Mūlamadhyamakakārikā
"Root Verses on the Middle Way" by Nagarjuna
Chapter 9 - No pre-existent reality/continuum (purva),
or permanent/continuous individual /actor /perceiver /producer /acquirer /owner.
There is no continuity nor discontinuity of anything before, during, after the activity,
or through rebirths and liberation [U2T-3S].
Chapter 9 – No pre-existent reality/continuum (purva), or permanent/continuous individual /actor /perceiver /producer /acquirer /owner. There is no continuity nor discontinuity of anything before, during, after the activity, or through rebirths and liberation [U2T-3S].
This chapter refutes independent/inherent/absolute
pre-existing/continuous actor/perceiver /producer /acquirer/owner or continuum/purva
because the three spheres of action/perception /acquisition/ownership –
(i) subject /actor/perceiver /acquirer/owner or continuum/purva,
(ii) relation /action/perception /production /acquiring/owning and
(iii) object /result/perceived /product/acquired /possessions/5-aggregates
(updated actor/perceiver /producer/acquirer /owner/5-aggregates, rebirth)
(or the actor/perceiver/acquirer before, during and after the action, perception, acquisition, ownership, rebirth) –
cannot be inherently
(i) dependently-arisen /existent /functional /changing /ceasing,
(ii) non-dependently-arisen /non-existent /non-functional /non-changing /non-ceasing,
(iii) both, or (iv) neither;
cannot be inherently
(i) different /separate /multiple /dual,
(ii) identical /united /one /non-dual,
(iii) both, or (iv) neither;
cannot be inherently
(i) permanent /continuous /eternal /’this’,
(ii) impermanent /discontinuous /annihilated /’non-this’,
(iii) both, or (iv) neither; etc. [Tetralemma]
⇐⇒ thus the three spheres are empty of inherent existence, never absolute [T2-3S]
⇐⇒ they are inseparable, dependently co-arisen, interdependent, co-defined, co-evolving, co-imputed by the mind, mere designations/names, conventional truths/tools [T1-3S]
⇐⇒ and vice versa, one truth supports/implies/enables the other [U2T-3S]
⇐⇒ they are like illusions, reflections, mirages, dreams, echos, ‘there, yet not there’ [Illusory]
⇐⇒ so we could use these models /concepts /dualities /triads / quads, like subject/relation/object, actor/action/result, cause/causality/effect, producer/production/product, goer/going/destination, perceiver/perception/perceived, knower/knowing/known, part/composing/aggregate, characteristic/characterising/characterized, definition/defining/defined, origination/duration/cessation, owner/ownership/possession, acquirer/acquiring/acquired, before/during/after, past/present/future, and other dualities/triads/quads, including the two truths, conventionally/relatively, but never in absolute terms [U2T-in-action], using them without apprehending /opposing /unifying /accepting /rejecting /changing /increasing /decreasing /liberating anything in absolute terms.
There are no inherent subject/actor/perceiver /acquirer/owner because all subjects/actors/perceivers /acquirers/owners have their own subject/actor/perceiver /acquirer/owner, because they are also object /result/perceived /acquired/possessions /5-aggregates, because they are dependently co-arisen in a limitless and centerless cycle. The same for the object /result/perceived /acquired/possessions /5-aggregates.
.
Last update: January 02, 2026
Image from: Stoneflower013
Source Text: Garfield, PTG, Streng, Batchelor.
A. Introduction
B. Analysis
C. Verses
D. Questions and Answers
E. Summary
F. Conclusion
"Is there a continuous self or continuum of dharmas (called pre-existent entity, purva), serving as the continuous owner of the five aggregates despite their changes, the continuous perceiver of the world, the continuous producer of karma and receiver of its consequences, the continuous goer through rebirths in saṃsāra driven by accumulated karma, the continuous follower of the Noble Path, and the one ultimately liberated in nirvāṇa, or is this entity an interdependent, illusory construct within the karmic cycle, transcended by realizing its empty, non-dual nature? Is there anything we can safely identify with?"
.
The Abhidharma (e.g., Sarvāstivāda, Theravāda) provides a systematic ontology and phenomenology of reality, analyzing phenomena (dharmas) to understand the nature of existence, karma, and liberation. Chapter 9 engages with the Abhidharma’s concept of a pre-existent reality (purva), often interpreted as an enduring self (ātman) or entity that serves as the substratum for sensory and mental faculties (e.g., seeing, hearing, sensation).
Below are the key Abhidharma concepts relevant to understanding this chapter:
.
1) Pre-existent Reality (Purva) and the Self (Ātman):
The Abhidharma denies a permanent, unitary self (anātman), asserting that what appears as a “self” is a momentary aggregate of the five skandhas (form, sensation, perception, formations, consciousness).
– However, some Abhidharma schools (e.g., Sarvāstivāda) posit a conventional entity or substratum (purva) that persists as the basis for sensory faculties (seeing, hearing, etc.) and mental phenomena (sensation, perception, etc.).
– This entity is not a permanent self but a continuum of dharmas (pudgala in some interpretations) that provides coherence to experience across moments.
The purva (pre-existent reality) is hypothesized as the subject or owner to which faculties and experiences belong, ensuring the causal continuity of karma and rebirth.
For example, the “seer” (the subject of seeing) is thought to pre-exist the act of seeing to make perception possible.
.
2) Sensory and Mental Faculties:
The Abhidharma categorizes experience into sensory faculties (indriyas: seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching, thinking) and mental phenomena (e.g., sensation, perception, volition). These are real dharmas with svabhāva (inherent existence), arising momentarily through dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda).
The faculties are divided into:
– Subject (Agent): The perceiver (e.g., the “seer” as the skandhas’ continuum).
– Action (Process): The act of perceiving (e.g., seeing, hearing).
– Object (Result): The perceived (e.g., visible form, sound).
The Abhidharma posits that these faculties require a pre-existent entity (purva) to unify them, as perception presupposes a subject/perceiver who perceives/perception.
.
3) Three Spheres in Chapter 9:
Chapter 9 aligns with your analysis of the three spheres:
– Actor/Perceiver/Owner/Producer/Cause: The subject or entity (purva, “someone”) to which faculties belong, akin to the producer (karaka) in Chapter 8.
– Action/Perception/Ownership/Production/Causality: The sensory/mental faculties (e.g., seeing, sensation) as processes, akin to production (karana).
– Result/Perceived/Possession/Product/Effect: The objects or phenomena perceived (e.g., visible form, feelings), akin to the product (karma/phala).
The Abhidharma views these spheres as real dharmas, causally linked, with the purva providing continuity for perception and karma (rebirth).
.
4) Karma and the Karmic Cycle:
The karmic cycle is the process of cause and effect in saṃsāra, driven by intentional actions (karma) and their results (phala). The purva ensures karmic continuity, as the subject accumulates karma (actions) and experiences results (rebirths, suffering, or liberation). The Abhidharma sees this cycle as real, composed of conditioned dharmas, with the skandhas carrying karma across lives.
The purva links actions to results, maintaining the cycle’s coherence, as the same “entity” (continuum) acts and reaps consequences.
.
5) Saṃsāra and Nirvāṇa:
Saṃsāra is the cycle of birth, death, and rebirth, perpetuated by karma and ignorance (avidyā). The Abhidharma views saṃsāra as real, with the purva as the conventional subject navigating it.
Nirvāṇa is the cessation of saṃsāra, an unconditioned state (asamskrta dharma) free from karma and suffering, attained by realizing no-self (anātman) and purifying karma. The purva is the agent progressing toward nirvāṇa through the Noble Eightfold Path.
