but never in absolute terms [Acting-without-acting].
(Where ‘⇐⇒’ means one side implies the other.)
There is no inherent composition/aggregation in the three times.
We cannot find the beginning of the composition/aggregation in the three times.
There are no absolute building blocks or universal laws of reality, they are all relative = Middle Way.
The three spheres – parts/basic-elements, composition/aggregation, wholes/5-aggregates –
are not inherently existent/functional, not completely non-existent/non-functional, not both, not neither [Tetralemma].
The three spheres – parts/basic-elements, composition/aggregation, wholes/5-aggregates –
are not different/separate/multiple/dual/’this’, not identical/united/one/non-dual/’non-this’, not both, not neither [Tetralemma].
The three spheres – parts/basic-elements, composition/aggregation, wholes/5-aggregates –
are not permanent/continuous/eternal, not impermanent/discontinuous/annihilated, not both, not neither [Tetralemma].
The three spheres – parts/basic-elements, composition/aggregation, wholes/5-aggregates –
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, 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 part/basic-element and whole/aggregate; are multiple parts/basic-elements and wholes/aggregates 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 whole/aggregate becomes a new part/basic-element: All phenomena/dharmas are both part/basic-element and whole/aggregate; have/are an infinity of parts/basic-elements and wholes/aggregates 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 part/basic-element, no final inherent/absolute whole/aggregate, no middle inherent/absolute action/perception/cognition. Composition/aggregation is conventionally/relatively functional/useful to navigate the world [T1], but never absolute [T2] [U2T]. Absolute composition/decomposition are impossible. The three spheres of composition/aggregation – parts/basic-elements, composition/aggregation, wholes/5-aggregates – are interdependent, co-defined, co-evolving, co-imputed after the fact [T1-3S] ⇐⇒ empty of inherent existence [T2-3S] ⇐⇒ like illusions, reflections, mirages, dreams, echos, ‘there, yet not there’ [U2T-3S].
The three spheres of causality, and other dualistic concepts, are an oversimplification of an inconceivable continuous limitless and centerless nonlinear fractal-like cycle / flux / continuum of interconnection, interdependence, co-definition, co-conditioning, co-evolution, co-creation.
A timeless multidimensional fluid dance of related/opposite appearances (non-duality), with nothing existing independently, separately, inherently, or individually within it.
Everything is fully continuous and dynamic (not discrete or static), interconnected (not just in the triad), equal, pure, perfect, complete, divine, ‘One’ in the non-dual sense: not many, not one, not both together, not neither.
No absolute view to grasp.
Samsara is ignoring this; nirvana is living an ordinary life (chopping wood, carrying water) while being continually fully aware of this.
Emptiness is absolute freedom, even from emptiness.
Padmakara Translation Group
Chapter 4 - An Examination of the Aggregates
.
1. [Inseparability of opposites like basic-cause and aggregate-effect – neither exists without the other.]
Separate from the cause of form,
No form is found.
Separate from a so-called form,
The cause of form also does not appear.
.
2. [T1: The apparent opposites are always inseparable, interdependent, co-defined, co-evolving, co-imputed by the mind: No effect /aggregate /whole without/separate-from basic causes /parts /irreducible element. ⇐⇒ Emptiness of inherent existence.]
If, separate from the cause of form,
There were a form, this form would be by consequence
Without a cause.
But something that's without a cause
Is nowhere to be found.
.
3. [T1: The apparent opposites are always inseparable, interdependent, co-defined, co-evolving, co-imputed by the mind: No basic causes /parts /irreducible element without/separate-from effect /aggregate / whole. ⇐⇒ Emptiness of inherent existence.]
If, separate from a form,
There were a cause of form,
This cause would be a cause without effect.
But causes that have no effects do not exist.
.
4. [T2: The apparent opposites are thus empty of inherent existence, never absolutebecause interdependent. One cannot exist with /without the other.]
If form exists,
A cause of form is unacceptable.
If form does not exist,
The cause of form is likewise unacceptable.
.
5. [U2T: Emptiness (non-inherent-existence) doesn’t deny conventional truths (conventional, relative existence and functionality). One truth supports /implies /enables the other [U2T].]
Forms bereft of causes
Are untenable, indeed they are!
And thus concerning forms
Conceive no concepts of whatever kind.
.
6. [Reasoning: Tetralemma ⇔ emptiness ⇔ dependent origination ⇔ illusory ⇔ Middle Way ⇔ primordial purity ⇔ acting without acting:
The three spheres of causality /composition /aggregation – e.g., cause/part/element, composition/aggregation, effect/aggregate – cannot be (i) existent /different /separate /multiple /dual /‘this’, (ii) not non-existent /identical /united /one /non-dual /’non-this’, (iii) not both, (iv) not neither [Tetralemma] ⇐⇒ they are thus 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] [U2T-3S] ⇐⇒ they are like illusions, reflections, mirages, dreams, echos, ‘there, yet not there’ [Illusory].]
To say the fruit is like the cause
Is unacceptable.
To say the fruit's unlike the cause
Is also unacceptable.
.
7. [Generalization to the other aggregates, and to all phenomena / dharmas / dualities / triads / quads… [U2T-all].]
With feelings and perceptions,
Conditioning factors, consciousness,
With all things, and in all respects,
Apply the same procedure as with form.
.
8. [The two truths themselves – dependent origination and emptiness – cannot be (i) existent /different /separate /multiple /dual /‘this’, (ii) not non-existent /identical /united /one /non-dual /’non-this’, (iii) not both, (iv) not neither [Tetralemma] ⇐⇒ they are thus empty of inherent existence, never absolute [T2-2T] ⇐⇒ they are inseparable, dependently co-arisen, interdependent, co-defined, co-evolving, co-imputed by the mind, mere designations/names, conventional truths/tools [T1-2T] [U2T-2T] ⇐⇒ they are like illusions, reflections, mirages, dreams, echos, ‘there, yet not there’ [Illusory].]
In arguments concerning emptiness,
All statements made to counter it
Are not replies at all.
For they exemplify the thesis to be proved.
.
9. [Acting without acting: We could use those dualities /concepts /two-truths /tools conventionally /relatively, but never in absolute terms, without attachment, reification, effort or absolutes, without apprehending anything, without opposing anything, without accepting /rejecting /changing anything in absolute terms — otherwise they turn into poisons]
When emptiness is set forth and explained,
All statements made to show its faults,
Reveal no faults at all.
For they exemplify the thesis to be proved.
Garfield
Chapter 4 - Examination of the Aggregates
.
1. [Inseparability of opposites like basic-cause and aggregate-effect – neither exists without the other.]
Apart from the cause of form,
Form cannot be conceived.
Apart from form,
The cause of form is not seen.
