Mūlamadhyamakakārikā
"Root Verses on the Middle Way" by Nagarjuna
Chapter 6 - The one who desires and desires [U2T-3S-desire].
Successive moments of consciousness and their separate/concomitant mental factors.
Desiring without desiring in absolute terms.
Separating/uniting without separating/uniting in absolute terms.
Chapter 6 – The one who desires and desires [U2T-3S-desire].
Successive moments of consciousness and their separate/concomitant mental factors.
Desiring without desiring in absolute terms.
Separating/uniting without separating/uniting in absolute terms:
This chapter refutes independent/inherent/absolute relation/separation/union/concomitance
because the three spheres of relation/separation/union/concomitance –
(a) opposite-1 /the-one-who-desires /moment-of-consciousness,
(b) relation /separation /union /concomitance,
(c) opposite-2 /desires /mental-factors –
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, opposite-1/relation-concomitance/opposite-2, 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 (a) opposite-1 /the-one-who-desires /moment-of-consciousnesss because all (a) opposite-1 /the-one-who-desires /moment-of-consciousnesss have their own (a) opposite-1 /the-one-who-desires /moment-of-consciousnesss, because they are also (c) opposite-2 /desires /mental-factors, because they are dependently co-arisen in a limitless and centerless cycle. The same for the (c) opposite-2 /desires /mental-factors.
.
Last update: December 29, 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
(Opponent: "Concomitance" is used as an expression to denote things that come together, that they are inseparable. Examples: "dependent origination and emptiness are concomitant"; the “Ground and its manifestations”; "attraction and rejection, greed and aversion, are concomitant with ignorance"; "desire and dukkha are inseparable concomitants".
There are 52 factors of consciousness that are concomitant with each moment of consciousness, which are of 121 types of consciousness (according to the Abhidharma).)
Union of separation and union/concomitance:
The true nature of reality is indescribable, inconceivable, beyond all conditioned dualistic conceptual proliferations, beyond all conditioning/karma (individual, collective, cosmic).
Still, while analysing all phenomena, we often conclude that
“The three spheres of any relation/action, or the opposites of any duality /triad /quad, cannot be (i) different /separate /multiple /dual, (ii) identical /united /one /non-dual, (III) both, or (IV) neither, and there is no fifth [Tetralemma] ⇐⇒ they are thus empty of inherent existence [T2] ⇐⇒ inseparable, dependently co-arisen, interdependent, co-defined, co-evolving, co-imputed by the mind, mere designations/names, conventional truths/tools [T1] [U2T] ⇐⇒ like illusions, reflections, mirages, dreams, echos, ‘there, yet not there’ [Illusory] ⇐⇒ pointing to the Middle Way with nothing to accept/reject/change in absolute terms.”
Describing without describing:
The contradiction is solved by realizing that all the elements/dualities in the description “The three spheres …” are themselves empty of inherent existence, never absolute ⇐⇒ because they are interdependent, co-defined …. They are just antidotes, fingers pointing at the moon; not the moon itself.
In the subsequent chapter many of those dualistic concepts are analysed.
In Chapter 6, it is the “cannot be (i) different /separate /multiple /dual, (ii) identical /united /concomitant /one /non-dual, (iii) both, or (iv) neither” that is analysed in more detail; demonstrating that nothing can be separate or concomitant in absolute terms (inherently), nor identical or different, nor many or one, nor dual or non-dual, nor existent or non-existent, not ‘this’ or ‘non-this’.
Chapter 6 introduces the inseparable relativity [T1] and emptiness of inherent existence [T2] of relation/separation/union/concomitance, of
(a) opposite-1 /the-one-who-desires /moment-of-consciousness,
(b) relation /separation /union /concomitance,
(c) opposite-2 /desires /mental-factors.
It affirms that there is no inherent/absolute relation/separation/union/concomitance.
Meaning the three spheres of separation/union/concomitance – e.g.,
(a) opposite-1 /the-one-who-desires /moment-of-consciousness,
(b) relation /separation /union /concomitance,
(c) opposite-2 /desires /mental-factors –
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 separation/union/concomitance);
no (i) permanent or (ii) impermanent essence, self, definition, 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,
opposite-1/relation/opposite-2, 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 (b) relation /separation /union /concomitance in the three times.
We cannot find the beginning of the (b) relation /separation /union /concomitance in the three times.
There are no absolute (b) relations /separations /unions /concomitances, they are all relative = Middle Way.
The three spheres –
(a) opposite-1 /the-one-who-desires /moment-of-consciousness,
(b) relation /separation /union /concomitance,
(c) opposite-2 /desires /mental-factors –
are not inherently existent/functional,
not completely non-existent/non-functional,
not both, not neither [Tetralemma].
The three spheres –
(a) opposite-1 /the-one-who-desires /moment-of-consciousness,
(b) relation /separation /union /concomitance,
(c) opposite-2 /desires /mental-factors –
are not different/separate/multiple/dual/’this’,
not identical/united/one/non-dual/’non-this’,
not both, not neither [Tetralemma].
The three spheres –
(a) opposite-1 /the-one-who-desires /moment-of-consciousness,
(b) relation /separation /union /concomitance,
(c) opposite-2 /desires /mental-factors –
are not permanent/continuous/eternal,
not impermanent/discontinuous/annihilated,
not both, not neither [Tetralemma].
The three spheres –
(a) opposite-1 /the-one-who-desires /moment-of-consciousness,
(b) relation /separation /union /concomitance,
(c) opposite-2 /desires /mental-factors –
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 opposite-1 are both opposite-1 and opposite-2; are multiple opposites-1 and opposites-2 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 relational/karmic cycle — the opposite-2 becomes a new opposite-1: All opposites-1 are both opposite-1 and opposite-2; have/are an infinity of opposites-1 and opposites-2 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 opposites-1, no final inherent/absolute opposites-2, no middle inherent/absolute separation/union/concomitance. Separation/union/concomitance is conventionally/relatively functional/useful to navigate the world [T1], but never absolute [T2] [U2T]. Absolute relation/separation/union/concomitance are impossible.
The three spheres of relation/separation/union/concomitance –
(a) opposite-1 /the-one-who-desires /moment-of-consciousness,
(b) relation /separation /union /concomitance,
(c) opposite-2 /desires /mental-factors –
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 relation/separation/union/concomitance, 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 6 - An Examination of Desire and the Desirous (Examination of separateness vs. union / concomitance)
.
1. [The three spheres of any relation/action (e.g., separation/concomitance of desirous-one & desire, or of the two truths) are inseparable; one cannot exist with/without the others. They cannot be (i) existent / different /separate /multiple /dual, (ii) non-existent / identical /united /concomitant /one /non-dual, (iii) both, or (iv) neither, and there is no fifth.]
If before desire there exists,
Without desire, a desiring agent,
Desire exists dependent upon him.
But where there are desiring agents, there must also be desire.
.
2. How, in the absence of an agent of desire,
Can desire exist? And whether there's desire or not,
For agents of desire
The argument is similar.
.
3. [The three spheres of any relation/action (e.g., separation/concomitance of desirous-one & desire, or of the two truths) cannot be (i) different /separate /multiple /dual, (ii) identical /united /concomitant /one /non-dual, (iii) both, or (iv) neither, and there is no fifth [Tetralemma] ⇐⇒ they are thus empty of inherent existence, never absolute [T2] ⇐⇒ they are inseparable, dependently co-arisen, interdependent, co-defined, co-imputed by the mind, mere designations/names, conventional truths/tools [T1] [U2T] ⇐⇒ like illusions, reflections, mirages, dreams, echos, ‘there, yet not there’ [Illusory] ⇐⇒ pointing to the Middle Way with nothing to accept/reject/change in absolute terms ⇐⇒ pointing to acting without acting.]
Desire and agents of desire
Cannot arise together and at once.