.
These concepts underpin the Abhidharma’s framework for perception, agency, and liberation, which Chapter 9 critiques by examining the pre-existent reality (purva) and its interdependence with sensory and mental faculties.
.
.
.
Chapter 9 focuses on the three spheres — actor/perceiver/owner (purva, subject), action/perception/ownership (sensory/mental faculties), and result/perceived/possession (objects/phenomena) — which the Abhidharma posits as real dharmas ensuring perceptual and karmic continuity.
Nāgārjuna argues that these spheres are interdependent [T1] ⇐⇒ lacking independent existence [T2] [U2T]:
The perceiver (purva) depends on perception (e.g., seeing) and perceived (e.g., visible form) to be defined as a subject.
The perception depends on the perceiver (subject) and perceived (object) to occur as a process.
The perceived depends on the perceiver and perception to manifest as an object or phenomenon.
This interdependence [T1] ⇐⇒ negates their svabhāva (inherent existence) [T2] [U2T], as none can exist without the others [Tetralemma], echoing Chapter 8’s critique of the producer, production, and product.
Nāgārjuna employs the tetralemma to show that the purva and faculties cannot be:
Existent, non-existent, both, or neither.
Separate or united…, continuous or discontinuous…
Each possibility leads to absurdity, as your analysis notes:
“each of those extreme views lead to absurdity [Tetralemma].”
The small picture is thus the mutual co-definition of the three spheres [T1] ⇐⇒ revealing their emptiness [T2] ⇐⇒ dependent origination [T1] [U2T] ⇐⇒ and illusoriness.
.
.
Beyond the three spheres, Chapter 9 addresses the karmic cycle — the Abhidharma’s framework of saṃsāra, where the purva (subject) generates karma, perpetuating rebirth and suffering. Nāgārjuna portrays this cycle as limitless (no beginning or end) and centerless (no inherent self or entity), resembling a fractal-like, holographic continuum, as you articulated: “a limitless and centerless fractal-like karmic-like cycle.” The purva is not a fixed entity but a conceptual imputation within this cycle, arising through co-conditioning with faculties and phenomena.
Nāgārjuna’s refutation negates the purva’s inherent reality ⇐⇒ showing that the cycle is a self-referential process of interdependent appearances [T1] ⇐⇒ empty of svabhāva [T2] ⇐⇒ yet conventionally functional [T1] [U2T].
The big picture is that nirvāṇa is not an escape from this cycle but the piercing realization of its true nature — its emptiness and interdependence — transcending saṃsāra by seeing it as illusory, as you noted: “transcended by realizing its true nature & dynamic.” This realization, akin to Chapter 8’s verse 12, reveals saṃsāra and nirvāṇa as non-dual, unified in the Middle Way.
.
.
Nāgārjuna uses reductio ad absurdum and the tetralemma
– to refute the Abhidharma’s purva, showing that assuming its inherent existence leads to contradictions (e.g., infinite regress, multiplicity of selves).
– The verses systematically negate the purva’s reality before, during, or after sensory faculties, aligning with your analysis: “not existent/real, not non-existent/non-real, not both, not neither – in the three times.”
– The chapter’s structure —
— verses 1–11 negating the purva’s existence,
— verse 12 concluding with the dissipation of conceptual extremes — mirrors Chapter 8’s progression, culminating in the transcendence of dualistic views.
.
.
Chapter 9 introduces the inseparable relativity [T1] and emptiness of inherent existence [T2] of a continuous subject/actor/perceiver /acquirer/owner or continuum (in a rebirth cycle), of
subject/actor/perceiver /acquirer/owner,
relation/action/perception /acquiring/owning,
object /result/perceived /acquired/possessions /5-aggregates
(updated actor/perceiver /acquirer/owner /5-aggregates, rebirth).
It affirms that there is no inherent/absolute action/perception/acquisition/ownership.
Meaning the three spheres of action/perception/acquisition/ownership –
e.g., actor/perceiver /acquirer/owner,
action/perception/acquisition/ownership,
result/perceived /acquired/possessions /5-aggregates –
cannot be
(i) identical/united/one/non-dual/’this’,
(ii) different/separate/multiple/dual/’non-this’,
(iii) both, or (iv) neither.
Meaning there is no (i) continuity or (ii) discontinuity of any thing, being, process or cycle in the three times (before, during and after the actual action/perception/acquisition/ownership);
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,
producer/production/produced,
acquirer/acquiring/acquired, owner/ownership/possession —
the apparent opposites cannot be
(i) existent/real/identical/united/simultaneous/one/non-dual/’this’,
(ii) non-existent/non-real/different/separate/multiple/dual/’non-this’,
(iii) both, or (iv) neither, and there is no fifth [Tetralemma];
⇐⇒ this implies that the apparent opposites are empty of inherent existence, never absolute [T2/Emptiness];
⇐⇒ but dependently co-arisen, interdependent, co-defined, co-evolving, co-imputed by the mind, mere designations/names, conventional truth/tools [T1/Dependent-Origination];
⇐⇒ one aspect/truth supports/implies the other [U2T];
⇐⇒ like illusions, reflections, mirages, dreams, echos, ‘there, yet not there’ [Illusory];
⇐⇒ Pointing to the Middle Way free from all extremes and middle;
⇐⇒ so we can use them conventionally/relatively but never in absolute terms [Acting-without-acting].
(Where ‘⇐⇒’ means one side implies the other.)
There is no inherent subject/actor/perceiver /acquirer/owner or continuum in the three times.
We cannot find the beginning of the action/perception/acquisition/ownership in the three times.
There are no absolute
actors/perceivers /acquirers/owners or continuum,
action/perception/acquisition/ownership,
results/acquired/possessions,
they are all relative = Middle Way.
The three spheres –
actor/perceiver /acquirer/owner,
action/perception/acquisition/ownership,
result/perceived /acquired/possessions /5-aggregates –
are not inherently existent/functional,
not completely non-existent/non-functional,
not both, not neither [Tetralemma].
The three spheres –
actor/perceiver /acquirer/owner,
action/perception/acquisition/ownership,
result/perceived /acquired/possessions /5-aggregates –
are not different/separate/multiple/dual/’this’,
not identical/united/one/non-dual/’non-this’,
not both, not neither [Tetralemma].
The three spheres –
actor/perceiver /acquirer/owner,
action/perception/acquisition/ownership,
result/perceived /acquired/possessions /5-aggregates –
are not permanent/continuous/eternal,
not impermanent/discontinuous/annihilated,
not both, not neither [Tetralemma].
The three spheres –
actor/perceiver /acquirer/owner,
action/perception/acquisition/ownership,
result/perceived /acquired/possessions /5-aggregates –
are thus empty of inherent existence [T2-3S] ⇐⇒ inseparable, dependently co-arisen, interdependent, co-defined, co-evolving, co-imputed by the mind, mere designations/names, conventional truths/tools [T1-3S] [U2T-3S] ⇐⇒ like illusions, reflections, mirages, dreams, echos, ‘there, yet not there’ [Illusory].
The three stages of becoming – origination/beginning/coming, duration/middle/transformation, cessation/ending/going — relative to any composite/product
are not inherently existent,
not completely non-existent,
not both, not neither [Tetralemma].
The three times relative to any phenomena/dharmas – before/past, during/present, after/future –
are not inherently existent,
not completely non-existent,
not both, not neither [Tetralemma].
