Mūlamadhyamakakārikā
"Root Verses on the Middle Way" by Nagarjuna
Chapter 7 - Characteristics (Origination, Duration, Cessation) of Composites [U2T-3S, U2T-opp].
Conventional characteristics of composites without absolute/inherent
origination, duration, cessation, composite or non-composite.
Chapter 7 – Characteristics (Origination, Duration, Cessation) of Composites [U2T-3S, U2T-opp].
Conventional characteristics of composites without absolute/inherent origination, duration, cessation, composite or non-composite.
This chapter refutes independent/inherent/absolute the
defining characteristics of composites because
(A) the three spheres of definition/characterization –
(i) subject/defining-characteristics (origination, duration/change, cessation),
(ii) action/defining/characterizing,
(iii) object/defined/characterized/composites –
or (B) the three opposite characteristics: origination, duration/change, cessation –
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 (characteristic, characterizing, characterized), and three opposite characteristics (origination, duration/change, cessation), 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/change/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/defining-characteristics because all subjects/defining-characteristics have their own subjects/defining-characteristics, because they are also objects/defined/characterized/elements, because they are dependently co-arisen in a limitless and centerless cycle. The same for the objects/defined/characterized/elements.
There are no inherent (a) opposite-1 /origination because all (a) opposite-1 /origination have their own (a) opposite-1 /origination, because they are also (c) opposite-2 /duration/change-cessation, because they are dependently co-arisen in a limitless and centerless cycle. The same for the (c) opposite-2 /duration/change-cessation.
.
Last update: December 30, 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
[Notes: The Four Characteristics of Composites and their inseparable dependent origination and emptiness:
A. Composites (sanskrit: samskṛta) are impermanent, conditioned phenomena formed by multiple parts, components, or causes. These entities—ranging from physical objects to mental states—lack a permanent, independent self, highlighting the doctrine of emptiness (sunyata), as they are dependent on conditions and subject to destruction.
Key aspects of composites in Mahayana include:
— Definition: They are "fabricated" or "put together" things, such as the five aggregates (skandhas), which constitute sentient beings. — In Mahayana Buddhism, particularly within Yogācāra, Consciousness is viewed as a continuous, flowing stream, not a static entity.; successive moments of consciousness are considered "composite" in that they are impermanent, interdependent, and part of a constantly changing stream. These moments are part of the five aggregates of grasping, which are causal and not a permanent self. They are not indivisible entities, but rather moments that arise and cease simultaneously.
— Impermanence and Non-Self: Because they are made of parts, they are not eternal and do not possess a permanent, abiding essence.
— Trikāya Application: In the Trikāya (Three Bodies) doctrine, the physical manifestation body of a Buddha is considered a "composite" or accumulation of qualities.
— Refutation of Substance: Mahayana, particularly in the Madhyamaka school, argues that because things originate from conditions, they lack true existence as independent composites, and are ultimately empty of inherent, separate existence.
Essentially, recognizing all things as "composites" encourages detachment from the transient, physical world and aids in understanding the nature of reality.
-
B. The three characteristics of composites (compounded phenomena or samskrita-dharma) are that they are impermanent (anitya), unsatisfactory or suffering (duhkha), and without a self or intrinsic nature (anātman). These represent the impermanent and dependent nature of all created things, while Nirvana is considered the opposite.
— Impermanence (Anitya): All composite things—those created by causes and conditions—are in a constant state of change, arising and passing away.
— Suffering/Unsatisfactoriness (Duhkha): Because they are impermanent and unreliable, conditioned phenomena are inherently unsatisfactory and lead to suffering.
— Selflessness (Anatman): Composite things lack a permanent, unchanging, or independent self or soul. In Mahayana, this is often expanded to mean the "emptiness" (shunyata) of all phenomena.
These three marks apply to all conditioned existence, separating them from the unconditioned (non-composite) state of enlightenment.
.
C. The three stages of composites (compounded phenomena or samskrta-dharma) are origination (arising, utpāda), duration (abiding/stagnation, sthiti), and cessation (disappearance/perishing, bhaṅga or nirodha). These three represent the transitory nature of all conditioned things, which arise from causes, exist temporarily, and then disappear.
— Origination (uppada/utpāda): The initial arising or coming into being of a phenomenon based on causes and conditions.
— Duration (thiti/sthiti): The temporary abiding or stability of the phenomenon during its existence. — The "duration" phase is not static; it is a state of constant, subtle transformation (change).
— Cessation (bhaṅga/nirodha): The passing away, dissolution, or disappearance of the phenomenon.
These three stages are closely related to the Mahayana emphasis on emptiness (shunyata), as they illustrate that all compounded things are impermanent, lack inherent, independent existence, and are in a constant state of flux. While often listed as three, some traditions expand this to four by including the change of that which is abiding.
-
D. The three marks of conditioned existence (origination, duration, cessation) to include a fourth: the "stasis of decay" or "change of duration" (sthityanyathatva). These four are recognized as characteristics of all compounded phenomena.
Four Characteristics: Mahayana often enumerates the four characteristics of conditioned (compounded) dharmas as:
— Production/Origination (jati/utpada)
— Duration/Staying (sthiti)
— Change of Duration/Decay (sthityanyathatva)
— Impermanence/Cessation (anityata/bhanga)
Significance: While early Buddhism often focuses on the three (arising, staying, ceasing), adding the change of state highlights the continuous, subtle transformation occurring even during the "duration" phase, reinforcing the doctrine of impermanence.
Context: These stages are part of the broader understanding of Pratītyasamutpāda (dependent origination), which Mahayana emphasizes as the core of existence, wherein all compounded things are inherently unstable.
Therefore, Mahayana typically recognizes four, rather than just three, stages of conditioned composites to fully articulate the nature of impermanence.
-
E. Pratītyasamutpāda (dependent origination) and śūnyatā (emptiness) are considered fundamental characteristics of all conditioned phenomena (composites), often going beyond the traditional four marks of conditioned existence (origination, duration, change, cessation).
Key Aspects of Mahayana View:
— Dependent Origination as Foundation: Mahayana emphasizes that all composites (phenomena) arise in dependence upon other factors, confirming their lack of independent existence.
— Equating with Emptiness: Mahayana, particularly via Nagarjuna, equates dependent origination with emptiness—meaning because things are dependently originated, they are empty of inherent, independent existence (svabhāva).
Comprehensive View: While the four marks describe the temporal process of a composite entity, dependent origination and emptiness explain the ontological nature (or lack thereof) of that entity.
Therefore, dependent origination and emptiness are not just additional characteristics, but are viewed as the deeper reality underlying the four marks of conditioned existence.
-
F. In Mahayana — particularly within the Madhyamaka school — non-duality is considered a fundamental characteristic of all composite (conditioned) things, as they are understood to be empty of inherent existence. This perspective holds that conditioned phenomena, because they arise dependently [T1], are ultimately empty [T2] and thus beyond dualistic concepts like existence/non-existence/both/neither, self/other/both/neither, or pure/impure/both/neither [Tetralemma / Non-duality].
— Non-Duality as Core to Emptiness: Because all composite things are dependent on causes and conditions (dependent origination), they possess no intrinsic, independent nature (svabhāva), which is the definition of emptiness.
— Transcending Dualism: Madhyamaka philosophy emphasizes that this emptiness is not a separate, nihilistic state but is identical to the very nature of phenomena.
— The "One Suchness": All phenomena are viewed as "one suchness" (or tathatā), transcending all dualities like increase/decrease or mundane/enlightened.
While the four marks and two truths are foundational, the Mahayana perspective adds that the ultimate reality of these composites is non-dual.
-
G. Non-duality (advaya) and oneness are generally not considered the same thing, though they are related.
— Non-duality means "not-two"—a direct experience that reality is not divided into separate, independent entities (like self/other).
— While oneness often implies a singular, unifying substance,
– non-duality in Mahayana indicates that all phenomena are empty of inherent existence (shunyata), making them neither one nor many.
Key Distinctions in Mahayana:
— Non-duality (Not-Two): Focuses on the absence of separation between opposites (e.g., samsara and nirvana, subject and object) rather than reducing everything to a single entity. It is the recognition that all things are interpenetrating and empty of a separate self.
— Oneness (Monism): Can sometimes be misunderstood as implying a "one" that exists on its own, which can act as a conceptual trap.
— The Role of Emptiness: Mahayana, particularly Madhyamaka, emphasizes that because all things are empty, they are free from the extremes of both dualism (things are separate) and monism (everything is one).
— Non-Duality of Opposites: Mahayana highlights the non-duality of seemingly opposed concepts, such as the non-duality of form and emptiness.
Therefore, while non-duality is sometimes described as a "seamless whole," it is a deeper philosophical concept than simple oneness, often emphasizing the emptiness of all conceptual,, including the concept of "one".
-
H. The tetralemma (catukoi) is a logical tool used to demonstrate non-duality by negating all four possible conceptual positions regarding any duality: e.g.: 1) existence, 2) non-existence, 3) both, and 4) neither. All dualities have these four extreme positions (‘this’, ‘non-this’, both, neither). By refuting these four positions, one transcends conditioned binary thinking and realizes emptiness (śūnyatā) of the opposites and dualities. Non-duality is a pointer to the ultimate, non-conceptual nature of reality beyond these four extremes for any duality. This could be generalized for triads, quads, etc.
Key Connections between Non-Duality and Tetralemma:
— Negation of Extremes: The tetralemma breaks down conceptual, dualistic viewpoints, pointing to a direct, non-dual experience (or "non-conceptual wisdom").
— Reality and Non-Duality: Non-duality is defined as the nature of reality, meaning it is free from the dualistic, four-cornered limitations of opposites like existence and non-existence.
— Methodology of Madhyamaka: The Madhyamaka school uses the tetralemma to deconstruct the "conceptual proliferation" (prapañca) of reality, showing that the true nature of all phenomena is the Union of the Two Truths: inseparable dependent origination [T1] and emptiness of inherent existence [T2] [U2T].
— Beyond Binary Thinking: While the tetralemma is a logical tool, it serves to point towards a truth that is not simply a philosophical concept but a state of non-dual awareness that merges opposites like subject and object.
Therefore, in Mahayana, the tetralemma functions as the methodological approach to establish and experience non-duality, showing that the ultimate reality cannot be restricted by any of the four logical corners.]
.
.
Chapter 7 is similar to both
(A) chapter 5: (i) defining-characteristic, (ii) characterizing, (iii) characterized/irreducible-elements; and
(B) chapter 6: (i) opposite-1/moment-of-consciousness, (ii) relation/separation/concomitance, (iii) opposite-2/mental-factor/desire.
In chapter 7 we have:
(A) (i) subject/defining-characteristics (origination, duration/change, cessation), (ii) action/characterizing, (iii) object/characterized/composites; and
(B) (i) opposite-1/origination, (ii) opposite-2/duration/change, (iii) opposite-3/cessation, and the relation /independence /interdependence of those three characteristics of composites.