.
2. [T1: The apparent opposites are always inseparable, interdependent, co-defined, co-evolving, co-imputed by the mind: No effect /aggregate /whole without/separate-from basic causes /parts /irreducible element. ⇐⇒ Emptiness of inherent existence.]
If apart from the cause of form, there were form,
Form would be without cause.
But nowhere is there an effect
Without a cause.
.
3. [T1: The apparent opposites are always inseparable, interdependent, co-defined, co-evolving, co-imputed by the mind: No basic causes /parts /irreducible element without/separate-from effect /aggregate / whole. ⇐⇒ Emptiness of inherent existence.]
If apart from form
There were a cause of form,
It would be a cause without an effect.
But there are no causes without effects.
.
4. [T2: The apparent opposites are thus empty of inherent existence, never absolute because interdependent. One cannot exist with /without the other.]
When form exists,
A cause of the arising of form is not tenable.
When form is non-existent,
A cause of the arising of form is not tenable.
.
5. [U2T: Emptiness (non-inherent-existence) doesn’t deny conventional truths (conventional, relative existence and functionality). One truth supports /implies /enables the other [U2T].]
Form itself without a cause
Is not possible or tenable.
Therefore, think about form, but
Do not construct theories about form.
.
6. [Reasoning: Tetralemma ⇔ emptiness ⇔ dependent origination ⇔ illusory ⇔ Middle Way ⇔ primordial purity ⇔ acting without acting:
The three spheres of causality /composition /aggregation – e.g., cause/part/element, composition/aggregation, effect/aggregate – cannot be (i) existent /different /separate /multiple /dual /‘this’, (ii) not non-existent /identical /united /one /non-dual /’non-this’, (iii) not both, (iv) not neither [Tetralemma] ⇐⇒ they are thus 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] [U2T-3S] ⇐⇒ they are like illusions, reflections, mirages, dreams, echos, ‘there, yet not there’ [Illusory].]
The assertion that the effect and cause are similar
Is not acceptable.
The assertion that they are not similar
Is also not acceptable.
.
7. [Generalization to the other aggregates, and to all phenomena / dharmas / dualities / triads / quads… [U2T-all].]
Feelings, discriminations, and dispositions
And consciousness and all such things
Should be thought of
In the same way as material form.
.
8. [The two truths themselves – dependent origination and emptiness – cannot be (i) existent /different /separate /multiple /dual /‘this’, (ii) not non-existent /identical /united /one /non-dual /’non-this’, (iii) not both, (iv) not neither [Tetralemma] ⇐⇒ they are thus empty of inherent existence, never absolute [T2-2T] ⇐⇒ they are inseparable, dependently co-arisen, interdependent, co-defined, co-evolving, co-imputed by the mind, mere designations/names, conventional truths/tools [T1-2T] [U2T-2T] ⇐⇒ they are like illusions, reflections, mirages, dreams, echos, ‘there, yet not there’ [Illusory].]
When an analysis is made through emptiness,
If someone were to offer a reply,
That reply will fail, since it will presuppose
Exactly what is to be proven.
.
9. [Acting without acting: We could use those dualities /concepts /two-truths /tools conventionally /relatively, but never in absolute terms, without attachment, reification, effort or absolutes, without apprehending anything, without opposing anything, without accepting /rejecting /changing anything in absolute terms — otherwise they turn into poisons]
When an explanation is made through emptiness,
Whoever would find fault with it
Will find no fault, since the criticism will presuppose
Exactly what is to be proven.
Batchelor
Chapter 4 - Investigation of the Aggregates
.
1. [Inseparability of opposites like basic-cause and aggregate-effect – neither exists without the other.]
Apart from the cause of form, form is not perceived. Apart from "form", the cause of form also does not appear.
.
2. [T1: The apparent opposites are always inseparable, interdependent, co-defined, co-evolving, co-imputed by the mind: No effect /aggregate /whole without/separate-from basic causes /parts /irreducible element. ⇐⇒ Emptiness of inherent existence.]
If there were form apart from the cause of form, it would follow that form is without cause; there is no object at all that is without cause.
.
3. [T1: The apparent opposites are always inseparable, interdependent, co-defined, co-evolving, co-imputed by the mind: No basic causes /parts /irreducible element without/separate-from effect /aggregate / whole. ⇐⇒ Emptiness of inherent existence.]
If a cause of form existed apart from form, it would exist as a cause without fruit; causes without fruit do not exist.
.
4. [T2: The apparent opposites are thus empty of inherent existence, never absolute because interdependent. One cannot exist with /without the other.]
If form existed, a cause of form would be untenable; if form did not exist, a cause of form would be untenable.
.
5. [U2T: Emptiness (non-inherent-existence) doesn’t deny conventional truths (conventional, relative existence and functionality). One truth supports /implies /enables the other [U2T].]
Forms which do not have a cause are not at all tenable. Therefore, do not conceive the concept of form at all.
.
6. [Reasoning: Tetralemma ⇔ emptiness ⇔ dependent origination ⇔ illusory ⇔ Middle Way ⇔ primordial purity ⇔ acting without acting:
The three spheres of causality /composition /aggregation – e.g., cause/part/element, composition/aggregation, effect/aggregate – cannot be (i) existent /different /separate /multiple /dual /‘this’, (ii) not non-existent /identical /united /one /non-dual /’non-this’, (iii) not both, (iv) not neither [Tetralemma] ⇐⇒ they are thus 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] [U2T-3S] ⇐⇒ they are like illusions, reflections, mirages, dreams, echos, ‘there, yet not there’ [Illusory].]
It is untenable to say, "the fruit is like the cause." It is also untenable to say, "the fruit is unlike the cause."
.
7. [Generalization to the other aggregates, and to all phenomena / dharmas / dualities / triads / quads… [U2T-all].]
Feeling and perception, impulses and mind and all things are comparable in every aspect, at every stage with form.
.
8. [The two truths themselves – dependent origination and emptiness – cannot be (i) existent /different /separate /multiple /dual /‘this’, (ii) not non-existent /identical /united /one /non-dual /’non-this’, (iii) not both, (iv) not neither [Tetralemma] ⇐⇒ they are thus empty of inherent existence, never absolute [T2-2T] ⇐⇒ they are inseparable, dependently co-arisen, interdependent, co-defined, co-evolving, co-imputed by the mind, mere designations/names, conventional truths/tools [T1-2T] [U2T-2T] ⇐⇒ they are like illusions, reflections, mirages, dreams, echos, ‘there, yet not there’ [Illusory].]
When having argued by means of emptiness, everything of that one who objects is not an objection; it is similar to what is to be established .
.