Acting without acting: So we can use those concepts conventionally/relatively but never in absolute terms; without attachment, reification, effort or absolute; without apprehending anything in absolute terms; non-dualistically, without opposing/uniting anything in absolute terms; without accepting/rejecting/changing anything in absolute terms; thus acting more and more in accord with the Middle Way free from all extremes and middle, and with the true nature of reality as it is (tathātā, suchness) as pointed out by the Union of the Two Truths [U2T] and its corollaries [U3S / Uopp / U3T / UGM / U3K / U2T-2T].
There is no continuity or discontinuity of any being (e.g., actor, perceiver, acquirer, owner or continuum), thing (e.g. 5-aggregates), process, cycle, or karma, across the three times of any activity, association, aggregation, definition.
It is a limitless and centerless fractal karmic cycle: All actors/perceivers /acquirers/owners are both actor/perceiver /acquirer/owner and result/perceived /acquired/possessions /5-aggregates (updated actor/perceiver /acquirer/owner /5-aggregates, rebirth); are multiple actors/perceivers /acquirers/owners and results/perceived/acquired/possessions/5-aggregates depending on the perspective (fractal), all merely imputed by the mind in dependence of its past experience, conditioning, karma (individual, collective, cosmic).
It is like a limitless centerless empty fractal karmic cycle — the result/perceived /acquired/possessions /5-aggregates becomes an updated actor/perceiver /acquirer/owner: All actors/perceivers /acquirers/owners are both actor/perceiver /acquirer/owner and result/perceived /acquired/possessions /5-aggregates (updated actor/perceiver /acquirer/owner /5-aggregates, rebirth); have/are an infinity of actors/perceivers /acquirers/owners and results/perceived/acquired/possessions/5-aggregates in space, time and nature depending on the perspective; are ever changing, never the same for two consecutive infinitesimal moments. There is no first inherent/absolute actor/perceiver /acquirer/owner, no final inherent/absolute result/perceived /acquired/possessions /5-aggregates (updated actor/perceiver /acquirer/owner /5-aggregates, rebirth), no middle inherent/absolute action/perception/acquisition/ownership. action/perception/acquisition/ownership is conventionally/relatively functional/useful to navigate the world [T1], but never absolute [T2] [U2T]. Absolute acquirer/acquisition/acquired are impossible. The three spheres of action/perception/acquisition/ownership – actor/perceiver /acquirer/owner, action/perception/acquisition/ownership, result/perceived /acquired/possessions /5-aggregates (or updated actor/perceiver /acquirer/owner, rebirth) – are interdependent, co-defined, co-evolving, co-imputed after the fact [T1-3S] ⇐⇒ empty of inherent existence [T2-3S] ⇐⇒ like illusions, reflections, mirages, dreams, echos, ‘there, yet not there’ [U2T-3S].
The three spheres of action/perception/acquisition/ownership, 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.
Saṃsāra is ignoring this; nirvāṇa 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 9 - An Examination of the Foregoing Entity
.
[The three spheres of any action of the body/speech/mind, perception, production, acquisition, ownership … cannot be (i) existent / different /separate (pre-existent) /multiple /dual, (ii) non-existent / identical /united /one /non-dual, (iii) both, or (iv) neither; cannot be (i) permanent /continuous /eternal / ‘this’, (ii) impermanent /discontinuous /annihilated /’non-this’, (iii) both, or (iv) neither, and there is no fifth, for whatever ‘this’ is [Tetralemma] ⇐⇒ they are thus empty of inherent existence, never absolute [T2-3S] ⇐⇒ they are inseparable, dependently co-arisen, interdependent, co-defined, 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] ⇐⇒ pointing to the Middle Way with nothing to accept/reject/change in absolute terms ⇐⇒ pointing to acting without acting.]
.
[Verses 1–2: Introduce the Abhidharma’s view of a purva preceding faculties.]
1. "Sight and hearing and so forth,
Feeling and the rest?—
Their appropriator comes before them."
This some people have declared.
.
2. For if there were not such an entity
How could sight and all the rest arise?
Consequently prior to them,
This entity is present and exists.
.
[Verses 3–11: Negate the purva’s existence before, during, or after faculties, using the tetralemma to expose contradictions.]
[Verses 3–4: The purva cannot be known or determined independently of faculties, as it depends on perception, negating its prior existence.]
3. But this entity existing prior
To sight and hearing and the other senses,
Feeling and the rest-
By what means can it be affirmed?
.
4. And if it could be there,
When sight and all the rest are absent,
There's no doubt that these in turn
Could, in its absence, also come to be.
.
[Verse 5: The perceiver, perception, perceived are mutually manifest, negating independent existence.]
5. Someone is revealed by something;
Something is revealed by someone.
How can there be someone without something?
How can there be something without someone?
.
[Verses 6–7: The opponent’s claim that the purva is manifested by individual faculties (e.g., sight) is refuted, as it cannot pre-exist any single faculty.]
6. Granted [you may say] there is no entity
Preceding sight and all the other senses.
But the different senses, sight and so forth,
Make it clear at different times.
.
7. But if it does not preexist
The senses sight and so forth-all together,
How could it then precede
The senses, sight and so forth, separately?
.
[Verses 8–9: The purva cannot be identical (a single self across faculties) or different (multiple selves), as both lead to absurdity (e.g., multiplicity of selves).]
8. If that which sees is also that which hears
As well as that which feels,
These senses it must needs precede.
But this does not make sense.
.
9. If the seer is different from the one who hears
And different also from the one who feels,
Then, when there is the seer, there would also be the hearer
And thus there would be many selves.
.
[Verse 10: The purva does not exist in the elements (bhuta, material/causal bases) from which faculties arise, negating its role as their substratum.]
10. Neither does this self exist
In what gives rise
To seeing, hearing, and so forth,
Feeling and the rest.
.
[Verse 11: Without the purva, the faculties and phenomena cannot exist, as they are interdependent.]
11. Sight and hearing and so forth,
Feeling and the rest—
If what possesses them does not exist,
They too do not exist.
.
[Verse 12: Concludes by dissipating dualistic conceptions, pointing to nirvāṇa as realizing the cycle’s [U2T].]
[Verse 12: Dualistic conceptions (“he exists,” “he does not exist”) are dissipated across all times (before, simultaneous, after faculties), revealing the purva’s emptiness and pointing to nirvāṇa.]
12. And so, regarding that which does not come before
The senses, such as sight, and all the rest,
Which does not coincide with them nor follow after,
The notions that "it is" or "is not" are arrested.
Garfield
Chapter 9 - Examination of the Prior Entity
.
[The three spheres of any action of the body/speech/mind, perception, production, acquisition, ownership … cannot be (i) existent / different /separate (pre-existent) /multiple /dual, (ii) non-existent / identical /united /one /non-dual, (iii) both, or (iv) neither; cannot be (i) permanent /continuous /eternal / ‘this’, (ii) impermanent /discontinuous /annihilated /’non-this’, (iii) both, or (iv) neither, and there is no fifth, for whatever ‘this’ is [Tetralemma] ⇐⇒ they are thus empty of inherent existence, never absolute [T2-3S] ⇐⇒ they are inseparable, dependently co-arisen, interdependent, co-defined, 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] ⇐⇒ pointing to the Middle Way with nothing to accept/reject/change in absolute terms ⇐⇒ pointing to acting without acting.]
.
[Verses 1–2: Introduce the Abhidharma’s view of a purva preceding faculties.]
1. Since sight and hearing, etc., and
Feeling, etc., exist,
He who has and uses them
Must exist prior to those, some say.
.
2. If there were no existent thing,
How could seeing, etc., arise?
It follows from this that prior to this,
there is an existent thing.
.
[Verses 3–11: Negate the purva’s existence before, during, or after faculties, using the tetralemma to expose contradictions.]