For if desire and agent of desire arise in such a way,
No relation can there be between them.
.
4. [Concomitance is impossible for things that are (i) different /separate /multiple /dual, (ii) identical /united /concomitant /one /non-dual, (iii) both, or (iv) neither.]
In identity there's no coincidence
For with themselves things do not coincide.
And how, if there is separation,
Can there ever be coincidence?
.
5. If in identity there is coincidence,
It happens in the absence of a counterpart.
And if in difference there's coincidence,
It happens too in absence of a counterpart.
.
6. If separate things can coincide,
Are then desire and agent of desire
Established as two separate things,
Whereby the two can coincide?
.
7. [Reality is beyond all conditioned dualistic conceptual proliferations, like: entity/non-entity, existence/non-existence, identity/difference, separation/union/concomitance, many/one, duality/non-duality, functionality /non-functionality, permanence /impermanence, continuity /discontinuity, eternity /annihilation, acceptation /rejection, action /non-action, thinking /non-thinking, differentiation /non-differentiations, conceptualization /non-conceptualization.]
If desire and agent of desire
Are established as two separate things,
Why should you consider them
In terms of a coincidence?
.
8. If you claim they coincide,
Because they're not established as two separate things,
Will you also claim that they are separate
Because they are established as coincident?
.
9. [The three spheres of any relation/action (e.g., separation/concomitance of desirous-one & desire, or of the two truths) cannot be different /separate /multiple /dual, identical /united /concomitant /one /non-dual, both, or neither, and there is no fifth [Tetralemma] ⇐⇒ they are thus empty of inherent existence [T2] ⇐⇒ inseparable, dependently co-arisen, interdependent, co-defined, co imputed by the mind, mere designations/names, conventional truths/tools [T1] [U2T] ⇐⇒ like illusions, reflections, mirages, dreams, echos, ‘there, yet not there’ [Illusory] ⇐⇒ pointing to the Middle Way with nothing to accept/reject/change in absolute terms ⇐⇒ pointing to acting without acting.]
Because as separate they are not established,
They are not established as coincident.
But then what separate things are there
That cause you to discourse about coincidence?
.
10. And so desire and the desiring agent
Do not exist together, neither do they not exist together.
.
[Generalization to all phenomena/dharmas, to the opposites of any duality, triad, quad… (including the two truths, and difference/separation vs. identity/union /concomitance). They cannot be (i) existent /different /separate /multiple /dual, (ii) non-existent /identical /united /concomitant /one /non-dual, (iii) both, or (iv) neither, and there is no fifth [Tetralemma] ⇐⇒ they are thus empty of inherent existence, never absolute [T2] ⇐⇒ inseparable, dependently co-arisen, interdependent, co-defined, co imputed by the mind, mere designations/names, conventional truths/tools [T1] [U2T] ⇐⇒ like illusions, reflections, mirages, dreams, echos, ‘there, yet not there’ [Illusory] ⇐⇒ pointing to the Middle Way with nothing to accept/reject/change in absolute terms ⇐⇒ pointing to acting without acting.]
And all things, like desire,
Do not exist together, neither do they not exist together.
Garfield
Chapter 6 - Examination of Desire and the Desirous (Examination of separateness vs. union / concomitance)
.
1. [The three spheres of any relation/action (e.g., separation/concomitance of desirous-one & desire, or of the two truths) are inseparable; one cannot exist with/without the others. They cannot be (i) existent / different /separate /multiple /dual, (ii) non-existent / identical /united /concomitant /one /non-dual, (iii) both, or (iv) neither, and there is no fifth.]
If prior to desire
And without desire there were a desirous one,
Desire would depend on him.
Desire would exist when there is a desirous one.
.
2. Were there no desirous one, moreover,
Where would desire occur?
Whether or not desire or the desirous one exist,
The analysis would be the same.
.
3. [The three spheres of any relation/action (e.g., separation/concomitance of desirous-one & desire, or of the two truths) cannot be (i) different /separate /multiple /dual, (ii) identical /united /concomitant /one /non-dual, (iii) both, or (iv) neither, and there is no fifth [Tetralemma] ⇐⇒ they are thus empty of inherent existence, never absolute [T2] ⇐⇒ they are inseparable, dependently co-arisen, interdependent, co-defined, co-imputed by the mind, mere designations/names, conventional truths/tools [T1] [U2T] ⇐⇒ like illusions, reflections, mirages, dreams, echos, ‘there, yet not there’ [Illusory] ⇐⇒ pointing to the Middle Way with nothing to accept/reject/change in absolute terms ⇐⇒ pointing to acting without acting.]
Desire and the desirous one
Cannot arise together.
In that case, desire and the desirous one
Would not be mutually contingent.
.
4. [Concomitance is impossible for things that are (i) different /separate /multiple /dual, (ii) identical /united /concomitant /one /non-dual, (iii) both, or (iv) neither.]
In identity there is no simultaneity.
A thing is not simultaneous with itself.
But if there is difference,
Then how would there be simultaneity?
.
5. If in identity there were simultaneity,
Then it could occur without association.
If in difference there were simultaneity,
It could occur without association.
.
6. If in difference there were simultaneity,
How could desire and the desirous one,
Being different, be established?
If they were, they would be simultaneous.
.
7. [Reality is beyond all conditioned dualistic conceptual proliferations, like: entity/non-entity, existence/non-existence, identity/difference, separation/union/concomitance, many/one, duality/non-duality, functionality /non-functionality, permanence /impermanence, continuity /discontinuity, eternity /annihilation, acceptation /rejection, action /non-action, thinking /non-thinking, differentiation /non-differentiations, conceptualization /non-conceptualization.]
If desire and the desirous one
Are established as different,
Then why would you think
That they are simultaneous?
.
8. Since difference is not established,
If you assert that they are simultaneous,
Since they are established as simultaneous,
Do you also assert that they are different?
.
9. [The three spheres of any relation/action (e.g., separation/concomitance of desirous-one & desire, or of the two truths) cannot be different /separate /multiple /dual, identical /united /concomitant /one /non-dual, both, or neither, and there is no fifth [Tetralemma] ⇐⇒ they are thus empty of inherent existence [T2] ⇐⇒ inseparable, dependently co-arisen, interdependent, co-defined, co imputed by the mind, mere designations/names, conventional truths/tools [T1] [U2T] ⇐⇒ like illusions, reflections, mirages, dreams, echos, ‘there, yet not there’ [Illusory] ⇐⇒ pointing to the Middle Way with nothing to accept/reject/change in absolute terms ⇐⇒ pointing to acting without acting.]
Since nothing different has been established,
If one is asserting simultaneity,
Which different thing
Do you want to say is simultaneous?
.
10. Thus desire and the desirous one
Cannot be established as simultaneous or not simultaneous.
.
[Generalization to all phenomena/dharmas, to the opposites of any duality, triad, quad… (including the two truths, and difference/separation vs. identity/union /concomitance). They cannot be (i) existent /different /separate /multiple /dual, (ii) non-existent /identical /united /concomitant /one /non-dual, (iii) both, or (iv) neither, and there is no fifth [Tetralemma] ⇐⇒ they are thus empty of inherent existence, never absolute [T2] ⇐⇒ inseparable, dependently co-arisen, interdependent, co-defined, co imputed by the mind, mere designations/names, conventional truths/tools [T1] [U2T] ⇐⇒ like illusions, reflections, mirages, dreams, echos, ‘there, yet not there’ [Illusory] ⇐⇒ pointing to the Middle Way with nothing to accept/reject/change in absolute terms ⇐⇒ pointing to acting without acting.]
So, like desire, nothing whatever
Can be established either as simultaneous or as nonsimultaneous.
Batchelor
Chapter 6 - Investigation of Desire and the Desirous One (Investigation of separateness vs. union / concomitance)
.