9. [Acting without acting: We could use those dualities /concepts /two-truths /tools conventionally /relatively, but never in absolute terms, without attachment, reification, effort or absolutes, without apprehending anything, without opposing anything, without accepting /rejecting /changing anything in absolute terms — otherwise they turn into poisons]
When having explained by means of emptiness, everything of that one who finds fault is not a fault; it is similar to what is to be established.
Streng
Chapter 4 - An Analysis of the "Groups of Universal Elements" (skandhas) (the aggregates) - 9 verses – The five aggregates, explained/caused by their basic underlying causes / elements; emptiness of emptiness]
.
1. [Inseparability of opposites like basic-cause and aggregate-effect – neither exists without the other.]
Visible form (rupa) is not perceived without the basic cause of visible form (rupakarana);
Likewise the basic cause of visible form does not appear without the visible form.
.
2. [T1: The apparent opposites are always inseparable, interdependent, co-defined, co-evolving, co-imputed by the mind: No effect /aggregate /whole without/separate-from basic causes /parts /irreducible element. ⇐⇒ Emptiness of inherent existence.]
If the visible form existed apart from its basic cause, it would logically follow that visible form is without cause;
But there is nothing anywhere [arising] without cause.
.
3. [T1: The apparent opposites are always inseparable, interdependent, co-defined, co-evolving, co-imputed by the mind: No basic causes /parts /irreducible element without/separate-from effect /aggregate / whole. ⇐⇒ Emptiness of inherent existence.]
On the other hand, if there would be a basic cause apart from visible form,
The basic cause would be without any product; but there is no basic cause without a product.
.
4. [T2: The apparent opposites are thus empty of inherent existence, never absolute because interdependent. One cannot exist with /without the other.]
Just as when there is visible form no basic cause of form obtains,
So when there is no visible form no basic cause of form obtains.
.
5. [U2T: Emptiness (non-inherent-existence) doesn’t deny conventional truths (conventional, relative existence and functionality). One truth supports /implies /enables the other [U2T].]
Furthermore, it does not obtain that no visible form exists without a basic cause,
One should not construe any constructs concerning the form.
.
6. [Reasoning: Tetralemma ⇔ emptiness ⇔ dependent origination ⇔ illusory ⇔ Middle Way ⇔ primordial purity ⇔ acting without acting:
The three spheres of causality /composition /aggregation – e.g., cause/part/element, composition/aggregation, effect/aggregate – cannot be (i) existent /different /separate /multiple /dual /‘this’, (ii) not non-existent /identical /united /one /non-dual /’non-this’, (iii) not both, (iv) not neither [Tetralemma] ⇐⇒ they are thus 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] [U2T-3S] ⇐⇒ they are like illusions, reflections, mirages, dreams, echos, ‘there, yet not there’ [Illusory].]
Just as it does not obtain that the product is the same as the cause,
So it does not obtain that product is not the same as the cause.
.
7. [Generalization to the other aggregates, and to all phenomena / dharmas / dualities / triads / quads… [U2T-all].]
Also, sensation, thought, mental conception, conditioned elements (samskara) and
All "things" (bhava) are to be dealt with in the same way as visible form.
.
8. [The two truths themselves – dependent origination and emptiness – cannot be (i) existent /different /separate /multiple /dual /‘this’, (ii) not non-existent /identical /united /one /non-dual /’non-this’, (iii) not both, (iv) not neither [Tetralemma] ⇐⇒ they are thus empty of inherent existence, never absolute [T2-2T] ⇐⇒ they are inseparable, dependently co-arisen, interdependent, co-defined, co-evolving, co-imputed by the mind, mere designations/names, conventional truths/tools [T1-2T] [U2T-2T] ⇐⇒ they are like illusions, reflections, mirages, dreams, echos, ‘there, yet not there’ [Illusory].]
Whoever argues against "emptiness" in order to refute an argument,
For him everything, including the point of contention (sadhya) is known to be unrefuted.
.
9. [Acting without acting: We could use those dualities /concepts /two-truths /tools conventionally /relatively, but never in absolute terms, without attachment, reification, effort or absolutes, without apprehending anything, without opposing anything, without accepting /rejecting /changing anything in absolute terms — otherwise they turn into poisons]
Whoever argues by means of "emptiness" in order to explain an understanding,
For him, everything including the point to be proved (sadhya) is known to be misunderstood.
Q: We can also analyse this chapter from the point of view of the interdependence between perceptible wholes (skandhas / aggregates) and non-perceptible parts (dhatus / irreducible elements). The fractal cyclic nature becomes more evident. Parts may be composed of parts, ad infinitum -- contrary to the notion of irreducible elements. And wholes/aggregates may be parts to bigger wholes/aggregates – depending on the perspective.
Your fractal perspective brilliantly enriches our analysis of Chapter 4, spotlighting the interdependence between perceptible wholes (iii. skandhas, like visible form) and their non-perceptible parts (i. dhatus, the basic causes or elements), and revealing a cyclic, infinite layering that echoes the karmic-like cycles we’ve traced.
In Chapter 4, Nāgārjuna shows that a skandha like visible form (iii. effect) (rupa) cannot exist without its basic cause (i) (dhatus such as eye faculty, light, or subtle conditions), yet these causes (i) themselves depend on the form (iii. effect) to manifest — neither the whole (iii. 5-aggregate) nor its parts (i. irreducible elements) has inherent, independent existence.
Your insight takes this further: what we call "parts" (i. cause / dhatus) might themselves be composed of smaller parts (i’. cause), fracturing into an infinite regress, challenging the notion of irreducible, ultimate elements (iii. effect / wholes). Conversely, wholes (iii. effect) like the skandhas aren’t final entities but can serve as parts within larger wholes (iii’. effect) — say, form as part of a broader perceptual or existential aggregate — extending upward and outward without limit.
This fractal, cyclic nature amplifies the interdependence we’ve seen across chapters. Just as in Chapter 1’s causality (effect-1 becomes cause-2 ad infinitum), Chapter 2’s movement (goer-1 updates to goer-2 endlessly), and Chapter 3’s perception (perceiver and perceived co-evolve without end), here in Chapter 4, the skandhas (iii. effect) and dhatus (i. cause) form a centerless, limitless cycle of co-definition and co-evolution. Parts depend on wholes (iii. effect) to be relevant, wholes depend on parts (i. cause) to exist, and this relational web stretches infinitely in both directions – smaller into parts of parts, larger into wholes of wholes. This fractal interdependence underscores their emptiness: there’s no bedrock "irreducible element" (dhatu) nor a capped "ultimate aggregate" (skandha) to grasp, only a dynamic, ever-shifting interplay. It’s like a karmic fractal where each layer updates the next, mirroring how actions reshape actors and worlds without a fixed core — everything is relative, co-creating, and empty of inherent existence. This lens makes Chapter 4 a microcosm of Nāgārjuna’s broader vision.