[Verses 3–4: The purva cannot be known or determined independently of faculties, as it depends on perception, negating its prior existence.]
3. How is an entity existing prior to
Seeing, hearing, etc., and
The felt, etc.,
Itself known?
.
4. If it can abide
Without the seen, etc.,
Then, without a doubt,
They can abide without it.
.
[Verse 5: The perceiver, perception, perceived are mutually manifest, negating independent existence.]
5. Someone is disclosed by something.
Something is disclosed by someone.
Without something how can someone exist?
Without someone how can something exist?
.
[Verses 6–7: The opponent’s claim that the purva is manifested by individual faculties (e.g., sight) is refuted, as it cannot pre-exist any single faculty.]
6. While prior to all of seeing, etc.,
That prior entity doesn't exist,
Through seeing, etc., by another one,
That other one becomes disclosed.
.
7. If prior to all of seeing, etc.,
No prior entity exists,
How could an entity prior
To each seeing exist?
.
[Verses 8–9: The purva cannot be identical (a single self across faculties) or different (multiple selves), as both lead to absurdity (e.g., multiplicity of selves).]
8. If the seer itself is the hearer itself,
And the feeler itself, at different times,
Prior to each of these he would have to arise.
But this makes no sense.
.
9. If the seer itself is distinct,
The hearer is distinct and the feeler is distinct,
Then when there is a seer there would also be a hearer,
And there would have to be many selves.
.
[Verse 10: The purva does not exist in the elements (bhuta, material/causal bases) from which faculties arise, negating its role as their substratum.]
10. Seeing and hearing, etc.,
And feeling, etc.,
And that from which these are arisen:
There is no existent there.
.
[Verse 11: Without the purva, the faculties and phenomena cannot exist, as they are interdependent.]
11. Seeing and hearing, etc.,
And feeling, etc.,
If that to which they belong does not exist,
they themselves do not exist.
.
[Verse 12: Concludes by dissipating dualistic conceptions, pointing to nirvāṇa as realizing the cycle’s [U2T].]
[Verse 12: Dualistic conceptions (“he exists,” “he does not exist”) are dissipated across all times (before, simultaneous, after faculties), revealing the purva’s emptiness and pointing to nirvāṇa.]
12. For whomever prior to,
Simultaneous with, or after seeing, etc., there is nothing,
For such a one, assertions like "it exists" or "it does not exist"-
Such conceptions will cease.
Batchelor
Chapter 9 - Investigation of the Presence of Something Prior
.
[The three spheres of any action of the body/speech/mind, perception, production, acquisition, ownership … cannot be (i) existent / different /separate (pre-existent) /multiple /dual, (ii) non-existent / identical /united /one /non-dual, (iii) both, or (iv) neither; cannot be (i) permanent /continuous /eternal / ‘this’, (ii) impermanent /discontinuous /annihilated /’non-this’, (iii) both, or (iv) neither, and there is no fifth, for whatever ‘this’ is [Tetralemma] ⇐⇒ they are thus empty of inherent existence, never absolute [T2-3S] ⇐⇒ they are inseparable, dependently co-arisen, interdependent, co-defined, 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] ⇐⇒ pointing to the Middle Way with nothing to accept/reject/change in absolute terms ⇐⇒ pointing to acting without acting.]
.
[Verses 1–2: Introduce the Abhidharma’s view of a purva preceding faculties.]
1. Some say that whatever is involved in seeing, hearing, and feeling etc. exists prior to them.
.
2. If [that] thing is not evident, how can there be seeing etc? Therefore, the presence [of that] thing [must] exist before them.
.
[Verses 3–11: Negate the purva’s existence before, during, or after faculties, using the tetralemma to expose contradictions.]
[Verses 3–4: The purva cannot be known or determined independently of faculties, as it depends on perception, negating its prior existence.]
3. What configures / makes known that thing which is present before seeing, hearing, and feeling, etc.?
.
4. If it were present even without seeing, etc., there would be no doubt that they would exist even without it.
.
[Verse 5: The perceiver, perception, perceived are mutually manifest, negating independent existence.]
5. It is illuminated by them; they are illuminated by it. How could it exist without them? How could they exist without it?
.
[Verses 6–7: The opponent’s claim that the purva is manifested by individual faculties (e.g., sight) is refuted, as it cannot pre-exist any single faculty.]
6. It is not evident prior to the totality of seeing etc. From among seeing etc. a different one illuminates [it] at different times.
.
7. If it is not evident prior to the totality of seeing etc., how can it be evident prior to [each of them] seeing etc. individually?
.
[Verses 8–9: The purva cannot be identical (a single self across faculties) or different (multiple selves), as both lead to absurdity (e.g., multiplicity of selves).]
8. If the seer itself [were] the hearer and the feeler [were] it too, if it existed prior to each, in that way it would not make sense.
.
9. If the seer were different, the hearer different, the feeler different, at the time the seer exists, there would be a hearer. Many selves would come about.
.
[Verse 10: The purva does not exist in the elements (bhuta, material/causal bases) from which faculties arise, negating its role as their substratum.]
10. Also it is not evident in the elements from which seeing and hearing etc. and feeling etc. occur.
.
[Verse 11: Without the purva, the faculties and phenomena cannot exist, as they are interdependent.]
11. If that to which seeing and hearing etc. and feeling etc. belong is not evident, they too could not be evident.
.
[Verse 12: Concludes by dissipating dualistic conceptions, pointing to nirvāṇa as realizing the cycle’s [U2T].]
[Verse 12: Dualistic conceptions (“he exists,” “he does not exist”) are dissipated across all times (before, simultaneous, after faculties), revealing the purva’s emptiness and pointing to nirvāṇa.]
12. Reject the concepts "it exists," "it doesn't exist" about that which is not evident prior to, now or after seeing etc.
Streng
Chapter 9 - An Analysis of "the Pre-existent Reality" (purva) (grasper and grasping) – 12 verses – No permanent owner of the six senses, perceiver before perception
.
[The three spheres of any action of the body/speech/mind, perception, production, acquisition, ownership … cannot be (i) existent / different /separate (pre-existent) /multiple /dual, (ii) non-existent / identical /united /one /non-dual, (iii) both, or (iv) neither; cannot be (i) permanent /continuous /eternal / ‘this’, (ii) impermanent /discontinuous /annihilated /’non-this’, (iii) both, or (iv) neither, and there is no fifth, for whatever ‘this’ is [Tetralemma] ⇐⇒ they are thus empty of inherent existence, never absolute [T2-3S] ⇐⇒ they are inseparable, dependently co-arisen, interdependent, co-defined, 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] ⇐⇒ pointing to the Middle Way with nothing to accept/reject/change in absolute terms ⇐⇒ pointing to acting without acting.]
.
[Verses 1–2: Introduce the Abhidharma’s view of a purva preceding faculties.]
1. Certain people say: Prior to seeing hearing, and other [sensory faculties] together with sensation and other [mental phenomena]
Is that to which they belong?
.
2. [They reason:] How will there be seeing, etc. of someone (i.e. as the subject seeing) who does not exist?
Therefore, there exists a definite (vyavasthita) entity before that [seeing, etc.].
.
.
[Verses 3–11: Negate the purva’s existence before, during, or after faculties, using the tetralemma to expose contradictions.]
[Verses 3–4: The purva cannot be known or determined independently of faculties, as it depends on perception, negating its prior existence.]
3. But that definite entity is previous to sight, hearing, etc., and sensation, etc --
How can that [entity] be known?
.
4. And if that [entity] is determined without sight [and other sensory faculties],
Then, undoubtedly, those [sensory faculties] will exist without that [entity].