1. [The three spheres of any relation/action (e.g., separation/concomitance of desirous-one & desire, or of the two truths) are inseparable; one cannot exist with/without the others. They cannot be (i) existent / different /separate /multiple /dual, (ii) non-existent / identical /united /concomitant /one /non-dual, (iii) both, or (iv) neither, and there is no fifth.]
If a desirous one without desire exists before desire, desire would exist dependent on that [desirous one]. [When] a desirous one exists, desire exists.
.
2. If there were no desirous one, how could there be desire? The same follows for the desirous one too: [it depends on] whether desire exists or not.
.
3. [The three spheres of any relation/action (e.g., separation/concomitance of desirous-one & desire, or of the two truths) cannot be (i) different /separate /multiple /dual, (ii) identical /united /concomitant /one /non-dual, (iii) both, or (iv) neither, and there is no fifth [Tetralemma] ⇐⇒ they are thus empty of inherent existence, never absolute [T2] ⇐⇒ they are inseparable, dependently co-arisen, interdependent, co-defined, co-imputed by the mind, mere designations/names, conventional truths/tools [T1] [U2T] ⇐⇒ like illusions, reflections, mirages, dreams, echos, ‘there, yet not there’ [Illusory] ⇐⇒ pointing to the Middle Way with nothing to accept/reject/change in absolute terms ⇐⇒ pointing to acting without acting.]
It is not reasonable for desire and the desirous one to arise as co-existent. In this way desire and the desirous one would not be mutually contingent.
.
4. [Concomitance is impossible for things that are (i) different /separate /multiple /dual, (ii) identical /united /concomitant /one /non-dual, (iii) both, or (iv) neither.]
Identity has no co-existence: something cannot be co-existent with itself. If there were difference, how could there be co-existence?
.
5. If the identical were co-existent, [co-existence] would also occur between the unrelated; if the different were co-existent, [co-existence] would also occur between the unrelated.
.
6. If the different were co-existent, how would desire and the desirous one be established as different or, if that were so, [how would] those two be co-existent?
.
7. [Reality is beyond all conditioned dualistic conceptual proliferations, like: entity/non-entity, existence/non-existence, identity/difference, separation/union/concomitance, many/one, duality/non-duality, functionality /non-functionality, permanence /impermanence, continuity /discontinuity, eternity /annihilation, acceptation /rejection, action /non-action, thinking /non-thinking, differentiation /non-differentiations, conceptualization /non-conceptualization.]
If desire and the desirous were established as different, because of what could one understand them as co-existent?
.
8. If one asserts them to be co-existent because they are not established as different, then because they would be very much established as co-existent, would one not also have to assert them to be different?
.
9. [The three spheres of any relation/action (e.g., separation/concomitance of desirous-one & desire, or of the two truths) cannot be different /separate /multiple /dual, identical /united /concomitant /one /non-dual, both, or neither, and there is no fifth [Tetralemma] ⇐⇒ they are thus empty of inherent existence [T2] ⇐⇒ inseparable, dependently co-arisen, interdependent, co-defined, co imputed by the mind, mere designations/names, conventional truths/tools [T1] [U2T] ⇐⇒ like illusions, reflections, mirages, dreams, echos, ‘there, yet not there’ [Illusory] ⇐⇒ pointing to the Middle Way with nothing to accept/reject/change in absolute terms ⇐⇒ pointing to acting without acting.]
Since different things are not established, co-existent things are not established. If there existed any different things, one could assert them as co-existent things.
.
10. In that way, desire and the desirous one are not established as co-existent or not co-existent. .
[Generalization to all phenomena/dharmas, to the opposites of any duality, triad, quad… (including the two truths, and difference/separation vs. identity/union /concomitance). They cannot be (i) existent /different /separate /multiple /dual, (ii) non-existent /identical /united /concomitant /one /non-dual, (iii) both, or (iv) neither, and there is no fifth [Tetralemma] ⇐⇒ they are thus empty of inherent existence, never absolute [T2] ⇐⇒ inseparable, dependently co-arisen, interdependent, co-defined, co imputed by the mind, mere designations/names, conventional truths/tools [T1] [U2T] ⇐⇒ like illusions, reflections, mirages, dreams, echos, ‘there, yet not there’ [Illusory] ⇐⇒ pointing to the Middle Way with nothing to accept/reject/change in absolute terms ⇐⇒ pointing to acting without acting.]
Like desire, all phenomena are not established as co-existent or not co-existent.
Streng
Chapter 6 - An Analysis of Desire (raga) and One Who Desires (rakta) – in the Context of Their Separateness or Union/Concomitance] – 10 verses
.
1. [The three spheres of any relation/action (e.g., separation/concomitance of desirous-one & desire, or of the two truths) are inseparable; one cannot exist with/without the others. They cannot be (i) existent / different /separate /multiple /dual, (ii) non-existent / identical /united /concomitant /one /non-dual, (iii) both, or (iv) neither, and there is no fifth.]
If the "one who desires" would exist before desire itself, then desire may be regarded.
When desire becomes related to "one who desires," then desire comes into existence.
.
2. If there is no one who desires, how then will desire come into being?
[And the question] whether desire exists or does not exist likewise holds true for the one who desires.
.
3. [The three spheres of any relation/action (e.g., separation/concomitance of desirous-one & desire, or of the two truths) cannot be (i) different /separate /multiple /dual, (ii) identical /united /concomitant /one /non-dual, (iii) both, or (iv) neither, and there is no fifth [Tetralemma] ⇐⇒ they are thus empty of inherent existence, never absolute [T2] ⇐⇒ they are inseparable, dependently co-arisen, interdependent, co-defined, co-imputed by the mind, mere designations/names, conventional truths/tools [T1] [U2T] ⇐⇒ like illusions, reflections, mirages, dreams, echos, ‘there, yet not there’ [Illusory] ⇐⇒ pointing to the Middle Way with nothing to accept/reject/change in absolute terms ⇐⇒ pointing to acting without acting.]
Further, it is not possible for both desire and the one who desires to be produced concomitantly.
Indeed, desire and the one who desires come into being independent of each other.
.
4. [Concomitance is impossible for things that are (i) different /separate /multiple /dual, (ii) identical /united /concomitant /one /non-dual, (iii) both, or (iv) neither.]
Concomitance does not exist in that which is only one thing, [for] certainly something which is only one thing cannot be concomitant.
But yet, how will concomitance come into being if there are separate (prthak) things?
.
5. If concomitance applied to that which is only one thing, then that one "with concomitance" would be that one "without [concomitance]."
If concomitance applied to separate things, then that one "with concomitance" would be that one "without [concomitance]."
.
6. And if concomitance applied to separate things, what is the proof for the separation of both desire and the one who desires,
[Since] that which is non-separate is concomitant.
.
7. [Reality is beyond all conditioned dualistic conceptual proliferations, like: entity/non-entity, existence/non-existence, identity/difference, separation/union/concomitance, many/one, duality/non-duality, functionality /non-functionality, permanence /impermanence, continuity /discontinuity, eternity /annihilation, acceptation /rejection, action /non-action, thinking /non-thinking, differentiation /non-differentiations, conceptualization /non-conceptualization.]
Or, if the separateness of desire and the one who desires really were proved,
Why do you imagine the concomitance of them both?
.
8. You postulate concomitance by saying: neither is proved separate from [the other].
[And] you postulate separateness even more to prove concomitance.
.
9. [The three spheres of any relation/action (e.g., separation/concomitance of desirous-one & desire, or of the two truths) cannot be different /separate /multiple /dual, identical /united /concomitant /one /non-dual, both, or neither, and there is no fifth [Tetralemma] ⇐⇒ they are thus empty of inherent existence [T2] ⇐⇒ inseparable, dependently co-arisen, interdependent, co-defined, co imputed by the mind, mere designations/names, conventional truths/tools [T1] [U2T] ⇐⇒ like illusions, reflections, mirages, dreams, echos, ‘there, yet not there’ [Illusory] ⇐⇒ pointing to the Middle Way with nothing to accept/reject/change in absolute terms ⇐⇒ pointing to acting without acting.]