.
Chapter VII introduces the inseparable relativity [T1] and emptiness of inherent existence [T2] of the defining characteristics (origination, duration/change, cessation) of composites, of
(A) the three spheres of definition/characterization –
(i) subject/defining-characteristics (origination, duration/change, cessation),
(ii) action/defining/characterizing,
(iii) object/defined/characterized/composites – and
(B) the three opposite characteristics: origination, duration/change, cessation –
.
It affirms that there is no inherent/absolute independence/interdependence of the three defining characteristics (origination, duration/change, cessation) of composites. Meaning
(A) the three spheres of definition/characterization –
(i) subject/defining-characteristics (origination, duration/change, cessation),
(ii) action/defining/characterizing,
(iii) object/defined/characterized/composites – or
(B) the three opposite characteristics: origination, duration/change, cessation –
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,
origination/duration/change/cessation, 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 three spheres (characteristic, characterizing, characterized), and three opposite characteristics (origination, duration/change, cessation), 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.)
.
And there are other reasons to refute the three characteristics of composites (origination, duration/change, cessation) as demonstrated in this Chapter.
Are those three characteristics themselves composites with their own origination, duration/change, cessation – leading to absurdities like infinite regress or circular dependency?
If we cannot find any composite through its three characteristics, how can we define ‘before, during and after’ relative to any thing, being, process or cycle?
How can we define space and the three times – ‘past, present and future’ – relative to any thing, being, process or cycle?
How do we define dependent origination and emptiness of dharmas we cannot find?
How can we define the 12 links or dependent origination, samsara and nirvana?
How can we define Reality as it is?
Everything is interconnected, relative, empty and non-dual.
There is no inherent action/characterization or relation/opposition in the three times.
We cannot find the beginning of the action/relation in the three times.
There are no absolute actions/relations, they are all relative = Middle Way.
The three spheres or opposites –
(A) the three spheres of definition/characterization –
(i) subject/defining-characteristics (origination, duration/change, cessation),
(ii) action/defining/characterizing,
(iii) object/defined/characterized/composites – or
(B) the three opposite characteristics: origination, duration/change, cessation –
are not inherently existent/functional,
not completely non-existent/non-functional,
not both, not neither [Tetralemma].
The three spheres or opposites –
(A) the three spheres of definition/characterization –
(i) subject/defining-characteristics (origination, duration/change, cessation),
(ii) action/defining/characterizing,
(iii) object/defined/characterized/composites – or
(B) the three opposite characteristics: origination, duration/change, cessation –
are not different/separate/multiple/dual/’this’,
not identical/united/one/non-dual/’non-this’,
not both, not neither [Tetralemma].
The three spheres or opposites –
(A) the three spheres of definition/characterization –
(i) subject/defining-characteristics (origination, duration/change, cessation),
(ii) action/defining/characterizing,
(iii) object/defined/characterized/composites – or
(B) the three opposite characteristics: origination, duration/change, cessation –
are not permanent/continuous/eternal,
not impermanent/discontinuous/annihilated,
not both, not neither [Tetralemma].
The three spheres or opposites –
(A) the three spheres of definition/characterization –
(i) subject/defining-characteristics (origination, duration/change, cessation),
(ii) action/defining/characterizing,
(iii) object/defined/characterized/composites – or
(B) the three opposite characteristics: origination, duration/change, cessation –
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 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 like a limitless centerless empty fractal karmic cycle with nothing inherently existing in it.
The defining characteristics (origination, duration/change, cessation) of composites, 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 7 - An Examination of Arising, Abiding, and Decay
.
[1. Verses 1–20: Refutation of Inherent ORIGINATION because Interdependent]
[Verses 1–3: Logical Incoherence of Origination’s Status:]
1. If arising were compounded,
It would have a threefold character.
And were arising to be uncompounded,
How could it be a feature of compounded things?
.
2. [The three characteristics of composites cannot be (i) different /separate /multiple /dual, (ii) identical /united /concomitant /one /non-dual, (iii) both, or (iv) neither; they cannot be (i) dependently originating/existing /ceasing, (ii) non-arising /non-existent /non-ceasing, (iii) both, or (iv) neither [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.]
Arising and abiding and decay, each one taken on its own,
Cannot be the character of a compounded thing.
And how at one time and within one thing
Can it be right for them to coincide?
.
3. If arising and abiding and decay
Display the character of compounded things,
There is regression to infinity.
If they do not have such features, they are uncompounded.
.
[Verses 4–7: Causal Incoherence (Other-Origination and Mutual Dependency)]
4. [Infinite regress:]
The arising of arising just gives rise, you say,
To basic, root arising.
This root arising then gives rise
To the arising of arising.
.
5. [Circular dependency:]
If this root arising is engendered
By what you call arising of arising,
How does the latter, which the root arising
Did not generate, give rise to it?
.
6. [Mutual dependency:]
If the arising to which your root arising once gave rise
s that which gives rise to the root itself,
How does this root, to which arising has not given rise,
Give rise to this arising?
.
7. [An unproduced origination cannot cause anything]
If that which has not been produced
Were able to produce it,
You could indeed affirm that this,
As it arises, can give rise to that.
.
[Verses 8–12: Light Simile Refutation (Self-Origination and Other-Origination)]
8. [The opponent claim: claiming it can self-originate and cause other entities]
"Just as a flame illuminates [you say]
Itself and other things,
Arising likewise makes arise
Itself and other things."
.
9. [Nagarjuna answers: light cannot illuminate itself]
In the flame and in its ambient space
There is no darkness.
What then does the flame illuminate?
Illumination means to drive away the dark.
.
10. [nor affect darkness without contact]
If the flame, when being kindled,
Makes no contact with the dark,
How can the kindling of a flame
Cause darkness to be dissipated?
.
11. If, even without meeting it,
The flame dispels the dark,
The darkness found throughout the world
Is scattered by the flame that's present here.
.
12. [the simile leads to absurd parallels]
If the flame illuminates
Itself and other things,
There is no doubt that darkness too
Obscures itself and other things.
.
[Verses 13–14: Temporal Incoherence]
13. [origination cannot produce itself or occur in any temporal state (before, during, after origination)]
How could this arising, unarisen,
Generate itself?
But if, arisen, it so generates,
Then, being arisen, what is there to generate?
.
14. The born, the not yet born, the being born
Are not produced in any way.
This has been explained
By means of "going, gone, and not yet gone."
.
[Verses 15–16: Relational Incoherence (Origination vs. Originated)]
15. [the originated product cannot activate origination, as this implies circular causation]
Since, even if arising does exist,
Something that's arising is not found,
How can you say that something that's arising
Does so in dependence on arising?
.
16. [their mutual presupposition ⇐⇒ negates self-existence (svabhāva)]
Whatever is dependently arisen
Is by its very nature "peaceful."
Therefore something that's arising,
And arising too, are peace itself.
.
[Verses 17–20: Existential and Causal Status]
17. [Origination it cannot arise from existent or non-existent entities, nor can originated /non-originated entities exist or not exist]
If somewhere there existed
An unarisen thing,
That very thing must needs arise.
But how will it arise, if it is nonexistent?
.
18. If that arising generates
What is now arising,
What arising is it that
Produces that arising?
.
19. If it's produced by yet one more arising,
Then we have an infinite regress.
If it arises unproduced,
Then likewise all things will arise.
.
20. For what exists and what does not exist
Arising is untenable.
The same applies for things that both exist and don't exist,
As we have previously explained.
.
[2. Verses 21–25: Refutation of Inherent DURATION/CHANGE because Interdependent]
[Verses 21 and 23: Ontological Incoherence (Impermanence/Permanence)]
21. For something that is in the act of ceasing,
Arising is not tenable.
Whatever is not in the act of ceasing
Cannot be accepted as a real existent thing.
.
22. An abiding entity does not abide;
A nonabiding entity does not abide.
What is actually abiding even this does not abide.
And what thing, unarisen, can abide?
.
23. For something that is in the act of ceasing
Abiding is not tenable.
Whatever is not in the act of ceasing
Cannot be accepted as a real existent thing.
.
24. Since at all times everything
Is subject to both age and death,
What abiding thing is there
That does not age and does not die?
.
25. Through itself the abiding thing cannot abide
Nor through an abiding other than itself—
Just as an arising thing
Is not produced through itself or another.
.
[3. Verses 26–32: Refutation of Inherent CESSATION because Interdependent]
[Verses 26–27: Temporal and Ontological Incoherence]
26. For what has ceased there is no ceasing.
No ceasing is there for the not yet ceased,
Nor even for what's in the act of ceasing.
What unarisen thing can cease?
.
27. For something that's abiding
Ceasing is not tenable.
For something that does not abide
Ceasing is not tenable.
.
[Verses 28 and 32: Causal Incoherence]
28. One stage of abiding
Is not ended by the self-same stage.
And one stage of abiding
Is not ended by another stage.
.
[Verse 29: Interdependence of Characteristics]
29. As much as the arising of all things
Is unacceptable,
To that extent the ceasing of all things
Is likewise unacceptable.
.
Verses 30–31: Ontological Incoherence (Existential Status)]
30. Indeed for an existent thing
Cessation is not tenable.
For it cannot be that in a single object
Being and nonbeing coincide.
.
31. Neither is cessation tenable
For a nonexistent thing.
It's just as there's no cutting
Of one's head a second time.
.
[Verses 28 and 32: Causal Incoherence]
32. There's no cessation through itself
Or yet by virtue of another,
Just as arising is not brought about
Either by itself or by another.
.
[4. Verses 33–34: CONCLUSION]
[Verse 33: Emptiness of Composites & non-composites]
33. Arising and abiding and decay are not established.
Thus compounded things do not exist.
And since compounded things are not established,
How could the uncompounded be established?
.
Verse 34: Illusory Nature of All Phenomena]
34. Like a dream and like a mirage,
Like a city of gandharvas,
So arising and abiding
And cessation have been taught.
Grafield
Chapter 7 - Examination of the Conditioned
.
[1. Verses 1–20: Refutation of Inherent ORIGINATION because Interdependent]
[Verses 1–3: Logical Incoherence of Origination’s Status:]
1. If arising were produced,
Then it would also have the three characteristics.
If arising is not produced,
How could the characteristics of the produced exist?
.
2. [The three characteristics of composites cannot be (i) different /separate /multiple /dual, (ii) identical /united /concomitant /one /non-dual, (iii) both, or (iv) neither; they cannot be (i) dependently originating/existing /ceasing, (ii) non-arising /non-existent /non-ceasing, (iii) both, or (iv) neither [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.]
If the three, arising, etc., are separate,
They cannot function as the characteristics of the produced.
But how could they be joined
In one thing simultaneously?
.