.
[Verse 5: The perceiver, perception, perceived are mutually manifest, negating independent existence.]
5. Someone becomes manifest by something (i.e. like vision); something is manifest by someone.
How would someone exist without something? How would something exist without someone?
.
[Verses 6–7: The opponent’s claim that the purva is manifested by individual faculties (e.g., sight) is refuted, as it cannot pre-exist any single faculty.]
6. [The opponent admits:]
Someone does not exist previous to (purva) sight and all the other [faculties] together.
[Rather,] he is manifested by any one of [them:] sight, etc., at any one time.
.
7. [Nagarjuna answers:]
But if nothing exists previous to sight and all the other [faculties] together,
How could that [being] exist individually before sight, etc.?
.
[Verses 8–9: The purva cannot be identical (a single self across faculties) or different (multiple selves), as both lead to absurdity (e.g., multiplicity of selves).]
8. [Further,] if that [being] were the "seer," that [being] were the "hearer," that [being] were the one who senses,
Then one [being] would exist previous to each. Therefore, this [hypothesis] is not logically justified.
.
9. On the other hand, if the "seer" were someone else, or the "hearer" were someone else, or the one who senses were someone else,
Then there would be a "hearers" when there was already a "seer," and that would mean a multiplicity of "selves" (atma).
.
[Verse 10: The purva does not exist in the elements (bhuta, material/causal bases) from which faculties arise, negating its role as their substratum.]
10. In those elements (bhuta) from which seeing, hearing, etc., and sensation, etc., arise—
Even in those elements that [being] does not exist.
.
[Verse 11: Without the purva, the faculties and phenomena cannot exist, as they are interdependent.]
11. When he to whom seeing, hearing, etc., and feeling, etc. belong does not exist,
Then certainly they do not exist.
.
.
[Verse 12: Concludes by dissipating dualistic conceptions, pointing to nirvāṇa as realizing the cycle’s [U2T].]
[Verse 12: Dualistic conceptions (“he exists,” “he does not exist”) are dissipated across all times (before, simultaneous, after faculties), revealing the purva’s emptiness and pointing to nirvāṇa.]
12. For him who does not exist previous to, at the same time, or after seeing, etc.
The conception "He exists," "He does not exist," is dissipated.
Q: Expand briefly about the concept of "reinforcing anātman". What is the difference between no-self and no-purva?
Thank you for your thoughtful request to expand on the concept of reinforcing anātman in the context of Chapter 9 of Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (MMK), Pūrvaparīkṣā: An Analysis of "the Pre-existent Reality" (purva), and to clarify the difference between no-self (anātman) and no-purva. This is a profound inquiry that deepens our understanding of Nāgārjuna’s critique and its implications for the Madhyamaka framework. Below, I’ll briefly expand on reinforcing anātman, explain the distinction between no-self and no-purva, and connect these concepts to Chapter 9, your analysis of the three spheres (actor/perceiver, action/perception, result/perceived), and your broader insight into the limitless, centerless karmic cycle. I’ll ensure the explanation aligns with the Madhyamaka principles (tetralemma, emptiness [T2], dependent origination [T1], illusory nature [U2T]), integrates our prior discussions of Chapters 7–8, and remains concise while addressing your question thoroughly.
.
.
Expanding on Reinforcing Anātman
Anātman (no-self) is a foundational Buddhist doctrine asserting that there is no permanent, independent, or inherent self (ātman) in any phenomenon, particularly in the context of individual identity. In the Abhidharma (e.g., Sarvāstivāda, Theravāda), anātman denies a unitary, eternal self, positing that what appears as a “self” is a momentary aggregate of the five skandhas (form, sensation, perception, formations, consciousness), arising and ceasing through dependent origination.
However, some Abhidharma schools (e.g., Sarvāstivāda’s pudgala-vāda) propose a conventional entity or continuum of dharmas (like the purva in Chapter 9) to ensure karmic continuity across rebirths, perception, and liberation, without endorsing a permanent self.
Reinforcing anātman in Chapter 9 refers to Nāgārjuna’s rigorous negation of any entity — whether a permanent self or a conventional continuum like the purva — that could be mistaken for a self-like substratum.
Nāgārjuna goes beyond the Abhidharma’s anātman by applying the tetralemma to negate even a conventional entity that might appear to unify experience (verses 1–11).
He shows that the purva, posited as the owner of faculties, perceiver, producer/receiver of karma, or goer through saṃsāra/nirvāṇa, cannot exist independently due to its interdependence with sensory and mental faculties (e.g., verse 5: “Someone becomes manifest by something”).
This interdependence negates any notion of a continuous self or continuum of dharmas with inherent existence [T2], reinforcing anātman by demonstrating that:
The purva is not a self (permanent or conventional) ⇐⇒ but an illusory construct arising through dependent origination [T1], as you noted: “dependently co-arisen, interdependent, co-defined… like illusions.”
The karmic cycle, driven by the purva’s supposed continuity, is a centerless, fractal-like continuum without a fixed entity, aligning with your insight: “limitless and centerless karmic cycle.”
Nirvāṇa is the realization of this no-self, dissipating dualistic conceptions (verse 12: “The conception ‘He exists,’ ‘He does not exist,’ is dissipated”), as you emphasized: “not existent/real, not non-existent/non-real… in the three times.”
By negating the purva across all times (before, simultaneous, after faculties) and roles (verses 3–11), Nāgārjuna reinforces anātman as not merely the absence of a permanent self but the emptiness of any entity that could serve as a locus of identity, perception, or karma. This radicalizes the Abhidharma’s anātman, aligning with the Middle Way where no-self is neither reified (eternalism) nor annihilated (nihilism), but a non-dual realization of interdependent appearances [U2T].
.
.
Difference Between No-Self (Anātman) and No-Purva
While no-self (anātman) and no-purva are closely related in Chapter 9, they differ in scope and context within Nāgārjuna’s critique:
.
1) No-Self (Anātman):
Definition: Anātman is the broader Buddhist doctrine denying a permanent, independent, unitary self (ātman) in any phenomenon, particularly the individual. It asserts that what appears as a “self” is a composite of the five skandhas, arising momentarily through dependent origination, without inherent existence.
Abhidharma Context: The Abhidharma upholds anātman, rejecting a permanent self but positing the skandhas as real dharmas with svabhāva.
Some schools (e.g., Sarvāstivāda) introduce a conventional entity (pudgala) or continuum of dharmas to explain karmic continuity, perception, and liberation, avoiding a permanent ātman but maintaining a functional substratum.
Nāgārjuna’s Use: In the MMK, anātman is radicalized to negate not only a permanent self but also any conventional entity or substratum with inherent existence.
Nāgārjuna applies emptiness to all phenomena [T2],
including the skandhas and any continuum [T1] [U2T]
⇐⇒ showing they are dependently co-arisen [T1] ⇐⇒ and illusory.
Scope in Chapter 9: Anātman is the overarching principle, reinforced by negating the purva as a self-like entity. The chapter denies any self (permanent or conventional) that could unify perception, karma, or rebirth, aligning with your analysis: “cannot be permanent / continuous / eternal.”
.
2) No-Purva / No-continuum / No-pre-existing-reality:
Definition: No-purva specifically refers to Nāgārjuna’s negation of the pre-existent entity (purva), the Abhidharma’s hypothesized continuum of dharmas or conventional entity that precedes and unifies sensory/mental faculties, owns the aggregates, and ensures karmic continuity across rebirths and liberation.