Because separateness is not proved, concomitance is not proved.
What kind of separateness must exist for you to establish concomitance?
.
10. Thus there is no proof that the desire is concomitant with or not concomitant with one who desires.
.
[Generalization to all phenomena/dharmas, to the opposites of any duality, triad, quad… (including the two truths, and difference/separation vs. identity/union /concomitance). They cannot be (i) existent /different /separate /multiple /dual, (ii) non-existent /identical /united /concomitant /one /non-dual, (iii) both, or (iv) neither, and there is no fifth [Tetralemma] ⇐⇒ they are thus empty of inherent existence, never absolute [T2] ⇐⇒ inseparable, dependently co-arisen, interdependent, co-defined, co imputed by the mind, mere designations/names, conventional truths/tools [T1] [U2T] ⇐⇒ like illusions, reflections, mirages, dreams, echos, ‘there, yet not there’ [Illusory] ⇐⇒ pointing to the Middle Way with nothing to accept/reject/change in absolute terms ⇐⇒ pointing to acting without acting.]
From [this analysis of] desire [it can be shown that for] every fundamental element (dharma) there is no proof of concomitance (union) or non-concomitance (or identity or difference).
All dharmas: This approach could be applied to any group of apparent opposites (opposite-1, opposite-2 …) by analyzing their possible relationship.
Using the Tetralemma we can demonstrate that apparent opposites cannot be (a) existent, (b) non-existent, (c) both together, or neither, and there is no fifth; cannot be (a) different/separate/ multiple/dual, (b) identical/united/one/non-dual, (c) both together, or (d) neither, and there is no fifth; cannot be (a) permanent/continuous/eternal, (b) impermanent/discontinuous/annihilated, (c) both together, or (d) neither, and there is no fifth; cannot be (a) ‘this’, (b) ‘non-this’, (c) both together, or (d) neither, and there is no fifth, for whatever ‘this’ is — because each of those positions leads to absurdity.
Since no position at all is tenable [Tetralemma] ⇐⇒ we have to conclude that those opposites and their relationship are empty of inherent existence, never absolute [T2] ⇐⇒ they are dependently co-arisen, interdependent, co-defined, co-existing, co-evolving, co-ceasing, merely co-labeled, co-imputed, co-imagined by the mind in dependence of its past experiences, conditioning, karma (individual, collective, cosmic) ⇐⇒ they are like illusions, reflection, mirages, dreams, echos, ‘there, yet not there’. This pretty much exhausts all dharmas.
.
Chapter 6 of Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, through its deconstruction of the duality between the one who desires (rakta, a discrete moment of consciousness) and desire (rāga, a mental factor), exemplifies a universal Madhyamaka method that can be applied to any group of apparent opposites—whether dualities like subject-object, cause-effect, or self-other, or broader relational structures like triads or quads.
[Madhyamaka Reasoning: Tetralemma ⇐⇒ Emptiness ⇐⇒ Dependent Origination ⇐⇒ Illusory ⇐⇒ Middle Way⇐⇒ One:]
[Tetralemma:] By analyzing the relationship between rakta and rāga — whether separate (pṛthak) or concomitant (saha) — Nāgārjuna employs the tetralemma to demonstrate that these opposites
– cannot be (a) existent, (b) non-existent, (c) both together, or (d) neither;
– cannot be (a) different/separate/multiple/dual, (b) identical/united/one/non-dual, (c) both together, or (d) neither;
– cannot be (a) permanent/continuous/eternal, (b) impermanent/discontinuous/annihilated, (c) both together, or (d) neither;
– and cannot be (a) ‘this’, (b) ‘non-this’, (c) both together, or (d) neither, for whatever ‘this’ is, as each position leads to absurdity (verses 1–9).
This exhaustive negation, culminating in verse 10’s
generalization to all fundamental elements (dharmas),
reveals that no dharma
— no phenomenon, whether mental, physical, or conceptual —
can withstand scrutiny [Tetralemma]
⇐⇒ as all are empty of inherent existence (śūnyatā, T2)
⇐⇒ and dependently co-arisen (pratītyasamutpāda, T1),
existing only as illusory, relational constructs [U2T].
This approach, rooted in the tetralemma’s relentless logic,
exhausts all dharmas, affirming Nāgārjuna’s vision of a reality that is
⇐⇒ “there, yet not there,” like reflections or dreams [Illusory]
⇐⇒ inviting liberation through the Middle Way [Middle Way].
.
The power of this method lies in its universality: any pair or group of apparent opposites — be it consciousness and its mental factor (Chapter 6), element and characteristic (Chapter 5), or cause and effect (Chapter 1) — can be subjected to the tetralemma’s scrutiny.
For example, in Chapter 6, verses 1–2 show that rakta cannot exist separately from rāga nor rāga without rakta, negating their independent existence or non-existence. Verses 3–9 further dismantle their concomitance, as neither unity nor separation holds, exhausting all relational possibilities. Verse 10’s claim that “every fundamental element (dharma)” lacks proof of concomitance or non-concomitance extends this logic to all phenomena: any dharma — from physical elements like earth to mental states like anger, from time to nirvana — can be analyzed as part of a relational pair (e.g., knower-known, self-other, part-whole) and found wanting.
.
The tetralemma’s negation of existence, non-existence, separation, unity, permanence, impermanence, and any fixed identity ensures that no position is tenable, as each collapses under logical absurdity.
This is not a mere intellectual exercise
but a radical undoing of our tendency to reify phenomena,
⇐⇒ revealing that all dharmas are co-defined, co-evolving, and co-imputed by the mind, shaped by karma and conditioning across individual, collective, and cosmic scales [T1].
This universal exhaustion of dharmas has profound implications for the Union of the Two Truths [U2T]. Because no dharma can stand alone — whether as existent or non-existent, separate or united, permanent or impermanent —
all are empty of inherent existence [T2]
⇐⇒ existing only as interdependent, illusory appearances [T1 [U2T].
– Verse 10’s generalization mirrors Chapter 5’s extension to all elements (verse 5.7)
– and Chapter 4’s to all phenomena (bhava, verse 4.7), but
– Chapter 6’s focus on desire — a key driver of samsara — highlights the practical stakes: clinging to rakta or rāga as real fuels suffering, while seeing their emptiness liberates.
⇐⇒ The illusory nature of dharmas — like mirages, “there, yet not there” —
⇐⇒ means they function conventionally (e.g., we experience desire) [T1]
⇐⇒ but dissolve under analysis [T2] [U2T]
⇐⇒ akin to reflections [Illusory]
⇐⇒ co-arising [T1]
⇐⇒ without substance [T2] [U2T].
.
This insight applies to any relational structure:
⇐⇒ opposites like self-other, mind-matter, or even emptiness-non-emptiness
⇐⇒ are empty [T2]
⇐⇒ because their relationships (difference, identity, etc.) are untenable [Tetralemma]
⇐⇒ exhausting all possible dharmas in Nāgārjuna’s non-dual vision [Middle Way, One].
The Middle Way emerges as the stance that navigates this exhaustive negation, neither reifying/accepting dharmas as inherently real nor denying/rejecting their conventional utility.
– In Chapter 6, the impossibility of fixing rakta and rāga as separate or concomitant (verses 1–9) [Tetralemma]
⇐⇒ invites us to see their relationship as interdependence [T1]
⇐⇒ not an absolute status [T2] [U2T]
⇐⇒ fostering a non-grasping / non-rejecting attitude toward all phenomena [Middle Way].