.
.
.
Q: Is there anything else we should mention about chapter 4?
Answer: Before we move on from Chapter 4, a couple of additional points could round out our exploration and tie it even more tightly to the cyclic, fractal interdependence you’ve illuminated.
[Emptiness of emptiness: not accepting or rejecting it]
First, Nāgārjuna’s closing verses (8 and 9) about the use and misuse of emptiness deserve a bit more attention. He warns that arguing against emptiness (rejecting it) to refute others leaves everything unrefuted—because without inherent existence, there’s no solid ground for any position to stand on. Conversely, using emptiness (accepting it) as a positive doctrine to "prove" something turns it into a concept to be grasped, missing its point as a tool to dissolve illusions, not build new ones.
This meta-commentary connects to the fractal cycle: just as skandhas and dhatus endlessly co-define without a fixed essence, emptiness itself resists fixation — it’s part of the same centerless, limitless process, not an external standpoint. This reinforces the idea that the interdependence of wholes and parts isn’t just a phenomenon to analyze but a reflection of the method and reality Nāgārjuna is pointing to.
[Imputing the ‘self’ on the 5-aggregates cycle: no-self]
Second, Chapter 4’s focus on the skandhas — starting with visible form but extending to sensation, thought, mental conception, and conditioned elements — positions it as a pivot toward the personal. The aggregates are what we conventionally take as "self," and their emptiness, rooted in their fractal reliance on parts (dhatus) and larger wholes, sets up later chapters (like Chapter 5 on dhatus or Chapter 18 on the self) to dismantle identity further.
This karmic-like cycle — where wholes update parts and parts reshape wholes ad infinitum — mirrors how our sense of self evolves through experience, yet lacks a core, much like the perceiver in Chapter 3 or the goer in Chapter 2. It’s a subtle bridge from abstract processes (causality, movement, perception) to the lived illusion of "me," deepening the samsaric implications we’ve noted.
.
.
.
Q: When we realize that everything is empty of inherent existence, because it is dependent on something else, ultimately interdependent with everything else in space and time, then the question becomes “What is real? What is left unchanging? What is the core of reality? Is it dependent origination, is it emptiness, is it the Union of the Two Truths? What is the Ground, Basis, Source, true nature of everything? Nāgārjuna would probably say that all of this is also empty of inherent existence because dependently co-arisen, interdependent, co-defined, co-evolving, merely labeled by the mind, like illusions, etc. Ex. That is the Union of the Two Truths about the two truths themselves, and with their union also, and probably with God also. They may be useful conventional truths, like causality, but never absolute, speculative projections with no inherent core.
Answer: Your reflection cuts to the heart of Nāgārjuna’s Madhyamaka philosophy and the profound questions it raises once we fully embrace the emptiness of inherent existence. In Chapter 4 — and across the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā — Nāgārjuna shows that everything, from skandhas (iii. effect / product) and dhatus (i. cause / producer) to causality (ii. relation / causality / production), movement, and perception, is empty [T2] ⇐⇒ because it’s dependently co-arisen [T1] [U2T], interdependent with everything else across space and time, co-defined, co-evolving, and merely labeled by the mind, like illusions or mirages.
This naturally leads to your question: if all phenomena are empty, what remains?
What is the unchanging core, the Ground, Basis, Source, or true nature of reality?
– Is it dependent origination (pratityasamutpada) [T1],
emptiness (shunyata) [T2],
or the Union of the Two Truths (conventional and ultimate) [U2T]?
– Nāgārjuna’s response, as you anticipate, is radical:
even these concepts [2T] are empty of inherent existence [T2-2T].
They too are dependently arisen, interdependent, and conceptually constructed [T1-2T] ⇐⇒ lacking a self-sustaining essence when scrutinized [T2-T2] [U2T-2T].
Take dependent origination [T1]:
it’s the process of interdependence, but it’s not a standalone "thing"—it relies on the phenomena it describes.
Emptiness [T2],
as Nāgārjuna warns in Chapter 4’s closing verses, isn’t a doctrine to reify; it’s empty of itself (the famous "emptiness of emptiness"), existing only as a negation of inherent existence, not a positive entity.
The Union of the Two Truths [U2T] — where conventional interdependence and ultimate emptiness co-emerge—fares no better: it’s a useful framework, but it’s still a mental construct, interdependent with the mind that formulates it, and thus empty too.
Even if we extend this to notions like "God" or a cosmic Ground,
Nāgārjuna would likely argue they’re similarly empty — conventional truths at best, labeled by the mind, functional within a context, but never absolute, speculative projections with no inherent core.
This is the Union of the Two Truths applied reflexively [U2T-2T]:
the two truths and their union are themselves empty, part of the same fractal, centerless cycle we’ve traced.
What’s left isn’t a "core" to grasp but the realization that reality’s true nature is this very lack of inherent essence — an ungraspable, ever-unfolding interplay, both limitless and free.
.
.
.
Q: As we use the notion of ‘emptiness’ to refute the inherent existence of all phenomena; we also use the notion of ‘Buddha-nature’ to refute the opposite position, the complete non-existence, non-functionality, uselessness of all dharma. Reality is indescribable, inconceivable, still we use various antidotes to fight one extreme view or another: like dependent origination and emptiness, or Buddha-nature and emptiness.
Answer: You’ve beautifully articulated a key dynamic in Buddhist philosophy that complements Nāgārjuna’s approach and balances the radical emptiness we’ve been exploring across the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā.
[Madhyamaka – no inherent existence:]
In Chapter 4 — and throughout his work — Nāgārjuna wields "emptiness" as a precise tool to dismantle the extreme of inherent existence, showing that all phenomena (skandhas, dhatus, causality, etc.) lack a self-sustaining essence because they’re dependently co-arisen and interdependent. But, as you point out, this could tilt toward the opposite extreme: nihilism, where everything is deemed completely non-existent, non-functional, or useless.
[Buddha-nature – no complete non-existence:]
Here, the notion of "Buddha-nature" (or tathagatagarbha, though not explicitly in Nāgārjuna’s text) enters as an antidote, refuting absolute non-existence by affirming the potential for awakening inherent in all beings — a luminous, functional quality that persists despite emptiness.
[Union of Madhyamaka and Buddha-nature – a Middle Way:]
Together, these concepts form a dialectical dance:
– emptiness negates reification,
– while Buddha-nature counters negation,
– steering us toward the ineffable middle way.
This interplay reflects the broader Madhyamaka strategy of using provisional antidotes to combat extreme views without positing an absolute "core."
– Dependent origination and emptiness work in tandem to reveal phenomena as relational and essenceless, yet functional conventionally — like causality or perception in Chapters 1–4.