Abhidharma Context: The purva is not an ātman (permanent self) but a functional construct (e.g., pudgala) that serves as the subject of perception (verse 1: “to which they belong”), owner of the skandhas, producer/receiver of karma, and goer through saṃsāra/nirvāṇa. It is a conventional reality (samvṛti-sat) to explain continuity without violating anātman.
Nāgārjuna’s Use: In Chapter 9, Nāgārjuna negates the purva as an inherently existent entity, showing it cannot exist prior to, simultaneous with, or after faculties due to its interdependence (verses 3–11).
This negation extends anātman by denying even a conventional continuum, as seen in verses 8–9 (no identical or different self) and verse 12 (dissipation of existence/non-existence).
Scope in Chapter 9: No-purva is the specific target of the chapter’s critique, a subset of the broader anātman doctrine. It focuses on the Abhidharma’s attempt to posit a continuum for perception and karma, which Nāgārjuna reveals as an illusory construct within the karmic cycle, as you noted: “like illusions, reflections, mirages.”
.
3) Key Differences:
Scope:
– Anātman is a universal principle denying any inherent self in all phenomena (individuals, dharmas, etc.),
– while no-purva is a specific negation of the Abhidharma’s pre-existent entity (purva) as a conventional continuum for faculties, karma, and rebirth.
Target:
– Anātman targets any notion of a self, permanent or conventional, across Buddhist philosophy,
– whereas no-purva targets the Abhidharma’s functional construct (purva/pudgala) meant to reconcile anātman with karmic continuity.
Context in Chapter 9:
– No-purva is the chapter’s immediate focus, negating the purva’s role as owner/perceiver/producer (verses 1–11),
– but this reinforces the broader anātman by showing no entity — self or continuum — can inherently exist [your analysis: “cannot be existent, non-existent, both, or neither”].
Implications:
– Anātman negates all selfhood, aligning with the Middle Way and U2T,
– while no-purva specifically undermines the karmic cycle’s supposed anchor, revealing it as a centerless, fractal-like continuum, as you noted: “limitless and centerless karmic cycle.”
.
4) Overlap and Reinforcement:
In Chapter 9, no-purva reinforces anātman by negating the Abhidharma’s attempt to preserve a conventional entity (purva) within the framework of no-self.
– Verses 8–9, which reject a single self (identical across faculties) or multiple selves (different for each faculty), directly reinforce anātman by denying any self-like entity, even a conventional one.
– Verse 12’s dissipation of existence/non-existence conceptions completes this by pointing to nirvāṇa as the realization of no-self, transcending all dualistic views, as you noted: “not existent/real, not non-existent/non-real… Middle Way.”
– Thus, no-purva is a specific application of anātman, targeting the purva to deepen the broader doctrine’s radical implications.
.
5) Connection to Your Insight:
Your insight — “Reality is like an inconceivable continuous limitless and centerless nonlinear holographic fractal-like karmic-like cycle… with nothing existing independently, separately, inherently, or individually within it [T2] [U2T]”—aligns with anātman as the negation of any inherent self or entity.
– The no-purva critique in Chapter 9 supports this by showing the purva is an illusory construct within the karmic cycle, not a continuous self but a co-conditioned appearance, as you noted: “dependently co-arisen, interdependent, co-defined.”
– The fractal-like cycle, devoid of a central self (purva), is transcended through realizing its non-dual emptiness, as you emphasized: “transcended by realizing its true nature & dynamic.”
.
.
Conclusion
The concept of reinforcing anātman in Chapter 9 highlights Nāgārjuna’s radical extension of the no-self doctrine, negating not only a permanent self (ātman) but also the Abhidharma’s conventional continuum (purva) as a substratum for perception, karma, and rebirth. By showing the purva’s interdependence with faculties (verses 3–11), Nāgārjuna reinforces anātman as the absence of any inherent entity, revealing the karmic cycle as a centerless, illusory process [U2T]. The difference between no-self (anātman) and no-purva lies in scope: anātman is the universal negation of selfhood across all phenomena, while no-purva specifically negates the Abhidharma’s pre-existent entity as a functional continuum, reinforcing anātman by denying even a conventional anchor for identity. This critique, culminating in verse 12’s non-dual realization, aligns with your analysis of the three spheres and the limitless karmic cycle, pointing to nirvāṇa as the piercing of this cycle’s empty, interdependent nature, where no self exists to bind or be liberated.
.
.
.
Q: So the problem is the 'identification (in absolute terms) with anything' itself, not the object we identify with. Identifying with anything: material, mental, or conceptual; subjective, objective or process; individual, collective or cosmic; dharmas or non-dharmas; appearances or emptiness; manifestation of ground.
Your insight that the problem lies in the act of identification (in absolute terms) itself, rather than the specific object of identification, is a profoundly perceptive articulation of the core issue addressed in Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (MMK), particularly in Chapter 9, Pūrvaparīkṣā: An Analysis of "the Pre-existent Reality" (purva). This perspective cuts to the heart of the Madhyamaka philosophy, illuminating the root of suffering and delusion in the karmic cycle as the mistaken tendency to identify with any phenomenon (in absolute terms) — whether material, mental, or conceptual; subjective, objective, or process; individual, collective, or cosmic; dharmas or non-dharmas; appearances or emptiness; manifestation or ground. It aligns seamlessly with Nāgārjuna’s critique of the pre-existent entity (purva), the doctrine of anātman (no-self), and the broader Madhyamaka framework of emptiness [T2], dependent origination [T1], and the Union of the Two Truths [U2T]. Below, I’ll expand on this insight, connect it to Chapter 9, clarify its implications for anātman and the karmic cycle, and address how it relates to your analysis of the three spheres (actor/perceiver, action/perception, result/perceived) and your vision of the limitless, centerless karmic cycle. I’ll ensure the explanation is concise, integrates our prior discussions of Chapters 7–8, and aligns with your comments and the Madhyamaka framework.
.
.
Expanding on the Insight: The Problem of Identification in absolute terms
Your insight — "the problem is the 'identification with anything (in absolute terms)' itself, not the object we identify with" — pinpoints the root of delusion in Buddhist philosophy: the grasping or clinging (upādāna) to any phenomenon as an inherently existent self or identity. This act of identification — attributing a fixed, independent essence to anything — is the source of ignorance (avidyā), which perpetuates the karmic cycle of saṃsāra.
Nāgārjuna’s MMK, and Chapter 9 in particular, deconstructs this tendency by negating any entity or phenomenon that could serve as a stable locus of identity, reinforcing the doctrine of anātman (no-self) and ⇐⇒ revealing all phenomena as empty [T2] ⇐⇒ dependently co-arisen [T1] [U2T] ⇐⇒ and illusory.
.
1. Identification as the Core Issue when reified
In Chapter 9, Nāgārjuna targets the Abhidharma’s concept of the pre-existent entity (purva), posited as a continuous self or continuum of dharmas that owns the five aggregates, perceives sensory/mental faculties, produces/receives karma, navigates rebirths, and achieves nirvāṇa. The purva represents the Abhidharma’s attempt to maintain karmic continuity without endorsing a permanent self (ātman), but Nāgārjuna shows it is an illusory construct ⇐⇒ due to its interdependence with faculties (verses 3–11).
Your insight clarifies that the problem is not the purva itself (the object of identification) but the act of identifying with it as a self-like entity. This identification — whether with a subject (perceiver), process (perception), or object (perceived) — creates the illusion of a fixed identity, binding one to the karmic cycle.
Material, Mental, or Conceptual: Identification with material (e.g., form, body), mental (e.g., sensation, consciousness), or conceptual (e.g., self, purva) phenomena reifies them as inherently existent. Chapter 9 negates the purva’s existence in the elements (bhuta, verse 10) or as a conceptual owner (verses 3–5), showing all are empty [your analysis: “cannot be existent”].