This approach, applied to any pair of opposites — cause-effect, perceiver-perceived, or even samsara-nirvana [Tetralemma] —
⇐⇒ reveals their shared emptiness [T2],
⇐⇒ interdependence [T1] [U2T],
⇐⇒ culminating in the realization of “One”: not a singular entity but a boundless, centerless web where all dharmas co-exist relationally, pure and complete in their lack of inherent essence [One].
⇐⇒ By exhausting all dharmas through the tetralemma, Nāgārjuna’s method liberates us from fixation, pointing to a non-dual reality where wisdom and compassion arise naturally, as the illusory interplay of opposites dissolves into the seamless flux of dependent origination [Middle Way].
.
.
.
Chapters 1–6 of Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā — covering causality (Chapter 1), motion (Chapter 2), perception (Chapter 3), aggregates (Chapter 4), elements (Chapter 5), and desire (Chapter 6) —
weave a cohesive Madhyamaka tapestry through six interconnected themes:
– [1] deconstruction of inherent existence,
– [2] Union of the Two Truths [U2T],
– [3] interdependence and co-evolution of relational spheres,
– [4] illusory nature of phenomena,
– [5] Middle Way, and
– [6] limitless, centerless cycles.
Chapter 6’s analysis of the duality between the one who desires (rakta, a discrete moment of consciousness) and desire (rāga, a mental factor) extends these themes by deconstructing their supposed inherent reality ⇐⇒ revealing their emptiness [T2] ⇐⇒ and interdependence [T1] ⇐⇒ through the tetralemma’s negation of separation (pṛthak) and concomitance (saha).
While Chapters 1–5 employ triadic structures (e.g., cause-causality-effect, characteristics-defining-defined),
Chapter 6’s focus on an apparently static duality — lacking an explicit dynamic relation like “causality” or “defining” — poses a unique challenge to the limitless, centerless cycle, which thrives on fluid co-evolution.
Yet, by framing rakta and rāga’s relationship as interdependence, Nāgārjuna integrates this duality into the cyclic flux, showing that even static opposites co-arise and co-cease relationally [co-evolution, co-creation], reinforcing the universal applicability of Madhyamaka’s insights across all dharmas.
.
[1. Deconstruction of Inherent Existence Using the Tetralemma:]
Across Chapters 1–6, Nāgārjuna employs the tetralemma to negate the inherent existence (svabhāva) of phenomena, demonstrating that no entity or relationship — whether triadic or dyadic — can be (a) existent, (b) non-existent, (c) both, or (d) neither; (a) separate/different, (b) identical/united, (c) both, or (d) neither; or (a) permanent, (b) impermanent, (c) both, or (d) neither.
– In Chapter 1, causality’s four models (self-causation, other-causation, etc.) are negated;
– in Chapter 2, the goer’s motion is neither real nor unreal;
– in Chapter 3, perception’s triad cannot be separate or identical;
– in Chapter 4, composition collapse under scrutiny; and
– in Chapter 5, the process of definition is transcended.
– Chapter 6 applies this to the duality of rakta and rāga, showing they cannot be separate (verses 1–2), concomitant as one or distinct (verses 3–5), or any combination (verses 6–9), culminating in verse 10’s negation of all dharmas’ relational status.
– This consistent deconstruction [Tetralemma] reveals that
⇐⇒ all phenomena — triads or dualities — [T1]
⇐⇒ are empty of inherent existence [T2]
⇐⇒ as their relational dependence [T1]
⇐⇒ undermines any fixed essence [T2] [U2T].
This method ⇐⇒ reveals that no phenomenon, static or dynamic, possesses an inherent core [T2] ⇐⇒ as relational dependence [T1] ⇐⇒ undermines fixed essence [T2] [U2T].
.
.
[2. Union of the Two Truths [U2T]:]
The Union of the Two Truths — conventional truth (interdependence, T1) ⇐⇒ and ultimate truth (emptiness, T2) — unifies Nāgārjuna’s analyses.
– In Chapter 1, causes and effects are interdependent [T1] yet empty [T2];
– in Chapter 2, motion functions conventionally [T1] but lacks essence [T2];
– in Chapter 3, perception operates relationally [T1] yet dissolves under analysis [T2];
– in Chapter 4, aggregates arise causally [T1] but are empty [T2]; and
– in Chapter 5, definition appears solid [T1] but lacks inherent reality [T2].
– Chapter 6 extends this to rakta and rāga: conventionally, we experience desire and identify as desirers [T1] ⇐⇒ but their separation or concomitance fails logically [Tetralemma] ⇐⇒ proving their emptiness [T2] (verses 1–9).
– Verse 10’s generalization to all dharmas underscores that
every phenomenon is both functionally relational [T1]
⇐⇒ and ultimately empty [T2] [U2T]
⇐⇒ dissolving dualities like existence/non-existence or self/other
⇐⇒ in the non-dual U2T framework.
.
.
[3. Interdependence and Continuous Co-Evolution of Relational Spheres:]
Chapters 1–5 frame phenomena as triads — cause-causality-effect, perceiver-perception-perceived, etc. — where each sphere co-evolves, conditioning and conditioned by the others.
– For example, an effect becomes a new cause (Chapter 1),
– a destination updates the goer (Chapter 2),
– or a defined element reshapes its characteristic (Chapter 5).
– Chapter 6’s duality — rakta and rāga — appears static, lacking a dynamic third sphere like “causality” or “defining.” Yet, Nāgārjuna reveals their interdependence [co-definition, co-origination, co-existence, co-evolution, co-cessation]: rakta requires rāga to be a desirer, and rāga needs rakta to arise (verses 1–2). This mutual co-definition — neither separate nor concomitant (verses 3–9) — implies a relational flux, where rakta’s consciousness is updated by rāga’s craving, which in turn is shaped by consciousness’s state, looping without a fixed origin.
The absence of a third sphere doesn’t halt the dynamic of the self-conditioning cycle;
instead, the duality’s interdependence itself becomes the dynamic relation,
as rakta and rāga co-arise, co-evolve and co-cease, mirroring the karmic updating of samsara [T1].
.
.
[4. Illusory Nature of Phenomena:]
Nāgārjuna likens phenomena to illusions, reflections, or mirages — “there, yet not there” — across all chapters. Causality (Chapter 1), motion (Chapter 2), perception (Chapter 3), aggregates (Chapter 4), and elements (Chapter 5) appear functional [T1] ⇐⇒ but dissolve under scrutiny [T2] [U2T].
– In Chapter 6, rakta and rāga seem real as consciousness and craving (verses 1–2) but are illusory, as their relational status — separate or concomitant — cannot be proven (verses 3–9).
– Verse 10 extends this to all dharmas, suggesting that every phenomenon, whether triadic or dyadic, is a mental imputation, conditioned by karma and experience, lacking inherent substance [T2].
– The static duality of rakta and rāga fits the cycle as an illusory snapshot within the flux: their apparent opposition fuels samsara, but their emptiness reveals them as fleeting, dreamlike constructs [Illusion].
.
.
[5. Middle Way Beyond Extremes:]
The Middle Way, free from extremes of realism, nihilism, dualism, or monism, guides Nāgārjuna’s analyses.
– Chapters 1–5 negate fixed notions of causality, motion, perception, aggregates, and elements, advocating a non-grasping stance.
– Chapter 6’s negation of rakta and rāga’s separation or concomitance (verses 1–9) urges us to neither reify them as real dharmas nor deny their conventional role in samsara.
– Verse 10’s universal scope implies all dharmas – static or dynamic –require this balanced approach: we engage desire relationally [T1] without attributing absolute reality [T2].
– For dualities, the Middle Way sees rakta and rāga as interdependent, not absolutely separate or united, integrating their static opposition into the cycle’s fluidity by recognizing their relational, non-dual nature [Middle Way].
.
.