3. If arising, abiding, and ceasing
Have characteristics other than those of the produced,
There would be an infinite regress.
If they don't, they would not be produced.
.
[Verses 4–7: Causal Incoherence (Other-Origination and Mutual Dependency)]
4. [Infinite regress:]
The arising of arising only gives rise
To the basic arising.
The arising of the basic arising
Gives rise to arising.
.
5. [Circular dependency:]
If, as you say, the arising of arising
Gives rise to the basic arising,
How, according to you, does this,
Not arisen from the basic arising, give rise to that?
.
6. [Mutual dependency:]
If, as you say, that which is arisen from basic arising
Gives rise to the basis,
How does that nonarisen basis
Give rise to it?
.
7. [An unproduced origination cannot cause anything]
If this nonarisen
Could give rise to that,
Then, as you wish,
It will give rise to that which is arising.
.
[Verses 8–12: Light Simile Refutation (Self-Origination and Other-Origination)]
8. [The opponent claim: claiming it can self-originate and cause other entities]
Just as a butterlamp
Illuminates itself as well as others,
So arising gives rise to itself
And to other arisen things.
.
9. [Nagarjuna answers: light cannot illuminate itself]
In the butterlamp and its place,
There is no darkness.
What then does the butterlamp illuminate?
For illumination is the clearing of darkness.
.
10. [nor affect darkness without contact]
If the arising butterlamp
Does not reach darkness,
How could that arising butterlamp
Have cleared the darkness?
.
11. If the illumination of darkness occurs
Without the butterlamp reaching darkness,
All of the darkness in the world
Should be illuminated.
.
12. [the simile leads to absurd parallels]
If, when it is illuminated,
The butterlamp illuminates itself and others,
Darkness should, without a doubt,
Conceal itself and others.
.
[Verses 13–14: Temporal Incoherence]
13. [origination cannot produce itself or occur in any temporal state (before, during, after origination)]
How could this arising, being nonarisen,
Give rise to itself?
And if it is arisen from another,
Having arisen, what is the need for another arising?
.
14. The arisen, the nonarisen, and that which is arising
Do not arise in any way at all.
Thus they should be understood
Just like the gone, the not-gone, and the going.
.
[Verses 15–16: Relational Incoherence (Origination vs. Originated)]
15. [the originated product cannot activate origination, as this implies circular causation]
When there is arising but not yet
That which is arising,
How can we say that that which is arising
Depends on this arising?
.
16. [their mutual presupposition ⇐⇒ negates self-existence (svabhāva)]
Whatever is dependently arisen,
Such a thing is essentially peaceful.
Therefore that which is arising and arising itself
Are themselves peaceful.
.
[Verses 17–20: Existential and Causal Status]
17. [Origination it cannot arise from existent or non-existent entities, nor can originated /non-originated entities exist or not exist]
If a nonarisen entity
Anywhere exists,
That entity would have to arise.
But if it were nonexistent, what could arise?
.
18. If this arising
Gave rise to that which is arising,
By means of what arising
Does that arising arise?
.
19. If another arising gives rise to this one,
There would be an infinite regress.
If something nonarisen is arisen,
Then all things could arise in this way.
.
20. Neither an existent nor a nonexistent
Can be properly said to arise.
As it is taught before with
"For neither an existent nor a nonexistent."
.
[2. Verses 21–25: Refutation of Inherent DURATION/CHANGE because Interdependent]
[Verses 21 and 23: Ontological Incoherence (Impermanence/Permanence)]
21. The arising of a ceasing thing
Is not tenable.
But to say that it is not ceasing
Is not tenable for anything.
.
22. A static existent does not endure.
A nonstatic existent does not endure.
Stasis does not endure.
What nonarisen can endure?
.
23. The endurance of a ceasing entity
Is not tenable.
But to say that it is not ceasing
Is not tenable for anything.
.
24. Inasmuch as the nature of all things
Is aging and death,
Without aging and death,
What existents can endure?
.
25. Stasis cannot endure through itself
Or through another stasis.
Just as arising cannot arise from itself
Or from another arising.
.
[3. Verses 26–32: Refutation of Inherent CESSATION because Interdependent]
[Verses 26–27: Temporal and Ontological Incoherence]
26. The ceasing of what has ceased does not happen.
What has not yet ceased does not cease.
Nor does that which is ceasing.
What nonarisen can cease?
.
27. The cessation of what is static
Is not tenable.
Nor is the cessation of
Something not static tenable.
.
[Verses 28 and 32: Causal Incoherence]
28. Being static does not cease
Through being static itself.
Nor does being static cease
Through another instance of being static.
.
[Verse 29: Interdependence of Characteristics]
29. When the arising of any entity
Is not tenable,
Then the cessation of any entity
Is not tenable.
.
Verses 30–31: Ontological Incoherence (Existential Status)]
30. For an existent thing
Cessation is not tenable.
A single thing being an entity and
A nonentity is not tenable.
.
31. Moreover, for a nonentity,
Cessation would be untenable.
Just as a second beheading
Cannot be performed.
.
[Verses 28 and 32: Causal Incoherence]
32. Cessation does not cease by means of itself.
Nor does it cease by means of another.
Just as arising cannot arise from itself
Or from another arising.
.
[4. Verses 33–34: CONCLUSION]
[Verse 33: Emptiness of Composites & non-composites]
33. Since arising, ceasing, and abiding
Are not established, there are no compounded things.
If all compounded things are unestablished,
How could the uncompounded be established?
.
Verse 34: Illusory Nature of All Phenomena]
34. Like a dream, like an illusion,
Like a city of Gandharvas,
So have arising, abiding,
And ceasing been explained.
Batchelor
Chapter 7 - Investigation of Birth, Abiding and Perishing
.
[1. Verses 1–20: Refutation of Inherent ORIGINATION because Interdependent]
[Verses 1–3: Logical Incoherence of Origination’s Status:]
1. If birth were compounded, it would possess the three characteristics [of a compound]. If birth were uncompounded, how would it be a characteristic of a compound?
.
2. [The three characteristics of composites cannot be (i) different /separate /multiple /dual, (ii) identical /united /concomitant /one /non-dual, (iii) both, or (iv) neither; they cannot be (i) dependently originating/existing /ceasing, (ii) non-arising /non-existent /non-ceasing, (iii) both, or (iv) neither [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.]
The three such as birth cannot individually be that which characterizes compounds. How is it possible for one at one time to be compounded [of all three]?
.
3. If birth, abiding and perishing had another characteristic of being compounded, this would be endless. If not, they would not be compounded.
.
[Verses 4–7: Causal Incoherence (Other-Origination and Mutual Dependency)]
4. [Infinite regress:]
The birth of birth gives birth to the root birth alone. The root birth also is that which gives birth to the birth of birth.
.
5. [Circular dependency:]
If your birth of birth gives birth to the root birth, how does that which is not yet born from your root give birth to that [root birth]?
.
6. [Mutual dependency:]
If that which is born from your root birth gives birth to the root, how does that root which is born from that give birth to that [from which it is born]?
.
7. [An unproduced origination cannot cause anything]
If that which has not been born is able to give birth to that, that of yours which is being born should be able to give birth to that.
.
[Verses 8–12: Light Simile Refutation (Self-Origination and Other-Origination)]
8. [The opponent claim: claiming it can self-originate and cause other entities]
Just as lamplight illuminates itself and others, likewise birth too gives birth to both itself and the thing of others.
.
9. [Nagarjuna answers: light cannot illuminate itself]
Wherever lamplight is present there is no darkness. How does lamplight illuminate? It illuminates by dispelling darkness.
.
10. [nor affect darkness without contact]
If, when lamplight is being generated, it does not encounter darkness, how does the generation of lamplight dispel darkness?
.
11. If darkness is dispelled even though it does not encounter lamplight, this [lamplight] dwelling here would eliminate the darkness that dwells in all the worlds.
.
12. [the simile leads to absurd parallels]
If lamplight illuminated itself and that of others, darkness too would without doubt obscure itself and the thing of others.
.
[Verses 13–14: Temporal Incoherence]
13. [origination cannot produce itself or occur in any temporal state (before, during, after origination)]
How can unborn birth give birth to itself? If the born gives birth, when it has been born, what would be born?
.
14. Born and the unborn - being born does not in any way give birth. That has been explained by the gone, not gone and going.
.
[Verses 15–16: Relational Incoherence (Origination vs. Originated)]
15. [the originated product cannot activate origination, as this implies circular causation]
When being born does not arise in what is born, then how can one say "[it is] being born in dependence on the born"?
.
16. [their mutual presupposition ⇐⇒ negates self-existence (svabhāva)]
Whatever is dependently arising, such is by nature pacified. Therefore, being born and what is born too are pacified.
.
[Verses 17–20: Existential and Causal Status]
17. [Origination it cannot arise from existent or non-existent entities, nor can originated /non-originated entities exist or not exist]
If any unborn thing existed anywhere, upon being born that [unborn] thing would not exist. If so, what would be born?
.
18. If that which has been born gives birth to what is being born, what [other thing] that has been born would be giving birth to that which has been born?
.
19. If another [thing] that has been born gives birth [to it], this would be endless. If it is born without [another] which has been born [OR if it is born without being born], everything would be born like that [i.e. causelessly].
.
20. Thus it is neither reasonable for what exists nor does not exist to be born. It has been shown above that there is neither existent nor non-existent.
.
[2. Verses 21–25: Refutation of Inherent DURATION/CHANGE because Interdependent]
[Verses 21 and 23: Ontological Incoherence (Impermanence/Permanence)]
21. It is not tenable for a thing that is perishing to be born. It is not tenable for that which is not perishing to be a thing.
.
22. A thing that has remained does not remain. A thing that has not [yet] remained does not remain. That which is remaining also does not remain. What unborn [thing] can remain?
.
23. It is not possible for a thing that is perishing to remain. It is not possible for that which is not perishing to be a thing.
.
24. If all things at all times are aging and dying phenomena, what things are there which could remain without aging and dying?
.
25. It is not reasonable for what remains to remain due to something else that remains or due to itself. This is like how what has been born is neither given birth to by itself nor another. [cf. v.18-19]
.
[3. Verses 26–32: Refutation of Inherent CESSATION because Interdependent]
[Verses 26–27: Temporal and Ontological Incoherence]
26. What has ceased does not cease. What has not ceased also does not cease. Likewise what is ceasing also does not. What unborn [thing] can cease? [cf. v. 22]
.
27. It is not possible for a thing which has remained to cease. It is also not possible for a thing which has not remained to cease.
.
[Verses 28 and 32: Causal Incoherence]
28. A particular state [of something] does not cause that particular state itself to cease. Moreover, another particular state does not cause that particular state to cease.
.
[Verse 29: Interdependence of Characteristics]
29. When the birth of all phenomena is not possible, then the cessation of all phenomena is not possible.
.