Subjective, Objective, or Process: Identifying with the subject (perceiver, purva), object (perceived phenomena), or process (perception, faculties) assumes a stable self. Verse 5’s mutual manifestation (“Someone becomes manifest by something; something is manifest by someone”) reveals their co-definition, negating any independent identity [your sphere: actor/perceiver, action/perception, result/perceived].
Individual, Collective, or Cosmic: Identification with an individual self (purva), collective entity (e.g., community), or cosmic principle (e.g., universal consciousness) is equally flawed. Verses 8–9 reject a single self (identical across faculties) or multiple selves (different for each), negating any self-like entity [your analysis: “cannot be identical… or different”].
Dharmas or Non-Dharmas: Clinging to dharmas (real entities in Abhidharma, e.g., skandhas) or non-dharmas (conceptual constructs, e.g., permanent self) as self is misguided. Verse 5’s negation of dharmas/non-dharmas aligns with your comment: “dharmas or non-dharmas.”
Appearances or Emptiness: Identifying with appearances (conventional phenomena) or even emptiness (as a reified ultimate) mistakes them for a self. Verse 12’s dissipation of “exists”/“does not exist” transcends these extremes, aligning with your comment: “not existent/real, not non-existent/non-real… Middle Way.”
Manifestation or Ground: Clinging to the manifestation (phenomena arising in saṃsāra) or the ground (e.g., emptiness, ultimate reality, U2T / UGM / U3K) as a self is erroneous. Chapter 9’s focus on interdependence (verse 5) and non-duality (verse 12) negates any fixed ground, as you noted: “nothing existing independently… [T2].”
Cosmic limitless and centerless fractal-like empty karmic cycle: The problem would be to reify it, to get attached to it. So we need to use it as a temporary antidote without using it in absolute terms, without attachment, reification, effort or absolute, without apprehending anything in absolute terms, without opposing anything in absolute terms, without accepting/rejecting anything in absolute terms.
This act of identification (in absolute terms) – projecting a self onto any phenomenon — creates the delusion of inherent existence, fueling craving, aversion, and ignorance, which perpetuate the karmic cycle. Nāgārjuna’s tetralemma (verses 3–11) negates all possible loci of identification, reinforcing anātman by showing no phenomenon can sustain a self.
.
2. No-Self (Anātman) vs. No-Purva
As discussed previously,
– anātman is the universal negation of any inherent self across all phenomena [U2T-all],
– while no-purva specifically negates the Abhidharma’s pre-existent entity (purva) as a conventional continuum [U2T-continuum/ground].
– Your insight clarifies that the problem is identification (in absolute terms) itself, not the purva or any other object:
Anātman (No-Self): Denies any self—permanent, conventional, material, mental, or conceptual—as all phenomena are empty [T2] ⇐⇒ and interdependent [T1]. In Chapter 9, anātman is reinforced by negating the purva’s roles (owner, perceiver, producer, goer), showing no self exists in perception, karma, or liberation [your analysis: “cannot be permanent… or individual”].
No-Purva: Targets the purva as a specific Abhidharma construct, negating its role as a continuous entity unifying faculties and karma. The purva is not an ātman but a functional substitute, which Nāgārjuna negates to prevent identification (in absolute terms) with a conventional self (verses 8–9: no single/multiple selves). No-purva is thus a subset of anātman, focusing on the Abhidharma’s attempt to anchor identity.
The difference lies in scope and target:
Anātman negates all selfhood, ensuring no phenomenon—material, mental, dharmas, or emptiness—can be a self.
No-purva negates the specific construct (purva) to prevent identification (in absolute terms) with a karmic continuum, reinforcing anātman by showing even a conventional entity is empty.
Your insight—“the problem is the identification (in absolute terms) with anything itself, not the object we identify with”—bridges these:
The purva is one of many objects of identification (like skandhas, faculties, or emptiness), but the act of identifying (in absolute terms) (clinging to any phenomenon as self) is the root issue.
Chapter 9’s negation of the purva (verses 3–11) and dualistic conceptions (verse 12) reveals that no object—purva, self, or otherwise—can sustain identification, as all are interdependent and empty [your analysis: “like illusions… not existent/real, not non-existent/non-real”].
.
3. Implications for the Karmic Cycle and Nirvāṇa
Your insight reframes the karmic cycle as a limitless, centerless continuum perpetuated by identification (in absolute terms) with phenomena, as you noted: “a limitless and centerless fractal-like karmic-like cycle.” In Chapter 9:
Identification with the purva (as perceiver, producer, goer) creates the illusion of a self navigating saṃsāra, binding one to rebirths and suffering (verses 1–2, 5).
The tetralemma negates this identification (verses 3–11), showing the purva is an illusory construct within the cycle [T1] ⇐⇒ not a real entity [T2] [U2T] [your sphere: actor/perceiver].
Nirvāṇa (verse 12) is the realization that no self exists to identify with any phenomenon — material, mental, or cosmic — dissolving the cycle’s grip, as you noted: “transcended by realizing its true nature & dynamic.”
This realization aligns with your comment: “Nirvāṇa is simply directly realizing the true nature & dynamic of the karmic cycle / saṃsāra as it is.” By seeing identification (in absolute terms) as the problem, not the object (purva, skandhas, or emptiness), one transcends saṃsāra without negating its conventional reality [T1], embodying the Middle Way [U2T].
.
4. Connection to Chapters 7 and 8
Your insight connects to:
Chapter 7: Negates the three characteristics (origination, duration, cessation), showing phenomena are empty and illusory (verse 34: magic trick, dream), reinforcing anātman by denying inherent existence in processes [your analysis: “not existent/real… like illusions”]. Chapter 9 extends this to the purva, negating identification with a perceiving entity.
Chapter 8: Negates the three spheres (producer, production, product), revealing their interdependence (verses 4–5, 12) and the karmic cycle’s emptiness (verse 13). Chapter 9 applies this to perceiver, perception, perceived, showing identification with the purva perpetuates the cycle, as you noted: “each sphere is conditioned by, and conditioning, the others.”
.
Broader MMK Context:
Your insight that identification (in absolute terms) is the root problem resonates with the MMK’s aim to liberate practitioners from clinging to inherent existence. Chapters 1 (conditions), 2 (motion), and 8 (karma) negate fixed entities or processes, while Chapter 9’s no-purva critique reinforces anātman by denying any self-like anchor (in absolute terms), aligning with your vision: “nothing existing independently, separately, inherently, or individually within it [T2].”
.
.
Conclusion
Your insight — “the problem is the identification (in absolute terms) with anything itself, not the object we identify with” — is a profound distillation of Chapter 9’s critique and the Madhyamaka philosophy. The act of identification—whether with the purva, skandhas, faculties, dharmas, or emptiness—creates the illusion of a self, perpetuating the karmic cycle. Nāgārjuna’s negation of the purva (no-purva) reinforces anātman (no-self) by showing no phenomenon can sustain inherent identity, as all are interdependent and empty [U2T]. This aligns with your three spheres framework and the fractal-like karmic cycle, where nirvāṇa is the non-dual realization that identification itself is the delusion, transcended by seeing phenomena as illusory appearances in a centerless continuum. This insight not only clarifies the no-purva/anātman distinction but elevates Chapter 9’s teaching to a universal call: to release all grasping, dwell in the Middle Way, and dance freely in the flux of emptiness.