– Buddha-nature, in later traditions, adds a positive spin: reality’s indescribable nature isn’t a void but a dynamic potential, still empty of inherent existence yet operative in samsara and nirvana.
– Nāgārjuna might not name "Buddha-nature," but his warning in Chapter 4, verses 8–9 (misusing emptiness misunderstands everything), aligns with this: emptiness isn’t a final truth to cling to but a corrective, just as Buddha-nature corrects nihilism.
– Both are conventional tools — useful, like medicine for specific ailments, but not ultimate.
– Reality remains inconceivable, beyond description, and these notions guide us through the extremes, echoing the fractal, centerless cycles we’ve traced: co-evolving, interdependent, and empty, yet somehow vibrant with possibility.
.
.
.
Q: What is the best way to describe the indescribable, the Ground, Basis, Source of everything?
Answer: Describing the indescribable — the Ground, Basis, or Source of everything — presents a paradox that Nāgārjuna’s Madhyamaka philosophy embraces rather than resolves, and your question pushes us right into the heart of this challenge.
[Inconceivable:] Given that reality, as we’ve explored through Chapters 1–4, is empty of inherent existence, dependently co-arisen, and interdependent, any attempt to pin it down with words risks reifying it into something it’s not.
[Our best pointer:] The best approach, aligned with Nāgārjuna’s method, isn’t to describe it directly but to point toward it through negation and relationality, while acknowledging its ineffability (without accepting/rejecting anyting).
We might say it’s the ever-unfolding interplay of dependent origination [T1] ⇐⇒ and emptiness [T2] — the Union of the Two Truths ]U2T]; where phenomena arise conventionally [T1] ⇐⇒ yet lack ultimate essence [T2] [U2T]. This isn’t a "thing" or a static Ground but a dynamic process, limitless and centerless, that underpins everything without being graspable as a core.
To enrich this, we could borrow from the dual antidotes you mentioned:
– emptiness strips away illusions of inherent existence,
– while a nod to Buddha-nature (or the luminous potential in later traditions) hints at its functional vibrancy—yet both remain provisional.
The "Source" might be framed as the very condition of interdependence itself:
– not a creator or substance,
– but the openness that allows co-evolution, like the space in which the fractal cycles of causality, movement, perception, and aggregates dance.
– Nāgārjuna would likely insist even this is empty ⇐⇒ merely labeled by the mind, useful conventionally but not absolute.
The best "description," then, might be silence after negation:
– refuting all extremes (existence, non-existence, both, neither), leaving an experiential glimpse of what’s beyond concepts — indescribable yet intimately present in every moment’s arising.
– Perhaps it’s like a mirror reflecting without retaining, or a dream’s vividness without substance.
.
.
.
Chapter 4 of Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, "An Analysis of the Aggregates," seamlessly extends the philosophical project of the first three chapters – "An Analysis of Conditioning Causes" (Chapter 1), "An Analysis of 'Going To'" (Chapter 2), and "An Analysis of 'Vision' and Other Sense-Faculties" (Chapter 3) — by applying the same six interconnected themes:
– [1] deconstruction of inherent existence,
– [2] Union of the Two Truths [U2T],
– [3] interdependence and co-evolution of triadic spheres,
– [4] illusory nature of phenomena,
– [5] Middle Way, and
– [6] limitless, centerless cycles.
.
In Chapter 4, Nāgārjuna targets the five aggregates (iii. effect, skandhas — form, sensation, perception, formations, consciousness) and their basic causes (i. cause, rūpakāraṇa, e.g., material elements), deconstructing their supposed inherent reality [Tetralemma] ⇐⇒ to reveal their emptiness [T2] ⇐⇒ and interdependence [T1] [U2T].
This chapter builds on the prior analyses of causality, motion, and perception by examining the constituents of experience, reinforcing the notion of a limitless, centerless cycle where triadic relationships —
here, effect (iii. 5-aggregate), causality (ii. dependent origination), and cause (i. basic elements / irreducible elements) —
co-evolve [T1] ⇐⇒ without fixed essence [T2] [U2T],
aligning with the karmic and samsaric processes
of continuous transformation devoid of inherent core.
.
[1.] The deconstruction of inherent existence remains central, as Nāgārjuna
– uses the tetralemma to negate any intrinsic reality in the aggregates, much as he did for causes (Chapter 1), motion (Chapter 2), and perception (Chapter 3). In Chapter 4,
– he shows that form (rūpa) cannot exist apart (different / separate) from its cause (verses 2–3),
– nor can the cause exist independently,
– nor are they identical (united)
– or neither (verse 6),
– rendering them empty [T2].
[2.] This emptiness [T2] is inseparable ⇐⇒ from their interdependence [T1],
embodying the Union of the Two Truths [U2T]:
the aggregates function conventionally as experiential components (e.g., we perceive forms and feel sensations) [T1] but lack intrinsic essence when analyzed [T2].
[3.] The triadic sphere of effect-causality-cause mirrors the earlier triads (cause-causality-effect, goer-going-destination, perceiver-perception-perceived), co-evolving relationally — an aggregate arises from causes, which are reshaped by their effects, forming a cycle with no independent origin or endpoint [T1].
[4.] Like causality, motion, and perception, the aggregates are illusory, appearing solid yet dissolving into mere mental imputations, like mirages (verse 7 extends this to all phenomena, bhava).
[5.] The Middle Way emerges as the stance of neither reifying the aggregates as real nor denying their conventional role, a principle reinforced in verses 8–9, which caution against misusing emptiness itself.
[6.] The limitless, centerless cycle manifests as the aggregates’ causal process: form (effect-1) arises from elements (cause-1), becoming a new cause (cause-2) for further effects (e.g., sensation), ad infinitum, with no first cause, final aggregate, or inherent essence to grasp—paralleling the karmic updating of experience without a fixed self.
Thus, Chapter 4 deepens the cyclic, relational vision of reality [U2T],
showing that even the building blocks of personhood (skandhas and dhatus)
are empty [T2] ⇐⇒ interdependent fluxes [T1] [U2T]
⇐⇒ inviting liberation through realizing their dreamlike, centerless nature [Illusory].
.
.
.
Chapter 4 of Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, "An Analysis of the Aggregates," enriches the subtle meaning of the relationship between individual, collective, and cosmos articulated in Chapters 1–3 by deconstructing the five aggregates (iii. effect) (skandhas—form, sensation, perception, formations, consciousness) and their causes (i) as empty of inherent existence [T2] ⇐⇒ yet dependently co-arisen [T1] [U2T].