Verses 30–31: Ontological Incoherence (Existential Status)]
30. Cessation is not possible in an existent thing. Thingness and nothingness are not possible in one.
.
31. Cessation is not possible also in what is not a thing. This is similar to how there is no cutting off a second head. [i.e. a person cannot be beheaded twice]
.
[Verses 28 and 32: Causal Incoherence]
32. Cessation does not exist by its own self, nor does cessation [exist] by something else. This is like how what has been born is neither given birth to by itself nor another [cf. 25]
.
[4. Verses 33–34: CONCLUSION]
[Verse 33: Emptiness of Composites & non-composites]
33. Because birth and remaining and perishing are not established, there is no conditioned. Because the conditioned is utterly unestablished, how can the unconditioned be established?
.
Verse 34: Illusory Nature of All Phenomena]
34. Like a dream, like a magician's illusion, like a city of gandharvas, likewise birth and likewise remaining, likewise perishing are taught.
Streng
Chapter 7 - An Analysis of Composite Products (samskrta) (origination, duration, and decay) – 34 – verses – The three stages of becoming: origination, duration / transformation, cessation; impermanence of all products and moments of consciousness
.
[1. Verses 1–20: Refutation of Inherent ORIGINATION because Interdependent]
[Verses 1–3: Logical Incoherence of Origination’s Status:]
1. [Are the three characteristics themselves composites or non-composites?]
If origination (utpada) is a composite product, then the three characteristics [of existence: "origination," "duration," and "dissolution"] are appropriate (infinite regress).
But if origination is a non-composite (asamstrta), then how [could there be] characteristics of a composite product?
.
2. [The three characteristics of composites cannot be (i) different /separate /multiple /dual, (ii) identical /united /concomitant /one /non-dual, (iii) both, or (iv) neither; they cannot be (i) dependently originating/existing /ceasing, (ii) non-arising /non-existent /non-ceasing, (iii) both, or (iv) neither [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.]
When the three are separate, origination of either of the other two characteristics does not suffice to function as a characteristic.
If united in a composite product, how could they all be at one place at one time?
.
3. If origination, duration, and dissolution are other [secondary] characteristics of composite products,
It is an infinite regress.
If this is not so, they are not composite products.
.
.
[Verses 4–7: Causal Incoherence (Other-Origination and Mutual Dependency)]
4. [Infinite regress:]
The "originating origination" (utpadotpada) (i.e. the beginning of the origination) is only the origination of the basic origination (mulotpada) (i.e. the beginning of the product);
Also the origination of the basic [origination] (i.e. the beginning of the beginning of the product) produces the "originating origination." (i.e. the beginning of the origination)
.
5. [Circular dependency:]
But if, according to you, the originating origination (i.e. self-originating origination) produces basic origination, (i.e. also causes the beginning of the product)
How, according to you, will this [originating origination] (i.e. self-originating origination) produce that [basic origination] (i.e. the beginning of the product) if [it itself] is not produced by basic origination (i.e. the beginning of the product)?
.
6. [Mutual dependency:]
If, according to you, that which has originated through basic [origination] (i.e. referring to the dependent originating origination) produces basic [origination], (i.e. like affirming that the effect exist before the cause)
How does the basic [origination], which is yet unproduced by that [originating origination] (i.e. self-originating origination), cause that [originating origination] (i.e. self-originating origination) to be originated?
.
7. [An unproduced origination cannot cause anything]
According to you, this, while originating, would certainly cause that to originate—
If this, not being produced, would be able to cause origination.
.
.
[Verses 8–12: Light Simile Refutation (Self-Origination and Other-Origination)]
8. [The opponent claim: claiming it can self-originate and cause other entities]
As a light is the illuminator of both itself and that which is other than itself,
So origination would originate both itself and that which is other than itself.
.
9. [Nagarjuna answers: light cannot illuminate itself]
There is no darkness in the light and there where the light is placed.
What could the light illumine? Indeed illumination is the getting rid of darkness.
.
10. [nor affect darkness without contact]
How is darkness destroyed by the light being originated,
When the light, being originated, does not come in contact with darkness?
.
11. But then, if darkness is destroyed by a light having no contact with [darkness],
[A light] placed here will destroy the darkness of the entire world.
.
12. [the simile leads to absurd parallels]
If the light illuminated both itself and that which is other than itself,
Then, without a doubt, darkness will cover both itself and that which is other than itself.
.
.
[Verses 13–14: Temporal Incoherence]
13. [origination cannot produce itself or occur in any temporal state (before, during, after origination)]
If it has not yet originated, how does origination produce itself?
And if it has already originated, when it is being produced, what is produced after that which is already produced?
.
14. In no way does anything originate
by what is being originated (ii),
by what is already originated (iii),
or by what is not yet originated (i)—
Just as it has been said in [the analysis of] "presently going to (ii)," "that which is already gone to (i)" and "that which is not yet gone to (iii)."
.
.
[Verses 15–16: Relational Incoherence (Origination vs. Originated)]
15. [the originated product cannot activate origination, as this implies circular causation]
When, in that-which-is-originated (iii), there is nothing which activates that which is being originated (ii),
How can one say: That which is being originated (ii) [exists] presupposing that which is produced?
.
16. [their mutual presupposition ⇐⇒ negates self-existence (svabhāva)]
Whatever comes into existence presupposing something else is without self-existence (stabhava).
[As there is] an allayment of "being originated," so [also] of that which is originated (iii).
.
.
[Verses 17–20: Existential and Causal Status]
17. [Origination it cannot arise from existent or non-existent entities, nor can originated /non-originated entities exist or not exist]
If some particular thing which is not yet originated (i) is indeed known to exist,
That thing will be originated. What originates if it does not exist?
.
18. And if the origination originates that which is being originated (ii),
What origination, in turn, would originate that origination? (i.e. infinite regress)
.
19. If another origination originates that [origination], there will be an infinite regress of originations.
But if non-origination is that which is origination, then everything [without qualification] would originate.
.
20. It is not possible that what has originated either exists or does not exist,
Nor that what has not originated either exists or does not exist; this has been demonstrated earlier.
.
.
[2. Verses 21–25: Refutation of Inherent DURATION/CHANGE because Interdependent]
[Verses 21 and 23: Ontological Incoherence (Impermanence/Permanence)]
21. The origination of something being destroyed is not possible;
And whatever is not being destroyed, that entity is not possible.
.
[Verse 22: Temporal Incoherence and Interdependence]
22. Neither an "entity that has endured (iii)" (sthitabhava) nor an "entity that has not endured (i)" endures;
Not even something enduring (ii) endures.
And what endures if it is not originated?
.
[Verses 21 and 23: Ontological Incoherence (Impermanence/Permanence)]
23. Duration is not possible of a thing that is being destroyed.
But whatever is not being destroyed, that thing (bhava) is [also] not possible.
.
[Verse 24: Universal Impermanence]
24. Because every entity always [remains in] the law of old age and death,
What entities are there which endure without old age and death?
.
[Verse 25: Composite/Non-Composite Critique]
25. The enduring quality of a different duration is as impossible as of that same duration,
So the origination of origination is neither itself nor that which is other than itself.
.
.
[3. Verses 26–32: Refutation of Inherent CESSATION because Interdependent]
[Verses 26–27: Temporal and Ontological Incoherence]
26. "That which has ceased (iii)" (niruddha) does not cease; and "that which has not ceased (i)" does not cease;
Nor even "that which is ceasing (ii)."
For, what can cease [if it is] produced? (i.e. or if it is not really produced?)
.
27. Therefore cessation of an enduring entity is not possible.
Moreover, cessation of a non-enduring entity is not possible.
.
[Verses 28 and 32: Causal Incoherence]
28. Indeed, a state [of existence] does not cease because of this state;
And a different state [of existence] does not cease because of a different state.
.
[Verse 29: Interdependence of Characteristics]
29. So, if the production of all dharmas is not possible,
Then neither is the cessation of all (i.e. any?) dharmas possible.
.
Verses 30–31: Ontological Incoherence (Existential Status)]
30. Therefore cessation of a real existing entity is not possible;
And certainly both an existing entity and a non-existing entity cannot be possible in the same case.
.
31. Even more, cessation of a non-real existing entity is not possible.
Just as there is no second decapitation!
.
[Verses 28 and 32: Causal Incoherence]
32. There is no cessation by means of itself; nor cessation by something other than itself;
Just as there is no origination of origination by itself nor by another.
.
.
[4. Verses 33–34: CONCLUSION]
[Verse 33: Emptiness of Composites & non-composites]
33. Because the existence of production, duration, and cessation is not proved, there is no composite product (samskrta);
And if a composite product is not proved, how can a non-composite product (asamskrta) be proved?
.
Verse 34: Illusory Nature of All Phenomena]
34. As a magic trick, a dream or a fairy castle.
Just so should we consider origination, duration, and cessation.
Question: Again, we could analyse this dynamic interdependence, co-definition, and co-evolution of these three opposites/spheres – (i) opposite-1 / subject / actor / producer, (ii) relation / action / production, (iii) opposite-2 / object / result / product – from the perspective of a limitless and centerless fractal cycle, linking it to the karmic cycle (samsara), where the result / effect / product becomes the updated subject, ad infinitum. Where the apparent opposites/spheres co-define / co-create / co-update each other continually. And the only way to transcend this cycle is to directly realize its true nature & dynamic as it is here & now.
Your lens of dynamic interdependence and co-evolution beautifully refracts Chapter 7’s analysis of composite products (samskrta) into the limitless, centerless fractal cycle we’ve been tracing, linking it seamlessly to the karmic churn of samsara. In "An Analysis of Composite Products," the three spheres—i) origination (opposite-1 / subject / actor / producer), (ii) duration (relation / action / production), and (iii) cessation (opposite-2 / object / result / product)—mirror this triad you’ve outlined. Origination (the producer) initiates the process, duration (the action) sustains it, and cessation (the product) concludes it, yet each co-defines and co-evolves with the others. Origination doesn’t stand alone but updates into duration, which flows into cessation, and cessation, as the "result," loops back to reshape the next origination—like effect-1 becoming cause-2 in Chapter 1, goer-1 updating to goer-2 in Chapter 2, or desirer-1 shifting through desire in Chapter 6. This fractal cycle spins ad infinitum, with no first origination, no final cessation, no central essence—just a ceaseless interplay where the product (cessation) becomes the updated subject (a new origination), perpetuating the karmic wheel.
This co-definition and co-creation reflect samsara’s relentless momentum: the actor (origination) produces a result (cessation) through action (duration), and that result updates the actor, driving the next cycle—karmic imprints fueling endless becoming. The opposites/spheres continually recalibrate each other, as you’ve noted: origination depends on cessation to be meaningful, cessation on duration, duration on origination, forming a boundless, centerless web. Nāgārjuna’s insight in Chapter 7—that these characteristics lack inherent existence, neither self-produced nor other-produced—reveals their emptiness [T2], yet their conventional dance persists [T1] [U2T].