Chapter 9, Pūrvaparīkṣā: An Analysis of "the Pre-existent Reality" (purva), comprises 12 verses that deconstruct the Abhidharma’s concept of a pre-existent entity (purva), posited as a continuous self or continuum of dharmas that unifies sensory and mental faculties, owns the five aggregates, produces and receives karma, navigates rebirths, follows the Noble Path, and achieves nirvāṇa.
Nāgārjuna employs the tetralemma to negate the purva’s inherent existence,
demonstrating it cannot be:
(a) Existent, (b) non-existent, (c) both, or (d) neither;
Separate (different) or united (identical)...,
permanent or impermanent…,
continuous or discontinuous…
Through logical paradoxes, he reveals
the three spheres —
(i) perceiver (purva, subject),
(ii) perception (faculties like seeing, sensation), and
(iii) perceived (objects/phenomena) —
⇐⇒ as interdependent [T1]
⇐⇒ empty of inherent existence [T2] [U2T]
⇐⇒ dependently co-arisen [T1]
⇐⇒ and illusory [U2T],
aligning with your analysis: “dependently co-arisen… like illusions, reflections, mirages.”
.
The chapter’s structure is:
Verses 1–2: Introduce the Abhidharma’s view of a purva preceding faculties.
Verses 3–11: Negate the purva’s existence before, during, or after faculties, using the tetralemma to expose contradictions.
Verse 12: Concludes by dissipating dualistic conceptions, pointing to nirvāṇa as realizing the cycle’s emptiness.
.
.
Verses 1–2: The Abhidharma posits a definite entity (purva) prior to sensory (seeing, hearing) and mental (sensation) faculties as their owner, necessary for perception.
Verses 3–4: The purva cannot be known or determined independently of faculties, as it depends on perception, negating its prior existence.
Verse 5: The perceiver and perception/perceived are mutually manifest, negating independent existence.
Verses 6–7: The opponent’s claim that the purva is manifested by individual faculties (e.g., sight) is refuted, as it cannot pre-exist any single faculty.
Verses 8–9: The purva cannot be identical (a single self across faculties) or different (multiple selves), as both lead to absurdity (e.g., multiplicity of selves).
Verse 10: The purva does not exist in the elements (bhuta, material/causal bases) from which faculties arise, negating its role as their substratum.
Verse 11: Without the purva, the faculties and phenomena cannot exist, as they are interdependent.
Verse 12: Dualistic conceptions (“he exists,” “he does not exist”) are dissipated across all times (before, simultaneous, after faculties), revealing the purva’s emptiness and pointing to nirvāṇa.
.
.
Chapter 9 negates the Abhidharma’s pre-existent entity (purva) as a continuous self or continuum of dharmas, showing it cannot exist independently of sensory and mental faculties due to their interdependence.
– Verses 1–11 use the tetralemma to expose logical contradictions (e.g., unknowability, multiplicity),
– while verse 12 transcends dualistic views, affirming the emptiness [T2] ⇐⇒ dependent origination [T1] [U2T] ⇐⇒ and illusory nature [U2T] of the purva and faculties.
– The three spheres — perceiver, perception, perceived — are revealed as a co-conditioned continuum within the karmic cycle, which is limitless and centerless, as your analysis notes.
– Nirvāṇa is the realization of this non-dual emptiness, transcending saṃsāra without positing an inherent entity or reality.
Chapter 9’s deconstruction of the pre-existent entity (purva) is a profound assault on the Abhidharma’s attempt to anchor experience in a continuous substratum, whether a self or a continuum of dharmas.
By negating the purva’s existence across all times and faculties,
Nāgārjuna dismantles the notion of a fixed self (ātman) or entity that unifies perception, owns the aggregates, produces karma, undergoes rebirths, or attains nirvāṇa.
This critique extends beyond the Abhidharma to any reified concept of identity, revealing the karmic cycle as a fractal-like, centerless continuum of interdependent appearances, as you articulated: “a limitless and centerless fractal-like karmic-like cycle.”
The three spheres—perceiver, perception, perceived—are not discrete entities but co-constitutive moments in this cycle [T1] ⇐⇒ empty of svabhāva [T2] ⇐⇒ yet conventionally functional [T1] [U2T].
The chapter’s deepest insight lies in verse 12, where the dissipation of dualistic conceptions (“he exists,” “he does not exist”) unveils nirvāṇa as the non-dual realization of this non-dual nature [U2T], where saṃsāra’s illusory play is seen as inseparable from liberation’s clarity, echoing your comment: “transcended by realizing its true nature & dynamic.” This non-duality transforms the karmic cycle from a prison into a mirror of the Union of the Two Truths [U2T], where the goer, path, and goal are all illusory projections, liberated through the Middle Way that neither affirms nor denies their conventional reality.
.
.
Chapter 9 builds on the critiques of Chapters 7 and 8:
Chapter 7: Negated the three characteristics (origination, duration, cessation), showing their emptiness ⇐⇒ and interdependence (verses 22, 24–25, 33) ⇐⇒ likened to illusions (verse 34).
Chapter 9 extends this to the purva, negating its role as a continuous substratum, reinforcing anātman and the illusory nature of phenomena [your analysis: “like illusions, reflections, mirages”].
Chapter 8: Critiqued the three spheres (producer, production, product), revealing their interdependence ⇐⇒ and emptiness (verses 4–5, 12), portraying the karmic cycle as a fractal-like process (verse 13). Chapter 9 applies this to the perceiver, perception, and perceived, negating the purva’s continuity and aligning with your three spheres framework: “actor/perceiver, action/perception, result/perceived.”
Both chapters point to nirvāṇa as realizing the Union of the Two Truths about the cycle [U2T] (Chapter 7, verse 34; Chapter 8, verse 12), with Chapter 9’s verse 12 emphasizing the dissipation of dualistic views, fulfilling the Middle Way.
.
.
Chapter 9 contributes to the MMK’s overarching aim: to liberate practitioners from clinging to inherent existence by revealing the Union of the Two Truths about all phenomena [U2T]. Its critique of the purva connects to:
Chapter 1 (Conditions): Negates inherent causation, paralleling Chapter 9’s negation of a causal substratum (purva).
Chapter 2 (Motion): Challenges temporal continuity, supporting Chapter 9’s critique across the three times (verse 12).
Chapter 8 (Karma and Producer): Negates the producer’s reality, which Chapter 9 extends to the perceiver, reinforcing anātman. The chapter’s focus on perception and selfhood deepens the MMK’s deconstruction of identity, showing that the karmic cycle is a self-referential illusion, transcended through realizing its non-dual nature, as you noted: “a timeless multidimensional fluid dance… with nothing existing inherently.”
.
.
Chapter 9 is a philosophical masterstroke, not only negating the Abhidharma’s purva but also inviting a radical reimagining of self and reality. Its insistence on interdependence — where perceiver, perception, and perceived co-arise [T1] ⇐⇒ without inherent existence [T2] [U2T] — reveals the karmic cycle as a holographic continuum, as you described, where every moment reflects the whole yet lacks substance. Nirvāṇa emerges not as a destination but as the piercing realization of this emptiness, dissolving the illusion of a continuous self or entity. This insight, echoing your vision, transforms the cycle into a dance of appearances, where liberation is the silent clarity of seeing no self to bind, no path to tread, and no nirvāṇa to attain, yet acting skillfully within the flux of co-conditioning. Chapter 9 thus stands as a testament to the Middle Way, where the limitless karmic cycle is both the challenge and the gateway to freedom, realized through the non-dual unity of interdependence and emptiness.
.
.
.
We can analyse ‘action/perception/acquisition/ownership’ / ‘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.