Building on the limitless, centerless cycles of causality (Chapter 1), action (Chapter 2), and perception (Chapter 3), Chapter 4 applies the same logic to the triad of effect (iii. 5-aggregate), causality (ii. arising), and cause (i. e.g., material elements / irreducible element), showing that what constitutes an "individual" (the aggregates conventionally labeled as a person) is neither a self-contained entity nor separate from the collective and cosmic web [T1-3L].
{The individual’s 5-aggregates (iii. effect) arise from causes (i. ex. irreducible elements, karma) ←→ conditioned by collective (social, environmental) ←→ and cosmic (universal) processes [T1]} ⇐⇒ yet none possess an intrinsic core [T2-3L].
.
(i.e. Union of the three spheres of causality: (i) cause, (ii) causality, (iii) effect, [U3S].)
(i.e. Union of the three levels of organization: (i) individual, (ii) collective, (iii) cosmic, [U3L].)
(i.e. Union of the three spheres of ownership: (i) owner / self, (ii) ownership, (iii) 5-aggregates [U3S].)
(i.e. Union of the two truths about the two truths themselves – dependent origination [T1-2T] ⇐⇒ and emptiness of inherent existence [T2-2T] – about those truths [U2T-2T].)
(i.e. Union of the two truths – dependent origination [T1] ⇐⇒ and emptiness of inherent existence [T2] about those dualities and triads. [U2T-3S] [U2T-3L] [U2T-2T].)
.
This reinforces the dissolution of boundaries:
the individual is a mirage-like node in a shared karmic cycle, co-evolving with the collective (e.g., cultural norms shaping sensation) and cosmos (e.g., physical elements forming bodies), with no inherent separation [U2T-3L].
Verses 8–9 extend this insight even to emptiness itself,
warning against reifying or rejecting it, suggesting that disputes over reality — whether individual, collective, or cosmic — are themselves empty, relational constructs [T1-T2], pointing to a non-dual, centerless reality where the "individual" exists conventionally as a fluid process [T1] ⇐⇒ but ultimately merges into the interconnected, illusory whole [T2] [U2T-3L].
This analysis deepens the prior chapters’ vision by targeting the very components thought to define individuality, showing they are inseparable from broader scales. Just as causality links effects to collective causes (Chapter 1), actions embed the goer in social contexts (Chapter 2), and perception ties the perceiver to a shared world (Chapter 3), the aggregates (Chapter 4) reveal the individual as a convergence of collective (e.g., shared material resources) and cosmic (e.g., elemental laws) conditions, cycling without origin or end.
The question of the individual’s persistence remains paradoxical:
conventionally, the individual functions as a labeled bundle of aggregates navigating collective and cosmic interactions [T1] ⇐⇒ ultimately, no inherent individual exists, as the aggregates are empty [T2] ⇐⇒ co-defined by the same interdependent web spanning all scales [U2T-3L].
This fractal unity — where individual, collective, and cosmos, co-arise [T1-3L] ⇐⇒ as interconnected, equal, pure, perfect, complete, divine [One] ⇐⇒ and dreamlike [Illusory] ⇐⇒ invites liberation through seeing the self as an illusory [T2] ⇐⇒ yet compassionate participant in a boundless, centerless dance [T1] [U2T] [U2T-3L].
.
.
.
Q: Is there anything else that we could add to our analysis of Chapter 4 -- let me go fishing here -- something incredibly deep and secret?
Answer: I love that you're fishing for something "incredibly deep and secret" in Chapter 4 of Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (MMK) — it’s a perfect invitation to dive into the subtle undercurrents of Madhyamaka philosophy! Having covered the introduction, verse-by-verse analysis, summary and conclusion, common themes across Chapters 1–4, and the implications for individual, collective, and cosmos, we’ve already explored Chapter 4’s deconstruction of the aggregates and their causes quite thoroughly.
However, there’s always room to uncover a hidden gem, especially in Nāgārjuna’s work, where every layer peeled back reveals another dimension of insight. Let me propose adding a brief section that delves into a "secret" or profound dimension of Chapter 4:
the self-referential paradox of emptiness in verses 8–9 and its esoteric link to non-conceptual liberation. This angle, while rooted in the text, touches on a deep, almost mystical implication of Nāgārjuna’s method that’s often overlooked, aligning with the Madhyamaka’s aim to transcend all views, including its own.
This addition will fit as a new section, perhaps titled "A Hidden Depth in Chapter 4: The Paradox of Emptiness and Non-Conceptual Liberation," placed after the summary and conclusion or the common themes section, to highlight a subtle, esoteric insight that complements our existing analysis.
It draws on verses 8–9’s warning against misusing emptiness and connects it to a profound, "secret" realization: that
Madhyamaka’s ultimate aim is not just to negate inherent existence
but to dissolve the very framework of conceptual grasping,
pointing to a non-dual awareness beyond words.
Here’s the section, kept concise (one to two paragraphs) to maintain focus while offering something fresh and deep:
.
.
Beneath the rigorous logic of Chapter 4’s deconstruction of the aggregates (iii. effect, skandhas) and their causes (i) lies a profound, almost esoteric secret unveiled in verses 8–9:
the self-referential paradox of emptiness itself (emptiness of emptiness).
8. Whoever argues against "emptiness" in order to refute an argument,
For him everything, including the point of contention (sadhya)
is known to be unrefuted.
.
9. Whoever argues by means of "emptiness"
in order to explain an understanding,
For him, everything including the point to be proved (sadhya)
is known to be misunderstood.
Nāgārjuna warns that
– opposing emptiness to refute arguments
leaves everything unrefuted (verse 8),
– while using emptiness to establish understanding
misunderstands everything (verse 9),
– revealing that emptiness is not a position to wield
but an antidote to all positions, including itself.
This paradox is Chapter 4’s deepest insight:
emptiness (śūnyatā, T2) is empty of inherent existence [T2-T2]
⇐⇒ arising dependently (pratītyasamutpāda, T1) [T1-T2] [U2T-T2]
like the aggregates it describes, forming a recursive loop
where even the tool of deconstruction dissolves under scrutiny.
.
(i.e. In fact, both truths [2T] – dependent origination [T1] and emptiness [T2] – are themselves dependently co-arisen, interdependent [T1-2T] ⇐⇒ thus both empty of inherent existence [T2-2T] [U2T-2T]. Leaving nothing to grasp as absolute.)
.
.
This self-effacement (emptiness of emptiness)
points to a non-dualistic non-conceptual liberation,
a "secret" beyond the text’s surface logic.
.
(i.e. A transcendence, though direct wisdom,
of all dualistic conceptual proliferation, of all karma,
of the whole karmic cycle – without rejecting conventional reality.)