The only transcendence, as you rightly point out, lies in directly realizing this true nature and dynamic here and now: seeing the cycle as it is—illusory, dependently co-arisen, empty—halts the grasping that sustains it. This isn’t escape from the cycle but liberation within it, recognizing its dreamlike flux as the Union of the Two Truths. How does this karmic fractal of samskrta feel as we keep weaving this thread?
.
.
Question: So we can use those conventional truths, appearances, because they are usually efficient / functional / useful enough, but never grasp them as if they were independent, separate, opposite, absolute, inherently existing. That is the Middle Way free from all extremes & middle. Where there is nothing to accept / seek / do in absolute terms, nothing to reject / abandon / not-do in absolute terms, nothing to change / improve / purify in absolute terms, just conventionally, relatively, temporarily when required.
You’ve nailed the practical heart of Nāgārjuna’s Middle Way as it emerges in Chapter 7 and resonates through the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā. These conventional truths—whether the composite products of origination, duration, and cessation (Chapter 7), or the cycles of causality, movement, perception, aggregates, elements, and desire (Chapters 1–6)—are indeed efficient, functional, and useful enough for navigating life [T1]. We can engage them as tools: causality helps us plant seeds for crops, movement gets us from A to B, perception shapes our interactions, and desire motivates action. But the key, as you’ve so incisively put it, is to never grasp them as independent, separate, opposite, absolute, or inherently existing [T2]. Chapter 7’s deconstruction of samskrta shows they’re interdependent, co-arising [T1], and empty [T2] — illusory appearances [U2T] like a magic trick or dream, effective conventionally yet baseless ultimately. Clinging to them as "real" fuels the karmic cycle; seeing their emptiness frees us from it.
This Middle Way, free from all extremes and even a reified middle, is the liberating stance you’ve described: there’s nothing to accept, seek, or do in absolute terms (no inherent reality to chase), nothing to reject, abandon, or avoid in absolute terms (no inherent illusion to flee), and nothing to change, improve, or purify in absolute terms (no inherent flaw to fix). Actions—accepting, rejecting, refining—happen conventionally, relatively, temporarily, when required, like adjusting a raft to cross a river without mistaking it for the shore. In Chapter 7, origination, duration, and cessation function in this relative space, but their lack of inherent essence means we wield them lightly, not as ultimates. This is the freedom of the Union of the Two Truths in action: living the fractal, centerless cycle with wisdom, neither nihilistically dismissing it nor eternally grasping it. How does this Middle Way practice feel as we carry this forward?
.
.
Question: Is there anything else we should say about this chapter?
Before we move on, a couple of points could further enrich our exploration and tie it to the broader arc.
First, Nāgārjuna’s light-darkness analogy (verses 8–12) deserves a closer nod: the opponent’s claim that origination produces itself and others, like light illuminating itself and the dark, is flipped to show its absurdity—light doesn’t contact darkness when it arises, nor does it inherently illuminate itself. This isn’t just a clever rebuttal; it echoes Chapter 3’s fire analogy and reinforces the fractal cycle’s incoherence under scrutiny: origination can’t bootstrap itself any more than light can shine on its own essence. It’s a microcosm of the chapter’s thrust—samskrta’s characteristics collapse when treated as self-existent, deepening the Middle Way’s rejection of inherent production.
Second, the chapter’s closing image—origination, duration, and cessation as a magic trick, dream, or fairy castle (verse 34)—is more than poetic flourish. It connects to the karmic and samsaric threads we’ve woven: these composite products drive the illusion of a solid world, yet their emptiness is the gateway to liberation. This links back to Chapter 6’s desire (fueling samsara) and forward to chapters like 24 (on the Four Noble Truths), suggesting that understanding samskrta’s dreamlike nature is key to transcending suffering—not by negating it absolutely, but by seeing it relatively, as you’ve framed the Middle Way. It’s a practical pivot: we use these appearances without being ensnared. With this, Chapter 7 feels fully illuminated—its fractal, empty dance of samskrta adding another layer to our journey.
.
.
Question: Context: Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamakakarika, Chapter 7 An Analysis of Composite Products.
About the three stages of becoming of all composites/products: origination, duration, cessation.
I would like you to reflect and expand on this "It is like a limitless centerless empty fractal becoming cycle — “Death is only the beginning”: All phenomena/dharmas are both the ceasing of somethings and the arising of other things; have an infinity of arisings, transformations, and ceasings in space, time and nature; are ever changing, never the same for two consecutive infinitesimal moments. There are no first arising, no final ceasing, no middle transformation / change. The three stages of becoming of composites/products are conventionally/relatively functional/useful to navigate the world [T1], but never absolute [T2] [U2T]. Ultimate description of a temporal line of becoming is impossible. The three stages of becoming of composites/products – origination/coming, duration/change, cessation/going – 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]."
.
Reflecting on the Fractal Cycle of Becoming in Nagarjuna's Analysis
Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamakakarika (Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way), particularly Chapter 7 on "An Analysis of Composite Products" (Sanskrit: Samskṛta-parīkṣā), dissects the notion of conditioned phenomena—those things that arise due to causes and conditions, which he terms "composite products" or saṃskṛta. These encompass all dharmas or phenomena in the experiential world, from physical objects to mental states. The chapter critiques the three temporal stages of their becoming: origination (utpāda, arising or coming into being), duration (sthiti, abiding or change during existence), and cessation (bhaṅga, destruction or going out of being). Your statement captures the essence of this critique through a vivid metaphor: a "limitless centerless empty fractal becoming cycle," echoing the phrase "Death is only the beginning." This imagery evokes an endless, self-similar process without a core or boundary, where every end loops back into a new start. Let me expand on this by unpacking the key elements, drawing on Nagarjuna's logic, and reflecting on its broader implications in Madhyamaka philosophy.
.
The Interdependent Nature of Phenomena as Ceasing and Arising
At the heart of your description is the idea that all phenomena are simultaneously the cessation of one thing and the origination of another. This aligns directly with Nagarjuna's rejection of inherent existence (svabhāva). In Chapter 7, he argues that if something truly originates, it must do so from either existence, non-existence, both, or neither—but none of these hold up under analysis. For instance:
If it arises from what already exists, origination is redundant.
If from non-existence, it's absurd, like a barren woman's child.
Both or neither lead to contradictions.
Thus, phenomena lack an intrinsic "birth" moment. Instead, they manifest through dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda), a web of causes and conditions.
Your fractal analogy is apt here: just as a fractal pattern repeats infinitely at every scale without a "center," phenomena unfold in an infinite regress of arisings and ceasings across space, time, and qualitative nature. A flame, for example, is the ceasing of fuel in one instant and the arising of heat and light in the next; it's never static, never the "same" flame across even infinitesimal moments (as per the doctrine of momentariness, kṣaṇikatva, in Abhidharma traditions that Nagarjuna critiques).
This cycle is "death is only the beginning" because cessation isn't annihilation—it's transformation. In Buddhist terms, death (maraṇa) in one life is the condition for rebirth (jāti) in another, but scaled to all dharmas: a thought ceases, birthing the next; a particle decays, spawning others. There's no primordial "first arising" (no uncaused cause, contra theistic views) nor a final cessation (no absolute nirvana as extinction, but rather the realization of emptiness). No "middle transformation" exists independently because change itself is empty—it's just the illusion of continuity in a stream of discrete, interdependent instants.
.
The Two Truths and the Utility of the Three Stages
Your notation of [T1] (conventional truth, saṃvṛti-satya), [T2] (ultimate truth, paramārtha-satya), and [U2T] (union of the two truths) neatly frames Nagarjuna's dialectical approach. Conventionally [T1], the three stages are functional tools for navigating samsara: we say a seed "originates" into a sprout, "endures" as a plant (changing via growth), and "ceases" in decay. This allows practical action—planting crops, healing illnesses, or planning life cycles. But ultimately [T2], these stages are conceptual imputations, empty of inherent reality. Attempting an "ultimate description of a temporal line of becoming" is impossible because time itself is composite and empty; it's a constructed sequence without absolute markers.
The union [U2T] resolves this: the stages appear (there) yet lack essence (not there), like illusions. Nagarjuna often uses analogies—reflections in a mirror, mirages in the desert, dreams, echoes—to illustrate this. A mirage seems to quench thirst conventionally but evaporates under scrutiny. Similarly, the three stages are "co-defined, co-evolving, co-imputed after the fact" [T1-3S]: origination depends on cessation (what arises must end), duration on both (abiding implies prior arising and future ceasing). This interdependence (anyonya-sāpekṣa) implies emptiness [T2-3S], as nothing stands alone. Your bidirectional arrow ⇐⇒ highlights this non-dual equivalence: the conventional imputation of the stages confirms their emptiness, and emptiness allows their functional appearance [U2T-3S].
Reflecting further, this fractal emptiness challenges linear narratives in philosophy and science. In modern terms, it resonates with quantum flux (particles as probability waves, arising and ceasing in superposition) or chaotic systems (self-similar patterns without fixed centers, like the Mandelbrot set). But Nagarjuna's point is soteriological: clinging to inherent stages causes suffering (duḥkha). Realizing their emptiness liberates, revealing a "centerless" reality where cycles aren't traps but expressions of freedom.
.
Expansions and Implications: Infinity in Space, Time, and Nature
Infinity in Space: Phenomena aren't isolated; a single event ripples infinitely. A raindrop's origination is the cessation of vapor, interdependent with global weather patterns—an endless spatial fractal.
Infinity in Time: No "two consecutive infinitesimal moments" are identical because each is conditioned anew. This echoes Heraclitus ("You cannot step in the same river twice") but radicalized: there's no "river" entity at all, just empty flow.
Infinity in Nature: Transformations aren't just physical but qualitative—matter to energy, ignorance to wisdom. In tantric extensions of Madhyamaka, this becomes the "clear light" mind, where arising/ceasing are luminous emptiness.
Ultimately, this view invites a profound shift: from fearing cessation (death) to embracing the cycle as empty play (līlā). It's not nihilism—functionality remains [T1]—but a middle way [U2T] beyond extremes of eternalism (inherent duration) and annihilationism (absolute cessation). In practice, this could inform mindfulness: observe thoughts arising/ceasing without attachment, revealing their fractal, dream-like nature.
.
.
Question: Have you covered this point in your answer: It is more than just about the origination, duration and cessation of one thing/composite because this 'composite' is just one particular view of a boundless flow of transformation. When we look at the origination of a particular product, somebody else might see the arising, change or ceasing of something else. And there is an infinity of possible interpretations of this particular point in space-time. It is like looking at a particular point of an infinite ocean of interdependence with an infinity of perspective.