[6. Limitless and Centerless Cycle:]
The limitless, centerless cycle — where relational spheres co-evolve without origin, endpoint, or central essence — unifies Chapters 1–6.
– In triads, this cycle is dynamic: effects become causes (Chapter 1),
– destinations update goers (Chapter 2),
– perceived objects reshape perceivers (Chapter 3),
– aggregates condition causes (Chapter 4), and
– defined elements redefine characteristics (Chapter 5).
– Chapter 6’s duality — rakta and rāga — appears static, as opposites lack an explicit relational sphere like “causality.” However, their interdependence forms a cyclic flux: rakta’s consciousness, infused with rāga, generates new mental states (e.g., further craving), which update rakta’s continuum, looping ad infinitum (verses 1–2).
– This cycle is limitless, with no first desirer or final desire, and centerless, as neither rakta nor rāga is an independent core (verses 3–9).
– Verse 10’s extension to all dharmas - static or dynamic – suggests every duality — self-other, mind-matter — fits this cycle, as opposites co-arise relationally, transforming into new opposites without fixed boundaries [T1].
– The cycle’s fluidity absorbs static opposites, as their interdependence fuels the karmic flux, yet their emptiness offers liberation through realizing their illusory, non-dual nature [One].
– The static nature of dualities is thus illusory;
their interdependence creates a dynamic interplay,
akin to a karmic loop where desire perpetuates samsara
yet, being empty [T2], offers liberation through realizing its dreamlike flux [One].
.
.
.
You’re absolutely right to point out that rakta and rāga are conceptually interdependent, as established in verses 1–2, but lack a clear causal or temporal relationship, unlike the dynamic triads in Chapters 1–5 (e.g., cause-causality-effect, actor-action-result).
You note that their concomitance (saha, simultaneous arising) in the Abhidharma view suggests no causal link, and you liken their relationship to static opposites (e.g., left-right, good-bad, blue-red), which are temporally coincident rather than sequential.
This raises a fascinating challenge:
if there’s no causality or temporal progression, how can rakta and rāga condition or be conditioned by each other within the limitless, centerless cycle, which we’ve described as a dynamic, co-evolutionary flux?
I’ll address this in a detailed yet focused response, clarifying how Nāgārjuna’s concept of interdependence (pratītyasamutpāda) transcends causality, integrating static dualities into the cyclic flux, and showing how rakta and rāga condition each other despite their non-temporal relationship.
I’ll then propose updating our Common Themes Across Chapters 1–6 section to reflect this nuance, ensuring it aligns with your updated verse analysis, the Chapter 6 introduction, and our prior discussions.
.
.
I. Understanding Interdependence Beyond Causality
To resolve how rakta and rāga condition each other without a causal or temporal relationship, we need to unpack Nāgārjuna’s concept of interdependence (pratītyasamutpāda) and its distinction from causality, especially in the context of Chapter 6’s static duality.
.
A. Interdependence vs. Causality:
In Abhidharma, rakta (a moment of consciousness) and rāga (a mental factor) are concomitant (saha), arising together as distinct dharmas within a single moment, without one causing the other in a temporal sequence. This is why you liken their relationship to static opposites like left-right or good-bad, which coexist simultaneously rather than one producing the other (e.g., cause → effect). The Abhidharma posits that mental factors like rāga accompany consciousness (vijñāna) in a momentary bundle, functionally real but not causally sequential.
Nāgārjuna’s pratītyasamutpāda (dependent origination) is broader than causality. While causality implies a temporal sequence (e.g., seed → sprout), interdependence encompasses any form of relational dependence, including conceptual, logical, or simultaneous co-arising.
– In Chapter 1, Nāgārjuna negates causal models (self-causation, other-causation, etc.), showing that even cause-effect relations are empty because they depend on mutual definition, not just temporal succession (MMK 1.1–2).
– Similarly, in Chapter 6, rakta and rāga are interdependent not because one causes the other but because their identities are co-defined: rakta is a “desirer” only through rāga, and rāga exists only within rakta’s consciousness (verses 1–2). This conceptual interdependence — where each conditions the other’s meaning — transcends temporal causality.
.
B. Conditioning Without Causality:
Conceptual Co-Definition: rakta and rāga condition each other by defining each other’s existence within a single moment. Verse 1 states that rāga “may be regarded” only when related to rakta, and rakta is a desirer only because of rāga. This is akin to static opposites like left-right: “left” conditions “right” by providing its contrast, not by causing it temporally. In Madhyamaka, conditioning is not limited to causal production but includes logical or relational dependence. rakta’s identity as consciousness is conditioned by rāga’s presence, and rāga’s status as a mental factor is conditioned by rakta’s awareness, forming a non-temporal, mutual reliance [T1].
Simultaneous Co-Arising: The Abhidharma’s concomitance (saha) assumes rakta and rāga arise together as real dharmas. Nāgārjuna negates this (verses 3–9), not to deny their co-arising ⇐⇒ but to show it’s not inherently real. Their simultaneity is a form of interdependence: they co-arise as a single experiential moment, like blue-red in a visual field, where neither precedes the other but each conditions the other’s presence. This co-arising is dynamic within the cycle, as each moment of rakta+rāga conditions the next moment’s consciousness, perpetuating samsara’s flux (more on this below).
Karmic Conditioning: While not causal within a moment, rakta and rāga contribute to the karmic cycle across moments. A moment of rakta with rāga leaves imprints (saṃskāras), conditioning future moments of consciousness, which in turn shape new instances of rāga. This temporal conditioning integrates the static duality into the broader cycle, as discussed in our Common Themes section.
.
C. Static Dualities in the Limitless, Centerless Cycle:
Your concern about dualities’ static nature — lacking the dynamic, temporal relations of triads like cause-causality-effect — is valid. Triads (e.g., Chapter 1’s cause-causality-effect) have an explicit relational sphere (causality) that drives co-evolution, where effects become causes in a fluid loop. Dualities like rakta and rāga appear static, as their concomitance is momentary and non-sequential, resembling opposites like good-bad or left-right.
Nāgārjuna overcomes this by treating the duality’s relationship — interdependence itself — as the dynamic element. Verses 1–2 establish that rakta and rāga are inseparable, co-arising in a single moment, but verses 3–9 show that their relationship (separation or concomitance) cannot be fixed, implying a relational flux. This interdependence is not static but part of a broader cycle: each moment of rakta+rāga conditions the next moment’s consciousness, perpetuating samsara’s loop (e.g., desire fuels further craving). The cycle is limitless, with no first desirer or final desire, and centerless, as neither rakta nor rāga is an independent core (verse 10’s generalization to all dharmas). Thus, the static duality becomes dynamic within the karmic continuum, where moments of consciousness and mental factors co-evolve across time, mirroring the triadic cycles of Chapters 1–5.
Analogically, consider left-right: while static within a moment (e.g., a visual field), their conceptual opposition conditions how we navigate space, updating our perspective in a temporal cycle (e.g., choosing left updates the next choice). Similarly, rakta and rāga’s static concomitance in a moment conditions the mind’s karmic trajectory, integrating into the cycle’s flux [T1].
.
D. Why Concomitance?:
The Abhidharma’s concomitance (saha) reflects the observation that consciousness (rakta) and mental factors (rāga) arise together (co-imputed by the mind), with no temporal causality (unlike cause → effect). Nāgārjuna doesn’t dispute their co-arising but negates its inherent reality (verses 3–9), showing that concomitance assumes interdependence, not independent svabhāva. This interdependence—rakta and rāga co-defining each other—makes them empty [T2], as no position (separate, concomitant, etc.) holds [Tetralemma]. Their static relation thus fits the cycle, as interdependence itself is the dynamic principle, not causality.
.