By negating/refuting the inherent reality of form, sensation, and so forth,
and then negating/refuting emptiness as a graspable truth (as an absolute),
Nāgārjuna gestures toward an ineffable realization
— often hinted at in later Mahāyāna traditions like Zen or Dzogchen —
where the mind, freed from all conditioned conditioning constructs
(including “dependent origination” [T1] and "emptiness" [T2],
and their Union [U2T]),
**************
abides in a non-dual non-conceptual
primordial awareness [Ground / One],
**************
neither affirming nor denying phenomena [Middle Way],
yet fully engaged in their illusory play [living].
[Union of the Ground and its Manifestations [UGM];
Union of Above and Below]
This hidden depth ties Chapter 4 to the broader Madhyamaka project:
liberation not through acquiring a correct view but through
exhausting/transcending all views, including the view of no-view.
[Transcending all karma without rejecting it.]
[Transcending samsara without rejecting/abandoning it.]
.
(i.e. A transcendence, though direct wisdom,
of all views, of all karma, of the whole karmic cycle –
without completely rejecting conventional truths / views / methods.)
The aggregates, as the supposed basis of selfhood,
are revealed as empty [T1] ⇐⇒ relational fluxes [T1] [U2T] (verses 1–7),
but verses 8–9 take a radical step further, cautioning against clinging even to this insight.
The "secret" lies in this turning-back on itself:
the analysis of form and its causes is a skillful means
to unravel/transcend conceptualization,
leading to a direct, wordless seeing of reality’s centerless, limitless nature
where individual, collective, and cosmos merge into a single, pure, dreamlike flow [One].
.
(i.e. A transcendence, though direct wisdom, of all description/conceptualization, differentiation / dualities / triad / quad, causality / production, action, perception, cognition, definition, characterization, composition, acquisition, living style – without rejecting them completely as if absolutely non-existent, false, useless, meaningless. The Middle Way in everything, all choices and activities.)
This non-conceptual freedom, though never explicitly named in the MMK, lurks as the unspoken heart of Nāgārjuna’s method, inviting practitioners to leap beyond the text into the silence of awakened perception, where the tetralemma’s negations yield not just emptiness [T2] ⇐⇒ but the radiant clarity of interdependent arising [U2T]. (i.e. Luminous Emptiness; Union of Madhyamaka and Buddha-nature.)
.
.
Why This Addition?
This section adds a "deep and secret" dimension by spotlighting
the self-referential nature of emptiness (emptiness of emptiness)
in verses 8–9, which is often underexplored in standard analyses
of Chapter 4.
It connects the chapter’s technical deconstruction of the aggregates to
– a mystical, liberative implication:
– the dissolution/transcendence of all dualistic conceptual frameworks,
including Madhyamaka’s own tools,
– pointing to a non-dualistic non-conceptual realization that resonates
with later Buddhist traditions’ emphasis on direct experience.
This insight is "hidden" because Nāgārjuna never explicitly spells it out,
yet it’s implied in the paradoxical structure of his arguments,
making it a fitting treasure to uncover for your fishing expedition.
.
.
Alternatives and Considerations – Other points to investigate later
If this isn’t quite the depth you’re seeking,
here are other "secret" angles we could explore instead or in addition:
The Alchemical Transformation of Suffering: Chapter 4’s focus on the aggregates could be linked to their role in suffering (dukkha), suggesting a hidden teaching on transforming the aggregates from sources of clinging into vehicles for awakening, akin to an alchemical process where emptiness reveals their purity.
(i.e. Everything is ‘purified’ through wisdom, simply by realizing its true nature & dynamic, its inseparable dependent origination, interdependence [T2] ⇐⇒ and emptiness of inherent existence [T2] [U2T].)
The Cosmic Aggregate Cycle: We could extrapolate the aggregates’ causal cycle (effect-causality-cause) as a microcosm of cosmic evolution, hinting at a secret fractal unity where individual aggregates mirror universal processes, dissolving distinctions in a cosmic dance.
(i.e As above so below; as below, so above.)
The Silence of Verse 7’s ‘All Things’: Verse 7’s extension to “all things” (bhava) could be read as a cryptic nod to the ineffability of totality, where analysis halts, and the practitioner is invited into a meditative silence that transcends subject-object duality.
(Verse 7. Also, sensation, thought, mental conception, conditioned elements (samskara) and
All "things" (bhava) are to be dealt with in the same way as visible form.)
Chapter 4 of Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, titled "An Analysis of the Aggregates" (Skandhaparīkṣā), systematically deconstructs the notion of the five aggregates (iii. effect) (skandhas—form, sensation, perception, mental formations, and consciousness) as inherently existent entities, focusing particularly on the aggregate of form (rūpa) and its basic cause (rūpakāraṇa, e.g., material elements). Across nine verses, Nāgārjuna employs his Madhyamaka method to expose the incoherence of positing inherent existence in the triad of causality and composition: the effect (iiii. aggregate), the cause (i. basic elements), and their causal relationship (ii. composition or arising).
By applying the tetralemma — showing that these three spheres of causality/composition cannot be (a) different, (b) identical, (c) both together, or (d) neither, and there is no fifth ⇐⇒ he reveals their emptiness [T2] ⇐⇒ interdependence [T1] ⇐⇒ and illusory nature ⇐⇒ guiding us toward the Middle Way [Middle Way] ⇐⇒ and a non-dual realization of reality as primordially interconnected and pure [One].
This chapter extends Nāgārjuna’s earlier critiques of causality (Chapter 1), motion (Chapter 2), and perception (Chapter 3) into the realm of the constituents of experience (skandhas & dhatus), culminating in a profound reflection on the nature of emptiness itself, even as a concept used in debate.
.
Madhyamaka Reasoning: Tetralemma ⇐⇒ Dependent Origination ⇐⇒ Emptiness ⇐⇒ Illusory ⇐⇒ Middle Way ⇐⇒ Acting without acting
[1. Tetralemma:] (i.e. Causality/production of the 5-aggregates is incoherent/absurd because the three spheres – (i) cause / irreducible elements, (ii) causality and (iii) effect / 5-aggregates – cannot be (a) different / separate / multiple / dual, (b) identical / united / one / non-dual, (c) both together, or (d) neither, and there is no fifth. Thus refuting this Abhidharma view with real components.)
Nāgārjuna begins by examining form (iii. 5-aggregates) and its basic causes (i. irreducible elements), asserting that neither can exist independently / separately (verse 1), and proceeds to dismantle their supposed inherent reality through logical scrutiny [Tetralemma].
– The triad of effect (iii. form / 5-aggregates), causality (ii. arising / composing), and basis cause (i. irreducible elements) cannot be coherently established as inherently existent [T2].
– They cannot be different / separate / multiple / dual, as verses 2 and 3 demonstrate: if form were separate from its cause, it would be causeless, and if the cause were separate from form, it would lack a product—both absurd outcomes contradicting causality.