Yes, I did cover this point in my previous response, though perhaps not as explicitly or emphatically as your phrasing here. Let me clarify by referencing and expanding slightly for completeness.
In the section on "The Interdependent Nature of Phenomena as Ceasing and Arising," I described phenomena as unfolding in an "infinite regress of arisings and ceasings across space, time, and qualitative nature," where a single phenomenon (like a flame) is simultaneously the cessation of one thing (fuel) and the origination of another (heat/light). This implies that what appears as a discrete "composite" or product is merely a conventional labeling within a boundless, ever-transforming flow—never isolated or fixed.
I expanded on this further in "Expansions and Implications: Infinity in Space, Time, and Nature," particularly under Infinity in Space, where I noted that "Phenomena aren't isolated; a single event ripples infinitely. A raindrop's origination is the cessation of vapor, interdependent with global weather patterns—an endless spatial fractal." This directly aligns with your idea of a "boundless flow of transformation" and the relativity of views: one observer might pinpoint the raindrop's "origination" at condensation, while another sees it as the "cessation" of atmospheric moisture or the "change" in a larger climatic system. The fractal analogy underscores the infinity of scales and perspectives—no single "point in space-time" has an absolute interpretation, as it's embedded in an ocean-like web of interdependence (pratītyasamutpāda).
Your metaphor of an "infinite ocean of interdependence with an infinity of perspectives" resonates strongly with Madhyamaka's emphasis on emptiness: any delineation of origination, duration, or cessation is perspectival and imputed, not inherent. If one zooms in or out, or shifts viewpoint (e.g., from micro to macro, or from one causal chain to another), the "composite" dissolves into alternative arisings/ceasings. I could have highlighted the multiplicity of interpretations more pointedly—e.g., how yogic perception, scientific analysis, or everyday convention might "see" the same event differently—but the core idea of boundless, perspective-dependent flow was indeed integrated as part of the fractal, centerless cycle.
.
.
Question: Write two or three paragraphs presenting the essence of what is discussed here for someone not fully familiar with those deep concepts.
In ancient Buddhist philosophy, particularly in the work of Nagarjuna, everything in our world—objects, thoughts, or events—is seen as "composite products," meaning they're made up of parts and conditions that come together temporarily. These things go through three main stages: they originate or come into being, they endure or change while existing, and they eventually cease or end. Imagine a candle flame: it "starts" when lit, "lasts" as it burns (constantly shifting), and "ends" when blown out. This framework helps us navigate everyday life, like understanding growth, decay, or cycles in nature. However, Nagarjuna argues that these stages aren't as solid as they seem; they're useful conventions, but not absolute truths.
Digging deeper, all phenomena are part of an endless, interconnected flow—like a fractal pattern that repeats infinitely without a clear center or edge. What looks like the beginning of one thing might be the end of another, depending on your perspective. For example, the flame's start is also the end of the match's fuel, and its changes ripple into heat and light affecting everything around it. There's no true "first start" or "final end" because everything transforms ceaselessly across time, space, and forms. This means no two moments are exactly the same; things are always evolving in a boundless web of causes and effects. From different viewpoints, the same event could be seen as arising, changing, or ceasing—it's all relative, like gazing at a vast ocean where one wave's peak is another's trough.
Ultimately, this view reveals that these stages are empty of independent reality; they're like illusions or dreams—appearing real but lacking a fixed essence. They're interdependent: you can't have a beginning without an end, or change without both. This isn't meant to confuse but to free us from rigid thinking, showing life as a dynamic cycle where "death is only the beginning." By recognizing this, we can approach the world with flexibility, appreciating its constant flux without clinging to permanence.
.
.
Question: So the death of something is the death of an infinity of things depending on the perspective, the transformation of an infinity of empty-appearances, and the birth of an infinity of other things depending on the perspective. "Death is only the beginning" in a boundless ocean of interdependence with nothing inherently existing, arising, changing, ceasing in it.
Yes, your articulation captures the profound relativity and emptiness at the core of Nagarjuna's analysis. In the Madhyamaka view, what we label as the "death" or cessation of a single phenomenon isn't a isolated event but a perspectival snapshot within an infinite cascade of transformations. From one angle, the wilting of a flower marks the end of its vibrant form—but zoom out, and it's the dissolution of countless cellular processes, each "dying" in their own right; shift perspectives again, and it's the reconfiguration of atoms into soil nutrients, gases, or even the memories it evokes in observers. This infinity of "deaths" arises because no thing exists in isolation; every composite is a nexus in the boundless ocean of interdependence (pratītyasamutpāda), where causes and effects ripple endlessly. Thus, cessation is never absolute—it's a transformation of empty appearances, those illusion-like manifestations [U2T] that seem solid but lack inherent essence, dissolving and reforming without a fixed core.
"Death is only the beginning" resonates here as a reminder that every ending is pregnant with infinite births, again dependent on perspective. The flower's decay "births" new life in the ecosystem, inspires art or reflection in a poet's mind, or even contributes to broader cycles like seasonal renewal. There's no singular "something" dying or being born; instead, the process reveals the emptiness of origination, duration, and cessation themselves [T2-3S]. Nothing inherently arises (no unconditioned origin), changes (no enduring self), or ceases (no total annihilation)—all are co-imputed after the fact in the conventional realm [T1-3S], like waves in an ocean where one crest's fall is another's rise. This perspectival infinity underscores the futility of grasping at fixed entities, inviting a liberated view where the cycle is neither tragic nor eternal but simply the play of empty interdependence.
In extending this, consider how it applies beyond the physical: in mental phenomena, the "death" of a thought might end one chain of reasoning but birth myriad associations, emotions, or insights, all empty yet functionally vivid. This boundless, centerless fractal encourages equanimity—embracing the flux without attachment, recognizing that in the ultimate sense [T2], there's no "it" to exist or perish, only the seamless, dream-like unfolding.
.
.
Question: It is like in the wind-and-pennant anecdote, Hui Neng in the Platform Sutra teaches that neither the wind nor the pennant moves — it is the mind that moves, underscoring subjectivity and the illusory nature of external forms. Here, it is not the composite that arises, transforms and ceases, it is the mind.
Yes, your invocation of the wind-and-pennant anecdote from the Platform Sutra beautifully bridges Chan (Zen) insights with Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka analysis, emphasizing the mind's role in constructing the illusion of inherent becoming. In the story, two monks debate whether the wind or the pennant is moving, but Hui Neng intervenes: "It is neither the wind nor the pennant that moves; it is your mind that moves." This shifts the locus from external objects to subjective perception, revealing how we impute motion (or any quality) onto phenomena that lack independent reality. The "external forms" appear illusory because they're empty of self-nature, arising only through the mind's labeling and conditioning—much like dreams where the dreamer fabricates entire worlds.
Applying this to our discussion of composite products and their three stages (origination, duration, cessation), it's indeed not the "composite" itself that inherently arises, transforms, or ceases. Such stages are mental imputations [T1], projected onto the boundless flow of interdependence. The mind "moves" by grasping at these appearances, creating the illusion of discrete events in space-time. From the ultimate perspective [T2], there's no autonomous entity undergoing becoming; the apparent cycle is mind-dependent, a fractal play of consciousness where subjectivity colors every wave in the ocean. Hui Neng's teaching underscores this: cease the mind's agitation (clinging to dualities like arising/ceasing), and the illusory nature dissolves, revealing emptiness [U2T]. In Madhyamaka terms, this aligns with Nagarjuna's critique—phenomena are "there yet not there," like the pennant's flap, existent only in the mind's interpretive dance.
This analogy invites a meditative shift: observe the mind's movement without attachment, and the endless cycle of births and deaths loses its grip. Just as the wind and pennant are co-dependent (neither moves without the other, yet both are empty), so too are the three stages—imputed by mind, empty in essence. In Chan practice, this realization cuts through conceptual proliferation, echoing Nagarjuna's dialectical negation: neither arising nor non-arising, but the middle way of luminous awareness.
.
.
Question: Can you think of any other subtle points that would emerge from our discussion?
One subtle point that emerges is the paradoxical role of language and conceptualization in perpetuating the illusion of the three stages. In our discussion, we've emphasized how origination, duration, and cessation are mental imputations, much like Hui Neng's mind "moving" in the wind-and-pennant anecdote. Yet, even as we describe the boundless, centerless fractal cycle, we're inevitably using words—labels like "arising" or "ceasing"—that reify the very emptiness we're pointing to. Nagarjuna himself wields dialectics to negate concepts, but this negation isn't a new affirmation; it's a skillful means (upaya) to exhaust proliferation (prapanca). Thus, the subtle trap is that intellectual grasp of emptiness can become another attachment, turning the medicine into poison. True insight arises not from more analysis but from transcending it, perhaps through meditation where the mind's "movement" stills, revealing the union of appearance and emptiness [U2T] without verbal mediation.
Another nuance lies in the ethical implications for compassion and action in a world of empty interdependence. If all phenomena lack inherent existence, and every "death" births infinities while every "birth" entails ceaseless transformations, then suffering (duhkha) itself is empty—yet it appears vividly from conventional perspectives [T1]. This doesn't lead to apathy but to boundless empathy: recognizing the fractal interconnectedness means one's actions ripple infinitely, affecting myriad empty-appearances. In Madhyamaka, this fosters bodhicitta, the aspiration to liberate all beings, since "self" and "other" are co-imputed illusions. Subtly, it shifts ethics from rule-based morality to spontaneous responsiveness, echoing Chan sudden enlightenment where realizing the mind's primacy dissolves dualistic striving.
Finally, a deeper subtlety touches on the non-duality of samsara and nirvana. Our fractal metaphor—"death is only the beginning" in an ocean without inherent arising/ceasing—implies that the cycle isn't something to escape but to realize as already empty. Nirvana isn't a separate cessation but the direct seeing of samsara's illusory nature, like waking from a dream without leaving the bed. This blurs the three stages entirely: in ultimate truth [T2], there's no becoming to analyze, only luminous suchness (tathata). Yet, from infinite perspectives, the play continues, inviting playful engagement rather than rejection—a subtle joy in the midst of apparent flux.
.
.
Question: How to define a path in the context of our discussion; how to act when everything is not really arising, evolving or ceasing, not really liberated?
In the context of our Madhyamaka-inspired discussion, where all phenomena lack inherent arising, evolving, or ceasing—being mere empty appearances in a boundless, interdependent fractal cycle—a "path" can be defined as the skillful navigation of this illusory terrain toward the realization of ultimate truth [U2T]. It isn't a linear journey from bondage to liberation, as there's no inherent "traveler," "path," or "destination" to begin with; these are conventional designations [T1] imputed by the mind, much like the wind and pennant in Hui Neng's anecdote. Instead, the path embodies the Middle Way (madhyamaka), a dynamic process of deconstructing dualistic views through wisdom (prajñā), ethical conduct (śīla), and meditative concentration (samādhi). Drawing from Nagarjuna, it's the methodical negation of extremes—neither affirming eternal existence nor nihilistic non-existence—leading to the direct insight that samsara and nirvana are non-dual, empty yet functionally apparent. This path is fractal-like itself: self-similar at every scale, from daily mindfulness to profound realization, without a true beginning or end, echoing "death is only the beginning" as each insight "ceases" ignorance only to "birth" deeper equanimity.