E. Exhausting All Dharmas:
Your earlier insight (about exhausting all dharmas via the tetralemma) is key. Chapter 6’s verse 10 extends the negation of rakta and rāga’s relationship to all dharmas, implying that any duality — self-other, mind-matter, good-bad — can be deconstructed similarly. Static opposites like blue-red or left-right are empty because they co-arise conceptually, conditioning each other’s meaning without inherent essence. This universalizes the cycle: all dharmas, whether triadic or dyadic, temporal or static, are interdependent moments in a limitless, centerless flux, empty yet functional [U2T].
.
.
.
Chapter 6 of Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, by deconstructing the duality of the one who desires (rakta, a discrete moment of consciousness) and desire (rāga, a mental factor), deepens the Madhyamaka insight that all phenomena — across individual, collective, and cosmic scales — are empty of inherent existence [T2] ⇐⇒ yet dynamically interdependent [T1] [U2T]. Building on Chapters 1–5, which analyzed triadic structures like cause-causality-effect (Chapter 1) or characteristics-defining-defined (Chapter 5), Chapter 6’s focus on a static duality — rakta and rāga as concomitant opposites — reveals that even seemingly fixed pairs, like right-left or good-bad, are co-emergent, co-evolving, and co-ceasing, conditioned by the observer’s relational context without absolute coordinates in space-time (verses 1–9). This dissolution of inherent boundaries between rakta and rāga, extended to all dharmas (verse 10), reconfigures the individual (consciousness), collective (shared mental states), and cosmos (experiential reality) as an indivisible web, where opposites dynamically co-create each other, perpetuating samsara’s cycle yet offering liberation through their illusory, non-dual nature [U2T-3L].
.
[1. The Individual: A Mirage of Co-Emergent Opposites]
The individual, conventionally understood as a conscious self, is deconstructed as a mirage of interdependent processes in Chapters 1–6. In Chapter 6, rakta — a moment of consciousness — is not a fixed self but a fleeting event defined by rāga, its mental factor (verses 1–2). This duality is not static but dynamically co-emergent: rakta’s awareness arises with rāga’s craving, and rāga exists only within rakta’s scope, like right-left co-defining a spatial moment relative to an observer. Without absolute coordinates, rakta and rāga co-evolve — each moment’s desire conditions the next moment’s consciousness, looping karmically (verses 3–9). This mirrors Chapters 3’s perceiver-perceived co-arising or Chapter 5’s element-characteristic interplay, where no individual endures independently [T2]. The individual is thus a relational flux, a “person” only by convention [T1], empty of inherent essence yet vibrant in its illusory interplay of opposites [Illusion].
.
[2. The Collective: A Shared Web of Relational Opposites]
The collective — society, culture, or shared experience — emerges as a network of co-defined opposites, not a separate entity. In Chapter 6, rāga (desire) is conditioned by collective factors (e.g., social norms, shared pleasures), while rakta’s consciousness reflects communal karma, yet neither is inherently real (verses 1–9). Like good-bad, which co-emerge relative to cultural values, rakta and rāga co-evolve through collective interactions—desire for status shapes group dynamics, which update individual consciousness. Verse 10’s extension to all dharmas implies that collective phenomena (e.g., laws, traditions) are similarly empty, arising from interdependent opposites (self-other, us-them) without fixed essence [T2]. The collective is thus a web of relational flux, where individual and shared experiences co-create each other, conditioned by karma across moments [T1], akin to Chapter 3’s shared perceptual world or Chapter 4’s aggregate-based communities [U2T].
.
[3. The Cosmos: The Totality of Co-Emergent Flux]
The cosmos—encompassing all phenomena across space-time — loses its status as a fixed container, becoming the totality of interdependent opposites. Chapter 6’s rakta and rāga co-arise as a momentary experience, like blue-red in a visual field, with no absolute coordinates to anchor them (verses 1–9). Their interdependence reflects the cosmic web: consciousness and mental factors condition the perceived world, which shapes further consciousness, looping without origin or end. Verse 10’s universal negation suggests all dharmas—from stars to thoughts—are empty, co-emerging as relational pairs (e.g., space-time, matter-energy) [T2]. Like Chapter 5’s elements or Chapter 1’s causes, the cosmos is a flux of co-evolving opposites, where rakta and rāga’s momentary interplay mirrors universal interdependence, conditioned by cosmic karma [T1]. The cosmos is thus not separate from the individual or collective but their collective expression, a non-dual dance of illusory opposites [One].
.
[4. Dissolving Boundaries Across Scales [U2T-3L]]
The tetralemma’s negation in Chapter 6—rakta and rāga cannot be separate, concomitant, existent, or non-existent (verses 1–9)—dissolves boundaries between individual, collective, and cosmos. rakta’s consciousness is shaped by collective desires (e.g., cultural cravings), which arise within the cosmic web (e.g., conditioned experiences), yet all are empty [T2]. Like right-left co-evolving with an observer’s movement, rakta and rāga co-emerge across scales: an individual’s desire reflects collective norms, which condition cosmic reality, looping relationally without absolute separation [T1]. Verse 10’s universal scope implies all opposites—self-other, good-bad—share this flux, erasing distinctions between scales. This karmic interconnectivity—individual desires fueling collective patterns, shaping cosmic experience—reveals a non-dual reality where all dharmas are equal, pure, and illusory, co-ceasing in liberation’s cessation of grasping [Middle Way].
.
[5. Is There Still an Individual? [U2T-3L]]
The individual persists conventionally as a label for rakta’s consciousness, navigating collective and cosmic relations [T1], but ultimately dissolves, as rakta and rāga are empty, co-emergent opposites without inherent essence [T2]. Like blue-red, defined only relative to perception, the individual is a momentary convergence of opposites, co-evolving with collective and cosmic karma. Liberation arises from seeing this flux as illusory—rakta and rāga’s interplay drives samsara but, being empty, offers freedom when grasped as “there, yet not there.” This non-dual vision, where individual, collective, and cosmos merge into a centerless web, fosters compassion, as all beings share this interdependent, dreamlike reality [One].
Chapter 6 of Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, titled "An Analysis of Desire and One Who Desires" (Rāgaraktaparīkṣā), meticulously deconstructs the Abhidharma notion that the one who desires (rakta, a discrete moment of consciousness) and desire (rāga, a mental factor) possess inherent existence, focusing on their relationship — whether separate (pṛthak) or concomitant (saha) — across ten verses.
Through his Madhyamaka method of reductio ad absurdum,
Nāgārjuna examines the triad of
– (i) the one who desires (rakta, a discrete moment of consciousness, opposite-1),
– (iii) desire (rāga, a mental factor, opposite-2), and
– (ii) their relationship
revealing that neither separation nor concomitance
can be established, as both positions
lead to logical absurdities [Tetralemma].
By applying the tetralemma — showing that the two opposites –
the one who desires (rakta, i. moment of consciousness)
and desire (rāga, ii. mental factor) –
– cannot be existent, non-existent, both, or neither;
– separate, concomitant, both, or neither, and there is not fifth —
⇐⇒ he demonstrates their emptiness (śūnyatā, T2-opp),
⇐⇒ interdependence (pratītyasamutpāda, T1-opp) [U2T-opp],
⇐⇒ and illusory nature,
⇐⇒ guiding us toward the Middle Way free from all extremes and middle,
⇐⇒ and a non-dual realization of reality as primordially interconnected [One].
This chapter extends the critiques of
– cause-effect (Chapter 1),
– goer-destination (Chapter 2),
– perceiver-perceived (Chapter 3),
– element-aggregate (Chapter 4), and
– characteristic-characterized (Chapter 5)
– into the realm of mental defilements – rakta-rāga –(Chapter 6),
culminating in a universal negation of inherent existence [T2]
for all fundamental elements (dharmas) [T1] [U2T] (verse 10),
underscoring their relational flux as the key to liberation from samsara.
.
.