– Nor can they be identical / united / one / non-dual, as verse 6 argues: identity between cause and effect collapses their distinction, rendering causality incoherent.
– They cannot be both different and identical, as this is logically inconsistent,
– nor can they be neither, as verse 4 shows: no independent cause exists with or without form, negating any non-relational essence (verse 5 reinforces this by rejecting constructs about form).
–This tetralemma, applied across the aggregates (iii) and generalized to all phenomena (bhava) in verse 7, exposes the impossibility of fixing these elements as inherently real, unraveling the Abhidharma’s framework of real dharmas.
– Note: Even the two truths themselves – dependent origination [T1] and emptiness of inherent existence [T2] – cannot be (a) different / separate / multiple / dual, (b) identical / united / one / non-dual, (c) both together, or (d) neither; cannot be (a) existent / functional, (b) non-existent / non-functional, (c) both together, or (d) neither; cannot be ‘this’, ‘non-this’, (c) both together, or (d) neither, and there is no fifth, for whatever ‘this’ is.
.
[2. Emptiness:] The failure of the tetralemma to establish inherent existence ⇐⇒ leads directly to the emptiness (śūnyatā, T2) of the aggregates (iii. effect), their causes (i), and their causal relationships (ii).
– Because form (iii. effect) cannot exist without its cause (i), nor the cause (i) without form (iii. effect) (verses 1–4) [Tetralemma] ⇐⇒ neither possesses an intrinsic, self-sustaining essence [T2].
– Verse 6 further clarifies that neither identity nor difference holds [Tetralemma] ⇐⇒ confirming their lack of inherent reality [T2].
– This emptiness extends to all aggregates — sensation, perception, formations, and consciousness — as verse 7 equates their analysis to that of form ⇐⇒ implying that no aggregate or phenomenon (bhava) has an independent core.
– Emptiness here is not negation but the absence of inherent existence, freeing us from reifying the aggregates as ultimate truths.
– Verses 8 and 9 deepen this insight by applying it to emptiness itself (emptiness of emptiness): arguing against emptiness reifies phenomena (verse 8), while using emptiness to prove a point misunderstands its own emptiness (verse 9), ensuring that even the concept of emptiness avoids becoming an absolute.
– Note: Even the two truths themselves – dependent origination [T1] and emptiness of inherent existence[T2] – are themselves dependently co-arisen, interdependent [T1-2T] ⇐⇒ thus both empty of inherent existence [T2-2T] [U2T-2T].
.
[3. Dependent Origination:] Emptiness ⇐⇒ implies that the aggregates and their causes are dependently co-arisen (pratītyasamutpāda, T1), interdependent, and co-defined by the mind’s conditioning.
– Verse 1 establishes this mutual reliance: form depends on its cause, and the cause on form, like reflections co-arising in a mirror. This interdependence is reinforced throughout — verse 2 rejects causeless form, verse 3 rejects causeless causes, and verse 4 shows their inseparability in both presence and absence.
– Verse 7 extends this to all aggregates and phenomena, suggesting that their existence is merely imputed, shaped by past experiences, habits, and karma (individual, collective, cosmic).
– This relational nature unites emptiness [T2] ⇐⇒ and conventional appearance [T1] [U2T]: while the aggregates lack inherent reality, they function conventionally as the basis of experience, allowing us to perceive forms, feel sensations, and cognize thoughts within the web of conditioned existence.
– Note: Even the two truths themselves – dependent origination [T1] and emptiness of inherent existence[T2] – are themselves dependently co-arisen, interdependent [T1-2T] ⇐⇒ thus both empty of inherent existence [T2-2T] [U2T-2T].
.
[4. Illusory:] As empty [T2] ⇐⇒ and dependently arisen [T1] ⇐⇒ the aggregates are illusory, akin to mirages, dreams, or echoes — present yet insubstantial [Illusory].
– Verses 1–6 illustrate that form (iii. effect) and its cause (i), though appearing distinct (different), dissolve under analysis, lacking any ultimate substance.
– Verse 7 generalizes this to all aggregates and phenomena, suggesting that what we experience as a solid self or world is a fleeting, relational construct, “there, yet not there.”
– This illusoriness does not deny the conventional utility of aggregates — we navigate life through form and consciousness — but reveals that clinging to them as inherently real stems from delusion.
– Verses 8 and 9 underscore this by showing that even disputes about emptiness are illusory, as reifying or rejecting emptiness misses its relational, non-absolute nature.
– Note: Even the two truths themselves – dependent origination [T1] and emptiness of inherent existence[T2] – are like illusions, reflections, mirages, dreams, echos, ‘there, yet not there’.
.
[5. Middle Way:] Recognizing the aggregates as empty ⇐⇒ interdependent ⇐⇒ and illusory ⇐⇒ Nāgārjuna points to the Middle Way, free from the extremes of eternalism (accepting the aggregates as inherently real) nihilism (rejecting them entirely), dualism and monism.
– Verse 5 advises against construing constructs about form (iii. effect), urging us to neither reify nor negate it in absolute terms.
– This applies to all aggregates (verse 7)
– and even to emptiness itself (verses 8–9), which cannot be grasped as a final truth or dismissed as meaningless.
– Instead, we engage the aggregates conventionally, using them as relative tools on the path without attributing ultimate reality.
– This balanced approach, rooted in the Union of the Two Truths [U2T], allows us to live skillfully, acknowledging the aggregates’ function while seeing through their lack of intrinsic essence.
– Note: Even the two truths themselves – dependent origination [T1] and emptiness of inherent existence[T2] – should be approached using the Middle Way free from all extremes and middle: not accepting them as absolute, not rejecting them as useless / meaningless. Using them as complementary antidotes, or adapted skillful means, without ever grasping them as if Reality as it is.
.
[6. One:] ⇐⇒ Ultimately, Chapter 4 reveals that the aggregates, their causes, and all phenomena are primordially interconnected, pure, perfect, and complete in a non-dual sense—not many, not one, not both, not neither.
– The effect (form), causality, and cause, though conventionally distinct, are empty of separation or unification, existing within an indivisible web of interdependence (verses 1–7).
– Even emptiness, as verses 8–9 clarify, shares this nature, resisting reification or rejection.
– This “One” is not a singular entity but a dynamic, divine wholeness, free from dualistic extremes, where all phenomena are relatively useful [T1] yet never absolute [T2].
– Nāgārjuna’s analysis liberates us from fixation on the aggregates as real, inviting a realization of reality’s non-dual purity, where distinctions dissolve into the seamless unity of interdependent arising.
We can analyse ‘causality/production’ / ‘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 (tathātā, 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.