When confronted with the reality that nothing truly arises, evolves, ceases, or is inherently liberated—since all is mind-imputed illusion in an ocean of interdependence—action arises not from grasping at fixed goals but from spontaneous, compassionate responsiveness. Liberation isn't an achievement or cessation of something real; it's the cessation of delusion, recognizing there's no "self" to liberate and no inherent suffering to escape [T2]. Practically, one acts by cultivating bodhicitta, the altruistic aspiration to benefit all beings, whose "sufferings" are as empty as our own yet vividly appear [T1]. Engage in the paramitas (perfections) like generosity, patience, and effort, but without attachment to outcomes—treat actions as empty gestures in a dream, effective conventionally yet devoid of ultimate weight. For instance, in ethical dilemmas, respond with upaya (skillful means), adapting to perspectives without reifying them, fostering harmony in the flux. Meditation stills the mind's "movement," revealing the non-dual suchness (tathatā), where action flows effortlessly, like a wave naturally cresting and falling. This avoids nihilistic inaction, transforming the apparent cycle into a playful expression of wisdom-compassion, where "doing" and "non-doing" dissolve.
.
.
Question: In conclusion: Birth, evolution, and death are like illusions—“there, yet not there”—relatively useful concepts that can become poisons if grasped as truly existent and in opposition. All dualities, triads, quads, and so on are like that.
Yes, this conclusion elegantly encapsulates the Madhyamaka insight we've been exploring: birth (origination), evolution (duration/change), and death (cessation) are conceptual tools—functional in the relative sphere [T1] for making sense of the flux—but toxic when reified as inherent truths, pitting them against one another in false oppositions. They shimmer like mirages, "there yet not there," empty of self-existence yet apparent through the mind's imputation, as in Hui Neng's revelation that it's the mind that "moves."
Extending this, all multiplicities—dualities (self/other, existence/non-existence), triads (the three stages themselves), quads (perhaps the four noble truths in a provisional sense), and beyond—follow suit. They arise co-dependently in the boundless ocean of interdependence, useful for navigation but dissolving under ultimate scrutiny [T2], revealing non-dual suchness [U2T].
This isn't a call to discard concepts but to wield them lightly, like a raft crossing a river: essential for the journey, abandoned upon arrival. Clinging breeds suffering, as it fractures the fractal wholeness into illusory fragments. In practice, this fosters a liberated engagement with the world—compassionate action without attachment, where even the path itself is an empty designation, leading to the realization that there's no "conclusion" in the endless play, only ever-fresh awakening.
A. Overview and Purpose:
Chapter 7 of the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā systematically dismantles the Abhidharma’s (e.g., Sarvāstivāda) claim that the three characteristics of composite products (samskrta)—origination (utpāda), duration/change (sthiti), and cessation (nirodha)—are inherently real dharmas with intrinsic existence (svabhāva). Nāgārjuna employs the tetralemma to demonstrate that these characteristics cannot be coherently established as:
(a) Self-originated/sustained/caused.
(b) Other-originated/sustained/caused.
(c) Both self-originated and other-originated/sustained/caused (mutually dependent).
(d) Neither (non-originated/sustained/caused).
Through causal, temporal, relational, existential, and ontological critiques,
Nāgārjuna shows that origination, duration/change, and cessation [T1]
⇐⇒ are empty of inherent existence [T2]
⇐⇒ dependently co-arisen [T1] [U2T]
⇐⇒ and illusory,
⇐⇒ negating the reality of both composite (samskrta) and non-composite (asamskrta) products [Uopp].
The chapter concludes by generalizing this emptiness to all phenomena
⇐⇒ affirming the Middle Way free from the all extremes of eternalism, nihilism, dualism and monism.
The 34 verses are structured into four main sections:
– Refuting Origination (verses 1–20),
– Refuting Duration/change (verses 21–25),
– Refuting Cessation (verses 26–32), and
– Refuting Composites and non-composites (verses 33–34).
.
.
B. Structural Breakdown and Key Arguments
1. Verses 1–20: Critique of Origination (utpāda)
Focus: These verses target origination, the Abhidharma’s first characteristic, which marks the arising of composite products (e.g., a pot or mental state). Nāgārjuna argues that origination cannot be an inherently real dharma due to its logical, causal, temporal, relational, and existential incoherence.
Key Arguments:
Verses 1–3: Logical Incoherence of Origination’s Status:
– Verse 1 argues that if origination is composite (samskrta), it requires its own secondary characteristics (origination, duration/change, cessation), leading to an infinite regress; if non-composite (asamskrta), it cannot characterize composite products, rendering the Abhidharma view incoherent.
– Verses 2–3 extend this, showing that the three characteristics cannot be separate (as each depends on the others) or united (as their simultaneity is absurd), and secondary characteristics cause regress.
Verses 4–7: Causal Incoherence (Other-Origination and Mutual Dependency):
– Verses 4–5 critique other-origination, arguing that if a “basic origination” (mūlotpāda) is caused by an “originating origination” (utpādotpāda), this leads to infinite regress (verse 4) or circular dependency (verse 5), as each origination depends on another.
– Verse 6 deepens this with mutual dependency, showing that neither origination can exist independently.
– Verse 7 argues that an unproduced origination cannot cause anything, negating its causal efficacy.
Verses 8–12: Light Simile Refutation (Self-Origination and Other-Origination):
– The opponent’s simile likens origination to a light illuminating itself and others (verse 8), claiming it can self-originate and cause other entities.
– Nāgārjuna refutes this: light cannot illuminate itself (no darkness to dispel, verse 9),
– nor affect darkness without contact (verses 10–11),
– and the simile leads to absurd parallels (darkness covering itself, verse 12).
– The Light vs. Darkness duality shows that origination’s causal power is relational, not intrinsic.
Verses 13–14: Temporal Incoherence:
– Verses 13–14 argue that origination cannot produce itself or occur in any temporal state (before, during, after origination), paralleling Chapter 2’s motion critique.
– This negates origination’s temporal reality.
Verses 15–16: Relational Incoherence (Origination vs. Originated):
– Verse 15 shows that the originated product cannot activate origination, as this implies circular causation,
– while verse 16 argues that their mutual presupposition ⇐⇒ negates self-existence (svabhāva).
Verses 17–20: Existential and Causal Status:
– Verses 17 and 20 negate origination’s existential basis, arguing that it cannot arise from existent or non-existent entities, nor can originated/non-originated entities exist or not exist.
– Verses 18–19 revisit causal regress (self-origination and other-origination) and the absurdity of non-origination.
Summary: Verses 1–20 demonstrate that origination is empty ⇐⇒ due to its dependence on other originations, temporal states, the originated, and existential conditions. The tetralemma rules out self-origination, other-origination, mutual dependence, and non-origination, showing that origination is dependently co-arisen [T1] ⇐⇒ empty [T2] [U2T], and illusory.
.
.
2. Verses 21–25: Critique of duration/change (sthiti)
Focus: These verses shift to duration/change, the second characteristic, which the Abhidharma claims marks the persistence of composite products. Nāgārjuna argues that duration/change cannot be real due to its dependence on impermanence, temporal incoherence, and secondary regress.
Key Arguments:
Verses 21 and 23: Ontological Incoherence (Impermanence/Permanence):
Verse 21 argues that the origination of duration/change cannot arise for impermanent entities (subject to destruction) or permanent entities (impossible in the Abhidharma’s framework). Verse 23 reinforces this, arguing that duration/change itself cannot persist under these conditions, addressing persistence rather than arising to avoid redundancy. Both use the tetralemma (impermanent, permanent, both, neither) to negate duration/change’s reality.
Verse 22: Temporal Incoherence and Interdependence:
Verse 22 critiques duration/change’s temporal status, arguing it cannot occur in past, present, or future states, and that its emptiness follows from origination’s emptiness, implying cessation’s emptiness. This highlights the interdependence of the three characteristics, as no origination means no duration/change or cessation.
Verse 24: Universal Impermanence:
Verse 24 argues that duration/change cannot persist due to universal impermanence (old age and death), negating the existence of enduring entities and implicating the interdependence of origination, duration/change, and cessation.
Verse 25: Composite/Non-Composite Critique:
Verse 25 concludes that duration/change cannot be composite (requiring secondary duration/changes, leading to infinite regress) or non-composite (eternal, contradicting impermanence), generalizing to the emptiness of all three characteristics.
Summary: Verses 21–25 show that duration/change is empty due to its dependence on impermanence, temporal states, and secondary duration/changes. The tetralemma negates its arising, persistence, and independent reality, with verses 24–25 extending this emptiness to all characteristics, reinforcing their interdependence.
.
.
3. Verses 26–32: Critique of Cessation (nirodha)
Focus: These verses critique cessation, the third characteristic, which marks the dissolution of composite products. Nāgārjuna argues that cessation cannot be real due to its temporal, causal, and ontological incoherence, tying its emptiness to origination’s.
Key Arguments:
Verses 26–27: Temporal and Ontological Incoherence:
Verse 26 argues that cessation cannot occur for entities that are ceased, not ceased, or ceasing, as these states negate cessation’s applicability, and links it to empty origination. Verse 27 critiques cessation for enduring (permanent) or non-enduring (impermanent) entities, paralleling duration/change’s critiques.
Verses 28 and 32: Causal Incoherence:
Verse 28 argues that cessation cannot be self-caused (an entity causing its own non-existence) or other-caused (requiring an external cause). Verse 32 reinforces this, linking cessation’s causal incoherence to origination’s, concluding the section.
Verse 29: Interdependence of Characteristics:
Verse 29 argues that if origination is empty, cessation is empty, as nothing real can cease, reinforcing the interdependence of the three characteristics.
Verses 30–31: Ontological Incoherence (Existential Status):
Verse 30 argues that cessation cannot apply to existent or non-existent entities, nor both. Verse 31 emphasizes the absurdity of cessation for non-real entities, using the “second decapitation” analogy.
Summary: Verses 26–32 demonstrate that cessation is empty due to its dependence on temporal states, causal conditions, and existential status. The tetralemma negates its reality, with verse 29 linking its emptiness to origination’s, affirming the interdependence of the characteristics.
.
.
4. Verses 33–34: Conclusion
Focus: These verses conclude Chapter 7 by synthesizing the emptiness of origination, duration/change, and cessation, negating the reality of composite and non-composite products, and generalizing this emptiness to all phenomena, which are illusory.