[Madhyamaka Reasoning: Tetralemma ⇐⇒ Emptiness ⇐⇒ Dependent Origination ⇐⇒ Illusory ⇐⇒ Middle Way⇐⇒ One]
[1. Tetralemma:]
– Nāgārjuna begins by scrutinizing the duality of the one who desires (rakta, i. moment of consciousness) and desire (rāga, ii. mental factor), arguing that the one who desires (rakta, i. moment of consciousness) cannot exist prior to desire (rāga, ii. mental factor) (verse 1), nor can desire (rāga, ii. mental factor) arise without the one who desires (rakta, i. moment of consciousness) (verse 2), as their separation (pṛthak) implies absurd independence.
– He then examines concomitance (saha), showing it fails whether the one who desires (rakta, i. moment of consciousness) and desire (rāga, ii. mental factor) are one entity or separate (verses 3–5), as unity negates distinction and separation negates simultaneous arising.
– Verses 6–9 deepen this by exposing the circularity of assuming separation to prove concomitance or vice versa, as neither can be established without the other, rendering both positions incoherent.
– The tetralemma—negating that the one who desires (rakta, i. moment of consciousness) and desire (rāga, ii. mental factor) can be (a) different/separate, (b) identical/concomitant, (c) both, or (d) neither — culminates in verse 10, which extends this to all dharmas, showing no phenomenon can be inherently separate or concomitant.
– This exhaustive negation reveals that the relationship between the one who desires (rakta, i. moment of consciousness) and desire (rāga, ii. mental factor) — intended by the Abhidharma as a real causal interaction — cannot hold, as their interdependence [T1-opp] ⇐⇒ undermines any fixed, absolute status [T2-opp] [U2T-opp].
.
[2. Emptiness:] [T2-opp]
– The tetralemma’s failure to establish separation or concomitance ⇐⇒ leads directly to the emptiness (śūnyatā, T2-opp) of the one who desires (rakta, i. moment of consciousness), desire (rāga, ii. mental factor), and their relationship.
– Because the one who desires (rakta, i. moment of consciousness) cannot preexist desire (rāga, ii. mental factor) (verse 1), nor desire (rāga, ii. mental factor) arise without the one who desires (rakta, i. moment of consciousness) (verse 2), ⇐⇒ neither possesses an intrinsic, self-sustaining essence [T2-opp].
– Verses 3–5 show that concomitance collapses under scrutiny — whether as one entity or separate, it implies contradictions, negating any inherent relational reality.
– Verses 6–9 reinforce this by demonstrating that separation and concomitance are mutually unprovable, leaving no basis for inherent existence.
– Verse 10 universalizes this insight: all dharmas, like the one who desires (rakta, i. moment of consciousness) and desire (rāga, ii. mental factor) [T1] ⇐⇒ lack inherent concomitance or non-concomitance, confirming their emptiness [T2] [U2T].
– This emptiness is not a nihilistic void but the absence of fixed being, liberating us from reifying consciousness or mental factors as ultimate truths, as clinging to such realities fuels samsaric suffering.
.
[3. Dependent Origination:] [T1-opp]
– Emptiness ⇐⇒ implies that the one who desires (rakta, i. moment of consciousness) and desire (rāga, ii. mental factor) are dependently co-arisen (pratītyasamutpāda, T1-opp), co-defined within an interdependent web shaped by the mind’s conditioning, karma, and past experiences (individual, collective, cosmic).
– Verse 1 establishes their mutual reliance: desire (rāga, ii. mental factor) “comes into existence” only when related to the one who desires (rakta, i. moment of consciousness), and the one who desires (rakta, i. moment of consciousness) is a desirer only through desire (rāga, ii. mental factor).
– Verse 2 underscores this — no the one who desires (rakta, i. moment of consciousness) without desire (rāga, ii. mental factor), no desire (rāga, ii. mental factor) without the one who desires (rakta, i. moment of consciousness) — showing their co-evolution, like reflections requiring each other.
– Verses 3–9 reveal that their relationship, whether framed as separation or concomitance, is itself a construct, arising only through their interdependence [T1-opp] ⇐⇒ not as an absolute status [T2-opp] [U2T-opp].
– Verse 10 extends this to all dharmas, suggesting that every phenomenon exists only relationally, imputed by the mind.
– This interdependence [T1-opp] ⇐⇒ unites with emptiness [T2-opp] in the Union of the Two Truths [U2T-opp]: while the one who desires (rakta, i. moment of consciousness) and desire (rāga, ii. mental factor) function conventionally as the basis of craving [T1-opp] ⇐⇒ they lack intrinsic essence when analyzed [T2-opp] ⇐⇒ forming a relational flux rather than discrete entities [U2T-opp].
.
[4. Illusory:]
– As empty ⇐⇒ and dependently arisen, the one who desires (rakta, i. moment of consciousness) and desire (rāga, ii. mental factor) ⇐⇒ are illusory, akin to mirages, dreams, or echoes — vivid yet insubstantial.
– Verses 1–2 show that the one who desires (rakta, i. moment of consciousness) and desire (rāga, ii. mental factor) appear as distinct dharmas [T1-opp] ⇐⇒ but dissolve under scrutiny, lacking any ultimate substance [T2-opp] [U2T-opp].
– Verses 3–9 illustrate that their relationship (iii) — separation or concomitance — is a mental fabrication [T1], as neither can be proven, rendering their apparent reality dreamlike.
– Verse 10’s generalization to all dharmas suggests that all phenomena, like consciousness and its mental factors, are “there, yet not there” [Illusory] ⇐⇒ functioning in experience [T1] ⇐⇒ but empty of inherent reality [T2] [U2T].
– This illusoriness does not negate their conventional role — we feel desire and identify as desirers — but reveals that grasping them as real stems from delusion, perpetuating samsara’s cycle of attachment.
.
[5. Middle Way:]
– Recognizing the one who desires (rakta, i. moment of consciousness) and desire (rāga, ii. mental factor) as empty [T2-opp] ⇐⇒ interdependent [T1-opp] [U2T-opp] ⇐⇒ and illusory ⇐⇒ Nāgārjuna points to the Middle Way, free from all extremes and middle, like eternalism (existence), nihilism (non-existence), dualism (both together) and monism (neither).
– Verses 1–9 negate any fixed relational status — separate, concomitant, existent, or non-existent — urging us to neither reify (accept) nor negate (reject) the duality: the one who desires (rakta, i. moment of consciousness) and desire (rāga, ii. mental factor) in absolute terms.
– Verse 10’s universal scope implies that all dharmas share this nature, inviting a non-grasping & non-rejecting stance: we engage desire conventionally (e.g., addressing craving in practice) [T1] ⇐⇒ without attributing ultimate reality [T2].
– This balanced approach, rooted in the Union of the Two Truths [U2T], allows us to navigate samsara skillfully, seeing the relationship as interdependence, not absolute separation or concomitance, aligning with the path to liberation.
.
[6. One:]
– Ultimately, Chapter 6 reveals that the one who desires (rakta, i. moment of consciousness), desire (rāga, ii. mental factor), their relationship, and all dharmas are primordially interconnected, pure, perfect, complete, divine, ‘One’ in a non-dual sense — not many, not one, not both, not neither.
– The duality of the one who desires (rakta, i. moment of consciousness) and desire (rāga, ii. mental factor), though conventionally distinct ⇐⇒ is empty of separation or concomitance (verses 1–9) ⇐⇒ existing within an indivisible web of interdependence (verse 10).
– This “One” is not a singular entity but a dynamic, divine wholeness, where all phenomena co-arise relationally, free from dualistic extremes [T1-T2].
– Nāgārjuna’s deconstruction liberates us from fixation on consciousness or desire as real, inviting a realization of reality’s non-dual purity, where the conventional interplay of craving dissolves into the seamless, illusory flux of interdependent arising [Illusion, Middle Way, One].
We can analyse ‘relation/separation/union/concomitance’ / ‘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.