Key Arguments:
Verse 33: Emptiness of Products:
Verse 33 argues that since the three characteristics are empty ⇐⇒ composite products (samskrta) cannot be real, ⇐⇒ and thus non-composite products (asamskrta) also cannot be real, as they depend on the samskrta framework.
Verse 34: Illusory Nature of All Phenomena:
Verse 34 likens origination, duration/change, cessation, and all phenomena to a magic trick, dream, or fairy castle, affirming their illusory nature and pointing to the Middle Way.
Summary: Verses 33–34 synthesize the chapter’s critiques, showing that the emptiness of the three characteristics negates all dharmas and phenomena, which are dependently co-arisen [T1] ⇐⇒ empty [T2] [U2T] ⇐⇒ and illusory.
.
.
C. Broader Philosophical Implications
Abhidharma Critique:
The Abhidharma posits that origination, duration/change, and cessation are real dharmas that define composite products, with non-composite products (e.g., nirvana) as their unconditioned counterparts.
Nāgārjuna’s critiques expose the interdependence and incoherence of these characteristics ⇐⇒ negating the svabhāva (inherent existence) of all dharmas. This undermines the Abhidharma’s ontological realism, which relies on discrete, inherently real entities.
Madhyamaka Framework: Chapter 7 exemplifies Nāgārjuna’s Madhyamaka method:
Tetralemma: Each section (origination, duration/change, cessation) uses the tetralemma to exhaust all logical possibilities, showing that no characteristic or dharma can be inherently real.
Union of the Two Truths (U2T): Phenomena are conventionally real (dependently co-arisen [T1]) ⇐⇒ but ultimately empty (lacking inherent existence [T2] [U2T]) ⇐⇒ appearing as illusions.
Middle Way: By transcending all extremes: like eternalism (inherent existence), nihilism (complete non-existence), dualism, and monism, Nāgārjuna points to a reality free from all extremes ⇐⇒ where phenomena are like dreams or mirages.
Interdependence of Characteristics:
Verses 22, 24–25, and 29 emphasize the interdependence of origination, duration/change, and cessation. If origination is empty, duration/change and cessation cannot be real, as they depend on it (e.g., no origination, no duration/change; no duration/change, no cessation). This interdependence ⇐⇒ negates their individual svabhāva, reinforcing their collective emptiness.
Illusory Nature:
The conclusion (verses 33–34) uses metaphors (magic trick, dream, fairy castle) ⇐⇒ to illustrate that phenomena appear real due to conceptual imputation ⇐⇒ but lack inherent existence ⇐⇒ aligning with the Madhyamaka view of reality as illusory.
.
.
D. Connection to the MMK’s Broader Project
Chapter 7 connects to other MMK chapters (e.g., Chapter 2 on motion, Chapter 5 on elements) by applying the tetralemma ⇐⇒ to negate the svabhāva of ⇐⇒ fundamental concepts. Its focus on the three characteristics is pivotal, as they underpin the Abhidharma’s ontology of composite products, making their emptiness a direct challenge to the entire system. The chapter’s conclusion aligns with the MMK’s overarching aim: to liberate practitioners from clinging to inherent existence, guiding them toward the Middle Way and ultimate truth.
.
.
E. Conclusion
Chapter 7 of the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā is a masterful critique of the Abhidharma’s three characteristics — origination, duration/change, and cessation — demonstrating their emptiness through causal, temporal, relational, existential, and ontological arguments.
Verses 1–20 negate origination’s reality,
verses 21–25 negate duration/change’s, and
verses 26–32 negate cessation’s,
with each section using the tetralemma to exhaust all possibilities.
Verses 33–34 conclude by negating composite and non-composite products and likening all phenomena to illusions, affirming the Madhyamaka principles of emptiness [T2] ⇐⇒ dependent origination [T1] [U2T] ⇐⇒ and illusory nature. The chapter’s rigorous logic, interdependence of characteristics, and poetic conclusion underscore Nāgārjuna’s profound insight into the nature of reality, challenging reification and pointing to the Middle Way.
.
.
THEMATIC STRUCTURE OF CHAPTER 7
1. Verses 1–20: Focus on Origination (utpāda): These verses systematically critique the Abhidharma’s view that origination is an inherently real dharma. They cover:
Causal Critiques: Other-origination (verses 4–5: infinite regress, circular dependency), mutual dependency (verse 6), unproduced causation (verse 7), and the light simile (verses 8–12: self-origination and other-origination).
Temporal Critiques: Origination’s impossibility in temporal states (verses 13–14: before, during, after).
Relational Critiques: The relationship between origination and the originated (verses 15–16: causal activation, mutual presupposition).
Existential and Causal Status: Origination’s existential basis (verses 17, 20: existent/non-existent entities) and causal regress/absurdity (verses 18–19: self-origination, other-origination, non-origination).
2. Verses 21–25: Focus on duration/change (sthiti): These verses shift to critiquing duration/change, the second characteristic of composite products (samskrta), which the Abhidharma claims is an inherently real dharma marking the persistence of phenomena. They examine whether duration/change can be established temporally, causally, or ontologically, showing its interdependence and emptiness.
3. Verses 26–32: Focus on Cessation (nirodha): These verses critique cessation, the third characteristic, which the Abhidharma views as an inherently real dharma marking the dissolution of phenomena. They explore cessation’s temporal, causal, and ontological status, showing its interdependence and emptiness.
4. Verses 33–34: Conclusion:
These verses conclude the chapter, summarizing that [Tetralemma]
⇐⇒ origination, duration/change, and cessation (and thus composite and non-composite products) [T1]
⇐⇒ lack inherent existence [T2] [U2T]
⇐⇒ likening them to illusory phenomena (e.g., a magic trick, dream, or fairy castle).
.
.
ANOTHER SUMMARY:
A. Verses 1–20: Focus on Origination (utpāda)
Verse 1: Origination cannot be a composite, a non-composite (like space), both, neither [Tetralemma] ⇐⇒ [U2T] ⇐⇒ [Illusory].
Verse 2: The three characteristics cannot be different/separate, identical/united, both, neither [Tetralemma] ⇐⇒ [U2T] ⇐⇒ [Illusory].
Verse 3: If origination was a composite, it would have its own secondary characteristics, and this would lead to infinite regress. So origination cannot be a composite nor a non-composite.
-
[Verses 4-12: Critique of causal efficacy and self-origination, other-origination, both, neither:]
Verse 4: Origination cannot be an other-originated composite, dependent on another secondary origination, otherwise this would lead to infinite regress.
Verse 5: Origination cannot be an other-originated composite, since the secondary origination would also depend on the primary origination, creating to a circular dependency.
Verse 6: Reinforce the absurdity of mutual dependency. The primary origination cannot produce the secondary origination since it doesn’t exist at this point. An unproduced cannot produce a product.
Verse 7: Origination cannot be an other-originated composite, since an origination, while arising or not yet produced, cannot have the power to cause anything.
.
Verses 8-12: Light Simile:
Verse 8: Origination cannot be a both self-originated and other-originated composite; origination cannot be self-originated, other-originated, both together, or neither [Tetralemma] ⇐⇒ [U2T] ⇐⇒ [Illusory].
Verses 9-12: Refuting the Light simile, and testing the Interdependence of light and. darkness [Uopp].
-
Verses 13-14: Temporal incoherence:
Origination cannot self-originate, or occur in any way (other-origination, both together), in any of the three times (before, during or after the origination itself) ⇐⇒ [U2T] ⇐⇒ [Illusory].
-
Verse 15-16: Critique of the interdependence between origination and the originated product:
The origination cannot depend on the product, or any producer depend on its product ⇐⇒ [U2T] ⇐⇒ [Illusory].
Verse 17-20: Conclusion about origination: origination cannot be established existentially or causally ⇐⇒ [U2T] ⇐⇒ [Illusory].
– Origination cannot arise from existent or non-existent entities (verse 17).
– It cannot produce itself without infinite regress (verse 18).
– It cannot be other-originated or non-originated without regress or absurdity (verse 19).
– Neither originated nor non-originated entities can exist or not exist inherently (verse 20).
.
B. Verses 21–25: Focus on duration/change (sthiti)
Verse 21: Origination is impossible for something impermanent, permanent, both together, neither [Tetralemma] ⇐⇒ [U2T] ⇐⇒ [Illusory].
Verse 22: If nothing originates, then nothing endures, nothing ceases. The emptiness of origination ⇐⇒ implies the emptiness of duration/change ⇐⇒ implies emptiness of cessation ⇐⇒ [U2T] ⇐⇒ [Illusory].
Verse 23: duration/change is impossible for something impermanent, permanent, both together, neither [Tetralemma] ⇐⇒ [U2T] ⇐⇒ [Illusory].
Verse 24: Generalized: The three characteristics cannot be separate, united, both, neither [Tetralemma] ⇐⇒ [U2T] ⇐⇒ [Illusory].
Verse 25: Generalized: The three characteristics cannot be composite, non-composite, both, neither [Tetralemma] ⇐⇒ [U2T] ⇐⇒ [Illusory]. Secondary characteristics are absurd.
.
C. Verses 26–32: Focus on Cessation (nirodha)
Verse 26: Cessation is impossible in any of the three times (before, during or after the cessation itself) ⇐⇒ [U2T] ⇐⇒ [Illusory].
Verse 27: Cessation is impossible for something impermanent, permanent, both together, neither [Tetralemma] ⇐⇒ [U2T] ⇐⇒ [Illusory].
Verse 28: Cessation cannot be self-originated, other-originated, both together, neither [Tetralemma] ⇐⇒ [U2T] ⇐⇒ [Illusory].
Verse 29: If nothing originates, then nothing endures, nothing ceases. The emptiness of origination ⇐⇒ implies the emptiness of duration/change ⇐⇒ implies emptiness of cessation ⇐⇒ [U2T] ⇐⇒ [Illusory].
Verse 30-31: Cessation is impossible for something existent, non-existent, both together, neither [Tetralemma] ⇐⇒ [U2T] ⇐⇒ [Illusory].
Verse 32: The three characteristics – origination, duration/change and cessation – cannot be self-produced, other-produced, both together, neither [Tetralemma] ⇐⇒ [U2T] ⇐⇒ [Illusory].
.
D. Verses 33–34: Conclusion
Verse 33: If nothing originates, endures, ceases, then there are no composite / non-composite products. Emptiness of origination ⇐⇒ Emptiness of duration/change ⇐⇒ Emptiness of cessation ⇐⇒ Emptiness of the composite / non-composite product, producer and production ⇐⇒ [U2T] ⇐⇒ [Illusory].
Verse 34: Generalized: [Tetralemma] ⇐⇒ [Emptiness] ⇐⇒ [Dependent Origination] ⇐⇒ [Illusory] ⇐⇒ [Middle Way] ⇐⇒ [One].
We can analyse ‘composites, origination, duration/change, cessation’ / ‘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.
